format: text

text:
# The irreducible unitary representations of the extended Poincaré group in (1+1) dimensions

## I Introduction

Much of the interest in the extended Poincaré group in (1+1) dimensions $`\overline{𝒫}`$ stems from the fact that the Callan–Giddings–Harvey–Strominger (CGHS) model of two-dimensional dilatonic gravity 1 may be formulated as a gauge theory 2 of $`\overline{𝒫}`$. The “string-inspired” CGHS theory is particularly interesting because it generates an exactly solvable model of quantum gravity, which allows the investigation of several aspects of quantum black hole physics. 3, 4 An outstanding problem in this context is the coupling of matter sources in an extended Poincaré gauge-invariant fashion. 5, 6, 7

The main purpose of this paper is to prove that $`\overline{𝒫}`$ is solvable exponential, so that the Bernat–Pukanszky theory of exponential groups 8, 9 can be strictly applied to work out all its unitary irreducible representations (irrep’s). Some of these irrep’s were presented in Gadella et al. 10 but, although it was mentioned 11 that these irrep’s were calculated by the Mackey theory and the orbit method, it was not shown that $`\overline{𝒫}`$ has a regular semidirect product structure, nor that $`\overline{𝒫}`$ is solvable exponential. These authors adopt the same point of view as that of Cariñena et al., 12 which should be contrasted with ours.

Our approach to the two-dimensional relativistic elementary systems is similar to that which was adopted by Azcárraga and Izquierdo 13 with respect to a nonrelativistic particle of unit charge in a constant magnetic field. Indeed, we show in this paper that the coadjoint orbit corresponding to the anomaly-free relativistic particle in (1+1) dimensions determines a covariant maximal polynomial quantization for it, which provides a physical interpretation for the associated class of irrep’s of $`\overline{𝒫}`$.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we show that $`\overline{𝒫}`$ is solvable exponential and calculate its first and second cohomology groups. In Sec. III, we determine the coadjoint orbits of $`\overline{𝒫}`$ in order to classify the two-dimensional relativistic elementary systems and to work out explicitly all the irrep’s of $`\overline{𝒫}`$. In Sec. IV, we provide a physical interpretation for a particular class of irrep’s of $`\overline{𝒫}`$ through a covariant maximal polynomial quantization of the anomaly-free relativistic particle in (1+1) dimensions. Finally, in Sec. V we draw our conclusions and discuss further possible developments. We sketch the method of orbits in the Appendix, in order to provide some supplementary material for the understanding of Sec. III.

## II The Extended Poincaré Group in (1+1) dimensions $`\overline{𝒫}`$

The extended Poincaré algebra $`\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1`$ is defined by means of an unconventional contraction of a pseudoextension 13 of the anti-de Sitter algebra so(2,1) as

$$[P_a,J]=\sqrt{h}\epsilon _a^\mathtt{}bP_b\text{,}[P_a,P_b]=B\epsilon _{ab}I\text{,}\text{and}[P_a,I]=[J,I]=0\text{,}$$
(1)
where $`a,b\{0,1\}`$, $`\epsilon ^{01}=\epsilon _{01}=1`$, and the indices $`a`$ and $`b`$ are raised and lowered by the metric $`h_{ab}=\text{diag}(1,1)`$ with $`h:=\text{det}h_{ab}=1`$. Throughout this paper, we shall adopt units where $`c=1`$. The generators of translations are $`P_a:=\overline{T}_a`$, and their dimensions are $`L^1`$. The generator of Lorentz transformations is $`J:=\overline{T}_2`$, which is dimensionless. The central generator, the dimension of which is $`[\mathrm{}]^1`$, is $`I:=\overline{T}_3`$, and the central charge has dimension $`[B]=L^2\times [\mathrm{}]`$.

The group law $`g^{\prime \prime }(\theta ^{\prime \prime a},\alpha ^{\prime \prime },\beta ^{\prime \prime })=g^{}(\theta ^a,\alpha ^{},\beta ^{})g(\theta ^a,\alpha ,\beta )`$ determined by Eq. (1) is given by

$$\theta ^{\prime \prime b}=\theta ^b+\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha ^{})_\mathtt{}a^b\theta ^a,\alpha ^{\prime \prime }=\alpha ^{}+\alpha ,\text{and}\beta ^{\prime \prime }=\beta ^{}+\beta +\frac{B}{2}\theta ^c\epsilon _{cb}\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha ^{})_\mathtt{}a^b\theta ^a,$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha )_\mathtt{}b^a=\delta _\mathtt{}b^a\mathrm{cosh}\alpha +\sqrt{h}\epsilon _\mathtt{}b^a\mathrm{sinh}\alpha `$, and it corresponds to the coset decomposition $`g(\theta ^a,\alpha ,\beta )=\mathrm{exp}(\theta ^aP_a)\mathrm{exp}(\alpha J)\mathrm{exp}(\beta I)`$. The adjoint representation of $`\overline{𝒫}`$ is given by

$$(\text{Ad}g)_\mathtt{}B^A=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathtt{}b^a& \theta ^c\epsilon _c^\mathtt{}a\sqrt{h}& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ B\theta ^c\epsilon _{cd}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathtt{}b^d& \frac{B}{2\sqrt{h}}\theta ^a\theta _a& 1\end{array}\right),$$

and the invariant Casimir operator determines the metric $`h_{AB}`$ such that $`V,V=h^{AB}V_AV_B=V^aV_a2(B/\sqrt{h})V_2V_3`$, for any vector $`V=V^A\overline{T}_A`$ in $`\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1`$, with $`A,B\{0,1,2,3\}`$. The dimensions of the metric components are $`[h_{ab}]=L^2`$, and $`[h_{23}]=[h_{32}]=[\mathrm{}]^1`$.

The extended Poincaré algebra has the structure of a semidirect product $`\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1=\text{so}(1,1)\times _\rho \text{wh}`$, where $`\text{so}(1,1)=\mathrm{}`$ is the Abelian subalgebra generated by $`J`$, and wh is the maximal nilpotent ideal spanned by $`\{P_0,P_1,I\}`$, which is isomorphic to the Lie algebra of the Weyl–Heisenberg group WH. The representation $`\rho `$ of $`\text{so}(1,1)`$ on wh is given by the restriction of the adjoint representation of $`\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1`$ to $`\text{so}(1,1)`$.

It is well-known that $`\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1`$ is solvable; 5 however, it is also not nilpotent, since its descending central series, $`\overline{\text{ı}}_2^{1^1}=\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1`$, $`\overline{\text{ı}}_2^{1^2}=[\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1,\overline{\text{ı}}_2^{1^1}]=\text{wh}`$,…, $`\overline{\text{ı}}_2^{1^k}=[\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1,\overline{\text{ı}}_2^{1^{k1}}]=\text{wh}k2`$, does not vanish for any value of $`k`$. It is also not difficult to see that the extended Poincaré group $`\overline{𝒫}`$ and its Lie algebra $`\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1`$ are solvable exponential, since for any $`X\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1`$ the eigenvalues of $`\text{ad}(X)`$ are all real. 14

As a consequence, $`\overline{𝒫}`$ is defined as the connected and simply connected image of $`\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1`$ by the exponential mapping $`\overline{𝒫}=\mathrm{exp}(\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1)`$, and every element $`g\overline{𝒫}`$ belongs to a one-parameter subgroup, so the group law given by Eq. (2) holds globally. Another consequence is that $`\overline{𝒫}`$ is homologically trivial; therefore, the Van Est theorem 13 ensures that the cohomology groups on $`\overline{𝒫}`$ are canonically isomorphic to the corresponding cohomology groups on $`\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1`$.

The first cohomology group of $`\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1`$ can be readily calculated, $`H_0^1(\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1,\mathrm{})=(\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1/[\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1,\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1])^{}=\mathrm{}`$. In order to work out the second cohomology group, it is enough to show that the space of two cocycles $`Z_0^2(\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1,\mathrm{})\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1`$ has the same dimension of the space of two coboundaries $`B_0^2(\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1,\mathrm{})`$. It turns out that $`\text{dim}H_0^2(\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1,\mathrm{})=\text{dim}Z_0^2(\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1,\mathrm{})\text{dim}B_0^2(\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1,\mathrm{})=0`$.

## III Construction of the Irrep’s of $`\overline{𝒫}`$ by its Coadjoint Orbits

It will be shown in Sec. IV that the anomaly-free Lagrangian describing a relativistic particle in flat two-dimensional space–time must be invariant under $`\overline{𝒫}`$, consistently with $`H_0^2(\overline{𝒫},\mathrm{})=0`$. It follows that the relevant dynamical group in two dimensions is $`\overline{𝒫}`$, so the adequate statement of the principle of relativity in (1+1) dimensions should require that the equations of motion are covariant under the transformations of $`\overline{𝒫}`$.

This means that the elementary particles in (1+1) dimensions must belong to irrep’s of $`\overline{𝒫}`$ at the quantum level, and constitute relativistic elementary systems in this sense. On the other hand, the group-theoretic approach is concerned about a corresponding notion of elementary system at the classical level, i.e., a system that cannot be decomposed into smaller parts without breaking the symmetry. 15 It turns out that the irreducibility condition is translated naturally into a transitivity one at the classical level; therefore, a classical elementary system is defined as a homogeneous symplectic manifold (HSM). We say that an elementary system $`(S,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is a Hamiltonian G-space, 16 or a strictly homogeneous symplectic manifold, if further the dynamical group $`G`$ possesses a Poisson action upon $`S`$.

We recall that, due to the Kirillov theorem, 17 every HSM associated with some dynamical group $`G`$ is locally isomorphic to a coadjoint orbit of $`G`$ or to a coadjoint orbit of the central extension of $`G`$ by $`\mathrm{}`$. Then, if further all the coadjoint orbits of $`G`$ are simply connected and $`H_0^2(𝔤,\mathrm{})=0`$, then the momentum mapping will be a symplectomorphism between every classical elementary system $`(S,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ upon which the action of $`𝔤`$ is globally Hamiltonian and a certain coadjoint orbit.

