Massless Rarita-Schwinger equations: Half and three halves spin solution
Extracted source text ยท arXiv 2305.00106
\documentclass[11pt]{article}
%%%%%%%%%%%%
\usepackage[english]{babel}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage{amssymb,dsfont,amsmath,amsfonts,hyperref,mdframed,mathrsfs,stmaryrd,bbold,xfrac}
\usepackage[enableskew]{youngtab}
\usepackage[active]{srcltx}
\usepackage{slashed}
\usepackage{color}
%\usepackage{ulem} %use this to strike out texts
\tolerance 3000
\hbadness 3000
\baselineskip 18pt
\oddsidemargin 0pt
\evensidemargin 0pt
\topmargin 0pt
\headheight 0pt
\headsep 0pt
\footskip 32pt
\textheight 35\baselineskip
\def\baselinestretch{1.3}
\advance \textheight by \topskip
\textwidth 450pt
\setlength{\parskip}{.3cm}
\DeclareMathAlphabet{\mathpzc}{OT1}{pzc}{m}{it}
\usepackage{xcolor}
%\usepackage{showlabels}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{soul}
\usepackage{cite}
\usepackage{mathtools}
\DeclarePairedDelimiter\ceil{\lceil}{\rceil}
\DeclarePairedDelimiter\floor{\lfloor}{\rfloor}
\usepackage{array}
\usepackage{cancel}
%\renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
\setcounter{footnote}{0}
%\numberwithin{equation}{section}
%Homemade commands
\definecolor{mygreen}{rgb}{0.1, 0.7, 0.2}
\newcommand{\sla}[1]{\slashed{#1}}
\newcommand{\rc}{\textcolor{red}}
\newcommand{\bc}{\textcolor{blue}}
\newcommand{\gc}{\textcolor{mygreen}}
\newcommand{\mg}{\textcolor{magenta}}
\newcommand{\cc}{\textcolor{cyan}}
\newcommand{\mc}{\textcolor{magenta}}
\newcommand{\dg}{\textcolor{darkgreen}}
\newcommand{\rst}[1]{\textcolor{red}{\sout{#1}}}
\def\be{\begin{equation}}
\def\ee{\end{equation}}
\def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
\def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
\def\a{\alpha}
\def\b{\beta}
\def\g{\gamma}
\def\d{\delta}
\def\ie{\textit{i.e.} }
\def\eg{\textit{e.g.}}
\def\cf{\textit{cf.} }
%%%%%%%%%%%%%% mathds font
\def \half{{spin--$\tfrac12$ }}
\def \tralf{{spin--$\tfrac32$ }}
\def \dim{\texttt{D}\,}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\def\spartial {\slashed{\partial}}
%\newcommand T{{T\!\!T}}
%\newcommand {{\perp\!\!\!\perp}}
\def\vspin{\psi}%{\vartheta}
\def\snabla{\slashed{\nabla}}
\def\mcL{\mathcal{L}}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{document}
\title{Massless Rarita--Schwinger equations: Half and three halves spin solution}
\author{
Mauricio Valenzuela$^{1,2}$ \footnote{mauricio.valenzuela@uss.cl} ~
and Jorge Zanelli$^{1,2}$ \footnote{jorge.zanelli@uss.cl}
\\[12pt]
$^1$\textit{Centro de Estudios Cient\'{\i}ficos (CECs), Arturo Prat 514, Valdivia, Chile } \\
and \\
$^2$\textit{Facultad de Ingenier\'ia, Arquitectura y Dise\~no}, \textit{Universidad San Sebasti\'an, Valdivia, Chile}
}
\date{}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
Counting the degrees of freedom of the massless Rarita-Schwinger theory is revisited using Behrends-Fronsdal projectors. The identification of the gauge invariant part of the vector-spinor is thus straightforward, consisting of spins $\frac12$ and $\frac32$. The validity of this statement is supported by the explicit solution found in the standard gamma-traceless gauge. Since the obtained systems are deterministic --free of arbitrary functions of time-- we argue that the often-invoked residual gauge symmetry lacks fundamental grounding and should not be used to enforce new external constraints. The result is verified by the \textit{total Hamiltonian} dynamics. We conclude that eliminating the spin-$\frac12$ mode \textit{via} the \textit{extended Hamiltonian} dynamics would be acceptable if the Dirac conjecture was assumed; however, this framework does not accurately describe the original Lagrangian system.
\end{abstract}
\newpage
\tableofcontents
\section{Introduction}
In supergravity, the kinetic term for the gravitino field is the so-called Rarita-Schwinger ({\bf RS}) Lagrangian (see, e. g.,
\cite{van,Freedman:2012zz,RauschdeTraubenberg:2020kol}),
\be\label{RSL}
\mathcal{L}[\psi]:=-\frac i 2 \bar\vspin_\mu \gamma{}^{\mu\nu\lambda}\partial_\nu \vspin_\lambda\,.
\ee
This is not, however, the Lagrangian originally proposed by Rarita and Schwinger \cite{r-s}, as pointed out \eg~, in Weinberg's text \cite{Weinberg:2000cr}.
Indeed, the study of relativistic quantum fields of arbitrary spin $s>1$ was pioneered by Dirac \cite{Dirac:1936tg}, and followed by Fierz and Pauli \cite{Fierz:1939ix}. Subsequently, Rarita and Schwinger greatly simplified the approach by describing a spin $l+1/2$ field employing a wave function that was a spinor and a tensor of rank $l$, $\psi^\alpha_{\mu_1\cdots \mu_l}$, symmetric in its spacetime indices $(\mu_1\cdots \mu_l)$ satisfying a massive Dirac equation,
\begin{align} \label{RS-0}
(\spartial+M)\psi_{\mu_1 \mu_2 \cdots \mu_l} & =0\;,
\end{align}
with the additional Lorentz-group irreducibility condition
\be\label{g-trace}
\gamma^\mu \, \psi_{\mu \mu_2 \cdots \mu_k} =0 \; .
\ee
If $\psi_{\mu_1 \mu_2 \cdots \mu_l}$ is a solution of \eqref{RS-0} and \eqref{g-trace} with $M\neq 0$, then it also necessarily satisfies
\begin{align}
\label{t-trace}
\psi^\mu{}_{\mu \mu_2 \cdots \mu_l} & =0\,, \\
\label{transverse}
\partial^\mu \psi_{\mu \mu_2 \cdots \mu_l} & =0\;.
\end{align}
The simplest nontrivial RS system is the \tralf~field ($l=1)$ and the field $\psi^\alpha_\mu$ is a vector-spinor, for which the condition \eqref{t-trace} is removed. Rarita and Schwinger \cite{r-s} mention the existence of a family of Lagrangians parametrized by the mass ($M$) and a dimensionless coefficient ($A$) that gives rise to the equations \eqref{RS-0} and \eqref{g-trace}. In \cite{Johnson:1960vt,Nath:1971wp,Benmerrouche:1989uc} (for recent uses see \cite{Gomes:2022btc}) such a family is proposed for $D=4$ in the form
\begin{align} \nonumber
\mathcal{L}_{(M,A)}:=\; & \frac{i}2 \Big(\bar{\psi}^\mu(\spartial + M)\psi_\mu + A\, \bar{\psi}^\mu(\gamma_\mu \partial_\nu + \gamma_\nu \partial_\mu)\psi^\nu + \frac{1}{2}(3A^2 + 2A +1) \psi^\mu \gamma_\mu \spartial \gamma_\nu \psi^\nu \\ & \hspace{0.5cm}- M(3A^2 +3A +1)\psi^\mu \gamma_\mu \gamma_\nu \psi^\nu\Big). \label{RSL0}
\end{align}
The dimensionless constant $A$ can take arbitrary values, but for $A=-1/2$ condition \eqref{g-trace} with $l=1$ does not follow from \eqref{RS-0}. The RS Lagrangian \cite{r-s} corresponds to $A=-1/3$, ``which permits a relatively simple expression of the equations of motion in the presence of electromagnetic fields."
With the advent of supergravity in the 1970s \cite{fnf,dz}, the community regularly referred to the massless limit of \eqref{RSL0} with $A=-1$, which coincides with \eqref{RSL}, as ``the Rarita-Schwinger Lagrangian." The relativistic equation obtained from \eqref{RSL}, often referred to as the RS equation (see \eg \cite{Weinberg:2000cr,Freedman:2012zz,RauschdeTraubenberg:2020kol}), is\footnote{Here $\g_\mu$, $\{\g_{\mu},\g_{\nu}\}=2\eta_{\mu\nu}$, are Dirac matrices, $ \eta_{\mu\nu}=\texttt{diag}\,(-1,1,\dots)$ and $\g_{\mu\cdots\nu}=\g_{[\mu}\cdots \g_{\nu]}$ are completely antisymmetric products. We assume the Majorana reality condition $\vspin^\dagger=\vspin$, $\bar\vspin=\vspin^t C$, were $C^t=-C$.}
\be\label{RSeq}
\gamma{}^{\mu\nu\lambda}\partial_\nu \vspin_\lambda=0\,.
\ee
Note, however, that the massless limit of \eqref{RS-0}-\eqref{g-trace} is not equivalent to \eqref{RSeq}, and the variation of the massless Lagrangian \eqref{RSL} does not imply the irreducibility condition $\gamma^\mu \psi_\mu=0$. This means that the dynamical contents of \eqref{RS-0}-\eqref{g-trace}, for $l=1$, in the limit $M\to 0$ are not guaranteed to be exactly the same as those of Lagrangian \eqref{RSL}.
