text:
# Topologically Massive Non-Abelian Gauge Theories: Constraints and Deformations

## I Introduction

Construction and study of gauge invariant theories of massive vector fields has been a problem of great intrinsic interest. Such theories also have a potential application because the Higgs particle, needed for giving masses to gauge fields and fermions in the standard model, does not yet have experimental support. Consequently, alternative theories which have no residual Higgs scalar, for both Abelian and non-Abelian gauge fields, deserve closer attention. One of the oldest models in which there is no residual scalar particle is the Stückelberg formulation. Another gauge invariant model where massive gauge fields appear couples a vector field to a second rank anti-symmetric tensor field through a topological $`BF`$ term. The Abelian theory is described by the Lagrangian

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}H_{\mu \nu \lambda }H^{\mu \nu \lambda }+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }F^{\mu \nu }B^{\lambda \sigma },`$ (1)
where $`H_{\mu \nu \lambda }=_\mu B_{\nu \lambda }+\mathrm{cyclic}\mathrm{terms}`$. This Lagrangian is invariant under two independent gauge transformations,

$`\delta A_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \omega ,`$ (2)
$`\delta B_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`(_\mu \lambda _\nu _\nu \lambda _\mu ).`$ (3)
The equations of motion following from the above Lagrangian are

$`^\nu F_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{m}{6}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }H^{\nu \lambda \sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (4)
$`^\lambda H_{\mu \nu \lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }F^{\lambda \sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (5)
which are like the London equations of superconductivity, and has the interpretation of a massive vector. The massive nature of the vector boson can also be brought out by summing over propagators, which leads to the appearance of a pole in the vector propagator .

Making a non-Abelian model of massive vector bosons using this mechanism is a non-trivial task. Naïvely, one can replace the ordinary derivative $`_\mu `$ with the gauge-covariant derivative $`D_\mu `$ in the Lagrangian of Eqn. (1) to get

$$=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{12}H_{\mu \nu \lambda }^aH^{a\mu \nu \lambda }+\frac{m}{4}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }B^{a\mu \nu }F^{a\lambda \sigma },$$
(6)
where $`B`$ lives in the adjoint representation of the gauge group and $`H_{\mu \nu \lambda }^a=(D_\mu B_{\nu \lambda })^a+\mathrm{cyclic}\mathrm{terms}.`$ But although this non-Abelian model is invariant under the usual gauge transformations

$$\delta A_\mu ^a=(D_\mu \omega )^a,\delta B_{\mu \nu }^a=gf^{abc}B_{\mu \nu }^b\omega ^c,$$
(7)
unlike the Abelian model it is not invariant under the non-Abelian vector gauge transformations of the 2-form,

$$\delta B_{\mu \nu }^a=(D_\mu \lambda _\nu D_\nu \lambda _\mu )^a.$$
(8)
The absence of the vector gauge symmetry makes perturbative calculations from the Lagrangian of Eqn. (6) quite problematic. Gauge-fixing for $`B_{\mu \nu }^a`$ is not needed in the absence of the symmetry, but the quadratic part of the kinetic term for $`B_{\mu \nu }^a`$ cannot be inverted without a gauge-fixing term.

The problem runs even deeper, and has been the topic of a recent ‘no-go’ theorem  which uses consistent deformation of the master equation in the antifield formalism. This theorem states that there is no perturbatively renormalizable non-Abelian generalization of Eqn. (1) with the same field content. This is a strong result, but there are two non-Abelian topologically massive models which evade the strictures of this theorem because their field content are different from that of Eqn. (6) even though their Abelian limits are either Eqn. (1) or an equivalent first order formulation. The modified field contents ensure that both these models are invariant under the vector gauge transformations of Eqn. (8).

The first of these is the the Freedman-Townsend model described by the Lagrangian

$$=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu }+\frac{m}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu ^a\mathrm{\Phi }^{a\mu }+\frac{m}{4}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }F(v)^{a\mu \nu }B^{a\lambda \sigma },$$
(9)
where $`v_\mu =A_\mu +\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu `$, $`F_{\mu \nu }^a`$ is the usual Yang-Mills field strength of $`A_\mu `$ and $`F_{\mu \nu }^a(v)`$ is the Yang-Mills field strength calculated for $`v_\mu `$. The non-Abelian 2-form $`B`$ acts as an auxiliary field in this model, forcing $`v`$ to be a flat connection. Quantization of Freedman-Townsend model has been studied using B-V formalism  and shown that it is unitary but plagued with non-renormalizable propagators. It has been shown recently that by using the self-interaction mechanism, a first-order form of Eqn. (1) gives rise to Freedman-Townsend Lagrangian .

The second one is the theory of the dynamical 2-form  given by the Lagrangian

$$=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{12}H_{\mu \nu \lambda }^aH^{a\mu \nu \lambda }+\frac{m}{4}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }B^{a\mu \nu }F^{a\lambda \sigma },$$
(10)
where $`H_{\mu \nu \lambda }^a`$ is now the compensated field strength, invariant under non-Abelian vector gauge transformations, $`H_{\mu \nu \lambda }^a=_\mu B_{\nu \lambda }^a+gf^{abc}A_\mu ^bB_{\nu \lambda }^c+gf^{abc}C_\mu ^bF_{\nu \lambda }^c+\mathrm{cyclic}\mathrm{terms}`$. The quantization of this model has been studied in the BRST/anti-BRST scheme . A proof of renormalizability of this model was recently constructed  as well. Both these models have more fields than the naïve non-Abelian model of Eqn. (6), and as a result can circumvent the no-go theorem of  and remain invariant under the non-Abelian vector gauge transformation, given in Eqn. (8).

The purpose of this paper is threefold — (i) to present the Hamiltonian analysis of the naïve non-Abelian model (6), (ii) to see if, by any procedure one can modify the second class constraints of the naïve non-Abelian model to first class such that the modified theory will be invariant under the vector gauge transformations (8), and (iii) to investigate the role of the auxiliary field in (10) through the analysis of constraints. The Hamiltonian formulation of non-Abelian topologically massive gauge theories is interesting by itself and to the best of our knowledge has not been studied in detail. With these motivations, we have done the Hamiltonian analysis of the model of Eqn. (6).Then we address the question whether we can elevate, by any procedure, the naïve model to a theory symmetric under the vector gauge transformations of Eqn. (8).

Generally a theory without any gauge symmetry can be converted to one with a gauge symmetry by using the generalized canonical scheme developed by Batalin, Fradkin, Tyutin (BFT)  and collaborators. In this method, the phase space is first enlarged by introducing a pair of canonically conjugate variables for each second class constraint. Using these new variables, the constraints are modified so that they have vanishing Poisson brackets among themselves. Then the Hamiltonian is modified to have vanishing Poisson brackets with all the modified constraints. This procedure is systematically iterated until all second class constraints are converted to first class and a gauge invariant Hamiltonian and a nilpotent BRST charge are constructed. The new fields introduced in BFT scheme are usually identified with the Stückelberg fields and their momenta. In this method one recovers the original system with second class constraints by setting the newly introduced variables to zero. In the path integral approach, by starting with the phase space partition function of the embedded model one can obtain that of the original model showing their equivalence. In order to do this, one has to choose either the newly introduced BFT fields or equivalently the second class constraints of the original model as gauge fixing conditions (unitary gauge)  corresponding to the first class constraints of the embedded model. But the application of this method to non-Abelian theories is more involved and there is an additional complication for the theory of Eqn. (6). As we shall argue later, BFT embedding of the model in Eqn. (6) may lead to a non-local theory.

In this paper we start from the Hamiltonian and the constraints of Eqn. (6). We wish to see if the vector gauge symmetry which was present in the Abelian model can be restored in the form of Eqn. (8) in any non-Abelian generalization. This is done by deforming a second class constraint, keeping the canonical Hamiltonian unchanged, so that the modified constraint is first class and it generates the vector symmetry transformation. This may require the modification of the other constraints also, but the deformation is done in such a way that the existing $`SU(N)`$ gauge symmetry is not lost. Finally, given the constraints and the Hamiltonian, the Lagrangian from which they follow has to be calculated. This job is made easy for the model at hand, as we already know of two non-Abelian models, namely Freedman-Townsend model and dynamical 2-form theory, where the vector symmetry is present.

