Hamiltonian constraint of LQG

Last updated

In the ADM formulation of general relativity one splits spacetime into spatial slices and time, the basic variables are taken to be the induced metric, , on the spatial slice (the distance function induced on the spatial slice by the spacetime metric), and its conjugate momentum variable related to the extrinsic curvature, , (this tells us how the spatial slice curves with respect to spacetime and is a measure of how the induced metric evolves in time). [1] These are the metric canonical coordinates.

Contents

Dynamics such as time-evolutions of fields are controlled by the Hamiltonian constraint.

The identity of the Hamiltonian constraint is a major open question in quantum gravity, as is extracting of physical observables from any such specific constraint.

In 1986 Abhay Ashtekar introduced a new set of canonical variables, Ashtekar variables to represent an unusual way of rewriting the metric canonical variables on the three-dimensional spatial slices in terms of a SU(2) gauge field and its complementary variable. [2] The Hamiltonian was much simplified in this reformulation. This led to the loop representation of quantum general relativity [3] and in turn loop quantum gravity.

Within the loop quantum gravity representation Thomas Thiemann was able to formulate a mathematically rigorous operator as a proposal as such a constraint. [4] Although this operator defines a complete and consistent quantum theory, doubts have been raised as to the physical reality of this theory due to inconsistencies with classical general relativity (the quantum constraint algebra closes, but it is not isomorphic to the classical constraint algebra of GR, which is seen as circumstantial evidence of inconsistencies definitely not a proof of inconsistencies), and so variants have been proposed.

Classical expressions for the Hamiltonian

Metric formulation

The idea was to quantize the canonical variables and , making them into operators acting on wavefunctions on the space of 3-metrics, and then to quantize the Hamiltonian (and other constraints). However, this program soon became regarded as dauntingly difficult for various reasons, one being the non-polynomial nature of the Hamiltonian constraint:

where is the scalar curvature of the three metric . Being a non-polynomial expression in the canonical variables and their derivatives it is very difficult to promote to a quantum operator.

Expression using Ashtekar variables

The configuration variables of Ashtekar's variables behave like an gauge field or connection . Its canonically conjugate momentum is the densitized "electric" field or triad (densitized as ). Their connection with gravity is that the densitized triads can be used to reconstruct the spatial metric via

.

The densitized triads are not unique, and in fact one can perform a local in space rotation with respect to the internal indices . This is actually the origin of the gauge invariance. The connection can be used to reconstruct the extrinsic curvature. The relation is given by

where is related to the spin connection, , by and .

In terms of Ashtekar variables, the classical expression of the constraint is given by

.

where field strength tensor of the gauge field . Due to the factor this is non-polynomial in the Ashtekar's variables. Since we impose the condition

,

we could consider the densitized Hamiltonian instead:

.

This Hamiltonian is now polynomial in the Ashtekar's variables. This development raised new hopes for the canonical quantum gravity programme. [5] Although Ashtekar variables have the virtue of simplifying the Hamiltonian, it has the problem that the variables become complex numbers. When one quantizes the theory, it is a difficult task to ensure that one recovers real general relativity as opposed to complex general relativity. There are also serious difficulties promoting the densitized Hamiltonian to a quantum operator.

A way of addressing the problem of reality conditions was noting that if we took the signature to be , that is Euclidean instead of Lorentzian, then one can retain the simple form of the Hamiltonian for but for real variables. One can then define what is called a generalized Wick rotation to recover the Lorentzian theory. [6] It is a Wick transformation in phase space and has nothing to do with analytical continuation of the time parameter .

Expression for real formulation of Ashtekar variables

Thomas Thiemann was able to address both the above problems. [4] He used the real connection

In real Ashtekar variables the full Hamiltonian is

.

where the constant is the Barbero-Immirzi parameter. [7] The constant is -1 for Lorentzian signature and +1 for Euclidean signature. The have a complicated relationship with the desitized triads and causes serious problems upon quantization. Ashtekar variables can be seen as choosing to make the second more complicated term was made to vanish (the first term is denoted because for the Euclidean theory this term remains for the real choice of ). Also we still have the problem of the factor.

