Cited by 172Noncommutative and Quantum Gravity TheoriesRelativity and Gravitational TheoryBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics

Quantum Gravity in 2 + 1 Dimensions: The Case of a Closed Universe

Open access
Carlip, Steven·2005·Living Reviews in Relativity

Abstract

In three spacetime dimensions, general relativity drastically simplifies, becoming a "topological" theory with no propagating local degrees of freedom. Nevertheless, many of the difficult conceptual problems of quantizing gravity are still present. In this review, I summarize the rather large body of work that has gone towards quantizing (2 + 1)-dimensional vacuum gravity in the setting of a spatially closed universe.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review surveys quantization of vacuum general relativity in 2+1 dimensions for a spatially closed universe, where the theory has no local degrees of freedom and reduces to a topological/finite-dimensional problem. It argues that (2+1)-dimensional gravity can be quantized but not uniquely, and that it serves as a test bed for conceptual issues such as time, observables, topology change, and singularities.

Key findings

  • In 2+1 dimensions the Weyl tensor vanishes and vacuum solutions have constant curvature; counting gives \(n(n-3)\) physical degrees of freedom per spacetime point, so for \(n=3\) there are no local degrees of freedom and no propagating gravitons.
  • For spacetimes \(\mathbb{R}\times\Sigma\) with genus \(g>1\), the space of holonomies has dimension \(12g-12\), matching the ADM reduced phase space; the torus universe \(\mathbb{R}\times T^2\) is simple enough for full quantization, with modular group action playing a central role.
  • Many quantization approaches exist and are not all equivalent: for example, the loop representation in the physically relevant spacelike sector differs from Chern-Simons quantization, and Euclidean versus Lorentzian Chern-Simons gravity have different gauge groups and behaviors under large diffeomorphisms.
  • Sums over topologies in Euclidean/Hartle-Hawking path integrals can be dominated by numerous complicated topologies, leading to divergences; reported spin-foam/loop results suggest spacelike intervals may be continuous while timelike intervals are discrete with spectrum \(\sqrt{n(n-1)}\,\ell_{\rm P}\), though the paper calls these results not yet conclusive.

Methods

  • Review article synthesizing the literature on (2+1)-dimensional vacuum quantum gravity with a spatially closed universe; it presents no original experiments or primary data.
  • Organizes classical formulations (geometric structures, Chern-Simons, ADM, discrete/lattice approaches, large diffeomorphisms, torus universe) and quantum approaches (reduced phase space, Chern-Simons, covariant canonical, loop quantum geometry, spin foams, dynamical triangulations, Wheeler-DeWitt, Lorentzian and Euclidean path integrals).
  • Uses explicit torus calculations and cited results, with units \(16\pi G=1\) and \(\hbar=1\) unless otherwise noted.

Limitations

  • The author states the model is not realistic, has no good Newtonian limit, and is not very helpful for understanding the dynamics of realistic quantum gravity; string theory, supergravity, and matter coupling are largely omitted.
  • The author notes that most detailed explicit results hold only for the torus universe, while higher genus, general matter coupling, and equivalence among quantization approaches remain difficult or open.
  • Evident from the text: as a review, it does not present new primary data or a systematic meta-analysis, and its conclusions depend on the cited literature and the open problems it identifies.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.12942/lrr-2005-1

Cites

344 of 344 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

140 of 243 cited sources checked · 75 supported · 7 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Only the hyperbolic-hyperbolic sector corresponds to a spacetime in which the T2 slices are spacelike.

    “It may be shown that only the hyperbolic-hyperbolic sector corresponds to a spacetime in which the T2 slices are spacelike [117, 119, 182, 209].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim4 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [117] Ezawa, K., “Addendum to “Classical and Quantum Evolutions of the de Sitter and the anti-de Sitter Universes in 2+1 dimensions””, Phys. Rev. D, 50, 2935–2938, (1994). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9403160. source

      The discussion on p. 2 identifies standard and flat sectors for torus spatial hypersurfaces. On p. 4, the paper compares its standard sector with a spacelike sector in the Λ = 0 case, but it does not say that only a hyperbolic-hyperbolic sector permits spacelike T² slices. Searches for the hyperbolic-hyperbolic sector and the causal character of torus slices found no passage establishing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.74)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [119] Ezawa, K., “Chern-Simons quantization of (2+1)-anti-de Sitter gravity on a torus”, Class. Quantum Grav., 12, 373–391, (1995). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9409074. source
    • cites [182] Louko, J., and Marolf, D., “Solution space of 2+1 gravity on R × T2 in Witten’s connection formulation”, Class. Quantum Grav., 11, 311–330, (1994). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9308018. source

      Section IV (pp. 13–15) says that spacetimes with positive-definite induced metrics on T² fall into two classes: one with purely translational holonomies in M₀ and another in Mₛ. It explicitly says the tori in the M₀ class are spacelike in case (4.1), contrary to the claim that only the hyperbolic-hyperbolic sector permits spacelike T² slices. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [209] Nelson, J.E., and Picken, R.F., “Parametrization of the moduli space of flat SL(2,R) connections on the torus”, Lett. Math. Phys., 59, 215–226, (2002). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/math-ph/0105015. source

      Section 2 (p. 3) classifies the connection matrices, and the Discussion (pp. 8–9) describes the resulting sectors. Neither those passages nor searches for spacelike torus slices and spacetime address which sector permits spacelike T² slices. (LLM, conf=0.75)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premiseown data

    At strong coupling, the Lorentzian dynamical triangulation system splits into uncorrelated two-dimensional spaces, each well-described by two-dimensional gravity.

    “At strong coupling, the system splits into uncorrelated two-dimensional spaces, each well-described by two-dimensional gravity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [12] Ambjørn, J., Jurkiewicz, J., and Loll, R., “Nonperturbative 3D Lorentzian quantum gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 64, 044011-1–17, (2001). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0011276. source

      Section 4.1 (pp. 15, 18) describes uncorrelated two-dimensional spatial geometries for k₀ above its critical value and suggests they behave as uncoupled 2D gravity models. But the Introduction (p. 5) defines k₀ as proportional to the inverse gravitational coupling, so this is the weak-gravitational-coupling regime, not the strong-coupling regime claimed. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [10] Ambjørn, J., Jurkiewicz, J., and Loll, R., “Computer simulations of 3-d Lorentzian quantum gravity”, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.), 94, 689–692, (2001). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-lat/0011055. source

      The Introduction identifies k₀ as proportional to the inverse gravitational coupling. The Results (p. 3) place the uncorrelated 2D-gravity phase above the critical k₀, where gravitational coupling is weaker; below it, at stronger gravitational coupling, the paper reports extended 3D configurations. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    (2+1)-dimensional gravity automatically displays a deformation of the Poincaré algebra associated with doubly special relativity.

    “It has recently been pointed out that (2 + 1)-dimensional gravity automatically displays such a deformation [197, 18, 126].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim3 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [197] Matschull, H.-J., and Welling, M., “Quantum Mechanics of a Point Particle in 2+1 Dimensional Gravity”, Class. Quantum Grav., 15, 2981–3030, (1998). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9708054. source

      The Symmetries section (page unavailable) says explicitly that it is not the Poincaré group itself that is deformed, but its action on phase-space variables. Its generator brackets (eq. 4.30) retain the ordinary Poincaré algebra; the deformation described is in how translations act. (LLM, conf=0.90)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [18] Amelino-Camelia, G., Smolin, L., and Starodubtsev, A., “Quantum symmetry, the cosmological constant and Planck scale phenomenology”, Class. Quantum Grav., 21, 3095–3110, (2004). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0306134. source
    • cites [126] Freidel, L., Kowalski-Glikman, J., and Smolin, L., “2+1 gravity and Doubly Special Relativity”, Phys. Rev. D, 69, 044001, (2004). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307085. source
  • Premiseown data

    At weak coupling, a semiclassical regime appears that resembles the picture obtained from other approaches to (2+1)-dimensional gravity.

    “At weak coupling, however, a “semiclassical” regime appears that resembles the picture obtained from other approaches to (2 + 1)-dimensional gravity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [12] Ambjørn, J., Jurkiewicz, J., and Loll, R., “Nonperturbative 3D Lorentzian quantum gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 64, 044011-1–17, (2001). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0011276. source

      Section 4.2 (pp. 19–21) reports semiclassical macroscopic behavior, but places it in the phase of intermediate gravitational coupling, not the weak-coupling phase. Section 4.1 (p. 18) says the weak-coupling phase consists of uncorrelated two-dimensional geometries rather than a three-dimensional gravity theory. The discussion of canonical approaches in Section 5 (p. 27) says the authors lack observables for a comparison with their spherical-slice model, so resemblance to a picture from other approaches is not established. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [10] Ambjørn, J., Jurkiewicz, J., and Loll, R., “Computer simulations of 3-d Lorentzian quantum gravity”, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.), 94, 689–692, (2001). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-lat/0011055. source

      The Introduction (p. 2) defines k0 as proportional to the inverse bare gravitational coupling. The Results (pp. 3–4) place the extended, semiclassical three-dimensional regime below the critical k0, while above it the model reduces to uncorrelated two-dimensional gravity models. Thus the paper places that regime at stronger, not weaker, gravitational coupling. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    The metric formalism can be used to give a full description of the solutions of the vacuum field equations, at least for spacetimes with topology R×Σ.

    “As Moncrief [206] and Hosoya and Nakao [159] have shown, this metric formalism can also be used to give a full description of the solutions of the vacuum field equations, at least for spacetimes with the topology ℝ × Σ.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [206] Moncrief, V., “Reduction of the Einstein equations in 2+1 dimensions to a Hamiltonian system over Teichmuller space”, J. Math. Phys., 30, 2907–2914, (1989). source
    • cites [159] Hosoya, A., and Nakao, K., “(2+1)-dimensional pure gravity for an arbitrary closed initial surface”, Class. Quantum Grav., 7, 163–176, (1990). source

      The Introduction describes an ADM metric approach for vacuum spacetimes with topology Σ × ℝ, and the Summary says the authors have completely solved the classical equations. But the Summary also says they could not explicitly demonstrate the motion of the moduli in the general case, so the claim of a full description for all such spacetimes overstates what the paper establishes. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • May combine two claims. 95
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 66
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Minassian demonstrated that quantum fluctuations do not push singularities off to infinity, and that several classically singular (2+1)-dimensional quantum spacetimes also have singular quantum b-boundaries.