In this procedure, the original constraints are deformed by the use of the original phase space variables as well as new ones, which is similar to the BFT procedure, but we look for a local theory at the end. Although this method as discussed seems to be applicable only to this system at this time, it provides a clearer understanding of the contrasting features and nature of constraints of these two models of vector mass generation. The spirit of this method may also be useful in dealing with other theories which lead to non-local field theories via the BFT procedure.

The dynamical 2-form theory of Eqn. (10) has an auxiliary vector field which undergoes a transformation, compensating for the vector gauge transformation of the $`B_{\mu \nu }^a`$ field as given in Eqn. (8). In this sense, the auxiliary field resembles a Stückelberg field. Typically Stückelberg fields are introduced to compensate the non-invariance of a mass term. But here it is the kinetic term of the $`B_{\mu \nu }^a`$ field, rather than the (topological) mass term, which is not invariant under Eqn. (8) and requires the auxiliary field in order to restore invariance. Another difference between a Stückelberg field and the auxiliary field is that a Stückelberg field generally has a kinetic term while the auxiliary field here does not have any. Thus in the role of a compensating field, the auxiliary field appears just as in the Stückelberg mechanism, but its properties are very different from those of a Stückelberg field. In the course of our Hamiltonian analysis of the system, we shall investigate the role of the auxiliary field in the model of Eqn. (10) in the Hamiltonian formulation.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we present the canonical analysis of a first-order formulation of the theory of Eqn. (6) and show that it has first class as well as second class constraints. Using the constraints and their Poisson brackets we then argue that BFT embedding can lead to non-local theory. In Sec. III), we deform the constraints using only the original phase space variables so that the vector gauge symmetry is implemented by first class constraints. There we show that the deformed system is equivalent to the Freedman-Townsend model. Next in Sec. IV, we deform the constraints using the original as well as newly introduced canonically conjugate variables, whereby we obtain the dynamical 2-form theory. In Sec V, we discuss the role played by the auxiliary $`C_\mu `$ field in dynamical 2-form theory of Eqn. (10). We also show here that the model in Eqn. (10) cannot be the embedded version of the naïve model of Eqn. (6). We conclude with a comparative study of the Freedman-Townsend model and dynamical 2-form theory and discussions in Sec. VI.

Conventions: We use the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$ and $`ϵ_{0123}=1`$. We shall take the gauge group to be $`SU(N)`$, with generators $`t^a`$ satisfying

$`[t^a,t^b]`$ $`=`$ $`if^{abc}t^c,`$ (11)
$`tr(t^at^b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta ^{ab}.`$ (12)
The field strength $`F`$ of a gauge field $`A`$ is defined as

$$F_{\mu \nu }^a=_\mu A_\nu ^a_\nu A_\mu ^a+gf^{abc}A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c.$$
(13)
## II Naïve Non-Abelian Model: Hamiltonian Analysis

In this section we consider Eqn. (6) in a first-order formulation. We analyze the Hamiltonian structure of the system. The non-invariance of the model under the vector gauge transformation of Eqn. (8) is reflected by the second class nature of the constraint which implements this symmetry. By deforming this constraint using only the original phase space variables we can convert this constraint to a first class one. This requires modification of the remaining constraints as well so as to leave the first class or second class nature of all the other constraints unchanged. Thus this deformation gives us a new gauge system which is invariant under the $`SU(N)`$ gauge symmetry of Eqn. (7), as well as the vector gauge symmetry of Eqn. (8). We shall find that the new system is identical to the Freedman-Townsend model.

We start the Hamiltonian analysis from the first-order Lagrangian

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu ^a\mathrm{\Phi }^{a\mu }+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }\mathrm{\Phi }^{a\mu }(D^\nu B^{\lambda \sigma })^a`$ (14)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }A^{a\mu }(D^\nu B^{\lambda \sigma })^a+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }A^{a\mu }^\nu B^{a\lambda \sigma }.`$ (15)
By integrating out the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu ^a`$ field from the above Lagrangian we get the second-order Lagrangian of Eqn. (6). We have not put the gauge potential part in first order form. The primary constraints following from this Lagrangian are

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_0^a`$ $``$ $`0,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0^a0,\mathrm{\Pi }_{0i}^a0,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_i^a0,`$ (16)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}^a`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^a+mϵ_{ijk}(A^{ak}+\mathrm{\Phi }^{ak})0,`$ (17)
where $`ϵ_{ijk}=ϵ_{0ijk}`$, and we have written $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^a,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_\mu ^a,\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^a`$ for the momenta canonically conjugate to $`A^{a\mu },\mathrm{\Phi }^{a\mu }`$ and $`B^{a\mu \nu }`$, respectively. The total Hamiltonian is then

$`_T={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{ij}^aF^{aij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Pi }_i^a\mathrm{\Pi }^{ai}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_i^a\mathrm{\Phi }^{ai}A_0^a\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^a\mathrm{\Phi }_0^a\stackrel{~}{\omega }^aB^{a0i}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i^a.`$ (18)
The coefficients of the Lagrange multipliers $`A^{a0},\mathrm{\Phi }^{a0},B^{a0i}`$ are the secondary constraints which appear upon demanding the persistence of the primary constraints,

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^a`$ $`=`$ $`\{\mathrm{\Pi }_0^a,\}=(D^i\mathrm{\Pi }_i)^a+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}ϵ_{ijk}(D^iB^{jk})^a+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}gf^{abc}ϵ_{ijk}\mathrm{\Phi }^{bi}B^{cjk},`$ (19)
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i^a`$ $`=`$ $`\{\mathrm{\Pi }_{0i}^a,\}={\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}ϵ_{ijk}(\mathrm{\Phi }^{ajk}+F^{ajk}),`$ (20)
$`\stackrel{~}{\omega }^a`$ $`=`$ $`\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0^a,\}=m^2\mathrm{\Phi }^{a0}+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}ϵ_{ijk}(D^iB^{jk})^a.`$ (21)
All these secondary constraints are second class as can be checked easily from their Poisson brackets with one another. But we can construct their linear combinations which are first class at this stage. Let us define one combination which is going to be the Gauss law constraint, and another which will generate the vector gauge transformations,

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^a`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}gf^{abc}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}^bB^{cij}gf^{abc}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0^b\mathrm{\Phi }^{c0}gf^{abc}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_i^b\mathrm{\Phi }^{ci},`$ (22)
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i^a`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i^a(D^j\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij})^a.`$ (23)
At this stage, the Poisson brackets among the constraints are

$`\{\mathrm{\Lambda }^a,\mathrm{\Lambda }^b\}`$ $`=`$ $`gf^{abc}\mathrm{\Lambda }^c,\{\mathrm{\Lambda }^a,\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i^b\}=gf^{abc}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^c,\{\mathrm{\Lambda }^a,\stackrel{~}{\omega }^b\}=gf^{abc}\stackrel{~}{\omega }^c,`$ (24)
$`\{\mathrm{\Lambda }^a,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}^b\}`$ $`=`$ $`gf^{abc}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}^c,\{\mathrm{\Lambda }^a,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_i^a\}=gf^{abc}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_i^c,\{\mathrm{\Lambda }^a,\mathrm{\Pi }_0^b\}=0,\{\mathrm{\Lambda }^a,\mathrm{\Pi }_{0i}^b\}=0,`$ (25)
$`\{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i^a,\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_j^b\}`$ $`=`$ $`0,\{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i^a,\stackrel{~}{\omega }^b\}=0,\{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i^a,\mathrm{\Pi }_0^b\}=0,\{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i^a,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0^b\}=0,\{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i^a,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_j^b\}=0,`$ (28)
$`\{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i^a,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}^b\}`$ $`=`$ $`0,\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0^a,\stackrel{~}{\omega }^b\}=m^2,`$ (29)
$`\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_i^a,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}^b\}`$ $`=`$ $`m\delta ^{ab}ϵ_{ijk}\{\stackrel{~}{\omega }^a,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}^b\}=mϵ_{ijk}D^{abk}\delta (xy).`$ (30)
Note that both $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^a`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i^a`$ have vanishing Poisson brackets with all the other constraints as well as with themselves. The constraint $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^a`$ is preserved, $`\{\mathrm{\Lambda }^a,\}=0`$, while

