symmetry is one of the basic principles that penetrate all of physics : from classical to quantum physics @xcite ; from statistical or condensed matter physics to particle physics @xcite ; and from relativity to gauge field theory .
thus we see a wide range of symmetries : from external ( space - time ) to internal ones ; and from discrete to continuous ones .
this is partly because geometry is an indispensable element to describing physics .
and a natural algebraic language to express geometrical symmetry is group theory .
@xcite    classical mechanics is widely known to have close relations between symmetries and lagrangians or hamiltonians.@xcite since quantum mechanics and field theory are , in some respects , modeled and devised after classical mechanics , we see that not a few methods and notions , including symmetry , in quantum mechanics and field theory resemble those in classical mechanics . and thus symmetry plays a crucial role also in quantum physics . or we can interpret that although `` the physical world is quantum mechanical'',@xcite the quantum feature are somewhat transmitted to the classical world ; and through the latter we may try to grasp the former .
of course since we are not able to capture all nature by classical analogies , there are sometimes discrepancies between quantum symmetries and classical ones .
@xcite    now , one of the typical mathematical tools that relate classical states with quantum ones is coherent states ( cs ) .
@xcite it was originally devised by schrdinger @xcite as the states having classical `` particle '' nature .
the state exhibits a wave packet whose center moves along with the classical trajectory with minimum uncertainty ; thus it shows classical nature .
the original cs which is called canonical cs is , in the light of quantum optics , generated by displacing , or driving , the vacuum , i.e. the zero photon state .
@xcite later cs have been developed in a wide variety of directions .
viewed from a general framework , we may take up the following three subjects among the evolutions .
first , cs have been extended to wider classes .
a systematic way to broaden cs is constructing cs in terms of unitary irreducible representations of lie groups due to perelomov.@xcite in the approach , cs is defined by operating a unitary operator related to a physical system being considered on a `` fiducial vector ( fv ) '' , which we denote @xmath4 . from this point of view , for the canonical cs the unitary operator is a displacement operator and a fv is the ground state or vacuum .
similarly , the spin cs can be constructed by operating a rotation operator on a fv ; the fv is conventionally taken as @xmath5 or @xmath6 : the highest or lowest eigenvectors of @xmath2 .
we may perform the procedures to other lie groups , which automatically produces cs for the corresponding lie groups .
schur s lemma coming from irreducibility always ensures the overcomplteness of cs .
second , since cs enjoy overcomplete relations , `` coherent state path integrals ( cspi ) '' , i.e. , path integrals ( pi ) via cs , have been developed.@xcite such cspi have been pushing the method of pi forward strongly . and
besides cspi turned out to be closely related to geometric phases @xcite ; in fact it is remarkable that geometric phases follow from the topological terms of phase space pi or cspi naturally .
@xcite third , following the fruits of the above two developments , cs and cspi with arbitrary fv have been explored .
@xcite in the case cs are obtained by operating a unitary operator on an _ arbitrary _ fv : for the canonical cs a fv is arbitrary superpositions of the fock number states ; and for the spin cs arbitrary superpositions of @xmath7 : a general eigenvector of @xmath2 .
we found that , as mentioned in ref . , the canonical cs evolving from arbitrary fv@xcite turned out to be an arbitrary superposition of displaced number states having no classical analogues .
similarly , we may regard spin cs evolving from a general fv other than the conventional one as quantum states without classical analogues .
it is true that cs with the conventional fv are closest to classical states and have useful properties .
@xcite however , recent technologies enable us to prepare quantum states which have no classical analogues ; the typical one is the squeezed states of light .
@xcite we certainly regard the evolutions plausible since experimental developments due to high technologies have often created opportunities to reconsider nature . in this respect
we may take cs evolving from a generic fv as the mathematical tools , or a sort of new language , for describing non - classical quantum states .
and thus what we have done in refs
. and is constructing new quantum states and investigating the dynamics : i.e. , the time evolutions of the quantum states .
we can interpret the attempts as extending both cs due to schrdinger - klauder - glauber - perelomov and pi due to dirac - feynman - klauder - kuratsuji - suzuki .
in the previous paper,@xcite hereafter referred to as * i * , we have developed a basic formulation of the su(2 ) , i.e. spin , cs based on arbitrary fv and of their pi .
the cs and cspi are labeled by a full set of three euler angles @xmath8 .
since the present paper flows directly out of * i * , we will look back the previous results concisely . in
* i * we found out that the lagrangian in the action appeared in the pi expression were composed of two parts : the topological term related to geometric phases and the dynamical one originating from a hamiltonian . and
the former is again split into two parts : one is the monopole type part which is the generalization of that of balachandran _
et al._@xcite and the other represents the effect of entanglements between neighboring components of a fv .
such interweaving components of a fv appear in the dynamical term as well .
the monopole is fictitious in that it does not represent a real physical monopole having a magnetic charge ; instead it stems from the topological or geometric phase terms .
however , mathematical descriptions seem quite common to both real and fictitious monopoles . and
we have confirmed the pi form by demonstrating from discrete pi to continuous ones .
moreover , it has been proved that the generic spin cspi contract to the general canonical cspi in the high spin limit .    at first sight
it seems that we are free to choose fv ; there are no restrictions on fv and we may take an arbitrary fv .
however , when a lagrangian varies at most a total derivative under a certain gauge transformation and possesses a sort of semiclassical symmetry , a full quantum state with an arbitrary fv does not always preserve the related symmetry . in the case , when a fv @xmath4 can not be reached from @xmath7 via @xmath9 , we find some strange feature : semiclassical orbits do not always represent exact quantal evolutions .
it is stone who first observed that there does exist one of the central problems at the point viewed from a general framework of cs with arbitrary fv .
he raised the problem in a paper@xcite commenting on the precursory version of * i * @xcite ; moreover , he went further enough to propose a criterion under which the cs capture full quantal evolutions . according to that ,
an arbitrary fv is not always realized and that there may be restrictions on fv so that quantum evolutions are consistent with the semiclassical ones which has an original symmetry .
actually , the fv have to be identical with @xmath7 or on the orbits of @xmath7 under the action of @xmath10 . and
, as stone precisely pointed out , the problem is deeply related to the charge quantization of monopoles .    in this article
we consider the problem posed in ref . from the general framework of spin cspi developed in * i*. as mentioned earlier , we have demonstrated the process of going from the discrete pi to the continuous pi in * i * ; we have also showed that the spin cspi contract to the canonical cspi .
so the pi expressions in * i * are quite all right and are not responsible for not bringing the restriction on fv
. then one might wonder from where the restriction comes .
we will approach the riddle in the light of the `` gauge symmetry '' associated with the invariance of lagrangian appeared in the spin cspi in * i*. so the present article is also concerned with `` symmetry '' .
it will be one of the early attempts that relate cs and cspi with symmetry , especially gauge symmetry .
the plan of the paper is as follows .
first , we look back the spin(su(2))cspi based on arbitrary fv in @xmath11 [ sec : spincspi ] .
next , using the formulation of the spin cspi , we discuss general properties of a lagrangian in the light of gauge symmetries in @xmath11 [ sec : symlagfv ] .
