Bianchi's entropy result-what to ask, what to learn from it

[Demystifier]

If there's no state counting, isn't this just a semiclassical calculation, like Hawking's?

I would put this way: If there's no state counting, then the entropy is merely a thermodynamic entropy (like Hawking's), not a statistical entropy.

 

[francesca]

I would put this way: If there's no state counting, then the entropy is merely a thermodynamic entropy (like Hawking's), not a statistical entropy.

That's right, but it would not say "merely": the microstate counting was already done in LQG, and Eugenio contributed to this with his nice paper "BH Entropy, Loop Gravity, and Polymer Physics", identying these microstates with the quantum geometry at the horizon. SO the "thermodynamical side" was the aspect somehow lacking... lacking in which sense? in the sense that Hawking calculation was done in the context of QFT in curved space, so spacetime was classical, while Eugenio's one is the thermodynamics of a quantum theory of gravity.

 

[marcus]

Francesca, these are very instructive replies to Demy and to Atyy's question.

If there's no state counting, isn't this just a semiclassical calculation, like Hawking's?

No, it's not semiclassical. In fact in the paper all the ingredients are derived from the full quantum theory. The relation energy-area was found by Frodden Gosh Perez using Einstein equations; here it is found using the boost generator given by Spinfoam Theory. The calculation in order to find Unruh temperature is done here again using the boost generator, it's completely new. And finally there is the remarkable demonstration that the Spinfoam amplitude implies the right distribution, that yields Hawking entropy.

I would put this way: If there's no state counting, then the entropy is merely a thermodynamic entropy (like Hawking's), not a statistical entropy.

That's right, but it would not say "merely": the microstate counting was already done in LQG, and Eugenio contributed to this with his nice paper "BH Entropy, Loop Gravity, and Polymer Physics", identying these microstates with the quantum geometry at the horizon. SO the "thermodynamical side" was the aspect somehow lacking... lacking in which sense? in the sense that Hawking calculation was done in the context of QFT in curved space, so spacetime was classical, while Eugenio's one is the thermodynamics of a quantum theory of gravity.

Indeed we are talking about Black Hole thermodynamics and the Bekenstein Hawking entropy S_BekHaw was thermodynamic. So likewise should Bianchi black hole entropy S_Bianchi be thermodynamic according to Clausius. This was one of the aims and achievements of the paper. And he evaluates it in a purely quantum way. Not in the context of QFT on a fixed curved space. So definitely not semiclassical . And as you said earlier, it is completely new!
The researchers might be able to learn something by comparing Bianchi's thermodynamic entropy with the statistical state-counting done earlier. I imagine some are studying this comparison and it may prove fruitful.

I was interested by what you said in reference to the last section of the paper "Partition Function and Spinfoams".
That section goes beyond the main task of the paper and seems to point towards further work. Was that what you were referring to when you said "And finally there is the remarkable demonstration that the Spinfoam amplitude implies the right distribution, that yields Hawking entropy." For me, that section needs more elaboration--it does not explain enough what is being done--but I suspect that would be more appropriately done in a second paper, not to overextend this one.

 

[fzero]

The polymer microstate calculation had an explicit dependence on the Immirzi parameter. The only reason the present calculation does not have this dependence is because Bianchi uses a single pure state to do the calculation. Since the BH is not a pure state, the correct way to do the computation is to compute the energy from (9) in an ensemble. This will reintroduce the factors of \mu^* and \gamma that were found in the polymer paper.

 

[marcus]

... Since the BH is not a pure state, the correct way to do the computation is to compute the energy from (9) in an ensemble. This will reintroduce the factors of \mu^* and \gamma that were found in the polymer paper.

Why so? I see no reason that combining states of the form (9) to make a mixed state would need to introduce a \gamma. Please explain.

 

[marcus]

In case anyone is new to the discussion the "polymer" paper just referred to is from a years and a half ago and is:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.5628
Black Hole Entropy, Loop Gravity, and Polymer Physics
Eugenio Bianchi
(Submitted on 25 Nov 2010)
Loop Gravity provides a microscopic derivation of Black Hole entropy. In this paper, I show that the microstates counted admit a semiclassical description in terms of shapes of a tessellated horizon. The counting of microstates and the computation of the entropy can be done via a mapping to an equivalent statistical mechanical problem: the counting of conformations of a closed polymer chain. This correspondence suggests a number of intriguing relations between the thermodynamics of Black Holes and the physics of polymers.
13 pages, 2 figures

The main paper we are discussing is the one Bianchi just posted this week. For convenience, since we just turned a page, I will give the link and abstract again:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.5122
Entropy of Non-Extremal Black Holes from Loop Gravity
Eugenio Bianchi
(Submitted on 23 Apr 2012)
We compute the entropy of non-extremal black holes using the quantum dynamics of Loop Gravity. The horizon entropy is finite, scales linearly with the area A, and reproduces the Bekenstein-Hawking expression S = A/4 with the one-fourth coefficient for all values of the Immirzi parameter. The near-horizon geometry of a non-extremal black hole - as seen by a stationary observer - is described by a Rindler horizon. We introduce the notion of a quantum Rindler horizon in the framework of Loop Gravity. The system is described by a quantum surface and the dynamics is generated by the boost Hamiltonion of Lorentzian Spinfoams. We show that the expectation value of the boost Hamiltonian reproduces the local horizon energy of Frodden, Ghosh and Perez. We study the coupling of the geometry of the quantum horizon to a two-level system and show that it thermalizes to the local Unruh temperature. The derived values of the energy and the temperature allow one to compute the thermodynamic entropy of the quantum horizon. The relation with the Spinfoam partition function is discussed.
6 pages, 1 figure

 

[fzero]

Why so? I see no reason that combining states of the form (9) to make a mixed state would need to introduce a \gamma. Please explain.

Each pure state can be thought of as a set of occupation numbers associated with which facets we use to tesselate the surface. These are the N_i in the polymer paper, but I will use the notation of the new paper and call them N_i. The area of a given tesselation is

A = \sum_f 8\pi G\hbar \gamma N_f j_f

and we have a constraint that

\sum_f N_f = N.

