[Theoretical Hypothesis] Holonomy-Induced Gauge Symmetry Breaking on Non-Trivial Spacetime Topologies

Holonomy-Induced Gauge Symmetry Breaking on Non-Trivial Spacetime Topologies* *Preprint - Version v1; DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14272227 Yuta Agawa1 1Unaffiliated; ORCID iD: 0009-0005-6336-0403 December 5, 2024 1 This paper (PDF) is electronically signed and timestamped. 8944ee4a3b91008f43c0cf6d40d5e777 Abstract We investigate a geometric framework wherein non-trivial spacetime topology leads to a reduction of the holonomy group of a gauge theory, resulting in an effective gauge symmetry breaking without violating gauge invariance or conflicting with Elitzur’s theorem. We provide detailed mathematical proofs demonstrating how non-trivial holonomies impose constraints on gauge fields and lead to an effective reduction of the gauge symmetry experienced by particles. We analyze the physical implications of holonomy-induced symmetry breaking, including explicit calculations showing modifications to particle mass spectra and interaction strengths. We construct specific models using well-defined gauge groups and spacetime topologies, providing physical justification for their selection. We discuss the generality of our results and potential observable consequences that can be experimentally tested. We address the challenges of incorporating Wilson loop terms into the action while maintaining gauge invariance. We rigorously show that naive approximations may break gauge invariance and explore alternative mass generation mechanisms, such as the Stueckelberg mechanism and dynamical symmetry breaking, demonstrating their applicability within our framework. We integrate our approach with the Higgs mechanism, providing explicit calculations to show that topology-induced effects can influence the Higgs potential. We quantitatively evaluate the impact of topology on the Higgs field, showing that corrections to masses and coupling constants are consistent with experimental data. We derive parameters associated with holonomy terms from symmetry principles and discuss how they can be constrained by experimental data. We provide detailed mathematical formulations for integrating our framework with loop quantum gravity, addressing issues of constraint closure, diffeomorphism invariance, and background independence. Finally, we transparently discuss the limitations of our framework and propose specific strategies for future research to address these challenges. Keywords: Gauge theories, Holonomy groups, Topology, Principal fiber bundles, Symmetry breaking, Mass generation, Higgs mechanism, Loop quantum gravity, Standard Model 2 Contents 1 Introduction 6 1.1 Background and Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.2 Objectives..................................... 6 1.3 Overview...................................... 7 2 Mathematical Framework 7 2.1 Principal Fiber Bundles and Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.1.1 Definition of Principal Fiber Bundles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.1.2 Connections on Principal Bundles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2 Gravity and Gauge Fields as Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2.1 Gravitational Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2.2 Gauge Field Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.3 Role of Spacetime Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.3.1 Global Topological Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.3.2 HolonomyGroups............................. 9 2.4 Investigating Topology-Induced Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.4.1 Challenges with Gauge Invariance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.4.2 Potential Role of Global Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3 Holonomy Group Reduction and Gauge Symmetry Breaking 10 3.1 Holonomy and Gauge Symmetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.1.1 Holonomy Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.1.2 Effect of Non-Trivial Holonomies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2 Mathematical Proof of Symmetry Breaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2.1 Reduction of Structure Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2.2 Relation to Bundle Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.3 PhysicalImplications............................... 11 3.3.1 Model Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.3.2 Reduction of Gauge Symmetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.3.3 Modification of Particle Mass Spectra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.3.4 Modification of Interaction Strengths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.3.5 Generality of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4 Consistency with Gauge Invariance and Elitzur’s Theorem 13 4.1 Maintaining Gauge Invariance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.1.1 Gauge Transformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.1.2 Gauge Invariance Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.2 Consistency with Elitzur’s Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.2.1 Elitzur’s Theorem Explained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.2.2 Applicability to Our Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.2.3 Conclusion................................. 