arxiv: v1 [gr-qc] 27 Mar 2014

Transcription

1 Towards the Turaev-Viro amplitudes from a Hamiltonian constraint Valentin Bonzom, 1, Maïté Dupuis,, and Florian Girelli, 1 LIPN, UMR CNRS 7030, Institut Galilée, Université Paris 13, 99, avenue Jean-Baptiste Clément, Villetaneuse, France, EU Department of pplied Mathematics, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada Dated: March 8, 014) arxiv: v1 [gr-qc] 7 Mar 014 3D Lo Quantum Gravity with a vanishing cosmological constant can be related to the quantization of the SU) BF theory discretized on a lattice. t the classical level, this discrete model characterizes discrete flat geometries and its phase space is built from T SU). In a recent paper [16], this discrete model was deformed using the Poisson-Lie group formalism and was shown to characterize discrete hyperbolic geometries while being still tological. Hence, it is a good candidate to describe the discretization of SU) BF theory with a negative) cosmological constant. We proceed here to the quantization of this model. t the kinematical level, the Hilbert space is spanned by spin networks built on U qsu)) with q real). In particular, the quantization of the discretized Gauss constraint leads naturally to U qsu)) intertwiners. We also quantize the Hamiltonian constraint on a face of degree 3 and show that physical states are prortional to the quantum 6j-symbol. This suggests that the Turaev-Viro amplitude with q real is a solution of the quantum Hamiltonian. This model is therefore a natural candidate to describe 3D lo quantum gravity with a negative) cosmological constant. I. INTRODUCTION 3D gravity has been an important testing ground in the aim of quantizing 4D gravity. It has provided quite a lot of ideas that are used today in lo quantum gravity LQG). One of them is that some degrees of freedom of LQG can be understood as discretized gravity on a lattice, also known as models of discrete geometries. key question that has yet to be answered is that of the continuum limit of such models and the fate of the diffeomorphism symmetry see [1 5] for many discussions on this issue). Lots of effort have been put into 3D gravity because it is exactly solvable, tological and exact on the lattice such as on a triangulation see [6 8]). The idea is similar to Regge calculus, an approximation to general relativity where the simplices are taken to be flat and curvature lies on the hinges. But in the 3D case with a vanishing cosmological constant, spacetime is flat and the discretization is exact. In particular the set of symmetries of the continuous reduces to a set of symmetries on the lattice which still makes the model tological [9]. The fact that the symmetries survive discretization makes the physical vacuum of the theory quite interesting. It has even been very recently prosed as a new vacuum for LQG, as it is directly physical in the flat tological) case and is much closer to the spirit of the spin foam quantization spin foam models are based on modified tological transition amplitudes) [10]. However, in discrete geometry models for non-flat spacetimes, gauge symmetries diffeomorphisms) are typically broken. This is even the case for 3D gravity with a non-zero cosmological constant and discretized à la Regge, [11]. It is nonetheless known that 3D gravity with a cosmological constant Λ 0 is a tological quantum theory of the Chern-Simons type) [1] and its partition function for positive Λ) is known to be a quantum invariant, the Turaev-Viro TV) invariant of 3-manifolds [13 15]. The TV invariant actually is an example of a spin foam model. It is moreover formally 1, i.e. term by term in the state-sum model) obtained by taking the q-deformation q a root of unity) of all the spin foam data which come from the representation theory of SU). ll in all, the present situation strongly suggests that there should be a classical model of discrete, homogeneously curved, geometries whose quantization leads to TV transition amplitudes. Since the quantum TV model is based on the q-deformation of SU) and that the discrete model underlying LQG for flat geometry has T SU) as phase space, it was prosed in [16] to use a classical deformation of T SU) as phase space and shown therein that a set of first class constraints generalizing the flat case still make the model tological. Moreover, the geometric content was interpreted as discrete hyperbolic geometries formed by gluing of hyperbolic triangles Λ < 0). This is a sort of gauge covariant, and canonical, extension of the Regge calculus prosed in [17] that uses homogeneously curved simplices, and it is best suited for a generalization of LQG to Λ < 0. In particular, this framework could be important to improve the discrete hypersurface deformation algebras found in [18] in the curved case. bonzom@lipn.univ-paris13.fr mdupuis@uwaterloo.ca fgirelli@uwaterloo.ca 1 The TV invariant is finite, but it has no q 1 limit in general.

2 Figure 1. The precise discretization scheme to describe the deformed model [16] is still to be determined. We proceed here to the quantization of the model [16] and recover the Turaev-Viro amplitude as a solution of the Hamiltonian constraint, as well as intertwiners based on U qsu)). This model is therefore a natural candidate to describe 3D Euclidian LQG with Λ < 0 based on U qsu)). In the present paper we proceed to the quantization of the model of [16]. We focus on the quantization of the deformed momenta which describe the intrinsic geometry of the embedded surface, following closely [19] though with different conventions. t the quantum level, the momenta become generators of U q su)). We impose the Gauss law at the quantum level, which is usually the first step in LQG, giving rise to spin network states. It is found that the Gauss law is solved by q-intertwiners. We also quantize and solve the Hamiltonian constraint on a face of degree three, following the techniques of [6] at q = 1, and find the first hint that the transition amplitude associated to the 3-to-1 Pachner move will be given by the q-6j symbol for real q), i.e. the building block of TV amplitudes. This is an important step, although a partial one, to justify the current use of quantum groups in spin foam models for 4D) gravity as a way to account for the cosmological constant. Besides being an important glimpse relating a classical model of discrete geometry to TV amplitudes see also [0, 1]), this work also checks the robustness of the physical vacuum of the flat tological model with respect to introducing curvature still in the context of a tological model but it would be heless in 4D gravity if it did not work in 3D with Λ 0). II. CLSSICL SETUP We recall the main elements of the model introduced in [16]. We consider a cell decomposition of an orientable D surface, and equip each edge of the decomposition with the Heisenberg double of SU), D = SL, C). It is formed by SU) and its dual, the group SB, C) which consists of lower triangular matrices of the form ) λ 0 l = z λ 1, 1) with z C and λ a non-vanishing real number. For u SU), SL, C) is found as products G = lu corresponding to the left Iwasawa decomposition. The Poisson brackets are {l 1, l } = [r, l 1 l ], {l 1, l ) 1 } = [r, l 1 l ) 1 ], {l 1 ) 1, l ) 1 } = [r, l 1 ) 1 l ) 1 ] {l 1, u } = l 1 ru, {l 1 ) 1, u } = l 1 ) 1 r u, {u 1, u } = [r, u 1 u ], ) with the notations are a 1 = a I, a = I a, and where the classical r-matrix is r = iκ ) n equivalent set of variables is found via the right Iwasawa decomposition, G = ũ l. To keep track of the equivalence between the two Iwasawa decompositions, it is convenient to picture the cell decomposition as a ribbon graph, with ribbon edges, ribbon vertices, and faces. Each ribbon edge can be seen as a box like in the Figure, with group elements attached to the boundary of the box. The two ways to go from one corner to the posite corner correspond to the constraint lu = ũ l. This model can be seen as a deformation of the usual discretized model for BF with Λ = 0 [16]. In this case, the Heisenberg double is given by the group ISO3). The variables l and l) reduces to the generators of su), known as fluxes in the lo quantum gravity literature, while the variables u and ũ) are SU) holonomies. Following the construction of the flat case, we will call the variables l and l the momentum variables, whereas u and ũ are the configuration variables, or the holonomies. The dynamics is given by a set of first class constraints. We have the Gauss constraints which restrict the momentum variables and the flatness constraints which restrict the configuration variables. We showed in [16] how this set of constraints defines a tological model. Let us recall the construction of those constraints.

