text:
# A Hilbert 𝐶^∗-Module for Gabor systems

## 1. Intro

A Gabor system for a function $`gL^2()`$ is obtained by applying modulations and translations ($`g(xka)e^{2\pi imbx}`$) to this function. In the study of these systems many results have been obtained by using the function-valued inner product

$$f,g_1(x)=\underset{k}{}f(xk)\overline{g(xk)}.$$

Many of the results from Hilbert space theory can be reproduced in this setting. However, one of the most basic properties of a Hilbert space is lost. Namely, for $`f,g,hL^2()`$ the function $`f,g_1(x)h(x)`$ need not be be in $`L^2()`$. This brings us to the study of Hilbert $`C^{}`$-Modules (HCM). A Hilbert $`C^{}`$-Module is the generalization of the Hilbert space in which the inner product maps into a $`C^{}`$-algebra. By restricting to a subspace of $`L^2()`$ we produce a Hilbert $`C^{}`$-Module for the inner product above containing the functions $`g`$ which are of most interest in the study of Gabor systems.

Our study of this HCM and its relation to Gabor systems is organized in the following manner. In section 2 we provide some of the known results involving Gabor systems and Gabor frames along with some of the basics regarding HCM’s. In section 3 we define our HCM’s and develop a list of basic properties which relate to Gabor systems. In section 4 we show that our HCM is a Banach algebra under pointwise multiplication and show that the set of functions with a finite upper frame bound form an ideal for this algebra. In addition we give a Balian-Low type theorem in the positive direction and show that one can apply an additive perturbation result of Christenson and Heil to obtain a multiplicative one in our Banach algebra. In section 5 we make the connection between modular frames for our HCM (defined by Frank and Larson) and Gabor frames for $`L^2()`$. We show that the system $`(g,a,b)`$ is a frame for $`L^2()`$ iff the translates of $`g`$, $`\{T_{ka}g\}_k`$, form a modular frame for our HCM.

The authors would like to thank Michael Frank for his many helpful suggestions and references regarding Hilbert $`C^{}`$-modules. Throughout all sums are considered to be over $``$ or $`^\mathrm{@}`$ unless otherwise stated.

## 2. Preliminaries

In 1952 Duffin and Schaeffer  defined frames:

###### Definition 2.1.

A sequence $`(f_n)_n`$ of elements of a Hilbert space $`H`$ is called a frame if there are constants $`A,B>0`$ such that

$$Af^2\underset{n}{}|f,f_n|^2Bf^2,\text{for all}fH.$$

For a function $`fL^2()`$ and $`a,b`$ define the operators:

$$\text{Translation: }T_af(x)=f(xa),\text{ Modulation: }E_bf(x)=e^{2\pi ibx}f(x),$$

###### Definition 2.2.

If $`a,b`$ and $`gL^2()`$ we let $`(E_{mb}T_{na}g)=g_{m,n}`$ and call $`\left\{(E_{mb}T_{na}g)\right\}_{m,n}`$ a Gabor system (also called a Weyl-Heisenberg system) and denote it by $`(g,a,b)`$. If this system is a frame then we call it a Gabor frame. We denote by $`(g,a)`$ the family $`(T_{na}g)_n`$.

Now we wish to define some important operators associated with a Gabor system $`(g,a,b)`$. Let $`(e_{m,n})`$ be an orthonormal basis for $`L^2()`$. We call the operator $`𝒯_g:L^2()L^2()`$ given by $`𝒯_ge_{m,n}=E_{mb}T_{na}g`$ the preframe operator associated with $`(g,a,b)`$. The adjoint, $`𝒯_g^{}`$, is called the frame transform and for $`fL^2()`$ and $`m,n`$ we have $`𝒯_g^{}f,e_{m,n}=f,𝒯_g(e_{m,n})=f,(E_{mb}T_{na}g)`$. Thus

$$𝒯_g^{}f=\underset{m,n}{}f,E_{mb}T_{na}ge_{m,n}\text{ and }𝒯_g^{}f^2=\underset{m,n}{}|f,E_{mb}T_{na}g|^2\text{ for all }fL^2().$$

It follows that the preframe operator is bounded if and only if $`(g_{m,n})`$ has a finite upper frame bound $`B`$. Finally we define the frame operator associated with $`(g,a,b)`$:

$$S(f)=𝒯_g𝒯_g^{}(f)=\underset{m,n}{}f,E_{mb}T_{na}g(E_{mb}T_{na}g).$$

It is known that if $`(g,a,b)`$ is a frame then $`S`$ is a positive, invertible operator. We will be interested in when there is a finite upper frame bound for a Gabor system.

###### Definition 2.3.

Let $`\{\psi _n\}_n`$ be an orthonormal basis for a Hilbert space $`H`$. A Bessel sequence is any sequence $`\{\varphi _n\}_n`$(i.e. not necessarily one generated by the operators $`E_{mb}`$ and $`T_{na}`$) so that $`T(\sigma )=_n\sigma ,\psi _n_H\varphi _n`$ defines a bounded operator from $`H`$ to $`H`$. For fixed $`a`$ and $`b`$ we denote the set of functions $`g`$ so that $`\{E_{mb}T_{na}g\}`$ is a Bessel sequence by $`X_Z`$.

We will use a bracket product notation compatible with Gabor systems. We define the $`a`$-inner product for $`f,g,L^2()`$ and $`a^+`$:

$$f,g_a=f,g_a(x)=\underset{k}{}f(xka)\overline{g(xka)}\text{ and }f_a(x)=\sqrt{f,f_a(x)}.$$

For a detailed development of this $`a`$-inner product which includes two forms of a Riesz Representation we refer the reader to  but here we give a brief list of some of the properties which will be useful later.

###### Proposition 2.4.

For $`f,gL^2()`$
(a) $`f,f_a0`$ and = 0 iff $`f=0`$
(b) $`f,g_a=\overline{g,f_a}`$
(c) $`\varphi f,g_a=\varphi f,g_a`$ for all periodic functions such that $`f,\varphi fL^2()`$
(d) $`f,h+g_a=f,h_a+f,g_a`$
(e) $`|f,g_a|^2f_ag_a`$
(f) $`f,g_aL^1[0,a]`$
(g) $`f,g_a`$ is a-periodic on $``$
(h) $`f_{L^2()}^2=_0^af,f_a𝑑x`$
(i) $`f+g_af_a+g_a`$

While we see that the $`a`$-inner product has many of the same properties as the usual inner product, there is one major difference as we mentioned in the introduction. Consider $`f,g,hL^2()`$ where

$$f(x)=g(x)=\frac{1}{x^{\frac{1}{3}}}\mathrm{𝟏}_{[0,1]},h(x)=\mathrm{𝟏}_{[0,1]}.$$

Then $`f,g_1(x)h(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^{\frac{2}{3}}}}\mathrm{𝟏}_{[0,1]}`$ and this function is clearly not in $`L^2()`$.

We say that an operator $`L:L^2()L^2()`$ is $`a`$-factorable if $`L(\varphi f)=\varphi L(f)`$ for all bounded $`a`$-periodic functions $`\varphi `$. The operators associated with Gabor systems are $`\frac{1}{b}`$-factorable and hence have the following representations which we refer to as compressions since we compress the modulation into the $`\frac{1}{b}`$-inner product.

###### Proposition 2.5.

 If $`g_{\frac{1}{b}}B`$ a.e., then the frame operator and the preframe operator have the following compressions

$$𝒯_g(f)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{b}}\underset{k}{}f,e_k_{\frac{1}{b}}T_{ka}g,𝒯_g^{}(f)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{b}}\underset{k}{}f,T_{ka}g_{\frac{1}{b}}e_k\text{ and }$$

$$S_g(f)=\frac{1}{b}\underset{k}{}f,T_{ka}g_{\frac{1}{b}}T_{ka}g$$

where $`e_k=T_{\frac{k}{b}}1_{[0,\frac{1}{b})}`$ .

###### Definition 2.6.

For $`\lambda >0`$ the Zak transform of a function $`fL^2()`$ is

$$Z_\lambda (f)(t,v)=\lambda ^{1/2}\underset{k}{}f(\lambda (tk))e^{2\pi ikv},t,v.$$

We may interpret this as a unitary operator from $`L^2()`$ to $`L^2[0,1]^2`$. Since we are frequently interested in the case where $`\lambda =1`$, we will also use the notation $`Z_1=Z`$.

Before we present some of the basics regarding Hilbert $`C^{}`$-modules we give two very important results for $`(g,1,1)`$ systems. The first is due to Daubechies and the second was proved independently by Balian and Low. A nice treatment of both can be found in .

###### Theorem 2.7.

 The system $`(g,1,1)`$ yields a frame with frame bounds A and B iff

$$A|Z(f)(t,v)|B\text{ for a.e. }(t,v)[0,1]^2$$

###### Theorem 2.8.

(Balian-Low) If the system $`(g,1,1)`$ yields a frame, then

$$tg(t)_{L^2()}\gamma \widehat{g}(\gamma )_{L^2()}=+\mathrm{}$$

Now we give some of the basics regarding Hilbert $`C^{}`$-modules. We refer the reader to  for a thorough treatment of this subject. Essentially, a Hilbert $`C^{}`$-module is the generalization of a Hilbert space in which the inner product takes values in a $`C^{}`$-algebra instead of the complex numbers.

