ANNALS OF PHYSICS 152, 418-450 (1984)

Local Symmetries and

Phase Space Dynamics of
Finite-Dimensional Systems

KURT SUNDERMEYER

Freie UnicersitCt Berlin, Institut fir Theorie der Elementarteilchen.

Amitnallee 14, 1000 Berlin 33. German)

Received May 20, 1983

A method to implement reparametrization covariance and additional local symmetries for

finite-dimensional systems in a phase space is presented. The approach is a physically and
group-theoretically motivated alternative to the Dirac-Bergman algorithm for theories with
Hamiltonian constraints. The method is applied to bosonic and fermionic systems with both
first and second class constaints.

1. INTRODUCTION

Lagrangians for theories with local symmetries are necessarily singular due to a
theorem by Noether and Bessel-Hagen. For the same reason do these theories belong
to the class of constrained systems. One usually employs the Dirac-Bergmann
algorithm in order to arrive at a consistent phase space formulation [l-3]. At the end
are the local symmetries hidden in so-called first class constraints.
In two publications [4, 51 we presented a method aimed for realizing local
symmetries directly in a phase space. The starting point is not a Lagrangian but
instead the symmetries themselves. The idea is to map a subgroup of the local
symmetry group to a symplectic group, that is to map certain local transformations
to canonical transformations. The program has been explained in 141 for generally
covariant theories, exemplified on a two-dimensional theory with scalar fields (under
some assumptions leading to the relativistic string), and applied to a four-dimensional
theory with rank-2 tensor fields (uniquely leading to the Hamiltonian form of
Einstein’s theory of gravitation). In 151 the method was extended to systems
possessing besides coordinate symmetries a Yang-Mills gauge symmetry.
Although we formulated and applied our program so far only to field theories, it
can be used also for finite-dimensional theories (theories with finitely many degrees of
freedom). Of course many features arising in the treatment of field theories get lost
for finite-dimensional theories (for instance the Poisson bracket algebra of the super-
Hamiltonian and supermomentum constraints). Nevertheless do we find it worthwile
to explain the method again for finite-dimensional systems since up to now it only
418
0003-49161’84 $7.50
Copyright t 1984 by Academic Press. Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
 LOCAL SYMMETRIES AND DYNAMICS 419

has been applied to theories with bosonic fields and first class constraints. We want
to demonstrate on finite-dimensional systems how it can be enlarged to fermionic
and/or second class systems.
There is another point which we would like to discuss more carefully: The
canonical analysis of the Nambu-Goto action for the relativistic string and the
Einstein-Hilbert action for gravitation differ in one important point. In the former
one only primary constraints arise (which are first class). whereas in the latter case
one obtains both primary and secondary first class constraints. Primary constraints
originate from the definition of momenta from a Lagrangian, secondary ones may
come out because of consistency (time conservation of primary constraints). In our
approach, no Lagrangian being present, we introduce “pseudo-momenta.” These are
D-invariant functions, whose explicit form is restricted by internal consistency of the
program. The difference in the Hamiltonian analysis of the Nambu-Goto and the
Einstein-Hilbert theory is reflected in that for the former the pseudo-momenta are
functionally dependent, whereas in the latter they are independent. In this article is
this difference emphasized on finite-dimensional theories (referred to as “theories
with/without p-constraints”).
The most simple physical example for “constrained Hamiltonian dynamics” is the
relativistic particle. If formulated with reparametrization scalars (what correspondsto
the square-root action) p-constraints are present. No p-constraints must occur in the
first-order (or einbein) formulation. Since this case is easier to deal with in our
approach, we demonstrate how the program works on reparametrization covariant
scalars and scalar densities in Section 2. For theories without p-constraints the only
restrictions on the functional form of the pseudo-momenta are due to integrability
conditions of first order differential equations.
For theories with p-constraints (Section 3) there are “fewer” differential equations
compensatedby “more” conditions on the pseudo-momenta.Here it also may happen
that for consistency second class constraints must be present although they are
completely unrelated to local symmetries.
Systems with scalars are treated in Section 4. We demonstrate how, by extra
physically motivated requirements out of all dynamical systems allowed by consistent
choices of pseudo-momenta, specific ones are selected. By triggering on these
requirements one may for instance derive either nonrelativistic Lagrangian/
Hamiltonian dynamics, the free relativistic particle, or the interaction of a relativistic
particle with external scalar, vector and tensor fields. A further example is a choice of
pseudo-momenta leading to the dynamics of a relativistic particle in an external
Yang-Mills field.
We discussedin some length in Ref. [5 ] on the example of the Einstein-Yang-
Mills theory that the additional local gauge symmetry cannot be realized in a phase-
space separately from the coordinate symmetry. Instead only a mixed symmetry is
implementable. The central role of a mixed symmetry is also observed in the
Einstein-Dirac theory [6]. This mixing phenomenon can already be studied for finite-
dimensional theories. In Section 5 it shall be explained on an example which is both
reparametrization and scale covariant. The presence of two symmetries leads to a
420 KURTSUNDERMEYER

Poisson bracket algebra among constraints, giving essential information on possible

consistent choices for the pseudo-momenta.
Finally in Section 6 we investigate finite-dimensional theories which besides
reparametrization covariant bosonic scalars and scalar densities also contain
fermionic quantities, and which are invariant under an additional local supertransfor-
mation. For one choice of pseudo-momenta do we arrive at the phase-space
formulation of the massless spinning relativistic particle. This section may be
considered an exercise ground for the extension of our program to locally supersym-
metric field theories. In the concluding remarks (Section 7) we give an outlook to the
treatment of these systems together with any other attempts in the arena of “Local
Symmetries and Dynamics.”

2. THE IDEA OF THE LOCAL SYMMETRY REALIZATION PROGRAM

Consider an example with ‘Yields” q”(r) (a = O,..., N- 1) and e(r) which are
scalars and a scalar density, respectively, under reparametrizations (general coor-
dinate transformations in one dimension). That is, under infinitesimal transformations

r’=r+ Y[r,q.e] (2.1)

the q” and e transform as

(2.2)

where 8Q f Q’(r) - Q( t ), and Q = de/&. The parameter r shall be called time. As

indicated in (2.1) the descriptors Y depend functionally on the (q”, e). The transfor-
mations (2.2) form a group since the commutator of two transformations Ji (with
descriptors !?i) turns out to be
-- --
(S,6,-6,6,)=6;[~~=(~~w,-~,~~)-(lH2)1. (2.3)

