Master Constraint and canonical LQG

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ensabah6
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Constraint Lqg Master
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Master Constraint program in the context of canonical Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) and its relationship to spin foam models. Participants explore the relevance and potential developments in this area, questioning the status of the Master Constraint approach compared to spin foam theories.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express surprise that the Master Constraint program is still being pursued by Thiemann and colleagues, suggesting that it was thought to be superseded by spin foam approaches.
  • Others note that Thiemann's work appears to relate the Master Constraint to spin foam models, indicating potential connections between the two frameworks.
  • A participant references specific papers that discuss the implications of second class secondary constraints on the theory and how the Master Constraint can be related to the Rigging Map, suggesting a path integral formulation may be possible.
  • One participant emphasizes the importance of relating canonical approaches to spin foams and either proving their equivalence or identifying the limitations of such a relationship.
  • Thiemann's assertion that path integral formulations for gauge theories must originate from canonical formulations to ensure the correct measure is highlighted, with agreement from some participants on this perspective.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the viability and relevance of the Master Constraint program in relation to spin foam models. There is no consensus on whether the Master Constraint approach is still valid or if it has been effectively replaced by spin foam theories.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations in the discussion include the dependence on specific definitions of constraints and the unresolved nature of the relationship between canonical and spin foam approaches. The implications of the referenced papers are not fully explored, leaving open questions regarding their conclusions.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to researchers and students in the fields of quantum gravity, theoretical physics, and those specifically studying Loop Quantum Gravity and spin foam models.

ensabah6
Messages
691
Reaction score
0
So Thieman and co are still working on the Master Constraint program for canonical, non-SF, LQG?

I thought that approach was dead and given way to SF ala Rovelli
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Looks like they are relating it to spin foams.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.3428
"The corrections are especially severe if the theory suffers from second class secondary constraints. In a companion paper we compute these corrections for the Holst and Plebanski formulations of GR on which current spin foam models are based. "

http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.3431
"Then the Master Constraint DID for those Abelian constraints can be directly related to the Rigging Map and therefore has a path integral formulation. "

Maybe they will make tom.stoer happy?
 
Last edited:
The weird thing here it is that Marcus did not open a thread with over 9000 insightful posts...
 
I think Thiemann is doing what I expected to be relevant for both canonical and PI QG. Either relate the canonical approach to spin foams and proof equivalence - or demonstrate where and why this fails.

Thiemann writes "Path integral formulations for gauge theories must start from the canonical formulation in order to obtain the correct measure." I fully agree with him. For me any path integral is always a derived object.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
9K
Replies
9
Views
7K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K