format: text

text:
# Energy for 𝑁–Body Motion in Two Dimensional Gravity

## 1 Introduction

The study of $`2`$–dimensional gravity has received much attention in recent years motivated from string–inspired theories and from the necessity to study gravitational effects in a simple mathematical framework. It is well–known, for example, that the problem of $`N`$–body motion interacting by means of their mutual gravitational forces has no exact solution in General Relativity. This is basically due to the dissipation of energy through gravitational radiation. The problem considerably simplified in two dimensions where gravitational radiation is absent but the main features of General Relativity are maintained. Recently, a number of exact solutions for $`N=2`$ were found in . These solutions have qualitatively different features compared to their non-relativistic counterparts, and provide a rich and interesting laboratory for the study of relativistic gravitational effects.

The $`N`$–body problem may be formulated by taking the matter action to be that of $`N`$ point particles minimally coupled to gravity. Because in $`(1+1)`$–dimensional gravity the gravitational field has no real dynamical variables, the Lagrangian of the theory must include some dynamics through an auxiliary scalar field, referred to as the dilaton in string theories. Depending on the way the dilaton field enters into the Lagrangian, different models arise. While we develop this formalism for an arbitrary dilaton theory of gravity, we shall be mainly interested in three particular kinds of dilatonic gravity theories, classified according the value of the equations of motion impart to the Ricci scalar $`R`$. They are the Jackiw–Teitelboim theory  (JT theory) with $`R=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the $`R=T`$ theory  where T denotes the trace of the matter stress–energy, and a more general class of theories  (encompassing the previous two and called GT theories from now on) with $`R=\mathrm{\Lambda }+T`$. In each of these theories the evolution of the gravitational field is governed only by the matter stress–tensor (and vice versa) so that they mimic the features of General Relativity.

A general framework for deriving the Hamiltonian for the $`N`$–particle system was developed in . It was based on the $`(1+1)`$ counterpart of the ADM formalism; see e.g. . A canonical reduction of the action was carried out by eliminating the Hamiltonian constraints and by imposing coordinate conditions. The reduced Hamiltonian was defined as the spatial integral of the second spatial derivatives of the dilaton field. By solving the constraints, the dilaton was given in terms of the coordinates and momenta of the particles so that the reduced Hamiltonian is consequently a function only of the parameters of the particles. Moreover, the consistency of the canonical reduction was proved in  and it was there shown that the reduced Hamiltonian gives rise to equations of motion which are equal to the original geodesic equations for the particles.

Nevertheless, the key point in the definition of the reduced Hamiltonian is the choice of the coordinate and boundary conditions. Roughly speaking, these choices allow one to discard all the boundary terms during the canonical reduction of the action functional. If a solution does not satisfy the required conditions the reduced Hamiltonian can not be used to define the energy of the system. As noted in , the definition of energy in this situation becomes quite problematic and new surface terms have to be added “ad hoc”; see .

Motivated by this kind of problem we seek a definition of energy for the $`N`$–body problem not constrained by boundary and coordinate conditions. The definition we shall present in this paper is based on the Nöther theorem and the theory of the superpotential for relativistic field theories; see  and references quoted therein. The approach we shall describe is essentially based on the Lagrangian formulation of a field theory and conserved quantities are defined with respect to infinitesimal Lagrangian generators of symmetries on spacetime, namely, with respect to spacetime vector fields. For each one of these symmetries a superpotential (and consequently an associated conserved quantity) may be found regardless of the topology of spacetime and of the solution considered. Superpotentials play a fundamental role in the definition of conserved quantities since they enclose the energetic content of the theory. For this reason we think that the specialization of Nöther theorem to the $`N`$–body problem in $`2`$–dimensional gravity is well–suited to define successfully a generally valid expression for the energy of the system.

The starting point for the construction of the superpotential is the definition of a covariant action functional for the theory which is first–order in the dynamical fields (see  and references quoted therein). It is obtained by adding a pure divergence term to the $`N`$–body Lagrangian. Covariance is achieved by means of the introduction of a background solution chosen as a reference point (or zero level) for conserved quantities. The action functional so obtained is suitable for taking field variations where only the dynamical fields (and not their derivatives) are kept fixed on the boundary. In this way we have a Lagrangian which furnishes a definition, via Nöther theorem, of a conserved quantity which can be truly considered as the energy of the system . Moreover, by inserting the background from the very beginning into the Lagrangian, we naturally obtain the energy of the solution relative to the background.

We remark that the fixing of a background is a universally valid procedure because it does not imply any restrictive hypothesis on the solution: the background is fixed depending on the solution under examination and for this reason it is suited to handle solutions ofwidely varying asymptotic behaviour on the same footing; see . Another advantage is that the energy of a region of finite spatial extent can be calculated through a suitable choice of the background.

The outline of our paper is as follows. In Section 2 the Lagrangian formulation, the ADM canonical reduction of the theory and the reduced Hamiltonian for the $`N`$–body system are briefly summarized. In Section 3 the Lagrangian of first–order in the dynamical fields is introduced and analysed. In Section 4 we devote considerable attention to the construction of the superpotential starting from the first–order Lagrangian. The superpotential then furnishes a definition of the energy of a solution relative to a background contained in a spacelike region, i.e. a real line interval.

In the rest of the paper we apply the formalism to explicit solutions. As far as we know the solutions here analysed cover all the known exact (i.e., non–perturbative) relativistic solutions in this dimensionality. In Section 5 we consider the $`N=2`$ solution for the JT theory. Inside our framework this is the easiest theory because a Minkowski–like background can be fixed for the metric. This is not the case for the GT solutions treated in Section 6. The background here cannot be Ricci flat and, in order to avoid divergence problems, it has to be matched with the solution at the boundary of the region of integration. We shall also investigate how the problem can be simplified by defining the variation of energy along a family of solutions.

Section 7 is then devoted to the JT theory. Here the dynamical metric does not depend on the particle coordinates (they are instead contained in the dilaton field) so that the dynamical metric and the background metric are the same. While the ADM recipe does not work here for lack of the necessary hypotheses, the expected Hamiltonian is reproduced via the Nöther theorem.

In the last Section concluding remarks and perspectives are presented.

## 2 Lagrangian Formulation and ADM Hamiltonian

In order to describe the motion of $`N`$ particles in $`2`$D gravity we consider the action functional on the spacetime $`M`$:

$$A=_M(_0+_P)d^2x$$
(1)
with

$`_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{g}}{2\kappa }}\left[\psi R+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{\mu \nu }H(\psi )_\mu \psi _\nu \psi +F(\psi )\right]`$ (2)
$`_P`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau _a\left\{m_a\left(g_{\mu \nu }(x)\frac{dz_a^\mu }{d\tau _a}\frac{dz_a^\nu }{d\tau _a}\right)^{1/2}\right\}\delta ^2(xz_a(\tau _a))}`$ (3)
where $`R`$ is the Ricci scalar of the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, $`g`$ denotes the absolute value of the metric determinant, $`\psi `$ is a scalar field (the dilaton) and $`H(\psi )`$, $`F(\psi )`$ are arbitrary functions of the dilaton field not containing the derivatives of the dilaton itself. Here $`\tau _a`$ is the proper time of the $`a`$–th particle and $`\kappa =8\pi `$ (in geometric units with $`G=c=1`$).

The variation of (2) is given by111Here and in the sequel we use the notation $`f(j^k\varphi )`$ to denote that the function $`f`$ depends on the field $`\varphi `$ together with its derivatives up to order $`k`$.:

$`\delta _0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{g}}{2\kappa }}\left[G_{\mu \nu }(j^2\psi ,j^1g)\delta g^{\mu \nu }+G(j^2g,j^2\psi )\delta \psi \right]+`$
$`+d_\mu ^\mu (j^1g,j^1\psi ,\delta (j^1g),\delta (\psi ))`$
where:

$`G_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }^\sigma _\sigma \psi _\mu _\nu \psi +{\displaystyle \frac{H}{2}}\left(_\mu \psi _\nu \psi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }^\sigma \psi _\sigma \psi \right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }F`$
$`G=RH^\sigma _\sigma \psi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H^{}^\sigma \psi _\sigma \psi +F^{}`$ (5)
$`H^{}`$ and $`F^{}`$ denoting the derivatives with respect to the functional argument. The explicit expression of the divergence terms in (LABEL:varLzero) will be given in Section 4 – see equation (26).

The field equations derived from the action (1) are

$`G=0`$ (6)
$`G_{\mu \nu }=\kappa T_{\mu \nu }`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau _a}}\left\{g_{\mu \nu }(z_a){\displaystyle \frac{dz_a^\nu }{d\tau _a}}\right\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\nu \lambda ,\mu }(z_a){\displaystyle \frac{dz_a^\nu }{d\tau _a}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz_a^\lambda }{d\tau _a}}=0`$ (8)
where $`G`$ and $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ have been defined in (5) and

$$T_{\mu \nu }=\underset{a}{}m_a𝑑\tau _a\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}g_{\mu \sigma }g_{\nu \rho }\frac{dz_a^\sigma }{d\tau _a}\frac{dz_a^\rho }{d\tau _a}\delta (xz_a(\tau _a))$$
(9)
Since $`^\mu G_{\mu \nu }=1/2_\nu \psi G`$, equations (6) and (7) together guarantee the conservation law $`_\mu T^{\mu \nu }=0`$ when the equations of motion are satisfied.

We next consider how the three particular theories of interest we noted above arise.

If we set $`H=0`$ and $`F=\psi \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ into the Lagrangian $`_0`$ we recover the Jackiw–Teitelboim theory (JT theory) for the gravitational field coupled to $`N`$ point masses. In that case, equation (6) reduces to:

$$R=\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(10)
The Ricci scalar is a constant and the other dynamical fields evolve in this spacetime of constant curvature.

for $`H=1`$ and $`F=0`$ we obtain the so–called $`R=T`$ theory; see . From (6) and (7) we have

$$R=\kappa T_\mu ^\mu $$
(11)
In this theory the matter affects the evolution of spacetime through the trace of the stress energy $`T_{\mu \nu }`$.

if we set $`H=1`$ and $`F=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we obtain the generalised theory (GT theory) described in . In this case combining the trace of equation (7) with (6) we obtain:

$$R=\mathrm{\Lambda }+\kappa T_\mu ^\mu $$
(12)
When all bodies are massless the GT theory reduces to the JT theory whereas when the cosmological constant vanishes we recover the $`R=T`$ theory.

Other choices of the functions $`H`$ and $`F`$ allow one to recover the dilaton gravitational theories studied in . As yet there are no exact solutions to the $`N`$-body problem in any of these other theories.

We shall now derive the canonical form for the action (1). For simplicity, we assume $`H=`$const, a choice compatible with both the JT theory ($`H=0`$) and the $`R=T`$ and GT theories ($`H=1`$).

Our goal will be to obtain the definition of the Hamiltonian in the ADM formalism (see ) and to compare it with the definition of energy we shall obtain via Nöther theorem and the theory of superpotentials.

Let us then consider the ADM splitting of the metric:

$$g=N_0^2dt^2+\gamma \left(dx+\frac{N_1}{\gamma }dt\right)^2$$
(13)
From now on, we shall use the symbols $`(\dot{})`$ and $`({}_{}{}^{})`$ to denote the derivatives $`_t`$ and $`_x`$, respectively. The action (1) transforms to:

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}d^2x\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}p_a\dot{z}_a\delta (xz_a(t))+\pi \dot{\gamma }+\mathrm{\Pi }\dot{\psi }+N_0R^0+N_1R^1\right\}`$
$`+\text{boundary terms}`$
where $`\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ are the momenta conjugated to $`\gamma `$ and $`\psi `$, respectively

$`\pi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa \sqrt{\gamma }N_0}}\left(\dot{\psi }+{\displaystyle \frac{N_1}{\gamma }}\psi ^{}\right)`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa N_0}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\gamma }}}\left(\dot{\gamma }+N_1{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^{}}{\gamma }}2N_1^{}\right)+\sqrt{\gamma }H(\dot{\psi }+{\displaystyle \frac{N_1}{\gamma }}\psi ^{})\right\}`$
and $`R^0`$ and $`R^1`$ are the Hamiltonian and the momentum constraints, respectively:

$`R^0`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa H\sqrt{\gamma }\gamma \pi ^2+2\kappa \sqrt{\gamma }\pi \mathrm{\Pi }+{\displaystyle \frac{H}{4\kappa \sqrt{\gamma }}}(\psi ^{})^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^{}}{\sqrt{\gamma }}}\right)^{}`$ (15)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\gamma }}{2\kappa }}F{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{p_a^2}{\gamma }}+m_a^2}\delta (xz_a(t))`$
$`R^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^{}}{\gamma }}\pi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma }}\mathrm{\Pi }\psi ^{}+2\pi ^{}+{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_a}{\gamma }}\delta (xz_a(t))`$ (16)
The technique developed in  for defining the Hamiltonian of the system was to consider the “total generator” of the action (2). This procedure allowed one to identify the dynamic and the gauge character of the variables and, subsequently, to impose the coordinate conditions

$$\gamma =1\mathrm{\Pi }=0$$
(17)
Eliminating then the constraints (15) and (16) and adopting the choice (17), the action (2) then simplifies to the reduced form:

$$A_R=_Md^2x\left\{\underset{a}{}p_a\dot{z}_a\delta (xz_a)\right\}=\frac{1}{\kappa }\psi ^{\prime \prime }$$
(18)
which is very similar to the situation in classical mechanics. The reduced Hamiltonian for the system of particles is then identified with:

$$H=𝑑x=\frac{1}{\kappa }𝑑x\psi ^{\prime \prime }$$
(19)
where $`\psi ^{\prime \prime }`$ is understood to be a function of $`z_a`$ and $`p_a`$ by solving the constraints (15) and (16). Despite the very simple form of the Hamiltonian, appropriate boundary conditions have to be imposed in order to guarantee the vanishing of extra boundary terms in the action (18). These conditions will be analysed case by case in the next sections and we shall see that they play a fundamental role in establishing the equivalence between the reduced Hamiltonian (19) and the Nöther definition of energy.

