CHIRAL THIRRING-WESS MODEL WITH FADDEEVIAN REGULARIZATION Anisur Rahaman∗ Hooghly Mohsin College, Chinsurah, Hooghly - 712101, West Bengal, India Replacing vector type of interaction of the Thirring-Wess model by the chiral type a new model ispresentedwhichistermed hereaschiral Thirring-Wessmodel. Ambiguityparameters ofregular- ization is so chosen that the model falls into the Faddeevian class. The resulting Faddeevian class of model in general do not possess Lorentz invariance. However we can exploit the arbitrariness admissible in the ambiguity parameters to relate the quantum mechanically generated ambiguity parameterswiththeclassicalparameterinvolvedinthemassliketermofthegaugefieldwhichhelps to maintain physical Lorentz invariance instead of the absence of manifestly lorentz covariance of the model. The the phase space structure and the theoretical spectrum of this class of model has been determined through Dirac’s method of quantization of constraint system. 5 1 PACSnumbers: 11.10.Ef,11.30.Rd 0 2 n a I. INTRODUCTION J 1 Generation of mass without violating the gauge invariance is a celebrated physical principle. In this context ] Schwinger model acquired a significant position in lower dimensional field theory [1–7]. Here photon acquires mass h viaakindofdynamicalsymmetrybreakingkeepingthegaugesymmetryofthemodelintact. Fewyearslater,Thirring t - andWessproposedatwodimensionalfieldtheoreticalmodelwherealsophotonacquiresmassbutthegaugesymmetry p e ofthemodelbreaksdownattheclassicallevel[8]. Recently,anattempthasbeenmadein[9],forsystematicfunctional h integral bosonization of this mode. After few years of presentation of the Thirring-Wess model, chiral generation of [ Schwinger model was proposed in [10]. However,the model remaimd less attractive over a long period because of its non-unitary problem. But it attracted attentions and gradually acquired a significant position in lower dimensional 1 v field theory after the work of Jackiw and Rajaraman where they became able to remove the non-unitary problem 0 taking into account the electromagnetic anomaly into that model [11]. The welcome entry of the anomaly and a 9 suitable exploitation of the ambiguity involved therein made Jackiw-Rajaraman version of Chiral Schwinger model 2 [11–16] along with the other independent regularizedversionof that model [17–20] interesting as well as attractive in 0 lower dimensional field theory regime. Not only in the chiral Schwinger model but also vector Schwinger model [1] 0 turns into the so called non-confining Schwinger model when anomaly enters into it [21]. A suitable exploitation of . 1 the ambiguity involved here has been made to restore the lost gauge invariance of this model in [22]. This present 0 work will also be a display of exploitation of ambiguity parameter in the so called chiral Thirring-Wess model with 5 Faddeevian anomaly in order to get a lorentz invariant theory where Lorentz invariance was absent to start with. 1 IntheThirring-Wessmodeltheauthorsconsideredatheoryofmasslesfermioninteractingwithmassivevectorfield : v in two dimension. It can be thought of as a study of QED, viz., Schwinger model [1, 2] replacing Maxwell’s field by Xi Proca and that very replacement breaks the gauge symmetry at the classical level but a consistent field theoretical model gets birth. It is true that the so called non-confining Schwinger model [21, 23] is a structurally equivalent r a gauge non-invariant model to the Thirring-Wess mode but there lies a crucial difference between these two. In the Thirring-Wess mode the masslike term for the gauge field was