format: text

text:
# A New Parametrization for Tetrad Gravity.

## I Introduction

In this paper we develop a new parametrization of arbitrary cotetrads, whose use implies a simplified form of some of the constraints of tetrad gravity. This will open the possibility to restart the study of the canonical reduction of tetrad gravity. Our motivation is the attempt to arrive at a unified description of the four interactions based on Dirac-Bergmann theory of constraints, which is the main tool for the Hamiltonian formulation of both gauge theories and general relativity. Therefore, we shall study general relativity from the canonical point of view generalizing to it all the results already obtained in the canonical study of gauge theories in a systematic way, since neither a complete reduction of gravity with an identification of the physical canonical degrees of freedom of the gravitational field nor a detailed study of its Hamiltonian group of gauge transformations, whose infinitesimal generators are the first class constraints, has ever been pushed till the end in an explicit way.

The research program aiming to express the special relativistic strong, weak and electromagnetic interactions in terms of Dirac’s observables  is in an advanced stage of development. This program is based on the Shanmugadhasan canonical transformations : if a system has first class constraints at the Hamiltonian level ***So that its dynamics is restricted to a presymplectic submanifold of phase space., then, at least locally, one can find a canonical basis with as many new momenta as first class constraints (Abelianization of first class constraints), with their conjugate canonical variables as Abelianized gauge variables and with the remaining pairs of canonical variables as pairs of canonically conjugate Dirac’s observables Canonical basis of physical variables adapted to the chosen Abelianization; they give a trivialization of the BRST construction of observables.. Putting equal to zero the Abelianized gauge variables defines a local gauge of the model. If a system with constraints admits one (or more) global Shanmugadhasan canonical transformations, one obtains one (or more) privileged global gauges in which the physical Dirac observables are globally defined and globally separated from the gauge degrees of freedom For systems with a compact configuration space this is in general impossible.. These privileged gauges (when they exist) can be called generalized Coulomb or radiation gauges. Second class constraints, when present, are also taken into account by the Shanmugadhasan canonical transformation.

The problem of how to covariantize this kind of canonical reduction is solved by using Dirac reformulation (see the book in Ref.) of classical field theory on spacelike hypersurfaces foliating §§§The foliation is defined by an embedding $`R\times \mathrm{\Sigma }M^4`$, $`(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })z^\mu (\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$, with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ an abstract 3-surface diffeomorphic to $`R^3`$: this is the classical basis of Tomonaga-Schwinger quantum field theory. Minkowski spacetime $`M^4`$. In this way one gets parametrized Minkowski field theory with a covariant 3+1 splitting of flat spacetime and already in a form suited to the transition to general relativity in its ADM canonical formulation See also Ref. , where a theoretical study of this problem is done in curved spacetimes.. The price is that one has to add as new configuration variables the points $`z^\mu (\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ of the spacelike hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ The only ones carrying Lorentz indices; the scalar parameter $`\tau `$ labels the leaves of the foliation and $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ are curvilinear coordinates on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$. and then define the fields on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ so that they know the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ of $`\tau `$-simultaneity \**\**\**For a Klein-Gordon field $`\varphi (x)`$, this new field is $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=\varphi (z(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }))`$: it contains the non-local information about the embedding.. Then one rewrites the Lagrangian of the given isolated system in the form required by the coupling to an external gravitational field, makes the previous 3+1 splitting of Minkowski spacetime and interpretes all the fields of the system as the new fields on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ (they are Lorentz scalars, having only surface indices). Instead of considering the 4-metric as describing a gravitational field ††††††Therefore as an independent field as it is done in metric gravity, where one adds the Hilbert action to the action for the matter fields., here one replaces the 4-metric with the the induced metric $`g_{AB}[z]=z_A^{(\mu )}\eta _{(\mu )(\nu )}z_B^{(\nu )}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ ‡‡‡‡‡‡A functional of $`z^{(\mu )}`$; here we use the notation $`\sigma ^A=(\tau ,\sigma ^r)`$; $`(\mu )`$ is a flat Minkowski index; $`z_A^{(\mu )}=z^{(\mu )}/\sigma ^A`$ are flat cotetrad fields on Minkowski spacetime with the $`z_r^{(\mu )}`$’s tangent to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$. and considers the embedding coordinates $`z^{(\mu )}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ as independent fields \**\**\**This is not possible in metric gravity, because in curved spacetimes $`z_A^\mu z^\mu /\sigma ^A`$ are not tetrad fields since the holonomic coordinates $`z^\mu (\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ do not exist.. From this Lagrangian, besides a Lorentz-scalar form of the constraints of the given system, we get four extra primary first class constraints $`_\mu (\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })0`$ implying the independence of the description from the choice of the foliation with spacelike hypersufaces. Therefore the embedding variables $`z^{(\mu )}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ are the gauge variables associated with this kind of general covariance. In special relativity, it is convenient to restrict ourselves to arbitrary spacelike hyperplanes $`z^{(\mu )}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=x_s^{(\mu )}(\tau )+b_r^{(\mu )}(\tau )\sigma ^r`$. Since they are described by only 10 variables \*†\*†\*†An origin $`x_s^{(\mu )}(\tau )`$ and, on it, three orthogonal spacelike unit vectors $`b_r^\mu (\tau )`$ generating the fixed constant timelike unit normal to the hyperplane., we remain only with 10 first class constraints determining the 10 variables conjugate to the hyperplane \*‡\*‡\*‡They are a 4-momentum $`p_s^{(\mu )}`$ and the six independent degrees of freedom hidden in a spin tensor $`S_s^{(\mu )(\nu )}`$. in terms of the variables of the system.

If we now consider only the set of configurations of the isolated system with timelike $`ϵp_s^2>0`$; $`ϵ=\pm 1`$ according to the chosen convention for the Lorentz signature of the metric $`\eta ^{(\mu )(\nu )}=ϵ(+)`$. 4-momenta, we can restrict the description to the so-called Wigner hyperplanes orthogonal to $`p_s^{(\mu )}`$ itself. To get this result, we must boost at rest all the variables with Lorentz indices by using the standard Wigner boost $`L^{(\mu )}{}_{(\nu )}{}^{}(p_s,\stackrel{}{p}_s)`$ for timelike Poincaré orbits, and then add the gauge-fixings $`b_{\stackrel{ˇ}{r}}^{(\mu )}(\tau )L^{(\mu )}{}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{r}}{}^{}(p_s,\stackrel{}{p}_s)0`$. Since these gauge-fixings depend on $`p_s^{(\mu )}`$, the final canonical variables, apart $`p_s^{(\mu )}`$ itself, are of 3 types: i) there is a non-covariant external center-of-mass variable $`\stackrel{~}{x}^{(\mu )}(\tau )`$ It is only covariant under the little group of timelike Poincaré orbits like the Newton-Wigner position operator.; ii) all the 3-vector variables become Wigner spin 1 3-vectors \*∥\*∥\*∥Boosts in $`M^4`$ induce Wigner rotations on them.; iii) all the other variables are Lorentz scalars. Only four 1st class constraints are left: one of them identifies the invariant mass of the isolated system, to be used as Hamiltonian, while the other three are the rest-frame conditions implying the vanishing of the internal (i.e. inside the Wigner hyperplane) total 3-momentum.

We obtain in this way a new kind of instant form of the dynamics (see Ref.), the Wigner-covariant 1-time rest-frame instant form with a universal breaking of Lorentz covariance independent from the isolated system under investigation. It is the special relativistic generalization of the non-relativistic separation of the center of mass from the relative motions \[$`H=\frac{\stackrel{}{P}^2}{2M}+H_{rel}`$\].

As shown in Refs., the rest-frame instant form of dynamics automatically gives a physical ultraviolet cutoff in the spirit of Dirac and Yukawa: it is the M$`ø`$ller radius $`\rho =\sqrt{ϵW^2}/ϵP^2=|\stackrel{}{S}|/\sqrt{ϵP^2}`$ \***\***\***$`W^2=ϵP^2\stackrel{}{S}^2`$ is the Pauli-Lubanski Casimir when $`ϵP^2>0`$., namely the classical intrinsic radius of the worldtube, around the covariant non-canonical Fokker-Pryce center of inertia $`Y^{(\mu )}`$, inside which the non-covariance of the canonical center of mass $`\stackrel{~}{x}^{(\mu )}`$ is concentrated. At the quantum level $`\rho `$ becomes the Compton wavelength of the isolated system multiplied its spin eigenvalue $`\sqrt{s(s+1)}`$ , $`\rho \widehat{\rho }=\sqrt{s(s+1)}\mathrm{}/M=\sqrt{s(s+1)}\lambda _M`$ with $`M=\sqrt{ϵP^2}`$ the invariant mass and $`\lambda _M=\mathrm{}/M`$ its Compton wavelength. Therefore, the criticism to classical relativistic physics, based on quantum pair production, concerns the testing of distances where, due to the Lorentz signature of spacetime, one has intrinsic classical covariance problems: it is impossible to localize the canonical center of mass $`\stackrel{~}{x}^{(\mu )}`$ of the system in a frame independent way. Let us remember  that $`\rho `$ is also a remnant in flat Minkowski spacetime of the energy conditions of general relativity: since the M$`ø`$ller non-canonical, non-covariant center of energy has its non-covariance localized inside the same worldtube with radius $`\rho `$ (it was discovered in this way) , it turns out that for an extended relativistic system with the material radius smaller than its intrinsic radius $`\rho `$ one has: i) its peripheral rotation velocity can exceed the velocity of light; ii) its classical energy density cannot be positive definite everywhere in every frame.

Now, the real relevant point is that this ultraviolet cutoff determined by $`\rho `$ exists also in Einstein’s general relativity (which is not power counting renormalizable) in the case of asymptotically flat spacetimes, taking into account the Poincaré Casimirs of its asymptotic ADM Poincaré charges \*††\*††\*††When supertranslations are eliminated with suitable boundary conditions; let us remark that Einstein and Wheeler use closed universes because they don’t want to introduce boundary conditions, but in this way they loose Poincaré charges and the possibility to make contact with particle physics and to define spin. at spatial infinity. See Ref. for the definition of the rest-frame instant form of ADM metric gravity.

Moreover, the extended Heisenberg relations of string theory, i.e. $`\mathrm{}x=\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{}p}+\frac{\mathrm{}p}{T_{cs}}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{}p}+\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}p}{L_{cs}^2}`$ implying the lower bound $`\mathrm{}x>L_{cs}=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/T_{cs}}`$ due to the $`y+1/y`$ structure, have a counterpart in the quantization of the M$`ø`$ller radius: if we ask that, also at the quantum level, one cannot test the inside of the worldtube, we must ask $`\mathrm{}x>\widehat{\rho }`$ and this is the lower bound implied by the modified uncertainty relation $`\mathrm{}x=\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{}p}+\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}p}{\widehat{\rho }^2}`$. This could imply that the center-of-mass canonical non-covariant 3-coordinate $`\stackrel{}{z}=\sqrt{ϵP^2}(\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{x}}\frac{\stackrel{}{P}}{P^{(o)}}\stackrel{~}{x}^{(o)})`$  cannot become a self-adjoint operator. See Hegerfeldt’s theorems (quoted in Refs.) and his interpretation pointing at the impossibility of a good localization of relativistic particles \*‡‡\*‡‡\*‡‡Experimentally one determines only a worldtube in spacetime emerging from the interaction region.. Since the eigenfunctions of the canonical center-of-mass operator are playing the role of the wave function of the universe, one could also say that the center-of-mass variable has not to be quantized, because it lies on the classical macroscopic side of Copenhagen’s interpretation and, moreover, because, in the spirit of Mach’s principle that only relative motions can be observed, no one can observe it (it is only used to define a decoupled point particle clock). On the other hand, if one rejects the canonical non-covariant center of mass in favor of the covariant non-canonical Fokker-Pryce center of inertia $`Y^{(\mu )}`$, $`\{Y^{(\mu )},Y^{(\nu )}\}0`$, one could invoke the philosophy of quantum groups to quantize $`Y^{(\mu )}`$ to get some kind of quantum plane for the center-of-mass description. Let us remark that the quantization of the square root Hamiltonian done in Ref. is consistent with this problematic.

In conclusion, the best set of canonical coordinates adapted to the constraints and to the geometry of Poincaré orbits and naturally predisposed to the coupling to canonical tetrad gravity is emerging for the electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions with matter described either by fermion fields or by relativistic particles with a definite sign of the energy. Therefore, we can begin to think how to quantize the standard model in the Wigner-covariant Coulomb gauge in the rest-frame instant form with the Möller radius as a ultraviolet cutoff.

Since our aim is to arrive at a unified description of the four interactions, in this paper we put the basis for the canonical reduction to Dirac’s observables of tetrad gravity (more natural than metric gravity for the coupling to fermion fields) and for exploring the connection of Dirac’s observables with Bergmann’s definition of observables and the problem of time in general relativity .

Our approach to tetrad gravity (see Refs.  for the existing versions of the theory) utilizes the ADM action of metric gravity with the 4-metric expressed in terms of arbitrary cotetrads, which are parametrized in a particular way in terms of the parameters of special Wigner boosts†\*†\*†\*This is syggested by the rest-frame Wigner-covariant instant form approach. and cotetrads adapted to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$††††††Which, in turn, depend on cotriads on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ and on lapse and shift functions.. The introduction of this new parametrization of arbitrary cotetrads in the ADM Lagrangian allows to get a new Lagrangian for tetrad gravity. Then we study the associated Hamiltonian formulation, we identify its fourteen first class constraints and we evaluate their Poisson brackets.

We shall restrict ourselves to the simplest class of spacetimes to have some chance to have a well posed formulation of tetrad gravity, which hopefully will allow to arrive at the end of the canonical reduction. Refs.  are used for the background in differential geometry. A spacetime is a time-oriented pseudo-Riemannian (or Lorentzian) 4-manifold $`(M^4,{}_{}{}^{4}g)`$ with signature $`ϵ(+)`$ ($`ϵ=\pm 1`$) and with a choice of time orientation †‡†‡†‡I.e. there exists a continuous, nowhere vanishing timelike vector field which is used to separate the non-spacelike vectors at each point of $`M^4`$ in either future- or past-directed vectors.. In Appendix A we give a review of notions on 4-dimensional pseudo-Riemannian manifolds, tetrads on them and triads on 3-manifolds, which unifies many results, scattered in the literature, needed not only for a well posed formulation of tetrad gravity but also for the further study of its canonical reduction. Also a review of the action principles used in metric and tetrad gravity is given in Appendix A for completeness.

Our spacetimes are assumed to be:

i) Globally hyperbolic 4-manifolds, i.e. topologically they are $`M^4R\times \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, so to have a well posed Cauchy problem (with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the abstract model of Cauchy surface) at least till when no singularity develops in $`M^4`$ (see the singularity theorems). Therefore, these spacetimes admit regular foliations with orientable, complete, non-intersecting spacelike 3-manifolds: the leaves of the foliation are the embeddings $`i_\tau :\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau M^4`$, $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }z^\mu (\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$, where $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }=\{\sigma ^r\}`$, r=1,2,3, are local coordinates in a chart of the $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-atlas of the abstract 3-manifold $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\tau :M^4R`$, $`z^\mu \tau (z^\mu )`$, is a global timelike future-oriented function labelling the leaves (surfaces of simultaneity). In this way, one obtains 3+1 splittings of $`M^4`$ and the possibility of a Hamiltonian formulation.

ii) Asymptotically flat at spatial infinity, so to have the possibility to define asymptotic Poincaré charges : they allow the definition of a M$`ø`$ller radius in general relativity and are a bridge towards a future soldering with the theory of elementary particles in Minkowski spacetime defined as irreducible representation of its kinematical, globally implemented Poincaré group according to Wigner. We will not compactify space infinity at a point like in the spi approach of Ref..

iii) Since we want to be able to introduce Dirac fermion fields, our spacetimes $`M^4`$ must admit a spinor (or spin) structure. Since we consider non-compact space- and time-orientable spacetimes, spinors can be defined if and only if they are parallelizable . This means that we have trivial principal frame bundle $`L(M^4)=M^4\times GL(4,R)`$ with GL(4,R) as structure group and trivial orthonormal frame bundle $`F(M^4)=M^4\times SO(3,1)`$; the fibers of $`F(M^4)`$ are the disjoint union of four components and $`F_o(M^4)=M^4\times L_+^{}`$ (with projection $`\pi :F_o(M^4)M^4`$) corresponds to the proper subgroup $`L_+^{}SO(3,1)`$ of the Lorentz group. Therefore, global frames (tetrads) and coframes (cotetrads) exist. A spin structure for $`F_o(M^4)`$ is, in this case, the trivial spin principal SL(2,C)-bundle $`S(M^4)=M^4\times SL(2,C)`$ (with projection $`\pi _s:S(M^4)M^4`$) and a map $`\lambda :S(M^4)F_o(M^4)`$ such that $`\pi (\lambda (p))=\pi _s(p)M^4`$ for all $`pS(M^4)`$ and $`\lambda (pA)=\lambda (p)\mathrm{\Lambda }(A)`$ for all $`pS(M^4)`$, $`ASL(2,C)`$, with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }:SL(2,C)L_+^{}`$ the universal covering homomorphism. Then, Dirac fields are defined as cross sections of a bundle associated with $`S(M^4)`$ . Since $`M^4R\times \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is time- and space-oriented, the hypersurfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ of simultaneity are necessarily space-oriented and are parallelizable (as every 3-manifold): therefore, global triads and cotriads exist. $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau )=\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau \times SO(3)`$ is the trivial orthonormal frame SO(3)-bundle and, since one has $`\pi _1(SO(3))=\pi _1(L_+^{})=Z_2`$ for the first homotopy group, one can define SU(2) spinors on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ .

iv) The non-compact parallelizable simultaneity 3-manifolds (the Cauchy surfaces) $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ are assumed to be topologically trivial, geodesically complete †§†§†§So that the Hopf-Rinow theorem assures metric completeness of the Riemannian 3-manifold $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau ,{}_{}{}^{3}g)`$. and, finally, diffeomorphic to $`R^3`$. These 3-manifolds have the same manifold structure as Euclidean spaces : a) the geodesic exponential map $`Exp_p:T_p\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ is a diffeomorphism (Hadamard theorem); b) the sectional curvature is less or equal zero everywhere; c) they have no conjugate locus †¶†¶†¶I.e. there are no pairs of conjugate Jacobi points (intersection points of distinct geodesics through them) on any geodesic. and no cut locus †∥†∥†∥I.e. no closed geodesics through any point.. In these manifolds two points determine a line, so that the static tidal forces in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ due to the 3-curvature tensor are repulsive; instead in $`M^4`$ the tidal forces due to the 4-curvature tensor are attractive, since they describe gravitation, which is always attractive, and this implies that the sectional 4-curvature of timelike tangent planes must be negative (this is the source of the singularity theorems) . In 3-manifolds not of this class one has to give a physical (topological) interpretation of static quantities like the two quoted loci. In particular, these 3-manifolds have global charts inherited by $`R^3`$ through the diffeomorphism. Given a Cauchy surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\tau _o}`$ of this type and a set of Cauchy data for the gravitational field (and for matter, if present), the Hamiltonian evolution we are going to describe will be valid from $`\tau _o`$ till $`\tau _o+\mathrm{}\tau `$, where the interval $`\mathrm{}\tau `$ is determined by the appearance of either conjugate points on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\tau _o+\mathrm{}\tau }`$ or 4-dimensional singularities in $`M^4`$ on its slice $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\tau _o+\mathrm{}\tau }`$.

v) Like in Yang-Mills case , the 3-spin-connection on the orthogonal frame SO(3)-bundle (and therefore triads and cotriads) will have to be restricted to suited weighted Sobolev spaces to avoid Gribov ambiguities. In turn, this implies the absence of isometries of the non-compact Riemannian 3-manifold $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau ,{}_{}{}^{3}g)`$ (see for instance the review paper in Ref. ). All the problems of the boundary conditions on lapse and shift functions and on cotriads will be studied in connection with the Poincaré charges in a future paper see however Ref. for the case of metric gravity).

Diffeomorphisms on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ ($`Diff\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$) will be interpreted in the passive way, following Ref., in accord with the Hamiltonian point of view that infinitesimal diffeomorphisms are generated by taking the Poisson bracket with the first class supermomentum constraints †\**†\**†\**Passive diffeomorphisms are also named pseudo-diffeomorphisms.. The Lagrangian approach based on the Hilbert action, connects general covariance with the invariance of the action under spacetime diffeomorphisms ($`DiffM^4`$) extended to 4-tensors. Therefore, the moduli space (or superspace or space of 4-geometries) is the space $`RiemM^4/DiffM^4`$ , where $`RiemM^4`$ is the space of Lorentzian 4-metrics; as shown in Refs., superspace, in general, is not a manifold †††††††††It is a stratified manifold with singularities. due to the existence (in Sobolev spaces) of 4-metrics and 4-geometries with isometries. See Ref. for the study of great diffeomorphisms, which are connected with the existence of disjoint components of the diffeomorphism group †‡‡†‡‡†‡‡In Ref. there is the analogous discussion of the connection of winding number with the great gauge transformations.. Instead, in the ADM Hamiltonian formulation of metric gravity space diffeomorphisms are replaced by $`Diff\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ ‡\*‡\*‡\*Or better by their induced action on 3-tensors generated by the supermomentum constraints., while time diffeomorphisms are distorted to the transformations generated by the superhamiltonian 1st class constraint and by the momenta conjugate to the lapse and shift functions. In the Lichnerowicz-York conformal approach to canonical reduction  (see Refs. for reviews), one defines, in the case of closed 3-manifolds, the conformal superspace as the space of conformal 3-geometries ‡†‡†‡†Namely the space of conformal 3-metrics modulo $`Diff\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ or, equivalently, as $`Riem\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ (the space of Riemannian 3-metrics) modulo $`Diff\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ and conformal transformations $`{}_{}{}^{3}g\varphi ^4{}_{}{}^{3}g`$ ($`\varphi >0`$)., because in this approach gravitational dynamics is regarded as the time evolution of conformal 3-geometry ‡‡‡‡‡‡The momentum conjugate to the conformal factor $`\varphi `$ is replaced by York time , i.e. the trace of the extrinsic curvature of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$.. See Ref. for the interpretation of the gauge transformations generated by the superhamiltonian constraint: they perform the transition from an allowed 3+1 splitting of spacetime to another one so that the theory is independent from its choice like it happens in parametrized Minkowski theories. Moreover, the Hamiltonian group of gauge transformations of the ADM theory has 8 (and not 4) generators, because, besides the superhamiltonian and supermomentum constraints, there are the four primary first class constraints giving the vanishing of the canonical momenta conjugate to the lapse and shift functions ‡§‡§‡§Whose gauge nature is connected with the gauge nature (conventionality) of simultaneity  and of the standards of time and length.. A preliminary discussion of these problems and of general covariance versus Dirac’s observables has been given in Ref. ‡¶‡¶‡¶As also recently noted in Ref. the problem of observables is still open in canonical gravity..

The same happens in tetrad gravity, where there are 14 first class constraints. As we shall see, in our formulation the Hamiltonian gauge group contains: i) a $`R^3\times SO(3)`$ subgroup replacing the usual Lorentz subgroup due to our parametrization which Abelianizes Lorentz boosts; ii) $`Diff\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ in the sense of the pseudo-diffeomorphisms generated by the supermomentum constraints; iii) the gauge transformations generated by a superhamiltonian 1st class constraint; iv) the gauge transformations generated by the momenta conjugate to the lapse and shift functions. In the paper we begun to extract Dirac’s observables starting from the symplectic action of infinitesimal diffeomorphisms in $`Diff\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$, ignoring the problems on the structure in large of the component of $`Diff\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ connected to the identity when a differential structure is posed on it. Although such global properties can be studied in Yang-Mills theory ‡∥‡∥‡∥Since the group of gauge transformations is a Hilbert-Lie group., as shown in Ref., and can be applied to the SO(3) gauge transformations of cotriads ‡\**‡\**‡\**In our approach the Lorentz boosts are automatically Abelianized., one has that SO(3) gauge transformations and $`Diff\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ do not commute. Therefore, in tetrad gravity the group of SO(3) gauge transformations is an invariant subgroup of a larger group, the group of automorphisms of the SO(3) frame bundle, containing also $`Diff\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ and again the global situation in the large is of difficult control ‡††‡††‡††$`Diff\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ is an inductive limit of Hilbert-Lie groups , but the global properties of its group manifold are not well understood.. However, these are topics for future papers.