next , in @xmath11 [ sec : lags ] we demonstrate , using simple examples , the relations between types of fv and semiclassical as well as full quantal dynamics .
we then look over several real examples of lagrangians in order to see the relations between hamiltonians , fv and gauge symmetries of the whole lagrangians .
main results are presented as theorems and proved in @xmath11 [ sec : gentheorems ] .
theorem [ th : typefv ] gives the central result concerning the restriction on fv in the full quantum picture .
we find that gauge symmetries bring restrictions on fv and thus on the form of cs .
we look into the situation much deeper by investigating the generator of the symmetry transformation in theorem [ th : gform ] .
next , we revisit the gauge symmetries in the light of a new kind of isotropy subgroups due to ref . in @xmath11 [ sec : anotherviewscevolvs ] ; and we see the correspondence between the approach and that in @xmath11 [ sec : symlagfv ] and @xmath11 [ sec : lags ] . finally we summarize the results in @xmath11 [ sec : discussion ] .
there we also discuss the related topics that we view in a future prospect .
let us recall the results in * i*. first , we define the spin(su(2))cs , @xmath12 , evolving from an arbitrary fv @xmath4 as : @xmath13 the fv @xmath4 is represented by : @xmath14 hereafter @xmath15 stands for @xmath7 . from ( [ eqn : cs1 ] ) and ( [ eqn : spinfv ] ) we obtain @xmath16 see ( * i * - 19 ) ) denotes eq . (
@xmath17 ) in * i*. ] for the explicit form of @xmath18 which we do not need in the present paper .
we called @xmath18 the `` rotated spin number state '' in * i * where we saw that it corresponded to the `` displaced number state '' in the general canonical cs .
@xcite    then the quantum time evolution of a physical system with a hamiltonian @xmath19 in terms of @xmath12 is given by the propagator : @xmath20 \ } \ ,   { \cal d } [ { \bf\omega}(t ) ] , \label{eqn : pi}\ ] ] where @xmath21 \equiv \int_{t_i}^{t_f }     \bigl [ \ { { \left\langle \bf\omega\right\vert } } i \hbar   \frac{\partial}{\partial t }    { { \left\vert \bf\omega\right\rangle } }    - h({\bf\omega } , t ) \ \bigr ]   \ , d t    \equiv \int_{t_i}^{t_f }      l({\bf\omega } , { \bf \dot \omega},t ) \ , d t ,    \label{eqn : action - pol}\ ] ] with @xmath22 the explicit form of the lagrangian yields : @xmath23   - h({\bf\omega } , t ) , \label{eqn : lagpol}\ ] ] where @xmath24 the following expressions include what @xmath25 and @xmath26 mean : @xmath27 \\ a_2({\bf\omega } ; { { \ { c_m \ } } } ) = ( 1 / 2 ) \sum_{m = - s + 1}^{s } f(s , m )   \exp(i \phi )   \ { ( 1 + \cos\theta ) \exp(i \psi ) c_m^ { * } c_{m-1 } \\
\qquad \qquad - ( 1 - \cos\theta ) \exp(- i \psi )   c_m c_{m-1}^ { * } \ } \\ a_4(\psi ; { { \ { c_m \ } } } )   \equiv   [ ( 1 / ( 2 i ) ] \sum_{m =- s+1}^{s } f(s , m )   [ c_m^ { * } c_{m-1 } \exp(i \psi )    - c_m c_{m-1}^ { * } \exp(- i \psi ) ] .   \\
f(s , m )   = [ ( s + m)(s - m + 1)]^{1/2}.   \end{array } \right .
\label{eqn : defa}\ ] ]    the term with the square brackets in the lagrangian ( [ eqn : lagpol ] ) : @xmath28 stemming from @xmath29 , may be called the `` topological term '' that is related to the geometric phases .    for operators @xmath30 that constitute @xmath31 , we have @xmath32 where @xmath33 and @xmath34 have already been given in ( [ eqn : defa ] ) and @xmath35 .
variational equations associated with the lagrangian ( [ eqn : lagpol ] ) are : @xmath36 { \dot \phi }   + a_1(\psi ; { { \ { c_m \ } } } ) { \dot \psi } \ }   = - ( \partial h / \partial \theta ) \\
\hbar   \ { [ a_0({{\ { c_m \ } } } ) \sin\theta   + a_1(\psi ; { { \ { c_m \ } } } ) \cos\theta   ] { \dot \theta }   - [ a_4(\psi ; { { \ { c_m \ } } } ) \sin\theta ] { \dot \psi }    \ }   = \partial h / \partial \phi \\ \hbar   \ { [ a_4(\psi ; { { \ { c_m \ } } } ) \sin\theta ] { \dot \phi }    + a_1(\psi ; { { \ { c_m \ } } } ) { \dot \theta }   \ }   = { \partial h / \partial \psi } , \label{eqn : vareq - pol }   \end{array } \right.\ ] ]
following the results in @xmath11 [ sec : spincspi ] , we now consider the relations between semiclassical time evolutions of @xmath12 and the properties of symmetries that lagrangians possess .
we see from ( [ eqn : lagpol])-([eqn : defa ] ) that the @xmath1-variable does not take effect in @xmath37 provided no neighboring @xmath38 exists for any @xmath39 ; then @xmath40-terms vanishes and the topological term ( [ eqn : topol - term0 ] ) takes the form : @xmath41 the form of ( [ eqn : toptermsym ] ) is a generalization of that in ref . .
taking @xmath42 in ( [ eqn : topol - term0 ] ) yields the latter form .
for such a fv , if we assume that @xmath31 is linear in @xmath43 , we see from ( [ eqn : mat - pol ] ) that @xmath44 does not depend on @xmath1
. consequently the form of the variational equations ( [ eqn : vareq - pol ] ) becomes the same as that for the usual spin cspi evolving from @xmath45 , or @xmath46 with @xmath47 replaced with @xmath48 .
and thus we can choose any @xmath1 as far as semiclassical dynamics is concerned . in what follows
we will investigate a little deeper such fv and @xmath31 as above - mentioned that yield ( [ eqn : toptermsym ] ) and leave semiclassical dynamics invariant .    from the viewpoint of the symmetry of lagrangian
, we grasp the situation as follows . to begin with ,
in the present case we have @xmath49 under the `` gauge @xmath1-transformation '' : @xmath50 which moves the @xmath1-euler angle , a ket vector @xmath12 changes as : @xmath51 and besides we assume @xmath52 then the lagrangian ( [ eqn : weak - sym - lag ] ) behaves as : @xmath53 hence we see that the lagrangian ( [ eqn : weak - sym - lag ] ) has what is called `` weak invariance '' in refs . and : the lagrangian varies only by a total derivative term under a certain transformation .
@xcite let us call it the `` weak gauge symmetry '' or the `` weak gauge @xmath1-symmetry '' here so as to stress the effect of the gauge @xmath1-transformation ( [ eqn : transfrs3 ] ) .
we state them once more in the following definition :     _ if a lagrangian is transformed according to ( [ eqn : transf - lag ] ) under ( [ eqn : transfrs3 ] ) , we say that the lagrangian possesses the weak gauge symmetry or the weak gauge @xmath1-symmetry .
