Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Lqg is still local lorentz invariant?

  1. Dec 29, 2008 #1
    How i can see the right lorentz invariance in lqg?
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 29, 2008 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    This may help:

    Reconcile Planck-scale discreteness and the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction
    Carlo Rovelli, Simone Speziale
    12 pages, 3 figures
    (Submitted on 25 May 2002)
    "A Planck-scale minimal observable length appears in many approaches to quantum gravity. It is sometimes argued that this minimal length might conflict with Lorentz invariance, because a boosted observer could see the minimal length further Lorentz contracted. We show that this is not the case within loop quantum gravity. In loop quantum gravity the minimal length (more precisely, minimal area) does not appear as a fixed property of geometry, but rather as the minimal (nonzero) eigenvalue of a quantum observable. The boosted observer can see the same observable spectrum, with the same minimal area. What changes continuously in the boost transformation is not the value of the minimal length: it is the probability distribution of seeing one or the other of the discrete eigenvalues of the area. We discuss several difficulties associated with boosts and area measurement in quantum gravity. We compute the transformation of the area operator under a local boost, propose an explicit expression for the generator of local boosts and give the conditions under which its action is unitary."
  4. Dec 30, 2008 #3
    yes but i can't understand how i can split lorentz group.
    namely how is possible that so(1,3)~so(3)X Something.
  5. Jan 7, 2009 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    You are right, LQG is not Lorentz covariant. Time and space are not treated in the same way. In particular, in LQG (just as in any canonical approach to quantum gravity) there is a problem of time, while there is no problem of space. Even if you accept the solution of that problem in terms of a relational time, it is still true time is not treted in the same way as space.
  6. Jan 16, 2009 #5
    Shouldn't this then lead one to the conclusion, that LQG is dead?
  7. Jan 16, 2009 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    No, because

    1.length is a state that arises as a an observable that is bounded below by the plack scale.
    2.lorentz invariance arises as an average of the observables at larger scale.

    Thus, length is meaningless by itself, all that exists are observables in a "nothingness", which by interacting each other, make space time appears.

    Demystifier is right in what he says, because in the nothingness, there is a kind of absolute QM tick tack, thus, time is a paramter in this case, not a dimension. Time as a dimension shows up as a kind of constrain between the observables.
  8. Jan 16, 2009 #7
    Most importantly, LQG makes here a prediction, thus becomes testable and finally, deserves the status of a scientific theory !
  9. Jan 17, 2009 #8
    What is the prediction for the scale of Lorentz violations?
  10. Jan 17, 2009 #9
    Can anyone explain me how the predicted dependence on frequency for the speed of light is related to the Lorentz-invariance issue?
  11. Jan 17, 2009 #10
    As far as I know, there is no agreement in the present state of the theory. On needs to construct specific low energy models. There has been some claims by Smolin and other enthusiastic people. I meant to emphasize that one should not conclude the theory is "dead" but on the contrary that it is one way it becomes "alive" !

    On Loop Quantum Gravity Phenomenology and the Issue of Lorentz Invariance
  12. Jan 17, 2009 #11
    So, the testability of the theory is highly model dependent? That is, there may be a number of possibilities?

    Is it possible that the Lorentz violating effects only occur at the Planck scale?
  13. Jan 17, 2009 #12
    In the present state of development, yes, I think so.
    Yes, and in fact if I remember correctly, Rovelli in his book gives arguments why, beyond naive expectations, Lorentz invariance might even still hold down to the quantum of length.
  14. Jan 19, 2009 #13
    So, how is this different from string theory?

    So, the predictions might only be testable in principle? Again, how is this different from string theory?
  15. Jan 19, 2009 #14
    i would like remember that the quantum field theory is model dependent too. and then?
  16. Jan 19, 2009 #15


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Then quantum field theory, or more precisely, the standard way of quantization of fields, is Lorentz invariant. Even quantum gravity can be quantized in this way, and then quantum gravity is Lorentz invariant too. However, this method of quantization of gravity has other problems (non-renormalizability, background dependence, ...), which is why one searches for other approaches, like LQG and string theory, which solve some problems but cause some new ones.
  17. Jan 19, 2009 #16
    I don't think this is different from string theory.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook