--- abstract: 'Canonical Hamiltonian field theory in curved spacetime is formulated in a manifestly covariant way. Second quantization is achieved invoking a correspondence principle between the Poisson bracket of classical fields and the commutator of the corresponding quantum operators. The Dirac theory is investigated and it is shown that, in contrast to the case of bosonic fields, in curved spacetime, the field momentum does not coincide with the generators of spacetime translations. The reason is traced back to the presence of second class constraints occurring in Dirac theory. Further, it is shown that the modification of the Dirac Lagrangian by a surface term leads to a momentum transfer between the Dirac field and the gravitational background field, resulting in a theory that is free of constraints, but not manifestly hermitian.' author: - | M. Leclerc\ Section of Astrophysics and Astronomy, Department of Physics,\ University of Athens, Greece date: 'June 7, 2006' title: '**Generally covariant quantization and the Dirac field**' --- Introduction ============ Quantization in curved spacetime has a long history and there exists an equally long list of problems related to the subject. It is not our intention to give a review of those issues (see, e.g., @dewitt for a discussion of many of the related problems as well as for a list of relevant references). Here, instead, we wish, in a certain sense, to start from zero and investigate some of the consequences of a straightforward canonical quantization performed in curved spacetime that arise independently of eventual additional problems like those described in @dewitt and many other articles (e.g., the observer independent concept of a particle). We base our investigation on the principle of relativity, which states that, locally, we cannot distinguish between gravitational and inertial fields. Therefore, if we can put a given special relativistic theory into a manifestly generally covariant form and perform, always in a manifestly covariant way, the second quantization, then the incorporation of gravitational background fields will be trivial, since all our relations will remain identical in form. (This holds as long as we stick to the minimal coupling principle, avoiding thus explicit curvature couplings.) According to this procedure, the special relativistic theory dictates the form of the corresponding theory in gravitational background fields. If the resulting theory is not free of problems, then there are essentially three possibilities: First, the problems might be solved in some way. This is the point of view we adopt here. In many cases, this involves difficulties concerning the interpretation of certain results, which might be straightforward in flat spacetime, but leads to ambiguities in curved spacetime. Second, the canonical quantization procedure might not be completely correct, and therefore leads to problems which, by chance, do not manifest themselves in the special relativistic limit. We do not investigate this possibility here. Finally, there is the possibility that it is simply not possible to perform second quantization in a manifestly covariant way, and thus, ultimately, in an observer independent way. Otherwise stated, in such a case, the quantization process does not commute with the change of the coordinate system, i.e., we will necessarily have to fix first the coordinate system, and then perform the quantization. Obviously, this is not a very attractive option, since it would essentially mean that at the quantum level, the principle of relativity ceases to be valid. Assuming that the canonical quantization procedure is valid and can be performed in a generally covariant way, we proceed straightforwardly to the analysis of both bosonic and fermionic theories. We start by the formulation of classical field theory, where we use a direct generalization of the Poisson bracket used by Ozaki @ozaki in the framework of special relativistic theories, and perform the quantization of the theory by invoking the traditional correspondence principle between Poisson brackets and commutators (or anticommutators). The resulting quantum theory is essentially a curved spacetime generalization of Schwinger's manifestly Lorentz covariant formulation of special relativistic field theory @schwinger1. Of particular interest is the result that, in Dirac theory, the generators of spacetime translations are not given in terms of the field momentum operator. Thus, in particular, the time component of the field momentum, which is conventionally referred to as field Hamiltonian, does not generate the time evolution of the quantum fields, as is the case in flat spacetime. Instead, it turns out that the field momentum generates a kind of generalized translations which are directly related to the hermitian momentum operators $\tilde p_k$ derived in our previous article @leclerc1. The reason is found in the occurrence of second class constraints in Dirac theory. Further, an alternative way to quantize the Dirac field is presented, where the Lagrangian is modified by a surface term. The surface term is shown to lead to a change in the field momentum, that can be interpreted as a momentum transfer between the Dirac field and the gravitational background field. The resulting theory is free of constraints, and the generators of spacetime translations are now given directly in terms of the field momentum operator. However, the theory is not manifestly hermitian, and the symmetry between the field variables $\psi$ and $\bar \psi$ is broken, the latter playing merely the role of a Lagrange multiplier. Most interesting, in the special relativistic limit, both the hermitian and the non-hermitian formulations turn out to be equivalent, which is the reason why the issue of how we deal consistently with the constraints in Dirac theory is usually passed over in the related literature. The article is organized as follows. In the next section, we explain our notations and give a few definitions that will be used throughout this article. In sections \[poisson\] and \[hamilton\] classical Hamiltonian field theory for bosonic fields is formulated in a manifestly covariant way, and in section \[second\], we proceed to second quantization. Finally, in section \[dirac\], we discuss the Dirac theory. Preliminaries ============= Quite generally, our notations are identical to those used in @leclerc1. In particular, we use latin letters from the middle of the alphabet $i,k,l,m\dots$ to denote spacetime indices (e.g., the spacetime metric $g_{ik}$) and latin letters from the beginning of the alphabet $a,b,c\dots $ to denote Lorentz vector indices (e.g., the flat tangent space metric $\eta_{ab}$, the Lorentz (or spin) connection $\Gamma^{ab}_{\ \ i}$, the tetrad field $e^a_i $, with $g_{ik} = e^a_i e^b_k \eta_{ab}$). Both spacetime and tangent space are four dimensional. At a later stage, we will also use spinor indices $L,M,N\dots$ (running from 1 to 4) and write the Dirac spinor as $\psi^M $ (as well as $\bar \psi_M$ for the conjugate spinor, transforming with the inverse under a Lorentz gauge transformation). Let $x \equiv x^i = (x^0, x^1, x^2, x^3)$ be spacetime coordinates such that a hypersurface element can be written as $$\label{0} {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_i(x) = \left( \begin{array}{c} {\mathrm{d}}x^1(\sigma) {\mathrm{d}}x^2(\sigma) {\mathrm{d}}x^3(\sigma) \\ {\mathrm{d}}x^0(\sigma) {\mathrm{d}}x^2(\sigma) {\mathrm{d}}x^3(\sigma) \\ {\mathrm{d}}x^0(\sigma) {\mathrm{d}}x^1(\sigma) {\mathrm{d}}x^3(\sigma) \\ {\mathrm{d}}x^0(\sigma) {\mathrm{d}}x^1(\sigma) {\mathrm{d}}x^2(\sigma) \end{array} \right),$$ where ${\mathrm{d}}x^i(\sigma) $ means that ${\mathrm{d}}x^i $ is restricted to some hypersurface $\sigma$ defined by $\Phi(x) = 0$. (E.g., for the hypersurface $x^0 = const$, we have ${\mathrm{d}}x^0 = 0$ and ${\mathrm{d}}\sigma_i(x) = \delta^0_i {\mathrm{d}}^3 x$.) In the same coordinate system, we define $$\label{1} \delta^i (x-y) = \left( \begin{array}{c} \delta_{x^0 y^0}\ \delta(x^1-y^1)\delta(x^2-y^2)\delta(x^3-y^3)\\ \delta_{x^1 y^1}\ \delta(x^0-y^0)\delta(x^2-y^2)\delta(x^3-y^3)\\ \delta_{x^2 y^2}\ \delta(x^0-y^0)\delta(x^1-y^1)\delta(x^3-y^3)\\ \delta_{x^3 y^3}\ \delta(x^0-y^0)\delta(x^1-y^1)\delta(x^2-y^2) \end{array} \right).