Abstract
We study a class of theories in which space-time is treated classically, while interacting with quantum fields. These circumvent various no-go theorems and the pathologies of semi-classical gravity, by being linear in the density matrix and phase-space density. The theory can either be considered fundamental or as an effective theory where the classical limit is taken of space-time. The theories have the dynamics of general relativity as their classical limit and provide a way to study the back-action of quantum fields on the space-time metric. The theory is invariant under spatial diffeomorphisms, and here, we provide a methodology to derive the constraint equations of such a theory by imposing invariance of the dynamics under time-reparametrization invariance. This leads to generalisations of the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints. We compute the constraint algebra for a wide class of realisations of the theory (the “discrete class”) in the case of a quantum scalar field interacting with gravity. We find that the algebra doesn’t close without additional constraints, although these do not necessarily reduce the number of local degrees of freedom.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
C. Møller et al., Colloques internationaux du Centre national de la recherche scientifique. Vol. 91: Les théories relativistes de la gravitation, Centre national de la recherche scientifique, Paris France (1962).
L. Rosenfeld, On quantization of fields, Nucl. Phys. 40 (1963) 353 [INSPIRE].
S. Bose et al., Spin Entanglement Witness for Quantum Gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 240401 [arXiv:1707.06050] [INSPIRE].
C. Marletto and V. Vedral, Gravitationally-induced entanglement between two massive particles is sufficient evidence of quantum effects in gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 240402 [arXiv:1707.06036] [INSPIRE].
J. Oppenheim, C. Sparaciari, B. Šoda and Z. Weller-Davies, Decoherence vs space-time diffusion: testing the quantum nature of gravity, to appear.
D.N. Page and C.D. Geilker, Indirect Evidence for Quantum Gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47 (1981) 979 [INSPIRE].
K. Eppley and E. Hannah, The necessity of quantizing the gravitational field, Found. Phys. 7 (1977) 51.
C.M. DeWitt and D. Rickles eds., Max Planck research library for the history and development of knowledge. Vol. 5: The role of gravitation in physics: Report from the 1957 Chapel Hill Conference, Edition Open Access, Berlin Germany (2011).
N. Bohr and L. Rosenfeld, On the question of the measurability of electromagnetic field quantities, in Quantum theory and measurement, Princeton University Press, Princeton U.S.A. (1933), pg. 478.
B.S. DeWitt, Definition of commutators via the uncertainty principle, J. Math. Phys. 3 (1962) 619 [INSPIRE].
J. Caro and L.L. Salcedo, Impediments to mixing classical and quantum dynamics, Phys. Rev. A 60 (1999) 842 [quant-ph/9812046] [INSPIRE].
L.L. Salcedo, Absence of classical and quantum mixing, Phys. Rev. A 54 (1996) 3657 [hep-th/9509089] [INSPIRE].
D. Sahoo, Mixing quantum and classical mechanics and uniqueness of Planck’s constant, J. Phys. A 37 (2004) 997 [quant-ph/0301044]
D.R. Terno, Inconsistency of quantum classical dynamics and what it implies, Found. Phys. 36 (2006) 102 [quant-ph/0402092] [INSPIRE].
L.L. Salcedo, Statistical consistency of quantum-classical hybrids, Phys. Rev. A 85 (2012) 022127 [arXiv:1201.4237] [INSPIRE].
C. Barcelo, R. Carballo-Rubio, L.J. Garay and R. Gomez-Escalante, Hybrid classical-quantum formulations ask for hybrid notions, Phys. Rev. A 86 (2012) 042120 [arXiv:1206.7036] [INSPIRE].
C. Marletto and V. Vedral, Why we need to quantise everything, including gravity, Npj Quantum Inf. 3 (2017) 29.
D. Kafri, J.M. Taylor and G.J. Milburn, A classical channel model for gravitational decoherence, New J. Phys. 16 (2014) 065020 [arXiv:1401.0946] [INSPIRE].
A. Tilloy and L. Diósi, Sourcing semiclassical gravity from spontaneously localized quantum matter, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 024026 [arXiv:1509.08705] [INSPIRE].
W. Boucher and J.H. Traschen, Semiclassical Physics and Quantum Fluctuations, Phys. Rev. D 37 (1988) 3522 [INSPIRE].
M.J.W. Hall and M. Reginatto, Interacting classical and quantum ensembles, Phys. Rev. A 72 (2005) 062109 [quant-ph/0509134] [INSPIRE].