Thiemann was able to make it work for real . First he could simplify the troublesome by using the identity

where is the volume,

.

The first term of the Hamiltonian constraint becomes

upon using Thiemann's identity. This Poisson bracket is replaced by a commutator upon quantization. It turns out that a similar trick can be used to teat the second term. Why are the given by the densitized triads ? It comes about from the compatibility condition

.

We can solve this in much the same way as the Levi-Civita connection can be calculated from the equation ; by rotating the various indices and then adding and subtracting them (see article spin connection for more details of the derivation, although there we use slightly different notation). We then rewrite this in terms of the densitized triad using that . The result is complicated and non-linear, but a homogeneous function of of order zero,

.

To circumvent the problems introduced by this complicated relationship Thiemann first defines the Gauss gauge invariant quantity

where , and notes that

.

(this is because which comes about from the fact that is the generator of the canonical transformation of constant rescaling, , and is a homogeneous function of order zero). We are then able to write

and as such find an expression in terms of the configuration variable and for the second term of the Hamiltonian

.

Why is it easier to quantize ? This is because it can be rewritten in terms of quantities that we already know how to quantize. Specifically can be rewritten as

where we have used that the integrated densitized trace of the extrinsic curvature is the``time derivative of the volume".

Coupling to matter

Coupling to scalar field

The Lagrangian for a scalar field in curved spacetime

.

where are spacetime indices. We define the conjugate momentum of the scalar field with the usual , the Hamiltonian can be rewritten as,

,

where and are the lapse and shift. In Ashtekar variables this reads,

As usual the (smeared) spatial diffeomorphisn constraint is associated with the shift function and the (smeared) Hamiltonian is associated with the lapse function . So we simply read off the spatial diffeomorphism and Hamiltonian constraint,

.

These should be added (multiplied by ) to the spatial diffeomorphism and Hamiltonian constraint of the gravitational field, respectively. This represents the coupling of scalar matter to gravity.

Coupling to Fermionic field

There are problems coupling gravity to spinor fields: there are no finite-dimensional spinor representations of the general covariance group. However, there are of course spinorial representations of the Lorentz group. This fact is utilized by employing tetrad fields describing a flat tangent space at every point of spacetime. The Dirac matrices are contracted onto vierbiens,

.

We wish to construct a generally covariant Dirac equation. Under a flat tangent space Lorentz transformation transforms the spinor as

We have introduced local Lorentz transformations on flat tangent space, so is a function of space-time. This means that the partial derivative of a spinor is no longer a genuine tensor. As usual, one introduces a connection field that allows us to gauge the Lorentz group. The covariant derivative defined with the spin connection is,

,

and is a genuine tensor and Dirac's equation is rewritten as

.

The Dirac action in covariant form is

where is a Dirac bi-spinor and is its conjugate. The covariant derivative is defined to annihilate the tetrad .

Coupling to Electromagnetic field

The action for an electromagnetic field in curved spacetime is

where

is the field strength tensor, in components

and

where the electric field is given by

and the magnetic field is.

.

The classical analysis with the Maxwell action followed by canonical formulation using the time gauge parametrisation results in:

with and being the canonical coordinates.

Coupling to Yang–Mills field

The action for a Yang–Mills field for some compact gauge group in curved spacetime is

where is the curvature of some connection. For the standard model .

Total Hamiltonian of matter coupled to gravity

The dynamics of the coupled gravity-matter system is simply defined by the adding of terms defining the matter dynamics to the gravitational hamiltonian. The full hamiltonian is described by

.

Quantum Hamiltonian constraint

In this section we discuss the quantization of the hamiltonian of pure gravity, that is in the absence of matter. The case of inclusion of matter is discussed in the next section.

The constraints in their primitive form are rather singular, and so should be `smeared' by appropriate test functions. The Hamiltonian is the written as

.

For simplicity we are only considering the "Euclidean" part of the Hamiltonian constraint, extension to the full constraint can be found in the literature. There are actually many different choices for functions, and so what one then ends up with an (smeared) Hamiltonians constraints. Demanding them all to vanish is equivalent to the original description.

