Bol. Acad. C.Fis,, Mat. yNat. Vol. LXIINo.L Marzo, 2002: 9-33 HAMILTONIAN DYNAMICS WITH GAUGE FREEDOMS REVISITED Guillermo Ruggeri* Local, finite-dimensional, Hamiltonian dynamies with constraints and gauge freedoms is revisited following a constructive approach. Explicit eriteria and algorithms concerning the existence end form of subsidiary conditions. and of generators of both primary and secondary gauge freedoms. are given Dyn jeal brackets to represent the general form of evolution equations are idemificd, Explicit 8s forms for the evolution equations of physical and non physical variables are given and their structure and dynamical meaning analyzed. Dirac’s Conjecture is discussed. A Lie bracket is constructed in nplete set of physically equivalent trajectories. terms of which evolution equations exhibit the « LINTRODUCTION Since its inception in the physics literature, more than fifty years ago, by the classical work of Dirac, Anderson and Bergmann", Hamiltonian Mechanics in the presence of phase space constraints has attracted a considerable amount of interest, both as a tool in important theoretical problems and as a relatively simple dynamical framework to model complex systems. In spite of its now long history, many expositions on the subject still suffer from some theoretical restrictions that limit the range of validity of the main results and also make it, sometimes, difficult to asses the precise role played by some dynamical ingredients. 1 refer, for instance, to limitations related to the dimension of dynamical space, to the form of the underlying canonical Lagrangean, to the meaning and role of some types of constraints and brackets and others. Also many of these expositions fail to exhibit sufficiently explicit criteria concerning the existence of subsidiary conditions, which give rise to new constraints, and also of generators of uncertainties in the dynamical trajectories. The purpose of this paper is to describe a constructive approach to finite-dimensional TF Trabajo de Incomporacion como Miembro Correspondicate Academia de Ciencias Fisicas, Matematicas y Naturales Poamartem, Escala de Fisica, Facultad de Ciencias. Universidad Cental de Venema Caras, Vereaela 9 Hamiltonian dynamics with constraints and gauge freedoms. The subject will be understood ina sense slightly broader than it is usual in the physics literature, meaning the dynamical framework defined in section Il, This includes, but does not reduces to the conventional signification, that refers to the Hamiltonian form of the Lagrange dynamical equations. The setting, discussed in this paper is sufficient to avoid some of the theoretical limitations mentioned above, thereby adding to the heuristic value of the results. Analysis is based on a characterization of the problem of inverting evolution equations, as presented by the variational principle, the initial constraints and the subsidiary conditions imposed on the Hamiltonian. Being explicit, our approach provides specific criteria about the existence of subsidiary conditions, secondary constraints, and primary and secondary gauge freedoms. It also leads to algorithms for a systematic obtention of, these basic entities and for dilucidating their form and structure The course described here is not founded on separation of constraints in first and second classes, in the sense of Dirac, Instead, it has proved useful to maintain a clear separation between primary and secondary constraints, This reflects the different origins, and purposes. of these two types of constraints, In fact, primary constraints are conditions imposed a priori on dynamical trajectories whereas secondaryBol. Acad. C, Fis.. Mat. yNat. Vol. LXIINo. 1 2002 constraints exist to secure the algebraic consis- tency of the ensuing evolution scheme. Accor- dingly, these two types of constraints enter the theoretical description in a rather distinctive way, Keeping this difference manifest during the discussion helps to understand the role played by the various dynamical constituents, This separa- tion is also essential to embrace some non standard systems in the description. In section II, the form of equations obtained from the. constrained variational principle is considered both in its direct Lagrangean form, and in its Hamiltonian form, Results are used in section Ill to describe a recursive algorithm that generates all subsidiary conditions and new constraints needed to close the dynamical scheme in a consistent way. Brackets suitable to represent the complete set of evolution equations, that contains both the variational set of equations and the conditions of dynamical preservation of all new constraints, are analyzed in section IV. Evolution of physical and non physical variables is studied in section V, where the two different types of dynamical uncertainties that ean occur in a general case are analyzed. Dirac’s conjecture is discussed in that contest and a Lie bracket identified that renders evolution equations in such form that it shows manifestly the complete set of transformations that connect physically equivalent trajectories. A. few simple illustrative examples, and some general comments, are interspersed throughout the paper. ‘The overall mathematical level of the discussion is heuristic. Since many results. are only valid in sufficiently small neighborhoods of dynamical space, no global claims are made. IL. THE PRIMARY PROBLEM For the purposes of this paper a constrained, local, Hamiltonian dynamics is that which springs, via the variational principle, from a Canonical Lagrangean 10 @ under a number of independent variational conditions fue-Hy 56 = 8,0 0, @) (riage ‘These elements lead to equations a,H-0,065 Gay 0, Bb) where e, 0, -Of Be) In these primary equations . &, 5 f= bow Re is any complete set of variables in adynamical space. Primary constraints, of, the Hamiltonian H, a fortiori a constant of the motion, and /* are functions of & specified in advance. The 6, are Lagrange multipliers. The sum convention over repeated indices has been used; this will always be done in the rest of the paper for any kind of indices, Greek indices run from | to R Abbreviation 0, = 0/24, has been introduced. Conditions (2) and (3b) are intended to confine the actual and varied trajectories of the system to the domain @ = ¢. Constants care either fixed a priori or through the initial data. In the first case one has a typical Dirae’s primary constraint; in the second case no proper reduction in the number of degrees of freedom occurs. This second possibility can be used to incorporate from the beginning some external characterization into the dynamics, such as for instance, symmetry properties. In standard Hamiltonian Mechanies with phase space constraints, Canonical Lagrangean and primary constraints follow from a configuration- space Lagrangean after a singular Legendre transformation is performed. For those cases, referred from now on as the standard cases, R is even, © a regular matrix and all primaryGuillermo Rugger': Hamitonian Denamics constraints are of Dirac’s typel®, In what follows, however, to make room for a number of other interesting systems. R will be allowed to ake odd values. For these cases ¢ is sin As will be clear later on, to describe these systems in our context it is necessary to incorporate non-Dirac primary constraints, which may be considered as structural features of the systems under study. In all cases, due to the restrictions on the variational principle, Canonical Lagrangeans L, and L, + a,@+ D give tise to the same evolution equations, for arbitrary funetions af and D of dynamic variables, These Lagrangeans are connected by transformations of the form > f° + a, 2, + 8, D, or what is equivalent, e',—> &, + 0,00." - 8,407, ‘These transformations preserve the two essential Broperties of matrix &. namely its anti symmetry and Lagrange identity 4 e", + d.0",+ d.e4,= 0 valid for any three indices! Ina general ‘case. however, the singulatity of this matrix changes. In fact, transformations of this sort lead to some natural choices for canonical Lagrangeans that correspond to singular matrices ©. Hence, a singular ¢ is the general situation. Consequently, to preserve in all cases convenient degrees of generality and freedom, no restrictive assumptions about the singularity of matrix €, or the type of primary constraints, will be made from now on Matrix algebra will be used throughout the fext, In particular, to deal simultaneously with various complete sets of linearly independent Yectors of the same kind, they will be arranged in matrices that have different vectors as columns or rows as appropriate, When referring to these matrix basis abbreviation m:b. will be used, Introducing then column vectors & = (é), OH = (6,H) and, C= (6), and matrices ¢'= (e:) and“8d = (6, #), the primary equations (3) can be written in block form as oH |e < ole Superscript 7” means transposition and symbol @is-a short for (2.)' . a ® 0 nN The purpose of this paper is to characterize the existence, multiplicity. form and dynamical meaning of solutions to Eqs(4), considered