text:
# Stellar Evolutionary Models for Magellanic Clouds

## 1 Introduction

Stellar evolution in both Magellanic Clouds (MCs) has been the object of several investigations already appeared in the current literature, mainly because the stars in the Clouds can provide relevant constraints on distances to these stellar systems which, in turn, play a relevant role in constraining the cosmic distance scale (see e.g. Gallart et al. 2003, Woo et al. 2003, Bertelli et al. 2003, Salaris et al. 2003). At the same time, recent improvements in the observational capabilities have suddenly increased our knowledge of Magellanic stars, not only reaching fainter magnitudes but also revealing objects populating the right center of several stellar clusters (see e.g. Brocato et al. 2001, Brocato et al. 2003, Rich et al. 2000). However, the theoretical scenario concerning the evolution of MC stars has not been exhaustively explored yet. Recent theoretical computations for suitable chemical abundances, as given by the“canonical” values Z=0.004 (SMC) and Z=0.008 (LMC), all rely on the assumption of an efficient overshooting in the convective cores (Yi et al. 2001, Girardi et al. 2000, hereinafter GBBC, Salasnich et al. 2000). The parallel availability of evolutionary results from the canonical scenario, where convective mixing is based on the well known Schwarzschild criterion, appears of obvious relevance, at least to allow significant tests of the various assumptions.

This paper presents such a canonical evolutionary scenario, as based on the most recent version of our evolutionary code. For the sake of completeness, evolutionary computations with efficient overshooting will be also presented, and a comparison with similar computations in the recent literature will be provided. The availability of such an evolutionary scenario has recently allowed Brocato et al. (2003) to discuss new observational data for the LMC cluster NGC1866, showing that the question about the actual efficiency of core overshooting is indeed still open. In the following section we will discuss the theoretical background, giving a preliminary discussion on the choice of several evolutionary inputs and exploring the robustness of evolutionary results vis-a-vis the unpredictable amount of mass loss. Evolutionary models and cluster isochrones are presented in Sect.3, while in Sect.4 models with and without overshooting are compared with previous results appeared in the literature. In Sect.5 several parameters of observational relevance are discussed. A final discussion will close the paper.

## 2 The theoretical background

Stellar models critically depend on the physical inputs adopted in the computational procedure, and only suitable observational tests can give light on the actual adequacy of theoretical predictions. Present models were computed with an updated version of the FRANEC evolutionary code (see e.g. Chieffi & Straniero 1989) by adopting recent physical ingredients available in the literature, namely the equation of state and the opacity from the Livermore tables (Iglesias & Rogers 1996, Rogers et al. 1996) and updated nuclear cross sections (see Ciacio et al. 1997 and Cassisi et al. 1998 for more details). When efficient, the element diffusion has been taken into account with diffusion coefficients as given by Thoul et al. (1994). With these choices we have already shown that the Standard Solar Model appears in good agreement with helioseismological constraints (see Degl’Innocenti et al. 1997) as well as with the location in the color-magnitude diagram (CMD) of stars with Hipparcos parallaxes in the two nearby open clusters Hyades and Pleiades (Castellani et al. 2001, Castellani et al. 2002).

When moving to the lower metallicities of MC stellar populations, further tests are needed, to assess the overall adequacy of the evolutionary predictions and, in particular, to calibrate the value of the mixing length parameter, which governs the efficiency of the super-adiabatic convection and, in turn, the temperature of the Red Giant Branch (RGB) in old stellar clusters. For this test we choose the well observed galactic globular 47 Tuc with \[Fe/H\]=-0.70 $`\pm `$ 0.03 (Carretta & Gratton 1997) and \[$`\alpha `$/Fe\]$``$0.16 (see e.g. Ferraro et al. 1999); one indeed derives a total metallicity Z$``$0.004$`÷`$0.0045, in reasonable agreement with the value Z=0.004 generally adopted for the SMC population. As shown in Fig. 1, by adopting the cluster reddening E(B-V)=0.03 from Schlegel et al. (1998), our models appear in good agreement with observations, and the choice l=$`\alpha `$H$`\mathrm{p}`$ with $`\alpha `$=1.9 appears able to reproduce the observed RGB color. The distance modulus (13.56 mag.) obtained from the fit of the horizontal branch appears in perfect agreement with the result by Carretta et al. (2000).

One may add the encouraging evidence that theoretical predictions concerning the bottom luminosity of the Asymptotic Giant Branch (AGB) appear in excellent agreement with observations. Entering into details, one may object that the predicted RG branch at the larger luminosity becomes progressively hotter than observed, making the fit good but not perfect. One could account for such an evidence by slightly decreasing the mixing length above the Horizontal Branch (HB) luminosity. However, it appears worth noting that such a behavior could be explained by mass loss in the upper RGB region, with a final decrease in mass by about 0.1-0.2 M. Indeed, if the star internal structure does not react to mass loss (Castellani & Castellani 1993) the stellar envelope moves toward the redder RG branch of the decreasing masses.

