In physics, canonical quantum gravity is an attempt to quantize the canonical formulation of general relativity (or canonical gravity). It is a Hamiltonian formulation of Einstein's general theory of relativity. The basic theory was outlined by Bryce DeWitt in a seminal 1967 paper, and based on earlier work by Peter G. Bergmann using the so-called canonical quantization techniques for constrained Hamiltonian systems invented by Paul Dirac. Dirac's approach allows the quantization of systems that include gauge symmetries using Hamiltonian techniques in a fixed gauge choice. Newer approaches based in part on the work of DeWitt and Dirac include the Hartle–Hawking state, Regge calculus, the Wheeler–DeWitt equation and loop quantum gravity.
Canonical quantization
In the Hamiltonian formulation of ordinary classical mechanics the
Poisson bracket is an important concept. A "canonical coordinate system"
consists of canonical position and momentum variables that satisfy
canonical Poisson-bracket relations,
where the Poisson bracket is given by
for arbitrary phase space functions and . With the use of Poisson brackets, the Hamilton's equations can be rewritten as,
,
.
These equations describe a ``flow" or orbit in phase space generated by the Hamiltonian . Given any phase space function , we have
In canonical quantization the phase space variables are promoted to quantum operators on a Hilbert space and the Poisson bracket between phase space variables is replaced by the canonical commutation relation:
In the so-called position representation this commutation relation is realized by the choice:
and
The dynamics are described by Schrödinger equation:
.
Canonical quantization with constraints
Canonical classical general relativity is an example of a fully
constrained theory. In constrained theories there are different kinds of
phase space: the unrestricted (also called kinematic) phase space on
which constraint functions are defined and the reduced phase space on
which the constraints have already been solved. For canonical
quantization in general terms, phase space is replaced by an appropriate
Hilbert space and phase space variables are to be promoted to quantum operators.
In Dirac's approach to quantization the unrestricted phase space
is replaced by the so-called kinematic Hilbert space and the constraint
functions replaced by constraint operators implemented on the kinematic
Hilbert space; solutions are then searched for. These quantum constraint
equations are the central equations of canonical quantum general
relativity, at least in the Dirac approach which is the approach usually
taken.
In theories with constraints there is also the reduced phase
space quantization where the constraints are solved at the classical
level and the phase space variables of the reduced phase space are then
promoted to quantum operators, however this approach was thought to be
impossible in General relativity as it seemed to be equivalent to
finding a general solution to the classical field equations. However,
with the fairly recent development of a systematic approximation scheme
for calculating observables of General relativity (for the first time)
by Bianca Dittrich, based on ideas introduced by Carlo Rovelli, a viable
scheme for a reduced phase space quantization of Gravity has been
developed by Thomas Thiemann. However it is not fully equivalent to the
Dirac quantization as the `clock-variables' must be taken to be
classical in the reduced phase space quantization, as opposed to the
case in the Dirac quantization.
A common misunderstanding is that coordinate transformations are
the gauge symmetries of general relativity, when actually the true gauge
symmetries are diffeomorphisms as defined by a mathematician –
which are much more radical. The first class constraints of general
relativity are the spatial diffeomorphism constraint and the Hamiltonian
constraint (also known as the Wheeler-De Witt equation) and imprint the
spatial and temporal diffeomorphism invariance of the theory
respectively. Imposing these constraints classically are basically
admissibility conditions on the initial data, also they generate the
`evolution' equations (really gauge transformations) via the Poisson
bracket. Importantly the Poisson bracket algebra between the constraints
fully determines the classical theory – this is something that must in
some way be reproduced in the semi-classical limit of canonical quantum
gravity for it to be a viable theory of quantum gravity.
In Dirac's approach it turns out that the first class quantum
constraints imposed on a wavefunction also generate gauge
transformations. Thus the two step process in the classical theory of
solving the constraints
(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 of the quantum equations .
This is because it obviously solves the constraint at the quantum level
and it simultaneously looks for states that are gauge invariant because
is the quantum generator of gauge transformations. At the classical
level, solving the admissibility conditions and evolution equations are
equivalent to solving all of Einstein's field equations, this underlines
the central role of the quantum constraint equations in Dirac's
approach to canonical quantum gravity.
