See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/243167411

The Dirac bracket

Article  in  Theoretical and Mathematical Physics · September 1992

DOI: 10.1007/BF01017078

CITATIONS READS

4 386

1 author:

Vladimir Pavlov
Steklov Mathematical Institute of RAS
25 PUBLICATIONS   56 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Vladimir Pavlov on 29 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

THE DIRAC BRACKET

V o P~ P a v l o v

The possibility of giving a geometrical meaning to Hamiltonian dynamics in the presence of second-class constraints by using the
Dirac bracket to define a symplectic structure on the phase space is discussed.
In memory of Mikhail Konstantinovich Polivanov

In the extensive literature devoted to the Hamiltonian dynamics of constrained systems and published over a period of
nearly half a century" since Dirac's first paper [l], the case when there are no second-class constraints has been thoroughly
studied. In particular, the geometrical significance of the objects encountered in generalized Hamiltonian dynamics has been
clarified [2,3]. The foundation of the geometrical interpretation is the symplectic structure generated in the phase space by the
Poisson bracket. It is this structure that permits the introduction of Hamiltonian vector fields isomorphic to the differentials
of functions in the phase space the Hamiltonian and first-class constraints and to elucidate the structure of the constraint
surface.
The general case, when second-class constraints are present, has been studied very little. Effectively, the matter has not
progressed beyond the assertion of Dirac that in the presence of second-class constraints the generalized Hamiltonian equations
contain, not the Poisson bracket, but the Dirac bracket, and that the complete system of equations consists of these equations
and the constraint equations. One of the reasons for this is the tradition, widely adopted following Dirac, of formulating
equations ~'in the weak sense" up to a linear combination of the constraints. Since this combination may include second-class
constraints~ in such a language one does not formulate, for example, the fact that a system of constraints is in involution.
There is proposed here a recursive procedure of "multiplying" constraints, which makes it possible to fix them as
representatives in equivalence classes and which clarifies the geometrical meaning of the entire construction and the position
in it of the Dirac bracket.
The Lagrangian form of dynamics is usually obtained from Hamilton's principle for an action S[q] - ~ dtL(q, q), whose
functional arguments are the generalized coordinates. To make the geometrical significance of the arguments more transparent,
it is convenient to include among the functional arguments all variables of the phase space. For this, as is well known, the
action must be modified.
Let Q be the configuration space, TQ its tangent bundle, and q = ( q l . . . . , qn), v=(vl . . . . . vn) be local coordinates. We
define on TQ the Lagrange function L(q, v). It is degenerate if the rank of the Hessian Fij=O2L/OviOvJ is not maximal. We
divide the set of indices N = ( 1 . . . . . n) into two. ~] and )r so that Fab is some minor of maximal rank; we denote a, b, ... EA;
~, u. . . . Eh;/. Then [4] r#~=I'#arabFb~ , where rab is the matrix that is the inverse of I'ab.
It is easy to show that the following action gives Euler Lagrange equations equivalent to the original ones:

/ ( L - v~OL/Ov ~ (~OL/Ov ~ p u ( O " - vU)) . (1)

Indeed, the nondegeneracy of Pub ensures qa= va as a consequence of the equations o f motion, and also the relation p~ = OL/Ovu,
and to obtain the equations q~=v~ the Lagrangian multipliers p , are introduced. Thus, in the degenerate case the functional
arguments of the action, i.e., independent coordinates of the phase space, are the local coordinates of the tangent bundle and
Lagrange multipliers, which have the physical meaning of momenta with indices in the set ~/. The proof that the division of
the indices into subsets corresponds to division into submanifolds will be given elsewhere.
The nondegeneracy of rab means that locally one can solve with respect to v a the definition of the momenta Pa = OL/Ova,
obtaining va= Ua(qi, Pa, v"). We denote by the symbol # the ansatz va - Ua for any function on the (Lagrangian) phase space.
By virtue of the identity r!~v=['#a['abFbv , the Routh function

R = -I-Z(q~,l,~,) + vUCu(qi,p~) ,

V. A. Steklov Mathematics Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences; Higher College of Mathematical Physics of the
Independent Moscow University. Translated from Teoreticheskaya i Matematicheskaya Fizika, Vol. 92, No. 3, pp. 451-456,
September~ i992. Original article submitted April 24, 1992.

