text:
# Hilbert Space Structure in Classical Mechanics: (II)

## I Introduction

In a previous paper with the same title one  we analyzed in detail the Hilbert space structure associated to the standard path integral formulation Gozzi  of classical mechanics (CM). We called standard formulation the one in which the Jacobi fields Gozzi  are represented by Grassmannian variables and belong to the vector (or its dual) representation of the symplectic group. In Ref. one  we showed that the associated Hilbert space cannot have at the same time a positive definite scalar product and a Hermitian Hamiltonian. We shall indicate this formulation as CPI for “Classical Path Integral”.

In Sec. II of this paper we will review a different functional approach regini  to CM in which the Jacobi fields are represented by bosonic variables, instead of Grassmannian ones, but they still belong to the vector (or its dual) representation of the symplectic group. We will indicate this formulation as BFA for Bosonic Functional Approach. The operatorial version of the BFA is studied in detail in Sec. III. There we will prove that it is possible to have both a positive definite Hilbert space and a Hermitian Hamiltonian differently from what happens in the CPI case one . In Sec. IV we shall present a geometrical analysis of the BFA interpreting the various variables as basis for the forms and vector fields. Like in the CPI several symmetries make their appearance. The analysis of these symmetries requires, in the bosonic case, a special care. A special care requires also the construction of higher forms whose study is performed in Sec. V. Their construction is less straightforward than in the CPI case but it has its own consistency.

Both in the CPI and in the BFA case, the Jacobi fields belong to the vector (or its dual) representation of the symplectic group, but this is not the only representation we can use. In fact in Sec. VI we will review another functional approach to CM in which the Jacobi fields are built as condensates of Grassmannian variables belonging to the spinor representation of the metaplectic group meta . We shall indicate this formulation as MFA for Metaplectic Functional Approach. We shall show in Sec. VII that also in the MFA case, like in the BFA one, it is possible to construct both a positive definite Hilbert space and a Hermitian Hamiltonian.

In the Conclusions, besides drawing an overall picture from the technical analysis contained in this paper and of Ref. one , we explain why the problems (non-hermiticity, etc.) apparently by-passed by the BFA and MFA with respect to the CPI actually lead to other problems whose solution could lie in a further extension of the Hilbert space benatti .

Many calculations of Ref. regini  and meta  are reproduced here in detail to make this paper self-contained. Some of these and other details are confined to few Appendices.

## II Bosonic Path Integral

The CPI formulation of CM Gozzi  has, as starting point, the following generating functional

$$Z[J]=𝒟\phi \stackrel{~}{\delta }[\phi ^a(t)\phi _{cl}^a(t)]\text{exp}\left[𝑑tJ_a\phi ^a\right].$$
(2.1)
The variables $`\phi ^a`$ are the phase space coordinates: $`\phi ^a(q^i,p^i)`$ of a symplectic manifold $``$ with $`a=1,\mathrm{},2n`$ and $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, and $`\phi _{cl}^a(t)`$ are the solutions of the Hamiltonian equations of motion

$$\dot{\phi }^a=\omega ^{ab}\frac{H}{\phi ^b}$$
(2.2)
with $`\omega ^{ab}`$ the standard symplectic matrix. Disregarding for a moment the current $`J_a`$, it is easy to realize that we can write $`Z[J]`$ in (2.1) as

$$Z[J]=𝒟\phi \stackrel{~}{\delta }\left[\dot{\phi }^a\omega ^{ab}\frac{H}{\phi ^b}\right]\text{det}\left[\delta _l^a_t\omega ^{ab}\frac{^2H}{\phi ^b\phi ^l}\right]$$
(2.3)
where the determinant appearing in (2.3) is a functional determinant which is needed to pass from the zeroes (in (2.1)) of the function $`F(\phi ,\dot{\phi })\dot{\phi }^a\omega ^{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{H}{\phi ^b}}`$ to the function itself in (2.3). This functional determinant is positive definite schulman  and this crucial property is based on the fact that between two phase space points there is at most only one trajectory. This property does not hold between two points of configuration space and so the associated functional determinant is not positive definite.

In the CPI formulation Gozzi  of CM the next step was to “exponentiate” the determinant in (2.3) via Grassmannian variables like it is done in the Faddeev-Popov (FP) method of gauge theories. In Ref. regini  we chose a different strategy. The trick we adopted was to substitute the determinant in (2.3) with an inverse determinant:

$$\text{det}\left[\delta _l^a_t\omega ^{ab}\frac{^2H}{\phi ^b\phi ^l}\right]=\left\{\text{det}\left[\delta _l^a_t+\omega ^{ab}\frac{^2H}{\phi ^b\phi ^l}\right]\right\}^1$$
(2.4)
and the proof of this relation is given in Appendix A. The next step done in Ref. regini  was to use (2.4) in (2.3) and then “exponentiate” the inverse matrix via bosonic variables using the well-known formula

$$𝑑x^i𝑑y_j\text{exp}(ix^iA_i^jy_j)\{\text{det}[A_i^j]\}^1.$$
(2.5)
This formula of Gaussian integration applies only to matrices with positive determinant and this is our case as we explained above. Note that this is no longer the case for the FP determinant which, as signalled by the Gribov problem, is not positive definite. This is the reason why the FP determinant could not be exponentiated via bosonic variables. Various attempts exist in the literature to write fermionic determinants via bosonic variables slavnov  but they are all different from the one we have presented here.

Let us now use the relations (2.4) and (2.5) into the $`Z[J]`$ of (2.3), the result is

$`Z_{BFA}[J]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟\phi ^a\stackrel{~}{\delta }\left[\dot{\phi }^a\omega ^{ab}\frac{H}{\phi ^b}\right]\left\{\text{det}\left[\delta _l^a_t+\omega ^{ab}\frac{^2H}{\phi ^b\phi ^l}\right]\right\}^1}`$ (2.6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟\phi ^a𝒟\lambda _a𝒟\pi ^a𝒟\xi _a\text{exp}\left(i𝑑t_{BFA}\right)}`$
where

$$_{BFA}=\lambda _a\left[\dot{\phi }^a\omega ^{ab}\frac{H}{\phi ^b}\right]+\pi ^l\left[\delta _l^a_t+\omega ^{ab}\frac{^2H}{\phi ^b\phi ^l}\right]\xi _a.$$
(2.7)
The variables $`\lambda _a`$ are the same as in the CPI Gozzi  formulation of CM and are needed to produce a Fourier transform of the Dirac delta $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }\left(\dot{\phi }^a\omega ^{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{H}{\phi ^b}}\right)`$. The variables $`\lambda _a`$ are bosonic like $`\pi ^l,\xi _a`$ which were introduced to exponentiate the matrix $`\left[\delta _l^a_t+\omega ^{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{^2H}{\phi ^b\phi ^l}}\right]`$ and produce the inverse determinant of (2.6). The $`\pi ,\xi `$ are the analogs of the $`x^i,y_j`$ variables of (2.5). In the CPI formulation of CM Gozzi  the Lagrangian obtained was

$$\stackrel{~}{}_{CPI}=\lambda _a\left[\dot{\phi }^a\omega ^{ab}\frac{H}{\phi ^b}\right]+i\overline{c}_a\left[\delta _l^a_t\omega ^{ab}\frac{^2H}{\phi ^b\phi ^l}\right]c^l$$
(2.8)
which can be compared with $`_{BFA}`$ of (2.6) if, in this last one, we interchange $`\pi ^l,\xi _a`$. The result is

$$_{BFA}=\lambda _a\left[\dot{\phi }^a\omega ^{ab}\frac{H}{\phi ^b}\right]\xi _a\left[\delta _l^a_t\omega ^{ab}\frac{^2H}{\phi ^b\phi ^l}\right]\pi ^l+(\text{s.t.})$$
(2.9)
where (s.t.) is a surface term. From (2.9) we see that, modulo the surface term, we get the $`_{BFA}`$ from $`\stackrel{~}{}_{CPI}`$ by replacing the Grassmannian variables $`i\overline{c}_a`$ and $`c^l`$ with the bosonic ones $`\xi _a`$ and $`\pi ^l`$.

## III Operatorial Formalism

We should now build the operatorial formalism associated to the BFA. The commutators among the basic variables ($`\phi ^a,\lambda _a,\pi ^a,\xi _a`$) can be straightforwardly derived from the path integral (2.6) by inspecting the kinetic term in (2.7). They turn out to be

$`[\widehat{\phi }^a,\widehat{\lambda }_b]=i\delta _b^a`$
$`[\widehat{\xi }_a,\widehat{\pi }^b]=i\delta _a^b`$ (3.1)
where we have now turned the path integral variables into operators. Next we choose the “Schrödinger” representation in which $`\widehat{\phi }^a`$ and $`\widehat{\pi }^a`$ are realized as multiplicative operators while $`\widehat{\lambda }_a`$ and $`\widehat{\xi }_a`$ as derivative ones of the form:

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\widehat{\lambda }_ai\frac{}{\phi ^a}\hfill \\ \widehat{\xi }_ai\frac{}{\pi ^a}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.2)
So in this representation the associated Hilbert space is made of “wave functions” $`\psi (\phi ^a,\pi ^a)`$ on the $`4n`$-dimensional “configurational” space whose coordinates are $`(\phi ^a,\pi ^a)`$. A very natural, and positive definite, scalar product that we can introduce in this space is

$$\psi |\psi ^{}d^{2n}\phi ^ad^{2n}\pi ^a\psi ^{}(\phi ^a,\pi ^a)\psi ^{}(\phi ^a,\pi ^a).$$
(3.3)
It is extremely easy to check that the $`8n`$ operators $`\widehat{\phi }^a,\widehat{\lambda }_a,\widehat{\pi }^a,\widehat{\xi }_a`$ are all Hermitian under the scalar product (3.3)

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\widehat{\phi }^a=\widehat{\phi }^a\hfill \\ \widehat{\lambda }_a^{}=\widehat{\lambda }_a\hfill \\ \widehat{\xi }_a^{}=\widehat{\xi }_a\hfill \\ \widehat{\pi }^a=\widehat{\pi }^a.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.4)
Let us now turn to the Hamiltonian which can be easily derived from the Lagrangian in (2.7)

$$_{BFA}=\lambda _a\omega ^{ab}_bH\pi ^l\omega ^{ab}_b_lH\xi _a.$$
(3.5)
Turning the variables ($`\phi ^a,\lambda _a,\pi ^a,\xi _a`$) into operators, the Hamiltonian itself becomes

$$\widehat{}_{BFA}=\widehat{\lambda }_a\omega ^{ab}_bH\widehat{\pi }^l\omega ^{ab}_b_lH\widehat{\xi }_a.$$
(3.6)
It is straightforward to check that this Hamiltonian is Hermitian under the hermiticity conditions (3.4)

$`\widehat{}_{BFA}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(\widehat{\lambda }_a\omega ^{ab}_bH\widehat{\pi }^l\omega ^{ab}_b_lH\widehat{\xi }_a)^{}=`$ (3.7)
$`=`$ $`(_bH)^{}\omega ^{ab}\widehat{\lambda }_a^{}\widehat{\xi }_a^{}\omega ^{ab}(_b_lH)^{}\widehat{\pi }^l=`$
$`=`$ $`(_bH)\omega ^{ab}\widehat{\lambda }_a\widehat{\xi }_a\omega ^{ab}_b_lH\widehat{\pi }^l=`$
$`=`$ $`\widehat{\lambda }_a\omega ^{ab}_bH+i\omega ^{ab}_a_bH\widehat{\pi }^l\omega ^{ab}_b_lH\widehat{\xi }_ai\delta _a^l\omega ^{ab}_b_lH=`$
$`=`$ $`\widehat{}_{BFA}.`$
In the last two steps, in order to exchange $`\widehat{\lambda }_a`$ with $`_bH`$ and $`\widehat{\pi }^l`$ with $`\widehat{\xi }_a`$, we have used their commutation relations $`[\widehat{\lambda }_a,_bH]=i_a_bH`$, $`[\widehat{\xi }_a,\widehat{\pi }^l]=i\delta _a^l`$ and the fact that $`\omega ^{ab}_b_aH`$ is zero because of the antisymmetry of $`\omega ^{ab}`$. So we can conclude by saying that, differently than in the CPI case analyzed in Ref. one , in the BFA case we can have both a positive definite Hilbert space and a Hermitian Hamiltonian.

The reader may remember that in Ref. one  we gave some physical reasons of why we could not have both a positive definite Hilbert space and a Hermitian Hamiltonian in the CPI case. So it is crucial to find out how we can bypass those physical reasons in the BFA. Those reasons (explained in the conclusions of Ref. one ) were basically the following: in a chaotic system the Jacobi fields $`c^a(t)`$ grow exponentially and as a consequence some of the wave functions of the form

$$\psi =\psi _ac^a$$
(3.8)
have a norm which also grows exponentially with time (see Appendix E of Ref. one ). This means that the norm is not conserved and for this to happen we need a non-unitary evolution or equivalently a non Hermitian Hamiltonian. This kind of reasoning cannot be applied in the BFA case. In fact here the role of the Jacobi fields is taken by the variables $`\pi ^a`$ whose equations of motion can be derived from the Lagrangian $`_{BFA}`$ of (2.9):

$$\dot{\pi }^a=\omega ^{ad}_d_bH\pi ^b,$$
(3.9)
and so the analog of the wave function (3.8) is:

$$\psi (\phi ,\pi )=\psi _a(\phi )\pi ^a.$$
(3.10)
Unfortunately this wave function is not normalizable according to the scalar product (3.3). So even if the exponential increase in $`\pi ^a`$ would imply, like for the wave function (3.8), an exponential increase of the norm of the state, this would not lead to the conclusion that the evolution is not unitary. The reason is that the state (3.10) itself is not part of the Hilbert space already at $`t=0`$ (it is not normalizable) and consequently the Hamiltonian would not act on it. If the reader is not immediately convinced by our arguments, he should remember that the line of reasoning we followed in the conclusions and in Appendix E of Ref. one  to motivate our physical understanding, was crucially based on the use of wave functions linear in the Jacobi fields. These no longer belong to our new Hilbert space.

