<%BANNER%>

Projection Operator Formalism for Quantum Constraints

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021671/00001

Material Information

Title: Projection Operator Formalism for Quantum Constraints
Physical Description: 1 online resource (122 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Little, Jeffrey Scott
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: constraint, projection, quantum
Physics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Physics thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Motivated by several theoretical issues surrounding quantum gravity, a course of study has been implemented to gain insight into the quantization of constrained systems utilizing the Projection Operator Formalism. Throughout this dissertation we will address several models and techniques used in an attempt to illuminate the subject. We also attempt to illustrate the utility of the Projection Operator Formalism in dealing with any type of quantum constraint. Quantum gravity is made more difficult in part by its constraint structure. The constraints are classically first-class; however, upon quantization they become partially second-class. To study such behavior, we will focus on a simple problem with finitely many degrees of freedom and will demonstrate how the Projection Operator Formalism is well suited to deal with this type of constraint. Typically, when one discusses constraints, one imposes regularity conditions on these constraints. We introduce the 'new' classification of constraints called 'highly irregular' constraints, due to the fact these constraints contain both regular and irregular solutions. Quantization of irregular constraints is normally not considered; however, using the Projection Operator Formalism we provide a satisfactory quantization. It is noteworthy that irregular constraints change the observable aspects of a theory as compared to strictly regular constraints. More specifically, we will attempt to use the tools of the Projection Operator Formalism to study another gravitationally inspired model, namely the Ashtekar-Horowitz-Boulware model. We will also offer a comparison of the results obtained from the Projection Operator Formalism with that of the Refined Algebraic Quantization scheme. Finally, we will use the Projection Operator Method to discuss time-dependent quantum constraints. In doing so, we will develop the formalism and study a few key time-dependent models to help us obtain a larger picture on how to deal with reparameterization invariant theories such as General Relativity.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Jeffrey Scott Little.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Klauder, John R.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021671:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021671/00001

