DOCSLIB.ORG

Dynamical and Hamiltonian Formulation of General Relativity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dynamical and Hamiltonian Formulation of General Relativity Dynamical and Hamiltonian formulation of General Relativity Domenico Giulini Institute for Theoretical Physics Riemann Center for Geometry and Physics Leibniz University Hannover, Appelstrasse 2, D-30167 Hannover, Germany and ZARM Bremen, Am Fallturm, D-28359 Bremen, Germany Abstract This is a substantially expanded version of a chapter-contribution to The Springer Handbook of Spacetime, edited by Abhay Ashtekar and Vesselin Petkov, published by Springer Verlag in 2014. It introduces the reader to the reformulation of Einstein's field equations of General Relativity as a constrained evolutionary system of Hamiltonian type and discusses some of its uses, together with some technical and conceptual aspects. Attempts were made to keep the presentation self contained and accessible to first-year graduate students. This implies a certain degree of explicitness and occasional reviews of background material. Contents 1 Introduction 1 Introduction 1 The purpose of this contribution is to explain how 2 Notation and conventions 2 the field equations of General Relativity|often simply referred to as Einstein's equations|can be 3 Einstein's equations 4 understood as dynamical system; more precisely, 4 Spacetime decomposition 9 as a constrained Hamiltonian system. 5 Curvature tensors 15 In General Relativity, it is often said, spacetime becomes dynamical. This is meant to say that 6 Decomposing Einstein's equations 22 the geometric structure of spacetime is encoded in 7 Constrained Hamiltonian systems 27 a field that, in turn, is subject to local laws of prop- agation and coupling, just as, e.g., the electromag- 8 Hamiltonian GR 36 netic field. It is not meant to say that spacetime as a whole evolves. Spacetime does not evolve, space- 9 Asymptotic flatness and global charges 48 time just is. But a given spacetime (four dimen- 10 Black-Hole data 54 sional) can be viewed as the evolution, or history, of space (three dimensional). There is a huge re- 11 Further developments, problems, and outlook 60 dundancy in this representation, in the sense that 12 Appendix: Group actions on manifolds 61 apparently very different evolutions of space rep- resent the same spacetime. However, if the result- References 66 ing spacetime is to satisfy Einstein's equations, the Index 72 evolution of space must also obey certain well de- 1 fined restrictions. Hence the task is to give pre- Dirac's [54] from 1958. He also noticed its con- cise mathematical expression to the redundancies strained nature and started to develop the cor- in representation as well as the restrictions of evolu- responding generalization of constrained Hamilto- tion for this picture of spacetime as space's history. nian systems in [53] and their quantization [55]. This will be our main task. On the classical side, this developed into the more This dynamical picture will be important for geometric Dirac-Bergmann theory of constraints posing and solving time-dependent problems in [76] and on the quantum side into an elaborate General Relativity, like the scattering of black holes theory of quantization of systems with gauge re- with its subsequent generation and radiation of dundancies; see [80] for a comprehensive account. gravitational waves. Quite generally, it is a key Dirac's attempts were soon complemented by an technology to extensive joint work of Richard Arnowitt, Stanley Deser, and Charles Misner - usually and henceforth • formulate and solve initial value problems; abbreviated by ADM. Their work started in 1959 • integrate Einstein's equations by numerical by a paper [3] of the first two of these authors and codes; continued in the series [4] [6] [5] [9] [8] [7] [10] [11] [12] [14] [15] [13] of 12 more papers by all three. A • characterize dynamical degrees of freedom; comprehensive summary of their work was given in • characterize isolated systems and the associ- 1962 in [16], which was republished in 2008 in [17]; ation of asymptotic symmetry groups, which see also the editorial note [104] with short biogra- will give rise to globally conserved `charges', phies of ADM. like energy and linear as well as angular mo- A geometric discussion of Einstein's evolution mentum (Poincar´echarges). equations