## 3 First–Order Covariant Lagrangian

In order to calculate the energy via Nöther theorem of a system of $`N`$ particles coupled to gravity we have to slightly modify the action functional (1) by adding a boundary term. As it is well known, the addiction of boundary terms into the action does not affect the equations of motion provided the correct boundary conditions are taken into account in order to cancel the boundary terms which arise from the bulk action in the variation. Hence, variations with prescribed boundary conditions select suitable boundary terms to append to the action and vice versa . When dealing with conserved quantities, additional boundary terms lead to different values for the Nöther currents and for the associated Nöther charges and each one has a different physical meaning. We shall here consider a modified action functional leading to the definition of a conserved quantity which can be “truly” considered as the energy of the system. It is constructed by requiring that, in the variational principle, the dynamical fields are kept fixed on the boundary while the variation of their derivatives are free, i.e. they are not constrained to vanish.

Let us consider again the variation $`\delta _0`$ in (LABEL:varLzero). It is is easy to verify (see (26) below) that the divergence terms depend not only on $`j^1g`$, $`j^1\psi `$, $`\delta g^{\mu \nu }`$, $`\delta \psi `$ but also on $`\delta u_{\beta \mu }^\alpha `$ where

$$u_{\beta \mu }^\alpha =\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \mu }^\alpha \delta _{(\beta }^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu )\nu }^\nu $$
(20)
From (LABEL:varLzero) we then see that the action functional $`A_M^0=_M_0d^2x`$ is stationary, i.e. $`\delta A_M^0=0`$, if the Euler–Lagrange equations of $`_0`$, i.e. $`G_{\mu \nu }=0`$ and $`G=0`$, are satisfied and if $`g^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\psi `$ are kept fixed on the boundary $`M`$ together with certain derivatives of $`g^{\mu \nu }`$ (namely $`\delta u_{\beta \mu }^\alpha |_M=0`$). In order to have a variational principle where only the dilaton field and the metric are fixed on the boundary of the region of integration (while the metric derivatives are not fixed), we have to build an action functional of first order in the dynamical fields. As already explained, this may be done by adding a divergence term to the Lagrangian (2). The ultimate motivation resides in the necessity of having a well–posed definition for the energy of the system.

Moreover,when dealing with the theory of conserved quantities, it is well known that ıt absolute conserved quantities (for example the absolute energy of a solution) do not have a precise meaning in General Relativity since it is preferrable to consider relative conserved quantities; see . By relative we mean that the conserved quantities of a dynamical field are calculated with respect to a background solution which is chosen as a zero level or reference point.

In order to have a first order covariant Lagrangian with the background initially included in the action functional we consider a background metric $`\overline{g}`$. By denoting with $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\beta \mu }^\alpha `$ the Levi–Civita connection of the background we may define the first–order covariant Lagrangian:

$`_1`$ $`=`$ $`_0+_{Div}`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{g}}{2\kappa }}\left(\psi R+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{\mu \nu }H_\mu \psi _\nu \psi +F\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}d_\alpha (\sqrt{g}\psi g^{\mu \nu }w_{\mu \nu }^\alpha )`$
where

$$w_{\beta \mu }^\alpha =Q_{\beta \mu }^\alpha \delta _{(\beta }^\alpha Q_{\mu )\nu }^\nu Q_{\beta \mu }^\alpha =\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \mu }^\alpha \overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\beta \mu }^\alpha $$
(22)
A first glance at (21) shows that the background $`\overline{g}`$ does not affect the equations of motion since it is contained in the divergence term $`_{Div}`$. Moreover (21) is manifestly covariant since $`w_{\beta \mu }^\alpha `$ is a tensor. We also observe that $`_1`$ is first–order in the dynamical fields $`g`$ and $`\psi `$ (and second–order in the background $`\overline{g}`$). Indeed, the terms $`\sqrt{g}\psi Rd_\alpha (\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }\psi w_{\beta \nu }^\alpha )`$ may be rewritten as222Henceforth all quantities with bars refer to background objects so that, for example, $`\overline{R}_{\mu \nu }`$ denotes the Ricci tensor of the background metric $`\overline{g}`$.

$$\sqrt{g}\left\{\psi g^{\mu \nu }\overline{R}_{\mu \nu }g^{\mu \nu }_\alpha \psi w_{\mu \nu }^\alpha +g^{\mu \nu }\psi (Q_{\sigma \nu }^\alpha Q_{\mu \alpha }^\sigma Q_{\alpha \sigma }^\alpha Q_{\mu \nu }^\sigma )\right\}$$

Being first–order, the action functional $`_M_1d^2x`$ is extremized by the dynamical fields $`g`$ and $`\psi `$ which satisfy the equations of motion (5) provided that $`\delta g|_M=0`$ and $`\delta \psi |_M=0`$. Notice that, until now, the background has been introduced only to provide covariance for the Lagrangian $`_1`$. It also seems reasonable to require that the background $`\overline{g}`$ is a solution of field equations without particles, i.e. a vacuum solution. For this reason, in describing the motion of $`N`$ particles in $`2`$–dimensional gravity one could replace the action functional (1) with:

$$A_M^{Tot}=_M(_0+_{Div}+_P\overline{}_0)d^2x$$
(23)
where $`\overline{}_0`$ is the Lagrangian obtained from (2) by substituting all the fields (the metric $`g`$ and also the dilaton $`\psi `$) with the corresponding background fields $`(\overline{g},\overline{\psi })`$. In this way, the field equations for $`(\overline{g},\overline{\psi })`$ are the same as those in (6) and (7) with $`T_{\mu \nu }=0`$.

We remark that a similar technique was employed in General Relativity in order to calculate the corrected relative conserved quantities for a large class of solutions; see e.g. .

## 4 Superpotential

In this Section we shall briefly review the theory of conserved quantities via Nöther theorem. The formulation we shall give here is based on the geometric formulation of a field theory and it basically relies on covariance requirements for the Lagrangian describing the physical model. The detailed and rigorous construction of Nöther currents, superpotentials and conserved quantities requires the geometric formulation of a relativistic field theory in terms of fiber bundles and their jet prolongations. We refer the interested reader to  and references quoted therein for details. Here we specialize the formalism developed in those papers in order to construct the superpotential associated with the action (23).

First of all let us consider the Lagrangian $`_0`$ in (23). It is a covariant Lagrangian density, i.e. it is invariant under coordinate transformation. This means that, for any vector field $`\xi =\xi ^\mu /x^\mu `$ on the spacetime $`M`$, the following identity holds (see ):

$$d_\lambda (\xi ^\lambda _0)=𝒢_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\pounds }_\xi (g^{\mu \nu })+^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\pounds }_\xi (R_{\mu \nu })+\mathrm{\pounds }_\xi (\psi )+^\mu \mathrm{\pounds }_\xi (_\mu \psi )$$
(24)
where:

$`𝒢_{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{_0}{g^{\mu \nu }}}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{g}}{2k}}\psi (R_{\mu \nu }1/2g_{\mu \nu }R)=0`$
$`^{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{_0}{R_{\mu \nu }}}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{g}}{2k}}\psi g^{\mu \nu }`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{_0}{\psi }}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{g}}{2k}}(R+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{\mu \nu }H^{}(\psi )_\mu \psi _\nu \psi +F^{}(\psi ))`$
$`^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{_0}{(_\mu \psi )}}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{g}}{2k}}g^{\mu \nu }H(\psi )_\nu \psi `$
and $`\mathrm{\pounds }_\xi `$ denotes the Lie derivarive with respect to the vector field $`\xi `$.

Taking into account the relation $`\mathrm{\pounds }_\xi R_{\mu \nu }=_\alpha (\mathrm{\pounds }_\xi u_{\mu \nu }^\alpha )`$ (where $`u_{\mu \nu }^\alpha `$ has been defined in (20)), through a covariant integration by parts the identity (24) can be rewritten as (compare with (LABEL:varLzero))

$$d_\sigma \left\{^\sigma \xi ^\sigma _0\right\}=\frac{\sqrt{g}}{2k}\left[G_{\mu \nu }(j^2\psi ,j^1g)\mathrm{\pounds }_\xi g^{\mu \nu }+G(j^2g,j^2\psi )\mathrm{\pounds }_\xi \psi \right]$$
(25)
where

$`^\sigma (j^1g,j^1\psi ,\mathrm{\pounds }_\xi (j^1g),\mathrm{\pounds }_\xi (\psi ))={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{g}}{2k}}\{g^{\mu \nu }\psi \mathrm{\pounds }_\xi u_{\mu \nu }^\sigma +`$
$`_\alpha \psi (g^{\alpha \sigma }g_{\mu \nu }\delta _\mu ^\alpha \delta _\nu ^\sigma )\mathrm{\pounds }_\xi g^{\mu \nu }+H(\psi )g^{\sigma \nu }_\nu \psi \mathrm{\pounds }_\xi \psi \}`$ (26)
The Nöther current $`(_0,\xi )`$ associated with the generator $`\xi `$ of Lagrangian symmetries is defined as

$$^\sigma (_0,\xi )=^\sigma \xi ^\sigma _0$$
(27)
It is a $`(n1)`$–differential form on the spacetime $`M`$, i.e. a $`1`$–form.

From (25) it is clear that, whenever $`g`$ and $`\psi `$ are solution of the field equations obtained from the Lagrangian $`_0`$, namely: $`G_{\mu \nu }=0`$ and $`G=0`$, the Nöther current $`^\sigma (_0,\xi )`$ obeys the continuity equation:

$$d_\sigma ^\sigma (_0,\xi )=0$$
(28)
Moreover, since the mapping $`\xi \mathrm{\pounds }_\xi ()`$ is a linear partial differential operator, the Nöther current (27) can be expanded as a linear combination of the symmetrized covariant derivatives of $`\xi `$ up to second order:

$$^\alpha (_0,\xi )=T_\mu ^\alpha \xi ^\mu +T_\mu ^{\alpha \beta }_\beta \xi ^\mu +T_\mu ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }_{(\beta }_{\gamma )}\xi ^\mu $$
(29)
where the canonical tensors $`T`$ are:

$`T_\mu ^\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{g}}{2k}}\left\{Hg^{\alpha \nu }_\nu \psi _\mu \psi +{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\psi R_\mu ^\alpha \delta _\mu ^\alpha _0\right\}`$
$`T_\mu ^{\alpha \beta }={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{g}}{k}}h_\mu ^{\lambda \alpha \beta }_\lambda \psi `$ (30)
$`T_\mu ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{g}}{k}}\psi h_\mu ^{\alpha (\beta \gamma )}`$
with

$$h_\nu ^{\sigma \rho \gamma }=g^{\sigma \rho }\delta _\nu ^\gamma g^{g(\sigma }\delta _\nu ^{\rho )}$$

