This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 208)

John Baez

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nAlso available at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week208.html\n\nThis Week\'s Finds in Mathematical Physics\nWeek 208\nNovember 6, 2004\n\nLast weekend I went to a conference at the Perimeter Institute:\n\n1) Workshop on Quantum Gravity in the Americas,\nhttp://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/activities/scientific/PI-WORK-2/\n\nIt was great to see the new building. I\'d visited this institute\nbefore in its temporary location, which was a funky old hotel\nbuilding complete with pool tables and a bar. The new building is\nvery different: four stories of intensely modern architecture\noverlooking a lake, consisting mainly of an enormous atrium lined with\nwalkways and glass-walled offices. There\'s also a big lecture\ntheater, a couple of smaller seminar rooms, a library, a restaurant\nwhose walls are all blackboards, a reflecting pool, and lots of\nlittle places to sit and talk, complete with espresso machines.\n\nIn short, a theoretical physicist\'s idea of heaven!\n\nBut perhaps the design of heaven shouldn\'t be left to theoretical\nphysicists. Some aspects of the setup don\'t seem very comfortable.\nLike most modern architecture, the place is short on coziness -\nthere\'s too much glass, metal and concrete for my taste. You\nalso find yourself spending a lot of time climbing up and down\nuncomfortably narrow staircases.\n\nThe last, at least, is no accident: they made the stairs skinny on\npurpose, so you have to say hello to anyone you meet going the other\nway. It\'ll be interesting to see how many collaborative papers come\nout of this.\n\nAbhay Ashtekar was supposed to give the first talk, but he got lost\nwalking to the new building, so suddenly I had to give the first talk.\nYikes! Jet-lagged and not fully awake, I sketched the problem of\ndynamics in quantum gravity: the problem of describing motion in a\nworld where the geometry of spacetime is quantum-mechanical and\ninteracts with matter. I gave a generally downbeat assessment of the\nprogress so far in all known approaches:\n\n2) John Baez, The problem of dynamics in quantum gravity,\nhttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/dynamics/\n\nEven though the last few Weeks have been on quantum gravity conference,\nI\'ve been mainly working on n-categories lately, because I\'ve been sort\nof fed up with quantum gravity. I did, however, sketch some avenues\nfor progress - and later in this conference I saw some work that really\ncheered me up!\n\nFor example, I\'ve always been fascinated by John Wheeler\'s old dream of\n"matter without matter". In its original version, the idea was to\ndescribe elementary particles as the ends of wormholes: if there\'s\nan electric field going in one end and out the other, the ends will\nlook like particles of equal and opposite charge! So, the formation\nof a wormhole could mimic the creation of a particle-antiparticle\npair. But there were big problems with this idea: for example,\ngetting the wormhole ends to act like spin-1/2 particles.\n\nMore recently this idea was reincarnated in the spin network formalism\nby Lee Smolin, with spin network edges replacing wormholes:\n\n3) Lee Smolin, Fermions and topology, available as gr-qc/9404010.\n\nA spin network is a gadget with vertices and edges, where the edges\nrepresent "field lines" - lines of the electric field or the analogous\nthing for other forces, including gravity. If a spin network edge goes\nbetween vertices that would otherwise be far apart, it acts a bit\nlike a wormhole. It will be hidden from observers in the rest of\nspacetime, and its ends will look like particles of equal and opposite\ncharge. Even better, it seems easy to get spin-1/2 particles this way:\nthey don\'t call them "spin networks" for nothing!\n\nA variant on this idea is to have spin networks with "loose ends":\nedges that just fizzle out. This is more ad hoc, but easier to study\nin some ways. A decade ago, Kirill Krasnov and I showed how to describe\nthe kinematics of charged spin-1/2 particles this way:\n\n4) John Baez and Kirill Krasnov, Quantization of diffeomorphism-\ninvariant theories with fermions, hep-th/9703112.