$$ The transformation behavior for $\delta^i (x-y)$ under a coordinate change is found from the known transformation behavior of ${\mathrm{d}}\sigma_i(x)$ ($\sqrt{-g}\ {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_i $ is a vector) by requiring $\delta^i (x-y) {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_i $ to transform as scalar under general coordinate transformations. Thus, $\delta^i(x-y)$ transforms as vector density. Next, consider a spacelike hypersurface $\sigma$ defined by $\Phi(x) = 0$, with the (timelike) normal vector $n_i = \Phi_{,i}$. For convenience, $\Phi(x)$ can be chosen such that $n^2 \equiv n_{i}n_{k} g^{ik} = 1$. Then, we have $$\label{2} \int_{\sigma} f(x) \delta^i(x-y) {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_i(x) = f(y)$$ where the integration is carried out over the hypersurface $\sigma$ containing the point $y$. For the specific hypersurface $t = t_0=const$, we find, e.g., $$\label{3} \int_{\sigma} f(x) \delta^i(x-y) {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_i(x) \!=\! \int_{\sigma} f(t_x, \vec x) \delta^{(3)}(\vec x - \vec y) \ \delta_{t_x t_y}\ {\mathrm{d}}^3 x \!=\! f(t_x, \vec y) \ \delta_{t_x t_y},$$ where $t_x = t_0$ is to be taken on the hypersurface in question. Thus, if $t_y = t_0$ (i.e., if $y$ is on the hypersurface $t=t_0$), the result is simply $f(y)$, while else, we find zero. Thus, $\delta^i (x-y) $ can be seen as covariant generalization of the three dimensional delta function. Note that we have adopted the convention of @leclerc1 to use the index $t$ for the time component of a spacetime vector and greek indices from the middle of the alphabet $\mu,\nu \dots$ for the spacelike components, i.e., e.g., $A^m = (A^t, A^{\mu})= (A^t, \vec A)$, $\mu = 1,2,3$. The same letter $t$ is used for the time coordinate itself, , $x^m = (t, x^{\mu}) = (t, \vec x)$. If the time component of different events $x^i, y^i$ is needed, we use the obvious notation $t_x, t_y$ etc. It is important to have in mind that, whenever such a $3+1$-split is used, it is understood that $t$ is really a timelike coordinate, i.e., in particular $g^{tt} > 0$. This implies, of course, a certain restriction on the coordinate system. In a similar fashion, we use the index $0$ for the time component of a Lorentz vector and greek indices from the beginning of the alphabet for the corresponding space components, e.g., $A^a = (A^0, A^{\alpha})$, $\alpha = 1,2,3$. (The only exception to those conventions was made in the expressions (\[0\]) and (\[1\]) where the spacetime index of $x^i$ was given values from $0$ to $3$ for simplicity.) Let us recall the following theorem for spacelike hypersurface integrals @schwinger1 $$\label{4} 0= \int_{\sigma} f_{,i} {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_k - \int_{\sigma} f_{,k} {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_i.$$ This results from the fact that the r.h.s. is independent of the choice of the hypersurface $\sigma$ (see @schwinger1), while for the specific choice $t= t_0$, it reduces to a two-dimensional surface integral which vanishes if an appropriate asymptotical behavior of $f(x)$ is assumed (as will always be done throughout this article). From (\[4\]), we can farther deduce the following theorem $$\label{5} \int_{\sigma} f(x) n_i {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_k (x) = \int_{\sigma} f(x) n_k {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_i(x).$$ Note that in general, $n_i = n_i(x)$, but we will omit the argument whenever there is no danger of confusion. The above results from $f(x) n_i = f(x) \Phi_{,i}(x) = (f(x) \Phi(x))_{,i}- f_{,i} \Phi(x)$, with $\Phi (x) = 0$ on the hypersurface we integrate over. Thus, we can apply the previous theorem. In particular, we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{6} \int_{\sigma} f(x) \delta^i(x-y) {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_i &=& \int_{\sigma} f(x) \delta^i (x-y) n^k n_k {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_i \nonumber \\ &=& \int_{\sigma} f(x) \delta^i (x-y) n_i n^k {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_k \end{aligned}$$ which is equal to $f(y)$ if $y$ lies on the hypersurface. (We take the convention that all quantities whose arguments are not written explicitely are to be taken at the point $x$.) Let us introduce the following definitions $$\begin{aligned} \label{7} {\mathrm{d}}\sigma &=& n^i {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_i \\ \label{8} \delta_{\sigma} (x-y) &=& \delta^i (x-y) n_i \\ \label{9} \delta_{\sigma}^i (x-y) &=& \delta_{\sigma}(x-y) n^i = \delta^m (x-y) n_m n^i. \end{aligned}$$ We can thus write $$\begin{aligned} \label{10} \int_{\sigma} f(x) \delta^i (x-y) {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_i (x) &=& \int_{\sigma} f(x) \delta^i_{\sigma} (x-y) {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_i(x) \nonumber \\ &=& \int_{\sigma} f(x)\delta_{\sigma}(x-y) {\mathrm{d}}\sigma = f(y) \end{aligned}$$ where for the last relation, it is assumed that $y$ lies on the hypersurface. Moreover, we have $\delta^i (x-y) n_i = \delta_{\sigma}^i (x-y)n_i $. Nevertheless, one should not confuse $\delta^i (x-y)$ which is given explicitely by (\[1\]), with $\delta^i_{\sigma} (x-y)$, which is defined with respect to a specific hypersurface. In particular, for $t = t_0$, we have $\delta^i_{\sigma}(x-y) = \delta_{t_x t_y}\ \delta^{(3)}(\vec x - \vec y) g^{ti}/g^{tt}$. (The factor involving the metric components stems from the normalization $n^2 = 1$, which for $t=t_0$ (and thus $n_i = (n_t, 0, 0, 0)$ ) leads to $n_t = 1/\sqrt{g^{tt}}$ and $n^i = g^{ti} n_t$.) In particular, in flat spacetime, we see that $\delta^i_{\sigma}(x-y)$ has only one non-vanishing component, in contrast to (\[1\]). For a functional $$\label{11} F[{\varphi},\sigma] = \int_{\sigma} f[{\varphi}(x)] {\mathrm{d}}\sigma(x)$$ we define the functional derivative by considering the variation of $F$ induced by a variation $\delta {\varphi}$, i.e., if $$\label{12} \delta F = \int_{\sigma} \frac{\delta{f}}{\delta {\varphi}} \delta {\varphi}\ {\mathrm{d}}\sigma,$$ then we set by definition $$\label{13} \frac{\delta F}{\delta {\varphi}(x)} \equiv \frac{\delta{f}}{\delta{{\varphi}}}(x).