QFT with respect to general relativity

[jacksonb62]

After recently researching about Quantum Field Theory and more specifically gravitons, I am slightly confused with how this theory of the gravitational force fits in with general relativity. I know it hasn't disproved it so there must be some connection. Do gravitons in 11 dimensions cause curvature in 4 dimensional space-time that we observe as gravity? I've been thinking hard about this one and its been stumping me

 

[jtbell]

We don't yet have a generally-accepted theory that combines general relativity and quantum field theory. People are working on different approaches (e.g. string theory, loop quantum gravity) but none of them has won out.

 

[jacksonb62]

So string theory is postulating that gravitons are closed loops that can move between branes correct? Would this possibly explain why they would cause curvature in the 4 dimensions that we can observe? If the particles travel between extra dimensions it seems to me that the effects in our 4 dimensions would then be what we observe as general relativity. Just a thought

 

[mitchell porter]

A few comments in lieu of a comprehensive explanation...

If you have read about general relativity, you may be aware that the curvature of space is described by the metric, and the metric is described by a tensor field.

In quantum field theory, particles (like the graviton) are associated with fields; they arise by applying the laws of quantum mechanics, such as the uncertainty principle, to the field.

The original way to get a quantum theory of gravitons, as pioneered e.g. by Feynman, is as follows: You take the dynamical metrical field of general relativity. You express it as a deviation from the constant metric of flat space (Minkowski space). Then you treat this deviation itself as the graviton field.

From this perspective, the graviton is a quantized deviation from flat space.

You mention 11 dimensions and string theory. Well, before we get to string theory, let's talk about 11 dimensions. The original 11-dimensional theory was the 11-dimensional form of "supergravity" (which can also be defined for a lower number of dimensions). In supergravity, you have an 11-dimensional metric, an extra "3-form" field that is a generalized version of the electromagnetic field, and then a "gravitino" field which is a matter (fermion) field. So at the quantum level, you have the 11-dimensional graviton (which can be defined in the way I mentioned above), an 11-dimensional photon-like gauge boson, and an 11-dimensional fermion.

If you were trying to get the real world out of 11-dimensional supergravity, you would probably treat 7 of the dimensions as "compact" or "closed", with a radius much less than that of an atomic nucleus. Fundamentally, you still only have the graviton, the 3-form field, and the gravitino. However, the way that e.g. the graviton manifests itself depends on whether it's traveling in one of the extra, compact, closed directions, or whether it's traveling in one of the 3 "large" directions of space. Gravitons traveling in the large directions show up as gravity in 3 dimensions, while gravitons circulating in the compact directions can show up as other forces. This was part of the agenda of pre-string "Kaluza-Klein" unification efforts - the other forces would be explained as resulting from higher-dimensional gravity. (That idea goes back to about 1921.)

In M-theory, along with the fields I've described, you have "M-branes" (of 2 and 5 dimensions) which interact with the graviton, the 3-form, and the gravitino fields. A string is really an M2-brane with one of its internal directions wrapped around the compact dimensions. Anyway, these complexities aside, if we go right back to where we started, the key point is that quantum fields have particles, whose presence indicates a deviation from the ground state of the field, and the graviton is the particle of the metric field, indicating a deviation from flat space.

 

[tom.stoer]

some people think the the artificial split into a static background metric + quantized fluctuations on top of it cause severe problems for the whole program, and that no such background must be introduced

 

[Harv]

some people think the the artificial split into a static background metric + quantized fluctuations on top of it cause severe problems for the whole program, and that no such background must be introduced

As discovered long ago, this naïve perturbative approach to obtaining a quantum theory of gravity that reduces to General Relativity in the low-energy limit by simply quantizing the linearized gravitational field doesn`t work because General Relativity cannot be fully understood as just a theory of a self-interacting massless spin-2 field. There is only one known consistent perturbative approach to quantum gravity that does have the proper low-energy limit, and that`s string theory. In fact, at this point there is no nonperturbative approach (e.g., LQG etc) to quantum gravity that is known to achieve this.

 

[tom.stoer]

There is only one known consistent perturbative approach to quantum gravity that does have the proper low-energy limit, and that`s string theory.