Applying this theorem, we discover that every classical relativistic elementary system upon which the action of $`\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1`$ is globally Hamiltonian is simply connected, and symplectomorphic to one of the coadjoint orbits of $`\overline{𝒫}`$ that are calculated below, since it is a connected solvable exponential Lie group with $`H_0^2(\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1,\mathrm{})=0`$ (see Sec. II). Although this classification does not exhaust all the two-dimensional relativistic elementary systems, since $`H_0^1(\overline{𝒫},\mathrm{})=\mathrm{}`$, it is general enough to include the most physically interesting cases, such as the anomaly-free relativistic particle in (1+1) dimensions.

The coadjoint orbit through $`\zeta =\zeta _A\overline{\omega }^A`$ in $`\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1^{}`$ is formed by the points $`\mu =u_A\overline{\omega }^A`$ satisfying $`u_A=\zeta _B(\text{Ad}g^1)_\mathtt{}A^B`$, where $`\{\overline{\omega }^A\}`$ is the basis of $`\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1^{}`$ dual to $`\{\overline{T}_A\}`$. As a consequence, the following identities hold: $`u^Au_A=\zeta ^A\zeta _A`$ and $`u_3=\zeta _3`$. The stability group of $`\zeta \overline{\text{ı}}_2^1^{}`$ is generated by the subalgebra $`\overline{\text{ı}}_{2\zeta }^1\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1`$, which is the kernel of the Kirillov two form $`B_\zeta (X,Y)`$, formed by the vectors $`Y\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1`$ for which $`\zeta ,[X,Y]=0`$, $`X\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1`$. The dimension of the coadjoint orbit can be deduced from the dimension of the stability group.

As the space of coadjoint orbits of $`\overline{𝒫}`$ parametrizes both the set of relativistic elementary systems in two dimensions and the unitary dual of $`\overline{𝒫}`$, we will present the coadjoint orbits of $`\overline{𝒫}`$ together with their associated irrep’s. The problem splits into three cases, and we will follow the methodology sketched in the Appendix for working out all the irrep’s of $`\overline{𝒫}`$.

Since $`\text{ad}(X)`$ is traceless for all $`X\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1`$, $`\overline{𝒫}`$ is unimodular (i.e., $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\overline{𝒫}}=1`$). Also, because the real eigenvalues of $`\text{ad}(X)`$ are not all zero for every $`X\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1`$, $`\overline{𝒫}`$ is not quasinilpotent (see the Appendix). Consequently, in order to apply the method of orbits to $`\overline{𝒫}`$, we must find for any $`\zeta \overline{\text{ı}}_2^1^{}`$ a subalgebra $`𝔥\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1`$ of a maximal dimension in the family of the subalgebras subordinate to $`\zeta `$, further satisfying Pukanszky’s condition.

### III.1 Case $`\zeta _30`$

The coadjoint orbit is the two-dimensional surface diffeomorphic to $`\mathrm{}^2`$ in the three-dimensional hyperplane $`u_3=\zeta _3`$, defined by the equations

$$u_2=\frac{u^au_a\sqrt{h}}{2Bu_3}\frac{\zeta ^A\zeta _A\sqrt{h}}{2Bu_3}\text{and}u_3=\zeta _3,$$
(3)
and passing through the point $`\zeta =(0,0,[(\zeta ^A\zeta _A\sqrt{h})/2B\zeta _3],\zeta _3)`$. These coadjoint orbits are classified by $`\zeta _3`$ and $`\zeta ^A\zeta _A`$.

Since we may choose any point on the coadjoint orbit (see the Appendix), we pick $`\zeta `$. Denoting by $`(J,P_+,I)`$ the subalgebra of $`\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1`$ spanned by these vectors, where $`P_+=P_0+P_1`$, it is clear that $`𝔥=(J,P_+,I)`$ is subordinate to $`\zeta `$, since its first derived algebra is $`[𝔥,𝔥]=(P_+)`$, which is orthogonal to $`\zeta `$ or $`\zeta ,(P_+)=0`$. The subalgebra $`𝔥`$ subordinate to $`\zeta `$ is also admissible, since its codimension is 1, which is half the dimension of the coadjoint orbit, and it satisfies Pukanszky’s condition $`\zeta +𝔥^{}\text{orb}(\zeta )`$. Since any other admissible subalgebra leads to a unitary equivalent representation (see the Appendix), we choose $`𝔥`$.

The typical element of the subgroup $`H`$ generated by $`𝔥`$ will be denoted by $`h(\theta ^+,\alpha ,\beta )=\mathrm{exp}(\theta ^+P_+)\mathrm{exp}(\alpha J)\mathrm{exp}(\beta I)`$, so that we can define (see the Appendix) the one-dimensional representation of $`H`$ by $`\chi (\theta ^+,\alpha ,\beta )=U(h(\theta ^+,\alpha ,\beta ))=\mathrm{exp}\left(i(\alpha [(\zeta ^A\zeta _A\sqrt{h})/2B\zeta _3]+\beta \zeta _3)\right)`$. The adjoint representation of the subgroup $`H`$ can be straightforwardly calculated, so that the modulus of $`H`$ is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_H(h)=|\text{det}(\text{Ad}h)|^1=e^\alpha `$. The space $`L(\overline{𝒫},H,U)`$ invariant under right translations on $`\overline{𝒫}`$ is formed by the complex functions satisfying the condition (see the Appendix)

$`F(h(\theta ^+^{},\alpha ^{},\beta ^{})g(\theta ^a,\alpha ,\beta ))=e^{(\alpha ^{}/2)}\chi (\theta ^+^{},\alpha ^{},\beta ^{})F(g(\theta ^a,\alpha ,\beta )),`$
$`F\left(g(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathtt{}b^a(\alpha ^{})\theta ^b+\theta ^+^{},\alpha ^{}+\alpha ,\beta ^{}+\beta +{\displaystyle \frac{B}{2}}\theta ^+^{}e^\alpha ^{}(\theta ^0\theta ^1))\right)`$
$`=e^{(\alpha ^{}/2)}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\left(\alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^A\zeta _A\sqrt{h}}{2B\zeta _3}}+\beta ^{}\zeta _3\right)\right)F(g(\theta ^a,\alpha ,\beta )).`$ (4)
This means that the space $`L(\overline{𝒫},H,U)`$ is determined by the value of $`F`$ at $`\theta ^0=\alpha =\beta =0`$.

It is not difficult to see that every element of $`\overline{𝒫}`$ can be uniquely written as $`g=hk`$, where $`hH`$, $`kK`$, and $`K`$ is the one-parameter subgroup of $`\overline{𝒫}`$ generated by $`P_1\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1`$. Choosing the Borel mapping $`s(x):=k`$, where $`xX=H\backslash \overline{𝒫}`$ and $`x=Hg=Hhk=Hk`$, we can identify the right-coset space $`X`$ with the subgroup $`K\overline{𝒫}`$, in the sense that $`s(X)=K`$. The bi-invariant measure on $`\overline{𝒫}`$ splits into $`d\mu (g)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{H,\overline{𝒫}}(h)d\nu _s(x)d\nu (h)`$, where the measure on $`X`$ is determined by the right Haar measure on $`K=\mathrm{}`$, $`d\nu _s(x)=d\nu (s(x))`$, which is only $`\overline{𝒫}`$-quasi invariant, because $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\overline{𝒫}}(h)\mathrm{\Delta }_H(h)`$, and is recognized to be just the Lebesgue measure $`d\mu `$ on $`\mathrm{}`$. Then, we can construct the Hilbert space $`L^2(X,\nu _s,\text{C})=L^2(\mathrm{},d\mu )`$, formed by the functions defined by $`f(x)=F(s(x))`$, for every $`FL^2(\overline{𝒫},H,U)`$ (see the Appendix), which obviously admits a $`\overline{𝒫}`$-invariant scalar product.

Solving the equation $`s(x)g=hs(xg)`$ for $`h=h(\theta ^+,\alpha ^{},\beta ^{})`$, where $`k=k(\theta ^1)`$ and $`g=g(\theta ^{\prime \prime a},\alpha ^{\prime \prime },\beta ^{\prime \prime })`$, we can realize the induced representation $`\text{ind}(\overline{𝒫},H,U)`$ on the separable Hilbert space $`L^2(\mathrm{},d\mu )`$ of the square-integrable complex functions having compact support on $`\mathrm{}`$ through

$`[T(g)f](\theta ^1)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{(\alpha ^{\prime \prime }/2)}\mathrm{exp}[i({\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^A\zeta _A\sqrt{h}}{2B\zeta _3}}\alpha ^{\prime \prime }+(\beta ^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{B}{2}}\theta ^{\prime \prime 0}\theta ^1{\displaystyle \frac{B}{4}}((\theta ^{\prime \prime 0})^2(\theta ^1+\theta ^{\prime \prime 1})^2)`$ (5)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B}{4}}e^{2\alpha ^{\prime \prime }}(\theta ^{\prime \prime 0}\theta ^1\theta ^{\prime \prime 1})^2)\zeta _3)\left]f\right((\theta ^1+\theta ^{\prime \prime 1}\theta ^{\prime \prime 0})e^{\alpha ^{\prime \prime }}).`$
The corresponding representation of any $`X\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1`$ can be readily calculated, yielding

$`\rho (I)`$ $`=`$ $`i\zeta _3,\rho (J)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+i\left({\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^A\zeta _A\sqrt{h}}{2B\zeta _3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B}{2}}(\theta ^1)^2\zeta _3\right)\theta ^1{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta ^1}},`$
$`\rho (P_0)`$ $`=`$ $`iB\theta ^1\zeta _3{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta ^1}},\text{and}\rho (P_1)={\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta ^1}}.`$ (6)
This representation is anti-Hermitian, and the operator identity $`\rho (J)=\sqrt{h}\left(\rho (P^a)\rho (P_a)+\zeta ^A\zeta _A\right)/2B\rho (I)`$ holds. So we can write these irrep’s simply as $`T^{\zeta ^A\zeta _A,\zeta _3}(g(\theta ^a,\alpha ,\beta ))=\mathrm{exp}\left(\theta ^a\rho (P_a)\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\alpha \rho (J)\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta \rho (I)\right)`$.

