format: text

text:
# Hamiltonian formalisms for multidimensional calculus of variations and perturbation theory

## 1 Introduction

The main question investigated in this text concerns the construction of a Hamiltonian description of classical fields theory compatible with the principles of special and general relativity, or more generally with any effort towards understanding gravitation like string theory, supergravity or Ashtekar’s theory: since space-time should merge out from the dynamics we need a description which does not assume any space-time/field splitting a priori. This means that there is no space-time structure given a priori, but space-time coordinates should instead merge out from the analysis of what are the observable quantities and from the dynamics. From this point of view, as we will see, the Lepage–Dedecker theory seems to be much more appropriate than the de Donder–Weyl one. This is the philosophy that we have followed in . Here a caveat is in order, in the classical one-dimensional Hamiltonian formalism: we start with a Lagrangian action functional

$$[c]:=_{t_0}^{t_1}L(t,c(t),\dot{c}(t))𝑑t,$$

defined on a set of smooth111here we assume for instance that $`c`$ is $`𝒞^2`$ paths $`\{tc(t)𝒴\}`$. Here $`𝒴`$ is a smooth $`k`$-dimensional manifold and $`L`$ is a smooth function on $`[t_0,t_1]\times T𝒴`$ ($`T𝒴`$ is the tangent bundle to $`𝒴`$: we denote by $`q`$ a point in $`𝒴`$ and by $`vT_q𝒴`$ a vector tangent to $`𝒴`$ at $`q`$). The critical points of $``$ satisfy the Euler–Lagrange equation

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{L}{v^i}(t,c(t),\dot{c}(t))\right)=\frac{L}{q^i}(t,c(t),\dot{c}(t)).$$

For all fixed time $`t[t_0,t_1]`$, the Legendre transform is the mapping

$$\begin{array}{cccc}T𝒴& & T^{}𝒴& \\ (q,v)& & (q,p)=(q,L(t,q,v)/v),& \end{array}$$

where $`q𝒴`$, $`vT_q𝒴`$ and $`pT_q^{}𝒴`$. In cases where, for all time $`t`$, this mapping is a diffeomorphism, we define the Hamiltonian function $`H:[t_0,t_1]\times T^{}𝒴`$ by

$$H(t,q,p):=p,V(t,q,p)L(t,q,V(t,q,p)),$$

where $`(q,p)(q,V(t,q,p))`$ is the inverse mapping of the Legendre mapping. Then it is well-known that $`tc(t)`$ is a solution of the Euler–Lagrange equations if and only if $`t(c(t),L(t,c(t),\dot{c}(t))/v)=:(c(t),\pi (t))`$ is a solution of the Hamilton equations

$$\frac{dc^i}{dt}(t)=\frac{H}{p_i}(t,c(t),\pi (t)),\text{and}\frac{d\pi _i}{dt}(t)=\frac{H}{q^i}(t,c(t),\pi (t)).$$

Thus this converts the second order Euler–Lagrange equations into the flow equation of the non autonomous vector field $`X_{H,t}`$ defined over $`T^{}𝒴`$ by

$$X_{H,t}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }+dH_t=0.$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }:=_{i=1}^kdp_idq^i`$ is the symplectic form over $`T^{}𝒴`$, $`H_t(q,p):=H(t,q,p)`$ and “     ” denote the interior product, i.e. for any tangent vector $`\xi T_{(q,p)}\left(T^{}𝒴\right)`$, $`\xi \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the 1-form such that $`\xi \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }(V)=\mathrm{\Omega }(\xi ,V)`$, $`VT_{(q,p)}\left(T^{}𝒴\right)`$

Instead of viewing the dynamics as the motion of a point in some space, like for instance the phase space $`T^{}𝒴`$, we can use another approache which consists in determining how an observable quantity, such as the position or the momentum of a particle, evolves. This is achieved by using the Poisson bracket operation

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(T^{}𝒴)\times 𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(T^{}𝒴)& & 𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(T^{}𝒴)\\ (F,G)& & \{F,G\},\end{array}$$

where

$$\{F,G\}:=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\left(\frac{F}{p_i}\frac{G}{q^i}\frac{F}{q^i}\frac{G}{p_i}\right).$$

Then, for all Hamiltonian trajectory $`t(c(t),\pi (t))`$, and for all $`F𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(T^{}𝒴)`$, we have

$$\frac{dF(c(t),\pi (t))}{dt}=\{H,F\}(c(t),\pi (t)).$$

For example in the particular case where the variational problem is autonomous (i.e. $`L`$ does not depend on $`t`$) then $`H`$ does not depend on time and we deduce from the skewsymmetry of the Poisson bracket that the energy is conserved along the trajectories, a special case of Noether theorem when the problem is invariant by time translation.

Eventually this formulation of the dynamics is a good preliminary for modelling the evolution of the quantum version of our problem: for instance by replacing the functions in $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(T^{}𝒴)`$ by Hermitian self-adjoint operators and the Poisson bracket by the commutator $`[,]`$ we “guess” the Heisenberg evolution equation

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{d\widehat{F}}{dt}=[\widehat{H},\widehat{F}],$$

consequently the commutation relations $`[\widehat{p}_i,\widehat{q}^j]=i\mathrm{}\delta _i^j`$, is nothing but a formalisation of Heisenberg incertainty principle.

All that leads to a now “well understood” strategy of building a mathematical description of a quantum particle governed by a Hamiltonian functions $`H`$ (with the restriction that, among other things, the correspondence $`H\widehat{H}`$ is far from being uniquely defined). Starting from a variational formulation of Newton’s law of mechanics, it is thus possible to formally derive the Schrödinger equation more or less by following the steps discussed above.

Now the more challenging question is to produce a similar analysis for fields theories.

Quantum fields theory222Starting from the frame work of classical physics, the concept of a field at first might evoke ideas about macroscopic systems, for example velocity fields or temperature fields in fluids and gases, etc. Fields of this kind will not concern us, however; they can be viewed as derived quantities which arise from an averaging of microscopic par ticle densities. Our subjects are the fundamental fields that describe matter on a microscopic level: it is the quantum-mechanical wave function $`\psi (x,t)`$ of a system which can be viewed as a field from which the observable quantities can be deduced. In quantum mechanics the wave function is introduced as an ordinary complex-valued function of space and time. In Dirac’s terminology it has the character of a “c number”. Quantum field theory goes one step further and treats the wave function itself as an object which has to undergo quantization. In this way the wave function $`\psi (x,t)`$ is transmuted into a field operator $`\widehat{\psi }(x,t)`$, which is an operator-valued quantity (a “q number”) satisfying certain commutation relations. This process, often called “second quantization”, is quite analogous to the route that in ordinary quantum mechanics leads from a set of classical coordinates $`q_i`$ to a set of quantum operators $`\widehat{q}_i`$. There is one important technical difference, though, since $`\widehat{\psi }(x,t)`$ is a field, i.e. an object which depends on the coordinate $`x`$. The latter plays the role of a “continuous-valued” index, in contrast to the discrete index $`i`$, which labels the set $`q_i`$. Field theory therefore is concerned with systems having an infinite number of degrees of freedom. The concept of field quantization has far-reaching consequences and is one of the cornerstones of modern physics. Field quantization provides an elegant language to describe particle systems. Moreover the theory naturally leads to the insight that there are field quanta which can be created and annihilated. These field quanta come in many guises and are found in virtually all areas of physics. results from the efforts of physicists in order to cure the shortcoming of the Schrödinger equation. Indeed, this latter equation is not invariant by the group of special relativity, the Poincaré group, but by the (projective) Galilean group. This was one of the motivations which led Dirac to its famous equation. Another concern was the interactions of charged particles and a relativistic field, namely the electro-magnetic field governed by Maxwell equations. A second reason for fields theory is that, unlike the Schrödinger equation, they allow interactions of a variable number of particles. The simplest exemple is the Klein–Gordon equation for scalar fields $`\phi :^{1,3}`$ (or $``$):

$$\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{^2\phi }{t^2}\mathrm{\Delta }\phi +m^2\phi =0.$$

This is the Euler–Lagrange equation for the variational problem

$$[\phi ]:=_{^{1,3}}\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{c^2}\left|\frac{\phi }{t}\right|^2|\phi |^2m^2|\phi |^2\right)𝑑t𝑑x^1𝑑x^2𝑑x^3.$$

Here $`^{1,3}`$ is the Minkowski space. Note that the integral $`[\phi ]`$ may not be defined, but if $`\phi `$ smooth or in $`H_{loc}^1`$ then, for any compact subset $`K^{1,3}`$, the integral $`_K[\phi ]`$ of the Lagrangian density over $`K`$ is defined and we say that $`\phi `$ is a critical point of $``$ if and only if, for any $`K`$ the restriction of $`\phi `$ to $`K`$ is a critical point of $`_K`$. At this level we can address the following questions: is it possible to follow the same lines as for a 1-dimensional variational problem and build a Hamiltonian formulation of the Klein–Gordon equation ? And can we deduce a quantization procedure for that equation ?

The answer is positive using an approache developed by physicists and is known as the canonical quantization of fields: one chooses a time coordinate $`t`$ over the Minkowski space-time and looks, for any value of $`t_0`$, at the instantaneous state of the field, i.e. the restriction of $`\phi `$ on the Cauchy hypersurface $`\{t=t_0\}`$. Then we picture the whole history of the field as an evolution, parametrized by $`t`$, of a point in the infinite dimensional space $`\{(x^1,x^2,x^3)\phi (x^1,x^2,x^3)\}`$. One associates to each path in this infinite dimensional space an action, which is just the one obtained by using Fubini theorem through the splitting $`^{1,3}\times ^3`$. Then we follow the same procedure as the one that we described at the begining of this paper, but this time in some infinite dimensional manifold: we consider the cotangent bundle to the manifold $`\{(x^1,x^2,x^3)\phi (x^1,x^2,x^3)\}`$ and, using the Legendre transform obtained from the Lagrangian, we build a conjugate (momentum) variable $`[(x^1,x^2,x^3)\pi (t,x^1,x^2,x^3)]`$ (which in this case is just $`[(x^1,x^2,x^3)\frac{\phi }{t}(t,x^1,x^2,x^3)]`$). Then one can write Hamilton equations, Poisson bracket and deduce the canonical quantization.

Note that all that is relatively formal but, after each step, it is possible to formulate a theory which makes sense mathematically. This is because of the very particular structure of the Klein–Gordon equation, being hyperbolic and linear. Similarly one can perform a quantization of Maxwell equations (with some extra work due to the gauge invariance). But everything breaks down as soon as the equation is nonlinear, even if the nonlinearity is very mild (the best that we can do is to compute physically relevant quantities by perturbation, even if there is no mathematical bases). So one can quantize only extremely particular variational problems. Beside this outstanding difficulty we are faced with a further critic which is that all this procedure does not respect relativistic invariance: indeed, we were obliged to choose a time coordinate from the begining in order to perform a Legendre transform and then to write down Hamilton’s equations, and so on. Commonly, we say that this theory is not covariant, i.e. it does not respect the (general) relativity principle which implies the independence toward a used coordinate or reference system. Consequently, this description is not quite satisfactory, even if actually one can check that the resulting quantum field does not depend on the time coordinate which was used.