The problem is that even with string theory you do not get fully dynamical quantized spacetime b/c spacetime (the classical background) is frozen in this approach. So even if perturbative string theory is consistent, it misses an essential feature of GR. Other non-perturbative and background independent approaches like LQG or AS seem to do a better job regarding fully dynamical spacetime and background independence, even if they fall short w.r.t. to the overall picture (but I know that I will never reach consensus here, neither with the loop nor with the string community)

 

[stglyde]

Even without going to Planck scale. I think the search for physics of wave functions of the metric is a separate thing, isn't it? Or how to quantize the metric.. this is not related to Planck scale, correct?

 

[atyy]

Even without going to Planck scale. I think the search for physics of wave functions of the metric is a separate thing, isn't it? Or how to quantize the metric.. this is not related to Planck scale, correct?

No. It is only near the Planck scale and above that it is uncertain what a consistent theory of quantum gravity is. See http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0108040 p17, the discussion starting from "Note that even though the perturbation theory described here does not provide an ultimate quantum theory of gravity, it can still provide a good effective theory for the low energy behavior of quantum gravity."

 

[Dickfore]

There is a well developed theory called Quantum Field Theory in curved space-time. It treats the dynamics of "matter fields" on a background metric caused by massive bodies. Then, you can go ahead and calculate the stress-energy tensor due to these fields and use it in the Einstein's field equations.

In this respect, the "gravitational field" is treated classically, i.e. it develops according to Einstein's equations which minimize the action of the gravitational field. However, the sources of the gravitational field, namely, the stress-energy tensor of various particles is treated in a fully quantum fashion.

This partial theory predicts emission of particle-antiparticle pairs from the exterior of an event horizon of a black hole. The emitted spectrum looks just like a blackbody spectrum, with the temperature of the black hole being inversely proportional to its Schwarzschild radius (smaller black holes emit more). This causes evaporation of black holes.

It is interesting to notice that what was a static, or stationary, problem in General Relativity (we were solving for a metric that does not depend explicitly in time. As a necessary condition, the total mass-energy enclosed inside the Schwarzschild radius remains fixed, and the radius remains constant), has become an explicitly time-dependent problem, because as the black hole evaporates and looses energy, its radius shrinks.

To me, this is very similar to the failure of Classical Electrodynamics when applied to the atomic system, or simply by its own predictions. Namely, in the Rutherford model, the electron used to be in a dynamical balance because the attractive Coulomb force caused centripetal acceleration keeping it in a stable orbit around the nucleus. However, when we apply the laws of Classical Electrodynamics to the model, the accelerated electron, being a charged particle, should emit electromagnetic radiation, and spiral down to the nucleus in a very short time (of the order of 10^-8 s). Nevertheless, this never happens. It took the genius of Niels Bohr to postulate that there are particular orbits on which the electron does not emit electromagnetic radiation. Thus, he essentially modified Classical Electrodynamics. The criterion by which these orbits were chosen was the quantization of the angular momentum of the electron around the nucleus, which also modified the laws of Classical Mechanics. Of course, it was later shown that the latter corresponds to so called semi-classical quantization conditions of the Quantum Mechanics. It took the development of Quantum Electrodynamics to resolve the mystery of the former prediction. QED also solves the absurdity of the prediction of classical electrodynamics that a charged particle should exponentially accelerate once it was accelerated in some external electric field due to its own radiation reaction force.

Up to now, there has been no conclusive evidence that Hawking radiation exists.

 

[suprised]

No. It is only near the Planck scale and above that it is uncertain what a consistent theory of quantum gravity is.

Not necessarily. Quantum gravity effects are expected to be relevant at much larger distances than the Planck scale. Relatedly, non-perturbative, non-local/long-distance effects are likely to be relevant at the horizon of black holes, which can be very far away from the singularity at the origin.

See eg. here for a readable exposition: http://arXiv.org/pdf/1105.2036

Citation:

These notes have given sharpened statements that this unitarity crisis is a long-distance issue, and there is no clear path to its resolution in short-distance alterations of the theory...

