arxiv:gr-qc/ v3 9 Feb 2005

Transcription

1 Proceedings of the II International Conference on Fundaental Interactions Pedra Azul, Brazil, June 2004 arxiv:gr-qc/ v3 9 Feb 2005 INTRODUCTION TO LOOP QUANTUM GRAVITY AND SPIN FOAMS ALEJANDRO PEREZ Institute for Gravitational Physics and Geoetry, Penn State University, 104 Davey Lab University Par, PA 16802, USA and Centre de Physique Théorique CNRS Luiny Case 907 F Marseille cedex 9, France These notes are a didactic overview of the non perturbative and bacground independent approach to a quantu theory of gravity nown as loop quantu gravity. The definition of real connection variables for general relativity, used as a starting point in the progra, is described in a siple anner. The ain ideas leading to the definition of the quantu theory are naturally introduced and the basic atheatics involved is described. The ain predictions of the theory such as the discovery of Planc scale discreteness of geoetry and the coputation of blac hole entropy are reviewed. The quantization and solution of the constraints is explained by drawing analogies with sipler systes. Difficulties associated with the quantization of the scalar constraint are discussed. In a second part of the notes, the basic ideas behind the spin foa approach are presented in detail for the siple solvable case of 2+1 gravity. Soe results and ideas for four diensional spin foas are reviewed. Keywords: Quantu Gravity; Loop variables; Non-perturbative ethods; Path Integrals; Yang-Mills theory. 1. Introduction: why non perturbative quantu gravity? The rearable experiental success of the standard odel in the description of fundaental interactions is the greatest achieveent of (relativistic) quantu field theory. Standard quantu field theory provides an accoplished unification between the principles of quantu echanics and special relativity. The standard odel is a very useful exaple of a quantu field theory on the fixed bacground geoetry of Minowsi spacetie. As such, the standard odel can only be regarded as an approxiation of the description of fundaental interactions valid when the gravitational field is negligible. The standard odel is indeed a very good approxiation describing particle physics in the lab and in a variety of astrophysical situations because of the weaness of the gravitational force at the scales of interest (see for instance the lecture by Rogério Rosenfeld 1 ). Using the techniques of quantu field theory on curved spaceties 2 one ight hope to extend the applicability Penn State University, 104 Davey Lab, University Par, PA 16802, USA. State copletely without abbreviations, the affiliation and ailing address, including country. 1

2 2 Aleandro Perez of the standard odel to situations where a non trivial, but wea, gravitational field is present. These situations are thought to be those where the spacetie curvature is sall in coparison with the Planc scale, although a clear ustification for its regie of validity in strong gravitational fields sees only possible when a full theory of quantu gravity is available. Having said this, there is a nuber of iportant physical situations where we do not have any tools to answer even the siplest questions. In particular classical general relativity predicts the existence of singularities in physically realistic situations such as those dealing with blac hole physics and cosology. Near spacetie singularities the classical description of the gravitational degrees of freedo siply breas down. Questions related to the fate of singularities in blac holes or in cosological situations as well as those related with apparent inforation paradoxes are soe of the reasons why we need a theory of quantu gravity. This new theoretical fraewor yet to be put forward ais at a consistent description unifying or, perhaps ore appropriately, underlying the principles of general relativity and quantu echanics. The gravitational interaction is fundaentally different fro all the other nown forces. The ain lesson of general relativity is that the degrees of freedo of the gravitational field are encoded in the geoetry of spacetie. The spacetie geoetry is fully dynaical: in gravitational physics the notion of absolute space on top of which things happen ceases to ae sense. The gravitational field defines the geoetry on top of which its own degrees of freedo and those of atter fields propagate. This is clear fro the perspective of the initial value forulation of general relativity, where, given suitable initial conditions on a 3-diensional anifold, Einstein s equations deterine the dynaics that ultiately allows for the reconstruction of the spacetie geoetry with all the atter fields propagating on it. A spacetie notion can only be recovered a posteriori once the coplete dynaics of the coupled geoetry-atter syste is wored out. Matter affects the dynaics of the gravitational field and is affected by it through the non trivial geoetry that the latter defines a. General relativity is not a theory of fields oving on a curved bacground geoetry; general relativity is a theory of fields oving on top of each other 4. In classical physics general relativity is not ust a successful description of the nature of the gravitational interaction. As a result of ipleenting the principles of general covariance, general relativity provides the basic fraewor to assessing the physical world by cutting all ties to concepts of absolute space. It represents the result of the long-line of developents that go all the way bac to the thought experients of Galileo about the relativity of the otion, to the arguents of Mach about the nature of space and tie, and finally to the agnificent conceptual synthesis of Einstein s: the world is relational. There is no well defined notion of absolute space and it only aes sense to describe physical entities in relation to a See for instance Theore in 3.