~020 0040-5779/92/9203-0938512.50 9 1993 Plenum Publishing Corporation

is linear in v~Z:
R(qi,p,~, v") = (L - v"OL/Ov'~) # (2)

and r #. We introduce the notation

~.=p~-~P.. (3)
As a result, the substitution va")pa reduces the action (1) to the Hamiltonian form

~[q', v~, v,q = f dt ( - H - ~,"~,,, + p~r . (4)

As usual, the presence in the action (4) of the Liouville form 0 =pflqi makes it possible to introduce a nondegenerate closed
2-form w=dO and, thus, a symplectic structure in the cotangent bundle T*Q [with local coordinates q/, Pi; the fact that T*Q is
a submanifold of the (Hamiltonian) phase space requires a separate proof] and the standard Poisson bracket. Then the
Euler--Lagrange equations for the action (4) take the form proposed by Dirac:
~i ={H,q~}+v~{~.,qi}, [9~={H, pi}+v~{~.,p,}, Tu=0 . (5)

The equations of the last group, which do not contain derivatives, are called constraint equations, and for any function
of the canonical variables tip, q) the time derivative has by virtue of the equations of motion the form

] = {H,I} + v"{w.,.,'} . (6)

According to Dirac, the condition of consistency of the system of equations (5) means that evolution in time must not lead
off the constraint surface (in this initial stage, we have the surface of the primary constraints MO={r #Eh)}). In other
words, the derivative of the constraints with respect to time must, by virtue of the equations of motion, reduce to a linear
combination of the constraints with arbitrary functions as coefficients.
In accordance with (6),

~u = {H, ~u} + v"{~., ~.} . (7)

We recall that ~u are linear in p~ with unit coefficients; therefore, both terms on the right-hand side of (7) are independent of
p~, and the linear combination of constraints for ~. cannot contain ~ , i.e., is trivial: We must require ~ =0.
We consider the matrix -y~,e= { ~ , ~ } . If its rank on M 0 is not maximal, we choose some minor 3'c~Bof greatest rank,
splitting the set of indices .Q into two, A and/1~/, so that
I 1
a, fl E A; # ' , # E M.
Then [4] on M 0 we have %,., = %,~7~7~.,, where 7 ~ 7 ~ = 6~, and because ~ is linear inp~ this is also true o f f M 0.
Therefore, as null vectors of the matrix 3'~p we can take

fl~, = ~,, - ~ 2 < ~ v ~ , . (8)

The consistency condition # . =0 enables us to express the Lagrange multipliers in the form

v~ = - ( ( H , ~,~} + v ; % , ~ ) < ~,
so that, by virtue of the equations of motion, the time derivative takes the form
//I
]={H,f};+v {:.,,f}~ , (9)
where {,}~ is the Dirac bracket {,}D constructed from the second-class constraints ~c~:

{f, g}~ = {f, g} - {f, ~}7~{~o/~, g} . (t0)

If the matrix "y~ is nondegenerate (the set ... is empty), all the v~ are fixed, and the consistency condition is satisfied.
Otherwise, multiplication of the condition ~ =0 by the null vectors of the matrix 3,u~ give new relations between the canonical
variables:
. 1
0 = {H,!o.}fl~, = (H, T.'}t -=- ~o~, , (11)
i.e., secondary constraints T.,. The consistency requirement restricts the constraint surface to

1021
 1
1
M1 = { T . = 0 , ~ o . , = 0 , # 6 M , # ' 6 M } .

In the next stage of the recursive procedure, the consistency condition requires that o n M 1 there vanish by virtue of the
equations of motion the derivatives with respect to the time for the secondary constraints. By virtue of (9),
1. 1 . I1
~o., = {H,~%,}1 + v ~ %.,~, ,
I 1 . :t:
where the matrix 7~,~, = {~P.', ~ ' }t is symmetric with respect to the indices #', v' by virtue of the identity {~p., ~p}l =0, the
property ~ , ~ , {%~, f} = 0 for any f(p, q), and the Jacobi identity and does not depend on p.. If its rank on M 1 is not maximal,
1 ~ 2 i 2
we divide the set M into two, A and M , so that the minor 7~'~', a', ~' 6 A, has greatest rank. The analog of the identity for
y,~ wiii be the relation
I I i ~r~ I I I hl 1
7~'~ '~ : 7~"~'7 ~ 7s~'v" + % " v " ~P~' ,
I
where e! are calculable functions o f the canonical variables. Since the elements of the matrix "} do not depend o n p . , the right-
hand side does not contain primary constraints ~ linear in p . . The linear combinations constructed by analogy with (8),
1 I # tI ~I 1 2

I
will (in contrast to 1~,) the null vectors of the matrix 7 only on the surface M 1, while off it
1 11 ~'1#1 All
]9.''~ 7.'v' = ~v' % " ~ " %ca' "

In principle, consistency is guaranteed at this stage if

{H, ~o~,}
~ * + v ~' %
~ , / = d ~' \ , ,
.,~'~
2
where d~~, a~e arbitrary functions of the canonical variables. Some of these conditions with #' = a ' 6 A can be regarded as
a system of equations for v ; it is convenient to eliminate the arbitrariness in the solution of this system associated with d by
requiring dX=;=O:

v =

Substitution of these v=' in (9) leads to the next in the hierarchical sequence of combinations of the type of Dirac brackets:

/ = {H, f } ; + vV'{~j,, f } ; , (12)

where
. , -- f : I ~. I dr I
= {l, dl . (13)

We shall discuss its difference from the Dirac bracket below.

