text:
# Moduli of principal bundles in positive characteristic

### Definition (2.1) (universal family)

: Let $`EX\times T`$ be a family of semistable $`G`$-bunldes on $`X`$ parametrised by a scheme $`T`$. Suppose an algebraic group $`H`$ acts on $`T`$ by $`\alpha :H\times TT`$ and also on $`E`$ as a group of $`G`$ bundle isomorphisms compatible with $`\alpha `$. We call $`EX\times T`$ a universal family of semistable $`G`$-bundles with group $`H`$ if the following conditions hold:
(i) Given any family of semistable $`G`$ bundles $`FX\times S`$ and a point $`sS`$ there is an open neighborhood $`U`$ of $`s\text{in}S`$ and a morphism $`t:UT`$ such that $`FX\times U`$ is isomorphic to $`t^{}EX\times U`$ where $`t^{}E`$ is the pullback of $`E`$ by the morphism $`t:UT`$.
(ii) Given two morphisms $`t_1,t_2:ST`$ and an isomorphism $`\phi :t_1^{}Et_2^{}E`$ of $`G`$ bundles on $`X\times S`$, there is a unique morphism $`h:SH`$ such that $`t_2=ht_1`$ and $`\phi =(h\times t_1)^{}(\alpha )`$.

### Definition (2.2):

Let $`Sch`$ denote the category of schemes over $`k`$, and let Sets denote the category of sets. Let $`\stackrel{}{F}`$ be the sheaf associated to the functor $`F:Sch`$ Sets which associates to a scheme $`T`$ the set of isomorphism classes of semistable $`G`$ bundles parametrised by $`T`$. On morphisms $`F`$ is defined by pulling back. Let $`M`$ be a scheme and $`H`$ an algebraic group acting on $`M`$ by $`\alpha :H\times MM`$. Let $`M/H`$ be the sheaf associated to the presheaf which assigns to a $`k`$-scheme $`T`$ the quotient set Hom $`(T,M)/\text{Hom}(T,H)`$. We say $`M`$ is a universal space with group $`H`$ if there is an isomorphism of sheaves $`\stackrel{}{F}M/H`$. With these definitions, we have the following proportion.

### Proposition (2.3)

: Suppose there is a universal space $`M`$ with group $`H`$ for families of semistable $`G`$ bundles. If a good quotient of $`M`$ by $`H`$ exists, then it gives a coarse moduli scheme of semistable $`G`$\- bundles.

### Proof

: The proof is the same as that of Proposition (4.5) in , using Lemma (4.3) and (4.4) of our article instead of the Proposition (3.24) of .
QED

In view of the above proposition, it is enough to construct a universal space for families of semistable $`G`$ bundles on $`X`$, and show that this universal space has a good quotient. For this purpose, let $`Z`$ be the centre of $`G`$, and let $`𝔤`$ be the lie algebra of $`G`$. We consider the sequence of group homomorphisms

$$GG/Z\text{Aut}(𝔤)GL(𝔤)$$

where Aut$`(𝔤)`$ denotes the group of Lie algebra automorphisms of $`𝔤`$ and $`GL(𝔤)`$ is the group of linear automorphisms of the vector space $`𝔤`$. When the Killing form of $`𝔤`$ is non degenerate, $`G/Z`$ is the connected component of Aut $`(𝔤)`$(this follows from the fact that if the killing form of $`𝔤`$ is nondegerate, then every derivation of $`𝔤`$ is inner, see , page 18). A universal space $`R_3`$ for semistable $`G`$ bunldes is constructed in four steps. We first need

### Definition (2.4)

: Let $`\alpha =n_i\alpha _i`$ be the highest root of the Lie algebra $`𝔤`$, where $`\alpha _i`$ are simple roots and $`n_i`$ are positive integers. Then the height $`h(G)`$ of $`𝔤`$ is defined as

$$h(G)=2n_i$$

We have the following result from :

### Theorem (2.5):

Let $`EX`$ be a semistable $`G`$ bundle, and let $`E(𝔤)`$ be the adjoinst bundle of $`E`$. If the characteristic $`p`$ is bigger than $`h(G)`$, then $`E(𝔤)`$ is a semistable vector bundle. (see Theorem (2.2) in ).

Thus if $`p>h(G)`$, then every semistable $`G`$ bundle induces a semistable $`GL(𝔤)`$ bundle by the adjoint representation of $`G`$. We start with a universal family $`R`$ with group $`GL(n)`$ for semistable $`GL(𝔤)`$ bundles (which are simply semistable vector bundles of rank = dim $`𝔤`$). Since the homomorphism Aut $`(𝔤)GL(𝔤)`$ is injective, we obtain a universal family $`R_1`$ with group $`GL(n)`$ for semistable Aut $`(𝔤)`$ bundles. This follows from the following lemma:

### Lemma (2.6)

: Let $`A`$ be a reductive group and $`B`$ a semisimple group such that $`B`$ is a closed subgroup of $`A`$. Then a universal family with group $`H`$ for families of semistable $`A`$ bundles gives a universal family with group $`H`$ for families of semistable $`B`$ bundles, provided every semistable $`B`$ bundle on $`X`$ induces a semistable $`A`$ bundle by the extension of structure group $`BA`$.

### Proof.

See Lemma (4.8.1) and Lemma (4.10) in . QED

### Lemma (2.7):

The scheme $`R_1`$ is nonsingular and dim $`R_1=n^2+(r+1)(g1)g`$ where $`r=dimG`$, and $`g`$ is the genus of $`X`$.

### Proof:

See Lemma (4.13.4) in . QED

The same procedure of applying Lemma (2.6) above to the injection $`G/Z\text{Aut}(𝔤)`$, where $`Z`$ is the center of $`G`$ yields a universal family $`R_2`$ with group $`GL(n)`$ for families of semistable $`G/Z`$ bundles on $`X`$. We have

### Lemma (2.8):

The natural morphism $`\pi _2:R_2R_1`$ is etale and finite, and hence $`R_2`$ is nonsingular.

### Proof:

See Proposition (4.14) in . QED

We now construct a universal space $`R_3`$ with group $`GL(n)`$ from $`R_2`$, following an idea of Sols-Gomez (see ). Let $`E_2X\times R_2`$ be the universal $`G/Z`$ bundle on $`X\times R_2`$ and let $`\rho :GG/Z`$ be the natural projection. We asssume hereafter that the center $`Z`$ of $`G`$ is reduced, which is the case if the characteristic $`p`$ of the field $`k`$ is bigger than $`h(G)`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho ,E_2)`$ be the functor defined on the categoryy $`Sch/R_2`$ of schemes over $`R_2`$, which assigns to a scheme $`\phi :SR_2`$ the set of isomorphism classes of pairs $`(E,\psi )`$ where $`E`$ is a principal $`G`$ bundle on $`X\times S`$ and $`\psi `$ is an isomorphism of the $`G/Z`$ bundle $`E/Z`$ with the $`G/Z`$ bundle $`\phi ^{}E_2`$. Let $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\rho ,E_2)`$ be the sheafification of the functor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho ,E_2)`$. We have a natural morphism $`\pi _3:\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\rho ,E_2)R_2`$. We need a definition.

### Definition (2.9):

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ be two contravariant functors from Sch to Sets , and let $`H`$ be a finite reduced group, and let $`\pi :\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ be a morphism of functors. Let $`\stackrel{}{\pi }:\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}`$ be the morphism sheaves associated to $`\pi `$. Then we say that $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}`$ is a principal $`H`$-bundle over $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}`$ if
(i) $`H`$ acts on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and hence on $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}`$
(ii) the natural map

$$\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}\times H\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}\times _{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}$$

is an isomorphism of sheaves. We now have

### Proposition (2.10):

The natural map $`\pi _3:\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\rho ,E_2)R_2`$ is a principal $`H^1(X,Z)`$ bundle on $`R_2`$, where $`H^1(X,Z)`$ denotes the etale cohomology of $`X`$ with coefficients in $`Z`$.

### Proof:

One sees easily that there is a natural action of $`H^1(X,Z)`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho ,E_2)`$. We have to show that the action on $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\rho ,E_2)`$ is free and the quotient is $`R_2`$. We do this by identifying the fibre of $`\pi _3:\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\rho ,E_2)R_2`$ with $`H^1(X,Z)`$. Let $`S`$ be a closed point of $`R_2`$ and $`p:FX`$ be corresponding $`G/Z`$ bundle on $`X`$. $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\rho ,E_2)(S)`$ now is the set of all pairs $`(E,\alpha )`$ such that $`EX`$ is a principal $`G`$ bundle on $`X`$ and $`\alpha `$ is an isomorphism $`\alpha :E/ZF`$. We now check that $`H^1(X,Z)`$ acts freely and transitively on $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\rho ,E_2)(S)`$. The transitivity of the action is easy to see. To show that the action is free, we take a pair $`(E,\alpha )`$ in $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\rho ,E_2)(S)`$ and an element $`tH^1(X,Z)`$, and show that $`t(E,\alpha )(E,\alpha )`$. If the $`G`$-bundle $`tE`$ is not isomorphic to $`E`$ we are through. If $`tE`$ is isomorphic to $`E`$ as a $`G`$-bundle, let $`\phi :EtE`$ be an isomorphism. Let $`B`$ denote a Borel subgroup of $`G`$ and $`T`$ denote a maximal torus of $`G`$ contained in $`B`$. Since Ant$`{}_{}{}^{0}(G/B)G/Z`$ (this follows from the nondegeneracy of the Killing form of $`𝔤`$), we regard the $`G/B`$ fibration $`E/BX`$ as equivalent to a $`G/Z`$ bundle. Since $`EE/B`$ is a $`B`$-bundle the canonical homomorphism $`BT`$ induces a $`T`$ bundle $`E_TE/B`$ on $`E/B`$.Now $`\alpha `$ gives an isomorphism $`E/BF/B^{}`$ of $`G/B`$ fibrations, where $`B^{}`$ is $`B/Z,t\alpha `$ gives an isomorphism $`tE/BF/B^{}`$ and $`\phi `$ induces an isomorphism $`\overline{\phi }:E/BtE/B`$. We have to show that the diagram

is not commutative. We note that there are two isomorphisms $`E/BtE/B`$, namely $`\overline{\phi }`$ and $`(t\alpha )^1o\alpha `$. To show that the above diagram is not commutative, it is enough to check that the $`T`$\- bundle $`E_T`$ on $`E/B`$ pulls back, under $`\overline{\phi }`$ and $`(t\alpha )^1o\alpha `$, to non isomorphic $`T`$ bundles on $`tE/B`$. But this is clear as one of them is a translate of the other by $`t`$ and the action of $`H^1(X,Z)`$ on $`H^1(E/B,T)`$ is fixed point free. QED

