Physics Essays volume 12, number 1, 1999

Electromagnetic-Like Generation of Unified-Gauge Theories

R. M i g n a n i , E. P e s s a , a n d G. R e s c o n i

Abstract
We carry out a critical analysis of the Maxwell electromagnetic theory, with emphasis on its
"geometrical" features and gauge-theoretical properties. Thk allows us to single out five
fundamental principles, which are at the veryfoundation of electromagnetism and can be used to
build up any (electromagnetic-like) unified-gauge theory. Such principles are essentially based on
the different order of commutators among covariant derivatives, and are connected in a natural
way to the commutative diagrams of various orders, which relate the relevant operators involved
in the electromagnetic theory. An application of thk general procedure k given by considering
general relativity, whose basic equations can also be derived from the five basic postulates.
Moreover, the equations satisfied by the sources of the gauge field can be derived from a
fundamental invariant by imposing that the continuity equation for the current be satisfied. Such
an electromagnetic-likegeneration scheme permits us to obtain afamily of unified-gauge theories,
hierarchically arranged by increasing complexity.

Key words: Maxwell electromagnetic theory, unified-gauge theories, general

relativity, system theory, commutative diagrams

1. INTRODUCTION the tensorial or spinorial nature of fields, by introducing

In the last t w e n t y years some unified-field theories, such
as the electroweak one C1) and the so-called grand-unified
theories (GUTs), 12) gave rise to important achievements,
from both the theoretical and the experimental point of
view. Thus, the general attitude of theoretical physicists
toward the building of unified-field theories changed from
discouragement, typical of the fifties (when the search for a
u n i f e d theory of gravitation and electromagnetism/3)
seemed doomed to failure), to the present-day hope.
However, most physicists, although acknowledging the
need to search for the m a x i m u m possible unification among
fundamental interactions, are still highly skeptical of the
actual possibility of achieving the ultimate field theory (able
to unify all physical phenomena), and even deem such a
"Theory of Everything" devoid of any meaning. In this
respect, a more concrete and viable goal would be, instead,
to find suitable methods for generating new (possibly more
general) unification schemes, based on already consolidated
physical frameworks, able to account for the growing mass
of experimental data.
As to the generation of such unified theories, one of the
possible mechanisms is that of generalization, namely, one
starts from a given theory, whose meaning and physical
consequences are well explored within a given domain, and
tries to extend its principles and its formal apparatus to a
n e w domain. Such a process can be implemented in m a n y
different ways, for instance by increasing the number of field
variables (with respect to the original theory), by changing
further spatial or temporal dimensions, by adding to linear
terms new nonlinear contributions, and so on. In m a n y
cases, the generalization procedure was applied to the
electromagnetic (e.m.) field theory or to some gauge theory.
There are definite reasons for such a choice. Indeed,
needless to say, any attempt to set up unified schemes m u s t
take into account the incontrovertible fact t h a t gauge
theories presently constitute the skeleton of the m o d e r n
models of fundamental interactions, such as the already
quoted Glashow-Weinberg-Salam unification of e.m. and
weak forces, q u a n t u m chromodynamics (QCD), 14) and, at a
more speculative level, GUTs 12) and superstrings. 15) More-
over, starting from the work by Kibble and Utiyama, (6) it was
realized that general relativity (GR) could also be viewed as
a gauge theory. 17-~~
As is well known, the basic features of a unified-gauge
field theory are all present in a nutshell in the M a x w e l l -
Faraday-Amp6re theory of the e.m. field. Indeed, e.m. theory
constitutes the most successful example of unified-field
theory (as far as the electric and m a g n e t i c fields are con-
cerned) and a prototype of gauge theory. Therefore, the
m e t h o d s and principles that are at the very basis of the
construction of electrodynamics prove very promising, if
suitably generalized, in order to get a generation scheme for
a whole class of unified theories. In a certain sense, this has
been done w h e n building the well-known gauge-unified
theories. There has not always been, however, a diffuse
awareness of this fact, nor a systematic m e t h o d in the

61
Electromagnetic-Like Generation of Unified-Gauge Theories
various attempts. This perhaps occurred owing to the
traditionally used Lagrangian approach (which is, on the
other hand, the most suitable one w h e n dealing with
q u a n t u m fields) that somewhat diverted the attention from
the field equations, the level of description where unification
actually takes place. In this paper, we want to carry out a
critical analysis of the structure of e.m. field equations
within a gauge-theoretical framework. Such a reexamination
of Maxwell's theory will shed new light on some of its basic
properties, and allow us to get a set of general principles,
which are the foundations of a systematic (although particu-
lar) scheme for generating unified-field theories. Conse-
quently, the class of unified-gauge theories generated by
means of such an approach will be denoted by the attribute
"'e.m.- (or Maxwellian- ) like."
We remark that such an analysis can be done by adopting
two different approaches. The goal can be the search for the
most abstract and general properties of the systems under
study. Within the context of gauge theories, this amounts to
exploiting the powerful mathematical methods of the
m o d e r n theory of gauge fields, viewed as linear connections
on vector bundles. (n) On the other hand, a given system can
have different possible representations, w h i c h - - a l t h o u g h
equivalent at the abstract mathematical level--are actually
different from the physical viewpoint, as some representa-
tions are more "natural" t h a n others. An example of this
second approach is provided by the methods used in field
theory. In this paper, we will take the latter view, due to the
relevance we feel to be attached to representation-dependent
features in gauge theories. Therefore, the contributions
coming from the differential-geometric formalism, even if of
utmost importance to the understanding of the most general
structure of gauge theories, will not be exploited in this
paper.
The content of the paper is as follows. In Section 2 we
revisit the Maxwell e.m. theory, with emphasis on its
"geometrical" features. This allows us to single out five
fundamental principles, which can be used to build up any
(e.m.-like) gauge theory. Such principles (essentially based
on the different orders of commutators among covariant
derivatives) are exposed in Section 3. In Section 4 we
emphasize the role of the equivalence concept in electromag-
netism, and the need, in general, to consider on equal
footing both fields and sources (i.e., to consider Maxwell's
theory as a "'system theory"). In Section 5 we show that the
e.m. fundamental principles are connected in a natural way
to the commutative diagrams of the various orders that
relate the relevant operators involved in the e.m. theory.
Actually, the ensuing scheme (which we call symbolic gauge
theory (SGT)) turns out to be a branch of thegeneralsystem
logical theory (GSLT), (12) a mathematical formalism (essen-
tially arising from the fusion of the logical theory of systems,
the theory of categories, and the He theory) that already has
a number of applications in a variety of fields (from system
theory to neural networks to cognitive processes ).(13) Section
6 deals with the gauge-theoretical aspects of GR, whose
62
basic equations can also be derived from the five basic
postulates of electromagnetism. Section 7 is concerned w i t h
the problem of deriving, in our approach, the equations
satisfied by the sources of the gauge field. In Section 8,
which concludes the paper, we summarize the general
scheme that permits the construction of unified-gauge
theories of the e.m. kind.
2. E.M. F I E L D E Q U A T I O N S
2.1 G l o b a l I n v a r i a n c e R e v i s i t e d
As is well known (and already stressed above), electro-
magnetism is a U( 1 ) gauge theory, and constitutes the most
succesful example of unified-field theory (of electricity and
magnetism). Moreover, the quanta of the e.m. field are spin-
1 bosons. This is apparently a c o m m o n feature of all funda-
mental interactions, which appear to be carried by integer-
spin bosons, at least in first approximation (we disregard
here reasoning like that employed in supergravity theories).
Therefore, in this respect, too, the e.m. interaction is a
"typical" one.
To our aim, let us also recall another important feature of
the e.m. theory, namely its invariance properties. Electro-
magnetism is endowed with both a global invariance, i.e.,
Lorentz invariance, and a local invariance, i.e., gauge
invariance. The following f u n d a m e n t a l question t h e n arises:
Is the unifying power of e.m. field equations due to Lorentz
invariance (global feature) or to gauge invariance (local
feature)? In other words, we would like to know whether, in
order to generalize the e.m. theory, it is better to act on the
global or the local structure of the theory.
The (expected) answer is: It is due to both of them.
Indeed, they are deeply interrelated, as it can be seen, e.g.,
by the fact that some global properties of the e.m. theory
follow from gauge invariance (like conservation of electric
charge, a consequence of the U(1) formulation of gauge
invariance through Noether's theorem). This implies that, for
instance, a way of building a particular "branch" of the
"tree" of e.m.-like unified theories would be that of consider-
ing a global invariance more general t h a n the usual relativis-
tic one (i.e., invariance groups that are "coverings" of the
Lorentz one) and then trying to write e.m.-like equations
covariant to those new groups. This approachwas systemati-
cally explored mainly by Arcidiacono. (~4) He started from the
usual Maxwell equations, written in the standard four-
dimensional form
Div Fik = Jk, Rot Fik = 0 (1)
(i, k = 1..... 4) and observed that their dual equations
R~ = Jikz, DivHik = 0 (2)
(where Hik is the dual of Fik and Jikl is the dual of Jk) retain
the same form (except t h a t the indices vary from 1 to 3)

