Gravitons emerge as quantized excitations compatible with general relativity
the verdict
INSUFFICIENT LEANING
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
5 sources for · 0 against
The retrieved literature explores various approaches to quantum gravity, the quantization of general relativity, and emergent spacetime frameworks, but does not provide complete empirical or theoretical proof that gravitons emerge as quantized excitations fully compatible with general relativity.
The problem of finding the quantum theory of the gravitational field, and thus understanding what is quantum spacetime, is still open. One of the most active of the current approaches is loop quantum gravity. Loop quantum gravity is a mathematically well-defined, non-perturbative and background independent quantization of general relativity, with its conventional matter couplings. Research in loop quantum gravity today forms a vast area, ranging from mathematical foundations to physical applications. Among the most significant results obtained are: (i)The computation of the physical spectra of geometrical quantities such as area and volume, which yields quantitative predictions on Planck-scale physics.(ii)A derivation of the Bekenstein-Hawking black hole entropy formula.(iii)An intriguing physical picture of the microstructure of quantum physical space, characterized by a polymer-like Planck scale discreteness. This discreteness emerges naturally from the quantum theory and provides a mathematically well-defined realization of Wheeler's intuition of a spacetime "foam". Long standing open problems within the approach (lack of a scalar product, over-completeness of the loop basis, implementation of reality conditions) have been fully solved. The weak part of the approach is the treatment of the dynamics: at present there exist several proposals, which are intensely debated. Here, I provide a general overview of ideas, techniques, results and open problems of this candidate theory of quantum gravity, and a guide to the relevant literature.
The view of a relativist For a relativist, on the other hand, the idea of a fundamental description of gravity in terms of physical excitations over a background metric space sounds physically very wrong. The key lesson learned from general relativity is that there is no background metric over which physics happens (unless, of course, in approximations). The world is more complicated than that. Indeed, for a relativist, general relativity is much more than the field theory of a particular force.
And I do not mean that they could be superseded: I mean that all their specific predictions could be disproved by experiments. Nature does not always share our aesthetic judgments, and the history of theoretical physics is full of enthusiasm for strange theories turned into disappointment. The arbiters in science are experiments, and not a single experimental result supports, not even very indirectly, any of the current theories that go beyond the Standard Model and general relativity .
Loop quantum gravity is based on the formulation of classical general relativity, which goes under the name of”new variables”, or”Ashtekar variables”, or”connectio-dynamics” (in contrast to Wheeler’s”geometrodynamics”). In this formulation, the field variable is a self-dual connection, instead of the metric, and the canonical constraints are simpler than in the old metric formulation. The idea of using a self-dual connection as field variable and the simple constraints it yields were discovered by Amitaba Sen [ 190 ].
Abhay Ashtekar realized that in the SU (2) extended phase space a self-dual connection and a densitized triad field form a canonical pair [ 8 , 9 ] and set up the canonical formalism based on such pair, which is the Ashtekar formalism. Recent works on the loop representation are not based on the original Sen-Ashtekar connection, but on a real variant of it, whose use has been introduced into Lorentzian general relativity by Barbero [ 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ]. 1986 Wilson loop solutions of the hamiltonian constraint
Thus, diffeomorphism invariant physical states are labeled by knots. A knot represents an elementary quantum excitation of space. It is not here or there, since it is the space with respect to which here and there can be defined. A knot state is an elementary quantum of space. In this manner, loop quantum gravity ties the new notion of space and time introduced by general relativity with quantum mechanics. As I will illustrate later on, the existence of such elementary quanta of space is then made concrete by the quantization of the spectra of geometrical quantities. Problems not addressed Quantum gravity is an open problem that has been investigated for over seventy years now.
Quantum states representing flat spacetime. Weaves. Discrete small scale structure of space . The s-knot states do not represent excitations of the quantum gravitational field over flat space, but rather over “no-space”, or over the gμv = 0 solution. A natural problem is then how flat space (or any other smooth geometry) might emerge from the theory. Notice that in a general rela-tivistic context the Minkowski solution does not have all the properties of the conventional field theoretical vacuum.
I think that the classical limit, the quantum description of black holes, or graviton-graviton scattering, just to mention a few examples, could be addressed much more easily in the covariant picture. Second, it allows the general ideas of Hartle [ 102 ] and Isham [ 118 , 119 , 122 , 121 ] on the interpretation of generally covariant quantum theories to be applied in loop quantum gravity. This could drastically simplify the complications of the canonical way of dealing with general covariant observables [ 169 , 167 ].
More precisely, in terms of elementary excitations carrying discretized quanta of area. The dynamics is coded into the hamiltonian constraint. A well defined version of this constraint exists (see equation ( 35 )), and thus a consistent theory exists, but a proof that the classical limit of this theory is classical general relativity is still lacking. Alternative versions of the hamiltonian constraint have been proposed and are under investigation. In all these cases, the hamiltonian has the crucial properties of acting on nodes only. This implies that its action is naturally discrete and combinatorial. This fact is possibly at the roots of the finiteness of the theory.