In principle, there are no reasons for the mixing length remaining constant for stars of different mass or chemical composition. However, from the same Fig. 1 one finds that, when passing from Z=0.004 to Z=0.008, the predicted RGB color increases by about $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(B-V)$``$ 0.1, in reasonable agreement with the observed difference between SMC and LMC field Red Giants (Matteucci et al. 2002). Moreover, Brocato et al. (2003) have already found that this mixing length calibration gives red giants in good agreement also with the CM diagram location of the He burning intermediate mass stars in the LMC cluster NGC1866, with an estimated metallicity Z=0.007$`÷`$0.008. As a conclusion, one may be rather confident that present theoretical results should be at least in reasonable agreement with the major observational constraints.

Evolutionary computations have been performed neglecting the occurrence of mass loss. In the case of low mass stars developing electron degeneracy in the RGB phase, one knows that mass loss is governing - as a free parameter - the color location of the Zero Age Horizontal Branch (ZAHB) stars. A theoretical analysis of the effect of mass loss on stars with masses in the range 1.5 M$`{}_{}{}^{}÷`$2.5 M has been presented by Castellani et al. (2000), showing that one expects only minor variations in the luminosity of clumping He burning stars. The effects of mass loss in more massive stars has been already exhaustively discussed in the literature (see, e.g., Bertelli et al. 1985). As an example Fig. 2 shows the evolution of a 4.0 M model as computed by adopting the Reimers’s formulation (Reimers 1975) under various assumptions on the free parameter $`\eta `$, governing the mass loss rate. One finds that even for $`\eta `$ values as large as 5 (against the recommended value of 1) the major effect is a reduction of the He burning blue loop, with a decrease in the loop luminosity not larger than $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$logL$``$0.025.

One may conclude that theoretical predictions appear rather robust vis-a-vis reasonable amounts of mass loss, which should not sensitively alter the current evolutionary scenario.

## 3 The models

Suitable sets of evolutionary models covering the mass range 0.8$`÷`$8 M have been computed for the two metallicities Z=0.008 and Z=0.004, taken as representative of the Large and the Small Magellanic Cloud abundances, respectively (see e.g. Luck et al. 1998, Hilker et al. 1995). Original helium abundances have been fixed at Y=0.238 (Z=0.004) or Y=0.25 (Z=0.008), as obtained by assuming a primordial helium content Y$`{}_{\mathrm{P}}{}^{}=0.23`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$Y/$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$Z $``$2.5 (see e.g. Pagel & Portinari 1998, Castellani et al. 1999). All these models have been followed from the Main Sequence (MS) through both the H and He burning phases, till C ignition or the onset of thermal pulses in the advanced AGB phase. For the less massive stars undergoing violent He flashes this has been done by using structures at the RG tip to produce suitable models of ZAHB, which have been evolved till the onset of the thermal pulses. Even less massive stars (M$``$0.7 M), whose evolutionary times are longer than the Hubble time, have been evolved up to central H exhaustion.

As an example, Fig. 3 shows the evolutionary paths in the HR diagram of a set of models for the labelled values of the mass and chemical composition. Detailed tables for all the tracks are available at the site http://gipsy.cjb.net in the directory “Pisa evolutionary library”. Each table lists, in the order, the age and, for each given age, the mass, luminosity and effective temperature, followed by the visual magnitude and the colors B-V, U-B, V-I, V-R and R-I as derived by adopting the model atmospheres by Castelli (1999). Tables with the ZAHB luminosity, temperature, V magnitude and B-V color for the various masses and chemical compositions are also available. Moreover, in the same site one may find also files depicting in some details the evolutionary results concerning three selected masses (M=0.9, 2.0 and 4.0 M) covering the so called RG transition (see e.g. Sweigart et al. 1990). These tables are intended to offer to the evolutionary people the opportunity of a close inspection into our results, allowing significative comparison among different evolutionary computations. For each given value of the mass, a file lists in the order the sequence number of the model, its age, central abundance by mass of H or He, luminosity, effective temperature, central temperature and density, the maximum off-center temperature and its location, the mass of the convective core, He core and convective envelope and, in the last four columns, the fraction of the total luminosity released by pp, CNO and He nuclear burning and by the gravothermal energy. The masses of the He core at the helium ignition are in agreement with the results of Dominguez et al. (1999).

As a whole, the evolutionary behavior of all the models follows the well known prescriptions already and abundantly documented in the literature, and it does not deserve further comments. As shown in Fig. 4, we only notice that for Z=0.004 Y=0.238 one finds the lower mass limit for the carbon ignition (Mup) between 6.3 and 6.4 M (for Z=0.004 Y=0.27 Mup is between 6.0 and 6.1 M and for Z=0.008 Y=0.25 between 6.7 and 6.8 M). Comparison with previous (canonical) limits as given in Castellani et al. (1990) discloses that with the improved input physics the limit has decreased by about 1 M, a result which appears in agreement with the data presented more recently by Dominguez et al. (1999). Evolutionary tracks have been finally used to produce cluster isochrones covering the ages from $``$100 Myr to $``$15 Gyr. Figure 5 shows the isochrones set for the case Z=0.004 Y=0.238, as presented in the log(L/L), logTe diagram. Data for all the isochrones can be found at the already quoted web site in files, which, for each given age, give the mass distribution of the evolving stars and, for each mass, the star luminosity and effective temperature together with the absolute V magnitude and selected colors in the Johnson and near-infrared Cousins bands.

