Description

CGPG-99/1-1 BF Description of Higher-Dimensional Gravity Theories arxiv:hep-th/ v3 25 Jul 1999 L. Freidel 1,2, K. Krasnov 1 and R. Puzio 1 1. Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry Department

Categories

Published

All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.

Share

Transcript

CGPG-99/1-1 BF Description of Higher-Dimensional Gravity Theories arxiv:hep-th/ v3 25 Jul 1999 L. Freidel 1,2, K. Krasnov 1 and R. Puzio 1 1. Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry Department of Physics, The Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802, USA 2. Laboratoire de Physique Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon 46, allée d Italie, Lyon Cedex 07, France (May 5, 2018) Abstract It is well known that, in the first-order formalism, pure three-dimensional gravity is just the BF theory. Similarly, four-dimensional general relativity can be formulated as BF theory with an additional constraint term added to the Lagrangian. In this paper we show that the same is true also for higherdimensional Einstein gravity: in any dimension gravity can be described as a constrained BF theory. Moreover, in any dimension these constraints are quadratic in the B field. After describing in details the structure of these constraints, we scketch the spin foam quantization of these theories, which proves to be quite similar to the spin foam quantization of general relativity in three and four dimensions. In particular, in any dimension, we solve the quantum constraints and find the so-called simple representations and intertwiners. These exhibit a simple and beautiful structure that is common to all dimensions. addresses: 1 I. INTRODUCTION In three spacetime dimensions Einstein s general relativity becomes a beautiful and simple theory. There are no local degrees of freedom, and gravity is an example of topological field theory. Owing to this fact, a variety of techniques from TQFT can be used, and a great deal is known about quantization of the theory. More precisely, when written in the first order formalism, three-dimensional gravity is just the BF theory, whose action is given by: S BF = M Tr(B F). (1) Here M is the spacetime manifold, F is the curvature of the spin connection, and B is the frame field one-form. The trace is taken in the Lie algebra of the relevant gauge group, which in the case of 3D is given by SO(2,1) for Lorentzian spacetimes and by SO(3) in the Euclidean case. The quantization of BF theory is well-understood, both canonically and by the path integral method, at least in the Euclidean case. This is one of the possible ways to construct quantum gravity in three spacetime dimensions: it exists as a topological field theory. 1 It is tempting to apply the beautiful quantization methods from TQFT to other, more complicated theories, including those with local degrees of freedom. An interesting proposal along these lines was made in a series of papers by Martellini and collaborators [2], who proposed to treat Yang-Mills theory as a certain deformation of the BF theory. This gives an interesting picture of the confining phase of Yang-Mills theory. Recently, a proposal was made suggesting a way to apply the ideas and methods from TQFT to four-dimensional gravity. The new approach to quantum gravity, for which the name spin foam approach was proposed in [3], lies on the intersection between TQFT and loop quantum gravity (see [4] for a recent review on loop gravity). As it was advocated by Rovelli and Reisenberger [5], the results of the loop approach suggest a possibility of constructing the partition function of 4D gravity as a spin foam model. The first spin foam model of 4D gravity was constructed by Reisenberger [6], and was intimately related to the self-dual canonical (loop) quantum gravity. Later, Barrett, Crane [7] and Baez [3] proposed another model based on the study of the geometry of a 4-simplex. Both spin foam models deeply use the fact that Einstein s theory in four dimensions can be rewritten as a BF theory with additional quadratic constraints. It is a constrained SU(2) BF theory [8,9] in the self-dual case, and a constrained SO(4) BF theory [10] for the Barrett, Baez and Crane model. In both cases, the resulting quantum model is given by a certain deformation of the topological BF theory. While the approach of Martellini et al. [2], which treats Yang-Mills theory as a deformation of the BF theory, is clearly not limited to any spacetime dimension, one might suspect that the similar strategy in the case of gravity works only in three and four dimensions. 1 Let us note, however, that there are subtle problems with large gauge transformations and degenerate metrics in this theory, which, to our knowledge, are not yet resolved in a completely satisfactory manner. See, for instance, [1] for a discussion of these issues. 