Cited by 106Noncommutative and Quantum Gravity TheoriesRelativity and Gravitational TheoryBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics

Regularization ambiguities in loop quantum gravity

Open access
Perez, Alejandro·2006·Physical Review D

Abstract

One of the main achievements of loop quantum gravity is the consistent quantization of the analog of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation which is free of ultraviolet divergences. However, ambiguities associated to the intermediate regularization procedure lead to an apparently infinite set of possible theories. The absence of an UV problem---the existence of well-behaved regularization of the constraints---is intimately linked with the ambiguities arising in the quantum theory. Among these ambiguities is the one associated to the $SU(2)$ unitary representation used in the diffeomorphism covariant ``point-splitting'' regularization of the nonlinear functionals of the connection. This ambiguity is labeled by a half-integer $m$ and, here, it is referred to as the $m$ ambiguity. The aim of this paper is to investigate the important implications of this ambiguity. We first study $2+1$ gravity (and more generally BF theory) quantized in the canonical formulation of loop quantum gravity. Only when the regularization of the quantum constraints is performed in terms of the fundamental representation of the gauge group does one obtain the usual topological quantum field theory as a result. In all other cases unphysical local degrees of freedom arise at the level of the regulated theory that conspire against the existence of the continuum limit. This shows that there is a clear-cut choice in the quantization of the constraints in $2+1$ loop quantum gravity. We then analyze the effects of the ambiguity in $3+1$ gravity exhibiting the existence of spurious solutions for higher representation quantizations of the Hamiltonian constraint. Although the analysis is not complete in $3+1$ dimensions---due to the difficulties associated to the definition of the physical inner product---it provides evidence supporting the definitions quantum dynamics of loop quantum gravity in terms of the fundamental representation of the gauge group as the only consistent possibilities. If the gauge group is $SO(3)$ we find physical solutions associated to spin-two local excitations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevd.73.044007

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Comparable ambiguities arise in loop quantum gravity's constraint regularization and also in the spin-foam framework.

    “Similar ambiguities are present in LQG; they appear in the regularization of the constraints in the canonical formulation [303]. These ambiguities are also present in the spin-foam formulation, which is the central subject of this review.”

    From The Spin-Foam Approach to Quantum Gravity (2013) · cites this paper as [303]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Perez, A.
Venue
Physical Review D
Published
2006-02-07
Volume
73
Issue
4
ISSN
  • 0556-2821 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-7998
  • 1550-2368
OpenAlex
W2007706277
Cited by
106
References
4
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 7
FWCI
7.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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
loop quantum gravity, regularization ambiguity, point-splitting regularization, fundamental representation, Hamiltonian constraint, Wheeler-DeWitt equation, three-dimensional gravity, BF theory, topological field theory, spurious solutions, continuum limit

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