In this paper we investigate whether classical (N=1) supergravity has a well‐posed locally causal Cauchy problem. We define well‐posedness to mean that any choice of initial data (from an appropriate function space) which satisfies the supergravity constraint equations and a set of gauge conditions can be continuously developed into a space‐time solution of the supergravity field equations around the initial surface. Local causality means that the domains of dependence of the evolution equations coincide with those determined by the light cones. We show that when the fields of classical supergravity are treated as formal objects, the field equations are (under certain gauge conditions) equivalent to a coupled system of quasilinear nondiagonal second‐order partial differential equations which is formally nonstrictly hyperbolic (in the sense of Leray–Ohya). Hence, if the fields were numerical valued, there would be an applicable existence theorem leading to well‐posedness. We shall observe that well‐posedness is assured if the fields are taken to be Grassmann (i.e., exterior algebra) valued, for then the second‐order system decouples into the vacuum Einstein equation and a sequence of numerical valued linear diagonal strictly hyperbolic partial differential equations which can be solved successively.

1.
D.
Freedman
,
P.
van Nieuwenhuizen
, and
S.
Ferrara
,
Phys. Rev. D
13
,
3214
(
1976
).
2.
S.
Deser
and
B.
Zumino
,
Phys. Lett. B
62
,
335
(
1976
).
3.
M.
Pilati
,
Nucl. Phys. B
132
,
138
(
1978
).
4.
E.
Fradkin
and
M.
Vasiliev
,
Phys. Lett. B
72
,
70
(
1977
).
5.
S.
Deser
,
J.
Kay
, and
K.
Stelle
,
Phys. Rev. D
16
,
2448
(
1977
).
6.
S. Hawking and G. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Spacetime (Cambridge U.P., Cambridge, 1973).
7.
Y.
Choquet‐Bruhat
,
Lett. Math. Phys.
7
,
459
(
1983
).
8.
R.
Finkelstein
and
J.
Kim
,
J. Math. Phys.
22
,
2228
(
1981
).
9.
J. Isenberg, D. Bao, and P. Yasskin, Classical Supergravity (to appear).
10.
D.
Bao
,
Ann. Phys.
158
,
211
(
1984
).
11.
The algebra A is a “coefficient” algebra. Some of its properties, however, coincide with that of a superalgebra in supermanifold theory, as described by
D.
Leites
,
Russ. Math. Surveys
35
(
1
),
1
64
(
1980
).
The conceptual difference between coefficient algebras (in the space‐time component formulation of supergravity as presented here, and in Wess‐Zumino super‐space) and superalgebras (in supermanifold theory) is explained in Ref. 10 and in
L.
Smolin
,
Ann. Phys.
131
,
398
(
1981
), and by references therein.
12.
J.
Leray
and
Y.
Ohya
,
Math. Annalen.
170
,
167
(
1967
).
13.
P. Yasskin, Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland at College Park, 1979.
14.
P.
van Nieuwenhuizen
,
Phys. Rep.
68:4
(
1981
).
15.
B. Zumino, Lecture Notes on Supersymmetry and Supergravity, University of California at Berkeley, 1981.
16.
J. Isenberg, D. Bao, and P. Yasskin, “Is Supergravity Well‐Posed?,” in Proceedings of the Third Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity, edited by H. Ning (North‐Holland, Amsterdam, 1983).
17.
D. Bao, J. Isenberg, and P. Yasskin, “The Dynamics of the Einstein‐Dirac System, Part II,” in preparation.
18.
P. van Nieuwenhuizen (private communication).
19.
V. Fock, The Theory of Spacetime and Gravitation (Pergamon, New York, 1964), 2nd ed., pp. 422–430.
20.
N.
Baaklini
,
S.
Ferrara
, and
P.
van Nieuwenhuizen
,
Lett. Nuovo Cimento
20
,
113
(
1977
).
21.
Y. Choquet‐Bruhat, in Gravitation, an Introduction to Current Research, edited by L. Witten (Wiley, New York, 1962), pp. 130–168.
22.
Y.
Choquet‐Bruhat
,
J. Math. Pures Appl.
45
,
371
(
1966
).
23.
J. Leray Hyperbolic Differential Equations (The Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ, 1952).
24.
Y. Choquet‐Bruhat, C. DeWitt‐Morette, and M. Dillard‐Bleick, Analysis, Manifolds and Physics, (North‐Holland, Amsterdam, 1981), 2nd ed.
25.
J.
Isenberg
,
Ann. Phys.
129
,
223
(
1980
).
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.