Furthermore, we have to require that our mixed state matches the data of the black hole. For whatever the appropriate distribution, this can be written as an expectation value

\langle A \rangle_{\mathrm{ens.}} = A_H

where we're summing over the distribution of N_f. I put the subscript on the ket to note that this isn't just the expectation value in the pure state.

It is logical in this program to use Bianchi's polymer distribution and demand that the BH state maximizes the entropy. This will result in the same steepest descent condition as in (16) in the polymer paper. The computation of the energy should follow similar steps as those following that equation, leading to the factors I'm referring to.

Basically, if both papers are correct (and they already have many important methods in common), the final answers for the entropy have to agree. Because the mixed state will have an occupation number associated with which faces are used to must satisfy the same constraint (16) as in the polymer paper. It is not enough to just pick a pure state and demand that

A_H = \sum_f 8\pi G\hbar \gamma j_f .

This state alone is not a black hole. This is the step that allowed Bianchi to hide the factor of \gamma.

 

[francesca]

The polymer microstate calculation had an explicit dependence on the Immirzi parameter. The only reason the present calculation does not have this dependence is because Bianchi uses a single pure state to do the calculation.

The independence wrt the Immirzi parameter \gamma is not something new introduced by Eugenio Bianchi, but rather a general fact in LQG black holes. The \gamma-dependence was present in the old treatment of LQG black holes, indeed. But in 2009 Engle, Noui and Perez presented a new treatment (based on SU(2) instead of U(1) - let me notice here that the original proposal of Rovelli in 1996 was to use SU(2) and the shift to U(1) appeared in the paper by Krasnov and others) so that the entropy is correctly achieved without fixing the Immirzi parameter.

References:
1. Black hole entropy and SU(2) Chern-Simons theory.
2. Black hole entropy from the SU(2)-invariant formulation of Type I isolated horizons
3. Static isolated horizons: SU(2) invariant phase space, quantization, and black hole entropy
4. Radiation from quantum weakly dynamical horizons in LQG.

 

[marcus]

Fzero, thanks for your careful detailed response to my question! It is very helpful to see spelled out why you found the paper flawed, and the conclusion (in the Loop context) that entropy is independent of the Immirzi parameter to be invalid. Everybody benefits from this kind of careful study (although I disagree with you.)

The polymer microstate calculation had an explicit dependence on the Immirzi parameter. The only reason the present calculation does not have this dependence is because Bianchi uses a single pure state to do the calculation...

The independence wrt the Immirzi parameter \gamma is not something new introduced by Eugenio Bianchi, but rather a general fact in LQG black holes. The \gamma-dependence was present in the old treatment of LQG black holes, indeed. But in 2009 Engle, Noui and Perez presented a new treatment (based on SU(2) instead of U(1) - let me notice here that the original proposal of Rovelli in 1996 was to use SU(2) and the shift to U(1) appeared in the paper by Krasnov and others) so that the entropy is correctly achieved without fixing the Immirzi parameter.

References:
1. Black hole entropy and SU(2) Chern-Simons theory.
2. Black hole entropy from the SU(2)-invariant formulation of Type I isolated horizons
3. Static isolated horizons: SU(2) invariant phase space, quantization, and black hole entropy
4. Radiation from quantum weakly dynamical horizons in LQG.

I'm beginning to get a better sense of the historical development. The key reference seems to be #3. The first two lead up to it, but they don't seem to explicitly break free from dependence on the Immirzi parameter. They lay the groundwork, if I am not mistaken. I'll quote the abstract of your reference #3. The November 2010 paper of Perez and Pranzetti.

http://inspirehep.net/record/877359?ln=en
http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.2961
Static isolated horizons: SU(2) invariant phase space, quantization, and black hole entropy
Alejandro Perez, Daniele Pranzetti
(Submitted on 12 Nov 2010)
We study the classical field theoretical formulation of static generic isolated horizons in a manifestly SU(2) invariant formulation. We show that the usual classical description requires revision in the non-static case due to the breaking of diffeomorphism invariance at the horizon leading to the non conservation of the usual pre-symplectic structure. We argue how this difficulty could be avoided by a simple enlargement of the field content at the horizon that restores diffeomorphism invariance. Restricting our attention to static isolated horizons we study the effective theories describing the boundary degrees of freedom. A quantization of the horizon degrees of freedom is proposed. By defining a statistical mechanical ensemble where only the area A of the horizon is fixed macroscopically-states with fluctuations away from spherical symmetry are allowed-we show that it is possible to obtain agreement with the Hawking's area law---S = A/4 (in Planck Units)---without fixing the Immirzi parameter to any particular value: consistency with the area law only imposes a relationship between the Immirzi parameter and the level of the Chern-Simons theory involved in the effective description of the horizon degrees of freedom.
26 pages, published in Entropy 13 (2011) 744-777

 

[atyy]

http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.2961
Static isolated horizons: SU(2) invariant phase space, quantization, and black hole entropy
Alejandro Perez, Daniele Pranzetti
(Submitted on 12 Nov 2010)
We study the classical field theoretical formulation of static generic isolated horizons in a manifestly SU(2) invariant formulation. We show that the usual classical description requires revision in the non-static case due to the breaking of diffeomorphism invariance at the horizon leading to the non conservation of the usual pre-symplectic structure. We argue how this difficulty could be avoided by a simple enlargement of the field content at the horizon that restores diffeomorphism invariance. Restricting our attention to static isolated horizons we study the effective theories describing the boundary degrees of freedom. A quantization of the horizon degrees of freedom is proposed. By defining a statistical mechanical ensemble where only the area A of the horizon is fixed macroscopically-states with fluctuations away from spherical symmetry are allowed-we show that it is possible to obtain agreement with the Hawking's area law---S = A/4 (in Planck Units)---without fixing the Immirzi parameter to any particular value: consistency with the area law only imposes a relationship between the Immirzi parameter and the level of the Chern-Simons theory involved in the effective description of the horizon degrees of freedom.
26 pages, published in Entropy 13 (2011) 744-777

So what is the relationship between the Immizi parameter and the level of the Chern-Simons theory in Bianchi's new calculation?

