Loop quantum gravity (LQG) is a theory of quantum gravity, which aims to merge

quantum mechanics and general relativity, incorporating matter of the Standard

Model into the framework established for the pure quantum gravity case. It is an
attempt to develop a quantum theory of gravity based directly on Einstein's
geometric formulation rather than the treatment of gravity as a force. As a theory
LQG postulates that the structure of space and time is composed of finite loops
woven into an extremely fine fabric or network. These networks of loops are called
spin networks. The evolution of a spin network, or spin foam, has a scale above the
order of a Planck length, approximately 10−35 meters, and smaller scales are
meaningless. Consequently, not just matter, but space itself, prefers an atomic
structure. The areas of research, which involve about 30 research groups worldwide,
[1] share the basic physical assumptions and the mathematical description of
quantum space. Research has evolved in two directions: the more traditional
canonical loop quantum gravity, and the newer covariant loop quantum gravity,
called spin foam theory. The most well-developed theory that has been advanced as a
direct result of loop quantum gravity is called loop quantum cosmology (LQC). LQC
advances the study of the early universe, incorporating the concept of the Big Bang
into the broader theory of the Big Bounce, which envisions the Big Bang as the
beginning of a period of expansion that follows a period of contraction, which one
could talk of as the Big Crunch.

History
Main article: History of loop quantum gravity
In 1986, Abhay Ashtekar reformulated Einstein's general relativity in a language
closer to that of the rest of fundamental physics, specifically Yang–Mills theory.
[2] Shortly after, Ted Jacobson and Lee Smolin realized that the formal equation of
quantum gravity, called the Wheeler–DeWitt equation, admitted solutions labelled by
loops when rewritten in the new Ashtekar variables. Carlo Rovelli and Smolin
defined a nonperturbative and background-independent quantum theory of gravity in
terms of these loop solutions. Jorge Pullin and Jerzy Lewandowski understood that
the intersections of the loops are essential for the consistency of the theory, and
the theory should be formulated in terms of intersecting loops, or graphs.

In 1994, Rovelli and Smolin showed that the quantum operators of the theory
associated to area and volume have a discrete spectrum. That is, geometry is
quantized. This result defines an explicit basis of states of quantum geometry,
which turned out to be labelled by Roger Penrose's spin networks, which are graphs
labelled by spins.

The canonical version of the dynamics was established by Thomas Thiemann, who
defined an anomaly-free Hamiltonian operator and showed the existence of a
mathematically consistent background-independent theory. The covariant, or "spin
foam", version of the dynamics was developed jointly over several decades by
research groups in France, Canada, UK, Poland, and Germany. It was completed in
2008, leading to the definition of a family of transition amplitudes, which in the
classical limit can be shown to be related to a family of truncations of general
relativity.[3] The finiteness of these amplitudes was proven in 2011.[4][5] It
requires the existence of a positive cosmological constant, which is consistent
with observed acceleration in the expansion of the Universe.

Background independence
LQG is formally background independent, meaning the equations of LQG are not
embedded in, or dependent on, space and time (except for its invariant topology).
Instead, they are expected to give rise to space and time at distances which are 10
times the Planck length. The issue of background independence in LQG still has some
unresolved subtleties. For example, some derivations require a fixed choice of the
topology, while any consistent quantum theory of gravity should include topology
change as a dynamical process.[citation needed]
Space-time as a "container" over which physics takes place has no objective
physical meaning and instead the gravitational interaction is represented as just
one of the fields forming the world. This is known as the relationalist
interpretation of space-time. In LQG this aspect of general relativity is taken
seriously and this symmetry is preserved by requiring that the physical states
remain invariant under the generators of diffeomorphisms. The interpretation of
this condition is well understood for purely spatial diffeomorphisms. However, the
understanding of diffeomorphisms involving time (the Hamiltonian constraint) is
more subtle because it is related to dynamics and the so-called "slave nature of
time" in general relativity.[6] A generally accepted calculational framework to
account for this constraint has yet to be found.[7][8] A plausible candidate for
the quantum Hamiltonian constraint is the operator introduced by Thiemann.[9]

Constraints and their Poisson bracket algebra

Main articles: Poisson bracket and Hamiltonian constraint
Dirac observables
The constraints define a constraint surface in the original phase space. The gauge
motions of the constraints apply to all phase space but have the feature that they
leave the constraint surface where it is, and thus the orbit of a point in the
hypersurface under gauge transformations will be an orbit entirely within it. Dirac
observables are defined as phase space functions,
�
O, that Poisson commute with all the constraints when the constraint equations are
imposed,

{
�
�
,
�
}
�
�
=
�
�
=
�
=
0
=
{
�
�
,
�
}
�
�
=
�
�
=
�
=
0
=
{
�
,
�
}
�
�
=
�
�
=
�
=
0
=
0
,
{\displaystyle \{G_{j},O\}_{G_{j}=C_{a}=H=0}=\{C_{a},O\}_{G_{j}=C_{a}=H=0}=\
{H,O\}_{G_{j}=C_{a}=H=0}=0,}
that is, they are quantities defined on the constraint surface that are invariant
under the gauge transformations of the theory.

Then, solving only the constraint

�
�
=
0
G_{j}=0 and determining the Dirac observables with respect to it leads us back to
the Arnowitt–Deser–Misner (ADM) phase space with constraints
�
,
�
�
H,C_{a}. The dynamics of general relativity is generated by the constraints, it can
be shown that six Einstein equations describing time evolution (really a gauge
transformation) can be obtained by calculating the Poisson brackets of the three-
metric and its conjugate momentum with a linear combination of the spatial
diffeomorphism and Hamiltonian constraint. The vanishing of the constraints, giving
the physical phase space, are the four other Einstein equations.[10]

Quantization of the constraints – the equations of quantum general relativity

Pre-history and Ashtekar new variables
Main articles: Frame fields in general relativity, Ashtekar variables, and Self-
dual Palatini action
Many of the technical problems in canonical quantum gravity revolve around the
constraints. Canonical general relativity was originally formulated in terms of
metric variables, but there seemed to be insurmountable mathematical difficulties
in promoting the constraints to quantum operators because of their highly non-
linear dependence on the canonical variables. The equations were much simplified
with the introduction of Ashtekar's new variables. Ashtekar variables describe
canonical general relativity in terms of a new pair of canonical variables closer
to those of gauge theories. The first step consists of using densitized triads
�
~
�
�
{\tilde {E}}_{i}^{a} (a triad
�
�
�
E_{i}^{a} is simply three orthogonal vector fields labeled by
�
=
1
,
2
,
3
i=1,2,3 and the densitized triad is defined by
�
~
�
�
=
det
(
�
)
�
�
�
{\textstyle {\tilde {E}}_{i}^{a}={\sqrt {\det(q)}}E_{i}^{a}}) to encode information
about the spatial metric,

det
(
�
)
�
�
�
=
�
~
�
�
�
~
�
�
�
�
�
.
{\displaystyle \det(q)q^{ab}={\tilde {E}}_{i}^{a}{\tilde {E}}_{j}^{b}\delta ^{ij}.}
(where
�
�
�
\delta ^{ij} is the flat space metric, and the above equation expresses that
�
�
�
q^{ab}, when written in terms of the basis
�
�
�
E_{i}^{a}, is locally flat). (Formulating general relativity with triads instead of
metrics was not new.) The densitized triads are not unique, and in fact one can
perform a local in space rotation with respect to the internal indices
�
i. The canonically conjugate variable is related to the extrinsic curvature by
�
�
�
=
�
�
�
�
~
�
�
/
det
(
�
)
{\textstyle K_{a}^{i}=K_{ab}{\tilde {E}}^{ai}/{\sqrt {\det(q)}}}. But problems
similar to using the metric formulation arise when one tries to quantize the
theory. Ashtekar's new insight was to introduce a new configuration variable,

�
�
�
=
Γ
�
�
−
�
�
�
�
A_{a}^{i}=\Gamma _{a}^{i}-iK_{a}^{i}

that behaves as a complex

SU
⁡
(
2
)
\operatorname {SU} (2) connection where
Γ
�
�
\Gamma _{a}^{i} is related to the so-called spin connection via
Γ
�
�
=
Γ
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
\Gamma _{a}^{i}=\Gamma _{ajk}\epsilon ^{jki}. Here
�
�
�
A_{a}^{i} is called the chiral spin connection. It defines a covariant derivative
�
�
{\mathcal {D}}_{a}. It turns out that
�
~
�
�
{\tilde {E}}_{i}^{a} is the conjugate momentum of
�
�
�
A_{a}^{i}, and together these form Ashtekar's new variables.

The expressions for the constraints in Ashtekar variables; Gauss's theorem, the
spatial diffeomorphism constraint and the (densitized) Hamiltonian constraint then
read:

�
�
=
�
�
�
~
�
�
=
0
G^{i}={\mathcal {D}}_{a}{\tilde {E}}_{i}^{a}=0
�
�
=
�
~
�
�
�
�
�
�
−
�
�
�
(
�
�
�
~
�
�
)
=
�
�
−
�
�
�
�
�
=
0
,
{\displaystyle C_{a}={\tilde {E}}_{i}^{b}F_{ab}^{i}-A_{a}^{i}({\mathcal {D}}_{b}{\
tilde {E}}_{i}^{b})=V_{a}-A_{a}^{i}G^{i}=0,}
�
~
=
�
�
�
�
�
~
�
�
�
~
�
�
�
�
�
�
=
0
{\displaystyle {\tilde {H}}=\epsilon _{ijk}{\tilde {E}}_{i}^{a}{\tilde
{E}}_{j}^{b}F_{ab}^{k}=0}
respectively, where
�
�
�
�
F_{ab}^{i} is the field strength tensor of the connection
�
�
�
A_{a}^{i} and where
�
�
V_{a} is referred to as the vector constraint. The above-mentioned local in space
rotational invariance is the original of the
SU
⁡
(
2
)
\operatorname {SU} (2) gauge invariance here expressed by Gauss's theorem. Note
that these constraints are polynomial in the fundamental variables, unlike the
constraints in the metric formulation. This dramatic simplification seemed to open
up the way to quantizing the constraints. (See the article Self-dual Palatini
action for a derivation of Ashtekar's formalism).
With Ashtekar's new variables, given the configuration variable
�
�
�
A_{a}^{i}, it is natural to consider wavefunctions
Ψ
(
�
�
�
)
\Psi (A_{a}^{i}). This is the connection representation. It is analogous to
ordinary quantum mechanics with configuration variable
�
q and wavefunctions
�
(
�
)
\psi (q). The configuration variable gets promoted to a quantum operator via:

�
^
�
�
Ψ
(
�
)
=
�
�
�
Ψ
(
�
)
,
{\displaystyle {\hat {A}}_{a}^{i}\Psi (A)=A_{a}^{i}\Psi (A),}
(analogous to
�
^
�
(
�
)
=
�
�
(
�
)
{\hat {q}}\psi (q)=q\psi (q)) and the triads are (functional) derivatives,

�
�
�
~
^
Ψ
(
�
)
=
−
�
�
Ψ
(
�
)
�
�
�
�
.
{\displaystyle {\hat {\tilde {E_{i}^{a}}}}\Psi (A)=-i{\delta \Psi (A) \over \delta
A_{a}^{i}}.}
(analogous to
�
^
�
(
�
)
=
−
�
ℏ
�
�
(
�
)
/
�
�
{\hat {p}}\psi (q)=-i\hbar d\psi (q)/dq). In passing over to the quantum theory the
constraints become operators on a kinematic Hilbert space (the unconstrained
SU
⁡
(
2
)
\operatorname {SU} (2) Yang–Mills Hilbert space). Note that different ordering of
the
�
A's and
�
~{\tilde {E}}'s when replacing the
�
~{\tilde {E}}'s with derivatives give rise to different operators – the choice made
is called the factor ordering and should be chosen via physical reasoning. Formally
they read

�
^
�
|
�
⟩
=
0
{\hat {G}}_{j}\vert \psi \rangle =0
�
^
�
|
�
⟩
=
0
{\hat {C}}_{a}\vert \psi \rangle =0
�
~
^
|
�
⟩
=
0.
{\displaystyle {\hat {\tilde {H}}}\vert \psi \rangle =0.}
There are still problems in properly defining all these equations and solving them.
For example, the Hamiltonian constraint Ashtekar worked with was the densitized
version instead of the original Hamiltonian, that is, he worked with
�
~
=
det
(
�
)
�
{\textstyle {\tilde {H}}={\sqrt {\det(q)}}H}. There were serious difficulties in
promoting this quantity to a quantum operator. Moreover, although Ashtekar
variables had the virtue of simplifying the Hamiltonian, they are complex. When one
quantizes the theory, it is difficult to ensure that one recovers real general
relativity as opposed to complex general relativity.

Quantum constraints as the equations of quantum general relativity

The classical result of the Poisson bracket of the smeared Gauss' law
�
(
�
)
=
∫
�
3
�
�
�
(
�
�
�
�
)
�
{\textstyle G(\lambda )=\int d^{3}x\lambda ^{j}(D_{a}E^{a})^{j}} with the
connections is

{
�
(
�
)
,
�
�
�
}
=
∂
�
�
�
+
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
=
(
�
�
�
)
�
.
{\displaystyle \{G(\lambda ),A_{a}^{i}\}=\partial _{a}\lambda ^{i}+g\epsilon
^{ijk}A_{a}^{j}\lambda ^{k}=(D_{a}\lambda )^{i}.}
The quantum Gauss' law reads

�
^
�
Ψ
(
�
)
=
−
�
�
�
�
�
Ψ
[
�
]
�
�
�
�
=
0.
{\hat {G}}_{j}\Psi (A)=-iD_{a}{\delta \lambda \Psi [A] \over \delta A_{a}^{j}}=0.
If one smears the quantum Gauss' law and study its action on the quantum state one
finds that the action of the constraint on the quantum state is equivalent to
shifting the argument of
Ψ\Psi by an infinitesimal (in the sense of the parameter
�\lambda small) gauge transformation,

[
1
+
∫
�
3
�
�
�
(
�
)
�
^
�
]
Ψ
(
�
)
=
Ψ
[
�
+
�
�
]
=
Ψ
[
�
]
,
{\displaystyle \left[1+\int d^{3}x\lambda ^{j}(x){\hat {G}}_{j}\right]\Psi (A)=\Psi
[A+D\lambda ]=\Psi [A],}
and the last identity comes from the fact that the constraint annihilates the
state. So the constraint, as a quantum operator, is imposing the same symmetry that
its vanishing imposed classically: it is telling us that the functions
Ψ
[
�
]
\Psi [A] have to be gauge invariant functions of the connection. The same idea is
true for the other constraints.

