Home

Search

Collections

Journals

About

Contact us

My IOPscience

Actions for gravity, with generalizations: a title

This article has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text article.
1994 Class. Quantum Grav. 11 1087
(http://iopscience.iop.org/0264-9381/11/5/003)
View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:
IP Address: 128.42.202.150
The article was downloaded on 07/05/2013 at 20:27

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

Class. Quantum Grav. 11 (1994) 1087-1 132. Printed in the UK

REVIEW ARTICLE

Actions for gravity, with generalizations: a review

Peter PeldLni.
Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry, The Pennsylvania State University, University
Park, PA 16802-630(3, USA
Received 17 May 1993, in final form 14 December 1993
Abstract The search for a theory of quantum gravity has for a long time been almost
fruitless. A few years ago, however. Ashtekar found a reformulation of Hamiltonian gravity,
which thereafter has given rise to a new promising quantization project: the canonical D i m
quantization of Einstein gravity in terms of Ahtetars new variables. This project has already
produced interesting results. although many important ingredients are still needed before we can
say that the quantization has been successful.
Related to the classical Ashtekar-Hamiltonian, there have been discoveries regarding
new classical actions for gravity in (2tl) and (3+1) dimensions, and also generalizations of
Einsteins theory of gravity. In the first type of generalization, one introduces inlinitely many
new parameters. similar to the conventional Einstein cosmological constant, into the theory.
These generalizations are called neighbom of Einsteins theory or cosmological constants
generalizations, and the theory has the same number of degrees of freedom. per point in
spacetime, as the conventional Einstein theory. The second type is a gauge group generalization
of A s h t e W s Hamiltonian, and this theory has the correct number of degrees of freedom to
function as a theory for a unification Of 53vity and Yang-Mills theory. In both types of
generalizations. there are still important problems that are unresolved e.g. the reality conditions,
the metric-signature condition, the interpretation, etc.
In this review, I will try to clarify the relations between the new and old actions for gravity,
and also give a shorl introduction to the new generalizations. The new resultdtreatments in
this review are: (I) a more detailed constraint analysis of the Hamiltonian formulation of the
Hilbert-hlatini Lagrangian in (3+1) dimensions; (2) the canonical t r a n s f o r d o n relating the
Ashtekar- and the ADM-Hamiltonian in (2tI) dimensions is given; (3) there is a discussion
regarding the possibility of finding a higher-dimensional Ashtekar formulation.
There are 3lSO two clarifying figures (at the beginning of sections 2 and 3, respectively)
showing the relations between different action-formulations for Einstein gravity in (211) and
(311) dimensions.

PACS numbers: 0420, 0420C. 0420F, 0450

1. Introduction
The greatest challenge in theoretical physics today is to find the theory of quantum gravity.
That is, the union of the theory for microscopic particles, quantum mechanics, and the
theory for cosmological objects, the general theory of relativity. Despite the fact that
many physicists have been attacking the problem of quantum gravity, using a variety of
different methods during a period of at least 40 years, there has been no real progress in
this quest. One reason for this failure could be that the tools and methods used are just not
adequate for this task. Most of the quantization attempts, so far, have treated gravity as just
t

E-mail address: pldan@phys.psu.edu

0264-9381/94/051087+6~19~500 1994 IOP Publishing Ltd

1087

1088

P Pelddn

another particle field theory. There are, however, great differences between the theory of
gravity and theories describing the other fundamental forces and particles in nature. One
of the most striking differences is that in a conventional particle theory one assumes that
the fields are propagating on a non-dynamical background spacetime, while in the theory
of gravity it is exactly the background spacetime that is the dynamical field; Ithe stage is
participating in the play.
Perhaps we only need to invent new methods specially constructed for quantization
of diffeomorphism-invariant theories, like gravity, without any need of really changing
quantum mechanics or the theory of relativity. It could, however, also be true that quantum
mechanics andlor the theory of relativity are already wrong, so that any attempt to unite
these two theories will be bound to fail.
Without any experimental guidelines (as the blackbody radiation was for quantum
mechanics, and Perhaps the Michelson-Morley experiment was to the special theory of
relativity) of how to modify either our methods or our theories, we either have to keep
on struggling with the quantization of the standard formulations, or we could make a
theoretical excursion, leaving the experimentally confirmed way, and try to guess what
kind of modifications our theories need, possibly guided by theoretical beauty or other
temptations.
String theory [ I ] is a kind of theoretical excursion, without any experimental support.
It has, for the last 10 years, been regarded as the strongest candidate for a theory of quantum
gravity, or even for a theory of everything. However, the optimism regarding string theory
seems to have decreased slightly, recently, due to technical difficulties and absence of
progress. The basic idea behind string theory is that the fundamental constituents of matter
are string-like, extended, one-dimensional objects, instead of point-like which is otherwise
believed. In a way, string theory can be seen as a synthesis of many earlier attempts of
quantizing gravity: supergravity, Kaluza-Klein theories, higher spin theories, etc.
In recent years, another way of tackling quantum gravity has received a lot of attention.
When Ashtekar [Z] in 1986 managed to reformulate the Einstein theory of gravity in terms
of new variables, it soon became clear that this new formulation had some appealing features
that made it suitable for quantization B la Dirac. Since then, physicists have been working
on this project, and perhaps for the first time in the history of quantum gravity there has
really been some progress regarding solutions to the constraints of quantum gravity [3, 41.
(These solutions are the physical wavefunctionals that are annihilated by the operator-valued
constraints, in the canonical formulation.) However, some people might say that this is not
really worth anything until we also have an inner product and observables so that we can
calculate a physical quantity. Of course, it could be that this critique is correct, and that
these quantization attempts will never lead to the desired result without the introduction
of modifications somewhere. It is, however, still very valuable to try the conventional
quantization of the conventional theory first. in order to let the theory itself indicate in what
direction we should search for modifications.
Besides these two main routes towards a theory of quantum gravity, there also exist
attempts using path-integral quantization and numerical calculations in simplicial quantum
gravity.
As mentioned above, the new promising quantization scheme is based on the new
Ashtekar reformulation of Hamiltonian gravity. This Ashtekar reformulation can be seen as
a shift of emphasis from the metric to the connection as the fundamental field for gravity.
Later, Capovilla er al (CDJ) [SI managed to go even further and found an action written
(almost) purely in terms of the connection. This discovery soon led to that of two different
types of generalizations of the CDJ Lagrangian as well as the Ashtekar-Hamiltonian: the

Actions for gravity, with generalizations

1089

cosmological constants in [ 6 4 ] and also the gauge group generalization in [9].

The purpose of this review is to describe most of the known actions for classical gravity
in (2t1) and ( 3 t l ) dimensions, and also to show how these different actions are related. I
also want to briefly give the basic ideas behind the generalizations mentioned above.
In section 2, I describe the actions for (3tl)-dimensional gravity, and do most of the
calculations in great detail. section 3 contains the actions for (2t1) dimensions, and seciton
4 presents the generalized Ashtekar-Hamiltonians.
Throughout this review I neglect surface terms that appear in partial integrations in the
actions. That is, I assume compact spacetime or fast enough fall-off behavior at infinity for
the fields. Note, however, that surface terms normally need a careful treatment [lo, 111.
My notation and conventions are partly given in each section and partly collected in
two appendices. Definitions and notation introduced in one section are, however, only valid
inside that section. This is specially true for the covariant derivatives of which, in this
review, there exist at least five different types of, but only three different symbols for Do,
Do and 0,.

2. Actions in (3+1) dimensions

In figure 1, I have tried to collect most of the known classical actions for gravity in (3t1)
dimensions, and their connecting relations. Among these actions there is one for which the
explicit form, is not known today. That is the pure SO(1, 3) spin-connection Lagrangian,
and it can be found through an elimination of the tetrad field from the Hilbert-Palatini
Lagrangian or from a Legendre transform from the Hamiltenian formulation of the HP
Lagrangian. The reason why this Lagrangian is not known explicitly is due to technical
difficulties in the abovementioned calculations. See, however, [U]for some results
concerning this Lagrangian. Also, there is an affine connection form of this Lagrangian,
that is explicitly known as the Schradinger Lagrangian [ 141. This Lagrangian can be found
through an elimination of the metric from the Hilbert-Palatini Lagrangian: in metric and
affine connection form, and the Lagrangian equals the square-root of the determinant of
the symmetric part of the Ricci-tensor. The shortcoming, or perhaps the advantage, of this
Lagrangian is that it needs either a cosmological constant or a massive matter field for
its formulation [13]. There is also one known action that is missing in figure 1; in 1151
t Hooft presented an SL(3)- and diffeomorphism-invariantaction, and it was shown that the
equations of motion, following from this action, are the Einstein equations. Furthermore, if
this SL(3) invariance i s gauge-fixed to SU(2), this action reduces to the CDJ-action. I do
not treat this action here, mainly due to the fact that this formulation differs from all the
actions in figure 1 in that it is constructed with the use of an enlarged gauge invariance.

2.1. The Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian

In an attempt to find a Lagrangian that gives, as equations of motion, the Einstein equations
for gravity, the obvious candidate is the simplest scalar function of the metric and its
derivatives, namely the curvature scalar. And in order to get an action which is generally
coordinate-invariant one must densitize the curvature scalar with the help of the determinant
of the metric. The resulting Lagrangian is called the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian for pure
gravity. In this section I will analyse this second-order Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian for pure
gravity with a cosmological constant and show that the equations of motion following from

The Plebanski Lagrangian

C(E:b@> @ > I ? )

P>

The CDLLagrangian
C(?,A.i)
(A,; = us)

% = 0 ond $ = 0 +

Letting E
become an
independent

A= {A,X)
Legendre
lmnsform

a:=%

6A

The self dual

H-P Lagrangian
~

I( , Jt)Jh
8~ o

ZL The Ashtekar Hamiltonian

Legendre tmnsfom: a := z
H(&,,E~~)

(A,= &)

Keeping only
serf dual parl.

A., := I L

- ira,
Compler
canonical

transform.

lin7:= A.. t ilm2

Legendre transjorm

:= G
6;

Legendre
transfoorm

e = (e, H )

Actions for gravity, with generalizations

1091

se: = -ef(Sepl)eOL1
The variation of Rep is given in appendix B:

(2.5)

SR,~I =

4 (eyIDluDlp+-cl + e y l e ~ J l e K , p D ~ , D ~ 8 e ; )

(2.6)

Using (2.31, (2.51, (2.6) and the fact that the covariant derivative annihilates e,,, the variation
of SEHbecomes

Neglecting the surface term, the requirement that the action should be stationary under
general variations of e,,, implies Einsteins equation,

This shows that the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian is a good Lagrangian for gravity, in the
sense that Einsteins equation follows from its variation.
2.2. The Hilbert-Palatini Lagrangian
The Hilbert-Palatini Lagrangian is a first-order Lagrangian for gravity which one gets from
the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian simply by letting the spin-connection, in the argument of
the Riemann-tensor, become an independent field. Normally when one lets a field become
independent like this, one needs to add a Lagrange multiplier term to the Lagrangian,
implying the original relation, in order to get the same equations of motion. The reason
why this is not needed here is that the variation of the action with respect to the spinconnection will itself imply the correct relation. (This is really a rather remarkable feature
of this particular Lagrangian.)
Therefore, I consider
. ~ H P = e ( eY, eB, R ufi / I (w KyL ) + 2 ~ ) .

(2.9)

The only difference between . C E ~(2.1) and

(2.9) is that in (2.9) the spin-connection
w f L is an independent field, while in (2.1) it is a given function of the tetrad field. When
varying the action with respect to general variations Se,, and Sw;, one needs to know the
variation of e , e; and RVB1. The first two variations are given in (2.3) and (2.5),and the
variation of RapJJ is given in appendix B.
Se = eeu8e.,

Se: = -e, P (8ep)ea

8R,fiTJ

V&J~{.

(2.10)

Using this together with the identity

eeluePl
I

- z 1 ,npYs < I J K L e yKe d L

(2.11)

gives

(2.12)

1092

P Pelddn

Neglecting the surface term again, the equations of motion are

egere$RypK - ( A +

$ e i e $ R y p K J ) e 7= O

v,,e$,= 0.

(2.13)
(2.14)

But (2.14) is just the zero-torsion condition, which can be solved to get the unique torsionfree spin-connection compatible with e#!. Inserting this solution to (2.14) into (2.13) one
gets Einsteins equation again.
This shows that the Hilbert-Palatini action also is a good action for gravity, again in
the sense that its equations of motion are the Einstein equations. There are, however, cases
when the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian and the Hilbert-Palatini Lagrangian give different
theories. The first example is in a path-integral approach to quantum gravity. In a path
integral one is supposed to vary all independent fields freely over all non-gauge-equivalent
field-configurations. And since the two Lagrangians are only equivalent on-shell, and not
for general field-configurations, the path integrals will probably differ. The second example
is gravity-matter couplings where the spin-connection couples directly to some matter field.
This is the case for fermionic matter. In that case, the variation of the Hilbert-Palatini action
with respect to the spin-connection will not in general yield the torsion-free condition (2.14).
Instead the theory will have torsion which, however, can be avoided by adding an extra
term to the Lagrangian. See, for instance, [161 for a recent discussion.
2.3. The ADM-Hamiltonian

Here, I will derive the well known ADM-Hamiltonian for triad gravity, starting from the
Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian (2.1). The derivation will closely follow [ 171.
The Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian is given by
= e (R(eA)

+ 21) .

(2.15)

To be able to find the Hamiltonian formulation of (2.15), I will assume spacetime M to be

topologically C x R , where C is some space-like submanifold of M , and R stands for the
time direction. I will also partly break the manifest spacetime covariance by choosing the
xQ coordinate to be my time coordinate.
Before defining the momenta and doing the Legendre transform, it is preferable to
slightly rewrite the Lagrangian. The reason is that (2.15) contains second derivatives of the
tetrad, which can be partially integrated away, leaving a dependence solely on e: and its
first derivatives.
First, I define two covariant derivatives: Veand 0,.Dmis covariant with respect to both
general coordinate transformations in spacetime as well as local Lorentz transformations on
the flat index, while 0
. is only covariant under general coordinate transformations. Or in
other words, Vu knows how to act on both spacetime indices as well as Lorentz indices,
while V, only knows how to act on spacetime indices:

v,#

:= aa.P

V J ~ := a,ipl+

+ r$AYr +
r$,AYf

,A@

(2.16)
(2.17)

where r,Yin (2.16) and (2.17) are the same connection. Then I require that these covariant
derivatives are compatible with the tetrad and the metric

VUD,ep!
=0

(2.18)

Vd,Y = v u g g y = 0.

(2.19)

Actions for graviry, with generalizations

1093

Using (2.18) and requiring rLpI= 0 (no torsion) it is possible to uniquely determine r$
and w: as functions of the tetrad. See appendix B for details. The Riemann-tensor is then
defined by

R , ~ , ~ L:= D ~ ~ T J ~ ~ A ,

(2.20)
R ~ p p ' h:= V~uVpllAc
(2.21)
(2.22)
TJI,TJ&I
= R,gpsL, R,~I'A.,J.
Using vectors like h~ :=
i n (2.20) and (2.21) it is straightforward to show that
Rmpy6= R,pt'e;ef, and with the help of definition (2.21) the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian
can be rewritten:

(2.23)

R(eL) := gwYRapyp= epJVjaVp&.

Then, using (2.18), it follows that

vZeSJ
=-

@U

JK

(2.24)

eK

which together with (2.23) gives

R(eL) = Va(e:'VpeCLIJ)- e$wI,JKwpIJMeCLY.