$`\{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i^a,\}=gf^{abc}\mathrm{\Pi }^{bj}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}^cmgf^{abc}ϵ_{ijk}\mathrm{\Pi }^{bj}\mathrm{\Phi }^{ck}\psi _i^a`$ (31)
is a tertiary constraint, which has non vanishing Poisson bracket with $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i^a`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }^a`$. Now the first class constraints are $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0^a,\mathrm{\Pi }_{0i}^a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^a`$, and the second class constraints are $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i^a,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}^a,\omega ^a,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0^a,\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i^a,\psi _i^a`$ which together remove 24 out of 28 phase space degrees. Thus a naïve counting shows that the above model has only four phase space degrees of freedom and cannot describe a massive spin-one theory. On the other hand, the free part of the action (i.e., the $`g0`$ limit) coincides with the Abelian action, which has six phase space degrees of freedom and in fact describes a massive vector field. It is therefore possible that there is a reducibility among second class constraints which is not manifest, in which case the model may still describe massive spin-one particles.

The second class nature of the constraint $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i^a`$ is expected since the model of Eqn. (6), and therefore Eqn. (15), does not have the vector gauge invariance of Eqn. (8). Generally, by applying the BFT procedure, a theory with second class constraints $`T_\alpha `$ (with matrix of Poisson brackets $`\{T_\alpha ,T_\beta \}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }`$) and Hamiltonian can be converted to a theory with only first class constraints and gauge invariant Hamiltonian. In this method one first enlarges the phase space by introducing auxiliary variables $`\theta _\alpha `$ corresponding to each of the second class constraints. These variables satisfy

$`\{\theta _\alpha ,\theta _\beta \}=\omega _{\alpha \beta },`$ (32)
which may be taken to be field-independent, and $`\omega _{\alpha \beta }`$ is such that $`\mathrm{det}|\omega _{\alpha \beta }|0`$. Now we define the first class constraints $`\overline{T}_\alpha (P,Q,\theta _\alpha )`$ (where $`P`$ and $`Q`$ stand for the original canonically conjugate phase space variables) in the extended phase space, satisfying

$`\{\overline{T}_\alpha ,\overline{T}_\beta \}=0.`$ (33)
The solution for this is obtained in a series form as

$`\overline{T}_\alpha =T_\alpha +X_{\alpha \beta }\theta ^\beta +\mathrm{higher}\mathrm{order}\mathrm{terms}\mathrm{in}\theta _\alpha ,`$ (34)
where $`X_{\alpha \beta }`$ satisfy

$`X_{\alpha \beta }\omega ^{\beta \lambda }X_{\lambda \rho }=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \rho }.`$ (35)
After converting the second class constraint to strongly involutive ones, one proceeds to construct the gauge invariant Hamiltonian $`\overline{H}(P,Q,\theta _\alpha )`$ in the extended phase space. This gauge invariant Hamiltonian has to satisfy

$`\{\overline{T}_\alpha ,\overline{H}\}=0.`$ (36)
Solving the above equation gives $`\overline{H}`$ in a series form.

The first class constraints and gauge invariant Hamiltonian are calculated by solving Eqs. (34) and (36) in BFT procedure by iteration. However, to solve Eqs. (34) and (36) one needs the inverse of both $`\omega _{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`X_{\alpha \beta }`$. In the case of the naïve model, it can be seen directly from Eqn. (30) that the matrix $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }`$ of the Poisson brackets between the second class constraints $`(T_\alpha )`$ involve derivatives of delta functions. Because of this $`X_{\alpha \beta }`$ will also have derivatives of delta functions (see Eqn. (35)) and therefore its inverse is likely to be non-local. This will result in the non-locality of the first class constraints $`\overline{T}_\alpha `$ and gauge invariant Hamiltonian $`\overline{H}`$. Thus from the constraint structure of the naïve non-Abelian model, we see that the usual BFT embedding will very likely lead to a non-local theory.

For the sake of completeness we should mention that there is an alternate procedure of converting theories with second class constraints to theories with only first class constraints known as the gauge unfixing method . In all known examples, this procedure and BFT embedding result in the same first class theory. In Appendix A, we apply the gauge unfixing procedure to naïve non-Abelian model of Eqn. (6), and find that it too fails to give a first-class theory.

## III Freedman-Townsend Model

Since we want the modified theory to be local as well as invariant under the vector gauge transformation as well as under all the original symmetry transformations of the model, in this section we adopt a different approach to convert the second class constraints. Here we would like to modify the constraints $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i^a\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a`$ such that $`\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a,\}0`$ as well as $`\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a,\chi \}0`$, for all constraints $`\chi `$ in the theory. Since it is only $`\psi _i^a`$ which has a non-vanishing Poisson bracket with $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i^a`$, we start by modifying $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i^a`$ such that $`\{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i^a,\psi _j^b\}0`$. But this modification will change the other Poisson bracket relations in Eqs. (25) and (30). In order to keep those initial first class constraints as first class and also to have $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a`$ first class, we have to further modify $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a`$ as well as other constraints. For the sake of convenience, let us define $`v_i^a=A_i^a+\mathrm{\Phi }_i^a`$ and $`D(v)^{abi}=\delta ^{ab}^i+gf^{acb}v^{ci}.`$ Then the modified constraints read

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^a`$ $`=`$ $`(D(A)^i\mathrm{\Pi }_i)^a+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}ϵ_{ijk}(D(v)^aB^{jk})^a{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}f^{abc}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}^bB^{cij}gf^{abc}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0^b\mathrm{\Phi }^{c0}gf^{abc}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_i^b\mathrm{\Phi }^{ci},`$ (37)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i^a+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}ϵ_{ijk}f^{abc}\mathrm{\Phi }^{bj}\mathrm{\Phi }^{ck}gf^{abc}\mathrm{\Phi }^{bj}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}^c`$ (38)
$`\omega ^a`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }^a+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}gf^{abc}ϵ_{ijk}\mathrm{\Phi }^{bi}B^{cjk}`$ (39)
$`=`$ $`m^2\mathrm{\Phi }_0^a+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}ϵ_{ijk}(D(v)^iB^{jk})^a.`$ (40)
The remaining constraints of Eqn. (17) are unchanged. The algebra of the modified constraints is

$`\{\mathrm{\Lambda }^a,\mathrm{\Lambda }^b\}`$ $`=`$ $`gf^{abc}\mathrm{\Lambda }^c,\{\mathrm{\Lambda }^a,\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^b\}=gf^{abc}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^c,`$ (41)
$`\{\mathrm{\Pi }_0^a,\omega ^b\}`$ $`=`$ $`m^2,\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a,\mathrm{\Lambda }_j^b\}=0,`$ (42)
$`\{\mathrm{\Lambda }^a,\omega ^b\}`$ $`=`$ $`gf^{abc}\omega ^c,`$ (43)
$`\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a,\omega ^b\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}f^{abc}ϵ_{ijk}F(v)^{cjk}.`$ (44)
Note that the last Poisson bracket in the above appears to be still non-vanishing (even weakly), but is not so. This can be seen by noting that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a`$ can be expressed as

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a={\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}ϵ_{ijk}F(v)^{ajk}(D(v)^j\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij})^a,`$ (45)
We want the modified theory to be of first-order in $`B_{\mu \nu }^a`$, and consequently $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}^a0`$ should remain a constraint. Therefore the first term in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a`$ viz., $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}ϵ_{ijk}F(v)^{ajk}`$ must be constrained to vanish by itself. Hence the last Poisson bracket in Eqn. (44) vanishes weakly. Thus we see that the constraint $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a`$ is first class. From (44) it is clear that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^a`$ is first class and $`\omega ^a`$ is second class.