We want here to consider seriously this critic: is it possible to follow a more covariant path ? A method is well-known: it is the Feynman integral approach, based on the Lagrangian formulation, without using the Hamiltonian framework. It is much more suitable than the canonical approach for computing “correlations” for nonlinear (i.e. interacting) theories. However it is less constructive than the canonical approach, which has the advantage of providing us with a scheme to construct the Hilbert Fock space and the operators. So is there a covariant Hamiltonian approach ? In principle it should be possible and this was suggested independentely by M. Born  and H. Weyl  in 1935: it would be based on using a covariant Hamiltonian formalism for variational problems with several variables quite different from the one that we described above, which used a slicing of space-time.

The first example of such a formalism was built by C. Carathéodory  and another version was proposed later independentely by H. Weyl  and T. de Donder . Note that in constrast with the 1-dimensional calculus of variations, there are actually infinitely many possible theories. There were described by T.H.J. Lepage  and H. Boerner . We shall see later how to understand within a global picture this multiplicity of formalisms. Before that we will expound the de Donder–Weyl theory, since it is the simplest one.

## 2 The de Donder–Weyl theory

The historical background of the formalism expounded in this section is deeply rooted in the work of C. Carathéodory, H. Weyl and T. de Donder, followed by the observation by E. Cartan  (who called $`\theta ^{dDW}`$ the de Donder form) in 1933. But it seems really to have been developped under the impulsion of W. Tulczyjew  in 1968 and the Polish school of mathematical physics: J. Śniatycki , K. Gawȩdski , J. Kijowski , J. Kijowski and W. Szczyrba , J. Kijowski and W.M. Tulczyjew , and through the papers of P.L. García and A. Pérez-Rendón  and H. Goldschmidt and S. Sternberg . Various descriptions and points of view about the foundations of these theories can also be found in the books , ,  and  or in the papers , , , , .

Let us consider the 4-dimensional space-time $`^{1,3}`$ as a source domain and $`^k`$ as a target space. A first order action functional on maps $`u:^{1,3}^k`$ is defined by means of a Lagrangian density $`L`$: it is a function on the variables $`(x,y,v)`$, where $`x^{1,3}`$, $`y^k`$ and $`v\left(^{1,3}\right)^{}^k`$ is a linear map from $`^{1,3}`$ to $`^k`$ (alternatively we may consider $`v`$ as a $`n\times k`$ real matrix). Then we define the functional

$$[u]:=_{^{1,3}}L(x,u(x),du(x))\omega ,$$

where $`\omega :=dx^0dx^1dx^2dx^3`$. The Euler–Lagrange equation for critical points is

$$\frac{}{x^\mu }\left(\frac{L}{v_\mu ^i}(x,u(x),du(x))\right)=\frac{L}{y^i}(x,u(x),du(x)).$$

The de Donder–Weyl theory is simply based on the change of variables

$$\pi _i^\mu (x):=\frac{L}{v_\mu ^i}(x,u(x),du(x)),$$

i.e. exchanging the variables $`(x,y,v)`$ with $`(x,y,p)`$ where $`p^{1,3}\left(^k\right)^{}`$ is given by $`p_i^\mu =L/v_\mu ^i(x,y,v)`$. This works of course if we make the assumption that $`(x,y,v)(x,y,p)`$ is a diffeomorphism, an analog of the Legendre condition. In the following we shall suppose that this Legendre hypothesis is satisfied (but very interesting situations occur when precisely this Legendre condition fails, as for instance in the case of gauge theories). Then we can consider the Hamiltonian function on $`^{1,3}\times ^k\times \left(^{1,3}\left(^k\right)^{}\right)`$

$$H(x,y,p):=p_i^\mu v_\mu ^iL(x,y,v),\text{where }v\text{ is defined implicitely by}p_i^\mu =\frac{L}{v_\mu ^i}(x,y,v).$$

A simple computation shows that the Euler–Lagrange equations are equivalent to the system of generalized Hamilton equations

$$\underset{\mu }{}\frac{\pi _i^\mu (x)}{x^\mu }=\frac{H}{y^i}(x,u(x),\pi (x)),\frac{u^i(x)}{x^\mu }=\frac{H}{p_i^\mu }(x,u(x),\pi (x)).$$
(2)
This is a simple example of a more general situation. We can replace for example $`^{1,3}`$ by a smooth $`n`$-dimensional oriented manifold $`𝒳`$ and $`^k`$ by another $`k`$-dimensional manifold $`𝒴`$. Then the Lagrangian density $`L`$ is a function on variables $`x𝒳`$, $`y𝒴`$ and $`vT_y𝒴T_x^{}𝒳`$. Thus $`L`$ can be seen as a smooth function defined on the bundle over $`𝒳\times 𝒴`$ with fiber over $`(x,y)`$ equal to $`T_y𝒴T_x^{}𝒳`$. We denote by $`T𝒴_{𝒳\times 𝒴}T^{}𝒳`$ this bundle. Using some volume $`n`$-form $`\omega `$ on $`𝒳`$ we hence define the functional $`[u]:=_𝒳L(x,u(x),du(x))\omega `$ on the set of maps $`u:𝒳𝒴`$. A similar Legendre transform can be defined, leading to a Hamiltonian function defined on the multisymplectic manifold $`T^{}𝒴_{𝒳\times 𝒴}T𝒳`$.

We shall see now that this manipulation has some geometrical interpretation in a way analogous to the 1-dimensional calculus of variations. The more naive way to formulate it consists to associate to any pair of maps $`x(u(x),\pi (x))`$ its graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in $`T^{}𝒴_{𝒳\times 𝒴}T𝒳`$, i.e. the image of $`𝒳x(x,u(x),\pi (x))`$. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the $`n`$-dimensional analog of a curve in a symplectic manifold. Then at each point $`(x,u(x),\pi (x))`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we attach the tangent $`n`$-multivector $`X\mathrm{\Lambda }^nT_{(x,u(x),\pi (x))}\left(T^{}𝒴_{𝒳\times 𝒴}T𝒳\right)`$ defined by

$$X:=X_1\mathrm{}X_n,\text{where}X_\mu :=\stackrel{}{\frac{}{x^\mu }}+\frac{u^i(x)}{x^\mu }\stackrel{}{\frac{}{y^i}}+\frac{\pi _i^\nu (x)}{x^\mu }\stackrel{}{\frac{}{p_i^\nu }}.$$

Now we define on the multisymplectic manifold $`T^{}𝒴_{𝒳\times 𝒴}T𝒳`$ the multisymplectic $`(n+1)`$-form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^{}:=\underset{\mu }{}\underset{i}{}dp_i^\mu dy^i\omega _\mu ,$$

where $`\omega _\mu :=\stackrel{}{}/x^\mu \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\omega `$, i.e. $`\omega _\mu `$ is the unique $`(n+1)`$-form such that $`V_1,\mathrm{},V_{n1}T_{(x,y,p)}\left(T^{}𝒴_{𝒳\times 𝒴}T𝒳\right)`$, $`\omega _\mu (V_1,\mathrm{},V_{n1})=\omega (\stackrel{}{}/x^\mu ,V_1,\mathrm{},V_{n1})`$.

We also define the interior product of $`X`$ by $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ to be the unique 1-form $`X\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ such that $`VT_{(x,y,p)}\left(T^{}𝒴_{𝒳\times 𝒴}T𝒳\right)`$, $`X\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(V)=\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n,V)`$. Then we can compute that

$$X\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=(1)^n\left(\frac{u^i(x)}{x^\mu }dp_i^\mu \frac{\pi _i^\mu (x)}{x^\mu }dy^i\right).$$

Hence, by comparing this last expression with the value of $`dH=\frac{H}{x^\mu }dx^\mu +\frac{H}{y^i}dy^i+\frac{H}{p_i^\mu }dp_i^\mu `$ at $`(x,u(x),\pi (x))`$, we see that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the graph of a solution of the Hamilton system of equations (2) if and only if

$$X\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=(1)^ndH_{(x,u(x),\pi (x))}\text{mod}dx^\mu .$$
(3)
Here “mod $`dx^\mu `$” means that the equality holds between the coefficients of $`dy^i`$ and $`dp_i^\mu `$ in both sides. This looks like the analog of the classical Hamilton equation (1) (except that here we do have the “mod $`dx^\mu `$” restriction). This suggests us to use $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ as a replacement for the standard symplectic form. Note that $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ is the differential of the generalized Poincaré–Cartan $`n`$-form $`\theta ^{}:=_\mu _ip_i^\mu dy^i\omega _\mu `$. Moreover, as in the case of classical mechanics, the generalized Poincaré–Cartan form encodes all the informations that we need in order to perform the Legendre transform.

Let us discuss now the second question — about the Poisson bracket. It has to be defined on functionals on the space of solutions to the generalized Hamilton equations. Thus we first consider the space $``$ of all smooth $`n`$-dimensional submanifolds $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the multisymplectic manifold which are graphs of the generalised Hamilton equations, i.e. such that for any $`m\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, there exists an $`n`$-multivector $`X`$ which is tangent to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ at $`m`$ and which satisfies equation (3). We call a Hamiltonian $`n`$-curve any such submanifold. Among the functionals $``$ we shall restrict ourself to a particular class: this choice is motivated by the particular observable quantities used by physicists in quantum field theory. Indeed the observable functionals in the canonical field theory are integrals (smeared with smooth test functions) over a spacelike hypersurface of the space-time of either the values of fields components or the value of their time first derivative (in the latter case the time derivative appear because we are actually considering momenta). And it turns out that (almost) all such observable functionals (see the next section) can be described by a pair $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },F)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a codimension 1 submanifold of the multisymplectic manifold and $`F`$ is a $`(n1)`$-differential form on the multisymplectic manifold such that there exists a tangent vector field $`\xi _F`$ such that

$$dF+\xi _F\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=0.$$

$`F`$ is then called an algebraic observable $`(n1)`$-form. Then, if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ satisfies suitable transversality conditions (see ), $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a $`(n1)`$-dimensional manifold and we define the functional $`_\mathrm{\Sigma }F`$ to be

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }& & _{\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Gamma }}F.\end{array}$$

Then a bracket can be defined between two observable functionals $`_\mathrm{\Sigma }F`$ and $`_\mathrm{\Sigma }G`$ by

$$\{_\mathrm{\Sigma }F,_\mathrm{\Sigma }G\}:=_\mathrm{\Sigma }\{F,G\},\text{where}\{F,G\}:=\xi _F\xi _G\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }^{}.$$

Here $`\xi _F\xi _G\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ is the unique $`(n1)`$-form such that for all tangent vectors $`V_1,\mathrm{},V_{n1}`$, $`\xi _F\xi _G\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(V_1,\mathrm{},V_{n1})=\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(\xi _F,\xi _G,V_1,\mathrm{},V_{n1})`$. It can be checked that this Poisson bracket satisfies “good” properties: first of all it coincides with the standard Poisson bracket ot the canonical theory of fields, second it satisfies the Jacobi identity, if for instance the observable $`(n1)`$-forms decrease to zero at infinity333nevertheless a notable difference with the Poisson bracket of classical mechanics is that we cannot easily make sense of the product of two such forms. Attempts in this direction are proposed in ; we suggest an alternative point of view at the end of Paragraph 5.4 in this text.

