Cited by 15Noncommutative and Quantum Gravity TheoriesRelativity and Gravitational TheoryBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics

Consistent discretizations as a road to Quantum Gravity

Gambini, R., Pullin, J.·2009·Approaches to Quantum Gravity

Abstract

Consistent discretizations: the basic idea There has long been the hope that lattice methods could be used as a non-perturbative approach to Quantum Gravity. This is in part based on the fact that lattice methods have been quite successful in the treatment of quantum chromodynamics. However, one needs to recall that one of the appeals of lattice methods in QCD is that they are gauge invariant regularization methods. In the gravitational context this is not the case. As soon as one discretizes space-time one breaks the invariance under diffeomorphisms, the symmetry of most gravitational theories of interest. As such, lattice methods in the gravitational context face unique challenges. For instance, in the path integral context, since the lattices break some of the symmetries of the theory, this may complicate the use of the Fadeev–Popov technique. In the canonical approach if one discretizes the constraints and equations of motion, the resulting discrete equations are inconsistent: they cannot be solved simultaneously. A related problem is that the discretized constraints fail to close a constraint algebra. To address these problems we have proposed a different methodology for discretizing gravitational theories (or to use a different terminology “to put gravity on the lattice”). The methodology is related to a discretization technique that has existed for a while in the context of unconstrained theories called “variational integrators”. In a nutshell, the technique consists in discretizing the action of the theory and working from it the discrete equations of motion.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/cbo9780511575549.024

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In four dimensions, results from the consistent-discretization approach indicate that diffeomorphism invariance is broken by discretization in the sense that there is no infinitesimal generator of diffeomorphism.

    “Their results indicate that diff-invariance is indeed broken by the discretization in the sense that there is no infinitesimal generator of diffeomorphism.”

    From The Spin-Foam Approach to Quantum Gravity (2013) · cites this paper as [199]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gambini, R., & Pullin, J.
Affiliations
Utrecht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Gambini, R.
Venue
Approaches to Quantum Gravity
Published
2009-03-05
Pages
378-392
OpenAlex
W1484935812
Cited by
15
References
8
Citations by year
2017: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
FWCI
7.18
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
  • Civil War Book Review (submittedVersion)
  • CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Noncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Relativity and Gravitational Theory
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Black Holes and Theoretical Physics
Keywords
quantum gravity, lattice discretization, variational integrators, diffeomorphism invariance, constraint algebra, canonical quantization, path integral, gauge invariance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review