    “On the other hand, Minassian has recently demonstrated [202] that quantum fluctuations do not “push singularities off to infinity” (as suggested in [158]), and that several classically singular (2 + 1)-dimensional quantum spacetimes also have singular “quantum b-boundaries”.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [202] Minassian, E.A., “Spacetime Singularities in (2+1)-Dimensional Quantum Gravity”, Class. Quantum Grav., 19, 5877–5901, (2002). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0203026. source
    • cites [158] Hosoya, A., “Quantum smearing of spacetime singularity”, Class. Quantum Grav., 12, 2967–2975, (1995). source

      Section 5.2 (A Gaussian wavepacket; page not supplied) finds that the quantum generalized affine length diverges in its (2+1)-dimensional black-hole example, even for arbitrarily small mass fluctuations. Section 6 treats infinite length as smearing out the classical singularity—the opposite of the attributed finding that fluctuations do not push it away. The paper does not establish the claim about several singular quantum b-boundaries. (LLM, conf=0.89)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    There is evidence that the matter Hamiltonian is bounded above in (2+1)-dimensional gravity.

    “For example, there is evidence that the matter Hamiltonian is bounded above in (2 + 1)-dimensional gravity [27]; perhaps this could cut off radiative contributions to the cosmological constant at an interesting scale.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [27] Ashtekar, A., “Large quantum gravity effects: Unexpected limitations of the classical theory”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 77, 4864–4867, (1996). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9610008. source

      In section I (p. 3), the paper says the bounded quantity is the total Hamiltonian of the system, explicitly including gravity. Section I (p. 4) distinguishes that Hamiltonian from H₀, the scalar-field energy, so the cited result does not establish an upper bound on the matter Hamiltonian. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    If a negative cosmological constant is present, black hole solutions can be found in 2+1 gravity.

    “If a negative cosmological constant is present, black hole solutions can be found [41, 40].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [41] Bañados, M., Teitelboim, C., and Zanelli, J., “The Black Hole in Three Dimensional Space Time”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 69, 1849–1851, (1992). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9204099. source
    • cites [40] Bañados, M., Henneaux, M., Teitelboim, C., and Zanelli, J., “Geometry of the 2+1 Black Hole”, Phys. Rev. D, 48, 1506–1525, (1993). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9302012. source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    't Hooft's approach has been used mainly to understand point particle dynamics, but recent progress has allowed a general description of topologically nontrivial compact spaces.

    “This approach has been used mainly to understand point particle dynamics, but recent progress has allowed a general description of topologically nontrivial compact spaces [169].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [169] Kádár, Z., and Loll, R., “(2+1) gravity for higher genus in the polygon model”, Class. Quantum Grav., 21, 2465–2491, (2004). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0312043. source

      The Introduction (pp. 1–2) says the paper develops explicit initial data for compact higher-genus spaces, supporting the claim of progress beyond particle dynamics. But it does not establish that the approach had been used mainly for point particles, and it conjectures—rather than proves—that its higher-genus solution space is complete. The Discussion (§5) also says including particles remains a next step for this work. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The symplectic structure obtained in this way is closely related to the symplectic structure on the abstract space of loops on Σ first discovered by Goldman.

    “It is also interesting that the symplectic structure obtained in this way is closely related to the symplectic structure on the abstract space of loops on Σ first discovered by Goldman [145, 146].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [145] Goldman, W.M., “The symplectic nature of fundamental groups of surfaces”, Adv. Math., 54, 200–225, (1984). source

      The opening discussion describes Goldman's construction of a symplectic structure on spaces of surface-group representations. It mentions a related Lie algebra on spaces based on closed curves, but explicitly assigns that work to a forthcoming paper. This copy therefore supports a connection to loops, not the claim that this paper discovered a symplectic structure on the abstract space of loops. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [146] Goldman, W.M., “Invariant functions on Lie groups and Hamiltonian flows of surface group representations”, Invent. Math., 85, 263–302, (1986). source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    For 2+1 black hole solutions, dynamics at either the horizon or the boundary at infinity can lead to local degrees of freedom.

    “For such solutions, dynamics at either the horizon or the boundary at infinity can lead to local degrees of freedom [78, 247, 59, 96, 51, 24, 91]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim7 of 7 sources checked
    • cites [78] Carlip, S., “The Statistical Mechanics of the (2+1)-Dimensional Black Hole”, Phys. Rev. D, 51, 632–637, (1995). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9409052. source

      The Introduction (p. 2) says that a boundary can make would-be gauge degrees of freedom dynamical, and applies this mechanism to the black-hole horizon. The Boundary Action (p. 5) describes dynamical fields at that horizon. Our copy does not establish the other location named in the claim—a boundary at infinity. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [247] Strominger, A., “Black Hole Entropy from Near-Horizon Microstates”, J. High Energy Phys., 02, 009, (1998). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9712251. source

      Section 6, “Relation to previous derivations” (page unavailable), describes boundary degrees of freedom at the black-hole horizon and a conformal field theory at a boundary at infinity. But it explicitly says pure 2+1 gravity has no local degrees of freedom. The claim is supported for boundary degrees of freedom, not for unqualified local degrees of freedom. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [59] Birmingham, D., Sachs, I., and Sen, S., “Entropy of Three-Dimensional Black Holes in String Theory”, Phys. Lett. B, 424, 275–280, (1998). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9801019. source

      The Introduction (p. 2) describes asymptotic Virasoro symmetries of three-dimensional anti-de Sitter gravity, and §3 (p. 5) uses their generators to count states. This supports a boundary-related part of the claim, but the paper does not say that horizon dynamics can produce local degrees of freedom, nor does it explicitly characterize the asymptotic states as local degrees of freedom. (LLM, conf=0.79)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [96] Coussaert, O., Henneaux, M., and van Driel, P., “The asymptotic dynamics of three-dimensional Einstein gravity with a negative cosmological constant”, Class. Quantum Grav., 12, 2961–2966, (1995). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9506019. source

      Section III (p. 6) establishes that dynamics at infinity is described by Liouville theory. Section II (p. 4) says three-dimensional black holes can have inner boundaries with their own surface dynamics, but the authors explicitly exclude horizons from their analysis; the paper does not establish local degrees of freedom at a black-hole horizon. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [51] Bautier, K., Englert, F., Rooman, M., and Spindel, P., “The Fefferman-Graham Ambiguity and AdS Black Holes”, Phys. Lett. B, 479, 291–298, (2000). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0002156. source

      The paper identifies local boundary degrees of freedom for 2+1-dimensional AdS black holes: on p. 11, it relates the Fefferman–Graham field locally to a Liouville field and connects its components to BTZ black-hole mass and angular momentum. It does not establish the other attributed possibility, that dynamics at the horizon can lead to local degrees of freedom. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [24] Arcioni, G., Blau, M., and O’Loughlin, M., “On the Boundary Dynamics of Chern-Simons Gravity”, J. High Energy Phys., 01, 067, (2003). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0210089. source

      The Introduction and discussion describes boundary dynamics in three-dimensional gravity, including a boundary conformal field theory arising from bulk gravitational dynamics under asymptotic boundary conditions. That supports the boundary-at-infinity part of the claim, but the passages do not establish the corresponding claim about black-hole horizons. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [91] Chen, Y.-J., “Quantum Liouville theory and BTZ black hole entropy”, Class. Quantum Grav., 21, 1153–1180, (2004). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0310234. source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The local degrees of freedom in 2+1 black hole solutions are not yet completely understood.

    “although these are certainly not yet completely understood [82].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [82] Carlip, S., “What We Don’t Know about BTZ Black Hole Entropy”, Class. Quantum Grav., 15, 3609–3625, (1998). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9806026. source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    No complete, self-consistent quantum theory of gravity has yet been formulated.

    “But despite this enormous effort, no one has yet succeeded in formulating a complete, self-consistent quantum theory of gravity [83].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [83] Carlip, S., “Quantum gravity: a Progress Report”, Rep. Prog. Phys., 64, 885–942, (2001). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0108040. source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The quantum group structure of these brackets can be expressed in terms of the quantum double of the Lorentz group.

    “several authors have further explored the quantum group structure of these brackets, which can be expressed in terms of the quantum double of the Lorentz group [37, 36, 61, 201].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim4 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [37] Bais, F.A., Muller, N.M., and Schroers, B.J., “Quantum group symmetry and particle scattering in (2+1)-dimensional quantum gravity”, Nucl. Phys. B, 640, 3–45, (2002). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0205021. source
    • cites [36] Bais, F.A., and Muller, N.M., “Topological field theory and the quantum double of SU(2)”, Nucl. Phys. B, 530, 349–400, (1998). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9804130. source

      Section 9 (pp. 39, 42) identifies D(SO(2,1)), the quantum double of the 2+1-dimensional Lorentz group, as the symmetry governing the quantum theory of 2+1 gravity. The cited paper does not establish that the specific brackets in the citing sentence have that structure; its detailed treatment of the quantum double concerns SU(2). (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [61] Buffenoir, E., Noui, K., and Roche, P., “Hamiltonian Quantization of Chern-Simons theory with SL(2,C) Group”, Class. Quantum Grav., 19, 4953–5015, (2002). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0202121. source

      In the ‘For any representation’ section (page unavailable), the paper connects the Poisson brackets to the quantum group Uq(sl(2,C)R) and expresses that group as a quantum double. But it specifies the double of Uq(su(2)), not the double of the Lorentz group. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [201] Meusburger, C., and Schroers, B.J., “Poisson structure and symmetry in the Chern-Simons formulation of (2+1)-dimensional gravity”, Class. Quantum Grav., 20, 2193–2234, (2003). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301108. source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    A similar ambiguity occurs for 2+1 gravity with point particles, which may imply a physical difference between the metric and Chern-Simons formulations.

    “A similar ambiguity occurs for (2 + 1)-dimensional gravity with point particles, where, as Matschull has emphasized [194], it may imply a physical difference between the metric and Chern-Simons formulations of (2 + 1)-dimensional gravity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [194] Matschull, H.-J., “On the relation between 2+1 Einstein gravity and Chern Simons theory”, Class. Quantum Grav., 16, 2599–2609, (1999). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903040. source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Classical Regge calculus in 2+1 dimensions was investigated by Rocek and Williams, who showed that it gave exact results for point particle scattering.

    “Classical Regge calculus in 2 + 1 dimensions was investigated by Rocek and Williams [235], who showed that it gave exact results for point particle scattering.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [235] Rocek, M., and Williams, R.M., “Three-dimensional Einstein gravity and Regge calculus”, Class. Quantum Grav., 2, 701–706, (1985). source

      The discussion on p. 703 uses Regge calculus in (2+1) dimensions to derive results for gravitating point particles, including a collision in which two particles coalesce. It does not establish exact results for point-particle scattering generally; that wording is broader than the collision result shown. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Freidel and Louapre show that a residual piece of the diffeomorphism symmetry has not been factored out of the Ponzano-Regge action; because of this symmetry, the sum (67) overcounts physical configurations, and the regulator Λ(L) is the remaining gauge volume.

