Does this paper prove GR emerge from LQG?

In summary, the paper "Emergence of General Relativity from Loop Quantum Gravity" by Chun-Yen Lin introduces matter into the equation and shows that LQG with matter can lead to GR in the low energy limit. This approach may be easier than trying to solve LQG without matter, but it could still have important implications for understanding quantum gravity in our universe. However, there may be a gap in the argument due to the unproven assumption of the existence of a certain state.

Does this paper prove GR emerge from LQG?


  • Total voters
    4
  • #1
ensabah6
695
0
Does this paper prove GR emerge from LQG with matter?

A common criticism of LQG is that despite intense research, no semiclassical limit has been shown to connect GR with LQG in the low energy limit. And hence, it is not even a candidate theory of quantum gravity.

This paper


http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.0554
Emergence of General Relativity from Loop Quantum Gravity
Chun-Yen Lin (University of California at Davis)
7 pages, 2 figures
(Submitted on 3 Dec 2009)
"I show that general relativity emerges from loop quantum gravity, in a relational description of gravitation field in terms of coordinates defined by matter. Local Dirac observables and coherent states are constructed for an explicit evaluation of the dynamics. The dynamics of large scales conforms with general relativity, up to the corrections near singularities."
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
ensabah6 said:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.0554
Emergence of General Relativity from Loop Quantum Gravity
Chun-Yen Lin (University of California at Davis)
7 pages, 2 figures
(Submitted on 3 Dec 2009)
"I show that general relativity emerges from loop quantum gravity, in a relational description of gravitation field in terms of coordinates defined by matter. Local Dirac observables and coherent states are constructed for an explicit evaluation of the dynamics. The dynamics of large scales conforms with general relativity, up to the corrections near singularities."

He makes the problem easier by introducing matter.
That is not necessarily bad, but it makes the problem different. In fact, it looks to me like a smart move, making for an interesting paper!
After all, Cosmologists use the microwave background, the light from near-evenly dispersed ancient matter in a somewhat similar way---it gives a criterion for something being at rest, and a kind of mark to measure motion relative to. It helps describe a preferred time-slicing.
Maybe it was a good idea of Chun-Yen to introduce matter.

But that said, it does change the problem. He solved an easier problem than the one you seem to be talking about.

I think it's great, but I don't see any way I can answer on your poll. There is no place where it says he solved an easier version of the problem. None of the answers you have listed seem right or to make sense.

Anyway Chun-Yen is looking good. For now he is just a PhD student at Davis working on his thesis. I hope he gets invited to give a seminar talk here (Davis is just 50 miles up highway 80 from us). I'd certainly go.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
marcus said:
He makes the problem easier by introducing matter.
That is not necessarily bad, but it makes the problem different. In fact, it looks to me like a smart move, making for an interesting paper!
After all, Cosmologists use the microwave background, the light from near-evenly dispersed ancient matter in a somewhat similar way---it gives a criterion for something being at rest, and a kind of mark to measure motion relative to. It helps describe a preferred time-slicing.
Maybe it was a good idea of Chun-Yen to introduce matter.

But that said, it does change the problem. He solved an easier problem than the one you seem to be talking about.

I think it's great, but I don't see any way I can answer on your poll. There is no place where it says he solved an easier version of the problem. None of the answers you have listed seem right or to make sense.

Anyway Chun-Yen is looking good. For now he is just a PhD student at Davis working on his thesis. I hope he gets invited to give a seminar talk here (Davis is just 50 miles up highway 80 from us). I'd certainly go.

Ok, but does he solve then the easier version, which is
LQG + matter has GR in low-energy regime, and quantum corrections that match LQC in the Planck regime + matter?
 
  • #4
marcus said:
I think it's great, but I don't see any way I can answer on your poll. There is no place where it says he solved an easier version of the problem. None of the answers you have listed seem right or to make sense.

I actually think geometry cannot make sense without matter, so I like that part, at least naively. I of course don't know if the claims of this paper are right, since I haven't followed the mathematical details. But I think the paper itself points out a gap in its argument, which is the unproven assumption of the existence of a certain state, so I checked "no".
 
  • #5
The derivation of that paper is to appear in reference 12. But I believe he derived correctly, otherwise the name of his advisor would be a little bit torn because of the kind of acknowledgments he made.
 
  • #6
atyy said:
I actually think geometry cannot make sense without matter, so I like that part, at least naively. I of course don't know if the claims of this paper are right, since I haven't followed the mathematical details. But I think the paper itself points out a gap in its argument, which is the unproven assumption of the existence of a certain state, so I checked "no".

I agree -- since our universe has matter, if he shows LQG + matter = GR in the low energy limit, it is relevant to our universe. If LQG + matter makes predictions that are testable say on CMB that deviate from either SM or GR alone, and these predictions are born out, the other case is just hypothetical.

marcus said:
He makes the problem easier by introducing matter.
That is not necessarily bad, but it makes the problem different. In fact, it looks to me like a smart move, making for an interesting paper!
After all, Cosmologists use the microwave background, the light from near-evenly dispersed ancient matter in a somewhat similar way---it gives a criterion for something being at rest, and a kind of mark to measure motion relative to. It helps describe a preferred time-slicing.
Maybe it was a good idea of Chun-Yen to introduce matter.

But that said, it does change the problem. He solved an easier problem than the one you seem to be talking about.
What would be the advantage in solving the harder problem of LQG without matter gives rise to GR without matter in the low energy limit?
Do we know GR applies in a universe without matter? Maybe matter is needed for spacetime to shape and curve in accordance with GR, not the other way around.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
  • #8
atyy said:
It seems the Immirzi parameter is set to i, which is different from the choice in http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3465. Does this matter?

