text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Since the (2+1) dimensional O(3) nonlinear sigma model (NLSM) was first discussed , there have been many attempts to improve this soliton model associated with the homotopy group $`\pi _2(S^2)=Z`$. Moreover, the O(3) NLSM with the Hopf term , as well as the $`CP^1`$ model associated with the O(3) NLSM via the Hopf map projection from $`S^3`$ to $`S^2`$, were canonically quantized  in the standard Dirac formalism . Furthermore, the geometrical constraints involved in the soliton models such as the Skyrmion models , O(3) NLSM  and $`CP^1`$ model  have recently been analyzed in the framework of the Batalin-Fradkin-Tyutin (BFT) scheme , to obtain the corresponding first-class Hamiltonians and BRST  invariant effective Lagrangians .

On the other hand, an alternative symplectic scheme  has been proposed for treating first-order Lagrangians. This scheme has been applied to various models  and has recently been extended to include BRST invariant embeddings . Moreover, since the Hamilton-Jacobi (HJ) scheme  has first been applied to constrained systems , there have been further developments in this direction to quantize singular systems . In particular, the HJ description of second-class constrained systems, which posed some problems in previous work , has been shown to be complete after addition of suitable integrability conditions, corresponding to the Dirac consistency conditions, requiring time independence of the constraints . Recently the O(3) NLSM was also considered in an extended HJ scheme  based on the extension of the second-class fields to the first-class fields previously introduced in ref. . However, this extension of the HJ scheme continues to involve some subtleties still to be resolved.

In this paper, we will revisit the O(3) NLSM and examine the relation among the Lagrangian, symplectic, HJ and BFT embedding schemes for this model. In section 2 we will analyze the constraint structure of this model from the point of view of the Lagrangian and symplectic algorithm. In section 3, we will investigate the HJ quantization of the O(3) NLSM taking account of the integrability condition. In section 4 we then discuss the BFT quantization scheme for this model, and conclude in section 5.

## 2 NLSM in Lagrangian and symplectic schemes

In this section, we consider the Lagrangian and symplectic algorithms to generate the constraint structure of the O(3) NLSM, defined by the Lagrangian

$$=\frac{1}{2f}(_\mu n^a)(^\mu n^a)+n^0(n^an^a1),$$
(2.1)
where $`n^a`$ $`(a=1,2,3)`$ is a multiplet of three real scalar fields which parameterize an internal space $`S^2`$, and $`n^0`$ is a Lagrange multiplier field implementing the geometrical constraint $`n^an^a1=0`$. From the Lagrangian (2.1) the canonical momenta conjugate to the field $`n^0`$ and the real scalar fields $`n^a`$ are given by

$$\pi ^0=0,\pi ^a=\frac{1}{f}_0n^a,$$
(2.2)
to yield the canonical Hamiltonian

$$^{(0)}=\frac{f}{2}\pi ^a\pi ^a+\frac{1}{2f}(\stackrel{}{}n^a)^2n^0(n^an^a1).$$
(2.3)
Following ref. , we rewrite the second-order Lagrangian (2.1) in first-ordered form as

$$^{(0)}=\pi ^a_0n^a^{(0)},$$
(2.4)
where $`^{(0)}`$ is to be treated as a function of the Lagrangian variables ($`n^0,n^a,\pi ^a`$), and $`^{(0)}`$ is the canonical Hamiltonian (2.3). The original second-order formulation is recovered on shell, upon using the equation of motion for $`\pi ^a`$. Note that since $`^{(0)}`$ depends on $`\pi ^a`$ and $`n^a`$, but not on their time derivatives, it can be regarded as the (level zero) symplectic potential. The Lagrangian is of the form

$$^{(0)}=a_\alpha _0\xi ^\alpha ^{(0)},$$
(2.5)
where we have denoted the set of the symplectic variables $`(n^a,\pi ^a,n^0)`$ collectively by $`\xi ^\alpha `$ and the corresponding conjugate momenta by $`a_\alpha `$. The dynamics of the model is then governed by the symplectic two-form matrix:

$$F_{\alpha \beta }^{(0)}(x,y)=\frac{a_\beta (y)}{\xi ^\alpha (x)}\frac{a_\alpha (x)}{\xi ^\beta (y)},$$
(2.6)
via the equations of motion 111For notational convenience we will omit component indices for vectors and matrices except cases where confusion may arise.

$$\mathrm{d}^2yF^{(0)}(x,y)_0\xi (y)=K^{(0)}(x),$$
(2.7)
where

$$K_\alpha ^{(0)}(x)=\frac{\delta }{\delta \xi ^\alpha (x)}\mathrm{d}^2y_0(y)=\left(\begin{array}{c}2n^0(x)n^a(x)\frac{1}{f}\stackrel{}{}^2n^a(x)\\ f\pi ^a(x)\\ n^a(x)n^a(x)+1\end{array}\right).$$

In the O(3) NLSM the symplectic two-form matrix is given by

$$F^{(0)}(x,y)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}O& I& \stackrel{}{0}\\ I& O& \stackrel{}{0}\\ \stackrel{}{0}^T& \stackrel{}{0}^T& 0\end{array}\right)\delta ^2(xy),$$
(2.8)
where $`O`$ and $`I`$ stand for $`3\times 3`$ null and identity matrices, respectively, and the superscript $`T`$ denotes “transpose”. The zero-level symplectic two-form has a zero mode 222The superscript $`T`$ on the vectors is implied $`\nu _y^{(0)}(x)=(\stackrel{}{0},\stackrel{}{0},1)\delta ^2(xy)`$, which generates the constraint

$$d^2y\nu _y^{(0)}(x)K^{(0)}(y)=\mathrm{\Omega }_1(x)=0$$
(2.9)
with

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_1=n^an^a1.$$
(2.10)
From here on we may proceed in two ways.

i) Lagrangian algorithm

In the Lagrangian algorithm, we add the time derivative of the constraint $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1=0`$ to the Lagrange equations of motion (2.7). This leads to the following enlarged set of equations (for a more detailed discussion see ref. ),

$$d^2yW^{(1)}(x,y)_0\xi (y)=K^{(1)}(x)$$
(2.11)
where $`W^{(1)}(x,y)`$ are now the elements of a rectangular matrix

$$W^{(1)}(x,y)=\left(\begin{array}{c}F^{(0)}(x,y)\\ M_1(x,y)\end{array}\right)$$
(2.12)
with

$$M_{1\alpha }(x,y)=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_1(x)}{\xi ^\alpha (y)}=(2\stackrel{}{n}(x),\stackrel{}{0},0)\delta ^2(xy)$$
(2.13)
and

$$K^{(1)}(x)=\left(\begin{array}{c}K^{(0)}(x)\\ 0\end{array}\right).$$
(2.14)
The matrix $`W^{(1)}`$ has two left zero modes, of which one just reproduces the previous constraint, while the other

$$\nu _y^{(1)}(x)=(\stackrel{}{0},2\stackrel{}{n}(x),0,1)\delta ^2(xy)$$
(2.15)
yields the new constraint