3 3 u l l ũ Figure. n edge of the cell decomposition carries the variables l, u), or equivalently l, ũ). To represent the constraint lu = ũ l, it is convenient to thicken the edge and turn it to a ribbon edge on which the constraint is the commutativity of the box. l 7 u 7 ũ 6 l6 l 6 ũ 7 l 7 u 1 l 1 ũ 1 l1 u 6 ũ l u l 5 ũ 5 u 5 l l 5 u 3 ũ 4 l 3 l 4 l 3 l 4 ũ 3 u 4 1 Figure 3. This is an en portion of a ribbon graph. The edges 1,, 7 meet at a ribbon vertex with the constraint l 7 ll1 = 1, and the edges 1, 5, 6 meet at another vertex with the constraint l l l 1 = 1. The edges 1,, 3, 4, 5 close to form a face with the constraint ũ 1 1 uu3ũ 1 4 ũ 1 5 = 1. When ribbon edges are connected to a ribbon vertex v, the boundary of the vertex carries some matrices l and l, with labels 1,..., N v. The Gauss law is defined by the requirement that the oriented) product of those matrices around the vertex is trivial, G v L 1 L Nv = 1, with L i = l i or l 1 i. 4) 1 When the edge is oriented inward, L e = l e, and when it is outward, L e = l e. These constraints generate local vertexbased) SU) transformations on l, u, l, ũ via the Poisson brackets [16]. Importantly, those SU) transformations incorporate some braiding. Indeed, consider for simplicity that the edges incident at v are oriented inwards. Then, the constraint l 1 l = 1 generates a left transformation on the SL, C) element l 1 u 1 vl 1 u 1, for v SU). The Iwasawa decomposition allows to find a unique l 1 and a unique u 1 such that vl 1 u 1 = l 1u 1. Defining v SU) through vl 1 = l 1v, we find l 1 = vl 1 v 1, u 1 = v u 1. 5) with l 1 SB, C). Then, on the edge, the Gauss law generates an SU) transformation with the braided rotation v instead of v, l = v l v 1, u = v u, 6) where v SU) is defined through the Iwasawa decomposition applied to the SL, C) equality v l = l v. It continues this way all around the vertex [16]. The second set of constraints generalizes the flatness constraint of regular BF theory and actually has the same form. This flatness constraint is the requirement that the product of SU) elements along the boundary of each face f is trivial, C f U 1 U Nf = 1, with U i = u i or ũ 1 i, 7) These constraints generate right and left) multiplication of l, u by lower triangular matrices which can be viewed as a deformation of the ISO3) κ = 0 case) translations [16]. The whole set of constraints is easily visualized graphically, like in Figure 3.

4 4 III. QUNTIZTION OF THE GUSS LW We would like to consider the quantization of the Gauss constraint, which is expressed in terms of the momentum variables l i, l j. Hence we need to quantize the algebra of functions on momentum space, which can be viewed here as the algebra MSB, C)) generated by the matrix elements of SB, C). fter recalling the Hf algebra structure of MSB, C)), we are going to recall how upon quantization, the algebra of quantum observables is equivalent to U q su)). We will see then how the classical Gauss law we have defined leads to U q su)) intertwiners, which are used in LQG based on U q su)) [].. Recovering U qsu)) s recalled in [16], we can interpret the Heisenberg double SL, C) as the phase space of a deformed t. The Gauss constraint can be interpreted as saying that the total deformed) angular momentum of the ts meeting at this vertex ought to be zero. Before discussing the quantization of the deformed momentum variables let us recall the key mathematical objects that are needed when quantizing a set of identical classical systems, in a simple known example. Consider the classical algebra of momentum observables given by C R), spanned by monomials in p, and quantized in the algebra. The momentum erator ˆP is diagonal in the standard momentum basis of 1-particle states, ˆP p = p p. The mathematical structures required in the construction of the inverse momentum and of the total momentum for two particles are respectively given by the antipode and the croduct. We could also consider the analogue of the zero momentum which would be given by the counit ε but it will not be used in the present article.) The croduct : dictates how to recover an observable for a -particle system from the knowledge of this observable on a 1-particle system. By induction, we can have the observable for an n-particle system. For example, the total momentum of a -particle state p 1, p is given by ˆP = ˆP ˆP, so that ˆP p 1, p = p 1 + p ) p 1, p. The antipode S : provides in this case the notion of inverse momentum since S ˆP ) = ˆP and S ˆP ) p = p p. The objects,, S together with the counit ε) satisfy some compatibility relations, so that becomes a Hf algebra. One prerty is that the croduct is coassociative. In the previous example it is cocommutative but it is not in general true, as we will see in the case of interest for this paper. For a review of Hf algebras we refer to [3]. We need now to generalize this construction to our case. We deal with the algebra of momentum observables MSB, C)) generated by the matrix elements of SB, C), which are λ, λ 1, z, z. The relevant features of the coalgebra of MSB, C)) are given by the following croduct and antipode S [3] : MSB, C)) MSB, C)) MSB, C)) m ij m ij = k m ik m kj, S : MSB, C)) MSB, C)) m ij Sm ij ) = m 1 8) ) ij We are now ready to quantize our momentum variables l and l 1. We introduce q = e κ and the quantization rule [19] λ K, λ 1 K 1, z q 1 q 1 )J+, z q 1 q 1 )J, 9) where K, J ± are erators. Hence we get the quantum matrices ) ) K 0 K l = q 1 q 1 )J + K 1, l 1 = 1 q 1 q 1 )J. 10) 0 K The commutation relations of the erators J ± and K are given by the quantization of the Poisson brackets ), where the quantum R-matrix is R l 1 l = l 1 l1 R, R l 1 l 1 1 = l l 1 1 R, R l l = l l 1 R, 11) R = q q q 1 4 q 1 q 1 ) q q )