## IV Geometrical Analysis and Symmetries

In Ref. regini  we tried a first geometrical analysis of the bosonic formalism. There we gave an interpretation of the variables $`\pi ^a,\xi _a`$ as components of vectors and forms whose basis were respectively the variables $`\overline{c}_a`$ and $`c^a`$:

$$\{\begin{array}{c}V=\pi ^a\overline{c}_a\hfill \\ F=\xi _ac^a.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.1)
The reason was that, under an infinitesimal diffeomorphism generated by $`_{BFA}`$ over the original phase space:

$$\phi ^a=\phi ^a+ϵ\omega ^{ab}_bH,$$
(4.2)
the variables $`\pi ^a`$ and $`\xi _a`$ transform in the following way:

$`\pi ^a=\pi ^a+ϵ\omega ^{ac}_c_bH\pi ^b={\displaystyle \frac{\phi ^a}{\phi ^b}}\pi ^b`$
$`\xi _a^{}=\xi _aϵ\omega ^{bc}_c_aH\xi _b={\displaystyle \frac{\phi ^b}{\phi ^a}}\xi _b,`$ (4.3)
i.e. just as components of vectors and forms. In this interpretation the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{}_{BFA}`$ of (3.6) cannot be given the meaning of a Lie derivative. In fact we know that a Lie derivative, $`_{(dH)^{\mathrm{}}}`$ marsden , changes the components of a vector as follows:

$$\delta \pi ^l=(_a\pi ^l)\omega ^{ab}_bH(_a\omega ^{lb}_bH)\pi ^a$$
(4.4)
while $`\widehat{}_{BFA}`$ in (3.6) induces on $`\widehat{\pi }^l`$ the following transformation

$$\delta \widehat{\pi }^l=[\widehat{\pi }^l,i\widehat{}_{BFA}]=(_a\omega ^{lb}_bH)\widehat{\pi }^a$$
(4.5)
which is clearly different from (4.4). So if we insist in the analysis presented in Ref. regini , we should first abandon the interpretation of $`\widehat{}`$ of the BFA case as the Lie derivative along the Hamiltonian flow. Second, if we insist in interpreting $`\pi ^a,\xi _a`$ as components, we should make them dependent on $`\phi `$ and that implies that we should give a connection to glue the fibers of $`T^{}(T^{})`$ of which $`\pi ^a`$ and $`\xi _a`$ are coordinates regini . This connection does not appear in a natural way in our formalism. So, in order to bypass these two problems, we will interpret $`\widehat{\pi }^a`$ and $`\widehat{\xi }_a`$ as basis respectively of forms and vector fields. One-forms and vector fields are then given by

$$\{\begin{array}{c}F=F_a(\widehat{\phi })\widehat{\pi }^a\hfill \\ V=V^a(\widehat{\phi })\widehat{\xi }_a.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.6)
As a consequence, it is easy to check that the $`\widehat{}_{BFA}`$ of (3.6) can be interpreted as the Lie derivative (up to a constant factor). In fact, applying $`i\widehat{}_{BFA}`$ to the vector $`V`$ of (4.6), we get

$$[i\widehat{}_{BFA},V^e(\widehat{\phi })\widehat{\xi }_e]=[(_aV^e)\omega ^{ab}_bH(_a\omega ^{eb}_bH)V^a]\widehat{\xi }_e$$
(4.7)
and this is exactly how vector components $`V^a`$ change marsden  under the Lie derivative of the Hamiltonian flow:

$$\delta V^e(\phi )V^e(\phi )V^e(\phi )=(_aV^e)\omega ^{ab}_bH(_a\omega ^{eb}_bH)V^a.$$
(4.8)
Analogously, on the one-forms $`F=F_a(\widehat{\phi })\widehat{\pi }^a`$ of (4.6), $`\widehat{}_{BFA}`$ acts as follows:

$$[i\widehat{}_{BFA},F_e(\widehat{\phi })\widehat{\pi }^e]=[(_aF_e)\omega ^{ab}_bH+(_e\omega ^{ab}_bH)F_a]\pi ^e.$$
(4.9)
This is exactly how one-forms transform marsden  under the Lie derivative:

$$\delta F_e(\phi )=F_e^{}(\phi )F_e(\phi )=(_aF_e)\omega ^{ab}_bH+(_e\omega ^{ab}_bH)F_a.$$
(4.10)
To give to $`\widehat{}_{BFA}`$ the meaning of a Lie derivative, another check we should do is the following. The commutator of two Lie derivatives has the property marsden :

$$[_{(dH_1)^{\mathrm{}}},_{(dH_2)^{\mathrm{}}}]=_{[(dH_1)^{\mathrm{}},(dH_2)^{\mathrm{}}]_{Lb}}$$
(4.11)
where $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ are the Hamiltonians entering the Lie derivative and $`[(dH_1)^{\mathrm{}},(dH_2)^{\mathrm{}}]_{Lb}`$ are the Lie brackets (Lb) between the associated Hamiltonian vector fields. According to our conventions the Lie brackets can be related to the Poisson brackets between $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ in the following way marsden :

$`[(dH_1)^{\mathrm{}},(dH_2)^{\mathrm{}}]_{Lb}`$ $`=`$ $`[\omega ^{bc}_cH_1_b\omega ^{ad}_dH_2\omega ^{bc}_cH_2(_b\omega ^{ad}_dH_1)]\xi _a=`$ (4.12)
$`=`$ $`[\omega ^{ad}_d(_bH_1\omega ^{bc}_cH_2)]\xi _a=(d\{H_1,H_2\})^{\mathrm{}}.`$
Therefore (4.11) can be rewritten as:

$$[_{(dH_1)^{\mathrm{}}},_{(dH_2)^{\mathrm{}}}]=_{(d\{H_1,H_2\})^{\mathrm{}}}.$$
(4.13)
As we associate to each Lie derivative $`_{(dH)^{\mathrm{}}}`$ an operator $`i\widehat{}_H`$, the relation (4.13) should turn into the following one

$$[i\widehat{}_{H_1},i\widehat{}_{H_2}]=i\widehat{}_{\{H_1,H_2\}}$$
(4.14)
where we have put on the $`\widehat{}`$ of (3.6), the label $`H_1`$, $`H_2`$ or $`\{H_1,H_2\}`$ to indicate the function entering each $`\widehat{}_{BFA}`$. It is very easy to verify (4.14) and this is done in detail in Appendix B.

In the CPI Gozzi  it was found that there were various conserved universal charges associated to the Lie derivative. They were called Gozzi  BRS, anti-BRS, ghost and supersymmetry charges in analogy with similar objects present in gauge field theory. Despite these names they are well-known structures in symplectic geometry marsden ; for example the BRS charge is nothing but the exterior derivative on phase space and its conservation is related to the fact that the exterior derivative commutes with the Lie derivative marsden . The ghost charge is basically the form number marsden  while the supersymmetry charge is connected to the concept of equivariant cohomology deotto . Besides their geometrically universal meaning, these charges and the associated symmetries somehow signal the redundancy of the $`8n`$ variables $`(\phi ^a,\lambda _a,c^a,\overline{c}_a)`$ used in describing CM. We know in fact that CM can be described using only the $`2n`$ phase space variables ($`\phi ^a`$) and so the other $`6n`$ variables must be related to the $`\phi ^a`$ via some symmetries which should be present for any system. Also in the bosonic case we have many extra variables $`(\lambda _a,\pi ^a,\xi _a)`$ besides the $`2n`$ phase space variables $`\phi ^a`$ and so we expect to find various symmetries like in the CPI.

The way we start our search for the symmetries in the bosonic case is rather naive but it is one of the few we could think of. Basically, as the variables $`\pi ^a,\xi _a`$ take the place - in the bosonic case - of the Grassmannian variables $`c^a,\overline{c}_a`$, we simply rewrite the charges conserved in the CPI and replace in them $`c^a`$ and $`\overline{c}_a`$ with $`\pi ^a`$ and $`\xi _a`$. In the CPI the conserved charges are Gozzi deotto

$$\{\begin{array}{c}Q_g=ic^a\overline{c}_a\text{ghost charge}\hfill \\ N=c^a_aH\hfill \\ \overline{N}=\overline{c}_a\omega ^{ab}_bH\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.15)
and

$$\{\begin{array}{c}Q=ic^a\lambda _a\text{BRS charge}\hfill \\ \overline{Q}=i\overline{c}_a\omega ^{ab}\lambda _b\text{anti-BRS charge}\hfill \\ Q_H=QN\text{susy-charge}\hfill \\ \overline{Q}_H=\overline{Q}+\overline{N}\text{susy-charge}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.16)
So by replacing naively $`c^a`$ with $`\pi ^a`$ and $`\overline{c}_a`$ with $`\xi _a`$ we get the two following set of charges

$$\{\begin{array}{c}Q_g^{\left(B\right)}=i\pi ^a\xi _a\hfill \\ N^{\left(B\right)}=\pi ^a_aH\hfill \\ \overline{N}^{\left(B\right)}=\xi _a\omega ^{ab}_bH\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.17)
and

$$\{\begin{array}{c}Q^{\left(B\right)}=i\pi ^a\lambda _a\hfill \\ \overline{Q}^{\left(B\right)}=i\xi _a\omega ^{ab}\lambda _b\hfill \\ Q_H^{\left(B\right)}=Q^{\left(B\right)}N^{\left(B\right)}\hfill \\ \overline{Q}_H^{\left(B\right)}=\overline{Q}^{\left(B\right)}+\overline{N}^{\left(B\right)}\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.18)
where the superscript $`(B)`$ indicates that it refers to the BFA case. The reader may complain that by replacing $`c^a`$ with $`\pi ^a`$ and $`\overline{c}_a`$ with $`\xi _a`$ we have not really done the replacement which would bring the $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ of the CPI into the $``$ of the BFA (3.6). The difference is just in multiplicative factors $`(\pm i)`$ in front of the charges and this would not spoil their conservation. The careful reader may also notice that in the CPI there were other two other conserved charges Gozzi  which are

$$\{\begin{array}{c}K=\frac{1}{2}c^a\omega _{ab}c^b\hfill \\ \overline{K}=\frac{1}{2}\overline{c}_a\omega ^{ab}\overline{c}_b.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.19)
We did not list them because, via the substitution we did for the BFA case, the corresponding charges would be zero because of the bosonic character of $`\pi `$ and $`\xi `$ and the antisymmetry of $`\omega _{ab}`$:

$$\{\begin{array}{c}K^{\left(B\right)}=\frac{1}{2}\pi ^a\omega _{ab}\pi ^b=0\hfill \\ \overline{K}^{\left(B\right)}=\frac{1}{2}\xi _a\omega ^{ab}\xi _b=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.20)
Turning now back to the set of charges in (4.17), it is easy to check that they are all conserved, i.e.:

$$[Q_g^{\left(B\right)},\widehat{}_{BFA}]=[N^{\left(B\right)},\widehat{}_{BFA}]=[\overline{N}^{\left(B\right)},\widehat{}_{BFA}]=0.$$
(4.21)
The detailed calculations are given in Appendix C. On the other hand the charges present in the second set given in (4.18) are apparently not conserved. In fact taking the bosonic analog of the BRS charge and its commutator with $`\widehat{}_{BFA}`$ we get:

$$[Q^{\left(B\right)},\widehat{}_{BFA}]=\pi ^l\omega ^{ab}_b_l_cH\pi ^c\xi _a$$
(4.22)
and for the anti-BRS charge

$$[\overline{Q}^{\left(B\right)},\widehat{}_{BFA}]=\xi _a\omega ^{ab}\xi _s\omega ^{st}(_b_t_lH)\pi ^l.$$
(4.23)
These straightforward calculations are reported in Appendix C. The charges we have not yet analyzed are the bosonic analogs of the supersymmetry charges $`Q_H^{\left(B\right)},\overline{Q}_H^{\left(B\right)}`$ in (4.18). They cannot be conserved because they are a linear combination of $`Q^{\left(B\right)}`$ and $`\overline{Q}^{\left(B\right)}`$, which are not conserved, with $`N^{\left(B\right)}`$ and $`\overline{N}^{\left(B\right)}`$ which are conserved.

Let us now turn to Eqs. (4.22) and (4.23) and let us look at their RHS which indicate by “how much” the conservation law is violated. It is easy to notice that these RHS do not contain $`\lambda _a`$ and so they commute with the original phase space operators $`\phi ^a`$. As a consequence of this we have that the infinitesimal transformations generated by $`Q^{\left(B\right)}`$ and by the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{}_{BFA}`$ commute when they are applied on $`\phi `$. In fact the infinitesimal BRS transformation generated by $`Q^{\left(B\right)}`$ on a field $`A`$ is given by the commutator of $`Q^{\left(B\right)}`$ with the field: $`\delta _{Q^{(B)}}A=[ϵQ^{\left(B\right)},A]`$ where $`ϵ`$ is an infinitesimal parameter. The same happens for the transformations generated by the Hamiltonian: $`\delta _{}A=[\overline{ϵ}\widehat{}_{BFA},A]`$. Suppose we take for $`A`$ the original phase space variables $`\phi ^a`$. If we perform first an infinitesimal time evolution and then a BRS transformation we obtain

$$\delta _{Q^{(B)}}\delta _{}\phi ^a=ϵ\overline{ϵ}[Q^{\left(B\right)},[\widehat{}_{BFA},\phi ^a]]$$
(4.24)
while, if we perform the transformations in the inverse order, we obtain:

$$\delta _{}\delta _{Q^{(B)}}\phi ^a=ϵ\overline{ϵ}[\widehat{}_{BFA},[Q^{\left(B\right)},\phi ^a]].$$
(4.25)
Now we can use the Jacobi identities to obtain

$`\delta _{Q^{(B)}}\delta _{}\phi ^a\delta _{}\delta _{Q^{(B)}}\phi ^a`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ\overline{ϵ}\left([Q^{\left(B\right)},[\widehat{}_{BFA},\phi ^a]][\widehat{}_{BFA},[Q^{\left(B\right)},\phi ^a]]\right)=`$ (4.26)
$`=`$ $`ϵ\overline{ϵ}[\phi ^a,[Q^{\left(B\right)},\widehat{}_{BFA}]]=0`$
where in the last step we have used the fact that the RHS of (4.22) commutes with $`\phi ^a`$. “Somehow” we can say that the transformations generated by $`Q^{\left(B\right)}`$ and $`\widehat{}_{BFA}`$ commute on the original phase space. Of course the same will happen for the anti-BRS charge $`\overline{Q}^{\left(B\right)}`$ and for the supersymmetry charges $`Q_H^{\left(B\right)},\overline{Q}_H^{\left(B\right)}`$.

