text:
# Consistent discrete gravity solution of the problem of time: a model

## 1 Introduction

There have always been problems to formulate general relativity on a lattice. Even classically, if one simply discretizes Einstein’s equations, the resulting discrete equations are an inconsistent set of algebraic equations, that is, they cannot be solved simultaneously. This is well known in numerical relativity, where if one starts with a solution of the discrete constraint equations initially, upon evolution with the discrete evolution equations the resulting metric and extrinsic curvature will generically fail to solve the constraints.

A solution to this problem has recently been proposed, following the early work of T.D. Lee in simple mechanical systems. It consists in choosing the Lagrange multipliers (in the case of the usual canonical formulations of general relativity the lapse and the shift) so that the evolved quantities solve the constraints. One has four equations for four unknowns so this is in principle possible. This proposal has been explored in some detail in the context of cosmologies, where the resulting equations for the Lagrange multipliers are simple to solve. A canonical formulation for these formulations has also been introduced.

One of the attractive features of the resulting canonical theories is that the constraints are gone, since they are solved for the Lagrange multipliers. The presence of the constraints is one of the major roadblocks in the quantization of gravity. In particular most aspects of the “problem of time” are related to the presence of the constraints. The lack of constraints in the lattice formulation should therefore allow to make considerable inroads into these problems. We will discuss this in general in a separate publication. In this short paper we would like to exhibit how the construction works, in detail, in a model system that many people consider to embody the germ of many of the difficulties of the “problem of time” in quantum gravity: the parameterized particle.

In particular we would like to exhibit how the definition of a relational notion of time, as proposed in detail by Page and Wootters (but with a long conceptual history going back to Leibniz, Mach, Einstein, DeWitt, Hartle, Unruh, Barbour, Rovelli, Crane, Smolin and many others) operates in detail in our proposal.

This paper is organized as follows. We start with a brief recap of the proposal of Page and Wootters and the criticism it faced (eloquently articulated by Kuchař). We then briefly summarize in section 3 our consistent canonical formulation of discrete mechanical systems. In the fourth section we apply the construction to the parameterized particle. We end with a summary and proposal for further implications of this formalism.

## 2 The Page–Wootters construction

The usual textbook formulation of quantum mechanics presupposes the existence of an externally defined, classical quantity called “$`t`$”. The wavefunctions of the Schrödinger representation are functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,t)`$. The variable $`x`$ has a very different role than $`t`$, it is represented by an operator of which one can —for instance— compute expectation values. The time variable $`t`$, on the other hand, remains always classical. This is clearly only an approximate concept that requires the existence of a classical clock external to the quantum system. It is therefore not a very useful notion in the context of closed systems where everything behaves quantum mechanically, as for instance cosmology close to the Big Bang.

Page and Wootters proposed an alternative to this. They consider a system with variables $`q_1,q_2,\mathrm{}`$. One then considers wavefunctions $`\mathrm{\Psi }(q_1,q_2,\mathrm{})`$ where all variables are now quantum mechanical in nature and are represented by operators. One then chooses one of the variables and calls it “time”, for instance $`q_1=T`$. Being a quantum variable, one now considers the calculation of conditional probabilities in the sense of “what is the probability that the variable $`q_k`$ takes a value in a certain range $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_k`$ near $`q_k^0`$ when “time” takes a value in a range $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ near $`T^0`$.” This is how the Page–Wootters quantum mechanics is constructed.

This egalitarian framework appears very attractive in the context of quantum cosmology. However, there is a glitch. General relativity is a constrained theory. In principle, one should consider classical variables $`q_1,\mathrm{}`$, etc. that are “observables” (that is, have vanishing Poisson brackets with the constraints). Unfortunately since one of the constraints is the generator of evolution, it means these variables are “perennials” (as Kuchař usually calls them). This implies that one cannot expect any of them to work as a clock. The resulting quantum mechanics will have no evolution. Page and Wootters tried to circumvent this by considering $`q_1,\mathrm{}`$ to be “kinematical” variables (for instance the $`g_{12}`$ component of the metric in some coordinates) that do not have vanishing Poisson brackets with the constraints. In terms of these variables one would expect to see “evolution”. But here is where the presence of the constraints generates problems. Kinematical variables do not have a well defined action as quantum operators on states that are annihilated by the constraints. Worse, such states are expected to have a distributional nature as a subset of the full space of states. This implies that they do not really admit a probabilistic interpretation (see Kuchař for more details). This has a concrete consequence. When one uses the conditional probabilities of Page and Wootters to compute a propagator, one gets the wrong result that the system does not propagate (this can be seen in detail in the example of the parameterized particle we discuss later).

Because of these problems and in spite of its initial naturalness and appeal, the Page–Wootters proposal has been considered to fall short of presenting a solution to the problem of time in quantum gravity. As is made clear in the above discussion, it is the presence of the Hamiltonian constraint in general relativity what really complicates the application of this proposal. In the consistent discrete canonical formulation of general relativity the constraints are not present. Therefore it opens the possibility to revisit the Page and Wootters proposal.

## 3 Consistent discrete mechanics

Since in this paper we will not really discuss general relativity but only the example of the parameterized particle, it suffices to discuss the consistent discrete approach in the context of mechanical systems (in field theories additional subtleties appear, although the general construction is similar).

We start by considering a system with an action as in ordinary classical mechanics $`S=𝑑tL(q,\dot{q})`$. We then discretize time, substituting the time derivative by $`\dot{q}=(q_{n+1}q_n)/\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and the integral in the action becomes a sum. We write the action as $`S=_{i=1}^nL(q_i,q_{i+1})`$. One can work out the Lagrange equations. Then one would usually introduce a Hamiltonian via a Legendre transform. We would like to argue that this is not the most natural thing to do in this context. After all, a Hamiltonian is an infinitesimal generator of time evolution, and in a context where time is discrete there is no natural meaning to an infinitesimal time evolution generator. What is natural is to introduce a finite generator. This is accomplished by a canonical transformation that takes the system from $`q_n`$ to $`q_{n+1}`$. A generating function $`F`$ of a type I canonical transformation (i.e. mapping from $`q,p`$ to $`Q,P`$ via $`P=F(q,Q)/Q`$, $`p=F(q,Q)/q`$), that implements the time evolution is simply given by $`F(q_i,q_{i+1})=L(q_i,q_{i+1})L(i,i+1)`$. The evolution equations are therefore,

$$p_{n+1}=\frac{L(q_n,q_{n+1})}{q_{n+1}},p_n=\frac{L(q_n,q_{n+1})}{q_n}.$$
(1)
These equations define the canonical momenta $`p`$ and the evolution for the canonical pair. The evolution preserves the Poisson bracket of $`q_i,p_i`$. If we are a bit more explicit, writing out the usual form of the Lagrangian for a constrained system,

$$L(n,n+1)=p_n(q_{n+1}q_n)H(q_n,p_n)\lambda _{nB}\varphi ^B(q_n,p_n)$$
(2)
where we assume we have $`M`$ constraints $`\varphi ^B`$ with $`B=1\mathrm{}M`$ and $`\lambda _{nB}`$ are Lagrange multipliers. (We are slightly abusing the notation; in order to have $`M`$ constraints one needs more than two canonical variables, so one should assume that at each $`n`$ one has a multicomponent vector for the $`q`$’s and $`p`$’s). If we work out the equations of the canonical transformation we have,

$`p_np_{n1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{H(q_n,p_n)}{q_n}}\lambda _{nB}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^B(q_n,p_n)}{q_n}}`$ (3)
$`q_{n+1}q_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{H(q_n,p_n)}{p_n}}+\lambda _{nB}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^B(q_n,p_n)}{p_n}}`$ (4)
$`\varphi ^B(q_n,p_n)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (5)
These equations look superficially like a straight discretization of the usual Hamilton equations for constrained systems. But there is a significant difference with the continuum case. The last equation (the constraints) cannot hold simultaneously with the two first ones unless one chooses specific ($`p`$ and $`q`$-dependent) values for the Lagrange multipliers. With such a choice one is left with a free evolution given by the first two equations with specific values of $`\lambda `$ and the constraints are automatically satisfied.

Quantization of the system can be achieved by implementing the canonical transformation as a unitary transformation quantum mechanically. For instance, if one works in the Heisenberg picture, such a transformation should implement equations (3,4) as operator equations. In the Schrödinger picture, wavefunctions are function of the discrete parameter $`n`$.

It is deceiving to think that the above proposal for quantization will end up being useful for systems like general relativity. Although one will construct a quantum theory without conceptual obstructions (the only real obstruction could be computational, i.e. solving the equations for the Lagrange multipliers and then implementing the complicated resulting classical evolution equations operatorially via a unitary transformation) the resulting theory would be difficult to interpret. The discrete parameter $`n`$ has no direct physical meaning, it is just a computational entity introduced in the discretization. Therefore it cannot be expected to be correlated with any physically meaningful “time” in a generic situation.

In spite of these conceptual flaws, it should be emphasized that the resulting quantum theory is well defined, with the wavefunctions having a correct probabilistic interpretation. In this we see the first direct positive consequence of not having constraints. The probabilistic interpretation of the wavefunctions, which was problematic in the Hartle–Hawking formulation (see Kuchař for a detailed criticism) is suddenly not a problem here.

The fact that the most straightforward quantization does not appear to be of physical interest, yet yields a good probabilistic interpretation for the wavefunction is what makes the Page–Wootters approach quite attractive. We have at hand the tools needed to compute the conditional probabilities yet we will end up with a theory where the notion of time is introduced physically and the parameter $`n`$ only plays a computationally auxiliary role. Another way of putting it is that the discretization technique naturally yields a concrete implementation of the “mysterious time” concept introduced by Unruh.

Conceptually the proposal is therefore clear. The main point of this paper is to show that the proposal actually works in detail in a simple example that has however been quite problematic to tackle.