While specific frameworks for quantum gravity have been proposed, they do not yet satisfactorily resolve these problems. Loop quantum gravity is still grappling with the problem of approximating flat space and producing an S-matrix. Despite initial promise, string theory has not yet advanced to the stage where it directly addresses the tension between the asymptotic and local approaches, or is able to compute a unitary S-matrix in the relevant strong gravity regime. Because of the long-distance and non-perturbative nature of the problem, it is also not clear how it would be addressed if other problems of quantum gravity were resolved, for example if supergravity indeed yields perturbatively finite amplitudes.
​

 

[friend]

No. It is only near the Planck scale and above that it is uncertain what a consistent theory of quantum gravity is. See http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0108040 p17, the discussion starting from "Note that even though the perturbation theory described here does not provide an ultimate quantum theory of gravity, it can still provide a good effective theory for the low energy behavior of quantum gravity."

Forgive me if this seems ignorant, but why should it be necessay to quantize the gravitational field? I mean aren't we really only interested in how the two fit together, where one comes from in terms of the other? I don't see that as necessarily requiring quantizing the gravitational field. Perhaps gravity is a emergent property. Or perhaps the metric is continuous, though curved, all the way down to the particle level. What phenomina or logic necessitates quantizing the gravitational field?

 

[tom.stoer]

Forgive me if this seems ignorant, but why should it be necessay to quantize the gravitational field?

First reason: the Einstein equations read "metric-dependent terms = matter-dependent term"; b/c the r.h.s. is quantized, the l.h.s. should be quantized, too.

 

[friend]

First reason: the Einstein equations read "metric-dependent terms = matter-dependent term"; b/c the r.h.s. is quantized, the l.h.s. should be quantized, too.

The quantization procesure of the matter-dependent term relies on a specific, continuous space-time background metric which is not quantized. This argues that there is no quantized gravity.

 

[tom.stoer]

The quantization procesure of the matter-dependent term relies on a specific, continuous space-time background metric which is not quantized. This argues that there is no quantized gravity.

No, it means that quantization is incomplete. There MUST be quantized gravity, otherwise the equation is ill-definied.

 

[martinbn]

No, it means that quantization is incomplete. There MUST be quantized gravity, otherwise the equation is ill-definied.

So, if the equation is modified there may be no need for quantization of gravity.

 

[tom.stoer]

So, if the equation is modified there may be no need for quantization of gravity.

Einstein equations couple gravity to matter - and we know that matter is described by QFT. So how do you want to change the equation and couple gravity to non-quantized matter?

 

[stglyde]

No. It is only near the Planck scale and above that it is uncertain what a consistent theory of quantum gravity is. See http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0108040 p17, the discussion starting from "Note that even though the perturbation theory described here does not provide an ultimate quantum theory of gravity, it can still provide a good effective theory for the low energy behavior of quantum gravity."

I meant.. for low energy limit far from the Planck scale.. should the metric be quantized.. or should it only be quantized near the Planck scale, and why?

 

[tom.stoer]

As I said, we expect the geometry to be quantized for several reasons - mainly consistency reasons. Quantum effects would then be small far away from the Planck scale, i.e. quantum gravity would be the UV completion of an effective QFT on smooth classical spacetime (however there are proposals for so-called fuzzball black holes in string theory which indicate deviations from classical metric even far away from the Planck sale)

 

[suprised]

Actually to be fair, there are some proposals out that challenge the conventional wisdom. One is classicalization and self-completeness. This posits that if one tries to probe the Planck scale, eg by an energetic scattering process, then one creates black holes before one ever enters into the quantum gravity regime. These are classical objects, so in this sense one never would be able to probe quantum gravity near the Planck scale: the theory protects itself. Pumping in more energy just makes the black holes larger and even more classical.

This is not undisputed, however, but some version of this may be true, perhaps only in particular kinematical regimes; see the ref. in my previous post. The key point is unitarity, not renormalizeability.

Nevertheless, for consistency, the whole theory needs to be quantum mechanical. This is independent of whether one can probe the Planck scale by scattering experiments or not.

 

[martinbn]

Einstein equations couple gravity to matter - and we know that matter is described by QFT. So how do you want to change the equation and couple gravity to non-quantized matter?

I don't want that, just saying that may be the equation can be changed so that gravity need not be quantized. You, yourself, say that the equation has to be changed (the whole theory), but you use the equation (that has to be changed) as the reason why gravity should be quantized. I am only saying that that is not very convincing.

