format: text

text:
# Hawking Radiation of Dirac Particles in a Variable-mass Kerr Black Hole

> Hawking effect of Dirac particles in a variable-mass Kerr space-time is investigated by using method of the generalized tortoise coordinate transformation. The location and the temperature of event horizon of the non-stationary Kerr black hole are derived. It is shown that the temperature and the shape of event horizon depend not only on the time but also on the polar angle. However, our results demonstrate that the Fermi-Dirac spectrum displays a residual term which is absent from that of Bose-Einstein distribution.
>
> PACS: 04.70.Dy, 97.60.Lf

An important subject in black hole physics is to reveal thermal properties of various black holes. In order to study the Hawking effect of a nonstationary black hole, Zhao and Dai suggested a novel method of the generalized tortoise coordinate transformation (GTCT) which can give simultaneously the exact values both of the location and of the temperature of the event horizon of a non-stationary black hole. The GTCT method has been applied to investigate thermal radiation of scalar particles in the non-stationary Kerr black hole and in the non-stationary Kerr-Newman black hole.

However, it is very difficult to discuss on the evaporation of Dirac particles in the non-stationary axisymmetric black hole. The difficulty lies in the non-separability of the radial and angular variables for Chandrasekhar-Dirac equations in the non-stationary axisymmetry spacetime. Though the Hawking effect of Dirac particles in the non-stationary Kerr black hole has been studied in Ref. , the location and the temperature of the event horizon they obtained are only valid for the case of slow rotation and small evaporation, because their ansatz of separating variables (11) to equation (10) in Ref. , strictly speaking, is invalid in the most general case.

In this letter, we try to tackle with the thermal radiation of Dirac particles in the non-stationary Kerr space-time. It is shown that the location and the temperature of event horizon is just the same as that obtained in the case of the thermal radiation of Klein-Gordon scalar field in the non-stationary Kerr space-time, but the Fermionic spectrum of Dirac particles displays another new effect dependent on the interaction between the spin of Dirac particles and the angular momentum of black holes. This has not been reported in the previous studies yet.

The variable mass Kerr solution can be written in the advanced Eddington-Finkelstein system as

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}dv^22dvdr+2a\mathrm{sin}^2\theta drd\phi `$ (3)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }d\theta ^2+2{\displaystyle \frac{r^2+a^2\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}a\mathrm{sin}^2\theta dvd\phi `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(r^2+a^2)^2\mathrm{\Delta }a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2,`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=r^22M(v)r+a^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\overline{\rho }\rho `$, in which $`\rho =ria\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, $`\overline{\rho }`$ is the complex conjugate of $`\rho `$, and $`v`$ is the standard advanced time. The mass $`M`$ depends on the time $`v`$, but the specific angular momentum $`a`$ is a constant.

With the choice of a complex null-tetrad such that its corresponding directional derivatives are

$`\underset{¯}{D}=_r,\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\mathrm{\Sigma }^1\left[(r^2+a^2)_v+2^1\mathrm{\Delta }_r+a_\phi \right],`$ (4)
$`\delta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\overline{\rho }}}\left(ia\mathrm{sin}\theta _v+_\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }}_\phi \right)`$ (5)
and $`\overline{\delta }`$ the complex conjugate of $`\delta `$, one can obtain the following Dirac equation

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \hfill \left(_r+\frac{r}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right)F_1+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\rho }\left(\frac{ira\mathrm{sin}\theta }{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right)F_2=\frac{i\mu _0}{\sqrt{2}}G_1,\\ & \hfill \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2\mathrm{\Sigma }}\left(𝒟\frac{ia\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right)F_2+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\overline{\rho }}\left(\overline{}\frac{a^2\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right)F_1=\frac{i\mu _0}{\sqrt{2}}G_2,\\ & \hfill \left(_r+\frac{r}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right)G_2\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\overline{\rho }}\left(\overline{}+\frac{ira\mathrm{sin}\theta }{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right)G_1=\frac{i\mu _0}{\sqrt{2}}F_2,\\ & \hfill \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2\mathrm{\Sigma }}\left(𝒟+\frac{ia\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right)G_1\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\rho }\left(\frac{a^2\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right)G_2=\frac{i\mu _0}{\sqrt{2}}F_1,\end{array}$$
(6)
where $`\mu _0`$ is the mass of Dirac particles, the operators have been defined as

$`𝒟`$ $`=_r+\mathrm{\Delta }^1\left[rM+2a_\phi +2(r^2+a^2)_v\right],`$
$``$ $`=_\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cot}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }}_\phi ia\mathrm{sin}\theta _v,`$
$`\overline{}`$ $`=_\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cot}\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }}_\phi +ia\mathrm{sin}\theta _v.`$
By substituting

$$F_1=\frac{P_1}{\sqrt{2\mathrm{\Sigma }}},F_2=\frac{\rho P_2}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Sigma }}},G_1=\frac{\overline{\rho }Q_1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Sigma }}},G_2=\frac{Q_2}{\sqrt{2\mathrm{\Sigma }}},$$

into Eq. (6), they have the form

$$\begin{array}{cc}_rP_1+P_2=i\mu _0\overline{\rho }Q_1,\hfill & \mathrm{\Delta }𝒟P_2+\overline{}P_1=i\mu _0\overline{\rho }Q_2,\hfill \\ _rQ_2\overline{}Q_1=i\mu _0\rho P_2,\hfill & \mathrm{\Delta }𝒟Q_1Q_2=i\mu _0\rho P_1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
Eq. (7) can not be decoupled except in the case of Kerr black hole ($`M=`$ const). However, to deal with the problem of Hawking radiation, one may concern about the behavior of Eq. (7) near the horizon only. Now, let us make a GTCT

$$\begin{array}{cc}& r_{}=r+\frac{1}{2\kappa _H}\mathrm{ln}(rr_H),\hfill \\ & v_{}=vv_0,\theta _{}=\theta \theta _0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
where $`r_H=r_H(v,\theta )`$ is the location of the event horizon, and $`\kappa _H`$ is an adjustable parameter. All parameters $`\kappa _H`$, $`v_0`$ and $`\theta _0`$ are constant under the tortoise transformation.

Under the transformations (8), Eq. (7) can be reduced to

$$\begin{array}{cc}& _r_{}P_1+\left(r_H^{}ia\mathrm{sin}\theta _0\dot{r}_H\right)_r_{}P_2=0,\hfill \\ & \left[\mathrm{\Delta }_H2(r_H^2+a^2)\dot{r}_H\right]_r_{}P_2\hfill \\ & \left(r_H^{}+ia\mathrm{sin}\theta _0\dot{r}_H\right)_r_{}P_1=0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
after being taken limits $`rr_H(v_0,\theta _0)`$, $`vv_0`$ and $`\theta \theta _0`$. In the above, we have denoted $`\dot{r}_H=_vr_H`$, $`r_H^{}=_\theta r_H`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_H=r_H^22M(v_0)r_H+a^2`$.

If the derivatives $`_r_{}P_1`$ and $`_r_{}P_2`$ in Eq. (9) are not equal to zero, the existence condition of non-trial solutions for $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ is that the determinant of Eq. (9) vanishes, which gives the following equation to determine the location of horizon

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_H2(r_H^2+a^2)\dot{r}_H+a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _0\dot{r}_{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+r_{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=0.$$
(10)
An apparent fact is that the Chandrasekhar-Dirac equations (7) could be satisfied by identifying $`Q_1`$, $`Q_2`$ with $`\overline{P}_2`$, $`\overline{P}_1`$, respectively. So one may deal with a pair of components $`P_1`$, $`P_2`$ only. Now let us consider the asymptotic behaviors of the second-order equations for the two-component spinor ($`P_1,P_2`$) near the event horizon. Given the GTCT in Eq. (8), the limiting form of the second order equations for $`P_1,P_2`$, when $`r`$ approaches $`r_H(v_0,\theta _0)`$, $`v`$ goes to $`v_0`$ and $`\theta `$ goes to $`\theta _0`$, reads

$`𝒦P_1\{r_H(13\dot{r}_H)M+r_H^{\prime \prime }+\ddot{r}_Ha^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _0`$ (11)
$`+r_H^{}\mathrm{cot}\theta _0+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_H\dot{r}_H(r_H^2+a^2)+ia\mathrm{sin}\theta _0r_H^{}}{\overline{\rho }_H}}\}_r_{}P_1`$ (12)
$`+\{2i\dot{M}r_Ha\mathrm{sin}\theta _0{\displaystyle \frac{2ia\mathrm{sin}\theta _0\dot{r}_H(r_H^2+a^2)}{\overline{\rho }_H}}`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_H[r_H^{}ia\mathrm{sin}\theta _0(\dot{r}_H+1)]}{\overline{\rho }_H}}\}_r_{}P_2=0,`$ (14)
and

$`𝒦P_2\{Mr_H(1+\dot{r}_H)+r_H^{\prime \prime }+\ddot{r}_Ha^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _0`$ (15)
$`+r_H^{}\mathrm{cot}\theta _0+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_H\dot{r}_H(r_H^2+a^2)+ia\mathrm{sin}\theta _0r_H^{}}{\overline{\rho }_H}}\}_r_{}P_2`$ (16)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{r_H^{}+ia\mathrm{sin}\theta _0(\dot{r}_H1)}{\overline{\rho }_H}}_r_{}P_1=0.`$ (17)
where $`\overline{\rho }_H=r_H+ia\mathrm{cos}\theta _0`$. We have used the L’ Hôsptial rule to get a term involving the second-order derivatives denoted by the operator

$`𝒦`$ $`=`$ $`\{\kappa _H^1[r_H(12\dot{r}_H)M]2\dot{r}_H(r_H^2+a^2)`$
$`+2\mathrm{\Delta }_H\}^2_r_{}+2(r_H^2+a^2\dot{r}_Ha^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _0)^2_{r_{}v_{}}`$
$`+2a(1\dot{r}_H)_{r_{}\phi }^2P_22r_H^{}_{r_{}\theta _{}}^2`$
One can adjust the parameter $`\kappa _H`$ such that it satisfies

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \kappa _H^1[r_H(12\dot{r}_H)M]+2\mathrm{\Delta }_H2\dot{r}_H(r_H^2+a^2)\hfill \\ & r_H^2+a^2\dot{r}_Ha^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
which means the temperature of the horizon is

$$\kappa _H=\frac{r_H(12\dot{r}_H)M}{r_H^2+a^2\dot{r}_Ha^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _02\mathrm{\Delta }_H+2\dot{r}_H(r_H^2+a^2)}.$$
(19)
Using Eq. (9), Eq. (14) and Eq. (17) can be recast into the standard wave equation near the horizon in an united form

$`_r_{}^2\mathrm{\Psi }+2_{r_{}v_{}}^2\mathrm{\Psi }+2\mathrm{\Omega }_{r_{}\phi }^2\mathrm{\Psi }+2C_3_{r_{}\theta _{}}^2\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (20)
$`+2(C_2+iC_1)_r_{}\mathrm{\Psi }=0,`$ (21)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=a(1\dot{r}_H)/(r_H^2+a^2\dot{r}_Ha^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _0)`$ is the angular velocity of the event horizon of the evaporating Kerr black hole. $`C_3=r_H^{}/(r_H^2+a^2\dot{r}_Ha^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _0)`$, $`C_2`$ (omitted here) and $`C_1`$ are all real constants,

$`C_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(r_H^2+a^2\dot{r}_Ha^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _0)}}[\dot{r}_Ha\mathrm{cos}\theta _0`$ (23)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2\dot{M}r_Hr_H^{}a\mathrm{sin}\theta _0}{\mathrm{\Delta }_H2\dot{r}_H(r_H^2+a^2)}}],\mathrm{for}\mathrm{\Psi }=P_1,`$
$`C_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{r}_Ha\mathrm{cos}\theta _0}{2(r_H^2+a^2\dot{r}_Ha^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _0)}},\mathrm{for}\mathrm{\Psi }=P_2.`$ (24)
Now separating as $`\mathrm{\Psi }=R(r_{})\mathrm{exp}[\lambda \theta _{}+i(m\phi \omega v_{})]`$, one has

$$\begin{array}{cc}& R^{\prime \prime }+2(C_0+iC_1+im\mathrm{\Omega }i\omega )R^{}=0,\hfill \\ & Re^{2i(\omega m\mathrm{\Omega }C_1)r_{}2C_0r_{}};R_0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(25)
where $`C_0=\lambda C_3+C_2`$, $`\lambda `$ is a real constant introduced in the separation of variables.

The ingoing wave solution and the outgoing wave solution to Eq. (21), are respectively,

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{in}}=\mathrm{exp}[i\omega v_{}+im\phi +\lambda \theta _{}],\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{out}}=\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{in}}e^{2i(\omega m\mathrm{\Omega }C_1)r_{}2C_0r_{}},(r>r_H).\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
The outgoing wave $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{out}}`$ is not analytic at the event horizon $`r=r_H`$, but can be analytically continued from the outside of the hole into the inside of the hole by the lower complex $`r`$-plane to

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\mathrm{out}}=\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{out}}e^{i\pi C_0/\kappa _H}e^{\pi (\omega m\mathrm{\Omega }C_1)/\kappa _H}(r<r_H).$$
(27)
The relative scattering probability at the event horizon is

$$\left|\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{out}}}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\mathrm{out}}}\right|^2=e^{2\pi (\omega m\mathrm{\Omega }C_1)/\kappa _H}.$$
(28)
Following the method of Damour-Ruffini-Sannan’s, the Fermionic spectrum of Hawking radiation of Dirac particles from the black hole is easily obtained

$$𝒩(\omega )=\frac{1}{e^{(\omega m\mathrm{\Omega }C_1)/T_H}+1},T_H=\frac{\kappa _H}{2\pi }.$$
(29)
Equations (10) and (19) give the location and the temperature of event horizon of the variable-mass Kerr black hole, which depend not only on the advanced time $`v`$ but also on the polar angle $`\theta `$. They are in accord with that obtained from Klein-Gordon field equation. Eq. (29) shows the thermal radiant spectrum of Dirac particles in the non-stationary Kerr space-time, in which a residual term $`C_1`$ appears. The difference between Bosonic spectrum and Fermionic spectrum is that $`C_1`$ is absent in the spectrum of Klein-Gordon scalar particles. Also $`C_1`$ vanishes when a black hole is stationary or has a vanishing angular momentum.

