Arxiv:2101.09203V1 [Gr-Qc] 22 Jan 2021 a Powerful Selection Principle Can Be Implemented by Mation Behavior (Sec.III)

Home , Composite gravity, Degrees of freedom

Coordinate conditions and ﬁeld equations for pure composite gravity

Hans Christian Ottinger¨ ∗ ETH Z¨urich,Department of Materials, CH-8093 Z¨urich,Switzerland (Dated: January 25, 2021) Whenever an alternative theory of gravity is formulated in a background Minkowski space, the conditions characterizing admissible coordinate systems, in which the alternative theory of gravity may be applied, play an important role. We here propose Lorentz covariant coordinate conditions for the composite theory of pure gravity developed from the Yang-Mills theory based on the Lorentz group, thereby completing this previously proposed higher derivative theory of gravity. The physically relevant static isotropic solutions are determined by various methods, the high-precision predictions of general relativity are reproduced, and an exact black-hole solution with mildly singular behavior is found.

I. INTRODUCTION As the composite theory of gravity [9], just like the underlying Yang-Mills theory, is formulated in a back- Only two years after the discovery of Yang-Mills theo- ground Minkowski space, the question arises how to char- ries [1], it has been recognized that that there is a strik- acterize the “good” coordinate systems in which the the- ing formal relationship between the Riemann curvature ory may be applied. This characterization should be tensor of general relativity and the field tensor of the Lorentz invariant, but not invariant under more general Yang-Mills theory based on the Lorentz group [2]. How- coordinate transformations, that is, it shares the formal ever, developing this particular Yang-Mills theory into a properties of coordinate conditions in general relativity. consistent and convincing theory of gravity is not at all However, the unique solutions obtained from Einstein’s straightforward. The ideas of [2] have been found to be field equations only after specifying coordinate condi- “unnatural” by Yang (see footnote 5 of [3]), whose work tions are all physically equivalent, whereas the coordi- has later been criticized massively in Chap. 19 of [4]. nate conditions in composite gravity characterize phys- Nevertheless, the pioneering work [2] may be considered ically preferred systems. From a historical perspective, as the origin of what is now known as gauge gravitation it is remarkable that Einstein in 1914 still believed that theory [5,6]. the metric should be completely determined by the field An obvious problem with the Yang-Mills theory based equations and, therefore, a generally covariant theory of on the Lorentz group is that it has the large number of 48 gravity was not desirable (see [10] for a detailed discus- degrees of freedom, half of which are physically relevant. sion). The important task of characterizing the preferred One is faced with six four-vector fields satisfying second- systems in composite gravity is addressed in the present order evolution equations. For the pure field theories, paper. Once it is solved, we can provide a canonical the physical degrees of freedom are essentially given by Hamiltonian formulation of composite theory of gravity the two transverse components of the four-vector fields, beyond the weak-field approximation [11] and we obtain like in electrodynamics with its single vector potential. the static isotropic black-hole solution in a proper coor- In view of this enormous number of degrees of freedom dinate system. we need an almost equally large number of constraints to keep only a few degrees of freedom in a theory of gravity. In other words, we need a structured principle for The structure of the paper is as follows. As a prepara- selecting just a few ones among all the solutions of the tory step, we present the various variables and relations Yang-Mills theory based on the Lorentz group. between them (Sec.II) and discuss their gauge transfor- arXiv:2101.09203v1 [gr-qc] 22 Jan 2021 A powerful selection principle can be implemented by mation behavior (Sec.III). A cornerstone of the devel- means of the tool of composite theories [7,8]. The basic opment is the close relationship between the covariant idea is to write the gauge vector fields of the Yang-Mills derivatives associated (i) with a connection with torsion theory in terms of fewer, more fundamental variables and and (ii) with the Yang-Mills theory based on the Lorentz their derivatives. The admission of derivatives in this so- group. The core of the composite theory of gravity con- called composition rule implies that the composite theory sists of the field equations presented for several sets of involves higher than second derivatives. The power of the variables (Sec.IV) and the coordinate conditions charac- tool of composite theories results from the fact that, in terizing the admissible coordinate systems (Sec.V). As their Hamiltonian formulations [7,8], the structure of an application, we determine the static isotropic solutions the constraints providing the selection principle is highly and provide the results for the high-precision tests of transparent. gravity as well as an exact black-hole solution (Sec.VI). We finally offer a detailed summary of our results and draw a number of conclusions (Sec.VII). A number of detailed results and arguments are provided in six ap- ∗ [email protected]; www.polyphys.mat.ethz.ch pendices. 2