    “This mystery may have recently been solved by Freidel and Louapre [131], who show that a residual piece of the diffeomorphism symmetry has not been factored out of the Ponzano-Regge action. Because of this symmetry, the sum (67) overcounts physical configurations, and the regulator Λ(L) is simply the remaining gauge volume.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [131] Freidel, L., and Louapre, D., “Diffeomorphisms and spin foam models”, Nucl. Phys. B, 662, 279–298, (2003). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0212001. source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Recent work on spin networks for noncompact groups allows holonomies that lie in infinite-dimensional unitary representations of the Lorentz group, with a finite inner product defined by appropriate gauge-fixing.

    “This new technology essentially allows one to consider holonomies (56) that lie in infinite-dimensional unitary representations of the Lorentz group, with a finite inner product defined by appropriate gauge-fixing.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [129] Freidel, L., and Livine, E.R., “Spin Networks for Non-Compact Groups”, J. Math. Phys., 44, 1322–1356, (2003). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0205268. source
    • cites [130] Freidel, L., Livine, E.R., and Rovelli, C., “Spectra of length and area in (2+1) Lorentzian loop quantum gravity”, Class. Quantum Grav., 20, 1463–1478, (2003). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0212077. source

      Section II (p. 5) constructs SO(2,1) spin networks using holonomies in infinite-dimensional unitary representations and describes an orthonormal basis of gauge-invariant states. It does not establish the attributed detail that an appropriate gauge-fixing defines a finite inner product; its displayed scalar-product construction concerns compact groups. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    A candidate for a discrete version of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation in three dimensions has been found, for which the Ponzano-Regge wave functions are solutions.

    “A candidate for a discrete version of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation in three dimensions has been found [47], for which the Ponzano-Regge wave functions are solutions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [47] Barrett, J.W., and Crane, L., “An algebraic interpretation of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation”, Class. Quantum Grav., 14, 2113–2121, (1997). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9609030. source
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In the spacelike sector, the loop transform is not well-behaved: a dense set of Chern-Simons states transforms to zero.

    “In this sector, the transform is not very well-behaved: In fact, a dense set of Chern-Simons states transforms to zero [192].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [192] Marolf, D., “Loop representations for 2+1 gravity on a torus”, Class. Quantum Grav., 10, 2625–2647, (1993). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9303019. source
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    For Λ < 0, an explicit quantization of the holonomy algebra exists for genus one and genus two, but more general results do not yet exist.

    “an explicit quantization of the algebra holonomies exists for genus one (see below) and genus two [214], but more general results do not yet exist.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [214] Nelson, J.E., and Regge, T., “Quantisation of 2+1 gravity for genus 2”, Phys. Rev. D, 50, 5125–5129, (1994). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9311029. source
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Such transition amplitudes are given explicitly in [118], where they are shown to be peaked around the classical trajectory.

    “such amplitudes are given explicitly in [118], where it is shown that they are peaked around the classical trajectory.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [118] Ezawa, K., “Transition Amplitude in 2+1 dimensional Chern-Simons Gravity on a Torus”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 9, 4727–4746, (1994). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9305170. source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    A second possibility is to change the integration measure in the loop transform to make various integrals converge better.

    “A second possibility is to change the integration measure in the loop transform to make various integrals converge better [30].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [30] Ashtekar, A., and Loll, R., “New loop representations for 2+1 gravity”, Class. Quantum Grav., 11, 2417–2434, (1994). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9405031. source
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Spacetimes with Λ < 0 expand from a big bang and recollapse in a big crunch, while those with Λ ≥ 0 expand forever.

    “Spacetimes with Λ < 0 expand from a big bang and recollapse in a big crunch, while those with Λ ≥ 0 expand forever [200, 20].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [200] Mess, G., “Lorentz Spacetimes of Constant Curvature”, unknown status, (1990). Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques preprint IHES/M/90/28.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [20] Andersson, L., Moncrief, V., and Tromba, A.J., “On the global evolution problem in 2+1 gravity”, J. Geom. Phys., 23, 191, (1997). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9610013. source

      Section 3 (p. 6) says that, for trivial solutions with spatial genus greater than 1, Λ < 0 gives a ‘big bang’ and ‘big crunch,’ while Λ ≥ 0 gives infinite expansion in one direction. Theorem 4.1 (section 4, p. 9) extends the area behavior to the specified genus-greater-than-1 vacuum developments, and section 3 (p. 8) reports completeness in the expanding direction for Λ ≥ 0. The citing sentence omits these restrictions and presents the pattern as applying to spacetimes generally. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Spin network states can be defined in 2+1 dimensions as well, and there has been recent work on their role as kinematic states.

    “Such states can be defined in 2 + 1 dimensions as well, and there has been some interesting recent work on their role as “kinematic” states [130].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [130] Freidel, L., Livine, E.R., and Rovelli, C., “Spectra of length and area in (2+1) Lorentzian loop quantum gravity”, Class. Quantum Grav., 20, 1463–1478, (2003). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0212077. source
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The Ponzano-Regge model has been used to study conditional probabilities and the emergence of quasiclassical behavior, but the cut-off dependence of these results makes their physical significance unclear.

    “The model has been used to study conditional probabilities and the emergence of quasiclassical behavior in quantum gravity [223], but the cut-off dependence of these results makes their physical significance unclear.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [223] Petryk, R., and Schleich, K., “Conditional probabilities in Ponzano-Regge minisuperspace”, Phys. Rev. D, 67, 024019-1–13, (2003). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0109083. source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    In 3+1 dimensions, loop states have been largely superseded by spin network states, characterized by a graph Γ with edges labeled by representations and vertices labeled by intertwiners.

    “In the (3 + 1)-dimensional theory, loop states have been largely superseded by spin network states, states characterized by a graph Γ with edges labeled by representations and vertices labeled by intertwiners [239].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [239] Rovelli, C., “Loop Quantum Gravity”, Living Rev. Relativity, 1, lrr-1998-1, (1998). URL (cited on 5 January 2005): http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-1998-1. source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    For noncompact groups such as those appearing in gravity, much less is known, though there has been promising work.

    “For noncompact groups such as those that appear in gravity, much less is known, though there has been some promising work [280, 155, 43, 150].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [280] Witten, E., “Quantization of Chern-Simons gauge theory with complex gauge group”, Commun. Math. Phys., 137, 29–66, (1991). source
    • cites [155] Hayashi, N., “Quantum Hilbert Space of G(C) Cher-Simons-Witten Theory and Gravity”, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl., 114, 125–147, (1993). source
    • cites [43] Bar-Natan, D., and Witten, E., “Perturbative expansion of Chern-Simons theory with non-compact gauge group”, Commun. Math. Phys., 141, 423–440, (1991). source
    • cites [150] Gukov, S., “Three-Dimensional Quantum Gravity, Chern-Simons Theory, and the A-Polynomial”, (2003). URL (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0306165. source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Colosi et al. have investigated the dynamics of a single tetrahedron, showing that a quantum description of the evolution can be given in terms of a boundary amplitude.

    “In an interesting recent paper, Colosi et al. have investigated the dynamics of a single tetrahedron [241], showing that a quantum description of the evolution can be given in terms of a boundary amplitude.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [241] Rovelli, C., Colosi, D., Doplicher, L., Fairbairn, W., Modesto, L., and Noui, K., “Background independence in a nutshell”, (2004). URL (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0408079. source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The discovery that the sum over topologies can lead to a divergent partition function has been extended to 3+1 dimensions, at least for Λ < 0, and it has been argued that this behavior might signal a phase transition that could prohibit a conventional cosmology with a negative cosmological constant.

    “Second, the discovery that the sum over topologies can lead to a divergent partition function has been extended to 3 + 1 dimensions, at least for Λ < 0, and it has been argued that this behavior might signal a phase transition that could prohibit a conventional cosmology with a negative cosmological constant [79, 80].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [79] Carlip, S., “Spacetime Foam and the Cosmological Constant”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 79, 4071–4074, (1997). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9708026. source

      Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [80] Carlip, S., “Dominant Topologies in Euclidean Quantum Gravity”, Class. Quantum Grav., 15, 2629–2638, (1998). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9710114. source

      Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    (2+1)-dimensional gravity has recently been examined as an arena in which to test a new partially discrete, constraint-free formulation of quantum gravity.

    “Similarly, (2 + 1)-dimensional gravity has recently been examined as an arena in which to test for a new partially discrete, constraint-free formulation of quantum gravity [138].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [138] Gambini, R., and Pullin, J., “Consistent discretization and loop quantum geometry”, (2004). URL (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0409057. source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Freidel et al. argue that spacelike intervals are continuous, while timelike intervals are discrete, with a spectrum of the form sqrt(n(n-1)) lP.

    “Freidel et al. argue that spacelike intervals are continuous, while timelike intervals are discrete, with a spectrum of the form”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [130] Freidel, L., Livine, E.R., and Rovelli, C., “Spectra of length and area in (2+1) Lorentzian loop quantum gravity”, Class. Quantum Grav., 20, 1463–1478, (2003). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0212077. source
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    For Λ < 0, the Hartle-Hawking wave function acquires infinite peaks at certain specific spatial geometries because topologically complicated manifolds dominate the path integral.

    “In this case, the Hartle-Hawking wave function has been examined as well, and it has been shown that the wave function acquires infinite peaks at certain specific spatial geometries: Again, topologically complicated manifolds whose individual contributions are small occur in large enough numbers to dominate the path integral, and “entropy” wins out over “action” [69].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [69] Carlip, S., “Entropy versus action in the (2+1)-dimensional Hartle-Hawking wave function”, Phys. Rev. D, 46, 4387–4395, (1992). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9205022. source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Dynamical triangulation has been proven useful in two-dimensional gravity, and important steps have been taken in higher dimensions, especially with recent progress in understanding Lorentzian triangulations.

    “Dynamical triangulation has been proven to be quite useful in two-dimensional gravity, and some important steps have been taken in higher dimensions, especially with the recent progress in understanding Lorentzian triangulations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [8] Ambjørn, J., Carfora, M., and Marzuoli, A., The Geometry of Dynamical Triangulations, vol. m50 of Lecture Notes in Physics, (Springer, Berlin, Germany; New York, U.S.A., 1997). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9612069. source
    • cites [179] Loll, R., “Discrete Approaches to Quantum Gravity in Four Dimensions”, Living Rev. Relativity, 1, lrr-1998-13, (1998). URL (cited on 5 January 2005): http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-1998-13. source

      The Dynamical triangulations Introduction calls the method a valuable tool in two-dimensional gravity, and the Summary describes results from four-dimensional simulations. The paper does not report recent progress in understanding Lorentzian triangulations; its Conclusions and Outlook instead call continuation of path-integral results to Lorentzian signature an unresolved problem. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The most elegant derivation of a Lorentzian spin foam description starts with the first-order action (14), with Λ=0, for a triangulated manifold.

