text:
# Clifford and Graßmann Hopf algebras via the BIGEBRA package for Maple^"(R)"11footnote 1Package homepage is located at http://math.tntech.edu/rafal/ while CLIFFORD and BIGEBRA are available for Maple V, Maple 6, 7, and 8. Maple^"(R)" is available from http://www.maplesoft.com.

## 1 Aim of the paper

The first aim of this paper is to present the features of $`\text{BIGEBRA},`$ a Maple V rel. 5 package. BIGEBRA was built to deal with tensored Clifford and Graßmann algebras, and it relies on CLIFFORD . While the emphasis here is more on the package, we nevertheless provide novel results in the last section on quantum Yang-Baxter equations derived from a Clifford bi-convolution. CLIFFORD and BIGEBRA are meanwhile available for Maple 6, 7 and Maple 8.

Secondly, we will not pass an opportunity to raise the flag for the subject of experimental mathematics. We strongly believe that experimental mathematics based on algorithmic approach has already been been changing research and teaching of mathematics and theoretical physics . The main aspects of experimental mathematics, in our view, are as follows:

Computations

Various results have been achieved by brute force calculations. CAS simplifies difficult computations with non-commutative algebras, and it allows one to tackle problems impossible for hand calculations. It makes fewer errors and its results can be validated. A CAS cannot and does not replace knowledge of the mathematics behind the problem and it requires that all concepts be well defined and sound.

Checking Assertions

Having a CAS at hand, one can easily check one’s own assertions. A single counter-example uncovers one’s misconceptions and leads to a more sound understanding of the subject. Indeed, when checking a theorem on examples, one can occasionally find that it is not valid or that it has not been correctly formulated. This in turn helps with finding errors in the computer code (Never trust any result generated by a computer!) and/or with coming up with a proper formulation of such ill-stated theorem.

Developing New Mathematics

It has proved to be necessary to develop new mathematics for solving problems in physics. For example, we have introduced the Hopf Gebra as a weakened form of a Hopf Algebra. Using a CAS this was done by first exploring the set of principles which yielded correct physical results and then by fixing the mathematics of the new structure.

Teaching

Having a well developed CAS, it can be useful in teaching! Students can check their own prejudices by exemplifying them directly on a computer. This requires a stable code which does not allow for illegal input, etc. $`\text{CLIFFORD}^{}`$s code is stable while BIGEBRA still needs knowledge of the user because to gain speed, type and input checking is hardly done since it is time consuming. Hence, CLIFFORD (and with restrictions $`\text{BIGEBRA})`$ can be effectively used for a fast access to the mathematical field of Graßmann and Clifford algebras and cogebras in teaching. Students can make their own experiments and develop –given a CAS which is stable under silly input– a sound understanding of the mathematical structures in question. Teaching mathematics or physics using a CAS allows one to abstract from technical details on the first approach. However, if the goal is that students develop an understanding of the topic, they should be encouraged to recalculate by hand and to recode themselves. Otherwise no deep understanding will ensue. A good example how this can be achieved is Wright .

Experimental Mathematics

Having the opportunity to deal with a CAS opens the field of experimental mathematics. This includes partly the other topics given above but it should not be underestimated due to its own dynamics. Exploring mathematics by doing particular experiments and by strengthening or weakenning once’s own assumptions is of extreme value as it allows one to enter a new mathematical field quickly and in a secure way.

Algorithmic Understanding

We share a growing belief  that computer usage not only allows one to successfully complete non-trivial computations but also, through the developments of algorithms, contributes to a better understanding of the problem. The so called algorithmic approach leads to achieving a computational proficiency that in turn leads to a deeper mastery of the subject on the theoretical level.

## 2 The BIGEBRA package

We concentrate in this article on BIGEBRA and its features which generally go beyond those of CLIFFORD and Maple. We assume that the reader is at somewhat familiar with the syntax and features of Maple, see, e.g., Wright , while CLIFFORD is described in .

The package loads in a non verbose (silent) mode with the following commands while the linear algebra package linalg is loaded for convenience only. BIGEBRA automatically loads CLIFFORD which is needed for its functionality:

1$`>`$restart:\_CLIENV\[\_SILENT\]:=true:with(linalg):with(Bigebra);

$$\begin{array}{c}[\&\mathrm{𝑐𝑐𝑜},\&\mathrm{𝑔𝑐𝑜},\&\mathrm{𝑔𝑐𝑜}\mathrm{\_}d,\&\mathrm{𝑔𝑝𝑙}\mathrm{\_}\mathrm{𝑐𝑜},\&\mathrm{𝑚𝑎𝑝},\&v,\mathrm{𝐸𝑉},\mathrm{𝑉𝐸𝑅𝑆𝐼𝑂𝑁},\mathrm{𝑏𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑡},\mathrm{𝑐𝑐𝑜}\mathrm{\_}\mathrm{𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑚},\mathrm{𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡},\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{𝑑𝑜}\mathrm{\_}\mathrm{𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑒},\mathrm{𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑝}\mathrm{\_}t,\mathrm{𝑒𝑝𝑠},\mathrm{𝑔𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑝𝑜𝑑𝑒},\mathrm{𝑔𝑐𝑜}\mathrm{\_}d\mathrm{\_}\mathrm{𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑚},\mathrm{𝑔𝑐𝑜}\mathrm{\_}\mathrm{𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑚},\mathrm{𝑔𝑐𝑜}\mathrm{\_}\mathrm{𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡},\mathrm{𝑔𝑝𝑙}\mathrm{\_}\mathrm{𝑐𝑜}\mathrm{\_}\mathrm{𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑚},\\ \hfill \mathrm{𝑔𝑝𝑙}\mathrm{\_}\mathrm{𝑐𝑜}\mathrm{\_}\mathit{monom2},\mathrm{𝑔𝑠𝑤𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ},\mathrm{𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡},\mathrm{𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑜𝑝},\mathit{linop2},\mathit{lists2mat},\mathit{lists2mat2},\mathrm{𝑚𝑎𝑘𝑒}\mathrm{\_}\mathrm{𝐵𝐼}\mathrm{\_}\mathrm{𝐼𝑑},\mathrm{𝑚𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑝},\\ \hfill \mathit{mapop2},\mathrm{𝑚𝑒𝑒𝑡},\mathit{op2mat},\mathit{op2mat2},\mathrm{𝑝𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔},\mathrm{𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑘},\mathrm{𝑝𝑜𝑘𝑒},\mathrm{𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒}\mathrm{\_}\mathrm{𝑒𝑞},\mathrm{𝑠𝑤𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ},\mathrm{𝑡𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡},\mathit{tsolve1},\\ \hfill \mathrm{𝑡𝑦𝑝𝑒}/\mathrm{𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑟𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑚},\mathrm{𝑡𝑦𝑝𝑒}/\mathrm{𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑚},\mathrm{𝑡𝑦𝑝𝑒}/\mathrm{𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑟𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑦𝑛𝑜𝑚}]\end{array}$$

The output is a list with available functions; some of them are for internal use only. CLIFFORD and BIGEBRA come with an extensive online help page system which is included in the Maple online help and can be searched. It contains not only the syntax of the procedures but even a good deal of unpublished mathematics. It is meant to present to the user the mathematical concepts at hand. Help topics may be reached in Maple fashion with the command `?Bigebra` followed by the enter key.

### 2.1 Tensor product

Given the functionality of CLIFFORD to compute with Clifford algebras, we need two more key features to enter the realm of bi- and Hopf algebras. The first one is the tensor product and some functions to manipulate it with while the second is the coproduct. The latter, however, follows naturally from the algebra structure on the linear dual space .

Maple comes with a `define` facility which allows to introduce ampersand operators `&<name>` that are associative (flat), commutative (orderless), linear or multilinear. This facility unfortunately has two drawbacks:

* It cannot deal with user-defined scalars (ring elements). This is mathematically insensitive since any definition of a linear or multilinear function needs linearity with respect to “scalars” that one wants to compute with. We want to consider, e.g., tensor products (multilinear associative) over arbitrary rings, e.g., the integers, polynomial rings etc.
* It produces code which gives wrong output.

Remembering that Graßmann basis multivectors are denoted as `Id`, `e1`, `e2`, `ei`, `e1we2`, `e1we3`, `eiwej,...`, let us explore properties of the associative (flat) multilinear operator `&r` (comments in the code are separated by `#`):

2$`>`$restart: # unload BIGEBRA !3$`>`$define(‘&r‘,flat,multilinear): # produce the operator ‘&r‘4$`>`$out:=&r(2\*e1,2\*e2+4\*a\*e3): # a is not known to be a ring element5$`>`$out:=e1+e2 &r e3, &r(e1+e2,e3):# infix form is dangerous6$`>`$out;out; # we delete output for typographical reasons

$$4(\mathit{e1}\&\mathrm{r}\mathit{e2})+8(\mathit{e1}\&\mathrm{r}a\mathit{e3})$$

$$\mathit{e1}+(\mathit{e2}\&\mathrm{r}\mathit{e3}),(\mathit{e1}\&\mathrm{r}\mathit{e3})+(\mathit{e2}\&\mathrm{r}\mathit{e3})$$

Notice that Maple does not know how to deal with $`a`$ so, effectively, the multilinearity is established over the integers only. If one wants to compute over a polynomial ring or, more generally, with $`K`$-modules, this function is useless.

7$`>`$constants:=constants,a:8$`>`$out:=&r(2\*e2,2\*e1+4\*a\*e1): # a is known to be a constant now9$`>`$out:=&r(true\*e1,false\*e2): # true and false are ’constants’10$`>`$constants;out;out;

$$\mathrm{𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑒},\gamma ,\mathrm{},\mathrm{𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑒},\mathrm{𝐶𝑎𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑛},\mathrm{𝐹𝐴𝐼𝐿},\pi ,a$$

$$4(\mathit{e2}\&\mathrm{r}\mathit{e1})+8a(\mathit{e2}\&\mathrm{r}\mathit{e1})$$

$$\mathrm{𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑒}\mathrm{𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑒}(\mathit{e1}\&\mathrm{r}\mathit{e2})$$

The last line does not make sense at all. Furthermore we find these peculiarities:

11$`>`$out:=&r(-e1,-e2): # -\> &r(e1,e2)12$`>`$out:=&r(-e1): # -\> -1\*&r(e1)13$`>`$out:=&r(2.5\*e1): # -\> 2.5\*&r(e1)14$`>`$out:=&r(&r(-e1)): # -\> &r(e1)15$`>`$out,out,out,out;

$$(\mathit{e1})\&\mathrm{r}(\mathit{e2}),(1\&\mathrm{r}\mathit{e1}),\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.5}(1\&\mathrm{r}\mathit{e1}),\&\mathrm{r}(1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathit{e1})$$

While the first expression is not even simplified, the last three results are just plain wrong. This error was detected in Maple 5 and is partially still present up to Maple 7. Hence, BIGEBRA includes a patched `define` facility.

In CLIFFORD and BIGEBRA almost everything can be treated as scalars, hence one can compute over function spaces etc. The generic tensor product of BIGEBRA is given by `&t`.