2 Indeed, it is believed that in order to quantize a theory in a way similar to the one used in TQFT, the theory must at least have the property that its phase space consists of pairs connection conjugate electric field. However, already in the case of four dimensions, the fact that the gravitational phase space can be brought to the Yang-Mills form is quite nontrivial. In order to arrive to such a formulation one uses crucially the self-duality available in four dimensions [11]. Thus, one might suspect that the quantization techniques from TQFT that use the connection field as the main variable are limited only to gravity in three and four dimensions. There is, however, one case that seems to contradict this negative conclusion: the case of the usual SO(4) first-order formulation of gravity in four dimensions. As we have mentioned above, this model can be written as a SO(4) BF theory with additional constraints guaranteeing that the B field comes from the frame field. This formulation serves as the starting point for the quantum model of Barrett, Baez and Crane, which does treat this theory as a deformation of the BF theory. On the other hand, the canonical formulation of this theory is known to contain second class constraints, solving which one does not seem to arrive to a phase space of the Yang-Mills type [12]. Thus, this theory provides us with a puzzle: on one hand, treating it covariantly as BF theory with constraints one can quantize it as a deformation of the topological BF theory, on the other hand one does not expect the methods from TQFT to work because the phase space of this theory is not that simple as that of Yang-Mills theory. While we do not know any simple resolution of this puzzle, it seems from details of the quantum theory that it uses the self-duality in some clever way and thus goes around the problem with the second class constraints of the canonical formulation. This fact, yet to be understood in full details, opens door to a possibility of applying the topological quantization procedure to gravity theories in higher dimensions, hoping that the covariant quantization will be able to go around the problem with second class constraints that are known to be present also in this case. The first step that one has to take towards this goal is to reformulate a higher dimensional gravity theory as a BF theory with constraints. The main aim of this paper is to show that such a formulation is indeed possible. In the second part of the paper we shall study in some details the corresponding spin foam quantum theory. Our results can be summarized as follows. First, in section II, we show that in any dimension gravity can be written as an SO(D), or SO(D 1,1), BF theory subjects to quadratic, non-derivative constraints on the B field. Namely we prove that gravity in D dimensions can be described by the following action functional: S[A,B,Φ] = M Tr(B F)+ 1 Tr(B Φ(B)). (2) 2 Here A is an SO(D) -for spacetime of euclidean signature, or SO(D 1,1) for spacetime of Minkowskian signature- connection field. The B field is a Lie algebra valued (D 2)-form and Φ is a Lagrange multiplier field that can be contracted in a special way (see below) with the (D 2)-form B to produce a Lie-algebra valued 2-form, denoted by Φ(B) in (2). Let us emphasize that the Lagrange multiplier term of the action is quadratic in B in any dimension. The precise form of this term will be given below. As we show in the next section, varying this action with respect to the Lagrange multipliers, one obtains equations that guarantee that the B field comes from a frame field e: 3 B = (e e). For such B, the action (2) is just the usual action for gravity in the first-order formulation. This means that the theory described by (2) is indeed equivalent to gravity, in the sense that all solutions of Einstein s theory are also solutions of (2). The second part of our paper is devoted to quantum theory. We study a quantization of the theory described by (2) along the lines of Refs. [7,3,13]. This quantization procedure, which can be called a spin foam quantization, will be summarized in some details in section III. For now, let us just note that in this quantization the B field is promoted to a derivative operator acting on the so-called spin networks. The quadratic constraints become constraints on representations and intertwiners labelling the spin networks. Representations satisfying these constraints will be called, following [3], simple. In four dimensions simple representation of SO(4) SU(2) SU(2) were found [7,3] to be the ones of the type (j,j), thatis, theonescarryingthesamespinundertheleftandrightcopiesofsu(2). InsectionIII we find all possible simple representations in any dimension. Surprisingly, it turns out that the simple representations are in certain precise sense the simplest possible representations of the gauge group. We find that in any dimension these representations are labeled just by a single parameter. Also, in any dimension, we construct an intertwiner satisfying the intersection constraints. II. CLASSICAL THEORY This section is devoted to an analysis of the classical theory. We will first present the action in several equivalent formulations and then prove that it is equivalent to the standard Einstein-Hilbert action. In subsection II B we discuss in details the issue of dependence between the constraints. In this section the gauge group can be taken to be either that corresponding to Euclidean signature or to Lorentzian: all our proofs are