Euclidean Dynamical Triangulation revisited: is the phase transition really 1st order?

Open Access
Regular Article - Theoretical Physics

Abstract

The transition between the two phases of 4D Euclidean Dynamical Triangulation [1] was long believed to be of second order until in 1996 first order behavior was found for sufficiently large systems [5, 9]. However, one may wonder if this finding was affected by the numerical methods used: to control volume fluctuations, in both studies [5, 9] an artificial harmonic potential was added to the action and in [9] measurements were taken after a fixed number of accepted instead of attempted moves which introduces an additional error. Finally the simulations suffer from strong critical slowing down which may have been underestimated.

In the present work, we address the above weaknesses: we allow the volume to fluctuate freely within a fixed interval; we take measurements after a fixed number of attempted moves; and we overcome critical slowing down by using an optimized parallel tempering algorithm [12]. With these improved methods, on systems of size up to N 4 = 64k 4- simplices, we confirm that the phase transition is 1st order.

In addition, we discuss a local criterion to decide whether parts of a triangulation are in the elongated or crumpled state and describe a new correspondence between EDT and the balls in boxes model. The latter gives rise to a modified partition function with an additional, third coupling.

Finally, we propose and motivate a class of modified path-integral measures that might remove the metastability of the Markov chain and turn the phase transition into 2nd order.

Keywords

Models of Quantum Gravity Lattice Models of Gravity 

Notes

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.

References

  1. [1]
    J. Ambjorn and J. Jurkiewicz, Four-dimensional simplicial quantum gravity, Phys. Lett. B 278 (1992) 42 [INSPIRE].ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    J. Ambjorn, L. Glaser, A. Goerlich and J. Jurkiewicz, Euclidian 4d quantum gravity with a non-trivial measure term, JHEP 10 (2013) 100 [arXiv:1307.2270] [INSPIRE].ADSMathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    J. Ambjorn and J. Jurkiewicz, Scaling in four-dimensional quantum gravity, Nucl. Phys. B 451 (1995) 643 [hep-th/9503006] [INSPIRE].ADSMathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    B. Bruegmann and E. Marinari, Monte Carlo simulations of 4d simplicial quantum gravity, J. Math. Phys. 36 (1995) 6340 [hep-lat/9504004] [INSPIRE].ADSMathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    P. Bialas, Z. Burda, A. Krzywicki and B. Petersson, Focusing on the fixed point of 4D simplicial gravity, Nucl. Phys. B 472 (1996) 293 [hep-lat/9601024] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    P. Bialas, L. Bogacz, Z. Burda and D. Johnston, Finite size scaling of the balls in boxes model, Nucl. Phys. B 575 (2000) 599 [hep-lat/9910047] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    P. Bialas, Z. Burda and D. Johnston, Phase diagram of the mean field model of simplicial gravity, Nucl. Phys. B 542 (1999) 413 [gr-qc/9808011] [INSPIRE].ADSMathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    P. Bialas, Z. Burda, B. Petersson and J. Tabaczek, Appearance of mother universe and singular vertices in random geometries, Nucl. Phys. B 495 (1997) 463 [hep-lat/9608030] [INSPIRE].ADSMathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    B.V. de Bakker, Further evidence that the transition of 4D dynamical triangulation is first order, Phys. Lett. B 389 (1996) 238 [hep-lat/9603024] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    B.V. de Bakker, Simplicial quantum gravity, hep-lat/9508006 [INSPIRE].
  11. [11]
    H.G. Katzgraber, S. Trebst, D.A. Huse and M. Troyer, Feedback-optimized parallel tempering Monte Carlo, J. Stat. Mech. (2006) P03018 [cond-mat/0602085].
  12. [12]
    B. Bauer, E. Gull, S. Trebst, M. Troyer and D.A. Huse, Optimized broad-histogram simulations for strong first-order phase transitions: Droplet transitions in the large-Q Potts model, J. Stat. Mech. (2010) P01020 [arXiv:0912.1192].
  13. [13]
    A.M. Ferrenberg and R.H. Swendsen, New Monte Carlo technique for studying phase transitions, Erratum Phys. Rev. Lett. 63 (1989) 1658.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    K. Binder, K. Vollmayr, H.-P. Deutsch, J.D. Reger, M. Scheucher and D.P. Landau, Monte Carlo Methods for First Order Phase Transitions: Some Recent Progress, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 3 (1992) 1025.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    U. Pachner, P.L. homeomorphic manifolds are equivalent by elementary 5hellingst, Eur. J. Combinator. 12 (1991) 129.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    J. Smit, Continuum interpretation of the dynamical-triangulation formulation of quantum Einstein gravity, JHEP 08 (2013) 016 [arXiv:1304.6339] [INSPIRE].ADSMathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Theoretical PhysicsETH ZürichZürichSwitzerland
  2. 2.CERN, Physics DepartmentTH UnitGeneva 23Switzerland

Personalised recommendations