when one takes the three-dimensional electrostatic field
equations and writes their duals. This suggests that the dual
equations (2) represent a general class of e.m.-like equations
that is independent of the number of space dimensions.
Because (2), w h e n the indices vary from 1 to n, is invariant
to the group of n-dimensional rotations, it is e n o u g h - - i n
order to build a particular e.m.-like unified theory via such
a global approach--to (i) fix the number n of space dimen-
sions, (ii) take the n-dimensional rotation group as invari-
ance group, and (iii) write the n-dimensional version of (2).
In some cases, it is possible to map (of course, in a nonlinear
way) the n-dimensional rotation group into a suitable
invariance group of the four-dimensional space-time. Then
one can, at least in principle, get a decomposition of the
generalized equations (2) in such a way as to recognize what
fields are actually unified into the whole n-dimensional field
tensor Hik, and give t h e m a physical interpretation. This
program was carried out for the case of the five-dimensional
rotation group (isomorphic to the well-known group of
motions into itself of the de Sitter four-dimensional space-
time ). It was shown (~4) that the five-dimensional form of (2)
can be interpreted as a unified theory of the e.m. and the
relativistic h y d r o d y n a m i c a l fields. However, in higher
dimensions, great difficulties arise, owing to the lack of
reduction techniques permitting one to represent the n-
dimensional rotation group in a four-dimensional form.
Despite the efforts of m a n y authors, 1151such as Arcidiacono
and Pessa (16) for the six-dimensional case, the problem is
still open.
A further possible alternative approach would be to search
for suitable generalizations of Maxwell's equations. Such a
line of thought was pioneered by L. de Broglie, 1171with his
celebrated m e t h o d of "fusion" of spin 1/2 particles. In recent
years, a proposal of nonlinear generalizations of Maxwell's
equations, possibly related to nonlinear optics, and predict-
ing the existence of n e w e.m. fields, has been put forward by
Evans et al.( 181 However, we will not deal with such topics in
the present paper.
2.2 Local Invariance
The situation exposed above suggests we take another,
complementary, line of attack, by focusing our attention on
gauge-theoretical (local) arguments. We will repeat old (and
universally k n o w n ) reasoning, trying, however, to shed new
light on them. To this aim, let us start by introducing a
complex scalar field r to Lorentz transformations
and a function of the space-time coordinates x = (x, x4). We
shall call this field the s u b s t r a t u m . Therefore, from the
mathematical point of view, the substratum is an element of
the functional space on w h i c h the relevant operators of the
theory act. The choice of its transformation properties
amounts to fixing the representation of the Lorentz group we
are considering (for instance, as we shall see, a scalar
substratum corresponds to a Klein-Gordon (KG) field).
Moreover, it acts as a source of any interaction we will
introduce in the future. Although the physical meaning of
the substratum must be recognized within the specific
R. Mignani, E. Pessa, and G. Resconi
framework considered (some concrete examples will be
given in Section 6 for GtL and in Section 7.1 for electromag-
netism), it represents, in general, a source field, and, as such,
it obeys some Lorentz-covariant equation (to be specified
later on; see Section 7). Further remarks on the role and the
meaning of the substratum can be found in Sections 3 and 4.
If we require that the field equation obeyed by r be
invariant also with respect to local gauge transformations (of
the second kind) of the type (c = h = 1 )
~,,= eO#(*)~, ~-,= e-O#(*)~- (3)
(where the bar denotes complex conjugation, g is the charge,
and r the gauge function), t h e n it is easy to show that the
invariance is preserved by substituting the ordinary
derivatives ~ with the generalized (covariant) derivatives D t
given by
Dt~ --- O t ~ - i g A t w , D z ~ - =- 0 1 ~ + i g A t ~ - , (4)
where the compensating field A i transforms, u n d e r (3), accord-
ing to the gauge transformation
A~ = A i + ~.qk. (5)
The obvious interpretation o f A i is its identification w i t h the
e.m. 4-vector potential (a geometrical derivation of (4) and ( 5 )
will be given in Section 5).
Then, let us consider the commutator of two covariant
derivatives (4). By elementary calculations one gets the
formula
[Di,Dk] u = igFik u (6)
where
Fik = O i A k - o~ (7)
This relation entitles one to interpret Fik as the e.m. field
tensor.
Taking into account the well-known Jacobi identity
satisfied by the covariant derivatives D i
{ [D i, [D k , D r ] ] + [D r , [D i , D k ] ] + [D,, [D r, D i ] ] } u = O, (8)
we find immediately, substituting (6) into (8),
Rot Ffk -- 0. (9)
63
Electromagnetic-Like Generation of Unified-Gauge Theories
Usually (9) is considered as the integrabflity conditions,
ensuring the solvability of the equations of motion
(which--as we shall see later; cf. ( 11 )--connect the field to
its external sources). Indeed, (9) is the condition ensuring
the existence of a potential for the field tensor Fii. Once the
existence of solutions of the motion equations is assured, (9)
follows from t h e m as nothing more t h a n a trivial mathemat-
ical consequence. On the other hand, we can adopt a differ-
ent approach and regard (9) as describing the interaction
between electric and magnetic field components, and
therefore as expressing the degree of unification between the
two kinds of fields. From such a standpoint, (9) may well be
considered the essential core of the e.m. field theory, i.e.
(following the opinion of m a n y authors, such as
Sommerfeldllg)), the "true" e.m. field equations, for two
m a i n reasons:
( 1 ) Only this group of equations describes the interaction
b e t w e e n electric and magnetic fields.
(2) The "divergence" equations, if we emphasize the role of
the field, are, essentially, nothing but a definition of w h a t
we take as "sources" of the electric and magnetic fields,
respectively. However, if, on the other hand, we rather
emphasize the role of sources, the theory requires the
introduction from outside of elements extraneous to the
e.m. field. While using, in the following, a mathematical
formalism (that of GSLT) that, by its very nature, em-
phasizes the role of fields, we don't carry such a view-
point to its extreme consequences, and acknowledge the
need to introduce external sources of the e.m. field.
Namely, the nature of the sources, in our present approach,
cannot, in principle, be determined by the Maxwell field equa-
tions, but must be deduced on a phenomenological basis
(from the experiments ).
We could ask ourselves, however, if the gauge mechanism
(based on the introduction of the covariant derivatives and
on their commutators) is also able to yield the group of
"divergence" equations. The answer, of course, is yes. To this
end, let us define a "current" d k through the commutator of
covariant derivatives by the relation
{[Dt,[Dk,Dt]l}u = igJku (10)
By substituting (6) into (10), we get
DivF/k= Jk, (11)
i.e., the "divergence" equations. The current-like behavior of
Jk follows trivially from the fact that it satisfies a continuity
equation, which is none other t h a n the integrability condi-
tion associated with ( 11 ):
4J; = o (12)
64
(which is also the differential expression of the charge conser-
vation law). We stress that ( 10)--or ( 11 )----cannot be read as a
specification of the nature of the external sources, which can
only be achieved on a phenomenological (experimental)
basis. It only states w h a t is the form of the left-hand side of
the divergence equations containing only the field variables.
Let us remark, at this point, that the above gauge-theoreti-
cal methods imply a sort of hierarchy. Indeed, the e.m. field
potential is defined through zero-order commutators of the
covariant derivatives {i.e., through the derivatives them-
selves), the field tensor is defined t h r o u g h first-order usual
commutators, and the field equations are determined by the
identities they must satisfy; finally, the formal structure of
the left-hand side of the divergence equations is defined
through second-order commutators (i.e., commutators
between a covariant derivative and a first-order commuta-
tor). We could ask ourselves: Why stop such a hierarchy at
this point? To answer, let us consider the identity to be
satisfied by the second-order commutators. By using reason-
ing entirely analogous to that leading to the Jacobi identity,
it is very easy to show that they m u s t satisfy a sort of
generalized Jacobi identity of the following kind:
{[Di,[Dk,[Dr,Ds]]]+ [Ds,[Di,[D*,Dr]]]
+[Dr,[Ds,[Di,Dk]]]+[Dk,[Dr,[Ds,Di]]]}u (13)
= {[[Di,Dr],[Dk,Ds]]} u .
By contracting first on the indices k and s, and then on the
indices i and k, after some manipulation we find (on account
also of (6) and ( 11 )) the following relation:
DiJ r = -DiDkF?, (14)
which is nothing but the application of the covariant deriva-
tive to both members of ( 11 ). The identity satisfied by the
second-order commutators, therefore, does not provide any
new field equation, but is trivially satisfied and, as such, does
not add any new information. This circumstance justifies the
stopping of the hierarchy of the gauge mechanism at the
point where we arrived.
Let us add a final remark about the role of global
invariance (in this case, Lorentz invariance). If ~behaves like
a scalar under Lorentz transformations, it follows immedi-
ately that the full covariance of the substratum field equa-
tions is achieved if and only if the compensating field A i
behaves like a 4-vector under Lorentz transformations. From
this fact there follows the Lorentz covariance of the e.m. field
equations. In other word s, the global invariance properties of
the compensating field and of the field equations are
determined uniquely by the preexisting invariance of the
substratum field equations, and not vice versa. It is the
interaction field that inherits the global invariance properties
of the sources.

