text:
# Koszul-Tate Cohomology as Lowest-Energy Modules of Non-Centrally Extended Diffeomorphism Algebras

## 1 Introduction

In a recent paper , I constructed Fock modules of non-centrally extended diffeomorphism and current algebras in $`N`$-dimensional spacetime, i.e. the higher-dimensional generalizations of Virasoro and affine algebras. More precisely, I considered the DGRO (Diffeomorphism, Gauge, Reparametrization, Observer) algebra $`DGRO(N,𝔤)`$, where $`𝔤`$ is a finite-dimensional Lie algebra. The crucial idea was to first expand all fields in a multi-dimensional Taylor series around the points on a one-dimensional curve (“the observer’s trajectory”), and then to truncate at some finite order $`p`$. We thus obtain a realization of $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(N)𝔪𝔞𝔭(N,𝔤)`$ (semi-direct product of diffeomorphism and current algebras)111In previous writings, I have denoted the diffeomorphism algebra, or algebra of vector fields, $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(N)`$ by $`diff(N)`$. on the space of trajectories in the space of tensor-valued $`p`$-jets. This space consists of finitely many functions of a single variable, which is precisely the situation where the normal ordering prescription works. After normal ordering, a Fock representation of the DGRO algebra is obtained. Related work can be found in . Cocycles of the diffeomorphism algebra were classified by Dzumadil’daev  and reviewed in .

To progress further, one now wants to construct more interesting modules of lowest-energy type. A natural idea is to consider a complex of Fock modules:

$`\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}\mathrm{}& \stackrel{Q}{}& J^p^1& \stackrel{Q}{}& J^p^0& \stackrel{Q}{}& J^p^1& \stackrel{Q}{}& J^p^2& \stackrel{Q}{}& \mathrm{}\\ & & & & & & & & & & \\ \mathrm{}& \stackrel{Q}{}& J^p^1& \stackrel{Q}{}& J^p^0& \stackrel{Q}{}& J^p^1& \stackrel{Q}{}& J^p^2& \stackrel{Q}{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}`$ (1.4)
Here $`J^p^g`$ are $`DGRO(N,𝔤)`$ Fock modules, the vertical maps denote the module action, $`Q^2=0`$, and all squares commute. In this situation, $`DGRO(N,𝔤)`$ will act in a well-defined manner on the cohomology groups $`H^g(Q)`$, which thus acquire a module structure.

The problem is now to find such a complex. A natural candidate is found in the physics of gauge theories, as formulated cohomologically in the anti-field formalism . The goal of classical physics is to find the stationary surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, i.e. the set of solutions to the Euler-Lagrange (EL) equations, viewed as a submanifold embedded in configuration space $`𝒬`$. Dually, one wants to construct the function algebra $`C(\mathrm{\Sigma })=C(𝒬)/`$, where $``$ is the ideal generated by the EL equations. For each field $`\varphi _\alpha `$ and EL equation $`^\alpha =0`$, introduce an anti-field $`\varphi ^\alpha `$ of opposite Grassmann parity. The extended configuration space $`C(𝒬^{})`$ can be decomposed into subspaces $`C^g(𝒬^{})`$ of fixed antifield number $`g`$, where $`\mathrm{afn}\varphi _\alpha =0`$, $`\mathrm{afn}\varphi ^\alpha =1`$. As is well known, the Koszul-Tate (KT) complex

$`0\stackrel{\delta }{}C^0(𝒬^{})\stackrel{\delta }{}C^1(𝒬^{})\stackrel{\delta }{}C^2(𝒬^{})\stackrel{\delta }{}\mathrm{},`$ (1.5)
where $`\delta \varphi _\alpha =0`$ and $`\delta \varphi ^\alpha =^\alpha `$, yields a resolution of $`C(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$; the cohomology groups $`H^g(\delta )=0`$ unless $`g=0`$, and $`H^0(\delta )=C(𝒬)/`$ .

The idea in this paper is to consider not just functions on the stationary surface, but all differential operators on it. The KT differential $`\delta `$ can then be written as a bracket: $`\delta F=[Q,F]`$, where the KT charge $`Q=^\alpha \pi _\alpha ^{}`$ and $`\pi _\alpha ^{}`$ is the canonical momentum corresponding to $`\varphi ^\alpha `$. If we pass to the space of $`p`$-jets before momenta are introduced, the Fock construction applies. Since the KT charge consists of commuting operators, it does not need to be normal ordered, and we recover precisely the situtation in (1.4); the cohomology groups are well-defined $`DGRO(N,𝔤)`$ modules of lowest-energy type.

An outstanding problem is to take the jet order $`p`$ to infinity, because infinite jets essentially contain the same information as the original fields. This limit is problematic, because the abelian charges diverge with $`p`$. However, it was noted in  that if we have several independent jets, of order $`p`$, $`p1`$, …, $`pr`$, we can arrange so that the leading terms cancel, and the abelian charges are finite in $`N=r`$ dimensions (they vanish in $`N<r`$ dimensions). This situation applies here, because the anti-fields correspond to lower-order jets; the order depends on the order of the EL equations. A set of consistency conditions can therefore be formulated. These conditions are very restrictive, and natural solutions exist in four dimensions only.

Hence quantum diffeomorphism symmetry is only possible provided that spacetime is four-dimensional.

## 2 DGRO algebra

Let $`\xi =\xi ^\mu (x)_\mu `$, $`x^N`$, $`_\mu =/x^\mu `$, be a vector field, with commutator $`[\xi ,\eta ]\xi ^\mu _\mu \eta ^\nu _\nu \eta ^\nu _\nu \xi ^\mu _\mu `$. Greek indices $`\mu ,\nu =1,2,..,N`$ label the spacetime coordinates and the summation convention is used on all kinds of indices. The diffeomorphism algebra (algebra of vector fields, Witt algebra) $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(N)`$ is generated by Lie derivatives $`_\xi `$. In particular, we refer to diffeomorphisms on the circle as reparametrizations. They form an additional $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(1)`$ algebra with generators $`L_f`$, where $`f=f(t)d/dt`$, $`tS^1`$, is a vector field on the circle. Let $`𝔪𝔞𝔭(N,𝔤)`$ be the current algebra corresponding to the finite-dimensional semisimple Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ with basis $`J^a`$, structure constants $`f^{ab}_c`$, and Killing metric $`\delta ^{ab}`$. The brackets in $`𝔤`$ are $`[J^a,J^b]=if^{ab}{}_{c}{}^{}J_{}^{c}`$. A basis for $`𝔪𝔞𝔭(N,𝔤)`$ is given by $`𝔤`$-valued functions $`X=X_a(x)J^a`$ with commutator $`[X,Y]=if^{ab}{}_{c}{}^{}X_{a}^{}Y_bJ^c`$. Finally, let $`Obs(N)`$ be the space of local functionals of the observer’s tractory $`q^\mu (t)`$, i.e. polynomial functions of $`q^\mu (t)`$, $`\dot{q}^\mu (t)`$, … $`d^kq^\mu (t)/dt^k`$, $`k`$ finite, regarded as a commutative algebra. $`Obs(N)`$ is a $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(N)`$ module in a natural manner.

The DGRO algebra $`DGRO(N,𝔤)`$ is an abelian but non-central Lie algebra extension of $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(N)𝔪𝔞𝔭(N,𝔤)𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(1)`$ by $`Obs(N)`$:

$$0Obs(N)DGRO(N,𝔤)𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(N)𝔪𝔞𝔭(N,𝔤)𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(1)0.$$

The brackets are given by

$`[_\xi ,_\eta ]`$ $`=`$ $`_{[\xi ,\eta ]}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle }dt\dot{q}^\rho (t)\{c_1_\rho _\nu \xi ^\mu (q(t))_\mu \eta ^\nu (q(t))+`$
$`+c_2_\rho _\mu \xi ^\mu (q(t))_\nu \eta ^\nu (q(t))\},`$
$`[_\xi ,𝒥_X]`$ $`=`$ $`𝒥_{\xi X},`$
$`[𝒥_X,𝒥_Y]`$ $`=`$ $`𝒥_{[X,Y]}{\displaystyle \frac{c_5}{2\pi i}}\delta ^{ab}{\displaystyle 𝑑t\dot{q}^\rho (t)_\rho X_a(q(t))Y_b(q(t))},`$
$`[L_f,_\xi ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c_3}{4\pi i}}{\displaystyle 𝑑t(\ddot{f}(t)i\dot{f}(t))_\mu \xi ^\mu (q(t))},`$ (2.6)
$`[L_f,𝒥_X]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`[L_f,L_g]`$ $`=`$ $`L_{[f,g]}+{\displaystyle \frac{c_4}{24\pi i}}{\displaystyle 𝑑t(\ddot{f}(t)\dot{g}(t)\dot{f}(t)g(t))},`$
$`[_\xi ,q^\mu (t)]`$ $`=`$ $`\xi ^\mu (q(t)),`$
$`[L_f,q^\mu (t)]`$ $`=`$ $`f(t)\dot{q}^\mu (t),`$
$`[𝒥_X,q^\mu (t)]`$ $`=`$ $`[q^\mu (s),q^\nu (t)]=0,`$
extended to all of $`Obs(N)`$ by Leibniz’ rule and linearity. The numbers $`c_1c_5`$ are called abelian charges. In previous papers, I considered a slightly more complicated extension which depends on three additional abelian charges $`c_6c_8`$, but they vanish automatically when $`𝔤`$ is semisimple. The DGRO algebra is the natural higher-dimensional generalization of the Virasoro and affine Kac-Moody algebras.

## 3 Koszul-Tate cohomology

### 3.1 Classical representations of $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(N)𝔪𝔞𝔭(N,𝔤)`$

Let $`J^a=(J_\beta ^{\alpha a})`$ and $`T_\nu ^\mu =(T_{\beta \nu }^{\alpha \mu })`$ be matrices satisfying $`𝔤`$ and $`gl(N)`$, respectively, where the brackets in $`gl(N)`$ are

$`[T_\nu ^\mu ,T_\sigma ^\rho ]=\delta _\nu ^\rho T_\sigma ^\mu \delta _\sigma ^\mu T_\nu ^\rho .`$ (3.7)
It is straightforward to verify that $`_\xi =\xi ^\mu _\mu +_\nu \xi ^\mu T_\mu ^\nu `$ and $`𝒥_X=X_a(x)J^a`$ satisfy $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(N)𝔪𝔞𝔭(N,𝔤)`$. This implies that its modules are tensor densities valued in $`𝔤`$ modules. The $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(N)𝔪𝔞𝔭(N,𝔤)`$ action is given by

$`[_\xi ,\varphi _\alpha (x)]`$ $`=`$ $`\xi ^\mu (x)_\mu \varphi _\alpha (x)_\nu \xi ^\mu (x)T_{\alpha \mu }^{\beta \nu }\varphi _\beta (x),`$
$`[𝒥_X,\varphi _\alpha (x)]`$ $`=`$ $`X_a(x)J_\alpha ^{\beta a}\varphi _\beta (x),`$
Let $`𝒬=𝒬(\varphi )`$ denote the module spanned by all $`\varphi _\alpha (x)`$, $`x^N`$. In physics terms, $`𝒬`$ is our configuration space.

### 3.2  KT complex for functions of $`x`$

Clearly, $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(N)𝔪𝔞𝔭(N,𝔤)`$ acts not only on $`𝒬`$ but also on the space of local functionals on $`𝒬`$; denote this space $`C(𝒬)`$. This module is highly reducible; eg., $`C(𝒬)=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}C_n(𝒬)`$, where $`C_n(𝒬)`$ consists of functionals that are homogeneous of degree $`n`$ in $`\varphi `$.