\subsection*{Gauge symmetry}
The Lagrangian \eqref{RSL} changes by a total derivative under the gauge transformation,
\begin{equation} \label{gauge}
\delta\vspin_\mu=\partial_\mu\epsilon\, ,
\end{equation}
consequently, the field equations \eqref{RSeq} are invariant under \eqref{gauge}. Equation \eqref{RS-0}, on the other hand, does not exhibit a similar local invariance for an arbitrary local spinor parameter. In fact, Rarita and Schwinger observed that ``in the exceptional case of zero rest mass, the wave function admits a gauge transformation given by \eqref{gauge}" with the additional requirement $\spartial\epsilon=0$. They saw this as a curious symmetry in an exceptional case but did not emphasize the gauge invariance of the action. In the case $A=-1$, the condition $\spartial\epsilon=0$ is unnecessary, and the gauge invariance under \eqref{gauge} is a true (off-shell) symmetry of the action.
Using properties of the Dirac matrices, equation \eqref{RSeq} can also be written as
\be\label{RSeq'}
\spartial\vspin_\mu-\partial_\mu\,(\g\cdot\vspin) = 0\,,
\ee
while
\be\label{RSeq'b}
\spartial (\g\cdot\vspin) - \partial\cdot \vspin = 0 \,,
\ee
appears as a consistency condition.
It is a textbook argument that the gauge symmetry \eqref{gauge} can be used to choose the ($\g$-traceless) gauge $\g^\mu\psi_\mu=0$, which together with \eqref{RSeq'} become equivalent to,
\be\label{RSeq''}
\spartial\vspin_\mu= 0\,, \qquad \g\cdot\psi=0\,,
\ee
and we obtain that
\be\label{RSeq''b}
\partial \cdot \vspin = 0\,,
\ee
as a consistency condition. Gauge conditions are necessary to eliminate the ambiguity in time evolution, characterized by redundancies in solution space known as gauge orbits. As we shall see, the set of equations \eqref{RSeq''}-\eqref{RSeq''b} is deterministic: once the initial conditions are specified, the field equations uniquely determine its evolution. An the explicit solution is given in \eqref{sol} with the vector-spinor containing both spins, half and three halves. Consequently, introducing additional external conditions is unnecessary.
Based on the similarity between \eqref{RSeq''b} and the Lorenz gauge in electromagnetism, one might be led to think that the divergence-free and the gamma-trace constraints are in the same---gauge-fixing type---footing and that they remove $2k$ degrees of freedom,\footnote{Here $k=2^{[D/2]}$ is the number of components of a spinor in $D$ dimensions.} the equivalent of two spinor fields. In this logic, the system contains no \half\! sector. This statement, however, is incorrect.
The gauge freedom \eqref{gauge} is insufficient to set $\psi_\mu$ both gamma-traceless and divergence-free simultaneously starting from a generic off-shell configuration since there is only one spinor gauge-parameter to be used.
The consistency condition \eqref{RSeq''b} is guaranteed for solutions of \eqref{RSeq''} and does not impose further restrictions on the vector-spinor field. To assert the opposite would be analogous to saying that the Klein-Gordon (consistency) condition imposes new restrictions on solutions of the Dirac equation. The Dirac equation in \eqref{RSeq''} determines, for every $\mu$, half of the $\vspin_\mu$ components, while the gamma-trace algebraic constraint removes $k$ components, leaving $\frac{D\times k}2 - k$ degrees of freedom. In $D=4$, they amount to $2$ \half and $2$ \tralf propagating massless helicities. In the massive case, the $4$ helicities correspond to $2\times \frac3 2 +1$ polarization states in the spatial rotation irreducible representation \cite{r-s}.
In \cite{Valenzuela:2022gbk} the Hamiltonian analysis of the massless RS system was carried out, and it was shown that the Dirac algorithm produces two different outputs depending on whether the Dirac conjecture---that secondary first-class constraints are gauge symmetry generators---is assumed or not.
In \cite{Dirac-lectures}, Dirac states: ``...it may be that all the first-class secondary constraints should be included among the transformations which don't change the physical state, but I haven't been able to prove it. Also, I haven't found any example for which there exists first-class secondary constraints which do generate a change in the physical state."
Then, Dirac proposes that modifying the field equations by adding the secondary first-class constraints to the total Hamiltonian, thus defining Dirac's extended Hamiltonian $H_E$, new arbitrary velocities appear for those phase space variables which do not change the physical state, and that are equivalent to the first-class Lagrange multipliers associated with the secondary first-class constraints. This procedure renders the evolution of the conjectured unphysical variables also non-deterministic. Thus, adopting Dirac's modified dynamics, the results of the early works \cite{Senjanovic:1977vr,Pilati:1977ht,Deser:1977ur,Fradkin:1977wv} are reproduced, and the \half sector is completely removed, a consequence of a second ``gauge fixing condition" for the secondary first-class constraints. In the opposite case, the secondary first-class constraints are not regarded as gauge symmetry generators, there are no corresponding gauge fixing conditions to be imposed, and the space of solutions contains the aforementioned propagating Dirac field. The elimination or not of the \half degree of freedom yields physically different situations, which suffices to say that in this case the Dirac conjecture \cite{Dirac-lectures}---that ``it may be that all the first-class secondary constraints should be included among the transformations which don't change the physical state"---does not hold.
Complementing \cite{Valenzuela:2022gbk}, here we show that the conclusion that the \half sector of the massless RS system propagates can also be reached by fixing the gauge in an alternative way, and using the covariant spin-block projectors introduced by
Behrends and Fronsdal \cite{Behrends:1957rup} (see also \cite{Ogievetsky:1976qs,van}). As we shall see, this result is also valid for supergravity \cite{fnf,dz} and one can write explicitly the \half content in basic supergravity, consisting of the Dirac action coupled to the background geometry. As a corollary, truncating extended supergravities to their \half sector must yield a class of unified field theories on curved backgrounds with the coupling constants determined by the supergravity model. This observation was instrumental in building a \half model of Dirac fermions coupled to a $U(1)$ gauge field and gravitational background starting from a superalgebra in three dimensions \cite{Alvarez:2011gd,Alvarez:2013tga,Alvarez:2015bva,Guevara:2016rbl}, and in $\mathcal{N}=2$ extensions of Macdowell-Mansouri supergravity \cite{Alvarez:2021qbu, Alvarez:2020izs, Alvarez:2021zhh}. Alternatively, this result also implies that \half states may be generically present in any supergravity theory.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Unconventional supersymmetry}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Its vector-spinor structure shows that the field $\psi_\mu^\alpha$ is in the reducible representation $1\otimes \frac{1}{2}$ of the Lorentz group. Consider the decomposition of the identity
\be\label{projectors}
P^{\sfrac12}+P^{\sfrac32}=\mathds{1}\,, \;\;\; \mbox{with} \quad P^{\sfrac12}{}_\mu{}^\nu:= \frac{1}{D} \g_\mu \g^\nu \,,\quad
P^{\sfrac32}{}_\mu{}^\nu:= \delta_\mu{}^\nu-\frac{1}{D} \g_\mu \g^\nu,
\ee
in terms of spin-block projectors $P^{(s)}P^{(s')}=\delta^s_{s'} P^{(s')}$, $s=\frac12, \frac32$. Then, the reducible representation $1\otimes \frac{1}{2}$ can be split into $\frac{3}{2} \oplus \frac{1}{2}$ irreducible components as
\be\label{Ldecomp}
\psi_\mu:=\rho_\mu + \g_\mu\kappa\,, \;\;\; \mbox{with} \quad \rho_\mu \equiv P^{\sfrac32}{}_\mu{}^\nu \psi_\nu \,,\mbox{ and} \quad \kappa \equiv \frac{1}{D}\gamma^\mu \psi_\mu \,,
\ee
where the \tralf part $\rho_\mu$ is gamma-traceless by construction and $\kappa$ is a pure \half mode. An indication of the non-trivial role of the \half sector is that the projection of the vector-spinor to the component
\be\label{mans}
\tilde \psi_\mu = \gamma_\mu \kappa\,,
\ee
in the Lagrangian functional \eqref{RSL} reproduces the Dirac term,
\be\label{Dirac}
\mathcal{L}[\tilde \psi_\mu=\gamma_\mu \kappa]=i \frac{ (D-1)(D-2)} 2 \; \bar\kappa \spartial \kappa \,.
\ee
This shows that the \half sector is not in the kernel of the Lagrangian functional. It is not a zero-mode of the action and \eqref{Dirac} is not a boundary term. Hence $\kappa$ does not qualify as a ``pure gauge" mode. A pure gauge configuration would make the Lagrangian identically vanish, as in the case of Yang-Mills theories, or would reduce it to a total derivative, as in Chern-Simons theories. On the contrary, \eqref{Dirac} describes a propagating \half field that contributes to the energy-stress tensor of the theory.
The result \eqref{Dirac}, applied to three-dimensional Chern-Simons supergravity produces a \half model of Dirac fermions coupled to the $U(1)$ gauge field and the gravity background \cite{Alvarez:2011gd,Alvarez:2020izs,Alvarez:2021zhh} that turns out to be suitable for the description of electrons in graphene-like materials \cite{Iorio:2013ifa,Iorio:2014pwa,Iorio:2014nda,Iorio:2018agc,Ciappina:2019qgj,Andrianopoli:2019sip,Iorio:2020olc,Iorio:2020tuc,Gallerati:2021rtp,Gallerati:2021htm,Gallerati:2022egf,Acquaviva:2022yiq,Iorio:2022ave,Iorio:2022jrg}.