_    so far we have concentrated on the semiclassical time evolutions .
we see that a fv with certain conditions meet the symmetry of semiclassical motions .
however , if we consider the full quantum dynamics conformable to the @xmath1-invariance , more stringent conditions are required of fv .
moreover , we will find that the conditions on fv , i.e. those on @xmath38 , for the symmetry of hamiltonians or of the whole lagrangians are changed when we take up hamiltonians that are quadratic or higher in @xmath54 .
we will look into the situations more deeply using real sample lagrangians in the next @xmath11 [ sec : lags ] .
in this section we will discuss the relation between fv , hamiltonians and weak symmetry of lagrangians above mentioned by demonstrating several concrete examples . the problem is closely related to semiclassical versus full quantum time evolutions first pointed by stone .
@xcite    first , we investigate a few simple examples to see how fv relate to symmetries and what semiclassical and full quantum time evolutions look like in @xmath11 [ sec : ex - simpie - llusts ] .
this may help one to grasp various wider examples collected in table [ tab : exlagssym ] in the following @xmath11 [ sec : ex - lags ] .
the examples in @xmath11 [ sec : ex - simpie - llusts ] are also included in table [ tab : exlagssym ] .      in this subsection we illustrate , using simple examples of a hamiltonian and fv , the relations between semiclassical paths and exact quantal time evolutions .    before going into the examples , let us recollect the general theory of cs .
@xcite then we find that cs are determined in connection with fv .
let @xmath55 be a lie group of our concern .
consider the case in which there exists a subgroup of @xmath55 , say @xmath56 , that leaves a fv , @xmath4 , invariant : @xmath57 such a subgroup @xmath56 is called the `` isotropy subgroup '' or a `` stabilizer '' .
then cs is actually defined on the coset space @xmath58 . and
@xmath59 are frequently employed in place of @xmath55 and @xmath56 . in order that one does not confuse them with the hamiltonians @xmath60 , @xmath59 and the generator @xmath61 in the following sections we use calligraphic @xmath55 and @xmath56 to express general groups here . ]
if there is no isotropy subgroups , we may regard @xmath62 .
then @xmath58 is @xmath63 itself .
hence we see that an isotropy subgroup depends upon the way in which we choose a fv , @xmath4 .
consider the present su(2 ) cs case : @xmath64 .
if a fv is @xmath65 , then @xmath66 and the spin cs is actually determined on the coset space @xmath67 which corresponds to a bloch sphere @xmath68 ; and thus @xmath69 .
this includes what we always do in constructing the conventional spin cs with @xmath70 or @xmath71 ; and we may call the fv `` standard '' .
the corresponding cs fall within what is called the `` informative '' cs in ref . .
we see that cs is invariant under the transformation @xmath72 . '' after our euler angle convention . ]
the case is illustrated in @xmath11 [ sec : samplefv1 ] below .
next , if we take a fv other than @xmath65 , then @xmath56 is not @xmath73 no more but @xmath74 .
hence @xmath75 is specified by a _ full _ set of three euler angles : @xmath76 . for this time
@xmath77 phase ) . however , there are cases in which the `` little group '' @xcite that leaves semiclassical states invariant exists .
the group turns out to be @xmath78 where @xmath61 is the generator of the weak symmetry transformation ( [ eqn : transfrs3 ] ) ; the explicit form will be given later in @xmath11 [ sec : explicit - g ] .
see @xmath11 [ sec : sample - nonstandardfv1 ] for a sample fv .
the case has something to do with another type of isotropy subgroups proposed by stone @xcite ; and we will investigate the case from a slightly different viewpoint in @xmath11 [ sec : anotherviewscevolvs ] . the case without even the weak symmetry is treated in @xmath11 [ sec : sample - nonstandardfv2 ] .
now , we will treat concrete examples below .
the examples , which are discussed by stone , @xcite are simplified versions of ref . .
take a spin in a constant magnetic field @xmath79 .
the hamiltonian is : @xmath80 in what follows we will illustrate , taking three typical types of fv , the relations between hamiltonians , fv , the @xmath1-symmetry of lagrangians .
we also demonstrate how semiclassical motions concern the full quantum ones for the fv .
first , let a fv @xmath65 .
it is rather a standard case where @xmath81 .
we have @xmath82 and the @xmath40-term is absent ; and thus the topological term has the weak @xmath1-symmetry as we saw it in @xmath11 [ sec : symlagfv ] . besides since the @xmath83- and @xmath84-term vanish , @xmath85 contains no @xmath1-variables and is symmetric under ( [ eqn : transfrs3 ] ) .
consequently , the lagrangian : @xmath86 possesses the weak @xmath1-gauge symmetry ( [ eqn : transf - lag ] ) .
the above situation is summarized in the column ( i ) in table [ tab : exlagssym ] ; see the following @xmath11 [ sec : ex - lags ] .
the variation equations ( [ eqn : vareq - pol ] ) are : @xmath87 the third equation in ( [ eqn : vareq - pol ] ) , describing the behavior of @xmath88 , is automatically satisfied .
it means that any @xmath1 works well as far as the semiclassical motions are concerned . from ( [ eqn : vareq - hs3 ] ) we obtain , setting the initial state as @xmath89 : @xmath90 therefore the semiclassical motion is given by : @xmath91   { \hat s}_3 t \ }    \cdot \exp(- i \theta_0 { \hat s}_2 ) \cdot \exp[- i \psi(t ) ]   { { \left\vert m\right\rangle}}. \label{eqn : vareq - hs3-sols - tot}\ ] ]    on the other hand , we see that the full quantal time evolution is also described in terms of spin cs with the euler angle @xmath92 : @xmath93   \ ,   { \hat s}_3 \ , t \ } { { \left\vert { \bf\omega}(0)\right\rangle } } \nonumber\\ & = & \exp \{- i [ ( \mu b ) / \hbar ] \ ,   { \hat s}_3 \ , t \ }    \cdot \exp(-
i \theta_0 { \hat s}_2 )   \cdot \exp(- i \psi_0 )   { { \left\vert m\right\rangle}}. \label{eqn : time - evol - hs3-m}\end{aligned}\ ] ] for the present fv , i.e. , @xmath15 , each factor , @xmath94 $ ] in ( [ eqn : vareq - hs3-sols - tot ] ) and @xmath95 in ( [ eqn : time - evol - hs3-m ] ) , when acting on @xmath15 , yields a trivial phase factor respectively ; and thus two states ( [ eqn : vareq - hs3-sols - tot ] ) and ( [ eqn : time - evol - hs3-m ] ) belong to the same ray living on @xmath96 ; consequently , both semiclassical and genuine quantum time evolutions coincide .
we may interpret that the @xmath1-gauge symmetry is preserved also in the full quantum dynamics .
next , let us see the relation between the full quantum propagator and the semiclassical one .
for an arbitrary final state @xmath97 at @xmath98 they are given by @xmath99 and @xmath100 respectively .
then it is clear that from ( [ eqn : vareq - hs3-sols - tot ] ) and ( [ eqn : time - evol - hs3-m ] ) the relation between two propagators are : @xmath101 \}. \label{eqn : diff2props - fvm}\ ] ] the semiclassical propagator obeys the full quantal one up to @xmath1-gauge dependence .
