Theory of Loop Quantum Gravity

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the theory of Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG), exploring its implications for the nature of space and time, particularly during the early universe. Participants examine the theory's foundations, its predictions, and the challenges it faces in relation to general relativity and cosmology.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants discuss the idea that space and time emerge from gravitational quanta, suggesting that space may not have existed during the Planck era, leading to questions about the initial singularity.
  • Others highlight the lack of arbitrary assumptions in LQG, emphasizing its basis in general relativity and quantum mechanics, while noting the absence of definitive predictions that can be empirically validated.
  • A participant mentions historical challenges in defining LQG, particularly regarding the Hamiltonian constraint in older canonical approaches, and contrasts this with more recent spin foam formulations.
  • Concerns are raised about whether certain spin foam proposals yield general relativity as an approximation, particularly in relation to the flatness problem of spacetime.
  • There is a suggestion that the mathematics of LQG, particularly through spin networks, can provide insights into the curvature of spacetime and gravitational fields.
  • Some participants express curiosity about the future development of LQG and its potential to address questions about the early universe.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of curiosity and skepticism regarding LQG, with no consensus on its validity or implications. Multiple competing views on its foundational aspects and predictions remain unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in the current understanding of LQG, including unresolved mathematical steps and the dependence on specific formulations. The discussion reflects ongoing debates about the compatibility of LQG with established theories like general relativity.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying theoretical physics, particularly in the fields of quantum gravity, cosmology, and the foundational aspects of space and time.

Lutz-F
Messages
9
Reaction score
3
TL;DR
Some questions about LQG and the earliest periods of our universe
From the german Version of Carlo Rovellis book "La realtà non è come ci appare. La struttura elementare delle cose" I have learned about the theory of Loop Quantum Gravity that
  • space and time arise through the interactions of gravitational quanta,
  • the space quanta have discrete volume spectra,
  • there is a lower limit for size,
  • there is a repulsive force at minimum size (of space quanta?).
But in this book there was very few information about the consequences of the theory for the earliest periods of our universe. Just that calculations suggest a Big Bounce. In the Big Bang Theory, during the Planck era only the quanta of the primal force existed, but no specific gravitational quanta. Does that mean that space did not exist during the first epoch of our universe? At the end of the Planck era, the forces split into GUT force and gravitation. Was this the first time space was created? Did all the space quanta start with the minimum size based on the Planck length, and was the following process due to the repulsive force therefore similar to the second part of a Big Bounce?

Or on the other hand, are these theories mutually exclusive? But for me it's hard to understand that there should have been an infinite series of universes with Big Bounces as transitions. Because the infinite series seems to end with the accelerated expansion of our universe and so we would live in a very special cosmos that differs from all the others.

By the way: no space in the Planck epoch => no size => no initial singularity ?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: atyy
Physics news on Phys.org
It's a pity that nobody knows about the LQG. Are there any arguments against this theory?

What I like about this theory and what I have read in Carlo Rovellis book:
  • The theory has no arbitrary assumptions and is only based on general relativity, quantum mechanics and compatibility with the standard model.
  • The theory is well-defined even without supersymmetric particles.
  • The "simple" structure of all that exits: The whole world consists of overlapping covariant quantum fields.
  • Singularities do not occur.
But Carlo Rovelli also wrote that so far there have only been circumstantial evidence, but no predictions that could be proved to be correct.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: atyy
Lutz-F said:
Are there any arguments against this theory?

In older approaches to try to define LQG, there was a problem with writing down a well-defined theory that satisfies the Hamiltonian constraint. These older approaches are called "canonical" LQG, because "canonical" is a term in physics relating to defining theories by a Hamiltonian.

A more recent approach is to try to define LQG using spin foams, which is often called "covariant" LQG. There have been proposal to define a theory, but it has been unclear whether these give rise to general relativity as an approximation in the appropriate regime. General relativity is our best current theory of gravity, so LQG must agree with general relativity in the appropriate regime. One example is the flatness problem. General relativity says that spacetime is curved, but some analyses suggested that the EPRL and FK spin foam proposals produce flat spacetime.

Here is some recent work trying to clarify the issue.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.14468
Discrete gravity dynamics from effective spin foams
Seth K. Asante, Bianca Dittrich, Hal M. Haggard
"Using a simple toy model, we will show that for path integrals with weakly imposed second class constraints, the semiclassical limit - ##\bar{h} \rightarrow 0## does not, in general, reproduce the classical dynamics. The flatness problem in spin foams is just one example of this more general issue.
A possible way to resolve this issue is to update the definition of the semiclassical limit."

https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.00988
Semiclassical Limit of New Path Integral Formulation from Reduced Phase Space Loop Quantum Gravity
Muxin Han, Hongguang Liu
"Our result proves that the new path integral formulation has the correct semiclassical limit, and indicates that the reduced phase space quantization in LQG is semiclassically consistent. Based on these results, we compare this path integral formulation and the spin foam formulation, and show that this formulation has several advantages including the finiteness, the relation with canonical LQG, and being free of cosine and flatness problems."
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lutz-F
Thanks for your advice. I should have continued studying mathematics instead of economics... :biggrin:

So it seems that Carlo Rovelli has been a little bit vague and optimistic in describing the part of the theory that relates to the curvature of spacetime. He wrote in the above mentioned book that in the spin network a loop is formed by following the links from node to node back to the starting node. The direction of an arrow that has been moved in a loop provides information about the curvature of spacetime. The mathematics of the theory determines the curvature for each closed loop in the graph. This allows the curvature of spacetime and thus the strength of the gravitational field to be estimated.

I am curious how the LQG will develop further. And maybe I'll get some more information about LQG and the beginning of our universe too.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: atyy
Lutz-F said:
I am curious how the LQG will develop further.
It depends on how well the LQG learns to knit its loops. I would advise them to wind the loops on the Clifford torus.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K