1 1 l
Further, multiplication of the condition ~ , = 0 by the null vectors fl of the matrix 7 gives the equations
1 I rill Al 1
{H," * " .a'
which must be satisfied on the surface M I . For this, it is sufficient to require fulfillment of the constraint equations of the next
("tertiary") generation:
l t
0 = {H ~t . ' h. .Po~ " . = { H , t ~~ . ~- ~v"
2 " (14)

Thus, after this step we arrive at the surface

1 2
M2 = { ~ . = 0,~., = 0 , ~ , , = 0},

the matrix % . , , , = {~/,, ~ " } 2 with null (on M2!) vectors ~, and, then, at the bracket {f, g}3 and the "quaternary" constraints
3 2 . 2 11
~0#,,, = {//r (P/"}3 = 2 .

This recursive procedure fixes representatives in equivalence classes for the constraints of each stage; it is not unique only
in connection with the choice o f the minors of greatest rank of the matrices 7-
Note that not all the constraints ~ of the k-th step need be independent on M k. However, this circumstance is
automatically taken into account in the recursive procedure - - it is easy to show that the rank of the matrix ~ = {%o,p}~,~ *
k
constructed from all constraints ~, is equal on the surface M k to the rank of the analogous matrix constructed from independent

1022
 k
constraints chosen arbitrarily from the set ~.
k
The recursive procedure terminates when either the rank of 7 in the k-th step is maximal or among the k ~ none are
independent, i.e., cannot be expressed linearly in terms of the constraints of the preceding stages. It is very important that the
bracket {,}k finally obtained differs from the bracket introduced by Dirac himself and constructed using all the second-class
constraints.
:g
The difference between them arises already in the second stage of the recursion, for k = 2 (in the first stage, {, }1 = {, }D).
1
In this case ~o~,, ~o~, and q%, are second-class constraints. Direct calculation gives (see [5], Appendix 8)

An obvious grouping of the terms leads to the relation

{ f , y } f = {f, 9}; - {f,~~ 9 l r ) a'e' {W/~,,g},

1 . 9 (15)
In contrast to {, } 2, the Dirac bracket {, }D is antisymmetric and satisfies a Jacobi identity. For us it is important that although
for arbitrary functions of the canonical variables the brackets {,}D2 and {,}2 differ even on the constraint surface, for ~ and
H we have

{~,',f}~={~/,f}2, {H,f}~={H,f}~-~t. ) ' l~p,.rla ,

so that on the constraint surface the brackets * and D are equivalent to them, and the equations of motion can be formulated
in terms of {,}D. This is true for all k > 2: the brackets * and D with the participation of ~ , in them are always identical, and
with the participation of H differ by a linear combination of the second-class constraints.
However, this is not sufficient for a universal geometrical interpretation of Hamiltonian dynamics in the presence of
second-class constraints. Indeed, the Dirac bracket corresponds to a closed nondegenerate 2-form in T*Q. It is in terms of this
that the involutory nature of the first-class constraints can be correctly formulated. However, to the evolution of the system
there corresponds, not the Hamiltonian phase flow isomorphic, by virtue of the Dirac bracket, to the differential dH, but its
restriction through the surface of the second-class constraints.
At the same time, on this surface the Dirac bracket effectively reduces to the canonical Poisson bracket [2,5]. By a
nonsingular linear transformation of the second-class constraints, one can always achieve that the matrix o f their Poisson brackets
have normal Jordan form. After this, by a canonical change of variables in T'Q, one can make the second-class constraints into
some of the new coordinates and momenta. Then, obviously, the Dirac bracket reduces to the Poisson bracket in the remaining
new canonical variables. Thus, the attempt to give dynamics with the Dirac bracket a consistent geometrical interpretation leads
us to a canonical symplectic structure.

REFERENCES

1. P . A . M . Dirac, "Generalized Hamiltonian dynamics," Can. J. Math., 2, 129 (1948).

2o L.D. Faddeev, "Feynman integral for singular Lagrangians," Teor. Mat. Fiz., l, 3 (1969).
3. C. Becci, A. Rouet, and R. Stora, in: Renolrnalization Theory (G. Velo and A. S. Wightman, eds.), Reidel, Dordrecht (1976).
4. F.R. Gantmacher, The Theory of Matrices, translation of first Russian ed., Chelsea, New York (1959).
5. D.M. Gitman and I. V., Tyutin, Canonical Quantization of Fields with Constraints [in Russian], Nauka, Moscow (1986).

1023

View publication stats