arXiv:1901.01416v1 [gr-qc] 5 Jan 2019 optblt odto,teHmloineutoso oinbcm th constraint. become Gauss motion the of solving t equations In zer Hamiltonian equations. the torsion Einstein’s condition, the the compatibility and from different compatibility are metric motion sca the of equations the of obtain approach and first these the solve we In above, lesson the From straints. which Relativity, General describe to approaches formulation. two tetrad varyin these the zero, with find compatible not we is is connection torsion the if the condition When zero torsion equations. zero Einstein torsion the the and have compatibility we condit metric compatibility the assume the we have when we tetrad connection, the varying that find we for Hamiltonian the makes This all. for known. and previously once than up this for clear Lagrangian beforehand we beginning assumed paper, the be in should equations what Euler-Lagrange obscure the still from is it Re yet General years, of 30 formulation connection internal the and tetrad The Introduction 1 ∗ epromteLgnr rnfrainadoti h Hamiltonia the obtain and transformation Legendre the perform We t From action. Einstein-Hilbert the from action Palatini the derive We [email protected] omlto,w banteEnti’ qain nywt a and with compatibility Relativity. metric only General the Gener quantize equations assuming describe Einstein’s from to Hamiltonian the compatibility The obtain tetrad we met the the formulation, assume assume to to need or we zero that find we formulation, Lagrangian ewr nteLgaga n h aitna omltoso formulations Hamiltonian the and Lagrangian the on work We rmLgaga oHmloinformulations Hamiltonian to Lagrangian From eateto hsc,Kna ainlUniversity National Kunsan Physics, of Department ftePltn action Palatini the of usn5371 Korea 573-701, Kunsan aur ,2019 8, January aghlYoon SangChul Abstract ∗ smn h erdcompatibility. tetrad the ssuming lRltvt.I h Hamiltonian the In Relativity. al h oso eosol eue to used be should zero torsion the i optblt n h torsion the and compatibility ric aiiyhsbe tde oethan more studied been has lativity a,vco n as constraints. Gauss and vector lar, uaino hsporm nthis In program. this of mulation escn praho h tetrad the of approach second he nteLgaga formulation, Lagrangian the In . n htaedrvdafterward derived are what and h aaiiato.I the In action. Palatini the f odtos ayn h tetrad, the Varying conditions. odtos h Hamiltonian the conditions, o o ftecneto ihthe with connection the of ion eapyt h Hamiltonian the to apply we h oncingvsu the us gives connection the g .Teeae2dcascon- class 2nd are There n. isenseutosafter equations Einstein’s e uainmr interesting more mulation evrainlprinciple, variational he , In section 2, we introduce Riemannian geometry [1]. Spacetime and spatial tensor indices are denoted by the alphabet a, b, , while internal indices are denoted by the alphabet i, j, for 3- ··· ··· dimension and I, J, for 4-dimension. The signature of the spacetime metric gab is taken to be ··· ( + ++). − 2 Connection and Torsion

Consider a 4-dimensional manifold M, and let V be a 4-dimensional vector space with Minkowski a metric ηIJ having signature ( +++). A tetrad at p M is an isomorphism e (p): V TpM and − ∈ I → can act on tensors. For example

a b ηIJ = gabeI eJ . (1)

a I The inverse of eI will be denoted by ea. It satisfies

I J ηIJ eaeb = gab. (2)

Spacetime tensor fields with additional internal indices I, J, will be called generalized tensor fields ··· on M. Spacetime indices are raised and lowered with the spacetime metric gab; internal indices are

raised and lowered with the Minkowski metric ηIJ . A generalized derivative operator obey the linearity, Leibnitz rule, and commutativity with con- traction with respect to both the spacetime and the internal indices. We require that all generalized

derivative operators be compatible with ηIJ . If ∂a is a derivative operator, then any other generalized c J derivative operator Da is defined by a pair of generalized tensor fields Aab and waI :

c J DaHbI ∂aHbI + A HcI + w HbJ . (3) ≡ ab aI

From DaηIJ = 0, we obtain

waIJ = wa[IJ]. (4)