In conclusion, the $`C_1`$ term represents a new effect in the spectrum of Dirac particles, which is absent from the spectrum of Klein-Gordon particles. This new effect maybe arise from the interaction between the spin of Dirac particle and the evaporating black hole.

S.Q. Wu is very grateful to Dr. Jeff Zhao at Motomola Company for his longterm helps. This work is supported in part by the NSFC under Grant No.19875019.


text:
# Hamiltonian BRST interactions in Abelian theories

## 1 Introduction

The reformulation of the Lagrangian BRST symmetry  on cohomological grounds allowed, among others, the study of consistent interactions that can be introduced among fields with gauge freedom without changing the number of gauge symmetries  with the help of the deformation of the master equation  in the framework of the local BRST cohomology . This Lagrangian cohomological deformation technique has been successfully applied to many models of interest, like Chern-Simons models, Yang-Mills theories, the Chapline-Manton model, $`p`$-forms and chiral $`p`$-forms, Einstein’s gravity theory, four- and eleven-dimensional supergravity, or BF models .

On the other hand, the Hamiltonian BRST formalism  appears to be the most natural setting for implementing the BRST symmetry in quantum mechanics  (Chapter 14). In the meantime, it attracted much attention by providing a strong tool for examining anomalies , computing local BRST cohomologies , as well as for establishing a proper connection with canonical quantization formalisms, like, for instance, the reduced phase-space or Dirac quantization procedures . Lately, the Hamiltonian BRST approach has been extended to the investigation of consistent interactions that can be added in gauge theories with the help of the deformation technique based on local cohomologies .

In this paper we investigate the consistent Hamiltonian interactions that can be introduced between an Abelian gauge field and three types of matter fields, namely, the complex scalar, the massless real scalar and Dirac, with the help of cohomological BRST arguments combined with the deformation technique. In each of the three cases under consideration we start from a “free” theory, whose Lagrangian action is equal to the sum of the action of an Abelian gauge field and the one describing one of the matter fields. Every of the “free” systems displays two types of symmetries: a rigid one related to the matter component, that induces a certain conserved current, and the other purely gauge, characteristic to Maxwell’s theory. The Hamiltonian BRST symmetry of the “free” models, $`s`$, simply decomposes into $`s=\delta +\gamma `$, with $`\delta `$ the Koszul-Tate differential and $`\gamma `$ the exterior derivative along the gauge orbits. Its non-trivial action is essentially due to the first-class constraints of the electromagnetic field. It has been shown in  that the Hamiltonian problem of introducing consistent interactions in gauge theories can be reformulated as a deformation problem of the BRST charge and BRST-invariant Hamiltonian of a starting ‘free’ theory. Following this line, we prove that the deformed BRST charge consistent at all orders in the deformation parameter can be taking non-vanishing only at order one in the case of all the investigated models. Meanwhile, the first-order deformation of the BRST charge reduces every time to the component of antighost number zero, which is $`\gamma `$-invariant. Further, we solve the equations responsible for the deformation of the BRST-invariant Hamiltonian associated with the “free” systems. Related to the first-order deformation equation written in a local form, we give evidence for its relationship with the conserved currents corresponding to some rigid transformations of the matter fields. On account of this relationship, we can determine the deformed BRST charge and the first-order deformation of the BRST-invariant Hamiltonian. The remaining higher-order equations are then satisfactorily solved, and the deformed BRST-invariant Hamiltonian is completely output in every of the cases under study. It is important to notice that there appear no obstructions regarding the locality of the deformed BRST quantities. Analyzing the resulting interacting models, it follows that we have constructed nothing but the scalar electrodynamics, the Stuckelberg theory for Abelian zero- and one-forms and the spinor electrodynamics. The matter fields are endowed, as a consequence of their couplings to the Abelian gauge field, with some gauge transformations that can be inferred from the original global ones merely by gauging.

This paper is organized in five sections. Section 2 briefly formulates the analysis of consistent Hamiltonian interactions that can be added to a “free” theory without changing its number of gauge symmetries as a deformation problem of the corresponding BRST charge and BRST-invariant Hamiltonian, finally expressed in terms of the so-called main equations. Based on this, in Section 3 we construct the consistent Hamiltonian couplings between an Abelian gauge field and a scalar field on cohomological grounds. As a consequence, we infer the scalar electrodynamics in the complex case, respectively, the Stuckelberg model involving zero- and one-forms in the massless real case. Section 4 deals with a similar topic with respect to an Abelian gauge field and a Dirac field, leading to spinor electrodynamics. Section 5 ends the paper with some conclusions.

## 2 Main equations of the Hamiltonian BRST deformation procedure

We consider a “free” Lagrangian theory, whose action is invariant under some gauge transformations, that can in principle be reducible. At the Lagrangian level, all the information on the gauge structure and reducibility relations is encoded within the solution to the master equation. Moreover, it has been shown that the deformation of the solution to the master equation generates consistent interactions among fields with gauge freedom . At the Hamiltonian level, the gauge structure of a given gauge theory is completely captured by the BRST charge and BRST-invariant Hamiltonian. Similarly to the Lagrangian deformation procedure, we can reformulate the problem of introducing consistent Hamiltonian interactions like a deformation problem of the BRST charge and BRST-invariant Hamiltonian.

If the interactions can be consistently constructed, then the BRST charge of a given “free” theory, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, can be deformed as

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_0\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_0+g{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^{D1}x\omega _1}+g^2{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^{D1}x\omega _2}+O\left(g^3\right)=`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_0+g\mathrm{\Omega }_1+g^2\mathrm{\Omega }_2+O\left(g^3\right),`$ (1)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ should satisfy the equation

$$[\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }]=0.$$
(2)
Here, the symbol $`[,]`$ denotes either the Poisson, or the Dirac bracket. If the initial system is purely first-class, we need the Poisson bracket; if there are also second-class constraints, then we eliminate them, and work with the Dirac one. Equation (2) splits accordingly the deformation parameter $`g`$ as

$$[\mathrm{\Omega }_0,\mathrm{\Omega }_0]=0,$$
(3)
$$2[\mathrm{\Omega }_0,\mathrm{\Omega }_1]=0,$$
(4)
$$2[\mathrm{\Omega }_0,\mathrm{\Omega }_2]+[\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_1]=0,$$
(5)
$$\mathrm{}$$

Obviously, (3) is automatically satisfied. From the remaining equations we deduce the pieces $`\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_k\right)_{k>0}`$ on account of the “free” BRST differential. With the deformed BRST charge at hand, we then deform the BRST-invariant Hamiltonian of the “free” theory, $`H_{0B}`$, like

$`H_{0B}H_B=H_{0B}+g{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^{D1}xh_1}+g^2{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^{D1}xh_2}+O\left(g^3\right)=`$
$`H_{0B}+gH_1+g^2H_2+O\left(g^3\right),`$ (6)
and require that

$$[H_B,\mathrm{\Omega }]=0.$$
(7)
Equation (7) can be analyzed order by order in the deformation parameter $`g`$, leading to

$$[H_{0B},\mathrm{\Omega }_0]=0,$$
(8)
$$[H_{0B},\mathrm{\Omega }_1]+[H_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_0]=0,$$
(9)
$$[H_{0B},\mathrm{\Omega }_2]+[H_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_1]+[H_2,\mathrm{\Omega }_0]=0,$$
(10)
$$\mathrm{}$$

Clearly, (8) is again fulfilled, while from the others one can determine the components $`\left(H_k\right)_{k>0}`$ by relying on the BRST symmetry of the “free” model. Equations (35), etc., and (810), etc., represent the main equations of our Hamiltonian deformation procedure. They will be solved in the next sections with respect to the models under study by means of some cohomological techniques, specific to the Hamiltonian BRST formalism.

## 3 Couplings between an Abelian gauge field and a scalar field

Initially, we investigate the consistent Hamiltonian couplings between an Abelian gauge field and a scalar field along the line exposed in the above, and derive the scalar electrodynamics in the complex case, respectively, the Stuckelberg coupling in the massless real case.

### 3.1 Couplings with a complex scalar field

We start from a “free” Lagrangian action written as the sum between the action of an Abelian gauge field $`A_\mu `$ and that of a complex scalar field $`(\phi ,\overline{\phi })`$

$$S_0^L[\phi ,\overline{\phi },A^\mu ]=\mathrm{d}^4x\left(\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\left(_\mu \phi \right)^\mu \overline{\phi }\mu ^2\phi \overline{\phi }V\left(\phi \overline{\phi }\right)\right),$$
(11)
where the bar operation represents the complex conjugation, while the Abelian field strength is defined in the usual manner by $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$.

As commonly known, the action (11) is invariant under the one-parameter rigid symmetries (genuinely, only the part corresponding to the scalar field is non-trivially responsible for this global invariance)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi =i\phi \xi ,\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\phi }=i\overline{\phi }\xi ,$$
(12)
leading, via Noether’s theorem, to the conservation law

$$_\mu j^\mu =i\phi \frac{\delta ^{\left(S\right)}}{\delta \phi }i\overline{\phi }\frac{\delta ^{\left(S\right)}}{\delta \overline{\phi }},$$
(13)
giving evidence for the conserved current

$$j^\mu =i\left(\overline{\phi }^\mu \phi \phi ^\mu \overline{\phi }\right),$$
(14)
with

$$\frac{\delta ^{\left(S\right)}}{\delta \phi }=\left(_\mu ^\mu +\mu ^2+\frac{V}{\left(\phi \overline{\phi }\right)}\right)\overline{\phi },$$
(15)
$$\frac{\delta ^{\left(S\right)}}{\delta \overline{\phi }}=\left(_\mu ^\mu +\mu ^2+\frac{V}{\left(\phi \overline{\phi }\right)}\right)\phi ,$$
(16)
where $`^{\left(S\right)}`$ stands for the Lagrangian density associated with the complex scalar field.

By passing to the canonical analysis of the action (11), we find the Abelian first-class constraints and first-class Hamiltonian of the form

$$G_1\pi _00,G_2^i\pi _i0,$$
(17)
$`H_0={\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}^3x({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pi _i\pi _i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{ij}F^{ij}A^0^i\pi _i+`$
$`\pi \overline{\pi }\left(_j\phi \right)^j\overline{\phi }+\mu ^2\phi \overline{\phi }+V\left(\phi \overline{\phi }\right)),`$ (18)
where $`\pi _\mu `$, $`\pi `$ and $`\overline{\pi }`$ denote the canonical momenta of the fields $`A^\mu `$, $`\phi `$, respectively, $`\overline{\phi }`$. The BRST charge of this “free” theory is then

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_0=\mathrm{d}^3x\left(\pi _0\eta ^1\left(^i\pi _i\right)\eta ^2\right),$$
(19)
where $`\eta ^1`$and $`\eta ^2`$ represent the fermionic Hamiltonian ghosts. Their antighosts, to be denoted by $`𝒫_1`$, respectively, $`𝒫_2`$, are also fermionic. The “free” Hamiltonian BRST symmetry $`s=[,\mathrm{\Omega }_0]`$ simply decomposes as

$$s=\delta +\gamma ,$$
(20)
with $`\delta `$ the Koszul-Tate differential, and $`\gamma `$ the exterior longitudinal derivative along the gauge orbits. The Koszul-Tate differential is graded accordingly the antighost number ($`\mathrm{antigh}`$, $`\mathrm{antigh}(\delta )=1`$), the degree of the exterior longitudinal derivative is named pure ghost number ($`\mathrm{pgh}`$, $`\mathrm{pgh}(\gamma )=1`$, $`\mathrm{pgh}\left(\delta \right)=0`$, $`\mathrm{antigh}(\gamma )=0`$), while the overall grading of the BRST differential is called ghost number ($`\mathrm{gh}`$, $`\mathrm{gh}\left(s\right)=1`$), and is defined by the difference between the pure ghost number and the antighost number. The degrees of the generators from the BRST complex are valued

$$\mathrm{antigh}\left(A^\mu \right)=\mathrm{antigh}\left(\pi _\mu \right)=\mathrm{antigh}\left(\phi \right)=\mathrm{antigh}\left(\overline{\phi }\right)=0,$$
(21)
$$\mathrm{antigh}\left(\pi \right)=\mathrm{antigh}\left(\overline{\pi }\right)=0,\mathrm{antigh}\left(𝒫_a\right)=1,\mathrm{antigh}\left(\eta ^a\right)=0,a=1,2,$$
(22)
$$\mathrm{pgh}\left(A^\mu \right)=\mathrm{pgh}\left(\pi _\mu \right)=\mathrm{pgh}\left(\phi \right)=\mathrm{pgh}\left(\overline{\phi }\right)=\mathrm{pgh}\left(\pi \right)=\mathrm{pgh}\left(\overline{\pi }\right)=0,$$
(23)
$$\mathrm{pgh}\left(𝒫_a\right)=0,\mathrm{pgh}\left(\eta ^a\right)=1,a=1,2.$$
(24)
The operators $`\delta `$ and $`\gamma `$ act on the BRST generators through the relations

$$\delta A^\mu =0,\delta \pi _\mu =0,\delta \phi =0,\delta \overline{\phi }=0,\delta \pi =0,$$
(25)
$$\delta \overline{\pi }=0,\delta 𝒫_1=\pi _0,\delta 𝒫_2=^i\pi _i,\delta \eta ^1=0,\delta \eta ^2=0,$$
(26)
$$\gamma A^0=\eta ^1,\gamma A^i=^i\eta ^2,\gamma \pi _\mu =0,\gamma \phi =0,\gamma \overline{\phi }=0,\gamma \pi =0,$$
(27)
$$\gamma \overline{\pi }=0,\gamma 𝒫_1=0,\gamma 𝒫_2=0,\gamma \eta ^1=0,\gamma \eta ^2=0,$$
(28)
that will be used in the sequel at the deformation procedure.