3 INTRODUCTION TO LOOP QUANTUM GRAVITY AND SPIN FOAMS 3 other physical entities. This conceptual viewpoint is fully represented by the way atter and geoetry play together in general relativity. The full consequences of this in quantu physics are yet to be unveiled b. When we analyze a physical situation in pre-general-relativistic physics we separate what we call the syste fro the relations to other obects that we call the reference frae. The spacetie geoetry that we describe with the aid of coordinates and a etric is a atheatical idealization of what in practice we easure using rods and clocs. Any eaningful stateent about the physics of the syste is a stateent about the relation of soe degrees of freedo in the syste with those of what we call the frae. The ey point is that when the gravitational field is trivial there exist a preferred set of physical systes whose dynaics is very siple. These systes are inertial observers; for instance one can thin of the as given by a spacial grid of clocs synchronized by the exchange of light signals. These physical obects provide the definition of inertial coordinates and their utual relations can be described by a Minowsi etric. As a result in pre-general relativistic physics we tend to forget about rods and clocs that define (inertial) fraes and we tal about tie t and position x and distances easure using the flat etric η ab c. However, what we are really doing is coparing the degrees of freedo of our syste with those of a space grid of world-lines of physical systes called inertial observers. Fro this perspective, stateents in special relativity are in fact diffeoorphis invariant. The physics fro the point of view of an experientalist dealing with the syste itself, clocs, rods, and their utual relations is copletely independent of coordinates. In general relativity this property of the world is confronted head on: only relational (coordinate-independent, or diffeoorphis invariant) stateents are eaningful (see discussion about the hole arguent in 4 ). There are no siple faily of observers to define physical coordinates as in the flat case, so we use arbitrary labels (coordinates) and require the physics to be independent of the. In this sense, the principles of general relativity state soe basic truth about the nature of the classical world. The far reaching consequences of this in the quantu real are certainly not yet well understood. d However, it is very difficult to iagine that a notion of absolute space would be saved in the next step of developent of our understanding of fundaental physics. Trying to build a theory of quantu gravity based on a notion of bacground geoetry would be, fro this perspective, reiniscent of the efforts by conteporaries of Copernicus of describing planetary otion in ters of the geocentric fraewor. b For a fascinating account of the conceptual subtleties of general relativity see Rovelli s boo 4. c In principle we first use rods and clocs to realize that in the situation of interests (e.g. an experient at CERN) the gravitational field is trivial and then we ust encode this inforation in a fix bacground geoetry: Minowsi spacetie. d A reforulation of quantu echanics fro a relational perspective has been introduced by Rovelli 5 and further investigated in the context of conceptual puzzles of quantu echanics 6,7,8,9,10. It is also possible that a radical change in the paradigs of quantu echanics is necessary in the conceptual unification of gravity and the quantu 11,12,13,14.

4 4 Aleandro Perez 1.1. Perturbative quantu gravity Let us ae soe observations about the probles of standard perturbative quantu gravity. In doing so we will revisit the general discussion above, in a special situation. In standard perturbative approaches to quantu gravity one attepts to describe the gravitational interaction using the sae techniques applied to the definition of the standard odel. As these techniques require a notion of non dynaical bacground one (arbitrarily) separates the degrees of freedo of the gravitational field in ters of a bacground geoetry η ab for a, b = 1 4 fixed once and for all and dynaical etric fluctuations h ab. Explicitly, one writes the spacetie etric as g ab = η ab + h ab. (1) Notice that the previous separation of degrees of freedo has no intrinsic eaning in general relativity. In other words, for a generic space tie etric g ab we can write g ab = η ab + h ab = η ab + h ab, (2) where η ab and η ab can lead to different bacground light-cone structures of the underlying spacetie (M, g ab ); equally natural choices of flat bacground etrics lead to different Minowsi etrics in this sense. This is quite dangerous if we want to give any physical eaning to the bacground, e.g., the light cone structures of the two natural bacgrounds will be generally different providing different notions of causality! Equation (1) is used in the classical theory in very special situations when one considers perturbations of a given bacground η ab. In quantu gravity one has to deal with arbitrary superpositions of spaceties; the above splitting can at best be eaningful for very special sei-classical states peaed, so to say, around the classical geoetry η ab with sall fluctuations. It is very difficult to iagine how such a splitting can be useful in considering general states with arbitrary quantu excitations at all scales. Specially because of the dual role of the gravitational field that siultaneously describes the geoetry and its own dynaical degrees of freedo. More explicitly, in the standard bacground dependent quantization the existence of a fixed bacground geoetry is fundaental in the definition of the theory. For instance, one expects fields at space-lie separated points to coute alluding to standard causality considerations. Even when this is certainly ustified in the range of applicability of the standard odel, in a bacground dependent quantization of gravity one would be using the causal structure provided by the unphysical bacground η ab. Yet we now that the notion of causality the world really follows is that of the full g ab (see Footnote a). This difficulty has been raised several ties (see for instance 3 ). Equation (1) could be eaningful in special situations dealing with sei-classical issues, but it does not see to be of uch use if one wants to describe the fundaental degrees of freedo of quantu gravity. If we ignore all these issues and try to setup a naive perturbative quantization of gravity we find that the theory is non renoralizable. This can be expected fro

5 INTRODUCTION TO LOOP QUANTUM GRAVITY AND SPIN FOAMS 5 Fig. 1. The larger cone represents the light-cone at a point according to the ad hoc bacground η ab. The saller cones are a cartoon representation of the fluctuations of the true gravitational field represented by g ab. diensional analysis as the quantity playing the role of the coupling constant turns out to be the Planc length l p. The non renoralizability of perturbative gravity is often explained through an analogy with the (non-renoralizable) Feri s four ferion effective description of the wea interaction 15. Feri s four ferions theory is nown to be an effective description of the (renoralizable) Weinberg-Sala theory. The non renoralizable UV behavior of Feri s four ferion interaction is a consequence of neglecting the degrees of freedo of the exchanged assive gauge bosons which are otherwise disguised as the diension-full coupling Λ Feri 1/ 2 W at oentu transfer uch lower than the ass of the W particle (q 2 << 2 W ). A siilar view is applied to gravity to proote the search of a ore fundaental theory which is renoralizable or finite (in the perturbative sense) and reduces to general relativity at low energies. Fro this perspective it is argued that the quantization of general relativity is a hopeless attept to quantizing a theory that does not contain the fundaental degrees of freedo. These arguents, based on bacground dependent concepts, see at the very least questionable in the case of gravity. Although one should expect the notion of a bacground geoetry to be useful in certain sei-classical situations, the assuption that such structure exists all the way down to the Planc scale is inconsistent with what we now about gravity and quantu echanics. General considerations indicate that standard notions of space and tie are expected to fail near the Planc scale l p e. Fro this viewpoint the non renoralizability of perturbative quantu e For instance a typical exaple is to use a photon to easure distance. The energy of the photon in our lab frae is given by E γ = hc/λ. We put the photon in a cavity and produce a standing wave easuring the diensions of the cavity in units of the wavelength. The best possible precision is attained when the Schwarzschild radius corresponding to energy of the photon is of the order of its wavelength. Beyond that the photon can collapse to for a blac hole around soe of the axia of the standing wave. This happens for a value λ c for which λ c GE γ/c 4 = hg/(λ cc 3 ). The solution is λ c hg/c 3 which is Planc length.