Now, the solution to (2.18) for m e f J is

w m l J= ;eax(QKtJ+ dK'
-ntJK),

(2.26)

where I have defined the anholonomy

nKiJ:= eCLKe@'a[,ejI

(2.27)

Using (2.25), (2.26) and neglecting the surface term the Lagrangian (2.15) becomes

L: = e ( n r L K ~ t L 'I n r K L ~ / L K- $ S ~ " ~ R L / K i - 2 ~ ),

(2.28)

Note that V& = 0. Now the Lagrangian has a form that makes it rather straightforward to
do the Legendre transform. The Lagrangian should first be (3t 1) decomposed, and that is
achieved by splitting the tetrad:

eo' = N N I

+ N'Vyt

e,, = Vu'

N'V,, = 0

N'NI = - 1 ,

(2.29)

This is a completely general decomposition and puts no restriction on the tetrad. The inverse
tetrad becomes

and the metric gets the standard ADM form:

(2.31)
(2.32)

g := det(g,p) = -N2det(V,I Vd)

(2.33)

e := det(e,,) = N

(2.34)

where Nu := V,1V,'Nh. N and N' are normally called the lapse-function and the shiftvector, respectively.
From here, it is rather straightforward, although tedious, to perform the Legendre
transform using the (3t1) decomposition (2.29). There is, however, a simple way of

P Pelddn

I094

reducing this calculation dramatically. By partly breaking the manifest Lorentz invariance
with the gauge choice Nr = ( I , 0, 0, O), the Legendre transform simplifies a lot. And
since the only difference at the Hamiltonian level should be that the Lorentz invariance is
reduced to SO(3) invariance, I use this gauge choice here. With this choice for N' there
is no inconsistency in notation with Vu' called eni, so I change notation to eUi = V"',
err' = Vat.
Now, I use the (3+1) decomposition of e" for decomposing Q r J K also:

The Lagrangian (2.28) should also be (3tl)-decomposed:

C. = N

(3), ( - f ~ o ( k O ~ o k +
r fiokknojj + 2

-I

#a,

ckj

0k"nji'

~ ' ~ -op ~o ~.I l .k~ j

+ 2A)

(2.36)

where (3)e := det(e,i). By using (2.25), but now for the three-dimensional covariant
derivative 0,on C,defined to annihilate e,& one can easily show that

N ob 1 3 1 =
~ N ob (nk:kQjij
- LQ2"kntjk
- pjkaakj)
4

- 2 o'ee~al~eflgCua,N.

+Vllo(N "bebkVb&

(2.37)

Using this in (2.36) and again neglecting surface terms gives

C. = N '"e ( - ~ ~ O ' k ' ' n o k l+ nokknOjj

+ I ~ J+R 2,i)

(2.38)

where I have used (2.35) to eliminate the last term in (2.37). Now it is time to define the
momentil
6 L = q,(nO(kt)e,U - 2Q0kkeui)
._
.- (2.39)
&eo'
which means that there exists a primary constraint

L' := c'jk,,?euk

(2.40)

0.

RZ

It will be shown later that this constraint is the generator of SO(3) rotations. Inversion of
(2.39) yields
aO(ki)

- !&jehj)8ik),

= 1

(2.41)

'se

Altogether, the total Hamiltonian becomes

=

2I
n"'e,i - r: + A;L' = - ,'I,.. - +.)Z
2
- N ~ C , .w ~ &
+A~L;.
N

"

1%

- 2 o p "IR - 4 (l)e2 A

where r'j := zUie:', WUis the covariant derivative defined to annihilate eat, and
arbitrary Lagrange multiplier. The fundamental Poisson bracket is
(eei(x),r * j ( y ) =
~ S,"S,!S'(X

- y) .

(2.42)
hi

is an

(2.43)

The geometrical interpretation of these phase-space variables is that eat is the triad field
on the spatial hypersurface, and nbj is closely related to the extrinsic curvature of the

Actions for gravity, with generalizations

1095

hypersurface. Since N and N U have vanishing momenta, variation of them implies the
secondary constraints
1
71 := ~ V Z . .- -(z'')~- 2
OIR - 4 (jbZ
c0
(2.44)
2 i31e
I

7-1" .0
(2.45)
.- -e " 1. n)Dhrhi
normally called the Hamiltonian and the vector constraints.
Then, in order to check if the Hamiltonian (2.42) is the complete Hamiltonian for this
theory one needs to calculate the time evolution of the constraints. The requirement is
that the time evolution of the constraint must be weakly zero. For a total Hamiltonian
which is just a linear combination of constraints, this corresponds to requiring the
constraints to be first class. To calculate the constraint algebra, I will first show that
are
the transformations generated by L' are S O ( 3 ) rotations, and the ones generated by
spatial diffeomorphisms modulo S O ( 3 ) rotations. The transformations generated by L' are
6"e,i = [e"',L i [ A j ] ]= -jjkAjet

(2.46)

,fir,u

= {r;,
= --EijkAjrko
(2.47)
where L ' [ A j ] := l, d3x L'(x)Aj(x). This shows that L' is the generator of SO(3) rotations.
Then, I will define the new constraint '& as a linear combination of L' and 'KO,and show
that the transformations generated by this new constraint are spatial diffeomorphisms,
:= 7-1,
M.i(f?bj)L'
(2.48)
where
1
(2.49)
M ~ ~:=( ~ y,p
~ ~= I,..
) Likeuj ebk ( e b l a v : , +eclaaeb)
The transformations of the fundamental fields are
a'-eui =(e,:, ~ ? ~ [ N ~N Ib aI b=e , i + e h j a , N b = f N ~ e . i
(2.50)

6 ~ " ~ U ' = [ i r " ' , ~ ~ [ i h [ N b ] ] = N b a b ~ ' i - K b i ~ b N ' + ~ a i a b N h = f N ' ~ U(2.51)

i

where fN" denotes the Lie-derivative in the direction Nb. The last term in (2.51) is needed
since r0' is a tensor density of weight +I. With the information that L' generates SO(3)
rotations and
generates spatial diffeomorphisms, it is really simple to calculate all
Poisson brackets containing these two constraints, All one needs to know is how the
constraints transform under these transformations. Under S O ( 3 ) rotations, L' is a vector
and 71 is a scalar. Under spatial diffeomorphisms. L' and 7-1 are scalar densities, and
is a covariant vector density. (Note that qais not an SO(3) scalar since Mu' does
not transform covariantly under SO(3) transformations. Note also that due to the antisymmetry in the derivatives in M a t , M,i and Qa do, however, transform covariantly under
spatial diffeomorphisms.) This gives the algebra
. .
( L ' [ h j ] , ~ , [ N " ]=] L'[-f,vAi]
[ L ' [ A j ] , L j [ Y j ] }= Lk[kijY'A']
(L'[Aj], 7-1[N]) 0
(2.52)
(%,[No], fib[.b[Mb]] 2 n [ f N b M " ]
('FI[N],??,[Nu])
= 7-1[-fN.N].
The only Poisson bracket left to calculate is the one including two Hamiltonian constraints:
[7-1[N],7-1[M]].This calculation is a bit trickier, but since the result must be anti-symmetric
in N and M ,one can neglect all terms not containing derivatives on these fields. Then, one
needs the variation of '"R with respect to eai

1096

P Pelddn

A straightforward calculation gives

x ( r i j ( z ) e e , ( z )- f k ( z ) e i ( z ) )

- . , . = jl,[g"*(Na,,M

- (N

-M~,,N)I

tf

M)
(2.54)

where I have neglected terms proportional to L'. This shows that the set of constraints
X,"H, and L' really forms a first-class set, meaning that the total Hamiltonian (2.42) is
complete and consistent.
The Hamiltonian (2.42) is the well known ADM-Hamiltonian for gravity [ I S ] . In attempts
at canonical quantization of this Hamiltonian, the complicated non-polynomial form of the
Hamiltonian constraint has always been a huge obstacle, No one has yet found an explicit
solution to the quantum version of 'H = 0.
2.4. Hamiltonianformulation of the HP Lagrangian

In this section, I will perform the Legendre transform from the Hilbert-Palatini Lagrangian.
The basic canonical coordinate here will be the SO ( I , 3) spin-connection, and the metric
will only be a secondary object expressible in terms of the canonical fields. The
straightforward Hamiltonian analysis of this Lagrangian reveals that there are IO first-class
constraints, generating the local symmetries of the Lagrangian (diffeomorphisms and Lorentz
transformations), and also 12 second-class constraints. The second-class constraints are
needed since the SO( 1,3) connection has too many independent components in comparison
with the tetrad field.
After deriving the complete and consistent Hamiltonian for this system, I will go on
and solve the second-class constraints, and show that the resulting Hamiltonian is the
SO(1,3) ADM-Hamiltonian. Due to the appearance of tertiary second-class constraints,
in this analysis, the calculations in this section will be rather lengthy and tedious.
This Legendre transform has already been done in [ 191 and also in [ZO], The differences
in my approach are that I give the constraint algebra in more detail, and also that I solve
the second-class constraints without breaking the manifest SO(1.3) invariance.
The first-order Lagrangian density is

L = e(eYe:R,p''(wFL)

+ 2A)

(2.55)

where e: is the tetrad field, R,g"(wFL) is the curvature of the SO(1,3) connection
here treated as an independent field. The (3+1) decomposition gives

C. = e ( 2 e y e ? R k f J+ e:eb,R,b"

+ 2A).

U;',

(2.56)

I define the momenta conjugate to CO:' as

(2.57)
Since r;; has 18 components, while the right-hand side of (2.57) has only 12 independent
components, there are six primary constraints:

(2.58)
The Lorentz signature condition on the metric also imposes the non-holonomic constraint:
det(rYIrb") < 0. For a discussion of the equivalence of (2.57) and (2.58) together with
the non-holonomic constraint, see [ZO].
:= f r ; I r ; L E ' J K L

c 0.

Actions for graviQ, with generalizations

1097

Now, I want to express the Lagrangian in terms of the coordinate U:', the momenta
nf1, and possible Lagrange multiplier fields, and to do that I make use of the general
decomposition of the tetrad given in (2.30),
=

- N'_

e"' = VU'

+ NON'

N'V,? = 0
N
Using this decomposition it is possible to show that

+ varv:

:= - N ' N I

N ' N I = -1.

+ ij ' I

(2.59)

(2.60)

where V: := VubVh' and VahVh'Vf = 8;. This formula can then be used to project out
components parallel and normal to N'. With the use of this, and the fact that
@uh

= 0 =) n , " , i ' K q L

=0

(2.61)

it is straightforward to rewrite the terms in the Lagrangian as

N2

+ N"Tr(nbRnb)- habWh

e e~e$R0b" = --Tr(n"7rbR,b)

(2.62)

N2

(2.63)
m = -Jdet(Tr(aW))
e
where I have included all terms containing 7r:Jij'KijJL into the Lagrange multiplier term
).,bWh.
Redefining the lapse function fi := N Z / e , the total Lagrangian becomes
e = det(e,/) = N

L = -Tr(n'c&,)

- Tr(m&) - 61.1- Nu%# - haib@"'

(2.64)

where

B' I ..-

2,L1 jp'J= &&'J

+ [ U " ,7ry"

sz 0

1.1 := Tr(7r"nbR,h) - 2hJdet(Tr(z"7rb))

1.1, := -Tr(nbR,h) % 0

sz 0

(2.65)

@ob ._
.- 2n011 7rb K L E I J K L U 0

and the fundamental Poisson bracket is

{U0,J(X), n"L(y))

= +s,bsysf's3(X- y)

(2.66)

The S 0 ( 1 , 3 ) trace is defined as

Tr(ABC) := A l ' B r K C K '

Tr(AB) := AI'BJ' .

The preliminq Hamiltonian can now be read off in (2.64), using: RlO1
= -Tr(na&) - L.
The Lagrange multiplier fields are fi, N",uo,J and Lab, and their variation imposes the
constraints in (2.65). For this Hamiltonian to be a complete and consistent one, one needs
to check if the time evolution of all the constraints vanishes weakly. That is, a fieldconfiguration that initially satisfies all the constraints must stay on the constraint surface
under the time evolution. In our case, the total Hamiltonian is just a linear combination
of constraints, which means that the above requirement corresponds to demanding that the
constraint algebra should close. If it is not closed, one has two options; either one fixes
some of the Lagrange multipliers so that the time evolution is consistent, or one introduces
secondary constraints.
To simplify the constraint analysis, I prefer to change to vector notation in S0(1,3)
indices,

n"J := @ T / J

:= U'" T!'1

(2.67)

1098

P Peld6n

crJ

where
are the generators of the so(], 3) Lie-algebra. Note that the indices i, j , k
take values 1, 2, . . . , 6 here since so( I , 3) is a six-dimensional Lie-algebra, while in other
sections i. j . k denote SO(3) indices. The following definitions and identities are also
useful:
qikQI - 6'j
q,; := -Tr(T,*T,) := - i r J K L T i K r q j r
q i j := -Tr(T,7;)
q*i'
:= i k j / qkrL =+
xy := dq:,
R; :=
,pq;,
= -8;
(2.68)
f i l k := f/j'qkr = -2Tr(TqTk)
[ E , T,] = fijkrk
f . f k-I
r i k I m - 2 ( q i I / q m l j - qhF?;]j)
f'y k .=f.'
'
LJ q k*I

"

where Gkhas all the index-symmetries (anti-symmetries) that f r j k has. The * operation
really corresponds to the duality operation in so(1,3) indices. Using this notation, the
Hamiltonian becomes

1 . 1 1 , = i1.1 N U X uf

- o&@

h,h@

(2.69)

where

8' = ~ ~= , p+ f ~
' j k W ~ ~ o k% 0
= -if.
2 4 , p i r r h j R ohk - 2h
'MO= irhi Robi

ET

@oh

J-~o

= xuix,+

ET

where 'ET'denotes weak equality, which means equality on the constraint-surface, or equality
modulo the constraints.
The fundamental Poisson bracket is
(Wai(X),

n b j ( y ) ) = 6,b$83((x

- y) .

(2.70)

To calculate the constraint algebra I will again use the short cut described in section 2.3.
First, the generator of spatial diffeomorphisms and the generator of Lorentz transformations
are identified. Then, using their fundamental transformations all Poisson brackets containing
these generators are easily calculated.
The transformations generated by Gi are

p'&

:= {=a!, @ [ A , ] }

fijkAjxak

= (m:, B' [ A j ] }= -DuA'

(2.71)
(2.72)

which shows that Bi is the generator of SO(1,3) transformations. Then I define

Go:='Ma - w&'

(2.73)

and calculate the transformations it generates:

6""n"' := (&,

? i h [ N h ] ] = N h a h i r U i - ~ h i a h N u + ~ i ' l i a b N h = E ~ ~ ~ " (2.74)

i

S " W ~ = {ab,~ h [ N h I ] = N h a h ~ ~ + w ~ a , N h = f N ~ w b

(2.75)

which shows that fiu is the generator of spatial diffeomorphisms. (NL is the Lie-derivative
along the vector field Nh.) This makes it easy to calculate all Poisson brackets containing
Gior g , (see section 2.3 for details):
( @ [ A i l ,B ' [ Y j l } = G i [ [ h k y j f k j i l

(1.1[Nl,B j F ' j I l = 0
(@Uh[hohl,G ' [ y j l l = 0

(2.76)
(2.77)
(2.78)

(Gi[Ail, ' k [ N " l J= G i [ - f ~ o A ~ l

(2.79)

Actions for graviv, with generalizations

1099

(2.80)
(2.81)
(2.82)
This leaves only three Poisson brackets left to calculate: ['HIIIN], 'H[MII, ['H[Nl. @PoJ'[h,i,l)
and
(@'[AaJ,], O"[V,,]). They are rather straightforward to calculate, but it simplifies the analysis
to notice that ( Z [ N ] , ' H [ M ] is
) anti-symmetric in N and M meaning that it is only terms
containing derivatives on these fields that survive. One also needs the structure-constant
identity in (2.68):

(7"%[MI] = nh[;Xbjrr,'(Ma,N - N ~ , M ) I+ @ b c r + * U m ~ h n m ( ~ a-cM~ ~ , N ) I

(2.83)
(2.84)

(OP"'[h,'l, 4Cd[YCdl) = 0
(a"b[h,h],E [ N ] )=

1
x

d3x h'k:,~X*mCfminX'iZ)cZ"u.'wYh[Nh,b].