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_2=n^a\pi ^a=0.$$
(2.16)
We proceed in this fashion, and add the time derivative of this constraint to the previous equations of motion, which now read

$$d^2yW^{(2)}(x,y)_0\xi (y)=K^{(2)}(x)$$
(2.17)
where $`W^{(2)}(x,y)`$ are now the elements of a rectangular matrix

$$W^{(2)}(x,y)=\left(\begin{array}{c}F^{(0)}(x,y)\\ M_1(x,y)\\ M_2(x,y)\end{array}\right),$$
(2.18)
with

$$M_{2\alpha }(x,y)=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_2(x)}{\xi ^\alpha (y)}=(\stackrel{}{\pi }(x),\stackrel{}{n}(x),0)\delta ^2(xy)$$
(2.19)
and

$$K^{(2)}(x)=\left(\begin{array}{c}K^{(0)}(x)\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right).$$
(2.20)
Now, $`W^{(2)}`$ is found to have three zero modes, of which two reproduce the previous constraints, while the zero mode

$$\nu _y^{(2)}(x)=(\stackrel{}{n}(x),\stackrel{}{\pi }(x),0,0,1)\delta ^2(xy)$$
(2.21)
leads to a further constraint:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_3=2n^0n^an^a+f\pi ^a\pi ^a+\frac{1}{f}n^a\stackrel{}{}^2n^a=0.$$
(2.22)
Extending the matrix $`W^{(2)}`$ to $`W^{(3)}`$ in the manner described above, we find that there are no new zero modes, and the iterative algorithm terminates at this point. We have thus four constraints, of which two constraints $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i=0`$ $`(i=1,2)`$ represent constraints among the variables $`n^a`$ and $`\pi ^a`$ alone.

As one readily checks, the constraints are found to completely agree with the constraints generated by the conventional Dirac algorithm, departing either from the original second-order Lagrangian (2.1) or from the first-order Lagrangian (2.4).

ii) Symplectic algorithm

In the symplectic algorithm of ref.  we add the constraint $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ to the canonical sector of the Lagrangian (2.4) in the form 333The minus sign is included in order to align our results with those of the Lagrangian algorithm. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1_0\rho `$, thereby enlarging the symplectic phase space via the addition of a dynamical field $`\rho `$, which enforces the stability of the constraint $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ in time. The once iterated first-level Lagrangian is then given as follows

$$^{(1)}=\pi ^a_0n^a\mathrm{\Omega }_1_0\rho ^{(0)}.$$
(2.23)
In the spirit of ref.  we absorb the Lagrange multiplier field $`n^0`$ in $`^{(0)}`$ into the new dynamical variable $`\rho `$ by making the substitution $`_0\rho n^0_0\rho `$. This amounts to the replacement

$$^{(1)}^{(1)}=\pi ^a_0n^a\mathrm{\Omega }_1_0\rho ^{(1)}.$$
(2.24)
where $`^{(0)}`$ in Eq. (2.23) has been replaced by

$$^{(1)}=\frac{f}{2}\pi ^a\pi ^a+\frac{1}{2f}(\stackrel{}{}n^a)^2.$$
(2.25)
Note that at this stage the field $`n^0`$ has completely disappeared, and any information concerning it has been lost. In fact, the model that we are discussing at this point is the model considered in ref. , and hence is no longer the O(3) NLSM in that sense.

The new equations of motion now read

$$d^2yF^{(1)}(x,y)_0\xi ^{(1)}(y)=K^{(1)}(x)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{f}\stackrel{}{}^2n^a(x)\\ f\pi ^a(x)\\ 0\end{array}\right)$$
(2.26)
where

$$\xi ^{(1)}(x)=(\stackrel{}{n}(x),\stackrel{}{\pi }(x),\rho (x))$$
(2.27)
and the first-iterated symplectic two-form is now given by

$$F^{(1)}(x,y)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}O& I& 2\stackrel{}{n}(x)\\ I& O& \stackrel{}{0}\\ 2\stackrel{}{n}(x)^T& \stackrel{}{0}^T& 0\end{array}\right)\delta ^2(xy).$$
(2.28)
Note that the symplectic two-form matrix still has a zero mode $`\nu _y^{(1)}(x)=(\stackrel{}{0},2\stackrel{}{n}(x),1)\delta ^2(xy)`$, which generates the constraint $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ in the context of the symplectic formalism  as follows

$$d^2y\nu _y^{(1)}(x)K^{(1)}(y)=2f\mathrm{\Omega }_2(x)=0,$$
(2.29)
Following ref.  we further enlarge the symplectic phase space to include the constraint $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ via an additional dynamical field $`\sigma `$, as follows,

$$^{(2)}=\pi ^a_0n^a\mathrm{\Omega }_1_0\rho \mathrm{\Omega }_2_0\sigma ^{(2)},$$
(2.30)
with $`^{(2)}=^{(1)}`$. The symplectic variables $`\xi ^{(2)}`$ are now given by

$$\xi ^{(2)}(x)=(n^a(x),\pi ^a(x),\rho (x),\sigma (x)),$$
(2.31)
and the second-iterated symplectic two-form matrix is given by

$$F^{(2)}(x,y)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}O& I& 2\stackrel{}{n}(x)& \stackrel{}{\pi }(x)\\ I& O& \stackrel{}{0}& \stackrel{}{n}(x)\\ 2\stackrel{}{n}(x)^T& \stackrel{}{0}^T& 0& 0\\ \stackrel{}{\pi }(x)^T& \stackrel{}{n}(x)^T& 0& 0\end{array}\right)\delta ^2(xy).$$
(2.32)
We easily show that this symplectic matrix is invertible, i.e no zero modes exist. Hence the algorithm ends at this point.

Although the constraints $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i=0`$ $`(i=1,2)`$ are identical with those generated by the Lagrangian algorithm, a complete analysis of the NLSM should have treated the Lagrange multiplier field $`n^0`$ as an additional degree of freedom, by not performing the shift in variable $`_0\rho n^0_0\rho `$. As shown in ref.  the symplectic algorithm described above does not generate in this case the complete set of constraints as given by the Lagrangian algorithm, which rests on a solid foundation. The reason for this failure has been examined in ref.  for the corresponding quantum mechanical model, as well as in general terms.