An interesting submodule of $`C(𝒬)`$ can be constructed as follows. Let $`S=d^Nx\mathrm{\pounds }(\varphi )`$ be an invariant action (in the sense of physics) and $`\mathrm{\pounds }(\varphi )`$ the associated Lagrangian. The Lagrangian is a local functional of $`\varphi `$, i.e. a function of $`\varphi _\alpha (x)`$ and its derivatives $`_\mu \varphi _\alpha (x)`$, $`_\mu _\nu \varphi _\alpha (x)`$, etc., up to some finite order, all evaluated at the same point $`x`$. In practice, the Lagrangian only depends on first-order derivatives. The Euler-Lagrange (EL) equations,

$`^\alpha (x){\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta \varphi _\alpha (x)}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\pounds }}{\varphi _\alpha }}(x)_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\pounds }}{_\mu \varphi _\alpha }}(x)=0,`$ (3.9)
generate an ideal $`C(𝒬)`$, and the factor space $`C(𝒬)/`$ is still a $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(N)𝔪𝔞𝔭(N,𝔤)`$ module due to the invariance assuption. This factor space is most conveniently described as a resolution of a certain Koszul-Tate (KT) complex. For each field $`\varphi _\alpha (x)`$, introduce an antifield $`\varphi ^\alpha (x)`$ transforming as the corresponding EL equation $`^\alpha (x)`$. We then consider the extended configuration space $`𝒬^{}`$ as the span of $`\varphi _\alpha (x)`$ and $`\varphi ^\alpha (x)`$. Now consider the space of local functionals on $`𝒬^{}`$: $`C(𝒬^{})=C(𝒬)C(\varphi ^{})`$, where $`C(\varphi ^{})`$ denotes the space of local functionals of $`\varphi ^{}(x)`$. If $`\varphi `$ is bosonic ($`C(𝒬)`$ consists of symmetric functionals), then $`\varphi ^{}`$ is fermionic ($`C(\varphi ^{})`$ consists of anti-symmetric functionals), and vice versa.

Define the anti-field number by $`\mathrm{afn}\varphi _\alpha =0`$, $`\mathrm{afn}\varphi ^\alpha =1`$. $`C(𝒬^{})`$ can be decomposed into subspaces $`C^g(𝒬^{})`$ of fixed antifield number $`g`$:

$`C(𝒬^{})=_{g=0}^{\mathrm{}}C(𝒬)C^g(\varphi ^{})_{g=0}^{\mathrm{}}C^g(𝒬^{}).`$ (3.10)
The KT complex takes the form

$`0\stackrel{\delta }{}C^0(𝒬^{})\stackrel{\delta }{}C^1(𝒬^{})\stackrel{\delta }{}C^2(𝒬^{})\stackrel{\delta }{}\mathrm{}`$ (3.11)
where the KT differential $`\delta `$ is defined by

$`\delta \varphi _\alpha (x)=0,\delta \varphi ^\alpha (x)=^\alpha (x).`$ (3.12)
By a standard argument , the cohomology groups $`H^g(\delta )=0`$ unless $`g=0`$, and $`H^0(\delta )=C(𝒬)/`$. $`H^0(\delta )`$ can be thought of as the space $`C(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ of functions on the stationary surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, i.e. the set of solutions to the EL equations, embedded as a submanifold in $`𝒬`$.

Introduce canonical momenta $`\pi ^\alpha (x)=\delta /\delta \varphi _\alpha (x)`$ and $`\pi _\alpha ^{}(x)=\delta /\delta \varphi ^\alpha (x)`$ satisfying

$`[\pi ^\alpha (x),\varphi _\beta (y)]=[\pi _\beta ^{}(x),\varphi ^\alpha (y)]=\delta _\beta ^\alpha \delta (xy),`$ (3.13)
and all other brackets vanish. The antifield number is $`\mathrm{afn}\pi ^\alpha =0`$, $`\mathrm{afn}\pi _\alpha ^{}=1`$. The KT differential can then be written as a bracket: $`\delta F=[Q,F]`$, where

$`Q={\displaystyle d^Nx^\alpha (x)\pi _\alpha ^{}(x)}.`$ (3.14)
Let $`𝒫`$ be the phase space corresponding to $`𝒬`$, i.e. the span of $`\varphi _\alpha (x)`$ and $`\pi ^\alpha (x)`$, and let $`𝒫^{}`$ be the enlarged phase space, i.e. the span of $`\varphi _\alpha (x)`$, $`\varphi ^\alpha (x)`$, $`\pi ^\alpha (x)`$ and $`\pi _\alpha ^{}(x)`$. The expression (3.14) defines a differential, also denoted by $`Q`$, which acts on the space $`C(𝒫^{})`$ of local functionals on $`𝒫^{}`$. Note that $`C(𝒫^{})`$ is a non-commutative algebra, which can be thought of as the algebra of differential operators on $`𝒬^{}`$. The decomposition into subspaces of fixed antifield number now extends indefinitely in both directions:

$`C(𝒫^{})=_{g=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}C^g(𝒫^{}).`$ (3.15)
Accordingly, we obtain the two-sided complex

$`\mathrm{}\stackrel{Q}{}C^1(𝒫^{})\stackrel{Q}{}C^0(𝒫^{})\stackrel{Q}{}C^1(𝒫^{})\stackrel{Q}{}\mathrm{}`$ (3.16)
The cohomology group $`H^0(Q)`$ can be thought of as the space of differential operators on the stationary surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. However, I do not know if (3.16) is a resolution, i.e. if the other cohomology groups vanish.

There is a problem: the EL equations may be dependent, i.e. there may be relations of the form

$`r^a(x)=r_\alpha ^a(x)^\alpha (x)0,`$ (3.17)
where $`r_\alpha ^a(x)`$ is some functional of $`\varphi _\alpha (x)`$. Then $`H^1(Q)0`$, because $`r_\alpha ^a(x)\varphi ^\alpha (x)`$ is KT closed: $`[Q,r_\alpha ^a(x)\varphi ^\alpha (x)]=0`$. The standard way to kill this unwanted cohomology is to introduce a second-order antifield $`b^a(x)`$. Let $`[Q,b^a(x)]=r_\alpha ^a(x)\varphi ^\alpha (x)`$, which makes the latter expression exact and thus makes it vanish in cohomology. To obtain the explicit expression for $`Q`$, introduce the second-order antifield momentum $`c_a(x)`$, with the non-zero bracket $`[c_a(x),b^b(x)]=\delta _a^b\delta (xy)`$. The full KT differential is now

$`Q={\displaystyle d^Nx(^\alpha (x)\pi _\alpha ^{}(x)+r_\alpha ^a(x)\varphi ^\alpha (x)c_a(x))}.`$ (3.18)
There can in principle be relations also among the $`r_\alpha ^a(x)`$ of the form $`Z^A(x)=Z_a^A(x)r_\alpha ^a(x)0`$. If so, it is necessary to introduce higher-order antifields to eliminate the unwanted cohomology. However, we will assume that the gauge symmetries are irreducible, i.e. that no non-trivial higher-order relations exist, since this is the case in all experimentally established theories of physics.

The situation is summarized in the following table:

$`\begin{array}{cccc}& & & \\ g& \text{Field}& \text{Momentum}& \text{Ideal}\hfill \\ & & & \\ 0& \varphi _\alpha (x)& \pi ^\alpha (x)& \hfill \\ 1& \varphi ^\alpha (x)& \pi _\alpha ^{}(x)& ^\alpha (x)0\hfill \\ 2& b^a(x)& c_a(x)& r_\alpha ^a(x)\varphi ^\alpha (x)0\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.23)
### 3.3  KT complex for functions of $`x`$ and $`t`$

In  Fock representations of $`DGRO(N,𝔤)`$ were constructed. Its classical modules consist of $`𝔤`$-valued tensor fields which also transform as densities under reparametrizations:

$`[_\xi ,\varphi _\alpha (x,t)]`$ $`=`$ $`\xi ^\mu (x)_\mu \varphi _\alpha (x,t)_\nu \xi ^\mu (x)T_{\alpha \mu }^{\beta \nu }\varphi _\beta (x,t),`$
$`[𝒥_X,\varphi _\alpha (x,t)]`$ $`=`$ $`X_a(x)J_\alpha ^{\beta a}\varphi _\beta (x,t),`$ (3.24)
$`[L_f,\varphi _\alpha (x,t)]`$ $`=`$ $`f(t)_t\varphi _\alpha (x,t)\lambda (\dot{f}(t)if(t))\varphi _\alpha (x,t).`$
Denote the linear span of $`\varphi _\alpha (x,t)`$ by $`𝒬(t)`$ and the corresponding phase space by $`𝒫(t)`$. The EL equations now read $`^\alpha (x,t)=0`$; they are obtained from (3.9) by replacing $`\varphi _\alpha (x)`$ by $`\varphi _\alpha (x,t)`$ everywhere. The KT charge (3.18) is replaced by

$`Q={\displaystyle d^Nx𝑑t(^\alpha (x,t)\pi _\alpha ^{}(x,t)+r_\alpha ^a(x,t)\varphi ^\alpha (x,t)c_a(x,t))}.`$ (3.25)
Since the space $`C(𝒬(t))`$ is larger than $`C(𝒬)`$, we must factor out a larger ideal to obtain a resolution of the same space $`C(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. It is easy to see that the necessary additional requirement is $`_t\varphi _\alpha (x,t)0`$; to implement this constraint in cohomology, we introduce the antifield $`\overline{\varphi }_\alpha (x,t)`$ with canonical momentum $`\overline{\pi }{}_{}{}^{\alpha }(x,t)`$. Since $`^\alpha (x,t)`$ depends on $`\varphi _\alpha (x,t)`$ only, we now have $`_t^\alpha (x,t)=0`$, which generates unwanted cohomology. This is eliminated by introducing a second-order antifield $`\overline{\varphi }{}_{}{}^{\alpha }(x,t)`$. Finally, the other second-order antifield $`b^a(x,t)`$, associated with the gauge symmetry, is now reducible. Correct this by introducing a third-order antifield $`\overline{b}{}_{}{}^{a}(x,t)`$. The situation is summarized in the following table:

$`\begin{array}{cccc}& & & \\ g& \text{Field}& \text{Momentum}& \text{Ideal}\hfill \\ & & & \\ 0& \varphi _\alpha (x,t)& \pi ^\alpha (x,t)& \hfill \\ 1& \varphi ^\alpha (x,t)& \pi _\alpha ^{}(x,t)& ^\alpha (x,t)0\hfill \\ 1& \overline{\varphi }_\alpha (x,t)& \overline{\pi }{}_{}{}^{\alpha }(x,t)& _t\varphi _\alpha (x,t)0\hfill \\ 2& b^a(x,t)& c_a(x,t)& r_\alpha ^a(x,t)\varphi ^\alpha (x,t)0\hfill \\ 2& \overline{\varphi }{}_{}{}^{\alpha }(x,t)& \overline{\pi }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}(x,t)& _t\varphi ^\alpha (x,t)0\hfill \\ 3& \overline{b}{}_{}{}^{a}(x,t)& \overline{c}_a(x,t)& _tb^a(x,t)0\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.33)
The full KT differential becomes

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^Nxdt(^\alpha (x,t)\pi _\alpha ^{}(x,t)+r_\alpha ^a(x,t)\varphi ^\alpha (x,t)c_a(x,t)`$
$`+_t\varphi _\alpha (x,t)\overline{\pi }{}_{}{}^{\alpha }(x,t)+_t\varphi ^\alpha (x,t)\overline{\pi }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}(x,t)+_tb^a(x,t)\overline{c}_a(x,t)).`$
As before, we obtain resolutions of $`C(𝒬(t))/(t)=C(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ and $`C(𝒫(t))/(t)`$, where $`(t)`$ is the totality of all relevant ideals.