The relatively naive description presented here deserves some critics:

* Equation (3) holds only “mod $`dx^\mu `$”, which is not very aesthetic: this reflects a disymmetry between the space-time variables and the field component variables.
* Very important “observable” quantities are the components of the energy-momentum tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }`$. This tensor is linked through the Noether theorem to space-time translations symmetries in special relativity or to diffeomorphism invariance in general relativity. It is important in quantum field theory, where it helps to construct the Hamiltonian in the standard canonical picture, but also crucial in general relativity, since it models the way the distribution of energy and matter bend the space-time geometry through the Einstein equation $`R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}Rg_{\mu \nu }=T_{\mu \nu }`$. In the previous setting there is no clear representation of the energy-momentum tensor.
* Most important variational problems in physics involve fiber bundles: the Maxwell–Dirac, the Yang–Mills–Dirac or the Yang–Mills–Higgs theories for the electrodynamics, the electroweak and the strong forces and also the general relativity. They does not fit into the above formalism: indeed the field components cannot be treated as coordinates on an independant manifold and one needs a more general framework.

The two first critics can be cured by adding to the set of variable $`(x,y,p)`$ a further variable $`e`$, canonically conjugate to the space-time volume form $`\omega `$. Then we consider on $`\left(T^{}𝒴_{𝒳\times 𝒴}T𝒳\right)\times `$ the multisymplectic form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^{dDW}:=de\omega +\underset{\mu }{}\underset{i}{}dp_i^\mu dy^i\omega _\mu =de\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }^{}.$$

Any solution of the Hamilton equations can be represented by a smooth $`n`$-dimensional submanifold $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in $`\left(T^{}𝒴_{𝒳\times 𝒴}T𝒳\right)\times `$ such that, instead of equation (3) we have

$$X\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }^{dDW}=(1)^nd_{(x,u(x),ϵ(x),\pi (x))},\text{where}(x,y,e,p):=e+H(x,y,p).$$
(4)
Indeed it can be achieved by choosing $`ϵ(x)`$ such that $`(x,u(x),ϵ(x),\pi (x))`$ is constant along $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We can hence avoid the “mod $`dx^\mu `$” restriction. Moreover $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{dDW}`$ is the differential of a Poincaré–Cartan form $`\theta ^{dDW}:=e\omega +p_i^\mu dy^i\omega _\mu `$ and the component of the stress-energy tensor can be recovered as coefficients of the observable $`(n1)`$-forms $`\frac{}{x^\mu }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\theta ^{dDW}`$.

Thus it remains to understand better the third point: to find a geometrical framework for generalizing the above construction to more general variational problems. This question is even more accurate now since we added a further variable $`e`$ whose geometrical sense needs to be understood. For all variational problems on fields which are sections of a bundle $``$, the usual approach is to consider the affine first jet bundle associated to these sections and to build the multisymplectic manifold as a dual of this affine jet bundle. References concerning this approach are  or .

## 3 A general framework: multisymplectic manifolds

The above theory is an example of a multisymplectic manifold $`(,\mathrm{\Omega })`$: a differential manifold $``$ equipped with a multisymplectic $`(n+1)`$-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. An $`(n+1)`$-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is multisymplectic if and only if

* it is closed: $`d\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$
* it is nondegenerate: $`\xi T_m`$, $`\xi \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }=0\xi =0`$.

Given a multisymplectic manifold $`(,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ we can define the notion of algebraic observable $`(n1)`$-forms and use them, together with hypersurfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to define observable functionals as in the preceeding section. Poisson brackets are defined in a similar way.

There is also a notion which leads to a generalization of the standard relation $`\frac{dF}{dt}=\{H,F\}`$ of classical mechanics. Given the Hamiltonian function $``$, for any algebraic observable $`(n1)`$-form $`F`$ we let

$$\{,F\}:=d(\xi _F).$$
(5)
Although this definition and the notation used here are reminiscent from those of Poisson bracket, it is not clear whether we may consider this operation a Poisson bracket (because in particular, $``$ is not an observable form nor any observable quantity). Thus we prefer to call this operation a Poisson pseudobracket. Anyway it is related to the following useful result: assume that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a Hamiltonian $`n`$-curve and $`F`$ is an algebraic observable $`(n1)`$-form, then we have

$$dF_{|\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\{,F\}\omega _{|\mathrm{\Gamma }},$$
(6)
where $`dF_{|\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ is the restriction of $`dF`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (see , ). The proof is straightforward: for all $`q\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we let $`(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n)`$ be a basis of $`T_q\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that $`\omega (X_1,\mathrm{},X_n)=1`$. Then $`dF(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n)=\xi _F\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n)=(1)^nX_1\mathrm{}X_n\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }(\xi _F)=d(\xi _F)=\{,F\}`$.

However in a work in collaboration with J. Kouneiher in  we point out that the class of algebraic observable $`(n1)`$-forms can be enlarged as follows: an $`(n1)`$-form $`F`$ is called an observable $`(n1)`$-form if and only if, $`q`$, if $`X`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ are two decomposable $`n`$-multivectors in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^nT_q`$ such that $`X\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }=\stackrel{~}{X}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }`$, then $`dF(X)=dF(\stackrel{~}{X})`$ (see  for details). One can then define the pseudobracket $`\{,F\}`$ to be equal to $`dF(X)`$, where $`X`$ is any decomposable $`n`$-multivector such that $`X\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }=(1)^nd`$. It is easy to show that this pseudobracket agrees with the previous one (5) for algebraic observable $`(n1)`$-forms and that the dynamical relation (6) can hence be generalized to (non necessarily algebraic) observable $`(n1)`$-forms. This definition and the underlying point of view differ from the one previously used in the litterature (which corresponds to algebraic observable $`(n1)`$-forms). We believe that this point of view is more natural, being directly related to the fundamental identity (6). When we shall follow this point of view in the next Section to the question of observable $`(p1)`$-forms, for $`1p<n`$, it will lead also to a new definition of these observable $`(p1)`$-forms.

Now what is the difference between the two definitions ? On the one hand every algebraic observable $`(n1)`$-form $`F`$ is an observable $`(n1)`$-form since $`X\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }=\stackrel{~}{X}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ implies $`dF(X)=\xi _F\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }(X)=\xi _F\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }(\stackrel{~}{X})=dF(\stackrel{~}{X})`$. On the other hand the converse is false: consider for example the de Donder–Weyl theory expounded above for maps $`u:^n^k`$, for $`k>1`$. Then $`y^1dy^2dx^3\mathrm{}dx^n`$ is observable but not algebraic observable. We propose to call a multisymplectic manifold on which the set of algebraic observable $`(n1)`$-forms coincide with the set of observable $`(n1)`$-forms a pataplectic manifold. We shall see examples in the next section.

## 4 Generalizations

The formalism that we have presented in Section 2 is based on the de Donder–Weyl theory, which is a particular case among infinitely many theories which were classified in 1936 by T.H.J. Lepage . A geometric and universal setting for describing simultaneously all these theories was expounded first by P. Dedecker in 1953 . Here the idea is that we can view each first order variational problem as a variational problem on a class of $`n`$-dimensional submanifolds $`G`$ of some manifold $`𝒩`$ of dimension $`n+k`$: $`G`$ could be the graph of a map between two manifolds, the image of a section of a fiber bundle or something more general. Then the Lagrangian density can be identified with a function $`L`$ defined on the Grassmannian bundle $`Gr^n𝒩`$, i.e. the bundle over $`𝒩`$ whose fiber at any point $`q𝒩`$ is the set of oriented $`n`$-dimensional vector subspaces of $`T_q𝒩`$. This is a kind of analog of the (projective) tangent bundle of a manifold that is used in Lagrangian Mechanics. Then the analog of the cotangent bundle is the bundle of differential $`n`$-forms on $`𝒩`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^nT^{}𝒩`$. Note that, in contrast with classical mechanics (which corresponds to $`n=1`$) or with the de Donder–Weyl theory, $`1+\text{dim}Gr^n𝒩=1+n+k+nk`$ is in general strictly less than $`\text{dim}\mathrm{\Lambda }^nT^{}𝒩=n+k+\frac{(n+k)!}{n!k!}`$. So the Legendre transform is replaced by a Legendre correspondence which — generically — associates to each “multivelocity” $`TGr_q^n𝒩`$ an affine subspace of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^nT_q^{}𝒩`$ of dimension $`\frac{(n+k)!}{n!k!}nk1`$ called pseudofiber by Dedecker. Now each Lepage theory (one instance being the de Donder–Weyl one, when it makes sense) corresponds to choosing a submanifold of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^nT^{}𝒩`$ which intersects transversally all pseudofibers through exactly one point (if the Legendre condition holds).

Note that, to my knowledge, almost all the literature on the subject focuses on the de Donder–Weyl theory, excepted  and . It seems however important (if in particular we are interested in gravitation theories) to understand all the development expounded in the previous paragraph in the Lepage–Dedecker framework. This has been addressed in collaboration with J. Kouneiher in our papers  and .

In order to understand the difference let us see a very simple example: variational problems on maps $`u:^2^2`$. Let us denote by $`\omega :=dx^1dx^2`$ the volume form on the domain space $`^2`$. A map is pictured by its graph, a 2-dimensional submanifold $`G`$ of $`^4=^2\times ^2`$, whose projection on the first factor $`^2`$ is a diffeomorphism (or equivalentely s.t. $`\omega _{|G}0`$). Given a point $`(x,y)G^4`$ the tangent plane to $`G`$ at $`(x,y)`$ is spanned by vectors $`X_1=\stackrel{}{\frac{}{x^1}}+v_1^i\stackrel{}{\frac{}{y^i}}`$ and $`X_2=\stackrel{}{\frac{}{x^2}}+v_2^i\stackrel{}{\frac{}{y^i}}`$, where $`(v_1^1,v_2^1,v_1^2,v_2^2)^4`$. So the set of all possible tangent planes to such $`G`$’s is parametrized by the variables $`v_\mu ^i`$ and we can use the local coordinates $`x^\mu `$, $`y^i`$ and $`v_\mu ^i`$ on $`Gr^2^4`$. Now the analog of the cotangent bundle in this situation is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2T^{}𝒩`$. Using coordinates $`x^\mu `$ and $`y^i`$ on $`^4`$, a basis of the 6-dimensional space $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2T_{(x,y)}^{}^4`$ is $`(dx^1dx^2,dy^idx^\mu ,dy^1dy^2)`$. Thus any 2-form $`P\mathrm{\Lambda }^2T_{(x,y)}^{}^4`$ can be identified with the coordinates $`(e,p_i^\mu ,r)`$ such that $`P=edx^1dx^2+ϵ_{\mu \nu }p_i^\mu dy^idx^\nu +rdy^1dy^2`$, where $`ϵ_{12}=ϵ_{21}=1`$ and $`ϵ_{11}=ϵ_{22}=0`$.