The irrep’s $`T^{\zeta ^A\zeta _A,\zeta _3}`$ are faithful, and it can be shown that, in natural units and for $`B=1`$, they are unitary equivalent to the irrep’s of $`\overline{𝒫}`$ presented in Gadella et al., 10 but they are more general than the latter. Since the quantization of the corresponding elementary systems does not look anomalous (see Sec. IV), the irrep’s in the form $`T^{\zeta ^A\zeta _A,\zeta _3}`$ are the most physically interesting ones, although they do not correspond to coadjoint orbits of $`\overline{𝒫}`$ which are HSM’s for $`𝒫`$.

### III.2 Case $`\zeta _3=0`$ and $`\zeta _a=0`$

The coadjoint orbit is the point $`(0,0,\zeta _2,0)`$ in the three-dimensional hyperplane $`u_3=0`$. These coadjoint orbits are classified by $`\zeta _2`$. It is clear that the subalgebra $`𝔥=\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1`$ is subordinate to $`\zeta `$, since its first derived algebra is $`[𝔥,𝔥]=\text{wh}`$, which is orthogonal to $`\zeta `$ or $`\zeta ,\text{wh}=0`$. The subalgebra $`𝔥`$ subordinate to $`\zeta `$ is also admissible, since $`\text{codim}𝔥=0`$, which is half the dimension of the coadjoint orbit, and it satisfies Pukanszky’s condition $`\zeta +𝔥^{}\text{orb}(\zeta )`$. It is not difficult to see that there is no other admissible subalgebra subordinate to $`\zeta `$.

Denoting by $`h(\theta ^a,\alpha ,\beta )=\mathrm{exp}(\theta ^aP_a)\mathrm{exp}(\alpha J)\mathrm{exp}(\beta I)`$ the typical element of the subgroup $`H`$ generated by $`𝔥`$, we can (see the Appendix) define the one-dimensional representation of $`H`$ by $`\chi (\theta ^a,\alpha ,\beta )=U(h(\theta ^a,\alpha ,\beta ))=\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha \zeta _2)`$. Since $`H=\overline{𝒫}`$ is unimodular, the space $`L(\overline{𝒫},H,U)`$ invariant under right translations on $`\overline{𝒫}`$ is formed by the complex functions satisfying the condition

$`F\left(h(\theta ^a,\alpha ^{},\beta ^{})g(\theta ^a,\alpha ,\beta )\right)=\chi (\theta ^a,\alpha ^{},\beta ^{})`$ $`F`$ $`(g(\theta ^a,\alpha ,\beta )),`$
$`F(g(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathtt{}b^a(\alpha ^{})\theta ^b+\theta ^a,\alpha ^{}+\alpha ,\beta ^{}+\beta +{\displaystyle \frac{B}{2}}\theta ^a\epsilon _{ab}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathtt{}c^b(\alpha ^{})\theta ^c))`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha ^{}\zeta _2)F(g(\theta ^a,\alpha ,\beta )).`$ (7)
This means that the space $`L(\overline{𝒫},H,U)=\text{C}`$ is determined by the value of $`F`$ at $`\theta ^a=\alpha =\beta =0`$, or $`F(g(\theta ^a,\alpha ,\beta ))=\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha \zeta _2)F(e)`$, so it is identified with the set of complex numbers.

It follows that the Hilbert space $`L^2(\overline{𝒫},H,U)`$ is one-dimensional and it is formed by the complex functions $`FL(\overline{𝒫},H,U)`$ for which $`F^2<\mathrm{}`$, where $`F^2=(F,F)`$ and the $`\overline{𝒫}`$-invariant scalar product is given by $`(F_1,F_2)=\overline{F_1(e)}F_2(e)`$. Consequently (see the Appendix), we can realize the induced representation $`\text{ind}(\overline{𝒫},H,U)`$ on the Hilbert space $`L^2(\overline{𝒫},H,U)`$ through $`[T(g)F](g^{})=\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha \zeta _2)F(g^{})`$, where $`g=g(\theta ^a,\alpha ,\beta )`$ and $`g^{}=g(\theta ^a,\alpha ^{},\beta ^{})`$. The corresponding representation of any $`X\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1`$ is given by $`\rho (I)=0`$, $`\rho (J)=i\zeta _2`$, and $`\rho (P_a)=0`$.

The representation of $`\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1`$ on the Hilbert space C given above is clearly anti-Hermitian; therefore, the irrep’s of $`\overline{𝒫}`$ may be simply written as $`T^{\zeta _2}(g(\theta ^a,\alpha ,\beta ))=\mathrm{exp}\left(\theta ^a\rho (P_a)\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\alpha \rho (J)\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta \rho (I)\right)`$, and the operator identity $`\rho (P^a)\rho (P_a)2(B/\sqrt{h})\rho (J)\rho (I)=\zeta ^A\zeta _A`$ holds. We note that the irrep’s $`T^{\zeta _2}`$ are obviously unfaithful and lack physical interest, although they correspond to coadjoint orbits of $`\overline{𝒫}`$ which are HSM’s for $`𝒫`$.

### III.3 Case $`\zeta _3=0`$ and $`\zeta _a0`$

The coadjoint orbit is the two-dimensional surface diffeomorphic to $`\mathrm{}^2`$, immersed in the three-dimensional hyperplane $`u_3=0`$ and defined by the equation

$$u^au_a=\zeta ^a\zeta _a\text{,}$$
(8)
which can be a hyperbolic cylinder or a half-plane translationally invariant in the direction of the $`u_2`$ axis. These coadjoint orbits are classified by $`\zeta _a`$ and gather into eight distinct families: two families with $`\zeta ^a\zeta _a<0`$, two with $`\zeta ^a\zeta _a>0`$, and the other four with $`\zeta ^a\zeta _a=0`$ (the $`u_2`$ axis does not belong to any family).

As we may choose any point on the coadjoint orbit (see the Appendix), we pick $`\zeta =(\zeta _a,\zeta _2,0)`$. The subalgebra $`𝔥=\text{wh}`$ is subordinate to $`\zeta `$, since its first derived algebra is $`[𝔥,𝔥]=(I)`$, which is orthogonal to $`\zeta `$ or $`\zeta ,(I)=0`$. The subalgebra $`𝔥`$ subordinate to $`\zeta `$ is also admissible, since $`\text{codim}𝔥=1`$, which is half the dimension of the coadjoint orbit, and it satisfies Pukanszky’s condition $`\zeta +𝔥^{}\text{orb}(\zeta )`$. Since any other admissible subalgebra leads to a unitary equivalent representation (see the Appendix), we choose $`𝔥`$.

Denoting by $`h(\theta ^a,\beta )=\mathrm{exp}(\theta ^aP_a)\mathrm{exp}(\beta I)`$ the typical element of the subgroup $`H`$ generated by $`𝔥`$, we can (see the Appendix) define the one-dimensional representation of $`H`$ by $`\chi (\theta ^a,\beta )=U(h(\theta ^a,\beta ))=\mathrm{exp}(i\theta ^a\zeta _a)`$. Due to the fact that $`H=\text{WH}`$ is unimodular, the space $`L(\overline{𝒫},H,U)`$ invariant under right translations on $`\overline{𝒫}`$ is formed by the complex functions satisfying the condition

$`F(h(\theta ^a,\beta ^{})g(\theta ^a,\alpha ,\beta ))=\chi (\theta ^a`$ , $`\beta ^{})F(g(\theta ^a,\alpha ,\beta )),`$
$`F\left(g(\theta ^a+\theta ^a,\alpha ,\beta ^{}+\beta +{\displaystyle \frac{B}{2}}\theta ^a\epsilon _{ab}\theta ^b)\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(i\theta ^a\zeta _a)F(g(\theta ^a,\alpha ,\beta )).`$ (9)
This means that the space $`L(\overline{𝒫},H,U)`$ is determined by the value of $`F`$ at $`\theta ^a=\beta =0`$.

It is not difficult to see that every element of $`\overline{𝒫}`$ can be uniquely written as $`g=hk`$, where $`hH`$, $`kK`$, and $`K`$ is the one-parameter subgroup of $`\overline{𝒫}`$ generated by $`J\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1`$. Choosing the Borel mapping $`s(x):=k`$, where $`xX=H\backslash \overline{𝒫}`$ and $`x=Hg=Hhk=Hk`$, we can identify the right-coset space $`X`$ with the subgroup $`K\overline{𝒫}`$, in the sense that $`s(X)=K`$. The bi-invariant measure on $`\overline{𝒫}`$ splits into $`d\mu (g)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{H,\overline{𝒫}}(h)d\nu _s(x)d\nu (h)`$, where the measure on $`X`$ is determined by the right Haar measure on $`K=\mathrm{}`$, $`d\nu _s(x)=d\nu (s(x))`$, which is $`\overline{𝒫}`$-invariant, since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\overline{𝒫}}(h)=\mathrm{\Delta }_H(h)`$, and is just the Lebesgue measure $`d\mu `$ on $`\mathrm{}`$. Then, we can construct the Hilbert space $`L^2(X,\nu _s,\text{C})=L^2(\mathrm{},d\mu )`$, formed by the functions defined by $`f(x)=F(s(x))`$ for every $`FL^2(\overline{𝒫},H,U)`$ (see the Appendix), which obviously admits a $`\overline{𝒫}`$-invariant scalar product.