Therefore, the two step process in the classical theory of solving the constraints
�
�
=
0
C_{I}=0 (equivalent to solving the admissibility conditions for the initial data)
and looking for the gauge orbits (solving the 'evolution' equations) is replaced by
a one step process in the quantum theory, namely looking for solutions
Ψ\Psi of the quantum equations
�
^
�
Ψ
=
0
{\hat {C}}_{I}\Psi =0. This is because it obviously solves the constraint at the
quantum level and it simultaneously looks for states that are gauge invariant
because
�
^
�
{\hat {C}}_{I} is the quantum generator of gauge transformations (gauge invariant
functions are constant along the gauge orbits and thus characterize them).[11]
Recall that, at the classical level, solving the admissibility conditions and
evolution equations was equivalent to solving all of Einstein's field equations,
this underlines the central role of the quantum constraint equations in canonical
quantum gravity.

Introduction of the loop representation

Main articles: Holonomy, Wilson loop, and Knot invariant
It was in particular the inability to have good control over the space of solutions
to Gauss's law and spatial diffeomorphism constraints that led Rovelli and Smolin
to consider the loop representation in gauge theories and quantum gravity.[12]

LQG includes the concept of a holonomy. A holonomy is a measure of how much the
initial and final values of a spinor or vector differ after parallel transport
around a closed loop; it is denoted

ℎ
�
[
�
]
h_{\gamma }[A].
Knowledge of the holonomies is equivalent to knowledge of the connection, up to
gauge equivalence. Holonomies can also be associated with an edge; under a Gauss
Law these transform as

(
ℎ
�
′
)
�
�
=
�
�
�
−
1
(
�
)
(
ℎ
�
)
�
�
�
�
�
(
�
)
.
(h'_{e})_{{\alpha \beta }}=U_{{\alpha \gamma }}^{{-1}}(x)(h_{e})_{{\gamma \
sigma }}U_{{\sigma \beta }}(y).
For a closed loop
�
=
�
x=y and assuming
�
=
�\alpha =\beta , yields

(
ℎ
�
′
)
�
�
=
�
�
�
−
1
(
�
)
(
ℎ
�
)
�
�
�
�
�
(
�
)
=
[
�
�
�
(
�
)
�
�
�
−
1
(
�
)
]
(
ℎ
�
)
�
�
=
�
�
�
(
ℎ
�
)
�
�
=
(
ℎ
�
)
�
�(h'_{e})_{\alpha \alpha }=U_{\alpha \gamma }^{-1}(x)(h_{e})_{\gamma \sigma }U_{\
sigma \alpha }(x)=[U_{\sigma \alpha }(x)U_{\alpha \gamma }^{-1}(x)](h_{e})_{\
gamma \sigma }=\delta _{\sigma \gamma }(h_{e})_{\gamma \sigma }=(h_{e})_{\gamma \
gamma }
or

Tr
⁡
ℎ
�
′
=
Tr
⁡
ℎ
�
.
\operatorname {Tr} h'_{\gamma }=\operatorname {Tr} h_{\gamma }.
The trace of an holonomy around a closed loop is written
�
�
[
�
]
W_{\gamma }[A]
and is called a Wilson loop. Thus Wilson loops are gauge invariant. The explicit
form of the Holonomy is

ℎ
�
[
�
]
=
�
exp
⁡
{
−
∫
�
0
�
1
�
�
�
˙
�
�
�
�
(
�
(
�
)
)
�
�
}
{\displaystyle h_{\gamma }[A]={\mathcal {P}}\exp \left\{-\int _{\gamma _{0}}^{\
gamma _{1}}ds{\dot {\gamma }}^{a}A_{a}^{i}(\gamma (s))T_{i}\right\}}
where
�\gamma is the curve along which the holonomy is evaluated, and
�
s is a parameter along the curve,
�
{\mathcal {P}} denotes path ordering meaning factors for smaller values of
�
s appear to the left, and
�
�
T_{i} are matrices that satisfy the
SU
⁡
(
2
)
\operatorname {SU} (2) algebra

[
�
�
,
�
�
]
=
2
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
.
{\displaystyle [T^{i},T^{j}]=2i\epsilon ^{ijk}T_{k}.}
The Pauli matrices satisfy the above relation. It turns out that there are
infinitely many more examples of sets of matrices that satisfy these relations,
where each set comprises
(
�
+
1
)
×
(
�
+
1
)
(N+1)\times (N+1) matrices with
�
=
1
,
2
,
3
,
…N=1,2,3,\dots , and where none of these can be thought to 'decompose' into two or
more examples of lower dimension. They are called different irreducible
representations of the
SU
⁡
(
2
)
\operatorname {SU} (2) algebra. The most fundamental representation being the Pauli
matrices. The holonomy is labelled by a half integer
�
/
2
N/2 according to the irreducible representation used.
The use of Wilson loops explicitly solves the Gauss gauge constraint. Loop
representation is required to handle the spatial diffeomorphism constraint. With
Wilson loops as a basis, any Gauss gauge invariant function expands as,

Ψ
[
�
]
=
∑
�
Ψ
[
�
]
�
�
[
�
]
.
{\displaystyle \Psi [A]=\sum _{\gamma }\Psi [\gamma ]W_{\gamma }[A].}
This is called the loop transform and is analogous to the momentum representation
in quantum mechanics (see Position and momentum space). The QM representation has a
basis of states
exp
⁡
(
�
�
�
)
\exp(ikx) labelled by a number
�
k and expands as

�
[
�
]
=
∫
�
�
�
(
�
)
exp
⁡
(
�
�
�
)
.
\psi [x]=\int dk\psi (k)\exp(ikx).
and works with the coefficients of the expansion
�
(
�
)
.
{\displaystyle \psi (k).}

The inverse loop transform is defined by

Ψ
[
�
]
=
∫
[
�
�
]
Ψ
[
�
]
�
�
[
�
]
.
\Psi [\gamma ]=\int [dA]\Psi [A]W_{\gamma }[A].
This defines the loop representation. Given an operator
�
^{\hat {O}} in the connection representation,

Φ
[
�
]
=
�
^
Ψ
[
�
]
�
�
1
,
{\displaystyle \Phi [A]={\hat {O}}\Psi [A]\qquad Eq\;1,}
one should define the corresponding operator
�
^
′
{\hat {O}}' on
Ψ
[
�
]
\Psi [\gamma ] in the loop representation via,

Φ
[
�
]
=
�
^
′
Ψ
[
�
]
�
�
2
,
{\displaystyle \Phi [\gamma ]={\hat {O}}'\Psi [\gamma ]\qquad Eq\;2,}
where
Φ
[
�
]
\Phi [\gamma ] is defined by the usual inverse loop transform,

Φ
[
�
]
=
∫
[
�
�
]
Φ
[
�
]
�
�
[
�
]
�
�
3.
\Phi [\gamma ]=\int [dA]\Phi [A]W_{\gamma }[A]\qquad Eq\;3.
A transformation formula giving the action of the operator
�
^
′
{\hat {O}}' on
Ψ
[
�
]
\Psi [\gamma ] in terms of the action of the operator
�
^{\hat {O}} on
Ψ
[
�
]
\Psi [A] is then obtained by equating the R.H.S. of
�
�
2
Eq\;2 with the R.H.S. of
�
�
3
Eq\;3 with
�
�
1
Eq\;1 substituted into
�
�
3
Eq\;3, namely

�
^
′
Ψ
[
�
]
=
∫
[
�
�
]
�
�
[
�
]
�
^
Ψ
[
�
]
,
{\hat {O}}'\Psi [\gamma ]=\int [dA]W_{\gamma }[A]{\hat {O}}\Psi [A],
or

�
^
′
Ψ
[
�
]
=
∫
[
�
�
]
(
�
^
†
�
�
[
�
]
)
Ψ
[
�
]
,
{\hat {O}}'\Psi [\gamma ]=\int [dA]({\hat {O}}^{\dagger }W_{\gamma }[A])\Psi [A],
where
�
^
†{\hat {O}}^{\dagger } means the operator
�
^{\hat {O}} but with the reverse factor ordering (remember from simple quantum
mechanics where the product of operators is reversed under conjugation). The action
of this operator on the Wilson loop is evaluated as a calculation in the connection
representation and the result is rearranged purely as a manipulation in terms of
loops (with regard to the action on the Wilson loop, the chosen transformed
operator is the one with the opposite factor ordering compared to the one used for
its action on wavefunctions
Ψ
[
�
]
\Psi [A]). This gives the physical meaning of the operator
�
^
′
{\hat {O}}'. For example, if
�
^
†{\displaystyle {\hat {O}}^{\dagger }} corresponded to a spatial diffeomorphism,
then this can be thought of as keeping the connection field
�
A of
�
�
[
�
]
W_{\gamma }[A] where it is while performing a spatial diffeomorphism on
�\gamma instead. Therefore, the meaning of
�
^
′
{\hat {O}}' is a spatial diffeomorphism on
�\gamma , the argument of
Ψ
[
�
]
\Psi [\gamma ].

In the loop representation, the spatial diffeomorphism constraint is solved by

considering functions of loops
Ψ
[
�
]
\Psi [\gamma ] that are invariant under spatial diffeomorphisms of the loop
�\gamma . That is, knot invariants are used. This opens up an unexpected connection
between knot theory and quantum gravity.

Any collection of non-intersecting Wilson loops satisfy Ashtekar's quantum

Hamiltonian constraint. Using a particular ordering of terms and replacing
�
~
�
�
{\tilde {E}}_{i}^{a} by a derivative, the action of the quantum Hamiltonian
constraint on a Wilson loop is

�
~
^
†
�
�
[
�
]
=
−
�
�
�
�
�
^
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
[
�
]
.
{\displaystyle {\hat {\tilde {H}}}^{\dagger }W_{\gamma }[A]=-\epsilon _{ijk}{\hat
{F}}_{ab}^{k}{\frac {\delta }{\delta A_{a}^{i}}}{\frac {\delta }{\delta
A_{b}^{j}}}W_{\gamma }[A].}
When a derivative is taken it brings down the tangent vector,
�
˙
�
{\dot {\gamma }}^{a}, of the loop,
�\gamma . So,

�
^
�
�
�
�
˙
�
�
˙
�
.
{\displaystyle {\hat {F}}_{ab}^{i}{\dot {\gamma }}^{a}{\dot {\gamma }}^{b}.}
However, as
�
�
�
�
F_{ab}^{i} is anti-symmetric in the indices
�
a and
�
b this vanishes (this assumes that
�\gamma is not discontinuous anywhere and so the tangent vector is unique).

With regard to loop representation, the wavefunctions

Ψ
[
�
]
\Psi [\gamma ] vanish when the loop has discontinuities and are knot invariants.
Such functions solve the Gauss law, the spatial diffeomorphism constraint and
(formally) the Hamiltonian constraint. This yields an infinite set of exact (if
only formal) solutions to all the equations of quantum general relativity![12] This
generated a lot of interest in the approach and eventually led to LQG.