## 4 The Page–Wootters quantization of the parameterized particle

We cannot treat the free parameterized particle with our technique. This is due to the fact that its Lagrangian (at least written in the usual form) is simple enough that the discrete evolution equations are automatically consistent without applying our technique. One could perform a change of variables to non-standard variables in which the evolution equations could only be made consistent by determining the Lagrange multipliers, but we will not pursue this route.

We prefer to consider a slightly more general (and in the end more physically realistic) example: a non-relativistic particle in a constant force field (for instance, a charged particle in a constant electric field). The continuum Lagrangian can be written as,

$$S=\left[p\dot{q}+p_0\dot{q}^0N(p_0+\frac{p^2}{2m}+\alpha q)\right]𝑑\tau ,$$
(6)
where the dot means derivative with respect to the parameter $`\tau `$, $`\alpha `$ is the constant force on the particle due to the external field, $`N`$ is the Lagrange multiplier. $`q,p`$ are the usual spatial coordinate and momentum and $`q^0,p_0`$ are the temporal coordinate and its conjugate momentum. The problem can be de-parameterized by choosing $`q^0=\tau `$ and one recovers the ordinary mechanics of a particle in a constant force field. If one chooses however $`q=\tau `$, the resulting quantum theory is not consistent, yielding non-self-adjoint operators.

We proceed to discretize the Lagrangian as we outlined in section 3,

$$L(n,n+1)=p^n(q_{n+1}q_n)+p_0^n(q_{n+1}^0q_n^0)N_n(p_0^n+\frac{p_n^2}{2m}+\alpha q_n).$$
(7)
As before, one can introduce a canonical transformation which implements discrete time evolution. Its generator is $`L(n,n+1)`$. The resulting equations of the transformation are,

$`P_n^{q^0}`$ $`=`$ $`P_{n+1}^{q^0}`$ (8)
$`q_{n+1}^0q_n^0`$ $`=`$ $`N_n`$ (9)
$`P_{n+1}^qP_n^q`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha N_n`$ (10)
$`q_{n+1}q_n`$ $`=`$ $`N_nP_{n+1}^q/m`$ (11)
$`P_{n+1}^{q}{}_{}{}^{2}/2m+P_{n+1}^{q^0}+\alpha q_n`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (12)
In deriving these equations we have substituted the momenta canonically conjugate to $`p,p^0`$ and $`N`$. The last equation would reproduce in the continuum limit the usual constraint of the parameterized particle. The Lagrange multiplier $`N`$ is determined by solving the constraint (12),

$$N_n=\frac{mC_{n+1}}{\alpha P_{n+1}^q},$$
(13)
where,

$$C_{n+1}=\frac{P_{n+1}^{q}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2m}+P_{n+1}^{q^0}+\alpha q_{n+1},$$
(14)
is the discretization of the constraint of the continuum theory.

Which can be used to recast the equation of motion as an explicit canonical transformation between $`n+1n`$ as,

$`q_n`$ $`=`$ $`q_{n+1}{\displaystyle \frac{C_{n+1}}{\alpha }}`$ (15)
$`P_n^q`$ $`=`$ $`P_{n+1}^q+{\displaystyle \frac{mC_{n+1}}{P_{n+1}^q}}`$ (16)
$`q_n^0`$ $`=`$ $`q_{n+1}^0{\displaystyle \frac{mC_{n+1}}{\alpha P_{n+1}^q}}`$ (17)
$`P_n^{q^0}`$ $`=`$ $`P_{n+1}^{q^0}.`$ (18)
Notice that the discrete construction does not exist in the limit $`\alpha 0`$. This prevent us from considering the free particle case, as we argued above. The resulting theory has no constraint, and therefore, distinctly from the continuum case, it has four phase-space degrees of freedom (for a discussion of how to reconcile a discrete theory with a given number of degrees of freedom as an approximation to a continuum theory with a different number of degrees of freedom see our recent paper).

We now proceed to quantize the system. We do it by constructing the unitary transformation which reproduces in the Heisenberg language the equations of motion. We consider wavefunctions $`\mathrm{\Psi }(q,q_0)`$.

To begin with, we start by writing the following matrix element,

$$<p_0^{},p^{},n+1|p_0,q,n>=<p_0^{},p^{},n|U|p_0,q,n>$$
(19)
where $`|p_0,q,n>`$ , $`<p_0^{},p^{},n|`$ are bases of the states at instant $`n`$ labeled by the eigenvalues of $`\widehat{P}_n^{q^0}`$, $`\widehat{q}_n`$, and $`\widehat{P}_n^{q^0}`$, $`\widehat{P}_n^q`$, respectively. Let us now to consider the operator version of equation (12),

$`<p^{},p_0^{},n+1|{\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{P}_{n+1}^q)^2}{2m}}+\widehat{P}_{n+1}^{q^0}+\alpha \widehat{q}_n|p,q,n>=`$
$`({\displaystyle \frac{p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2m}}+p_0^{}+\alpha q)<p^{},p_0^{},n+1|p,q,n>=0.`$ (20)
This implies that

$`<p^{},p_0^{},n+1|p_0,q,n>`$ $`=`$ $`f(p_0^{},p_0,q)\delta (p^{}+\sqrt{2mz})H(z)`$
$`+g(p_0^{},p_0,q)\delta (p^{}\sqrt{2mz})H(z),`$
with $`z=p_0\alpha q`$, $`H(z)`$ the step function, and $`f(p^{},p,q)`$ is a normalization factor to be determined by the other set of equations in a similar fashion. Time translation invariance of $`\widehat{P}^{q^0}`$ is also naturally implemented by replacing (8) in (20) which immediately implies that it is proportional to $`\delta (p_0^{}p_0)`$. On a similar fashion, we implement the remaining equations (9-11) where the Lagrange multiplier has been substituted via equation (13) and a factor ordering has been chosen. The final result for the evolution operator is,

$`<p^{},p_0^{},n|U|p_0,q,n>`$ $`=`$ $`A{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z^{1/4}}}[\delta (p^0p^0)\delta (p^{}+\sqrt{2mz})e^{ipq}`$
$`\delta (p^0p^0)\delta (p^{}\sqrt{2mz})e^{ipq}]H(z).`$
It can be seen that this operator is not strictly speaking unitary, since $`U^{}U=1`$ but $`UU^{}1`$. It is what is technically called an “isometry”. A correct quantization can be based on isometries , but we will not discuss this point here. It should also be noticed that if one restricts the motion to certain regions of configuration space before quantizing such that one avoids the inversion point ($`p=0`$) in the motion, then the operator is strictly unitary.

Although the quantization is complete, as we stressed before, its physical interpretation is problematic since the “evolution” variable $`n`$ does not have any intrinsic meaning. The wavefunctions however, have a correct probabilistic interpretations and therefore can be used to compute the conditional probabilities of the Page–Wootters relational approach.

Let us begin by introducing the conditional probability to obtain $`q=x`$ given $`q^0=t`$ (strictly speaking we should phrase the question in terms of intervals, since the operators have continuous spectra, we omit them here to simplify the notation),

$$P(q=x|q^0=t)=\frac{_{n=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}|\mathrm{\Psi }(x,t,n)|^2}{_{n=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑x|\mathrm{\Psi }(x,t,n)|^2}$$
(23)
Where we have used the standard formula,

$$P_{\mathrm{sim}}(x,t)=P(t)P_{\mathrm{cond}}(x|t)$$
(24)
where $`P_{\mathrm{sim}}(x,t)=lim_N\mathrm{}\frac{1}{2N}_{n=N}^NP_{\mathrm{sim}}(x,t)(n)`$, and $`P_{\mathrm{sim}}(x,t)(n)`$ is the probability of a $`n`$-simultaneous measurement of $`q,q^0`$. The sum in $`n`$ is due to the lack of knowledge of the actual value of $`n`$ when the measurement takes place. Generically, equation (23) may face convergence difficulties. We will see that for the system in question, and for a judicious choice of time, no convergence problems appear.

Notice that the above definition of probability in principle allows other choices of time variable, for instance,

$$P(q^0=t|q=x)=\frac{_{n=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}|\mathrm{\Psi }(x,t,n)|^2}{_{n=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑t|\mathrm{\Psi }(x,t,n)|^2}$$
(25)
which would correspond to the computation of the “time of arrival”, a notoriously subtle problem (see for instance  and references therein.) This will require more detailed study, which we will not attempt here, but it is interesting to notice that the expression is well defined.

Let us now explicitly compute, for the system of interest, the expression (23). The calculation is not straightforward unless certain approximations are made. We need to compute the operator $`U`$ explicitly (before we had just computed its matrix elements). In order to do this, we write the operator as an exponential of a “Hamiltonian” $`U=e^{iH}`$ and therefore $`\widehat{q}_n=e^{iH}\widehat{q}_{n+1}e^{iH}`$. The explicit expression for $`H`$ can be worked out as a power series in $`C/P_{}^{q}{}_{}{}^{2}`$. Here we consider an approximation based on the leading term in the series. We will also assume we are close to the continuum limit. The latter occurs when the lapse goes to zero. By studying the solution to the classical equations of motion (8-11) one can see that the continuum limit is achieved in the limit in which $`|P^q|>>|C|`$ (far away from the turning point). In this limit, only the first term of the power series contributes and the explicit expression for $`H`$ is,

$$H_{n+1}\frac{mC_{n+1}^2}{2\alpha P_{n+1}^q}.$$
(26)
We can therefore quantum mechanically approximate the evolution operator for $`n`$ steps $`U(n)U^n`$ by $`e^{iHn}=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{mC^2(p_0,p,q)}{2\alpha p}n\right)`$, with $`C=p_0+h(q,p)`$ the constraint, and in our case $`h=\frac{p^2}{2m}+\alpha q`$.