In Section II the new parametrization of cotetrads is defined.

In Section III such parametrized cotetrads are inserted in the ADM metric action to generate a new Lagrangian for tetrad gravity. The Hamiltonian formulation is developed with the identification of fourteen first class constraints and with the evaluation of their Poisson brackets. The comparison with other formulations of tetrad gravity is done.

In Section IV there is a comparison with ADM canonical metric gravity.

In the Conclusions the next step, namely the identification of the Dirac observables with respect to the gauge transfomations generated by thirteen constraints (only the superhamitonian constraint is not treated) is delineated.

Appendix A is devoted to a review of 4-dimensional pseudo-Riemannian and 3-dimensional Riemannian manifolds asymptotically flat at spatial infinity, of the tetrad and triad formalisms and of the Lagrangians used for general relativity.

Ref. contains an enlarged version of this paper: i) more review material is included in its Section II; ii) there is an Appendix A with the explicit expression of 4-tensors and of the geodesic equation and also with a review on the congruences of timelike worldlines; iii) there is an Appendix B with the Hamiltonian expression of 4-tensors.

## II New Parametrization of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$-Adapted Tetrads.

As said in the Introduction and in Appendix A, to which we refer for the notations and the definitions, let our globally hyperbolic spacetime $`M^4`$ be foliated with spacelike Cauchy hypersurfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$, obtained with the embeddings $`i_\tau :\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau M^4`$, $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }x^\mu =z^\mu (\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$, of a 3-manifold $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in $`M^4`$ ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡$`\tau :M^4R`$ is a global, timelike, future-oriented function labelling the leaves of the foliation; $`x^\mu `$ are local coordinates in a chart of $`M^4`$; $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }=\{\sigma ^r\}`$, r=1,2,3, are local coordinates in a chart of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, which is diffeomorphic to $`R^3`$; we shall use the notation $`\sigma ^A=(\sigma ^\tau =\tau ;\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$, $`A=\tau ,r`$, and $`z^\mu (\sigma )=z^\mu (\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$..

In the family of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$-adapted frames and coframes on $`M^4`$, we can select special tetrads and cotetrads $`{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{E}_{(\alpha )}^{}`$ and $`{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{\theta }_{}^{(\alpha )}`$ also adapted to a given set of triads $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}`$ and cotriads $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{r}^{(a)}={}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$

$`{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{E}_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`\{{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{E}_{(o)}^{\mu }=l^\mu =\widehat{b}_l^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}(b_\tau ^\mu N^rb_r^\mu );{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{E}_{(a)}^{\mu }={}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{s}b_s^\mu \},`$ (1)
$`{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{E}_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}`$ $`=`$ $`\{{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{E}_{\mu }^{(o)}=ϵl_\mu =\widehat{b}_\mu ^l=Nb_\mu ^\tau ;{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{E}_{\mu }^{(a)}={}_{}{}^{3}e_{s}^{(a)}\widehat{b}_\mu ^s\},`$ (2)
$`{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{E}_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }`$ $`{}_{}{}^{4}g_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{E}_{(\beta )}^{\nu }={}_{}{}^{4}\eta _{(\alpha )(\beta )}^{},`$ (4)
where $`b_r^\mu `$ and $`b_\mu ^r`$ are defined in Eqs.(A34) and $`l^\mu (\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ is the unit normal to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ at $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$. $`N`$ and $`N^r`$ are the standard lapse and shift functions.

The components of these tetrads and cotetrads in the holonomic basis defined in Subsection 1 of Appendix A are respectively (see Refs.; $`{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{\stackrel{~}{E}}_{r}^{(o)}=0`$ is the Schwinger time gauge condition)

$`{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{\stackrel{~}{E}}_{(\alpha )}^{A}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{E}_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }b_\mu ^A,{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{\stackrel{~}{E}}_{(o)}^{A}=ϵl^A,`$ (7)
$`{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{\stackrel{~}{E}}_{(o)}^{\tau }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}},{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{\stackrel{~}{E}}_{(a)}^{\tau }=0,`$
$`{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{\stackrel{~}{E}}_{(o)}^{r}={\displaystyle \frac{N^r}{N}},{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{\stackrel{~}{E}}_{(a)}^{r}={}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r};`$
$`{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{\stackrel{~}{E}}_{A}^{(\alpha )}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{E}_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}b_A^\mu ,{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{\stackrel{~}{E}}_{A}^{(o)}=l_A,`$ (12)
$`{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{\stackrel{~}{E}}_{\tau }^{(o)}=N,{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{\stackrel{~}{E}}_{\tau }^{(a)}=N^r{}_{}{}^{3}e_{r}^{(a)}=N^{(a)},`$
$`{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{\stackrel{~}{E}}_{r}^{(o)}=0,{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{\stackrel{~}{E}}_{r}^{(a)}={}_{}{}^{3}e_{r}^{(a)},`$
$`{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{E}_{(\alpha )}^{A}{}_{}{}^{4}g_{AB}^{}{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{E}_{(\beta )}^{B}={}_{}{}^{4}\eta _{(\alpha )(\beta )}^{}.`$
With the cotetrads $`{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{E}_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}(z(\sigma ))`$ we can build the vector $`\stackrel{}{V}^{(\alpha )}=l^\mu (z(\sigma )){}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{E}_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}(z(\sigma ))=(1;\stackrel{}{0})`$: it is the same unit timelike future-pointing Minkowski 4-vector in the tangent plane of each point $`z^\mu (\sigma )=z^\mu (\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau M^4`$ for every $`\tau `$ and $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$; we have $`\stackrel{}{V}^{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{4}\eta _{(\alpha )(\beta )}^{}\stackrel{}{V}^{(\beta )}=ϵ`$.

Let $`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }(z)`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}(z)`$ be arbitrary tetrads and cotetrads on $`M^4`$. Let us define the point-dependent Minkowski 4-vector $`V^{(\alpha )}(z(\sigma ))=l^\mu (z(\sigma )){}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}(z(\sigma ))`$ (assumed to be future-pointing), which satisfies $`V^{(\alpha )}(z(\sigma )){}_{}{}^{4}\eta _{(\alpha )(\beta )}^{}V^{(\beta )}(z(\sigma ))=ϵ`$, so that $`V^{(\alpha )}(z(\sigma ))=(V^{(o)}(z(\sigma ))=+\sqrt{1+_rV^{(r)2}(z(\sigma ))};V^{(r)}(z(\sigma ))\stackrel{def}{=}\phi ^{(r)}(\sigma ))`$ : therefore, the point-dependent Minkowski 4-vector $`V^{(\alpha )}(z(\sigma ))`$ depends only on the three functions $`\phi ^{(r)}(\sigma )`$ §\*§\*§\*One has $`\phi ^{(r)}(\sigma )=ϵ\phi _{(r)}(\sigma )`$ since $`{}_{}{}^{4}\eta _{rs}^{}=ϵ\delta _{rs}`$; having the Euclidean signature (+++) for both $`ϵ=\pm 1`$, we shall define the Kronecker delta as $`\delta ^{(i)(j)}=\delta _{(j)}^{(i)}=\delta _{(i)(j)}`$.. If in each tangent plane we introduce the point-dependent Lorentz transformation

$`L^{(\alpha )}{}_{(\beta )}{}^{}(V(z(\sigma ));\stackrel{}{V})`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{(\beta )}^{(\alpha )}+2ϵV^{(\alpha )}(z(\sigma ))\stackrel{}{V}_{(\beta )}ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{(V^{(\alpha )}(z(\sigma ))+\stackrel{}{V}^{(\alpha )})(V_{(\beta )}(z(\sigma ))+\stackrel{}{V}_{(\beta )})}{1+V^{(o)}(z(\sigma ))}}=`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}V^{(o)}& ϵV_{(j)}\\ V^{(i)}& \delta _{(j)}^{(i)}ϵ\frac{V^{(i)}V_{(j)}}{1+V^{(o)}}\end{array}\right)(z(\sigma )),`$ (16)
which is the standard Wigner boost for timelike Poincaré orbits \[see Ref.\], one has by construction

$$V^{(\alpha )}(z(\sigma ))=L^{(\alpha )}{}_{(\beta )}{}^{}(V(z(\sigma ));\stackrel{}{V})\stackrel{}{V}^{(\beta )}\stackrel{def}{=}l^\mu (z(\sigma )){}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}(z(\sigma )).$$
(17)
We shall define our class of arbitrary cotretads $`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}(z(\sigma ))`$ on $`M^4`$ starting from the special $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$\- and cotriad-adapted cotetrads $`{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{E}_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}(z(\sigma ))`$ by means of the formula

$${}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}(z(\sigma ))=L^{(\alpha )}{}_{(\beta )}{}^{}(V(z(\sigma ));\stackrel{}{V}){}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{E}_{\mu }^{(\beta )}(z(\sigma )).$$
(18)
Let us remark that with this definition we are putting equal to zero, by convention, the angles of an arbitrary 3-rotation of $`b_\mu ^s(z(\sigma ))`$ §†§†§†I.e. of the choice of the three axes tangent to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$. inside $`{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{E}_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}(z(\sigma ))`$.

Since $`\phi ^{(a)}(\sigma )=V^{(a)}(z(\sigma ))=l^\mu (z(\sigma )){}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(a)}(z(\sigma ))`$ are the three parameters of the Wigner boost §‡§‡§‡$`\phi ^{(a)}=\overline{\gamma }\beta ^{(a)}`$, $`\overline{\gamma }=\sqrt{1+_{(c)}\phi ^{(c)2}}`$, $`\beta ^{(a)}=\phi ^{(a)}/\sqrt{1+_{(c)}\phi ^{(c)2}}`$., the previous equation can be rewritten in the following form \[remembering that $`\phi ^{(a)}=ϵ\phi _{(a)}`$\]

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(o)}\hfill \\ {}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(a)}\hfill \end{array}\right)(z(\sigma ))=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{1+_{(c)}\phi ^{(c)2}}& ϵ\phi _{(b)}\\ \phi ^{(a)}& \delta _{(b)}^{(a)}ϵ\frac{\phi ^{(a)}\phi _{(b)}}{1+\sqrt{1+_{(c)}\phi ^{(c)2}}}\end{array}\right)(z(\sigma ))\left(\begin{array}{c}l_\mu \hfill \\ {}_{}{}^{3}e_{s}^{(b)}b_\mu ^s\hfill \end{array}\right)(\sigma ).$$
(19)
If we go to holonomic bases, $`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{A}^{(\alpha )}(z(\sigma ))={}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}(z(\sigma ))b_A^\mu (\sigma )`$ and $`{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{\stackrel{~}{E}}_{A}^{(\alpha )}(z(\sigma ))={}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{E}_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}(z(\sigma ))b_A^\mu (\sigma )`$, one has

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{A}^{(o)}\hfill \\ {}_{}{}^{4}E_{A}^{(a)}\hfill \end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{1+_{(c)}\phi ^{(c)2}}& ϵ\phi _{(b)}\\ \phi ^{(a)}& \delta _{(b)}^{(a)}ϵ\frac{\phi ^{(a)}\phi _{(b)}}{1+\sqrt{1+_{(c)}\phi ^{(c)2}}}\end{array}\right)\times `$ (27)
$`\left(\begin{array}{c}{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{\stackrel{~}{E}}_{A}^{(o)}=(N;\stackrel{}{0})\hfill \\ {}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{\stackrel{~}{E}}_{A}^{(b)}=(N^{(b)}={}_{}{}^{3}e_{r}^{(b)}N^r;{}_{}{}^{3}e_{r}^{(b)})\hfill \end{array}\right),`$
so that we get that the cotetrad in the holonomic basis can be expressed in terms of N, $`N^{(a)}={}_{}{}^{3}e_{s}^{(a)}N^s=N_{(a)}`$, $`\phi ^{(a)}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{r}^{(a)}`$ \[$`{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}=_{(a)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)s}^{}`$\]

$`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\tau }^{(o)}(z(\sigma ))=\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \underset{(c)}{}}\phi ^{(c)2}(\sigma )}N(\sigma )+{\displaystyle \underset{(a)}{}}\phi ^{(a)}(\sigma )N^{(a)}(\sigma ),`$ (31)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{r}^{(o)}(z(\sigma ))={\displaystyle \underset{(a)}{}}\phi ^{(a)}(\sigma ){}_{}{}^{3}e_{r}^{(a)}(\sigma ),`$
$`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\tau }^{(a)}(z(\sigma ))=\phi ^{(a)}(\sigma )N(\sigma )+{\displaystyle \underset{(b)}{}}[\delta _{(b)}^{(a)}ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{\phi ^{(a)}(\sigma )\phi _{(b)}(\sigma )}{1+\sqrt{1+_{(c)}\phi ^{(c)2}(\sigma )}}}]N^{(b)}(\sigma ),`$
$`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{r}^{(a)}(z(\sigma ))={\displaystyle \underset{(b)}{}}[\delta _{(b)}^{(a)}ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{\phi ^{(a)}(\sigma )\phi _{(b)}(\sigma )}{1+\sqrt{1+_{(c)}\phi ^{(c)2}(\sigma )}}}]{}_{}{}^{3}e_{r}^{(b)}(\sigma ),`$
$`{}_{}{}^{4}g_{AB}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{A}^{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{4}\eta _{(\alpha )(\beta )}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{B}^{(\beta )}={}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{E}_{A}^{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{4}\eta _{(\alpha )(\beta )}^{}{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{E}_{B}^{(\beta )}=`$ (34)
$`=`$ $`ϵ\left(\begin{array}{cc}(N^2{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}N^rN^s)& {}_{}{}^{3}g_{st}^{}N^t\\ {}_{}{}^{3}g_{rt}^{}N^t& {}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}\end{array}\right),`$ (37)
with the last line in accord with Eqs.(A34); we have used $`L^T{}_{}{}^{4}\eta L={}_{}{}^{4}\eta `$, valid for every Lorentz transformation. We find $`L^1(V,\stackrel{}{V})={}_{}{}^{4}\eta L^T(V,\stackrel{}{V}){}_{}{}^{4}\eta =L(V,\stackrel{}{V})|_{\phi ^{(a)}\phi ^{(a)}}`$ and \[$`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{A}={}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }b_\mu ^A`$, $`{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{\stackrel{~}{E}}_{(\alpha )}^{A}={}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{E}_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }b_\mu ^A`$\]

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(o)}^{\mu }\hfill \\ {}_{}{}^{4}E_{(a)}^{\mu }\hfill \end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{1+_{(c)}\phi ^{(c)2}}& \phi ^{(b)}\\ ϵ\phi _{(a)}& \delta _{(a)}^{(b)}ϵ\frac{\phi _{(a)}\phi ^{(b)}}{1+\sqrt{1+_{(c)}\phi ^{(c)2}}}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}l^\mu \hfill \\ b_s^\mu {}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{s}\hfill \end{array}\right),`$ (44)
$`\left(\begin{array}{c}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(o)}^{A}\hfill \\ {}_{}{}^{4}E_{(a)}^{A}\hfill \end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{1+_{(c)}\phi ^{(c)2}}& \phi ^{(b)}\\ ϵ\phi ^{(a)}& \delta _{(a)}^{(b)}ϵ\frac{\phi _{(a)}\phi ^{(b)}}{1+\sqrt{1+_{(c)}\phi ^{(c)2}}}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{\stackrel{~}{E}}_{(o)}^{A}=(1/N;N^r/N)\hfill \\ {}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{\stackrel{~}{E}}_{(b)}^{A}=(0;{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{r})\hfill \end{array}\right),`$ (58)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(o)}^{\tau }(z(\sigma ))=\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \underset{(c)}{}}\phi ^{(c)2}(\sigma )}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N(\sigma )}},`$
$`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(o)}^{r}(z(\sigma )=\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \underset{(c)}{}}\phi ^{(c)2}(\sigma )}{\displaystyle \frac{N^r(\sigma )}{N(\sigma )}}\phi ^{(b)}(\sigma ){}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{r}(\sigma ),`$
$`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(a)}^{\tau }(z(\sigma ))=ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{(a)}(\sigma )}{N(\sigma )}},`$
$`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(a)}^{r}(z(\sigma ))=ϵ\phi _{(a)}(\sigma ){\displaystyle \frac{N^r(\sigma )}{N(\sigma )}}+{\displaystyle \underset{(b)}{}}[\delta _{(a)}^{(b)}ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{(a)}(\sigma )\phi ^{(b)}(\sigma )}{1+\sqrt{1+_{(c)}\phi ^{(c)2}(\sigma )}}}]{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{r}(\sigma ),`$
$`{}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{A}{}_{}{}^{4}\eta _{}^{(\alpha )(\beta )}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\beta )}^{B}={}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{E}_{(\alpha )}^{A}{}_{}{}^{4}\eta _{(\alpha )(\beta )}^{}{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{E}_{(\beta )}^{B}=`$ (60)
$`=`$ $`ϵ\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{N^2}& \frac{N^s}{N^2}\\ \frac{N^r}{N^2}& ({}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rs}\frac{N^rN^s}{N^2})\end{array}\right),`$ (63)
with the last line in accord with Eqs.(A34).

From $`{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{\stackrel{~}{E}}_{A}^{(\alpha )}(z(\sigma ))=(L^1)^{(\alpha )}{}_{(\beta )}{}^{}(V(z(\sigma ));\stackrel{}{V}){}_{}{}^{4}E_{A}^{(\beta )}(z(\sigma ))`$ and $`{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{\stackrel{~}{E}}_{(\alpha )}^{A}(z(\sigma ))={}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\beta )}^{A}(L^1)^{(\beta )}{}_{(\alpha )}{}^{}(V(z(\sigma ));\stackrel{}{V})`$ it turns out that the flat indices $`(a)`$ of the adapted tetrads $`{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{E}_{(a)}^{\mu }`$ and of the triads $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}`$ and cotriads $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{r}^{(a)}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ transform as Wigner spin 1 indices under point-dependent SO(3) Wigner rotations $`R^{(a)}{}_{(b)}{}^{}(V(z(\sigma ));\mathrm{\Lambda }(z(\sigma )))`$ associated with Lorentz transformations $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(\alpha )}{}_{(\beta )}{}^{}(z)`$ in the tangent plane to $`M^4`$ in the same point §§§§§§$`R^{(\alpha )}{}_{(\beta )}{}^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }(z(\sigma ));V(z(\sigma )))=[L(\stackrel{}{V};V(z(\sigma )))\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(z(\sigma ))L(\mathrm{\Lambda }(z(\sigma ))V(z(\sigma ));\stackrel{}{V})]^{(\alpha )}{}_{(\beta )}{}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& R^{(a)}{}_{(b)}{}^{}(V(z(\sigma ));\mathrm{\Lambda }(z(\sigma )))\end{array}\right)`$.. Instead the index $`(o)`$ of the adapted tetrads $`{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{E}_{(o)}^{\mu }`$ is a local Lorentz scalar in each point. Therefore, the adapted tetrads in the holonomic basis should be denoted as $`{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{\stackrel{~}{E}}_{(\overline{\alpha })}^{A}`$, with $`(\overline{o})`$ and $`A=(\tau ,r)`$ Lorentz scalar indices and with $`(\overline{a})`$ Wigner spin 1 indices; we shall go on with the indices $`(o),(a)`$ without the overbar for the sake of simplicity. In this way the tangent planes to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ in $`M^4`$ are described in a Wigner covariant way, reminiscent of the flat rest-frame covariant instant form of dynamics introduced in Minkowski spacetime in Ref.. Similar conclusions are reached independently in Ref. in the framework of non-linear Poincaré gauge theory §¶§¶§¶The vector fields $`e_\alpha `$ and the 1-forms $`\theta ^\alpha `$ of that paper correspond to $`X_{\stackrel{~}{A}}`$ and $`\theta ^{\stackrel{~}{A}}`$ in Eq.(A38) respectively..

Therefore, an arbitrary tetrad field, namely a (in general non-geodesic) congruence of observers’ timelike worldlines with 4-velocity field $`u^A(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })={}_{}{}^{4}E_{(o)}^{A}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$, can be obtained with a pointwise Wigner boost from the special surface-forming timelike congruence whose 4-velocity field is the normal to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ $`l^A(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=ϵ{}_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}^{4}\stackrel{ˇ}{\stackrel{~}{E}}_{(o)}^{A}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ §∥§∥§∥It is associated with the 3+1 splitting of $`M^4`$ with leaves $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$..

We can invert Eqs.(63) to get N, $`N^r={}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}N^{(a)}`$, $`\phi ^{(a)}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}`$ in terms of the tetrads $`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{A}`$

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{[{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(o)}^{\tau }]^2_{(c)}[{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(c)}^{\tau }]^2}}}.`$ (64)
$`N^r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(o)}^{\tau }{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(0)}^{r}_{(c)}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(c)}^{\tau }{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(c)}^{r}}{[{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(0)}^{\tau }]^2_{(c)}[{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(c)}^{\tau }]^2}}`$ (65)
$`\phi _{(a)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(a)}^{\tau }}{\sqrt{[{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(o)}^{\tau }]^2_{(c)}[{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(c)}^{\tau }]^2}}}`$ (66)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{(b)}{}}B_{(a)(b)}\left({}_{}{}^{4}E_{(b)}^{r}+N^r{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(b)}^{\tau }\right)`$ (69)
$`B_{(a)(b)}=\delta _{(a)(b)}{\displaystyle \frac{{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(a)}^{\tau }{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(b)}^{\tau }}{{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(0)}^{\tau }[{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(0)}^{\tau }+\sqrt{[{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(0)}^{\tau }]^2_{(c)}[{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(c)}^{\tau }]^2}]}}.`$
If $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{}^{1}=det({}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r})`$, then from the orthonormality condition we get $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}={}_{}{}^{3}e({}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)}^{t}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{t}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)}^{s})`$ §\**§\**§\**With $`(a),(b),(c)`$ and $`r,s,t`$ cyclic. and it allows to express the cotriads in terms of the tetrads $`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{A}`$. Therefore, given the tetrads $`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{A}`$ (or equivalently the cotetrads $`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{A}^{(\alpha )}`$) on $`M^4`$, an equivalent set of variables with the local Lorentz covariance replaced with local Wigner covariance are the lapse N, the shifts $`N^{(a)}=N_{(a)}={}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}N^r`$, the Wigner-boost parameters $`\phi ^{(a)}=ϵ\phi _{(a)}`$ and either the triads $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}`$ or the cotriads $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}`$.

## III The Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian in the New Variables.

### A The Lagrangian Formulation.

As said in Subsection 4 of Appendix A, we can get an action principle for tetrad gravity starting from the ADM action $`S_{ADM}`$ (A161):

$`S_{ADM}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{c^3}{16\pi G}}{\displaystyle _U}d^4x\sqrt{{}_{}{}^{4}g}[{}_{}{}^{3}R+{}_{}{}^{3}K_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{3}K_{}^{\mu \nu }({}_{}{}^{3}K)^2]=`$ (70)
$`=`$ $`ϵk{\displaystyle _\mathrm{}\tau }𝑑\tau {\displaystyle d^3\sigma \{\sqrt{\gamma }N[{}_{}{}^{3}R+{}_{}{}^{3}K_{rs}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}K_{}^{rs}({}_{}{}^{3}K)^2]\}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })}.`$ (71)
Its independent variables in metric gravity have now the following expression in terms of N, $`N^{(a)}=N_{(a)}={}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}N_r`$, $`\phi ^{(a)}=ϵ\phi _{(a)}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{r}^{(a)}={}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}`$ §††§††§††$`\gamma =det({}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{})=({}_{}{}^{3}e)^2=(det(e_{(a)r}))^2`$.