Whenever we have a linear combination of the form (29) we can perform a covariant integration by parts to obtain for the same quantity an equivalent linear expansion whose coefficients are all symmetric with respect to upper indices, while the integrated terms are all pushed into a formal divergence . Doing so, we obtain

$$^\alpha (_0,\xi )=\stackrel{~}{}^\alpha (_0,\xi )+d_\beta 𝒰^{\alpha \beta }(_0,\xi )$$
(31)
with

$$\stackrel{~}{}^\alpha (_0,\xi )=\stackrel{~}{}_\mu ^\alpha \xi ^\mu +\stackrel{~}{}_\mu ^{\alpha \beta }_\beta \xi ^\mu +\stackrel{~}{}_\mu ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }_{(\beta }_{\gamma )}\xi ^\mu $$
(32)
$`\stackrel{~}{}_\rho ^\alpha =T_\rho ^\alpha +t_\rho ^\alpha _\beta \left(T_\rho ^{[\alpha \beta ]}+t_\rho ^{[\alpha \beta ]}\right)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{}_\mu ^{\alpha \beta }=T_\rho ^{(\alpha \beta )}+t_\rho ^{(\alpha \beta )}`$ (33)
$`\stackrel{~}{}_\mu ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }=T_\rho ^{(\alpha \beta \gamma )}`$
$`t_\rho ^\alpha =1/3T_\gamma ^{[\sigma \beta ]\alpha }R_{\rho \sigma \beta }^\gamma `$
$`t_\rho ^{\alpha \beta }=4/3_\sigma T_\rho ^{[\alpha \sigma ]\beta }`$
and

$$𝒰^{\alpha \beta }=\left\{T_\rho ^{[\alpha \beta ]}\frac{2}{3}_\sigma T_\rho ^{[\alpha \beta ]\sigma }\right\}\xi ^\sigma +\frac{4}{3}T_\rho ^{[\alpha \beta ]\sigma }_\sigma \xi ^\rho $$
(34)
The $`1`$–form $`\stackrel{~}{}(_0,\xi )`$ is called the reduced current while the $`0`$–form $`𝒰(_0,\xi )=𝒰^{\alpha \beta }ϵ_{\alpha \beta }`$ is called the superpotential associated with the Lagrangian $`_0`$ and relative to the vector field $`\xi `$. It is easy to demonstrate from (25), (27) and (29) (see ) that the reduced current is always vanishing on–shell (i.e. when it is evaluated on the solutions of the field equations). In the present case, from (30) and (33) we obtain:

$`\stackrel{~}{}_\rho ^\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{g}}{k}}G_\rho ^\alpha `$
$`\stackrel{~}{}_\mu ^{\alpha \beta }=0`$ (35)
$`\stackrel{~}{}_\mu ^{\alpha \beta \gamma }=0`$
and

$$𝒰(_0,\xi )=\frac{\sqrt{g}}{2k}\left\{2_\beta \psi g^{\beta \alpha }\xi ^\sigma \psi g^{\alpha \mu }_\mu \xi ^\sigma \right\}ϵ_{\alpha \sigma }$$
(36)
A similar expression can be found for the Lagrangian $`\overline{}_0`$ in (23) by replacing all the quantities involved in (35) and (36) with the corresponding barred ones.

The same algorithmic technique can be applied to the Lagrangian $`_{Div}`$ in (23) in order to compute the relative Nöther current $`(_{Div},\xi )`$, the reduced current $`\stackrel{~}{}(_{Div},\xi )`$ and the superpotential $`𝒰(_{Div},\xi )`$. Because $`_{Div}`$ is a pure divergence, it gives no contribution to the reduced current and we have:

$$(_{Div},\xi )=d𝒰(_{Div},\xi )$$
(37)
where

$$𝒰(_{Div},\xi )=\frac{\sqrt{g}}{2k}\psi g^{\mu \nu }w_{\mu \nu }^\beta \xi ^\alpha ϵ_{\alpha \beta }$$
(38)
Since our goal is to construct the Nöther current $`(,\xi )`$ associated with the total Lagrangian (23)

$$=_0+_{Div}+_P\overline{}_0$$
(39)
we still have to consider the $`N`$–particle matter Lagrangian $`_P`$. It gives a contribution $`\sqrt{g}T_\rho ^\alpha `$ to the reduced current while it gives no contribution to the superpotential. Hence, for the total Lagrangian $``$, we finally have

$$^\alpha (,\xi )=\stackrel{~}{}^\alpha (,\xi )+d_\beta 𝒰^{\alpha \beta }(,\xi )$$
(40)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{}^\alpha (,\xi )=\frac{\sqrt{g}}{\kappa }\left\{G_\rho ^\alpha \kappa T_\rho ^\alpha \right\}\xi ^\rho \frac{\sqrt{\overline{g}}}{\kappa }\overline{G}_\rho ^\alpha \xi ^\rho $$
(41)
and

$`𝒰(,\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`𝒰(_0,\xi )+𝒰(_{Div},\xi )𝒰(\overline{}_0,\xi )`$ (42)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{g}}{2\kappa }}\left\{2_\beta \psi g^{\beta \alpha }\xi ^\sigma \psi g^{\alpha \mu }_\mu \xi ^\sigma \right\}ϵ_{\alpha \sigma }`$ (43)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{g}}{2\kappa }}\left\{\psi g^{\mu \nu }w_{\mu \nu }^\sigma \xi ^\alpha \right\}ϵ_{\alpha s}`$ (44)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\overline{g}}}{2\kappa }}\left\{2\overline{}_\beta \overline{\psi }\overline{g}^{\beta \alpha }\xi ^\sigma \overline{\psi }\overline{g}^{\alpha \mu }\overline{}_\mu \xi ^\sigma \right\}ϵ_{\alpha \sigma }`$ (45)
From (7) it is clear that the reduced current (41) vanishes on–shell, meaning that the Nöther current (40) is not only a closed $`1`$–form on spacetime but it is also exact on–shell and this is true independent of the topology of the spacetime. Moreover, while the current $`(,\xi )`$ is conserved just along solutions the quantity $`(,\xi )\stackrel{~}{}(,\xi )`$ is conserved along every field configuration, including those which are not solutions of the field equations (see (40)). We express this fact by saying that $`(,\xi )`$ is weakly conserved while the difference $`(,\xi )\stackrel{~}{}(,\xi )`$ is strongly conserved. Notice that these resultshold true for every vector field $`\xi `$ on the spacetime $`M`$, not necessarily a Killing vector field.

Now let $`D`$ be a $`1`$–dimensional space–like region of the spacetime $`M`$ and let the boundary $`D`$ of $`D`$ be formed by two points $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$. Let $`\xi `$ be a time–like vector field and let us denote by the pair $`g(x),\psi (x)`$ (and $`\overline{g}(x),\overline{\psi }(x)`$) a solution of the field equations (6) and (7). According to  we define the energy $`E_D^{Tot}(,\xi )`$ of the solution relative to the background, contained in the region $`D`$ and relative to the vector field $`\xi `$ as

$$E_D^{Tot}(,\xi )=𝒰(,\xi )|_{P_2}𝒰(,\xi )|_{P_1}$$
(46)
In other words, the superpotential (42) corresponds to the density of energy. The definition (46) of energy relies entirely on the covariant formulation of the theory and can be considered as the covariant counterpart of the ADM formulation, see . In this context, rather then starting from a preferred ADM foliation of the spacetime into hypersurfaces, the starting point is an arbitrary surface $`D`$ and a non–vanishing vector field $`\xi `$, the flow of which defines the local time.

Note that the energy (46) is already normalized in such a way it is zero when computed on the background. We also stress that the region $`D`$ in (46) is not required to extend out to “spatial infinity”. As we shall see below, we can compute, via the Nöther theorem, also the “quasilocal” energy, i.e. the energy contained in a region of finite spatial extent.

We turn now to specific applications of this formalism to the $`N`$-body problem.

## 5 Applications: $`R=T`$ Theory

We shall here present the exact solution to the problem of the relativistic motion of two point masses found in  and we shall see that the definition of energy (46) coincides with the ADM Hamiltonian (19).

If $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$ (with $`z_2<z_1`$) denote the positions of the two particles, the $`1`$–dimensional slices $`\{t=const\}`$ of the ADM foliation of spacetime can be divided in the three regions $`x<z_2`$, $`z_2<x<z_1`$ and $`z_1<x`$. As in  we call them the $`()`$ region, the $`(0)`$ region and the $`(+)`$ region, respectively.

First of all it is important to stress that in the $`R=T`$ theory it is necessary to impose the boundary conditions

$$\psi =\pm 2\kappa \chi \chi ^{}=\pi $$
(47)
which must hold in the $`()`$ region as well in the $`(+)`$ region. That condition, together with the coordinate conditon (17), allows one to pass from the expression (2) to the final expression (18) where all the boundary terms are discarded.

The solution in the $`(+)`$ and $`()`$ regions is

$`\gamma =1\mathrm{\Pi }=0`$ (48)
$`N_0=A\varphi ^2=\{\begin{array}{cc}A\varphi _+^2\hfill & (+)\text{region}\hfill \\ & \\ A\varphi _{}^2\hfill & ()\text{region}\hfill \end{array}`$ (52)
$`N_{1(+)}=N_{0(+)}1N_{1()}=N_{0()}+1`$ (53)
$`\psi =4\mathrm{ln}|\varphi |=\{\begin{array}{cc}4\mathrm{ln}|\varphi _+|\hfill & (+)\text{region}\hfill \\ & \\ 4\mathrm{ln}|\varphi _{}|\hfill & ()\text{region}\hfill \end{array}`$ (57)
$`\pi ={\displaystyle \frac{N_1^{}}{\kappa N_0}}`$ (58)
where $`\varphi _+`$ and $`\varphi _{}`$ are rather complicated functions of $`x,z_1(t),z_2(t),p_1(t),p_2(t)`$ (see ref.  for details). Notice that the boundary condition (47) is satisfied if we choose the plus sign in the $`(+)`$ region and the minus sign in the $`()`$ region, respectively.

The reduced Hamiltonian (19) becomes:

$$H=\frac{1}{\kappa }𝑑x\psi ^{\prime \prime }=\frac{1}{\kappa }\left[\psi _{(+)}^{}\psi _{()}^{}\right]$$
(59)
A detailed analysis of the result (59) was carried out in ref.  where it was shown that the canonical equations of motion

$`\dot{z}_a={\displaystyle \frac{H}{p_a}}`$
$`\dot{p}_a={\displaystyle \frac{H}{z_a}}`$
derived from (59) give rise to the original geodesic equations (8). It was also shown that for sufficiently small values of the Hamiltonian the trajectories of the particles can be considered as a relativistic perturbation of the Newtonian case.

Let us now compute the energy of the two–particle system through the definitions (42) and (46). First of all we have to select a suitable background adapted to the theory under examination, i.e., a zero level for the energy. We select as a background the vacuum solution obtained from the equation of motion (11) by setting $`T_{\mu \nu }=0`$ (no–particles). Hence, a natural choice is

$$\overline{g}=\eta d\overline{s}^2=dt^2+dx^2\overline{\psi }=0$$
(60)
Taking into account the ADM splitting of the metric (13), the background (60) and setting $`\xi =/t`$, the superpotential (42) becomes:

$$𝒰=\frac{1}{\kappa \sqrt{\gamma }}N_0\psi ^{}+2N_1\pi $$
(61)
Employing the boundary condition (47) and the equations (48) and (53) it can be rewritten as:

$$𝒰_{(+)}=\frac{1}{\kappa }\psi _{(+)}^{}𝒰_{()}=\frac{1}{\kappa }\psi _{()}^{}$$
(62)
in the $`(+)`$ and in the $`()`$ regions, respectively. Hence the expression (46) for the energy

$$E^{Tot}=𝒰_{(+)}𝒰_{()}=\frac{1}{\kappa }\left[\psi _{(+)}^{}\psi _{()}^{}\right]$$
(63)
perfectly agrees with the Hamiltonian (59).