(2.85)

The constraint algebra fails to close due to (2.85). Notice that, if we were to simply
remove the constraint 4"' f;i 0 from the theory, the constraint algebra would still fail
to close, this time due to (2.83). There is, however, an alternative strategy that really
gives a closed constraint algebra: forget about @, and define instead two new constraints
31" := ; f i ~ k ~ " ' ~ h j R , h k0 and 31,":= ?r*h'&,i f;i 0. This will make the constraints
8',71, Z*, 31, and 7-l: form a first-class set. The theory will of course not be ordinary
Einstein gravity, more like twice the theory of Einstein gravity. (me number of degrees of
freedom is four per spacetime point, and if one splits the Euclidean theory into self-dual
and anti-self-dual parts, the action will really just be two copies of the pure gravity action.
The Lorentzian case is more complicated due to the reality conditions.)
Now, returning to the theory that really follows from the HP Lagrangian we notice that
since the constraint algebra fails to close, the time evolution of the constraints 'H and Qpab
will not automatically be consistent. That is, the time evolution will bring the theory out
of the solution space to these constraints. This must be taken care of in order to get a fully
consistent theory. And as mentioned earlier, there are two different strategies available;
either solve for some Lagrange multiplier, or introduce secondary constraints. The first
method is often the preferred one since that solution maximizes the number of degrees of
freedom. I shall try this method first. The equations that should be solved are

@'[K&]

= (Q"'[K&], ff,,)

h[M]= {'H[M],f f m )

f;i

q U b [ K K u h ]SZ 0
'Yob[-Mh&]SS 0 .
f;i

(2.86)
(2.87)

Here, Kuh and M are arbitrary test functions, and fi and huh are the Lagrange multiplier
fields that sit in the total Hamiltonian (2.69). These equations must be solved for the
Lagrange multipliers so that they are satisfied for all test-functions M and K"'. Assuming
Yobto be a non-degenerate matrix, the minimal solution is

fi=O
ha' = i " h

- $?"'w5cd

(2.88)
(2.89)

where
is the inverse to Vu', and jied is an arbitrary Lagrange multiplier. In a
generic field theory, this would probably be a good choice to get a consistent Hamiltonian
formulation. In our case, however, we do know that the Lagrange multiplier field
has an important physical interpretation; it is the lapse-function, and putting that to zero
would mean that the spacetime metric would always be degenerate. Before leaving this

1100

P Peldrfn

'unphysical' solution let us calculate the physical degrees of freedom: half the phase-space
coordinates (18) minus the number of first-class constraints (14) minus half the number
of second-class constraints ( I ) , gives three degrees of freedom per point. Thus, it looks
like the 'degenerate metric theory' has more freedom than the conventional non-degenerate
one. (If this 'degenerate theory' is liberated from second-class constraints, and if also
all first-class constraints except 'Ha and the rotational part of
are solved and properly
gauge-fixed, then we would possibly have an SO(3) and diff(C)-invariant theory on SO(3)
Yang-Mills phase-space: the Husain-Kuchai theory 1211. Although, to really be sure that
this 'degenerate theory' is the Husain-KuchaZ theory, one must show that this reduction can
be done so that the remaining phase-space coordinate is an SO(3) connectiont.)
Excluding this solution, we are forced to include secondary constraints. The new
constraint, which should be added to the total Hamiltonian, is
qah

:= ;T*mCfminr.i(h;ncT')"

(2.90)

meaning that the total Hamiltonian now becomes

xl0t

?&oc

(2.91)

Yabwub.

With this new Hamiltonian, one needs to check again if the time evolution of all constraints
vanishes weakly, and the new ingredients are all Poisson brackets containing the constraint
quh.The Poisson brackets containing fin and B' are again easy to calculate. Note that,
due to the fact that Da is only covariant with respect to SO(1. 3) transformations, W b is
not manifestly covariant under spatial diffeomorphisms. It is, however, covariant, which
can be seen by adding a fiducial affine connection to '0, and note that it drops out from
W h . (This is of course also true for Gi.) Thus, since Wuh transforms covariantly under
both SO(1,3) transformations as well as spatial diffeomorphisms, the Poisson brackets are
(2.92)
(2.93)

G'[AilI = 0
{ ~ " b [ ~ a b%
l s[ N e ] ] = * c d [ - f N " Y c d l .

The Poisson bracket between

{@P"h[h"h].
'@[hf,d]]

and Oob is also easily calculated:

WOb

d3x( - $hab71bchfcdfCda -t;hobTabhfc,jTcd)

(2.94)

where xab:= zuir,!',This shows that 0" and qUbare second-class constraints. (The rank
of the 'constraint-matrix' in (2.94) is. for generic field-configurations, maximal, i.e. rank
12.) Now, two more Poisson brackets should be calculated, (@,
and [li,W h ] .But
these calculations are really horrible, and since I do not need the exact result in order to
show that the Hamiltonian can now be put in a consistent form, I will not write out these
Poisson brackets here. Instead, I start with the time evolution of Qah,
~ h [ / J , b ]= [@[&b],

H,b,]%

1
z

d?r

(-

& / J a b ~ b e y c d n dfu $ / J u b J t n b y c d T c d )

And since this equation is required to be satisfied for all test functions
is
Yuh

/Job.

0.

(2.95)

the only solution

(2.96)

meaning that the constraint V bdrops out from the total Hamiltonian. With this solution
for Yub. the time evolution for li is automatically correct which leaves only time evolution
of the W bto be checked. First, I define
{q"'[Kub],

li[fi]]:= Cub[Kob].

t I thank lngemar Bengtsson far suggesting ais.

(2.97)

Actions for gravity, with generalizations

1101

Whatever complicated result the above Poisson bracket gives, I partially integrate it so that
the test function Kah is free from derivatives, and then I call the result CUb. With this
definition, the time evolution of V hbecomes
~ h [ K a b=
l { q " b [ K o b l ~H
1
0
1
1

m ~d3X(i&,llbchcd7Cda- -Kll,,ninhhc,jXcd)
1
+ Cnh[K,h] % 0.
(2.98)
2
This equation can always be solved for hdh so that the equation is satisfied for all test
functions Kob:

= 2raecccT& - ?r,bTc<ccc.
(2.99)
Here,
is the inverse to nub:= nain,!. So, regardless of the complicated form of Cub
one can always solve for hab. Note that it can happen that EOb contains derivatives of the
lapse-function fi, but in the action these can always be partially integrated away to get a
multiplicative Lagrange multiplier.
To summarize the Hamiltonian analysis; the total and consistent Hamiltonian is

'& = fix + Nu%,

- Wi9' + h n h ( f i ,

St, W ) @

(2.100)

where hob is the specific function of fi,no' and coo;, given in (2.97) and (2.99). There
are I2 second-class constraints: W band W O b , and 10 first-class constraints: E', U,and
fi := U t ( l / f i ) h U b ( f i , n,w)@'. The number of degrees of freedom are: half the number
of phase-space coordinates (18) minus the number of first-class constraints (IO) minus half
the number of second-class constraints (6). which gives two degrees of freedom per point.
The next task in this section is to eliminate the second-class constraints from the theory,
leaving a Hamiltonian formulation with first-class constraints only. In doing this elimination,
I find it convenient to switch back to the original SO(1, 3) notation. First, to solve @Oh iti 0.
I use the origin of that constraint; namely (2.57). So, I fix a trio of non-degenerate space-like
SU(1.3) vectors E"', and also the (up to a sign) unique time-like unit vector, orthogonal
to E"', NI,
det(E"'E,b) > 0

EU'NI = 0

N I NI = -1

(2.101)

where N' can be explicitly defined as

(2.102)
6,/det(E"'Ef)
Note the similarity between the pair ( N ' , E") and (NI, VaJ) in (2.59). It is also useful to
define the projection operator
-1 I := EO'E: = $ I +N'N'
(2.103)
where E: := E,bEb', and E u h is the inverse to E"Ef. Using this projection operator,
one can separate all S0(1,3)indices into 'boost' and 'rotational' parts. The solution to
@Ob 4 0 can now be written as
(2.104)
where the 12 physical degrees of freedom in na" are now captured in E"'. Now it is
possible to also solve W bfor W , I J , but instead of doing so, I will take a short cut via the
4 0, (2.104) in the symplectic form,
symplectic form i r Y " U , l ~ . I use the solution to
and see what components of W " J J , E"' will project out. To do that, I first split o.II into
two separate pieces
E"']

= NI'E".'I

W U I I=

(2.105)

1102
where

P Pelddn

rail is the unique torsion-free connection compatible with

E"',

D,Ehl = $ E h ' + ~ ~ ~ E r l + ~ U ' j E h ' - ~ r f ~ E h ' = O ,

(2.106)

See appendix B for a treatment of this type of 'hybrid' spin-connection. Thus, (2.105) can
Then, in order to rewrite the symplectic form I need some
be seen as a definition of M,IJ.
formulae relating N' and @'. From (2.101) it follows that
&''E; = - e N ' ,

N'NI = 0

(2.107)

Now, the symplectic form becomes

~"'l&'j

= 2N'EU1(?,1j

+ k"Ij)=2N'

(Du'EY - D U G E o 1 k 0 j j )

= -2a0(N1@) 2 N ' E n J & ~

= - 2 a , ( N 1 ~ ) + 2 ( N ' E " ' M , r j ) . t ~ ' ( 2 N i E , EI

hK M

~ I -K2 N ' M , i j ) .

(2.108)

Neglecting the surface terms, one can now read off the momenta conjugate to E"',

{ E " ' ( x ) , K h i ( y ) ) = ~ $ 6 : 6 ~ ( x- y)

K u j := 2 N j E "I E hK M h r ~- 2 N ' M U ~ j ,

(2.109)

This means that the physical components E"' of nu" project out 12 components K,' of
o,,~.
The question is then: are these 12 components K,r of U,,, the 12 components that
survive the constraint * O h ? To answer this question, I first invert the relation (2.109),
Mull = -L,E

hK

K,KN[iEhil

- ~ N K K , K E ~ i E a+i l TahCEhiEc~ (2.110)

where Tuchc)= 0 and Toub= 0. zbc

are the six components of mor, that are orthogonal to
E"' in the symplectic form. Now, putting this into the other second-class constraint
one gets
* " h = -I2 ne l l 6 , 1 K L n ( ~ L M ~ c n ~ ) M =
K . .. c ~ d ( o ~ ; ) f i ~ g d
(2.111)

and requiring that q"' = 0, imposes six conditions on the six components in Tohc,which can
easily be solved to get: Tuhc= 0. This means that the solution to Quh = 0 really projects
and that the physical degrees of
out the solution to the other second-class constraint qUb3
freedom surviving both Q"' and
are captured in E"' and K O / . To summarize the
solution of the second-class constraints, we have

z"'f = Nl'E"'I

U,II

= r o i l - ? EI
- Y)

hK

KUKNIjEhil - ~ N K K , K E ~ l E , i l

(2.1 12)

{ E U ' ( x ) .Khr(Y)) = 6$:S3(X

With this solution of the second-class constraints at hand, it is time to rewrite the total
Hamiltonian in terms of the physical fields E"' and K e f . A straightforward calculation
gives

~ i I = D , , D , r r " i l = . . . = - ~7E
, a[K
I

"11

=0

'& = j~ b l l Rohll = , . . = - &(EbMKhlM)

~=nullnhlK~
-2hJ==...
,~Kl
= - E"' Ebl kohl,- 2h

(2.1 13)
(2.1 14)

Ja
- :E"'

Ebl KloiKhlJ

(2.115)

where D, is the Ey' compatible torsion-free covariant derivative, and k u b l l is its.curvature:

Robll := a l u ~ b , i l [ro,
rhlll,In (2.1 14) and (2.115), I have neglected terms proportional
to Gauss' law G".

Actions for gravity, with generalizations

1103

But this Hamiltonian is easily identified as the well known ADM-Hamiltonian with the
full S 0 ( 1 , 3 ) invariance unbroken. If one wants to compare this to section 2.3 one first
needs to gauge-fix E O 0 = 0, and then solve the corresponding boost-part of Gauss law,
So = 0 (K,o = 0). One should also de-densitize the coordinate Pi.
I will not do this
comparison in detail, I just end this section with a short summary of what has been done
here.
The straightforward Hamiltonian formulation of the first-order HP Lagrangian gave a
Hamiltonian system with 12 second-class constraints. The reason why the second-class
constraints appear can be raced to the mismatch between the number of algebraically
independents components of the spin-connection and the tetrad field. (In (2t1) dimensions
or in (3t1) dimensions with only a self-dual spin-connection, the mismatch disappears and
there are no second-class constraints.) Then, when the second-class constraints are solved to
get a Hamiltonian containing only first-class constraints, one ends at the ADM-Hamiltonian.
In doing this Hamiltonian analysis of the full Hilbert-Palatini Lagrangian, it is striking
how complicated the analysis is, compared with the analysis of the self-dual HP Lagrangian,
in the next section. And the reason why the constraint analysis, in this section, is so
complicated is of course the appearance of second-class constraints. We will see that a
reduction of the number of algebraically independent components in the spin-connection
will significantly simplify the Hamiltonian analysis. This reduction is accomplished by
only using the self-dual part of the spin-connection in the Lagrangian.
2.5. Self-dual Hilbert-Palarini Lagrangian

In this section, the HP Lagrangian containing only the self-dual part of the curvature will be
examined. I will first show that the equations of motion following from it are the same as
those from the full HP Lagrangian. This is due to the fact that the two Lagrangians give the
same equation of motion from the variation of the spin-connection, and once this equation is
solved, the two Lagrangians differs only by a term that vanishes due to the Bianchi identity.
After proving that this action is a good action for gravity, the Legendre transform will
be performed, and the theory will be brought into the Ashtekar-Hamiltonian formulation.
In this Hamiltonian formulation, it will become clear that all the second-class constraints
from section 2.4 have now disappeared. And the reason why they do not appear is that with
only the self-dual spin-connection present, the tetrad has enough independent components
to function as momenta to the spin-connection, without restrictions.
The analysis of the self-dual HP Lagrangian was first performed in [22]. Later, this
Lagrangian was examined in [19, 20, 23, 241.
Before I start working on the action, I will give a few basic features of self-duality.
Consider an s o ( l , 3 ) Lie-algebra-valued field A. The dual of A is defined as
A

.._

K L A ~ ~

(2.1 16)

(2.1 17)
The minus sign follows from the Lorentz signature of the Minkowski metric. (For Euclidean
signature, s0(4), there is a plus sign there instead.) Now, since the duality operation imposed
twice has the eigenvalue - I for any A , it is possible to diagonalize A as follows:
A = A(+)fJ+ A(-)//
(2.1 18)
where

A*! = +iA(+)iJ

- iA(-)I

(2.1 19)

I104

P Pelddn

and A'-)'.' are called the self-dual and the anti-self-dual part of A I J . They can
and
be explicitly defined as
AilJ .- L(A" T~A'") = A(A"
i i 6 1 J K L AK L ) .
(2.120)
'- 2
The self-dual and anti-self-dual parts can in some sense be seen as orthogonal components,
and the following relations are easily proven with (2.120) and the 6-8 identity:
(2.121)
(2.122)
(2.123)

Equation (2.121) is just the orthogonality relation, and (2.123) shows that the
complexification of the Lorentz-algebra splits into its self-dual and anti-self-dual subso(3) x so(3). Equation (2.123) also shows that the self-dual
algebras: so(l, 3; C)
curvature is the curvature of the self-dual spin-connection,

R$)"(uL+)~')

R"(U;+)~')

= Rws
(+VI

(U,K L ) .

(2.124)

Now, since the original A" has 6 algebraically independent components, while A'+'" and
A(-'" has only three algebraically independent components, there exist relations between
For instance
different components of A(+)" and
'*I

- fiA'*)O'
-

(2.125)

it'

where c i j k := c o l J Kand eijk= c o I J KThis

. split can also be made Lorentz-covariant. (Note
that, if
is a Lorentz-covariant object, it transforms only under the self-dual Lorentz
transformations, while a self-dual Lorentz connection transforms under the full Lorentz
group.)
To make the spiit (2.125) and (2.126) Lorentz-covariant, I define a trio of non-degenerate
spacelike SO(1, 3) vector-fields V a l , and also the (up to a sign) unique time-like unit
vector-field N I , orthogonal to Vu',
det(V"V:)>O

NIVu'=O

N'Ni=-I.