P. Blanchard and A. Jadczyk, Event-enhanced quantum theory and piecewise deterministic dynamics, Annalen Phys. 507 (1995) 583 [hep-th/9409189] [INSPIRE].
L. Diosi, Quantum dynamics with two planck constants and the semiclassical limit, quant-ph/9503023.
L. Diósi, Hybrid quantum-classical master equations, Phys. Scripta 2014 (2014) 014004 [arXiv:1401.0476].
R. Alicki and S. Kryszewski, Completely positive Bloch-Boltzmann equations, Phys. Rev. A 68 (2003) 013809 [physics/0202001].
L. Diosi, The gravity-related decoherence master equation from hybrid dynamics, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 306 (2011) 012006 [arXiv:1101.0672] [INSPIRE].
D. Poulin and J. Preskill, Information loss in quantum field theories, in Frontiers of Quantum Information Physics, Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, Santa Barbara U.S.A. (2017).
J. Oppenheim, A post-quantum theory of classical gravity?, arXiv:1811.03116 [INSPIRE].
T. Thiemann, Loop Quantum Gravity: An Inside View, Lect. Notes Phys. 721 (2007) 185 [hep-th/0608210] [INSPIRE].
H. Nicolai, K. Peeters and M. Zamaklar, Loop quantum gravity: An Outside view, Class. Quant. Grav. 22 (2005) R193 [hep-th/0501114] [INSPIRE].
R.L. Arnowitt, S. Deser and C.W. Misner, The Dynamics of general relativity, Gen. Rel. Grav. 40 (2008) 1997 [gr-qc/0405109] [INSPIRE].
B.S. DeWitt, Quantum Theory of Gravity. 1. The Canonical Theory, Phys. Rev. 160 (1967) 1113 [INSPIRE].
J. Oppenheim, C. Sparaciari, B. Šoda and Z. Weller-Davies, Objective trajectories in hybrid classical-quantum dynamics, arXiv:2011.06009 [INSPIRE].
K. Kraus, States, Effects and Operations: Fundemental Notions in Quantum Theory, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Germany (1983).
J. Oppenheim, C. Sparaciari, B. Šoda and Z. Weller-Davies, A classical-quantum pawula theorem, to appear.
H.-P. Breuer, Foundations and measures of quantum non-markovianity, J. Phys. B 45 (2012) 154001.
V.P. Belavkin, A stochastic posterior Schrödinger equation for counting nondemolition measurement, Lett. Math. Phys. 20 (1990) 85.
C.W. Gardiner, A.S. Parkins and P. Zoller, Wave-function quantum stochastic differential equations and quantum-jump simulation methods, Phys. Rev. A 46 (1992) 4363.
J. Dalibard, Y. Castin and K. Molmer, Wave-function approach to dissipative processes in quantum optics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68 (1992) 580 [INSPIRE].
H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems, Oxford Scholarship Online, Oxford U.K. (2006).
J. Oppenheim, Constraints for continuous post-quantum theories of gravity, in preparation.
A. Ashtekar and A. Magnon-Ashtekar, On the symplectic structure of general relativity, Commun. Math. Phys. 86 (1982) 55.
R. Haag, Local quantum physics: fields, particles, algebras, Springer, Heidelberg Germany (1993).
S. Hollands and R.M. Wald, Quantum fields in curved spacetime, Phys. Rept. 574 (2015) 1 [arXiv:1401.2026] [INSPIRE].
I. Gelfand and M. Neumark, On the imbedding of normed rings into the ring of operators in Hilbert space, Rec. Math. [Mat. Sbornik] N.S. 12 (1943) 197.
I.E. Segal, Irreducible representations of operator algebras, Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 53 (1947) 73.
P. Hořava, Quantum Gravity at a Lifshitz Point, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 084008 [arXiv:0901.3775] [INSPIRE].
W. Donnelly and T. Jacobson, Hamiltonian structure of Hořava gravity, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 104019 [arXiv:1106.2131] [INSPIRE].