More generally, the projection \eqref{mans}, dubbed \textit{the matter ansatz}, can be used to generate models of \half fermions coupled to gravity and gauge interactions starting from supersymmetry gauge connections, of the form
\be
A_\mu=W_\mu + U_\mu + Q_\a \psi_\mu^ \a ,
\ee
where $W$ is valued in a spacetime symmetry group, $U$ in an internal gauge symmetry group, and $Q$ is the supercharge generator. If the matter ansatz is implemented in the fermion sector, the action principle $S[A]$ acquires interactions with a few arbitrary coupling constants, a welcome feature in (grand) unified models. For example, in 3D Chern-Simons supergravity, such action principle is given by $\int \hbox{str}(A\wedge dA + \tfrac23 A\wedge A\wedge A)$. In five-dimensional Chern-Simons supergravity, similar results were found in \cite{Gomes:2017rmd,Gomes:2018zmg}. The approach of generating \half systems coupled to gauge and gravity backgrounds using these methods is often referred to as ``unconventional supersymmetry'' \cite{Alvarez:2011gd,Alvarez:2020izs,Alvarez:2021zhh,Alvarez:2013tga,Alvarez:2015bva,Guevara:2016rbl,Gomes:2017rmd,Andrianopoli:2018ymh,Andrianopoli:2019sqe,Alvarez:2020qmy,Andrianopoli:2020zbl,Eder:2021rgt,Alvarez:2021qbu,Andrianopoli:2021sdx,Andrianopoli:2021rdk}. Even though these models are not supersymmetric in general, they may have supersymmetric ground states, described by the vanishing curvature constraint $F=dA+A\wedge A=0$, since under a supersymmetry transformation $\delta F =[F,Q_\a \epsilon^ \a]\equiv 0$.
The general statement that ``the \half mode of the gravitino is pure gauge" seems to be in contradiction with the fact that the matter ansatz applied to the massless RS model \eqref{RSL} gives rise to the Dirac Lagrangian \eqref{Dirac} and that the unconventional supersymmetry models describe propagating \half degrees of freedom. This contradiction is resolved in \cite{Valenzuela:2022gbk}, and here we provide further evidence of the fact that \half sector of the vector-spinor propagates.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Covariant analysis} \label{sec:LP}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Off-shell gauge fixing}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
In terms of the decomposition \eqref{Ldecomp} the Lagrangian \eqref{RSL} reads
\be\label{PRSL}
\mathcal{L}[\rho_\mu+\g_\mu\kappa]=-\frac i 2\Big(\bar \rho^\mu \spartial \rho_\mu-(D-1)(D-2)\bar \kappa \slashed\partial \kappa + 2 (D-2)\bar \kappa \partial \cdot \rho \Big)\,,
\ee
up to boundary term. The Euler-Lagrange equations \eqref{RSeq'}-\eqref{RSeq'b} now take the form,
\be\label{3/2-1/2}
\spartial \rho_\mu - \gamma_\mu \spartial \kappa - (D-2)\partial_\mu \kappa=0\;,\qquad
(D-1) \spartial \kappa - \partial^\mu \rho_\mu = 0\,.
\ee
We can use the gauge freedom \eqref{gauge} to make $\rho_\mu$ divergence-free in addition to being gamma-traceless. Indeed, consider the gauge transformation $\psi'_\mu=\psi_\mu + \partial_\mu \epsilon$, then
\begin{equation} \label{project-gauge}
\rho'_\mu + \gamma_\mu \kappa'= \rho_\mu + \gamma_\mu \kappa + \partial_\mu \epsilon\;.
\end{equation}
A spinor field $\epsilon$ can be found such that $\rho'_\mu$ remains gamma-traceless and is also divergence-free,
\be\label{gfixed}
\partial^\mu \rho'_\mu=0\,.
\ee
Taking the gamma trace and the divergence of \eqref{project-gauge} it is easily checked that the gauge parameter $\epsilon$ that meets these requirements must satisfy the single condition
\begin{equation} \label{gauge-param}
\Box \epsilon = \frac{-D}{D-1}\, \partial\cdot \rho
\end{equation}
In this gauge, equations \eqref{3/2-1/2} reduce to
\begin{equation}
\spartial \rho'_\mu= (D-2) \partial_\mu \kappa' \;, \qquad \spartial \kappa'=0\;.
\end{equation}
Thus, $\kappa$ is a \half field that obeys a free massless Dirac equation, while $\rho_\mu$ satisfies the massless Dirac equation with a source---given by $\kappa$---and fulfills all the conditions of a propagating massless \tralf field. Thus, in this gauge, $\rho_\mu$ and $\kappa$ propagate massless modes of \tralf and \half, respectively.
The result can also be appreciated off-shell. The gauge \eqref{gfixed} can be reached from any off-shell configuration \eqref{project-gauge}. For those configurations the Lagrangian \eqref{RSL}, in the form \eqref{PRSL}, takes value
\be\label{PRSL'}
\mathcal{L}[\rho'_\mu+\g_\mu\kappa']=-\frac i 2\Big(\bar \rho'^\mu \spartial \rho'_\mu-(D-1)(D-2)\bar \kappa' \slashed\partial \kappa'\Big)\,,
\ee
to which the \half and \tralf sectors contribute independently. In the next section, it will become clear that \eqref{PRSL'} describes the gauge invariant part of the vector spinor field.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Irreducible Poincar\'e representations}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Wigner's classification of particles describes them mathematically as fields in irreducible representations of the Poincar\'e group. In this case, the vector-spinor $\psi^\alpha_\mu$ can be decomposed in irreducible representations of spins $(1\oplus 0)\otimes \frac{1}{2} =\frac{3}{2} \oplus \frac{1}{2}\oplus \frac{1}{2}$ \cite{van}.
The spin content can be made manifest using spin-block projectors \cite{Behrends:1957rup}. Following \cite{van}, let us consider the operators
\be
\hat\g_{\mu}=\g_\mu-w_\mu\,,\qquad w_{\mu}=\slashed\partial^{-1} \partial_\mu\,,
\ee
which span a basis of orthogonal vector operators satisfying
\be
\hat\g_{\mu} \hat\g^{\mu}=(D-1) \mathds{1}\,,\qquad w_{\mu} w^{\mu}=\mathds{1}\,,\qquad \hat\g_{\mu} w^{\mu}=0\,.
\ee
Hence, the identity operator, acting on vector-spinors, admits the decomposition
\be\label{Idec}
\mathds{1} = P^{\sfrac{3}{2} T }+ P^{\sfrac12}_{11}+ P^{1/2}_{22}\,,
\ee
\be
P^{\sfrac32\, T }_{\mu \nu}=\theta_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{D-1} \hat\g_\mu \hat\g_\nu\,,\qquad P^{\sfrac12}_{11\, \mu \nu}= \frac{1}{D-1} \hat\g_\mu \hat\g_\nu , \qquad P^{\sfrac12}_{22\, \mu \nu}= w_\mu w_\nu\,,
\ee
where
\be
\theta_{\mu\nu}:= \eta_{\mu\nu}-w_\mu w_\nu\,,\qquad w^{\mu}\theta_{\mu\nu}=0\,,\qquad \hat\g^{\mu}\theta_{\mu\nu}=\hat\g_{\nu}\,,\qquad \theta_{\mu\nu}\theta^{\nu\lambda}=\delta_\mu^\lambda\,\mathds{1}\,.
\ee
Then, the following identities are verified
\bea
(\hat\g^\mu,w^\mu) P^{\sfrac32\,T }_{\mu \nu}= (0,0) \,, \quad
(\hat\g^\mu,w^\mu) P^{\sfrac12}_{11\, \mu \nu}= (\hat\g_\nu,0) \,,\quad
(\hat\g^\mu,w^\mu) P^{\sfrac12}_{22\, \mu \nu}= (0,w_\nu).
\eea
Defining,
\be
\begin{split}
\rho^T_\mu:=P^{\sfrac32\, T }_{\mu \nu}\vspin^\nu\,,
\end{split}
\ee
we see that the traceless-transverse projector $P^{\sfrac32\, T }$ removes the gamma-trace and the divergence of the vector-spinor,
\be
\g^ \mu \rho^T_\mu=0\,,\qquad \partial^\mu \rho^T_\mu=0\,\,.
\ee
The projector $P^{1/2}_{11\, \mu \nu}$ yields a vector along $\hat\g$, orthogonal to $w$, and $P^{1/2}_{22\, \mu \nu}$ projects onto $w$:
\be
\tilde\kappa= w^\mu \psi_\mu = \frac{\partial^\mu}{\slashed\partial} \psi_\mu\,,\qquad \kappa=(D-1)^{-1} \hat\g^\mu \psi_\mu\,.
\ee
The space of vector-spinors $\psi_\mu$ decomposes as
\bea\label{RSdec3}
\psi_\mu=\rho^T_\mu + \hat\g_\mu \kappa+ w_\mu \tilde\kappa\,,\qquad \bar\psi_\mu=\bar\rho^T_\mu - \bar \kappa \hat\g_\mu-\bar{\tilde{\kappa}} w_\mu\,.
\eea
The gauge transformation \eqref{gauge} adds to the vector spinor a component, \ie $\partial_\mu \epsilon$ that is annihilated by the projectors $P^{\sfrac32\, T }_{\mu \nu}$ and $P^{\sfrac12}_{11\, \mu \nu}$, while it belongs to the eigenspace of the longitudinal projector $\partial_\mu\epsilon=P^{\sfrac12}_{22\, \mu}{}^\nu \partial_\nu\epsilon$. It follows that the gauge invariant parts of the vector-spinor consists of $\rho^T_\mu$ and $\kappa$, while the non-invariant part transform as $\delta \tilde\kappa = \spartial \epsilon$.