(2.127)

An explicit definition of N' is

(2.128)

I also define the projection operator

GIJ

.._

vnIvJ
~

- q I J t N'N.'

(2.129)

where V,' := V,bVb', and Voh is the inverse to V u b := V"V:.

Using this projection
operator, all so(l, 3) indices can be decomposed into parts parallel and orthogonal to N I :

K'' := - N I N ~ K J
K' := r$KJ
=)

K'

= K"

(2.130)
(2.131)

+ Ki

(2.132)

Note that
N' = NI'

= vui

- v -ij .

(2.1 33)

Actions for gravio, with generalizations

I also define

1105

.__
:= N , e ~ ,r?irii
~ ~= -~ N ~ E i f f i

<IKL

(2.134)

Then, using the 6 - S identity for the full e l J K L ,it is possible to show that
...
, i f f L C . .. S
~
~
~
~
i
M N P - ,Gfjp '
Now, with all this machinery, it is straightforward to make the split (2.125),
covariant. First
.._
A(+)I'i = I ( A l ' j + . $ N I ~ J K L A . K. L )
2
..
._
A(+VJ = L2 ( A I J + i N K ' F i ; i A K ' L.)

(2.137)

which give the relations

A(&~
=ikii N ~ ' A ( + ) - J j h ?

(2.138)

K'M

..
A(*)K ' M = * -2
N~,c;;aA(*l".
I

(2.135)
(2.126)

(2.136)

(2.139)

To compare (2.125) and (2.126) with (2.138) and (2.139), one can make the choice
N' = ( - I , 0, 0, 0) + Vu' = 0.
Now, it is time to introduce the self-dual Hilbert-Palatini Lagrangian,

LA:)

:= e (CI:'"(e,Y)RG'"(w(+)KL)

+A)

(2.140)

where C:$(e;)
:= ;$et,,
and Cj:'"'(ei)
is its self-dual part. R:;"
is the self-dual part
of the curvature of the spin-connection, and as mentioned earlier, the self-dual part of the
curvature of the full spin-connection equals the full curvature of the self-dual part of the
spin-connection (see (2.124)).
First, when I want to show that the equations of motion following from (2.140) are the
same as the ones following from the full HP Lagrangian, I will regard RG"' as the self-dual
part of the full curvature. That is
~ $ ~ " ( d=+
+(R$(,)
))
- 5~~
1 . I J KL(~,KBL(w)).
(2.141)
The equations of motion following from the variation of

miJ are
(2.142)

but, since both e: and m:' are real, the real part of (2.142) is just the normal zerotorsion condition, and the imaginary part of (2.142) is the dual of the real part, and
therefore contains the same information. Then, if one solves (2.142) for w i J , and uses
that solution in the Lagrangian (2.140), the imaginary part of the Lagrangian vanishes
due to the Bianchi identity, and the real part of the Lagrangian is just the conventional
Hilbert-Palatini Lagrangian (or Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian, when the solution to (2.142)
is used). So, altogether this means that the variation of m i J implies the normal zero-torsion
condition, and when using the solution to that equation, the variation of e: implies Einstein's
equations. Note that the reality condition on the spin-connection really is superfluous. It
is enough to require the tetrad to be real; then (2.142) will take care of the reality of the
spin-connection. It is this fact that Ashtekar uses when he only imposes reality conditions
on the metric variables, and not on the connection. Note, however, that this is only true for
non-degenerate metrics, With a degenerate metric, (2.142) cannot be solved to get a unique
spin-connection.

P Peldrin

I I06

Before doing the (3+1) decomposition and Legendre transformation of (2.140), I will
eliminate the non-independent parts of d t ) l J . Using (2,138) and (2.139), it follows that
A(+)"B(+)
I I - 2A(+)"'B(+)
I ' J + A(t)"B(t'
ii = 4A(t)"'B'+)1.j '
(2.143)

This means that the ( 3 t 1 ) decomposed Lagrangian becomes

Then, I define the momenta conjugate to wb(t)/'j

,
(2.145)
Remember that E$ is not an independent field; it is just the anti-symmetric product of
two tetrads. The next step in the Legendre transform is to rewrite the Lagrangian in terms
of the phase-space variables, but before doing so, I will introduce the ADM-like tetrad
decomposition. I decompose the tetrad as follows:

This decomposition is not a restriction on the tetrad-the tetrad is completely general.

Instead, it is a choice for the previously introduced vector fields: N ' , Vu'. Note that this
decomposition gives the standard ADM-form of the metric:
(2.147)
Using this decomposition in (2.145), gives

Note that the imaginary part of T ; , ~automatically vanishes with this choice of unit timelike vector-field. Here, I want to emphasize that it is not a gauge choice involved here,
the tetrad is completely general, the choice lies instead in what 12 components of wc'"
that should be regarded as independent, and the clever choice is to choose the projection
of wL+)'' along eo'. This choice is clever, since it makes the momenta real and simple.
Note, however, that there is nothing that says that the momenta must be real. A priori,
we only know that the tetrad is real, and that can be achieved by the weaker requirement
Im(n;, jnb"j) = 0.
Now, returning to the Legendre transform, relation (2.148) should be inverted,
V , " = -NN I n,,
b
2e
and the two last terms in (2,144) should be rewritten in terms of the momenta,

(2.149)

~~

~~

Before I write out the total phase-space Lagrangian, I introduce the Ashtekar variables,

Actions f o r graviiy, with generalizations

1107

where I used the fact that, since the 'tilded' indices are orthogonal to a time-like direction;
they are really SO(3) indices. (i, j,k . . , are SO(3) indices.) In terms of these variables,
the total Lagrangian becomes
LHP

- E"'AUj- N'U, - fix + An;@

(2.152)

where

7.cU .- E h i F
ohr. ~ t0:
@ := DOErri= &E'"

U := -E"'EbjFuhkEijk- kdet(Eui) ~ t0:

2

+ i6'ikAnjE; Ft: 0

are the constraints that follow from the variation of the Lagrange multiplier fields N " . I?,
and Aoi. The fundamental Poisson bracket is (A&), Ehj(y)l = S:8/S3(x - y ) .
This is the famous Ashtekar formulation, and to complete the analysis of it, a constraint
analysis must be performed. This will be done in the next section. But, before I leave this
section, I will give the metric formula in terms of Ashtekar's variables. Using (2.146) and
(2.151), the densitized spacetime metric is

The most appealing feature of the Ashtekar formulation is perhaps the simple and
polynomial form of all the constraints. It is this feature that has enkindled the old attempts
of non-perturbative canonical quantization of gravity. Another fact that is new here in
the Ashtekar formulation, compared to the other Hamiltonians in sections 2.3 and 2.4, is
that the phase-space coordinate here is a (gauge) connection. In the ADM-Hamiltonian, the
phase-space variables are all gauge-covariant objects, and in the Hamiltonian formulation of
the full HP Lagrangian, the spin-connection can only be used as the phase-space coordinate
if one is prepared to pay the price of keeping second-class constraints in the theory. Once
these constraints are eliminated, the coordinate is again a gauge-covariant object. This
fact, that the phase-space coordinate is a gauge connection, has made it feasible to import
techniques and methods from the more well studied analysis of Yang-Mills theories.

2.6. The Ashtekar-Hamiltonian

Here, I will do the constraint analysis for the Ashtekar-Hamiltonian given in section 2.5.
Then, the reality conditions will be examined in more detail, and finally the canonical
transformation, relating this formulation to the ADM-HamiltOnian, will be given.
The Ashtekar-Hamiltonian was originally found through the above-mentioned canonical
transformation [2], and it soon became clear that this Hamiltonian could be very useful
in attempts to quantize gravity canonically. Prior to the existence of this Hamiltonian,
the attempts to quantize gravity canonically had all started from the complicated ADMHamiltonian. The ADM-Hamiltonian is complicated mostly due to the non-polynomial and
inhomogeneous form of the Hamiltonian constraint. This complicated form has made
it practically impossible to find any quantum solution, in this formulation. Ashtekar's
Hamiltonian, however, has a simple polynomial and homogeneous Hamiltonian constraint,
and quantum solutions to this formulation were soon found [3, 41.
The Ashtekar-Hamiltonian formulation can be summarized as

Utot := fi'Ht N U X u- Ao;S'

(2.154)

1108

P Peldh

where

7-1, := Eh'Fuhi ir,0

8' :=

ai = a,@

i
2
+ ic'jaAujEt ir, 0

7-1 := -E"'Eh'Fuhkeijk - Adet(F')

The fundamental Poisson bracket is { A a i ( x ) ,Eb'(y)) = S,bSjS3(x - y), and the other fields
are Lagrange multiplier fields, whose variation implies the constraints given in (2,154). The
densitized spacetime metric can be constructed from the phase-space fields, in a solution,
as

and the reality conditions will be given later. Next, I will show that this is a consistent
Hamiltonian formulation in the sense that a field-configuration that initially satisfies the
constraints will stay on the constraint surface under time evolution. This is the same as
requiring the time evolution of the constraints to be weakly vanishing. To show that, I will
calculate the constraint algebra. First, the transformations generated by 8' are given:
S C ' E ~ ' := ( p i , B ' L A ~ ]=
] i.2jaAjP

(2.156)

SG'AL = ( A i , B'[Ajl) = -'DaA'

(2.157)

which shows that G' is the generator of SO(3) transformations. (Note that here SO(3) is
the self-dual part of the Lorentz group, not the rotation part.) Then, I define the generator
of spatial diffeomorphisms,

'Fin :='Ha- AuiGi

(2.158)

and calculate the transformations it generates:

S k E a i := (E"', '&fNh]) = N6abE"'

ScA; = [ A i , '&[Nb]) = N'abA:

- E6'a6Na + En'ahNb = LNbEY'

+ Aba,N6

=fNhAb.

(2.159)

(2.160)

Now, one needs to know how the constraints transform under SO(3) rotations and spatial
diffeomorphisms. Under SO(3) transformations, 8' is a vector, 'Fia is non-covariant, and
7-1 is a scalar. Under spatial diffeomorphisms, 8' is a scalar density of weight +I,
is a
covariant vector density of weight + I , and 1-1 is a scalar density of weight +2. Note that,
although 'Fi, is not covariant under SO(3) rotations, the Poisson bracket between 8' and
'Fiu can easily be calculated since Gi transforms covariantly under spatial diffeomorphisms,
(2.161)
(2.162)
(2.163)
(2.164)
(2.165)
The only Poisson bracket left to calculate is 17-1, 7-11, and again this calculation simplifies
by noting that only terms with derivatives on either N or M contribute:
( ? U N ] ,7-1[M])= 7-1.[E"EP(NabM

-MabN)].

(2.166)

This shows that all the constraints are first class, and since the total Hamiltonian is a linear
combination of these constraints, the time evolution of the constraints are automatically
consistent.

Actions for gravity, with generalizations

1109

In section 2.5 it was shown that it is sufficient to require the tetrad to be real in order
to get real general relativity from the self-dual HP Lagrangian. With a real tetrad, the spinconnection will automatically be real in a solution to the equations of motion. How can
this be translated into the Hamiltonian formulation, where one normally wants to impose
all restrictions on the phase-space variables? The equation that took care of the reality
condition for the spin-connection was: 6Sg'/6wL' = 0, and here this becomes
(2.167)
(2.168)
In section 2.5 it was enough to require the tetrad to be real, and the solution to (2.167),
(2.168) automatically gave a real spin-connection. (Note, however, that A,', which in
a solution is the self-dual part of this real spin-connection, is not real.) Here, in the
Hamiltonian formulation, this is a bit inconvenient since the velocity '?l appears in (2.168),
and requiring that p' is real will lead to conditions on the Lagrange multiplier fields fi
and Ao;. Also, requiring the momenta E'' to be real will forbid complex SO(3) gauge
transformations, which is a bit unnatural since SO(3) here really stands for the self-dual
part of SO(1,3), which is a complex Lie-algebra.
The way out of this is to concentrate the reality requirements on the metric instead of
the tetrad,

Im(fi) = 0

Im(N") = 0

Im(E"'E:)

= 0.

(2.169)

Then, imposing that (,WE;) should be real, will, through its equation of motion, lead to
(2.170)

Re(ECjEE'"'~~Eh'kE;jK)
=0

which is a good condition in the sense that it does not involve any Lagrange multipliers.
Using the reality conditions (2.169) and (2.170) it is then straightforward to show that the
metric will stay real under time evolution, provided the metric is invertible.
Now, I want to show the relation between this Ashtekar-Hamiltonian and the
conventional ADM-Hamiltonian in triad form. They are related through a complex canonical
transformation, and to show that, I first define the new field Kat,

KOi := Aai iraj(E)

where rajis the unique torsion-free spin-connection defined to annihilate E":
D n @ ;:= a,Ebi + j-fCEC;

- r;cEhi + cijkr01.Ebh - 0.

(2.171)
(2,172)

Now, using the definition (2.171) to rewrite all the constraints in terms of KO;and E", one
gets

g' = j3,EY' = D,EOi + i<ilkKYI.E"k 1i&kK U I.E"X

'HL 1 - - E" (-iRohj + D,. Kbli + ic',kKi Ki) % E*' D[" Khji
7.1 = $E"'EbjRk
I

- Adet(E"')

(2.173)
(2.174)

+ ~ i E u i E b ~ D ~ o K &- c$E''EhiK
;j~
JdK blj

Em E bj Robcijk
k
- Adet(E")

- ;E"'EhjK[.;Kblj

(2.175)

where Rukb := a,,r&+Ek'"llolrhm,

I have used the Bianchi identity in (2.174), and neglected
terms proportional to Bi in both (2.174) and (2.175). Comparing these constraints with the
ADM constraints in section 2.3, one notices that these constraints have exactly the same
structure. To get exact agreement, one needs to change Ea' into its non-densitized inverse

1110

P Peldh

e,(, which is the coordinate used in section 2.3. I will not do this canonical transformation
here, but instead I will now show that the transformation (2.171) really is a canonical one.
To show that, I first define the undensitized E"' and its inverse
(2.176)
Then, the following is true:
DI.ebji = al.ebli

t cijkr/,e& = o

(2.177)

and the time-derivative of (2.177) must also vanish:

DlOeblj

+ cjjkp/,E?i) = 0 .

(2.178)

Solving (2.178) for p:, and contracting its indices with an E"' then gives
FLEP = - I "'e'jehkjjkD,kb = -+a.( '%e a jehk <,,&,.
E?),). .i
2

(2.179)

This means that E"'AOi = E"& up to the surface term (2.179), which shows that the
fundamental Poisson bracket is now
{Ka'(X),E " ( y ) } = G,hS(S3(x

-y)

(2.180)

and that the transformation really is a canonical one. Note that a comparison between
(2.175) and the ADM-Hamiltonian in section 2.3 shows that K,iEL has the interpretation as
the (densitized) extrinsic curvature. Further details about this canonical transformation can
be found in e.g. 12, 251.

2.7. The CDJ Lagrangian

From section 2.1 to 2.6 the emphasis has gradually shifted from the metric towards the
connection as the fundamental field for gravity. Here in this section, the shift will reach
almost completion, when the metric is eliminated from the Ashtekar-Hamiltonian (except
for the conformal factor). leaving the connection as the fundamental field.
The pure spin-connection formulation of gravity was first found 151 through a field
elimination from the Plebanski action in section 2.8. It was, however, also clear that
the Hamiltonian formulation of the pure spin-connection Lagrangian equals the AshtekarHamiltonian. So, the Ashtekar Hamiltonian and the CDJ Lagrangian are related via a
Legendre transform.
In this section, I want to explicitly perform the Legendre transform, starting from the
Ashtekar-Hamiltonian, and in order not to complicate things more than necessary, I will put
A = 0 here. The Legendre transform for h # 0 is much more complicated to perform, and
details can be found in 1261.