6 6 Aleandro Perez gravity is indicative of the inconsistency of the separation of degrees of freedo in (1). The nature of spacetie is expected to be very different fro the classical notion in quantu gravity. The treatent that uses (1) as the starting point is assuing a well defined notion of bacground geoetry at all scales which directly contradicts these considerations. In fact one could read the issues of divergences in an alternative way. The accepted argon is that in a renoralizable theory the icroscopic physics does not affect low energy processes as its effects can be recast in siple redefinition of a finite set of paraeters, i.e., renoralization. In the case of gravity this iracle does not happen. All correlation functions blow up and one would need to add an infinite nuber of corrections to the original Lagrangian when integrating out icroscopic physical degrees of freedo. Now iagine for the oent that a non perturbative quantization of general relativity was available. If we now want to recover a low energy effective description of a physical situation where (low energy) physical considerations single out a preferred bacground we would expect the need of increasingly higher derivative correction ters to copensate the fact the high energy f degrees of freedo now nothing about that low energy bacground. In this sense the obections raised above to the violent and un-natural splitting (1) are related to the issue of non renoralizability of general relativity. The nature of the gravitational interaction is telling us that the standard paradig of renoralization (based on the notion of a fixed bacground) is no longer applicable. A reforulation of quantu field theory is necessary to cope with bacground independence. It is possible that new degrees of freedo would becoe iportant at ore fundaental scales. After all, that is the story of the path that lead to the standard odel where higher energy experients has often lead to the discovery of new interactions. It is also possible that including these degrees of freedo ight be very iportant for the consistency of the theory of quantu gravity. However, there is constraint that see hardly avoidable: if we want to get a quantu theory that reproduces gravity in the sei-classical liit we should have a bacground independent foralis. In loop quantu gravity one stresses this viewpoint. The hope is that learning how to define quantu field theory in the absence of a bacground is a ey ingredient in a recipe for quantu gravity. Loop quantu gravity uses the quantization of general relativity as a playground to achieve this goal. I would lie to finish this subsection with a quote of Weinberg s 1980 paper that would serve as introduction for the next section: It is possible that this proble the non renoralizability of general relativity f The notion of energy is observer dependent in special relativity. In the bacground independent context is not even defined. We use the terinology high (low) energy in this introduction to refer to the fundaental (sei-classical) degrees of freedo in quantu gravity. However, the reader should not tae this too literally. In fact if one tries to identify the fundaental degrees of freedo of quantu gravity with a preferred observer conflict with observation see inevitable 16,17,18.

7 INTRODUCTION TO LOOP QUANTUM GRAVITY AND SPIN FOAMS 7 has arisen because the usual flat-space foralis of quantu field theory siply cannot be applied to gravitation. After all, gravitation is a very special phenoenon, involving as it does the very topology of space and tie All these considerations ae the case for a bacground independent approach to quantu gravity. The challenge is to define quantu field theory in the absence of any preestablished notion of distance: quantu field theory without a etric Loop quantu gravity Loop quantu gravity is an attept to define a quantization of gravity paying special attention to the conceptual lessons of general relativity (the reader is encouraged to read Rovelli s boo: Quantu Gravity 4 as well as the recent review by Ashtear and Lewandowsi 19. For a detailed account of the atheatical techniques involved in the construction of the theory see Thieann s boo 20 ). The theory is explicitly forulated in a bacground independent, and therefore, non perturbative fashion. The theory is based on the Hailtonian (or canonical) quantization of general relativity in ters of variables that are different fro the standard etric variables. In ters of these variables general relativity is cast into the for of a bacground independent SU(2) gauge theory partly analogous to SU(2) Yang-Mills theory. The ain prediction of loop quantu gravity (LQG) is the discreteness 21,22 of the spectru of geoetrical operators such as area and volue. The discreteness becoes iportant at the Planc scale while the spectru of geoetric operators crowds very rapidly at low energy scales (large geoetries). This property of the spectru of geoetric operators is consistent with the sooth spacetie picture of classical general relativity. Thus it is not surprising that perturbative approaches would lead to inconsistencies. In splitting the gravitational field degrees of freedo as in (1) one is assuing the existence of a bacground geoetry which is sooth all the way down to the Planc scale. As we consider contributions fro higher energies, this assuption is increasingly inconsistent with the fundaental structure discovered in the non perturbative treatent. The theory is forulated in four diensions. Matter can be coupled to the gravitational degrees of freedo and the inclusion of atter has been studied in great detail. However, throughout these lectures we will study the pure gravitational sector in order siplify the presentation. On the super-syetric extension of canonical loop quantu gravity see 23,24,25,26,27. A spin foa odel for 3d super-gravity has been defined by Livine and Oecl 28. Despite the achieveents of LQG there reain iportant issues to be addressed. There are difficulties of a rather technical nature related to the coplete characterization of dynaics and the quantization of the so-called scalar constraint. We will review these once we have introduced the basic foralis. The ost iportant question, however, reains open: whether the sei-classical liit of the LQG is