independent of this. For definiteness, we will work with the Euclidean version, in which the gauge group is SO(D), for this is what is used in the quantum part of our paper. A. The action The action for gravity in the BF formulation is a functional of the B field, the connection form A, and Lagrange multipliers Φ. There are two equivalent formulations, which are both worth mentioning. In the first formulation, which is more customary in the context of BF theories, the B field is thought of as a Lie algebra valued (D 2)-form. In the second formulation one uses the metric-independent Levi-Civita density to construct from this (D 2)-form a densitized rank two antisymmetric covariant tensor, which we will call a bivector. We first present the action in this second formulation, for it looks exactly the µν same in any dimension D 4. Thus, we start by writing B as a bivector B ij, where Greek characters are the spacetime indices, latin letters are the internal indices, and a single tilde over the symbol of B represents the fact that its density weight is one. The action of the theory is then given by: 4 S[A, B, Φ] = d D x µν B ij Fµν ij + 1 µν 2 Φijkl µνρσ B ij B ρσ kl. (3) The action is a functional of an SO(D) gauge field A ij µν µ, bivector fields B ij, and Lagrange multiplier fields Φ ijkl µνρσ. This action is generally covariant: the bivector fields scale as tensor densities of weight one, while the multipliers scale as densities of weight minus one, which is represented by a single tilde below the symbol Φ. In order to ensure the relation to gravity, the multiplier field Φ ijkl µνρσ must be such that it is completely anti-symmetric in one set of indices, and its anti-symmetrization on the other set of indices vanishes. There is a freedom, however, on which set of indices the antisymmetrization is taken to vanish. It turns out to be more convenient for the quantum theory to choose the anti-symmetrization on the spacetime indices to vanish. This is the choice we make. Let us emphasize, however, that from the point of view of the classical theory the two possibilities are completely equivalent in the sense that they are both enough to guarantee the simplicity of the B field (for a generic, non-degenerate field B). The postulated properties of the Lagrange multiplier field Φ imply that it is of the form: Φ ijkl µνρσ = ǫ[m]ijkl Φ [m]µνρσ, where ǫ [m]ijkl is the totally anti-symmetric form on the Lie algebra, [m] is a completely antisymmetric cumulative index of length D 4, and Φ [m]µνρσ is a new Lagrange multiplier field, which we, by abuse of notation, also call Φ. This new Lagrange multiplier field also has density weight minus one. The field Φ [m]µνρσ has a property that its anti-symmetrization on the spacetime indices vanishes: Φ [m][µνρσ] = 0. (4) Using this new set of Lagrange multipliers the action can be written as: S[A,B,Φ] = d D x µν B ij Fµν ij Φ [m]ijkl [m]µνρσǫ Bµν ij B ρσ kl. (5) Let us now give another way the action (5) can be written, using the representation of the B field as a (D 2)-form. This is more standard in the context of BF theories. Using the definition of the bivector B µν, B µν ij = one can easily check that the action (5) can be rewritten as S[A,B,Φ] = 1 2!(D 2)! ǫµνβ 1...β D 2 B β1...β D 2 ij, (6) 1 2!(D 2)! d D x B β1...β D 2 ijf ij µν ǫ β 1...β D 2 µν B β 1...β D 2 ijφ ij µν(b) ǫ β 1...β D 2 µν, (7) where we have introduced a new two-form field Φ(B) with values in the Lie algebra. In the index notation it is given by: 5 Thus, in the abstract notations, one can write the action as M Φ ij µν (B) := Φijkl ρσ µνρσ B kl. (8) Tr(B F)+ 1 Tr(B Φ(B)). (9) 2 Thus, there are two equivalent formulations of the theory. One can use the formulation in terms of forms, given by (9), or the formulation in terms of bivectors, given by (3). In what follows, we will mostly use the formulation in terms of bivectors. Variation of the action (5) with respect to Φ gives the following equations: [m]ijkl ǫ Bµν ij B ρσ [m] kl = ǫ [α]µνρσ c [α] (10) forsomecoefficients c [m] [α]. Here [m],[α]arecumulative anti-symmetric indices oflengthd 4, Lie algebra and spacetime ones correspondingly. As one can see, when equations (10) are satisfied, the coefficients c [m] [α] are given by: c [m] [α] = 1 ǫ[m]ijkl Bµν ij B ρσ kl (D 4)!4! ǫ [α]µνρσ. (11) The bivector field B canbe viewed asalinear map fromthespace of spacetime two-forms µν to the space of densitized internal two-forms: Bij (θ) B ij θ µν. We will say that B is generic (or non-degenerate) if this map is invertible. It is clear that when B comes from a frame field e, B identically satisfies (10). The following theorem states that the reverse is true. Theorem 1 In dimension D 4 a generic B field satisfies the constraints (10) if and only if it comes from a frame field. In other words, a non-degenerate B satisfies the constraints (10) if and only if there exist e µ i such that: B µν ij = ± e e [µ i e ν] j, (12) where e is the absolute value of the determinant of the matrix e µ i. The condition D 4 is there because in four dimensions, under the same assumptions, there is another solution (see [10]) given by: B µν ij = ± e ǫ kl ij e [µ k eν] l. (13) Thus, our theorem, in