###### Definition 2.9.

Let $`A`$ be a $`C^{}`$-algebra. An inner product $`A`$-module  is an $`A`$-module $``$ with a mapping $`,_A:\times A`$ so that for all $`x,y,z`$ and $`aA`$

a) $`x,x_A0`$ (as an element of $`A`$);
b) $`x,x_A=0`$ iff $`x=0`$;
c) $`x,y_A=y,x_A^{}`$;
d) $`ax,x_A=ax,x_A`$ ;
e) $`x+y,x_A=x,z_A+y,z_A.`$

If the space $``$ is complete with respect to the norm $`x_A^2=x,x_A_A`$, then we say $``$ is a Hilbert $`C^{}`$-module with respect to $`A`$ or more simply a Hilbert $`A`$-module. When referring to a Hilbert $`C^{}`$-module we will also use the abbreviation HCM.

We provide a very simple example.

###### Example 2.10.

Let $`A`$ be a $`C^{}`$-algebra. The $`A`$-valued inner product defined by $`a,b_A=ab^{}`$ makes $`A`$ a Hilbert $`A`$-module.

## 3. The HCM

Given the way we have defined the $`a`$-inner product and the Hilbert $`C^{}`$-module it is natural to try to use the $`a`$-inner product to turn $`L^2()`$ into a HCM. Unfortunately, the $`a`$-inner product maps $`L^2()`$ into $`L^1[0,a]`$ which is not a $`C^{}`$-algebra. For this reason we consider the subspace of $`L^2()`$ consisting of those functions which are mapped into $`L^{\mathrm{}}[0,a]`$. This yields the following Lebesgue-Bochner space.

For $`b>0`$ let $`L_{\frac{1}{b}}^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$ be defined to be the set of measurable functions $`f:`$ for which the norm

$$f_{L_{\frac{1}{b}}^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)}^2=esssup_{[0,\frac{1}{b}]}\underset{k}{}|f(x\frac{k}{b})|^2$$

is finite. Proposition 2.4 gives us that $`L_{\frac{1}{b}}^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$ is a Hilbert $`C^{}`$-Module (HCM) over the $`C^{}`$-algebra $`L^{\mathrm{}}[0,\frac{1}{b})`$ with $`C^{}`$-valued inner product and $`C^{}`$-valued norm

$$f,g_{\frac{1}{b}}(x)=\underset{k}{}f(x\frac{k}{b})\overline{g(x\frac{k}{b})}\text{ and }f_{\frac{1}{b}}(x)=\left(\underset{k}{}|f(x\frac{k}{b})|^2\right)^{1/2}.$$

We begin with a few basic remarks:

1. Weak-\* convergence. Because we are constructing our $`HCM`$ with Gabor systems in mind we will only require the $`C^{}`$-valued inner product to converge weak-\* in $`L^{\mathrm{}}[0,1]`$. We motivate this by considering the case$`a=b=1`$. In this case we have the classification Theorem 2.7. With this theorem it is easy to see that the system $`(g,1,1)`$ with $`g={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{𝟏}_{[k+\frac{1}{2^{k+1}},k+\frac{1}{2^k})}`$ produces a Gabor frame because $`|Z(g)(t,v)|=1`$ everywhere. However the series $`g,g_1`$ does not converge in norm in $`L^{\mathrm{}}[0,1]`$. If we only require that the series converge in the weak\* topology we avoid this problem. This assumption results in frames being what Frank and Larson  have termed nonstandard modular frames. We will address this more in section 5.

2. Proposition 2.4 (h) yields the following inequality which shows that $`L_{\frac{1}{b}}^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$ embeds continuously in $`L^2()`$

$$f^2=_0^{\frac{1}{b}}|f,f_{\frac{1}{b}}|𝑑x\underset{[0,1]}{sup}|f,f_{\frac{1}{b}}|=f_{L_{\frac{1}{b}}^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)}^2.$$

Finally, since $`L_{\frac{1}{b}}^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$ contains continuous functions of compact support, we see it is norm dense in $`L^2()`$.

3. $`L_{\frac{1}{b}}^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)L^2()L^{\mathrm{}}()`$. We illustrate this for $`L_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$ and note that it is easily generalized. Let $`f_k=\mathrm{𝟏}_{[k,k+\frac{1}{k^2})}`$ and $`f=_{k=0}^1f_k`$. Then $`fL^2()L^{\mathrm{}}()`$ but $`fL_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$ for $`f,f_1(x)`$ is unbounded near zero.

4. We interpret a basic result about Gabor frames in this space. A necessary condition for $`\{g_{m,n}\}_{m,n}`$ to be a Gabor frame in $`L^2()`$ with upper frame bound $`B`$ is that $`esssup_{[0,\frac{1}{b}]}_k|g(x\frac{k}{b})|^2B`$ a.e.. In other words, if $`g_{m,n}`$ is a frame for $`L^2()`$ with upper frame bound $`B`$ then $`g`$ in the $`B`$-ball of $`L_{\frac{1}{b}}^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$.

5. The Wiener amalgam spaces $`W(L,G)`$ are defined using the norm of two spaces where the local behavior is determined by (L) and the global behavior by (G). For example,

$$W(L^p,\mathrm{}^q)=\{f:f_{W(L^p,\mathrm{}^q)}=\left(\underset{k}{}fe_k_p^q\right)^{\frac{1}{q}}<\mathrm{}\}.$$

We will refer to $`𝐖()=W(L^{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{}^1)`$ as the Wiener Algebra. The Segal algebra may be viewed as a specific Wiener amalgam space:

$$𝐒_0()=W(C_0,\mathrm{}^1)=\{fW(L^{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{}^1):f\text{ is continuous }\}.$$

These algebras have been used effectively in the study of Gabor systems by Benedetto, Heil, Walnut, Feichtinger, Zimmerman and Strohmer ( See chapters 2,3 and 8 of ). From the inequality

$$g_{L_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)}g_{W(L^{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{}_2)}g_{W(L^{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{}_1)}$$

we conclude that the Segal algebra and the Weiner algebra embed in $`L_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$. That is, for any $`g`$ in $`𝐒_0()`$ we have

$$g_{L_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)}g_{𝐖()}g_{𝐒_0()}$$

6. One may view the Zak transform here as the analogue of the Fourier transform when $`a=b=1`$. We give the usual notation for this but add the representation with respect to the inner product for our HCM. We should point out that although these transforms agree for $`t,v[0,1]^2`$, the latter is periodic in $`t`$ and $`v`$ while the former yields only a quasi periodicity.

$$Z(f)(t,v)=\underset{k}{}f(t+k)e^{2\pi ikv}=\underset{k}{}f,e_k_1(t)e^{2\pi ikv}$$

where $`e_k=T_k\mathrm{𝟏}_{[0,1)}.`$

$$\widehat{f}(v)=_{}f(t)e^{2\pi itv}𝑑t=_0^1Z(f)(t,v)e^{2\pi itv}𝑑t$$

7. The Fourier transform is not a bounded linear operator on $`L_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$. Indeed, if we let $`f(x)=\mathrm{𝟏}_{[0,1]}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^{\frac{1}{3}}}}`$ it can be shown that the absolute value of the Fourier transform is bounded by the function

$$g(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}2\hfill & x[1,1]\hfill \\ \frac{2}{x^{\frac{2}{3}}}\hfill & \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}.$$

The function $`g(x)`$ is clearly in $`L_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$ which implies $`\widehat{f}`$ is also. However, since the original function $`f`$ is not even bounded, it is clearly not in $`L_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$. Thus by the properties of the Fourier transform we see that $`\widehat{\widehat{f}}`$ is not in $`L_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$.

## 4. Bessel Systems

Before we examine the role Bessel systems play in our HCM’s we show that these HCM’s are Banach algebras under pointwise multiplication.

###### Proposition 4.1.

The space $`L_{\frac{1}{b}}^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$ is a Banach algebra under pointwise multiplication.

###### Proof.

The justification can be made with one inequality. Note that the inequality below is not derived by Cauchy-Shwarz, but by the fact that all the terms are positive and the left hand side is just the diagonal of the product of the sums on the right.

$$\underset{k}{}|fg(x\frac{k}{b})|^2\underset{k}{}|f(x\frac{k}{b})|^2\underset{k}{}|g(x\frac{k}{b})|^2.$$

Unfortunately $`L_{\frac{1}{b}}^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$ is not a $`C^{}`$-algebra. It is also clear that this Banach Algebra has no identity since $`f(x)=\mathrm{𝟏}_{}`$ is clearly not in $`L_{\frac{1}{b}}^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$.

Now we turn our attention to the functions that yield Bessel systems. We show that the functions which produce a finite upper frame bound for $`a=b=1`$ form a Banach space which may be embedded in $`L_1^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{}_2)`$. For now let us refer to this as the Zak space, denoted $`X_Z`$. More formally we define the space,

$$X_Z=\left\{f\right|fL^2()\text{and}f_{X_Z}=esssup_{t,v[0,1]^2}|Z(f)(t,v)|<\mathrm{}\}.$$

Since $`Z`$ is a unitary operator from $`L^2()`$ to $`L^2[0,1]^2`$ it is easy to see that $`_{X_Z}`$ is actually a norm. The essential inequality in the following proposition is well known and is usually stated in the form $`G_0=_k|g(xk)|^2<B`$ . We prove it here for completeness and for the development of the Zak transform on $`L_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$.