16$`>`$\# reload BIGEBRA, defined will be patched17$`>`$restart:\_CLIENV\[\_SILENT\]:=true:with(linalg):with(Bigebra):18$`>`$out:=e1+e2 &t e3, &t(e1+e2,e3): # infix form is still dangerous!19$`>`$out:=&t(&t(-e1)): # fixed20$`>`$out:=&t(2.5\*e1):21$`>`$out:=&t(a\*e1+2\*e2,sin(phi)\*e3):22$`>`$out;out,out;out;

$$\mathit{e1}+(\mathit{e2}\&\mathrm{t}\mathit{e3}),(\mathit{e1}\&\mathrm{t}\mathit{e3})+(\mathit{e2}\&\mathrm{t}\mathit{e3})$$

$$\&\mathrm{t}(\mathit{e1}),\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.5}\&\mathrm{t}(\mathit{e1})$$

$$a\mathrm{sin}(\varphi )(\mathit{e1}\&\mathrm{t}\mathit{e3})+2\mathrm{sin}(\varphi )(\mathit{e2}\&\mathrm{t}\mathit{e3})$$

The patched `define` which ships with BIGEBRA can handle tensor products over quite general rings. We give a final example where we define a tensor product `&r` over the polynomial ring $`[[x]]`$ with integer coefficients.

23$`>`$define(‘&r‘,flat,multilinear):24$`>`$unprotect(‘type/cliscalar‘): # we want to change this type25$`>`$‘type/cliscalar‘:=proc(expr) type(expr,polynom(integer,x)) end:26$`>`$out:=type( 2\*x+3\*x^5+5,cliscalar): # true, since in Z\[\[x\]\]27$`>`$out:=type( x/2 ,cliscalar): # false, fraction28$`>`$out:=type( 2\*y^2+3\*y-1,cliscalar): # false, wrong indeterminant29$`>`$out,out,out;

$$\mathrm{𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑒},\mathrm{𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑒},\mathrm{𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑒}$$

Now we are ready to use the new tensor product `&r` over $`[[x]]:`$

30$`>`$out:=&r(2.5\*x,4\*y):31$`>`$out:=&r(3\*x^2-x+5,x-x^4):32$`>`$out:=&r(3\*y\*x^2-x-5,x\*y-x^4):33$`>`$out;out;out;

$$4x(2.5\&\mathrm{r}y)$$

$$3x^3(1\&\mathrm{r}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})3x^6(1\&\mathrm{r}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})x^2(1\&\mathrm{r}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})+x^5(1\&\mathrm{r}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})+5x(1\&\mathrm{r}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})5x^4(1\&\mathrm{r}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})$$

$$3x^3(y\&\mathrm{r}y)3x^6(y\&\mathrm{r}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})x^2(1\&\mathrm{r}y)+x^5(1\&\mathrm{r}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})5x(1\&\mathrm{r}y)+5x^4(1\&\mathrm{r}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})$$

Observe, that real numbers like $`2.5`$ or the variable $`y`$ are still not treated as scalars but integers and $`x`$ are.

### 2.2 Basic tools

Having defined a tensor product, we need to have tools for operating on such structures. Let us fix notation as follows: A single term having no prefactors `&t(b1,...,bn)`, where $`b_1,\mathrm{},b_n`$ are Graßmann basis multivectors, will be called a tensor basis monom or a word that is composed from letters of the Graßmann multivector alphabet. A tensor monom is a tensor basis monom with a “scalar” prefactor where “scalar” means a ring element, a function, a polynomial, or just a number. A tensor polynom, or just a tensor, is a sum of tensor monoms. It is the multilinearity that guarantees that every tensor can be written as a linear combination of some tensor basis monoms (Hilbert basis theorem). The $`i`$-th place in a list of arguments of a tensor will be called the $`i`$-th slot.

Acting on a tensor means:

* Removing or grafting of terms from or into a tensor
* Rearranging the tensor
* Acting with operators on $`n`$-slots producing $`m`$-slots

The first set of operations is given by `peek` and `poke`. They work as expected: `peek` takes as an argument a number of the slot which it intends to remove and returns a sequence of lists of the removed terms and the remaining tensor. Procedure `poke` needs three arguments: a tensor, a Graßmann multivector which will be put into the $`i`$-th place, and the slot number $`i.`$

34$`>`$f:=x-\> ’peek’(x,2):x:=&t(e1,a\*e2+b\*e3,e3):f(x)=eval(f(x));

$$\mathrm{peek}(a\&\mathrm{t}(\mathit{e1},\mathit{e2},\mathit{e3})+b\&\mathrm{t}(\mathit{e1},\mathit{e3},\mathit{e3}),\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2})=([a\mathit{e2},\mathit{e1}\&\mathrm{t}\mathit{e3}],[b\mathit{e3},\mathit{e1}\&\mathrm{t}\mathit{e3}])$$

35$`>`$g:=x-\> ’poke’(x,e2,3):x:=&t(e1,a\*e2+b\*e3):g(x)=eval(g(x));

$$\mathrm{poke}(a(\mathit{e1}\&\mathrm{t}\mathit{e2})+b(\mathit{e1}\&\mathrm{t}\mathit{e3}),\mathit{e2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3})=a\&\mathrm{t}(\mathit{e1},\mathit{e2},\mathit{e2})+b\&\mathrm{t}(\mathit{e1},\mathit{e3},\mathit{e2})$$

The second group of operations consists of switches –also called crossings or braids– which allow to reorder the tensors. From a CAS point, it would be easy, say, to multiply the $`i`$-th and the $`j`$-th slots of a tensor and place the output into the $`k`$-th slot. However, mathematical reasons disallow such a brute method. If one demands that any reordering process can be generated from the reordering rules of generators, one has to assume that a crossing is a natural transformation in a functorial sense and obeys coherence, see Kelly and Laplaza , Lyubashenko . In fact these two conditions imply the quantum Yang Baxter equation which is discussed below. The Graßmann Hopf algebraic graded crossing and the ordinary switch (swap) of two elements fulfill these properties.

The `switch` procedure swaps two adjacent tensor slots in a general tensor polynomial, while the graded switch `gswitch` respects the grading of the factors. Both functions take as a second argument $`i,`$ the number of the tensor slot to act on, that is, to switch the $`i`$-th and the $`(i+1)`$-st tensor entries.

36$`>`$f1:=x-\>’switch’(x,2):x:=&t(e1,e2,e3,e4):f1(x)=eval(f1(x));

$$\mathrm{switch}(\&\mathrm{t}(\mathit{e1},\mathit{e2},\mathit{e3},\mathit{e4}),\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2})=\&\mathrm{t}(\mathit{e1},\mathit{e3},\mathit{e2},\mathit{e4})$$

37$`>`$f2:=x-\>’gswitch’(x,2):x:=&t(e1,e2,e3,e4):f2(x)=eval(f2(x));

$$\mathrm{gswitch}(\&\mathrm{t}(\mathit{e1},\mathit{e2},\mathit{e3},\mathit{e4}),\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2})=\&\mathrm{t}(\mathit{e1},\mathit{e3},\mathit{e2},\mathit{e4})$$

38$`>`$x:=&t(e1,e2,e3we4,e5):f2(x)=eval(f2(x));

$$\mathrm{gswitch}(\&\mathrm{t}(\mathit{e1},\mathit{e2},\mathit{e3we4},\mathit{e5}),\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2})=\&\mathrm{t}(\mathit{e1},\mathit{e3we4},\mathit{e2},\mathit{e5})$$

Notice the different signs for `switch` and `gswitch` depending in the latter morphism on the grading of the Graßmann multivector elements.

Furthermore, BIGEBRA allows to act with any operator on tensors. We distinguish such operations by the number of input and output slots. An ordinary endomorphism is a $`11`$ map while, e.g., a product is a $`21`$ map. Functions which are currently available are mapop and mapop2 for $`11`$ and $`22`$ operators, &map for $`21`$ operators and contract for $`20`$ operators. Let us first show a linear operator $`proj1`$ acting on a certain tensor slot:

39$`>`$proj1:=proc(x) vectorpart(x,1) end:40$`>`$L:=x-\>’mapop’(x,2,proj1):x:=&t(Id,e1+e1we2,e3):L(x)=eval(L(x));

$$\mathrm{mapop}(\&\mathrm{t}(\mathrm{𝐼𝑑},\mathit{e1},\mathit{e3})+\&\mathrm{t}(\mathrm{𝐼𝑑},\mathit{e1we2},\mathit{e3}),\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathit{proj1})=\&\mathrm{t}(\mathrm{𝐼𝑑},\mathit{e1},\mathit{e3})$$

where $`\text{vectorpart}(x,n)`$ projects on the $`n`$-vector part of $`x`$ in the Graßmann basis. Let us define a general element $`x`$ in a Graßmann or Clifford algebra over a two dimensional vector space and a general operator Rop given by its matrix $`R`$ in a co-contravariant canonical basis:

41$`>`$restart:\_CLIENV\[\_SILENT\]:=true:with(linalg):with(Bigebra):42$`>`$dim\_V:=2: # set dimension to 243$`>`$bas:=cbasis(dim\_V): # generate a list of basis monoms44$`>`$X:=add(x\[i\]\*bas\[i\],i=1..2^dim\_V): # general element45$`>`$R:=matrix(2^dim\_V,2^dim\_V,(i,j)-\>r\[i,j\]): # matrix with entries r\[i,j\]46$`>`$Rop:=proc(x) linop(x,R) end: # the operator Rop47$`>`$X;evalm(R);

$$x_1\mathrm{𝐼𝑑}+x_2\mathit{e1}+x_3\mathit{e2}+x_4\mathit{e1we2}$$

$$\left[\begin{array}{cccc}r_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}& r_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}& r_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}& r_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}\\ r_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}& r_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}& r_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}& r_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}\\ r_{3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}& r_{3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}& r_{3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}& r_{3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}\\ r_{4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}& r_{4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}& r_{4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}& r_{4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}\end{array}\right]$$

The action of Rop on Graßmann multivectors and tensors is computed as

48$`>`$out:=Rop(Id):out:=Rop(X):out:=mapop(&t(e1,Id,e2),2,Rop):49$`>`$out;out;out;

$$r_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}\mathrm{𝐼𝑑}+r_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}\mathit{e1}+r_{3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}\mathit{e2}+r_{4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}\mathit{e1we2},$$

$$\begin{array}{c}(r_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}x_1+r_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}x_2+r_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}x_3+r_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}x_4)\mathrm{𝐼𝑑}+(r_{3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}x_4+r_{3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}x_1+r_{3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}x_2+r_{3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}x_3)\mathit{e2}\hfill \\ \hfill +(r_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}x_2+r_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}x_3+r_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}x_4+r_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}x_1)\mathit{e1}+(r_{4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}x_1+r_{4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}x_2+r_{4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}x_3+r_{4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}x_4)\mathit{e1we2},\end{array}$$

$$r_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}\&\mathrm{t}(\mathit{e1},\mathrm{𝐼𝑑},\mathit{e2})+r_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}\&\mathrm{t}(\mathit{e1},\mathit{e1},\mathit{e2})+r_{3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}\&\mathrm{t}(\mathit{e1},\mathit{e2},\mathit{e2})+r_{4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}\&\mathrm{t}(\mathit{e1},\mathit{e1we2},\mathit{e2})$$

Operators may be defined as any Maple procedures also.