$`N,`$ $`N_r={}_{}{}^{3}e_{r}^{(a)}N_{(a)}={}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}N_{(a)},`$ (72)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{r}^{(a)}\delta _{(a)(b)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{s}^{(b)}={}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)s}^{},`$ (73)
so that the line element of $`M^4`$ becomes

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ(N^2N_{(a)}N_{(a)})(d\tau )^22ϵN_{(a)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}d\tau d\sigma ^rϵ{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)s}^{}d\sigma ^rd\sigma ^s=`$ (74)
$`=`$ $`ϵ\left[N^2(d\tau )^2({}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}d\sigma ^r+N_{(a)}d\tau )({}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)s}^{}d\sigma ^s+N_{(a)}d\tau )\right].`$ (75)
The extrinsic curvature takes the form §‡‡§‡‡§‡‡$`N_{(a)|r}={}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{s}N_{s|r}=_rN_{(a)}ϵ_{(a)(b)(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{r(b)}^{}N_{(c)}`$ from Eq.(A104).

$`{}_{}{}^{3}K_{rs}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{b}_r^\mu \widehat{b}_s^\nu {}_{}{}^{3}K_{\mu \nu }^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N}}(N_{r|s}+N_{s|r}_\tau {}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{})=`$ (76)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N}}({}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}\delta _s^w+{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)s}^{}\delta _r^w)(N_{(a)|w}_\tau {}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)w}^{}),`$ (77)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}K_{r(a)}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}K_{rs}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{s}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N}}(\delta _{(a)(b)}\delta _r^w+{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{w}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)r}^{})(N_{(b)|w}_\tau {}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)w}^{}),`$ (78)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}K`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}(N_{(a)|r}_\tau {}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}),`$ (79)
so that the ADM action in the new variables is (from now on we shall use the notation $`k=\frac{c^3}{16\pi G}`$)

$`\widehat{S}_{ADMT}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \widehat{L}_{ADMT}}=`$ (80)
$`=`$ $`ϵk{\displaystyle }d\tau d^3\sigma \{N{}_{}{}^{3}eϵ_{(a)(b)(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Omega }_{rs(c)}^{}+`$ (81)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{{}_{}{}^{3}e}{2N}}({}_{}{}^{3}G_{o}^{1})_{(a)(b)(c)(d)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{r}(N_{(a)|r}_\tau {}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}){}_{}{}^{3}e_{(d)}^{s}(N_{(c)|s}_\tau {}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)s}^{})\},`$ (82)
where we introduced the flat inverse Wheeler-DeWitt supermetric

$$({}_{}{}^{3}G_{o}^{1})_{(a)(b)(c)(d)}=\delta _{(a)(c)}\delta _{(b)(d)}+\delta _{(a)(d)}\delta _{(b)(c)}2\delta _{(a)(b)}\delta _{(c)(d)}.$$
(83)
The flat supermetric is

$`{}_{}{}^{3}G_{o(a)(b)(c)(d)}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}G_{o(b)(a)(c)(d)}^{}={}_{}{}^{3}G_{o(a)(b)(d)(c)}^{}={}_{}{}^{3}G_{o(c)(d)(a)(b)}^{}=`$ (84)
$`=`$ $`\delta _{(a)(c)}\delta _{(b)(d)}+\delta _{(a)(d)}\delta _{(b)(c)}\delta _{(a)(b)}\delta _{(c)(d)},`$ (87)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{o(a)(b)(e)(f)}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{o(e)(f)(c)(d)}^{1}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\delta _{(a)(c)}\delta _{(b)(d)}+\delta _{(a)(d)}\delta _{(b)(c)}].`$
The new action does not depend on the 3 boost variables $`\phi ^{(a)}`$ ¶\*¶\*¶\*Like the Higgs model Lagrangian in the unitary gauge does not depend on some of the Higgs fields., contains lapse N and modified shifts $`N_{(a)}`$ as Lagrange multipliers, and is a functional independent from the second time derivatives of the fields.

Instead of deriving its Euler-Lagrange equations we shall study its Hamiltonian formulation.

### B The Hamiltonian Formulation.

The canonical momenta and the Poisson brackets are

$`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^\stackrel{}{\phi }(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })={\displaystyle \frac{\delta \widehat{S}_{ADMT}}{\delta _\tau \phi _{(a)}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })}}=0,`$ (88)
$`\stackrel{~}{\pi }^N(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })={\displaystyle \frac{\delta \widehat{S}_{ADMT}}{\delta _\tau N(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })}}=0,`$ (89)
$`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^\stackrel{}{N}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })={\displaystyle \frac{\delta \widehat{S}_{ADMT}}{\delta _\tau N_{(a)}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })}}=0,`$ (90)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{r}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })={\displaystyle \frac{\delta \widehat{S}_{ADMT}}{\delta _\tau {}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })}}=[{\displaystyle \frac{ϵk{}_{}{}^{3}e}{N}}({}_{}{}^{3}G_{o}^{1})_{(a)(b)(c)(d)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(d)}^{s}(N_{(c)|s}_\tau {}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)s}^{})](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=`$ (91)
$`=2ϵk[{}_{}{}^{3}e({}_{}{}^{3}K_{}^{rs}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}K){}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)s}^{}](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),`$ (92)
(93)
$`\{N(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),\stackrel{~}{\pi }^N(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})\}=\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}}),`$ (94)
$`\{N_{(a)}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(b)}^\stackrel{}{N}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})\}=\delta _{(a)(b)}\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}}),`$ (95)
$`\{\phi _{(a)}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(b)}^\stackrel{}{\phi }(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})\}=\delta _{(a)(b)}\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}}),`$ (96)
$`\{{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(b)}^{s}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})\}=\delta _{(a)(b)}\delta _r^s\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}}),`$ (97)
(98)
$`\{{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(b)}^{s}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})\}={}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{r}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }){}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{s}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}}),`$ (99)
$`\{{}_{}{}^{3}e(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{r}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})\}={}_{}{}^{3}e(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }){}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}}),`$ (100)
where the Dirac delta distribution is a density of weight -1 ¶†¶†¶†It behaves as $`\sqrt{\gamma (\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })}`$, because we have the $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}}`$-reparametrization invariant result $`d^3\sigma ^{^{}}\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})f(\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})=f(\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$.. The momentum $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{r}`$ is a density of weight -1.

Besides the seven primary constraints

$`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^\stackrel{}{\phi }(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })0,`$ (101)
$`\stackrel{~}{\pi }^N(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })0,`$ (102)
$`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^\stackrel{}{N}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })0,`$ (103)
there are the following three primary constraints (the generators of the inner rotations)

$`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(a)}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{(a)(b)(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)r}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }){}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(c)}^{r}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{(a)(b)(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(b)(c)}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })0,`$ (104)
$``$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(a)(b)}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=ϵ_{(a)(b)(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(c)}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=`$ (105)
$`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }){}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(b)}^{r}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }){}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)r}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }){}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{r}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })0.`$ (106)
By using Eqs.(87) and (100) we get the following inversion

$`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}`$ $`(`$ $`N_{(b)|r}_\tau {}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)r}^{})+^3e^r_{(b)}(N_{(a)|r}_\tau {}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{})=`$ (107)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵN}{2k{}_{}{}^{3}e}}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{o(a)(b)(c)(d)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)r}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(d)}^{r},`$ (108)
so that, even if, due to the degeneracy associated with the first class constraints, this equation cannot be solved for $`_\tau {}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}`$ , we can get the phase space expression of the extrinsic curvature without using the Hamilton equations

$`{}_{}{}^{3}K_{rs}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{4k{}_{}{}^{3}e}}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{o(a)(b)(c)(d)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)s}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)u}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(d)}^{u},`$ (109)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}K`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{2k\sqrt{\gamma }}}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{4k{}_{}{}^{3}e}}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{r}.`$ (110)
Since at the Lagrangian level the primary constraints are identically zero, we have

$`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{r}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)s}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{s}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{r}[{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)s}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(b)}^{s}+{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)s}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{s}]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(a)(b)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{r}`$ (111)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{r}[{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)s}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(b)}^{s}+{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)s}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{s}],`$ (112)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{r}`$ $`_\tau `$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)s}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(b)}^{s}+{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)s}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{s}]{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{r}_\tau {}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}`$ (114)
$``$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{r}N_{(a)|r}{\displaystyle \frac{N}{4k{}_{}{}^{3}e}}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{o(a)(b)(c)(d)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)s}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(b)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)r}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(d)}^{r},`$ (115)
and the canonical Hamiltonian is

$`\widehat{H}_{(c)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3\sigma [\stackrel{~}{\pi }^N_\tau N+\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^\stackrel{}{N}_\tau N_{(a)}+\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^\stackrel{}{\phi }_\tau \phi _{(a)}+{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{r}_\tau {}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })}\widehat{L}_{ADMT}=`$ (116)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau }}d^3\sigma [ϵN(k{}_{}{}^{3}eϵ_{(a)(b)(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Omega }_{rs(c)}^{}`$ (117)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8k{}_{}{}^{3}e}}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{o(a)(b)(c)(d)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(b)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)s}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(d)}^{s})`$ (118)
$``$ $`N_{(a)}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)|r}^{r}](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })+{\displaystyle }_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau }d^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_r[N_{(a)}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{r}](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }).`$ (119)
In this paper we shall ignore the surface term.

The Dirac Hamiltonian is (the $`\lambda (\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$’s are arbitrary Dirac multipliers)

$$\widehat{H}_{(D)}=\widehat{H}_{(c)}+d^3\sigma [\lambda _N\stackrel{~}{\pi }^N+\lambda _{(a)}^\stackrel{}{N}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^\stackrel{}{N}+\lambda _{(a)}^\stackrel{}{\phi }\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^\stackrel{}{\phi }+\mu _{(a)}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(a)}^{}](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }).$$
(120)
The $`\tau `$-constancy of the ten primary constraints ($`_\tau \stackrel{~}{\pi }^N(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })0`$ and $`_\tau \stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^\stackrel{}{N}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })0`$) generates four secondary constraints

$`\widehat{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ[k{}_{}{}^{3}eϵ_{(a)(b)(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Omega }_{rs(c)}^{}`$ (121)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8k{}_{}{}^{3}e}}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{o(a)(b)(c)(d)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(b)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)s}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(d)}^{s}](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=`$ (122)
$`=`$ $`ϵ\left[k{}_{}{}^{3}e{}_{}{}^{3}R{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8k{}_{}{}^{3}e}}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{o(a)(b)(c)(d)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(b)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)s}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(d)}^{s}\right](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })0,`$ (123)
$`\widehat{}_{(a)}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ $`=`$ $`[_r{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{r}ϵ_{(a)(b)(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{r(b)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(c)}^{r}](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })={}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)|r}^{r}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })0,`$ (124)
$``$ $`\widehat{H}_{(c)}={\displaystyle d^3\sigma [N\widehat{}N_{(a)}\widehat{}_{(a)}](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })}0.`$ (126)
It can be checked that the superhamiltonian constraint $`\widehat{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })0`$ coincides with the ADM metric superhamiltonian one $`\stackrel{~}{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })0`$ given in Eqs.(277) of Section IV, where also the ADM metric supermomentum constraints is expressed in terms of the tetrad gravity constraints.

It is convenient to replace the constraints $`\widehat{}_{(a)}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })0`$ ¶‡¶‡¶‡They are of the type of SO(3) Yang-Mills Gauss laws, because they are the covariant divergence of a vector density. with the 3 constraints generating space pseudo-diffeomorphisms on the cotriads and their conjugate momenta

$`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{r}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ $`=`$ $`[{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}\widehat{}_{(a)}+{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{r(a)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(a)}^{}](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=`$ (127)
$`=`$ $`[{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{s}_r{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)s}^{}_s({}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{s})](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })0,`$ (128)
$`\widehat{}_{(a)}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })[{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{r}^{}+{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{r(b)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(b)}^{}](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })0,`$ (130)
$``$ $`\widehat{H}_{(D)}=\widehat{H}_{(c)}^{^{}}+{\displaystyle d^3\sigma [\lambda _N\stackrel{~}{\pi }^N+\lambda _{(a)}^\stackrel{}{N}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^\stackrel{}{N}+\lambda _{(a)}^\stackrel{}{\phi }\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^\stackrel{}{\phi }+\widehat{\mu }_{(a)}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(a)}^{}](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })},`$ (133)
$`\widehat{H}_{(c)}^{^{}}={\displaystyle d^3\sigma [N\widehat{}+N_{(a)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{r}^{}](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })},`$
where we replaced $`[\mu _{(a)}N_{(b)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{r(a)}^{}](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ with the new Dirac multipliers $`\widehat{\mu }_{(a)}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$.

All the constraints are first class because the only non-identically vanishing Poisson brackets are

$`\{{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(a)}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(b)}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})\}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{(a)(b)(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(c)}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}}),`$ (135)
$`\{{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(a)}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{r}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})\}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(a)}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}}){\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})}{\sigma ^r}},`$ (136)
$`\{{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{r}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{s}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})\}`$ $`=`$ $`[{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{r}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}}){\displaystyle \frac{}{\sigma ^s}}+{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{s}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }){\displaystyle \frac{}{\sigma ^r}}]\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}}),`$ (137)
$`\{\widehat{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{r}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})\}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}}){\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})}{\sigma ^r}},`$ (138)
$`\{\widehat{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),\widehat{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})\}`$ $`=`$ $`[{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })\widehat{}_{(a)}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })+`$ (139)
$`+`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})\widehat{}_{(a)}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})]{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})}{\sigma ^r}}=`$ (140)
$`=`$ $`\{[{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{s}[{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{s}^{}+{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{s(b)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(b)}^{}]](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })+`$ (141)
$`+`$ $`[{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{s}[{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{s}^{}+{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{s(b)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(b)}^{}]](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})\}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})}{\sigma ^r}}.`$ (142)
As said at the end of the Introduction, the Hamiltonian gauge group has the 14 first class constraints as generators of infinitesimal gauge transformations connected with the identity. In particular $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^\stackrel{}{\phi }(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })0`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(a)}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })0`$ are the generators of the $`R^3\times SO(3)`$ subgroup replacing the Lorentz subgroup with our parametrization, while $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{r}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })0`$ are the generators of the infinitesimal pseudodiffeomorphisms in $`Diff\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$.

The Poisson brackets of the cotriads and of their conjugate momenta with the constraints are \[$`{}_{}{}^{3}R=ϵ_{(a)(b)(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Omega }_{rs(c)}^{}`$\]

$`\{{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(b)}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})\}=ϵ_{(a)(b)(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)r}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}}),`$ (149)
$`\{{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{s}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})\}={\displaystyle \frac{{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })}{\sigma ^s}}\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})+{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)s}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }){\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})}{\sigma ^r}},`$
$`\{{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),\widehat{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})\}={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{4k}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{{}_{}{}^{3}e}}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{o(a)(b)(c)(d)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)r}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)s}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(d)}^{s}\right](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}}),`$
$`\{{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{r}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(b)}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})\}=ϵ_{(a)(b)(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(c)}^{r}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}}),`$
$`\{{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{r}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{s}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})\}={}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{r}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}}){\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})}{\sigma ^{}_{}{}^{}s}}+\delta _s^r{\displaystyle \frac{}{\sigma ^{}_{}{}^{}u}}[{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{u}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})],`$
$`\{{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{r}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),\widehat{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})\}=ϵ[2k{}_{}{}^{3}e({}_{}{}^{3}R_{}^{rs}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rs}{}_{}{}^{3}R){}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)s}^{}+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4k{}_{}{}^{3}e}}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{o(a)(b)(c)(d)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(b)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)s}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(d)}^{s}`$ (150)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8k{}_{}{}^{3}e}}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{o(b)(c)(d)(e)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)u}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(c)}^{u}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(d)v}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(e)}^{v}](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})+`$ (151)
$`+`$ $`2k{}_{}{}^{3}e(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })\left[{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{uv}^{w}({}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{u}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rv}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{uv})\right](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}}){\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})}{\sigma ^w}}+`$ (152)
$`+`$ $`2k{}_{}{}^{3}e(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })[{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{u}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rv}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{uv})](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}}){\displaystyle \frac{^2\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})}{\sigma ^u\sigma ^v}},`$ (153)
where we used $`\{{}_{}{}^{3}e(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }){}_{}{}^{3}R(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{r}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})\}=2k\left[{}_{}{}^{3}e({}_{}{}^{3}R_{}^{rs}\frac{1}{2}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rs}{}_{}{}^{3}R){}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)s}^{}\right](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})+`$ $`+2k{}_{}{}^{3}e(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })\left[{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{uv}^{w}({}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{u}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rv}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{uv})\right](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})\frac{\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})}{\sigma ^w}+`$ $`+2k{}_{}{}^{3}e(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })\left[{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{u}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rv}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{uv}\right](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})\frac{^2\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})}{\sigma ^u\sigma ^v}`$.

The Hamilton equations associated with the Dirac Hamiltonian (LABEL:III17) are (see Eqs.(A140) for $`{}_{}{}^{3}R_{}^{uv}`$)

$`_\tau N(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ $`\stackrel{}{=}`$ $`\{N(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),\widehat{H}_{(D)}^{^{}}\}=\lambda _N(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),`$ (154)
$`_\tau N_{(a)}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ $`\stackrel{}{=}`$ $`\{N_{(a)}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),\widehat{H}_{(D)}^{^{}}\}=\lambda _{(a)}^\stackrel{}{N}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),`$ (155)
$`_\tau \phi _{(a)}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ $`\stackrel{}{=}`$ $`\{\phi _{(a)}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),\widehat{H}_{(D)}^{^{}}\}=\lambda _{(a)}^\stackrel{}{\phi }(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),`$ (156)
$`_\tau {}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ $`\stackrel{}{=}`$ $`\{{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),\widehat{H}_{(D)}^{^{}}\}=`$ (157)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{4k}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{N}{{}_{}{}^{3}e}}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{o(a)(b)(c)(d)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)r}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)s}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(d)}^{s}\right](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })+`$ (158)
$`+`$ $`\left[N_{(b)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{s}{\displaystyle \frac{{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}}{\sigma ^s}}+{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)s}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\sigma ^r}}(N_{(b)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{s})\right](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })+`$ (159)
$`+`$ $`ϵ_{(a)(b)(c)}\widehat{\mu }_{(b)}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }){}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)r}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),`$ (160)
$`_\tau {}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{r}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ $`\stackrel{}{=}`$ $`\{{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{r}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),\widehat{H}_{(D)}^{^{}}\}=`$ (161)
$`=`$ $`2kϵ[{}_{}{}^{3}eN({}_{}{}^{3}R_{}^{rs}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rs}{}_{}{}^{3}R){}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)s}^{}+{}_{}{}^{3}e(N^{|r|s}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rs}N^{|u}{}_{|u}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)s}^{}](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ (162)
$``$ $`ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{N(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })}{8k}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{{}_{}{}^{3}e}}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{o(a)(b)(c)(d)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(b)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)s}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(d)}^{s}`$ (163)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{{}_{}{}^{3}e}}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{o(b)(c)(d)(e)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)u}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(c)}^{u}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(d)v}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(e)}^{v}](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })+`$ (164)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\sigma ^s}}\left[N_{(b)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{r}\right](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }){}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{u}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }){\displaystyle \frac{}{\sigma ^u}}\left[N_{(b)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{r}\right](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })+`$ (165)
$`+`$ $`ϵ_{(a)(b)(c)}\widehat{\mu }_{(b)}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }){}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(c)}^{r}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),`$ (167)
$``$
$`_\tau {}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{s}_\tau {}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)s}^{}\right](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })\stackrel{}{=}`$ (168)
$`\stackrel{}{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{4k}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{N}{{}_{}{}^{3}e}}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{o(a)(b)(c)(d)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)s}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(d)}^{s}\right](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ (169)
$``$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{s}\left[N_{(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)}^{u}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{r}{\displaystyle \frac{{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)s}^{}}{\sigma ^u}}+{\displaystyle \frac{}{\sigma ^s}}(N_{(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)}^{r})\right](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })+`$ (170)
$`+`$ $`ϵ_{(a)(b)(c)}\widehat{\mu }_{(b)}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }){}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)}^{r}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),`$ (171)
$`_\tau {}_{}{}^{3}e(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{}_{}{}^{3}e{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}_\tau {}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}\right](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })\stackrel{}{=}`$ (172)
$`\stackrel{}{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{4k}}\left[N{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)s}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{s}\right](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })+`$ (173)
$`+`$ $`\left({}_{}{}^{3}e\left[N_{(b)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}_s{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}+{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)s}^{}_r(N_{(b)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{s})\right]\right)(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }).`$ (174)
From the Hamilton equations and Eqs.(A140), (110), we get

$`_\tau {}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ $`\stackrel{}{=}`$ $`\left[N_{r|s}+N_{s|r}2N{}_{}{}^{3}K_{rs}^{}\right](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),`$ (175)
$`_\tau {}_{}{}^{3}K_{rs}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ $`\stackrel{}{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4k}}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{o(a)(b)(c)(d)}^{}({\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{{}_{}{}^{3}e}}[_v(N_{(m)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(m)}^{v}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)s}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)u}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(d)}^{u})+`$ (176)
$`+`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)u}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(d)}^{u}[2kN({}_{}{}^{3}R_{}^{uv}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{uv}{}_{}{}^{3}R)+ϵ(N^{|u|v}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{uv}N^{|l}{}_{|l}{}^{})]{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(d)v}^{}`$ (177)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{4k{}_{}{}^{3}e_{}^{2}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)s}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)u}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{o(d)(e)(f)(g)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(e)}^{u}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(f)v}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(g)}^{v}`$ (178)
$``$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)s}^{}\delta _{(c)(d)}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{o(e)(f)(g)(h)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(e)u}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(f)}^{u}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(g)v}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(h)}^{v}+`$ (179)
$`+`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)s}^{}({}_{}{}^{3}e_{(m)v}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(m)}^{v}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)u}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(d)}^{u}+{}_{}{}^{3}G_{o(c)(e)(f)(g)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(e)u}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(d)}^{u}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(f)v}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(f)}^{v})+`$ (180)
$`+`$ $`({}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{o(b)(e)(f)(g)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(e)s}^{}+{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)s}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{o(a)(e)(f)(g)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(e)r}^{})`$ (182)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(f)u}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(g)}^{u}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)v}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(d)}^{v}])(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),`$
$`_\tau {}_{}{}^{3}K(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ $`\stackrel{}{=}`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}N{}_{}{}^{3}R+4N^{|r}{}_{|r}{}^{}+`$ (183)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{(4k{}_{}{}^{3}e)^2}}\left[({}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{r})^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{o(a)(b)(c)(d)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(b)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)s}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(d)}^{s}\right]`$ (184)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{4k{}_{}{}^{3}e}}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{r}[N_{(m)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(m)}^{u}_u{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}+{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)u}^{}_r(N_{(m)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(m)}^{u})])(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),`$ (185)
$`_\tau {}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{r(a)(b)}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ $`\stackrel{}{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵN}{4k{}_{}{}^{3}e}}((_r{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)s}^{}_s{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)r}^{}){}_{}{}^{3}G_{o(a)(l)(m)(n)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(l)}^{s}+`$ (186)
$`+`$ $`(_s{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}_r{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)s}^{}){}_{}{}^{3}G_{o(b)(l)(m)(n)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(l)}^{s}+`$ (187)
$`+`$ $`(_v{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)u}^{}_u{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)v}^{})[{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{v}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)r}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{o(a)(l)(m)(n)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(l)}^{u}+`$ (188)
$`+`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{u}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)r}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{o(b)(l)(m)(n)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(l)}^{v}`$ (189)
$``$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{u}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{v}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{o(c)(l)(m)(n)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(l)r}^{}]{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(m)t}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(n)}^{t})`$ (190)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{4k}}([{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{o(b)(l)(m)(n)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{o(a)(l)(m)(n)}^{}]`$ (192)
$`\left[_r({\displaystyle \frac{N}{{}_{}{}^{3}e}}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(l)s}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(m)t}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(n)}^{t})_s({\displaystyle \frac{N}{{}_{}{}^{3}e}}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(l)r}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(m)t}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(n)}^{t})\right]+`$
$`+`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{u}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{v}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)r}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{o(c)(l)(m)(n)}^{}`$ (194)
$`[_v({\displaystyle \frac{N}{{}_{}{}^{3}e}}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(l)u}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(m)t}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(n)}^{t})_u({\displaystyle \frac{N}{{}_{}{}^{3}e}}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(l)v}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(m)t}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(n)}^{t})])`$
$``$ $`\left[(_r{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)s}^{}_s{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)r}^{}){}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{v}(_r{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)s}^{}_s{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}){}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{v}\right]`$ (196)
$`\left[N_{(w)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(w)}^{u}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(l)}^{s}_u(N_{(w)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(w)}^{s})\right]`$
$``$ $`(_v{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)u}^{}_u{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)v}^{})[({}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{v}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{t}+{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{u}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{t}){}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)r}^{}`$ (198)
$`\left[N_{(m)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(m)}^{w}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(l)}^{u}_w{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(l)t}^{}+_t(N_{(w)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(w)}^{u})\right]+`$
$`+`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{u}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{v}(N_{(m)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(m)}^{w}_w{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)r}^{}+{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)w}^{}_r(N_{(m)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(m)}^{w})]+`$ (199)
$`+`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{s}(_r(N_{(w)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(w)}^{u}_u{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)s}^{}+{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)u}^{}_s(N_{(w)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(w)}^{u}))`$ (200)
$``$ $`_s(N_{(w)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(w)}^{u}_u{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)r}^{}+{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)u}^{}_r(N_{(w)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(w)}^{u})))`$ (201)
$``$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{s}(_r(N_{(w)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(w)}^{u}_u{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)s}^{}+{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)u}^{}_s(N_{(w)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(w)}^{u}))`$ (202)
$``$ $`_s(N_{(w)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(w)}^{u}_u{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}+{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)u}^{}_r(N_{(w)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(w)}^{u})))+`$ (203)
$`+`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{u}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{v}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)r}^{}(_v(N_{(w)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(w)}^{t}_t{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)u}^{}+{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)t}^{}_u(N_{(w)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(w)}^{t}))`$ (204)
$``$ $`_u(N_{(w)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(w)}^{t}_t{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)v}^{}+{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)t}^{}_v(N_{(w)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(w)}^{t})))+`$ (205)
$`+`$ $`([(_r{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)s}^{}_s{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)r}^{})ϵ_{(a)(m)(n)}(_r{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)s}^{}_s{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{})ϵ_{(b)(m)(n)}]{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(n)}^{s}+`$ (206)
$`+`$ $`(_v{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)u}^{}_u{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)v}^{})[{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{v}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)r}^{}ϵ_{(a)(m)(n)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(n)}^{u}+`$ (207)
$`+`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{u}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)r}^{}ϵ_{(b)(m)(n)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(n)}^{v}+{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{u}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{v}ϵ_{(c)(m)(n)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(n)r}^{}])\widehat{\mu }_{(m)}+`$ (208)
$`+`$ $`\left[{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{s}ϵ_{(b)(m)(n)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{s}ϵ_{(a)(m)(n)}\right]\left[_r(\widehat{\mu }_{(m)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(n)s}^{})_s(\widehat{\mu }_{(m)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(n)r}^{})\right]+`$ (209)
$`+`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{u}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{v}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)r}^{}ϵ_{(c)(m)(n)}\left[_v(\widehat{\mu }_{(m)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(n)u}^{})_u(\widehat{\mu }_{(m)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(n)v}^{})\right].`$ (210)
### C Comparison with Other Approaches to Tetrad Gravity.