###### Proposition 4.2.

The Zak space embeds continuously in $`L_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$, that is

$$g_{L_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)}g_{X_Z}\text{ for all }gX_Z.$$

###### Proof.

To see that $`X_Z`$ embeds in $`L_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$ we look at what the Zak transform does on $`L_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$. Let us define

$$L^{\mathrm{}}L^2[0,1]^2=\left\{F(t,v)\right|\underset{t[0,1]}{sup}\left(_0^1|F(t,v)|^2𝑑v\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}<\mathrm{}\}.$$

Now let $`fL_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$ so

$`Z(f)(t,v)_{L^{\mathrm{}}L^2[0,1]^2}`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{t[0,1]}{sup}\left({\displaystyle _0^1}|{\displaystyle f,e_k_1e^{2\pi ikv}}|^2𝑑v\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{t[0,1]}{sup}\left({\displaystyle |f,e_k_1|^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}=f_{L_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)}`$
It is easy to see from here that the Zak transform is an isometry between these two spaces. Further, since the $`L^2[0,1]`$ norm is bounded by the $`L^{\mathrm{}}[0,1]`$ norm, we see that $`g_{L_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)}g_{X_Z}`$ for $`gX_Z`$.

Our next example shows that $`X_ZL_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$.

###### Example 4.3.

There exists $`gL_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$ with $`gX_Z`$

###### Proof.

Consider the function $`g={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e_n}{n}}`$. Clearly $`gL_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$. Now Corollary 3.7 from  states that a positive real-valued function is in $`X_Z`$ iff $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|g,T_kg_1|\mathrm{}`$. However computation shows that $`g,T_kg_1=(1/k){\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{k}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}`$ for the above $`g`$. These are square summable but not summable. ∎

As we mentioned a detailed study of the Balian and Low theorem (Theorem 2.8) can be found in . In this study an amalgam version of the BLT theorem for the Segal algebra $`𝐒_0`$ due to Heil is given.

###### Theorem 4.4.

 Let $`gL^2()`$. If $`(g,1,1)`$ forms a frame for $`L^2()`$, then

$$g𝐒_\mathrm{𝟎}\text{ and }\widehat{g}𝐒_\mathrm{𝟎}$$

A direct Corollary of the continuous embedding yields the positive Balian-Low type result which in light of remark 7 from the previous section is non-trivial.

###### Corollary 4.5.

If the system $`(g,1,1)`$ is a frame then $`gL_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$ and $`\widehat{g}L_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$

The proof follows directly from the theorem above and the fact that $`(g,1,1)`$ forms a frame if and only if $`(\widehat{g},1,1)`$ does. This, however, does not characterize the space $`X_Z`$. We showed in the proof of Proposition 4.2 that $`Z`$ is an isometry from $`L_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$ to $`L^{\mathrm{}}L^2[0,1]^2`$. Recall that $`Z(\widehat{g})=e^{2\pi itv}Z(g)(v,t)`$. It suffices to show that there exists a function $`F(t,v)L^{\mathrm{}}L^2[0,1]^2`$ so that $`F(v,t)L^{\mathrm{}}L^2[0,1]^2`$ yet $`F(t,v)L^{\mathrm{}}[0,1]^2`$. The function $`F(t,v)=v^{\frac{t}{3}}`$ is such a function. Given that the Segal algebra (see remark 5 section 3) embeds in $`L_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$ we may interpret these results as follows. If $`(g,1,1)`$ forms a frame then $`g,\widehat{g}L_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)𝐒_\mathrm{𝟎}`$.

Now we show that the functions with finite upper frame bound have an algebraic connection to $`L_1^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{}_2)`$. We recall an algebraic term. If $`M`$ is a ring without identity we say the square ideal, $`M^2`$ is the ideal of the ring formed by taking finite sums of products from $`M`$. That is

$$M^2=\{\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_iy_i:x_i,y_iM\}.$$

The theorem below not only shows that the Zak space is an ideal in $`L_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$ but it contains the square ideal.

###### Theorem 4.6.

For any $`f,gL_1^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{}_2)`$ their product $`fg`$ has a finite upper frame bound. In particular, the Zak space is an ideal for $`L_1^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{}_2)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`f,g`$ in $`L^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{}_2)`$ and consider $`Z(fg)`$.

$`|Z(fg)(t,v)|^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}fg,e_k_1(t)e^{2\pi ikv}\right|^2`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|f(t+k)|^2{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|g(t+k)|^2f_{L_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)}g_{L_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)}.`$
As usual the argument may be mimicked in cases where $`ab`$ is rational. To get the most general rational case one probably needs to use the Zak matrices of Zibulski-Zeevi which may be found in  section 1.5. We present the case where $`a=\frac{1}{2},b=1`$ and leave the rest to the reader.

###### Theorem 4.7.

If $`f,g`$ in $`L_1^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{}_2)`$, then $`(fg,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},1)`$ is a Bessel system.

###### Proof.

To see this we apply a standard technique when using the Zak transform. Applying the Zak transform to the frame operator of the system $`(g,\frac{1}{2},1)`$ we get:

$`Z(S_g)(f)`$ $`=`$ $`Z({\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}f,T_{\frac{k}{2}}g_1T_{\frac{k}{2}}g)`$
$`=`$ $`Z({\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}f,T_kg_1T_kg+Z({\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}f,T_kT_{\frac{1}{2}}g_1T_k(T_{\frac{1}{2}}g)`$
$`=`$ $`Z({\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}f,T_kg_1T_kg)+Z({\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}f,T_kT_{\frac{1}{2}}g_1T_k(T_{\frac{1}{2}}g)`$
$`=`$ $`Z(f)\left(|Z(g)|^2+|Z(T_{\frac{1}{2}}g)|^2\right).`$
This implies that the system $`(g,\frac{1}{2},1)`$ has a finite upper frame bound iff $`|Z(g)|^2+|Z(T_{\frac{1}{2}}g)|^2<B`$. In view of this and the proposition above all we need to show is that $`|Z(T_{\frac{1}{2}}fg)|`$ bounded. This follows easily from the fact that $`T_{\frac{1}{2}}f_{L_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)}=f_{L_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)}`$

One may interpret this theorem another way. We state it as a corollary in the case $`a=b=1`$.

###### Corollary 4.8.

For any $`gL_1^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{}_2)`$ and $`x`$ the operator

$$𝒱_g^1(f)(t,v,x)=Z(fT_xg)(t,v)e^{2\pi itv}$$

is a bounded operator from $`L_{\frac{1}{b}}^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$ to $`L^{\mathrm{}}(^3)`$.

###### Proof.

First we point out that because we are considering the periodic extension of the Zak transform in $`t,v[0,1]^2`$ we really only need $`[0,1]^2\times `$ in place of $`^3`$. Given $`x`$ we have $`T_xg_{L_{\frac{1}{b}}^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)}=g_{L_{\frac{1}{b}}^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)}`$. The result follows from the above inequality. ∎

Let us point out that in many ways $`𝒱_g^1(f)(t,v,x)`$ resembles the short time Fourier transform

$$𝒱_g(f,x)=_{}f(t)\overline{g(tx)}e^{2\pi itv}𝑑t$$

For this reason we term this operator the windowed Zak transform.

We have a simple corollary for producing frames in $`L_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$. Again we state it here for the case $`a=b=1`$ but it is easily generalized to many rational cases.

###### Corollary 4.9.

If $`fL_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$ and $`inf|Z(f^2)|>A`$ then $`(f^2,1,1)`$ is a frame.

Finally we end the section by applying the following perturbation theorem of Christensen and Heil to produce frames.

###### Theorem 4.10.

 Let $`H`$ be a Hilbert space, $`\{f_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a frame with bounds $`A,B`$ and let $`\{g_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}H`$. If there exists $`R<A`$ so that

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|h,f_ig_i_{}|^2Rh^2\text{ for all }hH,$$

then $`\{g_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a frame with bounds $`A(1\sqrt{\frac{R}{A}})^2`$ and $`B(1\sqrt{\frac{R}{A}})^2`$.

In the Gabor case this means that if $`(g,a,b)`$ is a frame then so is $`(f,a,b)`$ if the system $`(fg,a,b)`$ has an upper frame bound less than that of $`(g,a,b)`$. We use this theorem and one of the inequalities above to produce a multiplicative perturbation result.

###### Proposition 4.11.

Let $`ab<1`$ and $`ab`$ rational. If $`(g,a,b)`$ produces a frame with bounds $`A,B`$ and if $`(f1)L_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$ with $`f1_{L_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)}^2\frac{R}{B}`$, then $`(fg,a,b)`$ is a frame.

###### Proof.

As usual, to highlight the essential components of the argument we prove the case $`a=b=1`$. Let us point out that $`f1`$ need not be in $`L_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$ even if $`f`$ is, since $`1L_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$. By the theorem above it is enough to show that $`fgg`$ has a finite upper frame bound less than $`A`$. In view of Theorem 2.7 it is enough to show $`|Z(fgg)|<R`$.