 

[marcus]

So what is the relationship between the Immizi parameter and the level of the Chern-Simons theory in Bianchi's new calculation?

Why should there be any at all? I don't see in Bianchi's paper any reference to the 2010 Perez Pranzetti paper. What you ask sounds to me like a good research topic. There might or might not be some interesting connection. I don't think one can determine that simply based on the research papers already available. I could be wrong of course. Maybe Francesca will correct me, and answer your question. She has her own research to do though.

This breaking free from dependence of entropy on the Immirzi looks to me like a gradual historical process that has been happening by various routes on different fronts. I think of it as a kind of blind tectonic shift. Perhaps the earliest sign being Jacobson's 2007 paper.

Wait. Bianchi's reference [3] cites (in addition to papers by Rovelli 1996 and by Ashtekar et al 1998) the 2010 ENP paper Engle Noui Perez. That was the first one Francesca listed. So there is an indirect reference to Chern Simons level. Maybe we can glimpse some connection by looking at the ENP paper.

 

[marcus]

This is fascinating, I thought the 2009 ENP paper still inextricably involved Immirzi dependence, but I may have missed something. Bianchi cites it and it was the first one on Francesca's list. I need to take a closer look.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3168
Black hole entropy and SU(2) Chern-Simons theory
Jonathan Engle, Karim Noui, Alejandro Perez
(Submitted on 19 May 2009)
Black holes in equilibrium can be defined locally in terms of the so-called isolated horizon boundary condition given on a null surface representing the event horizon. We show that this boundary condition can be treated in a manifestly SU(2) invariant manner. Upon quantization, state counting is expressed in terms of the dimension of Chern-Simons Hilbert spaces on a sphere with marked points. Moreover, the counting can be mapped to counting the number of SU(2) intertwiners compatible with the spins that label the defects. The resulting BH entropy is proportional to a_H with logarithmic corrections Δ S=-3/2 log a_H. Our treatment from first principles completely settles previous controversies concerning the counting of states.
4 pages, published in in Physical Review Letters 2010

 

[fzero]

The independence wrt the Immirzi parameter \gamma is not something new introduced by Eugenio Bianchi, but rather a general fact in LQG black holes. The \gamma-dependence was present in the old treatment of LQG black holes, indeed. But in 2009 Engle, Noui and Perez presented a new treatment (based on SU(2) instead of U(1) - let me notice here that the original proposal of Rovelli in 1996 was to use SU(2) and the shift to U(1) appeared in the paper by Krasnov and others) so that the entropy is correctly achieved without fixing the Immirzi parameter.

References:
1. Black hole entropy and SU(2) Chern-Simons theory.
2. Black hole entropy from the SU(2)-invariant formulation of Type I isolated horizons
3. Static isolated horizons: SU(2) invariant phase space, quantization, and black hole entropy
4. Radiation from quantum weakly dynamical horizons in LQG.

I am not claiming that the dependence on \gamma is new or that there weren't earlier papers that claimed that they could avoid it. The simple fact is that Bianchi's polymer result had this dependence. His new result does not. I have explained the reason for the discrepancy, and it has nothing to do with any gauge fixing. In the earlier paper he uses the proper mixed state for the black hole, while in the new paper he uses a pure state. The new paper does not compute the entropy of a black hole.

If you disagree, please explain which Bianchi paper is wrong and why.

 

[francesca]

If you disagree, please explain which Bianchi paper is wrong and why.

I don't disagree with you :-)
because the papers by Bianchi are both right,
but the two calculations are done using different ensembles.

This is a tricky point that could have been overlooked. All the previous calculations used the area ensemble, namely one counts how many spin states there are for a given area. You are right to say that a γ-dependence is unavoidable. This is also written in the paper (even if in a very compact manner, it would be nice to have a more extended comment on this issue):

The result obtained directly addresses some of the difficulties found in the original Loop Gravity derivation of Black-Hole entropy where the area-ensemble is used [3] and the Immirzi parameter shows up as an ambiguity in the expression of the entropy [20]. Introducing the notion of horizon energy in the quantum theory, we find that the entropy of large black holes is independent from the Immirzi parameter. Quantum gravity corrections to the entropy and the temperature of small black holes are expected to depend on the Immirzi parameter.

So a central point in the paper is the introduction of the energy ensemble, where the energy of the black hole is fixed. This choice is guided by the physical intuition that the energy is the key object being interested in the heat exchanges between the black hole and its neighborhood. This is a thermodynamical reasoning. Of course one can also look at the statistics of the energy ensemble: this is not what has been done in this paper, but I think that people are already working on this for a follow-up paper.

 

[marcus]

...while in the new paper he uses a pure state. The new paper does not compute the entropy of a black hole.
If you disagree, please explain which Bianchi paper is wrong and why.

Hi Fzero, it's fun having you take such an interest in Bianchi's new entropy paper. Perhaps I should wait for F. to reply since you were addressing her, but she may have more urgent things to do. So I'll tell you my hunch.
I think probably all or most theory papers by creative people are in some respect wrong. They open up and develop new paths. The important papers are never the final word, they shine a light ahead into the dark.

My hunch is that the new Bianchi paper (which I think is basically a draft) probably has places where the reasoning could be improved or clarified. I also think that his conclusion is probably right and will stand! That's just a guess but it seems to be the way a lot of recent Loop BH work is going. Quite a lot of the younger-generation people are beginning to see reasons why BH entropy is independent from Immirzi. I'm just now realizing how many, and how many of them are still postdoc or have recently taken their first faculty appointment (e.g. Engle, Noui, Durka, Pranzetti, Bianchi..). It has the makings of a little revolution--we'll have to see how it goes.

I don't think I need to argue with you. You have decided to disbelieve the result because the argument is based on considering a pure quantum state. I think it's fine for you to say this whenever the occasion arises I do not think the reasoning actually rests on that singlestate basis, but that's MY perception not yours.

As I see it, he's really considering a PROCESS which adds or subtracts a little facet of area and bit of energy from each one of a huge swarm of pure states.
In the case of each pure state he verifies that ∂A/4 = ∂E/T
So "by superposition" he reasons that for the whole swarm it is always true that ∂A/4 = ∂E/T. So, in effect, QED.