## 3 NLSM in Hamilton-Jacobi scheme

In this section we revisit the O(3) NLSM in the HJ scheme, for which the generalized HJ partial differential equations are given by 444This scheme was treated incompletely in ref. . With the identification $`\pi ^a(x)=\frac{\delta S}{\delta n^a(x)}`$ and $`p^0=\frac{\delta S}{\delta t}`$, these equations are the (incomplete set of) Hamilton-Jacobi partial differential equations for the Hamilton principal function $`S`$.

$`_0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`p^0+_0=0,`$
$`_1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\pi ^0+_1=0,`$ (3.1)
where $`_0`$ is a canonical Hamiltonian density $`^{(0)}(n^0,n^a,\pi ^a)`$ in Eq. (2.3) and $`_1^{}`$ is the (only) primary constraint in the Dirac terminology  ($`_1`$ is actually zero for the case of the O(3) NLSM, as seen from Eq. (2.2)).

Following the generalized HJ scheme , one obtains from Eq. (3),

$`dq^{\underset{¯}{a}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{}}{p^{\underset{¯}{a}}}}dt_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }},`$
$`dp^{\underset{¯}{a}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{}}{q^{\underset{¯}{a}}}}dt_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }},`$ (3.2)
where $`q^{\underset{¯}{a}}=(t,n^0,n^a)`$, $`p^{\underset{¯}{a}}=(p^0,\pi ^0,\pi ^a)`$ and $`t_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}=(t,n^0)`$ with $`\underset{¯}{\alpha }=(0,1)`$. Explicitely

$`_0n^0=_0n^0,_0n^a=f\pi ^a,`$
$`_0\pi ^0=n^an^a1,_0\pi ^a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{f}}\stackrel{}{}^2n^a+2n^0n^a.`$ (3.3)
Since the equation for $`n^0`$ is trivial, one cannot obtain any information about the variable $`n^0`$ at this level, and the set of equations is not integrable at this stage.

In order to fix this deficit of information, we supplement Eq. (3) with the generalized integrability conditions ,

$$_0_{\overline{\alpha }}^{}=\{_{\overline{\alpha }}^{},_0^{}\}+\{_{\overline{\alpha }}^{},_\beta ^{}\}_0q^\beta =0,$$
(3.4)
where, unlike in the usual case, the Poisson bracket is defined in terms of the extended index $`\underset{¯}{a}`$ corresponding to $`q^{\underset{¯}{a}}=(t,n^0,n^a)`$ as follows

$$\{A,B\}=\frac{A}{q^{\underset{¯}{a}}}\frac{B}{p^{\underset{¯}{a}}}\frac{B}{q^{\underset{¯}{a}}}\frac{A}{p^{\underset{¯}{a}}}.$$
(3.5)
The index $`\beta `$ in (3.4) labels the primary constraints, whose number is only one for the case in question ($`_0q^\beta _0n^0`$). The index $`\overline{\alpha }`$, on the other hand, labels the primary constraints as well as the secondary constraints which emerge iteratively from the integrability condition (3.4). Thus for the case in question we have three secondary constraints, $`_2^{}=0`$, $`_3^{}=0`$ and $`_4^{}=0`$ corresponding to Eqs. (2.10), (2.16) and (2.22), respectively. They emerge iteratively from Eq. (3.4) as follows:

$`_0_0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`_2^{}_0n^0,`$
$`_0_1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`_2^{},`$
$`_0_2^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2f_3^{},`$
$`_0_3^{}`$ $`=`$ $`_4^{},`$
with

$`_2^{}`$ $`=`$ $`n^an^a1,`$
$`_3^{}`$ $`=`$ $`n^a\pi ^a.`$ (3.6)
$`_4^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2n^0n^an^a+f\pi ^a\pi ^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f}}n^a\stackrel{}{}^2n^a.`$
From $`_0_4^{}=0`$ we have, using $`_2^{}=_3^{}=0`$ as well as (3.3),

$$_0n^0=\pi ^a\stackrel{}{}^2n^a+\stackrel{}{}n^a\stackrel{}{}\pi ^a$$
(3.7)
which replaces the identity $`_0n^0=_0n^0`$ in Eq. (3.3), and thus completes the set of Hamilton-Jacobi equations to an integrable system.

Finally note that Eqs. (3.2) and (3.6) imply for the Hamilton principal function

$`dS`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2x\left(_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}+\pi ^a\frac{_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}^{}}{\pi ^a}\right)𝑑t_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}},`$ (3.8)
$`=`$ $`dt{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2x\left(_0+\pi ^0\frac{n^0}{t}+\pi ^a\frac{n^a}{t}\right)}.`$
Since we have now from Eqs. (3.3) and (3.7) a complete set of equations of motion for $`n^a`$ and $`n^0`$, Eq. (3.8) can be integrated in time to yield the standard action

$$S=\mathrm{d}^3x^{(0)}$$
(3.9)
where $`^{(0)}`$ is the first-order Lagrangian (2.4). Note that it was only after taking account of the secondary constraints generated iteratively by the integrability condition (3.4), that one could construct the action (3.9) for the second-class system in question.

## 4 BFT Hamiltonian embedding

In this section we reconsider the BFT quantization for the O(3) NLSM with the Lagrangian (2.1) and the canonical Hamiltonian (2.3). 555In previous work  we have carried out the BFT embedding for the O(3) NLSM without explicitly including the geometrical constraint $`n^an^a1=0`$ with the Lagrangian multiplier field $`n^0`$ in the starting Lagrangian. The primary constraint reads

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_0=\pi ^00,$$
(4.1)
and correspondingly we have for the total Hamiltonian,

$$_T=_0+v\mathrm{\Omega }_0,$$
(4.2)
where $`_0`$ is the canonical Hamiltonian $`^{(0)}`$ in Eq. (2.3). The usual Dirac algorithm is readily shown to lead recursively to the constraints $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ $`(i=0,1,2,3)`$ as follows 666Note that these constraints correspond to $`_i^{}=0`$ $`(i=1,2,3,4)`$ in the HJ scheme, respectively.

$`\{\mathrm{\Omega }_0(x),_0(y)\}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1(x)\delta ^2(xy),`$
$`\{\mathrm{\Omega }_1(x),_0(y)\}`$ $`=`$ $`2f\mathrm{\Omega }_2(x)\delta ^2(xy),`$
$`\{\mathrm{\Omega }_2(x),_0(y)\}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3(x)\delta ^2(xy).`$ (4.3)
The requirement of time-independence of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3`$ then finally fixes the Lagrange multiplier field in Eq. (4.2) to $`v=0`$. Notice that for the case of the motion of a particle on a sphere, the constraint $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3=0`$ just fixes the “string tension” of the central force governing its motion.