## 6 Application: GT Theory

We shall here consider two classes of solutions for the GT theory (12), a single particle solution and a two–particle solution. When computing the energy via the Nöther theorem a careful analysis of the background has to be done in both cases. We stress that in GT theories the vacuum solution (i.e. the solution in absence of particles which is a good representative for the background) can not be identified with the flat metric $`\overline{g}=\eta `$ together with $`\overline{\psi }=0`$, as in the previous Section. Indeed, in the GT theory the field equations (6), (7), in absence of particles, reduce to

$`R=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (64)
$`g^{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu \psi =\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (65)
Hence we have to choose as a background metric a constant curvature solution satisfying (64). Moreover, in order to avoid divergence problems which are commonly encountered in the computation of conserved quantities in non–Ricci flat spacetime (see, e.g. ), the dynamical fields and the backgrounds have to be matched on the boundary of the region $`I`$ whose energy content we want to calculate. If the region is described by the expression $`I=\{x_0xx_0,t=\text{constant}\}`$ we then require $`g(t,\pm x_0)=\overline{g}(t,\pm x_0)`$ and $`\psi (t,\pm x_0)=\overline{\psi }(t,\pm x_0)`$. The ADM reduction of the superpotential (42) then simplifies as follows:

$$𝒰=\frac{N_0}{k\sqrt{\gamma }}\left(\psi ^{}\overline{\psi }^{}\right)+2N_1\left(\pi \overline{\pi }\right)$$
(66)
### 6.1 One–Particle Solution

We shall now describe a solution of the GT theory with a point particle of mass $`M`$ at the origin. In this case the equations of motion (6) and (7) reduce to

$`Rg^{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu \psi =0`$ (67)
$`R=\mathrm{\Lambda }4\pi M\delta (x)`$ (68)
If we look for a solution of the form:

$$g=\alpha (x)dt^2+\frac{1}{\alpha (x)}dx^2$$
(69)
equations (68) becomes:

$$\frac{d^2\alpha }{dx^2}=\mathrm{\Lambda }4\pi M\delta (x)$$
(70)
It is satisfied by

$$\alpha (x)=1+4\pi M|x|\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }x^2$$
(71)
Accordingly, from (67) we obtain that

$$\psi (x)=\mathrm{ln}\left(\alpha (x)\right)+Ct$$
(72)
is a solution for every choice of the constant $`C`$. We now want to compute the energy of the solution relative to a background. We can choose as a background the vacuum solution $`M=0`$ or a solution with a different mass $`m`$ as well:

$`\overline{g}=\overline{\alpha }(x)dt^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{\alpha }(x)}}dx^2`$ (73)
$`\overline{\psi }=\mathrm{ln}\left(\overline{\alpha }(x)\right)+Ct`$ (74)
where

$$\overline{\alpha }(x)=1+4\pi (Mm)x_0+4\pi m|x|\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }x^2x_0=\text{const}>0$$
(75)
Notice that the background solution $`\{\overline{g},\overline{\psi }\}`$ satisfies the same equations (67) and (68) (with mass $`m`$) and it is matched with the solution $`\{g,\psi \}`$ on the boundary of the real line interval $`I=\{x_0xx_0,t=\text{constant}\}`$. Hence, from (66) we easily obtain

$$𝒰(\pm x_0)=\pm \frac{1}{2}(Mm)$$
(76)
and from (46) we deduce that the relative energy $`E_I^{Tot}`$ contained in the region $`I`$, as expected, is equal to

$$E_I^{Tot}=𝒰(x_0)𝒰(x_0)=Mm$$
(77)
We outline that this result holds for all finite real intervals (and, of course, also asymptotically).

We also stress that the definition (19) of the ADM Hamiltonian, instead, does not lead to the correct value if applied to this solution (when $`x_0`$ goes to infinity it gives $`H=0`$). This is basically due to the fact that the solution under examination has been obtained without imposing a priori  coordinate and boundary conditions. Nevertheless, with the coordinate transformation:

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\tau =t+\frac{1}{AB}\mathrm{ln}(1+A|x|)\frac{1}{2AB}\mathrm{ln}(1+2A|x|\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }x^2)\hfill \\ \\ |y|=\frac{1}{A}\mathrm{ln}(1+A|x|)A=\frac{kM}{4},B=\sqrt{1+(8\mathrm{\Lambda }/k^2M^2)}\hfill \end{array}$$
(78)
the solution (69), (71), (72) transforms into the solution found in , Appendix B. In the new coordinate system the coordinate conditions (17) are satisfied together with the suitable boundary conditions (see (79) below). Hence the definition (19) may be applied.

### 6.2 Two–Particle Solution

The exact solution for the two–particle GT theory was found in  where the motion of the particles was deeply analysed starting from the definition (19) of the Hamiltonian. In this case the relevant formula (19) was obtained by imposing boundary conditions which are the generalization to the GT theory of the conditions (47). In the present case they read:

$$\psi ^24\kappa \chi ^2+2\mathrm{\Lambda }x^2=C_\pm x\chi ^{}=\pi $$
(79)
for the $`(+)`$ and $`()`$ regions. Here $`C_\pm `$ are constants. We refer the reader to  for the details. The solution in the $`(+)`$ and $`()`$ regions is given by

$`\gamma =1\mathrm{\Pi }=0`$ (80)
$`N_0=A\varphi ^2=\{\begin{array}{cc}A\varphi _+^2\hfill & \varphi _+(x)=B\mathrm{exp}(K_+x/2)\hfill \\ & \\ A\varphi _{}^2\hfill & \varphi _{}(x)=C\mathrm{exp}(K_{}x/2)\hfill \end{array}`$ (84)
$`N_{1(+)}={\displaystyle \frac{Y_+}{K_+}}(N_{0(+)}1)N_{1()}={\displaystyle \frac{Y_{}}{K_{}}}(N_{0()}1)`$ (85)
$`\psi =4\mathrm{ln}|\varphi |=\{\begin{array}{c}4\mathrm{ln}|\varphi _+|\hfill \\ \\ 4\mathrm{ln}|\varphi _{}|\hfill \end{array}`$ (89)
where

$`Y_\pm =\kappa \left[X\pm 1/4(p_1+p_2)\right]`$
$`K_\pm =\sqrt{Y_\pm ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }/2}`$ (90)
$`\pi _\pm =X1/4(p_1+p_2)`$
and $`A,B,C`$ and $`X`$ do not depend on the $`x`$ coordinate but implicitly depend on the time through the positions $`z_a`$and the momenta $`p_a`$ of the particles. Hence the ADM Hamiltonian (19) becomes

$$H(z_a,p_a)=\frac{1}{\kappa }_{x_0}^{x_0}𝑑x\psi ^{\prime \prime }=\frac{2(K_++K_{})}{\kappa }$$
(91)
where $`x_0<z_2<z_1<x_0`$.

We shall see that the same expression can be obtained as well as a Nöther charge starting from the definition (42). As in the $`R=T`$ theory of Section 5 the link between the ADM Hamiltonian and the Nöther energy is established via the boundary conditions (79). We stress again that only if these conditions are satisfied the expression (19) can be considered as the true Hamiltonian of the system (in fact, the one particle solution of section 5.1 is an example where (19) can not be applied) . Instead, the formula based on the Nöther approach holds in any case, provided we choose the suitable background. When dealing with the explicit solution (80)–(89) it is very cumbersome to find a suitable background matching correctly the solution on the boundary. Hence we prefer to consider the infinitesimal version of equation (66). We consider a whole family of solutions (80)–(89) and we take the variation $`\delta 𝒰|_{x_0}`$ of the density of energy $`𝒰`$ at the boundary $`\{x_0,x_0\}`$ along this family (see ). Moreover, we demand that every solution of the family has the same boundary value, i.e. $`\delta g|_{x_0}=0`$ and $`\delta \psi |_{x_0}=0`$. Hence, from (66) we obtain

$$\delta 𝒰=\frac{N_0}{\kappa \sqrt{\gamma }}\delta \psi ^{}+2N_1\delta \pi $$
(92)
and from the expressions (89) and (90) we have

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\delta \psi _\pm ^{}=2(Y_\pm /K_\pm )\delta Y_\pm \hfill \\ \\ \delta \pi _\pm =(1/\kappa )\delta Y_\pm \hfill \end{array}$$
(93)
Then $`\delta 𝒰_\pm =\pm \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}/\kappa \delta K_\pm `$ and the variation of the energy becomes:

$$\delta E^{Tot}=\delta 𝒰_+\delta 𝒰_{}=\frac{2\delta (K_++K_{})}{\kappa }$$
(94)
The latter expression obviously leads to the result

$$E^{Tot}=\frac{2(K_++K_{})}{\kappa }+\text{const}$$
(95)
in agreement with (91). The constant of integration can be fixed arbitrarily inside the family of solutions depending on the choice for the zero of energy.

We remark that the same result (95) may be achieved if the GT theory is extended in order to include charged bodies, see . The action integral for gravitational and electric fields coupled with $`N`$ charged point masses leads to the same expression (42) for the superpotential. \[This does not mean that the superpotential and consequently the energy are not affected by the electric field. On the contrary, the superpotential is evaluated on a solution and the latter depends on the electric field through the electric stress energy $`T_{\mu \nu }^{el}`$ appearing in the equations of motion.\] Moreover, since the solution  has the same structure as (80)–(90), the same calculation of this section may be repeated step by step yielding the same result (95).

## 7 Application: JT Theory

We shall here describe a two–particle solution for the Jackiw–Teitelboim theory. It is obtained, we remind, by setting $`H=0`$ and $`F=\psi \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in (2) so that the equations of motion (6)–(8) read as follows:

$`R\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$
$`g_{\mu \nu }^\sigma _\sigma \psi _\mu _\nu \psi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }\psi \mathrm{\Lambda }=\kappa T_{\mu \nu }`$ (96)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau _a}}\left\{g_{\mu \nu }(z_a){\displaystyle \frac{dz_a^\nu }{d\tau _a}}\right\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\nu \lambda ,\mu }(z_a){\displaystyle \frac{dz_a^\nu }{d\tau _a}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz_a^\lambda }{d\tau _a}}=0`$
The solution we shall describe is obtained by considering $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=2/l^2`$ (with $`l`$ a real constant).

In order to find the solution, the coordinate conditions (17) were imposed together with the choice $`N_1=0`$. Hence (13) simplifies to $`g=N_0^2dt^2+dx^2`$ and the field equations become

$`\dot{\pi }+N_0\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{2\kappa l^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2\delta (xz_1(t))}{2\sqrt{p_1^2+m_1^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_2^2\delta (xz_2(t))}{2\sqrt{p_2^2+m_2^2}}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{N_0^{}\psi ^{}}{2\kappa }}=0`$ (97)
$`\psi ^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{l^2}}+\kappa \left(\sqrt{p_1^2+m_1^2}\delta (xz_1)+\sqrt{p_2^2+m_2^2}\delta (xz_2)\right)=0`$ (98)
$`2\pi ^{}+p_1\delta (xz_1)+p_2\delta (xz_2)=0`$ (99)
$`N_0^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l^2}}N_0=0`$ (100)
$`\dot{\psi }+2\kappa N_0\pi =0`$ (101)
$`\dot{p}_1+{\displaystyle \frac{N_0}{z_1}}\sqrt{p_1^2+m_1^2}=0`$ (102)
$`\dot{p}_2+{\displaystyle \frac{N_0}{z_2}}\sqrt{p_2^2+m_2^2}=0`$ (103)
$`\dot{z}_1N_0{\displaystyle \frac{p_1}{\sqrt{p_1^2+m_1^2}}}=0`$ (104)
$`\dot{z}_2N_0{\displaystyle \frac{p_2}{\sqrt{p_2^2+m_2^2}}}=0`$ (105)
with $`\pi =\dot{\psi }/(2\kappa N_0)`$ and $`N_0/z_a=N_0(x)/x|_{x=z_a}`$. The solution $`(g,\psi )`$ is then given by:

$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`1N_1=0N_0=\mathrm{cosh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{l}}\right)`$ (106)
$`\psi `$ $`=`$ $`A(t)\left[\sqrt{p_1^2+m_1^2}\mathrm{cosh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{xz_1}{l}}\right)+\sqrt{p_2^2+m_2^2}\mathrm{cosh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{xz_2}{l}}\right)\right]`$
$`+B\left[\mathrm{sinh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{xz_1}{l}}\right)+\mathrm{sinh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{xz_2}{l}}\right)\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa l}{2}}\left[\sqrt{p_1^2+m_1^2}\mathrm{sinh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|xz_1|}{l}}\right)+\sqrt{p_2^2+m_2^2}\mathrm{sinh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|xz_2|}{l}}\right)\right]`$
with $`A(t)=a_1\mathrm{cos}\left(t/l\right)+a_2\mathrm{sin}\left(t/l\right)`$ and $`B`$, $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ constants. The reduced Hamiltonian (19) now becomes

$$H=\frac{1}{\kappa }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\psi ^{\prime \prime }=0$$
(108)
and it clearly gives rise to an unphysical result. Indeed from equations (102)–(105) the Hamiltonian is expected to be of the form:

$$H(z_1,z_2,p_1,p_2)=N_0(z_1)\sqrt{p_1^2+m_1^2}+N_0(z_2)\sqrt{p_2^2+m_2^2}$$
(109)
Without entering into the details we only remark that the wrong result (108) is basically due to the “bad” asymptotic behaviour of the solution. Instead, as already observed, the definition of energy as a Nöther charge is not constrained by asymptotic conditions and then it is a good candidate for defining the Hamiltonian of the system. In order to apply the definitions (42) and (46), let us then fix the background solution $`(\overline{g},\overline{\psi })`$ by setting $`z_a=0`$ and $`p_a=0`$ into the solution (106), (7). We observe that the metric $`g`$ does not depend on the particles coordinates so that $`\overline{g}=g`$. Hence the second term in (44) is equal to zero (because $`w_{\beta \mu }^\alpha =0`$) and the superpotential $`𝒰`$ reads as follows:

$$𝒰=\frac{1}{\kappa }\left[\psi N_0^{}\psi ^{}N_0\right]\frac{1}{\kappa }\left[\overline{\psi }N_0^{}\overline{\psi }^{}N_0\right]$$
(110)
Denoting by $`I`$ the region $`I=\{x_0xx_0,t=\text{constant}\}`$ the energy $`E_I^{Tot}`$ contained in the region $`I`$ becomes:

$`E_I^{Tot}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{x_0}^{x_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝒰}{dx}}𝑑x`$ (111)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}{\displaystyle _{x_0}^{x_0}}\left(\psi N_0^{\prime \prime }\psi ^{\prime \prime }N_0\right)𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}{\displaystyle _{x_0}^{x_0}}\left(\overline{\psi }N_0^{\prime \prime }\overline{\psi }^{\prime \prime }N_0\right)𝑑x`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{x_0}^{x_0}}N_0\left(\sqrt{p_1^2+m_1^2}\delta (xz_1)+\sqrt{p_2^2+m_2^2}\delta (xz_2)\right)𝑑x`$
where in the last equality we have taken into account the equation of motions (98) and (100). Then, if the region $`I`$ is “large” enough, i.e. $`x^0<z_2<z_1<x^0`$ the energy $`E_I^{Tot}`$ is given by

$$E_I^{Tot}=N_0(z_1)\sqrt{p_1^2+m_1^2}+N_0(z_2)\sqrt{p_2^2+m_2^2}$$
(112)
in agreemet with the expected value (109).

