Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

146 submissions , 123 unreviewed
3,953 questions , 1,403 unanswered
4,889 answers , 20,762 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
507 active unimported users
More ...

Why are string theorist so indifferent to the gauge structure of gravity?

+ 2 like - 0 dislike
172 views

Gravity shares many of the characteristics of Yang-Mills gauge theory. For example, the affine connection plays the similar role as the gauge potential in gauge theory, the Riemann tensor plays the same role as the field strength in gauge theory. And both theories can be well described by Fiber bundle.

I know there is a correspondence between gravity and gauge theory in string theory. But as mentioned above, can't gravity just be a gauge theory itself? The similarity is so strong that I do think gravity emerging from other possibilities is extravagant such as emerging as the requirement of the vanishing of Beta function. Actually, there are indeed some physicists do think that gravity is exactly a gauge theory of Yang-Mills type with gauge group being Poincare group, but it seems that this view is generally neglected by string theorists. Please give me some convincing reasons that this similarity should not be taken seriously. Thanks very much!

asked Apr 3, 2016 in Theoretical Physics by Wein Eld (195 points) [ revision history ]
edited Apr 3, 2016 by Wein Eld

I asked this question simultaneously here and at physics stackexchange. I hope this would not be a problem.
 

The main point is that the full group of symmetries is the group of diffeomorphisms. One of the consequences is that there are no true local gauge invariants, there are only global (or somehow semi-local) ones.

I don't think string theorists are indifferent to the gauge structure, after all, lots of SUGRA calculations are done in the spirit of "gravity is exactly a gauge theory of Yang-Mills type with gauge group being Poincare group", and string theorists certainly care about SUGRA. 

The problem is there is no straightforward way of quantizing/UV completing gravity, for example a modest kind of UV completion is perturbative renormalizability, and this fails for gravity for well known reasons. So the current popular view is that gravity must emerge as an effective field theory from something else. 

You are not quite correct. Poincare group is global group and is not gauged so nobody really thinks of Poincare group as a gauge group. Additionally in GR the group that leaves the action invariant is the one which leaves $\sqrt{g}R$ invariant. In SUGRA R-symmetries are gauged.

 As for the question, I think that it depends on what you call gauge theory. If you define it in terms of a connection on a principal G-bundle then it is not. But, taking GR or Einstein part of SUGRA to vielbein formalism will yield many similarities to usual Yang-Mills theories. In the end of the day, you can naively say that GR is square root of Yang-Mills, since at least on the level of on-shell amplitudes the graviton one can be written as the square of a gluon one (I do not know details on it though). 

Your answer

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):
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$\hbar$ysicsO$\varnothing$erflow
Then 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.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...