### Lemma (2.11):

$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\rho ,E_2)`$ is representable by a scheme $`R_3`$.

### Proof:

Since the mapping of sheaves $`\pi _3:\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\rho ,E_2)R_2`$ is a principal $`H^1(X,Z)`$ bundle, it is easily seen that $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\rho ,E_2)`$ is an algebraic space in the sense of Artin (see ). If further follows from loc. cit. (see Theorem (3.3) in ), that this algebraic space is in fact a scheme. QED

### Remark (2.12):

We observe that by contruction $`\pi _3:R_3R_2`$ is finite etale with structure group $`H^1(X,Z)`$.

3. In order to construct the moduli space of semistable $`G`$ bundles on $`X`$, we have to construct a good quotient of $`R_3`$ by $`GL(n)`$. In view of Lemma (2.8) and Remark (2.12) above, it is enough to show that $`R_1`$ has a good quotient by appealing to Proposition (3.12) in . Let $`G_{n,r}`$ be the Grassmannian of $`r`$ dimensional quotients of $`n`$\- dimensional affine space over $`k`$, where $`r=dimG=dim𝔤`$. Let $`Y=GL(𝔤)/G_m\times \text{Aut}(𝔤)`$ and let $`Q`$ be the universal quotient bundle on $`G_{n,r}`$. Let $`Q(Y)`$ be the fibre bundle on $`G_{n,r}`$ with fibre $`Y`$ associated to $`Q`$. Let $`\overline{Y}`$ be the closure of $`Y`$ in the projective space $`(𝔤^{}𝔤^{}𝔤)`$. By the usual diagonal argument, we can choose an $`N`$-tuple $`(x,\mathrm{},x_N)`$ of points in $`X`$ for $`N`$ sufficiently large such that the evaluation morphism

$$R_1Q(\overline{Y})^N=\underset{N\text{factors}}{\underset{}{Q(\overline{Y})\times \mathrm{}\times Q(\overline{Y})}}$$

is injective (see section (5.5) in ). We can choose a polarisation (see (5.5) in ) so that if $`Q(\overline{Y})_{ss}^N`$ denotes the set of semistable points in the sense of geometric invariant theory for this polarisation then $`R_1`$ maps into $`Q(\overline{Y})_{ss}^N`$ (see Lemma (5.5.3) in ).

### Lemma (3.1):

The map $`R_1Q(\overline{Y})_{ss}^N`$ is proper.

### Proof:

We check the valuative criterion for properness. Let $`k[[t]]`$ denote the ring of formal power series in $`t`$ over $`k`$, and let $`k((t))`$ be its quotient field. We begin with a semistable vector bundle $`V`$ of degree zero on $`X\times _k\text{Spec}k((t))`$, which is also a bundle of Lie algebras, with Lie algebra structure isomorphic to that of $`𝔤`$. Let $`C(𝔤^{}𝔤^{}𝔤)`$ be the structure tensor of the Lie algebra $`𝔤`$. Then the Lie algebra structure on $`V`$ has structure tensor $`M((t))C`$ where $`M((t))`$ is an element of $`GL(r,k((t))`$. If $`\overline{V}`$ is any semistable extension of $`V`$ to $`X\times _k\text{Spec}k[[t]]`$, then the special fibre $`V_o`$ of $`\overline{V}`$ is also a bundle of Lie algebras with structure tensor $`\stackrel{\mathrm{lt}}{\mathrm{t}0}M((t))C`$ (the limit is taken in $`(𝔤^{}𝔤^{}𝔤))`$. We now show that this limit Lie algebra structure is isomorphic to that defined by $`C`$ (namely, $`𝔤`$ itself). Let $`W`$ be the ring of Witt vectors of $`k`$, let $`K`$ be the quotient field of $`W`$. The Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ has a form $`𝔤_W`$ over $`W`$, whose structure tensor we denote by $`C_W(𝔤_W^{}𝔤_W^{}𝔤_W)`$. We now lift the matrix $`M((t))`$ to a matrix $`M_W((t))`$ which is an element of $`GL(r,W((t))`$. We therefore obtain a Lie algebra $`𝔤_{W,t}`$ with structure tensor $`M_W((t))C_W`$ over $`W((t))`$. The group scheme Aut $`(𝔤_{W,t})`$ of Lie algebra automorphisms of $`𝔤_{W,t}`$ over $`W((t))`$ is smooth over $`W((t))`$ (see the proof of the Theorem in (11.5) in ). Let $`𝔤_t`$ be the Lie algebra $`𝔤_{W,t}`$ mod $`p`$ over $`k((t))`$. Then by Lemma 1, p. 175 of , the principal Aut( $`𝔤_t)`$ bundle on $`X\times \text{spec}k((t))`$ can be lifted to a principal Aut $`(𝔤_{W,t})`$ bundle $`E_W`$ on $`X_W\times _WW((t))`$ where $`X_W`$ is a form of the curve $`X`$ over the Witt ring $`W`$. Since $`V`$ is semistable on $`X\times \text{Spec}k((t))`$ the generic fibre $`E_K`$ of $`E_W`$ is semistable on $`X_K\times K((t))`$. Now by the key lemma (5.6) in , $`V_K`$ has a semistable extension $`\overline{V}_K`$ to $`X_K\times K[[t]]`$, where $`V_K`$ is the vector bundle associated to $`E_K`$, such that the Lie algebra structure on the special fibre $`\overline{V}_{K,0}`$ at $`t=0`$ is isomorphic to the Lie algebra structure on $`V_K`$. Hence we obtain that $`\stackrel{\mathrm{lt}}{\mathrm{t}0}M_W((t))C_W`$ gives a Lie algebra isomorphic to that given by $`C_W`$. It follows by reducing mod $`p`$ that the Lie algebra structure $`\stackrel{\mathrm{lt}}{\mathrm{t}0}M((t))C`$ is isomorphic to the Lie algebra structure $`C`$. Hence $`V_0`$ is also a principal Aut $`(𝔤)`$ bundle (semistable by construction). This shows that the map $`R_1Q(\overline{Y})_{ss}^N`$ is proper in positive characteristic. QED

After the above lemma, we see that a good quotient of $`R_1`$ exists and hence as remarked before, a good quotient of $`R_3`$ exists. This completes the construction of the moduli space of semistable $`G`$ bundles. Further, since the quotient of $`R_1`$ is projective (by the Lemma above ) and the map $`R_3R_1`$ is finite and $`GL(n)`$ equivariant it follows that the quotient of $`R_3`$, namely the moduli space,is also projective. It only remains to identify the closed points of the moduli space.

4. A description of the closed points of the moduli space is given by

### Theorem (4.1):

The closed points of the moduli space of semistable $`G`$ bundles are isomorphism classes of polystable $`G`$ bundles.

### Proof:

The proof follows from the following two lemmas. QED

Before the lemmas, we recall the following definition from .

### Definition (4.2):

Let $`EX`$ be a semistable $`G`$ bundle on $`X`$. If $`E`$ is stable, we define gr $`E=E`$. If $`E`$ is not stable, there is an admissible reduction of structure group $`E_PE`$ to a parabolic $`P`$, such that the bundle $`E_M`$ induced from $`E_P`$ by the projection $`PM`$ ($`M`$ being a Levi of $`P`$) is stable, and gr $`E`$ is the $`G`$-bundle obtained from $`E_M`$ by the inclusion $`MG`$ (see (3.12) in ).

We now have

### Lemma(4.3):

Let $`EX`$ be a semistable $`G`$ bundle on $`X`$ regarded as a point of $`R_3`$. Let $`O(E)`$ denote the orbit of $`E`$ under the group $`GL(n)`$ acting on $`R_3`$, and let $`\overline{O(E)}`$ denote the closure of the orbit in $`R_3`$. Then gr $`E\overline{O(E)}`$.