We now would like to study states in which the variable $`q^0`$ behaves approximately as a time variable, that is a wave-packet centered around a given value with small dispersion and that does not spread significantly upon evolution with respect to the parameter $`n`$.

We now expand the “Hamiltonian” as $`H=\frac{mp_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2\alpha p}+\frac{mh^2}{2\alpha p}+\frac{p_0mh}{\alpha p}`$. The first term would produce dispersion in the variable $`q^0`$. The introduction of dispersion by the evolution in $`n`$ implies that for large values of $`n`$ the system loses correlation between the time variable and $`n`$. In a realistic quantum system, the clock variable will interact with other degrees of freedom inducing decoherence and keeping small the dispersion in the time variable. In our simple model, it is possible to control the dispersion in $`t`$ without introducing additional degrees of freedom by restricting the number N of discrete steps by $`N<<(\alpha p\sigma _t)/m`$, where $`\sigma _t`$ is the initial standard deviation of the time variable. This will allow us to use a sharply peaked wave packet for the time variable in the whole range of values of $`n[N,N]`$. The second term is the final effective Hamiltonian for the $`q`$-part of the system. The third term will generate the evolution for the clock in the regime we are considering. Let us examine more closely the denominator of (23). Noticing that $`U^{}(n)|x,t,0>=|x,t,n>`$ and similarly for the bra state, we have that each term in the sum in the denominator is

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x}`$ $`<\mathrm{\Psi }|U^{}(n)|x,t,0><x,t,0|U(n)|\mathrm{\Psi }>=`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x<\mathrm{\Psi }|e^{iHn}|x,t,0><x,t,0|e^{iHn}|\mathrm{\Psi }>}.`$
Now let us assume an initially normalized wave packet of the form $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,t,n=0)=\varphi _0(x)\psi _0(t)`$, which would correspond to a weak coupling between the clock and the particle. Ignoring factor ordering corrections of order $`\frac{1}{p^2}`$ in units $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$ we get,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x}`$ $`<\mathrm{\Psi }|e^{ip_0\frac{mh}{\alpha p}n}e^{i\frac{mh^2}{2\alpha p}n}|x,t,0><x,t,0|e^{ip_0\frac{mh}{\alpha p}n}e^{i\frac{mh^2}{2\alpha p}n}|\mathrm{\Psi }>=`$ (28)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}<\psi _0|e^{ip_0<\frac{mh}{\alpha p}>n}|t,0><t,0|e^{ip_0<\frac{mh}{\alpha p}>n}|\psi _0>.`$
To derive this identity, we notice that $`\mathrm{exp}(i\frac{mh^2}{2\alpha p})`$ is an operator that only acts on $`\varphi _0(x)`$ and therefore can be transferred to the first inner product where it cancels with $`\mathrm{exp}(i\frac{mh^2}{2\alpha p})`$. In the last step we have neglected fluctuations on the expectation value of $`\frac{mh}{\alpha p}`$ replacing it by $`<\frac{mh}{\alpha p}>(0)`$, the initial expectation value, when integrating in $`dx`$. Thus, in the end, we get in the denominator the factor:

$$\underset{n}{}|e^{i\widehat{p}_0<\frac{mh}{\alpha p}>n}\psi _0(t)|^2=\underset{n}{}|\psi _0(t<\frac{mh}{\alpha p}>n)|^2.$$
(29)
To appreciate better the meaning of this expression it is best to replace the sum by an integral (since we are in the continuum limit). In the continuum limit, it should hold that $`<\frac{mh}{\alpha p}><<T`$, that is the elementary step in time should be much smaller than the total period of validity of the relational approximation. Assuming that the state is normalized, the integral yields a factor $`<\frac{mh}{\alpha p}>^1`$ for the denominator of the conditional probability. Studying now the numerator in a similar fashion we end with a term of the form,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|e^{i\widehat{p}_0<\frac{mh}{\alpha p}>n}e^{i\frac{m\widehat{h}^2}{2\alpha \widehat{p}n}}\varphi _0(x)\psi _0(t)|^2=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|e^{i\frac{m\widehat{h}^2}{2\alpha \widehat{p}}n}\varphi _0(x)\psi _0(t<{\displaystyle \frac{mh}{\alpha p}}>n)|^2,`$ (30)
where we have replaced the interaction term by its average value assuming that $`|<p>|>>\mathrm{\Delta }p`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }p`$ is the initial uncertainty of the wave packet in $`p`$. Now we may construct for the initial condition a normalized wave function of the form $`\varphi _0(t)=\delta _ϵ(t)`$ peaked around t=0. Replacing again the sum by an integral we cancel the denominator integrating the delta function after replacing<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1Notice that in general we will not end with an exact Schrödinger description, since the sum in $`n`$ may give more that one factor if the dispersive effects and the decoherence by the environment is included. This spreading effect of the clock variable would imply information loss in the time evolution of the wave packet. We have neglected this correction here in order to compare with standard quantum mechanics. However, the information loss is a natural consequence of the relational approach which may lead to interesting new physics. We shall show this in a forthcoming paper. $`n`$ by $`\frac{t}{<\frac{mh}{\alpha p}>}`$. The final expression turns out to be:

$$P(q=x|q^0=t)=|e^{i\frac{\widehat{h}^2}{2\alpha \widehat{p}}\times \frac{t}{<\frac{h}{\alpha p}>}}\varphi _0(x)|^2|e^{i\frac{\widehat{h}^2}{2\widehat{p}}\times <\frac{h}{p}>^1t}\varphi _0(x)|^2.$$
(31)
Therefore we end with a Schrödinger picture that, as we shall see, reproduces standard quantum mechanics. In order to see that the traditional behavior is recovered, let us consider the Schrödinger picture with $`\widehat{h}_{\mathrm{eff}}\frac{\widehat{h}^2}{2\widehat{p}}\times <\frac{h}{p}>^1(0)`$. Ignoring factor ordering terms, and also second order terms in $`1/p`$, we get, for the evolution of $`<q>`$ and $`<p>`$ the equations:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}<q>={\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}<[q,h_{eff}]>=<i[q,h^2/2p]><{\displaystyle \frac{h}{p}}>^1(0)=`$
$`<{\displaystyle \frac{h}{p}}>^1(0)[<(h^2/2p^2)>(t)+<h>(t)/m)]=`$
$`<h/p>^1(0)<h>(t)/m+1/2(<h^2/p^2>(t)/<h/p>(0)),`$ (32)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}<p>={\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}<[p,h_{eff}]>=<i[p,h^2/p]><{\displaystyle \frac{h}{p}}>^1(0)=`$
$`\alpha <{\displaystyle \frac{h}{p}}>^1(0)<{\displaystyle \frac{h}{p}}>(t).`$ (33)
The second equation reproduces the standard result $`\frac{d}{dt}<p>=\alpha `$ for $`\frac{\alpha T}{<p>(0)}<<1`$, which ensures that the expectation value $`<h/p>(t)`$does not depart much from its initial value during “evolution”. One can also recover the usual result for the first equation $`\frac{d}{dt}<q>=<p>(0)/m`$ provided $`<h>(0)/<p>(0)<<1`$. This last requirement is a consequence of the two previous conditions on $`<p>`$. One can show that it is possible to assign numerical values to the different variables in such a way that the complete set of conditions is satisfied for sufficiently long periods of the $`q^0`$ time. One can also check that small uncertainty states can be preserved during this period allowing to replace operators for expectation values.

The correct quantum behavior is therefore extremely limited for this system compared with the traditional Schrödinger quantization using the Newtonian time. This is, however, expected since it is a direct consequence of dealing with time as a quantum operator. Furthermore, for recovering the usual quantum behavior it is necessary to consider the semiclassical properties of the clock including extra degrees of freedom and the effects of the environment. We have shown nonetheless that the relational approach allows us for the first time to describe nature in a completely quantum way. Notice as an interesting consequence of the model that energy, in the form of $`h`$, is not exactly conserved. In fact, $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }h}{h}\frac{<\dot{h}>T}{<h>}\frac{\alpha }{<p>(0)}T<<1`$ and therefore the relative change in energy is small in the range of validity of the approximation.

## 5 Discussion

We have shown that we can, through the use of the consistent discretization approach, formulate a relational quantum mechanics for the parameterized particle. As in the case of general relativity the main ingredient is that the consistent discretization gets rid of the constraint(s) of the system and therefore one can consistently implement the relational description without the usual objections. The example considered is therefore simple yet powerful. To our knowledge there has never been a satisfactory relational quantum description in the past for this system.

The relational description recovers usual quantum mechanics when the discrete approximation approaches the continuum limit and when a clock variable can be isolated that behaves sufficiently close to a classical clock. The relational description does not require any of these assumptions; it exists in much more general situations. In such situations however, there is no sense in seeking a correspondence with usual quantum mechanics.

The example we consider is important, but nevertheless limited. It assumes the existence of a time variable whose simultaneity surfaces are “transverse” to all the classical trajectories of the system. In such situations it is known that the theory can be de-parameterized and therefore one can solve immediately the problem of time (although not through a relational quantum description). Even the same simple example we have analyzed could be shown to exhibit non-transversality by choosing the variable $`q`$. We will analyze this in a future paper. We would also like to analyze a system where the coupling between the clock and the system is less strong. This will require more complexity, introducing extra degrees of freedom. A further generalization we would like to study is systems where the constraint does not have variables that appear linearly —and therefore de-parameterization is challenging—, as the Barbour-Bertotti model. Unfortunately, the latter has a constraint that only depends on the momenta and therefore our discretization technique does not apply. A model where it could be tested is the $`SL(2,R)`$ model of Montesinos, Rovelli and Thiemann with two Hamiltonian constraints.