$$ We are now ready to apply this formalism to classical field theory. Covariant Poisson brackets and field momentum {#poisson} ============================================= Consider a Lagrangian density $\mathcal L = \mathcal L({\varphi}, {\varphi}_{,m})$. The corresponding field equations read $$\label{14} \pi^m_{\ ,m} = \frac{\partial{\mathcal L}}{\partial {\varphi}},$$ where $$\label{15} \pi^m \equiv \frac{\partial{\mathcal L}}{\partial {\varphi}_{,m}}$$ will be called the generalized canonical momentum. Note that $\pi^m $ is actually a vector density (i.e., of the form $\sqrt{-g} $ times a vector). If there is more than one field, it is understood that there is an additional (suppressed) index labeling the different fields ${\varphi}^{(A)}$ and the corresponding momentum $\pi^{(A)m}$, and over which summation is to be carried out in all our expressions. According to our definition of the functional derivative, we can write $$\label{16} \frac{\delta {\varphi}(y)}{\delta {\varphi}(x)} = \delta^i (x-y) n_i, \ \ \ \frac{\delta \pi^i(y)}{\delta \pi^m(x)} = \delta^i_m \delta^l (x-y) n_l.$$ Next, we define the classical Poisson brackets by (see @ozaki) $$\label{17} [A, B]_{\sigma} = \int_{\sigma} \left( \frac{\delta A}{\delta {\varphi}(z)} \frac{\delta B}{\delta \pi^m(z)} - \frac{\delta B}{\delta {\varphi}(z)} \frac{\delta A}{\delta \pi^m(z)} \right) {\mathrm{d}}\sigma^m(z),$$ where ${\mathrm{d}}\sigma^m = g^{mi} {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_i$. A straightforward calculation using (\[16\]) as well as the theorem (\[5\]) leads to the following relations $$\label{18} [{\varphi}(x), {\varphi}(y)]_{\sigma} = [\pi^m (x), \pi^i(y)]_{\sigma} = 0, \ \ \ [{\varphi}(x), \pi^i (y)]_{\sigma} = \delta^i_{\sigma}(x-y)$$ The field momentum is defined in the usual way as $\mathcal P_k = \int_{\sigma}\sqrt{-g}\ t^i_{\ k} {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_i$, where $t^i_{\ k} $ is the canonical stress-energy tensor. We find $$\label{19} \mathcal P_k = \int_{\sigma} (\pi^i{\varphi}_{,k} - \delta^i_k \mathcal L ){\mathrm{d}}\sigma_i.$$ Note that $\mathcal P_k = \mathcal P_k( \sigma)$, i.e., $P_k$ depends in general on the choice of the hypersurface. In fact, it has been shown in @schwinger1 that $$\label{20} \frac{\delta }{\delta \sigma} \int_{\sigma} F^i {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_i = F^i_{\ ,i},$$ meaning that the functional is independent of the hypersurface whenever the integrand is divergence free. (For the precise definition of $ \frac{\delta}{\delta \sigma}$, see @schwinger1.) In our case, this means that $\mathcal P_k$ is independent of $\sigma$ if $(\sqrt{-g}\ t^i_{\ k})_{,i} = 0$, which is the case only in flat spacetime. If we restrict ourselves to the hypersurfaces $t= t_0 = const$, parameterized by $t_0$, this means that $\mathcal P_k $ is independent of $t_0$ (i.e., it is conserved) whenever $(\sqrt{-g} \ t^i_{\ k})_{,i} = 0$, a well known result. Next, we show that (for $x \in \sigma$) $$\label{21} \frac{\delta {\mathcal P_k}} {\delta \mathcal \pi^i(x)} = {\varphi}_{,k}(x) n_i$$ and $$\label{22} \frac{\delta {\mathcal P_k}} {\delta \mathcal {\varphi}^(x)} = - \pi^i_{\ ,k}(x) n_i.$$ We show this as follows. Starting from the explicit expression (\[19\]), we find $$\begin{aligned} \delta \mathcal P_k &=& \int_{\sigma} \left[ {\varphi}_{,k} \delta \pi^i + \delta {\varphi}_{,k} \pi^i - \delta^i_k \frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial {\varphi}} \delta {\varphi}- \delta^i_k \frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial {\varphi}_{,m}} \delta {\varphi}_{,m} \right] {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_i \\ &=& \int_{\sigma} {\varphi}_{,k} \delta \pi^i {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_i - \int_{\sigma} \pi^i_{\ ,k} \delta {\varphi}{\mathrm{d}}\sigma_i +\int_{\sigma} (\delta {\varphi}\pi^i)_{,k} {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_i \\&& -\int_{\sigma} \left[ \frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial {\varphi}} - (\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial {\varphi}_{,m}})_{,m}\right] \delta {\varphi}{\mathrm{d}}\sigma_k -\int_{\sigma} (\frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial {\varphi}_{,m}} \delta {\varphi})_{,m} {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_k. \end{aligned}$$ The third integral cancels with the last one in view of the theorem (\[4\]), while the forth integral vanishes on-shell. For the first integral, we write $$\begin{aligned} \int_{\sigma} {\varphi}_{,k}\delta \pi^i n^m n_m {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_i &=& \int_{\sigma} {\varphi}_{,k}\delta \pi^i n^m n_i {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_m \\ &=& \int_{\sigma} {\varphi}_{,k}\delta \pi^i n_i {\mathrm{d}}\sigma, \end{aligned}$$ where theorem (\[5\]) has been used in the first step. This is now of the form (\[12\]) and therefore leads to (\[21\]). In the same way, (\[22\]) follows from the second integral. Our expressions are identical in form to those derived by Schwinger @schwinger2, equation (2.91), for the quantized field in flat spacetime, where $\pi$ was defined by $\pi^i n_i$ (note that Schwinger assumed $n_{i,k} =0 $). The Poisson bracket of $\mathcal P_k$ with the canonical field variables can now be evaluated and the result is (assuming that $x$ lies on the hypersurface $\sigma$) $$\label{23} [ \mathcal P_k, {\varphi}(x) ]_{\sigma} = - {\varphi}_{,k}(x), \ \ \ \ [ \mathcal P_k, \pi^i(x) ]_{\sigma} = - \pi^m_{\ ,k}(x) n_m n^i$$ which can be compared to equation (2.92) of @schwinger2. Finally, we point out that an alternative approach to the definition of the Poisson bracket has been presented in @marsden. Hamilton equations {#hamilton} ================== It is very important to remark that the equations derived in the previous section should not be confused with the Hamilton equations of motion. The functional derivatives (\[21\]) and (\[22\]) are obtained from $\mathcal P_k$ in the form (\[19\]) as it stands. It is in no way understood that $\mathcal P_k$ should be expressed in terms of $\pi^i $ and ${\varphi}$ only. This cannot be done unambiguously anyway, because obviously, (\[19\]) is not a Legendre transformation performed to replace ${\varphi}_{,i}$ by $\pi^i$, or similar. If we write the first term in the form $\int \pi^i {\varphi}_{,k} {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_i = \int \pi^i n_i {\varphi}_{,k} {\mathrm{d}}\sigma$, we see that $\pi^i$ enters only as $\pi^i n_i$. Thus, at most one component of ${\varphi}_{,k}$ could be Legendre transformed in that way. The consistent way to set up a covariant Hamiltonian theory therefore consists in Legendre transforming the variable ${\varphi}_{,i} n^i$ and replace it with $\pi = \pi^i n_i$. Such a formalism has been worked out by Ozaki @ozaki for the flat space case, and we will adopt it here to curved spacetime. Since the formalism is manifestly covariant, there is not much to adopt. In fact, the relations of Ozaki should remain identical in form. The scope of our presentation is thus basically to check that this is indeed the case. Moreover, we will find a slight difference between our results and those of Ozaki, which is not directly related to curvature effects. Following @ozaki, we define the Hamiltonian by $$\label{25} h = \int_{\sigma} \sqrt{-g}\ t^i_{\ k} n^k {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_i = \int_{\sigma} (\pi {\varphi}_{,k} n^k - \mathcal L) {\mathrm{d}}\sigma,$$ where $\pi$ is defined by $$\label{26} \pi = \frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial {\varphi}_{,i}} n_i = \pi^i n_i.