Algebraic analysis of a model of two-dimensional gravity

An algebraic analysis of the Hamiltonian formulation of the model two-dimensional gravity is performed. The crucial fact is an exact coincidence of the Poisson brackets algebra of the secondary constraints of this Hamiltonian formulation with the SO(2,1)-algebra. The eigenvectors of the canonical Hamiltonian $H_{c}$ are obtained and explicitly written in closed form.Comment: 21 pages, to appear in General Relativity and Gravitatio

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.Comment: 74 page

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 $g_{\mu\nu}$ 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.Comment: References are added and updated, Introduction is extended, Subsection 3.5 is added, 83 pages; corresponds to the published versio

Sweet Sorghum Planting Effects on Stalk Yield and Sugar Quality in Semi-Arid Tropical Environment

Sweet sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] has potential as a bioenergy crop for producing food, fiber, and fermentable sugar. Unlike dryland grain sorghum, little information is available on the influence of staggered planting and genotypes, especially in semiarid tropical environments. The objectives of the present study were (i) to quantify the effects of planting time and genotype on stalk and biomass yields, juice sugar quality, and (ii) to identify the most productive genotypes and planting windows for sustainable feedstock supply. Four commercial sweet sorghum genotypes (SSV84, SSV74, CSV19SS, and CSH22SS) were planted on five planting dates (1 June, 16 June, 1 July, 16 July, and 1 August) during the rainy (June–October) season of 2008 and 2009 in Hyderabad (17°27´ N, 78°28´ E), India. Planting in early and mid-June produced significantly (P ≤ 0.05) higher fresh stalk yield and grain yield than later planting dates. Commercial hybrid CSH22SS produced significantly more stalk, grain, sugar, and ethanol yield over genotypes SSV84 or SSV74. Based on the stalk yield, juice sugar quality, sugar, and ethanol yields, the optimum planting dates for sweet sorghum in semiarid tropical climate is early June to early July. Planting sweet sorghum during this time allows more feedstock to be harvested and hence extends the period for sugar mill operation by about 1 mo, that is, from the first to the last week of October