Next, we solve the equations (45), etc., and (910), etc., that govern the Hamiltonian deformation. Taking into account the expression (2), the local form of (4) holds if and only if $`\omega _1`$ is an $`s`$-co-cycle modulo the spatial part of the space-time derivative, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}=\mathrm{dx}^\mathrm{i}_\mathrm{i}`$, hence if and only if

$$s\omega _1=_k\sigma ^k,$$
(29)
for some $`\sigma ^k`$. In order to solve (29) we expand $`\omega _1`$ according to the antighost number

$$\omega _1=\underset{1}{\overset{\left(0\right)}{\omega }}+\underset{1}{\overset{\left(1\right)}{\omega }}+\mathrm{}+\underset{1}{\overset{\left(J\right)}{\omega }},$$
(30)
where the last term can be assumed to be annihilated by $`\gamma `$. As $`\mathrm{antigh}\left(\underset{1}{\overset{\left(J\right)}{\omega }}\right)=J`$ and $`\mathrm{gh}\left(\underset{1}{\overset{\left(J\right)}{\omega }}\right)=1`$, we find the result that $`\mathrm{pgh}\left(\underset{1}{\overset{\left(J\right)}{\omega }}\right)=J+1`$, so we can represent $`\underset{1}{\overset{\left(J\right)}{\omega }}`$ in the form $`\underset{1}{\overset{\left(J\right)}{\omega }}=\mu _J\left(\eta ^2\right)^{J+1}`$. (The ghost $`\eta ^1`$ does not come into discussion as it is trivial in the cohomology of $`\gamma `$: $`\gamma A^0=\eta ^1`$, $`\gamma \eta ^1=0`$.) Due to the fermionic character of $`\eta ^2`$, this term is non-vanishing if and only if $`J=0`$, such that

$$\omega _1=\underset{1}{\overset{\left(0\right)}{\omega }}=\mu _0\eta ^2.$$
(31)
With this choice, it is easy to check that the $`\gamma `$-invariant coefficient $`\mu _0`$ should satisfy the conditions $`\mathrm{antigh}\left(\mu _0\right)=0`$, $`\mathrm{pgh}\left(\mu _0\right)=0`$, $`\gamma \mu _0=0`$. From (2528) the result is obtained that $`\mu _0`$ can depend on $`(\phi ,\overline{\phi })`$ and $`(\pi ,\overline{\pi })`$, so $`\mu _0=\mu _0(\phi ,\overline{\phi },\pi ,\overline{\pi })`$. In this way, the first-order deformation of the BRST charge, determined up to $`\mu _0`$, is given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_1=\mathrm{d}^3x\mu _0(\phi ,\overline{\phi },\pi ,\overline{\pi })\eta ^2.$$
(32)
By direct computation we then obtain that $`[\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_1]=0`$, no matter what $`\mu _0(\phi ,\overline{\phi },\pi ,\overline{\pi })`$ we take. The second-order deformation equation of the BRST charge, (5), is thus satisfied for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2=0`$, such that the corresponding higher-order deformations can be taken as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3=\mathrm{\Omega }_4=\mathrm{}=0`$. Consequently, the overall deformed BRST charge takes the form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{d}^3x\left(\pi _0\eta ^1\left(^i\pi _ig\mu _0(\phi ,\overline{\phi },\pi ,\overline{\pi })\right)\eta ^2\right).$$
(33)
At this point, we investigate the deformation of the BRST-invariant Hamiltonian, described by (910), etc., where the BRST-invariant Hamiltonian of the free theory reads

$$H_{0B}=H_0+\mathrm{d}^3x\eta ^1𝒫_2.$$
(34)
From (18), (32) and (34) we see that the first term in (9) can be written as

$`[H_{0B},\mathrm{\Omega }_1]={\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}^3x((\pi \overline{u}+\overline{\pi }u)\eta ^2\eta ^1\mu _0+`$ (35)
$`((_j^j\phi +\mu ^2\phi +{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\left(\phi \overline{\phi }\right)}}\phi )\overline{v}+(_j^j\overline{\phi }+\mu ^2\overline{\phi }+{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\left(\phi \overline{\phi }\right)}}\overline{\phi })v)\eta ^2)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^3x\lambda },`$
so that the local form of (9) leads to

$$sh_1+\lambda =^in_i,$$
(36)
for some $`n_i`$. In the above we used the notations $`\overline{u}\left(x\right)=\mathrm{d}^3y\frac{\delta \mu _0(x^0,\stackrel{}{y})}{\delta \overline{\phi }\left(x\right)}`$, $`u\left(x\right)=\mathrm{d}^3y\frac{\delta \mu _0(x^0,\stackrel{}{y})}{\delta \phi \left(x\right)}`$, $`\overline{v}\left(x\right)=\mathrm{d}^3y\frac{\delta \mu _0(x^0,\stackrel{}{y})}{\delta \overline{\pi }\left(x\right)}`$, $`v\left(x\right)=\mathrm{d}^3y\frac{\delta \mu _0(x^0,\stackrel{}{y})}{\delta \pi \left(x\right)}`$. As the term $`\eta ^1\mu _0`$ from $`\lambda `$ does not contain spatial derivatives, it should be compensated by a similar term of opposite sign in $`sh_1`$. This can be achieved if and only if

$$h_1=\mu _0A^0+\alpha ,$$
(37)
where $`\alpha `$ should depend on $`A^i`$ in order to produce a term containing spatial derivatives through its Poisson bracket with the second term in (19). In the meantime, $`\alpha `$ involves no ghosts or antighosts because otherwise we would enlarge $`[H_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_0]`$ with pieces that are not present in $`[H_{0B},\mathrm{\Omega }_1]`$. These considerations further give

$$[H_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_0]=\mathrm{d}^3x\left(\eta ^1\mu _0+a_i^i\eta ^2\right),$$
(38)
which combined with (35), lead to the concrete form of (36) as

$`((_j^j\phi +\mu ^2\phi +{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\left(\phi \overline{\phi }\right)}}\phi )\overline{v}+(_j^j\overline{\phi }+\mu ^2\overline{\phi }+{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\left(\phi \overline{\phi }\right)}}\overline{\phi })v`$
$`\pi \overline{u}\overline{\pi }u)\eta ^2+a_i^i\eta ^2=^in_i,`$ (39)
where $`a_i\left(x\right)=\mathrm{d}^3y\frac{\delta \alpha (x^0,\stackrel{}{y})}{\delta A^i\left(x\right)}`$. In order to obtain a total derivative in the left-hand side of (39) we must have

$`\left(_j^j\phi +\mu ^2\phi +{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\left(\phi \overline{\phi }\right)}}\phi \right)\overline{v}+\left(_j^j\overline{\phi }+\mu ^2\overline{\phi }+{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\left(\phi \overline{\phi }\right)}}\overline{\phi }\right)v`$
$`\pi \overline{u}\overline{\pi }u=^ia_i.`$ (40)
By adding the terms $`\left(_0^0\phi \right)\overline{v}`$ and $`\left(_0^0\overline{\phi }\right)v`$ to both hand-sides of the above equation, we arrive at

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^{\left(S\right)}}{\delta \phi }}v{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^{\left(S\right)}}{\delta \overline{\phi }}}\overline{v}=\pi \overline{u}+\overline{\pi }u+`$
$`\left(_0^0\phi \right)\overline{v}+\left(_0^0\overline{\phi }\right)v+^ia_i.`$ (41)
The left-hand side of (41) represents nothing but the variation of the Lagrangian density of the complex scalar field under the rigid transformations

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi \left(x\right)=\mathrm{d}^3y\frac{\delta \mu _0(x^0,\stackrel{}{y})}{\delta \pi \left(x\right)}\xi ,\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\phi }\left(x\right)=\mathrm{d}^3y\frac{\delta \mu _0(x^0,\stackrel{}{y})}{\delta \overline{\pi }\left(x\right)}\xi .$$
(42)
On the other hand, by identifying the above global variations with the rigid one-parameter transformations (12), we get the equations

$$\mathrm{d}^3y\frac{\delta \mu _0(x^0,\stackrel{}{y})}{\delta \pi \left(x\right)}=i\phi \left(x\right),\mathrm{d}^3y\frac{\delta \mu _0(x^0,\stackrel{}{y})}{\delta \overline{\pi }\left(x\right)}=i\overline{\phi }\left(x\right),$$
(43)
whose solution outputs the unknown function $`\mu _0`$ of the type

$$\mu _0\left(y\right)=i\left(\overline{\phi }\overline{\pi }\phi \pi \right)\left(y\right).$$
(44)
Inserting (44) in (41), and taking into account (13), we find that $`\mathrm{d}^3y\frac{\delta \alpha (x^0,\stackrel{}{y})}{\delta A^i\left(x\right)}=i\left(\overline{\phi }_i\phi \phi _i\overline{\phi }\right)\left(x\right)`$, which yields

$$\alpha \left(y\right)=\left(i\left(\overline{\phi }_i\phi \phi _i\overline{\phi }\right)A^i\right)\left(y\right).$$
(45)
In this manner, we have completely determined the first-order deformation of the BRST-invariant Hamiltonian and BRST charge:

$$H_1=i\mathrm{d}^3x\left(\left(\overline{\phi }\overline{\pi }\phi \pi \right)A^0+\left(\overline{\phi }_i\phi \phi _i\overline{\phi }\right)A^i\right),$$
(46)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }_1=i\mathrm{d}^3x\left(\overline{\phi }\overline{\pi }\phi \pi \right)\eta ^2.$$
(47)
Next, we approach the equation responsible for the second-order deformation of the BRST-invariant Hamiltonian, (10). In view of this, we remark that the first term is vanishing as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2=0`$, while the second one is equal to

$$[H_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_1]=2\mathrm{d}^3x\left(_i\left(\phi \overline{\phi }A^i\right)\right)\eta ^2=\mathrm{d}^3x\rho .$$
(48)
Consequently, (10) written in a local form becomes

$$sh_2+\rho =_ik^i,$$
(49)
whose solution reads

$$h_2=\phi \overline{\phi }A^iA_i,$$
(50)
such that

$$sh_2+\rho =_i\left(2\phi \overline{\phi }A^i\eta ^2\right).$$
(51)
Passing now to the third-order equation, $`[H_{0B},\mathrm{\Omega }_3]+[H_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_2]+[H_2,\mathrm{\Omega }_1]+[H_3,\mathrm{\Omega }_0]=0`$, we remark that the first two terms vanish as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2=\mathrm{\Omega }_3=0`$, while by direct computation we obtain

$$[H_2,\mathrm{\Omega }_1]=0.$$
(52)
Thus, we can safely take the third-order deformation piece in the BRST-invariant Hamiltonian to be equal to zero, $`H_3=0`$, and, moreover, it turns out that all higher-order deformation equations are fulfilled for

$$H_4=H_5=\mathrm{}=0.$$
(53)
Synthesizing the results deduced so far, we find that the complete deformations of the BRST charge and BRST-invariant Hamiltonian associated with the “free” system under discussion are

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{d}^3x\left(\pi _0\eta ^1\left(^i\pi _iig\left(\overline{\phi }\overline{\pi }\phi \pi \right)\right)\eta ^2\right),$$
(54)
respectively,

$`H_B={\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}^3x({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pi _i\pi _i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{ij}F^{ij}A^0^i\pi _i+\pi \overline{\pi }`$
$`\left(_j\phi \right)\left(^j\overline{\phi }\right)+\mu ^2\phi \overline{\phi }+V\left(\phi \overline{\phi }\right)+ig\left(\overline{\phi }\overline{\pi }\phi \pi \right)A^0+`$
$`ig(\overline{\phi }_i\phi \phi _i\overline{\phi })A^ig^2\phi \overline{\phi }A^iA_i+\eta ^1𝒫_2).`$ (55)
Now, we are in the position to analyse the resulting deformed theory. From the pieces present in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ that are linear in the ghosts we observe that the resulting model displays at the Hamiltonian level the same primary first-class constraint like the initial system (the former constraint in (17)), but the secondary one as a result of the deformation process has turned into

$$\gamma _2^i\pi _i+ig\left(\overline{\phi }\overline{\pi }\phi \pi \right)0,$$
(56)
such that these first-class constraints are still Abelian. Examining the terms that contain neither ghosts nor antighosts in (55), we notice that the first-class Hamiltonian of the interacting theory reads

$`H={\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}^3x({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pi _i\pi _i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{ij}F^{ij}A^0(^i\pi _iig(\overline{\phi }\overline{\pi }\phi \pi ))+`$
$`\pi \overline{\pi }\left(D_j\phi \right)\left(\overline{D^j\phi }\right)+\mu ^2\phi \overline{\phi }+V\left(\phi \overline{\phi }\right)),`$ (57)
where the spatial part of the covariant derivative is defined through

$$D_i=_i+igA_i.$$
(58)
The Lagrangian setting of the deformed system can be derived by successively passing to the extended and total formalisms, which finally yields the Lagrangian action

$$S^L[\phi ,\overline{\phi },A^\mu ]=\mathrm{d}^4x\left(\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\left(D_\mu \phi \right)\left(\overline{D^\mu \phi }\right)\mu ^2\phi \overline{\phi }V\left(\phi \overline{\phi }\right)\right),$$
(59)
subject to the gauge transformations

$$\delta _ϵA^\mu =^\mu ϵ,\delta _ϵ\phi =ig\phi ϵ,\delta _ϵ\overline{\phi }=ig\overline{\phi }ϵ,$$
(60)
with the covariant derivative given by

$$D_\mu =_\mu +igA_\mu .$$
(61)
We remark that the complex scalar field, that initially possessed only the rigid invariances (12), becomes endowed now with the gauge invariances in (60), that can be directly obtained from the rigid ones merely by gauging, and, moreover, have a typical form of gauge invariances for matter fields. It appears to be clear that the resulting interacting theory describes, at both the Hamiltonian and the Lagrangian level, nothing but the coupling between an Abelian gauge field and a complex scalar field, which is known as scalar electrodynamics.