Let us consider the canonical transformation

$`\stackrel{~}{\pi }^N(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })dN(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })+\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^\stackrel{}{N}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })dN_{(a)}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })+\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^\stackrel{}{\phi }(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })d\phi _{(a)}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })+`$ (211)
$`+`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{r}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })d{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=={}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(\alpha )}^{A}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })d{}_{}{}^{4}E_{A}^{(\alpha )}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),`$ (212)
where $`{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(\alpha )}^{A}`$ ¶§¶§¶§$`\{{}_{}{}^{4}E_{A}^{(\alpha )}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(\beta )}^{B}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})\}=\delta _A^B\delta _{(\beta )}^{(\alpha )}\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})`$. would be the canonical momenta if the ADM action would be considered as a functional of the cotetrads $`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{A}^{(\alpha )}={}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}b_A^\mu `$ in the holonomic $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$-adapted basis, as essentially is done in Refs.. If $`\overline{\gamma }=\sqrt{1+_{(c)}\phi ^{(c)2}}`$, we have

$`\stackrel{~}{\pi }^N`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{\gamma }{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(o)}^{\tau }+\phi ^{(a)}{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{\tau }),`$ (213)
$`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^\stackrel{}{N}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ\phi _{(a)}{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(o)}^{\tau }+[\delta _{(a)}^{(b)}ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{(a)}\phi ^{(b)}}{1+\overline{\gamma }}}]{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(b)}^{\tau },`$ (214)
$`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^\stackrel{}{\phi }`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{ϵN}{\overline{\gamma }}}\phi _{(a)}N_{(a)}){}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(o)}^{\tau }\delta _{(a)}^{(b)}N{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(b)}^{\tau }{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(o)}^{r}`$ (215)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\overline{\gamma }}}(\delta _{(a)}^{(c)}\phi ^{(b)}+\delta _{(a)}^{(b)}\phi ^{(c)}+ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{(a)}\phi ^{(b)}\phi ^{(c)}}{\overline{\gamma }(1+\overline{\gamma })}})(N_{(c)}{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(b)}^{\tau }+{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)r}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(b)}^{r}),`$ (216)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{r}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ\phi _{(a)}{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(o)}^{r}+(\delta _{(a)}^{(b)}ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{(a)}\phi ^{(b)}}{1+\overline{\gamma }}}){}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(b)}^{r},`$ (217)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(o)}^{\tau }`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\gamma }\stackrel{~}{\pi }^N\phi ^{(a)}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{\stackrel{}{N}},`$ (219)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{\tau }`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ\phi _{(a)}\stackrel{~}{\pi }^N+[\delta _{(a)}^{(b)}ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{(a)}\phi ^{(b)}}{1+\overline{\gamma }}}]\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(b)}^\stackrel{}{N},`$ (220)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(o)}^{r}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\gamma }{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}[\delta _{(a)}^{(b)}ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{(a)}\phi ^{(b)}}{1+\overline{\gamma }}}]\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(b)}^\stackrel{}{\phi }+\overline{\gamma }N_{(a)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}\stackrel{~}{\pi }^N+`$ (221)
$`+`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}[N\delta _{(a)}^{(b)}(\delta _{(a)}^{(b)}\phi ^{(c)}\delta _{(a)}^{(c)}\phi ^{(b)}){\displaystyle \frac{N_{(c)}}{1+\overline{\gamma }}}]\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(b)}^\stackrel{}{N}`$ (222)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\overline{\gamma }}}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}[\delta ^{(a)(b)}\phi ^{(c)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{\gamma }}}\delta ^{(b)(c)}\phi ^{(a)}]{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)s}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(b)}^{s},`$ (223)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{r}`$ $`=`$ $`[\delta _{(a)}^{(b)}+ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{(a)}\phi ^{(b)}}{\overline{\gamma }(1+\overline{\gamma })}}]{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(b)}^{r}ϵ\phi _{(a)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{r}[\delta _{(b)}^{(c)}ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{(b)}\phi ^{(c)}}{1+\overline{\gamma }}}]\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(c)}^\stackrel{}{\phi }+`$ (224)
$`+`$ $`ϵ\phi _{(a)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{r}N_{(b)}\stackrel{~}{\pi }^Nϵ\phi _{(a)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{r}[N\delta _{(c)}^{(b)}+(\delta _{(c)}^{(b)}\phi ^{(d)}\delta _{(c)}^{(d)}\phi ^{(b)}){\displaystyle \frac{N_{(d)}}{1+\overline{\gamma }}}]\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(c)}^\stackrel{}{N}`$ (225)
$``$ $`ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{(a)}}{1+\overline{\gamma }}}[\phi ^{(b)}\delta _{(d)}^{(c)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{\gamma }}}\phi ^{(c)}\delta _{(d)}^{(b)}]{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)s}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(d)}^{s}.`$ (226)
Our canonical transformation (226) allows to consider the metric ADM Lagrangian as function of the cotetrads $`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{A}^{(\alpha )}={}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}b_A^\mu `$ and to find the conjugate momenta $`{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(\alpha )}^{A}`$. Eqs.(226) show that the four primary constraints, which contain the informations $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }^N0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^\stackrel{}{N}0`$, are $`{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(\alpha )}^{\tau }0`$. The six primary constraints $`{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(\alpha )(\beta )}^{}={}_{}{}^{4}E_{A}^{(\gamma )}[{}_{}{}^{4}\eta _{(\alpha )(\gamma )}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(\beta )}^{A}{}_{}{}^{4}\eta _{(\beta )(\gamma )}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(\alpha )}^{A}]0`$, generators of the local Lorentz transformations in this formulation, have the following relation with $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^\stackrel{}{\phi }0`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(a)}^{}0`$

$`{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(a)(b)}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(a)(b)}^{}+(\phi _{(a)}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(b)}^\stackrel{}{\phi }\phi _{(b)}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^\stackrel{}{\phi })+ϵ(\phi _{(a)}N_{(b)}\phi _{(b)}N_{(a)})\stackrel{~}{\pi }^N`$ (227)
$``$ $`(\delta _{(a)}^{(c)}\delta _{(b)}^{(d)}\delta _{(b)}^{(c)}\delta _{(a)}^{(d)})[ϵN\phi _{(c)}\delta _{(d)(e)}+`$ (228)
$`+`$ $`(\delta _{(c)(f)}+{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{(c)}\phi _{(f)}}{1+\overline{\gamma }}})(\delta _{(d)(e)}+{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{(d)}\phi _{(e)}}{1+\overline{\gamma }}})N_{(f)}]\stackrel{~}{\pi }^\stackrel{}{N}_{(e)}0,`$ (229)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(a)(o)}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ\overline{\gamma }\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^\stackrel{}{\phi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\overline{\gamma }}}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(a)(b)}^{}\phi _{(b)}ϵ\overline{\gamma }(\delta _{(a)(b)}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{(a)}\phi _{(b)}}{\overline{\gamma }(1+\overline{\gamma })}})N_{(b)}\stackrel{~}{\pi }^N+`$ (230)
$`+`$ $`[ϵ\overline{\gamma }N(\delta _{(a)(b)}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{(a)}\phi _{(b)}}{\overline{\gamma }(1+\overline{\gamma })}})+\phi _{(c)}N_{(c)}\delta _{(a)(b)}N_{(a)}\phi _{(b)}]\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(b)}^\stackrel{}{N}0,`$ (231)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(a)(b)}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(a)(b)}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{1+\overline{\gamma }}}[\phi _{(a)}{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(b)(c)}^{}\phi _{(b)}{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(a)(c)}^{}]\phi _{(c)}+`$ (233)
$`+`$ $`[\phi _{(a)}{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(b)(o)}^{}\phi _{(b)}{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(a)(o)}^{}][\phi _{(a)}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(b)}^{\tau }\phi _{(b)}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(a)}^{\tau }]{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(o)}^{\tau }`$ (234)
$``$ $`ϵ[(\delta _{(a)(c)}\delta _{(d)(e)}\delta _{(a)(e)}\delta _{(b)(c)})(\delta _{(c)(d)}+{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{(c)}\phi _{(d)}}{1+\overline{\gamma }}}){}_{}{}^{4}E_{(c)}^{\tau }+`$ (235)
$`+`$ $`ϵ({}_{}{}^{4}E_{(o)}^{\tau }+ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{(c)}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(c)}^{\tau }}{1+\overline{\gamma }}})(\delta _{(a)(d)}\phi _{(b)}\delta _{(b)(d)}\phi _{(a)})]^4\stackrel{~}{\pi }^\tau _{(d)}0,`$ (236)
$`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^\stackrel{}{\phi }`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ(\delta _{(a)(b)}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{(a)}\phi _{(b)}}{\overline{\gamma }(1+\overline{\gamma })}}){}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(b)(o)}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\overline{\gamma }}}{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(a)(b)}^{}\phi _{(b)}`$ (237)
$``$ $`ϵ(\delta _{(a)(b)}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{(a)}\phi _{(b)}}{\overline{\gamma }(1+\overline{\gamma })}}){}_{}{}^{4}E_{(b)}^{\tau }{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(o)}^{\tau }+`$ (238)
$`+`$ $`[ϵ(\delta _{(a)(b)}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{(a)}\phi _{(b)}}{\overline{\gamma }(1+\overline{\gamma })}}){}_{}{}^{4}E_{(o)}^{\tau }{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _{(c)}}{1+\overline{\gamma }}}(\delta _{(c)(b)}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(a)}^{\tau }\delta _{(c)(a)}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(b)}^{\tau })]{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(b)}^{\tau }0.`$ (239)
Let us add a comment on the literature on tetrad gravity. The use of tetrads started with Ref., where vierbeins and spin connections are used as independent variables in a Palatini form of the Lagrangian. They were used by Dirac for the coupling of gravity to fermion fields (see also Ref.) and here $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$-adapted tetrads were introduced. In Ref. the reduction of this theory at the Lagrangian level was done by introducing the so-called time-gauge $`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{r}^{(o)}=0`$ \[or $`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(a)}^{o}=0`$\], which distinguishes the time coordinate $`x^o=const.`$ planes; in this paper there is also the coupling to scalar fields, while in Ref. the coupling to Dirac-Maiorana fields is studied. In Ref. there is a non-metric Lagrangian formulation, see Eq.(A167), employing as basic variables the cotetrads $`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}`$, which is different from our metric Lagrangian and has different primary constraints; its Hamiltonian formulation is completely developed. See also Ref. for a study of the tetrad frame constraint algebra. In the fourth of Refs. cotetrads $`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}`$ together with the spin connection $`{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{\mu (\beta )}^{(\alpha )}`$ are used as independent variables in a first order Palatini action ¶¶¶¶¶¶See also the Nelson-Regge papers in Refs. for a different approach, the so-called covariant canonical formalism., while in Ref. a first order Lagrangian reformulation is done for Eq.(A167) ¶∥¶∥¶∥In both these papers there is a 3+1 decomposition of the tetrads different from our and, like in Ref., use is done of the Schwinger time gauge to get free of three boost-like parameters..

Instead in most of Refs. one uses the space components $`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{r}^{(\alpha )}`$ of cotetrads $`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}`$, together with the conjugate momenta $`{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(\alpha )}^{r}`$ inside the ADM Hamiltonian, in which one puts $`{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}={}_{}{}^{4}E_{r}^{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{4}\eta _{(\alpha )(\beta )}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{s}^{(\beta )}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}=\frac{1}{4}{}_{}{}^{4}\eta _{}^{(\alpha )(\beta )}[{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{r}{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(\beta )}^{s}+{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{s}{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(\beta )}^{r}]`$. Lapse and shift functions are treated as Hamiltonian multipliers and there is no worked out Lagrangian formulation. In Ref. it is shown how to go from the space components $`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{r}^{(\alpha )}`$ to cotriads $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}`$ by using the time gauge on a surface $`x^0=const.`$; here it is introduced for the first time the concept of parameters of Lorentz boosts ¶\**¶\**¶\**If they are put equal to zero, one recovers Schwinger’s time gauge., which was our starting point to arrive at the identification of the Wigner boost parameters $`\phi _{(a)}`$. Finally in Ref. there is a 3+1 decomposition of tetrads and cotetrads in which some boost-like parameters have been fixed (it is a Schwinger time gauge) so that one can arrive at a Lagrangian (different from ours) depending only on lapse, shift and cotriads.

In Ref. there is another canonical transformation from cotriads and their conjugate momenta to a new canonical basis containing densitized triads and their conjugate momenta

$`({}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}`$ , $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{r})({}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{h}_{(a)}^{r}={}_{}{}^{3}e{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r},`$ (241)
$`2{}_{}{}^{3}K_{(a)r}^{}=2[{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}K_{sr}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4{}_{}{}^{3}e}}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(a)(b)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)r}^{}]=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{o(a)(b)(c)(d)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)r}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)u}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(d)}^{u}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{{}_{}{}^{3}e}}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(a)(b)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)r}^{}]),`$ (242)
which is used to make the transition to the complex Ashtekar variables

$$({}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{h}_{(a)}^{r},{}_{}{}^{3}A_{(a)r}^{}=2{}_{}{}^{3}K_{(a)r}^{}+i{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{r(a)}^{}),$$
(243)
where $`{}_{}{}^{3}A_{(a)r}^{}`$ is a zero density whose real part (in this notation) can be considered the gauge potential of the Sen connection and plays an important role in the simplification of the functional form of the constraints present in this approach; the conjugate variable is a density 1 SU(2) soldering form.

## IV Comparison with ADM Canonical Metric Gravity.

In this Section we give a brief review of the Hamiltonian formulation of ADM metric gravity (see Refs.) to express its constraints in terms of those of Section III.

The ADM Lagrangian $`S_{ADM}=𝑑\tau L_{ADM}(\tau )=𝑑\tau d^3\sigma _{ADM}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ given in Eq.(71) is expressed in terms of the independent variables N, $`N_r={}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}N^s`$, $`{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}`$.

The Euler-Lagrange equations are

$`L_N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_{ADM}}{N}}_\tau {\displaystyle \frac{_{ADM}}{_\tau N}}_r{\displaystyle \frac{_{ADM}}{_rN}}=`$ (244)
$`=`$ $`ϵk\sqrt{\gamma }[{}_{}{}^{3}R{}_{}{}^{3}K_{rs}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}K_{}^{rs}+({}_{}{}^{3}K)^2]=2ϵk{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{G}_{ll}^{}\stackrel{}{=}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},`$ (245)
$`L_\stackrel{}{N}^r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_{ADM}}{N_r}}_\tau {\displaystyle \frac{_{ADM}}{_\tau N_r}}_s{\displaystyle \frac{_{ADM}}{_sN_r}}=`$ (246)
$`=`$ $`2ϵk[\sqrt{\gamma }({}_{}{}^{3}K_{}^{rs}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rs}{}_{}{}^{3}K)]_{|s}=2k{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{G}_{l}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}\stackrel{}{=}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},`$ (247)
$`L_g^{rs}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵk[{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}[\sqrt{\gamma }({}_{}{}^{3}K_{}^{rs}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rs}{}_{}{}^{3}K)]N\sqrt{\gamma }({}_{}{}^{3}R_{}^{rs}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rs}{}_{}{}^{3}R)+`$ (250)
$`+2N\sqrt{\gamma }({}_{}{}^{3}K_{}^{ru}{}_{}{}^{3}K_{u}^{}{}_{}{}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}K{}_{}{}^{3}K_{}^{rs})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N\sqrt{\gamma }[({}_{}{}^{3}K)^2{}_{}{}^{3}K_{uv}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}K_{}^{uv}){}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rs}+`$
$`+\sqrt{\gamma }({}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rs}N^{|u}{}_{|u}{}^{}N^{|r|s})]=ϵkN\sqrt{\gamma }^4\overline{G}^{rs}\stackrel{}{=}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},`$
and correspond to the Einstein equations in the form $`{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{G}_{ll}^{}\stackrel{}{=}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{G}_{lr}^{}\stackrel{}{=}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{G}_{rs}^{}\stackrel{}{=}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, respectively. As said after Eq.(A67) the four contracted Bianchi identities imply that only two of the equations $`L_g^{rs}\stackrel{}{=}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ are independent.

The canonical momenta (densities of weight -1) are

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}^N(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })={\displaystyle \frac{\delta S_{ADM}}{\delta _\tau N(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })}}=0,`$ (251)
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_\stackrel{}{N}^r(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })={\displaystyle \frac{\delta S_{ADM}}{\delta _\tau N_r(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })}}=0,`$ (252)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })={\displaystyle \frac{\delta S_{ADM}}{\delta _\tau {}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })}}=ϵk[\sqrt{\gamma }({}_{}{}^{3}K_{}^{rs}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rs}{}_{}{}^{3}K)](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),`$ (253)
(254)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}K_{rs}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{k\sqrt{\gamma }}}[{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{rs}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}],{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}={}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}=2ϵk\sqrt{\gamma }{}_{}{}^{3}K,`$ (255)
and satisfy the Poisson brackets

$`\{N(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}^N(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})\}=\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}}),`$ (256)
$`\{N_r(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_\stackrel{}{N}^s(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})\}=\delta _r^s\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}}),`$ (257)
$`\{{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{uv}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}}\}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\delta _r^u\delta _s^v+\delta _r^v\delta _s^u)\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}}).`$ (258)
Let us introduce the Wheeler- DeWitt supermetric

$${}_{}{}^{3}G_{rstw}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=[{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rt}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{sw}^{}+{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rw}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{st}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{tw}^{}](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),$$
(259)
whose inverse is defined by the equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{rstw}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{}^{twuv}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\delta _r^u\delta _s^v+\delta _r^v\delta _s^u),`$ (260)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}G_{}^{twuv}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ $`=`$ $`[{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{tu}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{wv}+{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{tv}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{wu}2{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{tw}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{uv}](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }).`$ (261)
Then we get

$`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵk\sqrt{\gamma }{}_{}{}^{3}G_{}^{rsuv}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }){}_{}{}^{3}K_{uv}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),`$ (262)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}K_{rs}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{2k\sqrt{\gamma }}}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{rsuv}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }){}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{uv}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),`$ (265)
$`[{}_{}{}^{3}K_{}^{rs}{}_{}{}^{3}K_{rs}^{}({}_{}{}^{3}K)^2](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=`$
$`=k^2[\gamma ^1({}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{rs}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }})^2](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=(2k)^1[\gamma ^1{}_{}{}^{3}G_{rsuv}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{uv}](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),`$
$`_\tau {}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ $`=`$ $`[N_{r|s}+N_{s|r}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵN}{k\sqrt{\gamma }}}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{rsuv}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{uv}](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }).`$ (266)
Since $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}_\tau {}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}=`$$`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}[N_{r|s}+N_{s|r}\frac{ϵN}{k\sqrt{\gamma }}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{rsuv}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{uv}]=`$$`2N_r{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}{}_{|s}{}^{}\frac{ϵN}{k\sqrt{\gamma }}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{rsuv}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{uv}+(2N_r{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs})_{|s}`$, we obtain the canonical Hamiltonian <sup>¶††</sup><sup>¶††</sup>¶††Since $`N_r{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}`$ is a vector density of weight -1, we have $`{}_{}{}^{3}_{s}^{}(N_r{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs})=_s(N_r{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs})`$.

$`H_{(c)ADM}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _S}d^3\sigma [\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}^N_\tau N+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_\stackrel{}{N}^r_\tau N_r+{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}_\tau {}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })L_{ADM}=`$ (267)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _S}d^3\sigma [ϵN(k\sqrt{\gamma }{}_{}{}^{3}R{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2k\sqrt{\gamma }}}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{rsuv}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{uv})2N_r{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}{}_{|s}{}^{}](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })+`$ (268)
$`+`$ $`2{\displaystyle _S}d^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_s[N_r{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),`$ (269)
In the following discussion we shall omit the surface term.