### 3.4 KT complex in jet space

The crucial idea in  is to introduce a priviledged curve $`q^\mu (t)^N`$ in spacetime (“the observer’s trajectory”) and to expand all fields and antifields in a Taylor series around this curve, before introducing canonical momenta. Hence e.g.,

$`\varphi _\alpha (x,t)={\displaystyle \underset{|𝐦|p}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝐦!}}\varphi _{\alpha ,𝐦}(t)(xq(t))^𝐦,`$ (3.35)
where $`𝐦=(m_1,m_2,\mathrm{},m_N)`$, all $`m_\mu 0`$, is a multi-index of length $`|𝐦|=_{\mu =1}^Nm_\mu `$ and $`𝐦!=m_1!m_2!\mathrm{}m_N!`$. Denote by $`\mu `$ a unit vector in the $`\mu ^{\mathrm{th}}`$ direction, so that $`𝐦+\mu =(m_1,\mathrm{},m_\mu +1,\mathrm{},m_N)`$, and let

$`\varphi _{\alpha ,𝐦}(t)=_𝐦\varphi _\alpha (q(t),t)=\underset{m_1}{\underset{}{_1.._1}}..\underset{m_N}{\underset{}{_N.._N}}\varphi _\alpha (q(t),t)`$ (3.36)
be the $`|𝐦|^{\mathrm{th}}`$ order derivative of $`\varphi _\alpha (x,t)`$ on the observer’s trajectory $`q^\mu (t)`$. Such objects transform as

$`[_\xi ,\varphi _{\alpha ,𝐦}(t)]`$ $`=`$ $`_𝐦([_\xi ,\varphi _\alpha (q(t),t)])+[_\xi ,q^\mu (t)]_\mu _𝐦\varphi _\alpha (q(t),t)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{|𝐧||𝐦|}{}}T_{\alpha 𝐦}^{\beta 𝐧}(\xi (q(t)))\varphi _{\beta ,𝐧}(t),`$
$`[𝒥_X,\varphi _{\alpha ,𝐦}(t)]`$ $`=`$ $`_𝐦([𝒥_X,\varphi _\alpha (q(t),t)])`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{|𝐧||𝐦|}{}}J_{\alpha 𝐦}^{\beta 𝐧}(X(q(t)))\varphi _{\beta ,𝐧}(t),`$
$`[L_f,\varphi _{\alpha ,𝐦}(t)]`$ $`=`$ $`f(t)\dot{\varphi }_{\alpha ,𝐦}(t)\lambda (\dot{f}(t)if(t))\varphi _{\alpha ,𝐦}(t),`$
where

$`T_𝐧^𝐦(\xi )(T_{\beta 𝐧}^{\alpha 𝐦}(\xi ))`$
$`=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝐧}{𝐦}}\right)_{𝐧𝐦+\nu }\xi ^\mu T_\mu ^\nu +\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝐧}{𝐦\mu }}\right)_{𝐧𝐦+\mu }\xi ^\mu \delta _𝐧^{𝐦\mu }\xi ^\mu ,`$ (3.38)
$`J_𝐧^𝐦(X)(J_{\beta 𝐧}^{\alpha 𝐦}(X))=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝐧}{𝐦}}\right)_{𝐧𝐦}X_aJ^a,`$
and

$`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝐦}{𝐧}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{𝐦!}{𝐧!(𝐦𝐧)!}}=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m_1}{n_1}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m_2}{n_2}}\right)\mathrm{}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m_N}{n_N}}\right).`$ (3.39)
Here and henceforth we use the convention that a sum over a multi-index runs over all values of length at most $`p`$. Since $`T_𝐦^𝐧(\xi )`$ and $`J_𝐦^𝐧(X)`$ vanish whenever $`|𝐧|>|𝐦|`$, the sums over $`𝐧`$ in (3.4) are in fact further restricted.

Denote the space spanned by $`q^\mu (t)`$ and $`\{\varphi _{\alpha ,𝐦}(t)\}_{|𝐦|p}`$ by $`J^p𝒬`$. $`\varphi _{\alpha ,𝐦}(t)`$ will be referred to as a $`p`$-jet, where $`p`$ is the trunctation order222$`p`$-jets are usually defined as an equivalence class of functions: two functions are equivalent if all derivatives up to order $`p`$, evaluated at $`q^\mu `$, agree. However, each class has a unique representative which is a polynomial of order at most $`p`$, namely the Taylor expansion around $`q^\mu `$, so we may canonically identify jets with Taylor series. Since $`q^\mu (t)`$ depends on a parameter $`t`$, we deal in fact with trajectories in jet space, but these will also be called jets for brevity.. This space is not a $`DGRO(N,𝔤)`$ module, because diffeomorphisms act non-linearly on the trajectory, as can be seen in (2.6). However, the space $`C(J^p𝒬)`$ of functionals on $`J^p𝒬`$ (local in $`t`$) is a module, because the action on a $`p`$-jet can never produce a jet of order higher than $`p`$. Equivalently, there is a non-linear realization of the DGRO algebra on the jet space $`J^p𝒬`$.

Expand also the EL equations and the anti-fields in multi-dimensional Taylor series. Set $`_{,𝐦}^\alpha (t)=_𝐦^\alpha (q(t),t)`$ and $`\varphi _{,𝐦}^\alpha (t)=_𝐦\varphi ^\alpha (q(t),t)`$. What must be noted is that we can only define $`_{,𝐦}^\alpha (t)`$ for $`|𝐦|po_\alpha `$, where $`o_\alpha `$ is the order of the EL equation $`^\alpha (x)`$. This is because $`_{,𝐦}^\alpha (t)`$ is a function of $`\varphi _{\alpha ,𝐧}(t)`$ for all $`|𝐧||𝐦|+o_\alpha `$, and $`\varphi _{\alpha ,𝐧}(t)`$ is undefined for $`|𝐧|>p`$. Similarly, the relations (3.17) and the corresponding second-order anti-fields $`b^a(x)`$ give rise to the jets $`r_{,𝐦}^a(t)=_𝐦(r_\alpha ^a(q(t),t)\varphi ^\alpha (q(t),t))`$ and $`b_{,𝐦}^a(t)=_𝐦b^a(q(t),t)`$, respectively. If the relations $`r_\alpha ^a`$ are of order $`\varsigma _a`$ in the derivatives, $`r_{,𝐦}^a(t)`$ and $`b_{,𝐦}^a(t)`$ is only defined for $`|𝐦|p\varsigma _a`$.

The conditions of type $`_t\varphi _\alpha (x,t)`$ give rise to additional constraints:

$`D_t\varphi _{\alpha ,𝐦}(t)`$ $``$ $`\dot{\varphi }_{\alpha ,𝐦}(t)\dot{q}^\mu (t)\varphi _{\alpha ,𝐦+\mu }(t)0,`$
$`D_t\varphi _{,𝐦}^\alpha (t)`$ $``$ $`\dot{\varphi }_{,𝐦}^\alpha (t)\dot{q}^\mu (t)\varphi _{,𝐦+\mu }^\alpha (t)0,`$ (3.40)
$`D_tb_{,𝐦}^a(t)`$ $``$ $`\dot{b}_{,𝐦}^a(t)\dot{q}^\mu (t)b_{,𝐦+\mu }^a(t)0.`$
These conditions are eliminated in cohomology by the introduction of further (second and third order) anti-fields $`\overline{\varphi }_{\alpha ,𝐦}(t)`$, $`\overline{\varphi }{}_{,𝐦}{}^{\alpha }(t)`$ and $`\overline{b}{}_{,𝐦}{}^{a}(t)`$. The conditions in (3.40), and hence the barred antifields, are only defined for one order less than the corresponding unbarred antifield, since $`|𝐦+\mu |=|𝐦|+1`$.

Add dual coordinates (jet momenta) $`p_\mu (t)`$, $`\pi ^{\alpha ,𝐦}(t)`$, $`\pi _\alpha ^{,𝐦}(t)`$, $`c_a^{,𝐦}(t)`$, $`\overline{\pi }{}_{}{}^{\alpha ,𝐦}(t)`$, $`\overline{\pi }{}_{\alpha }{}^{,𝐦}(t)`$ and $`\overline{c}{}_{a}{}^{,𝐦}(t))`$, which satisfy

$`[p_\mu (s),q^\nu (t)]`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _\mu ^\nu \delta (st),`$
$`[\pi ^{\alpha ,𝐦}(s),\varphi _{\beta ,𝐧}(t)]`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _\beta ^\alpha \delta _𝐧^𝐦\delta (st),`$
$`[\pi _\alpha ^{,𝐦}(s),\varphi _{,𝐧}^\beta (t)]`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _\alpha ^\beta \delta _𝐧^𝐦\delta (st),`$
$`[c_a^{,𝐦}(s),b_{,𝐧}^b(t)]`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _a^b\delta _𝐧^𝐦\delta (st),`$ (3.41)
$`[\overline{\pi }{}_{}{}^{\alpha ,𝐦}(s),\overline{\varphi }_{\beta ,𝐧}(t)]`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _\beta ^\alpha \delta _𝐧^𝐦\delta (st),`$
$`[\overline{\pi }{}_{\alpha }{}^{,𝐦}(s),\overline{\varphi }{}_{,𝐧}{}^{\beta }(t)]`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _\alpha ^\beta \delta _𝐧^𝐦\delta (st),`$
$`[\overline{c}{}_{a}{}^{,𝐦}(s),\overline{b}{}_{,𝐧}{}^{b}(t)]`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _a^b\delta _𝐧^𝐦\delta (st),`$
and all other brackets vanish. Denote the phase space spanned by all jets and jet momenta by $`J^p𝒫^{}`$ and the space of local functionals on $`J^p𝒫^{}`$ by $`C(J^p𝒫^{})`$; alternatively, this space may be considered as the differential operators on $`J^p𝒬^{}`$. The KT differential acting on the space of $`C(J^p𝒫^{})`$ becomes

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }dt({\displaystyle \underset{|𝐦|po_\alpha }{}}_{,𝐦}^\alpha (t)\pi _\alpha ^{,𝐦}(t)+{\displaystyle \underset{|𝐦|p\varsigma _a}{}}r_{,𝐦}^a(t)c_a^{,𝐦}(t)`$ (3.42)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{|𝐦|p1}{}}D_t\varphi _{\alpha ,𝐦}(t)\overline{\pi }{}_{}{}^{\alpha ,𝐦}(t)+{\displaystyle \underset{|𝐦|po_\alpha 1}{}}D_t\varphi _{,𝐦}^\alpha (t)\overline{\pi }{}_{\alpha }{}^{,𝐦}(t)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{|𝐦|p\varsigma _a1}{}}D_tb_{,𝐦}^a(x,t)\overline{c}{}_{a}{}^{,𝐦}(x,t)).`$
The situation is summarized in the following table:

$`\begin{array}{ccccc}& & & & \\ g& \text{Field}& \text{Momentum}& \text{Order}& \text{Ideal}\\ & & & & \\ 0& \varphi _{\alpha ,𝐦}(t)& \pi ^{\alpha ,𝐦}(t)& p& \\ 1& \varphi _{,𝐦}^\alpha (t)& \pi _\alpha ^{,𝐦}(t)& po_\alpha & _{,𝐦}^\alpha (t)0\\ 1& \overline{\varphi }_{\alpha ,𝐦}(t)& \overline{\pi }{}_{}{}^{\alpha ,𝐦}(t)& p1& D_t\varphi _{\alpha ,𝐦}(t)0\\ 2& b_{,𝐦}^a(t)& c_a^{,𝐦}(t)& p\varsigma _a& r_{,𝐦}^a(t)0\\ 2& \overline{\varphi }{}_{,𝐦}{}^{\alpha }(t)& \overline{\pi }{}_{\alpha }{}^{,𝐦}(t)& po_\alpha 1& D_t\varphi _{,𝐦}^\alpha (t)0\\ 3& \overline{b}{}_{,𝐦}{}^{a}(t)& \overline{c}{}_{a}{}^{,𝐦}(t)& p\varsigma _a1& D_tb_{,𝐦}^a(t)0\end{array}`$ (3.50)
### 3.5 KT complex for the observer’s trajectory

Until now we have not been very explicit about the set of fields. In this subsection we will assume that among the fields $`\varphi _\alpha (x)`$ is a metric $`g_{\mu \nu }(x)`$, either as a fundamental field or expressed in terms of vielbeine. We can then construct the following derived quantites:

1. The Levi-Cività connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \tau }^\nu (x,t)=\frac{1}{2}g^{\nu \rho }(x,t)(_\sigma g_{\rho \tau }(x,t)+_\tau g_{\sigma \rho }(x,t)_\rho g_{\sigma \tau }(x,t))`$.
2. The einbein $`e(t)=\sqrt{g_{\mu \nu }(q(t),t)\dot{q}^\mu (t)\dot{q}^\nu (t)}`$.
3. The reparametrization connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)=e^1(t)\dot{e}(t)`$.