Canonical quantization, Diffeomorphism invariance and Manifest Finiteness
A diffeomorphism can be thought of as simultaneously `dragging' the
metric (gravitational field) and matter fields over the bare manifold
while staying in the same coordinate system, and so are more radical
than invariance under a mere coordinate transformation. This symmetry
arises from the subtle requirement that the laws of general relativity
cannot depend on any a-priori given space-time geometry.
This diffeomorphism invariance has an important implication:
canonical quantum gravity will be manifestly finite as the ability to
`drag' the metric function over the bare manifold means that small and
large `distances' between abstractly defined coordinate points are
gauge-equivalent! A more rigorous argument has been provided by Lee
Smolin:
“A background independent operator must always be finite. This is because the regulator scale and the background metric are always introduced together in the regularization procedure. This is necessary, because the scale that the regularization parameter refers to must be described in terms of a background metric or coordinate chart introduced in the construction of the regulated operator. Because of this the dependence of the regulated operator on the cuttoff, or regulator parameter, is related to its dependence on the background metric. When one takes the limit of the regulator parameter going to zero one isolates the non-vanishing terms. If these have any dependence on the regulator parameter (which would be the case if the term is blowing up) then it must also have dependence on the background metric. Conversely, if the terms that are nonvanishing in the limit the regulator is removed have no dependence on the background metric, it must be finite.”
In fact, as mentioned below, Thomas Thiemann has explicitly demonstrated that loop quantum gravity
(a well developed version of canonical quantum gravity) is manifestly
finite even in the presence of all forms of matter! So there is no need
for renormalization and the elimination of infinities.
In perturbative quantum gravity
(from which the non-renormalization arguments originate), as with any
perturbative scheme, one makes the assumption that the unperturbed
starting point is qualitatively the same as the true quantum state – so
perturbative quantum gravity makes the physically unwarranted assumption
that the true structure of quantum space-time can be approximated by a
smooth classical (usually Minkowski) spacetime. Canonical quantum
gravity on the other hand makes no such assumption and instead allows
the theory itself tell you, in principle, what the true structure of
quantum space-time is. A long-held expectation is that in a theory of
quantum geometry such as canonical quantum gravity that geometric
quantities such as area and volume become quantum observables
and take non-zero discrete values, providing a natural regulator which
eliminates infinities from the theory including those coming from matter
contributions. This `quantization' of geometric observables is in fact
realized in loop quantum gravity (LQG).
Canonical quantization in metric variables
The quantization is based on decomposing the metric tensor as follows,
where the summation over repeated indices is implied, the index 0 denotes time , Greek indices run over all values 0, . . ., ,3 and Latin indices run over spatial values 1, . . ., 3. The function is called the lapse function and the functions are called the shift functions. The spatial indices are raised and lowered using the spatial metric and its inverse : and , , where is the Kronecker delta. Under this decomposition the Einstein–Hilbert Lagrangian becomes, up to total derivatives,
where is the spatial scalar curvature computed with respect to the Riemannian metric and is the extrinsic curvature,
where denotes Lie-differentiation, is the unit normal to surfaces of constant and denotes covariant differentiation with respect to the metric . Note that .
DeWitt writes that the Lagrangian "has the classic form 'kinetic energy
minus potential energy,' with the extrinsic curvature playing the role
of kinetic energy and the negative of the intrinsic curvature that of
potential energy." While this form of the Lagrangian is manifestly
invariant under redefinition of the spatial coordinates, it makes general covariance opaque.
Since the lapse function and shift functions may be eliminated by a gauge transformation,
they do not represent physical degrees of freedom. This is indicated in
moving to the Hamiltonian formalism by the fact that their conjugate
momenta, respectively and , vanish identically (on shell and off shell). These are called primary constraints by Dirac. A popular choice of gauge, called synchronous gauge, is and , although they can, in principle, be chosen to be any function of the coordinates. In this case, the Hamiltonian takes the form
where
and is the momentum conjugate to . Einstein's equations may be recovered by taking Poisson brackets with the Hamiltonian. Additional on-shell constraints, called secondary constraints by Dirac, arise from the consistency of the Poisson bracket algebra. These are and . This is the theory which is being quantized in approaches to canonical quantum gravity.