In doing the Legendre transform, I will also assume that the vector constraint, in
Ashtekar's Hamiltonian, can be found as a primary constraint to the resulting Lagrangian.
This means that the equations that should be solved are
(2.18 I )

cuaeEh'Bf = 0

(2.182)

where E" is the magnetic field: E"' := cubeFLc. Now, doing the Legendre transform means
solving the equation of motion for the momentum, to get the momenta as a function of the

Actions for gravity, with generalizations

1111

coordinate and its velocity. Here, this corresponds to solving (2.181) for P i . Equation
(2.182) should then also be solved for E"' in order to find KO as a primary constraint.
To be able to solve these two equations, I must require the magnetic field to be nondegenerate, i.e.
det(E"') := ~ E ~ h c E i j k B u i ~ *#iO~.c k

(2.183)

This restriction of the magnetic field will exclude some field-configurations. In [5], these
excluded field-configurations are given in terms of Petrov-classes. Note that flat Minkowski
space is excluded. Now, if E"' is non-degenerate, it can serve as a basis for all spatial
vector-fields (or SO(3) vector-fields). For instance
EO'

= tpii BY

(2.184)

is then always true for some SO(3) matrix W'j. Using this relation in (2.182), implies
~ l i i=
l 0.

(2,185)

Then, multiplying (2.181) by E"j and symmetrizing in the SO(3) indices, yields

n;j = 1

- gijT,q)

(2.186)

~ q := -(2iidet(BYi))-'.
where nij := capYsFinl, F'Y s = 2 E " ( ' F ~and
easily solved:

This equation is

yii = q(nij- ;gijTrn)

(2.187)

and the Legendre transform is done.

E"'A ut. - Ph,
one gets

Putting this solution into the Lagrangian L: =

(2.188)

which is the sought-for, pure spin-connection Lagrangian for pure gravity. Note that &DJ
is not a totally metric-free Lagrangian since q is related to the metric. With a cosmological
constant andor matter fields it is, however, possible in principle to also eliminate q (see
[26]). To get a formula for the metric here in the CDJ formulation, one can return to the
metric-formula in the Ashtekar formulation, and then follow the fields through the Legendre
transform. The result is

p =f i g @
= - - , , 2i
E..

ilk

EuY6r F

~ , ~ FF; , ~/ P~I I Y W

(2.189)

which is called the Urbantke formula. Before the CDJ formulation was known, Urbantke [271
gave the metric-formula (2.189) as the solution to the problem: with respect to what metric
is a given SO(3) field strength, self-dual? Since this question is insensitive to the conformal
factor of the metric, Urbantke could only give the metric up to an arbitrary conformal factor,
and the result was (2.189). Further details about the CDJ formulation can be found in the
original discovery 15, 281, in relation to the Ashtekar-Hamiltonian [29, 30, 26, 81, with new
cosmological constants [6,7, 31, S], generalization to other gauge groups [9].

1112

P Peld6n

2.8. The Plebanski Lagrangian

In section 2.5, we learned that it is enough to have only the self-dual pan of the HP
Lagrangian in order to get full general relativity. This means that the only combination of
the tetrad fields that is needed is the self-dual part of the anti-symmetric product of two
tetrads. Plebanski made use of that fact, and promoted this combination of tetrads into an
independent field. Then, to still get the same physical content in the action, he had to add
a Lagrange multiplier term, imposing the original relation.
Here, I want to briefly go through the steps that take us from the self-dual HP Lagrangian
to the Plebanski Lagrangian. Then, I will also derive the CDJ Lagrangian by eliminating
fields from the Plebanski Lagrangian. Details about the Plebanski action can be found in
[32, 51.
The self-dual HP Lagrangian is

Cg): = e ( C (+)UP
I J ( eYK ) R(a+aV I (U( t ) K L ) +A)

(2.190)

where Cp$(eg) := fePle$l, and C ~ ~ ' " ( eis~its) self-dual part. Now, using the identity
(2.191)
(2.192)

it is straightforward to show that

The determinant of e: can also be written solely in terms of the C,

With all this, the Lagrangian now becomes

(2.195)

and, since both C and R are self-dual, they have only 18 algebraically independent
components. To make this more manifest, I do as in section 2.5, and split C and R
into their boost and rotation parts,
A I J -- A i r ' i l

+ Aii

(2.196)

where A" is a general so(], 3)-valued field, and che primed index stands for the projection
along a time-like unit vector-field N I , while the tilded index stands for the projection into
the orthogonal space-like surface orthogonal to N I . See section 2.5 for details. For a
self-dual field A" it is then true that
A f J B I J= 2A"jBl,j

+ AiiBij

= 4A'"B

1'1.'

(2.197)

Then, I introduce the S O ( 3 ) notation.

CL# := CmP
(+vi
NJ~

FVpl:= -2R"'@ J ' / .NJ'

Ani := -2wJtiN
(+) I'

(2.198)

where the factor of two is introduced just to get agreement with the Ashtekar curvature in
section 2.6. Now, the Lagrangian is

Actions for gravily, with generalizations

1113

Remember that C& is still just a given function of the tetrad field. The idea is now to let
Z& become an independent field, and at the same time to add a Lagrange multiplier term,
imposing the original definition of it. A constraint that does the job, is

- ..

M U := M i j

- fJ'jM; = 0

Mij

:= @ Y 6 ~ i08 Y6'

(2.200)

To show that this is a necessary condition on C , one can just put in the original definition
of CAp in M ' j :
:= ,&S

MIIKL

(+)!I

(+)KL

ZYS

= IeEIIKL
2

+i

tqf[K

v LII

(2.201)

which means that

e--- I--1 ..
= -q"NNNKfia~NLK"
= -#IMk
(2.202)
2
3
k'
3
To get an indication that hij = 0 also is a sufficient condition, one may count the number
of degrees of freedom in E constrained by $1, and compare with the degrees of freedom
in e:. C has 18 independent components, and is constrained by the traceless symmetric
3 x 3 matrix k j , leaving 13 degrees of freedom. e: has 16 free components but the
self-dual anti-symmetric product is invariant under anti-self-dual Lorentz transformations,
leaving again 13 degrees of freedom. An explicit proof of the adequacy of M j = 0 can be
found in [5]. Now, when adding the constraint
= 0 to the Lagrangian with a Lagrange
M'j

:= N N N K M N ' K ' = -i-v'f

multiplier, the tracelessness of $1 can be shifted over to the Lagrange multiplier, and then
I let that condition also be implied by a Lagrange multiplier term,

(2.203)
where the independent fields are nowE,h8, A;- Y:ij and p. Note that Y;j is an arbitrary
symmetric SO(3) matrix-field, its tracelessness is imposed by the variation of p. This is
the Plebanski Lagrangian, and in order to extract real general relativity from it, one must
impose reality conditions on C that turns out to be rather awkward for Lorentzian spacetime.
I will not go into more details concerning this action, instead I want to show how to reach
the CDI Lagrangian from here.
The idea is the following. Since the Lagrangian now has an inhomogeneous dependence
on C, it is possible to eliminate it from the action, through its equation of motion. Once this
is done, the Lagrangian instead gets an inhomogeneous dependence on Y making it possible
to also eliminate this field, leaving only the curvature F$ and the Lagrange multiplier p.
For simplicity, I will put % = 0 (for a treatment of the % # 0 case, see 128, 331):

(2.204)
Assuming Y Qto be invertible, the solution is
CL$ - i q - l Q@J~'
2

(2.205)

With this solution, the Lagrangian becomes

I

12 = -iTr(Y-'S2)

+ pTrY

(2.206)

where I have introduced a convenient matrix notation, and defined: fi'j := .&YdF'BF~s.
Now, using the characteristic equation for 3 x 3 matrices,

A3 - A'TrA t ;A ((TrA)' - TrA') - 1 detA = 0

(2.207)

1114

P Pelddn

it follows that
TrrY = idetY ((TrrY-')2

- TrrY-') .

Putting this into the Lagrangian, and varying the action with respect to rY-I

(2.208)
one gets
(2.209)

where I have redefined the Lagrange multiplier: p := -ipdetV.

easily solved for VI:

This equation is now

(2.210)

Finally putting this solution into the Lagrangian, and redefining the Lagrange multiplier
again: 7 := (i/4p), the result is the CDJ Lagrangian
(2.211)
3. Actions in (%I) dimensions

In this section, I intend to briefly go through the (2tI)-dimensional counterparts of the

various actions dealt with in section 2. Here, I will not do all calculations in the same detail
as for ( 3 t l ) dimensions.
The reason why (2t1) dimensions here is treated specially, is that bath the Ashtekar
Hamiltonian as well as the CDJ Lagrangian are known to exist only in (2t1) and (31.1)
dimensions. See, however, section 4.3 regarding speculations about higher-dimensional
formulations. The (2t1)-dimensional version of figure I is given in figure 2, where we see
that the number of different actions has now decreased significantly. Two actions are absent,
due to the non-existence of self-dual 2-forms in (2t1) dimensions, and four of the actions
from figure 1 have merged into !WO; the pure S0(1,2) spin-connection Lagrangian here
equals the CDJ Lagrangian, and the Hamiltonian formulation of the HP Lagrangian equals
the Ashtekar-Hamiltonian.
There is at least one action missing in figure 2: the Chern-Simons Lagrangian [34, 351.
The reason why I do not treat the Chern-Simons Lagrangian here is that it is a purely
(2tl)-dimensional formulation, which does not exist in other dimensions, and I am mainly
interested in formulations that exist in (3t1) dimensions as well.

3. I . The EH and the HP Lagrangian, and the ADM-Hamiltonian

All these three action formulations of gravity work perfectly all right in arbitrary spacetime
dimensions (dimensions greater than (ltl), i n (Itl) dimensions the EH and the HP
Lagrangian are just total divergencies). All calculations that were made in sections 2.1-2.3,
except one, are trivially generalized to other dimensions. The calculation that needs a slight
modification is the variation of the HP Lagrangian with respect to the spin-connection. In
arbitrary spacetime dimensions, the variation yields

and in dimensions higher than (3t1) it is a bit tricky to show that (3.1) implies the zerotorsion condition (it is, however, true that it does):
Drmei,= 0 .

(3.2)

Actions for gravii), with generalizations

1115

Legendre
trans/orm
?r

:= bL

:= &

SA

si,

The CDJ-Lagrangian

Legendre
tmnsfon

i = {e,H)
e

I
T h e Hilbert-Palatini
Lagrangian C ( e 7 , w i x )

= .(W)

E = 0 =? w

The Einstein-Hilbert
Lagrangian L(e7)

=.(e)

Figure 2. Actions for gravity in (2t1) dimensions

In (2+1) dimensions, however, (3.2) follows directly from (3.1), if one knows the 'inverseformula'
e+{,

(3.3)

= c""y.,l.e;.

3.2. The self-dual HP and the Plebanski Lagrangian

These two Lagrangians are unique for (3t1) dimensions, since their construction relies
heavily on the use of self-dual 2-forms, which only exist i n four-dimensional spacetimes.
One could of course construct a Plebanski-like Lagrangian without relation to self-duality;
let the combination efaej,become an independent field, and add a Lagrange multiplier term
imposing the original definition.
3.3. Hamiltonian formulation of the HP Lagrangian, and the Ashtekar-Hamiltonian
Here is one of the formulations where (2t1) dimensions is special. It will be shown here that
it is exactly in ( 2 t 1) dimensions that the Hamiltonian formulation of the HP Lagrangian does
not give rise to second-class constraints. In fact, here in ( 2 t 1) dimensions, the Hhmiltonian
formulation equals the Ashtekar formulation. The reason why no second-class constraints
appear here, as they did in (3t1) dimensions, can be found from a counting of degrees of
freedom: as we saw in section 2.4, the second-class constraints were needed since the tetrad
did not have enough independent components to function as an unrestricted momenta for the
spin-connection. In an arbitrary spacetime with dimension ( D l ) , the spatial restriction of
the spin-connection has D(D 1 ) 0 / 2 number of algebraically independent components,
while the 'tetrad' has (D 1)' components. Then, ( D 1) of the 'tetrad' components are
needed as Lagrange multipliers, imposing the diffeomorphism constraints. This means that,
in order not to get restrictions on the momenta, we must have

(3.4)

<

and the solution is D 2, singling out (2+1) dimensions as the unique spacetime where the
HP Lagrangian will not produce second-class constraints. (The reason why I say that the

1116

P Pelddn

additional constraints are second class, is that a first-class constraint always corresponds to
a local symmetry, and the HP Lagrangian has only gauge and diffeomorphism symmetries.)
The standard HP Lagrangian is

LHP= (ee,el
e B R ap I I (o ) + h e )

(3.5)

where e: is the triad field, e the determinant of its inverse, and oLJan independent SO( I , 2)
connection. The Hamiltonian formulation of (3.5) has previously been studied in [34,23,36]
(see also [37]). Now, I split the triad:

Putting this in (3.5) and defining A; := E " ~ O J , J K , FmpI ._

.-E

I J K R o p ~ gives
~ ,

The momenta conjugate to A: is

Now. using the epsilon4elta identity caheCd = &!Si'.

and the orthogonality between N I
and Vu( it follows that
ral= --eubV;
e
- N J V ~ V , & I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ )
(3.9)
N

(k

where V: is the inverse to V"!: Vu/ Vhl = 8,".and ValN' = 0. Equation (3.6) also implies

which makes it easy to invert (3.9):

vi

bl

(3.1 I)

Putting this into the Lagrangian, and rescaling the lapse function:

C = nalAul- fix- N " U ,

fi := N z / e , gives

+ AorG'

(3.12)

where
:= 'ir"EbJFF,bKE,jK -Adet(r"'n~)

GI

..- l~.r

= a,+I

xu:= 7f;FO,,l

A ~ ~ ~z1 ,;

which is the (2+1)-dimensional Ashtekar-Hamiltonian (compare with (2.152)). Note that,

for non-degenerate metrics, there is a unique solution to the constraints 71 and ?la:
instead of the constraints U and 'H, given in (3.12),
t u b FUh1 - - A d l K ~ ; ~ f l ~ , b So,
.
one can use the constraint: W 1 := c'bF:b
X e J J K n ~ n ~ 6x, b0.
The constraint algebra for the Hamiltonian in (3.12) is exactly the same as for the (3+1)dimensional case, and there are no reality conditions here in (2t1)dimensions. Following
the fields through the Legendre transform above, it is easy to write down the metric formula
for the Ashtekar variables,

(3.13)

Actions for graviy, with generalizations

I117

Then, it is only the relation between the Ashtekar-Hamiltonian and the ADM-Hamiltonian
left to show here. These two Hamiltonians are related by a canonical transformation of a
similar type as in the (3+1)-dimensional case. First I define the field KO,,

KO[ := A,,
where

(3.14)

- r.1

raris the unique torsion-free spin-connection compatible with x " ~ ,

~

+ rtCnCr
l
- r:c7P + dJKr0&= 0 .

~ := a,xbr
n
~

(3.15)

Despite the fact that nUrdoes not have an inverse 'in the SO(1,2) indices', (3.15) can be
uniquely solved for T.1 as a function of nor. This can be understood from a counting of
degrees of freedom in (3.15): (3.15) represents 12 equations, and r:, and Fa, .are 6 6
unknowns, meaning that there is enough information in (3.15) to solve for all components.
See appendix B for details. (Note, however, that the alternative requirement: D[onLl= 0, is
not enough to uniquely specify ru/,since it gives only three equations for six unknowns.)
Now, using (3.14) and (3.15), the Ashtekar constraints in (3.12) become
8' = Don'''
e l J KK,jnf; = 6 I J K K,.rn;
(3.16)

'H, := X h ' R , b , ( r ) inb'D~.Kb]/ n b r r j K K i K : % nb'Dr,,K,q/

(3.17)
'H = 5Z
I U / n bJ R , h K r J K - ,Idet@ U / a,
b) i7"'irbJ(D,K/)rjK -I-2X
I or X h i K c / K b l J
%

f R ( r ) - hdet(n or n,)
b
~'S"nb'K[orKb]j

(3.18)

where Rob' := d ~ . r ~ l + c ' J K r o j r b Kand R := t r j K i T n ' a h J ~ o h K ,and I have neglected terms

proportional to G' in both (3.17) and (3.18). In (3.17) the Bianchi identity n b r R a h r = 0
was also used. Thus, the transform (3.14) really gives the wanted ADM-Hamiltonian, and
what is left to prove is that the transformation really is a canonical one. To do that, I first
define the undensitized n"' and its inverse.