## 4 Comparison with previous results

This section will be devoted to a comparison with similar results appeared in the recent literature. In our feeling, such a comparison is of some relevance, at least as a warning for the common reader about the amount of differences that can occur among recent evolutionary computations and against the uncritical use of evolutionary results. Differences in the results available in the literature arise from the adoption of different but still acceptable physical inputs and from the various assumptions about the efficiency of some macroscopic mechanisms as the microscopic diffusion or the core overshooting. In our knowledge, the only recent papers presenting evolutionary models and isochrones for the MC chemical composition are the ones by Girardi et al. (2000, Padova models) and by Yi et al. (2001, Yonsei-Yale models) both adopting a mild overshooting for H burning structures. Very recently the Padova models have been compared with the Yonsei-Yale ones (Gallard et al. 2003), here we will discuss the comparison of our isochrones with the Girardi et al. ones.

In the GBBC work all the H burning models with masses $``$1.5 M are supposed to be affected by the core overshooting, with an extra-mixing extending by about l$`{}_{\mathrm{ext}}{}^{}=0.5`$ Hp outside the canonical convective core. A similar overshooting has been also applied to all convective cores affecting the central He burning structures. The convective envelopes have been computed by adopting a mixing length parameter $`\alpha `$=1.68 but allowing for an efficient undershooting at the bottom of the convective region with l$`{}_{\mathrm{ext}}{}^{}=0.25`$ Hp for 0.6$``$M/M $``$2.0 and lext=0.7Hp for M$`>`$2.5 M. Microscopic diffusion is not taken into account.

A first meaningful comparison between present and GBBC models can be made for the H burning phases of low mass stars, where overshooting is inefficient for the lack of the convective cores. In Fig.6 (left panel) the GBBC track for a 0.8 M star (Z=0.004 Y=0.24) is compared with a similar model as computed with our code neglecting diffusion and adopting the same chemical composition and the same mixing length ($`\alpha `$=1.68). The right panel of the same figure shows how evolutionary tracks are varied when moving toward our canonical model, first increasing from $`\alpha `$=1.68 to 1.9 and, finally, accounting for element diffusion. As a whole, differences in the left panel have to be ascribed to different input physics, as already exhaustively discussed in Castellani et al. (2000), and to the assumption of the undershooting in GCCB model. Evolutionary tracks in the right panel follow well known theoretical predictions (see e.g. Proffit & Vandenberg 1991, Chaboyer et al. 1992, Castellani et al. 1997) for the effects of the element diffusion. As a whole, the large variations one finds in both panels reinforce the need for suitable tests and calibrations of theories before producing evolutionary data for the observational community.

Table 1 compares selected evolutionary quantities for the above 0.8 M models. Even neglecting element diffusion one finds that the GBBC models have longer central H burning times, but shorter H-shell lifetimes. The large difference in the central He burning structures is partially due to the lower luminosity of their ZAHB models, but we guess it to be largely connected to the adoption of the core overshooting instead of the canonical semiconvection, as in our models. Without entering in further details, we feel that the above comparison convincingly demonstrate that all current models can be safely adopted to obtain a thumbnail understanding of the evolutionary status of actual cluster stars. However, before attempting precise comparison and/or calibrations, one should preliminarily make a reasoned choice among the various available models. This is, e.g., shown by the last column in Table 1, which discloses how far the calibration of the R parameter in terms of the original He content depends on the adopted evolutionary scenario.

A short discussion concerning the comparison between present and GBBC models for the more massive stars has been already presented by Brocato et al. (2003) for the case of solar metallicity. To extend the comparison to Magellanic abundances, we computed an additional set of models (Z=0.004 Y=0.238, Z=0.008 Y=0.25) by allowing an efficient core overshooting in the H burning phase, as modelled according to Castellani et al. (2000) with $`l_{\mathrm{ov}}=\beta \mathrm{H}_\mathrm{p}`$, and $`\beta `$ values covering the range suggested in the recent literature (see e.g. Girardi et al. 2000, Pols et al. 1998). We recall that due to the different treatment of the overshooting phenomenon the $`\beta `$ value adopted by the Padua group is roughly equivalent to one half of the $`\beta `$ value adopted in present work. In particular the Padua $`\beta `$=0.5 corresponds to the present $`\beta `$=0.25.