Consider the geodesic operator

$`𝒢_\mu (t)=e^1(t)g_{\mu \nu }(t)(\ddot{q}^\nu (t)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)\dot{q}^\nu (t)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \tau }^\nu (t)\dot{q}^\sigma (t)\dot{q}^\tau (t)),`$ (3.51)
where $`g_{\mu \nu }(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \tau }^\nu (t)`$ are the zero-jets corresponding to the metric and Levi-Cività connection, respectively. If we define the proper time derivative by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{d\tau }}(t)=e^1(t){\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}(e(t)\varphi (t)),`$ (3.52)
(3.51) takes on the suggestive form

$`𝒢_\mu (t)=g_{\mu \nu }(t)({\displaystyle \frac{d^2q^\nu }{d\tau ^2}}(t)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \tau }^\nu (t){\displaystyle \frac{dq^\sigma }{d\tau }}(t){\displaystyle \frac{dq^\tau }{d\tau }}(t)).`$ (3.53)
It is straightforward to check that the geodesic equation $`𝒢_\mu (t)=0`$ transforms homogeneously under $`DGRO(N,𝔤)`$:

$`[_\xi ,𝒢_\nu (t)]`$ $`=`$ $`_\nu \xi ^\mu (q(t))𝒢_\mu (t),`$
$`[𝒥_X,𝒢_\nu (t)]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3.54)
$`[L_f,𝒢_\nu (t)]`$ $`=`$ $`f(t)\dot{𝒢}_\nu (t)\dot{f}(t)𝒢_\nu (t).`$
It can therefore be used to eliminate the observer’s trajectory, apart from initial conditions. To implement this constraint in cohomology, we introduce the trajectory antifield $`q_\mu ^{}(t)`$, with momentum $`p^\mu (t)`$. They obey the non-zero anticommutation relation

$`[p^\mu (s),q_\nu ^{}(t)]=\delta _\nu ^\mu \delta (st),`$ (3.55)
which is fermionic since $`𝒢_\nu (t)`$ is bosonic. The contribution to the KT differential is

$`Q={\displaystyle 𝑑t𝒢_\mu (t)p^\mu (t)}.`$ (3.56)
## 4 Quantization

The KT complexes constructed in the previous section were all classical in the sense that the abelian charges of the DGRO algebra vanish. To quantize the theory, we introduce a Fock vacuum annihilated by all negative Fourier modes; see  for an explicit description on how this is carried out. To avoid ill defined expressions acting on the Fock vacuum, all expressions must be normal ordered with respect to frequency; this is denoted by double dots ($`::`$). It follows immediately from (3.4) that the following operators define a realization of $`DGRO(N,𝔤)`$ in Fock space:

$`_\xi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }dt\{:\xi ^\mu (q(t))p_\mu (t):+{\displaystyle \underset{|𝐧||𝐦|}{}}T_{\alpha 𝐦}^{\beta 𝐧}(\xi (q(t))):\varphi _{\beta ,𝐧}(t)\pi ^{\alpha ,𝐦}(t):\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }dt\{:\xi ^\mu (q(t))p_\mu (t):\xi ^\mu (q(t))P_\mu (t)+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{|𝐧||𝐦|p}{}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝐦}{𝐧}}\right)_{𝐦𝐧}\xi ^\mu (q(t))E_{𝐧+\mu }^𝐦(t)\}+T_{d\xi },`$
$`T_{d\xi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑t\underset{|𝐧||𝐦|p}{}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝐦}{𝐧}\right)_{𝐦𝐧+\nu }\xi ^\mu (q(t))T_{𝐧\mu }^{𝐦\nu }(t)},`$ (4.57)
$`J_X`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑t\underset{|𝐧||𝐦|}{}J_{\alpha 𝐦}^{\beta 𝐧}(X(q(t)))}:\varphi _{\beta ,𝐧}(t)\pi ^{\alpha ,𝐦}(t):`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑t\underset{|𝐧||𝐦|p}{}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝐦}{𝐧}\right)_{𝐦𝐧}X_a(q(t))J_𝐧^{𝐦a}(t)},`$
$`L_f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑tf(t)L(t)}+\lambda (\dot{f}(t)if(t))E(t),`$
where

$`P_\mu (t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{|𝐦|p}{}}E_{𝐦+\mu }^𝐦(t),`$
$`L(t)`$ $`=`$ $`:\dot{q}^\mu (t)p_\mu (t):+F(t),`$
$`E_𝐧^𝐦(t)`$ $`=`$ $`:\pi ^{\alpha ,𝐦}(t)\varphi _{\alpha ,𝐧}(t):,`$
$`J_𝐧^{𝐦a}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`J_\alpha ^{\beta a}:\pi ^{\alpha ,𝐦}(t)\varphi _{\beta ,𝐧}(t):,`$
$`T_{𝐧\mu }^{𝐦\nu }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`T_{\alpha \nu }^{\beta \mu }:\pi ^{\alpha ,𝐦}(t)\varphi _{\beta ,𝐧}(t):,`$
$`F(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{|𝐦|p}{}}:\pi ^{\alpha ,𝐦}(t)\dot{\varphi }_{\alpha ,𝐦}(t):`$
and $`T_\nu ^\mu =(T_{\beta \nu }^{\alpha \mu })`$ and $`J^a=(J_\beta ^{\alpha a})`$ are matrices that generate $`gl(N)`$ and $`𝔤`$, respectively. The currents in (LABEL:Freal) satisfy an algebra of the form

$`[T_{𝐧\nu }^{𝐦\mu }(s),T_{𝐬\sigma }^{𝐫\rho }(t)]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}(k_1\delta _\sigma ^\mu \delta _\nu ^\rho +k_2\delta _\nu ^\mu \delta _\sigma ^\rho )\delta _𝐬^𝐦\delta _𝐧^𝐫\dot{\delta }(st),`$
$`[T_{𝐧\nu }^{𝐦\mu }(s),E_𝐬^𝐫(t)]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_3}{2\pi i}}\delta _\nu ^\mu \delta _𝐬^𝐦\delta _𝐧^𝐫\dot{\delta }(st),`$
$`[T_{𝐧\nu }^{𝐦\mu }(s),J_𝐬^{𝐫b}(t)]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}+0,`$
$`[J_𝐧^{𝐦a}(s),J_𝐬^{𝐫b}(t)]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_5}{2\pi i}}\delta ^{ab}\delta _𝐬^𝐦\delta _𝐧^𝐫\dot{\delta }(st),`$
$`[J_𝐧^{𝐦a}(s),E_𝐬^𝐫(t)]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}+0,`$
$`[E_𝐧^𝐦(s),E_𝐬^𝐫(t)]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_4}{2\pi i}}\delta _𝐬^𝐦\delta _𝐧^𝐫\dot{\delta }(st),`$
$`[F(s),F(t)]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{24\pi i}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N+p}{N}}\right)(\stackrel{\dot{}\dot{}\dot{}}{\delta }(st)+\dot{\delta }(st)),`$
$`[F(s),E_𝐧^𝐦(t)]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{d_0}{4\pi i}}\delta _𝐧^𝐦(\ddot{\delta }(st)+i\dot{\delta }(st)),`$
$`[F(s),J_𝐧^{𝐦a}(t)]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}+0,`$
$`[F(s),T_{𝐧\nu }^{𝐦\mu }(t)]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{d_1}{4\pi i}}\delta _\nu ^\mu \delta _𝐧^𝐦(\ddot{\delta }(st)+i\dot{\delta }(st)).`$
Here I have not written down regular terms explicitly; they form an open algebra which is described in .

Let $`\varrho `$ be a $`gl(N)`$ representation and $`M`$ a $`𝔤`$ representation. Define numbers $`u`$,$`v`$,$`w`$,$`x`$,$`y`$ by

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}=x,\hfill & & \mathrm{tr}T_\nu ^\mu T_\tau ^\sigma =u\delta _\tau ^\mu \delta _\nu ^\sigma +v\delta _\nu ^\mu \delta _\tau ^\sigma ,\hfill \\ \mathrm{tr}T_\nu ^\mu =w\delta _\nu ^\mu ,\hfill & & \mathrm{tr}J^aJ^b=y\delta ^{ab},\hfill \end{array}`$ (4.62)
where the trace is taken in the $`𝔤gl(N)`$ representation $`M\varrho `$. The relation to the numbers $`k_0(\varrho )`$, $`k_1(\varrho )`$, $`k_2(\varrho )`$, and $`y_M`$ defined in  is

$`u=k_1(\varrho )dimM,`$ $`x=dim\varrho dimM,`$
$`v=k_2(\varrho )dimM,`$ $`y=dim\varrho y_M,`$ (4.63)
$`w=k_0(\varrho )dimM,`$
provided that $`\varrho `$ and $`M`$ are irreducible. The values of the abelian charges were given in , Theorems 1 and 3, and again in , Theorem 1. They depend on the central extensions in (LABEL:KM):

$`c_1`$ $`=`$ $`1k_1\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N+p}{N}}\right)k_4\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N+p+1}{N+2}}\right),`$
$`c_2`$ $`=`$ $`k_2\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N+p}{N}}\right)2k_3\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N+p}{N+1}}\right)k_4\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N+p}{N+2}}\right),`$
$`c_3`$ $`=`$ $`1+d_1\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N+p}{N}}\right)+d_0\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N+p}{N+1}}\right),`$ (4.64)
$`c_4`$ $`=`$ $`2Nc\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N+p}{N}}\right),`$
$`c_5`$ $`=`$ $`k_5\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N+p}{N}}\right).`$
For the Fock module, we have

$`k_1=u,k_2=v,k_3=w,k_4=x,`$
(4.65)
$`k_5=y,d_0=x,d_1=w,c=x.`$
The upper signs apply to bosons and the lower signs to fermions. Note that I have used the assumption that $`𝔤`$ is semisimple to put $`k_6=k_7=k_8=0`$.

The $`DGRO(N,𝔤)`$ representations obtained in this fashion are well defined for all finite values of the jet order $`p`$. In order to reconstruct the original field by means of the Taylor series (3.35), one must take the limit $`p\mathrm{}`$. A necessary condition for taking this limit is that the abelian charges have a finite limit. Taken at face value, the prospects for succeeding appear bleak. When $`p`$ is large, $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m+p}{n}\right)p^n/n!`$, so the abelian charges (4.64) diverge; the worst case is $`c_1c_2p^{N+2}/(N+2)!`$, which diverges in all dimensions $`N>2`$. In  I devised a way out of this problem: consider a more general realization by taking the direct sum of operators corresponding to different values of the jet order $`p`$. Take the sum of $`r+1`$ terms like those in (LABEL:Freal), with $`p`$ replaced by $`p`$, $`p1`$, …, $`pr`$, respectively, and with $`\varrho `$ and $`M`$ replaced by $`\varrho ^{(i)}`$ and $`M^{(i)}`$ in the $`pi`$ term.

Such a sum of contributions arises naturally from the KT complex, because the antifields are only defined up to an order smaller than $`p`$ (e.g. $`po_\alpha `$ or $`p\varsigma _a`$). Summing the contributions from the various entries in subsections 3.4 and 3.5, (4.57) is replaced by

$`_\xi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }dt\{:\xi ^\mu (q(t))p_\mu (t):_\nu \xi ^\mu (q(t)):q_\mu ^{}(t)p^\nu (t):+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{|𝐧||𝐦|p}{}}T_{\alpha 𝐦}^{\beta 𝐧}(\xi (q(t))):\varphi _{\beta ,𝐧}(t)\pi ^{\alpha ,𝐦}(t):+`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{|𝐧||𝐦|po_\alpha }{}}T_{\alpha 𝐦}^{\beta 𝐧}(\xi (q(t))):\varphi _{,𝐧}^\alpha (t)\pi _\beta ^{,𝐦}(t):+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{|𝐧||𝐦|p\varsigma _a}{}}T_{a𝐦}^{b𝐧}(\xi (q(t))):b_{,𝐧}^a(t)c_b^{,𝐦}(t):+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{|𝐧||𝐦|p1}{}}T_{\alpha 𝐦}^{\beta 𝐧}(\xi (q(t))):\overline{\varphi }_{\beta ,𝐧}(t)\overline{\pi }{}_{}{}^{\alpha ,𝐦}(t):+`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{|𝐧||𝐦|po_\alpha 1}{}}T_{\alpha 𝐦}^{\beta 𝐧}(\xi (q(t))):\overline{\varphi }{}_{,𝐧}{}^{\alpha }(t)\overline{\pi }{}_{\beta }{}^{,𝐦}(t):+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{|𝐧||𝐦|p\varsigma _a1}{}}T_{a𝐦}^{b𝐧}(\xi (q(t))):\overline{b}{}_{,𝐧}{}^{a}(t)\overline{c}{}_{b}{}^{,𝐦}(t):\},`$
and similar contributions to $`𝒥_X`$ and $`L_f`$. Here $`T_{\alpha 𝐦}^{\beta 𝐧}(\xi )`$ and $`T_{a𝐦}^{b𝐧}(\xi )`$ are matrices in the two different $`gl(N)`$ representions acting on fields and second-order antifields, respectively; the action on first order antifields is dual to the field action, because this is how the EL equations transform.