included at the classical level however in the the so callednon-confiningSchwingermodelthe sametypeofmassliketermgetsinvolvedthroughoneloopcorrectionwhich containsanambiguityparametertoo. In[22],wehavenoticedacompetitionbetweentheclassicallyincludedmasslike term and quantum mechanically generated masslike term in connection with gauge symmetry restoration of the so called non confining Schwinger model. An attempt has been made to get chiral generation of the Thirring-Wess mode in the similar way the chiral generation of the Schwinger model was made in [10]. How anomaly becomes useful in the present context to get a consistentandphysicallysensibletheorythatwewouldliketoaddressherefortheFaddeevianclassofregularization. So we replace vector interaction of the Thirring-Wess model by the chiral one that generates a new model which we wouldliketotermaschiralThirring-Wessmodel. TheresultingmodeldoesnotpossessPhysicallorentzinvariancefor alladmissibleregularization. Regularizationisneededinordertoremovethedivergenceofthefermionicdeterminant that appears in the process of bosonization integrating out the fermions one by one. It would be of interest whether ∗Electronicaddress: 1. [email protected],2. [email protected] 2 the absence of physical lorentz invariance in the so called Chiral Thirring-Wess model with Faddeevian class of regularization gets restored in a manner gauge invariance was restored in [22] exploiting the arbitrariness in the ambiguity parameter. How does anomaly in general and regularization ambiguity in particular come in use in this type of investigation that is the main objective of the present work? II. CHIRAL GENERATION OF THE THIRRING-WESS MODEL WITH FADDEEVIAN REGULARIZATION The so called Chiral Thirring Wess model can be framed by the following generating functional Z[A]= dψdψ¯eRd2xLf (1) Z with = ψ¯γµ[i∂ +e√πA (1 γ )]ψ f µ µ 5 L − = ψ¯ γµi∂ ψ +ψ¯ γµ(i∂ +2e√πA )ψ (2) R µ R L µ µ L Here dynamics of the A field is governedby he Proca field and the lagrangian of which is given by µ 1 1 = F Fµν + m2A Aµ (3) Praca µν µ L 4 2 Note that, we have replace the vector type of interaction ψ¯γ ψAµ by the chiral type ψ¯γ (1+γ )ψAµ. Let us now µ µ 5 proceed with the fermionic part of the lagrangian density. The right handed fermion remains uncoupled in this type of chiral interaction. So integration over this right handed part leads to field independent counter part which can be absorbed within the normalization. Integration over left handed fermion leads to Z[A] = dψ dψ¯ ψ¯ γµ(i∂ +2e√πA )ψ L L L µ µ L Z ie2 1 = exp d2xA [M (∂µ+∂˜µ) (∂ν +∂˜ν)]A , (4) 2 Z µ µν − (cid:3) ν Where M =ag , for Jackiw-Rajaramantype ofregularizationandthe model remainsmanifestly lorentzcovariant µν µν for this setting. The parameter a represents the regularization ambiguity here. In general, the elements of M can µν takeanyarbitraryvalues. However,the modelloosesbothitssolvabilityandLorentzinvarianceinthatsituation. We consider here a symmetric form of M : µν a˜ α M = δ(x y). (5) µν (cid:18)α γ (cid:19) − Here regularizationambiguity is involvedwithin the parameters a˜, α and γ. These parameters gets involved in order to remove the divergence in the fermionic determinant since the evaluation of the determinant needs a one loop correction [17, 19, 20]. It may be the situation that all the parameters are not independent for the model to be physically sensible. This generating functional (4) when written in terms of the auxiliary field φ(x) it turns out to the following Z[A]= dφeiRd2xLB, (6) Z with 1 1 = (∂ φ)(∂µφ)+e(gµν ǫµν)∂ φA + e2A MµνA B µ ν µ µ ν L 2 − 2 1 1 = (φ˙2 