More generally, note that the energy (111) is instead given by:

$$\{\begin{array}{c}E=N_0(z_2)\sqrt{p_2^2+m_2^2}\text{if}x^0<z_2<x^0<z_1\hfill \\ \\ E=N_0(z_1)\sqrt{p_1^2+m_1^2}\text{if}z_2<x^0<z_1<x^0\hfill \\ \\ E=0\text{if}z_2<x^0<x^0<z_1\hfill \end{array}$$
(113)
Finally, we point out that the above solution is easily extendable to $`N`$ particles, since the spacetime is of constant curvature, and the metric is given by (106). The solution for the $`a`$-th particle is

$$N_0(z_a)\sqrt{p_a^2+m_a^2}=E_a$$
(114)
where $`E_a`$ is a constant and

$$z_a(\tau _a)=l\mathrm{cosh}^1\left[E_a\sqrt{\frac{2}{m_a^2+E_a^2+(m_a^2E_a^2)\mathrm{sin}(\tau _a/l)}}\right]$$
(115)
The total energy is

$$E=\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}E_a$$
(116)
provided the region of interest surrounds all of the particles.

## 8 Conclusions and Perspectives

We have analysed and compared two definitions of energy for the $`N`$–body problem in $`2`$–dimensional gravity. They look very different from a theoretical as well from a practical point of view. Although the formula (19) is very simple and easy to deal with applications, we have shown in two examples (see Section 6.1 and Section 7) that it is not generally valid. We have pointed out how this is related to coordinates choices and boundary conditions. Instead, the definition (46) of energy via Nöther theorem leads, in all the situations so far analysed, to the expected value for the Hamiltonian and gives rise to the same results of the ADM prescription (19) when the latter is applicable. The definition (46) seems to be more difficult in applications mainly because its $`(1+1)`$ ADM splitting is not always the same, compare e.g. (61), (66) and (110). This is basically due to the fact that the background has to be chosen in a different way every time. In our opinion, it is exactly the presence of the background inside its expression which renders the definition (46) more general, at least at a theoretical level. It is suitable for dealing with theories admitting Minkowski–like backgrounds (such as $`R=T`$ theories) as well as more general contexts (GT and JT theories).

Divergence problems in the energy are here cured not imposing a priori boundary conditions (as it is commonly done in the ADM canonical reduction) and hence fixing the asymptotic behaviour of the solution. Instead, they are avoided, a posteriori, through the choice of the backgroud which suitably matches the solution under examination.

We expect that the definition of energy based on the superpotential could be applied also in extensions of the formalism with additional matter fields and to $`N`$–body problem in $`(2+1)`$ dimensions, see e.g. .

Finally, we stress that $`2`$ dimensional gravity, far from being a pure mathematical toy model, has deep relationships with dimensionally reduced four–dimensional spherically symmetric gravity and $`2`$D string–theoretical black hole gravity, see ,  and references quoted therein. $`2`$D gravity provides an important arena for examining the notion of gravitational energy, and we anticipate it has more to teach us about this and other interesting subjects.

## 9 Acknowledgments

We are grateful to L. Fatibene, M. Ferraris and M. Francaviglia of the University of Torino for useful discussion on the subject, and to T. Ohta of Miyagi University for helpful correspondence. This work was supported by INdAM–GNFM, by the University of Torino (Italy), by the University of Waterloo (Canada) and by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.


text:
# Conclusion 1

STRUCTURAL CHARACTERIZATION OF COMPOUNDNESS111Appeared in Int. J. Theor. Phys. 39, 585–594 (2000), as the proceedings of a lecture at the fourth biannual conference of the International Quantum Structures Association, Liptovský Ján, Slovakia, 1998 ; a more elaborated and detailed version of this paper is in preparation.

Bob Coecke222The author thanks David Moore, Isar Stubbe and Frank Valckenborgh for discussion on the subject of this paper and Constantin Piron for his hospitality at Université de Genève.

FUND-DWIS, Free University of Brussels, Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium; bocoecke@vub.ac.be

Abstract: We recover the rays in the tensor product of Hilbert spaces within a larger class of so called ‘states of compoundness’, structured as a complete lattice with the ‘state of separation’ as its top element. At the base of the construction lies the assumption that the cause of actuality of a property of one of the (as individual considered) entities in the compound system can be actuality of a property of the other one.

Keywords: property lattice, tensor product of Hilbert spaces, separated system, Galois duality.

1. INTRODUCTION

Most approaches towards a realistic description of compound —quantum— systems are based on the recognition of subsystems, imposing some mathematical universal property as a structural criterion (Hellwig and Krauser, 1977; Zecca, 1977; Aerts and Daubechies, 1978; Aerts, 1982; Pulmannová, 1984; Ischi, 1999; Valckenborgh, 2000). In this paper we take a different point of view, essentially focusing on a structural characterization of the interaction between the individual entities, rather than on the compound system as a whole. More precisely, we structurize the concept of ‘mutual induction of actuality’ for the ‘individual entities’ in a compound system, inspired by the existence of an —essentially unique— representation for compound quantum systems when postulating that a state transition of one individual entity induces a state transition of the others —see Coecke (1998a). In particular will we consider ‘separation’ as one particular state of compoundness, and not as a type of ‘entity’ as in Aerts (1982) and Ischi (1999), as such avoiding some axiomatic drawbacks that emerge when taking the latter perspective. Formally, an essential ingredient of the reasoning can be borrowed from Faure et al. (1995) where propagation of states and properties in maximal deterministic evolutions is studied. As an application of our way of looking at compoundness we mention a representation for spin systems (Coecke 1995, 1998b). The mathematical preliminaries to this paper are basic notions on linear operators for which we refer to Weidmann (1981) and that of a Galois dual pair, i.e., a couple of isotone maps $`f:MN`$ and $`f^{}:NM`$ satisfying $`xM,yN:xf^{}(y)f(x)y`$, where $`f`$ preserves existing joins, $`f^{}`$ preserves existing meets, and we have existence and uniqueness of it for a meet (resp. join) preserving map between complete lattices (Birkhoff, 1940; Johnstone, 1982).

2. COMPOUNDNESS AND ASSIGNMENT OF CAUSES

Let us first recall the general concept of an entity, along the lines of Jauch and Piron (1969), Piron (1976) and Aerts (1982) —we will not go into the details on this and refer for the most recent overview to Moore (1999). We consider an entity to be a physical system described by a collection of either potential or actual properties $``$, partially ordered by an —operationally motivatable— implication relation ‘$``$’, and which proves to be a complete lattice (Piron, 1976). As is discussed in Piron (1977) and Moore (1999), the meet ‘$``$’ can be treated as a classical conjunction. A property is said to be ‘actual’ if we get true with certainty when it would be verified in any possible way; $`a`$ is stronger (resp. weaker) than $`b`$ iff $`ab`$ (resp. $`ba`$); the top element $`1`$ of the complete lattice can be seen as expressing ‘existence’ of the entity and the bottom element $`0`$ expresses the ‘absurd’, i.e., what can never be true. As an example, the property lattice $`_{}`$ of a quantum entity described in a Hilbert space $``$ is the set of closed subspaces ordered by inclusion with intersection as meet and closed linear span as join. We will also systematically use the term ‘individual entity’ when considering identifiable ‘parts’ in a larger system —as such to be seen as a compound system— since in general, these individual entities do not satisfy the general conception of what an entity is in the references mentioned above —for a discussion on this aspect see Coecke (1998a). In the presence of interaction between individual entities, actuality of a property $`a_2_2`$ of individual entity $`S_2`$ might be due to the actuality of a property $`a_1_1`$ of individual entity $`S_1`$. In particular, we will show that all interaction involved in quantum entanglement can be expressed in this way, and therefore we define a map:

$$f^{}:_2_1:a_2\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}thecausein_1oftheactualityofa_2\mathrm{"}$$
(1)
This cause of actuality of $`a_2`$ is the weakest $`a_1_1`$ that assures actuality of $`a_2`$: indeed, any $`b_1_1`$ with $`b_1a_1`$ then automatically causes actuality of $`a_2`$ since it implies $`a_1`$. Note that existence of such a weakest $`a_1_1`$ follows from the fact that ‘assuring actuality of $`a_2`$’ precisely defines it as a property for $`S_1`$. As an example, when considering two separated individual entities it is the bottom element $`0_1_1`$ that assures actuality of any $`a_2_2\{1_2\}`$, explicitly expressing that no state of $`_1`$ assures anything about $`_2`$. On the contrary, the property $`1_1`$ assures actuality of $`1_2`$ since we a priori assume the existence of both individual entities. When considering meets $`_ia_{2,i}`$ in $`_2`$, due to their significance as a classical conjunction, i.e. they can be read as ‘and’, $`_if^{}(a_{2,i})`$ assures actuality of $`_ia_{2,i}`$, as such assuring $`f^{}`$ to preserve non-empty meets. Since $`\mathrm{}=1`$ and $`f^{}(1_2)=1_1`$ by assumption of the existence of both individual entities, it also preserves the empty meet. Thus, there exists a unique join-preserving Galois dual for $`f^{}`$, namely:

$$f:_1_2:a_1\{a_2_2|a_1f^{}(a_2)\}=min\{a_2_2|a_1f^{}(a_2)\}$$
(2)
From eq.(2) it follows that $`f`$ assigns to a property $`a_1_1`$ the strongest property $`a_2_2`$ of which it assures actuality —the minimum of all $`a_2_2`$ such that $`a_1f^{}(a_2)`$— implicitly implying actuality of all $`b_2a_2`$. Thus, $`f`$ expresses exactly induction of actuality of $`_1`$ on $`_2`$.

###### Conclusion 1

. A ‘state of compoundness for $`S_1`$ on $`S_2`$’ is a join preserving map $`f:_1_2`$.

i) STRUCTURING STATES OF COMPOUNDNESS:

Denote by $`Q(_1,_2)`$ the join preserving maps from $`_1`$ to $`_2`$ and set for all $`\{f_i\}_iQ(_1,_2)`$:

$$\underset{i}{}f_i:=_1_2:a_if_i(a)$$
(3)
Eq(3) defines a complete internal operation on $`Q(_1,_2)`$ since for $`\{f_i\}_iQ(_1,_2)`$: $`({}_{i}{}^{}f_{i}^{})(_ja_j)=_{ij}f_i(a_j)=_j(_if_i)(a_j)`$, and one easily verifies that $`_if_i`$ is the least upper bound of $`\{f_i\}_i`$ in $`Q(_1,_2)`$.

###### Conclusion 2

. The states of compoundness for $`S_1`$ to $`S_2`$ are described by a complete lattice $`(Q(_1,_2),)`$, inheriting its join from the underlying property lattice $`_2`$ pointwisely.

Analogously, the collection of meet preserving maps $`f^{}:_2_1`$ denoted by $`Q^{}(_1,_2)`$ is a meet complete lattice with respect to pointwise meet, denoted as $``$. Note here that the significance of the lattice meet as a classical conjunction is lifted by the pointwise computed meets to the level of assignment of temporal causes, as such giving to $`f^{}g^{}`$ the significance of ‘$`f^{}`$ and $`g^{}`$’. Set $`L^{}(f,a_2)=\{a_1_1|f(a_1)a_2\}`$ and $`L(f^{},a_1)=\{a_2_2|a_1f^{}(a_2)\}`$. If $`a_1_1:f(a_1)g(a_1)`$, then $`[g(a_1)a_2f(a_1)a_2]`$ and $`a_2_2:L^{}(g,a_2)L^{}(f,a_2)`$. Thus, $`L^{}(g,a_2)L^{}(f,a_2)`$ yielding $`a_2_2:g^{}(a_2)f^{}(a_2)`$ and $`g^{}f^{}`$. Reversely, $`a_2_2:g^{}(a_2)f^{}(a_2)`$ implies $`[g^{}(a_2)a_1f^{}(a_2)a_1]`$, $`L(g^{},a_1)L(f^{},a_1)`$, $`L(g^{},a_1)L(f^{},a_1)`$, and thus $`fg`$. As such $`fg`$ iff $`g^{}f^{}`$. It follows that $`(Q^{}(_1,_2),)^{op}`$ and $`(Q(_1,_2),)`$ are isomorphic complete lattices —‘$`()^{op}`$’ stands for reversal of partial order.