 

[Dickfore]

I think you guys are running in circles with your discussion. Would you please define what you mean when you say an equation is "quantized", and similar terms. What is "classical" then?

 

[martinbn]

Would you please define what you mean when you say an equation is "quantized", and similar terms.

Where was that said?

 

[Dickfore]

Where was that said?

First reason: the Einstein equations read "metric-dependent terms = matter-dependent term"; b/c the r.h.s. is quantized, the l.h.s. should be quantized, too.

Also, if you do a search of this thread for "quantized", you will see it is applied very liberally for various concepts. Could you define what you mean by "quantized" before you start discussing?

 

[martinbn]

First reason: the Einstein equations read "metric-dependent terms = matter-dependent term"; b/c the r.h.s. is quantized, the l.h.s. should be quantized, too.

Ah, but it does NOT say anything about an equation being quantized, right?

Also, if you do a search of this thread for "quantized", you will see it is applied very liberally for various concepts. Could you define what you mean by "quantized" before you start discussing?

I could.

 

[Dickfore]

Ah, but it does NOT say anything about an equation being quantized, right?

What does r.h.s or l.h.s. stand for?!

I could.

Please do.

 

[suprised]

There seems a lot of confusion. So let's do a little thought experiment. Just scatter two electrons - one from the left, the other coming from the right, in some rest frame.

Quantum mechanics is used to describe the scattering matrix. This is like a black box which tells you what comes out from this scattering process, given the incoming particles. And you want to have unitary scattering, so that probabilities do not exceed one. So far so good, I guess nobody objects that QM is the right concept here.

To make things easier, the electrons have an offset, or impact parameter, which is large, say 1km. Ordinarily one wouldn't expect that something would be peculiar or problematic.

But I didnt tell you that the kinetic energy of the electrons equals to the mass of a large star. A star with such a mass would form a black hole. So what's going to happen is that when the electrons are still, say 2km apart, a large black hole forms. But you don't really want to know the details now; all that matters is the "black box", or S-Matrix, and the question is, without caring about the details of what happens in the black box, what are the final states? Is the scattering unitary? This is obviously a quantum mechanical question. And if the scattering is unitary, this implies that the black hole must be able to decay. So Hawking radiation must necessarily occur, if quantum mechanics is supposed to be valid.

Note that this involves quantum mechanics and gravity, and ultra-plankian energies, but still these questions are insensitive to the Planck scale: small distances are not relevant here. So we talk about highly non-perturbative non-local effects.

Related problems occur when considering loops of virtual black holes; do these induce non-unitary scattering for low-energy particle physics? Better not!

Obviously one needs to describe gravity and quantum mechanics in one single coherent framework, in order to address this kind of questions. AFAIK a suitable framework to describe this quantitatively is still lacking. Although I know of some attempts using AdS/CFT.

 

[friend]

As I said, we expect the geometry to be quantized for several reasons - mainly consistency reasons. Quantum effects would then be small far away from the Planck scale, ...

Planck scale this and Planck scale that... How can we be sure that any of the constants of nature and thus the Planck scale should remain the same as we approach ever more tightly curled up spacetimes? I mean, if we cannot see inside a black hole or cannot see the big bang, then it seems we are just guessing.

 

[Fra]

There seems a lot of confusion. So let's do a little thought experiment. Just scatter two electrons - one from the left, the other coming from the right, in some rest frame.

Quantum mechanics is used to describe the scattering matrix. This is like a black box which tells you what comes out from this scattering process, given the incoming particles. And you want to have unitary scattering, so that probabilities do not exceed one. So far so good, I guess nobody objects that QM is the right concept here.

I see a big problem with this closed black box view - it is valid ONLY when the scattering picture is which is when you have an inert observer that can make observations as well as preparations from a distance where the coupling to the black box is is weak/controlled in the sense that the observer itself (which is a generalized "background") does not severly deform during the interaction.

The other problem is that it also only makes sense when ensembles can be realized.

In cosmological pictures, where the observer is strongly coupled, the observers entire ENVIRONMENT (ie remainder of the universe) is the effective "black box", and here most of the premises in the scattering picture fails. Also an inside observer can hardly encode arbitrary amounts of inforamtion - something that is usually not cared about in a good way in the scattering pictures as I see it.