Geometric operators, the need for intersecting Wilson loops and spin network states
The easiest geometric quantity is the area. Let us choose coordinates so that the
surface
Σ\Sigma is characterized by
�
3
=
0
x^{3}=0. The area of small parallelogram of the surface
Σ\Sigma is the product of length of each side times
sin
⁡
�\sin \theta where
�\theta is the angle between the sides. Say one edge is given by the vector
�
→{\vec {u}} and the other by
�
→{\vec {v}} then,

�
=
‖
�
→
‖
‖
�
→
‖
sin
⁡
�
=
‖
�
→
‖
2
‖
�
→
‖
2
(
1
−
cos
2
⁡
�
)
=
‖
�
→
‖
2
‖
�
→
‖
2
−
(
�
→
⋅
�
→
)
2
{\displaystyle A=\|{\vec {u}}\|\|{\vec {v}}\|\sin \theta ={\sqrt {\|{\vec {u}}\|
^{2}\|{\vec {v}}\|^{2}(1-\cos ^{2}\theta )}}={\sqrt {\|{\vec {u}}\|^{2}\|{\vec
{v}}\|^{2}-({\vec {u}}\cdot {\vec {v}})^{2}}}}
In the space spanned by
�
1
x^{1} and
�
2
x^{2} there is an infinitesimal parallelogram described by
�
→
=
�
→
1
�
�
1
{\vec {u}}={\vec {e}}_{1}dx^{1} and
�
→
=
�
→
2
�
�
2
{\vec {v}}={\vec {e}}_{2}dx^{2}. Using
�
�
�
(
2
)
=
�
→
�
⋅
�
→
�
q_{AB}^{(2)}={\vec {e}}_{A}\cdot {\vec {e}}_{B} (where the indices
�
A and
�
B run from 1 to 2), yields the area of the surface
Σ\Sigma given by

�
Σ
=
∫
Σ
�
�
1
�
�
2
det
(
�
(
2
)
)
{\displaystyle A_{\Sigma }=\int _{\Sigma }dx^{1}dx^{2}{\sqrt {\det \left(q^{(2)}\
right)}}}
where
det
(
�
(
2
)
)
=
�
11
�
22
−
�
12
2
{\displaystyle \det(q^{(2)})=q_{11}q_{22}-q_{12}^{2}} and is the determinant of the
metric induced on
Σ\Sigma . The latter can be rewritten
det
(
�
(
2
)
)
=
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
/
2
{\displaystyle \det(q^{(2)})=\epsilon ^{AB}\epsilon ^{CD}q_{AC}q_{BD}/2} where the
indices
�
…
�
A\dots D go from 1 to 2. This can be further rewritten as

det
(
�
(
2
)
)
=
�
3
�
�
�
3
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
2
.
{\displaystyle \det(q^{(2)})={\epsilon ^{3ab}\epsilon ^{3cd}q_{ac}q_{bc} \over 2}.}
The standard formula for an inverse matrix is

�
�
�
=
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
2
!
det
(
�
)
.
{\displaystyle q^{ab}={\epsilon ^{bcd}\epsilon ^{aef}q_{ce}q_{df} \over 2!\
det(q)}.}
There is a similarity between this and the expression for
det
(
�
(
2
)
)
{\displaystyle \det(q^{(2)})}. But in Ashtekar variables,
�
~
�
�
�
~
�
�
=
det
(
�
)
�
�
�
{\displaystyle {\tilde {E}}_{i}^{a}{\tilde {E}}^{bi}=\det(q)q^{ab}}. Therefore,

�
Σ
=
∫
Σ
�
�
1
�
�
2
�
~
�
3
�
~
3
�
.
{\displaystyle A_{\Sigma }=\int _{\Sigma }dx^{1}dx^{2}{\sqrt {{\tilde {E}}_{i}^{3}
{\tilde {E}}^{3i}}}.}
According to the rules of canonical quantization the triads
�
~
�
3
{\tilde {E}}_{i}^{3} should be promoted to quantum operators,

�
~
^
�
3
∼
�
�
�
3
�
.
{\hat {{\tilde {E}}}}_{i}^{3}\sim {\delta \over \delta A_{3}^{i}}.
The area
�
ΣA_{\Sigma } can be promoted to a well defined quantum operator despite the fact
that it contains a product of two functional derivatives and a square-root.[13]
Putting
�
=
2
�
N=2J (
�
J-th representation),

∑
�
�
�
�
�
=
�
(
�
+
1
)
1.
{\displaystyle \sum _{i}T^{i}T^{i}=J(J+1)1.}
This quantity is important in the final formula for the area spectrum. The result
is

�
^
Σ
�
�
[
�
]
=
8
�
ℓ
Planck
2
�
∑
�
�
�
(
�
�
+
1
)
�
�
[
�
]
{\hat {A}}_{\Sigma }W_{\gamma }[A]=8\pi \ell _{\text{Planck}}^{2}\beta \sum _{I}{\
sqrt {j_{I}(j_{I}+1)}}W_{\gamma }[A]
where the sum is over all edges
�
I of the Wilson loop that pierce the surface
Σ\Sigma .

The formula for the volume of a region

�
R is given by

�
=
∫
�
�
3
�
det
(
�
)
=
∫
�
�
�
3
1
3
!
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
~
�
�
�
~
�
�
�
~
�
�
.
{\displaystyle V=\int _{R}d^{3}x{\sqrt {\det(q)}}=\int _{R}dx^{3}{\sqrt {{\frac {1}
{3!}}\epsilon _{abc}\epsilon ^{ijk}{\tilde {E}}_{i}^{a}{\tilde {E}}_{j}^{b}{\tilde
{E}}_{k}^{c}}}.}
The quantization of the volume proceeds the same way as with the area. Each time
the derivative is taken, it brings down the tangent vector
�
˙
�
{\dot {\gamma }}^{a}, and when the volume operator acts on non-intersecting Wilson
loops the result vanishes. Quantum states with non-zero volume must therefore
involve intersections. Given that the anti-symmetric summation is taken over in the
formula for the volume, it needs intersections with at least three non-coplanar
lines. At least four-valent vertices are needed for the volume operator to be non-
vanishing.

Assuming the real representation where the gauge group is

SU
⁡
(
2
)
\operatorname {SU} (2), Wilson loops are an over complete basis as there are
identities relating different Wilson loops. These occur because Wilson loops are
based on matrices (the holonomy) and these matrices satisfy identities. Given any
two
SU
⁡
(
2
)
\operatorname {SU} (2) matrices
�
\mathbb {A} and
�
\mathbb {B} ,

Tr
⁡
(
�
)
Tr
⁡
(
�
)
=
Tr
⁡
(
�
�
)
+
Tr
⁡
(
�
�
−
1
)
.
{\displaystyle \operatorname {Tr} (\mathbb {A} )\operatorname {Tr} (\mathbb {B} )=\
operatorname {Tr} (\mathbb {A} \mathbb {B} )+\operatorname {Tr} (\mathbb {A} \
mathbb {B} ^{-1}).}
This implies that given two loops
�\gamma and
�\eta that intersect,

�
�
[
�
]
�
�
[
�
]
=
�
�
∘
�
[
�
]
+
�
�
∘
�
−
1
[
�
]
W_{\gamma }[A]W_{\eta }[A]=W_{\gamma \circ \eta }[A]+W_{\gamma \circ \eta ^{-1}}[A]

where by
�
−
1
\eta ^{-1} we mean the loop
�\eta traversed in the opposite direction and
�
∘
�\gamma \circ \eta means the loop obtained by going around the loop
�\gamma and then along
�\eta . See figure below. Given that the matrices are unitary one has that
�
�
[
�
]
=
�
�
−
1
[
�
]
W_{\gamma }[A]=W_{\gamma ^{-1}}[A]. Also given the cyclic property of the matrix
traces (i.e.
Tr
⁡
(
�
�
)
=
Tr
⁡
(
�
�
)
{\displaystyle \operatorname {Tr} (\mathbb {A} \mathbb {B} )=\operatorname {Tr} (\
mathbb {B} \mathbb {A} )}) one has that
�
�
∘
�
[
�
]
=
�
�
∘
�
[
�
]
W_{\gamma \circ \eta }[A]=W_{\eta \circ \gamma }[A]. These identities can be
combined with each other into further identities of increasing complexity adding
more loops. These identities are the so-called Mandelstam identities. Spin networks
certain are linear combinations of intersecting Wilson loops designed to address
the over-completeness introduced by the Mandelstam identities (for trivalent
intersections they eliminate the over-completeness entirely) and actually
constitute a basis for all gauge invariant functions.

Graphical representation of the simplest non-trivial Mandelstam identity relating

different Wilson loops.
As mentioned above the holonomy tells one how to propagate test spin half
particles. A spin network state assigns an amplitude to a set of spin half
particles tracing out a path in space, merging and splitting. These are described
by spin networks
�\gamma : the edges are labelled by spins together with 'intertwiners' at the
vertices which are prescription for how to sum over different ways the spins are
rerouted. The sum over rerouting are chosen as such to make the form of the
intertwiner invariant under Gauss gauge transformations.

Hamiltonian constraint of LQG

Main article: Hamiltonian constraint of LQG
In the long history of canonical quantum gravity formulating the Hamiltonian
constraint as a quantum operator (Wheeler–DeWitt equation) in a mathematically
rigorous manner has been a formidable problem. It was in the loop representation
that a mathematically well defined Hamiltonian constraint was finally formulated in
1996.[9] We leave more details of its construction to the article Hamiltonian
constraint of LQG. This together with the quantum versions of the Gauss law and
spatial diffeomorphism constrains written in the loop representation are the
central equations of LQG (modern canonical quantum General relativity).

Finding the states that are annihilated by these constraints (the physical states),
and finding the corresponding physical inner product, and observables is the main
goal of the technical side of LQG.

A very important aspect of the Hamiltonian operator is that it only acts at

vertices (a consequence of this is that Thiemann's Hamiltonian operator, like
Ashtekar's operator, annihilates non-intersecting loops except now it is not just
formal and has rigorous mathematical meaning). More precisely, its action is non-
zero on at least vertices of valence three and greater and results in a linear
combination of new spin networks where the original graph has been modified by the
addition of lines at each vertex together and a change in the labels of the
adjacent links of the vertex.[citation needed]

Spin foams
Main articles: spin network, spin foam, BF model, and Barrett–Crane model
In loop quantum gravity (LQG), a spin network represents a "quantum state" of the
gravitational field on a 3-dimensional hypersurface. The set of all possible spin
networks (or, more accurately, "s-knots" – that is, equivalence classes of spin
networks under diffeomorphisms) is countable; it constitutes a basis of LQG Hilbert
space.

In physics, a spin foam is a topological structure made out of two-dimensional

faces that represents one of the configurations that must be summed to obtain a
Feynman's path integral (functional integration) description of quantum gravity. It
is closely related to loop quantum gravity.

Spin foam derived from the Hamiltonian constraint operator

On this section see [14] and references therein. The Hamiltonian constraint
generates 'time' evolution. Solving the Hamiltonian constraint should tell us how
quantum states evolve in 'time' from an initial spin network state to a final spin
network state. One approach to solving the Hamiltonian constraint starts with what
is called the Dirac delta function. The summation of which over different sequences
of actions can be visualized as a summation over different histories of
'interaction vertices' in the 'time' evolution sending the initial spin network to
the final spin network. Each time a Hamiltonian operator acts it does so by adding
a new edge at the vertex.

This then naturally gives rise to the two-complex (a combinatorial set of faces
that join along edges, which in turn join on vertices) underlying the spin foam
description; we evolve forward an initial spin network sweeping out a surface, the
action of the Hamiltonian constraint operator is to produce a new planar surface
starting at the vertex. We are able to use the action of the Hamiltonian constraint
on the vertex of a spin network state to associate an amplitude to each
"interaction" (in analogy to Feynman diagrams). See figure below. This opens up a
way of trying to directly link canonical LQG to a path integral description. Now
just as a spin networks describe quantum space, each configuration contributing to
these path integrals, or sums over history, describe 'quantum space-time'. Because
of their resemblance to soap foams and the way they are labeled John Baez gave
these 'quantum space-times' the name 'spin foams'.

The action of the Hamiltonian constraint translated to the path integral or so-
called spin foam description. A single node splits into three nodes, creating a
spin foam vertex.
�
(
�
�
)
N(x_{n}) is the value of
�
N at the vertex and
�
�
�
�
H_{nop} are the matrix elements of the Hamiltonian constraint
�
^{\hat {H}}.
There are however severe difficulties with this particular approach, for example
the Hamiltonian operator is not self-adjoint, in fact it is not even a normal
operator (i.e. the operator does not commute with its adjoint) and so the spectral
theorem cannot be used to define the exponential in general. The most serious
problem is that the
�
^
(
�
)
{\hat {H}}(x)'s are not mutually commuting, it can then be shown the formal
quantity
∫
[
�
�
]
�
�
∫
�
3
�
�
(
�
)
�
^
(
�
)
{\textstyle \int [dN]e^{i\int d^{3}xN(x){\hat {H}}(x)}} cannot even define a
(generalized) projector. The master constraint (see below) does not suffer from
these problems and as such offers a way of connecting the canonical theory to the
path integral formulation.

Spin foams from BF theory

It turns out there are alternative routes to formulating the path integral, however
their connection to the Hamiltonian formalism is less clear. One way is to start
with the BF theory. This is a simpler theory than general relativity, it has no
local degrees of freedom and as such depends only on topological aspects of the
fields. BF theory is what is known as a topological field theory. Surprisingly, it
turns out that general relativity can be obtained from BF theory by imposing a
constraint,[15] BF theory involves a field
�
�
�
�
�
B_{ab}^{IJ} and if one chooses the field
�
B to be the (anti-symmetric) product of two tetrads

�
�
�
�
�
=
1
2
(
�
�
�
�
�
�
−
�
�
�
�
�
�
)
{\displaystyle B_{ab}^{IJ}={1 \over 2}\left(E_{a}^{I}E_{b}^{J}-E_{b}^{I}E_{a}^{J}\
right)}
(tetrads are like triads but in four spacetime dimensions), one recovers general
relativity. The condition that the
�
B field be given by the product of two tetrads is called the simplicity constraint.
The spin foam dynamics of the topological field theory is well understood. Given
the spin foam 'interaction' amplitudes for this simple theory, one then tries to
implement the simplicity conditions to obtain a path integral for general
relativity. The non-trivial task of constructing a spin foam model is then reduced
to the question of how this simplicity constraint should be imposed in the quantum
theory. The first attempt at this was the famous Barrett–Crane model.[16] However
this model was shown to be problematic, for example there did not seem to be enough
degrees of freedom to ensure the correct classical limit.[17] It has been argued
that the simplicity constraint was imposed too strongly at the quantum level and
should only be imposed in the sense of expectation values just as with the Lorenz
gauge condition
∂
�
�
^
�\partial _{\mu }{\hat {A}}^{\mu } in the Gupta–Bleuler formalism of quantum
electrodynamics. New models have now been put forward, sometimes motivated by
imposing the simplicity conditions in a weaker sense.

Another difficulty here is that spin foams are defined on a discretization of

spacetime. While this presents no problems for a topological field theory as it has
no local degrees of freedom, it presents problems for GR. This is known as the
problem triangularization dependence.

Modern formulation of spin foams

Just as imposing the classical simplicity constraint recovers general relativity
from BF theory, one expects an appropriate quantum simplicity constraint will
recover quantum gravity from quantum BF theory.

