|Nov15-09, 07:07 AM||#1|
Gauge formulation of gravity and supergravity
Hi, I have a question on the gauge formulation of gravity and supergravity.
The question that I have first concerns the gauge formulation of gravity. As I understood from various articles by Sardanashvily (see e.g. D.Ivanenko, G.Sardanashvily, The gauge treatment of gravity, Physics Reports 94 (1983) 1., or Sardanashvily, Classical gauge theory of gravity, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0208054) gravity can be formulated as a gauge theory of the Lorentz group and the metric can then be interpreted as a goldstone field. In fact, Ivanenko & Sardanashvily point out that the gauge formulation of gravity using the Poincare group encounters a number of problems (as far as I understand it). Does anyone know the current viewpoint on the gauge formulation of gravity? Does it correspond to the formulation provided by Sardanashivly? Or are there still Poincare gauge formulations in circulation ?
Furthermore, if the claims of Sardanashvily are correct, then the supergravity theory should also be defined in terms of superbundles with the super extension of the Lorentz group, instead of the super poincare group (see www.ias.ac.in/jarch/pramana/26/00000289.pdf). Somehow, again, I have seen no mentioning of this in other literature, even though these ideas arose in the 80's. Does anyone perhaps know why? Everywhere I look, i find that one considers supergravity as a gauge theory of the superpoincare group. The question I thus have, is how is this possible in the light of the remarks that Sardanashivly makes on the gauge formulation of just gravity.
I hope anyone can shed some light on the matter.
|Similar Threads for: Gauge formulation of gravity and supergravity|
|LQG as a Repackaging of Carmeli's SL(2,C) Gauge Gravity||General Physics||0|
|String, Gauge/Gravity, QCD and QGP||Beyond the Standard Model||0|
|gauge theories of gravity||Special & General Relativity||12|
|Equivalence between path integral formulation and matrix formulation||Quantum Physics||1|
|[SOLVED] Re: equivalence between path integral formulation and other QM formulation||General Physics||4|