as linear set for and G. All these matters depend on the structure of the anti symmetric matrix of this set. When that matrix is regular the solution is unique and evolution equations can be put in canonical Hamiltonian form ¢— foH = {éJ1} Matrix f defines a singular Lie bracket that has primary constraints as its independent Casimir- invariant funetions, ie. f 8¢ = 0. For the standard case this bracket coincides with Dirac’s bracket. It will be shown in section V that, in the general case, the physical dynamic variables are also closed under a Lie bracket which has all constraints, primary and secondars Casimir-invariant functions, as. its Primary gauge freedoms New features appear when the matrix of Eqs(4) is singular, that is when it has null vectors. These vectors are the solutions to equations The existence of vectors u, indicates that the left hand side of Eqs (4) are’linearly related so that some conditions must be satisfied by the Hamiltonian to ensure their algebraic consistency These primary subsidiary conditions take the form uz OH = 0. Since each independent u, diminishes by one the number of independent equations in (4), when subsidiary conditions are satisfied these equations have multiple solutions. The multiplicity is also expressed by solutions of Eq (5): if €. ¢ is any particular solution then the general solution is €+ wa and © -y,a, for an arbitrary @ The significant dynamical meaning here is that projection of £ along the subspace spanned by vectors a, is not determined by Eqs «@),Bol, Acad.C. Fis., Mat. yNat, Vol. LXIINo. 1 Vectors u,, referred from now on as primary uevectors, express the existence of gauge free- doms in the primary dynamics. A set of func~ tions 2? always exists such that w’, = ag / as, {A proof is contained in Appendix A’ Evolution of these variables is not determined by the. pri equations because no equations for 2? can be extracted from Eqs(4). This is so because the only possible source for these equations comes: from expression © (06/0:,)" z, that produces & term which can be absorbed in £. This fact is the precursor of all dynamical uncertainties. Primary subsidiary conditions can be satisfied, identically or as a consequence of primary constraints, or not. In the first two cases primary equations are consistent and closed so. that primary r-vectors express the whole ambiguity of the dynamics. In the third case either primary subsidiary conditions lead to inconsistencies, indicating that Eqs( 4) have no solutions, or new constraints appear. The need to preserve these secondary constraints during the evolution implies, in the general case, the existence of a chain of new conditions that must be met by the Hamiltonian and the appearence of further sets of new constraints. How this comes about is discussed in section III below. Kinds of primary w-vectors ‘There are two kinds of independent solutions to Eqs(5), which relate respectively to zero and non-zero values of u,, To exhibit their explicit forms consider the matrix A, = w'06, (6) where w is a mb. for the null vectors of ¢, ie. ew = 0. Let k, and x”, be mb’s for the right and left null vectors of A,, respectively. Then, ut, = we? is a mb. for those solutions of Eqs(5) which have w’, = 0. The other kind of primary wvector, 2, Say, corresponds tow, = K,ny for some n,, Inverting (Sa) 1°, ~€09k,n, +" wf is obtained, where matrix & is any genera- lized inverse (g-inverse) of e, that is any matrix 12 2002 which satisfies gee = ©, f is some matrix, Substitution in Eq(Sb), followed by a contraction with x7,, shows that 7, must be a null vector of ©, = (0 ky HOd k,). Matrix C, is invariant under changes of the g-inverse & and, therefore, antisymmetric. Then, type-2 primary. u-yectors exists if, and only if, C, is a singular matrix. For the standard case k, can be taken as the unit matrix so that C, is the matrix of Poisson brackets between primary constraints. To find the form of #°, let A, designate a g- inverse of 4,, so that AA, ti, (7a) AR = Ry (7b) where &, k= 1. Using these, the form: 2, = (1- OY E ddk,n, . (8a) is found. Here 2, = faye" (8b) Only type-2 primary w-vectors can exist in the standard case but if R is odd and there is no primary constraints, for instance, there exist type! primary w-veetors and none of type 2. The space of primary w-vectors is invariant under transfor- mations between equivalent canonical Lagran geans, but subspaces of type-1 and type-2 vectors are not in general; that is, type-I vectors can become type-2 and vice versa. Comments and examples ILL. Dynamics of a system with configuration- space Lagrangean L = qq % q. (@, -@) where a isa constant, can be described through the Hamiltonian H = pip, + % q.(@, ~ @), the standard Canonical Lagrangean Le ~q,p, + ++q.p;-H_and the primary constraint ¢ = p,= 0. Taking € =(4,9.4,p,p,p,)', © is the usual Poisson brackets matrix ({6%¢"}p) and k, = ,= 1. ThenGuillermo Ruggeri: Hamiltonin Dynamics cone has the primary u-vector u, = (&p,) p = (010000). Subsidiary condition a, aH = O gives rise to the secondary constraint 0° =q?-2° = O, If canonical Lagrangean L. = qp, +a,prH = L, + quPy -dlgsp,Jdt is used instead of L., matrix becomes singular with null vectors 010000 000010 0 Then A, = = 0and k, = (10), 1 This leads to the same primary wvector as before but now it is of type | 112. A simple example with no primary constraints and gauge freedoms is the four variables system defined: EE and the Hamiltonian: SG Ete Gy fede Evolution equations (3) are & = & & = & and the two secondary constraints 6" = = 0 and @@ = E+ 6 = 0. These constraints emerge from the subsidiary conditions of the general scheme because here & is singular with null veetors 0010)" loot these are also primary a-vectors. 113, If on the grounds of symmetry, conservation of both total linear and angular momenta are imposed in advance on a standard non-relativistic system of particles, by means of six nnon-Dirac primary constraints, the ensuing dynamics has primary gauge freedoms. Choosing traslationally and rotationally invariant Hamiltonians the subsidiary conditions are satisfied identically and no further constraints appear. Gauge freedoms remain; they represent the freedoms to choose between rigid reference frames ILA, If the space spanned by vectors u, has dimension d(u.), then R -C, ~d(u,) is always an even number. 115. Combinations y(g)o of Dirac-type primary constraints can be discarded from the Hamiltonian because the first part of O(yAg)o) =* APs + y(P)Go aq simply redefines ¢ , in Eq(a), or (4), and the second vanishes on the space where the motion takes place. In other words, the Hamiltonian is not uniquely defined because, for any o, H and Hty(d)o are equivalent. Only a weaker statement is valid for primary constraints of both types, namely transformations @H—> OH + Adu leave evolution equations unchanged, for any yz Hamiltonian form of primary equations To give Hamiltonian form to a consistent set of primary equations g-inverses of the matrix of the system (4) are adequate tools. If a generic grinverse is written in block form: fu WK @) the various submatrices satisfy the two sets of ‘equations: f,e+ hog 4%, (a) Sf, 06 = -u i, , on) and of, + Opi! = wi a, a) Of, = wut, . (ub) For brevity four other equations have been omitted. Matrices w, w. #, and ¥, are uniquely associated to each solution The explicit Hamntonian form of primary equations follows by multiplying Eq(4) with matrix (9). This is: (Wa) f, Ota, (2b)Bol. Acad. C. Fis,, Mat. yNat, Vol. LXIINo. | @ is an arbitrary column of coeffidents. These equalities are valid only in a weak sense, that és modulo u’,2H = 0. This will always be assumed in the following when equalities express evolution equations are written; their validity depends on the fullfillment by the Hamiltonian of some set of subsidiary conditions. As regards evolution equations (I2a), gauge variance of the algebraic solution of Eq(4) is fully represented at the Hamiltonian level by the ambiguity of 7, 10 which any combination of the form 1,"y + an. bere ‘The iomsios ei ehlDG) wi ane multiplicity of the velocity vector and the subsidiary conditions imposed on H.!! Matrix f, may be considered as a dynamical bracket for’ primary equations, but, due to. its multiplicity, no special structure should be implied for it in general. However, if there are no primary w-vectors the solution (9) is unique and antisymmetric, Then f, and K are both a symmetric and hh, 50 that Eqs(ll) are the transpose of Eq(I0). All these equations reduce to the statements: i) f, & J, = J, and ii) 26 is a mb. of the null vectors of f."These in tum are sufficient to prove Jacobi identity for fas a consequence of Lagrange identity satisfied’ by . Therefore, a5 mentioned before, we do have a canonical structure in this case. The form of f, is ‘contained in Eq(|3) below. Canonical evolution variables of complementary A canonical structure always exists within the space of variables z, which are independent of the distinguished variables =, and complementary to them. These variables evolve according to: =f (Mle JHO'2,f) ul, OH. Here: is @ uniquely