BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

N. Kiriushcheva

N. Kiriushcheva contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
gr-qchep-th

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
13works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

13 published item(s)

preprint2012arXiv

Comment on "Modified F(R) Hořava-Lifshitz gravity: a way to accelerating FRW cosmology" by M. Chaichian, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, M. Oksanen, A. Tureanu

The partial Hamiltonian analysis of the Hořava-type action presented in the paper by M. Chaichian, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, M. Oksanen, A. Tureanu (Class. Quant. Grav. 27 (2011) 185021) is incorrect; for the authors' choice of variables, a covariant shift, instead of a contravariant shift which is the one usually used in General Relativity (GR) in ADM variables, the true algebra of constraints differs from what they presented. The algebra of constraints for their choice of variables is explicitly given for GR and compared with the standard algebra.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Analysis of Hamiltonian formulations of linearized General Relativity

The different forms of the Hamiltonian formulations of linearized General Relativity/spin-two theories are discussed in order to show their similarities and differences. It is demonstrated that in the linear model, non-covariant modifications to the initial covariant Lagrangian (similar to those modifications used in full gravity) are in fact unnecessary. The Hamiltonians and the constraints are different in these two formulations but the structure of the constraint algebra and the gauge invariance derived from it are the same. It is shown that these equivalent Hamiltonian formulations are related to each other by a canonical transformation which is explicitly given. The relevance of these results to the full theory of General Relativity is briefly discussed.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Comment on "Arnowitt--Deser--Misner representation and Hamiltonian analysis of covariant renormalizable gravity" by M. Chaichian, M. Oksanen, A. Tureanu

The partial Hamiltonian analysis of the actions presented in the paper by M. Chaichian, M. Oksanen, A. Tureanu (Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1657 (2011)) is incorrect; the true algebra of constraints differs from what they claim for their choice of momentum constraint. Our blind acceptance of the correctness of their constraint algebra led us to conclude, wrongly, that a few of the models presented by the authors (sharing the same constraint algebra) are not invariant under spatial diffeomorphism. We "proved" this by using Noether's second theorem (see first version of the paper), but we then found a mistake in our calculations. The differential identity of spatial diffeomorphism is intact, therefore, their actions are invariant; but in this case, the spatial diffeomorphism gauge symmetry cannot be compatible with their algebra. We now explicitly demonstrate that the actual algebra of constraints is different, and briefly describe how it affects the generator and gauge transformations of the fields.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Comment on "Gauge Symmetries and Dirac Conjecture" by Y.-L. Wang, Z.-P. Li, K. Wang and some other counterexamples to the Dirac conjecture

We argue that the conclusion about the invalidity of the Dirac conjecture, made in the paper by Wang, Li, and Wang (Int. J. Theor. Phys. 48 1894, 2009), was based upon a flawed analysis of the proposed counterexamples. In the case of the Maxwell theory, the well-known gauge symmetry is contradicted by the results in the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian approaches presented by the authors. We also consider the oldest counterexample to the Dirac conjecture due to Allcock and present its natural parametrization.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Comment on `Hamiltonian formulation for the theory of gravity and canonical transformations in extended phase space' by T P Shestakova

We argue that the conclusion, `we cannot consider the Dirac approach as fundamental and undoubted', made in the paper by Shestakova (Class. Quantum Grav. 28 055009, 2011), is based upon an incomplete and flawed analysis of the simple model presented in section 3 of the article. We re-examine the analysis of this model and find that it does not support the author's conclusion. For the theory of gravity neither the equivalence of the effective action nor its Hamiltonian formulation is given by the author, therefore, we only provide a brief commentary.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Field-parametrization dependence of Dirac's method for constrained Hamiltonians with first-class constraints: failure or triumph? Non-covariant models

We argue that the field-parametrization dependence of Dirac's procedure, for Hamiltonians with first-class constraints not only preserves covariance in covariant theories, but in non-covariant gauge theories it allows one to find the natural field parametrization in which the Hamiltonian formulation automatically leads to the simplest gauge symmetry.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Lagrangian symmetries of the ADM action. Do we need a solution to the "non-canonicity puzzle"?

We argue that there is nothing puzzling in the fact that the Hamiltonian formulation of a covariant theory, General Relativity, after a non-covariant change of field variables is not canonically related to the formulation based on the original variable, the metric tensor. Were such a puzzle to be "solved" it would lead to the conclusion that a covariant theory can be converted into a non-covariant one in many different ways and without consequence. The non-canonicity of transformations from covariant to non-covariant variables shows the need to work in the original variables so as to be able to restore the covariant gauge transformations in the Hamiltonian approach. Any modification of Dirac's procedure for the constrained Hamiltonian with the aim to prove the legitimacy of non-covariant changes of field variables, or rejection of Dirac's procedure as "not fundamental and undoubted" because it does not allow such changes (as recently suggested by Shestakova [CGQ, 28 (2011) 055009]), is equivalent to the rejection of the covariance of General Relativity, and to surrender to such temptation is truly puzzling.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

On canonical transformations between equivalent Hamiltonian formulations of General Relativity

