Florian Conrady - Spin Foams With Timelike Surfaces

Spin foams with timelike surfaces
Florian Conrady
Perimeter Institute
ILQG seminar April 6, 2010
FC, Je Hnybida, arXiv:1002.1959 [gr-qc] FC, arXiv:1003.5652 [gr-qc]
Florian Conrady (PI)
ILQGS April 6 2010
1 / 60
Outline
Motivation Coherent states Three ways to simplicity Spin foams Summary
ILQGS April 6 2010
2 / 60
Motivation
ILQGS April 6 2010
3 / 60
Main innovations of the last years

EPRL master constraint EPRL model
Engle, Livine, Pereira, Rovelli, Nucl.Phys.B799,2008
correct coupling between 4simplices relation to canonical LQG
Coherent states Livine, Speziale, Phys.Rev.D76:084028,2007 simplicity constraints on expectation values geometric understanding of intertwiners FK model
Florian Conrady (PI) Freidel, Krasnov, Class.Quant.Grav.25:125018,2008
ILQGS April 6 2010
4 / 60
Restriction of triangulations
In the Lorentzian EPRL model, normals U of tetrahedra are timelike.
timelike
All tetrahedra are Euclidean and triangles can be only spacelike.
ILQGS April 6 2010
5 / 60
What we did
We extended the EPRL model to also include spacelike normals U.
timelike
U spacelike U
Lorentzian tetrahedra are allowed and triangles can be spacelike or timelike.
ILQGS April 6 2010
6 / 60
Three cases
timelike
U spacelike U spacelike U
normal U
triangle
spacelike
spacelike
timelike
EPRL
ILQGS April 6 2010
7 / 60
Covariant perspective
extension natural a priori no reason to forbid Lorentzian tetrahedra permits timelike boundaries restriction could lead to artifacts
ILQGS April 6 2010
8 / 60
Canonical perspective
Are restricted triangulations preferred from a Hamiltonian point of view?
In the examples I know of the transition from space to spacetime leads to a 4d lattice with timelike (or null) edges.

causal dynamical triangulations Ambjorn, Jurkiewicz, Loll evolution schemes for Lorentzian Regge calculus
Barrett, Galassi, Miller, Sorkin, Tuckey, Williams
ILQGS April 6 2010
9 / 60
Canonical perspective
Are restricted triangulations preferred from a Hamiltonian point of view?
In the examples I know of the transition from space to spacetime leads to a 4d lattice with timelike (or null) edges.

causal dynamical triangulations Ambjorn, Jurkiewicz, Loll evolution schemes for Lorentzian Regge calculus
Barrett, Galassi, Miller, Sorkin, Tuckey, Williams
The Hamiltonian approach to Lorentzian spin foams creates a sequence of 3d spatial lattices. Han, Thiemann
cannot (yet) be directly compared with 4d triangulations discussed here
ILQGS April 6 2010
9 / 60
Coherent states
ILQGS April 6 2010
10 / 60
Little groups
timelike
normal U
gaugex little group triangle
U = (1, 0, 0, 0)
U = (0, 0, 0, 1)
U = (0, 0, 0, 1)
SO(3)
SO(1,2)
SO(1,2)
spacelike
spacelike
timelike
EPRL
ILQGS April 6 2010
11 / 60
Little groups
timelike
normal U
gaugex little group triangle
U = (1, 0, 0, 0)
U = (0, 0, 0, 1)
U = (0, 0, 0, 1)
SU(2)
SU(1,1)
SU(1,1)
spacelike
spacelike
timelike
EPRL
ILQGS April 6 2010
11 / 60
Representation theory
SL(2, C) generators Casimirs Ji , K i C1 = J 2 K 2 C2 = 4J K H(,n) R, n Z+ C1 = 1 (n2 2 4) 2 C2 = n SU(2)
J 1, J 2, J 3
J2
unitary irreps
Dj j Z+ /2 J 2 = j(j + 1)
ILQGS April 6 2010
12 / 60
Representation theory
SU(2) generators Casimirs unitary irreps
SU(1,1)
J 1, J 2, J 3
J2 Dj j Z+ /2 J 2 = j(j + 1)
J 3, K 1, K 2
Q = (J 3 )2 (K 1 )2 (K 2 )2
continuous series
discrete series
Dj j = 1 , 1, 3 . . . 2 2 Q = j(j 1)
Cs 1 j = 2 + is, 0<s <
Q = s 2
1 4
ILQGS April 6 2010
13 / 60
Notation
J J2 J3 J1 K K2 K3 K1
and
transform like Euclidean 3vectors under SU(2). Similarly, J3 K3
F K1 K2
and
G J 1 J 2
transform like Minkowksi 3vectors under SU(1,1).
ILQGS April 6 2010
14 / 60
SU(2) decomposition of SL(2, C) irrep
Canonical basis H(,n)