particular, claims that this other solution appears only in four dimensions. Proof: The constraints (10) can be conveniently subdivided into the following categories: simplicity: intersection: normalization: Bµν [ij Bµν [ij Bµν [ij µν B kl] = 0 µ,νdistinct (14) νρ B kl] = 0 µ,ν,ρdistinct (15) ρσ µρ B kl] = B [ij B σν kl] µ, ν, ρ, σ distinct (16) 6 The reason for this terminology has to do with the conditions imposed by the various constraints. In appendix A we prove the following two propositions. The first proposition states that imposing the simplicity condition on a non-zero two-form B ij is equivalent to demanding that the two-form is simple, or, in other words, that it factors as the outer product of one-forms: B [ij B kl] = 0 B ij = u [i v j]. (17) Note that we have omitted the density weight of B ij in the above expression. For the discussion that follows, where we treat B ij as a Lie-algebra two-form, the density weight of B is irrelevant. The second proposition states that the intersection condition on a pair of simple twoforms ensures that they share a common one-form factorizing both of them: B [ij B kl] = 0 B ij = u [i v j] and B ij = v [i w j]. (18) Moreover, the common factor v i is uniquely determined up to scaling when B and B are not proportional to each other. In case B and B are proportional to each other, the above statement trivially holds, but the common form v i is not determined uniquely: any linear combination of it with the other one-form is also a common form. Let us now discuss the meaning of the normalization condition. Imposing the normalization condition on two pairs of simple two-forms, each pair of which is constructed by taking different outer products of the same 4 one-forms, fixes the relative normalization of the two two-forms. In other words, given four simple two-forms the conditions B ij = Nu [i v j] B ij = N w [i z j] B ij = N u [i w j] (19) B ij = N z [i v j], B [ij B kl] = B [ijb kl] imply that NN = N N as long as the four vectors are linearly independent. Let us now see what these assertions imply for our theory. First, consider a set of two-forms Bij 12,Bij 13,...Bij 1D. According to the simplicity relations, each of these two-forms factors into one-forms, and according to the intersection relations each pair shares a unique common factor. Note that our assumption that B is generic implies that all two-forms B µν ij are non-zero and that B s are not proportional to each other. Let v i be the non-zero oneform shared by Bij 12 and Bij 13; w i be the one-form shared by Bij 13 and Bij 14; u i be the one-form shared by Bij 14 and Bij 12. Then there are three possibilities: the one-forms u i,v i,w i span a linear space of rank (i) 3; (ii) 2; (iii) 1. Let us consider each case separately. Case (i). Since u i and v i are distinct one-forms that both divide Bij 12, this two-form is given by a product of u i,v i : Bij 12 = cu [i v j]. Likewise, we can express the remaining two bivectors completely in terms of our three vectors. Thus, we have: 7 B 12 ij = cu [iv j] B 13 ij = c v [i w j] (20) B 14 ij = c w [i u j]. Case(ii). Letusassume, without lossofgenerality, thatv i = w i. Thenthisvector divides all B 12,B 13 and B 14, but u i divides both B 12 and B 14. So B 12 and B 14 are proportional, which is excluded for a generic B. Case (iii). Let us assume, without loss of generality, that u i = v i = w i. Then, from the definitions, we see that this vector must divide all three bivectors. Thus, we can write B 12 ij = u [ip j] B 13 ij = u [i q j] (21) B 14 ij = u [i r j] for some suitable vectors p i, q i, r i. In four dimensions, the case (i) was associated with the so-called topological sector (13) (see [10] for a discussion on this sector), while the case (iii) was associated with the gravity sector. In dimension higher than four, however, the case (i) cannot occur since we have, for instance, the two-form Bij 15 to reckon with. This two-form must have a factor in common with the three two-forms considered previously. In the case (i), there is no factor in common between the three two-forms. So the only possibility is that B 15 is proportional to for instance B 12 which is not possible for a generic B. Thus, we are forced to the case (iii), in which, if we assume that the three bivectors are distinct, the only common factor is u i. We then conclude that u i divides Bij 15 as well. Continuing this reasoning, we see that u i must divide all two-forms B 1ν ij. Repeating the above arguments with different values for spacetime indices, we conclude that there exist one-forms e 1 i...e D i such that e µ µν i divides B ij for any ν. If we are in µν the generic case, where these vectors are pairwise distinct,

Search

Similar documents

Related Search

Hep-Thvol 2 2 -Cont.J.sust.Dev.219-25.pdfPer Menpan No 36 Th 2012.pdfFunerary Customs and Egyptian Sculpture in thSpanish\u0026 Latin American Philosophical ThGraduate Tracer Study PdfThe Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with thResearch and writing on Black and Womanist thLinguistica Tedesca Di Meola PdfA reflection of the ethical obligations of th

We Need Your Support

Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x