The Dirac Hamiltonian is \[the $`\lambda (\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$’s are arbitrary Dirac multipliers\]

$$H_{(D)ADM}=H_{(c)ADM}+d^3\sigma [\lambda _N\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}^N+\lambda _r^\stackrel{}{N}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_\stackrel{}{N}^r](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }).$$
(270)
The $`\tau `$-constancy of the primary constraints ¶‡‡¶‡‡¶‡‡$`_\tau \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}^N(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}^N(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),H_{(D)ADM}\}0`$, $`_\tau \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_\stackrel{}{N}^r(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_\stackrel{}{N}^r(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),H_{(D)ADM}\}0`$. generates four secondary constraints (all 4 are densities of weight -1) which correspond to the Einstein equations $`{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{G}_{ll}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })\stackrel{}{=}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{G}_{lr}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })\stackrel{}{=}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ \[see after Eqs.(A67)\]

$`\stackrel{~}{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ[k\sqrt{\gamma }{}_{}{}^{3}R{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2k\sqrt{\gamma }}}{}_{}{}^{3}G_{rsuv}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{uv}](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=`$ (271)
$`=`$ $`ϵ[\sqrt{\gamma }{}_{}{}^{3}R{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k\sqrt{\gamma }}}({}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{rs}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }})^2)](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=`$ (272)
$`=`$ $`ϵk\{\sqrt{\gamma }[{}_{}{}^{3}R({}_{}{}^{3}K_{rs}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}K_{}^{rs}({}_{}{}^{3}K)^2)]\}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })0,`$ (273)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{}_{}^{r}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ $`=`$ $`2{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}{}_{|s}{}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=2[_s{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}+{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{su}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{su}](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=`$ (275)
$`=`$ $`2ϵk\{_s[\sqrt{\gamma }({}_{}{}^{3}K_{}^{rs}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rs}{}_{}{}^{3}K)]+{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{su}^{r}\sqrt{\gamma }({}_{}{}^{3}K_{}^{su}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{su}{}_{}{}^{3}K)\}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })0,`$ (276)
so that we have

$$H_{(c)ADM}=d^3\sigma [N\stackrel{~}{}+N_r{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{}_{}^{r}](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })0,$$
(277)
with $`\stackrel{~}{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })0`$ called the superhamiltonian constraint and $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{}_{}^{r}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })0`$ called the supermomentum constraints. See Ref. for their interpretation as the generators of the change of the canonical data $`{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}`$, under the normal and tangent deformations of the spacelike hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ which generate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\tau +d\tau }`$ ∥\*∥\*∥\*One thinks to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ as determined by a cloud of observers, one per space point; the idea of bifurcation and reencounter of the observers is expressed by saying that the data on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ (where the bifurcation took place) are propagated to some final $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\tau +d\tau }`$ (where the reencounter arises) along different intermediate paths, each path being a monoparametric family of surfaces that fills the sandwich in between the two surfaces; embeddability of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ in $`M^4`$ becomes the synonymous with path independence; see also Ref. for the connection with the theorema egregium of Gauss..

In $`\stackrel{~}{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })0`$ we can say that the term $`ϵk\sqrt{\gamma }({}_{}{}^{3}K_{rs}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}K_{}^{rs}{}_{}{}^{3}K_{}^{2})`$ is the kinetic energy and $`ϵk\sqrt{\gamma }{}_{}{}^{3}R`$ the potential energy: in any Ricci flat spacetime (i.e. one satisfying Einstein’s empty-space equations) the extrinsic and intrinsic scalar curvatures of any spacelike hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ are both equal to zero (also the converse is true).

All the constraints are first class, because the only non-identically zero Poisson brackets correspond to the so called universal Dirac algebra :

$`\{{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{}_{r}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{}_{s}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})\}`$ $`=`$ (278)
$`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{}_{r}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}}){\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})}{\sigma ^s}}+{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{}_{s}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }){\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})}{\sigma ^r}},`$ (279)
$`\{\stackrel{~}{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{}_{r}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})\}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }){\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})}{\sigma ^r}},`$ (280)
$`\{\stackrel{~}{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),\stackrel{~}{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})\}`$ $`=`$ $`[{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rs}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }){}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{}_{s}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })+`$ (281)
$`+`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rs}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}}){}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{}_{s}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})]{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})}{\sigma ^r}},`$ (282)
with $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{}_{r}^{}={}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{}_{}^{r}`$ as the combination of the supermomentum constraints satisfying the algebra of 3-diffeomorphisms. In Ref. it is shown that Eqs.(282) are sufficient conditions for the embeddability of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ into $`M^4`$. In the second paper in Ref. it is shown that the last two lines of the Dirac algebra are the equivalent in phase space of the contracted Bianchi identities $`{}_{}{}^{4}G_{}^{\mu \nu }{}_{;\nu }{}^{}0`$.

The Hamilton-Dirac equations are

$`_\tau N(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ $`\stackrel{}{=}`$ $`\{N(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),H_{(D)ADM}\}=\lambda _N(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),`$ (283)
$`_\tau N_r(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ $`\stackrel{}{=}`$ $`\{N_r(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),H_{(D)ADM}\}=\lambda _r^\stackrel{}{N}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),`$ (284)
$`_\tau {}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ $`\stackrel{}{=}`$ $`\{{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),H_{(D)ADM}\}=[N_{r|s}+N_{s|r}{\displaystyle \frac{2ϵN}{k\sqrt{\gamma }}}({}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{rs}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }})](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=`$ (285)
$`=`$ $`[N_{r|s}+N_{s|r}2N{}_{}{}^{3}K_{rs}^{}](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),`$ (286)
$`_\tau {}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ $`\stackrel{}{=}`$ $`\{{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),H_{(D)ADM}\}=ϵ[Nk\sqrt{\gamma }({}_{}{}^{3}R_{}^{rs}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rs}{}_{}{}^{3}R)](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ (287)
$``$ $`2ϵ[{\displaystyle \frac{N}{k\sqrt{\gamma }}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{r}{}_{u}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{us})(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ (288)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵN}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rs}}{k\sqrt{\gamma }}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{uv}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{uv})](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })+`$ (289)
$`+`$ $`_\stackrel{}{N}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })+ϵ[k\sqrt{\gamma }(N^{|r|s}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rs}N^{|u}{}_{|u}{}^{})](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),`$ (291)
$``$
$`_\tau {}_{}{}^{3}K_{rs}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ $`\stackrel{}{=}`$ $`(N[{}_{}{}^{3}R_{rs}^{}+{}_{}{}^{3}K{}_{}{}^{3}K_{rs}^{}2{}_{}{}^{3}K_{ru}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}K_{}^{u}{}_{s}{}^{}]`$ (292)
$``$ $`N_{|s|r}+N^u{}_{|s}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}K_{ur}^{}+N^u{}_{|r}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}K_{us}^{}+N^u{}_{}{}^{3}K_{rs|u}^{})(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),`$ (293)
$`_\tau \gamma (\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ $`\stackrel{}{=}`$ $`\left(2\gamma [N{}_{}{}^{3}K+N^u{}_{|u}{}^{}]\right)(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),`$ (294)
$`_\tau {}_{}{}^{3}K(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ $`\stackrel{}{=}`$ $`(N[{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rs}{}_{}{}^{3}R_{rs}^{}+({}_{}{}^{3}K)^2]N_{|u}{}_{}{}^{|u}+N^u{}_{}{}^{3}K_{|u}^{})(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),`$ (295)
with $`_\stackrel{}{N}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}=\sqrt{\gamma }{}_{}{}^{3}_{u}^{}(\frac{N^u}{\sqrt{\gamma }}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs})+{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{ur}{}_{}{}^{3}_{u}^{}N^s+{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{us}{}_{}{}^{3}_{u}^{}N^r`$.

Use has been done of the following variation $`\delta (\sqrt{\gamma }{}_{}{}^{3}R)(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=d^3\sigma _1\{(\sqrt{\gamma }{}_{}{}^{3}R)(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1)\}\delta {}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1)=d^3\sigma _1\delta {}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1)\{[\sqrt{\gamma }({}_{}{}^{3}R_{}^{rs}\frac{1}{2}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rs}{}_{}{}^{3}R)](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1)+[\sqrt{\gamma }{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{lm}^{n}({}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rl}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{sm}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rs}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{lm})](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1)\frac{\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1)}{\sigma ^n}+[\sqrt{\gamma }({}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rl}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{sm}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rs}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{lm})](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1)\frac{^2\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1)}{\sigma ^l\sigma ^m}\}`$.

Let us remark that the canonical transformation \[$`{}_{}{}^{4}g_{AB}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{AB}`$ are given in Eqs.(A34)\] $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}^NdN+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_\stackrel{}{N}^rdN_r+{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}d{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}={}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{AB}d{}_{}{}^{4}g_{AB}^{}`$ defines the following momenta conjugated to $`{}_{}{}^{4}g_{AB}^{}`$

$`{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{\tau \tau }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{2N}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}^N,`$ (296)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{\tau r}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{N^r}{N}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}^N\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_\stackrel{}{N}^r),`$ (297)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ({\displaystyle \frac{N^rN^s}{2N}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}^N{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}),`$ (300)
$`\{{}_{}{}^{4}g_{AB}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{CD}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})\}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\delta _A^C\delta _B^D+\delta _A^D\delta _B^C)\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}}),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}^N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2ϵ}{\sqrt{ϵ{}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{\tau \tau }}}}{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{\tau \tau },`$ (302)
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_\stackrel{}{N}^r`$ $`=`$ $`2ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{{}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{\tau r}}{{}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{\tau \tau }}}{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{\tau \tau }2ϵ{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{\tau r},`$ (303)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{{}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{\tau r}{}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{\tau S}}{({}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{\tau \tau })^2}}{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{\tau \tau }ϵ{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs},`$ (304)
which would emerge if the ADM action would be considered function of $`{}_{}{}^{4}g_{AB}^{}`$ instead of N, $`N_r`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}`$.

The standard ADM momenta $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}`$, defined in Eq. (255), may now be expressed in terms of the cotriads and their conjugate momenta of the canonical formulation of tetrad gravity given in Section III:

$`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵk\sqrt{\gamma }({}_{}{}^{3}K_{}^{rs}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rs}{}_{}{}^{3}K)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{s}+{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{r}],`$ (305)
$``$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}={}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}=2ϵk\sqrt{\gamma }{}_{}{}^{3}K={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{r},`$ (311)
$`\{{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })={}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }){}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)s}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{uv}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})\}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\delta _r^u\delta _s^v+\delta _s^u\delta _r^v)\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}}),`$
$`\{{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{uv}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})\}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }^{^{}})\times `$
$`[{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{ru}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{v}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{s}+{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rv}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{u}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{s}+{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{su}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{v}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{r}+{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{sv}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{u}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{r}](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$
$`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(a)(b)}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })0.`$
The fact that in tetrad gravity the last Poisson brackets is only weakly zero has been noted in Ref..

Let us now consider the expression of the ADM supermomentum constraints in tetrad gravity. Since $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)u}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{us}=\frac{1}{4}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)u}^{}[{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{u}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{s}+{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{u}]=\frac{1}{4}[{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(b)}^{s}+{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)u}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{u}]=\frac{1}{4}[{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(b)}^{s}+{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{s}({}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)u}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(b)}^{u}+{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(b)(a)}^{})]=\frac{1}{4}[2{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(b)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(a)(b)}^{}]`$, we have

$`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}{}_{|s}{}^{}=_s{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}+{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{su}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{us}=`$ (313)
$`=_s{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}+[ϵ_{(a)(b)(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{s(c)}^{}_s{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{r}]{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)u}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{us}=`$ (314)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(_s[{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{s}+{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{r}]`$ (315)
$`[ϵ_{(a)(c)(b)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{s(c)}^{}+_s{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{r}][2{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(b)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(d)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(d)(b)}^{}])=`$ (316)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\{{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}[_s{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{s}2ϵ_{(a)(b)(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{s(b)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(c)}^{s}]{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{s}_s{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}+`$ (317)
$`+_s({}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{r})+[ϵ_{(a)(c)(b)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{s(c)}^{}+_s{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{r}]{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(d)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(d)(b)}^{}\}=`$ (318)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\{2{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}\widehat{}_{(a)}+_s[{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{s}]`$ (319)
$`[ϵ_{(a)(b)(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{s(b)}^{}+_s{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)}^{r}]{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(d)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(c)(d)}^{}\}.`$ (320)
Since $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{r}=\frac{1}{2}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{r}[{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)u}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{u}+{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)u}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(b)}^{u}]\frac{1}{2}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(a)(b)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{r}`$, we get $`_s[{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{s}]=_s[\frac{1}{2}({}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{s})({}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)u}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(a)}^{u}+{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)u}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{(b)}^{u}){}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(a)(b)}^{}]=_s[{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(a)(b)}^{}]`$, the ADM metric supermomentum constraints (276) are satisfied in the following form

$`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{}_{}^{r}`$ $`=`$ $`2{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs}{}_{|s}{}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{2{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}\widehat{}_{(a)}+_s[{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(a)(b)}^{}]+`$ (321)
$`+`$ $`[_s{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)}^{r}ϵ_{(c)(b)(a)}{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{s(b)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}]{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(d)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(c)(d)}^{}\}=`$ (322)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{s}^{}+[{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{s(b)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{s(a)}^{}]{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(b)}^{}+`$ (323)
$`+`$ $`ϵ_{(a)(b)(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{r}_s[{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{M}_{(c)}^{}]\}0.`$ (324)
## V Conclusions.

Motivated by the attempt to get a unified description and a canonical reduction of the four interactions in the framework of Dirac-Bergmann theory of constraint (the presymplectic approach), with this paper we have begun an investigation of general relativity along these lines. A complete analysis of the canonical reduction of this theory using constraint theory is still lacking, probably due to the fact that it does not respect the requirement of manifest general covariance. Instead, the presymplectic approach is the natural one to get an explicit control on the degrees of freedom of theories described by singular Lagrangians at the Hamiltonian level.

We have reviewed the kinematical framework for tetrad gravity, natural for the coupling to fermion fields, on globally hyperbolic, asymptotically flat at spatial infinity spacetimes whose 3+1 decomposition may be obtained with simultaneity spacelike hypersurfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ diffeomorphic to $`R^3`$.

Then, we have given a new parametrization of arbitrary cotetrads in terms of lapse and shift functions, of cotriads on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ and of three boost parameters. Such parametrized cotetrads are put in the ADM action for metric gravity to obtain the new Lagrangian for tetrad gravity. In the Hamiltonian formulation, we obtain 14 first class constraints, ten primary and four secondary ones, whose algebra is studied.

A comparison with other formulations of tetrad gravity and with the Hamiltonian ADM metric gravity has been done.

In future papers based on Ref., we shall study the Hamiltonian group of gauge transformations induced by the first class constraints. Then, the multitemporal equations associated with the constraints generating space rotations and space diffeomorphisms on the cotriads will be studied and solved. The Dirac observables with respect to thirteen of the fourteen constraints will be found in 3-orthogonal coordinates on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ and the associated Shanmugadhasan canonical transformation will be done. The only left constraint to be studied will be the superhamiltonian one. Some interpretational problems (Dirac observables versus general covariance)  will be faced, since they are deeply different from their counterpart in ordinary gauge theories like Yang-Mills one.

## A Notations.

In this Appendix we shall introduce the notations needed to define the ADM tetrads and triads used in this paper together with a review of kinematical notations.

### 1 Pseudo-Riemanniann Geometry.

Let $`M^4`$ be a torsion-free, globally hyperbolic, asymptotically flat pseudo-Riemannian (or Lorentzian) 4-manifold, whose non-degenerate 4-metric tensor $`{}_{}{}^{4}g_{\mu \nu }^{}(x)`$ has Lorentzian signature $`ϵ(+,,,)`$ with $`ϵ=\pm 1`$ according to particle physics and general relativity conventions respectively; the inverse 4-metric is $`{}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{\mu \nu }(x)`$ with $`{}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{\mu \rho }(x){}_{}{}^{4}g_{\rho \nu }^{}(x)=\delta _\nu ^\mu `$. We shall denote with Greek letters $`\mu ,\nu ,..`$ ($`\mu =0,1,2,3`$), the world indices and with Greek letters inside round brackets $`(\alpha ),(\beta ),..,`$ flat Minkowski indices ∥†∥†∥†With flat 4-metric tensor $`{}_{}{}^{4}\eta _{(\alpha )(\beta )}^{}=ϵ(+,,,)`$ in Cartesian coordinates.; analogously, $`a,b,..,`$ and $`(a),(b),..,`$ \[a=1,2,3\], will denote world and flat 3-space indices. We shall follow the conventions of Refs. for $`ϵ=1`$ and those of Ref. for $`ϵ=+1`$ ∥‡∥‡∥‡I.e. the conventions of standard textbooks; see also Ref. for many results (this book is consistent with Ref., even if its index conventions are different)..

The coordinates of a chart of the atlas of $`M^4`$ will be denoted $`\{x^\mu \}`$. $`M^4`$ is assumed to be orientable; its volume element in any right-handed coordinate basis is $`\eta \sqrt{{}_{}{}^{4}g}d^4x`$ ∥§∥§∥§$`\eta `$ is a sign connected with the choice of the orientation and $`{}_{}{}^{4}g=|det{}_{}{}^{4}g_{\mu \nu }^{}|`$ ; with $`\eta =ϵ`$ we get the choice of Ref. for $`ϵ=1`$ and of Ref. for $`ϵ=+1`$.. In the coordinate bases $`e_\mu =_\mu `$ and $`dx^\mu `$ for vector fields ($`TM^4`$) and one-forms (or covectors; $`T^{}M^4`$) respectively, the unique metric-compatible Levi-Civita affine connection has the symmetric Christoffel symbols $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^{\mu }={}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \alpha }^{\mu }=\frac{1}{2}{}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{\mu \nu }(_\alpha {}_{}{}^{4}g_{\beta \nu }^{}+_\beta {}_{}{}^{4}g_{\alpha \nu }^{}_\nu {}_{}{}^{4}g_{\alpha \beta }^{})`$ as connection coefficients ($`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^{\mu }=_\nu \sqrt{{}_{}{}^{4}g}`$) and the associated covariant derivative is denoted $`{}_{}{}^{4}_{\mu }^{}`$ (or with a semicolon “;”): $`{}_{}{}^{4}V_{}^{\mu }{}_{;\nu }{}^{}={}_{}{}^{4}_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}V_{}^{\mu }=_\nu {}_{}{}^{4}V_{}^{\mu }+{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \alpha }^{\mu }{}_{}{}^{4}V_{}^{\alpha }`$, with the metric compatibility condition being $`{}_{}{}^{4}_{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{\mu \nu }=0`$.

The Christoffel symbols are not tensors. If, instead of the chart of $`M^4`$ with coordinates $`\{x^\mu \}`$, we choose another chart of $`M^4`$, overlapping with the previous one, with coordinates $`\{x^{}_{}{}^{}\mu =x^{}_{}{}^{}\mu (x)\}`$ ($`x^{}_{}{}^{}\mu (x)`$ are smooth functions), in the overlap of the two charts we have the following transformation properties under general smooth coordinate transformations or diffeomorphisms of $`M^4`$ ($`DiffM^4`$) of $`{}_{}{}^{4}g_{\alpha \beta }^{}(x)`$ and of $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^{\mu }(x)`$ respectively

$`{}_{}{}^{4}g_{\alpha \beta }^{^{}}(x^{^{}}(x))={\displaystyle \frac{x^\mu }{x^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{x^\nu }{x^{}_{}{}^{}\beta }}{}_{}{}^{4}g_{\mu \nu }^{}(x),`$ (A1)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^{{}_{}{}^{}\mu }(x^{^{}}(x))={\displaystyle \frac{x^{}_{}{}^{}\mu }{x^\nu }}{\displaystyle \frac{x^\gamma }{x^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{x^\delta }{x^{}_{}{}^{}\beta }}{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \delta }^{\nu }(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{^2x^\nu }{x^{}_{}{}^{}\alpha x^{}_{}{}^{}\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{x^{}_{}{}^{}\mu }{x^\nu }}.`$ (A2)
For a tensor density of weight W, $`{}_{}{}^{4}𝒯_{}^{\mu \mathrm{}}{}_{\alpha \mathrm{}}{}^{}=({}_{}{}^{4}g)^{W/2}{}_{}{}^{4}T_{}^{\mu \mathrm{}}_\alpha \mathrm{}`$, we have $`{}_{}{}^{4}𝒯_{}^{\mu \mathrm{}}{}_{\alpha ..;\rho }{}^{}=({}_{}{}^{4}g)^{W/2}[({}_{}{}^{4}g)^{W/2}{}_{}{}^{4}𝒯_{}^{\mu \mathrm{}}{}_{\alpha \mathrm{}}{}^{}]_{;\rho }=({}_{}{}^{4}g)^{W/2}{}_{}{}^{4}T_{}^{\mu \mathrm{}}{}_{\alpha ..;\rho }{}^{}=_\rho {}_{}{}^{4}𝒯_{}^{\mu \mathrm{}}{}_{\alpha \mathrm{}}{}^{}+{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \nu }^{\mu }{}_{}{}^{4}𝒯_{}^{\nu \mathrm{}}{}_{\alpha \mathrm{}}{}^{}+\mathrm{}{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \alpha }^{\beta }{}_{}{}^{4}𝒯_{}^{\mu \mathrm{}}{}_{\beta \mathrm{}}{}^{}\mathrm{}+W{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \rho }^{\sigma }{}_{}{}^{4}𝒯_{}^{\mu \mathrm{}}_\alpha \mathrm{}`$ <sup>∥¶</sup><sup>∥¶</sup>∥¶$`_\rho ({}_{}{}^{4}g)^{W/2}+W({}_{}{}^{4}g)^{W/2}{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \rho }^{\mu }=0`$..

The Riemann curvature tensor is ∥∥∥∥∥∥This is the definition of Ref. for $`ϵ=1`$; for $`ϵ=+1`$ it coincides with minus the definition of Ref..

$`{}_{}{}^{4}R_{}^{\alpha }_{\mu \beta \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \rho }^{\alpha }{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \mu }^{\rho }{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \rho }^{\alpha }{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \mu }^{\rho }+_\beta {}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^{\alpha }_\nu {}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \mu }^{\alpha },`$ (A3)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}R_{\alpha \mu \beta \nu }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{4}g_{\alpha \gamma }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}R_{}^{\gamma }{}_{\mu \beta \nu }{}^{}={}_{}{}^{4}R_{\alpha \mu \nu \beta }^{}={}_{}{}^{4}R_{\mu \alpha \beta \nu }^{}={}_{}{}^{4}R_{\beta \nu \alpha \mu }^{},`$ (A5)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}R_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{4}R_{\nu \mu }^{}={}_{}{}^{4}R_{}^{\beta }{}_{\mu \beta \nu }{}^{},`$ (A7)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}R`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{4}R_{\mu \nu }^{}={}_{}{}^{4}R_{}^{\mu \nu }{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{},`$ (A16)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}R_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\mu \beta \nu }{}^{}+{}_{}{}^{4}R_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\beta \nu \mu }{}^{}+{}_{}{}^{4}R_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\nu \mu \beta }{}^{}0,`$
$`({}_{}{}^{4}_{\gamma }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}R)^\alpha {}_{\mu \beta \nu }{}^{}+({}_{}{}^{4}_{\beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}R)^\alpha {}_{\mu \nu \gamma }{}^{}+({}_{}{}^{4}_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}R)^\alpha {}_{\mu \gamma \beta }{}^{}0,`$
$`({}_{}{}^{4}_{\gamma }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}R_{}^{(ricci)})_{\mu \nu }+({}_{}{}^{4}_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}R)^\alpha {}_{\mu \nu \gamma }{}^{}({}_{}{}^{4}_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}R_{}^{(ricci)})_{\mu \gamma }0,`$
$`{}_{}{}^{4}_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}G_{}^{\mu \nu }0,{}_{}{}^{4}G_{\mu \nu }^{}={}_{}{}^{4}R_{\mu \nu }^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{}_{}{}^{4}g_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}R,{}_{}{}^{4}G={}_{}{}^{4}R.`$
We have also shown the Ricci tensor, the curvature scalar and the first and second Bianchi identities for the curvature tensor with their implications ∥\**∥\**∥\**$`{}_{}{}^{4}G_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ is the Einstein tensor and $`{}_{}{}^{4}_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}G_{}^{\mu \nu }0`$ are called contracted Bianchi identities.. There are 20 independent components of the Riemann tensor in four dimensions due to its symmetry properties.

Let our globally hyperbolic spacetime $`M^4`$ be foliated with spacelike Cauchy hypersurfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$, obtained with the embeddings $`i_\tau :\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau M^4`$, $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }x^\mu =z^\mu (\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$, of a 3-manifold $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in $`M^4`$ ∥††∥††∥††$`\tau :M^4R`$ is a global, timelike, future-oriented function labelling the leaves of the foliation; $`x^\mu `$ are local coordinates in a chart of $`M^4`$; $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }=\{\sigma ^r\}`$, r=1,2,3, are local coordinates in a chart of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, which is diffeomorphic to $`R^3`$; we shall use the notation $`\sigma ^A=(\sigma ^\tau =\tau ;\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$, $`A=\{\tau ,r\}`$, and $`z^\mu (\sigma )=z^\mu (\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$..