If Dagbc = 0, 1 A c =Γ c + T c T c + T c , (5) ab ab 2{− a b − b a ab }

c where Γab is the Christoffel symbols,

c 1 cd Γ = g ∂bgad + ∂agbd ∂dgab (6) ab −2 { − }

c and Tab is the torsion,

T c A c A c, (7) ab ≡ ab − ba which measures the failure of the closure of the parallelogram made up of small displacement vectors and their parallel transports [2] and the non-commutativity of the derivative operator on a scalar field f such that

c DaDbf DbDaf = T Dcf. (8) − ab

2 c If Tab = 0, just as a compatibility with a spacetime metric gab defines a unique, torsion-free spacetime a derivative operator, compatibility with eI defines a unique torsion-free generalized derivative operator

a defined by ∇

c K aebI ∂aebI +Γ ecI + w ebK =0. (9) ∇ ≡ ab aI Whether the torsion is zero or not, the compatibility condition gives

J bJ c w = e (∂aebI + A ecI ). (10) aI − ab

J In this case, waI is the spin connection. It is related to the spacetime geometry and has informations about the torsion and the curvature. In the notation of differential form, the torsion is defined as

TI deI + wI eJ (11) ≡ J ∧ which means

T I =2∂ eI + w I eJ w I eJ . (12) ab [a b] a J b − b J a

I c In Riemannian geometry, (10) is always satisfied. In this case Tab and Tab are equivalent:

c I c Tab = Tab eI . (13)

J a For the zero torsion, we can write waI in terms of eI using (12) and it turns out to be equivalent c c to (10) with Aab = Γab . For the non-zero torsion, if we plug (10) into (12), we obtain (7). In a J the connection formulation of the Palatini action, eI and waI are the basic independent variables. Therefore (10) and (13) are not satisfied in general and (12) does not have the geometrical meanings of Riemannian geometry.

Given a generalized derivative operator Da, we can construct curvature tensors by commuting J derivatives. For the torsion zero, the internal curvature tensor FabI and the spacetime curvature ˜ d tensor Fabc are defined by

J 2D D HI F HJ and (14) [a b] ≡ abI

d 2D D Hc F˜ Hd. (15) [a b] ≡ abc From these

J J J FabI =2∂[awb]I + [wa, wb]I and (16)

˜ d d d Fabc =2∂[aAb]c + [Aa, Ab]c . (17)

J K J K J d e d e d Here [wa, wb] = (w w w w ) and [Aa, Ab] = (A A A A ). For the non-zero I aI bK − bI aK c ac be − bc ae torsion, we have an additional term from the torsion to keep the linearity of the curvature tensor [3]

c J (2D D T Dc)HI F HJ and (18) [a b] − ab ≡ abI

3 d d (2D D T Dd)Hc F˜ Hd. (19) [a b] − ab ≡ abc We denote internal and spacetime curvature tensors of the unique torsion-free generalized deriva- J d tive operator a by R and R . From (14) and (15), we can see that they are related by ∇ abI abc

J d c J RabI = Rabc eI ed . (20)

3 Palatini theory: Lagrangian formulation

The Einstein-Hilbert action is

ab SEH (g )= √ gR (21) ZM − and

√ gR = √ gδc δd R ef − − [e f] cd 1 abcd ef = η˜ ǫabef R −4 cd 1 abcd I J K L ef = η˜ ǫIJKLe e e e R −4 a b e f cd 1 abcd I J KL = η˜ ǫIJKLe e R (22) −4 a b cd whereη ˜abcd is the Levi-Civita tensor density of weight 1 and

I J K L ǫabcd = ǫIJKLeaeb ec ed , (23) which relates the volume element ǫabcd of gab to the volume element ǫIJKL of ηIJ . The Einstein-Hilbert I action in terms of a co-tetrad ea is