I think Ed Witten's objections might apply regarding kodama state -- Andrew Randanomo had a couple of papers which generalizes immirizi to a real number which he argues then that Witten's objections in analogy to chern-simons wavefunction

# ^ Hideo Kodama (1988). "Specialization of Ashtekar's Formalism to Bianchi Cosmology". Progress of Theoretical Physics 80 (6): 1024. doi:10.1143/PTP.80.1024.
# ^ a b Lee Smolin (2002). "Quantum gravity with a positive cosmological constant". arΧiv:hep-th/0209079 [hep-th].
# ^ Edward Witten (2003). "A Note on the Chern-Simons and Kodama Wavefunctions". arΧiv:gr-qc/0306083 [gr-qc].
# ^ a b c Andrew Randono (2006). "Generalizing the Kodama State I: Construction". arΧiv:gr-qc/0611073 [gr-qc].
# ^ a b c Andrew Randono (2006). "Generalizing the Kodama State II: Properties and Physical Interpretation". arΧiv:gr-qc/0611074 [gr-qc].
 
  • #9
marcus said:
I think it's great, but I don't see any way I can answer on your poll. There is no place where it says he solved an easier version of the problem. None of the answers you have listed seem right or to make sense.
.

If the poll stated "Does this paper prove GR emerge from LQG with matter?"

how would you answer?

thanks
 
  • #10
ensebelah, all coherent formulations of horava gravity do not yield GR at IR, but GR + dark cold matter. What do you think of that?
 
  • #11
MTd2 said:
ensebelah, all coherent formulations of horava gravity do not yield GR at IR, but GR + dark cold matter. What do you think of that?

Since our universe could be described as GR + dark cold matter in the Lambda-CDM I'd say it's consistent with known observations. So definitely promising. Possibly economical.
 
  • #12
ensabah6 said:
If the poll stated "Does this paper prove GR emerge from LQG with matter?"

how would you answer?

thanks

I'd say that this paper is a 7-page paper which states that the details will appear in reference [12], a longer paper by Chun-Yen that is in preparation. This is mathematics, so details are essential.

So I'd conclude that you are groping in the right direction. The poll question should include *with matter*, and also the poll is premature---the right time to ask would be when you see the complete proof, and people have had a chance to react. Like when reference [12] comes out Perimeter will probably invite Chun-Yen to visit and give a talk, and people like Laurent will be sitting listening and asking questions, and we will get a kind of stereoscopic in depth idea. Right now all one can have is a hunch.

My hunch is...well you could make a poll about hunches at this point :biggrin:
My hunch is that Steve Carlip is really tops, and he is advising and directing ChunYen research, and my hunch is that reference [12] WILL appear within 8 or 9 months and that it will be solid work, and (now counting chickens before hatched) that ChunYen will go present a seminar talk somewhere visible, and quite likely it will go over well.

So we will know in 9 or 10 months, and the reason I am feeling so optimistic about this now is that from my perspective ChunYen gets a lot of initial credibility just by being a PhD student of Carlip.
I heard Carlip give a seminar at Berkeley, in a seminar run by Horava, with Horava drilling him with questions and sounding a bit miffed from time to time. That was back in September or so, about 3 months back. I got a really good impression of Carlip.
And John Baez sent his PhD student Derek Wise, after Derek got his PhD, up to Davis to postdoc with Carlip. He could have gone to Europe or Canada or Penn State. It says something. Plus there are all of Carlip's respected book-and-paper outputs.
I am registering that Davis is a place where good work is being done.

You know they are also doing Loll-style CDT research there? With their own software, not Loll's, which means they get some algorithmic implementation independence.
Anyway at present we can just poll our hunches, but I'm feeling optimistic.

===EDIT TO REPLY TO NEXT POST===
MTd2 I don't know the physical meaning of Immirzi smaller than one! That is the range where the EPRL spinfoam model agrees with the FK spinfoam model. People often specify that 0 < immirzi < 1 because it makes things simpler, because it doesn't make any difference whether you are Freidel-Krasnov or Engle-Pereira-Rovelli-Livine in that case, the models agree and give the same result. But I don't know if there is a clear physical meaning. What did you have in mind?
 
Last edited:
  • #13
I want to make an observation, but first I have to ask a question:

What is the meaning of Immirzi parameter modulus smaller than 1?
 

Related to Does this paper prove GR emerge from LQG?

1. What is the main focus of this paper?

The main focus of this paper is to examine whether General Relativity (GR) can emerge from Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG), which is a proposed theory of quantum gravity.

2. What evidence does the paper provide for GR emerging from LQG?

The paper provides a mathematical framework for understanding the relationship between GR and LQG, using concepts from both theories. It also presents a number of calculations and simulations that support the idea that GR can indeed emerge from LQG.

3. How does this paper contribute to the ongoing debate between GR and LQG?

This paper adds to the ongoing debate by providing a new perspective and approach to understanding the relationship between GR and LQG. It offers a potential resolution to the incompatibility between these two theories and opens up new avenues for further research and discussion.

4. What are the potential implications of this paper's findings?

If this paper's findings are confirmed, it could have significant implications for our understanding of the fundamental laws of physics. It could also have practical applications in fields such as cosmology and quantum computing.

5. What are some limitations or criticisms of this paper?

Some limitations or criticisms of this paper may include the specific assumptions and simplifications made in the mathematical framework, as well as the reliance on simulations and calculations rather than direct empirical evidence. Additionally, some may argue that the paper does not fully address all the complexities and implications of the relationship between GR and LQG.

Similar threads

  • Beyond the Standard Models
8
Replies
264
Views
16K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
2
Replies
60
Views
6K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top