in terms of infinite-dimensional symplec- tic geometry has been worked out by Fischer and Moreover, it is also the starting point for the canon- Marsden in [57]; see also their beautiful summaries ical quantization program, which constitutes one and extended discussions in [59] and [58]. More main approach to the yet unsolved problem of on the mathematical aspects of the initial-value Quantum Gravity. In this approach one tries to problem, including the global behavior of gravita- make essential use of the Hamiltonian structure of tional fields in General Relativity, can be found the classical theory in formulating the correspond- in [39], [45], and [106]. Modern text-books on the ing quantum theory. This strategy has been ap- 3+1 formalism and its application to physical prob- plied successfully in the transition from classical lems and their numerical solution-techniques are to quantum mechanics and also in the transition [27, 77]. The Hamiltonian structure and its use in from classical to quantum electrodynamics. Hence the canonical quantization program for gravity is the canonical approach to Quantum Gravity may discussed in [34, 92, 107, 113]. be regarded as conservative, insofar as it tries to apply otherwise established rules to a classical the- ory that is experimentally and observationally ex- 2 Notation and conventions tremely well tested. The underlying hypothesis here is that we may quantize interaction-wise. This From now on \General Relativity" will be abbrevi- distinguishes this approach from string theory, the ated by \GR". Spacetime is a differentiable man- underlying credo of which is that Quantum Gravity ifold M of dimension n, endowed with a metric only makes sense on the basis of a unified descrip- g of signature ("; +; ··· ; +). In GR n = 4 and tions of all interactions. " = −1 and it is implicitly understood that these Historically the first paper to address the prob- are the \right" values. However, either for the lem of how to put Einstein's equations into the sake of generality and/or particular interest, we form of a Hamiltonian dynamical system was will sometimes state formulae for general n and 2 ", where usually n ≥ 2 (sometimes n ≥ 3) and of f. If f is a diffeomorphism we can not only push- either " = −1 (Lorentzian metric) or " = +1 (Rie- forward vectors and pull back co-vectors, but also mannian metric; also called Euclidean metric). vice versa. Indeed, if Y is a vector field on N one ∗ −1 The case " = 1 has been extensively considered can write f Y := (f )∗Y and call it the pull back in path-integral approaches to Quantum Gravity, of Y by the diffeomorphism f. Likewise, if β is a −1 ∗ then referred to as Euclidean Quantum Gravity. co-vector field on M, one can write f∗β := (f ) β The tangent space of M at point p 2 M will be and call it the push forward of β. In this fashion ∗ denoted by TpM, the cotangent space by Tp M, and we can define both, push-forwards and pull-backs, u the tensor product of u factors of TpM with d fac- of general tensor fields T 2 ΓTd M by linearity and ∗ u ∗ tors of Tp M by Tpd M. (Mnemonic in components: applying f∗ or f tensor-factor wise. u = number of indices \upstairs", d = number of Note that the general definition of metric is as u 0 indices \downstairs".) An element T in Tpd M is follows: g 2 ΓT2 M, such that gp is a symmet- called a tensor of contravariant rank u and covari- ric non-degenerate bilinear form on TpM. Such ant rank d at point p, or simply a tensors of rank a metric provides isomorphisms (sometimes called (u;d) at p. T is called contravariant if d = 0 and the musical isomorphisms) u > 0, and covariant if u = 0 and d > 0. A tensor ∗ with u > 0 and d > 0 is then referred to as of mixed [ : TpM ! Tp M 1 ∗ 0 [ type. Note that TpM = Tp0M and Tp M = Tp1M. X 7! X := g(X; · ) ; (1a) The set of tensor fields, i.e. smooth assignments of ∗ u ] : Tp M ! TpM an element in Tpd M for each p 2 M, are denoted u ! 7! !] := [−1(!) : (1b) by ΓTd M. Unless stated otherwise, smooth means C1, i.e. continuously differentiable to any order. Using ] we obtain a metric g−1 on T ∗M from the For t 2 ΓT uM we denote by t 2 T uM the eval- p p d p pd metric g on T M as follows: uation of t at p 2 M. C1(M) denotes the set of p p all C1 real-valued functions on M, which we often −1 ] ] ] gp (!1;!2) := gp(!1;!2) = !1(!2) : (2) simply call smooth functions. 