Introducing the projector operators the RS equations read,
\be
\Big( P^{\sfrac32}{}_\mu{}^\nu -(D-2) P^{\sfrac12}_{11}{}_\mu{}^\nu\Big) \, \spartial \psi_\nu=0\,,
\ee
which, projected onto the Poincar\'e irreducible \half and \tralf spaces, yield
\be\label{new}
\spartial \rho^T_\mu=0\,,\qquad \spartial \kappa=0\,,
\ee
which confirms the redundancy of the longitudinal mode and the physical meaning of $\rho^T_\mu$ and $\kappa$ as propagating degrees of freedom. It is then evident that a suitable gauge fixing condition is simply $\tilde\kappa=0$, which may then be used in a Gupta-Bleuler quantization scheme.
The gauge transformation \eqref{gauge} affects only the mode along $w_\mu$, and is equivalent to
\be
\delta \rho^T_\mu=0\,,\qquad \delta \kappa=0\,,\qquad \delta \tilde{\kappa}=\spartial\epsilon\,,
\ee
and we have two gauge invariant sectors, $\rho^T_\mu$ and $\kappa$. Substituting \eqref{RSdec3}, the Lagrangian \eqref{RSL} reduces to
\begin{equation} \label{RSDfulldec}
\mathcal{L}[\rho^T_\mu + w_\mu \tilde{\kappa} + \hat\g_\mu \kappa] = -\frac i 2\Big(\bar \rho^{T}_\mu \slashed\partial\rho^{T\,\mu}-(D-1)(D-2) \bar \kappa \slashed\partial \kappa \Big) \,,
\end{equation}
which coincides with \eqref{PRSL'}. We conclude that the RS Lagrangian does not depend on the longitudinal mode $\tilde{\kappa}$ and the physical degrees of freedom are the gauge invariant ones, ($\rho^T_\mu , \kappa$).
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Space-time splitting}\label{sec:SS}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Splitting the RS field $\psi_\mu$ into its time- and space-like components $(\psi_0,\, \psi_i;\, i=1,2,\cdots,D-1)$, the Lagrangian \eqref{RSL} reads
\be\label{RSL3}
\mathcal{L}= -i\bar\vspin_0 \gamma^{0ij} \partial_i \vspin_j +\frac i 2 \bar \vspin_i \gamma^{0ij} \dot{ \vspin}_j -\frac i 2 \bar \vspin_i \gamma^{ijk} \partial_j \vspin_k\,.
\ee
The spatial spin-vector $\psi_i$ can be further decomposed by the action of three orthogonal spatial rotation group spin-block projectors, Behrends-Fronsdal's analogs, that add up to the identity. These projectors are
\begin{align}\label{proj}
(P^N{})_{ij}:= \frac{1}{D-2}N_i N_j\,,\qquad (P^L{})_{ij}:&= L_i L_j , \qquad P^{T}=\mathds{1}- {P}^N- P^L\,,
\end{align}
where $N_i:=\g_i-L_i$ and $L_i:=\snabla^{-1} \partial_i$. Then, a spatial vector-spinor splits as
\be \label{psidec1}
\psi_i = \xi_i + N_i \zeta + L_i \lambda\,,
\ee
where
\be \xi_i= P^{T} {}_i{}^j \psi_j \,,\quad \zeta = \frac{1}{D-2}N^i \psi_i\,,\quad \lambda = L^i\psi_i\,,
\ee
which can be verified with the help of the identities $N_i\, N^i =D-2$, $L_i \,L^i = 1$, $N_i\, L^i =0$.
\subsection{Explicit solution with \half and \tralf}
The above decomposition of $\psi_\mu$ has not used the gauge symmetry. If one uses the gauge freedom to impose the gamma traceless condition, $\gamma^\mu \,\psi_\mu=0$,
\begin{align}\label{psi0}
\vspin_0 + \g_0 \g^i\vspin_i&=0 \\ \label{psi0'}
\vspin_0 + \g_0((D-2)\zeta+\lambda) &=0 \,,
\end{align}
implies that $\psi_0$ is not an independent field.
Together with decomposition \eqref{psidec1}, the field equations \eqref{RSeq'} reduce to
\be\label{eom1}
\spartial\xi_i=0\,,\qquad \spartial \tilde \lambda=0\,,\qquad \dot\zeta=0\,,\qquad \snabla\zeta \approx 0\,,
\ee
where $\tilde \lambda =\g^0 \lambda$. From the last two equations, it follows that the auxiliary spinor $\zeta$ is constant and it cannot be normalized. Thus, we find the explicit solutions to the field equations \eqref{RSeq'}
\be \label{sol}
\zeta = 0 \,, \qquad \vspin_0=\g^0\lambda\,,\qquad \psi_i= \xi_i + \partial_i\,\snabla^{-1} \lambda \,,
\ee
where $\tilde \lambda$ and $\xi_i$ satisfy the standard Dirac equations \eqref{eom1}, and $\xi_i$ is standard double-transverse solution found in \cite{Deser:1977ur,Das:1976ct} for gauge fixed RS equations. It follows that $\xi_i$ and $\lambda$ propagate massless fields of \tralf and \half\!, respectively. Upon \eqref{sol} the Pauli-Lubanski pseudo-vector yields the standard relation $W_\mu \psi= \frak{s}P_\mu\psi$, $ \frak{s}=\pm\frac32,\pm\frac12$ respectively for the chiral projections, $\frac{1\pm\g_5}2\xi_i$ and $\frac{1\pm\g_5}2\partial_i\,\snabla^{-1} \lambda$.
Since no arbitrary functions of time remain in the system, the dynamical equations \eqref{eom1} ultimately determine the evolution of the fields from initial data on a Cauchy surface, and there is no need for additional gauge fixing conditions.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Hamiltonian analysis}\label{sec:HA}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
The previous discussion establishes the degrees of freedom of the RS system from the Lagrangian equations of motion in a particular gauge. The time-honored constrained Hamiltonian formalism of Dirac \cite{Dirac-lectures,Hanson:1976cn,Henneaux:1992ig} provides an independent and reliable test for the consistency of this result.
Dirac's algorithm starts from the Hamiltonian, separating spacetime and fields into their temporal and spatial components \eqref{RSL3}, and carrying out the Legendre transform defining the canonical momenta, $\pi^\mu:=\partial \mathcal{L} /\partial\dot\psi_\mu$. In the case at hand, this yields the primary constraints
\begin{align} \label{pi0}
\pi^0 &\approx 0\,,\\
\label{chii}
\chi^i:=\pi^i - \frac i 2 \mathcal{C}^{ij}{\vspin}_j\,&\approx 0\,,\qquad \{\chi^i,\chi^j\}=i\mathcal{C}^{ij}\,.
\end{align}
Since the matrix $\mathcal{C}^{ij}_{\a\b}:= -(C\gamma^{0ij})_{\a\b}=\mathcal{C}^{ji}_{\b\a}$ is invertible, $\mathcal{C}^{ij}_{\a\b}(\mathcal{C}^{-1})_{jm}^{\b\kappa}:= \delta^i_m \delta_\a^\kappa$,
\be
(\mathcal{C}^{-1})_{ij}^{\a\b} = \Big( - \frac{1}{(D-2)} \g_i\g_j \g_0 C^{-1} + \delta_{ij} \g_0 C^{-1}\Big)^{\a\b}\,,
\ee
and consequently, the constraints $\chi^i$ are second-class. The primary constraints (\ref{pi0}, \ref{chii}) result from the non-dynamical nature of $\psi_0$ and the first-order character of the system, respectively. The \textit{total Hamiltonian} includes the Canonical Hamiltonian and a linear combination of the primary constraints,
\bea
H_T = \int d^{\scriptscriptstyle{D-1}}x \, \Big(i\bar\psi_0\g^{0ij}\partial_i\psi_j +\frac i 2 \bar{\psi}_i\g^{ijk}\partial_j\psi_k + \chi^i_\a \mu_i^\a + \pi^0_\a \mu_0^\a\Big) \,,\label{H1}
\eea
where $\mu_i$ and $\mu_0$ are Lagrange multipliers. Preservation in time of the constraint $\pi^0 \approx 0$ yields a secondary constraint,
\be\label{dotpi0}
\dot \pi^0
=- \frac{\delta H_T}{\delta \psi_0}=-i C\g^{0ij}\partial_i\vspin_j\approx 0 \qquad \Leftrightarrow \qquad \varphi:= -i\mathcal{C}^{ij}\partial_i\vspin_j\approx 0\,,
\ee
which is the field equation obtained by varying \eqref{RSL3} with respect to $\psi_0$. Here, the Poisson bracket is given by
\be
\{f(t,\vec x)\,,g(t,\vec y)\} := (-1)^{|f|} \int d^{D-1}z \left(\frac{\delta f(t,\vec x)}{\delta \vspin_\mu^\a(t,\vec z)} \frac{\delta g(t,\vec y)}{\delta \pi^\mu_\a(t,\vec z)}+\frac{\delta f(t,\vec x)}{\delta \pi^\mu_\a(t,\vec z)} \frac{\delta g(t,\vec y)}{\delta \vspin_\mu^\a(t,\vec z)}\right).
\ee
Demanding preservation in time of the second-class constraint $\chi^i\approx 0$ yields
\be \label{dotchi}
\dot\chi^i = - (C\g^{i}\g_0 C^{-1})\varphi +
i \mathcal{C}^{ij}\partial_j\vspin_0^\b +i C \partial^i \g^j\vspin_j - i C\snabla \psi^i + i \mathcal{C}^{ij}\mu_j \approx 0\,,
\ee
which determines $\mu^i$ in terms of the canonical variables and introduces no new constraints. The preservation of the secondary constraint $\varphi$ yields conditions on part of the second-class constraint Lagrange multipliers $\mu^i$,
\be \label{dotphi}
\dot\varphi =
i \mathcal{C}^{ij}\partial_i\mu_j = -C\g^0 \snabla N^j\mu_j\approx 0\,.