defined matrix, ie. independent of the primary bracket chosen, that satisfies the conditions mentioned above to become a Lie bracket in the space of functions of z,. This 14 2002 matrix is independent of z,; details of proofs are contained in Appendix A. This space includes primary constraints, that are Casimir invariant functions of f¢, and a set of other variables that are even in number. If subsidiary conditions are satisfied, either identically or due to primary constraints, the Hamiltonian is also a function of 2, except possibly for terms that vanish due to these constraints. This is then the dynamical structure when there are primary uvectors but no secondary constraints exist. Some parameters fon the constrained space = ¢ evolve arbitrarily whereas any complementary set of parameters has a canonical evolution free from uncertainties. All Dirac-type constraints are set to zero and the values of non-Dirac primary constraints specify, according to the initial conditions, the domain of the dynamical space that contains the trajectories of the system. * Representation of primary brackets Generic solutions to Eqs(10) and (II) are given by: J,= (Qe - 9) a3) where: a = HOMIE (AME. 14) Here C, stands for any g-inverse of C,. Expressions ([3) ean be obtained, as a prefactor of OH, after a direct solution of Eq(3a) under conditions (3b). Multiplicity of f, in Eq(13) comes from the freedoms to choose #4, and ©, Equations (13) and (14) interpolate between the standard case where Q, = 0 and f, = e%, that has the form of a Dirac bracket built from the primary constraints, and cases with a singular © and no primary constraints for which /, =". The usual concept of Dirac bracket occurs, for the standard case, when there is no primary ue vectors, that is when C, is regular.Guillermo Ruggeri: Hamiltonian Dynamics Examples and comments 116. To construct a generic canonical dyna- mics without gauge freedoms for a closed system of three independent variables, it is sufficient to define one non-Dirac primary constraint @ such that @ = wag # 0. This way gauge freedoms, Dirac’s constraints and limitations to the form of the Hamiltonian are avoided. A generic null vector of the 3X3 matrix e is wi = 4 ee, where ©? is the usual Levi-Civita symbol Lagrange identity requires 0,5" = 0. These two conditions can be met but not necessarily whole dynamical space. The correspond unique, Lie bracket is given by Eq(I3) and can beseen to take the form f= Var 2*°3,¢. the 17. To the system with Canonical Lagran- gean Lm aay + yk, + Xe Yew (REDS), corresponds w = (III). If there is no primary constraints the subsidiary condition implies O = x + x + x, = 0, which is preserved by the evolution equations. The system is then consistent but only has two degrees of freedom. On the other hand, if the primary non-Dirac constraint =x, + x, + x, is imposed a priori, the system remains tridimensional because no secondary constraint appear. Modulo the respective constraints, which determine two different accessible spaces, the evolution equations are the same in both cases, namely: x, = wi3 (x, ~ x,) and the ones obtained by cyclic permutations of variables. IL8. An autonomous system of “angular momenta” x, 12.3, can be defined by the (s.r) = ex, For a dynamical description along the lines of Example 11.6, the Casimir invariant f = 4 x, is taken as a primary non-Dirac ‘constraint and bracket {, } identified with the dynamical Lie bracket, Stokes = 0 cannot be satisfied everywhere. However, two well defined solutions on any spherical surface, with the exception of one point in each case, are: wi, =x, (Fr 4x, rOe, +28), we, = Xr +x) re, + x) and w', = = Ur, where 2f > 0. These correspond to the Canonical Lagrangeans = (x, WOhax Narra which are dynamically equivalent in their common region of regularity. Therefore they give rise to the same equations of motion, namely: x, = ex, @H. A global dynamical description can be obtained using jointly these Lagrangeans t9 construct an action for any rajectory of the system ©) IL. It follows from Eqs,(I0) and (1!) that if a transformation L,—> L' or & — e, between equivalent Canonical Lagrangeans, is effected, any primary bracket corresponding to £, is also a primary bracket for L', This is the case in Example | where Poisson matrix can be used as a valid primary bracket for both Canonical Lagrangeans, For Lagrangean [',, however, this matrix is not the inverse of the &' , that does not exist, but only a g-inverse: eifc’ This follows from Bqs(13) and (14). IL10. Antisymmetry of the matrix of Eq(4) implies that the antisymmetric part of any primary bracket is also a primary brackets the symmetric part is a combination of the form: a, + yt, ILI, A. subsidiary condition of the form aFu,= y(¢) = 0 forces the primary constraint y(G) to convert to Dirac type, if it is not already. Equation (@H / é2)" = yg) means that the Hamiltonian is of the form = H+ y(@ The reduced Hamitonian H', independent of z, is equivalent to HT in both the equations of motion and the primary subsidiary conditions, that remain the same except that now d'/7'u.= 0). Then i) in the absence of secondary constraints, the dynamics of complementary variables =, is always driven by an equivalent Hamiltonian that is a function of these variables alone and i) in general, barring inconsistencies, either primary subsidiary conditions for this Hamiltonian are satisfied identically or lead to secondary constraints I. THE SECONDARY PROBLEM If the system of evolution equations is algebraically consistent, when subsidiary 15Bol. Acad. C. Fis, Mat. y Nat, Vol. LXII No. | conditions a’ AH = 0 are not satisfied there exists a set of independent secondary constraints of the form @ (2 = 0. In this case primary ‘equations, as algebraic determinants for and 6 are incomplete. Preservation of the ‘new constraints during the evolution eOE=0, (is) must be added as consistency conditions for the dynamics, Hence the system of equations (4) should be replaced by the following linear system for the velocities and Lagrange multipliers: je abl yey | on ae 0) |z|=| 0 (16) jae 0 0 Secondary w-vectors Algebraic compatibility of Eqs(16) demands, in the general case, that subsidiary conditions other than w’, OH= 0 be satisfied by the Hamiltonian. They are related to the existence of left null vectors of the rectangular matrix of the linear system (16). These veetors. (uv! - wv’ - v") say, satisfy equations cua dpe + O0v, agun0 (7a) (7b) Solutions of Eqs(I7) which are distinct to ,, that is which have v # 0, will be termed secondary u-vectors and denoted by u,.The associated secondary subsidiary conditions’ take the same previous form uw’, 0H = 0. Contracting Eq((7a) with wand using Fas) and (Tb), it is seen that secondary t-vectors can only exist if there are right null vectors for the matrix A,= ua. (1s) Let &, denote a m.b. for these vectors: therefore 'v = k, 7, for some 7. The existence of these null vectors is also sufficient to have secondary u-vectors: in fact, a m.b. for them can be represented explicitly in the form, 16 2002 ay for any solution fp of equations (10) and (Il). That columns in the right hand side of Eq(I9) are independent secondary n-vectors follows, from Eqs(ll): & 20k )=OMh"OO)+00k,, and O79 (f,26k,) = wi.(u’ BH) = 0. Operating with f, on the left of Eq(I7a) and using Eqs(10) it is seen that the most general solution to Eqs(I7) is any linear combination of u, and ,. Finally, there is no tinear dependence between these two types of tevectors if and only if, secondary constraints are functionally independent from primary constraints. For a consistent set of dynamical equations, new constraints appear when secondary subsidiary conditions are not satisfied by the Hamiltonian, In case Eqs(I6) to (18) must be updated adding new columns to 0@ After this a search for possible new vectors k, and new constraints starts anew. The process terminates when mabix 4, ceases to have new right null vectors or when subsidiary conditions are all. satisfied by the Hamiltonian, either identically or by virtue of the already existing constraints. It is therefore clear that, starting fiom primary vectors, a complete set of u-veotors generates recursively the whole set of subsidiary conditions and secondary constraints needed to ensure the overall algebraic consistency of Eqs(l6y%. At the end each svector diminishes by one the number of independent dynamical equations and each independent secondary constraint increases this number by one. Primary v-vectors and primary non physical variables After all secondary constraints have been found, a complete and consistent set of equations (16) is reached, Since new equations complement primary equations, the question naturally arises as to whether primary gauge freedoms still remain This will be so if and only if there are linear combination of the primary uvectorsl v, say, such that 070 v, = 0. This is the same as Saying that the final’ 4, has left null vectors or, equivalently, that there exist functions y,,) suchGuillermo Ruggeri: Hamiltonian Dynamics that 20@y, = 0. If K, designates a mb. for the left