### Proof:

The proof is by constructing a family of semistable $`G`$ bundles $`X\times A^1`$, where $`A^1`$ is the affine line over $`k`$, such that $`_t`$ is isomorphic to $`E`$ if $`t0`$ in $`A^1`$, and $`_0`$ is isomorphic to gr $`E`$, where $`_t=X\times t,tA^1`$. This is done as in the proof of Proposition (3.24) (ii) in . QED

### Lemma (4.4):

Let $`EX`$ be a semistable $`G`$ bundle regarded as a point of $`R_3`$. Then the orbit $`O(\text{gr}E)`$ of gr $`E`$ is closed in $`R_3`$ if $`p>rh(G)`$, where $`r=dimG,p=`$ characteristic of $`k,h(G)`$ is the height as in Definition (2.4) above

### Proof:

It is enough to prove $`()`$ if gr $`F\overline{O(\text{gr}E)}`$ then gr $`F\text{gr}E`$. We take the adjoint representation of $`G`$ and consider the associated vector bundles $`(\text{gr}F)(𝔤)`$ and $`(\text{gr}E)(𝔤)`$. The hypothesis on $`p`$ ensures that $`(\text{gr}F)(𝔤)`$ and $`(\text{gr}E)(𝔤)`$ are polystable vector bundles (see Theorem (4.2) in ). If follows from complement (5.8.1) in , that $`\text{gr}F(𝔤)`$ is isomorphic to $`(\text{gr}E)(𝔤)`$ as vector bundles. Since $`G/ZGL(𝔤)`$ is a faithful representation by the adjoint action, it follows that gr $`(E/Z)`$ is isomorphic to gr$`(F/Z)`$ as $`G/Z`$ bundles. Hence gr $`(F/Z)`$ belongs to the $`GL(n)`$ orbit of gr $`(E/Z)`$ in $`R_2`$. However, since $`\pi _3:R_3R_2`$ is a finite $`GL(n)`$ equivariant map, it follows that gr $`F`$ belongs to the $`GL(n)`$ orbit of gr $`E`$, i.e., gr $`F`$ is isomorphic to gr $`E`$ as $`G`$ bundles. This completes the proof of $`()`$ and hence of the lemma. QED

5. To summarise, we need the semisimple group $`G`$ to satisfy the following conditions:
(i) the centre $`Z`$ is reduced.
(ii) the Killing form is non degenerate
(iii) $`p>2h(G)+3`$.
(iv) $`p>dimG.h(G)`$

We remark that if $`p>dimG.h(G)`$ then all the other conditions are satisfied. Hence a projective moduli space of semistable $`G`$ bundles exists if $`p>dimG.h(G)`$, and the closed points of this moduli space are isomorphism closes of polystable bundles.

## References

1. M. Artin, The Implicit Function theorem in algebraic geometry, Algebraic geomety, Proceedings of the Bombay Colloquium 1968, Oxford University Press.
2. V. Balaji, A.J. Parameswaran, Semistable Principal Bundles-II, to appear.
3. V. Balaji, C.S. Seshadri, Semistable Principal Bundles -I, to appear.
4. G. Faltings, Stable $`G`$-bundles and Projective connections, J. Algebraic Geometry, 2 (1993), p.507-568.
5. T.L. Gomez, I. Sols, Moduli space of Principal sheaves over projective varieties, preprint.
6. V.B. Mehta, A.J. Parameswaran, Geometry of low height representations, Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Algebra, Arithmetic and Geometry, Mumbai 2000, p. 417-426.
7. P.E. Newstead, Lectures on Introduction to Moduli Problems and orbit spaces, TIFR Bombay 1978, Narosa Publishing House.
8. A. Ramanathan, Moduli of Principal Bundles over Algebraic Curves -I, Proc. Indian Acad. Sci (Math.Sci). Vol 106, No.3, August 1996, pp. 301-328.
9. A. Ramanathan, Moduli of principal bundles over algebraic curves-II, Proc. Indian Acad. Sci (Math. Sci), Vol 106, No.4, November 1996, pp. 421-449.
10. G.B. Seligman, Modular Lie algebras, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York 1967.
11. C.S. Seshadri, Desingularisation of the moduli varieties of vector bundles on curves, Proceedings of the International Symposium on algebraic geometry, Kyoto, January 1977, Kinokuniya Book Co. 1978, pp 155-184.
12. W.H. Hesselink, Uniform instability in reductive groups, Journal fur die reine und ang. Math. 303-304, 1978, pp. 74-96.

vikram@math.tifr.res.in
subramnn@math.tifr.res.in
School of Mathematics
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research
Homi Bhabha Road
Mumbai 400 005 India


format: text

text:
# Matter, Fields, and Reparametrization-Invariant Systems

## 1 Introduction

There are two very useful methods in classical mechanics: the Hamiltonian and the Lagrangian approach . The Hamiltonian formalism gives rise to the canonical quantization, while the Lagrangian approach is used in the path-integral quantization. Usually, in classical mechanics, there is a transformation that relates these two approaches. However, for a reparametrization-invariant systems there are problems when changing from the Lagrangian to the Hamiltonian approach . Classical mechanics of a reparametrization-invariant system and its quantization is the topic of the current study.

Fiber bundles provide the mathematical framework for classical mechanics, field theory, and even quantum mechanics if viewed as a classical field theory. When studding the structures that are important to physics, we should also understand why one fiber bundle should be more “physical” than another, why the “physical” base manifold seems to be a four-dimensional Lorentzian manifold , how one should construct an action integral for a given fiber bundle , and how a given system may be quantized. Starting with the tangent or cotangent bundle is natural because these bundles are related to the notion of a classical mechanics of a point-like matter. Since our knowledge comes from experiments that involve classical apparatus, the physically accessible fields should be generated by matter and should couple with matter as well. Therefore, understanding the matter Lagrangian for a classical system is very important.

In this paper we outline some aspects of the non-relativistic, relativistic, and a la Dirac-equation quantization of reparametrization-invariant classical mechanics systems. In its canonical form, the matter Lagrangian for reparametrization-invariant systems contains well known interaction terms, such as electromagnetism and gravity. For a reparametrization-invariant systems there are constraints among the equations of motion which is a problem. Nevertheless, there are procedures for quantizing such theories . For example, changing coordinates $`(x,v)(x,p)`$ is an one problem, when $`h=pvL0`$ is another. This $`h0`$ problem is usually overcome either by using a gauge fixing to remove the reparametrization-invariance or by using some of the constraint equations available instead of $`h`$ . Here, we will demonstrate another approach ( $`v\gamma `$) which takes advantage of $`h0.`$

In section two we briefly review the classical mechanics of reparametrization-invariant $`d`$-branes. In the third section we argue for a one-time-physics as an essential ingredient for a non-relativistic limit. The fourth section is concerned with the relativistic Klein-Gordon equation, relativistic mass-shell equation, and Dirac equation. Our conclusions and discussions are in section five.

## 2 Classical Mechanics of $`d`$-branes

In this section, we briefly review our study of the geometric structures in the classical mechanics of reparametrization-invariant systems  by focusing on the relativistic charged particle and its $`D`$ -dimensional extended object generalization ($`d`$-brane). In ref.  we have discussed the question: “What is the matter Lagrangian for a classical system?” Starting from the assumption that there should not be any preferred trajectory parameterization in a smooth space-time, we have arrived at the well known and very important reparametrization-invariant system: the charged relativistic particle. Imposing reparametrization invariance of the action $`S=L(x,v)d\tau `$ naturally leads to a first order homogeneous functions .

The Lagrangian for the charged relativistic particle corresponds to the first two terms in a series expression of a first order homogeneous function. When this expression is considered as a Lagrangian, we call it canonical form of the first order homogeneous Lagrangian:

$$L(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{v})=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}Q_n\sqrt[n]{S_n(\stackrel{}{v},\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{v})}=qA_\alpha v^\alpha +m\sqrt{g_{\alpha \beta }v^\alpha v^\beta }+\mathrm{}.$$
(1)
The choice of the canonical form is based on the assumption of one-to-one correspondence between interaction fields $`S_n`$ and their sources . Finding a procedure, similar to the Taylor series expansion, to extract the components of each symmetric tensor ($`S_{\alpha _1\alpha _2\mathrm{}\alpha _n}`$), for a given homogeneous function of first order, would be a significant step in our understanding of the fundamental interactions.

Encouraged by our results, we have continued our study of reparametrization-invariant systems by generalizing the idea to a $`D`$ -dimensional extended objects ($`d`$-branes). In doing so we have arrived at the string theory Lagrangian (1-brane extended object)  and the Dirac-Nambu-Goto Lagrangian for a $`d`$-brane .