    “Probably the most elegant derivation of a Lorentzian spin foam description starts with the first-order action (14), with Λ = 0, for a triangulated manifold [125, 128].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [125] Freidel, L., “A Ponzano-Regge model of Lorentzian 3-dimensional gravity”, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.), 88, 237–240, (2000). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0102098. source
    • cites [128] Freidel, L., and Krasnov, K., “Spin Foam Models and the Classical Action Principle”, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys., 2, 1183–1247, (1999). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9807092. source

      The Introduction and §2.1 describe deriving spin-foam models from a classical action on a triangulated manifold. But the Introduction explicitly restricts gravity to Euclidean signature, and §3.5 presents a Euclidean first-order gravity action, not a Lorentzian derivation. The cited passages do not establish the specified Λ = 0 condition. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The matrix model connection can be used to show that Newton's constant and the cosmological constant are additively renormalized, and to analyze the apparent nonrenormalizability of ordinary field theoretical approach.

    “For example, the matrix model connection can be used to show that Newton’s constant and the cosmological constant are additively renormalized [14], and to analyze the apparent nonrenormalizability of ordinary field theoretical approach.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [14] Ambjørn, J., Jurkiewicz, J., and Loll, R., “Renormalization of 3d quantum gravity from matrix models”, Phys. Lett. B, 581, 255–262, (2004). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307263. source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    There is some evidence that (2+1)-dimensional gravity is renormalizable in the 1/N expansion when coupled to scalar fields.

    “For example, there is some evidence that (2 + 1)-dimensional gravity is renormalizable in the 1/N expansion when coupled to scalar fields [174, 205].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [174] Kugo, T., unknown status. Kyoto preprint KUNS 1014 HE(TH)90/05 (1990).

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [205] Mizoguchi, S., and Yamamoto, H., “On the stability of renormalizable expansions in three-dimensional gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 50, 7351–7362, (1994). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9307131. source
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In the Lorentzian dynamical triangulation model, the path integral can be evaluated numerically using Monte Carlo methods and moves that systematically change an initial triangulation; one finds two phases.

    “The path integral for such a system can be evaluated numerically, using Monte Carlo methods and a set of “moves” that systematically change an initial triangulation [12, 10]. One finds two phases.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [12] Ambjørn, J., Jurkiewicz, J., and Loll, R., “Nonperturbative 3D Lorentzian quantum gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 64, 044011-1–17, (2001). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0011276. source
    • cites [10] Ambjørn, J., Jurkiewicz, J., and Loll, R., “Computer simulations of 3-d Lorentzian quantum gravity”, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.), 94, 689–692, (2001). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-lat/0011055. source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Witten suggested a mechanism by which supersymmetry in 2+1 dimensions might cancel radiative corrections to Λ without requiring equality of superpartner masses.

    “First, Witten has suggested a novel mechanism by which supersymmetry in 2 + 1 dimensions might cancel radiative corrections to Λ without requiring the equality of superpartner masses, essentially because even if the vacuum is supersymmetric, the asymptotics forbid the existence of unbroken supercharges for massive states [281, 52].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [281] Witten, E., “Is Supersymmetry Really Broken?”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 10, 1247–1248, (1995). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9409111. source
    • cites [52] Becker, K., Becker, M., and Strominger, A., “Three-Dimensional Supergravity and the Cosmological Constant”, Phys. Rev. D, 51, 6603–6607, (1995). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9502107. source
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    For ordinary Euclidean dynamical triangulations, few signs of a continuum limit have been seen; the system appears to exhibit two phases-a crumpled phase with extremely large Hausdorff dimension and a branched polymer phase-neither of which look much like a classical spacetime.

    “For ordinary “Euclidean” dynamical triangulations, few signs of such a continuum limit have been seen. The system appears to exhibit two phases — a “crumpled” phase, in which the Hausdorff dimension is extremely large, and a “branched polymer” phase — neither of which look much like a classical spacetime [179].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [179] Loll, R., “Discrete Approaches to Quantum Gravity in Four Dimensions”, Living Rev. Relativity, 1, lrr-1998-13, (1998). URL (cited on 5 January 2005): http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-1998-13. source
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The phase space path integral for spatially closed universes and for geometries with point particles is equivalent to canonical quantization of Section 3.1.

    “This is indeed true, as shown in [77, 245] for spatially closed universes and [63] for geometries with point particles.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim3 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [77] Carlip, S., “A Phase Space Path Integral for (2+1)-Dimensional Gravity”, Class. Quantum Grav., 12, 2201–2208, (1995). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9504033. source
    • cites [245] Seriu, M., “Partition Function for (2+1)-Dimensional Einstein Gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 55, 781–790, (1997). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9609052. source
    • cites [63] Cantini, L., and Menotti, P., “Functional approach to 2+1 dimensional gravity coupled to particles”, Class. Quantum Grav., 20, 845–858, (2003). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0209061. source

      For geometries with point particles, the paper derives a phase-space functional integral with the same expression as reduced particle dynamics (Additional information, eq. 71). But it says the resulting integral does not resolve operator ordering and that the relationship between the functional and operator approaches remains unclear (p. 846; §5). It therefore does not establish unqualified equivalence to canonical quantization. The spatially closed-universe part is attributed to other citations, not this paper. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    When gravity is coupled to fermions and a U(1) Chern-Simons gauge theory, renormalizability is apparently lost, although Anselmi argued that tuning coupling constants to exact values can restore renormalizability and make the theory finite.

    “This is apparently no longer the case when gravity is coupled to fermions and a U(1) Chern-Simons gauge theory [22], although Anselmi has argued that if coupling constants are tuned to exact values, renormalizability can be restored, and in fact the theory can be made finite [21].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [22] Anselmi, D., “Renormalization of quantum gravity coupled with matter in three dimensions”, Nucl. Phys. B, 687, 143–160, (2004). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0309249. source
    • cites [21] Anselmi, D., “Finiteness of quantum gravity coupled with matter in three spacetime dimensions”, Nucl. Phys. B, 687, 124–142, (2004). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0309250. source
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The inner product on the space of solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation must be gauge-fixed, and little is understood about the resulting Hilbert space.

    “Further complications come from the fact that the inner product on the space of solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation must be gauge-fixed [282, 144]; again, little is understood about the resulting Hilbert space.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [282] Woodard, R.P., “Enforcing the Wheeler-DeWitt constraint the easy way”, Class. Quantum Grav., 10, 483–496, (1993). source

      The discussion of formula (13c) says that the inner product of invariant states must be gauge-fixed, directly supporting the first part of the claim. The paper discusses unresolved questions about observables and physical time, but does not say that little is understood about the resulting Hilbert space. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [144] Giulini, D., and Marolf, D., “On the Generality of Refined Algebraic Quantization”, Class. Quantum Grav., 16, 2479–2488, (1999). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9812024. source

      The Introduction and §2.1 describe difficulties and ambiguities in defining an inner product and physical Hilbert space for solutions of quantum constraints. But §2.2 defines the inner product through a rigging map, not as something that must be gauge-fixed. The paper discusses constrained systems generally and does not establish the claim specifically for Wheeler–DeWitt solutions. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • May combine two claims.

    Premiseown data

    In the Lorentzian dynamical triangulation model, expectation value of spatial area at fixed time and correlation of successive areas match classical de Sitter behavior for a spacetime R×S2 quite well.

    “In particular, one may evaluate the expectation value 〈A(t)〉 of the spatial area at fixed time and the correlation 〈A(t)A(t + 1)〉 of successive areas; the results match the classical de Sitter behavior for a spacetime ℝ × S2 quite well.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [12] Ambjørn, J., Jurkiewicz, J., and Loll, R., “Nonperturbative 3D Lorentzian quantum gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 64, 044011-1–17, (2001). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0011276. source

      The Numerical Results section (p. 13) says the model measures spatial slice-volumes and correlations between them. In the extended phase (pp. 20–21), the measured correlator fits a classical Euclidean three-sphere modified with a thin stalk rather well. The paper does not report a match to Lorentzian de Sitter behavior on ℝ × S², nor establish the claimed match for both the fixed-time expectation value and successive-area correlation. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [10] Ambjørn, J., Jurkiewicz, J., and Loll, R., “Computer simulations of 3-d Lorentzian quantum gravity”, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.), 94, 689–692, (2001). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-lat/0011055. source

      The results (pp. 3–4, Eq. 3 and Fig. 3) report a spatial-volume correlator that fits a classical positive-curvature S³ solution rather well. They do not report that the fixed-time expectation value of spatial area was separately matched to that solution. The paper also specifies periodic S¹ × S² topology, rather than ℝ × S², and notes that a Gaussian time profile fits comparably well. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    There are indications that string theory might have something to say about the sum over topologies.

    “There are also indications that string theory might have something to say about the sum over topologies [111].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [111] Dijkgraaf, R., Maldacena, J.M., Moore, G.W., and Verlinde, E., “A Black Hole Farey Tail”, (2000). URL (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0005003. source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Carlip and Cosgrove explicitly compute amplitudes for a transition between a genus three surface and a pair of genus two surfaces.

    “Carlip and Cosgrove [84], for example, explicitly compute amplitudes for a transition between a genus three surface and a pair of genus two surfaces.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [84] Carlip, S., and Cosgrove, R., “Topology Change in (2+1)-Dimensional Gravity”, J. Math. Phys., 35, 5477–5493, (1994). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9406006. source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    It has been known for several years how to generalize the Ponzano-Regge action for a single tetrahedron, and recently considerable progress has been made in constructing Lorentzian spin foam models.

    “It has been known for several years how to generalize the Ponzano-Regge action for a single tetrahedron [48, 101, 191], and recently considerable progress has been made in constructing Lorentzian spin foam models [222, 125, 102].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim3 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [48] Barrett, J.W., and Foxon, T.J., “Semiclassical limits of simplicial quantum gravity”, Class. Quantum Grav., 11, 543–556, (1994). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9310016. source
    • cites [101] Davids, S., “Semiclassical Limits of Extended Racah Coefficients”, J. Math. Phys., 41, 924–943, (2000). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9807061. source
    • cites [191] Manuel García-Islas, J., “(2+1)-dimensional quantum gravity, spin networks and asymptotics”, Class. Quantum Grav., 21, 445–464, (2004). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0307054. source
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The alternative Lorentzian model introduced by Ambjørn and Loll has much nicer properties, including a continuum limit that appears numerically to match a finite-sized, spherical semiclassical configuration.