From the simple analysis we carried out above, it is
possible to extract some fundamental principles, which
should constitute the basis for building a particular class of
e.m.-like field theories. In the next section we will list t h e m
in a systematic fashion.
3. THE F U N D A M E N T A L PRINCIPLES
The results obtained in the previous section have been so
easy to derive and to physically interpret owing only to the
choice of a I.orentz-invariant (scalar) substratum. Had we
chosen a different substratum, with different covariance
properties, the theory would be radically different. To see
this point, let us consider a substratum represented by a
Lorentz-covariant 4-vector ~.. If we require the invariance of
the substratum field equations with respect to gauge
transformations of the type
~u' = ei'~lx)g,,, (15)
which are a gauge version of the general linear group with
= { ~rk(x)} being a dimensionless matrix and ~ = { ~k} a
column vector, it is easy to see that the covariant derivative
takes the following generalized form:
Dig/k = Oig/k - F~ig/ r, (16)
and new types of compensating fields F k i r appear. Then, the
other relations derived by the gauge mechanism also change
radically. For instance, for the connection between the field
tensor and the potentials, cumbersome calculations yield the
result
$ m
[Di, Dk ]~'r = - R n ~ $ + (F/~ - Fki )Drag~r,
m
(17)
where the "field" Rrik$ now reads
e -k = 4 c d k - & G s m - FmkF
+ FmiFrk s n.m9 (18)
As is easily seen, the situationis very different from what we
encountered in the case of a scalar substratum; here we have
no unique way to choose what is to be considered the field
tensor.
As a consequence of the above discussion, we can there-
fore state the first fundamental principle:
(i) Every e.m.-like unified theory requires a preliminary
specification of the nature of the substratum, i.e., of its
global and local invariance properties.
Concerning the field potential, it is natural to adopt the
following second fundamental principle:
R. Mignani, E. Pessa, a n d G. Resconi
(ii)The field potentials are the compensating fields t h a t
appear in the definition of the generalized (covariant)
derivative. They share with the substratum the global
invariance properties.
As already stressed above, the form of (17) gives rise to a
difficult problem as regards the choice of the quantities that
should play the role of field tensors. Namely, we could say
that both the proportionality coefficients of the linear term
in the substratum field and of the linear term in its covariant
derivative can as well represent field tensors (of different
nature, of course). Such a point of view would imply a
growth of the number of field tensors with an increasing
complexity of the substratum gauge-transformation proper-
ties. An alternative position is viewing the term containing
Dmr r on the right-hand side of (17) as a source term con-
nected to the substratum field. In this way the field equa-
tions involve again only a single kind of field tensor, but they
contain additional source terms arising from the substratum
and its interaction with the field potentials. Although, from
a more formal point of view, both positions are a priori
equivalent, we think this second standpoint is more in tune
with the Maxwellian one. By this token, we are led to adopt
the following third fundamental principle:
(iii) The field tensors have to be identified with the propor-
tionality coefficients of the part of the commutator
between generalized derivatives that is linear in the
substratum field.
According to this interpretation, for example, quantity Rn.ks
given by ( 18 ) is the "right" field tensor in the theory we have
briefly sketched before (cf. (17)). However, in general, the
relation between field tensors and potentials m a y become
very complicated.
As to the field equations, we propose the fourth fundamental
principle:
(iv)The field equations describing the field interactions are
given by the dacobi identity satisfied by first-order
commutators of covariant derivatives.
Finally, the definition of the "divergence" part of the field
equations (ultimately related to the phenomenological
current) is provided, in general (in analogy with the field
tensor), by the fifth fundamental principle:
(v) The divergence part of the field equations is given by the
coefficients of the part of the contracted second-order
commutator that is linear in the substratum field.
Such a definition is a generalization of the usual one of
divergence in Maxwell's theory. Some comments about the
last two principles are in order. First of all, recall that the
fourth principle has to be considered only as a guiding one
for selecting the right field equations, mainly in non-Abelian
65
Electromagnetic-Like Generation of Unified-Gause Theories
gauge theories. Indeed, as is well known, the connection
between field tensor and potentials in those theories is not
a mere consequence of the field equations themselves, but
m u s t be postulated from the beginning through a suitable
principle (like our third one).
Concerning the fifth principle, it must be stressed once
again that it provides only mathematical information about
the form (in particular, the transformation properties ) of the
current; it therefore must be supplemented by the
phenomenological information regarding the very nature of
the physical sources.
Then, our formalism provides a general theoretical setting,
which specifies completely the field behavior in absence of
sources, such as in the case of e.m. waves (free fields) or for
the Einstein equations in vacuum, w h e n the fields them-
selves act as sources. However, an attempt at formally
introducing sources in our scheme by a suitable construction
procedure is discussed later on (see Section 7).
By exploiting these five principles, it is possible to build
another " b r a n c h " of the "tree" of e.m.-like unified-field
theories. As is easily seen, the only arbitrariness is in the
choice of the substratum (first principle). This amounts to
fixing (a) the tensorial (or spinorial) properties of the
substratum field @under the global covariance group and
(b) the explicit form of the second-kind gauge transforma-
tions. Once the choice of the substratum has been made, the
explicit form of the theory follows uniquely from mathemati-
cal considerations. Then, in a sense, the first postulate
provides the physical input of the gauge-unified theory. In the
next section, we shall give a categorical representation of
principles (ii)-(v) (in terms of commutative diagrams),
which emphasizes their geometrical (topological) nature.
4. T H E R O L E OF T H E S U B S T R A T U M AND THE
EQUIVALENCE CONCEPT: M AXWELL'S THEORY
AS A SYSTEM THEORY
From the previous discussion, we can now consider ways
that m a y help to darify our mathematical approach to gauge
theories.
The first argument to be t a k e n i n t o account deals with the
fact that, as is well k n o w n , e.m. field equations can be
derived both from invariance w i t h respect to local gauge
transformations and from invariance with respect to global
Lorentz transformations. Whereas the meaning of the
Lorentz transformations is very dear, w h a t is the deep
physical meaning of the local gauge ones? Why should we
require aninvariance of the substratum field equations with
respect to phase transformations acting on a dependent
variable?
The answer is easily found provided we identify the (local)
e.m. interaction with a perturbation of the substratum it self.
Let us consider the analogy w i t h a vibrating string. The
string itself acts as a s u b s t r a t u m whose state is locally
described by a function h(x, t) specifying the local deviation
of the string with respect to a given reference curve (e.g., a
straight line). W h e n the string is perturbed, the perturbation
66
travels along it, carrying information from one point of the
string to another. The effect of the perturbation on the local
value of h(x, t) is simply to multiply it by a suitable scalar
function ofx and t. How can we describe the string by means
of a formalism invariant with respect to the action of a
traveling perturbation? Simply byimposing that the substra-
t u m equations be invariant with respect to the multiplication
of the dependent state variable by the scalar factor. This is
nothing but a requirement of gauge invariance.
We are then forced to conclude that the derivability of
(local) e.m. field equations from gauge invariance implies
that the (local) e.m. field is equivalent to a scalar s u b s t r a t u m
perturbation.
It is to be remarked that, strictly speaking, local gauge
invariance allows one to derive the equations of an e.m. field
of local nature, i.e., spread over a space-time region whose
size is of the same order as the perturbation discussed above.
Such a field should be denoted by the attribute "local," even
if it could give rise to macroscopic effects. It is well known,
on the other hand, that the usual Maxwell equations are
invariant with respect to global Lorentz transformations. We
could, then, adopt an approach entirely different from the
previous one, starting from Lorentz transformations and
identifying as e.m. field equations just the equations (en-
dowed with suitable mathematical and physical features)
that are invariant to those transformations. Such equations
should be better qualified as "global" e.m. field equations,
because their derivation is connected to the requirement of
invariance with respect to a suitable global transformation.
Of course, we have to assume they hold even in the micro-
scopic domain. We underline that, a priori, these two
different methods of derivation conld yield different forms
of the e.m. field equations. This does not occur due to
( 1 ) the deliberate choice of a gauge-invariance mechanism
able to yield "local" e.m. equations having the same form
as the "global" equations, and
(2) the absence of any experimental evidence of t w o differ-
ent forms of electromagnetism, valid, respectively, in the
macroscopic and in the microscopic realm.
Let us stress, in this connection, t h a t the fact that global
e.m. fields behave like locale.m, fields provides us with some
insights on the nature of the substratum itself. Namely,
global fields can be derived from local ones only through a
process of integration of the various local contributions.
GeneraLly such a process can be carried out only if some
regularity conditions (such as, e.g., integrability conditions )
are satisfied. These conditions, however, are nothing, in
essence, but the description of the substratum itself. So our
formalism, centered on the choice of the substratum and of
the local gauge transformations describing its perturbations,
yields automatically precise conditions on the substratum
field equations.
Why should such an approach be more useful t h a n the
usual ones, which, at least as far as electromagnetism is
 R. Mignani, E. Pessa, and G. Resconi