Figure 7 shows the comparison between a 4 M by Girardi et al. (2000) and our model with a similar amount of overshooting and the same mixing lenght. One finds that the two models are in rather good agreement, but with GBBC He burning giants fainter than ours. The same figure shows the dramatic difference when neglecting the overshooting, in agreement with already well known predictions (see e.g. Maeder 1975, Bressan et al. 1993 and references therein). Data in the figure add the evidence that a mild overshooting, as given by $`\beta `$=0.1, produces only marginal variations in the predicted evolutionary path, so that one can easily predict that the occurrence of such a mild overshooting will be very hard to proof. Evolutionary lines and cluster isochrones with selected choices for the efficiency of overshooting can be found at the same web link quoted above. As usual, models with overshooting are calculated for masses $``$1.2 M to avoid the unobserved presence of the overall contraction feature in low mass stars; for this reason isochrones with overshooting are calculated for ages lower than about 5 Gyr. Due to the relatively low ages, models with overshooting do not include microscopic diffusion.

## 5 An age indicator

Theoretical constraints on the age of stellar clusters are among the most relevant results of stellar evolutionary theories, allowing to shed light on the history of stellar populations. In this context, clusters belonging to the Magellanic Clouds appear of particular interest, since their significant range of ages represents an ideal target for testing theory. The most exhaustive approach to the problem of the cluster ages is obviously provided by the well known isochrone fitting procedure. However, the availability of more direct and simple “age indicators” has been already proved of some relevance.

In the case of old globulars, since the pioneering paper by Iben (1968), the so called “vertical method”, based on the difference ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$MV) between the Turn-Off (TO) and the helium burning HB phase has been widely used (see e.g. Stetson et al. 1996, Salaris & Weiss 1997, Cassisi et al. 1998, 1999). A similar method can be however adopted for younger clusters, calibrating the difference in magnitude between the bright MS termination (MT) and the clump of He burning giants (see e.g. Salaris & Girardi 2002, Castellani et al. 1999, Udalski et al. 1998). According to such an evidence, we made use of present isochrones to calibrate such a parameter in terms of the cluster ages. The aim is to provide an easy-to-do observational parameter able to derive from the CM diagram of a cluster, at least, a correct order of magnitude for the age, independently of the cluster distance.

Table 2 gives data for such a calibration, as evaluated for LMC compositions and with the labelled assumptions about the efficiency of overshooting, whereas Table 3 gives similar data but for SMC, testing also the effects of an increased amount of original He. The tables gives, for each value of the cluster age, the V magnitude of the MS termination and the difference in visual magnitude between the clump and MT evaluated respectively as the bottom luminosity of the He clump region and as the brightest magnitude reached just after the overall contraction phase (H exhaustion). For each age, the original mass of stars populating the He burning clump is also reported.

Figure 8 shows the run of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$MV as a function of the cluster age. As already known (see, e.g., Fig. 11 in Castellani et al. 1992) one finds that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$MV attains a minimum for ages around 300-400 Myr, definitely increasing when the age increases above that value. One concludes that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$MV works as an univocal indicator only for ages larger than 700-800 Myr, whereas for lower ages there is in principle a possible ambiguity. Data in the same figure shows the not negligible dependence of the calibration on the assumptions made about both overshooting and He content, representing an obvious additional uncertainty. However, it could offers the opportunity to constrain these parameters by comparison with a set of well observed LMC clusters covering a suitable range of ages.

Interestingly enough, one may notice that the predicted evolutionary scenario appears at least qualitatively supported by the the sample of 21 CM diagrams for LMC clusters recently presented by Brocato et al. (2001). By looking at Fig. 14 in that paper, one finds (apart from the case of NGC6718) a support to the overall behavior of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$MV with time, including the occurrence of a minimum value of the order of the predicted one. Data in the previous Tables 2 and 3 can be useful in several ways. As an example, by simply looking at the CM diagram of cluster NGC2420 (Anthony-Twarog et al. 1990) from the observed difference in magnitude between the He-clump and the MS termination ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$M$`{}_{\mathrm{V}}{}^{}`$ 1.5 mag ) one finds for the cluster a (canonical) age of the order of 2 Gyr, in agreement with the results obtained through the fit of the CMD diagram (see e.g. Pols et al. 1998, Prada Moroni et al. 2001) but without the need for a complicate isochrone fitting procedure. In the meantime one gives, at least, an indication of the absolute magnitude of the MS termination and, thus, of the cluster distance modulus together with information on the original mass of the evolving He giants.

## 6 Final remarks

In this paper we have presented and discussed the canonical evolutionary scenario for stars with the chemical compositions suitable for the two MCs. The effect of overshooting has been also discussed by producing a set of parallel investigations as based on the same procedures and the same input physics. On this basis we make available evolutionary tracks and cluster isochrones covering the range of ages 100 Myr$`÷`$15 Gyr. The difference in magnitudes between the top MS (the Blue Sequence) and He burning structures has been finally calibrated in terms of the cluster age. However, we are well aware that observational constraints on such a parameter can be sometime not easy, if not difficult. A poorly populated cluster may lack of the most luminous stars, either in the He burning phase or above the overall contraction phase. Moreover, in strongly populated clusters the occurrence of binaries can mask the MS top, adding objects at higher luminosity. However, even bearing in mind these warnings, we feel that such a calibration appears as a relevant topic of the presented evolutionary scenario, allowing an easy and quick approach to the problem of cluster ages.