5 The R-matrix expands as R = 1 i r + O ). Therefore the commutation relation gives at order, [ l 1, l ] i [r, l 1 l ] and the classical algebra is recovered. In components, the commutation relations 11) read K J + K 1 = q 1 J+, K J K 1 = q 1 J, [J +, J ] = K K. 13) q 1 q 1 These are the commutation relations of U q SU)). We have recovered the well-known fact that the quantization of MSB, C)) leads to the algebra U q SU)). Let us have a look at the coalgebra sector. First, the croduct will provide us the total deformed) quantum angular momentum and hence the quantum analogue of the Gauss law. Quantization simply promotes the croduct of MSB, C)) in Equation 8) to an erator-valued croduct, 5 l ij = k l ik l kj, 14) and similarly on l 1. In matrix form, we get ) K K 0 l = q 1 q 1 )J + K + K 1 J + ) K 1 K 1, ) 1 and l 1 K K q q = 1 )J K + K 1 J ) 0 K 1 K 1. 15) We here recognize the croduct of U q SU)), K ±1 ) = K ±1 K ±1, J ± ) = J ± K + K 1 J ±. 16) The antipode of MSB, C)) simply is the matrix inversion. We require this to also hold quantum mechanically. ssuming a quantization map of the form ) l 1 SK) 0 S l) = q 1 q 1 )SJ + ) SK 1, 17) ) the equation determining SK ±1 ), SJ ± ) is ) ) K 0 SK) 0 l S l) = q 1 q 1 )J + K 1 q 1 q 1 )SJ + ) SK 1 = ) and similarly for l 1. The solution is ) 1 0, 18) 0 1 SK ±1 ) = K 1, SJ ± ) = K J ± K 1 = q ± 1 J±, 19) and the antipode of U q su)) is recovered. The definition of the counit ε goes in the same way. Since we do not use it later, we do not dwell on it. B. Intertwiners s we have seen above the algebra of quantum momentum observables is essentially given by U q su)). To construct the Hilbert space of our theory, we consider the representation of U q su)) with q real, since we took q = e κ. This is convenient since in this case the representation theory of U q su)) is essentially the same as the one of su). We refer to the appendix for the details. 1. ll edges inward Let us consider a vertex v, with n incident edges and attribute an irreducible representation H ji of U q su)) to each edge. The total Hilbert space of the vertex v is H v = n i=0 H j i n i=0 j i. s such it is a reducible) representation of U q su)). The action of the generators of U q su)) on H v is given by applying n 1 times the croduct, for

6 example n 1) J ± = ).. 1 ). Thanks to the coassociativity, there is no issue in grouping the terms. Note however that the croduct is not cocommutative, hence we need to order the edges and the Hilbert spaces H ji. If we want to change the order, we need to use the deformed permutation map ψ R. First let us note ψ : U q su)) U q su)) U q su)) U q su)), the usual permutation, then define ψ R : V W W V v w ψ R v, w ) ψr v, w ) = ψ R 1 v, R w ) = R w, R 1 v, 0) 6 The R-matrix also encodes how much the croduct is non- where we used the notation R = R 1 R. cocommutative, through the relation [4] ψ )X = R X)R 1, with X a generator of U q su)). 1) Thanks to this braiding, we recover that the action of the U q su)) generators X and the braided) permutation commute. ψ R X v, w )) = ψrx v, w )) = ψr X) v, w ) = ψψ X)R v, w ) = X)ψR v, w ) = Xψ R v, w )). Let us consider first the quantization of the trivial Gauss law, namely l 1 l = 1 = l 1 l ) ) 1. Since we have two edges, the kinematical Hilbert space is H v = j 1 j and a general state will be i j1j = m 1,m i m1,m j 1 m 1, j m. The quantum version of l 1 l = 1 is l = 1 1 = l 1, or in terms of components, K ±1 ) = K ±1 K ±1 = 1, J + ) = J ± K + K 1 J ± = 0. ) We want to find the states i j1j that solve these constraints. Looking at the different components of the total quantum angular momentum, we must have J ± )i j1j = 0, K ±1 )i j1j = i j1j. 3) This is essentially demanding that i j1j CG) coefficients, is the -valent U q su)) intertwiner, defined in terms of the Clebsh-Gordon j1 j i j1 j 0 m 1m = Cm = δ 1m 0 j 1,j δ m1, m 1) j1 m1 q m1 [j1 + 1]. 4) s expected, the quantum Gauss constraint projects H v onto the trivial U q su)) representation. The construction extends naturally for a vertex with n edges. The quantum Gauss constraint reads ) n 1) l K K 0 = q 1 q 1 n ) ) i=1 K 1 K 1 J i) + K K K 1 K 1 = 1 1, 5) and similarly for l 1. We need to find the states i j1..j n that solve the constraint, meaning n 1) J ± )i j1..j n = 0, n 1) K ±1 )i j1..j n = i j1..j n. 6) This is the definition of an invariant vector in H v, i.e. an intertwiner j 1 j n C. We will focus on the 3-valent case, since this is the situation we will have to deal with later on, and like when q = 1, generic intertwiners can be split into sums of products of 3-valent intertwiners. Expanding a state i j1j j 3 = j1 j j3 m i im 1m m 3 j 1 m 1, j m, j 3 m 3 j 1 j j 3, the Gauss law, ) l j1 j j3 i j1j j 3 = i j1j j 3, produces recursions on the coefficients im 1m m 3, solved by CG coefficients, i j1j j 3 = m i 1) j3 m3 q m 3 C j 1 j j 3 m 1m m 3 j 1 m 1, j m, j 3 m 3. 7) This state solves the quantum version of the Gauss constraint l 1 l l 3 = 1 and l 3 l l 1 ) 1 = 1.

7 7. Reverse orientation and dualization The Gauss constraints we have just discussed corresponds to the case where all the edges are oriented inwards. If 1 however an edge is outgoing, say without loss of generality the edge 1, the classical Gauss constraint is l 1 l l 3 = 1. The quantization of l 1 is exactly the same as for l. l 1 corresponds to dealing with the inverse momentum, hence at the quantum level, we need to use the antipode. It is thus necessary to compose the croduct with the antipode on the edge 1, ) l 1 1 l SK) K K 0 l 3 q 1 q 1 ) ) SJ + ) K K + SK 1 ) J + K + SK 1 ) K 1 J + SK 1 ) K 1 K 1. 8) However, the antipode of a representation is not a representation. Just like for q = 1, it is nevertheless a representation on the dual Hilbert space. To turn a vector living in the representation j to a vector in the dual representation j, dualization is realized through the U q su))-invariant bilinear form induced by the CG coefficients projecting on the trivial representation. Given two vectors u i = m um i jm, the bilinear form B is defined as Bu 1, u ) = g m1 m u m1 1 u m = 1) j m1 q m1 δm1, m u m1 1 u m. 9) m 1,m m 1,m Since B is neither symmetric nor anti-symmetric we can define two types of covector, according to the side we contract g m1 m. u = m 1) j+m q m u m jm, u = m 1) j m q m u m jm Bu 1, u ) = u 1 u = u u 1. 30) In the following, we shall use mostly the notion of duality given by u. If u transforms with J ±, K, and denoting J ± u u ± and K u u K, then u ± = u SJ ± ), and u K = u SK), 31) i.e. the co-vector u transforms with the antipode of the generators, SJ ± ) = q ± 1 J ± and SK) = K 1, as requested. The equation 30) shows that dualization amounts to changing the components u m to 1) j m q m u m.we conclude that the states in j1 1 j j 3 which satisfy the quantum analogue of Gauss law l 1 l l 3 = 1 are prortional to i j 1 j j 3 = m i 1) j1 m1 q m 1 1) j3 m3 q m 3 j1 j j3 C m 1m m 3 j 1 m 1 j m j 3 m 3. 3) Similarly with the constraint l 1 l 1 l 3 = 1 on j 1 j j 3, i j1j j3 = m i 1) j m q m 1) j3 m3 q m 3 j1 j j3 C m 1 m m 3 j 1 m 1 j m j 3 m 3, 33) and on j 1 j j 3 with l 1 l l 1 3 = 1, i j1j j3 = j1 j j3 Cm 1m m 3 j 1 m 1 j m j 3 m 3. 34) m i Dualization also applies to erators, and this is something we will need. ssume that f : V W is a linear map between two U q su)) modules with invariant bilinear forms B V, B W. Its adjoint f : W V is defined by B V v, f w) ) = B W fv), w ). 35) Setting V = j, W = l, Hilbert spaces carrying the irreducible representations with spin j, l, we know that B V = [dj ] C jj0 mn0, B W = [d l ] Cqr0 ll0 are invariant bilinear forms. Just as for vectors, we can define two types of adjoint, t q = 1, it has the prerty Bu, v) = 1) j Bv, u) if u, v are in the representation of spin j, For details on the symmetry prerties for q 1, we refer to [5].