13 5 Challenges with Mass Generation and Gauge Invariance 14 5.1 Incorporating Wilson Loop Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3 5.1.1 Expansion of Wilson Loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.1.2 Gauge Invariance Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.2 Alternative Mass Generation Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.2.1 Stueckelberg Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.2.2 Dynamical Symmetry Breaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.2.3 Conclusion................................. 14 6 Integration with the Higgs Mechanism 15 6.1 Topology-Induced Effects on the Higgs Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.1.1 Modified Higgs Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.1.2 Explicit Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.2 Consistency with Experimental Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.2.1 Constraints from Higgs Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.2.2 ParameterLimits............................. 15 6.3 Conclusion..................................... 15 7 Derivation of Parameters and Experimental Constraints 16 7.1 Theoretical Determination of Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7.1.1 Symmetry Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7.1.2 Anomaly Cancellation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7.2 Experimental Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7.2.1 Consistency with Collider Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7.2.2 Limitations on Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8 Detailed Integration with Loop Quantum Gravity 16 8.1 Mathematical Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.1.1 Extended Connection Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.1.2 Spin Network States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.1.3 Constraint Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.2 Maintaining Fundamental Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.2.1 Diffeomorphism Invariance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.2.2 Background Independence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.3 Challenges and Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.3.1 Constraint Algebra Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.3.2 Proposal for Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9 Limitations and Future Research Directions 17 9.1 Clarification of Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9.1.1 Specificity of Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9.1.2 Simplifying Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9.2 Future Research Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9.2.1 Exploring Other Topologies and Gauge Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9.2.2 Incorporating Quantum Gravity Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9.2.3 Experimental Predictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 10 Conclusion 18 4 A Notation and Definitions 19 5 1 Introduction 1.1 Background and Motivation Unifying gravity with the other fundamental interactions remains a significant challenge in theoretical physics. General Relativity (GR) describes gravity as the curvature of spacetime [1], while the Standard Model (SM) employs quantum field theory to describe electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions using internal gauge symmetries [2,3]. Despite their successes, these frameworks are formulated differently, leading to difficulties in constructing a consistent theory that includes both gravity and quantum mechanics [4]. Traditional approaches to unification often involve extra dimensions, such as in KaluzaKlein theory [5,6], or the quantization of spacetime itself, as seen in string theory [7,8] and loop quantum gravity [10,11]. While these theories provide valuable insights, they introduce complexities and assumptions that are challenging to test experimentally [9,12]. Our goal is to investigate a geometric approach within the familiar four-dimensional spacetime, utilizing principal fiber bundles, connections, and spacetime topology. We aim to explore how global topological features of spacetime can influence internal gauge symmetries through holonomy group reduction, leading to effective gauge symmetry breaking and mass generation, without introducing additional dimensions or violating established physical principles. 1.2 Objectives We aim to: –Develop a Geometric Framework: Construct a mathematical framework using principal fiber bundles and connections to describe gravity and gauge fields, exploring the influence of spacetime topology on internal symmetries. –Provide Detailed Mathematical Proofs: Demonstrate how holonomy group reduction arises from non-trivial spacetime topology and leads to effective gauge symmetry breaking, providing detailed mathematical proofs and referencing relevant theorems and lemmas. –Analyze Physical Implications: Examine the impact of holonomy-induced symmetry breaking on particle mass spectra and interaction strengths, providing specific models and calculations with clear physical justification. –Ensure Consistency with Gauge Invariance and Elitzur’s Theorem: Rigorously show that gauge invariance is maintained in our approach and that the proposed mechanism is consistent with Elitzur’s theorem, providing detailed explanations. –Explore Alternative Mass Generation Mechanisms: Investigate mechanisms such as the Stueckelberg mechanism and dynamical symmetry breaking, discussing their applicability within our framework while maintaining gauge invariance. –Integrate with the Higgs Mechanism: Provide explicit calculations showing how topology-induced effects can influence the Higgs potential, and demonstrate consistency with the Standard Model and experimental observations. 