Also we notice that

$`(D(v)^i\mathrm{\Lambda }_i)^a={\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}f^{abc}F(v)^{bij}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}^c,`$ (46)
which is zero upon using the constraint $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}ϵ_{ijk}F(v)^{ajk}0.`$ Thus we see that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a`$ is reducible on the constraint surface. Thus among the first class constraints $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0^a,\mathrm{\Pi }_{0i}^a,\mathrm{\Lambda }^a,\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a`$ only seven are linearly independent, and we also have eight second class constraints $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0^a,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_i^a,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}^a,\omega ^a`$. Because of these constraints, six phase space degrees of freedom remain, and the system defined by these constraints (17, 37, 38, 40) and the canonical Hamiltonian

$`_c={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{ij}^aF^{aij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Pi }_i^a\mathrm{\Pi }^{ai}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_i^a\mathrm{\Phi }^{ai}`$ (47)
describes a massive spin-one model.

The covariant Lagrangian from which this set of constraints and Hamiltonian follow is

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu ^a\mathrm{\Phi }^{a\mu }+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }v^{a\mu }(D(v)^\nu B^{\lambda \sigma })^a+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }v^{a\mu }^\nu B^{a\lambda \sigma }.`$ (48)
This Lagrangian can be rewritten after an integration by parts as

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu ^a\mathrm{\Phi }^{a\mu }+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }F(v)^{a\mu \nu }B^{a\lambda \sigma },`$ (49)
which is the Freedman-Townsend Lagrangian describing a massive spin-one theory.

## IV Dynamical 2-form Theory

In this section we introduce new pairs of canonically conjugate variables and deform the constraints using these as well as the original phase space variables. The goal of this deformation is again to turn the constraint of Eqn. (20) into a first class constraint. Here again we start our Hamiltonian analysis from a first order Lagrangian

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu ^a\mathrm{\Phi }^{a\mu }+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }\mathrm{\Phi }^{a\mu \nu }B^{a\lambda \sigma }`$ (50)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }A^{a\mu }(D^\nu B^{\lambda \sigma })^a+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }A^{a\mu }^\nu B^{a\lambda \sigma },`$ (51)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu }^a=(D_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_\nu D_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }_\mu )^a`$. This Lagrangian looks different from the Lagrangian of Eqn. (15), but the difference is only by a total derivative. By eliminating $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu ^a`$ we will again get back the second-order Lagrangian of Eqn. (10).

The structure of the constraints will be different, however. The primary constraints following from this Lagrangian are

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_0^a0,\mathrm{\Pi }_{0i}^a0,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0^a0,`$ (52)
$`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i^a=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_i^a{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}ϵ_{ijk}B^{ajk}0,`$ (53)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}^a=\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^a+mϵ_{oijk}A^{ak}0,`$ (54)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^a,\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^a,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_\mu ^a`$ are the momentum conjugates of $`A^{a\mu },B^{a\mu \nu },\mathrm{\Phi }^{a\mu }`$ respectively. The total Hamiltonian is then

$`_T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{ij}^aF^{aij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Pi }_i^a\mathrm{\Pi }^{ai}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_i^a\mathrm{\Phi }^{ai}`$ (56)
$`A_0^a\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^a\mathrm{\Phi }_0^a\stackrel{~}{\omega }^aB^{a0i}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i^a,`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^a,\stackrel{~}{\omega }^a`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i^a`$ are the secondary constraints and are the same as the constraints denoted by the same symbols in Eqn. (19-21), each of which have non-vanishing Poisson bracket with at least one of the remaining constraints. We define the linear combinations

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^a`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^a{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}f^{abc}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}^bB^{cij}gf^{abc}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0^b\mathrm{\Phi }^{c0}gf^{abc}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i^b\mathrm{\Phi }^{ci},`$ (57)
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i^a`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i^a(D^j\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij})^a,`$ (58)
The constraints $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0^a,\mathrm{\Pi }_{0i}^a,\mathrm{\Lambda }^a,\mathrm{and}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i^a`$ have vanishing (at least weakly) Poisson brackets with all constraints. The Poisson bracket of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^a`$ with the canonical Hamiltonian vanishes weakly but that of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i^a`$ as in the previous section gives a tertiary constraint

$`\psi _i^a=\{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i^a,\}=gf^{abc}\mathrm{\Pi }^{bj}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}^cmϵ_{ijk}gf^{abc}\mathrm{\Pi }^{bj}\mathrm{\Phi }^{ck},`$ (59)
which has non-vanishing Poisson bracket with $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i^a`$. The Poisson brackets among the constraints are same as in Eqs. (25) and (30). Since here also we see that BFT embedding will lead only to a non-local theory, we adopt an alternate approach to modify the constraints.

As in the previous section, first we modify $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i^a`$ to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a`$ such that $`\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a,\}0.`$ As before, this modification of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i^a`$ changes its Poisson brackets of with all other constraints. So we further modify $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^a,\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i^a,\omega ^a`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i^a`$ such that the modified constraints $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^a,\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a`$ are in involution with all constraints. Unlike in the earlier section here we modify the constraints by introducing canonically conjugate pairs $`(C_i^a,P^{bj})`$, as in the BFT formalism. Thus we get the following modified first class constraints

$`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i^a`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_i^a{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}ϵ_{ijk}(B^{ajk}C^{ajk}),`$ (60)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^a`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^a{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}f^{abc}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}^bB^{cij}gf^{abc}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0^b\mathrm{\Phi }^{c0}gf^{abc}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i^b\mathrm{\Phi }^{ci}gf^{abc}\chi _i^bC^{ci}`$ (61)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i^a(D^j\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij})^a\chi _i^a,`$ (62)
$`\omega ^a`$ $`=`$ $`m^2\mathrm{\Phi }_0^a+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}ϵ_{ijk}D^{abi}(B^{jk}C^{jk})^b.`$ (63)
where $`C_{ij}^a=(D_iC_jD_jC_i)^a`$ and $`\chi _i^a=P_i^a+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}ϵ_{ijk}\mathrm{\Phi }^{ajk}.`$ At this stage we have 8 first class and 11 second class constraints.

Here we note that the combination which is left invariant by the first class constraints of Eqn. (62) is

$`B_{ij}^a(D_iC_jD_jC_i)^a`$ (64)
with the vector gauge transformations given by

$`\delta (B_{ij}^a)`$ $`=`$ $`(D_i\lambda _jD_j\lambda _i)^a,`$ (65)
$`\delta (C_i^a)`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _i^a.`$ (66)
Obviously, the combination of Eqn. (64) has a further invariance, under

$`\delta (C_i^a)=(D_i\theta )^a,\delta (B_{ij}^a)=gf^{abc}F_{ij}^b\theta ^c.`$ (67)
Because of this invariance in Eqn. (67), the gauge transformation generated by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a`$ are not mutually independent. Since these reducible transformations of Eqs. (66) and (67) are gauge symmetries of the theory, the constraints that generate these transformations must be first class constraints. So we first enlarge the phase space by introducing another pair of conjugate variables $`C_0^a`$ and $`P^{a0}`$ and demand that (i) $`P^{a0}`$ is a primary constraint and (ii) the total Hamiltonian of the modified theory should contain a term $`C_0^a\mathrm{\Theta }^a`$ so that $`\mathrm{\Theta }^a`$ is a secondary constraint. The form of $`\mathrm{\Theta }^a`$ is such that it generates the transformation (67) and it is linearly dependent on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a`$. This fixes the form $`\mathrm{\Theta }^a`$ to be

$`\mathrm{\Theta }^a={\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}ϵ_{ijk}(D^i\mathrm{\Phi }^{jk})^a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}gf^{abc}F^{bij}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}^c(D^i\chi _i)^a(D^i\mathrm{\Lambda }_i)^a.`$ (68)
which makes the generator of the transformation of Eqn. (66) reducible. $`\mathrm{\Theta }^a`$ has vanishing Poisson brackets with all other constraints and $`\{\mathrm{\Theta }^a,\}`$ gives a tertiary constraint,

