What is the Precise Meaning of Canonical in Quantum Gravity Context

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The term "canonical" in the context of "canonical quantum gravity" refers specifically to the Hamiltonian approach to quantization, as established in the ADM paper by Arnowitt, Deser, and Misner around 1970. This approach involves promoting Hamiltonian functions and canonically conjugate variables, such as A(x) and E(x), to operators acting on a Hilbert space of physical states. The original formulation of Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) was developed in the 1990s, utilizing a 3D spatial slice and defining quantum states of geometry through spin-networks. The discussion also highlights the distinction between canonical and covariant formulations of gravity theories.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Hamiltonian mechanics and canonical quantization
  • Familiarity with Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) concepts
  • Knowledge of classical field theories such as Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD)
  • Basic grasp of differential geometry and manifold theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the ADM formalism in general relativity and its implications for canonical quantum gravity
  • Study the role of spin-networks in Loop Quantum Gravity and their mathematical formulation
  • Explore the differences between canonical and covariant formulations of quantum field theories
  • Investigate the historical development of quantum gravity theories and key papers in the field
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, particularly those specializing in quantum gravity, theoretical physicists exploring the foundations of quantum mechanics, and researchers interested in the mathematical structures of field theories.

inflector
Messages
344
Reaction score
2
What is the Precise Meaning of "Canonical" in Quantum Gravity Context

I keep seeing "canonical" in the context of the expression "canonical quantum gravity" and it is clear the meaning has a precise definition. But I haven't seen it articulated anywhere and a search doesn't bring up anything useful, although it does bring up a surprising number of old PH threads. I know what the word means, in general, but nowhere do I see it described specifically in the context as used in the term "canonical quantum gravity."

What precisely does "canonical" mean as a descriptor for quantum gravity?

From context it seems to mean something like: "using a straightforward/naive/uncomplicated/standard quantization strategy," but clearly that's not the precise definition. If possible, I'd like a two types of answers. First, in laymen's terms and second in more precise mathematical/physics language.

Or is it as simple as a gravity theory that uses "canonical quantization?" It seems to be something more specific than that. But if this is all it means, then what precisely does "canonical quantization" mean in the context of the history of LQG development?

As always, any pointers to good papers or references are appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


"canonical" means nothing else but canonical quantization, i.e. promoting the Hamilton function, "canonically conjugate variables" [like x p; in the context of LQG A(x) and E(x)] plus their Poisson brackets to operators acting on a Hilbert space of physical states.

The first steps are not so much different from canonical quantization as applied to other field theories like QED and QCD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_quantization
 


I hope some other people will answer. My simple view is that there are two well-established formats for a quantum field theory---the Hamiltonian format and the Path Integral (or sum over histories, also called "covariant" because it is 4D)

Canonical is just a codeword for the Hamiltonian approach. The basic picture involves choosing a spatial slice. I think it is just an historical accident that they used the word "canonical"----having to do with the time-honored mathematics of "canonically conjugate pairs" of variables.

Classical theories can be put either in canonical or in covariant form. If I'm not mistaken the first time GR was put into canonical (i.e. "3+1 D" rather than "4D") format was around 1970 by Arnowitt Deser Misner---the socalled ADM paper. It is on arxiv.

I could be wrong, there could have been an earlier Hamiltonian formulation of GR, before ADM.

LQG was originally given a canonical formulation, circa 1990. There was a 3D spatial slice, quantum states of geometry were defined on the set of all 3D connections* (states of geometry in effect meant states of 3D geometry. States were described by spin-networks. More to talk about, like the form and role of the Hamiltonian in that setup, but I'll stop here.)

Then in late 1990s people began to talk about an equivalent covariant (i.e. 4D) formulation using spinfoams. That being the evolution-track of a spin-network. Again "covariant" is serving as a codeword---essentially for the feature that in that approach you DON'T focus on a 3D slice.

Offhand I can't think of any references. Maybe someone else can give a more concise, better organized account, and some references.

*A connection is a manifold's parallel-transport function---how tangent vectors pitch and roll as you push them around. The possible connections on a manifold describe the geometries just like the possible metrics do. It's two alternative handles on geometry. The distance function (metric) is one and the connection is another. The set of possible connections on the manifold is one type of "configuration space" or set of possible geometric configurations.

Loops and multilooped spin-networks were originally introduced as a way to test or feel connections. You could measure what the connection did as you moved a tangent vector around the loop. You could use the loop or the network to get numbers, from a connection. The network was then a numerical valued function defined on a configuration space----analogous to the wavefunction of a particle defined on the real line---its possible positions i.e. configurations.

So spin-networks started being used as quantum states of geometry----because they were functions defined on the set of connections on the chosen 3D slice.
==================
EDIT: Thanks Tom! You already replied, while I was writing. Didn't see your post.
 
Last edited:


Thanks tom and marcus, that clarifies things a lot.
 
"Supernovae evidence for foundational change to cosmological models" https://arxiv.org/pdf/2412.15143 The paper claims: We compare the standard homogeneous cosmological model, i.e., spatially flat ΛCDM, and the timescape cosmology which invokes backreaction of inhomogeneities. Timescape, while statistically homogeneous and isotropic, departs from average Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker evolution, and replaces dark energy by kinetic gravitational energy and its gradients, in explaining...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
6K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K