But I think it's fine for you to remain unalterably opposed to Bianchi's paper and to firmly declare things like "The new paper does not compute the entropy of a black hole." I don't especially want you to agree with me. And I could be wrong! I'm basically going to wait and see until the next paper on this, by Bianchi and Wolfgang Wieland, comes out. It's in prep. And the last thing I want to do is argue with you. I won't know what I really think about this until I see the followup paper(s).

OOPS! I didn't realize F. had already replied! So this is superfluous, but I think I nevertheless won't erase it.
Hi Francesca, I didn't think you would reply, so wanted to pay Fzero the courtesy of saying something in response to his interesting post.

 

[fzero]

So a central point in the paper is the introduction of the energy ensemble, where the energy of the black hole is fixed. This choice is guided by the physical intuition that the energy is the key object being interested in the heat exchanges between the black hole and its neighborhood. This is a thermodynamical reasoning. Of course one can also look at the statistics of the energy ensemble: this is not what has been done in this paper, but I think that people are already working on this for a follow-up paper.

There are several problems here.

First, there is no "ensemble" in the latest paper. As you mention, no statistics are addressed, but left to future work. So, as I've been saying, the state being considered is not that of a black hole (pure state vs mixed state). The role of the area ensemble in the polymer paper was not just to count microstates, but was a cruicial part of selecting the correct black hole state.

As you say, what is left is a thermodynamic calculation. What is being treated quantum mechanically is the change in energy \delta E. This is the same semiclassical reasoning as Hawking, the quantum computation of the energy E is not done, but \delta E is properly accounted for.

Finally, it's already clear how the "energy ensemble" works. The states that Bianchi uses satisfy \vec{K} = \gamma \vec{L} as well as |\vec{L}| = |L_z|. This is something that PhysicsMonkey was asking about a couple of days ago. Therefore the energy is directly proportional to the area. If we were to count microstates subject to the energy constraint, we'd find essentially the same result as he did in the polymer paper. It looks like the only change amounts to a rescaling of the Lagrange multiplier \mu by \gamma.

 

[fzero]

As I see it, he's really considering a PROCESS which adds or subtracts a little facet of area and bit of energy from each one of a huge swarm of pure states.
In the case of each pure state he verifies that ∂A/4 = ∂E/T
So "by superposition" he reasons that for the whole swarm it is always true that ∂A/4 = ∂E/T. So, in effect, QED.

I think I agree with this, but I've argued on a couple of occasions that this is a semiclassical computation. It is not the fully quantum mechanical treatment that I thought was being advertised. It's also not clear whether we have learned much since Hawking was already able to do this calculation and didn't find a dependence on the Immirzi parameter either!

But I think it's fine for you to remain unalterably opposed to Bianchi's paper and to firmly declare things like "The new paper does not compute the entropy of a black hole." I don't especially want you to agree with me. And I could be wrong! I'm basically going to wait and see until the next paper on this, by Bianchi and Wolfgang Wieland, comes out. It's in prep. And the last thing I want to do is argue with you. I won't know what I really think about this until I see the followup paper(s).

I could amend my statement to refer to the fully quantum computation of a BH entropy. I don't have any major objections against the computation when viewed in the spirit of the original semiclassical computations.

I've already explained how the statistical treatment should work. There is no reason to expect that the result from the polymer paper is going to change since the area contraint is equivalent to the energy constraint for the subspace of states that Bianchi is using.

 

[atyy]

The independence wrt the Immirzi parameter \gamma is not something new introduced by Eugenio Bianchi, but rather a general fact in LQG black holes. The \gamma-dependence was present in the old treatment of LQG black holes, indeed. But in 2009 Engle, Noui and Perez presented a new treatment (based on SU(2) instead of U(1) - let me notice here that the original proposal of Rovelli in 1996 was to use SU(2) and the shift to U(1) appeared in the paper by Krasnov and others) so that the entropy is correctly achieved without fixing the Immirzi parameter.

References:
1. Black hole entropy and SU(2) Chern-Simons theory.
2. Black hole entropy from the SU(2)-invariant formulation of Type I isolated horizons
3. Static isolated horizons: SU(2) invariant phase space, quantization, and black hole entropy
4. Radiation from quantum weakly dynamical horizons in LQG.

I don't think they are independent of the Immirzi parameter. Basically, the SU(2) introduces one more parameter k, the level of the Chern-Simons theory. So you have two parameters, and if you fix one, say the Immirzi, you have another to adjust to match the semiclassical calculation of Hawking.

 

[fzero]

I don't think they are independent of the Immirzi parameter. Basically, the SU(2) introduces one more parameter k, the level of the Chern-Simons theory. So you have two parameters, and if ypu fix one, say the Immirzi, you have another to adjust to match the semiclassical calculation of Hawking.

Also, the level must be an integer, so only discrete values of the Immirzi parameter are allowed in those models. This is at odds with the arguments that the Immirzi parameter might be thought of as a running coupling. So on the one hand, if the BH calculations are to be trusted, at least some of the techniques/conclusions of the asymptotic safety programs are not.

 

[marcus]

For convenience, here's the link to Bianchi's paper:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.5122
In his conclusions section on page 5, Bianchi cites a 2003 paper of Jacobson and Parentani which we also might want to keep handy:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0302099
Horizon Entropy
Ted Jacobson, Renaud Parentani
(Submitted on 25 Feb 2003)
Although the laws of thermodynamics are well established for black hole horizons, much less has been said in the literature to support the extension of these laws to more general settings such as an asymptotic de Sitter horizon or a Rindler horizon (the event horizon of an asymptotic uniformly accelerated observer). In the present paper we review the results that have been previously established and argue that the laws of black hole thermodynamics, as well as their underlying statistical mechanical content, extend quite generally to what we call here "causal horizons". The root of this generalization is the local notion of horizon entropy density.
21 pages, one figure, to appear in a special issue of Foundations of Physics in honor of Jacob Bekenstein