Now the Legendre correspondence is obtained by the following. Given some $`P(e,p_i^\mu ,r)\mathrm{\Lambda }^2T_{(x,y)}^{}^4`$ and some tangent space $`T(v_\mu ^i)Gr_{(x,y)}^2𝒩`$, we define the pairing $`T,P:=P(X_1,X_2)`$, where $`(X_1,X_2)`$ forms a basis of $`T`$ such that $`\omega (X_1,X_2)=1`$. Using local coordinates we have here $`T,P=e+p_i^\mu v_\mu ^i+r(v_1^1v_2^2v_2^1v_1^2)`$. We also define the function $`W(x,y,T,P)=T,PL(x,y,T)`$, where $`L`$ is the Lagrangian density (identified here with a function on $`Gr^2^4`$). Then we say that $`T`$ is in correspondence with $`P`$ if and only if $`\frac{W}{T}(x,y,T,P)=0`$. This relation writes in local coordinates

$$p_i^\mu +ϵ^{\mu \nu }ϵ_{ij}v_\nu ^jr=\frac{L}{v_\mu ^i}(x^\mu ,y^i,v_\mu ^i).$$

As announced previously, given some $`(x^\mu ,y^i,v_\mu ^i)`$ the solution to this equation is in general not unique, but it is actually an affine plane (the pseudofiber) inside $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2T_{(x,y)}^{}^4`$, parallel to the vector plane spanned by

$$dx^1dx^2\text{and}\left(v_1^1v_2^2v_1^2v_2^1\right)dx^1dx^2ϵ_{ij}v_\nu ^jdy^idx^\nu +dy^1dy^2.$$

Hence, inside $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2T_{(x,y)}^{}^4`$, pseudofibers form a 4-parameters family of non parallel affine planes. The subset $`_{(x,y)}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2T_{(x,y)}^{}^4`$ filled by all these pseudofibers is always dense — meaning that the Legendre correspondence is “almost surjective” — and it can inverted on a dense subset. This contrasts strongly with situations in classical mechanics (where the Legendre transform may degenerate, i.e. its image may be reduced to a strict submanifold, in particular if the variational problem is parametrization invariant) or in fields theory, if we restrict ourself to the de Donder–Weyl theory or if we use the standard canonical approach (here the Legendre transform degenerates as soon as we have a gauge invariance, a phenomenon known as Dirac’s constraints). A Hamiltonian function $``$ can be defined on $`:=_{(x,y)^4}_{(x,y)}`$ by setting $`(x,y,P):=W(x,y,T,P)`$, where $`T`$ is an implicit funtion of $`(x,y,P)`$ through the relation $`\frac{W}{T}(x,y,T,P)=0`$.

The more convincing example is the trivial variational problem: We just take $`L=0`$, so that any map from $`^2`$ to $`^2`$ is a critical point of our variational problem ! Then the image $`_{(x,y)}`$ of the Legendre correspondence is the union of the complementary of the hyperplane $`r=0`$ and of $`\{(e,p_i^\mu ,r)=(e,0,0)/e\}`$. The Hamiltonian function is given by $`(x,y,e,0,0)=e`$ and

$$(x,y,e,p_i^\mu ,r)=e\frac{p_1^1p_2^2p_2^1p_1^2}{r},$$

if $`r0`$. One can then check that all Hamiltonian 2-curves are of the form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\left\{(x,u(x),e(x)dx^1dx^2+ϵ_{\mu \nu }p_i^\mu (x)dy^idx^\nu +r(x)dy^1dy^2)/x^2\right\},$$

where $`u:^2^2`$ is an arbitrary smooth function, $`r:^2^{}`$ is also an arbitrary smooth function and

$$e(x)=r(x)\left(\frac{u^1}{x^1}(x)\frac{u^2}{x^2}(x)\frac{u^1}{x^2}(x)\frac{u^2}{x^1}(x)\right)+h,$$

for some constant $`h`$, and

$$p_i^\mu (x)=r(x)ϵ^{\mu \nu }ϵ_{ij}\frac{u^j}{x^\nu }(x).$$

Note that in this setting the de Donder–Weyl theory corresponds to the further constraint $`r=0`$, which here implies that $`p_i^\mu =0`$: we thus recover the fact that the Legendre transform completely degenerates.

Other examples can be studied like for instance:

* The harmonic map Lagrangian $`L(x,y,v)=\frac{1}{2}|v|^2`$ where $`|v|^2:=(v_1^1)^2+(v_2^1)^2+(v_1^2)^2+(v_2^2)^2`$. Then one finds that $`(q,p)=e+\frac{1}{1r^2}\left(\frac{|p|^2}{2}+r(p_1^1p_2^2p_2^1p_1^2)\right)`$.
* The Maxwell equations in two dimensions. We take $`L(x,y,v)=\frac{1}{2}\left(v_2^1v_1^2\right)^2`$. Then $`(q,p)=e+\frac{(p_2^1+p_1^2)^24p_1^1p_2^2}{4r}\frac{1}{4}\frac{(p_2^1p_1^2)^2}{2+r}`$.

Beside the Legendre correspondence, the Lepage–Dedecker theory differs from the de Donder–Weyl theory in many other aspects, sometime relatively subtle. For example, on $`:=\mathrm{\Lambda }^nT^{}𝒩`$, with its standard multisymplectic form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the set of algebraic observable $`(n1`$)-forms coincides with the set of observable $`(n1)`$-forms. Hence $`(,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is an example of a pataplectic manifold. I refer to our paper  for a complete exposition.

Another question which is discussed in  and  is the possibility and the relevance of considering observable forms of degree $`p1`$, where $`p<n`$. This was proposed first by I. Kanatchikov in , . For instance in the Hamiltonian system (2), one sees a disymmetry between $`\pi _i^\mu `$ and $`u^i`$ (which disappears when $`n=1`$): the equations on $`\pi _i^\mu `$ involve a divergence whereas equations on $`u^i`$ prescribe its derivatives in all direction. This reflects the fact that the $`\pi _i^\mu `$’s are actually the components of an observable $`(n1)`$-form, whereas $`u^i`$ could be considered as an observable 0-form. Another beautiful example holds for gauge theories (see , ): where the gauge potential $`A_\mu dx^\mu `$ can be considered as an observable 1-form, whereas the Faraday form $`(dA+AA)`$ as an observable $`(n2)`$-form. Moreover these forms are canonically conjugate (in a sense similar to the duality between position and momentum variables in classical mechanics). The first definition proposed in  (a $`(p1)`$-form $`F`$ is observable if and only if there exists an $`(np)`$-multivector $`\xi `$ such that $`dF+\xi \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$) leads to a quite interesting notion of graded Poisson bracket, but causes some difficulties when one tries to generalize relation (6) to $`(p1)`$-forms, for $`1p<n`$. In , starting from another point of view, namely by characterising the property which seems to be relevant in order to generalize relation (6), we proposed the following alternative definition. We define collectively the set of all observable $`(p1)`$-forms, for $`1p<n`$: it is a vector subspace $`𝔓^{}`$ of the set of sections of $`_{p=1}^n\mathrm{\Lambda }^{p1}T^{}`$ such that $`F_1,\mathrm{},F_k𝔓^{}`$, if $`dF_1\mathrm{}dF_k`$ is a section of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^nT^{}`$, then there exists a vector field $`\xi `$ on $``$ such that $`dF_1\mathrm{}dF_k+\xi \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$. This definition seems slightly unpleasant at first glance (there could be several systems of observable forms, i.e. several choices for $`𝔓^{}`$) but it provides the right hypothesis in order to prove generalizations of (6) (see ). Note also that it has some physical meaning (see the next paragraph). One drawback is that it is now more delicate to define a notion of Poisson bracket between such forms. However we were able to propose a partial definition which works for the most important cases (see ).

Note that the above definition of observable $`(p1)`$-forms collectively is an example of a mechanism by which observable quantities (and in particular space-time coordinates) could merge out from intrinsic properties. In this spirit we also remarked in  that the dynamical relation (6) can be replaced by a more general one:

$$\{,F\}dG_{|\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\{,G\}dF_{|\mathrm{\Gamma }},$$

(a generalisation for observable forms of lower degrees also exists). The underlying idea, that nothing can be measured in an absolute sense and that we can only compare the results of two different measures, is very much in the spirit of general relativity.

## 5 Dynamical observable forms and perturbation theory

### 5.1 Dynamical observable $`(n1)`$-forms and their motivations

When building a quantum field theory, in order to achieve a relativistic invariance and in particular to be free from any choice of time coordinate, one is led to use the Heisenberg point of view. There a vector in the Hilbert (Fock) space of quantum states represents the complete history over all space-time of a quantized field, and observable operators act on this Hilbert space with eigenvalues which are smeared integrals of functions of the values of the fields and their space-time derivatives on space-time. The classical counterpart of this point of view, sometime called Einstein point of view, is to consider the set $``$ of solutions to the Euler–Lagrange equations of motion over all space-time to be the set of physical states and to consider the set of functionals defined on $``$ to be the set of observables. If we wish to understand in a covariant way how to quantize these fields it seems to be crucial to be able to define a Poisson bracket between observable functionals and in particular between two observable functionals of the type $`_\mathrm{\Sigma }F:\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Sigma }}F`$ and $`_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}G:\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}G`$, even if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ are two different hypersurfaces. This is however not clear in general. One possiblity arises when, for instance, $`F`$ is such that

$$\{,F\}=d(\xi _F)=0.$$
(7)
We then say that $`F`$ is a dynamical observable $`(n1)`$-form. Assume furthermore that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ are homologous hypersurfaces, so that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the boundary of an open subset $`D`$. Then by applying first Stokes’ theorem and second (6) we obtain that

$$_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}F_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Sigma }}F=_{\mathrm{\Gamma }D}𝑑F=_{\mathrm{\Gamma }D}\{,F\}\omega =0.$$

Hence the two functionals $`_\mathrm{\Sigma }F`$ and $`_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}F`$ coincide on $``$. We can thus pose

$$\{_\mathrm{\Sigma }F,_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}G\}:=\{_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}F,_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}G\}=_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\{F,G\}.$$

Thus it remains to find dynamical observable forms. Here comes a surprise and a relative deception. We quote H. Goldschmidt and S. Sternberg in : “For the free fields (i.e. quadratic Lagrangians) that arise in quantum field theory, the algebra444$`P`$ is here the quotient of the set of algebraic observable $`(n1)`$-forms by the subset of exact $`(n1)`$-forms $`P`$ is infinite dimensional and provides enough elements to yield the operators of the associated free quantum fields. However computations done jointly with S. Coleman to whom we are very grateful, seem to indicate that of $`n3`$, then for “interacting Lagrangians”, i.e. those containing higher order terms, the algebra $`P`$ is finite dimensional, and hence does not provide enough operators for quantization”. A more detailed computation with basically the same conclusion can be found in J. Kijowski’s paper . It is interesting here that this question meet the same kind of difficulties as the quantization problem for fields: the quantization procedure works when the classical equation is linear but fails as soon as the problem become nonlinear (interacting fields in the language of physicists). This is perhaps an indication that the two questions are related (although there is no doubt that the quantization problem is much more difficult).