Material Information

Title: Projection Operator Formalism for Quantum Constraints
Physical Description: 1 online resource (122 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Little, Jeffrey Scott
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: constraint, projection, quantum
Physics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Physics thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Motivated by several theoretical issues surrounding quantum gravity, a course of study has been implemented to gain insight into the quantization of constrained systems utilizing the Projection Operator Formalism. Throughout this dissertation we will address several models and techniques used in an attempt to illuminate the subject. We also attempt to illustrate the utility of the Projection Operator Formalism in dealing with any type of quantum constraint. Quantum gravity is made more difficult in part by its constraint structure. The constraints are classically first-class; however, upon quantization they become partially second-class. To study such behavior, we will focus on a simple problem with finitely many degrees of freedom and will demonstrate how the Projection Operator Formalism is well suited to deal with this type of constraint. Typically, when one discusses constraints, one imposes regularity conditions on these constraints. We introduce the 'new' classification of constraints called 'highly irregular' constraints, due to the fact these constraints contain both regular and irregular solutions. Quantization of irregular constraints is normally not considered; however, using the Projection Operator Formalism we provide a satisfactory quantization. It is noteworthy that irregular constraints change the observable aspects of a theory as compared to strictly regular constraints. More specifically, we will attempt to use the tools of the Projection Operator Formalism to study another gravitationally inspired model, namely the Ashtekar-Horowitz-Boulware model. We will also offer a comparison of the results obtained from the Projection Operator Formalism with that of the Refined Algebraic Quantization scheme. Finally, we will use the Projection Operator Method to discuss time-dependent quantum constraints. In doing so, we will develop the formalism and study a few key time-dependent models to help us obtain a larger picture on how to deal with reparameterization invariant theories such as General Relativity.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Jeffrey Scott Little.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Klauder, John R.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021671:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101110_AAAAIS INGEST_TIME 2010-11-10T22:07:29Z PACKAGE UFE0021671_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 11744 DFID F20101110_AABSOO ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH little_j_Page_112.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
4fb52f6e5c9fee82324dda54dc02df69
SHA-1
def4ea76117d9a4ca2d049eac9c049d57d577909
1051981 F20101110_AABSPC little_j_Page_005.jp2
8e3f3a6737e56111fed001a79c9f2da6
22f18264807db67eb10e928b7d1bc7aa82a4f860
87738 F20101110_AABSOP little_j_Page_113.jpg
3bf5c735556ae650fd127e618bb717ab
b3abe64be99a4fd209bb8624cac890a51d2ff3d4
369320 F20101110_AABSPD little_j_Page_007.jp2
29d3ce1d4cc98869aa4b121308b9f516
a481f11bac8eec9d7ac421d243a40ea9d3a316f0
84504 F20101110_AABSOQ little_j_Page_114.jpg
0f6353106d42a44291a1aae077be2227
48d96080be3f57da61776cdeaf2c4353e9c21b56
105008 F20101110_AABSPE little_j_Page_008.jp2
72d5e9ffb185b1069b42e966cab511d4
179da5c56431f847f5833cbe6db9c3457c75bf1a
53517 F20101110_AABSOR little_j_Page_115.jpg
927fc98991e76fe204ca41c149a73a63
e31116acb7313f411a6ee8a4d861f9fe49847283
31345 F20101110_AABSPF little_j_Page_009.jp2
2d04be931f6be846bafa3838a6383939
3f514e421ec2c4ec802ec0469bc7fd12d55ca51f
11982 F20101110_AABSOS little_j_Page_117.jpg
977c85bb184128f3ad01a70c60ce2f55
4991737276da8cc4aed1507109c75307308398fb
1051942 F20101110_AABSPG little_j_Page_010.jp2
10709d8e0e17656b2853140fd0b6cb39
b11124705a55629f67e5c33a007919864537d203
84718 F20101110_AABSOT little_j_Page_118.jpg
5bd8b7afdd59b4d04c8abd8def9dc9d3
cdee28f7406e7b13831b973303772aaabcb804b9
1051965 F20101110_AABSPH little_j_Page_011.jp2
5d5a9a2bf507188cfd187702e58d51e5
7473e06fede1017f024a0f351d2750794c5fe82c
89783 F20101110_AABSOU little_j_Page_119.jpg
c3378ed4208ae194f8ade66a5af28b13
daebaebdf780e7a4b4240a32e2894fc2f0ef7a15
297343 F20101110_AABSPI little_j_Page_013.jp2
e27d49b1c9bcaffc6a355df9fc5fd730
5d30d560aadabd42a38401e2306378709a637f96
94211 F20101110_AABSOV little_j_Page_120.jpg
e22b2f12bb7be6e9846dfdd6ac58ce70
27d916eaa042361b911a260381b8fc47418d737a
778068 F20101110_AABSPJ little_j_Page_014.jp2
dba301cbab87309270750958f9116647
067ab805f82680b8e2e6578d444226af1da97315
42434 F20101110_AABSOW little_j_Page_121.jpg
99e2a833e21ce62758c2ebf4c1ebee9c
5a495f159824d175fb7315ad6e7da1c3e41a9640
851657 F20101110_AABSPK little_j_Page_015.jp2
2e853f028c72803e737e780491382518
b64af39a26914f7537fbc7f3fb4bfa215f1cfa05
83898 F20101110_AABSOX little_j_Page_122.jpg
2e4f9430c0491e9f81fbd6472ad4ec3e
44764ed10eb04f90e5dc60903407ef3430f9579e
918432 F20101110_AABSQA little_j_Page_036.jp2
43129fc944ba1afa1d4337b76b299229
f49a77dc8c670cbaf62117e689390d42335e12cc
877038 F20101110_AABSPL little_j_Page_016.jp2
d5dfed2ff5ad2cbba0fd2ff780768e23
df554645da8723b407e4670c9820cda107f6309e
23348 F20101110_AABSOY little_j_Page_001.jp2
7167daf87cf1f09a372bd32f40d471dc
eb466d2c7d41fec2494e34ec0fcc2fea7275dff2
952152 F20101110_AABSQB little_j_Page_037.jp2
7b8b44a8ac0649a4aebcc9d132813d4e
4d0c7966fcd6e035aeeed6356738b8c825fcf701
782425 F20101110_AABSPM little_j_Page_017.jp2
b5eb8757f5454fe129eff2ddf134cdea
8f796df6009d4621225c057c95250ff63a10638c
5471 F20101110_AABSOZ little_j_Page_002.jp2
ad434cfcb6b0e2aae6c6820cccde050c
30f393d6345eeae289a58aa811170b3542f4d115
1000423 F20101110_AABSPN little_j_Page_018.jp2
2f682d5d485e10bd342110e9793e3e5a
09cca57c7e8aed09eba539e126ceae646793eacc
1051944 F20101110_AABSQC little_j_Page_038.jp2
ff293f4c7d991f435065f71a94919d84
14c5cdd1a84df69f632a13bebd9a574db47e3610
F20101110_AABSPO little_j_Page_020.jp2
1875e1462362b4d9bcb410857c7e1536
2a87738b0a5e8c52664c626afbc57f8a4c255d58
965676 F20101110_AABSQD little_j_Page_039.jp2
1715ee0ee41a93d073fd505ed2b47412
2119e518cef6f13595eaf94b81febee52dac05fe
1051964 F20101110_AABSPP little_j_Page_021.jp2
f021834c1f170523076d54c4e3404aa0
1ae3ce64389bf4bbc7341fd48de631a319d3b941
1004356 F20101110_AABSQE little_j_Page_040.jp2
7ab5d982e356ffef40f5fd07f125c83c
2edddec23a297c7311634f7c3584a965f55377dc
1033539 F20101110_AABSPQ little_j_Page_022.jp2
014af4eb887cdbb83866829801a1fc0d
44527edb7aa63de137d72691a8d4955e243604a7
1051972 F20101110_AABSQF little_j_Page_041.jp2
383db3ee161b7b0fbf262dfdb71dc75f
0c28641ed7945e6f325bedc7a2682b73b957b659
978785 F20101110_AABSPR little_j_Page_023.jp2
7ae71a8074c15bbb35079660e8ba2dab
858d74064704cc015631bb9e49bdaaca878f397a
26942 F20101110_AABSQG little_j_Page_042.jp2
c9e1c8239534dcd3921fa6e87a381621
5fb99ee4aa20932703b79a723b237cc439096878
900347 F20101110_AABSPS little_j_Page_024.jp2
e1bd591d71289ea041158f431cb1f1ca
c142014f3a87dd566ccf004d64d4995f6965f153
1026583 F20101110_AABSQH little_j_Page_043.jp2
3829955148ec263b128eb19e2241ab84
9838b638158f2cfbc2fd4e147ca26ccfe46e9113
1051936 F20101110_AABSPT little_j_Page_025.jp2
2c6ee84b4aaa6cf9143d3f199eb28ee1
f33f0c42e5d8fffaed68d2716e9507b50f2678a6
782120 F20101110_AABSQI little_j_Page_044.jp2
fd3e43f55fa36355e1bcf17a384b7036
5d2703c8fa909e823cb0fce97de6b532bd78634a
83237 F20101110_AABSPU little_j_Page_026.jp2
a783b3ce7c648cfb84030d338dc4d5f0
d0b711cca25091d505df901c1ab28387b4b4c36d
981433 F20101110_AABSQJ little_j_Page_045.jp2
e1aa4efcb3c0b6b6c68604b74c190e1a
f30c947c9fe4974c2ff40d7096b0a3be2397cf08
1041693 F20101110_AABSPV little_j_Page_029.jp2
3d118911f90d63e7adac8be24a895d22
de7c0742caef9270dc78d3afc1df005f374d59af
972346 F20101110_AABSQK little_j_Page_047.jp2
37ecfe93007121c7b08ef5cb9d950e46
57bda6c69c5951cbeb842f6b45c4feb7b7b6f5d6
1003595 F20101110_AABSPW little_j_Page_032.jp2
80aac75b29fe14df35209b622e96ef48
1d3760047d8dde8139f67f43094132ee5c2bf7c5
870123 F20101110_AABSRA little_j_Page_067.jp2
e78d8021400789e544f6023fa33baea1
43e2c0e735aa06f293a53ed9786de3c94a2aeb99
883220 F20101110_AABSQL little_j_Page_048.jp2
a283cb5f0b306097e8aa7011ad67387b
e97dd457da76628294c81da40c376386fc71e1ae
859984 F20101110_AABSPX little_j_Page_033.jp2
9c613a36fc6ef3b0a33962e971cb870f
b02f0656acfc0bbe8a4d3e820dc1889f15ed898b
899780 F20101110_AABSRB little_j_Page_069.jp2
8c0ba928f4bc1b32173e3599d3cb203e
81a5fdb0f6454b078d0f430d1063a56ccdb378d6
893413 F20101110_AABSQM little_j_Page_049.jp2
21fffe4c7f4fc5b42d968827c2a7f1b0
26a76aa08e77c3aa99fc02f5ac44a27a78b090bd
1051941 F20101110_AABSPY little_j_Page_034.jp2
42db1458b44702bf8763d0caf6a9c58d
2811d3aa7820d0e9d948207b117b2d19d504c74b
895280 F20101110_AABSRC little_j_Page_070.jp2
026ad98c1ffb78b03a7cc090ea81d6ed
c810275c931eba38fb880441ce87f640cd74d2f6
792321 F20101110_AABSQN little_j_Page_050.jp2
e93e65741452552f745f4a20ba83054e
2324e3f323d79804e059d71e6bc0018da448761b
1015666 F20101110_AABSPZ little_j_Page_035.jp2
7a2fe8f1434c3c0f64dd9a1a0c743a82
82fb806e274d3d2090493953dd95d39d08e79c3a
737662 F20101110_AABSQO little_j_Page_053.jp2
40bddc4d37b17f0904639f39872e5780
f01812e59ff4db045ae047d61fef09f8b90018b8
725899 F20101110_AABSRD little_j_Page_071.jp2
954424a961cf662be3042a4515fe3501
7b584f3c7f8b7db856b51626130db800b552fc66
686566 F20101110_AABSQP little_j_Page_054.jp2
b2bf35b149b8935a0f643466b7b7b1b1
f964262a494fa74d08264dd156565d4130d964ec
983345 F20101110_AABSRE little_j_Page_072.jp2
7134701ec9803fceac4deed9f007e228
709dd8a51d7d3488b18963b46405d1b02f1f90f5
754778 F20101110_AABSQQ little_j_Page_055.jp2
a8f1e916f15633a354edc5cb5f72328e
93c1a1a39b8e89a0a44bed215b489b9ad7555826
848152 F20101110_AABSRF little_j_Page_073.jp2
24574c737cb40656c1e99256b225fdfc
6c04da0499cb817aaf561462796d3dbeeabbcaa3
692193 F20101110_AABSQR little_j_Page_056.jp2
cfd8f31c68656a9bd3fbbf1eec2e548e
6312667225cb8291f8b0b8b728b71a2ee2584ad2
942326 F20101110_AABSRG little_j_Page_074.jp2
c0cc062f4963f14052fcec78ac707dd7
98b4484a8b2d9f6486a3711f37b0a947dbefc12b
85184 F20101110_AABSQS little_j_Page_057.jp2
040ee5ec60ed6baa7f41d981e01efdaf
7be502195e281cdd0439415b44a4a795f5412155
845990 F20101110_AABSRH little_j_Page_075.jp2
fdad5543648033fca438f3eb6882e4ad
9d82001e1b45e6c17dbe8200dc6ec41d2aee28f7
51132 F20101110_AABSQT little_j_Page_058.jp2
b8b8d7a40a6d92a9ad2cd6a71c8502c6
1fc48e4b93353c5c1f5bc7f37ef0da96e59bfd21
1051967 F20101110_AABSRI little_j_Page_076.jp2
cab5910899e58fc4301a7c6f6f2b0db7
581f82f3a7192ce4037537ec957fe10180c80b7a
947952 F20101110_AABSQU little_j_Page_059.jp2
f957e1f9742b2736b4554c34215094fa
8e2b47f415d23a5bb4592f5314beefd18baa7e26
1051975 F20101110_AABSRJ little_j_Page_077.jp2
23d6120e5a357691502aef47c6c5e2ce
caadf7cf02573de507c43e10c7c99f6c2d8f6834
821219 F20101110_AABSQV little_j_Page_061.jp2
e1e521c1ba60f376447c79b9db4f5ce2
addfc40351132792d64e41df1a67f716a21a494c
72320 F20101110_AABSQW little_j_Page_062.jp2
762da7dccc86ff84dd6e93786a73fd9d
1e10b413ddd0866be8a2f87ad8b01a291aab9dce
92243 F20101110_AABSRK little_j_Page_078.jp2
035e9b696796a221d5eddd58e3b86ff3
ac89c1b4cca33972879944c9346fa1da549eb573
904173 F20101110_AABSQX little_j_Page_063.jp2
3236c0010a2cb9000ab4af406cbc9fa5
f85c5ec2c31d522d9adafc6a813554648b47af88
1051955 F20101110_AABSSA little_j_Page_098.jp2
a4bfa4f71dfebaa441c4c4d0ae0b1dd5
aaa17d3d0321ccc3c4c3c3d689e26415706aab2e
1050311 F20101110_AABSRL little_j_Page_079.jp2
ccd45ac7df217314228a55918fb5b6c2
007a14fccaef1c5bcade37496c6b5746221b4210
65702 F20101110_AABSQY little_j_Page_064.jp2
6b3db5c16e4679450168545aac488437
877fada8e875703284b332fbec5c0e7b1b9e9625
1017677 F20101110_AABSSB little_j_Page_099.jp2
54eb582116cd028e69330ca74c36d522
9f2db9103f5ef72618ac5b845f1751f549b3993c
836995 F20101110_AABSRM little_j_Page_080.jp2
c345553af7e7ea2cbb77f5a4687a3e30
05d783f2439438ae0e8b148264fa128f18c6fb5d
81202 F20101110_AABSQZ little_j_Page_065.jp2
02aa2056f18d7fcb225d6b947b298364
d7d32c3bbccf3a0d40d8097a98a7201af167dcd7
866981 F20101110_AABSSC little_j_Page_103.jp2
c1a7216db3b1e897393976ce63e105fc
e119b749ac7c6f0fe2eeddba58c618d4a5aaadaa
1051979 F20101110_AABSRN little_j_Page_081.jp2
0cfaeb740ac5cd6734f878ad9688346d
2c7ade06e2fa42a226e91d7a8ad8c5b81f48f3d9
966397 F20101110_AABSSD little_j_Page_106.jp2
0cf178d7f8992611be896e6227704890
ed18358b5d036e950c1fa0682de28bec8027f431
982698 F20101110_AABSRO little_j_Page_084.jp2
57027ba815281dd629bbe045d753a51f
5883db34de5cff7f511efd50c14ab6c6af886f2b
1051977 F20101110_AABSRP little_j_Page_085.jp2
caa6757e2e737cac3f47d35aad78f7b1
d4708b6b9621d6bad4bb03c24d600f9cc3a9eb62
841480 F20101110_AABSSE little_j_Page_107.jp2
a3c070d1a14ade9f9c93cc06426b8b9f
37ad00ed26f332e41627ede2ca0dde843f95152f
878247 F20101110_AABSRQ little_j_Page_086.jp2
a965884bc4398e6e6a94f7d87babe92c
2a2fc15177c636d443d4918fa641ba26f2d69fd6
1020258 F20101110_AABSSF little_j_Page_111.jp2
ce79f8070dfe9e6087993a004f52e255
b416b70ccda544698ec6b6ea6071b9610750aac0
824406 F20101110_AABSRR little_j_Page_087.jp2
c8a715c31e95f5b08e67280338d6682d
5b77d0c09ca71f73d4e9948019f95a2e5c5dee63
17881 F20101110_AABSSG little_j_Page_112.jp2
81490657e795b3d5ac86083283f3fe76
61e4a42d68d835c3d5a4b82c2bb5ed0c28a950cc
797322 F20101110_AABSRS little_j_Page_089.jp2
e0a0a529008ecc5e143c564ba8f4ba18
0aafbb6445729f91e64838e6836fa9290d9232b7
1051962 F20101110_AABSSH little_j_Page_114.jp2
fd1e50d8b984649cc13152484a73b863
a5cff1d7ce1472dd1cca5d728f9672bde48edb9c
1051956 F20101110_AABSRT little_j_Page_090.jp2
32164539eed62b26024b817391e2ba17
77f6c70ea732226155f53d33f377b39c13373db2
71368 F20101110_AABSSI little_j_Page_115.jp2
c58a058f9114c90ffb80035569105173
0f1ff35a463800d05c2a565c89724cf2d7ee862c
44685 F20101110_AABSRU little_j_Page_091.jp2
a8b40699248ba926f983ae09f2ee87ba
4b2e9c3d0216464db51dd698f18d1ee9a7902e73
558705 F20101110_AABSSJ little_j_Page_116.jp2
62c2dc4bd5bce4fcc41307fcdf7932c2
fe03a07f3ae87ab4e62812505f93864493ac9198
1051980 F20101110_AABSRV little_j_Page_092.jp2
40e6252de549cea8d6de68044b407d49
2864f78dc5981278325f994fa84412957370bc82
16883 F20101110_AABSSK little_j_Page_117.jp2
533968665b90bc6e0f9dc9218219483c
eadd4556198e7aec90827fe7f1aa6fc9f71c4e43
868291 F20101110_AABSRW little_j_Page_094.jp2
e8854eb024883ce872ef6f60dcad6778
e0fbab6569b81c59b27a8331974b0b5f0c7b6f40
25271604 F20101110_AABSTA little_j_Page_015.tif
52e1de85fa2957aa68cedbca96a6a937
bb5aa3da1ec7a08b4610d5937c969e5656a77d7b
F20101110_AABSSL little_j_Page_120.jp2
1203d6ed45a52f7dd3dd636bcd7806d4
5b0c9fb2781599590cdc8f85eecda8d448c404ea
775286 F20101110_AABSRX little_j_Page_095.jp2
5e7174c30df09b6a5838f939089d91c0
147b442712c41451d0ecc23372cd13997f6bee41
F20101110_AABSTB little_j_Page_016.tif
da2f4970049e79d7e10b3a5cb15da949
63c2e588ee91f2259556ae8ad06172db9c610827
601303 F20101110_AABSSM little_j_Page_121.jp2
87c0e112664f2580c4fa900d74ca3c9e
1d308980dd6cfb08708e6c0f8b45cb375f3c9f65
1022100 F20101110_AABSRY little_j_Page_096.jp2
15bbca31a2a7fb0cfe4c996164fb1be8
c0d8b76313bb5bec5f4fc11aeb628fc99576feb8
F20101110_AABSTC little_j_Page_018.tif
c79a066cb744d4e3ce3342ed185a38f6
63ec01d69670ac4031d758680456441fdaeb78a0
110035 F20101110_AABSSN little_j_Page_122.jp2
efe0a7985115dbfe9eb0dcf8e6fbad8f
f5e8544e24fb328179cccf114e43e4c00779dd29
791027 F20101110_AABSRZ little_j_Page_097.jp2
220308a4770a892b0d2c8f633a648c94
e82952c81532b8985bed40e70d7583a2db980c87
F20101110_AABSTD little_j_Page_019.tif
421dcc1dad4ddad413763f1af2a2f1c1
47b5481a6cb66f4de2a79a9a9b48bf30e0815f4c
1053954 F20101110_AABSSO little_j_Page_001.tif
9cbdeef5c0d8dc568a9578fca2e96f51
30f3e03dfad7944fa160cc5f6dcc5cee13c95971
F20101110_AABSTE little_j_Page_021.tif
ce16893c4edd4033aa9bc836e6ac86e2
4a718b63e0561818c420de451bc4e895a4e6df2d
F20101110_AABSSP little_j_Page_003.tif
6d41ec28d70b81bd5fe3fc8bef933937
703694b4272e03b99658441d9f1d1ae18c758b8d
F20101110_AABSSQ little_j_Page_004.tif
2a2b64a17bada40232ed3bae13624c30
9cd480722e3db6d037b8788b9773e5d83abf6081
F20101110_AABSTF little_j_Page_022.tif
5e976351d7660b617501c93a4f038cfb
a2f33bb2932f855c391cfb044f0ab119cd8ab57c
F20101110_AABSSR little_j_Page_005.tif
121185915547c76e4313246d15bbd013
081a9faca374e25b59bf8af668923471b6c06335
F20101110_AABSTG little_j_Page_024.tif
7c8a3f8508263695cf3acdd7dcb97205
5722424ddddcda513dfef0c58f30c1529828f479
F20101110_AABSSS little_j_Page_006.tif
999b752fe28e9324ce491db7c06cc050
1d916e658fb0217bbd775c9ef4aae9dff210e61b
F20101110_AABSTH little_j_Page_025.tif
9c52e2e13f6a72ac4e23fca7f1ac2dfe
e8cc7897474708aa9423d1ff0ba97a3800eb2675
F20101110_AABSST little_j_Page_007.tif
3cddb0655ac1f03f6172b1f78f47ee10
6f40e8bc572dcac43f8505da30f149851dd26d46
F20101110_AABSTI little_j_Page_026.tif
a708a10271609fcb42e3f2e428f76d61
dfad9b1ef9c0c53d3a0938e23a732f7153b1626d
F20101110_AABSSU little_j_Page_009.tif
0f593f957c1af658cb31d1ed8232cbf9
7fdcae0f16a4b97c7d0af22da2ba66e5d4f4fd0a
F20101110_AABSTJ little_j_Page_027.tif
134f6e4f70a77f50d49504d1ecc47033
33cf117791ef4ecb38bc0b4f9f353fc2cc47961a
F20101110_AABSSV little_j_Page_010.tif
6e27129c55245cb7b1d0ac1bee67bef4
61a290e29cb4cd97524c6e30e86ecd29391e4b16
F20101110_AABSTK little_j_Page_028.tif
210b5fb5394bb7ed11b46156958f2ed8
c8aa359b6257caba0e92ecbe71d503f74520c700
F20101110_AABSSW little_j_Page_011.tif
2fc30fd8b726210fc6249e4d18027a90
2f7a6f557c615862fe37c051c948e305ac4e1089
F20101110_AABSTL little_j_Page_029.tif
4cf0732f075db686055f803d31911f59
a96da58b7b7aa5f97adc9cc675c70db4e37f0125
F20101110_AABSSX little_j_Page_012.tif
94ccfcd5e988c03be1db04399e94b778
ca5458d20e5de982fde2cc590f542130e95d86ae
F20101110_AABSUA little_j_Page_051.tif
6c9343fa48e010b154dc5b15ce02992e
40969a791422e992cb065260cef19610c016d3a1
F20101110_AABSTM little_j_Page_031.tif
b4d479232a6db2b817aa2faf04cedbd2
a8112e14177d8dfe693fde13957f08c9f26ceefb
F20101110_AABSSY little_j_Page_013.tif
42889b60e3bf704d637890a4f189cf06
335a07289338210765c9774ac4dc5723d8758e49
F20101110_AABSUB little_j_Page_052.tif
26c87f7bd1039f9ee5c8d9bcfc64ddd1
3e0db3cd4278247bf97b83e73b6741f05e5fd6ef
F20101110_AABSTN little_j_Page_032.tif
d0b6e569f279874e6cbfae66b34dd7c4
4e88cfe335afc24066ff43d3e82eb6e31bcd8a91
F20101110_AABSSZ little_j_Page_014.tif
a40687148b0087588ba7776392894bc0
3cbaa879932922f22e5efbb496c7d4a8a76a412a
F20101110_AABSUC little_j_Page_054.tif
f702bf2a0bcd9eee5d01897759e5a1a5
c34220c928d66eae2ccbd521156d53c246e568c8
F20101110_AABSTO little_j_Page_033.tif
6c77897625c6718fc1cbe1ba77a52e09
d85c543f9089cf66de4d74faf9616e36abea51d9
F20101110_AABSUD little_j_Page_055.tif
917e6946b70e112497425b2cfd7ad1c9
85095dfb084240300cd82a5fc5eccb3df2fcd142
F20101110_AABSTP little_j_Page_035.tif
362868924dba5206a07a3d8b9b2d894a
d2a81a0f10553376e2c84bfb8e32103a0a3b1407
F20101110_AABSUE little_j_Page_056.tif
4e63d0af020ea406ef6cd613083a372f
436db44621507ba6310646db4e7f6b0ae37bd9b2
F20101110_AABSTQ little_j_Page_036.tif
524595af6d4154eb877fb84224a13912
939b9c81a8d76bcebcc6c3aeac2f117b1019166f
F20101110_AABSUF little_j_Page_057.tif
05b6426a69d4d9d5c9e2b9322b77e71d
d662a8431311a7849e3950e151cca259eab6bae7
F20101110_AABSTR little_j_Page_038.tif
0a4682caac1b2793fa2a04554b339bcc
acc60c499ddc34e4529c1477cd92444cfde6951e
2318 F20101110_AABTAA little_j_Page_005.txt
6ba5399541888cf06664f80e5c0e14ab
96e2b91d41711f33f2a37f50ee3a4ae21cb652ca
F20101110_AABSTS little_j_Page_039.tif
a834461628225456d4c56c7b72da6d38
f371836847e75e1525ee0cf94b01e49486e3d6d7
2309 F20101110_AABTAB little_j_Page_006.txt
6c1c80e7f46b592e41189d2c5938a649
6d5b16a3de26e5f8790574cb2fa7727bc74d8ba3
F20101110_AABSUG little_j_Page_058.tif
2153c097b605de6caba50e6477d115de
2553e2b3a90681c3cb6d93df43392ff47e0b0d7c
F20101110_AABSTT little_j_Page_040.tif
e0756d5e099ed05f343eed94a87a7a69
e1e946d7776e260cbfee8aa61bdf2d4b69080737
527 F20101110_AABTAC little_j_Page_007.txt
9240763c942b358be9a21af1e9dd7cf9
ea58b9e9346761bac86b374e5f45bb2d59ca3bce
F20101110_AABSUH little_j_Page_059.tif
77347d42df228f18a698314d6beec8f6
46ae1c2b08b4d962d8af6899013cb903273a3dcb
F20101110_AABSTU little_j_Page_042.tif
f19eb6c3cb9bc3853ec8bf6c79ff341d
f911d06a04cc477d52321cda96a50d960f9711c7
532 F20101110_AABTAD little_j_Page_009.txt
3bcef84c9c356f6f1b7d41f44aef55f7
c5d80f734ba420e67e39ac5c72161445c7948a71
F20101110_AABSUI little_j_Page_062.tif
3e33f63c85aa85b68ace3ad5d6709a0d
656a310950eb5facd9c7b1f828b89ed04615dcf2
F20101110_AABSTV little_j_Page_044.tif
5740bfaaf299f0b3527ceb3ffac99886
bf0087920428bbf4b636d7b637d60dd8c30565b8
F20101110_AABTAE little_j_Page_010.txt
d26e9a3a7573c993138bf0cdac1026e1
fd898705656c119942bca134b51514aad0d6d953
F20101110_AABSUJ little_j_Page_064.tif
0215d0c0ad67b237e6b418523a6a6523
cf64c2ce2559fd83d5510c95f1f1c36ea5aae751
F20101110_AABSTW little_j_Page_045.tif
ad3082c73d10389043051d49f35a2308
1d9f365d412c4ac5d281c9d8231c2dbb9ca7b450
1966 F20101110_AABTAF little_j_Page_011.txt
63fbf9037660605c8c57ca6c5ae7fe65
2a5e7b2999237322145d6e2a5a46949e3c3fce84
F20101110_AABSUK little_j_Page_065.tif
ef85cc818580d8983f02567fbaec1316
777991bb7d73ed827720a14f8c3af33d676a3cb9
F20101110_AABSTX little_j_Page_046.tif
2a3d0a8bb19eda1d68ed815e46807825
a0f70bcd5885664e20bbfe5c6882a10e2b43067e
2292 F20101110_AABTAG little_j_Page_012.txt
2bc68766b16f29371eda886f026d1ae6
a655fd6e12135def49e5f5e47dd561b349343058
F20101110_AABSVA little_j_Page_085.tif
3ef1c0675e3341dd5b511fd641f02330
d7c8c6da795dd88349c6d303c62165ef4d023234
F20101110_AABSUL little_j_Page_066.tif
b70ef2afc2e3af64cac2c9f17dcf65dc
2ec73d6579cf85144ac7abfb7d36bbc29cca4e5a
F20101110_AABSTY little_j_Page_048.tif
9f1abd26e97b5073d3e36c62b19180da
295c113d262052a1cf232119f51abca3efa1647e
524 F20101110_AABTAH little_j_Page_013.txt
9dc86642e9187e8794402ba35e232822
213de91c9f328a49552f531360137f1a2a36c7e5
F20101110_AABSVB little_j_Page_086.tif
6232af70e61360b0e9292cdec3c54e5e
15181a276dacf8a3dd376c05148866d5e4ca8676
F20101110_AABSUM little_j_Page_067.tif
c9a6179aa5b4b5c38bc4c4854ffafb88
d929460d4e61536a9f7dbfa294edc1f6f234bc37
F20101110_AABSTZ little_j_Page_049.tif
3c1753e0cedf77b34089aaebf5e2a610
e2ab7380cd9f040a7ba73848d185386db4144f65
2131 F20101110_AABTAI little_j_Page_015.txt
7ce1570c48c7703b6b4708ae5fce3c12
4b9722ff6e7fb57a6ea026855dbd0c5a92648e20
F20101110_AABSVC little_j_Page_087.tif
2a11a3a53953ef11bf590b97e7eb4738
eccd755d5917b06cb87925eb81fac5b65024ef09
F20101110_AABSUN little_j_Page_068.tif
e53881b9ca9a8b1b6a377f449f52a121
f5f5c956877788c1b087fe64fd8a19e551db2ee1
1716 F20101110_AABTAJ little_j_Page_017.txt
9362f9a6b8ae3495fe22cb1f007db32e
91751c543bdf8b2d771b7572f49c610ff0d0446a
F20101110_AABSVD little_j_Page_089.tif
021c80120eef13c3ae57ed88cca4c79b
d55de67c153741b83f34ca1546a8d395bcb19b3f
F20101110_AABSUO little_j_Page_069.tif
58b3bc98024cf949ad361cb5fc997f8c
ea6ea83dc2e4d6be44df30559d259577bbc017b8
1951 F20101110_AABTAK little_j_Page_018.txt
820701c5829629445a53b6e9b083da05
b0a70ae47de81cf5b4f79850d41c0cf8bf966e10
F20101110_AABSVE little_j_Page_090.tif
d37db39601be65736457fd5a997304b9
2c4835a320bdd4c58437f81ce7bc410aa2adb1de
F20101110_AABSUP little_j_Page_070.tif
6b79a8de06c9d2cbc401f572ca8224be
99d79124a3a049fa08453f5d9e3e5197b450633f
2003 F20101110_AABTAL little_j_Page_019.txt
1f599092ffc4ce1ca692d4a6cb765ae0
56d232d2b80c6bbf04df99bac7d59003043b7085
F20101110_AABSVF little_j_Page_091.tif
bb67d07b660f2513d89614cdf57613f8
6affc1e93381ca984ea08d892c3e4e7acec61d8d
F20101110_AABSUQ little_j_Page_071.tif
82fca63fcddb53866e71f0d35e22e7bf
5ecc1aa96b14b9b8cbf292e4fc83fe63670684e3
2107 F20101110_AABTAM little_j_Page_020.txt
3c0c4b17dd4ddda1dd8bd8bb933f892f
385f608b1a2306f18463fadaacbdcc51837d1092
F20101110_AABSVG little_j_Page_093.tif
f1cf05ac6d8bdc6666e5eb5b27241ad6
f65c1417fa55c81fafda150619a9782f43663f82
F20101110_AABSUR little_j_Page_072.tif
fd2dac4671624e36dd073e01401a4414
c8aa73ed75e28cbfbf8a315739984df87ce1e320
1934 F20101110_AABTBA little_j_Page_037.txt
b15393190d0cead774129591c75aba65
6c9c4ce055094f70f62af61f189ef808003efd00
2006 F20101110_AABTAN little_j_Page_021.txt
002c4113377ad0a6b977829d00b2a48c
36dfa0d37758639dd2563a1a46a04debd603ada7
F20101110_AABSUS little_j_Page_075.tif
c69934393e64245a9c8f0828b28a5e90
8b1e6fbed192b80dc6d12a2a4b45a8c5589dacf1
2155 F20101110_AABTBB little_j_Page_038.txt
06643ea578ba0378cb7e24baee3abff7
68f13a4892fe97af9a312b1209126214c34e05bf
2040 F20101110_AABTAO little_j_Page_022.txt
00d443473b3216e8654936ebd1e0be72
95a8e7d248d0dad65aa73cab952892aa8feb6e84
F20101110_AABSVH little_j_Page_096.tif
eb183b171267e177e8e91a7909540a83
bbb8dbb281335ab475cabdcb53ba5746bfd51802
F20101110_AABSUT little_j_Page_077.tif
3cfd69b706eac731ba9cb7598d2238e2
cb65f46b69fed88eb0f7fd448492cdd77d682c49
1913 F20101110_AABTBC little_j_Page_039.txt
6bc987e38640bd4787df0d45e7527c8c
452611c3f3a5368978835e4da5c1e58a8d92d1b4
1980 F20101110_AABTAP little_j_Page_023.txt
1c238bea2632a5bb044f1e5af6a6a06d
39a7c53d158705eaeb88ee210e33c87132caf636
F20101110_AABSVI little_j_Page_097.tif
31f90fade4b303e2353c58471cbbccd9
90f38489fabe483dcb6cab9c8f33eef0de29175b
F20101110_AABSUU little_j_Page_078.tif
04eb7a39f2d17629a5a89233e7e2b152
1d53b70d940cddddcb223fd0920475ee39c17073
2041 F20101110_AABTBD little_j_Page_040.txt
d9fb960ade34d14b355bb01b842d0cf2
6691caac879fa20df61f6ace4cd65ecaaf5bb6d8
1727 F20101110_AABTAQ little_j_Page_024.txt
d1545dbde5bb03347a66c3f3be276ef7
78e7771d09ad38d41d753607d0196aeb3a7d213c
F20101110_AABSVJ little_j_Page_099.tif
00038a6fd46c3aae644b1bcc6cc61081
7fb371f79f2100dc37e43838ff05ff34eed16f23
F20101110_AABSUV little_j_Page_079.tif
71c0d97d33e3c68d17246b3fe1f2b690
ab2ef0ac712aeba26e0377e354c3b07e80f8ad8f
2080 F20101110_AABTBE little_j_Page_041.txt
53c18843902ddb37c36647c79fad6e78
687fe0468d31844dc6e3b1b1c74acaf2b2e5bd6e
F20101110_AABSVK little_j_Page_100.tif
806d948011d400eab07cf396ac7dbd21
42d4c3158f43a49dbba5af8353469a1185f32ca7
F20101110_AABSUW little_j_Page_081.tif
92303a853858b26e8ed5d2259da1a982
372d5d4b5c8c5c3f7e12070060cbf05495cffd94
486 F20101110_AABTBF little_j_Page_042.txt
5d63aebb9f11620985ccd7116b90c851
4f8a2397a9a096a9be49dba86be681cace990a19
F20101110_AABSWA little_j_Page_118.tif
4771841a0655f7bf67e3d08ac36a03e8
4151805293d5e60bad5cbb7ca48c352c8b2836f5
2062 F20101110_AABTAR little_j_Page_025.txt
9078383bc8bf95e4f1f0892b3ff8d208
7f9a399e063dec3d811c3d4c7d4dc4f080ecaaae
F20101110_AABSVL little_j_Page_101.tif
61cdbb064785dac82ec48ad8fa6109c1
5327069891b894af0a59f3f8952a04dd2dabe7b0
F20101110_AABSUX little_j_Page_082.tif
6d5dd21f2c4e96d261702fb043718c7c
c3382d4f84480a50dbd0bb3df66db6d7d1d12b09
1976 F20101110_AABTBG little_j_Page_043.txt
92294ce10cf96a9d500d69e7c3597b5d
83d408cd4293faa9c238627527ccaed438706a6d
F20101110_AABSWB little_j_Page_119.tif
4d97fdcfed63551ecfb1325b51ed1be2
5700b3736611134e5d090dbcbacda75c74d7bbf7
142 F20101110_AABTAS little_j_Page_026.txt
290ae8328fbf0e06a7b87ee09d0665ad
c84034be8dfbe53d68979fe19f7eb27e23ecc14b
F20101110_AABSVM little_j_Page_102.tif
ab0cd9201f02a4cf2b17a502a0497155
4b786d8041ec16a41eab827856d49440654af1e1
F20101110_AABSUY little_j_Page_083.tif
9b52916e0dd5d06ca7b00d90c3b1396e
5cdf57206ec5d3c450d9a62c4398218e1348d8f9
1933 F20101110_AABTBH little_j_Page_044.txt
0602d6c19cf8c38d709955e051e69653
bb3321ae00e40a2e849d9408de0fa2d649fb148a
F20101110_AABSWC little_j_Page_121.tif
40095609f359858b75d78a21c501fceb
0a008b84f365f278a0709bc4ee8b8a0709e8074f
F20101110_AABTAT little_j_Page_027.txt
95e9a7b63f3b1703a16d9ba2f81ef9dd
b2b5a48c7bfe389376cc73f2863f08a2c136282e
F20101110_AABSVN little_j_Page_103.tif
629cdc161b1eb58b284be23bbb55e659
88216b84973aa88ec3b0cbe9edd07373959b4a8b
F20101110_AABSUZ little_j_Page_084.tif
907d23a797cfc6bda1caf3b0243c7414
fed3fa60885336753413ce6d5d611bd9f083fa1e
1743 F20101110_AABTBI little_j_Page_045.txt
58726c4084c9c8eea5266c77e3fdd63c
a83bddbc6471e836c75f256f61d1e4d4e9a219a6
F20101110_AABSWD little_j_Page_122.tif
95f57764abcbeda6b401b0a0891e3348
6b8acf11dc650c20aa8ee3c035088e665c18b110
2050 F20101110_AABTAU little_j_Page_028.txt
981a2f1be537da51fc8852705809922e
77aea914d33d51ae700f8fa7742c5d937b5127e2
F20101110_AABSVO little_j_Page_104.tif
7a44af99f6122e93b4149acb0e23507e
13a3f88ab0d1f53cc23d0c129e2a44ecbfd4402b
846 F20101110_AABTBJ little_j_Page_046.txt
512bc24b0f154f8465a275458dbacbc6
22d337b76884ff6270f2a85660bf815ffcae6a6e
7697 F20101110_AABSWE little_j_Page_001.pro
6643935efda939c62321c5532c88a5b5
323dd4c9887c6c5c7db0d90805f569f1cb798b64
1548 F20101110_AABTAV little_j_Page_030.txt
747b2159e82db3789a47d5963ec6855e
f74627b248a4f4549512d1a705fc00eaa928d497
F20101110_AABSVP little_j_Page_105.tif
bb0426c2de46c6a464fac579e7e9b31e
a8ead00fa2b491f0d3b38b6b8f01a1b369d1958c
1854 F20101110_AABTBK little_j_Page_048.txt
82ffdaa9fb461f5258edba88ce42145c
a9b0b23675b22ebc89e6ceee96b815d4154f4eb4
991 F20101110_AABSWF little_j_Page_002.pro
ab9285238a92922d5edee0887035f6dd
b8c560cb67312a3bf655af5c40fbabb4270c8363
2278 F20101110_AABTAW little_j_Page_031.txt
4dcd489ebcf7ebc0076d5e024212ac41
b682cd42b5da9a95f40ed2bc3b4fae33efb607c6
F20101110_AABSVQ little_j_Page_106.tif
6b7e91ee1333c15d0c36aab519e98a84
ef5069344b9d82c154068ebeff40922b000cefe2
1891 F20101110_AABTBL little_j_Page_049.txt
ed528c060ea953a44178bb799633d280
7eb4479e5752b2f26c67cd545d874e8472b8ea25
1379 F20101110_AABSWG little_j_Page_003.pro
91f3587e4a544bf1e1716d6a2aea135c
8967c3626c0eb0e45bc34b324be84d45f91fdb43
1679 F20101110_AABTAX little_j_Page_033.txt
d9e6a4125ecf0bd60b061f9ce7e99e32
67b8b2932a7c7a82b1181ed156ab3d750ee46ace
F20101110_AABSVR little_j_Page_107.tif
e4d772a27d23f39cb551cc105ec7fff2
0242596513aea0889490c4a73ae9bbaf2058ea85
2061 F20101110_AABTCA little_j_Page_069.txt
ad07f0922a6b32498db876930c08cc51
ba49f848052b1aa3f73adbee47cc9fcc4f992b62
1737 F20101110_AABTBM little_j_Page_050.txt
39fc4b30907db77fbe6727b1a3f60302
a23958b1bf3cf9ebf06f175e9329460415f6c46b
56635 F20101110_AABSWH little_j_Page_004.pro
1f89f1ad90b643b210c18c30e34ee669
2a46c22c62dacf46e95883f5bfd08c09a19b6770
2060 F20101110_AABTAY little_j_Page_034.txt
afbed9f0ccc2b80fa072ff0007a98b47
aeb40e385aaea5fa779e88f8ac795c36ce0748d9
F20101110_AABSVS little_j_Page_108.tif
babe3dbf8e28cbe7481c94f7c956192f
154193a05639ec5a287a885123e3f6bcb7888c05
1421 F20101110_AABTCB little_j_Page_071.txt
5b5a21d690dc007f418f1c9464afb410
24d59555dd92d5b5ba3496c08a9079c873ab8a62
2022 F20101110_AABTBN little_j_Page_051.txt
55a2be5f9c2ea153f9cd45c3cc73bb78
6139d2ddd72da22acbaceb2577dfd1babff337c3
1971 F20101110_AABTAZ little_j_Page_035.txt
c37dd9dc6966ea88ab5e599118c144f4
2f3a2d5b74e5a2745e0870abf627bc395424c66f
F20101110_AABSVT little_j_Page_109.tif
66011f480b9ac4e9b0ae7d71905a55d3
27e65048df9d90dfc1607a69cd2c185d12f0bc40
2004 F20101110_AABTCC little_j_Page_072.txt
12c03734a23b5f28e9f10ce838049c4c
77a5cb4205dc45607857549156aeff1516812548
1515 F20101110_AABTBO little_j_Page_053.txt
60a40076ccc4f5ce016e5227bc399337
0da4f69c6678b6ec9bad2bfc58f9f67546ea1417
F20101110_AABSVU little_j_Page_111.tif
fa4ae4567c778160b6da0ca3243125e3
53ff47038bdfc6659e3f2f8953bd1654e4f6f64f
1713 F20101110_AABTCD little_j_Page_073.txt
4c0241ed02b82432ff4c49efec7f49c6
0b75f7444f8c71d9464e81aa67e7b74190e7923f
1771 F20101110_AABTBP little_j_Page_054.txt
6b91d716a0da3bdbba5b6b7409cba90a
a5fc40f8a124c63fd8bf88cfa62f6078498e5005
49867 F20101110_AABSWI little_j_Page_008.pro
690fc43756dc2bd19f764983e8a2cc8a
4c99c9ceb5dae10e0802b44085f37aa9839a4659
F20101110_AABSVV little_j_Page_112.tif
5c33711abb8d7b9594830f2d80b24985
d6ec4dfe5590d5d40857d2e8d9363c51dec429d0
F20101110_AABTCE little_j_Page_074.txt
2fad99fa47f2bb3f3235f5a5c90a2edc
fd5e60879df16b79852053801b104d8e9781da3c
1588 F20101110_AABTBQ little_j_Page_055.txt
ae1b36c3a25b4c406d8e7f55e8826622
3fafeb0ea4ad5282bc3f3b499c062879f2601df7
13195 F20101110_AABSWJ little_j_Page_009.pro
79f567033a4b4cc5e8dce8257e0ffd73
c0a6596710e18f7578fcf0cf88101dc8b2cb8a26
F20101110_AABSVW little_j_Page_113.tif
6fa2bf42bea3eb1878d0e1f08045c2c5
156eb62218c12e0c0e10a93b6ab49a20bada08a5
1704 F20101110_AABTCF little_j_Page_075.txt
c33b50e5647650b204472b165dbf76fb
e441b2799457b4ef16d34929f65cf74feaee7841
1673 F20101110_AABTBR little_j_Page_056.txt
5a42f1aef72428a57c2b057aa4c436e1
7b7f77df67ea8268e9d03cdf471aa90bcb56a1f4
56092 F20101110_AABSWK little_j_Page_010.pro
7ce71015b187b710581d7fda59e51585
ee166f4ef4ef666f2e92558ba78516905a416339
F20101110_AABSVX little_j_Page_114.tif
7475672cc8a820fb6aadbd6ee6fb8145
27fe032c11ca88997833727f7e004e948ac683d8
2294 F20101110_AABTCG little_j_Page_076.txt
08469a0cfc341d8ec2c6d4791cc0da0b
ff1a2b9996d83e877d6ca0981e8b6133192f9de4
46692 F20101110_AABSXA little_j_Page_032.pro
6eccb962d31d3839dcbc7c3e9843aaba
634f2f5243aa1b9120cd447403b646c786c94ee8
57725 F20101110_AABSWL little_j_Page_012.pro
bf71645bb54d17e0f980f37f31cb1ed3
cf8501850c2e70645355ea5a1653521ec6dadf15
F20101110_AABSVY little_j_Page_115.tif
71b1a88721ebd378cb9599fe0329aeed
2e92e3346ff1ffa1a3d6f4f98c22d12a40c9a8cf
F20101110_AABTCH little_j_Page_077.txt
381fb14e2e97b050c2933fae1efd1120
77e5877c397eb20d3e6e4d6588561d29cb51190f
39447 F20101110_AABSXB little_j_Page_033.pro
a103ae5d4aa106dec0f3b576d48f3a7b
63c56fbd90ccdacc8fb33f6f7a9b46f84319d4d1
1210 F20101110_AABTBS little_j_Page_058.txt
d7e5b086ecb6a553b2caa468d07fdfac
ae3abef795539d3dc322afc5a812706f7964f4cf
13154 F20101110_AABSWM little_j_Page_013.pro
0fdbb8766602899dedcdbeb0b5db1cdd
a211d7839ba1cf0dd3e727fad7ea10eeaa0c088e
F20101110_AABSVZ little_j_Page_117.tif
9a28246f4fbe305f239dab905663d3d6
6eb315f0df7e1ac5abfd14f1851ecbd65adbd4d9
2023 F20101110_AABTCI little_j_Page_078.txt
15f3ed56400327251188a88ceecaa053
93f0693485c2a3925bd17f5f6a0726bc82e051a2
51429 F20101110_AABSXC little_j_Page_034.pro
8ef3bd187ff31bdc88240be9470bc89f
b76ddc77b44bdf054992b2618a92e692412a854f
1993 F20101110_AABTBT little_j_Page_059.txt
fe33d7ef8113f36a366a47fab114fbf9
1e1fbcde25fe5160842b9f782e7540bf379dc26a
35349 F20101110_AABSWN little_j_Page_014.pro
91ca60430cab028afecdda0f9cbbe868
5bd6dd86ceeb3de5b77ad8c7aba2597085024c11
1311 F20101110_AABTCJ little_j_Page_082.txt
3a94b6c27adc2fea9bc930c54c47f772
3378495f39c5516c0ce3cf5479a0ceb5f85b955e
46576 F20101110_AABSXD little_j_Page_035.pro
a44fe923614b8e38f47ef055d259096f
a99c7efd01ced027b6cce87b75439ba3f316ba2b
1821 F20101110_AABTBU little_j_Page_060.txt
423c439be13159a89e9672f11d692cdb
16cf8fa76a624121bed87feca256e691d6c39fa3
40962 F20101110_AABSWO little_j_Page_016.pro
13be49ff6c0a2bae403c5dd5686d1752
aa06c842d7195441de97c00c84698bcc9dffb4ea
F20101110_AABTCK little_j_Page_083.txt
240c8075050a9739af494e182ac15a52
d3bca896e55657f2f1810d10ee591b5759a63bf7
42904 F20101110_AABSXE little_j_Page_036.pro
ae75499e55540ec004826b8bd906e746
7186bd921605203e8f2a6c148b1d72d74653c257
1752 F20101110_AABTBV little_j_Page_061.txt
76e47ad6299a0a6211c1d327e4f90d62
6e8af40fce2e424f91bf13811d9d0035e2d9aae2
36229 F20101110_AABSWP little_j_Page_017.pro
b48516fbc4c7b4c98e134a40ab465e08
664fd7b1099a905ce79a040c291e57c0884b3dce
2130 F20101110_AABTCL little_j_Page_084.txt
72babda00febc165508ba738439d20ed
357a78d68effd1ab462738a9fc89df015a247d1b
43902 F20101110_AABSXF little_j_Page_037.pro
a0d0e59b3804d770a27d9ae3a84aa65e
d7c542a3a63e7ba84413a6d393e9387d11deb355
1590 F20101110_AABTBW little_j_Page_062.txt
a0e527a79dc305189445d64942c168e4
e58be534ec3691edbc8553c0eebacdf5f76e8ad0
45330 F20101110_AABSWQ little_j_Page_018.pro
f3535b016d790fa32871e43b49e27635
76175cb7a60a9b37a54580e95e340cb2fb716174
1810 F20101110_AABTDA little_j_Page_102.txt
4a96aa85a1c8eac999265d332f9fd53a
c6f1927053c4efc7280fd2d511431837fd8cd556
1852 F20101110_AABTCM little_j_Page_086.txt
d58a00ceabb8ef195eb573c23ba7c3b7
1d8292fb1b06e88f30eaddc97d86ad0fc9f6934f
49670 F20101110_AABSXG little_j_Page_038.pro
fb9c5dc2db3a9e9af3661b7896434731
5f2372e57f810da701410a12111e5ee169a1c571
1996 F20101110_AABTBX little_j_Page_063.txt
b4726e9a23302a4ac10622cefb44c57a
a38222fbfb6a6a8e641bb715549e343de2a72ff5
52690 F20101110_AABSWR little_j_Page_020.pro
23c2dbf433e4972dcb5da2694fafb70d
599ae8371ece3651a3adabe66ce1d3013d529f00
1970 F20101110_AABTDB little_j_Page_103.txt
8eec6e573bebbb2622e2413de9ae0351
e08e1eb7efefe62edde49552ce33e39ca4c882d5
2106 F20101110_AABTCN little_j_Page_087.txt
87ff01d35d3c531de2f9cf6e745f4d01
f5d3679c5dad841e608dfe4fdba9dd0e08ca4076
44357 F20101110_AABSXH little_j_Page_039.pro
7aaf5728323c724eeb6ff616436f95e2
54bd673544d4409c4f66f7ac2a4db4d852950f58
1712 F20101110_AABTBY little_j_Page_064.txt
25b0b244cf49f7453819ac18f0647f0c
44a5d711fb7fafa560a46f9a0ff2666b2af337a7
49486 F20101110_AABSWS little_j_Page_021.pro
d65e8e00b1c462500678bcaa5a313d58
1492d34067efeeb6cb922c20562a68b764057075
1559 F20101110_AABTDC little_j_Page_104.txt
badf575b06fcd192de914cd638c3c784
986af89e16561309b0dd53202c37af49e3262360
1920 F20101110_AABTCO little_j_Page_088.txt
a59826d0db9268285073737cbfbf8d4a
9c04169beb0888f67137199cd5810853923be3a6
45434 F20101110_AABSXI little_j_Page_040.pro
4debb3e6f88373989af00dbada1b222b
3050c34173750b0cf2e96f077914f0e863d1c03b
1765 F20101110_AABTBZ little_j_Page_066.txt
a21ac67b02ee31d4c681c33c53f4a7a2
c07da2592523652456097ae2c4feb7add99d63f0
46770 F20101110_AABSWT little_j_Page_022.pro
d205626e34aa4de0606a699f58b8b61a
0433657bff38d314265b0149ac720b5126e95806
1785 F20101110_AABTDD little_j_Page_107.txt
9ad932d2777a31f783584a5c1fb4a318
b666f0287f2c46cb99b2b3f42d410153dfa28953
1782 F20101110_AABTCP little_j_Page_089.txt
d59a0926a42b4ca1376fda4534086de9
06a754c6c12d452f0de1828b912399e5640c2a56
44531 F20101110_AABSWU little_j_Page_023.pro
9c312896526e896745ff5adffebd8cc8
34bdd70ed5267e180b4f2c732ac6a6d30bf68b81
1701 F20101110_AABTDE little_j_Page_108.txt
cd14ccc085912aa57c20372fa4a50c12
e51e65af640fa4cd137bce16039ec0cd60d010a6
2176 F20101110_AABTCQ little_j_Page_090.txt
562991d63ad209faa6e5440b518f6d45
b27ddfe2b2ed1ba1b992fab7b846ac6fd05841f9
52568 F20101110_AABSXJ little_j_Page_041.pro
d8a536798cda2510734bd325addfaa7b
d56a8a5b04ac99f97ada4c687d4f7cae98d3f931
41267 F20101110_AABSWV little_j_Page_024.pro
6a7e773cb108c3937d8572f818f6c6c4
3c1893379c30cabd55eff0f3150ff5a057077768
2341 F20101110_AABTCR little_j_Page_092.txt
de3bc643db280738f1721b6cbddf1f7b
be10b24f1f74ab0a09e1cc73b164f41660b98311
11178 F20101110_AABSXK little_j_Page_042.pro
b5b18ff5ac2a7320df1bbf3c626e26db
e34e45cf1afef6f7a464d48fb97ab9f1f0f580c7
44761 F20101110_AABSWW little_j_Page_027.pro
f3043a63081b4b13dd81afb412ea06f3
c96829b1ccd6c22a6e7890ff27a3235c66a66154
1968 F20101110_AABTDF little_j_Page_109.txt
c7471db85b8706ceecb900600bd1f929
c5af6fe6d0df1e1aa39b08d82eb9c1e8f13d50b2
42284 F20101110_AABSYA little_j_Page_063.pro
945b03bd9e625bc15caa204c39b3bbbb
4a70eeed4cc772670f8ee8c4b2eac63c4aee1ff1
1724 F20101110_AABTCS little_j_Page_093.txt
e338d2dff337619b4fe911910f65ee1a
76281408a8bb635be076215487ccdd12c8062828
46064 F20101110_AABSXL little_j_Page_043.pro
66ea75ef5f6321a5502ae8ee416fa98b
37e914acd1cd84c3a2a21d8e96ac5d728245c59d
50539 F20101110_AABSWX little_j_Page_028.pro
d9c9fcebbc2a1026da5c8fd99be4f8f4
5148580e30c72ca5faa7e29537b427d96718634b
2066 F20101110_AABTDG little_j_Page_110.txt
bceae2ed4d988a18bc959b06b5d71cff
59fb6987d2e31e3b12305deb71921c93e8c7dc1e
31631 F20101110_AABSYB little_j_Page_064.pro
f0167a57ea5f2c441b7e2141d1fee6dc
88a241f878a332ca052972f2087b3d986a42feeb
36576 F20101110_AABSXM little_j_Page_044.pro
270716818dff3d56c875fc4ad836e018
cf08e34bb977bd1aa2ae0d8648077e9b6e106dab
33099 F20101110_AABSWY little_j_Page_030.pro
912a9f72e706fcd72dbf953f81ae7dcf
cd5a6b27b96ccd12d99567004c88d7a15924f8ef
1981 F20101110_AABTDH little_j_Page_111.txt
1ac1944e6a9a77ca1fb761d9dc7bebaf
389012c8a7ff84289916c521f5f8a8aa8a31b023
40692 F20101110_AABSYC little_j_Page_065.pro
f853d72b01822c2c3e06a1a4447728c2
fad03d4c16c56ebba5f623f944aca86511366454
F20101110_AABTCT little_j_Page_094.txt
6c4750af22a8af9357fe3b4492186483
f319eb89ebd8f68783c28975efd840f9fb4868fa
21545 F20101110_AABSXN little_j_Page_046.pro
85eef85dd49072c8b9a63936dc650b05
7f49c582aa8073661e8508c1375e08e2296689cb
56205 F20101110_AABSWZ little_j_Page_031.pro
37987ddf7621b494a32fe2e61d056c7f
cfe8def26fba254a92eaafc5c4106149499ad81c
2308 F20101110_AABTDI little_j_Page_113.txt
d4719735db48315369e60ab495119f48
4f9caee957114a6613a5304aada63bc88da9bdaa
40919 F20101110_AABSYD little_j_Page_067.pro
fc98b491e46836ba194723837e82cbc8
936b63ac64bf98a697664ddd549f1f9dbb6b0716
2108 F20101110_AABTCU little_j_Page_095.txt
f985f98c5d82dd9f71627a2e08ce5fd9
9d57708bac4f3034a25f77a94df8b5c194cf9749
43990 F20101110_AABSXO little_j_Page_047.pro
08f12cc594e463f974d893f3806cbcac
c4c94d346fc330693539871a1c75d92817bb8b8b
2067 F20101110_AABTDJ little_j_Page_114.txt
6b244076f311c96f4f619397a93fb9de
57e4dfc0425a296f00a670265e6ba53ce1149e35
42208 F20101110_AABSYE little_j_Page_070.pro
aa8fb18a72c6ec256d7c6761ca24bcab
26b38d0fcb4b544ed90850de24c3588c2931f9f6
2226 F20101110_AABTCV little_j_Page_096.txt
fc7fce3b756d286a4870c1d893fee656
d213d8e9cbc078e8e47c32856865f21b9f0cf940
41144 F20101110_AABSXP little_j_Page_048.pro
5b2d1ce465dac11119fd01503cfb1af0
8f5885a1f990be22ef1c58b9c5b0b2cb5ac08243
1340 F20101110_AABTDK little_j_Page_115.txt
956a5ce92f1d59ec058a68a4f8bd3633
b9ffd569446842b5e6f406381639384c1a2c9080
34174 F20101110_AABSYF little_j_Page_071.pro
5102164dbfb7af9f63f47f77ee30d901
b1e631cdc24831e8a4091f6d17de7a0397cc805a
1847 F20101110_AABTCW little_j_Page_097.txt
2ebd6406302e95c8da7dcf2a3efea3ad
a299133395f763bda0102ca0e7bcf8ae3e13306b
37423 F20101110_AABSXQ little_j_Page_050.pro
0b7eeffde51bb24e187c9202cc91cb49
84afb7cbb6f347069d0fbb9e352862171413a0a4
1909 F20101110_AABTDL little_j_Page_116.txt
1797b1676b85a997a4e9696fb18717c8
801fbb2a421c1db6876207756dd0c8fd4a93ba49
39438 F20101110_AABSYG little_j_Page_073.pro
997cd3cbac369d799983d92ed44392d9
6e8516eb982d2662c2171518681dd545b3704ecc
2228 F20101110_AABTCX little_j_Page_098.txt
c6711c30897fb9bf39e04aa99bf5fbfc
11dc97c4e581a311653f8aa1b129383c85b9da2f
44251 F20101110_AABSXR little_j_Page_051.pro
d7168d45286bebc4ebc7dd14531aecfc
5a40e8130c0a823a60342c9d510bfff78d6ed64a
4564 F20101110_AABTEA little_j_Page_050thm.jpg
73bc02a3694a534c9d11d4a966d03507
8833bf1985ac84a0ca6f8ad651924f78f468b0f4
268 F20101110_AABTDM little_j_Page_117.txt
47a1b40e48788233f5936c8e69013dea
9913e5982510a96966928fc0c8d8f6a575f922da
43484 F20101110_AABSYH little_j_Page_074.pro
2252ca68782025ed9a69d964d27097d2
f5ed43a50bb1c8a575b3f595e2397b42a2fc19e5
1991 F20101110_AABTCY little_j_Page_099.txt
e5d200dfcdc31bd5393b8cc4ad8127e6
978e5387a7823171fb7338d43f1c8bba69454d4e
33935 F20101110_AABSXS little_j_Page_053.pro
1912317a44d8a0a503014f0ad8b442b4
19f1194d24950a3ed9f4af2499b49206e13f4fbc
4523 F20101110_AABTEB little_j_Page_104thm.jpg
d651dc51adbe931db6ed3125d95b3cc6
6db98c9e405f791130134ca3e70553f426eb340e
1995 F20101110_AABTDN little_j_Page_118.txt
174e53237f417686e95cc8dfe20d8162
edfa395984f6c42e63308905aca4ba13cb403989
36741 F20101110_AABSYI little_j_Page_075.pro
162cd7d987707f419663bfbe70076b89
1fdc478ebd6d1e202c7cc11a33d631bbefce556a
2354 F20101110_AABTCZ little_j_Page_100.txt
62a3d8a877ace6e1ec440608a5bd63fb
aaa7e6c064c515c9810e16e482d2c5364815c1fb
31684 F20101110_AABSXT little_j_Page_054.pro
a2558bd3d7339a6b88878d24a01ef189
87b8089138e61de5b189996bbb6ca0b18568cab0
27007 F20101110_AABTEC little_j_Page_012.QC.jpg
f7ba4ab259b2e07df7716dae1bcd49bc
bd1b1a57c000fd9cb326ac3489caeb6e35b17764
2307 F20101110_AABTDO little_j_Page_120.txt
967a572a13c2c0c5afa215800a2d6d20
3b9e9c801f9e888c618d44add624ae0522b4b3fd
52184 F20101110_AABSYJ little_j_Page_077.pro
dddbbe0f8b6c1e45cca00321e5f3ffa8
79dc166eb550b1aae3a83a99656f4aeb7e7abefd
35410 F20101110_AABSXU little_j_Page_055.pro
98622d2e6d37a013a2e07a2d479cb937
42f7945381c4d8a97b503fc0a59b56016f05d86f
20786 F20101110_AABTED little_j_Page_051.QC.jpg
b4aec7197b6116f1376832764a371fdb
459607657820da7b2087c06ec9b712427279cb6c
2092 F20101110_AABTDP little_j_Page_122.txt
60c0ac46d34a93414d9ade8ccf11e5b6
505538fb2d5f30df413f0eb4628a12277d39717a
34113 F20101110_AABSXV little_j_Page_056.pro
10119797d5b59bdd0ae9edd5759734ec
c8007c16319a78f7d1302d83cca0803593dec0ef
20617 F20101110_AABTEE little_j_Page_074.QC.jpg
4e7b08257ac75e17bf94fe38474a00cc
75a77e2ddaa4e6cf657c59e69b4988ad53197681
1746 F20101110_AABTDQ little_j_Page_009thm.jpg
1db04642abd8f260a271bd7dd9b91068
db11199a4e4eb11a716a50a5367145b8be106e26
44553 F20101110_AABSYK little_j_Page_078.pro
f0731e2b7626adb9ac31ef889b6d81e6
7579886e7fa5806e016312d15482d8cd10b843d3
42522 F20101110_AABSXW little_j_Page_057.pro
397013d878aa1aa0ba1545bedee47236
367a4ae3d896702fb4b2f2032939d52551154131
16935 F20101110_AABTEF little_j_Page_104.QC.jpg
7277544b3995bb7f636d700daab0d1bf
a4508a83430050b3216ff62182520aa0e5cf67e2
18066 F20101110_AABTDR little_j_Page_097.QC.jpg
188356c6d430923e3c9cfc732f52d199
846a886c08eee42514cec20df15792ff7b846735
41048 F20101110_AABSYL little_j_Page_080.pro
8b6cf17c180f7ff038da557e984291e2
dc222abf11eab0299758b739bd5029c3099b7404
24166 F20101110_AABSXX little_j_Page_058.pro
dae8d373c0b1526d5cc862ce0d019197
1c6884b93052e236b43345709df833ecf15ef654
607 F20101110_AABTEG little_j_Page_003thm.jpg
75d8d0e014641c05a4064e8621272d02
d373acb238f89276a28e3e6ff7d702b2d17c0b61
47518 F20101110_AABSZA little_j_Page_096.pro
3ede95e4e60df400a92c4199c13cffda
3e2f135c8f0f8c7c76695a584294888ee8993786
20318 F20101110_AABTDS little_j_Page_110.QC.jpg
406d4ba401fa000396010b0be18c03d7
a5ae9328f4fb8bb72ec217c54e300e4f034b8101
49269 F20101110_AABSYM little_j_Page_081.pro
e04e455cb821d828dabe04eab472d6c7
ff907391b3f094cea39b7649f9dacc72e918c271
38728 F20101110_AABSXY little_j_Page_061.pro
28c9789cb8975523ca678ca4446f653f
c76c9a02ec73bb649c20709d363be04492c06e71
4583 F20101110_AABTEH little_j_Page_061thm.jpg
c337b9cb05ca8192ffaf724a5db79071
5c560835d9de00988b8424893d07d61f38b2d568
54978 F20101110_AABSZB little_j_Page_098.pro
5d1e350e4652d2e77c2c7a07866bd54b
84d19eed013c0d8991574a6d984f7faa06a25335
21888 F20101110_AABTDT little_j_Page_096.QC.jpg
e10d694edc67fd2646eef14f639194f2
d1ec1e3046b4080fdf94e2960c1df58c86df2f42
28642 F20101110_AABSYN little_j_Page_082.pro
02fee3f9e012398d9c2ad9e1d166128f
10f5ce0ac158db7c0ee44ed29079efc23971b62c
33968 F20101110_AABSXZ little_j_Page_062.pro
8f938091e6717271ff98ae6402e827f5
94cece89a30305623c3562a4c3b0739147b89082
22181 F20101110_AABTEI little_j_Page_032.QC.jpg
d487d8cd0a5ae90549cd149e63b27d6d
28d38346f904c037c903e7e65e53ff600f9fd206
46242 F20101110_AABSZC little_j_Page_099.pro
2e8be8d48ec245268c83eb07d9d2f554
98bea055340e4b726b0170d9ee854ad3d6790963
35042 F20101110_AABSYO little_j_Page_083.pro
5983f1954d1ceef511ac292290190278
933675bbe1a4d451cd45b86e5a6fb20611d4c3ac
5935 F20101110_AABTEJ little_j_Page_090thm.jpg
e9ebddf2b5f02121d5d95c68b4b65eba
fcbb15da9723903706de0fde9edf0fc44e56ae53
50598 F20101110_AABSZD little_j_Page_100.pro
a6279720cdcdd213e7be08746dda59c8
826b0b447d54b7efc69407786698adcf501e366b
441 F20101110_AABTDU little_j_Page_002thm.jpg
70a6c11ac260389bbba457f50307cb46
41262e6eb5b2fee0c6711dea6deea0fe805ac6e1
45883 F20101110_AABSYP little_j_Page_084.pro
746cde365e35239caf4c5fb9d4b475c3
ac4e5ae4be824d0f719669e14c94bdda31bc6054
20309 F20101110_AABTEK little_j_Page_070.QC.jpg
aa4e64bb4f8bbe1672312dd16451a683
8051eda6b5932c9c38b4bc5d19b709c29177ee1b
50569 F20101110_AABSZE little_j_Page_101.pro
2436eb7df4338bee2d15df50f1ea8f4c
57574ea9283a9872f55075da2050147e2c797ca1
26225 F20101110_AABTDV little_j_Page_004.QC.jpg
81a0bd1795b411fbfc103a865d4314be
23823fb9c359ea95a652cc7e8715b4801ff3089f
48865 F20101110_AABSYQ little_j_Page_085.pro
ad3a71bc36a2663a2d462f882718da1a
8d2fdba35784d1bff4a92d8a1fca7cd2be1c7bad
5215 F20101110_AABTEL little_j_Page_069thm.jpg
01054ca5ad734f71578abac3360f7496
1502455377f593d199629c3f11ad3a72f1f17476
40193 F20101110_AABSZF little_j_Page_102.pro
4f8e56d5ea536398ae0f505262f50d50
58a8f5941513192c05a588fc30fe2a2bfdba59db
4962 F20101110_AABTDW little_j_Page_078thm.jpg
f698137ea7daaf211415b7be6b5901f3
9883cf5180d1e75e0898c41587e579d8c2ac05c2
40705 F20101110_AABSYR little_j_Page_086.pro
756a869ff87dedef91b4d9521aec1aba
e384fa17d7a2811a14225b2f52585fa9130e363e
6006 F20101110_AABTFA little_j_Page_092thm.jpg
98226d960d2c20838701797f8eff38eb
acc9762e8aceacd04adf37ea3c25ef62507cafba
5917 F20101110_AABTEM little_j_Page_098thm.jpg
03e1297082838ae5aadbfa5c8aa16f23
415a0835b1d5cfee9c96b2d470732736340e2081
40263 F20101110_AABSZG little_j_Page_103.pro
2cfb6b53d49283fa8e481f3755d4160f
66a388dda6c20a9bcc0a4743d5ca448ac3009e1f
16513 F20101110_AABTDX little_j_Page_056.QC.jpg
e96d64b1ac6df446de36a5fde68230ed
08b1c57c55fce854ed7c08d74040ae56a9edabf0
39531 F20101110_AABSYS little_j_Page_087.pro
272f4e01b056c9565f0e8d9bf6a6411d
a59aa04ba808595adaa78b54fb582e520914ce49
17600 F20101110_AABTFB little_j_Page_065.QC.jpg
292605cc9027e2820749ad3d20f563ca
ececbe86699d0f29212ef4049480b848820c9fe5
F20101110_AABTEN little_j_Page_013thm.jpg
3b31d443b4856099632a94b422b02672
207d34501606d1dcdff48d6c6f257d4808f8ff3a
31493 F20101110_AABSZH little_j_Page_104.pro
e3faa396912583fd8aba711f229cff1b
27ae5b292da8263afda810841dec0bd24889df7a
17372 F20101110_AABTDY little_j_Page_017.QC.jpg
ca586ce4470f0a9a2913108a3f4ce31c
0c58eb32c955c1f0b1e85af3e5f92587e30b9ad3
42836 F20101110_AABSYT little_j_Page_088.pro
22426d33e76473f03b5af02ef31c6a3b
9a5d7d8b8367610e1fef98c57ebd7233ed0ad623
23082 F20101110_AABTFC little_j_Page_100.QC.jpg
23f8eb144d3c91dd28b426d24ef7ed8a
1aa0860069a635868e8a873754cec9aaa270400d
6130 F20101110_AABTEO little_j_Page_113thm.jpg
7d879d673cf7930d9fb0da642de708bb
6acc49f3bc6b68597fce6aff1dcca04382ddd780
20989 F20101110_AABSZI little_j_Page_105.pro
edac39f74655011569af0efcad2673c5
3628d8e4b02e472e04b07e0bd31a376402ac64b4
24249 F20101110_AABTDZ little_j_Page_118.QC.jpg
0699d9480f99d696baf99c7da911189c
451765068f3055b61567e4b43fd017d0aab06470
53665 F20101110_AABSYU little_j_Page_090.pro
3e87bd7a87ccfb6b291f40daa5c131e2
c2cdf0260c99a46b625a499527dc8d0534dd6ad7
21609 F20101110_AABTFD little_j_Page_018.QC.jpg
126f34132eb2590b8358af3cfd654243
2c02c94a3aff2534bf63e3560602c873a8d6f89e
22279 F20101110_AABTEP little_j_Page_027.QC.jpg
dd4b1bbbbdeb250b74151494ee83df84
53144ffda0a7307b2315521f35347cc5b38f7ad1
40118 F20101110_AABSZJ little_j_Page_107.pro
9e9d08860ad14091ca6cf4ced11a5d9f
c553b6af684dcffefd6f1176ddd280da723a834c
19855 F20101110_AABSYV little_j_Page_091.pro
33389eb65be986daa246cdb4fb80307f
d527b5b03069d599bea0cfe85871e04a1282645d
20038 F20101110_AABTFE little_j_Page_067.QC.jpg
2a4967ec4365bec5c49a69562a1cd6cb
1e91fe91002d0a90eb039d60881a3300fb0a90f7
4119 F20101110_AABTEQ little_j_Page_062thm.jpg
753248e4ed9405777b83ac8c5e24a39d
95c62e24c5480e4d7b6329416ab002dd35aaa41a
31231 F20101110_AABSZK little_j_Page_108.pro
b3ae8c7b29767be88acff8345772dfda
cd13e769c511b6525c9cb18dcd79620373894bd0
57067 F20101110_AABSYW little_j_Page_092.pro
2da142df9a59be2812cca31d0527c68c
01e2ed1f2a99b10c669f6043c3ae05d1fe7fa0f1
13208 F20101110_AABTFF little_j_Page_116.QC.jpg
e122c519e086de767a6f319535d18233
f1c5e9193c556420dd16dc5978724cc9d22d9de1
17725 F20101110_AABTER little_j_Page_089.QC.jpg
212e6c04fa5ac520bbf0b8a41dcf46a1
53b3e3fe60e176fd0dc7b1ec09182906bb612173
42593 F20101110_AABSYX little_j_Page_093.pro
5008ac562ff28fd505d1138b984e5a9c
34cdbccc7ac81eff419e385738cd751e9bda5db1
19736 F20101110_AABTFG little_j_Page_063.QC.jpg
1efd716b0dfd5f5fb97dd7f2605fa5c7
a1c0b224d66387e5dc7000cd920553881d2ea821
6297 F20101110_AABTES little_j_Page_042.QC.jpg
ec8af6d6a25b54d81e40ba5b7a1d34a0
12dfe9231496a31da60382d3b6eaaecb5d7b3bce
46696 F20101110_AABSZL little_j_Page_111.pro
0b765ab09a098d1c846146a8bdfc1184
d95dc7288eb26a034b2a6c0e6e01b4abee456126
39587 F20101110_AABSYY little_j_Page_094.pro
8ffb56c0eafcc9ced91d9f9a8251cd7a
c1deda899460e9c403c59fe74893cc4e066df3c7
23346 F20101110_AABTFH little_j_Page_079.QC.jpg
73465f9cc8a4395394d4c2abc26f226c
3547828db30bceddc2d1385c80dd6b7ad8aa47f4
4788 F20101110_AABTET little_j_Page_107thm.jpg
c13c2437c0bf48cadc6a79e3ff80d2de
ce69fd2dadced22b0f77d0dbd9262d7f38050ea4
6791 F20101110_AABSZM little_j_Page_112.pro
44b92b8e039c5e87023b368b3a774b7f
eb0ffe047bd22bd89dc731d25c12f1fc309d3582
39023 F20101110_AABSYZ little_j_Page_095.pro
cc109f4129a498e48904c0d171954990
454096fbda55ac59bb616bd36a557fcc336d1d1c
18836 F20101110_AABTFI little_j_Page_019.QC.jpg
5129d05b93d3c8d9dc7125e8b3900e4b
401649a3237cded463035a1653e556aae4dc1a6b
19795 F20101110_AABTEU little_j_Page_102.QC.jpg
64ee4bdcf94b36281a4c34dc3c6ae96b
e9fa47a7b5a11be712bf6b09e62c05daf794e451
55947 F20101110_AABSZN little_j_Page_113.pro
eef6b1f16e278296054e2a52f8ddfa97
e002196233b4e9f1839f4480df5b67cea00687e6
16928 F20101110_AABTFJ little_j_Page_071.QC.jpg
ff3e8a4d5183d26c12b2915143a3450a
a71952a0a3f513147f1038495d73b39226d50ae4
52231 F20101110_AABSZO little_j_Page_114.pro
0b27cce8a650bf2e83b0e86084f198e2
42b4130acc0a3924244b3deda8362ce4b6a5d451
5329 F20101110_AABTFK little_j_Page_122thm.jpg
65d1e0a6b19833c8cf41a8ffb74449d5
2b9bbce3dcf08be98cb7be0a4b74c1056ab46400
4912 F20101110_AABTEV little_j_Page_066thm.jpg
5d36aff076c1211e57776f88849bddbd
d83c5e00381f246d05fa0a92d028efafac538e68
32987 F20101110_AABSZP little_j_Page_115.pro
91dd71a7ffb52125e0125152fa8fab53
6377f193a6654f0248e295d19f1eae6a4b93dc06
3776 F20101110_AABTFL little_j_Page_112.QC.jpg
a9522e3b8bc7705c8984dc48f34ce9b0
c3e34b54c9306a788fb7afa4f7900ef4afe851f1
12306 F20101110_AABTEW little_j_Page_121.QC.jpg
a297ff808590322c4c9859a52f1bac48
6e91153b9a81585f831d66fcafff21ecd8b1524d
27210 F20101110_AABSZQ little_j_Page_116.pro
3c6fd40aa927fcd004b31d63c9cd7213
cc91fddc17373e7dda7d6946de7bc69fa01adf34
4931 F20101110_AABTFM little_j_Page_049thm.jpg
086ebc1e882fe7c3a8ef1ba2af237946
cd36c2f511aaccd50d7afb4abe8e588f552a3956
5020 F20101110_AABTEX little_j_Page_070thm.jpg
ad072964b150613bf9c5f386d139b605
196b1c9c29d5d34b0c6755b8c1d184ae27d8efb8
6213 F20101110_AABSZR little_j_Page_117.pro
f6b675a9a31efc2ecb0e66a58cb56655
0bd3bc16d9776f8c8adbf2b1dc59f9728482926d
19095 F20101110_AABTGA little_j_Page_103.QC.jpg
81d64c15d19ba1864c02cba6a4a10969
aa6b3dde465deda79c2af6e663a6ba4fa8166cba
2985 F20101110_AABTFN little_j_Page_121thm.jpg
e109e1d453b001e961a4140636166046
d4f4aa340e02e7b08276fe140494793b4e5f7c79
5418 F20101110_AABTEY little_j_Page_025thm.jpg
10d2126f4224c15c27601860715607fe
7ab2ad33a598b58ed149895e1a01b355898a76cc
48377 F20101110_AABSZS little_j_Page_118.pro
3005e081d14d72ca5694043184c14564
4219f227d36cd7b808e5e41e9742d600d28e6803
24967 F20101110_AABTGB little_j_Page_020.QC.jpg
deb43b5cf519a47b5a3abfee79e362d2
4a5551586df70a9bc9ac3e7eef850668f3171df1
26227 F20101110_AABTFO little_j_Page_006.QC.jpg
07c7e47f0ca533be2a5c6f8801c42d2c
3385aa19aae0cd50ced40933af0784760a7dc107
21531 F20101110_AABTEZ little_j_Page_045.QC.jpg
154fe2c941ac2bb6f95a7477ea804ddd
e87e11739e62b42a0846910f2bc0a7f1e063bd07
52744 F20101110_AABSZT little_j_Page_119.pro
b01bb2082e978e12fd016c04ed742eb9
ce9441d34f320055bdcd9a7a3d0dba5988a7d2a1
20392 F20101110_AABTGC little_j_Page_037.QC.jpg
c88166d6454166f2abb3a33677b955b1
c604cfe5e002e41172c65204b91ca25b9725c897
14973 F20101110_AABTFP little_j_Page_082.QC.jpg
b5ae02776cef9b958486401d2d2634ce
8ba8ef72c666f4dea5a5ec8490482ae1418ca749
56325 F20101110_AABSZU little_j_Page_120.pro
ace19c35e242b2d092b45b31b0fedb48
06ffedd1e9f16aeacaafbb243af0684ed06a0293
25316 F20101110_AABTGD little_j_Page_090.QC.jpg
8c397ff288195600edba346142b207f0
4fd703e9d166b2a596f1ae10820b16477d541745
4243 F20101110_AABTFQ little_j_Page_060thm.jpg
044103854a61d8de6e7c06d460ccd062
24d707b691462518331017e74747942938862273
52038 F20101110_AABSZV little_j_Page_122.pro
082066abe5c669ce54ccc5a7651ed25b
d5ac48408173c36551625c959fb04bd4d747ee4d
5050 F20101110_AABTGE little_j_Page_036thm.jpg
5aeae6951e9c06a7054f07c81fd268e1
2974c07aebffc47cb5a97008ead3f21222417f6e
22493 F20101110_AABTFR little_j_Page_099.QC.jpg
8f48c7abaad94db1c80053a4be9af84a
e43e6d994d831379afad8e911e49c093e8b04017
412 F20101110_AABSZW little_j_Page_001.txt
ef9e51be8effb5ed4a713ab3f5a41407
b4aaf119d6ffa478c5dfcda56ea60af7eb34f307
1683 F20101110_AABTGF little_j_Page_007thm.jpg
4123f940ee3f992ed76f76b573244519
62c9334ee480b1b03d3ea1dc979a7ee050ca7148
19250 F20101110_AABTFS little_j_Page_094.QC.jpg
15d5d68038e9ef95bb28536eeb1a3b14
e5482f9d0c8f6d0041ebd281c04179abd73f1df6
92 F20101110_AABSZX little_j_Page_002.txt
dec96f57ed75c0fa66aad2e4cb683c5b
6c3b5d618124646cdabeb1522af1b531f87e3684
26437 F20101110_AABTGG little_j_Page_092.QC.jpg
ffaab17e85c4e652a78199e2a5032b48
ce881043241c8363ef9ff08a8a116fa5e2b79a99
5128 F20101110_AABTFT little_j_Page_088thm.jpg
8f497f7896a8769daf99245cf906acfc
c6d70aa2b3dc9b87e891de0bdaa43350adad6986
109 F20101110_AABSZY little_j_Page_003.txt
05b6a438d9f2c291d240ca394de18f7a
cef50078a5f5cf4d8b96e833f83adeb7b886ef4a
5315 F20101110_AABTGH little_j_Page_096thm.jpg
8e77b85aea827f425aa8f79b50ef62e5
53280a32666e8f538df9b876a221dd9aff0ffa33
4424 F20101110_AABTFU little_j_Page_017thm.jpg
240063c69819b458957e2cbe6fcfc00f
179364498dbba5569bdd5b5b177ae5cb32e512ac
2268 F20101110_AABSZZ little_j_Page_004.txt
0baaf55a1e952caacd34328b8b9362d3
cc0c29ef69f8d4a13cefbc47ba8645c3230534b0
18140 F20101110_AABTGI little_j_Page_052.QC.jpg
2ef4abecec1877ac08613d1d50f9c1c1
5ab7ad1b1c1d7b13ef8c3a27f85cd05cd0788c87
18728 F20101110_AABTFV little_j_Page_061.QC.jpg
a82aaf2c2f545d44a8198f07d2135f78
89c7fe66aa975b7593de817a567ba26603a351e4
7502 F20101110_AABTGJ little_j_Page_013.QC.jpg
f4e0ce775cb0b695b623e2c7abf7292b
db40b446631449efa8c422f789ff9d6b41b64dfe
6290 F20101110_AABTGK little_j_Page_120thm.jpg
6f623b7853afd4fa74ae675330ecc844
d5fc7999aa612a4ff7376d0634d27c8524580402
1060 F20101110_AABTFW little_j_Page_112thm.jpg
a9af0da87c4cdac6c1459a29c200f32f
35bd5a2c048343a6d04f29cba28b08f9617bac99
4822 F20101110_AABTGL little_j_Page_033thm.jpg
b64628d3c1b95af14e8a938eab561adf
b596ab7f679f90d045f4eb15827bfd5ab0111e2a
3742 F20101110_AABTFX little_j_Page_108thm.jpg
536e8fa8c03c0ec2e7ab556bbdfd6bdb
0bd8ff0c17d8c1d9ae2d35c77f1c16c442bccea8
4990 F20101110_AABTHA little_j_Page_008thm.jpg
d1053b33f7ea144ba36845a0b048affc
c906ebbd7bb762dee58d203af273c152026a4a48
17191 F20101110_AABTGM little_j_Page_083.QC.jpg
c7266c4c0c58f4ba765ccbdfb5b82b28
c4bcc76f605a45f815a86f66094178f786974a94
5716 F20101110_AABTFY little_j_Page_100thm.jpg
955adc2d732975387418005dc915a0e8
800da724ce56a4f955df8f25ac2783f16e0029e6
7111 F20101110_AABTHB little_j_Page_009.QC.jpg
56e1e1f3a2a457961b7923a454501407
5db4ad2e4dfb1573d57fe829a44681c09a3fe31c
20210 F20101110_AABTGN little_j_Page_069.QC.jpg
b2bee4c344f98a1ac356cd78dc06bdf2
52df1f1e48fab4db707a2716e6b1ecf76ed23c7c
11330 F20101110_AABTFZ little_j_Page_105.QC.jpg
49528a59d34e5366d5d32d0dbd4ab525
e7e8e07ad1628474a523772719988270c9a91f92
23374 F20101110_AABTHC little_j_Page_011.QC.jpg
2befffcb6f652b38c4780f278d1e6156
3fef8f4de29e5a841c5e29dd54d09c7092a81151
22866 F20101110_AABTGO little_j_Page_025.QC.jpg
45d3f1630f9ab7faf298463d348849c5
6c1e322bb9b879fa3a08959ebd7f07b099fc4b3c
F20101110_AABTHD little_j_Page_012thm.jpg
89655fb5124f3594fefb79d83d66a3ca
ca79bd3831db18d092ab579608e0a567e050bdfc
24895 F20101110_AABTGP little_j_Page_077.QC.jpg
d6801ef6489c35df9d207437e2d0073f
6e0b82245f649fc7b3865455c378d7dc887aec63
17528 F20101110_AABTHE little_j_Page_014.QC.jpg
948fb91831d71b20016f67c6887eb90a
c6db8ff85797de6dbeed2af85710204b7aa579d0
1305 F20101110_AABTGQ little_j_Page_117thm.jpg
abc8f6ce10c6e2fc197f76f1d6dbe804
ca8e9507d916e0e4d916f1ce56cb36f135db0af7
4327 F20101110_AABTHF little_j_Page_014thm.jpg
a5f22a5ee0a792cd859ca3d32553d0ce
d2143673beef4d7744ed8d2cd90d0c5e1baa7e9b
1271 F20101110_AABTGR little_j_Page_002.QC.jpg
73b2f1ed6c17d9ed1e1beea80f3aef1d
d57ea7b453679e1b0d7604bb452d51716ad5a7f9
17389 F20101110_AABTHG little_j_Page_015.QC.jpg
81b4ec5a3e53ea9e1c51b6a7a5384af5
93bca0d334789beba47ffdc5cb017b60a0844796
21115 F20101110_AABTGS little_j_Page_040.QC.jpg
82b8e55da965260ffd31af94399e10f2
c8904b113f906b4fc1b820a6275f6eaf50258409
4525 F20101110_AABTHH little_j_Page_015thm.jpg
e06e53947c72924ce32f90068d527d55
752f59219e4c4e494e59481698b4244465826bb1
183053 F20101110_AABTGT UFE0021671_00001.xml FULL
abdfbe9d084c026dd1549c8bc731ce1f
a31108161d18829bbf49b1ed3e6048828792f134
19117 F20101110_AABTHI little_j_Page_016.QC.jpg
31aa2e0fc446ef7640d10fb730e0945b
4e7c2929a6d92f34a1da92dd823e6d0bf7e1c4ad
6055 F20101110_AABTGU little_j_Page_001.QC.jpg
81ce788dda66110370a0aa2198f66cc6
9fef64b26c31f14430c85b7745d9997da5a38b5e
4719 F20101110_AABTHJ little_j_Page_016thm.jpg
c5b036f466907f207dc8936a055e0b04
1f9c1dc0aff79435ecabdafab5cf69c75c6360ff
1363 F20101110_AABTGV little_j_Page_003.QC.jpg
09d849b7b5b43782e00478b31213dd4b
f99582f98550db26b791efe050864283ef456bf1
4899 F20101110_AABTHK little_j_Page_018thm.jpg
123a7700acd0b88ed7daf7d196162e9d
fbe97b208782f533916aae2d1098d2d18a4a25dd
5603 F20101110_AABTGW little_j_Page_004thm.jpg
af05050447bd0c409b0597b096777dee
b382516459d9b7ae4bbfad5fc5dfb7bd38983ef3
5824 F20101110_AABTHL little_j_Page_020thm.jpg
e581db12431bb59ce002d0d483ff1ba8
5b45e9fbb2e4e5e23265c8ffc72c042190bdd0c9
5978 F20101110_AABTIA little_j_Page_031thm.jpg
71627c80d2db61d165c214e971cf1eb4
989efe19ee29f6f4a358005f7603d47ac0c66eb3
5399 F20101110_AABTHM little_j_Page_021thm.jpg
882ca471d719e43186c1c692937e2e4d
fc424edb0d3fe7f2a1d0fe3ded2ea23b17ffee62
22558 F20101110_AABTGX little_j_Page_005.QC.jpg
81a1000b08072cfccdbaa46071320d32
014902373edae63b144f9371990535e3aa82c3cc
24708 F20101110_AABTIB little_j_Page_034.QC.jpg
21520b8b814acf525acf4899cf7fb6ea
a7a228c40b6463cc668ee2cd57db3d3c27f78b3e
F20101110_AABSEL little_j_Page_030.tif
25eac8e2d4261592d227b46e17d3a94e
44b68e9c3badbb6691c81008919b284302db5771
21745 F20101110_AABTHN little_j_Page_022.QC.jpg
c76b426402af1a4d79b2febcdd555748
1fde5baff476f500b0f344c86dc31806aaf32001
4529 F20101110_AABTGY little_j_Page_005thm.jpg
97bf3e006f06c1e20fddc4003640d7b9
e6a6bbf27436661db16d977049ebf2b9fc61f822
76783 F20101110_AABSEM little_j_Page_085.jpg
efd5c4e8af64565758790e886643c664
78e1cf8c8038aee38fa527647a86a273f5887eb8
5359 F20101110_AABTHO little_j_Page_022thm.jpg
d202573672b3058ff489cc3a181376d2
6b28bff64117849f1e1596b9156d2406bd0da9d6
7010 F20101110_AABTGZ little_j_Page_007.QC.jpg
f20fcdd9dcca93bd5dfc1f5634362bd1
2b61662d225695a4a4a96290bd337b11048750bb
36378 F20101110_AABSFA little_j_Page_089.pro
e092fbe40b569712b203c770c2f88520
b7742eecc5b23ef4430796b8ab9a42b39f77f76c
5670 F20101110_AABTIC little_j_Page_034thm.jpg
b086a117d70db843c2d7b30b37fabf9a
d872ed1e07430e42bd75e6f25f6145c8eb517af3
36287 F20101110_AABSEN little_j_Page_097.pro
e9964fe31235553b8b85ce9c363ee2af
ca47fc165f62ca93e06c9b69f01a3457cb5bb37e
21453 F20101110_AABTHP little_j_Page_023.QC.jpg
64e172ee77748caa99ef171fff239645
8974f9da50fb488152c75fb1db59607941d9e9e1
F20101110_AABSFB little_j_Page_073.tif
40f75c572d3f46ffc5206eaa27c5c69a
b1bbf9d8e9bd8acee16a0cf7faa14a0d4b0514a5
21613 F20101110_AABTID little_j_Page_035.QC.jpg
3c18ca096cf9b9c652810e33b685943b
79355f7ccb12f5b84ff2c125ca2042fb01d273da
736951 F20101110_AABSEO little_j_Page_030.jp2
786a40f77cd242ab2bbc748e1625d54b
9c3919094dda3c984ea686c1f2c781d2fc8fd6bc
5040 F20101110_AABTHQ little_j_Page_023thm.jpg
d3738945b7aab10fc852a026316ccc55
9957a2f5af143ead33c2df33ab2bc88e21b1b560
F20101110_AABSFC little_j_Page_034.tif
deb00408bcce2712ef53c02f8e874789
099a12953fa9e7f9456d7e0c32318d179ba4973a
5014 F20101110_AABTIE little_j_Page_037thm.jpg
c8be60e942c94a3a41fa72c645da326f
a74dd5dca8ebdcb8caacae5898664fad6aba3fd5
22537 F20101110_AABSEP little_j_Page_008.QC.jpg
3af25e91326217cd2cc3a970ada0fe00
f6d6661c38cdd82706f999c2cfd838cf5d5a8b15
20101 F20101110_AABTHR little_j_Page_024.QC.jpg
451cdc46d9a1ef54c4b4ece6942fa61f
fa868f43bcaf293540153c60b88b9e4bd2fe32a7
65459 F20101110_AABSFD little_j_Page_086.jpg
bcd873fe5f8bf592cc9008fcdc9752b9
8d986086a2f0ba3c7820b6befc3466977c9f40cd
23331 F20101110_AABTIF little_j_Page_038.QC.jpg
9bc1adea086fdb8cdadd978beac4fa24
7ee316661006c858921a79a86b4f136310f9fc1d
23810 F20101110_AABSEQ little_j_Page_021.QC.jpg
03299f604b5eeeee1f74d2bbfc87aeec
ef3455dcce3130dbf7d1bd4703d5632d37108f01
F20101110_AABTHS little_j_Page_024thm.jpg
72735440078cda2147576e0188456d71
586255748649313c5dda3f8c0bd0fd87fb3ff353
718145 F20101110_AABSFE little_j_Page_104.jp2
e5f206f18f795f995a0d15f12faadc4d
afa65eaff287d411a27771992a1a4feeafdfd5b9
5413 F20101110_AABTIG little_j_Page_038thm.jpg
9352f0f4571e0ad95954f387f2a5326e
78a28665ec9b37284b7dd8bf8e97ec77ddeae83d
39189 F20101110_AABSER little_j_Page_066.pro
4aa18fb37b2cfc9009d7c3a78535acd3
1ba51a6f26b7c23eebdabd1dc69553526d5f59a4
2746 F20101110_AABTHT little_j_Page_026.QC.jpg
bec1b7b2aa72674e5dc802eda336af4c
2cb999b6d2ada9a9c31520b95aff91f8adf1cce1
1916 F20101110_AABSFF little_j_Page_070.txt
3553fb4717f1bb6c14ef2c37ff5b9198
97e44ddee1180c381e28a97c860c97c1e831c186
5127 F20101110_AABTIH little_j_Page_039thm.jpg
dced585238316776ed5e7eeb26820406
972baa9ef9280f09b6fbd8465d5070b8afde1592
77857 F20101110_AABSES little_j_Page_081.jpg
7c78cee459153c54da377363640236d2
21888ef0dd4cd7814cfd83c87bea58fb8ec3127e
926 F20101110_AABTHU little_j_Page_026thm.jpg
c3dd054275f934ca8bc2250b7425b6f2
b70db8e585f141561f57c94c412f68230e3913c1
23051 F20101110_AABSFG little_j_Page_121.pro
a8341c26320d4572b812d9ba98e0e0ab
9e9b54a1a2b68eb0388cece7e7c94a36f5e34677
5065 F20101110_AABTII little_j_Page_040thm.jpg
c15e60a61a79963087f0c692333b547d
b8f48d6e81cd95c85a89dfd5205fdee4fa1896c3
4491 F20101110_AABSET little_j_Page_065thm.jpg
ca6a53d2faa757e9fe6cae5b5bf6c627
01eeddb7b899c709cf6abb20e6484124654fe894
5225 F20101110_AABTHV little_j_Page_027thm.jpg
87fc42839499c622aefd83490c9cc6d6
b05f83657dc54b8ca7339a679ef8b6ddc801d8d4
885377 F20101110_AABSFH little_j_Page_019.jp2
eeac09f8d31bcb4c4cac56e506e199a6
47062f5cbd635542708b671c443fb9169126fe78
24349 F20101110_AABTIJ little_j_Page_041.QC.jpg
e5feefd1ff4d20ac5e677d5b8b1ae5aa
72c21397c9535c3013d1b0f973482537391c9056
21163 F20101110_AABSEU little_j_Page_047.QC.jpg
bb99b3c324f8ed0cc4aee5f7390b2f5d
0aa45a32cba514663ea97b0283821f67fce185a9
23420 F20101110_AABTHW little_j_Page_028.QC.jpg
6abad80896f647e2dbb2727439f2007e
de108185a1793f87eb86d1e85862727ff921f031
17181 F20101110_AABSFI little_j_Page_055.QC.jpg
d2a7bdfe8ce2f23764c862db3f59ca6f
105f383d1d2c68b51e9c4560430bb7e758724baa
1551 F20101110_AABTIK little_j_Page_042thm.jpg
00d9108e5e849b8d735afa1b4a7dd40f
65fe6805722ee47caccd8dfa4ec670d05c24b46d
1884 F20101110_AABSEV little_j_Page_016.txt
287a87eb459dde0fe8b980d562ba0863
94776ee2585f39a1740121513610ad27c7ede1b1
5454 F20101110_AABTHX little_j_Page_028thm.jpg
71bb1614566d30479c5c382eb30ffba6
2cc8867b117b69828f857f231d983c08d1b20308
55975 F20101110_AABSFJ little_j_Page_076.pro
7f70da66f935e513954112c9a5344dc3
ce90241bf0f863bb803a9d605f112b4cee65d7e6
5354 F20101110_AABTIL little_j_Page_043thm.jpg
4f2facaa77f0570d017ed86447536718
0d076c46cfd7f45695cc44db9278517f7667dd2e
4083 F20101110_AABTJA little_j_Page_054thm.jpg
b22f52c16ce19aa7ac17a0777cef7cfe
d75d5a161a4a230f206059d3539865e0f703788b
839 F20101110_AABSFK little_j_Page_105.txt
ab970efb9f2a006f50e2aad623eba2ae
844ddd127612237a8efc9a1001671115f3f1d49b
17640 F20101110_AABTIM little_j_Page_044.QC.jpg
e6cb8b36eb4f19ecfcfa420b98122ec0
dd9bb0ea3ee3eba07b8150b36fd9550175fcfb43
4111 F20101110_AABTJB little_j_Page_056thm.jpg
7ade9f92455ce5c76d3373f46073f80a
115b13dea11a1f3d22534e0880966d3e703b1040
26601 F20101110_AABSEW little_j_Page_010.QC.jpg
d34eb701ca60757bc1c6fc61aa276687
3932b4f9ff4547e928620565f339b21d5df4d4e2
21819 F20101110_AABTHY little_j_Page_029.QC.jpg
9f0d5ee4fcd7028fc7b335c6194b22a3
11ff6b4babda4a1dab98e9bb8906f88f02b76607
F20101110_AABSFL little_j_Page_029.txt
5f60d0db1ca96296314f37585258a5ab
f57b96a440efc25938ba5071bb11a5a547bf8fab
4944 F20101110_AABTIN little_j_Page_044thm.jpg
9a5d85a28d9799f37ebeca6e40d86a83
46f9c8f4a5845267452b330f7d5471aae6ba44f5
19794 F20101110_AABTJC little_j_Page_057.QC.jpg
9169fa21f5e8aa2ad050c9a24c713d37
4388f063fb0c678874f6d777c4d8d19674b6a1bc
48406 F20101110_AABSEX little_j_Page_011.pro
553af12da2ce283233bf8bb4e1683e98
401249a3cfda815e375f3e5e747ebce7e7e1196e
5307 F20101110_AABTHZ little_j_Page_029thm.jpg
8afce18f67e740d58d81d7fc9469caa1
5fa3dfcd19b49fa9a381357ebcb207da8f1d5acf
19723 F20101110_AABSGA little_j_Page_078.QC.jpg
60472426df100ee1f6064779407d1d45
427dc00dcfb1c4a72ec097fc44fa7d7e8041ba1d
2119 F20101110_AABSFM little_j_Page_085.txt
c45e03d47cb5775486542d27ee1ca79a
a7c4842567156d1b71c27c68d17b5c49ee419699
5032 F20101110_AABTIO little_j_Page_045thm.jpg
a42aaba53e0ab8b36e28f49191fc8bb4
765d607f76c029535dde1e1c37f95ce9e5fc29e2
4592 F20101110_AABTJD little_j_Page_057thm.jpg
2bde51328c3631438860f0fe20c6beec
03cef51e72da86974e3c4a4d15df31e7cd14b4ea
76968 F20101110_AABSEY little_j_Page_100.jpg
d1aa6031f862d62ddce9e62c997a4d12
9924410859b8427c62b54d9be6f9316e30bb0b04
1732 F20101110_AABSGB little_j_Page_052.txt
e2ecb5949db6301d36c59d554d73e5f4
bdc2252071c56dc6f32bfd56c80f317805e5fdf7
3692 F20101110_AABSFN little_j_Page_064thm.jpg
972ec3fbc58f3ad1a2c0144759679d00
1fa22ce0c19abc8223c72bc7990e4cd175aaa9cd
11598 F20101110_AABTIP little_j_Page_046.QC.jpg
f8c788d437c68c205682f7828a9cb671
249d09f71e53322abbc74dfaa061191b93392619
11901 F20101110_AABTJE little_j_Page_058.QC.jpg
1218004150b9b4429ddf3ddf09494f78
ad72ac1cd6a430d9bd79086efe6c6266e7e96fad
1051974 F20101110_AABSEZ little_j_Page_113.jp2
a8bbca20b7145856f1a910b405604940
8fecbe850d2cb8a8f8dfe8b9e133b2a320552bfc
3474 F20101110_AABSGC little_j_Page_026.pro
46ae5a2260d8826526d7eb5d27889d65
fb04fd5633a0090e83c52908b537fcb4188764a0
47318 F20101110_AABSFO little_j_Page_106.pro
ff6b237787fd45d55ae3ed4324d5606b
2f109901fda4dbc3e6cc456a11ebe8474560febb
3206 F20101110_AABTIQ little_j_Page_046thm.jpg
bc63b3232e7a447efd5fa3ae50b0be52
3024d4989531d0cb529bdf2ff4dac0693b215d33
2922 F20101110_AABTJF little_j_Page_058thm.jpg
0d16bbc7b65278ea8174c6adf8d4216e
1ae32a811a3f8eef4b0cf96f8ea277d3d24dfffd
5118 F20101110_AABTIR little_j_Page_047thm.jpg
4d3ad4fe27178d6835e7e737db36c916
94a0eb7655e7097e1a070b0c2f43586a333b8088
F20101110_AABSGD little_j_Page_060.tif
d7b67149c904483d8e3145dbbd68505a
84fdb21482967a3609dfd59893803aca3d567f4f
41820 F20101110_AABSFP little_j_Page_116.jpg
96523b7f85bd6e4b23bb64fca8fced7a
81a446a629057d9c25344b34d94e3c424fc4ae58
4896 F20101110_AABTJG little_j_Page_059thm.jpg
87e466b659e9ecdb6ffca6af9e6c112d
52dc9655b354023b9cebbe79471d2bf7e13399aa
20278 F20101110_AABTIS little_j_Page_048.QC.jpg
37de4d24506f28d5dc2d175a8d4679be
5ea28e84dded5d3227ab009e0b779062caf185aa
1918 F20101110_AABSGE little_j_Page_032.txt
66ebae4c1b0125312471d3d71b0d639b
767e183eec06d5da4ffab4554e53373eb0237240
46441 F20101110_AABSFQ little_j_Page_029.pro
7e1b0ea289b9b76f7c1804680b0b9c74
95310817da081b3b45eec38eb31a7928d821bd0d
17313 F20101110_AABTJH little_j_Page_060.QC.jpg
06af341226ae7d509320983304ae7173
30b064d131587e5d78d1ab368c804f34d6452c3e
5033 F20101110_AABTIT little_j_Page_048thm.jpg
44e8095631dba0878e1092ca7b51ba88
7681d369e9bdefd3b38adfb9f05a45950ced1919
F20101110_AABSGF little_j_Page_092.tif
c678b2231fdc57df032160729bb377d6
d8dc1f836305e8a9919f79dc1a11dbb49bb91dfa
898283 F20101110_AABSFR little_j_Page_109.jp2
0085150c1670c117e9689d16b20f0fdf
0062b8f2d61faa0fb7fc7cf022237321294e5a18
16537 F20101110_AABTJI little_j_Page_062.QC.jpg
2a7f13fcbb5f1efe4e1c5fa3e420cc3a
06777f1226c1156572fe6960ab8b5cd9b22fd457
20451 F20101110_AABTIU little_j_Page_049.QC.jpg
28a6bc0b04ff1d25be9be8388cfe76e0
16f4d5176aa7ef8b6e4395d0f7fb43eb693545b0
2173 F20101110_AABSGG little_j_Page_101.txt
5d65648b059f8027ef2d724dbcfd7b07
ed95c837d834f5fe190788b6c7c2d9a39c1a8a7b
824165 F20101110_AABSFS little_j_Page_052.jp2
d517780898b47872d28b9d4befa3fc7c
c2ad283af87a33256449913c056d6d03fd102b85
14664 F20101110_AABTJJ little_j_Page_064.QC.jpg
ed1caf0596616771e06011b8ce1bf354
51212bd351bde9cb6641eed70fb76d578bf37518
18168 F20101110_AABTIV little_j_Page_050.QC.jpg
3eb503abed34317799fe4fca4e261131
91b89c66de8bd0b001a4de1bbf66e3f0a859ccd6
22362 F20101110_AABSGH little_j_Page_043.QC.jpg
edc8f64c16b6bbba7fda9db705ce124a
c2986873f2694fd8cd940146d95671d4d926fb8e
1051969 F20101110_AABSFT little_j_Page_012.jp2
5f434dad1f025ce4c736b5b7b06225e6
ad2dc7f441eb90b98adb2ae51ca4037ae21786e8
4734 F20101110_AABTJK little_j_Page_067thm.jpg
a16be2290d341d4d282f10d5490f998a
cbadfd7f9fe0afec26b3c86e1d6bdc6db9ec720c
4847 F20101110_AABTIW little_j_Page_052thm.jpg
cd91a259e2f1ad2761277f3071eb4211
9881c73086f5f6ea35e006d73568ea2e7c180098
938 F20101110_AABSGI little_j_Page_121.txt
d1c2b5ee98aa6c1b319a3b654410a04f
57e78fbabaff30c924be8120ef035fc4de843cdc
F20101110_AABSFU little_j_Page_088.tif
5a6cca3a8611caa5059d880c8fb9c990
a2fe9c9b1f002c595c7c789562332cf9a96cecfc
16033 F20101110_AABTJL little_j_Page_068.QC.jpg
7b2f79d1c9e3369a12bec03011ae10cf
831deb9d1b7f42e6438fb65a3a96245c736ebc52
16137 F20101110_AABTIX little_j_Page_053.QC.jpg
61d4ac827b74e58d45bc17c387a35c16
ceee25e58c2a9131fe5adf3316dd94521cda0a89
5705 F20101110_AABSGJ little_j_Page_077thm.jpg
616819246b60c04c4aa8dedab1e797fe
4e6afbe490c1535d2a8d7cf332b0845727032d2c
47633 F20101110_AABSFV little_j_Page_079.pro
526eef98fef4ceb51fdf04c462f68157
4a1e090a342c56b0a1b56f4486d4ea7a48a3ac95
F20101110_AABTKA little_j_Page_085thm.jpg
60cf35f978c3bd8b63c5d7c33aa72b8d
95271f12f3c9b9294bafdb70c300bf8a129e5a39
4133 F20101110_AABTJM little_j_Page_068thm.jpg
65b631d2b5014aa55c115bb57d0449ec
e58c43727bf57692bd34f39af5b5f0a131279a48
4325 F20101110_AABTIY little_j_Page_053thm.jpg
67d201f8d2ca22efe5da59785d1a725b
a459bd6d1eb3472b6963b2c8dc403b79e5cdac6a
33367 F20101110_AABSGK little_j_Page_068.pro
891663637b82acfc0b77d59098b18547
8cf2a57845742b6f7f2409a9912a810f48511609
1388 F20101110_AABSFW little_j_Page_001thm.jpg
98cb0f6f7eef5009c9bc1972ccfab317
40779b8edb68940eef7469006d58d41652e093aa
20085 F20101110_AABTKB little_j_Page_086.QC.jpg
67e12e82c0b45e19fb2575ee56fc6d65
e23da522f1625fc2a991b8908922303023782da1
4376 F20101110_AABTJN little_j_Page_071thm.jpg
6dd064f3cf7f585c2767d0154ab66de9
6934389fd26927c69efd145ff200a49e76eb68ec
1827 F20101110_AABSGL little_j_Page_067.txt
5b2115325ced186ae84d7310f7f4e40b
2cdd76b024bcb83082cecf545b98cb477535a81c
4922 F20101110_AABTKC little_j_Page_086thm.jpg
0725f31395ea951a4113461b7aabbed2
00a188cd0b5f679d287b1199acad33280dee41c4
21423 F20101110_AABTJO little_j_Page_072.QC.jpg
00bb95747008ad562e69d8590fe2101d
f302f59897f76c30c4d53598daebc0e9ec7c8a0b
16221 F20101110_AABTIZ little_j_Page_054.QC.jpg
853d4c920640ef51ab06e0716d3366cc
0c2d75461c0144469e4e01f23c35655f9eb99fa4
4715 F20101110_AABSHA little_j_Page_019thm.jpg
c69c7077a530093e96c777a74e6499c8
ee6a7676392e4b70cc42f70d655e3acce6f3bcba
F20101110_AABSGM little_j_Page_080.tif
5b7786f750426e5aede61b0e4479b7bc
61a582d395c718caf0f05c5f19c724b0e8b9f1bb
F20101110_AABSFX little_j_Page_120.tif
a2212fad77973fe3ad4d6572a3e37ef4
490d041ceea4cda71682b946f7505fd703b2893f
18489 F20101110_AABTKD little_j_Page_087.QC.jpg
0af3213a27a9e353dcde19c566ea0785
c2dd09073a214e4557855ca82026525821b959cb
5274 F20101110_AABTJP little_j_Page_072thm.jpg
923cdce63e2200f5bf025c5020e91eee
67d047e10b57edae1e3c30f35401c10548b074cd
5422 F20101110_AABSHB little_j_Page_101thm.jpg
fc714f8e97caa04e8167d73cf9ab52c3
e06dced16ad9075692047342c5921a2504e75291
856624 F20101110_AABSGN little_j_Page_102.jp2
184b312e13694ccbca399635cf8269c9
82e2600fca5e7fba2de1f898ec0ded406beb14f4
45599 F20101110_AABSFY little_j_Page_072.pro
5f2a275f8a2f43dc530c1a6502fc68b1
77f1481ee83d2eecb64b41be4a0a91a2a3ccfa86
4589 F20101110_AABTKE little_j_Page_087thm.jpg
b6a222c0cf17939898b826f9e8a7f051
2845f43270a6eb4491ac5507acec64e955acfaa3
18808 F20101110_AABTJQ little_j_Page_073.QC.jpg
3206e59e5f2212b2e86619ad0d984237
659eb39c39f4d870b151f8560ed4544899e17747
3901 F20101110_AABSHC little_j_Page_082thm.jpg
9ccd6a95291852ac061be01efe2e1d73
143855f4f24422a6ec362ed3bf010e8cd6c0f34d
19741 F20101110_AABSGO little_j_Page_033.QC.jpg
5cba531071e5fa857bfea5717347582e
dc9f97332ff0c84b75f2d3159259f6594478d16a
F20101110_AABSFZ little_j_Page_050.tif
f21e06aef431d4615e36c387cd5357bd
1d4c2d957411e77a2db388b9c06b33d8a2116f8f
20823 F20101110_AABTKF little_j_Page_088.QC.jpg
3ffa788d19626507ed4e0adc71d80499
e40c64cd837bf27dc94a6b2fcabef8e482200fa8
19018 F20101110_AABTJR little_j_Page_075.QC.jpg
f0750c422fa6ba682b80175b84ddefa1
710b8a49aa5a45d95701f3b0f2b4b42d641ccaae
F20101110_AABSHD little_j_Page_037.tif
61f35908c68e71ba5d8c14d29d019c36
6178288d608303ce300610f95008941b8b9768b5
1890 F20101110_AABSGP little_j_Page_057.txt
940e0b8b159fa47bc093ab7bccc672fa
52a9908440396cd4539f13b2e4cd36200c022d82
4772 F20101110_AABTKG little_j_Page_089thm.jpg
73f2243b8d3b8ce5c49f6ae334326470
f28a5c6488a9e2aadc4c2235226eaf51a7eb6568
4867 F20101110_AABTJS little_j_Page_075thm.jpg
d5e05e56529fe4eab9e7b0098ade2a3d
3e35c3c4060ebdfe0d7b4de1a7451428232b1440
F20101110_AABSHE little_j_Page_002.tif
4cda02ef98212ba9a417d092d8d110f0
8b05008cdfb237be32817510adf3892080e753d3
1051892 F20101110_AABSGQ little_j_Page_100.jp2
e1ff29f7f1ed5793d022a9ccf0007830
7cee6648982b5d9ba922f55f86f8b42a538a4a10
10056 F20101110_AABTKH little_j_Page_091.QC.jpg
177bab178c7827f955cc0e3bfa8beb93
f61ee331fa154193bcca078d564e40a9a36e3457
5865 F20101110_AABTJT little_j_Page_076thm.jpg
bf72c2230453feb10bed48b9cffd6483
d7565d882a3233a5ca8e696e1f9a96c013e577ec
F20101110_AABSHF little_j_Page_020.tif
ded3bb770c69a9bee601ff51a0e3dcbb
e6947c2a1c2b3e721169a7b1a62a2dd748a4b790
757771 F20101110_AABSGR little_j_Page_083.jp2
d15bd3f7171667fdfcc4ce2913cf4e03
55e6f9f81945eef03fd65b77363ae933fbef0576
F20101110_AABTKI little_j_Page_091thm.jpg
61b4d6bf31378da05545f5d09376d17e
b5b024c04af471a85741ee664e96f019ad630c6d
5517 F20101110_AABTJU little_j_Page_079thm.jpg
4da37334722df498e25f60ee1e2d2619
1e7f8bd7bbda2b6116c7f65a375bc17a0e77aa6e
22170 F20101110_AABSHG little_j_Page_111.QC.jpg
8d9e11dad157c261167bc27dbce0df5a
f1fb8cfcf213077c8a0e640b162a331c64b64e91
272 F20101110_AABSGS little_j_Page_112.txt
dc1603c7552e27dd91d09506fae9b68e
297dfbc0846ccebaea49428cfa031b1b078f330e
20792 F20101110_AABTKJ little_j_Page_093.QC.jpg
39107a20bf147e41f18d750fde6c84e5
a93b8ea737baa69b280603a0a3a06029ab4044b6
23079 F20101110_AABTJV little_j_Page_081.QC.jpg
3653d4bef0695d4b64c4a04bec642f4d
a303d7e9e482e28d8b067059c76bd45678f48b1d
F20101110_AABSHH little_j_Page_074.tif
a13bbde6f2b0d84665f4838f0f970181
3edd72183bb840d67c85dd17f22620d70f8b3776
75971 F20101110_AABSGT little_j_Page_099.jpg
6c387e0d0ca26887e6cf59ce4e188a63
3c637d413e3418007f7e8b7a14517b6faaf6a1d3
4794 F20101110_AABTKK little_j_Page_093thm.jpg
4a5c53382f5cdff98714b68d4587db5b
538c3e9569217df0a04d0b7e261efb335cf0c62b
5562 F20101110_AABTJW little_j_Page_081thm.jpg
d17733d8085505e268a865fa8d70a402
5b1762c77c92cc0f83f3f327740ce8a838bba8d4
2110 F20101110_AABSHI little_j_Page_106.txt
64eee9be5a1dcba5bdc3d200b220031f
e6605e8b11e69da25ab05557ff030f9cedb23c53
F20101110_AABSGU little_j_Page_031.jp2
79b786cba1988c77ca90f69db5c8d51d
2705b07499f2e56a4c9e85ef74775b4fd5f1a060
4540 F20101110_AABTKL little_j_Page_094thm.jpg
2ffab5cc4417b4f57e706244d22d5a04
5537632a48c9f0c7df08f8871894036da6740d9a
4393 F20101110_AABTJX little_j_Page_083thm.jpg
2021fa56d153995e3687993e0cbfcb8e
5c172c8a459d947ee10f86728d630af9142bdec9
5120 F20101110_AABSHJ little_j_Page_032thm.jpg
7c753d47cb168b6f171ae1260314e9cc
f7cb8336c7b06292c9fb2b34ffb5b1c4adb656a0
2124 F20101110_AABSGV little_j_Page_119.txt
e4795ba79cb126d011889324d272301f
206083d0e1ff16de85ac7b41c32e9fc77b19bdc7
4978 F20101110_AABTLA little_j_Page_110thm.jpg
bfe51e5209f297b9ce9743faba1f8b23
8fcb483c6ca0050d9b72ab0ea163b20e84a0b726
17005 F20101110_AABTKM little_j_Page_095.QC.jpg
af30eb042ee5e698744716b28b56bb27
dca6f45c7cc36fe0cbc209ff8ed3ec67a95820df
5438 F20101110_AABTJY little_j_Page_084thm.jpg
2e70e5b24fbd4c43230bc9b38b31ec6b
a3434cd2e9763b8f7fb8bd1d5a5a5621987979ed
43465 F20101110_AABSHK little_j_Page_045.pro
ba48af5f17ed9e7fd1efa86e4c2762da
9b010bb3bed39747ee6f378f06220bb74a417d0c
83744 F20101110_AABSGW little_j_Page_020.jpg
3ceb4f34ebfc209c87c2d7ac2b4033d4
6954ada31eacee6ae4cdedee4de7187dff5ec5dc
5256 F20101110_AABTLB little_j_Page_111thm.jpg
838b49e352667d64a14363d1f3b2a622
e8d39a68c554cc11c94f7f9fb5c9547a45865798
4500 F20101110_AABTKN little_j_Page_095thm.jpg
244e06cc19fc807dbe581115dfe99a0a
7154715cad0d0b3a2c3a4405d216ee1c3c3c9168
23161 F20101110_AABTJZ little_j_Page_085.QC.jpg
6dd181bd3666684d0f4b65380357d408
cfaa5c4f42b69ddcfa148362d6f9d5fce485ac79
21876 F20101110_AABSHL little_j_Page_084.QC.jpg
7430d3ccc4b0e32ecb74164bd51947fa
453f561241c855fb7814edc7957a4a22607e7985
1349 F20101110_AABSGX little_j_Page_068.txt
9357abe795a7e4ac913cfaf7fb5864cb
3794ce26812463b42940faa5cbde733ce931ff58
26629 F20101110_AABTLC little_j_Page_113.QC.jpg
1a4578eea1b43d2423361c26e302d4d3
92b1b7d021609a08c010917f256e159790feeb85
4549 F20101110_AABTKO little_j_Page_097thm.jpg
4f95ebf58834e5643b64d1d1f645842b
cc0e28693d11bf04457f14cb17b6a31067639dc0
16725 F20101110_AABSHM little_j_Page_030.QC.jpg
1e5dd9b0852a359f101c7911daec2b64
43781d552d9fa26781397892fd2ff389e7d9f207
69736 F20101110_AABSIA little_j_Page_088.jpg
df8bf5f382b1fa4d3bd3e0d47d493114
ba7cc529f8e3321298590e3203c5bae8498ac658
24780 F20101110_AABTLD little_j_Page_114.QC.jpg
7bcc1a98f64b5a708a3ee55abf4880c4
9795a0b51453d1b433ec19bfdca54155d9e4769d
25473 F20101110_AABTKP little_j_Page_098.QC.jpg
467bcde90e3bc63e2988451e3770bc2b
eb951abc47c11799f7c0258fb8aa80a96e110eb6
F20101110_AABSHN little_j_Page_116.tif
85d60fafbc82152916bc984d8a8e5331
4809ae649027f58922cda566ad9e8763e8aea127
471687 F20101110_AABSGY little_j_Page_046.jp2
c447fcfc5c6677e49f6bf9ffc0a90431
d9d67c936b0ca62b0b4e9182d4eea512d4cc7762
925953 F20101110_AABSIB little_j_Page_088.jp2
a3bdf9e0694c8ee760c63369678115c5
dbc658dce6a1cd44bc86650cab74a0dd69fb3b71
5621 F20101110_AABTLE little_j_Page_114thm.jpg
2bc570c2c0ec091caf0e5d1aee10ce4d
3b85cd272dea8595629bccf166a1ac3217faf02b
5445 F20101110_AABTKQ little_j_Page_099thm.jpg
354b027534812838472801535fb917a6
c6a4c3af0156837865d6523d984ce79d99790620
F20101110_AABSHO little_j_Page_023.tif
ccfaa42dcd246889ae43e9fc94118e63
81f7ef72dd67471d2a7b58f73feef0fb95d1e1a9
5985 F20101110_AABSGZ little_j_Page_010thm.jpg
8220878d0965bf414e7798485d6b466e
f44f00a94b906f588c7dfc3894ee020fc123507e
1051983 F20101110_AABSIC little_j_Page_101.jp2
edf84cd3b70559eb764f15e0c8e9a783
e7565a5415e5c13df030a409790942c7cacd30dc
16341 F20101110_AABTLF little_j_Page_115.QC.jpg
79ef703d7e3c1a6af642e6b6163321e4
2f174b5406487d9a56239d5911a0946c3c840432
4654 F20101110_AABTKR little_j_Page_102thm.jpg
a26e96a29ee78ef02214250a97ea16c6
5814cf3154281bc4821641c12402083b764b5468
F20101110_AABSHP little_j_Page_059.QC.jpg
80bad710d08a9bcfcb4b36e803f9abf0
caa15f79040ecac9ab62ca011bb4f32590e8ebea
F20101110_AABSID little_j_Page_074thm.jpg
6180b5bc3c550363e6f146861d35025a
6a6793ca914a30e9db4af586bc038c065f2bd793
3534 F20101110_AABTLG little_j_Page_115thm.jpg
ca3fb4faf145feba6246ece51856f973
a5e2a72c9ae59bfcf7fcc899aaaf145baaa5bdde
4910 F20101110_AABTKS little_j_Page_103thm.jpg
92da197eadd2d77f4ee222e277d9f6ba
f8df8a773416724036c07d284158a1df747e0690
66492 F20101110_AABSIE little_j_Page_024.jpg
783f6b15dcd029a0c7caead322036f6e
be5eb8c63a59a17c1d59f38ceb8d46bd663eb2f1
60434 F20101110_AABSHQ little_j_Page_095.jpg
0d1e297870b75dbe35eded31bf115cef
d8338d94e5108fbb9098e8013fc4ca880c3a410d
3629 F20101110_AABTLH little_j_Page_116thm.jpg
06384311274354cea2243070f33b6fcb
a0c6427f7a147cc3329480e958b6d3be259b70ad
2720 F20101110_AABTKT little_j_Page_105thm.jpg
5116b6612479d8ce003812bfcfbe21a7
ff81f2c23e42fa8e5a0a3fde17c4af11d25b73d9
20349 F20101110_AABSIF little_j_Page_036.QC.jpg
c3b0e07b1ddc7c8a36e59968bafb9a12
88d55d3681be1ed6503fc3e69f2c3caa4b12d2f6
42191 F20101110_AABSHR little_j_Page_109.pro
0c152b0ca7d356ac5dea8f443cdc1184
f4dd3f26d883adb445cbe29b1c29c6f68369d0df
3657 F20101110_AABTLI little_j_Page_117.QC.jpg
09e23d78f9da182259fb1ab1ff526ecd
dfce1db7e1f3a1dffc66c72df4c7d92d0f55657c
20968 F20101110_AABTKU little_j_Page_106.QC.jpg
9ae13e2aa2b7edc5a501c0cd1d374d44
1c6d818dc94aff45a124accc90ed96c709c7ed8a
63027 F20101110_AABSIG little_j_Page_103.jpg
b37cdc59626c3ebb0ce0fc48b44bc94f
f840cb64096bfdee6138474ec00a1ad08dbc8961
2030 F20101110_AABSHS little_j_Page_036.txt
dcbb118a21e6ab808c10a8fbe5084d11
5c349d4e7c66dcb8ff02985262b1c99f7c248ec8
5840 F20101110_AABTLJ little_j_Page_118thm.jpg
a567d744ed5d191ad8696d4cd3fbeaff
ee476e72af8b72819ae29c6e6096a955a13297f0
5026 F20101110_AABTKV little_j_Page_106thm.jpg
3b05dd3398ca3a3da0f86ae8fdf4cacd
e2a4d5b09253a3e03f497d45cddf0f049f01bd97
941116 F20101110_AABSIH little_j_Page_051.jp2
d9a74ff23b4f74fdff5fd9627f01636d
3168735cc5090c32570050dc885991c520a6da0d
42057 F20101110_AABSHT little_j_Page_015.pro
0dffef1072416f52395ad68adec65435
6c3b81fc4ccbb1bd1589edc70b1eb4bef2f8aff6
26039 F20101110_AABTLK little_j_Page_120.QC.jpg
b56e95195b411a0080650e94221c50da
8a83ccdacfec63b97a6434d5a7649a88c9d8923b
19473 F20101110_AABTKW little_j_Page_107.QC.jpg
bb270fed180762181904ab37b786647f
a64f0809eb0992a4fe01a91714b76d61cf4f842a
59614 F20101110_AABSII little_j_Page_061.jpg
b415101e6cd8e7b3a54aa861ed4abcdb
f394f940cc8200ade1713f9c5a5311fa6a2e540e
1650 F20101110_AABSHU little_j_Page_014.txt
3dbb64d1fb7afcff5de9de828db3806a
2aced17c39a0b9991b649ea2822d1e55e50d92de
24969 F20101110_AABTLL little_j_Page_122.QC.jpg
2d08610248fc85372254bf85a8357b32
78111a6aaf8e13f8142bf75cb3498381766f08f9
14637 F20101110_AABTKX little_j_Page_108.QC.jpg
c808ddc9fc1e0b13e4d305daa257da36
a494586940c5a690b6fd905518294f9d57b68154
840827 F20101110_AABSIJ little_j_Page_066.jp2
cc8bc2996ab7e3f6ea0b2a8fbbd77e40
1a2471e66694f0e19a233e360f9501728f97fa8f
4343 F20101110_AABSHV little_j_Page_073thm.jpg
8841380cbe58a26f0dc0b60bbb407062
cbd7410a78d4712e29253c782b2d2669c9c2797d
19864 F20101110_AABTKY little_j_Page_109.QC.jpg
7fe3eb3f8d3c02139dc4c67baaffcdf1
c64b2f6bbcc2676bdba38ce11eeba584ce1f3657
F20101110_AABSIK little_j_Page_063.tif
06ca7bf26c3ed434693fd97bf8105cc8
165cb440295b7ddbe5080f48f52c507f52454ec9
38445 F20101110_AABSHW little_j_Page_052.pro
dd7c2381e8ed34f3a452752617f715ee
d0ea4de473bc238dcc966550f859fee43de66103
4773 F20101110_AABTKZ little_j_Page_109thm.jpg
7ef735c95e8ea4e3959c710d011e3deb
5b3f278562793ce1485a4e5632e6f657bc37993e
2056 F20101110_AABSIL little_j_Page_081.txt
0ef2021026c5496fba8ed80b070023ad
95a4310e0303d37050363f621f50c06817be7ac6
43562 F20101110_AABSHX little_j_Page_110.pro
d7a2705b715cea6f8dbd40c4ee71966c
fd64daf90681c7cbe38812bc4cd300fdb4faa8f0
26725 F20101110_AABSJA little_j_Page_076.QC.jpg
39846f575efbbac1da0bcc12ee9b9849
c7f089c36cb7af3bc294500dad543fbb1df59220
F20101110_AABSIM little_j_Page_076.tif
a5dca22271b5f2c68f0f9df11a1a21e1
a0d2bb2243c0a5b62594c833bdbad7c3602c99ce
63047 F20101110_AABSHY little_j_Page_073.jpg
0371976e8dcb2a6463df136a0c25948c
f9e58df711f58bd0255ff9f3e964955b7e17bf81
F20101110_AABSJB little_j_Page_006.jp2
8e440c67032c19378df7771188199e32
b9008a96e4ef26360a55783c2886a557f18393d9
1051934 F20101110_AABSIN little_j_Page_118.jp2
3e8609156d1e4d11ba4cca4bfb5d5fb1
4575a9cc4b0c984dbfcfb8bda0b50652b90c69b2
48540 F20101110_AABSJC little_j_Page_025.pro
f00ed3cbeacafa378d3fc49fb56650ce
0f8677ad4995e0e69b0f658459104c6e7db43b41
4502 F20101110_AABSIO little_j_Page_030thm.jpg
6f99d93edcdf7aef853562b2520c0584
b0b7aedb2f95f536afaf289ce4134bfe78effa12
F20101110_AABSHZ little_j_Page_098.tif
dcaeb24396ff6da46985c4a0d613eaed
5fc1851614cdb323081c8d86911560175043ba5b
909074 F20101110_AABSJD little_j_Page_110.jp2
21d5916e864e41f7849d42fe1bae59b9
8485ac9dfe2bfb6d71f6d23c286975a37058318f
5144 F20101110_AABSIP little_j_Page_035thm.jpg
7f389e2019918f2cd4d6bcdf8eef8963
e9be928cf7e55620d2d12747f47cf9c304b2f04e
F20101110_AABSJE little_j_Page_047.tif
6cd1700ebbc5dcfa7ebc2782e95be5eb
cd6616f7788136a2a5c8e074ac54baace5b77def
42316 F20101110_AABSIQ little_j_Page_069.pro
5cd60a0ce88626980fb71ad4504b14b6
de6c4f0c5742818a31651de34c114e5d74dd7c75
5345 F20101110_AABSJF little_j_Page_051thm.jpg
d54e92d86e35b1b96a0a4aec0cadf30b
82b49362c1290013f3393b93de75ff04c0a00da2
478962 F20101110_AABSIR little_j_Page_105.jp2
355f4b8d1e8a9e17a7d9f89d20eb3d2b
2dfd4dd0c6e318eaa6e3e8f3420a6fde390174ec
18750 F20101110_AABSJG little_j_Page_066.QC.jpg
8c68d541e72f2ce2ab5388d8bd795a13
9d0276b9e748a94b3e702937d1330077d0c655d2
72756 F20101110_AABSIS little_j_Page_025.jpg
38c916a54ed8a97e2e91eca3edf4c3f9
188db05cd9e41c0d8faa862d4854702f2b2c47bf
789 F20101110_AABSJH little_j_Page_091.txt
1f27dba63d3debbfd53f465fbe6bcc25
6b84934435f127342d216162b8d6732911251bf4
18673 F20101110_AABSIT little_j_Page_080.QC.jpg
4c7f27b4bc0322ca709c72a870b0db99
e2c80a8b06dbadd0e5d7c6f27aac57326a19a3b3
4337 F20101110_AABSJI little_j_Page_055thm.jpg
11a4f71660590eb54c3ad7fed83ff703
6675172aa3c509b3ad49ea0a1a3b51f6e240c6eb
942783 F20101110_AABSIU little_j_Page_093.jp2
d277af9520455ced4374f768b951c726
0f7fbb1bdcb48849bb2adbf63c434d201047b5e5
64102 F20101110_AABSJJ little_j_Page_019.jpg
99e26b29f95be249e3a7e124aff425cd
7ed83451af1df38d9c40f97f619773f60a69c279
79274 F20101110_AABSIV little_j_Page_038.jpg
f66a74ae3d39c392cba9939ca5bd3375
ea2be4fbd5ed7729c6b52793f09ed1e1f0b4b117
26740 F20101110_AABSJK little_j_Page_031.QC.jpg
158f3b2c62989c775b6a285936bd4430
da8b564ea13f2ca50cc114ec42227ed13d9f2613
F20101110_AABSIW little_j_Page_041.tif
2e9fb1797f2308672c3ceecb45de7c2c
19e10ea4ea3a8c74e0542226b01c46eebd4e8534
1051915 F20101110_AABSJL little_j_Page_028.jp2
6aac65d64f6ed51960a94308aea9e7fd
c32db61cb6252423020174545f4189142ccd2db7
1807 F20101110_AABSIX little_j_Page_047.txt
21153306672795dcb42f5abbf7b71d9e
8588a5848aa70bd69e96bc94a97710329e9b35f0
1948 F20101110_AABSJM little_j_Page_065.txt
290a7a9ec160f32b58ff61884095710d
98c5cf01852dcb8face11e52407f4595e35eccd8
F20101110_AABSIY little_j_Page_017.tif
7bd29a8e59dad4abb60f1bd0e5b796bd
7c2e6e664dabe0f30ce4f0524d10e6d36a9fa726
F20101110_AABSKA little_j_Page_008.tif
30253db89ab598a1ed7493349a587e69
62ba2a565408191f75b11c8e5a9ecf33a106b2e3
13010 F20101110_AABSJN little_j_Page_007.pro
28e62e30b808e4ebd789936c9ff5042c
e3dbf813e73cafa5b86eec4a7fece236b669e002
42481 F20101110_AABSIZ little_j_Page_019.pro
528fdc0774f164480db67841e1a944f8
9cfb4016d72d687fefe6d59bff360330287b8367
1999 F20101110_AABSKB little_j_Page_079.txt
f6e1b7f6997656d70619f710bf395b67
3aa02b97803814f73c5d95ba4fb3b2b4505a495e
F20101110_AABSJO little_j_Page_043.tif
530ccd7ff23850824b7e116bff22ffcc
a84551dd35e1bbae2681a6d36a5ff188f1e43405
1839 F20101110_AABSKC little_j_Page_080.txt
0503189c5b3d67ba2c20e46d1a02e809
ffa4fddaa9078e8e60803fc1bdd7529226423ae0
21365 F20101110_AABSJP little_j_Page_039.QC.jpg
2eeddd470d2d05f513cda9f44ba46e61
49cc4fa195bf3f9fc76a447da7733e7d33991fc9
F20101110_AABSKD little_j_Page_094.tif
5d2240233f5cfb44531ff29174586664
5226a86a715e9ec095889d12ea7a8259a4e7bde9
6182 F20101110_AABSJQ little_j_Page_119thm.jpg
4de5dd97811be12991bf10d1a2c56988
522751fa10c6d6eb5be7fe2d7f6bf24bab6f5ce8
25562 F20101110_AABSKE little_j_Page_119.QC.jpg
8a847ec7d22f99ca98873cb9d3e648b7
13d9ff643215473374fd37b22c1de2c5909ec60e
5613 F20101110_AABSJR little_j_Page_041thm.jpg
87bd4e1ba39811a48376b28377d0183e
4128f7a67f464230dede74c97459831ed1e940d0
23783 F20101110_AABSKF little_j_Page_101.QC.jpg
e1a5bf9757c529a6d2b07b8db8358b85
862f68b3215f75c9f5de8faa06456e5bb4fb238e
44021 F20101110_AABSJS little_j_Page_059.pro
8b2af46179f7f55a9f9e70cc39d40dcb
68cec9fc1db4c0740b7fd20aae192b8e48ec74d9
40772 F20101110_AABSKG little_j_Page_049.pro
9f9c73115d6ad8cbc65a9c5c8b039359
1f60663a6378a95a422c16fd5051c78e13f49d6c
38576 F20101110_AABSJT little_j_Page_060.pro
4cc6c45de3af0837a670cd33f9e5cea9
5635b8f80f4444e70a75604882875942963d19f5
5078 F20101110_AABSKH little_j_Page_006thm.jpg
c0acb196d118b7563fa63863fe1197ad
aaac7b24114106519e6f3a7fa418ac4805eb35d9
F20101110_AABSJU little_j_Page_061.tif
3463c24d9308c036b9b57eb2164c8c5d
70beb0d7cbfa61047885e6c5ea5bd53e6c448e4b
661594 F20101110_AABSKI little_j_Page_082.jp2
c371474e516067f567c23e1361f6ad5f
47f61824e3641fc8d4c3d0d275c771c9abdb2a18
F20101110_AABSJV little_j_Page_110.tif
255e9115b8fc4c63a93c8ca392377249
1112b5799a7f2c97da26c7525ddf5cb8a3ac44d8
71407 F20101110_AABSKJ little_j_Page_068.jp2
3314cecd9f1114497901b553f3d7266b
7938963768a12b6b84760aa549a82df2d7155e64
4653 F20101110_AABSJW little_j_Page_063thm.jpg
2f5cffb647782d8fb9be5b36c41fc2bc
015c89c2f76a6d6f178f4e53c054a9434c611bcd
F20101110_AABSKK little_j_Page_053.tif
5e3a305bb52cc4cc541f361b858a4bb0
fbfb2a6220d4fd86b95cf4535ca853d13fbf1527
5131 F20101110_AABSJX little_j_Page_011thm.jpg
10b829ab9e9b383f545e67408e604523
53ed08efa6ba24d26a02f2dc611c4b2aa17e81cd
623500 F20101110_AABSKL little_j.pdf
b5e5e5e74dc8185776b3a45c2a5c8efc
d505c57fe8755f71d2160ab1de524857fb4089f9
628838 F20101110_AABSJY little_j_Page_108.jp2
11616c4765693b39561cfe9e8409658f
83e8dfa8575af7ede61b198b483d8853c5cc9434
87941 F20101110_AABSLA little_j_Page_004.jpg
6ed7bffe488a48a981d1655308087990
f553bf59ed0f49f3e109db945f1ef715930040b5
F20101110_AABSKM little_j_Page_095.tif
1c52f92b78b83a3ac154d12079480505
62853a4bdc3bf4b4fc7f9461c66e9aca4ca83046
58311 F20101110_AABSJZ little_j_Page_017.jpg
928738bb8baf7aaaae94e45b948b6fd9
bd1bb939e924019e947842bc201f1a32ff0b5add
86434 F20101110_AABSLB little_j_Page_005.jpg
3979efef147aaa1fa4e2c70d813c0018
7ca053c116489817605c96460bf6165ee728b2e8
1051978 F20101110_AABSKN little_j_Page_119.jp2
b07cc9ad58950aa8aea0b66334635c83
0a470454c769df147f865c4753cb12fb4f10e7c8
100025 F20101110_AABSLC little_j_Page_006.jpg
de9059e8d5dd1674325de81e6e5bc3e3
9bc15346b16c039333b23951464b4c8ca477adaa
989551 F20101110_AABSKO little_j_Page_027.jp2
f7ff4295574d8e1f63f1af41801f410e
0335a11562d4ae2e163a7f48fe09e989f26f18ba
23491 F20101110_AABSLD little_j_Page_007.jpg
fae8ab405af92ccc77f60ee5c42507fe
e22014609ad209eafd54e5fb1c32977362fb9898
F20101110_AABSKP little_j_Page_080thm.jpg
0715eef9a6fbda532da5e9757bd7f72a
88a6520e92193399953a1813ffde86b5ce32f845
76182 F20101110_AABSLE little_j_Page_008.jpg
c9d96d84f13209603c49aff84dce2d20
189edbb4d261647d5b1e67616396ec556775a31b
53688 F20101110_AABSKQ little_j_Page_005.pro
316e7266cf9e99f04b6f6f3d5d7c6006
cd1eb8005a8e653a188a6c5fecb7c463a3f6d356
23751 F20101110_AABSLF little_j_Page_009.jpg
b8400f3ca5b5efed8244384a4f03a19e
12638ee19bcf5d0d742c06b91197b182f0233c04
2172 F20101110_AABSKR little_j_Page_008.txt
57143d419608b7e1f8b1a8e73ea8353e
c7f7011403a3704c94e62ba4407431011d9887e9
90433 F20101110_AABSLG little_j_Page_010.jpg
60714f2b32526134931d49ed6edbf04d
69d76266d10b4739810ad7dd318e39c87ae51f8c
52639 F20101110_AABSKS little_j_Page_006.pro
d4780cb08c395eeed1e9ec1906c6a540
57809b5f7a50514c3ba0b170e45e94254e6e167e
78991 F20101110_AABSLH little_j_Page_011.jpg
acbe266530eb350234ade92f5158f660
715e1e89623f07b6ab35a0efb0281327f56ff2d1
800029 F20101110_AABSKT little_j_Page_060.jp2
56d065092566ff32413b4d8aac21115e
9e20279efdf5752314207a1bceabc1f5087167e2
91635 F20101110_AABSLI little_j_Page_012.jpg
64744fbb5c224059326459181053e069
04c6e78b5b0d6bb791baa95ac9b50485c9a13093
141419 F20101110_AABSKU UFE0021671_00001.mets
e469ddf7949dff0ee18284c8e2e6bb92
3f1fb22744411b859880d0da593a930492b4bc7b
23550 F20101110_AABSLJ little_j_Page_013.jpg
6ad7d9e31b87ffd5bd85a3fedbd73f2b
994710cf5ed0018745ad874ececd6600812c7277
56641 F20101110_AABSLK little_j_Page_014.jpg
8b0daccc1959bd7e9836878b23cd710e
1afb2f26e5fd713bd475039b36a365b766ee05ff
60515 F20101110_AABSLL little_j_Page_015.jpg
556cdc4b5e38d7ff9003e0acc617a3dd
50c5c74e2dcfbbc0457f601c6860bbb2bc154fd0
21380 F20101110_AABSKX little_j_Page_001.jpg
0e567252756ba178d2187fac706c9e4d
de31dbcce6f753b7d705d09423fef884dc9561b8
76054 F20101110_AABSMA little_j_Page_035.jpg
97c6dd4742456d99ab7a217e1a488367
ab9926768dd84940473b0120cd0eacb29690ffae
64045 F20101110_AABSLM little_j_Page_016.jpg
49a6447e8b78e2021b45fb521307b908
9389dbeb91324767bf9ddfcc54c786271d6dab5d
3740 F20101110_AABSKY little_j_Page_002.jpg
b72ef032572c07f02decab5584d9f355
a09847ed366d2c639ac21ba38615c2da3069a456
66275 F20101110_AABSMB little_j_Page_036.jpg
e4355bec31a57ae934926031585822bf
1a4884b82575424efa5271b2786dda3d0da105e7
71341 F20101110_AABSLN little_j_Page_018.jpg
5fdcf03c92f05a1ef9b1c51f3c8c6bf4
ee7ec83012d752559866e59c9f3b3bcb24185185
4020 F20101110_AABSKZ little_j_Page_003.jpg
2919e5dd6516f383d2237fe93a04ed07
4679378321deabe6d8978b40c656343cd5636fc9
69096 F20101110_AABSMC little_j_Page_037.jpg
ed75df8d6dbea4fe35d0721ce05627e1
167cbb8485e641d7bbc2a22b02e55be47e520f3a
78861 F20101110_AABSLO little_j_Page_021.jpg
c660340c086b87330e45b7686f9eed6d
0dab789ba20ba0e21411cfbf45e4eeae797dd660
71424 F20101110_AABSMD little_j_Page_039.jpg
ee4cc7df9cef8ff8716af2d66151509c
bb624dcc73617ff1fbee197c0e86467d5484e239
74843 F20101110_AABSLP little_j_Page_022.jpg
975448d66d80674f01244d898fdcd8c9
6a39384106f3a5c308c0fa1070d1d51e52a8a03c
70120 F20101110_AABSME little_j_Page_040.jpg
1ef120008a2c8c86870bc05e99e6c70a
7ef2bf9053271223bda225c153cb23aa0b97cb76
69821 F20101110_AABSLQ little_j_Page_023.jpg
cfeccdab01531c52d9ebc4124b669fb1
c395ed71dc1a1340f0de7d3751c0f415c169b5ae
82058 F20101110_AABSMF little_j_Page_041.jpg
1d59447712d996cc0bee6763178b1a3e
d87045519c2453522288ad48b2be732f1f6c4296
8229 F20101110_AABSLR little_j_Page_026.jpg
d3262cd039d8178b22b19eff4131cffe
b81d1a57f2bbc7329709ad88eb1c061d0235dca9
20654 F20101110_AABSMG little_j_Page_042.jpg
0a202918e2f9ca5a3796fc5780dd4252
c2f545b4d624e44194c35cf104f62d1c9c518dcd
73678 F20101110_AABSLS little_j_Page_027.jpg
022467dc49e500a7583367b599553506
a395f42b21a4e2f8756a5d6e5d9ae187a5a05958
73471 F20101110_AABSMH little_j_Page_043.jpg
a98b2da619ce6ad8281cbbb23fe45289
f9c11e45d72e70827285a2d057a0a9f834216df5
79165 F20101110_AABSLT little_j_Page_028.jpg
1a04c0589616b48b1bd8feca0b59135f
a35102a7184940bd709d18e994aa483416253c5d
58754 F20101110_AABSMI little_j_Page_044.jpg
f251beaa4d556f34ce5af6e85a378a9c
5680ec6869ad9255b156778f245b753539d8d064
74841 F20101110_AABSLU little_j_Page_029.jpg
d6cd05d5df10fe18039b4d40d083340c
5bda5567f19cdd4a4233751634e215b6cd5cce2a
69755 F20101110_AABSMJ little_j_Page_045.jpg
f5b210f3c2fa8bf966d48e146e342788
8c2d911f66f478c60ca8a5ee9c83037358932913
55568 F20101110_AABSLV little_j_Page_030.jpg
5d96331496adf2806785a380c8750dd9
a8b79c92a8668018e181971f0b866ad5d4270b7c
38646 F20101110_AABSMK little_j_Page_046.jpg
4f8b5218ab6f16e1ff5ca8279f285d46
e2f79e7ba2aaa271a9437c1dbd6924af3a25779d
90428 F20101110_AABSLW little_j_Page_031.jpg
d135807f2e67826e11bfcdc5a2b04c29
3692a5ce4edc3a32747694c55b84d0ce43abbc13
69300 F20101110_AABSML little_j_Page_047.jpg
066f62eb389395bbcd2953e7684b3492
e850de55b6baae8ec663b9319f47e378f49c4d03
75207 F20101110_AABSLX little_j_Page_032.jpg
6c1d6798ff288463748893485b669f97
6c6527c408bf68783fcd96b481609b87e3e5f878
67311 F20101110_AABSMM little_j_Page_048.jpg
c9c639cea071fe887c81f0fb3009d01e
5c78c08682f6ef22c39ed734aeebd159d3dc94cc
62074 F20101110_AABSLY little_j_Page_033.jpg
6465582c5d938579b946f75f6464a235
ac2dbae8309fbe3d1eada1e8d658d4c963ba671a
65540 F20101110_AABSNA little_j_Page_063.jpg
77a40313cb724117e9237eccaba9fe67
7ca597ef200d00cdd7d30abd969cde26df648439
81524 F20101110_AABSLZ little_j_Page_034.jpg
261f4f9dda9081970cb9ddb572dfadae
88e8d24dc109bfdf07df6eb08efa75342dd12c82
49388 F20101110_AABSNB little_j_Page_064.jpg
08190d675140cea1d5782736ae4670b9
c03f79abfa30f8f8a3dfe58c6fb9e69742a90835
66963 F20101110_AABSMN little_j_Page_049.jpg
e59f2921ef7a57a1ac6ab3c338f68fd6
56ed2c92daa575506207e34dd9ec7bb5c6fd4612
59104 F20101110_AABSNC little_j_Page_065.jpg
9979ed60ca8f5840a8a130dbb648f17a
88641adae4f90259a8b08b57974211cee16ebd4f
60825 F20101110_AABSMO little_j_Page_050.jpg
960d793b07821c32bd0fdab2fa778719
9e1f58170b219e19294ae401317d17201b1105b2
62094 F20101110_AABSND little_j_Page_066.jpg
9eb3622b6bc55bbbb693ae06cb10d957
c2c08bafcafc041ec151912b3dc083f0f9c83acc
69297 F20101110_AABSMP little_j_Page_051.jpg
041be94ccf8bd0f8aa6d4e7f8bbbcba8
32b2e556f36bf45706ed9999bd3b45a95464cfb9
64472 F20101110_AABSNE little_j_Page_067.jpg
b03ae4a85a8c2ec27d180a03e6a236f4
2fc91a2d4fc504ac550d5f66346c2cb46f70b243
59152 F20101110_AABSMQ little_j_Page_052.jpg
71ba3074da18a779d9503eb71b46c243
8093ac3cc0804e8c9b26640c7979b078a7f038ce
51400 F20101110_AABSNF little_j_Page_068.jpg
777c77f37b470ccf31f061806c512a99
79b6992a022986dd5f4f4478d140155a64630ddf
52251 F20101110_AABSMR little_j_Page_053.jpg
dff3150ad101612ba9b7f733530ed14f
a767b2a552def9bc1b6583d98df21646d0b33380
67509 F20101110_AABSNG little_j_Page_069.jpg
ec9a441e166988e5a29e22c78ccee5cc
82f4a2f1dbdd31100c77c031d3bcaf97e0807fce
53439 F20101110_AABSMS little_j_Page_054.jpg
bff40c381c129687199744d64acbb81f
0b7edebf6981ed755bb4f697c8ef2bfab5ad3cd7
67460 F20101110_AABSNH little_j_Page_070.jpg
8d81a116e44aac119243d33e149c7771
1cfd7f1932e9cfd0878be6b93566f3e0fa33c28e
56480 F20101110_AABSMT little_j_Page_055.jpg
158a64dbf6e4fada268202af455f4f7c
ced7c00fe1d492c6ec40a7c23822aa140f64d3de
55031 F20101110_AABSNI little_j_Page_071.jpg
0e282923ac76f825ca3306b58335c76e
97c122bd605c3b737982e7ea948e130fb6e040b6
51197 F20101110_AABSMU little_j_Page_056.jpg
1b156dc39cdaa857329d32bcb2de0cff
d8bb8315f7db230e9ca154763cc369b429cc1f98
72128 F20101110_AABSNJ little_j_Page_072.jpg
e114e3068f59c435d44ab094e32f42e4
13fc51f83107a57153eca0eb84b39c3a516fceac
65571 F20101110_AABSMV little_j_Page_057.jpg
8aecfa8dec58d1b127c947ce472560ec
2e72da70542801697ff7ffb4919d2ad7b6c38d96
69051 F20101110_AABSNK little_j_Page_074.jpg
04c4ff2b623f149b847e81b8bbfbe290
b2f96280016bc61d4dcc148ff897cb6c6d13db6e
39018 F20101110_AABSMW little_j_Page_058.jpg
023ec05dc537a40a4556d8843bb963b9
e67525094302174b26dc19b682599b046d7b1f91
61525 F20101110_AABSNL little_j_Page_075.jpg
068336b3d2a4eb5142c448d46b2b6936
e18f452914f6a91cfbc51574b375f39a23c1879a
66803 F20101110_AABSMX little_j_Page_059.jpg
f7dc7ea521ec488bcf449d1daf7acea5
38cb1870c8e2c9e57710665b0fe3854ef88f02e8
63650 F20101110_AABSOA little_j_Page_094.jpg
38e187a01b411fdcfe55e300907bbf76
b390f78d68bf92b99d779a16d52a1f69dcf8d040
91035 F20101110_AABSNM little_j_Page_076.jpg
cef0a8f4c4dab12952eb922f3764247a
f9f7b9248126321d4c8fe9fa961af18d51d9d024
58648 F20101110_AABSMY little_j_Page_060.jpg
93b4a231f61317ef48a77338b286dbb5
6a3f79228705c78569a01fa3632d41747fbf56a6
73492 F20101110_AABSOB little_j_Page_096.jpg
039016e1c3f46d7a7238f4358bb7170d
cf104fb2230193756db153b3b25ee64f67bd432e
83859 F20101110_AABSNN little_j_Page_077.jpg
fcb94ae740a492efbcb2c65461702518
21c9bb39c7e209fb647ccf6252fbb2898edb1417
51822 F20101110_AABSMZ little_j_Page_062.jpg
931249c3987cfe4c8d33dd14077fda87
e2436930cf5108a7560e306f91886f208df20e6a
61567 F20101110_AABSOC little_j_Page_097.jpg
f0d74227c1a54acb2b558f104c6de661
e2c4566439acc3b03e9d3216b0efa0c5d1046a5d
67148 F20101110_AABSNO little_j_Page_078.jpg
29d18c4d16d3bc10b34450555a72acc9
b0a259cff8f5c373147e6f54cfb631d30b5cfd47
85992 F20101110_AABSOD little_j_Page_098.jpg
d1d2721ad84c288b26f280e76223dfe1
671e8b65d0529b67d712de4e2c108b82e0841e10
76593 F20101110_AABSNP little_j_Page_079.jpg
6b35137a120aeae468cd6ec24eb40068
31b6a089ff5ebfd83b483990ca649384b01de1d2
78504 F20101110_AABSOE little_j_Page_101.jpg
6636fb66a9711670d0eb35c2bbc9155b
4e3099e5bed2fc7b55d4c1bc75e4e74fbe6d7f76
63074 F20101110_AABSNQ little_j_Page_080.jpg
6f37613b22ec05bd72f982fc196e58d2
dc4473338aa8aba948aad636b8a88c5a7bd01b24
62810 F20101110_AABSOF little_j_Page_102.jpg
325f40cba45bdd192ef836319ba153d3
81cd3a247703cb058be17ea727cacd1733f846b8
48253 F20101110_AABSNR little_j_Page_082.jpg
5587c039ed2781479e8e746e4320462a
8bd7f8837d41f978c8ae30307e78b1a03815e65b
52409 F20101110_AABSOG little_j_Page_104.jpg
6c012d8e4518ff8526d6f2d6c05c37de
3380fadafc6049ea11ff1a0d0de0edfdf70eb24d
56566 F20101110_AABSNS little_j_Page_083.jpg
ce56eb91b1aa1de55c52743d0a12da61
360dbb53378f6635be4d3a1017f24a3ffae0fbcb
38194 F20101110_AABSOH little_j_Page_105.jpg
dfe6faadb3d5fe4b9c02d0147ec38ec5
118b106b6c542f9ce0d49f40fe2924256700714d
71293 F20101110_AABSNT little_j_Page_084.jpg
defe3e3cd16bbf2685b1053420a0b995
9027126c667b3e04701a3047865f2f805f7bcb7f
69855 F20101110_AABSOI little_j_Page_106.jpg
c02155f45fb739a734f77e208e66f597
e5fb36de3b8e127b6c076c2b82921fd424deb9cd
61716 F20101110_AABSNU little_j_Page_087.jpg
f2006f74d6b268750b8f9a2a7d722dd2
0f83d592729025b27e887c1c614014f167447ca0
64579 F20101110_AABSOJ little_j_Page_107.jpg
1433bacc632a08c35caac1a00e9e92e9
ce61416b705ca0bf78adae2053eee733c3c66354
57539 F20101110_AABSNV little_j_Page_089.jpg
6ae9c3eed19a75f29141aee75f848ecb
beec2c8249eeadbc1d5c519cae2c983ee208adcd
51052 F20101110_AABSOK little_j_Page_108.jpg
a9574e43773df31f01939b4d95119abc
3df95a84cc24fe10e5f554c4d5a37fa0387e05f3
83648 F20101110_AABSNW little_j_Page_090.jpg
37fa66990d2d7858281b6c121b4939d7
5b239e0a5ab11d53604bdcb12afd54a2dd2c056d
65039 F20101110_AABSOL little_j_Page_109.jpg
9b112b90b98d8ee2865af315058e04d1
c92aa58e94144fb35d5bc2e9b2a05e6a7cde102d
33612 F20101110_AABSNX little_j_Page_091.jpg
deac3d37808beef5197b60a20384e3d8
8659ac77a5e0a36ab014af605dab2f6b198c6fd4
6356 F20101110_AABSPA little_j_Page_003.jp2
32258238c63acbdd7aa72a2d7d36997e
e75a69c16bf25abf5d8327610897c1fc6a0fa5e1
67705 F20101110_AABSOM little_j_Page_110.jpg
ccfcb04b38185e6c604d2ac18f38faf2
420d5cacb96af1a01f5a01b82e745ea8828de490
90327 F20101110_AABSNY little_j_Page_092.jpg
e69c527d15365b420be68ee6fb50c4b8
db7262e92763a138f4d19ef0100bcc6fedfe9541
75221 F20101110_AABSON little_j_Page_111.jpg
e82ca2b22a023145dee09f95fb61df33
0e11e2b6c509b3cb25ce362923c513af3d081b12
68633 F20101110_AABSNZ little_j_Page_093.jpg
a426fa192db40ab4ef46e67a6483040a
9fa754b1f55aec9e2e1e4add77539a1b289dcc68
116334 F20101110_AABSPB little_j_Page_004.jp2
ffc676ff9f779ef87d480458f599e4e9
4df229d35793b4a0aedb8b13b915d6b1dbc65937