Conceptually, Bianchi's paper seems in part to derive from this J&P paper. A Rindler horizon is a type of causal horizon. Bianchi makes central use of the ideas of a quantum Rindler horizon and entropy density.
His derivation of the entropy density, to first order, comes tantalizingly close to a tautology.
He shows that for all pure states of the quantum Rindler horizon it is identically true that
∂A/4 = ∂E/T
The argument that this extends by linearity to superpositions---to mixed states of the quantum Rindler horizon, and large assemblies thereof---is not made explicitly. But a relevant observation is made immediately after equation (20) on page 4:

"Notice that the entropy density is independent of the acceleration a, or equivalently from the distance from the horizon."​

This opens the way to our concluding that ∂A/4 = ∂E/T applies as well to mixed states and collections thereof.
Thus any process that increases the BH energy slightly (such as small object like an icecream cone or ukelele falling into the hole) will make the two quantities change in tandem, so that Rindler horizon entropy and area will remain in the same ratio S = A/4.

 

[marcus]

I mentioned that I'm beginning to see this paper in the context of a small revolution in Loop gravity.
A number of young researchers are posting Loop BH papers which break from the earlier work (1990s) and often find the entropy independed of Immirzi to first order. (Besides Bianchi, some names are Ghosh, Perez, Engle, Noui, Pranzetti, Durka. And there are groundbreaking Loop BH papers by Modesto, Premont-Schwarz, Hossenfelder. I'm probably forgetting some. )
So part of understanding Bianchi's paper, for me, is catching up on the context of other recent Loop BH papers. Here is one that came out earlier this month. You can see there is significant conceptual overlap.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.0702
Radiation from quantum weakly dynamical horizons in LQG
Daniele Pranzetti
(Submitted on 3 Apr 2012)
Using the recent thermodynamical study of isolated horizons by Ghosh and Perez, we provide a statistical mechanical analysis of isolated horizons near equilibrium in the grand canonical ensemble. By matching the description of the dynamical phase in terms of weakly dynamical horizons with this local statistical framework, we introduce a notion of temperature in terms of the local surface gravity. This provides further support to the recovering of the semiclassical area law just by means of thermodynamical considerations. Moreover, it allows us to study the radiation process generated by the LQG dynamics near the horizon, providing a quantum gravity description of the horizon evaporation. For large black holes, the spectrum we derive presents a discrete structure which could be potentially observable and might be preserved even after the inclusion of all the relevant transition lines.
Comments: 9 pages, 2 figures

 

[fzero]

He shows that for all pure states of the quantum Rindler horizon it is identically true that
∂A/4 = ∂E/T
The argument that this extends by linearity to superpositions---to mixed states of the quantum Rindler horizon, and large assemblies thereof---is not made explicitly. But a relevant observation is made immediately after equation (20) on page 4:

"Notice that the entropy density is independent of the acceleration a, or equivalently from the distance from the horizon."​

This opens the way to our concluding that ∂A/4 = ∂E/T applies as well to mixed states and collections thereof.

I went through the statistical computation of the entropy in Bianchi's polymer model using the energy constraint. I was wrong when I said that there would be a rescaling of the Lagrange multiplier by a factor of \gamma. The important point is that the energy constraint is not merely equivalent to the area constraint, they are in fact exactly the same. From equation (9) of the present paper (let's call it B12 for Bianchi-2012),

E = \sum_f \hbar\gamma j_f a = \frac{a}{8\pi G} \sum_f A_f = \frac{aA_H}{8\pi G}.

We can rewrite this constraint as

\sum_f j_f = \frac{A_H}{8\pi \gamma G\hbar}.

This is the same as the area constraint used in equation (16) of the polymer paper (B10 for Bianchi-2010), except, as previously discussed, here we are using a slightly different basis where the eigenvalues of |\vec{L}| are j rather than \sqrt{j(j+1)}. You can check that the distribution of states depends only on the degeneracy and not on the precise eigenvalue, so the rest of equ (16) is unchanged.

I'd already gone through all of the math in that section of the paper before realizing that there weren't any numerical differences between the constraints, so I might as well report on the result. The derivation of the entropy only differs in the numerical value of the constants derived there. This is the effect of the different eigenvalue spectrum. For example, the occupation numbers at equilibrium satisfy

p_j \equiv \frac{N_j^*}{N^*} \approx (2j+1) e^{-\mu^* j}.

Imposing the normalization requirement

\sum_j p_j =1

can be done by approximating the sums by an integral. I find that \mu^* is the solution to

\int_0^\infty dx(x+2) e^{-\mu^* (x+1)/2} =1.

This leads to the equation

4(\mu^*+1) e^{-\mu^*/2} = (\mu^*)^2,

which has a numerical solution at

\mu^* \sim 2.086.

This is a little bit different from the value obtained in B10, but in a reasonable neighborhood given the similarity of the normalization constraints.

Similarly, the constant

\alpha^* = \sum_j j p_j = \frac{1}{4} \int_0^\infty dx(x+1)(x+2) e^{-\mu^* (x+1)/2}
= \frac{e^{-\mu^*/2} }{(\mu^*)^3} ( (\mu^*)^2 + 2 \mu^* + 4) \sim 0.486.

The leading term in the entropy is once again

S = \frac{\kappa}{4G\hbar} \frac{\mu^*}{2\pi\gamma} A_H,

so that we require

\gamma =\frac{\mu^*}{2\pi} \sim 0.322.

Presumably the difference between this value of the Immirzi parameter and earlier results is due to the difference in the spacing between the area eigenvalues \sqrt{j(j+1)} vs j. We are effectively using slightly different scales to quantize the area operator.

 

[marcus]

Compliments on giving these papers a close reading, and thanks for sharing what you are finding out.
It occurs to me that Pranzetti's April 2012 paper may actually be to your liking. At least I hope so! Canonical ensemble etc.
==quote page 3 middle of second column==
Namely, if we assume a stationary near-horizon geometry and we use the Unruh temperature βκ = 2π/hbar for our local accelerated observer O, the entropy expression (9) gives exactly S = A/(4l_p²), at the leading order.
==endquote==
http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.0702
here kappa is the local surface gravity, so beta is the Unruh temperature. As one sees, no dependence on Immirzi.
The derivation may conform with your standards. Not sure, but it might.