II. VARIOUS VARIABLES AND RELATIONS a 1 2 3 4 5 6 BETWEEN THEM (κ, λ) (0, 1) (0, 2) (0, 3) (2, 3) (3, 1) (1, 2)

For the understanding of composite theories, it is im- TABLE I. Correspondence between the label a for the base vectors of the six-dimensional Lie algebra so(1, 3) and ordered portant to introduce different kinds of variables and to pairs (κ, λ) of space-time indices. clarify the relations between them. On the one hand, we have the metric tensors, tetrad variables, connections and curvature tensors familiar from general relativity and six vector fields associated with six pairs (κ, λ), or with other theories of gravity. On the other hand, we have the a label a taking the values from 1 to 6 according to Ta- gauge vectors and field tensors of the Yang-Mills theory bleI. The pairs (0 , 1), (0, 2), (0, 3) correspond to Lorentz based on the Lorentz group. boosts in the respective directions (involving also time) An important step is the decomposition of metric ten- and the pairs (2, 3), (3, 1), (1, 2) correspond to rotations sors in terms of tetrad or vierbein variables, in the respective planes, as can be recognized by analyz- ing the gauge transformation behavior of the fields A g = η bκ bλ = bκ b , (1) (κλ)ρ µν κλ µ ν µ κν resulting from the freedom of acting with Lorentz trans- κ κλ formations on b µ (see Sec.III for details). where ηκλ = η is the Minkowski metric with signa- ture (−, +, +, +). Throughout this paper, the Minkowski Following standard procedures for Yang-Mills theories metric is used for raising or lowering space-time indices. (see, e.g., Sect. 15.2 of [12], Chap. 15 of [13], or [14]), we For the inverses of the metric and the tetrad variables we can introduce a field tensor in terms of the vector fields, µν ¯µ introduce the componentsg ¯ and b κ. Note that they ∂Aaν ∂Aaµ bc are not obtained by raising or lowering indices of gµν and Faµν = µ − ν +gf ˜ a AbµAcν , (3) κ ∂x ∂x b µ, respectively. bc Equation (1) may be regarded as the characterization where fa are the structure constants of the Lorentz of metric tensors by symmetry and definiteness proper- group. A Lie algebra label, say a, can be raised or lowered ties. A general metric tensor may also be regarded as the by raising or lowering the indices in the pairs associated result of transforming the Minkowski metric. The decom- with a according to TableI. The structure constants can κ abc position of a metric gµν into tetrad variables b µ is not then be specified as follows: f is 1 (−1) if (a, b, c) is κ unique. If we multiply b µ from the left with any Lorentz an even (odd) permutation of (4, 5, 6), (1, 3, 5), (1, 6, 2) transformation, the invariance of the Minkowski metric or (2, 4, 3) and 0 otherwise (see also Eq. (A3)). under Lorentz transformations implies that we obtain an- The definition (2) suggests the following general pas- other valid decomposition. This observation reveals the sage from quantities labeled by a Lie algebra index to a origin of the underlying gauge symmetry of the composite quantity with space-time indices, theory of gravity. ˜ κ λ The key role of the metric tensor in the present the- Xµν = b µb ν X(κλ). (4) ory is the characterization of the momentum-velocity relation, so that it can be interpreted as an indication of One then gets a deep relation between covariant deriva- tensorial properties of mass. While this is also the case in tives associated with metrics and connections on the one general relativity, Einstein’s theory of gravity goes much hand and covariant derivatives associated with a Yang- further in the geometric interpretation of the metric by Mills theory based on the Lorentz group on the other assuming that it characterizes the underlying space-time. hand (for a proof of this fundamental relation based on In contrast, the present theory is developed in an under- the structure of the Lorentz group, see AppendixA), lying Minkowski space, which is the standard situation ∂X˜µν for Yang-Mills theories. − Γσ X˜ − Γσ X˜ = ∂xρ ρµ σν ρν µσ As a next step, we introduce the vector fields A (κλ)ρ ∂X in terms of the tetrad variables (the pair (κ, λ) of space- κ λ (κλ) bc b µb ν ρ +g ˜ f(κλ)AbρXc , (5) time indices should be considered as a label associated ∂x with the Lorentz group, ρ as a four-vector index), ρ where the connection Γµν is given by κ λ 1 ∂gνρ ∂gµρ b µb ν A(κλ)ρ = − ρ 1 ρσ ∂gσν ∂gµσ ∂gµν ρσ 2 ∂xµ ∂xν Γ = g¯ +g ˜ − =g ¯ Γ¯σµν . µν 2 ∂xµ ∂xν ∂xσ κ 1 κ ∂bκν ∂b µ (6) + b µ ρ − ρ bκν . (2) ρ 2˜g ∂x ∂x Unlike the Christoffel symbols obtained forg ˜ = 1, Γµν is not symmetric in µ and ν forg ˜ 6= 1. This lack of symme- From the Yang-Mills perspective,g ˜ is the coupling con- try indicates the presence of torsion. Note, however, that stant. From a metric viewpoint,g ˜ 6= 1 implies torsion the connection is metric-compatible for allg ˜ [15], that is, (see Eq. (6) below). The antisymmetry of the right-hand side of Eq. (2) in µ and ν leads, after resolving for A(κλ)ρ, ∂g µν − Γσ g − Γσ g = 0, (7) to antisymmetry in κ and λ. We have thus introduced ∂xρ ρµ σν ρν µσ 3 which can be recast in the convenient form which, by means of Eq. (A1), can be written as ∂g µν ¯ ¯ ∂Λa = Γµρν + Γνρµ. (8) δA = +gf ˜ bc A Λ . (15) ∂xρ aρ ∂xρ a bρ c ρ From the connection Γµν , we can further construct the This result demonstrates that the six vector fields Aaρ Riemann curvature tensor (see, e.g. [15] or [16]) indeed possess the proper gauge transformation behavior for the vector fields of the Yang-Mills theory based on µ µ ∂Γ 0 µ µ ν ∂Γν0ν σ µ σ µ the Lorentz group. By means of the Jacobi identity for R 0 0 = − + Γ 0 Γ 0 − Γ 0 Γ 0 . (9) νµ ν ∂xν0 ∂xµ0 µ ν ν σ ν ν µ σ the structure constants,

In AppendixB, it is shown that the ﬁeld tensor (3) can sb cd sc db sd bc fa fs + fa fs + fa fs = 0, (16) be written in the alternative form ˜ we further obtain the gauge transformation behavior of Fµνµ0ν0 = the ﬁeld tensor, 2 2 2 2 1 ∂ gνν0 ∂ gνµ0 ∂ gµν0 ∂ gµµ0 0 − 0 − 0 + 0 bc 2 ∂xµ∂xµ ∂xµ∂xν ∂xν ∂xµ ∂xν ∂xν δFaµν =gf ˜ a Fbµν Λc. (17)

1 ρσ + g¯ (Γ¯ρµ0µΓ¯σν0ν − Γ¯ρν0µΓ¯σµ0ν ). (10) Finally, we look at the gauge transformation behav- g˜ ior obtained for the Yang-Mills variables transformed according to Eq. (4). From Eqs. (12) and (14) we obtain This explicit expression for F˜µνµ0ν0 reveals its symmetry properties: antisymmetry under µ ↔ ν and µ0 ↔ ν0 and, ∂Λ(κλ) more surprisingly, symmetry under (µν) ↔ (µ0ν0). A δA˜ = bκ bλ . (18) µνρ µ ν ∂xρ comparison between the expressions (9) and (10) yields a remarkable relationship between the Riemann curvature As the metric is gauge invariant (gauge degrees of free- tensor and the ﬁeld tensor of the Yang-Mills theory based dom result only from its decomposition), the representa- on the Lorentz group, tions (6) and (10) imply the gauge invariance properties

µρ µ ˜ 0 0 0 0 ρ ¯ g˜ g¯ Fρνµ ν = R νµ ν , (11) δΓµν = δΓσµν = 0, (19) which holds for all values of the coupling constantg ˜. and

δF˜µνµ0ν0 = 0. (20) III. GAUGE TRANSFORMATION BEHAVIOR

As a consequence of the decomposition (1), there ex- IV. FIELD EQUATIONS ists the gauge freedom of acting with a Lorentz transfor- κ mation from the left on the tetrad variables b µ. In its With the help of Eq. (5), the standard field equations infinitesimal version, this possibility corresponds to the for our Yang-Mills theory based on the Lorentz group transformation (see, e.g., Sect. 15.2 of [12], Chap. 15 of [13], or [14]) can be written in the manifestly gauge invariant form λ δbκµ =g ˜ Λ(κλ)b µ, (12) ˜ ! µ0µ00 ∂Fµνµ00ν0 σ σ η − Γ 0 F˜ 00 0 − Γ 0 F˜ 00 0 = 0. where Λ(κλ) is antisymmetric in κ and λ and can hence ∂xµ0 µ µ σνµ ν µ ν µσµ ν be understood as Λa according to TableI. For κ = 0, time is mixed with a spatial dependence in one of the (21) coordinate directions so that we deal with the respective By means of Eq. (11), these field equations can be rewrit- Lorentz boosts. If both κ = k and λ = l are both spatial ten in terms of the Riemann curvature tensor, indices, the antisymmetric matrix Λ(κλ) describes rota- µ ρν0 ∂R νµ0ν0 µ σ σ µ tions in the corresponding (k, l) plane. For the inverse of 0 0 0 0 η ρ + ΓρσR νµ ν − Γρν R σµ ν = 0. (22) κ ∂x b µ, Eq. (12) implies