1 If f : M ! N is a diffeomorphism between We also recall that the tensor space Tp1M is nat- manifolds M and N, then f∗p : TpM ! Tf(p)N urally isomorphic to the linear space End(TpM) denotes the differential at p. The transposed (or of all endomorphisms (linear self maps) of TpM. dual) of the latter map is, as usual, denoted by Hence it carries a natural structure as associative ∗ ∗ ∗ fp : Tf(p)N ! Tp M. If X is a vector field algebra, the product being composition of maps on M then f∗X is a vector field on N, called denoted by ◦. As usual, the trace, denoted Tr, the push forward of X by f. It is defined by and the determinant, denoted det, are the natu- (f∗X)q := f∗f −1(q)Xf −1(q), for all q 2 N.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Supergravity and Its Legacy Prelude and the Play
    Supergravity and its Legacy Prelude and the Play Sergio FERRARA (CERN – LNF INFN) Celebrating Supegravity at 40 CERN, June 24 2016 S. Ferrara - CERN, 2016 1 Supergravity as carved on the Iconic Wall at the «Simons Center for Geometry and Physics», Stony Brook S. Ferrara - CERN, 2016 2 Prelude S. Ferrara - CERN, 2016 3 In the early 1970s I was a staff member at the Frascati National Laboratories of CNEN (then the National Nuclear Energy Agency), and with my colleagues Aurelio Grillo and Giorgio Parisi we were investigating, under the leadership of Raoul Gatto (later Professor at the University of Geneva) the consequences of the application of “Conformal Invariance” to Quantum Field Theory (QFT), stimulated by the ongoing Experiments at SLAC where an unexpected Bjorken Scaling was observed in inclusive electron- proton Cross sections, which was suggesting a larger space-time symmetry in processes dominated by short distance physics. In parallel with Alexander Polyakov, at the time in the Soviet Union, we formulated in those days Conformal invariant Operator Product Expansions (OPE) and proposed the “Conformal Bootstrap” as a non-perturbative approach to QFT. S. Ferrara - CERN, 2016 4 Conformal Invariance, OPEs and Conformal Bootstrap has become again a fashionable subject in recent times, because of the introduction of efficient new methods to solve the “Bootstrap Equations” (Riccardo Rattazzi, Slava Rychkov, Erik Tonni, Alessandro Vichi), and mostly because of their role in the AdS/CFT correspondence. The latter, pioneered by Juan Maldacena, Edward Witten, Steve Gubser, Igor Klebanov and Polyakov, can be regarded, to some extent, as one of the great legacies of higher dimensional Supergravity.
    [Show full text]
  • Immirzi Parameter Without Immirzi Ambiguity: Conformal Loop Quantization of Scalar-Tensor Gravity
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Aberdeen University Research Archive PHYSICAL REVIEW D 96, 084011 (2017) Immirzi parameter without Immirzi ambiguity: Conformal loop quantization of scalar-tensor gravity † Olivier J. Veraguth* and Charles H.-T. Wang Department of Physics, University of Aberdeen, King’s College, Aberdeen AB24 3UE, United Kingdom (Received 25 May 2017; published 5 October 2017) Conformal loop quantum gravity provides an approach to loop quantization through an underlying conformal structure i.e. conformally equivalent class of metrics. The property that general relativity itself has no conformal invariance is reinstated with a constrained scalar field setting the physical scale. Conformally equivalent metrics have recently been shown to be amenable to loop quantization including matter coupling. It has been suggested that conformal geometry may provide an extended symmetry to allow a reformulated Immirzi parameter necessary for loop quantization to behave like an arbitrary group parameter that requires no further fixing as its present standard form does. Here, we find that this can be naturally realized via conformal frame transformations in scalar-tensor gravity. Such a theory generally incorporates a dynamical scalar gravitational field and reduces to general relativity when the scalar field becomes a pure gauge. In particular, we introduce a conformal Einstein frame in which loop quantization is implemented. We then discuss how different Immirzi parameters under this description may be related by conformal frame transformations and yet share the same quantization having, for example, the same area gaps, modulated by the scalar gravitational field. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.084011 I.
