论文标题
一流的约束，仪表转换，脱障和琐碎：回答评论家，或者（不是）如何从二等主要约束中获得量规变换
First-Class Constraints, Gauge Transformations, de-Ockhamization, and Triviality: Replies to Critics, Or, How (Not) to Get a Gauge Transformation from a Second-Class Primary Constraint
论文作者
论文摘要
Recently two pairs of authors have aimed to vindicate the longstanding conventional claim that a first-class constraint generates a gauge transformation in typical gauge theories such as electromagnetism, Yang-Mills and General Relativity, in response to the Lagrangian-equivalent reforming tradition, in particular Pitts, _Annals of Physics_ 2014. Both pairs emphasize the coherence of the extended Hamiltonian formalism against what they take在2014年Pitts中成为核心思想，但两者都忽略了Pitts 2014对可能挽救有关主张的方式的敏感性，包括静电潜力的加法重新定义。因此，最好的大部分论文被解释为争辩说，关于单独的头等限制的长期主张是false或trivial_- de-ockhamization（通过将一个数量分为两者的总和少得多时使用更多时使用）是琐碎的。不幸的是，PITTS 2014第9节是驳斥了在其他作品中不起作用的主要口头论点。 Pooley and Wallace's inverse Legendre transformation to de-Ockhamized electromagnetism with an additively redefined electrostatic potential, however, opens the door to a precisely analogous calculation introducing a photon mass, which shows that a _second-class primary_ constraint generates a gauge transformation in the exactly same sense -- a reductio ad absurdum of the claim that a first-class constraint generates a gauge transformation and二等限制没有。通过驱逐出境的仪表自由根本不需要任何限制，即一流或二等级，因为任何拉格朗日的任何动力变量都可以通过将一数量分为两者的总和来表现出表现出琐碎的人造量规自由。但是，在身体上有趣的量规自由通常是由一流的一流约束总和产生的。
Recently two pairs of authors have aimed to vindicate the longstanding conventional claim that a first-class constraint generates a gauge transformation in typical gauge theories such as electromagnetism, Yang-Mills and General Relativity, in response to the Lagrangian-equivalent reforming tradition, in particular Pitts, _Annals of Physics_ 2014. Both pairs emphasize the coherence of the extended Hamiltonian formalism against what they take to be core ideas in Pitts 2014, but both overlook Pitts 2014's sensitivity to ways that one might rescue the claim in question, including an additive redefinition of the electrostatic potential. Hence the bulk of the paper is best interpreted as arguing that the longstanding claim about separate first-class constraints is _either false or trivial_ -- de-Ockhamization (using more when less suffices by splitting one quantity into the sum of two) being trivial. Unfortunately section 9 of Pitts 2014, a primarily verbal argument that plays no role in other works, is refuted. Pooley and Wallace's inverse Legendre transformation to de-Ockhamized electromagnetism with an additively redefined electrostatic potential, however, opens the door to a precisely analogous calculation introducing a photon mass, which shows that a _second-class primary_ constraint generates a gauge transformation in the exactly same sense -- a reductio ad absurdum of the claim that a first-class constraint generates a gauge transformation and a second-class constraint does not. Gauge freedom by de-Ockhamization does not require any constraints at all, first-class or second-class, because any dynamical variable in any Lagrangian can be de-Ockhamized into exhibiting trivial additive artificial gauge freedom by splitting one quantity into the sum of two. Physically interesting gauge freedom, however, is typically generated by a tuned sum of first-class constraints.
