Keywords:
General relativity
,
General relaitivity formalism
,
General relativity equations and solutions
,
Gravitation
,
Quantum gravity
,
Alternative gravity theories
Rights:
Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 España
Abstract:
This thesis investigates the metric and tetrad formulations of three gravitational field
theories in manifolds with timelike boundaries within the covariant phase space program.
With the recently developed relative bicomplex framework, we explore the space
This thesis investigates the metric and tetrad formulations of three gravitational field
theories in manifolds with timelike boundaries within the covariant phase space program.
With the recently developed relative bicomplex framework, we explore the space
of solutions and presymplectic structures associated with each action principle and
analyse their equivalence.
The first action we consider is the Einstein-Hilbert (EH) action with the Gibbons-
Hawking-York boundary term. By including the appropriate boundary terms in the
variational principles, we show that the metric and tetrad formulations derived from
them are equivalent. Furthermore, we show that their solution spaces are the same and
that their presymplectic structures and associated charges coincide.
The second action we consider is the Palatini action with the Obukhov boundary
term, assuming torsion and non-metricity, and we prove the equivalence between its
metric and tetrad formulations. Furthermore, we show that the metric and tetradsector
of the first-order Palatini formulation are equivalent to the metric and tetrad
formulations of the EH action.
Lastly, we introduce the Hojman-Mukku-Sayed (HMS) action, a generalisation of
the Palatini action plus the Holst term in the presence of boundaries with non-metricity
and torsion. We prove that the space of solutions of the HMS and Palatini actions coincided
and conclude that HMS’s metric and tetrad sectors are identical to their corresponding
versions of the EH action. Additionally, we prove that the Palatini and HMS
Lagrangians are not cohomologically equal despite defining the same space of solutions.
Consequently, a careful analysis is required for the presymplectic structures and the
charges because they may differ. However, we show that the covariant phase spaces of
both theories were equivalent. This sheds light on some open problems regarding the
equivalence of their associated charges in different formulations.[+][-]