j=n/2 j
Dj
(,n) =
j=n/2 m=j
|j m
j m |
ILQGS April 6 2010
15 / 60
SU(1,1) decomposition of SL(2, C) irrep
H(,n)
n/2
j>1/2
Dj+
ds Cs n/2
n/2
j>1/2
Dj
ds Cs
n/2
(,n) =
+
+m j
+m + j
m= ()
m j
m j
j>1/2 m=j
j>1/2 m=j
ds (s)
=1,2 0
s m
s m
()
(see chapter 7 in Rhls book) u

Florian Conrady (PI) Spin foams with timelike surfaces ILQGS April 6 2010 16 / 60
Nonnormalizability
States |j m in the continuous series irrep Cs are normalizable, but the () corresponding states s m in H(,n) are not.
( ) s m
() s m
(s s) = m m (s)
ILQGS April 6 2010
17 / 60
SU(2) coherent states

Denition |j g D j (g )|j j , |j N D j (g (N))|j j , Completeness relation g SU(2) N S 2 SU(2)/U(1)
j = (2j + 1)
dg |j g j g | = (2j + 1)
S2
d2 N |j N
SU(2)
At the level of the SL(2, C) irrep H(,n) this becomes Pj = (2j + 1) dg |j g j g | = (2j + 1)
S2
Spin foams with timelike surfaces ILQGS April 6 2010 18 / 60
d 2 N j N
j N .
SU(2)
SU(1,1) coherent states discrete series
Denition |j g
D j (g )|j j ,
g SU(1, 1) N H SU(1, 1)/U(1)
|j N D j (g (N))|j j ,
Upper/lower hyperboloid H = {N | N 2 = 1 , N 0 0}
ILQGS April 6 2010
19 / 60
SU(1,1) coherent states discrete series

Denition |j g
D j (g )|j j ,
g SU(1, 1) N H SU(1, 1)/U(1)
|j N D j (g (N))|j j , Completeness relation
= (2j 1) j
dg |j g
j g | = (2j 1)
H
d2 N |j N j N|
SU(1,1)
At the level of the SL(2, C) irrep H(,n) this becomes Pj = (2j 1)

dg jg
g j
= (2j 1)
H
d 2 N j N
j N .
SU(1,1)
ILQGS April 6 2010
19 / 60
Expectation values
So far the coherent states are the ones introduced by Perelomov. They have the property that j N|J|j N = j N , j N|F |j N = j N , N S2 N H
in accordance with the fact that J 2 = j(j + 1) 0 and F 2 = j(j 1) 0.
ILQGS April 6 2010
20 / 60
SU(1,1) coherent states continuous series

Question What are the appropriate coherent states for the continuous series?
In this case Q = F 2 = (s 2 + 1/4) < 0, so the classical vector N should be spacelike. Perelomov uses the state |j m = 0 , resulting in a zero classical vector.
ILQGS April 6 2010
21 / 60

Question What are the appropriate coherent states for the continuous series?
In this case Q = F 2 = (s 2 + 1/4) < 0, so the classical vector N should be spacelike. J3
F K1 K2
Build coherent states from eigenstates of K 1 or K 2 !
ILQGS April 6 2010
21 / 60
Eigenstates of K 1
K 1 |j = |j , These states are not normalizable:
< < ,
Mukunda, Barut and Phillips, Lindblad and Nagel
j |j = ( ) To obtain nite inner products, one needs a smearing with wavefunctions!
ILQGS April 6 2010
22 / 60
Denition |j g
sp
D j (g )|j s + ,
g SU(1, 1)
|j N D j (g (N))|j s + , N Hsp SU(1, 1)/G1 Hsp = {N | N 2 = 1} = singlesheeted spacelike hyperboloid G1 = subgroup generated by K 1
ILQGS April 6 2010
23 / 60

Denition
|j g
sp
1 d f ( s) D j (g )|j + ,
g SU(1, 1) N Hsp SU(1, 1)/G1
|j N D j (g (N))|j + ,
Hsp = {N | N 2 = 1} = singlesheeted spacelike hyperboloid G1 = subgroup generated by K 1 1 , |x| /2 f (x) = 0 , |x| > /2