what we see here is one of the concrete examples of the dynamics for informative cs.@xcite notice that for a round trip in which the final @xmath1 differs from @xmath102 by @xmath103 or @xmath104 two propagators fully agree since @xmath105 is an integer or a half integer .
second , we put fv as : @xmath106 .
holds actually with the aid of the explicit form of @xmath107 .
see , e.g. , messiah @xcite and references cited in * i*. ] as the previous fv only @xmath48-term survives among @xmath108 since the terms involving @xmath109 and its complex conjugate vanish .
the lagrangian reads : @xmath110 it behaves like ( [ eqn : transf - lag ] ) , showing the weak @xmath1-gauge symmetry .
see the column ( ii ) in table [ tab : exlagssym ] in the following @xmath11 [ sec : ex - lags ] .
the variation equations are the same as ( [ eqn : vareq - hs3 ] ) and the solution gives : @xmath111   \ , { \hat s}_3 \ , t \ }    \cdot \exp(- i \theta_0 { \hat s}_2 )   \cdot   \begin{pmatrix } \exp[-
i \psi(t ) ] \sqrt{2 / 3 } \\ 0 \\   \exp [ i \psi(t ) ] \sqrt{1 / 3 }   \end{pmatrix}. \label{eqn : vareq - hs3-sols - tot - ntfv}\ ] ] since the full quantum time evolution operator is clearly the same as that in ( [ eqn : time - evol - hs3-m ] ) , the corresponding state is given by : @xmath112   \ , { \hat s}_3 \ , t \ }    \cdot \exp(- i \theta_0 { \hat s}_2 )   \cdot   \begin{pmatrix } \exp(-
i \psi_0 ) \sqrt{2 / 3 } \\ 0 \\   \exp(i \psi_0 ) \sqrt{1 / 3 }   \end{pmatrix}. \label{eqn : time - evol - hs3-ntfv1}\ ] ] we realize that this time each factor , @xmath113 $ ] in ( [ eqn : vareq - hs3-sols - tot - ntfv ] ) and @xmath114 in ( [ eqn : time - evol - hs3-ntfv1 ] ) , when acting on the present fv yields a _ non - trivial _ phase factor that changes the quantum states basically . if we have @xmath115 for all @xmath116 , two evolutions coincide .
however , there seems no _ a priori _ reason to set @xmath115 ; for we know that the lagrangian ( [ eqn : lagpol ] ) has the @xmath1-gauge symmetry .
and thus we conclude that the semiclassical time evolution does not agree with the genuine quantum time evolution for this _ non - trivial _ fv as pointed out by stone .
@xcite notice that the relation between full quantum propagators and the semiclassical one is no longer simple as ( [ eqn : diff2props - fvm ] ) , but we have instead : @xmath117 { { \left\vert m\right\rangle}}. \label{eqn : ediff2props - nontrivialfv1}\ ] ]      third , we consider the fv : @xmath118 .
see the column ( v ) in table [ tab : exlagssym ] in the following @xmath11 [ sec : ex - lags ] and one will find the both @xmath40-term and @xmath59 have different properties from two above - mentioned fv cases , thus yielding the lagrangian without the @xmath1-symmetry .
we have the lagrangian : @xmath119 \ }    - \frac16 \mu b [ \cos\theta - { \tilde c } \sin\theta ]   \cos\psi ,   \label{eqn : lag - non - trivialfv3}\ ] ] where @xmath120 . the variation equations ( [ eqn : vareq - pol ] ) give : @xmath121 { \dot \phi } + { \tilde c}{\dot \psi } \cos\psi   \ } = - \mu b ( \sin\theta + { \tilde c}\cos\theta \cos\psi ) , \\
\hbar   \ { [ \sin\theta + { \tilde c}\cos\theta \cos\psi ] { \dot \theta }   - ( { \tilde c}\cos\theta \sin\psi ) { \dot \psi }   \ } = 0 , \\ \hbar   ( { \dot \phi } \sin\theta \sin\psi    + { \dot \theta } \cos\psi )   = - \mu b \sin\theta \sin\psi .
\label{eqn : vareq - nonstandardfv2 }   \end{array } \right.\ ] ] one can verify that ( [ eqn : vareq - nonstandardfv2 ] ) yields a solution : @xmath122 which provides the same time evolution of the state as that for the exact quantum dynamics .
for we know that the time development operator acting on a fv for the latter is the same as that in ( [ eqn : time - evol - hs3-m ] ) or ( [ eqn : time - evol - hs3-ntfv1 ] ) .
when a hamiltonian @xmath31 includes terms that are quadratic or higher in @xmath54 , @xmath1-dependence of @xmath59 will be changed from that for @xmath31 linear in @xmath123 even for the same fv . and thus the gauge @xmath1-symmetry of the whole lagrangian will be also modified .
we have to be careful that _ generally in cspi the combination of a hamiltonian and a fv together determines whether the corresponding lagrangian possesses the weak gauge @xmath1-symmetry or not . _
this is a crucial difference from refs .
. in the point two cases are completely different .    in the present subsection
we take up two typical hamiltonians that are composed of @xmath43 ; they are the nmr and nqr types of hamiltonians given below@xcite : @xmath124 and @xmath125 we can obtain @xmath59 in ( [ eqn : h ] ) as @xmath126 ; we may have the explicit form with the aid of ( [ eqn : mat - pol ] ) .
similarly @xmath127 is evaluated with the aid of ( * i *  a.8 ) .
for the present purpose , however , we do not have to know the explicit forms of @xmath128 and @xmath127 ; all that we need to grasp is the following : @xmath128 is independent of @xmath1 and hence invariant under ( [ eqn : transfrs3 ] ) if and only if no nearest neighboring @xmath38 exists for any @xmath39 ; and the condition for @xmath127 to be invariant under ( [ eqn : transfrs3 ] ) is that both no nearest neighboring @xmath38 and no next nearest neighboring @xmath38 in a given fv exist for any @xmath39 .
we demonstrate various examples of combinations of hamiltonians and fv , including those illustrated in @xmath11 [ sec : ex - simpie - llusts ] , in table [ tab : exlagssym ] below ; and we indicate the semiclassical weak gauge @xmath1-symmetry of their topological term , @xmath59 and the whole lagrangian . as we put in @xmath11
[ sec : ex - simpie - llusts ] , all the examples that meet the semiclassical symmetry do not always preserve the symmetry in full quantum dynamics .
we will proceed to the problem in the next section .    in table [ tab : exlagssym ] notations like @xmath129 , for instance , are used . and
hamiltonians ( [ eqn : h - nmr ] ) and ( [ eqn : h - nqr ] ) are referred to as nmr and nqr respectively .
notice that in case ( i ) the spin actually meets @xmath130 for nqr type hamiltonians .