8 according to the vector duality we choose. In the following, we use the duality induced by, hence the associated duality for erators, noted is jm f ln = 1) j+m q m 1) l+n q n l, n f j, m. 36) To sum up, we have obtained the quantization of the Gauss law, for any orientation of the edges, and showed that the U q su)) intertwiners are naturally the states satisfying this quantum constraint. 8 IV. QUNTIZTION OF VECTORS ND THEIR SCLR PRODUCTS. Quantization of vectors Classically, there is a left action of SU) on l SB, C) and u SU)). For v SU), the SB, C) element l is multiplied on the left by v, but the result is in SL, C) rather SB, C). To identify a well-defined transformation on SB, C), we have to make use of the Iwasawa decomposition on the product vl. There exists a unique v SU) and a unique lower triangular matrix l such that This gives the transformations vl = l v. 37) l vlv 1, and therefore ll v ll v 1. 38) This transformation is obviously implemented on the cell decomposition by the Gauss law at the target vertex of the edge carrying l and u, as explained in the Section II. It comes that the product ll transforms in the adjoint representation of SU), when considering transformations on the left as in 37). This implies that the trace tr ll is SU) invariant, and moreover T trll σ) is a 3-vector, i.e. it lives in the vector representation. This is equivalent to the representation of spin 1, and the components of T in the spherical basis 3 are T 1 = tr ll σ +, T0 = tr ll σ z, T 1 = tr ll σ. 39) Now let us investigate the quantum version. The key object is the matrix ) ll λ λ z = λz λ + z. 40) The quantization 10) provides l and l 1. To quantize l, we use the antipode on l 1. This leads to ) ) 1 l S l 1 K 0 K q q ) = 1 )q 1 J q 1 q 1 )J + K 1 0 K 1 ) K = q 1 q 1 )q 1 KJ q 1 q 1 )J + K q 1 q 1 ) q 1 J + J + K. 41) We want to investigate whether the quantization of the 3-vector T = tr ll σ leads to something that it is still a vector of erators). We form the combinations q 1 t 1 = tr l S l 1 )σ q 1 q 1 +, q 1 [] t0 = tr l S l 1 )σ q 1 q 1 z, q 1 t 1 = tr l S l 1 )σ q 1 q 1, 4) meant to be the quantum version of the components in 39). Using the commutation relations of the generators, a short calculation shows that t 1 = KJ +, t 0 = 1 [] q 1 J+ J q 1 J J + ), t 1 = KJ. 43) 3 We use the standard notations, σ z = ) , σ+ = ) , σ = )

9 Remarkably, t = t 1, t 0, t 1 ) is recognized as a vector erator see for example [5]). It is a vector of erators, whose transformation as a vector on the index = 1, 0, 1 in the representation of spin 1) is equivalent to its transformation as a matrix under the adjoint representation 4 of U q su)), K t = q t = K t K 1, and J ± t = [1 ][1 ± + 1] t ±1 = J ± t SK) + K 1 t SJ ± ). 44) Therefore the vector erator t is the quantization of the classical vector T. From the Wigner-Eckart theorem, it follows that its matrix elements are prortional to CG coefficients, jn t jm = N j C 1 j j mn, with N j = [j][j + ]. 45) [] When q 1, the vector erator remains a vector erator: it is formed by the generators of SU), which transform with the q 1 limit of 44). t q 1 J +, J z, J ), J z t = [J z, t ] = t, J ± t = [J ±, t ] = 1 )1 ± + 1) t ±1. The vector erator t is a set of erators, each of them being represented as a square matrix. We can have more general vector erators with components given by rectangular matrices. We note τ such set of erators which still satisfies K τ = q τ = K τ K 1, and J ± τ = [1 ][1 ± + 1] τ ±1 = J ± τ SK) + K 1 τ SJ ± ), 46) with the matrix elements given by Jn τ jm = N jj C 1 j J mn. 47) Due to the triangular constraints from the CG coefficient, we can have J = j 1, j, j + 1. When J = j, we recover t with N j = N jj δ jj. t the classical level, another vector-like quantity can be built from l and l : T trl l σ). Explicitely, its components are given by 9 T 1 = tr l lσ +, T 0 = tr l lσ z, T 1 = tr l lσ. 48) However, while ll transforms as vll v 1, it turns out that l l transforms under the adjoint action of v instead of v, l l v l lv 1, 49) where v is defined by 37). s a consequence, the quantized version of T is not going to transform as a vector under the adjoint action of U q su)). In matrix form, we get ) S l 1 ) l K = + q 1 q 1 ) q 1 J J + q 1 q 1 )q 1 J K 1 q 1 q 1 )q 1 J + K 1 K. 50) We proceed just like we did with ll, forming the combinations t 1 = q 1 tr S l 1 ) l σ q 1 q 1 +, [] t 0 = q 1 tr S l 1 ) l σ q 1 q 1 z, t 1 = q 1 tr S l 1 ) l σ q 1 q 1, 51) which are the quantization of the components 48) of T. In terms of the generators of U q su)), the components read t 1 = J + K 1, t 0 = 1 [] q 1 J+ J q 1 J J + ), t 1 = J K 1. 5) 4 The adjoint action of a generator X of U qsu)) on the erator O is defined as X O = X 1) OSX ) ), with X = X 1) X ).