\n\nHowever, the hard problem in quantum gravity is always dynamics.\n\nDoes the dynamics of spin networks with loose ends actually mimic that\nof particles? Recently Krasnov and other people have begun tackling\nthis question in a toy model, 3-dimensional Lorentzian gravity:\n\n5) Kirill Krasnov, Lambda<0 Quantum Gravity in 2+1 Dimensions I:\nQuantum States and Stringy S-Matrix, Class. Quant. Grav. 19 (2002)\n3977-3998, also available as hep-th/0112164.\n\nKirill Krasnov, Lambda<0 Quantum Gravity in 2+1 Dimensions II:\nBlack Hole Creation by Point Particles, Class. Quant. Grav. 19 (2002)\n3999-4028, also available as hep-th/0202117.\n\nHe saw that in this theory you can indeed think of particles as spin\nnetwork ends - though you don\'t need to emphasize that viewpoint,\nsince there are also other nice ways to think about what\'s going on,\nusing hyperbolic geometry and complex analysis. It all fits together\nin a beautiful picture. In principle you can even calculate\nthe amplitude for particles to form black holes when they collide!\n\nIn this conference, Laurent Freidel explained how this idea works in\n3-dimensional Riemannian gravity - a less physical but mathematically\nmore tractable spin foam model. Some but not all of his work can\nbe found here:\n\n6) Laurent Freidel and David Louapre, Ponzano-Regge model revisited I:\nGauge fixing, observables and interacting spinning particles, available\nas hep-th/0401076.\n\nLaurent Freidel and David Louapre, Ponzano-Regge model revisited II:\nEquivalence with Chern-Simons, available as gr-qc/0410141.\n\nFreidel showed that if you take this theory and allow spin networks with\nloose ends, they\'ll act like particles. The spin of these particles is\nautomatically quantized. More surprisingly, so is their mass - and\nthere\'s an upper bound on the mass! That\'s because when we quantize\nthis theory, its gauge group automatically gets replaced by a "quantum\ngroup". Physically, this means that spacetime becomes quantum-mechanical\nin such a way that it no longer makes sense to talk about times shorter\nthan about the Planck time. Since the energy of a particle is proportional\nto the rate at which its wavefunction oscillates, this puts an upper\nbound on the energy of a particle. And since E = mc^2, this means\nthere\'s an upper bound on the mass a particle can have.\n\nMathematically, part of the point is that we can describe 3d Riemannian\ngravity as a gauge theory where the gauge group is the double cover of\nthe 3d Euclidean group - the analogue of the Poincare group in this\ncontext. But when we quantize the theory, this gets replaced by a\nquantum group: the "quantum double" of SU(2). As with the 3d Euclidean\ngroup, unitary representations of this quantum group are classified by\nmass and spin... but now both mass and spin are discrete, and both are\nbounded above.\n\nAnyway, what\'s great about Freidel and Louapre\'s work is that it gives\na simplified but mathematically rigorous testbed in which loose ends\nof spin networks act like particles. We can also think about spin\nnetworks with "hidden edges" in this setup. So, we should be able to\ndo calculations and see if a spin network with a hidden edge acts like\na spin network with a pair of loose ends - and thus, a particle-antiparticle\npair.\n\nUnfortunately, all this work on gravity in 3d spacetime doesn\'t easily\ngeneralize to 4d spacetime. The reason is that gravitational waves are\nonly possible when spacetime has dimension 4 or more... so 3d gravity\ntheories have no local degrees of freedom until we include particles:\nall the fun comes from global topology, like wormholes. That\'s why 3d\ntheories are easy to calculate with - we can use ideas from topological\nquantum field theory. The danger, though, is that these calculations\nare misleading it comes to real-world physics. Indeed, that\'s precisely\nthe sort of thing I was worrying about in my talk.