The next class of operations is the application of product maps, i.e., $`21,`$ which have two adjacent entry slots and one output slot. Examples of such operations which are predefined in BIGEBRA are the Graßmann and the Clifford products, and the contractions. User defined functions may be applied also. They are mapped onto tensors via the &map function which takes a tensor, the slot number and the (product) function as input parameters:

50$`>`$trm:=&t(Id,e1,e2,Id):51$`>`$out:=‘ &map(&t(Id,e1,e2,Id),2,wedge) ‘,‘ --\> ‘,&map(trm,2,wedge):52$`>`$out:=‘ &map(&t(Id,e1,e2,Id),2,cmul\[K\]) ‘,‘ --\> ‘,&map(trm,2,cmul\[K\]):53$`>`$out:=‘ &map(&t(Id,e1,e2,Id),2,LC,K) ‘,‘ --\> ‘, &map(trm,2,LC,K):54$`>`$out;out;out;

$$\&\mathrm{𝑚𝑎𝑝}(\&t(\mathrm{𝐼𝑑},\mathit{e1},\mathit{e2},\mathrm{𝐼𝑑}),\mathit{2},\mathrm{𝑤𝑒𝑑𝑔𝑒}),>,\&\mathrm{t}(\mathrm{𝐼𝑑},\mathit{e1we2},\mathrm{𝐼𝑑})$$

$$\&\mathrm{𝑚𝑎𝑝}(\&t(\mathrm{𝐼𝑑},\mathit{e1},\mathit{e2},\mathrm{𝐼𝑑}),\mathit{2},\mathrm{𝑐𝑚𝑢𝑙}[K]),>,\&\mathrm{t}(\mathrm{𝐼𝑑},\mathit{e1we2},\mathrm{𝐼𝑑})+K_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\&\mathrm{t}(\mathrm{𝐼𝑑},\mathrm{𝐼𝑑},\mathrm{𝐼𝑑})$$

$$\&\mathrm{𝑚𝑎𝑝}(\&t(\mathrm{𝐼𝑑},\mathit{e1},\mathit{e2},\mathrm{𝐼𝑑}),\mathit{2},\mathrm{𝐿𝐶},K),>,K_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\&\mathrm{t}(\mathrm{𝐼𝑑},\mathrm{𝐼𝑑},\mathrm{𝐼𝑑})$$

Note that the Clifford product cmul\[K\] and the left contraction $`\text{LC}(\mathrm{},K)`$ depend on an arbitrary bilinear form $`K`$ which is then passed on as an additional parameter to the procedure $`\text{\&map}.`$ This mechanism can then be used to deal with different Clifford algebras in different tensor slots.

As a last example of actions on tensors we examine the evaluation and other $`20`$ mappings with values in the base ring. A very important case is given by the evaluation which employs the action of dual elements w.r.t. the canonical basis on multivectors. In fact one would need a new kind of basis vectors, however, for technical reasons of the current version of $`\text{BIGEBRA},`$ it is the user who has to take responsibility for keeping track of the tensor slots which are to contain co(multi)vectors.

55$`>`$out:=\[EV(Id,Id),EV(e1,e2),EV(e1,e1)\]: # eval = Kronecker delta56$`>`$out:=‘ contract (&t(Id,e1,e1+e2+e3,Id),2,EV)‘,57$`>`$ ‘ --\> ‘,contract(&t(Id,e1,e1+e2+e3,Id),2,EV):58$`>`$out;out;

$$[1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}]$$

$$\mathrm{𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡}(\&t(\mathrm{𝐼𝑑},\mathit{e1},\mathit{e1}+\mathit{e2}+\mathit{e3},\mathrm{𝐼𝑑}),\mathit{2},\mathrm{𝐸𝑉}),>,\mathrm{𝐼𝑑}\&\mathrm{t}\mathrm{𝐼𝑑}$$

### 2.3 Graßmann Hopf algebra

A Graßmann Hopf algebra is a vector space that is a Graßmann algebra and a Graßmann coalgebra fulfilling certain compatibility laws . Since the algebra side is well known, we give some explanation on the coalgebra side. A coproduct on an algebra can be defined as the categorial dual of a product via a linear form defined on the vector space. This law is called product coproduct duality . Now, it is easy to check that covectors may form a covector Graßmann algebra $`V^{},`$ where $``$ is the Graßmann exterior product on co-multivectors. Using duality via the evaluation map $`..`$ we find

$`wxy`$ $`=w_{(1)}yw_{(2)}x,`$
$`ww^{}x`$ $`=wx_{(2)}w^{}x_{(1)}`$ (1)
where we have used Sweedler’s notation for the coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x)=_{(x)}x_{(1)}x_{(2)}`$ (the summation symbol is usually dropped). The evaluation map is given by the function EV from the package. The coproduct is seen to be a split of the homogeneous multivectors into pairs where the sign of permutation is taken into account. We give one example with symbolic indices $`a`$ and $`b:`$

59$`>`$&gco(eaweb);

$$(\mathrm{𝐼𝑑}\&\mathrm{t}\mathrm{𝑒𝑎𝑤𝑒𝑏})+(\mathrm{𝑒𝑎}\&\mathrm{t}\mathrm{𝑒𝑏})(\mathrm{𝑒𝑏}\&\mathrm{t}\mathrm{𝑒𝑎})+(\mathrm{𝑒𝑎𝑤𝑒𝑏}\&\mathrm{t}\mathrm{𝐼𝑑})$$

The first compatibility law valid in a Hopf algebra is that the product is an coalgebra homomorphism and the coproduct is an algebra homomorphism, see Fauser . Furthermore, an antipode exists, which in the Graßmann case turns out to be isomorphic to the grade involution. We check this in dimension 2:

60$`>`$dim\_V:=2:61$`>`$‘S^‘=matrix(2^dim\_V,2^dim\_V,(i,j)-\>EV(bas\[i\],gantipode(bas\[j\])));62$`>`$‘Grade\_Inv‘=matrix(2^dim\_V,2^dim\_V,(i,j)-\>EV(bas\[i\],gradeinv(bas\[j\])));

$$S\mathrm{^}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1\end{array}\right],\mathrm{𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑒}\mathrm{\_}\mathrm{𝐼𝑛𝑣}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1\end{array}\right]$$

The above described tools allow us to perform all algebraic manipulations in a Graßmann Hopf algebra, also using symbolic indices.

### 2.4 Clifford bi-convolution

A Clifford bi-convolution is a space endowed with a Clifford algebra structure and a Clifford coalgebra structure. Both products are unital and associative but not all such convolutions posses an antipode. However if an antipode exists then one can prove that one deals then with a Clifford Hopf algebra . We are interested in Clifford algebras over a general bilinear form, hence we can introduce the Clifford product via the Chevalley deformation . Let $`x`$ be an element in $`V,`$ the space of generators, and let $`u`$ be a general element in $`V^{}(=V).`$ Then, one defines the action of $`x`$ on $`U`$ as

$$\gamma _xu=i_x(u)+xu$$

where $`i_x`$ is the inner product or contraction. The action is then extended to a map $`:VVV`$ by demanding that

$$i_x(y)=B(x,y),i_{uv}(w)=i_u(i_v(w))$$

$$i_x(uv)=i_x(u)v+\widehat{u}i_x(v)$$

with $`\widehat{u}=(1)^uu`$ being the grade involution, e.g., Fauser . It is a remarkable fact that this product can be directly defined via a deformation called cliffordization by Rota and Stein . It may also be called a Drinfeld twist, see below. Using the undeformed Graßmann product $``$ and coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ one can write

$$uv=B^{}(u_{(2)},v_{(1)})u_{(1)}v_{(2)}$$

Here $`B^{}`$ is the scalar valued bilinear form tied to the inner product action via the counit $`ϵ`$ as $`B^{}(a,b)=ϵ(i_a(b)).`$ We exemplify this in the BIGEBRA package as

63$`>`$restart:\_CLIENV\[\_SILENT\]:=true:with(Bigebra):64$`>`$unprotect(gamma):65$`>`$Gamma:=proc(U) local x; x:=op(procname); LC(x,U)+wedge(x,U) end:66$`>`$out:=gamma\[e1\](Id)=Gamma\[e1\](Id):67$`>`$out:=gamma\[e1\](e2)=Gamma\[e1\](e2):68$`>`$out:=gamma\[e1\](e2we3)=Gamma\[e1\](e2we3):69$`>`$out,out,out;

$$\gamma _{\mathit{e1}}(\mathrm{𝐼𝑑})=\mathit{e1},\gamma _{\mathit{e1}}(\mathit{e2})=B_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\mathrm{𝐼𝑑}+\mathit{e1we2},\gamma _{\mathit{e1}}(\mathit{e2we3})=B_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\mathit{e3}B_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}\mathit{e2}+\mathit{e1we2we3}$$

If we do the same using the cliffordization process, which we will make explicit by defining a function `cliff` as to avoid using the internal function `cmul`, we get

70$`>`$cliff:=proc(x,y) clicollect(simplify(drop\_t(&map(contract(71$`>`$ &t(&gco(x),&gco(y)),2,scalarpart@LC),1,wedge)))) end:72$`>`$out:=e1 &C e2we3 = cliff(e1 ,e2we3):73$`>`$out:=e1we2 &C e2we3 = cliff(e1we2,e2we3):74$`>`$out;out;

$$\mathit{e1}\&\mathrm{C}\mathit{e2we3}=B_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\mathit{e3}B_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}\mathit{e2}+\mathit{e1we2we3}$$

$$\mathit{e1we2}\&\mathrm{C}\mathit{e2we3}=B_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\mathit{e1we3}B_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\mathit{e2we3}B_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}\mathit{e1we2}(B_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}B_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}+B_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}B_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})\mathrm{𝐼𝑑}$$

The most interesting structure which we can now access computationally with the BIGEBRA package is that of a Clifford bi-convolution. In any pair ($`U,V)`$ of structures having a product on $`VV`$ and a coproduct on $`U,`$ which need not to be a bialgebra or Hopf algebra at all, one can define a convolution product between morphisms $`f,g,\mathrm{}:UV,`$ see Fauser . We consider here the Graßmann Hopf algebra and endomorphisms, and define the star or convolution product of endomorphisms according to Sweedler,  as

$$(fg)(x)=m(fg)\mathrm{\Delta }(x)$$

where $``$ is the composition of maps. The element $`x`$ can be dropped safely. Re-examining the definition of the antipode shows that the map is the convolutive inverse of the identity morphism $`\text{Id}_V`$ on $`V.`$ In the following steps we will compute the antipodes of the Graßmann Hopf algebra and of a twisted Graßmann Hopf algebra where only the product is deformed, and of the Clifford bi-convolution, where both structure maps, product and coproduct have been deformed. The last possibility is beyond current deformation theory, where only one structure map is deformed. We choose dimension 2 for the generating space which gives a 4 dimensional Graßmann resp. Clifford algebra. The output is suppressed in most steps since its very tedious and long. The defining equations for the three antipodes are stored in `eq_gr`, `eq_cl` and `eq_bc`.