φ′2)+e(φ˙ +φ′)(A A )+ e2(a˜A2+2αA A +γA2). (7) 2 − 0− 1 2 0 0 1 1 So the total lagrangiandensity of our present interest is = + B Praca L L L 1 1 1 1 = (∂ φ)(∂µφ)+e(gµν ǫµν)∂ φA + e2A MµνA F Fµν + m2A Aµ µ ν µ µ ν µν µ 2 − 2 − 4 2 1 1 = (φ˙2 φ′2)+e(φ˙ +φ′)(A A )+ e2(a˜A2+2αA A +γA2) 2 − 0− 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 + (A˙2 A′2)+ m2(A2 A2) (8) 2 1− 0 2 0− 1 3 Here the masslike terms for gauge fields in the lagrangiandensity (8) is 1 1 = e2(a˜A2+2αA A +γA2)+ m2(A2 A2) Lmass 2 0 0 1 1 2 0− 1 1 m2 m2 = e2[(a˜+ )A2+2αA A +(γ )A2]. (9) 2 e2 0 0 1 − e2 1 This Lagrangian in general fails to provide Poincar´e invariant equations of motion. Ambiguity in the regularization allowsus to put any conditionunless it violatesany physicalprinciple ofthe theory. We thus set a˜+m2 =1 in order e2 to make the lagrangianfree from the quadratic term of A . With this choice the constraints of the theory falls under 0 the Faddeevian class [24–27]. It has a deeper meaning and interesting consequences [24–27]. Some other choices may leadto physicallysensible theory. Itwouldcertainlybe the issueoffurtherinvestigations. Here wewouldliketo keep ourselvesconfinedinthe choicethat leadsto Faddeevianclassofconstraintstructure,to be moreprecise,Faddeevian class of Gauss law. III. CONSTRAINT ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION OF THE THEORETICAL SPECTRUM Let us now proceed with the constraint analysis of the theory. To this end we require to calculate the canonical momenta of the fields involved in the theory. The momentum corresponding to the field φ, A and A respectively 0 1 are π =φ˙ +e(A A ), (10) φ 0 1 − π =0,, (11) 0 π =A˙ A′. (12) 1 1− 0 The hamiltonian obtained through the Legendry transformationis H = dx[π φ˙ +π A˙ +π A˙ ], (13) B φ 1 1 0 0 Z −L which gives the following hamiltonian density 1 1 1 = π2+π A′ + [π e(A A )]2+ φ′2 eφ′(A A ) HB 2 1 1 0 2 φ− 0− 1 2 − 0− 1 1 m2 e2(A2+2αA A +(γ )A2). (14) − 2 0 0 1 − e2 1 Equation (11) is independent of A˙ . So it is the primary constraintof the theory. At this stage it is useful to work 0 with the effective hamiltonian H =H + dxuπ . (15) Beff 0 Z Lagrangian multiplier u remains undetermined at this stage. It will be fixed later. The preservation of the primary constraint π 0, gives Gauss law as the secondary constraint: 0 ≈ G=π′ +e(π +φ′)+e2(1+α)A 0. (16) 1 φ 1 ≈ This Gauss law constraint also has to be preserve in time in order to have a consistent theory. The preservation condition of the Gauss law is G˙(x)=[G(x),H(y)]=0, and that leads to the following new constraint m2 (1+α)π +2αA′ +(γ +1)A′ 0. (17) 1 0 − e2 1 ≈ Thepreservationoftheconstraint(17)doesnotgiverisetoanynewconstraint. Itfixesthe velocityu. Notethat,the Gauss law constraint (16) is Faddeevian in nature [24–27]. Though the term ’Faddeevian’is very standard in (1+1) dimensionalfieldtheoryfor the reader’sbenefit weshouldexplaina bitaboutFaddeeviannatureofconstraint. If the 4 Gauss constraint reflects the presence of Schwinger term like [G(x),G(y)] = Aδ′(x y), where A is a constant, then − gaugeinvariancegetslostandthatposesathreatonthe quantizationofthe theory. InRef. [24,25],Faddeevinitially argued that in spite of the presence of this type of abnormality it is possible to quantize the theory. However, the degrees of freedom would be more in number because no gauge fixing condition is needed. So the quantizationof the present theory would be interesting in its own right because the Gauss law G(x) gives the following Poission bracket [G(x),G(y)]=2e2(3+α)δ′(x y) (18) − which fits with Faddeevian nature. In this context, we