$`|Z(fgg)(t,v)|^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}(f1)g,e_k_1(t)e^{2\pi ikv}\right|^2`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|(f1)(t+k)|^2{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|g(t+k)|^2`$
$``$ $`f1_{L_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)}^2g_{L_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)}^2{\displaystyle \frac{R}{B}}B.`$
Where the fact that $`g_{L_1^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)}B`$ follows from Proposition 4.2. In this case we get frame bounds $`A(1\sqrt{\frac{R}{A}})^2`$ and $`B(1\sqrt{\frac{R}{A}})^2`$.

## 5. $`a`$-frames and modular frames

An immediate concern is whether the operators $`𝒯_g`$ and $`𝒯_g^{}`$ are bounded operators on $`L_{\frac{1}{b}}^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$ if they are bounded operators on $`L^2()`$. The answer is yes and follows from Proposition 5.9 of  which we state below.

###### Proposition 5.1.

If $`L:L^2()L^2()`$ is an a-factorable operator, then $`L`$ is bounded iff for all $`fL^2()`$

$$L(f)_a(t)Lf_a(t)$$

where $`L=sup_{f_{L^2()}=1}L(f)_{L^2()}`$.

Given the compressed representations of $`𝒯_g`$ and $`𝒯_g^{}`$ it is easy to see that they are $`\frac{1}{b}`$-factorable on $`L^2()`$. Since the inequality in the proposition holds for all $`fL^2()`$ it certainly holds for $`fL_{\frac{1}{b}}^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$ and we have our result by taking supremums on both sides.

We now introduce two definitions both of which are abstractions of frames. The first is that of an $`a`$-frame for $`L^2()`$ and the second is the analogue of a frame in a Hilbert $`C^{}`$-module.

###### Definition 5.2.

 A sequence $`\{f_n\}L^2()`$ is an $`a`$-frame for $`L^2()`$  if there exists $`A,B`$ such that for all $`fL^2()`$

(5.1) $`Af_a^2(x){\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|f,f_n_a(x)|^2Bf_a^2(x)\text{ a.e..}`$
Since we are dealing with frames for different spaces we will add the term “modular” to Frank and Larson’s definition of a frame for a HCM.

###### Definition 5.3.

 Let $``$ be a HCM over the unital $`C^{}`$-algebra $`A`$. A sequence $`\{x_n\}`$ is said to be a modular frame  for $``$ if there are real constants $`C,D>0`$ such that

$$Cx,x_A\underset{n}{}x,x_n_Ax_n,x_ADx,x_A$$

for all $`x`$. If the sum in the middle of the inequality always converges in norm this is referred to as a standard modular frame and if the middle sum converges weakly for some $`x`$ we will call this a non-standard modular frame.

We point out here that our results are in a different direction than the “standard” results given by Frank and Larson. Since we only require the sum

$$\underset{k}{}f(x\frac{k}{b})\overline{g(x\frac{k}{b})}$$

to converge weakly in $`L^{\mathrm{}}[0,\frac{1}{b}]`$, we are dealing with the nonstandard case. Most of their examination dealt with standard modular frames in HCM’s which were at worst countably generated. Neither of these conditions is met in our case. Now we give the result of Casazza and Lammers regarding the connection between $`a`$-frames and Gabor frames.

###### Theorem 5.4.

 Let $`g_n(x)=g(xna)`$. Then $`\{g_{m,n}\}_{m,n}`$ is a Gabor frame for $`L^2()`$ with frame bounds $`A,B`$ iff $`\{g_n\}`$ is a $`\frac{1}{b}`$-frame for $`L^2()`$.

This is somewhat surprising because this says that the frame inequality holds pointwise for the bracket product. We use this result to show the connections between Gabor frames and modular frames.

###### Theorem 5.5.

For $`gL^2()`$, $`\{g_{m,n}\}_{m,n}`$ is a Gabor frame for $`L^2()`$ iff $`\{g_n\}_n`$ is a non-standard modular frame for $`L_{\frac{1}{b}}^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$.

###### Proof.

$``$ This follows directly from the theorem above since $`L_{\frac{1}{b}}^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$ is a subspace of $`L^2()`$.

$``$ For any $`fL^2()`$ consider $`f_0={\displaystyle \frac{f}{f_{\frac{1}{b}}}}`$. Then $`f_0,f_0_{\frac{1}{b}}1`$ and hence $`f_0L_{\frac{1}{b}}^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$. Since $`\{g_n\}`$ is a modular frame for $`L_{\frac{1}{b}}^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{}_2\right)`$,

$`Af_0_{\frac{1}{b}}^2(x){\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|f_0,g_n_{\frac{1}{b}}(x)|^2Bf_0_{\frac{1}{b}}^2(x)\text{ a.e.}`$
$`A{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\frac{1}{b}}^2(x)}{f_{\frac{1}{b}}^2(x)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f_{\frac{1}{b}}^2(x)}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|f,g_n_{\frac{1}{b}}(x)|^2B{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\frac{1}{b}}^2(x)}{f_{\frac{1}{b}}^2(x)}}\text{ a.e.}`$
$`Af_{\frac{1}{b}}^2(x){\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|f,g_n_{\frac{1}{b}}(x)|^2Bf_{\frac{1}{b}}^2(x)\text{ a.e..}`$
So we are done by the previous theorem. ∎

Finally we mention that there is a convolution for our HCM in the case $`a=b=1`$. This is developed in much greater detail in . Our convolution is simply the preframe operator $`𝒯_g(f)`$. That is, we define $`g_1f=𝒯_g(f)`$ because

$$Z(𝒯_g(f))=\underset{k}{}f,e_k_1Z(T_kg)=\underset{k}{}f,e_k_1e^{2\pi ikv}Z(g)=Z(g)Z(f).$$

The reason we call this a convolution is because the Zak transform turns it into multiplication. Clearly this does not necessarily map to an element in $`L^2[0,1]^2`$ but from Holder’s inequality we see that $`Z(𝒯_g(f))L^1[0,1]^2`$.


format: text

text:
# Absence of Singularity in Loop Quantum Cosmology

## Structure of isotropic models.

According to  states for isotropic models in the connection representation are distributional states of the full kinematical quantum theory supported on isotropic connections of the form $`A_a^i=c\mathrm{\Lambda }_I^i\omega _a^I`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_I`$ is an internal $`SU(2)`$-dreibein and $`\omega ^I`$ are the left-invariant one-forms on the “translational” part of the symmetry group acting on the space manifold $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The momenta are densitized triads of the form $`E_i^a=p\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^IX_I^a`$ with left-invariant densitized vector fields $`X_I`$ fulfilling $`\omega ^I(X_J)=\delta _J^I`$. Besides gauge freedom, there are only the two canonically conjugate variables $`\{c,p\}=\kappa \gamma /3`$ ($`\kappa =8\pi G`$ is the gravitational constant and $`\gamma >0`$ the Barbero–Immirzi parameter) which have the physical meaning of extrinsic curvature and square of radius ($`a=\sqrt{|p|}`$ is the scale factor). The kinematical Hilbert space $`_{\mathrm{kin}}=L^2(SU(2),\mathrm{d}\mu _H)`$ is the space of functions of isotropic connections which are square integrable with respect to Haar measure. Orthonormal gauge invariant states are (see  for details)

$$\chi _j=\frac{\mathrm{sin}(j+\frac{1}{2})c}{\mathrm{sin}\frac{c}{2}},\zeta _j=\frac{\mathrm{cos}(j+\frac{1}{2})c}{\mathrm{sin}\frac{c}{2}}$$
(1)
for $`j\frac{1}{2}_0`$ together with $`\zeta _{\frac{1}{2}}=(\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}\frac{c}{2})^1`$. These states are eigenstates of the volume operator $`\widehat{V}`$ with eigenvalues

$$V_j=(\gamma l_\mathrm{P}^2)^{\frac{3}{2}}\sqrt{\frac{1}{27}j(j+\frac{1}{2})(j+1)}.$$
(2)
Later we will also use a different orthonormal basis of states adapted to the triad by introducing

$$|n:=\frac{\mathrm{exp}(in\frac{c}{2})}{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}\frac{c}{2}},n$$
(3)
where $`n`$ represents the eigenvalues of $`p`$ which determines the dreibein. In contrast to $`j`$, which is always positive and represents eigenvalues of the square of the scale factor, $`n`$ can also be negative. For this it is important that we have not only the character functions $`\chi _j`$, but also the additional functions $`\zeta _j`$. This concludes the discussion of quantum states.