@xcite    @cccccccc@ + & ( i ) & ( ii ) & ( iii ) & ( iv ) & ( v ) & ( vi ) & ( vii ) +   +   + spin & arbitrary & @xmath131 & 1 & 1 & 1 & @xmath132 & @xmath133 + & & & & & & & + @xmath31 & nmr & nmr & nqr & nmr & nmr & nmr & nqr + & nqr & & & & & +   + fv @xmath4 & @xmath134 & @xmath135 & @xmath135 & @xmath136 & @xmath137 & @xmath138 & @xmath138 +   + @xmath48 & @xmath105 & @xmath139 & @xmath139 & @xmath140 & @xmath141 & @xmath142 & @xmath142 +   + @xmath40-term & absent & absent & absent & present & present & absent & absent +   + weak symmetry & & & & & & & + of the & yes & yes & yes & no & no & yes & yes + topological term +   + symmetry & & & & & & & + of @xmath59 & yes & yes & no & no & no & yes & yes +   + total weak & & & & & & & + symmetry & yes & yes & no & no & no & yes & yes + of @xmath143 & & & & & & & +   +   +    [ tab : exlagssym ]
we have looked over various examples of fv , hamiltonians , lagrangians and the weak symmetries in @xmath11 [ sec : lags ] .
some lagrangians meet the `` semiclassical '' weak symmetry ; and some do not . do the `` full quantum '' states realize the symmetry that the former lagrangians possess ? we know from @xmath11 [ sec : ex - simpie - llusts ] that the answer is not affirmative .
so there may be a kind of restriction on quantum states .
this falls within the problem that stone took up more than a decade ago @xcite ; it is the problem of realizable fv in cs .    in this section
we treat the problem of the restriction on types of spin cs , i.e. on those of the fv , in the full quantum picture when a spin cs lagrangian has the weak semiclassical gauge @xmath1-symmetry ( [ eqn : transf - lag ] ) in the light of the formalism in @xmath11 [ sec : spincspi ] and @xmath11 [ sec : symlagfv ] .
this means that we impose such restrictions on fv in spin cs that reflect the weak semiclassical gauge symmetry ( [ eqn : transf - lag ] ) .
it provides one answer to the mystery on spin cspi posed by stone in ref . . or what we will perform is to see the results in ref . from a different point of view ; from the viewpoint of the gauge symmetry of the action in spin cspi
first , the general theorem , theorem [ th : typefv ] , is given and proved in @xmath11 [ sec : th1 ] .
second , in @xmath11 [ sec : explicit - g ] , we investigate the generator of the symmetry transformation , which yields theorem [ th : gform ] .
and then we revisit theorem [ th : typefv ] via theorem [ th : gform ] .
it may help us to understand what is going on concretely .
we consider a class of lagrangians which we have formulated in @xmath11 [ sec : symlagfv ] and illustrated in @xmath11 [ sec : lags ] : we treat a lagrangian with the weak gauge @xmath1-symmetry in which @xmath144 as well as @xmath44 is invariant under the transformation ( [ eqn : transfrs3 ] ) .
then the whole lagrangian changes at most a total derivative . among the examples in the preceding @xmath11 [ sec : ex - lags ] , ( i ) ,
( ii ) , ( vi ) and ( vii ) meet the condition ; see the table [ tab : exlagssym ] . in the cases the following theorem holds . and
thus actually only the fv in ( i ) survives ; fv in the form of ( ii ) , ( vi ) or ( vii ) are ruled out .
the results agree with those indicated by stone @xcite from the viewpoint of two types of isotropy subgroups associated with semiclassical and full quantum dynamics .
for the cases ( iii ) , ( iv ) and ( v ) the theorem will not tell anything .
if a lagrangian associated with su(2 ) cs has the weak gauge symmetry related to @xmath1-variable , the fiducial vector belongs to @xmath15 or to the orbit of @xmath15 under the action of @xmath10 and the dirac condition holds for @xmath48 .
[ th : typefv ]    before going into the following proof , we briefly mention in which direction we will proceed .
doing so is adequate for the purpose .
since we concentrate on spin degrees of freedom , spin cs and fv , our lagrangian differs from refs . .
the method by aitchison in ref .
, however , applies also to ours ; and thus we mainly proceed along ref . in the following _ with suitable changes _ ; we particularly observe how a state vector @xmath12 behaves .
that is our strategy .
let us start the proof now .
since we assume that the gauge @xmath1-symmetry holds for a lagrangian , the lagrangian takes the form of ( [ eqn : weak - sym - lag ] ) . and
under the transformation ( [ eqn : transfrs3 ] ) a ket vector @xmath12 and the lagrangian change in the manners of ( [ eqn : transf - ketv ] ) and ( [ eqn : transf - lag ] ) respectively .
now , denote @xmath61 such an operator that makes a transformation ( [ eqn : transf - ketv ] ) on @xmath12 : @xmath145 this means that @xmath61 is the generator of ( [ eqn : transf - ketv ] ) ; and also of ( [ eqn : transf - lag ] ) since we have assumed the fv and @xmath31 meet the conditions on weak symmetry . in terms of @xmath61 , the change of @xmath143 becomes : @xmath146 where we have used the expression of @xmath143 in ( [ eqn : action - pol ] )
. then we obtain from ( [ eqn : transf - lag ] ) and ( [ eqn : transfg - lag ] ) @xmath147 which is considered as a condition on semiclassical symmetry .    from ( [ eqn : transfg - ket ] )
we have the following relation between operators : @xmath148 for an infinitesimal transformation we have @xmath149 the explicit form of @xmath61 , which we do not need in the present context , is given in @xmath11 [ sec : explicit - g ] .
notice that ( [ eqn : transf - inf - grs3 ] ) is _ not identical with _ the corresponding expression in ref .
; the latter is @xmath150 = { \hat r}({\bf\omega } ) { \hat s}_3 $ ] .
let us impose the condition on a _ full _ quantum state so that the dynamics is conformable to semiclassical @xmath1-symmetry . the definition of @xmath61 in ( [ eqn : transfg - ket ] ) , the consequent weak symmetry ( [ eqn : transf - lag ] ) and noether s theorem tell us that the state vector is subject to a certain restriction in the sense of dirac @xcite ; and thus we require a sort of gauss law @xcite : @xmath151 note that ( [ eqn : gauss ] ) is different from ( [ eqn : ga_0 ] ) .
it is clear that ( [ eqn : gauss ] ) is more stringent than ( [ eqn : ga_0 ] ) .
a set of @xmath152 that satisfies ( [ eqn : gauss ] ) also meets ( [ eqn : ga_0 ] ) .
however , the reverse does not always hold .
we will return to the relation between ( [ eqn : ga_0 ] ) and ( [ eqn : gauss ] ) in @xmath11 [ sec : anotherviewscevolvs ] .    as the finite form of ( [ eqn : gauss ] ) we have @xmath153 on the other hand , with the aid of ( [ eqn : transf - grs3 ] ) , @xmath154 combining ( [ eqn : weak - inv - vec1 ] ) with ( [ eqn : weak - inv - vec2 ] ) we obtain @xmath155
only a few fv meet the condition ( [ eqn : weak - inv - vec3 ] ) ; and indeed it is possible if and only if @xmath156 the fv has only one nonzero component : the state vector becomes @xmath157 which is what we call `` rotated spin number states '' in * i*. from this we see @xmath158 since @xmath159 , eq .