\n\nSo, it really cheered me up when a young guy named Artem Starodubtsev\nspoke about a promising new spin foam model of quantum gravity in 4\ndimensions! He\'s working on it now with Laurent Freidel. He has a\ncouple of papers out that *hint* at the main ideas, but you\'ll have to\nwait to see what they\'re up to now:\n\n7) Artem Starodubtsev, Topological excitations around the vacuum of\nquantum gravity I: The symmetries of the vacuum, available as\nhep-th/0306135.\n\nArtem Starodubtsev and Lee Smolin, General relativity with a topological\nphase: an action principle, available as hep-th/0311163.\n\nThe basic idea is to treat 4d general relativity with positive\ncosmological constant as a perturbation of a topological quantum\nfield theory. The topological theory has a single state, which\ncorresponds to a quantum version of "deSitter space": an exponentially\nexpanding universe similar to the one we see today, but with no\nmatter. To calculate in full-fledged gravity, we then use perturbation\ntheory, getting answers as power series in a coupling constant.\nBut the cool part is that unlike ordinary perturbative quantum gravity\nthis perturbation theory is manifestly diffeomorphism invariant\nterm by term. And each term is a sum over spin foams!\n\nEven better, the coupling constant in this theory is the cosmological\nconstant in Planck units! That\'s an incredibly small dimensionless\nnumber: about 10^{-123}. Physicists like perturbation theory when the\ncoupling constant is small, since then the first few terms tend to give\nreasonably accurate answers - even if the whole series diverges.\nFor example, quantum electrodynamics gives high-precision answers\nbecause the fine structure constant is about 1/137, which is pretty\nsmall. But 10^{-123} is *really* small.\n\nI\'d seen Starodubtsev talk about this in Marseille (see "week206")\nbut now he and Freidel have done calculations recovering Newton\'s\nlaw of gravity in an appropriate approximation from this theory.\nThat may not seem like a big deal, but it\'s actually very cool to see\nNewton\'s law reemerge from a manifestly diffeomorphism-invariant\ntheory of quantum gravity: no model had never managed this feat before.\n\nFor those of you hungering for technical details, I\'ll just say that\nthe topological theory in question is BF theory with the symmetry group\nof deSitter spacetime, namely SO(4,1), as the gauge group. General\nrelativity can be regarded as a perturbation of this BF theory by\nborrowing some ideas from the "MacDowell-Mansouri" formulation of\ngeneral relativity. If you haven\'t heard of that, well, neither had I.\nIt\'s a sort of old idea:\n\n8) S. W. MacDowell and F. Mansouri, Unified geometric theory of gravity\nand supergravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 739–742 (1977).\n\n.... but here we aren\'t using anything anything about supergravity,\njust the fact that ordinary general relativity can be treated as a\ntheory with gauge group SO(4,1) and a Lagrangian that breaks this\nsymmetry down to the Lorentz group SO(3,1). The paper by Smolin and\nStarodubtsev listed above describes the details, but in the case of\ngoing from SO(5) down to SO(4).\n\nWhen we quantize BF theory in 4 dimensions we get a spin foam model\ncalled the Crane-Yetter model, where the spin foams are defined using\nthe representation theory of a quantum group: a "q-deformed version" of\nthe original gauge group. So, the real engine behind Freidel and\nStarodubtsev\'s calculations are spin foams involving the q-deformed\nversion of SO(4,1), called SO_q(4,1). This is technically tricky\nbecause SO(4,1) is noncompact, and noncompact quantum groups are just\nbeginning to be understood. So, there\'s probably still tons of\nmathematical work left to be done. But, the upshot is that Freidel\nand Starodubtsev calculate stuff as power series in the cosmological\nconstant where each term is computed using SO_q(4,1) spin foams. It\'s\nsort of like a souped-up Feynman diagram expansion, but with spin foams\nreplacing Feynman diagrams.