    “An alternative “Lorentzian” model, introduced by Ambjørn and Loll [16, 9, 12, 10, 180, 13], however, has much nicer properties, including a continuum limit that appears numerically to match a finite-sized, spherical “semiclassical” configuration.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim3 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [16] Ambjørn, J., and Loll, R., “Non-perturbative Lorentzian Quantum Gravity, Causality and Topology Change”, Nucl. Phys. B, 536, 407–434, (1998). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9805108. source

      The Abstract (p. 1) introduces a two-dimensional Lorentzian quantum-gravity model and states that it has a continuum limit. The Conclusions (p. 25) describe that limit but propose numerical simulations as future work; they do not report a numerical match to a finite-sized, spherical semiclassical configuration. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [9] Ambjørn, J., Jurkiewicz, J., and Loll, R., “A non-perturbative Lorentzian path integral for gravity”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 85, 924–927, (2000). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0002050. source

      The paper introduces a Lorentzian model and reports better-behaved geometry than in the Euclidean model (pp. 3, 10). But it describes a nontrivial continuum theory as a possibility, not a demonstrated numerical result (p. 10). Its two-sphere spatial topology is chosen for the model (p. 4); the paper does not report a continuum limit numerically matching a finite-sized spherical semiclassical configuration. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [12] Ambjørn, J., Jurkiewicz, J., and Loll, R., “Nonperturbative 3D Lorentzian quantum gravity”, Phys. Rev. D, 64, 044011-1–17, (2001). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0011276. source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The appearance of both continuous and discrete labels has a physical interpretation: continuous representations describe spacelike edges and imply a continuous length spectrum, while discrete representations label timelike edges and suggest discrete time.

    “The appearance of both continuous and discrete labels has a nice physical interpretation [130]: Continuous representations describe spacelike edges, and seem to imply a continuous length spectrum, while discrete representations label timelike edges, and suggest discrete time.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [130] Freidel, L., Livine, E.R., and Rovelli, C., “Spectra of length and area in (2+1) Lorentzian loop quantum gravity”, Class. Quantum Grav., 20, 1463–1478, (2003). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0212077. source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Similar results for sums over topologies have been found in four dimensions.

    “It is only quite recently that similar results for sums over topologies have been found in four dimensions [79, 80, 229, 19].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim4 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [79] Carlip, S., “Spacetime Foam and the Cosmological Constant”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 79, 4071–4074, (1997). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9708026. source
    • cites [80] Carlip, S., “Dominant Topologies in Euclidean Quantum Gravity”, Class. Quantum Grav., 15, 2629–2638, (1998). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9710114. source
    • cites [229] Ratcliffe, J.G., and Tschantz, S.T., “On the Growth of the Number of Hyperbolic Gravitational Instantons with Respect to Volume”, Class. Quantum Grav., 17, 2999–3007, (2000). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0009004. source
    • cites [19] Anderson, M., Carlip, S., Ratcliffe, J.G., Surya, S., and Tschantz, S.T., “Peaks in the Hartle-Hawking Wave Function from Sums over Topologies”, Class. Quantum Grav., 21, 729–742, (2004). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0310002. source
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The Lorentzian dynamical triangulation model can be translated into a two-matrix model, the ABAB model; Feynman diagrams correspond to dual graphs of a triangulation, and matrix model amplitudes become particular sums of transfer matrix elements.

    “The Lorentzian dynamical triangulation model can also be translated into a two-matrix model, the so-called ABAB model. The Feynman diagrams of the matrix model correspond to dual graphs of a triangulation, and matrix model amplitudes become particular sums of transfer matrix elements in the gravitational theory [11, 14, 15].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [11] Ambjørn, J., Jurkiewicz, J., and Loll, R., “Lorentzian 3d Gravity with Wormholes via Matrix Models”, J. High Energy Phys., 09, 022, (2001). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0106082. source

      Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [14] Ambjørn, J., Jurkiewicz, J., and Loll, R., “Renormalization of 3d quantum gravity from matrix models”, Phys. Lett. B, 581, 255–262, (2004). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307263. source
    • cites [15] Ambjørn, J., Jurkiewicz, J., Loll, R., and Vernizzi, G., “3D Lorentzian Quantum Gravity from the asymmetric ABAB matrix model”, Acta Phys. Pol. B, 34, 4667–4688, (2003). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0311072. source

      Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    It has been suggested that the conformal contribution is canceled by a Faddeev-Popov determinant, and preliminary supporting computations have been made in a proper time gauge.

    “This has led to a suggestion [100, 99] that the conformal contribution is canceled by a Faddeev-Popov determinant (see also [198]), and some preliminary supporting computations have been made in a proper time gauge [100].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [100] Dasgupta, A., and Loll, R., “A proper-time cure for the conformal sickness in quantum gravity”, Nucl. Phys. B, 606, 357–379, (2001). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0103186. source
    • cites [99] Dasgupta, A., “The Real Wick Rotations in Quantum Gravity”, J. High Energy Phys., 07, 062, (2002). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0202018. source
    • cites [198] Mazur, P.O., and Mottola, E., “The path integral measure, conformal factor problem and stability of the ground state of quantum gravity”, Nucl. Phys. B, 341, 187–212, (1990). source
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    With the decomposition of [206], the momentum constraints become trivial, while the Hamiltonian constraint becomes an elliptic differential equation that determines the scale factor λ as a function of ḡij and pij.

    “With the decomposition of [206], the momentum constraints ℌi = 0 become trivial, while the Hamiltonian constraint becomes an elliptic differential equation that determines the scale factor γ in Equation (31) as a function of ḡij and pij”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [206] Moncrief, V., “Reduction of the Einstein equations in 2+1 dimensions to a Hamiltonian system over Teichmuller space”, J. Math. Phys., 30, 2907–2914, (1989). source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingcitation

    The model has an extensive gauge freedom available in the choice of lattice.

    “The model has an extensive gauge freedom available in the choice of lattice.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Provided the triad e is invertible, the local translations in the first-order formalism are equivalent to diffeomorphisms on shell; the combination with parameters ρa=ξ·ea and τa=ξ·ωa is equivalent to the diffeomorphism generated by ξ.

    “Provided the triad e is invertible, the latter are equivalent to diffeomorphisms on a shell; more precisely, the combination of transformations with parameters ρa = ξ · ea and τa = ξ · ωa is equivalent to the diffeomorphism generated by the vector field ξ.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    The holonomies do not always determine a unique geometric structure; for Λ>0 one may need an additional discrete variable to specify the geometry.

    “First, as noted above, the holonomies do not always determine a unique geometric structure. In particular, for Λ > 0 one may need an additional discrete variable to specify the geometry.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    This follows from the fact that the group ISO(2,1) is the cotangent bundle of SO(2,1).

    “This follows from the fact that the group ISO(2, 1) is the cotangent bundle of SO(2, 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingreasoning

    In the weak field approximation, the apparent three propagating polarizations of the linearized theory are pure gauge, confirming the absence of propagating degrees of freedom.

    “The excitations (5) are thus pure gauge, confirming the absence of propagating degrees of freedom.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    The holonomy group of the flat bundle is isomorphic to the holonomy group of the geometric structure, and for 2+1 gravity the flat connection constructed from the geometric structure is that of the Chern-Simons theory.

    “The holonomy group of this flat bundle can be shown to be isomorphic to the holonomy group of the geometric structure, and for (2 + 1)-dimensional gravity, the flat connection constructed from the geometric structure is that of the Chern-Simons theory.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    In 't Hooft's Hamiltonian lattice model, the Einstein field equations with Λ=0 imply that edges of polygons move at constant velocities and that edge lengths may change, subject to consistency conditions.

    “The Einstein field equations with Λ = 0 then imply that edges of polygons move at constant velocities and that edge lengths may change, subject to a set of consistency conditions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    A flat spacetime can always be described as a collection of patches, each isometric to Minkowski space, glued together by isometries of the flat metric; the gluing is not unique and may be dynamical.

    “A flat spacetime, for instance, can always be described as a collection of patches, each isometric to Minkowski space, that are glued together by isometries of the flat metric; but the gluing is not unique, and may be dynamical.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    In the first-order formalism, the curvature equation with Λ=0 implies that ω is a flat SO(2,1) connection; and if ω(s) is a curve in the space of such flat connections, the tangent vector e=dω(s)/ds satisfies the torsion equation.

    “Concretely, in the first-order formalism of Section 2.3, the curvature equation (16) with Λ = 0 implies that ω is a flat SO(2, 1) connection; and if ω(s) is a curve in the space of such flat connections, the tangent vector e = dω(s)/ds satisfies the torsion equation (17).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Complications occur when an edge shrinks to zero length or collides with a vertex, but these are completely understood.

    “Complications occur when an edge shrinks to zero length or collides with a vertex, but these are completely understood.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    In 2+1 dimensions, the Weyl tensor vanishes identically, and the full curvature tensor is determined algebraically by the Ricci tensor and curvature scalar.

    “In 2 + 1 dimensions, however, the Weyl tensor vanishes identically, and the full curvature tensor is determined algebraically by the remaining pieces:”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    This exactness follows from the fact that any vacuum solution can be patched together from finite pieces of constant curvature spacetime, and the dynamics occurs only in the patching.

    “This follows from the peculiar nature of the field equations in three dimensions: As discussed above, any vacuum solution can be patched together from finite pieces of constant curvature spacetime, and the dynamics occurs only in the patching.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    For a spacetime M≃R×Σ, one can choose a lattice that is simply a 4g-sided polygon with edges identified; the resulting spacetime can be visualized as a polygonal tube cut out of Minkowski spacetime, with corners lying on straight worldlines and edges identified pairwise.

    “In particular, for a spacetime M ≃ ℝ × Σ, one can choose a lattice that is simply a 4g-sided polygon with edges identified; the resulting spacetime can be visualized as a polygonal tube cut out of Minkowski spacetime, with corners lying on straight worldlines and edges identified pairwise.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The Chern-Simons connections A(±) of Equation (23) are flat, and their holonomies reproduce the holonomies (38).

    “The resulting Chern-Simons connections A(±) of Equation (23) are flat, and their holonomies reproduce the holonomies (38) of the geometric structure we began with.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    For Λ ≥ 0, the final big crunch disappears, and the torus universe expands forever from an initial big bang.