Solving the equation $`s(x)g=hs(xg)`$ for $`h=h(\theta ^a,\beta ^{})`$, where $`k=k(\alpha )`$ and $`g=g(\theta ^{\prime \prime a},\alpha ^{\prime \prime },\beta ^{\prime \prime })`$, we can realize the induced representation $`\text{ind}(\overline{𝒫},H,U)`$ on the separable Hilbert space $`L^2(\mathrm{},d\mu )`$ of the square-integrable complex functions having compact support on $`\mathrm{}`$ through $`[T(g)f](\alpha )=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha )_\mathtt{}b^a\theta ^{\prime \prime b}\zeta _a\right)f(\alpha +\alpha ^{\prime \prime })`$. The corresponding representation of any $`X\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1`$ is given by $`\rho (I)=0`$, $`\rho (J)=/\alpha `$, and $`\rho (P_a)=i\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha )_\mathtt{}a^b\zeta _b`$.

The operator identity $`\rho (P^a)\rho (P_a)2(B/\sqrt{h})\rho (J)\rho (I)=\zeta ^A\zeta _A`$ holds and the representation of $`\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1`$ on the Hilbert space $`L^2(\mathrm{},d\mu )`$ is clearly anti-Hermitian, so the irrep’s of $`\overline{𝒫}`$ may be simply written as $`T^{\zeta _a}(g(\theta ^a,\alpha ,\beta ))=\mathrm{exp}\left(\theta ^a\rho (P_a)\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\alpha \rho (J)\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta \rho (I)\right)`$. It can be shown that the irrep $`T^{\zeta _a}`$ is equivalent to the Wigner representation of the Poincaré group in (1+1) dimensions $`𝒫`$ (see Gadella et al. 10 and Ali and Antoine 18). We note that the irrep’s $`T^{\zeta _a}`$ are unfaithful and not too interesting physically, since the quantization of the corresponding classical elementary systems looks anomalous, although they correspond to coadjoint orbits of $`\overline{𝒫}`$ which are HSM’s for $`𝒫`$.

## IV The Anomaly-Free Relativistic Particle in (1+1) Dimensions

It is known that the dynamics of the relativistic particle in a flat (1+1) dimensional space-time $`M`$ is described by the Lagrangian $`L_B=L_0+L_{WZ}`$, where $`L_0=m(h)^{1/4}\sqrt{\dot{q}^2}`$ and $`L_{WZ}=(B/2)\epsilon _{ab}\dot{q}^aq^b`$. The central charge $`B`$ is similar to an applied electrical force driving the particle into an uniformly accelerated relativistic motion 5 and it is an additional free parameter (besides the mass $`m`$), fixed at the outset, that the relativistic particle theory must allow for, due to the existence of a nontrivial two cocycle in the second cohomology group of the Poincaré group in (1+1) dimensions $`𝒫`$. In fact, it was shown by Bargmann that $`H_0^2(𝒫,\mathrm{})=\mathrm{}`$ then, as a consequence of the Lévy–Leblond theorem, 13 all the inequivalent Lagrangians $`L_B`$ quasi-invariant under $`𝒫`$ are classified by the central charge $`B`$.

However, it must be emphasized that the Lagrangian $`L_B`$ is classically anomalous, since it is quasi-invariant under the transformations of $`𝒫`$, while the three conserved Noether charges together with the identity $`\{𝒩_a,𝒩_2,1\}`$ constitute a Poisson bracket realization of $`\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1`$, assuming $`B0`$ and $`m0`$. Since $`H_0^2(\overline{𝒫},\mathrm{})=0`$ (see Sec. II), we can eliminate the classical anomaly by adding a third term to $`L_B`$, depending on an extra degree of freedom $`\chi `$ with dimension of action and transforming as $`\chi ^{}=\chi +\beta +(B/2)\theta ^a\epsilon _{ab}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mathtt{}c^bq^c`$ under $`\overline{𝒫}`$. This addition neutralizes the Wess–Zumino term $`L_{WZ}`$, causing the new Lagrangian $`\overline{L}=L_B\dot{\chi }`$ to be invariant under the transformations of $`\overline{𝒫}`$. Now, there are four conserved Noether charges $`\{𝒩_a,𝒩_2,𝒩_3\}`$ associated with the anomaly-free Lagrangian $`\overline{L}`$, which realize $`\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1`$ with the identically conserved charge $`𝒩_3=1`$ corresponding to the central generator realized by minus the identity.

Performing the Hamiltonian formulation of the system described by $`\overline{L}`$, we learn that $`\chi `$ is an internal gauge degree of freedom, corresponding to the phase of the particle’s wave function at the quantum level. The reduced phase-space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+`$ can be determined by observing that the constraint surface $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ is globally diffeomorphic to $`\overline{𝒫}`$, such that the action of the dynamical group upon $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ is simply transitive and free.

It is not difficult to see that the generators of the gauge transformations corresponding to the two primary first-class constraints $`\varphi _m`$ span a subalgebra of $`𝔛(\mathrm{\Gamma }^+)`$ which realizes a two-dimensional Abelian subalgebra of $`\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1`$, therefore, the reduced phase-space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+\mathrm{}^2`$ is diffeomorphic to the homogeneous coset space generated by the translations $`P_a`$ and can be globally parametrized by the space–time coordinates $`q^a`$. The space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+`$ is endowed with the symplectic form $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{+R}=d\mathrm{\Lambda }^{+R}=(B/2)\epsilon _{ab}dq^adq^b`$, the canonical one form of which is given by the Wess–Zumino form $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{+R}=(B/2)\epsilon _{ab}q^adq^b`$.

It turns out that the symplectic manifold $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+,\mathrm{\Omega }^{+R})`$ is a Hamiltonian G-space and hence a classical relativistic elementary system. Indeed $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+,\mathrm{\Omega }^{+R})`$ is homogeneous under the action of the dynamical group $`\overline{𝒫}`$, which has a Poisson action upon $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+`$, such that the globally Hamiltonian vector fields at $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+`$ are given by $`\overline{T}_a^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+}(s)=(/q^a)`$, $`\overline{T}_2^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+}(s)=\sqrt{h}\epsilon _\mathtt{}b^a\mathtt{}q^b(/q^a)`$, and $`\overline{T}_3^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+}(s)=0`$. The comoments are given by $`u_a^{+R}(s)=Bq^b\epsilon _{ba}`$, $`u_2^{+R}(s)=(m^2/2B)+[B/(2\sqrt{h})]q_aq^a`$, and $`u_3^{+R}(s)=1`$. Note that they are not uniquely determined, since $`u_2^{+R}`$ is defined up to an additive constant, consistently with $`H_0^1(\overline{𝒫},\mathrm{})=\mathrm{}`$.

The identities $`u_A^{+R}u^{+RA}(s)=m^2/\sqrt{h}`$ and $`u_3^{+R}(s)=1`$ hold, so $`u_2^{+R}(s)`$ is functionally dependent on the $`u_a^{+R}(s)`$, which are regarded as the fundamental dynamical variables, and using the fact that the comoments constitute a Poisson bracket realization of $`\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1`$, it is not difficult to see that $`\{q^a,q^b\}=[\epsilon ^{ab}(\sqrt{h})^2]/B`$. The value of the momentum mapping $`\mu _R^+(s)=([u_A^{+R}(s)]/\mathrm{})\overline{\omega }^A`$ at the origin $`s_0=(0,0)`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+`$ shall be denoted by $`\zeta =\mu _R^+(s_0)=(0,0,m^2/(2B\mathrm{}),1/\mathrm{})`$, which satisfies

$$\zeta ^A\zeta _A=\frac{m^2}{\sqrt{h}\mathrm{}^2}\text{and}\zeta _3=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}.$$
(10)
The second identity in Eq. (10) follows from the value of $`u_3^{+R}(s)`$ and the definition of the momentum mapping, so the quantization of $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+,\mathrm{\Omega }^{+R})`$ satisfies Dirac’s quantum condition (this will be shown later).

Moreover, a straightforward calculation shows that 19 the momentum mapping $`\mu _R^+:\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+orb(\zeta )`$ is a symplectomorphism between the elementary system $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+,\mathrm{\Omega }^{+R})`$ and the coadjoint orbit $`(orb(\zeta ),b)`$ through $`\zeta \overline{\text{ı}}_2^1^{}`$, with $`\mu _R^+b=(\mathrm{\Omega }^{+R}/\mathrm{})`$. It follows that Eq. (10) provides a physical interpretation for the parameters labeling the irrep $`T^{\zeta ^A\zeta _A,\zeta _3}`$ of $`\overline{𝒫}`$, which corresponds to the relativistic elementary system $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+,\mathrm{\Omega }^{+R})`$.

### IV.1 Quantization of the anomaly-free relativistic particle in (1+1) dimensions

Before we address the quantum dynamics of the relativistic particle, though, let us clear up the quantization of the system at the kinematical level. Let $`\phi (\overline{T}_A):=i\rho (\overline{T}_A)`$ be the Hermitian representation of $`\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1`$ on the Hilbert space $`L^2(\mathrm{},dx)`$ defined from Eq. (III.1), for $`\zeta =(0,0,[(\zeta ^A\zeta _A\sqrt{h})/2B\zeta _3],\zeta _3)`$ satisfying Eq. (10), and $`𝔧\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1`$ be the finite-dimensional Lie subalgebra of $`C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+)`$ spanned by the comoments $`\{u_A^{+R}\}`$. In addition, let $`\lambda :\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+)`$ be the lift of the mapping $`\sigma :\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+)`$ induced by the left action of $`\overline{𝒫}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+`$, where $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+)`$ denotes the set of all the globally Hamiltonian vector fields on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+`$. The mapping $`\lambda (\overline{T}_A)=u_A^{+R}`$ is a Lie algebra homomorphism and it is well-defined, since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+`$ is simply connected and $`H_0^2(\overline{\text{ı}}_2^1,\mathrm{})=0`$.

Then, $`\text{orb}(\zeta )`$ determines the linear map $`𝒬:=(1/\zeta _3)\phi \lambda ^1`$ from $`𝔧`$ onto the linear space $`\text{Op}(D)=\text{span}\{𝒬(u_A^{+R})\}`$ of (in general) unbounded Hermitian (or symmetric) operators preserving a fixed dense domain $`D`$ in $`L^2(\mathrm{},dx)`$, which satisfies $`𝒬(\{u_A^{+R},u_B^{+R}\})=i\zeta _3[𝒬(u_A^{+R}),𝒬(u_B^{+R})]`$ and $`𝒬(u_3^{+R})=\mathrm{𝟏}`$. For the domain $`D`$, we can take the Schwartz space $`𝒮(\mathrm{},\text{C})L^2(\mathrm{},dx)`$ of rapidly decreasing smooth complex-valued functions, for instance.