( [ eqn : a_0-m ] ) indicates that the dirac condition holds for @xmath48 .
let us put one more point about a fv .
decompose @xmath160 and we will obtain @xmath161 from this viewpoint we may interpret @xmath162 as a fv .
hence , from ( [ eqn : fvm ] ) and ( [ eqn : fvrm ] ) , we see that the fv coincides with @xmath15 , one of the eigenstates of @xmath2 , or rides on the orbit of @xmath15 under the su(2 ) rotations .
the above theorem [ th : typefv ] implies the strange feature of cspi and fv : i.e. , the lagrangians , which depend upon the kinds of fv as shown in table [ tab : exlagssym ] , in turn restrict them .
the restriction condition determines the forms of fv . as a result
, the fv belongs to @xmath163 , or can be reached from @xmath15 by @xmath9 .
mathematically , they are on orbits of @xmath15 under the action of the su(2 ) group . @xcite and
the dirac condition is permitted .
this gives an answer to the problem posed in ref . in the light our spin cspi formalism .
notice that the reverse statement does not hold : the dirac condition does not always imply @xmath65 .
this is apparent since a fv @xmath164 in ( vi ) and ( vii ) in table [ tab : exlagssym ] yields @xmath165 .
however , there is clearly an exceptional case : i.e. @xmath166 case in which the fv may have several nonzero components .
next , we revisit ( [ eqn : weak - inv - vec3 ] ) from another viewpoint ; for a spin @xmath167 case , @xmath168 . putting @xmath169 in ( [ eqn : weak - inv - vec3 ] )
we have @xmath170 , thus yielding @xmath171 .
it is consistent with ( [ eqn : a_0-m ] ) . for a spin half - integer case , putting @xmath172 in ( [ eqn : weak - inv - vec3 ] ) , we have @xmath173 ; and thus we obtain @xmath174 integer ) .
since @xmath175 in this case , the result agrees with ( [ eqn : a_0-m ] ) .
we have already made a similar argument about semiclassical and full quantum propagators after ( [ eqn : diff2props - fvm ] ) .
note that for a spin @xmath3 case , it is always possible to write any fv in the form of @xmath176 using a suitable euler angle @xmath177 : for spin @xmath3 any fv can be reached from @xmath178 or @xmath179 .
we are able to describe any two - state system in terms of su(2 ) cs .
so the condition ( [ eqn : fvrm ] ) holds automatically .
what we have seen here is a cs version of magnetic charge quantization which has been known for a long time .
@xcite    now , it is widely known that the dirac condition is related to dirac strings . a dirac string ,
extending from the origin to half infinity in the @xmath180-space , corresponds to choosing @xmath181 or @xmath182 `` section '' in the topological term ( [ eqn : toptermsym ] ) . in the present case
it is surely possible to prepare the above @xmath1 since the gauge @xmath1-transformation promises the freedom . and the freedom , as we saw , comes from selecting the special type of fv : @xmath65 . hence , _ looking from the present spin cspi formalism , whether dirac strings are permissible or not depends upon the types of fv .
_    one may observe that conventional arguments about the dirac condition often imply that the particle interacting with a pole has spin @xmath140 or @xmath183 , which falls within the type of fv that meets theorem [ th : typefv ] . for a generic spin @xmath184 , however , we have wider possibilities on fv .
and thus we may expect so also on magnetic charge .
it is , of course , an open question whether we can apply our discussion to real magnetic monopoles .
however , the approach presented here may provide us with a fine view of real monopoles since real and fictitious monopoles enjoy common mathematical descriptions .      in the preceding subsection we used the operator @xmath61 satisfying ( [ eqn : transfg - ket ] ) or ( [ eqn : transf - grs3 ] ) .
although we have not needed its explicit form , a natural question arises : what does it look like ?
we find the explicit form of the generator @xmath61 easily in theorem [ th : gform ] below .
this may be a by - product of theorem [ th : typefv ] .
conversely , however , the form brings us to theorem [ th : typefv ] via another route again . hence theorem [ th : gform ]
helps us to understand theorem [ th : typefv ] much deeper .    for an operator @xmath61 to satisfy ( [ eqn : transfg - ket ] ) or ( [ eqn : transf - grs3 ] )
it is necessary and sufficient that @xmath61 is expressed as @xmath185 where @xmath186 .
[ th : gform ]    let us see the necessity first . from ( [ eqn : transf - grs3 ] ) we have @xmath187 ,    \label{eqn : transf - grs3-a}\ ] ] which , with the help of ( * i*-a.7 ) , results in ( [ eqn : g ] ) .
next , that ( [ eqn : g ] ) is sufficient is obvious since we only need to cross the last equality in ( [ eqn : transf - grs3-a ] ) in reverse order .
we see that the generator @xmath61 is nothing but a sort of generalized `` hopf map '' .
the usual hopf map is given by @xmath188 .
@xcite it is often referred to as the quantity which indicates the gauge @xmath1-symmetry ; and it is also exactly what is taken as the tool of `` gauge fixing '' in refs . and .
next , we revisit theorem [ th : typefv ] via theorem [ th : gform ] .
now , @xmath2 is a @xmath189 matrix whose eigenvectors are completely given by @xmath190 then , operating a non - singular matrix @xmath10 on both sides of ( [ eqn : s3-ev ] ) , we have , employing ( [ eqn : g ] ) , @xmath191 which specifies all the @xmath192 eigenvectors of @xmath61 thoroughly . comparing ( [ eqn : gom ] ) with ( [ eqn : gauss ] ) , we realize that @xmath12 must coincide with one of the @xmath193 .
this leads us again to ( [ eqn : oom ] ) , from which we consequently obtain ( [ eqn : fvm ] ) and ( [ eqn : a_0-m ] ) .
we thus confirm that ( [ eqn : fvm ] ) and ( [ eqn : a_0-m ] ) hold again .    next , we put two additional comments .
first , the form of ( [ eqn : g ] ) can be obtained also by the infinitesimal relation ( [ eqn : transf - inf - grs3 ] ) . since
( [ eqn : transf - inf - grs3 ] ) is independent of @xmath184 , we may try @xmath194 matrices : @xmath195 and @xmath196 ; see ( * i*-a.1 ) for the expression of @xmath196 .
in this manner we obtain ( [ eqn : g ] ) again .
it is clear that the direct evaluation of @xmath197 using ( [ eqn : g-1/2 ] ) leads to ( [ eqn : transf - grs3 ] ) as well ; see refs . and
for such matrix calculations .
second , we point out that @xmath48 in ( [ eqn : defa ] ) , ( [ eqn : ga_0 ] ) and ( [ eqn : gom ] ) are mutually consistent .
in ref . stone characterized cs , fv and the consistency between semiclassical and full quantum dynamics by a slightly different way from ours . in order to see what they looked like
, he introduced the isotropy subgroup @xmath198 for a given lie group @xmath55 that stabilized the expectation values of the lie group generators in the state of a fv in addition to the usual isotropy subgroup @xmath56 in ( [ isotropysg ] ) .
he showed that semiclassical orbits lived on @xmath199 , whereas the full quantum dynamics was governed by @xmath58 .
let us concentrate on @xmath198 here .
