Cited by 25Black Holes and Theoretical PhysicsNoncommutative and Quantum Gravity TheoriesRelativity and Gravitational Theory

Extended matter coupled to BF theory

Open access
Fairbairn, Winston J., Perez, Alejandro·2008·Physical Review D

Abstract

Recently, a topological field theory of membrane matter coupled to BF theory in arbitrary spacetime dimensions was proposed [J. C. Baez and A. Perez, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 11, 3 (2007).]. In this paper, we discuss various aspects of the four-dimensional theory. First, we study classical solutions leading to an interpretation of the theory in terms of strings propagating on a flat spacetime. We also show that the general classical solutions of the theory are in one-to-one correspondence with solutions of Einstein's equations in the presence of distributional matter (cosmic strings). Second, we quantize the theory and present, in particular, a prescription to regularize the physical inner product of the canonical theory. We show how the resulting transition amplitudes are dual to evaluations of Feynman diagrams coupled to three-dimensional quantum gravity. Finally, we remove the regulator by proving the topological invariance of the transition amplitudes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevd.78.024013

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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-dimensional BF theory, topological defects are string-like and can carry extra degrees of freedom such as topological Yang-Mills fields.

    “In the four-dimensional case, defects are string-like [175] and can carry extra degrees of freedom such as topological Yang-Mills fields [275].”

    From The Spin-Foam Approach to Quantum Gravity (2013) · cites this paper as [175]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 38 · Cited by 25

Authors
Fairbairn, W. J., & Perez, A.
Affiliations
École Normale Supérieure de Lyon (FR)
Venue
Physical Review D
Published
2008-07-08
Volume
78
Issue
2
ISSN
  • 0556-2821 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-7998
  • 1550-2368
OpenAlex
W2084098117
Cited by
25
References
38
Citations by year
2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 5
FWCI
1.78
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 AMU (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Black Holes and Theoretical Physics
  • 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
Keywords
BF theory, topological field theory, cosmic strings, classical solutions, Einstein field equations, canonical quantization, transition amplitudes, Feynman diagrams, three-dimensional quantum gravity, topological invariance, four-dimensional gravity

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