### 3.2 Couplings with a massless real scalar field

In the sequel we apply the Hamiltonian deformation scheme to a free theory involving a massless real scalar field $`\phi `$ and an Abelian gauge field $`A^\mu `$ , and arrive precisely at a model underlying the Stuckelberg coupling between them. The Lagrangian action of this free system is

$$S_0^L[\phi ,A^\mu ]=\mathrm{d}^4x\left(\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}\left(_\mu \phi \right)\left(^\mu \phi \right)\right),$$
(62)
and possesses the global shift symmetry

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi =\xi ,$$
(63)
due essentially to the presence of the real scalar field, which leads to the conservation law

$$_\mu j^\mu =\frac{\delta ^{(SR)}}{\delta \phi },$$
(64)
which reveals the conserved current

$$j^\mu =^\mu \phi ,$$
(65)
where

$$\frac{\delta ^{(SR)}}{\delta \phi }=_\mu ^\mu \phi ,$$
(66)
and $`^{(SR)}`$ denotes the Lagrangian density of the real scalar field. From the canonical analysis of this theory we get the Abelian first-class constraints (17) and the first-class Hamiltonian

$$H_0^{}=\mathrm{d}^3x\left(\frac{1}{2}\pi _i\pi _i+\frac{1}{4}F_{ij}F^{ij}A^0^i\pi _i+\frac{1}{2}\pi ^2\frac{1}{2}\left(_i\phi \right)\left(^i\phi \right)\right),$$
(67)
where $`\pi `$ is the momentum conjugated to $`\phi `$. The BRST analysis is exactly the same like that performed for the previous model, and relies on the formulas (1928), from which any reference to the pair $`(\overline{\phi },\overline{\pi })`$ should be discarded. At this point, we have all the elements required for the development of the Hamiltonian deformation scheme.

The consistent deformations of the free BRST charge (19) demand, as we have seen, finding the nontrivial solutions to (45), etc. The first-order deformation equation takes the local form (29). Reasoning like above, we develop $`\omega _1`$ according to the antighost number (see (30)), and conclude that it reduces to the first component

$$\omega _1=\underset{1}{\overset{(0)}{\omega }}=\mu _0^{}(\phi ,\pi )\eta ^2,$$
(68)
where the function $`\mu _0^{}(\phi ,\pi )`$ is unknown and $`\gamma `$-invariant, such that the deformed BRST charge takes the form (35), with $`\mu _0^{}(\phi ,\pi )`$ instead of $`\mu _0(\phi ,\overline{\phi },\pi ,\overline{\pi })`$.

Investigating in the sequel the deformation of the BRST-invariant Hamiltonian (34) (with $`H_0`$ replaced by $`H_0^{}`$) at the first-order level, described by equation (9), it follows, with the help of the relation (68), that

$$[H_{0B},\mathrm{\Omega }_1]=\mathrm{d}^3x\left(\left(\pi u^{}+\left(_j^j\phi \right)v^{}\right)\eta ^2\eta ^1\mu _0^{}\right)=\mathrm{d}^3x\lambda ^{},$$
(69)
where $`u^{}\left(x\right)=\mathrm{d}^3y\frac{\delta \mu _0^{}(x^0,\stackrel{}{y})}{\delta \phi \left(x\right)}`$ and $`v^{}\left(x\right)=\mathrm{d}^3y\frac{\delta \mu _0^{}(x^0,\stackrel{}{y})}{\delta \pi \left(x\right)}`$, hence the local form of (9) can be written as

$$sh_1+\lambda ^{}=^in_i^{}.$$
(70)
Now, we take $`h_1`$ as

$$h_1=\mu _0^{}A^0+\alpha ^{},$$
(71)
in order to discard the term $`\eta ^1\mu _0^{}`$ from the left hand-side of (9), where $`\alpha ^{}`$ has both the antighost and pure ghost numbers equal to zero and depends in a nontrivial way of $`A^i`$ for the same reason as before. After some computation, we deduce that

$$[H_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_0]=\mathrm{d}^3x\left(\eta ^1\mu _0^{}+a_i^{}^i\eta ^2\right),$$
(72)
with $`a_i^{}\left(x\right)=\mathrm{d}^3y\frac{\delta \alpha ^{}(x^0,\stackrel{}{y})}{\delta A^i\left(x\right)}`$. Therefore, (70) becomes

$$\left(\pi u^{}+\left(_j^j\phi \right)v^{}\right)\eta ^2+a_i^{}^i\eta ^2=^in_i^{},$$
(73)
and is satisfied if we impose

$$\pi u^{}+\left(_j^j\phi \right)v^{}=^ia_i^{}.$$
(74)
If we add the term $`\left(_0^0\phi \right)v^{}`$ to both sides of the last equation, we find the relation

$$\frac{\delta ^{\left(SR\right)}}{\delta \phi }v^{}=\left(\pi u^{}+\left(_0^0\phi \right)v^{}+^ia_i^{}\right),$$
(75)
whose left-hand side signifies the variation of the Lagrangian density of the real scalar field under the one-parameter rigid transformations

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi \left(x\right)=\mathrm{d}^3y\frac{\delta \mu _0^{}(x^0,\stackrel{}{y})}{\delta \pi \left(x\right)}\xi .$$
(76)
Then, by identifying (76) with the global shift invariance (63), characteristic for the real scalar field, we are led to the equation

$$\mathrm{d}^3y\frac{\delta \mu _0^{}(x^0,\stackrel{}{y})}{\delta \pi \left(x\right)}=1,$$
(77)
possessing the solution

$$\mu _0^{}\left(y\right)=\pi \left(y\right),$$
(78)
that substituted in (75) reveals the equation $`\mathrm{d}^3y\frac{\delta \alpha ^{}(x^0,\stackrel{}{y})}{\delta A^i\left(x\right)}=_i\phi \left(x\right)`$, clearly leading to

$$\alpha ^{}\left(y\right)=A^i_i\phi \left(y\right).$$
(79)
So far, we have generated the first-order deformation of the BRST-invariant Hamiltonian and BRST charge related to the free model under consideration:

$$H_1=\mathrm{d}^3x\left(\pi A^0+A^i_i\phi \right),$$
(80)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }_1=\mathrm{d}^3x\pi \eta ^2.$$
(81)
Further, we remark that the first term in the second-order deformation equation of the BRST-invariant Hamiltonian, (10), is equal to zero due to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2=0`$; the second piece is found to be

$$[H_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_1]=\mathrm{d}^3x\left(_iA^i\right)\eta ^2=\mathrm{d}^3x\rho ^{},$$
(82)
hence (10) is equivalent to $`sh_2+\rho ^{}=_ik^i`$, and allows us to write

$$h_2=\frac{1}{2}A^iA_i,$$
(83)
so that

$$sh_2+\rho ^{}=_i\left(A^i\eta ^2\right).$$
(84)
Then, it is easy to check that $`[H_2,\mathrm{\Omega }_1]=0`$, which produces $`H_3=0`$, and consequently $`H_4=H_5=\mathrm{}=0`$.

According to the results obtained until now, we can state that the deformed BRST charge and BRST-invariant Hamiltonian corresponding to the model that describes an Abelian gauge field coupled with a real scalar field, consistent to all orders in the deformation parameter, take the form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{d}^3x\left(\pi _0\eta ^1\left(^i\pi _ig\pi \right)\eta ^2\right),$$
(85)
respectively,

$`H_B={\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}^3x({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pi _i\pi _i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{ij}F^{ij}A^0^i\pi _i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(_i\phi \right)\left(^i\phi \right)+`$
$`g\pi A^0+gA^i_i\phi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^2A^iA_i+\eta ^1𝒫_2).`$ (86)
On account of these expressions, we deduce that the deformation modifies only the secondary constraint like

$$\gamma _2^{}^i\pi _i+g\pi 0,$$
(87)
while the primary one (see the former relation in (17)) is unchanged. In addition, our procedure preserves the Abelianity of the new constraints. The associated deformed first-class Hamiltonian is

$`H^{}={\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}^3x({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pi _i\pi _i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{ij}F^{ij}A^0(^i\pi _ig\pi )+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_i\phi gA_i)(^i\phi gA^i)).`$ (88)
By passing to the Lagrangian version of the resulting coupled theory, we find the action

$$S^L[\phi ,\overline{\phi },A^\mu ]=\mathrm{d}^4x\left(\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}\left(_\mu \phi gA_\mu \right)\left(^\mu \phi gA^\mu \right)\right),$$
(89)
invariant under the gauge transformations

$$\delta _ϵA^\mu =^\mu ϵ,\delta _ϵ\phi =gϵ.$$
(90)
Thus, the gauge symmetry of the real scalar field in the framework of the deformed system can again be deduced by performing the gauging of the corresponding global shift symmetry (63), present at the level of the starting free model. Analyzing the coupling between the real scalar field and the Abelian gauge field emphasized by our deformation procedure, we conclude that it is precisely a Stuckelberg-like coupling between a zero- and a one-form.

## 4 Couplings between an Abelian gauge field and a Dirac field

Here, we derive the consistent Hamiltonian interactions between an Abelian gauge field and a Dirac field, $`(\psi ^\alpha ,\overline{\psi }_\alpha )`$. The starting point is a free Lagrangian action that is equal to the sum between the actions of an Abelian gauge field and a Dirac field

$$\stackrel{~}{S}_0^L[\psi ^\alpha ,\overline{\psi }_\alpha ,A^\mu ]=\mathrm{d}^4x\left(\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\overline{\psi }_\alpha \left(i\left(\gamma ^\mu \right)_\beta ^\alpha _\mu m\delta _\beta ^\alpha \right)\psi ^\beta \right),$$
(91)
where the spinor fields are fermionic, and $`\gamma ^\mu `$ is the standard notation for Dirac’s gamma matrices. The bar operation now signifies Dirac conjugation. The action (91) is known to be invariant under the (bosonic) rigid one-parameter symmetry

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\psi ^\alpha =i\psi ^\alpha \xi ,\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\psi }_\alpha =i\overline{\psi }_\alpha \xi ,$$
(92)
involving only the spinors, that gives, according to Noether’s theorem, the conservation law

$$_\mu j^\mu =i\frac{\delta ^R^{\left(D\right)}}{\delta \psi ^\alpha }\psi ^\alpha i\frac{\delta ^R^{\left(D\right)}}{\delta \overline{\psi }_\alpha }\overline{\psi }_\alpha ,$$
(93)
which emphasizes the conserved current

$$j^\mu =\overline{\psi }_\alpha \left(\gamma ^\mu \right)_\beta ^\alpha \psi ^\beta ,$$
(94)
where

$$\frac{\delta ^R^{\left(D\right)}}{\delta \psi ^\alpha }=\left(i\left(\gamma ^\mu \right)_\alpha ^\beta _\mu +m\delta _\alpha ^\beta \right)\overline{\psi }_\beta ,$$
(95)
$$\frac{\delta ^R^{\left(D\right)}}{\delta \overline{\psi }_\alpha }=\left(i\left(\gamma ^\mu \right)_\beta ^\alpha _\mu m\delta _\beta ^\alpha \right)\psi ^\beta ,$$
(96)
and $`^{\left(D\right)}`$ obviously denotes the Dirac Lagrangian. The upper index $`R`$ ($`L`$) signifies the right (left) derivative.

From the canonical analysis of this model we extract the constraints and the canonical Hamiltonian

$$G_1\pi _00,G_2^i\pi _i0,$$
(97)
$$\chi _\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }_\alpha \frac{i}{2}\left(\gamma ^0\right)_\alpha ^\beta \overline{\psi }_\beta 0,\overline{\chi }^\alpha \overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}^\alpha \frac{i}{2}\left(\gamma ^0\right)_\beta ^\alpha \psi ^\beta 0,$$
(98)
$$\stackrel{~}{H}_0=\mathrm{d}^3x\left(\frac{1}{2}\pi _i\pi _i+\frac{1}{4}F_{ij}F^{ij}A^0^i\pi _i\overline{\psi }_\alpha \left(i\left(\gamma ^i\right)_\beta ^\alpha _im\delta _\beta ^\alpha \right)\psi ^\beta \right).$$
(99)
In (9899), $`\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}^\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\alpha `$ denote the canonical momenta respectively conjugated to the fields $`\overline{\psi }_\alpha `$ and $`\psi ^\alpha `$. The constraints (97) are first-class and Abelian, while those of (98) are second-class. Eliminating the second-class constraints by means of the Dirac bracket $`[,]`$ constructed with respect to themselves, we find that the spinors $`\psi ^\alpha `$ and $`\overline{\psi }_\alpha `$ become conjugated

$$[\psi ^\alpha ,\overline{\psi }_\beta ]=i\left(\gamma ^0\right)_\beta ^\alpha ,$$
(100)
the resulting theory evolving on a reduced phase-space described by the fields/momenta $`(A^\mu ,\pi _\mu )`$, $`(\psi ^\alpha ,\overline{\psi }_\alpha )`$ and displaying only the Abelian first-class constraints (97), together with the first-class Hamiltonian (99). Related to the Hamiltonian BRST symmetry associated with this free theory, we mention that our discussion from section 3.1 remains valid in the Abelian gauge field sector, with the exception of the bracket, which should be interpreted as Dirac instead of Poisson. Thus, all formulas (1928) connected with this sector will be used in the sequel, while the ones describing the complex scalar component should be removed and replaced by

$$\mathrm{antigh}\left(\psi ^\alpha \right)=\mathrm{antigh}\left(\overline{\psi }_\alpha \right)=0,\mathrm{pgh}\left(\psi ^\alpha \right)=\mathrm{pgh}\left(\overline{\psi }_\alpha \right)=0,$$
(101)
$$\delta \psi ^\alpha =0,\delta \overline{\psi }_\alpha =0,\gamma \psi ^\alpha =0,\gamma \overline{\psi }_\alpha =0.$$
(102)
With these observations at hand, we next proceed to analyzing the Hamiltonian deformation procedure.

