Gravitation and Cosmology

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 67–70 | Cite as

On canonical transformations of gravitational variables in extended phase space

  • T. P. ShestakovaEmail author


In the recent years, a certain attention was attracted to the statement that Hamiltonian formulations of general relativity (GR), in which different parametrizations of gravitational variables were used, may not be related by a canonical transformation. An example was given by Dirac’s Hamiltonian formulation and that of Arnowitt-Deser-Misner. It might be indicative of a non-equivalence of these formulations and the original (Lagrangian) formulation of GR. The problem is believed to be of importance since many authors make use of various representations of the gravitational field as a starting point in searching for a way to reconcile the theory of gravity with quantum principles. It can be shown that the above-mentioned conclusion on non-equivalence of different Hamiltonian formulations is based on a consideration of canonical transformations in the phase space of physical degrees of freedom only, while the transformations also involve the gauge degrees of freedom. We shall give a clear proof that the Hamiltonian formulations corresponding to different parametrizations of the gravitational variables are related by canonical transformations in extended phase space embracing the gauge degrees of freedom on equal footing with the physical ones. It will be demonstrated for the full gravitational theory in a wide enough class of parametrizations and gauge conditions.


Ghost Poisson Bracket Lagrangian Density Canonical Transformation Hamiltonian Formulation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    P. A. M. Dirac, Can. J. Math. 2, 129 (1950).MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. Roy. Soc. A 246, 326 (1958).MathSciNetADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. Roy. Soc. A 246, 333 (1958).MathSciNetADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Arnowitt, S. Deser, and C. W. Misner, The Dynamics of General Relativity, in: Gravitation: an Introduction to Current Research, Ed. by L. Witten (Wiley, New York, 1963), p. 227.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    N. Kiriushcheva and S. V. Kuzmin, The Hamiltonian Formulation of General Relativity: Myth and Reality, gr-qc/0809.0097.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    V. A. Savchenko, T. P. Shestakova, and G. M. Vereshkov, Grav. Cosmol. 7, 18 (2001).MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    V. A. Savchenko, T. P. Shestakova, and G. M. Vereshkov, Grav. Cosmol. 7, 102 (2001).MathSciNetADSzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshits, Mechanics (Moscow, 1988).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    E. S. Fradkin and G. A. Vilkovisky, Phys. Lett. B 55, 224 (1975).MathSciNetADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    I. A. Batalin and G. A. Vilkovisky, Phys. Lett. B 69, 309 (1977).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. S. Fradkin and T. E. Fradkina, Phys. Lett. B 72, 343 (1978).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Theoretical and Computational PhysicsSouthern Federal UniversityRostov-on-DonRussia

Personalised recommendations