75$`>`$dim\_V:=2:bas:=cbasis(dim\_V):76$`>`$B :=matrix(dim\_V,dim\_V,(i,j)-\>b\[i,j\]): # scalar product77$`>`$BI:=matrix(dim\_V,dim\_V,(i,j)-\>p\[i,j\]): # coscalar product78$`>`$make\_BI\_Id(): ## \<== initialize the Clifford coproduct79$`>`$S := matrix(2^dim\_V,2^dim\_V,(i,j)-\>s\[i,j\]): # antipode template80$`>`$Sop := proc(x) linop(x,S) end: # operator using S81$`>`$X := add(x\[i\]\*bas\[i\],i=1..2^dim\_V): # general element82$`>`$eq\_gr :=drop\_t(&map(mapop(&gco(X),1,Sop),1,wedge)-gco\_unit(&t(X),1)):83$`>`$eq\_cl :=drop\_t(&map(mapop(&gco(X),1,Sop),1,cmul )-gco\_unit(&t(X),1)):84$`>`$eq\_bc :=drop\_t(&map(mapop(&cco(X),1,Sop),1,cmul )-gco\_unit(&t(X),1)): In a second step we solve these equations using the BIGEBRA tangle solver `tsolve1`:

85$`>`$sol\_gr :=tsolve1(clicollect(eq\_gr) ,\[seq(seq(s\[i,j\],86$`>`$ i=1..2^dim\_V),j=1..2^dim\_V)\],\[seq(x\[i\],i=1..2^dim\_V)\]):87$`>`$sol\_cl :=tsolve1(clicollect(eq\_cl) ,\[seq(seq(s\[i,j\],88$`>`$ i=1..2^dim\_V),j=1..2^dim\_V)\],\[seq(x\[i\],i=1..2^dim\_V)\]):89$`>`$sol\_bc :=tsolve1(clicollect(eq\_bc) ,\[seq(seq(s\[i,j\],90$`>`$ i=1..2^dim\_V),j=1..2^dim\_V)\],\[seq(x\[i\],i=1..2^dim\_V)\]): Before we display these morphisms in a matrix form, we compute a normalization factor for the antipode of the Clifford bi-convolution to simplify the output, which will be given as $`S_{bc}=NS_{bc}^{}.`$ Here the primed antipode is the actual one and the unprimed is the normalized one.

91$`>`$N:=linalg\[det\](linalg\[diag\](1$dim\_V)- B &\* BI):92$`>`$S\_GR := subs(sol\_gr,evalm(S)):93$`>`$S\_CL := subs(sol\_cl,evalm(S)):94$`>`$S\_BC := map(simplify@expand,subs(sol\_bc,N\*evalm(S))):95$`>`$S\_GR=evalm(S\_GR),S\_CL=evalm(S\_CL),S\_bc=map(simplify,evalm(S\_BC));

$$S\mathrm{\_}\mathrm{𝐺𝑅}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1\end{array}\right],S\mathrm{\_}\mathrm{𝐶𝐿}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& b_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}b_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 0& 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1& 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& 1\end{array}\right],$$

$$S\mathrm{\_}\mathrm{𝑏𝑐}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1p_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}b_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}+p_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}b_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}+p_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}b_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}p_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}b_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& b_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}b_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}\\ 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 0& 0\\ 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1& 0\\ p_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}p_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& 1\end{array}\right]$$

###### Proposition 2.1.

(`dim_V=2`) The antipode $`S_{bc}`$ of a Clifford bi-convolution is up to a factor identical with the antipode $`S^{}`$ of the Graßmann Hopf algebra if and only if the cliffordization is performed with a symmetric scalar product and a symmetric coscalar product (both derivable from a quadratic and a coquadratic form via polarization in $`\text{char}2).`$

###### Corollary 2.2.

The recursive formula for computing the antipode given by Milnor and Moore  and currently used in the Connes-Kreimer renormalization procedure cannot be applied in general for Clifford bi-convolutions with antisymmetric part in the scalar and coscalar product

$$S(x)=ϵ(x)xS(x_{(1)}^{})x_{(2)}^{},S(\text{Id})=\text{Id}$$

where the primed coproduct is over proper cuts only, i.e. $`x_{(i)}^{}\text{Id}.`$

Note however that bilinear forms having antisymmetric parts are involved in the process of Wick normal ordering in QFT . A CAS is a valuable help here to find explicit examples of such structures.

## 3 Deformation and quantum Yang-Baxter equation

In this section we want to use BIGEBRA to make the relation between cliffordized products, coproducts and standard deformation theory explicit. We keep the definitions from the previous section, i.e. `dim_V=2`, the settings for the scalar product `B`, the coscalar product `BI`, and the general element `X`. For further reference we need an explicit form of the scalar product extended to $`V`$ and recall the matrix form of the Graßmann antipode, this time from the BIGEBRA builtin function $`\text{gantipode}.`$ We compute the convolutive inverse of the bilinear form needed below:

96$`>`$BW :=matrix(2^dim\_V,2^dim\_V,(i,j)-\>EV(cmul(bas\[i\],bas\[j\]),Id)):97$`>`$S\_Gr:=matrix(2^dim\_V,2^dim\_V,(i,j)-\>EV(bas\[i\],gantipode(bas\[j\]))):98$`>`$BS :=evalm(BW &\* S\_Gr):99$`>`$BW=evalm(BW),S\_gr=evalm(S\_Gr),BS=evalm(BS);

$$\mathrm{𝐵𝑊}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 1& 0& 0& 0\\ \hfill 0& b_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}& b_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}& 0\\ \hfill 0& b_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}& b_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}& 0\\ \hfill 0& 0& 0& b_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}b_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}b_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}b_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}\end{array}\right],S\mathrm{\_}\mathrm{𝑔𝑟}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1\end{array}\right],$$

$$\mathrm{𝐵𝑆}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 1& 0& 0& 0\\ \hfill 0& b_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}& b_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}& 0\\ \hfill 0& b_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}& b_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}& 0\\ \hfill 0& 0& 0& b_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}b_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}b_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}b_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}\end{array}\right]$$

Note that the convolutive inverse is just the scalar product w.r.t the negative bilinear form.

###### Proposition 3.1.

Not every endomorphism has as the convolutive inverse $`B^S=BS.`$ However, exponentially generated morphisms and, more generally, graded morphisms do.

A quasi triangular structure is an element $`RVV`$ which satisfies, among others, the following condition:

$$\widehat{\text{sw}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{Cl}(x)=(R_{(1)}R_{(2)})\mathrm{\Delta }_{Gr}(x)$$

see, e.g., Majid . Note that our definition is somewhat different due to our reversed ordering of tensor products of dual elements. The task is now to define a general element $`R`$ and try to compute all possible solutions of equation $`().`$ Therefore we start to define $`R`$ as

100$`>`$Y:=add(y\[i\]\*bas\[i\],i=1..2^dim\_V):101$`>`$R:=proc(x,y) local bas,tr\_tbl; option remember;102$`>`$ bas:=cbasis(dim\_V):103$`>`$ tr\_tbl:=table(\[seq(op(Cliff5\[extract\](bas\[i\]))=i,i=1..2^dim\_V)\]);104$`>`$ R\[tr\_tbl\[op(Cliff5\[extract\](x))\],tr\_tbl\[op(Cliff5\[extract\](y))\]\]105$`>`$end:106$`>`$RR:=add(add(contract(&t(bas\[i\],bas\[j\]),1,R)\*&t(bas\[i\],bas\[j\]),107$`>`$ i=1..2^dim\_V),j=1..2^dim\_V): Now the actual computation starts by evaluating the l.h.s. and r.h.s. of $`()`$ as

108$`>`$Leq:=gswitch(&cco(X),1):109$`>`$Req:=&map(&map(switch(switch(&t(RR,&gco(X)),2),1),3,wedge),1,wedge): Note that in the right hand side of the equation `Req`, two switches were used to put $`R`$ in-between the $`x_{(i)}`$ of the coproduct and are not part of the formula $`()`$ while the graded switch in the l.h.s. equation `Leq` is generic. This time we show directly how to solve tangle equations:

110$`>`$eq:=tcollect(Leq-Req):111$`>`$vars:=seq(seq(R\[i,j\],i=1..2^dim\_V),j=1..2^dim\_V):112$`>`$T:=seq(seq(&t(bas\[i\],bas\[j\]),i=1..2^dim\_V),j=1..2^dim\_V):113$`>`$CO:=seq(x\[i\],i=1..2^dim\_V):114$`>`$sys:=:115$`>`$for t in T do116$`>`$for co in CO do117$`>`$ sys:=op(sys),coeff(coeff(eq,t),co);118$`>`$od:od:119$`>`$sol:=solve(sys,vars):120$`>`$matR:=matrix(2^dim\_V,2^dim\_V,(i,j)-\>R\[i,j\]):121$`>`$‘R‘=subs(sol,evalm(matR));

$$R=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 1& 0& 0& 0\\ \hfill 0& p_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}& p_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}& 0\\ \hfill 0& p_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}& p_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}& 0\\ \hfill 0& 0& 0& p_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}p_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}p_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}p_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}\end{array}\right]$$

We have put the solution once more in matrix form. Inspection of this result shows, that our $`R`$ is the convolutive inverse of the coscalar product, and hence it is exponentially generated. In fact it is an axiom of a quasi triangular structure that a convolutive inverse exists. We can check our assertion explicitly via

122$`>`$eq1:=gco\_unit(gco\_unit(&t(X,Y),2),1):123$`>`$eq2:=simplify(drop\_t(contract(contract(&t(&gco(X),&gco(Y))124$`>`$ ,2,scalarpart@cmul\[-K\]),1,scalarpart@cmul\[K\])))\*Id:125$`>`$is(eq1=eq2);

$$\mathrm{𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑒}$$

###### Corollary 3.2.

The (co-)cliffordizations with respect to (co-)bilinear forms $`K`$ and $`K`$ are convolutive inverse w.r.t. the Graßmann Hopf convolution.

We are now ready to check that our quasi triangular structure fulfills the quantum Yang Baxter equation. We do this first for the graded switch of the Graßmann Hopf convolution, which is trivially a braid. We compute

126$`>`$Z:=add(z\[i\]\*bas\[i\],i=1..2^dim\_V): eq0:=&t(X,Y,Z):127$`>`$eq1:=gswitch(gswitch(gswitch(eq0,1),2),1):128$`>`$eq2:=gswitch(gswitch(gswitch(eq0,2),1),2):129$`>`$is(eq1=eq2);

$$\mathrm{𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑒}$$

where we have not shown the cumbersome terms but simply checked that both sides evaluate to the same result, which establishes the assertion.

Since a quasi triangular structure is an exponentially generated endomorphism, we have to check that it fulfills

$$R_{12}R_{23}R_{12}=R_{23}R_{12}R_{23}.$$

To check this assertion we calculate with $`\text{BIGEBRA}:`$

130$`>`$bw:=proc(x,y) local i,j;131$`>`$ add(add(BW\[i,j\]\*EV(bas\[i\],y)\*EV(bas\[j\],x),i=1..2^dim\_V),j=1..2^dim\_V)132$`>`$end:133$`>`$Bsw:=proc(x,i)134$`>`$ tcollect(gswitch(contract(&gco(&gco(x,i+1),i),i+1,bw),i))135$`>`$end:136$`>`$eq3:=Bsw(Bsw(Bsw(eq0,1),2),1):137$`>`$eq4:=Bsw(Bsw(Bsw(eq0,2),1),2):138$`>`$is(eq3=eq4);

$$\mathrm{𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑒}$$

which proves our claim in `dim_V=2`. As a last demonstration, we check the remaining properties of a quasi triangular structure to be valid for an exponentially generated endomap.

$$R(S(a),b)=R^S(a,b),R^S(a,S(b))=R(a,b),R(S(a),S(b))=R(a,b).$$

Hence we generate the endomap ‘R’ and apply to its arguments the Graßmann antipode:

139$`>`$R:=’R’:140$`>`$out:=‘R‘=matrix(2^dim\_V,2^dim\_V,(i,j)-\>scalarpart(cmul\[R\](bas\[i\],bas\[j\]))):141$`>`$out:=‘RS‘=matrix(2^dim\_V,2^dim\_V,(i,j)-\>scalarpart(cmul\[R\]142$`>`$ (gantipode(bas\[i\]),bas\[j\]))):143$`>`$out;out;

$$R=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 1& 0& 0& 0\\ \hfill 0& R_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}& R_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}& 0\\ \hfill 0& R_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}& R_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}& 0\\ \hfill 0& 0& 0& R_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}R_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}R_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}R_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}\end{array}\right]$$

$$\mathrm{𝑅𝑆}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 1& 0& 0& 0\\ \hfill 0& R_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}& R_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}& 0\\ \hfill 0& R_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}& R_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}& 0\\ \hfill 0& 0& 0& R_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}R_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}R_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}R_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}\end{array}\right]$$

144$`>`$out:=‘RSS‘=matrix(2^dim\_V,2^dim\_V,(i,j)-\>scalarpart(cmul\[R\]145$`>`$ (gantipode(bas\[i\]),gantipode(bas\[j\])))):146$`>`$out:=‘SR‘=matrix(2^dim\_V,2^dim\_V,(i,j)-\>scalarpart(cmul\[R\]147$`>`$ (bas\[i\],gantipode(bas\[j\])))):148$`>`$out;out;

$$\mathrm{𝑅𝑆𝑆}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 1& 0& 0& 0\\ \hfill 0& R_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}& R_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}& 0\\ \hfill 0& R_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}& R_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}& 0\\ \hfill 0& 0& 0& R_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}R_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}R_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}R_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}\end{array}\right]$$

$$\mathrm{𝑆𝑅}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 1& 0& 0& 0\\ \hfill 0& R_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}& R_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}& 0\\ \hfill 0& R_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}& R_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}& 0\\ \hfill 0& 0& 0& R_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}R_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}R_{2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}R_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}\end{array}\right]$$

Comparing the matrix representations gives us the desired results when we recall that the convolutive inverse is given by the ‘scalar product‘ `-R` on the generating space.