Our goal is to realize “as much” of this local symmetry group in a phase space as
possible, that is to implement a maximal subgroup. As demonstrated below
realization means that the commutator (2.3) is mapped onto the Poisson bracket of
canonical transformations. One observes that the commutator in general contains
time derivatives of descriptors and therefore refers to different times, whereas a
Poisson bracket refers to one instant of time. Demanding that in (2.3) no time
derivatives of descriptors occur leads to a restriction on their functional dependence.
We shall impose a further restriction in that the descriptors are allowed to depend on
at most first-order time derivatives of the qa, e. As shall be obvious below this
restriction is enforced by the quest for second-order equations of motion. The
maximal subgroup implementable in a phase-spaceis characterized by descriptors
Y(t, q, 4, e, i) such that the commutator of two transformations does not contain time
 LOCAL SYMMETRIES AND DYNAMICS 421

derivatives of descriptors. The most general dependence of !P may be obtained from

the ansatz

Yi = n(q, 4, e, 6) <i(r, q143e, PI3 (2.4)

and by translating the conditions on Yi into conditions on n and c$. Then

and with

the previous expression becomes

In order to guarantee that the commutator (2.3) does not contain time derivatives of
descriptors, IZ cannot depend on P and it must obey

F-3)

Furthermore c$&must not contain time derivatives of ‘u, . This leads to the concept of
D-invariants \7,8]: A quantity A is called D-invariant if &4 does not contain time
derivatives of a descriptor. Demanding that 6; are D-invariant meansthat they depend
on those independent D-invariants which can be built from(q”. 4”, e, P). From
Eq. (2.2) one observes that the q” are D-invariants (called zero-order D-invariants),
however the 4” are not since

Since both 4” and e transform as scalar densities, their quotient

1
p =-Q4” (2.6)
e
422 KURT SUNDERMEYER

transforms like a scalar and is therefore D-invariant. In fact are the q” and rrr the
only independent D-invariants constructable out of (q, 4, e. 6): Any function
f(q, 4, e, P) can be written asf(q, r, e, P), and

(here - meansmodulo terms containing no time derivatives of the descriptor). Hence

7 is D-invariant if both L$/&! = 0 and af/ae = 0.
The most general solution to (2.5) is easily written down since it is a homogeneity
relation for ?z.It turns out that the specific solution one choosesis irrelevant for the
final result. Namely, if n and n’ are two different solutions one finds from

that if < is D-invariant so will be r’ = (en/en’)l since both en and en’ are D-invariant.
A convenient solution to work with is n = l/e. Then the most general dependenceof
the descriptors !P is given by

Ul(r, q”, Q”, e, 6) = f t (i. qn,rn = -$).

In terms of r the variations of qm and P are

8q4”= - r”& (2.7)

&.a = - L p< (2.7’)

e

and the commutator is

(s, 6, - 6, s,) q” = - ryi& <, - 6, Cz). (2.8)

We next introduce functions

P, = %Aq, r) (2.9)

called “pseudo-momenta.” The further program depends on the rank of the matrix
M,, = au, /dr4. The pseudo-momenta are functionally independent if det M # 0.
However if M,, is singular, there exist relations of the form @,(p, q) = 0. These
relations shall be called p-constraints. In this section we want to investigate theories
without p-constraints. For these is it possible to solve (at least locally) the pseudo-
momenta as r” = r”(p, q) such that the descriptors ((4. r) may be considered as
functions of q” and p, : &q,p) = t(q, r(p, q)). N ow everything is prepared to be
mapped on a phase space.
 LOCAL SYMMETRIES AND DYNAMICS 423

Let there be a symplectic manifold (phase-space) with local coordinates Qe, P,

The generator

cl<1 = GQ, PI .#(Q, P) (2.10)

(5 being infinitesimal) generates infinitesimal canonical transformations with com-

mutators

where ( , } is the Poisson bracket in the phase-space.Implementation of the transfor-

mations (2.7) with commutators (2.8) in a phase-spaceis now simply achieved by
identifying the pairs (q,p) with (Q. P) and the descriptor [(p, q) with ?(P, Q), that is,
we demand

This condition may be considered the soul of our approach!

The explicit form of (2.11) and (2.12) is

{<*,&)2P+ Ir,{.~,r,}-r,{.lyl,r,}].~~(~~z,-8,~~),~.

The first term on the left-hand side contains products (af,/aQR) 1(at,/aP,), etc.,
whereas similar products do not appear on the right-hand side. From this we
conclude that .d vanishes; it is a constraint in phase space (in Dirac’s terminology
.#(Q, P) z 0). The other terms to be compared are

or (dropping the indices on f)

-8.R !
5- = -Jqs” = -$Q”,
@cl

(2.14)

Subsequently the (q,p) and (Q, P) (and the r^and t) are no longer distinguished since
they are identified by a mapping. Conceptually however are they different. The
explicit form of (2.13) is due to (2.7)

(2.13’)
424 KURT SUNDERMEYER

and from

we obtain for (2.14)

(2.14’)

These equations containing time derivatives of momenta are nothing but half of
Hamilton’s equations of motion.
Observe that there was no Lagrangian to begin with. Therefore no momenta can be
defined, and no way whatsoever towards a Hamiltonian exists. Instead we identified
the “fields” q” and the pseudo-momenta p, with coordinates (Qa. P,) in an a priori
given symplectic manifold. But after identifying the descriptors of infinitesimal coor-
dinate transformations with descriptors of symplectic transformations we do indeed
have a Hamiltonian at our disposal. It is by definition just that generator which tran-
slates in time. By (2.1) time translations are characterized by Y= c = const., that is,
by [= ce = <, and therefore the Hamiltonian is

H=e.$. (2.15)

From (2.14’) one finds

i3H 3.9
-= eF=e
w
and Eqs. (2.13’) are compatible with the other half of Hamilton’s equations

We know how H and .R are related, but still is the constraint .R not known
Equations (2.13’) however contain genuine information on this constraint. Since the
right-hand side can be expressedin terms of q” and p,, Eqs. (2.13’) constitute a set
of differential equations for 9:

a.9
- = rrr(4,p).
ap,
These are integrable if (3r”/apD = ar”/ap, that is, if the pseudo-momentaare chosen
such that M,, = au,/&-” is symmetric. We conclude: Every choice of pseudo-
 LOCAL SYMMETRlES AND DYNAMICS 425

momenta for which M,, is symmetric and nonsingular leads to a Hamiltonian system
with H = e9, where 9 is obtained from integrating Eqs. (2.13 “). The constraint .9
generates the originally envisaged local symmetries for the D-invariants.
In order to deal with a specific example a set of physical restrictions shall be
imposed:

EXAMPLE 1.
R,: The q” and p, are Lorentz four-vectors.
R,: q” has dimension length, p, dimension mass.
R,: Only one-dimensional parameter (mass) is present.
R,: The theory is translational invariant.
With these restrictions is p, = tyaDrb (r~,~ being the Minkowski metric) the only
possible choice for the pseudo-momenta. Integration of (2.13”) yields R = 4 p, p” +
const. The constant may be expressed in terms of a mass, such that the Hamiltonian
becomes

H=fe(p2 -m2). (2.16)