Denition
|j g
sp
1 d f ( s) D j (g )|j + , g SU(1, 1) N Hsp SU(1, 1)/G1
|j N D j (g (N))|j + , Completeness relation
= j
dg |j g
SU(1,1) 2
sp
j g |sp
=
Hsp
d N
1 d f ( s) |j N j N |
ILQGS April 6 2010 24 / 60
Smearing in s
At the level of the SL(2, C) irrep H(,n) , one also needs a smearing in s. We dene a smeared projector onto the irrep with spin j = 1/2 + is:
Ps () =1,2 m= 0
ds (s ) f (s s) s m
()
s m
()
ILQGS April 6 2010
25 / 60
Denition
() s g
ds (s ) f (s s)
1 () d f ( s) D (,n) (g ) s +
Completeness relation
Ps () = =1,2
dg s g
SU(1,1)
()
s g
()
ILQGS April 6 2010
26 / 60
Three ways to simplicity
ILQGS April 6 2010
27 / 60
Three ways to simplicity
Derivation of extended simplicity constraints by three methods 1. weak imposition of constraints 2. master constraint 3. restriction of coherent state basis (as advocated by EPRL) (inspired by FK model)
ILQGS April 6 2010
28 / 60
Classical tetrahedron
Describe a tetrahedron by four bivectors 1 J =B + B, where B is constrained to be simple.
Simplicity constraint: unit fourvector U such that U B = 0 .

Classical simplicity constraints
Express B in terms of the total bivector J: 2 B= 2 +1 Starting point for quantization: 1 U J J =0 J 1 J
ILQGS April 6 2010
30 / 60
First case: normal U timelike
timelike
In the gauge U = (1, 0, 0, 0), the simplicity constraint takes the form J+ 1 K =0
The little group is SU(2), so we use states of the SU(2) decomposition!

Spacelike U
spacelike U
In the gauge U = (0, 0, 0, 1), the simplicity constraint becomes F+ 1 G =0
The little group is SU(1,1), so we use states of the SU(1,1) decomposition!

Basic example of secondclass constraints

Phase space and constraints (qi , pi ) , i = 1, 2 {qi , pi } = ij Change of variables q = p = a =
1 2 1 2
q1 q2 = 0 p1 p2 = 0
(q1 q2 ) (p1 p2 ) (p iq )
q = p = 0
1 2
a = 0
ILQGS April 6 2010
33 / 60
Weak imposition of constraints
Impose a | = 0 on physical states, implying

|a | = |a | = 0
| , | Hphys
Physical Hilbert Hphys space is spanned by |n+ |0 , n+ N0 .
ILQGS April 6 2010
34 / 60
Restriction of coherent state basis

Overcomplete basis of coherent states |+ | , a | = | :
1 = 2
d+
d |+ + | | |
Restrict basis to states whose expectation values satisfy the constraint, i.e. to labels = 0. Projector on Hphys Pphys 1 d+ |+ + | |0 0|
ILQGS April 6 2010
35 / 60
Master constraint
Master constraint operator M=

a a
1 1 2 2 p + q + = 2 2
Dene Hphys as the subspace of states with minimal eigenvalue w.r.t. M. Hphys spanned by |n+ |0 , n+ N0 .
ILQGS April 6 2010
36 / 60
From classical to quantum simplicity
1 J + K = 0 F+
1 G
B IJ (B)IJ = 0
=0
4C3 = n
( n) +
=0
B IJ (B)IJ = 0 is the diagonal simplicity constraint. C3 is the Casimir of the little group determined by the normal U.
ILQGS April 6 2010
37 / 60

Consider the case U = (1, 0, 0, 0) and suppose that Hphys = Dj H(,n) ,
jJ
where J is a subset of the total set of spins {j | j n/2}. Require that |C | = 0 | , | Hphys . Unless Hphys is trivial, this implies, that for some j n/2, 1 3 jm J + K jm
3
1 jm J + K jm

=0
for all admissible m, m .


By using K = [K 3 , J ] and K |j m = (. . .)|j + 1 m mAj |j m + (. . .)|j 1 m , one obtains Aj = or 4C3 = 4j(j + 1) = n .
3
n Aj = , 4j(j + 1)
In conjunction with the constraint B B = 0, this gives 4j(j + 1) = n2 if = n and 4j(j + 1) = 2 if n = . Approximate solution = n , j = n/2
Hphys = Dn/2 H(n,n)


Next consider U = (0, 0, 0, 1). Suppose rst that the weak constraint holds for some irrep Dj of the discrete series: 1 0 jm F + G jm
0
jm F
1 + G jm
=0
m, m ,
with F F 2 iF 1 and G G 2 iG 1 . According to Mukunda K |j m = (. . .)|j + 1 m mAj |jm + (. . .)|j 1 m ,