8 8 Aleandro Perez consistent with general relativity and the Standard Model. Before starting with the ore technical aterial let us say a few words regarding unification. In loop quantu gravity atter is essentially added by coupling general relativity with it at the classical level and then perforing the (bacground independent) canonical quantization. At this stage of developent of the approach it is not clear if there is soe restriction in the ind of interactions allowed or if degrees of freedo corresponding to atter could arise in soe natural way directly fro those of geoetry. However, there is a unification which is addressed head on by LQG: the need to find a coon fraewor in which to describe quantu field theories in the absence of an underlying spacetie geoetry. The iplications of this are far fro being fully developed. 2. Hailtonian forulation of general relativity: the new variables In this section we introduce the variables that are used in the definition of loop quantu gravity. We will present the SU(2) Ashtear-Barbero variables by starting with conventional ADM variables, introducing triads at the canonical level, and finally perforing the well nown canonical transforation that leads to the new variables. This is, in y opinion, the siplest way to get to the new variables. For a derivation that ephasizes the covariant four diensional character of these variables see Canonical analysis in ADM variables The action of general relativity in etric variables is given by the Einstein-Hilbert action I[g µν ] = 1 dx 4 gr, (3) 2κ where κ = 8πG/c 3 = 8πl 2 p /, g is the deterinant of the etric g ab and R is the Ricci scalar. The details of the Hailtonian forulation of this action in ters of ADM variables can be found in 3. One introduces a foliation of spacetie in ters of space-lie three diensional surfaces Σ. For siplicity we assue Σ has no boundaries. The ten coponents of the spacetie etric are replaced by the six coponents of the induced Rieannian etric q ab of Σ plus the three coponents of the shift vector N a and the lapse function N. In ters of these variables, after perforing the standard Legendre transforation, the action of general relativity becoes I[q ab, π ab, N a, N] = 1 2κ dt dx 3 [π ab q ab Σ +2N b (3) a(q 1/2 π ab ) + N(q 1/2 [R (3) q 1 π cd π cd q 1 π 2 ])], (4) where π ab are the oenta canonically conugate to the space etric q ab, π = π ab q ab, (3) a is the covariant derivative copatible with the etric q ab, q is the

9 INTRODUCTION TO LOOP QUANTUM GRAVITY AND SPIN FOAMS 9 deterinant of the space etric and R (3) is the Ricci tensor of q ab. The oenta π ab are related to the extrinsic curvature K ab g of Σ by π ab = q 1/2 (K ab Kq ab ) (5) where K = K ab q ab and indices are raised with q ab. Variations with respect to the lapse and shift produce the four constraint equations: and V b (q ab, π ab ) = 2 (3) a(q 1/2 π ab ) = 0, (6) S(q ab, π ab ) = (q 1/2 [R (3) q 1 π cd π cd + 1/2q 1 π 2 ]) = 0. (7) V b (q ab, π ab ) is the so-called vector constraint and S(q ab, π ab ) is the scalar constraint. With this notation the action can be written as I[q ab, π ab, N a, N] = 1 dt dx 3 [ π ab q ab N b V b (q ab, π ab ) NS(q ab, π ab ) ], 2κ Σ (8) where we identify the Hailtonian density H(q ab, π ab, N a, N) = N b V b (q ab, π ab ) + NS(q ab, π ab ). The Hailtonian is a linear cobination of (first class) constraints, i.e., it vanishes identically on solutions of the equations of otion. This is a generic property of generally covariant systes. The syplectic structure can be read off the previous equations, naely { π ab (x), q cd (y) } = 2κ δ(c a δb d) δ(x, y), { π ab (x), π cd (y) } = {q ab (x), q cd (y)} = 0 (9) There are six configuration variables q ab and four constraint equations (6) and (7) which iplies the two physical degrees of freedo of gravity h Toward the new variables: the triad forulation Now we do a very siple change of variables. The idea is to use a triad (a set of three 1-fors defining a frae at each point in Σ) in ters of which the etric q ab becoes q ab = e i ae b δ i, (10) where i, = 1, 2, 3. Using these variables we introduce the densitized triad E a i := 1 2 ǫabc ǫ i e b e c. (11) Using this definition, the inverse etric q ab can be related to the densitized triad as follows qq ab = E a i E b δ i. (12) g The extrinsic curvature is given by K ab = 1 2 Lnq ab where n a is the unit noral to Σ. h This counting of physical degrees of freedo is correct because the constraints are first class 29.