& .-

eo,ebr = 8:;

c'JKe,re(;ei = 0 .

(3.19)

.-

(3.20)

or
cub(Due;

+ d J K r a J e b K )= 0.

(3.21)

Then, projecting (3.21) along the vector field ~ ' ~ ~ e ' ; e b , cgives
,~,

@JFU,

2e'JK e0 j he Do&
~

(3.22)

which means that

< / J K e Uj e K
b e' b / )

(3.23)

showing that, up to the surface term, nu' and KO/ are conjugate variables. So, assuming
compact spacetime or fast enough fall-off behaviour at infinity, we have a canonical
transformation.

1118

P Pelddn

3.4. The CDJ Lagrangian

The CDJ Lagrangian in (2+1) dimensions can be found either by a Legendre transform from
the Ashtekar-Hamiltonian, or from an elimination of the triad field from the HP Lagrangian.
The latter method is the simpler one:
LHP = @'eyr~,gr

+he

(3.24)

where F,g' := a,,Ak,

d J K A , ~ A p and
~ , AA := d J K w , and
~ ~W,JK is an S 0 ( 1 , 2 )
connection. The equation of motion following from variation of eel is
(3.25)
where F*" := ,@BY Fly' is the dual of Fear. The idea is now to solve (3.25) for t?",and
then put the solution back into the Lagrangian, yielding a totally metric-free formulation.
Taking the determinant of (3.25). gives
h3ez = -det(F*")

(3.26)

which is solved by
(3.27)
Then, (3.27) and (3.25) give the complete solution to 6S/6ear = 0,
(3.28)

and putting this solution back into the Lagrangian, one gets
I

L = 7 2 sign(h),/--det(F'"')
x

(3.29)

which is the wanted pure spin-connection Lagrangian for (21 1)-dimensional gravity with a
cosmological constant. Note that this Lagrangian is totally metric-free, the only independent
field is the spin-connection. For a treatment of the CDJ Lagrangian without a cosmological
constant, and with a coupling to a scalar field, see [36, 401.
The metric formula in this formulation, follows directly from (3.28):
(3.30)
Note that the Lorentz signature condition de@,@ = -ez e 0 corresponds to (I/h)det(F*U')
e 0. See for instance (3.26).

4. Generalizations
In this section, I want to present two recent generalizations of the Ashtekar Hamiltonian
and the CDJ Lagrangian. The first kind of generalization was first discovered in [6, 8,7, 311.
It is a cosmological constant type of generalization in the sense that it does not increase
the number of degrees of freedom. At the canonical level (the Ashtekar formulation),
the generalization is achieved by adding terms to the Hamiltonian consbaint, and at the
Lagrangian level (the CDJ Lagrangian) one has to add terms to the Lagrangian. In the
Hamiltonian formulation, the constraints in this generalized theory still obey the required
constraint algebra for a diffeomorphism invariant theory, and it is possible to read off the

Actions for gravity, with generalizations

1119

'geometrical spacetime metric' from this algebra. (By 'geometrical metric', I here mean the
object that defines the norm of and angles between vectors.) However, it is not yet clear if
this 'geometrical metric' is the metric that defines the causal structure of the theory. That is,
will fluctuations in the fields propagate on the light cone of this metric? Explicit spherically
symmetric solutions to the generalized theory have been studied in [8, 381, in which it
is shown that the generalized theory really is physically different from the conventional
Einstein theory. Two remaining problems with this generalization are the reality condition
and the metric-signature requirement. No one has yet given a reality condition that works
for any of the new cosmological constants. (The problem arises for Lorentzian spacetimes.
For Euclidean signature, where all fields are real, it is possible to show that there exist
ranges for some of the new cosmological constants that will ensure positive definiteness of
the metric 1391.) In [36], it was also shown that this generalization of Ashtekar variables
does not have any direct counterpart in (2t1) dimensions. In (2+1) dimensions the ordinary
cosmological constant seems to be the unique generalization of the pure gravity theory, that
does not increase the number of degrees of freedom.
The other type of generalization that I will present here is a generalization of the theory
to other gauge groups. That is, in (3+1) dimensions, I consider a canonical formulation of a
gauge- and diffeomorphism-invariant theory that reduces to the Ashtekar formulation if the
gauge group is chosen to be SO(3) [9]. In (2+1) dimensions, this type of generalization is
also possible, but there the pure gravity gauge group is S0(1,2). The difference between
(3+1) and (2t1) dimensions is that in (3t1) dimensions there exist an infinite number of
different theories that have the abovementioned behavior, while in (2+1) dimensions there
is only one theory of this type. This is closely related to the existence of the infinite number
of new cosmological constants in (3+1) dimensions. This gauge-group generalization does
increase the number of degrees of freedom, and in fact has the correct number of degrees
of freedom to be a candidate theory for Einstein gravity coupled to Yang-Mills theory.
In (2+1) dimensions, it was shown in [40] that this generalization gives the conventional
Einstein-Yang-Mills theory to lowest-order in Yang-Mills fields.
In @+I) dimensions, there exists an extension of the pure gravity formulation, which
has one degree of freedom per point in spacetime; topologically massive gravity [41]. See
also [36] for the relation to the Ashtekar formulation. I do not treat this extension here,
mainly due to the fact that this is a purely (2tl)-dimensional formulation which has no
counterpart in other spacetime dimensions.
4. I . The cosmological constants

In a canonical formulation of a diffeomorphism-invariant theory, there exists a set of firstclass constraints generating the diffeomorphism symmetry. If these generators are split into
parallel and orthogonal parts,
and 'H, where U" generates spatial diffeomorphisms on
the spatial hypersurface and 'H generates diffeomorphisms orthogonal to the hypersurface,
these first-class constraints always obey the following constraint algebra:

ea

where +
i
denotes the Lie-derivative along the vector field N u , and q"' is a symmetric
tensor constructed from the canonical variables. Just by requiring path-independence of
deformations of the hypersurface, it was shown in [42] that any canonical formulation of a
diffeomorphism-invariant theory, with a metric, must give a representation of this algebra.

1120

P Pelaitn

From this analysis it was also clear that the interpretation of q"h is that it plays the role of the
geometrical spatial metric on the hypersurface, (That is, the metric that defines e.g. the norm
of the unit-normal to the hypersurface.) To be exact, Hojman et al [42]showed that under
the assumptions that 'H and R,, generate diffeomorphisms orthogonal and parallel to the
hypersurface, and that the lapse-function N is normalized to proper time, it follows that the
deformation algebra is (4.1)-(4.3),with qoh interpreted as the spatial metric. Two questions
then arise. Given a theory that gives a representation of this algebra, can we conclude that
'U and 'Fin are the generators of orthogonal and parallel deformations/diffeomorphisms, and
can we conclude that the object qYhis the spatial metric? The answer to the first question
is: yes, given a representation of the above algebra, we can conclude that the constraints are
the orthogonal and parallel generators of deformations. That is easily seen by noting that an
'& that satisfies (4.1)is more or less by definition the generator of parallel deformations, so
the only problem is to assess if 'H really is the generator of orthogonal deformations. And
if 1-I is not the orthogonal generator, then there must exist a linear combination of 7L and
gothat is the true orthogonal generator of this symmetry: ?' ? := '7f f"(@,R ) ? ? ~ ,where
f"(q5, n ) is a function of the phase-space fields here denoted by q5 and R. But it is an easy
R ) = 0, showing
task to check that the only f"(q5, n ) that gives the correct algebra is f"(@,
that 'U must be the generator of orthogonal deformations. The answer to the other question
is that the only physically consistent interpretation of quh is that it is the spatial metric on
the hypersurface. That is, if it is later shown that this 'geometrical metric' is not the metric
that defines the causal structure of the theory, or that it is not the metric-field on which
the matter-fields are propagating, then the theory is inconsistent and must be abandoned.
Thus, this algebra can be used in two different ways; both as a test if a given theory is
diffeomorphism invariant, and also as a definition of what the spatial metric is in terms of
the phase-space variables. (in fact, it is possible to extract the entire spacetime metric from
the constraint algebra and the expression for the time-evolution of the spatial metric [42].)
Now, given a particular set of phase-space variables, and the fact that
should
generate spatial diffeomorphisms, it is in general easy to find the unique realization of
'Ha in terms of the phase-space variables. More specifically, if ?i, is the generator of
spatial diffeomorphisms, it has the action of the Lie-derivative on the fundamental fields,

6%q := (4. ??i,[N~ll

= fM.9

(4.4)
(4.5)

6fi.p := {p,??"[Nq]
=f"p

where ( q , p ) denotes the phase-space variables. This normally gives a uniquely solvable
system of equations, from which it is easy to solve for Qa(q,p), As an example, study
the S O ( 3 ) Yang-Mills phase space, where the fundamental fields are A,,, and E"', an
SO(3) connection and its conjugate momenta. Writing out (4.4)and (4.5)in detail for
these phase-space variables gives an easily solvable system of equations, with the unique
solution

9* -- 'Ua- A,j@

= EhiFohj - A,i'DbE hi

(4.6)

All this means that in an attempt to generalize a diffeomorphism-invariant theory, the

only freedom one has lies in the Hamiltonian constraint, 'H. That is, since the theory
should be diffeomorphism-invariant,
it must obey the algebra (4.1)<4.3),meaning that I$
is the generator of spatial diffeomorphisms, which is unique. And furthermore, since 'Ha
is the generator of spatial diffeomorphisms, (4.1) and (4.2) is automatically satisfied if '&
and 'H are diffeomorphism covariant objects. This means that in order to generalize a
diffeomorphism-invariant theory, without breaking this invariance, the generalization must

Actions for graviv, with generalizations

1121

reside in 'H, and the requirement it has to fulfill is that it should be a diffeomorphismcovariant object, satisfying (4.3).
In Ashtekar variables, there is also the SO(3) symmetry, which is generated by
Gi. In the following, I will neglect this part of the algebra and just make sure that
the generalized 'H is an SO(3) scalar, in order not to break this part of the constraint
algebra. Thus, the first basic requirements a candidate 'E has to satisfy is that it should
be invariant under SO(3) rotations and covariant under spatial diffeomorphisms. The
fact that it should be invariant under SO(3) transformations means that it should be
constructed out of gauge covariant objects, like E"' and B" := cybCFic,with all indices
properly contracted. Covariance under spatial diffeomorphisms just means that all spatial
indices should be properly contracted as well. This immediately singles out four good
candidates as basic building blocks: A := a b c ; , k E o i E b j E c k B
, := .bcijkEUiEhjBCk,
c := abc E qk
. . EuiBbjBCk,D := aohcijkB ' i B b j B c k , (By also considering terms containing
derivatives of E O i and B O ' , it may be possible to find other basic building blocks.) These
four scalar densities all satisfy the above-mentioned requirements, and therefore any function
of them will also do so; an expression such as
'H = f ( A , B , C, D )
(4.7)
should therefore be a rather general ansatz for the Hamiltonian constraint. Or, introducing
parameters that serve as new cosmological constants, one could consider functions like
AB

f,, , .
(4.8)
D
What is left to check, to ensure that the theory is diffeomorphism-invariant, is (4.3). I will
not give the detailed calculation here, but it is shown in [7] that it is in general true that
(4.3) is satisfied with this type of ansatz.
(In (2t1) dimensions there exist only two different basic SO(1,2) vector fields:
W 1 := cUbFib and BI := i J K Z " J Z b K a b meaning
,
that the basic building blocks for
'H should be A := W'W,, B := W I B l and C := B'B,. But B+hC is just the conventional
Ashtekar-Hamiltonian for pure gravity with a cosmological constant, and A is proportional
' . = 0 is satisfied. Therefore, there exists no generalization of this type of the
to B , when H
pure gravity theory in (2+1) dimensions.)
At the Lagrangian level (the CDJ Lagrangian), it is even easier to discover the
generalization. The conventional pure gravity Lagrangian is

f ( A , B , C, D) = L Y I A+ a z B + L Y ~ C + L Y+US~D

(4.9)
where Q i j := t'flYaF$F;b and v is a scalar density of weight -1. Now, since Q i j is a
3 x 3 matrix, there exist three independent traces: Trz2, TrQ' and Trn3. All other scalars
constructed from Slij can be written as functions of these three traces. This follows from
the characteristic equation for 3 x 3 matrices. Thus, the most general SO(3)-invariant and
diffeomorphism-covariant Lagrangian density constructed out of these building blocks, are
(4.10)
C = f ( q , TrQ, T r d , TIS')
where one just has to make sure that the Lagrangian density is a scalar density of weight
+ l . Or,again introducing 'the cosmological constants':
C =?
!.

+ BzTrQ + &qTrQ2 + j341l(Trz2)~+ B5qzTrS13+ ' .

(4.11)

These two Lagrangians are both S0(3)-invariant and diffeomorphism-covariant, and will,
therefore, in general give a Hamiltonian formulation that has the required constraint algebra

1122

P Pelddn

(4.1)-(4.3). (For special values of the cosmological constants it can, however, happen that
additional second-class constraints appear. This is what happens if in (4.9) one changes the
factor into
A rather remarkable fact in this cosmological constants generalization is that the
Urbantke formula (2.189) still holds as an expression for the spacetime metric. This is
shown by identifying the metric from the constraint algebra, and then following the fields
through a Legendre transform [43]. Note again, however, that the physical significance of
this metric is unclear.

5.)

4.2. Gauge group generalization

Here, I just want to briefly give the basic ideas of how to generalize the Ashtekar formulation
to other gauge groups. For further details, see 19, 401.
As mentioned in section 4.1, in a canonical formulation of a diffeomorphism-invariant
theory it is always possible to find first-class constraints obeying the algebra (4.1)-(4.3).
And the problem with the Ashtekar-Hamiltonian for other gauge groups is that the crucial
part of the algebra (4.3) fails to close. The ordinary Hamiltonian constraint for pure gravity,
in Ashtekar's variables, is
1

E = -Eu~c6ijkEUiEhiBck

(4.12)

4
and, in order to generalize this expression to higher-dimensional gauge groups, the cijk
must be changed into some other gauge-covariant object.
is only well defined for
three-dimensional gauge groups.) The obvious candidate is f i l k . the structure constant for
the Lie-algebra ( f i j n = c;jk for SO(3)). This will not work, however, since the Poisson
bracket (1-1,1-11 will fail to close. The reason why it closes for SO(3) is that there exists
a structure constant identity (the E - 8 identity) for that Lie-algebra, while for an arbitrary
gauge group there does not exist any such identity. The idea is then to eliminate the structure
constant (or ~ i j k )from E without changing its content. And to do that, one can use the
above-mentioned structure constant identity. For instance

(4.13)
is a Hamiltonian constraint that also works for higher-dimensional gauge groups, and that
reduces to the Ashtekar-Hamiltonian constraint for three-dimensional gauge groups. Perhaps
an even simpler way of finding the generalized Hamiltonian constraint is to use the ansatz
E"' = q,V E
;
(4.14)
in the ordinary Ashtekar-Hamiltonian constraint:
i
I
(4.15)
H = --E4 .ac~ijkEaiEb'B" = -detB"'
((Try)' - Try2)
4
and then try to construct the same constraint with the building blocks EO'E:, ,"'BP and
BU'BP:
E"'EPb,b = TrW'
(4.16)
E"'B,!'bh,E'jBYbd, = Try'
(4.17)
E"Bfb,, = Tr'4

(4.18)

Actions for gravily, with generakations

where I have used the fact that 'H, = 0 means that WiJl = 0, and
BaiB!'. This means that a suitable 7-1 is
I

1-1 = --detB"'

1123
buh

is the inverse to

(01 E"'Efb,h
( I - C Y ) E " ' B ~ ~ -(E"'Bfbab)*)
~ ~ E ~ ~ B ~, ~ ~ ~ (4.19)
4
In checking the constraint algebra however, it becomes clear that it is only two values of CY
that give a closed algebra: 01 = 2 and CY = 0. Thus, it seems like the 'arbitrary gauge-group
Hamiltonian' is more restrictive than the SO(3) Hamiltonian, in which arbitrary functions
of the basic building blocks give a closed algebra.
A third way of finding the generalized theory is to start from the CDJ Lagrangian which
is trivially generalized to other gauge groups, and then perform the Legendre transform to
the Hamiltonian formulation without using any SO(3) identities. This procedure should
always give a closed algebra, for the generators of diffeomorphisms, since the starting point
is a manifestly diffeomorphism-covariant object. This type of generalization of the CDJ
Lagrangian was first mentioned in [ 5 ] .
One of the still unresolved problems with this gauge-group generalization, is that the
metric, which can be read off from the constraint algebra, looks rather awkward in terms
of the phasespace variables, and therefore the reality conditions seems to be very hard to
find. (This is also true for the cosmological constant generalization, in section 4.1).
The idea behind this type of generalization is that it may be possible to find a unified
theory of gravity and Yang-Mills theory in this way. But, before the reality conditions are
found, no such interpretation can be given. Another problem here i n (3t1) dimensions,
is that there exists an infinite number of different generalizations that all reduce to the
pure gravity Ashtekar formulation when SO(3) is chosen, and it is not an easy task to
select the correct one, if one exists. An optimistic expectation regarding this is that once
the correct generalization is found, the reality condition problem and the 'metric problem'
could possibly be naturally solved.
In (%I) dimensions, however, the corresponding generalized theory is unique, and there
the thepry really has an interpretation as gravity coupled to Yang-Mills theory. To lowest
order in Yang-Mills fields, the generalized theory exactly coincide with the conventional
Einstein-Yang-Mills coupling.