PROJECTION OPERATOR FORMALISM
FOR QUANTUM CONSTRAINTS



















By

JEFFREY SCOTT LITTLE


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007
































2007 Jeffrey Scott Little


































To my wonderful wife and soul mate, Megan.









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Obtaining a Ph.D. in any field is never a complete individual effort, I owe many

thanks to many people that helped me pursue this life-long goal. First of all, I would like

to thank my advisor John Klauder, for giving me the chance to study quantization of

constraints systems. I am indebted to him for all the patience, time, and encouragement

that he has afforded me over the years that I spent under his tutelage at the University

of Florida. His passion for the course of study has helped me obtain a broader view

of physics, as well as a more developed palate for various topics in physics. In fact I

am grateful to the entire physics department for allowing me the opportunity to study

theoretical physics. I gratefully acknowledge the Alumni Fellowship Association, which

allowed me to attend the University without an overwhelming teaching responsibility.

I would also like to thank my grandparents, Ruby, Granville, Hazel, and Veral, who

instilled in me from an extremely early age that I could accomplish anything if I set my

mind to it. Thanks go to my dad, Jeff, who gave me a sense of scientific curiosity and

to my mom, Linda, who was my wonderful math instructor from fractions to calculus,

not to mention all of their love and support, and to my sisters, Lisa and Sierra, whose

constant encouragement aided me through my early college and graduate career. I am

assuredly indebted to my dear Aunt Brenda, who carefully edited several chapters of this

manuscript, even though she is not a physics person. I would also like to thank my wife's

family for all of their support these past 2 years.

Thanks go to my friends at the University of Florida Larry, Ethan, Wayne, Ian,

Lester, Jen, and Garret, whose compassion and conversations about a wide variety of

topics are unmeasurable.

Saving the best for last, I thank the love of my life, my darling wife, Megan. Without

whom I would have never completed this dissertation. I thank her for all of the love,

support, and encouragement that she has given me; she is the source of my inspiration to

achieve, more than I ever dreamed could be achieved.









TABLE OF CONTENTS


page


ACKNOW LEDGMENTS .................................

A B ST R A C T . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ..................................

1.1 Philosophy .................. ................
1.2 Outline of the Remaining C'!i lpters ......................

2 CONSTRAINTS AND THE DIRAC PROCEDURE ..............

2.1 Classical Picture . . . . . . ..... .
2.1.1 Geometric Pl a round .........................
2.1.2 Constraints Appear ...........................
2.1.3 Another Geometric Interlude ................. .....
2.1.4 O bservables . . . . . . . .
2.2 Q uantization . . . . . . . . .
2.2.1 Canonical Quantization Program .. ...............
2.2.2 What About Constraints? The Dirac Method .. .........

3 OTHER M ETHODS .. . ...........................


3.1 Faddeev-Popov Method .. ................
3.1.1 Yet Another Geometric Interlude from the Constraint
3.1.2 Basic Description .. ................
3.1.3 Comments and Criticisms .. ............
3.2 Refined Algebraic Quantization .......
3.2.1 Basic Outline of Procedure .. ............
3.2.2 Comments and Criticisms .. ............
3.3 Master Constraint Program .. ...............
3.3.1 Classical Description .. ...............
3.3.2 Quantization . . . . . .
3.3.3 MCP Constraint Example .. ............
3.3.4 Comments and Criticisms .. ............
3.4 Conclusions . . . . . . .

4 PROJECTION OPERATOR FORMALISM .. ..........

4.1 Method and Motivation .. ................
4.1.1 Squaring the Constraints .. .............
4.1.2 Classical Consideration .. ..............
4.1.2.1 Quantum Consideration .. .........
4.1.2.2 Projection Operator Justification ......


Sub-Manifold











4.2 Tools of the Projection Operator Formalism .
4.2.1 Coherent States .. ...........
4.2.2 Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Spaces .
4.3 Constraint Examples .. ............
4.3.1 Constraint with a Zero in the Continuous
4.3.2 Closed, First-Class Constrant .. ....
4.3.3 Open, First Class constraint .......
4.4 Conclusions . . . . .

5 HIGHLY IRREGULAR CONSTRAINTS .......


Spectrum


Classification .. ..........
Toy M odel .. ............
Observables .. ...........
Observation and Conclusions .


6 ASHTEKAR-HOROWITZ-BOULWARE MODEL .

6.1 Introduction . . . . .
6.2 Classical Theory .. ..............
6.3 Quantum Dynamics .. .............
6.4 The Physical Hilbert Space via the Reproducing
6.4.1 The Torus T2 ........
6.5 Super-selection Sectors? .. ..........
6.6 Classical Lim it . .. .. .. .. .. ... .
6.7 Refined Algebraic Quantization Approach .
6.8 Commentary and Discussion .. .........


Kernel


7 PROBLEM W ITH TIME .. . ........................


8 TIME DEPENDENT CONSTRAINTS .....


8.1 Classical Consideration . ...
8.1.1 Basic M odel . ......
8.1.2 Commentary and Discussion .
8.2 Quantum Considerations . ..
8.2.1 Gitman and Tyutin Prescription
Constraints . ......
8.2.2 Canonical Quantization . .
8.2.3 D irac . . . .
8.2.4 Projection Operator Formalism


8.2.5
8.2.6


Time-Dependent Quantum Const
Observations and Comparisons .


for Time-Dependent






raints .........
. ..


.
.
.
.
Second-Class
.
.
.
.
.
.


9 TIME-DEPENDENT MODELS .............. . . ...

9.1 First-Class Constraint ........... . . .
9.2 Second Class Constraint .......... . . .


94
94
97
99


99
101
102
102
103
105

106

106
110









9.3 Conclusions . . . . . . . . 111

10 CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK. ................ ... .. .. 113

10.1 Summary ................. ............... 113
10.2 Ending on a Personal Note .... ........... ...... .. 115

APPENDIX

A REPARAMETERIZATION INVARIANT THEORIES . . ..... 116

REFERENCES .................. ................ .. .. 118

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .................. ............. 122









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

PROJECTION OPERATOR FORMALISM
FOR QUANTUM CONSTRAINTS

By

Jeffrey Scott Little

December 2007

('C! i': John Klauder
Major: Physics

Motivated by several theoretical issues surrounding quantum gravity, a course of

study has been implemented to gain insight into the quantization of constrained systems

utilizing the Projection Operator Formalism. Throughout this dissertation we will address

several models and techniques used in an attempt to illuminate the subject. We also

attempt to illustrate the utility of the Projection Operator Formalism in dealing with any

type of quantum constraint.

Quantum gravity is made more difficult in part by its constraint structure. The

constraints are classically first-class; however, upon quantization they become partially

second-class. To study such behavior, we will focus on a simple problem with finitely

many degrees of freedom and will demonstrate how the Projection Operator Formalism is

well suited to deal with this type of constraint.

Typically, when one discusses constraints, one imposes regularity conditions on these

constraints. We introduce the "r i, classification of constraints called "highly .-i,, II., l,,

constraints, due to the fact these constraints contain both regular and irregular solutions.

Quantization of irregular constraints is normally not considered; however, using the

Projection Operator Formalism we provide a satisfactory quantization. It is noteworthy

that irregular constraints change the observable aspects of a theory as compared to

strictly regular constraints. More specifically, we will attempt to use the tools of the

Projection Operator Formalism to study another gravitationally inspired model, namely









the Ashtekar-Horowitz-Boulware model. We will also offer a comparison of the results

obtained from the Projection Operator Formalism with that of the Refined Algebraic

Quantization scheme.

Finally, we will use the Projection Operator Method to discuss time-dependent

quantum constraints. In doing so, we will develop the formalism and study a few

key time-dependent models to help us obtain a larger picture on how to deal with

reparameterization invariant theories such as General Relativity.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

"It is very important that we do not all follow the same fashion... Its necessary to increase

the amount of variety .... the only n,. to do it is to implore ;,. c; few guys to take a risk

." -Richard Feynman

The Standard Model is the archetype of the kind of success physics has had in

describing the physical universe. The theory provides an explanation of the interactions

of matter with the electroweak and strong forces on a fundamental level. The way these

forces enter into the theory is based on Yang-Mills theory, a generalization of Maxwell's

theory of electromagnetism. As is the case with electromagnetism, the equations of motion

for a Yang-Mills field contain constraints that reduce the number of degrees of freedom [1].