Recalling that $`u_3^{+R}=1`$, we can see that Dirac’s quantum condition is satisfied if and only if $`\zeta _3=(1/\mathrm{})`$, consistently with Eq. (10). Furthermore, assuming that $`D`$ is a domain of essential self-adjointness for $`\text{Op}(D)`$, we can see that the linear map $`𝒬`$ is actually a prequantization of $`𝔧`$ in the sense of Gotay, 20 since the globally Hamiltonian vector fields $`\overline{T}_A^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+}`$ are complete. It is not difficult to see that $`𝒮(\mathrm{},\text{C})`$ is a domain of essential self-adjointness for the representation of $`𝔧`$ given by $`\text{Op}(D)`$.

In order to determine the maximal Lie subalgebra $`𝒪`$ of $`C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+)`$ that can consistently be quantized, we will tie to the approach that aims at providing a quantization of the pair $`(𝒪,𝔟)`$, i.e., a prequantization of $`𝒪`$ which (among other things) irreducibly represents a suitably chosen basic algebra of observables $`𝔟C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+)`$.20 It turns out that the suitable basic algebra is $`𝔟=\text{wh}=\text{span}\{u_0^{+R},u_1^{+R},u_3^{+R}\}`$, since the restriction of $`𝒬`$ to $`\text{wh}𝔧=\text{span}\{u_A^{+R}\}`$ provides actually a quantization of the pair $`(𝔟,𝔟)`$, which is equivalent to the usual Schrödinger quantization of a one-dimensional nonrelativistic free particle.

In fact, in the coordinates of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+`$ defined by $`q:=(u_0^{+R}+u_1^{+R})/B=q^1+q^0`$ and $`p:=u_1^{+R}=Bq^0`$, the expression of the associated quantization map $`𝒬`$ is exactly given by the Schrödinger representation of wh in the position representation $`\{|x\}`$; $`\widehat{q}:=𝒬(q)=x`$, $`\widehat{p}:=𝒬(p)=i\mathrm{}(/x)`$, and $`\widehat{1}:=𝒬(1)=\mathrm{𝟏}`$ on the domain $`D`$, such as $`D=𝒮(\mathrm{},\text{C})L^2(\mathrm{},dx)`$. The standard canonical quantization is well-defined; however, there is no full quantization of $`(C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+),𝔟)`$ in which a Von Neumann rule is compatible with the Schrödinger quantization.

Indeed, due to the strong Groenewold–Van Hove no-go theorem,20 there is no quantization of $`(P,\text{wh})`$ on $`\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+`$, where $`P`$ denotes the polynomial subalgebra of $`C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+)`$ generated by $`𝔟=\text{wh}`$. It turns out that the only two distinct isomorphism classes of maximal Lie subalgebras of $`P`$ which contain wh are those represented by $`P^2`$ and by the set of polynomials $`S=\{f(q)p+g(q)\}`$, where $`P^2`$ denotes the subspace of polynomials of degree at most 2, and $`f,g`$ are polynomials.20

The quantization of the pair $`(P^2,\text{wh})`$ is provided by the well-known extended metaplectic quantization. On the other hand, the only classical observable in this paper that will require it is the comoment $`u_2^{+R}`$, which is in $`P^2P`$ but not in wh. For all the other observables that we will consider, such as position, momentum, potential energy, relativistic energy, or the Hamiltonian, the Schrödinger quantization will be enough. In particular, we will not consider any observable in $`S`$.

In addition, a straightforward calculation shows that the extended metaplectic quantization $`𝒬`$ of $`(P^2,\text{wh})`$ is covariant with respect to $`\overline{𝒫}`$ in the sense that, for every $`f(q,p)`$ in $`P^2PC^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+)`$ and $`g=g(\theta ^a,\alpha ,\beta )\overline{𝒫}`$, we have $`𝒬(f(q^{},p^{}))=T^{\zeta ^A\zeta _A,\zeta _3}(g^1)𝒬(f(q,p))T^{\zeta ^A\zeta _A,\zeta _3}(g)`$, where $`(q^{},p^{})=l_g(q,p)`$ is the left action on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+`$ generated by the globally Hamiltonian vector fields $`\overline{T}_A^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+}`$, and $`\zeta `$ satisfies Eq. (10).

### IV.2 Quantum dynamics of the anomaly-free relativistic particle in (1+1) dimensions

As far as the quantum dynamics of the system is concerned, we remark that the total energy of the particle depends explicitly on time, so it does not provide a suitable Hamiltonian. For this reason, we turn to consider the dynamics from the point of view of the reduced phase-space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+`$. The central charge determines the symplectic form $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{+R}=B\text{vol}`$, which is proportional to the volume two form of space–time and can be expressed in the coordinates $`(q,p)`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+`$ by $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{+R}=dpdq`$, with the Wess–Zumino form given by minus the Liouville form $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{+R}=pdq`$.

Up to gauge equivalence, the dynamics on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+`$ is specified by $`q^0(\tau )=\tau `$,

$$q^1(\tau )=q^1(\tau _0)\sqrt{m^2+\stackrel{~}{p}(\tau _0)^2}/B+\sqrt{m^2+\stackrel{~}{p}(\tau )^2}/B,$$

and $`\stackrel{~}{p}(\tau )=\stackrel{~}{p}(\tau _0)+B(\tau \tau _0)`$, for a given $`\stackrel{~}{p}(\tau _0)`$,with $`\tau _0\mathrm{}`$. It follows that the proper time is given by $`t^{}=(m/B)\text{arsinh}[\stackrel{~}{p}(\tau )/m]`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{p}(\tau )`$ is the kinematical momentum, since $`\stackrel{~}{p}(\tau )=\gamma (\tau )m(dq^1/dt)(\tau )`$.

Note that the equations for $`q^a(\tau )`$ are regarded as Hamilton equations, while that for $`\stackrel{~}{p}(\tau )`$ is an identity. Moreover, retaining the space–time meaning of the reduced phase-space, the world line $`W`$ of the particle is also a Hamiltonian flow in the symplectic manifold $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+`$. Calculating the globally Hamiltonian vector field corresponding to this flow, $`X_H(\tau )=\overline{T}_0^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+}(\tau )+[\stackrel{~}{p}(\tau )/\sqrt{m^2+\stackrel{~}{p}(\tau )^2}]\overline{T}_1^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+}(\tau )`$, and applying the antihomomorphism of Lie algebras $`\lambda \sigma ^1(\overline{T}_a^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^+})=u_a^{+R}`$, we get the Hamiltonian $`H(q,p,\tau )`$.

The corresponding Hamiltonian operator splits into two parts $`\widehat{H}(\widehat{q},\widehat{p},\tau )=\widehat{H}_0(\widehat{q},\widehat{p})+\widehat{V}(\widehat{p},\tau )`$, where $`\widehat{H}_0(\widehat{q},\widehat{p})=B\widehat{q}\widehat{p}`$ and $`\widehat{V}(\widehat{p},\tau )=[\stackrel{~}{p}(\tau )/\sqrt{m^2+\stackrel{~}{p}(\tau )^2}]\widehat{p}`$. Solving the eigenvalue problem $`\widehat{H}_0|E=E|E`$, we discover that $`\widehat{H}_0`$ has continuous spectrum with the normalized eigenfunctions given by $`x|E=(1/\sqrt{2\pi \mathrm{}})\mathrm{exp}[(i/\mathrm{})(Ex+(B/2)x^2)]`$, so $`E^{}|E=\delta (E^{}E)`$.

Note that classically $`H_0=u_0^{+R}=Bq^1=2_{\mathrm{pot}}(q^1)`$, so $`\widehat{H}_0(\widehat{q},\widehat{p})=2\widehat{}_{\mathrm{pot}}(\widehat{q},\widehat{p})`$ has the meaning of a potential energy operator. Besides this fact, the total energy operator $`\widehat{}(\widehat{q},\widehat{p},\tau )=(\tau )\frac{1}{2}\widehat{H}_0(\widehat{q},\widehat{p})`$,where $`(\tau ):=\sqrt{m^2+\stackrel{~}{p}(\tau )^2}`$ is the relativistic energy of the particle, satisfies $`[\widehat{},\widehat{H}_0]=0`$; therefore the eigenvectors of $`\widehat{H}_0`$ are simultaneously total energy eigenstates. Then, the eigenvalues of the total energy operator are related with those of $`\widehat{H}_0`$ through $`\widehat{}(\tau )|E=E_T(\tau )|E`$, where $`E_T(\tau )=(\tau )E/2`$.

In terms of the base kets $`\{|E\}`$, the state ket of the system is given at $`\tau =\tau _0`$ by $`|\alpha =_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑Ec_E(\tau _0)|E`$, where $`c_E(\tau _0)`$ is some known complex function of $`E`$ satisfying $`_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑E|c_E(\tau _0)|^2=1`$. Then, for $`\tau >\tau _0`$, the state ket will be $`|\alpha ,\tau _0;\tau =_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑Ec_E(\tau )e^{(iE/\mathrm{})(\tau \tau _0)}|E`$, where the $`c_E(\tau )`$’s satisfy the coupled differential equations

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{dc_E}{d\tau }(\tau )=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑E^{}E|\widehat{V}|E^{}e^{[i(EE^{})/\mathrm{}](\tau \tau _0)}c_E^{}(\tau ).$$

Solving the resulting linear homogeneous partial differential equations, we get

$$c_E(\tau )=\mathrm{exp}[\frac{i((E\mathrm{\Delta })^2E^2)}{2B\mathrm{}}]\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(\frac{\stackrel{~}{p}(\tau _0)\mathrm{\Delta }}{2B}\frac{m\mathrm{\Delta }t^{}}{2}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau }{2})\right]c_{E\mathrm{\Delta }}(\tau _0),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\sqrt{m^2+\stackrel{~}{p}(\tau )^2}\sqrt{m^2+\stackrel{~}{p}(\tau _0)^2}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t^{}=(m/B)(\text{arsinh}[\stackrel{~}{p}(\tau )/m]\text{arsinh}[\stackrel{~}{p}(\tau _0)/m])`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau =\tau \tau _0`$.