null vectors of 4, then v, =u, &7 isa mb for the final primary gauge vectors’ and K, dy,, Naturally vectors v, = (0/2y,)’ coindde with the right null vectors of the matrix of the stem (I6) which express the multiplicity of its solution, Vectors v, will be referred as primary vevectors and variables. y, physical variables. ‘as. primary non A typification of the ways the generating process of secondary constraints can end is obtained by examining the connection between right and left null vectors of matrix (18). If aw,) and du) are the dimensions of the spaces of primary veveetors and of all w-vector respectively, then (v,) = dw) - C, . Here, C, is the total number Of secondary constraints Therefore. in order to end up with primary v~ vectors it is necessary and sufficient that during the generation process some subsidiary conditions fail to produce new independent constraints. In this case d(v,) is the defect in the number R+C, - du) +C,=R+C,- dy) of independent equations available from (16) respect to the R + C, unknown velocities and Lagrange multipliers. This matches with the existence of functions y, whose time derivatives cannot be obtained from the evolution equations. These are thus the missing equations. Hence, primary non physical variables evolve arbitrarily. In the opposite situation, these variables are absent when each subsidiary condition gives rise to an independent constraint up to the end of the generation process, when no new independent right null vectors of , appear. In this case, the ‘generation of secondary constraints ends leaving a set of equations that has a unique solution for E and ¢. Additional details about this point are included in Appendices B and C. Examples and comments ILL. In example HL. initially A, = -{¢0°) and k=l. Then #, = {8 @%p = (00000 -24,)". The corresponding subsidiary condition produces the new constraint and k= so. that subsidiary cond! Since this is sa 2g,p,. Afier this A= (00) EO%p. There is a new jon namely 9,0, + pe = 0. fied by virtue of the vanishing of O generation of secondary constraints ends. 7 “Therefore the primary wvectoris also a primary + or; this means that q, is a primary non physical variable. There is one secondary w-vector in the system of Example 112, In fact: 10 00 k= OD! = 4, and therefore a, = (1-1 0 0)! The g-inverse ©. = -£ has been used for J, As expected, there is no additional secondary constraints because the subsidiary condition O.H- ,H = 0 js satisfied identically. There are then 3 arvectors and only 2 constraints so that there is ‘one primary v-veetor, namely ¥,=w 7-0 0.0 1)’. This corroborates that &* is a primary non physical variable 1.2. To configuration-space Lagrangean: L = 4 gi + Gly ~ d.dy correspond the Hamiltonian H = pps Py + dq and the primary constraint @ = p, = 0. The primary u-vector w, (010000)" leads 10 6° = q,, Therefore 4, = 0 initially, The secondary w-vector u! = (00000 -1)’ produces @” = p, - p, After that 4, = (0 0) so that there is still another secondary u-vector, namely 101000)’, and a new constraint oe After this 4, = (001) with no new right null vectors and no left null vectors. There is no primary y-vectors in this case so that no gauge freedoms remain. Preservation of @ fixes aa UIL3. The space of w-vectors is invariant under transformations between equivalent canonical Lagrangeans; so it is v = &, but not 4. This variance corresponds to changes of representation in the space of secondary uw vectors, that are defined up to arbitrary primary uveetors. This is also what occurs in Eq(19) under gauge variations of f,Bol. Acad. C. Fis., Mat. M4, Equations 4=(0/é2,)k=0 imply the existence of a set of functions ¢ of secondary constraints that depend only on 2, ie. g(0)= (@.), such that &=0g/20") The reciprocal result is also true. Then a"tu=(Hg),=(H.g}. + 'Hu)(2,8},, Redefining > u,{,8),.> Wy secondary subsidiary conditions can be written as the vanishing of O°Hi=(#lg),.. This prescription streamlines the form of corresponding secondary constraints by substracting combinations of constraints @° obtained from primary subsidiary conditions MLS. If for some wvector, primary or secondary , 8'Hlu is a linear combination of some previously found secondary constraints, the basis of these vectors can be redefined so that this subsidiary condition is satisfied identically. This, and the result of Comment ILI, shows that we can always assume that either primary subsidiary conditions are identically satisfied or give rise to independent secondary constraints. It will be clear later on that an equivalent Hamiltonian can be defined so that the same is valid for secondary subsidiary conditions. TIL6. Matrix (90k )'f, is a mb for the transpose of secondary u-Vectors, 1V.GENERAL FORM OF EVOLUTION EQUATIONS Proceeding as in Section I, explicit forms of solutions to the complete set of evolution equations can be obtained with the help of g- inverses of the matrix of the linear system (16). If the principal block of a generic g-inverse is denoted by f then: L8H + va, (20) for an arbitrary column a and modulo all subsidiary conditions w'@H=0. Preservation of all constraints by the evolution is guaranteed by the subsidiary conditions, trough the last two of the following equations: Nat, Vol. LXIINo, 1 2002 Let hp +h, FO=1-y, BR (tay Leen, (Lb) Lt 60,12 te) Od = Bw, oF 0 f= Bru! * ana) satisfied by any secondary brackets f. Here hg, &, and fs are some matrices. Equivalent ways to represent the dynamical equations, and the multiplicity of solutions, is comprised in the ambiguity of secondary brackets, to which any combination of the form v,q + bu" can be added The general Hamiltonian form (20) of evolution equations incorporates the dynamical contents of the primary equations and preserves all constraints during the evolution. Again, this general form of evolution cannot have a canonical structure for all secondary brackets due to the indeterminacies built in them. This fact does not rule out a canonical structure for the evolution. To uncover such a structure in Eqs(20) it is sufficient to identify a Lie bracket within the variety of secondary brackets! at least for a restricted set of dynamic variables, On the constrained space g = c, 6 = 0, dynamies reduces to the evolution of some set of Parameters! sufficient in number to specify, together with the non-Dirac primary constraints, the states of the system. It should be possible to represent the evolution of these parameters with the aid of brackets that deals with both primary and secondary constraints on a similar footing. This does not happen with generic secondary brackets which, in conformity with the structure of Eq(16), handle both types of constraints in a rather asymmetric way. In the following paragraphs particular secondary brackets will be constructed that restores some degree of symmetry between the constraints. Using these brackets in the equations of motion implies no loss of generality because so long as the Hamiltonian satisfies all subsidiary conditions, and coefficients a are kept arbitrary, any solution ofGuillermo Ruggeri: Hamiltonian Dynamics Eqs(21) can be used in Eq(20). It will be seen in the next section that this particular class of brackets uncovers a structure of variables that proves fundamental to interpret the dynamical setting, Some preambles are needed before addressing the main points, Representation of secondary brackets Solutions to Eqs(21) can be expressed in terms of primary brackets. To find this, it is sufficient to enforce the conditions of preservation of secondary constraints on the general solutions of primary equations, expression (12a). Making room for an arbitrary term that may be added due to secondary subsidiary conditions, the form: t @2) is found as a prefactor of GH. Here f*, differs from a primary bracket at most in a term of the foun pu", and 1 Oy f, Ue 2), Q= Au, (23) Matrix 4, is any g-inverse of A,, The intrinsic source of ambiguity in the Eq(22) resides in the freedoms to choose f,, 4, and p. Secondary v-vectors For a generic secondary bracket both O7¢fa% and 870/29 vanish, by virtue of (21.c), whereas 879/00 and 074.20 do not in general because W700 is not always zero. Let us then consider the whole subspace of u-vectors, v = WA say, such that 270 v = 0. To this subspace belong primary vectors but in general they do not exhaust the possibilities. Conditions to have other solutions can be obtained by contraction of Eq(17a) with Wi, This leads to v= ky If where 77 is a null vector of the anti symmetric matrix: C, = @OK)f, GOK) = (eg). « Singularity of this matrix is then a necessary condition for the existence of other solutions, Using Eqs(21), @ procedure entirely similar to that followed in Section MI, in relation with expression (19), shows that this condition’ is also suffident. If 7, designates a m.b, for the null vectors of C, then a m.b. for the new solutions is: £06 kn, (4) inrespective of f, These secondary v-vectors are linearly independent of the primary v-vectors, Finally, substitution of Eq(22) in Fq(24) leads to representation: v, = (FQ) f, 06k, n, 2s) Consider now the possibility of finding secondary brackets such that a relation dual to Eq(2Ib) exists for secondary constraints; that is brackets such that /20 is some linear combina- tion of secondary v-vectors. This property, that would restore some symmetry between constraints in the sense used above, selects an essentially unique set of solutions. A direct inspection shows that this is achieved with the generic choice p = -u, C, in Eq(22), where ©, is PY, = 5, + F(00 &) C8 KY f (26) The class of secondary brackets obtained after substitution of Eq(26) in Eq(22), will be the subject of our attention from now on and denoted by f. In addition to Eqs(21), these brackets satisfy: f00 = v.71, k, (27a) Here %, and k, are such that AA,=1- kk, EC.