    [Show full text]
  • Twenty Years of the Weyl Anomaly
    CTP-TAMU-06/93 Twenty Years of the Weyl Anomaly † M. J. Duff ‡ Center for Theoretical Physics Physics Department Texas A & M University College Station, Texas 77843 ABSTRACT In 1973 two Salam prot´eg´es (Derek Capper and the author) discovered that the conformal invariance under Weyl rescalings of the metric tensor 2 gµν(x) Ω (x)gµν (x) displayed by classical massless field systems in interac- tion with→ gravity no longer survives in the quantum theory. Since then these Weyl anomalies have found a variety of applications in black hole physics, cosmology, string theory and statistical mechanics. We give a nostalgic re- view. arXiv:hep-th/9308075v1 16 Aug 1993 CTP/TAMU-06/93 July 1993 †Talk given at the Salamfest, ICTP, Trieste, March 1993. ‡ Research supported in part by NSF Grant PHY-9106593. When all else fails, you can always tell the truth. Abdus Salam 1 Trieste and Oxford Twenty years ago, Derek Capper and I had embarked on our very first post- docs here in Trieste. We were two Salam students fresh from Imperial College filled with ideas about quantizing the gravitational field: a subject which at the time was pursued only by mad dogs and Englishmen. (My thesis title: Problems in the Classical and Quantum Theories of Gravitation was greeted with hoots of derision when I announced it at the Cargese Summer School en route to Trieste. The work originated with a bet between Abdus Salam and Hermann Bondi about whether you could generate the Schwarzschild solution using Feynman diagrams. You can (and I did) but I never found out if Bondi ever paid up.) Inspired by Salam, Capper and I decided to use the recently discovered dimensional regularization1 to calculate corrections to the graviton propaga- tor from closed loops of massless particles: vectors [1] and spinors [2], the former in collaboration with Leopold Halpern.
    [Show full text]
  • 3+1 Formalism and Bases of Numerical Relativity
    3+1 Formalism and Bases of Numerical Relativity Lecture notes Eric´ Gourgoulhon Laboratoire Univers et Th´eories, UMR 8102 du C.N.R.S., Observatoire de Paris, Universit´eParis 7 arXiv:gr-qc/0703035v1 6 Mar 2007 F-92195 Meudon Cedex, France [email protected] 6 March 2007 2 Contents 1 Introduction 11 2 Geometry of hypersurfaces 15 2.1 Introduction.................................... 15 2.2 Frameworkandnotations . .... 15 2.2.1 Spacetimeandtensorfields . 15 2.2.2 Scalar products and metric duality . ...... 16 2.2.3 Curvaturetensor ............................... 18 2.3 Hypersurfaceembeddedinspacetime . ........ 19 2.3.1 Definition .................................... 19 2.3.2 Normalvector ................................. 21 2.3.3 Intrinsiccurvature . 22 2.3.4 Extrinsiccurvature. 23 2.3.5 Examples: surfaces embedded in the Euclidean space R3 .......... 24 2.4 Spacelikehypersurface . ...... 28 2.4.1 Theorthogonalprojector . 29 2.4.2 Relation between K and n ......................... 31 ∇ 2.4.3 Links between the and D connections. .. .. .. .. .. 32 ∇ 2.5 Gauss-Codazzirelations . ...... 34 2.5.1 Gaussrelation ................................. 34 2.5.2 Codazzirelation ............................... 36 3 Geometry of foliations 39 3.1 Introduction.................................... 39 3.2 Globally hyperbolic spacetimes and foliations . ............. 39 3.2.1 Globally hyperbolic spacetimes . ...... 39 3.2.2 Definition of a foliation . 40 3.3 Foliationkinematics .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..... 41 3.3.1 Lapsefunction ................................. 41 3.3.2 Normal evolution vector . 42 3.3.3 Eulerianobservers ............................. 42 3.3.4 Gradients of n and m ............................. 44 3.3.5 Evolution of the 3-metric . 45 4 CONTENTS 3.3.6 Evolution of the orthogonal projector . ....... 46 3.4 Last part of the 3+1 decomposition of the Riemann tensor .