Denote the numbers $`u,v,w,x,y`$ in the modules $`\varrho ^{(i)}`$ and $`M^{(i)}`$, defined as in (4.62), by $`u_i,v_i,w_i,x_i,y_i`$, respectively. Of course, there is only one contribution from the observer’s trajectory. Then it was shown in , Theorem 3, that

$`c_1=U\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N+pr}{Nr}}\right),`$ $`c_2=V\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N+pr}{Nr}}\right),`$
$`c_3=W\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N+pr}{Nr}}\right),`$ $`c_4=X\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N+pr}{Nr}}\right),`$ (4.67)
$`c_5=Y\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N+pr}{Nr}}\right),`$
where $`u_0=U`$, $`v_0=V`$, $`w_0=W`$, $`x_0=X`$ and $`y_0=Y`$, provided that the following conditions hold:

$`i`$ $`u_i+{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{i2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{j}{}}}x_{\mathrm{}}=()^i\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r}{i}}\right)U,`$
$`ii`$ $`v_i+{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{i1}{}}}(2w_j+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{j1}{}}}x_{\mathrm{}})=()^i\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r}{i}}\right)V,`$
$`iii`$ $`w_i+{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{i1}{}}}x_j=()^i\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r}{i}}\right)W,`$
$`iv`$ $`x_i=()^i\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r}{i}}\right)X,`$
$`v`$ $`y_i=()^i\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r}{i}}\right)Y,`$
$`vi`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{r}{}}}(2w_j+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{i1}{}}}x_{\mathrm{}})=0,`$
$`vii`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{r}{}}}x_i=0,`$
$`viii`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{r1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{i}{}}}x_j=0.`$
The abelian charges diverge if $`N>r`$ and vanish if $`N<r`$. When $`N=r`$, the they are independent of $`p`$ and in general non-zero.

Define

$`\alpha _i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{i2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{j}{}}}()^{\mathrm{}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r}{\mathrm{}}}\right),`$
$`\beta _i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{i1}{}}}()^j\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r}{j}}\right),`$ (4.69)
$`\gamma _i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{i1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{j1}{}}}()^{\mathrm{}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r}{\mathrm{}}}\right).`$
Using the recurrence formula

$`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{i}}\right)=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{i1}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n1}{i1}}\right)`$ (4.70)
and a straightforward induction argument, it can be shown that

$`\alpha _i=\gamma _i=()^i\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r2}{i2}}\right),\beta _i=()^i\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r1}{i1}}\right).`$ (4.71)
The conditions (LABEL:conds) become

$`i`$ $`u_i+\alpha _iX=()^i\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r}{i}}\right)U,`$
$`ii`$ $`v_i+2\beta _iW\gamma _iX=()^i\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r}{i}}\right)V,`$
$`iii`$ $`w_i+\beta _iX=()^i\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r}{i}}\right)W,`$ (4.72)
$`iv`$ $`x_i=()^i\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r}{i}}\right)X,`$
$`v`$ $`y_i=()^i\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r}{i}}\right)Y.`$
The remaining conditions follow immediately from the identities $`\alpha _{r+1}=\beta _{r+1}=0`$.

There is another, simpler way to arrive at (4.72). Ignoring the finite contributions from the observer’s trajectory, (4.64) can be rewritten as

$`c_1`$ $`=`$ $`uA(p)+xC(p1),`$
$`c_2`$ $`=`$ $`vA(p)+2wB(p1)+xC(p2),`$
$`c_3`$ $`=`$ $`wA(p)+xB(p1),`$ (4.73)
$`c_4`$ $`=`$ $`xA(p),`$
$`c_5`$ $`=`$ $`yA(p),`$
where

$`A(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{|𝐦|p}{}}1=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N+p}{N}}\right),`$
$`B(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{|𝐦|p}{}}(m_1+1)=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N+p+1}{N+1}}\right),`$ (4.74)
$`C(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{|𝐦|p}{}}(m_1+1)(m_2+1)=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N+p+2}{N+2}}\right).`$
As discussed in , the numbers arise from sums over multi-indices length $`|𝐦|p`$ of certain components. The restriction to finite length can be viewed as a regularization, with the nice property that diffeomorphism invariance is preserved. Another possible regularization is to introduce the fugacity $`\zeta =(\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _N)`$, and consider the expressions

$`A(\zeta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{|𝐦|}{}}\zeta ^𝐦={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\zeta ^i}},`$
$`B(\zeta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{|𝐦|}{}}(m_1+1)\zeta ^𝐦=(\zeta _1{\displaystyle \frac{}{\zeta _1}}+1)A(\zeta )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\zeta _1}}A(\zeta )`$ (4.75)
$`C(\zeta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{|𝐦|}{}}(m_1+1)(m_2+1)\zeta ^𝐦=(\zeta _1{\displaystyle \frac{}{\zeta _1}}+1)(\zeta _2{\displaystyle \frac{}{\zeta _2}}+1)A(\zeta )`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\zeta _1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\zeta _2}}A(\zeta ).`$
If we now put all $`\zeta _i=\zeta `$, we obtain

$`A(\zeta )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1\zeta )^N}},B(\zeta )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1\zeta )^{N+1}}},C(\zeta )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1\zeta )^{N+2}}}.`$ (4.76)
The limit $`p\mathrm{}`$ is replaced by $`\zeta 1`$.

However, it is not $`B(p)`$ and $`C(p)`$ that appear in (4.73), but rather $`B(p1)`$, $`C(p1)`$, and $`C(p2)`$. If

$`A(p){\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{p}{}}}a_k\zeta ^kA(\zeta )`$ (4.77)
then

$`A(p1){\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{p}{}}}a_{k1}\zeta ^k={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{p1}{}}}a_{\mathrm{}}\zeta ^{\mathrm{}+1}\zeta A(\zeta ).`$ (4.78)
More generally, $`A(pk)\zeta ^kA(\zeta )`$.

Equation (4.73) contains the contributions from a single, fermionic jet of order $`p`$. With several jets of order $`p`$, …, $`pr`$, the term $`uA(p)`$ becomes $`u_0A(p)+u_1A(p1)+\mathrm{}+u_rA(pr)`$, so we must replace the parameter $`u`$ with the function $`u(\zeta )=_{i=0}^ru_i\zeta ^i`$, Taking this into account, (4.73) corresponds to

$`c_1`$ $`=`$ $`u(\zeta )A(\zeta )+x(\zeta )\zeta C(\zeta ),`$
$`c_2`$ $`=`$ $`v(\zeta )A(\zeta )+2w(\zeta )\zeta B(\zeta )+x(\zeta )\zeta ^2C(\zeta ),`$
$`c_3`$ $`=`$ $`w(\zeta )A(\zeta )+x(\zeta )\zeta B(\zeta ),`$ (4.79)
$`c_4`$ $`=`$ $`x(\zeta )A(\zeta ),`$
$`c_5`$ $`=`$ $`y(\zeta )A(\zeta ).`$
Now demand that

$`c_1=U,c_2=V,c_3=W,c_4=X,c_5=Y,`$ (4.80)
in the limit $`\zeta 1`$. The simplest way to achieve this is to require that (4.80) holds for all $`\zeta `$. This leads to

$`u(\zeta )`$ $`=`$ $`U(1\zeta )^NX\zeta (1\zeta )^{N2},`$
$`v(\zeta )`$ $`=`$ $`V(1\zeta )^N+2W\zeta (1\zeta )^{N1}X\zeta ^2(1\zeta )^{N2},`$
$`w(\zeta )`$ $`=`$ $`W(1\zeta )^NX\zeta (1\zeta )^{N1},`$ (4.81)
$`x(\zeta )`$ $`=`$ $`X(1\zeta )^N,`$
$`y(\zeta )`$ $`=`$ $`Y(1\zeta )^N.`$
Equation (4.72) is recovered after an expansion in $`\zeta `$. E.g.,

$`x(\zeta )={\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{r}{}}}x_i\zeta ^i=X(1\zeta )^N={\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{N}{}}}()^i\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{i}}\right)X\zeta ^i,`$ (4.82)
leading to $`x_i=()^i\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{i}\right)X`$ and $`r=N`$.

## 5 Solutions to the constraint equations

### 5.1 Original constraint equations

Let us now consider the solutions of (LABEL:conds) for the numbers $`x_i`$, which can be interpreted as the number of fields and anti-fields. First assume that the field $`\varphi _{\alpha ,𝐦}(t)`$ is fermionic with $`x_F`$ components, which gives $`x_0=x_F`$. We may assume, by the spin-statistics theorem, that the EL equations are first order, so the bosonic antifields $`\varphi _{,𝐦}^\alpha (t)`$ contribute $`x_F`$ to $`x_1`$. The barred antifields $`\overline{\varphi }_{\alpha ,𝐦}(t)`$ are also defined up to order $`p1`$, and so give $`x_1=x_F`$, and the barred second-order antifields $`\overline{\varphi }{}_{,𝐦}{}^{\alpha }(t)`$ give $`x_2=x_F`$. Further assume that the fermionic EL equations have $`x_S`$ gauge symmetries, i.e. the second-order antifields $`b_{,𝐦}^a(t)`$ give $`x_2=x_S`$. In established theories, $`x_S=0`$, but we will need a non-zero value for $`x_S`$. Finally, the corresponding barred antifields give $`x_3=x_S`$.

For bosons the situation is analogous, with two exceptions: all signs are reversed, and the EL equations are assumed to be second order. Hence $`\varphi _{,𝐦}^\alpha (t)`$ yields $`x_2=x_B`$ and the gauge antifields $`b_{,𝐦}^a(t)`$ give $`x_3=x_G`$. Accordingly, the barred antifields are one order higher.

The situation is summarized in the following tables, where the upper half is valid if the original field is fermionic and the lower half if it is bosonic:

$`\begin{array}{cccc}& & & \\ g& \text{Field}& \text{Order}& x\hfill \\ & & & \\ 0& \varphi _{\alpha ,𝐦}(t)& p& x_F\hfill \\ 1& \overline{\varphi }_{\alpha ,𝐦}(t)& p1& x_F\hfill \\ 1& \varphi _{,𝐦}^\alpha (t)& p1& x_F\hfill \\ 2& \overline{\varphi }{}_{,𝐦}{}^{\alpha }(t)& p2& x_F\hfill \\ 2& b_{,𝐦}^a(t)& p2& x_S\hfill \\ 3& \overline{b}{}_{,𝐦}{}^{a}(t)& p3& x_S\hfill \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ 0& \varphi _{\alpha ,𝐦}(t)& p& x_B\hfill \\ 1& \overline{\varphi }_{\alpha ,𝐦}(t)& p1& x_B\hfill \\ 1& \varphi _{,𝐦}^\alpha (t)& p2& x_B\hfill \\ 2& \overline{\varphi }{}_{,𝐦}{}^{\alpha }(t)& p3& x_B\hfill \\ 2& b_{,𝐦}^a(t)& p3& x_G\hfill \\ 3& \overline{b}{}_{,𝐦}{}^{a}(t)& p4& x_G\hfill \end{array}`$ (5.96)
If we add all contributions of the same order, we see that relation $`iv`$ in (4.72) can only be satisfied provided that

$`p:`$ $`x_Fx_B=X`$
$`p1:`$ $`2x_F+x_B=rX,`$
$`p2:`$ $`x_B+x_F+x_S=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r}{2}}\right)X,`$
$`p3:`$ $`x_Bx_Sx_G=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r}{3}}\right)X,`$ (5.97)
$`p4:`$ $`x_G=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r}{4}}\right)X,`$
$`p5:`$ $`0=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r}{5}}\right)X,\mathrm{}`$
The last equation holds only if $`r4`$ (or trivially if $`X=0`$). On the other hand, if we demand that there is at least one bosonic gauge condition, the $`p4`$ equation yields $`r4`$. Such a demand is natural, because both the Maxwell/Yang-Mills and the Einstein equations have this property. Therefore, we are unambigiously guided to consider $`r=4`$ (and thus $`N=4`$). The specialization of (5.97) to four dimensions reads

$`p:`$ $`x_Fx_B=X`$
$`p1:`$ $`2x_F+x_B=4X,`$
$`p2:`$ $`x_B+x_F+x_S=6X,`$ (5.98)
$`p3:`$ $`x_Bx_Sx_G=4X,`$
$`p4:`$ $`x_G=X.`$
Clearly, the unique solution to these equations is

$`x_F=3X,x_B=2X,x_S=X,x_G=X.`$ (5.99)
### 5.2 Reduced constraint equations

The barred antifields, associated with the constraints (3.40), can conveniently be eliminated first. For each field or antifield of order $`po_\alpha `$, there is a corresponding barred antifield of opposite Grassmann parity and one order lower. E.g., for the field $`\varphi _{\alpha ,𝐦}(t)`$ at order $`p`$, we have the antifield $`\overline{\varphi }_{\alpha ,𝐦}(t)`$ at order $`p1`$, and for $`\varphi _{,𝐦}^\alpha (t)`$ at order $`po_\alpha `$, we have $`\overline{\varphi }{}_{,𝐦}{}^{\alpha }(t)`$ at order $`po_\alpha 1`$. Thus, if $`x_i`$ has a contribution $`x_i^{}`$ from an unbarred (anti-)field, then $`x_{i+1}`$ has the contribution $`x_i^{}`$. In particular, $`x_r^{}=0`$. This means that the total value for $`c_4`$ in (4.64) becomes

$`c_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{r}{}}}x_i\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N+pi}{N}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{r1}{}}}x_i^{}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N+pi}{N}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}}x_{i1}^{}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N+pi}{N}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{r1}{}}}x_i^{}\left\{\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N+pi}{N}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N+pi1}{N}}\right)\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{r1}{}}}x_i^{}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N1+pi}{N1}}\right).`$
We recognize that this expression is of the same form as the original expression, with the replacements $`x_ix_i^{}`$, $`NN1`$, and $`rr1`$. The finiteness conditions for the original parameters $`x_i`$ are thus equivalent to the same conditions for the reduced parameters $`x_i^{}`$ in one dimension less. Henceforth we only consider the reduced parameters, and skip the primes to avoid unnecessarily cumbersome notation.