## The inverse scale factor.

Classically, the metric of an isotropic spatial slice is given by $`q_{IJ}=a^2\delta _{IJ}=e_I^ie_J^i`$ where $`e_I^i`$ is the co-triad. From this quantity we can build the expression

$`m_{IJ}:={\displaystyle \frac{q_{IJ}}{\sqrt{detq}}}={\displaystyle \frac{e_I^ie_I^i}{|dete|}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}\delta _{IJ}`$

for the inverse scale factor, which we now quantize as a first application of the previously derived calculus. The co-triad is not a fundamental variable, but it can be quantized to $`2i(\gamma l_\mathrm{P}^2)^1h_I[h_I^1,\widehat{V}]`$ due to the classical identity $`e_a^i=2(\kappa \gamma )^1\{A_a^i,V\}`$ . The expression $`dete`$ in the denominator of $`m_{IJ}`$ can be quantized to the volume operator which then can be absorbed into the commutators. Such a procedure has already been applied in  in order to quantize matter Hamiltonians which become densely defined operators, and in the same way we arrive at the bounded operator

$`\widehat{m}_{IJ}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{32}{\gamma ^2l_\mathrm{P}^4}}\mathrm{tr}\left(h_I[h_I^1,\sqrt{\widehat{V}}]h_J[h_J^1,\sqrt{\widehat{V}}]\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{64}{\gamma ^2l_\mathrm{P}^4}}((\sqrt{\widehat{V}}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{c}{2}}\sqrt{\widehat{V}}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{c}{2}}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{c}{2}}\sqrt{\widehat{V}}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{c}{2}})^2`$
$`\delta _{IJ}(\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{c}{2}}\sqrt{\widehat{V}}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{c}{2}}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{c}{2}}\sqrt{\widehat{V}}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{c}{2}})^2).`$
This operator is simultaneously diagonalizable with the volume operator and has the eigenvalues

$`m_{IJ,j}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16}{\gamma ^2l_\mathrm{P}^4}}(4(\sqrt{V_j}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{V_{j+\frac{1}{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{V_{j\frac{1}{2}}})^2`$ (5)
$`+\delta _{IJ}(\sqrt{V_{j+\frac{1}{2}}}\sqrt{V_{j\frac{1}{2}}})^2)`$
$``$ $`V^{\frac{1}{3}}\left(\delta _{IJ}+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2}{9}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{256}}+{\displaystyle \frac{37}{192}}\delta _{IJ}\right){\displaystyle \frac{l_\mathrm{P}^4}{a^4}}\right)`$ (6)
where in the second step we have assumed that $`j`$ — and hence $`V_j`$ — is large. Thus, for large $`j`$, the leading term is the classical value $`V^{\frac{1}{3}}\delta _{IJ}`$, and the corrections (which are not necessarily isotropic) are of only the fourth order. We see that our quantization leading to a bounded operator does not spoil the classical limit. In fact, the $`a^1`$-behavior can be observed in a range which is much larger than expected from the large-$`j`$ expansion. As Fig. 1 demonstrates, even for $`j=1`$ are the eigenvalues very close to the classical expectation, and only the lowest three eigenvalues show large deviations. But this is already deeply in the quantum regime, so such deviations are expected and lead to a finite behavior of the classically diverging $`m_{II}`$. Note that the volume operator has the eigenvalue zero (three-fold degenerate), but even in the corresponding eigenstates is the quantization of the inverse scale factor perfectly finite. This may be taken as a first indication for a removal of the classical singularity, although only at the kinematical level.

## Discrete time evolution.

Following the basic steps of the quantization in the full theory , the Hamiltonian constraints for cosmological models can be quantized with some adaptations to the symmetry . For simplicity we write down here only the key term, the so-called Euclidean term $`H^{(\mathrm{E})}`$, of the constraint operator for spatially flat isotropic models. However, all our qualitative results remain true for the full constraint and also for isotropic models with positive curvature. The constraint is of the form

$`\widehat{H}^{(\mathrm{E})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4i}{\gamma \kappa l_\mathrm{P}^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{IJK}{}}ϵ^{IJK}\mathrm{tr}(h_Ih_Jh_I^1h_J^1h_K[h_K^1,\widehat{V}])`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{96i}{\gamma \kappa l_\mathrm{P}^2}}\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{c}{2}}\mathrm{cos}^2{\displaystyle \frac{c}{2}}(\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{c}{2}}\widehat{V}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{c}{2}}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{c}{2}}\widehat{V}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{c}{2}})`$
with action

$`\widehat{H}^{(\mathrm{E})}|n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\gamma \kappa l_\mathrm{P}^2}}(V_{|n|/2}V_{|n|/21})`$ (8)
$`\times (|n+42|n+|n4).`$
In order to “unfreeze dynamics” and interpret solutions as “evolving states,” as usual  we have to introduce an internal time which we choose as the dreibein coefficient $`p`$. Accordingly, we transform states $`|s`$ into an adapted representation by expanding $`|s=_ns_n|n`$ in eigenstates $`|n`$ of $`p`$. This will allow us to find an interpretation of physical states as evolving histories. Furthermore, discrete geometry imples that eigenvalues of $`p`$ are discrerte, whence time evolution is now discrete (see  for details). Moreover, since we chose a geometrical quantity as time which can be negative and is zero for vanishing volume, we will be able to test the possibility of a quantum evolution through the classical singularity.

To realize dynamics, we need to extend the model with matter degrees of freedom which can evolve with this internal time. Matter can be incorporated by using coefficients $`s_n(\varphi )`$ depending on the matter field $`\varphi `$ in an appropriate fashion, the details of which is not important for what follows. The Hamiltonian constraint can then be written down using a matter Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_\varphi `$ (as in ) which is diagonal in the gravitational degrees of freedom (and can also contain a cosmological term). The resulting quantum constraint equation can then be regarded as an evolution in discrete time:

$`(V_{|n+4|/2}V_{|n+4|/21})s_{n+4}(\varphi )2(V_{|n|/2}V_{|n|/21})s_n(\varphi )`$ (9)
$`+(V_{|n4|/2}V_{|n4|/21})s_{n4}(\varphi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\gamma \kappa l_\mathrm{P}^2\widehat{H}_\varphi s_n(\varphi )`$ (10)
($`V_j`$ are the eigenvalues (2) of the volume operator with $`V_1=0`$) which is a difference equation for the coefficients $`s_n(\varphi )`$ depending on the discrete label $`n`$ (our discrete time).

## Fate of the singularity.

Given initial data $`s_n(\varphi )`$ for some negative $`n`$, we can use (9) in order to determine later values for higher $`n`$. This, however, is possible only as long as the highest order coefficient $`V_{|n+4|/2}V_{|n+4|/21}`$ is nonzero, which is the case if and only if $`n4`$. So all coefficients for $`n<4`$ are determined by the initial data. However, (9) does not determine $`s_0`$ and instead leads to a consistency condition for the initial data. So the quantum evolution appears to break-down just at the classical singularity, i.e. at the zero eigenvalue of $`p`$. But this is not the case; in fact all $`s_n`$ for $`n>0`$ are determined by (9) from the initial data. This occurs because for $`n=0`$ we have: i) $`V_{|n|/2}V_{|n|/21}=0`$, and ii) $`\widehat{H}_\varphi s_n(\varphi )=0`$; thus $`s_0`$ completely drops out of the iterative evolution. E.g., $`s_4`$ is determined solely by $`s_4`$ because the coefficient of $`s_n`$ vanishes for $`n=0`$. So we can evolve through the singularity and determine all $`s_n`$ for $`n0`$. (The vanishing of $`\widehat{H}_\varphi s_0(\varphi )`$ follows from the quantization of matter Hamiltonians  similarly as described for the inverse scale factor.)

Of course, in order to determine the complete state we also have to know $`s_0`$, but a closer analysis reveals that $`s_0`$ is fixed from the outset: The Hamiltonian constraint always has the eigenstate $`s_n=s_0\delta _{n0}`$ with zero eigenvalue which is completely degenerate and not of physical interest. All evolving solutions are orthogonal to this state and have $`s_0=0`$ which already fixes the coefficient $`s_0`$ left undetermined by using the evolution equation. We see that the complete state is determined by initial data for negative $`n`$, and so there is no singularity in isotropic loop quantum cosmology. The intuitive picture is as follows: Since for $`n<0`$ the volume eigenvalues $`V_{(|n|1)/2}`$ decrease with increasing $`n`$, there is a contracting branch for negative $`n`$ leading to a state of zero volume (in general, $`s_{\pm 1}0`$ and the volume vanishes for $`n=\pm 1`$ which corresponds to $`j=0`$) in which the universe bounces off leading to the expanding branch for positive $`n`$ which only can be seen in the classical theory and in standard quantum cosmology. This conclusion holds true for any kind of matter and cosmological constant, and is a purely quantum gravitational effect. In particular, we do not need to introduce matter violating energy conditions and thereby evade the singularity theorems. However, our result crucially depends on the factor ordering of the constraint which was chosen as one of the standard possibilities ordering all triad components to the right.

## The semiclassical regime.

We have seen that the classical singularity is removed in loop quantum cosmology. But we need more for a viable cosmological model, namely we also need the correct behavior in the semiclassical regime. Classical behavior can only be present for large volume and small extrinsic curvature, i.e. if $`|n|`$ is large, $`c`$ is small and the wave function does not vary strongly between successive times $`n`$ (otherwise the state would have access to the Planck scale). In this regime we can interpolate between the discrete labels $`n`$ and define a wave function $`\psi (a):=s_{n(a)}`$, $`n(a):=6a^2/\gamma l_\mathrm{P}^2`$ with $`a`$ ranging over a continuous range (using $`a=\sqrt{|p|}\sqrt{\gamma }l_\mathrm{P}\sqrt{|n|/6}`$ for large $`|n|`$ as interpolation points). The difference operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ then becomes $`(\mathrm{\Delta }s)_n:=s_{n+1}s_{n1}=\frac{1}{6}\gamma l_\mathrm{P}^2a^1\mathrm{d}\psi /\mathrm{d}a+O(l_\mathrm{P}^5/a^5)`$ leading to an approximate constraint operator $`\widehat{H}^{(\mathrm{E})}96(i\mathrm{\Delta }/2)^2a/46\gamma ^2l_\mathrm{P}^4(\frac{i}{3}\mathrm{d}/\mathrm{d}(a^2))^2a`$ for large $`a`$. This is exactly what one obtains from the classical constraint $`H^{(\mathrm{E})}=6c^2\sqrt{|p|}`$ in standard quantum cosmology  by quantizing $`3\widehat{c}=i\gamma l_\mathrm{P}^2\mathrm{d}/\mathrm{d}p`$. In our framework, however, this is only an approximate equation valid for large scale factors. For this equation one can use WKB-techniques in order to derive the correct classical behavior.