There are however some ways to escape from this dead end. One is to remark that the set of dynamical observable forms is roughly speaking in correspondence with the set of symmetries of the problem (Noether theorem). In particular in the presence of a gauge symmetry we can produce an infinite dimensional family of dynamical observable forms, which corresponds to the set of all current densities smeared with any test function. We have discussed this approache in . It suggests the question whether a gauge symmetry could improve the quantization of a field theory. In the same spirit it could be interesting to explore integrable systems, which possesses infinitely many symmetries. A third possibility is when the problem is nonlinear but close to a linear one: one can then hope to build observable functionals by perturbations. We expound here a simple example which illustrates this idea.

### 5.2 The interacting field: obstructions to dynamical observables forms

We let $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ be a constant metric on $`^n`$ (which could be Euclidean or Minkowskian), with inverse $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$, and we consider the following functional on the set of maps $`\phi :^n`$:

$$[\phi ]:=_^n\left(\frac{1}{2}\eta ^{\mu \nu }\frac{\phi }{x^\mu }\frac{\phi }{x^\nu }+\frac{m^2}{2}\phi ^2+\frac{\lambda }{3}\phi ^3\right)\omega ,$$

where $`\omega =dx^1\mathrm{}dx^n`$ and $`\lambda `$ is a scalar constant, that we suppose to be small. Denoting by $`\mathrm{\Delta }:=\eta ^{\mu \nu }\frac{^2}{x^\mu x^\nu }`$, the Euler–Lagrange equation is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi +m^2\phi +\lambda \phi ^2=0.$$

Since here the target space is 1-dimensional there is no difference between the de Donder–Weyl theory and the other Lepage theories. The multisymplectic manifold $``$ can hence either be constructed as the dual of the first affine jet bundle or with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^nT^{}(^n\times )`$. We identify it with $`^{2n+2}`$, with the coordinates $`(x^\mu ,\varphi ,e,p^\mu )`$ and with the multisymplectic (or pataplectic) form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }:=de\omega +dp^\mu d\varphi \omega _\mu ,$$

where $`\omega _\mu :=\stackrel{}{\frac{}{x^\mu }}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\omega `$. Then Hamiltonian $`n`$-curves are $`n`$-dimensional submanifolds $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`^{2n+2}`$ such that, for any point $`p\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ there exists a unique $`n`$-multivector $`X`$ tangent to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ at $`p`$ such that $`X\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }=(1)^nd`$, where

$$(x,\varphi ,e,p):=e+\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\mu \nu }p^\mu p^\nu \frac{m^2}{2}\varphi ^2\frac{\lambda }{3}\varphi ^3.$$

The search for all dynamical algebraic observable $`(n1)`$-forms consists in the following: one looks at vector fields $`\xi `$ on $``$ such that

$$d\left(\xi \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }\right)=0,$$
(8)
which will implies that there exists an $`(n1)`$-form $`F`$ such that $`\xi =\xi _F`$, i.e. $`dF+\xi \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$, and such that

$$\{,F\}=d(\xi )=0.$$
(9)
This has been done in . The results are that: if $`\lambda 0`$ the only solutions are $`\xi =X^\mu \stackrel{}{\frac{}{x^\mu }}`$, where $`X^\mu `$ are constants, if $`\lambda =0`$ the solutions are $`\xi =X^\mu \stackrel{}{\frac{}{x^\mu }}+\eta ^{\mu \nu }\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{x^\nu }(x)\stackrel{}{\frac{}{p^\mu }}+\left(m^2\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }(x)p^\mu \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{x^\mu }(x)\right)\stackrel{}{\frac{}{e}}+\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\stackrel{}{\frac{}{\varphi }}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a solution of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }+m^2\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$.

Let us revisit partially this analysis: we assume for simplicity that $`dx^\mu (\xi )=0`$ (i.e. we throw away the $`X^\mu `$’s which correspond to parts of the stress-energy-tensor). First one finds that such a $`\xi `$ satisfies (8) if and only if

$$\xi =\left(P^\mu (x,\varphi )p^\mu \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{\varphi }(x,\varphi )\right)\stackrel{}{\frac{}{p^\mu }}+\left(E(x,\varphi )p^\mu \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{x^\mu }(x,\varphi )\right)\stackrel{}{\frac{}{e}}+\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\varphi )\stackrel{}{\frac{}{\varphi }},$$
(10)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`E`$ and $`P^\mu `$ are arbitrary functions of $`(x,\varphi )`$ subject to the condition

$$\frac{E}{\varphi }\frac{P^\mu }{x^\mu }=0.$$
(11)
Second the substitution of the value of $`\xi `$ in (9) leads to the system of equations

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{\varphi }(x,\varphi )=0,\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{x^\mu }(x,\varphi )\eta _{\mu \nu }P^\nu (x,\varphi )=0,$$
(12)
(which implies that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`P^\mu `$ depend only on $`x`$ and $`P^\mu (x)=\eta ^{\mu \nu }\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{x^\nu }(x)`$) and

$$\left(m^2\varphi +\lambda \varphi ^2\right)\mathrm{\Phi }(x)E(x,\varphi )=0.$$
(13)
The system (12), (13) has no nontrivial solution when $`\lambda 0`$, because by (11) it would contradict the fact that $`P^\mu (x)=\eta ^{\mu \nu }\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{x^\nu }(x)`$.

So let us forget condition (13) and assume only (10), (11) and (12). By (11) and (12) we deduce that $`\frac{E}{\varphi }(x,\varphi )=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ and so there exists a function $`A:^n`$ such that $`E(x,\varphi )=A(x)\varphi \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$. We shall assume $`A=0`$ in the following (since $`A`$ does not help in anything), we deduce that

$$\xi =\eta ^{\mu \nu }\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{x^\nu }(x)\stackrel{}{\frac{}{p^\mu }}\left(\varphi \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(x)+p^\mu \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{x^\mu }(x)\right)\stackrel{}{\frac{}{e}}+\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\stackrel{}{\frac{}{\varphi }},$$

(then $`\xi \text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }=dF`$, where $`F=\left(p^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }(x)\eta ^{\mu \nu }\varphi \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{x^\nu }(x)\right)\omega _\mu `$) and

$$d(\xi )=\varphi \left(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(x)+m^2\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\right)\lambda \varphi ^2\mathrm{\Phi }(x).$$

We now suppose that $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}`$, a solution of the equation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}+m^2\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}=0`$. We denote by $`\xi ^{(1)}`$ the corresponding vector field and $`F^{(1)}`$ the associated observable $`(n1)`$-form: $`F^{(1)}:=\left(p^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}(x)\eta ^{\mu \nu }\varphi \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}}{x^\nu }(x)\right)\omega _\mu `$. Then, instead of (9), we have

$$\{,F^{(1)}\}=d(\xi ^{(1)})=\lambda \varphi ^2\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}(x),$$
(14)
and thus

$$_{\mathrm{\Gamma }D}F^{(1)}=_{\mathrm{\Gamma }D}𝑑F^{(1)}=_{\mathrm{\Gamma }D}\lambda \varphi ^2\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}(x)\omega .$$

### 5.3 Second order correction

We now add to the functional $`_DF^{(1)}`$ another functional of the form

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\lambda _D_DF^{(2)}:& & & \\ & \mathrm{\Gamma }& & \lambda _{\mathrm{\Gamma }D}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }D}F^{(2)},\end{array}$$

where $`F^{(2)}\mathrm{\Gamma }(,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{n1}T^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{n1}T^{})`$ (here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{n1}T^{})`$ is the set of sections over $``$ of the bundle $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{n1}T^{}`$, i.e. the set of $`(n1)`$-forms over $``$). We shall make the following hypotheses on $`F^{(2)}`$: we let $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2:=\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{n+1}T^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{n+1}T^{})`$ and we assume that there exists a “bivector” $`\xi ^{(2)}`$, i.e. an element of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(,T)\mathrm{\Gamma }(,T)`$, such that

$$d^2F^{(2)}=(1)^2\xi ^{(2)}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }^2\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(15)
It deserves some definitions about notations. Let us abbreviate by $`z^I`$ the system of coordinates $`(x^\mu ,y^i,e,p^\mu )`$ on $``$ and by $`(z_1^I;z_2^J)=(x_1^\mu ,y_1^i,e_1,p_1^\mu ;x_2^\mu ,y_2^i,e_2,p_2^\mu )`$ coordinates on $`\times `$. Then any $`d^2`$ is the unique linear operator from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{n1}T^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{n1}T^{})`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(,\mathrm{\Lambda }^nT^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(,\mathrm{\Lambda }^nT^{})`$ such that if $`\alpha ^{(2)}\mathrm{\Gamma }(,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{n1}T^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{n1}T^{})`$ writes

$$\alpha ^{(2)}=\alpha (z_1^I,z_2^J)dz_1^{I_1}\mathrm{}dz_1^{I_{n1}}dz_2^{J_1}\mathrm{}dz_2^{J_{n1}},$$

then

$$d^2\alpha ^{(2)}:=\underset{I,J}{}\frac{^2\alpha }{z_1^Iz_2^J}(z_1^I,z_2^J)dz_1^Idz_1^{I_1}\mathrm{}dz_1^{I_{n1}}dz_2^Jdz_2^{J_1}\mathrm{}dz_2^{J_{n1}}.$$

(Remark: similar tensor product of differential forms and operators $`d^2`$ were used in  for the purpose of proving isoperimetric inequalities through calibrations.) Similarly $`\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }^2`$ is an operation with standard linear properties such that if $`\xi ^{(2)}\mathrm{\Gamma }(,T)\mathrm{\Gamma }(,T)`$ writes

$$\xi ^{(2)}=\xi (z_1^I,z_2^J)\stackrel{}{\frac{}{z_1^I}}\stackrel{}{\frac{}{z_2^J}},$$

then

$$\xi ^{(2)}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2:=\xi (z_1^I,z_2^J)\left(\stackrel{}{\frac{}{z_1^I}}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }\right)\left(\stackrel{}{\frac{}{z_2^J}}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }\right).$$