$`\{\mathrm{\Theta }^a,\}=\sigma ^a=mgf^{abc}ϵ_{ijk}(D^i\mathrm{\Pi }^j)^b\mathrm{\Phi }^{ck}gf^{abc}\mathrm{\Pi }^{bi}\omega _{}^{c}{}_{i}{}^{}gf^{abc}(D^i\mathrm{\Pi }^j)^d\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}^c`$ (69)
$`mgf^{dbc}ϵ_{ijk}D^{adi}(\mathrm{\Pi }^{bj}\mathrm{\Phi }^{ck})m{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}f^{abc}ϵ_{ijk}F^{bij}\mathrm{\Pi }^{ck}.`$ (70)
The Poisson brackets of $`\sigma ^a`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a`$ vanish weakly and that with $`\mathrm{\Theta }^a`$ strongly. There are no further constraints as $`\sigma ^a`$ has non-zero Poisson bracket with $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i^a`$ which makes it second-class. Thus we have obtained all the constraints of the modified theory.

Thus now the expanded theory has the first class constraints

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_0^a,\mathrm{\Pi }_{0i}^a,P_0^a,\mathrm{\Lambda }^a,\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a,\mathrm{\Theta }^a,`$ (71)
and second class constraints

$`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i^a,\omega _i^a,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}^a,\omega ^a,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0^a,\sigma ^a.`$ (72)
The canonical Hamiltonian remains

$`_c={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{ij}^aF^{aij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Pi }_i^a\mathrm{\Pi }^{ai}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_i^a\mathrm{\Phi }^{ai}.`$ (73)
The 9 linearly independent first class constraints along with 12 second class ones will leave 6 phase space degrees of freedom, and thus the model with the above constraints and $``$ describes a massive spin-one theory.

The Lagrangian from which this constraints and $``$ follow is

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu ^a\mathrm{\Phi }^{a\mu }+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }\mathrm{\Phi }^{a\mu \nu }B^{a\lambda \sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }C^{a\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Phi }^{a\lambda \sigma }`$ (74)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }A^{a\mu }(D^\nu B^{\lambda \sigma })^a+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }A^{a\mu }^\nu B^{a\lambda \sigma },`$ (75)
where $`C_{\mu \nu }^a=(D_\mu C_\nu D_\nu C_\mu )^a`$. By eliminating $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu ^a`$ using its equation of motion, we get a second-order Lagrangian, which up to a total derivative is

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}H_{\mu \nu \lambda }^aH^{a\mu \nu \lambda }+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }B^{a\mu \nu }F^{a\lambda \sigma },`$ (76)
where $`H_{\mu \nu \lambda }^a=_\mu B_{\nu \lambda }^a+gf^{abc}A_\mu ^bB_{\nu \lambda }^c+gf^{abc}C_\mu ^bF_{\nu \lambda }^c+cyclicterms`$.

## V  Role of the auxiliary Field $`C_\mu `$

In this section we analyze the role of $`C_\mu `$ field in the dynamical 2-form theory of Eqn. (10). Naïvely, because of its gauge transformation property, $`C_\mu `$ seems to be a Stückelberg field in Eqn. (10) for the naïve model of Eqn. (6), compensating for the vector gauge symmetry of Eqn. (8). Usually the Stückelberg field is a dynamical field introduced to compensate for the non-invariance of the mass term under local gauge transformations. On the other hand, here the (topological) mass term in Eqn. (6) is invariant under the vector gauge transformation whereas the kinetic term is not. The invariance of kinetic term under Eqn. (8) is restored by the compensating transformation of the $`C_\mu `$ field. Also here the $`C_\mu `$ field is non-dynamical, as no kinetic term appears for it in the Lagrangian. The question that arises naturally is therefore — what is the nature of the field $`C_\mu `$?

One way of understanding the role of $`C_\mu `$ field is to ask if the dynamical 2-form theory Eqn. (10) is an embedded version of the naïve non-Abelian model of Eqn. (6) obtained by converting second class constraints $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i^a`$ to first class constraints $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a`$ as in Eqn. (62), which generate the vector symmetry of Eqn. (8) in the extended model of Eqn. (10). The partition function of an embedded gauge theory is known to reduce to that of the original model with the choice of the second class constraints $`(T_\alpha )`$ of the original model as gauge fixing conditions for the first class constraints $`(\overline{T}_\alpha )`$ of the embedded model. Equivalently one can also choose the newly introduced BFT variables (here these are $`C_0^a,P_0^a,C_i^a\mathrm{and}P_i^a)`$ as the gauge fixing conditions .

Consider the phase space partition function of the dynamical 2-form theory

$`Z={\displaystyle 𝒟\eta \delta (\chi ^\alpha )\delta (F^\alpha )\delta (G^\beta )\mathrm{\Delta }_{FP}det\{\chi ^\alpha ,\chi ^\beta \}\mathrm{exp}^{{\scriptscriptstyle d^4x(P^0QH)}}},`$ (77)
where the measure $`𝒟\eta `$ run over all phase space variables, $`\chi ^\alpha `$ are the second class constraints, $`F^\alpha `$ are the first class constraints, $`G^\beta `$ are the corresponding gauge fixing conditions and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{FP}`$ is the Faddeev-Popov determinant of the embedded model. Here $`P`$ and $`Q`$ stand for the generic momenta and fields. Let us suppose that the dynamical 2-form theory is the embedded version of the naïve non-Abelian model. Then if we choose the second class constraints of the naïve model (either $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i^b`$ or $`\psi _i^b`$ of Eqs. (23), (31) respectively) as gauge fixing conditions corresponding to the first class constraints $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a`$ of Eqn. (62), the partition function (77) must reduce to that of naïve non-Abelian model. For the other first class constraints of dynamical 2-form theory

$`F^\alpha =(\mathrm{\Pi }_0^a,\mathrm{\Pi }_{0i}^a,P_0^a,\mathrm{\Lambda }^a),`$ (78)
we choose the gauge fixing conditions as

$`G^\alpha =(A^{b0},B^{b0l},C^{b0},^iA_i^b)`$ (79)
respectively. With the above choice of gauge fixing conditions (either with choice $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_j^b`$ or $`\psi ^{bj}`$ as the gauge conditions for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a`$), it is easy to see that the Faddeev-Popov determinant vanishes. Thus the partition function does not reduce to that of naïve non-Abelian model.

Instead of choosing the original second class constraints as gauge fixing conditions, equivalently one could choose the newly introduced BFT variables as the gauge fixing conditions. Here as we have seen, $`P_0^a`$ by itself is a first class constraint (it is not appearing in any of the modified constraints) and we have chosen $`C^{b0}`$ as its gauge fixing condition. We chose $`C^{bj}`$ as the gauge condition for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a`$ of Eqn. (62) since their Poisson bracket is non-vanishing. But we cannot choose $`P_i^a`$ as part of a gauge-fixing condition for any of the first class constraints of the dynamical 2-form theory. Consequently, we cannot implement the vanishing condition of all newly introduced BFT variables as gauge conditions and get back the original model (naïve non-Abelian model).

Thus we see that even when we choose the unitary gauge condition, the partition function of dynamical 2-form theory Eqn. (77) does not reduce to that of the naïve non-Abelian model. Hence the dynamical 2-form theory of Eqn. (10) and the naïve non-Abelian model of Eqn. (6) are not simply related by BFT embedding. In the covariant quantization scheme, this can be seen from the fact that implementing $`C_\mu =0`$ as a gauge fixing condition for the vector symmetry (8) is not proper as the quadratic part of 2-form B will still be non-invertible.