Now we try to provide a geometrical interpretation of this fact at least for the BRS-charge. Let us do an infinitesimal BRS transformation on $`\phi ^a`$:

$$\delta _{Q^{(B)}}\phi ^a=[ϵQ^{\left(B\right)},\phi ^a]=[ϵi\pi ^b\lambda _b,\phi ^a]=ϵ\pi ^a$$
(4.27)
where $`ϵ`$ is an infinitesimal commuting parameter. The new phase space point $`\phi ^a`$ reached after this transformation is:

$$\phi ^a=\phi ^a+ϵ\pi ^a.$$
(4.28)
Remember now that $`\pi ^a`$ is a Jacobi field that means it satisfies the equation of the first variation (3.9). So if $`\phi ^a`$ is a point on a trajectory, $`\phi ^a`$ is a point on a nearby trajectory as indicated in the Figure 1 below:

From Fig. 1 we expect that we could move from the point $`\phi ^a`$ along its trajectory via the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{}_{BFA}`$ for an interval of time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, reach a point $`\phi _{\left(1\right)}^a`$ and from there jump, via a BRS transformation to a point $`\phi _{\left(1\right)}^a`$ on the nearby trajectory. Moving then back on this second trajectory for an interval of time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ we should reach the point $`\phi ^a`$ that we originally reached via a simple BRS transformation from $`\phi ^a`$. All this is illustrated in Fig. 2 below.

This diagram expresses the fact that, in the $`\phi `$-space, the BRS transformation and $`\widehat{}_{BFA}`$ should commute that is what Eq. (4.26) tells us.

Let us now turn to the bosonic analogs of the susy charges $`Q_H^{\left(B\right)},\overline{Q}_H^{\left(B\right)}`$. As they are linear combination of $`Q^{\left(B\right)},\overline{Q}^{\left(B\right)},N,\overline{N}`$ and these last two charges commute with $`\widehat{}_{BFA}`$, from (4.22) and (4.23) we will get

$`[Q_H^{\left(B\right)},\widehat{}_{BFA}]=\pi ^l\omega ^{ab}_b_l_cH\pi ^c\xi _a`$
$`[\overline{Q}_H^{\left(B\right)},\widehat{}_{BFA}]=\xi _a\omega ^{ab}\xi _s\omega ^{st}(_b_t_lH)\pi ^l.`$ (4.29)
So also the transformations generated by $`Q_H^{\left(B\right)}`$ and $`\overline{Q}_H^{\left(B\right)}`$ commute with those generated by $`\widehat{}_{BFA}`$ on the phase space variables $`\phi ^a`$. It would be interesting to check whether they behave as true supersymmetry charges that means

$$[Q_H^{\left(B\right)},\overline{Q}_H^{\left(B\right)}]=2\widehat{}_{BFA}.$$
(4.30)
It is actually easy to work out the commutators of $`Q_H^{\left(B\right)},\overline{Q}_H^{\left(B\right)}`$ and the calculation, presented in detail in Appendix C, gives:

$$[Q_H^{\left(B\right)},\overline{Q}_H^{\left(B\right)}]=2\widehat{}_{BFA}+\{4\pi ^a\omega ^{de}_e_aH\xi _d\}.$$
(4.31)
We see that we can get the standard supersymmetry algebra if the last term on the RHS of (4.31) were zero. Again this term does not contain $`\lambda _a`$ and so on the $`\phi ^a`$ variables we have that

$$\delta _{Q_H^{(B)}}\delta _{\overline{Q}_H^{(B)}}\phi ^a\delta _{\overline{Q}_H^{(B)}}\delta _{Q_H^{(B)}}\phi ^a=2\delta _\widehat{}\phi ^a.$$
(4.32)
i.e. the supersymmetry algebra holds.

Usually supersymmetry is described as the “square root” of the time translation. Let us find out whether there is anything like that in our bosonic case. Instead of the two charges $`Q_H^{\left(B\right)}`$ and $`\overline{Q}_H^{\left(B\right)}`$, let us build the following other ones

$$\{\begin{array}{c}Q_1^{\left(B\right)}=Q^{\left(B\right)}\overline{N}^{\left(B\right)}\hfill \\ Q_2^{\left(B\right)}=\overline{Q}^{\left(B\right)}+N^{\left(B\right)}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.33)
The transformations of our variables under $`Q_1^{\left(B\right)}`$ can be easily worked, and it is done in detail in Appendix C. The result is:

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\delta _{Q_1^{(B)}}\phi ^a=ϵ\pi ^a\hfill \\ \delta _{Q_1^{(B)}}\xi _a=ϵ\lambda _a\hfill \\ \delta _{Q_1^{(B)}}\pi ^a=iϵ\omega ^{ae}_eH\hfill \\ \delta _{Q_1^{(B)}}\lambda _a=iϵ\xi _b\omega ^{be}(_e_aH)\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.34)
where $`ϵ`$ is an infinitesimal commuting parameter. Let us check whether, by doing these transformations twice, we get a time translation. Let us just do it on the original phase space $`\phi ^a`$. Using (4.34) we get

$$\delta _{Q_1^{(B)}}^2\phi ^a=\delta _{Q_1^{(B)}}(ϵ\pi ^a)=iϵ^2\omega ^{ae}_eH=iϵ^2\dot{\phi }^a.$$
(4.35)
In the last step above we have used the equations of motion. The result seems to confirm that $`Q_1^{\left(B\right)}`$ is the “square root” of the time translation. Eq. (4.35) is an infinitesimal time translation if we equate $`ϵ^2=\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. So we could say that, in order to do an infinitesimal time translation, we could perform two $`Q_1^{\left(B\right)}`$ transformations in a row each with “infinitesimal” parameter $`ϵ`$ related to the “square root” of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. We find that it is curious that, at least on some hypersurfaces of our $`8n`$-dimensional space we could, without introducing Grassmannian variables and via purely bosonic charges, get something analogous to supersymmetry or better to the square root of a time translation.

Let us now go back to geometry and to the bosonic BRS charge $`Q^{\left(B\right)}`$. In the Grassmannian case the BRS charge can be identified Gozzi  with the exterior derivative. One of the properties marsden  of the exterior derivative is that it commutes with the Lie derivative. This is not anymore the case for our $`Q^{\left(B\right)}`$ as it is proved in (4.22). Even if it does so in the $`\phi `$-space, it is not enough. In fact the exterior derivative must commute with the Lie derivative in the full space of forms which is somehow an extension of the ordinary phase space. Actually it is the space of higher forms which has to be properly defined in the BFA case and this is what we will do in the next section.

## V Higher Forms

We listed in Eq. (4.6) which variables to use in order to build one-forms. They are the operators $`\widehat{\pi }^a`$ which take the place, in the bosonic case, of the Grassmannian variables $`c^a`$. The problem arises when we want to build higher forms. We know that between forms one defines the so called wedge product $``$ so that, for example, the basis $`d\phi ^ad\phi ^b`$ for two-forms is antisymmetric in the interchange of $`ab`$. This was naturally incorporated in the Grassmannian formalism Gozzi  by representing the forms $`d\phi ^a`$ with Grassmannian variables $`c^a`$. They are anticommuting and so the antisymmetry of $`d\phi ^ad\phi ^b`$ is automatically produced by the antisymmetry of the product $`c^ac^b`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}d\phi ^ad\phi ^b=d\phi ^bd\phi ^a\\ \\ c^ac^b=c^bc^a.\end{array}$$
(5.1)
In the bosonic case we do not have Grassmannian variables and the forms $`\widehat{\pi }^a`$ commute among themselves so that, if we represent a two-form $`d\phi ^ad\phi ^b`$ as $`\widehat{\pi }^a\widehat{\pi }^b`$, we loose its anticommuting nature.

The way out seems to be the standard procedure used in the literature eguchi  on differential geometry, i.e. to introduce a tensor product among the cotangent spaces whose basis are the $`d\phi ^a`$ and define the wedge product $``$ as

$$d\phi ^ad\phi ^b\frac{1}{2}(d\phi ^ad\phi ^bd\phi ^bd\phi ^a).$$
(5.2)
In our case the role of the $`d\phi ^a`$ is taken by the operator $`\widehat{\pi }^a`$ and we should build tensor products among them. To do that we have to enlarge our Hilbert space. Originally it was made of functions $`\psi (\phi ^a,\pi ^a)`$ which could be considered as belonging to the tensor product of the two Hilbert spaces of the wave functions $`\psi (\phi )`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }(\pi )`$ which we indicate as:

$$_\phi _\pi .$$
(5.3)
From now on the new Hilbert space we will use is the following one

$$_{2n}_\phi _{\pi _{(1)}}_{\pi _{(2)}}\mathrm{}_{\pi _{(2n)}}.$$
(5.4)
where we have made the tensor products of copies of the space $`_\pi `$ and labeled them with $`_{\pi _{(1)}}`$, $`\mathrm{}_{\pi _{(n)}}`$. If we limit ourselves to the case $`n=1`$ the space (5.4) reduces to:

$$_2_\phi _{\pi _{(1)}}_{\pi _{(2)}}$$
(5.5)
and in this space we have that, for example, a two-form is represented as

$$\widehat{F}=F_{ab}(\widehat{\phi })\frac{1}{2}[\widehat{\pi }_{\left(1\right)}^a\widehat{\pi }_{\left(2\right)}^b\widehat{\pi }_{\left(1\right)}^b\widehat{\pi }_{\left(2\right)}^a].$$
(5.6)
The operator we have used up to now to represent the Lie derivative, which is (3.6), was a good one but only for the space (5.3). The new space is (5.5) and we should extend $`\widehat{}_{BFA}`$ of (3.6) to this space. We could try this operator

$$\widehat{}\widehat{\lambda }_a\omega ^{ab}_bH(\widehat{\phi })\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(1\right)}\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(2\right)}\omega ^{be}_e_aH(\widehat{\phi })(\widehat{\pi }_{\left(1\right)}^a\widehat{\xi }_b^{\left(1\right)}\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(2\right)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(1\right)}\widehat{\pi }_{\left(2\right)}^a\widehat{\xi }_b^{\left(2\right)}).$$
(5.7)
Using as commutators the following ones

$`[\widehat{\pi }_{\left(i\right)}^a,\widehat{\pi }_{\left(j\right)}^b]=0`$
$`[\widehat{\xi }_a^{\left(i\right)},\widehat{\xi }_b^{\left(j\right)}]=0`$
$`[\widehat{\xi }_a^{\left(i\right)},\widehat{\pi }_{\left(j\right)}^b]=i\delta _a^b\delta _{\left(j\right)}^{\left(i\right)}`$ (5.8)
$`[\widehat{\phi }^a,\widehat{\pi }_{\left(i\right)}^b]=0`$
$`[\widehat{\phi }^a,\widehat{\xi }_b^{\left(i\right)}]=0`$
it is easy to see that the action of $`\widehat{}`$ presented in (5.7) on the two-form $`\widehat{F}`$ of (5.6) is

$$[i\widehat{},\widehat{F}]=\omega ^{ab}[_bH_aF_{de}+_b_dHF_{ae}+_b_eHF_{da}]\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{\pi }_{\left(1\right)}^d\widehat{\pi }_{\left(2\right)}^e\widehat{\pi }_{\left(1\right)}^e\widehat{\pi }_{\left(2\right)}^d)$$
(5.9)
and this is exactly the manner how two-forms transform under the Lie derivative marsden . The derivation of (5.9) is presented in detail in Appendix D. Eq. (5.9) confirms that the choice of $`\widehat{}`$ we made in (5.7) is the correct one. In the case $`n=1`$ we have only zero-, one- and two-forms and we have already seen that two-forms are represented by Eq. (5.6). How are zero- and one-forms represented? The zero-forms $`\widehat{F}`$ and the one-forms $`\widehat{C}`$ are respectively

$$\widehat{F}=F(\widehat{\phi })[\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(1\right)}\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(2\right)}],$$
(5.10)
$$\widehat{C}=C_d(\widehat{\phi })[\widehat{\pi }_{\left(1\right)}^d\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(2\right)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(1\right)}\widehat{\pi }_{\left(2\right)}^d].$$
(5.11)
It should be clear by now that the indices $`(1)`$ and $`(2)`$ indicate the $`\widehat{}_{\pi _{(1)}}`$ and $`\widehat{}_{\pi _{(2)}}`$ appearing in (5.5). As we will prove in detail in Appendix D, the commutator of $`i\widehat{}`$ with $`\widehat{C}`$ gives the correct action of the Lie derivative on one-forms:

$$[i\widehat{},\widehat{C}]=(_aC_d\omega ^{ab}_bH+\omega ^{ae}_e_dHC_a)[\widehat{\pi }_{\left(1\right)}^d\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(2\right)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(1\right)}\widehat{\pi }_{\left(2\right)}^d].$$
(5.12)
So we can conclude that, in the case $`n=1`$, the operator (5.7) represents a good extension of the Lie derivative on the entire space of differential forms.