Much progress has been made with regard to this issue by Engle, Pereira, and
Rovelli,[18] Freidel and Krasnov[19] and Livine and Speziale[20] in defining spin
foam interaction amplitudes with much better behaviour.

An attempt to make contact between EPRL-FK spin foam and the canonical formulation
of LQG has been made.[21]

Spin foam derived from the master constraint operator

See below.

The semiclassical limit and loop quantum gravity

The Classical limit is the ability of a physical theory to approximate classical
mechanics. It is used with physical theories that predict non-classical behavior.
[citation needed] Any candidate theory of quantum gravity must be able to reproduce
Einstein's theory of general relativity as a classical limit of a quantum theory.
This is not guaranteed because of a feature of quantum field theories which is that
they have different sectors, these are analogous to the different phases that come
about in the thermodynamical limit of statistical systems. Just as different phases
are physically different, so are different sectors of a quantum field theory. It
may turn out that LQG belongs to an unphysical sector – one in which one does not
recover general relativity in the semiclassical limit (in fact there might not be
any physical sector at all).

Moreover, the physical Hilbert space

�
�
ℎ
�
�
H_{phys} must contain enough semiclassical states to guarantee that the quantum
theory one obtains can return to the classical theory when
ℏ
→
0
{\displaystyle \hbar \to 0}. In order to guarantee this one must avoid quantum
anomalies at all cost, because if we do not there will be restrictions on the
physical Hilbert space that have no counterpart in the classical theory, implying
that the quantum theory has fewer degrees of freedom than the classical theory.

Theorems establishing the uniqueness of the loop representation as defined by

Ashtekar et al. (i.e. a certain concrete realization of a Hilbert space and
associated operators reproducing the correct loop algebra – the realization that
everybody was using) have been given by two groups (Lewandowski, Okolow, Sahlmann
and Thiemann;[22] and Christian Fleischhack[23]). Before this result was
established it was not known whether there could be other examples of Hilbert
spaces with operators invoking the same loop algebra – other realizations not
equivalent to the one that had been used so far. These uniqueness theorems imply no
others exist, so if LQG does not have the correct semiclassical limit then the
theorems would mean the end of the loop representation of quantum gravity
altogether.

Difficulties and progress checking the semiclassical limit

There are a number of difficulties in trying to establish LQG gives Einstein's
theory of general relativity in the semiclassical limit:

There is no operator corresponding to infinitesimal spatial diffeomorphisms (it is

not surprising that the theory has no generator of infinitesimal spatial
'translations' as it predicts spatial geometry has a discrete nature, compare to
the situation in condensed matter). Instead it must be approximated by finite
spatial diffeomorphisms and so the Poisson bracket structure of the classical
theory is not exactly reproduced. This problem can be circumvented with the
introduction of the so-called master constraint (see below)[24]
There is the problem of reconciling the discrete combinatorial nature of the
quantum states with the continuous nature of the fields of the classical theory.
There are serious difficulties arising from the structure of the Poisson brackets
involving the spatial diffeomorphism and Hamiltonian constraints. In particular,
the algebra of (smeared) Hamiltonian constraints does not close: It is proportional
to a sum over infinitesimal spatial diffeomorphisms (which, as we have just noted,
does not exist in the quantum theory) where the coefficients of proportionality are
not constants but have non-trivial phase space dependence – as such it does not
form a Lie algebra. However, the situation is much improved by the introduction of
the master constraint.[24]
The semiclassical machinery developed so far is only appropriate to non-graph-
changing operators, however, Thiemann's Hamiltonian constraint is a graph-changing
operator – the new graph it generates has degrees of freedom upon which the
coherent state does not depend and so their quantum fluctuations are not
suppressed. There is also the restriction, so far, that these coherent states are
only defined at the Kinematic level, and now one has to lift them to the level of
�
�
�
�
�
{\mathcal {H}}_{Diff} and
�
�
ℎ
�
�
{\mathcal {H}}_{Phys}. It can be shown that Thiemann's Hamiltonian constraint is
required to be graph-changing in order to resolve problem 3 in some sense. The
master constraint algebra however is trivial and so the requirement that it be
graph-changing can be lifted and indeed non-graph-changing master constraint
operators have been defined. As far as is currently known, this problem is at the
moment still out of reach.
Formulating observables for classical general relativity is a formidable problem by
itself because of its non-linear nature and space-time diffeomorphism invariance.
In fact a systematic approximation scheme to calculate observables has only been
recently developed.[25][26]
Difficulties in trying to examine the semiclassical limit of the theory should not
be confused with it having the wrong semiclassical limit.

Concerning issue number 2 above, one can consider so-called weave states. Ordinary
measurements of geometric quantities are macroscopic, and planckian discreteness is
smoothed out. The fabric of a T-shirt is analogous: at a distance it is a smooth
curved two-dimensional surface, but on closer inspection we see that it is actually
composed of thousands of one-dimensional linked threads. The image of space given
in LQG is similar. Consider a very large spin network formed by a very large number
of nodes and links, each of Planck scale. Probed at a macroscopic scale, it appears
as a three-dimensional continuous metric geometry.

To make contact with familiar low energy physics it is mandatory to have to develop
approximation schemes both for the physical inner product and for Dirac
observables; the spin foam models that have been intensively studied can be viewed
as avenues toward approximation schemes for said physical inner product.

Markopoulou, et al. adopted the idea of noiseless subsystems in an attempt to solve

the problem of the low energy limit in background independent quantum gravity
theories[27][28] The idea has even led to the intriguing possibility of matter of
the standard model being identified with emergent degrees of freedom from some
versions of LQG (see section below: LQG and related research programs).

As Wightman emphasized in the 1950s, in Minkowski QFTs the

�
−n- point functions

�
(
�
1
,
…
,
�
�
)
=
⟨
0
|
�
(
�
�
)
…
�
(
�
1
)
|
0
⟩
,
{\displaystyle W(x_{1},\dots ,x_{n})=\langle 0|\phi (x_{n})\dots \phi (x_{1})|0\
rangle ,}
completely determine the theory. In particular, one can calculate the scattering
amplitudes from these quantities. As explained below in the section on the
Background independent scattering amplitudes, in the background-independent
context, the
�
−n- point functions refer to a state and in gravity that state can naturally encode
information about a specific geometry which can then appear in the expressions of
these quantities. To leading order, LQG calculations have been shown to agree in an
appropriate sense with the
�
−n-point functions calculated in the effective low energy quantum general
relativity.

Improved dynamics and the master constraint

Main articles: Hamiltonian (quantum mechanics), Hamiltonian constraint of LQG, and
Friedrichs extension
The master constraint
Thiemann's Master Constraint Programme for Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) was proposed
as a classically equivalent way to impose the infinite number of Hamiltonian
constraint equations in terms of a single master constraint, which involves the
square of the constraints in question. An initial objection to the use of the
master constraint was that on first sight it did not seem to encode information
about the observables; because the Master constraint is quadratic in the
constraint, when one computes its Poisson bracket with any quantity, the result is
proportional to the constraint, therefore it always vanishes when the constraints
are imposed and as such does not select out particular phase space functions.
However, it was realized that the condition is equivalent to being a Dirac
observable. So the master constraint does capture information about the
observables. Because of its significance this is known as the master equation.[29]

That the master constraint Poisson algebra is an honest Lie algebra opens up the
possibility of using a certain method, known as group averaging, in order to
construct solutions of the infinite number of Hamiltonian constraints, a physical
inner product thereon and Dirac observables via what is known as refined algebraic
quantization, or RAQ.[30]

The quantum master constraint

Define the quantum master constraint (regularisation issues aside) as

�
^
:=
∫
�
3
�
(
�
det
(
�
(
�
)
)
4
)
^
†
(
�
)
(
�
det
(
�
(
�
)
)
4
)
^
(
�
)
.
{\displaystyle {\hat {M}}:=\int d^{3}x{\widehat {\left({\frac {H}{\sqrt[{4}]{\
det(q(x))}}}\right)}}^{\dagger }(x){\widehat {\left({\frac {H}{\sqrt[{4}]{\
det(q(x))}}}\right)}}(x).}
Obviously,

(
�
det
(
�
(
�
)
)
4
)
^
(
�
)
Ψ
=
0
{\displaystyle {\widehat {\left({\frac {H}{\sqrt[{4}]{\det(q(x))}}}\right)}}(x)\Psi
=0}
for all
�
x implies
�
^
Ψ
=
0
{\hat {M}}\Psi =0. Conversely, if
�
^
Ψ
=
0
{\hat {M}}\Psi =0 then
0
=
⟨
Ψ
,
�
^
Ψ
⟩
=
∫
�
3
�
‖
(
�
det
(
�
(
�
)
)
4
)
^
(
�
)
Ψ
‖
2
�
�
4
{\displaystyle 0=\left\langle \Psi ,{\hat {M}}\Psi \right\rangle =\int d^{3}x\
left\|{\widehat {\left({\frac {H}{\sqrt[{4}]{\det(q(x))}}}\right)}}(x)\Psi \right\|
^{2}\qquad Eq\;4}
implies

(
�
det
(
�
(
�
)
)
4
)
^
(
�
)
Ψ
=
0
{\displaystyle {\widehat {\left({\frac {H}{\sqrt[{4}]{\det(q(x))}}}\right)}}(x)\Psi
=0}.
What is done first is, we are able to compute the matrix elements of the would-be
operator
�
^{\hat {M}}, that is, we compute the quadratic form
�
�
Q_{M}. It turns out that as
�
�
Q_{M} is a graph changing, diffeomorphism invariant quadratic form it cannot exist
on the kinematic Hilbert space
�
�
�
�
H_{{Kin}}, and must be defined on
�
�
�
�
�
H_{Diff}. Since the master constraint operator
�
^{\hat {M}} is densely defined on
�
�
�
�
�
H_{{Diff}}, then
�
^{\hat {M}} is a positive and symmetric operator in
�
�
�
�
�
H_{{Diff}}. Therefore, the quadratic form
�
�
Q_{M} associated with
�
^{\hat {M}} is closable. The closure of
�
�
Q_{M} is the quadratic form of a unique self-adjoint operator
�
¯
^{\hat {\overline {M}}}, called the Friedrichs extension of
�
^{\hat {M}}. We relabel
�
¯
^{\hat {\overline {M}}} as
�
^{\hat {M}} for simplicity.
Note that the presence of an inner product, viz Eq 4, means there are no
superfluous solutions i.e. there are no
Ψ\Psi such that

(
�
det
(
�
(
�
)
)
4
)
^
(
�
)
Ψ
≠
0
,
{\displaystyle {\widehat {\left({\frac {H}{\sqrt[{4}]{\det(q(x))}}}\right)}}(x)\Psi
\not =0,}
but for which
�
^
Ψ
=
0
{\hat {M}}\Psi =0.

It is also possible to construct a quadratic form

�
�
�
Q_{M_{E}} for what is called the extended master constraint (discussed below) on
�
�
�
�
H_{{Kin}} which also involves the weighted integral of the square of the spatial
diffeomorphism constraint (this is possible because
�
�
�
Q_{M_{E}} is not graph changing).

The spectrum of the master constraint may not contain zero due to normal or factor
ordering effects which are finite but similar in nature to the infinite vacuum
energies of background-dependent quantum field theories. In this case it turns out
to be physically correct to replace
�
^{\hat {M}} with
�
^
′
:=
�
^
−
min
(
�
�
�
�
(
�
^
)
)
1
^{\displaystyle {\hat {M}}':={\hat {M}}-\min(spec({\hat {M}})){\hat {1}}} provided
that the "normal ordering constant" vanishes in the classical limit, that is,

lim
ℏ
→
0
min
(
�
�
�
�
(
�
^
)
)
=
0
,
{\displaystyle \lim _{\hbar \to 0}\min(spec({\hat {M}}))=0,}
so that
�
^
′
{\hat {M}}' is a valid quantisation of
�
M.

Testing the master constraint

The constraints in their primitive form are rather singular, this was the reason
for integrating them over test functions to obtain smeared constraints. However, it
would appear that the equation for the master constraint, given above, is even more
singular involving the product of two primitive constraints (although integrated
over space). Squaring the constraint is dangerous as it could lead to worsened
ultraviolet behaviour of the corresponding operator and hence the master constraint
programme must be approached with due care.

In doing so the master constraint programme has been satisfactorily tested in a

number of model systems with non-trivial constraint algebras, free and interacting
field theories.[31][32][33][34][35] The master constraint for LQG was established
as a genuine positive self-adjoint operator and the physical Hilbert space of LQG
was shown to be non-empty,[36] an obvious consistency test LQG must pass to be a
viable theory of quantum General relativity.

Applications of the master constraint

The master constraint has been employed in attempts to approximate the physical
inner product and define more rigorous path integrals.[37][38][39][40]

The Consistent Discretizations approach to LQG,[41][42] is an application of the

master constraint program to construct the physical Hilbert space of the canonical
theory.