10 s expected, t = t 1, t 0, t 1 ) does not transform as a vector under the adjoint action of U qsu)). It however does transform as a vector under the coadjoint action 5 of U q su)), 10 K t = q t = SK)t K, J ± t = [1 ][1 ± + 1] t ±1 = SJ ±)t K + SK 1 )t J ±. 53) The reason for this equivariance prerty can be traced back to the fact that already at the classical level, l l transforms under the coadjoint action of SU) when considering the right action of SU) on SB, C). That is, the right action of SU) is l lṽ for ṽ SU), which implies l l ṽ 1 l lṽ, 54) and this is the coadjoint action. In the limit q 1, we recover again that the t components are prortional to the generators of su), which transforms with the q 1 limit of 53), t q 1 J +, J z, J ), J z t = [J z, t ] = t, J ± t = [1 ][1 ± + 1] t ±1 = [J ±, t ] 55) This is expected since T and T coincide up to the factor 1) 1 already at the classical level when κ 0. The two vectors t and t can be related thanks to the antipode, namely t = 1) q St ). When q = 1, this simplifies to t = 1)1 t, just as T and T when κ 0. It is also worth mentioning that t is related to the conjugate tensor t, defined by in an analogous way as in 30) [6] t = 1) 1 q t = t transforms under the coadjoint action of U q 1su)) as a covector, J K 1 q 1 J + J q 1 J J + ) J + K. 56) K q 1 t = q t = SK) t K, J ± q 1 t = [1 ± ][1 + 1 t 1 = SK) t J ± + SJ ± ) t K 1. 57) This action comes from the croduct for U q 1su)), = ψ = R R 1. S = S 1 defines the Hf algebra antipode erator for U q 1su)). nd the relationship between t and t is simply given by t = t with q replaced by q 1. 58) This identification between t and t will be important to defined the Wigner matrices entering in the definition of the Hamiltonian constraint in the next section. Writing down the matrix elements of the relations 53), some recursions on the matrix elements of t They lead to a Wigner-Eckart theorem adapted to the coadjoint action 53), jn t jm = N j C 1 j j n m, with N j = are obtained. [j][j + ]. 59) [] The matrix elements of t are simply related to the matrix elements of t, the adjoint of t. Indeed, using 36), jn t jm = N j 1) n m q n m C 1 j j n m = 1) q jn t jm. 60) The erator t is a set of erators, each of them being represented as a square matrix. One can generalize this to have the components represented by rectangular matrices. To this aim, let us introduce τ which satisfies K τ = q t = SK)τ K, J ± τ = [1 ][1 ± + 1] τ ±1 = SJ ±)τ K + SK 1 )τ J ±, 61) 5 The coadjoint action of a generator X of U qsu)) on the erator O is defined as X O = SX 1) )OX ), with X = X 1) X ).

11 11 and whose matrix elements are Jn τ jm = N jj C 1 J j n m. 6) The triangular constraints of the CG coefficients impose J = j 1, j, j + 1. When J = j, we recover t with N jj δ jj = N j. Moreover, τ is related to the conjugate of τ by τm = τ m where we replace q by q 1 in the definition of τ. Up to now, we have considered the case of a single Hilbert space H j on which the general vector erator τ and the erator τ are represented. In the following, we shall need to consider the generalization of such erators to the tensor product of these Hilbert spaces i j i. In particular we will need to consider the tensor product of vector erators. Due to the non-cocommutativity of the croduct, the construction of a vector erator that would act on j in j 1 j is non trivial. The key tool to construct an object that transforms as a vector is the deformed permutation ψ R. We know by construction that τ 1 is a vector erator, then we can permute τ using the deformed permutation. 1) τ = τ 1, ) τ ψ R 1) τ ψ R 1 = R 1 1 τ)r ) Thanks to the braided permutation, ) τ is still a vector erator under the adjoint action of U q su)). The construction is extended to a general tensor product of Hilbert spaces. i) τ R i i 1 R i1 1 1 τ)r i1 1 R i i 1 1, 64) where we used the standard notation R 1 = R 1 R, and R 13 = R 1 1 R 3 and so on. For a recent review of this construction, see [5]. Let us recall here the explicit expressions of 1) t and ) t [5] that we shall use in the next section. The components of 1) t are trivially obtained, 1) t + = t + 1 = KJ + 1, The components ) t = R 1 1 t )R 1 1 ) t + = K KJ +, 1) t 0 = t 0 1 = 1 [] q 1 J+ J q 1 J J + ) 1, are more complicated: 1) t = t 1 = KJ 1. ) t 0 = 1 [] [ 1 q 1 J+ J q 1 J J+) q 1 q 1 )q 1 + q 1 )KJ KJ + ], ) t = K KJ q 1 q 1 q 1 )K 1 J q 1 J+ J q 1 J J + ) + q 1 q 1 q 1 ) J ) KJ +. 65) B. Scalar erators The classical) scalar product provides invariant quantities from vectors. The quantization of scalar products is therefore expected to give rise to scalar erators, i.e. erators which are invariant under U q su)). scalar erator O on H v = n i=1 j i must satisfy J ± O = n 1) J ± )O n 1) K 1 ) q ± 1 n 1) K 1 )O n 1) J ± ) = 0, K O = n 1) K)O n 1) K 1 ) = O. 66) s such, the erator O commute with the quantum Gauss constraint. To see this, we just need the following lemma. Lemma 1. Let us consider the scalar erator O acting on n i=1 j i, then O commutes with n) K ±1 and n) J ±. Proof. Consider the scalar erator O living on n i=1 j i. By definition we have that n 1) K)O n 1) K 1 ) = O. Multiplying each side by n 1) K on the right, we see that O commutes with n 1) K. The same argument goes for n 1) K 1. Consider now n 1) J ± )O n 1) K 1 ) q ± 1 n 1) K 1 )O n 1) J ± ) = 0 and once again multiply by n 1) K on the right. We use then that n 1) K 1 commutes with O and that KJ ± K 1 = q ± 1 J ±. We see therefore that O has to commute with each term in the Gauss constraint 5), as expected. The notion of scalar product for two vectors in the spherical basis is naturally provided by the CG coefficient Cm m 0. Given two vector erators i) τ and j) τ acting on the Hilbert space n k=1 j k, we project their product on its scalar part using the CG coefficients, i) τ j) τ [3]Cm i) 1m 0 τ j) m τ m = 1) 1 m q m i) τ j) m τ m 67) m