An inverse Legendre transformation leads to the Lagrangian

(2.17)

which is the Lagrangian for the relativistic particle in first-order (or einbein)
formulation. Let us compare the Hamiltonian (2.16) with the one resulting from the
canonical analysis. The Dirac algorithm of the Lagrangian (2.17) yields a primary
constraint pe ;- BL/BP z 0 and a secondary contraint p2 - m2 z 0. The Dirac
Hamiltonian is a linear combination of these constraints

ND = z&J* - m’) + up,,

where u and v are multipliers. Their arbitrariness reflects the “gauge” symmetry of
this system. Both constraints are first class and generate the symmetry (2.2). The
Hamiltonian H (2.16) may be obtained from H, by reduction, that is, a gauge fixing
for the constraint p, z 0. The other gauge degrees of freedom are still present in H
since the multiplier Se in front of the constraint p2 - m* z 0 is not fixed by any
dynamical equation. This is related to the fact that time translations, which the
Hamiltonian is supposed to generate, are not representable as canonical transfor-
mations. (A constant !P is not of the form !P = (l/e) ((r, q, r).)
426 KURTSLJNDERMEYER

3. THEORIES WITH P-CONSTRAINTS

p-constraints (PC’s) are present if det M,, = det 1au, /iir, 1= 0. In this case is it no
longer possible to express the first-order D-invariants rn in terms of (q”,p,) alone.
Instead if M is the rank of M,,, only A4 of the ra can locally be expressedby the q’s,
M of the pseudo-momentaand N - M of the other r’s:

+ = p4(PB7r’, q), A = l,..., M, I = M + 1)..., N. (3.1)

Here we assumedthat the index set on the pseudo-momentais the sameas the one on
the “solved-for” r’s. This is no loss of generality since due to the arbitrariness of n in
Y= nc one may switch from the pairs (p, r) to other pairs (6. Q where r^^ are N
independent first-order D-invariants constructed from (r, q). By a suitable choice of
the variables r^ one may always arrange that (3.1) holds. Substituting the pA in
p, = ua(rr q) one obtains

p, = u,(q, rd. r’) = u,@“(pHr r’. 41, r’. 9) Y U,(p$. r’. 9). (3.2)

The U, can no longer depend on r’ since p, = u,(r. q) has been solved for the
maximal number of r’s. Especially p,c = u,~, and

P, = MP., 9s> or @,7p, - U,(p,.,, q) = 0. (3.3)

The @,(p, q) are the N - M p-constraints.

Define the descriptor

&7, p) = &7, PA(9, PR3IJh r’) + E’(q, p, r-7 @,b 4h

where the multipliers s’ in front of the PC’s are chosen such that the right-hand side
does not depend on the r’ any longer. The “realization of local symmetries in a
phase-space” program is now similar to the one for theories without p-constraints.
Everything written in the previous section in the paragraphs containing Eqs. (2.10)-
(2.15) indeed holds true. Especially 9 is a constraint in phase-space.However no
longer are all of Eqs. (2.13’) genuine differential equations for .,R. This does not
mean that for theories with PC’s the constraint .Y? cannot be determined. Let us
separate (2.13’)

a.R
- pA(pB, r’, 91,
3P.4
a.9
-= r’, (3.5)
3P,

Since .R does not depend on the r’ one may consider these to be arbitrary. A solution
to the set of Eqs. (3.5) is then

.w = r’(P, - uI(P.4’4)) + aPA 94) (3.6)

 LOCAL SYMMETRIES AND DYNAMICS 427

since the factors multiplying the J are constraints. In order that Eqs. (3.4) are
fulfilled we demand
-

-r’ 3 + g = p” (pB , rTt q),

A A

which only makes sense if p* is of the form

P”(PB,IJ,q)=P;I(PB,q)P+~*(PB,q) (3.7)

such that

--=au, a@, (3.8

ap,4 -ig=p:.
a.3
-- -p”. (3.9 1
ap,

The form (3.7) for p* is a restriction on the choice of pseudo-momenta since not
every set of functions p, = u,(q, r) leads to p.’ at most linear in the Y’. Equations
(3.9) are differential equations for .2, integrable if ;ip’“/ap, = ap8/ap,4. Equations
(3.8) are a further restriction on the pseudo-momenta since they imply apf lap, =
apF/ap,. There is another argument leading to (3.6). Define a function R depending
on (4, r> by

R (q, r) = #(q, u(q, r)). (3.10)

This function must obey

aR -a~au,Irb%u, (3.11)
ar* ap, ai-= at-='
Integrability demands that &,/W = au,,/&-“. Assume this condition to be fulfilled.
Then Eqs. (3.11) determine R up to a function of q’s. The original function .$ is
obtained from R only up to PC’s, that is,

.a(q,p> = R(q,p.4Co,, r’, 4). #I + A’@,.

In going back to the equations for ,Y? one finds i,’ = r’, and comparing this with (3.6)
one concludes that R = -2. This equality is only possible if R does no longer depend
on the r’. Again is this an implicit restriction on the choice of pseudo-momenta.
The Hamiltonian is as before H = e.W, that is,

H = er’@, + e.2 = cj’@, + e.2. (3.12)

But we are not ready yet since further consistency conditions must be checked: Since
there are several constraints, namely, @, z 0 and ,g z 0, it is not automatically true
428 KURT SUNDERMEYER

that they are conserved in time. Let us discuss the cases of one and two PC’s
separately, and then return to the general situation.

I. One p-Constraint
Choose arbitrarily r’ = r”. The Hamiltonian is H = era@, + e.2. The situation
becomesvery simple if .? E 0. This is possibleonly if p”’ = 0, implying conditions on
the pseudo-momenta.From (3.6) one concludes that thep, can depend only on ratios
yA/yo. The Hamiltonian is just H = cj”Qo, and the constraint Q. generates the
reparametrizations. If, however, .I # 0, there must exist a condition which intrin-
sically determines Y’. This condition originates from the quest of time conservation of
the constraints Qo, .#. Time conservation means

where r, indicates weak equality on the surface in phase space defined by Q. z 0,

.2 z 0. If ( Qo, ./? } z 0 both r” and e would be undetermined, and both Q. and ti
would be first class. They would independently generate local symmetry transfor-
mations. If we want to realize reparametrizations only, a choice of pseudo-momenta
leading to ( QO, .2 } z 0 is not allowed. Instead must the pseudo-momentabe chosen
such that

and x is a new constraint, corresponding to a secondary constraint in the Bergmann-

Dirac terminology. We demand

where the weak equality now refers to the surface defined by the vanishing of
.2, Qo,x. The coefficient r” can only be determined if (x, Qo} Ii-, # 0. The resulting
theory is finally characterized by one first-class (FC) constraint (,,9 z 0), and two
second class (SC) constraints (Q. =: 0, x z 0). Conclusion: A choice of pseudo-
momenta is consistent either if (i) .2 = 0 or (ii) ( ao, .2) Ir, =x. (x, Go} I,., # 0. In
order to demonstrate that the arguments above indeed restrict the functional form of
the pseudo-momentaconsider the following examples.