Going to smaller $`a`$ one has to include more and more corrections in the expansion of the difference operators and also of the volume eigenvalues. By doing so one can derive perturbative corrections for an effective Hamiltonian including higher derivative terms. The closer we come to the classical singularity, the more corrections we have to include; and at the singularity we need to know all corrections which, as we know from our non-perturbative solution, have to add up to yield the discrete time behavior. So in these models higher order terms arise from the non-locality in discrete time of the fundamental theory. But even knowing all perturbative corrections, it would be very hard to see the correct behavior without knowing the non-perturbative quantization.

## Quantum Euclidean space.

In the simplest case, the Euclidean constraint for a spatially flat model without matter, it is possible to find an explicit solution to the constraint. The constraint equation is of order eight with one consistency condition as described above, so one expects seven independent solutions. But we are interested only in solutions which have a classical regime in the previous sense, i.e. no strong dependence on $`j`$ for large $`j`$. Under this condition one can see that there is a unique (up to a constant factor) solution

$$\psi (c)=\underset{j}{}\frac{2j+1}{V_{j+\frac{1}{2}}V_{j\frac{1}{2}}}\chi _j(c)$$
(11)
in the connection representation. In standard quantum cosmology the constraint equation is $`\widehat{c}^2\sqrt{|\widehat{p}|}\xi (c)=0`$ with a solution $`\sqrt{|\widehat{p}|}\xi (c)=\delta (c)`$ which is not unique. In order to compare the solutions we quantize $`a`$ by $`\widehat{a}\chi _j=2i(\gamma l_\mathrm{P}^2)^1(V_{j+\frac{1}{2}}V_{j\frac{1}{2}})\chi _j`$ leading to $`\widehat{a}\psi _j(2j+1)\chi _j`$ which in fact is the delta function on the configuration space $`SU(2)`$. Therefore, we have a unique solution which incorporates the characterization of Euclidean space to have vanishing extrinsic curvature of its flat spatial slices.

## Conclusions.

We have shown in this paper that canonical quantum gravity is well-suited to analyze the behavior close to the classical singularity. For this, it is important to use only techniques which are applicable in the full theory. This leads to a discrete structure of space and time which cannot be seen in standard quantum cosmology. In our framework, the standard quantum osmological description arises only as a limit for large volume where the discreteness is unimportant. For small volume, quantum geometry leads to new effects which are responsible for the removal of the classical singularity. In contrast to earlier attempts this is not achieved by introducing matter which violates energy conditions; it is a pure quantum gravity effect. It also does not avoid the zero volume state present in the classical singularity because in general the wave function is not orthogonal to states with zero volume eigenvalue. Nevertheless there is no sign of a singularity because in quantum geometry it is possible to have vanishing volume but non-diverging inverse scale factor, which in isotropic models dictates all curvature blow-ups. Besides removing the singularity, the fact that an evolution through a state of zero volume is possible without problems could lead to topology change in quantum gravity. Technically, the removal of the singularity is achieved by using Thiemann’s strategy  of absorbing inverse powers of $`\widehat{V}`$ into a Poisson bracket which also lead to densely defined matter Hamiltonians . So it is the same mechanism which regularizes ultraviolet divergences in matter field theories and which removes the classical cosmological singularity. We have also seen that non-perturbative effects are solely responsible for this behavior and a purely perturbative analysis could not lead to these conclusions.

## Acknowledgements.

The author is grateful to A. Ashtekar for suggesting a study of the implications of discrete volume and time close to the classical singularity, for discussions and for a critical reading of the manuscript, and to H. Kastrup for comments. This work was supported in part by NSF grant INT9722514 and the Eberly research funds of Penn State.


text:
# On The Geometry of Field Theoretic Gerstenhaber Structures

## 1. Introduction

It has turned out that field theories can be described best in the jet bundle formalism. For first order theories, i.e. when the Lagrange density is a function of the fields and their first derivatives only, the description can be reduced to the first jet bundle. This description is an extension of the Lagrangean formulation of mechanics in the following sense. In particle mechanics, particles are described by curves in the tangent space $`T𝒬`$, i.e. by sections of the (trivial) bundle $`\times T𝒬`$. In field theory, physical fields are sections of some bundle over space-time, i.e. higher dimensional curves. Consequently, the base manifold of a given field theory – which quite often is space-time – should not be confused with the configuration space of mechanics. Rather, the latter is represented by the fibres of the given fibre bundle when the base manifold is $``$, i.e. the time axis.
The corresponding field equations are second order but – for nicely behaving Lagrange densities – can be reduced to a system of first order equations, the so-called de Donder–Weyl equations (for a review see ). One might view these equations as a generalisation of the usual Hamilton equations in mechanics. However, a peculiar feature of this approach is that there are as many conjugate momenta corresponding to each field coordinate degree of freedom as there are space-time dimensions.
For the study of quantum effects in field theory, at least in the sense of star products () there is the need of an algebraic formulation of the theory. There has been recent progress on that, namely the Gerstenhaber structure found by Kanatchikov ().
In this article, a geometric construction of this Gerstenhaber structure will be proposed that works for arbitrary fibre bundles. Particular attention will be paid to the treatment of internal symmetries and to the correspondence to the standard Hamiltonian formulation of field theory.

## 2. Phase space for first order field theories

Let $`(,\pi ,)`$ be a fibre bundle with $`N`$ dimensional fibres over an $`n`$ dimensional orientable manifold $``$. Its first jet bundle, $`𝔍^1`$ (cf. ), consists of equivalence classes of local sections of $``$: Two sections $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ are considered equivalent at a point $`m`$, if they take the same value in $`m`$, $`\phi (m)=\psi (m)`$, and their tangent mappings coincide, $`T_m\phi =T_m\psi `$. The class defined by a section $`\phi `$ is denoted by $`j_m^1\phi `$. $`(𝔍^1,\pi _1,)`$ is a fibre bundle of fibre dimension $`(Nn+N+n)`$, while $`(𝔍^1,\pi _0^1,)`$ is an affine bundle with associated vector bundle $`(𝔙T^{},\tau _{}\tau _{}^{},)`$ (cf. ). Here, $`𝔙`$ denotes the vertical (w.r.t. $`\pi `$) tangent bundle on $``$, while $`\tau _{}`$ and $`\tau _{}^{}`$ stand for the respective canonical projections. Note that $`T^{}`$ is in fact pulled back onto $``$ – this has been suppressed for simplicity.

Let the dual jet bundle $`((𝔍^1)^{},(\pi _0^1)^{},)`$ be the fibre bundle over $``$ with fibres the affine, fibre preserving mappings from $`𝔍^1`$ to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^nT^{}`$, i.e. for every $`v`$ one has

$$\left((𝔍^1)^{}\right)_v=\{A:(𝔍^1)_v\mathrm{\Lambda }^n(T^{})_{\pi (v)}\text{affine}\}.$$

$`(𝔍^1)^{}`$ inherits a vector space structure from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^nT^{}`$.

As a connection provides a map $`\mathrm{\Gamma }:𝔍^1`$ (see appendix A for details), there is an isomorphism

$$i_\mathrm{\Gamma }:𝔍^1\stackrel{}{}𝔙T^{}$$
(1)
that sends the image of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to the zero section. This induces a splitting of the dual jet bundle $`\left((𝔍^1)^{}\right)`$,

$$(i_\mathrm{\Gamma })^{}:(𝔍^1)^{}\stackrel{}{}((𝔙)^{}T)\mathrm{\Lambda }^nT^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^nT^{}=:𝒫,$$
(2)
where we have introduced the notation $`𝒫`$ for the first summand and $``$ for the latter. Observe that $``$ is a line bundle over $``$ which is trivial for orientable manifolds. $`𝒫`$ will be called the polysymplectic phase space from now on.

### 2.1. Coordinates

Let $`(x^\mu ,v^A)`$111 For the rest of this article, lower case Greek indices $`\mu ,\nu ,\rho ,\sigma ,\mathrm{}`$ label directions on the base manifold $``$, i.e. run from $`1`$ to $`n`$, while capital Latin characters $`A,B,C,D,\mathrm{}`$ are used for fibre coordinates of $``$, i.e. run from $`1`$ to $`N`$.  be local coordinates of $``$. Then to every point $`j_m^1\phi `$ in $`𝔍^1`$ one can assign the matrix elements of $`T_m\phi `$ in those coordinates, hence we have locally a set $`(x^\mu ,v^A,v_\mu ^A)`$ for each such point. Further, the choice of coordinates in $``$ induces a trivialisation of the dual jet bundle: Every affine map $`\underset{¯}{p}`$ can be written as $`\underset{¯}{p}:(x^\mu ,v^A,v_\mu ^A)(x^\mu ,v^A,(p_A^\mu v_\mu ^A+p)d^nx),`$ hence $`(x^\mu ,v^A,p_A^\mu ,p)`$ provides a set of local coordinates. Then, using the isomorphism $`(i_\mathrm{\Gamma })^{}`$, (2), one can show () that the first three sets of coordinates can $`(x^\mu ,v^A,p_A^\mu )`$ can be used to label $`𝒫`$ locally. Furthermore, the arbitrariness of the choice of a connection connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is projected out, hence the projection $`\pi _𝒫`$ from $`(𝔍^1)^{}`$ onto $`𝒫`$ is canonical.