Let $`n^\mu (\sigma )`$ and $`l^\mu (\sigma )=N(\sigma )n^\mu (\sigma )`$ be the controvariant timelike normal and unit normal \[$`{}_{}{}^{4}g_{\mu \nu }^{}(z(\sigma ))l^\mu (\sigma )l^\nu (\sigma )=ϵ`$\] to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ at the point $`z(\sigma )\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$. The positive function $`N(\sigma )>0`$ is the lapse function: $`N(\sigma )d\tau `$ measures the proper time interval at $`z(\sigma )\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ between $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\tau +d\tau }`$ . The shift functions $`N^r(\sigma )`$ are defined so that $`N^r(\sigma )d\tau `$ describes the horizontal shift on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ such that, if $`z^\mu (\tau +d\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }+d\stackrel{}{\sigma })\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\tau +d\tau }`$, then $`z^\mu (\tau +d\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }+d\stackrel{}{\sigma })z^\mu (\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })+N(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })d\tau l^\mu (\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })+[d\sigma ^r+N^r(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })d\tau ]\frac{z^\mu (\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })}{\sigma ^r}`$; therefore, we have $`\frac{z^\mu (\sigma )}{\tau }=N(\sigma )l^\mu (\sigma )+N^r(\sigma )\frac{z^\mu (\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })}{\sigma ^r}`$ for the so called evolution vector. For the covariant unit normal to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ we have $`l_\mu (\sigma )={}_{}{}^{4}g_{\mu \nu }^{}(z(\sigma ))l^\nu (\sigma )=N(\sigma )_\mu \tau |_{x=z(\sigma )}`$.

Instead of local coordinates $`x^\mu `$ for $`M^4`$, we use local coordinates $`\sigma ^A`$ on $`R\times \mathrm{\Sigma }M^4`$ \[$`x^\mu =z^\mu (\sigma )`$ with inverse $`\sigma ^A=\sigma ^A(x)`$\], i.e. a $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$-adapted holonomic coordinate basis for vector fields $`_A=\frac{}{\sigma ^A}T(R\times \mathrm{\Sigma })b_A^\mu (\sigma )_\mu =\frac{z^\mu (\sigma )}{\sigma ^A}_\mu TM^4`$, and for differential one-forms $`dx^\mu T^{}M^4d\sigma ^A=b_\mu ^A(\sigma )dx^\mu =\frac{\sigma ^A(z)}{z^\mu }dx^\mu T^{}(R\times \mathrm{\Sigma })`$. Let us note that in the flat Minkowski spacetime the transformation coefficients $`b_\mu ^A(\sigma )`$ and $`b_A^\mu (\sigma )`$ become the flat orthonormal cotetrads $`z_\mu ^A(\sigma )=\frac{\sigma ^A(x)}{x^\mu }|_{x=z(\sigma )}`$ and tetrads $`z_A^\mu (\sigma )=\frac{z^\mu (\sigma )}{\sigma ^A}`$ of Ref..

The induced 4-metric and inverse 4-metric become in the new basis

$`{}_{}{}^{4}g(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{4}g_{\mu \nu }^{}(x)dx^\mu dx^\nu ={}_{}{}^{4}g_{AB}^{}(z(\sigma ))d\sigma ^Ad\sigma ^B,`$ (A17)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}g_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`b_\mu ^A{}_{}{}^{4}g_{AB}^{}b_\nu ^B=`$ (A19)
$`=`$ $`ϵ(N^2{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}N^rN^s)_\mu \tau _\nu \tau ϵ{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}N^s(_\mu \tau _\nu \sigma ^r+_\nu \tau _\mu \sigma ^r)ϵ{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}_\mu \sigma ^r_\nu \sigma ^s=`$ (A20)
$`=`$ $`ϵl_\mu l_\nu ϵ{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}(_\mu \sigma ^r+N^r_\mu \tau )(_\nu \sigma ^s+N^s_\nu \tau ),`$ (A21)
$``$ $`{}_{}{}^{4}g_{AB}^{}=\{{}_{}{}^{4}g_{\tau \tau }^{}=ϵ(N^2{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}N^rN^s);{}_{}{}^{4}g_{\tau r}^{}=ϵ{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}N^s;{}_{}{}^{4}g_{rs}^{}=ϵ{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}\}=`$ (A23)
$`=`$ $`ϵ[l_Al_B{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}(\delta _A^r+N^r\delta _A^\tau )(\delta _B^s+N^s\delta _B^\tau )],`$ (A24)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`b_A^\mu {}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{AB}b_B^\nu =`$ (A26)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{N^2}}_\tau z^\mu _\tau z^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{ϵN^r}{N^2}}(_\tau z^\mu _rz^\nu +_\tau z^\nu _rz^\mu )ϵ({}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rs}{\displaystyle \frac{N^rN^s}{N^2}})_rz^\mu _sz^\nu =`$ (A27)
$`=`$ $`ϵ[l^\mu l^\nu {}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rs}_rz^\mu _sz^\nu ],`$ (A28)
$``$ $`{}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{AB}=\{{}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{\tau \tau }={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{N^2}};{}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{\tau r}={\displaystyle \frac{ϵN^r}{N^2}};{}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{rs}=ϵ({}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rs}{\displaystyle \frac{N^rN^s}{N^2}})\}=`$ (A30)
$`=`$ $`ϵ[l^Al^B{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rs}\delta _r^A\delta _s^B],`$ (A31)
$`l^A`$ $`=`$ $`l^\mu b_\mu ^A=N{}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{A\tau }={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{N}}(1;N^r),`$ (A33)
$`l_A`$ $`=`$ $`l_\mu b_A^\mu =N_A\tau =N\delta _A^\tau =(N;\stackrel{}{0}).`$ (A34)
Here, we introduced the 3-metric of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$: $`{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}=ϵ{}_{}{}^{4}g_{rs}^{}`$ with signature (+++). If $`{}_{}{}^{4}\gamma _{}^{rs}`$ is the inverse of the spatial part of the 4-metric ($`{}_{}{}^{4}\gamma _{}^{ru}{}_{}{}^{4}g_{us}^{}=\delta _s^r`$), the inverse of the 3-metric is $`{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rs}=ϵ{}_{}{}^{4}\gamma _{}^{rs}`$ ($`{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{ru}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{us}^{}=\delta _s^r`$). $`{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ are the components of the first fundamental form of the Riemann 3-manifold $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau ,{}_{}{}^{3}g)`$ and we have

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{4}g_{\mu \nu }^{}dx^\mu dx^\nu =ϵ(N^2{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}N^rN^s)(d\tau )^22ϵ{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}N^sd\tau d\sigma ^rϵ{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}d\sigma ^rd\sigma ^s=`$ (A35)
$`=`$ $`ϵ\left[N^2(d\tau )^2{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}(d\sigma ^r+N^rd\tau )(d\sigma ^s+N^sd\tau )\right],`$ (A36)
for the line element in $`M^4`$. We must have $`ϵ{}_{}{}^{4}g_{oo}^{}>0`$, $`ϵ{}_{}{}^{4}g_{ij}^{}<0`$, $`\left|\begin{array}{cc}{}_{}{}^{4}g_{ii}^{}& {}_{}{}^{4}g_{ij}^{}\\ {}_{}{}^{4}g_{ji}^{}& {}_{}{}^{4}g_{jj}^{}\end{array}\right|>0`$, $`ϵdet{}_{}{}^{4}g_{ij}^{}>0`$.

If we define $`g={}_{}{}^{4}g=|det({}_{}{}^{4}g_{\mu \nu }^{})|`$ and $`\gamma ={}_{}{}^{3}g=|det({}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{})|`$, we also have

$`N=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{{}_{}{}^{4}g}{{}_{}{}^{3}g}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{{}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{\tau \tau }}}}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\gamma }}}=\sqrt{{}_{}{}^{4}g_{\tau \tau }^{}ϵ{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rs}{}_{}{}^{4}g_{\tau r}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}g_{\tau s}^{}},`$ (A37)
$`N^r=ϵ{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rs}{}_{}{}^{4}g_{\tau s}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{{}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{\tau r}}{{}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{\tau \tau }}},N_r={}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}N^s=ϵ{}_{}{}^{4}g_{rs}^{}N^s=ϵ{}_{}{}^{4}g_{\tau r}^{}.`$ (A38)
Let us remark (see Ref.) that in the study of space and time measurements the equation $`ds^2=0`$ (use of light signals for the synchronization of clocks) and the definition $`d\overline{\tau }=\sqrt{ϵ{}_{}{}^{4}g_{oo}^{}}dx^o`$ of proper time ∥‡‡∥‡‡∥‡‡$`\sqrt{ϵ{}_{}{}^{4}g_{oo}^{}}`$ determines the ratio between the rates of a standard clock at rest and a coordinate clock at the same point. imply the use in $`M^4`$ of a 3-metric $`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{rs}^{}={}_{}{}^{4}g_{rs}^{}\frac{{}_{}{}^{4}g_{or}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}g_{os}^{}}{{}_{}{}^{4}g_{oo}^{}}=ϵ({}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}+\frac{N_rN_s}{ϵ{}_{}{}^{4}g_{oo}^{}})`$ with the covariant shift functions $`N_r={}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}N^s=ϵ{}_{}{}^{4}g_{or}^{}`$, which are connected with the conventionality of simultaneity  and with the direction dependence of the velocity of light ($`c(\stackrel{}{n})=\sqrt{ϵ{}_{}{}^{4}g_{oo}^{}}/(1+N_rn^r)`$ in direction $`\stackrel{}{n}`$).

In the standard (not Hamiltonian) description of the 3+1 decomposition we utilize a $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$-adapted non-holonomic non-coordinate basis \[$`\overline{A}=(l;r)`$\]

$`\widehat{b}_{\overline{A}}^\mu (\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`\{\widehat{b}_l^\mu (\sigma )=ϵl^\mu (\sigma )=N^1(\sigma )[b_\tau ^\mu (\sigma )N^r(\sigma )b_r^\mu (\sigma )];`$ (A40)
$`\widehat{b}_r^\mu (\sigma )=b_r^\mu (\sigma )\},`$
$`\widehat{b}_\mu ^{\overline{A}}(\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`\{\widehat{b}_\mu ^l(\sigma )=l_\mu (\sigma )=N(\sigma )b_\mu ^\tau (\sigma )=N(\sigma )_\mu \tau (z(\sigma ));`$ (A44)
$`\widehat{b}_\mu ^r(\sigma )=b_\mu ^r(\sigma )+N^r(\sigma )b_\mu ^\tau (\sigma )\},`$
$`\widehat{b}_\mu ^{\overline{A}}(\sigma )\widehat{b}_{\overline{A}}^\nu (\sigma )=\delta _\mu ^\nu ,\widehat{b}_\mu ^{\overline{A}}(\sigma )\widehat{b}_{\overline{B}}^\mu (\sigma )=\delta _{\overline{B}}^{\overline{A}},`$
$`{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{g}_{\overline{A}\overline{B}}^{}(z(\sigma ))`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{b}_{\overline{A}}^\mu (\sigma ){}_{}{}^{4}g_{\mu \nu }^{}(z(\sigma ))\widehat{b}_{\overline{B}}^\nu (\sigma )=`$ (A46)
$`=\{{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{g}_{ll}^{}(\sigma )=ϵ;{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{g}_{lr}^{}(\sigma )=0;{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{g}_{rs}^{}(\sigma )={}_{}{}^{4}g_{rs}^{}(\sigma )=ϵ{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}\},`$
$`{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{g}_{}^{\overline{A}\overline{B}}`$ $`=`$ $`\{{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{g}_{}^{ll}=ϵ;{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{g}_{}^{lr}=0;{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{g}_{}^{rs}={}_{}{}^{4}\gamma _{}^{rs}=ϵ{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rs}\},`$ (A52)
$`X_{\overline{A}}=\widehat{b}_{\overline{A}}^\mu _\mu =\{X_l={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}(_\tau N^r_r);_r\},`$
$`\theta ^{\overline{A}}=\widehat{b}_\mu ^{\overline{A}}dx^\mu =\{\theta ^l=Nd\tau ;\theta ^r=d\sigma ^r+N^rd\tau \},`$
$`l_\mu (\sigma )b_r^\mu (\sigma )=0,l^\mu (\sigma )b_\mu ^r(\sigma )=N^r(\sigma )/N(\sigma ),`$
$`l^{\overline{A}}`$ $`=`$ $`l^\mu \widehat{b}_\mu ^{\overline{A}}=(ϵ;l^r+N^rl^\tau )=(ϵ;\stackrel{}{0}),`$ (A54)
$`l_{\overline{A}}`$ $`=`$ $`l_\mu \widehat{b}_{\overline{A}}^\mu =(1;l_r)=(1;\stackrel{}{0}).`$ (A55)
The non-holonomic basis in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$-adapted coordinates is $`\widehat{b}_A^{\overline{A}}=\widehat{b}_\mu ^{\overline{A}}b_A^\mu =\{\widehat{b}_A^l=l_A;\widehat{b}_A^r=\delta _A^r+N^r\delta _A^\tau \}`$, $`\widehat{b}_{\overline{A}}^A=\widehat{b}_{\overline{A}}^\mu b_\mu ^A=\{\widehat{b}_l^A=ϵl^A;\widehat{b}_r^A=\delta _r^A\}`$.

See Refs. for the 3+1 decomposition of 4-tensors on $`M^4`$. The horizontal projector $`{}_{}{}^{3}h_{\mu }^{\nu }=\delta _\mu ^\nu ϵl_\mu l^\nu `$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ defines the 3-tensor fields on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ starting from the 4-tensor fields on $`M^4`$. We have $`{}_{}{}^{3}h_{\mu \nu }^{}={}_{}{}^{4}g_{\mu \nu }^{}ϵl_\mu l_\nu =ϵ{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}(b_\mu ^r+N^rb_\mu ^\tau )(b_\mu ^s+N^sb_\mu ^\tau )=ϵ{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}\widehat{b}_\mu ^r\widehat{b}_\nu ^s`$ and for a 4-vector $`{}_{}{}^{4}V_{}^{\mu }={}_{}{}^{4}V_{}^{\overline{A}}\widehat{b}_{\overline{A}}^\mu ={}_{}{}^{4}V_{}^{l}l^\mu +{}_{}{}^{4}V_{}^{r}\widehat{b}_r^\mu `$ we have $`{}_{}{}^{3}V_{}^{\mu }={}_{}{}^{3}V_{}^{r}\widehat{b}_r^\mu ={}_{}{}^{3}h_{\nu }^{\mu }{}_{}{}^{4}V_{}^{\nu }`$, $`{}_{}{}^{3}V_{}^{r}=\widehat{b}_\mu ^r{}_{}{}^{3}V_{}^{\mu }`$.

The 3-dimensional covariant derivative (denoted $`{}_{}{}^{3}`$ or with the subscript “$`|`$”) of a 3-dimensional tensor $`{}_{}{}^{3}T_{}^{\mu _1..\mu _p}_{\nu _1..\nu _q}`$ of rank (p,q) is the 3-dimensional tensor of rank (p,q+1) $`{}_{}{}^{3}_{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{3}T_{}^{\mu _1..\mu _p}{}_{\nu _1..\nu _q}{}^{}={}_{}{}^{3}T_{}^{\mu _1..\mu _p}{}_{\nu _1..\nu _q|\rho }{}^{}={}_{}{}^{3}h_{\alpha _1}^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}{}_{}{}^{3}h_{\alpha _p}^{\mu _p}{}_{}{}^{3}h_{\nu _1}^{\beta _1}\mathrm{}{}_{}{}^{3}h_{\nu _q}^{\beta _q}{}_{}{}^{3}h_{\rho }^{\sigma }{}_{}{}^{4}_{\sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{3}T_{}^{\alpha _1..\alpha _p}_{\beta _1..\beta _q}`$. For (1,0) and (0,1) tensors we have: $`{}_{}{}^{3}_{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{3}V_{}^{\mu }={}_{}{}^{3}V_{}^{\mu }{}_{|\rho }{}^{}={}_{}{}^{3}V_{}^{r}{}_{|s}{}^{}\widehat{b}_{r}^{\mu }\widehat{b}_\rho ^s`$ , $`{}_{}{}^{3}_{s}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}V_{}^{r}={}_{}{}^{3}V_{}^{r}{}_{|s}{}^{}=_s{}_{}{}^{3}V_{}^{r}+{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{su}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}V_{}^{u}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}_{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{\mu }^{}={}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{\mu |\rho }^{}={}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{r|s}^{}\widehat{b}_\mu ^r\widehat{b}_\rho ^s`$, $`{}_{}{}^{3}_{s}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{r}^{}={}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{r|s}^{}=_s{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{r}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rs}^{u}{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{u}^{}`$ respectively.

The 3-dimensional Christoffel symbols are $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rs}^{u}=\widehat{b}_\mu ^u[{}_{}{}^{3}_{\rho }^{}\widehat{b}_r^\mu ]\widehat{b}_s^\rho =\widehat{b}_\mu ^u\widehat{b}_{r|\rho }^\mu \widehat{b}_s^\rho =\frac{1}{2}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{uv}(_s{}_{}{}^{3}g_{vr}^{}+_r{}_{}{}^{3}g_{vs}^{}_v{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{})`$ and the metric compatibility <sup>\***</sup><sup>\***</sup>\***Levi-Civita connection on the Riemann 3-manifold $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau ,{}_{}{}^{3}g)`$. is $`{}_{}{}^{3}_{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{\mu \nu }^{}={}_{}{}^{3}g_{\mu \nu |\rho }^{}=0`$ <sup>\**†</sup><sup>\**†</sup>\**†$`{}_{}{}^{3}g_{\mu \nu }^{}=ϵ{}_{}{}^{3}h_{\mu \nu }^{}={}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}\widehat{b}_\mu ^r\widehat{b}_\nu ^s`$, so that $`{}_{}{}^{3}\overline{g}_{\overline{A}\overline{B}}^{}=\{{}_{}{}^{3}\overline{g}_{ll}^{}=0;{}_{}{}^{3}\overline{g}_{lr}^{}=0;{}_{}{}^{3}\overline{g}_{rs}^{}=ϵ{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}\}`$.. It is then possible to define parallel transport on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$.

The 3-dimensional curvature Riemann tensor is

$`{}_{}{}^{3}R_{}^{\mu }{}_{\alpha \nu \beta }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}V_{}^{\alpha }={}_{}{}^{3}V_{}^{\alpha }{}_{|\beta |\nu }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}V_{}^{\alpha }{}_{|\nu |\beta }{}^{},`$ (A56)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}R_{}^{r}{}_{suv}{}^{}=_u{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sv}^{r}_v{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{su}^{r}+{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{uw}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sv}^{w}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{vw}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{su}^{w}.`$ (A57)
For 3-manifolds, the Riemann tensor has only 6 independent components since the Weyl tensor vanishes: this gives the relation $`{}_{}{}^{3}R_{\alpha \mu \beta \nu }^{}=\frac{1}{2}({}_{}{}^{3}R_{\mu \beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{\alpha \nu }^{}+{}_{}{}^{3}R_{\alpha \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{\mu \beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{3}R_{\alpha \beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{3}R_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{\alpha \beta }^{})\frac{1}{6}({}_{}{}^{3}g_{\alpha \beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{\alpha \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{\beta \mu }^{}){}_{}{}^{3}R`$, which expresses the Riemann tensor in terms of the Ricci tensor.

The components of the second fundamental form of $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau ,{}_{}{}^{3}g)`$ is the extrinsic curvature

$${}_{}{}^{3}K_{\mu \nu }^{}={}_{}{}^{3}K_{\nu \mu }^{}=\frac{1}{2}_l{}_{}{}^{3}g_{\mu \nu }^{}.$$
(A58)
We have $`{}_{}{}^{4}_{\rho }^{}l^\mu =ϵ{}_{}{}^{3}a_{}^{\mu }l_\rho {}_{}{}^{3}K_{\rho }^{}^\mu `$, with the acceleration $`{}_{}{}^{3}a_{}^{\mu }={}_{}{}^{3}a_{}^{r}\widehat{b}_r^\mu `$ of the observers travelling along the congruence of timelike curves with tangent vector $`l^\mu `$ given by $`{}_{}{}^{3}a_{r}^{}=_rlnN`$. On $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ we have

$${}_{}{}^{3}K_{rs}^{}={}_{}{}^{3}K_{sr}^{}=\frac{1}{2N}(N_{r|s}+N_{s|r}\frac{{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}}{\tau }).$$
(A59)
The information contained in the 20 independent components $`{}_{}{}^{4}R_{}^{\mu }_{\nu \alpha \beta }`$ of the curvature Riemann tensor of $`M^4`$ is given in terms of 3-tensors on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ by the following three projections \**‡\**‡\**‡See Ref. for the geometry of embeddings; one has $`{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{R}_{}^{r}{}_{suv}{}^{}={}_{}{}^{3}\overline{R}_{}^{r}_{suv}`$.

$`{}_{}{}^{3}h_{\rho }^{\mu }`$ 3 $`h_\nu ^\sigma {}_{}{}^{3}h_{\alpha }^{\gamma }{}_{}{}^{3}h_{\beta }^{\delta }{}_{}{}^{4}R_{}^{\rho }{}_{\sigma \gamma \delta }{}^{}={}_{}{}^{4}\overline{R}_{}^{r}{}_{suv}{}^{}\widehat{b}_{r}^{\mu }\widehat{b}_\nu ^s\widehat{b}_\alpha ^u\widehat{b}_\beta ^v={}_{}{}^{3}R_{}^{\mu }{}_{\nu \alpha \beta }{}^{}+{}_{}{}^{3}K_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }{}_{}{}^{3}K_{\beta \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{3}K_{\beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }{}_{}{}^{3}K_{\alpha \nu }^{},`$ (A61)
$`GAUSSEQUATION,`$
$`ϵ`$ $`l_\rho `$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}h_{\nu }^{\sigma }{}_{}{}^{3}h_{\alpha }^{\gamma }{}_{}{}^{3}h_{\beta }^{\delta }{}_{}{}^{4}R_{}^{\rho }{}_{\sigma \gamma \delta }{}^{}={}_{}{}^{4}\overline{R}_{}^{l}{}_{suv}{}^{}\widehat{b}_{\nu }^{s}\widehat{b}_\alpha ^u\widehat{b}_\beta ^v={}_{}{}^{3}K_{\alpha \nu |\beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{3}K_{\beta \nu |\alpha }^{},`$ (A63)
$`CODAZZIMAINARDIEQUATION,`$
4 $`R`$ $`{}_{\mu \sigma \gamma \delta }{}^{}l_{}^{\sigma }l^\gamma {}_{}{}^{3}h_{\nu }^{\delta }={}_{}{}^{4}\overline{R}_{\mu llu}^{}\widehat{b}_\nu ^u=ϵ(_l{}_{}{}^{3}K_{\mu \nu }^{}+{}_{}{}^{3}K_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\rho }{}_{}{}^{3}K_{\rho \nu }^{}+{}_{}{}^{3}a_{\mu |\nu }^{}+{}_{}{}^{3}a_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{3}a_{\nu }^{}),`$ (A67)
$`RICCIEQUATION,`$
$`with_l{}_{}{}^{3}K_{\mu \nu }^{}=l^\alpha {}_{}{}^{3}K_{\mu \nu ;\alpha }^{}2{}_{}{}^{3}K_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }{}_{}{}^{3}K_{\alpha \nu }^{}+2ϵ{}_{}{}^{3}a_{}^{\alpha }{}_{}{}^{3}K_{\alpha (\nu }^{}l_{\mu )}.`$
After having expressed the 4-Riemann tensor components in the non-holonomic basis in terms of the 3-Riemann tensor on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$, the extrinsic curvature of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ and the acceleration \**§\**§\**§For instance $`{}_{}{}^{4}R={}_{}{}^{3}R+{}_{}{}^{3}K_{rs}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}K_{}^{rs}({}_{}{}^{3}K)^2`$., we can express $`{}_{}{}^{4}R_{\mu \nu }^{}=ϵ{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{R}_{ll}^{}l_\mu l_\nu +ϵ{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{R}_{lr}^{}(l_\mu \widehat{b}_\nu ^r+l_\nu \widehat{b}_\mu ^r)+{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{R}_{rs}^{}\widehat{b}_\mu ^r\widehat{b}_\nu ^s`$, $`{}_{}{}^{4}R`$ and the Einstein tensor $`{}_{}{}^{4}G_{\mu \nu }^{}={}_{}{}^{4}R_{\mu \nu }^{}\frac{1}{2}{}_{}{}^{4}g_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}R=ϵ{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{G}_{ll}^{}l_\mu l_\nu +ϵ{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{G}_{lr}^{}(l_\mu \widehat{b}_\nu ^r+l_\nu \widehat{b}_\mu ^r)+{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{G}_{rs}^{}\widehat{b}_\mu ^r\widehat{b}_\nu ^s`$. The vanishing of $`{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{G}_{ll}^{}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{G}_{lr}^{}`$, corresponds to the four secondary constraints (restrictions of Cauchy data) of the ADM Hamiltonian formalism (see Section IV). The four contracted Bianchi identities, $`{}_{}{}^{4}G_{}^{\mu \nu }{}_{;\nu }{}^{}0`$, imply  that, if the restrictions of Cauchy data are satisfied initially and the spatial equations $`{}_{}{}^{4}G_{ij}^{}\stackrel{}{=}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ are satisfied everywhere, then the secondary constraints are satisfied also at later times \**¶\**¶\**¶See Ref. for the initial value problem.. The four contracted Bianchi identities plus the four secondary constraints imply that only two combinations of the Einstein equations $`{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{G}_{rs}^{}\stackrel{}{=}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ are independent, namely contain the accelerations (second time derivatives) of the two (non tensorial) independent degrees of freedom of the gravitational field, and that only these two equations can be put in normal form \**∥\**∥\**∥This was one of the motivations behind the discovery of the Shanmugadhasan canonical transformations ..