The tables (5.96) are replaced by (fermions first, bosons second)

$`\begin{array}{cccc}& & & \\ g& \text{Field}& \text{Order}& x\hfill \\ & & & \\ 0& \varphi _{\alpha ,𝐦}(t)& p& x_F\hfill \\ 1& \varphi _{,𝐦}^\alpha (t)& p1& x_F\hfill \\ 2& b_{,𝐦}^a(t)& p2& x_S\hfill \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ 0& \varphi _{\alpha ,𝐦}(t)& p& x_B\hfill \\ 1& \varphi _{,𝐦}^\alpha (t)& p2& x_B\hfill \\ 2& b_{,𝐦}^a(t)& p3& x_G\hfill \end{array}`$ (5.108)
The reduced version of (5.97) becomes

$`p:`$ $`x_Fx_B=X`$
$`p1:`$ $`x_F=rX,`$
$`p2:`$ $`x_B+x_S=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r}{2}}\right)X,`$ (5.109)
$`p3:`$ $`x_G=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r}{3}}\right)X,`$
$`p4:`$ $`0=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r}{4}}\right)X,\mathrm{}`$
If we sum the first three equations, we obtain $`x_S=(r^23r+2)X/2`$. Thus the only case where we can avoid the fermionic gauge symmetries is if $`r=2`$, i.e. $`N=3`$. However, if we put $`r=2`$, we get from the fourth equation $`x_G=0`$, which means that there are no bosonic gauge symmetries either. But this can not be the case, assuming that the Einstein equation is included among our EL equations, and thus $`r>2`$. However, the last equation is clearly impossible to satisfy if $`r4`$. For $`r=3`$, i.e. $`N=4`$, (5.109) becomes

$`p:`$ $`x_Fx_B=X`$
$`p1:`$ $`x_F=3X,`$
$`p2:`$ $`x_B+x_S=3X,`$
$`p3:`$ $`x_G=X.`$
The solution to these equations is of course still given by (5.99).

The solutions to the other conditions in (LABEL:conds) follow by analogous considerations. Assume that there are $`x_F`$ fermions that contribute $`x_F`$, $`y_F`$, $`u_F`$, $`v_F`$, $`w_F`$ to parameters $`x`$, $`y`$, $`u`$, $`v`$, $`w`$, respectively. The contributions from the $`x_B`$ bosons, $`x_S`$ fermionic gauge conditions, and $`x_G`$ bosonic gauge conditions are denoted analogously. Since we have already excluded $`N4`$, we limit ourselves to this case. We also use the reduced parameters and hence we set $`r=3`$. The numbers $`\alpha _i`$ and $`\beta _i`$ in (4.69) are

$`\begin{array}{cccc}& & & \\ i& \alpha _i& \beta _i& \gamma _i\\ & & & \\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 1& 0\\ 2& 1& 2& 1\\ 3& 1& 1& 1\end{array}`$ (5.116)
By following exactly the same arguments as for $`x_i`$ above, we see that the reduced version of (4.72) becomes

$`\begin{array}{ccccc}\hfill p:& & x_Fx_B=X\hfill & & y_Fy_B=Y\hfill \\ \hfill p1:& & x_F=3X\hfill & & y_F=3Y\hfill \\ \hfill p2:& & x_B+x_S=3X\hfill & & y_B+y_S=3Y\hfill \\ \hfill p3:& & x_G=X\hfill & & y_G=Y\hfill \\ & & & & \\ \hfill p:& & u_Fu_B=U\hfill & & v_Fv_B=V\hfill \\ \hfill p1:& & u_F=3U\hfill & & v_F=3V2W\hfill \\ \hfill p2:& & u_B+u_S=3UX\hfill & & v_B+v_S=3V+4W+X\hfill \\ \hfill p3:& & u_G=U+X\hfill & & v_G=VWX\hfill \\ & & & & \\ \hfill p:& & w_Fw_B=W\hfill & & \\ \hfill p1:& & w_F=3WX\hfill & & \\ \hfill p2:& & w_B+w_S=3W+2X\hfill & & \\ \hfill p3:& & w_G=WX\hfill & & \end{array}`$ (5.131)
The solutions are given by

$`\begin{array}{ccccc}x_B=2X\hfill & y_B=2Y\hfill & & & \\ x_F=3X\hfill & y_F=3Y\hfill & & & \\ x_S=X\hfill & y_S=Y\hfill & & & \\ x_G=X\hfill & y_G=Y\hfill & & & \\ & & & & \\ u_B=2U\hfill & v_B=2V+2W\hfill & & & \\ u_F=3U\hfill & v_F=3V+2W\hfill & & & \\ u_S=UX\hfill & v_S=V+2W+X\hfill & & & \\ u_G=UX\hfill & v_G=V+2W+X\hfill & & & \\ & & & & \\ w_B=2W+X\hfill & & & & \\ w_F=3W+X\hfill & & & & \\ w_S=W+X\hfill & & & & \\ w_G=W+X\hfill & & & & \end{array}`$ (5.146)
This is our main result. It expresses the twenty parameters $`x_Bw_G`$ in terms of the five parameters $`X`$, $`Y`$, $`U`$, $`V`$, $`W`$. For this particular choice of parameters, the abelian charges in (4.67) are given by (4.80), independent of $`p`$. Hence there is no manifest obstruction to the limit $`p\mathrm{}`$.

### 5.3 Comparison with known physics

All experimentally known physics is well described by quantum theory, gravity, and the standard model in four dimensions. We have already seen that quantum general covariance more or less dictates that spacetime has $`N=4`$ dimensions (5.97). It is therefore interesting to investigate to what extent the particle content matches (5.99); recall that $`x=\mathrm{tr1}`$ equals the number of field components.

The bosonic content of the theory is given by the following table. Standard notation for the fields is used, and one must remember that it is the naïve number of components that enters the equation, not the gauge-invariant physical content. E.g., the photon is described by the four components $`A_\mu `$ rather than the two physical transverse components.

$`\begin{array}{cccc}& & & \\ \text{Field}& \text{Name}& \text{EL equation}& x_B\\ & & & \\ A_\mu ^a& \text{Gauge bosons}& D_\nu F^{a\mu \nu }=j^{a\mu }& 12\times 4=48\\ g_{\mu \nu }& \text{Metric}& G^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{8\pi }T^{\mu \nu }& 10\\ H& \text{Higgs field}& g^{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu H=V(H)& 2\end{array}`$ (5.151)
(5.152)
$`\begin{array}{cc}& \\ \text{Gauge condition}& x_G\\ & \\ D_\mu D_\nu F^{a\mu \nu }=0& 12\times 1=12\\ _\nu G^{\mu \nu }=0& 4\end{array}`$ (5.156)
The total number of bosons in the theory is thus $`x_B=48+10+2=60`$, which implies $`X=30`$ by (5.99). The number of gauge conditions is $`x_G=16`$, which implies $`X=16`$. There is certainly a discrepancy here.

The fermionic content in the first generation is given by

$`\begin{array}{cccc}& & & \\ \text{Field}& \text{Name}& \text{EL equation}& x_F\\ & & & \\ u& \text{Up quark}& D/u=\mathrm{}& 2\times 3=6\\ d& \text{Down quark}& D/d=\mathrm{}& 2\times 3=6\\ e& \text{Electron}& D/e=\mathrm{}& 2\\ \nu _L& \text{Left-handed neutrino}& D/\nu _L=\mathrm{}& 1\end{array}`$ (5.162)
The number of fermions in the first generation is thus $`x_F=6+6+2+1=15`$. Counting all three generations and anti-particles, we find that the total number of fermions is $`x_F=2\times 3\times 15=90`$, which implies $`X=30`$. There are no fermionic gauge conditions, so $`x_S=0`$, which implies $`X=0`$.

It is clear that the predictions for $`X`$ ($`30,16,30,0`$) are not mutually consistent. However, to cancel the leading terms, of order $`p`$ and $`p1`$, it is only necessary that $`2x_F=3x_B`$, which is indeed the case in known physics. It is therefore tempting to speculate that known physics is a first approximation of a more elegant theory, which has the same field content but more gauge conditions, including fermionic ones. This issue will be addressed in the discussion.

It is important to check that the results remain the same if the same physical situation is described with a different, but equivalent, set of fields. Typically, such spurious degrees of freedom have algebraic EL equations. Denote the original (bosonic, say) $`x_B`$ fields by $`\varphi _{\alpha ,𝐦}(t)`$ and let $`\psi _{i,𝐦}(t)`$ be $`x_A`$ spurious fields, defined for $`|𝐦|p`$. The contribution to $`x_0`$ from the bosonic fields is thus $`x_B+x_A`$. There are also $`x_A`$ new EL equations $`E_{,𝐦}^i(t)`$, defined for $`|𝐦|p`$ because they are algebraic; $`E_{,𝐦}^i(t)`$ contains $`\psi _{j,𝐧}(t)`$ for all $`|𝐧||𝐦|`$, but not of higher order. The corresponding anti-fields $`\psi _{,𝐦}^i(t)`$ add $`x_A`$ to $`x_0`$. The total result is $`x_0=x_B+x_Ax_A=x_B`$, as before.

An example is given by the gravitational field in vielbein formalism. Instead of the $`10`$ components of the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }=g_{\nu \mu }`$ we have the $`16`$ vielbeine $`e_\mu ^i`$. However, the requirement that the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }=e_\mu ^ie_{i\nu }`$ be symmetric gives rise to $`6`$ algebraic conditions, so the contribution to $`x_0`$ is still $`10`$.

## 6 Discussion

There are two key lessons to be learnt from twentieth century physics:

* General relativity teaches us the importance of diffeomorphism invariance. Physics is fully relational; there is no background stage over which physics takes place. Rather, geometry itself participates actively in the dynamics. Note that this is very different from mere coordinate invariance, because there is no compensating background metric.
* Quantum theory teaches us the importance of projective lowest-energy representations; the passage from Poisson brackets to commutators makes normal ordering necessary. E.g., to study angular momentum from a quantum perspective, it is not sufficient to limit oneself to proper (integer spin) representations of the rotation group $`SO(3)`$; one must also include the projective (half-integer spin) representations. For finite-dimensional groups such as $`SO(3)`$, projectivity only manifests itself on the group level, but in the infinite-dimensional case already the Lie algebra is modified. Algebras of linear growth acquire central extensions, e.g. the Virasoro and affine Kac-Moody algebras, whereas algebras of polynomial but non-linear growth acquire abelian but non-central extensions.

The successful construction of a quantum theory of gravity will probably combine these two insights. It seems obvious that the correct way to combine diffeomorphism invariance and projective representations is to consider projective representations of the diffeomorphism group, which on the Lie algebra level gives rise to the DGRO algebra. To even think about quantum gravity without understanding $`DGRO(N,𝔤)`$ seems to be a doomed project. It would be like doing classical gravity without tensor fields (= proper representations of the diffeomorphism group), or like doing quantum theory without spinors (= projective representations of $`SO(3)`$). Hence it seems appropriate to refer to DGRO algebra symmetry as quantum general covariance. In fact, the Fock modules considered in  automatically solve some of the outstanding problems in quantum gravity. By definition, it clarifies the role of diffeomorphisms, and there are no causality problems, because the theory only involves events on the observer’s trajectory and such events are always causally related .

With the introduction of the Koszul-Tate cohomology in the present paper, dynamics has entered representation theory, presumably for the first time. Since the classical KT cohomology is equivalent to standard formulations of classical physics, and the presence of Virasoro-like cocycles signals quantization, the construction in the present paper can be regarded as a novel quantization method, although the relation to other quantization schemes is unclear. An important feature is that abelian extensions pose no problem, as long as they are finite in the $`p\mathrm{}`$ limit.

