1:
2: %--------------------------------------------------------------------%
3: \def\Den{\hbox{Den}}
4: \def\den{\hbox{den}}
5: \def\hc{\hbox{h.c.}}
6: \def\tr{\hbox{tr}}
7: \overfullrule=0pt
8: \def\ln{\ell{n}}
9:
10: %--------------------------------------------------------------------%
11: \documentclass{ws-procs975x65}
12: \def\ext{{\rm ext}}
13: \begin{document}
14:
15: \title{On the Frame Fixing in Quantum Gravity}
16:
17: \author{S. Mercuri}
18:
19: \address{ICRA --- International Center for Relativistic Astrophysics}
20:
21: \author{G. Montani}
22:
23: \address{ICRA --- International Center for Relativistic Astrophysics}
24: \address{Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit\`a di Roma ``La Sapienza'',
25: Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, I-00185, Roma, Italy}
26:
27: \maketitle
28:
29: \abstracts{We provide a discussion about the necessity to fix the reference
30: frame before quantizing the gravitational field. Our presentation is based on
31: stressing how the 3+1-slicing of the space time becomes an ambiguous procedure
32: as referred to a quantum 4-metric.}
33:
34:
35: In the Wheeler-DeWitt (WDW) approach \cite{DeW1967}, the quantization of gravity is performed in the canonical way, starting from the Arnowitt-Deser-Misner (ADM) action. The use of the ADM
36: formalism\cite{ArnDesMis1959}
37: is justified by the necessity to obtain Hamiltonian constraints, but the
38: straightforward quantization of such (3+1)-picture contains some relevant
39: ambiguities. In fact, the aim of the WDW approach is to quantize the
40: gravitational field in a particular representation and its outcoming provides
41: essentially information on the quantum dynamics of the 3-metric tensor
42: defined on spatial hypersurfaces. \newline
43: To use the ADM splitting is equivalent to a kind of ``gauge fixing'', because it is preserved only under restricted coordinates transformations (time displacements and 3-diffeomorphisms); the point here is that the ``gauge fixing'' depends on the field we are quantizing and therefore the canonical approach seems to be an ambiguous procedure.
44:
45: %Assigned a four dimensional space-time manifold $M^{4}$, endowed by a coordinate system $y^{\rho}$ and a metric tensor $g_{\mu\nu}(y^{\rho})$ ($\mu,\nu,\rho=0,1,2,3$), the ADM formalism consists of choosing a one parameter family of spatial hypersurfaces $\Sigma^{3}$ which fill the space time and admit a coordinate representation $y^{\rho}(t,x^{i});$ as soon as we regard the latter parameterization as a coordinate transformation in $M^{4}$, we can replace the ten independent components of $g_{\mu\nu}$ by other ten independent quantities $(N,N^{i},h_{kl}),$ i.e. the lapse function, the shift vector and the 3-metric.
46:
47: Since in the ADM action the conjugate momenta, $\pi$ and $\pi^{i}$, respectively to the lapse function $N$ and to the shift vector $N^{i}$ are
48: constrained to vanish, then, on a quantum level, the wave
49: functional of the system does not depend on the lapse function and on the shift
50: vector. The ambiguity relies on regarding as equivalent the fully covariant approach and the ``gauge fixed'' ADM one, in fact passing from
51: $g_{\mu\nu}$ to ADM variables involves a metric dependent procedure, in
52: the sense that we must be able to define a unit time-like normal field
53: $n^{\mu}$ $(g_{\mu\nu}n^{\mu}n^{\nu}=-1),$ which ensures the space-like nature
54: of $h_{ij}$ (in this respect we recall that $h_{ij}\equiv g_{\mu\nu}%
55: \partial_{i}y^{\mu}\partial_{j}y^{\nu}$ corresponds to the spatial components
56: of the 4-tensor $h_{\mu\nu}=g_{\mu\nu}+n_{\mu}n_{\nu}).$ Now the following
57: question arises: \emph{how is it possible to speak of a unit time-like normal
58: field for a quantum space-time?} Indeed such a notion can be recognized, in
59: quantum regime, at most in the sense of expectation values; therefore assuming the existence of $n^{\mu}$ before quantizing the system dynamics makes
60: the WDW approach physically ill defined.