concerned, give the same results? The answer is that, in this
context, the substratum and its disturbances are viewed as
a whole, namely as a s y s t e m to be treated in a unified way. In
our opinion, such a unified approach could allow a better
understanding of the physical properties of this system.
Let us remark that the choice of a systemic point of view,
which deals with both sources and fields on the same
footing, requires a n e w language able to speak about the
equivalence concept in the most general fashion. Namely, in
order to build an invariant description of the substratum, we
must, first of all, introduce suitable state variables to
describe the substratum itself, and operators (acting on
those variables ) that represent the substratum transforma-
tions. Moreover, we have to define a general form of equiva-
lence between the operations acting on the substratum state
variables in the absence of perturbations and the operations
acting w h e n s u b s t r a t u m disturbances are present. In our
opinion, this can be achieved using a language like that of
category theory (the most abstract way to speak of equiva-
lence ), expressed in terms of graphical representations based
on commutative diagrams. We shall discuss such a formal
aspect of our approach in the next section.
5. COMMUTATIVE DIAGRAMS AND E.M.-LIKE
THEORIES
the e.m. equations, and of the basic principles derived in
Section 3, with the commutative diagrams of the SGT, which
thus yields a sort of "geometrical representation" of the
Maxwell theory.
5.1 Z e r o L e v e l o f SGT
The simplest symbolic structure, or zero level of SGT, is the
t r a n s f o r m a t i o n operator that we represent by the arrow in
Fig. 1, where X and Y are, respectively, the domain and the
codomain of the operator T. In the case of gauge theories
~ x ) is the field of the substratum and T(~) is a gauge
transformation (with ~(x) being the phase). The elementary
diagram in Fig. 1 represents therefore the first principle,
which describes the assumed physical properties of the
substratum.
5.2 First L e v e l o f SGT
The first level of SGT for the e.m. theory is given by the
commutative diagram in Fig. 2, where 4 = 0/0x~ is the
ordinary derivative. The explicit expression ofD k is obtained
by the identity of the two paths represented by the vertical
sides of Fig 2, i.e.,
D k T(~a)u = T(~a) 4 u (19)
or

In light of the considerations exposed in the previous

section, we want to show that it is possible to give a repre-
Dk T(cp) ~ = 4 T(cp)~ + T ( ~ ) 4 ~ / - 4 T(cp)~
sentation of the f u n d a m e n t a l principles at the very founda- (20)
tion of gauge theories by means of a categorical approach = 4 T(~)~ + [T(~), 4 ]~,
based on the technique of commutative diagrams. 12~
We have already explained the main reason whereby we where [,] is the Lie product. From (20) it follows that
introduce the formalism of categories: indeed, it constitutes
the most general l a n g u a g e - - a n d its commutative diagrams
the easiest w a y - - t o represent operator relationships w h e n D k = d k + [T(~),dk]T--'(~). (21)
we need to take into account the role of equivalence.
More rigorously, we will exploit the formal apparatus of Putting
the GSLT by Resconi and Jessel, tu) which results from the
fusion of three mathematical structures: the logical theory of
systems, 121) the categorical algebra, and the Lie algebra. i
Ak = -7 [T(q~),8 k ]T-l(q~), (22)
Loosely speaking, GSLT can be considered a "dynamical"
version of the theory of categories. SGT is the application of
GSLT to gauge theory.
The main advantages of SGT (besides those, common to we get
any categorical approach, already stressed above) are the
following. First, it is a very general, formal scheme that can
be applied to a n y k i n d of gauge theory. Second, it allows one D k = r k -igA k, (23)
to derive (in the case of already existing gauge theories ) both
the usual, well-known relations, and new, more general i.e., the covariant derivative (4). Therefore, Ak can be identi-
equations, which, of course, m u s t be experimentally tested fied with the 4-vector field potential (in absence of sources;
(an example for GR is given in Mignarti et al.;(22,2~) see also see below). In particular, for the gauge transformation (3),
Section 6). Moreover, it is a powerful tool to infer the we obtain
structure of new gauge theories. For instance, it gives rise in
a natural way to the already stressed "hierarchical structure"
of e.m.-like unified-gauge theories. 122m) A k = ~gktp. (24)

In the e.m. case, we w a n t merely to recover the standard

M a x w d l i a n relations, and to show the deep connection of Equation (24) is nothing but the original result obtained by

67
Electromagnetic-Like Generation of Unified-Gauge Theories
T T(qo)
X ~. Y
Figure 1. Zero-level diagram of SGT.
Wey1(24) w h e n he introduced gauge invariance. In fact, it
expresses the e.m. 4-potential as a "connection" (i.e., the
gradient of a suitable scalar field). Clearly, (24) corresponds
to a null e.m. field tensor, Fik = O.
The result of a null field is obviously due to the fact
that the commutative diagram in Fig. 2 does not contain any
information on sources (which, at this stage, m a y give rise
to a non-null field). Indeed, by its very nature, Fig. 2 pro-
vides information only on the local (gauge) transformation
properties of the e.m. fields.
In the presence of sources, there is an underlying vector
field A k (with corresponding field tensor tTik ~ 0), and its
transformation properties are therefore given by
A~ = Ak +G~, (25)
i.e., the usual gauge transformation of the field potential.
Thus, the second principle of e.m.-like gauge theories is
represented by the first-level diagram of SGT in Fig. 2.
5.3 S e c o n d L e v e l o f SGT
At the second level the symbolic diagram of SGT is given
in Fig. 3,1 wb.ich represents in a symbolic way a set of
identities among the operators.
It is easily seen that the commutative diagram in Fig. 2 is
a subdiagram of Fig. 3, so that (20) and (21) still hold.
Moreover, we have n e w commutative diagrams, whence we
can derive ftrst of all the meaning of the operators d', d ". We
have
d~'T(~)g = T(~)CTkg,
d~T(~)g = T(~)dh~, (26)
d~'T(~)g = T ( ~ ) G ~ .
On account of (20) and (21 ), we get
d~' = c7k + [T(q~),Sk ]T(~o) -1 = D k ,
c7~ = d h + [T(@),dhlT(@)-I = Dh, (27)
~ ' = 0 h + [T(q~),Oh]T(~o) -1 = D h.
Then, the second-level diagram in Fig. 3 takes the form
shown in Fig. 4.
Moreover, we get, for the operator D,
D D h T u = DrD h Tgz + [ D h , D k ] T u (28)
68
T(q0)
Okl~ ) DkT(q~)~
Figure 2. First-level diagram of SGT for the e.m. case.
The commutation relations of the covariant derivatives give
[D h , V k ]Tip" = (tYaA k - 8kA h )Tgl
(29)
= FhkTgz,
i.e., the antisymmetric e.m. field tensor. Then, the operator
D reads
D D h T u = (D k + F h k D h l ) D h T u
(30)
D = D k + FhkDh x,
i.e., V represents the departure from the covariant derivative
Pk due to the field Fak (P = P k for Fhk = 0). The second level
of SGT is therefore connected to the third f u n d a m e n t a l
principle.
5.4 Third L e v e l o f SGT
The extension of the SGT to the third level is obtained by
suitably joining two second-level diagrams as in Fig. 5.
The two second-level diagrams yield the same rules
derived before, whereas the operators joining t h e m provide
us with new identities involving both of them. Let us note
that increasing the order of the levels produces a sort of
"Chinese-box" structure, in the sense that the new diagram
contains as subsets all the other levels.
We get, from the b o t t o m second-level diagram in Fig. 5,
D21DhT u = D k D h T u + [ D h , D k ] T u
(31)
= (DkD h + Fhk ) T u
D 2 2 D j T u = D k D j T u + [ D j , D k ]Tu
(32)
= (DkDj +Fjk)Tr
D'2'zDyT u = D h D j T u + [ D j , D h ] T u
(33)
= (DhD~ + Fib)We,
and
 R. Mignani, E. Pessa, a n d G. Resconi

T(go)

Oh T(~o) 0,. ]
0hqJ ) D'hT0J ( T~

Ok t

Ok~
1

Oh
)
t , O"k

OkOhqI D"kD"hT ~
C~"h
( D"kTq~

T(~o)
>

Figure 3. Second-level diagram of SGT for the e.m. case.