The loop representation

The Wilson loop is defined as

where indicates a path ordering so that factors for smaller values of appear to the left, and where the satisfy the algebra,

.

It is easy to see from this that,

.

implies that .

Wilson loops are not independent of each other, and in fact certain linear combinations of them called spin network states form an orthonormal basis. As spin network functions form a basis we can formally expand any Gauss gauge invariant function as,

.

This is called the inverse loop transform. The loop transform is given by

and is analogous to what one does when one goes over to the momentum representation in quantum mechanics,

.

The loop transform defines the loop representation. Given an operator in the connection representation,

,

we define by the loop transform,

.

This implies that one should define the corresponding operator on in the loop representation as

,

or

,

where by we mean the operator but with the reverse factor ordering. We evaluate the action of this operator on the spin network as a calculation in the connection representation and rearranging the result as a manipulation purely in terms of loops (one should remember that when considering the action on the spin network one should choose the operator one wishes to transform with the opposite factor ordering to the one chosen for its action on wavefunctions ). This gives the physical meaning of the operator . For example, if were a spatial diffeomorphism, then this can be thought of as keeping the connection field of the where it is while performing a spatial diffeomorphism on instead. Therefore, the meaning of is a spatial diffeomorphism on , the argument of .

The holonomy operator in the loop representation is the multiplication operator,

Promotion of the Hamiltonian constraint to a quantum operator

We promote the Hamiltonian constraint to a quantum operator in the loop representation. One introduces a lattice regularization procedure. we assume that space has been divided into tetrahedra . One builds an expression such that the limit in which the tetrahedra shrink in size approximates the expression for the Hamiltonian constraint.

For each tetrahedron pick a vertex and call . Let with be three edges ending at . We now construct a loop

by moving along then along the line joining the points and that are not (which we have denoted ) and then returning to along . The holonomy

along a line in the limit the tetrahedron shrinks approximates the connection via

where is a vector in the direction of edge . It can be shown that

.

(this expresses the fact that the field strength tensor, or curvature, measures the holonomy around `infinitesimal loops'). We are led to trying

where the sum is over all tetrahedra . Substituting for the holonomies,

.

The identity will have vanishing Poisson bracket with the volume, so the only contribution will come from the connection. As the Poisson bracket is already proportional to only the identity part of the holonomy outside the bracket contributes. Finally we have that the holonomy around ; the identity term doesn't contribute as the Poisson bracket is proportional to a Pauli matrix (since and the constant matrix can be taken outside the Poisson bracket) and one is taking the trace. The remaining term of yields the . The three lengths 's that appear combine with the summation in the limit to produce an integral.

This expression immediately can be promoted to an operator in the loop representation, both holonomies and volume promote to well defined operators there.

The triangulation is chosen to so as to be adapted to the spin network state one is acting on by choosing the vertices an lines appropriately. There will be many lines and vertices of the triangulation that do not correspond to lines and vertices of the spin network when one takes the limit. Due to the presence of the volume the Hamiltonian constraint will only contribute when there are at least three non-coplanar lines of a vertex.

Here we have only considered the action of the Hamiltonian constraint on trivalent vertices. Computing the action on higher valence vertices is more complicated. We refer the reader to the article by Borissov, De Pietri, and Rovelli. [8]

A finite theory

The Hamiltonian is not invariant under spatial diffeomorphisms and therefore its action can only be defined on the kinematic space. One can transfer its action to diffeomorphsm invariant states. As we will see this has implications for where precisely the new line is added. Consider a state such that if the spin networks and are diffeomorphic to each other. Such a state is not in the kinematic space but belongs to the larger dual space of a dense subspace of the kinematic space. We then define the action of in the following way,

.

The position of the added line is then irrelevant. When one projects on the position of the line does not matter because one is working on the space of diffeomorphism invariant states and so the line can be moved "closer" or "further" from the vertex without changing the result.

Spatial diffeomorphism plays a crucial role in the construction. If the functions were not diffeomorphism invariant, the added line would have to be shrunk to the vertex and possible divergences could appear.

The same construction can be applied to the Hamiltonian of general relativity coupled to matter: scalar fields, Yang–Mills fields, fermions. In all cases the theory is finite, anomaly free and well defined. Gravity appears to be acting as a "fundamental regulator" of theories of matter.