61:
62: Our point of view is that the canonical quantization of the gravitational
63: field can be performed in a (3+1)-picture only if we add, to such a
64: scheme, some information about the existence of the time-like normal field, as
65: shown in \cite{Mon2002,MerMon2003a}, this result can be achieved by including in the dynamics
66: the \emph{kinematical action} \cite{Kuc1981}, already adopted to quantize
67: ``matter'' fields on a fixed background \cite{Kuc1981}. The physical interpretation of such
68: new term either on a classical as well as on a quantum level leads to
69: recognize the existence of a reference fluid and in this sense the analysis of \cite{Mon2002,MerMon2003a,MerMon2003b} converges with the literature on the frame fixing problem (see \cite{BicKuc1997} and references therein). We observe that to include the kinematical
70: action can be regarded as a consequence of fixing in the gravity action the lapse function and the shift vector and, therefore, to choose four independent components of the
71: gravitational field, which is just the outcoming of the frame fixing.
72:
73: A more physical manner to ensure the existence of a time-like vector consists
74: of filling the space time with a fluid which plays the role of real reference
75: frame. Here we discuss on a phenomenological ground, the canonical
76: quantization of the gravitational field plus a dust reference fluid, outlining
77: some relevant differences between the classical and quantum behavior of this
78: system. \newline The Einstein equations and the conservation law, for the
79: coupled gravity-fluid system, take the form
80: \begin{equation}
81: G_{\mu\nu}=\chi\varepsilon u_{\mu}u_{\nu},\label{xy1}
82: \quad %\end{equation}
83: %\begin{equation}
84: u^{\nu}\nabla_{\nu}u^{\mu}=0,
85: %\end{equation}
86: %\begin{equation}
87: \quad \nabla_{\nu}(\varepsilon u^{\nu})=0,
88: \end{equation}
89: where $G_{\mu\nu}$ and $\chi$ denotes respectively the Einstein tensor and
90: constant.\newline Remembering a well-known result, it is easy to show that the
91: following relations take place \cite{Thi2001}
92: \begin{equation}
93: G_{\mu\nu}u^{\mu}u^{\nu}=-\frac{H(h_{ij},p^{ij})}{2\sqrt{h}}%
94: =\chi\varepsilon,\label{xy3}
95: %\end{equation}
96: %\begin{equation}
97: \quad G_{\mu\nu}u^{\mu}h_{i}^{\nu}=\frac{H_{i}(h_{ij},p^{ij})}{2\sqrt{h}}=0.
98: \end{equation}
99: Here $h_{ij}$ ($ij=1,2,3$) denotes the 3-metric of the spatial hypersurfaces
100: orthogonal to $u^{\mu}$ and $p^{ij}$ its conjugate momenta, while $H$ and
101: $H_{i}$ refer respectively to the super-Hamiltonian and to the super-momentum of
102: the gravitational field. The above relations hold if we make reasonable assumption that the conjugate momentum $p^{ij}$ is not affected by the matter variables (i.e. the fluid term
103: in ADM formalism should not contain the time derivative of the 3-metric
104: tensor). Only the Hamiltonian constraints are
105: relevant for the quantization procedure and, in the comoving frame, when the
106: 4-velocity becomes $u^{\mu}=\{1,\mathbf{{0}\}}$ ($N=1\;N^{i}=0$), we have to
107: retain also the conservation law
108: %\begin{equation}
109: $\varepsilon\sqrt{h}=-{\omega(x^{i})}/{2\chi},\label{xy5}$
110: %\end{equation}
111: where $h\equiv deth_{ij}$ and $x^{i}$ denote the spatial coordinates of the
112: comoving frame. Indeed, a crucial point in the above considerations relies on
113: the synchronous nature of the comoving frame as consequence of the geodesic
114: motion of the dust fluid. \newline Thus, when the coordinates system becomes a
115: real physical frame, the Hamiltonian constraints read
116: \begin{equation}
117: H=\omega(x^{i})\;\quad\quad\quad H_{i}=0\,.\label{xy6}%
118: \end{equation}
119: Now, to assign a Cauchy problem for such a system, for which equations
120: (\ref{xy6}) play the role of constraints on the Cauchy data, corresponds to
121: provide on a (non-singular) space-like hypersurface, say $\Sigma^{(0)}$, the
122: values $\{h_{ij}^{(0)},p^{(0)ij},\varepsilon^{(0)}\}$; from these values $\omega^{(0)}$
123: can be calculated by (\ref{xy6}).\newline It follows that, by
124: specifying a suitable initial condition, the value of $\omega^{(0)}$ can be
125: made arbitrarily small; from the constraints point of view, a very small value
126: of $\omega^{(0)}$ means, if $h^{(0)}$ is not so, that the fluid becomes a test
127: one (being $\omega$ a constant of the motion); we emphasize that for finite
128: values of $\omega$, $h$ should not vanish to avoid unphysical diverging energy
129: density of the fluid.