## VI Conclusion

In this paper, we have studied three different non-Abelian generalizations of the topologically massive Abelian gauge theory in $`3+1`$ dimensions, given in Eqn. (1). In Sec. II, using the canonical analysis of the naïve non-Abelian model of Eqn. (6), which is not invariant under the vector gauge transformations of Eqn. (8), we have shown that the BFT Hamiltonian embedding of this model will lead to a non-local theory. Then in Sec. III, starting with the naïve non-Abelian model and using an alternate approach we have shown that by a deformation of the constraints we can obtain the Freedman-Townsend model. Here we have used only the original phase space variables to modify the constraints. We have also shown the off-shell reducibility of the latter model. In Sec. IV, by a different modification of the constraints of naïve model, where apart from the original phase space variables newly introduced variables were also used, we have obtained the dynamical 2-form theory in the extended phase space. We have also shown how reducibility of constraints appears in this model. In Sec. V, we have discussed the role played by the auxiliary field $`C_\mu `$ in the dynamical 2-form theory. Using the phase space path integral approach, we have shown that the dynamical 2-form theory cannot be obtained by a Hamiltonian embedding of the naïve non-Abelian model.

It is of interest to note the difference in Poisson bracket structures of the constraints of Freedman-Townsend model and the dynamical 2-form theory. As we have seen the constraint algebra is on-shell reducible in the case of former while in the case of latter it is off-shell reducible. In the case of Freedman-Townsend model, we see that the Poisson brackets of the scalar constraints $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^a`$ of Eqn. (37) with all other constraints vanish weakly. On the other hand, the Poisson brackets of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a`$ of Eqn. (38), which are the generators of the vector symmetry, with the remaining constraints vanish strongly like in an Abelian theory. This shows that that the model described by Eqn. (6) is not a pure non-Abelian theory with respect to 2-form potential, unlike the Yang-Mills gauge field. We see the same feature in the case of dynamical 2-form theory also. Here the Poisson brackets of the generators of SU(N) symmetry, as given in Eqn. (61), with other constraints vanish weakly, while the Poisson brackets of the first class constraint of Eqn. (62) are strongly zero like that of an Abelian theory. Thus we see here, in the Hamiltonian formulation that the model described by Eqn. (10) is not a pure non-Abelian theory with respect to the 2-form potential. This is expected as the vector gauge symmetry of Eqn. (8) is Abelian in the case of both these models, as can be seen in the Lagrangian formulation.

It will be of interest to generalize the procedure of constraint deformation applied here so that it can be applied to other models also. Since both Freedman-Townsend model and dynamical 2-form theory also have second class constraints, it should be of interest to elevate them also to first class ones either by BFT procedure or by further deformation of constraints and study the corresponding gauge theories.

Acknowledgements:

EH thanks the University Grants Commission, India for support.

## A Gauge unfixing for the non-Abelian two-form

Apart from the generalized canonical scheme developed by Batalin, Fradkin and collaborators, there is another method to convert a system with second class constraints to gauge theory. In this method known as gauge unfixing , one modifies the second class constraint and Hamiltonian using the original phase space variables alone unlike that in the case of BFT embedding. In this scheme, among the second class constraints $`T_\alpha ,(\alpha =1,\mathrm{},2n)`$, half of them $`(\overline{T}_a=T_\alpha ,\alpha =1,..n)`$ are taken to be the constraints and the remaining half $`(T_a,\alpha =n+1,\mathrm{}2n)`$ are taken as the corresponding gauge fixing conditions. Then using the constraints $`\overline{T}_a`$, a projection operator is defined using which gauge invariant Hamiltonian and other observables are constructed.

Here we apply the gauge unfixing to naïve non-Abelian model described by Eqn.. (6). The primary constraints following from the Lagrangian of Eqn. (6) are

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_0^a0,\mathrm{\Pi }_{0i}^a0,`$ (A1)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }`$ are the momenta corresponding to $`A^\mu `$ and $`B^{\mu \nu }`$ respectively. The total Hamiltonian is

$`H_T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}\mathrm{\Pi }^{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Pi }_i^a{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}ϵ_{0ijk}B^{ajk})(\mathrm{\Pi }^{ai}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}ϵ^{0ilm}B_{lm}^a)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{ij}^aF^{aij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}H_{ijk}H^{ijk}`$ (A2)
$``$ $`A^{a0}\left[(D^i\mathrm{\Pi }_i)^a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}gf^{abc}\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^bB^{cij}\right]+B^{a0i}\left[(D^j\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij})^a{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}ϵ_{0ijk}F^{ajk}\right],`$ (A3)
which can also be written as $`H_T=H_cA^{a0}\mathrm{\Lambda }^aB^{a0i}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a,`$ where the secondary constraints are

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^a`$ $`=`$ $`(D^i\mathrm{\Pi }_i)^a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}gf^{abc}\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^bB^{cij},`$ (A4)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a`$ $`=`$ $`(D^j\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij})^a+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}ϵ_{0ijk}F^{ajk}.`$ (A5)
The constraint $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^a`$ does not lead to any further constraint as $`\{\mathrm{\Lambda }^a,H_c\}=0`$ while the persistence of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a`$ gives a tertiary constraint

$`\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a,H_c\}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}gf^{abc}F^{blm}H_{ilm}^c+gf^{abc}\mathrm{\Pi }^{bl}\mathrm{\Pi }_{il}^c+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}gf^{abc}ϵ^{0lmn}\mathrm{\Pi }_{il}^bB_{mn}^c\mathrm{\Psi }_i^a.`$ (A6)
The Poisson brackets of primary constraints with all the constraints vanish and those among the remaining constraints are

$`\{\mathrm{\Lambda }^a,\mathrm{\Lambda }^b\}`$ $`=`$ $`gf^{abc}\mathrm{\Lambda }^c,\{\mathrm{\Lambda }^a,\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^b\}=gf^{abc}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^c,`$ (A7)
$`\{\mathrm{\Lambda }^a,\mathrm{\Psi }_i^a\}`$ $`=`$ $`gf^{abc}\mathrm{\Psi }_i^c,\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a,\mathrm{\Lambda }_j^b\}=0,`$ (A8)
$`\{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{ai},\mathrm{\Psi }_j^b\}`$ $`=`$ $`g^2f^{bcd}f^{aed}F_{jl}^eF^{cij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^2f^{bcd}f^{aed}F_{mn}^eF^{cmn}\delta _l^i+g^2f^{acd}f^{bce}\mathrm{\Pi }^{dij}\mathrm{\Pi }_{lj}^e𝒜_l^{abi}.`$ (A9)
From the constraint algebra we see that $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0^a,\mathrm{\Pi }_{0i}^a\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\Lambda }^a`$ are first class and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\Psi }_i^a`$ are second class.

From the constraint structure it is clear that for a theory which has invariance under the vector gauge transformation of Eqn. (8), $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a`$ has to be a first class constraint. Thus in applying the gauge unfixing procedure we take $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a`$ to be the first class constraint and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j^b`$ to be the corresponding gauge fixing condition. The projection operator used to construct the gauge invariant observables is then defined as

$`𝒫=\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle d^3x\mathrm{\Psi }^{ai}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a}`$ (A10)
A particular ordering is used such that when $`𝒫`$ acts on functions of phase space variables, the gauge fixing condition $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^a`$ should be outside the Poisson bracket. Using this we construct the gauge unfixed Hamiltonian

$`_{GU}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒫H_T`$ (A11)
$`=`$ $`H_T{\displaystyle d^3y\mathrm{\Psi }(y)^{ai}\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a,H_T\}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3yd^3z\mathrm{\Psi }(y)^{ai}\mathrm{\Psi }(z)^{bj}\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a,\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_j^b,H_T\}\}}\mathrm{}.`$ (A12)
From the constraint algebra (A9), we see that the higher order terms in the above series vanish since $`\{𝒜_l^{abi},\mathrm{\Lambda }_j^c\}=0`$, and thus we get