    [Show full text]
  • The Rebirth of Cosmology: from the Static to the Expanding Universe
    Physics Before and After Einstein 129 M. Mamone Capria (Ed.) IOS Press, 2005 © 2005 The authors Chapter 6 The Rebirth of Cosmology: From the Static to the Expanding Universe Marco Mamone Capria Among the reasons for the entrance of Einstein’s relativity into the scientific folklore of his and our age one of the most important has been his fresh and bold approach to the cosmological problem, and the mysterious, if not paradoxical concept of the universe as a three-dimensional sphere. Einstein is often credited with having led cosmology from philosophy to science: according to this view, he made it possible to discuss in the pro- gressive way typical of science what had been up to his time not less “a field of endless struggles” than metaphysics in Kant’s phrase. It is interesting to remember in this connection that the German philosopher, in his Critique of Pure Reason, had famously argued that cosmology was beyond the scope of science (in the widest sense), being fraught with unsolvable contradictions, inherent in the very way our reason functions. Of course not everybody had been impressed by this argument, and several nineteenth-century scientists had tried to work out a viable image of the universe and its ultimate destiny, using Newtonian mechanics and the principles of thermodynamics. However, this approach did not give unambiguous answers either; for instance, the first principle of thermodynamics was invoked to deny that the universe could have been born at a certain moment in the past, and the second principle to deny that its past could be infinite.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Clifford Algebraic Computational Fluid Dynamics
    Clifford Algebraic Computational Fluid Dynamics: A New Class of Experiments. Dr. William Michael Kallfelz 1 Lecturer, Department of Philosophy & Religion, Mississippi State University The Philosophy of Scientific Experimentation: A Challenge to Philosophy of Science-Center for Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh October 15-16, 2010. October 24, 2010 Abstract Though some influentially critical objections have been raised during the ‘classical’ pre- computational simulation philosophy of science (PCSPS) tradition, suggesting a more nuanced methodological category for experiments 2, it safe to say such critical objections have greatly proliferated in philosophical studies dedicated to the role played by computational simulations in science. For instance, Eric Winsberg (1999-2003) suggests that computer simulations are methodologically unique in the development of a theory’s models 3 suggesting new epistemic notions of application. This is also echoed in Jeffrey Ramsey’s (1995) notions of “transformation reduction,”—i.e., a notion of reduction of a more highly constructive variety. 4 Computer simulations create a broadly continuous arena spanned by normative and descriptive aspects of theory-articulation, as entailed by the notion of transformation reductions occupying a continuous region demarcated by Ernest Nagel’s (1974) logical-explanatory “domain-combining reduction” on the one hand, and Thomas Nickels’ (1973) heuristic “domain- preserving reduction,” on the other. I extend Winsberg’s and Ramsey’s points here, by arguing that in the field of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) as well as in other branches of applied physics, the computer plays a constitutively experimental role—supplanting in many cases the more traditional experimental methods such as flow- visualization, etc. In this case, however CFD algorithms act as substitutes, not supplements (as the notions “simulation” suggests) when it comes to experimental practices.
    [Show full text]
  • MATTERS of GRAVITY, a Newsletter for the Gravity Community, Number 3
    MATTERS OF GRAVITY Number 3 Spring 1994 Table of Contents Editorial ................................................... ................... 2 Correspondents ................................................... ............ 2 Gravity news: Open Letter to gravitational physicists, Beverly Berger ........................ 3 A Missouri relativist in King Gustav’s Court, Clifford Will .................... 6 Gary Horowitz wins the Xanthopoulos award, Abhay Ashtekar ................ 9 Research briefs: Gamma-ray bursts and their possible cosmological implications, Peter Meszaros 12 Current activity and results in laboratory gravity, Riley Newman ............. 15 Update on representations of quantum gravity, Donald Marolf ................ 19 Ligo project report: December 1993, Rochus E. Vogt ......................... 23 Dark matter or new gravity?, Richard Hammond ............................. 25 Conference Reports: Gravitational waves from coalescing compact binaries, Curt Cutler ........... 28 Mach’s principle: from Newton’s bucket to quantum gravity, Dieter Brill ..... 31 Cornelius Lanczos international centenary conference, David Brown .......... 