130:
131: The canonical quantization of this system is achieved as soon as we implement
132: the canonical variables into quantum operators and annihilate the state
133: functional $\Psi$ via the Hamiltonian operator constraints. Thus the quantum
134: dynamics obeys the following eigenvalue problem:
135: \begin{equation}
136: \widehat{H}\Psi(\{h_{ij}\},\omega)=\omega\Psi(\{h_{ij}\},\omega),\label{xy7}%
137: \end{equation}
138: where $\{h_{ij}\}$ refers to a whole class of 3-geometries, so that
139: the super-momentum constraint holds automatically.\newline We stress how the above result is equivalent to the eigenvalues problem
140: obtained in \cite{Mon2002}. In the above equation (\ref{xy7}), the spatial function $\omega$ plays the
141: role of the super-Hamiltonian eigenvalue; in this respect, we observe how
142: its values can no longer be assigned by the initial values, but they
143: have to be determined via the spectrum of $\widehat{H}$. We conclude that, in the
144: quantum regime, a real dust reference fluid never approaches a test system.\newline Moreover the presence of non zero eigenvalues for the super-Hamiltonian removes the so called ``frozen formalism'' of the WDW equation and confirms the idea that introducing a physical unit time like vector provides a consistent and evolutive canonical quantum gravity dynamics.
145:
146: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
147:
148: \bibitem{ArnDesMis1959}R. Arnowitt, S. Deser, C. Misner, (1959), \emph{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{116}, 1322.
149:
150: %\bibitem{ArnDesMis1960a}R. Arnowitt, S. Deser, C. Misner, (1960), \emph{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{117}, 1595.
151:
152: %\bibitem{ArnDesMis1960b}R. Arnowitt, S. Deser, C. Misner, (1960), \emph{J. Math. Phys.} \textbf{1}, 434.
153:
154: %\bibitem{ArnDesMis1962}R. Arnowitt, S. Deser, C. Misner, (1962), in L. Witten ed., Gravitation: An Introduction to Current Research, Wiley, New York, pp. 227-265.
155:
156: %\bibitem{Ash1991}A. Ashtekar \emph{Lectures on Non Perturbative Canonical Gravity}, (1980), World Scientific, London.
157:
158: \bibitem{BicKuc1997}J. Bicak, K. Kucha\v{r}, (1997), {Phys. Rev.} \textbf{D56}, 4878.%, available on \emph{gr-qc}/9704053.
159:
160: %\bibitem{BroKuc1995}J.D. Brown, K. Kucha\v{r}, (1995), {Phys. Rev.} \textbf{D51}, 5600, available on \emph{gr-qc}/9409001.
161:
162: %\bibitem{BirDav1982}N.D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies, \emph{Quantum Field on Curved Space Time}, (1982), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
163:
164: \bibitem{DeW1967}B.S. DeWitt, (1967), \emph{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{160}, 1113.
165:
166: %\bibitem{DeW1997}B.S. DeWitt, Jerusalem, 22-27 June 1997, \emph{Proc. eighth Marcell Grossmann meeting}, ed T. Piran, 6.
167:
168: %\bibitem{DiBGamPul2002}C. DiBartolo, R. Gambini, J. Pullin (2002), \emph{Class. Quant. Grav.}, textbf{19}, 5275, available on \textbf{gr-qc}/0205123.
169:
170: %\bibitem{GamPul2002}R. Gambini, J. Pullin, (2002), \emph{Class. Quant. Grav.}, textbf{20}, 3341, available on \emph{gr-qc}/0206055.
171:
172: %\bibitem{Har1991}J.B. Hartle, in \emph{Conceptual Problems of Quantum Gravity}, (1991), edited by A. Ashtekar and J. Stachel (Birkhauser, Boston).
173:
174: %\bibitem{Har1988}J.B. Hartle, in \emph{Highlights in Gravitation and Cosmology}, (1988), eds B. Iver et al., Cambrigde Univ. Press.
175:
176: %\bibitem{HarHaw1983}J.B. Hartle and S.W. Hawking, (1983), \emph{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{D28}, 2960.
177:
178: %\bibitem{Ish1992}C.J. Isham, (1992), available on \emph{gr-qc}/9201011.
179:
180: %\bibitem{KirMon1997}A.A. Kirillov, G. Montani, (1997), \emph{JETP Lett.} \textbf{66}, 7, 475.