Spin foam from the master constraint

It turns out that the master constraint is easily generalized to incorporate the
other constraints. It is then referred to as the extended master constraint,
denoted
�
�
M_{E}. We can define the extended master constraint which imposes both the
Hamiltonian constraint and spatial diffeomorphism constraint as a single operator,

�
�
=
∫
Σ
�
3
�
�
(
�
)
2
−
�
�
�
�
�
(
�
)
�
�
(
�
)
det
(
�
)
{\displaystyle M_{E}=\int _{\Sigma }d^{3}x{H(x)^{2}-q^{ab}V_{a}(x)V_{b}(x) \over {\
sqrt {\det(q)}}}}.
Setting this single constraint to zero is equivalent to
�
(
�
)
=
0
H(x)=0 and
�
�
(
�
)
=
0
V_{a}(x)=0 for all
�
x in
Σ\Sigma . This constraint implements the spatial diffeomorphism and Hamiltonian
constraint at the same time on the Kinematic Hilbert space. The physical inner
product is then defined as

⟨
�
,
�
⟩
Phys
=
lim
�
→
∞
⟨
�
,
∫
−
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
^
�
�
⟩
{\displaystyle \langle \phi ,\psi \rangle _{\text{Phys}}=\lim _{T\to \infty }\left\
langle \phi ,\int _{-T}^{T}dte^{it{\hat {M}}_{E}}\psi \right\rangle }
(as
�
(
�
�
^
)
=
lim
�
→
∞
∫
−
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
^
�
{\textstyle \delta ({\hat {M_{E}}})=\lim _{T\to \infty }\int _{-T}^{T}dte^{it{\hat
{M}}_{E}}}). A spin foam representation of this expression is obtained by splitting
the
�
t-parameter in discrete steps and writing

�
�
�
�
^
�
=
lim
�
→
∞
[
�
�
�
�
^
�
/
�
]
�
=
lim
�
→
∞
[
1
+
�
�
�
^
�
/
�
]
�
.
{\textstyle e^{it{\hat {M}}_{E}}=\lim _{n\to \infty }\left[e^{it{\hat {M}}_{E}/n}\
right]^{n}=\lim _{n\to \infty }[1+it{\hat {M}}_{E}/n]^{n}.}
The spin foam description then follows from the application of
[
1
+
�
�
�
^
�
/
�
]
[1+it{\hat {M}}_{E}/n] on a spin network resulting in a linear combination of new
spin networks whose graph and labels have been modified. Obviously an approximation
is made by truncating the value of
�
n to some finite integer. An advantage of the extended master constraint is that we
are working at the kinematic level and so far it is only here we have access
semiclassical coherent states. Moreover, one can find none graph changing versions
of this master constraint operator, which are the only type of operators
appropriate for these coherent states.

Algebraic quantum gravity (AQG)

The master constraint programme has evolved into a fully combinatorial treatment of
gravity known as algebraic quantum gravity (AQG).[43] The non-graph changing master
constraint operator is adapted in the framework of algebraic quantum gravity. While
AQG is inspired by LQG, it differs drastically from it because in AQG there is
fundamentally no topology or differential structure – it is background independent
in a more generalized sense and could possibly have something to say about topology
change. In this new formulation of quantum gravity AQG semiclassical states always
control the fluctuations of all present degrees of freedom. This makes the AQG
semiclassical analysis superior over that of LQG, and progress has been made in
establishing it has the correct semiclassical limit and providing contact with
familiar low energy physics.[44][45]

Physical applications of LQG

Black hole entropy
Main articles: Black hole thermodynamics, Isolated horizon, and Immirzi parameter

An artist depiction of two black holes merging, a process in which the laws of
thermodynamics are upheld.
Black hole thermodynamics is the area of study that seeks to reconcile the laws of
thermodynamics with the existence of black hole event horizons. The no hair
conjecture of general relativity states that a black hole is characterized only by
its mass, its charge, and its angular momentum; hence, it has no entropy. It
appears, then, that one can violate the second law of thermodynamics by dropping an
object with nonzero entropy into a black hole.[46] Work by Stephen Hawking and
Jacob Bekenstein showed that one can preserve the second law of thermodynamics by
assigning to each black hole a black-hole entropy

�
BH
=
�
B
�
4
ℓ
P
2
,
S_{\text{BH}}={\frac {k_{\text{B}}A}{4\ell _{\text{P}}^{2}}},
where
�
A is the area of the hole's event horizon,
�
B
k_{\text{B}} is the Boltzmann constant, and
ℓ
P
=
�
ℏ
/
�
3
{\textstyle \ell _{\text{P}}={\sqrt {G\hbar /c^{3}}}} is the Planck length.[47] The
fact that the black hole entropy is also the maximal entropy that can be obtained
by the Bekenstein bound (wherein the Bekenstein bound becomes an equality) was the
main observation that led to the holographic principle.[46]

An oversight in the application of the no-hair theorem is the assumption that the
relevant degrees of freedom accounting for the entropy of the black hole must be
classical in nature; what if they were purely quantum mechanical instead and had
non-zero entropy? Actually, this is what is realized in the LQG derivation of black
hole entropy, and can be seen as a consequence of its background-independence – the
classical black hole spacetime comes about from the semiclassical limit of the
quantum state of the gravitational field, but there are many quantum states that
have the same semiclassical limit. Specifically, in LQG[48] it is possible to
associate a quantum geometrical interpretation to the microstates: These are the
quantum geometries of the horizon which are consistent with the area,
�
A, of the black hole and the topology of the horizon (i.e. spherical). LQG offers a
geometric explanation of the finiteness of the entropy and of the proportionality
of the area of the horizon.[49][50] These calculations have been generalized to
rotating black holes.[51]

Representation of quantum geometries of the horizon. Polymer excitations in the

bulk puncture the horizon, endowing it with quantized area. Intrinsically the
horizon is flat except at punctures where it acquires a quantized deficit angle or
quantized amount of curvature. These deficit angles add up to
4
�4\pi .
It is possible to derive, from the covariant formulation of full quantum theory
(Spinfoam) the correct relation between energy and area (1st law), the Unruh
temperature and the distribution that yields Hawking entropy.[52] The calculation
makes use of the notion of dynamical horizon and is done for non-extremal black
holes.

A recent success of the theory in this direction is the computation of the entropy
of all non singular black holes directly from theory and independent of Immirzi
parameter.[52][53] The result is the expected formula
�
=
�
/
4
S=A/4, where
�
S is the entropy and
�
A the area of the black hole, derived by Bekenstein and Hawking on heuristic
grounds. This is the only known derivation of this formula from a fundamental
theory, for the case of generic non singular black holes. Older attempts at this
calculation had difficulties. The problem was that although Loop quantum gravity
predicted that the entropy of a black hole is proportional to the area of the event
horizon, the result depended on a crucial free parameter in the theory, the above-
mentioned Immirzi parameter. However, there is no known computation of the Immirzi
parameter, so it had to be fixed by demanding agreement with Bekenstein and
Hawking's calculation of the black hole entropy.

Hawking radiation in loop quantum gravity

Main article: Hawking radiation
A detailed study of the quantum geometry of a black hole horizon has been made
using loop quantum gravity.[50] Loop-quantization does not reproduce the result for
black hole entropy originally discovered by Bekenstein and Hawking, unless one
chooses the value of the Immirzi parameter to cancel out another constant that
arises in the derivation. However, it led to the computation of higher-order
corrections to the entropy and radiation of black holes.

Based on the fluctuations of the horizon area, a quantum black hole exhibits
deviations from the Hawking spectrum that would be observable were X-rays from
Hawking radiation of evaporating primordial black holes to be observed.[54] The
quantum effects are centered at a set of discrete and unblended frequencies highly
pronounced on top of Hawking radiation spectrum.[55]

Planck star
Main articles: Planck star, black hole firewall, and black hole information paradox
In 2014 Carlo Rovelli and Francesca Vidotto proposed that there is a Planck star
inside every black hole.[56] Based on LQG, the theory states that as stars are
collapsing into black holes, the energy density reaches the Planck energy density,
causing a repulsive force that creates a star. Furthermore, the existence of such a
star would resolve the black hole firewall and black hole information paradox.

Loop quantum cosmology

Main articles: Loop quantum cosmology, Big bounce, and inflation (cosmology)
The popular and technical literature makes extensive references to LQG-related
topic of loop quantum cosmology. LQC was mainly developed by Martin Bojowald, it
was popularized in Scientific American for predicting a Big Bounce prior to the Big
Bang.[57] Loop quantum cosmology (LQC) is a symmetry-reduced model of classical
general relativity quantized using methods that mimic those of loop quantum gravity
(LQG) that predicts a "quantum bridge" between contracting and expanding
cosmological branches.

Achievements of LQC have been the resolution of the big bang singularity, the
prediction of a Big Bounce, and a natural mechanism for inflation.

LQC models share features of LQG and so is a useful toy model. However, the results
obtained are subject to the usual restriction that a truncated classical theory,
then quantized, might not display the true behaviour of the full theory due to
artificial suppression of degrees of freedom that might have large quantum
fluctuations in the full theory. It has been argued that singularity avoidance in
LQC are by mechanisms only available in these restrictive models and that
singularity avoidance in the full theory can still be obtained but by a more subtle
feature of LQG.[58][59]
Loop quantum gravity phenomenology
Quantum gravity effects are notoriously difficult to measure because the Planck
length is so incredibly small. However recently physicists, such as Jack Palmer,
have started to consider the possibility of measuring quantum gravity effects
mostly from astrophysical observations and gravitational wave detectors. The energy
of those fluctuations at scales this small cause space-perturbations which are
visible at higher scales.

Background-independent scattering amplitudes

Main article: Scattering amplitude
Loop quantum gravity is formulated in a background-independent language. No
spacetime is assumed a priori, but rather it is built up by the states of theory
themselves – however scattering amplitudes are derived from
�
n-point functions (Correlation function) and these, formulated in conventional
quantum field theory, are functions of points of a background space-time. The
relation between the background-independent formalism and the conventional
formalism of quantum field theory on a given spacetime is far from obvious, and it
is far from obvious how to recover low-energy quantities from the full background-
independent theory. One would like to derive the
�
n-point functions of the theory from the background-independent formalism, in order
to compare them with the standard perturbative expansion of quantum general
relativity and therefore check that loop quantum gravity yields the correct low-
energy limit.

A strategy for addressing this problem has been suggested;[60] the idea is to study
the boundary amplitude, namely a path integral over a finite space-time region,
seen as a function of the boundary value of the field.[61][62] In conventional
quantum field theory, this boundary amplitude is well–defined[63][64] and codes the
physical information of the theory; it does so in quantum gravity as well, but in a
fully background–independent manner.[65] A generally covariant definition of
�
n-point functions can then be based on the idea that the distance between physical
points –arguments of the
�
n-point function is determined by the state of the gravitational field on the
boundary of the spacetime region considered.

Progress has been made in calculating background-independent scattering amplitudes

this way with the use of spin foams. This is a way to extract physical information
from the theory. Claims to have reproduced the correct behaviour for graviton
scattering amplitudes and to have recovered classical gravity have been made. "We
have calculated Newton's law starting from a world with no space and no time." –
Carlo Rovelli.

Gravitons, string theory, supersymmetry, extra dimensions in LQG

Main articles: Graviton, string theory, supersymmetry, Kaluza–Klein theory, and
supergravity
Some quantum theories of gravity posit a spin-2 quantum field that is quantized,
giving rise to gravitons. In string theory, one generally starts with quantized
excitations on top of a classically fixed background. This theory is thus described
as background dependent. Particles like photons as well as changes in the spacetime
geometry (gravitons) are both described as excitations on the string worldsheet.
The background dependence of string theory can have important physical
consequences, such as determining the number of quark generations. In contrast,
loop quantum gravity, like general relativity, is manifestly background
independent, eliminating the background required in string theory. Loop quantum
gravity, like string theory, also aims to overcome the nonrenormalizable
divergences of quantum field theories.

LQG never introduces a background and excitations living on this background, so LQG
does not use gravitons as building blocks. Instead one expects that one may recover
a kind of semiclassical limit or weak field limit where something like "gravitons"
will show up again. In contrast, gravitons play a key role in string theory where
they are among the first (massless) level of excitations of a superstring.

LQG differs from string theory in that it is formulated in 3 and 4 dimensions and
without supersymmetry or Kaluza–Klein extra dimensions, while the latter requires
both to be true. There is no experimental evidence to date that confirms string
theory's predictions of supersymmetry and Kaluza–Klein extra dimensions. In a 2003
paper "A Dialog on Quantum Gravity",[66] Carlo Rovelli regards the fact LQG is
formulated in 4 dimensions and without supersymmetry as a strength of the theory as
it represents the most parsimonious explanation, consistent with current
experimental results, over its rival string/M-theory. Proponents of string theory
will often point to the fact that, among other things, it demonstrably reproduces
the established theories of general relativity and quantum field theory in the
appropriate limits, which loop quantum gravity has struggled to do. In that sense
string theory's connection to established physics may be considered more reliable
and less speculative, at the mathematical level. Loop quantum gravity has nothing
to say about the matter (fermions) in the universe.

Since LQG has been formulated in 4 dimensions (with and without supersymmetry), and
M-theory requires supersymmetry and 11 dimensions, a direct comparison between the
two has not been possible. It is possible to extend mainstream LQG formalism to
higher-dimensional supergravity, general relativity with supersymmetry and Kaluza–
Klein extra dimensions should experimental evidence establish their existence. It
would therefore be desirable to have higher-dimensional Supergravity loop
quantizations at one's disposal in order to compare these approaches. In fact a
series of papers have been published attempting just this.[67][68][69][70][71][72]
[73][74] Most recently, Thiemann (and alumni) have made progress toward calculating
black hole entropy for supergravity in higher dimensions. It will be interesting to
compare these results to the corresponding super string calculations.[75][76]

LQG and related research programs

Main articles: Noncommutative geometry, twistor theory, entropic gravity,
asymptotic safety in quantum gravity, causal dynamical triangulation, and group
field theory
Several research groups have attempted to combine LQG with other research programs:
Johannes Aastrup, Jesper M. Grimstrup et al. research combines noncommutative
geometry with canonical quantum gravity and Ashtekar variables,[77] Laurent
Freidel, Simone Speziale, et al., spinors and twistor theory with loop quantum
gravity,[78][79] and Lee Smolin et al. with Verlinde entropic gravity and loop
gravity.[80] Stephon Alexander, Antonino Marciano and Lee Smolin have attempted to
explain the origins of weak force chirality in terms of Ashketar's variables, which
describe gravity as chiral,[81] and LQG with Yang–Mills theory fields[82] in four
dimensions. Sundance Bilson-Thompson, Hackett et al.,[83][84] has attempted to
introduce the standard model via LQGs degrees of freedom as an emergent property
(by employing the idea of noiseless subsystems, a useful notion introduced in a
more general situation for constrained systems by Fotini Markopoulou-Kalamara et
al.[85] )

Furthermore, LQG has drawn philosophical comparisons with causal dynamical

triangulation[86] and asymptotically safe gravity,[87] and the spinfoam with group
field theory and AdS/CFT correspondence.[88] Smolin and Wen have suggested
combining LQG with string-net liquid, tensors, and Smolin and Fotini Markopoulou-
Kalamara quantum graphity. There is the consistent discretizations approach. Also,
Pullin and Gambini provide a framework to connect the path integral and canonical
approaches to quantum gravity. They may help reconcile the spin foam and canonical
loop representation approaches. Recent research by Chris Duston and Matilde
Marcolli introduces topology change via topspin networks.[89]

Problems and comparisons with alternative approaches

Main article: List of unsolved problems in physics
Some of the major unsolved problems in physics are theoretical, meaning that
existing theories seem incapable of explaining a certain observed phenomenon or
experimental result. The others are experimental, meaning that there is a
difficulty in creating an experiment to test a proposed theory or investigate a
phenomenon in greater detail.