It is easy to generalize $`\widehat{}`$ of (5.7) to the Lie derivative which acts in a space with an arbitrary number $`n`$ of degrees of freedom. It is the following one

$$\widehat{}\lambda _a\omega ^{ab}_bH\mathrm{𝟏}^{2n}\omega ^{be}_e_aH𝐒[\widehat{\pi }^a\widehat{\xi }_b\mathrm{𝟏}^{(2n1)}]$$
(5.13)
where by $`\mathrm{𝟏}^{2n}`$ we indicate the tensor product of $`2n`$ identity operators, and with $`𝐒`$ the symmetrization operation of the operators contained in the square brackets. So for example for $`n=2`$ we have

$`𝐒[\widehat{\pi }^a\widehat{\xi }_b\mathrm{𝟏}^3]`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\pi }_{\left(1\right)}^a\widehat{\xi }_b^{\left(1\right)}\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(2\right)}\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(3\right)}\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(4\right)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(1\right)}\widehat{\pi }_{\left(2\right)}^a\widehat{\xi }_b^{\left(2\right)}\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(3\right)}\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(4\right)}+`$ (5.14)
$`+\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(1\right)}\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(2\right)}\widehat{\pi }_{\left(3\right)}^a\widehat{\xi }_b^{\left(3\right)}\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(4\right)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(1\right)}\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(2\right)}\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(3\right)}\widehat{\pi }_{\left(4\right)}^a\widehat{\xi }_b^{\left(4\right)}.`$
Let us always remember that the indices $`(1),(2),\mathrm{}(2n)`$ indicate to which Hilbert space $`_{\pi _{(i)}}`$ in (5.4) the operators $`\widehat{\pi }_{\left(i\right)}`$, $`\widehat{\xi }^{\left(i\right)}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(i\right)}`$ belong. In the same way it is possible to generalize the concept of differential form. An $`m`$-form in a $`2n`$-dimensional space is given by:

$$\widehat{P}𝐒\left\{\frac{1}{m!}P_{a_1\mathrm{}a_m}(\widehat{\phi })𝐀\{\widehat{\pi }_{\left(1\right)}^{a_1}\widehat{\pi }_{\left(2\right)}^{a_2}\mathrm{}\widehat{\pi }_{\left(m\right)}^{a_m}\}\mathrm{𝟏}^{(2nm)}\right\},$$
(5.15)
where $`𝐀`$ indicates the antisymmetrizer of the basis $`\widehat{\pi }_{\left(i\right)}^{a_i}`$ of the $`m`$ cotangent spaces needed to build an $`m`$-form. The position of this $`m`$ operators $`\widehat{\pi }`$ inside the string of the $`2n`$ Hilbert spaces is completely arbitrary. Therefore if we do not want to choose a particular position we can symmetrize the $`2nm`$ identity operators with the $`m`$ operators $`\widehat{\pi }`$ by means of the symmetrizer $`𝐒`$ as we did in Eq. (5.11) for the one-forms. As we will prove in detail in Appendix D, the commutator $`[i\widehat{},\widehat{P}]`$ reproduces the correct action of the Lie derivative on an arbitrary differential form $`P`$:

$$[i\widehat{},\widehat{P}]=_{(dH)^{\mathrm{}}}P.$$
(5.16)
Besides the forms we can build, using the variables $`\widehat{\xi }_a`$, the symmetric tensors. This last operation was not possible in the Grassmannian or CPI formalism Gozzi . We will hopefully come back to these issues in the future.

Before concluding this section let us notice that, differently than in the CPI case, the higher forms are not represented by wave functions $`\psi (\phi ,c)`$ of the theory but by operators like in (5.15). In fact wave functions, in the bosonic case, would be generic functions $`\psi (\phi ,\pi )`$ and they would not have the structure which Grassmannian ones do have:

$$\psi (\phi ,c)=\psi _0(\phi )+\psi _a(\phi )c^a+\psi _{ab}c^ac^b+\mathrm{}+\psi _{abc\mathrm{}l}c^ac^bc^c\mathrm{}c^l.$$
(5.17)
It was this structure which allowed us to identify $`\psi _0(\phi )`$ with zero-forms, $`\psi _a(\phi )c^a`$ with one-forms, $`\psi _{ab}c^ac^b`$ with two-forms etc. In general in the bosonic case $`\psi (\phi ,\pi )`$ is a generic function of $`\pi `$ and this forbids the identification with forms. Moreover, as we said previously, a one-form would be represented by $`\psi (\phi ,\pi )=\psi _a\pi ^a`$ which would be not an acceptable wave function because it is not normalizable. Of course this does not mean that in the formalism given by (5.13) we cannot introduce wave functions. We can but they do not have the meaning of higher forms. Only operators like (5.15) have this meaning.

The wave functions associated to the multi-form formalism of the Hamiltonian (5.13) are basically those which make up the Hilbert space (5.4) and they are $`\psi (\phi ^a,\pi _{\left(1\right)}^a,\pi _{\left(2\right)}^a,\mathrm{},\pi _{\left(2n\right)}^a)`$. It is possible to introduce also in this space a positive definite scalar product like we did in (3.3) for the space (5.3). The result is

$$\psi _1|\psi _2d^{2n}\phi ^a\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n}{}}d^{2n}\pi _{\left(i\right)}^a\psi _1^{}\psi _2$$
(5.18)
and it is easy to prove that with this product the Hamiltonian (5.13) is Hermitian (see Appendix E for further details).

The reader may remember that our original $`\widehat{}_{BFA}`$ (3.6) was derived from the path integral formalism (2.6). A natural question to ask is if also the multi-form Hamiltonian (5.13) can be derived from a path integral. The answer is yes and the path integral is the following one

$$Z=𝒟\phi ^a𝒟\lambda _a\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n}{}}𝒟\pi _{\left(i\right)}^a𝒟\xi _a^{\left(i\right)}e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑t_{MF}}}$$
(5.19)
where the multiform (MF) Lagrangian $`_{MF}`$ is

$$_{MF}=\lambda _a\dot{\phi }^a+\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n}{}}\pi _{\left(i\right)}^a\dot{\xi }_a^{\left(i\right)}_{MF}$$
(5.20)
with

$$_{MF}=\lambda _a\omega ^{ab}_bH\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n}{}}\pi _{\left(i\right)}^a\omega ^{be}_e_aH\xi _b^{\left(i\right)}.$$
(5.21)
At this level the proof of the hermiticity of $`_{MF}`$ under the scalar product (5.18) is identical to the proof given in Eq. (3.7). Basically in the Hamiltonian (5.21) we have a set of extra variables $`(\pi _{\left(i\right)},\xi ^{\left(i\right)})`$ for each extra Hilbert space $`_{\pi _{(i)}}`$ appearing in (5.4). It is actually then easier to work with the Hamiltonian $`_{MF}`$ than with the one in (5.13). We can in fact turn the $`\pi _{\left(i\right)}^a,\xi _a^{\left(i\right)}`$ into operators by just looking at the kinetic term of (5.19) and the commutators we can derive from it are basically those that we introduced by hand in (5.8) plus the usual one $`[\phi ^a,\lambda _b]=i\delta _b^a`$. This confirms that the path integral (5.19) is basically the one behind the operatorial formalism (5.13). Unfortunately this path integral does not appear to have a “natural” interpretation like the one in (2.6) had, in the sense that the latter is naturally related to (2.3) and (2.1) which are just Dirac deltas on the classical paths. These Dirac deltas are natural objects in a functional approach to CM because they just give weight one to classical paths and weight zero to non-classical ones. Nothing like that can be done for the path integral (5.19) which can be turned into a Dirac delta of the equations of motion like in (2.3) but it gets multiplied not by one determinant but by $`2n`$ of them. This structure does not allow us to pass to Dirac deltas of the classical trajectories like we did in (2.1). So somehow the path integral (5.19) does not have a simple intuitive understanding. This is the price we pay: we have a formalism with a positive definite scalar product and a Hermitian Hamiltonian but a physical understanding is lacking. If on the contrary we keep the intuitive single particle path integral associated to the Hilbert space (5.3) then the tensor product structure $``$, needed to build higher forms like in (5.15), has to be given from outside and is not provided directly by the path integral. On the contrary in the Grassmannian or CPI case Gozzi  the whole formalism, even for higher forms, has a nice and intuitive understanding and construction (because it can be reduced to a Dirac delta on classical paths), and no extra structure has to be brought in from outside, but the price we paid is that we have to give up one of the two conditions: either the positive definiteness of the scalar product or the hermiticity of the Hamiltonian.

## VI Metaplectic Representation

One of the crucial concepts we have used so far is that of Lie derivative marsden . We have seen how it acts on vector fields (4.8), on forms (4.10) or on tensors in the case of symplectic manifolds. The notion of Lie derivative can be generalized to general manifolds $`_n`$ whose group of diffeomorphism we indicate with $`\text{Diff}(_n)`$ and whose structure group eguchi  of the associated(co-)tangent bundle we indicate with $`𝒢`$. An arbitrary tensor field $`𝒳`$ on $`_n`$ under the action of an element of $`\text{Diff}(_n)`$, which drags the field through an infinitesimal displacement $`\delta \phi ^a=h^a(\phi )`$, is transformed as follows

$$𝒳^{}(\phi )𝒳(\phi )=_h𝒳(\phi )$$
(6.1)
where $`_h`$ is the Lie derivative associated to the vector field $`h=h^a_a`$. The general abstract expression dewitt  of $`_h`$ is:

$$_h=h^a_a_bh^aG_a^b$$
(6.2)
where $`G_a^b`$ are the generators of the structure group $`𝒢`$ in the representation to which $`𝒳`$ belong. The indices $`a,b`$ are group indices and not representation indices which we shall indicate with $`\alpha ,\beta `$. So the matrix representation of $`(G_b^a)`$ will be $`(G_b^a)_\beta ^\alpha `$ where $`\alpha `$ are also the indices of $`𝒳`$, if we organize it as a vector. For a generic manifold we have that $`𝒢=\text{GL}(n,R)`$, for a Riemann manifold $`𝒢=O(n)`$, and for a symplectic manifold $`𝒢=\text{Sp}(2N)`$. It is easy to check that, if $`𝒳`$ is a vector or a form and $`_{2N}`$ a symplectic manifold, expression (6.1) reduces to the usual transformations (4.8) and (4.10). This calculation is shown in Appendix F which, together with much of this section, is taken from Refs. meta  and private . As we said the coefficients $`G_a^b`$ are the generators of the structure group $`𝒢`$ in the representation to which $`𝒳`$ belong. Now $`𝒢`$ could have also spinor representations like it is the case for $`O(n)`$. Does this mean that we can introduce the concept of Lie derivative also for spinors besides vectors, forms and tensors? The answer is yes but not along all vector fields $`h^a`$. In the Riemann case it is only along Killing vector fields dewitt  and in the symplectic case only along Hamiltonian vector fields, which are those which preserve the symplectic two-form

$$_h\omega =0$$
(6.3)
and whose local expression is

$$h^a=\omega ^{ab}_bH$$
(6.4)
with $`H(\phi )`$ a function on $`_{2N}`$. We will not give details of why we have to restrict ourselves to these particular vector fields for spinor $`𝒳`$ but refer the reader to the literature dewitt . Basically it is only for those fields that the usual commutator structure of the Lie derivative is preserved even for spinors.

Before proceeding let us rewrite (6.2) in a slightly modified form. Let us first introduce the following objects

$`K_{ab}(\phi )_a_bH(\phi )`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ab}i(\omega ^{ca}G_c^b+\omega ^{cb}G_c^a).`$ (6.5)
Both are symmetric in $`a,b`$ and

$$K_{ab}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ab}=2i_bh^cG_c^b$$
(6.6)
so (6.2) can be rewritten as

$$_h=h^a_a+\frac{i}{2}K_{ab}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ab}.$$
(6.7)
This is the classical Lie derivative for fields whose components transform, under infinitesimal $`\text{Sp}(2N)`$ transformations of the tangent space, via the operator

$$S=1\frac{i}{2}K_{ab}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ab}.$$
(6.8)
This will be proved in Appendix F for forms and vectors. We want now to apply this formalism to spinors that means we want to use for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ab}`$ in (6.8) the spinorial representation of the $`\text{Sp}(2N)`$. To do that we have to pass to the universal covering group of $`\text{Sp}(2N)`$ which is the metaplectic group $`\text{Mp}(2N)`$ littlejohn -konstant -dewitt2 . In analogy to the spinorial representation of the Lorentz group, we first have to build the representation of the Clifford algebra

$$\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu +\gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\mu =2g^{\mu \nu }$$
(6.9)
which, in the case of the metaplectic group dewitt2 , is

$$\gamma ^a\gamma ^b\gamma ^b\gamma ^a=2i\omega ^{ab}.$$
(6.10)
This algebra, because of the crucial minus sign difference on the LHS of (6.10) with respect to (6.9), does not admit finite dimensional unitary representation. The reason is the same as the one for which we cannot find any finite dimensional representation for the $`\widehat{q},\widehat{p}`$ in QM. They obey the algebra $`\widehat{q}\widehat{p}\widehat{p}\widehat{q}=i\mathrm{}`$ and taking the trace on both sides, if they were represented by finite dimensional matrices, we would get a contradictory result. The only representations are infinite dimensional. We will indicate this infinite dimensional Hilbert space as $`𝒱`$ and with “$`x`$” the indices of the vectors in this space. So the matrix $`\gamma ^a`$ in (6.10) will have an infinite matrix representation indicated by $`(\gamma ^a)_y^x`$. The generators of the metaplectic group will be operators in this Hilbert space. As the $`\text{Mp}(2N)`$ is the covering group of $`\text{Sp}(2N)`$ there will be two elements $`M(S)`$ and $`M(S)`$ of $`\text{Mp}(2N)`$ associated to each element $`S\text{Sp}(2N)`$. Correspondingly the multiplication rules will be

$$M(S_1)M(S_2)=\pm M(S_1S_2).$$
(6.11)
Following the procedure used for spinors in the case of the Lorentz group, we now try to find an operator $`M(S)`$ on $`𝒱`$ such that

$$M(S)^1\gamma ^aM(S)=S_b^a\gamma ^b.$$
(6.12)
We choose $`S_b^a`$ infinitesimally close to the identity and parametrize it like in (6.8). For $`M(S)`$ we make the ansatz

$$M(S)=1\frac{i}{2}K_{ab}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{meta}}^{ab}$$
(6.13)
where with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{meta}}^{ab}`$ we indicate the operators $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ab}`$ in the metaplectic representation. Let us now insert (6.13) into (6.12). The result meta  is

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{meta}}^{ab}=\frac{1}{4}(\gamma ^a\gamma ^b+\gamma ^b\gamma ^a).$$
(6.14)
So a representation of the matrix $`\gamma ^a`$ gives rise to a corresponding representation of the generators $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{meta}}^{ab}`$. We consider only representations in which the $`\gamma ^a`$ are Hermitian with respect to the inner product in $`𝒱`$. As a consequence also the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{meta}}^{ab}`$ is Hermitian and $`M(S)`$ turns out to be unitary:

$`(\gamma ^a)^{}=\gamma ^a`$
$`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{meta}}^{ab})^{}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{meta}}^{ab}`$ (6.15)
$`M(S)^{}=M(S)^1.`$
Explicit representations of the symplectic operators $`\gamma ^a`$ have been worked out and can be found in the literature meta . We will briefly review one of them here. The Clifford algebra (6.10) is isomorphic to the standard Heisenberg algebra made of $`N`$ positions $`\widehat{x}^k`$ and $`N`$ momenta operators $`\widehat{p}^j`$:

$`[\widehat{x}^k,\widehat{p}^j]=i\mathrm{}\delta ^{kj}`$
$`[\widehat{x}^k,\widehat{x}^j]=0`$ (6.16)
$`[\widehat{p}^k,\widehat{p}^j]=0`$
$`k,j=1,\mathrm{},N.`$
Combining $`\widehat{x}^k`$ and $`\widehat{p}^k`$ into a single variable

$$\widehat{\varphi }^a=(\widehat{p}^k,\widehat{x}^k)a=1,\mathrm{},2N$$
(6.17)
we get that the algebra (VI) can be written as:

$$\widehat{\varphi }^a\widehat{\varphi }^b\widehat{\varphi }^b\widehat{\varphi }^a=i\mathrm{}\omega ^{ab}$$
(6.18)
and this is isomorphic to the metaplectic analog of the Clifford algebra (6.10); so we have the following representation for the $`\gamma `$:

$$\gamma ^a=\left(\frac{2}{\mathrm{}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\widehat{\varphi }^a.$$
(6.19)
In the “Schrödinger” representation in which $`\widehat{x}^k`$ is diagonal, we have

$`(\gamma ^k)_y^x=\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}x|\widehat{x}^k|y=\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}x^k\delta ^N(xy)`$
$`(\gamma ^{N+k})_y^x=\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}x|\widehat{p}^k|y=i(2\mathrm{})^{\frac{1}{2}}_k\delta ^N(xy).`$ (6.20)
The indices $`x,y`$ are the Hilbert space indices we introduced before. With the representation above and using Eq. (6.14), we get the following expression for the $`K_{ab}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{meta}}^{ab}`$ entering the matrix $`M(S)`$ of (6.13):

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K_{ab}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{meta}}^{ab}\right)_y^x`$ $`=`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K_{kj}^k^j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}iK_{N+k,j}(x^k^j+^jx^k)+`$ (6.21)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K_{N+k,N+j}x^kx^j]\delta ^N(xy)`$
where we have put $`\mathrm{}=1`$.