The complete system of constraints is thus second-class. The subset $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2=0`$ only links the fields $`n^a`$ and $`\pi ^a`$, while the remaining constraints $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3=0`$ link these variables to the rest of the variables. We may thus “gauge” the $`(n^a,\pi ^a)`$ sector a la BFT, while leaving a strong implementation of the constraints $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3=0`$ to the end. This is possible since the corresponding Dirac brackets, constructed from the inverse of the matrix

$$\{\mathrm{\Omega }_1(x),\mathrm{\Omega }_2(y)\}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 2n^a(x)n^a(x)\\ 2n^a(x)n^a(x)& 0\end{array}\right)\delta ^2(xy),$$
(4.4)
reduce to ordinary Poisson brackets for functionals of $`n^a`$ and $`\pi ^a`$ alone.

Following the BFT scheme , we systematically convert the second-class constraints $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i=0`$ $`(i=1,2)`$ into first-class ones by introducing two canonically conjugate auxiliary fields $`(\theta ,\pi _\theta )`$ with Poisson brackets

$$\{\theta (x),\pi _\theta (y)\}=\delta ^2(xy).$$
(4.5)
The strongly involutive first-class constraints $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_i`$ are then constructed as a power series of the auxiliary fields ,

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1+2\theta ,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2n^an^a\pi _\theta ,`$ (4.6)
which satisfy the closed algebra $`\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_i,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_j\}=0`$.

We next construct the first-class fields $`\stackrel{~}{}=(\stackrel{~}{n}^a,\stackrel{~}{\pi }^a)`$, corresponding to the original fields defined by $`=(n^a,\pi ^a)`$ in the extended phase space. They are obtained as a power series in the auxiliary fields $`(\theta ,\pi _\theta )`$ by demanding that they be in strong involution with the first-class constraints (4.6), that is $`\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_i,\stackrel{~}{}\}=0`$. After some tedious algebra, we obtain for the first-class physical fields

$`\stackrel{~}{n}^a`$ $`=`$ $`n^a\left({\displaystyle \frac{n^an^a+2\theta }{n^an^a}}\right)^{1/2},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\pi }^a`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\pi ^an^a\pi _\theta \right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{n^an^a}{n^an^a+2\theta }}\right)^{1/2}.`$ (4.7)
They are found to satisfy the Poisson algebra

$`\{\stackrel{~}{n}^a(x),\stackrel{~}{\pi }^b(y)\}`$ $`=`$ $`(\delta ^{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{n}^a\stackrel{~}{n}^b}{\stackrel{~}{n}^c\stackrel{~}{n}^c}})\delta ^2(xy),`$
$`\{\stackrel{~}{\pi }^a(x),\stackrel{~}{\pi }^b(y)\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{n}^c\stackrel{~}{n}^c}}(\stackrel{~}{n}^b\stackrel{~}{\pi }^a\stackrel{~}{n}^a\stackrel{~}{\pi }^b)\delta ^2(xy).`$ (4.8)
To our knowledge, this is the first time that the first-class fields in the O(3) NLSM have been given in this compact form. 777Note that the first-class physical fields were obtained in terms of the infinite power series of the auxiliary fields $`(\theta ,\pi _\theta )`$ in the previous work . Note that in terms of the first-class fields (4.7) the constraints (4.6) take the natural form

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1=\stackrel{~}{n}^a\stackrel{~}{n}^a1,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2=\stackrel{~}{n}^a\stackrel{~}{\pi }^a.$$
(4.9)
Eq. (4.9) illustrates that any functional $`𝒦(\stackrel{~}{})`$ of the first-class fields $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is also first-class. We correspondingly construct the first-class Hamiltonian in terms of the above first-class physical variables by making the replacements $`n^a\stackrel{~}{n}^a,\pi ^a\stackrel{~}{\pi }^a`$ in the canonical Hamiltonian $`_0`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{}_0=\frac{f}{2}\stackrel{~}{\pi }^a\stackrel{~}{\pi }^a+\frac{1}{2f}(\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{~}{n}^a)^2n^0(\stackrel{~}{n}^a\stackrel{~}{n}^a1).$$
(4.10)
Note that the first-class Hamiltonian (4.10) is manifestly strongly involutive with the first-class constraints, $`\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_i,\stackrel{~}{}_0\}=0`$. This need not be so. Indeed, this Hamiltonian is not unique, as we may always add to it terms proportional to the first class constraints without altering the dynamics of the first-class fields. Thus we could ask the gauged total Hamiltonian to generate the first-class constraints in an analogous way to Eq. (4.3)

$`\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_0(x),\stackrel{~}{}(y)\}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1(x)\delta ^2(xy),`$
$`\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1(x),\stackrel{~}{}(y)\}`$ $`=`$ $`2f\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2(x)\delta ^2(xy),`$
$`\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2(x),\stackrel{~}{}(y)\}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3(x)\delta ^2(xy).`$ (4.11)
This may be achieved via the replacement of (4.10) by

$$\stackrel{~}{}=\stackrel{~}{}_0+f\pi _\theta \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(\stackrel{~}{n^a}\stackrel{~}{n^a}2\theta )\mathrm{\Omega }_3.$$
(4.12)
Since the second class constraint $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3=0`$ should eventually be implemented strongly in our scheme, we shall set it equal to zero. As for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2`$, it is first class, so that it will not participate in the dynamics of gauge invariant functionals in the $`(n^0,\pi ^0,n^a,\pi ^a,\theta ,\pi _\theta )`$ space. This allows us to set the last two terms in Eq. (4.12) equal to zero. Rewriting the Hamiltonian (4.10) in terms of the original fields in the $`(n^a,\pi ^a)`$ sector, and the auxiliary ones in the $`(\theta ,\pi _\theta )`$ sector, we have

$`\stackrel{~}{}_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f}{2}}(\pi ^an^a\pi _\theta )(\pi ^an^a\pi _\theta ){\displaystyle \frac{n^cn^c}{n^cn^c+2\theta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2f}}(\stackrel{}{}n^a)^2{\displaystyle \frac{n^cn^c+2\theta }{n^cn^c}}`$ (4.13)
$`n^0(n^an^a1+2\theta ),`$
where we have used the conformal map condition, $`n^a\stackrel{}{}n^a=0`$, which states that the radial vector is perpendicular to the tangent on the $`S^2`$ sphere in the extended phase space of the O(3) NLSM .