5.5 Dual Diagrams and Electric Current

D'2'IDjDkT u = DhDjDkT u + [DjD k,Dh]Tu
= D hDiD k Tu + Dj [Dk , D h ]Tu + [Dj, D h ]Dk Tu
= DhDjDkTu +[Dk,Dh]DjTu +[Dj,Dh]DkTu (34)
+[Dj [Dk, D h ]]Tu
= (DhDjD k + FkhD j + FjhD k + igdykh )Tu
where
We stressed at the end of Section 3 that our formalism
permits only the derivation of the divergence part of the
equations related to the physical, phenomenological current,
and that sources must be introduced from experimental
information. However, we want to show that the formalism
of SGT allows one to get information at least on the formal
structure of the electric current. Indeed, let us consider the
three-dimensional diagram in Fig. 6.
The equation associated with Fig. 6 is

[D y [D k, D a ]] = igJ jkh. (35) DkD'aDjT(~)~ = D k D h D j T ( ~ ) ~

(38)
+[D kD j D h - D k D hD j ]T(~)u

When k = h we get the ordinary e.m. current, i.e., (35)

becomes where

DkFjk = J j . (36)
[DkDjD h - DkDhDj]T((a)r = Dk[Dj,Dh]T(fa)~. (39)

Moreover, we also have

D i d ] = 0.
The third level of SGT introduces the third-order commu-
tators of covariant derivatives. It is easy to show by direct
calculation that the Jacobi identity holds (however, a
geometric derivation based on the topology of Fig. 5 is also
possible; see Mignani et al.(22)), leading in the e.m. case to
relation (9), i.e., the true e.m. field equations. Therefore, the
third level of SGT is related to the fourth and fifth funda-
mental principles.
In the categorical formalism, to any commutative diagram of
a given order it is possible to associate its dual, i.e., the
(37) diagram with the same elements and the same structure but
where the direction of any arrow is inverted. In particular,
the dual of Fig. 6 is given by Fig. 7, whence we derive the
equation
DjD'aD k T(fa )r = D i D hD k T(~ )r
(40)
+ [DhDjD k - DjDhD k ] T ( ~ ) u
with

69
Electromagnetic-Like Generation of Unified-Gauge Theories

T(~o)
),

Oh 0hW
T(ho)
) DhT~ (
Dh
T~
I
Ok t 1
t O'k T(q~) D'kt
0k0hIP ) DkDhTtII ( DkT~F
Dh
T(q))
) I
Figure 4. Modified form of the second-level diagram, obtained on account of the first-level relations.

[DhD j -DjDh]DkT(~)~ = [Dh,Dj]DkT(tp)u (41) presence of matter, one gets, generally speaking, a theory
with a nonvanishing torsion tensor (i.e., a gravitational
theory as in Cartan (25)). In our opinion, it is largely a matter
The superposition of the two commutators in (39) and (41) of opinion to consider the occurrence of torsion either in
yields harmony or not with the principles underlying GR. We recall
only that generalizations of GRin which torsion is connected
to the spin of matter have b e e n constructed by m a n y
(D k [Dj, D h ] - [D j , D h]D k )T((o )~ = [D k, [D j , D h ] ]T((,o)u (42) authors, such as Hehl, Datta, Trautman, and others, (26}
without conflicting with k n o w n experimental facts.
Following the same lines of Section 3, let us start with the
where the right-hand side is to be compared with (35). After definition of covariant derivatives for GR. First of all, they
contraction of the indices h, k, and on account of (35), we coincide with ordinary derivatives for every scalar field rib(x).
can therefore define two electrical currents--differing in This forces us to consider a more complicated substratum; in
sign--as follows: this connection, we have two possibilities: (1) a scalar
density ~(x), with weight w, for which the covariant deriva-
tive reads
Dh[D j,Dh ] = i,gJ (1)j,
(43)
[D j, D h ]D h = -i,.qJ(2)j" Di~=4~'-wF~.~, (44)

The current we measure (Yj in (36)) is therefore the sum of where the Fk/ are the Christoffel symbols; and (2) a
two different currents, each opposite to the other. covariant vector qbi, for w h i c h the covariant derivative is
Therefore, the formalism of SGT predicts, in a given by
straightfoward w a y - - t h r o u g h the concept of dual dia-
g r a m s - the existence of two electrical currents, and then of D,#k = - r i6. (45)
two charges of opposite sign.

6. GR AS A GAUGE THEORY
In this section, w e w a n t to discuss t h e gauge-theoretical
aspects of GIL e m p h a s i z i n g its features in the f r a m e w o r k of
our approach. (22"23)
First of all, let us r e m a r k t h a t t h e r e are some p r o b l e m s
c o n c e r n i n g t h e f o r m u l a t i o n o f GR as a Poincar6 gauge
t h e o r y . (6'w) Indeed, in e m p t y space, this f o r m a l i s m allows us
to recover Einstein's v a c u u m field equations, whereas, in the
It is easy to see that (44) has no universal meaning (because
it depends explicitly on the weight w), and therefore we have
to cord'me ourselves to the second choice (45).
The first basic principle is n o w expressed for GR by the
equation
In,., Dk ]#z = - S T Y # , - (46)

70
 R. Mignani, E. Pessa, and G. Resconi

T(q~)

I Oh
Oi

Oj
II
W ) 0hW ), OjdhW ( aiW T(q~)
T(qo)

dk 2 ~F OR

Oi
c~kW ) OkOhW ) OhOkOjW" < a ajw
Oj
I

Dh Drt21 I
- TDktI/ ) DhDkTtI/ DjDhDkTW ( DjDkTW

TW ) DhTW ) DjDhTW ( DjTW

D"22 I

Figure 5. Third-level diagram of SGT for the e.m. case.

where Rtiks is the Riemarm curvature tensor. If we put CTr~= Contrary to the standard e.m. case (but see (15)-(18)), for
0, (46) gives GR the explicit expression of the field tensor is obtained only
if we impose suitable constraints on the substratum field.
The Jacobi identity for GR reads
[ D i , D k ] # t = -Rl~r
s (47)

[Dt,[Di,Dk]]@ s +[Di,[Dk,DI]]@ s +[Dk,[D1,Di]]@ s = 0. (49)

showing that the field tensor is indeed defined through the
commutator of covariant derivatives (third principle). In fact, Then, m the same hypotheses on ~i, ensuring the validity of
it is well k n o w n that the Riemarm tensor is the field tensor (47), we find, by substituting (47) in (49) and after some
carrying the physical effects of the gravitational field, algebra, the two groups of equations
according to the equation of geodesic deviation:
R:kr +R k = 0, 150al
D2 & l = Rlke&i 6Xk 6X; (48) DIR~.k + Diesrkt + DkRrSti = O. (50b)
Dr 2 dr dr

71
Electromagnetic-Like Generation of Unified-Gauge Theories

Dk

<+Sl:.+.../,i;:,i+ /(.. !<+,+

D:I../.+ 1../.,:
Di ~DID h

Figure 6. Cubic diagram of SGT for the e.m. case. Figure 7. Dual of the diagram of Fig. 6.

Equations (50a) are nothing but an expression of the cyclical and put
symmetry of the Riemann tensor, whereas {50b) coincide
with the well-known Bianchi identities.
Let us stress that the Bianchi identities can be considered / ~ :1' ' 1'1
as the true gravitational field equations for two reasons. =.- : -(~>, o :), -(gq <54)
First, contracting (50b) and taking into account that the
covariant derivative of the metric tensor vanishes, one gets :>, 0 ,0=,,j '
the identity

where the double bar denotes a suitable matrix. Then, it can

Di(Rik _ I gik R) = O (51) be shown, by substituting (52)-(54) into (50b), that the
latter equations become

(R;k = Ricci tensor, R = curvature scalar), which is the basis Rot (F--~))ik= 0, (55)
for the choice of the Einstein field equations. Second, if we
introduce the "electric" and "magnetic" components of the
gravitational field, Fik and Hik, through the definitions m full analogy with the e.m. equation ( 9 ) ( fourth principle ).
Let us n o w consider the gravitational analogue of (10),
which expresses the fifth prindple. We have
Eik = R u ~ , ( 52 a)

1 /+ [Dl,[Dk,Dl l]cJi = ,qv,dsik#s, (56)

Hi k = --~cikt=R,m, (52b)
where ~i is an arbitrary vector. In RiemannJan spaces,
however, (56) is not always true, because it can be easily
shown that
where ca=k is the alternating symbol, (50b) can be regarded
as the dynamical equations describing the interaction
between electric and magnetic components. Indeed, let us [DI, [Dk, DI ] ]•i = D I R~'kl#s + R~Dr #i" (57)
introduce the vector notation
However, by suit ably choosing ~i (owing to it s arbitrarines s ),
we can simplify the situation. It is to be pointed out (as
E;k = ( i ) ; , H,~ = (J~); r already done by Logunov and Denisov 127)) that this occurs