The geometrical picture we have so far is the following. We have a base space which is our phase space $`_{2N}`$ and on the fibers we have requested that the structure group $`\text{Sp}(2N)`$ no longer acts in the vector representation like in Ref. Gozzi  or like in Secs. II-V of this paper with the variables $`\pi ^a`$, but in the spinor representation. The bundle we get is the analog of the “spin-bundle” eguchi  but each fiber is a Hilbert space $`𝒱`$. So we end up in a Hilbert bundle which we call $`𝒱_\phi `$ to indicate that there is a fiber $`𝒱`$ at each point $`(\phi )`$ of the phase space $`_{2N}`$. In each fiber a state $`|\psi `$ can be represented in its basis $`x|`$ by:

$$\psi ^xx|\psi $$
(6.22)
and we can introduce the dual state $`\psi |𝒱^{}`$ as

$$\psi |x=(\psi ^x)^{}.$$
(6.23)
The dual pairing is then the usual inner product

$$𝒳|\psi d^Nx(𝒳^x)^{}\psi ^x$$
(6.24)
on $`L^2(R^N,d^Nx)`$. Note that the bra $`x|`$ entering (6.22) or the operators $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ entering (6.18) have nothing to do with the variables $`\phi `$ parametrizing our space $`_{2N}`$.

Going back to the Hilbert bundle $`𝒱_\phi `$ a section is locally given by a function $`\psi `$

$`\psi :_{2N}𝒱`$
$`\phi |\psi ;\phi 𝒱_\phi .`$ (6.25)
Here the notation $`|\mathrm{};\phi `$ indicates that this vector lives in the local Hilbert space $`𝒱`$ (fiber) associated to the point $`\phi `$ of the base manifold. At the level of matrix elements the function (6.25) is defined by the components

$$\psi ^x(\phi )=x|\psi ;\phi .$$
(6.26)
By replacing $`𝒱`$ by its Hilbert dual $`𝒱^{}`$ we arrive at the dual of the Hilbert bundle

$$𝒳_x(\phi )=𝒳;\phi |x,𝒳;\phi |𝒱_\phi ^{}.$$
(6.27)
In our formalism it is natural also to consider “multispinor” fields

$$\phi 𝒳_{y_1\mathrm{}y_p}^{x_1\mathrm{}x_q}(\phi )$$
(6.28)
which assume values in the tensor product

$$\underset{p\text{factors}}{\underset{}{𝒱_\phi ^{}𝒱_\phi ^{}\mathrm{}𝒱_\phi ^{}}}\underset{q\text{factors}}{\underset{}{𝒱_\phi 𝒱_\phi \mathrm{}𝒱_\phi }}.$$
(6.29)
The symplectic spinors and multispinors have been first studied in great details in Ref. konstant . Restricting ourselves to a spinor, its evolution equation under the Hamiltonian vector field$`h^a=\omega ^{ab}_bH`$ is:

$`_t𝒳_x(\phi ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`_h𝒳_x(\phi ,t)=`$ (6.30)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑y\left[\delta (xy)h^a_a+\frac{i}{2}K_{ab}(\phi )(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{meta}}^{ab})_x^y\right]𝒳_y(\phi ,t)}`$
where the $`K_{ab}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{meta}}^{ab})_x^y`$ is given by (6.21). For notational simplicity we will replace the continuous index “$`x`$” with a discrete one indicated with Greek letters $`\alpha `$ so that Eq. (6.30) is replaced by

$`_t𝒳_\alpha (\phi ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`_h𝒳_\alpha (\phi ,t)=`$ (6.31)
$`=`$ $`\left[\delta _\alpha ^\beta h^a_a+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}K_{ab}(\phi )(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ab})_\alpha ^\beta \right]𝒳_\beta (\phi ,t)`$
where we have only made sure that the group (or manifold) indices are in Latin letters $`(a,b)`$ and the representation index are in Greek letters $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$. Note also that we have not put the label “meta” on the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ab}`$ matrix just because (6.31) is the form this equation would have in any representation.

## VII Metaplectic Hamiltonian and Scalar Product

Up to now we have used the abstract differential geometric formalism one can find in the literature marsden  eguchi  konstant  dewitt2 , but now we would like to put it in the kind of language we use in Ref. Gozzi . There basically we enlarge the space $`_{2N}`$ by adding to it $`6N`$ extra variables $`(\lambda _a,c^a,\overline{c}_a)`$ and by making a correspondence between antisymmetric tensor fields on $`_{2N}`$ and functions on this enlarged $`8N`$-dimensional space. We call Gozzi  this correspondence hat map: “$``$”. We also realize Gozzi  that there is an extended Poisson structure on this extended space which turns all the operations of the standard Cartan calculus (like exterior derivative, interior contraction, etc.) into normal Poisson brackets operations. The same evolution via a Lie derivative can be turned Gozzi  into the action of an extended Hamiltonian via the new Poisson brackets. We would like to build the same formalism in the metaplectic case. The procedure is straightforward meta . Let us extend $`_{2N}`$ to an $`_{\text{ext}}`$ space with coordinates $`(\phi ^a,\lambda _a,\eta ^\alpha ,\overline{\eta }_\alpha )`$ where the $`\lambda _a`$ are the same kind of variables we used in Ref. Gozzi  and in the first part of this paper while $`\eta ^\alpha ,\overline{\eta }_\alpha `$ are Grassmannian variables and they are as many as the index $`\alpha `$. Note that in Ref. Gozzi  the Grassmannian variables $`c^a,\overline{c}_a`$ had the Latin index “$`a`$” and so they were as many as the variables $`\phi ^a`$ (or $`\lambda _a`$). This was because we were in the vector (or form) representation which has the same dimension as the manifold $`_{2N}`$. Here instead $`\alpha `$ can have the dimension of any representation we are using. So the dimension of $`_{\text{ext}}`$ is not $`8N`$ but $`4N+4M`$ where $`M`$ is the dimension of the representation.

Next let us endow $`_{\text{ext}}`$ with the following extended Poisson structure (epb):

$`\{\phi ^a,\lambda _b\}_{epb}=\delta _b^a,\{\phi ^a,\phi ^b\}_{epb}=\{\lambda _a,\lambda _b\}_{epb}=0`$
$`\{\overline{\eta }_\beta ,\eta ^\alpha \}_{epb}=i\delta _\beta ^\alpha ,\{\eta ^\alpha ,\eta ^\beta \}_{epb}=\{\overline{\eta }_\alpha ,\overline{\eta }_\beta \}_{epb}=0`$ (7.1)
and with the following Hamiltonian

$$\stackrel{~}{}_{\text{MFA}}=h^a(\phi )\lambda _a+\frac{1}{2}\overline{\eta }_\alpha K_{ab}(\phi )(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{meta}}^{ab})_\beta ^\alpha \eta ^\beta .$$
(7.2)
As we said in the Introduction, the acronym MFA means “Metaplectic Functional Approach” and we have used it also for this Hamiltonian because it will be the one appearing in the functional approach which we will present later on. As last ingredient let us build the hat “$``$” map we mentioned above Gozzi  between multispinor fields (6.28) of the abstract formalism and objects belonging to $`_{\text{ext}}`$. The “$``$-map” is

$$𝒳(\phi )\widehat{𝒳}\frac{1}{p!q!}𝒳_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _p}^{\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _q}(\phi )\overline{\eta }_{\beta _1}\mathrm{}\overline{\eta }_{\beta _q}\eta ^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}\eta ^{\alpha _p}.$$
(7.3)
It is then a straightforward but very long calculation to show that the Lie derivative of $`𝒳`$ is realized as the extended Poisson bracket with $`\stackrel{~}{}_{\text{MFA}}`$

$$(_h𝒳)\widehat{}\{\stackrel{~}{}_{\text{MFA}},\widehat{𝒳}\}_{epb}.$$
(7.4)
For example it is easy to show that from the following equation:

$$_t\widehat{𝒳}=\{\stackrel{~}{}_{\text{MFA}},\widehat{𝒳}\}_{epb}$$
(7.5)
where $`\widehat{𝒳}`$ is the $``$-correspondent of a spinor field, one gets, by stripping it of the $`\eta ^\alpha `$ field, the standard equation for the spinor field (6.31)

$$_t𝒳_\alpha =_h𝒳_\alpha .$$
(7.6)
Via $`\stackrel{~}{}_{MFA}`$ and the extended Poisson brackets it is easy to obtain the evolution of all variables $`(\phi ^a,\lambda _a,\eta ^\alpha ,\overline{\eta }_\alpha )`$ of our manifold $`_{\text{ext}}`$. For $`\phi ^a`$ the equation of motion one gets is the same as the standard one Gozzi  of classical mechanics

$$\dot{\phi }^a=h^a(\phi (t))$$
(7.7)
while for the Grassmannian variables they are

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\dot{\eta }^\alpha =\frac{i}{2}K_{ab}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{meta}}^{ab})_\beta ^\alpha \eta ^\beta \hfill \\ \dot{\overline{\eta }}_\alpha =\frac{i}{2}K_{ab}\overline{\eta }_\beta (\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{meta}}^{ab})_\alpha ^\beta .\hfill \end{array}$$
(7.8)
Let us notice that the last two equations are quite different from the one of the Jacobi field $`\delta \phi ^a`$

$$\frac{d}{dt}(\delta \phi ^a)=_lh^a(\phi )(\delta \phi ^l).$$
(7.9)
So we cannot identify the $`\eta ^\alpha `$ with the Jacobi fields of classical mechanics. What are they? It is easy to show that they are a sort of “square root” of the Jacobi fields meta  in the sense that composite objects $`𝒫^a(t)`$ defined as

$$𝒫^a(t)\overline{\eta }_\alpha (\gamma ^a)_\beta ^\alpha \overline{\eta }^\beta $$
(7.10)
have the same equations of motion as the Jacobi fields. The details of this derivation are given in Appendix G.

The extended Poisson brackets formalism presented in formulae (7.1)-(7.5) can be given a classical path integral version as explained in details in Ref. meta . The associated generating functional is

$$Z_{\text{MFA}}=𝒟\phi 𝒟\lambda 𝒟\eta 𝒟\overline{\eta }\text{exp}i𝑑t\left[\lambda _a\dot{\phi }^a+i\overline{\eta }_\alpha \dot{\eta }^\alpha \stackrel{~}{}_{\text{MFA}}\right].$$
(7.11)
As we did for the CPI case Gozzi  it is easy to derive the “operatorial” version of this MFA path integral. From the kinetic term in (7.11) one gets the following commutators

$$\{\begin{array}{c}[\widehat{\phi }^a,\widehat{\lambda }_b]=i\delta _b^a\hfill \\ [\widehat{\overline{\eta }}_\beta ,\widehat{\eta }^\alpha ]=\delta _\beta ^\alpha \hfill \end{array}$$
(7.12)
where with $`[(),()]`$ we indicated $`Z_2`$-graded commutators. All other commutators not indicated in (7.12) are zero. In a “Schrödinger-type” representation where $`\widehat{\phi }^a`$ and $`\widehat{\eta }^\alpha `$ are multiplicative operators, the associated momenta operators $`\widehat{\lambda }_a`$, $`\widehat{\overline{\eta }}_\alpha `$ have to be realized as derivative operators in order to satisfy the algebra (7.12)

$`\widehat{\lambda }_a=i{\displaystyle \frac{}{\phi ^a}}`$
$`\widehat{\overline{\eta }}_\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{}{\eta ^\alpha }}.`$ (7.13)
The representation space on which $`\widehat{\phi }^a,\widehat{\eta }^\alpha `$ are represented as multiplicative operators is given by the set of functions

$$𝒳(\phi ,\eta )\underset{p}{}\frac{1}{p!}𝒳_{\alpha _1\alpha _2\mathrm{}\alpha _p}(\phi )\eta ^{\alpha _1}\eta ^{\alpha _2}\mathrm{}\eta ^{\alpha _p}$$
(7.14)
and the metaplectic Hamiltonian (7.2) is turned into the operator

$$\widehat{}_{\text{MFA}}=\stackrel{~}{}_{\text{MFA}}(\widehat{\phi },\widehat{\lambda }=i\frac{}{\phi },\widehat{\eta },\widehat{\overline{\eta }}=\frac{}{\eta }).$$
(7.15)
As explained in Ref. meta  for the metaplectic Hamiltonian there are some ordering ambiguities. From now on, like in Ref. meta , we will choose an “anti-normal” ordering, i.e. the operator $`\widehat{\overline{\eta }}={\displaystyle \frac{}{\eta }}`$ will act always to the right of $`\widehat{\eta }`$.