1 abcd I J KL SEH (e)= η˜ ǫIJKLeaeb Rcd . (24) −4 ZM

a IJ J In the Palatini action, eI and wa are the basic independent variables. By replacing RabI in (24) J with the internal curvature tensor FabI of an arbitrary generalized derivative operator Da defined by (3), we obtain the 3+1 Palatini action based on SO(3, 1):

1 abcd I J KL Sp(e, w) η˜ ǫIJKLeaeb Fcd . (25) ≡−8 ZM An additional factor 1/2 which will not affect the Euler-Lagrange equations of motion is included for the Hamiltonian formulation. With

abcd K L [a b] η˜ ǫIJKLe e = 4√ ge e , (26) c d − − I J the Palatini action is

1 a b IJ Sp(e, w) √ geI eJ Fab . (27) ≡ 2 ZM −

I I J √ g is the determinant of a metric gab, which is the determinant of e from gab = ηIJ e e . Because − a a b we are interested in the role of the metric compatibility condition, this expression √ g here is useful. −

4 It is also important to write the exact statement of a relation between the metric compatibility

condition, the torsion zero condition and the tetrad compatibility condition: If Dagbc = 0 and c I b Tab = 0, then Tab = 0 if and only if DaeI = 0 [4]. Stokes’s theorem holds for a torsion-free derivative operator on a orientable manifold and Gauss’s theorem holds when the metric compatibility condition is satisfied once a volume element is chosen by a metric. Because great care must be taken to apply the variational principle without Dagbc = 0 or the torsion zero condition, let’s work on a simple model first:

a b S √ gP Q DaRb. (28) ≡ ZM − c If Dagbc = 0 and Tab = 0,

a a ∂a(√ gP )= √ gDaP (29) − − where we used the formula:

1 bc b b ∂a√ g = √ gg ∂agbc = √ g(A T ). (30) − 2 − − − ba − ba

Note that the first equality holds also for Da and we have

b Da√ g = ∂a√ g + A √ g. (31) − − ab −

Generally without assuming Dagbc = 0,

a a b a a b a ∂a(√ gP )= √ gDaP + (∂a√ g + √ gA )P = Da(√ gP )+ √ gT P . (32) − − − − ba − − ba

Let’s see what we have when we vary Ra. From δS = 0, we have

a b c a b √ gDa(P Q ) + (∂a√ g + √ gA )P Q =0, (33) − − − ca

where we used δRa = 0 on the boundary. Note that the second term does not disappear as in (32). c If Tab = 0, we have

a b Da(√ gP Q )=0. (34) −

c a b We can see that integration by parts works for Da when Tab = 0. A solution Da(P Q ) = 0 is c obtained only when Dagbc = 0 and Tab = 0. Let’s work on the Palatini action with the variational method. To see what we have when we vary a abcd eI , note thatη ˜ and ǫIJKL are -1 or 0 or 1 depending on their indices, so they are independent of a a eI . With this, varying eI in (25) gives

abcd J KL η˜ ǫIJKLeb Fcd =0. (35)

IJ For wa , we need the following formula:

δF IJ =2D δw IJ T cδw IJ . (36) ab [a b] − ab c We can see immediately that the variational calculations of the Palatini action (27) with respect to IJ wa are very similar to those of our simple action (28).

5 c IJ If we assume Dagbc = 0 and Tab = 0, varying wa gives us

[a b] Da(eI eJ )=0. (37)

To determine what (37) gives, let us express Da in terms of the unique, torsion-free generalized I J derivative operator a compatible with e , and C [5] defined by ∇ a aI

b b J b DaH = aH + C H . (38) I ∇ I aI J

J a Note that this expression is possible only when Dagbc = 0. Multiplying eb to (37), we have DaeI = 0. a Since eI is invertible, combining these we get

a a e CaJK e CaIK =0. (39) I − J

I Multiplying eb ,

a I CbJK = eJ eb CaIK . (40)

With CbJK + CbKJ = 0, we have

a a eJ CaIK + eK CaIJ =0. (41)

With index substitutions I K,J I,K J, → → →

a a eI CaJK + eJ CaIK =0. (42)