The analysis of (45), etc., correlated with the deformation of the BRST charge (19) goes along exactly the same line as employed for the complex or real scalar field, and allows us to write down the deformed solution in the form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{d}^3x\left(\pi _0\eta ^1\left(^i\pi _ig\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0(\psi ^\alpha ,\overline{\psi }_\alpha )\right)\eta ^2\right),$$
(103)
where the (so far) unknown bosonic function $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0(\psi ^\alpha ,\overline{\psi }_\alpha )`$ depends only on the spinor fields, is bosonic, and satisfies the properties $`\mathrm{antigh}\left(\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0\right)=0`$, $`\mathrm{pgh}\left(\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0\right)=0`$ and $`\gamma \stackrel{~}{\mu }_0=0`$. Thus, the only non-vanishing piece in the deformed BRST charge is the one corresponding to the first-order in the deformation parameter

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_1=\mathrm{d}^3x\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0(\psi ^\alpha ,\overline{\psi }_\alpha )\eta ^2.$$
(104)
The unknown function will be found during the identification of the deformed BRST-invariant Hamiltonian, governed by (910), etc.

As the BRST-invariant Hamiltonian of the free system under study is (34), with $`H_0`$ substituted with $`\stackrel{~}{H}_0`$, from (104) it follows that

$`[H_{0B},\mathrm{\Omega }_1]={\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}^3x(i(i\left(\gamma ^j\right)_\alpha ^\beta _j\overline{\psi }_\beta +m\overline{\psi }_\alpha )\left(\gamma ^0\right)_\rho ^\alpha \overline{w}^\rho \eta ^2+`$
$`i(i\left(\gamma ^j\right)_\alpha ^\beta _j\psi ^\alpha m\psi ^\beta )\left(\gamma ^0\right)_\beta ^\rho w_\rho \eta ^2+\eta ^1\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0)={\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}^3x\stackrel{~}{\lambda },`$ (105)
hence (9) reduces in the local form to

$$sh_1+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=^i\stackrel{~}{n}_i,$$
(106)
for some $`\stackrel{~}{n}_i`$. In (105) we performed the notations $`\overline{w}^\rho \left(x\right)=\mathrm{d}^3y\frac{\delta ^L\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0(x^0,\stackrel{}{y})}{\delta \overline{\psi }_\rho \left(x\right)}`$ and $`w_\rho \left(x\right)=\mathrm{d}^3y\frac{\delta ^L\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0(x^0,\stackrel{}{y})}{\delta \psi ^\rho \left(x\right)}`$. In order to remove the term linear in $`\eta ^1`$ from the left hand-side of (106), we act like in the case of the complex or real scalar field, namely, we demand that

$$h_1=\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0A^0+\stackrel{~}{\alpha },$$
(107)
where the bosonic function $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ is unknown, and can depend only on $`\psi ^\alpha `$, $`\overline{\psi }_\alpha `$ and $`A^i`$. The dependence on $`A^i`$ is required for ensuring the appearance of spatial derivatives via the Dirac bracket between $`H_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, and, meanwhile, $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ should involve no ghosts or antighosts in order to prevent the existence of terms in $`[H_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_0]`$ different from those in $`[H_{0B},\mathrm{\Omega }_1]`$, which can be attained via a dependence also on $`\psi ^\alpha `$ and $`\overline{\psi }_\alpha `$. Accordingly, we find

$$[H_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_0]=\mathrm{d}^3x\left(\eta ^1\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0+\stackrel{~}{a}_i^i\eta ^2\right),$$
(108)
where $`\stackrel{~}{a}_i\left(x\right)=\mathrm{d}^3y\frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{\alpha }(x^0,\stackrel{}{y})}{\delta A^i\left(x\right)}`$. From (105) and (108), we see that (106) becomes

$`i((i\left(\gamma ^j\right)_\alpha ^\beta _j\overline{\psi }_\beta +m\overline{\psi }_\alpha )\left(\gamma ^0\right)_\rho ^\alpha \overline{w}^\rho `$
$`+(i\left(\gamma ^j\right)_\alpha ^\beta _j\psi ^\alpha m\psi ^\beta )\left(\gamma ^0\right)_\beta ^\rho w_\rho )\eta ^2+\stackrel{~}{a}_i^i\eta ^2=^i\stackrel{~}{n}_i.`$ (109)
The left hand-side of (109) reduces to a total derivative if

$`i((i\left(\gamma ^j\right)_\alpha ^\beta _j\overline{\psi }_\beta +m\overline{\psi }_\alpha )\left(\gamma ^0\right)_\rho ^\alpha \overline{w}^\rho `$
$`+(i\left(\gamma ^j\right)_\alpha ^\beta _j\psi ^\alpha m\psi ^\beta )\left(\gamma ^0\right)_\beta ^\rho w_\rho )=^i\stackrel{~}{a}_i.`$ (110)
Adding to both hand-sides of (110) the term $`\left(i\left(\gamma ^0\right)_\alpha ^\beta _0\overline{\psi }_\beta \right)i\left(\gamma ^0\right)_\rho ^\alpha \overline{w}^\rho `$, as well as the quantity $`i\left(\left(\gamma ^0\right)_\alpha ^\beta _0\psi ^\alpha \right)i\left(\gamma ^0\right)_\beta ^\rho w_\rho `$, we deduce

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^R^{\left(D\right)}}{\delta \psi ^\alpha }}i\left(\gamma ^0\right)_\rho ^\alpha \overline{w}^\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^R^{\left(D\right)}}{\delta \overline{\psi }_\alpha }}i\left(\gamma ^0\right)_\alpha ^\rho w_\rho =`$
$`\left(_0\overline{\psi }_\alpha \right)\overline{w}^\alpha +\left(_0\psi ^\alpha \right)w_\alpha +^i\stackrel{~}{a}_i.`$ (111)
Analyzing the structure of the last formula and replacing $`\overline{w}^\rho `$, $`w_\rho `$ in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0`$, it turns out that its left hand-side gives the variation of the Dirac Lagrangian under the rigid one-parameter transformations

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\psi ^\alpha \left(x\right)=i\left(\gamma ^0\right)_\rho ^\alpha \mathrm{d}^3y\frac{\delta ^L\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0(x^0,\stackrel{}{y})}{\delta \overline{\psi }_\rho \left(x\right)}\xi ,$$
(112)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\psi }_\alpha \left(x\right)=i\left(\gamma ^0\right)_\alpha ^\rho \mathrm{d}^3y\frac{\delta ^L\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0(x^0,\stackrel{}{y})}{\delta \psi ^\rho \left(x\right)}\xi .$$
(113)
Identifying (112) and (113) with the well-known global one-parameter invariance (92) of Dirac theory, we are led to the equations

$$\left(\gamma ^0\right)_\rho ^\alpha \mathrm{d}^3y\frac{\delta ^L\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0(x^0,\stackrel{}{y})}{\delta \overline{\psi }_\rho \left(x\right)}=\psi ^\alpha \left(x\right),$$
(114)
$$\left(\gamma ^0\right)_\alpha ^\rho \mathrm{d}^3y\frac{\delta ^L\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0(x^0,\stackrel{}{y})}{\delta \psi ^\rho \left(x\right)}=\overline{\psi }_\alpha \left(x\right),$$
(115)
that yield the solution

$$\stackrel{~}{\mu }_0\left(y\right)=\overline{\psi }_\alpha \left(y\right)\left(\gamma ^0\right)_\beta ^\alpha \psi ^\beta \left(y\right).$$
(116)
Substituting (116) in (111) and using (93), we are provided with the equations $`\mathrm{d}^3y\frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{\alpha }(x^0,\stackrel{}{y})}{\delta A_i\left(x\right)}=\overline{\psi }_\alpha \left(x\right)\left(\gamma ^i\right)_\beta ^\alpha \psi ^\beta \left(x\right)`$, which produce

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\left(y\right)=\overline{\psi }_\alpha \left(y\right)\left(\gamma ^i\right)_\beta ^\alpha \psi ^\beta \left(y\right)A_i\left(y\right).$$
(117)
Consequently, we have generated the first-order deformed BRST-invariant Hamiltonian:

$$H_1=\mathrm{d}^3x\left(\overline{\psi }_\alpha \left(\gamma ^0\right)_\beta ^\alpha \psi ^\beta A_0+\overline{\psi }_\alpha \left(\gamma ^i\right)_\beta ^\alpha \psi ^\beta A_i\right).$$
(118)
Further, let us study the higher-order deformations. By direct computation we get $`[H_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_1]=0`$, which combined with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2=0`$ allows us to take the solution of (10) to be $`H_2=0`$. Then, it is simply to check that we can choose

$$H_3=H_4=\mathrm{}=0.$$
(119)
In conclusion, the complete deformed BRST charge and BRST-invariant Hamiltonian that govern the couplings between an Abelian gauge field and the Dirac field are given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{d}^3x\left(\pi _0\eta ^1\left(^i\pi _ig\overline{\psi }_\alpha \left(\gamma ^0\right)_\beta ^\alpha \psi ^\beta \right)\eta ^2\right),$$
(120)
respectively,

$`H_B={\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}^3x({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pi _i\pi _i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{ij}F^{ij}A^0^i\pi _i`$
$`\overline{\psi }_\alpha (i\left(\gamma ^i\right)_\beta ^\alpha _im\delta _\beta ^\alpha )\psi ^\beta +g\overline{\psi }_\alpha \left(\gamma ^\mu \right)_\beta ^\alpha \psi ^\beta A_\mu +\eta ^1𝒫_2).`$ (121)
Like in the case of the scalar field theory, from the above quantities we read off that the classical Hamiltonian interacting theory is subject to the deformed Abelian first-class constraints

$$\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2^i\pi _i+g\overline{\psi }_\alpha \left(\gamma ^0\right)_\beta ^\alpha \psi ^\beta 0,$$
(122)
and the former constraint in (97), as well as that the first-class Hamiltonian with respect to these constraints has the expression

$`\stackrel{~}{H}={\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}^3x({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pi _i\pi _i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{ij}F^{ij}A^0(^i\pi _ig\overline{\psi }_\alpha \left(\gamma ^0\right)_\beta ^\alpha \psi ^\beta )`$
$`\overline{\psi }_\alpha (i\left(\gamma ^i\right)_\beta ^\alpha _im\delta _\beta ^\alpha )\psi ^\beta +g\overline{\psi }_\alpha \left(\gamma ^\mu \right)_\beta ^\alpha \psi ^\beta A_\mu ),`$ (123)
where the first-class behaviour is considered in terms of the Dirac bracket (100). If we take the necessary steps to the Lagrangian framework, we discover that the resulting interacting theory displays the Lagrangian action

$$\stackrel{~}{S}^L[\psi ^\alpha ,\overline{\psi }_\alpha ,A^\mu ]=\mathrm{d}^4x\left(\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\overline{\psi }_\alpha \left(i\left(\gamma ^\mu \right)_\beta ^\alpha D_\mu m\delta _\beta ^\alpha \right)\psi ^\beta \right),$$
(124)
invariant under the gauge transformations

$$\delta _ϵA^\mu =^\mu ϵ,\delta _ϵ\psi ^\alpha =ig\psi ^\alpha ϵ,\delta _ϵ\overline{\psi }_\alpha =ig\overline{\psi }_\alpha ϵ,$$
(125)
where the covariant derivative $`D_\mu `$ takes the form (61). We observe that, exactly like for the complex or real scalar field, the spinors bear now some gauge invariances, resulting from the original rigid ones in a direct manner by gauging. An interesting difference between this model and the scalar theory is that while there we have obtained nontrivial pieces for the BRST-invariant Hamiltonian at order two in the deformation parameter, the similar quantity stops here at order one. This feature is essentially due to the statistics of the present matter fields, which are spinors, hence fermionic. Thus, we can conclude that as a result of our deformation scheme we obtained the well-known model describing the coupling between the electromagnetic and spinor fields, namely, spinor electrodynamics.