The classical mechanics of a point-like particle is concerned with the embedding $`\varphi :^1M`$. The map $`\varphi `$ provides the trajectory (the word line) of the particle in the target space $`M`$. In this sense, we are dealing with a $`0`$-brane that is a one dimensional object. If we think of an extended object as a manifold $`D`$ with dimension denoted also by $`D`$ ($`dimD=D=d+1`$ where $`d=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$), then we should seek $`\varphi :DM`$ such that some action integral is minimized. From this point of view, we are dealing with embedding of a $`D`$-dimensional object in to a target space $`M`$. If $`x^\alpha `$ denote coordinate functions on $`M`$ and $`z^i`$ coordinate functions on $`D`$, then we can introduce a  generalized velocity vector $`\stackrel{}{\omega }`$ with components $`\omega ^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$:

$$\omega ^\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dz}=\frac{\left(x^{\alpha _1}x^{\alpha _2}\mathrm{}x^{\alpha _D}\right)}{(z^1z^2\mathrm{}z^D)},dz=dz^1\mathrm{}dz^D,\mathrm{\Gamma }=1,\mathrm{},\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{dimM}{dimD}\right).$$

In the above expression, $`\frac{\left(x^{\alpha _1}x^{\alpha _2}\mathrm{}x^{\alpha _D}\right)}{(z^1z^2\mathrm{}z^D)}`$ represents the Jacobian of the transformation from coordinates $`\{x^\alpha \}`$ over the manifold $`M`$ to coordinates $`\{z^a\}`$ over the $`d`$-brane . In this notation the canonical expression for the homogeneous Lagrangian of first order is:

$$L(\stackrel{}{\varphi },\stackrel{}{\omega })=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\sqrt[n]{S_n(\stackrel{}{\omega },\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{\omega })}=A_\mathrm{\Gamma }\omega ^\mathrm{\Gamma }+\sqrt{g_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}\omega ^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}\omega ^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}}+\mathrm{}.$$
(2)
Notice that $`\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{v}`$, and $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }=\stackrel{}{x}\varphi `$ have the same number of components when the generalized velocity $`\stackrel{}{\omega }`$ has $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{dimM}{dimD}\right).`$

From the above expressions (1) and (2), one can see that the corresponding matter Lagrangians $`(L)`$, in their canonical form, contain electromagnetic ($`A`$) and gravitational ($`g`$) interactions, as well as interactions that are not clearly identified yet ($`S_n,n>2`$). At this stage, we have a theory with background fields since we don’t know the equations for the interaction fields $`A,`$ $`g,`$and $`S_n`$. To complete the theory, we need to introduce actions for these interaction fields. If one is going to study the new interaction fields $`S_n,n>2`$, then some guiding principles for writing field Lagrangians are needed.

One such principle uses the external derivative $`d`$, multiplication $``$ , and Hodge dual $``$ operations in the external algebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(T^{}M\right)`$ over $`M`$ to construct objects proportional to the volume form over $`M`$. For example, for any $`n`$-form $`(A)`$ the expressions $`AA`$ and $`dAdA`$ are forms proportional to the volume form.

The next important principle comes from the symmetry in the matter equation. That is, if there is a transformation $`AA^{}`$ that leaves the matter equations unchanged, then there is no way to distinguish $`A`$ and $`A^{}`$. Thus the action for the field $`A`$ should obey the same gauge symmetry. For the electromagnetic field ($`AA^{}=A+\mathrm{d}f`$) this leads to the field Lagrangian $`=dAdA=FF`$, when for gravity it leads to the Cartan-Einstein action $`S\left[R\right]=R_{\alpha \beta }(\mathrm{d}x^\alpha dx^\beta )`$ . In our study we have also found an extra term ($`R^{}`$) that exists only in four dimensional theories. This term $`R^{}`$comes from fully anti-symmetrized ($`R_{\alpha [\beta ,\gamma ]\rho )}`$) Ricci tensor $`R.`$

## 3 Non-relativistic Limit

Here, we briefly argue that a one-time-physics is needed to assure causality via finite propagational speed in case of point particles. For $`d`$-branes the one-time-physics reflects separation of the internal from the external coordinates when the $`d`$-brane is considered as a sub-manifold of the target space manifold $`M`$. The non-relativistic limit is considered to be the case when the $`d`$-brane is embedded as a sub-manifold of $`M`$.

### 3.1 Causality and Space-Time Metric Signature

It is well known that the Einstein general relativity occurs more degree of freedom in four and higher dimensions. We have already mentioned the $`R^{}`$ term which is only possible in a four-dimensional space-time. Another argument for 4D space-time is based on geometric and differential structure of various brane and target spaces . All these are reasons why the spacetime seems to be four dimensional. Why the space-time seems to be 1+3 have been recently discussed by using arguments a la Wigner . However, these arguments are deducing that the space-time is 1+3 because we only this signature is consistent with particles with finite spin. In our opinion one should turn this argument backwards claiming that one should observe only particles with finite spin because the signature is 1+3.

Here we present an argument that only one-time-physics is consistent with a finite propagational speed. Our main assumptions are: a gravity-like term $`\sqrt{g(\stackrel{}{\omega },\stackrel{}{\omega })}`$ is always present in the matter Lagrangian, and the matter Lagrangian is a real-valued; thus $`g(\stackrel{}{v},\stackrel{}{v})0.`$ For simplicity, we consider the $`0`$-brane mechanics first.

The use of a covariant formulation allows one to select a local coordinate system so that the metric is diagonal $`(+,+,..,+,,\mathrm{})`$. If we denote the (+) coordinates as time coordinates and the (-) as space coordinates, then there are three essential cases:

* No time coordinates. Thus $`g(\stackrel{}{v},\stackrel{}{v})=_\alpha \left(v^\alpha \right)^2<0`$, which contradicts $`(g(\stackrel{}{v},\stackrel{}{v})0`$).
* Two or more time coordinates. Thus $`g(\stackrel{}{v},\stackrel{}{v})=(v^0)^2+(v^1)^2_{\alpha =2}^n\left(v^\alpha \right)^21+\dot{\lambda }\stackrel{}{v}_{space}^2`$.
* Only one time coordinate. Thus $`g(\stackrel{}{v},\stackrel{}{v})=(v^0)^2_{\alpha =1}^n\left(v^\alpha \right)^21\stackrel{}{v}_{space}^2`$.

Clearly for two or more time coordinates we don’t have finite coordinate velocity ($`dx/dt`$) when the coordinate time ($`t`$) is chosen so that $`t=x^0`$ $`v^0=1`$ and $`x^1=\lambda `$. Only the space-time with one time accounts for a finite velocity and thus a causal structure.

For a $`d`$-brane one has to assume a local coordinate frame where one component of the generalized velocity can be set to 1 ($`\omega ^0=1`$). This generalized velocity component is associated with the brane “time coordinate.” In fact, $`\omega ^0=1`$ means that there is an integral embedding of the $`d`$-brane in the target space $`M`$, and the image of the $`d`$ -brane is a sub-manifold of $`M`$. If the coordinates of $`M`$ are labeled so that $`x^i=z^i,i=1,\mathrm{},D`$, then $`x^i`$ are internal coordinates that may be collapsed in only one coordinate– the “world line” of the $`d`$-brane.

### 3.2 The Quantum Mechanics of a $`D`$-brane.

In this section we briefly describe the gauge-fixing approach that allows canonical quantization. This approach is mainly concerned with a choice of a coordinate time that is used as the trajectory parameter  . Such choice removes the reparametrization invariance of the theory.

In a local coordinate system where $`\omega ^0=1`$ and the metric is a “one-time-metric” we have:

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`A_\mathrm{\Gamma }\omega ^\mathrm{\Gamma }+\sqrt{g_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}\omega ^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}\omega ^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}}+\mathrm{}+\sqrt[m]{S_m(\stackrel{}{\omega },\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{\omega })}`$
$``$ $`A_0+A_i\omega ^i+\sqrt{1g_{ii}\omega ^i\omega ^i}+\mathrm{}A_0+A_i\omega ^i+1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{ii}\omega ^i\omega ^i+\mathrm{}.`$
Thus the Hamiltonian function is not zero anymore, so we can do canonical quantization, and the Hilbert space consists of the functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left(x\right)\mathrm{\Psi }(z,\stackrel{~}{x})`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{x}=x^i,i=D+1,\mathrm{},m`$. The brane coordinates $`z`$ shall be treated as $`t`$ in quantum mechanics in the sense that the scalar product should be an integral over the space coordinates $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$.

## 4 Relativistic Equations for Matter

Even though canonical quantization can be applied after a gauge fixing, one is not usually happy with this situation because the covariance of the theory is lost and time is a privileged coordinate. In general, there are well developed procedures for covariant quantization . However, we are not going to discuss these methods. Instead, we will employ a different quantization strategy. In this section we discuss the mass-shell constraint, the Klein-Gordon equation and the Dirac equation  for $`d`$-branes.

### 4.1 The Mass-shell and Klein-Gordon Equation

Since the functional form of the canonical Lagrangian is the same for any $`d`$ -brane, we use $`v`$, but it could be $`\omega `$ as well. We define the momentum $`p`$ and generalized momentum $`\pi `$ for our canonical Lagrangian as follow:

$`p_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta L(\varphi ,\omega )}{\delta \omega ^\mathrm{\Gamma }}}=eA_\mathrm{\Gamma }+m{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Sigma }}\omega ^\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\sqrt{g(\stackrel{}{\omega },\stackrel{}{\omega })}}}+\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{S_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_n}\omega ^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_1}\mathrm{}\omega ^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n}}{\left(S(\omega ,\mathrm{},\omega )\right)^{11/n}}}+\mathrm{},`$
$`\pi _\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`p_\alpha eA_\alpha \mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{S_{\alpha \beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _n}v^{\beta _1}\mathrm{}v^{\beta _n}}{\left(S(v,\mathrm{},v)\right)^{n/\left(n+1\right)}}}\mathrm{}=m{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\alpha \beta }v^\beta }{\sqrt{g(\stackrel{}{v},\stackrel{}{v})}}}.`$
In the second equation we have used $`v`$ instead of $`\omega `$ for simplicity. Notice that this generalized momentum ($`\pi `$) is consistent with the usual quantum mechanical procedure $`ppeA`$ that is used in Yang-Mills theories, as well as with the usual GR expression $`p_\alpha =mg_{\alpha \beta }v^\beta `$. Now it is easy to recognize the mass-shell constraint as a mathematical identity:

$$\frac{\stackrel{}{v}}{\sqrt{\stackrel{}{v}^2}}\frac{\stackrel{}{v}}{\sqrt{\stackrel{}{v}^2}}=1\pi _\alpha \pi ^\alpha =m^2\left(\stackrel{}{p}e\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{S}_3\left(v\right)\stackrel{}{S}_4\left(v\right)\mathrm{}\right)^2\mathrm{\Psi }=m^2\mathrm{\Psi }.$$

Notice that “gravity” as represented by the metric is gone, while the Klein-Gordon equation appears. The $`v`$ dependence in the $`S`$ terms reminds us about the problem related to the change of coordinates $`(x,v)(x,p)`$. So, at this stage we may proceed with the Klein-Gordon equation, if we wish.

### 4.2 Rund’s Approach to the $`\gamma `$-matrices

An interesting approach to the Dirac equation has been suggested by H. Rund . The idea uses the Heisenberg picture ($`i\mathrm{}\frac{dZ}{d\tau }=[H,Z]`$), Hamiltonian linear in the momentum ($`H=\gamma ^\alpha p_\alpha `$), and principle group $`G`$ with generators $`X_i`$ that close a Lie algebra ($`[X_i,X_j]=C_{ij}^kX_k`$). To have the Hamiltonian $`H`$ invariant under $`G`$-transformations, the $`\gamma `$ objects should transform appropriately $`[X_i,\gamma ^\alpha ]=\left(\rho \left(X_i\right)\right)_\beta ^\alpha \gamma ^\beta `$. The next ansatz is the important one: $`X_i=\left(x_i\right)_{\alpha \beta }\gamma ^\alpha \gamma ^\beta .`$

By using this ansatz in $`[X_i,X_j]=C_{ij}^kX_k`$, one writes $`[X_i,(x_j)_{\alpha \beta }\gamma ^\alpha \gamma ^\beta ]=C_{ij}^k(x_k)_{\alpha \beta }\gamma ^\alpha \gamma ^\beta `$ and solves for $`(x_j)_{\alpha \beta }`$. In order for the linear system of equations to have a solution, additional algebraic properties on the $`\gamma `$ matrices are required. For the Lorentz group, this procedure gives $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^\alpha \gamma ^\beta `$ with $`\{\gamma ^\alpha ,\gamma ^\beta \}=2\delta ^{\alpha \beta }`$. Notice that in $`H=\gamma ^\alpha p_\alpha `$ the momentum transforms according to the fundamental representation, and thus the $`\gamma `$-vector should transform as the conjugate one, so that $`H`$ stays a scalar. The ansatz means that we are constructing the adjoint representation, which is the Lie algebra itself, by coupling two fundamental representations.

### 4.3 Dirac Equation from H=0

Since we want $`\gamma `$ and $`p`$ to transform as vectors, it is clear that $`p`$ should be a covariant derivative, but what is its structure? Consider a homogeneous Lagrangian that can be written as $`L(\varphi ,\omega )=\omega ^\mathrm{\Gamma }p_\mathrm{\Gamma }=\omega ^\mathrm{\Gamma }L(\varphi ,\omega )/\omega ^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with a Hamiltonian function that is identically zero: $`h=\omega ^\mathrm{\Gamma }L(\varphi ,\omega )/\omega ^\mathrm{\Gamma }L(\varphi ,\omega )0`$. Notice that $`\omega ^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the determinant of a matrix (the Jacobian of a transformation ); thus $`\omega ^\mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma ^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ seems an interesting option for quantization. Even more, for the Dirac theory we know that $`\gamma ^\alpha `$ are the ‘velocities’ ($`dx/d\tau =H/p`$).

If we quantize using ($`hH`$), then for the space of functions we should have: $`H\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$. By applying $`\omega ^\mathrm{\Gamma }\gamma ^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, which means that the (generalized) velocity is considered as a vector with non-commutative components, we have $`\left(\gamma ^\mathrm{\Gamma }p_\mathrm{\Gamma }L(\varphi ,\gamma )\right)\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$. For a 0-brane, using the canonical form of the Lagrangian (1) and the algebra of the $`\gamma `$ matrices following Run’s approach, as described in the previous section, we have:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ^\alpha p_\alpha L(\varphi ,\gamma )=\gamma ^\alpha p_\alpha eA_\alpha \gamma ^\alpha m\sqrt{g_{\alpha \beta }\gamma ^\alpha \gamma ^\beta }\mathrm{}\sqrt[m]{S_m(\stackrel{}{\gamma },\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{\gamma })},`$
$``$ $`\gamma ^\alpha p_\alpha eA_\alpha \gamma ^\alpha m\mathrm{}\sqrt[2m]{S_{2m}g^m}\mathrm{}\sqrt[2n+1]{S_{2n+1}g^{n/2}\gamma }\mathrm{}.`$
Since $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ is a symmetric tensor, then $`g_{\alpha \beta }\gamma ^\alpha \gamma ^\beta g_{\alpha \beta }\{\gamma ^\alpha ,\gamma ^\beta \}g_{\alpha \beta }g^{\alpha \beta }1`$. Therefore, gravity seems to leave the picture again. The symmetric structure of the extra terms $`S_m`$ can be used to reintroduce $`g`$ by using $`\{\gamma ^\alpha ,\gamma ^\beta \}g^{\alpha \beta }`$ and to reduce the powers of $`\gamma `$. Thus the high even terms contribute to the mass $`m`$, making it variable with $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ .

## 5 Conclusions and Discussions

In summary, we have discussed the structure of the matter Lagrangian ($`L`$) for extended objects. Imposing reparametrization invariance of the action $`S`$ naturally leads to a first order homogeneous Lagrangian. In its canonical form, $`L`$ contains electromagnetic and gravitational interactions, as well as interactions that are not clearly identified yet.

The non-relativistic limit for a $`d`$-brane has been defined as those coordinates where the brane is an integral sub-manifold of the target space. This gauge can be used to remove reparametrization invariance of the action $`S`$ and make the Hamiltonian function suitable for canonical quantization. For the 0-brane (the relativistic particle), this also has a clear physical interpretation associated with localization and finite propagational speed.

The existence of a mass-shell constraint is universal. It is essentially due to the gravitational (quadratic in velocities) type interaction in the Lagrangian and leads to a Klein-Gordon equation. Although the Klein-Gordon equation can be defined, it is not the only way to introduce the algebra of the $`\gamma `$-matrices needed for the Dirac equation. The algebraic properties of the $`\gamma `$-matrices may be derived using the Lie group structure of the coordinate bundle; these properties are closely related to the corresponding metric tensor $`g^{\alpha \beta }=\{\gamma ^\alpha ,\gamma ^\beta \}`$ and may restrict the number of terms in the Lagrangian. Once the algebraic properties of the $`\gamma `$-matrices are defined, one can use $`v\gamma `$ quantization in the Hamiltonian function $`h=pvL(x,v)`$ to obtain the Dirac equation.

Acknowledgments. The author acknowledges helpful discussions with Professors R. Hymaker, L. Smolinsky, A. R. P. Rau, R. F. O’Connell, P. Kirk, J. Pullin, C. Torre, J. Baez, P. Al. Nikolov, E. M. Prodanov, G. Dunne, and L. I. Gould. The author is also thankful to Professor J. P. Draayer at the LSU Department of Physics and Astronomy, Dr. Joe Abraham at the LSU Writing Center, and the organizers of the 4th Conference on Geometry, Integrability and Quantization in Sts. Constantine and Elena resort, Bulgaria, who provided the opportunity for this research and its publication. The author acknowledges the financial support from the Department of Physics and Astronomy and the Graduate School at the Louisiana State University, the U. S. National Science Foundation support under Grant No. PHY-9970769 and Cooperative Agreement No. EPS-9720652 that includes matching from the Louisiana Board of Regents Support Fund.


text:
# The Relativistic Particle and its d-brane Cousins

## 1 Introduction

Probing and understanding physical reality goes through a classical interface that shapes our thoughts in classical causality chains. Therefore, understanding of the essential mathematical constructions in classical mechanics and classical field theory is important, even though quantum mechanics and quantum field theory are regarded as more fundamental than their classical counterparts. Two approaches, the Hamiltonian and the Lagrangian, are very useful in physics . In general, there is a transformation that relates these two approaches. For a reparametrization-invariant theory, however, there are problems in changing to the Hamiltonian approach .

Fiber bundles provide the mathematical framework for classical mechanics, field theory, and even quantum mechanics if viewed as a classical field theory. Parallel transport, covariant differentiation, and gauge symmetry are very important structures  associated with fiber bundles. When asking what structures are important to physics we should also ask why one fiber bundle should be more “physical” than another, why the “physical” base manifold seems to be a four-dimensional Lorentzian manifold , and how one should construct an action integral for a given fiber bundle . Starting with the tangent or cotangent bundle seems natural because these bundles are related to the notion of a classical point-like matter. Since we accrue and test our knowledge via experiments that involve classical apparatus, the physically accessible fields should be generated by matter and should couple with matter as well. Therefore, the matter Lagrangian should contain the fields, not their derivatives, with which classical matter interacts .

We study the properties of reparametrization-invariant matter systems, mainly the relativistic particle  and its extended object ($`d`$-brane) generalization. We try to find the answer to the question: “What is the Lagrangian for matter?” The corresponding matter Lagrangian naturally contains background interaction fields, such as a 1-form field, analogous to the electromagnetic vector potential, and a metric tensor. We discuss the guiding principles for construction of field Lagrangians. Due to the limited space available, we will not discuss the “non-relativistic” limit, Klein-Gordon equation, relativistic mass-shell equation, and Dirac equation here, these topics are covered in ref. .