EXAMPLE 2.

P.4 =$ P; =p.4
i
/\
p. = u. 7,q
r’4 $10.
( ii
Due to (3.8) is k, = -f~,~p~ + u(q) the only consistent choice for uo.
 LOCALSYMMETRIES AND DYNAMICS 429

EXAMPLE 3.

pA = rA
/I p’i = O
p. = uo(rA, 4) 1 p”’ zp,.

The function u0 cannot depend on r4 due to (3.8) u0 = u,(q). The PC is

Q0 = p0 - u,(q), and .T = 4pA pA + .Y?. We have

which vanishes on r, if &/aq* = 0 and a.z/aq’ = 0. So we must impose on no the

condition au,/c3qA # 0 and must furthermore demand (x, Qo} /rs # 0. That is.
-
ix>@Ol=~~+PA
a2uo
aqAa@ +$f+
must not vanish on I’,.

II. Two p-Constraints

Without Ioss of generality assumethat ra and Y’ are those D-invariants for which
the pseudo-momenta(p,,,p,) cannot be solved. So H = doGo + 4’@, + e.g. If .@ E 0
there are still two constraints. They are conserved in time if @‘{@,, QJ} Ir, = 0. Both
constraints would be first class if {Qo, @i ] (r(. = 0, simulating a larger invariance than
we started with. Therefore we insist that by choice of pseudo-momenta

for at least one 1. If these conditions are met is the theory characterized by one FC
and two SC constraints. If, however, 5%? # 0, we must demand

(3.13)
{~‘J,HJl,r=~‘(~,,~,}l,c+e(~,,.~}l,r,4’~,,-ec,=0.
This system of weak equations does have a solution for the 4’ if d k 0 Ire. There is no
need for a secondary constraint in this case. Again is 9 a first class constraint and
two independent linear combinations of .G$? and @, are second class.
In the presence of K = N - A4 p-constraints is the choice of p-constraints again
restricted implicitly by insisting that H (or 9) is the only FC constraint. All other
independent constraints linearly built from (@(, 3) must be SC. Two casesare to be
distinguished.
Case A: .a E 0. This is already an implicit condition on the pseudo-momenta
430 KURTSUNDERMEYER

since p, = u,(q, r) must be solvable for M I’S in the form r4 = ,D:r’. Further
conditions may follow from
(3.13’)

This is a (weak) homogeneouslinear system of equations for the 4’. We want it to

have only one (nontrivial) fundamental solution. This only exists if &(A,,) = K - 1.
Since in this section only bosonic finite-dimensional systems are dealt with is the
matrix A, always antisymmetric. Therefore is it singular for an odd number of PC-s.
We insist det(A,J) to be zero in such a way that only one linear combination a’@,
exists which has zero Poisson brackets with all other p-constraints. This is an implicit
condition on the pseudo-momenta. For an even number of PC’s however the
condition rk(A,J) = K - 1 cannot be met for any choice of pseudo-momentasince the
rank of A,, will always be even. The discussion of the case with two PC’s has shown
that this can be cured by secondary constraints. An odd number (<K) of secondary
constraints xi must be implied by the choice of pseudo-momenta,such that only one
linear combination of PC’s is first class, whereas all other independent combinations
and the xi are second class.
Case B. .g f 0. The time conservation conditions (3.13) are to be discussed.The
equations are compatible (for bosonic systems) since $cjJA,J = 0. If c, = 0 (rc.,
Eqs. (3.13) reduce again to $4, = 0. We now want it to have only a trivial solution
which exists if det(A,,) # 0. For K even this can always be arranged by a choice of
pseudo-momenta. For K odd however one necessarily needs an odd number of
secondary constraints, such that finally only .2 is FC and (@,,xi) are SC. If
cJ f 0 Ir,. at least for one J the system of equations (3.13) is an inhomogenoussystem.
Guided by the previous reasoning one may work out conditions on the pseudo-
momenta such that in H = 4’#, + e.9 exactly one multiplier (or one linear
combination thereof) is left undetermined, the other ones being fixed eventually by the
existence of further constraints xi from the equations

4. THEORIES WITH SCALARS

An example with scalars and a scalar density has been treated in Section 1. If
instead there are only scalars, p-constraints cannot be avoided. This is becausethe
N D-invariants ra = 4”/e are no longer available. Only N - 1 independent first-order
D-invariants exist (they shall be called r again). These are
‘Q
rQ =-- 4.o ’
4
 LOCAL SYMMETRIES AND DYNAMICS 431

Distinguishing 4” is of course not necessary. Instead one may select any other
velocity, or take for instance ra = 4” (Go,44@‘)“’ with G,, # 0. In any case, N - 1
of the r” are independent since Ga4rar4 = 1. Instead of Eq. (2.5), n must obey

As solution one may choose without loss of generality n = l/Q”. Then with
Y= (L q”, 4”) = (l/4”) t-(G cl”, r’) the variations of qn and ra are
8qa = -rat, where r*;_ 1,
(4.3)

and
- -
(6,6,-6,6,)qa=-ra(~~z,-g,r2).

The pseudo-momenta p, = u,(q, ra) cannot be independent and obey at least one
p-constraint. Realizing the symmetries (4.3) in a phase-space yields the same
differential expressions for 9 as in the example of Section 2 (cf. Eqs. (2.13’) and
(2.14’)), that is,

(4.4)

(4.5)

These are compatible with the Hamiltonian H = tj”.%‘. They are however not to be
considered as differential equations for 9 in general because of the presence of (a) p-
constraint(s). Expressions (4.4) may be analysed essentially according to the
arguments in the previous section, with one difference however: The r” in (4.4) is not
to be interpreted as an arbitrary phase-space function, it is “one”! This fact allows for
an easier discussion of consistency conditions than before. Let us immediately turn to
examples.

EXAMPLE 4. For the pseudo-momenta choose

p, = ra, PO= uo(ral

4). (4.6)

Independent of the actual form of the PC Q. =po - I,(p,, q) the equations (4.4) can
be solved as

.9=Po+fPaPo+ 0).
432 KURTSUNDERMEYER

Since we do not want to have any other FC constraint besides 5%’we do demand that
9 and Q0 be proportional, i.e., ziO= -jp,p, - V(q).
The Lagrangian for this theory is calculated to be

1 4”Lj”
L(q,@=p,4”=u,4*=--- 4” V(q),
2 go

which allows for an interesting interpretation: The action

.f’= V(q)i

becomes by cj”/d’ = dq”/dq’:

,d = dqO +$$- v(q*,qO) .

.r i 1

This action describes N- 1 mass points in one dimension moving in a (time-

dependent) potential V(qa, q’), or for N - 1 = 3K, K particles in three dimensions in
the potential V. So the choice of momenta (4.6) simulates homogenized regular
nonrelativistic mechanics!
Of course, many other choices of pseudo-momenta lead to a consistent
Hamiltonian for scalar quantities. In order to select specific ones, we impose the
same set of restrictions (R r - R4) on (q,p) as was done in Example 1.