would like to mention that if we look towards the Poisson brackets (18) which would be appeared for the usual chiral Schwinger model [11] and the vector Schwinger model [1, 21] we will find that the Scgwinger term will be absent there. In fact, it gives a vanishing contribution for those cases. The constraints are all weak condition at this stage. If we impose these constraints into the hamiltonian treating them as strong condition, the hamiltonian will be reduced to 1 1 1 1 m2 H = dx[ π2+ π′2 απ A′ +e(1+α)A φ′+ π′φ′+φ′2+ e2[α2 γ+ ]A2]. (19) R Z 2 1 2e2 1 − 1 1 1 e 1 2 − e2 1 ButwehavetokeepitinmindthatthecanonicalPoissionbracketswillbeinadequateforthisreducedHamiltonianfor computation of equations of motion [28]. To get correct equations of motion for this constrained system appropriate Diracbrackets[28]havetobeemployedinplaceofordinaryPoissonbrackets. ItisknownthatDiracbracketbetween the two variables A(x) and B(y) is defined by [A(x),B(y)]∗ =[A(x),B(y)] [A(x)ω (η)]C−1(η,z)[ω (z),B(y)]dηdz, (20) −Z i ij j where C−1(x,y) is given by ij C−1(x,z)[ω (z),ω (y)]dz =1. (21) Z ij i j Here ω ’s represents the second class constraints of the theory. With the help of equation (20), the Dirac brackets i among the fields A , π , φ, and π are calculated: 1 1 φ 1 [A (x),A (y)]∗ = δ′(x y), (22) 1 1 2αe2 − 1 [φ(x),φ(y)]∗ = ǫ(x y) (23) −4α − 1 [A (x),φ(y)]∗ = δ(x y) (24) 1 2αe − α 1 [A (x),π (y)]∗ = − δ(x y) (25) 1 1 2α − e2 [π(x),π(y)]∗ = (1 α)2ǫ(x y) (26) −2α − − e [φ(x),π(y)]∗ = (1 α)ǫ(x y) (27) −4α − − Making use of the equations (22), (23), (24), (25), (26) and (27) equations of motion for the fields appearing in the reduced hamiltonian (19) are obtained as follows. α 1 1 m2 A˙ = − π (1+γ )A′, (28) 1 2α 1− 2α − e2 1 5 e2 m2 π˙ =π′ ((1+α)(1 α2) (1 α)(α2 γ+ ))A . (29) 1 1− 2α − − − − e2 1 1 e m2 φ˙ = φ′ π′ + (γ 2α2+1 )A . (30) − − e 1 2α − − e2 1 After a little algebra,we find that the above three equation reduce to the following Lorentz invariant equations (α 1)2 ((cid:3) − e2)π =0, (31) − α 1 and ∂ η =0, (32) + if we set the following relation of the ambiguity parameters α and γ with the classical parameter m2 m2 =e2(1+γ 2α). (33) − The field η in (32) is defined as η =φ+ α (A˙ +A′). e(α−1) 1 1 The setting of the above relation (33) becomes possible without violating any physical principle if we are allowed to exploit the arbitrariness admissible in the ambiguity parameters. We are familiar with this practice in different contexts [11–14, 17, 18, 22, 29–31]. The above settings makes the model not only solvable but also renders an interesting lorentz invariant theoretical spectrum, though to start with lorentz covariance was not manifested in the lagrangian. Theequations(31)and(32)suggestthatthetheoreticalspectrumcontainsamassivebosonandamassless bosonwithadefinitechirality. Thesquareofthemassofthemassivebosonisgivenbym˜2 = (α−1)2. Theparameter − α α must be negative for the mass of the boson to be positive. Of course, one can set the matrix M to start with in µν suchawaysuchthatmasstermcomesoutpositive. Since themasslessbosonappearedinthe spectrumhasadefinite chirality, it can be thought of as the a boson of the opposite chirality to this chiral boson has been eaten up during the process. The eaten up chiral boson, which is equivalent to a chiral fermion in (1+1) dimension is, therefore, can be considered as it has became confined. This scenario would be more transparent when we will study this model imposing a chiral constraint in the following section. IV. IMPOSITION OF CHIRAL CONSTRAIN Chiral boson is a basic ingredient of heterotic string theory. So