\n\nNow that I\'ve thrown around enough buzzwords to scare off the kids,\nI can tell you about Lee Smolin\'s talk, which was definitely X-rated:\nfor adults only, people who can listen to speculations with just the\nright mixture of disbelief and open-mindedness. It was the last talk\nin the conference. And it was about the possible physical effects of\nspin networks with "hidden edges"!\n\nFirst of all, he reminded us how these can mimic particles, and\neven some of the usual particle interactions. But then he went\nahead and suggested that hidden edges can cause nonlocal effects in\nphysics, like the force of gravity decaying more slowly than 1/r^2 -\njust as it does in MOND, the wacky but strangely accurate explanation\nof galactic rotation curves that uses a modification of Newtonian\ngravity instead of positing dark matter! (See "week206" for more on\nMOND.) It\'s hard to make up sensible theories of forces that decay\nmore slowly than 1/r^2, but nonlocal interactions would be one way to\ndo it... and hidden spin network edges might cause those.\n\nThere are a million things that could go wrong with this idea, but\nI like it, because it suggests a way quantum gravity might try to\nexplain one of the big mysteries of physics - dark matter. And until\nwe get our theories to make contact with experiment, it\'ll be very hard\nfor us to tell if they\'re on the right track.\n\nAnyway, Smolin hasn\'t come out with a paper on this stuff yet, so we\'ll\nhave to wait for more details.\n\nBy the way:\n\nIn what I\'ve written this week, I\'ve had to seriously downplay the\ncool math involved, to give (I hope) some inkling of the cool physics.\nKrasnov work on 2+1-dimensional Lorentzian gravity with positive\ncosmological constant uses the fact that the phase space of this\ntheory is closely related to "Teichmueller space" - the space of\ncomplex structures mod diffeomorphisms that are connected to the\nidentity. I talked about this space in "week28", but I forgot to say\nthat we can think of it as a space of flat SO(2,1) connections mod\ngauge transformations. Here SO(2,1) is just the Lorentz group in 3\ndimensions. So, if we quantize 2+1 Lorentzian gravity with positive\ncosmological constant, we get a theory where states are described by\nSO_q(2,1) spin networks... but this is also a theory of "quantum\nTeichmueller space". Again this is tricky because SO(2,1) is noncompact,\nbut people have made a lot of progress lately, thanks in part to a line\nof work started by Kashaev:\n\n9) R. M. Kashaev, Quantization of Teichmueller spaces and the quantum\ndilogarithm, available as q-alg/9705021.\n\n10) L. Chekhov and V. V. Fock, Quantum Teichmueller space,\nTheor. Math. Phys. 120 (1999) 1245-1259, also available as\nmath.QA/9908165.\n\nYou can get a sense of who\'s working on this stuff and what they\'re\ndoing by looking at the references for this recent conference on 3d\nquantum gravity in Edinburgh, which unfortunately took place when I\nwas in Hong Kong:\n\n11) Workshop on physics and geometry of 3-dimensional quantum gravity,\nhttp://www.ma.hw.ac.uk/~bernd/references.html\n\nI should also add that people don\'t usually don\'t talk about the 3d\nLorentz group SO(2,1) here; they talk about its double cover SL(2,R).\n\nAnyway, I\'ll quit here. The next conference on loops and spin foams\nwill probably happen in Berlin at the Albert Einstein Institute in\n2005, which happens to be the hundredth birthday of special relativity.\nI hope we can make a lot of progress before then and make Al proud.\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------\nPrevious issues of "This Week\'s Finds" and other expository articles on\nmathematics and physics, as well as some of my research papers, can be\nobtained at\n\nhttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/\n\nFor a table of contents of all the issues of This Week\'s Finds, try\n\nhttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/twf.html\n\nA simple jumping-off point to the old issues is available at\n\nhttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/twfshort.html\n\nIf you just want the latest issue, go to\n\nhttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/this.week.html\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Also available at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week208.html