In the framework of the BFV formalism , we now construct the nilpotent BRST charge $`Q`$, the fermionic gauge fixing function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and the BRST invariant minimal Hamiltonian $`H_m`$ by introducing two canonical sets of ghost and anti-ghost fields, together with auxiliary fields $`(𝒞^i,\overline{𝒫}_i)`$, $`(𝒫^i,\overline{𝒞}_i)`$ and $`(N^i,B_i)`$, $`(i=1,2)`$,

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2x(𝒞^i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_i+𝒫^iB_i)},`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2x(\overline{𝒞}_i\chi ^i+\overline{𝒫}_iN^i)},`$
$`H_m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2x\left(\stackrel{~}{}_02f𝒞^1\overline{𝒫}_2\right)},`$ (4.14)
with the properties $`Q^2=\{Q,Q\}=0`$ and $`\{\{\mathrm{\Psi },Q\},Q\}=0`$. The nilpotent charge $`Q`$ is the generator of the following infinitesimal transformations,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\delta _Qn^0=0,\hfill & \delta _Qn^a=𝒞^2n^a,\hfill & \delta _Q\theta =𝒞^2n^an^a,\hfill \\ \delta _Q\pi ^0=0,\hfill & \delta _Q\pi ^a=2𝒞^1n^a+𝒞^2(\pi ^a2n^a\pi _\theta ),\hfill & \delta _Q\pi _\theta =2𝒞^1,\hfill \\ \delta _Q\overline{𝒞}_i=B_i,\hfill & \delta _Q𝒞^i=0,\hfill & \delta _QB_i=0,\hfill \\ \delta _Q𝒫^i=0,\hfill & \delta _Q\overline{𝒫}_i=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_i,\hfill & \delta _QN^i=𝒫^i,\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.15)
which in turn imply $`\{Q,H_m\}=0`$, that is, $`H_m`$ in Eq. (4.14) is the BRST invariant minimal Hamiltonian.

After some algebra, we arrive at the effective quantum Lagrangian of the manifestly covariant form

$$_{eff}=^{(0)}+^{WZ}+^{ghost}$$
(4.16)
where $`^{(0)}`$ is given by Eq. (2.1) and

$`^{WZ}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{fn^cn^c}}(_\mu n^a)(^\mu n^a)\theta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2f(n^cn^c)^2}}_\mu \theta ^\mu \theta +2n^0\theta ,`$
$`^{ghost}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2f}}(n^an^a)^2(B+2\overline{𝒞}𝒞)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^cn^c}}_\mu \theta ^\mu B+_\mu \overline{𝒞}^\mu 𝒞.`$ (4.17)
This Lagrangian is invariant under the BRST transformation

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\delta _ϵn^0=0,\hfill & \delta _ϵn^a=ϵn^a𝒞,\hfill & \delta _ϵ\theta =ϵn^an^a𝒞,\hfill \\ \delta _ϵ\overline{𝒞}=ϵB,\hfill & \delta _ϵ𝒞=0,\hfill & \delta _ϵB=0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.18)
where $`ϵ`$ is an infinitesimal Grassmann valued parameter. Note that the Wess-Zumino Lagrangian in (4.17) involves $`n^0`$, which originates from the geometrical constraint in the starting Lagrangian.

## 5 Conclusion

We have investigated the constraint structure of the O(3) NLSM, in the Lagrangian, symplectic, Hamilton-Jacobi (HJ) and Batalin-Fradkin-Tyutin (BFT) quantization schemes. In particular we showed that the symplectic algorithm led to an incomplete constraint structure for this model. In fact, the missing constraint (2.22) was shown to play an essential role as a part of the integrability conditions in the Hamilton-Jacobi formulation, necessary to recover the action for this second class system.

We further considered the gauge-embedding of the NLSM following the BFT quantization scheme for constructing the first-class fields and first-class Hamiltonian including the Wess-Zumino terms. A similar study, based on the “first-class field approach” was done in ref.  in the framework of the Hamilton-Jacobi scheme. Even though the authors of  exploited the first-class Hamiltonian in a form similar to $`\stackrel{~}{}_0`$ in Eq. (4.10), their final Lagrangian is not covariant, in contrast to the covariant Lagrangian (4.16) involving the Wess-Zumino and ghost fields. Moreover the “integrability conditions” were not taken into account. The attempt of achieving such an embedding for the NLSM in the symplectic approach based on a biased “educated guess” for the general Lorentz covariant form of the first-class gauged Lagrangian, as was done in refs.  for the Proca and self-dual models, seems very problematic as seen from Eq. (4.17), which involves inverse powers of $`(n^an^a)`$. We thus believe that for the case of the O(3) NLSM, the BFT embedding procedure is the most tractable one as compared to the Lagrangian, symplectic and HJ schemes.

STH would like to thank the warm hospitality of the Institut für Theoretische Physik at the Universität Heidelberg where a part of this work has been done, and Güler and Baleanu for helpful discussions. The work of STH and YJP was supported by the Korea Research Foundation, Grant No. KRF-2001-DP0083.


format: text

text:
# Self-organized and driven phase synchronization in coupled maps

## Abstract

We study the phase synchronization and cluster formation in coupled maps on different networks. We identify two different mechanisms of cluster formation; (a) Self-organized phase synchronization which leads to clusters with dominant intra-cluster couplings and (b) driven phase synchronization which leads to clusters with dominant inter-cluster couplings. In the novel driven synchronization the nodes of one cluster are driven by those of the others. We also discuss the dynamical origin of these two mechanisms for small networks with two and three nodes.

Recently, there is considerable interest in complex systems described by networks or graphs with complex topology . Most networks in the real world consist of dynamical elements interacting with each other. Thus in order to understand properties of such dynamically evolving networks, we study a coupled map model of different networks. Coupled maps show rich phenomenology that arises when opposing tendencies compete; the nonlinear dynamics of the maps which in the chaotic regime tends to separate the orbits of different elements, and the couplings that tend to synchronize them. Coupled map lattices with nearest neighbor or short range interactions show interesting spatio-temporal patterns, and intermittent behavior . Globally coupled maps (GCM) where each node is connected with all other nodes, show interesting synchronized behavior . Ref.  are some of the papers which shed light on the collective behavior and synchronization of coupled maps/oscillators with local and non-local connections on different networks.

In this paper we study the mechanisms for synchronization behaviour of coupled maps on different networks. In particular, we concentrate on networks with small number of connections, i.e. the number of connections ($`N_c`$) are of the order of the number of nodes ($`N`$). Our study reveals two different ways for the formation of synchronized clusters. (a) Synchronized clusters can be formed because of intra-cluster couplings. We will refer to this as self-organized synchronization. (b) Synchronized clusters can be formed because of inter-cluster couplings. Here nodes of one cluster are driven by those of the others. We will refer to this as driven synchronization. We are able to identify ideal clusters of both types, as well as clusters of the mixed type where both ways of synchronization contribute to cluster formation. We will discuss several examples to illustrate both types of clusters. Dynamically, our analysis indicates that the self-organized behaviour has its origin in the decay term arising due to intra-cluster couplings in the dynamics of the difference variables while the driven behaviour has its origin in the cancellation of the inter-cluster couplings in the dynamics of the difference variables.