###### Conclusion 3

. The map $`{}_{}{}^{}:Q(_1,_2)Q^{}(_1,_2):ff^{}`$ ‘interprets’ $`_if_i`$, the join of a set of states of compoundness, as $`_if_i^{}`$ a conjunction of the corresponding assignments of temporal causes.

ii) SEPARATION AS THE TOP STATE OF COMPOUNDNESS:

Since we have $`f^{}:\{_2\{1_1\}_1:a_20_1;\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_21_1\}`$ in case of separation, the ‘state of separation’ for $`S_1`$ on $`S_2`$ is given by $`f:\{_1\{0_2\}_2:a_11_2;\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}_10_2\}`$ and this is exactly the top element $`1_{1,2}`$ of $`Q(_1,_2)`$ —note that $`0_10_2`$ is required for any join preserving map, the bottom being the empty join. Remark that the bottom element $`0_{1,2}`$ of $`Q(_1,_2)`$ stands for the ‘absurd state of compoundness’. Indeed, since $`f:_1_2:a_10_1`$ we have $`f^{}:_2_1:a_21_1`$, i.e., existence of $`S_1`$ causes actuality of all properties of $`S_2`$, and as such actuality of the absurd property $`_2=0_2`$.

iii) QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT AS ATOMIC STATES OF COMPOUNDNESS:

We will now consider those $`fQ(__1,__2)`$ that send atoms to atoms or $`0_2`$ for $`__1`$ and $`__2`$ the lattices of closed subspaces of Hilbert spaces. The following result can be found in Faure et al. (1995) and is essentially based on Faure and Frölicher (1993, 1994) and Piron (1964, 1976): Any non-trivial333I.e., with at least three non-collinear elements in its range. Note that if the image is spanned by either one or two atoms there is an obvious representation as a linear map, extending the collection of representations in a natural way, which motivates us to assume a linear representation on the underlying Hilbert space for any state of compoundness. $`fQ(__1,__2)`$ that sends atoms to atoms or $`0_2`$ induces either a linear or an anti-linear map $`F:_1_2`$.

###### Proposition 1

. If $`fQ(__1,__2)`$ sends atoms to atoms or $`0_2`$ than $`f`$ is itself an atom or $`0_{1,2}`$.

Proof: Let $`K_f`$ and $`K_g`$ be the respective kernels of the linear maps $`F,G:_1_2`$ induced by $`f,gQ(__1,__2)`$ with $`f<g`$, and thus, $`K_gK_f`$ and $`K_f^{}K_g^{}`$. For $`\psi K_f^{}\{\underset{¯}{0}_1\}`$ and $`\varphi (K_fK_g^{})\{\underset{¯}{0}_1\}`$ we have $`F(\psi +\varphi )=F(\psi )=G(\psi )`$ whereas $`G(\psi +\varphi )=G(\psi )+G(\varphi )`$, forcing $`G(\psi )=kG(\varphi )`$ for $`k`$ non-zero. However, then $`G(k\psi \varphi )=0`$ although $`k\psi \varphi K_g^{}`$, yielding contradiction except when $`K_f^{}=\underset{¯}{0}_1`$, i.e., $`[f:a_10_2]=0_{1,2}`$. $``$

For the sake of transparency of the argument we will from now on only consider finite dimensional Hilbert spaces. Let $`_1^{}`$ be the Hilbert space of continuous linear functionals on $`_1`$, connected to it by the correspondence $`_1_1^{}:\psi \psi |`$. Then the tensor product $`_1^{}_2`$ is isomorphic to the space of linear operators with indicated domain and codomain —denoted as $`B(_1,_2)`$— by the isomorphism:

$$_1^{}_2B(_1,_2):[\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}c_i\psi _i|\varphi _i][F_{\{c_i\}_i}:_1_2:\psi \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}c_i\psi _i|\psi \varphi _i]$$
(4)
with $`\{\psi _i\}_i`$ and $`\{\varphi _i\}_i`$ fixed orthonormal bases —note that $`F_{\{c_i\}_i}_{HS}=_{i=1}^mc_i\psi _i|\varphi _i_{_1^{}_2}`$ for $`||||_{_1^{}_2}`$ the Hilbert space metric and $`||||_{HS}`$ the Hilbert-Schmidt norm. Considering anti-linear maps $`_{i=1}^mc_i|\psi _i\varphi _i`$ —say $`B^{}(_1,_2)`$— with a reasoning along the same lines, we obtain $`_1_2`$. As such, we recover the rays of the tensor product of Hilbert spaces $`_1_2`$ as a special case of our more general class of atomic states of compoundness, besides the rays $`_1^{}_2`$. Indeed, although $`_1_2`$ and $`_1^{}_2`$ are isomorphic as Hilbert spaces, there rays represent different states of compoundness.

3. COMPOUNDNESS AS EVOLUTION — AND VICE VERSA

Although we were able to use much material from Faure et al. (1995) —that deals with evolution of an entity— we should note that an essential difference between the two formal developments is due to the fact that existence of the entity at a certain instance of time in general does not assure existence in the future when considering evolution. However, imposing a condition on the ‘type’ of evolution that we consider by ‘requiring preservation’ makes an illustrative comparison possible, and as such we will proceed. To fix ideas, identify $`_1`$ with the property lattice of a fixed entity at time $`t_1`$ and $`_2`$ as its property lattice at time $`t_2`$. We can again consider a map $`f^{}:_2_1`$ that assigns to a property that is actual at time $`t_2`$ the cause of its actuality at time $`t_1`$, and the corresponding Galois dual $`f:_1_2`$ that now expresses temporal propagation of properties, all of them again structured in $`Q(_1,_2)`$.

Example 1: A ‘maximal deterministic evolution’ is defined as one where atoms propagate to atoms or $`0_2`$ —the latter in order to express a domain for initial states— mirroring atomic states of compoundness.

Example 2: We could define a ‘maximal indeterministic —or minimal deterministic— evolution’ as one that strictly assures existence at time $`t_2`$, yielding the mirror of the state of separation.

For a more elaborated formal discussion on the connection between compoundness and evolution we refer to Coecke and Stubbe (1999a) and Coecke and Moore (2000).

4. ON ASSIGNMENT OF PROPER STATES TO INDIVIDUALIZED ENTITIES

The discussion on evolution was not merely illustrative but constitutes an essential ingredient in this section, where we discuss state transitions of individual entities due to a state of compoundness: in Section 2 we characterized entanglement between individual entities in a compound system, but no consideration on a characterization of individual entities themselves has been made. Indeed, a description of a compound system consisting of two individual entities $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ requires a characterization of these individual entities themselves besides the states of compoundness $`f_{1,2}`$ of $`S_1`$ on $`S_2`$ and $`f_{2,1}`$ of $`S_2`$ on $`S_1`$. However, this proves to requires a more general concept of state than in Piron (1976), Aerts (1982) and Moore (1995), and a different name proper state has been introduced in Coecke (1998a) to stress this difference. Therefore consider for each individual entity an a priori set of proper states $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and denote by $`𝒞:𝒫(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ the map that assigns to any $`T`$ in $`𝒫(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, the powerset of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, the strongest property in $``$ that is implied by every $`pT`$. As shown in Coecke and Stubbe (1999a, 1999b), $`𝒞`$ canonically induces a pre-order on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by $`p_𝒞q𝒞(\{p\})𝒞(\{q\})`$. Moreover, the above discussed requirement that properties propagate with preservation of join (see also Pool, 1968) restricts the —not-necessarily deterministic— state transitions to be described by a map in:

$$Q^\mathrm{\#}(\mathrm{\Sigma })=\{f:𝒫(\mathrm{\Sigma })𝒫(\mathrm{\Sigma })|f(T)=f(T),f(𝒞(T))𝒞(f(T))\}$$
(5)
that proves to be a quantale $`(Q^\mathrm{\#}(\mathrm{\Sigma }),,)`$ —i.e., a join-complete lattice equipped with an additional operation $``$ that distributes over arbitrary joins— where $``$ is computed pointwise, and which is in epimorphic —quantale— correspondence with the ‘quantale’ $`(Q(,),,)`$ —see above— by:

$$[]:Q^\mathrm{\#}(\mathrm{\Sigma })Q(,):f[f_{}:𝒞(T)𝒞(f(T))]$$
(6)
Note that this quantale epimorphism indeed exactly expresses that with any state transition there corresponds a join preserving propagation of properties. We apply all this to the context of this paper:

For each individual entity $`S`$, let $`\mathrm{\Psi }:Q^\mathrm{\#}(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ be the map that assigns to any property $`a`$ the —not-necessarily deterministic— state transition $`\mathrm{\Psi }(a):𝒫(\mathrm{\Sigma })𝒫(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ that $`S`$ undergoes when actuality of property $`a`$ is induced on it by interaction with another individual entity.

Clearly this implicitly determines the propagation of properties $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}:Q(,)`$ by $`[\mathrm{\Psi }()]=\mathrm{\Psi }_{}()`$. We will now discuss $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$ for $``$ orthomodular, and more specific, for the Hilbert space case.

i) ORDERING OF STATES VIA ‘DESCENDING’ INDUCTION OF ACTUAL PROPERTIES

###### Proposition 2

. If the following conditions are satisfied:

(i) $`\mathrm{\Psi }(a)`$ does not alter proper states of which the strongest actual property is stronger than $`a`$;

(ii) all properties compatible to the induced one that are actual beforehand remain actual;

(iii) the assignment $`im(\mathrm{\Psi }_{})im(\mathrm{\Psi }):\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(a)\mathrm{\Psi }(a)`$ preserves composition —with $`im()=image`$,

then, $`pq[a𝒞(\{q\}):p\mathrm{\Psi }(a)(\{q\})]`$ defines a poset $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },)`$ that embeds in $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },_𝒞)`$.

Proof: Following Piron (1976), p.69, Theorem 4.3, if properties described by an orthomodular property lattice change in such a way that a property $`a`$ becomes actual, and such that all properties compatible to $`a`$ that where actual beforehand, are still actual afterwards, then the corresponding transition of properties is exactly described by the Sasaki projection $`\phi _a::ba(ba^{})`$. Thus, (ii) assures that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(a)=\phi _a`$. If $`p\mathrm{\Psi }(a)(\{q\})`$ for $`a𝒞(\{q\})`$, then $`𝒞(\{p\})𝒞(\mathrm{\Psi }(a)(\{q\}))=\phi _a(𝒞(\{q\})a`$ —the equality follows from eq.(6)— we have $`𝒞(\{p\})𝒞(\{q\})`$ and thus $`p_𝒞q`$. Note that (i) is equivalent to $`\mathrm{\Psi }(a)`$ being identical on all $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ such that $`𝒞(\{p\})a`$, and thus yields reflexivity since it forces the restriction of $`\mathrm{\Psi }(a)`$ to $`\{T\mathrm{\Sigma }|𝒞(T)a\}`$ —which is the only part of the domain involved in defining $``$— to be idempotent. We can’t have $`pq`$ and $`qp`$ since any transition $`\mathrm{\Psi }(a)(\{q\})=\{p\}`$ requires again by (i) that $`𝒞(\{p\})a`$ where $`𝒞(\{q\})a`$. Following Foulis (1960), the maps $`\{\phi _a|a\}`$ are structured in a complete lattice isomorphic to $``$ itself when ordered by $`\phi _a^{}\phi _a\phi _a^{}=\phi _a^{}\phi _a`$. Now consider $`aa^{}`$, then $`\phi _a\phi _a^{}=\phi _a^{}\phi _a`$, i.e., $`\phi _a^{}\phi _a`$ only depends on $`a^{}`$ and not on $`a`$. Thus, (iii) yields transitivity since it forces $`\mathrm{\Psi }(a^{})(\mathrm{\Psi }(a)(\{q\}))=\mathrm{\Psi }(a^{})(\{q\})`$, and this independent of $`a`$ provided that $`aa^{}`$. $``$