Another problem that has received quite a bit of attention is the fact that it could happen that the system is such that there are an infinite number of crossings of the surface of simultaneity for a given choice of time. Indeed, for our approach this is a problem, since in such a case the denominator of the conditional probability blows up and therefore probabilities vanish. An example of this would be to have a perfect oscillator as a clock. We see this as an inescapable problem that, however, can be easily circumvented. A “clock” does not have to be associated with a single variable of the problem. In general one will need a collection of variables to have a good clock (just like one needs a wristwatch and a calendar to keep time and date). For instance two oscillators with frequencies whose ratio is not a rational number would suffice.

Another issue that has received some attention, for instance emphasized by Unruh and Wald , is that if one has a time variable that is monotonous implies that the conjugate variable will not be bounded below. Since most Hamiltonians in physics are bounded below, this appears as an obstruction. As we argued above, when we chose $`t=q`$, we do not need a monotonous variable for our definitions to exist (although their interpretation can be delicate). Furthermore, a two-oscillator system with non-rational ratio of frequencies behaves as a perfectly good monotonous clock despite having a Hamiltonian bounded from below. This is due to the fact that we may choose the clock, in principle, as a function of any set of variables whose Poisson algebra with $`h`$ would not have reason to be the canonical one. In the example we worked out in detail we did not address this problem since the Hamiltonian we considered is not bounded below.

A concern that might arise in the use of the discrete approach is that there are infinitely many ways of discretizing a continuum theory and therefore the approach has a large degree of ambiguity. We see this as inevitable. An analogy of interest is the case of the Feynman path integral. There, even for simple systems, one defines the integral via a discretization. Different discretizations are known to lead to the same theory, in different factor orderings. Our point of view is therefore that the discretization ambiguities should be treated as factor ordering ambiguities: they must be sorted by comparison with experiment.

Summarizing, the consistent discrete approach to constrained systems, since it produces an approximate theory that is constraint-free, opens the possibility of solving the problem of time through the construction of a relational quantum mechanics. We have shown in detail how it works for a simple example that captures some of the ingredients of the case of general relativity. To our knowledge this is the first time that a correct relational quantum description has been constructed for this system.

## 6 Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Abhay Ashtekar, Julian Barbour, Peter Hajiček, Jim Hartle, Karel Kuchař, Carlo Rovelli, Lee Smolin, Bill Unruh, for discussions and comments on the manuscript.

This work was supported by grants NSF-PHY0090091, funds of the Horace Hearne Jr. Institute for Theoretical Physics, the Fulbright Commission in Montevideo and PEDECIBA (Uruguay).


format: text

text:
# The Secondary Stars in Short Period (Magnetic) Cataclysmic Variables

## 1. Introduction

Mass accretion in cataclysmic variables has been extensively studied in terms of their accretion disk and the theorized relation between mass transfer rate and orbital period. Of course, the mass that is transfered comes from the companion star and its rate, as well as its character, are highly related to its evolutionary status. In the past few years, studies aimed at direct observation of the secondaries in CVs have been undertaken in an attempt to confirm theoretical predictions for these stars..

For the short period CVs, the topic under consideration herein, there are few cases of direct observation of their secondary, limited mostly to brief glimpses during eclipse or serendipitous observation during low states in magnetic systems. Purposeful observational programs which use target of opportunity time to observe magnetic CVs during low state have been started and they offer great hope in terms of providing detailed spectroscopic views of the mass donors.

Low states, times of reduced mass transfer from the secondary star, are an accepted observational property of CVs which contain white dwarfs harboring a high magnetic field. The systems we speak of are called polars or AM Herculis binaries and the white dwarf fields are 10-200 MG in strength. It is probably the case that intermediate polars and non-magnetic CVs have low states too, but they would be unobservable to the casual observer due to the presence of the accretion disk (King & Cannizzo 1998).

We briefly examine below, the present day ideas as to a cause for these low states, actually for the entire suite of high, low, and in between mass transfer states. We then look at what theory has to say about the mass donors in both the pre- and post-orbital period minimum systems. Finally, we give some specific details about the polar EF Eri, lately sky-rocketed into stardom due to its seven year low state and powerful observational evidence for a brown dwarf-like secondary star.

## 2. What is the Cause for High/Low State Behavior?

Starting with initial works such as those of Bianchini (1992) and Hessman et al. (2000), evidence begin to emerge that seemed to imply a possible relation between mass accretion variations (in particular low states) and solar cycle type phenomena. The evidence showed $``$decade variations in overall system brightness and theoretical support for star-spots migrating to the L1 region. Coupled with rapidly rotating, single late-type star observations showing intense magnetic cycles, all indications were that CV secondaries should be extremely magnetically active and exhibit ”solar cycles”.

Recently, low state observations of polars have shown fairly direct evidence for star-spots on their surface (Howell et al. 2000) or TiO absorption attributable to star-spots (Webb et al. 2002). Hessman (this volume) has attempted to detail a possible mechanism which may be responsible for the changing magnetic structures and thus the observed mass transfer variations.

Based on the observational evidence presented in Howell et al., (2000) for the polar ST LMi while in a low state, a theoretical model has emerged. Noting the lack of ellipsoidal variations from the secondary star during ST LMi’s low state, Howell et al. calculated some basic parameters related to the necessary conditions to fulfill mass transfer requirements. Using the basic assumptions outlined in the standard model for CV evolution (see Howell et al. 2001) and relatively simple physical arguments about what is needed to provide the normal mass transfer rate as a function of orbital period, a toy model was produced.

Figure 1 provides the basic ideas formulated in this model. For long period CVs (P$`{}_{orb}{}^{}`$3 hr), the photosphere must be in contact with the Roche Lobe in order to provide the necessary mass flow. If the secondary star, even locally, has a field strength of 170 gauss or more, magnetic lines of force can and will remove material from the binary leading to a stellar wind, in agreement with orbital angular momentum loss due to magnetic braking. This field strength is rather modest and it is probable that essentially all long period CVs meet this criteria. For short period CVs, those with periods below the period gap, the toy model makes very different predictions. First, the star must have have a fairly substantial field strength ($`>`$ 3000 gauss) to enable magnetic wind momentum loss. Secondly, the stellar photosphere has such a high density, that its contact with the Roche surface is not needed to provide the required mass transfer rate. For these low mass stars (M$`{}_{sec}{}^{}<`$0.25M), a standard chromosphere provides the requisite density necessary to satisfy mass transfer needs. The field strength of 3000 gauss or more may seem unlikely, but for such a rapidly rotating star, extrapolation from single star values appears to easily provide the needed field strength.

For a single late M star, stellar activity cycles are known to provide chromospheres which can “puff up” by 10 to 30 % of the stellar radius (Guinan 1999). Thus, a secondary star in a short period CV could easily be imagined to fill its Roche Lobe with a chromosphere during a high state (the toy model presented in Howell et al. assumes the chromosphere to fill 10% of the Roche Lobe volume during a high state) and then to shrink back inside, thus decreasing or stopping mass transfer during a low state. These modulations would therefore be highly correlated with magnetic activity cycles in the star.

Recent observations of the pre-CV V471 Tau (Rottler et al. 2002) also appear to provide evidence for stellar dynamo modulation of magnetic cycles on the secondary star leading to changes in the level of chromospheric activity. While all the above ideas related to some form of stellar activity mechanism similar to solar cycles are appealing, the use of plane-parallel, non-rotating, normal stellar atmosphere models backed by few observations are, at best, only a starting point. Proper interior and atmospheric models of the secondary stars in CVs and additional phase resolved spectroscopy of the secondaries are needed.

## 3. Theoretical Assumptions about the Secondary Stars

Keeping to our belief that the “standard model” for CV evolution is valid, we find that for CVs with periods below the period gap, it is possible for them to be pre- or post-orbital period minimum systems. If pre-orbital period minimum, the secondary stars are essentially normal stars in terms of their mass-radius relation but probably differ from normal main sequence stars in terms of their atmospheric structure, chemical composition, and effective temperature for a given mass. Relations between their mass, radius, and orbital period are presented in Howell et al. (2001).

For post-orbital period minimum CVs, the secondary stars are degenerate. That is, they have masses less than $``$0.06 M, no core energy generation, and stellar structures of a completely unknown kind. These secondary stars are akin to brown dwarfs in some ways, but one must keep in mind that they formed very differently from field brown dwarfs.

The relations between the mass, radius, and orbital period for post-orbital period minimum CVs are:

$$M_{don}=0.20530.2131P_{orb}+0.08762P_{orb}^20.01282P_{orb}^3$$
(1)
$$R_{don}=0.08195+0.01441P_{orb}0.0002P_{orb}^2$$
(2)
$$R_{don}=0.14391.703M_{don}+16.80M_{don}^2$$
(3)
where mass and radius are in solar units and orbital period is in hours (see Howell et al. (2001).

While no observational confirmation of these relationships (as well as the orbital period - effective temperature relationship; see Mennickent & Diaz 2001) are as yet absolute, we will see below that the secondary star in EF Eri and a few others seem to be strong candidates for post-orbital period minimum CVs.

## 4. EF Eri

EF Eridanus has been in a low state for over seven years now. Optical and IR photometry and spectroscopy obtained over the past year provide an interesting picture for the secondary star. The optical photometry shows a low level modulation (0.1 mag) as the heated polar region gets self-eclipsed by the white dwarf. Optical spectroscopy (Figure 2) shows nothing more than a cool, magnetic white dwarf with all of the usual signs of mass transfer being absent.

Infrared photometry reveals in J, a similar light curve structure to that seen in the optical while H and K bands are not only completely different and opposite in phase, but they show a single (note no ellipsoidal variations are observed) large modulation of nearly 1 mag. IR spectroscopy obtained at UKIRT and recently at Gemini North, show a secondary star which has an apparent temperature on the white dwarf facing hemisphere of $``$1800K but is only about 900K on the opposite side. These temperatures roughly correspond to an M8V star and a L8V brown dwarf. Assuming Mdon=0.045 M, EF Eri is a cataclysmic variable containing a brown dwarf-like secondary.