We can compute along the same lines as exemplified above the Yang Baxter matrix, a 16 by 16 matrix, which represents the action of $`R`$ on $`VV.`$ Since the output of these computations is quite lengthy we will give only some further results and not the explicit matrix. The actual worksheet is available from the home page of the second author.

###### Remark 3.3.

The Yang Baxter matrix of our 2 dimensional example has determinant 1 and is a function of all four parameters of the quasi triangular structure $`R.`$

A further question is, if this structure is really quasi triangular or only triangular. Due to our reversed indexing in duals, we have to check for triangularity if the Yang Baxter matrix squares to unity.

###### Remark 3.4.

The Yang Baxter matrix of our 2 dimensional example is triangular if and only if the exponentially generated endomap is derived from a symmetric bilinear form on the generating space. This has deep implications for ordering process in quantum field theory, see Fauser .

We expect such assertions to be true in higher dimensions, though that needs an algebraic proof. However, having solutions in low dimensions allows in many cases to prove by induction a general hypothesis. This is the step from experimental mathematics to ‘pure’ mathematics.

## 4 Conclusions

The present paper was intended to show how a CAS allows to ask questions of research interest and to come up with low dimensional solutions. During this process we have worked out examples showing how to use the BIGEBRA package and how to attack more advanced problems.

We hope that it became obvious from our presentation of the CLIFFORD  and BIGEBRA packages that the ability to compute, via a CAS, allows to build a sound knowledge about mathematical problems and that there is a need for experimental mathematics in education and research.

This article is, due to restrictions in space, obviously not able to give a complete review of all abilities of the CLIFFORD and BIGEBRA packages. Therefore the interested reader is invited to check the package home page<sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3url: http://math.tntech.edu/rafal/ for the documentation. Both packages come with a built-in online help where, for every function, syntax, synopsis and examples, and sometimes a more advanced mathematical background is provided. A printed ps or pdf version of approx. 500 pages is available there also. For those who wish to have a look at and a feel for the packages, there is a possibility to access them online over the web<sup>4</sup><sup>4</sup>4url: http://kaluza.physik.uni-konstanz.de/~fauser.

There are tremendously many open problems coming with a bi-convolution of mathematical and physical type. It is not yet clear, under which conditions antipodes exist in higher dimensions. In dimension 3 a Clifford bi-convolution has in general no antipode, hence further relations between scalar and coscalar product have to be found. Only very little is known about the nature of the crossings derived from antipodal bi-convolution, but see Fauser and Oziewicz . The axiomatics, in terms of morphims and category theory of Clifford bi-convolutions, is under consideration but not yet finished . Clifford bi-convolutions are deeply connected to the renormalization process of the quantum filed theory. However, there one has to go beyond the scheme presented in this paper, see Brouder , Brouder et al. . A CAS and especially CLIFFORD and BIGEBRA are ideally suited to explore this exciting field.

Finally we want to emphasize that the present article contains Maple output (with only a minor cosmetics) which was generated directly by processing a Maple worksheet.

Acknowledgment: The second author, BF, acknowledges gratefully financial support from University of Konstanz, LS Prof. Heinz Dehnen.

Submitted: ; Revised: TBA.


format: text

text:
# Unpolarized radiative cylindrical spacetimes: Trapped surfaces and quasilocal energy

## 1 Introduction

Cylindrically symmetric spacetimes are the simplest spacetimes with a non-trivial field content which admit exact solutions containing gravitational radiation . They also provide useful test beds for quantum gravity , numerical relativity , and probes of the hoop and cosmic censorship conjectures . The best studied vacuum case is that of the Einstein-Rosen (ER) metric , which contains two spacelike, commuting, hypersurface-orthogonal Killing vector fields, $`\xi _{(z)}_z`$ and $`\xi _{(\varphi )}_\varphi `$, whose orbits generate translations and rotations with respect to the axis of symmetry, respectively. It has been shown that there are no trapped surfaces in the vacuum ER spacetime , and this result has recently been generalized to include the presence of matter . The ER metric is a special case of the most general cylindrically symmetric vacuum metric—the Jordan-Ehlers-Kundt-Kompaneets (JEKK) metric —whose Killing vectors are not hypersurface orthogonal, whence the cylindrical waves have two polarizations. Whether or not trapped surfaces develop in such unpolarized metrics (without a priori asymptotic flatness conditions) has remained an open question. Here, we explicitly show that there are no trapped cylinders in the JEKK spacetime, thus in accord with the spirit of the hoop conjecture .

A related issue is that of the so-called C-energy in radiative cylindrical spacetimes . Because of the translational symmetry associated with the Killing vector $`\xi _{(z)}`$, it is possible to define an energy-like quantity per unit Killing length, which measures the amount of gravitational energy carried by the cylindrical waves towards infinity. Such “energy” is conserved for every Killing orbit of $`\xi _{(z)}`$, but obviously diverges in the four-dimensional spacetime. C-energy was originally defined in a somewhat heuristic manner by exploiting the local field equations, without recourse to a Hamiltonian formulation . Here, we derive a formal definition of C-energy (which includes the unpolarized case), by means of a Hamiltonian reduction of the field equations, wherein C-energy arises naturally from the Hamiltonian constraint. To exploit the relation between this formal definition of C-energy and the actual physical energy of the system, we compute the Brown-York quasilocal energy , which is the value of the Hamiltonian that generates unit magnitude proper-time translations in a timelike direction orthogonal to spacelike hypersurfaces at some fixed spatial boundary. The C-energy is not the physical energy of the system (as per the Brown-York definition adopted herein), being instead related to it by a simple monotonic non-polynomial function. We also discuss the asymptotic behavior of the metric, corresponding quasilocal energy, and its relation to the deficit angle at infinity.

Geometrized units, in which $`G=c=1`$, are used throughout.

## 2 Hamiltonian reduction

We follow the Hamiltonian reduction approach of Moncrief , and begin by considering a fully general $`(3+1)`$ metric, written as

$$ds^2=e^{2\psi }[\alpha ^2dt^2+\gamma _{ab}(dx^a+\beta ^adt)(dx^b+\beta ^bdt)]+e^{2\psi }(dz+X_idx^i)^2,$$
(1)
where $`a,b=1,2`$, $`i=0,1,2`$, and the coordinates $`\{t,r,\varphi ,z\}`$ are adopted, with $`r_0^+`$, $`t,z`$, and $`\varphi [0,2\pi ]`$. Since we take $`\xi _{(z)}`$ and $`\xi _{(\varphi )}`$ to be Killing vectors, all the metric functions depend solely on $`t`$ and $`r`$. The triplet $`\{\alpha ,\beta ^a,\gamma _{ab}\}`$ represents an ADM parametrization of the $`(2+1)`$ Lorentz metric induced on the space of orbits of the Killing vector $`\xi _{(z)}`$. The components $`X_i`$ control the hypersurface-orthogonality of the Killing vectors: the latter are hypersurface orthogonal if and only if $`X_i=0`$.

The JEKK metric corresponds to the coordinate and gauge choice

$`\alpha =e^\gamma ,\beta ^a=X_t=X_r=0,X_\varphi =\omega (t,r)0,`$ (2)
$`\gamma _{ab}dx^adx^b=e^{2\psi }dr^2+r^2d\varphi ^2.`$ (3)
We shall henceforth consider this case. The ADM action for the JEKK spacetime is (modulo integration over the two Killing coordinates, $`z`$ and $`\varphi `$)

$$I_{\mathrm{ADM}}=_\mathrm{\Omega }𝑑t𝑑r(\mathrm{\Pi }_\psi \psi _{,t}+\mathrm{\Pi }_\omega \omega _{,t}\alpha \beta ^aJ_a),$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=_0^+`$, $`(\mathrm{\Pi }_\psi ,\mathrm{\Pi }_\omega )`$ are the canonical momenta conjugate to $`(\psi ,\omega )`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\gamma 0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_r\mathrm{ln}r`$, and

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}e^\gamma \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\mathrm{\Pi }_\psi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{4\psi }\mathrm{\Pi }_\omega ^2\right)+2(e^\gamma )_{,r}`$ (5)
$`+2re^\gamma (\psi _{,r})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r}}e^\gamma e^{4\psi }(\omega _{,r})^2,`$
$`J_a`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Pi }_\psi \psi _{,r}+\mathrm{\Pi }_\omega \omega _{,r}+\mathrm{\Pi }_r{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}})\delta _a^r`$ (6)
are the Hamiltonian and momentum densities, respectively. The constraint equations $`=J_a=0`$ yield

$`\gamma _{,r}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4r}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_\psi ^2}{4}}+e^{4\psi }\mathrm{\Pi }_\omega ^2\right)+r(\psi _{,r})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{4\psi }}{4r}}(\omega _{,r})^2,`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_r=r(\mathrm{\Pi }_\psi \psi _{,r}+\mathrm{\Pi }_\omega \omega _{,r}).`$ (8)
The explicit dependence on the momentum variables can be removed by computing the equations of motion for the canonical variables $`(\psi ,\omega ,\gamma )`$, and using these in the constraint equations. Variation of the ADM action with respect to the relevant canonical variables gives

$`\psi _{,t}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4r}}\mathrm{\Pi }_\psi ,`$ (9)
$`\omega _{,t}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{4\psi }\mathrm{\Pi }_\omega ,`$ (10)
$`\gamma _{,t}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2r}}\mathrm{\Pi }_r.`$ (11)
The constraint equations (7)-(8) read then

$`\gamma _{,r}`$ $`=`$ $`r[(\psi _{,t})^2+(\psi _{,r})^2]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4r}}e^{4\psi }[(\omega _{,t})^2+(\omega _{,r})^2],`$ (12)
$`\gamma _{,t}`$ $`=`$ $`2r\psi _{,t}\psi _{,r}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{4\psi }}{2r}}\omega _{,t}\omega _{,r}.`$ (13)
The equations of motion for the remaining canonical variables, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\psi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\omega `$, yield \[where equations (9)-(10) were used\]:

$`\psi _{,tt}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _{,r}}{r}}\psi _{,rr}={\displaystyle \frac{e^{4\psi }}{2r^2}}[(\omega _{,t})^2(\omega _{,r})^2],`$ (14)
$`\omega _{,tt}+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{,r}}{r}}\omega _{,rr}=4(\psi _{,r}\omega _{,r}\psi _{,t}\omega _{,t}).`$ (15)
Since all coordinate and gauge conditions have been fixed, equations (12)-(15) form a complete set. Note that the wave equations for the two degrees of freedom of the gravitational field (i.e., the functions $`\psi `$ and $`\omega `$, corresponding to the $`+`$ and $`\times `$ polarization modes, respectively) are coupled through source terms, and neither of them contains the metric function $`\gamma `$, which is therefore fully determined by the two polarizations at each spacetime event by quadratures, via equations (12)-(13). As we shall see below, $`\gamma `$ is closely related to the total gravitational energy of the system per unit Killing length $`z`$.