=1- nity 7b) and satisfy 7,7, = | and kk, = 1. Under changes of f, A, or C, matrix f varies in. linear combination of primary y-veetors plus bilinear combinations of secondary v-vectors and u- vectors, and their transposed. 19Bol, Acad. C. Fis, Mat. y Nat. Vol. LXILNo, 1 2002 Examples and comments IV.1. In Example H.1 C, is equal to the matrix of Poisson brackets between secondary constraints, that vanishes, therefore =! Choosing C, = 0 and A, = 0, f is equal to Poisson mattix, Both secondary w-vectors are» vectors Apart from the three dynamically consistent constraints, evolution equations (20) are, 9, = a b, = “Gd, and Since 4, evolves arbitrarily so does p, and therefore also 4, The secondary w-veetor of Example 1.2 is @ vevector. In this case C, = 0, 7,= Land matrix f is any g-inverse of €. Here not only &, but also & and Z, have indeterminate evolution. There is no secondary v-vectors in Example TIL2 because: ol -10 IV2. Antisymmetry of C, implies that d(u,) always exceeds in an even number the dimension dk) of the space of secondary ¥ sectors. IV.3. For a standard system, where cons- traints are all of Dirac type, existence of » vectors is equivalent to the existence of first class constraints in the sense of Dirac. These are combinations of constraints that have a weakly zero Poisson bracket with all constraints. Irreducible sets for these first class constraints ate: dus", and gu, + 0 kn, These forms depend on the Canonical Lagrangean used. The concept of v-vectors is therefore a more general and convenient notion. Besides dealing naturally with non-Dirac primary constraints and trans formations between Canonical Lagrangeans, they relate, in a transparent way, to generators of subsidiary conditions, IVA. If there is no y-vectors then f is unique, anti symmetric and, due to Egs(2l.b) and (28a), has all constraints as Casimir invariant functions Eq(2la) proves that there are no other indepen- dent such functions. For the standard case matrix ‘fcoincides with the Dirac bracket matrix built from all constraints ". V. PHYSICAL AND NON PHYSICAL SPACES. Let us now focus on the structural properties of bracket relations defined by f and to dynamical implications. Expression: {A, B) = OA f OB (28) is not uniquely defined for any two dynamic variables 4 and B. Conditions have to be imposed on these variables to free Eq(28) of the indeterminades built in f. If A and B satisfy vlad = vaB = 0, 29) then Eq(28) is free from ambiguities, Consequently it is also antisymetrie under interchange of F and G. Moreover, due to Eqs (21b) and (28a), (4, @ } = 0 and {AO} = 0, Proofs that within this space there exist no other independent Casimir invariants, and that Jacobi identity is satisfied, are contained in Appendix A. There are R -d(v) independent dynamic variables that satisfy Eq(29). where d(v) is the dimension of the space of y-vectors. A proof is obtained in Appendix A. These variables, which are invariant under a displacement of $ in any linear combination of v-vectors, will be referred as physical variables. All constraints are obviously physical but the Hamiltonian is only ‘weakly physical, that is physical except for terms which vanish due to subsidiary conditions. This point is amplified below. Variables that are not at least weakly physical will be referred as_non physical. This space contains primary non physical variables, whieh can be chosen so that yi = a¢@y,, Therefore vey, = 1 It also contains secondary non physical variables y', independent of the » which can be chosen in such a way that vj = In these standard representations v/v, =, Woy, = 0 and vF dy, = 0. These statementsGuillermo Ruggeri: Hamiltonian Dynamice ae proved in Appendix A. Due to dey = 0 and @B3y = 0, non physical variables are parameters that deseribe motions on the constrained dynamical space. As such, their evolution is solely determined by equations 6 = OH - 206. Projection of the dynamical term eg on the subspace of any non physical variable vanishes because: (05 /0y)" ef (Ey Ny This result leads to the arbitrariness of the evolution for y,, but does not prove the same for y, However, {t does anticipates the distinctive character of the evolution equations found below for secondary non physical variables. Wien = 0. Secondary non physical variables ate funetions of variables z,, complementary to z, This is proved in Appendix B. Therefore, multiplying Eq 25) by (22/88), relation (22/0¥,)’ = {08}, 0, is obtained. Hence, for any dynamic variable 4: (asleyy’ = (Ag). 0, (0 ‘The way the Hamiltonian depends on non physical variables can now be ascertained from qualities: (Alay )'=(@Hu,)(0z, fay, )'=Oy,{2=,/2y,/00,)"s Gla) and (ailay)'= {Ag}, 0, = (On, + Yds. Gib) Prescription of Comment Ifl4 has been used. ‘Also, it has been assumed that the basis of u- vectors have been chosen in such a way that subsidiary conditions that are not satisfied idemtically either lead to the rows (0° and (6! of independent constraints or to the last terms in Eqs(3I), which come from expressions of the form O'Hu = (9). Then ,, 7, 6 are constant matrices indicating which secondary subsidiary conditions give rise to secondary constraints, which are satisfied due to primary constraints and which are satisfied idemtically. Integration gives to the Hamiltonian the generic form: HO, 42) +My ny AA HOH, where H* depends only on the physical parameters and the primary constraints. Matrices 2, and 2, are physical but ¢ is not. Absorbing into # the third term in the right of this , expression, we see that a Hamiltonian can always be defined so that its ton physical part is a linear combination of secondary constraints. For this form of Hamiltonian, which is assumed in what follows, the last terms in the right of Eqs(3Ib) do not exist Comments and examples. Vil. Since bracket (28) is anti symmetric, the number of independent physical variables always exceeds the number C, + C, of independent constraints in an even number.”The same occurs then between the number of physical variables which are not forced to be zero and the number of non-Dirae primary constraints. Hence, one ean have systems with an odd number of independent, nontrivial and physical, degrees of freedom if an odd of non-Dirae number constraints are imposed a priori, On the other hand, if all constraints are of Dirae’s type there is an even number of non trivially zero physical degrees of freedom. Clearly the number of independent parameters needed to describe motions. on the constrained dynamical space is always even but this should not hide the fact that arbitrary valucs for their arguments are permitted by non-Dirac primary constraints V.2. An example of a four-variables system with an embedded three-dimensional canonical dynamics is afforded by a non relativistic particle, constrained a priori to move inertially on circumferences. Cartesian coordinates x,,, the corresponding linear momenta py Pp. the Hamiltonian H = % (p+ p®) and the non-Dirac primary constraint 4 7 + x2 > 0, can be used, together with a standard Canonical Lagrange, as basic ingredients. One secondary constraint is then generated, which may be taken in the form:Bol. Acad. C. Fis., Mat. y @= (xp, + xp)2r. _ In this case u, = € 86, 4, = -I, C, = 0 and TE, may be chosen as zero, Therefore f = (I-08 a 9 ey (1 - 60.0" ge), which is the Dirac bracket matrix built from the two constraints, This is a system with three degrees of freedom which can be taken as x, x, and the angular momentum x, = xp, -x,p, These variables close the bracket algebra {x,x,) = 0, {x,t} = ~ {xp} = xp generated by the primary constraint according 10 {x,.x}=!4 00,4, yk = (1,2,3). The azimuthal angle gy = 1g(xJx) is a canonical conjugate to x, respect to the Dirac bracket This suggest, as an optional canonical Lagrangean for the system the form L = = (yf Maxpxy) - In fact, L' differs from the standard canonical Lagrangean in the expression 9. To L'. corresponds a matrix e with entries IF, 6 e AVF, 6 aay, hy aie and e',= 0. This matrix is a singular g-inverse of the Dirac bracket matrix. ‘V3. In Examples 1 and 2 only the constraints are physical. In Example 3, physical are those variables invariant under traslations and rotations. Physical and non physical evolutions. Primary non physical variables evolve arbitrarily because their time derivatives are not determined at all by dynamical equations. It will be shown in the next paragraphs that secondary ‘non physical variables also have indeterminate evolution. This justifies the names given to these variables. Although equations for), do exist, the right hand side of these equations depend on variables, such as y, or other y,, whose evolution is not determined uniquely by the initial state, This fact explains the origin of uncertainties in the evolution of secondary non physical variables. ‘Once primary non physical variables induce this in a different variable, a chain of 2 Nat. Vol. LXILNo. 