EXAMPLE 5. The restriction (R4) excludes functions U, depending on the q’s.

From ra one may construct a first-order D-invariant Lorentz vector

The only choice for U, compatible with (R,) to (R4) is

p, = l&f?) = f?Qse

where m is a constant with dimension mass. The p-constraint is @ =p’ - m2. If one
solves Eq. (4.2) by n = (d2)-li2, the equation for .9 corresponding to (4.4) is
SF/8p, = r”“. Running through the previous arguments one arrives at

H = l(p* - rn’),

A being a multiplier. This is the Hamiltonian for the free relativistic particle.
If restriction R, is droped, the ansatz

Gd?
rp
P, = (g&.b)l/z + Ax(q)
 LOCAL SYMMETRIES AND DYNAMICS 433

with G,,(q), g,,(q) symmetric and regular matrices is admissible. It implies the PC

@ = g,, GayG”*(py - A ,)(pa - A6) - 1 = 0,

where Gay is the inverse to G, (GaYGY5= SF). With F* = ran, n = (ga4rffr4)-“’ are
Eqs. (4.4) equivalent to

a.9
- = G”‘(p, -A,),
3P,

which upon integration yield

.S? = fGa5(p, -A,)@, -A& + ego(q).

Since we want 9 to be proportional to @, .,A! = cp@ say, the matrix G,, must be
proportional to g,, , G,, = (o(q) g,, . So the Hamiltonian for this theory becomes

~=~[g”4(~,-~,)(~~-~~~-cp21.
The Lagrangian L = cj”u,(r(d), q) is

L=qd;x+A,cj*.

It subsumes the following situations:

(a> For v = m, g,, = va4’ A, = O-free relativistic particle in N dimensions.
(b) For v = m + @(qh g,, = va4, A, = O-relativistic particle in N dimensions
interacting with a scalar field (p(q).
(cl For Y = m, ga5= rlao-relativistic particle in N dimensions interacting
with an external vector field. If restriction R, is dropped, this could be an external
electromagnetic field.
(d) For (D= m, A, = O-relativistic particle in N dimensions interacting with a
tensor field gaB, i.e., relativistic particle in curved space-time.
(e) For cp= m, A, = 0,

qa,, + v, ‘b
ga4 = a = O,..., N - 2,
v,’

relativistic particle in N - 1 dimensions interacting with a vector field V, (Klein-

Kaluza type theory).
(f) . . *

EXAMPLE 6. N even, N = 2K, N > 6. Split the complete set of scalars into

4” = (q”, d, 3’x ,a = o,..., 3, I= 4,..., K + 1.

434 KURT SUNDERMEYER

Assume that the qw are Lorentz vectors, and as before with r” = $‘/4” choose
pseudo-momenta

P, = my,, IL’
(vap rarp)1’2 - D,Wh

where the functions D,, C,, CI are subject to restrictions specified below. Because of
rk 1apa/&‘/ = 3 there are N - 3 p-constraints Oi. They are easily seen to be

@= (p, + D,J2 - m2 = 0,
@,=p,-c,=o,
@I=J71-c,=o.

For the Hamiltonian one finds (we do not repeat all arguments again)

H = A@ + A’@, + ii’&,

with certain multipliers. We want only one linear combination of constraints to be

first class. That is, neither shall { Qi, H} z 0 be identically fulfilled, nor shall it have
the trivial solution 2’ = 0 only. The Poisson brackets are

There are choices of pseudo-momenta such that no secondary constraints are

necessiated. This is the case if the rank of the matrix defmed by (Qi, cPj} is N - 4.
For instance we may impose on the pseudo-momenta the conditions
 LOCAL SYMMETRIES AND DYNAMICS 435

Then

fp= @ + jJ;,@J - +f,&J

is first class, whereas Q1 and &I are second class.

The example incorporates the interaction of a relativistic particle with an external
Yang-Mills field A,* by the following explicit functional dependence of D, C,, c,.
With the shorthand notation 0’ F qr + iq”, @ F q1 - i$ choose

D,(q) = g@A,“(q”) T; OJ, g = coupling constant,

C, = iO’,
I;, z -0’.

Here TFJ are numbers (elements of the representation of the algebra of the gauge
vector fields A;). Indeed for the Lagrangian L(q”, 4”) one finds

where D, is the covariant derivative

D,JOJ = 6, + ig$‘AETFJOJ.

This is the Lagrangian investigated by Balachandran et al. 191.

5. MIXED SYMMETRIES

In field theory examples one often meets situations where the fields are not
invariant under general coordinate transformations only, but also under additional
local transformations. We observed that both symmetry groups cannot be realized
separately in a phase-space (41. Instead a mixed symmetry has to be implemented.
Now we shall give an example of this mixing for a finite-dimensional example.
Consider a system of “fields” q”(r) (a = O,..., 3), V(T), W(s) which under
reparametrizations behave as scalars and scalar densities, respectively:

(5.1)

the index R standing for reparametrizations. Assume that there is an additional local
symmetry (scale transformation)
436 KURT SUNDERMEYER

6,qU= -q”A,
6, v= - 2VA, (5.2)
6, w =*A
with descriptor II. These transformations form a group: Define 6 = JR + a,, then the
commutator of two 6 transformations, 6,6, - 6,6, is another 6 transformation with

How much of this local symmetry can be implemented in a phase-space? In search

for an answer we need the D-invariants. Only the “fields” q” are both JR and 6, D-
invariant; these are zero-order D-invariants. There also exist exactly four independent
first-order D-invariants

That these are zR D-invariant is easily recognized by observing that q”, W/V and
da/V are separately 6R D-invariant. Indeed

(5-4)

The ra are the only first-order D-invariants by the following argument: Any Iirst-
order JR D-invariant f may be written as f=f(q”, x, P, y), where x = W/V and
y=i/V. Now

Since 6,i contains a term proportional to /i’ we must demand

such that every D-invariant is a function of q”, ra.

Guided by the reasoning of previous sections one may try to find a “normal” n
such that
 LOCAL SYMMETRIES AND DYNAMICS 431

is sR D-invariant if $ and g = (V . n) are C?~D-invariant. However we also want that

&;Rqa is 6, D-invariant. Therefore S,((da/V)g) must not depend on A. We may
assume that g = g(q”, x, P, y) and find

Hence g must obey

which besides an unwanted solution g = 0 do not have a solution at all. From this
simple calculation we conclude that the JR and 6, transformations cannot be realized
in a phase-space separately. However there exists a mixed symmetry which together
with the scale transformations may be realized in a phase-space. This mixed transfor-
mation can indeed be derived from the observation that P is D-invariant. Then
obviously also JMqa F --rat is D-invariant for a D-invariant descriptor <. Now

=-pY/-q=wYI with <= Vu/,

so 6, is a mixture of a reparametrization (Y) and a scale transformation with

descriptor A = WY. So instead of JR, 6, we realize

JMqa = -rat,
(5.6)
6 s qa = -q”A.

