13.06.2015 Views

Quantum Gravity : Mathematical Models and Experimental Bounds

Quantum Gravity : Mathematical Models and Experimental Bounds

Quantum Gravity : Mathematical Models and Experimental Bounds

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

2. <strong>Quantum</strong> general relativity<br />

<strong>Quantum</strong> <strong>Gravity</strong> — A Short Overview 5<br />

2.1. Covariant approaches<br />

The first attempt to construct a theory of quantum theory was, of course, the<br />

attempt to develop a perturbation theory. After all, major theories such as QED<br />

are only understood perturbatively. However, for gravity there is a distinctive<br />

feature: The perturbation theory is non-renormalizable, that is, infinitely many<br />

parameters must be introduced (<strong>and</strong> experimentally determined) in order to absorb<br />

the ensuing divergences. This seems to render the perturbation theory meaningless.<br />

Still, even a non-renormalizable theory may be able to yield definite predictions<br />

at low energies. This occurs on the level of effective field theories. One example is<br />

the quantum gravitational correction to the Newtonian potential calculated in [9].<br />

Another example concerns the application of renormalization group methods [10]:<br />

The theory may be asymptotically safe, that is, possess a non-vanishing ultraviolet<br />

fixed point at the non-perturbative level. This would lead to running gravitational<br />

<strong>and</strong> cosmological ‘constants’ that could in principle provide an explanation for the<br />

dark matter <strong>and</strong> the dark energy in the universe.<br />

A direct ‘covariant quantization’ of general relativity would be the formulation<br />

of a path-integral framework. This has been tried in both a Euclidean <strong>and</strong><br />

a Lorentzian formalism: Whereas in the former one rotates the time parameter<br />

onto the imaginary axis, the latter leaves the Lorentzian signature of spacetime<br />

untouched. Besides their use in the search for boundary conditions in quantum<br />

cosmology (see below), much work has been devoted to a numerical analysis via<br />

‘Regge calculus’ or ‘dynamical triangulation’. The latter approach has recently<br />

provided some interesting results concerning the structure of space <strong>and</strong> time: The<br />

Hausdorff dimension of the resulting space is consistent with the (expected) number<br />

three, a positive cosmological constant is needed, <strong>and</strong> the universe behaves<br />

semiclassically at large scales, cf. [11] for a recent introductory review.<br />

2.2. Canonical approaches<br />

The major alternative to covariant quantization is to use a Hamiltonian framework<br />

— the framework of ‘canonical quantization’. Under the assumption of global hyperbolicity,<br />

the classical spacetime is foliated into three-dimensional spaces each of<br />

which is isomorphic to a given three-manifold Σ. One then chooses an appropriate<br />

canonical variable <strong>and</strong> its momentum <strong>and</strong> turns their Poisson-bracket algebra into<br />

a commutator algebra. According to the choice of variables one can distinguish<br />

various subclasses of canonical quantization. The oldest is quantum geometrodynamics<br />

in which the canonical variable is the three-dimensional metric on Σ,<br />

<strong>and</strong> the momentum is linearly related to the extrinsic curvature. More recent approaches<br />

employ either a connection variable or its integral along a loop in Σ. The<br />

latter leads to what is now called ‘loop quantum gravity’.<br />

The central equations in all these approaches are the quantum constraints.<br />

The invariance of the classical theory under coordinate transformation leads to

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!