Many of these problems apply to LQG, including:

Can quantum mechanics and general relativity be realized as a fully consistent

theory (perhaps as a quantum field theory)?
Is spacetime fundamentally continuous or discrete?
Would a consistent theory involve a force mediated by a hypothetical graviton, or
be a product of a discrete structure of spacetime itself (as in loop quantum
gravity)?
Are there deviations from the predictions of general relativity at very small or
very large scales or in other extreme circumstances that flow from a quantum
gravity theory?
The theory of LQG is one possible solution to the problem of quantum gravity, as is
string theory. There are substantial differences however. For example, string
theory also addresses unification, the understanding of all known forces and
particles as manifestations of a single entity, by postulating extra dimensions and
so-far unobserved additional particles and symmetries. Contrary to this, LQG is
based only on quantum theory and general relativity and its scope is limited to
understanding the quantum aspects of the gravitational interaction. On the other
hand, the consequences of LQG are radical, because they fundamentally change the
nature of space and time and provide a tentative but detailed physical and
mathematical picture of quantum spacetime.

Presently, no semiclassical limit recovering general relativity has been shown to

exist. This means it remains unproven that LQGs description of spacetime at the
Planck scale has the right continuum limit (described by general relativity with
possible quantum corrections). Specifically, the dynamics of the theory are encoded
in the Hamiltonian constraint, but there is no candidate Hamiltonian.[90] Other
technical problems include finding off-shell closure of the constraint algebra and
physical inner product vector space, coupling to matter fields of quantum field
theory, fate of the renormalization of the graviton in perturbation theory that
lead to ultraviolet divergence beyond 2-loops (see one-loop Feynman diagram in
Feynman diagram).[90]

While there has been a proposal relating to observation of naked singularities,[91]

and doubly special relativity as a part of a program called loop quantum cosmology,
there is no experimental observation for which loop quantum gravity makes a
prediction not made by the Standard Model or general relativity (a problem that
plagues all current theories of quantum gravity). Because of the above-mentioned
lack of a semiclassical limit, LQG has not yet even reproduced the predictions made
by general relativity.

An alternative criticism is that general relativity may be an effective field

theory, and therefore quantization ignores the fundamental degrees of freedom.

ESA's INTEGRAL satellite measured polarization of photons of different wavelengths