Detailed interpretation of these data and model results for EF Eri’s component stars are presented in Harrison et al. (2003). Figure 3 illustrates a schematic model of the EF Eri system showing the particulars as well as its size in relation to the planet Jupiter and to the Earth-Moon distance.

## 5. Summary

Low state observations of the polar EF Eri in the optical and particularly in the infrared have revealed that it contains a very odd, low mass secondary star. An object of seemingly unique characteristics with completely unknown interior and atmospheric structure. More observations are needed of EF Eri itself, as well as other candidate CVs which may contain similar odd mass donor stars. Polars, during their low states, provide an ideal opportunity to directly observe the secondary star with little or no interference from accretion flux. This is in contrast to IR spectral observations of even the shortest period, low mass transfer rate disk systems which have, to date, essentially thwarted all efforts to obtain essentially any (good quality) spectra of their secondary star.

The list of good suspects which probably contain brown dwarf-like secondaries includes, in addition to EF Eri, LL And, AL Com, V592 Her, WZ Sge, and 1RXS J1050-1404. All of these systems, except EF Eri, are TOADs (Howell et al. 1995) and therefore the remaining members of this class of CV should be regarded as likely candidates as well.

### Acknowledgments.

The author wishes to thank Tom Harrison and Elena Mason for observational camaraderie and Kami Leanord, Elaine Owens, and Gil Esquerdo for their help with Fig. 1 which once again showed why astronomers “don’t do windows”.

## References

Beuermann, K., Wheatly, P., Ramsey, G., et al., 2000, A&A, 354, L49

Bianchini, A., 1992, in “ASP Conf. Series Vol. 29, p284

Guinan, E., 1999, private communication

Harrison, T., Howell, S. B., Huber, M., et al., 2003, AJ, in press

Hessman F. V., Gänsicke, B. T., & Mattei, J. A., 2000, A&A, 361, 952

Howell, S. B., Nelson, L., & Rappaport, S., 2001, ApJ, 550, 897

Howell, S. B., Ciardi, D., Dhillon, V., & Skidmore, W., 2000, ApJ, 530, 904

Howell, S. B., Szkody, P., & Cannizzo, J., 1995, ApJ, 439, 337

King, A., & Cannizzo, J., 1998, ApJ, 499, 348

Mennickent, R., & Diaz, M., 2002, MNRAS, 336, 767

Rottler, L., Batalha, C, Young, A., & Vogt, S., 2002, A&A, 392, 535

Webb. N,, Naylor, T., & Jeffries, R., 2002, ApJ, 568, L45


text:
# Untitled Document

On Effective Constraints for the Riemann-Lanczos System of Equations.

S. Brian Edgar

Department of Mathematics, Linköpings universitet, Linköping, Sweden S-581 83.

E-mail: bredg@mai.liu.se

Abstract

There have been conflicting points of view concerning the Riemann–Lanczos problem in 3 and 4 dimensions. Using direct differentiation on the defining partial differential equations, Massa and Pagani (in 4 dimensions) and Edgar (in dimensions $`n3`$) have argued that there are effective constraints so that not all Riemann tensors can have Lanczos potentials; using Cartan’s criteria of integrability of ideals of differential forms Bampi and Caviglia have argued that there are no such constraints in dimensions $`n4`$, and that, in these dimensions, all Riemann tensors can have Lanczos potentials. In this paper we give a simple direct derivation of a constraint equation, confirm explicitly that known exact solutions of the Riemann-Lanczos problem satisfy it, and argue that the Bampi and Caviglia conclusion must therefore be flawed. In support of this, we refer to the recent work of Dolan and Gerber on the three dimensional problem; by a method closely related to that of Bampi and Caviglia, they have found an ’internal identity’ which we demonstrate is precisely the three dimensional version of the effective constraint originally found by Massa and Pagani, and Edgar.

1. Introduction.

In two recent papers Dolan and Gerber  have revisited the Riemann–Lanczos problem , i.e., whether a Riemann tensor $`R_{abcd}`$ can be generated from a 3-index tensor potential $`H_{abc}`$,

$$R_{abcd}=2H_{ab[c;d]}+2H_{cd[a;b]}$$
$`(1)`$
where the potential $`H_{abc}`$ satisfies

$$H_{abc}=H_{[ab]c}H_{[abc]}=0.$$
$`(2)`$
In the literature We follow the conventions of . Since there will be expressions which involve sums of terms with respectively the Ricci tensor and the square of Ricci tensor, a consistent convention is essential. In particular it should be noted that in  a different convention was used for the Ricci tensor and so there are some sign differences between some equations in this paper and their counterparts in ., there are two apparently conflicting answers to this problem in four dimensions: Massa and Pagani  have argued that:

… for the class of spacetime metrics satisfying $`R_{ab}=\lambda g_{ab}`$ one of the integrability conditions of the system (1) takes the form $`R^22R_{abcd}R^{abcd}=0`$, i.e., it imposes a restriction on the geometry itself

whereas Bampi and Caviglia  have argued that:

…, in the four-dimensional case no integrability condition is required. In other words, looking at the class of singular solutions allows a potential to exist without any restriction …. on the geometric structure of the underlying Riemann manifold

These two papers were written at the same time, and neither refers to the other. Of course this uncertainty would be dispelled if there were explicit examples of Lanczos potentials in reasonably general spaces; however, the only known examples are a few in flat  and conformally flat spaces  and a few very special spacetimes in .

Dolan and Gerber  rely on the results and to some extent on the method from , while stating that the paper of Massa and Pagani in , and the subsequent work by Edgar in ,

… uses a totally different approach … and is not applicable here.

We agree with Massa and Pagani  that if the representation (1) exists for arbitrary Riemann tensors then it would have very significant implications for both the mathematical viewpoint and physical applications of general relativity. Therefore it is important to determine whether the representation (1) exists for all spaces (as argued in ), or whether it only exists for a restricted number of spaces (as argued in ). If the latter case, it would be interesting to know whether there exist other effective constraints. Moreover, we believe that the work in  is very applicable to the work in  and , and a fuller understanding of the links between these two lines of investigation should clarify the apparent contradiction.

So, in this paper, we shall first demonstrate in a very simple unambiguous manner that (1) implies an integrability condition which is an effective constraint for dimensions $`n>2`$ and therefore limits the class of spaces which can permit a Lanczos potential with properties (2) via (1). Moreover, we will show explicitly, that the Lanczos potentials of those very special spaces found in  satisfy this restriction. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the nontrivial ’internal identity’ found recently by Dolan and Gerber in the three dimensional problem  is precisely the effective constraint found in , and we argue that the Bampi-Caviglia analysis  is therefore flawed. We propose that the Janet-Riquier approach used in  should be applied to other dimensions.

2. Effective Constraints on Riemann–Lanczos system.

Riemann-candidate–Lanczos problem in $`n`$-dimensional spaces

We consider first the more general problem in $`n`$-dimensional spaces of whether any Riemann-candidate tensor, $`\widehat{R}_{abcd}`$ — a tensor having the algebraic index symmetries of the Riemann tensor — can be generated from a potential $`H_{abc}`$ by

$$\widehat{R}_{abcd}=2H_{ab[c;d]}+2H_{cd[a;b]}$$
$`(3)`$
where the potential $`H_{abc}`$ satisfies (2).

Flat space

It is trivial to show that in flat space, although at the first derivative level we can only eliminate one of the potential terms,

$$\widehat{R}_{ab[cd;e]}=2H_{[cd}{}_{}{}^{[a;b]}_{;e]}$$
$`(4)`$
by taking another derivative we can obtain

$$\widehat{R}^{[ab}{}_{[de;f]}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{c]}=0.$$
$`(5)`$
It is important to check whether (5) is an effective constraint for arbitrary $`\widehat{R}_{abcd}`$ — in the sense that not all Riemann-candidates $`\widehat{R}_{abcd}`$ satisfy (5) — or whether there are situations when the lefthand side is identically zero; it is obvious that the left hand side is identically zero for dimensions $`n=2`$, but in all other dimensions it is an effective constraint. This is an important point, and the effectiveness of the constraint should not be taken for granted. (In the Weyl-candidate–Lanczos problem  a similar calculation gives an analogous equation which turns out to be trivially satisfied in $`4`$ and $`5`$ dimensions ; this was because any trace-free tensor $`A^{[abc]}_{[def]}`$ is identically zero in dimensions $`n5`$ .) To prove the effectiveness of this constraint we can simply choose a local Cartesian coordinate system $`x^i,i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ for $`n>2`$ and construct a simple counterexample, e.g., $`R_{1312}=R_{1213}=\mathrm{sin}x^3\mathrm{sin}x^2`$, all other Riemann tensor components zero.

Therefore the representation (3), in flat space ($`n>2`$), is valid only for the subset of Riemann-candidates which satisfy (5). This is an important example which illustrates two principles: it shows that a particular constraint on the geometry of the space, i.e., putting the curvature tensor $`R_{abcd}=0`$, can imply a specific constraint on the Riemann-candidate $`\widehat{R}_{abcd}`$; on the other hand, although the constraint is quite restrictive, yet it does permit a significant class of exceptions. For instance, a set of Riemann candidates which satisfy the ’flat space Bianchi equations’, $`\widehat{R}_{ab[cd;e]}=0`$; in this case $`H_{abc}=(h_{bc;a}h_{ac;b})`$ and $`\widehat{R}_{abcd}`$ has the form of the Riemann tensor in the linearised theory . Of course, this does not say anything directly about the Riemann–Lanczos problem, since in flat space the constraint is trivially satisfied. However we believe that the curved space analogue of this constraint (5) is the crucial equation in the Riemann-candidate–Lanczos problem and the Riemann–Lanczos problem.