Anomaly free

Quantum anomalies occur when the quantum constraint algebra has additional terms that don't have classical counterparts. In order to recover the correct semi classical theory these extra terms need to vanish, but this implies additional constraints and reduces the number of degrees of freedom of the theory making it unphysical. Theimann's Hamiltonian constraint can be shown to be anomaly free.[ citation needed ]

The kernel of the Hamiltonian constraint

The kernel is the space of states which the Hamiltonian constraint annihilates. One can outline an explicit construction of the complete and rigorous kernel of the proposed operator. They are the first with non-zero volume and which do not need non-zero cosmological constant.

The complete space of solutions to the spatial diffeomorphism for all constraints has already been found long ago. [9] And even was equipped with a natural inner product induced from that of the kinematical Hilbert space of solutions to the Gauss constraint. However, there is no chance to define the Hamiltonian constraint operators corresponding to (densely) on because the Hamiltonian constraint operators do not preserve spatial diffeomorphism invariant states. Hence one cannot simply solve the spatial diffeomorphisms constraint and then the Hamiltonian constraint and so the inner product structure of cannot be employed in the construction of the physical inner product. This problem can be circumvented with the use of the Master constraint (see below) allowing the just mentioned results to be applied to obtain the physical Hilbert space from .

More to come here...

Criticisms of the Hamiltonian constraint

Recovering the constraint algebra. Classically we have

where

As we know in the loop representation a self-adjoint operator generating spatial diffeomorphisms. Therefore, it is not possible to implement the relation for in the quantum theory with infinitesimal , it is at most possible with finite spatial dffeomoephisms.

Ultra locality of the Hamiltonian: The Hamiltonian only acts at vertices and acts by "dressing" the vertex with lines. It does not interconnect vertices nor change the valences of the lines (outside the "dressing"). The modifications that the Hamiltonian constraint operator performs at a given vertex do not propagate over the whole graph but are confined to a neighbourhood of the vertex. In fact, repeated action of the Hamiltonian generates more and more new edges ever closer to the vertex never intersecting each other. In particular there is no action at the new vertices created. This implies, for instance, that for surfaces that enclose a vertex (diffeomorphically invariantly defined) the area of such surfaces would commute with the Hamiltonian, implying no "evolution" of these areas as it is the Hamiltonian that generates "evolution". This hints at the theory ``failing to propagate". However, Thiemann points out that the Hamiltonian acts every where.

There is the somewhat subtle matter that the , while defined on the Hilbert space are not explicitly known (they are known up to a spatial diffeomorphism; they exist by the axiom of choice).

These difficulties could be addressed by a new approach - the Master constraint programme.

Extension of Quantisation to Inclusion of Matter Fields

Fermionic matter

Maxwell's theory

Note that are both of density weight 1. As usual, before quantisation, we need to express the constraints (and other observables) in terms of the holonomies and fluxes.

We have a common factor of . As before, we introduce a cell decomposition and noting,

.

Yang–Mills

Apart from the non-Abelian nature of the gauge field, in form, the expressions proceed in the same manner as for the Maxwell case.

Scalar field - Higgs field

The elementary configuration operators are analogous of the holonomy operator for connection variables and they act by multiplication as

.

These are called point holonomies. The conjugate variable to the point holonomy which is promoted to an operator in the quantum theory, is taken to be the smeared field momentum

where is the conjugate momentum field and is a test function. Their Poisson bracket is given by

.

In the quantum theory one looks for a representation of the Poisson bracket as a commutator of the elementary operators,

.

Finiteness of Theory with the Inclusion of Matter

Thiemann has illustrated how the ultraviolet diverges of ordinary quantum theory can be directly interpreted as a consequence of the approximation that disregards the quantised, discrete, nature of quantum geometry. For instance Thiemann shows how the operator for the Yang–Mills Hamiltonian involving is well defined so long as we treat as an operator, but becomes infinite as soon as we replace with a smooth background field.

