New Spin Foams are broken.

In summary: I think it is much more than that.The Summing=refining paper provides a comprehensive overview of the development of the theory, from the simple model of 1010.1939 to the more complex spin foam models of 1010.4886. It also discusses the problems that have been encountered along the way, and the solutions that have been found.In summary, the new spin foam models have problems with their complex conjugate terms, and the graviton of the new models falls like 1/r^4 instead of 1/r^2 as it should be. Is it that bad? They think it's the complex conjugate terms in Eq 9 and
  • #1
MTd2
Gold Member
2,028
25
According to this recent paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.4886

The graviton of the new spin foam models fall like 1/r^4 and not like 1/r^2 as it should be. Is it that bad?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
They think it's the complex conjugate terms in Eq 9 and 10 which is bad. I think Bianch et al tried to fix this. http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.4550

But the new spin foams have a divergent physical inner product, so that's another problem. Group field theory renormalization?

But if the theory is renormalized, how can it have a fundamental scale of discreteness?
 
  • #3
They already posted a result of this type in May 2010. So far it has not been published or cited.
In the acknowledgments of the May paper they thank John Barrett for discussion. He heads the QG group at Nottingham and has published key results on spinfoam asymptotics. He also directs the branch of ESF that funds QG.
If you think that the Mikovic paper could possibly be valid, you might get some clarification from Barrett or from someone in that group.

Something that strikes me as curious is that the October Mikovic paper does not have any regular acknowledgments at all. No indication that there were further discussions with Barrett or with anyone else.

Here is the May preprint:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.1866

Here are Mikovic's papers after 2006:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+A+MIKOVIC+AND+DATE+%3E+2006&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE= [Broken]

There are eight papers (date > 2006) of which two were published. The two that were published garnered a total of 6 citations--two by Mikovic himself and the other four in papers (co)authored by Cecilia Flori.
The other six papers appear not to have been cited at all.

In 2004 Mikovic published a paper which contain errors, in the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity (CQG, where a lot of quantum gravity research is published).
In 2006 he published a correction in CQG. No sign that he has submitted anything to CQG since then.
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0606081
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
Citations apart, their content of their criticism is discussed in Rovelli's two latest summary papers, and addressed in Bianchi et al, so it is criticism of substance.
 
  • #5
atyy said:
Citations apart, their content of their criticism is discussed in Rovelli's two latest summary papers, and addressed in Bianchi et al, so it is criticism of substance.

You mention the April paper by Bianchi et al. Can you point me to the line or lines in that paper that you are talking about? I am not so much interested in the May and October papers of Mikovic, which would be "after the fact". I'd like to see what problems Bianchi et al discovered and addressed.

If you could also point to an equation or paragraph in Rovelli's April paper that would be great.
 
  • #6
http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.2440 , Eq 53 and 54

Discussions are in

http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1780
"In fact, what is shown in [45] is that Wv ~ eiSRegge +eiSRegge. Concern has been raised by the fact that two terms appear in this sum."

http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.4550
"We argue that the presence of the second undesired classical solution in the semiclassical expansion is an artifact of the representation used"

http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.4886
"In conclusion, let us note that if the vertex amplitude had the asymptotic behavior Ws ~ eiSR(v) ... one would obtain the correct graviton propagator asymptotics. ...However, the presence of the complex conjugate terms ... is responsible for the result S = O(1), which gives the wrong asymptotics for the propagator."
 
  • #7
Nice finding. It settles the assumptions of the paper as wrong.
 
  • #8
MTd2 said:
Nice finding. It settles the assumptions of the paper as wrong.

I haven't read the paper carefully - do you know whether their boundary assumptions are the same as Bianchi et al's?
 
  • #9
No, I didn't. Lol.

Anyway. I am waiting Marcus to open a thread about Rovelli's new paper. It seems to be the best paper of this year, in my opinion. But I want him to give an explanation, to be sure of that.
 
  • #10
MTd2 said:
No, I didn't. Lol.

Anyway. I am waiting Marcus to open a thread about Rovelli's new paper. It seems to be the best paper of this year, in my opinion. But I want him to give an explanation, to be sure of that.

I responded to you here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2957318#post2957318
since it is all part of a coherent plan of development.

I am beginning to agree with your intributing importance to the "Summing=refining" paper. Although at first I was considering it just as filling in details for a more concise statement in 1010.1939 ("Simple model" paper)
 

What are spin foams?

Spin foams are a theoretical model used in the study of quantum gravity. They are a way of representing the curvature of space-time at the smallest scales, using mathematical structures called spin networks.

What is the significance of "broken" spin foams?

"Broken" spin foams refer to a theoretical problem that arises in certain models of spin foams. It means that the model is not able to accurately represent the properties of space-time at the smallest scales, and therefore may not be a valid description of quantum gravity.

What causes spin foams to break?

There are several possible causes for spin foams to break, including inconsistencies in the mathematical equations used to describe them, or limitations in our understanding of quantum gravity that prevent us from accurately modeling the behavior of space-time at the smallest scales.

How do scientists study spin foams?

Scientists study spin foams using a combination of mathematical models and computational simulations. They also use experimental data from particle accelerators and other sources to test the predictions of spin foam models.

Can spin foams be fixed?

It is possible that spin foams can be fixed by refining our understanding of quantum gravity and developing more accurate mathematical models. However, this is an ongoing area of research and there is no definitive answer at this time.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
0
Views
407
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
5K
Back
Top