    “For Λ ≥ 0, the final big crunch disappears, and the torus universe expands forever from an initial big bang.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    The modular transformations (50) are consistent with the relationships between the ADM and holonomy variables and preserve all Poisson brackets.

    “These transformations are consistent with the relationships between the ADM and holonomy variables, and that they preserve all Poisson brackets.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The area of a slice of constant t increases from 0 at t = 0 to a maximum and then shrinks to zero at t = πl/2.

    “The area of a slice of constant t is essentially the Hamiltonian (44); it increases from 0 at t = 0 to a maximum at t = and then shrinks to zero at t = πℓ/2”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    Most of the detailed, explicit results in (2+1)-dimensional quantum gravity hold only for the torus universe R × T2.

    “Most of the detailed, explicit results in (2 + 1)-dimensional quantum gravity hold only for the torus universe ℝ × T2.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    The relationship between ADM and Chern-Simons quantizations relied on a particularly simple operator ordering, and it is not obvious that such an ordering can be found for the higher genus case.

    “In particular, the relationship between the ADM and Chern-Simons quantizations in Section 3.4 relied on a particularly simple operator ordering; it is not obvious that such an ordering can be found for the higher genus case [207].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [207] Moncrief, V., “How solvable is (2+1)-dimensional Einstein gravity?”, J. Math. Phys., 31, 2978–2982, (1990). source
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Special properties of the loop operators, methods for treating noncompact groups in spin foam models, and properties of sums over topologies have been generalized to 3+1 dimensions.

    “For particular quantization programs, (2 + 1)-dimensional models have also offered more specific guidance: Special properties of the loop operators (55), methods for treating noncompact groups in spin foam models, and properties of the sums over topologies described in Section 3.11 have all been generalized to 3 + 1 dimensions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    In (2+1)-dimensional quantum gravity, spatial diffeomorphism invariance causes difficulties and consequent nonlocality in Wheeler-DeWitt quantization, and almost all approaches require understanding representations of the group of large diffeomorphisms.

    “We have discovered some rather unexpected features, such as the difficulties caused by spatial diffeomorphism invariance and the consequent nonlocality in Wheeler-DeWitt quantization, and the necessity of understanding the representations of the group of large diffeomorphisms in almost all approaches.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Much of the recent work on lattice formulations of 2+1 gravity has centered on spin foams and on random triangulations, both inherently quantum mechanical.

    “Much of the recent work on lattice formulations of (2 + 1)-dimensional gravity have centered on spin foams and on random triangulations, both inherently quantum mechanical.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    In general relativity there is no preferred time-slicing on which to normalize probabilities.

    “in general relativity there is no preferred time-slicing on which to normalize probabilities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    A related first-order Hamiltonian lattice model has been studied by Waelbroeck et al.

    “A related first-order Hamiltonian lattice model has been studied by Waelbroeck et al. [266, 267, 268, 270].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [266] Waelbroeck, H., “2+1 lattice gravity”, Class. Quantum Grav., 7, 751, (1990). source
    • cites [267] Waelbroeck, H., “Time-dependent solutions of 2+1 gravity”, Phys. Rev. Lett., 64, 2222–2225, (1990). source
    • cites [268] Waelbroeck, H., “Solving the time-evolution problem in 2+1 gravity”, Nucl. Phys. B, 364, 475–494, (1991). source
    • cites [270] Waelbroeck, H., and Zapata, J.A., “Translation symmetry in 2+1 Regge calculus”, Class. Quantum Grav., 10, 1923–1932, (1993). source
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The brackets among holonomies have been evaluated by Nelson, Regge, and Zertuche for Λ<0; they are nonzero only for holonomies of curves that intersect and can be written in terms of holonomies of rerouted curves.

    “The resulting brackets among the holonomies have been evaluated by Nelson, Regge, and Zertuche [210, 211] for Λ < 0, for which the two SL(2, ℝ) factors in the gauge group G may be taken to be independent. The brackets are nonzero only for holonomies of curves that intersect, and can be written in terms of holonomies of “rerouted” curves”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [210] Nelson, J.E., and Regge, T., “Homotopy groups and 2+1 dimensional quantum gravity”, Nucl. Phys. B, 328, 190–202, (1989). source
    • cites [211] Nelson, J.E., and Regge, T., “Homotopy groups and (2+1)-dimensional quantum de Sitter gravity”, Nucl. Phys. B, 339, 516–532, (1990). source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    For spatially closed universes, the natural candidate for a Hamiltonian in quantum gravity is identically zero when acting on physical states.

    “for spatially closed universes, the natural candidate for a Hamiltonian in quantum gravity is identically zero when acting on physical states.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    The mapping class group of a spacetime M acts on π1(M) and therefore on the holonomies.

    “It is easy to see that the mapping class group of a spacetime M acts on π1(M), and therefore on the holonomies of Section 2.2.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    If a spacetime manifold is topologically nontrivial, its diffeomorphism group may not be connected and may admit large diffeomorphisms that cannot be built up smoothly from infinitesimal deformations.

    “But if the spacetime manifold is topologically nontrivial, its group of diffeomorphisms may not be connected: M may admit “large” diffeomorphisms, which cannot be built up smoothly from infinitesimal deformations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The space of such quadratic differentials parametrizes the cotangent space of the moduli space, and the reduced phase space becomes essentially the cotangent bundle of the moduli space.

    “The space of such quadratic differentials parametrizes the cotangent space of the moduli space [1], and the reduced phase space becomes, essentially, the cotangent bundle of the moduli space.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [1] Abikoff, W., The Real Analytic Theory of Teichmüller Space, vol. 820 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, (Springer, Berlin, Germany; New York, U.S.A., 1980).

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    This reproduces the quotient space picture discussed by Mess in the context of geometric structures.

    “This reproduces the quotient space picture discussed by Mess in the context of geometric structures [200].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [200] Mess, G., “Lorentz Spacetimes of Constant Curvature”, unknown status, (1990). Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques preprint IHES/M/90/28.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The holonomies of the geometric structure in 2+1 gravity are examples of diffeomorphism-invariant observables, closely related to Wilson loop observables in the Chern-Simons formulation.

    “The holonomies of the geometric structure in (2 + 1)-dimensional gravity are examples of diffeomorphism-invariant observables, which, as we shall see below, are closely related to the Wilson loop observables in the Chern-Simons formulation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Waelbroeck's and 't Hooft's models may not be equivalent quantum mechanically.

    “and may not be equivalent quantum mechanically.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    (2+1)-dimensional gravity has the same conceptual foundation as realistic (3+1)-dimensional general relativity, and many fundamental issues of quantum gravity carry over to it.

    “As a generally covariant theory of spacetime geometry, (2 + 1)-dimensional gravity has the same conceptual foundation as realistic (3+ 1)-dimensional general relativity, and many of the fundamental issues of quantum gravity carry over to the lower dimensional setting.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Mess also demonstrated that the holonomy group H acts properly discontinuously on a region W ⊂ V2,1 of Minkowski space, and that M can be obtained as the quotient space W/H.

    “Mess also demonstrates that the holonomy group H acts properly discontinuously on a region W ⊂ V2,1 of Minkowski space, and that M can be obtained as the quotient space W/H.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [200] Mess, G., “Lorentz Spacetimes of Constant Curvature”, unknown status, (1990). Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques preprint IHES/M/90/28.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Standard power-counting arguments indicate that general relativity is nonrenormalizable, confirmed in 1986 by explicit computations.

    “standard power-counting arguments — finally confirmed in 1986 by explicit computations [149] — indicate that the theory is nonrenormalizable.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [149] Goroff, M.H., and Sagnotti, A., “The ultraviolet behavior of Einstein gravity”, Nucl. Phys. B, 266, 709–736, (1986). source
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    With a few exceptions, (2+1)-dimensional solutions are physically quite different from those in 3+1 dimensions, and the model is not very helpful for understanding the dynamics of realistic quantum gravity.

    “With a few exceptions, (2 + 1)-dimensional solutions are physically quite different from those in 3 + 1 dimensions, and the (2 + 1)-dimensional model is not very helpful for understanding the dynamics of realistic quantum gravity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    The fundamental diffeomorphism-invariant physical observables of quantum gravity are necessarily nonlocal.

    “the fundamental (diffeomorphism-invariant) physical observables of quantum gravity are necessarily nonlocal.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The space of homomorphisms (11) is not connected, and in general only one connected component gives the desired geometry.

    “The space of homomorphisms (11) is not connected [148], and, in general, only one connected component gives our desired geometry.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [148] Goldman, W.M., “Topological components of spaces of representation”, Invent. Math., 93, 557–607, (1988). source
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The geometric structure description is closely related to the first-order Chern-Simons formalism, which connects back to the standard metric formalism.

    “Fortunately, the description is closely related to the more familiar first-order Chern-Simons formalism [108, 277, 279, 2], which, in turn, can connect us back to the standard metric formalism.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [108] Deser, S., and van Nieuwenhuizen, P., “Nonrenormalizability of the quantized Dirac-Einstein system”, Phys. Rev. D, 10, 411–420, (1974). source
    • cites [277] Witten, E., “2+1 dimensional gravity as an exactly soluble system”, Nucl. Phys. B, 311, 46–78, (1988). source
    • cites [279] Witten, E., “Topology-changing amplitudes in 2+1 dimensional gravity”, Nucl. Phys. B, 323, 113–140, (1989). source
    • cites [2] Achúcarro, A., and Townsend, P.K., “A Chern-Simons action for three-dimensional anti-de Sitter supergravity theories”, Phys. Lett. B, 180, 89–92, (1986). source
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    In the timelike sector, where traces of the two holonomies are both less than two, the loop transform is a simple Fourier transformation, and Chern-Simons and loop quantization are equivalent.

    “In the “timelike sector,” in which the traces of the two holonomies are both less than two, the loop transform is a simple Fourier transformation, and Chern-Simons and loop quantization are equivalent.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    For a torus universe with zero or positive cosmological constant, similar constructions are possible.

    “For a torus universe with zero or positive cosmological constant, similar constructions are possible.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [81] Carlip, S., Quantum Gravity in 2+1 Dimensions, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.; New York, U.S.A., 1998). source
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The reduced phase space quantization appears self-consistent and is guaranteed to have the correct classical limit on the reduced phase space.

    “It appears to be self-consistent, and like ordinary quantum mechanics, it is guaranteed to have the correct classical limit on the reduced phase space of Section 2.4.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisenone given

    For Λ = 0, the relevant gauge group is ISO(2,1), the (2+1)-dimensional Poincaré group, or its universal cover.

    “For Λ = 0, the relevant gauge group is ISO(2, 1), the (2 + 1)-dimensional Poincaré group, or its universal cover.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Often one can determine such an isomorphism perturbatively in the neighborhood of a known classical solution.