The Master constraint programme

The Master constraint

The Master Constraint Programme [10] for Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) was proposed as a classically equivalent way to impose the infinite number of Hamiltonian constraint equations

in terms of a single Master constraint,

.

which involves the square of the constraints in question. Note that were infinitely many whereas the Master constraint is only one. It is clear that if vanishes then so do the infinitely many 's. Conversely, if all the 's vanish then so does , therefore they are equivalent.

The Master constraint involves an appropriate averaging over all space and so is invariant under spatial diffeomorphisms (it is invariant under spatial "shifts" as it is a summation over all such spatial "shifts" of a quantity that transforms as a scalar). Hence its Poisson bracket with the (smeared) spatial diffeomorphism constraint, , is simple:

.

(it is invariant as well). Also, obviously as any quantity Poisson commutes with itself, and the Master constraint being a single constraint, it satisfies

.

We also have the usual algebra between spatial diffeomorphisms. This represents a dramatic simplification of the Poisson bracket structure.

Promotion to quantum operator

Let us write the classical expression in the form

.

This expression is regulated by a one parameter function such that and . Define

.

Both terms will be similar to the expression for the Hamiltonian constraint except now it will involve rather than which comes from the additional factor . That is,

.

Thus we proceed exactly as for the Hamiltonian constraint and introduce a partition into tetrahedra, splitting both integrals into sums,

.

where the meaning of is similar to that of . This is a huge simplification as can be quantized precisely as the with a simple change in the power of the volume operator. However, it can be shown that graph-changing, spatially diffeomorphism invariant operators such as the Master constraint cannot be defined on the kinematic Hilbert space . The way out is to define not on but on .

What is done first is, we are able to compute the matrix elements of the would-be operator , that is, we compute the quadratic form . We would like there to be a unique, positive, self-adjoint operator whose matrix elements reproduce . It has been shown that such an operator exists and is given by the Friedrichs extension. [11] [12]

Solving the Master constraint and inducing the physical Hilbert space

As mentioned above one cannot simply solve the spatial diffeomorphism constraint and then the Hamiltonian constraint, inducing a physical inner product from the spatial diffeomorphism inner product, because the Hamiltonian constraint maps spatially diffeomorphism invariant states onto non-spatial diffeomorphism invariant states. However, as the Master constraint is spatially diffeomorphism invariant it can be defined on . Therefore, we are finally able to exploit the full power of the results mentioned above in obtaining from . [9]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pauli matrices</span> Matrices important in quantum mechanics and the study of spin

In mathematical physics and mathematics, the Pauli matrices are a set of three 2 × 2 complex matrices that are Hermitian, involutory and unitary. Usually indicated by the Greek letter sigma, they are occasionally denoted by tau when used in connection with isospin symmetries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Loop quantum gravity</span> Theory of quantum gravity, merging quantum mechanics and general relativity

Loop quantum gravity (LQG) is a theory of quantum gravity that incorporates matter of the Standard Model into the framework established for the intrinsic quantum gravity case. It is an attempt to develop a quantum theory of gravity based directly on Albert Einstein's geometric formulation rather than the treatment of gravity as a mysterious mechanism (force). As a theory, LQG postulates that the structure of space and time is composed of finite loops woven into an extremely fine fabric or network. These networks of loops are called spin networks. The evolution of a spin network, or spin foam, has a scale on the order of a Planck length, approximately 10−35 meters, and smaller scales are meaningless. Consequently, not just matter, but space itself, prefers an atomic structure.

In the ADM formulation of general relativity, spacetime is split into spatial slices and a time axis. The basic variables are taken to be the induced metric on the spatial slice and the metric's conjugate momentum , which is related to the extrinsic curvature and is a measure of how the induced metric evolves in time. These are the metric canonical coordinates.