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. That is, we have:
Spatial diffeomorphisms constraints
of which there are an infinite number – one for value of , can be smeared by the so-called shift functions to give an equivalent set of smeared spatial diffeomorphism constraints,
.
These generate spatial diffeomorphisms along orbits defined by the shift function .
Hamiltonian constraints
of which there are an infinite number, can be smeared by the so-called lapse functions to give an equivalent set of smeared Hamiltonian constraints,
.
as mentioned above, the Poission bracket structure between the
(smeared) constraints is important because they fully determine the
classical theory, and must be reproduced in the semi-classical limit of
any theory of quantum gravity.
The Wheeler-De-Witt equation
The Wheeler-De-Witt equation (sometimes called the Hamiltonian
constraint, sometimes the Einstein-Schrödinger equation) is rather
central as it encodes the dynamics at the quantum level. It is analogous
to Schrödinger's equation, except as the time coordinate, , is unphysical, a physical wavefunction can't depend on and hence `Schrödinger's equation' reduces to a constraint:
Using metric variables lead to seemingly un-summountable
mathematical difficulties when trying to promote the classical
expression to a well-defined quantum operator, and as such decades went
by without making progress via this approach. This problem was
circumvented and the formulation of a well-defined Wheeler-De-Witt
equation was first accomplished with the introduction of
Ashtekar-Barbero variables and the loop representation, this well defined operator formulated by Thomas Thiemann.
Before this development the Wheeler-De-Witt equation had only
been formulated in symmetry-reduced models, such as quantum cosmology.
Canonical quantization in Ashtekar-Barbero variables and LQG
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 Ashtekars new variables. Ashtekar variables describe
canonical general relativity in terms of a new pair canonical variables
closer to that of gauge theories. In doing so it introduced an
additional constraint, on top of the spatial diffeomorphism and
Hamiltonian constraint, the Gauss gauge constraint.
The loop representation is a quantum hamiltonian representation
of gauge theories in terms of loops. The aim of the loop representation,
in the context of Yang-Mills theories is to avoid the redundancy
introduced by Gauss gauge symmetries allowing to work directly in the
space of Gauss gauge invariant states. The use of this representation
arose naturally from the Ashtekar-Barbero representation as it provides
an exact non-perturbative description and also because the spatial
diffeomorphism constraint is easily dealt with within this
representation.
Within the loop representation Thiemann has provided a well
defined canonical theory in the presence of all forms of matter and
explicitly demonstrated it to be manifestly finite! So there is no need
for renormalization.
However, as LQG approach is well suited to describe physics at the
Planck scale, there are difficulties in making contact with familiar low
energy physics and establishing it has the correct semi-classical
limit.
The problem of time
All canonical theories of general relativity have to deal with the problem of time.
In quantum gravity, the problem of time is a conceptual conflict
between general relativity and quantum mechanics. In canonical general
relativity, time is just another coordinate as a result of general covariance.
In quantum field theories, especially in the Hamiltonian formulation,
the formulation is split between three dimensions of space, and one
dimension of time. Roughly speaking, the problem of time is that there
is none in general relativity. This is because in general relativity the
Hamiltonian is a constraint that must vanish. However, in any canonical
theory, the Hamiltonian generates time translations. Therefore, we
arrive at the conclusion that "nothing moves" ("there is no time") in
general relativity. Since "there is no time", the usual interpretation
of quantum mechanics measurements at given moments of time breaks down.
This problem of time is the broad banner for all interpretational
problems of the formalism.
The problem of quantum cosmology
The
problem of quantum cosmology is that the physical states that solve the
constraints of canonical quantum gravity represent quantum states of
the entire universe and as such exclude an outside observer, however an
outside observer is a crucial element in most interpretations of quantum
mechanics.