What is the role of averaging holonomies in gauge invariance within GR?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter naima
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the role of averaging holonomies in gauge invariance within General Relativity (GR) and Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG). Participants explore the implications of gauge transformations on holonomies, particularly in the context of SU(2) gauge invariant states and the averaging process over nodes in a spin network.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes how holonomies on Wilson loops are useful in GR and explains the gauge invariance resulting from the cyclicity of the trace.
  • Another participant questions the relevance of the paper to classical GR, suggesting that the topic may be more suited for those familiar with LQG.
  • A later reply elaborates on the averaging process in LQG, discussing how oriented edges colored by SU(2) representations interact under gauge transformations.
  • One participant argues that for simpler cases, a constant function can serve as a gauge invariant function without the need for averaging, while acknowledging that more complex networks require a different approach.
  • Another participant explains that the averaging of holonomies is proposed as a method to construct gauge invariant functions, emphasizing that it provides a mean value over equivalence classes.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relevance of the paper to GR and the necessity of averaging in constructing gauge invariant functions. There is no consensus on the best approach to understanding the averaging of holonomies or its implications for gauge invariance.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexity of gauge transformations in LQG and the varying interpretations of averaging holonomies. Some assumptions about the nature of gauge invariance and the structure of spin networks remain implicit and unresolved.

naima
Gold Member
Messages
936
Reaction score
54
In this paper the author shows that holonomies on Wilson loops are useful tools in GR. I have no problem with the gauge invariance on these loops which comes from the cyclicity of thr trace.
Bonzom writes then:
We are moreover interested in SU(2) gauge invariant states. Gauge transformations act on holonomies only on their endpoints. If h is a map from Σ to SU(2), then the holonomy transforms as
##U_e (A^h ) = h(t(e))U_e (A)h(s(e))^{−1} ##, with t(e), s(e) being respectively the source and target points of the path e. When focusing on a single graph Γ, this reduces gauge transformations
to an action of SU(2)^V on the set of cylindrical functions over Γ. So from any function f over SU(2)^E , one gets an invariant function by averaging over the SU(2)^V action.

Here we have edges and vertices.What is this averaging over the action ar the nodes?
Thanks for your help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is not really a GR paper, I'm not sure why you would expect classical GR people to be able to answer a detailed question about LQG.

If the authors haven't made it clear what they mean, then you could ask them, or perhaps try to dig in the literature.
 
Could this question be sent to a better place?
thanks
 
I can describe now why i had a problem with this averaging.
In LQG we have oriented edges which are colored by a representation if SU(2).
Each edge may be considered as an open path with a starting point and a target point. we call them the nodes.
let us consider the simpler spin network with only one edge. it may be a sub network of a bigger one. suppose that it is colored by h a given matrix of SU(2). A gauge transformation acts like this: a pair of elements of the group g1 and g2 transforms h
in ##h' = g1.h.(g2)^{-1}##
We will say that h and h' belong to the same class of equivalence if one can find such a pair to map h to h'. it is obvious to see that the identity is equivalent to any element of SU(2). If you have a function f on the set of the representation you do not need averaging or something else to get a gauge invariant function. the constant function f(id) works!
This is not so easy with more complex cases. take the Mercedes Benz network. It has
6 edges and 4 nodes. and there are several classes of equivalence.
if each class "i" was equipped with a pecular element ##m_i## we could build a gauge invariant function f' from any f by taking for any matrix m f'(m) = #f(m_i)## .
The author gives a more elegant way to build such a gauge invariant function. it is also constant on each equivalence class but its value is the mean value of f on the class.
This is why they are talking about the average of the holonomies.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K