and was able to place a limit in the granularity of space[92] that is less than
10−48m or 13 orders of magnitude below the Planck scale.[clarification needed]
See also
Problem of time – Conceptual conflict between general relativity and quantum
mechanics
Ashtekar variables – Variables used in general relativity
C*-algebra – Topological complex vector space
Category theory – General theory of mathematical structures
Doubly special relativity – Generalization of special relativity
Gelfand–Naimark–Segal construction – Correspondence in functional analysis
Group field theory – Quantum field theory with a Lie group base manifold
Heyting algebra – class of algebraic structures
Hamiltonian constraint – Key constraint in some theories admitting Hamiltonian
formulations
Hamiltonian constraint of LQG – Constraint in loop quantum gravity
Immirzi parameter – Numerical coefficient in loop quantum gravity
Knot invariant – Function of a knot that takes the same value for equivalent knots
Kodama state – Zero energy solution to the Schrodinger equation in loop quantum
gravity
Lorentz invariance in loop quantum gravity – Aspect of loop quantum gravity
Noncommutative geometry – Branch of mathematics
Regge calculus – formalism for producing simplicial approximations of spacetimes
S-knot – Equivalence class of spin networks
Spin foam – Topological structure used in a description of quantum gravity
String-net liquid – Condensed matter physics model involving only closed loops
String theory – Theoretical framework in physics
Supersymmetry – Symmetry between bosons and fermions
Topos theory – Mathematical category
Einstein–Cartan theory – Classical theory of gravitation
Notes
Citations
Rovelli 2008.
Ashtekar, Abhay (3 November 1986). "New Variables for Classical and Quantum
Gravity". Physical Review Letters. 57 (18): 2244–2247. Bibcode:1986PhRvL..57.2244A.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.57.2244. PMID 10033673.
Rovelli 2011.
Muxin 2011, p. 064010.
Fairbairn & Meusburger 2011.
Kauffman & Smolin 1997.
Smolin 2006, pp. 196ff.
Rovelli 2004, pp. 13ff.
Thiemann 1996, pp. 257–264.
Baez & de Muniain 1994, Part III, chapter 4.
Thiemann 2003, pp. 41–135.
Rovelli & Smolin 1988, pp. 1155–1958.
Gambini & Pullin 2011, Section 8.2.
Thiemann 2008, pp. 458–462.
Bojowald & Perez 2009, p. 877.
Barrett & Crane 2000, pp. 3101–3118.
Rovelli & Alesci 2007, p. 104012.
Engle, Pereira & Rovelli 2009, p. 161301.
Freidel & Krasnov 2008, p. 125018.
Livine & Speziale 2008, p. 50004.
Alesci, Thiemann & Zipfel 2011, p. 024017.
Lewandowski et al. 2006, pp. 703–733.
Fleischhack 2006, p. 061302.
Thiemann 2008, Section 10.6.
Dittrich 2007, pp. 1891–1927.
Dittrich 2006, pp. 6155–6184.
Dreyer, Markopoulou & Smolin 2006, pp. 1–13.
 Kribs & Markopoulou 2005.
Thiemann 2006a, pp. 2211–2247.
Thiemann, Thomas (2007) Introduction to modern canonical quantum general
relativity. Cambridge University Press
Dittrich & Thiemann 2006a, pp. 1025–1066.
Dittrich & Thiemann 2006b, pp. 1067–1088.
Dittrich & Thiemann 2006c, pp. 1089–1120.
Dittrich & Thiemann 2006d, pp. 1121–1142.
Dittrich & Thiemann 2006e, pp. 1143–1162.
Thiemann 2006b, pp. 2249–2265.
Bahr & Thiemann 2007, pp. 2109–2138.
Han & Thiemann 2010a, p. 225019.
Han & Thiemann 2010b, p. 092501.
Han 2010, p. 215009.
Gambini & Pullin 2009, p. 035002.
Gambini & Pullin 2011, Section 10.2.2.
Giesel & Thiemann 2007a, pp. 2465–2498.
Giesel & Thiemann 2007b, pp. 2499–2564.
Giesel & Thiemann 2007c, pp. 2565–2588.
Bousso 2002, pp. 825–874.
Majumdar 1998, p. 147.
See List of loop quantum gravity researchers
Rovelli 1996, pp. 3288–3291.
Ashtekar et al. 1998, pp. 904–907.
Ashtekar, Engle & Broeck 2005, pp. L27.
Bianchi 2012.
Frodden, Ghosh & Perez 2013, p. 121503.
Ansari 2007, pp. 179–212.
Ansari 2008, pp. 635–644.
Rovelli & Vidotto 2014, p. 1442026.
Bojowald 2008.
Brunnemann & Thiemann 2006a, pp. 1395–1428.
Brunnemann & Thiemann 2006b, pp. 1429–1484.
Modesto & Rovelli 2005, p. 191301.
Oeckl 2003a, pp. 318–324.
Oeckl 2003b, pp. 5371–5380.
Conrady & Rovelli 2004, p. 4037.
Doplicher 2004, p. 064037.
Conrady et al. 2004, p. 064019.
Rovelli 2003, pp. 1509–1528.
Bodendorfer, Thiemann & Thurn 2013a, p. 045001.
Bodendorfer, Thiemann & Thurn 2013b, p. 045002.
Bodendorfer, Thiemann & Thurn 2013c, p. 045003.
Bodendorfer, Thiemann & Thurn 2013d, p. 045004.
Bodendorfer, Thiemann & Thurn 2013e, p. 045005.
Bodendorfer, Thiemann & Thurn 2012, p. 205.
Bodendorfer, Thiemann & Thurn 2013f, p. 045006.
Bodendorfer, Thiemann & Thurn 2013g, p. 045007.
Bodendorfer, Thiemann & Thurn 2014, p. 055002.
Bodendorfer 2013, pp. 887–891.
Aastrup 2012, p. 018.
Freidel & Speziale 2010, p. 084041.
Speziale & Wieland 2012, p. 124023.
Smolin 2010.
Alexander, Marcianò & Smolin 2014, p. 065017.
Alexander, Marcianò & Tacchi 2012, p. 330.
Bilson-Thompson, Markopoulou & Smolin 2007, pp. 3975–3994.
Bilson-Thompson 2012, p. 014.
Constrained Mechanics and Noiseless Subsystems, Tomasz Konopka, Fotini
Markopoulou, arXiv:gr-qc/0601028.
PITP: Renate Loll.
Bianchi 2010.
Freidel 2008.
Duston 2013.
Nicolai, Peeters & Zamaklar 2005, pp. R193–R247.
Goswami, Joshi & Singh 2006, p. 31302.
"Integral challenges physics beyond Einstein".
Works cited
Aastrup, Johannes (2012). "Intersecting Quantum Gravity with Noncommutative
Geometry – a Review". Symmetry, Integrability and Geometry: Methods and
Applications. 8: 018. arXiv:1203.6164. Bibcode:2012SIGMA...8..018A.
doi:10.3842/SIGMA.2012.018. S2CID 18279314.
Alesci, E.; Thiemann, T.; Zipfel, A. (2011). "Linking covariant and canonical LQG:
new solutions to the Euclidean Scalar Constraint". Physical Review D. 86 (2):
024017. arXiv:1109.1290. Bibcode:2012PhRvD..86b4017A.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.024017. S2CID 119210827.
Alexander, Stephon; Marcianò, Antonino; Smolin, Lee (2014). "Gravitational origin
of the weak interaction's chirality". Physical Review D. 89 (6): 065017.
arXiv:1212.5246. Bibcode:2014PhRvD..89f5017A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.065017. S2CID
118727458.
Alexander, Stephon; Marcianò, Antonino; Tacchi, Ruggero Altair (2012). "Towards a
Loop Quantum Gravity and Yang–Mills unification". Physics Letters B. 716 (2): 330.
arXiv:1105.3480. Bibcode:2012PhLB..716..330A. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.07.034.
S2CID 118655185.
Ansari, M. H. (2007). "Spectroscopy of a canonically quantized horizon". Nucl.
Phys. B. 783 (3): 179–212. arXiv:hep-th/0607081. Bibcode:2007NuPhB.783..179A.
doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2007.01.009. S2CID 9966483.
Ansari, M. H. (2008). "Generic degeneracy and entropy in loop quantum gravity".
Nucl. Phys. B. 795 (3): 635–644. arXiv:gr-qc/0603121. Bibcode:2008NuPhB.795..635A.
doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2007.11.038. S2CID 119039723.
Ashtekar, A.; Bombelli, L.; Corichi, A. (2005). "Semiclassical States for
Constrained Systems". Physical Review D. 72 (1): 025008. arXiv:hep-ph/0504114.
Bibcode:2005PhRvD..72a5008C. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.015008. S2CID 16541870.
Ashtekar, Abhay; Baez, John; Corichi, Alejandro; Krasnov, Kirill (1998). "Quantum
Geometry and Black Hole Entropy". Physical Review Letters. 80 (5): 904–907.
arXiv:gr-qc/9710007. Bibcode:1998PhRvL..80..904A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.904.
S2CID 18980849.
Ashtekar, Abhay; Engle, Jonathan; Broeck, Chris Van Den (2005). "Quantum horizons
and black-hole entropy: Inclusion of distortion and rotation". Classical and
Quantum Gravity. 22 (4): L27. arXiv:gr-qc/0412003. Bibcode:2005CQGra..22L..27A.
doi:10.1088/0264-9381/22/4/L02. S2CID 53842643.
Baez, J.; de Muniain, J. P. (1994). Gauge Fields, Knots and Quantum Gravity. Series
on Knots and Everything. Vol. 4. World Scientific. Part III, chapter 4. ISBN 978-
981-02-1729-7.
Bahr, Benjamin; Thiemann, Thomas (2007). "Approximating the physical inner product
of loop quantum cosmology". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 24 (8): 2109–2138.
arXiv:gr-qc/0607075. Bibcode:2007CQGra..24.2109B. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/24/8/011.
S2CID 13953362.
Barrett, J.; Crane, L. (2000). "A Lorentzian signature model for quantum general
relativity". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 17 (16): 3101–3118.
arXiv:gr-qc/9904025. Bibcode:2000CQGra..17.3101B. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/17/16/302.
S2CID 14192824.
Bianchi, Eugenio (18–20 January 2010). "Loop Quantum Gravity" (PDF). Institut de
Physique de Nice. Archived from the original (PDF) on 18 October 2016.
Bianchi, Eugenio (2012). "Entropy of Non-Extremal Black Holes from Loop Gravity".
arXiv:1204.5122 [gr-qc].
Bilson-Thompson, Sundance (2012). "Emergent Braided Matter of Quantum Geometry".
Symmetry, Integrability and Geometry: Methods and Applications. 8: 014.
arXiv:1109.0080. Bibcode:2012SIGMA...8..014B. doi:10.3842/SIGMA.2012.014. S2CID
14955019.
Bilson-Thompson, Sundance O; Markopoulou, Fotini; Smolin, Lee (2007). "Quantum
gravity and the standard model". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 24 (16): 3975–3994.
arXiv:hep-th/0603022. Bibcode:2007CQGra..24.3975B. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/24/16/002.
S2CID 37406474.
Bodendorfer, N. (2013). "Black hole entropy from loop quantum gravity in higher
dimensions". Physics Letters B. 726 (4–5): 887–891. arXiv:1307.5029.
Bibcode:2013PhLB..726..887B. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.09.043. S2CID 119331759.
Bodendorfer, N.; Thiemann, T.; Thurn, A. (2012). "Towards Loop Quantum Supergravity
(LQSG)". Physics Letters B. 711 (2): 205. arXiv:1106.1103.
Bibcode:2012PhLB..711..205B. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.04.003. S2CID 67817878.
Bodendorfer, N; Thiemann, T; Thurn, A (2013a). "New variables for classical and
quantum gravity in all dimensions: I. Hamiltonian analysis". Classical and Quantum
Gravity. 30 (4): 045001. arXiv:1105.3703. Bibcode:2013CQGra..30d5001B.
doi:10.1088/0264-9381/30/4/045001. S2CID 55215120.
Bodendorfer, N; Thiemann, T; Thurn, A (2013b). "New variables for classical and
quantum gravity in all dimensions: II. Lagrangian analysis". Classical and Quantum
Gravity. 30 (4): 045002. arXiv:1105.3704. Bibcode:2013CQGra..30d5002B.
doi:10.1088/0264-9381/30/4/045002. S2CID 55736166.
Bodendorfer, N; Thiemann, T; Thurn, A (2013c). "New variables for classical and
quantum gravity in all dimensions: III. Quantum theory". Classical and Quantum
Gravity. 30 (4): 045003. arXiv:1105.3705. Bibcode:2013CQGra..30d5003B.
doi:10.1088/0264-9381/30/4/045003. S2CID 55516259.
Bodendorfer, N; Thiemann, T; Thurn, A (2013d). "New variables for classical and
quantum gravity in all dimensions: IV. Matter coupling". Classical and Quantum
Gravity. 30 (4): 045004. arXiv:1105.3706. Bibcode:2013CQGra..30d5004B.
doi:10.1088/0264-9381/30/4/045004. S2CID 55530282.
Bodendorfer, N; Thiemann, T; Thurn, A (2013e). "On the implementation of the
canonical quantum simplicity constraint". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 30 (4):
045005. arXiv:1105.3707. Bibcode:2013CQGra..30d5005B. doi:10.1088/0264-
9381/30/4/045005. S2CID 56074665.
Bodendorfer, N; Thiemann, T; Thurn, A (2013f). "Towards loop quantum supergravity
(LQSG): I. Rarita–Schwinger sector". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 30 (4): 045006.
arXiv:1105.3709. Bibcode:2013CQGra..30d5006B. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/30/4/045006.
S2CID 55726240.
Bodendorfer, N; Thiemann, T; Thurn, A (2013g). "Towards loop quantum supergravity
(LQSG): II.p-form sector". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 30 (4): 045007.
arXiv:1105.3710. Bibcode:2013CQGra..30d5007B. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/30/4/045007.
S2CID 56562416.
Bodendorfer, N; Thiemann, T; Thurn, A (2014). "New variables for classical and
quantum gravity in all dimensions: V. Isolated horizon boundary degrees of
freedom". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 31 (5): 055002. arXiv:1304.2679.
Bibcode:2014CQGra..31e5002B. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/31/5/055002. S2CID 119265359.
Bohm, D. (1989). Quantum Theory. Dover Publications. ISBN 978-0-486-65969-5.
Bohr, N. (1920). "Über die Serienspektra der Element". Zeitschrift für Physik. 2
(5): 423–478. Bibcode:1920ZPhy....2..423B. doi:10.1007/BF01329978. S2CID 121792424.
Bojowald, Martin (October 2008). "Big Bang or Big Bounce?: New Theory on the
Universe's Birth". Scientific American.(available hereopen access as of 2 May 2017)
Bojowald, Martin; Perez, Alejandro (2009). "Spin foam quantization and anomalies".
General Relativity and Gravitation. 42 (4): 877. arXiv:gr-qc/0303026.
Bibcode:2010GReGr..42..877B. doi:10.1007/s10714-009-0892-9. S2CID 118474.
Bousso, Raphael (2002). "The Holographic Principle". Reviews of Modern Physics. 74
(3): 825–874. arXiv:hep-th/0203101. Bibcode:2002RvMP...74..825B.
doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.74.825. S2CID 55096624.
Brunnemann, J; Thiemann, T (2006a). "On (cosmological) singularity avoidance in
loop quantum gravity". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 23 (5): 1395–1428. arXiv:gr-
qc/0505032. Bibcode:2006CQGra..23.1395B. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/23/5/001. S2CID
17901385.
Brunnemann, J; Thiemann, T (2006b). "Unboundedness of triad-like operators in loop
quantum gravity". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 23 (5): 1429–1484.
arXiv:gr-qc/0505033. Bibcode:2006CQGra..23.1429B. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/23/5/002.
S2CID 15885452.
Conrady, Florian; Doplicher, Luisa; Oeckl, Robert; Rovelli, Carlo; Testa, Massimo
(2004). "Minkowski vacuum in background independent quantum gravity". Physical
Review D. 69 (6): 064019. arXiv:gr-qc/0307118. Bibcode:2004PhRvD..69f4019C.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.064019. S2CID 30190407.
Conrady, Florian; Rovelli, Carlo (2004). "Generalized Schrödinger Equation in
Euclidean Field Theory". International Journal of Modern Physics A. 19 (24): 4037.
arXiv:hep-th/0310246. Bibcode:2004IJMPA..19.4037C. doi:10.1142/S0217751X04019445.
S2CID 18048123.
Dittrich, B (2006). "Partial and Complete Observables for Canonical General
Relativity". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 23 (22): 6155–6184.
arXiv:gr-qc/0507106. Bibcode:2006CQGra..23.6155D. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/23/22/006.
S2CID 6945571.
Dittrich, B. (2007). "Partial and Complete Observables for Hamiltonian Constrained
Systems". General Relativity and Gravitation. 39 (11): 1891–1927.
arXiv:gr-qc/0411013. Bibcode:2007GReGr..39.1891D. doi:10.1007/s10714-007-0495-2.
S2CID 14617707.
Dittrich, B; Thiemann, T (2006a). "Testing the master constraint programme for loop
quantum gravity: I. General framework". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 23 (4):
1025–1066. arXiv:gr-qc/0411138. Bibcode:2006CQGra..23.1025D. doi:10.1088/0264-
9381/23/4/001. S2CID 16155563.
Dittrich, B; Thiemann, T (2006b). "Testing the master constraint programme for loop
quantum gravity: II. Finite-dimensional systems". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 23
(4): 1067–1088. arXiv:gr-qc/0411139. Bibcode:2006CQGra..23.1067D. doi:10.1088/0264-
9381/23/4/002. S2CID 14395043.
Dittrich, B; Thiemann, T (2006c). "Testing the master constraint programme for loop
quantum gravity: III. Models". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 23 (4): 1089–1120.
arXiv:gr-qc/0411140. Bibcode:2006CQGra..23.1089D. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/23/4/003.
S2CID 16944390.
Dittrich, B; Thiemann, T (2006d). "Testing the master constraint programme for loop
quantum gravity: IV. Free field theories". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 23 (4):
1121–1142. arXiv:gr-qc/0411141. Bibcode:2006CQGra..23.1121D. doi:10.1088/0264-
9381/23/4/004. S2CID 16510175.
Dittrich, B; Thiemann, T (2006e). "Testing the master constraint programme for loop
quantum gravity: V. Interacting field theories". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 23
(4): 1143–1162. arXiv:gr-qc/0411142. Bibcode:2006CQGra..23.1143D. doi:10.1088/0264-
9381/23/4/005. S2CID 17888279.
Doplicher, Luisa (2004). "Generalized Tomonaga-Schwinger equation from the Hadamard
formula". Physical Review D. 70 (6): 064037. arXiv:gr-qc/0405006.
Bibcode:2004PhRvD..70f4037D. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.064037. S2CID 14402915.
Dreyer, O.; Markopoulou, f.; Smolin, L. (2006). "Symmetry and entropy of black hole
horizons". Nuclear Physics B. 774 (1–2): 1–13. arXiv:hep-th/0409056.