12 When the vectors both act on the same Hilbert space j i, the formula reduces quite dramatically. Indeed, following the previous lemma, this quantum scalar product is a scalar erator. Hence it commutes with the generators of U q su)) and with the R-matrix. The many R-matrices appearing in the definition of i) τ and i) τ thus cancel out, 1 i) τ i) τ = 1 τ τ 1 1 = m 1 τ mτ m 1 1 = m 1 τ m τ m 1. 68) In particular the norm of τ is given by τ τ jm = N j jm = [j][j + 1] jm, 69) [] and the norm of τ, τ τ jm = N j jm = [j][j + 1] jm. 70) [] 1. Scalar products between two edges incoming at a vertex s it has already been emphasized in the Section II, when the edges 1 and incident on v are oriented inwards, the momentum l 1 transforms as vl 1 v 1 under SU), where v is defined like in the equation 37). However, the momentum l then transforms with the braided rotation v instead of v, i.e. as v l v 1 where v is defined through the Iwasawa decomposition v l = l v ). This implies that the scalar product T 1 T is SU) invariant. This quantity is interesting for geometric reasons [16]. When the Gauss law is satisfied on a 3-valent vertex, for instance l 1 l l 1 3 = 1, this scalar product corresponds to the cosine of hyperbolic) angle between the two edges dual to the edges 1 and. Indeed, the Gauss law written in terms of SU) invariant quantities translates into the hyperbolic cosine laws on the triangle dual to the ribbon vertex, which enables the identification of geometric observables like the angle between two edges) in terms of scalar products. Not only the angle between two edges appears in the hyperbolic cosine law, but it is also enters the Hamiltonian constraint, as the latter relates the extrinsic curvature to the intrinsic geometry. This motivates the quantization of T 1 T, which we thus expect to give rise to a scalar erator. direct quantization of T 1 T using the quantum erators 43), 5) and the definition of the quantum scalar product 67) cannot lead to a quantum scalar erator. Indeed, 1) t defined in 5)) transforms as a vector under the coadjoint action, whereas ) t transforms as a vector under the adjoint action. Hence, there is no sense in contracting their product using the CG coefficients C 110 to project on the invariant component. Instead, it was shown in [, 5] how 1) t ) t acting on the 3-valent intertwiner i j1,j j3 can be interpreted as the quantum version of the hyperbolic cosine law. This comes from the explicit calculation, 1) t ) t ) { } i j1j j3 = qn j 1 N j [j1 + 1][j + 1] 1) j1+j+j3+1 j1 j 1 1 i j j j j1j j. 71) 3 3 and the explicit value of the quantum 6j-symbol which appear in the above eignevalue. This suggests that a good definition of the quantum version of T 1 T, involving t and t, should be related to 1) t ) t. s a matter of fact, using the explicit values of 1) t and ) t given in 65), one can arrive at 1) t ) t = q t t, 7) and this is an equality as erators. This is a truly remarkable result, because classically, the scalar product expands as ) T 1 T = tr l 1 l σ z 1 ) tr l l σ z ) + tr l 1 l 1σ ) tr l l σ +) + tr l 1 l 1σ + )tr l l σ ) = T ) T ), 73) = 1,0,1 1 where the spherical components of T, T are defined in the Equations 39), 48). Thus, the Equation 7) shows that it is possible to directly promote the components of T, T to their quantum versions 43), 5), while keeping

13 the exact same formula as in the classical scalar product, T 1 T quantization = 1,0,1 13 t 1 ) ) t. 74) This leads to a scalar erator by definition of the left hand side of 7)), with the nice feature of having a simple and explicit factorization on j 1 j. Moreover, this makes the link between the formalism develed in [, 5] and the quantization of the lattice model of [16]. It can also be checked directly that the right hand side of 7) commutes with the generators of U q su)).) Strikingly, the R-matrices entering in the left hand side of 7) through the definition of ) t are not explicitly visible in the right hand side. Recalling from [16] that T 1 = h 1 T 1 where h 1 is a rotation entering the Cartan decomposition of l 1, and quantizing T 1 as the vector erator 1) t, it seems likely that the quantization of h 1 is somehow related to the R-matrix. While this should be further investigated, this is not necessary on a first approach to the quantization of neither the Gauss law, nor the Hamiltonian, and will be studied elsewhere.. Scalar products between two edges outgoing at a vertex We now deal with the case where the edges 1 and are outward at v. The Gauss law becomes therefore it is necessary to introduce the vectors based on l, T = tr l l σ, 1 1 l 1 l = 1 and T = tr l l σ. 75) It is easy to check that T 1 T is SU) invariant. Following the lesson of the previous section, a straightforward candidate to its quantization is t t ). On the other hand we know that a well-defined scalar erator on Invj1 j ) is obtained upon dualizing the quantum scalar product 7) with respect to 1 and. pplying the definition of the adjoint erator 36) to t and using 60) for the definition of t, we can actually match the two prosals, since We will henceforth use the quantization map T 1 T ) t t = = 1,0,+1 t t ). 76) t 1 ) t ) 77) This invariant erator is diagonal on the spaces Invj 1 j j 3). Let us find its eigenvalues, t t ) i j 1 j j 3 = N j1 N j C 1 j 1 j 1 n 1m 1 C 1 j j m n 1) j1 m1+j m q m 1+m j1 j j3 C m 1 m m 3 j 1 n 1 j n j 3 m 3 78) We focus on the sum over, m 1, m, C 1 j1 j1 n 1m 1 C 1 j j,m 1,m C j1 1 j1,m 1,m = m n 1) j1 m1+j m q m 1+m j1 j j3 C m 1 m m 3 n 1 m 1 1) 1 q C 1 j j n m 1) j1+j+m3 q m 3 C j 1 j j 3 m 1 m m 3 = { } [j 1 + 1][j + 1] 1) j1+j+j3+1 j1 1 j 1 1) j j 3 j j1 n1+j n q n 1 +n j1 j j3 C n 1 n m 3. 79) This leads to { } t t ) i j1 = N j j 3 j 1 N j [j1 + 1][j + 1] 1) j1+j+j3+1 j1 j 1 1 j j j 3 This is remarkably the same result as 71), when the two edges 1, are incoming at the vertex. i j 1 j j 3 80)

14 14 3. Scalar products between one incoming and one outgoing edge It is also possible to build invariant erators when only one edge orientation is flipped at the vertex. For instance when the edge is outgoing while the edge 1 is oriented inward, the quantized vertex is given by an intertwiner of the form i j1j Invj j 3 1 j j3). The invariant erator acting in Invj 1 j j3) can once again be built from t t ) and by taking the adjoint of t given by 60) to dualize the erator acting on the second leg of the intertwiner. We obtain that ) t t i j1j = 1) q j 3 t ) t ij1j = j 3 [3]C B0 t t B ) i j 1j, 81) j 3,B where [3]CB = δ B, 1) 1 B q B. t the classical level, the invariant vector is given by T 1 T. Therefore, we find that the quantization map that is required is more subtle, T 1 T,B [3]C B0 t t B ). 8) The last case is when the edge 1 is outgoing and the edge incoming. The corresponding invariant erator acting in Invj1 j j3) is then defined by ) t t i j1j = 1) q j t t 3 ) i j1j = j 3 [3]C B0 t t B ) i j1j, 83) j 3,B Therefore, we recover the same quantization map as in the previous case, since the classical invariant in this case is given by T 1 T. That is, T 1 T,B= 1,0,+1 [3]C B0 t t B ). 84) Note that in the quantization scheme prosed above, we have focused on erators acting on the first two legs of the intertwiner. Extending the construction to erators also acting on the third leg is more involved and a better understanding of the use of the R-matrix together with our quantization scheme is required. Fortunately, we do not need this for the next steps, hence we postpone this issue for ulterior investigations. V. QUNTIZTION OF THE HOLONOMIES In order to study the Hamiltonian constraint or flatness constraint C f ), we need to quantize the holonomies u, ũ. To restrict the present article to a reasonable size, we will only give the ingredients required to quantize the Hamiltonian on a particular face of degree three done in the Section VI), and we postpone a complete study to further reports. Let us first recall some results about the Wigner matrices for the quantum group SU q ) in the vector representation. The classical matrix element RB 1 u) of u SU) is quantized as the erator given by the SU q) Wigner matrix element q DB 1 u), u SU q), in the vector representation of SU q ). To determine the action of this erator on the relevant space Hilbert space, we use the Wigner product law [6]. In the following, unless specified otherwise, we have u SU q ). q D 1 Bu) q D j1 n 1m 1 u) = q D 1 Bu) j 1 n 1 u j 1 m 1 = = C J 1=j 1 1,j 1,j 1+1 J 1 M 1,N 1, J 1 C J 1=j 1 1,j 1,j 1+1 J 1 M 1,N 1, J 1 s such the Wigner matrix element is a map j 1 j 1 J 1=j 1,j 1±1 J 1 J 1, q D 1) B u) j 1n 1 j 1 m 1 = 1j 1J 1 Bn 1N 1 q D J1 N 1M 1 u)c 1j1J1 m 1M 1 1j 1J 1 Bn 1N 1 J 1 N 1 u J 1 M 1 C 1j1J1 m 1M 1. 85) J 1,M 1,N 1 C 1j1J1 Bn 1N 1 C 1j1J1 m 1M 1 J 1 N 1 J 1 M 1. 86)