In section two we consider an example of reparametrization-invariant action, the Lagrangian for a relativistic particle. In the third section we argue in favor of first order homogeneous Lagrangians. In section four we consider a possible generalization to the $`D`$-dimensional extended objects ($`d`$-branes). Section five contains a review of the field Lagrangians relevant for the interaction fields. Our conclusions and discussions are in section six.

## 2 The Matter Lagrangian for The Relativistic Particle

From everyday experience we know that localized particles move with a finite 3D speed. In an extended 4D configuration space-time, when time is added as a coordinate ($`x^0=ct`$), particles move with a constant 4-velocity. The 4-velocity is constant because of its definition $`v^\mu =dx^\mu /d\tau `$ that uses the invariance of the proper time ($`\tau `$) defined via the metric tensor ($`g_{\mu \nu }`$) $`d\tau ^2=g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^v`$. In this case, the action for a massive relativistic particle has a nice geometrical meaning; it is the distance along the trajectory :

$$S_1=𝑑\tau L_1(x,v)=𝑑\tau \sqrt{g_{\mu \nu }v^\mu v^\nu },\sqrt{g_{\mu \nu }v^\mu v^\nu }1S_1=𝑑\tau .$$
(1)
However, for massless particles, such as photons, the length of the 4-velocity is zero ($`g_{\mu \nu }v^\mu v^\nu =0`$). Thus one has to use a different Lagrangian to avoid problems due to division by zero. The appropriate ‘good’ action is :

$$S_2=L_2(x,v)𝑑\tau =g_{\mu \nu }v^\mu v^\nu 𝑑\tau .$$
(2)
Notice that the Euler-Lagrange equations obtained from $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ are equivalent, and both are equivalent to the geodesic equation as well:

$$\frac{d}{d\tau }\stackrel{}{v}=D_\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{v}=v^\beta _\beta \stackrel{}{v}=0,v^\beta \left(\frac{v^\alpha }{x^\beta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha v^\gamma \right)=0.$$
(3)
In general relativity the Levi-Civita connection $`_\beta `$, with Christoffel symbols $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha `$, preserves the length of the vectors ($`g(\stackrel{}{v},\stackrel{}{v})=0`$) . Therefore, these equivalences are not surprising because the Lagrangians in ( (1) and (2)) are functions of the preserved length $`g(\stackrel{}{v},\stackrel{}{v})=\stackrel{}{v}^2`$. However, the parallel transport for a general connection $`_\beta `$ may not preserve the length of the vectors.

The equivalence between $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ is very robust. Since $`L_2`$ is a homogeneous function of order $`2`$ with respect to $`\stackrel{}{v}`$, the corresponding Hamiltonian function ($`h=vL/vL`$) is exactly equal to $`L`$ ($`h(x,v)=L(x,v)`$). Thus $`L_2`$ is conserved, and so is the length of $`\stackrel{}{v}`$. Any homogeneous Lagrangian of order $`n1`$ is conserved because $`h=(n1)L`$. When $`dL/d\tau =0`$, then one can show that the Euler-Lagrange equations for $`L`$ and $`L^{}=f\left(L\right)`$ are equivalent under certain restrictions on $`f`$. This is an interesting type of equivalence that applies to homogeneous Lagrangians. It is different from the usual equivalence $`LL^{}=L+d\mathrm{\Lambda }/d\tau `$ or the more general equivalence discussed in ref. . Any solution of the Euler-Lagrange equation for $`L^{}=L^\alpha `$ would conserve $`L=L_1`$ since $`h^{}=(\alpha 1)L^\alpha `$. All these solutions are solutions of the Euler-Lagrange equation for $`L`$ as well; thus $`L^\alpha L`$. In general, conservation of $`L_1`$ is not guaranteed since $`L_1L_1+d\mathrm{\Lambda }/d\tau `$ is also a homogeneous Lagrangian of order one equivalent to $`L_1`$. This suggests that there may be a choice of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, a “gauge fixing”, so that $`L_1+d\mathrm{\Lambda }/d\tau `$ is conserved even if $`L_1`$ is not. The above discussion applies to a general homogeneous Lagrangian.

## 3 Homogeneous Lagrangians of First Order

Suppose we don’t know anything about classical physics, which is mainly concerned with trajectories of point particles in some space $`M`$, but we are told we can derive it from a variational principle if we use the right action integral $`S=L𝑑\tau `$. By following the above example we wonder: “should the smallest ‘distance’ be the guiding principle?” when constructing $`L`$. If yes, “How should it be defined for other field theories?” It seems that a reparametrization-invariant theory can provide us with a metric-like structure , and thus a possible link between field models and geometric models .

In the example of the relativistic particle, the Lagrangian and the trajectory parameterization have a geometrical meaning. In general, however, parameterization of a trajectory is quite arbitrary for any observer. Leaving aside recent hints for quantum space-time from loop quantum gravity and other theories111If there is a smallest time interval that sets a space-time scale, then this would imply a discrete space-time structure since there may not be any events in the smallest time interval. The Planck scale is often considered to be such an essential scale ., we ask: “Should there be any preferred trajectory parameterization in a smooth 4D space-time?” and “Aren’t we free to choose the standard of distance (time, using natural units $`c=1`$)?” If so, then we really have a smooth continuous manifold and our theory should not depend on the choice of parameterization.

If we look at the Euler-Lagrange equations:

$$\frac{d}{d\tau }\left(\frac{L}{v^\alpha }\right)=\frac{L}{x^\alpha },$$
(4)
we see that any homogeneous Lagrangian of order $`n`$ ($`L(x,\alpha \stackrel{}{v})=\alpha ^nL(x,\stackrel{}{v})`$) provides a reparametrization invariance ($`\tau \tau /\alpha ,\stackrel{}{v}\alpha \stackrel{}{v}`$). Next, note that the action $`S`$ involves an integration that is a natural structure for orientable manifolds ($`M`$) with an $`n`$-form of the volume. Since a trajectory is a one-dimensional object, then what we are looking at is an embedding $`\varphi :^1M`$. This means that we push forward the tangential space $`\varphi _{}:T(^1)=^1T(M)`$, and pull back the cotangent space $`\varphi ^{}:T(^1)=^1T^{}(M)`$. Thus a 1-form $`\omega `$ on $`M`$ that leaves in $`T^{}(M)`$ ($`\omega =A_\mu \left(x\right)dx^\mu `$) will be pulled back on $`^1`$ ($`\varphi ^{}(\omega )`$) and there it is proportional to the volume form on $`^1`$ ($`\varphi ^{}(\omega )=A_\mu \left(x\right)(dx^\mu /d\tau )d\tau d\tau `$), allowing us to integrate $`\varphi ^{}(\omega )`$ :

$$\varphi ^{}(\omega )=L𝑑\tau =A_\mu \left(x\right)v^\mu 𝑑\tau .$$

Therefore, by selecting a 1-form $`\omega =A_\mu \left(x\right)dx^\mu `$ on $`M`$ and using $`L=A_\mu \left(x\right)v^\mu `$ we are actually solving for the embedding $`\varphi :^1M`$ using a chart on $`M`$ with coordinates $`x:M^n`$. The Lagrangian obtained this way is homogeneous of first order in $`v`$ with a very simple dynamics. The corresponding Euler-Lagrange equation is $`F_{\nu \mu }v^\mu =0`$ where $`F`$ is a 2-form ($`F=dA`$); in electrodynamics this is the Faraday’s tensor. If we relax the assumption that $`L`$ is a pulled back 1-form and assume that it is just a homogeneous Lagrangian of order one, then we find a reparametrization-invariant theory that may have an interesting dynamics.

### 3.1 Pros and Cons About Homogeneous Lagrangians of First Order

Some of the good things about a theory with a first order homogeneous Lagrangian are:

* Any Lagrangian $`L(x,\frac{dx}{dt})`$ gives rise to a reparametrization-invariant Lagrangian222It is an open question whether there is an equivalence of the corresponding Euler-Lagrange equations. by enlarging the space to an extended space-time: $`L(x,\frac{dx}{dt})L(x,\frac{dx}{dt})\frac{dt}{d\tau }`$ .
* There is a reparametrization invariance of the action $`S=L(x,\frac{dx}{d\tau })𝑑\tau `$.
* Parameterization-independent path-integral quantization since the action $`S`$ is reparametrization invariant.
* The reparametrization invariance may help in dealing with singularities .
* It is easily generalized to $`D`$-dimensional extended objects ($`d`$-branes), which is the subject of the next section. Most of the features listed are more or less self-evident.

The list of bad things about a theory with a first order homogeneous Lagrangian includes:

* There are constraints among the Euler-Lagrange equations since $`det\left(\frac{^2L}{v^\alpha ^\beta }\right)=0`$, .
* It follows that the Legendre transformation ($`T\left(M\right)T^{}\left(M\right)`$), which exchanges coordinates $`(x,v)(x,p)`$, is problematic .
* There is a problem with the canonical quantization approach since the Hamiltonian function is identically ZERO ($`h0`$) .

