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

No constraints

  1. May 12, 2005 #1

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0505052

    Authors: Rodolfo Gambini, Jorge Pullin
    Comments: 8 pages, one figure, fifth prize of the Gravity Research Foundation 2005 essay competition
    Report-no: LSU-REL-051105

    We argue that recent developments in discretizations of classical and quantum gravity imply a new paradigm for doing research in these areas. The paradigm consists in discretizing the theory in such a way that the resulting discrete theory has no constraints. This solves many of the hard conceptual problems of quantum gravity. It also appears as a useful tool in some numerical simulations of interest in classical relativity. We outline some of the salient aspects and results of this new framework.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 12, 2005 #2

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    good find. they call their approach "consistent discretizations". Ashtekar lists it as one of the most promising 3 or 4 attempts to handle QG dynamics. as you say they solve the problem of the QG Hamiltonian constraint by getting rid of it! Put simply, they make time discrete and make time-evolution advance in discrete steps (but in a way they say is consistent with the classical picture).
    Gambini and Pullin are in the minority, but they do get recognized and they do attract some young researchers.
    For example, "Edgar1813" who sometimes posts at PF is a post-doc who has worked with them and is interested in the consistent discr. approach.
    About recognition, Jorge Pullin is one of the invited speakers at this year's Loop conference
    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=74889
     
  4. May 12, 2005 #3

    Stingray

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Wow. Very interesting. I'll have to read more about it.
     
  5. May 12, 2005 #4

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    At the bottom page 3, it states, These extra degrees of freedom characterize
    the freedom to choose the lagrange multipliers (the lapse and shift). since the
    lapse is determined dynamically, this implies that the "time steps" taken by the
    evolution change over time.

    Im not sure i understand this, but it seems "open ended",or is there a constraint
    to the evolution?
     
  6. May 12, 2005 #5

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    the size of the time step varies but apparently stays small, so that their method is good for numerical models (computer simulations of evolving geometry) they say, as well as for theory.

    I dont understand what keeps the size of the time step small, why should it stay "in bounds"? to better understand this one has to go back and read earlier papers, I guess, because this paper is a brief summary of their work that skips over much detail
     
  7. May 12, 2005 #6

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I guess it is related to the vagueness of clocks, if one can not have
    a perfect clock the time intervals have a bounded variance.
     
  8. May 12, 2005 #7

    Stingray

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Although I haven't read this in any detail yet, the lapse is a dimensionless number. It's more of a normalized time step than an actual one. The real time steps are basically lapse*dt for an arbitrary dt (just make it small enough). In any case, I doubt that there's any particular mechanism to keep the lapse from growing too large. Even defining what exactly is meant by that varies considerably from problem to problem (and even between different regions in the same problem).

    In the past, some people in numerical relativity have tried to postulate evolution equations for the lapse and shift. These often resulted in lapses going either to zero or infinity in finite time - either of which would crash the program. It would be interesting to see if these problems go away in Gambini and Pullin's framework.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: No constraints
Loading...