Go to previous page Go up Go to next page

1.4 Relation to other approaches

For orientation we offer here some sketchy remarks on how Quantum Gravidynamics relates to some other approaches to Quantum Gravity, notably the Dynamical Triangulations approach, Loop Quantum Gravity, and String Theory. These remarks are of course not intended to provide a comprehensive discussion of the relative merits but merely to highlight points of contact and stark differences to Quantum Gravidynamics.

1.4.1 Dynamical triangulations

The framework closest in spirit to the present one are discretized approaches to the gravitational functional integral, where a continuum limit in the statistical field theory sense is aimed at. See [138] for a general review and [8Jump To The Next Citation Point] for the dynamical triangulations approach. Arguably the most promising variant of the latter is the causal dynamical triangulations approach by Ambjørn, Jurkiewicz, and Loll [5]. In this setting the formal four dimensional quantum gravity functional integral is replaced by a sum over discrete geometries, Z = ∑ m (T)eiS(T) T. The geometries T are piecewise Minkowskian and selected such that they admit a Wick rotation to piecewise Euclidean geometries. The edge lengths in the spatial and the temporal directions are 2 ℓspace = a and 2 ℓtime = − αa, where a sets the discretization scale and α > 0 is an adjustable parameter. The flip α ↦→ − α defines a Wick rotation under which the weights in the partition function become real: eiS(T) ↦→ e− Seucl(T). For α = − 1 the usual expressions for the action used [8Jump To The Next Citation Point] in equilateral Euclidean dynamical triangulations are recovered, but the sum is only over those Euclidean triangulations T which lie in the image of the above Wick rotation. The weight factor m (T) is the inverse of the order of the automorphism group of the triangulation, i.e. 1 for almost all of them. With these specifications the goal is to construct a continuum limit by sending a → 0 and the number N of simplices to infinity, while adjusting the two bare parameters (corresponding to Newton’s constant and a cosmological constant) in Seucl(T ) as well as the overall scale of Z. Very likely, in order for such a continuum limit to exist and to be insensitive against modifications of the discretized setting, a renormalization group fixed point in the coupling flow is needed. Assuming that the system indeed has a fixed point, this fixed point would by construction have a nontrivial unstable manifold, and ideally both couplings would be asymptotically safe, thereby realizing the strong asymptotic safety scenario (using the terminology of Section 1.3). Consistent with this picture and the previously described dimensional reduction phenomenon for asymptotically safe functional measures (see also Section 2.4), the microscopic geometries appear to be effectively two-dimensional [67].

Despite these similarities there are (for the time being) also important differences. First the discretized action depends on two parameters only and it is hoped that a renormalized trajectory can be found by tuning only these two parameters. Since in dynamical triangulations there is no naive (classical) continuum limit, one cannot directly compare the discretized action used with a microscopic action in the previous sense. Conceptually one can assign a microscopic action to the two parametric measure defined by the causal dynamical triangulations by requiring that combined with the regularized kinematical continuum measure (see Section 2.3.3) it reproduces the same correlation functions in the continuum limit. The microscopic action defined that way would presumably be different from the Einstein–Hilbert action, but it would still contain only two tunable parameters. In other words the hope is that the particular non-naive discretization procedure gets all but two coordinates of the unstable manifold automatically right. A second difference concerns the role of averages of the metric. The transfer matrix used in [8Jump To The Next Citation Point] is presumed to have a unique ground state for both finite and infinite triangulations. Expectation values in a reconstructed Hilbert space will refer to this ground state and hence be unique for a given operator. A microscopic metric operator does not exist in a dynamical triangulations approach but if one were to define coarse grained variants, their expectation value would have to be unique. In contrast the field theoretical formulations based on a background effective action allow for a large class of averaged metrics.

1.4.2 Loop quantum gravity

The term loop quantum gravity is by now used for a number of interrelated formulations (see [199Jump To The Next Citation Point] for a guide). For definiteness we confine our comparative remarks to the original canonical formulation using loop (holonomy) variables.

