I Spin Foam models in Loop Quantum Gravity

asimov42
Messages
376
Reaction score
4
Hi all,

I fairly basic question about spin foam models in loop quantum gravity. I just want to verify that spin foams represent effectively represent all of spacetime (in a quantum form), and that the idea is that general relativity can be obtained in the classical limit? Not sure if that's correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Also, what does is mean, roughly, for time to be absent in LQG theories - isn't time required to recover relativity? (I believe this is known as the "problem of time')
 
Spin foams are like Feynman diagrams, which represent steps used to calculate a quantity called the "transition amplitude" that is used in normal quantum mechanics (ie. not quantum gravity) to calculate the probability of transitioning in time from state A to state B.

Regarding "time" in spin foams, Jonathan Engle says in his review "It is clear, therefore, that in quantum gravity one cannot interpret the Feynman path integral in terms of time evolution, as was done in (4). In fact, the interpretation is dierent. Instead, in the interpretation of the path integral, the time evolution map is replaced by a projector P onto [solutions of the Hamilton constraint]." https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.4636 (p9)

I think the hope is that general relativity can be obtained in the classical limit, but I don't think that has yet been shown. Nor whether the theory is a consistent quantum theory.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke, Giulio Prisco and naima
Indeed the Hamiltonian constraint generates time gauge transformations and solving it is solving a gauge transformation equation.

Physical meaning to transition amplitudes and time evolution however can be obtained, when it comes to background independent scattering amplitudes for example.

There the idea is to study the boundary amplitude, namely a path integral over a finite space-time region, seen as a function of the boundary value of the field, peaked on a semi-classical state which, of course, includes the gravitational field itself. The usual meaning to spatital-temporal separation can be obtained from the state of the gravitational field on the boundary of the spacetime region considered.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke and Giulio Prisco
Can we say that the path integral over all spin foams that connect an input spin network I to an output spin network O is the probability amplitude PA(I,O) for I to be followed by O in a time sequence that emerges from the theory?
Can we say that the O with the highest P (PA squared in the usual sense) is the probable successor of I in a time sequence that emerges from the theory?
Can we say that this defines a time sequence in the classical limit?
If so, what is a good reference? I have been looking but everyone seems to keep as ambiguous as possible.
 
julian said:
There the idea is to study the boundary amplitude, namely a path integral over a finite space-time region, seen as a function of the boundary value of the field, peaked on a semi-classical state which, of course, includes the gravitational field itself. The usual meaning to spatital-temporal separation can be obtained from the state of the gravitational field on the boundary of the spacetime region considered.
Is there a good reference on this?
 
Thread 'LQG Legend Writes Paper Claiming GR Explains Dark Matter Phenomena'
A new group of investigators are attempting something similar to Deur's work, which seeks to explain dark matter phenomena with general relativity corrections to Newtonian gravity is systems like galaxies. Deur's most similar publication to this one along these lines was: One thing that makes this new paper notable is that the corresponding author is Giorgio Immirzi, the person after whom the somewhat mysterious Immirzi parameter of Loop Quantum Gravity is named. I will be reviewing the...
I seem to notice a buildup of papers like this: Detecting single gravitons with quantum sensing. (OK, old one.) Toward graviton detection via photon-graviton quantum state conversion Is this akin to “we’re soon gonna put string theory to the test”, or are these legit? Mind, I’m not expecting anyone to read the papers and explain them to me, but if one of you educated people already have an opinion I’d like to hear it. If not please ignore me. EDIT: I strongly suspect it’s bunk but...
Back
Top