The next step is to endow the space of functions (7.14) with a scalar product and check if the $`\widehat{}_{\text{MFA}}`$ is Hermitian under it. The scalar product we will choose is the analog of the SvH one introduced in Ref. one  for the CPI case. The analog of the hermiticity conditions for the SvH case were

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\eta ^\alpha =\overline{\eta }_\alpha \hfill \\ \overline{\eta }_\alpha ^{}=\eta ^\alpha \hfill \\ \phi ^a=\phi ^a\hfill \\ \lambda _a^{}=\lambda _a.\hfill \end{array}$$
(7.16)
Along the same lines we have developed in Ref. one , it is easy to show that the scalar product induced by the hermiticity conditions (7.16) among the states (7.14) is

$$\tau |𝒳=\underset{p}{}K(p)\tau ^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _p}(\phi )𝒳_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _p}(\phi ).$$
(7.17)
where $`K(p)`$ is a positive combinatorial factor. One immediately notices that this is a positive definite scalar product. The SvH scalar product is positive definite also in the CPI case one . Let us now check whether the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{}_{\text{MFA}}`$ is Hermitian. In the CPI case one  it is not. Let us first remember that the bosonic part of $`\widehat{}_{\text{MFA}}`$ (7.2), which is the same as in the CPI case, is Hermitian one . So we have to check out only the Fermionic (or Grassmannian) part which is

$$\widehat{}_{\text{MFA}}^{\text{ferm}}=\frac{1}{2}_a_bH\overline{\eta }_x(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{meta}}^{ab})_y^x\eta ^y.$$
(7.18)
We have indicated the indices with $`x,y`$ because, in the metaplectic case, they are a continuous set of indices as explained previously. They label in fact the infinite states of the Hilbert space $`𝒱`$. Second, let us indicate the elements $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{meta}}^{ab})_y^x`$ as $`x|\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{meta}}^{ab}|y`$ and let us remember that they had to be chosen Hermitian in the metaplectic and in any unitary representation

$$(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{meta}}^{ab})^{}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{meta}}^{ab}.$$
(7.19)
This hermiticity of course refers to the indices $`(x,y)`$ and not to $`(a,b)`$. As a consequence of (7.19) we have

$$x|\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{meta}}^{ab}|y^{}=y|\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{meta}}^{ab}|x=y|\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{meta}}^{ab}|x$$
(7.20)
which in normal matrix language means

$$(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{meta}}^{ab})_y^x=(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{meta}}^{ab})_x^y.$$
(7.21)
Let us now check the hermiticity of $`\widehat{}_{\text{MFA}}^{\text{ferm}}`$ written in (7.18):

$`(\widehat{}_{\text{MFA}}^{\text{ferm}})^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_a_bH)\overline{\eta }_x(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{meta}}^{ab})_y^x\eta ^y\right)^{}=`$ (7.22)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_a_bH)\eta ^y(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{meta}}^{ab})_y^x\overline{\eta }_x^{}=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_a_bH)\overline{\eta }_y(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{meta}}^{ab})_x^y\eta ^x=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_a_bH)\overline{\eta }_x(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{meta}}^{ab})_y^x\eta ^y=\widehat{}_{\text{MFA}}^{\text{ferm}}.`$
In the third step above we made use of the SvH hermiticity conditions (7.16) for the $`\eta ^x`$, $`\overline{\eta }_x`$ and of the relation (7.21). So this proves that the full $`\stackrel{~}{}_{\text{MFA}}`$ is Hermitian under the SvH scalar product. This does not happen for the $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ of the CPI Gozzi one . Let us understand why. It was shown in Appendix F that also the usual $`\stackrel{~}{}_{CPI}`$ can be given a form similar to $`\stackrel{~}{}_{\text{MFA}}`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{}_{CPI}=h^a\lambda _a+\frac{1}{2}\overline{c}_eK_{ab}(\phi )(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{vec}}^{ab})_f^ec^f$$
(7.23)
where $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{vec}}^{ab})_f^e`$ is the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ associated to the transformations of vectors under $`\text{Sp}(2N)`$ (see (F4)) and is given by:

$$(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{vec}}^{ab})_f^e=i(\delta _f^a\omega ^{be}+\delta _f^b\omega ^{ae}).$$
(7.24)
It is easy to check that this $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ does not satisfy the analog of the relation (7.18) that means

$$(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{vec}^{ab})_f^e(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{vec}}^{ab})_e^f.$$
(7.25)
This explains why $`\stackrel{~}{}_{CPI}`$ is not Hermitian in the SvH scalar product.

There may be other scalar products in the metaplectic case which are both positive definite and under which $`\stackrel{~}{}_{\text{MFA}}`$ is Hermitian but for the moment we have not initiated any search for them. This search anyhow may be needed in the future as explained in the Conclusions.

## VIII Conclusions and Outlook

In this paper we have analyzed two new operatorial extensions of the Koopman-von Neumann (KvN) approach which, differently from the standard CPI case studied in Ref. one , present both a Hermitian Hamiltonian and a positive definite scalar product. Leaving for a moment aside the metaplectic case (MFA) let us concentrate on the bosonic one (BFA). The reader may prefer this one over the CPI case but there are several drawbacks we want to point out. First of all in the BFA approach the higher tensors and forms had to be built by hand introducing from the outside the operation $``$ of tensor product (5.2), while in the CPI case, because of the Grassmannian nature of the variables $`c`$, the higher tensors and forms were generated automatically as functions on the extended phase space which is the sole ingredient entering the associated path integral. Moreover at the operatorial level in the BFA case we had to build several copies (5.4) of the basic Hilbert space in order to get the higher tensors and forms. As a consequence the associated path integral (5.19) is quite awkward and it does not have a simple interpretation in terms of Dirac deltas on the classical trajectories. More serious than this drawback is another one that we fear may affect the BFA. It concerns the following problem. We have seen in Ref. one  that the non-hermiticity of $`\stackrel{~}{}_{CPI}`$ or the non-positive definiteness of the scalar product were crucial ingredients in order to describe chaotic systems. In fact such ingredients can imply the presence of complex eigenvalues for $`\stackrel{~}{}_{CPI}`$ and this has as a consequence the exponential increase of the Jacobi fields. Nothing like that can happen with the $`\stackrel{~}{}_{BFA}`$ which is Hermitian and with a positive definite scalar product. Does it mean that $`\stackrel{~}{}_{BFA}`$ cannot describe all systems? We feel it will but most probably we will have to further enlarge the Hilbert space of the BFA. People have gone in this direction already with other Hermitian operators. For example the authors of Ref. benatti , in order to get the chaotic behavior out of the analog of the Hermitian KvN operator for zero-forms, enlarged the Hilbert space to a rigged Hilbert space where the operator was no longer Hermitian. This may be the road to pursue also in the BFA case. Before doing that anyhow one should really check whether this further extension to a rigged Hilbert space is needed or if some mathematical subtleties of the BFA allow us to describe also chaotic systems without any further extension. We have not embarked on this study but we have, in this paper, prepared the mathematical ground to do that by analyzing in all details the geometry underlying the BFA. That the CPI instead could describe chaotic systems was not only indicated in Ref. one  by the presence of complex eigenvalues of $`\stackrel{~}{}_{CPI}`$ but it was shown explicitly in Ref. fractals  where an explicit expression of the Lyapunov exponents in terms of the CPI generating functional $`Z_{CPI}[J]`$ was written down.

Let us now turn to the metaplectic case. Why did we study it here? We did first of all to present another example of an extension of the KvN zero-form formalism which has both a Hermitian Hamiltonian and a positive definite scalar product. These mathematical features were not studied in the first presentation meta  of the MFA. Of course for this model, differently than the CPI and the BFA, we do not have in mind applications to chaotic systems or similar things; what we have in mind is the light it may throw on the issue of quantization. It was used in that respect in Ref. reutermeta . There quantization was achieved by first postulating a MFA dynamics for the extended KvN dynamics and next introducing a flat connection on the Hilbert bundle defined in Sec. IV. The main thing we want to understand of that project is why we need to start at the classical level from the MFA dynamics. An answer to this question that we are currently exploring is the following. Maybe the CPI should be considered the right classical dynamics not for the classical wave functions but for the probability densities

$$\rho (\phi ,c)=\rho _0(\phi )+\rho _a(\phi )c^a+\rho _{ab}(\phi )c^ac^b+\mathrm{}$$
(8.1)
which are only integrable (i.e. belonging to $`L^1`$) and not square integrable functions. Then to get the “classical wave functions” we should do a sort of “square root” of the $`\rho `$ in (8.1). May it be that these “square roots” are the MFA wave functions?

$$\psi (\phi ,\eta )=\underset{p}{}\frac{1}{p!}\psi _{a_1\mathrm{}\alpha _p}(\phi )\eta ^{\alpha _1}\eta ^{\alpha _2}\mathrm{}\eta ^{\alpha _p}$$
(8.2)
If so this would explain why we need the MFA evolution at the classical level. The reason we have this suspect is because the $`\eta `$ are something like the “square roots” (7.10) of the $`c`$:

$$c^a=\overline{\eta }_\alpha (\gamma ^a)_\beta ^\alpha \overline{\eta }^\beta .$$
(8.3)
What we actually need in the MFA is a new scalar product such that

$${}_{\phi }{}^{}\psi |\eta \eta |\psi _\phi =\rho (\phi ,\overline{\eta }\gamma \eta )=\rho (\phi ,c).$$
(8.4)
That means that we would like that the $`\eta ,\overline{\eta }`$ on the LHS of (8.4) get combined by this scalar product into those combinations $`\overline{\eta }\gamma ^a\eta `$ which are basically the $`c^a`$. We want that they combine in this way because the classical probability densities in (8.1) contain the forms $`c`$ and not $`\eta `$ or $`\overline{\eta }`$. The scalar product (8.4) is not the SvH one that we explored in Sec. V for the MFA. In fact the SvH scalar product of the MFA does not pull in the $`\gamma `$ matrices which instead are necessary in (8.4) to get the combination $`\overline{\eta }\gamma \eta `$ inside the $`\rho `$. So far we have not succeeded in building the scalar product (8.4) but in order to get some practice we have asked ourselves how, from the various components of the $`\psi `$ appearing in (8.2), we can build objects which at least have the same indices and transformation properties as the various components of $`\rho `$ appearing in (8.1). One solution we found (see Appendix H) is the following one:

$$\rho _{\underset{p}{\underset{}{ab\mathrm{}d}}}(\phi )=\text{Tr}\left[|\psi ^{\left(p\right)}\psi ^{\left(p\right)}|\gamma _{[a}\gamma _b\mathrm{}\gamma _{d]}\right]$$
(8.5)
where with $`|\psi ^{\left(p\right)}`$ we indicate the components of the states (7.14) with $`p`$ indices while with $``$ we indicate the tensor product among the Hilbert spaces like in (6.29). The first thing to notice in (8.5) is that if we transform $`|\psi ^{\left(p\right)}`$ according to the metaplectic transformations then the resulting $`\rho _{ab\mathrm{}d}`$ turns out to transform according to the symplectic one.

Second, let us notice that $`|\psi ^{\left(p\right)}`$ has, in the metaplectic case, components $`\psi _{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _p}`$ whose number of indices can run from zero to $`\mathrm{}`$, while $`\rho `$ can have only at most $`N`$ indices. This means we have much more information stored in the $`|\psi `$ that what is needed to build the $`\rho `$. What does this mean?

Third, let us remember that while (8.5) produces a $`\rho `$ out of a $`\psi `$, it is not clear whether the inverse procedure is true and unique. That means whether, given a $`\rho `$ with all its components, it is possible to find a $`|\psi `$ such that (8.5) or (8.4) is satisfied.

This is the project we are currently working and this explains why it is crucial for this project to analyze the various scalar products associated to the MFA dynamics.

###### Acknowledgements.

We wish to thank M. Reuter for many useful discussions. The work of E.D. has been supported by an INFN Postdoctoral Fellowship at MIT. He wishes to thank the members of the Center for Theoretical Physics at MIT for hospitality. The work of E.G. and D.M. has been supported in part by funds from INFN, MIUR and the University of Trieste. The research contained in this paper and in one  has been re-triggered by the appearance of Ref. Marnelius . We wish to thank R. Marnelius for some useful e-mail messages.

## Appendix A

In this Appendix we give a proof of (2.4). Even if quite formal, we hope it will convince the reader of the correctness of Eq. (2.4). The determinants in (2.4) are functional determinants that means:

$`\text{det}\left[\delta _l^a_t\omega ^{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{^2H}{\phi ^b\phi ^l}}\right]`$ $``$ $`\text{det}\left[\delta _l^a_t\delta (tt^{})\delta (tt^{})\omega ^{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{^2H}{\phi ^b\phi ^l}}\right]=`$ (A1)
$`=`$ $`\{\text{det}_t\}\left\{\text{det}\left[\delta _l^a\delta (tt^{})\theta (tt^{})\omega ^{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{^2H}{\phi ^b\phi ^l}}\right]\right\}.`$
The proof of (2.4) is equivalent to the statement that the determinant of the product of the two matrices entering respectively the RHS and LHS of (2.4) is one. To prove that, let us use the form of the matrix written in the second line of (A1) and let us drop the factor $`(\text{det}_t)`$ which is constant (independent of $`\phi `$). What we get, as determinant of the product of the two matrices, is:

$`\text{det}\left\{{\displaystyle 𝑑t^{}\left[\delta _b^a\delta (tt^{})\theta (tt^{})\omega ^{al}\frac{^2H}{\phi ^l\phi ^b}\right]\left[\delta _c^b\delta (t^{}t^{\prime \prime })+\theta (t^{}t^{\prime \prime })\omega ^{bk}\frac{^2H}{\phi ^k\phi ^c}\right]}\right\}=`$
$`=\text{det}\left\{\delta _c^a\delta (tt^{\prime \prime }){\displaystyle 𝑑t^{}\theta (tt^{})\theta (t^{}t^{\prime \prime })\omega ^{al}\frac{^2H}{\phi ^l\phi ^b}\omega ^{bk}\frac{^2H}{\phi ^k\phi ^c}}\right\}`$ (A2)
$`\text{exp}\left({\displaystyle 𝑑t^{}\theta (tt^{})\theta (t^{}t)\omega ^{al}\frac{^2H}{\phi ^l\phi ^b}\omega ^{bk}\frac{^2H}{\phi ^k\phi ^a}}\right)=1.`$ (A3)
In (A3) we have used the “exp-tr” form for the determinant and the fact that the product of the two $`\theta ()`$ present in (A3) gives zero. In (A1) and (A2) we have used the $`\theta (tt^{})`$ as “inverse” (or Green function) of the operator $`_t`$. The function $`\theta (tt^{})`$ is actually the retarded or causal Green function. If we had used other Green functions, like for example $`ϵ(t^{}t)`$, we would not have obtained the result (A3). The reason to use “causal” boundary conditions is because, after all, the determinants above are related to the standard Hamilton equations of motion and these are usually solved by giving a value of $`\phi `$ at the initial time $`t=0`$ and by determining the evolution at later times using a causal propagator.

