James Hartle, Lev Okun
Recent postings by James Hartle and by Lev Okun---both papers are somewhat on the philosophical side, and have a bit of historical perspective. Both Hartle and Okun should perhaps be revered as elder statesmen. Hartle was born in 1939 and Okun in 1929.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602013
Generalizing Quantum Mechanics for Quantum Spacetime
James B. Hartle (University of California, Santa Barbara)
31 pages, 4 figures, latex, contribution to the 23rd Solvay Conference, The Quantum Structure of Space and Time
"Familiar textbook quantum mechanics assumes a fixed background spacetime to define states on spacelike surfaces and their unitary evolution between them. Quantum theory has changed as our conceptions of space and time have evolved. But quantum mechanics needs to be generalized further for quantum gravity where spacetime geometry is fluctuating and without definite value. This paper reviews a fully four-dimensional, sum-over-histories, generalized quantum mechanics of cosmological spacetime geometry. This generalization is constructed within the framework of generalized quantum theory. This is a minimal set of principles for quantum theory abstracted from the modern quantum mechanics of closed systems, most generally the universe. In this generalization, states of fields on spacelike surfaces and their unitary evolution are emergent properties appropriate when spacetime geometry behaves approximately classically. The principles of generalized quantum theory allow for the further generalization that would be necessary were spacetime not fundamental. Emergent spacetime phenomena are discussed in general and illustrated with the example of the classical spacetime geometries with large spacelike surfaces that emerge from the 'no-boundary' wave function of the universe. These must be Lorentzian with one, and only one, time direction. The essay concludes by raising the question of whether quantum mechanics itself is emergent."
====================
a key reference, in the Hartle paper, is
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0512200
Observables in effective gravity
Steven B. Giddings, Donald Marolf, James B. Hartle
43 pages
We address the construction and interpretation of diffeomorphism-invariant observables in a low-energy effective theory of quantum gravity. The observables we consider are constructed as integrals over the space of coordinates, in analogy to the construction of gauge-invariant observables in Yang-Mills theory via traces. As such, they are explicitly non-local. Nevertheless we describe how, in suitable quantum states and in a suitable limit, the familiar physics of local quantum field theory can be recovered from appropriate such observables, which we term `pseudo-local.' We consider measurement of pseudo-local observables, and describe how such measurements are limited by both quantum effects and gravitational interactions. These limitations support suggestions that theories of quantum gravity associated with finite regions of spacetime contain far fewer degrees of freedom than do local field theories."
this paper has half a dozen citations to work by Carlo Rovelli
13, 14, 15, 20, 42, 46
also about the same number of citations to papers by Abhay Ashtekar
I would say that a central theme of these two Hartle papers is BACKGROUND INDEPENDENCE the need for quantum observables to be defined in a diffeomorphism invariant way.
Hartle presents this in a PALATABLE way. To me he comes across as a reformer but with a tactful restrained manner. He is actually saying stuff not very different from Lee Smolin in
The Case for Background Independence but he says it in a soothing way that does not step on anyone's toes.
All through Hartle section 7 he is talking generalities about something where Renate Loll has tried specifics-----but instead of CITING Loll and Ambjorn work, he puts a footnote where he says "Regge" and cites a paper of Ruth Williams (previous generation triangulation gravity).
I guess to say "Loll" at the 23rd Solvay conference (select old boys chosen by David Gross) would have sounded a jarring note.
Here is Hartle's page 14 footnote with the Ruth Williams citation:
"
9 Perhaps, most naturally by discrete approximations to geometry such as the Regge calculus (see, e.g. [43, 44]) "
What he is essentially describing there, in section 7, is an approach that Loll has worked out. But seems unaware of this.
================
I think the Hartle paper could be an important contribution for DIPLOMATIC reasons.
It articulates a reform position but nicely, avoiding backlash. It is admirably intelligent and well-reasoned. Its faults (not explicitly pointing out developments in the non-string QG community) can be considered to be its merits.
=======================
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0602037
The Concept of Mass in the Einstein Year
L.B. Okun
19 pages, Presented at the 12th Lomonosov conference on Elementary Particle Physics, Moscow State University, August 25-31
"Various facets of the concept of mass are discussed. The masses of elementary particles and the search for higgs. The masses of hadrons. The pedagogical virus of relativistic mass."
(another by Lev Okun is
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0602036)
===============
while I can still edit, I will tack on notice of a new paper by Thanu Padmanabhan
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602117
this is just a pedagogical cosmology paper, but he has written interesting articles on QG, so I am inclined to flag it.