¯µ ¯µλ In view of Eq. (9), this latter equation is entirely in terms δb κ = −g˜ Λ(κλ)b . (13) ρ of the variables Γµν . The explicit form of the resulting equation is given in AppendixC. This observation offers By using Eq. (12) in the composition rule (2), we ob- the option of the following two-step procedure: one first tain determines the most general solution of the second-order ρ κ0λ0 h i ∂Λ(κλ) differential equations (C1) for Γµν and then, in a post- δA −g˜ η A 0 Λ 0 −Λ 0 A 0 = , (κλ)ρ (κ λ)ρ (κλ ) (κ λ) (κλ )ρ ∂xρ processing step, one obtains the metric by solving the (14) first-order differential equations (6). The post-processing 4

ρ step selects those solutions Γµν that can actually be ex- elaborated only in the weak-field approximation [11], we pressed in terms of the metric. sketch the generalizations required for the full, nonlin- Finally, we write the field equations directly as third- ear theory of composite pure gravity in AppendixE. As order differential equations for the metric. As the solu- a conclusion, we expect (at least) four physical degrees tions of these third-order equations can be understood of freedom remaining in the field equations (23) for gµν . in terms of selected solutions of the Yang-Mills theory Note that the Hamiltonian approach also provides the found by post-processing, there is no reason to be con- natural starting point for a generalization to dissipative cerned about the potential instabilities resulting from systems. In particular, this approach allows us to for- higher-order differential equations, known as Ostrograd- mulate quantum master equations [27–30] and to make sky instabilities [17, 18]. Avoiding such instabilities is an composite gravity accessible to the robust framework of important topic, in particular, in alternative theories of dissipative quantum field theory [31, 32]. gravity [19–26]. We write all the third and second deriva- The issue of missing evolution equations is addressed tives of the metric explicitly, whereas the first derivatives in the subsequent section. As in the weak-field approxi- are conveniently combined into connection variables. The mation, coordinate conditions characterizing those coor- result is the following set of equations for the composite dinate systems in which the composite theory of gravity theory of gravity obtained by expressing the gauge vec- can be applied provide the missing evolution equations. tor fields of the Yang-Mills theory based on the Lorentz group in terms of the tetrad variables obtained by decomposing a metric, V. COORDINATE CONDITIONS

2 1 ∂ 1 ∂ ∂gνρ 0 0 As we have assumed an underlying Minkowski space Ξµνµ = µ gµ ν − µ µ0 2 ∂x 2 ∂x ∂x ∂xρ for developing composite gravity, we need to character- 1 σ 1 ∂ ∂gσρ ∂ ∂gνρ ize those coordinate systems in which the theory actually − Γ 0 g + − µ µ σν ν σ holds. These characteristic coordinate conditions should 2 g˜ ∂x ∂xρ ∂x ∂xρ clearly be Lorentz covariant. Furthermore, the coordi- ρρ0 2 2 η σ ∂ gσρ0 ∂ gµρ0 nate conditions should provide evolution equations for + Γρν µ µ0 − σ µ0 2 ∂x ∂x ∂x ∂x g0µ because the field equations (23) determine the third- 2 2 2 ∂ g 0 ∂ g 0 1 ∂ g order time derivatives of gmn, but not of g0µ. Therefore, + 2 µµ − 2 σµ − σµ ∂xσ∂xρ0 ∂xµ∂xρ0 g˜ ∂xµ0 ∂xρ0 the formulation of appropriate coordinate conditions is an important task. The status of coordinate conditions ρρ0 η α ¯ ¯ α ¯ β in composite theory is very different from their status in + Γ 0 2Γαρ0β + Γβρ0α − Γ 0 Γαµ0β Γ g˜ µ µ ρ µ ρν general relativity, where they have no influence on the − µ ↔ ν = 0. (23) physical predictions. The coordinate conditions should be a set of four