## 3 Trapped surfaces

Consider a spacelike two-surface $`𝒮`$ with intrinsic orthonormal basis $`\{e_{(a)}^\mu ;a=1,2\}`$, and let $`\xi _\pm ^\mu `$ be tangent vector fields to future-oriented null geodesics orthogonal to $`𝒮`$ (where the $`\pm `$ denotes outgoing/ingoing families), satisfying

$$\xi _\pm ^\mu \xi _\mu ^\pm =0,\xi _\mu ^\pm e_{(a)}^\mu =0,e_{(a)}^\mu e_{(b)}^\nu g_{\mu \nu }=\delta _{(a)(b)}.$$
(16)
Following the standard Newman-Penrose formalism , we introduce a complex null vector field $`m^\mu `$ satisfying

$`m^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(e_{(1)}^\mu ie_{(2)}^\mu ),\overline{m}^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(e_{(1)}^\mu +ie_{(2)}^\mu ),`$
$`m^\mu m_\mu =\overline{m}^\mu \overline{m}_\mu =0.`$ (17)
The vectors $`\{\xi _\pm ^\mu ,m^\mu ,\overline{m}^\mu \}`$ form an NP tetrad, uniquely determined (up to Lorentz transformations) by

$`\xi _\pm ^\mu \xi _\mu ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`m_\mu \overline{m}^\mu =1,`$
$`g_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`2\xi _{(\mu }^+\xi _{\nu )}^{}2m_{(\mu }\overline{m}_{\nu )}.`$ (18)
The expansion of the null geodesic congruences defined by $`\xi _\pm ^\mu `$ is

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_\pm :=\frac{1}{2}\text{Re}(\overline{m}^\mu m^\nu _\mu \xi _\nu ^\pm ).$$
(19)
The surface $`𝒮`$ is said to be a trapped surface (TS) if

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_+\mathrm{\Theta }_{}0,$$
(20)
i.e., if both ingoing and outgoing null congruences are either converging or diverging at $`𝒮`$. The inequality saturates for the case of marginally trapped surfaces, of which the special case $`\mathrm{\Theta }_+=0`$ corresponds to an outer marginally trapped surface (OMTS). It is well known that the existence of TS implies that of OMTS ; therefore, to show that TS do not form, it suffices to show that OMTS cannot occur.

### 3.1 Geodesic null congruences

Introducing retarded Bondi coordinates $`\{u,r,z,\varphi \}`$, where $`u=tr`$, the JEKK metric reads

$$ds^2=e^{2(\gamma \psi )}(du^2+2dudr)+e^{2\psi }(dz+\omega d\varphi )^2+r^2e^{2\psi }d\varphi ^2.$$
(21)
Because of the existing symmetries, the natural congruence of geodesics to consider consists of outgoing radial null geodesics (ORNG), whose tangent vector field is orthogonal to the $`z`$-axis, and carries no azimuthal dependence. We thus define the following NP tetrad for the JEKK metric:

$`l_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{2(\gamma \psi )}\delta _\mu ^u+e^{2(\gamma \psi )}\delta _\mu ^r,`$ (22)
$`n_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\delta _\mu ^u,`$ (23)
$`m_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}e^\psi \delta _\mu ^z{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}e^\psi (ie^{2\psi }\omega +r)\delta _\mu ^\varphi ,`$ (24)
$`\overline{m}_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}e^\psi \delta _\mu ^z{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}e^\psi (ie^{2\psi }\omega +r)\delta _\mu ^\varphi ,`$ (25)
where the null one-form $`l_\mu `$ is dual to the tangent vector to the ORNG, i.e., $`l^\mu `$ lies on $`u=\text{const.}`$ null hypersurfaces. Cylindrical symmetry ensures that $`l^\mu `$ has vanishing $`z`$ and $`\varphi `$ components, with the remaining two being related to each other by the null condition. This still leaves scaling freedom for $`l^\mu `$, and hence any Lorentz transformation preserving the direction of $`l^\mu `$ is allowed, whereby a new (but equivalent) tetrad is obtained. A general Lorentz transformation may be divided in two classes :

Null rotations: $`l^\mu l^\mu `$, $`m^\mu m^\mu +al^\mu `$, $`\overline{m}^\mu \overline{m}^\mu +a^{}l^\mu `$, $`n^\mu n^\mu +a^{}m^\mu +a\overline{m}^\mu +aa^{}l^\mu `$

Spin-boost transformations: $`l^\mu \alpha ^2l^\mu `$, $`n^\mu \alpha ^2n^\mu `$, $`m^\mu e^{i\theta }m^\mu `$, $`\overline{m}^\mu e^{i\theta }\overline{m}^\mu `$,

where $`a`$ is a complex-valued function, and $`\alpha `$ and $`\theta `$ are real-valued functions on the manifold. Clearly, both classes of spin basis transformations leave $`l^\mu `$ tangent to the $`u=\text{const.}`$ null surface.

The expansion scalar for the ORNG associated with $`l^\mu `$ is

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_+=\frac{1}{2}\text{Re}(\overline{m}^\mu m^\nu _\mu l_\nu )=\frac{1}{4r},$$
(26)
which is always strictly positive for $`0r<+\mathrm{}`$. This result remains unchanged by Lorentz transformations, which induce the following changes in the geodesic expansion:

Null rotations: $`\mathrm{\Theta }_+\mathrm{\Theta }_++a^{}\kappa =\mathrm{\Theta }_+`$ (since $`\kappa =0`$ for geodesic congruences)

Spin-boost transformations: $`\mathrm{\Theta }_+\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Theta }_+`$

Hence, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_+`$ is always positive, and therefore there are no trapped cylinders in the spacetime111We have used the fact that the absence of OMTS implies that of TS, and showed that the former cannot exist. The absence of TS can also be verified directly via the definition (20), using $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\pm `$. A straighforward computation gives $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{}=e^{2(\psi \gamma )}/r`$, and thus $`\mathrm{\Theta }_+\mathrm{\Theta }_{}<0`$, thereby showing that there are no trapped cylinders.. From equation (26) one sees that there is an OMTS in the limit $`r+\mathrm{}`$ (for a given value of $`u`$); such limiting behavior is also present in the polarized case, and can be explained due to astigmatic focusing of the ORNG at “null infinity” caused by the interaction with a transverse plane wave component .

### 3.2 Geometric definition

For the particular case of cylindrical symmetry, one may look directly at the cylinders of symmetry induced by the space of orbits of $`\xi _{(z)}`$ and $`\xi _{(\varphi )}`$, and ask under what conditions are such cylinders trapped. We are thus interested in cylinders of unit Killing length $`z`$, defined by

$$𝒞=\{(u,r,z+\stackrel{~}{z},\varphi +\stackrel{~}{\varphi }):\stackrel{~}{z}[0,1],\stackrel{~}{\varphi }[0,2\pi ]\}.$$
(27)
The corresponding area spanned by the Killing vectors $`\xi _{(z)}`$ and $`\xi _{(\varphi )}`$ is

$$A=2\pi \sqrt{|\xi _{(z)}|^2|\xi _{(\varphi )}|^2(\xi _{(z)}\xi _{(\varphi )})^2}=2\pi r,$$
(28)
where $`r`$ is thus the area radius per unit Killing length $`z`$ (whence $`[A]=[r]=L`$, and not $`L^2`$). A cylinder is then said to be trapped, marginal, or untrapped if the vector $`V_\mu :=_\mu r=\delta _\mu ^r`$ is timelike, null, or spacelike, respectively . In the present case:

$$V_\mu V^\mu =e^{2(\psi \gamma )}0.$$
(29)
Therefore, provided the quantity $`\psi \gamma `$ does not diverge negatively (in which case a marginally trapped surface would form), there are no trapped cylinders in the spacetime. Since $`2g_{ur}=g_{uu}=e^{2(\gamma \psi )}`$, regularity of the metric automatically ensures that $`V_\mu V^\mu >0`$, and hence there are no trapped cylinders. At the axis of symmetry, the requirement of local elementary flatness guarantees that the former is not trapped. The axis is regular if and only if

$$\underset{r0}{lim}g^{\mu \nu }|\xi _{(\varphi )}|_{,\mu }|\xi _{(\varphi )}|_{,\nu }=1,$$
(30)
which requires that the first derivatives of $`\psi `$ and $`\omega `$ are finite and bounded away from zero, and

$$\underset{r0}{lim}|\psi \gamma |<\mathrm{},\underset{r0}{lim}|\psi |<\mathrm{}.$$
(31)
Hence, $`V_\mu V^\mu >0`$ along the axis, which is therefore untrapped.

## 4 C-energy

### 4.1 Polarized radiation

Consider the polarized version of the JEKK metric:

$$ds^2=e^{2(\gamma \psi )}(dt^2dr^2)+e^{2\psi }dz^2+e^{2\psi }r^2d\varphi ^2.$$
(32)
The C-energy was originally defined for this class of metrics to be $`\gamma (t,r)`$ . On a given spacelike slice $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ its value at radius $`r`$ equals

$$\gamma ^{\mathrm{pol}}(t,r)=_0^r_\rho \gamma (t,\rho )d\rho =_0^r\rho [(\psi _{,t})^2+(\psi _{,\rho })^2]𝑑\rho ,$$
(33)
where the $`G_{tt}`$ Einstein equation was used in the second equality. Clearly, $`\gamma ^{\mathrm{pol}}`$ is always non-negative, and vanishes for flat spacetime. Remarkably, $`\gamma ^{\mathrm{pol}}`$ satisfies two additional properties, which provide further evidence for its status as a bona fide “energy”: (i) it can be expressed in a gauge-invariant manner in terms of the existing Killing vector fields via

$$\gamma ^{\mathrm{pol}}(t,r)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{g^{\mu \nu }A_{,\mu }A_{,\nu }}{|\xi _{(z)}|^2}\right),$$
(34)
where $`A`$ is the area of a unit Killing-length cylinder, given by equation (28) with $`\omega =0`$, and (ii) its coordinate gradient is related to a flux vector field,

$$P^\mu :=\frac{1}{4}ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\sqrt{g}\gamma _{,\nu }\frac{\xi _{(z)\alpha }}{|\xi _{(z)}|^2}\frac{\xi _{(\varphi )\beta }}{|\xi _{(\varphi )}|^2},$$
(35)
which is convariantly conserved, $`_\mu P^\mu =0`$. This flux vector is physical in that an observer with four-velocity $`u^\mu `$ measures a C-energy density $`=P^\mu u_\mu `$, and the C-energy flux across a spacelike $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with normal $`n^\mu `$ (satisfying $`n^\mu u_\mu =0`$) is $`=P^\mu n_\mu `$ .