It's no news that my own view is that QM formalism as it stands is unlikely to be sufficient here. That's not to say the scattering matrix is interesting, it is. But I think it's a good abstraction of observed reality only in limiting/special case.

/Fredrik

 

[suprised]

In cosmological pictures, where the observer is strongly coupled, the observers entire ENVIRONMENT (ie remainder of the universe) is the effective "black box", and here most of the premises in the scattering picture fails. Also an inside observer can hardly encode arbitrary amounts of inforamtion - something that is usually not cared about in a good way in the scattering pictures as I see it.

It's no news that my own view is that QM formalism as it stands is unlikely to be sufficient here. That's not to say the scattering matrix is interesting, it is. But I think it's a good abstraction of observed reality only in limiting/special case.

Well I am not talking about cosmological pictures, but just a transplanckian scattering experiment, if you wish with asymptotic oberservers. So what is the S-Matrix for this scattering? It should have a concrete answer, and better be unitary.

If you dispute the valitidy of QM and the S-Matrix - well QM has been proven to be extremely robust against deformations and so far no one, AFIAK, was able to replace it by something else. It is very common (because cheap) to say "according to my opinion QM needs somehow be modified", but very difficult to actually do it ...

 

[suprised]

I think you guys are running in circles with your discussion. Would you please define what you mean when you say an equation is "quantized", and similar terms. What is "classical" then?

Why circles? This just means it's an equation involving operators. And this makes sense only if the complete equation, and not just part of it, becomes operator valued.

 

[Dickfore]

Why circles? This just means it's an equation involving operators. And this makes sense only if the complete equation, and not just part of it, becomes operator valued.

So, what is the meaning of the operators g_{\mu \nu}, and R_{\mu \nu}?

 

[friend]

So, what is the meaning of the operators g_{\mu \nu}, and R_{\mu \nu}?

It turns them into probability distributions instead of absolute values.

 

[Dickfore]

It turns them into probability distributions instead of absolute values.

Please elaborate. Are you saying the metric tensor becomes a probability distribution? If yes, whose random variable it is a distribution of? Or, is the metric tensor a (multivariate) random variable. In this case, what determines its distribution?

 

[tom.stoer]

In canonically quantized GR g and R are field operators with a huge gauge symmetry and therefore w/o a direct physical meaning.

 

[Dickfore]

In canonically quantized GR g and R are field operators with a huge gauge symmetry and therefore w/o a direct physical meaning.

What do you mean by "gauge symmetry" of GR?

Also, if you canonically quantize the gravitational field, what are the canonical commutation relations?

 

[tom.stoer]

Have a lokk at the ADM formulation of GR

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0405109
The Dynamics of General Relativity
R. Arnowitt (Syracuse Univ.), S. Deser (Brandeis Univ.), C. W. Misner (Princeton Univ.)
(Submitted on 19 May 2004)
Abstract: This article--summarizing the authors' then novel formulation of General Relativity--appeared as Chapter 7 of an often cited compendium edited by L. Witten in 1962, which is now long out of print. Intentionally unretouched, this posting is intended to provide contemporary accessibility to the flavor of the original ideas. Some typographical corrections have been made: footnote and page numbering have changed--but not section nor equation numbering etc.

The 'gauge symmetry' is related to the diffeomorphism invariance

 

[Finbar]

To make things easier, the electrons have an offset, or impact parameter, which is large, say 1km. Ordinarily one wouldn't expect that something would be peculiar or problematic.

But I didnt tell you that the kinetic energy of the electrons equals to the mass of a large star. A star with such a mass would form a black hole. So what's going to happen is that when the electrons are still, say 2km apart, a large black hole forms.

Suprised,

How can you be certain a black hole forms for the two electrons? This is not a kinematical regime that we have any experimental knowledge of and there is not an established theory at transplanckian energies. You cannot simply apply general relativity to two electrons with these energies.

It is a fact that one can only state when a black hole is formed with knowledge of the complete dynamical history of the spacetime. Yes it is true that initially when the two electrons are 2km apart that they should begin to collapse. But since they are transplanckian as they get closer to each other the quantum gravity effects will become important and it is possible that the collapse will cease to continue. So although an apparent horizon will form it is possible that once the electrons reach Planckian distances their coupling to the gravitational field will be vastly altered and a classical spacetime is unlikely to be a valid assumption.