==quote Pranzetti beginning of page 2==
In this letter, we want to investigate further and more in detail the analogy between a quantum horizon with its punctures and a gas of particles by introducing the main ingredients for a grand canonical ensemble analysis. The basic idea is to regard the bulk and the horizon as forming together an isolated system. The two subsystems are considered separately in thermal equilibrium; then, at some point, a weakly dynamical phase takes place and they interact with each other. This local interaction allows for the possibility of exchange of energy and particles between the two. After such a change of thermodynamic state has taken place, the two subsystems go back to a situation of thermal equilibrium. This picture will be made more precise in the following, where we will concentrate only on the spherically symmetric case. However, let us at this point clarify the framework we are working in: no background structure is introduced at any point, we will work in the quantum gravity regime; no matter is going to be coupled to gravity; the radiation spectrum we will derive is related entirely to emission of quanta of the gravitational field due to dynamical processes described by the LQG approach...
==endquote==

==quote page 2 start of "Entropy" section==
Entropy. Let us now first concentrate on the derivation of the entropy of the gas of punctures (see [18] for the original microcanonical derivation and [19] for a recent review). By working in the grand canonical ensemble— which represents the physically most suitable framework to describe the horizon+bulk system—, it can be shown how the Bekenstein-Hawking semiclassical entropy can be recovered only through thermodynamical considerations. Moreover, the description of the radiation process in the second part of the paper justifies the interpretation of the local notion of surface gravity introduced above as a temperature, which is a fundamental ingredient to recover the semiclassical area law (see below). In this sense, the result of the second part of the paper puts on more solid ground the recent derivation of [16]. This section simply presents a more detailed derivation of the IH entropy in the grand canonical ensemble already performed in [16]. The original part of the paper is contained in the next section.
The grand canonical partition function for the gas of punctures is given by...
===endquote===

Pranzetti is at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitation in a little place called Golm outside Berlin. I wonder whose group he's in. Bianca Dittrich or Dan Oriti probably. I checked. Oriti's group. Pranzetti was a Marseille PhD student before that.

 

[fzero]

Compliments on giving these papers a close reading, and thanks for sharing what you are finding out.
It occurs to me that Pranzetti's April 2012 paper may actually be to your liking. At least I hope so! Canonical ensemble etc.
==quote page 3 second column==
Namely, if we assume a stationary near-horizon geometry and we use the Unruh temperature βκ = 2π/hbar for our local accelerated observer O, the entropy expression (9) gives exactly S = A/(4l_p²), at the leading order.
==endquote==
http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.0702
here kappa is the local surface gravity, so beta is the Unruh temperature.
The derivation may conform with your standards. Not sure, but it might.

The calculation he's referring to in that particular paragraph is a semiclassical one, so it's on par with the one in B12 and Hawking's original one. Someone should probably be able to explain why the semiclassical results seem somewhat universal. I have a feeling that it's just that adding quantum bits of area are the same as what Bekenstein and Hawking were doing back in the 70s. As long as you cook up the right relationship between the energy of the state (being added) and the corresponding area, you will find the same result when you use the Clausius formula.

This is not to say that you don't learn something from these approaches. But don't be confused that the semiclassical computations are as exciting as a quantum treatment that accounts for the right microstates.

The rest of the Pranzetti paper seems to be about developing the grand canonical ensemble for the spin microstates. This is interesting, and something like it is needed to properly treat radiation (he addresses this of course). However, as you can see from his equation (9), the grand canonical formalism is a specific type of correction to the leading term computed by the microcanonical ensemble. So it's probably not immediately relevant to the specific issues I've been discussing.

Addendum: I saw your last edit and believe that the above comments continue to apply. The "thermodynamic" calculation is the semiclassical one. The corrections from the grand canonical ensemble do not affect the leading order entropy computed in the microcanonical formalism at large occupation numbers. The corrections represent quantum corrections due to particle exchange between the horizon and the exterior, so represent subleading corrections. These are likely of smaller order than terms that we've already dropped in the N_j\gg 1 limit.

 

[marcus]

Thanks for the comment on Pranzetti's paper! Not sure exactly what you mean by "semiclassical" though.

You are right that the derivation of S = A/4 (without Immirzi dependence) happens in the first 3 pages.

Indeed the grand canonical ensemble of quantum states of horizon's geometry is set up in the first few equations on page 2, where he gives the "canonical partition function" of quantum states, e.g. equation (3).

There is no hint of "QFT on a curved spacetime" there. Punctures are simply where spin network states go through the horizon. Their edges carry area quantum numbers j.
A class of spin network states is specified by {s_j} in his notation. There s_j is the number of spin network edges with spin label j, which pass thru the horizon.
So the approach is fully background independent. There is no prior geometry. All the geometry is in the spin networks which are quantum states of geometry. Standard in Loop gravity.So he sets up to derive S = A/4 with those equations (2) (3) (4) ...(9)

The fully quantum conclusion is equation (9) where you see the quantum corrections as well as the leading term which has the 1/4 coefficient.

Then to recover the Bek Hawk. result he of course takes a limit so that the quantum corrections go away. That is equation (10) in the next paragraph.

But already before that in equation (9), which is not semiclassical, you see there is no dependence on Immirzi.

Anyway that is how I read it. Do you see equations (2 - 9) as in any way semiclassical?
For me they come entirely within ordinary spin network Loop gravity.

 

[fzero]

I was a bit too fast to comment on the Pranzetti paper. This is for two reasons: 1. I was swayed by his own reference to a semiclassical analysis to fix \beta \bar{\kappa} = 2\pi/\hbar, and 2. My own thermodynamics is quite rusty.

It appears to me that Pranzetti's calculation in the grand canonical ensemble (GCE) is equivalent (there is a question of the role of the large N limit that I comment on below) to the calculation Bianchi made in the microcanonical ensemble (MCE) with the area/energy constraint. In both cases you find the correct leading term in the entropy, but for a fixed value of the Immirzi parameter. In the Bianchi calculation, the fixing of the Immirzi parameter is explicit. In the Pranzetti calculation it is hidden, but he refers to it below his equation (11). I will discuss this more in a bit.