181:
182: %\bibitem{KolTur1990}E.W. Kolb, M.S. Turner, \emph{The Early Universe}, (1990), Adison-Wesley, Reading, 447.
183:
184: %\bibitem{Kuc1973}K. Kucha\v{r}, \emph{Canonical Quantization of Gravity}, (1973), Relativity, Astrophysics and Cosmology, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp.237-288.
185:
186: \bibitem{Kuc1981}K. Kucha\v{r}, \emph{Canonical Methods of Quantization}, (1981), %C. Isham, R. Penrose, D. Sciama, eds,
187: `Quantum Gravity 2: A Second Oxford Symposium', Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp.329-374.
188:
189: %\bibitem{Kuc1991}K. Kucha\v{r}, \emph{The Problem of Time in Canonical Quantization}, (1991), A. Ashtekar, J. Stachel, eds, `Conceptual Problems of Quantum Gravity', Birkh{\"{a}}user, Boston, pp.141-171.
190:
191: %\bibitem{Kuc1992}K. Kucha\v{r}, (1992), \emph{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{D45}, 4443.
192:
193: %\bibitem{Kuc1992 2}K. Kucha\v{r}, \emph{Time and Interpretations of Quantum Gravity}, (1992), Proceedings of the 4th Canadian Conference on General Relativity and Relativistic Astrophysics, World Scientific, Singapore.
194:
195: %\bibitem{KucTor1991}K. Kucha\v{r}, C. Torre, (1991), \emph{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{D43}, 419.
196:
197: %\bibitem{MisThoWhe1973}W. Misner, K. Thorne, J.A. Wheeler, \emph{Gravitation}, (1973), Freeman, San Francisco, Ch. 43, Ch. 21.
198:
199: \bibitem{MerMon2003a}S. Mercuri, G. Montani, (2003), to appear on \emph{Int. Jour. Mod. Phys.} \textbf{D}, available on {\emph gr-qc}/0310077.
200:
201: \bibitem{MerMon2003b}S. Mercuri, G. Montani, (2003), submitted to \emph{Class. Quant. Grav.}, available on {\emph gr-qc}/0312077.
202:
203: \bibitem{Mon2002}G. Montani, (2002), \emph{Nucl. Phys.} \textbf{B634}, 370. %available on {\emph gr-qc}/0205032.
204:
205: %\bibitem{Ori2001}D. Oriti, (2001), to appear in \emph{Rep. Prog. Phys.}, available \emph{gr-qc}/0106091.
206:
207: %\bibitem{Reg1961}T. Regge, (1961), \emph{Nuovo Cimento} {\bf19}, 558.
208:
209: %\bibitem{Reg1997}T. Regge, Jerusalem, 22-27 June 1997, \emph{Discrete gravity} \emph{Proceedings eighth Marcell Grossmann meeting}, ed T. Piran, 2.
210:
211: %\bibitem{Rov1991a}C. Rovelli, (1991), \emph{Class. Quant. Grav.} \textbf{8}, 297.
212:
213: %\bibitem{Rov1991b}C. Rovelli, (1991), \emph{Class. Quant. Grav.} \textbf{8}, 317.
214:
215: %\bibitem{Rov1983}C. Rovelli, (1983), available on {\emph gr-qc}/9701008.
216:
217: %\bibitem{RovSmo1993}C. Rovelli and L Smolin, (1994), \emph{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \bf{72}, 446, available on \textbf{gr-qc}/9308002.
218:
219: %\bibitem{Smo1993}L. Smolin, (1993), available on \textbf{gr-qc}/9301016.
220:
221: \bibitem{Thi2001}T. Thiemann, (2001),
222: available \textbf{gr-qc/}0110034.
223:
224: %\bibitem{VazWit1998}C. Vaz, L. Witten, (1999), \emph{Phys. Rev.} \bf {D60}, 024009, available on \textbf{gr-qc}/9811062.
225:
226: %\bibitem{VazWitSin1998}C. Vaz, L. Witten, T.P. Singh, (2001), \emph{Phys. Rev.} \bf {D63}, 104020, available on \textbf{gr-qc}/0012053.
227:
228: %\bibitem{Wal1984}R.M. Wald, \emph{General Relativity}, 1984, The university of Chicago press.
229:
230: %\bibitem{ZinJus1996}J. Zinn-Justin, (1996), \emph{Quantum Field Theory and Critical Phenomena}, third edition by Clarendon Press, Oxford, 228.
231:
232: \end{thebibliography}
233:
234: \end{document}