$$ Note that $h$ should not be confused with the so-called De Donder-Weyl Hamiltonian, $\pi^i {\varphi}_{,i} - \mathcal L $, see, e.g., @kanatch. (See also the so-called polysymplectic Hamiltonian field theory @sardan.) The Hamiltonian $h$ thus arises upon Legendre transforming the variable ${\varphi}_{,i} n^i $ and replacing it with $\pi$. The Hamiltonian $h$ has first been introduced, in the context of special relativistic quantum theory, by Matthews @matthews. For simplicity, we consider the case where (\[26\]) is solvable (in terms of ${\varphi}_{,m}n^m$). Using the formalism of the previous sections, the variation of $h$ leads to the following equations $$\begin{aligned} \label{27} \frac{\delta h }{\delta \pi} &=& {\varphi}_{,i} n^i \\ \label{28} \frac{\delta h }{\delta {\varphi}} &=& - (\pi n^i)_{,i} + \pi^i n^m (n_{i,m} - n_{m,i}). \end{aligned}$$ To obtain those relations, theorems (\[4\]) and (\[5\]) have to be used several times, and in a final step the fact that $n^i_{\ ,k} n_i = - n^i n_{i,k}$ (from $n^2 = 1$). Equations (\[27\]) and (\[28\]) are the Hamilton equations for classical field theory in a generally covariant form. They differ by the the corresponding equations (11) and (12) of @ozaki by the second term in (\[28\]), as well as the part $-\pi n^i_{,i}$ from the first term, which are absent in @ozaki. In flat spacetime, and choosing the hypersurface $t = t_0$, this term vanishes, but in curved spacetime, or even in flat spacetime, with a different hypersurface, this is not the case anymore. It is not completely clear to us where this difference comes from (see however the remarks on the conservation of $h$ below). To get an idea how this works in practice, consider the (real) scalar field Lagrangian $$\label{29} \mathcal L = \sqrt{-g}\ \frac{1}{2} ({\varphi}_{,m} {\varphi}^{,m} - m^2 {\varphi}^2).$$ From (\[26\]), we find $\pi = \sqrt{-g} {\varphi}_{,m} n^m$. In order to express (\[25\]) in terms of $\pi$, we write $$\label{30} {\varphi}_{,i} =\frac{ \pi}{\sqrt{-g}}\ n_i + [{\varphi}_{,i} - {\varphi}_{,m}n^m n_i],$$ which corresponds to a split in normal and tangential components. The Hamiltonian is then found in the form $$\label{31} h\! =\! \int_{\sigma}\! \left[ \frac{1}{2} \frac{\pi^2}{\sqrt{-g}} - \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{-g}\ {\varphi}_{,m} {\varphi}^{,m} + \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{\!-g} ({\varphi}_{,m}n^m)^2 + \frac{1}{2} m^2 {\varphi}^2 \sqrt{\!-g} \right]\! {\mathrm{d}}\sigma.$$ Variation and comparison with (\[27\]) and (\[28\]) leads to the Hamilton equations $$\begin{aligned} \label{32} \frac{\pi}{\sqrt{-g}} = {\varphi}_{,m} n^m \label{33} \\ (\sqrt{-g}\ {\varphi}^{,m})_{,m} + \sqrt{-g}\ m^2 {\varphi}-(\sqrt{-g}\ {\varphi}^{,l}n_ln^m)_{,m} \nonumber \\ \nonumber + \sqrt{-g}\ {\varphi}^{,i}n^m(n_{i,m}-n_{m,i}) && \\ = - (\pi n^i)_{,i} + \pi^i n^m (n_{i,m} - n_{m,i}). \end{aligned}$$ As expected, the first equation leads back to the relation between $\pi$ and ${\varphi}_{,k}n^k$, and inserting this into the second equation leads to the field equation for the scalar field in curved spacetime, $(\sqrt{-g}\ {\varphi}^{,m})_{,m} + \sqrt{-g}\ m^2 {\varphi}= 0$, or simply $\Box_g {\varphi}+ m^2 {\varphi}= 0$. Again, the derivation of the second equation involves several applications of the theorems (\[4\]) and (\[5\]), meaning that the formalism is not really comfortable, even for such simple applications. Greater ease could be provided by the definition of normal and tangential derivatives, as has been done in @ozaki, and observing that certain integrals over tangential divergences lead to two dimensional surface integrals that can be omitted. This has to be done with care, however, especially in curved spacetime. For instance, the following integral over the tangential divergence of a vector field $A^i$, $\int_{\sigma} (A^i_{\ ,i} - A^i_{\ ,m} n^m n_i) {\mathrm{d}}\sigma$ leads to $\int_{\sigma} (A^i n^k_{\ ,k} - A^k n^i_{\ ,k}) {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_i$, which is not always zero. It is instructive to see the explicit expression of $h$ for the hypersurface $t = t_0$, i.e., $n_i = (1/{\sqrt{g^{tt}},0,0,0})$, and $n^i = g^{ik} n_k = g^{it}/ \sqrt{g^{tt}}$, such that ${\mathrm{d}}\sigma = n^i {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_i = \sqrt{g^{tt}}\ {\mathrm{d}}^ 3 x$. The scalar field Hamiltonian (\[31\]) then takes the form (recall that spacetime indices are denoted $m = (t, \mu)$, $\mu = 1,2,3$, where it is assumed that $t$ is timelike, i.e., $g^{tt} > 0$) $$\begin{aligned} \label{34} h &=& \int_{\sigma} \left[ \frac{1}{2} \frac{\sqrt{g^{tt}}}{\sqrt{-g}} \ \pi^2 - \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{-g g^{tt}}\ {\varphi}_{,m} {\varphi}^{,m} \right. \nonumber \\ && \ \ \ \ \left. + \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{-g g^{tt}}\ ({\varphi}_{,t} \sqrt{g^{tt}} + {\varphi}_{,\mu} \frac{g^{t\mu}}{\sqrt{g^{tt}}})^2 + \frac{1}{2} m^2 {\varphi}^2 \sqrt{-g g^{tt}} \right]{\mathrm{d}}^3 x. \end{aligned}$$ The momentum in terms of ${\varphi}_{,m}$ is of the form $$\label{35} \pi = \sqrt{-g}\ {\varphi}_{,m}n^m = \sqrt{-g}\ \left({\varphi}_{,t} \sqrt{g^{tt}} + {\varphi}_{,\mu} \frac{g^{\mu t} }{\sqrt{g^{tt}}}\right).$$ Note that, since $t$ is timelike, the three dimensional tensor $g^{\mu\nu}$ is negative definite, and therefore $h$ is positive. In flat spacetime, $\pi$ reduces to ${\varphi}_{,t}$, and the Hamiltonian takes the conventional form $h = \int_{\sigma} \frac{1}{2} (\pi^2 - {\varphi}_{,\mu}{\varphi}^{,\mu} + m^2 {\varphi}^2) {\mathrm{d}}^3 x$. It is hard to imagine how the Hamiltonian (\[34\]) could have been guessed without having at our disposal a manifestly covariant formalism. The above expressions take a simpler form if we use the Arnowitt-Deser-Misner (ADM) decomposition of the metric tensor, given by $g_{tt} = N^2 - \tilde g_{\mu\nu} N^{\mu\nu}$, $g_{t\mu} = -N_{\mu}$ and $g_{\mu\nu} = - \tilde g_{\mu\nu}$. Then we have (for the same hypersurface as above) $\pi = \sqrt{\tilde g}\ ( {\varphi}_{,t} - {\varphi}_{,\mu} N^{\mu})$, and $$h = \int_{\sigma} \left[ \frac{1}{2} \frac{\pi^2}{\sqrt{\tilde g}} + \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{\tilde g}\ \tilde g^{\mu\nu} {\varphi}_{,\mu} {\varphi}_{,\nu} + \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{\tilde g}\ m^2 {\varphi}^2 \right] {\mathrm{d}}^3 x,$$ where three dimensional indices are raised and lowered with $\tilde g_{\mu\nu}$ and its inverse $\tilde g^{\mu\nu}$ Finally, let us derive the Poisson bracket of $h$ from (\[31\]) with the canonical variables ${\varphi}$ and $\pi$. For this, we need an expression for $\delta h/ \delta \pi^i$. Consider some functional $F = \int_{\sigma} f {\mathrm{d}}\sigma $. According to (\[12\]), the variation with respect to $\pi$ is given by $$\delta F = \int_{\sigma} \frac{\delta f}{\delta \pi} \delta \pi {\mathrm{d}}\sigma = \int_{\sigma} \frac{\delta f}{\delta \pi} (\delta \pi^i n_i) {\mathrm{d}}\sigma = \int_{\sigma} (\frac{\delta f}{\delta \pi} n_i) \delta \pi^i {\mathrm{d}}\sigma \equiv \int_{\sigma} \frac{\delta f}{\delta \pi^i} \delta \pi^i {\mathrm{d}}\sigma$$ meaning that we have $$\label{36} \frac{\delta F}{\delta \pi^i} = \frac{\delta F} {\delta \pi} n_i.