33 Third Midwest relativity conference, David Garfinkle ......................... 36 arXiv:gr-qc/9402002v1 1 Feb 1994 Editor: Jorge Pullin Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry The Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802-6300 Fax: (814)863-9608 Phone (814)863-9597 Internet: [email protected] 1 Editorial Well, this newsletter is growing into its third year and third number with a lot of strength. In fact, maybe too much strength. Twelve articles and 37 (!) pages. In this number, apart from the ”traditional” research briefs and conference reports we also bring some news for the community, therefore starting to fulfill the original promise of bringing the gravity/relativity community closer together. As usual I am open to suggestions, criticisms and proposals for articles for the next issue, due September 1st. Many thanks to the authors and the correspondents who made this issue possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Einstein's Equations for Spin 2 Mass 0 from Noether's Converse Hilbertian
    Einstein’s Equations for Spin 2 Mass 0 from Noether’s Converse Hilbertian Assertion October 4, 2016 J. Brian Pitts Faculty of Philosophy, University of Cambridge [email protected] forthcoming in Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics Abstract An overlap between the general relativist and particle physicist views of Einstein gravity is uncovered. Noether’s 1918 paper developed Hilbert’s and Klein’s reflections on the conservation laws. Energy-momentum is just a term proportional to the field equations and a “curl” term with identically zero divergence. Noether proved a converse “Hilbertian assertion”: such “improper” conservation laws imply a generally covariant action. Later and independently, particle physicists derived the nonlinear Einstein equations as- suming the absence of negative-energy degrees of freedom (“ghosts”) for stability, along with universal coupling: all energy-momentum including gravity’s serves as a source for gravity. Those assumptions (all but) imply (for 0 graviton mass) that the energy-momentum is only a term proportional to the field equations and a symmetric curl, which implies the coalescence of the flat background geometry and the gravitational potential into an effective curved geometry. The flat metric, though useful in Rosenfeld’s stress-energy definition, disappears from the field equations. Thus the particle physics derivation uses a reinvented Noetherian converse Hilbertian assertion in Rosenfeld-tinged form. The Rosenfeld stress-energy is identically the canonical stress-energy plus a Belinfante curl and terms proportional to the field equations, so the flat metric is only a convenient mathematical trick without ontological commitment. Neither generalized relativity of motion, nor the identity of gravity and inertia, nor substantive general covariance is assumed.
    [Show full text]
  • Erich Kretschmann As a Proto-Logical-Empiricist: Adventures and Misadventures of the Point-Coincidence Argument
    Erich Kretschmann as a Proto-Logical-Empiricist: Adventures and Misadventures of the Point-Coincidence Argument Marco Giovanelli Abstract The present paper attempts to show that a 1915 article by Erich Kretschmann must be credited not only for being the source of Einstein’s point-coincidence remark, but also for having anticipated the main lines of the logical-empiricist interpretation of general relativity. Whereas Kretschmann was inspired by the work of Mach and Poincaré, Einstein inserted Kretschmann’s point-coincidence parlance into the context of Ricci and Levi-Civita’s absolute differential calculus. Kretschmann himself realized this and turned the point-coincidence ar- gument against Einstein in his second and more famous 1918 paper. While Einstein had taken nothing from Kretschmann but the expression “point-coincidences”, the logical empiricists, however, instinctively dragged along with it the entire apparatus of Kretschmann’s conven- tionalism. Disappointingly, in their interpretation of general relativity, the logical empiricists unwittingly replicated some epistemological remarks Kretschmann had written before General Relativity even existed. Keywords: Erich Kretschmann, Point Coincidence Argument, Moritz Schlick, General Relativity, Logical Empiricism, Conventionalism 1. Introduction In the early 1980s, John Stachel (Stachel, 1980) and John Norton (Norton, 1984) famously shed new light on Einstein’s celebrated, yet somewhat cryptic, claim that all physical measurements amount to a determination of space-time coincidences, such as the matching of a pointer with a scale, or, if the world consisted of nothing but particles in motion, the meetings of their world-lines. In Einstein’s published writings, this remark — which Stachel has success- fully labeled the “point-coincidence argument” — amounts to the requirement of “general covariance”: since all coordinate systems necessarily agree on coin- cidences, that is, in everything observable, there is no reason to privilege one coordinate system over another.