The Hamiltonian constraint arises from any theory that admits a Hamiltonian formulation and is reparametrisation-invariant. The Hamiltonian constraint of general relativity is an important non-trivial example.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wheeler–DeWitt equation</span> Field equation, part of a theory that attempts to combine quantum mechanics and general relativity

The Wheeler–DeWitt equation for theoretical physics and applied mathematics, is a field equation attributed to John Archibald Wheeler and Bryce DeWitt. The equation attempts to mathematically combine the ideas of quantum mechanics and general relativity, a step towards a theory of quantum gravity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Electromagnetic tensor</span> Mathematical object that describes the electromagnetic field in spacetime

In electromagnetism, the electromagnetic tensor or electromagnetic field tensor is a mathematical object that describes the electromagnetic field in spacetime. The field tensor was first used after the four-dimensional tensor formulation of special relativity was introduced by Hermann Minkowski. The tensor allows related physical laws to be written very concisely, and allows for the quantization of the electromagnetic field by Lagrangian formulation described below.

In quantum field theory, a fermionic field is a quantum field whose quanta are fermions; that is, they obey Fermi–Dirac statistics. Fermionic fields obey canonical anticommutation relations rather than the canonical commutation relations of bosonic fields.

In general relativity, the Gibbons–Hawking–York boundary term is a term that needs to be added to the Einstein–Hilbert action when the underlying spacetime manifold has a boundary.

In theoretical physics, the Wess–Zumino model has become the first known example of an interacting four-dimensional quantum field theory with linearly realised supersymmetry. In 1974, Julius Wess and Bruno Zumino studied, using modern terminology, dynamics of a single chiral superfield whose cubic superpotential leads to a renormalizable theory. It is a special case of 4D N = 1 global supersymmetry.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canonical quantum gravity</span> A formulation of general relativity

In physics, canonical quantum gravity is an attempt to quantize the canonical formulation of general relativity. It is a Hamiltonian formulation of Einstein's general theory of relativity. The basic theory was outlined by Bryce DeWitt in a seminal 1967 paper, and based on earlier work by Peter G. Bergmann using the so-called canonical quantization techniques for constrained Hamiltonian systems invented by Paul Dirac. Dirac's approach allows the quantization of systems that include gauge symmetries using Hamiltonian techniques in a fixed gauge choice. Newer approaches based in part on the work of DeWitt and Dirac include the Hartle–Hawking state, Regge calculus, the Wheeler–DeWitt equation and loop quantum gravity.

The time-evolving block decimation (TEBD) algorithm is a numerical scheme used to simulate one-dimensional quantum many-body systems, characterized by at most nearest-neighbour interactions. It is dubbed Time-evolving Block Decimation because it dynamically identifies the relevant low-dimensional Hilbert subspaces of an exponentially larger original Hilbert space. The algorithm, based on the Matrix Product States formalism, is highly efficient when the amount of entanglement in the system is limited, a requirement fulfilled by a large class of quantum many-body systems in one dimension.

Overcompleteness is a concept from linear algebra that is widely used in mathematics, computer science, engineering, and statistics. It was introduced by R. J. Duffin and A. C. Schaeffer in 1952.

In quantum field theory, and especially in quantum electrodynamics, the interacting theory leads to infinite quantities that have to be absorbed in a renormalization procedure, in order to be able to predict measurable quantities. The renormalization scheme can depend on the type of particles that are being considered. For particles that can travel asymptotically large distances, or for low energy processes, the on-shell scheme, also known as the physical scheme, is appropriate. If these conditions are not fulfilled, one can turn to other schemes, like the minimal subtraction scheme.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Two-body Dirac equations</span> Quantum field theory equations

In quantum field theory, and in the significant subfields of quantum electrodynamics (QED) and quantum chromodynamics (QCD), the two-body Dirac equations (TBDE) of constraint dynamics provide a three-dimensional yet manifestly covariant reformulation of the Bethe–Salpeter equation for two spin-1/2 particles. Such a reformulation is necessary since without it, as shown by Nakanishi, the Bethe–Salpeter equation possesses negative-norm solutions arising from the presence of an essentially relativistic degree of freedom, the relative time. These "ghost" states have spoiled the naive interpretation of the Bethe–Salpeter equation as a quantum mechanical wave equation. The two-body Dirac equations of constraint dynamics rectify this flaw. The forms of these equations can not only be derived from quantum field theory they can also be derived purely in the context of Dirac's constraint dynamics and relativistic mechanics and quantum mechanics. Their structures, unlike the more familiar two-body Dirac equation of Breit, which is a single equation, are that of two simultaneous quantum relativistic wave equations. A single two-body Dirac equation similar to the Breit equation can be derived from the TBDE. Unlike the Breit equation, it is manifestly covariant and free from the types of singularities that prevent a strictly nonperturbative treatment of the Breit equation. In applications of the TBDE to QED, the two particles interact by way of four-vector potentials derived from the field theoretic electromagnetic interactions between the two particles. In applications to QCD, the two particles interact by way of four-vector potentials and Lorentz invariant scalar interactions, derived in part from the field theoretic chromomagnetic interactions between the quarks and in part by phenomenological considerations. As with the Breit equation a sixteen-component spinor Ψ is used.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Loop representation in gauge theories and quantum gravity</span> Description of gauge theories using loop operators