Then, denoting by $`d_1:=dId`$ and $`d_2:=Idd`$, so that $`d^2=d_1d_2`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }D}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }D}F^{(2)}& =& _{\mathrm{\Gamma }D}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }D}d_1F^{(2)}=_{\mathrm{\Gamma }D}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }D}d^2F^{(2)}\hfill \\ & =& \multicolumn{-1}{c}{_{\mathrm{\Gamma }D}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }D}\xi ^{(2)}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }^2\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }}\\ & =& \multicolumn{-1}{c}{_{\mathrm{\Gamma }D}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }D}\left(\xi ^{(2)}\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }^2\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }\right)\left(X(z_1)X(z_2)\right)\omega \omega }\\ & & \\ & & (X(z)\text{ is there a }n\text{-multivector tangent to }\mathrm{\Gamma }\text{ at }z\text{, s.t. }\omega _z(X(z))=1)\hfill \\ & & \\ & =& \multicolumn{-1}{c}{_{\mathrm{\Gamma }D}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }D}(1)^{2n}\left(X(z_1)X(z_2)\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }^2\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }\right)\left(\xi ^{(2)}\right)\omega \omega }\\ & =& _{\mathrm{\Gamma }D}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }D}𝑑_{z_1}𝑑_{z_2}\left(\xi ^{(2)}\right)\omega \omega ,\hfill \end{array}$$

where we have used the fact that $`\left(X(z_1)X(z_2)\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }^2\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }\right)_{|\mathrm{\Gamma }\times \mathrm{\Gamma }}=(1)^{2n}\left(d_{z_1}d_{z_2}\right)_{|\mathrm{\Gamma }\times \mathrm{\Gamma }}`$. The idea is to look for an $`F^{(2)}`$ such that

$$\{^2,F^{(2)}\}:=d_{z_1}d_{z_2}\left(\xi ^{(2)}\right)=\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}(x_1)\delta (x_1x_2)\varphi _1\varphi _2+𝒪(\lambda ),$$
(16)
where $`\delta `$ is the Dirac distribution on $`^n`$. Then

$$\lambda _{\mathrm{\Gamma }D}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }D}F^{(2)}=\lambda _{\mathrm{\Gamma }D}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}(x)\varphi ^2\omega +𝒪(\lambda ^2),$$

so that $`_{\mathrm{\Gamma }D}F^{(1)}+\lambda _{\mathrm{\Gamma }D}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }D}F^{(2)}=𝒪(\lambda ^2).`$

We choose $`F^{(2)}`$ of the form

$$F^{(2)}=\left(p_1^\mu \eta ^{\mu \lambda }\varphi _1\frac{}{x_1^\lambda }\right)\left(p_2^\nu \eta ^{\nu \sigma }\varphi _1\frac{}{x_2^\sigma }\right)\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}(x_1,x_2)\omega _\mu \omega _\nu ,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}:^n\times ^n`$ is a function to be precised later. One can check that such an $`F^{(2)}`$ satisfies (15) with

$`\xi ^{(2)}=\left(\left(p_1^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{}{x_1^\mu }}+\varphi _1\mathrm{\Delta }_1\right)\stackrel{}{{\displaystyle \frac{}{e_1}}}\eta ^{\mu \lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_1^\lambda }}\stackrel{}{{\displaystyle \frac{}{p_1^\mu }}}\stackrel{}{{\displaystyle \frac{}{\varphi _1}}}\right)`$

$$\left(\left(p_2^\nu \frac{}{x_1^\nu }+\varphi _2\mathrm{\Delta }_2\right)\stackrel{}{\frac{}{e_2}}\eta ^{\nu \sigma }\frac{}{x_2^\sigma }\stackrel{}{\frac{}{p_2^\nu }}\stackrel{}{\frac{}{\varphi _2}}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}(x_1,x_2).$$

Here we denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1:=\eta ^{\mu \nu }\frac{^2}{x_1^\mu x_1^\nu }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2:=\eta ^{\mu \nu }\frac{^2}{x_2^\mu x_2^\nu }`$ and we have introduced a symbolic notation in order to shorten the expression of $`\xi ^{(2)}`$ (which is quite long to write): one should understand that this expression should be developp using the rule $`\left(K_1\stackrel{}{\frac{}{z_1^I}}K_2\stackrel{}{\frac{}{z_2^J}}\right)A(x_1,x_2)=\left(K_1K_2A(x_1,x_2)\right)\stackrel{}{\frac{}{z_1^I}}\stackrel{}{\frac{}{z_2^J}}`$, for all linear differential operator $`K_1`$ (resp. $`K_2`$) acting on the variables $`x_1^\mu `$ (resp. $`x_2^\mu `$) (for instance $`K_1`$ can be $`p_1^\mu \frac{}{x_1^\mu }+\varphi _1\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$, $`\frac{}{x_1^\lambda }`$ or $`1`$).

Then one compute that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\{^2,F^{(2)}\}=d_{z_1}d_{z_2}\left(\xi ^{(2)}\right)& =& \varphi _1\varphi _2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_1+m^2\right)\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_2+m^2\right)\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}(x_1,x_2)\hfill \\ & & +\lambda \left(\varphi _1^2\varphi _2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_2+m^2\right)+\varphi _1\varphi _2^2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_1+m^2\right)\right)\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}(x_1,x_2)\hfill \\ & & +\lambda ^2\varphi _1^2\varphi _2^2\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}(x_1,x_2).\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus in order to achieve (16) it suffices to choose $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}`$ such that

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_1+m^2\right)\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_2+m^2\right)\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}(x_1,x_2)=\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}(x_1)\delta (x_1x_2).$$

A solution to this equation is formally

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}(x_1,x_2)=_^n\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}(t)G(t,x_1)G(t,x_2)𝑑t,$$

where $`G`$ is the Green function on $`^n`$ of the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }+m^2`$.

### 5.4 Perturbation series

We have produced two observables, $`_DF^{(1)}`$ and $`_DF^{(1)}+\lambda \left(_D\right)^2F^{(2)}`$, which are approximately vanishing, up to order $`\lambda `$ (resp. $`\lambda ^2`$). This looks clearly as the beginning of an infinite expansion series defining the functional

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda ^{k1}\left(_{\mathrm{\Gamma }D}\right)^kF^{(k)}.$$
(17)
Here we let $`F^{(k)}:=\left[_{j=1}^k\left(p_j^\mu \eta ^{\mu \lambda }\varphi _j\frac{}{x_j^\lambda }\right)\right]\mathrm{\Phi }^{(k)}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)\mathrm{\Gamma }(,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{n1}T^{})^k`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(k)}`$ is a function on $`\left(^n\right)^k`$. We need to choose functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(k)}`$ in such a way that

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda ^{k1}\left(_{\mathrm{\Gamma }D}\right)^k\{^k,F^{(k)}\}\omega ^k=0,$$

where $`\{^k,F^{(k)}\}:=(1)^kd^k^k(\xi ^{(k)})=\left[_{j=1}^k\left(\varphi _j(\mathrm{\Delta }_j+m^2)+\lambda \varphi _j^2\right)\right]\mathrm{\Phi }^{(k)}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)`$. Of course the computation of the further terms should more and more complicated but is possible in principe and should be described by graphs analog to Feynman’s diagramm. Note that these graphs should all be trees (i.e. without loops), since they describe classical observable functionals.

Then (17) provides us with a vanishing functional, if $`\lambda `$ is sufficiently small. This was not exactly our original motivation, which was to find non vanishing dynamical functionals. These can be obtained as follows. Assume for instance that $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$ is Minkowskian, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is hyperbolic, and $`D=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a fixed space-like hypersurface (say $`\{x^0=t_0\}`$ for some fixed $`t_0`$) and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ is a parallel space-like hypersurface (say $`\{x^0=t\}`$, where $`tt_0`$). Then we prescribe all functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(k)}`$, for $`k2`$, in such a way that they vanish and their first time derivative vanish along $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. This implies that

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda ^{k1}\left(_{\mathrm{\Gamma }D}\right)^kF^{(k)}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda ^{k1}\left(_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\right)^kF^{(k)}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Sigma }}F^{(1)}.$$

Hence we get the coincidence of the two functionals $`_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}\lambda ^{k1}\left(_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\right)^kF^{(k)}`$ and $`_\mathrm{\Sigma }F^{(1)}`$ on $``$. Then it remains of course to define the bracket $`\{_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}\lambda ^{k1}\left(_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\right)^kF^{(k)},_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}G\}`$, in order to set

$$\{_\mathrm{\Sigma }F^{(1)},_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}G\}:=\{\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda ^{k1}\left(_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\right)^kF^{(k)},_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}G\}.$$

In principle there should be no difficulty in defining the above Poisson bracket, either by coming back to the Poisson bracket obtained by the standard canonical theory of physicists or by using for instance the theory expounded in . Note that in order to make connection with quantum field theory, which provides us quantum scattering amplitudes, it is more appropriate to choose the slice $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ at infinity, i.e. such that $`t_0=\mathrm{}`$ or $`t_0=\mathrm{}`$.

Lastly we also remark that replacing the set of functionals $`_\mathrm{\Sigma }F`$ by the set of functionals of the type (17) has another advantage: it is then possible to define a product law between such functionals, by the rule

$$\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(_\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)^kF^{(k)}\right)\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(_\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)^kG^{(k)}\right)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{l=0}{\overset{k}{}}\left(_\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)^kF^{(l)}G^{(kl)}.$$

## 6 Conclusion

We have tried here to introduce the Reader to multisymplectic formalisms, mainly through the de Donder–Weyl theory, we have explained quickly a more general framework based on Lepage–Dedecker developped in  and  (that is, we believe, supported by a more relativistic point of view) and we have explained how a perturbative theory analog to the theory of Feynman and Schwinger could be be built for classical solutions. This theory need of course to be developped and it should be interesting to understand whether it could lead to the perturbative quantum field theory by a direct quantization.

We have not discussed many other important questions like the construction of a non perturbative quantum field theory in this framework (interesting results have been obtained by I. Kanatchikov, see ), or how such theories could help in understanding hyperbolicity of variational nonlinear hyperbolic partial differential equations as done in D. Christodoulou’s book . We should also mention the existence of other covariant theories as for example F. Takens’ one  (see also  or ).

Acknowledgements — I thank Joseph Kouneiher for useful discussions and comments on this text.