Bibcode:2006NuPhB.744....1D. doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.02.045. S2CID 14282122.
Duston, Christopher L (13 August 2013). "The Fundamental Group of a Spatial Section
Represented by a Topspin Network". arXiv:1308.2934. Bibcode:2013arXiv1308.2934D.
Engle, J.; Pereira, R.; Rovelli, C. (2009). "Loop-Quantum-Gravity Vertex
Amplitude". Physical Review Letters. 99 (16): 161301. arXiv:0705.2388.
Bibcode:2007PhRvL..99p1301E. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.99.161301. PMID 17995233.
S2CID 27052383.
Fairbairn, W. J.; Meusburger, C. (2011). "q-Deformation of Lorentzian spin foam
models". arXiv:1112.2511 [gr-qc].
Fernando, J.; Barbero, G. (1995a). "Reality Conditions and Ashtekar Variables: A
Different Perspective". Physical Review D. 51 (10): 5498–5506. arXiv:gr-qc/9410013.
Bibcode:1995PhRvD..51.5498B. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.51.5498. PMID 10018308. S2CID
16131908.
Fernando, J.; Barbero, G. (1995b). "Real Ashtekar Variables for Lorentzian
Signature Space-times". Physical Review D. 51 (10): 5507–5520. arXiv:gr-qc/9410014.
Bibcode:1995PhRvD..51.5507B. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.51.5507. PMID 10018309. S2CID
16314220.
Fleischhack, C. (2006). "Irreducibility of the Weyl algebra in loop quantum
gravity". Physical Review Letters. 97 (6): 061302. Bibcode:2006PhRvL..97f1302F.
doi:10.1103/physrevlett.97.061302. PMID 17026156.
Freidel, L.; Krasnov, K. (2008). "A new spin foam model for 4D gravity". Classical
and Quantum Gravity. 25 (12): 125018. arXiv:0708.1595. Bibcode:2008CQGra..25l5018F.
doi:10.1088/0264-9381/25/12/125018. S2CID 119138842.
Freidel, Laurent (4 April 2008). "Reconstructing AdS/CFT". arXiv:0804.0632.
Bibcode:2008arXiv0804.0632F.
Freidel, Laurent; Speziale, Simone (2010). "Twistors to twisted geometries".
Physical Review D. 82 (8): 084041. arXiv:1006.0199. Bibcode:2010PhRvD..82h4041F.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.084041. S2CID 119292655.
Frodden, Ernesto; Ghosh, Amit; Perez, Alejandro (2013). "Quasilocal first law for
black hole thermodynamics". Physical Review D. 87 (12): 121503. arXiv:1110.4055.
Bibcode:2013PhRvD..87l1503F. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.121503. S2CID 56145555.
Gambini, R.; Pullin, J. (2011). A First Course in Loop Quantum Gravity. Oxford
University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-959075-9.
Gambini, Rodolfo; Pullin, Jorge (2009). "Emergent diffeomorphism invariance in a
discrete loop quantum gravity model". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 26 (3):
035002. arXiv:0807.2808. Bibcode:2009CQGra..26c5002G. doi:10.1088/0264-
9381/26/3/035002. S2CID 118500639.
Gambini, Rodolfo; Pullin, Jorge (2020). Loop Quantum Gravity for Everyone. World
Scientific. doi:10.1142/11599. ISBN 978-981121195-9. S2CID 202934669.
Giesel, K; Thiemann, T (2007a). "Algebraic quantum gravity (AQG): I. Conceptual
setup". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 24 (10): 2465–2498. arXiv:gr-qc/0607099.
Bibcode:2007CQGra..24.2465G. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/24/10/003. S2CID 17907375.
Giesel, K; Thiemann, T (2007b). "Algebraic quantum gravity (AQG): II. Semiclassical
analysis". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 24 (10): 2499–2564. arXiv:gr-qc/0607100.
Bibcode:2007CQGra..24.2499G. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/24/10/004. S2CID 88507130.
Giesel, K; Thiemann, T (2007c). "Algebraic quantum gravity (AQG): III.
Semiclassical perturbation theory". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 24 (10): 2565–
2588. arXiv:gr-qc/0607101. Bibcode:2007CQGra..24.2565G. doi:10.1088/0264-
9381/24/10/005. S2CID 17728576.
Goswami; Joshi, Pankaj S.; Singh, Parampreet; et al. (2006). "Quantum evaporation
of a naked singularity". Physical Review Letters. 96 (3): 31302.
arXiv:gr-qc/0506129. Bibcode:2006PhRvL..96c1302G.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.031302. PMID 16486681. S2CID 19851285.
Han, Muxin (2010). "A path integral for the master constraint of loop quantum
gravity". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 27 (21): 215009. arXiv:0911.3432.
Bibcode:2010CQGra..27u5009H. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/27/21/215009. S2CID 118610209.
Han, Muxin; Thiemann, T (2010a). "On the relation between operator constraint,
master constraint, reduced phase space and path integral quantization". Classical
and Quantum Gravity. 27 (22): 225019. arXiv:0911.3428. Bibcode:2010CQGra..27v5019H.
doi:10.1088/0264-9381/27/22/225019. S2CID 119262615.
Han, Muxin; Thiemann, Thomas (2010b). "On the relation between rigging inner
product and master constraint direct integral decomposition". Journal of
Mathematical Physics. 51 (9): 092501. arXiv:0911.3431. Bibcode:2010JMP....51i2501H.
doi:10.1063/1.3486359. S2CID 115176353.
Jammer, M. (1989). The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics (2nd ed.).
Tomash Publishers. Section 3.2. ISBN 978-0-88318-617-6.
Kauffman, S.; Smolin, L. (7 April 1997). "A Possible Solution For The Problem Of
Time In Quantum Cosmology". Edge.org. Archived from the original on 1 January 2019.
Retrieved 20 August 2014.
Kribs, D. W.; Markopoulou, F. (11 October 2005). "Geometry from quantum particles".
arXiv:gr-qc/0510052.
Lewandowski, J.; Okołów, A.; Sahlmann, H.; Thiemann, T. (2006). "Uniqueness of
Diffeomorphism Invariant States on Holonomy-Flux Algebras". Communications in
Mathematical Physics. 267 (3): 703–733. arXiv:gr-qc/0504147.
Bibcode:2006CMaPh.267..703L. doi:10.1007/s00220-006-0100-7. S2CID 14866220.
Livine, E.; Speziale, S. (2008). "Consistently Solving the Simplicity Constraints
for Spinfoam Quantum Gravity". EPL. 81 (5): 50004. arXiv:0708.1915.
Bibcode:2008EL.....8150004L. doi:10.1209/0295-5075/81/50004. S2CID 119718476.
Majumdar, Parthasarathi (1998). "Black Hole Entropy and Quantum Gravity". Indian J.
Phys. 73 (2): 147. arXiv:gr-qc/9807045. Bibcode:1999InJPB..73..147M.
Modesto, Leonardo; Rovelli, Carlo (2005). "Particle Scattering in Loop Quantum
Gravity". Physical Review Letters. 95 (19): 191301. arXiv:gr-qc/0502036.
Bibcode:2005PhRvL..95s1301M. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.191301. PMID 16383970.
S2CID 46705469.
Muxin, H. (2011). "Cosmological constant in loop quantum gravity vertex amplitude".
Physical Review D. 84 (6): 064010. arXiv:1105.2212. Bibcode:2011PhRvD..84f4010H.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.064010. S2CID 119144559.
Nicolai, Hermann; Peeters, Kasper; Zamaklar, Marija (2005). "Loop quantum gravity:
an outside view". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 22 (19): R193–R247.
arXiv:hep-th/0501114. Bibcode:2005CQGra..22R.193N. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/22/19/R01.
S2CID 14106366.
Oeckl, Robert (2003a). "A "general boundary" formulation for quantum mechanics and
quantum gravity". Physics Letters B. 575 (3–4): 318–324. arXiv:hep-th/0306025.
Bibcode:2003PhLB..575..318O. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2003.08.043. S2CID 119485193.
Oeckl, Robert (2003b). "Schrödinger's cat and the clock: Lessons for quantum
gravity". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 20 (24): 5371–5380. arXiv:gr-qc/0306007.
Bibcode:2003CQGra..20.5371O. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/20/24/009. S2CID 118978523.
"Renate Loll". Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. Retrieved 4 November
2016.
Rovelli, C. (2004). Quantum Gravity. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics.
pp. 13ff. ISBN 978-0-521-83733-0.
Rovelli, C. (2011). "Zakopane lectures on loop gravity". arXiv:1102.3660 [gr-qc].
Rovelli, C.; Alesci, E. (2007). "The complete LQG propagator I. Difficulties with
the Barrett–Crane vertex". Physical Review D. 76 (2): 104012. arXiv:0708.0883.
Bibcode:2007PhRvD..76j4012A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.104012. S2CID 18845501.
Rovelli, C.; Smolin, L. (1988). "Knot Theory and Quantum Gravity". Physical Review
Letters. 61 (10): 1155–1158. Bibcode:1988PhRvL..61.1155R.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.61.1155. PMID 10038716.
Rovelli, Carlo (1996). "Black Hole Entropy from Loop Quantum Gravity". Physical
Review Letters. 77 (16): 3288–3291. arXiv:gr-qc/9603063.
Bibcode:1996PhRvL..77.3288R. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.3288. PMID 10062183. S2CID
43493308.
Rovelli, Carlo (2003). "A Dialog on Quantum Gravity". International Journal of
Modern Physics D. 12 (9): 1509–1528. arXiv:hep-th/0310077.
Bibcode:2003IJMPD..12.1509R. doi:10.1142/S0218271803004304. S2CID 119406493.
Rovelli, Carlo (August 2008). "Loop Quantum Gravity" (PDF). Living Reviews in
Relativity. 11 (1): 5. Bibcode:2008LRR....11....5R. doi:10.12942/lrr-2008-5. PMC
5256093. PMID 28179822. Retrieved 14 September 2014.
Rovelli, Carlo; Vidotto, Francesca (2014). "Planck stars". International Journal of
Modern Physics D. 23 (12): 1442026. arXiv:1401.6562. Bibcode:2014IJMPD..2342026R.
doi:10.1142/S0218271814420267. S2CID 118917980.
Smolin, L. (2006). "The Case for Background Independence". In Rickles, D.; French,
S.; Saatsi, J. T. (eds.). The Structural Foundations of Quantum Gravity. Clarendon
Press. pp. 196ff. arXiv:hep-th/0507235. Bibcode:2005hep.th....7235S. ISBN 978-0-19-
926969-3.
Smolin, Lee (20 January 2010). "Newtonian gravity in loop quantum gravity".
arXiv:1001.3668. Bibcode:2010arXiv1001.3668S.
Speziale, Simone; Wieland, Wolfgang (2012). "The twistorial structure of loop-
gravity transition amplitudes". Physical Review D. 86 (12): 124023.
arXiv:1207.6348. Bibcode:2012PhRvD..86l4023S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.124023. S2CID
59406729.
Thiemann, Thomas (1996). "Anomaly-free formulation of non-perturbative, four-
dimensional Lorentzian quantum gravity". Physics Letters B. 380 (3–4): 257–264.
arXiv:gr-qc/9606088. Bibcode:1996PhLB..380..257T. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(96)00532-1.
S2CID 8691449.
Thiemann, Thomas (2003). "Lectures on Loop Quantum Gravity". Quantum Gravity.
Lecture Notes in Physics. Vol. 631. pp. 41–135. arXiv:gr-qc/0210094.
Bibcode:2003LNP...631...41T. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-45230-0_3. ISBN 978-3-540-40810-
9. S2CID 119151491.
Thiemann, Thomas (2006a). "The Phoenix Project: Master constraint programme for
loop quantum gravity". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 23 (7): 2211–2247. arXiv:gr-
qc/0305080. Bibcode:2006CQGra..23.2211T. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/23/7/002. S2CID
16304158.
Thiemann, Thomas (2006b). "Quantum spin dynamics: VIII. The master constraint".
Classical and Quantum Gravity. 23 (7): 2249–2265. arXiv:gr-qc/0510011.
Bibcode:2006CQGra..23.2249T. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/23/7/003. S2CID 29095312.
Thiemann, Thomas (2008). Modern Canonical General Relativity. Cambridge Monographs
on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press. Section 10.6. ISBN 978-0-521-
74187-3.
Tipler, P.; Llewellyn, R. (2008). Modern Physics (5th ed.). W. H. Freeman and Co.
pp. 160–161. ISBN 978-0-7167-7550-8.
Further reading
Popular books:
Rodolfo Gambini and Jorge Pullin, Loop Quantum Gravity for Everyone, World
Scientific, 2020.
Carlo Rovelli, "Reality is not what it seems", Penguin, 2016.
Martin Bojowald, Once Before Time: A Whole Story of the Universe 2010.
Carlo Rovelli, What is Time? What is space?, Di Renzo Editore, Roma, 2006.
Lee Smolin, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, 2001
Magazine articles:
Lee Smolin, "Atoms of Space and Time", Scientific American, January 2004
Martin Bojowald, "Following the Bouncing Universe", Scientific American, October
2008
Easier introductory, expository or critical works:
Abhay Ashtekar, Gravity and the quantum, e-print available as gr-qc/0410054 (2004)
John C. Baez and Javier P. Muniain, Gauge Fields, Knots and Quantum Gravity, World
Scientific (1994)
Carlo Rovelli, A Dialog on Quantum Gravity, e-print available as hep-th/0310077
(2003)
Carlo Rovelli and Francesca Vidotto, Covariant Loop Quantum Gravity, Cambridge
(2014); draft available online
More advanced introductory/expository works:
Carlo Rovelli, Quantum Gravity, Cambridge University Press (2004); draft available
online
Abhay Ashtekar, New Perspectives in Canonical Gravity, Bibliopolis (1988).
Abhay Ashtekar, Lectures on Non-Perturbative Canonical Gravity, World Scientific
(1991)
Rodolfo Gambini and Jorge Pullin, Loops, Knots, Gauge Theories and Quantum Gravity,
Cambridge University Press (1996)
T. Thiemann The LQG – String: Loop Quantum Gravity Quantization of String Theory
(2004)
Celada, Mariano; Gonzalez, Diego; Montesinos, Merced (2016). "BF gravity".
Classical and Quantum Gravity. 33 (21): 213001. arXiv:1610.02020.
Bibcode:2016CQGra..33u3001C. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/33/21/213001. S2CID 119605468.
Topical reviews
Rovelli, Carlo (2011). "Zakopane lectures on loop gravity". arXiv:1102.3660 [gr-
qc].
Rovelli, Carlo (1998). "Loop Quantum Gravity". Living Reviews in Relativity. 1 (1):
1. arXiv:gr-qc/9710008. Bibcode:1998LRR.....1....1R. doi:10.12942/lrr-1998-1. PMC
5567241. PMID 28937180.
Thiemann, Thomas (2003). "Lectures on Loop Quantum Gravity". Quantum Gravity.
Lecture Notes in Physics. Vol. 631. pp. 41–135. arXiv:gr-qc/0210094.
Bibcode:2003LNP...631...41T. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-45230-0_3. ISBN 978-3-540-40810-
9. S2CID 119151491.
Ashtekar, Abhay; Lewandowski, Jerzy (2004). "Background Independent Quantum
Gravity: A Status Report". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 21 (15): R53–R152.
arXiv:gr-qc/0404018. Bibcode:2004CQGra..21R..53A. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/21/15/R01.
S2CID 119175535.
Carlo Rovelli and Marcus Gaul, Loop Quantum Gravity and the Meaning of
Diffeomorphism Invariance, e-print available as gr-qc/9910079.
Lee Smolin, The case for background independence, e-print available as
hep-th/0507235.
Alejandro Corichi, Loop Quantum Geometry: A primer, e-print available as Loop
Quantum Geometry: A primer.
Alejandro Perez, Introduction to loop quantum gravity and spin foams, e-print
available as Introduction to Loop Quantum Gravity and Spin Foams.
Fundamental research papers:
Roger Penrose, Angular momentum: an approach to combinatorial space-time in Quantum
Theory and Beyond, ed. Ted Bastin, Cambridge University Press, 1971
Rovelli, Carlo; Smolin, Lee (1988). "Knot theory and quantum gravity". Physical
Review Letters. 61 (10): 1155–1158. Bibcode:1988PhRvL..61.1155R.
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.61.1155. PMID 10038716.
Rovelli, Carlo; Smolin, Lee (1990). "Loop space representation of quantum general
relativity". Nuclear Physics. B331 (1): 80–152. Bibcode:1990NuPhB.331...80R.
doi:10.1016/0550-3213(90)90019-a.
Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin, Discreteness of area and volume in quantum gravity,
Nucl. Phys., B442 (1995) 593–622, e-print available as arXiv:gr-qc/9411005
Thiemann, Thomas (2007). "Loop Quantum Gravity: An Inside View". Approaches to
Fundamental Physics. Lecture Notes in Physics. 721: 185–263. arXiv:hep-th/0608210.
Bibcode:2007LNP...721..185T. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-71117-9_10. ISBN 978-3-540-
71115-5. S2CID 119572847.
External links
Introduction to Loop Quantum Gravity Online lectures by Carlo Rovelli
Covariant Loop Quantum Gravity by Carlo Rovelli and Francesca Vidotto
"Loop Quantum Gravity" by Carlo Rovelli Physics World, November 2003
Quantum Foam and Loop Quantum Gravity
Abhay Ashtekar: Semi-Popular Articles. Some excellent popular articles suitable for
beginners about space, time, GR, and LQG.
Loop Quantum Gravity: Lee Smolin.
Loop Quantum Gravity Lectures Online by Lee Smolin
Spin networks, spin foams and loop quantum gravity
Wired magazine, News: Moving Beyond String Theory
April 2006 Scientific American Special Issue, A Matter of Time, has Lee Smolin LQG
Article Atoms of Space and Time
September 2006, The Economist, article Looping the loop
Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope: The Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope Archived
18 June 2008 at the Wayback Machine
Zeno meets modern science. Article from Acta Physica Polonica B by Z.K. Silagadze.
Did pre-big bang universe leave its mark on the sky? – According to a model based
on "loop quantum gravity" theory, a parent universe that existed before ours may
have left an imprint (New Scientist, 10 April 2008)
O'Dowd, Matt (15 October 2019). "Loop Quantum Gravity Explained". PBS Space Time –
via YouTube.