Two Hamiltonian formulations of General Relativity, due to Pirani, Schild and Skinner (Phys. Rev. 87, 452, 1952) and Dirac (Proc. Roy. Soc. A 246, 333, 1958), are considered. Both formulations, despite having different expressions for constraints, allow one to derive four-dimensional diffeomorphism invariance. The relation between these two formulations at all stages of the Dirac approach to the constrained Hamiltonian systems is analyzed. It is shown that the complete sets of their phase-space variables are related by a transformation which satisfies the ordinary condition of canonicity known for unconstrained Hamiltonians and, in addition, converts one total Hamiltonian into another, thus preserving form-invariance of generalized Hamiltonian equations for constrained systems.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

The Hamiltonian formulation of General Relativity: myths and reality

A conventional wisdom often perpetuated in the literature states that: (i) a 3+1 decomposition of space-time into space and time is synonymous with the canonical treatment and this decomposition is essential for any Hamiltonian formulation of General Relativity (GR); (ii) the canonical treatment unavoidably breaks the symmetry between space and time in GR and the resulting algebra of constraints is not the algebra of four-dimensional diffeomorphism; (iii) according to some authors this algebra allows one to derive only spatial diffeomorphism or, according to others, a specific field-dependent and non-covariant four-dimensional diffeomorphism; (iv) the analyses of Dirac [Proc. Roy. Soc. A 246 (1958) 333] and of ADM [Arnowitt, Deser and Misner, in "Gravitation: An Introduction to Current Research" (1962) 227] of the canonical structure of GR are equivalent. We provide some general reasons why these statements should be questioned. Points (i-iii) have been shown to be incorrect in [Kiriushcheva et al., Phys. Lett. A 372 (2008) 5101] and now we thoroughly re-examine all steps of the Dirac Hamiltonian formulation of GR. We show that points (i-iii) above cannot be attributed to the Dirac Hamiltonian formulation of GR. We also demonstrate that ADM and Dirac formulations are related by a transformation of phase-space variables from the metric $g_{μν}$ to lapse and shift functions and the three-metric $g_{km}$, which is not canonical. This proves that point (iv) is incorrect. Points (i-iii) are mere consequences of using a non-canonical change of variables and are not an intrinsic property of either the Hamilton-Dirac approach to constrained systems or Einstein's theory itself.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Translational invariance of the Einstein-Cartan action in any dimension

We demonstrate that from the first order formulation of the Einstein-Cartan action it is possible to derive the basic differential identity that leads to translational invariance of the action in the tangent space. The transformations of fields is written explicitly for both the first and second order formulations and the group properties of transformations are studied. This, combined with the preliminary results from the Hamiltonian formulation (arXiv:0907.1553 [gr-qc]), allows us to conclude that without any modification, the Einstein-Cartan action in any dimension higher than two possesses not only rotational invariance but also a form of \textit{translational invariance in the tangent space}. We argue that \textit{not} only a complete Hamiltonian analysis can unambiguously give an answer to the question of what a gauge symmetry is, but also the pure Lagrangian methods allow us to find the same gauge symmetry from the \textit{basic} differential identities.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2009arXiv

The Hamiltonian of Einstein affine-metric formulation of General Relativity

It is shown that the Hamiltonian of the Einstein affine-metric (first order) formulation of General Relativity (GR) leads to a constraint structure that allows the restoration of its unique gauge invariance, four-diffeomorphism, without the need of any field dependent redefinition of gauge parameters as is the case for the second order formulation. In the second order formulation of ADM gravity the need for such a redefinition is the result of the non-canonical change of variables [arXiv: 0809.0097]. For the first order formulation, the necessity of such a redefinition "to correspond to diffeomorphism invariance" (reported by Ghalati [arXiv: 0901.3344]) is just an artifact of using the Henneaux-Teitelboim-Zanelli ansatz [Nucl. Phys. B 332 (1990) 169], which is sensitive to the choice of linear combination of tertiary constraints. This ansatz cannot be used as an algorithm for finding a gauge invariance, which is a unique property of a physical system, and it should not be affected by different choices of linear combinations of non-primary first class constraints. The algorithm of Castellani [Ann. Phys. 143 (1982) 357] is free from such a deficiency and it leads directly to four-diffeomorphism invariance for first, as well as for second order Hamiltonian formulations of GR. The distinct role of primary first class constraints, the effect of considering different linear combinations of constraints, the canonical transformations of phase-space variables, and their interplay are discussed in some detail for Hamiltonians of the second and first order formulations of metric GR. The first order formulation of Einstein-Cartan theory, which is the classical background of Loop Quantum Gravity, is also discussed.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2008arXiv

Diffeomorphism Invariance in the Hamiltonian formulation of General Relativity

It is shown that when the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian is considered without any non-covariant modifications or change of variables, its Hamiltonian formulation leads to results consistent with principles of General Relativity. The first-class constraints of such a Hamiltonian formulation, with the metric tensor taken as a canonical variable, allow one to derive the generator of gauge transformations, which directly leads to diffeomorphism invariance. The given Hamiltonian formulation preserves general covariance of the transformations derivable from it. This characteristic should be used as the crucial consistency requirement that must be met by any Hamiltonian formulation of General Relativity.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access