3
Aj =
n , 4j(j 1)
and G = [G 0 , F ], which leads to Aj = or 4j(j 1) = n. Approximate solution = n , n 2 , j = n/2
ILQGS April 6 2010
40 / 60

For an irrep Cs of the continuous series, the equations are the same except that Aj is replaced by
n n = 2 . Aj = 4j(j + 1) 4(s + 1/4) A solution exists only when = n/ < 1 and then 2 n2 s + 1/4 = = 2. 4 4
2
Overall result for U = (0, 0, 0, 1) = n , n 2 or = n/ < 1 Hphys = C 1

2
+ Hphys = Dn/2 Dn/2
n2 / 2 1
C 1
2
n2 / 2 1
ILQGS April 6 2010
41 / 60

Case U = (1, 0, 0, 0). Resolve the identity on H(,n) in terms of SU(2) coherent states,
(,n) =
and require that
j=n/2
(2j + 1)
S2
d 2 N j N
j N ,
j N
1 J + K j N = 0 .
This implies Aj = , that is, 4j(j + 1) = n.
ILQGS April 6 2010
42 / 60

The second condition is either obtained from B B = 0 or alternatively from the requirement of minimal uncertainty in K . From = Aj it follows that J so that (K )
2 2
1 = 2 K
+ O(|J|)
and
1 = J K ,
1 1 2 = (1 )J K C1 + O(|J|) 2 2 1 = 1 2 C2 + C1 + O(|J|) 4 = B B + O(|J|) . 4
ILQGS April 6 2010
43 / 60
Projector on Hphys Pphys = (n + 1)

S2
d2 N n/2N
n/2N
ILQGS April 6 2010
44 / 60
Master constraint
For the case U = (0, 0, 0, 1) the Master constraint reads 1 F+ G
2
M=
1 1+ 2
1 1 F 2 C1 C2 = 0 2 2
2
The diagonal constraint B B = 0 is equivalent to 1 1 2 2 C1 + C2 = 0 .
By combining the two one arrives at the desired second condition 4 F 2 = n .
ILQGS April 6 2010
45 / 60
Master constraint
In the case of the discrete series, the constraints are therefore n + n =0
4j(j 1) = n Approximate solution = n , n 2 j = n/2
ILQGS April 6 2010
46 / 60
Master constraint
For states of the continuous series, n
2
n +
=0
1 4 s + 4 Solution n = <
= n
1 s2 = 4
n2 1 2
ILQGS April 6 2010
47 / 60
Table of constraints
timelike U spacelike U spacelike U
normal U
triangle little group relevant irreps constr. on (, n) constr. on irreps area spectrum
spacelike
spacelike
timelike
SU(2)
Dj = n j = n/2 j(j + 1)
EPRL
SU(1,1)
Dj = n, n 2 j = n/2 j(j 1)
SU(1,1)
Cs
n = > s 2 + 1/4 = 2 /4 s 2 + 1/4 = n/2
ILQGS April 6 2010
48 / 60
Spin foams
ILQGS April 6 2010
49 / 60
Spin foam theory

Complex: simplicial complex : 4simplex , tetrahedron , triangles t, . . . dual complex : vertex v , edge e, face f , . . . Variables (same as in EPRL): connection ge SL(2, C) irrep label nf Z+ Additional variables: Ue = (1, 0, 0, 0) or (0, 0, 0, 1): normal of tetrahedron dual to e f = 1: spacelike/timelike triangle dual to f
ILQGS April 6 2010
50 / 60
Uniform notation
To cover the dierent cases we introduce a uniform notation. Little group SU(2) , H(, U) SU(1, 1) , , Spin n/2 , j= n/2 , 1 +
2
if if if
= 1,
U = (1, 0, 0, 0) ,
= 1 , U = (0, 0, 0, 1) ,
= 1 , U = (1, 0, 0, 0) .
if if
i 2
= 1, = 1,
U = (1, 0, 0, 0) , U = (0, 0, 0, 1) ,
n2 / 2 1 ,
if
= 1 , U = (0, 0, 0, 1) .
ILQGS April 6 2010 51 / 60
Uniform notation
Coherent states |j h , () |j h = |h , j |() , j h Projector Pj (, U, ) = dj (, U)
if if if
= 1, = 1,
U = (1, 0, 0, 0) , U = (0, 0, 0, 1) ,
= 1 , U = (0, 0, 0, 1) .
dh j h
H(,U)
()
j h
()
ILQGS April 6 2010
52 / 60
Vertex amplitude
e f gev v gve e
Av ((f , nf ); hef , ef , ) =
SL(2,C) e
dgev
f
( ) jef efef h
(f ,nf )
(gev g
ve
(e f ) j h ef ef
ILQGS April 6 2010
53 / 60
Spin foam sum
Partition function Z =
2 (1 + 2f )nf lim f
dhef djf (Ue , f )

nf f =1 Ue ef H(Ue ,f ) 0
Av (f f nf , nf ); hef , ef ,
v
ILQGS April 6 2010
54 / 60
Compatibility of path integral and operator formalism