## 5 Conclusion

In conclusion, in this paper we have derived the consistent Hamiltonian interactions between an Abelian gauge field and the complex scalar field, the massless real scalar field, respectively, Dirac field. Our approach is based on the deformation of the BRST charge and BRST-invariant Hamiltonian associated with the uncoupled theories involving these fields. The derivation of the solutions to the main equations that govern our BRST deformation procedure essentially relies on the presence of some conserved currents corresponding to the rigid symmetries of the matter fields from the “free” models. The first-order deformations of both BRST charge and BRST-invariant Hamiltonian can be written in the form $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1=\pm \mathrm{d}^3xq\eta ^2`$, respectively, $`H_1=\pm \mathrm{d}^3x\left(qA^0+j_iA^i\right)`$, in the case of all analysed models, where $`q`$ is the Hamiltonian charge density of the associated conserved currents. For the scalar case we have that $`[H_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_1]`$ is non-vanishing due to the fact that $`[j_i,q]`$ is not zero, which requires non-trivial second-order deformations of the BRST-invariant Hamiltonian. In the case of the Dirac theory we have $`[H_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_1]=0`$, so the second-order deformations of $`H_{0B}`$ can be taken to vanish. It is interesting to note that, apart from others situations , where the deformation of the BRST charge can be computed in a self-consistent manner, here we need to alternate it with the deformation of the BRST-invariant Hamiltonian in order to reach some complete solutions. As a result of our method we discover scalar electrodynamics, a Stuckelberg-like coupling, respectively, spinor electrodynamics. All the couplings are local, and the matter fields bear some gauge invariances that can be produced via the gauging of the original global symmetries. As expected, the $`U(1)`$ gauge invariance of Maxwell’s field is kept unchanged for all models during the deformation process.

## Acknowledgment

This work has been supported by a Romanian National Council for Academic Scientific Research (CNCSIS) grant.


text:
# Hyperbolic rank and subexponential corank of metric spaces

## 1 Introduction

Given a metric space $`X`$ consider all locally compact $`\mathrm{CAT}(1)`$ Hadamard spaces $`Y`$ quasi-isometrically embedded into $`X`$ and let

$$\mathrm{rank}_hX=\underset{Y}{sup}dim_{\mathrm{}}Y$$

over all such $`Y`$. This quasi-isometry invariant is introduced in \[Gr, 6.$`\text{B}_2`$\] in a slightly stronger form requiring only $`Y`$ to be a geodesic hyperbolic space, where it is called hyperbolic corank. We prefer to call it hyperbolic rank reserving the term corank for a dual notion which is central for this paper. We have $`\mathrm{rank}_hX=dim_{\mathrm{}}X`$ for each $`\mathrm{CAT}(1)`$ space $`X`$ (this easily follows from the Morse’ quasi-isometry lemma) and it is known that the Cartesian product $`X=X_1\times \mathrm{}\times X_k`$ of Hadamard manifolds with pinched negative curvature, $`k^2K1`$, always has

$$\mathrm{rank}_hX\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\mathrm{rank}_hX_i$$

(see \[Gr, BF\] for $`X_i`$ real hyperbolic manifolds and \[FS\] for the general case). Next, let $`X`$ be a Riemannian symmetric space of noncompact type. Then

$$\mathrm{rank}_hXdimX\mathrm{rank}X$$

(see \[Le\]). It is conjectured in \[Gr\] that there is equality in both cases.

We prove these conjectures by introducing a new quasi-isometry invariant $`\mathrm{corank}X`$ of a metric space $`X`$ called subexponential corank of $`X`$ and by showing that $`\mathrm{rank}_hX\mathrm{corank}X`$ for each “reasonable” $`X`$. A metric space $`X`$ has subexponential corank $`k`$, $`\mathrm{corank}X=k`$, if roughly speaking there exists a continuous map $`g:XT`$ such that for each $`tT`$ the set $`g^1(t)`$ has subexponential growth rate in $`X`$ and the topological dimension $`dimT=k`$ is minimal among all such maps (for the precise definition see sect. 2). In this case, we say that $`X`$ supports a subexponential partition of rank $`k`$. One easily sees that $`\mathrm{corank}(X_1\times X_2)\mathrm{corank}X_1+\mathrm{corank}X_2`$, that $`\mathrm{corank}XdimX1`$ for every Hadamard manifold $`X`$ and that $`\mathrm{corank}XdimX\mathrm{rank}X`$ for every Riemannian symmetric space of noncompact type.

The following theorem, which is our main result, immediately implies the above conjectures. Moreover, it works in both directions establishing obstructions as to quasi-isometric embeddings of $`\mathrm{CAT}(1)`$ spaces into $`X`$ as well as to the existence of subexponential partitions of $`X`$.

We say that a metric space $`X`$ has the QPC property or $`X`$ is a QPC-space if every quasi-isometric map $`f:YX`$ is parallel to a continuous one, i.e., there exists a continuous $`f^{}:YX`$ with $`\mathrm{dist}(f^{}(y),f(y))C<\mathrm{}`$ for all $`yY`$ (QPC stays for Quasi-isometric maps are Parallel to Continuous ones). For example, every locally compact Hadamard space is QPC (for more details see sect. 2).

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`X`$ be a metric space which is quasi-isometric to a QPC one. Then

$$\mathrm{rank}_hX\mathrm{corank}X.$$

In particular, there is no quasi-isometric embedding $`YX`$ of $`\mathrm{CAT}(1)`$ spaces $`Y`$ with $`dim_{\mathrm{}}Y>\mathrm{corank}X`$ and if $`X`$ is QPC then it supports no subexponential partition of rank less than $`\mathrm{rank}_hX`$.

From \[BF, FS, Le\] and Theorem 1.1 we obtain

###### Corollary 1.2.

(1) Let $`X`$ be the Cartesian product of Hadamard manifolds with pinched negative curvature, $`X=X_1\times \mathrm{}\times X_k`$. Then

$$\mathrm{rank}_hX=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\mathrm{rank}_hX_i=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\mathrm{corank}X_i=\mathrm{corank}X.$$

(2) Let $`X`$ be a Riemannian symmetric space of noncompact type. Then

$$\mathrm{rank}_hX=dimX\mathrm{rank}X=\mathrm{corank}X.$$

###### Remark 1.3.

We use the $`\mathrm{CAT}(1)`$ condition in the definition of $`\mathrm{rank}_h`$ to simplify the proof of Theorem 1.1. It can be modified in a way to include all (complete, locally compact) geodesic hyperbolic spaces proving by that Gromov’s conjectures in their full generality.

The invariant $`\mathrm{corank}`$ and Theorem 1.1 have further applications. For instance, we prove

###### Theorem 1.4.

Let $`X`$ be the metric universal covering of a closed 3-dimensional nonpositively curved graph manifold. Then $`\mathrm{corank}X1`$. As a consequence, $`Z=X_1\times \mathrm{}\times X_n`$ has $`\mathrm{corank}Zn`$ and possesses no quasi-isometric embedding $`YZ`$ of $`\mathrm{CAT}(1)`$ spaces $`Y`$ with $`dim_{\mathrm{}}Y>n`$, where each $`X_i`$ is the universal covering of a 3-dimensional nonpositively curved graph manifold.

Note that each $`X_i`$ in Theorem 1.4 is not a $`\mathrm{CAT}(1)`$ space. It only possesses a quasi-isometric embedding $`\mathrm{H}^2X_i`$, hence $`Z=X_1\times \mathrm{}\times X_n`$ has an exponential growth rate and $`\mathrm{rank}_hZ=n`$ by combining the results of \[BF\] and Theorem 1.4.

Another consequence of Theorem 1.1 is that $`\mathrm{rank}_hX=n1=\mathrm{corank}X`$ for every $`\mathrm{CAT}(1)`$ Hadamard manifold $`X`$, $`dimX=n`$. One might expect that the equality $`\mathrm{rank}_hX=\mathrm{corank}X`$ is true for each $`\mathrm{CAT}(1)`$ space $`X`$. However, this is not the case. For example, let $`X`$ be a simplicial tree whose vertices have degree at least 3 and whose edges have length 1. Then $`X`$ is a $`\mathrm{CAT}(1)`$ space with $`\mathrm{rank}_hX=dim_{\mathrm{}}X=0`$ while $`\mathrm{corank}X=1`$ because every continuous map $`XT`$ into 0-dimensional space $`T`$ is constant and $`X`$ has exponential growth rate.

We conclude the Introduction by a sketch of our initial proof that there is no quasi-isometric embedding $`f:\mathrm{H}^3\mathrm{H}^2\times ^n`$ for any $`n0`$. This proof was the starting point to introduce the subexponential corank and finally to prove Theorem 1.1. Note that any simple counting argument does not work because both the source space $`\mathrm{H}^3`$ and the target space $`\mathrm{H}^2\times ^n`$ have exponential growth rates.

Assume that there is such an $`f`$. Assume for simplicity that $`f`$ is smooth and biLipschitz, that is $`\frac{1}{a}\mathrm{dist}(x,x^{})\mathrm{dist}(f(x),f(x^{}))a\mathrm{dist}(x,x^{})`$ for some $`a1`$ and all $`x`$, $`x^{}\mathrm{H}^3`$. Fix a horosphere $`T\mathrm{H}^2`$ and define a map $`g:\mathrm{H}^2\times ^nT`$ by projecting onto the first factor and then projecting onto $`T`$ along geodesics in $`\mathrm{H}^2`$ orthogonal to $`T`$. Note that all its fibers $`g^1(t)`$, $`tT`$ are isometric to $`^{n+1}`$ and geodesically embedded in $`\mathrm{H}^2\times ^n`$. Composing $`g`$ with $`f`$ and identifying $`T=`$ we obtain a (smooth) function $`h:\mathrm{H}^3`$, $`h=gf`$.

Next, we fix $`y_0\mathrm{H}^3`$ and consider the metric sphere $`S_R\mathrm{H}^3`$ of a sufficiently large radius $`R`$ centered at $`y_0`$. Considered with the induced intrinsic metric, $`S_R`$ is isometric to the standard sphere $`S_\rho ^2^3`$ of radius $`\rho `$ which is exponentially large in $`R`$, $`\rho e^R`$. We may further assume for simplicity that $`h`$ restricted to $`S_R`$ is a Morse function, $`h:S_\rho ^2`$. Now we come to the crucial point. Every level set $`\gamma _t=h^1(t)`$, $`t`$ is mapped by $`f`$ into the $`(n+1)`$-flat $`F=g^1(t)\mathrm{H}^2\times ^n`$. Since $`f`$ is Lipschitz and $`F`$ is geodesic, $`f(\gamma _t)`$ sits in a ball in $`F`$ of radius $`R`$ with respect to the induced intrinsic metric on $`F`$. Thus $`f(\gamma _t)`$ has a polynomial in $`R`$ size, where by “size” we mean, for example, the minimal number of points of some separated net in $`f(\mathrm{H}^3)`$ needed to cover $`f(\gamma _t)`$ by balls of a fixed radius centered at these points. Since $`f`$ is biLipschitz, this implies that every connected component of $`\gamma _tS_\rho ^2`$ (but may be not the whole $`\gamma _t`$!) has the diameter polynomial in $`R`$, i.e., essentially smaller than $`\rho `$. This conclusion is a key point which easily leads to a contradiction. Having all connected components of all level sets $`\gamma _t`$ sufficiently small compare to $`\rho `$ one can, for example, continuously contract the sphere $`S_\rho ^2`$ to a point (with some little work near critical levels of index one). However, these details are inessential for the generalization and we omit them.

Acknowledgment. The first author is happy to express his deep gratitude to the University of Zürich for the support, hospitality and excellent working conditions while writing the paper.

## 2 Subexponential corank

In this section we define the subexponential corank of a metric space $`X`$ and establish some of its properties which are needed for the proof and applications of Theorem 1.1.

### 2.1 Preliminaries

The key notions of $`\mathrm{CAT}(1)`$-spaces and Hadamard spaces are well established by now, and the reader may consult, for instance, \[BH\] for them.

Given a metric space $`X`$ and $`xX`$, we denote by $`B_R(x)`$ the open ball of radius $`R`$ in $`X`$ centered at $`x`$ and by $`\overline{B}_R(x)`$ the corresponding closed ball. A subset $`AX`$ is called net if $`\mathrm{dist}(A,X)<\mathrm{}`$. $`A`$ is $`\delta `$-separated, $`\delta >0`$, if $`\mathrm{dist}(a,a^{})\delta `$ for every distinct $`a`$, $`a^{}A`$. We usually use the notation $`X_\delta `$ for a separated net in $`X`$, where $`\delta `$ is the separation constant of $`X_\delta `$. Note that the balls $`B_\delta (a)`$ centered at the points $`aX_\delta `$ of some maximal separated net $`X_\delta X`$ cover $`X`$.

Assume that a maximal separated net $`X_\delta X`$ and $`\sigma \delta `$ are fixed. Then we define the size of $`AX`$ (w.r.t. $`X_\delta `$ and $`\sigma `$) as the number $`\mathrm{size}_{X_\delta ,\sigma }(A)\{\mathrm{}\}`$ of points $`xX_\delta `$ with $`B_\sigma (x)A\mathrm{}`$. By the remark above, the union of all such balls contains $`A`$.

A map $`f:XY`$ between metric spaces $`X`$, $`Y`$ is said to be quasi-isometric, if

$$\frac{1}{a}\mathrm{dist}(x,x^{})b\mathrm{dist}(f(x),f(x^{}))a\mathrm{dist}(x,x^{})+b$$

for some $`a1`$, $`b0`$ and all $`x`$, $`x^{}X`$. In this case we say that $`f`$ is $`(a,b)`$-quasi-isometric. If in addition $`f(X)`$ is a net in $`Y`$ then $`f`$ is called a quasi-isometry and the spaces $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are quasi-isometric.

Recall that the (topological) dimension of a compact set $`K`$ is the minimal integer $`n=dimK`$ such that one can inscribe in every open covering of $`K`$ a finite closed covering having the multiplicity $`n+1`$. If in addition $`K`$ is a metric space then $`dimK`$ is the same as the minimal number $`n`$ having the property that for every $`\epsilon >0`$ there is a finite closed covering of $`K`$ by sets with diameter $`<\epsilon `$ and the multiplicity $`n+1`$. For a topological space $`X`$ we use the definition $`dimX=sup\{dimK:KX\text{is compact}\}`$.