In view of the antisymmetry of Ξµνµ0 implied by the Lorentz covariant equations. An appealing form is given last line of the above equation, we can assume µ < ν by so that Eq. (23) provides a total of 24 equations for the ∂gµρ ∂φ ten components of the symmetric matrix gµν . If we wish = µ , (24) to determine the time evolution of the metric from the ∂xρ ∂x third-order differential equations (23), we need 30 ini- where the potential φ is often assumed to be propor- tial conditions for the matrix elements gµν and their first and second time derivatives as well as expressions for the tional to the trace of the metric. To eliminate the need third time derivatives. of specifying a potential, we can write the second-order integrability conditions Closer inspection of the third-order terms in Eq. (23) reveals that the six equations Ξ0mn = 0 for m ≤ n pro- ∂ ∂gµρ ∂ ∂gνρ vide the derivatives ∂3g /∂t3, but that the remain- = . (25) mn ∂xν ∂x ∂xµ ∂x ing equations do not contain any information about ρ ρ 3 3 ∂ g0µ/∂t . Therefore, the remaining 18 equations con- After taking the derivatives with respect to xν and sum- stitute constraints for the initial conditions, and we are ming over ν, we arrive at the four Lorentz covariant co- faced with two tasks: (i) find equations for the time evo- ordinate conditions lution of g0µ, and (ii) show that the constraints are sat- 2 isfied at all times if they hold initially (or count the ad- ∂gµρ ∂ ∂ gρσ = K µ , (26) ditional constraints that need to be satisfied otherwise). ∂xρ ∂x ∂xρ∂xσ It is not at all trivial to find the number of further constraints arising from the dynamic invariance of the con- actually with K = 1. Note that it is very appealing to straints contained in Eq. (23). A controlled handling of use third-order equations as coordinate conditions be- constraints is more straightforward in a Hamiltonian set- cause we actually need only expressions for the third ting. As the canonical Hamiltonian formulation has been time derivatives of g0µ (stronger, first-order conditions 5 are needed for the Hamiltonian formulation; see Ap- We assume that the static isotropic solutions are of the pendixE). For K = 1, we would obtain such equa- general form, tions for g0m, but not for g00. This is the reason why ! we have introduced the factor K in Eq. (26). For any −β 0 gµν = , (31) K 6= 1, we obtain the desired four evolution equations xmxn 0 α δmn + ξ r2 for g0µ. Formally, we could stick to the first-order conditions (24), but then the potential φ would be described with inverse by the second-order differential equations ! − 1 0 g¯µν = β , (32) 2 δmn ξ xmxn ∂ gρσ 0 − 2 φ = K , (27) α α(α+ξ) r ∂xρ∂xσ where α, β and ξ are functions of the single variable 2 2 2 1/2 where suitable space-time boundary conditions would be r = (x1 + x2 + x3) . The static isotropic metric (31) is required. Note, however, that for K 6= 1, Eqs. (24) and given in terms of the three real-valued functions α, β and (27) imply ξ. In the original work on the composite theory of gravity (see Sec. V of [9]), we had parametrized these three 2 ∂ gρσ functions in terms of only two functions A and B: α = 1, = 0, (28) β = B, and ξ = A − 1. This particular parametrization ∂xρ∂xσ corresponds to standard quasi-Minkowskian coordinates. whereas Eq. (26) implies the weaker requirement A problem with these quasi-Minkowskian coordinates is that it is unclear how they can be generalized to full coor- ∂2g dinate conditions for general metrics. The more general ρσ = 0. (29) ∂x ∂x form (31) of the metric is consistent with the coordinate ρ σ conditions (26). In particular, we do not need to intro- The coordinate conditions (26) are an essential new in- duce a further function for characterizing the components gredient into the composite theory of gravity. Of course, g0m. In general relativity, the form (31) of the metric these coordinate conditions take a particularly simple (with g0m = 0) can be achieved by shifting time by a form for K = 0, which is a possible choice. Alterna- function depending on r (see Sec. 8.1 of [16]). Nonzero tively, we could choose K =g/ ˜ (1 +g ˜) because we can g0m arise by Lorentz transformation of the metric (31) then express the coordinate conditions as so that the form (31) belongs to a particularly simple solution of coordinate conditions and field equations. 2 The field equations (23) provide two third-order ordi- ∂ Γ¯µρσ = 0. (30) nary differential equations involving all three functions ∂x ∂x ρ σ α, β and ξ. For K 6= 1, the coordinate conditions (26) In the following, we leave the particular choice of K 6= 1 lead to another third-order differential equation relating open. α and ξ, which is actually independent of K; only for From a structural point of view, the coordinate condi- K = 1, no further condition arises. In the remainder tions (26) have the important advantage that they can of this section, we solve the three differential equations be implemented in exactly the same way as the gauge for our three unknown functions for K 6= 1 by various conditions in Yang-Mills theories: one can add a term to methods. the Lagrangian that does not lead to any modification of the field equations, provided that the desired (coordinate A. Robertson expansion or gauge) conditions are imposed as constraints. For the coordinate conditions (26), the additional contribution to the Lagrangian is given in AppendixD. The high-precision tests for theories of gravity depend on the behavior of the static isotropic solutions at large distances. We therefore construct the so-called Robert- VI. STATIC ISOTROPIC SOLUTION son expansion in terms of 1/r. One obtains the following results, The study of static isotropic solutions of composite r r3 α = 1 + α 0 + α 0 + ..., (33) gravity is of great importance because these solutions 1 r 3 r3 provide the predictions for the high-precision tests of general relativity (deflection of light by the sun, anomalous r ξ = ξ 0 + ..., (34) precession of the perihelion of Mercury, gravitational red- 1 r shift of spectral lines from white dwarf stars, travel time delay for radar signals reflecting off other planets) and and the properties of black holes. Therefore, we here discuss r r2 β = 1 − 2 0 + 2 + (˜g − 1)(α + ξ ) 0 + ..., (35) these solutions in great detail. r 1 1 2r2 6 where all higher terms indicated by ... in these Robertson 2, we then find that the field equations and coordinate expansions are uniquely determined by the dimensionless conditions are equivalent to cξ = 0 and x = 1. For parameters α1, α3, ξ1 and the coupling constantg ˜. How- generalg ˜, one can verify that the values ever, α1 and ξ1 are not independent but rather related by a cubic algebraic equation with a single real solution 2 x = , cξ = 0, (39) establishing a one-to-one relation between α1 and ξ1 (see g˜ AppendixF). The parameter r with dimension of length 0 lead to a static isotropic solution of both field equations is determined by the mass at the center creating the static and coordinate conditions. Of course, this solution is isotropic field, as can be shown by reproducing the limit physically unacceptable as a global solution because it of Newtonian gravity (see, e.g., Sec. 3.4 of [16]). does not converge to the Minkowski metric at large dis- An obvious strategy for finding the dimensionless pa- tances. It does, however, characterize the asymptotic rameters is to make sure that the high-precision pre- singular behavior of physical solutions at short distances. dictions of general relativity are reproduced. This is The exponent x given in Eq. (39) speaks strongly in achieved by choosing favor of choosingg ˜ = 2 (rather than an irrational value). We then obtain a solution decaying according to a 1/r α1 + ξ1 = 2, α1 =g. ˜ (36) power law, the spatial part of which is a multiple of the three-dimensional unit matrix. Imposing a further relation between α1 and ξ1 is subtle as we have already established the cubic relationship between these parameters given explicitly in Eq. (F1). This implies that the first part of Eq. (36) can be satisfied only C. Numerical solution for particular values of the coupling constantg ˜. By using Eq. (36) for eliminating α1 and ξ1 from Eq. (F1), we After discussing the static isotropic solutions at large obtain the following equation forg ˜, and small distances from the center, we would now like to consider their behavior over the entire range of r. In (4 + 4˜g − g˜2 − 5˜g3)(2 − g˜) = 0. (37) particular, we are interested in the influence of the so far undetermined parameter α3 in Eq. (33) on the behavior Two of the roots of this polynomial equation of degree of the solutions. four are real. In addition to the obvious root 2, implying To explore the full solutions, we solve the field equa- α1 = 2 and ξ1 = 0, one finds the further real-valued root tions and coordinate conditions by numerical integration, starting from a large initial distance r and then proceed- 1 √ √ i (1259 + 30 1509)1/3 + (1259 − 30 1509)1/3 − 1, ing to smaller values of r. Assumingg ˜ = 2, the initial 15 conditions at ri are given by the truncated third-order which is approximately equal to 1.13164; although closer expansions to unity, this irrational number seems to be less appeal- r r3 ing than the integer 2. Only for these two values ofg ˜ 0 0 α = 1 + 2 + α3 3 , (40) composite gravity with the coordinate conditions (26) r r for K 6= 1 can reproduce the high-precision predictions 3 of general relativity. Note that the parameter α3 in the r ξ = −3α 0 , (41) expansions (33)–(35) remains undetermined as it is the 3 r3 only term among the listed ones that does not affect the high-precision tests of gravity. r r2 r3 β = 1 − 2 0 + 2 0 − 2 0 . (42) r r2 r3 B. Short-distance singularity These expressions do not only provide the values of the coefficient functions at ri, but also their first and second We next focus on singular behavior at small distances, derivatives required for solving the third-order differen- which we expect to describe black holes. A glance at the tial equations for the functions α, β and ξ of r. The field equations (23) reveals that any fixed multiple of a actual numerical solution is performed with an implicit solution is another solution of the field equations. For Runge-Kutta scheme of Mathematica. the “equidimensional” third-order differential equations If ri is sufficiently large, that is, in the range of validity determining the functions α, β and ξ of r, we assume the of the asymptotic solutions (40)-(42), the numerical solu- following form, tions are expected to be independent of the choice of ri. c c c This expectation is scrutinized in Figure1. This figure α = α , β = β , ξ = ξ , (38) rx rx rx displays the functions β and ξ for the values α3 = ±0.25 in the conditions (40), (41). The numerical solutions have with constants cα, cβ, cξ and an exponent x. We further been calculated for ri = 50 and ri = 500, so that each assume that cα, cβ, and x are different from zero. Forg ˜ = curve for ξ actually consists of two overlapping curves and 7

