# General relativity from helicity 2 massless field theory by using Deser's arguments

+ 4 like - 0 dislike
3506 views

Recently I have discovered the method of constructing of GR from massless field with helicity 2 theory. It is considered here, in an article "Self-Interaction and Gauge Invariance" written by Deser S.

By the few words, the idea of the method is following. When starting from massless equations for field with helicity 2 we note that it doesn't provide stress-energy momentum tensor conservation:

$$\tag 1 G_{\mu \nu}(\partial h , \partial^{2}h) = T_{\mu \nu} \Rightarrow \partial^{\mu}T_{\mu \nu} \neq 0$$ (here $h_{\mu \nu}$ is symmetric tensor field).

But we may change this situation by adding some tensor to the left side of equation which provides stress-tensor conservation: $$G \to \tilde {G}: \partial \tilde{G} = 0.$$

Deser says that it might be done by modifying the action which gives $(2)$ by the following way: $$\eta_{\mu \nu} \to \psi_{\mu \nu}, \quad \partial \Gamma \to D \Gamma .$$ Here $\eta$ is just Minkowski spacetime metric, $\Gamma$ is the Christoffel symbol with respect to $h$, $\psi^{\mu \nu}$ is some fictive field without geometrical interpretation, and $\partial \to D$ means replacing usual derivative to a covariant one with respect to $\psi$ (this means appearance of Christoffel symbols $C^{\alpha}_{\beta \gamma}$ in terms of $\psi$). By varying an action on $\psi$ we can get the expression for correction of $(1)$ which leads to stress-energy conservation.

Here is the question: I don't understand the idea of this method. Why do we admit that we must to introduce some fictive field $\psi_{\mu \nu}$ for providing conservation law? Why do we replace partial derivatives by covariant ones using $\psi$? How to "guess" this substitution? I don't understand the explanation given in an article.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-15 09:37 (UCT), posted by SE-user Andrew McAddams
You can freely download Thomas Ortin's Gravity and Strings book, where you find a nice section on deser's argument and how to reconstruct gravity. Just the description by Deser himself is not the best one:-)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-15 09:37 (UCT), posted by SE-user John
Possibly helpful (or not): gr-qc/0409089, which critiques various attempts to derive GR this way, including Deser's.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-15 09:37 (UCT), posted by SE-user benrg
Thank you both! You have really helped.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-15 09:37 (UCT), posted by SE-user Andrew McAddams

Oh yes, thanks ...!

 Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead. To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL. Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post. This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button. Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview Your name to display (optional): Email me at this address if my answer is selected or commented on: Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications. Anti-spam verification: If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:p$\hbar$ys$\varnothing$csOverflowThen drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds). To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.