With (39) and (42), we obtain CaIJ = 0. Algebraically there are 24 homogeneous linear equations J J J of 24 variables CaI , so CaI = 0. Since CaI = 0, we find that one equation of motion implies that IJ IJ Da = a and F = R . The remaining Euler-Lagrange equation of motion becomes ∇ ab ab

abcd J KL η˜ ǫIJKLeb Rcd =0. (43)

When (43) is contracted with eeI , we get the 3+1 vacuum Einstein’s equation, Gae = 0. c If we do not assume Dagbc = 0 but only assume Tab = 0, we have

[a b] c [a b] √ gDa(e e ) + (∂a√ g + √ gA )(e e )=0. (44) − I J − − ca I J In this case, we need to add B c = A c Γ c in (38) to determine what (44) gives such that ab ab − ab

b b b c J b DaH = aH B H + C H . (45) I ∇ I − ac I aI J

J If we express (44) with (45), there are 24 inhomogeneous linear equations of 24 variables CaI , so J b C = 0. In this case, Dae is not zero. The Palatini action does not become the Einstein-Hilbert aI 6 I b action and we do not have the Einstein’s equations. If we assume 40 components of DaeI are zero, c J b which are linear relations between Bab and CaI , we obtain other 24 components of DaeI are zero from (44). However, this assumption is not covariant. Therefore we must assume Dagbc = 0. c IJ Finally if we do not assume Tab = 0, varying wa gives us

[a b] a b c a c b 2Da(√ ge e )+ √ g(2e e T + e e T )=0. (46) − I J − [I J] ca I J ac

6 b J c c If we assume DaeI = 0, we multiply eb to both sides and obtain Tac = 0. Thus we have Tab = 0 and the Palatini action describe General Relativity. b Since DaeI = 0 means Dagbc = 0, we can see that we must assume Dagbc = 0 to have the Einstein’s equations from the Palatini action. Because this condition is assumed from the beginning, c b it must be preserved in quantization. We also need to assume either Tab = 0 or DaeI = 0 to have

the Einstein’s equations, which should be also preserved in quantization. The conditions Dagbc =0 c and Tab = 0 are what Einstein assumed when he constructed General Relativity [6]. With these two conditions, geodesic is a extremal length between two spacetime points, which is related to the b Principle of Equivalence. On the other hand, assuming DaeI = 0 is based on Riemannian geometry. It is straightforward to check that our results also hold for the Holst action [7].

4 Palatini theory: Hamiltonian formulation

Before working on the Hamiltonian formulation of the Palatini action, let’s discuss the equivalence of the Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian formulation. To construct the Hamiltonian, we define the

momentum variable pi from the Lagrangian L(qi, q˙i): ∂L(q, q˙) pi = . (47) ∂q˙i We obtain the Hamiltonian with the Legendre transformation:

H(q,p) =q ˙ipi L(q, q˙). (48) − With this, we obtain the Hamiltonian equations of motion: ∂H q˙i = , (49) ∂pi

∂H p˙i = . (50) − ∂qi The Euler-Lagrange equations are equivalent to the Hamiltonian equations when (47) is equivalent to a IJ IJ J (49). In the Palatini action, the independent variables are eI and wa .q ˙i of wa comes from FabI , a but where isq ˙i of eI ? Because the metric compatibility condition and the torsion zero condition deal c a only with Aab ,q ˙i of eI comes from the tetrad compatibility condition. Therefore we will see that only in the second approach, the Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian formulation are equivalent. The Hamiltonian equations of motion from the first approach should be treated as one of modifications of General Relativity for quantization [8]. Let’s work on the Hamiltonian formulation of the first approach. To perform the Legendre trans- formation, we introduce a foliation Σ in space-time and a time-like vector field ta whose integral { } curves intersect each Σ of the foliation precisely once. Let na denote the unit normal to the foliation. We can then decompose the time-evolution vector field ta normal and tangential to the foliation:

a a a a t = Nn + N , n Na =0. (51)