it would be beneficial to express this model in terms of chiralboson. It is alsoa matter ofinvestigationwhether this model remainssolvable after impositionof this constraint. In this context, I should mention that if we impose this type of constraint to any arbitrary model that may bring a disaster so far Lorentz invariance and exactly solvability is concerned. We, therefore, impose a chiral constraint in the model described by the lagrangian density (8) to express the model in terms of chiral boson in a manner it was done in [14] and investigationis carriedout towardsthe study of its solvability andmaintenance of its Lorentz invariance. Let us now proceed to impose the following chiral constraint ω(x)=π (x) φ′(x)=0. (34) φ − It is a second class constraint itself since [ω(x),ω(y)]= 2δ′(x y). (35) − − After imposing the constraint ω(x)=0, into the generating functional we find Z = dφdπ δ(π φ′) det[ω,ω]eiRd2x(πφφ˙−HB) CH φ φ Z − p = dφeiRd2xLCH, (36) Z with 1 m2 =φ˙φ′ φ′2+2e(A A )φ′+ e2[(γ 1)A2+2(α+1)A A ]. (37) LCH − 0− 1 2 − e2 − 1 0 1 6 Itprovidesasystematicdescriptionofthepreviouslagrangian(8)intermsofchiralboson[14]. Notethatthefirsttwo termisthe kinetic termofthe chiralboson[32–35]. In[14],wefoundthe impositionofthis typeofchirlconstrainton theusualchiralSchwingermodelwithoneparameterclassofregularizationprovidedbyJackiwandRajaramananda descriptionofthe usualchiralSchwingermodelinterms ofchiralbosonresultedin. Here wehavegotanopportunity of using the same prescription once more. In the following section, we will carry out the hamiltonian analysis of the above lagrangian adding the kinetic energy term for the Proca field with the lagrangian density . Needless to CH L mention that the mass term for Praca field is already incorporatedwithin the mass like terms of the A fields. So the starting lagrangiandensity in this situation is 1 = F Fµν. (38) CH µν L L − 4 Here F stands for the field strength for the electromagnetic field. Though this model has a structural similarity µν withthe chiralSchwingermodelthere liesa crucialdifference betweenthese two. Unlikethe ChiralSchwinger,model this model contains a classical parameter and we have already seen in the previous section that that very parameter lies in the root to make this model exactly solvable with a Lorentz invariant theoretical spectrum getting mixed up suitability with the ambiguity parameter. V. DETERMINATION OF THEORETICAL SPECTRUM AFTER THE IMPOSITION OF CHIRAL CONSTRAINT For the determination of theoretical spectrum at first we need to calculate momenta corresponding to the field describing the theory. From the standard definition the momenta corresponding to the field π , π and π are found φ 0 1 out. ′ π =φ, (39) φ π =0, (40) 0 π =A˙ A′. (41) 1 1− 0 UsingtheaboveequationsitisstraightforwardtoobtainthecanonicalhamiltonianthroughaLegendrytransformation which reads 1 1 m2 H = dx[ π2+π A′ +φ′2 2e(A A )φ′ e2[(γ 1)A2+2(1+α)A A )]. (42) C Z 2 1 1 0 − 0− 1 − 2 − e2 − 1 0 1 Equation (39) and (40) are the primary constraints of the theory. Therefore, the effective hamiltonian is given by H =H +u˜π +v(π φ′), (43) EFF C 0 φ − where u˜ and v are two arbitrary lagrange multiplier. The constraints obtained in (39) and (40) have to be preserve in order to have a consistent theory. The preservation of the constraint (40), leads to a new constraint which is the Gauss law of the theory: G=π′ +2eφ′+e2(1+α)A 0. (44) 1 1 ≈ The preservation of constraint (39), though does not give rise to any new constraint it fixes the velocity v and that comes out to be ′ v =φ e(A A ). (45) 0 1 − − The preservation