72

because, in GR~ the components of the metric tensor gik
determine b o th the gravitational field (via the Rtemann
tensor) and the space-time metric, so that we cannot write
a true conservation law of nontrivial type in tensorial terms
(namely, this has b e e n done through the introduction of the
so-called gravitational pseudotensor). This means that t he
description of the gravitational field is intrinsically very
different from that of th e e.m. field. We will choose hereafter
the subsidiary condition 2
Dk~; = o. (58)
A first comparison wit h the e.m. case can be m a d e if we
confine ourselves to the linearized gravitational theory, i.e.,
gik = 17ik + hik, hik[ << 1, (59)
where qik is the Minkowski metric tensor. Taking into
account that the linearized theory is gauge invariant, let us
choose a gauge corresponding to the harmonic coordinate
system, n amely
g
ikFlik = 0 . (60)
We introduce also a m a t t e r current Juk given by
G,, =4(Gk-89189 (61)
(T = 7~1).Then, ifg = X = Einstein's constant, ( 56 ) yield s t he
linearized gravitational field equations connecting the field
with its sources:
[]hi~ = 2 z ( Ta - l h ~ r ) . (62)
Therefore, in the linearized case, we have obtained a striking
correspondence b e t w e e n the e.m. and the gravitational field.
However, such a connection can be established also in the
more general, n o n lin ea r case, provided condition (58) still
holds. As an example, let us take the case of conformally flat
spaces, wh er e the Weyl tensor vanishes. In this case, it is
well k n o w n that the Riemarm tensor can be decomposed as
follows:
1 by electromagnetism and gravitation, respectively.
Rr~l = 2 grkRi! - grlR~ - g~Rrl + gilRrk
(63)
R Let us t h e n consider first the former (e.m.) case. B y the
- -- grkgi! - grlgex "
6 continuity equation (12) for the e.m. current, we can state
R. Mignani, E. Pessa, and G. Resconi
Let us define the m a t t e r current as
J~'k = - 5~ gik D sT -- gks DiT" (64)
Then, by (63) and (64) and the identificationg = X, it is easy
to show that (56) can be satisfied only if t h e following
relations hold:
1
Re~ = z ( T~ - -~ ggcT), (65)
which are precisely the Einstein field equations. We r e m a r k
that a similar point of view is generally adopted in literature
w h e n one builds up a Yang-Milis-type t h e o r y of th e gravita-
tional field, which generalizes the Poincar6 gauge the-
ory. 6-~0
The previous examples show that, w h e n the gravitational
field is, in a sense, " f r o z e n " by the r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t it is
indistinguishable from the space-time metric, (56) permits
us to obtain, as in the e.m. case, the true conn e c tio n b e t w e e n
the field and its sources. Therefore, the last f u n d a m e n t a l
principle of e.m.-like gauge theories is satisfied for GR. As to
the representation of GR in terms of SGT diagrams, w e refer
the reader to a previous paper, 22 where a t h r e e - d i m e n s i o n a l
realization of the different SGT levels is given, and to
another previous paper, 23 which exploits a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n
in terms of planar diagrams of the type discussed in Section
5 for the e.m. case.
7. SOURCE-FIELD EQUATIONS
The five f u n d a m e n t a l principles we derived before for the
e.m. case, and confirmed by the gauge-theoretical analysis of
GR, can be used to build up every (e.m.-like) gauge t h e o r y
(in the sense specified in Section 3 ). However, a m o m e n t ' s
thought shows that a further step is still lacking: the
derivation of the equations that describe the sources of the
field. In other words, the scheme summarized b y principles
(i)-(v) of Section 3 yields t he basic equations t h a t rule t h e
gauge field, but tells us n o t h i n g about the equations obeyed
by the sources.
We w ant n o w to show t hat it is indeed possible to give a
construction principle, w h i c h allows one to derive th e field
equations ruling the source behavior.
To this aim, we introduce, first of all, a distinction be-
t w een t h e g a u g e fields considered up to now, w h i c h w e shall
call hencefort h interaction fields, and the source fields.
Of course, we can distinguish two cases: that in w h i c h the
source fields are essentially of q u a n t u m nature, a n d th a t in
which they are purely classical. The two cases are illustrated
7.1 E.M. S o u r c e E q u a t i o n s
73
Electromagnetic-Like Generation of Unified-Gauge Theories

the conservation of charge. As we have seen in Section 5.5, Summing (71a) and (71c) gives
the formalism of SGT (in particular, the concept of dual
diagram) is in agreement w i t h the existence of two kinds of
e.m. charge (positive and negative). We can therefore write v#d'~ = kq,, (73)

Jpd3x = e(N + -N-), (66) whereas, from (71b) and (71d),

where e is the electric charge, p the charge density, and N +, vpd#q~ = k~. (74)
N- are, respectively, the numbers of positively and negatively
charged partides. The n u m b e r N can be deduced from a
suitable "complex- scalar" distribution function ~ x ) by the By applying the operator vpdp to (73), we get
relation

Vp v , d p d u ~ = k u p d p ~p, (75)
N = I ~g/d3x, (67)

which, on account of (74), becomes

so that (66) becomes

vpv#dPdg~ = k2~. (76)

I p,/3x = el (~-+ r - ~_ ~'_)d3x = (68)
p = e(~'+~+ - ~, ~,_),
Of course, the same procedure applied to (74) yields

where the indices + and - label the two different signs of I.)po u~P Ot~~9 = k2 qo. (77)
charge.
We write the e.m. current in the usual (classical) form
In the hypothesis that the off-diagonal terms of the matrix
vpv~ are negligible, (76) and (77) just take the form o f a KG
dx. (69) equation
d u = p v ~, = p d--T-'
D~ = M 2 ~ , (78)
where obviously v~ is not a 4-vectorl
From the continuity equation ( 12 ) it therefore follows that
where we introduce the mass parameter lVl2 = k21v~. The
almost-diagonal form of the velocity matrix vpv~ can be
v J " ( ~ + u - ~-u =0 obtained by suitable assumptions on the nature of the
(70) sources. Let us give some examples. We note that the matrix
off, enters into the definition of the e n e r g y - m o m e n t u m
-(%~"~_)~,_ - (v,d'r = o. tensor of matter

The above equation is identically satisfied by putting

Tvp= 9 u v v p, (79)
(a) v u S a ~ . = kr

(b) v u d ~ , + = k ~ _ , where/z is the mass density. If we assume that the shear

(71)
(c) %d"~-_ = k~,+, forces are zero, it follows that the only nonvamshing compo-
nents of T~oare the diagonal ones, and therefore
(d) v ~ d # ~ _ = k ~ §

w h e r e k is a c o n s t a n t . v . v p - 8 w. (80)
Let us n o w p u t
The same result is obtained if we assume that the matter
~a=~,++~, . (72) does behave as a perfect fluid. In this case,