10 10 Aleandro Perez We also define K i a := 1 det(e) K ab E b δi. (13) A siple exercise shows that one can write the canonical ter in (8) as π ab q ab = π ab q ab = 2E a i K i a (14) and that the constraints V a (q ab, π ab ) and S(q ab, π ab ) can respectively be written as V a (Ei a, Ki a ) and S(Ea i, Ki a ). Therefore we can rewrite (8) in ters of the new variables. However, the new variables are certainly redundant, in fact we are using the nine Ei a to describe the six coponents of q ab. The redundancy has a clear geoetrical interpretation: the extra three degrees of freedo in the triad correspond to our ability to choose different local fraes e i a by local SO(3) rotations acting in the internal indices i = 1, 2, 3. There ust then be an additional constraint in ters of the new variables that aes this redundancy anifest. The issing constraint coes fro (13): we overlooed the fact that K ab = K ba or siply that K [ab] = 0. By inverting the definitions (11) and (13) in order to write K ab in ters of Ei a and Ka i one can show that the condition K [ab] = 0 reduces to G i (E a, K a ) := ǫ ie a Ka = 0. (15) Therefore we ust include this additional constraint to (8) if we want to use the new triad variables. With all this the action of general relativity becoes I[E a, K a, N a, N, N ] = 1 [ ] dt dx 3 Ei a K a i κ N bv b (E a, K a ) NS(Ea, K a ) Ni G i (E a, K a ),(16) Σ where the explicit for of the constraints in ters of triad variables can be wored out fro the definitions above. The reader is encouraged to do this exercise but it is not going to be essential to understanding what follows (expressions for the constraints can be found in reference 30 ). The syplectic structure now becoes { E a (x), Kb(y) i } = κ δbδ a δ(x, i { y), E a (x), Ei b (y) } = { Ka(x), Kb(y) i } = 0 (17) The counting of physical degrees of freedo can be done as before New variables: the Ashtear-Barbero connection variables The densitized triad (11) transfors in the vector representation of SO(3) under redefinition of the triad (10). Consequently, so does its conugate oentu Ka i (see equation (13)). There is a natural so(3)-connection that defines the notion of covariant derivative copatible with the triad. This connection is the so-called spin connection Γ i a and is characterized as the solution of Cartan s structure equations [a e i b] + ǫi Γ [a e b] = 0 (18)

11 INTRODUCTION TO LOOP QUANTUM GRAVITY AND SPIN FOAMS 11 The solution to the previous equation can be written explicitly in ters of the triad coponents Γ i a = 1 ( ) 2 ǫi eb [a e b] + δl δ s e c le a b e s c, (19) where e a i is the inverse triad (ea i e a = δ i ). We can obtain an explicit function of the densitized triad Γ i a (Eb ) inverting (11) fro where e i a = 1 2 ǫ abc ǫ i E b Ec det(e) and e a i = sgn(det(e)) Ea i. (20) det(e) The spin connection is an so(3) connection that transfors in the standard inhoogeneous way under local SO(3) transforations. The Ashtear-Barbero 31,32,33 variables are defined by the introduction of a new connection A i a given by A i a = Γ i a + γk i a, (21) where γ is any non vanishing real nuber called the Iirzi paraeter 34. The new variable is also an so(3) connection as adding a quantity that transfors as a vector to a connection gives a new connection. The rearable fact about this new variable is that it is in fact conugate to E i a. More precisely the Poisson bracets of the new variables are { E a (x), A i b (y)} = κ γδ a b δi δ(x, y), { E a (x), E b i (y)} = { A a (x), Ai b (y)} = 0. (22) All the previous equations follow trivially fro (17) except for { A a(x), A i b (y)} = 0 which requires ore calculations. The reader is invited to chec it. Using the connection variables the action becoes I[E a, A a, N a, N, N ] = 1 [ ] dt dx 3 Ei a κ Ȧa i Nb V b (E a, A a ) NS(Ea, A a ) Ni G i (E a, A a ), (23) Σ where the constraints are explicitly given by: V b (E a, A a ) = Ea F ab (1 + γ 2 )K i a G i (24) S(E a, A a ) = Ea i Eb ) (ǫ i F ab 2(1 + γ2 )K[a i K det(e) b] (25) G i (E a, A a ) = D ae a i, (26) where F ab = a A i b ba i a + ǫi A a A b is the curvature of the connection Ai a and D a Ei a = a Ei a + ǫ i A a Ea is the covariant divergence of the densitized triad. We have seven (first class) constraints for the 18 phase space variables (A i a, Eb ). In addition to iposing conditions aong the canonical variables, first class constraints are generating functionals of (infinitesial) gauge transforations. Fro the 18- diensional phase space of general relativity we end up with 11 fields necessary

12 12 Aleandro Perez to coordinatize the constraint surface on which the above seven conditions hold. On that 11-diensional constraint surface, the above constraint generate a sevenparaeter-faily of gauge transforations. The reduce phase space is four diensional and therefore the resulting nuber of physical degrees of freedo is two, as expected. The constraint (26) coincides with the standard Gauss law of Yang-Mills theory (e.g. E = 0 in electroagnetis). In fact if we ignore (24) and (25) the phase space variables (A i a, E b ) together with the Gauss law (26) characterize the physical phase space of an SU(2) i Yang-Mills (YM) theory. The gauge field is given by the connection A i a and its conugate oentu is the electric field E b. Yang-Mills theory is a theory defined on a bacground spacetie geoetry. Dynaics in such a theory is described by a non vanishing Hailtonian the Hailtonian density of YM theory being H = EaE i i a + Bi abi a. General relativity is a generally covariant theory and coordinate tie plays no physical role. The Hailtonian is a linear cobination of constraints. Dynaics is encoded in the constraint equations (24),(25), and (26). In this sense we can regard general relativity in the new variables as a bacground independent relative of SU(2) Yang-Mills theory. We will see in the sequel that the close siilarity between these theories will allow for the ipleentation of techniques that are very natural in the context of YM theory Gauge transforations Now let us analyze the structure of the gauge transforations generated by the constraints (24),(25), and (26). Fro the previous paragraph it should not be surprising that the Gauss law (26) generates local SU(2) transforations as in the case of YM theory. Explicitly, if we define the seared version of (26) as G(α) = dx 3 α i G i (A i a, Ea i ) = dx 3 α i D a Ei a, (27) a direct calculation iplies Σ δ G A i a = { A i a, G(α) } = D a α i and δ G E a i = {E a i, G(α)} = [E, α] i. (28) Σ i The constraint structure does not distinguish SO(3) fro SU(2) as both groups have the sae Lie algebra. Fro now on we choose to wor with the ore fundaental (universal covering) group SU(2). In fact this choice is physically otivated as SU(2) is the gauge group if we want to include ferionic atter 35,36,37. In the physics of the standard odel we are used to identifying the coordinate t with the physical tie of a suitable faily of observers. In the general covariant context of gravitational physics the coordinate tie t plays the role of a label with no physical relevance. One can arbitrarily change the way we coordinatize spacetie without affecting the physics. This redundancy in the description of the physics (gauge syetry) induces the appearance of constraints in the canonical forulation. The constraints in turn are the generating functions of these gauge syetries. The Hailtonian generates evolution in coordinate tie t but because redefinition of t is pure gauge, the Hailtonian is a constraint itself, i.e. H = 0 on shell 38,29. More on this in the next section.