1 2002 indeterminacies in other connected variables generally occurs. Variables affected this manner are precisely secondary non physical variables, Thus, non physical variables reflect the direct and indirect ways gauge uncertainties can affect the evolution. Since physical variables are independent of non physical variables,” their evolution is free from uncertainties. Hence, only those variables that are at least weakly physical unfold uniquely from the initial state To substantiate these assertions a number of basic results must be established. The first and fundamental one is the subordination of secondary non physical variables to primary non physical variables, in the sense that existence of the former is conditioned to the existence of the latter. This is necessary because, after all, primary non physical variables are the ultimate source of all indeterminacies. This subordination is established in Appendix C. Second, the dynamics of physical variables should not depend ‘on non physical variables. This fact, proved in Appendix A, shows that only equations for secondary nion physical variables can depend on primary non physical variables. It only rest to prove that evolution of all secondary non physical variables is subjected to indirect indeterminacies. This is done below in the context of specific forms for the evolution equations. Let then x be a complete set of independent physical variables and y, , y, complementary sets of non physical variables, chosen for simplicity in the standard representation. Evolution equations for all these variables can be obtained by projection of Eqs(20), taken in the form: & = oH + va, (32) on the three functional spaces. Terms that vanish due to subsidiary conditions will be omitted systematically in the forms of dynamics written below. The reader is referred to Appendix A where proofs of relevant properties of some brackets bave been gathered.Guillermo Ru Physical evolution Inserting resolution (A6) of Appendix A, in % = ixé = d!xfOH, it is seen that physical variables evolve according to: fo. (33) where matrix: Fa Ox fox = (xx) (34) represents f in the chosen basis of physical variables. In that space f defines an unambiguous Lie bracket which has all constraints as its Casimir invariants. Moreover, as proved in Appendix A, physical variables close themselves under bracket f Any dependence of the Hamiltonian on secon- dary constraints do not contribute in Eq(33). This is so in particular with the non physical part of the Hamiltonian. As already mentioned, non-Dirac primary constraints do not necessarily disappear completely because, in spite of 72.6 = 0, they still can enter the right hand side of evolution equations in the form of non-zero constants whose values depend on the initial state. With this proviso, the dynamical contents of Eq(33) can be described as a closed canonical evolution for any set of independent physical parameters appropriate to spedfy states on the constrained space. To make this explicit introduce a set of such parameters, collectively designated by x* , through GxBx = 0904 + 2680 + ax*de*. Then a = ft OH. (35) The antisymmetric, even order, matrix: of x4}, is regular. Comment V4. Local functions q, p of x* exist that are canonical conjugates respect to bracket f, that is such that {gp} = 1. (q.g} = {pp} = 0. This is the content of the Pfaff problem, A natural i: Homalionian Dynamics choice for a canonical Lagrangean is then the form L. = y/p-H. Expressing this in terms of the constrained variables € = &€q.p.9,0,)), the corresponding matrix ¢* is always singular, with null vectors 08/09, 28/80 and O2/dy. Notice that unlike the standard canonical Lagrangean L* is built from actual canonical pairs respect to the relevant Lie bracket Classes of secondary constraints. Non physical evolution Equation (24) indicates that in the general case the evolution of secondary non physical variables is sensitive to the way the Hamiltonian depends on secondary constraints. Thus, the weakly zero non physical part of the Hamiltonian cannot be ignored here. In what follows properties of brackets / will be used to extract the relevant contributions from these terms, To this purpose it proves useful to first separate secondary constraints in two distinct classes. Assume that a particular choice of fis made: that is assume that particular matrices &, and jj, have been selected in relation with Eqs(28b). Let N be a m.b, of right null vectors of the product 7k. Then, a unique matrix N exists such that NN = 4 ky, 7, This matrix satisfies NV = 1 and Nk,y, = 0. Any vector 2 of C, components ean be expressed in a unique way in the form: 2 = (kn) a + Nb; this is so because a = 7A and b = NA solve this equation and the solution is unique. Define the two sets of independent secondary constraints by: 26, = 26k.n, . 20, = AON, (36a) which, on the constrained space, can be tegrated to: 9, = On; 8, = ON. (36b) These types of constraints will be designated as class 7 and class J secondary constraints respectively. These classes exhaust the set of secondary constraints because any of them, @ 2 say, can be uniquely decomposed in the form: & = 6,a + 0, b. Expressions (36) constituteBol. Acad. . Fis., Mat. irreducible sets for each class of constraints ‘There are then d(v,) independent constraints in class J and Cyd(v,) = dlu)-av) in class The specific form of class 1 constraints in Eq(36) depends on the choice of f but this ambiguity of representation has no consequences ‘on evolution equations that only vary by terms ‘which vanish due to subsidiary conditions. Further elaboration on the form of these two classes of constraints, and on their role in the theoretical description, ate contained in Appendix B. Separating all terms of the Hamiltonian that depend on secondary constraints in classes J and 1, it is clear that H= OF +0,G+ 1, en where F and G are sets of functions that depend, in general, on all variables and H* is @ function of physical parameters and of primary constraints, As before, through an eventual redefinition of the Hamiltonian, terms that depend on Dirac-type primary constraints have been discarded. Only H* drives the motion of physical variables whereas terms proportional to constraints contribute in principle to the evolution of secondary non physical variables. In fact, the part of H that depends on class 17 secondary constraints can be climinated from dynamical ‘equations. Bracket f do this manifestly because 06, = 0. Therefore, using: GB, B= 0, Oy 8} = 1 Wy 81 = 0, (8) evolution equations for secondary non. physical variables are obtained in the form y, = (HOO) + ty,x*) 8,0 69) It is proved in Appendix B that not only y, but also x* depends on z, alone. For any two such functions Z, (z,) and Z, (z,), bracket relations take the form: (2,2) = (Z,2,}, (Zh. C, (84). (40) 24 ‘Nat. Vol. LXILNo. 1 2002 This expression is then sufficient to caleulate all brackets needed in Eqs(34) and (39). It should be noticed that since f: depends only on z, so does C.. Then, in general, C /ayAn'+nJ. A corollary is that any change of Cs in bracket (40), or its dependency on yP, at most add to £4q(39) terms that vanish on the constrained space. Examples and comments V5. The concepts of classes J and I secondary constraints are distinct to Dirac’s first and second class constraints, Here the notions are used only to discriminate between secondary constraints, as opposed to combinations of primary and secondary constraints. Also, class J7 is defined in relation to a specific class of brackets that are in general different to Poisson bracket. Nevertheless, for the standard case, class I constraints exist if and only if Dirac’s first class secondary constraints exist. Comment IV.3 gives the conexion between these two notions, V.6. To Eq(39) corresponds the conjugate equation: 8, = (6,1) = 4GHIay,y V7. Since {Z,¢}7, {Z,03 = (Za). 