15 15 In 44), we have defined tensor erators as objects transforming well under U q su)). This prerty is naturally extended 6 to SU q ) [6], in which case we use the Wigner matrix elements q D j B u). Given a vector erator t, we can construct the new vector erator t using the Wigner matrix element t t = B t B q D 1 Bu). 87) Writing the Wigner matrix elements as q DB 1 u) J 1 DB D : j1 j 1 J J 1=j 1,j 1±1 1 J 1, and looking at the left action of SU q ) on this quantum matrix, it can be shown [6], using the group multiplication law 7, that the columns of q D 1 u), D, transform according to 87). Therefore, D is prortional to a vector erator τ the vector whose components are rectangular matrices, 47)), and consequently, DB is prortional to the conjugate vector erator τ B the bar eration is defined in 56)) in order to have 87). The action of q DB 1 u) : j 1 j 1 J J 1=j 1,j 1±1 1 J 1 is thus given, up to prortionality factor F j 1, J 1 ), by q DBu) j 1 1 n 1 j 1 m 1 = F j 1, J 1 ) j 1 n 1 τ B J 1 N 1 J 1 M 1 τ j 1 m 1 J 1 N 1 J 1 M 1 J 1,N 1,M 1 = F j 1, J 1 ) N N 1) 1 B j1j1 J1j1 q B C 1J 1j 1 BN 1n 1 C 1j1J1 m 1M 1 J 1 N 1 J 1 M 1.88) J 1=j 1 1,j 1,j 1+1 J 1 M 1,N 1, J 1 where we used that τ B = 1) 1 B q B τ B and that the tensor erator τ satisfies the Wigner-Eckart theorem 47). The prortionality coefficient F j 1, J 1 ) can be determined by comparing the action of q D 1 coming from the Wigner product law 86) with 88). Since 1) 1 B q B C 1J1j1 BN 1n 1 = 1) J1 j1+1 [j1+1] [J 1+1] C1j1J1 Bn 1N 1, we get that F j 1, J 1 ) = 1) j1 J1+1 [J 1 + 1] [j 1 + 1] N 1 j 1J 1 N 1 J 1j 1. 89) Let us now consider an edge, say with the label 1, on our cell decomposition. From the equality l 1 u 1 = ũ 1 l1, it is found that u 1 transforms T 1 into T 1, Ru 1 ) T 1 = T 1, or in components B R 1 Bu 1 ) T 1 ) B = T ) 1, 90) where Ru 1 ) is the rotation in the vector representation). It is crucial that this prerty still holds upon quantizing Ru 1 ), to make sure that the quantum holonomy transforms the quantum vector at the source vertex of the edge into the quantum vector at the target vertex of the edge. We thus need to identify the Wigner matrix relating t erators. Let us recall that t is related to t by 58). Therefore we first extend 87) to the t case, following [6], t t = B t B q D 1 Bu), 91) where q D 1 u) is the conjugate rotation matrix defined by We want to consider q D 1) B u) as a map q D 1) B u) 1) B q 1 B) q D 1 B u). 9) q D 1 Bu) J 1 D DB : j 1 j1 J 1=j 1,j 1±1 J 1 J 1. 93) 6 This transformation law is the q-analogue of the equivariance transformation prerty for a SU) tensor erator t j with components t j m where the action by g SU) obeys Ug)t j mu 1 g) = m T j m R j m m g) with Rj g) the j representation of SU). 7 The group multiplication law is given by, q Du) q Dũ) = q Duũ) u, ũ SU q)

16 Comparing the definition of q D 1 u) with the definition of the conjugate tensor erator 56), it appears that D is the conjugate tensor erator under SU q ). More precisely, the conjugate matrix given in 9) can be realized as q D 1 Bu) = J 1 D D B = J 1 1) B q 1 B) D D B = J 1 D 1) 1 B q B D B ). 94) 16 We see that q D 1 B u) is prortional to J 1 τ 1) 1 B q B τ B ), where the prortionality coefficient is given by 89). Proceeding to the change q q 1, we get the transformation law for t. t t = B t B q 1 D 1 Bu). 95) q Consequently, 1 D 1 u) B can be written as q 1 D 1 u) B = J 1 D D B with D prortional to 1)1 B q B τ B. Explicitly, we get, D B q 1 D 1 Bu) = J 1 D D B with J 1 M 1 D j 1m 1 = 1) J1 j1+1 j 1 n 1 D B J 1N 1 = 1) 1 B q B C 1j 1J 1 B n 1 N 1 prortional to τ and [J 1 + 1] [j 1 + 1] C1J1j1 M 1 m 1 where we have distributed the prortionality coefficient 89) conveniently for the coming calculations. Let us now check explicitly that the constraint 90) is realized at the quantum level. It comes B t B q 1 D 1 Bu) j 1 m 1 j 1 l 1 = B,J 1 = = M 1,N 1,n 1 j 1 l 1 t B,J 1,M 1,N 1,n 1 N j1 C 1j1j1 B l 1 n 1 1) J1 j1+1 B,J 1,M 1,N 1,n 1 N j1 C 1j1j1 B n 1 l 1 1) J1 j1 = J 1,M 1,N 1 N j1 1) J1 j1 = t j 1m 1 j 1 l 1 which is the quantum version of 90). B j 1n 1 J 1 M 1 D j 1m 1 j 1 n 1 D B J 1N 1 J 1 M 1 J 1 N 1 96) [J 1 + 1] [j 1 + 1] C1J1j1 M 1 m 1 1) 1 B q B C 1j 1J 1 B n 1 N 1 J 1 M 1 J 1 N 1 [J 1 + 1] [j 1 + 1] C1J1j1 M 1 m 1 C 1j1J1 B n 1 N 1 J 1 M 1 J 1 N 1 [J 1 + 1] [j 1 + 1] C1J1j1 M 1 m 1 δ J1j 1 δ l1n 1 J 1 N 1 J 1 N 1 97) VI. QUNTIZTION OF THE FLTNESS CONSTRINT The flatness constraint is supported on faces of the cell decomposition. In this section we will restrict attention to a face of degree 3. lthough the generic case probably does not require any major changes, the generalization is not totally straightforward as it is expected to involve coefficients of U q su)) recoupling theory with many representations.. The Hamiltonian at the classical level The situation we are going to analyze is depicted in the Figure 4. The three edges supporting the flatness constraint are labeled 1,,6 and the vertices are labeled by the three edges incident to each of them, i.e. v 13, v 64, v 156. The classical constraint reads ũ 1 u 1 u 6 = 1 98) We recall that the scalar product T T 6 is invariant and represents the cosine of the angle between the edges dual to and 6 T and T are defined just like T and T but through l instead of l). consequence of the constraint