for the present spin cs case it reads : @xmath200 notice that @xmath201 is used in place of @xmath4 and @xmath202 instead of @xmath56 in ref . .
we take latter notations to keep harmony with the expressions in the preceding sections .
one may feel that the relation between the description by @xmath198 and that by @xmath56 resembles the connection between ( [ eqn : ga_0 ] ) and ( [ eqn : gauss ] ) .
one describes the semiclassical dynamics ; and the other is related to full quantum time evolution .
we now revisit the framework of ref . from our point of view in @xmath11
[ sec : spincspi ]
@xmath11 [ sec : gentheorems ] .
let us take up three representative types of fv which are numbered ( i ) , ( ii ) , ( iv ) in table [ tab : exlagssym ] .
then we obtain the following results due to ref .
illustrated in table [ tab : isotropysg - fv ] :    @cccc@ + & ( i ) & ( ii ) & ( iv ) +   +   + fv & @xmath203 & @xmath135 & @xmath204 +   + @xmath56 & @xmath205 & @xmath74 & @xmath74 +   + @xmath198 & @xmath205 & @xmath205 & @xmath74 +   +   +    [ tab : isotropysg - fv ]    in cases ( i ) and ( ii ) we have @xmath206 .
it is clear that the effect of @xmath198 in the lagrangians amounts to that of ( [ eqn : transfrs3 ] ) which features the weak @xmath1-symmetry ; in fact we have used the convention and notation `` @xmath207 '' so that one can see the accordance easily .
contrary , we have @xmath208 in the case ( iv ) ; and the case has nothing to do with the weak @xmath1-symmetry .
hence we are going to investigate ( i ) and ( ii ) with the aid of ( [ eqn : isofv2sc ] ) instead of ( [ eqn : transfrs3 ] ) .
consider the topological term first .
for a fv with parameter dependence we have a more appropriate interpretation of ( * i*-35 ) as : @xmath209 since ( [ eqn : pol - r2 ] ) is linear in @xmath210 , we observe that under the operation @xmath198 on @xmath4 the following relation holds : @xmath211 where we have used ( [ eqn : isofv2sc ] ) .
hence , the topological term @xmath212 is weakly symmetric under @xmath198 .
the result may be obvious ; for it is clear that ( [ eqn : isofv2sc ] ) corresponds to ( [ eqn : transfrs3 ] ) . besides , assuming @xmath213 in ( i ) , @xmath31 is also linear in @xmath210 in the present cases ( i ) and ( ii ) in tables [ tab : exlagssym ] and [ tab : isotropysg - fv ] ; and thus @xmath214 is invariant under @xmath198 . then the whole lagrangians possesses the weak @xmath1-symmetry .
so we have confirmed that the condition ( [ eqn : isofv2sc ] ) reproduces one about weak @xmath1-gauge symmetry for a lagrangian discussed in @xmath11 [ sec : symlagfv ] .    if one tries to express the complete symmetry of hamiltonians that have such higher order products of @xmath210 as @xmath215 in ( [ eqn : h - nqr ] ) , more stringent conditions like @xmath216 may be required . here
@xmath217 is an arbitrary @xmath218 product of @xmath54 or @xmath2 that appears in the hamiltonian .
for example , we know @xmath215 gives @xmath219 ; and ( [ eqn : isofv2sc2 ] ) contains the condition @xmath220 .
augmented with ( [ eqn : isofv2sc2 ] ) we see that the description due to @xmath198 brings a criteria for the weak gauge symmetry which works on all the cases in table [ tab : exlagssym ] .    we have thus looked over two types of descriptions on cs , fv and semiclassical evolutions : one uses the shift of the @xmath1 variable in @xmath10 as ( [ eqn : transfrs3 ] ) and the other , i.e. , ( [ eqn : isofv2sc ] ) and ( [ eqn : isofv2sc2 ] ) , employs a transformed fv .
they equally describe semiclassical dynamics well . and no matter what description we choose , both ref . and theorem [ th : typefv ] in @xmath11 [ sec : gentheorems ]
tell us that if we have the gauge @xmath1-symmetry , we are led to a standard fv and informative cs in the full quantum dynamics .
we have studied lagrangians having a weak gauge symmetry in the light of spin cspi with a general fv .
we have set a condition on a state vector in order that the full quantum description keeps the semiclassical symmetry .
this gives the restriction on fv .
the types of cs get limited ; it is mandatory that the spin cs ride on the orbits of @xmath15 under the action of @xmath10 in the full quantum dynamics .
and the fictitious monopole charge @xmath48 is so quantized as to bring the dirac condition .
otherwise , the @xmath1-variable becomes `` anomalous '' .
of course in natural sciences it is nature who gives a final decision .
however , we expect that the results are all right in the case . concerning the matter , we find that the results agree with those due to stone,@xcite who first posed the problem in a general framework of cs and fv .
notice that _ the rule to determine @xmath48 , i.e. the monopole charge or strength , is not built in the cspi a priori , but we impose it from physical demands  gauge @xmath1-symmetry .
_ this is the way in which spin cspi with general fv bring the dirac condition for fictitious monopole charges .
remember that the monopole charge quantization condition is not derived by the schrdinger equation itself , but by boundary or topological conditions also in the usual wave function formalisms .
@xcite    now , let us see a future prospect . first , in the present paper , we have treated lagrangians with the @xmath1-gauge symmetry . if we consider a lagrangian without the symmetry , the situation looks rather different .
see , for example , ( iii ) , ( iv ) and ( v ) in table [ tab : exlagssym ] . in the cases , we could not impose a subsidiary condition , i.e. gauss law , which produces the quantization of a fictitious monopole charge @xmath48 anymore .
theorem [ th : typefv ] does not bring us any information for the case .
and then what would happen to a fv , @xmath4 , and @xmath48 ?
the problem , as well as physical applications of the present case , seems to be so intriguing for future investigations .
second , it is clear that the present formalism may be extended to wider cspi cases ; among them su(1 , 1 ) and su(3 ) cases sound most probable candidates .
the latter case is , of course , related to qcd .
what do the restrictions on fv give physical systems described in terms of these cs ?
do they bring new information other than the previous ones ?
@xcite in this respect it might be as well to remember that stone @xcite actually discussed the restriction on fv for cs constructed from wider lie groups .
third , we give subsidiary comments on cs and fv : one might observe a close formal analogy between cs with general fv and the ground states of many body systems or vacua in field theory .
@xcite at least mathematical apparatus , a lie group @xmath55 and its coset space @xmath58 , are common to both of the cases .
@xcite fv look like ground states or vacua .
of course , in the many body systems the ground states themselves are expressed in terms of cs .
however , such ground states are also absorbed into arbitrary fv .
moreover , we may be able to prepare room for dealing symmetries associated with higher energy levels than vacua with the aid of the present arbitrary fv formalism .
it is an open question as to whether there are some deeper implications behind the formal resemblance .
in addition we want to indicate one more point on cs and fv .
it is on the definitions of two types of isotropy subgroups @xmath198 and @xmath56 in @xmath11 [ sec : anotherviewscevolvs ] .
they correspond to the relation between ( [ eqn : ga_0 ] ) and ( [ eqn : gauss ] ) .
it seems natural to feel that they remind us of subsidiary conditions in covariant quantization of photons due to gupta - bleuler.@xcite in that case the expectation value of the operator describing the lorentz condition for a state vector is more crucial than the effect of the operation on the vector itself to establish the connection between quantized photon field and classical electrodynamics . and a certain gauge transformation leaves the expectation value invariant .
this is also the case for the above - mentioned vacua in field theory ; there again the expectation value of a field operator plays a central role .
we have not yet known whether there exists any deeper meaning of the analogies or not either .
finally , we know that condensed matter systems have possibilities to simulate monopoles and gauge field theories .
