Infinite number of Hamiltonian constraints

marcus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
24,753
Reaction score
794
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510011

"Recently the Master Constraint Programme (MCP) for Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) was launched which replaces the infinite number of Hamiltonian constraints by a single Master constraint. The MCP is designed to overcome the complications associated with the non-Lie-algebra structure of the Dirac algebra of Hamiltonian constraints and was successfully tested in various field theory models. For the case of 3+1 gravity itself, so far only a positive quadratic form for the Master Constraint Operator was derived. In this paper we close this gap and prove that the quadratic form is closable and thus stems from a unique self-adjoint Master Constraint Operator. The proof rests on a simple feature of the general pattern according to which Hamiltonian constraints in LQG are constructed and thus extends to arbitrary matter coupling and holds for any metric signature. With this result the existence of a physical Hilbert space for LQG is established by standard spectral analysis."

he likes to finish what he has begun.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=774478#post774478
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
It's great to see that the Master Constraint Programme (MCP) for Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) is making progress. It's amazing that the authors of this paper have been able to prove the quadratic form is closable and thus stems from a unique self-adjoint Master Constraint Operator. This is an important step towards establishing the existence of a physical Hilbert space for LQG and shows the dedication and perseverance of the authors in finishing what they have begun.
 
I seem to notice a buildup of papers like this: Detecting single gravitons with quantum sensing. (OK, old one.) Toward graviton detection via photon-graviton quantum state conversion Is this akin to “we’re soon gonna put string theory to the test”, or are these legit? Mind, I’m not expecting anyone to read the papers and explain them to me, but if one of you educated people already have an opinion I’d like to hear it. If not please ignore me. EDIT: I strongly suspect it’s bunk but...
I'm trying to understand the relationship between the Higgs mechanism and the concept of inertia. The Higgs field gives fundamental particles their rest mass, but it doesn't seem to directly explain why a massive object resists acceleration (inertia). My question is: How does the Standard Model account for inertia? Is it simply taken as a given property of mass, or is there a deeper connection to the vacuum structure? Furthermore, how does the Higgs mechanism relate to broader concepts like...
Back
Top