Frédéric Hélein,
CMLA, ENS de Cachan and Institut Universitaire de France
64, avenue du Président Wilson,
94235 Cachan Cedex, France
helein@cmla.ens-cachan.fr
http://www.cmla.ens-cachan.fr/Utilisateurs/helein/


text:
# Thermoelectric Field Effects in Low Dimensional Structure Solar Cells

## 1 Introduction

The suggestion of Barnham and Duggan, that the efficiency of solar cells can be increased when low dimensional structures like multi quantum wells are inserted between their p-n contact , sparked off a renewed interest in the derivation of the efficiency limits of ideal solar cells. It was soon realized, that detailed balance theory would result in the limiting efficiency of the lower band gap material. Thus, no enhancement beyond the SQ limit is found (as obtained for a single band gap material, taking into account radiative recombination ), if the assumption of full thermalization of excited electron- hole pairs in two bands is made. Recently, it has been argued that a solar cell with multibands may exceed this efficiency limit, since the assumption of fast thermalization may only be valid within each subband, due to slow interband nonradiative recombination. Thus, under illumination the charge carriers can have separate quasi- Fermi- levels in each subband, which results in efficiency limits corresponding to the one of multiple tandem cells, even exceeding earlier estimates . Recent experiments on multi-quamtum well solar cells seem not to be in accord with a model of two quasi-Fermi levels. It has been suggested that low dimensional structures like superlattices of quantum dots could be preferable for a realization of multiband solar cells . In these structures interband electron-phonon relaxation can be reduced substantially, although this effect can be overturned by many-body effects and high temperature. Intersubband absorption of photons , interband transitions due to electron- electron scattering, or the inverse Auger effect  can be ways to have multiple quasi- Fermi levels under detailed balance conditions, und thus an increase of efficiency beyond the single gap limit.

Here, another mechanism is explored, which could lead to an enhancement of the efficiency of solar cells, even when the local distribution of charge carriers is well described by two quasi-Fermi levels: the heating of the optically active region of the semiconductor. As a result, the thermoelectric force due to temperature gradients in the cell may enhance the output voltage. There may also be an enhancement of current and output voltage due to thermionic emission from the optically active region, if a semiconductor with a lower band gap than the emitter and basis is inserted, there. The efficiency of semiconductor thermoelements which turn temperature gradients into electrical current is limited by the figure of merit $`TZ=TS^2\sigma /\kappa q^2`$, with the thermopower $`S`$, the conductivity $`\sigma `$, and thermal conductivity $`\kappa `$ , . It might be of interest to combine solar cells with thermoelements to reach a larger overall efficiency. Here, we will explore if temperature gradients inside a solar cell can increase their efficiency beyond the SQ limit. We will assume fast thermalization of the charge carriers with the lattice, neglecting hot electron effects, considered in Refs. .

In the second chapter, the limiting efficiency as function of band gap and temperature is reviewed for a single band gap solar cell. In the third chapter, the effect of temperature gradients on the performance of a single band gap solar cell is explored. In the final chapter, it is studied, if the insertion of a lower band gap material in the presence of the temperature gradients, may enhance the efficiency further.

It is assumed that the surrounding of the solar cell is not heated and stays at the temperature $`T=300K`$. Furthermore, in order to study the efficiency limit, we assume that radiative recombination between the conduction and valence band is predominant, and nonradiative recombination can be disregarded. The temperature gradient is assumed to be caused by the fast thermalisation of the carriers in the optically active region.

## 2 Temperature sensitivity of Single Gap Cell

While a uniform heating of the solar cell is commonly known to be detrimental to its efficiency, there are known exceptions, like GaAs heterojunction solar cells, in which an increase in efficiency by 1 per cent was measured, when raising the temperature to 350 K. Let us first review therefore the temperature sensitivity of a uniform single gap solar cell. From the decrase of Carnot efficiency, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta =\mathrm{\Delta }T/T_s`$ with increasing temperature $`T`$, one expects the trend to decreasing efficiency. However, the energy gap is known to decrease with increasing $`T`$ in most semiconductors. Thus, one could also expect an increase of efficiency when the energy gap at room temperature is above the one giving optimal efficiency according to SQ. That is, for energy gaps above $`E_G=1.4eV`$. In order to find out, which factor is dominant, the increase of photocurrent due to decreased band gap, or, the increase of radiative recombination, let us reconsider the ideal efficiency as function of temperature $`T`$.

The current is ideally given by the charge times the rate of absorbed photons with energy $`E=h\nu `$, exceeding the energy gap $`E_G`$, subtracted by the photons emitted by radiative recombination:

$$I(V)=I_{Solar}(E_G)+I_T(E_G)I_T(E_G,V),$$
(1)
where $`qV=ϵ_Cϵ_V`$, with the absolute value of the electron charge, $`q`$. It is assumed that the electron distribution in the conduction and valence band under illumination, is well described by a Fermi distribution with a Fermi level $`ϵ_C`$ in the conduction band and $`ϵ_V`$ in the valence band, respectively. The current terms are given by $`I_{Solar}(E_G)=A_sqk_cN_{Solar}(E_G)`$, with the cell area $`A_s`$ , the solar concentration factor $`1<k_c<46050`$. The rate of solar photons is modeled by a Planck distribution with temperature $`T_S=5800K`$ : $`N_{Solar}(E_G)=(f_s/4\pi )(c/4)_{E_G/h}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu 2D_\nu /(\mathrm{exp}(h\nu /(k_\mathrm{B}T_s))1)`$, where $`D_\nu =4\pi \nu ^2/c^3`$, $`c`$ being the velocity of light, and the solar solid angle $`f_S=.000272`$. Thus, $`I_{Solar}(E_G)/A_s=425k_c(_{E_G/k_BT_s}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xx^2/(e^x1))A/m^2`$, where $`k_BT_s=.5eV`$. The current due to absorption of thermal photons is $`I_T(E_G)=A_sqN_T(E_G)`$ with a photon rate arising from the Planck distribution with surrounding temperature $`T`$, $`N_T(E_G)=(c/2)_{E_G/h}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu 2D_\nu /(\mathrm{exp}(h\nu /(k_\mathrm{B}T))1)`$. It is exponentially small for $`E_Gk_BT`$. The current, lost due to radiative recombination is, $`I_T(E_G,V)=A_sqN_T(E_G,V)`$, where $`N_T(E,V)`$ is the photon rate emitted by a semiconductor with quasi Fermi- level separation $`qV`$ and temperature $`T`$ as given by the modified Planck distribution, $`N_T(E,V)=c/2_{E_G/h}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\nu 2D_\nu /(\mathrm{exp}((h\nu qV)/(k_\mathrm{B}T))1)`$. Thus, the dark current is $`I_T(E_G,V)/A_s=435.2(T/300K)^3(_{E_G/k_BT}^{\mathrm{}}dx/((\mathrm{exp}(xqV/(k_\mathrm{B}T))1))A/m^2`$. The efficiency of a one band solar cell is obtained by optimizing $`I(V)V/AP_s`$ with respect to the voltage V, giving for $`E_GqV>k_\mathrm{B}T`$,

$$\eta =\eta _0\frac{f^2}{1+f},$$
(2)
where $`\eta _0=\frac{425}{1400}\frac{k_BT}{eV}_{2E_G/eV}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xx^2/(e^x1)`$. Here, $`f(g)=qV_m/k_BT`$, is a function of $`g=I_{Solar}/I_T(E_G,V=0)`$, only, as given by the nonlinear equation $`f=\mathrm{ln}g\mathrm{ln}(1+f)`$. The decrease of the energy gap as function of temperature $`T`$ is close to room temperature, $`T=300K`$, linear in $`T`$: $`E_\mathrm{G}(T)=E_\mathrm{G}(0K)z_\mathrm{G}k_\mathrm{B}T`$, where $`z_\mathrm{G}`$ ranges between 3 for Si and 5 for $`TiO_2`$. The efficiency is found to decrease linearly in temperature, for $`E_G<2.88k_BT_S=1.4eV`$. For energy gaps exceeding the maximum of the solar radiation distribution, $`E_G>1.4eV`$, the decrease of the energy gap with increasing temperature $`T`$ results in an exponential enhancement of the photocurrent, since the gap is in the exponentially decaying part of the Planck distribution. This can overcome the exponential increase of the dark current. Indeed, this results in a slight increase of efficiency $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta .01\%\mathrm{\Delta }T/K`$ with temperature increase $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$, for $`E_G>1.4eV`$. This increase can be enhanced by concentration $`k_c`$, as $`\mathrm{ln}k_c`$. At higher temperatures it reaches a maximum at a temperature $`T_M(E_G)`$ for $`1.4eV<E_G<3.5eV`$ and decreases than strongly. It reaches a maximum increase above the SQ limit by $`1\%`$ at a temperature of $`1000K`$, for a band gap of $`E_G=3.5eV`$. At $`E_\mathrm{G}>3.5eV`$, the efficiency drops exponentially below $`5\%`$, and accordingly its increase with temperature becomes exponentially small, although the relative efficiency increase becomes larger. From Eq. (2), for $`E_Gk_BT_S`$ and $`TT_S`$ the efficiency increase is for an ideal solar cell given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\eta =2.1z_\mathrm{G}10^2(\frac{E_G}{eV})^3\mathrm{exp}(2E_G(0)/eV)\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{K}\%.$$
(3)
## 3 Thermoelectric field enhancement of Single Gap Cell efficiency

In this section we will address the question, if the inhomogenous heating of the solar cell under solar irradiation yields an enhancement of the output voltage and thereby an increase of the efficiency of an ideal gap solar cell beyond the SQ limit due to thermoelectric effects. The heating of the semiconductor due to the thermalization of the electron-hole pairs in the optically active region produces a temperature gradient, which acts as a driving force on the charge carriers away from the heat source. The efficiency of a thermoelectrical element alone, is $`\eta _{TE}=W/Q`$, where $`W=IV`$ is the extracted electrical work and $`Q=K\mathrm{\Delta }T+SIT_i/q`$ the transfered heat from the source of temperature $`T_i>T`$ with thermal conductance $`K`$. $`Q`$ is smaller when a current $`I`$ is flowing, due to the Peltier cooling, as included, above. The efficiency limit of such a thermo element is known to be given by

$`\eta _{TE}={\displaystyle \frac{T_iT}{T_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+TZ)^{1/2}}{T/T_i+(1+TZ)^{1/2}}}.`$ (4)
with the figure of merit, $`TZ=TS^2\sigma /\kappa q^2`$, which is generally smaller than 1. As a function of the temperature gradients in a solar cell under irradiation, one can find with Eq. (4) the efficiency to turn them into electrical work.