of the Gauss law constraint G˙ =0, again gives rise to a new constraint m2 (1+α)π +2αA′ +(γ +1)A′ 0. (46) 1 0 − e2 1 ≈ No new constraints comes out from the preservation of (46). So the phase space of the theory contains the following four constraints. ω =π 0, (47) 1 0 ≈ 7 ω =π′ +eφ′+e2(1+α)A 0, (48) 2 1 1 ≈ m2 ω =(1+α)π +2αA′ +(γ +1)A′ 0, (49) 3 1 0 − e2 1 ≈ ′ ω =π φ 0. (50) 4 φ − ≈ The four constraints (47), (48), (49) and (50) are all weak condition up to this stage. Treating this constraints as strong condition we obtain the following reduced hamiltonian. 1 1 1 1 m2 H = dx[ π2+ π′2+ (α 1)π′A + e2[(1 α)2 2(1+γ )]A2]. (51) R Z 2 1 4e2 1 2 − 1 1 4 − − − e2 1 As has been stated earlier we need to calculate Dirac bracket in order to proceed for further analysis because this reduced Hamiltonian will give correct equations of motion only when Dirac brackets will be used for computation. We find that, C (x,y)=[ω (x),ω (y)]= ij i j 0 0 2αδ′(x y) 0 0 2e2(1+α)δ′(x y) e2(1+α)2δ(x y−) κδ′′(x y) eδ′(x y) 2αδ′(x y) e2(1−+α)2δ(x y) −κδ′′(x y) 2(α+1−)κδ′(−x y) − 0− , (52)  0 − − eδ′(x− y−) − 0 − 2eδ′(x y)  − −  withκ=1+γ m2. Thedefinition(20),alongwithequations(21)and(52),enableustocomputetheDiracbrackets − e2 between the fields describing the reduced Hamiltonian H : R 1 [A (x),A (y)]∗ = δ′(x y), (53) 1 1 2e2 − (α 1) [A (x),π (y)]∗ = − δ(x y), (54) 1 1 2α − (1+α)2 [π (x),π (y)]∗ = ǫ(x y). (55) 1 1 − 4αe2 − From the reduced hamiltonian (51), the following first order equations of motion result in with the use of Dirac brackets (53), (54) and (55). (α 1) 1 m2 A˙ = − π + (γ +1)A′, (56) 1 2α 1 2α − e2 1 e2 m2 ′ π˙ =π + (α 1)(γ +2α+1)A . (57) 1 1 2α − − e2 1 After a little algebra,the equations (56) and (57) reduce to the following (α 1) 1 m2 ′ ∂ A = − π + (2α γ+ 1)A . (58) + 1 2α 1 2α − e2 − 1 e2 m2 ∂−π1 = 2α(α−1)(γ− e2 +2α+1)A1. (59) Here ∂± is defined is ∂± = ∂0 ∂1. The above two equations (58) and (59) ultimately reduce to the following ± Klein-Gordon Equation (α 1)2 ((cid:3) − )π =0, (60) − α 1 if we set the same relation (33) in the same manner as it was done in Sec. III. The equation (60), represents a massive boson with square of the mass given by m˜2 = −(1−α)2. Unlike the previous situation, no massless degrees α of freedom appears here. Note that the constraint structure is different and, therefore, disappearance of massless degrees of freedom does not look unnatural. The results reminds us the Mitra and Ghosh’s description [18]. We can land on to their results for the specific value of the parameter α = 1, γ = 3 and m2 = 0. Here, the theoretical − − spectrumcontainsonlyamassivebosonwithaparameterdependentmass. Onecanthinkofitasthephotonacquires parameter dependent mass and the fermions of both the chirality have been completely eaten up during the process. 8 VI. VERIFICATION OF POINCARE´ ALGEBRA We have already mentioned that the gauged lagrangian for chiral boson considered here does not have Lorentz covariancehoweveritisfoundthatthemodelisembeddedwithaLorentzinvarianttheoreticalspectrum. Soournext task is to check Poincar´ealgebra in the reduced phase space. Let us now proceed to check that. There arethree elements in this algebra,the hamiltonianH , the momentumP andthe boostgeneratorM and R R R they have to satisfy the following relation in (1+1). [P (x),H (y)]∗ =0,[M (x),P (y)]∗ = H ,[M (x),H (y)]∗ = P . (61) r R R R R R R R − − Hamiltonian has already been given in (51) and the momentum density reads = π A′ +π φ′, PR 1 1 φ 1 1 1 = π2+ (1 α)π A′ + e2(1+α)2A2 (62) 4e2 1 2 − 1 1 4 1 The Boost generator written in terms of hamiltonian density and