The problem of describing the quantum behavior of gravity, and thus understanding <i>quantum spacetime</i>, is still open. Loop quantum gravity is a well-developed approach to this problem. It is a mathematically well-defined background-independent quantization of general relativity, with its conventional matter couplings. Today research in loop quantum gravity forms a vast area, ranging from mathematical foundations to physical applications. Among the most significant results obtained so far are: (i) The computation of the spectra of geometrical quantities such as area and volume, which yield tentative quantitative predictions for Planck-scale physics. (ii) A physical picture of the microstructure of quantum spacetime, characterized by Planck-scale discreteness. Discreteness emerges as a standard quantum effect from the discrete spectra, and provides a mathematical realization of Wheeler's "spacetime foam" intuition. (iii) Control of spacetime singularities, such as those in the interior of black holes and the cosmological one. This, in particular, has opened up the possibility of a theoretical investigation into the very early universe and the spacetime regions beyond the Big Bang. (iv) A derivation of the Bekenstein-Hawking black-hole entropy. (v) Low-energy calculations, yielding <i>n</i>-point functions well defined in a background-independent context. The theory is at the roots of, or strictly related to, a number of formalisms that have been developed for describing background-independent quantum field theory, such as spin foams, group field theory, causal spin networks, and others. I give here a general overview of ideas, techniques, results and open problems of this candidate theory of quantum gravity, and a guide to the relevant literature.
In all cases, for a physicist with a high-energy background, the central problem of quantum gravity is reduced to an aspect of the problem of understanding the still mysterious nonperturbative theory that has the various perturbative theories as its perturbation expansion. What is the problem? The view of a relativist For a relativist, on the other hand, the idea of a fundamental description of gravity in terms of physical excitations over a background space sounds physically wrong. The key lesson learned from general relativity is that there is no background metric space over which physics happens (except, of course, in approximations).
The world is more complicated, or perhaps simpler, than that. For a relativist, in fact, general relativity is much more than the field theory of one particular force. Rather, it is the discovery that certain classical notions about space and time are inadequate at the fundamental level: they require modifications, which are possibly as basic as those introduced by quantum mechanics. One of these inadequate notions is precisely the notion of a background space (flat or curved), in which physics happens.
And I do not mean that they could be superseded: I mean that all their specific predictions could be disproved by experiments. Nature does not always share our aesthetic judgments, and the history of theoretical physics is full of great enthusiasms turned into
1986 Connection formulation of general relativity Loop gravity is based on the “Ashtekar formulation” of classical general relativity. (Abhay Ashtekar calls it “connectio-dynamics”, in contrast to Wheeler’s “geometro-dynamics”.) [ 271 , 16 , 17 ]. Many recent works in loop gravity are based on a real variant of the original Ashtekar connection whose utility for Lorentzian general relativity has been emphasized by Barbero [ 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 ].
The real version of the theory is presently the most widely used. Classical general relativity can be formulated in phase-space form as follows [ 18 , 61 ].
Second, the Barrett-Crane model appears to have fewer degrees of freedom than general relativity on a spacelike surface, because it fixes the values of the intertwiners. More importantly, the low-energy limit of the propagator defined by the Barrett-Crane model does not seem to be correct [ 2 , 3 ]. An important recent development, however, has been the introduction of a new vertex amplitude, defined by the square of the SU (2) Wigner 15 j symbol, which may correct all these problems [ 106 ].
A recent derivation as the quantization of a discretization of general relativity is in [ 105 , 104 ], which can also be seen as an independent derivation of the loop-gravity canonical formalism itself. The PhD thesis of Daniele Oriti [ 213 ] is also a very good introduction. Here I give only a simple heuristic description of the way spin foams appear from loop gravity. In his PhD thesis, Feynman introduced a path-integral formulation of quantum mechanics, deriving it from the canonical formalism.
Furthermore, we need to understand how the low-energy limit emerges from the background-independent theory in order to correct the low-order quantum corrections to classical general relativity. Hamiltonian constraint The kinematics of the theory is well understood both physically (quanta of area and volume, discrete geometry) and from the mathematical point of view. The part of the theory that is not yet fully under control is the dynamics, which is determined by the Hamiltonian constraint.
More precisely, in terms of elementary excitations carrying discretized quanta of area (Section 7 ). The dynamics can be coded into the Hamiltonian constraint. A well-defined version of this constraint exists, and thus a complete and consistent theory exists, but it is not easy to extract physics from this theory and proof that the classical limit of this theory is correct classical general relativity is still lacking. Alternative versions of the Hamiltonian constraint have been proposed and are under investigation. In all these cases, the Hamiltonian has the crucial properties of acting on nodes only. This implies that its action is naturally discrete and combinatorial.
Recent advances in understanding the Planck scale have led to a new, straightforward method for quantizing the general theory of relativity. This results in a theory of gravity that predicts the same outcomes as general relativity with greater fundamental comprehension connected directly to the Planck scale.
about it with quantum theory and general relativity. General relativity, in particular, has modified our … where the field has quantized “granular” properties and its dynamics is quantized and there- fore only … Quantum mechanics and general relativity. QM, suitably formulated to be compatible with general covariance
The paper is devoted to the memory of Dmitry Diakonov. We discuss gravity emerging in the fermionic vacuum as suggested by Diakonov 10 years ago in his paper "Towards lattice-regularized Quantum Gravity". [1] Gravity emerges in the phase transition. The order parameter in this transition is the tetrad field e μ a , which appears as the bilinear composite of the fermionic fields. The similar scenario of the symmetry breaking takes place in the B-phase of superfluid 3 He, where the real part of the spin-triplet <i>p</i>-wave order parameter matrix A ai plays the role of the emerging tetrad (triad). In Diakonov theory this symmetry breaking gives 6 Nambu-Goldstone modes; 6 gauge bosons in the spin-connection fields, which absorb 6 NG modes and become massive gauge bosons; and 6 Higgs fields. In 3 He-B, these Higgs collective modes correspond to 6 massive gravitons, while in the emerging general relativity the Higgs collective modes give rise to two massless gravitational waves.
Everything we examined (5) — 4 independent sources
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.