13 INTRODUCTION TO LOOP QUANTUM GRAVITY AND SPIN FOAMS 13 If we write A a = A i aτ i su(2) and E a = E a i τi su(2), where τ i are generators of SU(2), we can write the finite version of the previous transforation A a = ga ag 1 + g a g 1 and E a = ge a g 1, (29) which is the standard way the connection and the electric field transfor under gauge transforations in YM theory. The vector constraint (24) generates three diensional diffeoorphiss of Σ. This is clear fro the action of the seared constraint V (N a ) = dx 3 N a V a (A i a, Ea i ) (30) on the canonical variables Σ δ V A i a = { A i a, V (N a ) } = L N A i a and δ V E a i = {E a i, V (N a )} = L N E a i, (31) where L N denotes the Lie derivative in the N a direction. The exponentiation of these infinitesial transforations leads to the action of finite diffeoorphiss on Σ. Finally, the scalar constraint (25) generates coordinate tie evolution (up to space diffeoorphiss and local SU(2) transforations). The total Hailtonian H[α, N a, N] of general relativity can be written as where H(α, N a, N) = G(α) + V (N a ) + S(N), (32) S(N) = Hailton s equations of otion are therefore and Σ dx 3 NS(A i a, E a i ). (33) Ȧ i a = { A i a, H(α, Na, N) } = { A i a, S(N)} + { A i a, G(α)} + { A i a, V (Na ) }, (34) Ė a i = {E a i, H(α, N a, N)} = {E a i, S(N)} + {E a i, G(α)} + {E a i, V (N a )}. (35) The previous equations define the action of S(N) up to infinitesial SU(2) and diffeoorphis transforations given by the last two ters and the values of α and N a respectively. In general relativity coordinate tie evolution does not have any physical eaning. It is analogous to a U(1) gauge transforation in QED Constraints algebra Here we siply present the structure of the constraint algebra of general relativity in the new variables. {G(α), G(β)} = G([α, β]), (36) where α = α i τ i su(2), β = β i τ i su(2) and [α, β] is the coutator in su(2). {G(α), V (N a )} = G(L N α). (37)

14 14 Aleandro Perez {G(α), S(N)} = 0. (38) {V (N a ), V (M a )} = V ([N, M] a ), (39) where [N, M] a = N b b M a M b b N a is the vector field coutator. Finally {S(N), V (N a )} = S(L N N). (40) {S(N), S(M)} = V (S a ) + ters proportional to the Gauss constraint, (41) where for siplicity we are ignoring the ters proportional to the Gauss law (the coplete expression can be found in 19 ) and S a = Ea i Eb δi (N b M M b N). (42) dete Notice that instead of structure constants, the r.h.s. of (41) is written in ters of field dependent structure functions. For this reason it is said that the constraint algebra does not close in the BRS sense Ashtear variables The connection variables introduced in this section do not have a siple relationship with four diensional fields. In particular the connection (21) cannot be obtained as the pullbac to Σ of a spacetie connection 39. Another observation is that the constraints (24) and (25) draatically siplify when γ 2 = 1. Explicitly, for γ = i we have V SD b = E a F ab (43) S SD = Ea i Eb det(e) ǫ i F ab (44) G SD i = D a E a i, (45) where SD stands for self dual; a notation that will becoe clear below. Notice that with γ = i the connection (21) is coplex 30 (i.e. A a sl(2, C)). To recover real general relativity these variables ust be suppleented with the so-called reality condition that follows fro (21), naely A i a + Āi a = Γi a (E). (46)

15 INTRODUCTION TO LOOP QUANTUM GRAVITY AND SPIN FOAMS 15 In addition to the siplification of the constraints, the connection obtained for this choice of the Iirzi paraeter is siply related to a spacetie connection. More precisely, it can be shown that A a is the pullbac of ω +IJ µ (I, J = 1, 4) where ω +IJ µ = 1 2 (ωij µ i 2 ǫij KL ωkl µ ) (47) is the self dual part of a Lorentz connection ω IJ µ. The gauge group generated by the (coplexified) Gauss constraint is in this case SL(2, C). Loop quantu gravity was initially forulated in ters of these variables. However, there are technical difficulties in defining the quantu theory when the connection is valued in the Lie algebra of a non copact group. Progress has been achieved constructing the quantu theory in ters of the real variables introduced in Section Geoetric interpretation of the new variables The geoetric interpretation of the connection A i a, defined in (21), is standard. The connection provides a definition of parallel transport of SU(2) spinors on the space anifold Σ. The natural obect is the SU(2) eleent defining parallel transport along a path e Σ also called holonoy denoted h e [A], or ore explicitly h e [A] = P exp A, (48) where P denotes a path-order-exponential (ore details in the next section). The densitized triad or electric field Ei a also has a siple geoetrical eaning. Ei a encodes the full bacground independent Rieannian geoetry of Σ as is clear fro (12). Therefore, any geoetrical quantity in space can be written as a functional of Ei a. One of the siplest is the area A S[Ei a ] of a surface S Σ whose expression we derive in what follows. Given a two diensional surface in S Σ with noral e n a = xb σ 1 x c σ 2 ǫ abc (49) where σ 1 and σ 2 are local coordinates on S its area is given by A S [q ab ] = h dσ 1 dσ 2, (50) S where h = det(h ab ) is the deterinant of the etric h ab = q ab n 2 n a n b induced on S by q ab. Fro equation (12) it follows that det(q ab ) = det(ei a ). Let us contract (12) with n a n b, naely qq ab n a n b = E a i Eb δi n a n b. (51) Now observe that q nn = q ab n a n b is the nn-atrix eleent of the inverse of q ab. Through the well nown forula for coponents of the inverse atrix we have that