momentum is M =tP + dxx (63) R R R Z H Straightforward calculations shows that equation(61) is satisfied provided the relation (33) between α, γ and m2 is maintained. Theabovecalculations,therefore,revealsthatthephysicalLorentzinvarianceofthismodeldemandsthe samerelation(33)betweenα,γ andm2. Thiscertainlystrengthenstheconsistencyofthetheoryunderconsideration. A closer look reveals that the Lorentz invariance is not maintained in the whole subspace of the theory but in the physical subspace it is maintained in spite of having such a deceptive appearance. VII. CONCLUSION In this paper we have considered the Thirring-Wess model replacing its vector interaction by the chiral one and the model resulted in, is termed here as chiral Thirring-Wess model. Using the standard method of quantization of constrainedsystembyDirac[28],wehaveobtainedaLorentzinvarianttheoreticalspectrumprovidedtherelation(33) holds. It is fascinating to mention that this theory contains the ambiguity parameters and the arbitrariness involved in these parameters allows us to set the important relation (33) for these parameters α and γ with the classically included parameter m2. We have found that the relation (33), became a crucial ingredient to obtain the Lorentz invariant theoretical spectrum. Thus, the physical Lorentz invariance of this theory is achieved here by exploiting suitably the arbitrariness in the ambiguity parameters of regularization. Note that, in [22], a similar approach was made to bring back the lost gauge symmetry with the inclusion of masslike term at the classical level. If we look at the theoretical spectrum we find that the photon acquires mass like Thirring-Wess model but the mass m˜ is different in this situation. Along with the parameter included at the classical level it also depends on the parametersenteredintothetheorythroughtheoneloopcorrection. Fermionofaparticularchiralitygetsconfinedhere. Itis notsurprisingsince the nature ofinteractionandthe choice ofregularizationis differentinthe presentsituation. We found the similar situation in the Mitra’s version of chiral Schwinger model, where he used a regularization that rendered a Gauss’s law constraint from which Faddeevian type of Poission bracket resulted in [17, 18]. After imposing a chiral constraint into the proposed action an attempt has been made to obtain a new effective actiontodescribethisnewmodelintermsofchiralboson[32–34]. Itisindeedastrangeatthesametimeaninteresting aspectofthismodelthataftercarryingoutinvestigationonthephasespacestructurewefoundacompletelydifferent constraint structure from the constraint structure of the model discussed in Sec. III, and consequently, a drastic change in the theoretical spectra resulted in. Photon acquires mass as well and the mass of the photon is also found tobeidenticaltothemassofthemassivebosonasobtainedinthepreviouscase,butthefermionsofboththechirality are found to be absent, i.e., confined or eaten up during the process. If we look towards the structure of the theory a deceptive appearance will be observed. To be precise, there is no term in the effective action which had manifestly Lorentz covariantstructure. However, physical Lorentz invariance is found to be preserved. The incredible service of theambiguityparametersthroughtherelation(33)hasbecameakeyconcerningthemaintenanceofphysicalLorentz symmetry in this case too. So a novel result which follows from this work is that the ambiguity in the regularization rendersaremarkableservicetomakeatheoryLorentzinvariantgettingmixedupsuitablywiththeclassicalparameter involved in the Proca lagrangian. If it is asked that if the admissible arbitrariness did not permit to set the relation (33) what would be the fate of this model? Simply, it would be disaster. We will not be able to reach into this interesting theoretical spectrum. It will not only loose its exact solvability but loose its physical Lorentz invariance. 