    “Often, however, we can determine such an isomorphism perturbatively in the neighborhood of a known classical solution.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    For the torus universe, such an isomorphism is known.

    “For the torus universe, such an isomorphism is known.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Because of invariance under the mapping class group, the true physical motion in the torus moduli space is much more complicated; there are arbitrarily long geodesics, and the flow is ergodic.

    “the true physical motion in the moduli space of the torus — the space of physical configurations with the large diffeomorphisms modded out — is much more complicated; there are arbitrarily long geodesics, and the flow is, in fact, ergodic [93].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [93] Cornfeld, I.P., Fomin, S.V., and Sinai, Y.G., Ergodic theory, vol. 245 of Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, (Springer, New York, U.S.A., 1982). source
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The algebra (57) is not a Lie algebra, but it is related to the Lie algebra of the quantum group Uq(sl(2)) with q = exp 4iθ.

    “The algebra (57) is not a Lie algebra, but it is related to the Lie algebra of the quantum group Uq(sl(2)) with q = exp 4iθ [211].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [211] Nelson, J.E., and Regge, T., “Homotopy groups and (2+1)-dimensional quantum de Sitter gravity”, Nucl. Phys. B, 339, 516–532, (1990). source
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Puzio argues that the corresponding wave functions are well-behaved and nonsingular at the boundaries of moduli space.

    “The behavior of the corresponding wave functions has been explored by Puzio [227], who argues that they are well-behaved and nonsingular at the boundaries of moduli space.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [227] Puzio, R.S., “On the square root of the Laplace-Beltrami operator as a Hamiltonian”, Class. Quantum Grav., 11, 609–620, (1994). source
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    The Riemann moduli space of the torus is two dimensional, so one expects a four-dimensional space of solutions.

    “The Riemann moduli space of the torus is two dimensional, so from Section 2.4 we expect a four-dimensional space of solutions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    A real value of τ represents a torus that has collapsed to a line, so the geometry is singular even apart from the crunch in volume.

    “This means that even apart from the “crunch” in volume, the geometry is singular: A real value of τ represents a torus that has collapsed to a line.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    For higher genus spaces and realistic 3+1-dimensional gravity, such an isomorphism is not known.

    “For higher genus spaces, however — and certainly for realistic (3 + 1)-dimensional gravity — it is not [207].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [207] Moncrief, V., “How solvable is (2+1)-dimensional Einstein gravity?”, J. Math. Phys., 31, 2978–2982, (1990). source
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    For genus g > 1, no simple form such as Equation (41) for the standard constant curvature metrics exists, and the ADM Hamiltonian becomes a complicated, nonlocal function of the moduli.

    “The problem is in part that no simple form such as Equation (41) for the “standard” constant curvature metrics exists, and in part that the ADM Hamiltonian becomes a complicated, nonlocal function of the moduli.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    With the weighting in Equation (67), identities among 6j-symbols may be used to show that the amplitude is invariant under refinement, suggesting a topological theory independent of triangulation.

    “With this weighting, identities among 6j-symbols may be used to show that the amplitude is invariant under refinement — that is, subdivision of a tetrahedron into four smaller tetrahedra — suggesting that we are dealing with a “topological” theory that does not depend on the choice of triangulation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    The operators (62) on the covariant canonical Hilbert space were obtained from a particular classical time-slicing and answer questions about spatial geometry in that slicing.

    “The operators (62) introduced here on the covariant canonical Hilbert space were obtained from a particular classical time-slicing, and answer questions about spatial geometry in that slicing.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationnone given

    For the torus universe, the dynamics can be read off from the metric (40).

    “For the torus universe of the preceding Section 2.7, the dynamics can be read off from the metric (40).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    Since the space of solutions of the Einstein equations in 3+1 dimensions has a similar orbifold structure, one might expect a similar ambiguity in realistic 3+1 quantum gravity.

    “Since the space of solutions of the Einstein equations in 3 + 1 dimensions has a similar orbifold structure [163], we might expect a similar ambiguity in realistic (3 + 1)-dimensional quantum gravity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [163] Isenberg, J.A., and Marsden, J.E., “A slice theorem for the space of solutions of Einstein’s equations”, Phys. Rep., 89, 179–222, (1982). source
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The measure-changing approach is possible but at some cost: inner products between loop states become considerably more complex, as does the action of the mapping class group, and it is not obvious that there is a canonical choice of the new measure and algebra.

    “This is possible, but at some cost — the inner products between loop states become considerably more complex, as does the action of the mapping class group — and it is not obvious that there is a canonical choice of the new measure and algebra.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Such questions would seem to require a different classical time-slicing and thus a different, perhaps inequivalent, quantum theory.

    “Such questions would seem to require a different classical time-slicing, and thus a different — and perhaps inequivalent — quantum theory.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    For the torus universe R × T2, matters simplify considerably as in reduced phase space quantization.

    “As in reduced phase space quantization, matters simplify considerably for the torus universe ℝ × T2.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Numerical investigations of the Ponzano-Regge path integral have been undertaken, but the evidence of a continuum limit is thus far inconclusive.

    “A few numerical investigations of the Ponzano-Regge path integral have been undertaken [151], but the evidence of a continuum limit is thus far inconclusive.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [151] Hamber, H.W., and Williams, R.M., “Simplicial quantum gravity in three dimensions: Analytical and numerical results”, Phys. Rev. D, 47, 510–532, (1993). source
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    In the Cauchy completion proposal, many resulting states are no longer functions of loops in any clear sense; they correspond to extended loops whose geometrical interpretation is not entirely clear.

    “This is a consistent procedure, but many of the resulting states in the Cauchy completion are no longer functions of loops in any clear sense; they correspond instead to “extended loops” [136], whose geometrical interpretation is not entirely clear.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [136] Gambini, R., and Pullin, J., Loops, Knots, Gauge Theories and Quantum Gravity, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.; New York, U.S.A., 1996). source
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    If Λ > 0 or point particles are present, the holonomies do not quite determine a unique geometric structure, and Chern-Simons theory is not quite equivalent to general relativity.

    “If Λ > 0 or point particles are present, the holonomies do not quite determine a unique geometric structure, and the Chern-Simons theory is not quite equivalent to general relativity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    A finite-parameter description effectively reduces quantum gravity to quantum mechanics, allowing evasion of the complications of quantum field theory.

    “Such a description effectively reduces quantum gravity to quantum mechanics, allowing us to evade the complications of quantum field theory.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    When the spatial metric is nondegenerate, the constraints (63) are equivalent to the standard constraints of first order gravity, and the classical theories are identical.

    “When the spatial metric {g_{ij}} = {e_i}^a{e_{ja}} is nondegenerate, it is straightforward to show that these constraints are equivalent to the standard constraints of first order gravity, and the classical theories are identical.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    In 2+1 dimensions, the full constraints imply that spin network states have their support on flat connections, and only holonomies around noncontractible curves describe nontrivial physics.

    “In 2 + 1 dimensions, however, the full constraints imply that such states have their support on flat connections, and only holonomies around noncontractible curves describe nontrivial physics.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    It is far less clear how to ask for transition amplitudes between other spatial slices on which tr K is not constant.

    “But it is far less clear how to ask for transition amplitudes between other spatial slices, on which tr K is not constant.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The gauge-invariant observables, the traces of the holonomies, are automatically nonlocal and time-independent, yielding a frozen time formalism.

    “The gauge-invariant observables — the traces of the holonomies — are automatically nonlocal and time-independent, and one obtains a “frozen time formalism,” or what Kuchař has called “quantum gravity without time” [173].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [173] Kuchař, K., in Kunstatter, G., Vincent, D.E., and Williams, J.G., eds., General Relativity and Relativistic Astrophysics, Proceedings of the 4th Canadian Conference, University of Winnipeg, 16–18 May, 1991, 211, (World Scientific, Singapore; River Edge, U.S.A., 1992).

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    The first-order Euclidean action with Λ>0 can be written as a difference of SU(2) Chern-Simons actions, so Z_grav equals the absolute square of the SU(2) Chern-Simons partition function.

    “The first-order Euclidean action with Λ > 0 can be written as a difference of SU(2) Chern-Simons actions, so 71”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The technique of Chern-Simons quantization relies on special features of general relativity in 2+1 dimensions and does not readily generalize to higher dimensions.

    “The technique of Chern-Simons quantization relies on special features of general relativity in 2 + 1 dimensions, and does not readily generalize to higher dimensions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    The torus moduli space is not a manifold but has orbifold singularities, and quantization on an orbifold is generally not unique.

    “The torus moduli space is not a manifold, but rather has orbifold singularities, and quantization on an orbifold is generally not unique.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    The Wheeler-DeWitt equation apparently does not simplify in the same way.

    “the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, for example, apparently does not”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    For Λ > 0, the relevant gauge group is SO(3,1) or its cover SL(2,C), a complex gauge group whose Chern-Simons theory is somewhat better understood.

    “For Λ > 0, the relevant gauge group is SO(3, 1) or its cover SL(2, ℂ), a complex gauge group whose Chern-Simons theory is somewhat better understood [280, 155, 43].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [280] Witten, E., “Quantization of Chern-Simons gauge theory with complex gauge group”, Commun. Math. Phys., 137, 29–66, (1991). source
    • cites [155] Hayashi, N., “Quantum Hilbert Space of G(C) Cher-Simons-Witten Theory and Gravity”, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl., 114, 125–147, (1993). source
    • cites [43] Bar-Natan, D., and Witten, E., “Perturbative expansion of Chern-Simons theory with non-compact gauge group”, Commun. Math. Phys., 141, 423–440, (1991). source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisenone given

    In effective field theory, the cosmological constant is predicted to be some 120 orders of magnitude larger than the observed limit.

    “Undoubtedly, the biggest embarrassment in quantum gravity today is the apparent prediction, at least in effective field theory, that the cosmological constant should be some 120 orders of magnitude larger than the observed limit.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The Ponzano-Regge and Turaev-Viro models are examples of spin foam models, based on simplicial complexes with faces, edges, and vertices labeled by group representations and intertwiners.

    “The Ponzano-Regge and Turaev-Viro models are examples of “spin foam” models [35, 222], that is, a model based on simplicial complexes with faces, edges, and vertices labeled by group representations and intertwiners.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [35] Baez, J.C., “An Introduction to Spin Foam Models of Quantum Gravity and BF Theory”, in Gausterer, H., Grosse, H., and Pittner, L., eds., Geometry and Quantum Physics, Proceedings of the 38. Internationale Universitätswochen für Kern- und Teilchenphysik, Schladming, Austria, January 9–16, 1999, vol. 543 of Lecture Notes in Physics, 25–64, (Springer, Berlin, Germany; New York, U.S.A., 2000). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9905087. source
    • cites [222] Perez, A., “Spin foam models for quantum gravity”, Class. Quantum Grav., 20, R43–R104, (2003). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301113. source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Freidel and Loupre considered a variant of the Ponzano-Regge model and showed that although the sum over topologies diverges, it is Borel summable.