For subsequent calculations one also needs the transformation of P:

&re =--J-(P - WY)&

(5.7)
dSra = PA.

Next we determine the commutators of these transformations. For two 6,+,

transformations (with descriptors <, and &) we obtain

which is again a JM transformation. For a 8, transformation (descriptor <) and a

scale transformation (descriptor A):

(S,& - SMS,) qa = -2r”A< - r”6,< - q”&A. (5.8b)

438 KURT SUNDERMEYER

So this is a &,, transformation with descriptor U< + S,& plus a 6, transformation

with descriptor &,J. Finally the commutator for two scale transformations is

Introduce pseudo-momenta

We restrict ourselves for simplicity to functions U, with det ]a~,/&-~( # 0, that is, to
the case without p-constraints. Cases with PC’s go through by the procedure
discussed in Section 3.
According to the rules of our game do we now switch to a phase-space. In this let
(q”,p,) denote the local coordinates. Infinitesimal canonical transformations are
generated by

where again we not distinguish c, [ and 4, this being justified by the mapping of local
transformations to canonical transformations. The Hamiltonian for the conceived
theory may be found by observing that Y = E(< = EV) mediates translations in 7 and
one must subtract the scale transformations with /i = WY = E W, hence the
Hamiltonian is

H= VS- WsY. (5.9)

From the comparison of the commutators (5.8) with Poisson brackets {G[<,, /1*],
G[t,,-4,1/ we find
9 E 0, .4”‘ z 0,
{<a, 9) = -2,s, (5.10)

(5.1 lb)

Observe that because of the existence of two constraints Z@, ,Y there is a new
outcome in this comparison, namely, an algebra of constraints (5.10). Conditions
(5.11) are explicitly
 LOCAL SYMMETRIES AND DYNAMICS 439

(5.12a)

a3
apa= r=, (5.12b)

a9-
aq
= au,
a@ q
5 +$p_ (5.12c)

a9
apa=@ (5.12d)

They are compatible with the Hamiltonian equations of motion, that is, the identities

aH
-z& . aH
aqa -Pa7 -=
ape - 4”

hold. Since from p, = u,(q, r) we assumed to be able obtaining P = r”(q,p) are Eqs.
(5.12bj(5.12d) differential equations for S? and Y. But also (5.10) has the meaning
of a differential equation, By the use of (5.12bj(5.12d) it becomes

a9
ap"qa+yn (au,
a454Lc?!!q,
a@ 1 =-237* (5.13)

The differential equations (5.12bj(5.12d) and (5.13) are only integrable if the
pseudo-momenta obey further conditions besides det jau,/&” 1f 0. In order to obtain
these it turns out convenient to define functions R and S, depending on q” and P by

R(93 r> F qq, u(q, r)),

(5.14)
WA r> F ~y’(9, u(q, r)).

Then (5.13) and (5.12b j(5.12d) translated to R and S become

(5.15)

(5.16)

(5.17)

(5.18)
440 KURT SUNDERMEYER

It turns out that this system of differential equations is integrable only for functions
u,(q, r) obeying

(5.21)

These conditions are rather strong as may be seenfrom the following

EXAMPLE 7.

u, = G,,(q) r4 + A,(q)y det(G,,) # 0

must fulfill

Go, = G,, 9 (5.19’)

‘&gY = 0, (5.20’)
GCZ4.V-
- %,5~ (5.21’)

(Ad? -A,,a),yqY+ W,,, -Ad = 0. (5.21”)

From (5.19’) and (5.20’) we infer that G,, must be derivable from a function G(q) as
G,, = G.a,- Condition (5.21’) implies that G,, dependson q only through
sy= Qqy with Q f (a,gqnq4)-1’2, aa0 = const.

Condition (5.2 1”) enforces Fao F A,,, -A,,, to depend on the q’s as

Fao = Q'&dO
Let us integrate the differential equations for R and S. For R we have

?-q” + 2R = rarBGaB, (5.15’)

&la
CYR
-= r4Ga4. (5.16’)
L3r”

so
R = fGaBrnril + R,,(q) (5.22)
 LOCAL SYMMETRIES AND DYNAMICS 441

with R,(q) obeying

R,,?qY+ 2R, = 0, (5.23)

which is R, = Q’I?,(s). The differential equations for S are

as
-= Ga5r5 t q'(A,., -k,,),
asa
-
as = G,,& (5.18’)
arm

yielding

S = Ga5qar5 + S,(q), (5.24)

with S,,(q) obeying

S 0,a = 45(4~a -A,.,)* (5.25)

Of course (5.23) and (5.25) are fulfilled for a consistent choice of pseudo-momenta,
i.e., pseudo-momenta fulfilling (5.19’)-(5.21’) since they are integrability conditions
themselves. The constraints .P and .F are obtained by “replacing” f’ by p, in
(5.22~(5.24), that is, by making use of

r* = Gu5(p, -A,), where G”*G BY

= 6”Y‘

so

.S = fG”‘(p, - A,)(pB -A,) + R,(q),

.i” = 4”(P, -A,) + S,(q),

with R,, S, obeying (5.23) and (5.25), respectively. The Lagrangian

L(q, 4) = s(q, r(4)) 4” - vR(q, r(4)) t wS(q, r(4))

turns out to be

L =& G,,(f t Wq”)(4” t Wq4) + A,Q* - P-R,(q) + WS,(q).

One may check that this Lagrangian is (quasi-) invariant under transformations (5.1)
and (5.2) by R, and S, fulfilling (5.23) and (5.25). This Lagrangian constitutes a
generalization of the one studied in Ref. [lo] for G,, = v,~, A, = 0 (implying
So = 0), and R, = 0.
442 KURTSUNDERMEYER

6. THEORIES WITH FERMIONIC QUANTITIES

The techniques developed in previous sections shall be extended and applied to

situations where the ‘Yields” are objects of a Grassmann algebra. The example
discussed is essentially the massless relativistic particle with pseudoclassical spin.
Many topics occurring previously actually are present in this example too, among
these the appearance of second class constraints and the mixing of symmetries.
The input are a set of fields q”, e (bosonic) and @“, x (fermionic), where
,u = o,..., 3. Under reparametrizations (with descriptor !P) the fields shall transform as

f&q’ = -4” !P,

(6.1)

and under supertransformations (with odd descriptor A) as

asqu = i/i@@,
6,e = i/lx,
(6.2)
6, w = AT”,
t&x = 2i.

Here r” is an abbreviation for

pf- 1 p-i . 0’
e ( 2x (6.3)
1.