Suppose now that the system is initially prepared in an energy eigenstate $`|\alpha =|E`$, then at a later time $`\tau >\tau _0`$ the state will be given by

$`|\alpha ,\tau _0;\tau `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{i(E^2(E+\mathrm{\Delta })^2)}{2B\mathrm{}}}]\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{i(E+\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Delta }\tau }{\mathrm{}}}]`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{p}(\tau _0)\mathrm{\Delta }}{2B}}{\displaystyle \frac{m\mathrm{\Delta }t^{}}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau }{2}})\right]|E+\mathrm{\Delta }.`$
The probability as a function of time for the particle to be found in the state $`|E^{}`$ is given by $`|E^{}|\alpha ,\tau _0;\tau |^2/\alpha ,\tau _0;\tau |\alpha ,\tau _0;\tau dE^{}=\delta (E^{}E\sqrt{m^2+\stackrel{~}{p}(\tau )^2}+\sqrt{m^2+\stackrel{~}{p}(\tau _0)^2})dE^{}`$, which equals 1 if $`E^{}=E+\sqrt{m^2+\stackrel{~}{p}(\tau )^2}\sqrt{m^2+\stackrel{~}{p}(\tau _0)^2}`$ or zero otherwise. From Eq. (11), we note that the states $`|E`$ are not stationary although they are total energy eigenstates, since the $`\tau `$-dependent part of the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{V}(\widehat{p},\tau )`$ causes transitions to eigenstates $`|E+\sqrt{m^2+\stackrel{~}{p}(\tau )^2}\sqrt{m^2+\stackrel{~}{p}(\tau _0)^2}`$ of different energy.

In fact, the expectation value of the total energy operator, for instance,

$$\widehat{}(\tau )=\frac{\alpha ,\tau _0;\tau |\widehat{}|\alpha ,\tau _0;\tau }{\alpha ,\tau _0;\tau |\alpha ,\tau _0;\tau }=\frac{(\tau )}{2}+\frac{(\tau _0)}{2}\frac{E}{2},$$

is $`\tau `$-dependent. It is not difficult to see that the function $`\widehat{}(\tau )`$ attains to a minimum at $`\tau =\tau _0[\stackrel{~}{p}(\tau _0)/B]`$, when its value is $`\widehat{}(\tau _0[\stackrel{~}{p}(\tau _0)/B])=m/2+[\sqrt{m^2+\stackrel{~}{p}(\tau _0)^2}/2](E/2)`$, which only happens after $`\tau _0`$ if $`\stackrel{~}{p}(\tau _0)`$ satisfies the condition $`\text{sign}(B)\stackrel{~}{p}(\tau _0)<0`$; otherwise, $`\widehat{}(\tau )`$ is a monotonically increasing function of $`\tau >\tau _0`$. For this reason, the presented quantum states are stable, even though there is no true ground state.

## V Discussion

We showed that the extended Poincaré group in (1+1) dimensions $`\overline{𝒫}`$ is a connected solvable exponential Lie group, with $`H_0^2(\overline{𝒫},\mathrm{})=0`$ and $`H_0^1(\overline{𝒫},\mathrm{})=\mathrm{}`$ (see Sec. II). These facts were important to apply the Kirillov theorem to perform a classification of the two-dimensional relativistic elementary systems and to work out explicitly all the irrep’s of $`\overline{𝒫}`$ by the orbit method (see Sec. III). The particular class of irrep’s $`T^{\zeta ^A\zeta _A,\zeta _3}`$ with $`\zeta `$ satisfying Eq. (10) turned out to be connected to a covariant maximal polynomial quantization of the anomaly-free relativistic particle in (1+1) dimensions, which provided a quantum-mechanical interpretation for the construction in this most physically interesting case (see Sec. IV).

We remark that the Bohr–Wilson–Sommerfeld condition21 is trivially satisfied by the anomaly-free relativistic particle in (1+1) dimensions, and it does not yield the quantization of any observable quantity, which is consistent with the fact that the system is not conservative and the world lines are open. It is worth mentioning that $`\overline{𝒫}`$ is related to the one-dimensional oscillator group Os(1) by the Weyl unitary trick. However, the group Os(1) is not solvable exponential, and the orbit method gives all its irrep’s only through holomorphic induction.22

It is remarkable that the extended metaplectic quantization of the anomaly-free relativistic particle is covariant with respect to $`\overline{𝒫}`$, inasmuch as a covariant Stratonovich–Weyl kernel for the corresponding coadjoint orbits has not been found yet. 10 However, this difficulty is not directly related to the fact that there is an obstruction to fully quantizing the system, since there are symplectic manifolds such as $`\mathrm{}^2`$ or $`S^2`$ for which the problem of the generalized Weyl–Wigner–Moyal quantization has successfully been solved, 10 although obstructions have been found. 20

The group $`\overline{𝒫}`$ enjoys several properties in common with other Lie groups of low dimension such as the Weyl–Heisenberg group WH, the Euclidean group E(2), and the affine group $`\text{Aff}_+(1,\mathrm{})`$, which found applications in fields such as electronics, signal processing, and quantum optics. As all these groups have square-integrable representations, in a subsequent publication it would be interesting to test whether the irrep’s $`T^{\zeta ^A\zeta _A,\zeta _3}`$ of $`\overline{𝒫}`$ are square integrable with respect to $`\text{orb}(\zeta )`$. This fact would allow us to work out the associated generalized coherent states, generalized wavelet transforms, and generalized Wigner functions,23 which would surely be an invaluable mathematical tool in the context of the phase-space formulation of the quantum anomaly-free relativistic particle in (1+1) dimensions.

###### Acknowledgements.

R. O. de M. would like to thank R. F. Streater for reading the preprint, R. Aldrovandi for the discussions about the orbit method, and N. Grishkov for helping us to calculate the second cohomology group of the extended Poincaré algebra. This research was partially supported by CNPq. V. O. R. acknowledges support from PRONEX under Contract CNPq 66.2002/1998-99.

## The Method of Orbits

Before considering the Bernat–Pukanszky theory of exponential groups,8, 9 let us briefly review the standard procedure to form a unitary induced representation, since the theory of induced representations developed by Mackey 24, 25 plays an essential role in the method of orbits.

Let $`H`$ be a closed subgroup of a locally compact topological group with a countable basis $`G`$ and $`U`$ a one-dimensional unitary representation of $`H`$ on the complex numbers C. We introduce the space $`L(G,H,U)`$ of complex-valued measurable functions $`F`$ on $`G`$ that satisfy the condition $`F(hg)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{H,G}(h)^{1/2}U(h)F(g)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{H,G}(h)=\mathrm{\Delta }_H(h)/\mathrm{\Delta }_G(h)`$, $`hH`$, $`gG`$, and $`g\mathrm{\Delta }_G(g)`$ is the modulus of the group $`G`$.

The group $`G`$ can be identified with $`H\times X`$, where $`X`$ is the right $`G`$-space $`X=H\backslash G`$, since every element of $`gG`$ can be written uniquely in the form $`g=hs(x)`$ with $`xX`$. Under this identification, the right Haar measure on $`G`$ splits into the product of a quasi-invariant measure $`\nu _s`$ on $`X`$, depending upon the choice of a Borel mapping $`s`$ of $`X`$ into $`G`$ having the property that $`s(Hg)Hg`$, by the right Haar measure on $`H`$; $`d\nu (g)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{H,G}(h)d\nu _s(x)d\nu (h)`$. The measure $`\nu _s`$ on $`X`$ is $`G`$-invariant if and only if $`\mathrm{\Delta }_G(h)=\mathrm{\Delta }_H(h)`$.

The space $`L(G,H,U)`$ is clearly invariant under right translations on $`G`$. Let $`L^2(G,H,U)`$ denote the Hilbert space generated by the square-integrable functions $`F`$ in $`L(G,H,U)`$; then, we call the unitary representation $`T`$ acting by right translations upon the Hilbert space $`L^2(G,H,U)`$, according to $`[T(g)F](g^{})=F(g^{}g)`$, the representation induced in the sense of Mackey by the representation $`U`$ and we will denote it by $`\text{ind}(G,H,U)`$.

It is not difficult to see that there is an isomorphism $`Ff`$ of the Hilbert space $`L^2(G,H,U)`$ onto the Hilbert space $`L^2(X,\nu _s,\text{C})`$, generated by the square-integrable complex functions having compact support on $`X`$ with respect to the measure $`\nu _s`$, which associates a function $`fL^2(X,\nu _s,\text{C})`$ defined by $`f(x)=F(s(x))`$ with every $`FL^2(G,H,U)`$. Under this isomorphism, the induced representations in the sense of Mackey can be realized on the Hilbert space $`L^2(X,\nu _s,\text{C})`$ through $`[T(g)f](x)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{H,G}(h)^{1/2}U(h)f(xg)`$, where the element $`hH`$ is defined from the relation $`s(x)g=hs(xg)`$.

Now, we can sketch the orbit method. Let $`G`$ be an exponential group, $`𝔤`$ its real exponential Lie algebra, and $`𝔤^{}`$ its dual. We say that a subalgebra $`𝔥𝔤`$ is subordinate to $`\zeta 𝔤^{}`$ if its first derived algebra is orthogonal to $`\zeta `$, or $`\zeta ,[𝔥,𝔥]=0`$. Denoting by $`HG`$ the subgroup corresponding to the subalgebra $`𝔥`$ subordinate to $`\zeta 𝔤^{}`$, we define the unitary one-dimensional representation of $`H`$ by $`U(\mathrm{exp}X)=\mathrm{exp}(i\zeta ,X)`$, which is related to the character $`\chi `$ of $`H`$ simply by $`\chi (\mathrm{exp}X)=U(\mathrm{exp}X)`$, where $`X𝔥`$.