### 2.2. $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$-Vertical differentials

* \[$`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$-vertical differential\]
Let $`P_{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}`$ be the projection of $`T𝒫`$ onto its vertical subbundle $`𝔙𝒫`$ constructed from a connection $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}:𝒫𝔍^1𝒫`$, cf. (A). The corresponding $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$-vertical differential $`d_{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}`$ is the map

$$d_{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}:\mathrm{\Omega }^r(𝒫)\mathrm{\Omega }^{r+1}(𝒫)(r)$$

satisfying the following properties ($`d`$ denotes the exterior derivative on $`𝒫`$)

1. For $`f𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(𝒫)`$, $`X𝔛(𝒫)`$, one has $`(d_{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}f)(X)=(df)(P_{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}X).`$
    2. $`d_{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}`$ acts as a graded derivation of degree $`1`$. For $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Omega }^{}(𝒫)`$,

    $$d_{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}(\alpha \beta )=(d_{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\alpha )\beta +()^{|\alpha |}\alpha (d_{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\beta ).$$
    3. $`(d_{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}})^2=0`$.
    4. $`d_{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}`$ vanishes on pulled back forms, i.e. for $`\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }()`$, $`d_{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\left((\pi _1)^{}\right)^{}\alpha =0.`$

One can indeed show that for every $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ there is a unique $`d_{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}`$. Note that $`d`$ and $`d_{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}`$ do not anticommute.
In what follows, we fix the connection to be the map $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ defined in the appendix, (16). Then $`d_{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}`$ is locally given by

$$d_{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}f=_Af𝔢^A+_\mu ^Af𝔢_A^\mu ,d_{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}dx^\mu =0=d_{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}𝔢^A=d_{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}𝔢_A^\mu ,$$
(3)
where $`f𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(𝒫)`$ is a function and the forms $`𝔢^A`$ and $`𝔢_A^\mu `$ are defined by (18) and together with the $`dx^\mu `$ form a basis of $`T^{}𝒫`$.

### 2.3. Canonical forms

As $`𝒫=((𝔙)^{}T)\mathrm{\Lambda }^nT^{})`$ and fibres of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^nT^{}`$ are one dimensional, every point of $`𝒫`$ can be written as $`\alpha \omega `$, where $`\alpha `$ and $`\omega `$ are elements of $`(𝔙)^{}T`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^nT^{}`$ respectively. $`\alpha `$ can be viewed as a map $`𝔙T`$. Define an $`n`$-form $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`𝒫`$ by

$$\begin{array}{c}\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)_{(\alpha \omega )}(X_1,\mathrm{},X_n)\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{\sigma }{}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{()^\sigma }{n!}}\omega (\alpha (P_\mathrm{\Gamma }T(\pi _0^1)^{}(X_{\sigma (1)})),T(\pi _1)^{}X_{\sigma (2)},\mathrm{},T(\pi _1)^{}X_{\sigma (n)}).\end{array}$$
(4)
As $`\omega `$ is linear in each argument, the right hand side is well defined, i.e. does not depend on the splitting $`\alpha \omega `$. $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ generalises the construction of the canonical $`1`$-form on a cotangent bundle, but due to the fact that $``$ is non trivial one has to choose a connection.

The polysymplectic $`n+1`$-form is defined through the action of $`d_{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Gamma }=d_{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }.$$
(5)
Using coordinates as above, one finds

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{}{}_{(x,v,p)}{}^{}& ={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{(n1)!}}ϵ_{\mu \nu _1\mathrm{}\nu _{n1}}p_A^\mu dv^Adx^{\nu _1}\mathrm{}dx^{\mu _{n1}}+p_A^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^Ad^nx,\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{}{}_{(x,v,p)}{}^{}& ={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{(n1)!}}ϵ_{\mu \nu _1\mathrm{}\nu _{n1}}dv^Adp_A^\mu dx^{\nu _1}\mathrm{}dx^{\mu _{n1}}d_{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}(p_A^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^Ad^nx).\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
Note that we have used (17) and that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ indeed does depend on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ rather than on $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$. Moreover, the $`d_{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}`$-cohomology class of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is independent of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

## 3. Covariant Hamiltonian dynamics

* \[Hamiltonian forms\]
Let $`d_{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}`$ be the vertical differential to $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ of (16). A horizontal form $`H\mathrm{\Omega }(𝒫)`$ is called Hamiltonian if there exists a multi-vector $`X_H`$, i.e. an element in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔛(𝒫)`$, that satisfies

$$d_{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}H=X_H\text{}\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Gamma }.$$
(7)
In this case, $`X`$ is called Hamiltonian multi-vector field. The set of all Hamiltonian forms is denoted by $``$.

Note that not every horizontal form is Hamiltonian. Rather, condition (7) imposes a severe restriction on such forms.

* \[Multimomentum dependence of Hamiltonian forms, \]
Let $`H`$ be a Hamiltonian form of degree $`|H|`$. If $`|H|>0`$, then, using coordinates as above,

$$H_{(x,v,p)}=\underset{r=0}{\overset{n|H|}{}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{(|H|)!}}p_{A_1}^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}p_{A_r}^{\mu _r}h_{(x,v)}^{A_1\mathrm{}A_r\mu _{r+1}\mathrm{}\mu _{n|H|}}ϵ_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}dx^{\mu _{n+1|H|}}\mathrm{}dx^{\mu _n},$$
(8)
where the functions $`h^{A_1\mathrm{}A_r\mu _{r+1}\mathrm{}\mu _{n|H|}}`$ are pulled back from $``$.

For a proof, we refer to . There is no restriction on functions on $`𝒫`$. Section 5. provides (standard) examples for Hamiltonian $`(n1)`$-forms.

There is an additional operation on $`(\pi _1)^{}`$-horizontal forms, namely the lifted Hodge-$``$ operation on $``$. Of course, $``$ is invertible.

* \[Gerstenhaber structure, \]
The maps

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \{,\}:\times (F,G)& \{F,G\}=()^{n|F|}X_F\text{}\text{ }X_G\text{}\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Gamma },\hfill \\ \hfill :\times (F,G)& FG=^1(FG)\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
are well defined (for the definition of $``$ see the remark above) and satisfy (let $`F,G,H`$ be horizontal forms of (exterior) degree $`|F|`$, $`|G|`$, and $`|H|`$, respectively)

1. $`\{F,G\}=()^{(n+1|F|)(n+1|G|)}\{G,F\}`$,
    2. $`FG=()^{(n|F|)(n|G|)}GF`$,
    3. $`()^{(n+1|F|)(n+1|H|)}\{F,\{G,H\}\}+()^{(n+1|G|)(n+1|F|)}\{G,\{H,F\}\}`$
    $`+()^{(n+1|H|)(n+1|G|)}\{H,\{F,G\}\}=0`$,
    4. $`\{F,GH\}=\{F,G\}H+()^{(n+1|F|)(n|G|)}G\{F,H\}`$.

Further, the bracket does not depend on the specific choice of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$.

A detailed proof can be found in . Note that, in particular, $`\{F,G\}`$ does not depend on the ambiguity in the correspondence of Hamiltonians $`F`$ and $`G`$ and their Hamiltonian multi-vector fields $`X_F`$, $`X_G`$.

## 4. Legendre transformation and canonical 2-form on the space of solutions

In this section, we try to establish a link between the multisymplectic formalism and the standard Hamiltonian formulation of field theory. The Euler–Lagrange equations of a given field theory are partial differential equations. Typically a well posed initial value problem for such a set of field equations consists of the specification of two sets of functions

$$(\phi ^A(x),\pi _A(x))_{A=1,\mathrm{},N}$$
(10)
on some hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of $``$. $`\pi _A`$ is known as the momentum variable to the field $`\phi _A`$. The corresponding solution is a set of functions $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }^A(x,t)\}`$ ($`t`$ labels the additional coordinate in $``$) on $``$. The initial data (10) span the field theoretical phase space $`𝒫_{F.T.}`$, while the fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ span the covariant section space $`𝒫_{cov}`$ (the name has been chosen to stress the analogy to the path space of classical mechanics, cf ) which typically is some subspace of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }()`$. Despite the similarity in the names, $`𝒫_{F.T.}`$ should not be confused with the polysymplectic phase space, $`𝒫`$. In particular, both the field theoretical phase space and the section space are infinite dimensional spaces, while $`𝒫`$ is of dimension $`(n+1)(N+1)1`$. The Legendre map provides a map from the section space to $`𝒫_{F.T.}`$, which is explicitely given by

