The Polymer representation for the scalar field: A Wigner functional approach

Jasel Berra-Montiel

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 38 references

The Polymer representation for the scalar field: A Wigner functional approach

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The polymer representation of a real massive scalar field is obtained by taking weak limits of Gaussian-measure Wigner functionals, with the momentum and field polarizations collapsing to products of per-mode delta functionals.

desk verdict A plausible but formal paper: the polymer Wigner functional for a scalar field is obtained by per-mode limits that need Bohr-compactified topology and a hidden normalization, so the central claim is heuristic; still worth a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09194 v2 pith:YDQBITCC submitted 2019-08-24 gr-qc hep-th

Jasel Berra-Montiel This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qchep-th PACS 03.70+k04.60.Pp03.65.Db

keywords polymerrepresentationWignerfunctionaldeformationquantizationscalarfieldGaussianmeasureloopquantumgravityGNSconstructionFock

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper aims to show that the polymer representation of a real massive scalar field — the non-regular quantization used for matter in background-independent approaches to quantum gravity — can be reached from the standard Schrödinger representation by a limiting procedure on Wigner functionals. In the momentum polarization, taking the inverse covariance to zero collapses the Gaussian Wigner functional to $\delta_{\pi,-v}$; in the field polarization, taking the covariance to zero gives $\delta_{\phi,u}$. Each limiting functional factorizes over Fourier modes into the A- and B-polymer Wigner functions of one-dimensional polymer quantum mechanics. If the derivation holds, it gives a phase-space route to polymer field theory and connects algebraic quantization with Wigner-function methods.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Gaussian Wigner functional $\rho(\pi,\phi)=\int D\phi'\, \Psi[\phi+\phi'/2]\Psi[\phi-\phi'/2]\, e^{-i\langle\phi',\pi\rangle} e^{-\langle\phi,C^{-1}\phi\rangle-\frac14\langle\phi',C^{-1}\phi'\rangle}$ on $L^2(\mathcal S'(\mathbb R^3),d\mu_C)$. Its Gaussian factors in $\phi$ and $\pi$ are controlled by the covariance $C$; taking $C^{-1}\to0$ or $C\to0$ in the weak sense collapses the exponentials to delta functionals. The Fourier-mode decomposition then shows each mode is separately a one-dimensional Gaussian-measure Wigner function with the mode frequency $\omega_k$ playing the role of $1/d^2$, so the substitution $\omega_k\to\omega_k/d^2$ followed by $1/d\to0$ reproduces, mode by mode, the A- and B-polymer Wigner functions of the Bohr-compactified line.

What would settle it

Evaluate the Weyl expectation value $\langle \hat S(u,v)\rangle$ in the state whose Wigner functional is $\prod_k \delta_{\pi_k,-v_k}$ and compare it with the GNS/Fock polymer-state expectation value from the algebraic construction; any discrepancy for a single Weyl element would show the limiting functional is not the polymer representation. A complementary check is to compute the integral of a compactly supported phase-space observable against the limiting measure and verify finiteness and agreement with the algebraic state.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the polymer Wigner functional of a real massive scalar field is not a separate construction but the weak limit of the ordinary Gaussian Wigner functional. Starting from the Stratonovich–Weyl quantizer on $L^2(\mathcal S'(\mathbb R^3), d\mu_C)$ with $C=(-\Delta+m^2)^{-1/2}$, the Wigner functional for the fundamental state $\Psi_\pi$ is $\rho_\pi(\pi,\phi)= e^{-\langle\phi,C^{-1}\phi\rangle} e^{-\langle v+\pi, C(v+\pi)\rangle}$. Letting $C^{-1}\to 0$ weakly sends this to $\delta_{\pi,-v}$, and letting $C\to 0$ weakly in the field-polarization analogue sends $\rho_\phi$ to $\delta_{\phi,u}$. Writing the $\pi$-polarization in Fourier modes and substituting $\omega_k\to\omega_k/d^2$, the limit $1/d\to0$ turns each mode factor into the one-dimensional A-polymer Wigner function, so the full functional is $\prod_k \delta_{\pi_k,-v_k}$. The paper concludes that this limiting object is exactly the polymer representation obtained by GNS construction and Fock quantization; the $\phi$-polarization similarly factors into B-polymer functions.

Load-bearing premise

The argument hinges on the assumption that the infinite product over momentum modes of the limiting delta functionals is a well-defined Wigner functional on the polymer Hilbert space, so that the per-mode limit and the infinite product can be interchanged; if this formal step fails, the identification with the GNS/Fock polymer representation is only heuristic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The polymer representation of the scalar field can be studied with phase-space tools: expectation values of Weyl-ordered operators become integrals against the limiting delta-functional Wigner distribution.
Scalar network functions supported on a finite vertex set acquire the explicit Wigner functional $\prod_{x_j\in V}\delta_{\pi(x_j),-v_j}$, so the polymer configuration space appears as functions on the Bohr compactification of the real line.
The translation invariance of the vacuum Wigner functional in the $1/d\to0$ or $C^{-1}\to0$ limit ties polymer representations to non-regular representations that escape the usual Stone–von Neumann uniqueness theorem.
The same Gaussian-measure limiting strategy is claimed to extend to generic field theories, giving a deformation-quantization handle on ultraviolet divergences in semiclassical polymer quantum field theory.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the per-mode interchange is legitimate in a rigorous topology, the construction would yield explicit Wigner functionals for polymer states on curved or background-independent geometries, where the Gaussian covariance would be chosen from the background; this is an extension the paper does not carry out.
The weak-limit mechanism suggests a general recipe: any representation obtained by a singular covariance limit of a Gaussian measure should have a Wigner functional given by products of one-dimensional delta distributions, which could be tested against independently constructed polymer representations of other fields.
A concrete check would be to compute the Moyal star product of two polymer Wigner functionals in the limiting algebra; if the star product is ill-defined on the delta-functionals, the deformation-quantization description may require smeared observables rather than pointwise fields.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a plausible and honest piece, but the headline result is only formal. The per-mode polymer Wigner functional appears in Eq. (63) essentially by inspection: after scaling omega_k -> omega_k/d^2, each Gaussian factor in (62) becomes exactly the one-mode Wigner function (18), so taking 1/d -> 0 gives the A-polymer product. That observation is clear and new for field theory. The finite-vertex expression (65) is also a clean, well-defined object and is the most trustworthy part of the paper.