The existence of this limit may be viewed as a requirement on objective reality; the $`p`$-jets living on the observer’s trajectory can be extended to fields defined throughout spacetime by means of a Taylor expansion, only if the limit $`p\mathrm{}`$ is well defined. This imposes severe constraints on the field content. As we saw in Section 5.3, most of these conditions are in qualitative agreement with established theories of physics, in particular with the standard model. We find both fermions and bosons, with EL equations of first and second order, respectively, and bosonic gauge constraints of third order. Moreover, spacetime must have four dimensions provided that there are no reducible gauge conditions.

However, there is also sharp disagreement on the number of gauge conditions. Quantum general covariance predicts the existence of fermionic gauge freedom of second order, and additional bosonic gauge freedom at third order. This points toward some kind of modification, maybe involving superalgebras. An interesting possibility is to consider a gauge theory based on the exceptional Lie superalgebra $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$, which is the simple vectorial superalgebra of maximal depth $`3`$ . Classically, the corresponding gauge algebra $`𝔪𝔞𝔭(N,𝔪𝔟(3|8))`$ acts on functions $`\varphi _\alpha (x,y)`$, valued in modules of the grade zero subalgebra $`sl(3)sl(2)gl(1)`$, i.e. the non-compact form of the symmetries of the standard model. Here $`x=(x^\mu )^N`$ is a spacetime coordinate and $`y=(y^i)^{3|8}`$ is a coordinate in internal space. I have recently attempted to generalize the standard model to a gauge theory with $`𝔪𝔟(3|8)`$ symmetry, and extra conditions on the fermionic fields do indeed arise . However, the considerations in that paper are purely classical. It is clear that quantization in the spirit of the present paper can be carried out ($`𝔪𝔞𝔭(N,𝔪𝔟(3|8))𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(N+3|8)`$), but this task has not yet been undertaken.


format: text

text:
# Nova Populations

## 1 Introduction

Baade baa44 ,baa57  introduced the concept that different kinds of stellar populations have different spatial distribution within galaxies (see also Oort (Oort, )). We can take advantage of this notion to find out useful hints about the population assignments of the progenitors of novae. Due to their luminosity, M$`{}_{V}{}^{}\text{ }\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{>}{}9`$ novae are particularly suited for this purpose because they can be easily identified both in the Milky Way and in external galaxies.

## 2 Nova Population in the Milky Way

Historical data on galactic novae (e.g. McLaughlin mcl42 ,mcl45 ,mcl46  and Payne-Gaposchkin gapo ) have received discrepant interpretations. Kukarkin kukas , Kopylov kopy  and Plaut plaut  pointed out the existence of a concentration of novae towards the galactic plane and the galactic center and classified them as belonging to the ‘disk population’. Minkowskiminko48 , minko50  and gapo  showed that the galactic longitudes of novae and planetary nebulae (PNe) have similar distributions and therefore novae, like PNe, belong to Pop II stellar population. Baade baa58  assigned novae to Pop II stellar population because of the occurrence of a few ones (e.g. T Sco 1860) in very old stellar population systems, such as the Globular Clusters. Iwanowska and Burnicki iwa  suggested that novae are a mixture of Pop I and Pop II objects, and Patterson pat  proposed that novae belong to an ‘old disk’ population. Tomaney and Shafter tom  found that novae belonging to the bulge of M31 are spectroscopically different from novae observed in the neighborhood of the Sun and deduced that galactic novae are mainly ‘disk’ objects. Different conclusions were drawn by Della Valle and Duerbeck dvdu  who compared the cumulative distributions of the rates of decline for M31, LMC and Milky Way nova populations (see Fig. 1) and found that galactic and M31 distributions are indistinguishable, whereas M31 and LMC distributions are different at $`\text{ }\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}99}\%`$ significance level. Since the speed class of a nova depends on the mass of the underlying white dwarf (e.g. shara81 ), systematic differences in the distributions of the rates of decline indicate the existence of physical differences between LMC and M31 nova populations. As most novae in M31 are produced in the bulge (Ciardullo et al. ciardu , Capaccioli et al.capa , Shafter and Irbyshaf01 ), one would argue that novae in the Milky Way are also mostly bulge objects.

### 2.1 Disk and Bulge Novae

The quantitative characterization of the concept of nova populations into two classes of objects, i.e. fast and bright ‘disk novae’ and slow and faint ‘bulge novae’, has been elaborated in the early 90’s by Duerbeck duer90  and Della Valle et al.dv92 ,dv94 , dv95 ,dv98 . The former demonstrated that nova counts in the Milky Way do not follow an unique distribution (Fig. 2), the latter authors showed that the rate of decline (which traces the mass of the WD associated with the nova system) correlates with the spatial distributions of the novae inside the Milky Way (Fig. 3 and 4). Fig. 2 shows that nova counts follow two different trends. Dashed and dotted lines are the predictions from simple disk, $`\rho (z)=\alpha \times \rho _{}\mathrm{exp}(|z|/z_{})`$, and bulge ($`\rho 10^{0.6}`$) nova population models \[with $`\rho _{}=125\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}`$ A$`{}_{V}{}^{}=1\mathrm{m}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{kpc}^1`$, MV(max)$`=9`$, $`\rho _{}=10^{10}`$ pc-3 yr-1 and $`\alpha \text{ }\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.1}`$, see pat , dvdu , duer84  nay \].

A simple consequence of two population distributions is that the rate of decline is expected to correlate with the galactic longitude. Fig. 3 compares the distributions of t3 for galactic novae in the direction of the galactic anti-center ($`+90^{}<l<270^{}`$, dotted region) and center ($`90^{}<l<+90^{}`$). The former distribution mainly formed by ‘disk’ novae, peaks at t3$`\text{ }\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}20}^d`$, while the latter one peaks at larger t3 because of the contribution of slow ‘bulge’ novae which are viewed in the direction of the galactic center.

### 2.2 The relationship between the rate of decline and height above the galactic plane for classical novae

If galactic novae originate from both the bulge and thin disk of the Milky Way, then the masses of their WD progenitors are expected to have heights above the galactic plane systematically different because of the initial-mass/final-mass relationship for WDs (e.g.wei ). This fact can be verified in the following way. Theoretical calculations (star85 , kov , kato ) have established that the strength of the nova outburst is a strong function of the mass of the underlying WD. On the other hand, the luminosity of the nova at maximum (which is representative of the strength of the outburst) correlates with the rate of decline (zwi , mcl39 , dvli ). Thus, the distribution of the rates of decline traces the distribution of the masses of the WDs associated with the nova systems. We note that the distance moduli introduced into $`z=10^{[0.2(mM+5A)]}\times \mathrm{sin}b`$ (where $`b`$ is the galactic latitude) are derived via expansion parallaxes rather than with the maximum magnitude vs. rate of decline (=MMRD) relationship to avoid circular arguments. For this reason Della Valle et al. dv92  restricted their analysis to a fiducial sample of only 19 objects coming from Cohen & Rosenthal co83  and Cohen co85  out of about a hundred novae for which the rates of decline have been measured with reasonable accuracy. In this presentation we were able to augment the original sample by 11 new objects from sla , dow  and ring . Fig. 4 shows the existence (at a confidence level of $`\text{ }\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}\sigma `$) of a relationship between the rate of decline and the height of the novae above the galactic plane, $`\mathrm{log}z=0.58(\pm 0.18)\times (\mathrm{log}100\times \mathrm{v}_\mathrm{d})+2.7(\pm 0.2)`$, which can be expressed as $`\mathrm{log}z=1.9(\pm 0.5)\times M_{WD}/M_{}+3.7(\pm 0.6)`$, after recalling that $`M_B\mathrm{log}M_{WD}`$ (from livio ) and $`M_B\mathrm{log}t2`$ (from dvli ). The trends illustrated in Fig. 4 and 5 indicate that the fastest nova systems, which contain the most massive WDs, are concentrated close to the galactic disk. It is difficult to understand how such distributions could be due to selection effects, since there is no obvious mechanism to prevent the discovery of fast/bright novae at high $`z`$ (although we cannot exclude that some slow/faint nova at small $`z`$ can be heavily absorbed and overlooked). Fig. 6 reports the frequency distribution of the rates of decline (in terms of log t2) for the fiducial sample of novae. The distribution is bimodal and shows that ‘disk’ novae, i.e. objects characterized by $`z\text{ }\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}150}`$pc (shaded region), are mostly ‘fast’ whereas ‘bulge’ novae are mostly ‘slow’. The former distribution peaks at M$`{}_{V}{}^{}=8.7_{+0.6}^{0.3}`$ and the latter at M$`{}_{V}{}^{}=7.2_{+1.2}^{0.9}`$. The existence of such a bimodality was pointed out by Arp arp  also for M31 novae (see his Fig. 36), but this fact was neglected afterwards.

### 2.3 The spectroscopic differences between disk and thick-disk/bulge Novae

Williams bob  after studying about two dozen of galactic novae (and a few objects belonging to the LMC) concluded that novae can be broadly divided into two spectroscopic classes of objects: the Fe II and He/N novae. The former are characterized by slow spectroscopic evolution with expansion velocities $`\text{ }\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2500}`$ km/s (FWZI) and the Fe II lines as the strongest non-Balmer lines in the early emission spectrum. The latter are fast spectroscopically evolving novae, characterized by high expansion velocity ejecta $`\text{ }\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2500}`$ km/s (FWZI) with He and N lines being the strongest non Balmer lines in the emission spectrum near maximum. Hybrid objects (e.g. V1500 Cyg) that evolve from Fe II to He/N are classified as FeII-b (b=broad) and are physically related to the He/N rather than to FeII class. In Fig. 7 we have plotted the frequency distribution of the heights above the galactic plane of the novae of the fiducial sample after being classified according the Williams’ criteria. The top and bottom panels give the distributions of novae which have been classified as He/N (+FeII-b) and Fe II. The histograms show that novae belonging to the He/N class tend to concentrate close to the Galactic plane with a typical scale height $`\text{ }\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}150}`$ pc, whereas FeII novae are distributed more homogeneously up to $`z1000`$ pc and beyond. A K-S test on the data shows that the two distributions are different at $`\text{ }\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}95}`$% level. Fig. 7 indicates that the objects previously classified as ‘disk’ and ‘bulge/thick-disk’ novae tend to correspond to the spectroscopic classes introduced by Williams, indeed about 70% of fast and bright novae belong to the He/N (or FeII-b) class, while the slow and faint ones form the main bulk of Fe II class. To explain this behavior one should consider the following. The more massive the WD (for a given $`\dot{M}`$ and TWD) the smaller is the mass of the accreted envelope (in view of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{acc}R_{WD}^4/M_{WD}`$) the more violent is the outburst (i.e. shorter t3 and higher expansion velocities) and the larger the fraction $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{shock}/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{wind}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{shock}`$ is the shell mass ejected at the maximum and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{wind}`$ is the fraction of the shell mass ejected in the subsequent continuous optically-thick wind phase. Since He/N spectra are formed in the shell ejected at the outburst maximum (as one can infer from the top-flatted profiles of the emission lines, for example) it is very likely that He/N novae are generally associated with massive WDs. If this interpretation is correct the distributions reported in Fig. 7 are simple consequences of the trends reported in Fig. 4 and 5.

## 3 Nova populations in external galaxies

The use of galactic data to establish the stellar population where novae originate has been often questioned because of observational bias, mainly due to both interstellar absorption in the galactic disk and our position within the Galaxy. These effects can be largely minimized by studying the nova populations in external galaxies, particularly: 1) their spatial distribution; b) the maximum magnitude vs. rate of decline relationship; c) differences (if any) in the nova rates exhibited by galaxies of different Hubble type. The available data are summarized in Table. 1. Col. 1 gives the galaxy identification; col. 2 the nova rate; col. 3 the total B mag of the galaxy corrected for background and foreground absorption; col. 4 the color (B–K); col. 5 the adopted distance modulus; col. 6 the normalized nova rate, i.e. the nova rate per year/$`10^{10}L_K`$; col. 7 the Hubble type. Data come from dv94  and sha00 . Note that to be consistent with the results of MACHOwel  and EROSgli  teams, who found 4 novae in the SMC after one year of monitoring to search for microlensing events, the nova rate in this system has been estimated, on the basis of simple statistical arguments, to be $``$ twice as large as quoted in sha00 .