M. Li and Y. Pang, A Trouble with Hořava-Lifshitz Gravity, JHEP 08 (2009) 015 [arXiv:0905.2751] [INSPIRE].
F. Mercati, A shape dynamics tutorial, arXiv:1409.0105 [INSPIRE].
E. Anderson, J. Barbour, B.Z. Foster, B. Kelleher and N.O. Murchadha, The Physical gravitational degrees of freedom, Class. Quant. Grav. 22 (2005) 1795 [gr-qc/0407104] [INSPIRE].
H. Gomes and T. Koslowski, The Link between General Relativity and Shape Dynamics, Class. Quant. Grav. 29 (2012) 075009 [arXiv:1101.5974] [INSPIRE].
S.A. Hojman, K. Kuchař and C. Teitelboim, Geometrodynamics Regained, Annals Phys. 96 (1976) 88 [INSPIRE].
P. Dirac, Lectures on Quantum Mechanics, Belfer Graduate School of Science Monograph Series, Dover Publications, Mineola U.S.A. (2001).
K.V. Kuchar and J.D. Romano, Gravitational constraints which generate a lie algebra, Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995) 5579 [gr-qc/9501005] [INSPIRE].
L. Smolin, Quantum gravity with a positive cosmological constant, hep-th/0209079 [INSPIRE].
N. Bretón, J. Cervantes-Cota and M. Salgad, The early universe and observational cosmology, Lect. Notes Phys. 646 (2004) 1.
T. Thiemann, Quantum spin dynamics (QSD), Class. Quant. Grav. 15 (1998) 839 [gr-qc/9606089] [INSPIRE].
M. Gaul and C. Rovelli, A Generalized Hamiltonian constraint operator in loop quantum gravity and its simplest Euclidean matrix elements, Class. Quant. Grav. 18 (2001) 1593 [gr-qc/0011106] [INSPIRE].
C.J. Isham, Canonical quantum gravity and the problem of time, NATO Sci. Ser. C 409 (1993) 157 [gr-qc/9210011] [INSPIRE].
T. Thiemann, Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, Cambridge University Press (2007), https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511755682 [INSPIRE].
M. Bañados and I.A. Reyes, A short review on Noether’s theorems, gauge symmetries and boundary terms, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 25 (2016) 1630021 [arXiv:1601.03616] [INSPIRE].
J.M. Pons, On Dirac’s incomplete analysis of gauge transformations, Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. B 36 (2005) 491.
J.M. Pons, D.C. Salisbury and K.A. Sundermeyer, Observables in classical canonical gravity: folklore demystified, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 222 (2010) 012018 [arXiv:1001.2726] [INSPIRE].
A. Einstein, Do gravitational fields play an essential part in the structure of the elementary particles of matter?, in The Principle of Relativity, Dover Publications, Mineola U.S.A. (1952), pg. 189.
J.J. van der Bij, H. van Dam and Y.J. Ng, The Exchange of Massless Spin Two Particles, Physica A 116 (1982) 307 [INSPIRE].
S. Weinberg, The Cosmological Constant Problem, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61 (1989) 1 [INSPIRE].
W.G. Unruh, A Unimodular Theory of Canonical Quantum Gravity, Phys. Rev. D 40 (1989) 1048 [INSPIRE].
E. Alvarez, Can one tell Einstein’s unimodular theory from Einstein’s general relativity?, JHEP 03 (2005) 002 [hep-th/0501146] [INSPIRE].
L. Smolin, The Quantization of unimodular gravity and the cosmological constant problems, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 084003 [arXiv:0904.4841] [INSPIRE].
M. Shaposhnikov and D. Zenhausern, Scale invariance, unimodular gravity and dark energy, Phys. Lett. B 671 (2009) 187 [arXiv:0809.3395] [INSPIRE].
T. Banks, L. Susskind and M.E. Peskin, Difficulties for the Evolution of Pure States Into Mixed States, Nucl. Phys. B 244 (1984) 125 [INSPIRE].
J. Oppenheim and B. Reznik, Fundamental destruction of information and conservation laws, arXiv:0902.2361 [INSPIRE].
A. Ashtekar, New Variables for Classical and Quantum Gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57 (1986) 2244 [INSPIRE].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
ArXiv ePrint: 2011.15112
Rights and permissions
Open Access . This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits any use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
About this article
Cite this article
Oppenheim, J., Weller-Davies, Z. The constraints of post-quantum classical gravity. J. High Energ. Phys. 2022, 80 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP02(2022)080
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP02(2022)080