Consider a network of $`N`$ nodes and $`N_c`$ connections. Let each node of the network be assigned a dynamical variable $`x^i,i=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$. The evolution of the dynamical variables is given by

$$x_{t+1}^i=(1ϵ)f(x_t^i)+\frac{ϵ}{_jC_{ij}}C_{ij}g(x_t^j)$$
(1)
where $`x_n^i`$ is the dynamical variable of the i-th node at the $`t`$-th time step, $`C`$ is the adjacency matrix with elements $`C_{ij}`$ taking values $`1`$ or $`0`$ depending upon whether i and j are connected or not. The matrix $`C`$ is symmetric with diagonal elements zero. The function $`f(x)`$ defines the local nonlinear map and the function $`g(x)`$ defines the nature of coupling between the nodes. In this paper, we present the results for the local dynamics given by the logistic map $`f(x)=\mu x(1x)`$ and two types of coupling functions, (i) $`g(x)=x`$ and (ii) $`g(x)=f(x)`$.

Synchronization of coupled dynamical systems may be defined in various ways . Perfect synchronization corresponds to the dynamical variables for different nodes having identical values. Phase synchronization corresponds to the dynamical variables for different nodes having values with some definite relation . For networks with $`N_cN`$, we find that perfect synchronization leads to clusters with very small number of nodes, while phase synchronization gives clusters with large number of nodes. Here, we concentrate on phase synchronized clusters. We define the phase synchronization as follows . Let $`n_i`$ and $`n_j`$ denote the number of times the variables $`x_t^i`$ and $`x_t^j`$, $`t=1,2,\mathrm{},T`$ for the nodes $`i`$ and $`j`$ show local minima during the time interval $`T`$. Let $`n_{ij}`$ denote the number of times these local minima match with each other. We define the phase distance between the nodes $`i`$ and $`j`$ as $`d_{ij}=12n_{ij}/(n_i+n_j)`$. Clearly, $`d_{ij}=0`$ when all minima of variables $`x^i`$ and $`x^j`$ match with each other and $`d_{ij}=1`$ when none of the minima match. We say that nodes $`i`$ and $`j`$ are phase synchronized if $`d_{ij}=0`$. Also, a cluster of nodes is phase synchronized if all pairs of nodes of that cluster are phase synchronized.

We find examples of both self-organized and driven types of phase synchronized clusters in different networks that we have studied. For small coupling strengths, we observe turbulent behaviour, i.e. no clusters are formed, but as the coupling strength increases phase synchronized clusters are formed. The number and sizes of clusters as well as their type (self-organized, driven or mixed) depends on the coupling strength $`ϵ`$ as well as the type of coupling function $`g(x)`$. For networks with number of connections of the order of $`N`$, and for linear coupling $`g(x)=x`$, we observe self-organized phase synchronized clusters for small coupling strengths ($`ϵ0.18`$) and driven phase synchronized clusters for large coupling strength with a crossover and reorganization of nodes between the two types as $`ϵ`$ is increased. This behaviour appears to be approximately independent of the type of network. On the other hand, for nonlinear coupling $`g(x)=f(x)`$, we observe a dominant driven phase synchronization. In this case, the sizes and number of clusters depends on the type of network for large $`ϵ`$ values. As noted earlier, in this letter we concentrate only on the mechanism of cluster formation and other details will be discussed elsewhere .

We now present the numerical results of our model. Starting from random initial conditions and after an initial transient, we study the dynamics of Eq. (1), and determine synchronization behaviour. Fig. 1 shows several examples of clusters illustrating different behaviors. Fig. 1(a) shows two clusters with an ideal self-organized phase synchronization. We note that except one coupling, which must be present since our network is connected, all other couplings are of intra-cluster type. Fig. 1(b) shows the opposite behaviour of two clusters with an ideal driven phase synchronization. Here, all the couplings are of the inter-cluster type. Fig. 1(c) to 1(e) show mixed behaviour. Fig. 1(c) shows clusters of different types. The largest two clusters have approximately equal number of inter-cluster and intra-cluster couplings (mixed type), the next two clusters have dominant intra-cluster couplings (self-organized type) while the remaining three clusters have dominant inter-cluster couplings (driven type). Also there are several isolated nodes. Fig. 1(d) shows clusters where driven behaviour dominates. Fig. 1(e) shows clusters where self-organized behavior dominates. Fig. 1(f) shows two clusters of ideal driven type with several isolated nodes. Figs. 1(c) to 1(f) have isolated nodes which do not belong to any cluster. These nodes evolve independently, however, some of them can get attached to some clusters intermittently.

To get a quantitative picture of the two ways of cluster formation we define two quantities $`f_{inter}`$ and $`f_{intra}`$ as

$`f_{intra}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_{intra}}{N_c}}`$ (3)
$`f_{inter}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_{inter}}{N_c}}`$ (4)
where $`N_{intra}`$ is the number of intra-cluster couplings and $`N_{inter}`$ is the number of inter-cluster couplings. Couplings between isolated nodes are not counted in $`N_{inter}`$.

Figs. 2(a) and 2(b) show both $`f_{intra}`$ and $`f_{inter}`$ as a function of $`ϵ`$ for $`g(x)=x`$ and $`g(x)=f(x)`$ respectively for the scale-free networks. ¿From Fig. 2(a) ($`g(x)=x`$), we see that after an initial turbulent phase we get clusters with large values of $`f_{intra}`$, i.e. self-organized clusters, for $`ϵ\underset{}{>}0.12`$. $`f_{intra}`$ becomes almost one for $`ϵ0.18`$ and then starts decreasing. As $`ϵ`$ increases further $`f_{inter}`$ starts increasing and there is a crossover and reorganization of nodes to driven clusters, so that for very large $`ϵ`$, $`f_{inter}`$ is close to one. The ideal driven cluster shows two driven clusters which are anti-phase synchronized with each other. On the other hand, for $`g(x)=f(x)`$, Fig. 2(b) shows that $`f_{inter}`$, i.e. driven behaviour, dominates. Fig. 2(c) and 2(d) show similar graphs for network with one dimensional nearest neighbor couplings. The behaviour is similar to that of scale-free networks except that for $`g(x)=f(x)`$ and for large $`ϵ`$ there is almost no synchronization or cluster formation (Fig. 2(d)).

It is interesting to note that the two different ways of cluster formation are observed even when the variables in the clusters are evolving chaotically. For $`\mu =4`$, we find that when three or more clusters are formed the largest Lyapunov exponent is positive. When two clusters (with or without some isolated nodes) are formed largest Lyapunov exponent can be both positive or negative depending on the parameter values and the type of coupling. If the largest Lyapunov exponent is negative, the variables show periodic behavior with even period . For $`mu<4`$, we find different periods including odd ones and also two, three or more stable clusters depending upon the parameters and initial conditions.