This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics
Week 208
November 6, 2004

Last weekend I went to a conference at the Perimeter Institute:

1) Workshop on Quantum Gravity in the Americas,
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/act...ic/\PI-WORK-2/

It was great to see the new building. I'd visited this institute
before in its temporary location, which was a funky old hotel
building complete with pool tables and a bar. The new building is
very different: four stories of intensely modern architecture
overlooking a lake, consisting mainly of an enormous atrium lined with
walkways and glass-walled offices. There's also a big lecture
theater, a couple of smaller seminar rooms, a library, a restaurant
whose walls are all blackboards, a reflecting pool, and lots of
little places to sit and talk, complete with espresso machines.

In short, a theoretical physicist's idea of heaven!

But perhaps the design of heaven shouldn't be left to theoretical
physicists. Some aspects of the setup don't seem very comfortable.
Like most modern architecture, the place is short on coziness -
there's too much glass, metal and concrete for my taste. You
also find yourself spending a lot of time climbing up and down
uncomfortably narrow staircases.

The last, at least, is no accident: they made the stairs skinny on
purpose, so you have to say hello to anyone you meet going the other
way. It'll be interesting to see how many collaborative papers come
out of this.

Abhay Ashtekar was supposed to give the first talk, but he got lost
walking to the new building, so suddenly I had to give the first talk.
Yikes! Jet-lagged and not fully awake, I sketched the problem of
dynamics in quantum gravity: the problem of describing motion in a
world where the geometry of spacetime is quantum-mechanical and
interacts with matter. I gave a generally downbeat assessment of the
progress so far in all known approaches:

2) John Baez, The problem of dynamics in quantum gravity,
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/dynamics/

Even though the last few Weeks have been on quantum gravity conference,
I've been mainly working on n-categories lately, because I've been sort
of fed up with quantum gravity. I did, however, sketch some avenues
for progress - and later in this conference I saw some work that really
cheered me up!

For example, I've always been fascinated by John Wheeler's old dream of
"matter without matter". In its original version, the idea was to
describe elementary particles as the ends of wormholes: if there's
an electric field going in one end and out the other, the ends will
look like particles of equal and opposite charge! So, the formation
of a wormhole could mimic the creation of a particle-antiparticle
pair. But there were big problems with this idea: for example,
getting the wormhole ends to act like spin-1/2 particles.

More recently this idea was reincarnated in the spin network formalism
by Lee Smolin, with spin network edges replacing wormholes:

3) Lee Smolin, Fermions and topology, available as http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9404010.

A spin network is a gadget with vertices and edges, where the edges
represent "field lines" - lines of the electric field or the analogous
thing for other forces, including gravity. If a spin network edge goes
between vertices that would otherwise be far apart, it acts a bit
like a wormhole. It will be hidden from observers in the rest of
spacetime, and its ends will look like particles of equal and opposite
charge. Even better, it seems easy to get spin-1/2 particles this way:
they don't call them "spin networks" for nothing!

A variant on this idea is to have spin networks with "loose ends":
edges that just fizzle out. This is more ad hoc, but easier to study
in some ways. A decade ago, Kirill Krasnov and I showed how to describe
the kinematics of charged spin-1/2 particles this way:

4) John Baez and Kirill Krasnov, Quantization of diffeomorphism-
invariant theories with fermions, http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9703112.

However, the hard problem in quantum gravity is always dynamics.

Does the dynamics of spin networks with loose ends actually mimic that
of particles? Recently Krasnov and other people have begun tackling
this question in a toy model, 3-dimensional Lorentzian gravity:

5) Kirill Krasnov, [itex]\Lambda<0[/itex] Quantum Gravity in 2+1 Dimensions I:
Quantum States and Stringy S-Matrix, Class. Quant. Grav. 19 (2002)
[itex]3977-3998,[/itex] also available as http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0112164.

Kirill Krasnov, [itex]\Lambda<0[/itex] Quantum Gravity in 2+1 Dimensions II:
Black Hole Creation by Point Particles, Class. Quant. Grav. 19 (2002)
[itex]3999-4028,[/itex] also available as http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0202117.

He saw that in this theory you can indeed think of particles as spin
network ends - though you don't need to emphasize that viewpoint,
since there are also other nice ways to think about what's going on,
using hyperbolic geometry and complex analysis. It all fits together
in a beautiful picture. In principle you can even calculate
the amplitude for particles to form black holes when they collide!

In this conference, Laurent Freidel explained how this idea works in
3-dimensional Riemannian gravity - a less physical but mathematically
more tractable spin foam model. Some but not all of his work can
be found here:

6) Laurent Freidel and David Louapre, Ponzano-Regge model revisited I:
Gauge fixing, observables and interacting spinning particles, available
as http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0401076.

Laurent Freidel and David Louapre, Ponzano-Regge model revisited II:
Equivalence with Chern-Simons, available as http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0410141.

Freidel showed that if you take this theory and allow spin networks with
loose ends, they'll act like particles. The spin of these particles is
automatically quantized. More surprisingly, so is their mass - and
there's an upper bound on the mass! That's because when we quantize
this theory, its gauge group automatically gets replaced by a "quantum
group". Physically, this means that spacetime becomes quantum-mechanical
in such a way that it no longer makes sense to talk about times shorter
than about the Planck time. Since the energy of a particle is proportional
to the rate at which its wavefunction oscillates, this puts an upper
bound on the energy of a particle. And since [itex]E = mc^2,[/itex] this means
there's an upper bound on the mass a particle can have.

Mathematically, part of the point is that we can describe 3d Riemannian
gravity as a gauge theory where the gauge group is the double cover of
the 3d Euclidean group - the analogue of the Poincare group in this
context. But when we quantize the theory, this gets replaced by a
quantum group: the "quantum double" of SU(2). As with the 3d Euclidean
group, unitary representations of this quantum group are classified by
mass and spin... but now both mass and spin are discrete, and both are
bounded above.