Curved Space.

In general curved spaces we can carry out on (3) the same differentiation steps as led to (5), but this time the right hand side of equation (5) becomes complicated. However, we can easily find a much simpler subset, with significant properties. Noting that

$$\widehat{R}_{ab}\widehat{R}^i{}_{aib}{}^{}=2H^i{}_{a[i:b]}{}^{}+2H^i{}_{b[i:a]}{}^{}\text{and}\widehat{R}\widehat{R}^i{}_{i}{}^{}=4H^{ij}_{i:j}$$

we find that, after some rearranging of (3) The left hand side of (7) is equivalent to $`3\widehat{R}^{[ab}{}_{[ab;c]}{}^{}^{c]}`$ for $`n>2`$; we begin instead with $`\widehat{R}^{;a}{}_{a}{}^{}2\widehat{R}^{ab}_{;ab}`$ which means that our analysis also includes the case $`n=2`$.,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{R}^{;a}{}_{a}{}^{}2\widehat{R}^{ab}_{;ab}& =4H^{ij}{}_{i;j}{}^{a}{}_{a}{}^{}4(H^i{}_{a[i;b]}{}^{}+H^i{}_{b[i;a]}{}^{})^{ab}\hfill \\ & =2R_{,a}H^{aj}{}_{j}{}^{}+4R^{ab}H_a{}_{}{}^{j}{}_{j;b}{}^{}4R^{ab;c}H_{cab}+2R^{abcd}H_{abc;d}.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(7)`$
In flat space this equation is the triple trace of (5).

The next step is the important one; by substituting $`\widehat{R}_{abcd}`$ in the last term on the right hand side we eliminate some of the remaining ackward potential terms as well as introducing the Riemann-candidate explicitly also on the righthand side,

$$\widehat{R}^{;a}{}_{a}{}^{}2\widehat{R}^{ab}{}_{;ab}{}^{}=2R_{,a}H^{aj}{}_{j}{}^{}+4R^{ab}H_a{}_{}{}^{j}{}_{j;b}{}^{}4R_{ab;c}H^{cab}+\frac{1}{2}R^{aijk}\widehat{R}_{aijk}$$
$`(8)`$
By decomposing $`R_{abcd}`$ and $`\widehat{R}_{abcd}`$ into their trace-free parts with $`R_{ab}=S_{ab}+Rg_{ab}/n`$, $`\widehat{R}_{ab}=\widehat{S}_{ab}+\widehat{R}g_{ab}/n`$, we obtain the alternative form,

$$2\widehat{S}^{ab}{}_{;ab}{}^{}+\frac{2n}{n}\widehat{R}^{;a}{}_{a}{}^{}=(\frac{4}{n}2)R_{,a}H^{aj}{}_{j}{}^{}4S^{ab}H_a{}_{}{}^{j}{}_{j;b}{}^{}+4S_{ab;c}H^{cab}\frac{1}{2}C^{abcd}\widehat{C}_{abcd}+\frac{2}{n2}S^{ab}\widehat{S}_{ab}+\frac{n2}{n}R\widehat{R}.$$
$`(9)`$
$`n=2`$

Equation (9) is not valid for $`n=2`$, but the previous equation (8) is. However, when we substitute $`n=2`$ with $`R_{abcd}=Rg_{a[c}g_{d]b}`$ and $`\widehat{R}_{abcd}=\widehat{R}g_{a[c}g_{d]b}`$ into (8) the constraint collapses to a trivial identity, and so in two dimensions this particular constraint is not effective.

$`n>2`$

We cannot conclude that (9) is an effective constraint on all geometries, and on all Riemann candidates, because of the existence of the potential $`H_{abc}`$ and its derivatives alongside the Riemann candidate $`\widehat{R}_{abcd}`$ and the Riemann tensor $`R_{abcd}`$. However for Einstein spaces, ($`S_{ab}=0=R_{,a}`$) we obtain an expression with no explicit terms in the potential $`H_{abc}`$,

$$2\widehat{S}^{ab}{}_{;ab}{}^{}+\frac{2n}{n}\widehat{R}^{;a}{}_{a}{}^{}=\frac{1}{2}C^{abcd}\widehat{C}_{abcd}+\frac{n2}{n}R\widehat{R}$$
$`(10)`$
and in particular, for spaces of constant curvature, we obtain

$$2\widehat{S}^{ab}{}_{;ab}{}^{}+\frac{2n}{n}\widehat{R}^{;a}{}_{a}{}^{}=\frac{n2}{n}R\widehat{R}.$$
$`(11)`$
Therefore, for Einstein spaces, we find that the existence of a potential $`H_{abc}`$ in (3) leads to an effective constraint because the terms involving the potential explicitly all disappear, and we get a condition (10) directly linking the background space geometry via the Riemann tensor $`R_{abcd}`$ with the Riemann candidate $`\widehat{R}_{abcd}`$.

There are some very special situations where this restriction (10) is satisfied trivially; e.g., if the Riemann candidate $`\widehat{R}_{abcd}`$ satisfied a Bianchi like equation, $`\widehat{R}_{ab[cd:e]}=0`$ and also has its Weyl and Ricci scalar part zero, $`\widehat{C}_{abcd}=0=\widehat{R}`$. Of course we cannot conclude that in such situations a Lanczos potential will exist; we must also remember that there could be additional constraints at this order, or at higher orders of differentiation. Turning to spaces other than Einstein spaces; important questions, with respect to a particular non-Einstein space, are if there exist more constraints, and whether all Riemann-candidates or some Riemann candidates or no Riemann candidates can be generated by a potential from (3). It is easy to see that there must always be some Riemann candidates, since in a particular space, if we choose a particular tensor $`H_{abc}`$ with the symmetries (2), we can then define a Riemann-candidate via (3) which will automatically satisfy the constraint (9). However, our analysis is unable to tell us whether, in all non-Einstein spaces, for arbitrary Riemann-candidates there exists a potential $`H_{abc}`$ with the symmetries (2) such that both the sytem (3) and the constraint (9) are satisfied.

Therefore what we are able to conclude for the Riemann-candidate–Lanczos problem is that:

$``$ for $`n=2`$ the constraint (9) linking the Riemann-candidate tensor and the geometry is trivially satisfied,

$``$ for $`n>2`$ the constraint (9) linking the Riemann-candidate tensor and the geometry is effective in some spaces, e.g., (10), and so not all Riemann-candidates can admit Lanczos potentials in all spaces via the representation (3);

$``$ for $`n>2`$, we know that there are some spaces and Riemann-candidate tensors which can admit Lanczos potentials via the representation (3) with (9) also satisfied identically; we do not know if there are more situations where Riemann-candidate tensors can admit Lanczos potentials via the representation (3), but if there are, then (9) will be satisfied identically; we also do not know if there are more constraints.

Riemann-Lanczos problem in $`n`$-dimensional spaces

When we specialise to the Riemann-Lanczos problem, i.e., $`\widehat{R}_{abcd}R_{abcd}`$, we find that, as a consequence of (1), the left hand side of (9) is identically zero via the contracted Bianchi identity giving,

$$0=(\frac{4}{n}2)R_{,a}H^{aj}{}_{j}{}^{}4S^{ab}H_a{}_{}{}^{j}{}_{j;b}{}^{}+4S_{ab;c}H^{cab}\frac{1}{2}C^{abcd}C_{abcd}+\frac{2}{n2}S^{ab}S_{ab}+\frac{n2}{n}R^2$$
$`(12)`$
We can then conclude that for $`n>2`$ we cannot have a Lanczos potential $`H_{abc}`$ for a space of (nonzero) constant curvature, and for $`n4`$ the only Einstein spaces which can have a Lanczos potential are those subjected to the restriction,

$$C^{aijk}C_{aijk}=2\frac{n2}{n}R^2.$$
$`(13)`$
This restriction is effective since there are no explicit terms involving the potential, and what we have is a direct condition on the geometry, which clearly not all Einstein spaces satisfy; in fact (13) is an additional invariant condition linking two Riemann scalar invariants in Einstein spaces.

This restriction (12) is only one scalar equation and so in general it, in itself, would not appear to be a very strong restriction on the class of Riemann tensors. For instance, in four dimensions we know that there exists fourteen Riemann scalar invariants — in general; however, when we specialise to vacuum 4-dimensional spacetimes we note that this constraint (13) excludes all Petrov types of the Weyl tensor except the very specialised Petrov type N. So, in vacuum in 4-dimensional spacetimes, (13) is a very strong restriction. Although Petrov type N spaces are not restricted by (13), we cannot conclude that they admit Lanczos potentials via (1); we must again remember that there could be additional constraints at this order, or at higher orders of differentiation.

As regards spaces other than Einstein spaces we know that there are a few explicit special examples of Riemann tensors with Lanczos potentials, e.g., some conformally flat spaces given in , and Debever, Gödel, Kasner 4-dimensional spacetimes and a Gödel 3-dimensional space given in .

To confirm the significance of the integrability condition (12) for the Riemann–Lanczos problem we have shown that all of these special examples (with the exception of the Kasner spacetime where the calculations were too complicated) are non-Einstein spaces and we have demonstrated explicitly that they satisfy (12) In , three examples of conformally flat 4-dimensional spacetimes are given and it is simple to confirm that the respective Lanczos potentials satisfy (12). In , Lanczos potentials are given for an example of a Debever and Gödel 4-dimensional spacetimes, and in  a Lanczos potentials is given for an example of a Gödel 3-dimensional space; in these spaces it is straightforward, with the help of GRTensorII , to confirm that (12) is satisfied.. Whether potentials can be found for the Riemann tensors of all non-Einstein spaces cannot be decided from the above analysis.

