Hamiltonian Weak Gravitational Field - Learn Free Particle Theory

Andre' Quanta
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
In weak field regime i know that it is possible to quantize the gravitational field obtaining a quantum theory of free particles, called gravitons, which is very similar to the one for the electtromagnetic field.
Do you know some book in wiich i can study this theory?
In anycase what is the expression for the Hamiltonian of this theory in terms of creations and destructions operators?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'd suggest starting with Donoghue's lecture notes http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9512024. The first part of DeWitt's http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.2445, as well as the original papers by Feynman and DeWitt might be useful at some point too, but I think that the effective field theory point of view is important and those older references predate that whole perspective, so might not be the best pedagogy anymore.
 
  • Like
Likes Andre' Quanta
I was interested in the Hamiltonian operator for the theory, is it the same as the one of the free electromagnetic field?
 
Andre' Quanta said:
I was interested in the Hamiltonian operator for the theory, is it the same as the one of the free electromagnetic field?

The field operator in linearized gravity has spin 2 so it cannot be the same. I don't know off hand any place to find an explict expression for the Hamiltonian. It's best if you learn what the Lagrangian is, then you can see if it's easy to make a Legendre transformation to write a Hamiltonian. The Lagrangian is more useful for covariant QFT, though you might have some particular reason to study the Hamiltonian.
 
The weak gravitational field, the usual h mu nu, satisfies the simple D' Alemebert equation, so the lagrangian is the one of Klein-Gordon replacing the scalar field with the tensorial one in our theory: this will be valid also for the Hamiltonian so i would say the Hamiltonian that i am looking for is simply the same as the one used for the free Klein-Gordon field and the free electromagnetic field, am i wrong?
ps: there would be difference in some costant for the dimensionality, but we can neglect it, i am only looking for a formal expression
 
Maybe you want to use the Wheeler-DeWitt and linearize. Otherwise, you can start with the linearized Lagrangian and you'll have to apply constraints for the gauge conditions etc.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
Back
Top