Anyway, what's great about Freidel and Louapre's work is that it gives
a simplified but mathematically rigorous testbed in which loose ends
of spin networks act like particles. We can also think about spin
networks with "hidden edges" in this setup. So, we should be able to
do calculations and see if a spin network with a hidden edge acts like
a spin network with a pair of loose ends - and thus, a particle-antiparticle
pair.

Unfortunately, all this work on gravity in 3d spacetime doesn't easily
generalize to 4d spacetime. The reason is that gravitational waves are
only possible when spacetime has dimension 4 or more... so 3d gravity
theories have no local degrees of freedom until we include particles:
all the fun comes from global topology, like wormholes. That's why 3d
theories are easy to calculate with [itex]- we[/itex] can use ideas from topological
quantum field theory. The danger, though, is that these calculations
are misleading it comes to real-world physics. Indeed, that's precisely
the sort of thing I was worrying about in my talk.

So, it really cheered me up when a young guy named Artem Starodubtsev
spoke about a promising new spin foam model of quantum gravity in 4
dimensions! He's working on it now with Laurent Freidel. He has a
couple of papers out that [itex]*hint* at[/itex] the main ideas, but you'll have to
wait to see what they're up to now:

7) Artem Starodubtsev, Topological excitations around the vacuum of
quantum gravity I: The symmetries of the vacuum, available as
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0306135.

Artem Starodubtsev and Lee Smolin, General relativity with a topological
phase: an action principle, available as http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0311163.

The basic idea is to treat 4d general relativity with positive
cosmological constant as a perturbation of a topological quantum
field theory. The topological theory has a single state, which
corresponds to a quantum version of "deSitter space": an exponentially
expanding universe similar to the one we see today, but with no
matter. To calculate in full-fledged gravity, we then use perturbation
theory, getting answers as power series in a coupling constant.
But the cool part is that unlike ordinary perturbative quantum gravity
this perturbation theory is manifestly diffeomorphism invariant
term by term. And each term is a sum over spin foams!

Even better, the coupling constant in this theory is the cosmological
constant in Planck units! That's an incredibly small dimensionless
number: about [itex]10^{-123}[/itex]. Physicists like perturbation theory when the
coupling constant is small, since then the first few terms tend to give
reasonably accurate answers - even if the whole series diverges.
For example, quantum electrodynamics gives high-precision answers
because the fine structure constant is about [itex]1/137,[/itex] which is pretty
small. But [itex]10^{-123}[/itex] is *really* small.

I'd seen Starodubtsev talk about this in Marseille (see "week206")
but now he and Freidel have done calculations recovering Newton's
law of gravity in an appropriate approximation from this theory.
That may not seem like a big deal, but it's actually very cool to see
Newton's law reemerge from a manifestly diffeomorphism-invariant
theory of quantum gravity: no model had never managed this feat before.

For those of you hungering for technical details, I'll just say that
the topological theory in question is BF theory with the symmetry group
of deSitter spacetime, namely SO(4,1), as the gauge group. General
relativity can be regarded as a perturbation of this BF theory by
borrowing some ideas from the "MacDowell-Mansouri" formulation of
general relativity. If you haven't heard of that, well, neither had I.
It's a sort of old idea:

8) S. W. MacDowell and F. Mansouri, Unified geometric theory of gravity
and supergravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 739–742 (1977).

.... but here we aren't using anything anything about supergravity,
just the fact that ordinary general relativity can be treated as a
theory with gauge group SO(4,1) and a Lagrangian that breaks this
symmetry down to the Lorentz group SO(3,1). The paper by Smolin and
Starodubtsev listed above describes the details, but in the case of
going from SO(5) down to SO(4).