\ee
This is equivalent to setting $N_i \mu^i=0$ in a decomposition analogous to \eqref{psidec1}, and is consistent with the stationary condition \eqref{dotchi} on the primary second-class constraints. Thus, the preservation in time of $\varphi \approx 0$ implies the vanishing of the component of $\mu_i$ along $N^i$. Since first-class constraints do not determine Lagrange multipliers, this shows that $\varphi$ is not a first-class generator. Indeed, it can be easily checked that the linear combination
\be\label{sfcc}
\tilde\varphi:=\varphi+i\partial_i\chi^i \approx 0\,,
\ee
is first-class.
It follows that the secondary constraint $\varphi$ is a linear combination of first-class and second-class constraints.
The second-class constraints can be eliminated by setting $\chi^i$ strongly to zero, reducing the system to the surface of the second-class constraints and replacing Poisson brackets with Dirac ones, $\{f\,,g\}_D := \{f\,,g\}- \{f\,,\chi^i_\a\}\,\mathcal{C}^{-1}{}_{ij}^{\a\b}\{\chi^j_\b\,,g\}$,
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\{f\,,g\}_D &=&(-1)^f \int d^{\scriptscriptstyle{D-1}}z \left[ -i \frac{ \delta f }{\delta \xi_i} \; P^{T}_{ij}\gamma_0 C^{-1}\frac{ \delta g }{\delta \xi_j} -i \frac{D-3}{D-2}\frac{\delta f}{\delta\lambda} \gamma_0 C^{-1} \frac{\delta g}{\delta \lambda} \right. \\
&&\left. +i\frac{1}{D-2} \Big( \frac{\delta f}{\delta\lambda} \gamma_0 C^{-1} \frac{\delta g}{\delta \zeta} +\frac{\delta f}{\delta\zeta} \gamma_0 C^{-1} \frac{\delta g}{\delta \lambda}\Big)+\Big( \frac{\delta f}{\delta\psi_0^\a} \frac{\delta g}{\delta \pi^0_\a} +\frac{\delta f}{\delta\pi^0_\a} \frac{\delta g}{\delta \psi_ 0^\a}\Big)\right]\,.\label{Dbk}
\end{eqnarray}
The first-class Hamiltonian \eqref{H1} in the reduced phase space becomes
\bea
H_R =\int d^{\scriptscriptstyle{D-1}}x \, \Big(i(D-2) \bar\psi_0\g^0 \snabla \zeta -\frac{i\displaystyle{(D-2)(D-3)}} 2 \bar{\zeta}\snabla\zeta + \frac i 2 \bar\xi^i\snabla \xi_i + \pi^0_\a \mu_0^\a\Big) \,,\label{H1b}
\eea
where the secondary first-class constraint $\varphi\approx 0$ is equivalent to $\snabla \zeta\approx0$. Thus, we arrive at a constrained Hamiltonian system for the reduced phase space where $\pi^0\approx 0$ and $\varphi \approx 0$
are the only remaining first-class constraints.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Consequences of the constraint $\varphi\approx 0$ }
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Up to this point, our analysis agrees with the Hamiltonian analysis in references \cite{Deser:1977ur,Pilati:1977ht,Senjanovic:1977vr,Fradkin:1977wv}. Henceforth, two paths can be followed depending on whether the \textit{Dirac conjecture}\footnote{At the end of Chapter 1 of \cite{Dirac-lectures}, Dirac conjectured that all first-class constraints generate gauge symmetries.} ({\bf DC}) is adopted or not, with the two options resulting in distinct physical systems, \ie with different numbers of propagating degrees of freedom.
The action principle,
\be
S=\int dt (\dot\psi_\mu \pi^\mu - H_T)\,,
\ee
given in terms of the total Hamiltonian \eqref{H1}, yields field equations equivalent to the Euler-Lagrange equations. This is because only primary constraints are necessary to recover the starting Lagrangian.
In Dirac's extended dynamics, secondary first-class constraints are considered independent gauge symmetry generators and are added to the Hamiltonian with their corresponding Lagrange multipliers. In this case the \textit{extended Hamiltonian} reads,
\be \label{EH}
H_E:= H_T +\tau^\a \tilde \varphi_\a \,,
\ee
where $\tau$ is a new Lagrange multiplier. In this framework, gauge fixing conditions should be imposed to intersect the gauge orbits generated by the $\tau^\a \tilde \varphi_\a$ component and determine $\tau$.
On the surface of second-class constraint $\chi_i=0$, the Hamiltonian reduces to
\be\label{H'R}
\tilde H_E:= H_R +\tau^\a \varphi_\a\,.
\ee
Then, the evolution defined by the (reduced) extended Hamiltonian \eqref{H'R} is given by,
\bea
\dot\xi_i&=& - \g_0 \snabla\xi_i\,,\qquad \dot\lambda=-(D-3)\g_0\snabla\zeta +\snabla\psi_0+\snabla\tau\,,\label{eomchia}\\[5pt]
\dot\psi_0&=&-\mu_0\,,\qquad\pi^0=0\,,\qquad \dot\zeta=0,\qquad \snabla\zeta=0\,. \label{eomchib}
\eea
The gauge orbits generated by $\mu_0\pi^0$ are intersected by a surface defined by fixing $\psi_0$, which can be chosen to implement the standard gamma-traceless condition \eqref{psi0}-\eqref{psi0'}. This and the constraint $\pi^0\approx 0$ form a second-class pair. Hence, the Lagrange multiplier $\mu_0$ can be eliminated by demanding \eqref{psi0'} to be stationary, relating $\mu_0$ to $\lambda$ and to the Lagrange multiplier $\tau$,
\be\label{mutau}
\mu_0 \approx \snabla\lambda - \g_0\snabla\tau\,.
\ee
The gauge choice \eqref{psi0'} is accessible since $\pi^0$ generates arbitrary shifts in $\psi_0$. In particular the shift $\delta \psi_0= -(\psi_0+\g_0 \g^i\vspin_i)$ renders $\psi_\mu$ gamma-traceless. Thus in the phase space spanned by $\xi_i,\zeta, \lambda$, the system (\ref{eomchia}, \ref{eomchib}) reduces to
\be
\dot\xi_i + \g_0 \snabla\xi_i= \gamma_0\spartial \xi_i = 0\,,\qquad \dot\lambda - \g_0\snabla\lambda = \snabla\tau\,,\qquad \dot\zeta=0=\snabla\zeta\,.\label{eomchic}
\ee
Here $\tau$ is the only arbitrary function of time remaining in the system. In order to eliminate $\tau$, an external gauge fixing condition conjugate to $\varphi\approx 0$ becomes necessary. Since $\lambda$ is conjugate to the constraint sourced by $\tau$, it must be gauge-fixed, and nothing can prevent its removal, leaving $\xi_i$ as the only propagating field in the system. This is how the \half mode is removed in \cite{Deser:1977ur, Pilati:1977ht, Senjanovic:1977vr,Fradkin:1977wv}.
\subsection{Consequences of Dirac's conjecture}
Some comments are in order here. First, the Euler-Lagrange equations \eqref{eom1} match the Hamiltonian evolution equations obtained from \eqref{eomchic} only if $\tau=0$. Second, the equation for $\lambda$ in \eqref{eomchic} reads
\be
\spartial \tilde\lambda = \snabla\tau\,,\qquad \tilde\lambda:=\g_0\lambda\,,
\ee
and it has the form of an inhomogeneous Dirac equation. The solution of this equation can be expressed as the sum of a homogeneous plus an inhomogeneous part, $\tilde\lambda=\tilde\lambda_{ho}+\tilde\lambda_{in}$, such that
\be
\spartial\tilde\lambda_{ho}=0\,,\qquad \tilde\lambda_{in}= \spartial^{-1}\snabla\tau\,,
\ee
where $\spartial^{-1}$ is the Green function for the Dirac operator. Thus $\lambda=\g^0\tilde\lambda$ contains a part with indeterminate time evolution ($\tilde\lambda_{in}$) that depends on the arbitrary Lagrange multiplier $\tau$, and the homogeneous part $\tilde\lambda_{ho}$ whose time evolution is entirely deterministic. We conclude that the arbitrary time dependence in the \half field comes from the ``human input" $\tau$, and is, therefore, an artifact of the procedure brought about by the insistence on assuming $\varphi$ as a gauge generator.
This shows that the DC is not logically necessary and therefore, $\varphi$ need not be regarded as a gauge generator to be added to $H_T$. Dropping $\varphi$ from the set of gauge generators is equivalent of setting $\tau=0$ in \eqref{eomchic} and, consequently, allowing the Hamiltonian field equations to match the Lagrangian ones \eqref{eom1}. With $\tau=0$, the Lagrange multiplier $\mu_0$ is completely determined from \eqref{mutau}, as expected, and $\tilde\lambda=\tilde\lambda_{ho}$ propagates as a standard Dirac field, thus recovering solution \eqref{sol}.\footnote{The reader can verify that $\varphi$ does not generate an independent symmetry of the field equations induced by the total Hamiltonian, equivalent to \eqref{eomchia}-\eqref{eomchib} with $\tau=0$. The true gauge generator corresponds to the Castellani chain \cite{Castellani:1981us},
\be\label{G}
G:= \int d^{D-1}x (\pi^0 \dot\epsilon -\bar\epsilon \g_0\snabla \zeta )\,.