4.3. Higher dimensions

Here, I want to discuss the possibility of finding higher-dimensional generalizations of
the Ashtekar-Hamiltonian and the CDJ Lagrangian. I have no real results to present here.
When the Ashtekar-Hamiltonian was first found, it seemed clear that it was a purely (3t 1)dimensional formulation, which relied on the use of self-dual 2-forms, which only exist
in fourdimensional spacetimes. Later, it was shown [231 that the Ashtekar formulation
also exists in (2+1) dimensions. The natural question is then: is it also possible to find an
Ashtekar-Hamiltonian in dimensions higher than (3+1)? To try to answer that question, I
will define two different meanings of 'higher-dimensional Ashtekar formulation'.
First, perhaps the obvious definition is: a canonical formulation of Einstein gravity

on the Yang-Mills phase space. If we assume that this theory has only gauge and
diffeomorphism symmetries, we can calculate the number of degrees of freedom in a
general theory of this type, and compare with the ADM formulation of Einstein gravity:
let the spacetime have dimension (D l), and the Yang-Mills gauge-group have dimension
N . Then, the number of degrees of freedom per point in spacetime is: for the ADM
formulation: (D(D+1)/2) - (D 1) = (D - 2 ) ( D + 1)/2, and for the 'Ashtekar

+
+

1124

P Pelddn

formulation D x N - N - (D 1) = N(D - I ) - (D I), where I have subtracted

the number of first-class constraints from half the number of phase-space variables. (In
the ADM formulation, the phasespace coordinate is the d-dimensional symmetric spatial
metric, and the only local symmetries are the diffeomorphism symmetries. In the Ashtekar
formulation, the phase-space coordinate is the spatial restriction of the gauge connection,
and the symmetries are N gauge symmetries and (D 1) diffeomorphism symmetries.)
In order to have a realization of Einstein gravity on Yang-Mills phase space, with the
above-mentioned symmetries, the number of degrees of freedom must coincide, meaning
that

N=

D ( D 1)
2 ( D - 1)

(4.20)

Checking the known results for @+I) and (3+1) dimensions, gives N = 3 in both cases,
which is the dimensionality for SO(1,Z) and SO(3). Now, if it is possible to find this
generalization, the dimensionality N of the gauge group must be an integer value. However,
it is easy to see from the equation above that there are no D > 3, that will give an
integer N . If N is an integer, then it must be possible to factorize out the factor (D - I)
from the numerator. But the numerator consists of the product of the two subsequent
integers greater than ( D - l), and, although I do not give a proof of this statement,
it is obvious that this is not possible for D > 3. This means that it is impossible to
find a realization of Einstein gravity on Yang-Mills phase space, with only gauge and
diffeomorphism symmetries. If one adds further symmetries to the theory, it may of course
be possible to find this realization, altogether this gives the conclusion that the obvious
higher-dimensional Ashtekar formulation does not exist.
Another definition of a higher-dimensional Ashtekar formulation is: a gauge and
diffeomorphism-invariant canonical formulation on the Yang-Mills phase space. Thus, one
just relaxes the requirement that the theory must equal the Einstein theory of gravity, and
instead allows the theory to have an arbitrary number of degrees of freedom. With this
definition, I believe it is possible to find a higher-dimensional Ashtekar formulatfon. (In
fact, the conventional (3+1)-dimensional Ashtekar Hamiltonian with gauge-group S0(3), is
trivially generalized to higher dimensions. However, in dimensions higher than (3+1), the
spatial metric will then always be degenerate.) In order to find the Ashtekar-Hamiltonian
one must again concentrate on finding a suitable Hamiltonian constraint. Gauss law and
the vector constraint are trivially generalized to a r b i t r q spacetime dimensions and gaugegroups. And again, the requirements the Hamiltonian constraint must satisfy are that it
should be gauge- and diffeomorphism-covariant,and obey (4.3). I will not try to guess or
derive any Hamiltonian constraints here, instead I will describe another way of finding this
formulation. If we start at the CDJ level, which is easier generalized to higher dimensions, the
Legendre transform will take us to the wanted Hamiltonian. To construct the CDJ Lagrangian
in arbitrary spacetime dimensions, one may use the building blocks: the scalar density field
tl, two epsilon tensor densities, tUfly-.
and (D I) field strengths, F&. (This construction
of a higher-dimensional CDJ Lagrangian was first given in [SI.) Then, one needs some
gauge-covariant objects like the Killing metric and/or the structure constants from the Liealgebra, to properly contract the gauge-indices. This, in general non-unique, Lagrangian is
both gauge- and diffeomorphism-covariant, and the Hamiltonian formulation will therefore
satisfy the required algebra (4.1)-(4.3). (It could of course happen that additional secondclass constraints appear, as well.) However, the major problem with this type of construction
is that the Legendre transform is generally rather problematic to perform. (Nobody has yet
showed how this should be done, in dimensions higher than (3+1).)

Artionsfor graviiy, with generalizations

1 I25

So, to summarize the speculations, it seems that the obvious generalization of Ashtekars
variables to higher dimensions, is not possible to find, without the introduction of additional
symmetries. However, if one just seeks a gauge- and diffeomorphism-invariant formulation
on Yang-Mills phase space, it ought to be possible to find this formulation from a Legendre
transform from the higher-dimensional CDJ Lagrangian.
5. Outlook

When it became clear that conventional Einstein gravity is perturbatively nonrenormalizable, and that the attempts of improving this behaviour, such as higher-derivative
theories and supergravity, had also failed, many physicists took this as a sign that gravity
and/or quantum mechanics need a drastic modification before it will be possible to unite
them. The alternative conclusion from this failure is that it is the methods that are wrong,
and, in fact, knowing the failure of perturbative quantization of gravity, it is easy to
find reasons why a perturbative approach to quantum gravity is bound to fail; see e.g.
[4,20,44,45] for enlightening discussions of perturbative versus non-perturbative treatments
of quantum gravity.
Without the adequate skill of handling non-perturbative path integrals, we are left with
canonical quantization d la Dirac, in order to be able to handle the quantization of gravity,
non-perturbatively. Earlier attempts of quantizing gravity canonically, have all been based
on the ADM-Hamikonian. and these attempts have failed due to both technical as well as
conceptual problems. The technical problems are mostly concentrated in the complicated
Hamiltonian constraint, the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. Since the Hamiltonian constraint, in
the ADM formulation, has a complicated non-polynomial dependence on the basic phasespace coordinate, the spatial metric, no one has yet been able to find an explicit, and well
defined, quantum solution to this constraint. The conceptual problems are the problems that
any attempt of quantizing gravity eventually will have to face; e.g. the problem of time,
and the problem of finding/defining physical observables in a theory of quantum gravity
[20, 44, 46, 471.
When Ashtekar [Z] reformulated the Hamiltonian for gravity to be a formulation
on S O ( 3 ) Yang-Mills phase space, with rather simple polynomial and homogeneous
constraints, the above-mentioned technical problems were reduced significantly. Instead,
the Ashtekar-Hamiltonian has another new feature that was absent in the ADM-Hamiltonian
namely that the theory is complex, and one needs reality conditions in order to be able to
extract real general relativity. This could be a serious drawback for the Ashtekar formulation,
or as an optimist would say: the reality condition may be something positive in it they will
help us select the correct inner product for the theory.
Anyway, since the discovery of the Ashtekar-Hamiltonian, the quantization program,
using Dirac quantization of the Ashtekar-Hamiltonian, has grown to be an active field of
research. There already exist two excellent books covering this subject [20, 441, a number
of different reviews [48-511, and more than 300 publications 1521, all related to Ashtekars
variables.
The first attempts, in this program. used the so-called connection representation [3],
where the wavefunctionals are holomorphic functionals of the self-dual Ashtekar connection,
and the trace of the holonomy of this connection around a closed loop can be shown to
satisfy both Gauss law and the Hamiltonian constraint. The vector constraint is not solved,
however. This soon led to the loop representation, where the wave functionals are complex
functionals of loops on the spatial hypersurface [4, 53-55]. In this representation, the
algebra that is quantized is a non-canonical graded T-algebra, where T stands for traces of

I I26

P Pelddn

holonomies with momentum fields inserted along the loop. This algebra is automatically
SU(2)- (S0(3)-)invariant, which means that Gauss law is already taken care of at the
classical level (reduced phase-space quantization). The vector constraint, which classically
generates spatial diffeomorphisms, is solved d la Dirac by only considering wave functionals
of knot and link classes of loops. (One really considers generalized knot and link classes; for
details see e.g. [56].) It was also soon clear that the Hamiltonian constraint is solved by using
only non-intersecting, smooth loops [4]. Later, several other solutions to all the quantum
constraints have been found 1.54, 551. However, there are still two extremely important
ingredients missing; the inner product and observables. Without these, one cannot calculate
any physical quantities, and the solutions do not really give any information about the
theory. Another important ingredient is the general solution to all the constraints. Perhaps
that is too much to ask for, but what is really needed is an understanding of the importance
of the known solutions. For all we know, the solutions that have been found so far could all
belong to a degenerate set of measure zero. (That is, they could be totally unimportant.)
The quantization program also includes work on linearized gravity [57, 581, (2t1)dimensional gravity [59], Maxwell fields [60, 611, ( I t I)-dimensional QED [62], etc.
Finally, I want to give my opinion and expectations of how the CDJ-formulation as well
as the generalizations of Einstein gravity can contribute to a better understanding of classical
and quantum gravity. So far, nothing really important has come out of the discovery of
the CDJ Lagrangian. (When the CDJ Lagrangian was found [ 5 ] , the general solution to the
classical diffeomorphism constraints, modulo Gauss law, were also found, but this could
have been found without the knowledge of the CDJ Lagrangian.) There have been attempts
to make progress with path-integral quantization, and discretized approximations using the
CDJ Lagrangian [63, 641, but so far there are no real results coming out of this. Related
to the CDJ Lagrangian there have also been some new discoveries concerning gravitational
instantons 165-671. In my opinion, the most interesting outcome of the CDJ Lagrangian
is, so far, the gauge-group generalization. This generalization could also have been found
without the knowledge of the CDJ formulation, but it is really techniques and ideas coming
from this pure connection formulation that have enabled the finding of this generalization.
Why are the generalizations, presented in section 4, so interesting? So far, none of
these generalizations have a satisfactory treatment of the reality conditions, or the metric
signature condition. However, if these, and possibly other, problems can be solved, the new
cosmological constants are on the same footing as the conventional Einstein cosmological
constant, and we will need a theoretical explanation of why they are all zero, or keep them in
the theory. Perhaps, the introduction of all these new cosmological constan& will eventually
help us understand why it is the pure gravity Einstein equation without any cosmological
constants that seems to be the correct equation for describing classical nature. A positive
expectation regarding the gauge-group generalization of Ashtekars variables, is that this
generalization may be a suitable theory for the loop representation quantization of coupled
gravity-Yang-Mills theory. This is otherwise a problem in the Ashtekar formulation; the
coupling of gravity to Yang-Mills theory has a Hamiltonian constraint that is seemingly not
suited for the loop representation quantization.

Appendix A. Conventions and notation

Indices. 01, B. Y. .. . denote spacetime indices, I , J , K , ... denote S0(1,3) indices (or
S0(1,2) in (2t1) dimensions), a, b, c, ... denote spatial indices.
Symmetrization and nnfisymmetrizafion. Symmetrization and antisymmetrization of indices

Actions for graviry, with generdizationr

1127

The Minkowskimetric. The Minkowski metric is chosen to be rlJJ := Diag(-1, 1, I , 1) in

(3+1) dimensions, and qIJ := Diag(-1, 1 , I) in ( 2 t l ) dimensions.
(3+1)-dimensionai e-symbol.
and eapys are totally antisymmetric, and e0lU =
eo]= = 1 in every coordinate system, implying that
is a tensor density of weight
1, and eaPys has weight 1. For any non-degenerate tensor K,p, the following is true:

* p ~ s= K K ~ G K ~ C K K ~ ~ K ~ K ~ ~ " ~ '

(A4

where K := detK,p = ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ P ~ K , , K ~ , K ~ ~ K ~ ~ .

e''~

Spatial restriction o f 4 " .

following identities:

ahc

e o ~ ',~&!,c

:= EO&,

= s,!U s.sr
h CI

"hC&,

"hc

.-

EO&

= sys:'

Ede

= 2s:.

meaning that eUbcsatisfies the

(A.7)
(A.8)
(A.%

= 1.
S 0 ( 1 , 3 ) E -symbol. e l J K Lis totally antisymmetric, and
V J N q K P 7 L Q e M N P Q , meaning that 0123 = -1, and the following identities
are valid:
e I J K L t M N p p = - G , I1
s N sJ~ s QK L1
(A.IO)

ElJKL :=VIM

l J K LE ~ N =
~ QS
-S;~!S';
~

(A.11)

sQ j

~ = ~-26, ~IK Ll
i

e l J K L t i=~ -6aQ.
~ ~L

(A.12)
(A.13)

(2 +I)-dimensional E -symbol. espy and espy are totally antisymmetric, and eo'* = EO,> = 1
in every coordinate system, implying that capy is a tensor density of weight + I , and cUpy
has weight -1. For any non-degenerate tensor Kap, the following is true:

where K := detK,p = ~ E " @ ~ E ~ Kp.Kyp.

~PK,,
Spatial restriction of
identities:

euh := ebb, e,b := EO,,~, meaning that e" satisfies the following

= 8,Iua,hl

e~beor= 6,h .

(A.15)
(A.16)

1128

P Pelddn

SO(1,2) E -symbol. e l J K is totally antisymmetric. and <012 = I .