###### Acknowledgements.

Financial support for this work was provided by the Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca (MIUR) under the scientific project “Stellar observables of cosmological relevance” (V. Castellani & A. Tornambè, coordinators).


format: text

text:
# Dual embedding of the Lorentz-violating electrodinamics and Batalin-Vilkovisky quantization.

## 1 Introduction

It has been considered by Carroll, Field and Jackiw, the possibility of modifying the electromagnetic Maxwell Lagrangian to include, for instance, explicit mass term and a topological term ,

$$L_\mu [A_\mu ]=\frac{\beta }{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\frac{m^2}{2}A_\mu A^\mu L_{CS}[A_\mu ]$$
(1)
where the $`L_{CS}`$ is a 3+1 version of the CS action, which couples the dual electromagnetic tensor to an external four vector $`p`$:

$$L_{CS}[A_\mu ]=\frac{1}{4}p_\alpha A_\beta ϵ^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }.$$
(2)
As it has been analysed, if this vector is fixed to be (say) covariantly constant, $`L_{CS}`$ is gauge invariant but not Lorentz invariant. The experimental limits to the variations of Maxwell model are also in ref. .

This paper has a two-fold purpose: to construct a gauge invariant version of the Maxwell modified theory via the gauging iterative Noether method and to perform Batalin-Vilkovisky quantization; and furthermore, to discuss on some properties of this procedure of dualization; for instance, its relation to the parent action approach.

Recently the so-called gauging iterative Noether Dualization Method (NDM)  has been shown to be effective in establishing some dualities between models . This method is based on the traditional idea of a local lifting of a global symmetry and may be realized by an iterative embedding Noether counter terms. However, this method provides a strong suggestion of duality since it has been shown to give the expected result in the paradigmatic duality between the so-called Self-Dual model and Maxwell-Chern-Simons in three dimensions (SD-MCS). This well-known correspondence was first established in detail by Deser and Jackiw , and may be shown using a parent action approach .

In this work we argue in favor of this this method (NDM), since we show that, in certain cases, this may actually be seen as a constructive procedure to find a parent action; which would constitute a manifest proof for the duality.

## 2 The construction of the gauge invariant Lagrangian.

Let us consider the massive Maxwell-Chern-Simons Lagrangian in four dimensions

$$L^{(0)}=\frac{\beta }{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\frac{m^2}{2}A_\mu A^\mu \frac{1}{4}p_\alpha A_\beta ϵ^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }.$$
(3)
Next, we are going to localize the gauge symmetry,

$$A_\alpha A_\alpha +_\alpha \eta ,\delta A_\alpha =_\alpha \eta ,$$
(4)
and calculate the first variation of this lagrangian,

$`\delta L^{(0)}[A_\mu ]=\left(m^2A_\mu +\beta (^\nu F_{\nu \mu })ϵ_{\alpha \beta \nu \mu }p^\alpha (^\beta A^\nu )\right)^\mu \eta .`$ (5)
We may recognize the Noether current as

$$J_\mu =m^2A_\mu +\beta (^\nu F_{\nu \mu })ϵ_{\alpha \beta \nu \mu }p^\alpha (^\beta A^\nu )$$
(6)
so that we construct the first iterated lagrangian by introducing an ancillary field $`B`$, $`L^{(1)}=L^{(0)}JB`$. If we admit now that $`B`$ transforms according to

$$\delta B_\mu =\delta A_\mu =_\mu \eta ,$$
(7)
then

$$\delta L^{(1)}=(\delta J_\mu )B^\mu .$$
(8)
In the other hand we have

$$\delta J_\mu =m^2\delta A_\mu =m^2(_\mu \eta ).$$
(9)
Note that by defining the second iterated lagrangian by

$$L^{(2)}=L^{(1)}+\frac{m^2}{2}B_\mu B^\mu ,$$
(10)
and using (8) and (9), we get that the total variation vanishes, $`\delta L^{(2)}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$. Let us write down the explicit form of this action:

$`L^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{4}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}A_\mu A^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}p_\alpha A_\beta ϵ^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }`$ (11)
$``$ $`\left(m^2A_\mu +\beta (^\nu F_{\nu \mu })ϵ_{\alpha \beta \nu \mu }p^\alpha (^\beta A^\nu )\right)B^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{2}}B_\mu B^\mu .`$
Solving for $`B`$ we get the equation of motion

$$J+m^2B=0$$
(12)
Plugging this back into (11), we obtain the remarkable gauge invariant theory :

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{4}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{\alpha \beta \nu \mu }p^\alpha (^\beta A^\nu )A^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m^2}}\left(ϵ_{\alpha \beta \nu \mu }p^\alpha (^\beta A^\nu )\right)^2`$ (13)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{2m^2}}(_\mu F^{\mu \nu })^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{m^2}}ϵ_{\alpha \beta \nu \mu }p^\alpha (^\beta A^\nu )(_\rho F^{\rho \mu }).`$
We should observe also that the massive exitation has been transformed in topological mass by this procedure.