The function N is called the lapse function and the vector field N a is called the shift vector [9]. Given a a a a a a b 4 n , it follows that qb = δb + n nb is a projection operator into the foliation. Let EI = qb eI . Let D

7 b 4 denote an derivative operator on M and Da = qa Db on Σ. We can now decompose the action (27):

a b IJ a b c c d d IJ e e F = e e (q n na)(q n nb)F . (52) I J ab I J a − b − cd a b IJ The first term becomes EI EJ Fab , the last term becomes zero and the cross terms are:

d a b c d IJ c 1 d N IJ 2e e q n nbF = 2E nJ ( t )F − I J a cd − I N − N cd IJ 4 d IJ d c twc + Dc(t wd ) N c IJ = 2E nJ −L +2 E nJ F , − I N N I cd (53)

d IJ IJ 4 d IJ where t F = tw + Dc(t w ). The action becomes: cd −L c d 1 3 a b IJ a IJ Sp = dt d x√q NEI EJ Fab +2n[I EJ]Da(w t) 2 Z Z  · a IJ a b IJ 2n[I EJ]w˙ a +2N n[I EJ]Fab , (54) −  where √ g = N√q. Note that all a,b are spatial and now F IJ in (54) is the curvature tensor of − · ·· ab Da. To further simplify the action, we define

E˜a √qEa, (55) I ≡ I

E˜a E˜a n . (56) IJ ≡ [I J] ˜ ˜a Because there is not much confusion, we keep using E for EIJ . With this

˜a ˜b ˜a ˜b[J K] I tr(E E Fab) = E[I nJ]E n FabK 1 = E˜aE˜b F KI , (57) 4 I K ab

a I where we have used that EI n = 0. In this way, the action becomes:

3 2 a b a b a a Sp = dt d xtr N E˜ E˜ Fab + N E˜ Fab (w t)DaE˜ E˜ w˙ a , (58) Z Z  − √q − · −  where we used the the fact that the torsion zero condition in 4-dimension makes the torsion in 3-dimension vanish. We can see that w IJ , E˜a are canonical variables and N,N a, (w t) IJ are non-dynamical. a − IJ · They serve as Lagrange multipliers. Variation of the action with respect to these fields yields the constraints:

2 a b Hs tr(E˜ E˜ Fab) 0, (59) ≡ √q ≈

b Va tr(E˜ Fab) 0, (60) ≡− ≈

a GIJ DaE˜ 0. (61) ≡− IJ ≈ The Hamiltonian up to surface terms is

3 a IJ H = d x NHs + N Va + (t w) GIJ . (62) ZΣ  · 

8 ˜a There are second class constraints in this formulation. Not all EIJ are independent and we have a primary constraint

φab ǫIJKLE˜a E˜b 0, (63) ≡ IJ KL ≈ which is obvious from (56). All Poisson brackets between constraints vanish weakly except one ab between Hs and φ [10] . The secondary constraints from this is

ab IJKL a b c χ ǫ DcE˜ [E˜ , E˜ ]KL + (a b) 0, (64) ≡ IJ ↔ ≈

b c b cN c bN ab where [E˜ , E˜ ]KL = E˜ E˜ E˜ E˜ . The Poisson bracket between χ and the total Hamilto- KN L − KN L nian vanishes weakly, and

φab(x),χcd(y) 8q(2qabqcd qadqbc qacqbd) =0. (65) { }≈ − − 6 Thus we do not have any more constraints and φab,χab are the second class constraints. Now how to solve the second class constraints? We have learned from the Lagrangian formulation of the Palatini theory that we need the tetrad compatibility condition to have the Einstein Equation. For the Hamiltonian formulation, we break 4-dimensional diffeomorphic covariance to 1+3, but we still have 3-dimensional covariance. Therefore we might guess that the 3-dimensional triad compatibility condition can solve the 2nd class constraints. We will see that this turns out to be the case.