Therefore what we are able to conclude for the Riemann-Lanczos problem is that:

$``$ for $`n=2`$ the constraint (12) on the Riemann tensor is trivially satisfied.

$``$ for $`n>2`$ the constraint (12) on the Riemann tensor is effective in some spaces, e.g. (13), and so not all Riemann tensors can admit Lanczos potentials via the representation (1);

$``$ for $`n>2`$, we do know that there are some special examples of Riemann tensors which can admit Lanczos potentials via the representation (1), and they also satisfy (12); we do not know if there are any others, but if there are, then the constraint (12) must be satisfied; we do not know if there are any more constraints.

The existence of this constraint for the Riemann–Lanczos problem was originally demonstrated in four dimensions by Massa and Pagani  who set up the problem in ordinary tensor notation, but carried out the actual derivation of the crucial constraint equation in tensor-valued differential forms; this calculation was quite involved, and strictly 4-dimensional In  a different sign convention was used for the Ricci tensor from that used in this paper, and this convention was also used in ; so there are some sign differences between this version of the equation and that in .. The tensor-valued differential form part of the derivation of the integrability condition was rederived by Edgar in  in ordinary tensor notation, but the argument was still strictly 4-dimensional. Subsequently, a more direct and complete derivation of the constraint equation — with no explicit dimension imposed — was given in , and an even simpler variation by Höglund . The derivation given above for the Riemann-candidate–Lanczos problem is based on the version in .

3. Effective Constraints for the Parallel Problem.

In their investigations Bampi and Caviglia  did not in fact deal with $`\widehat{R}_{abcd}`$ and $`H_{abc}`$ directly but rather with their respective counterparts $`N_{abcd}`$ and $`T_{abc}`$ which satisfied

$$N_{abcd}=2T_{ab[c;d]}+2T_{cd[a;b]}$$
$`(14)`$
where $`N_{abcd}`$ and $`T_{abc}`$ have only the respective symmetries,

$$T_{abc}=T_{[ab]c}\text{and}N_{abcd}=N_{[ab][cd]}=N_{cdab}.$$
$`(15)`$
Their motivation for studying this parallel problem was that they were able to show that this problem and the Riemann-candidate–Lanczos problem were mathematically equivalent — in four dimensions. For other dimensions, any positive results for the existence of potentials for all $`N_{abcd}`$ would also apply to the narrower Riemann-candidate–Lanczos problem; but negative results for the parallel problem would, in general, be irrelevant to the narrower Riemann-candidate–Lanczos problem. $`n>4`$.

We can immediately find the integrability condition

$$N_{[abcd;e]}=0$$
$`(16)`$
and confirm that this is always an effective constraint. So we can conclude that in this parallel problem not all tensors $`N_{abcd}`$ can be written in terms of a potential; this result does not permit us to draw any conclusion about the associated Riemann-candidate–Lanczos problem. $`n>2`$.

If we carry out again the antisymmetrisation over 5 indices as in (16) we just obtain the trivial identity in dimensions 3 and 4. So instead, to find effective constraints for $`n>2`$, we have to carry out the same procedure as in Section 2 involving two differentiations; but since we already know that there are restrictive integrability conditions for the Riemann-candidate–Lanczos problem, there is no purpose in investigating further the parallel problem as a means of investigating the narrower Riemann-candidate–Lanczos problem. However, for completeness we add that in the calculations leading to the constraint (8), the only index symmetries used were those of the type (15), and so we can deduce that the parallel problem is subject to the constraint

$$N^{;a}{}_{a}{}^{}2N^{ab}{}_{;ab}{}^{}=2R_{,a}T^{aj}{}_{j}{}^{}+4R^{ab}T_a{}_{}{}^{j}{}_{j;b}{}^{}4R_{ab;c}T^{cab}+\frac{1}{2}R^{aijk}N_{aijk}.$$
$`(17)`$
which in flat space simplifies to

$$N^{;a}{}_{a}{}^{}2N^{ab}{}_{;ab}{}^{}=0.$$
$`(18)`$
As argued in the last section, these constraints are effective.

In summary, we can conclude that, since our investigation found the existence of effective constraints in the parallel problem, we cannot draw any conclusions about the original Riemann-candidate–Lanczos problem Of course if the results for the parallel problem had been positive, then these results could have been specialised to the narrower Riemann-candidate–Lanczos problem. This is the case in the related Weyl-candidate–Lanczos problem also considered in ., since in all cases the constraints in the parallel problem may or may not be present in the narrower Riemann-candidate–Lanczos problem. However, the occurence of the integrability conditions (16) and (17,18), and the role played by dimension will be of interest in the next section.

4. ’Generic’, ’Ordinary’ and ’Singular’ solutions.

From the type of investigaton in Sections 2 and 3 on the constraints due to integrability conditions, we are only able to directly draw limited conclusions. For more complete conclusions we need a procedure which will distinguish between the respective situations where there are indeed effective constraints (even if we cannot find them explicitly), and where there are no effective constraints and the existence of a potential is always guaranteed. This is clearly the role of Cartan’s local criteria of integrability of ideals of exterior forms , as set out in . Furthermore, if the system is not in involution and we do find some effective constraints, we can prolong the original system to take account of these constraints, and then also use Cauchy’s criteria to analyse the prolonged system; if the prolonged system is not in involution then the process can be repeated.

As noted in the last section Bampi and Caviglia  considered the parallel problem (14) for the tensors $`N_{abcd}`$ and $`T_{abc}`$ as a means of studying the Riemann-candidate–Lanczos problem (3). We shall now discuss their results, and compare with our results in the previous two sections.

$`n>4`$. In  it is stated that in higher dimensions there will be non-trivial restrictions on the data. In fact we have obtained this result very easily in (16). This result has no direct relevance to the narrower Riemann-candidate–Lanczos problem.

$`n=4`$

In their first paper, Bampi and Caviglia  showed that the equation (14) does not always admit a solution for a given $`N_{abcd}`$. More precisely, they showed the non-existence of solutions under certain generic conditions on $`N_{abcd}`$, or as Massa and Pagani  pointed out, Bampi and Caviglia  showed that the representation (3) does not exhaust the totality of the set of tensors $`N_{abcd}`$ (which in four dimensions is equivalent to the set of Riemann-candidates $`\widehat{R}_{abcd}`$), and hence, since the Riemann tensors themselves are only a proper subset of this larger class of Riemann-candidates, this result says nothing about the validity of (3) for Riemann tensors.

This generic result for the Riemann-candidate–Lanczos problem given by Bampi and Caviglia  was strengthened in their second paper  where it was stated in Theorem 1 that there never exists ’regular’ (’ordinary’) solutions to (14) for any tensor $`N_{abcd}`$ in four dimensions; so this result now includes the Riemann–Lanczos problem, i.e., there never exists ’regular’ (’ordinary’) solutions to (1) for any Riemann tensor $`R_{abcd}`$ in four dimensions. If we interpret ’regular’ solutions to mean the existence of the most general solutions with no constraints on the class of tensors $`N_{abcd}`$ and the underlying space, then the conclusion in Theorem 1 does not contradict the results in Section 3 of this paper.

The difficulty is with Theorem 2 in . The original system (14) is not in involution and so is prolonged, and as a result of the analysis of the prolonged system, Bampi and Caviglia find no constraints, and conclude in Theorem 2  that in four dimensions, although the representation (14) never permits ’regular’ (’ordinary’) solutions to (14), it always admits ’singular’ (’nonordinary’) solutions There is no precise explanation in  of the difference between ’regular’ and ’singular’ solutions, but rather an analogy is given. It would seem that Bampi and Caviglia  view the distinction as simply a technical matter: solutions involving the maximal Cartan characters are ’regular’ solutions, while solutions from a prolonged system with less than the maximal Cartan characters are ’singular’ solutions. for all tensors $`N_{abcd}`$ (equivalently for all Riemann-candidates $`\widehat{R}_{abcd}`$). Therefore, in  the ’singular’ solutions are argued to have what appears to be exactly the same general properties as ’regular’ solutions, with no constraints on the data $`N_{abcd}`$ or on the background space.

Normally we expect that such ’singular’ solutions would involve some restrictions on the set of tensors $`N_{abcd}`$ and/or on the underlying space. However, Bampi and Caviglia  claim that these ’singular’ solutions are, to their own surprise, not subject to any integrability conditions, and therefore the class of ’singular’ solutions allows a potential to exist without any restriction on $`N_{abcd}`$ and on the geometric structure of the underlying Riemann manifold.

This conclusion in Theorem 2  contradicts the results in Section 3 of this paper; in particular the very simple obvious effective constraint (17) for flat space (flat space is not excluded in the analysis in ). We suspect that this claim of no constraints on these ’singular’ solutions is not due simply to a misinterpretation of the properties of ’singular’ solutions but, more fundamentally, to a fault in the calculations in . We would point out that the only constraint — the ’internal identity’ $`A_{[abcde]}=0`$ in the notation of  — discovered in the calculations for Theorem 2 in  is precisely the very obvious integrability condition (18) which we found directly in Section 3, and which is of course trivially satisfied in four dimensions. What is most surprising about the method of application of Cauchy’s criteria in  is that the possibility of constraints existing after two differentiations — involving linear combination of components of $`B_{abcdef}`$ in the notation of  — does not arise; whereas, from our work in Section 3, and in particular the simple effective constraint equation (18), it is clear that this is precisely where we expect constraints. Unfortunately, it is not easy to check the accuracy of the argument in  at this level, since no explicit details were given leading to the conclusion that $`s_3^{}=s_3`$, for the Cartan characters.