If the reader is not convinced by our formal proof presented in (A3), we will now present a new one. It is actually well known nakazato  that all the functional determinants of the form

$$\text{det}[_t\delta (tt^{})\delta (tt^{})G^{}(\phi )]$$
(A4)
depend on the boundary conditions under which we solve the associated differential equation

$$[_tG^{}(\phi )]c_n(t)=\sigma _nc_n(t)$$
(A5)
whose eigenvalues $`\sigma _n`$ are needed to calculate the determinant in some regularized form:

$$\text{det}[()]=\left\{\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{n=\mathrm{}}{}}\sigma _n\right\}_{\text{regul}}.$$
(A6)
Solving Eq. (A5) with causal boundary conditions, one obtains nakazato  from (A6)

$$\text{det}[_t\delta (tt^{})\delta (tt^{})G^{}(\phi )]_{\text{causal}}=\text{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}𝑑t^{}G^{}\left(\phi (t^{})\right)\right).$$
(A7)
By changing in (A7) the sign of $`G^{}(\phi )`$, one gets

$$\text{det}[_t\delta (tt^{})+\delta (tt^{})G^{}(\phi )]_{\text{causal}}=\text{exp}\left(+\frac{1}{2}𝑑t^{}G^{}\left(\phi (t^{})\right)\right).$$
(A8)
By comparing the RHS of (A7) and (A8) one sees that the two determinants on the LHS are one the inverse of the other. This proves relation (A3) provided we specify that the functional determinant be evaluated with causal boundary conditions. $`G^{}(\phi )`$ is in our case $`\omega ^{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{^2H}{\phi ^b\phi ^l}}`$, which means is a matrix but the same formulas like (A7) and (A8) hold also for matrices.

The reader may wonder what happens if one uses, for example, periodic boundary conditions and a time-symmetric Green function. This has been analyzed in full details in Ref. reuter  and the result is that, if that determinant is inserted in (2.3), the associated generating functional gives non-zero expectation values only to those observables which are independent of deformations of $`H`$ and of its symplectic form $`\omega _{ab}`$. This means a path integral which does not feel anymore the form of $`H`$. This is something similar to a topological field theory but that is not what we want here.

## Appendix B

In this Appendix we will prove the relation (4.14). Using the basic commutators (3.1) we get

$`[i\widehat{}_{H_1},i\widehat{}_{H_2}]=[\lambda _a\omega ^{ab}_bH_1\pi ^a\omega ^{bc}_c_aH_1\xi _b,\lambda _d\omega ^{de}_eH_2\pi ^d\omega ^{ef}_f_dH_2\xi _e]=`$
$`=i\lambda _a\omega ^{ab}_b_dH_1\omega ^{de}_eH_2+i\lambda _d\omega ^{de}_a_eH_2\omega ^{ab}_bH_1i\omega ^{ab}_bH_1\pi ^d\omega ^{ef}_a_f_dH_2\xi _e`$
$`+i\pi ^a\omega ^{bc}_c_d_aH_1\xi _b\omega ^{de}_eH_2i\pi ^a\omega ^{bc}_c_aH_1\omega ^{ef}_f_bH_2\xi _e+i\pi ^d\omega ^{ef}_f_dH_2\omega ^{bc}_c_eH_1\xi _b=`$
$`=i\lambda _a\omega ^{ab}_b_dH_1\omega ^{de}_eH_2i\lambda _a\omega ^{ab}_b_eH_2\omega ^{de}_dH_1+i\pi ^d\omega ^{ef}_f_d_aH_2_bH_1\omega ^{ba}\xi _e`$
$`+i\pi ^a\omega ^{bc}_c_a_dH_1\omega ^{de}_eH_2\xi _b+i\pi ^a\omega ^{ef}_a_cH_1\omega ^{cb}_b_fH_2\xi _e+i\pi ^d\omega ^{bc}_c_eH_1\omega ^{ef}_f_dH_2\xi _b=`$
$`=i[\lambda _a\omega ^{ab}_b(_dH_1\omega ^{de}_eH_2)\pi ^d\omega ^{ef}_f_d(_bH_1\omega ^{ba}_aH_2)\xi _e]=i\widehat{}_{\{H_1,H_2\}}.`$ (B1)
## Appendix C

$``$ Derivation of (4.21).

In this derivation and in the following we will basically use only the commutation relations (3.1) and the fact that $`\omega ^{ab}`$ is antisymmetric in $`(a,b)`$.

$`[Q_g^{\left(B\right)},\widehat{}]`$ $`=`$ $`[i\pi ^a\xi _a,\lambda _b\omega ^{be}_eH\pi ^e\omega ^{db}_b_eH\xi _d]=`$ (C1)
$`=`$ $`[i\pi ^a\xi _a,\pi ^e\omega ^{db}_b_eH\xi _d]=`$
$`=`$ $`\pi ^e\omega ^{db}_b_eH\xi _d\pi ^e\omega ^{db}_b_eH\xi _a\delta _d^a=`$
$`=`$ $`0`$
$`[N^{\left(B\right)},\widehat{}]`$ $`=`$ $`[\pi ^a_aH,\lambda _b\omega ^{be}_eH\pi ^e\omega ^{ab}_b_eH\xi _a]`$ (C2)
$`=`$ $`i\pi ^a_a_bH\omega ^{be}_eH+i\pi ^e\omega ^{ab}_b_eH_aH=`$
$`=`$ $`i\pi ^a_a_bH\omega ^{be}_eH+i\pi ^a\omega ^{eb}_b_aH_eH=`$
$`=`$ $`0`$
$`[\overline{N}^{\left(B\right)},\widehat{}]`$ $`=`$ $`[\xi _d\omega ^{de}_eH,\lambda _b\omega ^{bc}_cH\pi ^l\omega ^{ab}_b_lH\xi _a]=`$ (C3)
$`=`$ $`i\xi _d\omega ^{de}_b_eH\omega ^{bc}_cHi\omega ^{le}_eH\omega ^{ab}_b_lH\xi _a=`$
$`=`$ $`i\xi _d\omega ^{de}_b_eH\omega ^{bl}_lHi\omega ^{bl}_lH\omega ^{de}_e_bH\xi _d=`$
$`=`$ $`0`$
$``$ Derivation of (4.23).

$`[\overline{Q}^{\left(B\right)},\widehat{}]`$ $`=`$ $`[i\xi _a\omega ^{ab}\lambda _b,\lambda _i\omega ^{ij}_jH\pi ^l\omega ^{st}(_t_lH)\xi _s]=`$ (C4)
$`=`$ $`i\xi _a\omega ^{ab}[\lambda _b,\lambda _i\omega ^{ij}_jH\pi ^l\omega ^{st}(_t_lH)\xi _s]+i[\xi _a,\pi ^l\omega ^{st}(_t_lH)\xi _s]\omega ^{ab}\lambda _b=`$
$`=`$ $`\xi _a\omega ^{ab}\lambda _i\omega ^{ij}(_b_jH)\xi _a\omega ^{ab}\xi _s\omega ^{st}(_b_t_lH)\pi ^l+\omega ^{st}(_t_lH)\xi _s\omega ^{lb}\lambda _b=`$
$`=`$ $`\xi _a\omega ^{ab}\xi _s\omega ^{st}(_b_t_lH)\pi ^l.`$
The derivation of (4.22) is as straightforward as the previous one and we will leave it to the reader.

$``$ Derivation of (4.31).

$`[Q_H^{\left(B\right)},\overline{Q}_H^{\left(B\right)}]`$ $`=`$ $`[i\pi ^a\lambda _a\pi ^a_aH,i\xi _i\omega ^{ij}\lambda _j+\xi _d\omega ^{de}_eH]=`$ (C5)
$`=`$ $`i\lambda _a[\pi ^a,i\xi _i\omega ^{ij}\lambda _j]+i\pi ^a[\lambda _a,\xi _d\omega ^{de}_eH]+i[\pi ^a,\xi _d\omega ^{de}_eH]\lambda _a`$
$`\pi ^a[_aH,i\xi _i\omega ^{ij}\lambda _j][\pi ^a,i\xi _i\omega ^{ij}\lambda _j]_aH[\pi ^a,\xi _d\omega ^{de}_eH]_aH=`$
$`=`$ $`2\lambda _d\omega ^{de}_eH+2\pi ^a\omega ^{de}_e_aH\xi _d=`$
$`=`$ $`2\widehat{}_{BFA}+\{4\pi ^a\omega ^{dc}_c_aH\xi _d\}.`$
$``$ Derivation of (4.34).

$`\delta _{Q_1^{(B)}}\phi ^a`$ $`=`$ $`[ϵQϵ\overline{N},\phi ^a]=[ϵi\pi ^b\lambda _bϵ\xi _b\omega ^{bc}_cH,\phi ^a]=`$ (C6)
$`=`$ $`ϵ\pi ^a`$
$`\delta _{Q_1^{(B)}}\xi _a`$ $`=`$ $`[ϵQϵ\overline{N},\xi _a]=[ϵi\pi ^b\lambda _bϵ\xi _b\omega ^{bc}_cH,\xi _a]=`$ (C7)
$`=`$ $`ϵ\lambda _a`$
$`\delta _{Q_1^{(B)}}\pi ^a`$ $`=`$ $`[ϵ\xi _b\omega ^{bc}_cH,\pi ^a]=iϵ\omega ^{ac}_cH`$ (C8)
$`\delta _{Q_1^{(B)}}\lambda _a`$ $`=`$ $`[ϵ\xi _b\omega ^{bc}_cH,\lambda _a]=iϵ\xi _b\omega ^{bc}_c_aH.`$ (C9)
## Appendix D

In this Appendix we prove some formulae contained in Sec. V.

$``$ Derivation of (5.9).

$`[i\widehat{},\widehat{F}]`$ $`=`$ $`[i\lambda _a\omega ^{ab}_bH\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(1\right)}\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(2\right)}i\omega ^{be}_e_aH(\pi _{\left(1\right)}^a\xi _b^{\left(1\right)}\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(2\right)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(1\right)}\pi _{\left(2\right)}^a\xi _b^{\left(2\right)}),`$ (D1)
$`F_{de}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi _{\left(1\right)}^d}{2}}\pi _{\left(2\right)}^eF_{de}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi _{\left(1\right)}^e}{2}}\pi _{\left(2\right)}^d]=`$
$`=`$ $`[i\lambda _a\omega ^{ab}_bH,F_{de}]{\displaystyle \frac{\pi _{\left(1\right)}^d}{2}}\pi _{\left(2\right)}^e[i\lambda _a\omega ^{ab}_bH,F_{de}]{\displaystyle \frac{\pi _{\left(1\right)}^e}{2}}\pi _{\left(2\right)}^d`$
$`i\omega ^{bc}_c_aHF_{de}[\pi _{\left(1\right)}^a\xi _b^{\left(1\right)},{\displaystyle \frac{\pi _{\left(1\right)}^d}{2}}]\pi _{\left(2\right)}^e+i\omega ^{bc}_c_aHF_{de}[\pi _{\left(1\right)}^a\xi _b^{\left(1\right)},{\displaystyle \frac{\pi _{\left(1\right)}^e}{2}}]\pi _{\left(2\right)}^d`$
$`i\omega ^{bc}_c_aHF_{de}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi _{\left(1\right)}^d}{2}}[\pi _{\left(2\right)}^a\xi _b^{\left(2\right)},\pi _{\left(2\right)}^e]+i\omega ^{bc}_c_aHF_{de}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi _{\left(1\right)}^e}{2}}[\pi _{\left(2\right)}^a\xi _b^{\left(2\right)},\pi _{\left(2\right)}^d]=`$
$`=`$ $`\omega ^{ab}_bH_aF_{de}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\pi _{\left(1\right)}^d\pi _{\left(2\right)}^e\pi _{\left(1\right)}^e\pi _{\left(2\right)}^d)\right]`$
$`+\omega ^{dc}_c_aHF_{de}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pi _{\left(1\right)}^a\pi _{\left(2\right)}^e\omega ^{ec}_c_aHF_{de}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pi _{\left(1\right)}^a\pi _{\left(2\right)}^d`$
$`+\omega ^{ec}_c_aHF_{de}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pi _{\left(1\right)}^d\pi _{\left(2\right)}^a\omega ^{dc}_c_aHF_{de}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pi _{\left(1\right)}^e\pi _{\left(2\right)}^a=`$
$`=`$ $`\omega ^{ab}[_bH_aF_{de}+_b_dHF_{ae}+_b_eHF_{da}]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\pi _{\left(1\right)}^d\pi _{\left(2\right)}^e\pi _{\left(1\right)}^e\pi _{\left(2\right)}^d).`$
$``$ Derivation of (5.12).

$`[i\widehat{},\widehat{C}]`$ $`=`$ $`[i\lambda _a\omega ^{ab}_bH\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(1\right)}\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(2\right)}i\omega ^{be}_e_aH\pi _{\left(1\right)}^a\xi _b^{\left(1\right)}\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(2\right)}`$ (D2)
$`i\omega ^{be}_e_aH\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(1\right)}\pi _{\left(2\right)}^a\xi _b^{\left(2\right)},C_d\pi _{\left(1\right)}^d\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(2\right)}+C_d\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(1\right)}\pi _{\left(2\right)}^d]=`$
$`=`$ $`[i\lambda _a\omega ^{ab}_bH,C_d]\pi _{\left(1\right)}^d\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(2\right)}+[i\lambda _a\omega ^{ab}_bH,C_d]\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(1\right)}\pi _{\left(2\right)}^d`$
$`i\omega ^{be}_e_aHC_d[\pi _{\left(1\right)}^a\xi _b^{\left(1\right)},\pi _{\left(1\right)}^d]\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(2\right)}i\omega ^{be}_e_aHC_d\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(1\right)}[\pi _{\left(2\right)}^a\xi _b^{\left(2\right)},\pi _{\left(2\right)}^d]=`$
$`=`$ $`_aC_d\omega ^{ab}_bH\pi _{\left(1\right)}^d\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(2\right)}+_aC_d\omega ^{ab}_bH\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(1\right)}\pi _{\left(2\right)}^d`$
$`+\omega ^{ae}_e_dHC_a\pi _{\left(1\right)}^d\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(2\right)}+\omega ^{ae}_e_dHC_a\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(1\right)}\pi _{\left(2\right)}^d=`$
$`=`$ $`(_aC_d\omega ^{ab}_bH+\omega ^{ae}_e_dHC_a)[\pi _{\left(1\right)}^d\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(2\right)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{\left(1\right)}\pi _{\left(2\right)}^d].`$
$``$ Derivation of (5.16).