The intrinsic geometry of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ is defined by the Riemannian metric $`{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}`$ \****\****\****It allows to evaluate the length of space curves., the Levi-Civita affine connection, i.e. the Christoffel symbols $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rs}^{u}`$, \**††\**††\**††For the parallel transport of 3-dimensional tensors on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$. and the curvature Riemann tensor $`{}_{}{}^{3}R_{}^{r}_{stu}`$ \**‡‡\**‡‡\**‡‡For the evaluation of the holonomy and for the geodesic deviation equation.. The extrinsic geometry of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ is defined by the lapse N and shift $`N^r`$ fields, which describe the evolution of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ in $`M^4`$, and by the extrinsic curvature $`{}_{}{}^{3}K_{rs}^{}`$ ††\*††\*††\*It is needed to evaluate how much a 3-dimensional vector goes outside $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ under spacetime parallel transport and to rebuild the spacetime curvature from the 3-dimensional one..

### 2 Tetrads and Cotetrads on $`M^4`$.

Besides the local dual coordinate bases $`{}_{}{}^{4}e_{\mu }^{}=_\mu `$ and $`dx^\mu `$ for $`TM^4`$ and $`T^{}M^4`$ respectively, we can introduce special non-coordinate bases $`{}_{}{}^{4}\widehat{E}_{(\alpha )}^{}={}_{}{}^{4}\widehat{E}_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }(x)_\mu `$ and its dual $`{}_{}{}^{4}\widehat{\theta }_{}^{(\alpha )}={}_{}{}^{4}\widehat{E}_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}(x)dx^\mu `$ †††††††††$`i_{{}_{}{}^{4}\widehat{E}_{(\alpha )}^{}}{}_{}{}^{4}\widehat{\theta }_{}^{(\beta )}={}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\beta )}^{\mu }=\delta _{(\alpha )}^{(\beta )}`$ $`{}_{}{}^{4}\eta _{(\alpha )(\beta )}^{}={}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }{}_{}{}^{4}g_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\beta )}^{\nu }`$; $`(\alpha )=(0),(1),(2),(3)`$ are numerical indices. with the vierbeins or tetrads or (local) frames $`{}_{}{}^{4}\widehat{E}_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }(x)`$, which are, for each point $`x^\mu M^4`$, the matrix elements of matrices $`\{{}_{}{}^{4}\widehat{E}_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }\}GL(4,R)`$; the set of one-forms $`{}_{}{}^{4}\widehat{\theta }_{}^{(\alpha )}`$ ††‡††‡††‡With $`{}_{}{}^{4}\widehat{E}_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}(x)`$ being the dual cotetrads. is also called canonical or soldering one-form or coframe. Since a frame $`{}_{}{}^{4}\widehat{E}`$ at the point $`x^\mu M^4`$ is a linear isomorphism $`{}_{}{}^{4}\widehat{E}:R^4T_xM^4`$, $`_\alpha {}_{}{}^{4}\widehat{E}(_\alpha )={}_{}{}^{4}\widehat{E}_{(\alpha )}^{}`$, a frame determines a basis $`{}_{}{}^{4}\widehat{E}_{(\alpha )}^{}`$ of $`T_xM^4`$ ††§††§††§The coframes $`{}_{}{}^{4}\widehat{\theta }`$ determine a basis $`{}_{}{}^{4}\widehat{\theta }_{}^{(\alpha )}`$ of $`T_x^{}M^4`$. and we can define a principal fiber bundle with structure group GL(4,R), $`\pi :L(M^4)M^4`$ called the frame bundle of $`M^4`$ ††¶††¶††¶Its fibers are the sets of all the frames over the points $`x^\mu M^4`$; it is an affine bundle, i.e. there is no (global when it exists) cross section playing the role of the identity cross section of vector bundles.; if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }GL(4,R)`$, then the free right action of GL(4,R) on $`L(M^4)`$ is denoted $`R_\mathrm{\Lambda }({}_{}{}^{4}\widehat{E})={}_{}{}^{4}\widehat{E}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`{}_{}{}^{4}\widehat{E}_{(\alpha )}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\widehat{E}_{(\beta )}^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^1)^{(\beta )}_{(\alpha )}`$. When $`M^4`$ is parallelizable ††∥††∥††∥I.e. $`M^4`$ admits four vector fields which are independent in each point, so that the tangent bundle $`T(M^4)`$ is trivial, $`T(M^4)=M^4\times R^4`$; this is not possible (no hair theorem) for any compact manifold except a torus., as we shall assume, then $`L(M^4)=M^4\times GL(4,R)`$ is a trivial principal bundle ††\**††\**††\**I.e. it admits a global cross section $`\sigma :M^4L(M^4)`$, $`x^\mu {}_{\sigma }{}^{4}\widehat{E}_{(\alpha )}^{}(x)`$.. See Ref. for the differential structure on $`L(M^4)`$.

With the assumed pseudo-Riemannian manifold $`(M^4,{}_{}{}^{4}g)`$, we can use its metric $`{}_{}{}^{4}g_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ to define the orthonormal frame bundle of $`M^4`$, $`F(M^4)=M^4\times SO(3,1)`$, with structure group SO(3,1), of the orthonormal frames (or non-coordinate basis or orthonormal tetrads) $`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{}={}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }_\mu `$ of $`TM^4`$. The orthonormal tetrads and their duals, the orthonormal cotetrads $`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}`$ ††††††††††††$`{}_{}{}^{4}\theta _{}^{(\alpha )}={}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}dx^\mu `$ are the orthonormal coframes., satisfy the duality and orthonormality conditions

$`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\beta )}^{\mu }=\delta _{(\beta )}^{(\alpha )},{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\nu }=\delta _\mu ^\nu ,`$ (A68)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }{}_{}{}^{4}g_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\beta )}^{\nu }={}_{}{}^{4}\eta _{(\alpha )(\beta )}^{},{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\nu }^{(\beta )}={}_{}{}^{4}\eta _{}^{(\alpha )(\beta )}.`$ (A69)
Under a rotation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }SO(3,1)`$ ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }{}_{}{}^{4}\eta \mathrm{\Lambda }^T={}_{}{}^{4}\eta `$) we have $`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\beta )}^{\mu }(\mathrm{\Lambda }^1)^{(\beta )}_{(\alpha )}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(\alpha )}{}_{(\beta )}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\beta )}`$. Therefore, while the indices $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{}`$ transform under general coordinate transformations (the diffeomorphisms in $`DiffM^4`$), the indices $`(\alpha ),(\beta )\mathrm{}`$ transform under Lorentz rotations. The 4-metric can be expressed in terms of orthonormal cotetrads or local coframes in the non-coordinate basis

$`{}_{}{}^{4}g_{\mu \nu }^{}={}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{4}\eta _{(\alpha )(\beta )}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\nu }^{(\beta )},{}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{\mu \nu }={}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }{}_{}{}^{4}\eta _{}^{(\alpha )(\beta )}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\beta )}^{\nu },`$ (A70)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}g={}_{}{}^{4}g_{\mu \nu }^{}dx^\mu dx^\nu ={}_{}{}^{4}\eta _{(\alpha )(\beta )}^{}\theta ^{(\alpha )}\theta ^{(\beta )}.`$ (A71)
For each vector $`{}_{}{}^{4}V_{}^{\mu }`$ and covector $`{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{\mu }^{}`$ we have the decompositions $`{}_{}{}^{4}V_{}^{\mu }={}_{}{}^{4}V_{}^{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }`$ ($`{}_{}{}^{4}V_{}^{(\alpha )}={}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{4}V_{}^{\mu }`$), $`{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{\mu }^{}={}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\alpha )}^{}`$ ($`{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\alpha )}^{}={}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{\mu }^{}`$).

In a non-coordinate basis we have

$`[{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{},{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\beta )}^{}]=c_{(\alpha )(\beta )}{}_{}{}^{(\gamma )}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\gamma )}^{},`$ (A72)
$`c_{(\alpha )(\beta )}{}_{}{}^{(\gamma )}={}_{}{}^{4}E_{\nu }^{(\gamma )}({}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }_\mu {}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\beta )}^{\nu }{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\beta )}^{\mu }_\mu {}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\nu }).`$ (A73)
Physically, in a coordinate system (chart) $`x^\mu `$ of $`M^4`$, a tetrad may be considered as a collection of accelerated observers described by a congruence of timelike curves with 4-velocity $`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(o)}^{\mu }`$; in each point $`pM^4`$ consider a coordinate transformation to local inertial coordinates at p, i.e. $`x^\mu X_p^{(\mu )}(x)`$: then we have, in p, $`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }(p)=\frac{x^\mu (X_p(p))}{X_p^{(\alpha )}}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}(p)=\frac{X_p^{(\alpha )}(p))}{x^\mu }`$ and locally we have a freely falling observer.

All the connection one-forms $`\omega `$ are 1-forms on the orthonormal frame bundle $`F(M^4)=M^4\times SO(3,1)`$. Since in general relativity we consider only Levi-Civita connections associated with pseudo-Riemannian 4-manifolds $`(M^4,{}_{}{}^{4}g)`$, in $`F(M^4)`$ we consider only $`\omega _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-horizontal subspaces $`H_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ ††‡‡††‡‡††‡‡$`TF(M^4)=V_\mathrm{\Gamma }+H_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as a direct sum, with $`V_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the vertical subspace isomorphic to the Lie algebra o(3,1) of SO(3,1).. Given a global cross section $`\sigma :M^4F(M^4)=M^4\times SO(3,1)`$, the associated gauge potentials on $`M^4`$, $`{}_{}{}^{4}\omega =\sigma ^{}\omega `$, are the connection coefficients $`{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{}^{(T)}=\sigma ^{}\omega `$ in the non-coordinate basis $`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{}`$ ‡‡\*‡‡\*‡‡\*The second line defines them through the covariant derivative in the non-coordinate basis.

$`{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\alpha )(\beta )}^{(T)(\gamma )}={}_{}{}^{4}E_{\nu }^{(\gamma )}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }(_\mu {}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\beta )}^{\nu }+{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\beta )}^{\lambda }{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \lambda }^{(T)\nu })={}_{}{}^{4}E_{\nu }^{(\gamma )}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }{}_{}{}^{4}_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\beta )}^{\nu },`$ (A74)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{}_{{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\beta )}^{}={}_{}{}^{4}_{{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\beta )}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\alpha )(\beta )}^{(T)(\gamma )}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\gamma )}^{}=0.`$ (A75)
The components of the Riemann tensors in the non-coordinate bases are $`{}_{}{}^{4}R_{}^{(\alpha )}{}_{(\beta )(\gamma )(\delta )}{}^{}={}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\gamma )}^{}({}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\delta )(\beta )}^{(T)(\alpha )}){}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\delta )}^{}({}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\gamma )(\beta )}^{(T)(\alpha )})+{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\delta )(\beta )}^{(T)(ϵ)}{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\gamma )(ϵ)}^{(T)(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\gamma )(\beta )}^{(T)(ϵ)}{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\delta )(ϵ)}^{(T)(\alpha )}c_{(\gamma )(\delta )}{}_{}{}^{(ϵ)}{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(ϵ)(\beta )}^{(T)(\alpha )}`$. The connection (gauge potential) one-form is $`{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{}^{(T)(\alpha )}{}_{(\beta )}{}^{}={}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\gamma )(\beta )}^{(T)(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{4}\theta _{}^{(\gamma )}`$ <sup>‡‡†</sup><sup>‡‡†</sup>‡‡†It is called improperly spin connection, while its components are called Ricci rotation coefficients. and the curvature (field strength) 2-form is $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{(T)(\alpha )}{}_{(\beta )}{}^{}=\frac{1}{2}{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{(T)(\alpha )}{}_{(\beta )(\gamma )(\delta )}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\theta _{}^{(\gamma )}{}_{}{}^{4}\theta _{}^{(\delta )}`$.

With the Levi-Civita connection ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡It has zero torsion 2-form $`{}_{}{}^{4}T_{}^{(\alpha )}=\frac{1}{2}T^{(\alpha )}{}_{(\beta )(\gamma )}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\theta _{}^{(\beta )}{}_{}{}^{4}\theta _{}^{(\gamma )}=0`$, namely $`{}_{}{}^{4}T_{}^{(\alpha )}{}_{(\beta )(\gamma )}{}^{}={}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\beta )(\gamma )}^{(T)(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\gamma )(\beta )}^{(T)(\alpha )}c_{(\beta )(\gamma )}{}_{}{}^{(\alpha )}=0`$., in a non-coordinate basis the spin connection takes the form

$`{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{}^{(\alpha )}_{(\beta )}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\gamma )(\beta )}^{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{4}\theta _{}^{(\gamma )}={}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{\mu (\beta )}^{(\alpha )}dx^\mu ,`$ (A76)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\alpha )(\gamma )(\beta )}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{4}\eta _{(\alpha )(\delta )}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\nu }^{(\delta )}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\gamma )}^{\mu }{}_{}{}^{4}_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\beta )}^{\nu }={}_{}{}^{4}\eta _{(\alpha )(\delta )}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\gamma )(\beta )}^{(\delta )},`$ (A77)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{\mu (\beta )}^{(\alpha )}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\gamma )(\beta )}^{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\gamma )}={}_{}{}^{4}E_{\nu }^{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{4}_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\beta )}^{\nu }={}_{}{}^{4}E_{\nu }^{(\alpha )}[_\mu {}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\beta )}^{\nu }+{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \rho }^{\nu }{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\beta )}^{\rho }],`$ (A78)
$`^4`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \sigma }^\mu `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\sigma }^{(\beta )}({}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\rho }^{(\gamma )}{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\gamma )(\beta )}^{(\alpha )}_\rho {}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\beta )}^{\mu })+`$ (A79)
$`+`$ $`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\rho }^{(\beta )}({}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\sigma }^{(\gamma )}{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\gamma )(\beta )}^{(\alpha )}_\sigma {}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\beta )}^{\mu })],`$ (A80)
and the metric compatibility $`{}_{}{}^{4}_{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}g_{\mu \nu }^{}=0`$ becomes the following condition

$${}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\alpha )(\beta )}^{}={}_{}{}^{4}\eta _{(\alpha )(\delta )}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{}^{(\delta )}{}_{(\beta )}{}^{}={}_{}{}^{4}\eta _{(\alpha )(\delta )}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\gamma )(\beta )}^{(\delta )}{}_{}{}^{4}\theta _{}^{(\gamma )}={}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\alpha )(\gamma )(\beta )}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\theta _{}^{(\gamma )}={}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\beta )(\alpha )}^{}$$
(A81)
or $`{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\alpha )(\gamma )(\beta )}^{}={}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\beta )(\gamma )(\alpha )}^{}`$ ‡‡§‡‡§‡‡§$`{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\alpha )(\gamma )(\beta )}^{}`$ are the Ricci rotation coefficients, only 24 of which are independent.

Given a vector $`{}_{}{}^{4}V_{}^{\mu }={}_{}{}^{4}V_{}^{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }`$ and a covector $`{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{\mu }^{}={}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\alpha )}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}`$, we define the covariant derivative of the components $`{}_{}{}^{4}V_{}^{(\alpha )}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\alpha )}^{}`$ as $`{}_{}{}^{4}_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}V_{}^{\mu }={}_{}{}^{4}V_{}^{\mu }{}_{;\nu }{}^{}[{}_{}{}^{4}_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}V_{}^{(\alpha )}]{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }={}_{}{}^{4}V_{}^{(\alpha )}{}_{;\nu }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{4}_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{\mu }^{}={}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{\mu ;\nu }^{}[{}_{}{}^{4}_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\alpha )}^{}]{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}={}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\alpha );\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}`$, so that

$`{}_{}{}^{4}V_{;\nu }^{\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`_\nu {}_{}{}^{4}V_{}^{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }+{}_{}{}^{4}V_{}^{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha );\nu }^{\mu },`$ (A83)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}V_{}^{(\alpha )}{}_{;\nu }{}^{}=_\nu {}_{}{}^{4}V_{}^{(\alpha )}+{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{\nu (\beta )}^{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{4}V_{}^{(\beta )},`$
$`{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{\mu ;\nu }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`_\nu {}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\alpha )}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}+{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\alpha )}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu ;\nu }^{(\alpha )},`$ (A85)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\alpha );\nu }^{}=_\nu {}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\alpha )}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\beta )}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{\nu (\alpha )}^{(\beta )}.`$
Therefore, for the internal tensors $`{}_{}{}^{4}T_{}^{(\alpha )\mathrm{}}_{(\beta )\mathrm{}}`$, the spin connection $`{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{\mu (\beta )}^{(\alpha )}`$ is a gauge potential associated with a gauge group SO(3,1). For internal vectors $`{}_{}{}^{4}V_{}^{(\alpha )}`$ at $`pM^4`$ the cotetrads $`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}`$ realize a soldering of this internal vector space at p with the tangent space $`T_pM^4`$: $`{}_{}{}^{4}V_{}^{(\alpha )}={}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{4}V_{}^{\mu }`$. For tensors with mixed world and internal indices, like tetrads and cotetrads, we could define a generalized covariant derivative acting on both types of indices $`{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{}_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }=_\nu {}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }+{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \rho }^{\mu }{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\rho }{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\beta )}^{\mu }{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{\nu (\alpha )}^{(\beta )}`$: then $`{}_{}{}^{4}_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}V_{}^{\mu }={}_{}{}^{4}_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}V_{}^{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }+{}_{}{}^{4}V_{}^{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{}_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }{}_{}{}^{4}_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}V_{}^{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }`$ implies $`{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{}_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }=0`$ (or $`{}_{}{}^{4}_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{3}E_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }={}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\beta )}^{\mu }{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{\nu (\alpha )}^{(\beta )}`$) which is nothing else that the definition (A80) of the spin connection $`{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{\mu (\beta )}^{(\alpha )}`$.

We have

$`[{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{},{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\beta )}^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`c_{(\alpha )(\beta )}{}_{}{}^{(\gamma )}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\gamma )}^{}={}_{}{}^{4}_{{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\beta )}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}_{{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\beta )}^{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{}=`$ (A86)
$`=`$ $`({}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\alpha )(\beta )}^{(\gamma )}{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{(\beta )(\alpha )}^{(\gamma )}){}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\gamma )}^{},`$ (A87)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{(\alpha )}_{(\beta )}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\gamma )}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\nu }^{(\delta )}{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{(\alpha )}{}_{(\beta )(\gamma )(\delta )}{}^{}={}_{}{}^{4}R_{}^{\rho }{}_{\sigma \mu \nu }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\rho }^{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\beta )}^{\sigma }=`$ (A88)
$`=`$ $`_\mu {}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{\nu (\beta )}^{(\alpha )}_\nu {}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{\mu (\beta )}^{(\alpha )}+{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{\mu (\gamma )}^{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{\nu (\beta )}^{(\gamma )}{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{\nu (\gamma )}^{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{\mu (\beta )}^{(\gamma )},`$ (A89)
$`{}_{}{}^{4}R_{}^{\alpha }_{\beta \mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\gamma )}^{\alpha }{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\beta }^{(\delta )}{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{(\gamma )}{}_{(\delta )}{}^{}.`$ (A91)
Let us remark that Eqs.(A75) and (A80) imply $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^{\rho }={}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{}_{\mu \nu }^{\rho }+{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{\mu \nu }^{\rho }`$ with $`{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{\mu \nu }^{\rho }={}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\rho }{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\nu }^{(\beta )}{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{\mu (\beta )}^{(\alpha )}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{}_{\mu \nu }^{\rho }={}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\rho }_\mu {}_{}{}^{4}E_{\nu }^{(\alpha )}`$; the Levi-Civita connection (i.e. the Christoffel symbols) turn out to be decomposed in a flat connection $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{}_{\mu \nu }^{\rho }`$ (it produces zero Riemann tensor as was already known to Einstein) and in a tensor, like in the Yang-Mills case.

### 3 Triads and Cotriads on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$.

On $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ with local coordinate system $`\{\sigma ^r\}`$ and Riemannian metric $`{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}`$ of signature (+++) we can introduce orthonormal frames (triads) $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{}={}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}\frac{}{\sigma ^r}`$, a=1,2,3, and coframes (cotriads) $`{}_{}{}^{3}\theta _{}^{(a)}={}_{}{}^{3}e_{r}^{(a)}d\sigma ^r`$ satisfying

$`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{s}=\delta _{(a)(b)},{}_{}{}^{3}e_{r}^{(a)}{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rs}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{s}^{(b)}=\delta ^{(a)(b)},`$ (A92)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}\delta ^{(a)(b)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{s}={}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rs},{}_{}{}^{3}e_{r}^{(a)}\delta _{(a)(b)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{s}^{(b)}={}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}.`$ (A93)
and consider the orthonormal frame bundle $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau )`$ over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ with structure group SO(3). See Ref. for geometrical properties of triads.

The 3-dimensional spin connection 1-form $`{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{r(b)}^{(a)}d\sigma ^r`$ is

$`{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{r(b)}^{(a)}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{(c)(b)}^{(a)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{r}^{(c)}={}_{}{}^{3}e_{s}^{(a)}{}_{}{}^{3}_{r}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{s}=`$ (A94)
$`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{s}^{(a)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)|r}^{s}={}_{}{}^{3}e_{s}^{(a)}[_r{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{s}+{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ru}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{u}],`$ (A95)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{(a)(b)}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{(a)(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{r(b)}^{(c)}d\sigma ^r={}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{(b)(a)}^{},{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{r(a)}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{(a)(b)(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{r(b)(c)}^{},`$ (A97)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{r(a)(b)}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{(a)(b)(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{r(c)}^{}=[\widehat{R}^{(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{r(c)}^{}]_{(a)(b)}=[{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{r}^{}]_{(a)(b)},`$ (A100)
$`[{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{},{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{}]=({}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{(a)(b)}^{(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{(b)(a)}^{(c)}){}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)}^{},`$
where $`ϵ_{(a)(b)(c)}`$ is the standard Euclidean antisymmetric tensor and $`(\widehat{R}^{(c)})_{(a)(b)}=ϵ_{(a)(b)(c)}`$ is the adjoint representation of SO(3) generators.

Given vectors and covectors $`{}_{}{}^{3}V_{}^{r}={}_{}{}^{3}V_{}^{(a)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{3}V_{r}^{}={}_{}{}^{3}V_{(a)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{r}^{(a)}`$, we have ‡‡¶‡‡¶‡‡¶Remember that $`{}_{}{}^{3}_{s}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}={}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{s(a)}^{(b)}`$.