74

T,,,. : p +-;r--j. (81)
which, in the rest frame of the partide, reduces to
T.v =pGv. (s2)
We note also that v~,vv can be considered as the correlation
matrix between the velocity components. In the absence of
strong correlation among the different components, only the
diagonal part of the matrix survives. This corresponds to a
highly disgregated (chaotic) matter.
The fact that, in order to get the equation satisfied by the
sources, we have to have some suitable hypotheses on their
nature, is in agreement with the very philosophy of our
formalism, w h i c h - - i n this context--is unable to provide
complete information (without some physical input) on the
field sources.
Let us stress that the above results have been obtained by
assuming @is a scalar field. An analogous procedure can in
principle be followed if we assume that the distribution
function ~rtransforms under different representations of the
Lorentz group (for instance, in the spinorial case). We shall
face this problem in our future work.
We can summarize the previous analysis as follows. In an
e.m.-like gauge theory, the current satisfies a continuity
equation, which is nothing but the integrabflity condition of
the field equations. This implies the existence of a conserved
charge. Such a charge is related to a certain quadratic form,
built up by a suitable function. The requirement that the
current, expressed in terms of such a source field, does
indeed satisfy the continuity equation, leads, in a more or
less straightforward way, to the equations obeyed by the
sources. Let us stress once again that such a procedure (as
our approach) is completely independent of the existence of
a Lagrangian function.
As a final point, let us note that the procedure we fol-
lowed for the derivation of the source equations might look
rather ad hoc. However, it must be compared with the
analogous case of a very general formalism where physical
arguments inspire the derivation of the laws, namely the
variational m e t h o d . Indeed, it is well k n o w n that, w h e n
applying Hamilton's principle (or similar), the starting point,
i.e., the explidt form of the Lagrangian, is not derived from
the theoretical formalism, but must be partly guessed (from
first principles, like Lorentz invariance) and partly suitably
built up on the basis of the physical evidence.
Then, w h e n applying our approach to the derivation of the
source equations for a k n o w n gauge theory, one must be
guided by the experimental facts (e.g., in the e.m. case, the
existence of electric charges of different sign and their
conservation), whereas, in searching for new gauge theories,
one has to draw inspiration from basic principles and/or
R. Mignani, E. Pessa, and G. Resconi
physical facts, and the final results have to be experimentally
checked.
Moreover, we want to stress that, in this case, the role of
the substratum is indeed played by the complex, scalar KG
field @.
7.2 G r a v i t a t i o n a l S o u r c e E q u a t i o n s
GR provides an example of a "classical" derivation of the
equations satisfied by the source field.
Let us consider a space-time structure which, locally, is
not very far from the Minkowskian one. The metric compo-
nents can t h e n be assumed to be given by the linearized
form (59), and satisfy, therefore, (62). A small perturbation
of such a world model will give rise to a perturbation of the
gravitational field ha,, In the linear approximation, such a
perturbation ~v will obey the propagation equation
(83)
where 8( ) represents the variation of the right-hand side of
Einstein's equations due to the perturbation.
We assume that the e n e r g y - m o m e n t u m tensor is that of
a fluid without shear viscosity and heat conduction, and that
the background curvature is time independent. Then, using
the relativistic theory of small fluctuations, 129) we get
~( T~v - l h ~ v Z ) = (Pc2- p ) R 2 ~ v - o~4 (l:hc2 - Pl), (84)
where R is the curvature scalar, p and p, respectively, are the
density and pressure of the cosmic fluid (assumed constant),
and p~ and Pl are their small perturbations. In the hypothesis
that these perturbations satisfy a state equation of the type
Pl = Pl c2, (85)
(81) and (82) yield the following propagation equation:
DGv = m2Gv, (86)
where the "effective mass" of the source reads
m 2 = 2,r(pc 2 - p)R 2 = constant. (87)
Equation (84) implies that any component ~ of the perturba-
tion field satisfies the field equation
(D--m2)~ = 0, (88)
75
Electromagnetic-Like Generation of Unified-Gauge Theories
i.e., the (classical) KG equation. Of course, such a result
(corresponding to a scalar source field) is obtained because
we have implicitly assumed the simplest possible case, i.e.,
a gravitational field without torsion, generated by an ideal
fluid. More complicated situations would lead to different
field equations for the gravitational source (as for the
different representations of the I_orentz group in the e.m.
case).
In the gravitational dassical case, the fundamental
construction m e c h a n i s m can be therefore stated as follows:
Every source field obeys a propagation equation identical to
that satisfied by the small perturbations of a given interac-
tion field.
As is easily seen, this principle is rooted in (and, in a
sense, reflects) the old 19th-century idea according to which
the field is the f u n d a m e n t a l entity and the sources are only
field concentrations.
We shall come back to this point and some of its implica-
tions in the next and final section.
8. CONCLUSION
The approach to building e.m.-like gauge theories we
discussed in the previous sections can be summarized as
follows. We start from specifying a substratum, characterized
by a certain field with assigned covariance properties. As
already stressed, the choice of the substratum constitutes the
physical input of the theory.
The substratum field is assumed to possess some definite
transformation properties under a gauge group. Then, we
merely exploit the mathematical apparatus of the gauge
theories, i.e., covariant derivative and second- and third-
order commutators among covariant derivatives, which allow
us to introduce the field potentials (as compensating fields )
and the field tensor, currents, and field equations, i.e., the
whole dynamics of the gauge theory. All the mathematical
formalism admits of a (topological) representation in terms
of commutative diagrams (SGT). Every interaction field
defines a f u n d a m e n t a l invariant that, w h e n interpreted in
terms of suitable source-wave functions, yields the field
equations obeyed by the source.
Thus, we are able to recover the two basic aspects of a
gauge theory, related, respectively, to the interaction field
and the source field. We have s how n h o w our machinery
works b o t h in the e.m. (Maxwell) theory and in the gravita-
tional (GR) theory. However, a basic point to be stressed is
that the construction does not stop at this point.
Indeed, let us explicitly note that the specification of the
source-field equations (according to the procedure of Section
7) does lead us, as a matter of fact, from a lower level of
description to a higher one. As we showed previously, a self-
consistent description of e.m. p h e n o m e n a - - b o t h in the
v a c u u m case and in the presence of sources--can be based
only o n the introduction of a suitable substratum. We never
require, even w h e n sources are present, an understanding of
the (microscopic) intrinsic nat ur e of the sources. As soon as
we provide a field representation of the sources, we have in
76
a sense "enlarged" our original theory, so that it is n o w able
to encompass new phenom ena.
Such an enlargement is accomplished, in practice, by
imposing new gauge transformations on the source
fi el ds--now regarded as n e w interaction fields--and
repeating, step by step, the by n o w familiar construction
procedure, based on the five f u n d a m e n t a l principles.
Therefore, in the general case, the e.m.-like gauge theory,
obtained in such a way, represents a n e w theory of fields
able to account for a class of physical p h e n o m e n a (new
with respect to the lower, previous level), which are de-
scribed together with the "old" ones within a single unified
scheme.
As an example of such a general procedure, let us consider
the Maxwell source fields discussed in the previous section.
Of course, in the scalar case (KG equation), the gauge
transformations of the source field are the same as the
substratum (cf. (3)), and we recover the usual U( 1 ) theory.
But, in the spinor case, the Dirac equation is invariant to the
(non-Abelian) gauge transformations
g ' ( x ) = eri~'g(x), (89)
where the ~. are the Dirac matrices and the ~/are arbitrary
(constant) phase parameters. Then, exploiting our construc-
tion procedure, we get an e.m.-like gauge theory, different
from the Maxwell one, which is not hi ng but the GWS
electroweak theory (as we shall show in a future paper).
Such a general scheme is summarized in the diagram of
Fig. 8.
Let us stress that, without starting from the e.m. theory,
and assuming a spinor behavior of the substratum from the
very beginning, we could directly define the gauge transfor-
mations (89) and get the electroweak theory. This point
permits us to see the basic role played by the substratum as
a physical input of the theory. In this connection, let us note
that we can also assume, besides Lorentz covariance,
invariance of the substratum w i t h respect to other symme-
tries (like the unitary ones ).
Obviously, the above procedure can be iterated: one can
derive the equations satisfied by the electroweak sources,
and impose on their fields generalized gauge transforma-
tions. In this way, we get a family of e.m.-like unified-gauge
theories, hierarchically arranged by increasing complexity.
However, all the members of t h e family share the same
com m on mathematical structure, based on the same funda-
mental principles, and admitting of the same diagrammatic
representation in the framework of the SGT.
This, in our opinion, is one of the m a i n advantages of our
approach. Another basic one is its independence from the
Lagrangian formalism. As such, it is perfectly fit for descrip-
tion of interactions that, by their very nature, do not admit
a Hamiltonian representation (for instance, nonpotential,
nonlocal interactions).
 R. Mignani, E. Pessa, and G. Resconi

GLOBAL LORENTZ
I
LOCAL I
coven',mE I I INVARIANCE I

\ I SCALAR(~EU,~,T)
\ I GAUGE T R A N S F O R N I A T I O N
~' " ~ -GAI~IGE

~ - I U (1) GAUGE T H E O R Y [

~ CURRENT CONSERVATION
I (INTEGRABILITY CONDITION}

SCALAR ] SPINOR
REPRE SENTATION REPRE SENTATION ]

EQUATION I [ DIRAC EQUATION]

.I ~EU~ GAUGE I NON-ABELIAN GAUGE L

"] TRANSFORMATIONS I TRANSFORMATIONS F
I U (i) GAUGE T H E O R Y I [ ELECTROWEAK
THEORY
I
Figure 8. Scheme showing the general structure and the logical steps of the e.m.-like formalism of the generation of unified-
gauge theories.

Finally, we want to point out that our e.m.-like procedure,
being based on the main mathematical objects that enter
into a gauge theory (i.e., covariant derivatives and commuta-
tors), yields, in some cases, very general relations, not
restricted by ad hoc requirements, which permit us to get
extensions of a given theory in an almost straightforward
way. This is just the case of GR. Indeed, (57), which defines
the gravitational current, is more general than (56), valid in
the gauge-theoretical formulation of GR. The two expres-
sions only coincide if condition (58) holds true (as already
stressed in Section 6). If we relax this condition, we automati-
caUy get new generalizations of the standard gravitational
theory. Such a point is discussed in a previous paper. (23)
Acknowledgment
Thanks are due to the referees for their invaluable comments,
constructive criticism, and bibliographical advice, which allowed
us to considerably improve the paper.
Received 13 August 1997.