### 2.2 Definition of the subexponential corank

A continuous partition

$$X=\underset{tT}{}g^1(t)$$

of a metric space $`X`$ is given by a continuous map $`g:XT`$. We use the notation $`(X,g,T)`$ and say that the partition $`(X,g,T)`$ has rank $`k=sup\{dimg(K):KX\text{is compact}\}`$. Fix $`x_0X`$. A continuous partition $`(X,g,T)`$ is said to be subexponential if the following holds. For each maximal separated net $`X_\delta X`$ with a sufficiently large separation constant $`\delta `$, each sufficiently large $`\sigma \delta `$ and every $`\epsilon >0`$ there exists $`R_0=R_0(X_\delta ,\sigma ,\epsilon )1`$ such that for every $`RR_0`$ and every $`tT`$ we have

$$\frac{1}{R}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{size}_{X_\delta ,\sigma }(g^1(t)\overline{B}_R(x_0))<\epsilon .$$

This property, obviously, is independent of the choice of $`x_0X`$. Now we define the subexponential corank of $`X`$ as

$$\mathrm{corank}X=\underset{ZX}{sup}inf\mathrm{rank}(Z,g,T),$$

where the supremum is taken over all $`Z`$ quasi-isometric to $`X`$ and the infimum is over all subexponential partitions of $`Z`$. Clearly, $`\mathrm{corank}X`$ is a quasi-isometric invariant.

###### Remark 2.1.

It is the controversy between continuity conditions needed for the proof of Theorem 1.1 and the quasi-isometry invariance needed for its applications which makes the definition of $`\mathrm{corank}X`$ rather entangled. In particular, taking the supremum over all $`Z`$ quasi-isometric to $`X`$ in the definition of $`\mathrm{corank}X`$ is necessary because for any discrete space $`Z`$ the trivial partition $`(Z,\mathrm{id},Z)`$ is subexponential and has rank 0, i.e., minimal possible rank.

###### Remark 2.2.

The property of a partition $`(X,g,T)`$ to be subexponential means roughly speaking that every fiber $`g^1(t)`$ has a subexponential growth rate and a bounded distortion in $`X`$. The last condition is essential. For example, all fibers of the partition $`(\mathrm{H}^n,g,)`$ given by a Busemann function $`g:\mathrm{H}^n`$ are isometric to $`^{n1}`$ in the induced Riemannian metric and hence they have a subexponential (in fact, polynomial) growth rate. However, this partition is by no means subexponential because each horosphere $`g^1(t)`$, $`t`$ is exponentially distorted in $`\mathrm{H}^n`$ and for a fixed $`x_0\mathrm{H}^n`$ the balls $`\overline{B}_R(x_0)`$ contain exponentially large pieces of it.

We shall frequently use the following actually straightforward

###### Lemma 2.3.

If $`f:XZ`$ is a continuous quasi-isometric map and $`(Z,g,T)`$ is a subexponential partition then $`(X,gf,T)`$ is a subexponential partition too.

###### Proof.

Assuming that $`f`$ is $`(a,b)`$-quasi-isometric, we fix $`x_0X`$ and put $`z_0=f(x_0)`$. Let $`\delta _0`$, $`\sigma _0\delta _0`$ be the separation and radius constants respectively for $`Z`$ involved in the subexponential size estimate. We put $`\delta =a(\delta _0+b)`$ and take a maximal separated net $`X_\delta X`$. Then $`f(X_\delta )`$ is $`\delta _0`$-separated, hence, it is contained in some maximal separated net $`Z_{\delta _0}Z`$.

Next, we fix $`\sigma \mathrm{max}\{\delta ,\frac{1}{a}(\sigma _0b)\}`$ and take $`tT`$. If $`B_\sigma (x)`$ intersects $`(gf)^1(t)\overline{B}_R(x_0)`$ for some $`xX_\delta `$ then $`f(B_\sigma (x))`$ intersects $`g^1(t)\overline{B}_{aR+b}(z_0)`$ since $`f(\overline{B}_R(x_0))\overline{B}_{aR+b}(z_0)`$. Thus $`B_{a\sigma +b}(f(x))`$ intersects $`g^1(t)\overline{B}_{aR+b}(z_0)`$ and consequently we have

$$\mathrm{size}_{X_\delta ,\sigma }\left((gf)^1(t)\overline{B}_R(x_0)\right)\mathrm{size}_{Z_{\delta _0},a\sigma +b}\left(g^1(t)\overline{B}_{aR+b}(x_0)\right)$$

for every $`R>0`$, $`tT`$. Fix $`\epsilon >0`$. Then for $`aR+bR_0(Z_{\delta _0},a\sigma +b,\frac{\epsilon }{a+b})`$ we obtain

$$\frac{1}{aR+b}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{size}_{X_\delta ,\sigma }\left((gf)^1(t)\overline{B}_R(x_0)\right)<\frac{\epsilon }{a+b}.$$

Thus taking $`R_0(X_\delta ,\sigma ,\epsilon )\mathrm{max}\{1,\frac{1}{a}\left[R_0(Z_{\delta _0},a\sigma +b,\epsilon /(a+b))b\right]\}`$ we obtain the required estimate

$$\frac{1}{R}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{size}_{X_\delta ,\sigma }\left((gf)^1(t)\overline{B}_R(x_0)\right)<\epsilon $$

for every $`RR_0(X_\delta ,\sigma ,\epsilon )`$ and $`tT`$. ∎

###### Lemma 2.4.

Assume that a metric space $`X`$ is quasi-isometric to a QPC space $`Z`$. Then

$$\mathrm{corank}X=inf\mathrm{rank}(Z,g,T),$$

where the infimum is taken over all subexponential partitions of $`Z`$.

###### Proof.

If $`X^{}`$ is quasi-isometric to $`X`$ then it is quasi-isometric to $`Z`$ too. Any map $`X^{}Z`$ parallel to a quasi-isometric one is quasi-isometric, thus there is a continuous quasi-isometry $`X^{}Z`$. By Lemma 2.3 we have $`inf\mathrm{rank}(X^{},g^{},T^{})inf\mathrm{rank}(Z,g,T)`$. Hence, the claim. ∎

Now we explain why all locally compact Hadamard spaces are QPC, though the argument (which is basically standard) might be applied to a much broader class of metric spaces.

###### Lemma 2.5.

Every locally compact Hadamard space $`X`$ is a QPC-space.

###### Proof.

Assume that we have an $`(a,b)`$-quasi-isometric map $`f:YX`$. We take a maximal $`\delta `$-separated net $`Y_\delta Y`$ with $`a\delta +b\delta _0>0`$ and note that every ball $`B_{2\delta }(\alpha )`$ with $`\alpha Y_\delta `$ contains only a finite number of elements of $`Y_\delta `$. This is because $`f(Y_\delta )`$ is $`\delta _0`$-separated and $`X`$ is finitely compact, thus the ball $`B_{2a\delta +b}\left(f(\alpha )\right)f\left(B_{2\delta }(\alpha )\right)`$ intersects $`f(Y_\delta )`$ over a finite set. It follows that the nerve $`𝒩`$ of the covering $`𝒜=\{B_\delta (\alpha ):\alpha Y_\delta \}`$ of $`Y`$ is a locally finite simplicial complex. Choosing a continuous partition of unity $`\{p_\alpha :Y:\alpha Y_\delta \}`$ subordinate to $`𝒜`$, we obtain a continuous map $`g:Y𝒩`$ by

$$g(y)=\underset{\alpha Y_\delta }{}p_\alpha (y)\alpha ,$$

where we identify $`Y_\delta `$ with the 0-skeleton of $`𝒩`$. Note that $`g(y)`$ lies in the simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }_y`$ spanned by $`\{\alpha Y_\delta :\mathrm{dist}(\alpha ,y)<\delta \}`$.

Next, we extend $`f|Y_\delta :\text{ske}_0𝒩X`$ to a continuous $`\overline{f}:𝒩X`$ using convexity of $`X`$ and acting by the induction on the dimension of the skeletons. Then $`\overline{f}(\mathrm{\Delta }_y)B_{a\delta +b}(f(y))`$ and thus $`\overline{f}g:YX`$ is a continuous map parallel to $`f`$. ∎

### 2.3 Properties of the subexponential corank

We list some properties of $`\mathrm{corank}`$ which easily follow from the definition.

(1) $`\mathrm{corank}XdimX`$ for every QPC-space $`X`$. This immediately follows from Lemma 2.4.

(2) $`\mathrm{corank}(^n)=0`$ for each $`n0`$. Moreover, if the volume entropy

$$h(X)=lim\underset{R0}{sup}\frac{1}{R}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{size}(B_R(x_0))=0,$$

then $`\mathrm{corank}X=0`$. Note that the condition $`h(X)=0`$ is a quasi-isometry invariant. In this case, the trivial partition $`(X,g,\{\text{pt}\})`$ given by a constant map $`g`$ is subexponential.

(3) $`\mathrm{corank}(X_1\times X_2)\mathrm{corank}(X_1)+\mathrm{corank}(X_2)`$ if $`X_1\times X_2`$ is a QPC-space. In this case, both $`X_1`$, $`X_2`$ are QPC and the product partition $`(X_1\times X_2,g_1\times g_2,T_1\times T_2)`$ of subexponential partitions $`(X_i,g_i,T_i)`$, $`i=1,2`$ is subexponential. Finally, it is well known (see \[HW\]) that $`dim(A\times B)dimA+dimB`$ if at least one of the spaces $`A`$, $`B`$ is not empty.

(4) Let $`X`$ be a Hadamard manifold. Then $`\mathrm{corank}XdimX1`$. Projecting onto a horosphere $`TX`$ along geodesics orthogonal to $`T`$, we obtain the subexponential partition $`(X,g,T)`$ of rank $`dimX1`$. Its fibers $`g^1(t)`$ are geodesics.

(5) Let $`X`$ be a Riemannian symmetric space of noncompact type. Then $`\mathrm{corank}XdimX\mathrm{rank}X`$. An Iwasawa decomposition $`G=NAK`$ of the connected component of the identity in its isometry group allows to identify $`X`$ with the solvable group $`NA`$. Fix $`x_0X`$ and consider the orbit $`T=Nx_0X`$. Then the map $`g:XT`$ given by $`g(x)=nx_0`$, where $`x=nax_0`$ for $`nN`$, $`aA`$, defines the subexponential partition $`(X,g,T)`$ of rank $`dimT=dimN=dimX\mathrm{rank}X`$. Its fibers $`g^1(t)`$ are geodesic $`\mathrm{rank}X`$-flats.

(6) If $`X`$ is quasi-isometric to a QPC-space and $`X^{}`$ admits a quasi-isometric embedding into $`X`$ then $`\mathrm{corank}X^{}\mathrm{corank}X`$. This follows Lemma 2.3 and Lemma 2.4.

## 3 Hyperbolic rank and subexponential corank

Here we prove Theorem 1.1 and its corollaries. The proof of Theorem 1.1 in outline goes as follows. By property (6) above it suffices to show that $`\mathrm{rank}_hY\mathrm{corank}Y`$ for each locally compact $`\mathrm{CAT}(1)`$ Hadamard space $`Y`$. Since $`\mathrm{rank}_hY=dim_{\mathrm{}}Y`$ and $`Y`$ is certainly QPC it suffices to show that $`dim_{\mathrm{}}Y\mathrm{rank}(Y,g,T)`$ for any subexponential partition $`(Y,g,T)`$.

We have a continuous map $`\mathrm{pr}_R:_{\mathrm{}}YS_R`$, where $`S_RY`$ is the metric sphere of radius $`R`$ centered at some fixed point $`y_0Y`$, given by the intersection of the ray $`y_0\xi `$, $`\xi _{\mathrm{}}Y`$ with $`S_R`$. Using the $`\mathrm{CAT}(1)`$ condition we introduce a metric $`\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`_{\mathrm{}}Y`$ for which $`\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{}}(\xi ,\xi ^{})e^{\mathrm{dist}(y_0,\xi \xi ^{})}`$ for $`\xi `$, $`\xi ^{}_{\mathrm{}}Y`$, where $`\xi \xi ^{}`$ is the geodesic in $`Y`$ asymptotic to $`\xi `$ in one direction and to $`\xi ^{}`$ in the other one. Note that $`_{\mathrm{}}Y`$ is compact since $`Y`$ is complete and locally compact and that the metric topology of $`\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{}}`$ coincides with the topology of $`_{\mathrm{}}Y`$. Thus the resulting map $`h_R=g\mathrm{pr}_R:_{\mathrm{}}YT`$ is continuous and its image $`K_R=h_R(_{\mathrm{}}Y)`$ is compact.

Now, we can inscribe in any open covering $`𝒪`$ of $`K_R`$ a finite closed covering $`𝒞`$ having the multiplicity $`n+1`$, $`n=\mathrm{rank}(Y,g,T)`$. Since the partition $`(Y,g,T)`$ is subexponential, we may produce for each sufficiently large $`R`$ an open covering $`𝒪_R`$ of $`K_R`$ such that the size of the preimage in $`S_R`$ of every element of $`𝒪_R`$ is subexponential in $`R`$. Consequently, we can find a finite closed covering $`𝒞_R`$ of $`K_R`$ with the multiplicity $`n+1`$ such that the size of the preimage in $`S_R`$ of every its element $`C`$ is subexponential in $`R`$. However, it does not mean that the diameter of $`g^1(C)`$ measured in $`S_R`$ is subexponential in $`R`$ because it may have different connected components far away from each other. Nevertheless, we can rearrange the finite closed covering $`𝒜_R=g^1(𝒞_R)`$ of $`S_R`$ in such a way that it is still finite, has the multiplicity $`n+1`$ and the diameter of every its element is subexponential in $`R`$. In this way, we produce a finite closed covering $`_R=\mathrm{pr}_R^1(𝒜_R)`$ of $`_{\mathrm{}}Y`$ of multiplicity $`n+1`$ with maximal diameter of its elements measured in the metric $`\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{}}`$ going to 0 as $`R\mathrm{}`$. Hence, $`dim_{\mathrm{}}Yn`$. Q.E.D.