This is a key characteristic of constrained systems. The process of converting a classical

theory to a quantum theory is made more difficult by the presence of these constraints.

Commonly used techniques to deal with these systems have been inadequate in providing

a description of the low momentum behavior of the strong force, which is associated with

the mass-gap conjecture [2].

General relativity, like the Standard Model, is another example of a constrained

system. The quantization of gravity has presented theoretical physics a cornucopia of

problems to solve for the past 50 years. To answer these deep theoretical questions,

physicists have employ, ,1 several and seemingly conflicting viewpoints. These perspectives,

range from Superstrings [3], the main goal is the unification of all forces in one quantum

mechanical description, Loop Quantum Gravity [4], in which the main objective of this is

a consistent background independent description of quantum gravity, to Causal Sets [5]

in which the approach preassumes that space-time is discretized, and the Affine Quantum

Gravity Program [6], in which the aim of this approach is to solve quantum constraint

problems with the Projection operator formalism. There are several deep underlying

theoretical issues surrounding the quantization of gravity, one of which is that gravity









is non-renormalizable. Therefore traditional quantum field theory techniques [1], appear

to be useless when approaching this subject. Canonical quantization schemes of gravity

are also made difficult by the theory's constraint classification [7]. Classically, gravity's

constraints are one algebraic class, but upon quantization the constraints morph into

another type1 Conventional techniques are unsuited for this type of quantum system.

The construction of these techniques does not assume a change from one type of constraint

to another when the system is quantized. The projection operator method is well suited to

handle this situation since all constraints are treated in the same theoretical framework.

Both the Yang-Mills and quantum gravity serve as the primary motivation for this

dissertation. It is hoped that studying simpler models will eventually aid us in studying

more realistic quantum theories.

1.1 Philosophy

When faced with a particular theoretical problem, it has been our approach to follow

the preceding philosophy to obtain an appropriate physical answer. In our analysis we

have followed the time-honored principles that: (1.) Mathematics will give all possible

solutions with no regard to the physics; (2.) When the mathematics leads to a choice,

physics should be the guide in choosing the next step. We will not deviate from this

long-standing point of view in this dissertation.

We also approach problems with the point of view that a "( i'pl!, I. description

of the universe must be a quantum mechanical one. Therefore, a quantum mechanical

description of a particular model will alvi:-, supercede the classical description. This is

the primary reason that we cite the mantra, quantize first, reduce second over and over in

this dissertation.



1 This will be discussed further in C'!i pters 2 and 4









1.2 Outline of the Remaining Chapters

C'!I ipters 2, 3 and 4 serve as the background for the dissertation. The main topic

of discussion in C'! iplter 2 is the introduction of constraint dynamics as well as the

description of the Dirac procedure to deal with quantum constraints. The primary goal

of ('!C lpter 3 is to introduce the reader to three other alternative programs to deal with

the problem of quantum constraints. These methods are the Fadeev-Popov procedure,

the Refined Algebraic Quantization Program, and the Master Constraint Program,

each of which has its own distinct strengths and weaknesses. The goal of Chapter 4 is

to examine the projection operator formalism. In this chapter we will also exam three

distinct constraint examples in this formalism. One of the constraint models is a system

where the constraints are classically first class; however, upon quantization they become

partially second class, similar to the constraints of gravity. This particular model served

as the basis of [8]. Whenever encountered in the dissertation, repeated indices are to be

summed.

The primary goal of C'!i lpter 5 is to introduce a i, v.-" classification of constraints

called highly ., ,. glr, constraints and also illustrate techniques used to deal with

quantum versions of these constraints. The basis of this chapter comes from [9] and

[10]. Using the techniques gained from C'!i lpter 5, in C'!i lpter 6 we offer a complete

discussion of the quantization of the Ashtekar-Horowitz-Boulware Model [11]. The

Ashtekar-Horowitz-Boulware model is a mathematical model also inspired by the

constraints of gravity. This chapter is based on the results obtained in [9]. We also

compare the results obtained by the Refined Algebraic Quantization program with the

Projection Operator formalism. This comparison leads to the conclusion that the two

methods are not compatible dealing with all constraints.

The remaining chapters are devoted to the topic of time-dependent quantum

constraints. Until now, the methods used to delve into this topic [12] have been unsatisfactory

due to the fact that these methods avoid solving for the quantum constraints. The aim









of this chapter is to use the Projection Operator Formalism to give a more complete

description of the topics by solving for the constraints. C'! lpter 8 is devoted to the

development of the time-dependent formalism and the comparison of the approach found

in [12] with the Projection Operator. In ('!i lpter 9, we will examine two time-dependent

constraints, one first-class and one second-class. We will conclude with a brief summary

and a possible look forward to future research problems.









CHAPTER 2
CONSTRAINTS AND THE DIRAC PROCEDURE

The primary goal of this chapter is to introduce the reader to the concept of

constraints in classical physics. We will discuss the quantization of these classical systems

in the framework proposed by Dirac, [7], as well as, discuss deficiencies in the method,

which will help motivate the development of the projection operator formalism in C! Ilpter

4.

2.1 Classical Picture

A natural starting point for the discussion of constraints is from a classical perspective.

We will begin in the Lagrangian formulation of classical mechanics. In this formulation, we

begin with the action functional

t2
I j dtL(qa, qa,t) (2-1)


where L is the Lagrangian, t is a continuous parameter (often associated with time),

q, E Q, where Q is some configuration space, a E {1, 2,...N},' denotes the derivative with

respect to t, and q, is an element of a fiber of the tangent bundle Q, T7Q. Formally, we

can write the Lagrangian functional as


L : TQ R. (2-2)


Later in the discussion we will define the configuration space, but for now it is just some

C"-manifold. The goal' of classical mechanics is to determine the equations of motion.

The equations of motion are determined by varying the action (2-1) and determining its



1 This of course is from our point of view.









stationary points. The result, which is well-known, is the Euler-Lagrange equations 2


6S = 0 (2-3)
d BL A L
t 0 (2 4)
dt 9dq dq0

While this formulation is useful in determining a wide variety of physical quantities

[15], it is not as sensitive to particular features of a given classical theory as we need.3

In order to illuminate these features we must first pass to an equivalent formulation of

classical mechanics, namely the Hamiltonian formulation. In making the transition from

Lagrangian to the Hamiltonian, we must first identify the conjugate momentum,

dL
pa = (2-5)
Pa

This can be recognized as the fiber derivative from the tangent bundle of Q to the

cotangent bundle of Q [15] (otherwise known as the tangent bundle's dual)


a : TQ T* Q. (2-6)

The next step in the procedure is to identify the Hamiltonian, which follows from a

Legendre transformation of the Lagrangian


H =paq- L (p,q) (2-7)




2 This result can be generalized if L is a functional of (qa, q, g,... qa ) where k is a
finite number. The variation, which is determined by the functional derivative, of this
6L i(t L i" L itL
equation is given by 6, (t- t) + (t- t') + + 6(k) (t- t') L [14]. Integrating this
equation with respect to t' and setting the result to zero will yield the stationary points of
the corresponding action.

3 Obviously, if we express 2-4 in terms of a second order differential equation, the subtle
point we are about to make becomes clearer. [16]









which can be accomplished as long as the conjugate momentum (2-5) is invertible in terms

of q. This condition is satisfied by the Hessian condition

a2L
det / 0. (2-8)


We will return to the case when (2-8) fails shortly. Until then we will discuss the

Hamiltonian formalism in more detail. For a more complete account see [17] and [15]. At

this point we will no longer mention the cotangent bundle, but rather we will note that

this space is symplectomorphic to the more familiar space, phase space AM, i.e.,


T*Q .M (2-9)


The geometric framework of the Hamiltonian framework is a rich and beautiful

subject. However, for the sake of brevity we will only recount the most crucial elements to

the development of the constraint picture. For a more complete description, we point the

readers to [17], [15], and [18].

2.1.1 Geometric Playground

The natural geometric framework for Hamiltonian dynamics is a 2 n dimensional,

real, symplectic manifold called phase space, where n is the number of degrees of freedom

for a system.4 The coordinates on the manifold are determined by the equations of

motion. As is well known, the equations of motion for an unconstrained Hamiltonian (2-7)

are given by


q = {,H}, (2-10)

pj {pj, H}, (2-11)



4 This definition of the phase-space manifold is true when the system has a finite
number of degrees of freedom. Extra care must be taken in the definition when dealing
with a case with an infinite number of degrees of freedom.









where H is the Hamiltonian and {., .} are the classical Poisson brackets. The Poisson

brackets are defined by the following:


{f,g} f g f (212)
Oq Oi pi i Oqi'

where f, g e C2(M). The Poisson brackets have the following properties for any f, g, and

hE C2 (M):


{f,g} = -{g, f}, (2 13)

{f,gh} = {f,g}h+ {f,h}g, (2-14)

{{f,g},h} + {{h, f},g} +{{g,h}, f} 0. (2-15)

Equation (2-13) illustrates that the Poisson brackets are antisymmetric in respect

to its arguments. Equation (2-14) serves as the connection of the Poisson bracket

with point-wise multiplication of the functions over the phase space. Finally, (2-15)

demonstrates that the Poisson bracket obeys the famous Jacobi identity. With these three

properties it is possible to show that the classical functions over phase space form a Lie

algebra with respect to the Poisson bracket.[14]5

The closed, non-degenerate, symplectic two-form is defined by the Poisson brackets of

the dynamical variables,

S- {q,pj} = 6>. (2-16)

The symplectic form is a crucial element when we move from a classical discussion of a

system to its quantum analogue.



5 Technically, a Lie algebra would only require the first and the third properties. One
must also show that the functions in C" form a vector space, in order to be classified an
algebra.









2.1.2 Constraints Appear

Now let us move to the case in which (2-8) fails6 that is

a2L
det 0. (2-17)


If (2-17) occurs, then it arises because the conjugate moment are not all independent

[14], since there exist redundant variables in the dynamical variables. In other words, there

exist relations that are associated with the definition of the conjugate momentum (2-7)


O~(p, q) 0 (2-18)

where a E {1,... A}. These relations (2-18) are known as primary constraints [14]. It is

an important to note that the primary constraints are not determined by the equations of

motion. The set of equations (2-18) define a subspace of the phase space called a primary

constraint sub-manifold, whose dimension are 2N A. Technically, we are assuming that

the constraints obey a regularity condition [14]. We will examine this regularity condition,

and instances when it fails in C'! lpter 5. Until then, we will assume and only consider

examples in which these conditions are satisfied.

We can also relate the presence of constraints by considering the Noether theorem.

When a global transformation exists that leaves the action invariant, the result is

a conserved quantity. However, when this is a local transformation, the result is a

constraint. See [19] for details.

It is clear that Hamilton's equations (2-10) and (2-11) are no longer valid if primary

constraints are present. All the dynamics should take place on the primary constraint

surface. We can achieve this by making the following modification to the Hamiltonian,



6 While Dirac may have not been the first to consider this case, his seminal work on the
topic [7] serves as the modern inspiration of the topic









which is defined on all of M


HE(p, q)= H(p, q) + A (2-19)

where A" are Lagrange multipliers, that enforces the dynamics of the system to occur only

on the sub-manifold. Therefore the equations of motion are given by the following


q = {qH} + A"{q', 0}, (2-20)

j pj, H} + A'{pj, 0}, (2-21)

S= 0. (2-22)

Since the set of primary constraints must be satisfied for all t, it follows that

a = { H} + {, bAb A 0. (2-23)


where w is defined as weakly equal to, or equal to on the constraint sub-manifold. A

direct consequence of (2.1.2) is that the solutions to (2.1.2) may not be independent of

the set of primary constraints (2-18). If this is the case, we define a set of new constraints

(Xb), b E {1,... B} which also satisfies (2.1.2). This set of constraints is called secondary
constraints. We repeat the process of solving the consistency equation (2.1.2) to uncover

all the constraints. With that being said we will ahv--, assume that all constraints have

been uncovered. This statement is often referred to as the set of constraints is complete

[14].

Now assuming that the set of constraints is complete, equation (2.1.2) also serves as

the starting point of the discussion of the classification. [7] One possibility for (2-22) to be

valid on the constraint surface is to allow each Poisson bracket to be separately zero by

being proportional to a constraint. This hypothesis leads to our first classification: when


{0, H} hQbb, (2-24)

{1a, Ob = Ccab c, (2-25)









hold true, we categorize this type of constraint as first class. We can make a further

refinement of this class by considering the nature of the structure coefficients, hb and

cab. If the coefficients are constants, then the constraints are closed first class. If they are

functions over phase space, then the constraints are open first class. As one can deduce

from (), the Lagrange multipliers are undetermined by the equations of motion and thus

can be arbitrarily chosen, a phenomenon called "choosing a g ,, ; Therefore, first-class

systems are said to be gauge systems. Based upon this definition of a first-class system,

we can assert that once the dynamics are restricted to the constraint surface, initially,

they will alv--,v- remain on the surface. Well known examples of first-class systems include

Yang-Mills theories and General Relativity, with the former being closed and the latter

being open.

If det{( Ob} / 0 the constraints are classified as second class [16]. No longer

having the availability of the preceding criteria of (2-24) and (2-25), it follows that the

Lagrange multipliers are determined by the equations of motion so that (2-22) is satisfied.

The Lagrange multipliers force the dynamics to remain on the constraint surface for a

second-class system. Namely the Lagrange multipliers can be determined by the following

equations

A b _[{a(p, ),Ob(p, q)}1{0(p, q), H(p, q)}. (2-26)

2.1.3 Another Geometric Interlude

When the dynamics are restricted to a sub-manifold in the phase space, some of the

mathematical structures present in the entire phase space are no longer present. Most

notably is the symplectic 2-form w. One could imagine looking at a particular coordinate

patch of the sub-manifold and determining the symplectic form for that particular patch.

However, if we attempt to repeat this process for the entire sub-manifold, we would find

that there exist some regions in which the 2-form is degenerate. Often this degenerate









2-form is referred to as a presymplectic form. Consequently, it is impossible7 to define

the Poisson brackets for the constraint sub-manifold. This particular issue is one of the

reasons why the quantization procedure becomes extremely l iv when working with these

systems. We refer the reader to [14] for a more detailed account of the pre-symplectic

form. A more in depth discussion of the geometry of constraint surface will occur in the

following chapter.

2.1.4 Observables

Before proceeding to the quantization of these classical systems, we will offer a brief

discussion of observables, a topic which will be revisited for a more complete discussion in

subsequent chapters. A Dirac observable is defined as a function over phase space that has

a weakly vanishing Poisson bracket with every constraint


{o, a} M 0 for all a (2-27)

where o E C (AM). In the context of first-class constraints (2-27) is a sufficient condition

that guarantees a gauge invariant function [14]. If o is an observable, it is clear by the

definition of an observable function (2-27) that o + A'O" is also an observable. Using

this observation it is possible to partition the set of functions C"(MA) by virtue of this

equivalence relation into observable functions and non-observable functions. In taking the

discussion further, if we were to consider the vector space of C"(AM) equipped with the

Poisson brackets, which defines a Lie algebra, along with pointwise multiplication, we can

then identify the functions that vanish on the constraint sub-manifold (i.e. the constraints)

as the ideal A, in C"(.M) We can classify algebra of observable functions as the quotient

algebra C'(AM)/AN. [14] This identification of the algebraic structure of the observables



7 It is possible to write a symplectic form if the constraints are all classical second-class.
[14]









will not guarantee the Poisson bracket structure over the constraint sub-manifold for the

reasons stated in the preceding section.

2.2 Quantization

2.2.1 Canonical Quantization Program

We proceed now with the standard canonical quantization procedure, described

by Dirac [20]. The goal of the canonical quantization procedure is to find a rule that

associates phase space functions with self-adjoint operators. Knowing the goal of the

program, let's begin the implementation. First, with we must insist that the coordinates of

phase space be flat coordinates, which implies there must be a global Cartesian coordinate

patch for the entire phase space manifold.8 The key ingredient to the quantization scheme

is the so called quantization map. This map takes real, phase space functions and maps

them to self-adjoint operators acting on an abstract, separable complex Hilbert space.

More precisely, we require a rule that intertwines the Poisson algebra of the observe I!. -'

with the algebra defined by the commutator bracket and the self-adjoint operators [22] and

[23].


Q : C (M) SA () (2-28)

Q({f, 9}) = [Q(f),Q(g)] (2-29)

(2-30)


where SA(-{) is the set of self-adjoint operators acting on the Hilbert space R- and

f,g E C'(M). The self-adjoint operator Q(f) should be recognized as the quantum



8 Even though classical mechanics requires no such structure on phase space, quantum
mechanics requires it. This was first pointed to by Dirac [20], and more recently by
Klauder [21]. According to Klauder [21], this metric structure comes in the form of a
-~! I. ,.v metric which is proportional to h.

Without the presence of constraints observables refer to any differentiable function
over phase space.









observable corresponding to the classical observable f. An immediate consequence of

(2-29), is the following

1
Q({[(pj) [Q q), Q(pj)]

S[Q(q),Q(pj)] ih6t (2-31)

where (qJ,pj) are the phase space canonical coordinates and 1 is the identity operator

on the Hilbert space Ri. We should note that there is not a definitive method by which to

pick the quantization map since the quantization map is not a homomorphism between

the two algebra. Ambiguity exists in the process because that there are some phase space

functions (e.g. p4q) that would correspond to multiple self-adjoint operators (e.g. P2Qp2

or (p4Q + QP4)/2). It has also shown by [50] there does not exist a quantization map that

can be defined for all elements from the full algebra of the classical observables. Despite

these difficulties we will proceed, noting potential problems due to these ambiguities in the

procedure as necessary.

Thus, for the remaining sections in this work we will assume that we have a

quantization map and are free to use it. The notation that we will use is as follows:

(pj, qt) represent the real c-number of phase space coordinates, while (Pj, Q,) represent the
set of irreducible, self-adjoint operators in which the canonical coordinates are mapped.

The commutator of the (Pj, QJ) follows directly (2-31)


[Qi, P1] ih6J1. (2-32)

Secondly, we promote quantizable phase space observables (f) to self-adjoint operators F:


f(pj,q') v F(Pj, Q). (2-33)

If there exists factor order ambiguity, we will appeal to experiment to select the proper

definition of F. However, as mathematically precise as the quantization procedure is for









unconstrained systems, we must note that, if our system contains constraints, we cannot

apply the standard quantization techniques. [12].
2.2.2 What About Constraints? The Dirac Method

An important point to make is that the procedure described in the preceding

subsection is done so without the presence of constraints. If we have constraints in a

particular classical system that we are now attempting to quantize, we may not have all

of the mathematical structures required to give us a quantization rule. To address this

important issue Dirac proposed the following procedure. Quantize the entire classical

theory first, then reduce the Hilbert space to the physically relevant -,II-p 1.. '"- The

pertinent question in this method is, "What is the quantum analog to the constraint

equation (2-18)?" In response to this query, we will use Dirac's procedure [7]. To initiate

this procedure, we begin by promoting the constraints to self-adjoint operators,


Qa(p, q) (P, Q). (2-34)

The next step is to determine the kernel of o,, known as the physical Hilbert space [25]


Fp = l|)p| )>)p =0, V a}. (2-35)

If the constraint possesses a zero in continuum of the spectrum, (i.e. suppose that the

constraint =- PI), then we immediately encounter a potential difficulty in implementing

this procedure. Based solely on the construction of the physical Hilbert space we cannot

guarantee that Ip(Ql )pl < 00.



10 The philosophy of quantize first reduce second serves as a in i' '. motivation to the rest
of the dissertation.









One should also check the quantum equivalent to the consistency equation (2.1.2). In

essence this means we must consider


[Ka(P, Q),H(P,Q)] |)p = 0, (2-36)

[Ka(P, Q), Q b(P,Q)] 1 )p 0, (2-37)

where H(P, Q) is the unconstrained, self-adjoint Hamiltonian operator. Once again,

we are faced with a possible deficiency of the Dirac procedure. In general, we cannot

attest to the validity of these equations, but if we restrict our arguments to considering

only closed, first-class systems (2-36) and (2-37) will hold true. In the case of closed,

first-class systems, the Poisson brackets transforms into the commutator brackets, which

are expressed in the following form:


[ a(P, Q),H(P,Q)] = ihh Kb(P,Q), (2-38)

[ta(P, Q), b(P, Q)] hcbc(P, Q). (2-39)

If Equation (2-36) or (2-37) fails and the classical system is classified as first class, the

quantum system is said to have an anomaly. We will examine such a system in C'!i lpter

4. Furthermore, we find that our definition for the physical Hilbert space may be vacuous

when considering classically open, first-class or second-class systems since there may not

be a zero in the spectrum [13]. Dirac attempts to remedy the problem of second-class

constraints by redefining the Poisson bracket [7]. Therefore, the standard approach in the

Dirac procedure prefers closed, first-class systems. We will return to a discussion of the

Dirac bracket in ('!i lpter 8.

Another deficiency to note is the fact the Dirac procedure does not offer a definition

of the inner product of the physical Hilbert space. This, along with some of the other

deficiencies that are illustrated in this chapter, will serve as the primary motivation for

the discussion of the more modern methods to quantize constraint systems discussed in









C'!i ipter 3, as well as, the motivation behind the development of the projection operator

formalism [13] in C'!i ipter 4.









CHAPTER 3
OTHER METHODS

The primary objective of this chapter is to examine three distinct methods to deal

with quantum constraints. These methods are the Faddeev-Popov procedure, the Refined

Algebraic Quantization Program, and the Master Constraint Program, each of which has

its own distinct strengths and weaknesses. During this chapter we will use the notation

that is standard in literature, while also noting deficiencies of the methods in order to offer

more motivation for the study of the projection operator method, which is the topic of

('! ipter 4.

3.1 Faddeev-Popov Method

3.1.1 Yet Another Geometric Interlude from the Constraint Sub-Manifold

Before discussing the Faddeev-Popov method, it is important to discuss some

properties of the constraint sub-manifold that were neglected in the previous chapter.

Let us begin with the following classical action,


I = dt(pj H(p, q) Aa), (3-1)


where j E {1,..., N}, a E {1,..., A}, and A" are Lagrange mulipliers which enforce the

constraints Qa1 We will consider the situation when the constraints that are present in a

classical system are closed, first-class. The constraint submanifold can also be identified

as the space of gauge orbits [14]. A gauge orbit is defined by the following: consider that

F defines a particular physical configuration,2 and the gauge orbit of F consists of all

gauge-equivalent configurations to F. [12] A gauge transformation is defined as


6,F F= v{F,Oa}, (3-2)



1 We are still under the assumption from C'!i lpter 2 that the constraints are regular
(which will be defined in ('! Ilpter 5) and complete.
2 One could consider F to be a dynamical variable.









where v" represents an arbitrary function. It is clear that these transformations, actually
define an equivalence relation which implies that the set of gauge orbits can be identified

as a quotient space [14]. If one defines a set of surface forming vectors, the gauge orbits
would correspond with the null vectors. [14]
To avoid this rather complicated situation of the quotient, it is often si, -.- -1. I that
one must impose a gauge choice to eliminate the redundancy. A gauge choice (Xa) has the
following property

Xa(p, q) 0, (3-3)

where a E {1,..., A} [14]. We must also choose such a function that intersects the gauge
orbits once and only once. A word of warning-One can guarantee this is the case locally;
however, it may not be guaranteed globally, (i.e. for the entire constraint surface). This
is known as the Gribov problem [16]. However, we are considering the ideal case for this
discussion.

With this mathematical description established, we can now properly discuss the
Fadeev-Popov procedure. [27]
3.1.2 Basic Description

This method requires us to depart from the canonical quantization scheme as
described in ('! Ilpter 2. The philosophy of this method is to reduce the classical theory
first, and quantize second, which is yet another departure from the Dirac procedure from
C'!i lpter 2. For a first-class system, the formal path integral is given by

Jf (i/h) J H(p,q)Ab]dpq (3 4)


To solve the constraint problem in this framework, we assert the constraints are satisfied
classically within the functional integral by imposing a 6-functional of the constraints.
Since the resulting integral may be divergent, we suppress this possibility, by requiring a
choice of an auxiliary condition called a gauge fixing term of the form x (p, q) = 0, a

{1,.., J}. With this choice we have lost canonical covariance, which can be restored









formally with the aid of the Faddeev-Popov determinant, det({xb, 0c}) By determining

a particular gauge fixing term, the hope is to integrate overall gauge orbits. The ensuing

path integral becomes

I ) -H(p,'q))dt bI jXb b} det({xb, c0})DpDq. (3-5)

Expression (3-4) serves as a motivation to the introduction of (3-5), but they are not

to be viewed as equivalent statements. The result of (3-5) could then be expressed as a

path integral over the reduced phase space,


J exp{ [pq* H*(p* q*)]dtDpDq (3-6)

where p* and q* are reduced phase coordinates and H*(p*, q*) is the Hamiltonian of the

reduced phase space. Since we have satisfied the constraints classically, we are no longer

confident that our formal path integral is defined over Euclidean space. This presents

a dilemma since the formal path integral is ill-defined over non-Euclidean spaces [13].

As with the Dirac Procedure, the Faddeev method can be modified to accommodate

second-class constraints [28].

3.1.3 Comments and Criticisms

While the Faddeev-Popov procedure has yielded some of the most fruitful results in

physics [1], it is not without its flaws. One of the most glaring flaws is the fact that one

must first reduce the classical theory and then quantize it. The universe3 is quantum

mechanical; therefore, there may be some quantum mechanical correction to the classical

theory. Let us consider the following simple model to illustrate this fact. Consider the



3 At least up to the GUT energy scales [3]. We are not so bold to -iv that quantum
mechanics may be superceded by a more complete description of nature. Of course, we
assume however quantum mechanics is the proper route to look at nature until more
evidence is discovered.








following classical action
I J/dt(p AaO), (3 7)

where j E {1,...,N} and a E {1,...,N}. This system is purely constraint4 The
definition of the constraints are

a = f(p, q)a(p, q), (3-8)

where f is a non-vanishing function over the phase space and {(a} defines a closed-first
class constraint, i.e.

{Oa, b} ,.' (3-9)

where Cab is a constant. It is clear while (3-8) defines the same constraint sub-manifold as
the case in which ,a are constraint, the constraints ,a are an open, first-class -' 111 .
We realize that the arbitrary function can be classically absorbed into the definition of the
Lagrange multipliers; however, we are ignoring this to emphasize the quantum mechanical
behavior. The Fadeev-Popov method for this model begins with the following expression:

J (i/f) '-J a]dlpDqDA, (3-10)

is replaced with the gauge-fixed expression

Se(i/) f t b det{b, f}DpDq, (3 11)

where xb(p, q) is some appropriate gauge choice. A simple identity leads to

(/hp) fadt r xb 6b} det({xb, f}c + { b, O}f)DpDq. (3-12)



4 Gravity is such a system [8]
5 This system is similar to the one discussed in [8], which we will return to in the next
chapter.









The first term in the determinant is zero by the 6 functional of the O's. The second term is

an N x N matrix multiplied by a scalar f, and therefore becomes.

f e() J adt b Xb ntfdet xb, ODpDq. (313)
7j Htfn

We observe that all the factors of f completely cancel. As one can see, the Faddeev

method is insensitive to the definition of f, as long as it be non-zero. Hence, this method

considers the Q,'s and Q,'s as identical constraints. We will examine a similar model in

C'!I Ipter 4 [8], which demonstrates that in order to understand the entire theory, one must

also consider the quantum mechanical corrections.

Another difficulty in this method derives from the selection of gauge choice X,. As we

noted in the previous subsection, the choice of gauge is only guaranteed locally. In more

complicated gauge theories, such as Yang-Mills it is well known [29] that there does not

exist a gauge choice that slices the gauge orbits once and only once, a fact which limits the

effectiveness to probe the non-perturbative regime of these gauge theories. [26]

3.2 Refined Algebraic Quantization

The Refined Algebraic Quantization Program (RAQ) is in stark contrast to

the Fadeev-Popov method mentioned in the previous section. RAQ attempts to

quantize the entire classical theory first including the constraints, then attempts to

impose the quantum constraints in order to determine a Physical Hilbert space. In

this respect, the RAQ attempts to extend and resolve some of the ambiguities of the

Dirac Procedure namely, "How is the the inner product imposed on the physical Hilbert

space?" and "Which linear space do the linear constraints act on?". [30] Refined Algebraic

Quantization comes in two main varieties, Group Averaging and a more rigorous version

that is based on the theory of 1i.-.-. Hilbert spaces. In this chapter we will focus on the

former rather than the latter because most experts will agree that there does not exist a

group averaging technique for all constraints in this formalism. See [30] and [31] for more

complete discussions on the failures of group averaging.









3.2.1 Basic Outline of Procedure

The prescription that RAQ follows begins with the basic treatment of canonical

quantization that was described in C'! lpter 2, although, in general, this prescription

generally relaxes the Cartesian coordinate requirement. First, one must represent the

constraints Ci as self-adjoint operators (or their exponential action, as Unitary operators)

that act on an auxiliary Hilbert space,Hanx, which in turn is the prerequisite linear space.

Since, in general, the constraints, C, have continuous spectrum, it follows that the solutions

of the constraints could be generalized vectors. Thus, we will consider a dense, subspace

of Haux (4 C 'Ha,) which can be equipped with a topology finer than that of the regular

auxiliary Hilbert space. The distributional solutions of the constraints are contained in the

algebraic dual V*, (space of all linear maps -- C). The topology of V* is that of point

wise convergence, which is to -v a sequence f, E 4* converges to f E 4* if and only if

fQn() f(0) for all Q GE 4. This concept, as we mentioned in the introduction of the

section, is based on the theory of Ri.-.-. -l Hilbert spaces. The subspace 4 is chosen based

upon the condition that it is left invariant by the constraints Ci or the exponentiated

action, or that it can be determined based on physical choices. [31] Another technical

requirement is that for every A E Aobs,(i.e. the algebra6 of observables), which commutes

with Ci, A as well as its adjoint At, are defined on 4 and map 4 to itself. We will attempt

to describe this particular requirement briefly.

The final stage of the RAQ procedure entails constructing an anti-linear map called a

rigging map,

I : 4 ---*, (3-14)



6 This is a *-algebra on the Haux.









that satisifies the following condition: For every Q01, 2 E then qr(01) is a solution of the
constraint equation,

(Ct(rlT0))[2 = ( )[C ] =0. (3-15)

In addition to (3-15) the rigging map (3-14) must also satisfy the following two

conditions, which are true for every 01, 02 E :

1. The rigging map Tr is real and positive semi-definite

(Tl/)[021] (92)[]11,*

(r101)[Oi] > 0.

2. The rigging map inteterwines with the representations of the obervable algebra

O(TI01) I(01),

where O E Aobs-

Once the rigging map has been determined, the vectors rl that span the solution

space are C 1 r,, completed with respect to the following inner-product


(011u| 2) (01)[02], (3-16)

for every 01, 02 E ) and (.|-) is the inner product of the auxiliary Hilbert space. Thus,

we define the physical Hilbert space derived by the techniques of the RAQ. We will

revisit the Refined Algebraic Quantization program in C'i plter 6 in the context of the

Ashtekar-Horowitz-Boulware model [32].

3.2.2 Comments and Criticisms

While the RAQ does resolve some of the ambiguities of the Dirac procedure, the

resolution is not without cost. One of the prices that we must 1p is that we must

also have an additional mathematical structure on particular subspaces on the Hilbert

space. Namely, we require that the invariant subspace must also be equipped with a

topology that is finer than the one inherited by the auxiliary Hilbert space. As is well









known, this choice of the invariant subspace can lead to non-physical results, such as,

super-selection sectors7 in a variety of constraint models where these structures are not

motivated.[32] For this primary reason the RAQ procedure has difficultys when dealing

with constraints that have zeroes in the continuum. The RAQ method also has difficulty

when the constraint algebra produces a quantum anomaly, as well as cases in which an

infinite number of constraints are present. This leads us to the third and final method that

we will discuss in this chapter the Master Constraint Program.

3.3 Master Constraint Program

The third and final method that is discussed in this chapter is known as the Master

Constraint Program (\!CP). Like the RAQ, MCP follows the mantra of the Dirac

procedure in that one must quantize first and reduce second. We notice the same basic

philosophy in the next chapter when we discuss the Projection operator formalism. The

Master Constraint Program was developed by Thiemann, et al. [33], in an attempt to

overcome situations in which the RAQ procedure fails. These I !liures" include, but are

not limited to, cases in which an infinite number of constraints are present, as well as

when the structure functions are not constants, but rather are functions over the phase

space. This program also attempts to eliminate other ambiguity from the RAQ procedure,

namely the requirement of additional input into the physical theory. As mentioned before,

this additional input is a dense and invariant subspace which is equipped with a finer

topology than that of the Hilbert space in which it is embedded. [34] During this section,

since we only intend to give a heuristic account of the Master Constraint Program, we will



7 See chapter 6 for further details.

8 When we ;- difficulty, we mean conventional approaches such as group averaging
techniques fail. Extra mathematical constructs must be implemented. [31]









eliminate the many technical details surrounding the mathematical machinery -,'' We

will motivate this quantum constraint program in much the same manner the original

authors did, [33]. Particularly, we will describe the classical analog and then discuss the

quantization of the classical theory.

3.3.1 Classical Description

Given a phase space M and a set of constraints functions Cj(p, q)jil, where I is some

countable index set and (p, q) E R2N and 2N is the dimensionality of the phase space, the

master constraint replaces this set of constraints with a single expression, which is sum of

the square of the constraint operators in a strictly positive semi-definite form, as shown in

the following expressions:

M CJ(pq)gJkCk(pq) (3 17)
j,kel
where gi is chosen to be positive definite.o1 We will attempt to justify this act of adding

the squares of constraint functions in the next chapter, as well as discuss some of the

potential pitfalls of this procedure. The set of constraint equations Cj = 0 for all j E I

has now been reduced to a single equation, M = 0. Despite being a great simplification

another difficulty immediately presents itself. Namely, how can we recognize observables in

the theory? As we noted in C'i plter 2, observables are functions over the phase space that

commute weakly with all the constraint functions


{O, C (p,q)} 0 (3-18)



9 For a technical account of this program we refer the reader to the seminal works on
this program namely [33] and [34]

10 We should also note we can make a further modification on (3-17) if the constraints
are actually fields. If this is the case, we must smear them over some set of test functions.
For more details on this procedure see [33].









where 0 E C0('M). However, after eliminating the need to deal with each constraint

separately, it is immediately apparent that


{f,M} 0 (3-19)

is not valid for just observable functions but any general function, f, over the phase

space. Thiemann amended this deficit in [33] by offering the following modification of the

identification of an observable to the previous known scheme,


{O, {O,M }}M =o 0 (3-20)

where O is a twice differentiable function. In fact with the scheme, [34], all observables in

a given theory can aslo be identified in the following manner. Suppose, using Thiemann's

notation, we let a^ denote the one-parameter group of automorphisms over the phase

space M, which is defined as the time evolution of the master constraint, it follows that

we can define the ergodic mean [33] of any 0 E C"(M)),

1 fT
O = lim dt a^(0). (3-21)
T-oo 2T J-T

lim dt eit{M}'O(p, q)
T-oo 2T J_
1 'T (t"
= lirm E odt {O, {O, {O, o ,M}...}} (3-22)
T--- 2T f m-

If we assume that we can commute the integral with the Poisson brackets, then it is

easy to see that(3-21) will satisfy (3-20). We will end the discussion with the classical

considerations of the master constraint program on that particular note and address the

issue of quantum observables later in C'! lpter 5 in the context of the Projection Operator

Formalism.

3.3.2 Quantization

The modus operandi of the Master Constraint program is to use well- known and

well-established theorems of self-adjoint operators in Operator theory to construct the









physical Hilbert space on a wide variety of constraint systems. This program has been

"tested" in systems that included, but are not limited to, simple quantum mechanical

constraints that form a non-compact algebra (like sl(2, R)) [36] to a fully interacting

quantum field theory [37]. Therefore, in order to proceed with the quantization of the

MCP, one must first promote the master constraint (3-17) to a self-adjoint operator that

acts on an auxiliary Hilbert space

M fMf. (3-23)

The main difference, at this point in the discussion, between the auxiliary Hilbert space of

MCP and that of RAQ, is that MCP requires the Hilbert space to be separable.

At first glance it may appear that one has eliminated the possible quantum anomaly

because a commutator of any operator with the same operator is zero, [Af, f] = 0. While

this is a true statement, the quantum anomaly has only been reformulated in another

manner, videlicet the spectrum of fM may not contain zero. An example that illustrates

this point more clearly is as follows: Consider a classical system with a classical phases

space, R, with two constraints,


C1i pi

C2 ql.




Using the classification system we described in C!i lpter 2, we can identify this system as

a second-class system. We should note that this system will not have a quantum anomaly

as defined by C!i lpter 2 and [8]. However, it will provide a distinct property that we are

attempting to illustrate, which is the quantum master constraint need not posses a 0 in

the spectrum. The corresponding master constraint of this system can be written as the

following,

M = +q2 (3 24)









We can quickly quantize this system by promoting the p's and q's as irreducible self

adjoint operators. As noted before [1, M1] = 0. However, as mentioned before, 0 is not in

the spectrum of M since the least eigenvalue of M is Thiemann [33] offered a means

to rectify this by -.- -ii,.-; a modification of the quantum master constraint by the

following:

M = M AI (3-25)

where A = inf{spectrum(M) and I is the identity operator on the auxiliary or a

kinematical Hilbert space. According to Thiemann, [[33]], (3-25) will still have the same

classical limit of the master constraint because A oc h. In general, if a system contains a

constraint that is classically an open, first-class constraint, like gravity or the system that

we will discuss in C'!i lpter 4, where A would be proportional to h2.

Assuming the operator M is a densely defined self-adjoint operator, we can now

proceed with the quantization by first addressing the auxiliary Hilbert space. Using the

fact that M is a self-adjoint operator with a positive semi-definite spectrum, the auxiliary

Hilbert space can be written as the following direct integral [34];


Hagx = dJ(x)Ha,(x) (3-26)
a+

where d4(x) is the spectral measure [33] of the master constraint operator (3-25). Each

addend contribution to the sum, 'H'f(x), in (3-26) is a separable Hilbert space with the

inner product induced by the auxiliary Hilbert space, Haux.

Using this particular construction we are now able to address the task of solving

the quantum master constraint equation M = 0. By the mathematical description of

the auxiliary Hilbert space (3-26), it follows that the action of M on -H5,x(x) is simply

multiplication of x. We can solve the quantum master constraint equation by identifying

the physical Hilbert space by the following


9-phys (0). (3-27)









Notice the inner product of the physical Hilbert space is inherited based upon the

properties of the auxiliary Hilbert space. This will conclude our basic description of the

Master Constraint Program. We now attempt to implement a simple quantum mechanical

constraint, namely, we will consider a system whose constraints form the Lie algebra of

so(3), which will allow us to properly compare the results we obtain with the MCP and

the projection operator formalism in C'! lpter 4.

3.3.3 MCP Constraint Example

Consider a classical systemn1 where the phase space is R6 and is subject to the

following three constraints:

Ji = cijkqiPk (3-28)

where i E {1, 2, 3} qi and pi are the canonical position and canonical momentum

respectively12 We can clearly recognize that the Poisson brackets of the constraints

defined in (3-28) form a closed Lie Algebra that we can identify with the algebra of so(3):


{ JJj}i = jk k. (3-29)

The classical master constraint (3-17), corresponds to the Casmir operator of the group


M = JJe. (3-30)


The quantization of this model is straightforward. The auxiliary Hilbert space is

the set of all square integrable functions over R3, also known as L2(IR3). The canonical

position qi is promoted to a self-adjoint operator Qi in which the action on the auxiliary

Hilbert space is multiplication by qi. The conjugate momentum pi is promoted to a

self-adjoint operator Pi in which the action on L2(IR3) is differentiation, Pi -ih-. The



11 We should note that the example covered in this subsection was first considered in
[35].

12 Einstein summation convention is used, as ah-- i-i.









Poisson brackets are replaced with the familiar commutator brackets defined in C'!i pter 2.

The classical master constraint (3-30) is promoted to a corresponding self-adjoint operator


MI = J (3-31)


Since there is no ordering ambiguity in (3-31), one does not need to subtract A to obtain

a zero in the spectrum of (3-31). Using the techniques that are well known in quantum

mechanics [38], we will use spherical coordinates to determine the eigenvalues of the

quantum master constraint (3-31)13

1 2 1
M -h sin2 0 (sin0 )) (3 32)
sin2 2 2 sin 8 00 00

where 0 E [0, 7] and Q E [0, 27). The eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of (3-32) are well

known [38]. The eigenvalues of (3-32) are h21(1 + 1) where 1 E N and the eigenfunctions

are the sphercial harmonic functions Yim(O, 0), where -1 < m < 1. [38] A generalized

eigenfunction could be written as the the product of a general element in L2(IR+, r2dr),

which we will denote by R(r) with the spherical harmonic functions Yim(0, 0). Using this

fact we can proceed to the next step of the MCP, which is to rewrite the auxiliary Hilbert

space in terms of a direct integral decomposition
OO
Hax = > cl{span{R(r)Yem(0, )| I < m < l} (3-33)
l=0

where cl donotes the closure of the set, and span is the linear span of the set of vectors

defined in the brackets. The physical Hilbert space and the induced inner product come

directly from selecting the subspace that corresponds with the 1= 0 eigenvalue.



13 We should note this conversion to spherical coordinates is done after quantization not
before, as we noted the previous chapter of the potential difficulties that arises from the
reverse [38].











9Hphys = cl{span {R(r)Yoo(0, Q)}}.


The inner product of this physical Hilbert space is inherited from the L2(R+, r2dr). Thus

completes the quantization of this simple constraint model in the Master Constraint

Program 14 We will return to this model in the next chapter, when we will discuss it in

the context of the projection operator formalism.

3.3.4 Comments and Criticisms

Despite the many successes [35], [36], and [37] that the program has had in resolving

several of the ambiguities associated with the Refined Algebraic Quantization, it still

may not be the perfect choice to use for all constraints. If the constraint's spectrum

contains a zero in the continuum, then particular care, in the form of rather cumbersome

mathematical machinery, must be used. Not that this yields an incorrect result, however

it almost appears to be extraneous to the material. This is somewhat of a biased opinion

because as we will see in the next chapter the projection operator formalism's answer to

this seems more satisfactory. Again though, we emphasize the fact that the results have

been shown to be equivalent to the results found in [13]. Another possible criticism of this

program is not a criticism of the program, but instead, a criticism of its implementation.

That is to -iv that authors tend to di-plivi a heavy reliance on the classical analysis of

groups to solve constraints [35]. The main critique of this point comes from the fact that

most of the work done with groups such as sl(2, C) neglect the zero representation [41],

which should be the representation corresponding to physical Hilbert space. However, just

as the authors pointed out in [35], this particular constraint is not physically realizable,

and therefore not subject to experiment.



14 Actually, it is not the very end of this discussion. We must also include a discussion
of the quantum observables in the theory. We will simply point the reader to [35] for a
discourse on that topic.


(3-34)









3.4 Conclusions

In this chapter, we have examined three distinct constraint quantization programs.

All of these programs have their distinct advantages and disadvantages depending on the

particular constraint under consideration. In the following chapter we will examine the

projection operator method and examine the tools of that formalism and how it attempts

to overcome the difficulties of the preceding methods.









CHAPTER 4
PROJECTION OPERATOR FORMALISM

The primary goal of this chapter is to introduce and motivate the Projection Operator

Formalism (POF). The projection operator method is a relatively new procedure for

dealing with quantum constraints [13] [26].The ]lhi ... l.hi,- of this formalism is to first

quantize the entire theory, and then reduce the quantum theory by using the constraints.

We will attempt to illustrate how the POF attempts to remedy some of the deficiencies of

the methods discussed in C'! lpter 3. In the final section of the chapter we will examine

three constraint models. The first is a constraint that has a zero in the continuum,

whereas the second and the third are models that were examined in [8]. They help

illustrate the power of the projection operator formalism in dealing with all classifications

of constraints. In this chapter it is understood that h = 1 unless stated elsewise.

4.1 Method and Motivation

Following the Dirac procedure's initial footsteps, we canonically quantize the

unconstrained classical theory as described in the preceding section. We then deviate

from the Dirac method by introducing a projection operator, E, which takes vectors from

the unconstrained Hilbert space to the constraint subspace (i.e. the physical Hilbert space

or even better the regularized1 physical Hilbert space) [13]


-Hp =- E (4-1)


We require E to be Hermitian which satisfies the relation E2 = E (idempotent), these are

basic properties of a projection operator. More precisely, suppose that B1 and B2 denote

measurable2 sets on the Hilbert space. The product of two operators yields a projection



1 We will explain this more clearly a little later in the chapter.
2 Borel measurable [33]









operator that projects onto the intersection of the two sets,


lim (E(B)E(B2))n = E(BI n B2). (4-2)
n- 0oo

If B1 n B2 = 0, then E(0) = 0. We will use this property in ('!C ipters 5, 6 and 8.

Reverting to the Dirac prescription of the physical Hilbert space it is defined as

A
NFp {- ))p )p = 0, Va} Q-{ker4} (4-3)
a

where Ka is the quantum analogue to the classical constraint a,, and a E {1,..., A}. In an

ideal situation3 (4 3) is equivalent to the following

A
Np {kert a} {ker ac,}. (4-4)
a

The fact that (4-4) will not ah--iv-i lead to a non-trival result, is a clue on how to arrive

at the true answer. Assuming that a~K, is self-adjoint acting on a Hilbert space, we can

use the following result from spectral theory to obtain our desired projection operator, E.

Namely, the operator 4Kaa can be written in the following representation [39]


a@a= J AdE (4-5)


where dE is the so-called projection valued measure [33] on the spectrum of 4a4a, which

was denoted by A which contained a spectral range of 0 to oc4 The projection operator

that was used in (4-1) can be introduced based on the result of (4-5)


pS(h)2
E(aa < 6(h)2) = AdE (4-6)




3 Which is generally not the case for reasons mentioned in ('!, plter 3 and later in this
chapter.

4 This range may or may have not included 0.









where 6(h)2 is a regularization5 parameter. As it is often emphasized by Klauder, 6(h)2

is only a small parameter, not a Dirac 6-functional [40]. Equation (4-6) projects onto a

subspace of the Hilbert space with a spectral measure of o a from 0 to 6(h)2. The true

physical Hilbert space (4-1) is determined when the limit as 6(h)2 -- 0 will be taken6

in an appropriate7 manner. In the following subsection we will offer functional form of

4-6. We will now turn our attention to further motivating the process of squaring the

constraint.

4.1.1 Squaring the Constraints

Much like the Master Constraint Program (\ICP), the Projection Operator

Formalism (POF) also relies on the summing of the square of constraints to replace a

set of constraints {a}0 ,, with a single term. Unlike the MCP, the POF offers further

justification for only dealing with the sum of the squares instead of appealing to simplicity

arguments. By simplicity arguments we mean, why stop at a second-order polynomial

expression of the constraints, why not consider fourth-order or higher? The authors of

[34] only mention that second order was chosen because it is the simplest expression.

Instead, we attempt to offer some mathematical arguments that indicate that the sum of

the squares of the quantum mechanical constraints is sufficient.

4.1.2 Classical Consideration

Before moving to the quantum mechanical description of the constraint story, it is

important for us to be able to motivate the tale classically first. Let us consider a set of A



5 Hence a regularized physical Hilbert space!!

6 Or taken depending on the type of constraint. [13]

7 More on this later.









constraints which satisfy the following A equations:


1 0
02 0


OA = 0.


(4-7)


In order to determine the constraint subspace in the phase space, all A equations must be

satisfied simultaneously. This set of equations would be at least classically equivalent to

the following set:


(4-8)


Finally, if we add all of the preceding equations together, we arrive at the conclusion that


S-= 0o


(4-9)


is equivalent to the set of A equations (4-7). As we stated before, this is classically

equivalent, but are we certain that this will be justified quantum mechanically?

4.1.2.1 Quantum Consideration

When moving to operators, the next point of concern is whether or not the procedure

of summing the squares of operators is well defined. Since we are assuming (I is









self-adjoint, it follows that E V is a symmetric operator with a lower bound, and,

therefore, it has a well defined self-adjoint extension. This statement assumes that we

only have a finite number of degrees of freedom.8

4.1.2.2 Projection Operator Justification

All of the preceding arguments could have been the same as those emploiy- 1 by

practitioners of the MCP for squaring the constraints. We will now depart from this line

of thinking to employ an argument used by Klauder in [40].

The formal path integral form of the projection operator is the following expression.

E f Te-' 1) 1 a)dtDR(A), (4-10)

where T is the time-ordered product and R(A) is the formal measure over the c-number

Lagrange multipliers {A(t)}. As shown in [40] the projection operator (4-10), is constructed

in two main steps. The time interval is defined as a positive real value equal to t2- t1. The

first step is to construct a Gaussian measure that would cause the odd-moments of the

Lagrange multipliers to vanish (i.e. f Aa(t)DA(t) = 0), while keeping the even moments

(i.e f Aa(t)Ab(t)DA = Mab, where (c') is a small parameter corresponding to a time step,

Mab is a positive matrix, and 7 is a real, positive integration parameter.)


AJ Tei' f A(t)b T J(A-(t)2dt) f7 DA a C gitaMa^U^b(t-ti) (4- 11)

where N is the formal normalization of the path integral (4-11). The final step is

to integrate (4-11) over 7. To accomplish this feat we will introduce a conditionally



8 If we were to move to a problem with an infinite number of degrees of freedom, per se
a quantum field theory, extra caution must be emploi-y l to establish a proper definition
[33].









convergent integral namely,


IE(, ab < 6(h)2) liM sin[(6(h)2 + (t2 t)] t) (4 12)
C--o+ -_^ 7r7

where the conditionally convergent integral is defined by the following [40];


-i sin[(6(h)2+ ()7] if II< 6,
lim / ed7
J 7 '0 if XI > 6.


Equation (4-12) is true assuming that the constraints are not explicitly dependent on

time. We examine that case in ('! lpters 7 and 8. The matrix Mab is the most general

case, but for our current purposes, we are free to select Mab ab, which would

yield the desired form of squaring the constraints. Having illustrated the motivation

behind considering squaring the constraints, we will divert our attentions to some of the

mathematical tools that are required in implementing the POF.

4.2 Tools of the Projection Operator Formalism

4.2.1 Coherent States

As one may recall from C'! Ilpter 2, one of the limitations of the Dirac procedure

is the lack of assurance of a normalizable state. To address this concern using the

projection operator method, let us consider the coherent state as a suitable Hilbert

space representation. Let P' and Qj denote the standard Heisenberg self-adjoint operators

that obey the commutation relation


[QP,P] ibiln. (4-13)

The Weyl (canonical) coherent state may be defined as


Ip, q) = e-( '' P e(/ '' 0) (4-14)

for a finite number of degrees of freedom, (p, q) E R2N, and the states are strongly

continuous in the labels (p, q), |0) is some fiducial vector often taken to be the ground










state of a harmonic oscillator9 The additional requirement that (4-14) truly are coherent

states is that they possess a resolution of unity [41]:


= p,q)(p, q (4-15)


We will offer (4-15) as an accepted truth without proof [41].

These coherent states also offer a connection to the classical limit of quantum

operators. This property is known as the I. Il: correspondence principle". [41] We

exploit, and also state more carefully, this property of coherent states in a subsequent

chapter.

The coherent states are convenient because they form an overcomplete basis of the

Hilbert space. Using this representation, we can express a dense set of vectors in the

functional Hilbert space in terms of the coherent state overlap,

N
{(p,q)= (p, q ) aa(p, q p, q, N < oo, (4-16)
n=i
where a, E C. The inner product of such vectors can be expressed as the following,

N,M
(QqT) a*M.(pq.Pn,.n1pm, q), (4-17)
n,m=l

where rT is an element of the dense set. The completion of such a set of vectors leads to

the unconstrained Hilbert space, which leads us to the topic of the Reproducing Kernel

Hilbert space.

4.2.2 Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Spaces

Reproducing Kernel Hilbert space is well established, yet it is an under utilized

mathematical technique to describe functional Hilbert spaces. If a reproducing kernel can

be defined, it will completely define the space. One such example of reproducing kernel




9 However, one could select another fiducial vector depending on the situation.










is that which is defined by the coherent states overlap (p', q'lp, q) which also defines the

inner product of the Hilbert space it defines. Using the fact that (p', q' lE|p, q) is a function

of positive type1' so it can be used as a reproducing kernel,11


C4(p',q'; p,q) (p', q'IEp, q). (4-18)


As in the case of the unconstrained Hilbert space, we can express a dense set of

vectors in the functional constraint subspace as

N
p (p, q) = a (p, q;Pn, n) N < oc. (4-19)
n=l

The inner product for these vectors is given by

N N
(Q, TI)p a* i /C3, (pm., qm; pn, qn), (4 20)
m= in= 1

where r] is also an element of the dense set of vectors. Using basic properties of the

reproducing kernel and coherent states, we know that the norm defined by the inner

product of these vectors will be finite [13]. This guarantees that the norm of vectors in the

completion will also be finite. If we multiply a reproducing kernel KC by a constant, the

reproducing kernel KC still corresponds to the same functional space. This is a key point

and one that we exploit in the next section when we deal with a constraint that possesses

a zero in the continuum.



10 That is that Ek QQ1'ak(pF' 'ElK,, q) > 0, for all N < oo and arbitrary complex
numbers {aj} and label sets {pj,qj}.

1 If the projection operator is equal to unity, then we are left with the unconstrained
Hilbert space.









4.3 Constraint Examples

4.3.1 Constraint with a Zero in the Continuous Spectrum

Consider a quantum system whose unreduced space correpsonds to N = 1 degrees of

freedom, such as the quantum constraint of the system of the following form


I) = P- 2, (4-21)


where 4i is the only constraint present. It is clear that the spectrum of ti is the real line

and that it possesses a zero in that continuum. This implies that lim6o0 E 0, which

is an unacceptable result. To resolve this quandary one should look at the projection

operator overlap with a set of coherent states of the form of (4-16), which follows


(p", q"E(-6 < P-2 < )p', q') (4-22)

Using the Taylor series by expanding (4-22) as a function of 6, utilizing the resolution of

unity and functional coherent states overlap we find that,


(p", q"lE(-6 < P 2 < 6) lp, q') o 26. (4-23)

As -,-.. -1.' 1 in [13], we will multiply (4 22) by to extract the germ of the reproducing

kernel. We must emphasize that this is still the same functional space described by (4-22).

The functional form of the reproducing kernel is expressed by the following:

1 _+2
S(p", q" E(-6 < P 2 < 6) p', q') = dk e-(k -")22+ik(q"-q')-(k-p')/2 (4 24)
26 J-6+2

At this juncture we will not discuss how to evaluate this integral, since the topic is

discussed in depth in subsequent chapters. However, we will state the result:


limKC e- ((p2)+(p'-2)+2i(q-q) (425)
6-O

A characteristic of this reduced reproducing kernel (4-25) is that it does not define the

same functional space as the unreduced reproducing kernel (4-22). This reproducing









kernel defines a one dimensional Hilbert space. We should note that (4-25) is gaussian

peaked at the classical solution p' = p" = p = 2. As stated we will return to several more

examples of constraints with zeros in the continuum when we delve into this topic during

('! Ilpters 5 and 6.