To make rash statements about the formation of black holes one must at least take three quantities into account:

1) The total energy

2) The impact parameter

3) The number of degrees of freedom

The important thing in your example is the number of degrees of freedom is very small, just those of two electrons. Roughly speaking GR is only valid when the number of degrees of freedom is very large. So the normal hoop conjecture rational is good when we assume that there is a large number of degrees of freedom and so we only concern ourselves with 1) and 2). For a star this is fine but in your example it is clearly not.

 

[tom.stoer]

How can you be certain a black hole forms for the two electrons? This is not a kinematical regime that we have any experimental knowledge of and there is not an established theory at transplanckian energies. You cannot simply apply general relativity to two electrons with these energies.

I think this is what he wants to show: the usual reasoning of GR and even perturbative QG do no longer apply b/c what you mean by

coupling to the gravitational field will be vastly altered

does not emerge from this ansatz.

What does the asymptotic safety program say about transplanckian scattering?

 

[suprised]

How can you be certain a black hole forms for the two electrons? This is not a kinematical regime that we have any experimental knowledge of and there is not an established theory at transplanckian energies. You cannot simply apply general relativity to two electrons with these energies.

Actually one cannot be certain and I should perhaps have said: “So, _according to standard expectations_, what's going to happen is that when the electrons are still, say 2km apart, a large black hole forms.”

There was a paper by t' Hooft in the 80's supporting this idea.
Indeed, this is also the viewpoint of the more recent “classicalization” or “UV-self-completeness” approach to gravity by Dvali & Co, see eg:

arXiv:1006.0984v1:

Physics of Trans-Planckian Gravity
Authors: Gia Dvali, Sarah Folkerts, Cristiano Germani
(Submitted on 4 Jun 2010)

But this is by no means undisputed, and AFAIK no one really knows what is going to happen under these circumstances. So the question about the S-Matrix is a very important one.

… Yes it is true that initially when the two electrons are 2km apart that they should begin to collapse. But since they are transplanckian as they get closer to each other the quantum gravity effects will become important and it is possible that the collapse will cease to continue. So although an apparent horizon will form it is possible that once the electrons reach Planckian distances ….

With the large impact parameter they will never reach Planckian distances, that was the whole point. I presented this, in the context of the thread, as an example where quantum gravity effects may become important, despite one is _not_ probing distances close to the Planck scale; so this has little to do with the UV completion of gravity.

There are indications that inside of black holes macroscopic quantum effects occur (horizonless “fuzzball states”), that are extremely non-local. So what could happen in the scattering process, roughly speaking, is that one huge extended fuzzball state is created, which decays afterwards in a perfectly unitary way; and no classical black hole is ever formed.

To make rash statements about the formation of black holes one must at least take three quantities into account:

1) The total energy

2) The impact parameter

3) The number of degrees of freedom

The important thing in your example is the number of degrees of freedom is very small, just those of two electrons. Roughly speaking GR is only valid when the number of degrees of freedom is very large.

Indeed so, classical GR may not be relevant at all here. This what I would tend to believe. But again, the classicalization approach tries to argue otherwise. Note (tom) that this approach vehemently denies asymptotic safety.

 

[tom.stoer]

Indeed so, classical GR may not be relevant at all here. This what I would tend to believe. But again, the classicalization approach tries to argue otherwise. Note (tom) that this approach vehemently denies asymptotic safety.

Do you have a good reference about classicalization?

Isn't AS somthing like "classicalization" as well? It's an effective action (but as such a 'classical' expression) taking into account quantum effects via renormalized couplings - but no new structures or interactions (at least if the usual truncation remains valid).

 

[suprised]

Do you have a good reference about classicalization?

Isn't AS somthing like "classicalization" as well? It's an effective action (but as such a 'classical' expression) taking into account quantum effects via renormalized couplings - but no new structures or interactions (at least if the usual truncation remains valid).

I guess the paper cited above and refs. therein, eg. ref.3, is a good start.

No, these authors claim that the regime where AS would take place can never be probed; nothing can ever become weaker coupled than standard gravity.

 

[atyy]

Suprised, from the renormalization point of view, unless there is asymptotic safety, new degrees of freedom are expected at high enough energies (and small impact parameter).