### 2.1 On the Noether Dualization Method.

Note the Maxwell term remain unafected under dualization and this could be not considered ($`\beta =0`$). This seems to be a characteristic of gauge invariant terms in the initial action. Notice further that in the particular limit $`\beta =0`$, the action 11 is, in certain sense, a parent action for this duality, this is a frecuent behavior of this dualization method. To prove this, we only must note that the last iterated lagrangian (11) is precisely the so-called parent action. In other words, we must show that by varying this with respect, first to $`A`$ and second to $`B`$, the actions (13) and (3) are recovered.

Varying $`L^2`$ with respect to $`B`$, by construction 111In fact, this constitutes the final step of the Gauging Noether method., equation 13 is obtained. Then if we variate this action with respect to $`A`$, we obtain the equation of motion

$$J(AB)=0.$$
(14)
Next, let us define the new variable $`\stackrel{~}{A}AB`$; equation (14) corresponds to an action $`L^{(0)}[\stackrel{~}{A}]`$. This completes our argument.

The similarity of this duality with the one in three dimensions between the Self-Dual model (SD) and Maxwell-CS (MCS) must to be remmarked. This is not surprissing since, if we choice the external vector $`p_\mu `$ to coincide with an (espacial) element of cartesian basis of the space-time, and writing the fields in components, one may directly verify that action (with $`k=0`$) reduces to SD in three dimensions and the action (13) coincides with MCS. Thus, of course, the duality is preserved * .

Notice that this argument can be repeated in each case studied by this Noether method, except when the non-linearity is marked, such as in the case of the duality between Non-Abelian Self-Dual and Yang-Mills Chern Simons theories (in three dimensions). In these cases another proof must be given, a suggestion to fill this gap was given precisely for this problem in ref.

## 3 Batalin-Vilkovisky Quantization.

After the model has been analysed in terms of its particle excitations and its consistency has been ascertained, our goal is to implement a procedure to obtain a gauge fixed Generating Functional of the new gauge invariant Lagrangian. For this reason we will work with the field antifield formalism.
The standard form of field antifield quantization or BV scheme  is based on imposing explicit BRST invariance of the vacuum functional, by considering a closed equation that generates the gauge algebra and uses it afterwards to construct the functional generator of theory. An important feature of the standard BV is the anticanonical form of its phase space, where the coordinates has a relationship conjugated with respect to the antibracket operation. Another important aspect of the field antifield formalism is that canonical transformations  do not change the form of the antibracket. At classical level the action is constructed with the same Lagrangian that one considered on the equation (13):

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{4}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{\alpha \beta \nu \mu }p^\alpha (^\beta A^\nu )A^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m^2}}\left(ϵ_{\alpha \beta \nu \mu }p^\alpha (^\beta A^\nu )\right)^2`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{2m^2}}(_\mu F^{\mu \nu })^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{m^2}}ϵ_{\alpha \beta \nu \mu }p^\alpha (^\beta A^\nu )(_\rho F^{\rho \mu }),`$
where the gauge symmetry is

$$\delta A_\mu =_\mu \eta $$
(15)
and the corresponding BRST symmetry can be read by

$`sA_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`_\mu C`$ (16)
$`sC`$ $`=`$ $`b.`$ (17)
Then we can deal now with the non minimal solution of Master equation, by including the auxiliary fields ($`b,\overline{C}`$)

$$S=d^4x\left(L+A_\mu ^{}^\mu C+\overline{C}^{}b\right)$$
(18)
Notice that formally, the terms that breaks the Lorentz invariance, more precisely the external vector $`p`$, can be treated as an external source in order to perform a BV quantization of the theory. However, since this is not a field of the non minimal sector of theory its nature is BRST invariant. Therefore the path integral is independent of the gauge choice, and its introduction does not introduce subsequent modifications in the BV scheme to the quantization procedure. We are ready now to gauge fix the model. With this aim we will consider the functional fermion,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=d^4x\overline{C}\left(^\mu A_\mu \frac{1}{2}b\right),$$
(19)
the BRST variation of it is written by

$$s\mathrm{\Psi }=d^4x)b^\mu A_\mu \overline{C}^\mu _\mu C\frac{1}{2}b^2).$$
(20)
The generator functional can be read with the gauge fixed action by

$$Z[p,J]=DA_\mu DCD\overline{C}DbDA_\mu ^{}D\overline{C^{}}e^{i\left(S+s\mathrm{\Psi }+J_\mu A^\mu \right)}$$
(21)
After functional integration over $`A_\mu ^{}`$, $`\overline{C^{}}`$ and $`b`$ we are able to write the final form for the generating functional

$$Z[p,J]=DA_\mu DCe^{i{\scriptscriptstyle d^4x\left(L+_\mu bA^\mu +_\mu \overline{C}^\mu C+J_\mu A^\mu \right)}},$$
(22)
where $`L`$ is the same written on (13).