4.3.2 Closed, First-Class Constrant

The next constraint system under consideration is a set of constraints that force the

angular momentum ji, i E {1, 2, 3} to vanish. With the angular momentum ji =- ijkqJpk,

the action integral we choose is


I, = (pa A bb) dt, (4-26)

where Ab denotes the Lagrange multipliers to enforce the constraints. Note that the

Hamiltonian has been chosen to be zero for simplicity, so we can focus directly on the

issues surrounding the constraints.

From the definition of the ji's, one can immediately determine the Poisson algebra,

given as usual by

{Jji, Jj} = ijk k. (4-27)

Since this bracket yields a Lie algebra, our system is clearly a closed first-class constraint

system [14].

The quantization of this model is straight forward and we promote the dynamical

variables (pj, qi) to the set of irreducible self adjoint operators (Pj, Q'), which obey the

standard Heisenberg relation. The constraint ji are promoted to self-adjoint operators Ji


ji J = CijkQjPk. (4-28)

The projection operator of these constraints (4-28) takes the form of


E(JiJi < 6(h)2). (4-29)









Unlike the previous case considered in the subsection, 6 can be taken to zero to yield a
non-trivial result. We will still utilize the reproducing kernel to discover the functional

nature of the physical Hilbert space. Before proceeding it will be convenient to introduce
the equivalent form of the canonical coherent states;

I = e(Q-iP)- (Q+iP) 0) (4 30)

where z'- (q+ ip)/V2h and denotes the standard Euclidean dot product [41].
A coherent state path integral can also be used to calculate the matrix elements of
the projector as shown in previous works [13]. Let us begin with a preliminary equation,
namely,



(,",i Te-(i1) f A' Jdtl 5,,')

M Jexp{(i/h) ((pa&' q a))/2 A"ja)dt}DpDq

N"N' exp{//* e-(i/h)o ', )

where M, N", and N' are normalization factors, (q+ ip)/V2h, j is a 3 x 3 matrix
representation of the rotation algebra, T denotes time ordering, and J is a suitable
functional of {A0Q)}.
Following [13], we could integrate over X with respect to a suitable measure R(A) to
create the desired projection operator. However, it is equivalent and simpler to proceed as
follows,

ICe(r;) (e-a E(2 _< h2) e)

where d) is the normalized Haar measure of S(3). Consequentlyd,

where dp(0) is the normalized Haar measure of SO(3). Consequently,












ICj(Q;; N) (NN exp{f /2v o 2cos }dcos

sinh v/22 (4 3)

/*2 -2 2 22
z.*252 (zu,'* 2)2
N"N[1 + + + ...] (4-32)
3! 5!
(4-33)

From (4-32) we can deduce that the physical Hilbert space for every even particle sector is

one-dimensional. The Hilbert space found using this method is unitarily equivalent to the

one determined by the Master Constraint Program.

4.3.3 Open, First Class constraint

The next constraint model's inspiration is that of gravity (General Relativity). It is

well known that the constraint algebra of gravity,


{Ha(x),Hb(Y)} = 6x,y)Hb(x) b(x,y)Ha(x), (4-34)

{Ha(x),H(y)} = 6,a(x,y)H(x), (4-35)

{H(x),H(y)} = 6,(x,y)gab(x)Hb(x), (4-36)

is classically first-class; however, upon quantization the constraints transmute to partially

second class. [8] The analysis of the model we are about to examine served as the primary

motivation behind [8]. This model is also a type of constraint that that we considered

in C'!I pter 3, in terms of the Fadeev-Popov procedure. The action for our choice of the

modified system is very similar in form, i.e.,


I2 / (pa- Abl) dt (4 37)
17









where the essential change resides in the definition of the variables li. For some smooth,
non-vanishing function, f, we define (note: q = q1, etc.)

1- f(pi,p2, qq29, (4 38)

for all i, and choose for further study the particular example for which


f(Pi, 2, q, q2) a- + (P3/A)(p + q1) + (7/ )(p + q2). (4-39)

The symbol h is a fixed constant equal in value to the physical value of Planck's constant
h, namely 1.06 x 10-27 erg-sec. When the classical limit is called for, and thus Planck's
constant h -- 0, we emphasize that h retains its original numerical value. The reason for
such a small divisor is to emphasize the quantum corrections; different divisors can be
considered by rescaling 3 and 7. We recognize, in this simple case, that we could absorb
the factor f by a redefinition of the Lagrange multipliers in (4-37). In more complicated
systems (e.g., gravity) this simplification is either extremely difficult or perhaps even
impossible. Therefore, as a further analog, we retain f as a part of la. A straight forward
analysis leads to


{li, lj} = { fj, fjj }

f2{ji,jj} + f{ji, f},jj + f{f, jjji + {f, f}jijj

fijklk + {jj, f}lj + {f, jj}lt

f ijklk + Ciab[--qaOf /aqb + PbOf /ll' ]l

jab[- qaOf /aqb +pbOf /lj'']i .

Since f > 0, our modified set of constraints is classified as open, first-class.









The quantization of this model proceeds much like that of the case with Ji, namely we
promote 1i to a suitable self-adjoint quantum operator Li

SH L, = aJ + (j3/2h) [(P12 + Q2) Ji + J, (P2 + Q2)1

(y/2h) [(p2 + Q2) Ji + Ji (p2 + Q2)], (4 40)
+ (7/2) [(P22 P22 (4-40)

where a + p + 7 1. In dealing with the quantum theory, we drop the distinction between
h and h. A quick calculation shows that any other factor-ordering of the definition of
(4-40) will yield an equivalent result. The commutation of the Li yields a surprising
result, namely


[Li, Lk] Cijk(ihFLk h2 (Okll(aka + alak)))

2iii((QaQl + aP1l)F +... (4-41)

where F = a + (p/h)(P2 + Q) + (/)(P22 + Q2). The second, third, fourth, etc. terms
in (4-41) represent the anomaly in the quantum theory. This anomaly corresponds to a
transmutation to a partially second class system. With this being noted we will continue
the quantum analysis of the system.
Let us introduce conventional annihilation and creation operators represented by

a, (Qj + iPj)/ 2, (4-42)

a = (Qj iPj)/2 (4-43)

If we define

N = aai + ata2 + aa3 (4-44)

as the total number operator, it is evident that

[Jj, N] =0, [Lj,N]= 0, (4-45)









for all j, and thus both sets {Js} and {Li} are number conserving. We will revisit
this particular technique in C'! ipter 9. This conservation implies that we can study

the fulfillment of both sets of constraints in each of the number-operator subspaces

independently of one another. We observe that the subspace for which N = 0 consists

of just a single state, and this state is an eigenvector of each Ji as well as each Li,

i {1, 2, 3}, all with eigenvalue zero. In the interest of simplicity in this paper, we restrict

our attention to the lowest nontrivial subspace in which the constraints Ji = 0 are satisfied
on a non-vanishing subspace. In particular, we confine our attention to a subspace of the

entire Hilbert space corresponding to an eigenvalue of the total number operator of two.

Note that the subspace of interest is six-dimensional and that it is spanned by the six

vectors given by the two representatives

1, 1,0) a a 0), etc., (4-46)

12,0,0) (1/v) (a{)2 0), etc., (4-47)

where as usual 10) (= 0, 0, 0)) denotes the no particle state for which aj|0) = 0 for all j.

The first non-empty subspace that produces a non-trival result is the 2-particle

subspace. With the additional simplification that 7 /3/2, we can express the eigenevector

that corresponds to least eigenvalue in this 6-dimensional subspace as,

OL) 1
OL) ( (12 d|2, 0,0) + d' 10,2, 0) + 00,0,2), (4-48)
1 + d2+ dlI

where d = 1 23 + O(32) and d' = 1 + O(02). The projection operator of this subspace

is constructed as the following;

E2 =OL) (OL| (4-49)









We can also construct the fundamental kernel for the modified case using these results.

Specifically,


ICL( ii; 5/) = (I//O)(O |I) + ('11|OL)(OL I) )+... (4-50)
N"N' (dzi 2 + d'/z2*2 + z3f*2)(dzl2 + d'z 2 + z32)
= VN"N'[1 + + ... ].
2!(d2+ d'2 + 1)
(4-51)


One final note regarding this particular model, as with the case for other partially or fully

quantum mechanical second class constraint systems, the limit as 6 -- 0 is not taken. The

Hilbert space is determined by the space corresponding to the least eigenvalue.

4.4 Conclusions

In this chapter, we have discussed the Projection operator method to deal with

quantum constraints. We have also discussed the quantization models of 3 distinctly

different constraint models. For the remaining chapters of this dissertation, we will be

using the Projection Operator to analyze various quantum constraint situations.









CHAPTER 5
HIGHLY IRREGULAR CONSTRAINTS

The primary goal of this chapter is to introduce regularity conditions on constraints,

as well as present a i, --" classification of constraints called highly .:,. i'l.n constraints

and also illustrate techniques used to deal with quantum versions of these constraints. The

basis of this chapter comes from [9] and [10].

5.1 Classification

In constrained dynamics one typically places regularity conditions on the constraint

to insure linear independence. If we consider A classical constraints, ,a, a {1, .., A}

the regularity condition can be stated in terms of the rank of the Jacobian matrix of the

constraints [16]


Rank( A, (5-1)
f(p",q,) r '
where n {1, ..., M}, 2M is the dimensionality of phase space, and F is the constraint

hypersurface (0a 0). If this condition fails, then the constraint (or set of constraints) is

called irregular [16]. Irregular constraints can appear in following form



a, (5-2)

where Qa is a regular constraint and r is an exponent r > 1 In the literature [16]

the measure of irregularity is based on the order of the zero on the constraint surface.

For example, (5-2) is an rth order irregular constraint. We should note that while the

constraints Oa and or are equivalent (i.e. the constraints generate the same constraint

hypersurface), the dynamics and set of observables associated with each given system are

not necessarily equivalent.

The term highly .:, ,-/;,. l, constraint refers to a constraint function that involves

both regular and irregular constraints or two or more constraints of varying order [9]. For









example, let us consider the following two constraints:


1 = q(1 q)2, (5-3)


S q- 3)(q 4)3. (54)

The first constraint is regular at q = 0 and irregular at q = 1 of order 2. The second

coinstraint is irregular at both q = 3, of order 2, and at q = 4, of order 3. Both of

these constraints are representative of the class of highly irregular constraints. Since the

dynamics as well as observability [9] of a given system are potentially not the same for

regular and irregular constraints, careful consideration must be observed when quantizing

such systems. The projection operator formalism [13] seems to provide an appropriate

framework to deal with systems with irregular constraints [9].

The usual form of the projection operator is given by



E(Za+d < 62(h)), (5-5)

where EYa( is the sum of the squares of the constraint operators and 6(h) is a small

regularization factor. The projection operator is then used to extract a subspace of the

unconstrained Hilbert space, R. If ZEK has a discrete isolated 0 then 6 can be chosen

to be an extremely small number. However, if ZEK has a 0 in the continuum, we can

not choose an appropriate 6 to select the proper subspace. We will discuss this distinct

possibility shortly. In the limit as 6 -- 0 if appropriate, this subspace becomes the Physical

Hilbert space,



limEl ) = I)hys, (5-6)

lim E- Ph-pys. (5-7)
&->0









However, if the constraint's spectrum contains a zero in the continuum then the

projection operator vanishes as 6 0 [13], which is unacceptable. To overcome this

obstacle, this limit must be evaluated as a rescaled form limit. To accomplish this, we

will need to introduce suitable bras and kets in the unconstrained Hilbert space. For this

discussion it will be convenient to choose canonical coherent states (1p, q)) to fulfill this

choice. We regard the following expression as the rescaled form



S(6)(p', q' IEp, q), (5-8)

where S(6) is the appropriate coefficient needed to extract the leading contribution of

(p',q'| Ep, q), for 0 < 6 < 1. For example, if (p',q' E|l' q) oc 6 to leading order, then
S(6) oc 6-1, for small 6. The limit 6 -- 0 can now be taken in a suitable' fashion. The

expression (5-8) is a function of positive semi-definite type and this means that it meets

the following criteria


limrn j azS()(p,q E,':,qi) >0, (5-9)
6O j' Cla aIS(6) (pj, qj E0(5

for all finite N, arbitrary complex numbers {ac} and coherent state labels {pi, qi}. A

consequence of the previous statement is that (5-8) can lead to a reduced reproducing

kernel for the physical Hilbert space



IC(p', q';p, q) limS(6)(p',q' Elp, q). (5-10)
6-O

The reproducing kernel completely defines the physical Hilbert space [13]. The

reproducing kernel makes it possible to express a dense set of vectors in the functional



1 non-trivial









constraint subspace as


p(p, q) = IE /,K (p, q; p, qn), N < o0. (5-11)


The inner product for these vectors is given by
N,M
(Qqj)p > n,rn-I

where rT is also an element of the dense set of vectors. The completion of these vectors

in the sense of Cn 1.r! sequences with the relevant inner product will yield the physical

Hilbert space.

Without explicitly calculating the reproducing kernel, we will consider the following

highly irregular quantum constraint


+ = Q2(1- Q), (5-13)


where Q acts as a multiplication operator. Clearly this constraint vanishes when Q = 0

and Q = 1. Assuming, 0 < 6 < 1, the projection operator for this constraint can be

written in the following form


E(-6 < K < 6) = E(-6 < Q2 < 6) + E(-6 < (1- Q) < 6). (5-14)


Since the zeros of this operator fall in the continuum, it is clear from the previous

discussion we cannot take the limit 6 -- 0 in its present naked form. The reproducing

kernel can be expressed as the following



Co (p ', q'E(-6 < Q2 < 6)p,q) + (p',q'IE(-6 < Q 1 < 6)p,q). (5-15)


By construction these projection operators E(-6 < Q2 < 6) and E(-6 < Q 1 < 6)

project onto orthogonal spaces. To leading order in 6(h) the reproducing kernel can be









approximated by

ICK ~ 61/2CQo + 6Q=i, (5-16)

where 1Cqo and IQ 1 are leading order contributions to the reproducing kernels around

the two solutions to the constraint equation. See [9] for further details. Unlike expression

(5-8) there does not exist a single S(6) to extract the leading order dependency for the

entire Hilbert space. To address this difficulty we will consider the following argument [9].

Our previous example had constraint solutions around Q = 0 and Q = 1, we will now

address this in a more general setting. We begin by determining the reproducing kernel for

each solution in the constraint equation. Recall that the sum of reproducing kernels will

produce a direct sum of the corresponding reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces if the spaces

are mutually orthogonal. This will be the case for highly irregular constraints. So let /C

represent the (6 > 0) reproducing kernel for the reproducing kernel Hilbert space -H



K= IK/C,, (5-17)

where K,C is the determined reproducing kernel for each unique solution of the constraint.

The Hilbert space generated has the following form,

N
-H- H, (5-18)
n=l
where 9-, corresponds to the IK, for each n. However, we have not taken the limit

as 6 -- 0, and since the leading order 6 dependency is potentially different for each

reproducing kernel IC,, there does not exist a single S(6) that can be used to extract the

leading order 6 contribution of each reproducing kernel. To accomplish this task we define

a (similarity) transformation S,




S C, / KIn,

/Cn = S,.(6)kC,









where S,(6) > 0 for all n which leads to


K = Sn(6)/,. (5-19)


The rescaled K serves as the reproducing kernel for the Hilbert space H. Although the

inner product of R and H) are different the set of functions are identical. The goal of this

little exercise is of course to take a suitable limit 6 -- 0 to yield a function that can serve

as a reproducing kernel for the physical Hilbert space. At this point, we can take such a

limit.




K = lim C, (5-20)
6-O
N
'Hphys -H (5-21)
n=l

where K is the reduced reproducing kernel for the physical Hilbert space 'Hphys. Having

discussed the basic theory behind this classification of constraint, in the next section

we will consider a simple but robust toy model that demonstrates the strength of the

Projecion Operator Formalism to deal with these kinds of constraints.

5.2 Toy Model

The model we choose to study involves just one configuration variable q, -oo < q <

oo, and its conjugate variable p. The classical action is taken to be


I f[p- AR(q)]dt, (5-22)


where A is a Lagrange multiplier designed to enforce the single constraint


R(q)= 0. (5-23)









The classical equations of motion for our simple system are given by


S= 0, (5-24)

S= -R'(q), (5-25)

R(q) = 0, (5-26)

with solutions


q(t) q= q=(0), (5-27)

p(t) = -R'(q) A(t')dt' + p(0), (5-28)

where qi is a root of R(q) = 0. If R'(qi) = 0 then the solution becomes


q(t) = qi q(0), p(t) p(0). (5-29)

The function A(t) is not fixed by the equations of motion, which is normal for

first-class constrained systems. To explicitly exhibit a solution to the classical equations

of motion it is generally necessary to specify the function A(t), and this constitutes a

choice of gauge. Gauge dependent quantities are defined to be unobservable, while gauge

independent quantities are declared to be observable. In the present example, if R'(qi) / 0,

then p(t) is gauge dependent, while if R'(qi) = 0, p(t) is, in fact, gauge independent. This

behavior -i .-.-. -I that the momentum p in the subset of the reduced classical phase space

for which {q : R(q) = 0, R'(q) / 0} is unobservable, while the momentum p in the subset

of the reduced classical phase space for which {q : R(q) = 0, R'(q) = 0} is observable.

We discuss this point further below. The reduced classical phase space is given by R x Z,

where

Z = {q : R(q) = 0}. (5-30)

Clearly, for the classical theory to be well defined, it is sufficient for R(q) E C1,

namely that R(q) and R'(q) are both continuous. (Strictly speaking this continuity is









required only in the neighborhood of the zero set {q : R(q) = 0}; however, with an

eye toward the Ashtekar Horowitz Boulware model, discussed in Chapter 6, we choose

R(q) E C1 for all q.)

Our discussion will cover a wide class of R functions, and for convenience of

explanation we shall focus on one specific example; generalization to other examples is

immediate. The example we have in mind is given by


R(q) = q(q 2)3/20(2 q) + (q 3)0(q 3), (5-31)

where
1, x > 0
0(x) (5-32)
0, x < 0.

For this example, the zero set is given by


Z q = 0,q 2,q 3, and 2 < q< 3}; (5-33)


only for q = 0 is R'(q) / 0. (Although physically motivated models would typically

not include intervals in the zero set of R, we do so to illustrate the versatility of our

approach.)

In summary, the phase space for the unconstrained classical system is parameterized

by (p, q) E R x R, and the phase space for the constrained system is parameterized by

the points (p, q) E R x Z. This latter space consists of several one-dimensional lines and

a two-dimensional strip. From the standpoint of this elementary example all elements of

R x Z are equally significant.

We now turn to the quantization of this elementary example following the precepts of

the projection operator formalism [13]. In this approach one quantizes first and reduces

second. The ultimate reduction leads to a physical Hilbert space appropriate to the

constrained system.









Quantization first means that our original variables p and q become conventional

self-adjoint operators P and Q subject to the condition that


[Q, P] = il (5-34)

in units where h 1. (When we eventually examine the classical limit, we shall restore the

parameter h to various expressions as needed.) The projection operator of interest is given

by

E(R(Q)2 < 62) E(-6 < R(Q) < 6) = E(-6 < R(Q) < 6) (5-35)

where 6 > 0 is a temporary regularization parameter that will eventually be sent to zero in

a suitable manner. Since the limit 6 -i 0 will ultimately be taken as a form limit, we need

to introduce suitable bras and kets in this original, unconstrained Hilbert space. For that

purpose we will again choose canonical coherent states defined, for the present discussion,

by

Ip,q) epQ e-iP0). (5-36)

As usual, we choose |0) to satisfy (Q + iP) 0) = 0; namely, |0) is the normalized ground

state of an harmonic oscillator with unit frequency. Thus we are led to consider the

complex function

(p", q"1E(-6 < R(Q) < 6)lp', q') (5-37)

which is continuous (actually C") in the coherent state labels and uniformly bounded by

unity since E = Et = E2 < 1.

It is important to remark that the function (5-37) is a function of positive type, a

criterion that means

Ejk a* k ( qj' k) > 0 (538)

for all N < oo and arbitrary complex numbers {ay} and label sets {pj, qj}; this property

holds because E is a projection operator. As a consequence of being a continuous function









of positive type the function


(p", q" Ep', q')


(5-39)


serves as a reproducing kernel for a reproducing kernel Hilbert space, a functional

representation by continuous functions on the original phase space (IR x R), of the

regularized (by 6 > 0) physical Hilbert space. Our goal is to take a suitable limit 6 -- 0 so

as to yield a function that can serve as a reproducing kernel for the true physical Hilbert

space for the present problem.

Clearly the limit 6 -- 0 of the given expression vanishes and that is an unacceptable

result. Suppose we assume 0 < 6 < 1, e.g., 6 = 10-000. Then it is clear (even for a much

larger 6 as well!), for the example at hand, that


E(-6 < R(Q) < 6)


SE(-6 < 2Q < 6)

+ E(-6 < (8(2- Q)3/2 < ) + E(2 < Q < 3)

+ E(-6 <8(Q 3)3 < 6)

- Ei +E2 +E3 +E4,


where E,, 1 < n < 4, corresponds to the terms in the line above in order. By construction,

for very small 6, it follows that these projection operators obey


ELT, 6, E:


(5-41)


i.e., they project onto mutually orthogonal subspaces. In like manner the reproducing

kernel decomposes into


C(p", q"; p', q')


(p", q" IE(-6 R(Q) < 6)lp', q)

S ,/ (p"l, q"; p' q'),


(5-42)


where


(5-43)


(5-40)


C (p", q"1; p, q') (p", q" E Ipl, q').









Each function KIC(p", q"; p', q') serves as a reproducing kernel for a reproducing kernel

Hilbert space '-,, and the full reproducing kernel Hilbert space is given by
4
H @ n. (5-44)
n=l

Since E E. = 6, E it follows, from the completeness of the coherent states, that


Kn(p", q"; p, q)Cm(p, q; p', q')dpdq/(2w) = S n n(p", q; p', q'). (5-45)

This equation implies that the 'H,, 1 < n < 4, form 4 mutually disjoint (sub) Hilbert

spaces within L2(R2). For the present example with 6 > 0, each -%, is infinite dimensional.

Let us first consider


1C2(p, q";p',q') (p", q"E(-6 <8(2- Q)3/2 < 6)lp, q')
S 2 -(x -q")2 /2-i(p"--p/)Xz- (x-q)2/2dx
V J2-62

where 62 62/3/2. This expression manifestly leads to a function of positive type. For very

small 6 (e.g., 6 10-2000 ), we can assert that to leading order

2 (,q;p',q') -(2-q )2/2-i(p"-p')-(2-q')2/2 sin 62 (P (5 46)
F 62(p" -ip)

This function is already of positive type and is correct to 0(62) [i.e., to 0(10-4000)!].

As discussed frequently before [13], we can extract the ;, i i,' from this reproducing

kernel by first scaling it by a factor of 0(62/3), ,- by 7/(262), prior to taking the limit

6 -- 0. Consequently, we first define a new reproducing kernel


2 (p, q; p, q)- (p, q; p, q). (5-47)
262

We remark that the space of functions that make up the reproducing kernel Hilbert space

72 (generated by C2) is identical to the space of functions that make up the reproducing

kernel Hilbert space 7-2 (generated by K2). Next, we take the limit as 6 -i 0 of the









function /C2, which leads to


/C2(p, q";p', q) u lim/C2(p ;p,q')
6->0
C- [(2-q")2+(2-q')2]/2-i(p"-p) (5-48)


This procedure leads to a new function k2, which, provided it is still continuous

which it is -leads to a reduced reproducing kernel and thereby also to a new reproducing

kernel Hilbert space '72 Generally, the dimensionality of the space as well as the

definition of the inner product are different for the new reproducing kernel Hilbert space;

however, one inl,. ,;- has the standard inner product definition that is appropriate for any

reproducing kernel Hilbert space [42]. In the present case, it follows that /2C defines a

one-dimensional Hilbert space 712 Note that even though the coordinate value for the

constrained coordinate Q is now set at Q = 2 -as is clear from the special dependence of

/12(p", q"; p', q') on p" and p' the range of the values q" and q' is still the whole real line.
The only remnant that q" and q' have of their physical significance is that kC2(p", q"; p, q')

peaks at q" = q' = 2. It is noteworthy that an example of this type of irregular constraint

was considered previously by [40].

A similar procedure is carried out for the remaining components in the original

reproducing kernel. Let us next consider


IC(p", q"; p', q') (p", qE(- < < < 6)|p', q')
1 il f (x--q")2/2-i(p"-p')x6-(x-q')2/2ld


where 61 6/2. To leading order


C, (p", q"; p', q') -= e-(q"+q')/2 i (5-49)
V7T 6 p"( p')

which is a function of positive type. It is noteworthy to note that this constraint is of

regular type. [14]









We rescale this function differently so that


k (p", q"; p', q')


26i


and then take the limit 6 -- 0 leading to


l (p", q"; p', q')


lim kCi(p", q"; p', q')
6->0
e-'q"2+q']/2, (5-51)


a continuous function of positive type that characterizes the one-dimensional Hilbert space

71.

Our procedure of scaling the separate parts of the original reproducing kernel by

qualitatively different factors (i.e., 61 and 62) has not appeared previously in the projection

operator formalism. This difference in scaling is motivated by the goal of having each and

every element of the reduced classical phase space represented on an equal basis in the

quantum theory. It is only by this procedure that we can hope that the classical limit of

expressions associated with the physical Hilbert space can faithfully recover the physics in

the classical constrained phase space. Scaling of Ci and 2C by finitely different factors has

been addressed in [9].

Let us continue to examine the remaining CK, 3 < n < 4. For KC4 we have


4 (p", q"; p', q')


(p", q"IE(-6 < 8(Q- 3)3 < 6)p',q'
1 f3+ ) p
e -(x-q")2 /2-i(p"-p')x -(x-q')2/2 dx
V/T J3-,63


where 63 [6/8]1 3. The now familiar procedure leads to


", q"; ', q) = e-[(3-q")2+(3-q') ]/2-2i(p"-p')


(5-52)


(5-50)









corresponding to a one-dimensional Hilbert space R73. For /C3 we are led to


3(p", q"; p', q') = (p", q" IE(2 < Q < 3)lp', q')
1 4
J e-(x-q")2/2-i(p"-p')xz-(x-q')2/2dx, (5-53)


In this case, no 6 appears and no infinite rescaling is needed, so we may simply choose


3 (p, q"; p',q') C3(p", q"; p', q'). (5-54)

Although we do not have an explicit analytic expression for /3 we do have a well-defined

integral representation in (5-53). Furthermore, it follows that 73 is infinite dimensional.

Finally, we define the reproducing kernel for the physical Hilbert space as


IC(p", q"; p', q') ,I1(p", q"; p', q') (5-55)

In turn, the physical Hilbert space 7'ip is defined as the reproducing kernel Hilbert space

i uniquely determined by the reproducing kernel /(p", q"; p', q').

Observe, by our procedure, all elements of the reduced classical phase space (R x Z)

are represented on an equivalent basis in K This feature has been designed so that

the classical limit of the expressions within 'ip correspond to all aspects of the reduced

classical phase space. We will now turn to a discussion of observables of this model.

5.3 Observables

Let us restrict our discussions of observables to those that are self-adjoint operators 0

in the unconstrained Hilbert space. We also limit to constraints that are both classically

and quantum mechanically first class2 We first discuss the situation in the case of a

regularized (6 > 0) enforcement of the constraint [('!i plter 4]. In this case, all physical



2 These arguments can be extended to include both quantum mechanical second-class
and first class with an anomaly. The exclusion is made for the sake of the model under
consideration.









observables must obey the following:


[E, O] = 0. (5-56)

We note that even though E is a function of the squares of the constraints we are not

bound to the same concerns Thieman faced in the Master Constraint program. The

starting points of the discussion of observables in the two frameworks are different. The

Master Constraint Program suffers from the fact that multiplication of functions in a

classical space is commutative, hence the additional requirement of an observable function.

However, in the Projection Operator Formalism we begin in the quantum regime where

the multiplication of self-adjoint operators may not be commutative therefore (5-56) is

sufficient. We can take a general operator G(P, Q) in the unconstrainted Hilbert space and

define

gE(P, Q) EQ(P, QE) (5-57)

as its observable component since clearly [E, gE(P, Q)] = 0. In fact, every observable

can be expressed in the preceding form (5-57). The equation (5-56) is valid for 6 > 0.

However as long as 6 > 0 we have yet to capture the true physical Hilbert space of a

given theory. Therefore the limit 6 0 must be taken in a suitable fashion to discuss

observables. If quantum constraint3 ) admits a discrete spectrum that includes zero,

which is not the case for our particular model, then we can make the following claims. An

operator 0 is observable if the following is valid

lim[E, O] = 0 < [L, 0] )phys = 0. (5-58)

suppressing the index

3 suppressing the index









The first part of the preceding if and only if statement has no classical analog; however,
the second statement is related to the following weak classical equation


{4, o} 0, (5-59)

where o is the classical analog of 0. We consider (5-59) to be a weak equation because it
needs to vanish on the constraint hypersurface. It is obvious that if (5-58) is true then 0
is gauge independent in the physical Hilbert space. In the Heisenberg picture the evolution
of the operator is given by

O| ) phys = [HE, O )Phys (5-60)

where HE is the observable part of the Hamiltonian in the form of (5-57). Therefore all
observables will stay in the physical Hilbert space as they evolve with time. The same
type statement can also be said in the classical world. However, in our particular model,
the limit 6 -- 0 must be taken as a form limit because K has a zero in the continuous
spectrum. Observables in these instances must be handled at the level of the reproducing
kernel. Recall from the previous section that the physical Hilbert space is isomorphic to an
infinite direct sum of complex numbers. In this realization the projection operator is the
unit operator, and therefore the observables correspond to general symmetric matrices.
We will now direct our attention to a calcuation of the coherent state matrix element
of the physical conjugate momentum at the level of the reproducing kernel. Specifically, we
first note that

(jp" q"PE ', ) (p", q"IEPIEp', q)

f dx f dx'(p", q" E ) (x P x')(x'lEp', q')

-ih dx dx'(p", (" E )6'(x x')(x'lE p',q')
-/d
-i-h dx p", q"\EI (x IE x ', q').
jd~O"; uE dx









We implement the constraints by integrating over the appropriate intervals {I,}.


(p", q"PpE p/q) ihE dx(p", q"IL ) [ip'h + (q' x)/h](x IEp',q').(5-61)

Similarly, it follows that


(p', q' IipE"p, q ihEn dx(p', q'|Ex)}[ip"h+ (q"- x)/h](x|IEp", q"). (5-62)

Using a similar technique of Araki [43], we now determine the desired matrix elements by
adding (5-61) and (5-62), and dividing by two leads to,


(p", q"PE p ,q'= ((5 -61) + (5- -62)) (5-63)
2
n dx(p",q"IEx) [p" +p' + i(q"- q')](xEp',q') (5-64)

+p' + i(q" (p", q"; p, q'). (5-65)
2

Finally, if we so choose, we allow only the gauge independent matrix elements by

hand selecting the portions of the reproducing kernel that correspond to the irregular

constraints,
[" + p' + i(q" q')],
(P", q" PE', q')= / "", q"; p', q') (5-66)

where kC' is the reduced reproducing kernel except for the component corresponding to /i1.
In chapter 6, we will further discuss the concept of observables and the classical limit of

quantum mechanical observables in the Ashtekar-Horowitz-Boulware model.
5.4 Observation and Conclusions

In this chapter we have defined and examined the classification of highly .:,i il.,

constraints. In the following chapter we will examine the Ashteker-Horowitz-Boulware

model and apply the techniques developed here in this more complicated model.









CHAPTER 6
ASHTEKAR-HOROWITZ-BOULWARE MODEL

The primary motivation of this chapter is to analyze the Ashtekar-Horowitz-Boulware

model utilizing the Projection Operator Formalism. We will also compare the result

obtained by the POF approach with that obtained via methods of the Refined Algebraic

Quantization program. The basis of this chapter can be found in [10].

6.1 Introduction

The Ashtekar-Horowitz model [11] was formulated to mimic a particular property of

the Hamiltonian constraint of General Relativity. In this simple model the constraint of

the Hamiltonian system was such that the classical constraint subspace did not project

down to all of the configuration space. Using the methods described by Dirac [7], the

constraint of this simple quantum mechanical system was imposed. It was argued that

by requiring the additional condition of normalization of the constraint solutions, there

is quantum mechanical tunneling into classically forbidden regions. This model was

originally formulated with the configuration space of a sphere [11].

Later, Boulware modified the constraint problem by noting the curvature of the

configuration space p1 li-' no role in the analysis and altered the configuration space to

a torus a compact yet globally flat configuration space [44]. In the quantization of the

modified model, the additional requirement of the self-adjoint property was imposed on

the canonical momentum. Using this additional criterion, it was shown that no tunneling

would occur into the classically forbidden regions for the physical states.

Recently, Louko and Molgudo investigated this model using techniques of the refined

algebraic quantization program (RAQ) to determine its physical Hilbert space structure

[32]. The methods they employ, 1 led to the existence of super-selection sectors in the

physical Hilbert space. The basic formalism of RAQ is unable to determine a rigging map

for a constraint that has both regular and irregular solutions. Modifications were made in

definition of the rigging map to accommodate for the variety of solutions, (i.e.r solutions of









the constraint equations that are stationary (critical) points of the arbitrary function R(y)

in the constraint). These modifications resulted in the advent of super-selection sectors in

this model.

Using the projection operator formalism [13], we are able to ascertain the physical

Hilbert space of the Ashtekar-Horowitz-Boulware (AHB) model with techniques which we

feel are closer to the essence of the Dirac procedure [7] than those in [32]. The physical

Hilbert space of this model is shown not to decompose into super-selection sectors. We

are inclined to take the point of view that super-selection sectors are based on physical

principles not pure mathematics. The approach in which we ultimately employ is a

similarity transformation. Physics is invariant under similarity transformations. We

should also note the two methods (Projection Operator vs. RAQ) are not equivalent. We

were able to generalize to a class of functions (i.e. functions that have interval solutions

to constraint equation) that the previous work [32] can not analyze without further

modifications. The previous work [9] serves as a guide for this present endeavor.

This chapter is organized as follows: Section 2 provides a brief introduction to

the classical AHB model. Section 3 presents the canonical quantization of the model.

Section 4 deals with constructing the physical Hilbert space using the projection operator

formalism. Section 5 deals with defining super-selection sectors and determining whether

or not the Physical Hilbert space obtained in Section 5 contains super-selection sectors.

Section 6 deals with the classical limit of the constrained quantum theory and establishes

that the classical limit is the classical theory of the original model. Section 7 contains an

account of the RAQ approach to this model.

6.2 Classical Theory

The classical system of the Ashtekar-Horowitz-Boulware model is given by the

following action,



I J (p + p AC)dt, (6-1)









where A is a Lagrange multiplier corresponding to the constraint C. The configuration

space of the AHB model is C = T2 S1 x S1. The constraint has the following form


C p R(y), (6-2)

where the function R(y) E C1(S1) is assumed to be positive somewhere. When the

constraint equation is satisfied the classical solutions are limited to the regions of the

configuration space where R(y) > 0. The constraint region in the 4 dimensional phase

space will involve a proper subset of configuration space. Note that the Hamiltonian

equals zero in this model to emphasize the role of the constraint.

The dynamics of this system are given by the following 5 equations of motion.



x = -2Ap1, y = 0,
dR(y)
Px = 0, P, = A- ,
dy
p R(y) = 0.

From these equations of motion, we can make some statements on some observability

properties of this theory. The dynamical variable x is gauge dependent for all px except

for px = 0. The conjugate momentum of y also appears to be gauge dependent if the

constraints are regular around a given set of y that satisfies the constraint equation in the

phase space.

If yo satisfies the constraint equation and R(v) o = 0, then the constraint is an

example of irregular constraint about y yo, whereas if () y=o / 0, then the constraint

is regular about yo. If there are multiple solutions to the constraint equation p R(y) = 0

then we may have a condition where combinations of regular constraints and irregular

constraints, this is the characteristic of a "highly irreg- 11i constraint. For the most

general analysis, we can then assume that the constraint equation contains solutions that









are both regular and irregular. In this general setting we can classify the AHB constraint

as a highly irregular constraint.

6.3 Quantum Dynamics

We now proceed to canonically quantize the system (6-1). We will assume our chosen

canonical coordinates are Cartesian ones suitable for quantization [20]. We then promote

the canonical dynamical variables (x, y,px,Py) to a set of irreducible self-adjoint operators

(X, Y, PF, Py). Conjugate pairs corresponding to compact, periodic spatial components

will not obey the standard Heisenberg-Weyl relationship [45] because the eigenvalues of

the conjugate momentum operators are not continuous but discrete. Continuing with the

canonical quantization procedure, we promote the constraint to a suitable function of

self-adjoint operators



C C <= P- R(Y). (63)

Note, there is no ordering ambiguity for this operator. We assume the constraint operator

is a self-adjoint operator in the unconstrained Hilbert space. We can now implement the

quantum constraint using the projection operator method.

6.4 The Physical Hilbert Space via the Reproducing Kernel

The projection operator for the Ashtekar-Horowitz-Boulware model is chosen to be


E(C2 < 62) = E(-6

Since the function R(y) is a continuous function, we must introduce an appropriate set of

bras and kets to deal with the subtleties described in section 2.

6.4.1 The Torus T2

Before constructing the model with the configuration space of a torus we must

determine the correct coherent states to use. We wish to use the coherent states not only

for computational ease, but also to determine the classical limit, which will be addressed

later in this chapter. The torus is the Cartesian product of 2 circles. It follows that the









coherent states for the unconstrained Hilbert space can be written as the direct product of

2 coherent states on different circles.

Coherent states on a circle can be generated by coherent states of a line with the use

of the Weil-Berezin-Zak (WBZ) transformation [45]. We shall use X and Y to denote the

characteristic lengths of the x and y coordinates, respectively. The WBZ transform, T, is a

unitary map from L2(IR) to L2(S1 x S1*), where S1* is the dual to S1. The transformation

is given by the following


(TQ)(x, k) -E ,.ifXk (x nX) (6-5)

where ip E L2(R), x E S1, and k E S1* or stated otherwise k E [0, 2). We project a

corresponding fiber of L2(S1 x S1*) onto L2(S1) by fixing a value of k. Using the standard

canonical coherent states in L2(R), it has been shown the coherent states on a circle have

the following form (h = 1)



1 1 1 X
T (I') = 7/4exp( p(x + ip)) exp(- (x + ip- x')2)0(i (x + i- x'- ik);pl),
kx/) F1/4 2 2 2
S(x' x,p,k) (6-6)

where pi = exp(-X2) and

((z) = ,,p",22in, (6-7)

|p| < 1, is the Jacobi theta function. These states are not normalized [45]. For each
value of k these states satisfy the minimal axioms of generalized coherent states; i.e., a

continuous labeling of the states where the label set has a topology isomorphic to IR2 and

a resolution of unity [40].

We can express the coherent states on T2 as the following,



|x, px, k1; y, py, k,)= \x, px, k) 0 y, py, k,), (6-8)









where x, y e S1 and kx e Sl*,and ky E S'*. For simplification we will choose X, Y = 27.

We will make a further simplification by choosing a value for kx and ky. We justify such

a choice by noting that the spectrum of the momentum operator is shifted from the

expected value by k [45], effectively, we can set the new ground state at k. Therefore, we

can safely choose zero for both kx and ky. Thus we will make the following notational

change

X, P Y, py,)o= |X,P, )o 0 \,py)o, (6-9)

The construction of the reproducing kernel is based on properties of the constraint

operator as well as the coherent states (6-9). The constraint operator and the compactness

of x restrict the spectrum of its conjugate momentum P, and thereby of R(Y). Allowed

values of y are determined by the following equation



o(n R(Y)ln)o o (n (n)2 o = n2 n Z. (6-10)

where In)o is the orthonormal basis for L2(S1). We will proceed with the quantization

of this model by implementing the method discussed in Section 2 for each n sector of

the theory. Since we are not choosing a particular R(y), we will only be discussing the

physical Hilbert space in general. We consider the following two types of solutions to the

constraint equation.

I.) (Point Solutions) The solution y = ym is a point value solution to the equation

(6-10) for a given value of n. The index m corresponds to multiple values of the y that

satisfies the equation for a given value of n.

II.) (Interval Solutions) The solutions y = ym, satisfy the equation (6-10) for all

elements in an interval I(m'). This classification of solutions also includes a countable

union of disjoint intervals. Although physically motivated models exclude such constraint

solutions, we include them to illustrate the versatility of our approach


{ym'} = {m' IR(ym.)= (n)2 VYm' E Im'}. (6-11)









For simplification, we will only assume that R will only contain the first type of

solution. We point the interested reader to the previous chapter or [9] to determine

the physical Hilbert space contribution for type II solutions. The calculation of the

reproducing kernel can be decomposed into portions corresponding to each value n E Z in

the following manner:


o(x',p',; ,pyE(-6 < R(Y) P2 < 6)lx,p ,py)


J= d {o(x',;p'yp|E(P, = n)E(-6 < R(Y) P2 < x,px; y,py)o
n--.oo W, p, Y" py I E!(P

= E _--(x',p' y',py\\E(-6 < R(y) n2 6IX, P; y, )o

= f --o(x', p'y',p|E(-6 < R(Y) n2 < xp y,py)o.y



To determine the point solution contribution, we fix a value for n and proceed as
follows


m(x ,p' y p,; x, p, ;y, py) Inconstant

= f dy' [dyo{x',py',ip[|y'}{y'|E(-6 < R(Y) n2 6)\y}{y\\x,p 9y,py,).

S 'dy ldyox',p,'II >'P|E(-6 < R(y) n2 I6)x, pyP)o6(Y Y)
rym +1/Sm(8)
= dy"(y',p,|y" y"y, p,) (x', p' in,k){n~x,p),
Jym-1/sm(S)

where 1/Sm(6) is the leading S dependency as described in Section 2. For small 1/Sm(6)

values, the integral can be approximated as follows











Cm(', pp, y', py,; x, p,; py,) constant
2 sin(1/SQ()( y')) Di( ,-p'2')/2+/ /2
27(y y')
x exp[-(Yi- y)2/2 iYm(py py) (Y- y')2/2]

x *(ik-(y' + ip, y~; pi)e(i-7(y + ip, y2; pi)

x exp[-n2] exp[in((x' x) + (-p p)],


(6-12)


where pi = exp[-27r2]. Following the prescription set forth in Section 2, we perform the

required similarity transformation to extract the leading 6 dependency of the reproducing
kernel.


'rmnnconstant


Sm() 2 sin(1/Sn(5) (Y y')) ei(pxz-'_p')/2+p2/2+p /2
27(y y')
x exp[-(Y y)2/2- ity(p' py) (Y- ')2/2]

x *(ix(y' + ip, y; pi)(i7 x(y + ipy y; pi)

x exp[-n2] exp[in((x' x) + i(-p' -p)],


(6-13)


The limit 6 -- 0 can now be taken in a suitable manner to determine the reduced

reproducing kernel for this portion of the physical Hilbert space [13] which then reads


'mnn constant


Sei( -p'.,x')/2+-(p')2/2+(p,)2/2
7T
x Zmexp[-(y.- y)2/2 iy(p- py) (y, y')2/2]

x e*(i-(y' + ipy yT; pl)6(iw(Y + iy Ym; P1)

x exp[-n2] exp[2in7((x' x) + i(p' px))]


for each value of m. Each of these reduced reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces is isomorphic
to a one-dimensional Hilbert space (i.e. 7i Q C). We continue the procedure for each

whole number value of n until the maximum allowed value (of n) is reached.


(6-14)









Once this calculation is performed for all values of n, consistent with (6-10), then we

can write the reproducing kernel for the physical Hilbert space in the following manner


/C = max mCnm (6-15)


Similarly, the physical Hilbert space can be written as

'nmax
'Hphys= ( m. (6 16)
n m

The support of the reproducing kernel is only in the classically allowed regions. This

implies there is no tunneling into classically forbidden regions as reported by Boulware

[44].

6.5 Super-selection Sectors?

Before determining whether or not the physical Hilbert space calculated in the

preceding section contains super-selection sectors, let us first divert the question and

discuss what is formally meant by super-selection sectors. Suppose a physical Hilbert

space is given by the following,

9phys e iN (6-17)

which is to w that the physical Hilbert space is given by the direct sum of individual

Hilbert spaces. The physical Hilbert space is said to decompose into super-selection sectors

if for any two states |1), 102) that belong to two different sectors 7-H and Hj, respectively,

and for any observable 0 in Aobs, where Aob8 the *-algebra of all observables, the following

holds,

physK(i |0\|)phys = 0. (6-18)

In (6-18), O denotes a generic self-adjoint operator in the unreduced Hilbert space.

In previous works using the RAQ procedure [31], super-selection sectors arose because

each sector had a different degree of divergence. Since O is a self-adjoint operator in the

unreduced space, (6-18) is forced to vanish to avoid a contradiction from the varying

degrees of divergency [46]. As we have shown in the proceeding section the physical









Hilbert space determined via the projection operator method can be written as the direct

sum of nmax one-dimensional Hilbert spaces. It follows that the physical Hilbert space is

isomorphic to the direct sum of n~ax copies of the complex numbers. There the projection

operator is merely the unit matrix on a finite dimensional space and thus observables

correspond to general Hermitian matrices. Therefore, (6-18) will only hold if and only if

the operator is proportional to the projection operator. In general (6-18), does not hold,

therefore the physical Hilbert space (6-17) does not decompose into super-selection sectors.

We will now discuss the classical limit of the quantized AHB model.

6.6 Classical Limit

We must recall the general rule given by diagonal coherent state matrix elements


(p, q10lp,q) = (p, q; h), (6-19)

where |p, q) are canonical coherent states. This provides the connection between an

operator O(P, Q) and an associated function on the classical phase space manifold. In the

limit, h -- 0, we find this function reduces to the classical function that corresponds to

the weak correspondence of quantum operator. This statement can easily be seen if 0 is a

polynomial, however, this condition is not necessary. This result can be generalized to any

number of phase space variables as will be demonstrated below.

Before evaluating the classical limit of the model, we must discuss the fundamental

difference between quantum mechanics on a compact configuration space and that of an

unbounded space. The conjugate momentum operator (PF) has a discrete spectrum if the

configuration space is compact. Therefore the standard canonical commutation relation


[X, P] = ih, (6-20)

is inappropriate. To alleviate this problem we consider the ,;!,!" operator [45]


U1 = exp(ihx). (6-21)









This unitary operator acts to translate the operator P, in the following manner


UxPxU = P h. (6-22)


As observed in [9], the observable part of an operator can ah--iv- be expressed as

OE = EOE, (6-23)


where 0 is a self-adjoint operator in the unconstrained Hilbert space.

The observable part of the Hermitian combination of U, and Ux is


W, = UEUE = EUIEULE. (6-24)


By observation, we note

W E(-6 < Px R(Y) < 6)E(-6 < (P h)2 R(Y) < 6). (6-25)


These projection operators are acting on mutually orthogonal subspaces; therefore, the

operator is identically zero. This result informs us that this is a gauge dependent question

which is consistent with the classical picture. Recall from Section 3 the x dynamical

variable is gauge independent only when px 0. Quantum mechanically, we have

posed the question to find a pl.y-ical" wave function that has support on both a gauge

independent sector and gauge dependent sector. This is impossible.

If we were to examine the same query for the corresponding Hermitian combination

of the in,!, operator for the Y coordinate, we would obtain the unit operator. The

classical limit of this operator is again in complete agreement with the classical theory.

As we have previously observed the classical dynamical variable y is alv--i gauge

independent.

Now we consider the following quotient to establish the classical limit of the Y i,!.

operator" Uy
(x,py,;py,p, IEU E, p,;y, py,)
(X, P ,; Y,py, I|E Ix, ,; Y,py,)









a 2(()- ;ep(- h)2
exp[iy (exp(- )) (6-26)
2r e( (p, h); exp(--2h))
As h -- 0 this expression becomes

exp ,2'], (6-27)

where y is subject to the condition R(y) = p2. While this expression is imaginary, we can

extract from it the classical reduced phase space coordinate y.

Now we direct our attention to the expectation value of the physical conjugate

momentum, P,


(x, p1; y,py EP. E I p; y,p)
(x,px;y,p. |ElI' pxy,py)


p i +x (6 28)
-- z dy' dx'(x, px; y,pyIx', y') } (x', y'x, py; Y,py). (6-28)
/C J J Ox'
We implement the constraints by integrating over the appropriate intervals as

described in Section 5. We can continue this calculation in a similar manner to that which

is performed in [9].


(x,p;y,py\EP.,E\, px;y,py) '(4p; exp(- 2/(h)))
= pX + (6-29)
(x,pX; yp, E P,; y, ;py,) 20( (h); exp(-T2/(h)))'
where
OO
O'(z; p) 2i > pfe" eel2inz. (6-30)
S--OO
As h approaches 0, the second term vanishes which can be seen in the definition of the

Jacobi theta function (6-7) [45], thus recovering this aspect of the classical theory from its

quantum analog. Using the same technique, we can also calculate the classical limit of the

expectation value of the Py operator. The projection operator formalism is well suited to

not only properly impose quantum constraints, but also allow one to return to the proper

classical theory in the limit h -- 0.









6.7 Refined Algebraic Quantization Approach

Before proceeding with the Refined Algebraic Quantization (RAQ) of this model,
we must first impose some additional technical issues on the constraint (6-2). First we

must assume the constraint (6-2) contains a finite number of zeros and that all stationary

points (i.e. R'(y) = 0, R"(y) = 0, [i.e. the nth dervative of R with respect to y]) only to

have a finite order that no zeros of (6-2) are to be stationary points. As with the analysis

in the preceding sections we must also require that R(y) be positive at least somewhere.

Following the program described in ('!i lpter 3 we must first choose an auxiliary

Hilbert space, 'Hax,. The auxiliary Hilbert space of choice is the Hilbert space of

square-integrable complex functions over the configuration space. The canonical
inner-product is given by the following;


(01, 2) aux f ]= lf 11. i11'(x,y,)2(x, y), (6- 31)

where (.)* denotes complex conjugation. The classical constraint is promoted to an

operator that acts on the auxiliary Hilbert space,

a2
C 02 R(Y), (6-32)

where R(Y) acts as a multiplication operator namely, R(Y)O(x, y) = R(y)((x, y) for all

0(x, y) cE tax. The operator, C is an essentially self-adjoint operator on Haux, therefore
the operator will exponentiate to the one parameter unitary operator via Stone's theorem,

U(t)= e-itc t e R. (6-33)

Keeping in line with the RAQ program, we must now choose a test space 4 C aux-. In
this model the convenient choice is the set of functions of the form;


f(x, y) = _--, f(y), (6-34)









where fm(y) : S1 -- C, and only a finite number of fm's are different from zero for all

f 4E It is clear that this set is a dense set in the space of 7Hau,. By the definition of

f cE the action under the unitary operator1 (6-33) is as follows,


U(t)f(x, y) = mee-it(m2- ()) eimxfm(y) E 4, (6 35)

therefore by this calculation ) is invariant under the action of U(t). One further comment

must be made before proceeding with the rest of the procedure, if 0 E Aobs then 0

commutes with U(t) and is densely defined in 4. The final phase of the RAQ procedure is

to determine the anti-linear rigging map via the group average map,


-I : Q O*U(t)dt (6-36)

or equivalently we can discuss the map through the matrix elements [30]


7(1) 21 (, U(t) dt. (6-37)

At this point a deviation from the standard RAQ approach is required. [46] Since (6-37)

is not absolutely convergent, this is due to the fact the gauge group generated by U(t)

is a non-compact group. Formally, it was established [32] that the rigging map could be

written as the following equation,


l(f)(x,y) = 27r, _- -imx f* (y)6(m2 R(y)) (6-38)

or equivalently,
-imi f{*(,f
l(f)(x,y) 27rEm j i (, j) (6-39)
R'(Yymj
where ymjs are solutions to

m2 R(y), (6-40)



1 The operator C, as well as U(t), is densely defined in 4.









and the delta functions in (6-38) and (6-39) are the delta functions for R and S1,

respectively. Assuming that (6-40) has solutions then it was shown in [32] that (6-39)

does satisfy the axioms of the rigging map. A key component of the verification of the

aforementioned axioms is that Tr induces a representation of Aob8 on the physical Hilbert

space. This can be stated in terms of the matrix elements


rl(A1)[[] 2= rl(l)[At]21, (6 41)

for all Q1, 02 c E) and A E Aobs. It can be shown [32] that the representation of Aobs on

9RRAQ is irreducible and is transitive.

In the preceding discussion the physical Hilbert space did not decompose into

super-selection sectors. The advent of super-selection sectors appears to be a direct result

of relaxing the condition to allow for solutions of (6-2) to include stationary points.

With this relaxed condition, a further modification of the rigging map is required to

avoid divergences in (6-39). This is accomplished by replacing the denominator with

fractional powers of higher derivatives, which depends on the order of the stationary

point. The replacement of the denominator can be thought of as a renormalization of the

averaging procedure. Each of these renormalized rigging maps can be shown [32] to carry

a transitive representation of Aobs. The total Hilbert space 'HtAQ can be regarded as the

direct sum of individual Hilbert spaces. The representation of Aobs also decomposes into

the representation of the summands. Which in turn implies the presence of super-selection

sectors in tH'OQ.

6.8 Commentary and Discussion

As a direct result of the gauge group being non-compact a deviation from the

standard RAQ method was required to deal with this particular model. Instead of the

standard group averaging approach, the author chose to pursue a formally equivalent

rigging map. The rigging map (6-39) has definitive connection to the reduced phase space

method for quantization. The authors of [32] also comment on the close connection to









the classical reduced phase space, by noting that the super-selection sectors are related

to the classical singularities in the classical phase space. This dependence on the classical

regime to determine quantum behavior is rather disturbing. This dependency should be

reversed. The main difference in the RAQ procedure and the Projection Operator method

is when 6(h) is taken to zero. In the Projection Operator method the limit is taken after

the evaluation of the matrix elements, while the RAQ method requires the limit to be

taken before the evaluation. As we have demonstrated in this chapter, these two methods

are related, however their implementation is different and the results obtained in this

particular type of model are not the same.









CHAPTER 7
PROBLEM WITH TIME

"... ,, ;,,,,/ all ,ql.-I -,1.li problems in pi.;;-. in the p',.-f.lund issues of principle that

confront us i.,.~n no difficulties are more central than those associated with the concept of

time ..." John Archibald Wheeler

Time is a crucial element to any dynamical system; it is the evolution parameter

of such a system. The nature of time is an extremely popular topic covered by many

physicists, as well as, philosophers [22]. While the physical (or meta-physical) nature of

time is outside the main focus of this dissertation, time-dependency in quantum mechanics

offers us an interesting caveat to explore and study.

In the methodologies developed and discussed in the previous chapters, the primary

goal was to solve quantum mechanical time-independent constraints. The exclusion of time

was made primarily out of simplification. In most of the literature about constraints [12]

the topic of time-dependent constraints is either briefly covered or it is not covered at all.

However, it is clear that for a more complete discussion of constraint dynamics we must

also include constraints that are explicitly dependent on time. Time dependence can enter

a dynamical system through the Hamilitonian, constraints, or in the most general case

or combination of the two. The inclusion of explicitly time-dependent constraints offers

not only an interesting academic exercise but also gives physicists the tools required to

examine more physical theories than those that previously could be discussed.

This is not the first occasion on which the projection operator has been used to deal

with the case of time-dependent constraints. In [47], Klauder derived an expression for

evolution operator of time-dependent constraint. The construction of this expression was

based on modifying the expression for the time-independent case. Although this expression

seemed to be correct the author chose not to pursue this subject matter further.

Primarily, he made this choice because the formula did not reduce to a simpler operator

expression. While the projection operator will be the primary mode of exploration









throughout this project, the expression derived in [47] will not be the starting point for

our investigation.