\ee
More generally, each independent gauge orbit corresponds to a different Castellani chain, naturally superseding the DC \cite{Castellani:1981us,Earman:2003cy,Pons:2004pp}.}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Unified models from supergravity}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
The result \eqref{Dirac} can be extended to supergravity. Assuming the matter Ansatz \eqref{mans} --and allowing $\gamma^\mu \psi_\mu \neq 0$--, the \tralf sector is completely removed. This produces a theory in which the fermionic sector is purely made of \half fermions coupled to gravity and gauge fields. For example, consider the \textit{basic supergravity} model \cite{fnf,dz} given by
\be\label{bsugra}
\mcL_{\texttt{sugra}}[e_\mu^a,\omega^{ab}_\mu,\vspin_\mu]=\mcL_{\texttt{RS}} + \frac12 e\, R_{\mu\nu}^{ab}\, e^\mu_a e^\nu_b\,,
\ee
where $e^\mu_a$ is the inverse vielbein. A straightforward computation shows that this Lagrangian restricted to the sector $\psi_\mu=\g_\mu\kappa$ reduces to
\be
\mcL_{\texttt{U-sugra}}[e_\mu^a,\omega^{ab}_\mu,\g_\mu\kappa]= \frac{i(D-1)(D-2)}2 e \, \bar \kappa \slashed{D} \kappa + \frac{i(D-1)}2 \bar\kappa\, \g^{\mu\nu} T^a_{\mu\nu} \g_a \,\kappa+ \frac12 e\, R_{\mu\nu}^{ab}\, e^\mu_a e^\nu_b\,, \label{S12d}
\ee
where $e=det[e^a_\mu]$, and $T^a_{\mu \nu}=\partial_\mu e^a_\nu +\omega^a{}_{b\mu}e^b_\nu -(\mu \leftrightarrow \nu)$ is the torsion.
A Lagrangian of the form \eqref{S12d} is contained in every extension of most supergravity models \cite{fnf,dz}, including AdS supergravity \cite{s-ads1,s-ads2,s-ads3}, extensions with auxiliary fields \cite{sw,fn,brei,sg}, interactions with gauge \cite{fsn,fgsn,fss-ym} and matter \cite{ffnbgo,cs,csj2,csj1,cs1}, as well as in the superspace formulation of SUGRA \cite{wz,wz2,wz4,gwz2,Ducrocq:2021vkh}. The resulting unified theories will be reviewed in a forthcoming article.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Discussion and summary}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
An argument usually used to discard the \half component is attributed to a ``residual" gauge symmetry, with a gauge parameter satisfying the Dirac equation (see \eg \cite{Kuzenko:1998tsq}). However, shifting the solution of the Dirac equation by a parameter field that also satisfies the Dirac equation merely results in a trivial redefinition of the integration constants. On the other hand, demanding that residual symmetry leaves the initial conditions invariant would force the gauge parameter to vanish. Note that this sort of ``symmetry" would be present in any linear field equation, but this cannot be invoked to say that every field satisfying a linear equation could be gauged away.
The use of the decomposition of the vector-spinor gauge field in Poincar\'e group irreducible components \eqref{RSdec3}, $\rho^T_\mu + \hat\g_\mu \kappa+ w_\mu \tilde{\kappa}$, in the RS Lagrangian reveals the off-shell gauge invariant components of the massless RS system, as shown in \eqref{RSDfulldec}, consisting the \tralf component $\rho^T_\mu$, and \half $\kappa$. The analog approach to Maxwell's theory would split the gauge field into transverse and longitudinal components, $A_\mu=A_\mu^T + A_\mu^{L}$, reducing the Lagrangian to $-\tfrac14 F^2=A^T_\mu \Box A^{T \, \mu}$, which depends only on the gauge invariant transverse mode. Note that using the explicit expression for the transverse projector $P^T_{\mu\nu}:=\eta_{\mu\nu}-\Box^{-1} \partial_\mu\partial_\nu$, the field equation $\Box A^T_\mu= \Box P^T_{\mu\nu}A^\nu=0$ is identical to Maxwell's equation. Although we do not normally work with these expressions, the differential projection operators are useful to identify the field components that belong to the kernel of the action functional and those that contribute non-trivially to the action and propagate, as in \eqref{new}.
We have argued that the massless vector-spinor system usually considered in supergravity, referred to as massless RS system, describes not only \tralf degrees but also \half\!. We have shown this by four alternative methods. In the first approach, we fix the gauge to make the separation of the \half sector manifest, described by the standard Dirac equation. In the second approach, spin-block projectors are employed to decouple the gauge invariant and the pure gauge mode of the vector-spinor. The pure gauge mode is in the kernel of the Lagrangian functional, while two gauge-invariant sectors remain and propagate as \half and \tralf massless fields, respectively. In the third approach, we split the vector spinor into time-like and space-like vector-spinor components and build an explicit solution of the RS equation containing \half and \tralf sectors.
Our results are compatible with reference \cite{Heidenreich:1986vx}, where Heidenreich demonstrates that within the quantum field theory of the massless Rarita-Schwinger one of the \half mode is associated with states possessing 0-norm (the pure-gauge mode), while the \half and \tralf sectors have positive norms.
Following Dirac's Hamiltonian analysis, we arrive at the same results if the Dirac conjecture is not assumed in the formalism. Indeed, the RS system \eqref{RSL} could be seen as a fermionic counterexample to the DC, complementing the bosonic cases found in, \eg, \cite{Cawley,Gotay,Henneaux:1992ig}. Postulating the Dirac conjecture to be valid, \textit{a priori}, yields a system with no inconsistencies. However, the Hamiltonian and Euler-Lagrange equations would not be equivalent, and the \half propagating degrees of freedom would be lost as in \cite{Das:1976ct,Deser:1977ur,Senjanovic:1977vr,Pilati:1977ht,Fradkin:1977wv}. In the counterexamples to the DC, considered in \cite{Henneaux:1992ig}, it is claimed that the reduction under secondary first-class constraint without gauge fixing conditions leads to odd-dimensional reduced phase spaces, where the Dirac bracket is ill-defined, preventing its quantization. Consequently, it is proposed to assume the validity of the DC as a general rule \cite{Henneaux:1992ig}. However, it has been shown that quantizing first and then restricting to the surface of secondary first-class constraints avoids these obstructions \cite{Valenzuela:2023ips}. Furthermore, in fermionic systems, such as the one that concerns us here, the Dirac bracket is symmetric in Grassmann-odd variables and the constraints are self-conjugate \cite{Valenzuela:2022zic}.
We also conclude that basic supergravity reduces in \half sector of the vector-spinor to a coupled Einstein-Dirac system, including torsion terms \eqref{S12d}. More generally, in extended supergravity, the \half sectors will inherit the coupling constants of the gravitational, gauge, and matter interactions, and the \half projection of these supergravities are grand unification models including gravity. These results encourage exploring this missed supergravity sector as unification candidates. This observation also applies to the group theoretical approach of supergravity \cite{Neeman:1978zvv,DAdda:1980axn,Castellani:1981um,Castellani:2022iib}, and to higher dimensional Chern-Simons supergravity \cite{Banados:1996hi,Hassaine:2016amq}.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank L. Andrianopoli, L. Castellani, R. Noris and M. Trigiante, for enlightening discussions and helpful suggestions.
\paragraph{Funding information}
This work was partially funded by ANID/FONDECYT grants 1201208, 1220862 and 1230112, and USS-VRID project VRID-INTER22/10.
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
\bibliography{biblio20240223.bib}
\end{document}
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\bibitem{van}
P.~van Nieuwenhuizen.
\newblock Supergravity.
\newblock {\em Phys. Rept.}, 68:189, 1981.
\bibitem{Freedman:2012zz}
Daniel~Z. Freedman and Antoine Van~Proeyen.
\newblock {\em {Supergravity}}.
\newblock Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 5 2012.
\bibitem{RauschdeTraubenberg:2020kol}
Michel Rausch~de Traubenberg and Mauricio Valenzuela.
\newblock {\em {A Supergravity Primer}: {From Geometrical Principles to the
Final Lagrangian}}.
\newblock WSP, Singapur, 2020.
\bibitem{r-s}
W.~Rarita and J.~Schwinger.
\newblock On a theory of particles with half-integral spin.
\newblock {\em Phys.Rev.}, 60:61, 1941.
\bibitem{Weinberg:2000cr}
Steven Weinberg.
\newblock {\em {The quantum theory of fields. Vol. 3: Supersymmetry}}.
\newblock Cambridge University Press, 6 2013.
\bibitem{Dirac:1936tg}
Paul A.~M. Dirac.
\newblock {Relativistic wave equations}.
\newblock {\em Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A}, 155:447--459, 1936.
\bibitem{Fierz:1939ix}
M.~Fierz and W.~Pauli.
\newblock {On relativistic wave equations for particles of arbitrary spin in an
electromagnetic field}.
\newblock {\em Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A}, 173:211--232, 1939.
\bibitem{Johnson:1960vt}
Kenneth Johnson and E.~C.~G. Sudarshan.
\newblock {Inconsistency of the local field theory of charged spin 3/2
particles}.
\newblock {\em Annals Phys.}, 13:126--145, 1961.
\bibitem{Nath:1971wp}
L.~M. Nath, B.~Etemadi, and J.~D. Kimel.
\newblock {Uniqueness of the interaction involving spin 3/2 particles}.
\newblock {\em Phys. Rev. D}, 3:2153--2161, 1971.
\bibitem{Benmerrouche:1989uc}
M.~Benmerrouche, R.~M. Davidson, and N.~C. Mukhopadhyay.
\newblock {Problems of Describing Spin 3/2 Baryon Resonances in the Effective
Lagrangian Theory}.
\newblock {\em Phys. Rev. C}, 39:2339--2348, 1989.
\bibitem{Gomes:2022btc}
M.~Gomes, T.~Mariz, J.~R. Nascimento, and A.~Yu. Petrov.
\newblock {Lorentz-breaking Rarita-Schwinger model}.
\newblock {\em Phys. Scripta}, 98(12):125260, 2023.