    “Building on work by Boulatov [60], Freidel and Loupre have recently considered a variant of the Ponzano-Regge model, and have shown that although the sum over topologies diverges, it is Borel summable [132].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [60] Boulatov, D., “A Model of Three-Dimensional Lattice Gravity”, Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 7, 1629–1646, (1992). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9202074. source
    • cites [132] Freidel, L., and Louapre, D., “Non-perturbative summation over 3D discrete topologies”, Phys. Rev. D, 68, 104004, (2003). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0211026. source
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    As a consequence, the Hamiltonian constraint becomes a nonlocal functional differential equation, and very little is understood about its solutions, even for the simplest case of the torus universe.

    “As a consequence, the Hamiltonian constraint becomes a nonlocal functional differential equation, and very little is understood about its solutions, even for the simplest case of the torus universe.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Most literature on the birth of the universe focuses on Hawking's Euclidean path integral and the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary proposal, which describes the universe by a path integral over Riemannian metrics on manifolds with a single connected boundary Σ.

    “Here, most of the literature has focused on the Hawking’s Euclidean path integral [154] and the Hartle-Hawking “no boundary” proposal [152], which describes the universe in terms of a path integral over Riemannian metrics on manifolds with a single, connected boundary Σ.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [154] Hawking, S.W., in Hawking, S.W., and Israel, W., eds., General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.; New York, U.S.A., 1979).
    • cites [152] Hartle, J.B., and Hawking, S.W., “Wave function of the Universe”, Phys. Rev. D, 28, 2960–2975, (1983). source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Recent work has suggested a method for summing over all topologies in spin foam models, allowing quantum fluctuations of spacetime topology.

    “While spin foam models ordinarily assume a fixed spacetime topology, recent work has suggested a method for summing over all topologies as well, thus allowing quantum fluctuations of spacetime topology [132].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [132] Freidel, L., and Louapre, D., “Non-perturbative summation over 3D discrete topologies”, Phys. Rev. D, 68, 104004, (2003). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0211026. source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    These results should probably not yet be considered conclusive, since they require operators that do not commute with all of the constraints, but they are certainly suggestive.

    “These results should probably not yet be considered conclusive, since they require operators that do not commute with all of the constraints, but they are certainly suggestive.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    If Riemannian signature is allowed, the path integral makes sense for any spatial topology, and if Σ is totally geodesic one can smoothly join a Lorentzian metric at Σ.

    “If one allows Riemannian signature, on the other hand, such a path integral makes sense for any spatial topology, and if one further requires that Σ be totally geodesic — that is, that the extrinsic curvature of Σ vanish — one can smoothly join on a Lorentzian metric at Σ [141].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [141] Gibbons, G.W., and Hartle, J.B., “Real tunneling geometries and the large-scale topology of the universe”, Phys. Rev. D, 42, 2458–2468, (1990). source
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    To obtain a Lorentzian version, one must replace SU(2) by SO(2,1); the corresponding Plancherel formula involves a sum over both the continuous principal series and the discrete series of representations of SO(2,1), so edges may be labeled by discrete or continuous spins.

    “To obtain a Lorentzian version, one must replace SU(2) by SO(2, 1). The corresponding Plancherel formula involves a sum over both the (continuous) principle series of representations of SO(2, 1) and the discrete series. Consequently, edges may now be labeled either by discrete or continuous spins.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Many approaches to the quantum theory are possible, and they are not all equivalent.

    “More than an “existence theorem”, though, the (2 + 1)-dimensional models also provide a “nonuniqueness theorem”: Many approaches to the quantum theory are possible, and they are not all equivalent.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    At least for Λ=0, the first order constraints coming from Equations (15,16) are at most linear in the momenta and are uncomplicated to solve.

    “At least for Λ = 0, the first order constraints coming from Equations (15, 16) are at most linear in the momenta, and are thus uncomplicated to solve.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The momentum constraint fixes the undetermined vector field Yi in terms of the scale factor λ, but it does so nonlocally.

    “The momentum constraint fixes in terms of the scale factor λ, but it does so nonlocally.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [206] Moncrief, V., “Reduction of the Einstein equations in 2+1 dimensions to a Hamiltonian system over Teichmuller space”, J. Math. Phys., 30, 2907–2914, (1989). source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    The AdS/CFT correspondence may impose boundary conditions that limit the topologies allowed in the sum.

    “In particular, the AdS/CFT correspondence may impose boundary conditions that limit the topologies allowed in the sum.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Saddle points are Einstein manifolds, with actions proportional to the volume.

    “Saddle points are then Einstein manifolds, with actions proportional to the volume.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The conformal factor problem is solved, so that a saddle point evaluation of the path integral is a good approximation.
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    There are general reasons to expect Equation (75) to be ill-defined: a conformal excitation contributes to the Euclidean action with the wrong sign, and the action is unbounded below.

    “Indeed, there are general reasons to expect the expression to be ill-defined: A conformal excitation gμν → e2φgμν contributes to IE with the wrong sign, and the action is unbounded below [142].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [142] Gibbons, G.W., Hawking, S.W., and Perry, M.J., “Path integrals and the indefiniteness of the gravitational action”, Nucl. Phys. B, 138, 141–150, (1978). source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisenone given

    Lorentzian path integrals allow computation of topology-changing amplitudes in which the universe tunnels from one spatial topology to another.

    “Lorentzian path integrals allow us to compute interesting topology-changing amplitudes, in which the universe tunnels from one spatial topology to another.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Section 9.2 of [81] describes a partial gauge-fixing that takes advantage of the fact that every metric on a three-manifold is conformal to one of constant scalar curvature.

    “Section 9.2 of [81] describes a partial gauge-fixing, which takes advantage of the fact that every metric on a three-manifold is conformal to one of constant scalar curvature.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [81] Carlip, S., Quantum Gravity in 2+1 Dimensions, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.; New York, U.S.A., 1998). source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    Even after this partial gauge-fixing, one is left with an infinite-dimensional integral about which very little can be said.

    “But while this leads to some simplification, we are still left with an infinite-dimensional integral about which very little can yet be said.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The model considered by Freidel and Loupre is not exactly the Ponzano-Regge model, and it is not clear that it is ordinary quantum gravity.

    “The model considered in [132] is not exactly the Ponzano-Regge model, and it is not clear that it is really “ordinary” quantum gravity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [132] Freidel, L., and Louapre, D., “Non-perturbative summation over 3D discrete topologies”, Phys. Rev. D, 68, 104004, (2003). Related online version (cited on 5 January 2005): http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0211026. source
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Hartle and Hawking propose a ground state wave function given by Equation (75).

    “Hartle and Hawking therefore propose a “ground state” wave function 75”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [152] Hartle, J.B., and Hawking, S.W., “Wave function of the Universe”, Phys. Rev. D, 28, 2960–2975, (1983). source
    • The authors state this as an assumption: In the absence of any basis for picking out a preferred topology, all manifolds with a given boundary Σ are assumed to contribute to the Hartle-Hawking path integral.
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The covariant metric path integral does not require a topology R×Σ and could potentially describe topology-changing amplitudes.

    “This approach does not require a topology ℝ × Σ, and could potentially describe topology-changing amplitudes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
141 of 141
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    A suitable dynamical triangulation model lies in the same universality class as genuine (2+1)-dimensional gravity, so that the continuum limit should be exact.

    “In particular, it is plausible (although not rigorously proven) that a suitable model lies in the same universality class as genuine (2 + 1)-dimensional gravity, in which case the continuum limit should be exact.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    In the absence of any basis for picking out a preferred topology, all manifolds with a given boundary Σ are assumed to contribute to the Hartle-Hawking path integral.

    “in the absence of any basis for picking out a preferred topology, all manifolds with a given boundary Σ are assumed to contribute.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The conformal factor problem is solved, so that a saddle point evaluation of the path integral is a good approximation.

    “Assuming that the “conformal factor problem” is solved, a saddle point evaluation of the path integral is arguably a good approximation.”
3 of 3

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Torsion equation is cited as Equation (17)

    Minor

    Equation (17) displays local Lorentz transformations, not the torsion equation. The torsion equation is labeled (15).

  • Hyperbolic geometric-structure pair reverses the defined order

    Minor

    The paper defines a (G, X) structure with the group first and model space second, but later writes the hyperbolic plane first and its symmetry group second.

  • Quantum torus Hamiltonian reverses the classical sign

    Minor

    Equation (44) gives the classical Hamiltonian with a minus sign, while Equation (62) defines its operator counterpart with a plus sign. The latter therefore does not reproduce the stated classical Hamiltonian in the classical limit.

  • Torus metric has a mixed term independent of one cycle

    Minor

    The displayed metric contains an r2−r2− term in its dx dy coefficient. Even when both r1 parameters vanish, this leaves a nonzero mixed term, whereas Equation (44) then gives zero for the Hamiltonian identified with the slice's area. The two expressions cannot describe the same spatial metric and area as stated.

4 of 4

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Birman, J.S., “The algebraic structure of surface mapping class groups”, in Harvey, W.J., ed., Discrete Groups and Automorphic Functions, Proceedings of an instructional conference, Cambridge, England, 1975, 163–198, (Academic Press, London, U.K.; New York, U.S.A., 1977).
  2. Iwaniec, H., in Rankin, R.A., ed., Modular Forms, Papers from a symposium on modular forms held June 30–July 10, 1983, University of Durham, England, (Ellis Horwood; Halsted Press, Chichester, U.K.; New York, U.S.A., 1984).
  3. Kugo, T., unknown status. Kyoto preprint KUNS 1014 HE(TH)90/05 (1990).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Carlip, S.
Affiliations
University of California, Davis (US)
Corresponding author
Carlip, Steven
Venue
Living Reviews in Relativity
Published
2005-01-24
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
1-1
ISSN
  • 1433-8351 (ISSN-L)
  • 2367-3613
OpenAlex
W2109193263
Cited by
172
References
343
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 58 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 7
FWCI
0.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Living Reviews in Relativity (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
U.S. Department of Energy (DE‐FG02‐, FG02-91ER40674, DEFG0291ER40674)
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, three-dimensional gravity, topological gravity, closed universe, vacuum gravity, 2+1 dimensions

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-11-03.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-11-03.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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