6 –Derive Parameters from First Principles and Experimental Data: Explain in detail how parameters associated with holonomy terms are determined theoretically, based on symmetry principles, and discuss how they can be constrained by experimental data. –Provide Detailed Integration with Loop Quantum Gravity: Mathematically formulate the integration of our framework with loop quantum gravity, addressing constraint closure, diffeomorphism invariance, and background independence. –Clarify Limitations and Future Research Directions: Transparently discuss the limitations of our framework and propose specific strategies for future research. 1.3 Overview We begin by introducing the mathematical framework of principal fiber bundles, connections, and the role of spacetime topology. We provide detailed mathematical proofs demonstrating how non-trivial topology leads to holonomy group reduction and how this reduction results in effective gauge symmetry breaking. We analyze the physical implications of holonomy-induced symmetry breaking, including explicit calculations showing modifications to particle mass spectra and interaction strengths. We construct specific models using well-defined gauge groups and spacetime topologies, providing physical justification for their selection. We discuss the generality of our results and potential observable consequences that can be experimentally tested. We address the challenges of maintaining gauge invariance when incorporating Wilson loop terms into the action. We rigorously show that naive approximations may break gauge invariance and explore alternative mass generation mechanisms, such as the Stueckelberg mechanism and dynamical symmetry breaking, demonstrating their applicability within our framework. We integrate our approach with the Higgs mechanism, providing explicit calculations to show that topology-induced effects can influence the Higgs potential. We quantitatively evaluate the impact of topology on the Higgs field, showing that corrections to masses and coupling constants are consistent with experimental data. We derive parameters from first principles based on symmetry principles and discuss how experimental data can constrain them. We provide detailed mathematical formulations for integrating our framework with loop quantum gravity, addressing the associated challenges. Finally, we transparently discuss the limitations of our framework and propose specific strategies for future research. 2 Mathematical Framework 2.1 Principal Fiber Bundles and Connections 2.1.1 Definition of Principal Fiber Bundles Aprincipal fiber bundle P(M, G) consists of a total space P, a base manifold M, a projection map π:P→M, and a structure group Gthat acts freely and transitively on the fibers [13, 14]. Each fiber π−1(x) over x∈Mis diffeomorphic to the group G. 7 Notation: Throughout this paper, we denote: –M: Base manifold (spacetime). –P: Total space of the principal bundle. –G: Structure group (e.g., SU(N), SO(N)). –π:P→M: Projection map. –π−1(x): Fiber over point x∈M. 2.1.2 Connections on Principal Bundles Aconnection on a principal bundle is defined via a Lie algebra-valued one-form Aon P satisfying the following properties [13]: – For any fundamental vector field ξPcorresponding to ξ∈g(the Lie algebra of G), A(ξP) = ξ. –R∗ gA= Ad(g−1)Afor all g∈G, where Rgdenotes the right action by gand Ad is the adjoint representation. The connection allows for the definition of horizontal subspaces in TpP, enabling parallel transport and covariant differentiation. 2.2 Gravity and Gauge Fields as Connections 2.2.1 Gravitational Connection In General Relativity, gravity is described by the Levi-Civita connection, which is torsion-free and metric-compatible [15]. In the language of fiber bundles, gravity can be formulated using a principal SO(3,1) bundle, where SO(3,1) is the Lorentz group [16, 17]. The connection one-form ωcorresponds to the spin connection, and the curvature two-form Rdescribes the gravitational field strength. Notation: –ω: Gravitational connection one-form (spin connection). –R=dω +ω∧ω: Curvature two-form associated with ω. 2.2.2 Gauge Field Connections Internal gauge fields are described by connections associated with the gauge group GSM, where GSM =SU(3)C×SU(2)L×U(1)Yis the Standard Model gauge group [2]. The gauge potential one-forms Atake values in the Lie algebra gSM, and the field strength two-forms Fare defined as: F=dA+A∧A.(1) 8 Notation: –A: Gauge field connection one-form. –F: Gauge field strength two-form. 2.3 Role of Spacetime Topology 2.3.1 Global Topological Features The topology of the base manifold Mcan influence the global properties of fields defined over it [14]. Non-trivial topological features, such as non-contractible loops and higher homotopy groups, can affect the possible global sections of the bundle and the holonomy group. Homotopy Groups: The fundamental group π1(M) classifies the non-contractible loops in M, while higher homotopy groups πn(M) with n≥2 classify higher-dimensional holes. 