0, it is true that Z81.0, V.8. Both 4, and C, are determined by class HI secondary constraints in a specific manner discussed in Appendix B. A direct calculation proves that matrix obtained by substitution in fof all secondary constraints by their class 1 parts differs from f in a bilinear combination of y- vectors that can be ignored. Hence, f is determined by primary brackets and class I secondary constraints, V.9. All secondary constraints are class 1 and only if all w-vectors are v-vectors. In this case matrices 4, and C, are both zero so that x = Lk, = Land 4, = 1. The reciprocal C, = (0.9),"= 0 and f= f, Since C, = dw), a number of secondary subsidiary conditions, equalGuillermo Ruggeri: Hamiltonian Dynamics to that of constraints @" produced by the, primary subsidiary conditions, fail to generate independent constants. The Hamiltonian can be expressed as H= G(r, +h) + Oy, +h) + HM, where matrices f,and sh, are some sets of functions of the physical parameters and the constraints, Therefore, for this class of cases Yo,* F rim, + Example IL| is an instance of this situation. V.10. In the opposite extreme scenario, when all secondary constraints are class 11, all variables except y, are physical, Functions (z,), independent from y,, are constants of motion There is an even number of constraints and C, is regular. Eq(39) defines a unique Dirac bracket for the space of variables General analysis of Eq(39) Functional dependency of the second term in the right hand side of Eq(39) on primary non physical variables has no dynamical consequences and can be ignored. It is the first term, which gets contributions from the non physical part of the Hamiltonian, that is reponsible for the indeterminacies in the dynamics of secondary non physical variables. The way F depends on all non physical variables describes how exactly uncertainties affect, directly or indirectly, the evolution of secondary non physical variables. For 2 detailed analysis attention is now put on matrices: (jdypI,= (OF Iey,y = AOHI2y,y100,, (Ata) (8 ldy)!, = (OFIy)" = e(@HIy,)/08, . (Alb) and @i/oy], = ( Flay," AOHey,)’ ). (Ale) Here subscript np refers to contributions coming from the first term in Eq(39). 25 Hamiltonian Conjecture, transformations, The Dirac It has. been mentioned before that, for arbitrary 2, , the Hamiltonian transformations oH > (GH) = OH + Op (43) leave evolution equations unchanged because their only effect is to redefine the Lagrange multipliers ¢ in Eqs(4). From another point of view, due to equality w(@H)' = w'(GH), these transformations define a new consistent set of dynamical equations with the same generation process of secondary constraints, Due to Eq(2Ib), these transformation only alter the already arbitrary coefficients a in the equations of motion (20), leaving the set of solutions invariant. Consider now transformations of this sort involving secondary constraints. ‘The dynamical equations remain consistent if and only if the transformations take the Form: OH = (Qi)! = aH + ag 4, + 20k, 7, A, (44) For arbitrary 2, and 2, (OH)' gives rise recursively to the same set of secondary constraints as Aff, namely 8 ‘The assumption that trans- formations (44) leave the whole set of dynamical solutions unchanged is an interpretation of the well known conjecture advanced by Dirac within the standard case. Since then the matter has been settled, but not before some confussion had deve- lopped in the literature. The following paragraphs examine the question fiom our perspective. Due to Eqs(20), (21b) and (24), Eq (44) is ‘equivalent to: BsEty ated, (45a) for some arbitrary 4, Thus: PKI I tA STA. 5b)Bol. Acad, C. His, Mat. In words, transformations (44)-(45) leave the equations of motion for physical variables invariant, preserve the solution set for primary non physical variables but alter those corresponding to secondary non physical variables. Therefore, Dirac’s conjec- ture should be interpreted ax. meaning. that: (44) preserves physical evolution but not the whole set of dynamical solutions. Discarding, in the equations of motion, terms that vanish on the constrained space, the second part of Eq(4Sa) is equivalent to: HOH = H+ 6,4, (450) Fo Fra, (45a) The exact nature of the changes that occur in equations for y, under (45d) can be reckoned as follows. Since no function of y, can be physical, matrix (Gy /y}, does not have left null vectors. ‘Therefore matric ((@F/éy,)" (@FI6y,)") must have a right seminverse: F say. Consider the transformation y>y + dy defined by: by, =F, A, by, = FA, (46) corresponding to any infinitesimal 2,. Then, since: F(y, +89 -9,+8y =F) +(OF ley, )"8y, HOF! a, )8y, = FU, 9) + A= Py (47) it is seen that (45d) amounts to effect the rary variation (46) in the right hand side of 26 Nat. Vol. LXIINo.1 2002 the equations of motion for secondary non physical variables. Hence, the transformations ‘would leave the whole solution-set of dynamical equations unchanged only if these equations were invariant under independent, arbitrary, variations of primary and secondary non physical variables. This is not the ease because the uncertainties in the evolution of secondary non physical variables are derived from the arbitrariness of §,, Summing up, although it cannot be assumed that transformations of the form (1) >&(t) + va connect solutions of the general equations of motion, it is true that, for arbitrary 4, these trajectories have the same physical content. This fact can be brought to the surface through the following representation of the physical evolution. For any two physical variables {A,B} = 0 A f* 0B, (48) where S* = (x HY f (& dy. (49) Matrix f* defines a Lie bracket in the complete dynamic space wich has the constraints and, the non physical variables as Casimir invariant functions. This is shown in Appendix C. Now, since f* differs from f in a bilinear combination of v-vectors, one has for any trajectory & = fran + vA, (50) where 2 = y. This form separates manifestly the physical evolution from the degrees of freedom that evolve arbitrarily.Guillermo Ruggeri: Hamiltonian Dynamics APPENDIX A Let v, 2 = I, ..d(v) be members of a basis in the space of »vectors. The integrability conditions for the linear partial differential equations yf F = 0 demand that the objects C,,=V! 0, v,-VL0,y, linear combination of v-vectors. These conditions are satisfied. In fact, after some rearrangements, Lagrange identity implies the equalities 12, (2 Mp) -O,C€8 Vpp) 1 2, £8, CEP Mp) (62 Vall + 8,05 Yue) — CAD for any index a, Using now ¢f v= Ay fi, and v! 8, y = 0, valid for the constraints y/ and appropriate coefficients ji, , Eqs(Al) lead to: Cg = 07,0, Ba YAP - (a2 It is also true that C!,, d,y = 0 for all free indices. A consequence is that the number of independent physical variables is R -a(v). Any set of d(v) independent functions, complementary to the physical variables, expands the non physical space. e0,- Let then x, , r= 1, ou, R -d(v) and y, , m= 1, d(v), be complementary sets of physical and non physical variables, respectively. They can be used jointly to define a local coordinate system for the dynamical space. Corresponding to: (dx),, = ax/66, and (@y),,, = @y,/06, . let @x), = 06,/2x, and (y),,=06,/2y,, Then de ox = 1, Bp ay = 1 By ae =0, Seay (A3.a) and ox Fe + dy =I (A3.b) Since square matrix B = v’2y cannot be singular, Eq (A3.b) gives B = Bv, (as) where B denotes the inverse of B. Then Gxix + AyBv'= |. (a8) Redefining eventually the basis of v-vectors, or functions y, matrix B can always be taken as the unit matrix. In that standard basis y" = @6/éy, , v! = at/ay, and ade + dy, Vi + oy, VI= 1 (a) This type of reasoning can also be used to prove the existence of a set of (up) independent local functions =, exist such that u” = dé, . No such conclusion is valid for general secondary w-vectors Lie bracket structures Contracting Eq(2l.a) with ax on the left and dx on the right, inserting the resolution of the identity, Eq (AS) and using equations satisfied by v, the following relation is obtained: fi +i, a9 +h, 9-1. a Here, the antisymmetric matrix Fe oe fo (as) represents bracket f in the physical space, 27Bol. Acad, C. Fis., Mat. yNat. Vol.LXILNo, 1 2002 ene &, (Ay) and h,, are some matrices. Also 2, functions of f 70,6 = 0, 0.0 &O = (idx) =(@). The constraints are Casimir invariant (alo) and therefore i Papas (ay Equation (A7) implies that only the constraints are independent Casimir invariant functions of f£ Matrix «. satisfies Lagrange identity 2, ¢,, + 6, 6,, + 2, &,, = 0, for any three indices in the range 1, R -d(v). Here =a 2h» (ARa) and aH, be (Ab) Due to Eqs(Al0) and (All), Lagrange identity guarantees that, within the physical space, Jacobi identity is satisfied by brackets relations defined through f ‘The same reasoning proves analogous relations for the bracket f* = {ze.zc},, .Thus, from Eqs(H0) (Il) in the main text, fre tho =1, (ABa) and pag =o (ABD) Since matrix an Ge 6 de (als) satisfies Lagrange identity in the space of functions of zc, matrix f° defines a Lie bracket Finally, bracket f* = (Ax de)” flax Ox) = k'f EX has matrix ¢ as a g-mverse Pep RP Rew) FR-U Sef) =H, (als) and, as can be easily proved using Eqs(AS), has all constraints and non physical variables as its independent Casimir invariant functions. This is then a Lie bracket in the whole dynamical space. Closed character of brackets ‘An important matter for interpreting evolution equations concerns how the brackets depend on non physical variables. To begin with, if indices r and n identify genetic physical and non physical variables, relation ¢, v,, = ou, + 2,0v, gives Gn = Sy 8, 5 8 Spey Hy = 0-H, + 8,4 vy (Alo) This, together with Lagrange identity in the form 0, 6, = 0,6, - 0, 6, » proves 28Guillermo Ruggeri: Hamiltonian Dynamics delay, = (Gxg! pw, + Ox a! v,) - @xu,did + Orv, 2 0) (alt) Differentiating now Eqs(A7) and (AIO), and using Eq(AI?), it is seen that e(@idy,) = drgdi,+2,0 B,, for some a, f, and 27 AAfidy,) = 0, 0,'Aaffdy,) = 0. But then, contraction of Eq(A7) with (Gfidy,) and the use of Eq(Al0), proves aff@y, = 0. Thus, physical variables close themselves under bracket relations defined by f Uncertainties in the evolution of non physical variables do not affect they unfolding of physical variables. Similar to Eq(Al7) is = 6,6 A H,- 20,86 (Als) which leads to conclude that variables these variables declouples from that of =, close themselves under bracket f°. Hence evolution of Finally, equality Wev,= 0,25, 0, 6& = 2 (AD) means that a set of functions F(xy) exists such that (406, y,) = OFlay,, This fact permits to climinate from the canonical Lagrangean terms that contain y. Dropping a total time derivative, evolution is seen to be determined by L, (F-OF IO) -H. (A20) APPENDIX B Since condition that defines class Il secondary constraints 0@4, namely 7, RA = 0, can be satisfied in two independent ways, these constraints naturally divides in two subclasses. To exhibit inreducible sets for them let N, and NV, be m.b. for the right null vectors of £, and 7,, respectively ‘Then 20, = O6N,, 06, = 2OKN, , Bh are independent class // constraints, because equation N, a= k, N, f has the unique solution a = 0 and f= 0. Since matrices N, and N, have ranks a{u,} (, : y,) —> (O,, 5 y,) and 2,—> (85952) =: 8,. 8s y, x4). APPENDIX C ‘The generating process of secondary constraints is further analyzed here, paying particular attention to the coherence of the formalism. Cases with and without primary v-vectors will be considered separately. Basis of secondary u-vectors will be chosen according to the prescription of Comment m4. In the absence of primary v-vectors, each subsidiary condition generates an independent secondary constraint until matrix 4, ceases 10 have new right null vectors and no left null vectors remains. Let @ and 4, 7 = 1, un, be rows of constraints generated by primary and secondary subsidiary conditions at succesive stages, respectively. The generation algorithm can be schematized as 6 = OH u, = (BMie:,y, A, = (@8°éz,) —> g, = £8); for j n+l 0'= (Hg... A,= ((88°lé:,) (28"2z,) ..(00%8z,)) > = BOM "09, At the end, because both f* and g, are independent of z, A, = (@Hi0z,22,) (0g), f0°g,).). (€2) Also {BeBh om ABB.) (c3) 188) ove nb 31Bol. Acad. C. Fis, Mat. yNat, Vol. LXIINo. 1 2002 Matrices dg, /20/, j = 0, 1, 1 and 9'™'/02, cannot have right null veetors because otherwise, in the first ease, some gj would belong to the previous step in the generation process or, if j = 0, some could be discarded; for the second matrix, the generation process would not end at 8" by lack of new veetors &. If d(g) designates the number of independent functions g, then E ag atu) io It is clear that (2g /00% 4, = 0 (8.86), (89.81) = OT). «s) Consider now the d(g,) x d(u,) matrix IP, By the rank theorem, the dimensions of the spaces of its left and right null vectors, d, and d, respectively, relate through d, = d, -(d(u,) - d(g,)). Due to 4, (6/90) = 0 and to Eq(C5), matrix T has the columns of matrices ((2g/00'"Y'..(0g/20'")°0)', Phan, as right null vectors. These d(u)-d(g,) vectors are linearly independent. Therefore, if ‘additional right null vectors of I can be identified this matrix will have left null vectors and then, due to Eq(C5), matrix A, will also have. Since is equal to the first d(g,) rows of C,, other right null vectors of T certainly appear if C, is singular, namely vectors 1, Hence, presence of secondary non physical variables is not compatible with absence oF primary non’ physical variables; if secondary non physical variables exist, necessarily primary non physical variables also exist. ‘Assume now that primary vectors exist and bring them in as part of the basis of primary u- vectors. Variables z, will be taken in the order (=! y,). Let the first set of secondary constraints be generated according to (QH/@2,)' =6? and (2H/dy,)" $82, where some derivatives can be identically zero. If all A/d/2y, vanish identically then all other subsidiary condition must give rise to secondary constraints, because the allowed d{v,) failures in producing constraints by subsidiary conditions have ‘occurred already at the first step. Therefore matrix 20°%G:), must be square, and then symmetric. If this matrix is regular the only secondary constraints 2 are of class Hp, and, of course, there are no secondary non physical variables. If it is singular there exist g,(62 ) and, as in the previous case, the generation eventually ends due to lack of new vectors &,. Thus 10% 8). {0% Bd. 4, 0 o and (3/002) OA, = (0 (2,5 Bb. 48+ 83) = OP). «cy The reasoning used before can be repeated to show that the dimension of the space of left null vectors of f is d,=d’ where d! is the number of right null vectors in excess of those arising from Vectors k, = dg/@0. Each of these left null vectors, a” say, would give rise to the left null vector ((0g:/00%Y' 0) of A,. This however is not possible because the left null vectors of the final A, are K, = é5/ dy, = (0D). Then d! = 0 and no variables y, can exist, In order that secondary non physical’ variables exist, some constraints must be generated by the primary subsidiary conditions (0H =0, and the Hamiltonian necessarily depends on some y,, 32Guillermo Ruggeri: Hamiltonian Dynamics Moreover, if constraints 9° exist, they are all class /, To prove this notice first that since @0;/2:', = (@/ dH / 059") = 0, we have 0°, = Oz.) = g. If, starting with g°, new sets of secondary constraints @! = ‘{FLg),, are generated for some g, then 0 = 40! /dy, = fg! , g),. The same ‘equality is valid for any other 2 that fails to produce constraints, i.e, such that {H.2"}, = 0. Hence, constraints @? are indeed class J. The corresponding null vectors of matrix C, are 7, = (10..0), ‘The Hamiltonian contains a term 9,3, and variables y,,, conjugate to G2, evolve according to f,, I) + Oigst}OxHl. REFERENCES AND FOOTNOTES [1] PAM. Dirac, Can J. Math 2, 129 (1950); Proc. Roy: Soc. London, Ser. 246, 326 (1958) and also in "Lectures on ‘Quantum Mechanics”, Yeshiva University, 1964. J. L, Anderson and P.G, Bergmann Pys, Rev. 83,118 (1951), PG. Bergmann and I. Goldberg, Ps. Re. 98, $31 (1955). {2} Except for eonfiguration-space constraints that should be properly considered as non- Dirac primary constraints. [}] These trinsfarmations between esnoniea! Lagrangeans are useful theoretical tools, even for the standart ease. They serve, for instance, to accommodate infinitesimal canonical transformations, with arbitrary generating functions. tht presere the form of primary constraints. [4] Notice that this precludes the general use of some standard reasoning which assume that all constraints vanish, [5] Upper and lower indices always refer to columns and rows respectively. Thus, for instance, symbol $= (¢' designates a row that conisins an C, primary constraints and O6= (09708, ) a ReC, matrix. Bold face types distinguish mb's from individual vectors‘of the bass. [6] expressions of canonical Hamiltonian form, or exnoniea struct Hanultonian form and a Lie bracket is involved fare used whenever evolution equations are in [TIA similar ambiguity exist in relation to Eq(!2b)because fr depends on the g-inverse selected, but the exact form of ¢ will be of special concem from now on [S]GJ. Ruggeri Math Pips. 29.362 (1988), [91 This problem has similar structure to that of finding a vector potential for a magnetic monopole. A procedure fonowed in that context by CN yang and TD Lee ean be adapted to constuet an action for any trajectory ofthis system. See Phys. Rev. Dt, 437 (976), [10] Or, the other way round, adding symmetry breaking terms like =(y(¢)- y,) fo an invariant Hamitonian i a device to fix the value of non-Dirac primary constrains without altering the rest ofthe deseription [11] New constraints obtained through subsidiary conditions at different stages are all named secondary in the text. Denominations secondary, tertiary, quaternary, ec. used by some authors for constraints obtained at successive steps af the generation process, are not used here. Instead, symbols and 0! are used to designate rows of secondary constraints obtained through primary and secondary subsidiary condition, respectively. [12] In what follows the symbol will he sed also for, choesing the appropiate arguments according to the conte. [13] A term proportional to n’may be added top. This alters in aterm proportional to v, that has no effect on Eq(28x) [14] This result ean also be understood from the fact that space of v-vcetors isthe subspace of u-vectors delimited by conditions &8u = 0, Among these only those conditions corresponding to class H/ constraints are independent because 2° a = O whereas matrix 2°0,a has no lef ull vectors, [15] This statement is more general than the one established. by Dirac. which refers to fst elas primary constraints. The reason for this difference resides inthe fact that we are not granting Poisson bracket an a priori distinguished role 33