Constraints among the equations of motion are not an insurmountable problem since there are procedures for quantizing such theories . For example, instead of using $`h0`$ one can use some of the constraint equations available, or a conserved quantity, as the Hamiltonian for the quantization procedure . Changing coordinates $`(x,v)(x,p)`$ seems to be difficult, but it may be resolved in some special cases by using the assumption that a gauge $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has been chosen so that $`LL+\frac{d\mathrm{\Lambda }}{d\tau }=L^{}=const`$. We would not discuss the above-mentioned quantization troubles since they are outside of the scope of this paper. A different approach is under investigation, for more details see ref. .

### 3.2 Canonical Form of the First Order Homogeneous Lagrangians

By now, we hope that the reader is puzzled, as we are, about the answer to the following question: “What is the general mathematical expression for first order homogeneous functions?” Below we define what we mean by the canonical form of the first order homogeneous Lagrangian and why we prefer such a mathematical expression.

First, note that any symmetric tensor of rank $`n`$ ($`S_{\alpha _1\alpha _2\mathrm{}\alpha _n}=S_{[\alpha _1\alpha _2\mathrm{}\alpha _n]}`$, where $`[\alpha _1\alpha _2\mathrm{}\alpha _n]`$ is an arbitrary permutation of the indexes) defines a homogeneous function of order $`n`$ ($`S_n(\stackrel{}{v},\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{v})=S_{\alpha _1\alpha _2\mathrm{}\alpha _n}v^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}.v^{\alpha _n}`$). The symmetric tensor of rank two is denoted by $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$. Using this notation, the canonical form of the first order homogeneous Lagrangian is defined as:

$$L(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{v})=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\sqrt[n]{S_n(\stackrel{}{v},\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{v})}=A_\alpha v^\alpha +\sqrt{g_{\alpha \beta }v^\alpha v^\beta }+\mathrm{}\sqrt[m]{S_m(\stackrel{}{v},\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{v})}.$$
(5)
Whatever is the Lagrangian for matter, it should involve interaction fields that couple with the velocity $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ to a scalar. Thus we must have $`L_{matter}(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{v};Fields)`$. When the matter action is combined with the action for the interaction fields ($`𝒮=𝑑V`$), we obtain a full background independent theory. Then the corresponding Euler-Lagrange equations contain “dynamical derivatives” on the left hand side and sources on the right hand side:

$$_\gamma \left(\frac{\delta }{\delta (_\gamma \mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha )}\right)=\frac{\delta }{\delta \mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha }+\frac{L_{matter}}{\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha }.$$

The advantage of the canonical form of the first order homogeneous Lagrangian (5) is that each interaction field, which is associated with a symmetric tensor, has a unique matter source that is a monomial in the velocities:

$$\frac{L}{S_{\alpha _1\alpha _2\mathrm{}\alpha _n}}=\frac{1}{n}\left(S_n(\stackrel{}{v},\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{v})\right)^{\frac{1n}{n}}v^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}.v^{\alpha _n}.$$
(6)
There are many other ways one can write first-order homogeneous functions . For example, one can consider the following expression $`L(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{v})=\left(h_{\alpha \beta }v^\alpha v^\beta \right)\left(g_{\alpha \beta }v^\alpha v^\beta \right)^{1/2}`$ where $`h`$ and $`g`$ are seemingly different symmetric tensors. However, each of these fields ($`h`$ and $`g`$) has the same source type ($`v^\alpha v^\beta `$):

$$\frac{L}{h_{\alpha \beta }}=\frac{L(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{v})}{h_{\gamma \rho }v^\gamma v^\rho }v^\alpha v^\beta ,\frac{L}{g_{\alpha \beta }}=\frac{L(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{v})}{g_{\gamma \rho }v^\gamma v^\rho }v^\alpha v^\beta .$$

Theories with two metrics have been studied before . At this stage, however, we cannot find any good reason why the same source type should produce different fields. Therefore, we prefer the canonical form (5) for our discussion.

## 4 $`D`$-dimensional Extended Objects

In the previous sections, we have discussed the classical mechanics of a point-like particle as a problem concerned with the embedding $`\varphi :^1M`$. The map $`\varphi `$ provides the trajectory (the word line) of the particle in the target space $`M`$. In this sense, we are dealing with a $`0`$-brane that is a one dimensional object. Although time is kept in mind as an extra dimension, we do not insist on any special structure associate with a time flow. We think of an extended object as a manifold $`D`$ with dimension, denoted also by $`D,dimD=D=d+1`$ where $`d=0,1,2,..`$.. In this sense, we have to solve for $`\varphi :DM`$ such that some action integral is minimized. From this point of view, we are dealing with mechanics of a $`d`$-brane. In other words, how is this $`D`$-dimensional extended object submerged in $`M`$, and what are the relevant interaction fields? By using the coordinate charts on $`M`$ ($`x:M^n`$), we also can think of this as a field theory over the $`D`$-manifold with a local fiber $`^m`$. Thus the field $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }`$ is such that $`\varphi ^\alpha =x\varphi :DM^n`$. Following the point particle discussion, we consider the space of the $`D`$-forms over the manifold $`M`$, denoted by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^D\left(M\right)`$, that has dimension $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{D}\right)=\frac{m!}{D!(mD)!}`$. An element $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^D\left(M\right)`$ has the form $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}dx^{\alpha _1}dx^{\alpha _2}\mathrm{}dx^{\alpha _m}`$. We use an arbitrary label $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to index different $`D`$-forms over $`M,\mathrm{\Gamma }=1,2,\mathrm{},\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{D}\right)`$; thus $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }^\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}^\mathrm{\Gamma }dx^{\alpha _1}dx^{\alpha _2}\mathrm{}dx^{\alpha _m}`$. Next we introduce “generalized velocity vectors” with components $`\omega ^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ :

$$\omega ^\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dz}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _D}^\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{\left(x^{\alpha _1}x^{\alpha _2}\mathrm{}x^{\alpha _D}\right)}{(z^1z^2\mathrm{}z^D)},dz=dz^1dz^2\mathrm{}dz^D.$$

In the above expression, $`\frac{\left(x^{\alpha _1}x^{\alpha _2}\mathrm{}x^{\alpha _D}\right)}{(z^1z^2\mathrm{}z^D)}`$ represents the Jacobian of the transformation from coordinates $`\{x^\alpha \}`$ over the manifold $`M`$ to coordinates $`\{z^a\}`$ over the $`d`$-brane. The pull back of a $`D`$-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ must be proportional to the volume form over the $`d`$-brane:

$$\varphi ^{}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }^\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)=\omega ^\mathrm{\Gamma }dz^1dz^2\mathrm{}dz^D=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _D}^\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{\left(x^{\alpha _1}x^{\alpha _2}\mathrm{}x^{\alpha _D}\right)}{(z^1z^2\mathrm{}z^D)}dz^1dz^2\mathrm{}dz^D.$$

Therefore, it is suitable for integration over the $`D`$-manifold. Thus the action for $`\varphi `$ is

$$S\left[\varphi \right]=_DL(\stackrel{}{\varphi },\stackrel{}{\omega })𝑑z=_D\varphi ^{}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }\right)=_DA_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{\varphi })\omega ^\mathrm{\Gamma }𝑑z.$$

This is a homogeneous function in $`\omega `$ and has reparametrization (diffeomorphism) invariance with respect to the $`D`$-manifold. If we relax the linearity $`L(\stackrel{}{\varphi },\stackrel{}{\omega })=\varphi ^{}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }\right)=A_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{}{\varphi })\omega ^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in $`\stackrel{}{\omega }`$, then the canonical expression for the homogeneous Lagrangian is:

$$L(\stackrel{}{\varphi },\stackrel{}{\omega })=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\sqrt[n]{S_n(\stackrel{}{\omega },\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{\omega })}=A_\mathrm{\Gamma }\omega ^\mathrm{\Gamma }+\sqrt{g_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}\omega ^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}\omega ^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}}+\mathrm{}\sqrt[m]{S_m(\stackrel{}{\omega },\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{\omega })}.$$
(7)
At this point, there is strong analogy between a point particle and a $`d`$-brane. However, there is a difference in the number of components; $`\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{v}`$, and $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }=\stackrel{}{x}\varphi `$ have the same number of components, but the “generalized velocity” $`\stackrel{}{\omega }`$ has $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{dimM}{dimD}\right)`$ components which are Jacobians .

Some familiar Lagrangians include:

* The Lagrangian for a 0-brane (relativistic point particle in an electromagnetic field, $`dimD=1`$ and $`\omega ^\mathrm{\Gamma }v^\alpha =\frac{dx^\alpha }{d\tau }`$) is:

$$L(\stackrel{}{\varphi },\stackrel{}{\omega })=A_\mathrm{\Gamma }\omega ^\mathrm{\Gamma }+\sqrt{g_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}\omega ^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}\omega ^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}}L(\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{v})=qA_\alpha v^\alpha +m\sqrt{g_{\alpha \beta }v^\alpha v^\beta }.$$
* The Lagrangian for a 1-brane (strings, $`dimD=2`$)  is:

$$L(x^\alpha ,_ix^\beta )=\sqrt{Y^{\alpha \beta }Y_{\alpha \beta }},$$

using the notation:

$$\omega ^\mathrm{\Gamma }Y^{\alpha \beta }=\frac{(x^\alpha ,x^\beta )}{(\tau ,\sigma )}=det\left(\begin{array}{cc}_\tau x^\alpha & _\sigma x^\alpha \\ _\tau x^\beta & _\sigma x^\beta \end{array}\right)=_\tau x^\alpha _\sigma x^\beta _\sigma x^\alpha _\tau x^\beta .$$
* The Lagrangian for a $`d`$-brane has the Dirac-Nambu-Goto term (DNG) :

$$L(x^\alpha ,_Dx^\beta )=\sqrt{Y^\mathrm{\Gamma }Y_\mathrm{\Gamma }}.$$

Notice that most of the Lagrangians above, except for the relativistic particle, are restricted only to gravity-like interactions. In the case of the charged relativistic particle, the electromagnetic interaction is very important. Thus similar interaction should be introduced in the string theory and in the DNG model.