To solve (64), we fix nI by ∂anI = 0. This makes an internal vector field nI become an internal ˜a vector, which means we break 4-dimensional internal covariance to 3+1. With this, EIJ has 9 degrees ˜a IJ of freedom from EI . To make wa also have 9 degrees of freedom, we also request

I n GIJ =0, (66)

IJ because (64) has only 6 components, which are equations of wa with only spatial I and J. To solve

(64) and (66), we express Da in terms of the unique, torsion-free generalized derivative operator a ∇ a J compatible with EI , and caI defined by

b b J b DaH = aH + c H . (67) I ∇ I aI J This is possible from the metric compatibility assumption. (64) and (66) are 9 independent homo- J J geneous equations of caI with spatial I and J, so it is zero. Thus waI with spatial I,J is the spin ˜a J connection which is completely determined by EI . Because the boost part of waI is free, we can write as

IJ IJ [I J] wa =Γa +2Ka n , (68)

IJ I ˜a I where Γa is the spin connection on Σ and Ka nI = 0. Because EI n = 0 also, we will use 3- i ˜a dimensional internal index i and write these variables as (Ka, Ei ). Thus, after eliminating the 2nd i ˜a class constraints and fixing nI , the phase space of the Palatini theory is the pair (Ka, Ei ) and the only non-vanishing Poisson bracket is

Ki (x), E˜b(y) = δb δi δ3(x, y). (69) { a j } a j

9 a c IJ Starting from 16 components of eI , 40 of Aab and 24 wa , we are left with 18 degrees of freedom IJ a IJ by 40 of Dagbc =0, 3 of ∂anI =0,9ofΓ and 10 non-dynamical N,N , (w t) . With the 7 first a · class constraints, we have 2 degrees of freedom [9]. Finally let’s write down the 7 first class constraints with this pair. It is straightforward if we write IJ down Fab using (68):

1 1 a b i j Hs = √q E˜ E˜ K K 0, (70) −2 R− √q [i j] a b ≈

b i Va = 2E˜ D K 0, (71) − i [a b] ≈

a Gij = E˜ K 0, (72) [i aj] ≈

where denotes the scalar curvature of Da which is the unique torsion-free derivative operator R a compatible with Ei . We will call (70), (71), and (72) the scalar, vector, and Gauss constraints. If 4 b Dae = 0, Kab is an extrinsic curvature: I − i I I c4 E Kai = e KaI = e q DcnI b b − b a c4 4 I = q Dcnb if Dae =0. (73) − a b

Because Kab = Kba, Gij = 0 is automatically satisfied. In this case, (70) and (71) become the the i scalar and vector constraints of the standard Einstein-Hilbert action. However Ka is not the extrinsic 4 b curvature because we do not assume DaeI = 0. We will see that the Hamiltonian formulation of the 3+1 Palatini theory in this approach is not the metric description of General Relativity. Suppose we start with the metric compatibility, the torsion zero and the 3-dimensional triad compatibility conditions with fixing nI . Then there is no 2nd class constraint. This method can be applied to the Holst action and we obtain the phase space variables and the constraints of Loop i ˜a Quantum Gravity, which are originally derived by the canonical transformation from (Ka, Ei ) [11]. So far we have solved the second class constraints assuming the metric compatibility and the torsion zero with fixing nI . The other approach is to assume the tetrad compatibility condition. Here more second class constraints come from (36), which are solved by the torsion zero on Σ. We can 4 b solve (64) with a more covariant way directly from our assumption DaeI = 0 with some care because

b c b4 d DaEI = qaqd DcEI c b e4 d 4 b = qaqdeI Dcqe with DaeI =0 c b4 d 4 = qaqd Dcn nI with Dagbc =0 ¯ b = KanI , (74) which is not zero, and K¯ab is the extrinsic curvature. Therefore we need to use

I b qJ DaEI =0, (75)

I a I b where qJ = qb Ea EJ . It is straightforward to check that (75) solves (64):

ab IJKL a b c χ =4ǫ E˜ E˜ E˜ DcnJ + (a b)=0. (76) I K L ↔

10 I J Furthermore only qK qLGIJ survives:

I J n qK GIJ =0. (77)

As we mentioned, φab = 0 automatically by our construction.