When we quantize BF theory in 4 dimensions we get a spin foam model
called the Crane-Yetter model, where the spin foams are defined using
the representation theory of a quantum group: a "q-deformed version" of
the original gauge group. So, the real engine behind Freidel and
Starodubtsev's calculations are spin foams involving the q-deformed
version of SO(4,1), called [itex]SO_q(4,1)[/itex]. This is technically tricky
because SO(4,1) is noncompact, and noncompact quantum groups are just
beginning to be understood. So, there's probably still tons of
mathematical work left to be done. But, the upshot is that Freidel
and Starodubtsev calculate stuff as power series in the cosmological
constant where each term is computed using [itex]SO_q(4,1)[/itex] spin foams. It's
sort of like a souped-up Feynman diagram expansion, but with spin foams
replacing Feynman diagrams.

Now that I've thrown around enough buzzwords to scare off the kids,
I can tell you about Lee Smolin's talk, which was definitely X-rated:
for adults only, people who can listen to speculations with just the
right mixture of disbelief and open-mindedness. It was the last talk
in the conference. And it was about the possible physical effects of
spin networks with "hidden edges"!

First of all, he reminded us how these can mimic particles, and
even some of the usual particle interactions. But then he went
ahead and suggested that hidden edges can cause nonlocal effects in
physics, like the force of gravity decaying more slowly than [itex]1/r^2 -[/itex]
just as it does in MOND, the wacky but strangely accurate explanation
of galactic rotation curves that uses a modification of Newtonian
gravity instead of positing dark matter! (See "week206" for more on
MOND.) It's hard to make up sensible theories of forces that decay
more slowly than [itex]1/r^2,[/itex] but nonlocal interactions would be one way to
do it... and hidden spin network edges might cause those.

There are a million things that could go wrong with this idea, but
I like it, because it suggests a way quantum gravity might try to
explain one of the big mysteries of physics - dark matter. And until
we get our theories to make contact with experiment, it'll be very hard
for us to tell if they're on the right track.

Anyway, Smolin hasn't come out with a paper on this stuff yet, so we'll
have to wait for more details.

By the way:

In what I've written this week, I've had to seriously downplay the
cool math involved, to give (I hope) some inkling of the cool physics.
Krasnov work on 2+1-dimensional Lorentzian gravity with positive
cosmological constant uses the fact that the phase space of this
theory is closely related to "Teichmueller space" - the space of
complex structures mod diffeomorphisms that are connected to the
identity. I talked about this space in "week28", but I forgot to say
that we can think of it as a space of flat SO(2,1) connections mod
gauge transformations. Here SO(2,1) is just the Lorentz group in 3
dimensions. So, if we quantize 2+1 Lorentzian gravity with positive
cosmological constant, we get a theory where states are described by
[itex]SO_q(2,1)[/itex] spin networks... but this is also a theory of "quantum
Teichmueller space". Again this is tricky because SO(2,1) is noncompact,
but people have made a lot of progress lately, thanks in part to a line
of work started by Kashaev:

9) R. M. Kashaev, Quantization of Teichmueller spaces and the quantum
dilogarithm, available as q-alg/9705021.

10) L. Chekhov and V. V. Fock, Quantum Teichmueller space,
Theor. Math. Phys. 120 (1999) [itex]1245-1259,[/itex] also available as
math.[itex]QA/9908165[/itex].

You can get a sense of who's working on this stuff and what they're
doing by looking at the references for this recent conference on 3d
quantum gravity in Edinburgh, which unfortunately took place when I
was in Hong Kong:

11) Workshop on physics and geometry of 3-dimensional quantum gravity,
http://www.ma.hw.ac.uk/~bernd/references.html

I should also add that people don't usually don't talk about the 3d
Lorentz group SO(2,1) here; they talk about its double cover SL(2,R).

Anyway, I'll quit here. The next conference on loops and spin foams
will probably happen in Berlin at the Albert Einstein Institute in
2005, which happens to be the hundredth birthday of special relativity.
I hope we can make a lot of progress before then and make Al proud.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous issues of "This Week's Finds" and other expository articles on
mathematics and physics, as well as some of my research papers, can be
obtained at

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/

For a table of contents of all the issues of This Week's Finds, try

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/twf.html

A simple jumping-off point to the old issues is available at

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/twfshort.html

If you just want the latest issue, go to

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/this.week.html

Similar Threads for: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 208)
Thread	Forum	Replies
This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 222)	Math & Science Software	117
This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 222)	Math & Science Software	0
This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 221)	Math & Science Software	39
This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 221)	Math & Science Software	0
Re: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 232)	Math & Science Software	0