    [Show full text]
  • M-Theory Solutions and Intersecting D-Brane Systems
    M-Theory Solutions and Intersecting D-Brane Systems A Thesis Submitted to the College of Graduate Studies and Research in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Physics and Engineering Physics University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon By Rahim Oraji ©Rahim Oraji, December/2011. All rights reserved. Permission to Use In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for a Postgrad- uate degree from the University of Saskatchewan, I agree that the Libraries of this University may make it freely available for inspection. I further agree that permission for copying of this thesis in any manner, in whole or in part, for scholarly purposes may be granted by the professor or professors who supervised my thesis work or, in their absence, by the Head of the Department or the Dean of the College in which my thesis work was done. It is understood that any copying or publication or use of this thesis or parts thereof for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. It is also understood that due recognition shall be given to me and to the University of Saskatchewan in any scholarly use which may be made of any material in my thesis. Requests for permission to copy or to make other use of material in this thesis in whole or part should be addressed to: Head of the Department of Physics and Engineering Physics 116 Science Place University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Canada S7N 5E2 i Abstract It is believed that fundamental M-theory in the low-energy limit can be described effectively by D=11 supergravity.
    [Show full text]
  • An Invitation to the New Variables with Possible Applications
    An Invitation to the New Variables with Possible Applications Norbert Bodendorfer and Andreas Thurn (work by NB, T. Thiemann, AT [arXiv:1106.1103]) FAU Erlangen-N¨urnberg ILQGS, 4 October 2011 N. Bodendorfer, A. Thurn (FAU Erlangen) An Invitation to the New Variables ILQGS, 4 October 2011 1 Plan of the talk 1 Why Higher Dimensional Loop Quantum (Super-)Gravity? 2 Review: Hamiltonian Formulations of General Relativity ADM Formulation Extended ADM I Ashtekar-Barbero Formulation Extended ADM II 3 The New Variables Hamiltonian Viewpoint Comparison with Ashtekar-Barbero Formulation Lagrangian Viewpoint Quantisation, Generalisations 4 Possible Applications of the New Variables Solutions to the Simplicity Constraint Canonical = Covariant Formulation? Supersymmetry Constraint Black Hole Entropy Cosmology AdS / CFT Correspondence 5 Conclusion N. Bodendorfer, A. Thurn (FAU Erlangen) An Invitation to the New Variables ILQGS, 4 October 2011 2 Plan of the talk 1 Why Higher Dimensional Loop Quantum (Super-)Gravity? 2 Review: Hamiltonian Formulations of General Relativity ADM Formulation Extended ADM I Ashtekar-Barbero Formulation Extended ADM II 3 The New Variables Hamiltonian Viewpoint Comparison with Ashtekar-Barbero Formulation Lagrangian Viewpoint Quantisation, Generalisations 4 Possible Applications of the New Variables Solutions to the Simplicity Constraint Canonical = Covariant Formulation? Supersymmetry Constraint Black Hole Entropy Cosmology AdS / CFT Correspondence 5 Conclusion N. Bodendorfer, A. Thurn (FAU Erlangen) An Invitation to the
    [Show full text]
  • Hamilton's Ricci Flow
    The University of Melbourne, Department of Mathematics and Statistics Hamilton's Ricci Flow Nick Sheridan Supervisor: Associate Professor Craig Hodgson Second Reader: Professor Hyam Rubinstein Honours Thesis, November 2006. Abstract The aim of this project is to introduce the basics of Hamilton's Ricci Flow. The Ricci flow is a pde for evolving the metric tensor in a Riemannian manifold to make it \rounder", in the hope that one may draw topological conclusions from the existence of such \round" metrics. Indeed, the Ricci flow has recently been used to prove two very deep theorems in topology, namely the Geometrization and Poincar´eConjectures. We begin with a brief survey of the differential geometry that is needed in the Ricci flow, then proceed to introduce its basic properties and the basic techniques used to understand it, for example, proving existence and uniqueness and bounds on derivatives of curvature under the Ricci flow using the maximum principle. We use these results to prove the \original" Ricci flow theorem { the 1982 theorem of Richard Hamilton that closed 3-manifolds which admit metrics of strictly positive Ricci curvature are diffeomorphic to quotients of the round 3-sphere by finite groups of isometries acting freely. We conclude with a qualitative discussion of the ideas behind the proof of the Geometrization Conjecture using the Ricci flow. Most of the project is based on the book by Chow and Knopf [6], the notes by Peter Topping [28] (which have recently been made into a book, see [29]), the papers of Richard Hamilton (in particular [9]) and the lecture course on Geometric Evolution Equations presented by Ben Andrews at the 2006 ICE-EM Graduate School held at the University of Queensland.
    [Show full text]