16 16 Aleandro Perez q nn = det(q ab n 2 n a n b ) det(q ab ) = h q. (52) But q ab n 2 n a n b is precisely the induced etric h ab. Replacing q nn bac into (51) we conclude that h = E a i E b δ i n a n b. (53) Finally we can write the area of S as an explicit functional of Ei a: A S [Ei a ] = Ei aeb δi n a n b dσ 1 dσ 2. (54) S This siple expression for the area of a surface will be very iportant in the quantu theory. 3. The Dirac progra: the non perturbative quantization of GR The Dirac progra 38,29 applied to the quantization of generally covariant systes consists of the following steps : (i) Find a representation of the phase space variables of the theory as operators in an auxiliary or ineatical Hilbert space H in satisfying the standard coutation relations, i.e., {, } i/ [, ]. (ii) Proote the constraints to (self-adoint) operators in H in. In the case of gravity we ust quantize the seven constraints G i (A, E), V a (A, E), and S(A, E). (iii) Characterize the space of solutions of the constraints and define the corresponding inner product that defines a notion of physical probability. This defines the so-called physical Hilbert space H phys. (iv) Find a (coplete) set of gauge invariant observables, i.e., operators couting with the constraints. They represent the questions that can be addressed in the generally covariant quantu theory A siple exaple: the reparaetrized particle Before going into the details of the definition of LQG we will present the general ideas behind the quantization of generally covariant systes using the siplest possible exaple: a non relativistic particle. A non relativistic particle can be treated There is another way to canonically quantize a theory with constraints that is also developed by Dirac. In this other forulation one solves the constraints at the classical level to identify the physical or reduced phase space to finally quantize the theory by finding a representation of the algebra of physical observables in the physical Hilbert space H phys. In the case of four diensional gravity this alternative see intractable due to the difficulty in identifying the true degrees of freedo of general relativity.

17 INTRODUCTION TO LOOP QUANTUM GRAVITY AND SPIN FOAMS 17 in a generally covariant anner by introducing a non physical paraeter t and prooting the physical tie T to a canonical variable. For a particle in one diension the standard action [ ] dx S(p X, X) = dt p X dt H(p X, X) (55) can be replaced by the reparaetrization invariant action [ ] S rep (P T, P X, T, X, N) = dt p T T + p X Ẋ N(p T + H(p X, X)), (56) where the dot denotes derivative with respect to t. The previous action is invariant under the redefinition t t = f(t). The variable N is a Lagrange ultiplier iposing the scalar constraint C = p T + H(p X, X) = 0. (57) Notice the foral siilarity with the action of general relativity (8) and (16). As in general relativity the Hailtonian of the syste H rep = N(p T + H(p X, X)) is zero on shell. It is easy to see that on the constraint surface defined by (57) S rep reduces to the standard S, and thus the new action leads to the sae classical solutions. The constraint C is a generating function of infinitesial t-reparaetrizations (analog to diffeoorphiss in GR). This syste is the siplest exaple of generally covariant syste. Let us proceed and analyze the quantization of this action according to the rules above. (i) We first define an auxiliary or ineatical Hilbert space H in. In this case we can siply tae H in = L 2 (R 2 ). Explicitly we use (ineatic) wave functions of ψ(x, T) and define the inner product < φ, ψ >= dxdt φ(x, T)ψ(X, T). (58) We next proote the phase space variables to self adoint operators satisfying the appropriate coutation relations. In this case the standard choice is that X and T act siply by ultiplications and p X = i / X and p T = i / T (ii) The constraint becoes this step is highly non trivial in a field theory due to regularization issues: Ĉ = i T V (X). (59) X2 Notice that the constraint equation Ĉ ψ >= 0 is nothing else than the failiar Schroedinger equation. (iii) The solutions of the quantu constraint are in this case the solutions of Schroedinger equation. As it is evident fro the general for of Schroedinger equation we can characterize the set of solutions by specifying the initial wave