While compelling, the arguments above are merely heuristic, and the C-energy thus defined did not follow from a Hamilton-Jacobi approach, wherein energy arises in a well-defined manner as the value of the Hamiltonian that generates unit time translations orthogonal to some fixed spatial boundary . We shall show here that such energy can be defined in a rigorous manner, and explicitly compute it for the JEKK spacetime. First, we note that definition (33) is the Hamiltonian constraint, $`=0`$, for the Einstein-Rosen metric. Of course, the Hamiltonian density itself is not a physical energy density (e.g., it is not measurable), but it provides a useful guide for generalizations of C-energy to the unpolarized case, and possibly matter fields, such as Maxwell and/or Higgs. Before showing that $`\gamma `$ is indeed related to the total gravitational energy per unit Killing length $`z`$, we use the Hamiltonian constraint below to obtain the corresponding quantity for the unpolarized case.

### 4.2 Unpolarized radiation

From the Hamiltonian constraint for the JEKK metric \[cf. equation (12)\] it follows that

$$\gamma ^{\mathrm{unpol}}(t,r)=\gamma ^{\mathrm{pol}}(t,r)+\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^2(t,r),$$
(36)
where

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^2(t,r)_0^r𝑑\rho \frac{1}{4\rho }e^{4\psi }[(\omega _{,\rho })^2+(\omega _{,t})^2].$$
(37)
Two points are worth remarking: (i) the unpolarized definition reduces to the polarized one when the $`\omega `$ mode is turned off, and (ii) the extra piece due to the latter is manifestly non-negative, which suggests that cylindrical waves with two polarizations “carry more energy”—a reasonable expectation. To prove that such waves are actually more efficient in taking “energy” away to larger radii (ultimately, to asymptotic infinity) than polarized waves, one would need to show that

$$\left(\frac{|\gamma _{,t}^{\mathrm{unpol}}|}{|\gamma _{,t}^{\mathrm{pol}}|}\right)_{r=r_0}>1,$$
(38)
for any given fixed coordinate radius $`r_0`$. From equation (13), this is equivalent to the condition

$$\frac{\omega _{,t}\omega _{,r}}{\psi _{,t}\psi _{,r}}>0.$$
(39)
As far as the author can ascertain, the field equations alone are insufficient to determine the validity of the above inequality, for generic $`\psi `$ and $`\omega `$. There is one known exact solution (which is everywhere regular) describing unpolarized radiation, for which the above equality can be explicitly checked . We note that, in the polarized case, it is possible to show that $`\psi _{,t}\psi _{,r}1/\sqrt{r}<0`$ for large $`r`$ (which implies $`\gamma _{,t}^{\mathrm{pol}}<0`$ and $`lim_{r+\mathrm{}}\gamma _{,t}^{\mathrm{pol}}=0`$. It is reasonable to expect that the same will hold for the unpolarized case, since the source term for the wave equation (14) becomes negligible for large radii, whence $`\psi `$ behaves as in the polarized case, which in turn implies that equation (15) approaches a source-free cylindrical wave equation for $`\omega `$. We point out, however, that these are just plausibility arguments, and by no means constitute proof that inequality (39) is indeed satisfied for large $`r`$.

### 4.3 Quasilocal energy and deficit angle

Consider a four-dimensional spacetime $`M`$ which is topologically the Cartesian product of a three-manifold $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and a closed connected segment of the real line $`I`$, $`M\mathrm{\Sigma }\times I`$. By construction, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ admits only Riemannian metrics, and has spatial two-boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (not necessarily simply connected), so that the product $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times I=^3BM`$ is an element of the three-boundary of $`M`$. The quasilocal energy associated with the spacelike slice $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is defined to be minus the variation of the action with respect to a unit increase in proper time separation between $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and its neighboring surface, measured orthogonally to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ at $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ . In terms of the induced two-metric $`\sigma _{ab}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, it is given by the proper surface integral

$$E=\frac{1}{8\pi }_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^2x\sqrt{\sigma }(kk_0),$$
(40)
where $`k`$ is the trace of the extrinsic curvature of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as imbedded in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and $`k_0`$ is the corresponding quantity for the same surface as embedded in a three-dimensional slice of flat spacetime (such embedding is assumed to be possible). This last term corresponds to a normalization of the “zero of energy” with respect to flat space. For the sake of completness, we present in the Appendix a summary of the Brown-York formalism to construct the quasilocal energy, but urge the reader to consult the original reference  for additional details.

Due to the $`z`$-translation invariance of the JEKK metric, no spacelike hypersurface defined by $`t=\text{const.}`$ can admit a closed spatial two-boundary; for this reason, we shall consider instead submanifolds which are topologically cylinders of finite length, $`𝒞S^1\times [0,1]`$, whence the relevant quantities are defined per unit Killing length $`z`$. The two-surface of interest is then a unit Killing-length cylinder with coordinate radius $`r=r_0`$, defined on a given spacelike hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ by (27). The Riemannian three-metric on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ is

$$h_{ij}dx^idx^j=e^{2(\gamma \psi )}dr^2+e^{2\psi }dz^2+2e^{2\psi }\omega dzd\varphi +(r^2e^{2\psi }+\omega ^2e^{2\psi })d\varphi ^2,$$
(41)
which induces a two-metric $`\sigma _{ab}`$ on the cylinder $`𝒞`$:

$$\sigma _{ab}dy^ady^b=e^{2\psi }dz^2+2e^{2\psi }\omega dzd\varphi +(r_0^2e^{2\psi }+\omega ^2e^{2\psi })d\varphi ^2.$$
(42)
The extrinsic curvature of $`𝒞`$ as imbedded in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ is

$$k_{ab}=n_i\left(\frac{^2x^i}{y^ay^b}+^{(3)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i\frac{x^j}{y^a}\frac{x^k}{y^b}\right),$$
(43)
where

$$n_i=\frac{{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{i}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }}{|h^{ij}{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{i}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(3)}_j\mathrm{\Phi }|}=e^{\gamma \psi }\delta _i^r$$
(44)
is the spacelike unit-normal to the cylinder $`𝒞`$, which is parametrically defined by $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x^i)=rr_0=0`$.

The non-vanishing components of $`k_{ab}`$ are

$`k_{zz}`$ $`=`$ $`n_r^{(3)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{zz}^r=e^{3\psi \gamma }\psi _{,r},`$ (45)
$`k_{z\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`n_r^{(3)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{z\varphi }^r=e^{3\psi \gamma }(\omega \psi _{,r}+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{,r}}{2}}),`$ (46)
$`k_{\varphi \varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`n_r^{(3)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\varphi \varphi }^r=e^{\gamma \psi }r[{\displaystyle \frac{e^{4\psi }\omega }{r}}(\omega \psi _{,r}+\omega _{,r})+1r\psi _{,r}],`$ (47)
which gives

$$k=k_{ab}\sigma ^{ab}=\frac{e^{\psi \gamma }}{r}.$$
(48)
We now need to compute the corresponding quantity for $`𝒞`$ imbedded in a slice of Euclidean space $`E^3`$, with the standard metric

$$h_{ij}^{\mathrm{flat}}dx^idx^j=dr^2+dz^2+r^2d\varphi ^2.$$
(49)
A straightforward computation yields $`k_{ab}^{\mathrm{flat}}=r\delta _a^\varphi \delta _b^\varphi `$, from which it follows that

$$k_0=\left(k_{ab}\sigma ^{ab}\right)_{\mathrm{flat}}=\frac{1}{r}.$$
(50)
From equations (40), (48), and (50), the Brown-York energy is

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle _𝒞}\sqrt{\sigma }d^2x(kk_0)`$ (51)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle _z^{z+1}}𝑑\overline{z}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\varphi r\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^{\psi \gamma }}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(1e^{\psi \gamma }).`$
Since $`E`$ is evaluated for a constant time slicing $`\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_t:t=\text{const.}\}`$ at some fixed coordinate radius $`r=r_0`$, from the metric form (42) it follows that one can always rescale the Killing coordinate $`z`$, such that $`\psi (t,r_0)=0`$ (such rescaling is obviously dependent on the choice of slice and $`r_0`$). The final expression for the Brown-York quasilocal energy is then

$$E(t,r)=\frac{1}{4}\left[1e^{\gamma (t,r)}\right].$$
(52)
This is the total gravitational energy per unit Killing length $`z`$ on a given spacelike slice $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$, inside a cylinder with coordinate radius $`r`$, for unpolarized radiation. The expression for the polarized case is the same, with $`\gamma `$ being given by equation (33). The total energy at spatial infinity is obtained by taking the limit

$$E_{\mathrm{}}=\underset{r+\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{4}\left[1e^{\gamma (t,r)}\right]=\frac{1}{4}(1e^\gamma _{\mathrm{}}),$$
(53)
where $`lim_{r+\mathrm{}}\gamma (t,r)\gamma _{\mathrm{}}0`$. Due to the presence of the translational Killing vector $`\xi _{(z)}`$, the spacetime is not asymptotically flat, so $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$ is merely a formal analogue of the ADM mass. In fact, due to the cylindrical-wave nature of $`\psi `$ and $`\omega `$ (cf. equations (14)-(15)), under the natural assumption of absence of incoming waves from infinity, we must have 222This asymptotic behavior can be explicitly verified for the polarized case, whose general solution is given in terms of linear combinations of Bessel functions, representing oscillating modes with slowly decaying amplitude. For all such modes the wave-field $`\psi `$ vanishes in the $`r+\mathrm{}`$ limit; see, e.g., Ashtekar A, Bi$`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{c}}`$ák J, and Schmidt B G 1997 Phys. Rev. D 55 669. For the unpolarized case, a numerical study of the general solution (Piran T, Safier P N, and Stark R F 1985 Phys. Rev. D 32 3101), as well as a specific exact solution (cf. Ref.  above), show qualitatively the same asymptotic behavior.

$$\underset{r+\mathrm{}}{lim}\psi =\underset{r+\mathrm{}}{lim}\omega =0,$$
(54)
from which it follows that the JEKK metric asymptotes

$$ds_{\mathrm{}}^2=e^{2\gamma _{\mathrm{}}}dt^2+e^{2\gamma _{\mathrm{}}}dr^2+dz^2+r^2d\varphi ^2.$$
(55)
Upon the rescaling

$$te^\gamma _{\mathrm{}}𝑑t,re^\gamma _{\mathrm{}}𝑑r,$$

together with equation (53), the asymptotic metric reads

$$ds_{\mathrm{}}^2=dt^2+dr^2+dz^2+(14E_{\mathrm{}})^2r^2d\varphi ^2,$$
(56)
which has the form of Minkowski minus a wedge at infinity. The deficit angle at infinity is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _{\mathrm{}}=2\pi \underset{r+\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{_0^{2\pi }\sqrt{g_{\varphi \varphi }}𝑑\varphi }{_0^r\sqrt{g_{rr}}𝑑\overline{r}}=8\pi E_{\mathrm{}}.$$
(57)
It immediately follows that the spacetime is asymptotically flat if and only if $`E_{\mathrm{}}=0`$, as expected. Remarkably, the metric (56) is exactly the metric exterior to a cosmic string with mass per unit length $`\mu E_{\mathrm{}}`$, when $`|\mu |1`$ . That is, at asymptotic spacelike infinity, a radiative cylindrical vacuum spacetime is locally indistinguishable from the spacetime of a straight cosmic string with mass per unit length $`\mu 1`$, whose pure (radiative) vacuum analogue is the Brown-York mass per unit Killing length $`z`$. We remark, however, that, whereas the deficit angle for a cosmic string is related to its specific mass by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =8\pi \mu `$ only when $`\mu 1`$, the relation (57) holds for any value of $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$ (which is always non-negative and bounded from above by $`1/4`$, in the adopted geometrized units). This is because the relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{string}}=8\pi \mu `$ is derived in the weak-field limit, which requires $`\mu 1`$ , whereas (57) is derived under the assumption of appropriate fall-off of the wave modes $`\psi `$ and $`\omega `$, wherein the upper limit for the Brown-York mass per unit Killing length remains unchanged.