## 4 The Spectrum of the Theory and Unitarity Requirements.

We now intend to investigate the pole structure of the gauge propagator stemming from our Lagrangian

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{4}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{\alpha \beta \nu \mu }p^\alpha (^\beta A^\nu )A^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m^2}}\left(ϵ_{\alpha \beta \nu \mu }p^\alpha (^\beta A^\nu )\right)^2`$ (23)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{2m^2}}(_\mu F^{\mu \nu })^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{m^2}}ϵ_{\alpha \beta \nu \mu }p^\alpha (^\beta A^\nu )(_\rho F^{\rho \mu }){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha }}(_\mu A^\mu ),`$
in which we have added a gauge-fixing term. By means of partial integrations in the action, we can rearrange the Lagrangean in terms of spin operators

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A^\mu \{[\beta \mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^2}}(p^2\mathrm{}\lambda ^2){\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2\mathrm{}^2}{m^2}}]\theta _{\mu \nu }+({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\alpha }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{m^2}})\omega _{\mu \nu }+(1{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta \mathrm{}}{m^2}})S_{\mu \nu }`$ (24)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{m^2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{m^2}}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\nu \mu })\}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A^\mu 𝒪_{\mu \nu }A^\nu ,`$
with $`\theta _{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }\frac{_\mu _\nu }{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\omega _{\mu \nu }=\frac{_\mu _\nu }{\mathrm{}}`$ being the transversal and the longitudinal operators, respectively, and

$`S_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }p^\alpha ^\beta ,`$ (25)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`p_\mu p_\nu \text{and}`$ (26)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`p_\mu _\nu ,`$ (27)
generated by the inclusion of the external vector $`p^\mu `$. The $`\lambda `$ is just $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu ^\mu =p_\mu ^\mu `$. The algebra of these operators is shown in Table 1:

|  | $`\theta _\nu ^\alpha `$ | $`\omega _\nu ^\alpha `$ | $`S_\nu ^\alpha `$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\alpha `$ | $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\nu ^\alpha `$ | $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\nu ^\alpha `$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\theta _{\mu \alpha }`$ | $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ | $`0`$ | $`S_{\mu \nu }`$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }\frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\nu \mu }`$ | $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }\lambda \omega _{\mu \nu }`$ | $`0`$ |
| $`\omega _{\mu \alpha }`$ | $`0`$ | $`\omega _{\mu \nu }`$ | $`0`$ | $`\frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\nu \mu }`$ | $`\lambda \omega _{\mu \nu }`$ | $`\mathrm{}_{\nu \mu }`$ |
| $`S_{\mu \alpha }`$ | $`S_{\mu \nu }`$ | $`0`$ | $`f_{\mu \nu }`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \alpha }`$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }\frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }`$ | $`\frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }`$ | $`0`$ | $`v^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }`$ | $`v^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }`$ | $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }`$ |
| $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \alpha }`$ | $`0`$ | $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }`$ | $`0`$ | $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }`$ | $`\lambda \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }`$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}`$ |
| $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \mu }`$ | $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\nu \mu }\lambda \omega _{\mu \nu }`$ | $`\lambda \omega _{\mu \nu }`$ | $`0`$ | $`v^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\nu \mu }`$ | $`v^2\mathrm{}\omega _{\mu \nu }`$ | $`\lambda \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\nu \mu }`$ |

Table 1: Multiplicative Table fulfilled by $`\theta ,\omega ,S,\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The products are supposed to obey the order ”row times column”.

Making use of Table 1, we can invert $`𝒪_{\mu \nu }`$, which yelds the following vector propagator in momenta space:

$`A_\mu A_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{D}}\{[m^2(k^2(k^2m^2)p^2k^2+(pk)^2)]\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ (28)
$`+`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha D}{k^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2(pk)^2F}{k^2(k^2m^2)}}\right]\omega _{\mu \nu }im^2(2k^2m^2)S_{\mu \nu }`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2F}{(k^2m^2)}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2(pk)F}{k^2(k^2m^2)}}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\nu \mu })\}.`$
The factor $`F`$ and the denominator $`D`$ are given by

$$F=3k^2(k^2m^2)+m^4+p^2k^2(pk)^2$$
(29)
and

$$D=\left[k^4+p^2k^2(pk)^2\right]\left[(k^2m^2)^2+p^2k^2(pk)^2\right].$$
(30)
In the above expressions, we have made $`\beta =1`$, in order to compare our spectrum with the obtained in the work , where the original theory (the Lagrangian given by eq. (1) was analised. It is interesting to note that our denominator is simply the product of two denominators: the one that comes from the original massive theory (eq.(1)) and the one that comes from the non massive theory (eq.(1) without the Proca term). We have now doubled the number of degrees of freedom, since the new Lagrangean has derivatives of higher order. This will be analised further.