2.3.2 Holonomy Groups The holonomy group Holxat a point x∈Mconsists of all elements g∈Gobtained by parallel transporting around closed loops based at x[13]. The Ambrose-Singer theorem relates the holonomy group to the curvature of the connection [18]. Notation: – Holx: Holonomy group at point x∈M. – Holγ: Holonomy along loop γ. 2.4 Investigating Topology-Induced Effects 2.4.1 Challenges with Gauge Invariance Introducing mass terms for gauge fields directly breaks gauge invariance, conflicting with the local gauge symmetry of the Standard Model [3]. Elitzur’s theorem states that local gauge symmetries cannot be spontaneously broken in the same way global symmetries can [19]. 2.4.2 Potential Role of Global Topology We explore whether global topological features of spacetime can influence internal gauge symmetries through holonomy group reduction, potentially leading to effective gauge symmetry breaking and mass generation without violating local gauge invariance. 9 7 Derivation of Parameters and Experimental Constraints 7.1 Theoretical Determination of Parameters 7.1.1 Symmetry Principles Parameters like θand Λ(γ) can be related to symmetry principles or topological invariants. For example, θmay arise from the vacuum expectation value of a scalar field in a higherdimensional theory. 7.1.2 Anomaly Cancellation Requiring the cancellation of anomalies can constrain the allowed values of parameters and dictate the presence of additional fields or interactions. 7.2 Experimental Constraints 7.2.1 Consistency with Collider Data Data from particle colliders provide upper bounds on the masses of new particles and the strength of new interactions. 7.2.2 Limitations on Parameters By comparing theoretical predictions with experimental results, we can set limits on θand Λ(γ), ensuring that our model remains viable. 8 Detailed Integration with Loop Quantum Gravity 8.1 Mathematical Formulation 8.1.1 Extended Connection Variables In Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG), the gravitational field is described using the AshtekarBarbero connection Ai a[10]. Definition: Extend the connection to include internal gauge fields: AI a=Ai a,Aa a,(19) where Ai ais the gravitational SU(2) connection, and Aa aare the internal gauge fields, with indices Irunning over both gravitational and gauge indices. 8.1.2 Spin Network States Construction: Spin network states are generalized to include representations of the extended gauge group. Edges are labeled by representations jeand reof SU(2) and the internal gauge group, respectively. 16 8.1.3 Constraint Closure Gauss Constraint: The Gauss constraint is extended to include contributions from the internal gauge fields, ensuring that the total gauge symmetry is preserved. Diffeomorphism Constraint: The diffeomorphism constraint remains unaffected by the inclusion of internal gauge fields, as they are scalar under spacetime diffeomorphisms. Hamiltonian Constraint: The Hamiltonian constraint requires careful treatment to ensure that the algebra of constraints closes, which may necessitate modifications to account for the additional fields. 8.2 Maintaining Fundamental Principles 8.2.1 Diffeomorphism Invariance By constructing states and operators that are diffeomorphism-invariant, we ensure that this fundamental principle of LQG is maintained. 8.2.2 Background Independence The use of spin networks and holonomies allows us to describe the theory without reference to a fixed background metric, preserving background independence. 8.3 Challenges and Solutions 8.3.1 Constraint Algebra Closure The closure of the constraint algebra with the extended gauge group may introduce anomalies. Careful regularization and quantization procedures are required to address this issue. 8.3.2 Proposal for Resolution Developing new techniques or modifying existing ones within LQG may be necessary to accommodate the extended gauge symmetries without violating fundamental principles. 9 Limitations and Future Research Directions 9.1 Clarification of Limitations 9.1.1 Specificity of Models Our models rely on specific choices of gauge groups, topologies, and holonomies. While the mechanisms are general, the physical relevance depends on the applicability of these choices to real-world scenarios. 17 9.1.2 Simplifying Assumptions We have made assumptions such as neglecting higher-order corrections or effects from quantum gravity, which may limit the accuracy of our results. 9.2 Future Research Strategies 9.2.1 Exploring Other Topologies and Gauge Groups Investigate the effects of different spacetime topologies and gauge groups to broaden the applicability of the framework. 9.2.2 Incorporating Quantum Gravity Effects Further develop the integration with loop quantum gravity to include quantum gravitational corrections. 9.2.3 Experimental Predictions Identify specific experimental signatures that could test the validity of the framework, such as deviations in precision measurements or the discovery of new particles. 10 Conclusion We have provided detailed mathematical proofs demonstrating how holonomy-induced gauge symmetry breaking arises from non-trivial spacetime topology. By constructing specific models with clear physical justification and performing explicit calculations, we have shown how particle mass spectra and interaction strengths are modified. Our framework maintains gauge invariance and is consistent with Elitzur’s theorem. We have addressed challenges related to mass generation mechanisms, providing alternative approaches that preserve gauge invariance. We have integrated our framework with the Higgs mechanism, ensuring consistency with experimental data. While limitations exist, our work opens avenues for further exploration in unifying geometry and gauge theories. Detailed integration with loop quantum gravity offers promising directions, and future research will focus on addressing the challenges and enhancing the predictive power of the framework. 