2 5

4 1 ξ β

3 0 α 2 -1 ξ 1 β -2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 r r / 0 r/r0

FIG. 1. The functions β (dashed line) and ξ (continuous lines) FIG. 2. The exact solutions (44) for the functions α and β characterizing the temporal and off-diagonal components of characterizing the diagonal components of the isotropic metric the isotropic metric (31) obtained from the composite theory (31) in the composite theory for gravity. for gravity forg ˜ = 2 and α3 = ±0.25. Positive and negative values of ξ correspond to α3 = −0.25 and α3 = 0.25, respectively. expression for β can be found from the field equation r 4r2 β = r4 1 + 2 0 β02, (43) the anticipated independence of the results of ri is con- 0 r firmed. The result for β actually consists of four curves, which implies that ξ has remarkably little influence on so that we arrive at the complete solution the function β until it touches the r axis. 2 Figure1 suggests that ξ diverges around the value r r r r α = 1 + 2 0 , ξ = 0, β = 2 − 1 + 2 0 . (44) at which β touches the r axis (and numerical difficul- r r ties arise). According to Eqs. (38), (39), ξ must go to zero for small r. The real function ξ might actually end These functions α and β are shown in Figure2. The in a cusp singularity and develop a complex branch at present results are qualitatively similar to what was smaller r that reaches zero at r = 0 (see Sec. V C of found in previous work on the composite theory of grav- [9]). Alternatively, ξ might jump from +∞ to −∞, or ity for different coordinate conditions (see Fig. 1 of [9]). vice versa, to return as a real function to zero at r = 0, Note that√ β is√ non-negative, vanishes at r = (2/3)r0, where it started at large r (this kind of behavior is found and that α ± β = 2, where the + sign holds for for the Schwarzschild solution of general relativity; see r ≥ (2/3)r0 and the − sign for r ≤ (2/3)r0. The only Sec.VIE). To avoid singularities at finite r we from now singularities occur at the origin, and they are of the New- on assume α3 = 0, for which ξ(r) is found to be identi- tonian 1/r type. The most remarkable feature is that β cally zero. Note that singularities would be much more reaches a local minimum at r = (2/3)r0, where β becomes alarming in the composite theory of gravity than in gen- zero. The observation that the proper time stands still at eral relativity because they cannot be considered as ar- this distance from the origin is the essence of black-hole tifacts (“coordinate singularities”) removable by general behavior in the composite theory of gravity. coordinate transformations. An interesting consequence of β = 0 is revealed by considering the curvature scalar