$`_{GU}=H_T\mathrm{\Psi }_i^a\mathrm{\Psi }^{ai}gf^{abc}\mathrm{\Psi }_i^aA^{0b}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{ci}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Psi }_i^a\mathrm{\Psi }^{bj}𝒜_j^{abi}`$ (A13)
But it is straight forward to check, using the constraint algebra (A9) that $`\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^a,_{GU}\}`$ is non-vanishing and hence $`_{GU}`$ is not gauge invariant. Thus here we see that the gauge unfixing method also fails to convert the naïve non-Abelian model to a first class system.


format: text

text:
# DETECTION OF C3 IN DIFFUSE INTERSTELLAR CLOUDS

## 1 Introduction

Carbon chains play a central role in the chemistry and spectroscopy of interstellar space. The detection of cyanopolyacetylenes in dense interstellar clouds (Kroto, 1981) led to the suggestion by Douglas (1977) that carbon chain species be considered as candidates for the diffuse interstellar bands (DIBs), which are found in the 4000-8500Å spectral region of stars reddened by interstellar dust (Herbig, 1995). Since then, many other molecules with a carbon chain backbone have been identified at radio frequencies in dense clouds (Kawaguchi et al., 1995). Meanwhile, advances in laboratory measurements have provided an understanding of the types and sizes of carbon chains which have strong electronic transitions in the DIB range (Maier, 1998). It is thus somewhat surprising that as yet among the bare carbon species only diatomic C2 has been identified in interstellar clouds where DIB are detected.

The 4052Å electronic band system of C3 was first detected in comets (Swings, 1942) and then in circumstellar shells by infrared spectroscopy (Hinkle et al., 1988). Most recently C3 was identified in a dense cloud using sub-mm measurements of its low frequency bending mode and Ntot(C3)$`10^{13}`$ cm-2 was estimated (Cernicharo et al., 2000). Snow et al. (1988) established an upper limit of 5$`\times `$1010 cm-2 for the column density of C3 in the direction of $`\zeta `$ Oph, some two orders of magnitude lower than that set by Clegg & Lambert (1982). Haffner & Meyer (1995) made a tentative detection of C3 towards an eighth magnitude star in the same part of the sky, HD 147889, at a column density of 4$`\times `$1012 cm-2. Unfortunately, the star turned out to be a (previously unknown) double-lined spectroscopic binary which limited their sensitivity.

This letter presents the detection of C3 towards three stars and infers the column densities in the diffuse clouds. Although C$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{2}{}^{}`$, C$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ and C$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}`$ were not detected, upper limits for their column densities are estimated. Diatomic species, such as CH, CN, C2, and CH+, have been detected towards two of the stars chosen and their column densities are considered standards with which to compare models for the physical and chemical processes in diffuse regions (van Dishoeck & Black, 1986). The four bare carbon chains, C3, C$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{2}{}^{}`$, C$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ and C$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}`$, were selected for the present search because gas phase electronic transitions for these species have been identified in the laboratory in the 4000-5500Å region and their oscillator strengths are known (see table 3).

## 2 The Observations

Observations of the reddened stars $`\zeta `$ Oph (HD 149757), $`\zeta `$ Per (HD 24398) and 20 Aql (HD 179406) were made with the Gecko echellette spectrograph on 2000 July 16 and 19, fiber fed from the Cassegrain focus of the Canada-France-Hawaii 3.6-m telescope (CFHT) (Baudrand & Vitry, 2000). All three stars have a visual extinction, Av, near 1 and were chosen because they are bright with sharp interstellar K I lines indicating either single clouds or little Doppler distortion (in the case of $`\zeta `$ Oph, Cra97 resolved the C2 at 8756 Å into two close velocity components separated by 1.1 km s-1).

The detector was a rear illuminated EEV1 CCD (13.5 $`\mu `$m2 pixels) and the spectral regions were centered at 4047 Å in the 14th order, and at 5060 Å and 5400 Å in the 11th and 10th orders, respectively. The ultraviolet Gecko prism was used to isolate the 14th order, the blue grism for the 11th order, while the stock CFHT filter #1515 was used for the 10th order observations. Individual spectra had exposure times ranging from 5 to 20 minutes and were obtained with continuous fiber agitation to overcome modal noise. The resulting combined spectra for the individual stars at each wavelength had unusually high signal-to-noise ratios (S/N$``$800-4000) for CCD observations. The Th/Ar comparison arc spectra, taken before and after each spectrograph wavelength reconfiguration, had a typical FWHM of 2.8 pixels, which corresponds to resolutions of $`R`$ = 121000, 113000 and 101000 at 4047, 5060 and 5400 Å, respectively.

Processing of the spectra was conventional. Groups of biases were taken several times throughout each night and at each grating setting a series of flat-field spectra of a quartz-iodide lamp were recorded. The biases and appropriate flats were averaged and used to remove the zero-level offset and pixel-to-pixel sensitivity variations of the CCD. One-dimensional spectra were extracted using standard IRAF routines. Spectra of Vega and other unreddened stars were used to search for contaminating telluric water vapor lines and stellar photospheric features. Heliocentric corrections were applied to each spectrum.

The observations are summarised in Table 1 which lists exposure times and S/N per pixel for each spectral region. The final column gives the radial velocities measured from the interstellar K I 4044.1 and 4047.2 Å lines. These velocities have been applied to each spectrum to put the interstellar features on a laboratory scale.

## 3 The Results

The $`A^1\mathrm{\Pi }_uX^1\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^+`$ origin band of C3 is quite clearly detected towards all three stars. Figure 1 compares the observed spectra with a simulated C3 absorption spectrum based on the spectrograph resolution and assuming a Boltzmann distribution in the ground state rotational levels with a temperature of 80 K. The continuum noise level in the observations is $``$0.1 %. Low order polynomials have been applied to the stellar data to give a level continuum (base line) and, in the case of $`\zeta `$ Per, a weak, broad stellar feature at 4053.2Å has been removed. Residual broad features in the final spectra are only a few tenths of a percent deep, much less than in the original, and they in no way mask the sharp C3 lines. In the simulation the rotational line intensities were calculated using the Hönl-London factors, while the line positions were taken from the laboratory measurements (this avoids the problem of a perturbation affecting the low $`J`$ ground state levels which is not accounted for by the fitted spectroscopic constants). The individual rotational P, Q and R lines are clearly resolved in the spectra of all three stars. Table 2 lists the observed positions and equivalent widths of each rotational line assigned in the spectra of the three stars. The table also gives the corresponding positions measured for these transitions in the laboratory (Gausset et al. 1965). The positions of some 30 lines in the spectrum of $`\zeta `$ Oph agree with the laboratory data to within 0.1 cm-1 providing an unambiguous identification of C3 in these diffuse clouds.

Figures 2, 3, and 4 show the results of equivalent searches for $`B^4\mathrm{\Sigma }_u^{}X^4\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^{}`$ origin band of C$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ at 5078.1Å ($`\zeta `$ Oph only), the $`B^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_u^+X^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^+`$ origin band of C$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ at 5415.9Å and the $`A^2\mathrm{\Delta }_uX^2\mathrm{\Pi }_g`$ origin band of C$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}`$ at 4040.4Å, together with simulated spectra for these transitions at 80 K based upon the published spectroscopic constants (Maier & Rösslein (1988), Herzberg & Lagerqvist (1968), Tulej et al. (2000)). In the cases of C$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ and C$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ the linewidth was assumed to be determined by the spectrograph resolution. For C$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}`$ the excited state has been identified as a short-lived Feshbach resonance and the measured natural linewidth of $``$1 cm-1 is employed in the simulation. Weak telluric lines were been removed from the C$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ and C$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ observations using standard procedures.