77
Electromagnetic-Like Generation of Unified-Gauge Theories

R~sum~
Nous effectuons une analyse critiquede la th~orie~tectromagn~tiquede Maxwell, bas(esur ses propri(t~s
"qgom~triques" et son caract~rede th~oriedejauge. Cecipermet d'gtablir cinq principes basilaires, qui sont
d la fondation de l'glectroma~disme et peuvent ~tre utilisgs pour la construction de theories de jauge
unitizes (du genre dlectromagngtique). Ces principes sont en essence bas~s sur l'ordre different des
commutateurs des ddrivdescovariantes, et sont li~sdefafon naturelle aux diagrammes commutatifs des
ordres diff~rents entre les principaux oldrateurs qui figurent dam la thdorie ~lectromafn~tique. Cette
formulation est appliquge d la relativitgg~n~rale, et il est dgmontr~ que les gquations peuvent aussi #tre
d{'rivges c o n f o ~ t aux cinq principes basilaires. En plus, on peut trouver les ~quations auxquelles
ob~sent les corps crgant les champs dejauge en partant d'un invariant fondamental, en imposant que
l'~quation de continuitg pour le courant soit v~rifi~e. Ce mdcanisme de gd~ration "d la fa4on
~lectromagn~tique" permet d'obtenir une famille de thgories des champs de jauge unifi~s, hi~rarchique-
ment arrang(es en ordre de complexit(croissant.

Enclnotes Gauge Fields. On the Geometry of Yang-Mills and Gravitational

1 In our previous paper, 122) Fig. 3 has been given in three-
dimensional form, in order to emphasize its departure--as
a fundamental step--from the first-level diagram. However,
note that--in some cases--a three-dimensional representa-
tion is indeed needed, in order to represent physical steps
that are irreducible to the standard ones.
2 We acknowledge that condition (58) may appear as some-
what artificial. In fact ordinary GR is not a gauge theory in
the usual, strict sense (as stressed by all researchers dealing
with the Poincar6 gauge theory of gravitation, 16-1~ starting
from the Kibble and Utiyama pioneering paper 16)). Actually,
the gauge theory of gravitation is more general than Ein-
stein's theory, and therefore, if we want to recover GR, we
are forced to impose some ad hoc constraint. In this connec-
tion, let us stress that (58) is the simplest condition we can
impose o n qbi.(22'23) In general, ff (58) is relaxed, we will
obtain generalizations of the standard gravitation theory.
Such a possibility is discussed explicitly in a previous
paper.(23)
References
1. S.L. Glashow, Nud. Phys. 22, 579 (1961); S. Weinberg:
Phys. Rev. Lett. 19, 1264 (1967); A. Salam, in Proceedings
VIIIth Nobel Symposium, Stockholm, 1968, p. 367.
2. G.G. Ross, Grand Unified Theories (Benjamin-Cummings,
Menlo Park, CO, 1985 ); P.H. Frampton, Gauge Field Theories
(Benjamin-Cummings, Menlo Park, CO, 1987).
3. M.A. Tonnelat, Les Theories Unitaires de l'Electromagn(tisme et
de la Gravitation (Gautlder-Vinars, Paris, 1965).
4. K. Huang, Quarks, Leptons and Gauge Fields, 2nd ed. (World
Scientific, Singapore, 1992).
5. J.H. Schwarz, editor, Superstrings (World Sdenttfic, Singa-
pore, 1985).
6. 1L Utiyama, Phys. Rev. 101, 1597 ( 1956); T.W.B. Kibble: J.
Math. Phys. 2, 212 (1961).
7. D. Ivanenko and G. Sardanashvily, Phys.Rep. 94, 1 ( 1983 );
F.W. Held, F.D. Mc Cree, E.W. Mielke, and Yu. Ne'eman,
Phys. Rep. 258, 1 ( 1995); E.W. Mielke, Geometrodynamicsof
Gauge Theories (Akademic-Verlag, Berlin, 1987).
8. M. Camenzind, d. Math. Phys. 16, 1023 (1975) and Phys.
Rev. D 16, (1977).
9. 1L Aldrovandi and J.G. Pereira, Phys. Rev. D 33 (1986); A.
Zardecki, Jour. Math. Phys. 29, 1661 (1988).
10. T. Kawai, Phys. Rev. D 49, (1994); E. Stedfle and IL
Duarte, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 3;4, 945 (1995).
11. T. Egucld, P.B. Gilkey, and A.J. Hanson, Phys. Rep. 66, 213
(1980); B. Dubrovine, S. Novikov, and A. Fomenko,
Cffometrie Contemporaine: Mdthodes et applications, Vols. I, II
(Mir, Moscow, 1992).
12. G. Resconi and M. Jessel, Int. J. Gen. Syst. 17., 159 (1986).
13. G. Resconi and P.J. Marcer, Phys. kett. A 17-5, 282 ( 1987);
M.P. Penna, E. Pessa, and G. Resconi, in Proceedings Third
European Congress on Systems Science (Rome, 1996); G.
Rescont and G.V. Tzvetkova, in Proceedings Third European
Congress on Systems Science, Rome, 1996 and Proceedings 14th
InternationaI Symposium on Manufacturing and Robots, Lugano,
1991, p.103; G. Resconi and G. Hill, in Proceedings Third
European Congresson Systems Science, Rome, 1996; C. Rattray,
G. Resconi and G. Hill in Proceedings 11th International
Conference On Mathematics and Computer Modelling and
Scientific Computing, Washington, 1997; HJ~. Fatmi, P.J.
Marcer, M. Jessd, and G. Rescorti, Int. J. Gen. System 16,
2 ( 1990); G.A. Kazakov and G. Resconi, Int. J. Gen. System
22, 277 (1994).
14. G. Arcidiacono, ProjectiveRelativity, Cos~mologyand Gravitation
(Hadronic Pres s, Cambridge, 1986 ).
15. Y. Mural, Progr. Theor. Phys. 11, 411 (1954); 1L Prasad,
Nuovo Cim. A 38, 1921 (1965); M. Pavsic and E. Recami,
Nuovo Cim. B 48, 205 (1978).
16. E. Pessa, Boll. U.M.I., 15-B, 761 (1978) and Cren. Rel. Grav.
12, 857 (1980); G. Arddiacono, CoIL Math. XXVI, 1
(1985).
17. L. de Broglie, M~thode de Fusion (Gauthier-Villars, Paris,
1954).
18. M.W. Evans, J.P. Vigier, S. Roy, and S. Jeffers, The Enig-
matic Photon (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1996).

78
 R. Mignani, E. Pessa, and G. Resconi

19. A. Sommerfeld, Electrodynamics (Academic Press, New
York, 1952 ).
20. I. Bucur and A. Deleman, Introduction to the theoryof Catego-
ties and Functors (Wiley, London, 1968); S. McI_ane, Catego-
ries for Working Mathematicians (Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
1971 ); R. Rosen, editor, Theoretical Biology and Complexity
(Academic Press, New York, 1985).
21. IL Thomas, J. Theor. Biol. 73, 631 (1978); G. Resconi,
Cybemetics and System Research 1, 315 (1983).
22. tL Mignani, E. Pessa, and G. Resconi, Nuovo Cim. 108, B
1319 (1993).
23. IL Mignani, E. Pessa, and G. Resconi, Gen. Rel. Grav. 29,
1049 (1997).
24. H. WeyL Raum, Zeit, Materie ( Springer, Berlin, 1918).
25. E. Cartan, Lefons sur la g#ometrie des espaces de Riemann
(GautbAer-villars, Paris, 1928 ).
26. F.W. HeEl and B.K. Datta, J. Math. Phys. 12, 1334 ( 1971 );
F.W. HeEl, C-en. Rel. Gray. 4, 333 (1973); A. Trautman,
Nature 242, 7 (1973); F.W. HeEl and D.Sijacki, Gen. Rel.
Gray. 12, 83 (1980).
27. V.I. Denisov and A.A. Logunov, Gravitation and Elementary
Particle Physics, A.A. Logunov, editor (Mir, Moscow, 1983 ),
p.14; A.A. Logunov and M. MestvinsvilL The Relativistic
Theory of Gravitation (MJ.r, Moscow, 1986).
28. S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology (Wiley, New
York,1972), p. 571.

R. M i g n a n i
Dipartimento di Fisica "E. Amaldi"
Universit~ di Roma "Roma Tre"
Via delia Vasca Navale, 84
1-00146 Roma, Italy
and
I.N.F.N.--Sezione di Roma Tre

e-mail: mignani@fis.uniroma3.it

E. P e s s a
ECONA--Intertmiversity Centre for Research
on Cognitive Processing in Natural and Artificial Systems
c/o Dipartimento di Psicologia
I Universit~ di Roma "La Sapienza"
Via dei Marsi, 78
1-00185 Roma, Italy

G. R e s c o n l
Diparfimento di Matematica
Universit~ Cattolica del Sacro Cuore
Via Trieste, 17
25121 Brescia, Italy

79