Geometrically, the organization of the network into couplings of both self-organized and driven types is easy to understand for the networks with tree structure. A tree can always be broken into two or more disjoint clusters with only intra-cluster couplings by breaking one or more connections. Clearly, this splitting is not unique. A tree can also be divided into two clusters by putting connected nodes into different clusters. This division is unique and leads to two clusters with only inter-cluster couplings. For other types of networks splitting into clusters with ideal intra-cluster or inter-cluster couplings may not be always possible. However, clusters with dominant couplings of either intra-cluster or inter-cluster type is still possible for $`N_cN`$. For larger values of $`N_c`$, typically of the order of $`N^2`$, a clear identification of only one type of behavior becomes difficult and the clusters are mostly of the mixed type. Note that geometrically it is always possible to get one big cluster spanning almost all the nodes of the self-organized type.

A comment on the choice of $`T`$ used to determine the phase synchronization. Clearly, $`T`$ should be large enough to include several maxima and minima. On the other hand it should be small enough to include the behavior of some isolated nodes that get attached to some clusters intermittently with a time scale of $`\tau _s`$. We find that $`\tau _s`$ is about few thousand iterates. Hence, we chose $`T=100`$.

We have also studied networks with large $`N`$ (largest $`N`$ was 10,000). We can clearly identify both self-organized and driven behavior in such large networks also.

To understand the dynamical origin of the self-organized and driven phase synchronization let us first consider a network of two variables, $`x^1`$ and $`x^2`$, coupled to each other. Synchronization between these two variables will be decided by the difference variable $`x^s=x^1x^2`$. From Eq. (1) the dynamics of $`x^s`$ is given by

$$x_{t+1}^s=(1ϵ)(f(x_t^1)f(x_t^2))\frac{ϵ}{2}(g(x_t^1)g(x_t^2).$$
(5)
Ref.  discusses synchronization properties of this network of two variables for $`g(x)=f(x)`$. Next consider a network of three variables with both $`x^1`$ and $`x^2`$ coupled to $`x^3`$ and no coupling between $`x^1`$ and $`x^2`$. Now the dynamics of the difference $`x^d=x^1x^2`$ is given by

$$x_{t+1}^d=(1ϵ)(f(x_t^1)f(x_t^2)).$$
(6)
It can be shown that there is a critical value of $`ϵ`$ above which the variables $`x^1`$ and $`x^2`$ will synchronize, i.e. $`x^d`$ will tend to zero. The detailed dynamics of the above two simple networks and their synchronization behavior will be discussed elsewhere .

Comparison of Eqs. (5) and (6) clearly shows the different dynamical origins of the self-organized and driven mechanisms. The intra-cluster coupling term which is responsible for the self-organized behaviour, adds a decay term to the dynamics of $`x^s`$ (Eq. (5)). On the other hand, the inter-cluster coupling terms, which are responsible for the driven behaviour, cancel out and do not add any term to the dynamics of $`x^d`$ (Eq. (6)). We feel that for larger networks also similar mechanisms as in Eqs. (5) and (6) are responsible for the cluster formation of the self-organized and driven type.

There are several examples of self-organized and driven behavior in naturally occurring systems. Self-organized behavior is common and is easily observed. Examples are social, ethnic and religious groups, political groups, cartel of industries and countries, herds of animals and flocks of birds, different dynamical transitions such as self-organized criticality etc. The driven behavior is probably not so common . An interesting example is the behavior of fans during a match between traditional rivals. Before the match the fans may act as individuals (turbulent behavior). During the match, when the match reaches a feverish pitch, i.e. the strength of the interaction increases, the fans are likely to form two driven phase synchronized groups. The response of each group depends on that of the other and is normally anti-phase synchronized with the other. Another example is the formation of opposite ethnic groups as in Bosnia.

In this letter we have presented results for the case where the local dynamics is governed by logistic map and couplings $`g(x)=x`$ and $`f(x)`$ for the scale free networks and one-d lattice with nearest neighbor couplings. We have also studied several other maps (circle map, tent map etc.), other types of couplings and different networks (two-d lattice with nearest neighbor couplings, small world networks, Caley tree, random networks, bipartite networks). We find similar behaviour and are able to identify self-organized and driven behaviour.

To conclude we have investigated the mechanism of cluster formation in coupled maps on different networks. We are able to identify two distinct ways of cluster formation, namely self-organized and driven phase synchronization. Self-organized synchronization is characterized by dominant intra-cluster couplings while driven behavior is characterized by inter-cluster couplings. The two ways of cluster formation are clearly seen for networks with small number of couplings ($`N_cN`$) but are difficult to identify as the number of couplings increases and becomes of the order of $`N^2`$. Dynamically, the examples of small networks show that the self-organized behaviour occurs because of the intra-cluster couplings introducing a decay term in the difference variables while the driven behaviour occurs because of the inter-cluster couplings cancelling out.

One of us (REA) thanks Professor H. Kanz for useful discussions and Max-Plank Institute for the Physics of Complex Systems, Dresden for hospitality.


text:
# A simple mechanical analog of the field theory of tachyon matter

## Abstract

In this brief note we show that the zero dimensional version of the field theory of tachyon matter, proposed by Sen, provides an action integral formulation for the motion of a particle in the presence of Newtonian gravity and nonlinear damping (quadratic in velocity).

Recently, there has been a lot of interest around a proposal by Sen sen1 , of a new field theory — the field theory of tachyon matter. The derivation of the action is based on involved arguments in string and string field theory sen1 ; sen2 . This action has also been proposed earlier, independently, by several authors in others , panda , though, it is only recently that it has been analysed in greater detailsen1 ; sen2 . Apart from its importance in the context of string theory, it is useful to investigate its consequences by considering it as a field theory in its own right. It goes without saying, that, at first sight, one is somewhat surprised by the expression for the action, given as :

$$S=d^{p+1}xV(T)\sqrt{1+\eta ^{ij}_iT_jT}$$
(1)
where $`\eta _{00}=1`$ and $`\eta _{\alpha \beta }=\delta _{\alpha \beta }`$ with $`\alpha `$, $`\beta =1,2,\mathrm{}p`$, $`T(x)`$ is the scalar tachyon field and V(T) is the tachyon potential, which, from string field theory arguments is found to be given by :

$$V(T)e^{\alpha T/2}$$
(2)
where $`\alpha =1`$ (bosonic, $`p=25`$) and ,$`\alpha =\sqrt{2}`$ (superstring, $`p=9`$).