So far we were mainly guided by the path integral picture and dened the spin foam sum by simply summing over all choices of the normal U. From the canonical perspective, however, one would also require that the sum over intermediate states on a triangulations boundary is a projector. For a give choice of U, this is certainly the case. Is it also true when we sum over U?
ILQGS April 6 2010
55 / 60
timelike
normal U
triangle
spacelike
spacelike
timelike
(, n)
= n
EPRL
= n, n 2
n = >
ILQGS April 6 2010
56 / 60
, ,
=0 =0
, ,
=0 =0
The sum over tetrahedral states is a projector if we exclude
P=
+
red>0
The boundary Hilbert space is genuinely larger than the EPRL one.
Summary
ILQGS April 6 2010
58 / 60
Summary
extension of EPRL model

tetrahedra can be Euclidean and Lorentzian triangles can be spacelike and timelike larger boundary Hilbert space
discrete area spectrum of timelike surfaces denition of associated spin foam model coherent states for timelike triangles
ILQGS April 6 2010
59 / 60
Outlook
regions with timelike boundaries! extension of results on EPRL model?
Rovelli et al., Oeckl
asymptotics, graviton propagator . . . ?
canonical LQG on general boundaries? comparison with previous work on timelike surfaces
Perez, Rovelli Alexandrov, Vassilevich Alexandrov, Kadar
ILQGS April 6 2010
60 / 60

Florian Conrady - Spin Foams With Timelike Surfaces

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Florian Conrady - Spin Foams With Timelike Surfaces

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Spin foams with timelike surfaces

ILQG seminar April 6, 2010

FC, Je Hnybida, arXiv:1002.1959 [gr-qc] FC, arXiv:1003.5652 [gr-qc]

Florian Conrady (PI)

Spin foams with timelike surfaces

ILQGS April 6 2010

Motivation Coherent states Three ways to simplicity Spin foams Summary

Florian Conrady (PI)

Spin foams with timelike surfaces

ILQGS April 6 2010

Florian Conrady (PI)

Spin foams with timelike surfaces

ILQGS April 6 2010

Main innovations of the last years

correct coupling between 4simplices relation to canonical LQG

Spin foams with timelike surfaces

ILQGS April 6 2010

In the Lorentzian EPRL model, normals U of tetrahedra are timelike.

All tetrahedra are Euclidean and triangles can be only spacelike.

Florian Conrady (PI)

Spin foams with timelike surfaces

ILQGS April 6 2010

Lorentzian tetrahedra are allowed and triangles can be spacelike or timelike.

Florian Conrady (PI)

Spin foams with timelike surfaces

ILQGS April 6 2010

Florian Conrady (PI)

Spin foams with timelike surfaces

ILQGS April 6 2010

Florian Conrady (PI)

Spin foams with timelike surfaces

ILQGS April 6 2010

Florian Conrady (PI)

Spin foams with timelike surfaces

ILQGS April 6 2010

cannot (yet) be directly compared with 4d triangulations discussed here

Florian Conrady (PI)

Spin foams with timelike surfaces

ILQGS April 6 2010

Florian Conrady (PI)

Spin foams with timelike surfaces

ILQGS April 6 2010

gaugex little group triangle

Florian Conrady (PI)

Spin foams with timelike surfaces

ILQGS April 6 2010

gaugex little group triangle

Florian Conrady (PI)

Spin foams with timelike surfaces

ILQGS April 6 2010

Florian Conrady (PI)

Spin foams with timelike surfaces

ILQGS April 6 2010

SU(2) generators Casimirs unitary irreps

Cs 1 j = 2 + is, 0<s <

Florian Conrady (PI)

Spin foams with timelike surfaces

ILQGS April 6 2010

transform like Euclidean 3vectors under SU(2). Similarly, J3 K3

transform like Minkowksi 3vectors under SU(1,1).

Florian Conrady (PI)

Spin foams with timelike surfaces