νν0 µ µµ0 νν0 ¯µ ¯ν (κλ) D. An exact solution R =g ¯ R νµν0 =g ˜ g¯ g¯ F˜µνµ0ν0 =g ˜ b κb λF µν . (45) As we have by now fixed the values of the coupling con- For the isotropic solution given in Eq. (44), we find stant (˜g = 2) and all the free parameters in the Robert- 16r2 son expansions (33)-(35)(α1 = 2, ξ1 = 0, α3 = 0), there 0 R = 3 , (46) 4 r0 p r0 should be a unique static isotropic solution, which is the r 1 + 2 r 1 + 2 r − 2 counterpart of the Schwarzschild solution in general relativity. The Robertson expansions suggest that all higher which implies infinite curvature at r = (2/3)r0 where β coefficients αn, ξn for n ≥ 2 vanish, so that α consists vanishes, and a change of sign at that point. This is an of only two terms and ξ vanishes identically, as already important insight because, in the weak-field approxima- noted in the numerical solutions. Then, a closed-form tion, the curvature scalar and tensor have been explored 8 for the coupling of gravitational field and matter [11]. If general relativity, not under general coordinate transfor- we want to keep geodesic motion of a mass point in a mations. Therefore, it is important to characterize the gravitational field, however, the coupling should be done coordinate systems, in which the composite theory of in terms of a scalar or tensor quantity that is given in gravity should be valid, by coordinate conditions. We terms of second-derivatives of the metric and vanishes, here propose the Lorentz covariant third-order equations at least for the static isotropic metric. In this context, (26) for the metric as appealing coordinate conditions the scalar identity (28) holding for the static isotropic that nicely supplement the third-oder differential equa- solution might be useful. A tensorial coupling could be tions for the composite theory of gravity. Their alter- based on the following identity for the static isotropic native formulation in Eqs. (24) and (27) shows that we solution, essentially introduce a potential for the divergence of the metric, where the potential itself satisfies a second-order 2 2 ∂ gµν 1 ρρ0 ∂gµν ∂gρ0σ 2r0 differential equation. ρ + g¯ ρ = 3 ηµν , (47) ∂x ∂xρ 2 ∂x ∂xσ (r + 2r0)r In the original work on composite gravity [9], no general coordinate conditions were given. The static which implies that the trace-free part of the tensor on isotropic solution was determined for quasi-Minkowskian the left-hand side vanishes. coordinates, which are defined only for solutions of this particular type and do not satisfy the new coordinate E. Comparison to Schwarzschild solution conditions. Also the coordinate conditions previously used in the complete Hamiltonian formulation of the linearized theory, or weak-field approximation, of composite The Schwarzschild solution of general relativity in har- gravity [11] differ from the present proposal. Therefore, monic coordinates is given by (see, e.g., Eq. (8.2.15) of previous results are qualitatively similar but quantita- [16]) tively different from our previous results. The coordinate conditions (26) complete the nonlinear theory of pure r 2 r + r r2 r − r α = 1 + 0 , ξ = 0 0 , β = 0 . (48) composite gravity proposed in [9]. r r − r r2 r + r 0 0 The field equations for pure composite gravity can be We here compare this solution to the static isotropic so- expressed in a number of different ways. One option is to lution (44) of composite gravity. solve the field equations of the Yang-Mills theory based The functions α in Eqs. (44) and (48) differ by the term on the Lorentz group and, in a post-processing step, se- 2 2 r0/r . This term does not matter for the high-precision lect those solutions that can be properly expressed in tests. Whereas the singularity at the origin is 1/r for terms of the derivatives of the tetrad variables obtained composite gravity, it is 1/r2 for general relativity. This by decomposing the metric. Alternatively, one can in- observation goes nicely with the exponent x in Eqs. (38), troduce a gauge-invariant connection with torsion and (39), forg ˜ = 2 andg ˜ = 1, respectively, where general formulate second-order differential equations entirely in relativity corresponds to the torsion-free caseg ˜ = 1. terms of those. One is then interested in the solutions for Whereas ξ vanishes in composite gravity, it has a sin- the connection that can be properly expressed in terms gularity at r = r0 for the Schwarzschild solution, with of first derivatives of the metric. A final possibility is + − a jump from +∞ for r = r0 to −∞ for r = r0 . While to write third-order evolution equations directly for the this may be considered as a coordinate singularity in gen- metric. eral relativity, this would not be possible for a theory in In the various formulations of the field equations, it Minkowski space. For the high-precision tests, the ab- is difficult to count the number of degrees of freedom of sence of a 1/r contribution to ξ is crucial. composite gravity. This difficulty is a consequence of the Also β is remarkably different for the two solutions. primary constraints arising from the composition rule of Whereas β is non-negative in composite gravity, it composite theories and serving as a selection principle for changes sign at r0 for the Schwarzschild solution. Al- the relevant solutions of the underlying Yang-Mills the- though the two solutions look so different, their truncated ory. A canonical Hamiltonian formulation on the com- third-order expansions (42) coincide. The coincidence of bined spaces of tetrad and Yang-Mills variables provides these expansions to order 1/r2 is crucial for satisfying the the most structured form of both field equations and co- high-precision tests. ordinate conditions. This formulation suggests that composite gravity has four degrees of freedom (whereas the Yang-Mills theory based on the Lorentz group has 24 de- VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS grees of freedom). The Hamiltonian formulation suggests that we deal with two types of constraints: (i) constraints Yang-Mills theories are formulated on a background resulting from the composition rule and (ii) gauge con- Minkowski space, and so is the composite theory of grav- straints. As the former can be handled by Dirac brackets ity that selects a small subset of solutions from the Yang- [33–35] and the latter by the BRST methodology (the Mills theory based on the Lorentz group. Such theories acronym derives from the names of the authors of the are covariant under Lorentz transformations but, unlike original papers [36, 37]; see also [14, 38]), the path to 9 quantization of composite gravity is clear. This is a major These remarkably simple identities follow from the form advantage of an approach starting from the class of Yang- of the structure constants of the Lorentz group. After Mills theories, which so successfully describe electro-weak writing the structure constants in the following explicit and strong interactions and for which quantization is per- form (see TableI for the index conventions), fectly understood, and imposing Dirac-type constraints. f abc = ηκaλc ηκbλa ηκcλb − ηκaλb ηκbλc ηκcλa In addition, this background reveals why composite theo- κaκb κcλa λbλc κcλb λaλc ries, although they are higher derivative theories, are not + η η η − η η prone to Ostrogradsky instabilities. + ηκaκc ηκbλc ηλaλb − ηκbλa ηλbλc The fact that just a few degrees of freedom of the + ηκbκc ηκaλb ηλaλc − ηκaλc ηλaλb , (A3) Yang-Mills theory based on the Lorentz group survive in the composite theory of gravity is also reflected in the result (A1) is obtained by straightforward calcula- its static isotropic solutions. Its Robertson expansion tion. has two free dimensionless parameters in addition to the We can now use Eq. (A2) to evaluate the right-hand Yang-Mills coupling constant. For reproducing the high- side of Eq. (5), precison predictios of general relativity, one of the free ˜ κ λ ∂X(κλ) bc ∂Xµν parameters and the coupling constant (˜g = 2) need to 0 b µb ν ρ0 +g ˜ f(κλ)Abρ Xc = ρ0 be fixed. The remaining dimensionless parameter can ∂x ∂x be chosen to avoid singularities at finite distances from ρσ κ ∂bκµ +g ¯ gÃ˜ 0 − b X˜ the origin. A closed-form solution for the static isotropic ρµρ ρ ∂xρ0 σν metric, which plays the same role in composite gravity ˜ κ ∂bκν ˜ as the Schwarzschild solution in general relativity, has + gÃρνρ0 − b ρ 0 Xµσ . (A4) ∂xρ been found. The solution displays a 1/r singularity at the origin but remains finite at all finite values of r. The By using the composition rule (2) we recover the fun- only remarkable feature is g00 = 0 at a particular distance damental relationship (5) with the definition (6) of the from the origin, which is of the order of the Schwarzschild connection following from radius; for all other values of r, we have g00 < 0. ∂b Γ¯ = bκ κν − gÃ˜ . (A5) This paper develops only the pure theory of gravity. µρν µ ∂xρ µνρ The coupling to matter still needs to be elaborated. For the linearized composite theory of gravity, we had proposed scalar and tensorial coupling mechanisms [11]. As Appendix B: Alternative expression for field tensor the curvature tensor for the static isotropic metric no longer vanishes for the nonlinear theory, which would From the definitions (3) and (4) and the fundamental lead to a deviation from geodesic motion for a coupling relations (5) and (A2), we obtain based on the curvature tensor, an alternative scalar [see, ˜ e.g., Eq. (28)] or tensor [see, e.g., Eq. (47)] must be iden- ˜ ∂Aµνν0 σ ˜ σ ˜ Fµνµ0ν0 = − Γ 0 Aσνν0 + Γ 0 Aσµν0 tified for the coupling of the gravitational field to the ∂xµ0 µ µ µ ν ˜ energy-momentum tensor of matter. ∂Aµνµ0 σ σ − + Γ 0 A˜ 0 − Γ 0 A˜ 0 ∂xν0 ν µ σνµ ν ν σµµ ρσ − g˜ g¯ A˜ 0 A˜ 0 − A˜ 0 A˜ 0 . (B1) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ρµµ σνν ρνµ σµν By means of Eq. (A5), we obtain I am grateful for the opportunity to do this work during ! ∂A˜ 0 ∂A˜ 0 ∂Γ¯ 0 ∂Γ¯ 0 my sabbatical at the Collegium Helveticum in Zürich. g˜ µνν − µνµ = µµ ν − µν ν ∂xµ0 ∂xν0 ∂xν0 ∂xµ0 ∂bκ ∂b ∂bκ ∂b + µ κν − µ κν , (B2) Appendix A: Relation between covariant derivatives ∂xµ0 ∂xν0 ∂xν0 ∂xµ0 and, again Eq. (A5), gives The reformulation of equations for the Yang-Mills the- κ ory based on the Lorentz group in the metric language is ∂b µ ∂bκν ρσ ¯ ˜ ¯ ˜ 0 0 =g ¯ (Γρµ0µ +˜gAρµµ0 )(Γσν0ν +˜gAσνν0 ). (B3) based on the identity ∂xµ ∂xν By combining Eqs. (B1)–(B3), we finally arrive at bc κ0λ0 h i f(κλ)BbCc = η B(κ0λ)C(κλ0) − C(κ0λ)B(κλ0) , (A1) ¯ ¯ 1 ∂Γµµ0ν ∂Γµν0ν σ σ F˜ 0 0 = − +Γ¯ 0 Γ 0 −Γ¯ 0 Γ 0 . µνµ ν g˜ ∂xν0 ∂xµ0 σµ µ ν ν σν µ µ ν which, in view of the definition (4), can be rewritten in (B4) the alternative form This expression for the field tensor coincides with the one given in Eq. (10) when the definition (6) of the connection κ λ bc ρσ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ b µb ν f(κλ)BbCc =g ¯ BρµCσν + Bρν Cµσ . (A2) is used. 10