We will, however, advocate the use of the reparameterization invariant description to

discuss systems with time-dependent constraints. We should mention that this starting

point is not a new approach to deal with time-dependent constraints. We will alter past

efforts on this topic by exploring the "non-local" point of view. The phrase "non-local"

point of view was coined by Gitman [48] when describing a physical system in which

one assumes a reparameterization invariant form of a theory. However, it is well known,

that if an action is a reparameterization invariant then the Hamiltonian vanishes on

the constraint surface1 Physics described in a reparameterization invariant form

is not dependent on the frame of reference [48]. We should mention that using the

reparameterization invariant approach is not new, however, the implementation of this

symmetry with the projection operator would seem to be new.

In the next two chapters we will discuss some of the facets of the problem with

time-dependent constraints. In ('!i lpter 8 we will motivate and develop the techniques in

which one can study constraints with an explicit time-dependent feature. We will also give

a brief introduction to an alternative to the projection operator, which is the approach

used by Gitman, [12] and compare and contrast the two approaches. The primary goal

of ('! Ilpter 9 is to implement the formalism developed in C'!i lpter 8, in a few examples of

time-dependent constraints.













1 See Appendix for this result.









CHAPTER 8
TIME DEPENDENT CONSTRAINTS

8.1 Classical Consideration

8.1.1 Basic Model

Our discussion will begin considering a classical regular system with a single degree

of freedom, whose canonical variables are named p and q. Such a system can generally be

described by the action functional.


I / (pq- H(p,q))dt (8-1)
J1

where = dq/dt and H(p, q) is the Hamiltonian of the system. The evolution of the

system is obtained by varying the functional with respect to the dynamical variables, this

reads as,

OH
4 = a (82)
aH
O aH (8-3)
q'

subject to the suitable boundary conditions. As stated above, this system is purely

dynamical, however, it is well known any action can be converted into an equivalent action

that is a reparameterization invariant. [48] Let us begin this conversion by promoting

the dependent parameter t to a dynamical variable. This is appealing from a relativist's

perspective because the spatial and temporary coordinates are treated symmetrically. We

also must introduce the formal momentum pt conjugate to t. The integration variable in

(8 1) is now replaced by a new independent parameter 7-, which corresponds to proper

time or a more general function of time 1 We can express the reparameterization



1 Proper time is the time seen by an observer in the rest frame of a system. [6] However,
for our purposes we can consider the Lagrange multiplier are not strictly increasing see
Appendix









invariant form of the action integral in the following manner.


I' = (tt* + pq* A() [pt + H(p, q)])d (8-4)


where (.)* denotes the derivative with respect to r. The price paid in promoting t to a

dynamical variable is that the Hamiltonian vanishes weakly in the extended phase space.

We have identified the primary unexpressable velocity t* as the Lagrange multiplier that

enforces the (first-class) constraint pt + H(p, q) = 0. Therefore, we have turned a theory

that was a dynamical system into one that is purely gauge. Effectively, we have recast

the original theory in such a manner that it can be related in any temporary reference

frame[48]. The equations of motion of (8-4) are as follows:

dq A H dp H(8
7- AO (8-5)
dr p dr 6q
dt dpt
dt A (), 0 (8-6)
dr dr
pt + H(p,q) = 0 (8-7)

As the equation of motion appear above q, momentum p, and the physical time t,

measured are gauge dependent quantities. However, pt is gauge independent and

therefore an observable quantity in this theory. By identifying the usual time as the

gauge dependent quantity

dt = A(r)dr (8-8)

we can quickly reduce the preceding equations of motion (8-4) to the familiar parameterized

form.


H (8-9)
Op
OH (810)
Oq'

The dynamics of this system arises from imposing the constraints.









We can use the preceding discussion as motivation in the discussion of systems in

which the Hamiltonian and the constraints are time dependent. Consider the classical

action functional,

I = dt[pj H(p,q,t)- % l(p, q,t) (8-11)
t1
where j {1, ..., N} and a E {1,..., A}. The dynamics this system is given by the familiar

Hamiltonian's equations

dqj
{qH}+A (8-12)
dt
dpt
S{pi,H} + A{p ,~)} (8-13)

Oa(p,q,t) = 0 for all a {1,..,A} (8-14)

At this point, the equations of motion are identical to those that appear in the time

independent case. The distinction appears when we force the dynamics to lie on the

constraint surface (i.e. subspace in the phase space defined by = 0) for all time t.

d a + {a, H} + Ab{ a,} b 0 (8-15)
dt at

where a 0 implies (8-15) vanishes on the constraint surface. For simplicity, we will assume

that the set of constraints are complete to all orders (e.g. secondary, tertiary, etc.) of

constraints have been uncovered using the Dirac procedure [14]. The distinction between

first and second class constraints is made based on the algebra of the Poisson brackets.

However, we forgo this distinction for the moment for the sake of generality.

The cost of explicit time dependence in the constraints in (8-14) is the presence of

the partial time derivative in equation (8-15). Despite the additional term in equation

(8-15), we can maintain the usual structure of time-independent constraints, by following

the procedure described in the proceeding subsection. As before we will promote t to a

dynamical variable, and introduce its formal conjugate momentum pt. By introducing

additional dynamical variables and conjugate pairs to the phase-space, we also have









extended, in a natural manner, the symplectic two-form


S= u +dt A dpt (8-16)

where w is the symplectic form of the original parameterized space ([17]), defined in
C!i lpter 2. The Poisson bracket {., .} which is defined by the symplectic form, should be

understood unless otherwise specified to be that of the extended space. The equivalent

action can be written in the following manner:

I' = 2dr[pj* + p* (pt + H(p, q, t)) A'] (8-17)

where A" = A(r)A which is merely a redefinition of the Lagrange multiplier. Notice once

again the canonical Hamiltonian vanishes. As in the previous section the dynamics of the

system arises from implementing the constraints.

dqJ
A{qJ,pt + H} + {qJ, 0} (8-18)
d-r
A{pd, p + H} + A {py, ,} (8-19)
d-r
e (p,q,t) = 0 for all a { 1,..,A (8-20)

=d A{Qpt + HJ+ Ab0, b} M 0 (8-21)
dr
(8-22)

8.1.2 Commentary and Discussion

Inspired by reparameterization invariant theories [48] along with other models

proposed by other authors [49], [50], we have arrived at a starting position to deal with

time-dependent constraints. This was done by changing the dimension of the entire

unconstrained phase-space from R2N to R2N+2, which was accomplished by promoting t

to a dynamical variable, and introducing its conjugate momentum pt. The consequence of









this change of space2 is that the new Hamiltonian vanishes, and we have one additional

constraint. However, constraints with explicit time dependence now pose the same

mathematical structure of time-independent constraints in the Dirac procedure [12] with

the aid of the extended symplectic form. We should also note that we have refrained

from introducing a temporal gauge fixing term such as a chronological fixing gauge in our

action. This is a point of divergence from the previous authors on the subject. As is well

known, a gauge-fixing term has the potential to introduce topological obstructions that

can cause difficulty in the analysis of the quantum system. This technique of introducing

a gauge is used in quantization schemes such as Faddeev-Popov [27] which advocates

reduction before quantization. Since one of the main philosophies of the projection

operator formalism is to quantize the entire dynamical space and reduce second (i.e.

eliminate the redundant variables), there is no need to introduce such a term in the

action. Dirac observables are phase-space functions that commute weakly with all of the

constraints. An extensive amount of literature has been devoted to the task of identifying

observables in systems such as General Relativity and other generally covariant systems

[51]. If o is a classical observable in a system with time-dependent constraint then the

following must be true:
do
S- A{o,p, + H} + A{o, ,} O 0 (8-23)

where {., .} are understood to be the Poisson brackets for the extended space. Therefore,

o is a constant of motion on the constraint surface in the extended phase-space, which

implies that an observable is independent of a choice of reference frame or gauge. Since we

will not make any further use of the concept of an observable in the discussion of systems

with time-dependent constraints, we will defer this discussion to a future project. We



2 An additional requirement of a global Cartesian coordinate system must be imposed
when we proceed to the quantization of the described system ala Dirac









will now turn our attention to discussion of the quantum analysis of the afformentioned

system.

8.2 Quantum Considerations

8.2.1 Gitman and Tyutin Prescription for Time-Dependent Second-Class
Constraints

Before proceeding with the discussion of the projection operator formalism,

we will briefly describe the method Gitman and Tyutin prescribed for dealing with

time-dependent second-class constraints. [12] For simplicity, we will limit this discussion

to include bosonic variables, however, one could extend any of the following arguments

to include fermionic degrees of freedom as well. Also, for convenience we will use the

notation used by the original authors, namely, = (q,p) which can explicitly depend on

time, as well as, {., *}D(6) represents the Dirac bracket with respect to a set of second-class

constraints Qa(q], t). The Dirac brackets are defined in the following manner


{f, 9}D(6) {f, 9} {f, }Ca{ bg9} (8-24)

where {., .} is the Poisson brackets, Qa is a constraint, and Cab is an invertible matrix [12].

Whenever encountered the Dirac bracket is taken assumed to be defined for the extended

space, (I; t, pt), as described in the preceding section.

Consider a classical Hamiltonian system with a set of second-class constraints Qa(I, t)

and with a Hamiltonian H(p, q, t). The Dirac brackets [7] are used to avoid having to solve

the constraints. Therefore, the evolution of the canonical variables is given by

dt
d ri' = {, H + pL)D(p) Qa(T, t = 0.(8-25)

The quantization of the classical system, follows in the Schrodinger picture, in

which the canonical variables Tr are assigned to operators rTs that satisfy the equi-time

commutation relations;


[s' T1, D(6), La(l ) 0. (826)









In the Schr6dinger picture it is stated vectors evolve in time, where the time evolution is

generated by a unitary operator. Operators in this picture are stationary, which implies

the operators are time-independent. However, in this system the canonical operators r]s

carry over an explicit time-dependence from their classical analogues, therefore these

operators evolve in time. This is a departure from the traditional Schr6dinger picture. In a

later work, the authors recognize this distinction by calling this picture "rule" exist..

At this juncture we realize this current picture is unable to illustrate the full time

evolution of the system. In order to fully obtain the time evolution we will move to a

unitarily equivalent picture, the Heisenberg picture. In the Heisenberg picture of quantum

mechanics, the state vectors remains fixed while the operators evolve in time. [38] In the

Heisenberg picture the operators rIH are related to the operators rTs by IH U= -1'IsU,

where U is the time evolution operator. The operator U is related to the Hamiltonian Hs

by the differential equation,
0U -i
SHs (8-27)
at h
We can evaluate the total time derivative of TlH by the following

dUlH d(U-1UsU)
(8-28)
dt dt
-i
U-1-( [ Hs, Hs] + {, pt}D())U I 4 ~Us (8-29)


Equation (8-29) establishes the connection between the quantum equations of motion and

the classical equations of motion namely,

= d {, H + pt)D() 'H (8-30)


In the most general setting, the above described evolution is not considered "unitary",

because in general no "Il Ii!illin ,,, exists whose commutator would result in the total

derivative. The principal agent for this non-unitary character is the second term in the

left-hand side of equation (8-29), which is time variation of ls. Therefore, the dynamics

are evolving, as well as the constraint surface.









8.2.2 Canonical Quantization

As mentioned in C'!i pter 2, the canonical quantization program requires the space

to be a globally flat space. Therefore, we will state that the extended phase manifold not

only has the topology of R2N+2 but is endowed with a globally flat Cartesian metric to

ensure proper quantized results as described by Dirac [20]. Following the conventional

program we "promote" the phase-space (qj, p; qo = t,po = Pt) coordinates to irreducible,

self-adjoint operators (Qj, Pj; Qo = T, P0 = Pt). The non-vanishing commutation bracket

follows the structure of the classical extended Poisson bracket i.e.


[iPVI h h (8-31)
[Q,, P"] {q,,p"} 6" (831)

A possible objection that the reader may have is to question the self- adjoint nature of the

T operator. If the spectrum of T is equal to the entire real line, as expected, this would

imply that the spectrum of Pt would also be unbounded. However, as is well known, if we

identify Pt with the energy E then Pt must be bounded from below, which would imply T

is not a self-adjoint operator. [52]. This, however, assumes that Pt has identified or forced

to become the negative Hamiltonian, which is a constraint. The contradiction is averted

because we have not imposed the constraints, only quantized the entire classical system.

We follow the belief that abstract operator formulation of quantum mechanics

is fundamental, as well as correct [53] Therefore, proceeding with the canonical

quantization of the classical theory, by promoting the classical constraints to self-adjoint

functions of the irreducible operators.


a (p,q,t) t,(P,Q,T) (8-32)

o = Pt + H(p, q,t) + Pt + R-(P,Q,T) = o (8-33)

One possible objection at this juncture is there exist many v--i of quantizing a

given classical system. While this is certainly true, we will assert that we can appeal to









experiment to obtain the true result. Therefore we will not dwell on this ambiguity and

assume that we have the correct realization of the quantum system.

8.2.3 Dirac

We will now follow the Dirac procedure as described in C'! Ilpter 2. The physical

subspace of Hilbert space is selected to include only the elements of the original space that

are annihilated by the constraints i.e.


Sa )phys = 0 (8-34)

|'i' )phs = 0 (8-35)

for all a + 1 constraints. However, this procedure will only work for a select type of

first-class constraints. In fact, if one adheres strictly to the Dirac procedure (8-35) will

result in a trivial solution since the constraint o) is linear in Pt which implies that its

spectrum will contain a zero in the continuum, thereby causing the physical Hilbert space

to be comprised of only the 0 element, which is undesirable and unacceptable. We will

therefore appeal to the use of the projection operator formalism [13] to circumvent these

possible dilemmas.

8.2.4 Projection Operator Formalism

The Projection Operator Formalism [13] deviates from the Dirac method by

introducing a projection operator E, which takes vectors from the unconstrained Hilbert

space (R-1) to the constraint subspace (i.e. the physical Hilbert space or even better the

regularized physical Hilbert space which will be described shortly.)


Hphys E (8-36)

The general form of the projection operator is the following:


E TE(,a4) < 62(h)) (837)









where 6(h) is a regularization parameter. We require the projection operator to possess

the properties of all projection operators namely Hermitian Et = E and idempotent

E2 = E. The relation (8-37), implies that the operator projects onto the spectral

interval [0, 62(h)]. The projection operator formalism allows us to deal with all constraints

simultaneously and to place all types of constraints on equal footing.

8.2.5 Time-Dependent Quantum Constraints

The projection operator of the time-dependent quantum constraints, follows the same

form -ii--.- -1. 1 by Klauder in [13], namely,

,, 2+)sin[62(h) + ]1A
E lim lim jr dAe- a (8 38)
L--oo &-O++ -L

To obtain further insight it will be convenient to use the canonical coherent states of the

unconstrained Hilbert space.


qpt, t) = exp[ia (p, q, pt, t)]e-i PjiQ3 e-itPt T I rT) (8-39)

where ITr) is a normalized fiducial vector in R-. These coherent states admit a resolution of

unity given as
/ _,dpjdy dtdpt
1= P qiPt,t) ,qPt,t dp dtd (8-40)
27 27
where the domain of integration is the entire extended phase space. The overlap of these

vectors are given by the following:


p- t'j I pt, t) !\, q (p', t' pt, t)

exp{- [| -p2 1 -q2 p'2 -2 pq }

x exp( 1 Pt2 t2 + tl ttl} (841)
4h t 2ht

Expression (8-41) defines a positive definite functional which can be chosen as the

reproducing kernel and used to define a reproducing kernel Hilbert space R.









Let us examine the extended-coherent state overlap of an equivalent form of the

projection operator [13]

E T e ""d (8-42)

where f({) is some function chosen to insure (8-42) converges absolutely and T is the time

ordered product.



(p", q", p, t"Ep',q',p', t') = (p", q"\ (p, t"p', t') 0 p', q
SN N-1
= lim(p", q" p Ptk+1lEt) tk(t) 0 l~k q') (8 43)
kO k=o
We can generalize the result from [54] namely

lim 6-+ 0(p",q", p", t" E(-6 < -(P, Q + Pt) < 6)p', q', p, t')


S(p", q1" 0, 0|e-' "+(Q))/2-(t"-t')e-(p+(PQ))/2 p' q', 0, 0) (8-44)

to include time dependent Hamiltonians.


(p", q", p, t" IE(- < R(P, Q, T) + Pt) < )p', q', p', t')

T(p", q", 0, 0e- "+l(P,Q),T) 2e ( 1), dte (p'+ (P,Q,T))/2 lp, q', 0, ) (8 45)

As in (8-44), we observe the variables pt and t are not needed to span the reduced

Hilbert space, therefore we can integrate p"' and p' without altering the physics.

Therefore, the most general statement we can make about a system with time-

dependent constraint is encapsulated in the following

lim Te-i N 1), -(t)dtEN_le-ij(N 2) N-2 e i "I E, (8-46)

where

E,= Te- -f( tDR(A) (8-47)









and DR(A) is the weak measure defined in C'i ipter 4. This result agrees with the result

obtained in [47]. This of course is assuming that the constraints are continuous in t. This

statement is also applicable if ,a are second-class constraints.

8.2.6 Observations and Comparisons

Despite the fact that the Projection Operator Formalism and the approach used by

Gitman [12] start on very similar grounds, the approaches end on very different grounds.

The Gitman approach advocates the use of Dirac Brackets, which is a method used to

avoid solving for second-class systems, while the Projection Operator Formalism treats all

constraints on equal theoretical footing. In the proceeding chapter we will examine two

different constraint models with the aid of the projection operator formalism.









CHAPTER 9
TIME-DEPENDENT MODELS

In the preceding chapter, we have developed an approach to contend with explicit

time-dependency in constraints within the projection operator formalism. Despite this

development, some looming questions persist. The primary purpose of this chapter is to

elucidate these unresolved questions by considering some simple quantum mechanical

models. One of the most pressing questions is whether or not the physical Hilbert space

of a time-dependent constraint is trivial 1 As shown in the previous chapter, (8-46), the

I. ,!, Ii i, i operator" for time-dependent constraints can be written as an infinite product

of projection operators. However, as we will illustrate in our first model, even with the

requirement of a stringent polarization of the states from the total Hilbert space, the

physical Hilbert space is non-trivial. The second model is designed to demonstrate how a

second-class system should be considered within this context.

9.1 First-Class Constraint

We deviate from the prescription described in the previous chapter by not pursuing

the reparameterization invariant form of the model discussed briefly. The primary

motivation of this model is stated above. Let us begin with the simple 3 degree-of-freedom

classical extended Hamiltonian.

1 12 )
HE (P +P + ) + (q + q + q32 + (t)(ji sin(j-t)+ j3 costt) (9-1)
2 2 2 2

where jl = q2p3 q3p2 and j3 = p2ql q2p and A(t) is the Lagrange multiplier that

enforces the single first-class constraint


0(p, q) = j sin( t) + jcos(t). (9-2)

1 Which is to that the physical Hilbert space contains only the zero vector.

1 Which is to I that the physical Hilbert space contains only the zero vector.









The constraint will clearly commute with the Hamiltonian, H = (p + p + p) + (q +

q2 + q3) therefore this truly is a first-class system. For the case of this analysis we will
restrict the allowable values of t to a compact subspace of R namely, [0, 1]. It is easy to

observe that the constraint surface initially is defined by j3 = 0 but evolves in a smooth

fashion into the vanishing loci of ji. Moving to to quantum analog of this system2 the

issue surrounding the alternating constraints is potentially very interesting since J3 and

Jl are examples of incompatible observables, therefore it is impossible to diagonalize them

simultaneously. Utilizing the technique in which we established the physical Hilbert space

for the Casmir operator of su(2) in C'! lpter 4, Section 3.2, we will use a similar technique

to analyze this model. As before, let us introduce conventional annihilation and creation

operators given by


a (Q + iPj)/ (9-3)

a = Qj- iPj)/v2h. (9-4)

If we define the number operator


N = aa + a a2 + aa3 (9-5)

it is obvious that

[J, N] 0 =[J3, N]. (9-6)

Based on this conservation, we can study the fulfillment of the time-dependent constraints

in each of the number-operator subspaces independently of one another. Based on this

information we can proceed with the following analysis:



2 Since this model is similar to the example discussed in C'! lpter 4, we will forgo the
formal arguments of the quantization scheme.









0-particle subspace3


T pi
E(-6 < J sin( t) + j3 cos(tt) < 6) = 10, 0, 0) (0, 0, 01 (9-7)
2 2



1-particle subspace


E (-6 < Ji sin(t) +3 cos( t) < 6)
2 2
1
S (sintl|, 0,0) + cos t|0,0,1))((1,0, 0 sint + (0,0, 1| cost) (9-8)



2-particle subspace


E2(-6 < J sin(t) +j3cos( t) < 6)
2 2

1
S(12, 0, 0) + |0, 2, 0) + |0, 0, 2))((2, 0, 0| + (0, 2, 0| + (0, 0, 21)
3
+ -((sin(t) + 1)12,0, 0) + 10,2,0)+ 1 + cos(t) 10, 0, 2))
3 2 2
x (sin( t)+ 1)(2,0,01 + (0,2,01 + (1 +cos(t))(0, 0, 2) (9-9)
2 2

The construction of the higher numbered projection operators continues in a similar

fashion. The key observation at this juncture is that the projection operator decomposes

into a time-dependent part and a time-independent portion. The time-independent part is

associated with the Casmir operator from the full su(2) algebra, while the time-dependent

portion is attributed to the remainder of the constraint modulo contribution from EsiL

0. Therfore we can write the full projection operator as the following:



3 The superscript on the left-hand side of the equations designates the number subspace











E(-6 < J sin(t) + 3 cos(-t) < 6)
2 2

S E(iL < 62(h))

+ Et(-6 < J sin( t) + J3cos( t) < 6 /L262) (9-10)
2 2

where Et represents the explicit time-dependent nature of the second operator on the

right-hand side of equation (9-10). Having discovered the full nature of the projection

operator let us digress a bit to briefly discuss simplifications to equation (8-46), with the

given description of the model. As we can easily observe, the Hamiltonian H commutes

strongly with the constraint Q(p, q), it follows that;


[En, H] = 0. (9-11)

This equation holds for all time-slices and therefore all n. Equation (8-46) then reduces in

the following manner;


(.|e i /6 E 1 ... E) )

(. {I-|/TEN- 1N-1,0 I) (9-12)

where E, is defined in equation (8-47). As we can determine from (9-12), the infinite

product of projection operators will merge into one projection operator. In turn this will

project onto the set which is the intersection of the initial projected space (i.e. J = 0)

and the final (i.e. J = 0). This operator will of course project onto the sub-space that

carries the trivial representation of this algebra, which is the time-independent portion of

the projection operator. The conclusion that we can draw from (9-12) is that the physical

Hilbert space for this model is not trivial. While this model may not be conclusive proof

that the physical Hilbert space for a general time-dependent constraint is not trivial. It

with the help of various generalizations of this model assist in answering the full query.









9.2 Second Class Constraint

The second and final model we will consider in this chapter is inspired by the work

of J. Antonio Garcia, J. David Vergara and Luis F. Urrutia [49]. In this work, the

authors extend the BRST-BFV method [14], to deal with non-stationary systems (i.e.

time-dependent systems). For this dissertation, we chose not to discuss the BRST-BFV

method, however for a description of the method see [14] and [49].

The model used to illustrate the author's technique was a two-dimensional rotor

with a time-dependent radius. However, for this discussion we abate the model in [49], by

reducing the number of degrees of freedom from 3 to 2, as well as, setting the Hamiltonian

equal to zero to emphasize the constraints. Consider the following time-dependent classical

constraints:


1 = ct, (9-13)

2 = p -c, (9-14)

03 Pt, (9-15)

where c is a positive constant and q, p, pt, are the canonical position, its corresponding

conjugate momentum and conjugate momentum corresponding to the temporal coordinate.

Based on the the Poisson bracket of the constraints, this constraint system is a second-class

system.

The canonical quantization of this model is straight forward. We simply follow the

same procedure as stated in the preceding chapter, which implies that we promote all of

the canonical coordinates (p, q; pt, t) to irreducible self-adjoint operators(P, Q; Pt, T). We

promote the constraints to self-adjoint operators as indicated by the following:


p1 I 1 = Q cT, (916)

2 2 = P c, (9-17)

'3 3 = Pt (9-18)









The coherent states, that will be again useful in this analysis, satisfy lp, q, pt, t) = P, q) 0

lpt, t). In order to determine our projection operator E we need to determine a set of
normalized vector states I|) to minimize the following relationship


(|l|(P2 + (Q cT)2 + (P c)) 2 o h (9-19)

Using the logic emploiv -1 by Klauder in [13], the state that minimized (9-19) would be

the following state Ict, c) 0 10, t) Using the theory of Weyl operators we can construct a

representation of the desired projection E, given by


|c,ct) 0 |0,t)(0 (c,ct =t -iA(Pt) -i(Q-cT)-(P-c)(-A2 /4dAd .(9-20)

We should observe that in this case f e(-"2 2-2)/4 dA 2, rather than one as would

be the case for normalized measure. The consequences of this projection operator can

immediately be discerned following the procedure described in [13].

9.3 Conclusions

In this chapter, we successfully dealt with two systems that have explicit time

dependence. It is hoped that techniques that we developed in the past two chapters will

help us have a better understanding on how to deal with quantization of theories that

are reparameterization invariant, such as General Relativity. The methods discussed and

developed in the last two chapters can be extended to include field theories.

It is well known that a field theory that is not reparameterization invariant can

be transmuted into one reparameterization invariant by a similar technique to that

emploiv, 1 in ('! i lter 8 [55]. Namely this can be accomplished by changing the space-time

coordinates (x" where pe {1..., N}, and N is the number of space time dimensions) to

functions over space-time,which in essence introduces N scalar fields to the field theory,


xP" y- (x). (9-21)









This step corresponds, in the preceding chapter, to promoting t to a dynamical variable.

Using these techniques we will be able to discuss the quantization of gauge field theories

with a non-stationary dynamical source, to name only one possibility.









CHAPTER 10
CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK

_11illi, mi,,.l. .,l study and research are very suggestive of mountaineering. Wi,,i i'/ made

several efforts before he climbed the Matterhorn in the 1860's even then it cost the life of

four of his ',,I/;/ Now, however, ,i,.; tourist can be hauled up for a small cost, and perhaps

does not appreciate the diff;. ;,ll; of the c,:':,,rl1 ascent. So in mathematics, it i,,ini be

found hard to realize the great initial difficulty of i,,.;. :,.j a little step which now seems so

natural and obvious, and it i,,ii; not be surprising if such a step has been found and lost

again." Louis Joel Mordell (1888-1972; Three Lectures on Fermat's Last Theorem, p.4)

10.1 Summary

In C'!i pters 2, 3 and 4 we gave modest account of the background information needed

for the remaining chapters of the dissertation. In chapter 4, we successfully analyzed a

constraint that mimicked the aspect of the gravitational constraint, that it was classically

a first-class system; however, upon quantization it became a partially second-class system.

In the same chapter we also analyzed a closed, first-class quantum system, as well as a

first-class system with a zero in the continuum.

C'! lpter 5 introduces the classification of constraints called "highly irreg 11l I

constraints. During this chapter, we described a general procedure to solve the quantum

analog to the "highly irreg 11 o constraints utilizing the Projection Operator Formalism.

We also successfully analyzed a simple example of this type of constraint using only the

Projection Operator Formalism.

In C'! lpter 6, we used the mathematical tools established in C'i lpter 5 to give a

complete account of the quantization of the Ashtekar-Horowitz-Boulware model.[11]

This model was inspired by the Hamilitonian constraint of General Relativity to answer

whether or not there could be quantum mechanical tunneling into classically forbidden

regions of phase space. During the course of this chapter we compare the results obtained

by the Projection Operator Method with that of the Refined Algebraic Quantization









Scheme. This comparison has left us with the conclusion that these methods are different

and incompatible with each other. To the author's knowledge, this is the first time

the Projection Operator Formalism has been used when the configuration space has a

non-trival topology.

The remaining chapters were devoted to the topic of time-dependent quantum

constraints. We developed the formalism in which the topic can be approached in the

context of the Projection Operator. This was accomplished by extending the classical

phase space of the time-dependent system, thereby elevating the time parameter to a

dynamical variable. In the same chapter, we compared the Projection Operator Formalism

to the approach that was first discussed in[12]. While these methods start from the

same point (i.e. an extended phase space) the conclusions reached are very different. In

the following chapter we were successful in analyzing two examples of time-dependent

constraints.

The story of classical and quantum constraints that we have presented within this

dissertation is by no means a complete account. In fact it is impossible to give a complete

account of any research. By researching we merely point the direction to new research,

leading to new questions to ask and to attempt to answer. The topics in physics are

alv -i.- bigger than the individual physicist. However, this is the beauty of the subject,

that things we leave unresolved can be picked up in the future generations.

There are several unresolved issues left from this dissertation that can be addressed

by the author or future researchers. These include but are not limited to, "How do the

methods of the Projection Operator generalize to a full quantum field theory?", "What

lessons learned from the simple models that we analyzed in this dissertaion can be applied

in more realistic theories such as Quantum Gravity?", "Can we use the formalism obtained

in C'!i lpter 8 to examine more realistic theories?"









10.2 Ending on a Personal Note

Becoming a physicist has been a dream of mine since I was fourteen years old. I

would read about these famous men and women who tackled these deep theoretical

problems and actually made progress and ultimately furthered our understanding on

how the universe operated. I was completely determined to pursue this goal; however,

no one from my high school had ever pursued a career in physics. When I was a junior

in high school, there was a pull from external forces trying to persuade me to pursue

the "more traditional" route of becoming an engineer. I decided to end this dissertation

by mentioning the poem by Robert Frost that aided me in cementing my decision of

becoming a physicist, "Two Roads Diverged in a Yellow Wood." No matter how difficult

this journey has been, I have enjoy, 1 every step of it. This poem is also fitting because

each new problem is like the fork in the road described by Frost, "should I pursue this

problem with the same approach as everyone else or should I choose the problem nobody

knows how to solve?" I cannot wait to see what new problems and new approaches will

appear a little further down the road. I feel like I took the road less traveled, and it has

made all the difference.









APPENDIX A
REPARAMETERIZATION INVARIANT THEORIES

What are the consequences if an action I[q(t)] is invariant under an infinitesimal

temporal transformation, which is the characteristic of a reparametrization invariant

theory, i.e.

I[q(t)] = I[q(t + c(t))]for c < 1? (A-l)

Given the infinitesimal transformation1

S t- + tc(t), (t) = c(t2) = 0, (A-2)

= t = (A-3)
dq
S6q = e t (A 4)
dt

By our assumption that I[q(t)] = I[q(t + e(t))] it follows that

6I = (6L)dt 0 (A-5)
J1

J' 'LL 9L L d
t + sq + 6q)dt (A 6)
t2 L &+L C+ L d + +)dt (A-7)
at t aq 9q dt

/2 (dL+ Oq-d)dt (A-8)

Integrating by parts,
/( de 9L .de
t2 QLd )dt, (A-9)
Jt'i dt 9L dt
t2 q L) )dt. (A-10)

(A-ll)



1 In general, we do not have to assume that > 0, we point the reader to [6], for a
discussion on this matter, however, we must insist that A / 0 almost everywhere.









We can conclude based on our assumption that A / 0, a.e., that the statement

following must be true,


OL
aq
= H


0

O. D


Therefore, in all reparameterization invariant theories the Hamiltonian vanishes.


(A-12)

(A-13)









REFERENCES

[1] S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields Vol. 2, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 1998.

[2] A. Jaffe and E. Witten, "Quantum Yang-Mills Theory" http://www.esi2.us.es/
-mbilbao/pdffiles/yangmills.pdf, 04/19/2007.

[3] P. Deligne, et al., Quantum Fields and Strings: A Course for Mathematicians Vol.
1-2, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1999.

[4] A. Ashtekar, J. Lewandowski, "Background Independent Quantum Gravity: A
Status Report, Class. Quant. Gray., 21 (2004) R53 .

[5] J. Henson, "The Causal Set Approach to Quantum Gravity," http://arxiv.org/
abs/gr-qc/0601121 (2006).

[6] J. Klauder, "Affine Quantum Gravity," Int. J. Mod. Phys. D12 (2003) 1769.

[7] P.A.M. Dirac, Lectures on Quantum Mechanics, Belfer Graduate School of Science,
Yeshiva University, New York, 1964.

[8] J. S. Little, J. Klauder, Elementary Model of Constraint Quantization with an
Anomaly ," Phys.Rev. D, D71 (2005) 085014.

[9] J. Klauder, J. S. Little, "Highly Irregular Quantum Constraints ," Class. Quant.
Gray, 23 (2006) 3641.

[10] J. S. Little, "The Projection Operator Method and the Ashtekar-Horowitz-Boulware
Model" http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0608009, (2006).

[11] A. Ashtekar, G. T. Horowitz, "On the Canonical Approach to Quantum Gravity", in
Phys. Rev. D, 26 (1982), 3342.

[12] D.M. Gitman, I.V. Tyutin, Quantization of Fields with Constraints, Springer-V, 1 1
Berlin 1990.

[13] J. Klauder, "Quantization of Constrained Systems," Lect. Notes Phys., 572, (2001)
143.

[14] M. Henneaux, C. Teitelboim, Quantization of Gauge S, -/ i'- Princeton University
Press, Princeton, NJ, 1992.

[15] J. Jose, E. Saletan, Classical D.i iii. A Contemprary Approach, Cambridge
University Press 1998.

[16] J. Govaerts, Hamiltonian Quantisation and Constrained D.i.,..nn- Leuven
University Press, Belgium, 1991.









[17] V. I. Arnold, Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics, Singer V i1 .- 3rd ed.
New York, New York (1989).

[18] L. Castellani, "Symmetries in Constrained Hamiltonian systems," Ann. Phys, 143,
(1982), 357.

[19] A. A Deriglazov, K. E. Evdokimov. "Local Symmetries in the Hamiltonian
Framework. 1. Hamiltonian Form of the Symmetries and the Noether identities,"
Int. J. Mod. Phys. A15 (2000) 4045.

[20] P.A.M Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, 4th ed., Oxford Science
Publications, 1998.

[21] J. Klauder, \. l i cal Quantization" http://arxiv. org/abs/quant-ph/9804009
(1998).

[22] J. Simon, C'l,'.ri, Without Time Relationalism and Field Quantization, Dissertation,
Universitat Regensburg, Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultat II Physik, 2004.

[23] N.P. Landsman, Mathematical Topics Between Classical and Quantum Mechanics
Springer-Verlag New York, 1998.

[50] D. Giulini, "That Strange Procedure Called Quantisation", http://arxiv.org/
abs/quantph/0304202 (2003).

[25] A. Ashtekar, R. S. Tate, "An Algebraic Extension of Dirac Quantization:
Examples," http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9405073 (1994).

[26] S.V. Shabanov, "Geometry of the Physical Phase Space in Quantum Gauge
Models," Ph;,: Reports 326 1 (2000), hep-th/0002043.

[27] L.D. Faddeev, "Feynman Integral for Singular Lagrangians," in Theor. Math. Phys.
1, (1969), 1.

[28] P. S(li in.,vic, "Path Integral Quantization of Field Theories with Second-Class
Constraints," Ann. Phys. 100, (1976), 227.

[29] Adriano Di Giacomo, "Confinement of Color: Open Problems and Perspectives,"
http: //arxiv. org/abs/hep-lat/0602011, (2006).

[30] D. Giulini, D. Marolf, "On the Generality of Refined Algebraic Quantization," Class.
Quant. Gray., 16, (1999), 247.

[31] D. Marolf, "Refined Algebraic Quantization: Systems with a Single Constraint,"
http: //arxiv. org/abs/gr-qc/9508015, (1995).

[32] J. Louko, A. Molgado, "Superselection sectors in the Ashtekar-Horowitz-Boulware
Model", Class. Quantum Grav. 22, (2005) 4007.









[33] B. Dittrich, T. Thiemann, "Testing the Master Constraint Programme for Loop
Quantum Gravity I. General Framework," Class. Quant. Gray. 23, (2006), 1025.

[34] T. Thiemann, "The Phoenix Project: Master Constraint Programme for Loop
Quantum Gravity," Class. Quant. Gray. 23, (2006), 2211.

[35] B. Dittrich, T. Thiemann, "Testing the Master Constraint Programme for Loop
Quantum Gravity II. Finite Dimensional Systems," in Class. Quant. Gray. 23,
(2006), 1067.

[36] B. Dittrich, T. Thiemann, "Testing the Master Constraint Programme for Loop
Quantum Gravity III. SL(2,R) Models," in Class. Quant. Gray., 23, (2006) 1089.

[37] B. Dittrich, T. Thiemann, "Testing the Master Constraint Programme for Loop
Quantum Gravity V. Interacting Field Theories, in Class. Quant. Gray. 23, (2006),
1143.

[38] R. Shankar, Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Plenum Press, 2nd ed., New York,
New York, 1994.

[39] J. Klauder, "Path Integrals, and Classical and Quantum Constraints" http:
//arxiv. org/abs/quant-ph/0507222 (2005).

[40] J. Klauder, "Coherent State Quantization of Constraint Systems," Ann. Phys. 245
(1997) 419.

[41] J. R. Klauder, B. Skagerstam, Coherent States, World Scientific Publishing,
Singapore, 1985.

[42] N. Aronszajn, Proc. C.,n,,1, l1.:,: Phil. Soc., 39 (1943), 133; Trans. Amer. Math
Soc. 68 337 (1950); H. Meschkowski, Hilbertsche Raum mit Kernfunktion,'
Springer-V i1 :- Berlin, 1962

[43] H. Araki, "Hamiltonian Formalism and the Canonical Commutation Relations in
Quantum Field Theory," J. Math. Phys 1 (1960), 492.

[44] D. G. Boulware, "Comment on 'On the Canonical Approach to Quantum Gravity', "
Phys. Rev. D 28 (1983), 414.

[45] J. A Gonzlez, M. A. del Olmo, "Coherent States on the Circle," J. Phys. A: Math.
Gen. 31 (1998),8841.

[46] J. Louko, "Group Averaging,Positive Definiteness and Duperselection Sectors," J.
Phys. Conf. Ser. 33 (2006), 142.

[47] J. Klauder, Universal Procedure for Enforcing Quantum Constraints ", Nucl.
Phys. B547 (1999), 397.

[48] G. Fulop, D. M. Gitman, I.V. Tyutin. "Reparametrization Invariance as Gauge
Symmetry," Int. J. Theor. Phys. 38 (1999) 1941.


120









[49] A. Garcia D. Vergara, L. F. Urrutia, "BRST-BFV Method for Nonstationary
Systems," Pb.i; ..: i Review D 51 (1995), 5806.

[50] C. Rovelli, "Partial observables," Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002), 124013.

[51] B. Dittric, "Partial and Complete Observables for Hamiltonian Constrained
Systems," http: //arxiv. org/abs/gr-qc/0411013, (2004).

[52] W. Pauli. "Die allgemeinen Prinzipien der Wellenmechanik," in Handbuch der
Physik 1 Springer, Berlin, 1926.

[53] J. Klauder, "Attractions of Affine Quantum Gravity," http://arxiv. org/abs/
gr-qc/0411055, (2004).

[54] J. Klauder, "Ultralocal Fields and Their Relevance for Reparametrization Invariant
Quantum Field Theory, J. Phys. A 34 (2001), 3277.

[55] S.P. Gavrilov, D.M. Gitman, "Quantization of Systems with Time-Dependent
Constraints. Example of Relativistic Particle in Plane Wave," in Class. Quant. Gray.
10 (1993), 57.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Jeffrey Scott Little was born Janurary 10, 1980, in the small eastern Kentucky town

of Pikeville. He is the eldest of three children and the only son of Jeff and Linda Little.

His strong interest in science was evident at a very early age. When Scott was 14, he

discovered his passion for quantum physics and read nearly everything he could find on the

subject. Scott graduated from Shelby Valley High School in 1998, as class valedictorian.

After high school, Scott set off to matriculate at Western Kentucky University in Bowling

Green, Kentucky. While at Western he became extremely interested in the study of formal

mathematics. During his senior year he entertained the idea of attending graduate school

in mathematics; however, he realized that it would be possible to pursue both passions

through a physics career. Scott graduated from Western Kentucky with a double bachelors

degree in physics and mathematics in the Spring of 2002.

After finishing his undergraduate career he accepted an Alumni Fellowship from the

University of Florida to continue his studies of physics. Though moving from a relatively

small department at Western to the much larger Physics Department at Florida was

initially daunting, Scott overcame his fears and succeeded in his course work. In the

Spring of 2004, Scott became a student of John Klauder. Dr. Klauder allowed Scott to not

only study physics but also allowed him to stay connected to the formal mathematics that

he had grown fond of during his stay at Western. Under Dr. Klauder's tutelage, Scott was

able to research and publish three papers on quantum constraints.

In June of 2006, at the age of 26, Scott married the love of his life Megan (Carty)

Little. Scott obtained his Ph.D. in Physics in the Fall of 2007. Scott and Megan currently

reside in Louisville, KY, where Scott is continuing to research a wide variety of theoretical

problems and is an instructor at the University of Louisville.





PAGE 1

1

PAGE 2

2

PAGE 3

3

PAGE 4

ObtainingaPh.D.inanyeldisneveracompleteindividualeort,Iowemanythankstomanypeoplethathelpedmepursuethislife-longgoal.Firstofall,IwouldliketothankmyadvisorJohnKlauder,forgivingmethechancetostudyquantizationofconstraintssystems.Iamindebtedtohimforallthepatience,time,andencouragementthathehasaordedmeovertheyearsthatIspentunderhistutelageattheUniversityofFlorida.Hispassionforthecourseofstudyhashelpedmeobtainabroaderviewofphysics,aswellasamoredevelopedpalateforvarioustopicsinphysics.InfactIamgratefultotheentirephysicsdepartmentforallowingmetheopportunitytostudytheoreticalphysics.IgratefullyacknowledgetheAlumniFellowshipAssociation,whichallowedmetoattendtheUniversitywithoutanoverwhelmingteachingresponsibility.Iwouldalsoliketothankmygrandparents,Ruby,Granville,Hazel,andVeral,whoinstilledinmefromanextremelyearlyagethatIcouldaccomplishanythingifIsetmymindtoit.Thanksgotomydad,Je,whogavemeasenseofscienticcuriosityandtomymom,Linda,whowasmywonderfulmathinstructorfromfractionstocalculus,nottomentionalloftheirloveandsupport,andtomysisters,LisaandSierra,whoseconstantencouragementaidedmethroughmyearlycollegeandgraduatecareer.IamassuredlyindebtedtomydearAuntBrenda,whocarefullyeditedseveralchaptersofthismanuscript,eventhoughsheisnotaphysicsperson.Iwouldalsoliketothankmywife'sfamilyforalloftheirsupportthesepast2years.ThanksgotomyfriendsattheUniversityofFloridaLarry,Ethan,Wayne,Ian,Lester,Jen,andGarret,whosecompassionandconversationsaboutawidevarietyoftopicsareunmeasurable.Savingthebestforlast,Ithanktheloveofmylife,mydarlingwife,Megan.WithoutwhomIwouldhavenevercompletedthisdissertation.Ithankherforallofthelove,support,andencouragementthatshehasgivenme;sheisthesourceofmyinspirationtoachieve,morethanIeverdreamedcouldbeachieved. 4

PAGE 5

page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................. 4 ABSTRACT ........................................ 8 CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION .................................. 10 1.1Philosophy .................................... 11 1.2OutlineoftheRemainingChapters ...................... 12 2CONSTRAINTSANDTHEDIRACPROCEDURE ............... 14 2.1ClassicalPicture ................................ 14 2.1.1GeometricPlayground ......................... 16 2.1.2ConstraintsAppear ........................... 18 2.1.3AnotherGeometricInterlude ...................... 20 2.1.4Observables ............................... 21 2.2Quantization .................................. 22 2.2.1CanonicalQuantizationProgram ................... 22 2.2.2WhatAboutConstraints?TheDiracMethod ............ 24 3OTHERMETHODS ................................. 27 3.1Faddeev-PopovMethod ............................ 27 3.1.1YetAnotherGeometricInterludefromtheConstraintSub-Manifold 27 3.1.2BasicDescription ............................ 28 3.1.3CommentsandCriticisms ....................... 29 3.2RenedAlgebraicQuantization ........................ 31 3.2.1BasicOutlineofProcedure ....................... 32 3.2.2CommentsandCriticisms ....................... 33 3.3MasterConstraintProgram .......................... 34 3.3.1ClassicalDescription .......................... 35 3.3.2Quantization ............................... 36 3.3.3MCPConstraintExample ....................... 39 3.3.4CommentsandCriticisms ....................... 41 3.4Conclusions ................................... 42 4PROJECTIONOPERATORFORMALISM .................... 43 4.1MethodandMotivation ............................ 43 4.1.1SquaringtheConstraints ........................ 45 4.1.2ClassicalConsideration ......................... 45 4.1.2.1QuantumConsideration ................... 46 4.1.2.2ProjectionOperatorJustication .............. 47 5

PAGE 6

................. 48 4.2.1CoherentStates ............................. 48 4.2.2ReproducingKernelHilbertSpaces .................. 49 4.3ConstraintExamples .............................. 51 4.3.1ConstraintwithaZerointheContinuousSpectrum ......... 51 4.3.2Closed,First-ClassConstrant ..................... 52 4.3.3Open,FirstClassconstraint ...................... 54 4.4Conclusions ................................... 58 5HIGHLYIRREGULARCONSTRAINTS ...................... 59 5.1Classication .................................. 59 5.2ToyModel .................................... 64 5.3Observables ................................... 72 5.4ObservationandConclusions .......................... 75 6ASHTEKAR-HOROWITZ-BOULWAREMODEL ................. 76 6.1Introduction ................................... 76 6.2ClassicalTheory ................................ 77 6.3QuantumDynamics ............................... 79 6.4ThePhysicalHilbertSpaceviatheReproducingKernel ........... 79 6.4.1TheTorusT2 79 6.5Super-selectionSectors? ............................ 84 6.6ClassicalLimit ................................. 85 6.7RenedAlgebraicQuantizationApproach .................. 88 6.8CommentaryandDiscussion .......................... 90 7PROBLEMWITHTIME .............................. 92 8TIMEDEPENDENTCONSTRAINTS ....................... 94 8.1ClassicalConsideration ............................. 94 8.1.1BasicModel ............................... 94 8.1.2CommentaryandDiscussion ...................... 97 8.2QuantumConsiderations ............................ 99 8.2.1GitmanandTyutinPrescriptionforTime-DependentSecond-ClassConstraints ............................... 99 8.2.2CanonicalQuantization ......................... 101 8.2.3Dirac ................................... 102 8.2.4ProjectionOperatorFormalism .................... 102 8.2.5Time-DependentQuantumConstraints ................ 103 8.2.6ObservationsandComparisons ..................... 105 9TIME-DEPENDENTMODELS ........................... 106 9.1First-ClassConstraint ............................. 106 9.2SecondClassConstraint ............................ 110 6

PAGE 7

................................... 111 10CONCLUSIONSANDOUTLOOK ......................... 113 10.1Summary .................................... 113 10.2EndingonaPersonalNote ........................... 115 APPENDIX AREPARAMETERIZATIONINVARIANTTHEORIES .............. 116 REFERENCES ....................................... 118 BIOGRAPHICALSKETCH ................................ 122 7

PAGE 8

Motivatedbyseveraltheoreticalissuessurroundingquantumgravity,acourseofstudyhasbeenimplementedtogaininsightintothequantizationofconstrainedsystemsutilizingtheProjectionOperatorFormalism.Throughoutthisdissertationwewilladdressseveralmodelsandtechniquesusedinanattempttoilluminatethesubject.WealsoattempttoillustratetheutilityoftheProjectionOperatorFormalismindealingwithanytypeofquantumconstraint. Quantumgravityismademoredicultinpartbyitsconstraintstructure.Theconstraintsareclassicallyrst-class;however,uponquantizationtheybecomepartiallysecond-class.Tostudysuchbehavior,wewillfocusonasimpleproblemwithnitelymanydegreesoffreedomandwilldemonstratehowtheProjectionOperatorFormalismiswellsuitedtodealwiththistypeofconstraint. Typically,whenonediscussesconstraints,oneimposesregularityconditionsontheseconstraints.Weintroducethe\new"classicationofconstraintscalled\highlyirregular"constraints,duetothefacttheseconstraintscontainbothregularandirregularsolutions.Quantizationofirregularconstraintsisnormallynotconsidered;however,usingtheProjectionOperatorFormalismweprovideasatisfactoryquantization.Itisnoteworthythatirregularconstraintschangetheobservableaspectsofatheoryascomparedtostrictlyregularconstraints.Morespecically,wewillattempttousethetoolsoftheProjectionOperatorFormalismtostudyanothergravitationallyinspiredmodel,namely 8

PAGE 9

Finally,wewillusetheProjectionOperatorMethodtodiscusstime-dependentquantumconstraints.Indoingso,wewilldeveloptheformalismandstudyafewkeytime-dependentmodelstohelpusobtainalargerpictureonhowtodealwithreparameterizationinvarianttheoriessuchasGeneralRelativity. 9

PAGE 10

\Itisveryimportantthatwedonotallfollowthesamefashion...Itsnecessarytoincreasetheamountofvariety....theonlywaytodoitistoimploreyoufewguystotakearisk..."-RichardFeynman 1 ].Thisisakeycharacteristicofconstrainedsystems.Theprocessofconvertingaclassicaltheorytoaquantumtheoryismademoredicultbythepresenceoftheseconstraints.Commonlyusedtechniquestodealwiththesesystemshavebeeninadequateinprovidingadescriptionofthelowmomentumbehaviorofthestrongforce,whichisassociatedwiththemass-gapconjecture[ 2 ]. Generalrelativity,liketheStandardModel,isanotherexampleofaconstrainedsystem.Thequantizationofgravityhaspresentedtheoreticalphysicsacornucopiaofproblemstosolveforthepast50years.Toanswerthesedeeptheoreticalquestions,physicistshaveemployedseveralandseeminglyconictingviewpoints.Theseperspectives,rangefromSuperstrings[ 3 ],themaingoalistheunicationofallforcesinonequantummechanicaldescription,LoopQuantumGravity[ 4 ],inwhichthemainobjectiveofthisisaconsistentbackgroundindependentdescriptionofquantumgravity,toCausalSets[ 5 ]inwhichtheapproachpreassumesthatspace-timeisdiscretized,andtheAneQuantumGravityProgram[ 6 ],inwhichtheaimofthisapproachistosolvequantumconstraintproblemswiththeProjectionoperatorformalism.Thereareseveraldeepunderlyingtheoreticalissuessurroundingthequantizationofgravity,oneofwhichisthatgravity 10

PAGE 11

1 ],appeartobeuselesswhenapproachingthissubject.Canonicalquantizationschemesofgravityarealsomadedicultbythetheory'sconstraintclassication[ 7 ].Classically,gravity'sconstraintsareonealgebraicclass,butuponquantizationtheconstraintsmorphintoanothertype Wealsoapproachproblemswiththepointofviewthata\complete"descriptionoftheuniversemustbeaquantummechanicalone.Therefore,aquantummechanicaldescriptionofaparticularmodelwillalwayssupercedetheclassicaldescription.Thisistheprimaryreasonthatwecitethemantra,quantizerst,reducesecondoverandoverinthisdissertation. 11

PAGE 12

8 ].Wheneverencounteredinthedissertation,repeatedindicesaretobesummed. TheprimarygoalofChapter5istointroducea\new"classicationofconstraintscalledhighlyirregularconstraintsandalsoillustratetechniquesusedtodealwithquantumversionsoftheseconstraints.Thebasisofthischaptercomesfrom[ 9 ]and[ 10 ].UsingthetechniquesgainedfromChapter5,inChapter6weoeracompletediscussionofthequantizationoftheAshtekar-Horowitz-BoulwareModel[ 11 ].TheAshtekar-Horowitz-Boulwaremodelisamathematicalmodelalsoinspiredbytheconstraintsofgravity.Thischapterisbasedontheresultsobtainedin[ 9 ].WealsocomparetheresultsobtainedbytheRenedAlgebraicQuantizationprogramwiththeProjectionOperatorformalism.Thiscomparisonleadstotheconclusionthatthetwomethodsarenotcompatibledealingwithallconstraints. Theremainingchaptersaredevotedtothetopicoftime-dependentquantumconstraints.Untilnow,themethodsusedtodelveintothistopic[ 12 ]havebeenunsatisfactoryduetothefactthatthesemethodsavoidsolvingforthequantumconstraints.Theaim 12

PAGE 13

12 ]withtheProjectionOperator.InChapter9,wewillexaminetwotime-dependentconstraints,onerst-classandonesecond-class.Wewillconcludewithabriefsummaryandapossiblelookforwardtofutureresearchproblems. 13

PAGE 14

Theprimarygoalofthischapteristointroducethereadertotheconceptofconstraintsinclassicalphysics.WewilldiscussthequantizationoftheseclassicalsystemsintheframeworkproposedbyDirac,[ 7 ],aswellas,discussdecienciesinthemethod,whichwillhelpmotivatethedevelopmentoftheprojectionoperatorformalisminChapter4. whereListheLagrangian,tisacontinuousparameter(oftenassociatedwithtime),qa2Q,whereQissomecongurationspace,a2f1;2;:::Ng,_denotesthederivativewithrespecttot,and_qaisanelementofaberofthetangentbundleQ,TQ.Formally,wecanwritetheLagrangianfunctionalas Laterinthediscussionwewilldenethecongurationspace,butfornowitisjustsomeC1-manifold.Thegoal 2{1 )anddeterminingits 14

PAGE 15

(2{3) dt@L @_qa@L @qa=0 (2{4) Whilethisformulationisusefulindeterminingawidevarietyofphysicalquantities[ 15 ],itisnotassensitivetoparticularfeaturesofagivenclassicaltheoryasweneed. @_qa:(2{5) ThiscanberecognizedastheberderivativefromthetangentbundleofQtothecotangentbundleofQ[ 15 ](otherwiseknownasthetangentbundle'sdual) ThenextstepintheprocedureistoidentifytheHamiltonian,whichfollowsfromaLegendretransformationoftheLagrangian qa=(tt0)@L @qa+_(tt0)@L @_qa++(k)(tt0)@L @qka[ 14 ].Integratingthisequationwithrespecttot0andsettingtheresulttozerowillyieldthestationarypointsofthecorrespondingaction.3 2{4 intermsofasecondorderdierentialequation,thesubtlepointweareabouttomakebecomesclearer.[ 16 ] 15

PAGE 16

2{5 )isinvertibleintermsof_qa.ThisconditionissatisedbytheHessiancondition det@2L @_qa@_qb6=0:(2{8) Wewillreturntothecasewhen( 2{8 )failsshortly.UntilthenwewilldiscusstheHamiltonianformalisminmoredetail.Foramorecompleteaccountsee[ 17 ]and[ 15 ].Atthispointwewillnolongermentionthecotangentbundle,butratherwewillnotethatthisspaceissymplectomorphictothemorefamiliarspace,phasespaceM,i.e., ThegeometricframeworkoftheHamiltonianframeworkisarichandbeautifulsubject.However,forthesakeofbrevitywewillonlyrecountthemostcrucialelementstothedevelopmentoftheconstraintpicture.Foramorecompletedescription,wepointthereadersto[ 17 ],[ 15 ],and[ 18 ]. 2{7 )aregivenby _qi=fqi;Hg; _pj=fpj;Hg; 16

PAGE 17

@qi@g @pi@f @pi@g @qi;(2{12) wheref;g2C2(M).ThePoissonbracketshavethefollowingpropertiesforanyf;g,andh2C2(M): Equation( 2{13 )illustratesthatthePoissonbracketsareantisymmetricinrespecttoitsarguments.Equation( 2{14 )servesastheconnectionofthePoissonbracketwithpoint-wisemultiplicationofthefunctionsoverthephasespace.Finally,( 2{15 )demonstratesthatthePoissonbracketobeysthefamousJacobiidentity.WiththesethreepropertiesitispossibletoshowthattheclassicalfunctionsoverphasespaceformaLiealgebrawithrespecttothePoissonbracket.[ 14 ] Thesymplecticformisacrucialelementwhenwemovefromaclassicaldiscussionofasystemtoitsquantumanalogue. 17