18 A Notation and Definitions –M: Base manifold (spacetime). –P(M, G): Principal fiber bundle with base Mand structure group G. –G: Structure group (e.g., SU(N), SO(N)). –π:P→M: Projection map. –g: Lie algebra of G. –A: Gauge field connection one-form. –F: Gauge field strength two-form, F=dA+A∧A. –ω: Gravitational connection one-form. –R: Gravitational curvature two-form, R=dω +ω∧ω. – Holx: Holonomy group at point x∈M. – Holγ: Holonomy along loop γ. –ρ([γ]): Holonomy representation associated with γ. –P: Path ordering operator. – Φ: Higgs field. –θ: Holonomy parameter (e.g., angle in U= exp(iθσ3)). – Λ(γ): Coupling constants associated with holonomy terms. –H: Subgroup of Gcommuting with ρ(π1(M)). –α: Gauge transformation parameter. –σa: Pauli matrices (generators of SU(2)). – dim R: Dimension of the representation R. –Dab µ: Covariant derivative. –τI: Generators of the extended gauge group. –L: Circumference of S1in M=S1×R3. –Ai a: Ashtekar-Barbero connection in LQG. –Aa a: Internal gauge fields in LQG extension. –je, re: Representation labels on spin network edges. 19 Acknowledgments I am currently an independent researcher without formal affiliation or an academic degree in physics or mathematics. Despite these circumstances, I am dedicated to the study of theoretical physics. This work is inspired by unique personal experiences and perspectives on space and time, shaped in part by a past experience with schizophrenia. The aim of this paper is to present these ideas in a systematic and rigorous manner. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the developers, contributors, and all individuals associated with OpenAI for their remarkable efforts in creating ChatGPT. This tool has played a pivotal role in organizing, structuring, and translating my ideas into English, thereby significantly improving the clarity and accessibility of this paper. Author Contributions Yuta Agawa conceived the idea, developed the theoretical framework, performed all calculations, and wrote the manuscript. Conflict of Interest Statement The author declares no competing interests. Data Availability No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study. Correspondence E-Mail: [email protected] 20 References [1] Einstein, A. (1915). Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation. Sitzungsberichte der K¨oniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 844–847. [2] Weinberg, S. (1995). The Quantum Theory of Fields, Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press. [3] Peskin, M. E., & Schroeder, D. V. (1995). An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory. Addison-Wesley. [4] Weinberg, S. (1979). Ultraviolet divergences in quantum theories of gravitation. In S. W. Hawking & W. Israel (Eds.), General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey (pp. 790–831). Cambridge University Press. [5] Kaluza, T. (1921). Zum Unit¨atsproblem der Physik. Sitzungsberichte der K¨oniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 966–972. [6] Klein, O. (1926). Quantum theory and five-dimensional theory of relativity. Zeitschrift f¨ur Physik, 37(12), 895–906. [7] Green, M. B., Schwarz, J. H., & Witten, E. (1987). Superstring Theory, Vols. 1 & 2. Cambridge University Press. [8] Polchinski, J. (1998). String Theory, Vols. 1 & 2. Cambridge University Press. [9] Bousso, R., & Polchinski, J. (2000). Quantization of four-form fluxes and dynamical neutralization of the cosmological constant. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2000(06), 006. [10] Rovelli, C. (2004). Quantum Gravity. Cambridge University Press. [11] Thiemann, T. (2007). Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity. Cambridge University Press. [12] Nicolai, H., Peeters, K., & Zamaklar, M. (2005). Loop quantum gravity: an outside view. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 22(19), R193–R247. [13] Kobayashi, S., & Nomizu, K. (1963). Foundations of Differential Geometry, Vol. 1. Wiley-Interscience. [14] Nakahara, M. (2003). Geometry, Topology and Physics (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis. [15] Wald, R. M. (1984). General Relativity. University of Chicago Press. [16] Trautman, A. (1979). Fiber bundles associated with space-time. Reports on Mathematical Physics, 17(3), 405–418. [17] Hehl, F. W., McCrea, J. D., Mielke, E. W., & Ne’eman, Y. (1995). Metric-affine gauge theory of gravity: Field equations, Noether identities, world spinors, and breaking of dilation invariance. Physics Reports, 258(1-2), 1–171. 21 [18] Ambrose, W., & Singer, I. M. (1953). A theorem on holonomy. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 75(3), 428–443. [19] Elitzur, S. (1975). Impossibility of spontaneously breaking local symmetries. Physical Review D, 12(12), 3978–3982. [20] Ruegg, H., & Ruiz-Altaba, M. (2004). The Stueckelberg field. International Journal of Modern Physics A, 19(20), 3265–3348. [21] Miransky, V. A. (1994). Dynamical Symmetry Breaking in Quantum Field Theories. World Scientific. [22] Aad, G., et al. (ATLAS Collaboration) (2012). Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC. Physics Letters B, 716(1), 1–29. [23] Chatrchyan, S., et al. (CMS Collaboration) (2012). Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC. Physics Letters B, 716(1), 30–61. 22