What we want to do now is to convince the reader that, via the representation (5.13) for the Lie derivative $`\widehat{}`$ and with the representation (5.15) for a generic $`m`$-form $`\widehat{P}`$, the commutator of $`i\widehat{}`$ with $`\widehat{P}`$ gives just the action of the Lie derivative on $`\widehat{P}`$. First of all let us consider the following object

$$\widehat{P}=\frac{1}{m!}P_{a_1\mathrm{}a_m}(\phi )𝐀\{\pi _{\left(1\right)}^{a_1}\pi _{\left(2\right)}^{a_2}\mathrm{}\pi _{\left(m\right)}^{a_m}\}\mathrm{𝟏}^{(2nm)},$$
(D3)
where we have put all the operators $`\pi `$ in the first $`m`$ positions and antisymmetrized them by means of $`𝐀`$. Let us calculate the commutator of $`i\widehat{}`$ with $`\widehat{P}`$:

$`[i\widehat{},\widehat{P}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m!}}[i\lambda _a\omega ^{ab}_bH,P_{a_1\mathrm{}a_m}]𝐀\{\pi _{\left(1\right)}^{a_1}\pi _{\left(2\right)}^{a_2}\mathrm{}\pi _{\left(m\right)}^{a_m}\}\mathrm{𝟏}^{(2nm)}`$ (D4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{m!}}P_{a_1\mathrm{}a_m}\omega ^{be}_e_aH𝐀\{[\pi _{\left(1\right)}^a\xi _b^{\left(1\right)},\pi _{\left(1\right)}^{a_1}]\mathrm{}\pi _{\left(m\right)}^{a_m}\}\mathrm{𝟏}^{(2nm)}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{m!}}P_{a_1\mathrm{}a_m}\omega ^{be}_e_aH𝐀\{\pi _{\left(1\right)}^{a_1}[\pi _{\left(2\right)}^a\xi _b^{\left(2\right)},\pi _{\left(2\right)}^{a_2}]\mathrm{}\pi _{\left(m\right)}^{a_m}\}\mathrm{𝟏}^{(2nm)}\mathrm{}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{m!}}P_{a_1\mathrm{}a_m}\omega ^{be}_e_aH𝐀\{\pi _{\left(1\right)}^{a_1}\mathrm{}\pi _{\left(m1\right)}^{a_{m1}}[\pi _{\left(m\right)}^a\xi _b^{\left(m\right)},\pi _{\left(m\right)}^{a_m}]\}\mathrm{𝟏}^{(2nm)}=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m!}}\omega ^{ab}_bH_aP_{a_1\mathrm{}a_m}𝐀\{\pi _{\left(1\right)}^{a_1}\pi _{\left(2\right)}^{a_2}\mathrm{}\pi _{\left(m\right)}^{a_m}\}\mathrm{𝟏}^{(2nm)}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m!}}\omega ^{a_1e}P_{a_1\mathrm{}a_m}_e_aH𝐀\{\pi _{\left(1\right)}^a\pi _{\left(2\right)}^{a_2}\mathrm{}\pi _{\left(m\right)}^{a_m}\}\mathrm{𝟏}^{(2nm)}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m!}}\omega ^{a_2e}P_{a_1\mathrm{}a_m}_e_aH𝐀\{\pi _{\left(1\right)}^{a_1}\pi _{\left(2\right)}^a\mathrm{}\pi _{\left(m\right)}^{a_m}\}\mathrm{𝟏}^{(2nm)}+\mathrm{}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m!}}\omega ^{a_me}P_{a_1\mathrm{}a_m}_e_aH𝐀\{\pi _{\left(1\right)}^{a_1}\pi _{\left(2\right)}^{a_2}\mathrm{}\pi _{\left(m\right)}^a\}\mathrm{𝟏}^{(2nm)}.`$
If we now relabel the indices, we easily obtain:

$`[i\widehat{},\widehat{P}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m!}}\left[\omega ^{ab}_bH_aP_{a_1\mathrm{}a_m}+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}P_{a_1\mathrm{}\lambda \mathrm{}a_m}\omega ^{\lambda e}_e_{a_i}H\right]`$ (D5)
$`𝐀\{\pi _{\left(1\right)}^{a_1}\pi _{\left(2\right)}^{a_2}\mathrm{}\pi _{\left(m\right)}^{a_m}\}\mathrm{𝟏}^{(2nm)}`$
and this is just the way how an $`m`$-form transforms under the action of the Lie derivative Nakahara :

$$_{(dH)^{\mathrm{}}}P_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_m}=\omega ^{ab}_bH_aP_{a_1\mathrm{}a_m}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}P_{a_1\mathrm{}\lambda \mathrm{}a_m}\omega ^{\lambda e}_e_{a_i}H.$$
(D6)
The result (D5) cannot depend on the position in which we place the operators $`\pi `$ inside the string of the $`2n`$ Hilbert spaces. Therefore, even if we symmetrize in all the possible ways the operators $`\pi `$ and the identity operators $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ constructing in this way the $`m`$-form given by Eq. (5.15), we would obtain that the commutator of $`i\widehat{}`$ with $`\widehat{P}`$ reproduces the correct action of the Lie derivative on the $`m`$-form given by Eq. (D6).

## Appendix E

In this Appendix we want to prove explicitly that the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{}`$ of Eq. (5.13) is Hermitian under the scalar product (5.18). This scalar product

$$\psi _1|\psi _2d^{2n}\phi ^a\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n}{}}d^{2n}\pi _{\left(i\right)}^a\psi _1^{}\psi _2$$
(E1)
is formally identical to the usual scalar product of quantum mechanics. Therefore, like $`q^i`$ and $`p_i`$ in the usual quantum mechanics, also the operators $`\phi ^a`$, $`\lambda _a`$, $`\pi _{\left(i\right)}^a`$ and $`\xi _a^{\left(i\right)}`$ are Hermitian under the scalar product (5.18). What we want to prove now is the hermiticity of the Hamiltonian (5.13) and it goes as follows:

$`\widehat{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda _a\omega ^{ab}_bH)^{}\mathrm{𝟏}^{2n}\omega ^{be}(_e_aH)^{}𝐒[(\pi ^a\xi _b)^{}\mathrm{𝟏}^{(2n1)}]=`$ (E2)
$`=`$ $`_bH\omega ^{ab}\lambda _a\mathrm{𝟏}^{2n}\omega ^{be}_e_aH𝐒[\xi _b\pi ^a\mathrm{𝟏}^{(2n1)}]=`$
$`=`$ $`(\lambda _a\omega ^{ab}_bH+i_a_bH\omega ^{ab})\mathrm{𝟏}^{2n}\omega ^{be}_e_aH𝐒[(\pi ^a\xi _b+i\delta _b^a)\mathrm{𝟏}^{(2n1)}]=`$
$`=`$ $`\lambda _a\omega ^{ab}_bH\mathrm{𝟏}^{2n}\omega ^{be}_e_aH𝐒[\pi ^a\xi _b\mathrm{𝟏}^{(2n1)}]=`$
$`=`$ $`\widehat{}`$
where we used the commutation relations $`[\lambda _a,_bH]=i_a_bH`$, $`[\xi _a,\pi ^l]=i\delta _a^l`$ and the fact that $`_a_bH\omega ^{ab}=0`$.

## Appendix F

In this Appendix we want to show that the expression (6.2) of the Lie derivative leads to the standard transformations (4.8)-(4.10) for vectors and forms via a proper choice of the generators $`G_b^a`$. Let us use the expression (6.7) instead of (6.2) and let us make it act on vectors with components $`V^e`$:

$$_hV^e=h^f_fV^e+\frac{i}{2}K_{ab}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{vec}}^{ab})_f^eV^f.$$
(F1)
We have put the indication “vec” on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ab}`$ to indicate that we have to choose the vector representation of the operator $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{ab}`$. The indices $`e`$ and $`f`$ are matrix indices while $`(a,b)`$ are group (or algebra) indices. We know how a vector is transformed under a Lie derivative (see Eq. 4.8)

$$_hV^e=h^f_fV^e_fh^eV^f$$
(F2)
and comparing (F1) and (F2) we get that

$$(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{vec}}^{ab})_f^e=i(\delta _f^a\omega ^{be}+\delta _f^b\omega ^{ae}).$$
(F3)
Let us now see what we get by inserting this expression in the operator $`S`$ of (6.8) which gives us the infinitesimal $`\text{Sp}(2N)`$ transformation in the tangent space. The result is

$$S_f^e=\left(1\frac{i}{2}K_{ab}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{vec}}^{ab}\right)_f^e=\delta _f^e+\omega ^{ea}K_{af}$$
(F4)
and this is exactly littlejohn  the expression for the infinitesimal $`\text{Sp}(2N)`$ transformation for vectors. The same kind of steps can be done for forms and in that case Eq. (F1) is replaced by

$$_h\alpha _f=h^a_a\alpha _f+\frac{i}{2}K_{ab}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{form}}^{ab})_f^e\alpha _e$$
(F5)
where $`\alpha _f`$ are the coefficients of forms. This equation must be equal to the standard action of the Lie derivative on forms which is

$$_h\alpha _f=h^a_a\alpha _f+_fh^e\alpha _e$$
(F6)
and comparing (F5) with (F6) we get

$$(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{form}}^{ab})_f^e=i(\delta _f^a\omega ^{be}+\delta _f^b\omega ^{ae}).$$
(F7)
From this $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{form}}^{ab})`$ we can easily get the matrix $`S_f^e`$ which is

$$S_f^e=\delta _f^e\omega ^{ea}K_{af}$$
(F8)
and this is exactly littlejohn  the expression for the infinitesimal $`\text{Sp}(2N)`$ transformation for forms. The reader may be puzzled by the fact that in all this Appendix no Greek $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ indices have appeared to indicate the representation but only Latin indices. The reason is that the vector and form representation have the same dimension as the space or the algebra of the group and so the $`\alpha `$-indices are as many as the $`a`$-indices and we have indicated them with the same notation. This will not be the case for other representations.

## Appendix G

In this Appendix we shall show that the composite object defined in (7.10) has the same equation of motion as the Jacobi fields (7.9). Suppressing, when it is not necessary, the indices $`x`$ and $`y`$ and using the equations of motion for $`\eta ^x`$ and $`\overline{\eta }_y`$, let us do the time derivative of the LHS and the RHS of Eq. (7.10)

$`_t𝒫^d`$ $`=`$ $`(_t\overline{\eta })\gamma ^d\eta +\overline{\eta }\gamma ^d(_t\eta )=`$ (G1)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}_a_bH\overline{\eta }_y(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{meta}}^{ab})_x^y(\gamma ^d)_z^x\eta ^z{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\overline{\eta }_x(\gamma ^d)_z^x_a_bH(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{meta}}^{ab})_y^z\eta ^y=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}_a_bH\left\{\overline{\eta }_x\left[(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{meta}}^{ab})_z^x(\gamma ^d)_y^z(\gamma ^d)_z^x(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{meta}}^{ab})_y^z\right]\eta ^y\right\}.`$
The expression inside the square bracket on the RHS is the commutator of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{meta}}`$ and $`\gamma `$ that can be worked out using the expression (6.14) of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{meta}}`$ and the commutators (6.10) among the $`\gamma ^a`$. The result is

$$[\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\text{meta}}^{ab},\gamma ^d]_y^x=i[\omega ^{ad}\gamma ^b+\omega ^{bd}\gamma ^a]_y^x.$$
(G2)
Inserting (G2) in (G1) we get

$$_t𝒫^d=\frac{1}{2}_a_bH\left[\overline{\eta }_x(\omega ^{ad}\gamma ^b+\omega ^{bd}\gamma ^a)_y^x\eta ^y\right].$$
(G3)
On the RHS of this expression we can easily recognize combinations of $`\overline{\eta },\gamma ,\eta `$ which reproduce expression (7.10) so (G3) can be rewritten as

$`_t𝒫^d`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_a_bH[\omega ^{ad}𝒫^b+\omega ^{bd}𝒫^a]=`$ (G4)
$`=`$ $`\omega ^{da}_a_bH𝒫^b`$
$`=`$ $`_bh^d𝒫^b`$
and this is exactly the equation of motion (7.9) of the Jacobi fields, so $`𝒫^a=\delta \phi ^a`$.

## Appendix H

In this Appendix we shall show that in the expression (8.5), if we transform the $`|\psi ^{\left(p\right)}`$ according to the metaplectic representation, then the $`\rho `$ will turn out to get transformed according the symplectic one. Let us limit ourselves to the two-form

$$\rho _{ab}=\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}\left[|\psi ^{\left(2\right)}\psi ^{\left(2\right)}|(\gamma _a\gamma _b\gamma _b\gamma _a)\right]$$
(H1)
in components it means

$$\rho _{ab}=\frac{1}{2}\psi _{\left(2\right)}^{xy}\psi _{zw}^{\left(2\right)}(\gamma _a)_x^z(\gamma _b)_y^w\frac{1}{2}(ab).$$
(H2)
Transforming the $`\psi ^{xy}`$ according to the metaplectic representation (6.13) and making use of (6.12) we get

$`\rho _{ab}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{\left(2\right)}^{xy}\psi _{zw}^{\left(2\right)}(\gamma _a)_x^z(\gamma _b)_y^w{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(ab)=`$ (H3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_t^xM_s^y\psi _{\left(2\right)}^{ts}\psi _{uv}^{\left(2\right)}M_z^uM_w^v(\gamma _a)_x^z(\gamma _b)_y^w{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(ab)=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{\left(2\right)}^{ts}\psi _{uv}^{\left(2\right)}M_z^uM_w^v(\gamma _a)_x^z(\gamma _b)_y^wM_t^xM_s^y{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(ab)=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{\left(2\right)}^{ts}\psi _{uv}^{\left(2\right)}(\gamma _d)_t^uS_a^d(\gamma _f)_s^vS_b^f{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(ab)=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho _{df}S_a^dS_b^f{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho _{df}S_b^dS_a^f=`$
$`=`$ $`\rho _{df}S_a^dS_b^f.`$
This proves that $`\rho _{ab}`$ transforms according to the symplectic representation of forms.