Here a reformulation of general relativity in terms of Ashtekar variables (A, E ) is taken as a starting point, where schematically A and E are defined on a three-dimensional time slice and are conjugate to each other, {A, E} = δ, with respect to the canonical symplectic structure (see [199Jump To The Next Citation Point15]). From A one can form holonomies (line integrals along loops) and from E one can form fluxes (integrals over two-dimensional hypersurfaces) without using more than the manifold structure. The Poisson bracket {A, E } = δ is converted into a Poisson algebra for the holonomy and the flux variables. Two basic assumptions then govern the transition to the quantum theory: First the Poisson bracket {A, E} = δ is replaced by a commutator [A, E ] = iℏδ and is subsequently converted into an algebraic structure among the holonomy and flux variables. Second, representations of this algebra are sought on a state space built from multiple products of holonomies associated with a graph (spin network states). The inner product on this space is sensitive only to the coincidence or non-coincidence of the graphs labeling the states (not to their embedding into the three-manifold). Based on a Gelfand triple associated with this kinematical state space one then aims at the incorporation of dynamics via a (weak) solution of the Hamiltonian constraint of general relativity (or a ‘squared’ variant thereof). To this end one has to transplant the constraint into holonomy and flux variables so that it can act on the above state space. This step is technically difficult and the results obtained do not allow one to address the off-shell closure of the constraint algebra, an essential requirement emphasized in [151Jump To The Next Citation Point].

As far as comparison with Quantum Gravidynamics is concerned, important differences occur both on a kinematical and on a dynamical level, even if a variant of Gravidynamics formulated in terms of the Ashtekar variables (A,E ) was used [156Jump To The Next Citation Point]. Step one in the above quantization procedure keeps the right-hand-side of the commutator [A, E ] = iℏδ free from dynamical information. In any field theoretical framework, on the other hand, one would expect the right-hand-side to be modified: minimally (if A and E are multiplicatively renormalized) by multiplication with a (divergent) wave function renormalization constant, or (if A and E are nonlinearly renormalized) by having δ replaced with a more general, possibly field dependent, distribution. Stipulation of unmodified canonical commutation relations might put severe constraints on the allowed interactions, as it does in quantum field theories with a sufficiently soft ultraviolet behavior. (We have in mind here “triviality” results, where e.g. for scalar quantum field theories in dimensions d ≥ 4 a finite wave function renormalization constant goes hand in hand with the absence of interaction [2477Jump To The Next Citation Point]). A second marked difference to Quantum Gravidynamics is that in Loop Quantum Gravity there appears to be no room for the distinction between fine grained (‘rough’) and coarse grained (‘smooth’) geometries. The inner product used in the second of the above steps sees only whether the graphs of two spin network states coincide or not, but is insensitive to the ‘roughness’ of the geometry encoded initially in the (A, E) pair. This information appears to be lost [151Jump To The Next Citation Point]. In a field theory the geometries would be sampled according to some underlying measure and the typical configurations are very rough (non-differentiable). As long as the above ‘holonomy inner product’ on such sampled geometries is well defined and depends only on the coincidence or non-coincidence of the graphs the information about the measure according to which the sampling is done appears to be lost. Every measure will look the same. This property seems to match the existence of a preferred diffeomorphism invariant measure [14Jump To The Next Citation Point] (on a space generated by the holonomies) which is uniquely determined by some natural requirements. The typical A configurations are also of distributional type [14140]. This uniqueness translates into the uniqueness of the associated representation of the holonomy-flux algebra (which rephrases the content of the original [A,E ] = iℏδ algebra). In a field theory based on the (A, E ) variables, on the other hand, there would be a cone of regularized measures which incorporate dynamical information and on which the renormalization group acts.

Another difference concerns the interplay between the dynamics and the canonical commutation relations. In a field theory the moral from Haag’s theorem is that “the choice of the representation of the canonical commutation relations is a dynamical problem” [99]. Further the inability to pick the ‘good’ representation beforehand is one way to look at the origin of the divergencies in a canonically quantized relativistic field theory. (To a certain extent the implications of Haag’s theorem can be avoided by considering scattering states and spatially cutoff interactions; in a quantum gravity context, however, it is unclear what this would amount to.) In contrast, in the above holonomy setting a preferred representation of the holonomy-flux algebra is uniquely determined by a set of natural requirements which do not refer to the dynamics. The dynamics formulated in terms of the Hamiltonian constraint thus must be automatically well-defined on the above kinematical arena (see [151Jump To The Next Citation Point173Jump To The Next Citation Point] for a discussion of the ambiguities in such constructions). In a field theoretical framework, on the other hand, the constraints would be defined as composite operators in a way that explicitly requires dynamical information (fed in through the renormalized action). So the constraints and the space on which they act are dynamically correlated. In loop quantum gravity, in contrast, both aspects are decoupled.