We fill in details answering the following questions

* how do we choose the open covering $`𝒪_R`$ of $`K_R`$;
* how to rearrange $`𝒜_R`$;
* how do we define the metric $`\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{}}`$;
* how to estimate $`\mathrm{diam}(B)`$ w.r.t. $`\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{}}`$ for each $`B_R`$.

(1) Fix a maximal separated net $`Y_\delta Y`$ and $`\sigma \delta `$, which are sufficiently large to fit the $`(Y,g,T)`$ conditions, and a base point $`y_0Y`$. The notation $`\mathrm{size}_{Y_\delta ,\sigma }(A)`$ will be abbreviated to $`\mathrm{size}(A)`$ for $`AY`$. Fix $`\epsilon `$ with $`0<\epsilon <1`$. For each $`R>0`$ and $`tT`$, the set $`g^1(t)S_R(y_0)`$ is covered by $`N(R,t)=\mathrm{size}\left(g^1(t)S_R(y_0)\right)`$ open balls $`B_\sigma (y)`$ with $`yY_\delta `$. Using properties of the subexponential partition $`(Y,g,T)`$ we have

$$\frac{1}{R}\mathrm{ln}N(R,t)\frac{1}{R}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{size}\left(g^1(t)\overline{B}_R(y_0)\right)<\epsilon $$

for every sufficiently large $`R1`$ and every $`tT`$.

Let $`VY`$ be the union of those balls. We claim that there is a neighborhood $`U_t`$ of $`t`$ with $`g^1(U_t)S_R(y_0)V`$. Otherwise, we find a sequence $`y_iS_R(y_0)V`$ with $`g(y_i)t`$. Since $`Y`$ is complete and locally compact, we may assume that $`y_iy_{\mathrm{}}S_R(y_0)V`$. On the other hand, $`y_{\mathrm{}}g^1(t)`$ by continuity of $`g`$. This is a contradiction.

Then $`𝒪_R=\{U_t:tK_R\}`$ is the required open covering of $`K_R`$: we have

$$\frac{1}{R}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{size}\left(g^1(U_t)S_R(y_0)\right)<\epsilon $$

for each $`tK_R`$.

(2) For each $`A𝒜_R`$ we consider its covering by balls $`B_\sigma (y)`$, $`yY_\delta `$ which intersect $`A`$. The union of these balls has only a finite number of connected components $`\alpha `$ since every such $`\alpha `$ contains at least one ball $`B_\sigma (y)`$ and there is only a finite number of such balls in $`B_{R+\sigma }(y_0)`$. Now, we decompose $`A`$ into the finite disjoint union $`A=_\alpha A_\alpha `$, where each $`A_\alpha `$ is the intersection of $`A`$ with a connected component $`\alpha `$. Thus the diameter of $`A_\alpha `$ measured in $`S_R`$ is at most $`2\delta \mathrm{size}(A)`$, $`\mathrm{diam}_R(A_\alpha )2\delta e^{\epsilon R}`$, and this gives the desired rearrangement of $`𝒜_R`$ (for which we use the same notation).

(3) We define the metric $`\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`_{\mathrm{}}Y`$ as follows. Given $`\xi `$, $`\xi ^{}_{\mathrm{}}Y`$, we consider the unit speed geodesic rays $`c_\xi `$, $`c_\xi ^{}`$ from $`y_0`$ to $`\xi `$, $`\xi ^{}`$ respectively and put

$$\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{}}(\xi ,\xi ^{})=\underset{s\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{}(\overline{c_\xi }(s)\overline{y}_0\overline{c_\xi ^{}}(s)),$$

where $`\mathrm{}(\overline{c_\xi }(s)\overline{y}_0\overline{c_\xi ^{}}(s))`$ is the angle at $`\overline{y}_0`$ of the comparison triangle in $`\mathrm{H}^2`$ for the triangle $`c_\xi (s)y_0c_\xi ^{}(s)`$. From the hyperbolic geometry we know that

$$\mathrm{tan}\left(\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{}}(\xi ,\xi ^{})\right)=e^{\mathrm{dist}(\overline{y}_0,\overline{\xi }\overline{\xi }^{})}.$$

Thus $`\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{}}(\xi ,\xi ^{})4e^{\mathrm{dist}(y_0,\xi \xi ^{})}`$.

(4) Given $`B_R`$ let $`\xi `$, $`\xi ^{}B`$ be two remotest points (w.r.t. $`\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{}}`$), $`v=\mathrm{pr}_R(\xi )`$, $`v^{}=\mathrm{pr}_R(\xi ^{})S_R`$. Then $`v`$, $`v^{}A`$ for $`A𝒜_R`$ with $`\mathrm{pr}_R^1(A)=B`$. In particular, $`\mathrm{diam}_R(A)2\delta e^{\epsilon R}`$. We take the midpoint $`y`$ of the geodesic segment $`vv^{}Y`$ and put $`\rho =\mathrm{dist}(y_0,y)`$, $`r=\mathrm{dist}(y,S_R)`$. Then $`\rho +rR`$, and an easy comparison argument shows that the length of any curve in $`S_R`$ between $`v`$, $`v^{}`$ and hence $`\mathrm{diam}_R(A)`$ is at least as large as the length of a half-circle of radius $`r`$ in $`\mathrm{H}^2`$ (we use here that the points $`v`$, $`v^{}`$ are visible from $`y`$ at the angle $`\pi `$). Thus we obtain $`r\epsilon R+c`$ for some $`c=c(\delta )`$. It follows

$$\mathrm{dist}(y_0,\xi \xi ^{})\rho Rr(1\epsilon )Rc.$$

Since $`\epsilon <1`$, we have

$$\mathrm{diam}(B)=\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{}}(\xi ,\xi ^{})4e^ce^{(1\epsilon )R}0\text{as}R\mathrm{}.$$

This completes the proof of Theorem 1.1.

###### Proof of Corollary 1.2.

(1) By Lemma 2.5, $`X`$ is QPC. Thus $`\mathrm{corank}X_{i=1}^k\mathrm{corank}X_i_{i=1}^k(dimX_i1)`$ by Properties (3), (4), sect. 2. On the other hand, it follows from \[FS\] that $`\mathrm{rank}_hX_{i=1}^k\mathrm{rank}_hX_i=_{i=1}^k(dimX_i1)`$. By Theorem 1.1, $`\mathrm{rank}_hX\mathrm{corank}X`$. Hence, the claim.

(2) We have $`dimX\mathrm{rank}X\mathrm{rank}_hX`$ by \[Le\], $`\mathrm{corank}XdimX\mathrm{rank}X`$ by Property (5), and $`\mathrm{rank}_hX\mathrm{corank}X`$ by Theorem 1.1. Hence, the claim. ∎

## 4 An exotic subexponential partition

Here we prove Theorem 1.4. Recall (see, for instance, \[BS, CK, KL\]) that $`X`$ can be represented as the countable union $`X=_vX_v`$ of blocks, where each $`X_v`$ is a closed convex subset in $`X`$ isometric to the metric product $`F_v\times `$ and $`F_v`$ is the universal covering of a compact nonpositively curved surface with geodesic boundary. Every two blocks are either disjoints or intersect over a boundary component which is a 2-flat in $`X`$ separating them and consequently no three blocks have a point in common. Furthermore, without loss of generality, we may assume that the Gaussian curvature of every $`F_v`$ is constant, $`K1`$, and thus $`F_v`$ can be viewed as a closed convex subset in $`\mathrm{H}^2`$ bounded by countable many geodesic lines.

By Lemma 2.4, it suffices to construct a subexponential partition $`(X,g,T)`$ of rank 1. Actually, there are several ways to do that, for example, there is such an $`(X,g,T)`$ with $`T=`$ and $`g^1(t)`$, $`tT`$, homeomorphic to $`^2`$ and quasi-isometric to a subset of a template introduced in \[CK\]. This easily implies that each $`g^1(t)`$ has a subexponential growth rate, however, to show that it has a bounded distortion in $`X`$ is not that easy and it requires a large piece of machinery from \[CK\]. Apparently, this difficulty is rooted in the fact that the target space $`T=`$ is in a sense simplest possible.

We shall construct another subexponential partition $`(X,g,T)`$ of rank 1 with $`T`$ much more complicated for which it is not immediately obvious even that $`dimT=1`$. However, it is easy to establish the subexponential property of $`(X,g,T)`$ as well as the fact that $`\mathrm{rank}(X,g,T)=1`$.

To start with, we take a block $`X_v=F_v\times `$, fix a point $`pF_v`$ and $`\rho >0`$ with $`\mathrm{dist}(p,F_v)>2\rho `$ and consider the metric projection $`\mathrm{pr}_v:F_vB_{2\rho }(p)S_{2\rho }(p)`$. Then $`J_w=\mathrm{pr}_v(_wF_v)`$ is an open interval in the circle $`S_{2\rho }(p)`$ for every connected component $`_wF_vF_v`$.

Next, we note that $`I_w=\mathrm{pr}_v^1(\overline{J}_w)F_v`$ has an subexponential growth rate because its area is finite, $`\mathrm{Area}(I_w)<\pi `$ by Gauss-Bonnet. Now, we collaps every $`\overline{J}_w`$ to a point, $`\eta :S_{2\rho }(p)S`$, and identify the resulting factor-space $`S=S_{2\rho }(p)/`$ with the circle $`S=S_\rho (p)F_v`$. Furthermore, we may choose the identification in such a way that the geodesic segment $`x\overline{x}`$ lies in $`\overline{B}_{2\rho }(p)B_\rho (p)`$ for every $`xS_{2\rho }(p)`$ and its image $`\overline{x}S`$, and different such segments have no common interior points. Thus we can extend $`\eta `$ to the closed annulus $`\overline{B}_{2\rho }(p)B_\rho (p)`$ by $`\eta (x^{})=\overline{x}`$ for each $`x^{}x\overline{x}`$. Then $`(F_vB_\rho (p),\eta \mathrm{pr}_v,S)`$ is a subexponential partition because $`(\eta \mathrm{pr}_v)^1(x)`$ is either a geodesic ray or some subset $`I_w`$. Note that there is only countable many points $`xS`$ for which the last case occurs. Any such point is said to be distinguished. Clearly, the set of the distinguished points is a countable dense subset in $`S`$.

Though the partition $`(F_vB_\rho (p),\eta \mathrm{pr}_v,S)`$ has rank 1, we need to make further identifications to extend it on the whole $`F_v`$. To this end, we fix a diameter $`T_v\overline{B}_\rho (p)`$ and take the metric projection $`\overline{B}_\rho (p)T_v`$. To avoid unnecessary complifications, we slightly perturb it in such a way that any two distinguished points of $`S=\overline{B}_\rho (p)`$ are mapped into distinct points and images of at most two points of $`S`$ coincide. The images of the distinguised points are called distinguished too. Let $`\zeta :\overline{B}_\rho (p)T_v`$ be the perturbed map. Then $`(F_v,\zeta \eta \mathrm{pr}_v,T_v)`$ is a subexponential partition of rank 1. From now on, we consider $`T_v`$ as an abstract space and not as a subset of $`F_v`$. Let $`D_vT_v`$ be the subset of all distinguished points. Then $`\zeta \eta \mathrm{pr}_v`$ maps bijectively the set $`\{_wF_v\}`$ of the boundary components of $`F_v`$ onto $`D_v`$.

Coming back to the block $`X_v=F_v\times `$, we compose the projection on the first factor with $`\zeta \eta \mathrm{pr}_v`$ and denote the resulting map by $`g_v:X_vT_v`$. Then, obviously, $`(X_v,g_v,T_v)`$ is a subexponential partition of rank 1, and $`g_v`$ maps the set of the boundary components of $`X_v`$ bijectively onto $`D_v`$.

Finally, let $`\stackrel{~}{T}=_vT_v`$ be the disjoint union. We define $`T:=\stackrel{~}{T}/`$, where distinct $`tT_v`$, $`t^{}T_v^{}`$ are equivalent if and only if $`tD_v`$, $`t^{}D_v^{}`$, the blocks $`X_v`$, $`X_v^{}`$ are different and adjacent along a common boundary component which corresponds to $`t`$ and $`t^{}`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{g}=_vg_v:_vX_v_vT_v`$ factors to a continuous $`g:XT`$, and the partition $`(X,g,T)`$ is subexponential: for every distinguished $`tT`$, the set $`g^1(t)`$ sits in two adjacent blocks and it is (outside of a $`\{\text{compact set}\}\times `$) the union of a geodesic half-plane and a subexponential $`I_w\times `$ in each of the blocks. Otherwise, $`g^1(t)`$ is (again outside of a $`\{\text{compact set}\}\times `$) the union of two geodesic half-planes sitting in one and the same block. Each compact set $`KX`$ intersects only finitely many blocks $`X_v`$, hence its image $`g(K)T`$ intersects only finitely many segments $`T_v`$ and consequently $`dimg(K)1`$. Thus $`\mathrm{rank}(X,g,T)=1`$. This completes the proof of Theorem 1.4.

Sergei Buyalo, Steklov Institute of Mathematics, Fontanka 27, 191011, St. Petersburg, Russia
buyalo@pdmi.ras.ru

Viktor Schroeder, Institut für Mathematik, Universität Zürich, Winterthurer Strasse 190, CH-8057 Zürich, Switzerland
vschroed@math.unizh.ch