Appendix C: Field equation for connection fields Aaν associated with the Lorentz group as configurational variables, together with their conjugate momenta µ aν By inserting the expression (9) for the Riemann curva- pκ and E (where Eaj = Faj0 and Ea0 = ∂Aaµ/∂xµ) ture tensor in terms of the connection, the field equation [8, 11]. This space consists of 80 fields, but massive con- (22) for the composite theory of gravity can be written as straints arise from the composition rule and gauge in- a second-order differential equation for the connection, variance so that, in the end, the composite theory of pure gravity turns out to possess only four degrees of freedom. 2 µ 2 µ µ σ ∂ Γµ0ν ∂ Γρν ρρ0 σ ∂Γρσ µ ∂Γρν The generalization of the Hamiltonian (25)–(27) of [11] − + η Γ 0 − Γ 0 ρ µ0 µ ν ρ0 µ σ ρ0 is obtained by introducing the Hamiltonian for the full, ∂xρ∂x ∂xρ∂x ∂x ∂x σ σ µ µ nonlinear version of Yang-Mills theory, µ ∂Γµ0ν ∂Γρ0ν σ ∂Γµ0σ ∂Γρ0σ + Γρσ 2 0 − 0 − Γρν 2 0 − 0 Z ∂xρ ∂xµ ∂xρ ∂xµ 1 aµ 1 aij a0 ∂Aaj Hpure = E Eaµ + FaijF − E 2 4 ∂xj µ σ σ0 µ σ σ0 µ σ σ0 + Γρ0σΓρσ0 Γµ0ν + Γµ0σΓρσ0 Γρ0ν − 2ΓρσΓµ0σ0 Γρ0ν = 0. aj ∂Aa0 bc ˙κ µ 3 − E j +gf ˜ a AbjAc0 + b µ pκ d x, (E1) (C1) ∂x

0 0 ˙κ ρρ ρρ where the functional form of the 16 time derivatives b µ Note that η occurs rather thang ¯ , so that there is κ no need to know the metric for solving this equation. in terms of the configurational variables b µ and Aaν is obtained from 12 components of the composition rule (2) and the four coordinate conditions (24) (the poten- Appendix D: Modified Lagrangian tial φ is assumed to be a functional of gµν ). For pure gravity without external sources, we can impose the 16 µ constraints pκ = 0 so that the composite theory con- The Lagrangian for a pure Yang-Mills theory, including sists of selected solutions of the Yang-Mills theory based a covariant but gauge breaking term for removing degen- on the Lorentz group [8, 11]. The terms involving Ea0 eracies associated with gauge invariance (the particular in the Hamiltonian (E1) are associated with the gauge form corresponds to the convenient Feynman gauge), is breaking term in the Lagrangian (D1). Of course, this given by Hamiltonian implies the canonical evolution equations for a the entire set of 80 fields. Z 1 1 ∂A ∂Aν a µν µ a 3 The generalization of the weak-field approximation be- L = − Fµν Fa + ν d x. (D1) 4 2 ∂xµ ∂x comes particularly simple if we introduce the following variables eliminating the nonlinear effects of the coupling We propose to add the further term constant, 1 Z ∂2g ∂2g ν ∂2g ∂2g L = µν ρ − K µν ρσ d3x, 1 cc σ A˘µνρ = A˜µνρ − Ω , (E2) 2 ∂xµ∂x ∂xρ∂xσ ∂xµ∂xν ∂xρ∂xσ 2˜g µν/ρ (D2) implying the functional derivative with κ ν 2 κ ∂bκν ∂b µ δLcc ∂ ∂gρ ∂ ∂ gρσ Ω = b µ − bκν , (E3) = − K , (D3) µν/ρ ∂xρ ∂xρ δgµν ∂xµ ∂xρ ∂xν ∂xρ∂xσ and which vanishes upon imposing the coordinate conditions ρρ0 (26) as constraints. If the gauge conditions and the coor- η σ σ E˘ = E˜ − Γ Γ¯ 0 − Γ Γ¯ 0 , (E4) dinate conditions are imposed as constraints, the above µν0 µν0 2˜g ρν µρ σ ρµ νρ σ modifications of the Lagrangian for the pure Yang-Mills theory have no effect on the field equations. 1 E˘ = E˜ − Γσ Γ¯ − Γσ Γ¯ , (E5) µνj µνj g˜ jµ σ0ν jν σ0µ Appendix E: Hamiltonian formulation as further modifications of the variables A˜µνρ and E˜µνρ defined in Eq. (4). For example, the composition rule (2) For the weak-field approximation of composite grav- takes the linear form ity, a canonical Hamiltonian formulation with a detailed analysis of all constraints has been given in [11]. We 1 ∂g ∂g A˘ = νρ − µρ , (E6) here sketch how that approach can be generalized to a µνρ 2 ∂xµ ∂xν full, nonlinear theory of pure gravity selected from the Yang-Mills theory based on the Lorentz group. which corresponds to Eq. (7) of [11] in the symmetric The underlying space of the Hamiltonian formulation gauge and includes 12 primary constraints. Also the evo- κ consists of the tetrad variables b µ and the gauge vector lution equations for A˘µνρ and hence also the 12 secondary 11 constraints keep the same form as in the linearized the- Appendix F: A cubic equation ory (cf. Eqs. (39), (40) and (46), (47) of [11]). The 12 tertiary constraints can be obtained by acting with the The coefficients α1 and ξ1 in the Robertson expansions operator on the primary constraints. The invariance (33), (34) are related by the following cubic equation, µ of the tertiary constraints follows from pκ = 0. In order 3 2 2 to verify the above statements, one needs the identity 10ξ1 + 10˜gξ1(4α1 + 5α1ξ1 + 2ξ1 ) 2 2 2 − 5˜g 4ξ1 − (α1 + ξ1)(8α1 + 9α1ξ1 − ξ1 ) ∂Ω 0 3 2 µν/ρ ρρ σ σ − 5˜g 4 + 3(α1 + ξ1) (3α1 + 2ξ1) − η ΓρµΩσν/ρ0 + Γρν Ωµσ/ρ0 = 0, (E7) ∂xρ 4 2 +g ˜ (α1 + ξ1)(36 + 11(α1 + ξ1) ) = 0. (F1) which is the counterpart of Eq. (16) of [11] and can be Its only real solution for α1 in terms of ξ1 is given by inferred from the gauge invariance of the left-hand side h q 1/3 q −1/3 ˘ 2 3 2 3 of Eq. (E7). Finally, the 24 evolution equations for Eµνρ α1 = w3 + w3 − w2 + w2 w3 + w3 − w2 correspond to the field equations given in various forms 2 3 i 2 in Sec.IV. − ξ1(40 + 85˜g − 120˜g + 33˜g ) / 3˜g(40 − 45˜g + 11˜g ) , As the structure of the Hamiltonian and the con- (F2) straints for the full, nonlinear theory is so similar (mostly even formally identical) to the case of the linear weak- with field approximation, we expect the same count of 24 + w = 36˜g3200 − 345˜g + 190˜g2 − 33˜g3 3 · 12 + 16 = 76 constraints for 2 · (16 + 24) = 80 2 2 3 4 2 variables. Half of the 24 constraints associated with + 5 320 + 160˜g − 85˜g − 282˜g + 111˜g ξ1 , (F3) gauge invariance result from the gauge conditions E = a0 and ∂Aaµ/∂xµ = 0, which establish a relationship between h the (unphysical) temporal and longitudinal modes of w = −5ξ 108˜g4520 − 985˜g + 633˜g2 − 155˜g3 + 11˜g4) the four-vector potentials. The above arguments sug- 3 1 gest that pure composite gravity possesses (at least) four + 12800 + 52800˜g − 82200˜g2 − 10735˜g3 physical degrees of freedom, just as in the thoroughly 4 5 6 2i elaborated special case of the weak-field approximation +63045˜g − 33273˜g + 5427˜g ξ1 . (F4) [11].

