Paper detail

Peter Bergmann on Observables in Hamiltonian General Relativity: A Historical-Critical Investigation

The problem of observables and their supposed lack of change has been significant in Hamiltonian quantum gravity since the 1950s. This paper considers the unrecognized variety of ideas about observables in the thought of Peter Bergmann, who invented observables. Whereas initially he required a constrained Hamiltonian formalism to be mathematically equivalent to the Lagrangian, in 1953 Bergmann and Schiller introduced a novel postulate, motivated by facilitating quantum gravity: observables were _invariant_ under transformations generated by _each individual_ first-class constraint. While modern works rely on Bergmann's authority and sometimes speak of "Bergmann observables," he had much to say about observables, plausible but not all consistent or remembered. At times he required observables to be locally defined (not changeless and global); at times he wanted them independent of the Hamiltonian formalism (not essentially involving separate first-class constraints). But typically he took observables to have vanishing Poisson bracket with each first-class constraint, purportedly justified by electrodynamics. He expected observables to be analogous to the transverse true degrees of freedom of electromagnetism. Hence there is no coherent concept of observables which he reliably endorsed. A revised definition of observables that satisfies the requirement that equivalent theories should have equivalent observables using the Rosenfeld-Anderson-Bergmann-Castellani gauge generator $G$, a tuned sum of first-class constraints that changes the canonical action $\int dt(p\dot{q}-H)$ by a boundary term. Bootstrapping from theory formulations with no first-class constraints, the "external" coordinate symmetry of GR calls for covariance ($4$-dimensional Lie derivative), not invariance ($0$ Poisson bracket), under $G$ (not each first-class constraint).

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.