Is GR Considered a Gauge Theory?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the classification of General Relativity (GR) as a gauge theory, highlighting its general covariance and background independence. It is noted that while GR exhibits gauge invariance through diffeomorphism invariance, it lacks a global structure, complicating the justification for "maximally extended solutions" like the Kruskal-Szekeres solution. The conversation emphasizes that solutions to Einstein's equations are not unique without specifying initial conditions on a hypersurface, raising questions about the physical relevance of such extensions. The role of tetrads is discussed, indicating that they provide a local frame but do not imply a global geometry. Ultimately, the debate reflects on the implications of locality and the nature of solutions in the context of GR's foundational principles.
  • #51
PAllen said:
There is no such thing as an a-posterior assumption. If something follows from you assumptions it is a consequence not an assumption.

lol, can't you recognize a joke?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
TrickyDicky said:
Here is an interesting discussion about analyticity in physics, one of the answers, by unknown even refers to GR (in this case it makes reference to the no-hair theorem that is also valid only for real analytic manifolds).

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/114555/does-physics-need-non-analytic-smooth-functions

General theorems of this type typically do required a number of technical assumptions to prove anything. Such theorems don't assume anything about the metric, thus they typically need smoothness assumptions to constrain the problem enough to accomplish the proof.

Again, in the case of uniquness of KS geometry, such additional assumption is not needed because the existence and vanishing of the Einstein tensor everywhere is already requiring a sufficient degree of smoothness.
 
  • #53
PAllen said:
General theorems of this type typically do required a number of technical assumptions to prove anything. Such theorems don't assume anything about the metric, thus they typically need smoothness assumptions to constrain the problem enough to accomplish the proof.

Again, in the case of uniquness of KS geometry, such additional assumption is not needed because the existence and vanishing of the Einstein tensor everywhere is already requiring a sufficient degree of smoothness.

You are again conflating smoothness and analyticity.
 
  • #54
I must issue a correction here. I've read too many mathematically sloppy treatments of Birkhoff. It turns out, that as strong as it is, you really do need additional assumptions to arrive uniquely at the KS geometry. Here is a reference discussing these issues:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5194
 
  • #55
PAllen said:
I must issue a correction here. I've read too many mathematically sloppy treatments of Birkhoff. It turns out, that as strong as it is, you really do need additional assumptions to arrive uniquely at the KS geometry.

Finally, I was starting to suspect your account had been stolen by someone not very reasonable. ;-)
 

Similar threads