However, we are rather interested if the total efficiency of the solar cell, $`\eta =IV/AP_s`$, can exceed the limit derived in the previous section, when the temperature gradients are taken into account. To this end, the current voltage characteristics of the solar cell have to be rederived. The separation of the charge carriers is due to drift in the intrinsic electrical field of the p-n contact, a small ohmic driving field and due to diffusion. Due to the temperature gradient, there is the additional thermoelectrical current, driving electrons to the n-doped basis, and holes to the p-doped emitter. The electron current $`I`$ per area $`A_s`$ arriving at the back contact through the n- doped region is thus, in a classical drift diffusion model in the presence of a quasi- Fermi level gradient $`ϵ_c`$, and the temperature gradient $`T`$, given by

$$I_n/A_s=\mu _nn_c(ϵ_cE_cS_nTS_{Dn}T),$$
(5)
with the electron mobility $`\mu _n=q\tau /m_c`$, the scattering rate $`\tau `$, and effective mass $`m_c`$. The electron density is $`n_c=N_C(T)\mathrm{exp}((q\varphi E_c+ϵ_c)/k_\mathrm{B}T)`$, where, for parabolic energy dispersion, $`N_C=2.5(10^{19}/cm^3)(m_c/m)^{3/2}(T/300K)^{3/2}`$. $`S_n`$ is the thermopower of the n-doped semiconductor under nondegenerate doping conditions, given by

$$S_n=k_\mathrm{B}(\mathrm{ln}n_c/N_cr5/2)).$$
(6)
The current, Eq. (5 ), is a sum of 1. the drift- diffusion current, governed by the conductivity, which is in the n-doped region given by $`\sigma _n=qn_c\mu _n`$, and includes the additional term due to the gradient in conduction band edge $`E_c`$. 2. the thermoelectric electron current, where $`r`$ is the power of the scattering time as function of energy, $`\tau E^r`$, where $`r=1/2`$ when electron scattering is dominated by acoustic phonon scattering, and 3. the last term, the electron current due to the phonon flux away from the higher temperature $`T_i`$ region, dragging electrons with them. Accordingly, the phonon drag contribution to the thermopoer, $`S_D`$, is due to electon- phonon scattering. It can usually be disregarded at room temperature, since it is proportional to the phonon mean free path ($`S_Dk_\mathrm{B}`$). The hole current arriving at the top contact through the p- doped region is accordingly given by $`I_p/A_s=\mu _pp_v(ϵ_v+E_vS_pT+S_{Dp}T)`$. The hole conductivity is in the p-doped region given by $`\sigma _p=p_vqmu_p`$, with the hole mobility $`\mu _p`$. and the hole density $`p_v=P_V(T)\mathrm{exp}((q\varphi E_v+ϵ_v)/k_\mathrm{B}T)`$, where $`P_V(T)=2.5(10^{19}/cm^3)(m_v/m)^{3/2}(T/300K)^{3/2}`$. The thermopower of the holes in the p- doped region is given by $`S_p=k_\mathrm{B}(\mathrm{ln}p_v/P_vr5/2)`$.

Now, one can obtain the current voltage characteristics of the solar cell, by the condition that all the current created in the i-region, $`I(V_i)`$ arrives at the contacts, or $`I_p=I(V_i)=I_n`$, where only the voltage drop across the optical region $`V_i`$ enters, since radiative recombination mainly occurs there. The spatial dependence of the energy gap due to the temperature gradient results in a gradient of the conduction band edge $`E_c=z_\mathrm{C}k_\mathrm{B}T`$, and valence band edge, $`E_V=z_\mathrm{V}k_\mathrm{B}T`$, where $`z_\mathrm{C}+z_\mathrm{V}=z_G`$. Thus, one obtains for the gradient of the quasi- Fermi level in the n-doped basis:

$$ϵ_c=(z_\mathrm{C}k_\mathrm{B}+S_n)T+\frac{I(V_i)}{\mu _nN_DA_s},$$
(7)
and a corresponding expression for the gradient of the quasi- Fermi level in the emitter. Note that $`ϵ_c/k_\mathrm{B}T>1`$ is therefore possible. The temperature gradient is obtained from the heat flow balance,

$$(1\eta )P_s=\kappa T+T\frac{S}{q}\frac{I}{A_s}+P_O,$$
(8)
where $`\eta `$ is the solar cell efficiency and the second term is the Peltier heat which tends to cool the hot absorber for $`I<0`$, thus reducing the temperature gradient. $`P_O=RI^2`$ is the ohmic heat due to the cell resistance $`R`$. Thus, the cell efficiency is obtained from Eqs. (1), (7), (8), as $`\eta =I(V_i)(V_i+d_nϵ_c(V_i)/q+d_pϵ_v(V_i)/q)/AP_s`$, where $`d_n`$, $`d_p`$ are the thickness of the basis and emitter, respectively, and $`ϵ_v(V_i)`$ is the gradient in the valence band of the p- doped emitter, as given by the equivalent of Eq. (7) for the holes. Rather than optimizing this efficiency with respect to the voltage $`V_i`$, let us consider here first the magnitude of the thermoelectric gain.

As an example, the mobility of electrons in bulk GaAs, is at room temperature $`\mu _n=5000cm^2/Vs`$, at doping $`N_DN_C=510^{17}/cm^3`$. With the heat conductivity, which is for GaAs about $`\kappa =45W/Km`$ and the solar power $`P_S=k_c1400W/m^2`$, one gets from $`(1\eta )P_s=\kappa T`$ temperature gradients of $`T<30k_cK/m`$ within the semiconductor solar cell, if all solar power is absorbed in the optically active region, only. Thus the temperature drop from the optically active region to its basis in a solar cell of basis thickness $`d_n=100\mu m`$, is obtained to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=(1\eta )3k_cmK`$. With $`S_nz_Dk_\mathrm{B}`$, where $`z_D`$ is at strong doping $`z_D2`$ we obtain from the first term of Eq. (7) the postitive thermoelectric voltage $`\delta V_{TE}=1.3k_c\mu V`$. The negative ohmic voltage is, using the short crircuit current given above, for GaAs, with $`E_G=1.4eV`$, $`I_{SC}/A_s400k_cA/m^2`$ obtained to be $`\delta V_{Ohm}=1.0k_c\mu V`$. Thus, the change in output voltage obtained from $`ϵ_c/q`$, Eq. (7), is positive, the thermoelectric effect is dominating the ohmic one. But, the gain is even under strong concentration $`k_c=1000`$ on the order of $`mV`$, only. Can this be improved? Besides strong concentration there is another way to enhance the effect. When the solar irradiation is parallel to the p-n- contact, and the illumination is concentrated on the intrinsic region, only, the temperature gradients are enlarged by a factor $`d_i/d`$, where $`d`$ is the thickness of the cell.

Recently, the reduction of perpendicular thermal conductivity of AlGaAs by insertion of GaAs quantum wells by a factor $`1/10`$ has been reported, due to back scattering of phonons at the heterojunction. The figure of merit has been reported to be enhanced in GaAs/AlAs superlattices by a factor of 50 at strong doping. This is another motivation to study the effect of insertion of quantum wells on the perfomance of solar cells in the next chapter.

## 4 Quantum well solar cells

In this section, we study if the insertion of a lower band gap material in the optical region, as proposed in Ref. , can enhance the efficency of the solar cell beyond the SQ limit, when temperature gradients are taken into account. The transport of charge carriers out of the lower band gap region is due to drift in the internal electrical field, diffusion, and thermionic emission into the larger gap basis and emitter. Therefore, instead of Eq. (5), valid for a homogenous cell, only, the current across the hetero junction is given by,

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`qn_Lv_L\mathrm{exp}((E_{CL}E_{CR})/(k_\mathrm{B}T_L))`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`qn_Rv_R+qn\mu \varphi ^{},`$
where $`n_s,v_s,E_{Cs},T_s,s=L,R`$ are conduction electron density, thermal velocity, conduction band edge, and temperature, to the right and left of the heterostructure, respectively, see Fig. 1. The electrical field, $`\varphi ^{}=(V_{np}V_i)/d_i`$ is assumed to be constant across the i-region, where $`d_i`$ is the thickness of the intrinsic region which is taken here to coincide with the thickness of the quantum well, for simplicity.

Thus, all photons are assumed to be absorbed in the quantum well region, giving $`I=I(V_i)`$ as given by Eq. (1 ). The average thermal velocity is $`v_s=(k_\mathrm{B}T_s/m_s)^{1/2},s=L,R`$, and the densities $`n_s,s=L,R`$ are functions of the local temperature and quani-Fermi levels as given in the previous section. By expansion in the temperature drop $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=T_LT_R`$ across the heterojunction, a jump in the quasi- Fermi level is obtained, $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_c=ϵ_Rϵ_L`$ given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_c=k_\mathrm{B}\mathrm{ln}(1+\frac{m_R}{m_L}\frac{I}{qv_Rn_R})S_L\mathrm{\Delta }T,$$
(10)
where the thermopower is found to be given by $`S_L=k_\mathrm{B}(q\varphi _L+ϵ_LE_{CR})/T`$. As an example let us consider a GaAs quantum well between an $`\mathrm{Al}_{1/3}\mathrm{Ga}_{2/3}\mathrm{As}`$ emitter and basis with direct band gap $`E_G=1.8eV`$, effective mass $`m_e=.095m_0`$, and conduction band offset, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_C=.68\mathrm{\Delta }E_\mathrm{G}=.3eV`$ . From the heat conductivity of an AlAs/GaAs quantum well at room temperature of $`\kappa =10W/mK`$, and the result of simulations which show that the drop in heat conductivity is mainly due to scattering of phonons at the heterostructure boundary, one can estimate a temperature drop by $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=k_c10^4K`$ at the quantum well boundary under solar illumination with concentration $`k_c`$. Thus, Eq. ( 10 ), yields at forward voltage a jump of the quasi- Fermi level of $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ_c=3k_c10^7(eVq.5V_i)`$, which even under strong concentration does not exceed $`meV`$, but adds to the voltage acroos the basis and emitter, as derived in the previous section.

Thus, the efficiency of an AlGaAs/GaAs, quantum well cell is with a two band quasi-Fermi level distribution, slightly enhanced beyond the SQ limit, when the temperature gradients due to the absorption of the solar radiation in the optically active i- region is taken into account, and can exceed the respective efficiency of the single gap cell. The thermoelectric gain is found to be small however, so that it seems not to be possible to approach the tandem efficiency limit which is for a $`\mathrm{GaAs}/\mathrm{Al}_\mathrm{x}\mathrm{Ga}_{1\mathrm{x}}\mathrm{As}`$ tandem system, without concentration, $`k_c=1`$, for $`x=1/3`$ $`\eta =38\%`$.

## 5 Discussion

In summary, it has been shown that the thermoelectrical effect due to temperature gradients in solar cells enhances their limiting efficiency beyond the SQ limit. The insertion of a quantum well into the optically active region is found to enhance the thermoelectrical effect further, due to temperature drops at the hetero junctions and resulting positive jumps in the quasi- Fermi levels. This may explain recent experiments on quantum well solar cells showing positive jumps in the quasi- Fermi levels. It seems worthwhile to extend the analyisis to other heterostructure cells, like quantum dot solar cells, considering their reduced thermal conductivity and favourable themoelectrical field effects. Other semiconductor heterostructures than AlGaAs, like Si/Ge have been shown to be favourable thermoelectric materials. Very low thermal conductivities of $`\kappa 1W/mK`$, have been reported in nanocrystalline $`TiO_2`$, so that the thermoelectric voltage can be a relevant mechanism to enhance the output voltage in dye sensitized $`TiO_2`$ solar cells.