## 5 Concluding remarks

The original concept of C-energy succeeded in capturing some notion of “energy”, which is conserved for every Killing orbit of $`\xi _{(z)}`$, but failed to represent the actual physical energy of the system per unit Killing length, $`E`$, being instead monotonically related to the latter by a simple non-polynomial function. We note that the original definition, $`\gamma `$, was modified in an ad hoc manner by Thorne himself  to $`C=(1/8)(1e^{2\gamma })`$, to avoid the unpleasant potential blow-up of $`\gamma `$ on a given spacelike slice (cf. equation (33)). This new definition is bounded from above by $`1/8`$, but is still not the true energy of the system, being related to it by $`C=E(12E)`$; the two agree if and only if $`C=E=0`$, corresponding to the trivial case of flat spacetime.

The notion of an “energy” per unit Killing length $`z`$ arises naturally from yet another viewpoint: in the Einstein-Rosen spacetime, the four-metric is uniquely determined by the solution of a three-dimensional Minkowski wave equation for a minimally coupled massless scalar field (our metric function $`\psi `$). This being the case, one can then compute the energy of the scalar field in Minkowski space (whose conservation law follows directly from the contracted Bianchi identities), and define that as the total energy of the cylindrical waves per unit Killing length. Such dimensional reduction procedure is well known, and was used by Ashtekar and Varadarajan to derive the generator of asymptotic time translations for $`(2+1)`$ gravity coupled to a massless scalar field, in the context of the phase space formulation of general relativity . Their expression agrees precisely with that derived here for the unpolarized case (cf. equation (52), which obviously includes polarized radiation as a special case). Although the motivation and methods used were quite different, it is hardly surprising that the two results agree, since they represent the same physical quantity, which ought to be unique. We point out, however, that the polarized case entails a key simplification: due to the hypersurface-orthogonality of the two Killing vector fields, there is only a single wave equation (for $`\psi `$) to be solved in a curved $`(2+1)`$ spacetime, which is decoupled from the field equations for $`\gamma `$. In addition, rotational symmetry implies that such wave equation is valid in the physical $`(2+1)`$ geometry if and only if it is so on $`(2+1)`$ flat spacetime. In the presence of another polarization, all these features are absent: the two Killing vector fields are not hypersurface-orthogonal, the quotient $`(2+1)`$ spacetime induced by the orbits of $`\xi _{(z)}`$ is no longer conformally flat, and neither of the two wave modes obeys a source-free cylindrical wave equation. The present method circumvented these technical difficulties by computing directly (i.e., without resorting to dimensional reduction techniques) the Brown-York quasilocal mass, which depends explicitly on geometrical quantities defined on spacelike two-surfaces homeomorphic to $`S^1\times [0,1]`$.

Finally, we remark that the Hamiltonian reduction of Sec. 2 in itself just provides a formal way to compute the C-energy, by demanding that the latter arise from the Hamiltonian constraint. This C-energy, simply the function $`\gamma `$ determined on a given $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ slice by $`=0`$, is a mere generalization (to include unpolarized radiation) of the original definition, and, as such, does not represent the physical energy per unit Killing length $`z`$. The true physical energy along the Killing orbits of $`\xi _{(z)}`$ is given by the Brown-York quasilocal mass, which is a monotonically increasing function of the C-energy, and is bounded from above by $`1/4`$. The fact that the cylindrical waves carry energy in the vacuum spacetime is reflected in the geometry at infinity by the presence of a conical defect, in much the same way the line energy density of a cosmic string generates a deficit angle (anywhere in its exterior geometry, including spatial asymptotic infinity).

I am grateful to Vince Moncrief for many valuable discussions and comments. I would also like to thank Jim Isenberg, Rick Schoen, and Brian Conrey for discussions, and for the hospitality of the Stanford Mathematics Department and the AIM (American Institute of Mathematics) facility in Palo Alto, CA, where part of this work was completed. The financial support of FCT Grant SFRH-BPD-5615-2001, and NSF Grant PHY-0098084 is gratefully acknowledged.

## Appendix A The Brown-York quasilocal energy

Consider a four-dimensional spacetime $`(M,g_{\mu \nu })`$ with three-boundary $`M`$, endowed with a $`(2+1)`$ Lorentzian metric $`h_{ij}`$. Let $`M`$ be foliated by spacelike hypersurfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, with induced Riemannian three-metric $`\gamma _{ij}`$. It follows that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times [t^{},t^{\prime \prime }]=^3BM`$, where $`t^{}`$ and $`t^{\prime \prime }`$ denote three-boundary elements. The Einstein-Hilbert action for pure gravity appropriate for a variational principle in which the induced metric is fixed on all the elements of $`M`$ is

$$\stackrel{~}{S}=\frac{1}{16\pi }_Md^4x\sqrt{g}R+\frac{1}{8\pi }_t^{}^{t^{\prime \prime }}d^3x\sqrt{h}K\frac{1}{8\pi }_{{}_{}{}^{3}B}d^3x\sqrt{\gamma }\mathrm{\Theta },$$
(58)
where $`R`$ is the four-dimensional Ricci scalar, $`K`$ is the trace of the extrinsic curvature of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as embedded in $`M`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the corresponding quantity for the three-boundary $`{}_{}{}^{3}B`$ as embedded in $`M`$, and $`_t^{}^{t^{\prime \prime }}`$ is a shorthand notation for $`_{t^{\prime \prime }}_t^{}`$. Variation of this action yields

$`\delta \stackrel{~}{S}`$ $`=`$ (terms giving equations of motion) (59)
$`+{\displaystyle _t^{}^{t^{\prime \prime }}}d^3xp^{ij}\delta h_{ij}+{\displaystyle _{{}_{}{}^{3}B}}d^3x\pi ^{ij}\delta \gamma _{ij},`$
where $`p^{ij}`$ is the usual ADM gravitational momentum density conjugate to $`h_{ij}`$,

$$p^{ij}:=\frac{1}{16\pi }\sqrt{h}(Kh^{ij}K^{ij}),$$
(60)
and $`\pi ^{ij}`$ is the gravitational momentum density conjugate to $`\gamma _{ij}`$ (where conjugacy is defined with respect to $`{}_{}{}^{3}B`$):

$$\pi ^{ij}:=\frac{1}{16\pi }\sqrt{\gamma }(\mathrm{\Theta }\gamma ^{ij}\mathrm{\Theta }^{ij}).$$
(61)
To remove ambiguities arising from different possible boundary conditions on $`{}_{}{}^{3}B`$ (all of which must be compatible with the vanishing of boundary terms in $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$), one subtracts an arbitrary function of the fixed boundary data, $`S_0`$, such that

$$S:=\stackrel{~}{S}S_0$$
(62)
is the physically meaningful action. $`S_0`$ is a functional of $`\gamma _{ij}`$, and thus the variation in $`S`$ differs from equation (59) by the term

$$\delta S_0=_{{}_{}{}^{3}B}d^3x\frac{\delta S_0}{\delta \gamma _{ij}}\delta \gamma _{ij}_{{}_{}{}^{3}B}\pi _0^{ij}\delta \gamma _{ij},$$
(63)
where $`\pi _0^{ij}`$ is defined as the functional derivative of $`S_0`$ (therefore a function of $`\gamma _{ij}`$ only). If one restricts the general variation $`\delta \stackrel{~}{S}`$ to variation among just the classical solutions, then the action $`S`$ is identified with the Hamilton-Jacobi principal function $`S_{\mathrm{cl}}`$. Such principal function $`S_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ is therefore a functional of the fixed boundary data $`\{\gamma _{ij},h_{ij}^{},h_{ij}^{\prime \prime }\}`$, and its variation among classical solutions yields

$$\delta S_{\mathrm{cl}}=_t^{}^{t^{\prime \prime }}d^3xp_{\mathrm{cl}}^{ij}\delta h_{ij}+_{{}_{}{}^{3}B}d^3x(\pi _{\mathrm{cl}}^{ij}\pi _0^{ij})\delta \gamma _{ij}.$$
(64)
Now, to construct quasilocal (i.e., defined by surface integrals) quantities, it is convenient to introduce a $`(2+1)`$ ADM decomposition of $`{}_{}{}^{3}B`$:

$$\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j=N^2dt^2+\sigma _{ab}(dx^a+V^adt)(dx^b+V^bdt),$$
(65)
where $`\sigma _{ab}`$ is the induced metric on the spatial two-boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^3B`$. Motivated by the notion of energy in non-relativistic mechanics in Hamilton-Jacobi theory (simply minus the functional derivative of the classical action with respect to time), one then defines the quasilocal energy density to be:

$$ϵ:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\sigma }}\frac{\delta S_{\mathrm{cl}}}{\delta N}=\frac{1}{8\pi }k_{\mathrm{cl}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\sigma }}\frac{\delta S_{\mathrm{cl}}^0}{\delta N}.$$
(66)
The total quasilocal energy for the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is then defined as the proper surface integral of $`ϵ`$ over its two-boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$:

$$E:=_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^2x\sqrt{\sigma }ϵ=_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^2x\frac{\delta S_{\mathrm{cl}}}{\delta N}=\frac{1}{8\pi }_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^2x\sqrt{\sigma }(kk_0).$$
(67)
Consider now the action (62) written in canonical form, in terms of the ADM variables defined by (65):

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi }}{\displaystyle _M}d^4xN\sqrt{h}[R+2_\mu (Ku^\mu +a^\mu )]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle _{{}_{}{}^{3}B}}d^3xN\sqrt{\sigma }kS_0`$ (68)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}d^4x[p^{ij}\dot{h}_{ij}NV^i_i]{\displaystyle _{{}_{}{}^{3}B}}d^3x\sqrt{\sigma }[NϵV^ij_i],`$
where $`u^\mu `$ is the timelike normal to the hypersurface $`{}_{}{}^{3}B`$, $`a^\mu u^\nu _\nu u^\mu `$ is the acceleration of $`u^\mu `$, $``$ and $`_i`$ are the Hamiltonian and momentum densities, and $`j_i:=(1/\sqrt{\sigma })\delta S_{\mathrm{cl}}/\delta V^i`$ is the momentum surface density. From the action (68), the Hamiltonian is explicitly determined to be

$$H=_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^3x(N+V^i_i)+_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^2x\sqrt{\sigma }(NϵV^ij_i).$$
(69)
Comparison with equation (67), reveals that the quasilocal energy $`E`$ associated with a spacelike three-slice $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the value of the Hamiltonian that generates unit time translations orthogonal to the boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (i.e., the value of $`H`$ for $`N=1`$ and $`V^i=0`$ on the boundary).

## References