Now we have 7 first class constraints. In the same way as the first approach, we fix nI by ∂anI = 0. ˜a ˜a IJ With this, EIJ has 9 degrees of freedom from EI . wa also has 9 degrees of freedom with spatial I,J becoming the spin connection because (75) becomes the triad compatibility condition on Σ. Therefore the phase space and the constraints are the same with those of the first approach. Because Kab is the extrinsic curvature from (73), this approach is the metric description of General Relativity. To see what is going on more clearly, we parameterize the foliation Σt by a global time function t { } which is possible if M is globally hyperbolic. We also pick up a coordinate xµ on Σ. Let ta in (51) { } a a µ a a a µ µ satisfy t at = 1 and t ax =0. Let N satisfy N at=0 and N ax = N . In this coordinate, ∇ ∇ ∇ ∇ ta = (1, 0), N a = (0,N µ) and na = (1/N, N µ/N). From (1), ea = (et ,eµ) and ea = (et,eµ) are − 0 0 0 i i i a a a a c4 orthonormal vectors. If we choose e0 = n , then ei = (0, Ei ) by ∂anI = 0 [7]. To make qa Dcnb c d e symmetric with (a,b), we need qaqb Tcd = 0. We can easily see that this comes from the Gauss constraint. Thus by solving the Gauss constraint, this approach becomes the metric description of General Relativity. Finally let’s come back to the first approach and write down the Hamiltonian equations of motion:

E˜˙a = E˜a,H i { i } a b a a b b a j a = N(E˜ K E˜ K ) E˜ DbN + E˜ DbN + (t w) E˜ , (78) i − i b − i i · i j K˙ i = Ki ,H a { a } i i b i b i b i ij = N(R + KK K K )+ N DaK N DbK + (t w) Kaj , (79) − a a − a b b − a · where Rab is the Ricci tensor on Σ and we impose the triad compatibility condition after functional derivatives.

5 Conclusion

In the Lagrangian formulation of the Palatini action, we found that there are two approaches to describe General Relativity. One is to assume the metric compatibility and the torsion zero conditions and the other is to assume the tetrad compatibility condition. In the Hamiltonian formulation, we found that only the second approach describes General Relativity. This is the metric description which is very hard to quantize. In the first approach of the metric compatibility and the torsion zero assumptions, the time evolution of the tetrad is different from that of General Relativity. This is a very unexpected result. We do not know whether this has any meaning classical mechanically because General Relativity is a established theory with experiments. We will see what it means to quantized General Relativity with this modification.

11 References

[1] J. M. Lee, Riemannian Manifolds, An Introduction to Curvature , Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997

[2] M. Nakahara, Geometry, Topology, and Physics, Second Edition, Institute of Physics Publish- ing, 2003

[3] R. Penrose and W. Rindler, Spinors and Space-time, vol. 1, Cambrige University Press, Cam- bridge, 1984

[4] P. Peldan, Actions for gravity, with generalizations: A review, Class. Quantum Grav. 11, 1087 (1994)

[5] J. D. Romano, Geometrodynamics vs. Connection Dynamics (in the context of (2+1)- and (3+1)-gravity), Ph.D. Thesis, Syracuse University (1991)

[6] H. C. Ohanian and R. Ruffini, Gravitation and Spacetime, Norton, New York, 1994

[7] S. Holst, Barbero’s Hamiltonian derived from a generalized Hilbert-Palatini action, Phys. Rev. D53 5966 (1996)

[8] P. A. M. Dirac, Quantum Mechanics, 4th ed., Oxford University Press, London, 1958 R. P. Feynman and A. R. Hibbs, Quantum Mechanics and Path Integral, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1965

[9] R. M. Wald, General Relativity, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984

[10] A. Ashtekar, Lectures on Non-perturbative Canonical gravity, Lectures notes prepared in col- laboration with R.S. Tate, World Scientific Singapore, 1991

[11] J. Barbero, Real Ashtekar variables for Lorentzian signature spacetimes, Phys. Rev. D 51, 5507 (1995)

12