Finally, the microscopic action for asymptotically safe Quantum Gravidynamics is very likely different from the Einstein–Hilbert action and thus not of second order. This changes the perspective on a canonical formulation considerably.

1.4.3 String theory

String theory provides a possible context for the unification of known and unknown forces including quantum gravity [97177112]. As far as quantum gravity is concerned the point of departure is the presupposition that the renormalization problem for the quantized gravitational field is both insoluble and irrelevant. Presently a clearly defined dynamical principle that could serve as a substitute seems to be available only for so-called perturbative first quantized string theory, to which we therefore confine the following comparative comments.

In this setting certain two-dimensional (supersymmetric) conformal field theories are believed to capture (some of) the ‘ultimate degrees of freedom of Nature’. The attribute ‘perturbative’ mostly refers to the fact that a functional integral over the two-surfaces on which the theories are defined is meant to be performed, too, but in a genus expansion this gives rise to a divergent and not Borel summable series. (In a non-perturbative formulation aimed at degrees of freedom corresponding to other extended objects are meant to occur and to cure this problem.) For the relation to gravity it is mainly the bosonic part of the conformal field theories which is relevant, so we take the 2D fermions to be implicitly present in the following without displaying them.

A loose relation to a gravitational functional integral then can be set up as follows. Schematically, the so-called low energy effective action Seff[g] arises by functional integration over the fields of a Riemannian sigma-model X : 2D surface → 10D target pace with metric gαβ. Thus ∫ dX e −Sg[X] = exp{ − Seff [g]} is a functional integral that depends parametrically on the metric gαβ which is viewed as a set of generalized couplings. The functional integral one (morally speaking) would like to make sense of in the present context is however

∫ ∫ ∫ Dg DX e− Sg[X] = Dg e−Seff[g]. (1.16 )
From the present point of view the ‘low energy’ effective action thus plays the role of a ‘Planck-scale’ or microscopic action, and the sigma-model approach makes a specific proposal for this action. (Alternatively one can reconstruct S [g] eff by studying string scattering amplitudes in a flat target space gαβ = ηαβ.) Performing the additional functional integral over the metrics loosely speaking corresponds to some string field theory. However as far as the functional integral on the right-hand-side is concerned the string field only serves as an ‘auxiliary field’ needed to come up with the proposal for the action (whatever name one gives it) used to ‘weigh’ the metrics. In contrast, in the string paradigm, it is primarily the degrees of freedom X of the Riemannian sigma-model one should quantize (i.e. perform a functional integral over), not the degrees freedom in the gravitational field represented by the (equivalence classes of the) metric field (or any other set of fields classically equivalent to it). In this sense the degrees of freedom gravitational field are not taken seriously in the quantum regime, as the fundamental degrees of freedom (extended objects) are supposed to be known. The point we are trying to make may become clearer if one considers superstring theory, where the effective action Se ff also includes Yang–Mills fields. After compactification to four dimensions one still has to perform a functional integral over the 4D Yang–Mills field, in order to make contact to fully-flegded QCD.

Since arguments presented after Equation (1.5View Equation) suggest a kind of ‘dimensional reduction’ to d = 2, one might be tempted to see this as a vindication of string theory from the present viewpoint. However string theory’s very departure was the presupposition that no fixed point exists for the gravitational functional integral. Moreover in string theory the sigma-model fields relate the worldsheet to a (4 + 6-dimensional) target manifold with a prescribed metric (or pairs thereof related by T-duality). The at least perturbatively known dynamics of the sigma-model fields does not appear to simulate the functional integral over metrics (see Equation (1.16View Equation)). The additional functional integral over Euclidean worldsheet geometries is problematic in itself and leaves unanswered the question how and why it successfully captures or replaces the ultaviolet aspects of the original functional integral, other than by definition. In the context of the asymptotic safety scenario, on the other hand, the presumed reduction to effectively two-dimensional propagating degrees of freedom is a consequence of the renormalization group dynamics, which in this case acts like a ‘holographic map’. This holographic map is of course not explicitly known, nor is it off-hand likely that it can be described by some effective string theory. A more immediate difference is that Quantum Gravidynamics does not require the introduction of hitherto unseen degrees of freedom.


  Go to previous page Go up Go to next page