Unlike the 4050Å region for C3, each of these spectral regions is contaminated by weak stellar features. Nonetheless, for the C$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ and C$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ ions, there are no sharp features corresponding to the rotational lines in the simulations. On the other hand, for C$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}`$ there are features in the spectrum of $`\zeta `$ Per and (much less convincing) in the magnified plot for $`\zeta `$ Oph which appear to coincide in position and shape with the simulated band heads. It is unlikely that these are due to C$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}`$ because the stellar lines in $`\zeta `$ Per have exactly the same shape as the coincident features. For $`\zeta `$ Oph the whole C$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}`$ spectrum sits within a weak stellar feature (the lines are broadened by rapid rotation $``$400 km s-1). The photospheric lines in $`\zeta `$ Oph show nonradial pulsation ‘ripples’ which will be ’washed out’ to some extent by the long exposure time employed. The spectrum of 20 Aql, which normally has the strongest interstellar lines of the three, is free of stellar features but has no features coincident with the C$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}`$ simulation. It is concluded that, while interstellar C$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}`$ might be absent for 20 Aql and present for the other two stars, it is more likely that in the latter cases the features are instead stellar.

Table 3 gives the measured equivalent widths for the most intense C3 line (Q(8)) for each star together with an 1$`\sigma `$ error estimate. For C$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{2}{}^{}`$, C$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ and C$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}`$, 3$`\sigma `$ detection limits are given. The 1$`\sigma `$ level errors and detection limits are derived from:

$$W_\lambda =(wd)^{\frac{1}{2}}(S/N)^1$$

where the 1$`\sigma `$ limiting equivalent width, $`W_\lambda `$, and the FWHM of the feature, $`w`$, are both measured in Å, the spectrograph dispersion, $`d`$, in Å pixel-1, and S/N is the signal to noise per pixel. From the simulations, $`w`$ = 0.045, 1.0, 0.13 and 0.045Å for C3, C$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}`$, C$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ and C$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}`$, respectively.

In the case of C3, equivalent widths, $`W_\lambda `$, were determined for each rotational line (varying between 0.3-2.7$`\times 10^4`$Å) and, in combination with the transition oscillator strength, f0-0, and Hönl-London factors, the column densities, $`N_J`$(C3), of each rotational level ($`J`$) in the ground electronic state were calculated (Larsson, 1983). In cases where several rotational lines originating from the same level were assigned (e.g. P(8), Q(8), R(8)) the mean of the determined column densities was taken. Figure 5 shows a Boltzmann plot of ln($`N_J/(2J+1)`$) vs. the rotational energy (Gausset et al., 1965) where the slope is inversely proportional to the rotational temperature. Among the lowest rotational levels ($`J<`$14) the populations are reasonably approximated by a distribution at 50-70 K, whereas the higher rotational levels correspond to a temperature of 200-300 K. The simulation in Figure 1 uses 80 K as this represents an average temperature for the entire rotational population and allows both the high and low $`J`$ lines to be identified. The high temperature component of the distribution is apparent in the astronomical spectra where the R band head and the higher Q lines are more intense than in the simulation (Figure 1).

Lutz & Crutcher (1983) also found a bimodal population distribution for C2 in diffuse clouds, with similar characteristic temperatures for the low and high $`J`$ values. The lower temperature is interpreted as the kinetic energy of the cloud and for both C2 and C3 the values obtained are comparable to those used in models of diffuse clouds (van Dishoeck & Black, 1986). The higher temperature component is attributed to repopulation of the levels in the ground electronic state by radiative pumping from excited states. In the case of C3 it is expected that both the $`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Pi }_{u}^{}`$ state and the higher lying $`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{u}^{+}`$ state will contribute to the radiative pumping.

The sensitivity of these measurements is such that $`N_J`$(C3) in the range 0.2-2$`\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2 is determined for rotational levels up to $`J`$=30. The $`N_J`$ values were summed to give the estimated lower limits in the range 1-2$`\times 10^{12}`$ cm-2 for the total column density, $`N_{\mathrm{tot}}`$(C3), in Table 3.

### 3.1 Discussion

A previous search for C3 in the direction of $`\zeta `$ Oph did not identify the molecule (Snow et al., 1988). It is unclear why this was the case as, in the light of the present observations, the signal-to-noise quoted for these measurements was adequate and the upper limit given was some thirty times lower than the column density reported here. The present measurements for the column densities of C3 are of the same order of magnitude as the tentative estimate for a translucent cloud (Haffner & Meyer, 1995) and can be compared to those of other polyatomic molecules observed in diffuse interstellar clouds. Column densities (also towards $`\zeta `$ Oph) in the 1012-13 cm-2 range have been inferred for HCO+, C2H and C3H2 from observations in the mm region by Lucas & Liszt (2000), while H$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{3}{}^{}`$ has been identified in diffuse regions and Ntot(H$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{3}{}^{}`$) estimated $`4\times 10^{14}`$ cm-2 by McCall et al. (1998). Column densities of C2 towards $`\zeta `$ Oph and $`\zeta `$ Per have been determined in the 2-3$`\times 10^{13}`$ cm-2 range by Federman & Huntress (1989). A current model of the diffuse clouds by Ruffle & Herbst (2000) predicts Ntot(C2)/Ntot(C3) $``$ 20 (on a 105 year time scale), implying Ntot(C3)$`10^{12}`$ cm-2, in agreement with the values deduced from the Table 3. The main production route to C3 is presumed to be the dissociative recombination process: C3H+ \+ $`e`$ $``$ C3 \+ H, where C3H+ is produced from smaller species by C+ ion insertion. Under conditions where ultra-violet radiation penetrates, photodissociation of C3 takes place at a threshold of 1653Å. As the strong $`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{u}^{+}`$$``$$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{g}^{+}`$ electronic transition of C3 is predicted to occur around 1700Å (Forney et al., 1996), the dissociation process, C3 $``$ C2 \+ C, may be an important destruction pathway in diffuse clouds.

Although only upper limits for the column densities of C$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}`$, C$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ and C$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ could be presently established, these species are of interest as small ionic carbon fragments play a crucial role in the ion molecule schemes for diffuse cloud chemistry (Dalgano & Black, 1976). The C$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ ion is the only bare carbon cation for which the gas phase electronic spectrum is known (Maier & Rösslein, 1988). In diffuse clouds it is supposed to be the product of the fundamental step: C+ \+ CH $``$ C$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ \+ H. Its main destruction mechanism is hydrogenation: C$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ \+ H2 $``$ C2H+ \+ H, which dominates over recombination with electrons in diffuse regions. The diffuse cloud model (Ruffle & Herbst, 2000) predicts a C$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ abundance a factor of 10-3 lower than C2, implying a column density $`10^{10}`$ cm-2, in accord with the upper limit in Table 3.

Published models for diffuse regions do not include the smallest pure carbon anions, C$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ and C$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}`$ in their reaction libraries. Unlike C$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{2}{}^{}`$, C$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ does not react with H2 so its main destruction mechanism is expected to be photodetachment. The similar rotational line widths and oscillator strengths of the C$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ and C$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{2}{}^{}`$ transitions lead to similar upper limits for their total column densities. The width of the unresolved bands for C$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}`$ and the presence of weak stellar features in this spectral region means that a higher column density of this ion could have escaped detection.

The detection of C3 provides a powerful incentive for the laboratory study of the electronic transitions of longer carbon chains in the gas phase with the aim of comparison with DIB data. The question as to what types and sizes of carbon chains will have strong transitions in the 4000-9000Å range has already been answered: for example, $`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{u}^{+}`$$``$$`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{g}^{+}`$ transitions of the odd-number bare chains, C2n+1, $`n`$=8-30 (Maier, 1998). The existence of linear carbon chains up to C21 has been confirmed by the observation of their electronic spectra in neon matrices (Wyss et al., 1999). As the oscillator strength scales almost linearly with the length of the molecule, one can expect f$`{}_{00}{}^{}`$10-20 for these carbon chains. With such an oscillator strength, a species with a column density $`10^{11}`$ cm-2 would be enough to give rise to a strong DIB, with an equivalent width of 1Å. In view of the column density $``$1012 cm-2 for C3 determined in this work for three diffuse clouds, this appears to be a reasonable expectation.

The support of the Swiss National Science Foundation (project no. 20-055285.98), the Canadian Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and the National Research Council of Canada is gratefully acknowledged. The authors thank the staff of the CFHT for their care in setting up the fiber feed and agitator, thereby making such high signal-to-noise spectra possible.