9 Onemorepointonwhichwewouldliketoemphasizeisthatthewaythearbitressesoftheambiguityparameterhas been exploited here to get back the Lorentz invariance of the model, has not in any, violated any physical principle rather it has helped to maintain the most important physical principle (Lorentz invariance) of a physically sensible theory. Needless tomention,thatthe technique is moreorlessstandardin(1+1)dimensionalQEDandChiralQED. We have witnessed several examples of the use of this mechanism in order to get rescued from different unfavorable as well as un physical situations [11–14, 17, 18, 29–31]. The most remarkable one in this context is the Jackiw and Rajaramanversionof chiral Schwinger model [11], where they savedthe long suffering of the chiral generationof the Schwinger model [10], from the non-unitary problem. Acknowledgement: I wouldliketo thank the DirectorofSahaInstitute ofNuclearPhysics,Calcutta,andthe head of the theory group of the same institute for providing library and computer facilities of the Institute. [1] J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev.128 2425 (1962) [2] J. Lowestein and J. A. Swieca, Ann.Phys.68 172 (1971) [3] S.Coleman, Ann.Phys. 101 239 (1976) [4] A.Casher, J. Kogut and L. Susskind,Phys. Rev.D10 732 (1974). [5] G. Bhattacharya, A. Ghosh, and P. Mitra, Phys. Rev.D504183 (1994) [6] A.Saha, A. Rahamana and P. Mukherjee, Phys. Lett.B638 292 (2006), Phys. Lett B643 383 (2006) [7] F. Ardalan, M. Ghasemkhani and N. Sadoohhi, Eur. Phys. J. C71 1606 2011 [8] W. E. Thirring and J. E. Wess, Ann.Phys. 27 331 1964. [9] L. V.Belvedere and A. F. Rodrigues, Ann.Phys. 317 2005 423. [10] C. R. Hagen, Ann.Phys. (N.Y.) 81 67 (1973) [11] R.Jackiw and R. Rajaraman, Phys. Rev.Lett. 54 1219 1985. [12] H.O. Girotti, J. H. Rotheand A.K.RothePhys. Rev.33 514 (1986) [13] H.O. Girotti, J. H. Rotheand A.K.RothePhys. Rev.34 592 (1986) [14] K.Harada, Phys.Rev.Lett. 64 139 (1990) [15] S.Miyake and K. Shizuya,Phys. Rev.D46 3781 (1987) [16] S.Miyake and K. Shizuya,Phys. Rev.D37 2282 (1988) [17] P.Mitra, Phys. Lett 284 23 1992 [18] S.Ghosh and P. Mitra, Phys. Rev.D44 1332 1991 [19] S.Mukhopadhyayand P. Mitra, Ann.Phys.(N. Y.) 241 68 1995 [20] S.Mukhopadhyayand P. Mitra, Z. Phys.C67 525 1995 [21] P.Mitra and A. Rahaman, Ann.Phys.(N.Y.) 249 34 1996. [22] A.Rahaman, Mod. Phys.Lett. A29 1450072 2014 [23] A.Rahaman, Int.Jour. Mod. Phys. A193013 2004 [24] L. D.Faddeev,Phys. Lett. B154 81 (1984) [25] L. D.Faddeev and S. L. Shatashvili, Phys. Lett. B167 225 (1986) [26] S.L. Shatashvili, Theor. Math. Phys. 60 770 1985, Theor. Mat. Fiz. 60 206 (1984) [27] S.L. Shatashvili, Theor. Math. Phys. 71 336 1987, Theor. Mat. Fiz. 71 40 (1987) [28] P.A. M. Dirac, Lectures on Quantum Mechanics(Yeshiva Univ.Press New York,1964) [29] R.Banerjee, Phys. Rev.Lett. 56 1889 (1986) [30] E. Abdalla, M. C. B. Abdalla, and K. D. Rorhe, ’Two Dimensional Quantum field theory’ , (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991) [31] A.Rahaman, Phys. Lett. B697 260 (2011) [32] W. Siegel, Nucl. Phys. 238 307 (1984) [33] R.Floreanini and R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev.Lett. 60 1771 1988 [34] S.Bellucci, M. F. L. Golterman and D. N.Petcher, Nucl. Phys.B326 307 1989 [35] C.Imbimbo and J. Schwimmer, Phys.Lett. 193 445 1987