$$ We now easily find the following relations $$\label{37} [h, {\varphi}(x)]_{\sigma} \!= - {\varphi}_{,i}(x) n^i, \ \ [h, \pi(x)]_{\sigma} \!= - (\pi(x) n^i)_{,i} + \pi^i n^m (n_{i,m}\! -\! n_{m,i}).$$ Again, the second relation differs by the terms $\pi n^i_{,i}$ and $\pi^i n^m(n_{i,m}-n_{m,i})$ from the result of @ozaki. The first relation suggests to interpret $h$ as the generator of translations along $n^i$, i.e., normal to the spacelike hypersurface. We will therefore occasionally refer to $h$ as evolution operator. In particular, for $t = t_0$ and assuming a flat spacetime, $h$ becomes equivalent to the time component of $\mathcal P_i$, and thus to the generator of time translations. It is important, however, that the direct interpretation of $h$ as evolution operator is only valid for expressions that do only depend on the field ${\varphi}$. For expressions involving $\pi$, or $n^i$ and $g_{ik}$, the evolution is not directly given in terms of $h$. One could eventually modify the Hamiltonian in order to get a relation of the form $[\tilde h, \pi] = - \pi_{,m} n^m$, but this would not really solve the problem for general expressions. Obviously, any Hamiltonian will satisfy $[\tilde h, n_i] = [\tilde h ,g_{ik}] = 0$ as long as the metric is treated as a background field, and therefore, it is not possible to construct an evolution operator satisfying $[\tilde h,f] = - f_{,i} n^i$ for a general expression $f({\varphi}, \pi, n^i, g_{ik})$. To illustrate what this means in practice, consider the case of the free electromagnetic field. We have $\pi^{ik} = \frac{\partial \mathcal L} {\partial A_{i,k}}$, which is antisymmetric, and thus, we have the primary constraints $\Phi(x)= \pi^{ik} n_in_k = 0$. For consistency of the Hamiltonian theory, we have to require that $\Phi(x)$ remains zero during the evolution of the system, i.e., $\delta \Phi= \Phi(x^i + {\varepsilon}n^i) - \Phi(x^i) = {\varepsilon}\Phi_{,i} n^i = 0 $ (where ${\varepsilon}$ is an infinitesimal parameter), which leads to secondary constraints. Therefore, the secondary constraints are not simply obtained by requiring $[ h, \Phi] = 0$. Instead, in our case, we have $\Phi(x) = \pi^{ik} n_in_k = \pi^i n_i $, and thus $\delta \Phi = (\pi^i_{\ ,k} n^k) n_i + \pi^i (n_{i,k} n^k)$, where $\pi^i_{\ ,k} n^k$ is evaluated from equation (\[37\]) in the form $\pi^i_{\ ,k} n^k = - [h, \pi^i]_{\sigma} - \pi^i n^l_{,l} + \pi^{ik}n^m(n_{k,m}- n_{m,k})$. We have checked that this leads indeed to the secondary constraint $\pi^{ik}_{\ \ ,k} n_i = (\sqrt{-g}\ F^{ik})_{,k} n_i = 0$, which is the covariant expression for Gauss' law. Any other expression, e.g., $(\sqrt{-g} F^{ik} n_i)_{,k}$ or similar would not be in accordance with the field equations. For the sake of completeness, we give the explicit form of the Maxwell Hamiltonian $$h =\! \int_{\sigma} \left[ -\frac{1}{2} \frac{\pi^i \pi_i}{\sqrt{-g}} + \pi^i A_{m,i} n^m + \frac{1}{4} \sqrt{-g}\ F^{lm}F_{lm}+ \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{-g}\ F_{li}n^i F^{ml}n_m \right] {\mathrm{d}}\sigma.$$ with $\pi^i = \pi^{ik} n_k = \sqrt{-g} F^{ik} n_k$. The velocities have been eliminated using $A_{i,k} = - \frac{\pi^i}{\sqrt{-g}} n_k + (A_{i,k} - F_{li}n^l n_k)$. The relations corresponding to (\[37\]) for $A_i$ and $\pi^i$ are easily established. They are identical to the scalar field case (just replace ${\varphi}$ with $A_i$, $\pi$ with $\pi^i$ and $\pi^{k}$ with $\pi^{ik}$). It is now an easy task to derive the secondary constraints. Finally, we choose the hypersurface $t = const$ and use the ADM parameterization. The Hamiltonian then simplifies to $$h = \int_{\sigma} \left[\frac{1}{2} \frac{\pi^{\mu} \pi_{\mu}}{N^2 \sqrt{\tilde g}} + \pi^{\mu} A_{t,\mu} N^{-2} - \pi^{\mu} A_{\nu,\mu} N^{\nu} N^{-2} + \sqrt{\tilde g}\ \frac{1}{4} F^{\mu\nu} F_{\mu \nu} \right ] {\mathrm{d}}^3 x,$$ where indices are raised and lowered with $\tilde g_{\mu\nu}$. For the commutation relations, we remind that $\delta_{\sigma}(x-y) = \delta^i(x-y) n_i = \delta^{3}(x-y) N$, and therefore we have $[A_i(x), \pi^k(y)]_{\sigma} = \delta^k_i N \delta^{(3)}(x-y)$ at equal times. The conventional choice for the momentum, in the framework of the ADM formalism, differs by a factor $N$ from ours, namely $\tilde \pi^i = \frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial A_{i,t}}$, instead of $\pi^i = \frac{\partial \mathcal L}{\partial A_{i,k}}n_k$, resulting therefore in a simpler commutation relation, $[A_i(x), \tilde \pi^k(y)]_{\sigma} = \delta^k_i \delta^{(3)}(x-y)$. (In other words, we work with $\pi^i = \pi^{ik} n_k$, while the conventional choice is $\pi^i = \pi^{it}$.) This is merely a matter of convenience. The conventional choice would appear unnatural when written in an explicitely covariant form. It has also been claimed in @ozaki that (in flat spacetime), $h$ is independent of the choice of the hypersurface $\sigma$. We do not agree with that statement. According to Schwinger @schwinger1, an integral $\int_{\sigma} f {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_i $ is independent of $\sigma$ whenever we have $f_{,i} = 0$. For $h = \int_{\sigma} t^i_{\ k} n^k {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_i $ this would be the case for $(t^{ik} n_k)_{,i} = 0$, or, in view of the special relativistic conservation law for the canonical stress-energy tensor, for $t^{ik} n_{i,k} = 0$. For a general $t^{ik}$, this can only be the case for $n_{i,k} = 0$, which holds only for specific hypersurfaces. Similar, in curved spacetime, $h$ is independent of $\sigma$ for $(\sqrt{-g}\ t^{ik} n_k )_{,i} = 0$. In the framework of general relativity, we have shown @leclerc that the canonical stress-energy tensor $t^i_{\ k}$ is equivalent to the metric (Hilbert) tensor $T^{ik}$, i.e., they differ by a relocalization term and lead both to the same momentum vector $\mathcal P_k$. However, in general, $t^{ik}$ does not satisfy $t^{ik}_{\ \ ;k} = 0$ and moreover, it is easy to show that $t^i_{\ k}$ and $T^{ik}$ do not lead to the same $h$. (Note that the canonical tensor is not a genuine tensor, and should be referred to as pseudo-tensor. However, in order to avoid confusion with the pseudo-stress-energy tensor of the gravitational field itself, we will stick to the expression canonical tensor, which is widely used in literature.) In the specific case of the scalar field, however, $t^{ik}$ incidentally coincides with the Hilbert tensor, and therefore satisfies the general relativity relation $t^{ik}_{\ \ ;i} = 0$, or ($\sqrt{-g}\ t^{ik})_{,i} + \sqrt{-g}\ \hat \Gamma^k_{li}\ t^{il} = 0 $, where $\hat \Gamma^k_{li}$ is the Christoffel connection. It is then straightforward to show that $(\sqrt{-g}\ t^{ik} n_k )_{,i} = 0$ (i.e., that $h$ is independent of $\sigma$), whenever we have $t^{ik} (n_{i;k} + n_{k;i}) = 0$, where we