These transformations do form a group, and we are aiming at realizing as much of

this group in a phase-space as is feasible. One reads off from (6.1) and (6.2) that
(q”, 0“) are both JR and 6, D-invariant. However for no choice of the descriptors are
the variations JRqu, JR@@ D-invariant. Consequently symmetries (6.1) and (6.2)
cannot be realized in a phase-space separately. Similar to the arguments leading to
the observation of a transformation 8M in Section 5, we find here a mixture of
reparametrization and supertransformations to be realizable in a phase-space. It is
given by

&p] = &[I//] + 6,[A = &Yu]. (6.4)

With

reY (6.5)
 LOCAL SYMMETRIES AND DYNAMICS 443

one obtains

(6.6)

where

Since (r“,p“) are D-invariant (see Eqs. (6.8) and (6.9) below) under 8,,,, and 6,
transformations, the quantities 8M(6s)(q”, 0”) are D-invariant if the descriptors 5 and
A do depend on D-invariants only. One finds

and

dsrrc = Mp”,
(6.9)
6,p” = - &*kpP + 2ii@),

confirming that (Y, p”) are first-order D-invariants.

We obtain for the commutator of two q, transformations

- 8;‘&. (6.10a)

So this is another a,,,, transformation. The commutator of a JM transformation

(descriptor 5) and a 6, transformation (descriptor A) turns out to be

(6. lob)

Finally the commutator of two supertransformations is

r3 = 2iA,A,,
(6.10~)
‘4 3 = p)/!
s I
- $‘)A
s 2’

Now introduce pseudo-momenta (p, , rrP) depending on D-invariants. Because of

the Grassman-odd nature of the quantities 0” do we expect first-order equations of
444 KURT SUNDERMEYER

motion for these. Therefore we demand the pseudo-momenta to not depend on the
first-order D-invariants p’; hence
P, =p,(4,@ r),
(6.11)
71, = n,(q, 0, r).
These eight functions do only depend on four first-order D-invariants r”. Hence there
are at least four p-constraints of the form Qi (fields, p,, TC,) = 0.
Define the generator of canonical transformations as

G[(, A] = ~$53’+ A5 7 c&Pi. (6.12)

Since G shall be even, .A??is an even and .Y is an odd element of the Grassmann
algebra. The Hamiltonian for this theory is

H=e,5?-$ii. (6.13)

This comes about since Y = E(( = se) generates translations in time, and we have to
adjust for a supertransformation wih A = $xY.
The Poisson bracket of two generators G[<, A ] and G[r’. A ’ ] is

Here n, is zero (one) for an even (odd) element. We are using the rules of pseudo-
classical mechanics as derived by Casalbuoni [ 111. For “field’‘-independent
descriptors the first term on the right-hand-side the Poisson bracket algebra of 9 and
9 yields:
~,‘~i{~i,ov} = ((‘A -A’~)(.9’,.2P} +A’/l{9,.Y‘}. (6.15)

and comparing it with the commutators (6.10) we obtain

(6.16)

Comparison of the last term in (6.14) with (6.10) allows for the conclusion that Xi
are constraints in phase-space; .9? z 0, .Y z 0. The other terms give rise to the
following conditions on the constraints

(6.17)

(6.18)
 LOCAL SYMMETRIES AND DYNAMICS 445

(6.19)

(6.20)

Equations (6.17) and (6.19) read explicitly

a.9
(6.17a)
%=I"'
(6.17b)

(6.19a)

(6.19b)

The explicit form of (6.18) and (6.20) is

(6.18a)

(6.18b)

(6.20a)

(6.20b)

All of the relations (6.17~(6.20) are compatible with Hamilton’s equations of

motion. The analysis of Eqs. (6.17), (6.19), and (6.20) could be done essentially
along the line of reasoning in Section 3. That analysis has however been made for
bosonic systems, where the matrix A,, = (@,, QJ} is always antisymmetric. For
fermionic systems is this no longer true. Furthermore rested the analysis in Section 3
on only one local symmetry (reparametrizations), whereas in the present case there
are two symmetries. Instead of adapting the analysis to the present situation it turns
out to be convenient to proceed along the following line: In defining

(6.21)
446 KURT SUNDERMEYER

conditions (6.17), (6.19), and (6.20) may be used to set up genuine first-order
differential equations for R and S. For instance

an,
- p”.

The function R does not depend on p”, however the right-hand side contains these
quantities. Similar terms appear in X3/&,, &S/8q”, For consistency we are forced to
demand

an
vark p” = 0, sp’: = 0. (6.22)

Taking this into account in (6.17), (6.19), and (6.20) the full set of differential
equations for R and S is

(6.23)

(6.24)

(6.25)

(6.26)

It does not make sense to write relations for aRIaq”, aR/aW since LGP/aqw, d.2/&3”
contain time derivatives of r’. However we still have the information on the
constraint algebra, that is, the Poisson brackets (6.16). The first one of these is

With

as aR ap"a.9
-=----=---r", aR ap,
ap ag aqpap, ag aqfl
8.9
-=-- aR apvr.
aw aw aw
 LOCAL SYMMETRIES AND DYNAMICS 447

this is a genuine differential equation for R:

igOy +$P=O. (6.27)

The other Poisson bracket condition is

which by (6.20a) and (6.20b) is an algebraic relation for R:

(6.28)

This equation for R together with (6.23) and (6.27), and the differential equations
(6.24)-(6.26) for S are solvable only for a restricted class of pseudo-momenta.
Instead of writing down the integrability conditions in full length, let us resort to an
example.

EXAMPLE 8.

Pg = r II’
(6.29)
7r,=aO,.

The constant a is determined by the consistency of Eqs. (6.23) (6.27), and (6.28) to
be a = i/2,

The differential equations (6.24)-(6.26) yield

S=-i@r P’

The functions R and S differ from .%?and .Y by the p-constraints @,, F 71, - (i/2) 0,:

9 = -i(Op) + vu@, .

The multipliers u“, V’ are determined by exposing these expressions to the original
conditions on the constraints (2, Y), that is, to Eqs. (6.17)-(6.20); the result is
uu = -p’ = 0 (due to (6.22) and (6.29))
v” E-p’.
448 KIJRTSUNDERMEYER

So finally the dynamics is described by the Hamiltonian

and the constraints @u =: 0. The constraints (5P,.Y) are first class; Qu are second
class constraints. The Lagrangian found by an inverse Legendre transformation
(using rc, = (i/2) 0,) turns out to be

This is the Lagrangian for the massless spin l/2 particle, see for instance Ref. 112