$`{}_{}{}^{3}_{s}^{}`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}V_{}^{r}`$ $`={}_{}{}^{3}V_{}^{r}{}_{|s}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}V_{|s}^{(a)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r},`$ (A102)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}V_{}^{(a)}{}_{|s}{}^{}=_s{}_{}{}^{3}V_{}^{(a)}+{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{s(b)}^{(a)}{}_{}{}^{3}V_{}^{(b)}=_s{}_{}{}^{3}V_{}^{(a)}+\delta ^{(a)(c)}ϵ_{(c)(b)(d)}{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{s(d)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}V_{}^{(b)},`$
$`{}_{}{}^{3}_{s}^{}`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}V_{r}^{}`$ $`={}_{}{}^{3}V_{r|s}^{}={}_{}{}^{3}V_{(a)|s}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{r}^{(a)},`$ (A104)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}V_{(a)|s}^{}=_s{}_{}{}^{3}V_{(a)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}V_{(b)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{s(a)}^{(b)}=_s{}_{}{}^{3}V_{(a)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}V_{(b)}^{}\delta ^{(b)(c)}ϵ_{(c)(a)(d)}{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{s(d)}^{}.`$
For the field strength and the curvature tensors we have

$`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{(a)}_{(b)(c)(d)}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)}^{}({}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{(d)(b)}^{(a)}){}_{}{}^{3}e_{(d)}^{}({}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{(c)(b)}^{(a)})+`$ (A105)
$`+`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{(d)(b)}^{(n)}{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{(c)(n)}^{(a)}{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{(c)(b)}^{(n)}{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{(d)(n)}^{(a)}({}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{(c)(d)}^{(n)}{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{(d)(c)}^{(n)}){}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{(a)(b)}^{(a)}=`$ (A106)
$`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{r}^{(a)}{}_{}{}^{3}R_{}^{r}{}_{stw}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)}^{t}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(d)}^{w},`$ (A107)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Omega }_{rs}^{}{}_{}{}^{(a)}_{(b)}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{r}^{(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{s}^{(d)}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{(a)}{}_{(b)(c)(d)}{}^{}={}_{}{}^{3}R_{}^{t}{}_{wrs}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{t}^{(a)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{w}=`$ (A109)
$`=`$ $`_r{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{s(b)}^{(a)}_s{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{r(b)}^{(a)}+{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{r(c)}^{(a)}{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{s(b)}^{(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{s(c)}^{(a)}{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{r(b)}^{(c)}=`$ (A110)
$`=`$ $`\delta ^{(a)(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Omega }_{rs(c)(b)}^{}=\delta ^{(a)(c)}ϵ_{(c)(b)(d)}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Omega }_{rs(d)}^{},`$ (A111)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Omega }_{rs(a)}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{(a)(b)(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Omega }_{rs(b)(c)}^{}=_r{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{s(a)}^{}_s{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{r(a)}^{}ϵ_{(a)(b)(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{r(b)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{s(c)}^{},`$ (A113)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}R_{}^{r}_{stw}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{(a)(b)(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}\delta _{(b)(n)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{s}^{(n)}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Omega }_{tw(c)}^{},`$ (A115)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}R_{rs}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{(a)(b)(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{u}\delta _{(b)(n)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{r}^{(n)}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Omega }_{us(c)}^{},`$ (A116)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}R`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{(a)(b)(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Omega }_{rs(c)}^{}.`$ (A117)
The first Bianchi identity (A16) $`{}_{}{}^{3}R_{}^{t}{}_{rsu}{}^{}+{}_{}{}^{3}R_{}^{t}{}_{sur}{}^{}+{}_{}{}^{3}R_{}^{t}{}_{urs}{}^{}0`$ implies the cyclic identity $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Omega }_{rs(a)}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{s}0`$.

Under local SO(3) rotations R \[$`R^1=R^t`$\] we have

$`{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{r(b)}^{(a)}`$ $``$ $`[R{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{r}^{}R^TR_rR^T]^{(a)}{}_{(b)}{}^{},`$ (A118)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Omega }_{rs}^{}{}_{}{}^{(a)}_{(b)}`$ $``$ $`[R{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Omega }_{rs}^{}R^T]^{(a)}{}_{(b)}{}^{}.`$ (A119)
Since the flat metric $`\delta _{(a)(b)}`$ has signature (+++), we have $`{}_{}{}^{3}V_{}^{(a)}=\delta ^{(a)(b)}{}_{}{}^{3}V_{(b)}^{}={}_{}{}^{3}V_{(a)}^{}`$ and one can simplify the notations by using only lower (a) indices: $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{r}^{(a)}={}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}`$. For instance, we have

$`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rs}^{u}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sr}^{u}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{u}[_r{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)s}^{}+_s{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}+`$ (A120)
$`+`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{v}({}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)r}^{}(_s{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)v}^{}_v{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)s}^{})+{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)s}^{}(_r{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)v}^{}_v{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)r}^{}))]=`$ (A121)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{(a)(b)(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{u}({}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)r}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{s(c)}^{}+{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)s}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{r(c)}^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}_s{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{u}+{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)s}^{}_r{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{u}),`$ (A122)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{r(a)(b)}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{r(b)(a)}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{s}(_r{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)s}^{}_s{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)r}^{})+`$ (A123)
$`+`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{s}(_s{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}_r{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)s}^{})+{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{u}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{v}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)r}^{}(_v{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)u}^{}_u{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)v}^{})]=`$ (A124)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)u}^{}_r{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{u}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)u}^{}_r{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{u}+{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rs}^{u}({}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)u}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)u}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{s})\right],`$ (A125)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}\omega _{r(a)}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{(a)(b)(c)}[{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{u}(_r{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)u}^{}_u{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)r}^{})+`$ (A126)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{u}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)}^{v}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(d)r}^{}(_v{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(d)u}^{}_u{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(d)v}^{})],`$ (A127)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Omega }_{rs(a)}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{(a)(b)(c)}[_r{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{u}_s{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)u}^{}_s{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{u}_r{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)u}^{}+`$ (A128)
$`+`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{u}(_u_s{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)r}^{}_u_r{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)s}^{})+`$ (A129)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{u}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)}^{v}(_r{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(d)s}^{}_s{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(d)r}^{})(_v{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(d)u}^{}_u{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(d)v}^{})+`$ (A130)
$`+`$ $`({}_{}{}^{3}e_{(d)s}^{}_r{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(d)r}^{}_s)[{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{u}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c)}^{v}(_v{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(d)u}^{}_u{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(d)v}^{})])]`$ (A131)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}[\delta _{(a)(b_1)}ϵ_{(c_1)(c_2)(b_2)}+\delta _{(a)(b_2)}ϵ_{(c_1)(c_2)(b_1)}+\delta _{(a)(c_1)}ϵ_{(b_1)(b_2)(c_2)}+\delta _{(a)(c_2)}ϵ_{(b_1)(b_2)(c_1)}]\times `$ (A133)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b_1)}^{u_1}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b_2)}^{u_2}[(_r{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c_1)u_1}^{}_{u_1}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c_1)r}^{})(_s{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c_2)u_2}^{}_{u_2}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c_2)s}^{})+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c_2)}^{v_2}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(d)s}^{}(_r{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c_1)u_1}^{}_{u_1}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c_1)r}^{})(_{v_2}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(d)u_2}^{}_{u_2}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(d)v_2}^{})+`$ (A134)
$`+`$ $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c_1)}^{v_1}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(d)r}^{}(_s{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c_2)u_2}^{}_{u_2}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c_2)s}^{})(_{v_1}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(d)u_1}^{}_{u_1}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(d)v_1}^{}))+`$ (A135)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c_1)}^{v_1}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(c_2)}^{v_2}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(d_1)r}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(d_2)s}^{}(_{v_1}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(d_1)u_1}^{}_{u_1}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(d_1)v_1}^{})(_{v_2}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(d_2)u_2}^{}_{u_2}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(d_2)v_2}^{})],`$ (A136)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Omega }_{rs(a)(b)}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{(a)(b)(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Omega }_{rs(c)}^{},`$ (A137)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}R_{rsuv}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{(a)(b)(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)s}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Omega }_{uv(c)}^{},`$ (A138)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}R_{rs}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{(a)(b)(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{u}\left[{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)r}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Omega }_{us(c)}^{}+{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)s}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ur(c)}^{}\right],`$ (A139)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}R`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{(a)(b)(c)}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)}^{r}{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(b)}^{s}{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{\Omega }_{rs(c)}^{}.`$ (A140)
### 4 Action Principles.

Let us finish this Appendix with a review of some action principles used for general relativity. In metric gravity, one uses the generally covariant Hilbert action depending on the 4-metric and its first and second derivatives ‡‡∥‡‡∥‡‡∥G is Newton gravitational constant; $`UM^4`$ is a subset of spacetime; we use units with $`x^o=ct`$.

$$S_H=\frac{c^3}{16\pi G}_Ud^4x\sqrt{{}_{}{}^{4}g}{}_{}{}^{4}R=_Ud^4x_H.$$
(A141)
The variation of $`S_H`$ is ($`d^3\mathrm{\Sigma }_\gamma =d^3\mathrm{\Sigma }l_\gamma `$)

$`\delta S_H=\delta S_E+\mathrm{\Sigma }_H={\displaystyle \frac{c^3}{16\pi G}}{\displaystyle _U}d^4x\sqrt{{}_{}{}^{4}g}{}_{}{}^{4}G_{}^{\mu \nu }\delta {}_{}{}^{4}g_{\mu \nu }^{}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_H,`$ (A142)
(A143)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_H={\displaystyle \frac{c^3}{16\pi G}}{\displaystyle _U}d^3\mathrm{\Sigma }_\gamma \sqrt{{}_{}{}^{4}g}({}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{\mu \nu }\delta _\delta ^\gamma {}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{\mu \gamma }\delta _\delta ^\nu )\delta {}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^{\delta }=`$ (A144)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{c^3}{8\pi G}}{\displaystyle _U}d^3\mathrm{\Sigma }\sqrt{{}_{}{}^{3}\gamma }\delta {}_{}{}^{3}K,`$ (A145)
(A146)
$`\delta {}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^{\delta }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{\delta \beta }[{}_{}{}^{4}_{\mu }^{}\delta {}_{}{}^{4}g_{\beta \nu }^{}+{}_{}{}^{4}_{\nu }^{}\delta {}_{}{}^{4}g_{\beta \mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}_{\beta }^{}\delta {}_{}{}^{4}g_{\mu \nu }^{}].`$ (A147)
where $`{}_{}{}^{3}\gamma _{\mu \nu }^{}`$ is the metric induced on $`U`$ and $`l_\mu `$ is the outer unit covariant normal to $`U`$. The trace of the extrinsic curvature $`{}_{}{}^{3}K_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ of $`U`$ is $`{}_{}{}^{3}K=l^\mu _{;\mu }`$. The surface term $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_H`$ takes care of the second derivatives of the 4-metric and to get Einstein equations $`{}_{}{}^{4}G_{\mu \nu }^{}={}_{}{}^{4}R_{\mu \nu }^{}\frac{1}{2}{}_{}{}^{4}g_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}R\stackrel{}{=}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ one must take constant certain normal derivatives of the 4-metric on the boundary of $`U`$ \[$`_l({}_{}{}^{4}g_{\mu \nu }^{}l_\mu l_\nu )=0`$\] to have $`\delta S_H=0`$ .

The term $`\delta S_E`$ in Eq.(A140) means the variation of the action $`S_E`$, which is the (not generally covariant) Einstein action depending only on the 4-metric and its first derivatives ‡‡\**‡‡\**‡‡\**$`\delta S_E=0`$ gives $`{}_{}{}^{4}G_{\mu \nu }^{}\stackrel{}{=}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ if $`{}_{}{}^{4}g_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ is held fixed on $`U`$.

$`S_E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _U}d^4x_E={\displaystyle \frac{c^3}{16\pi G}}{\displaystyle _U}d^4x\sqrt{{}_{}{}^{4}g}{}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{\mu \nu }({}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \lambda }^{\rho }{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \mu }^{\lambda }{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\lambda \rho }^{\lambda }{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^{\rho })=`$ (A148)
$`=`$ $`S_H{\displaystyle \frac{c^3}{16\pi G}}{\displaystyle _U}d^4x_\lambda [\sqrt{{}_{}{}^{4}g}({}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^{\lambda }{}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{\lambda \mu }{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho \mu }^{\rho })],`$ (A149)
$`\delta S_E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c^3}{16\pi G}}{\displaystyle _U}d^4x({\displaystyle \frac{_E}{{}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{\mu \nu }}}_\rho {\displaystyle \frac{_E}{_\rho {}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{\mu \nu }}})\delta {}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{c^3}{16\pi G}}{\displaystyle _U}d^4x\sqrt{{}_{}{}^{4}g}{}_{}{}^{4}G_{\mu \nu }^{}\delta {}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{\mu \nu }.`$ (A151)
We shall not consider the first-order Palatini action; see for instance Ref., where there is also a review of the variational principles of the connection-dependent formulations of general relativity.

In Ref. (see also Ref.), it is shown that the DeWitt-ADM action for a 3+1 decomposition of $`M^4`$ can be obtained from $`S_H`$ in the following way ‡‡††‡‡††‡‡††$`\sqrt{{}_{}{}^{4}g}{}_{}{}^{4}R=ϵ\sqrt{{}_{}{}^{4}g}({}_{}{}^{3}R+{}_{}{}^{3}K_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{3}K_{}^{\mu \nu }({}_{}{}^{3}K)^2)2ϵ_\lambda (\sqrt{{}_{}{}^{4}g}({}_{}{}^{3}Kl^\lambda +a^\lambda ))`$, with $`a^\lambda `$ the 4-acceleration ($`l^\mu a_\mu =0`$); the 4-volume U is $`[\tau _f,\tau _i]\times S`$.

$`S_H=S_{ADM}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ADM},`$ (A152)
$`S_{ADM}=ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{c^3}{16\pi G}}{\displaystyle _U}d^4x\sqrt{{}_{}{}^{4}g}[{}_{}{}^{3}R+{}_{}{}^{3}K_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{3}K_{}^{\mu \nu }({}_{}{}^{3}K)^2],`$ (A153)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ADM}=ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{c^3}{8\pi G}}{\displaystyle }d^4x_\alpha [\sqrt{{}_{}{}^{4}g}({}_{}{}^{3}Kl^\alpha +l^\beta l^\alpha {}_{;\beta }{}^{})]=`$ (A154)
$`=ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{c^3}{8\pi G}}[{\displaystyle _S}d^3\sigma [\sqrt{\gamma }{}_{}{}^{3}K](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })|_{\tau _i}^{\tau _f}+`$ (A155)
$`+{\displaystyle _{\tau _i}^{\tau _f}}d\tau {\displaystyle _S}d^2\mathrm{\Sigma }^r[{}_{}{}^{3}_{r}^{}(\sqrt{\gamma }N){}_{}{}^{3}KN_r](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })],`$ (A156)
(A157)
$`\delta S_{ADM}=ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{c^3}{16\pi G}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau d^3\sigma \sqrt{\gamma }\left[2{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{G}_{ll}^{}\delta N+{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{G}_{l}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}\delta N_r{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{G}_{}^{rs}\delta {}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}\right](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })}+`$ (A158)
$`+\delta S_{ADM}|_{{}_{}{}^{4}G_{\mu \nu }^{}=0}ϵ{\displaystyle _{\tau _i}^{\tau _f}}d\tau {\displaystyle _U}d^3\mathrm{\Sigma }_r[N_{|s}\delta {}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rs}N\delta {}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{rs}{}_{|s}{}^{}](\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),`$ (A159)
$`\delta S_{ADM}|_{{}_{}{}^{4}G_{\mu \nu }^{}=0}=ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{c^3}{16\pi G}}{\displaystyle _U}d^3\sigma {}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{\mu \nu }\delta {}_{}{}^{3}\gamma _{\mu \nu }^{},`$ (A160)
$`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{\mu \nu }=\sqrt{\gamma }({}_{}{}^{3}K_{}^{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{3}g_{}^{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{3}K)={\displaystyle \frac{16\pi G}{c^3}}ϵ\widehat{b}_r^\mu \widehat{b}_s^\nu {}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{rs},`$ (A161)
so that $`\delta S_{ADM}=0`$ gives $`{}_{}{}^{4}G_{\mu \nu }^{}\stackrel{}{=}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ if one holds fixed the intrinsic 3-metric $`{}_{}{}^{3}\gamma _{\mu \nu }^{}`$ on the boundary ‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡$`{}_{}{}^{3}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}^{\mu \nu }`$ is the ADM momentum with world indices, whose form in a 3+1 splitting is given in Section IV.. This action is not generally covariant, but it is quasi-invariant under the 8 types of gauge transformations generated by the ADM first class constraints (see Appendix A of Ref.). As shown in Refs. in this way one obtains a well defined gravitational energy. However, in so doing one still neglects some boundary terms. Following Ref., let us assume that, given a subset $`UM^4`$ of spacetime, $`U`$ consists of two slices, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\tau _i}`$ (the initial one) and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\tau _f}`$ (the final one) with outer normals $`l^\mu (\tau _i,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ and $`l^\mu (\tau _f,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ respectively, and of a surface $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$ near space infinity with outer unit (spacelike) normal $`n^\mu (\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ tangent to the slices \***\***\***So that the normal $`l^\mu (\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ to every slice is asymptotically tangent to $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$.. The 3-surface $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$ is foliated by a family of 2-surfaces $`S_{\tau ,\mathrm{}}^2`$ coming from its intersection with the slices $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ \**†\**†\**†Therefore, asymptotically $`l^\mu (\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ is normal to the corresponding $`S_{\tau ,\mathrm{}}^2`$.. The vector $`b_\tau ^\mu =z_\tau ^\mu =Nl^\mu +N^rb_r^\mu `$ is not in general tangent to $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$. It is assumed that there are no inner boundaries (see Ref.  for their treatment), so that the slices $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ do not intersect and are complete. This does not rule out the existence of horizons, but it implies that, if horizons form, one continues to evolve the spacetime inside the horizon as well as outside. Then, in Ref. it is shown that one gets \**‡\**‡\**‡$`{}_{}{}^{2}K`$ the trace of the 2-dimensional extrinsic curvature of the 2-surface $`S_{\tau ,\mathrm{}}^2=S_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$; to get this result one assumes that the lapse function $`N(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ tends asymptotically to a function $`N_{(as)}(\tau )`$ and that the term on $`S`$ vanishes due to the boundary conditions.

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ADM}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{c^3}{8\pi G}}[{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\tau _f}}}d^3\mathrm{\Sigma }{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\tau _i}}}d^3\mathrm{\Sigma }]N\sqrt{\gamma }{}_{}{}^{3}K=`$ (A162)
$`=`$ $`ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{c^3}{8\pi G}}{\displaystyle _{\tau _i}^{\tau _f}}𝑑\tau N_{(as)}(\tau ){\displaystyle _{S_{\tau ,\mathrm{}}^2}}d^2\mathrm{\Sigma }\sqrt{\gamma }{}_{}{}^{2}K.`$ (A163)
In Einstein metric gravity the gravitational field, described by the 4-metric $`{}_{}{}^{4}g_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ depends on 2, and not 10, physical degrees of freedom in each point; this is not explicitly evident if one starts with the Hilbert action, which is invariant under $`DiffM^4`$, a group with only four generators. Instead in ADM canonical gravity (see Section IV) there are in each point 20 canonical variables and 8 first class constraints, implying the determination of 8 canonical variables and the arbitrariness of the 8 conjugate ones. At the Lagrangian level, only 6 of the ten Einstein equations are independent, due to the contracted Bianchi identities, so that four components of the metric tensor $`{}_{}{}^{4}g_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ (the lapse and shift functions) are arbitrary not being determined by the equation of motion. Moreover, the four combinations $`{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{G}_{ll}^{}\stackrel{}{=}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{G}_{lr}^{}\stackrel{}{=}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, of the Einstein equations do not depend on the second time derivatives or accelerations (they are restrictions on the Cauchy data and become the secondary first class constraints of the ADM canonical theory): the general theory  implies that four generalized velocities (and therefore other four components of the metric) inherit the arbitrariness of the lapse and shift functions. Only two combinations of the Einstein equations depend on the accelerations (second time derivatives) of the two (non tensorial) independent degrees of freedom of the gravitational field and are genuine equations of motion. Therefore, the ten components of every 4-metric $`{}_{}{}^{4}g_{\mu \nu }^{}`$, compatible with the Cauchy data, depend on 8 arbitrary functions not determined by the Einstein equations.

Instead, in tetrad gravity, in which $`{}_{}{}^{4}g_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ is no more the independent variable, the new independent 16 variables are a set of cotetrads $`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}`$ so that $`{}_{}{}^{4}g_{\mu \nu }^{}={}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{4}\eta _{(\alpha )(\beta )}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\nu }^{(\beta )}`$. Tetrad gravity has not only the invariance under $`DiffM^4`$ but also under local Lorentz transformations on $`TM^4`$ \[acting on the flat indices $`(\alpha )`$\]. An action principle with these local invariances is obtained by replacing the 4-metric in the Hilbert action $`S_H`$ with its expression in terms of the cotetrads. The action acquires the form

$$S_{HT}=\frac{c^3}{16\pi G}_Ud^4x{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{E}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\beta )}^{\nu }{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{(\alpha )(\beta )},$$
(A164)
where $`{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{E}=det({}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\alpha )})=\sqrt{{}_{}{}^{4}g}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }^{}^{(\alpha )(\beta )}`$ is the spin 4-field strength . One has

$`\delta S_{HT}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c^3}{16\pi G}}{\displaystyle _U}d^4x{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{E}{}_{}{}^{4}G_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }{}_{}{}^{4}\eta _{}^{(\alpha )(\beta )}\delta {}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\beta )}^{\nu }+`$ (A165)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c^3}{8\pi G}}{\displaystyle _U}d^4x_\mu [{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{E}({}_{}{}^{4}E_{\nu }^{(\rho )}\delta ({}_{}{}^{4}g_{}^{\mu \lambda }{}_{}{}^{4}_{\lambda }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\rho )}^{\nu }){}_{}{}^{4}\eta _{}^{(\rho )(\sigma )}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\rho )}^{\nu }\delta ({}_{}{}^{4}_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\sigma )}^{\mu }))].`$ (A166)
Again $`\delta S_{HT}=0`$ produces Einstein equations if complicated derivatives of the tetrads vanish at the boundary.

Tetrad gravity with action $`S_{HT}`$, in which the elementary natural Lagrangian object is the soldering or canonical one-form (or orthogonal coframe) $`\theta ^{(\alpha )}={}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}dx^\mu `$, is gauge invariant simultaneously under diffeomorphisms ($`DiffM^4`$) and Lorentz transformations \[SO(3,1)\]. Instead in phase space (see Section III) only two of the 16 components of the cotetrad $`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}(x)`$ are physical degrees of freedom in each point, since the 32 canonical variables present in each point are restricted by 14 first class constraints, so that the 16 components of a cotetrad compatible with the Cauchy data depend on 14 arbitrary functions not determined by the equation of motion.

In Ref., by using $`{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{E}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\beta )}^{\nu }{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{(\alpha )(\beta )}=2{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{E}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\beta )}^{\nu }[{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{\mu }^{}]^{(\alpha )(\beta )}+2_\mu ({}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{E}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\beta )}^{\nu }{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{(\alpha )(\beta )})`$, the analogue of $`S_E`$, i.e. the (not locally Lorentz invariant, therefore not expressible only in terms of the 4-metric) Charap action, is defined as

$$S_C=\frac{c^3}{8\pi G}_Ud^4x{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{E}{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }{}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\beta )}^{\nu }({}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\omega _{\mu }^{})^{(\alpha )(\beta )}.$$
(A167)
Its variation $`\delta S_C`$ vanishes if $`\delta {}_{}{}^{4}E_{(\alpha )}^{\mu }`$ vanish at the boundary and the Einstein equations hold. However its Hamiltonian formulation gives too complicated first class constraints to be solved.

Instead in Refs. it was implicitly used the metric ADM action $`S_{ADM}[{}_{}{}^{4}g_{\mu \nu }^{}]`$ with the metric expressed in terms of cotetrads in the Schwinger time gauge as independent Lagrangian variables $`S_{ADMT}[{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\mu }^{(\alpha )}]`$. This is the action we shall study in this paper after having expressed arbitrary cotetrads in terms of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$-adapted ones in the next Section.