made use of the symmetry of $t^{ik}$. For this to hold in general, we must have $n_{i;k} + n_{k;i} = 0$. We thus must have a timelike Killing vector, orthogonal to a spacelike hypersurface, meaning that spacetime must be static. (In general, even if such a Killing vector $\xi^i$ exists, it will not be normalized. In order to find a conserved quantity, one will have to replace $h$ by $\int_{\sigma} \sqrt{-g}\ t^i_{\ k} \xi^k {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_i$.) Therefore, only for static spacetimes can we choose $n_i$ (or rather $\xi_i$) in a way that $h$ is conserved. (Recall that this result is limited to the case where $t^{ik}_{\ \ ;i} = 0$.) In no way, however, is $h$ generally independent of the choice of $\sigma$. In flat spacetime, for the hypersurface $t= t_0$, we have $h = \mathcal P_t$, which justifies the conventional interpretation of $\mathcal P_t$ as field Hamiltonian in special relativistic field theory. Nevertheless, they are fundamentally different quantities from a theoretical standpoint, and according to the above considerations, only $h$ should be referred to with the name Hamiltonian, since it is the quantity that, when expressed in terms of ${\varphi}$ and $\pi$, leads upon variation to the canonical Hamilton equations. Second quantization {#second} =================== One of the major successes of the canonical Hamiltonian formulation of mechanics and field theory is its direct relation to quantum theory by means of a suitable correspondence principle. On the other hand, a special relativistic theory can unambiguously be written in a manifestly generally covariant form, if we exclude direct curvature couplings. In the presence of bosonic fields, this results in the replacement of the non-dynamical Minkowski metric by a spacetime dependent metric tensor $g_{ik}$. According to the principle of equivalence, this tensor is interpreted as dynamical gravitational field. In the presence of spinor fields, we need a tetrad field $e^a_i$ ($a,b,\dots$ denote Lorentz vector indices) and the metric arises as derived quantity $g_{ik}= e^a_i e^b_k \eta_{ab}$. The theory is invariant under local Lorentz gauge transformations (in addition to general coordinate transformations) $e^a_i \rightarrow \Lambda^a_{\ b}(x) e^b_i$, and the special relativistic limit is given by $e^a_i = \delta^a_i$, i.e., when we have identification of the tangent Lorentz space with the spacetime manifold. Obviously, in that limit, the residual symmetry is the global Lorentz group, acting at the same time in tangent space and in spacetime, because in order to have $\delta^a_i = \tilde e^a_i(\tilde x) = \Lambda^a_{\ b} \ e^b_k (x)\ \frac{\partial x^k}{\partial \tilde x^i}$, where $e^a_i = \delta^a_i$, $\Lambda^a_{\ b}$ must be the inverse of $ \frac{\partial x^k}{\partial \tilde x^i}$, meaning in particular that the coordinate transformation $ \frac{\partial x^k}{\partial \tilde x^i}$ has to be a Lorentz transformation. The important thing is that there is again only one covariant form to a given special relativistic theory. (Note, however, that this one to one correspondence does not hold for gravitational theories which involve additional variables, like the (independent) Lorentz connection in Poincaré gauge theory. In such a case additional tensors arise (e.g., torsion), that can be coupled at will to the matter fields, without destroying the general covariance. It turns out, however, that for the canonical quantization process, only the metric (or tetrad) structure is of importance.) In summary, assuming the ideal case, to each classical special relativistic theory corresponds exactly one second quantized theory (correspondence principle), and to each special relativistic theory corresponds exactly one (eventually up to additional, non-metric gravitational tensor fields) generally covariant theory. It is therefore clear that, if there exists a manifestly covariant second quantized theory, then it can only be obtained by applying the correspondence principle to the special relativistic theory written in generally covariant form. If this does not lead to a consistent theory, this means that the quantization process cannot be done in a covariant, and thus ultimately, in an observer independent way. One would then have to fix first the coordinate system, and perform the quantization afterwards. It is clear that this would ultimately mean that the principle of equivalence does not hold on a quantum level. Here, we assume that the second quantization can be performed in a manifestly covariant way. Taking into account gravitational effects (from the background curvature) is then, at least from a formal point of view, a trivial issue. Our starting point is the Poisson bracket (\[17\]), and second quantization is achieved by replacing the field ${\varphi}$ and the canonical momentum $\pi^i$ by operators acting in a Hilbert space and satisfying the relations (\[18\]), where the Poisson bracket of the classical fields is replaced by the commutator of the corresponding operators, $$\label{38} [A, B]_{\sigma} \rightarrow \frac{1}{i} [A, B] = \frac{1}{i} (A B - BA).$$ Explicitely, the canonical commutation relations (CCR's) read $$\label{39} i[{\varphi}(x), {\varphi}(y)] = i[\pi^m (x), \pi^i(y)] = 0, \ \ \ i [\pi^i(x), {\varphi}(y)] = \delta^i_{\sigma}(x-y),$$ where $x$ and $y$ are on the hypersurface $\sigma$. In particular, $x-y$ is thus spacelike. (Recall that the commutation relations between fields at timelike separations can only be obtained with the help of the field equations for the specific theory under investigation (propagator), and explicit expressions are only available for free fields (interaction representation), see @schwinger1. The direct application of Schwinger's formalism to curved spacetime can only be achieved if we expand the metric around a flat background, $g_{ik} = \eta_{ik} + h_{ik}$. Not only does this mean giving up general covariance, but moreover, in view of the inverse of $g_{ik}$ occurring in standard matter Lagrangians, the explicit expressions in terms of $h_{ik}$ contain infinite series already at this early stage of the theory.) The above CCR's are identical to those used by Schwinger for the special relativistic theory @schwinger1 and are equivalent to those used in @nikolic on a curved background. For the specific hypersurface $t =t_0$, we find from (\[1\]) and (\[9\]) that the last relation reduces to $$\label{40} i [\pi^t (x), {\varphi}(y)] = \delta^{(3)}(\vec x - \vec y) \delta_{t_x t_y},$$ and $i [\pi^{\mu}(x), {\varphi}(y)] = 0$. Since both points are assumed to lie on $\sigma$ anyway, we can omit the factor $\delta_{t_x t_y}$, and we find the conventional equal time commutation relation at $t_0$ between the field and its canonical momentum. We see that, although (\[39\]) involves four components $\pi^i$, there is only one component that plays the role of the canonically conjugate field, namely the component normal to the hypersurface, $\pi = \pi^i n_i$. In terms of $\pi$, we have the following CCR's $$\label{41} i [{\varphi}(x), {\varphi}(y)] = i [\pi (x), \pi(y)] = 0, \ \ \ i [\pi(x), {\varphi}(y)] = \delta_{\sigma} (x-y),$$ which is the form used in @nikolic. Let us apply this to the scalar field Lagrangian (\[29\]). The field momentum (\[19\]) is given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{42} \mathcal P_k &=& \int_{\sigma} (\pi^i{\varphi}_{,k} - \delta^i_k \mathcal L ){\mathrm{d}}\sigma_i \nonumber \\ &=& \int_{\sigma} \pi^i{\varphi}_{,k} {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_i - \frac{1}{2} \int_{\sigma} \sqrt{-g}\ ({\varphi}_{,m} {\varphi}^{,m} - m^2 {\varphi}^2) {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_k, \end{aligned}$$ where $\pi^i = \sqrt{-g} {\varphi}^{,i} $. It is important to recall that $\mathcal P_k$ has nothing to do with a Hamiltonian. Although $\mathcal P_t$ is conventionally referred to as field Hamiltonian, as we have seen in the previous section, $\mathcal P_k$ is not a Legendre transformation and is not a quantity which is used to determine equations of motion. In particular, it is not understood that ${\varphi}_{,m}$ should be replaced by $\pi^m$ in (\[42\]). From the form (\[42\]) and the CCR's, we can deduce the commutation relations of $\mathcal P_k $ with ${\varphi}$ and $\pi^i$. Note that, for the evaluation of $[\mathcal P_k,\pi^i(x)]$, we have to write, e.g., for the first term from (\[42\]) $\int \pi^l(y) [{\varphi}_{,k}(y), \pi^i(x)]{\mathrm{d}}\sigma_l(y) = i \int \pi^l(y) (\delta^i_{\sigma}(y-x))_{,k} {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_l(y) = - i \int \pi^l_{\ ,k}(y)\delta^i_{\sigma}(y-x){\mathrm{d}}\sigma_l(y) + i \int(\pi^l(y) \delta^i_{\sigma}(y-x))_{,k} {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_l(y)$ (derivatives acting on $y$), where the second term cannot simply be omitted. (To our knowledge, there is no generalization of the rule $\delta'(x-y) f(x)= - f'(x) \delta(x-y)$ for our $\delta$ functions.) Instead, it cancels with an opposite term coming from the second term in (\[42\]), as can be shown using theorem (\[4\]) and the definition of $\pi^m$. The final relations are found in the form $$\label{43} i [P_k, {\varphi}(x)] = {\varphi}_{,k}(x), \ \ \ i [P_k, \pi^i(x)] = \pi^m_{\ ,k}(x) n_m n^i,$$ which are in direct correspondence to (\[23\]). It is understood that $x$ lies on the same hypersurface $\sigma$ (with normal vector $n_i$) that has been used in the definition of $\mathcal P_k$. Note that (\[43\]) are on-shell relations. In terms of $\pi = \pi^i n_i$, the above relations read $$\label{44} i [P_k, {\varphi}(x)] = {\varphi}_{,k}(x), \ \ \ i [P_k, \pi(x)] = \pi^m_{\ ,k}(x) n_m,$$ From its action on the field ${\varphi}$, we can identify, as expected, $\mathcal P_k$ with the generator of spacetime translations. The same equations have been derived (assuming flat spacetime and $n_{i,k} = 0$) by Schwinger @schwinger2, see equation (2.92). On the other hand, for the evolution operator $h$ (\[31\]), we find $$\begin{aligned} i[h,{\varphi}] &=&\frac{\pi}{\sqrt{-g}}, \nonumber \\ i[h, ,\pi] &=& -(\sqrt{-g}\ {\varphi}^{,m})_{,m} - \sqrt{-g}\ m^2 {\varphi}\nonumber \\&& +(\sqrt{-g}\ {\varphi}^{,l}n_ln^m)_{,m} - \sqrt{-g}\ {\varphi}^{,i}n^m(n_{i,m}-n_{m,i}). \label{45}\end{aligned}$$ If we assume the correspondence principle and write the equations (\[37\]) in the form $$\label{46} i [h, {\varphi}(x)] = {\varphi}_{,i}(x) n^i, \ \ \ \ i [h, \pi(x)] = (\pi(x) n^i)_{,i} - \pi^i n^m(n_{i,m}-n_{m,i}),$$ then (\[45\]) leads consistently to the field equations. Those equations have been derived for the first time in @matthews for flat spacetime (and $n_{i,k} = 0$). We see that, thanks to the manifestly covariant formalism, the generalization to curved spacetime does not present any difficulties, at least on a formal level. Dirac field {#dirac} =========== Classical theory ---------------- The Dirac equation in presence of gravitational fields (see e.g., @obukhov) has been studied in our previous article @leclerc1 with the focus on the relation between the Dirac Hamiltonian and the time component of the field momentum. Here, we will extend this analysis to the case of the quantized theory. Recall the Dirac Lagrangian $$\label{47} \mathcal L = e \left[ \frac{i}{2}(\bar \psi \gamma^i {\mathrm{D}}_i \psi - {\mathrm{D}}_i \bar \psi \gamma^i \psi) - m \bar \psi \psi \right],$$ with $e = \det e^a_i = \sqrt{-g}\ $, ${\mathrm{D}}_i \psi = \partial_i \psi - \frac{i}{4} \Gamma^{ab}_{\ \ i} \sigma_{ab}\psi $ and $\gamma^i = e^i_a \gamma^a$, where $\gamma^a$ are the constant Dirac matrices and $\sigma_{ab}$ the Lorentz generators. Recall that we use latin indices from the begin of the alphabet ($a,b,c \dots $) for tangent space quantities and from the middle ($i,j,k \dots $) for curved spacetime quantities. The Lorentz connection $\Gamma^{ab}_{\ \ i}$ ($\Gamma^{ab}_{\ \ i} = - \Gamma^{ba}_{\ \ i}$) and the tetrad $e^a_i$ transform under an (infinitesimal) local Lorentz transformation $\Lambda^a_{\ b} = \delta^a_b + {\varepsilon}^a_{\ b}$ according to $ \delta \Gamma^{ab}_{\ \ i} = - \partial_i {\varepsilon}^{ab} - \Gamma^a_{\ ci} {\varepsilon}^{cb} - \Gamma^b_{\ ci} {\varepsilon}^{ac}, \ \delta e^a_i = {\varepsilon}^a_{\ b} e^b_i$. The Lagrangian (\[47\]) is invariant under such transformations if $\psi $ undergoes the gauge transformation $ \psi \rightarrow \exp{[(-i/4) {\varepsilon}^{ab} \sigma_{ab}}]\psi $. The Dirac equation is derived in the form $$\label{48} i \gamma^i \nabla_i \psi = m \psi,$$ where $ \nabla_i \psi = \partial_i \psi - \frac{i}{4} \tilde \Gamma^{ab}_{\ \ i}\sigma_{ab} \psi $. The connection $\tilde \Gamma^{ab}_{\ \ i}$ is the connection that effectively couples to the spinor field. If we work in the framework of general relativity, then $\Gamma^{ab}_{\ \ i} = \Gamma^{ab}_{\ \ i}(e)$, i.e., the connection is not an independent field and can be expressed in terms of the tetrad and its derivatives. In that case, $\tilde \Gamma^{ab}_{\ \ i} = \Gamma^{ab}_{\ \ i} $ (and ${\mathrm{D}}_i = \nabla_i$). If the connection is considered to be an independent field (Poincaré gauge theory), then we have $\Gamma^{ab}_{\ \ i} = \Gamma^{ab}_{\ \ i}(e) + K^{ab}_{\ \ i}$, where $K^{ab}_{\ \ i}$ is the contortion tensor. However, only the totally antisymmetric part of $K^{ab}_{\ \ i}$ remains in the field equations. Therefore, the effective connection is given by $\tilde \Gamma^{ab}_{\ \ i} = \Gamma^{ab}_{\ \ i} + \tilde K^{ab}_{\ \ i}$, where $\tilde K^{ab}_{\ \ i} = e_{ci} K^{[abc]}$. Just as was the case in @leclerc1, those differences between general relativity and Poincaré gauge theory are not related to our specific discussion, and the use of the symbols $\nabla_i$ and $ \tilde \Gamma^{ab}_{\ \ i} $ is a convenient way of treating both cases at the same time. In Schroedinger form, the Dirac equation can be written as $$\label{49} H \psi = i \partial_t \psi$$ Using again greek indices $\alpha, \beta \dots $ to denote the spatial part of $a,b \dots $ (i.e., $ a = (0,\alpha)$), and indices $\mu, \nu \dots $ for the spatial part of the spacetime indices $i,j,k \dots $ and $t $ for the time component, (e.g., $m = (t, \mu)$), we find $$\label{50} H = \frac{1}{g^{tt}} ( \gamma^t m - i \gamma^t \gamma^{\mu} \nabla_{\mu}) - \frac{1}{4} \tilde \Gamma^{ab}_{\ \ t} \sigma_{ab}.