\bibitem{fnf}
D.~Z. Freedman, P.~van Nieuwenhuizen, and S.~Ferrara.
\newblock Progress toward a theory of supergravity.
\newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D13:3214--3218, 1976.
\bibitem{dz}
S.~Deser and B.~Zumino.
\newblock Consistent supergravity.
\newblock {\em Phys. Lett.}, B62:335, 1976.
\bibitem{Valenzuela:2022gbk}
Mauricio Valenzuela and Jorge Zanelli.
\newblock {On the spin content of the classical massless Rarita-Schwinger
system}.
\newblock {\em SciPost Phys. Proc.}, 14:047, 2023.
\bibitem{Dirac-lectures}
P.~A.~M. Dirac.
\newblock {\em Lectures on Quantum Mechanics}.
\newblock originally published by the Belfer Graduate School of Science,
Yeshiva University, New York, in 1964. Dover, New York, 2001.
\bibitem{Senjanovic:1977vr}
G.~Senjanovic.
\newblock {Hamiltonian Formulation and Quantization of the Spin 3/2 Field}.
\newblock {\em Phys. Rev. D}, 16:307, 1977.
\bibitem{Pilati:1977ht}
Martin Pilati.
\newblock {The Canonical Formulation of Supergravity}.
\newblock {\em Nucl. Phys. B}, 132:138--154, 1978.
\bibitem{Deser:1977ur}
Stanley Deser, J.~H. Kay, and K.~S. Stelle.
\newblock {Hamiltonian Formulation of Supergravity}.
\newblock {\em Phys. Rev. D}, 16:2448, 1977.
\bibitem{Fradkin:1977wv}
E.~S. Fradkin and Mikhail~A. Vasiliev.
\newblock {Hamiltonian Formalism, Quantization and S Matrix for Supergravity}.
\newblock {\em Phys. Lett. B}, 72:70--74, 1977.
\bibitem{Behrends:1957rup}
R.~E. Behrends and C.~Fronsdal.
\newblock {Fermi Decay of Higher Spin Particles}.
\newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, 106(2):345, 1957.
\bibitem{Ogievetsky:1976qs}
V.~I. Ogievetsky and E.~S. Sokatchev.
\newblock {Equations of Motion for Superfields}.
\newblock In {\em {4th International Conference on Nonlocal Quantum Field
Theory}}, pages 183--203, 1976.
\bibitem{Alvarez:2011gd}
Pedro~D. Alvarez, Mauricio Valenzuela, and Jorge Zanelli.
\newblock {Supersymmetry of a different kind}.
\newblock {\em JHEP}, 04:058, 2012.
\bibitem{Alvarez:2013tga}
Pedro~D. Alvarez, Pablo Pais, and Jorge Zanelli.
\newblock {Unconventional supersymmetry and its breaking}.
\newblock {\em Phys. Lett. B}, 735:314--321, 2014.
\bibitem{Alvarez:2015bva}
Pedro~D. Alvarez, Pablo Pais, Eduardo Rodr\'\i{}guez, Patricio
Salgado-Rebolledo, and Jorge Zanelli.
\newblock {Supersymmetric 3D model for gravity with $SU(2)$ gauge symmetry,
mass generation and effective cosmological constant}.
\newblock {\em Class. Quant. Grav.}, 32(17):175014, 2015.
\bibitem{Guevara:2016rbl}
Alfredo Guevara, Pablo Pais, and Jorge Zanelli.
\newblock {Dynamical Contents of Unconventional Supersymmetry}.
\newblock {\em JHEP}, 08:085, 2016.
\bibitem{Alvarez:2021qbu}
Pedro~D. Alvarez, Lucas Delage, Mauricio Valenzuela, and Jorge Zanelli.
\newblock {$ \mathcal{N} $ = 2 extended MacDowell-Mansouri supergravity}.
\newblock {\em JHEP}, 07:176, 2021.
\bibitem{Alvarez:2020izs}
Pedro~D. Alvarez, Mauricio Valenzuela, and Jorge Zanelli.
\newblock {Role of gravity in particle physics: A unified approach}.
\newblock {\em Int. J. Mod. Phys. D}, 29(11):2041012, 2020.
\bibitem{Alvarez:2021zhh}
Pedro~D. Alvarez, Lucas Delage, Mauricio Valenzuela, and Jorge Zanelli.
\newblock {Unconventional SUSY and Conventional Physics: A Pedagogical Review}.
\newblock {\em Symmetry}, 13:628, 2021.
\bibitem{Iorio:2013ifa}
Alfredo Iorio and Gaetano Lambiase.
\newblock {Quantum field theory in curved graphene spacetimes, Lobachevsky
geometry, Weyl symmetry, Hawking effect, and all that}.
\newblock {\em Phys. Rev. D}, 90(2):025006, 2014.
\bibitem{Iorio:2014pwa}
Alfredo Iorio.
\newblock {Curved Spacetimes and Curved Graphene: a status report of the
Weyl-symmetry approach}.
\newblock {\em Int. J. Mod. Phys. D}, 24(05):1530013, 2015.
\bibitem{Iorio:2014nda}
Alfredo Iorio.
\newblock {Graphene and Black Holes: novel materials to reach the unreachable}.
\newblock {\em Front. Mater.}, 1:36, 2015.
\bibitem{Iorio:2018agc}
Alfredo Iorio and Pablo Pais.
\newblock {(Anti-)de Sitter, Poincar\'e, Super symmetries, and the two Dirac
points of graphene}.
\newblock {\em Annals Phys.}, 398:265--286, 2018.
\bibitem{Ciappina:2019qgj}
Marcelo~F. Ciappina, Alfredo Iorio, Pablo Pais, and Adamantia Zampeli.
\newblock {Torsion in quantum field theory through time-loops on Dirac
materials}.
\newblock {\em Phys. Rev. D}, 101(3):036021, 2020.
\bibitem{Andrianopoli:2019sip}
L.~Andrianopoli, B.~L. Cerchiai, R.~D'Auria, A.~Gallerati, R.~Noris,
M.~Trigiante, and J.~Zanelli.
\newblock {$\mathcal{N}$-extended $D = 4$ supergravity, unconventional SUSY and
graphene}.
\newblock {\em JHEP}, 01:084, 2020.
\bibitem{Iorio:2020olc}
Alfredo Iorio.
\newblock {Analog hep-th, on Dirac materials and in general}.
\newblock {\em PoS}, CORFU2019:203, 2020.
\bibitem{Iorio:2020tuc}
Alfredo Iorio and Pablo Pais.
\newblock {Time-loops in Dirac materials, torsion and unconventional
Supersymmetry}.
\newblock {\em PoS}, ICHEP2020:669, 2021.
\bibitem{Gallerati:2021rtp}
Antonio Gallerati.
\newblock {Negative-curvature spacetime solutions for graphene}.
\newblock {\em J. Phys. Condens. Matter}, 33(13):135501, 2021.
\bibitem{Gallerati:2021htm}
Antonio Gallerati.
\newblock {Supersymmetric theories and graphene}.
\newblock {\em PoS}, ICHEP2020:662, 2021.
\bibitem{Gallerati:2022egf}
Antonio Gallerati.
\newblock {Graphene, Dirac equation and analogue gravity}.
\newblock {\em Phys. Scripta}, 97(6):064005, 2022.
\bibitem{Acquaviva:2022yiq}
Giovanni Acquaviva, Alfredo Iorio, Pablo Pais, and Luca Smaldone.
\newblock {Hunting Quantum Gravity with Analogs: The Case of Graphene}.
\newblock {\em Universe}, 8(9):455, 2022.
\bibitem{Iorio:2022ave}
Alfredo Iorio, Boris Iveti\'c, Salvatore Mignemi, and Pablo Pais.
\newblock {Three \textquotedblleft{}layers\textquotedblright{} of graphene
monolayer and their analog generalized uncertainty principles}.
\newblock {\em Phys. Rev. D}, 106(11):116011, 2022.
\bibitem{Iorio:2022jrg}
Alfredo Iorio.
\newblock {Carbon pseudospheres and the BTZ black hole}.
\newblock {\em PoS}, CORFU2021:240, 2022.
\bibitem{Gomes:2017rmd}
Y.~M.~P. Gomes and J.~A. Helayel-Neto.
\newblock {On a five-dimensional Chern\textendash{}Simons AdS supergravity
without gravitino}.
\newblock {\em Phys. Lett. B}, 777:275--280, 2018.
\bibitem{Andrianopoli:2018ymh}
L.~Andrianopoli, B.~L. Cerchiai, R.~D'Auria, and M.~Trigiante.
\newblock {Unconventional supersymmetry at the boundary of AdS$_{4}$
supergravity}.
\newblock {\em JHEP}, 04:007, 2018.
\bibitem{Andrianopoli:2019sqe}
L.~Andrianopoli, B.~L. Cerchiai, P.~A. Grassi, and M.~Trigiante.
\newblock {The Quantum Theory of Chern-Simons Supergravity}.
\newblock {\em JHEP}, 06:036, 2019.
\bibitem{Alvarez:2020qmy}
Pedro~D. Alvarez, Mauricio Valenzuela, and Jorge Zanelli.
\newblock {Chiral gauge theory and gravity from unconventional supersymmetry}.
\newblock {\em JHEP}, 07(07):205, 2020.
\bibitem{Andrianopoli:2020zbl}
L.~Andrianopoli, B.~L. Cerchiai, R.~Matrecano, O.~Miskovic, R.~Noris, R.~Olea,
L.~Ravera, and M.~Trigiante.
\newblock {$ \mathcal{N} $ = 2 AdS$_{4}$ supergravity, holography and Ward
identities}.
\newblock {\em JHEP}, 02:141, 2021.