@xcite condensed matter physics makes it possible to examine such concepts in laboratories .
the problems of cs and gauge symmetry discussed here will be of interest for a variety of realms of physics including condensed matter physics ; for symmetry is one of the basic principles that penetrate all of physics .
the author is grateful to prof .
m. stone for sending the draft of ref . , which has drawn his attention to the problem discussed in the present article .
99 r. p. feynman , r. b. leighton and m. sands , _ the feynman lectures on physics _ vol . 1  mainly mechanics , radiation , and heat ( addison -wesley , reading , ma , 1963 ) , chap 11 @xmath11 1 , chap 16 , chap 20 , and especially chap 52 .
r. p. feynman , r. b. leighton and m. sands , _ the feynman lectures on physics _
vol . 2  mainly electromagnetism and matter ( addison -wesley , reading , ma,1964 ) , chap 30 , @xmath11 5 and @xmath11 6 .
r. p. feynman , r. b. leighton and m. sands , _ the feynman lectures on physics _ vol .
3  quantum mechanics ( addison -wesley , reading , ma,1965 ) , chap 17 . l. fonda and g. c. ghirardi , _ symmetry principles in quantum physics _
, theoretical physics : text and exercise books , vol . 1 .
( m. dekker , new york , 1970 ) . l. d. landau and e. m. lifshitz , _ statistical physics _
, course of theoretical physics , vol . 5 , 3rd edn .
( butterworth - heinemann , oxford , 1984 ) .
y. nambu and h. d. politzer , _ symposium on the microcosmos _
( kosakusya , tokyo , 1979 ) ( in japanese ) . i. j. r. aitchison , _ an informal introduction to gauge field theory _ ( cambridge university press , 1982 ) . c. lanczos , _ the variational principles of mechanics _ , 4th edn .
( dover , new york , 1986 ) . w. yourgrau and s. mandelstam , _ variational principles in dynamics and quantum theory _ ( dover , new york , 1979 ) .
r.  p.  feynman , _ int .
* 21 * , 467 ( 1982 ) .
r. jackiw , in _ current algebra and anomalies _ , ed .
s. b. treiman _
( wold scientific , singapole , 1985 ) , pp 211360 .
r. a. bertlman , _ anomalies in quantum field theory _
( oxford university press , oxford , 2000 ) .
j.  r.  klauder and b .- s .
skagerstam ( eds . ) , _ coherent states _ ( world scientific , singapore , 1985 ) .
e.  schrdinger , _ naturwiss .
_ * 14 * , 664 ( 1926 ) .
r.  j.  glauber , _
phys , rev . _ * 131 * , 2766 ( 1963 ) , reprinted in ref . .
a.  m.  perelomov , _ generalized coherent states and their applications _
( springer , berlin , 1986 ) .
j. r. klauder , _ ann .
ny _ * 11 * , 123 ( 1960 ) , reprinted in ref . .
j. r. klauder , _ phys .
* 19 * , 2349 ( 1979 ) , reprinted in ref . .
h.  kuratsuji  and  t.  suzuki , _ j. math .
* 21 * , 472 ( 1980 ) .
a.  inomata , h.  kuratsuji and c.  c.  gerry , _ path integrals and coherent states of su(2 ) and su(1 , 1 ) _
( world scientific , singapore , 1992 ) .
a.  shapere and f.  wilczek ( eds . ) , _ geometric phases in physics _ , advanced series in math .
phys . , vol .
5 ( world scientific , singapore , 1989 ) . h. kuratsuji and s. iida , prog .
. phys . * 74 * , 439 ( 1985 ) , reprinted in ref . .
h. kuratsuji and s. iida , _ phys .
lett . _ * 56 * , 1003 ( 1986 ) .
h. kuratsuji , _ phys . rev
. lett . _ * 61 * , 1687 ( 1988 ) .
m.  matsumoto , _
phys . _ * 37 * , 3739 ( 1996 ) .
m. matsumoto , _ int .
b _ * 26 * , 1250143 ( 2012 ) , arxiv:1201.5258 v2 . ; this is an expanded version of the basic part of ref . .
r. loudon , _ the quantum theory of light _
( clarendon press , oxford , 2000 ) .
@xmath11 5.5 - @xmath11 5.6 .
a.  p.  balachandran , g.  marmo , b .- s .
skagerstam and a.  stern , _ nucl .
b _ * 162 * , 385 ( 1980 ) .
a.  p.  balachandran , g.  marmo , b .- s .
skagerstam and a.  stern , _ classical topology and quantum states _ ( world scientific , singapore , 1991 )
. i.  j.  r.  aitchison , _ acta phys .
polonica b _ * 18 * , 207 ( 1987 ) , reprinted in ref . .
m.  stone , _ int .
b _ * 15 * , 2107 ( 2001 ) , quant - ph/0006020 . m. matsumoto , `` su(2 ) coherent state path integrals based on arbitrary fiducial vectors and geometric phases '' , quant - ph/9906100 v.2 .
m. m. nieto , _ phys .
a _ * 229 * , 135 ( 1997 ) , arxiv : quant - ph/9612050 .
a.  messiah , _ quantum mechanics _ ( dover , mineola , ny , 1999 ) ; chap 13 and appendix c. c. p. slicher _ principles of magnetic resonance _ , 3rd edn .
( springer , berlin , 1989 ) .
r. tycko , _ phys .
* 58 * , 2281 ( 1987 ) , reprinted in ref . .
p. a. m. dirac , _ lectures on quantum mechanics _
( dover , mineola , ny , 2004 ) .
r. gilmore , _ lie groups , lie algebras , and some of their applications _
( dover , mineola , ny , 2002 ) .
f.  t.  arecchi , e.  courtens , r.  gilmore and h.  thomas , _ phys .
a _ * 6 * , 2211 ( 1972 ) , reprinted in ref . .
p. a. m. dirac , _ proc .
* a133 * , 60 ( 1931 ) .
p. a. m. dirac , _ int .
* 17 * , 235 ( 1978 ) .
t. t. wu and c. n. yang , _ phys .
* 12 * , 3845 ( 1975 ) .
r. h. ryder , _ quantum field theory _
, 2nd edn .
( cambridge university press , 1996 ) , chap 8 . f. mandl and g. shaw , _ quantum field theory _ , 2nd ed .
( john wiley and sons , chichester , 2010 ) , chap 5 .
j. moody , a.  shapere and f.  wilczek , _ phys .
_ * 56 * , 893 ( 1986 ) , reprinted in ref . and
references therein . m. m. salomaa and g. e. volovik , _ rev .
_ * 59 * , 533 ( 1987 ) .