$$ In the flat limit ($\tilde \Gamma^{ab}_{\ \ i} = 0,\ e^a_i = \delta^a_i$), this reduces to the well known expression $H = \gamma^0 m - i \gamma^0 \gamma^{\mu} \partial_{\mu} = \beta m + \vec \alpha \cdot \vec p$. Further, we define a manifestly covariant inner product in Dirac space $$\label{51} (\psi_1, \psi_2) = \int_{\sigma}\sqrt{-g}\ \bar \psi_1 \gamma^i \psi_2 {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_i,$$ where the integration is performed over a spacelike hypersurface. We have shown in @leclerc1 that $H$ is not in general hermitian with respect to this scalar product. Thus, by the (Dirac space) operator identity $H = i \partial_t$, the time evolution operator $i \partial_t$ is not hermitian. A similar situation holds for the translation operators $i \partial_{\mu}$, and altogether, it was shown that the following operator ($m = 0,1,2,3$) $$\label{52} \tilde p_m = i \partial_m + \frac{i}{2} \partial_m \ln\sqrt{-g g^{tt}},$$ is hermitian. (Whenever expressions are used that are not manifestly covariant, as is the case with (\[52\]), it is understood that they refer to the hypersurface $t = t_0$, which has been used exclusively in @leclerc1. The reason is that an explicit $3+1$ split has already been performed by writing down equation (\[49\]). This can be avoided by writing $H_{\sigma} = i n^m \partial_m \psi $ instead, and then repeat the steps performed in @leclerc1. The fact remains that the operator $i \partial_m $ is not hermitian. Moreover, in order to find the explicit form (\[52\]), it is assumed that $e^t_{\alpha} = 0$ for $\alpha = 1,2,3$, which can always be achieved by a suitable Lorentz rotation, since $e^t_a $ is a timelike Lorentz vector.) Moreover, it was shown that the expectation values of (\[52\]) are given by the field momentum, i.e., $$\label{53} \mathcal P_k = (\psi, \tilde p_k \psi),$$ where $$\label{53b} \mathcal P_k = \int_{\sigma}\sqrt{-g}\ t^i_{\ k} {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_i = \int_{\sigma} \left[\frac{\partial \mathcal L} {\partial (\partial_i\psi) } \ \partial_k \psi \ +\ \partial_k \bar \psi\ \frac{\partial \mathcal L} {\partial (\partial_i \bar \psi)} \ -\ \delta^i_k \mathcal L\right] {\mathrm{d}}\sigma_i.$$ In particular, if $\mathcal P_k$ is to play the role of the generator of spacetime translations in the quantum theory, then it seems strange that this operator does not coincide with the expectation value of the momentum $i \partial_k$ of the corresponding classical theory, as is the case in flat space (recall, e.g., the relation $\mathcal P_t = \mathcal H = (\psi,H \psi) = \int \psi^{\dagger} H \psi {\mathrm{d}}^3 x$ of the special relativistic theory). Therefore, it is of interest to investigate the situation in the second quantized theory. Surprisingly, it will turn out that, in contrast to the case of the boson field (see equation (\[43\])), the field momentum $\mathcal P_k$ does not coincide with the generators of spacetime translations in curved spacetime. Fermion Poisson Bracket and second quantization {#hermitian} ----------------------------------------------- The adaptation of the Poisson bracket (\[17\]) to the case of spinor fields is straightforward. Since we expect again a correspondence principle to lead to second quantization, and since fermions are quantized with anticommutators, the Poisson bracket for fermions, $\{A, B\}_{\sigma}$ should be symmetric in $A$ and $B$. Therefore, we simply replace the minus sign with a plus sign in (\[17\]) and, from a formal point of view, we are done. (The cases for fermion and boson brackets can also be formally treated at the same time, see, e.g., @ozaki, where you can also find the generalized Jacobi identity for such brackets.) The larger problem concerns the correct choice of the canonical variables. Formally, we have in (\[47\]) two independent fields $\psi$ and $\bar \psi$, related by hermitian conjugation, giving us the two corresponding momentum variables $\pi^i = \frac{i}{2}\sqrt{-g}\ \bar \psi \gamma^i $ and $\bar \pi^i = -\frac{i}{2} \sqrt{-g}\ \gamma^i \psi$ (recall that only the component in $n_i $ direction is the physical canonical momentum). Obviously, the variables $(\psi, \bar \psi, \pi, \bar\pi)$ are not independent, and we have two constraints in the theory, which are easily shown to be second class. In order to get a consistent theory with such constraints, it is necessary to modify the classical Poisson bracket (in order to exclude non-physical degrees of freedom) before passing over to the second quantization (see Dirac @dirac for details). Fortunately, since the quantization of the special relativistic Dirac theory is well known, we can directly inspire ourselves from the corresponding theory and put it into a generally covariant form. More details on the problems arising from the second class constraints will be given in section \[strictly\]. The consistent way is to use $(\psi, \pi)$ as canonically conjugate variables, with $\pi^i = i \sqrt{-g}\ \bar \psi \gamma^i $, and thus to define the following Poisson bracket $$\label{54} \{A, B\}_{\sigma} = \int_{\sigma} \left( \frac{\delta A}{\delta \psi^M (z)} \frac{\delta B}{\delta \pi_M^m(z)} + \frac{\delta A}{\delta \pi_M^m(z)} \frac{\delta B}{\delta \psi^M(z)} \right) {\mathrm{d}}\sigma^m(z),$$ where we use capital letters $K,L,M,N\dots$ to denote spinor indices. More precisely, upper indices are used for spinors transforming like $\psi$ under Lorentz gauge transformations, $\psi \rightarrow \Lambda \psi$, while lower indices are used for quantities transforming with the inverse, like $\bar \psi\rightarrow \bar \psi \Lambda^{-1}$. Thus, e.g., the Dirac matrices transform as $\gamma^a \rightarrow \Lambda \gamma^b \Lambda^{-1} \Lambda^a_{\ b} \equiv \gamma^a$, where $\Lambda^a_{\ b} $ is the corresponding Lorentz transformation in the vector representation. Thus, we write $(\gamma^a)^M_{\ N}$. Further, if we denote with an upper dotted index a spinor transforming like $\psi^{\dagger} \rightarrow \psi^{\dagger} \Lambda^{\dagger}$, and with a dotted lower index spinors transforming with the inverse $(\Lambda^{\dagger})^{-1}$, then the spinor metric $\gamma^0$ (used in $\bar \psi = \psi^{\dagger} \gamma^0$) takes two lower indices, a dotted and an undotted, $(\gamma^0)_{\dot M N}$ and is invariant under $(\Lambda^{\dagger})^{-1} \gamma^0 \Lambda^{-1}$. Note that $(\gamma^0)_{\dot M N}$, although numerically identical with the zeroth component of $\gamma^a$ is not a component of a Lorentz vector. In summary, the situation is identical to the special relativistic case, only that the Lorentz coordinate transformations are replaced by local Lorentz gauge transformations (not acting on the argument of $\psi(x)$). The following Poisson brackets are easily derived (for $x,y$ on $\sigma$) $$\begin{aligned} \label{55} \{\psi^N(x), \psi^M(y)\}_{\sigma} = 0, \ \ \{\pi^i_N (x), \pi^k_M(y)\}_{\sigma} = 0, \nonumber \\ \{\psi^N(x), \pi^i_M(y)\}_{\sigma} = \delta^N_M \delta^i_{\sigma}(x-y). \end{aligned}$$ Those relations are identical to those used (in the quantum theory) by Schwinger (@schwinger1). Note that the asymmetry between $\psi $ and $\bar \psi$ is only apparent. The corresponding relation for $\bar \psi$ and $\bar \pi = \gamma^0 \pi^{\dagger} $ is easily found by hermitian conjugation of (\[55\]). In other words, we could equally well start with the canonical pair $(\bar \psi, \bar \pi)$ and construct
{'source': 'arXiv_out/gr-qc0606033'}