18 18 Aleandro Perez for at soe T = T 0, ψ(x) = ψ(x, T = T 0 ). The physical Hilbert space is therefore the standard H phys = L 2 (R) with physical inner product < φ, ψ > p = dx φ(x)ψ(x). (60) The solutions of Schroedinger equation are not noralizable in H in (they are not square-integrable with respect to (58) due to the tie dependence ipose by the Schroedinger equation). This is a generic property of the solutions of the constraint when the constraint has continuous spectru (thin of the eigenstates of P for instance). (iv) Observables in this setting are easy to find. We are looing for phase space functions couting with the constraint. For siplicity assue for the oent that we are dealing with a free particle, i.e., C = p T + p 2 X /(2). We have in this case the following two independent observables: Ô 1 = X p X ( T T 0 ) and Ô 2 = p X, (61) where T 0 is ust a c-nuber. These are ust the values of X and P at T = T 0. In the general case where V (X) 0 the explicit for of these observables as functions of the phase space variables will depend on the specific interaction. Notice that in H phys, as defined above, the observables reduce to position O 1 = X and oentu O 2 = p X as in standard quantu echanics. We have ust reproduced standard quantu echanics by quantizing the reparaetrization invariant forulation. As advertised in the general fraewor of the Dirac progra applied to generally covariant systes, the full dynaics is contained in the quantu constraints here the Schroedinger equation The progra of loop quantu gravity A foral description of the ipleentation of Dirac s progra in the case of gravity is presented in what follows. In the next section we will start a ore detailed review of each of these steps. (i) In order to define the ineatical Hilbert space of general relativity in ters of the new variables we will choose the polarization where the connection is regarded as the configuration variable. The ineatical Hilbert space consists of a suitable set of functionals of the connection ψ[a] which are square integrable with respect to a suitable (gauge invariant and diffeoorphis invariant) easure dµ AL [A] (called Ashtear-Lewandowsi easure 40 ). The ineatical inner product is given by < ψ, φ >= µ AL [ψφ] = dµ AL [A] ψ[a]φ[a]. (62) In the next section we give the precise definition of H in.

19 INTRODUCTION TO LOOP QUANTUM GRAVITY AND SPIN FOAMS 19 (ii) Both the Gauss constraint and the diffeoorphis constraint have a natural (unitary) action on states on H in. For that reason the quantization (and subsequent solution) is rather straightforward. The siplicity of these six-outof-seven constraints is a special erit of the use of connection variables as will becoe transparent in the sequel. The scalar constraint (25) does not have a siple geoetric interpretation. In addition it is highly non linear which anticipates the standard UV probles that plague quantu field theory in the definition of products of fields (operator valued distributions) at a sae point. Nevertheless, well defined versions of the scalar constraint have been constructed. The fact that these rigorously defined (free of infinities) operators exist is again intiately related to the ind of variables used for the quantization and soe other special iracles occurring due to the bacground independent nature of the approach. We ephasize that the theory is free of divergences. (iii) Quantu Einstein s equations can be forally expressed now as: Ĝ i (A, E) Ψ >:= D a Ei a Ψ >= 0 V a (A, E) Ψ >:= E a i F ab i (A) Ψ >= 0, 1 Ŝ(A, E) Ψ >:= [ dete E a i E bf i (A) + ] Ψ >= 0. (63) ab As entioned above, the space of solutions of the first six equations is well understood. The space of solutions of quantu scalar constraint reains an open issue in LQG. For soe atheatically consistent definitions of Ŝ the characterization of the solutions is well understood 19. The definition of the physical inner product is still an open issue. We will introduce the spin foa approach in Section 5 as a device for extracting solutions of the constraints producing at the sae tie a definition of the physical inner product in LQG. The spin foa approach also ais at the resolution of soe difficulties appearing in the quantization of the scalar constraint that will be discussed in Section It is yet not clear, however, whether these consistent theories reproduce general relativity in the sei-classical liit. (iv) Already in classical gravity the construction of gauge independent quantities is a subtle issue. At the present stage of the approach physical observables are explicitly nown only in soe special cases. Understanding the set of physical observables is however intiately related with the proble of characterizing the solutions of the scalar constraint described before. We will illustrate this by discussing siple exaples of quasi-local Dirac observable in Section For a vast discussion about this issue we refer the reader to Rovelli s boo 4.

20 20 Aleandro Perez 4. Loop quantu gravity 4.1. Definition of the ineatical Hilbert space The choice of variables: Motivation As entioned in the first ite of the progra forally described in the last section, we need to define the vector space of functionals of the connection and a notion of inner product to provide it with a Hilbert space structure of H in. As ephasized in Section 2.4, a natural quantity associated with a connection consists of the holonoy along a path (48). We now give a ore precise definition of it: Given a one diensional oriented path e : [0, 1] R Σ sending the paraeter s [0, 1] x µ (s), the holonoy h e [A] SU(2) is denoted h e [A] = P exp A, (64) where P denotes a path-ordered-exponential. More precisely, given the unique solution h e [A, s] of the ordinary differential equation e d ds h e[a, s] + ẋ µ (s)a µ h e [A, s] = 0 (65) with the boundary condition h e [A, 0] = ½, the holonoy along the path e is defined as h e [A] = h e [A, 1]. (66) The previous differential equation has the for of a tie dependent Schroedinger equation, thus its solution can be forally written in ters of the failiar series expansion h e [A] = 1 n=0 0 ds 1 s 1 0 ds 2 s n 1 0 ds n ẋ µ1 (s 1 ) ẋ µn (s n ) A µ1 (s 1 ) A µn (s n ), (67) which is what the path ordered exponential denotes in (64). Let us list soe iportant properties of the holonoy: (i) The definition of h e [A] is independent of the paraetrization of the path e. (ii) The holonoy is a representation of the groupoid of oriented paths. Naely, the holonoy of a path given by a single point is the identity, given two oriented paths e 1 and e 2 such that the end point of e 1 coincides with the starting point of e 2 so that we can define e = e 1 e 2 in the standard fashion, then we have h e [A] = h e1 [A]h e2 [A], (68) where the ultiplication on the right is the SU(2) ultiplication. We also have that h e 1[A] = h 1 e [A]. (69)