Note that condition (ii) says that actual properties are only altered in a minimal way. Now consider —under the assumptions of the above proposition— a chain $`a_1a_1^{}\mathrm{}`$ in $`_1`$ of consecutive strongest actual properties of $`S_1`$. By isotonicity of $`f_{1,2}`$ we have $`f_{1,2}(a_1)f_{1,2}(a_1^{})\mathrm{}`$ and thus for $`\{p_2^{}\}=\mathrm{\Psi }(f_{1,2}(a_1^{}))(\{p_2\})`$ we have $`f_{1,2}(a_1)=𝒞(\{p_2\})𝒞(\{p_2^{}\})\mathrm{}`$ for $`p_2`$ initial, yielding $`p_2p_2^{}\mathrm{}`$. As such, the relation $``$ expresses evolution of $`S_2`$ due to mutual induction of actuality as a descending chain of proper states in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$, with descending strongest actual properties in $`_2`$.

ii) PROPER STATES FOR COMPOUND QUANTUM SYSTEMS

At this point it is required to propose a candidate for the sets of proper states $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ in the Hilbert space case that allows us to fully recover the description of compound quantum systems. Let $`P_{a_i}:_i_i`$ be the orthogonal projector corresponding to $`\phi _{a_i}`$ for $`i\{1,2\}`$ with $`a_i`$ a closed subspace of $`_i`$ and set:

$$\{\begin{array}{c}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_i,𝒞_i)=(\{\rho _i:_i_i|\rho _iisadensityoperator\},𝒫(\mathrm{\Sigma }_i)__i:\{\rho _i\}\{\rho _i(\varphi )|\varphi _i\})\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Psi }_i(a_i)=[𝒞_i(\rho _i)a_i:\{\rho _i\}\mathrm{};𝒞_i(\rho _i)⟂̸a_i:\{\rho _i\}\{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{Tr(P_{a_i}\rho _iP_{a_i})}}P_{a_i}\rho _iP_{a_i}\}]\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
One easily verifies that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ defines state transitions for $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_i,𝒞_i)`$ that fulfill Proposition 2 and that the one dimensional projectors are minimal in $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_i,)`$. Moreover, the restriction of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i(a_i)`$ to $`\{T\mathrm{\Sigma }_i|𝒞_i(T)a_i\}`$ maps a singleton on a singleton or $`\mathrm{}`$ for all $`a_i_i`$, i.e., the transitions due to induction of properties less than the strongest actual one are maximally deterministic. Now, given $`FB(_1,_2)`$ representing $`f_{1,2}`$ with $`F^{}`$ as its adjoint, then:

$$F(F:_1_2,{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{Tr(F^{}F)}}F^{}F:_1_1,{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{Tr(FF^{})}}FF^{}:_1_1,F^{}:_2_1)$$
(8)
uniquely defines a quadruple $`(f_{1,2},\rho _1,\rho _2,f_{2,1})`$ which exactly yields the quantum probability structure in the following way: (i) The transition probability for $`\{\rho _i\}\{\rho _i^{}\}=\mathrm{\Psi }_i(a_i)(\{\rho _i\})`$ with $`a_i⟂̸𝒞_i(\{\rho _i\})`$ in a measurement that verifies the property $`a_i`$ is $`Tr(P_{a_i}\rho _iP_{a_i})`$; (ii) when this happens, say $`\{\rho _1\}\{\rho _1^{}\}`$, this transition causes $`a_1^{}=𝒞_1(\{\rho _1^{}\})`$ to become actual, and consequently, causes $`a_2^{}=f_{1,2}(a_1^{})`$ to become actual, having a transition $`\{\rho _2\}\{\rho _2^{}\}=\mathrm{\Psi }_2(a_2^{})(\{\rho _2\})`$ as a consequence; (iii) this reasoning can be proceeded inductively, and stops once we reach the minimal elements of $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_2,)`$. It can then be verified that the probability for the chains $`\rho _1\rho _1^{}\mathrm{}P_\psi `$ and $`\rho _2\rho _2^{}\mathrm{}P_\varphi `$ to have a couple $`(𝒞_1(P_\psi ),𝒞_2(P_\varphi ))`$ as respective outcome ‘states’ —which are indeed represented as atoms of the property lattice— is given by :444A proof follows from identification of this construction with the representation for compound quantum systems in Coecke (1998a): our choice of $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_i,𝒞_i)`$ and the corresponding quadruples $`(f_{1,2},\rho _1,\rho _2,f_{2,1})`$ for linear maps $`F`$ coincide exactly.

$${\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{\psi __1^2\varphi __2^2F_{HS}^2}}|\psi \varphi |\underset{i}{}c_i\psi _i\varphi _i|^2$$
(9)
for $`F=_{i=1}^mc_i|\psi _i\varphi _i`$, and this is indeed the quantum transition probability in a measurement on a compound system described by $`_ic_i\psi _i\varphi _i_1_2`$. We end by stressing that due to the assignment in eq(8), the initial proper states of the compound quantum system are fully encoded in the states of compoundness, and thus encoded in $`_1_2`$ via $`B^{}(_1,_2)`$.

5. CONCLUSION

In this paper we proposed an alternative approach towards an understanding of the description of compound quantum systems, by essentially focusing on the interaction of the individual entities within the compound system. Obviously, a lot more investigation could be done on a more accurate characterization of quantum entanglement as a special case of the primal considerations made in this paper. Also an elaboration on the description of compound systems consisting of more than two entities would be worthwhile.

6. REFERENCES

Birkhoff, G. (1940) Lattice Theory, AMS Coll. Publ.

Foulis, D.J. (1960) Proc. AMS 11, 648.

Piron, C. (1964) Helv. Phys. Acta 37, 439.

Pool, J.C.T. (1968) Comm. Math. Phys. 9, 118.

Piron, C. (1976) Foundations of Quantum Physics, W. A. Benjamin, Inc.

Hellwig, K.-E. and Krausser D. (1977) Int. J. Theor. Phys. 16, 775.

Piron, C. (1977) J. Phyl. Logic 6, 481.

Zecca, A. (1977) J. Math. Phys. 19, 1482.

Aerts, D., and Daubechies, I. (1978) Helv. Phys. Acta 51, 661.

Weidmann, J. (1981) Linear Operators in Hilbert Space, Springer-Verlag.

Aerts, D. (1982) Found. Phys. 12, 1131.

Johnstone, P.T. (1982) Stone Spaces, Cambridge University Press.

Aerts, D. (1984) J. Math. Phys. 25, 1434.

Pulmannová, S. (1984) J. Math. Phys. 26, 1.

Faure, Cl.-A. and Frölicher, A. (1993) Geom. Dedicata 47, 25.

Faure, Cl.-A. and Frörlicher, A. (1994) Geom. Dedicata 53, 273.

Coecke, B. (1995) Helv. Phys. Acta 68, 394.

Faure, Cl.-A., Moore, D.J., and Piron, C. (1995) Helv. Phys. Acta 68, 150.

Moore, D.J. (1995) Helv. Phys. Acta 68, 658.

Coecke, B. (1998a) Found. Phys. 28, 1109 ; quant-ph/0105093.

Coecke, B. (1998b) Found. Phys. 28, 1347 ; quant-ph/0105094.

Coecke, B. and Stubbe, I. (1999a) Found. Phys. Lett 12, 29 ; quant-ph/0008020.

Coecke, B. and Stubbe, I. (1999b) Int. J. Theor. Phys. 38, 3269.

Moore, D.J. (1999) Stud. Hist. Phil. Mod. Phys. 30, 61.

Ischi, B. (2000) L’evolution des Systèmes Séparé en Interaction, PhD-thesis, Université de Genève.

Coecke, B. and Moore, D.J. (2000) Operational Galois adjunctions. In: Current Research in Operational Quantum Logic: Algebras, Categories and Languages, B. Coecke, D.J. Moore, A. Wilce, (Eds.), pp.195–218, Kluwer Academic Publishers ; quant-ph/0008021.

Valckenborgh, F. (2000) Int J. Theor. Phys. 39, 939.


text:
# ON THE DIMENSIONAL REDUCED THEORIES

## Abstract

The procedure of the dimensional reduction related to the partition function of a quantum scalar field living in curved space-time which is the warp product of symmetric space is investigated.

In this contribution, we would like to revisited the issue related to dimensional reduction, and this is used when one is dealing with quantum fields living on space-times having some symmetries, namely the D-dimensional space-time is the ”warp” product $`M_P\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_Q`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_Q`$ is a Q-dimensional symmetric space with constant curvature. Such investigation is mainly motivated by recent approaches to black holes physics, initiated in  and continued in  and the calculation of the effective action after and before the dimensional reduction .

The idea is very simple: since a generic black hole has a large symmetry in the horizon sector, one may consider the two dimensional related reduced theory for which the effective action may be obtained functionally integrating the corresponding conformal anomaly. This procedure gives rise the problem of the validity of the approximation and this will be discussed here. A related issue is the so called dimensional-reduction anomaly .

Let us consider a scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ propagating in the above mentioned space.

$`L_D=\mathrm{\Delta }_D+m^2+\xi R_D,`$ (1)
in which $`m^2`$ is a possible mass term and $`\xi R_D`$ a suitable ”potential term”, describing the non-minimal coupling with the gravitational field. The ”exact” theory, namely the non-dimensional reduced one, may be described by the path integral (Euclidean partion function)

$`Z={\displaystyle D\mathrm{\Phi }e^{{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑V_D\mathrm{\Phi }L_D\mathrm{\Phi }}}}=e^\mathrm{\Gamma }.`$ (2)
The effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has to be regularised and may be expressed by means of a zeta-regularised functional determinant  (for recent reviews, see )

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{ln}Z={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\zeta ^{}(0|L_D)+\mathrm{ln}\mu ^2\zeta (0|L_D)\right],`$ (3)
$`\mu ^2`$ being the re normalization parameter. Here, the zeta-function is defined by means

$`\zeta (s|L_D)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑tt^{s1}K_t,K_t=Tre^{tL_D},`$ (4)
valid for $`Res>D/2`$. Here $`Tre^{tL_D}=_ie^{t\lambda _i}`$, $`\lambda _i`$ being the eigenvalues of $`L`$.

One may use other regularisation procedures. As an example, the dimensional regularisation is defined by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\epsilon `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑tt^{\epsilon 1}Tre^{tL_D}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\epsilon )\zeta (\epsilon |L_D)`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (0|L_D)}{\epsilon }}+\zeta ^{}(0|L_D)+\gamma \zeta (0|L_D)+O(\epsilon )\right).`$
Other regularizations may be used with $`t^\epsilon `$ substituted by a suitable regularisation function $`g_\epsilon (t)`$ (see, for example ). Recall that the zeta-function regularisation is a finite regularisation and corresponds to the choice

$`g_\epsilon (t)={\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\epsilon }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t^\epsilon }{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\epsilon )}}\right).`$ (6)
The other ones, as is clear from Eq. (5), give the same finite part, modulo a re normalization, and contain divergent terms as the cutoff parameter $`\epsilon 0`$ and these divergent terms have to be removed by related counter-terms.

As a consequence, as will be shown, a crucial role is played by the quantity $`Tre^{tL_D}`$. With regard to this quantity, its short-$`t`$ asymptotics has been extensively studied. For a second-order operator on a boundary-less $`D`$-dimensional (smooth) manifold, it reads

$`K_t{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}A_j(L_D)t^{jD/2},`$ (7)
in which $`A_j(L_D)`$ are the Seeley-DeWitt coefficients, which can be computed with different techniques . The divergent terms appearing in a generic regularisation depend on $`A_j(L_D)`$.

In the sequel, we also shall deal with local quantities, which can be defined by the local zeta-function. With this regard, it is relevant the local short $`t`$ heat-kernel asymptotics, which reads

$`K_t(L_D)(x)=e^{tL_D}(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^{D/2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_j(x|L_D)t^{jD/2},`$ (8)
where $`a_j(x|L_D)`$ are the local Seeley-DeWitt coefficients. The first ones are well known and read

$`a_0(x|L_D)`$ $`=`$ $`1,a_1(x|L_D)=(\xi R+m^2+{\displaystyle \frac{R}{6}}).`$
$`a_2(x|L_D)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(a_1(x|L_D)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\mathrm{\Delta }_Da_1(x|L_D)+c_2(x),`$ (9)
where

$`c_2(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{180}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_DR+R^{ijkr}R_{ijkr}R^{ij}R_{ij}\right).`$ (10)
It may be convenient to re-sum partially this asymptotic expansion and one has

$`e^{tL_D}(x){\displaystyle \frac{e^{ta_1(x|L_D)}}{(4\pi )^{D/2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}b_j(x|L_D)t^{j{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{D}{2}}}.`$ (11)
The advantage of the latter expansion with respect to the previous one, is due to the fact that now the expansion $`b_j`$ coefficients depend on the potential only through its derivatives. One has

$`b_0(x|L_D)`$ $`=`$ $`1,b_1(x|L_D)=0,`$
$`b_2(x|L_D)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\mathrm{\Delta }_DV+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{36}}\mathrm{\Delta }_DR+c_2(x).`$ (12)
Since the exact expression of the local zeta-function is known only in a limited number of cases, one has to make use of some approximation. If the first coefficient $`a_1(x|L_D)`$ is very large and negative and this is true if the mass is very large, one may obtain an asymptotics expansion of the local zeta-function by means of the short $`t`$ expansion (8) and the Mellin transform, namely

$`\zeta (s|L_D)(x)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s\frac{D}{2})}{(4\pi )^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{D}{2}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}}\left(a_1(x|L_D)\right)^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{D}{2}}s}`$ (13)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s+j\frac{D}{2})}{(4\pi )^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{D}{2}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}}\left(a_1(x|L_D)\right)^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{D}{2}}sj}b_j(x|L_D).`$
The latter expansion directly gives also the analytic continuation in the whole complex plane. The global zeta-function can be obtained integrating over the manifold.