But from the unitarity point of view, from the Giddings paper you linked, there seems to be a problem at high energies and large impact parameter, so he says unitarity is really the problem. But shouldn't the two problems somehow be linked, ie. if the new degrees of freedom are properly incorporated, the problem should go away?

 

[suprised]

Suprised, from the renormalization point of view, unless there is asymptotic safety, new degrees of freedom are expected at high enough energies (and small impact parameter).

But from the unitarity point of view, from the Giddings paper you linked, there seems to be a problem at high energies and large impact parameter, so he says unitarity is really the problem. But shouldn't the two problems somehow be linked, ie. if the new degrees of freedom are properly incorporated, the problem should go away?

Yes this is likely related and the expectation is of course that the problem goes away in a proper formulation of quantum gravity, but how does this work precisely? There were some attempts from AdS/CFT, but I don't quite recall now as to how far this could be pushed.

On the other hand, the classicalization people claim that new degrees of freedom are not required, since the ultra-high energy regime maps back to classical physics.

 

[Finbar]

With the large impact parameter they will never reach Planckian distances, that was the whole point. I presented this, in the context of the thread, as an example where quantum gravity effects may become important, despite one is _not_ probing distances close to the Planck scale; so this has little to do with the UV completion of gravity.

If we assume that a black hole does form then they do reach Planckian distances when they collapse towards the singularity. The two electrons are attracted to each other my gravity so they will not remain 2km apart. So we can only say that the UV effects can be ignored if they are hidden behind the horizon. But the existence of the horizon really depends on the whole dynamical history of the electrons. So we can't really assume that a black hole does form. So I would say that the idea that we can ignore the UV is actually circular logic.

 

[friend]

I just had a thought, perhaps this is the best place for it.

Considering the nature of spacetime and QFT, as I understand it, virtual particles pop into existence, travel about, and then come back together such that the uncertainty principle is not violated. But how much space do the virtual particles travel through before coming back together? And how can you define space without events in the form of particle trajectories that establish the concept of relative distances? It may be that we cannot define one without the other. And the ultimate equations will have to account for both in a single equation.

 

[Dickfore]

Have a lokk at the ADM formulation of GR

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0405109
The Dynamics of General Relativity
R. Arnowitt (Syracuse Univ.), S. Deser (Brandeis Univ.), C. W. Misner (Princeton Univ.)
(Submitted on 19 May 2004)
Abstract: This article--summarizing the authors' then novel formulation of General Relativity--appeared as Chapter 7 of an often cited compendium edited by L. Witten in 1962, which is now long out of print. Intentionally unretouched, this posting is intended to provide contemporary accessibility to the flavor of the original ideas. Some typographical corrections have been made: footnote and page numbering have changed--but not section nor equation numbering etc.

The 'gauge symmetry' is related to the diffeomorphism invariance

What specifically should I look for? I don't feel like going through a whole chapter of a textbook.

 

[tom.stoer]

The canonical variables and the constraints are defined in section 3-2 and chapter 4

 

[friend]

Considering the nature of spacetime and QFT, as I understand it, virtual particles pop into existence, travel about, and then come back together such that the uncertainty principle is not violated. But how much space do the virtual particles travel through before coming back together? And how can you define space without events in the form of particle trajectories that establish the concept of relative distances? It may be that we cannot define one without the other. And the ultimate equations will have to account for both in a single equation.

So I'm having trouble with how some quantum gravity programmes make an effort to quantize gravity without matter or other particles of any kind. I guess they expect to couple matter into the equations at a later time. But gravity is the geometry of spacetime, and it seems the only thing that established distance in reality is the relative distance between particles. So what relavance is there to quantizing geometry without respect to particles. Even virtual particles would at least give us a a source of particles between which there is distance, right? So it seems we have to quantize gravity with respect to QFT or we're just quantizing geometry as an exercise.

 

[tom.stoer]

So I'm having trouble with how some quantum gravity programmes make an effort to quantize gravity without matter ... gravity is the geometry of spacetime ... the only thing that established distance in reality is the relative distance between particles

Good point.

But of course we know that there are vacuum solutions in GR with non-trivial dynamics (dS spacetime, black holes, brill waves, ...), so it's not totally unreasonable.