$$\phi ^A(x)=\mathrm{\Phi }^A(x,0),\pi _A(x)=\frac{L}{_t\mathrm{\Phi }^A}((x,0),\mathrm{\Phi }(x,0),\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(x,0)),$$
(11)
where $`L`$ is the Lagrange density and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ denotes all derivatives of the fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. On the field theoretical phase space there is a canonical (weak symplectic) $`2`$-form that can be pulled back using the tangent map of (11). Thus there is a (non-canonical) $`2`$-form on $`\omega _L`$ on the section space $`𝒫_{cov}`$. The vector fields which can be plugged into $`\omega _L`$ are infinitesimal (vertical) variations of the fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. They form the tangent space of $`𝒫_{cov}`$ (we leave problems arising from the infinite dimensionality aside), which therefore consists of all sections of the vertical bundle $`𝔙`$ to $``$. The explicit expression for the contraction of $`\omega _L`$ with two such vectors $`X`$, $`Y`$ is found to be (cf.  for details)

$$\omega _L(X,Y)=\frac{1}{2}_\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(\frac{^2L}{\phi ^A\phi _\nu ^B}(X^AY^BY^AX^B)+\frac{^2L}{\phi _\mu ^A\phi _\nu ^B}(Y^B_\mu X^AX^B_\mu Y^A)\right)d_\nu x,$$
(12)
where $``$ denotes a covariant derivative on sections of $``$ (and hence on those of $`𝔙`$). The $`\nu `$-summation of this formula reduces to the $`t`$-component if the normal direction of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ happens to be the time coordinate. On the other hand, let $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ be the prolongation to the vertical bundle $`𝔙`$ of a given variational field $`X`$. Explicitely, one finds

$$\stackrel{~}{X}^A(x,t)=(X^A,_\mu X^A(x,t)),$$
(13)
where we have used the Christoffel symbols of $``$ for the map $`i_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, (1). Now one can use the Legendre transformation and the connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to pull back the polysymplectic $`(n+1)`$-form onto $`𝔙`$. The contraction of the resulting $`(n+1)`$-form with two prolonged variational fields $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ yields a horizontal $`(n1)`$-form, which can be integrated over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. This yields back the expression (12). Indeed, a calculation shows

$$\begin{array}{c}\left((𝔉)^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)_{(x,v,v^{})}=(_B_A^\mu L)dv^Adv^Bd_\mu x+(_B^\nu _A^\mu L)dv^Adv_\nu ^Bd_\mu x\hfill \\ \hfill \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^A(_B_A^\mu L)dv^B+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^A(_B^\nu _A^\mu L)dv_\nu ^B+(_A^\mu L)_B\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^A(_\mu _A^\mu L)dv^A\right)dx,\end{array}$$

where $`(𝔉)`$ denotes the Legendre map and the repeated use of the map $`i_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the pull back has been suppressed in the notation. Note that the last line vanishes on two vertical vectors which establishes the following result.

* Let $`X,Y`$ be field variations on $``$, i.e. $`\pi `$-vertical tangent vector fields on $``$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ be their lifts via the Legendre mapping (11) — taken for arbitrary value of $`t`$ — to $`𝒫`$. Then on every section $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }()`$ we find

$$\omega _L(X\mathrm{\Phi },Y\mathrm{\Phi })=_\mathrm{\Sigma }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}\left(\stackrel{~}{Y}\text{}\text{ }\text{ }(\stackrel{~}{X}\text{}\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Gamma })\right),$$
(14)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ denotes the prolongation of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to $`𝒫`$ using (11) again.

The lemma shows how the standard Hamiltonian formulation of field theory and the polysymplectic approach can be related. Objects (vector fields in this case) in polysymplectic fields theory have to be evaluated on (prolonged) sections and integrated over the submanifold $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ that has been chosen for the Hamiltonian picture. For instance, the variations $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are given for all sections, but when evaluated on a specific $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, they become variations of that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

## 5. Internal symmetries

From the peculiar momentum dependence of multisymplectic Hamiltonian $`(n1)`$-forms as stated in proposition 3 one immediately concludes the following.

* Let $`X`$ be a Hamiltonian $`1`$-vector field in the sense of (7). Then $`X`$ is projectable along $`(\pi _0^1)^{}`$ onto $``$. Conversely, the canonical lift $`\widehat{X}`$ to $`𝒫`$ of a $`\pi `$-vertical vector field $`X`$ on $``$ is Hamiltonian. Its Hamiltonian form is given by $`I(X)=\widehat{X}\text{}\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Proof. According to proposition 3, a general Hamiltonian $`(n1)`$-form $`H`$ can be written as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill H(x,v,p)& ={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{(n1)!}}\left(p_A^\mu f^A(x,v)+g^\mu (x,v)\right)ϵ_{\mu \nu _1\mathrm{}\nu _{n1}}dx^{\nu _1}\mathrm{}dx^{\nu _{n1}},\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`f^A,g^\mu `$ are pulled back functions from $``$. Thus the corresponding Hamiltonian vector $`X`$ field takes the form

$$X_{(x,v,p)}=f^A(x,v)_A(p_A^\mu _Bf^A(x,v)+_Bg^\mu )_\mu ^B,$$

so $`X`$ is projectable as stated.
Let $`X`$ be a vertical vector field on $``$. $`X`$ generates a one-parameter group of fibre diffeomorphisms on $``$ which by jet prolongation can be transported to $`𝔍^1`$ (see , sec. 4B). As $`(𝔍^1)^{}`$ is affine dual to the first jet bundle, one can lift this action further by pull back and – using the canonical projection $`\pi _𝒫`$ – transport it to $`𝒫`$. For a given vector field $`X=X^A_A`$ the coordinate expression of the latter is as follows

$$\widehat{X}_{(x,v,p)}=X_{(x,v)}^A_Ap_B^\nu _AX_{(x,v)}^B_\nu ^A.$$
(15)
One immediately verifies that such an $`\widehat{X}`$ is Hamiltonian with Hamiltonian $`(n1)`$-form $`I(X)`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill d_{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}I(X)& ={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{(n1)!}}ϵ_{\mu \nu _1\mathrm{}\nu _{n1}}\left(_BX^A𝔢^B+X^A𝔢_A^\mu \right)dx^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}dx^{\mu _{n1}}=\widehat{X}\text{}\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Gamma }.\hfill \end{array}$$

$`\mathrm{}`$
Further, as the lifting of two such vector fields $`X,Y`$ is a Lie-homomorphism, $`\widehat{[X,Y]}=[\widehat{X},\widehat{Y}]`$, and $`\widehat{X}\text{}\text{ }\text{ }\widehat{Y}\text{}\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Gamma }=[\widehat{X},\widehat{Y}]\text{}\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, one has

$$\{I(X),I(Y)\}=\widehat{X}\text{}\text{ }\text{ }\widehat{Y}\text{}\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Gamma }=[\widehat{X},\widehat{Y}]\text{}\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }=I([X,Y]).$$

Hence the map $`I`$ provides a momentum map for vertical symmetries of $``$.

One might wonder what the different ways to lift vertical automorphisms to the jet bundle and to its affine dual have to do with each other (cf. 15 to 13). The link is provided by the Legendre transformation: If an automorphism leaves the Lagrange density invariant, then its lift to the first jet bundle is mapped to its lift to the co-jet bundle via the Legendre transformation.

## Appendix A Some facts about connections

Most generally, a connection on a fibre bundle $`(,\pi ,)`$ is a projection onto the vertical subbundle $`𝔙`$. One can show that such projections are in $`11`$ correspondence with maps $`\mathrm{\Gamma }:𝔍^1`$. In coordinates, one writes

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }:(x^i,v^A)(x^i,v^A,\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^A(x,v))𝔍^1.$$

For $`(,\pi ,)`$ being a vector bundle and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ a linear connection (cf. ), one has in addition $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^A(x,v)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{iB}^A(x)v^B`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{iB}^A(x)`$ denote the Christoffel symbols of the corresponding covariant derivative.

## Appendix B A connection $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ on $`𝒫`$

If we want to construct a connection on $`𝒫`$, then we are looking for a $`(\pi _0^1)^{}`$-fibre preserving map $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}:𝒫𝔍^1𝒫`$, where $`𝔍^1𝒫`$ is defined w.r.t. the projection $`(\pi _1)^{}`$ onto $``$. For such a map, one needs both a connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $``$ and a connection $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ on $`T`$ (cf. ). The coordinate expression of the desired map $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ turns out to be (cf. )

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}:(x^\mu ,v^A,p_A^\mu )(x^\mu ,v^A,p_A^\mu ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^A,(_A\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^B)\delta _\sigma ^\nu p_B^\sigma +\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \sigma }^\nu \delta _A^Bp_B^\sigma \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \rho }^\rho \delta _A^B\delta _\sigma ^\nu p_B^\sigma ).$$
(16)
Since $`T`$ is a vector bundle we can use the Christoffel symbols $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }^\rho `$ of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Moreover,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (_A\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^B)\delta _\sigma ^\mu +\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \sigma }^\mu \delta _A^B\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \rho }^\rho \delta _A^B\delta _\sigma ^\mu & =(_A\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^B)+(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \sigma }^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \mu }^\mu )\delta _A^B,\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
but the last term vanishes for torsion free connections $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.With the help of this connection, we can define the a basis on $`T^{}𝒫`$ at every point $`(x,v,p)`$ by

$$dx^\mu ,𝔢^A=dv^A\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^A(x,v)dx^\mu ,𝔢_A^\mu =dp_A^\mu \overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\nu A}^\mu (x,v,p)dx^\nu .$$
(18)