PAGE 18

2{8 )fails det@2L @_qa_qb=0:(2{17) If( 2{17 )occurs,thenitarisesbecausetheconjugatemomentaarenotallindependent[ 14 ],sincethereexistredundantvariablesinthedynamicalvariables.Inotherwords,thereexistrelationsthatareassociatedwiththedenitionoftheconjugatemomemtum( 2{7 ) wherea2f1;:::Ag.Theserelations( 2{18 )areknownasprimaryconstraints[ 14 ].Itisanimportanttonotethattheprimaryconstraintsarenotdeterminedbytheequationsofmotion.Thesetofequations( 2{18 )deneasubspaceofthephasespacecalledaprimaryconstraintsub-manifold,whosedimensionare2NA.Technically,weareassumingthattheconstraintsobeyaregularitycondition[ 14 ].Wewillexaminethisregularitycondition,andinstanceswhenitfailsinChapter5.Untilthen,wewillassumeandonlyconsiderexamplesinwhichtheseconditionsaresatised. WecanalsorelatethepresenceofconstraintsbyconsideringtheNoethertheorem.Whenaglobaltransformationexiststhatleavestheactioninvariant,theresultisaconservedquantity.However,whenthisisalocaltransformation,theresultisaconstraint.See[ 19 ]fordetails. ItisclearthatHamilton'sequations( 2{10 )and( 2{11 )arenolongervalidifprimaryconstraintsarepresent.Allthedynamicsshouldtakeplaceontheprimaryconstraintsurface.WecanachievethisbymakingthefollowingmodicationtotheHamiltonian, 7 ]servesasthemoderninspirationofthetopic 18

PAGE 19

whereaareLagrangemultipliers,thatenforcesthedynamicsofthesystemtooccuronlyonthesub-manifold.Thereforetheequationsofmotionaregivenbythefollowing _qi=fqi;Hg+afqi;ag; _pj=fpj;Hg+afpj;ag; Sincethesetofprimaryconstraintsmustbesatisedforallt,itfollowsthat _a=fa;Hg+fa;bgb0:(2{23) whereisdenedasweaklyequalto,orequaltoontheconstraintsub-manifold.Adirectconsequenceof( 2.1.2 )isthatthesolutionsto( 2.1.2 )maynotbeindependentofthesetofprimaryconstraints( 2{18 ).Ifthisisthecase,wedeneasetofnewconstraints(b),b2f1;:::Bgwhichalsosatises( 2.1.2 ).Thissetofconstraintsiscalledsecondaryconstraints.Werepeattheprocessofsolvingtheconsistencyequation( 2.1.2 )touncoveralltheconstraints.Withthatbeingsaidwewillalwaysassumethatallconstraintshavebeenuncovered.Thisstatementisoftenreferredtoasthesetofconstraintsiscomplete[ 14 ]. Nowassumingthatthesetofconstraintsiscomplete,equation( 2.1.2 )alsoservesasthestartingpointofthediscussionoftheclassication.[ 7 ]Onepossibilityfor( 2{22 )tobevalidontheconstraintsurfaceistoalloweachPoissonbrackettobeseparatelyzerobybeingproportionaltoaconstraint.Thishypothesisleadstoourrstclassication:when 19

PAGE 20

Ifdetfa;bg6=0,theconstraintsareclassiedassecondclass[ 16 ].Nolongerhavingtheavailabilityoftheprecedingcriteriaof( 2{24 )and( 2{25 ),itfollowsthattheLagrangemultipliersaredeterminedbytheequationsofmotionsothat( 2{22 )issatised.TheLagrangemultipliersforcethedynamicstoremainontheconstraintsurfaceforasecond-classsystem.NamelytheLagrangemultiplierscanbedeterminedbythefollowingequations 20

PAGE 21

14 ]foramoredetailedaccountofthepre-symplecticform.Amoreindepthdiscussionofthegeometryofconstraintsurfacewilloccurinthefollowingchapter. whereo2C1(M).Inthecontextofrst-classconstraints( 2{27 )isasucientconditionthatguaranteesagaugeinvariantfunction[ 14 ].Ifoisanobservable,itisclearbythedenitionofanobservablefunction( 2{27 )thato+aaisalsoanobservable.UsingthisobservationitispossibletopartitionthesetoffunctionsC1(M)byvirtueofthisequivalencerelationintoobservablefunctionsandnon-observablefunctions.Intakingthediscussionfurther,ifweweretoconsiderthevectorspaceofC1(M)equippedwiththePoissonbrackets,whichdenesaLiealgebra,alongwithpointwisemultiplication,wecanthenidentifythefunctionsthatvanishontheconstraintsub-manifold(i.e.theconstraints)astheidealNinC1(M).WecanclassifyalgebraofobservablefuctionsasthequotientalgebraC1(M)=N.[ 14 ]Thisidenticationofthealgebraicstructureoftheobservables 14 ] 21

PAGE 22

2.2.1CanonicalQuantizationProgram 20 ].Thegoalofthecanonicalquantizationprocedureistondarulethatassociatesphasespacefunctionswithself-adjointoperators.Knowingthegoaloftheprogram,let'sbegintheimplementation.First,withwemustinsistthatthecoordinatesofphasespacebeatcoordinates,whichimpliestheremustbeaglobalCartesiancoordinatepatchfortheentirephasespacemanifold. 22 ]and[ 23 ]. (2{28) (2{29) (2{30) whereSA(H)isthesetofself-adjointoperatorsactingontheHilbertspaceHandf;g2C1(M).Theself-adjointoperatorQ(f)shouldberecognizedasthequantum 20 ],andmorerecentlybyKlauder[ 21 ].AccordingtoKlauder[ 21 ],thismetricstructurecomesintheformofa\shadow"metricwhichisproportionalto~.9 22

PAGE 23

2{29 ),isthefollowing where(qj;pj)arethephasespacecanonicalcoordinatesand1istheidentityoperatorontheHilbertspaceH.Weshouldnotethatthereisnotadenitivemethodbywhichtopickthequantizationmapsincethequantizationmapisnotahomomorphismbetweenthetwoalgebra.Ambiguityexistsintheprocessbecausethattherearesomephasespacefunctions(e.g.p4q)thatwouldcorrespondtomultipleself-adjointoperators(e.g.P2QP2or(P4Q+QP4)=2).Ithasalsoshownby[ 50 ]theredoesnotexistaquantizationmapthatcanbedenedforallelementsfromthefullalgebraoftheclassicalobservables.Despitethesedicultieswewillproceed,notingpotentialproblemsduetotheseambiguitiesintheprocedureasnecessary. Thus,fortheremainingsectionsinthisworkwewillassumethatwehaveaquantizationmapandarefreetouseit.Thenotationthatwewilluseisasfollows:(pj;qi)representtherealc-numberofphasespacecoordinates,while(Pj;Qi)representthesetofirreducible,self-adjointoperatorsinwhichthecanonicalcoordinatesaremapped.Thecommutatorofthe(Pj;Qj)followsdirectly( 2{31 ) [Qi;Pj]=i~ij1:(2{32) Secondly,wepromotequantizablephasespaceobservables(f)toself-adjointoperatorsF: Ifthereexistsfactororderambiguity,wewillappealtoexperimenttoselecttheproperdenitionofF.However,asmathematicallypreciseasthequantizationprocedureisfor 23

PAGE 24

12 ]. 2{18 )?"Inresponsetothisquery,wewilluseDirac'sprocedure[ 7 ].Toinitiatethisprocedure,webeginbypromotingtheconstraintstoself-adjointoperators, Thenextstepistodeterminethekernelofa,knownasthephysicalHilbertspace[ 25 ] Iftheconstraintpossessesazeroincontinuumofthespectrum,(i.e.supposethattheconstraint=P1),thenweimmediatelyencounterapotentialdicultyinimplementingthisprocedure.BasedsolelyontheconstructionofthephysicalHilbertspacewecannotguaranteethatjPhjiPj<1. 24

PAGE 25

2.1.2 ).Inessencethismeanswemustconsider [a(P;Q);H(P;Q)]jiP=0; [a(P;Q);b(P;Q)]jiP=0; whereH(P;Q)istheunconstrained,self-adjointHamiltonianoperator.Onceagain,wearefacedwithapossibledeciencyoftheDiracprocedure.Ingeneral,wecannotattesttothevalidityoftheseequations,butifwerestrictourargumentstoconsideringonlyclosed,rst-classsystems( 2{36 )and( 2{37 )willholdtrue.Inthecaseofclosed,rst-classsystems,thePoissonbracketstransformsintothecommutatorbrackets,whichareexpressedinthefollowingform: [a(P;Q);H(P;Q)]=i~hbab(P;Q); [a(P;Q);b(P;Q)]=i~ccabc(P;Q): IfEquation( 2{36 )or( 2{37 )failsandtheclassicalsystemisclassiedasrstclass,thequantumsystemissaidtohaveananomaly.WewillexaminesuchasysteminChapter4.Furthermore,wendthatourdenitionforthephysicalHilbertspacemaybevacuouswhenconsideringclassicallyopen,rst-classorsecond-classsystemssincetheremaynotbeazerointhespectrum[ 13 ].Diracattemptstoremedytheproblemofsecond-classconstraintsbyredeningthePoissonbracket[ 7 ].Therefore,thestandardapproachintheDiracprocedureprefersclosed,rst-classsystems.WewillreturntoadiscussionoftheDiracbracketinChapter8. AnotherdeciencytonoteisthefacttheDiracproceduredoesnotoeradenitionoftheinnerproductofthephysicalHilbertspace.This,alongwithsomeoftheotherdecienciesthatareillustratedinthischapter,willserveastheprimarymotivationforthediscussionofthemoremodernmethodstoquantizeconstraintsystemsdiscussedin 25

PAGE 26

13 ]inChapter4. 26

PAGE 27

Theprimaryobjectiveofthischapteristoexaminethreedistinctmethodstodealwithquantumconstraints.ThesemethodsaretheFaddeev-Popovprocedure,theRenedAlgebraicQuantizationProgram,andtheMasterConstraintProgram,eachofwhichhasitsowndistinctstrengthsandweaknesses.Duringthischapterwewillusethenotationthatisstandardinliterature,whilealsonotingdecienciesofthemethodsinordertooermoremotivationforthestudyoftheprojectionoperatormethod,whichisthetopicofChapter4. 3.1.1YetAnotherGeometricInterludefromtheConstraintSub-Manifold wherej2f1;:::;Ng,a2f1;:::;Ag,andaareLagrangemuliplierswhichenforcetheconstraintsa 14 ].Agaugeorbitisdenedbythefollowing:considerthatFdenesaparticularphysicalconguration, 12 ]Agaugetransformationisdenedas 27

PAGE 28

14 ].Ifonedenesasetofsurfaceformingvectors,thegaugeorbitswouldcorrespondwiththenullvectors.[ 14 ] Toavoidthisrathercomplicatedsituationofthequotient,itisoftensuggestedthatonemustimposeagaugechoicetoeliminatetheredundancy.Agaugechoice(a)hasthefollowingproperty wherea2f1;:::;Ag[ 14 ].Wemustalsochoosesuchafunctionthatintersectsthegaugeorbitsonceandonlyonce.Awordofwarning{Onecanguaranteethisisthecaselocally;however,itmaynotbeguaranteedglobally,(i.e.fortheentireconstraintsurface).ThisisknownastheGribovproblem[ 16 ].However,weareconsideringtheidealcaseforthisdiscussion. Withthismathematicaldescriptionestablished,wecannowproperlydiscusstheFadeev-Popovprocedure.[ 27 ] Tosolvetheconstraintprobleminthisframework,weasserttheconstraintsaresatisedclassicallywithinthefunctionalintegralbyimposinga-functionaloftheconstraints.Sincetheresultingintegralmaybedivergent,wesuppressthispossibility,byrequiringachoiceofanauxiliaryconditioncalledagaugexingtermoftheforma(p;q)=0;a2f1;::;Jg.Withthischoicewehavelostcanonicalcovariance,whichcanberestored 28

PAGE 29

Expression( 3{4 )servesasamotivationtotheintroductionof( 3{5 ),buttheyarenottobeviewedasequivalentstatements.Theresultof( 3{5 )couldthenbeexpressedasapathintegraloverthereducedphasespace, wherepandqarereducedphasecoordinatesandH(p;q)istheHamiltonianofthereducedphasespace.Sincewehavesatisedtheconstraintsclassically,wearenolongercondentthatourformalpathintegralisdenedoverEuclideanspace.Thispresentsadilemmasincetheformalpathintegralisill-denedovernon-Euclideanspaces[ 13 ].AswiththeDiracProcedure,theFaddeevmethodcanbemodiedtoaccommodatesecond-classconstraints[ 28 ]. 1 ],itisnotwithoutitsaws.Oneofthemostglaringawsisthefactthatonemustrstreducetheclassicaltheoryandthenquantizeit.Theuniverse 3 ].Wearenotsoboldtosaythatquantummechanicsmaybesupercededbyamorecompletedescriptionofnature.Ofcourse,weassumehoweverquantummechanicsistheproperroutetolookatnatureuntilmoreevidenceisdiscovered. 29

PAGE 30

wherej2f1;:::;Nganda2f1;:::;Ng.Thissystemispurelyconstraint af(p;q)a(p;q);(3{8) wherefisanon-vanishingfunctionoverthephasespaceandfagAa=1denesaclosed-rstclassconstraint,i.e. whereccabisaconstant.Itisclearwhile( 3{8 )denesthesameconstraintsub-manifoldasthecaseinwhichaareconstraint,theconstraintsaareanopen,rst-classsystem isreplacedwiththegauge-xedexpression whereb(p;q)issomeappropriategaugechoice.Asimpleidentityleadsto 8 ]5 8 ],whichwewillreturntointhenextchapter. 30

PAGE 31

Weobservethatallthefactorsoffcompletelycancel.Asonecansee,theFaddeevmethodisinsensitivetothedenitionoff,aslongasitbenon-zero.Hence,thismethodconsidersthea'sanda'sasidenticalconstraints.WewillexamineasimilarmodelinChapter4[ 8 ],whichdemonstratesthatinordertounderstandtheentiretheory,onemustalsoconsiderthequantummechanicalcorrections. Anotherdicultyinthismethodderivesfromtheselectionofgaugechoicea.Aswenotedintheprevioussubsection,thechoiceofgaugeisonlyguaranteedlocally.Inmorecomplicatedgaugetheories,suchasYang-Millsitiswellknown[ 29 ]thattheredoesnotexistagaugechoicethatslicesthegaugeorbitsonceandonlyonce,afactwhichlimitstheeectivenesstoprobethenon-perturbativeregimeofthesegaugetheories.[ 26 ] 30 ]RenedAlgebraicQuantizationcomesintwomainvarieties,GroupAveragingandamorerigorousversionthatisbasedonthetheoryofriggedHilbertspaces.Inthischapterwewillfocusontheformerratherthanthelatterbecausemostexpertswillagreethattheredoesnotexistagroupaveragingtechniqueforallconstraintsinthisformalism.See[ 30 ]and[ 31 ]formorecompletediscussionsonthefailuresofgroupaveraging. 31

PAGE 32

31 ]AnothertechnicalrequirementisthatforeveryA2Aobs,(i.e.thealgebra ThenalstageoftheRAQprocedureentailsconstructingananti-linearmapcalledariggingmap, 32

PAGE 33

(Ci(1))[2]=(1)[Ci2]=0:(3{15) Inadditionto( 3{15 ),theriggingmap( 3{14 )mustalsosatisfythefollowingtwoconditions,whicharetrueforevery1;22:1:Theriggingmapisrealandpositivesemi-denite(1)[2]=(2)[1];(1)[1]0:2:TheriggingmapinteterwineswiththerepresentationsoftheobervablealgebraO(1)=(O1); Oncetheriggingmaphasbeendetermined,thevectorsthatspanthesolutionspaceareCauchycompletedwithrespecttothefollowinginner-product forevery1;22andhjiistheinnerproductoftheauxiliaryHilbertspace.Thus,wedenethephysicalHilbertspacederivedbythetechniquesoftheRAQ.WewillrevisittheRenedAlgebraicQuantizationprograminChapter6inthecontextoftheAshtekar-Horowitz-Boulwaremodel[ 32 ]. 33

PAGE 34

32 ]ForthisprimaryreasontheRAQprocedurehasdiculty 33 ],inanattempttoovercomesituationsinwhichtheRAQprocedurefails.These\failures"include,butarenotlimitedto,casesinwhichaninnitenumberofconstraintsarepresent,aswellaswhenthestructurefunctionsarenotconstants,butratherarefunctionsoverthephasespace.ThisprogramalsoattemptstoeliminateotherambiguityfromtheRAQprocedure,namelytherequirementofadditionalinputintothephysicaltheory.Asmentionedbefore,thisadditionalinputisadenseandinvariantsubspacewhichisequippedwithanertopologythanthatoftheHilbertspaceinwhichitisembedded.[ 34 ]Duringthissection,sinceweonlyintendtogiveaheuristicacountoftheMasterConstraintProgram,wewill 31 ] 34

PAGE 35

33 ].Particularly,wewilldescribetheclassicalanalogandthendiscussthequantizationoftheclassicaltheory. 2Xj;k2ICj(p;q)gjkCk(p;q)(3{17) wheregijischosentobepositivedenite. 33 ]and[ 34 ]10 3{17 )iftheconstraintsareactuallyelds.Ifthisisthecase,wemustsmearthemoversomesetoftestfunctions.Formoredetailsonthisproceduresee[ 33 ]. 35

PAGE 36

isnotvalidforjustobservablefunctionsbutanygeneralfunction,f,overthephasespace.Thiemannamendedthisdecitin[ 33 ]byoeringthefollowingmodicationoftheidenticationofanobservabletothepreviousknownscheme, whereOisatwicedierentiablefunction.Infactwiththescheme,[ 34 ],allobservablesinagiventheorycanaslobeidentiedinthefollowingmanner.Suppose,usingThiemann'snotation,weletMtdenotetheone-parametergroupofautomorphismsoverthephasespaceM,whichisdenedasthetimeevolutionofthemasterconstraint,itfollowsthatwecandenetheergodicmean[ 33 ]ofanyO2C1(M), O=limT!11 2TZTTdtMt(O): =limT!11 2TZTTdteitfM;gO(p;q)limT!11 2TZTT1m=0dt(t)m IfweassumethatwecancommutetheintegralwiththePoissonbrackets,thenitiseasytoseethat( 3{21 )willsatisfy( 3{20 ).WewillendthediscussionwiththeclassicalconsiderationsofthemasterconstraintprogramonthatparticularnoteandaddresstheissueofquantumobservableslaterinChapter5inthecontextoftheProjectionOperatorFormalism. 36

PAGE 37

36 ]toafullyinteractingquantumeldtheory[ 37 ].Therefore,inordertoproceedwiththequantizationoftheMCP,onemustrstpromotethemasterconstraint( 3{17 )toaself-adjointoperatorthatactsonanauxiliaryHilbertspace Themaindierence,atthispointinthediscussion,betweentheauxiliaryHilbertspaceofMCPandthatofRAQ,isthatMCPrequirestheHilbertspacetobeseparable. Atrstglanceitmayappearthatonehaseliminatedthepossiblequantumanomalybecauseacommutatorofanyoperatorwiththesameoperatoriszero,[^M;^M]=0.Whilethisisatruestatement,thequantumanomalyhasonlybeenreformulatedinanothermanner,videlicetthespectrumof^Mmaynotcontainzero.Anexamplethatillustratesthispointmoreclearlyisasfollows:Consideraclassicalsystemwithaclassicalphasesspace,R,withtwoconstraints,C1=p1C2=q1: 8 ].However,itwillprovideadistinctpropertythatweareattemptingtoillustrate,whichisthequantummasterconstraintneednotpossesa0inthespectrum.Thecorrespondingmasterconstraintofthissystemcanbewrittenasthefollowing, 37

PAGE 38

33 ]oeredameanstorectifythisbysuggestingamodicationofthequantummasterconstraintbythefollowing: ^~M=^MI(3{25) where=inffspectrum(^M)andIistheidentityoperatorontheauxiliaryorakinematicalHilbertspace.AccordingtoThiemann,[[ 33 ]],( 3{25 )willstillhavethesameclassicallimitofthemasterconstraintbecause/~.Ingeneral,ifasystemcontainsaconstraintthatisclassicallyanopen,rst-classconstraint,likegravityorthesystemthatwewilldisscussinChapter4,wherewouldbeproportionalto~2. Assumingtheoperator^~Misadenselydenedself-adjointoperator,wecannowproceedwiththequantizationbyrstaddressingtheauxiliaryHilbertspace.Usingthefactthat^~Misaself-adjointoperatorwithapositivesemi-denitespectrum,theauxiliaryHilbertspacecanbewrittenasthefollowingdirectintegral[ 34 ]; whered(x)isthespectralmeasure[ 33 ]ofthemasterconstraintoperator( 3{25 ).Eachaddendcontributiontothesum,Haux(x),in( 3{26 )isaseparableHilbertspacewiththeinnerproductinducedbytheauxiliaryHilbertspace,Haux. Usingthisparticularconstructionwearenowabletoaddressthetaskofsolvingthequantummasterconstraintequation^~M=0.BythemathematicaldescriptionoftheauxiliaryHilbertspace( 3{26 ),itfollowsthattheactionof^~MonHaux(x)issimplymultiplicationofx.WecansolvethequantummasterconstraintequationbyidentifyingthephysicalHilbertspacebythefollowing 38

PAGE 39

wherei2f1;2;3gqiandpiarethecanonicalpositionandcanonicalmomentumrespectively 3{28 )formaclosedLieAlgebrathatwecanidentifywiththealgebraofso(3): Theclassicalmasterconstraint( 3{17 ),correspondstotheCasmiroperatorofthegroup Thequantizationofthismodelisstraightforward.TheauxiliaryHilbertspaceisthesetofallsquareintegrablefunctionsoverR3,alsoknownasL2(R3).Thecanonicalpositionqiispromotedtoaself-adjointoperatorQiinwhichtheactionontheauxiliaryHilbertspaceismultiplicationbyqi.Theconjugatemomentumpiispromotedtoaself-adjointoperatorPiinwhichtheactiononL2(R3)isdierentiation,Pi=i~@ @qi.The 35 ].12 39

PAGE 40

3{30 )ispromotedtoacorrespondingself-adjointoperator ^M=^Jyi^Ji:(3{31) Sincethereisnoorderingambiguityin( 3{31 ),onedoesnotneedtosubtracttoobtainazerointhespectrumof( 3{31 ).Usingthetechniquesthatarewellknowninquantummechanics[ 38 ],wewillusesphericalcoordinatestodeterminetheeigenvaluesofthequantummasterconstraint( 3{31 ) sin2@2 sin@ @(sin@ @));(3{32) where2[0;]and2[0;2).Theeigenvaluesandeigenfunctionsof( 3{32 )arewellknown[ 38 ].Theeigenvaluesof( 3{32 )are~2l(l+1)wherel2NandtheeigenfunctionsarethesphercialharmonicfunctionsYlm(;),wherelml.[ 38 ]AgeneralizedeigenfunctioncouldbewrittenasthetheproductofageneralelementinL2(R+;r2dr),whichwewilldenotebyR(r)withthesphericalharmonicfunctionsYlm(;).UsingthisfactwecanproceedtothenextstepoftheMCP,whichistorewritetheauxiliaryHilbertspaceintermsofadirectintegraldecomposition wherecldonotestheclosureoftheset,andspanisthelinearspanofthesetofvectorsdenedinthebrackets.ThephysicalHilbertspaceandtheinducedinnerproductcomedirectlyfromselectingthesubspacethatcorrespondswiththel=0eigenvalue. 38 ]. 40

PAGE 41

TheinnerproductofthisphysicalHilbertspaceisinheritedfromtheL2(R+;r2dr).ThuscompletesthequantizationofthissimpleconstraintmodelintheMasterConstraintProgram 35 ],[ 36 ],and[ 37 ]thattheprogramhashadinresolvingseveraloftheambiguitiesassociatedwiththeRenedAlgebraicQuantization,itstillmaynotbetheperfectchoicetouseforallconstraints.Iftheconstraint'sspectrumcontainsazerointhecontinuum,thenparticularcare,intheformofrathercumbersomemathematicalmachinery,mustbeused.Notthatthisyieldsanincorrectresult,howeveritalmostappearstobeextraneoustothematerial.Thisissomewhatofabiasedopinionbecauseaswewillseeinthenextchaptertheprojectionoperatorformalism'sanswertothisseemsmoresatisfactory.Againthough,weemphasizethefactthattheresultshavebeenshowntobeequivalenttotheresultsfoundin[ 13 ].Anotherpossiblecriticismofthisprogramisnotacriticismoftheprogram,butinstead,acriticismofitsimplemetation.Thatistosaythatauthorstendtodisplayaheavyrelianceontheclassicalanalysisofgroupstosolveconstraints[ 35 ].Themaincritiqueofthispointcomesfromthefactthatmostoftheworkdonewithgroupssuchassl(2;C)neglectthezerorepresentation[ 41 ],whichshouldbetherepresentationcorrespondingtophysicalHilbertspace.However,justastheauthorspointedoutin[ 35 ],thisparticularconstraintisnotphysicallyrealizable,andthereforenotsubjecttoexperiment. 35 ]foradiscourseonthattopic. 41

PAGE 42

42

PAGE 43

TheprimarygoalofthischapteristointroduceandmotivatetheProjectionOperatorFormalism(POF).Theprojectionoperatormethodisarelativelynewprocedurefordealingwithquantumconstraints[ 13 ][ 26 ].Thephilosophyofthisformalismistorstquantizetheentiretheory,andthenreducethequantumtheorybyusingtheconstraints.WewillattempttoillustratehowthePOFattemptstoremedysomeofthedecienciesofthemethodsdiscussedinChapter3.Inthenalsectionofthechapterwewillexaminethreeconstraintmodels.Therstisaconstraintthathasazerointhecontinuum,whereasthesecondandthethirdaremodelsthatwereexaminedin[ 8 ].Theyhelpillustratethepoweroftheprojectionoperatorformalismindealingwithallclassicationsofconstraints.Inthischapteritisunderstoodthat~=1unlessstatedelsewise. 13 ] WerequireEtobeHermitianwhichsatisestherelationE2=E(idempotent),thesearebasicpropertiesofaprojectionoperator.Moreprecisely,supposethatB1andB2denotemeasurable 33 ] 43

PAGE 44

limn!1(E(B1)E(B2))n=E(B1\B2):(4{2) IfB1\B2=;,thenE(;)=0.WewillusethispropertyinChapters5,6and8. RevertingtotheDiracprescriptionofthephysicalHilbertspaceitisdenedas whereaisthequantumanaloguetotheclassicalconstrainta,anda2f1;:::;Ag.Inanidealsituation 4{3 )isequivalenttothefollowing Thefactthat( 4{4 )willnotalwaysleadtoanon-trivalresult,isaclueonhowtoarriveatthetrueanswer.Assumingthataaisself-adjointactingonaHilbertspace,wecanusethefollowingresultfromspectraltheorytoobtainourdesiredprojectionoperator,E.Namely,theoperatoraacanbewritteninthefollowingrepresentation[ 39 ] aa=Z10dE(4{5) wheredEistheso-calledprojectionvaluedmeasure[ 33 ]onthespectrumofaa,whichwasdenotedbywhichcontainedaspectralrangeof0to1 4{1 )canbeintroducedbasedontheresultof( 4{5 ) 44

PAGE 45

40 ].Equation( 4{6 )projectsontoasubspaceoftheHilbertspacewithaspectralmeasureofaafrom0to(~)2.ThetruephysicalHilbertspace( 4{1 )isdeterminedwhenthelimitas(~)2!0willbetaken 4{6 .Wewillnowturnourattentiontofurthermotivatingtheprocessofsquaringtheconstraint. 34 ]onlymentionthatsecondorderwaschosenbecauseitisthesimplestexpression.Instead,weattempttooersomemathematicalargumentsthatindicatethatthesumofthesquaresofthequantummechanicalconstraintsissucient. 13 ]7 45

PAGE 46

Inordertodeterminetheconstraintsubspaceinthephasespace,allAequationsmustbesatisedsimultaneously.Thissetofequationswouldbeatleastclassicallyequivalenttothefollowingset: Finally,ifweaddalloftheprecedingequationstogether,wearriveattheconclusionthat Aa2a=0(4{9) isequivalenttothesetofAequations( 4{7 ).Aswestatedbefore,thisisclassicallyequivalent,butarewecertainthatthiswillbejustiedquantummechanically? 46

PAGE 47

40 ]. Theformalpathintegralformoftheprojectionoperatoristhefollowingexpression. whereTisthetime-orderedproductandR()istheformalmeasureoverthec-numberLagrangemultipliersf(t)g.Asshownin[ 40 ]theprojectionoperator( 4{10 ),isconstructedintwomainsteps.Thetimeintervalisdenedasapositiverealvalueequaltot2t1.TherststepistoconstructaGaussianmeasurethatwouldcausetheodd-momentsoftheLagrangemultiplierstovanish(i.e.Ra(t)D(t)=0),whilekeepingtheevenmoments(i.eRa(t)b(t0)D=2 0Mab,where(0)isasmallparametercorrespondingtoatimestep,Mabisapositivematrix,andisareal,positiveintegrationparameter.) whereNistheformalnormalizationofthepathintegral( 4{11 ).Thenalstepistointegrate( 4{11 )over.Toaccomplishthisfeatwewillintroduceaconditionally 33 ]. 47

PAGE 48

wheretheconditionallyconvergentintegralisdenedbythefollowing[ 40 ];lim!0+Zeixsin[((~)2+)] Equation( 4{12 )istrueassumingthattheconstraintsarenotexplicitlydependentontime.WeexaminethatcaseinChapters7and8.ThematrixMabisthemostgeneralcase,butforourcurrentpurposes,wearefreetoselectMab=ab,whichwouldyieldthedesiredformofsquaringtheconstraints.Havingillustratedthemotivationbehindconsideringsquaringtheconstraints,wewilldivertourattentionstosomeofthemathematicaltoolsthatarerequiredinimplementingthePOF. 4.2.1CoherentStates [Qi;Pj]=iji1H:(4{13) TheWeyl(canonical)coherentstatemaybedenedas foranitenumberofdegreesoffreedom,(p;q)2R2N,andthestatesarestronglycontinuousinthelabels(p;q),j0iissomeducialvectoroftentakentobetheground 48

PAGE 49

4{14 )trulyarecoherentstatesisthattheypossessaresolutionofunity[ 41 ]: Wewilloer( 4{15 )asanacceptedtruthwithoutproof[ 41 ]. Thesecoherentstatesalsooeraconnectiontotheclassicallimitofquantumoperators.Thispropertyisknownasthe\weakcorrespondenceprinciple".[ 41 ]Weexploit,andalsostatemorecarefully,thispropertyofcoherentstatesinasubsequentchapter. ThecoherentstatesareconvenientbecausetheyformanovercompletebasisoftheHilbertspace.Usingthisrepresentation,wecanexpressadensesetofvectorsinthefunctionalHilbertspaceintermsofthecoherentstateoverlap, wheren2C.Theinnerproductofsuchvectorscanbeexpressedasthefollowing, (;)=N;MXn;m=1nmhpn;qnjpm0;qm0i;(4{17) whereisanelementofthedenseset.ThecompletionofsuchasetofvectorsleadstotheunconstrainedHilbertspace,whichleadsustothetopicoftheReproducingKernelHilbertspace. 49

PAGE 50

AsinthecaseoftheunconstrainedHilbertspace,wecanexpressadensesetofvectorsinthefunctionalconstraintsubspaceas Theinnerproductforthesevectorsisgivenby (;)P=NXm=1NXn=1nnK(pm;qm;pn;qn);(4{20) whereisalsoanelementofthedensesetofvectors.Usingbasicpropertiesofthereproducingkernelandcoherentstates,weknowthatthenormdenedbytheinnerproductofthesevectorswillbenite[ 13 ].Thisguaranteesthatthenormofvectorsinthecompletionwillalsobenite.IfwemultiplyareproducingkernelKbyaconstant,thereproducingkernelKstillcorrespondstothesamefunctionalspace.Thisisakeypointandonethatweexploitinthenextsectionwhenwedealwithaconstraintthatpossessesazerointhecontinuum. 50

PAGE 51

4.3.1ConstraintwithaZerointheContinuousSpectrum 1=P2;(4{21) where1istheonlyconstraintpresent.Itisclearthatthespectrumof1isthereallineandthatitpossessesazerointhatcontinuum.Thisimpliesthatlim!0E0,whichisanunacceptableresult.Toresolvethisquandaryoneshouldlookattheprojectionoperatoroverlapwithasetofcoherentstatesoftheformof( 4{16 ),whichfollows UsingtheTaylorseriesbyexpanding( 4{22 )asafunctionof,utilizingtheresolutionofunityandfunctionalcoherentstatesoverlapwendthat, Assuggestedin[ 13 ],wewillmultiply( 4{22 )by1 2toextractthegermofthereproducingkernel.Wemustemphasizethatthisisstillthesamefunctionalspacedescribedby( 4{22 ).Thefunctionalformofthereproducingkernelisexpressedbythefollowing: 1 2hp00;q00jE(P2)jp0;q0i=Z+2+2dke(kp00)2=2+ik(q00q0)(kp0)2=2(4{24) Atthisjuncturewewillnotdiscusshowtoevaluatethisintegral,sincethetopicisdiscussedindepthinsubsequentchapters.However,wewillstatetheresult: lim!0K=e1 2((p002)2+(p02)2)+2i(q00q0)(4{25) Acharacteristicofthisreducedreproducingkernel( 4{25 )isthatitdoesnotdenethesamefunctionalspaceastheunreducedreproducingkernel( 4{22 ).Thisreproducing 51

PAGE 52

4{25 )isgaussianpeakedattheclassicalsolutionp0=p00=p=2.AsstatedwewillreturntoseveralmoreexamplesofconstraintswithzerosinthecontinuumwhenwedelveintothistopicduringChapters5and6. wherebdenotestheLagrangemultiplierstoenforcetheconstraints.NotethattheHamiltonianhasbeenchosentobezeroforsimplicity,sowecanfocusdirectlyontheissuessurroundingtheconstraints. Fromthedenitionoftheji's,onecanimmediatelydeterminethePoissonalgebra,givenasusualby SincethisbracketyieldsaLiealgebra,oursystemisclearlyaclosedrst-classconstraintsystem[ 14 ]. Thequantizationofthismodelisstraightforwardandwepromotethedynamicalvariables(pj;qi)tothesetofirreducibleselfadjointoperators(Pj;Qi),whichobeythestandardHeisenbergrelation.Theconstraintjiarepromotedtoself-adjointoperatorsJi Theprojectionoperatoroftheseconstraints( 4{28 )takestheformof 52

PAGE 53

2~z(~Qi~P)1 2~z(~Q+i~P)j0i(4{30) where~z(~q+i~p)=p 41 ]. Acoherentstatepathintegralcanalsobeusedtocalculatethematrixelementsoftheprojectorasshowninpreviousworks[ 13 ].Letusbeginwithapreliminaryequation,namely, Following[ 13 ],wecouldintegrateover~withrespecttoasuitablemeasureR(~)tocreatethedesiredprojectionoperator.However,itisequivalentandsimplertoproceedasfollows,KJ(~z00;~z0)h~z00jE(J2~2)j~z0i=Zh~z00je(i=~)~~Jj~z0gd(); 53

PAGE 54

=N00N0[1+~z002~z02 (4{32) (4{33) From( 4{32 )wecandeducethatthephysicalHilbertspaceforeveryevenparticlesectorisone-dimensional.TheHilbertspacefoundusingthismethodisunitarilyequivalenttotheonedeterminedbytheMasterConstraintProgram. isclassicallyrst-class;however,uponquantizationtheconstraintstransmutetopartiallysecondclass.[ 8 ]Theanalysisofthemodelweareabouttoexamineservedastheprimarymotivationbehind[ 8 ].ThismodelisalsoatypeofconstraintthatthatweconsideredinChapter3,intermsoftheFadeev-Popovprocedure.Theactionforourchoiceofthemodiedsystemisverysimilarinform,i.e., 54

PAGE 55

foralli,andchooseforfurtherstudytheparticularexampleforwhich Thesymbol~~isaxedconstantequalinvaluetothephysicalvalueofPlanck'sconstant~,namely1:061027erg-sec.Whentheclassicallimitiscalledfor,andthusPlanck'sconstant~!0,weemphasizethat~~retainsitsoriginalnumericalvalue.Thereasonforsuchasmalldivisoristoemphasizethequantumcorrections;dierentdivisorscanbeconsideredbyrescalingand.Werecognize,inthissimplecase,thatwecouldabsorbthefactorfbyaredenitionoftheLagrangemultipliersin( 4{37 ).Inmorecomplicatedsystems(e.g.,gravity)thissimplicationiseitherextremelydicultorperhapsevenimpossible.Therefore,asafurtheranalog,weretainfasapartofla.Astraightforwardanalysisleadstofli;ljg=ffji;fjjg=f2fji;jjg+ffji;fgjj+fff;jjgji+ff;fgjijj=fijklk+fji;fglj+ff;jjgli=fijklk+iab[qa@f=@qb+pb@f=@pa]ljjab[qa@f=@qb+pb@f=@pa]li: 55

PAGE 56

where++=1.Indealingwiththequantumtheory,wedropthedistinctionbetween~~and~.Aquickcalculationshowsthatanyotherfactor-orderingofthedenitionof( 4{40 )willyieldanequivalentresult.ThecommutationoftheLiyieldsasurprisingresult,namely [Li;Lk]=ijk(i~FLk~2(k1l(ayka1+ay1ak)))2iia1Ji((QaQ1+PaP1)F+::: whereF=+(=~)(P21+Q21)+(=~)(P22+Q22).Thesecond,third,fourth,etc.termsin( 4{41 )representtheanomalyinthequantumtheory.Thisanomalycorrespondstoatransmutationtoapartiallysecondclasssystem.Withthisbeingnotedwewillcontinuethequantumanalysisofthesystem. Letusintroduceconventionalannihilationandcreationoperatorsrepresentedby Ifwedene asthetotalnumberoperator,itisevidentthat [Jj;N]=0;[Lj;N]=0; 56

PAGE 57

whereasusualj0i(=j0;0;0i)denotesthenoparticlestateforwhichajj0i=0forallj. Therstnon-emptysubspacethatproducesanon-trivalresultisthe2-particlesubspace.Withtheadditionalsimplicationthat=2,wecanexpresstheeigenevectorthatcorrespondstoleasteigenvalueinthis6-dimensionalsubspaceas, whered=12+O(2)andd0=1+O(2).Theprojectionoperatorofthissubspaceisconstructedasthefollowing; 57

PAGE 58

=N00N0[1+(dz1002+d0z2002+z3002)(dz102+d0z202+z302) 2!(d2+d02+1)+:::]: Onenalnoteregardingthisparticularmodel,aswiththecaseforotherpartiallyorfullyquantummechanicalsecondclassconstraintsystems,thelimitas!0isnottaken.TheHilbertspaceisdeterminedbythespacecorrespondingtotheleasteigenvalue. 58

PAGE 59

Theprimarygoalofthischapteristointroduceregularityconditionsonconstraints,aswellaspresenta\new"classicationofconstraintscalledhighlyirregularconstraintsandalsoillustratetechniquesusedtodealwithquantumversionsoftheseconstraints.Thebasisofthischaptercomesfrom[ 9 ]and[ 10 ]. 16 ] Rank@a wheren2f1;:::;Mg,2Misthedimensionalityofphasespace,andistheconstrainthypersurface(a=0).Ifthisconditionfails,thentheconstraint(orsetofconstraints)iscalledirregular[ 16 ].Irregularconstraintscanappearinfollowingform whereaisaregularconstraintandrisanexponentr>1.Intheliterature[ 16 ]themeasureofirregularityisbasedontheorderofthezeroontheconstraintsurface.Forexample,( 5{2 )isanrthorderirregularconstraint.Weshouldnotethatwhiletheconstraintsaandraareequivalent(i.e.theconstraintsgeneratethesameconstrainthypersurface),thedynamicsandsetofobservablesassociatedwitheachgivensystemarenotnecessarilyequivalent. Thetermhighlyirregularconstraintreferstoaconstraintfunctionthatinvolvesbothregularandirregularconstraintsortwoormoreconstraintsofvaryingorder[ 9 ].For 59

PAGE 60

Therstconstraintisregularatq=0andirregularatq=1oforder2.Thesecondcoinstraintisirregularatbothq=3,oforder2,andatq=4,oforder3.Bothoftheseconstraintsarerepresentativeoftheclassofhighlyirregularconstraints.Sincethedynamicsaswellasobservability[ 9 ]ofagivensystemarepotentiallynotthesameforregularandirregularconstraints,carefulconsiderationmustbeobservedwhenquantizingsuchsystems.Theprojectionoperatorformalism[ 13 ]seemstoprovideanappropriateframeworktodealwithsystemswithirregularconstraints[ 9 ]. Theusualformoftheprojectionoperatorisgivenby wherea2aisthesumofthesquaresoftheconstraintoperatorsand(~)isasmallregularizationfactor.TheprojectionoperatoristhenusedtoextractasubspaceoftheunconstrainedHilbertspace,H.If2ahasadiscreteisolated0thencanbechosentobeanextremelysmallnumber.However,if2ahasa0inthecontinuum,wecannotchooseanappropriatetoselectthepropersubspace.Wewilldiscussthisdistinctpossibilityshortly.Inthelimitas!0ifappropriate,thissubspacebecomesthePhysicalHilbertspace, lim!0EjijiPhys; lim!0EHHPhys: 60

PAGE 61

13 ],whichisunacceptable.Toovercomethisobstacle,thislimitmustbeevaluatedasarescaledformlimit.Toaccomplishthis,wewillneedtointroducesuitablebrasandketsintheunconstrainedHilbertspace.Forthisdiscussionitwillbeconvenienttochoosecanonicalcoherentstates(jp;qi)tofulllthischoice.Weregardthefollowingexpressionastherescaledform whereS()istheappropriatecoecientneededtoextracttheleadingcontributionofhp0;q0jEjp;qi,for0<1.Forexample,ifhp0;q0jEjp;qi/toleadingorder,thenS()/1,forsmall.Thelimit!0cannowbetakeninasuitable 5{8 )isafunctionofpositivesemi-denitetypeandthismeansthatitmeetsthefollowingcriteria lim!0Nj;l=1jlS()hpj;qjjEjpl;qli0;(5{9) forallniteN,arbitrarycomplexnumbersflgandcoherentstatelabelsfpl;qlg.Aconsequenceofthepreviousstatementisthat( 5{8 )canleadtoareducedreproducingkernelforthephysicalHilbertspace ThereproducingkernelcompletelydenesthephysicalHilbertspace[ 13 ].Thereproducingkernelmakesitpossibletoexpressadensesetofvectorsinthefunctional 61

PAGE 62

Theinnerproductforthesevectorsisgivenby (;)P=N;MXn;m=1nmK(pn;qn;pm;qm);(5{12) whereisalsoanelementofthedensesetofvectors.ThecompletionofthesevectorsinthesenseofCauchysequenceswiththerelevantinnerproductwillyieldthephysicalHilbertspace. Withoutexplicitlycalculatingthereproducingkernel,wewillconsiderthefollowinghighlyirregularquantumconstraint =Q2(1Q);(5{13) whereQactsasamultiplicationoperator.ClearlythisconstraintvanisheswhenQ=0andQ=1.Assuming,0<1,theprojectionoperatorforthisconstraintcanbewritteninthefollowingform Sincethezerosofthisoperatorfallinthecontinuum,itisclearfromthepreviousdiscussionwecannottakethelimit!0initspresentnakedform.Thereproducingkernelcanbeexpressedasthefollowing ByconstructiontheseprojectionoperatorsE(
PAGE 63

whereKQ=0andKQ=1areleadingordercontributionstothereproducingkernelsaroundthetwosolutionstotheconstraintequation.See[ 9 ]forfurtherdetails.Unlikeexpression( 5{8 )theredoesnotexistasingleS()toextracttheleadingorderdependencyfortheentireHilbertspace.Toaddressthisdicultywewillconsiderthefollowingargument[ 9 ]. OurpreviousexamplehadconstraintsolutionsaroundQ=0andQ=1,wewillnowaddressthisinamoregeneralsetting.Webeginbydeterminingthereproducingkernelforeachsolutionintheconstraintequation.RecallthatthesumofreproducingkernelswillproduceadirectsumofthecorrespondingreproducingkernelHilbertspacesifthespacesaremutuallyorthogonal.Thiswillbethecaseforhighlyirregularconstraints.SoletKrepresentthe(>0)reproducingkernelforthereproducingkernelHilbertspaceH K=Nn=1Kn;(5{17) whereKnisthedeterminedreproducingkernelforeachuniquesolutionoftheconstraint.TheHilbertspacegeneratedhasthefollowingform, whereHncorrespondstotheKnforeachn.However,wehavenottakenthelimitas!0,andsincetheleadingorderdependencyispotentiallydierentforeachreproducingkernelKn,theredoesnotexistasingleS()thatcanbeusedtoextracttheleadingordercontributionofeachreproducingkernel.Toaccomplishthistaskwedenea(similarity)transformationS,

PAGE 64

^K=Nn=1Sn()Kn:(5{19) Therescaled^KservesasthereproducingkernelfortheHilbertspace^H.AlthoughtheinnerproductofHand^Haredierentthesetoffunctionsareidentical.Thegoalofthislittleexerciseisofcoursetotakeasuitablelimit!0toyieldafunctionthatcanserveasareproducingkernelforthephysicalHilbertspace.Atthispoint,wecantakesuchalimit. ~Klim!0^K; where~KisthereducedreproducingkernelforthephysicalHilbertspaceHphys.Havingdiscussedthebasictheorybehindthisclassicationofconstraint,inthenextsectionwewillconsiderasimplebutrobusttoymodelthatdemonstratesthestrengthoftheProjecionOperatorFormalismtodealwiththesekindsofconstraints. whereisaLagrangemultiplierdesignedtoenforcethesingleconstraint 64

PAGE 65

_q=0; _p=R0(q); withsolutions whereqlisarootofR(q)=0.IfR0(ql)=0thenthesolutionbecomes Thefunction(t)isnotxedbytheequationsofmotion,whichisnormalforrst-classconstrainedsystems.Toexplicitlyexhibitasolutiontotheclassicalequationsofmotionitisgenerallynecessarytospecifythefunction(t),andthisconstitutesachoiceofgauge.Gaugedependentquantitiesaredenedtobeunobservable,whilegaugeindependentquantitiesaredeclaredtobeobservable.Inthepresentexample,ifR0(ql)6=0,thenp(t)isgaugedependent,whileifR0(ql)=0,p(t)is,infact,gaugeindependent.Thisbehaviorsuggeststhatthemomentumpinthesubsetofthereducedclassicalphasespaceforwhichfq:R(q)=0;R0(q)6=0gisunobservable,whilethemomentumpinthesubsetofthereducedclassicalphasespaceforwhichfq:R(q)=0;R0(q)=0gisobservable.Wediscussthispointfurtherbelow.ThereducedclassicalphasespaceisgivenbyRZ,where Clearly,fortheclassicaltheorytobewelldened,itissucientforR(q)2C1,namelythatR(q)andR0(q)arebothcontinuous.(Strictlyspeakingthiscontinuityis 65

PAGE 66

OurdiscussionwillcoverawideclassofRfunctions,andforconvenienceofexplanationweshallfocusononespecicexample;generalizationtootherexamplesisimmediate.Theexamplewehaveinmindisgivenby where Forthisexample,thezerosetisgivenby onlyforq=0isR0(q)6=0.(AlthoughphysicallymotivatedmodelswouldtypicallynotincludeintervalsinthezerosetofR,wedosotoillustratetheversatilityofourapproach.) Insummary,thephasespacefortheunconstrainedclassicalsystemisparameterizedby(p;q)2RR,andthephasespacefortheconstrainedsystemisparameterizedbythepoints(p;q)2RZ.Thislatterspaceconsistsofseveralone-dimensionallinesandatwo-dimensionalstrip.FromthestandpointofthiselementaryexampleallelementsofRZareequallysignicant. Wenowturntothequantizationofthiselementaryexamplefollowingthepreceptsoftheprojectionoperatorformalism[ 13 ].Inthisapproachonequantizesrstandreducessecond.TheultimatereductionleadstoaphysicalHilbertspaceappropriatetotheconstrainedsystem. 66

PAGE 67

[Q;P]=i1(5{34) inunitswhere~=1.(Whenweeventuallyexaminetheclassicallimit,weshallrestoretheparameter~tovariousexpressionsasneeded.)Theprojectionoperatorofinterestisgivenby where>0isatemporaryregularizationparameterthatwilleventuallybesenttozeroinasuitablemanner.Sincethelimit!0willultimatelybetakenasaformlimit,weneedtointroducesuitablebrasandketsinthisoriginal,unconstrainedHilbertspace.Forthatpurposewewillagainchoosecanonicalcoherentstatesdened,forthepresentdiscussion,by Asusual,wechoosej0itosatisfy(Q+iP)j0i=0;namely,j0iisthenormalizedgroundstateofanharmonicoscillatorwithunitfrequency.Thusweareledtoconsiderthecomplexfunction whichiscontinuous(actuallyC1)inthecoherentstatelabelsanduniformlyboundedbyunitysinceE=Ey=E21. Itisimportanttoremarkthatthefunction( 5{37 )isafunctionofpositivetype,acriterionthatmeans Nj;k=1jkhpj;qjjEjpk;qki0(5{38) forallN<1andarbitrarycomplexnumbersfjgandlabelsetsfpj;qjg;thispropertyholdsbecauseEisaprojectionoperator.Asaconsequenceofbeingacontinuousfunction 67

PAGE 68

servesasareproducingkernelforareproducingkernelHilbertspace,afunctionalrepresentationbycontinuousfunctionsontheoriginalphasespace(RR),oftheregularized(by>0)physicalHilbertspace.Ourgoalistotakeasuitablelimit!0soastoyieldafunctionthatcanserveasareproducingkernelforthetruephysicalHilbertspaceforthepresentproblem. Clearlythelimit!0ofthegivenexpressionvanishesandthatisanunacceptableresult.Supposeweassume0<1,e.g.,=101000.Thenitisclear(evenforamuchlargeraswell!),fortheexampleathand,that whereEn;1n4,correspondstothetermsinthelineaboveinorder.Byconstruction,forverysmall,itfollowsthattheseprojectionoperatorsobey i.e.,theyprojectontomutuallyorthogonalsubspaces.Inlikemannerthereproducingkerneldecomposesinto where 68

PAGE 69

SinceEnEm=nmEnitfollows,fromthecompletenessofthecoherentstates,that ThisequationimpliesthattheHn,1n4,form4mutuallydisjoint(sub)HilbertspaceswithinL2(R2).Forthepresentexamplewith>0,eachHnisinnitedimensional. LetusrstconsiderK2(p00;q00;p0;q0)hp00;q00jE(<8(2Q)3=2<)jp0;q0i=1 ThisfunctionisalreadyofpositivetypeandiscorrecttoO(2)[i.e.,toO(104000)!]. Asdiscussedfrequentlybefore[ 13 ],wecanextractthe\germ"fromthisreproducingkernelbyrstscalingitbyafactorofO(2=3),sayby=(22),priortotakingthelimit!0.Consequently,werstdeneanewreproducingkernel ^K2(p00;q00;p0;q0)=p WeremarkthatthespaceoffunctionsthatmakeupthereproducingkernelHilbertspace^H2(generatedby^K2)isidenticaltothespaceoffunctionsthatmakeupthereproducingkernelHilbertspaceH2(generatedbyK2).Next,wetakethelimitas!0ofthe 69

PAGE 70

~K2(p00;q00;p0;q0)lim!0^K2(p00;q00;p0;q0)=e[(2q00)2+(2q0)2]=2i(p00p): Thisprocedureleadstoanewfunction~K2,which,provideditisstillcontinuous{whichitis{leadstoareducedreproducingkernelandtherebyalsotoanewreproducingkernelHilbertspace~H2.Generally,thedimensionalityofthespaceaswellasthedenitionoftheinnerproductaredierentforthenewreproducingkernelHilbertspace;however,onealwayshasthestandardinnerproductdenitionthatisappropriateforanyreproducingkernelHilbertspace[ 42 ].Inthepresentcase,itfollowsthat~K2denesaone-dimensionalHilbertspace~H2.NotethateventhoughthecoordinatevaluefortheconstrainedcoordinateQisnowsetatQ=2{asisclearfromthespecialdependenceof~K2(p00;q00;p0;q0)onp00andp0{therangeofthevaluesq00andq0isstillthewholerealline.Theonlyremnantthatq00andq0haveoftheirphysicalsignicanceisthat~K2(p00;q00;p0;q0)peaksatq00=q0=2.Itisnoteworthythatanexampleofthistypeofirregularconstraintwasconsideredpreviouslyby[ 40 ]. Asimilarprocedureiscarriedoutfortheremainingcomponentsintheoriginalreproducingkernel.LetusnextconsiderK1(p00;q00;p0;q0)=hp00;q00jE(<2Q<)jp0;q0i=1 whichisafunctionofpositivetype.Itisnoteworthytonotethatthisconstraintisofregulartype.[ 14 ] 70

PAGE 71

^K1(p00;q00;p0;q0)p andthentakethelimit!0leadingto ~K1(p00;q00;p0;q0)lim!0^K1(p00;q00;p0;q0)=e[q002+q02]=2; acontinuousfunctionofpositivetypethatcharacterizestheone-dimensionalHilbertspace~H1. Ourprocedureofscalingtheseparatepartsoftheoriginalreproducingkernelbyqualitativelydierentfactors(i.e.,1and2)hasnotappearedpreviouslyintheprojectionoperatorformalism.Thisdierenceinscalingismotivatedbythegoalofhavingeachandeveryelementofthereducedclassicalphasespacerepresentedonanequalbasisinthequantumtheory.ItisonlybythisprocedurethatwecanhopethattheclassicallimitofexpressionsassociatedwiththephysicalHilbertspacecanfaithfullyrecoverthephysicsintheclassicalconstrainedphasespace.Scalingof~K1and~K2bynitelydierentfactorshasbeenaddressedin[ 9 ]. LetuscontinuetoexaminetheremainingKn,3n4.ForK4wehaveK4(p00;q00;p0;q0)=hp00;q00jE(<8(Q3)3<)jp0;q0i=1 ~K3(p00;q00;p0;q0)=e[(3q00)2+(3q0)2]=22i(p00p0)(5{52) 71

PAGE 72

Inthiscase,noappearsandnoinniterescalingisneeded,sowemaysimplychoose ~K3(p00;q00;p0;q0)=K3(p00;q00;p0;q0):(5{54) Althoughwedonothaveanexplicitanalyticexpressionfor~K3,wedohaveawell-denedintegralrepresentationin( 5{53 ).Furthermore,itfollowsthat~H3isinnitedimensional. Finally,wedenethereproducingkernelforthephysicalHilbertspaceas ~K(p00;q00;p0;q0)4n=1~Kn(p00;q00;p0;q0):(5{55) Inturn,thephysicalHilbertspaceHPisdenedasthereproducingkernelHilbertspace~Huniquelydeterminedbythereproducingkernel~K(p00;q00;p0;q0). Observe,byourprocedure,allelementsofthereducedclassicalphasespace(RZ)arerepresentedonanequivalentbasisin~K.ThisfeaturehasbeendesignedsothattheclassicallimitoftheexpressionswithinHPcorrespondtoallaspectsofthereducedclassicalphasespace.Wewillnowturntoadiscussionofobservablesofthismodel. 72