Now, let us introduce the dimensional-reduced theory according to . We indicate by $`\stackrel{~}{}^D`$ a $`D`$-dimensional Riemannian manifold with metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ and coordinates $`\stackrel{~}{x}^\mu `$ ($`\mu ,\nu =1,\mathrm{},D`$) and by $`^P`$ and $`\widehat{}^Q`$ ($`Q=DP`$) two sub-manifolds with coordinates $`x^i`$ ($`i,j=1,\mathrm{},P`$) and $`\widehat{x}^a`$ ($`a,b=P+1,\mathrm{},D`$) and metrics $`g_{ij}`$ and $`\widehat{g}_{ab}`$ respectively, related to $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ by the warped product

$`d\stackrel{~}{s}^2=\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }d\stackrel{~}{x}^\mu d\stackrel{~}{x}^\nu =g_{ij}(x)dx^idx^j+e^{2\sigma (x)}\widehat{g}_{ab}(\widehat{x})d\widehat{x}^ad\widehat{x}^b.`$ (14)
Here, $`\widehat{}^Q=\mathrm{\Sigma }_Q`$ is a constant curvature symmetric space.

We shall use the notation $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{\beta \gamma \delta }^\alpha `$, $`R_{jmn}^i`$ and $`\widehat{R}_{bcd}^a`$ for Riemann tensors in $`\stackrel{~}{}^D`$, $`^P`$ and $`\widehat{}^Q`$ respectively, and similarly for all other quantities. In the Appendix A, one can find the relationship between the geometrical quantities related to the sub-manifolds.

We start with a scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{~}{x})`$ in the Riemannian manifold $`\stackrel{~}{}^D`$. The Laplacian-like operator reads

$`L_D\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{~}{x})=\stackrel{~}{L}\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{~}{x})=(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}+\xi \stackrel{~}{R}+m^2)\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{~}{x})=(L+e^{2\sigma }\widehat{L})\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{~}{x}),`$ (15)
where

$`L=\mathrm{\Delta }+Q\sigma ^k_k+\xi \left[R+2Q\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma Q(Q+1)\sigma ^k\sigma _k\right]+m^2,`$ (16)
$`\widehat{L}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}.`$ (17)
In order to dimensionally reduce the theory, let us introduce the harmonic analysis on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_Q`$ by means of

$`\widehat{L}Y_\alpha (\widehat{x})=\lambda _\alpha Y_\alpha (\widehat{x}),`$ (18)
$`\lambda _\alpha ,Y_\alpha `$ being the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of $`\widehat{L}`$ on the symmetric space $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_Q=\widehat{}^Q`$. For any scalar field in $`\stackrel{~}{}^D`$, we can write

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{~}{x})={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\varphi _\alpha (x)Y_\alpha (\widehat{x})`$ (19)
and for the partition function, after integration over $`Y_\alpha `$ in the classical action,

$`Z^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d[\overline{\varphi }]e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \widehat{\varphi }\stackrel{~}{L}\widehat{\varphi }\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}d^Pxd^Q\widehat{x}}}}={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}Z_\alpha ,`$ (20)
where

$`Z_\alpha ={\displaystyle d[\overline{\varphi }_\alpha ]e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \overline{\varphi }_\alpha L_\alpha \overline{\varphi }_\alpha d^Px}}}.`$ (21)
Here $`\overline{\varphi }=\sqrt[4]{\stackrel{~}{g}}\varphi `$ and $`\overline{\varphi }_\alpha =\sqrt[4]{g}\varphi _\alpha `$ are scalar densities of weight $`1/2`$ and the dimensional reduced operators read

$`L_\alpha =\mathrm{\Delta }+V+e^{2\sigma }\lambda _\alpha ,`$
$`V=m^2+\xi \left[R+2Q\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma Q(Q+1)\sigma ^k\sigma _k\right]{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma +{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{4}}\sigma ^k\sigma _k.`$ (22)
In the following, we will denote by an asterix all the quantities associated with the dimensional reduced operators. As a result, we formally have

$`Z^{}={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\left(det{\displaystyle \frac{L_\alpha }{\mu ^2}}\right)^{1/2}.`$ (23)
If we ignore the multiplicative anomaly associated with functional determinants, namely the fact that $`\mathrm{ln}detAB\mathrm{ln}detA+\mathrm{ln}detB`$ for regularized functional determinants , we have

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=\mathrm{ln}Z^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\mathrm{ln}det{\displaystyle \frac{L_\alpha }{\mu ^2}}.`$ (24)
This formal expression may be regularised and renormalized and we have

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\epsilon ^{}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^{2\epsilon }}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑tt^1g_\epsilon (t)Tre^{tL_\alpha }.`$ (25)
Removing the cutoff and, for example making use of a finite regularisation, one arrives at

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\zeta ^{}(0|{\displaystyle \frac{L_\alpha }{\mu ^2}}).`$ (26)
Within this procedure, a quite natural definition of the dimensional-reduction anomaly is

$`A_{DRA}=\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}.`$ (27)
However, there exists another possible procedure: if we do not remove the ultraviolet cutoff $`\epsilon `$, we may interchange the harmonic sum and the integral and arrive at

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\epsilon ^{}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^{2\epsilon }}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑tt^1g_\epsilon (t)K_t^{},`$ (28)
where we have introduced the dimensionally reduced heat-kernel trace

$`K_t^{}={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}Tre^{tL_\alpha }.`$ (29)
It is clear that within this second procedure, the existence of a non vanishing dimensional reduction anomaly is strictly related to the fact whether the identity

$`K_t^{}=K_t`$ (30)
holds. In the following the validity of the identity (30) will be discussed.

First, if the whole space-time (its Euclidean version) is a symmetric space, it is quite easy to show that Eq. (30) is true. The reason is that in this case, one has at disposal besides the dimensional reduced one, the total harmonic sum (see, for example ).

In general, we shall restrict ourselves to the class of non-trivial warped space-time already considered and make use of the short $`t`$ heat-kernel expansion. For the exact theory we have (here $`L_D=\stackrel{~}{L}`$)

$`K_t(\stackrel{~}{L})=Tre^{t\stackrel{~}{L}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi t)^{D/2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\stackrel{~}{a}_n(\stackrel{~}{x}|\stackrel{~}{L})t^n,`$ (31)
with

$`\stackrel{~}{a}_1`$ $`=`$ $`a_1+e^{2\sigma }\widehat{a}_1{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{6}}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma \left({\displaystyle \frac{Q}{2}}1\right)\sigma ^k\sigma _k\right],`$ (32)
$`\stackrel{~}{a}_2`$ $`=`$ $`a_2+e^{4\sigma }\widehat{a}_2+e^{2\sigma }a_1\widehat{a}_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{90}}\sigma ^k_kR{\displaystyle \frac{1}{45}}\mathrm{}`$ (33)
where all quantities with tilde refers to the whole manifold $`\stackrel{~}{}^D`$ and all quantities with hat refers to the sub-manifold $`\widehat{}^Q`$.

With regard to the dimensional reduced kernel

$`K_t^{}(\stackrel{~}{L})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}Tre^{tL_\alpha },`$ (34)
where

$`L_\alpha =\mathrm{\Delta }+V+e^{2\sigma }\lambda _\alpha ,`$
$`V=m^2+\xi \left[R+2Q\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma Q(Q+1)\sigma ^k\sigma _k\right]{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma +{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{4}}\sigma ^k\sigma _k,`$ (35)
the short $`t`$ expansion can be computed by means of a straightforward (but tedious) computation , and the result is

$`K_t^{}(\stackrel{~}{L})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi t)^{D/2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\stackrel{~}{a}_n^{}(\stackrel{~}{x}|\stackrel{~}{L})t^n.`$ (36)
where

$`a_1^{}(\stackrel{~}{x}|\stackrel{~}{L})=\stackrel{~}{a}_1,`$ (37)
$`a_2^{}(\stackrel{~}{x}|\stackrel{~}{L})=\stackrel{~}{a}_2.`$ (38)
As a consequence, one has

$`K_t(\stackrel{~}{L}){\displaystyle \frac{e^{t\stackrel{~}{a}_1(\stackrel{~}{x})}}{(4\pi t)^{D/2}}}\left[1+b_2(\stackrel{~}{x}|\stackrel{~}{L})t^2+b_3(\stackrel{~}{x}|\stackrel{~}{L})t^3+\mathrm{}\right],`$ (39)
$`K_t^{}(\stackrel{~}{L}){\displaystyle \frac{e^{t\stackrel{~}{a}_1(\stackrel{~}{x}|L_D)}}{(4\pi t)^{D/2}}}\left[1+b_2(\stackrel{~}{x}|\stackrel{~}{L})t^2+b_3^{}(\stackrel{~}{x}|\stackrel{~}{L})t^3+\mathrm{}\right].`$ (40)
Thus, it is quite natural to make the conjecture that $`b_n^{}(\stackrel{~}{x}|\stackrel{~}{L})=b_n(\stackrel{~}{x}|\stackrel{~}{L})`$ for every $`n`$ and Eq. (30) holds exactly. Let us discuss about the consequences of this fact.

After the dimensional reduction, as far as the effective action is concerned, the operation of renormalization (addition of couterterms and remotion of the cutoff) and the evaluation of the harmonic sum do not commute. If we keep fixed and non vanishing the regularisation parameter, we may perform the harmonic sum, and if (30) holds, we may reconstruct the exact partition function, after renormalization. In such case, it is evident that no dimensional reduction anomaly occurs.

On the other hand, one may remove the cutoff, adding the necessary couterterms or using a finite regularisation like the zeta-function one and perform the harmonic sum at the end. In this case, as stressed in reference , one has to correct the result by adding dimensional reduction anomaly terms. The reason of this possible discrepancy has been explained in  as mainly due to the necessity of the regularisation and renormalization of the effective action in spaces with different dimensions. There, it has also been observed a possible connection with the multiplicative anomaly.

Regarding this issue, there exists also a mathematical reason for the necessity of these reduction anomaly terms. In fact, the harmonic sum of the renormalized dimensionally reduced effective action diverges and the dimensional anomaly reduction terms are also necessary to recover the exact and finite result. This fact stems also from the necessity of the presence of the multiplicative anomaly, since it also diverges, being associated with a product of an infinite number of dimensional reduced operators.

It may be convenient to illustrate the dimensional reduction procedure in the simplest example one can deal with, namely a free massive scalar field in the Euclidean version of the D-dimensional Minkoswki space-time. We may decompose $`R^D=R\times R^{D1}`$, thus $`\widehat{M}=R^{D1}`$, and $`\sigma =0`$, and $`L_\stackrel{}{k}=_\tau ^2+m^2+(\stackrel{}{k})^2`$. It is easy to show that (30) holds, since

$`Tre^{tL\stackrel{}{k}}=V(R^{D1})e^{tm^2}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{t\stackrel{}{k}^2}}{(4\pi t)^{1/2}}}.`$ (41)
For $`D`$ odd, the exact regularized partition function is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }={\displaystyle \frac{V(R^D)\mathrm{\Gamma }(D/2)}{2(4\pi )^{D/2}}}m^D.`$ (42)
On the other hand, the partial reduced effective actions are

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\stackrel{}{k}={\displaystyle \frac{V(R)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2)}{2(4\pi )^{/2}}}(m^2+\stackrel{}{k}^2)^{1/2}.`$ (43)
Thus, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=_\stackrel{}{k}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\stackrel{}{k}`$ is badly divergent. However, it is possible to show that the finite part of this divergent integral reproduces $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In this particular case, the dimensional reduction anomaly must cancel the divergent part.

As a consequence, any approximation  based on the truncation in the harmonic sum of the dimensional reduced theory, may lead, with regard to the comparison with the exact theory, to incorrect conclusions (see also the discussions and further references reported in ).