$`n=3`$. For the parallel problem, it is stated in  that, under ’generic’ conditions, there does not exist any ’regular’ solution because of the existence of an internal identity; however in their second paper  Bampi and Caviglia state that, by the same argument as in four dimensions, there exist ’singular’ solutions independently of the choice of $`\widehat{R}_{abcd}`$ and the geometry of the space. So we have here the same situation as in four dimensions, involving a contradiction with the effective constraint found in Section 3. Of course, we should remember that the parallel problem is not equivalent to the Riemann-candidate–Lanczos problem in three dimensions, and a negative result in the former has no direct relevance to the latter.

Significantly, in the next section, we will find that Dolan and Gerber , using an alternative but related method to  for the direct Riemann–Lanczos problem, have found an explicit constraint which is effective; and this constraint is precisely the three dimensional version of the effective constraint which we discussed in Section 2.

$`n=2`$. In  it is stated that there will always be ’regular’ solutions, and there is no contradiction with the integrability condition (9) in Section 2 since with the substitution $`n=2`$ the constraint is trivially satisfied.

Finally we turn to the results on the differential gauge. It is stated in  that even when an arbitrary differential gauge condition on $`H_{ab}{}_{}{}^{c}_{;c}`$ (e.g. $`H_{ab}{}_{}{}^{c}{}_{;c}{}^{}=0`$) is put alongside the condition (3), there will always be ’singular’ solutions in four dimensions. As we have discussed above, we believe that the result that there are always ’singular’ solutions is flawed. But the question arises, in those special cases where there are ’singular’ solutions (with a restriction on the Riemann-candidates and/or the geometry) whether the differential gauge can be chosen arbitrarily. We believe that this question of gauge is still, in general, open.

5. The Riemann-Lanczos problem by the Janet-Riquier approach.

Dolan and Gerber  have considered the direct Riemann–Lanczos problem (1) with the symmetries (2) (not the parallel problem as in ) from the exterior derivative viewpoint along the same lines as in ; but also they have considered the problem directly as a system of partial differential equations in two and three dimensions  using the related Janet-Riquier  approach. In fact their analysis is valid also for the more general Riemann-candidate–Lanczos problem (3).

$`n=2`$. This problem has been shown by the Janet-Riquier approach always to have solutions; in fact it is a very simple problem which has also been integrated directly in . There is no contradiction with the integrability condition (9) in Section 2, since we have already noted for $`n=2`$ that the constraint is not effective.

$`n=3`$. Using the Janet-Riquier approach, Dolan and Gerber  have found that the original Riemann–Lanczos problem is not in involution and so there are no ’regular’ solutions. After one prolongation, obtained by adding one ’internal identity’, they found that the prolonged system was involutive. They point out that their ’internal identity’ is not trivial, and they give it in invariant form as

$$f^{(R)}{}_{12[12;3]3}{}^{}+f^{(R)}{}_{23[12;3]1}{}^{}+f^{(R)}{}_{31[12;3]2}{}^{}=0$$
$`(19)`$
where

$$f^{(R)}{}_{abcd}{}^{}R_{abcd}2H_{ab[c;d]}2H_{cd[a;b]}$$
$`(20).`$
This is precisely the constraint

$$f^{(R)}{}_{[ab}{}^{}{}_{|[de}{}^{}{}_{;f]|}{}^{}{}_{c]}{}^{}=0.$$
$`(21)`$
since there is only one component of (21) in three dimensions; and since in three dimensions there is no trace-free part to $`f^{(R)}_{abcd}`$, the constraint (21) can be rewritten more compactly as

$$2f^{(R)}{}_{}{}^{aib}{}_{i;ab}{}^{}f^{(R)}{}_{ij}{}^{ij}{}_{}{}^{;a}{}_{a}{}^{}=0$$
$`(22)`$
When the substitution (20) is made into this last equation, we obtain

$$R^{;a}{}_{a}{}^{}2R^{ab}{}_{;ab}{}^{}=4H^{ij}{}_{i;j}{}^{a}{}_{a}{}^{}4(H^i{}_{a[i;b]}{}^{}+H^i{}_{b[i;a]}{}^{})^{ab}.$$
$`(23)`$
which is precisely (the Riemann tensor version of) equation (7), and leads to an effective constraint (8) as shown. Of course, for a Riemann tensor, the left hand side will be indentically zero from the Binchi identity, but we can see that the analysis also gives the constraint for the more general Riemann-candidate–Lanczos problem.

Therefore, the ’internal identity’ above (19) is precisely the three dimensional version of the effective constraint (12) for the Riemann–Lanczos problem found in Section 2. Furthermore, since the prolonged system, created by adding this constraint, has been shown to be involutive in  this must be the only constraint.

Also in  there is an explicit example in three dimensions of a Lanczos potential, which can be interpreted as a singular solution for the unprolonged problem, or as a regular solution for the prolonged problem. We have confirmed directly that it satisfies the constraint (9) in Section 2 (equivalently the ’internal identity’ (19) which was found in ).

6. Conclusion.

We have confirmed that two successive differentiations of the defining equations (3) of the Riemann-candidate –Lanczos problem, leads to an effective constraint in $`n>2`$ dimensions, and known solutions of the problem have been shown explicitly to satisfy this constraint. Furthermore, we have shown that the results in  are very relevant to the work of Dolan and Gerber ; in particular the ’internal identity’ found in  for the three dimensional Riemann–Lanczos problem is precisely the effective constraint found in . The existence of this effective constraint contradicts the results in  for three and four dimensions.

It is significant that, using a method similar to the approach in , in three dimensions, Dolan and Gerber have found in  exactly the three dimensional version of the effective constraint originally found by . This reinforces our suspicion that the approach in  is flawed, and an attempt should be made to reinvestigate the prolonged system at the level of the second derivatives of the Riemann tensor for all dimensions from the exterior differential system viewpoint. (Dolan and Gerber  have briefly discussed the problem in some other dimensions from the exterior differential system viewpoint as used in , but have not developed it further.) However, it seems that the Janet-Riquier method for partial differential equations is shorter and perhaps more transparent, and so it would be preferable to first apply this approach, as used in two and three dimensions in , to other dimensions; then this could be compared with the exterior differential system approach.

We also note the significant role that the dimension of the space has played at a number of crucial places in our arguments; whether a constraint is effective or not can depend on the dimension. The constraint (8) is effective for $`n>2`$, but trivial for $`n=2`$; in the parallel problem as well as the constraint (17) for $`n>2`$, an additional constraint (16) occurs for $`n>4`$. The role of dimension is even more subtle for the Weyl-Lanczos problem where complicated constraints involving the second derivatives of the Weyl tensor are valid only for dimensions $`n6`$, while constraints involving the third derivatives of the Weyl tensor are valid only for dimensions $`n5`$; there are no constraints for $`n=4`$ \[10 - 15\]. In summary, we note that not all Riemann candidates and Riemann tensors have potentials in dimensions $`n>2`$, because of the existence of an effective constraint; although there are special cases where such potentials do exist. From  it is known that prolongation with this one constraint gives an involutive system, in three dimensions; it is still an open question whether prolongation with this one constraint can lead to involution in higher dimensions; a preliminary investigation of the flat space case by the Janet-Riquier approach would suggest that all the equations corresponding to (5) may be needed.

Acknowledgements

The continuing financial support of Vetenskapsrådet (the Swedish Research Council) is acknowledged. Thanks to Anders Höglund and Fredrik Andersson for many helpful discussions.

REFERENCES.

1. Dolan, P and Gerber, A. (2002). Janet-Riquier Theory and the Riemann–Lanczos Problems in 2 and 3 Dimensions. Preprint: gr-qc/0212055

2. Dolan, P and Gerber, A. (2002). The Riemann–Lanczos Problem as an Exterior Differential System with Examples in 4 and 5 Dimensions. Preprint: gr-qc/0212054

3. Brinis Udeschini, E. (1977). Mech. Fis. Mat. Istituto Lombardo (rend. Sc.), 111, 466. (1980) Gen. Rel. Grav., 12, 429.

4. Penrose, R. and Rindler, W. (1984). Spinors and Spacetime Vols.1 and 2 (Cambridge University Press) .

5. Massa, E. and Pagani, E. (1984) Gen. Rel. Grav., 16, 805.

6. Edgar, S. B. (1987). Gen. Rel. Grav., 19, 1149.

7. Edgar, S. B. (1994). Gen. Rel. Grav., 26, 329.

8. Bampi, F., and Caviglia, G. (1984). Gen. Rel. Grav., 16, 423.

9. Bampi, F., and Caviglia, G. (1983). Gen. Rel. Grav., 15, 375.

10. Lanczos, C. (1962). Rev. Mod. Phys., 34, 379.

11. Edgar, S. B. and Höglund A. (1997) Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 453, 835.

12. Illge, R. (1988). Gen. Rel. Grav., 20, 551.

13. Andersson, F. and Edgar S.B. (2001). Class. Quantum Gravity, 18, 2297.

14. Edgar, S.B. and Höglund A. (2000). Gen. Rel. Grav., 32, 2307.

15. Edgar, S.B. and Höglund A. (2002). Gen. Rel. Grav., 34, 2149.

16. Lovelock, D. (1970). Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc., 68, 345.

17. Edgar, S.B. and Höglund A. (2002). J. Math. Phys. 43, 659.

18. Available at http://grtensor.org

19. Höglund, A. (1955). The Lanczos Potential and its Wave Equation. M.Sc. dissertation, LiTH-MAT-Ex-95-08. Department of Mathematics, Linköpings universitet, Sweden.

20. Cartan, E. Les systémès différentiels extérieurs et leurs applications géométriques. Hermann, Paris, (1971).

21. Hermann, R. (1965). Adv. Math., 1, 265.

22. Kuranishi, M. Lectures on Involutive Systems of Partial Differential Equations. Publicações da Sociedade de Mathemática de São Paulo, São Paulo, (1967).

23. Janet, M. (1920). J. Math. pures et appl., 3, 65.

24. Riquier, C. Les systèmes d’équations aux derivées partielles. Gauthier-Villars, Paris, (1910).