\bibitem{Eder:2021rgt}
Konstantin Eder and Hanno Sahlmann.
\newblock {Holst-MacDowell-Mansouri action for (extended) supergravity with
boundaries and super Chern-Simons theory}.
\newblock {\em JHEP}, 07:071, 2021.
\bibitem{Andrianopoli:2021sdx}
L.~Andrianopoli, B.~L. Cerchiai, R.~Matrecano, R.~Noris, L.~Ravera, and
M.~Trigiante.
\newblock {Twisting D(2,1; $\alpha$) Superspace}.
\newblock {\em Fortsch. Phys.}, 69(10):2100111, 2021.
\bibitem{Andrianopoli:2021rdk}
Laura Andrianopoli and Lucrezia Ravera.
\newblock {On the Geometric Approach to the Boundary Problem in Supergravity}.
\newblock {\em Universe}, 7(12):463, 2021.
\bibitem{Das:1976ct}
Ashok~K. Das and Daniel~Z. Freedman.
\newblock {Gauge Quantization for Spin 3/2 Fields}.
\newblock {\em Nucl. Phys. B}, 114:271--296, 1976.
\bibitem{Hanson:1976cn}
Andrew~J. Hanson, Tullio Regge, and Claudio Teitelboim.
\newblock {\em {Constrained Hamiltonian Systems}}.
\newblock Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1976.
\bibitem{Henneaux:1992ig}
M.~Henneaux and C.~Teitelboim.
\newblock {\em {Quantization of gauge systems}}.
\newblock 1992.
\bibitem{Castellani:1981us}
Leonardo Castellani.
\newblock {Symmetries in Constrained Hamiltonian Systems}.
\newblock {\em Annals Phys.}, 143:357, 1982.
\bibitem{Earman:2003cy}
J.~Earman.
\newblock {\em {Tracking down gauge: An ode to the constrained Hamiltonian
formalism}}, volume Symmetries in Physics: Philosophical Reflections.
\newblock Cambridge University Press, 2003.
\bibitem{Pons:2004pp}
Josep~M. Pons.
\newblock {On Dirac's incomplete analysis of gauge transformations}.
\newblock {\em Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. B}, 36:491--518, 2005.
\bibitem{s-ads1}
D.~Z. Freedman and A.~K. Das.
\newblock Gauge internal symmetry in extended supergravity.
\newblock {\em Nucl.Phys.}, B120:221, 1977.
\bibitem{s-ads2}
P.K. Townsend.
\newblock Cosmological constant in supergravity.
\newblock {\em Phys.Rev.}, D15:2802--2804, 1977.
\bibitem{s-ads3}
S.~Deser and B.~Zumino.
\newblock Broken supersymmetry and supergravity.
\newblock {\em Phys.Rev.Lett.}, 38:1433, 1977.
\bibitem{sw}
K.~S. Stelle and P.~C. West.
\newblock Minimal auxiliary fields for supergravity.
\newblock {\em Phys. Lett.}, B74:330, 1978.
\bibitem{fn}
S.~Ferrara and P.~van Nieuwenhuizen.
\newblock The auxiliary fields of supergravity.
\newblock {\em Phys.Lett.}, B74:333, 1978.
\bibitem{brei}
P.~Breitenlohner.
\newblock Some invariant {L}agrangians for local supersymmetry.
\newblock {\em Nucl.Phys.}, B124:500, 1977.
\bibitem{sg}
W.~Siegel and Jr. Gates, S.~J.
\newblock Superfield supergravity.
\newblock {\em Nucl.Phys.}, B147:77, 1979.
\bibitem{fsn}
S.~Ferrara, J.~Scherk, and P.~van Nieuwenhuizen.
\newblock Locally supersymmetric {M}axwell-{E}instein theory.
\newblock {\em Phys.Rev.Lett.}, 37:1035, 1976.
\bibitem{fgsn}
S.~Ferrara, F.~Gliozzi, J.~Scherk, and P.~Van~Nieuwenhuizen.
\newblock Matter couplings in supergravity theory.
\newblock {\em Nucl.Phys.}, B117:333, 1976.
\bibitem{fss-ym}
D.~Z. Freedman and J.~H. Schwarz.
\newblock Unification of supergravity and {Y}ang-{M}ills theory.
\newblock {\em Phys.Rev.}, D15:1007, 1977.
\bibitem{ffnbgo}
S.~Ferrara, D.Z. Freedman, P.~van Nieuwenhuizen, P.~Breitenlohner, F.~Gliozzi,
and J.~Scherk.
\newblock Scalar multiplet coupled to supergravity.
\newblock {\em Phys.Rev.}, D15:1013, 1977.
\bibitem{cs}
E.~Cremmer and Joel Scherk.
\newblock The supersymmetric nonlinear sigma model in four-dimensions and its
coupling to supergravity.
\newblock {\em Phys.Lett.}, B74:341, 1978.
\bibitem{csj2}
E.~Cremmer, B.~Julia, J.~Scherk, S.~Ferrara, L.~Girardello, and P.~van
Nieuwenhuizen.
\newblock Super-{H}iggs effect in supergravity with general scalar
interactions.
\newblock {\em Phys. Lett.}, B79:231, 1978.
\bibitem{csj1}
E.~Cremmer, B.~Julia, J.~Scherk, S.~Ferrara, L.~Girardello, and P.~van
Nieuwenhuizen.
\newblock Spontaneous symmetry breaking and {H}iggs effect in supergravity
without cosmological constant.
\newblock {\em Nucl. Phys.}, B147:105, 1979.
\bibitem{cs1}
E.~Cremmer, S.~Ferrara, L.~Girardello, and A.~Van~Proeyen.
\newblock Coupling supersymmetric {Y}ang-{M}ills theories to supergravity.
\newblock {\em Phys. Lett.}, B116:231, 1982.
\bibitem{wz}
J.~Wess and B.~Zumino.
\newblock Superspace formulation of supergravity.
\newblock {\em Phys. Lett.}, B66:361, 1977.
\bibitem{wz2}
J.~Wess and B.~Zumino.
\newblock Superfield {L}agrangian for supergravity.
\newblock {\em Phys.Lett.}, B74:51, 1978.
\bibitem{wz4}
J.~Wess and B.~Zumino.
\newblock The component formalism follows from the superspace formulation of
supergravity.
\newblock {\em Phys.Lett.}, B79:394, 1978.
\bibitem{gwz2}
R.~Grimm, J.~Wess, and B.~Zumino.
\newblock Consistency checks on the superspace formulation of supergravity.
\newblock {\em Phys.Lett.}, B73:415, 1978.
\bibitem{Ducrocq:2021vkh}
Robin Ducrocq, Michel Rausch De~Traubenberg, and Mauricio Valenzuela.
\newblock {A pedagogical discussion of N = 1 four-dimensional supergravity in
superspace}.
\newblock 4 2021.
\bibitem{Kuzenko:1998tsq}
Sergio~M. Kuzenko and Ioseph~L. Buchbinder.
\newblock {\em {Ideas and Methods of Supersymmetry and Supergravity or A Walk
Through Superspace: A Walk Through Superspace}}.
\newblock Taylor \& Francis, 1998.
\bibitem{Heidenreich:1986vx}
W.~Heidenreich.
\newblock {On solution spaces of massless field equations with arbitrary spin}.
\newblock {\em J. Math. Phys.}, 27:2154--2159, 1986.
\bibitem{Cawley}
R.~Cawley.
\newblock Determination of the hamiltonian in the presence of constraints.
\newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 42:413, 1979.
\bibitem{Gotay}
M.~J. Gotay.
\newblock On the validity of dirac's conjecture regarding first-class secondary
constraints.
\newblock {\em J. Phys.}, A(16):L141, 1983.
\bibitem{Valenzuela:2023ips}
Mauricio Valenzuela.
\newblock {Quantization of counterexamples to Dirac\textquoteright{}s
conjecture}.
\newblock {\em Eur. Phys. J. Plus}, 138(10):939, 2023.
\bibitem{Valenzuela:2022zic}
Mauricio Valenzuela.
\newblock {Pseudoclassical system with gauge and time-reparametrization
invariance}.
\newblock {\em Phys. Rev. D}, 107(8):085004, 2023.
\bibitem{Neeman:1978zvv}
Yuval Ne'eman and Tullio Regge.
\newblock {Gravity and Supergravity as Gauge Theories on a Group Manifold}.
\newblock {\em Phys. Lett. B}, 74:54--56, 1978.
\bibitem{DAdda:1980axn}
A.~D'Adda, R.~D'Auria, P.~Fre, and T.~Regge.
\newblock {Geometrical Formulation of Supergravity Theories on Orthosymplectic
Supergroup Manifolds}.
\newblock {\em Riv. Nuovo Cim.}, 3N6:1--81, 1980.
\bibitem{Castellani:1981um}
L.~Castellani, P.~Fre, and P.~van Nieuwenhuizen.
\newblock {A Review of the Group Manifold Approach and Its Application to
Conformal Supergravity}.
\newblock {\em Annals Phys.}, 136:398, 1981.
\bibitem{Castellani:2022iib}
Leonardo Castellani.
\newblock {Group manifold approach to supergravity}.
\newblock 11 2022.
\bibitem{Banados:1996hi}
Maximo Banados, Ricardo Troncoso, and Jorge Zanelli.
\newblock {Higher dimensional Chern-Simons supergravity}.
\newblock {\em Phys. Rev. D}, 54:2605--2611, 1996.
\bibitem{Hassaine:2016amq}
Mokhtar Hassaine and Jorge Zanelli.
\newblock {\em {Chern-Simons (super)gravity}}, volume~2 of {\em 100 years of
general relativity}.
\newblock World Scientific, Hackensack, 2016.
\end{thebibliography}