:= V I M V I N V K P cMNP,meaning that eolZ = -1, and the following identities are
valid:

EIJK

lIK

[I J

KI

(A. 17)

= -6M6N6p
lIK
iJ K I
E l N P = -6N8,D
IJK

EMNP

ElJP = -26,

(A.18)
(A.19)

Appendix E. Definitions of connections and curvature

Definition of metric compatible affine connection and spin-connection. The affine connection
r$ and the spin-connection mLJ are here defined to annihilate the tetrad e,!:

Y peyl
Vuegi := acepl - r m
(zero-torsion is assumed, and therefore

W.I

ea, = 0

(B.1)

rLpl= 0). This means that

+ mal K v K +~

= w r l ) = 0 (B.2)
or, w," is antisymmetric, and is therefore so(l,3) Lie-algebra valued. Now. to solve for
rap
Y and U:' from (B.I), it is convenient to first solve for r,$ from the equation
v m ( e p l e ! ) = v a v r I = aatllI

veD,gpy = VdeaIe;) = a,g,Y

- r:ag,y

vIK

- riYgac= o

(B.3)

To solve for rZp,one does a cyclic permutation of the three indices a,3, and Y two times.
The two resulting equations are then added together, and finally equation (B.3) is subtracted
Y the result is
from this sum. Due to the symmetry of raB,

+ aYgup - apgy, - 2r;,gep = o

a.gpY

which is easily solved:

- i CY,
- 2g ( .gcp

cP

(B.4)

+ sage, - acgaa).

(B.5)

Then, putting (B.5) into (B.I), the solution for W,,K becomes
+ e P K r YUeP f Y

(B.6)
- 1l e d l a K I + e PKIe,L aa e<L) .
Thus, (B.5) and (B.6) are the unique solution to (B.l), and an indication to why it is
possible to uniquely solve for these connections, can be found by counting degrees of
freedom. In ( D I) dimensions, equation (B.l) has (D 1)3 components, while r$ and
m:' has ( ( D I ) ( D 2 ) / 2 ) ( D 1) and ((D l)D/Z)(D
1) algebraically independent
components, showing that the number of unknowns are the same as the number of equations.
So, as long as the system of equations (B.l) is non-degenerate, there will always exist a
unique solution. (The non-degeneracy of @.I) is closely connected to the non-degeneracy
of the tetrad field.)
IK
0,

= -eBKa,e;

Another derivation of the spin-connection. Instead of (B.l), the spin-connection can be

defined as follows:
vl.ep1, := al,eplf

+q./eal,

=0.

(B.7)

Note that (B.l) implies (B.7) but the converse is not true. (r$ is not even defined in
(B.7).) Do (B.l) and (B.7) then have the same solution for U:'? Yes, they have, and
that can be understood by dimensional counting again: in (D t 1) dimensions, (8.7)

Actions for gravily. with generalizations

1129

represents ((D 1)0/2)(D 1) equations, and the spin-connection has the same number
of algebraically independent components, meaning that (B.7) has a unique solution. Then,
since both (B.l) and (B.7) have unique solutions, and (B.l) implies (B.7), the solution must
be the same.
To directly solve (B.7) for wLJ, one can use the same trick that was used to solve for
rzp.First, convert all free indices in (B.7) into flat S0(1,3) indices,
L

= 0.

(B.8)
Then, do a cyclic permutation of the free indices I , J and if two times, and add and subtract
the three resulting equations,
e%S, (alweglI

EpIL)

+ G I J K- G K I J+2eTwa,~= O

~ J K I

(B.9)

where I have defined G J K J:= eYe$a[,epl,. The solution for the spin-connection is
--I J
(B.lO)
% K l - 2% (GJKI
GIJK - GKIJ)

Comparing (B.10) with (B.6) gives exact agreement.

Definition ofthe curvaturefield. The Riemann tensor is defined as follows:

%.O,IA,

= Rugeh,
%D~IAI= R , ~ I ~ J .

(B.11)
(B.12)

By using these definitions for a vector field of the form A< = e:Al, one can show that
e ~ D l e D g l h=, e;R,prfie;AJ = Rap/f AJ
(B.13)

and, since this is valid for all vectors AI, the following relation must hold:
Reg, = R,p.Pe;eL.

(B.14)

Now, using the definitions (B.11) and (B.12) together with the definition of the covariant
derivative (B.1). it is straightforward to derive the explicit form of the Riemann tensor:

= al~r;lprlapr;l,

(B.15)

IK

(B.16)

R$ = a[uwpllJ qOL
wp1.r

Einsteins equation. Einsteins equation for pure gravity with a cosmological constant, in
the metric formulation, is

- I g p R -A g p =0

(B.17)

Using the relation (B.14), the definition of the Ricci tensor Rwv := R,,,,@ and the definition
of the curvature scalar R := gpYR,,, Einsteins equation can be rewritten in terms of the
tetrad:

R,,, J el,eJ
l o - ?e,e,K
I K
( e Y 1 e ? R y e l J 2A) = 0.

Or, multiplying with

epl

(B.18)

to get the form that follows from the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian,

R,,.eP; - f e : ( e Y K e ~ R y , K J + 2 h ) = O .

(B.19)

Hybrid connections. Here, I want to show that it is possible to define a unique spinconnection compatible with a sort of hybrid vielbein variable e:, where the dimensionality
of the spatial index is one unit lower than the dimensionality of the internal index.
Consider a (D I)-dimensional spacetime, and a vielbein field e,! where (Y take
values 0, 1, ..., D,and the I-index is a flat Lorentz index, taking values 0, 1. ... D. In a

I I30

P Peldiin

Hamiltonian formulation where one has to partly break the manifest spacetime covariance,
the 'vielbein' is split into two parts, eo, and e o , , where a is a spatial index taking values
I , 2, . . . , D . Then, I define a spin-connection m a J Jcompatible with this 'hybrid' field e,,,
D,ehl

:= &ehl - r;,,e,,

+ w,l'ehJ

= 0.

(B.20)

At first sight, it seems to be impossible to find a unique solution for w , , ~ ' , since there
exists no inverse to e"!, such that e"'e,, = 6:. It is, however, possible to uniquely
solve for both r:,, and u U l Jand
,
that can again be understood by counting degrees
of freedom. Equation (B.20) represents D 2 ( D 1) equations, and r:, and
have
( D ( D 1)/2)D and ( D ( D l)/2)D number of algebraically independent components,
giving exact agreement between the number of unknowns and the number of equations.
Another way of understanding this is to note that since wiJ is antisymmetric, one does not
lose any information in uLJ by projecting it on err/ as long as ea] represents D linearly
independent SO ( I , D ) vectors.
To explicitly solve (B.20) for U:', it is convenient to introduce the unit, time-like vector
field, N I , orthogonal to e,]:

N'e,] = 0

N'N' = - 1

*NI=*

EIJK.,,P
e,lebJe,K.

. .eRPc"hc...R

D!-J

Then, I define the projection operator,

q-11 - e a' e,J = v ' ~ + N ' N . '

(B.21)

(B.22)

where e" := qube; and quh is the inverse to q a b := e a l e ; . I use this projection operator to
project out time-like (primed) and space-like (tilded) indices,
1' = 1
'
' +AT = -NI N ~ A J $ 1 =
~ 7 ,I~ i J .
(B.23)

Using this,

can be written as

0
:
'

IJ
0,

- 0,v'ji + w,ij

(B.24)

Now, it is straightforward to solve (B.20) for r:,, ~ ~ " ' 1and mai7. First,
for as usual:

rZb= ;qCc (aoqeb+ ahqpu- a.&

can be solved

(B.W

and then the spin-connection is easily giiren:

W,,.j

= eb,N,NKaaehK

(B.26)
(B.27)

_ _ =61
_K e b J a m +e$r:,e,,.

Thus, (B.24), (B.25), (B.26) and (B.27) give the unique solution to (B.20).
Note, however, that the alternative definition
~ I . e h ] l= al.ehll

+ q o ~ J e =b 0~ ~

(B.28)

does not have a unique solution for 0 ~ 1 ~ which

.
can be seen by dimensional counting:
the number of equations are ( D ( D - 1 ) / 2 ) ( D I ) while the number of unknowns are
( D ( D 1)/2)D, showing that there are too few equations to uniquely specify the spinconnection.

Variations ofw;'

and Rap". From (B.16) it follows that

6&IJ

= a[.6WpIiJ

+ 6W[elKWfl]KJ+ 01,I K 6WfllK'

= ~ [ c i 6 6 J ~ l i J(B.29)
.

Actions for gravig, with generalizations

1131

Note that 8
~ is a~Lorentz
covariant
~
object since it is the difference between two Lorentz
with respect to variations of e,, one can use the
connections. To find the variation of
defining equation
Di,eplr := al,epll

+ w~

epl, = 0.

(B.30)

Varying this equation, gives

%Sepl/

+S~I./

(B.31)

ql~= 0

but, (B.31)is the same equation as (B.7), with wa -+ 6w,

meaning that the solution to (B.31) is

- ?e(1 (DIrr~c:i+ eBJIe:Dp8e,r)

I

and ai,epl, -+ D1a8epl,,

(B.32)

Together, (B.29)and (B.32)then give the variation of R , ~ I Jwith respect to e a / .

References
[ I ] Green M, Schwarz J H and Winen E 1987 Superstring Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
[2] Ashtekar A 1986 Phys. Rev. Len. 57 2244; 1987 Phys. Rev. D 36 1587
[3] Jacobson T and Smolin L 1988 Nucl. Phy,s B 299 295
[4] Rovelli C and Smolin L 1990 Nucl. Phys. B 331 80
[5] Capovilla R. Dell J and Jacobson T 1989 Phys. Rev. Lett. 63 2325
Capovilla R. Dell J, Jacobson T and Mason L 1991 Clars. Quantum Grav. 8 41
[6] Capovilla R 1992 Nucl. Phys. B 373 233
171 Bengtsson I 1991 Phys. Lett. 254B 55
[81 Bengtsson 1 and Peldh P 1992 Inf. J. Mod. Phys. A 7 1287
[9] Pel& P 1992 Phyr. Rev. D 46 R2279
[IO] Regge T and Teitelboim C 1974 Ann. Phys. 88 286
[I I] Soloviev V 0 1992 Phys. Lett. 292 30
[I21 Capovilla R, Dell J and Jacobson T 1991 Clms. Quantum Grav. 8 59
Capovilla R and Jacobson T 1992 Claw. Quantum Gmv. 9 1839
[ 131 Kijowski 1 1980 Differential geometric methods in mathematical physics Lecture notes in Mathemtics vol.
836 ed P L Garcia el al (Berlin: Springer)
[ 141 Schrbdinger E 1950 Space-time Structure (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
[I51 t Hooft G 1991 Nucl. Phys. B 357 211
[I61 Ashtekar A, Romano J D and Tate R S 1989 PhyJ. Rev. D 40 2572
1171 Nicolai Hand Matschull H J 1992 Aspects of Canonical Gravity and Supergravity DESYpreprinf 92-099
[I81 Amowitt R. Deser S and Misner C W 1962 Gravitation: An introduction to Current Research Ed L Winen
(New York Wiley)
[I91 Ashtekar A, Balachandmn A P and Jo S G 1989 Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 4 1493
[ZO] Ashrekar A 1991 Lectures on Non-perturbalive Canonical Giauify (Singapore: World Scientific)
1211 H u d n V and Kuchhal; K 1990 Phys. Reid. D 42 4070
[221 Samuel J 1987 Pramana-J. Phys. 28 L429
Jacobson T and Smolin L 1988 Class. Quantum Grau, 5 583
[23] Bengtsson I 1989 Int. J. Mod, Phyr A 4 5527
[24] Wallner R P 1992 Phys. Rev. D 46 4263
[25] Henneaux M, Nelson J E and Schomblond C 1989 Phys. Rev. D 39 434
[%I Peldh P 1991 Class. Quantum Grav. 8 1765
[271 Urbantke H 1984 J. Math. Phys. 25 2321
[28] Capovilla R and Jacobson T 1992 Mod. Phys. Let!. 7 1871
[29] Bengtsson 1 and Peldh P 1990 Phys. Lett. 244B 261
130) Pelddn P 1990 Phys. Lett. 248B 62
[31] Bengtsson I 1991 Ashtekars variables and the cosmological constants GCteborgpreprint ITP 91-33
[32] Plebanski J F 1977 J. Math. Phys. 18 251 I
[33] Koshti S 1992 Closs. Quantum Gruv. 9 1937
[34] Winen E 1988 N u d Phys. B 311 46

1132

P Pelddn

I351 Romano J D 1993 Gen. Re/. Grnv. 25 759

I361 PeldBn P 1992 Class. Quantum Crav. 9 2079
I371 Ftiliip G 1992 Mod Phy.?. Lett. A 7 3495
[381 Bengtsson I and BostrOm 0 1992 Class. Quantum Grav. 9 L47
BostrOm 0 1992 Cosmological constants galore Licenfiate Thpsi~Chdmers University of Technology
[39] Benglsson I private communication
[401 PeldSn P 1993 Nucl. Phys. B 395 239
[41] Deser S. Jackiw R and Templeton S 1982Ann. Phy,t. (NY)140 372
Deser S and Xiang X 1991 Phys. Lett. 263B 39
[421 Hojmm S, Kuchu' K and Teitelboim C 1976 Ann. Phys., (NY) 96 88
[43] Bengtsson I 1991 J. Moth, Phys. 32 3158
[44] Ashtekar A 1988 New Per.sppectives in Canonical Gravity (Napoli: Bibliopolis)
1451 lsham C 1990 Conceptual problems in quantum gravity lmperialpreprinr TPT90.91/4
(461 1991 Pmc. Osgnod Hill COG Concepfual Problem in Quanrum Gravity ed A Ashtekar and 1 Stlchel
(Boston: Birkhauser)
[47] Isham C 1992 Canonical quantum graviry and lhe problem of time I m p e r i n l p r e p r i n r ~ P T 9 1 . 9 ~ 5
[48] Rovelli C 1991 Cima Quontum Grov. 8 1613
1491 Kodama H 1992 Quantum gravity by the complex canonical formulation gr-qwP211022; lnt. J. Mod. Phys.
D 1439
[SO] Pullin J 1993 Knot theory and quantum graviry: A primer Uniwr.si@ of Utah preprint UU.REL-93/1fl
kepfh/9301028
[5 I ] Smolin L 1992 What can we learn from the study of non-penurbative quantum genenl relativity?
gr-qwP211019
[SZ] Briigmann B 1993 Bibliography of Publicntions related to Classical and Quantum Gravity in terms ofthe
Ashtekar's Variables gr-qcT9303015
[531 Blencowe M P 1990 Nucl. Phys. 341 213
[54] BrUgmannn B, Gambini Rand Pullin J 1992 Phys. Rei*.Len. 68 431
[55] Briigmann B. Gambini R and Pullin 1 1992 Nucl. Phys. B 385 581
[56] Smolin L 1992 Recent Developments in nonperfurbative quantum gmvity Proe. XXIl Gip lnr Seminar on
Thenreiical Physics Quantum Craviry and Cosmology (Catalonia 1991) (Singapore: World Scientific)
[57] Ashtekar A, Rovelli C and Smolin L 1991 Phys. Rev. D 44 1740 Phys. Rev. Lett. 69 (1992) U 7
[SS] Zegward J 1992 Nocl. Pkys. B 378 288
[59] Ashtekar A. Husain V, Rovelli C. Samuel J and Smolin L 1989 Closs. Quantum Grow 6 LIS5
Ashtekar A 1990 Lessons from 2 t 1 dimensional quantum gravity Strings 90 ed R Amowitt et a1 Singapore:
World Scientific)
Marolf D. Loop representations for 2+1 gravity on a toms Syracuse preprint S U G P - 9 3 / 3 1
[60] Ashtekar A and Rovelli C 1992 Class. Quantum Gmv. 9 I121
[61] Gambini Rand Pullin J 1993 Phys. Rev. D 47 R5214
[62] Hdlin I 1993 QEDl+l by Dinc Quantization GiiteborgpreprintlTP 93-8
[63] Smolin L 1992 Class Quantum Gmv. 9 883
[64] Miller M and Smolin L 1993 A new discretization of classical and quantum generaJ relativity gr-qdp304005
[651 Samuel J 1988 Class. Quantum Grav. 5 L123
[66] Capovilla R, Dell J and Jacobson T 1990 Clors. Quantum Cmv. 7 LI
[67] Tome C G 1990 Pkys. Rev. D 41 3620