[1] C. N. Yang and R. L. Mills, “Conservation of isotopic spin [11] H. C. Ottinger,¨ “Mathematical structure and physical and isotopic gauge invariance,” Phys. Rev. 96, 191–195 content of composite gravity in weak-field approxima- (1954). tion,” Phys. Rev. D 102, 064024 (2020). [2] R. Utiyama, “Invariant theoretical interpretation of in- [12] M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder, An Introduction to teraction,” Phys. Rev. 101, 1597–1607 (1956). Quantum Field Theory (Perseus Books, Reading, MA, [3] C. N. Yang, “Integral formalism for gauge fields,” Phys. 1995). Rev. Lett. 33, 445–447 (1974). [13] S. Weinberg, Modern Applications, The Quantum The- [4] M. Blagojević and F. W. Hehl, eds., Gauge Theories ory of Fields, Vol. 2 (Cambridge University Press, Cam- of Gravitation: A Reader with Commentaries (Imperial bridge, 2005). College Press, London, 2013). [14] H. C. Ottinger,¨ “BRST quantization of Yang-Mills the- [5] S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis, “Extended theories ory: A purely Hamiltonian approach on Fock space,” of gravity,” Phys. Rep. 509, 167–321 (2011). Phys. Rev. D 97, 074006 (2018). [6] D. Ivanenko and G. Sardanashvily, “The gauge treatment [15] J. B. Jiménez,L. Heisenberg, and T. S. Koivisto, “The of gravity,” Phys. Rep. 94, 1–45 (1983). geometrical trinity of gravity,” Universe 5, 173 (2019). [7] H. C. Ottinger,¨ “Hamiltonian formulation of a class of [16] S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology, Principles and constrained fourth-order differential equations in the Os- Applications of the General Theory of Relativity (Wiley, trogradsky framework,” J. Phys. Commun. 2, 125006 New York, 1972). (2018). [17] M. Ostrogradsky, “Mémoires sur les équations [8] H. C. Ottinger,¨ “Natural Hamiltonian formulation of différentielles, relatives au problème des isopérimètres,” composite higher derivative theories,” J. Phys. Commun. Mem. Acad. St. Petersbourg 6, 385–517 (1850). 3, 085001 (2019). [18] R. P. Woodard, “Ostrogradsky’s theorem on Hamiltonian [9] H. C. Ottinger,¨ “Composite higher derivative theory of instability,” Scholarpedia 10, 32243 (2015). gravity,” Phys. Rev. Research 2, 013190 (2020). [19] T. j. Chen, M. Fasiello, E. A. Lim, and A. J. Tolley, [10] M. Giovanelli, “Nothing but coincidences. The point- “Higher derivative theories with constraints: Exorcising coincidence argument and Einstein’s struggle with the Ostrogradski’s ghost,” J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02, meaning of coordinates in physics,” Euro. Jnl. Phil. Sci. 042 (2013). 10, under review (2020). 12

[20] M. Raidal and H. Veermäe,“On the quantisation of com- [29] H. C. Ottinger,¨ “The geometry and thermodynamics of plex higher derivative theories and avoiding the Ostro- dissipative quantum systems,” Europhys. Lett. 94, 10006 gradsky ghost,” Nucl. Phys. B 916, 607–626 (2017). (2011). [21] K. S. Stelle, “Renormalization of higher-derivative quan- [30] D. Taj and H. C. Ottinger,¨ “Natural approach to quantum gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 16, 953–969 (1977). tum dissipation,” Phys. Rev. A 92, 062128 (2015). [22] K. S. Stelle, “Classical gravity with higher derivatives,” [31] H. C. Ottinger,¨ A Philosophical Approach to Quantum Gen. Relat. Gravit. 9, 353–371 (1978). Field Theory (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, [23] N. V. Krasnikov, “Nonlocal gauge theories,” Theor. 2017). Math. Phys. 73, 1184–1190 (1987). [32] A. Oldofredi and H. C. Ottinger,¨ “The dissipative ap- [24] C. Grosse-Knetter, “Effective Lagrangians with higher proach to quantum field theory: Conceptual foundations derivatives and equations of motion,” Phys. Rev. D 49, and ontological implications,” Euro. Jnl. Phil. Sci. 11, 18 6709–6719 (1994). (2021). [25] D. Becker, C. Ripken, and F. Saueressig, “On avoid- [33] P. A. M. Dirac, “Generalized Hamiltonian dynamics,” ing Ostrogradski instabilities within asymptotic safety,” Canad. J. Math. 2, 129–148 (1950). J. High Energy Phys. 12, 121 (2017). [34] P. A. M. Dirac, “Generalized Hamiltonian dynamics,” [26] A. Salvio, “Metastability in quadratic gravity,” Phys. Proc. Roy. Soc. A 246, 326–332 (1958). Rev. D 99, 103507 (2019). [35] P. A. M. Dirac, “The theory of gravitation in Hamilto- [27] H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open nian form,” Proc. Roy. Soc. A 246, 333–343 (1958). Quantum Systems (Oxford University Press, Oxford, [36] C. Becchi, A. Rouet, and R. Stora, “Renormalization of 2002). gauge theories,” Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 98, 287–321 (1976). [28] U. Weiss, Quantum Dissipative Systems, 3rd ed., Series [37] I. V. Tyutin, “Gauge invariance in field theory and sta- in Modern Condensed Matter Physics, Volume 13 (World tistical physics in operator formalism,” (1975), preprint Scientific, Singapore, 2008). of P. N. Lebedev Physical Institute, No. 39, 1975, arXiv:0812.0580. [38] D. Nemeschansky, C. Preitschopf, and M. Weinstein, “A BRST primer,” Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 183, 226–268 (1988).