Now, using the MCE is rather transparent. We're aiming to count microstates and not worry about dynamical processes like emission or absorption, so we can fix the number of quanta and energy. To ensure that we're using the correct mixed state, we impose the area constraint and extremize the entropy.

In the GCE, we allow the number of quanta and energy to fluctuate but we use a heat bath to fix the temperature of the system state. We end up getting the same answer for the entropy as before when we fix the average energy to be the appropriate multiple of the energy. The setup is a bit unphysical for a real BH, but for our purposes we can always imagine feeding the right amount of matter into balance the radiation coming out. It also seems to me to be nicer to impose the area constraint dynamically, rather than by hand, but this is more opinion than a serious objection.

However, what the GCE also seems to do for us is let us avoid the large N limit. For Bianchi, the large N limit was not just important to allow us to use the Stirling approximation, but it was also important in obtaining a manageable form for the number of states with the same occupation numbers (\Omega in B10). Pranzetti's use of the GCE seems to remove the need for us to take this limit, at the expense of an extra free parameter, the chemical potential. This leads us naturally to the new conundrum surrounding the Immirzi parameter.

We will work with an area operator that is a mix of the ones that Pranzetti and Bianchi use:

\hat{H} | \{ s_j\}\rangle = \hbar \bar{\kappa} \gamma \sum_j s_j j | \{ s_j\}\rangle .

I am using Pranzetti's notation, but I have set \hbar G = \ell_p^2 for convenience, as well as chosen the Schwinger-type basis of Bianchi to simplify some calculations later.

Now, it could be that I don't understand the state space well enough and there is some inequivalence between the Bianchi and Pranzetti pictures. This would presumably address the large N questions above. Somehow the difference would go away in the large N limit, explaining why they agree. In any case, I will keep going under the assumption that I understand the mechanics of the states, if not their complete motivation.

It will be convenient to define a parameter

\nu = \hbar \beta \bar{\kappa} \gamma.

If we set \beta \bar{\kappa} = 2\pi/\hbar, then we can write the Immrizi parameter as

\gamma = \frac{\nu}{2\pi}.

Now, we can write all thermodynamic quantities in terms of the function

f(\nu) = \sum_j (2j+1) e^{-\nu j} \longrightarrow \frac{4}{\nu^2} (\nu+1) e^{-\nu/2} ~\mathrm{as}~N\rightarrow \infty.

This is the same expression that turned up in the result for the occupation numbers in B10, so I've included the value for the sum that we find in the large N limit.

The relevant equation from Pranzetti is (10), which we write as

f(\nu) = \frac{\bar{N}}{\bar{N}+1} e^{-\beta \mu} .

In general, this is a transcendental equation that determines \nu (equivalently \gamma) in terms of \mu and \bar{N}. In the large \bar{N} limit, the explicit \bar{N} dependence drops out. If we did not wish to take the limit, we could just eliminate \bar{N} using the energy constraint, which is

\frac{\bar{\kappa}}{8\pi G} A = \bar{E} = - \hbar \bar{\kappa} \gamma (\bar{N}+1) \frac{d}{d\nu} \log f.

Now the chemical potential represents the cost in energy to take a particle from the heat bath and place it into the system (the isolated horizon or BH). Physically, we might think that this is related to the surface gravity of the horizon. Perhaps we might think that it is zero, since this is precisely the notion of energy that is ambiguous in a gravitational system. It might be possible to address this by thinking more carefully about how we have to define the GCE. I will probably think a bit more about it, but in any case, the Immrizi parameter now depends implicitly on the chemical potential.

If we set the chemical potential to zero and take the large \bar{N} limit, then we will recover the same numerical solution as in the modified Bianchi calculation

\nu \sim 2.086,~~~\gamma \sim 0.322.

For other values of \mu, we will obtain some other value of \gamma.

This is either strange or expected. On the one hand, it might seem strange that we need to change the quantum of area to accommodate a change in chemical potential. On the other hand, we might think that whatever change we made to the system represents some sort of change in the natural energy scale of the problem and the Immirzi parameter must run.

Anyway, the upshot of all of this is that B10 and Pranzetti look like correct computations for the state spaces they are using. Their results seem to agree qualitatively and quantitatively in the common regime of validity. I still think that B12 is pulling a bit of a fast one by using a pure state, but I understand it to be correct as a semiclassical computation, rather than a purely quantum one.

 

[marcus]

Thanks for the comment on Pranzetti's paper! Not sure exactly what you mean by "semiclassical" though.
...
...
But already before that in equation (9), which is not semiclassical, you see there is no dependence on Immirzi.
...

I was a bit hasty myself (we had company yesterday evening ). What I meant and should have said is that already in equation (9), which is not semiclassical, you can see there is no dependence on Immirzi in the leading term, which is the area term. The other two terms can be considered corrections, that appear in the full quantum version of the entropy equation, namely equation (9).

I would expect there to be some dependence on Immirzi in the second term. Perhaps both, I haven't thought much about it. But it is the leading term that is the area term, where you see the proportionality of the entropy with the area, and that is where you don't get dependence on Immirzi. I should have made that clearer.

BTW just for clarification the μ that appears in the second term of (9) is called the chemical potential. Doubtless familiar to you, Fzero, but others might be reading. The N-bar that appears in the second term is the average number of punctures. I write it Ñ to avoid having to resort to LaTex.

I really like this Pranzetti paper! For convenience here's the link:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.0702
The second term in equation (9) is quite interesting. I think I first saw it in the Ghosh Perez paper last year, but I'm not sure. It is -μβÑ. The β, as he says, can be interpreted as a "generic temperature β for the preferred local observer O hovering outside the horizon at proper distance l, as result..." It seems to be this second term which you are scrutinizing in your above post #56. More power to you .

 

[fzero]

The second term in equation (9) is quite interesting. I think I first saw it in the Ghosh Perez paper last year, but I'm not sure. It is -μβÑ. The β, as he says, can be interpreted as a "generic temperature β for the preferred local observer O hovering outside the horizon at proper distance l, as result..." It seems to be this second term which you are scrutinizing in your above post #56. More power to you .