Attempts have been made to describe gauge theories in terms of extended objects such as Wilson loops and holonomies. The loop representation is a quantum hamiltonian representation of gauge theories in terms of loops. The aim of the loop representation in the context of Yang–Mills theories is to avoid the redundancy introduced by Gauss gauge symmetries allowing to work directly in the space of physical states. The idea is well known in the context of lattice Yang–Mills theory. Attempts to explore the continuous loop representation was made by Gambini and Trias for canonical Yang–Mills theory, however there were difficulties as they represented singular objects. As we shall see the loop formalism goes far beyond a simple gauge invariant description, in fact it is the natural geometrical framework to treat gauge theories and quantum gravity in terms of their fundamental physical excitations.

In string theory, the Ramond–Neveu–Schwarz (RNS) formalism is an approach to formulating superstrings in which the worldsheet has explicit superconformal invariance but spacetime supersymmetry is hidden, in contrast to the Green–Schwarz formalism where the latter is explicit. It was originally developed by Pierre Ramond, André Neveu and John Schwarz in the RNS model in 1971, which gives rise to type II string theories and can also give type I string theory. Heterotic string theories can also be acquired through this formalism by using a different worldsheet action. There are various ways to quantize the string within this framework including light-cone quantization, old canonical quantization, and BRST quantization. A consistent string theory is only acquired if the spectrum of states is restricted through a procedure known as a GSO projection, with this projection being automatically present in the Green–Schwarz formalism.

The Pomeranchuk instability is an instability in the shape of the Fermi surface of a material with interacting fermions, causing Landau’s Fermi liquid theory to break down. It occurs when a Landau parameter in Fermi liquid theory has a sufficiently negative value, causing deformations of the Fermi surface to be energetically favourable. It is named after the Soviet physicist Isaak Pomeranchuk.

In theoretical physics, more specifically in quantum field theory and supersymmetry, supersymmetric Yang–Mills, also known as super Yang–Mills and abbreviated to SYM, is a supersymmetric generalization of Yang–Mills theory, which is a gauge theory that plays an important part in the mathematical formulation of forces in particle physics. It is a special case of 4D N = 1 global supersymmetry.

In supersymmetry, pure 4D supergravity describes the simplest four-dimensional supergravity, with a single supercharge and a supermultiplet containing a graviton and gravitino. The action consists of the Einstein–Hilbert action and the Rarita–Schwinger action. The theory was first formulated by Daniel Z. Freedman, Peter van Nieuwenhuizen, and Sergio Ferrara, and independently by Stanley Deser and Bruno Zumino in 1976. The only consistent extension to spacetimes with a cosmological constant is to anti-de Sitter space, first formulated by Paul Townsend in 1977. When additional matter supermultiplets are included in this theory, the result is known as matter-coupled 4D supergravity.

In supersymmetry, 4D supergravity is the theory of supergravity in four dimensions with a single supercharge. It contains exactly one supergravity multiplet, consisting of a graviton and a gravitino, but can also have an arbitrary number of chiral and vector supermultiplets, with supersymmetry imposing stringent constraints on how these can interact. The theory is primarily determined by three functions, those being the Kähler potential, the superpotential, and the gauge kinetic matrix. Many of its properties are strongly linked to the geometry associated to the scalar fields in the chiral multiplets. After the simplest form of this supergravity was first discovered, a theory involving only the supergravity multiplet, the following years saw an effort to incorporate different matter multiplets, with the general action being derived in 1982 by E. Cremmer, S. Ferrara, L. Girardello, and A. Van Proeyen.