Here we will analise situations in which the external vector $`p^\mu `$ is purely space-like. The time- and light-like terms allows for non physical poles in the theory of eq(1) as it is shown in ref. . Then we take $`p^\mu =(0,0,0,\mu )`$ and $`k^\mu =(k^0,0,0,k^3)`$. The denominator, then, reads

$$D=[k^2m_1^2][k^2m_2^2][k^2m_1^2][k^2m_2^2],$$
(31)
with the poles

$`k_0^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_1^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[2(m^2+k_3^2)+\mu ^2+\mu \sqrt{\mu ^2+4(m^2+k_3^2)}\right],`$ (32)
$`k_0^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_2^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[2(m^2+k_3^2)+\mu ^2\mu \sqrt{\mu ^2+4(m^2+k_3^2)}\right],`$ (33)
$`k_0^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_1^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[2k_3^2+\mu ^2+\mu \sqrt{\mu ^2+4k_3^2}\right],`$ (34)
$`k_0^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_2^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[2k_3^2+\mu ^2\mu \sqrt{\mu ^2+4k_3^2}\right].`$ (35)
Besides these poles, we still have the poles $`k_0^2=k_3^2`$ ($`k^2=0`$) and $`k_0^2=m^2+k_3^2`$ ($`k^2=m^2`$). The poles $`m_1^2`$, $`m_2^2`$ and $`m^2+k_3^2`$ come from the massive sector, while the other three arise from the massless sector.

We start off with the calculus of the residue matrix for the pole $`k_0^2=m_1^1`$, for which we find

$$R_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu ^2+4(m^2+k_3^2)}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& m_1& im_1& 0\\ 0& im_1& m_1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(36)
with the eigenvalues

$`\lambda _1`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (37)
$`\lambda _2`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (38)
$`\lambda _3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2|m_1|}{\sqrt{\mu ^2+4(m^2+k_3^2)}}}>0\text{and}`$ (39)
$`\lambda _4`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (40)
As it can be seen, this pole is to be associated with only one physical degree of freedom, since we have only one non-null eigenvalue. The same hapens with the pole $`k^2=m_2^2`$, for which the results are completely similar with the exchange of $`m_1`$ for $`m_2`$.

We now study the pole $`k_0^2=m^2+k_3^2`$. The associated residue matrix reads as below

$$R_m=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{k_3^2}{m^2}& 0& 0& \frac{\left|k_3\right|\left(m^2+k_3^2\right)^{1/2}}{m^2}\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ \frac{\left|k_3\right|\left(m^2+k_3^2\right)^{1/2}}{m^2}& 0& 0& \frac{\left(m^2+k_3^2\right)}{m^2},\end{array}\right)$$
(41)
with a unique non-vanishing eigenvalue:

$$\lambda =\frac{m^2+2k_3^2}{m^2}>0.$$
(42)
These results obtained for the three initial poles, coming from the original theory, that includes a Proca term, are exactly the same obtained in , where the Lagrangean eq(1) was studied. They express three degrees of freedon, which one coming from one pole.

The study of the three remaining poles brings about an interesting result: the residues found for the poles coming from the massless factor of $`D`$ are simply the residues found for the massless theory up to a minus sign. This suggest that maybe the total propagator can be rearranged so as to be expressed as the difference between the propagators of the massive and the non-massive theories. Indeed, we have:

$$A_\mu A_\nu =A_\mu A_\nu _1A_\mu A_\nu _2\frac{1}{m^2}\omega _{\mu \nu },$$
(43)
with

$`A_\mu A_\nu _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{D_1}}\{(k^2m^2)\theta _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{(pk)^2}{(k^2m^2)}}\omega _{\mu \nu }`$ (44)
$`iS_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{(k^2m^2)}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{(pk)}{(k^2m^2)}}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\nu \mu })\}`$
and

$`A_\mu A_\nu _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{D_2}}\{k^2\theta _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{(pk)^2}{k^2}}\omega _{\mu \nu }`$ (45)
$`iS_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{(pk)}{k^2}}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\nu \mu })\},`$
where we have made the gauge choice $`\alpha =0`$. This is a remarkable result. The minus sign in the second propagator guarantees us that the physical particles predicted by the original theory are the same in its dual theory, since the negative eigenvalus obtained in the second part are compatible with negative norm states. This apparently surprising result may actually be traced back to the case of the usual Proca theory. If we proceed to the dualisation of the action for the Proca field, as we have done in Section 1 (without the Lorentz-breaking term), we can show that the $`A_\mu `$-propagator of the dual theory also turns out to have the same relation with the massive and the massless $`A_\mu `$-propagators.

## 5 A Final Comment.

The gauge invariant Maxwell Theory was modified in such a form that the gauge invariance is broken within certain observational limits. We showed here that this invariance can be restored and this modified version of the electromagnetism results to be equivalent to a novel gauge invariant theory (equation (13)). However the Lorentz invariance remains broken.

Acknowledgements: The authors express their gratitude to CNPq, for the invaluable financial help. M.B.C was supported by CLAF.