Cited by 66Noncommutative and Quantum Gravity TheoriesRelativity and Gravitational TheoryBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics

Path integral measure and triangulation independence in discrete gravity

Open access
Dittrich, Bianca, Steinhaus, Sebastian·2012·Physical Review D

Abstract

A path integral measure for gravity should also preserve the fundamental symmetry of general relativity, which is diffeomorphism symmetry. In previous work, we argued that a successful implementation of this symmetry into discrete quantum gravity models would imply discretization independence. We therefore consider the requirement of triangulation independence for the measure in (linearized) Regge calculus, which is a discrete model for quantum gravity, appearing in the semi--classical limit of spin foam models. To this end we develop a technique to evaluate the linearized Regge action associated to Pachner moves in 3D and 4D and show that it has a simple, factorized structure. We succeed in finding a local measure for 3D (linearized) Regge calculus that leads to triangulation independence. This measure factor coincides with the asymptotics of the Ponzano Regge Model, a 3D spin foam model for gravity. We furthermore discuss to which extent one can find a triangulation independent measure for 4D Regge calculus and how such a measure would be related to a quantum model for 4D flat space. To this end, we also determine the dependence of classical Regge calculus on the choice of triangulation in 3D and 4D.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevd.85.044032

Cites

84 of 84 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Even linearized classical Regge calculus in four dimensions is not discretization independent.

    “Even linearized classical Regge calculus is not discretization independent in 4D as shown in [152], where a general discussion of the issues raised in this section are considered.”

    From The Spin-Foam Approach to Quantum Gravity (2013) · cites this paper as [152]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 85 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dittrich, B., & Steinhaus, S.
Affiliations
Max Planck Society (DE)
Venue
Physical Review D
Published
2012-02-14
Volume
85
Issue
4
ISSN
  • 0556-2821 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-7998
  • 1550-2368
OpenAlex
W2145762037
Cited by
66
References
85
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 3
FWCI
5.57
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)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • 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
path integral measure, discrete quantum gravity, Regge calculus, Pachner moves, diffeomorphism symmetry, spin foam models, Ponzano-Regge model, three-dimensional gravity, semiclassical 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