PAGE 73

[E;O]=0:(5{56) WenotethateventhoughEisafunctionofthesquaresoftheconstraintswearenotboundtothesameconcernsThiemanfacedintheMasterConstraintprogram.Thestartingpointsofthediscussionofobservablesinthetwoframeworksaredierent.TheMasterConstraintProgramsuersfromthefactthatmultiplicationoffunctionsinaclassicalspaceiscommutative,hencetheadditionalrequirementofanobservablefunction.However,intheProjectionOperatorFormalismwebegininthequantumregimewherethemultiplicationofself-adjointoperatorsmaynotbecommutativetherefore( 5{56 )issucient.WecantakeageneraloperatorG(P;Q)intheunconstraintedHilbertspaceanddene asitsobservablecomponentsinceclearly[E;GE(P;Q)]=0.Infact,everyobservablecanbeexpressedintheprecedingform( 5{57 ).Theequation( 5{56 )isvalidfor>0.Howerveraslongas>0wehaveyettocapturethetruephysicalHilbertspaceofagiventheory.Thereforethelimit!0mustbetakeninasuitablefashiontodiscussobservables.Ifquantumconstraint lim!0[E;O]=0![;O]jiPhys=0:(5{58) 73

PAGE 74

whereoistheclassicalanalogofO.Weconsider( 5{59 )tobeaweakequationbecauseitneedstovanishontheconstrainthypersurface.Itisobviousthatif( 5{58 )istruethenOisgaugeindependentinthephysicalHilbertspace.IntheHeisenbergpicturetheevolutionoftheoperatorisgivenby _OjiPhys=i whereHEistheobservablepartoftheHamiltonianintheformof( 5{57 ).ThereforeallobservableswillstayinthephysicalHilbertspaceastheyevolvewithtime.Thesametypestatementcanalsobesaidintheclassicalworld.However,inourparticularmodel,thelimit!0mustbetakenasaformlimitbecausehasazerointhecontinuousspectrum.Observablesintheseinstancesmustbehandledatthelevelofthereproducingkernel.RecallfromtheprevioussectionthatthephysicalHilbertspaceisisomorphictoaninnitedirectsumofcomplexnumbers.Inthisrealizationtheprojectionoperatoristheunitoperator,andthereforetheobservablescorrespondtogeneralsymmetricmatrices. Wewillnowdirectourattentiontoacalcuationofthecoherentstatematrixelementofthephysicalconjugatemomentumatthelevelofthereproducingkernel.Specically,werstnotethathp00;q00jPEjp0;q0ihp00;q00jEPEjp0;qi=ZdxZdx0hp00;q00jEjxihxjPjx0ihx0jEjp0;q0i=i~ZdxZdx0hp00;q00jEjxi0(xx0)hx0jEjp0;q0i=i~Zdxhp00;q00jEjxid dxhxjEjp0;q0i:

PAGE 75

Similarly,itfollowsthat UsingasimilartechniqueofAraki[ 43 ],wenowdeterminethedesiredmatrixelementsbyadding( 5{61 )and( 5{62 ),anddividingbytwoleadsto, 2(( 561 )+( 562 )) (5{63) =1 2nZIndxhp00;q00jEjjxi[p00+p0+i(q00q0)]hxjEjp0;q0i =[p00+p0+i(q00q0)] 2~K(p00;q00;p0;q0): Finally,ifwesochoose,weallowonlythegaugeindependentmatrixelementsbyhandselectingtheportionsofthereproducingkernelthatcorrespondtotheirregularconstraints, 2~K0(p00;q00;p0;q0)(5{66) where~K0isthereducedreproducingkernelexceptforthecomponentcorrespondingto~K1.Inchapter6,wewillfurtherdiscusstheconceptofobservablesandtheclassicallimitofquantummechanicalobservablesintheAshtekar-Horowitz-Boulwaremodel. 75

PAGE 76

TheprimarymotivationofthischapteristoanalyzetheAshtekar-Horowitz-BoulwaremodelutilizingtheProjectionOperatorFormalism.WewillalsocomparetheresultobtainedbythePOFapproachwiththatobtainedviamethodsoftheRenedAlgebraicQuantizationprogram.Thebasisofthischaptercanbefoundin[ 10 ]. 11 ]wasformulatedtomimicaparticularpropertyoftheHamiltonianconstraintofGeneralRelativity.InthissimplemodeltheconstraintoftheHamiltoniansystemwassuchthattheclassicalconstraintsubspacedidnotprojectdowntoallofthecongurationspace.UsingthemethodsdescribedbyDirac[ 7 ],theconstraintofthissimplequantummechanicalsystemwasimposed.Itwasarguedthatbyrequiringtheadditionalconditionofnormalizationoftheconstraintsolutions,thereisquantummechanicaltunnelingintoclassicallyforbiddenregions.Thismodelwasoriginallyformulatedwiththecongurationspaceofasphere[ 11 ]. Later,Boulwaremodiedtheconstraintproblembynotingthecurvatureofthecongurationspaceplaysnoroleintheanalysisandalteredthecongurationspacetoatorus-acompactyetgloballyatcongurationspace[ 44 ].Inthequantizationofthemodiedmodel,theadditionalrequirementoftheself-adjointpropertywasimposedonthecanonicalmomentum.Usingthisadditionalcriterion,itwasshownthatnotunnelingwouldoccurintotheclassicallyforbiddenregionsforthephysicalstates. Recently,LoukoandMolgudoinvestigatedthismodelusingtechniquesoftherenedalgebraicquantizationprogram(RAQ)todetermineitsphysicalHilbertspacestructure[ 32 ].Themethodstheyemployedledtotheexistenceofsuper-selectionsectorsinthephysicalHilbertspace.ThebasicformalismofRAQisunabletodetermineariggingmapforaconstraintthathasbothregularandirregularsolutions.Modicationsweremadeindenitionoftheriggingmaptoaccommodateforthevarietyofsolutions,(i.e.rsolutionsof 76

PAGE 77

Usingtheprojectionoperatorformalism[ 13 ],weareabletoascertainthephysicalHilbertspaceoftheAshtekar-Horowitz-Boulware(AHB)modelwithtechniqueswhichwefeelareclosertotheessenceoftheDiracprocedure[ 7 ]thanthosein[ 32 ].ThephysicalHilbertspaceofthismodelisshownnottodecomposeintosuper-selectionsectors.Weareinclinedtotakethepointofviewthatsuper-selectionsectorsarebasedonphysicalprinciplesnotpuremathematics.Theapproachinwhichweultimatelyemployisasimilaritytransformation.Physicsisinvariantundersimilaritytransformations.Weshouldalsonotethetwomethods(ProjectionOperatorvs.RAQ)arenotequivalent.Wewereabletogeneralizetoaclassoffunctions(i.e.functionsthathaveintervalsolutionstoconstraintequation)thatthepreviouswork[ 32 ]cannotanalyzewithoutfurthermodications.Thepreviouswork[ 9 ]servesasaguideforthispresentendeavor. Thischapterisorganizedasfollows:Section2providesabriefintroductiontotheclassicalAHBmodel.Section3presentsthecanonicalquantizationofthemodel.Section4dealswithconstructingthephysicalHilbertspaceusingtheprojectionoperatorformalism.Section5dealswithdeningsuper-selectionsectorsanddeterminingwhetherornotthePhysicalHilbertspaceobtainedinSection5containssuper-selectionsectors.Section6dealswiththeclassicallimitoftheconstrainedquantumtheoryandestablishesthattheclassicallimitistheclassicaltheoryoftheoriginalmodel.Section7containsanaccountoftheRAQapproachtothismodel. 77

PAGE 78

wherethefunctionR(y)2C1(S1)isassumedtobepositivesomewhere.WhentheconstraintequationissatisedtheclassicalsolutionsarelimitedtotheregionsofthecongurationspacewhereR(y)0.Theconstraintregioninthe4dimensionalphasespacewillinvolveapropersubsetofcongurationspace.NotethattheHamiltonianequalszerointhismodeltoemphasizetheroleoftheconstraint. Thedynamicsofthissystemaregivenbythefollowing5equationsofmotion. _x=2px;_y=0;_px=0;_py=dR(y) Ify0satisestheconstraintequationanddR(y) 78

PAGE 79

6{1 ).WewillassumeourchosencanonicalcoordinatesareCartesianonessuitableforquantization[ 20 ].Wethenpromotethecanonicaldynamicalvariables(x;y;px;py)toasetofirreducibleself-adjointoperators(X;Y;Px;Py).Conjugatepairscorrespondingtocompact,periodicspatialcomponentswillnotobeythestandardHeisenberg-Weylrelationship[ 45 ]becausetheeigenvaluesoftheconjugatemomentumoperatorsarenotcontinuousbutdiscrete.Continuingwiththecanonicalquantizationprocedure,wepromotetheconstrainttoasuitablefunctionofself-adjointoperators Note,thereisnoorderingambiguityforthisoperator.Weassumetheconstraintoperatorisaself-adjointoperatorintheunconstrainedHilbertspace.Wecannowimplementthequantumconstraintusingtheprojectionoperatormethod. SincethefunctionR(y)isacontinuousfunction,wemustintroduceanappropriatesetofbrasandketstodealwiththesubtletiesdescribedinsection2. 79

PAGE 80

CoherentstatesonacirclecanbegeneratedbycoherentstatesofalinewiththeuseoftheWeil-Berezin-Zak(WBZ)transformation[ 45 ].WeshalluseXandYtodenotethecharacteristiclengthsofthexandycoordinates,respectively.TheWBZtransform,T,isaunitarymapfromL2(R)toL2(S1S1),whereS1isthedualtoS1.Thetransformationisgivenbythefollowing (T)(x;k)n2ZeinXk(xnX)(6{5) where2L2(R),x2S1,andk2S1orstatedotherwisek2[0;2 2p(x+ip))exp(1 2(x+ipx0)2)(iX where1=exp(X2 (z)=n2Zn2e2inz;(6{7)jj<1,istheJacobithetafunction.Thesestatesarenotnormalized[ 45 ].Foreachvalueofkthesestatessatisfytheminimalaxiomsofgeneralizedcoherentstates;i.e.,acontinuouslabelingofthestateswherethelabelsethasatopologyisomorphictoR2andaresolutionofunity[ 40 ]. WecanexpressthecoherentstatesonT2asthefollowing, 80

PAGE 81

45 ],eectively,wecansetthenewgroundstateatk.Therefore,wecansafelychoosezeroforbothkxandky.Thuswewillmakethefollowingnotationalchange Theconstructionofthereproducingkernelisbasedonpropertiesoftheconstraintoperatoraswellasthecoherentstates( 6{9 ).TheconstraintoperatorandthecompactnessofxrestrictthespectrumofitsconjugatemomentumPxandtherebyofR(Y).Allowedvaluesofyaredeterminedbythefollowingequation wherejni0istheorthonormalbasisforL2(S1).WewillproceedwiththequantizationofthismodelbyimplementingthemethoddiscussedinSection2foreachnsectorofthetheory.SincewearenotchoosingaparticularR(y),wewillonlybediscussingthephysicalHilbertspaceingeneral.Weconsiderthefollowingtwotypesofsolutionstotheconstraintequation. I.)(PointSolutions)Thesolutiony=ymisapointvaluesolutiontotheequation( 6{10 )foragivenvalueofn.Theindexmcorrespondstomultiplevaluesoftheythatsatisestheequationforagivenvalueofn. II.)(IntervalSolutions)Thesolutionsy=ym0satisfytheequation( 6{10 )forallelementsinanintervalI(m0).Thisclassicationofsolutionsalsoincludesacountableunionofdisjointintervals.Althoughphysicallymotivatedmodelsexcludesuchconstraintsolutions,weincludethemtoillustratetheversatilityofourapproach 81

PAGE 82

9 ]todeterminethephysicalHilbertspacecontributionfortypeIIsolutions.Thecalculationofthereproducingkernelcanbedecomposedintoportionscorrespondingtoeachvaluen2Zinthefollowingmanner: 82

PAGE 83

2(yy0)ei(pxxp0xx0)=2+p02=2+p2x=2xexp[(ymy)2=2iym(p0ypy)(ymy0)2=2](i(y0+ip0yymn;1)(i(y+ipyymn;1)exp[n2]exp[in((x0x)+i(p0xpx)]; where1=exp[22].FollowingtheprescriptionsetforthinSection2,weperformtherequiredsimilaritytransformationtoextracttheleadingdependencyofthereproducingkernel. ^Kmn=constant=Sm()2sin(1=Sm()(yy0)) 2(yy0)ei(pxxp0xx0)=2+p02x=2+p2x=2exp[(ymy)2=2iym(p0ypy)(ymy0)2=2](i(y0+ip0yymn;1)(i(y+ipyymn;1)exp[n2]exp[in((x0x)+i(p0xpx)]; Thelimit!0cannowbetakeninasuitablemannertodeterminethereducedreproducingkernelforthisportionofthephysicalHilbertspace[ 13 ]whichthenreads ~Kmn=constant=1 (6{14) foreachvalueofm.EachofthesereducedreproducingkernelHilbertspacesisisomorphictoaone-dimensionalHilbertspace(i.e.~HC).Wecontinuetheprocedureforeachwholenumbervalueofnuntilthemaximumallowedvalue(ofn)isreached. 83

PAGE 84

6{10 ),thenwecanwritethereproducingkernelforthephysicalHilbertspaceinthefollowingmanner ~K=nmaxnm~Knm(6{15) Similarly,thephysicalHilbertspacecanbewrittenas Thesupportofthereproducingkernelisonlyintheclassicallyallowedregions.ThisimpliesthereisnotunnelingintoclassicallyforbiddenregionsasreportedbyBoulware[ 44 ]. whichistosaythatthephysicalHilbertspaceisgivenbythedirectsumofindividualHilbertspaces.ThephysicalHilbertspaceissaidtodecomposeintosuper-selectionsectorsifforanytwostatesj1i;j2ithatbelongtotwodierentsectorsHiandHj,respectively,andforanyobservableOinAobs,whereAobsthe*-algebraofallobservables,thefollowingholds, In( 6{18 ),Odenotesagenericself-adjointoperatorintheunreducedHilbertspace.InpreviousworksusingtheRAQprocedure[ 31 ],super-selectionsectorsarosebecauseeachsectorhadadierentdegreeofdivergence.SinceOisaself-adjointoperatorintheunreducedspace,( 6{18 )isforcedtovanishtoavoidacontradictionfromthevaryingdegreesofdivergency[ 46 ].Aswehaveshowninthepreceedingsectionthephysical 84

PAGE 85

6{18 )willonlyholdifandonlyiftheoperatorisproportionaltotheprojectionoperator.Ingeneral( 6{18 ),doesnothold,thereforethephyicalHilbertspace( 6{17 )doesnotdecomposeintosuper-selectionsectors.WewillnowdiscusstheclassicallimitofthequantizedAHBmodel. wherejp;qiarecanonicalcoherentstates.ThisprovidestheconnectionbetweenanoperatorO(P;Q)andanassociatedfunctionontheclassicalphasespacemanifold.Inthelimit,~!0,wendthisfunctionreducestotheclassicalfunctionthatcorrespondstotheweakcorrespondenceofquantumoperator.ThisstatementcaneasilybeseenifOisapolynomial,however,thisconditionisnotnecessary.Thisresultcanbegeneralizedtoanynumberofphasespacevariablesaswillbedemonstratedbelow. Beforeevaluatingtheclassicallimitofthemodel,wemustdiscussthefundamentaldierencebetweenquantummechanicsonacompactcongurationspaceandthatofanunboundedspace.Theconjugatemomentumoperator(Px)hasadiscretespectrumifthecongurationspaceiscompact.Thereforethestandardcanonicalcommutationrelation [X;Px]=i~;(6{20) isinappropriate.Toalleviatethisproblemweconsiderthe\angle"operator[ 45 ] 85

PAGE 86

Asobservedin[ 9 ],theobservablepartofanoperatorcanalwaysbeexpressedas whereOisaself-adjointoperatorintheunconstrainedHilbertspace. TheobservablepartoftheHermitiancombinationofUxandUyxis Byobservation,wenote Theseprojectionoperatorsareactingonmutuallyorthogonalsubspaces;therefore,theoperatorisidenticallyzero.Thisresultinformsusthatthisisagaugedependentquestionwhichisconsistentwiththeclassicalpicture.RecallfromSection3thexdynamicalvariableisgaugeindependentonlywhenpx=0.Quantummechanically,wehaveposedthequestiontonda\physical"wavefunctionthathassupportonbothagaugeindependentsectorandgaugedependentsector.Thisisimpossible. IfweweretoexaminethesamequeryforthecorrespondingHermitiancombinationofthe\angle"operatorfortheYcoordinate,wewouldobtaintheunitoperator.Theclassicallimitofthisoperatorisagainincompleteagreementwiththeclassicaltheory.Aswehavepreviouslyobservedtheclassicaldynamicalvariableyisalwaysgaugeindependent. NowweconsiderthefollowingquotienttoestablishtheclassicallimitoftheY\angleoperator"Uyhx;px;y;py;jEUyEjx;px;y;pyi hx;px;;y;py;jEjx;px;;y;py;i

PAGE 87

( As~!0thisexpressionbecomes exp[i2y];(6{27) whereyissubjecttotheconditionR(y)=p2x.Whilethisexpressionisimaginary,wecanextractfromittheclassicalreducedphasespacecoordinatey. Nowwedirectourattentiontotheexpectationvalueofthephysicalconjugatemomentum,Px hx;px;y;pyjEjx;px;y;pyi @x0hx0;y0jx;px;y;pyi:(6{28) WeimplementtheconstraintsbyintegratingovertheappropriateintervalsasdescribedinSection5.Wecancontinuethiscalculationinasimilarmannertothatwhichisperformedin[ 9 ]. hx;px;y;pyjEjx;px;;y;py;i=px+0( 2( where 0(z;)=2i1Xn=nn2einze2inz:(6{30) As~approaches0,thesecondtermvanisheswhichcanbeseeninthedenitionoftheJacobithetafunction( 6{7 )[ 45 ],thusrecoveringthisaspectoftheclassicaltheoryfromitsquantumanalog.Usingthesametechnique,wecanalsocalculatetheclassicallimitoftheexpectationvalueofthePyoperator.Theprojectionoperatorformalismiswellsuitedtonotonlyproperlyimposequantumconstraints,butalsoallowonetoreturntotheproperclassicaltheoryinthelimit~!0. 87

PAGE 88

6{2 ).Firstwemustassumetheconstraint( 6{2 )containsanitenumberofzerosandthatallstationarypoints(i.e.R0(y)=0,Rn(y)=0,[i.e.thenthdervativeofRwithrespecttoy])onlytohaveaniteorderthatnozerosof( 6{2 )aretobestationarypoints.AswiththeanalysisintheprecedingsectionswemustalsorequirethatR(y)bepositiveatleastsomewhere. FollowingtheprogramdescribedinChapter3wemustrstchooseanauxiliaryHilbertspace,Haux.TheauxiliaryHilbertspaceofchoiceistheHilbertspaceofsquare-integrablecomplexfunctionsoverthecongurationspace.Thecanonicalinner-productisgivenbythefollowing; (1;2)aux=ZZdxdy1(x;y)2(x;y);(6{31) where()denotescomplexconjugation.TheclassicalconstraintispromotedtoanoperatorthatactsontheauxiliaryHilbertspace, ^C=@2 whereR(Y)actsasamultiplicationoperatornamely,R(Y)(x;y)=R(y)(x;y)forall(x;y)2Haux.Theoperator,^Cisanessentiallyself-adjointoperatoronHaux,thereforetheoperatorwillexponentiatetotheoneparameterunitaryoperatorviaStone'stheorem, KeepinginlinewiththeRAQprogram,wemustnowchooseatestspaceHaux.Inthismodeltheconvenientchoiceisthesetoffunctionsoftheform; 88

PAGE 89

6{33 )isasfollows, thereforebythiscalculationisinvariantundertheactionofU(t).Onefurthercommentmustbemadebeforeproceedingwiththerestoftheprocedure,ifO2AobsthenOcommuteswithU(t)andisdenselydenedin.ThenalphaseoftheRAQprocedureistodeterminetheanti-linearriggingmapviathegroupaveragemap, orequivalentlywecandiscussthemapthroughthematrixelements[ 30 ] AtthispointadeviationfromthestandardRAQapproachisrequired.[ 46 ]Since( 6{37 )isnotabsolutelyconvergent,thisisduetothefactthegaugegroupgeneratedbyU(t)isanon-compactgroup.Formally,itwasestablished[ 32 ]thattheriggingmapcouldbewrittenasthefollowingequation, orequivalently, whereymjsaresolutionsto 89

PAGE 90

6{38 )and( 6{39 )arethedeltafunctionsforRandS1,respectively.Assumingthat( 6{40 )hassolutionsthenitwasshownin[ 32 ]that( 6{39 )doessatisfytheaxiomsoftheriggingmap.AkeycomponentofthevericationoftheaforementionedaxiomsisthatinducesarepresentationofAobsonthephysicalHilbertspace.Thiscanbestatedintermsofthematrixelements forall1;22andA2Aobs.Itcanbeshown[ 32 ]thattherepresentationofAobsonHRAQisirreducibleandistransitive. IntheprecedingdiscussionthephysicalHilbertspacedidnotdecomposeintosuper-selectionsectors.Theadventofsuper-selectionsectorsappearstobeadirectresultofrelaxingtheconditiontoallowforsolutionsof( 6{2 )toincludestationarypoints.Withthisrelaxedcondition,afurthermodicationoftheriggingmapisrequiredtoavoiddivergencesin( 6{39 ).Thisisaccomplishedbyreplacingthedenominatorwithfractionalpowersofhigherderivatives,whichdependsontheorderofthestationarypoint.Thereplacementofthedenominatorcanbethoughtofasarenormalizationoftheaveragingprocedure.Eachoftheserenormalizedriggingmapscanbeshown[ 32 ]tocarryatransitiverepresentationofAobs.ThetotalHilbertspaceHtotRAQcanberegardedasthedirectsumofindividualHilbertspaces.TherepresentationofAobsalsodecomposesintotherepresentationofthesummands.Whichinturnimpliesthepresenceofsuper-selectionsectorsinHtotRAQ. 6{39 )hasdenitiveconnectiontothereducedphasespacemethodforquantization.Theauthorsof[ 32 ]alsocommentonthecloseconnectionto 90

PAGE 91

91

PAGE 92

Timeisacrucialelementtoanydynamicalsystem;itistheevolutionparameterofsuchasystem.Thenatureoftimeisanextremelypopulartopiccoveredbymanyphysicists,aswellas,philosophers[ 22 ].Whilethephysical(ormeta-physical)natureoftimeisoutsidethemainfocusofthisdissertation,time-dependencyinquantummechanicsoersusaninterestingcaveattoexploreandstudy. Inthemethodologiesdevelopedanddiscussedinthepreviouschapters,theprimarygoalwastosolvequantummechanicaltime-independentconstraints.Theexclusionoftimewasmadeprimarilyoutofsimplication.Inmostoftheliteratureaboutconstraints[ 12 ]thetopicoftime-dependentconstraintsiseitherbrieycoveredoritisnotcoveredatall.However,itisclearthatforamorecompletediscussionofconstraintdynamicswemustalsoincludeconstraintsthatareexplicitlydependentontime.TimedependencecanenteradynamicalsystemthroughtheHamilitonian,constraints,orinthemostgeneralcaseorcombinationofthetwo.Theinclusionofexplicitlytime-dependentconstraintsoersnotonlyaninterestingacademicexercisebutalsogivesphysiciststhetoolsrequiredtoexaminemorephysicaltheoriesthanthosethatpreviouslycouldbediscussed. Thisisnottherstoccasiononwhichtheprojectionoperatorhasbeenusedtodealwiththecaseoftime-dependentconstraints.In[ 47 ],Klauderderivedanexpressionforevolutionoperatoroftime-dependentconstraint.Theconstructionofthisexpressionwasbasedonmodifyingtheexpressionforthetime-independentcase.Althoughthisexpressionseemedtobecorrecttheauthorchosenottopursuethissubjectmatterfurther.Primarily,hemadethischoicebecausetheformuladidnotreducetoasimpleroperatorexpression.Whiletheprojectionoperatorwillbetheprimarymodeofexploration 92

PAGE 93

47 ]willnotbethestartingpointforourinvestigation. Wewill,however,advocatetheuseofthereparameterizationinvariantdescriptiontodiscusssystemswithtime-dependentconstraints.Weshouldmentionthatthisstartingpointisnotanewapproachtodealwithtime-dependentconstraints.Wewillalterpasteortsonthistopicbyexploringthe\non-local"pointofview.Thephrase\non-local"pointofviewwascoinedbyGitman[ 48 ]whendescribingaphysicalsysteminwhichoneassumesareparameterizationinvariantformofatheory.However,itiswellknown,thatifanactionisareparameterizationinvariantthentheHamiltonianvanishesontheconstraintsurface 48 ].Weshouldmentionthatusingthereparameterizationinvariantapproachisnotnew,however,theimplementationofthissymmetrywiththeprojectionoperatorwouldseemtobenew. Inthenexttwochapterswewilldiscusssomeofthefacetsoftheproblemwithtime-dependentconstraints.InChapter8wewillmotivateanddevelopthetechniquesinwhichonecanstudyconstraintswithanexplicittime-dependentfeature.Wewillalsogiveabriefintroductiontoanalternativetotheprojectionoperator,whichistheapproachusedbyGitman,[ 12 ]andcompareandcontrastthetwoapproaches.TheprimarygoalofChapter9istoimplementtheformalismdevelopedinChapter8,inafewexamplesoftime-dependentconstraints. 93

PAGE 94

8.1.1BasicModel where_q=dq=dtandH(p;q)istheHamiltonianofthesystem.Theevolutionofthesystemisobtainedbyvaryingthefunctionalwithrespecttothedynamicalvariables,thisreadsas, _q=@H @p; _p=@H @q; subjecttothesuitableboundaryconditions.Asstatedabove,thissystemispurelydynamical,however,itiswellknownanyactioncanbeconvertedintoanequivalentactionthatisareparameterizationinvariant.[ 48 ]Letusbeginthisconversionbypromotingthedependentparameterttoadynamicalvariable.Thisisappealingfromarelativist'sperspectivebecausethespatialandtemporarycoordinatesaretreatedsymmetrically.Wealsomustintroducetheformalmomentumptconjugatetot.Theintegrationvariablein( 8{1 )isnowreplacedbyanewindependentparameter,whichcorrespondstopropertimeoramoregeneralfunctionoftime 6 ]However,forourpurposeswecanconsidertheLagrangemultiplierarenotstrictlyincreasingseeAppendix 94

PAGE 95

where()denotesthederivativewithrespectto.ThepricepaidinpromotingttoadynamicalvariableisthattheHamiltonianvanishesweaklyintheextendedphasespace.WehaveidentiedtheprimaryunexpressablevelocitytastheLagrangemultiplierthatenforcesthe(rst-class)constraintpt+H(p;q)=0.Therefore,wehaveturnedatheorythatwasadynamicalsystemintoonethatispurelygauge.Eectively,wehaverecasttheoriginaltheoryinsuchamannerthatitcanberelatedinanytemporaryreferenceframe[ 48 ].Theequationsofmotionof( 8{4 )areasfollows: d=@H @p;dp d=@H @q d=();dpt (8{6) (8{7) Astheequationofmotionappearaboveq,momentump,andthephysicaltimet,measuredaregaugedependentquantities.However,ptisgaugeindependentandthereforeanobservablequantityinthistheory.Byidentifyingtheusualtimeasthegaugedependentquantity wecanquicklyreducetheprecedingequationsofmotion( 8{4 )tothefamiliarparameterizedform. _q=@H @p; _p=@H @q; Thedynamicsofthissystemarisesfromimposingtheconstraints. 95

PAGE 96

wherej2f1;:::;Nganda2f1;:::;Ag.ThedynamicsthissystemisgivenbythefamiliarHamiltonian'sequations Atthispoint,theequationsofmotionareidenticaltothosethatappearinthetimeindependentcase.Thedistinctionappearswhenweforcethedynamicstolieontheconstraintsurface(i.e.subspaceinthephasespacedenedbya=0)foralltimet. where0implies( 8{15 )vanishesontheconstraintsurface.Forsimplicity,wewillassumethatthesetofconstraintsarecompletetoallorders(e.g.secondary,tertiary,etc.)ofconstraintshavebeenuncoveredusingtheDiracprocedure[ 14 ].ThedistinctionbetweenrstandsecondclassconstraintsismadebasedonthealgebraofthePoissonbrackets.However,weforgothisdistinctionforthemomentforthesakeofgenerality. Thecostofexplicittimedependenceintheconstraintsin( 8{14 )isthepresenceofthepartialtimederivativeinequation( 8{15 ).Despitetheadditionalterminequation( 8{15 ),wecanmaintaintheusualstructureoftime-independentconstraints,byfollowingtheproceduredescribedinthepreceedingsubsection.Asbeforewewillpromotettoadynamicalvariable,andintroduceitsformalconjugatemomentumpt.Byintroducingadditionaldynamicalvariablesandconjugatepairstothephase-space,wealsohave 96

PAGE 97

=!+dt^dpt(8{16) where!isthesymplecticformoftheoriginalparameterizedspace([ 17 ]),denedinChapter2.ThePoissonbracketf;gwhichisdenedbythesymplecticform,shouldbeunderstoodunlessotherwisespeciedtobethatoftheextendedspace.Theequivalentactioncanbewritteninthefollowingmanner: where~a=()awhichismerelyaredenitionoftheLagrangemultiplier.NoticeonceagainthecanonicalHamiltonianvanishes.Asintheprevioussectionthedynamicsofthesystemarisesfromimplementingtheconstraints. (8{21) (8{22) 48 ]alongwithothermodelsproposedbyotherauthors[ 49 ],[ 50 ],wehavearrivedatastartingpositiontodealwithtime-dependentconstraints.Thiswasdonebychangingthedimensionoftheentireunconstrainedphase-spacefromR2NtoR2N+2,whichwasaccomplishedbypromotingttoadynamicalvariable,andintroducingitsconjugatemomentumpt.Theconsequenceof 97

PAGE 98

12 ]withtheaidoftheextendedsymplecticform.Weshouldalsonotethatwehaverefrainedfromintroducingatemporalgaugexingtermsuchasachronologicalxinggaugeinouraction.Thisisapointofdivergencefromthepreviousauthorsonthesubject.Asiswellknown,agauge-xingtermhasthepotentialtointroducetopologicalobstructionsthatcancausedicultyintheanalysisofthequantumsystem.ThistechniqueofintroducingagaugeisusedinquantizationschemessuchasFaddeev-Popov[ 27 ]whichadvocatesreductionbeforequantization.Sinceoneofthemainphilosophiesoftheprojectionoperatorformalismistoquantizetheentiredynamicalspaceandreducesecond(i.e.eliminatetheredundantvariables),thereisnoneedtointroducesuchatermintheaction.Diracobservablesarephase-spacefunctionsthatcommuteweaklywithalloftheconstraints.AnextensiveamountofliteraturehasbeendevotedtothetaskofidentifyingobservablesinsystemssuchasGeneralRelativityandothergenerallycovariantsystems[ 51 ].Ifoisaclassicalobservableinasystemwithtime-dependentconstraintthenthefollowingmustbetrue: d=fo;pt+Hg+~afo;ag0(8{23) wheref;gareunderstoodtobethePoissonbracketsfortheextendedspace.Therefore,oisaconstantofmotionontheconstraintsurfaceintheextendedphase-space,whichimpliesthatanobservableisindependentofachoiceofreferenceframeorgauge.Sincewewillnotmakeanyfurtheruseoftheconceptofanobservableinthediscussionofsystemswithtime-dependentconstraints,wewilldeferthisdiscussiontoafutureproject.We 98

PAGE 99

8.2.1GitmanandTyutinPrescriptionforTime-DependentSecond-ClassConstraints 12 ]Forsimplicity,wewilllimitthisdiscussiontoincludebosonicvariables,however,onecouldextendanyofthefollowingargumentstoincludefermionicdegreesoffreedomaswell.Also,forconveniencewewillusethenotationusedbytheoriginalauthors,namely,=(q;p)whichcanexplicitlydependontime,aswellas,f;gD()representstheDiracbracketwithrespecttoasetofsecond-classconstraintsa(;t).TheDiracbracketsaredenedinthefollowingmanner wheref;gisthePoissonbrackets,aisaconstraint,andCabisaninvertiblematrix[ 12 ].WheneverencounteredtheDiracbracketistakenassumedtobedenedfortheextendedspace,(;t;pt),asdescribedintheprecedingsection. ConsideraclassicalHamiltoniansystemwithasetofsecond-classconstraintsa(;t)andwithaHamiltonianH(p;q;t).TheDiracbrackets[ 7 ]areusedtoavoidhavingtosolvetheconstraints.Therefore,theevolutionofthecanonicalvariablesisgivenby dt=_=f;H+ptgD()a(;t)=0:(8{25) Thequantizationoftheclassicalsystem,followsintheSchrodingerpicture,inwhichthecanonicalvariablesareassignedtooperatorsSthatsatisfytheequi-timecommutationrelations; [S;0S]=i 99

PAGE 100

Atthisjuncturewerealizethiscurrentpictureisunabletoillustratethefulltimeevolutionofthesystem.Inordertofullyobtainthetimeevolutionwewillmovetoaunitarilyequivalentpicture,theHeisenbergpicture.IntheHeisenbergpictureofquantummechanics,thestatevectorsremainsxedwhiletheoperatorsevolveintime.[ 38 ]IntheHeisenbergpicturetheoperatorsHarerelatedtotheoperatorsSbyH=U1SU,whereUisthetimeevolutionoperator.TheoperatorUisrelatedtotheHamiltonianHSbythedierentialequation, @t=i WecanevaluatethetotaltimederivativeofHbythefollowing =U1(i Equation( 8{29 )establishestheconnectionbetweenthequantumequationsofmotionandtheclassicalequationsofmotionnamely, Inthemostgeneralsetting,theabovedescribedevolutionisnotconsidered\unitary",becauseingeneralno\Hamiltonian"existswhosecommutatorwouldresultinthetotalderivative.Theprincipalagentforthisnon-unitarycharacteristhesecondtermintheleft-handsideofequation( 8{29 ),whichistimevariationofS.Therefore,thedynamicsareevolving,aswellastheconstraintsurface. 100

PAGE 101

20 ].Followingtheconventionalprogramwe\promote"thephase-space(qj;pj;q0=t;p0=pt)coordinatestoirreducible,self-adjointoperators(Qj;Pj;Q0=T;P0=Pt).Thenon-vanishingcommutationbracketfollowsthestructureoftheclassicalextendedPoissonbracketi.e. [Q;P]=~ Apossibleobjectionthatthereadermayhaveistoquestiontheself-adjointnatureoftheToperator.IfthespectrumofTisequaltotheentirerealline,asexpected,thiswouldimplythatthespectrumofPtwouldalsobeunbounded.However,asiswellknown,ifweidentifyPtwiththeenergyEthenPtmustbeboundedfrombelow,whichwouldimplyTisnotaself-adjointoperator.[ 52 ].This,however,assumesthatPthasidentiedorforcedtobecomethenegativeHamiltonian,whichisaconstraint.Thecontradictionisavertedbecausewehavenotimposedtheconstraints,onlyquantizedtheentireclassicalsystem. Wefollowthebeliefthatabstractoperatorformulationofquantummechanicsisfundamental,aswellascorrect[ 53 ].Therefore,preceedingwiththecanonicalquantizationoftheclassicaltheory,bypromotingtheclassicalconstraintstoself-adjointfunctionsoftheirreducibleoperators. (8{32) Onepossibleobjectionatthisjunctureisthereexistmanywaysofquantizingagivenclassicalsystem.Whilethisiscertainlytrue,wewillassertthatwecanappealto 101

PAGE 102

ajiphys=0 (8{34) 0jiphys=0 (8{35) foralla+1constraints.However,thisprocedurewillonlyworkforaselecttypeofrst-classconstraints.Infact,ifoneadheresstrictlytotheDiracprocedure( 8{35 )willresultinatrivialsolutionsincetheconstraint0islinearinPtwhichimpliesthatitsspectrumwillcontainazerointhecontinuum,therebycausingthephysicalHilbertspacetobecomprisedofonlythe0element,whichisundesirableandunacceptable.Wewillthereforeappealtotheuseoftheprojectionoperatorformalism[ 13 ]tocircumventthesepossibledilemmas. 13 ]deviatesfromtheDiracmethodbyintroducingaprojectionoperatorE,whichtakesvectorsfromtheunconstrainedHilbertspace(H)totheconstraintsubspace(i.e.thephysicalHilbertspaceorevenbettertheregularizedphysicalHilbertspacewhichwillbedescribedshortly.) Thegeneralformoftheprojectionoperatoristhefollowing: 102

PAGE 103

8{37 ),impliesthattheoperatorprojectsontothespectralinterval[0;2(~)].Theprojectionoperatorformalismallowsustodealwithallconstraintssimultaneouslyandtoplacealltypesofconstraintsonequalfooting. 13 ],namely, (8{38) ToobtainfurtherinsightitwillbeconvenienttousethecanonicalcoherentstatesoftheunconstrainedHilbertspace. wherejiisanormalizedducialvectorinH.Thesecoherentstatesadmitaresolutionofunitygivenas wherethedomainofintegrationistheentireextendedphasespace.Theoverlapofthesevectorsaregivenbythefollowing: 4~[jp0pj2jq0qj2+i 4~[jp0tptj2jt0tj2+i Expression( 8{41 )denesapositivedenitefunctionalwhichcanbechosenasthereproducingkernelandusedtodeneareproducingkernelHilbertspaceH. 103

PAGE 104

13 ] wheref()issomefunctionchosentoinsure( 8{42 )convergesabsolutelyandTisthetimeorderedproduct. Wecangeneralizetheresultfrom[ 54 ]namelylim!0hp00;q00;p00t;t00jE(
PAGE 105

47 ].Thisofcourseisassumingthattheconstraintsarecontinuousint.Thisstatementisalsoapplicableifaaresecond-classconstraints. 12 ]startonverysimilargrounds,theapproachesendonverydierentgrounds.TheGitmanapproachadvocatestheuseofDiracBrackets,whichisamethodusedtoavoidsolvingforsecond-classsystems,whiletheProjectionOperatorFormalismtreatsallconstraintsonequaltheoreticalfooting.Intheproceedingchapterwewillexaminetwodierentconstraintmodelswiththeaidoftheprojectionoperatorformalism. 105

PAGE 106

Intheprecedingchapter,wehavedevelopedanapproachtocontendwithexplicittime-dependencyinconstraintswithintheprojectionoperatorformalism.Despitethisdevelopment,someloomingquestionspersist.Theprimarypurposeofthischapteristoelucidatetheseunresolvedquestionsbyconsideringsomesimplequantummechanicalmodels.OneofthemostpressingquestionsiswhetherornotthephysicalHilbertspaceofatime-dependentconstraintistrivial 8{46 ),the\evolutionoperator"fortime-dependentconstraintscanbewrittenasaninniteproductofprojectionoperators.However,aswewillillustrateinourrstmodel,evenwiththerequirementofastringentpolarizationofthestatesfromthetotalHilbertspace,thephysicalHilbertspaceisnon-trivial.Thesecondmodelisdesignedtodemonstratehowasecond-classsystemshouldbeconsideredwithinthiscontext. 2(p21+p22+p23)+1 2(q21+q22+q23)+(t)(j1sin( wherej1=q2p3q3p2andj3=p2q1q2p1and(t)istheLagrangemultiplierthatenforcesthesinglerst-classconstraint 106

PAGE 107

2(p21+p22+p23)+1 2(q21+q22+q23)thereforethistrulyisarst-classsystem.ForthecaseofthisanalysiswewillrestricttheallowablevaluesofttoacompactsubspaceofRnamely,[0;1].Itiseasytoobservethattheconstraintsurfaceinitiallyisdenedbyj3=0butevolvesinasmoothfashionintothevanishinglociofj1.Movingtotoquantumanalogofthissystem Ifwedenethenumberoperator itisobviousthat [J1;N]=0=[J3;N]:(9{6) Basedonthisconservation,wecanstudythefulllmentofthetime-dependentconstraintsineachofthenumber-operatorsubspacesindependentlyofoneanother.Basedonthisinformationwecanproceedwiththefollowinganalysis: 107

PAGE 108

1-particlesubspaceE1(
PAGE 109

=E(iL2i<2(~))+Et(
PAGE 110

49 ].Inthiswork,theauthorsextendtheBRST-BFVmethod[ 14 ],todealwithnon-stationarysystems(i.e.time-dependentsystems).Forthisdissertation,wechosenottodiscusstheBRST-BFVmethod,howeverforadescriptionofthemethodsee[ 14 ]and[ 49 ]. Themodelusedtoillustratetheauthor'stechniquewasatwo-dimensionalrotorwithatime-dependentradius.However,forthisdiscussionweabatethemodelin[ 49 ],byreducingthenumberofdegreesoffreedomfrom3to2,aswellas,settingtheHamiltonianequaltozerotoemphasizetheconstraints.Considerthefollowingtime-dependentclassicalconstraints: wherecisapositiveconstantandq,p,pt,arethecanonicalposition,itscorrespondingconjugatemomentumandconjugatemomentumcorrespondingtothetemporalcoordinate.BasedonthethePoissonbracketoftheconstraints,thisconstraintsystemisasecond-classsystem. Thecanonicalquantizationofthismodelisstraightforward.Wesimplyfollowthesameprocedureasstatedintheprecedingchapter,whichimpliesthatwepromoteallofthecanonicalcoordinates(p;q;pt;t)toirreducibleself-adjointoperators(P;Q;Pt;T).Wepromotetheconstraintstoself-adjointoperatorsasindicatedbythefollowing: 110

PAGE 111

UsingthelogicemployedbyKlauderin[ 13 ],thestatethatminimized( 9{19 )wouldbethefollowingstatejct;cij0;tiUsingthetheoryofWeyloperatorswecanconstructarepresentationofthedesiredprojectionE,givenby WeshouldobservethatinthiscaseRe(222)=4ddd 13 ]. ItiswellknownthataeldtheorythatisnotreparameterizationinvariantcanbetransmutedintoonereparameterizationinvariantbyasimilartechniquetothatemployedinChapter8[ 55 ].Namelythiscanbeaccomplishedbychangingthespace-timecoordinates(xwhere2f1:::;Ng,andNisthenumberofspacetimedimensions)tofunctionsoverspace-time,whichinessenceintroducesNscalareldstotheeldtheory, 111

PAGE 112

112

PAGE 113

Chapter5introducestheclassicationofconstraintscalled"highlyirregular"constraints.Duringthischapter,wedescribedageneralproceduretosolvethequantumanalogtothe"highlyirregular"constraintsutilizingtheProjectionOperatorFormalism.WealsosuccessfullyanalyzedasimpleexampleofthistypeofconstraintusingonlytheProjectionOperatorFormalism. InChapter6,weusedthemathematicaltoolsestablishedinChapter5togiveacompleteaccountofthequantizationoftheAshtekar-Horowitz-Boulwaremodel.[ 11 ]ThismodelwasinspiredbytheHamilitonianconstraintofGeneralRelativitytoanswerwhetherornottherecouldbequantummechanicaltunnelingintoclassicallyforbiddenregionsofphasespace.DuringthecourseofthischapterwecomparetheresultsobtainedbytheProjectionOperatorMethodwiththatoftheRenedAlgebraicQuantization 113

PAGE 114

Theremainingchaptersweredevotedtothetopicoftime-dependentquantumconstraints.WedevelopedtheformalisminwhichthetopiccanbeapproachedinthecontextoftheProjectionOperator.Thiswasaccomplishedbyextendingtheclassicalphasespaceofthetime-dependentsystem,therebyelevatingthetimeparametertoadynamicalvariable.Inthesamechapter,wecomparedtheProjectionOperatorFormalismtotheapproachthatwasrstdiscussedin[ 12 ].Whilethesemethodsstartfromthesamepoint(i.e.anextendedphasespace)theconclusionsreachedareverydierent.Inthefollowingchapterweweresucessfulinanalyzingtwoexamplesoftime-dependentconstraints. Thestoryofclassicalandquantumconstraintsthatwehavepresentedwithinthisdissertationisbynomeansacompleteaccount.Infactitisimpossibletogiveacompleteaccountofanyresearch.Byresearchingwemerelypointthedirectiontonewresearch,leadingtonewquestionstoaskandtoattempttoanswer.Thetopicsinphysicsarealwaysbiggerthantheindividualphysicist.However,thisisthebeautyofthesubject,thatthingsweleaveunresolvedcanbepickedupinthefuturegenerations. Thereareseveralunresolvedissuesleftfromthisdissertationthatcanbeaddressedbytheauthororfutureresearchers.Theseincludebutarenotlimitedto,\HowdothemethodsoftheProjectionOperatorgeneralizetoafullquantumeldtheory?",\WhatlessonslearnedfromthesimplemodelsthatweanalyzedinthisdissertaioncanbeappliedinmorerealistictheoriessuchasQuantumGravity?",\CanweusetheformalismobtainedinChapter8toexaminemorerealistictheories?" 114

PAGE 115

115

PAGE 116

WhataretheconsequencesifanactionI[q(t)]isinvariantunderaninnitesmaltemporaltransformation,whichisthecharacteristicofareparametrizationinvarianttheory,i.e. Giventheinnitesimaltransformation dt=_q ByourassumptionthatI[q(t)]=I[q(t+(t))]itfollowsthat (A{5) =Zt2t1(@L @tt+@L @qq+@L @_q_q)dt =Zt2t1(@L @tt+@L @q_q+@L @_qd dt_q)dt =Zt2t1(dL dt+@L @_q_qd dt)dt Integratingbyparts;=Zt2t1(Ld dt@L @_q_qd dt)dt; =Zt2t1((@L @_q_qL)d dt)dt: (A{11) dt>0,wepointthereaderto[ 6 ],foradiscussiononthismatter,however,wemustinsistthatd dt6=0almosteverywhere. 116

PAGE 117

dt6=0,a.e.,thatthestatementfollowingmustbetrue, @_q_qL=0a.e. (A{12) Therefore,inallreparameterizationinvarianttheoriestheHamiltonianvanishes. 117

PAGE 118

[1] S.Weinberg,TheQuantumTheoryofFieldsVol.2,CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,1998. [2] A.JaeandE.Witten,\QuantumYang-MillsTheory" [3] P.Deligne,etal.,QuantumFieldsandStrings:ACourseforMathematiciansVol.1-2,AmericanMathematicalSociety,Providence,1999. [4] A.Ashtekar,J.Lewandowski,\BackgroundIndependentQuantumGravity:AStatusReport,"Class.Quant.Grav.,21(2004)R53. [5] J.Henson,\TheCausalSetApproachtoQuantumGravity," [6] J.Klauder,\AneQuantumGravity,"Int.J.Mod.Phys.,D12(2003)1769. [7] P.A.M.Dirac,LecturesonQuantumMechanics,BelferGraduateSchoolofScience,YeshivaUniversity,NewYork,1964. [8] J.S.Little,J.Klauder,\ElementaryModelofConstraintQuantizationwithanAnomaly,"Phys.Rev.D,D71(2005)085014. [9] J.Klauder,J.S.Little,\HighlyIrregularQuantumConstraints,"Class.Quant.Grav,23(2006)3641. [10] J.S.Little,\TheProjectionOperatorMethodandtheAshtekar-Horowitz-BoulwareModel" [11] A.Ashtekar,G.T.Horowitz,\OntheCanonicalApproachtoQuantumGravity",inPhys.Rev.D,26(1982),3342. [12] D.M.Gitman,I.V.Tyutin,QuantizationofFieldswithConstraints,Springer-Verlag,Berlin1990. [13] J.Klauder,\QuantizationofConstrainedSystems,"Lect.NotesPhys.,572,(2001)143. [14] M.Henneaux,C.Teitelboim,QuantizationofGaugeSystems,PrincetonUniversityPress,Princeton,NJ,1992. [15] J.Jose,E.Saletan,ClassicalDynamics:AContempraryApproach,CambridgeUniversityPress1998. [16] J.Govaerts,HamiltonianQuantisationandConstrainedDynamics,LeuvenUniversityPress,Belgium,1991. 118

PAGE 119

V.I.Arnold,MathematicalMethodsofClassicalMechanics,SingerVerlag,3rded.NewYork,NewYork(1989). [18] L.Castellani,\SymmetriesinConstrainedHamiltoniansystems,"Ann.Phys,143,(1982),357. [19] A.ADeriglazov,K.E.Evdokimov.\LocalSymmetriesintheHamiltonianFramework.1.HamiltonianFormoftheSymmetriesandtheNoetheridentities,"Int.J.Mod.Phys.A15(2000)4045. [20] P.A.MDirac,ThePrinciplesofQuantumMechanics,4thed.,OxfordSciencePublications,1998. [21] J.Klauder,\MetricalQuantization" [22] J.Simon,ChangeWithoutTimeRelationalismandFieldQuantization,Dissertation,UniversitatRegensburg,NaturwissenschaftlicheFakultatII-Physik,2004. [23] N.P.Landsman,MathematicalTopicsBetweenClassicalandQuantumMechanicsSpringer-VerlagNewYork,1998. [50] D.Giulini,\ThatStrangeProcedureCalledQuantisation", [25] A.Ashtekar,R.S.Tate,\AnAlgebraicExtensionofDiracQuantization:Examples," [26] S.V.Shabanov,\GeometryofthePhysicalPhaseSpaceinQuantumGaugeModels,"PhysicsReports3261(2000),hep-th/0002043. [27] L.D.Faddeev,\FeynmanIntegralforSingularLagrangians,"inTheor.Math.Phys.1,(1969),1. [28] P.Senjanovc,\PathIntegralQuantizationofFieldTheorieswithSecond-ClassConstraints,"Ann.Phys.100,(1976),227. [29] AdrianoDiGiacomo,\ConnementofColor:OpenProblemsandPerspectives," [30] D.Giulini,D.Marolf,\OntheGeneralityofRenedAlgebraicQuantization,"Class.Quant.Grav.,16,(1999),247. [31] D.Marolf,\RenedAlgebraicQuantization:SystemswithaSingleConstraint," [32] J.Louko,A.Molgado,\SuperselectionsectorsintheAshtekar-Horowitz-BoulwareModel",Class.QuantumGrav.22,(2005)4007. 119

PAGE 120

B.Dittrich,T.Thiemann,\TestingtheMasterConstraintProgrammeforLoopQuantumGravityI.GeneralFramework,"Class.Quant.Grav.23,(2006),1025. [34] T.Thiemann,\ThePhoenixProject:MasterConstraintProgrammeforLoopQuantumGravity,"Class.Quant.Grav.23,(2006),2211. [35] B.Dittrich,T.Thiemann,\TestingtheMasterConstraintProgrammeforLoopQuantumGravityII.FiniteDimensionalSystems,"inClass.Quant.Grav.23,(2006),1067. [36] B.Dittrich,T.Thiemann,\TestingtheMasterConstraintProgrammeforLoopQuantumGravityIII.SL(2,R)Models,"inClass.Quant.Grav.,23,(2006)1089. [37] B.Dittrich,T.Thiemann,\TestingtheMasterConstraintProgrammeforLoopQuantumGravityV.InteractingFieldTheories,"inClass.Quant.Grav.23,(2006),1143. [38] R.Shankar,PrinciplesofQuantumMechanics,PlenumPress,2nded.,NewYork,NewYork,1994. [39] J.Klauder,\PathIntegrals,andClassicalandQuantumConstraints" [40] J.Klauder,\CoherentStateQuantizationofConstraintSystems,"Ann.Phys.245(1997)419. [41] J.R.Klauder,B.Skagerstam,CoherentStates,WorldScienticPublishing,Singapore,1985. [42] N.Aronszajn,Proc.CambridgePhil.Soc.,39(1943),133;Trans.Amer.MathSoc.68337(1950);H.Meschkowski,HilbertscheRaummitKernfunktion,'Springer-Verlag,Berlin,1962 [43] H.Araki,\HamiltonianFormalismandtheCanonicalCommutationRelationsinQuantumFieldTheory,"J.Math.Phys1(1960),492. [44] D.G.Boulware,\Commenton`OntheCanonicalApproachtoQuantumGravity',"Phys.Rev.D28(1983),414. [45] J.AGonzlez,M.A.delOlmo,\CoherentStatesontheCircle,"J.Phys.A:Math.Gen.31(1998),8841. [46] J.Louko,\GroupAveraging,PositiveDenitenessandDuperselectionSectors,"J.Phys.Conf.Ser.33(2006),142. [47] J.Klauder,\UniversalProcedureforEnforcingQuantumConstraints",Nucl.Phys.B547(1999),397. [48] G.Fulop,D.M.Gitman,I.V.Tyutin.\ReparametrizationInvarianceasGaugeSymmetry,"Int.J.Theor.Phys.38(1999)1941. 120

PAGE 121

A.Garcia,D.Vergara,L.F.Urrutia,\BRST-BFVMethodforNonstationarySystems,"PhysicalReviewD51(1995),5806. [50] C.Rovelli,\Partialobservables,"Phys.Rev.D65(2002),124013. [51] B.Dittric,\PartialandCompleteObservablesforHamiltonianConstrainedSystems," [52] W.Pauli.\DieallgemeinenPrinzipienderWellenmechanik,"inHandbuchderPhysik1Springer,Berlin,1926. [53] J.Klauder,\AttractionsofAneQuantumGravity," [54] J.Klauder,\UltralocalFieldsandTheirRelevanceforReparametrizationInvariantQuantumFieldTheory,"J.Phys.A34(2001),3277. [55] S.P.Gavrilov,D.M.Gitman,\QuantizationofSystemswithTime-DependentConstraints.ExampleofRelativisticParticleinPlaneWave,"inClass.Quant.Grav.10(1993),57. 121

PAGE 122

JereyScottLittlewasbornJanurary10,1980,inthesmalleasternKentuckytownofPikeville.HeistheeldestofthreechildrenandtheonlysonofJeandLindaLittle.Hisstronginterestinsciencewasevidentataveryearlyage.WhenScottwas14,hediscoveredhispassionforquantumphysicsandreadnearlyeverythinghecouldndonthesubject.ScottgraduatedfromShelbyValleyHighSchoolin1998,asclassvaledictorian.Afterhighschool,ScottsetotomatriculateatWesternKentuckyUniversityinBowlingGreen,Kentucky.WhileatWesternhebecameextremelyinterestedinthestudyofformalmathematics.Duringhissenioryearheentertainedtheideaofattendinggraduateschoolinmathematics;however,herealizedthatitwouldbepossibletopursuebothpassionsthroughaphysicscareer.ScottgraduatedfromWesternKentuckywithadoublebachelorsdegreeinphysicsandmathematicsintheSpringof2002.AfternishinghisundergraduatecareerheacceptedanAlumniFellowshipfromtheUniversityofFloridatocontinuehisstudiesofphysics.ThoughmovingfromarelativelysmalldepartmentatWesterntothemuchlargerPhysicsDepartmentatFloridawasinitiallydaunting,Scottovercamehisfearsandsucceededinhiscoursework.IntheSpringof2004,ScottbecameastudentofJohnKlauder.Dr.KlauderallowedScotttonotonlystudyphysicsbutalsoallowedhimtostayconnectedtotheformalmathematicsthathehadgrownfondofduringhisstayatWestern.UnderDr.Klauder'stutelage,Scottwasabletoresearchandpublishthreepapersonquantumconstraints.InJuneof2006,attheageof26,ScottmarriedtheloveofhislifeMegan(Carty)Little.ScottobtainedhisPh.D.inPhysicsintheFallof2007.ScottandMegancurrentlyresideinLouisville,KY,whereScottiscontinuingtoresearchawidevarietyoftheoreticalproblemsandisaninstructorattheUniversityofLouisville. 122