References

  1. Gravitation by Charles W. Misner, Kip S. Thorne, John Archibald Wheeler, published by W. H. Freeman and company. New York.
  2. Ashtekar, Abhay (1986-11-03). "New Variables for Classical and Quantum Gravity". Physical Review Letters. 57 (18). American Physical Society (APS): 2244–2247. Bibcode:1986PhRvL..57.2244A. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.57.2244. ISSN   0031-9007. PMID   10033673.
  3. Rovelli, Carlo; Smolin, Lee (1988-09-05). "Knot Theory and Quantum Gravity". Physical Review Letters. 61 (10). American Physical Society (APS): 1155–1158. Bibcode:1988PhRvL..61.1155R. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.61.1155. ISSN   0031-9007. PMID   10038716.
  4. 1 2 Thiemann, T. (1996). "Anomaly-free formulation of non-perturbative, four-dimensional Lorentzian quantum gravity". Physics Letters B. 380 (3–4). Elsevier BV: 257–264. arXiv: gr-qc/9606088 . Bibcode:1996PhLB..380..257T. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(96)00532-1. ISSN   0370-2693. S2CID   8691449.
  5. See the book Lectures on Non-Perturbative Canonical Gravity for more details on this and the subsequent development. First published in 1991. World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. LtD.
  6. Thiemann, T (1996-06-01). "Reality conditions inducing transforms for quantum gauge field theory and quantum gravity". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 13 (6). IOP Publishing: 1383–1403. arXiv: gr-qc/9511057 . Bibcode:1996CQGra..13.1383T. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/13/6/012. ISSN   0264-9381. S2CID   250919582.
  7. Barbero G., J. Fernando (1995-05-15). "Real Ashtekar variables for Lorentzian signature space-times". Physical Review D. 51 (10). American Physical Society (APS): 5507–5510. arXiv: gr-qc/9410014 . Bibcode:1995PhRvD..51.5507B. doi:10.1103/physrevd.51.5507. ISSN   0556-2821. PMID   10018309.
  8. Borissov, Roumen; Pietri, Roberto De; Rovelli, Carlo (1997-10-01). "Matrix elements of Thiemann's Hamiltonian constraint in loop quantum gravity". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 14 (10). IOP Publishing: 2793–2823. arXiv: gr-qc/9703090 . Bibcode:1997CQGra..14.2793B. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/14/10/008. ISSN   0264-9381. S2CID   250737205.
  9. 1 2 Ashtekar, Abhay; Lewandowski, Jerzy; Marolf, Donald; Mourão, José; Thiemann, Thomas (1995). "Quantization of diffeomorphism invariant theories of connections with local degrees of freedom". Journal of Mathematical Physics. 36 (11). AIP Publishing: 6456–6493. arXiv: gr-qc/9504018 . Bibcode:1995JMP....36.6456A. doi:10.1063/1.531252. ISSN   0022-2488. S2CID   56449004.
  10. Thiemann, T (2006-03-14). "The Phoenix Project: master constraint programme for loop quantum gravity". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 23 (7). IOP Publishing: 2211–2247. arXiv: gr-qc/0305080 . Bibcode:2006CQGra..23.2211T. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/23/7/002. ISSN   0264-9381. S2CID   16304158.
  11. Thiemann, Thomas (2006-03-14). "Quantum spin dynamics: VIII. The master constraint". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 23 (7). IOP Publishing: 2249–2265. arXiv: gr-qc/0510011 . Bibcode:2006CQGra..23.2249T. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/23/7/003. hdl: 11858/00-001M-0000-0013-4B4E-7 . ISSN   0264-9381. S2CID   29095312.
  12. Han, Muxin; Ma, Yongge (2006). "Master constraint operators in loop quantum gravity". Physics Letters B. 635 (4). Elsevier BV: 225–231. arXiv: gr-qc/0510014 . Bibcode:2006PhLB..635..225H. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2006.03.004. ISSN   0370-2693. S2CID   119177776.