As it turns out, the leading term proportional to area comes entirely from the \beta \bar{E} term. For the subleading terms we find

-\mu \beta \bar{N} =-\bar{N} \log z = \bar{N} \log f + \bar{N} \log\frac{\bar{N}+1}{\bar{N}},

\log \mathscr{Z}=\log(\bar{N}+1).

So we can write

S = \frac{A}{4G\hbar} + \bar{N} \log f + \log \frac{(\bar{N}+1)^{\bar{N}+1}}{\bar{N}^\bar{N}}.

Now, remember that

(\log f)' = c \frac{A}{\bar{N}+1}

by the energy constraint. We can't explicitly integrate this because \bar{N} is (defined transcendentally as) a function of \nu.

It is interesting to try to compare this to the large N result in B10:

S = \frac{A}{4G\hbar} - \frac{3}{2} \log \frac{A}{G\hbar}.

Naively, it doesn't appear possible to reproduce the \log A correction, since \log f\rightarrow 0in the \mu=0, large \bar{N} limit. Perhaps there is some subtlety in taking these limits.

 

[marcus]

I don't think people are entirely sure what the correction terms are. They all seem to agree that the MAIN term for the entropy is A/4.
And that obviously does not depend on the Immirzi.

And from what i see they expect the correction terms, which arise when you do a full quantum treatment of the BH entropy, to involve the Immirzi.

Bianchi says as much in his recent paper. And if I remember right this is explictly the case both with Ghosh Perez and with Pranzetti.

So this is the picture that is emerging more or less across the board with these young researchers' work on Loop BH.

Supposing they are right and the work is born out, then I think this allows for the Immirzi to run. Run with what? With scale? with energy density?

Then the size of the BH would affect the slight corrections in the formula by which the entropy was calculated.

Maybe the "bare" UV value of Immirzi is, say, 0.274. And she runs to zero when you go to larger and larger scale.

Just speculating
========================

I should copy Pranzetti's equation (9) since that seems to be the main equation we are discussing.

...
BTW just for clarification the μ that appears in the second term of (9) is called the chemical potential. ... The N-bar that appears in the second term is the average number of punctures. I write it Ñ to avoid having to resort to LaTex.

I really like this Pranzetti paper! For convenience here's the link:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.0702
The second term in equation (9) is quite interesting. I think I first saw it in the Ghosh Perez paper last year, but I'm not sure. It is -μβÑ. The β, as he says, can be interpreted as a "generic temperature β for the preferred local observer O hovering outside the horizon at proper distance l, as result..." ...

===quote http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.0702 page 3 equation (9)===

S = (βκ/8πG)A -μβÑ + log curlyZ
==endquote==

curlyZ is defined in equation (2) as a function of the local observer's temperature β and is the grand canonical partition function for the gas of punctures. These are the links of spin networks sticking out thru the BH horizon.

The term (βκ/8πG) turns out to be 1/4, in the appropriate units, with G = hbar = c = 1.
This is when β is seen to be the Unruh temperature associated with the acceleration which the observer must maintain in order to continue hovering at a fixed distance above the horizon, which has surface gravity κ.

I have no particular reason to copy in equation (9) at this point. We have been discussing it for the past I-don't-know-how-many posts. But I just wanted to finally write it in for completeness, for the record so to speak.

 

[fzero]

I don't think people are entirely sure what the correction terms are. They all seem to agree that the MAIN term for the entropy is A/4.
And that obviously does not depend on the Immirzi.

You can't quite say that the leading contribution to the entropy doesn't depend on the Immirzi parameter. Either it does, or a new parameter is introduced into the model that serves to fix the Immirzi parameter mid-calculation. In particular, we have roughly 4 different modern methods of state counting that have appeared in the literature:

1. SU(2) Chern-Simons with level k\rightarrow \infty, microcanonical ensemble: entropy depends on \gamma as

S = \frac{c_1}{\gamma} \frac{A}{4G}.

2. Microcanonical ensemble with area/energy constraint: entropy depends on \gamma as

S = \frac{c_2}{\gamma} \frac{A}{4G},

where c_2 is set at a critical value via the constraint. Value agrees with approach 1 above.

3. SU(2) CS with finite level, MCE: entropy does not depend explicitly on \gamma, but after extremizing \gamma depends on the level (see, for example, the discussion around fig 6 in http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.2723v1). Value quickly converges to k=\infty result for k\geq 4, so consistent with 1 and 2.

4. Grand canonical ensemble with area/energy constraint, chemical potential \mu introduced: entropy does not depend on \gamma.
Thermodynamics, including energy constraint, fix \gamma in terms of \mu. In \mu =0, large A limit, recover value of \gamma consistent with approaches 1 and 2.

And from what i see they expect the correction terms, which arise when you do a full quantum treatment of the BH entropy, to involve the Immirzi.

Bianchi says as much in his recent paper. And if I remember right this is explictly the case both with Ghosh Perez and with Pranzetti.

Engle et al, in 1103.2723 linked above, claim that

"As we have just seen, k does modify the leading but does not modify the subleading corrections of the entropy. In that sense, the logarithmic corrections seems to be universal and independent of the Immirzi parameter"

But I think they're making the mistake of forgetting that their critical exponent \alpha is defined in terms of \gamma. Essentially the ratio of \alpha and \gamma must take a critical value when computing the entropy.

Supposing they are right and the work is born out, then I think this allows for the Immirzi to run. Run with what? With scale? with energy density?

Then the size of the BH would affect the slight corrections in the formula by which the entropy was calculated.

Maybe the "bare" UV value of Immirzi is, say, 0.274. And she runs to zero when you go to larger and larger scale.

Running of the Immirzi parameter already has consequences at lowest orders in the approaches outlined below. Extending the observations of Larsen and Wilzcek and Jacobsen, the space of running parameters is (G,\gamma, \mu, k, \ldots). The fact that critical parameters appear in most approaches also gives another effective quantity that will be a function of scale. I certainly don't know enough to speculate on the consequences.