17 17 l 4 T T 6 ũ u 6 l 3 T u 1 T 6 l 1 5 Figure 4. This is a face of degree 3 which is the support of a flatness constraint. is that if this observable is evaluated after parallel transport of, say, T 6 around the face, it should not be affected. That is T Rũ 1 u 1 u 6 ) T 6 T T 6 = 0. 99) This equation is labeled by a pair of edges, and 6, or equivalently a pair vertex-face. We prose to define the Hamiltonian constraint this way, H 6 = T Rũ 1 u 1 u 6 ) T 6 T T ) In general, whether there are some T, T, T or T depend on the orientations of the two edges at the vertex. This is a reasonable choice of Hamiltonian for the following reasons. The constraint 98) has three real degrees of freedom, while the constraint 100) has only one, but there are three such constraints, one for each vertex around the face. So we get the correct number of degrees of freedom. What we have actually done is rewrite the constraint 98) in the vector representation of SU) and in a specific basis formed by the dynamical variables T ). Here a possible basis is formed by T, T 6 and a third vector which transforms the same way, say Rũ 1 ) T 1. Generally those are three independent vectors which therefore probe the three degrees of freedom of the flatness constraint 8. Using parallel transport similar to the manipulation in the next paragraph), each of the three constraints can be associated to a vertex of the face. From the conditions l u = ũ l and l 6 u 6 = ũ 6 l6 we find that u 6 l 6 l 6 u 1 6 = l 6 l 6 and ũ l l equivalently in the vector representation This reduces our Hamiltonian constraint to ũ 1 = l l, or Ru 6 ) T 6 = T 6, Rũ ) T = T. 101) H 6 = T Ru 1 ) T 6 T T 6. 10) The geometric interpretation of the constraint H 6 = 0 has been extensively discussed in [16] and its content is actually the same as in the non-deformed case [6]. To summarize, it relates the extrinsic curvature at the edge dual to 1, and captured in u 1, to the intrinsic curvature. From the vectors and the holonomy u 1 it is possible to define a notion of dihedral angle between two hyperbolic triangles. The constraint then forces this dihedral angle to be the dihedral angle of a homogeneously curved 3D geometry, determined by the angles between the triangle edges. 8 For a face of degree greater than 3, there are more than 3 such Hamiltonian constraints. However, it can be shown that only three of them are independent using the same method as in the non-deformed case in [6].

18 18 B. Quantization: spin 1 Hamiltonian and the Biedenharn-Elliott identity Our aim is to quantize H 6 and impose the quantum condition Ĥ6 ψ = 0. The Hilbert space associated to the cell decomposition is Invj e ) 1v j e ) v ) 103) }{{} {j e} v edges incident at v s we have seen the Gauss law stabilizes each fixed spin sector, which allowed to solve it for fixed spins, and selected at each vertex the invariant subspace Invj e ) 1v j e ) v ). The notation j e ) refers to either the space with representation j e if the edge e is ingoing at v, or the space of the dual representation je if e is outgoing. Notice that the order of the edges at each vertex matters, due to the non-cocommutativity of the croduct. fter solving the Gauss law at each vertex, we take the tensor product of the invariant subspaces with fixed spins, and sum over all the possible ways to label the edges with spins. The scalar product makes intertwiners at a given vertex with different edge labels orthogonal, i je1v,...,j env, i j e1v,...,j e Nv ) = N je1v,...,j env e iv δ jeiv,j e iv. 104) Furthermore, if the tensor product of tensor erators is not generally commutative, the tensor product of tensor erators acting on a tensor product of invariant subspaces is commutative. For example, let us consider the tensor erator t. We know that t 1 acting on H H is still a tensor erator and 1 t will not be in general a tensor erator. However if we restrict 1 t to the invariant space generated by the intertwiners i H and i H, then 1 t can be seen as a tensor erator. Hence, unless we consider an observable that lives on at least two different intertwiners, we do not need to order the vertices [5]. The Hamiltonian 10) contains two types of terms which have to be quantized, T T 6 and T Ru 1 ) T 6. Let us start with the simplest one, T T 6. It is well-defined on Invj j6 j 4 ) and acts trivially on the factor j 4. The eigenvalue has already been found in the Section IV B. Relabeling the variables of equation 80) correctly, T T 6 = 1,0,1 { } t t ) i j = N j 6 j4 j N j6 [j + 1][j 6 + 1] 1) j+j6+j4+1 1 j6 j 6 j 4 j j i j j6 j4. 105) We are left with the quantization of T Ru 1 ) T 6. From the previous sections, we know the quantum versions of both vectors as well as the holonomy. By construction we know that the erator associated to T Ru 1 ) T 6 should act on the invariant space Invj 1 j j 3 ) Invj 6 j1 j 5) and map it to J 1 InvJ 1 j j 3 ) Invj 6 J1 j5). The holonomy part Ru 1 ) has been quantized as q 1 DB 1 u), which acts on both j 1 and j1, while the respective quantum versions of T and T 6, t and t 6, respectively act on j and j 6. Using the decomposition q 1 DB 1 u) = J 1 D D B, obtained in 96), we can construct a scalar erator by combining in adequate manner the different vector erators, T Ru 1 ) T 6 = T ) RBu 1 1 )T 6 ) B D t 1) t B D B 1). 106),B B The part D t 1 is well-defined as a map Invj 1 j j 3 ) InvJ 1 j j 3 ), while B t B 1 is well-defined as Invj 6 j1 j5) Invj 6 J1 j5) and they both send invariant states to invariant states, by construction. It is thus possible to evaluate their action separately. We start with D t 1) i j1j j 3 = N j m 1,m, 1) J1 j1+1 [J 1 + 1] [j 1 + 1] C1J1j1 = N j 1) j1+j+j3 [J1 + 1][j + 1] M 1 m 1 C 1jj m n C j1jj3 { } J1 j 1 1 j j j 3 i J1j j 3, B D m 1m m 3 1) j3 m3 q m 3 J1 M 1, j n, j 3 m 3 107)