## 5 The Background Fields and Their Lagrangians

The uniqueness of the interaction fields and source types has been essential for the selection of the matter Lagrangian (7). The first two terms in the Lagrangian are easily identified as electromagnetic and gravitational interaction. The other terms are somewhat new. It is not yet clear if these new terms are real or not, so we will not engage them actively in the following discussion. At this stage, we have a theory with background fields since we don’t know the equations for the interaction fields. To complete the theory, we need to introduce actions for these interaction fields.

One way to write the action integrals for the interaction fields $`S_n`$ in (7) follows the case of the $`d`$-brane discussion. There, we have been solving for $`\varphi :DM`$ by selecting a Lagrangian that is more than a pull back of a $`d`$-form over the manifold $`M`$. In a similar way, we may view $`S_n`$ as an $`M`$-brane field theory, where $`S_n:MS_nM`$ and $`S_nM`$ is the fiber of symmetric tensors of rank $`n`$ over $`M`$. This approach, however, cannot terminate itself since new interaction fields would be generated as in the case of $`\varphi :DM`$.

Another way assumes that $`A_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a 1-form. Thus we may use the external algebra structure $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(T^{}M\right)`$ over $`M`$ to construct objects proportional to the volume form over $`M`$. For any $`n`$-form $`(A)`$ objects proportional to the volume form $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{Vol}`$ can be constructed by using the external derivative $`d`$, multiplication $``$, and Hodge dual $``$ operations in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(T^{}M\right)`$. For example, $`AA`$ and $`dAdA`$ are forms proportional to the volume form.

The next important ingredient comes from the symmetry in the matter equation. That is, if there is a transformation $`AA^{}`$ that leaves the matter equations unchanged, then there is no way to distinguish $`A`$ and $`A^{}`$. Thus the action for the field $`A`$ should obey the same symmetry (gauge symmetry).

For example, the matter equation for 4D electromagnetic interaction is $`d\stackrel{}{v}/d\tau =F\stackrel{}{v}`$ where $`F`$ is the 2-form obtained by differentiation of the 1-form $`(A)`$ ($`F=dA`$), and the gauge symmetry for $`A`$ is $`AA^{}=A+df`$. The reasonable terms for a 1-form field in the field Lagrangian $`(A)`$ are: $`AA,dAdA`$, and $`dAdA`$. The first term does not conform with the gauge symmetry $`AA^{}=A+df`$ and the second term $`(dAdA)`$ is a boundary term since $`dAdA=d\left(AdA\right)`$ that gives $`_Md\left(AdA\right)=AdA`$ at the boundary of $`M`$. This term is interesting in the quantum Hall effect. Therefore, we are left with a unique action for electromagnetism:

$$S\left[A\right]=_MdAdA=_MFF.$$

For our next example, we look at the terms in the matter equation that involve gravity. There are two possible choices of matter equation. The first one is the geodesic equation $`d\stackrel{}{v}/d\tau =\stackrel{}{v}\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{}{v}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is considered as a connection 1-form that transforms in the usual way $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }+g`$ under coordinate transformations ($`g`$). This type of transformation, however, is not a ‘good’ symmetry since restricting $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }+\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to transformations $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=g,`$ such that $`\stackrel{}{v}\mathrm{\Sigma }\stackrel{}{v}=0`$, would mean to select a subset of coordinate systems, inertial systems, for which the action $`S`$ is well defined and satisfies $`S\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }\right]=`$ $`S\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }+\mathrm{\Sigma }\right]`$. Selecting a class of observables for the description of the system is not desirable, so we shall not follow this road.

In general, the Euler-Lagrange equations assume a background observer who defines a coordinate system. For electromagnetism, this is tolerable since neutral particles are such privileged observers. In gravity, however, there is no such observer, and the equation for matter should be relational. Such an equation is the equation of the geodesic deviation: $`d^2\stackrel{}{\xi }/d\tau ^2=R\stackrel{}{\xi }`$, where $`R`$ is a Lie $`\left(TM\right)`$ valued curvature 2-form $`R=d\mathrm{\Gamma }+[\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$. A general curvature 2-form is denoted by $`F`$ $`\left(F_{\alpha \beta }\right)_j^i`$. Here, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are related to the tangential space of the base manifold $`M`$. The $`i`$ and $`j`$ are related to the fiber structure of the bundle where is given the connection that defines $`\left(F_{\alpha \beta }\right)_j^i`$. Clearly, the Ricci tensor $`R`$ is a very special curvature because all of its indices are of $`TM`$ type. For that reason, it is possible to contract the fiber degree of freedom with the base manifold degree of freedom (indices). Thus an action linear in $`R`$ is possible. In general, one needs to consider a quadratic action, i.e. trace of $`FF`$ ($`F_{\alpha \beta j}^iF_{\alpha \beta i}^j`$).

Using the symmetries of the Ricci tensor $`R`$ ($`R_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \rho }=R_{\beta \alpha ,\gamma \rho }=R_{\alpha \beta ,\rho \gamma }=R_{\gamma \rho ,\alpha \beta }`$) we have two possible expressions that can be proportional to the volume form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The first expression is present in all dimensions and is denoted by $`R^{}`$, which means that a Hodge dual operation has been applied to the second pair of indices ($`R_{\alpha \beta ,(\gamma \rho )}`$). The $`R^{}`$ action seems to be related to the Cartan-Einstein action for gravity $`S\left[R\right]=R_{\alpha \beta }(dx^\alpha dx^\beta )`$ .

The other expression is only possible in a four-dimensional space-time and involves full anti-symmetrization of $`R`$ ($`R_{\alpha [\beta ,\gamma ]\rho )}`$) denoted by $`R^{}`$. We have not been able to identify the role of the $`R^{}`$ yet. Such a term in the action could produce a stabilizing effect or restore the renormalizability of the four dimensional gravity. If this happens, then it could be one of the reasons why the spacetime seems to be four dimensional. However, a statistical argument  based on geometric and differential structure of various brane and target spaces seems to be a better explanation for why we are living in a 4D space-time. For example, if we make a statistical path-integral-like estimate using the following generating function:

$$Z[S]=\underset{dimM=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\underset{Mtopologies}{}\left(\underset{dimD=1}{\overset{dimM}{}}\left(\underset{Dtopologies}{}\left(\underset{otherstructures}{}e^{S_m\left[\varphi :DM;S_n\right]S_f\left[S_n\right]}\right)\right)\right)\right),$$

then we may find that the expectation value for the averaged space dimension is 4 because of the infinitely many homeomorphic but not diffeomorphic 4D spaces. In the expression above $`S_m[\varphi :DM;S_n]`$ is the action for matter with $`S_n`$-type fields, and $`S_f\left[S_n\right]`$ is the corresponding action for the interaction fields.

## 6 Conclusions and Discussions

In summary, we have discussed the structure of the matter Lagrangian ($`L`$) for extended objects. Imposing reparametrization invariance of the action $`S`$ naturally leads to a first order homogeneous Lagrangian. In its canonical form, $`L`$ contains electromagnetic and gravitational interactions, as well as interactions that are not clearly identified yet. If one extrapolates from the strengths of the two known interactions, then one may suggest that the next terms should be important, if present at all, at big cosmological scales, such as galactic cluster dynamics. The choice of the canonical Lagrangian is based on the assumption of one-to-one correspondence between interaction fields and the type of their sources. If one can show that any homogeneous function can be written in the canonical form suggested, then this would be a significant step in our understanding of the fundamental interactions. Note that an equivalent expression can be considered as well: $`L=A_\alpha (\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{v})v^\alpha `$. This expression is simpler, and is concerned with the structure of the homogeneous functions of order zero $`A_\alpha (\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{v})`$. If one is going to study the new interaction fields $`S_n,n>2`$, then the guiding principles for writing field Lagrangians, as discussed in the examples of electromagnetism and gravity, may be useful. It would be interesting to apply the outlined constructions to general relativity by considering it as a $`3`$-brane in a $`10`$ dimensional target space ($`g_{\alpha \beta }:MS_2M`$).

Acknowledgments. The author acknowledges helpful discussions with Professors R. Hymaker, L. Smolinsky, A. R. P. Rau, R. F. O’Connell, P. Kirk, J. Pullin, C. Torre, J. Baez, P. Al. Nikolov, E. M. Prodanov, G. Dunne, and L. I. Gould. The author is also thankful to Professor J. P. Draayer at the LSU Department of Physics and Astronomy, Dr. Joe Abraham at the LSU Writing Center, and the organizers of the of the First Advanced Research Workshop on Gravity, Astrophysics and Strings at The Black Sea in Kiten, Bulgaria, who provided the opportunity for this research and its publication. The author acknowledges the financial support from the Department of Physics and Astronomy and the Graduate School at the Louisiana State University, the U. S. National Science Foundation support under Grant No. PHY-9970769 and Cooperative Agreement No. EPS-9720652 that includes matching from the Louisiana Board of Regents Support Fund.