The tachyon potential appears, in the action, as a multiplicative factor to a term with a square root. This is what makes this theory unfamiliar in comparison to usual field theories known to us. This field theory has been analysed extensively in recent papers by Sen sen2 . There has been a flurry of recent work on the cosmological relevance/implications of tachyonic matter gibbons  motivated by the fact that the effective energy–momentum tensor is equivalent to that of noninteracting, nonrotating dust sen1 .

At a pedagogical level, it is certainly true, to some extent atleast, that lower dimensional analogs of a field theory helps our understanding in some way, though working with such correspondences may sometimes be entirely useless ( a prime example is lower dimensional gravity which doesn’t seem to have much connection with actual 4D gravity despite the volumes that have been written on it). It also provides an useful method of introducing the theory to undergraduates or non-experts. Prominent examples include the lower dimensional mechanical analogs of massive Klein–Gordon theory (harmonic oscillator), the Higgs model (anharmonic oscillator/double well), sine Gordon theory (particle on a circle/periodic potential) and many others. With this is mind, we are tempted to ask the question –what is the zero dimensional/mechanical analog of the field theory of tachyon matter?

To understand this let us rewrite the action in zero dimensions obtained via the correspondence :- $`x^it`$, $`Tx`$ and $`V(T)V(x)`$ :

$$S_0=𝑑tV(x)\sqrt{1\dot{x}^2}$$
(3)
The equation of motion for this action (with the assumption that $`1\dot{x}^20`$–the equality corresponds, as evident from the discussion below, of the particle reaching a terminal velocity) gives :

$$\ddot{x}+f(x)\dot{x}^2=f(x)$$
(4)
where $`f(x)=\frac{1}{V}\frac{V}{x}`$. Using the zero dimensional version of the tachyon potential, i.e. $`V(x)=e^{\alpha x}`$ (we do away with the $`\frac{1}{2}`$ factor in the potential for the field theory version) we obtain the equation of motion :

$$\ddot{x}+\alpha \dot{x}^2=\alpha $$
(5)
Redefining $`\dot{x}=\gamma \dot{y}`$ we obtain :

$$\ddot{y}+\alpha \gamma \dot{y}^2=\frac{\alpha }{\gamma }$$
(6)
The above equation is familiar to all of us. Replacing $`\alpha \gamma =\frac{\beta }{m}`$ and $`\frac{\alpha }{\gamma }=g`$ we get back :

$$m\ddot{y}+\beta \dot{y}^2=mg$$
(7)
which is the equation of motion of a particle of mass $`m`$ moving in a Newtonian gravitational field in the presence of quadratic damping. One can therefore get back this equation from the action :

$$S_0=𝑑te^{\frac{\beta y}{m}}\sqrt{1\frac{\beta }{mg}\dot{y}^2}$$
(8)
This Lagrangian is ofcourse in a dimensionless form. One may scale the coordinate and multiply by appropriate factors to have an action with the required dimensions. This is a straightforward exercise. Thus the zero dimensional version of the field theory of tachyon matter provides an action integral formulation of the motion under Newtonian gravity in the presence of quadratic damping.

One might ask – is this the unique action which gives the above equation of motion? To answer it, we look for a counterexample. Raising the Lagrangian to its $`n`$th power (recall the fact that the square root and the squared action for the motion of relativistic, massive test particles in a background gravitational field give the same equations of motion) we write an action of the form :

$$S_n=𝑑te^{\frac{n\beta y}{m}}\left(1\frac{\beta }{mg}\dot{y}^2\right)^{\frac{n}{2}}$$
(9)
From the equations of motion for this action we find that it is only for $`n=1`$ (and no other value of $`n`$)we get the equation for a particle moving in a Newtonian gravitational field in the presence of quadratic damping. Another possibility is replacing $`\sqrt{1\dot{x}^2}`$ by $`\sqrt{1+\dot{x}^2}`$. This yields a wrong sign in the right hand side $`m\ddot{y}+\beta \dot{x}^2=mg`$. It is true that there may be other actions which yield the same equation of motion, but, for the moment, we prefer to remain satisfied with the one above.

Though the equations of motion and solutions for the above problem are well known we are not entirely sure if the action integral reformulation exists. Moreover, the connection with the field theory of tachyon matter is new and perhaps worth mention. Additionally, this action integral formulation could be useful if one wishes to quantise the theory in the language of path integrals. The task is quite formidable in view of the exponential and the square root in the action. However, it is possible to expand the square root and exponential for small $`\beta `$ and arrive at an action of the form (for small $`\beta `$) :

$$S_0𝑑t\left(1\frac{\beta y}{m}\frac{\beta }{mg}\dot{y}^2\right)$$
(10)
For the above action it is easy to write out the path integral following the standard procedure for quadratic actions. Quadratic damping can be treated as a perturbation over classical solutions of $`m\ddot{y}=mg`$ and its effect on the kernel can be ascertained through its $`\beta `$ dependence.

We also note that the Hamiltonian arising from the Lagrangian in (Eqn (7)) is given as:

$$H=\sqrt{\frac{mg}{\beta }}\left(p^2+\frac{\beta }{mg}e^{\frac{2\beta y}{m}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(11)
The overall negative sign in the action given in (1) or (7) is crucial in order to have a positive definite Hamiltonian. Using the above one might attempt at deriving a quantum mechanical or microscopic reason behind quadratic damping.

In addition, the generality of the approach manifest through the freedom in choosing $`V(x)`$ may be useful in situations with more complicated , spatially dependent, but quadratic in velocity, damping forces. Extensions to higher (two or three) dimensions in space is possible though the equations of motion there are no longer uncoupled – the presence of the nonlinear damping term being the cause behind this feature.

It is tempting, as a follow-up exercise, to extend the above ideas to $`1+1`$ dimensional field theories, in particular, nonlinear field theories. For static solutions of a nonlinear scalar field theory, the equations of motion can be written down by a straightforward mapping of the variables of the mechanical system in Euclidean time to the field theoretic variables. It is obvious that the $`\varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ term, which will be present in the equations of motion, will damp the solutions in a way similar to the mechanical system discussed above. However, even though static solutions for the field system can indeed be written down, it is not clear to us what they actually mean in the context of a field theory. These and similar issues provide avenues of further study.

Finally, it is a rather pleasant surprise that a field theory arising out of such an involved and complicated enterprise as string field theory does have a connection (albeit through an analogy) with a system which we all know about and also experience in our everyday life. This, like other theories with similar analogs, makes the field theory of tachyon matter perhaps somewhat closer to reality. As mentioned in the beginning of this article, what we have discussed here is just a zero dimensional analog– its input in the actual field theoretic context is, to us, at this moment, largely vacuous.

The author thanks S. P. Khastgir and P. Majumdar for comments and discussion.