Then a unitary induced representation $`\text{ind}(G,H,U)`$ of $`G`$ is irreducible if and only if the subalgebra $`𝔥`$ subordinate to $`\zeta 𝔤^{}`$ is admissible, i.e., if its dimension is maximal in the family of all subalgebras subordinate to $`\zeta `$ and if it satisfies Pukanszky’s condition. 9 The maximality condition is equivalent to $`\text{dim}𝔥=\text{dim}𝔤\frac{1}{2}\text{dim}\text{orb}(\zeta )`$, and Pukanszky’s condition requires that the linear variety $`\zeta +H^{}`$ is contained in $`\text{orb}(\zeta )`$, where $`H^{}`$ denotes the orthogonal complement of $`H`$ in $`𝔤^{}`$. Bernat 8 showed that the first condition implies the second one if $`𝔤`$ is quasinilpotent (i.e., all the real eigenvalues of $`\text{ad}(X)`$ are zero, for all $`X𝔤`$), otherwise the two conditions are independent. In particular, every nilpotent group is quasinilpotent.

It can be shown 26 that, for any given $`\zeta `$, there is a subordinate subalgebra $`𝔥`$ satisfying the two conditions above. Moreover, if $`𝔥_1`$ and $`𝔥_2`$ are, respectively, maximal dimension subalgebras subordinate to $`\zeta _1`$ and $`\zeta _2`$, further obeying Pukanszky’s condition, then $`\text{ind}(G,H_1,U_1)=\text{ind}(G,H_2,U_2)`$ if and only if $`\zeta _1`$ and $`\zeta _2`$ belong to the same coadjoint orbit, the equal sign indicating unitary equivalence. Reciprocally, any irrep of $`G`$ is representable in the form $`\text{ind}(G,H,U)`$ by specifying $`𝔥`$ and $`\zeta `$ appropriately, thus establishing a canonical bijection between the space $`𝒪(G)`$ of coadjoint orbits and the unitary dual $`\widehat{G}`$ of any solvable exponential Lie group. It is worth mentioning that every coadjoint orbit of the connected and simply connected solvable type I Lie groups (and, in particular, of the exponential groups) is integral (i.e., satisfies the integrality condition).


text:
# Axial anomaly with the overlap-Dirac operator in arbitrary dimensions

## Appendix A Axial anomaly with the Wilson-Dirac operator

With the Wilson-Dirac operator, the chiral symmetry is explicitly broken by the Wilson term and the axial anomaly is regarded as arising from this explicit breaking . The axial anomaly thus has a structure of a fermion one-loop diagram containing the Wilson term and, in our notation, it reads

$$q_\mathrm{w}(x)=\frac{1}{a^d}tr\left(\gamma _{d+1}\frac{a^2}{2}r_\mu ^{}_\mu \frac{1}{A}\right)=\frac{1}{a^d}tr\left[\gamma _{d+1}\frac{a^2}{2}r_\mu ^{}_\mu (A^{}A)^1A^{}\right],$$
(42)
where the parameter $`m_0`$ in $`A`$ of eq. (1) is replaced by $`am`$ with $`m`$ being the bare mass of the fermion. An expansion with respect to the lattice spacing is almost identical to the case of the overlap-Dirac operator in the text and we have

$$q_\mathrm{w}(x)=\frac{i^n}{(2\pi )^d}I_\mathrm{w}(r)ϵ_{\mu _1\nu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n\nu _n}tr\left(F_{\mu _1\nu _1}\mathrm{}F_{\mu _n\nu _n}\right)+O(a),$$
(43)
where $`I_\mathrm{w}(r)=_{}\mathrm{d}^dk_\mathrm{w}(k;r)`$ and

$`_\mathrm{w}(k;r)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}c_\mu \right)\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}s_\nu ^2+r^2\left[{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}(c_\nu 1)\right]^2\right\}^{n1}`$ (44)
$`\times \left\{r^2\left[{\displaystyle \underset{\rho }{}}(c_\rho 1)\right]^2+r^2{\displaystyle \underset{\rho }{}}(c_\rho 1){\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{s_\sigma ^2}{c_\sigma }}\right\},`$
which is independent of the fermion mass. To evaluate this lattice integral, we again utilize the mapping (24)–(26) with $`m_0=0`$. The mapping $`k_\mu x_\mu `$ (we do not include $`x_0`$ here) defines a mapping $`g:B^d`$, where $`B^d`$ is the $`d`$ dimensional ball, $`B^d=\{x_\mu ^d|_\mu x_\mu ^21\}`$. More precisely, we have to regard all points of the boundary of the ball, $`_\mu x_\mu ^2=1`$, are identified, because $`k=(0,\mathrm{},0)`$ is mapped to the boundary of the ball. The crucial relation this time is that the volume form of the ball, $`\mathrm{d}x_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{d}x_d`$, coincides with the integrand of $`I_\mathrm{w}(r)`$ as one can verify. These observations show

$$I_\mathrm{w}(r)=(\mathrm{deg}g)_{B^d}dx_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{d}x_d=(\mathrm{deg}g)vol(B^d),$$
(45)
where the volume of the $`d`$ dimensional ball, $`vol(B^d)`$, is given by $`vol(B^d)=\pi ^n/n!`$ and the degree is

$$\mathrm{deg}g=\underset{g(k^j)=y}{}sgn\left[_\mathrm{w}(k^j;r)\right].$$
(46)
As the point $`y`$ on $`B^d`$, we choose the origin $`y=(0,\mathrm{},0)`$. All momenta whose components $`k_\mu `$ are either $`0`$ or $`\pi `$, except $`k=(0,\mathrm{},0)`$, are mapped to $`y=(0,\mathrm{},0)`$. Thus the degree is given by

$$\mathrm{deg}g=\underset{n_\pi =1}{\overset{d}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d}{n_\pi }\right)(1)^{n_\pi }=1.$$
(47)
Combining eqs. (43), (45) and (47), we have $`q_\mathrm{w}(x)\mathrm{d}^dx=tr[\mathrm{exp}iF/(2\pi )]|_{\mathrm{d}^dx}+O(a)`$ for arbitrary Wilson parameter $`r0`$.


text:
# Exploring the Expansion History of the Universe

## I Introduction

The quest to explore the expansion history of the universe has carried cosmology well beyond “determining two numbers” – the present dimensionless density of matter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and the present deceleration parameter $`q_0`$ san61 . Observations have advanced so that now cosmologists seek to reconstruct the entire function $`a(t)`$ representing the expansion history of the universe.

A myriad of cosmological observational tests can probe the function $`a(t)`$ more fully, over much of the age of the universe (see Sandage san88 , Linder lin89 ; lin97 , Tegmark teg ). This paper concentrates on the most advanced method, the magnitude-redshift relation of Type Ia supernovae.

Just as understanding the thermal history of the early universe has taught us an enormous amount about both cosmology and particle physics (see, e.g., kt ), the recent expansion history of the universe promises similarly fertile ground with the discovery of the current acceleration of the expansion of the universe. This involves concepts of the late time role of high energy field theories in the form of possible quintessence, scalar-tensor gravitation, higher dimension theories, brane worlds, etc. as well as the fate of the universe.

## II Mapping the Expansion History

Type Ia supernovae, or any standardizable candles (sources with known luminosity), are excellently suited to map the expansion history $`a(t)`$ since there exists a direct relation between the observed distance-redshift relation $`d(z)=(1+z)\eta (z)`$ and the theoretical $`a(t)`$. For a flat universe, assumed throughout,

$$\eta (z)=_{a_e}^1𝑑a/(a^2H)=_0^z𝑑z^{}/H(z^{}),$$
(1)
where $`\eta `$ is the conformal time, $`d\eta =dt/a`$, the Hubble parameter is $`H=\dot{a}/a`$ and $`a_e=1/(1+z)`$ is the scale factor at the time of emission, i.e. when the supernova exploded.

The Hubble parameter in general relativity comes from the Friedmann equation

$$H^2=(8\pi /3)\rho ,$$
(2)
and the conservation condition of each component is

$$\dot{\rho }/\rho =3H(1+p/\rho )3H[1+w(z)],$$
(3)
where the energy density is $`\rho `$, the pressure $`p`$, and the equation of state (EOS) of each component is defined by $`w=p/\rho `$. Ordinary nonrelativistic matter has $`w=0`$; a cosmological constant has $`w=1`$. We explicitly allow the possibility that $`w`$ evolves.

The expansion history $`a(t)`$ is given by

$$t(a)=_a^1𝑑a^{}/(a^{}H)=_0^z𝑑z^{}/[(1+z^{})H(z^{})].$$
(4)
The fly in the ointment is that the measured distance $`d(z)`$ is related to, but is not, the desired history relation $`a(t)`$. To translate $`d(z)`$ into $`a(t)`$ directly involves a derivative of $`d(z)`$, so noisy data can introduce difficulties astier ; ht . Instead one finds $`H(z)`$ through the cosmology parameters $`\rho `$ and $`w(z)`$.

Observational evidence for accelerated expansion informs us that there must be a component with a strongly negative EOS – “dark energy” – in addition to matter. Then combining equations (1)-(3):

$`H_0\eta (z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^z}dz^{}[\mathrm{\Omega }_m(1+z^{})^3`$
$`+(1\mathrm{\Omega }_m)e^{3_0^{\mathrm{ln}(1+z^{})}d\mathrm{ln}(1+z^{\prime \prime })[1+w(z^{\prime \prime })]}]^{1/2},`$
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ is the dimensionless matter density $`8\pi \rho _m/(3H_0^2)`$ and $`H_0=H(0)`$ is the Hubble constant. Eq. (4) can then be used to obtain $`a(t)`$.