7. CONCLUDING REMARKS

We demonstrated again how general covariance and additional local symmetries

can be implemented in a phase space, and to what extent these local symmetries
determine the phase-space dynamics. The approach may be summarized in the
following form: Start with a set of fields and state their transformations. Among these
must be general coordinate transformations, and the transformations must close.
Furthermore state the degree of the envisaged field equations. The program then
yields (a) Hamiltonian in the form H = Z (first class constraints), plus eventually
some second class constraints. There are as many Hamiltonian systems (not
necessarily different) as there are “compatible” choices of pseudo-momenta.
Compatibility refers to restrictions originating from integrability conditions on
differential equations of the constraints and/or the presence of secondary constraints.
Although the reasoning in selecting conditions on the pseudo-momenta resemble
arguments in the Dirac procedure, our approach is entirely different in the following
respect. The Dirac algorithm terminates on the level on which all constraints vi
satisfy {pi, H} 2 0. The algorithm may lead from primary to secondary, tertiary, etc.,
constraints. Finally has the number of first class constraints to be maximized. In our
program are secondary constraints necessiated in specific situations (see Section 2).
Tertiary constraints can never arise, and the choice of pseudo-momenta has to be
done in a manner that the number of FC constraints is minimized.
The examples discussed in Section 3 are meant to demonstrate how by selecting
compatible pseudo-momenta different Hamiltonian systems arise. Different
realizations of the mapping lead to either nonrelativistic mechanics of an
unconstrained system, or to the dynamics of a relativistic particle in the presence of
external fields. By still other choices of pseudo-momenta one could contribute to the
large amount of publications on the problem of “relativistic action at-a-distance”;
work on this topic is in progress.
Most “physical” seem to be field theories with second-order field equations for
 LOCAL SYMMETRIES AND DYNAMICS 449

bosons, and first-order ones for fermions. This is a criterion for the subgroup of the
full symmetry group realizable in a phase-space. One also may think of theories with
field equations of order higher than two. In these one should look for higher order D-
invariants (implying an enlargement of the subgroup). The approach would then be
an alternative to the corresponding Hamiltonian formulation. An extension of our
program in this respect is currently investigated.
More interesting seems to be an application of the method to locally supersym-
metric theories. The treatment of the relativistic massless spinning particle in this
article has to be considered a first step. The “fields” and transformations (6.1) and
(6.2) look rather artificial and would appear more natural if everything is treated with
superfield/space techniques. However we deleted these methods in this paper since it
is mainly aimed at demonstrating the extension of our program to theories with
fermionic degrees of freedom. The massive spinning particle is treated in Ref. [ 131.
The examples give a hint what one may expect for locally supersymmetric field
theories with fermions (supergravity).
Finally let us discuss similarities and dissimilarities in our approach as far as
finite-dimensional theories and field theories are concerned. Typical for a generally
covariant field theory in D dimensions is the occurrence of D descriptors Y” with
decomposition

where n“ has the meaning of a normal [4]. The last term is absent in one dimension.
In the examples discussed in this paper there are expressions (‘v”) = Y = nor where
rr” transforms like a normal. We have shown in an appendix in (41 that the actual
form of n@is unessential for the results one wants to obtain. (Use of this freedom has
been made of in several examples in this article.) The descriptors r” do always
depend on D-invariants. However in field theories an infinite number of such objects
exists in contrast to finite-dimensional theories. This is because every spatial
derivative of a D-invariant is a D-invariant of the same order. Therefore in field
theories the descriptors are functionals as opposed to functions in nonfield theories.
The pseudo-momenta in field theories are functionals too. This seems to render the
treatment of field theories much more difficult. However there is a stringent
restriction on the pseudo-momenta: Call Q the fields and D the pseudo-momenta
(indices suppressed). The Z7 must transform under hypersurface transformations
(to = 0) in such a manner that (D’Q) transforms as a scalar density. For a generally
covariant field theory in D dimensions with additional symmetries (characterized by
descriptors A*) a phase-space generator is given by

The comparison of commutators with Poisson brackets always yields a Poisson

bracket algebra among the constraints &,X0) which in this paper happened only
for theories with additional symmetry. Part of that algebra contains the Poisson
brackets among the super-Hamiltonian LX, and the supermomenta &. In linite-
450 KURT SUNDERMEYER

dimensional examples one typically finds conditions on the first-order derivatives of

the constraints with respect to the phase-space coordinates. In contradistinction in
field theories these are replaced by first-order functional derivatives. Integrating these
functional differential equations yields the constraints and therefore the Hamilton
function, and ultimately the phase-space dynamics. As in finite-dimensional theories
integration is only possible for consistent pseudo-momenta. It turns out that the form
of the supermomenta is independent of pseudo-momenta actually chosen. The ~q are
solely determined by the behaviour of the fields and the pseudo-momenta under
Co= 0 transformations, but the latter in turn are determined by the transformation
property of the fields [ 141. Therefore the real severe conditions on the pseudo-
momenta essentially stem from integrability conditions for the super-Hamiltonian &
and the constraints 8. This is similar to finite-dimensional theories. But in general it
is very hard to evaluate the integrability conditions as conditions on the pseudo-
momenta because (ZU, PJ depend on infinitely many variables.
With so many examples from one dimensional and field theories at hand it should
be possible to formulate our approach in geometrical terms (jet extensions seems to
be appropriate). Results of this investigation shall be published elsewhere in due time.

REFERENCES

1. P. A. M. DIRAC, “Lectures on Quantum Mechanics,” Belfer Graduate School of Science, Yeshiva

University, New York, 1966.
2. A. J. HANSON, T. REGGE, AND C. TEITELBOIM, “Constrained Hamiltonian Systems.” Accademia
Nazionale dei Lincei, Rome, 1976.
3. K. SUNDERMEYER. “Constrained Dynamics-with Applications to Yang-Mills Theory, General
Relativity, Classical Spin, Dual String Model,” Lecture Notes in Phys. No. 169. Springer-Verlag.
Berlin/Heidelberg/New York, 1982.
4. D. SALISEIURYAND K. SUNDERMEYER.Phys. Rev. D 21 (1983). 74C-756.
5. D. SALISBURYAND K. SUNDERMEYER,Phys. Rev. D 27 (1983). 757-763.
6. D. SALISBURYAND K. SUNDERMEYER,in preparation.
7. P. G. BERGMANN. “The General Theory of Gravitation Encyclopedia of Physics, Vol. IV” (S.
Fluegge, Ed.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1962.
8. P. G. BERGMANN AND A. KOMAR, Intern. J. Theoret. Phys. 5 (I 972), 15-28.
9. A. P. BALACHANDRAN, P. SALOMONSON,B.-S. SKAGERSTAM, AND J.-O. WINNBERG, Phys. Rev. D 15
(1977), 2308-2317.
10. R. MARNELIUS AND B. NILSSON, Phys. Rev. D 20 (1979), 839-847.
Il. R. CASALBUONI, Nuovo Cimento 33A (1976). 115-125, 389-431.
12. L. BRINK, S. DESER, B. ZUMINO, P. DI VECCHIA. AND P. HOWE, Phys. Len. 64B (1976), 435-438.
13. K. SUNDERMEYER.“Phase Space Realization of D = 1 Local Supersymmetry,” Lecture presented at
the IXX Winter School in Theoretical Physics, Karpacz. February, 1983.
14. K. KUCHA~. J. Mafh. Phys. 17 (1976). 777-791.