### 3.1 The Spatial Distribution

Due to its closeness, the M31 nova population has been the only one extensively studied. However a simple skimming through past literature reveals the existence of different ideas on its nova population assignment: disk populations (Arp arp , Rosino leo );halo population (Wenzel and Meinunger wenz ); mainly bulge population (Ciardullo et al. ciardu , Capaccioli et al. capa  see their Fig. 7); mostly disk population (Hatano et al. hat ).

It is very likely that a fraction of M31 novae considered by ciardu  and capa  as belonging to the bulge are in fact (according to hat  see their Fig. 1 and 4) physically related to the disk and their allotment to the bulge was a simple consequence of neglecting the geometrical projection effect. However Shafter & Irby shaf01  have reappraised the Hatano et al’s conclusions, after comparing the spatial distribution of novae with the background M31 light (see their Fig. 4). They confirm most M31 novae to be originated in the bulge (about $`70\%`$ up to a minimum of 50%). Concerning this last point a word of caution seems in order as long as the effects of extinction on nova detections in the M31 disk will be fully quantified.

M33 is an almost bulgeless galaxy bot  and therefore its nova production necessarily originates in the disk. Particularly Fig. 2 of dv94  shows that most novae appear superimposed on the arms of the parent galaxy. Similar arguments hold for the LMC.

The analysis of 78 plates obtained in the 1950-55 Palomar campaign for the discovery of novae in M81 has been recently published by Shara, Sandage and Zurek mike . These authors find that the spatial distribution of novae in M81 is fully consistent with the two nova populations hypothesis (see their Fig. 1). Particularly they estimate that the fraction of novae belonging to the M81 bulge is not larger than $`60\%`$.

### 3.2 The Maximum Magnitude vs. Rate of Decline Relationship

Fig.8 reports the maximum magnitude vs. rate of decline relationship for LMC, M31 and Virgo novae. A simple glance indicates that the nova production in the LMC is clearly biased towards fast and bright novae, whereas the M31 nova population exhibits a prominent ‘slow’ component. By the same token, admittedly on the basis of a scanty statistic, the trend exhibited by novae discovered in Virgo (Pritchet & van den Bergh vdb ). It is not obvious to explain this behavior in terms of an observational bias: indeed the brightest novae are detected in the nearest galaxy (LMC) and would be missed in the more distant ones (Virgo). On the other hand, the differences in the MMRDs find a simple explanation in the framework of the two nova populations scenario: nova systems in disk dominated galaxies are associated with more massive WDs, then resulting in faster and intrinsically brighter nova events.

### 3.3 Is the nova rate depending on the Hubble type of the parent galaxy?

Della Valle et al. dv94  suggested that there may exist a systematic difference in the nova rate per unit of K (and H) luminosity in galaxies of different Hubble types (see their Fig. 3 and 4). These authors found that galaxies of late Hubble types are more prolific nova producers than early-type ones by a factor $`3`$. This overproduction of novae could be the consequence of “selection effects” on the nova frequency (Truran & Livio tru86 , Ritter et al. rit ). For example, if we use the results of rit , we obtain for the ratio of the nova outbursts density, $`\rho (disk)_{outburst}/\rho (bulge)_{outburst}4`$ in good agreement with the observations. A possible interpretation is that nova systems in disk dominated galaxies result in more frequent nova events due to the shorter nova recurrence time associated with massive WDs (see tru90 ). However this finding has been put into question by sha00  (see also sharov ) on the basis of nova rates on M51 and M101. Fig. 9 shows the trend of the normalized nova rate $`\nu _K`$ vs. (B–K) as derived from Tab. 1. With the exception of M101 and M51 (for which the nova rates reported by sha00  may be lower limits) the normalized nova rate increases from $`\nu _K\text{ }\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ novae yr$`{}_{}{}^{1}/10^{10}L_K`$ for early types to about $`\nu _K5`$ for late types.

## 4 Conclusions

Both observations of galactic and extragalactic novae converge toward the idea that novae are drawn from two different stellar populations. In particular:

1) analysis of the nova counts and rates of decline inside the Milky Way has allowed to derive the notion of disk and bulge/thick disk nova populations. The typical disk nova is a fast evolving object whose lightcurve exhibits a bright peak at maximum M$`{}_{V}{}^{}\text{ }\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{>}{}9`$ (t2$`\text{ }\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}13}^d`$ or t3$`\text{ }\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}20}^d`$) a smooth early decline and belongs to the He/N (or Fe IIb) spectroscopic class. The progenitor is preferentially located at small heights above the galactic plane ($`\text{ }\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}150}`$pc) and since it is related to (a relatively old) Pop I stellar population, the associate WD is rather massive, M$`{}_{WD}{}^{}\text{ }\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ M. The typical bulge/thick disk nova is a slow evolving object whose lightcurve exhibits a fainter peak at maximum, M$`{}_{V}{}^{}7.2`$ (t2$`\text{ }\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}13}^d`$ or t3$`\text{ }\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}20}^d`$), often double maxima, dust formation, maximum standstill and belongs to the Fe II spectroscopic class. The progenitors extend up to $`1000`$ pc from the galactic plane and are likely to be related to a Pop II stellar population of the galactic thick-disk/bulge and are therefore associated (on average) with less massive WDs, M$`{}_{WD}{}^{}\text{ }\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$M.

2) analysis of the MMRD relationship for LMC, M31 and Virgo novae confirm the existence of systematic differences in the distributions of the rates of decline of the respective nova populations. 80% of novae in the LMC are bright and fast and therefore associated (on average) with massive WDs while fast novae in M31 are $`\text{ }\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}25}`$%. The two distributions are significantly different (a K-S test gives $`\text{ }\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}99}`$%). The analysis of the spatial distributions suggests that nova populations in M31 and M81 are a mixture of disk and bulge novae ( $`30\%70\%`$ and $`40\%60\%`$ respectively). Novae in the LMC and M33 originate from disk population whereas novae in M87 and NGC 1316 are related ‘a fortiori’ to bulge population.

3) the previous results imply the existence of differences in the age of the progenitors of disk and bulge novae. This has been recently proven by Subramanian & Anupama anup . These authors have studied the star formation history of nearby regions around LMC novae and show that most of them occur in the bar or close to it. They conclude that the parent stellar population of the fast and slow novae are likely to be in the range $`\text{ }\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}3`$ and $`\text{ }\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}10`$ Gyr respectively.

4) some of the differences between disk and bulge novae, as described above, are expected on the basis of theoretical arguments (see Kolb kolb , Starrfield et al. star98 , Kato kato2 ).

5) Analysis of the distributions of the rates of decline as a function of the absolute magnitude at maximum of LMC, M31 and Virgo, reveals the existence of a scant group ($`\text{ }\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}\%`$) of super-bright novae which deviate systematically from the MMRD relationship by more than one magnitude dv91 . One possible explanation is that a “super-nova” explosion might occur at the end of the life of a CV (iben , see alsoiben2 ). The recent study on Nova LMC 1991 (star01 ) suggests that the metallicity may be the driving parameter to account for this deviating behavior.

### 4.1 Future studies

Whether or not the nova rate depends on the Hubble type of parent galaxy is still an open question. If low nova rates for M51 and M101 will be confirmed a possible explanation for the trend reported in Fig. 9 has been pointed out by Yungelson, Livio and Tutukov lev  (see also tut ). These authors noted that small $`\nu _k`$ are associated with high-mass spirals such as M51 and M101, while high values of $`\nu _k`$ are typical of low mass galaxies such as LMC and M33. If the presently observed rates of disk novae in late type galaxies are mainly determined by the current SFRs, one expects to observe differences in the normalized rates of high- and low-mass spirals. Indeed for the former the SFR in the past was several ($`\text{ }\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}`$) times higher than the present one (Gallagher et al. gal ). For the latter the SFR was nearly constant over the galaxy lifetime (e.g. Gavazzi & Scodeggio gav ). Therefore high-mass spirals contain a higher fraction of old red stars than low-mass ones and consequently also their IR-luminosity is higher (this is actually observed, see col. 4 in Tab.1). As a consequence, since the K luminosity is proportional to the mass in old stars, one may expect $`\nu _k`$ in systems such as M33 or LMC to be higher than that in M51 or M101. It is apparent that this issue will be solved as soon as new nova rates in external galaxies will be made available. For example, preliminary results, based on HST observations (e.g. mike2 ), may suggest high values of nova rates also in elliptical galaxies. We note that nova survey in extragalactic systems, despite their scientific interest, have not been popular among astronomers (although ‘remarkable’ exceptions do exist, e.g. hub ). Probably the main reason for this is the unpredictable nature of nova events, which made nova surveys considerably (telescope) time consuming. However, the coming into operations of 8-10m class telescopes should change this bias. Della Valle and Gilmozzi dv02  have carried out with VLT a pilot programme to discover novae in NGC 1316. They found 4 novae with 3h of observing time (about $`0.8^h`$ per nova). A similar programme carried out by vdb  with a 4m class telescope on Virgo galaxies (which should have comparable nova rates and distance than NGC 1316) discovered 9 novae in 56h ($`6.5^h`$ per nova). This experiment teaches us that the 8-10m class telescopes equipped with larger and more efficient detectors are able to improve the payoff per night, in terms of nova detections in galaxies outside the Local Group, by on order of magnitude with respect to the previous generation of telescopes.

I’m grateful to Nino Panagia and Bob Williams for useful comments.


text:
# Study of the Interstellar Medium and Star Formation of a complete sample of 760 isolated galaxies.

## 1. Introduction

Although it is widely accepted that galaxy-galaxy interactions stimulate secular evolutionary effects (e.g. enhanced star formation - SF), morphological peculiarities including transitions to earlier type, enhanced or diminished gas content) the amplitude of the effects, and processes for accomplishing them, are not well quantified (Sulentic 1976, 1989; Xu & Sulentic 1991,Verdes-Montenegro et al. 1998). For example there is no clear consensus on whether SF enhancement depends on details of an encounter or the preexisting gas reservoirs available in the galaxies. It is also difficult to ascribe morphological peculiarities (or the presence of an AGN) to interaction because they are also seen in rather isolated systems. Most of these uncertainties reflect the lack of a statistically useful baseline. The goal of this proposal is to create a multiwavelength database that can serve as a zero point relative to which nurture effects can be evaluated.

## 2. The sample

We are assembling a multiwavelength database for a large (n$``$760) sample of the most isolated galaxies in the northern sky. We are using the largest reasonably unbiased sample of isolated galaxies, the Catalog of Isolated Galaxies (CIG: Karachentseva 1973; see also Sulentic 1989) which originally contains n=1052 galaxies, later reduced to n=893 (Karachentseva 1980). We were able to derive optical and FIR luminosities for n=760 galaxies that constitute our full working sample. A CIG based sample has a number of interesting characteristics and advantages including:
1) ISOLATION - selected on the basis of distance from nearest neighbors (at least 20$`\times `$ their diameter). We are in the process of refining the isolation parameter using the digitized POSS2 atlas. Local objects will also be excluded due to uncertain isolation determination. 2) MORPHOLOGY - the CIG is morphologically diverse to permit statistical studies correlated with Hubble type. Our POSS2 isolation reevaluation is also providing more accurate galaxy types. 3) DEPTH - The CIG samples a deep enough volume of space to allow us to measure a large part of the radio, IR and optical luminosity functions. 4) COMPLETENESS - the CIG is reasonably complete with $`<`$V/Vm$`>`$=0.42 down to B=15.7.

## 3. A Multiwavelength Database for Our Sample

Our database will emphasize the properties of the nonstellar material in the galaxies because this component is most sensitive to the effects of external stimuli. Our database will include observations of neutral (HI), molecular (CO) and ionized (H$`\alpha `$) gas, and radiocontinuum emission as an extinction-free tracer of current SF rate and nuclear activity. This multiwavelength survey of the refined CIG sample will allow us to define the mean statistical properties of the ISM (cold/warm/hot gas and dust) in these galaxies. It will allow us to study the interplay between the SF, ISM and the environment, the link between central activity (AGN) and the environment, and the morphology distribution of isolated galaxies.

## References

Sulentic, J. W. 1976, ApJS 32, 171

Sulentic J.W. 1989, AJ 98, 2066

Xu, C. & Sulentic, J. W. 1991, ApJ 374, 407

Karachentseva, I. 1973, Comm. Spec. Ap. Obs., USSR, 8, 1

Karachentseva, I. 1980, Sov. Astr. 24, 665

Verdes-Montenegro, L., Yun, M. S., Perea, J., del Olmo, A., & Ho, P. T. P. 1998, ApJ, 497, 89