To find $`w(z)`$ one could solve the scalar field equation for a particular theory but this does not allow a model independent parameter space in which to compare models. Instead, for generality of treatment, various parametrizations of $`w(z)`$ are used.

### II.1 Linear $`w(z)`$

The conventional first order expansion to the EOS, including the critical property of time variation in the EOS, is $`w(z)=w_0+w_1z`$. In this case the exponential in (II) resolves to $`(1+z)^{3(1+w_0w_1)}e^{3w_1z}`$. However this grows increasingly unsuitable at redshifts $`z>1`$. Analyzing CMB constraints on the distance to the last scattering surface at $`z_{lss}=1100`$ would be problematic.

### II.2 A new parametrization of the equation of state

To extend parametrization of dark energy to redshifts $`z>1`$, I suggest a new model:

$`w(a)`$ $`=`$ $`w_0+w_a(1a)`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`w_0+w_az/(1+z).`$ (7)
Here the exponential in (II) resolves to $`a^{3(1+w_0+w_a)}e^{3w_a(1a)}`$.

This new parametrization has several advantages: 1) a manageable 2-dimensional phase space, 2) reduction to the old linear redshift behavior at low redshift, 3) well behaved, bounded behavior for high redshift, 4) high accuracy in reconstructing many scalar field equations of state and the resulting distance-redshift relations, 5) good sensitivity to observational data, 6) simple physical interpretation.

Beyond the bounded behavior, the new parametrization is also more accurate than the old one. For example, in comparison to the exact solution for the supergravity inspired SUGRA model braxm  it is accurate in matching $`w(z)`$ to -2%, 3% at $`z=0.5`$, 1.7 vs. 6%, -27% for the linear $`z`$ approximation (the constants $`w_1`$, $`w_a`$ are here chosen to fit at $`z=1`$). Most remarkably, it reconstructs the distance-redshift behavior of the SUGRA model to 0.2% over the entire range out to the last scattering surface ($`z1100`$).

Note that $`dw/d\mathrm{ln}(1+z)|_{z=1}=w_a/2`$; one might consider this quantity a natural measure of time variation (it is directly related to the scalar field potential slow roll factor $`V^{}/V`$) and $`z=1`$ a region where the scalar field is most likely to be evolving as the epoch of matter domination changes over to dark energy domination.

The future Supernova/Acceleration Probe (SNAP: snap ) will be able to determine $`w_a`$ to better than $`\pm 0.55`$ (one expects roughly $`w_a2w_1`$), with use of a prior on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ of 0.03, or to better than 0.3 on incorporating data from the Planck CMB experiment planck . For the advantages of combining supernova and CMB data see fhlt . The CMB information can be folded in naturally in this parametrization, without imposing artificial cutoffs or locally approximating the likelihood surface as required in the $`w_1`$ parametrization. In fact, the new parametrization is even more promising since the sensitivity of the SNAP determinations increases for $`w_0`$ more positive than $`1`$ or for positive $`w_a`$ (see, e.g., astier ): the values quoted above were for a fiducial cosmological constant model. For example, SUGRA predicts $`w_a=0.58`$ and SNAP would put error bars of $`\sigma (w_a)0.25`$ on that; this would demonstrate time variation of the EOS at the 95% confidence level. Incorporation of a Planck prior can improve this to the $``$99% confidence level: $`\sigma (dw/d\mathrm{ln}(1+z)|_{z=1})0.1`$.

### II.3 Expansion and density histories

Figure 1 shows the mapping of the expansion history of various models and the constraints that SNAP data would impose. The models include both dark energy and alternative explanations for the acceleration discussed in Sec. III. Regarding the data constraints, it is important to note the presence of correlation between the parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, $`w_0`$, and $`w_1`$ or $`w_a`$ (see, e.g., welal ). Despite SNAP being able to determine each individually to high precision, e.g. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ to 0.03, $`w_0`$ to 0.05, $`w_1`$ to 0.3 (each marginalized over others), the correlations among them relax the tightness of the constraint SNAP would place on the expansion history. This is unavoidable (but see Sec. II.4).

Figure 2 gives the equivalent density history. Note that the matter dominated epoch is characterized by $`\rho (z)(1+z)^3`$ and so has a slope of 3 in this plane. The deviation from this due to the recent epoch of dark energy domination can clearly be seen (cf. Tegmark teg ).

### II.4 Conformal time history

One method of incorporating the advantages of both mapping approaches – the generality of parametrization and the directness of reconstruction – is to consider the conformal time $`a(\eta )`$. From $`d=(1+z)\eta `$ one sees that one requires no foreknowledge or local approximation to obtain the scale factor-conformal time relation. The error estimation from the observed magnitudes $`m`$ is simply

$$\frac{\sigma _\eta }{\eta }=\sigma _m\frac{\mathrm{ln}10}{5}(1/2)\sigma _m.$$
(8)
A 1% distance measurement error ($`\sigma _m=0.02`$) given by SNAP’s limiting systematics becomes a 1% error in $`a(\eta )`$.

Another virtue of the conformal time history is its physical interpretation. Consider the logarithmic derivative of the $`\eta (a)`$ curve. This is

$$\frac{d\eta }{d\mathrm{ln}a}=a\frac{dt}{ada}=(\dot{a})^1.$$
(9)
Two simple physical interpretations apply: 1) this gives the proper time evolution of the scale factor, 2) this represents the conformal horizon scale $`(aH)^1`$. Both are familiar from analysis of inflationary cosmology – they determine when the expansion of the universe enters an accelerating phase.

Figure 3 maps the conformal horizon. When this curve has positive slope, the expansion is decelerating, $`\ddot{a}<0`$ and comoving wavelengths (e.g. of density perturbations) enter the horizon. More recently the curve has negative slope; this is the signature of accelerating expansion. In terms of inflation we would say that wavelengths exit the horizon then (the horizon appears to shrink). The dashed lines show the reconstruction possible by SNAP observing supernovae out to $`z=1.7`$. SNAP clearly has the ability to probe not only the current accelerating epoch (“late time inflation”) but to reach back into the decelerating phase and to map the transition between them.

## III Beyond Dark Energy

Mapping the physical time evolution of the scale factor relies on translating the observations into the Hubble parameter $`H(z)`$. The Friedmann equation (2) related this to the matter and dark energy densities. But ideally we would like to use the data to test the Friedmann equations of general relativity or alternate explanations for the acceleration besides dark energy. Here we lay the framework for such options and give some examples.

### III.1 Higher dimension theories

In the braneworld scenario of Deffayet et al. deff , gravitation leaks from the 4-dimensional brane we experience out into the 5-dimensional bulk. The new expansion evolution equation is

$$H^2(z)=ka^2+\left[\sqrt{(8\pi /3)\rho +1/(2r_c)^2}+1/(2r_c)\right]^2,$$
(10)
where $`r_c=M_{Pl}^2/(2M_5^3)`$ is the crossover scale on which gravity leaks into the bulk, defined in terms of the usual Planck scale $`M_{Pl}`$ and the 5-dimensional Planck scale $`M_5`$. It is convenient to introduce a dimensionless energy density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{rc}=1/(4H_0^2r_c^2)`$. Flatness imposes $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{rc}=(1\mathrm{\Omega }_m)^2/4`$.

SNAP data will be able to constrain the parameter uncertainties to $`\sigma (\mathrm{\Omega }_m)=0.008`$, or $`\sigma (\mathrm{\Omega }_{rc})=0.003`$ for a fiducial $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$. This corresponds to a determination of the crossover scale of $`r_c=1.43\pm 0.015H_0^1`$. If other observations, analyzed within this braneworld picture, disagreed with this narrow range then this theory could be ruled out. Fig. 1 illustrates how the expansion history for a braneworld model differs from that for dark energy.

Note that other higher dimension models discussed, such as the Randall-Sundrum type 2 model rs2 ; bine  and so-called Cardassian expansion freese , reduce to the already discussed dark energy prescription for the recent expansion history.

### III.2 Chaplygin gas

A very different possibility to explain the acceleration of the universe is the Chaplygin gas fabris , proposed to unify dark energy and dark matter. Its pressure $`p1/\rho `$ gives a solution that at early times behaves like nonrelativistic matter and at late times like a cosmological constant. The expansion equation becomes

$$[H(z)/H_0]^2=\mathrm{\Omega }_m(1+z)^3+(1\mathrm{\Omega }_m)\sqrt{A+(1A)(1+z)^6}.$$
(11)
The factor $`A`$ is interpreted as the sound velocity squared of the Chaplygin gas. As $`A1`$, it reduces to the cosmological constant.

SNAP data will be able to constrain the parameter uncertainties to $`\sigma (\mathrm{\Omega }_M)`$$`=+0.005,0.017`$ and $`\sigma (A)=0.005`$ for a fiducial $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$, $`A=1`$ (though the results are fairly insensitive to $`A`$). Note dark matter in the form of “quintessence clumps” would require $`A`$ significantly smaller than unity.

## IV Conclusion

The geometry, dynamics, and composition of the universe are intertwined through the theory of gravitation governing the expansion of the universe. By precision mapping of the recent expansion history we can hope to learn about all of these. The brightest hope for this in the near future is the next generation of distance-redshift measurements through Type Ia supernovae that will reach out to $`z1.7`$.

Just as the thermal history of the early universe taught us much about cosmology, astrophysics, and particle physics, so does the recent expansion history have the potential to greatly extend our physical understanding. With the new parametrization of dark energy suggested here, one can study the effects of a time varying equation of state component back to the decoupling epoch of the cosmic microwave background radiation. But even beyond dark energy, exploring the expansion history provides us cosmological information in a model independent way, allowing us to examine many new physical ideas. From two numbers we have progressed to mapping the entire dynamical function $`a(t)`$, to the brink of a deeper understanding of the dynamics and fate of the universe.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported at LBL by the Director, Office of Science, DOE under DE-AC03-76SF00098. I thank Alex Kim, Saul Perlmutter, and George Smoot for stimulating discussions and Ramon Miquel and Nick Mostek for stimulating computations.