The soft spot is the limit itself. For a single mode, the Wigner function in (18) is 2 exp(-q^2/d^2) exp(-d^2(p+v)^2). As d -> infinity, this approaches zero in the ordinary distributional topology on R^2; it only becomes a Kronecker delta if you pass to the Bohr-compactified line and treat p as discrete. The same issue appears in Eq. (59): the Gaussian exp(-) is unnormalized, so its distributional limit is zero, not delta_{pi,-v}. To get a delta you need the determinant prefactor (det C)^{1/2}, which in an N-mode truncation scales like d^N. That prefactor is not written in (59) or (62), and the text itself calls the step a formal limit. Consequently, prod_k delta_{pi_k,-v_k} in Eq. (63) is not a distribution on S'(R^3); it can only be interpreted as a cylindrical measure on Bohr-compactified configurations. Without specifying that topology and the normalization, the identification with the GNS/Fock representation is a conjecture, not a derivation.

Is that fatal? Not really. The matching to the polymer representation of the scalar field was already established by algebraic methods ([4], [32]), so the author is not claiming a new representation, just a phase-space description. The QM polymer Wigner functions from [16] are on solid ground, and reducing the field-theoretic functional to a product of those is transparent. The issue is that the paper sells the limiting step as well defined when it is only a heuristic. That overstatement is fixable.

I'd send this to peer review; it is a reasonable methodological contribution that would benefit from a referee request to clarify the topology and normalization, or to reframe the limit as motivation and make the finite-vertex result the main construction. Who gets value: people working on deformation quantization and polymer QFT, not the broader LQG community. It is a citable reference for the Wigner-functional picture, but I would not build a rigorous argument on it.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper aims to derive the polymer Wigner functional for a real massive scalar field within deformation quantization. It first reviews the polymer representation of quantum mechanics as a limit of Gaussian-weighted Schrödinger representations, obtaining A- and B-polymer Wigner functions. It then generalizes the Stratonovich–Weyl quantizer and Wigner functional to the field-theoretic setting using a Gaussian measure with covariance C = (−Δ + m²)^{−1/2}. The central claim is that taking weak covariance limits C^{-1}→0 and C→0 yields Wigner functionals ρ_π^poly = δ_{π,−v} and ρ_ϕ^poly = δ_{ϕ,u} (Eqs. (60)–(61)), which factor into infinite products of per-mode polymer Wigner functions (Eq. (63)) and reproduce the polymer representation obtained earlier by GNS construction and Fock quantization.

Significance. If the limiting procedure can be made mathematically precise, the paper would provide a useful phase-space bridge between deformation quantization and polymer quantum field theory, complementing existing algebraic treatments. The explicit formulas for the polymer Wigner functionals of the scalar field, and their reduction to the known GNS/Fock results, are a potentially valuable contribution to the LQG/LQC literature. The paper is clearly structured and the algebraic steps are presented in a self-contained way, although they rely substantially on the author's prior work [16].

major comments (4)

[§4, Eqs. (59)–(60)] The claimed convergence e^{−⟨v+π, C(v+π)⟩} → δ_{π,−v} as C^{-1}→0 is not a distributional limit on the field phase space S'(R³). Already for one mode, the Wigner function from Eq. (18) behaves as 2 e^{−q²/d²} e^{−d²(p+v)²}; as d→∞, its integral against any Schwartz test function tends to zero because the mass spreads in q, while the pointwise limit is the indicator of {p = −v}. To interpret this as a Kronecker delta one must pass to the Bohr-compactified topology as in Eqs. (25)–(26), and the normalization must be fixed by the determinant prefactor that converts the shrinking Gaussian into a delta. The manuscript does not specify this topology or normalization, and the text itself calls the step a formal limit. This is the load-bearing step of the paper, so it needs to be made precise.
[§4, Eq. (63)] The infinite product ∏_k δ_{π_k,−v_k} is not a well-defined distribution on S'(R³). A product over an uncountable or even countable set of Dirac deltas requires a cylindrical-measure or Bohr-compactified construction to be meaningful. The interchange of the per-mode limit 1/d→0 with the infinite product, and with the functional integral in Eq. (53), is not justified. Without such justification, the identification of the limiting object with the GNS/Fock polymer representation remains heuristic rather than established. The paper should either prove this interchange in a suitable topology or state explicitly that the result is a cylindrical measure on the Bohr compactification and verify that its moments match the GNS state.
[§4, Eq. (65)] The finite-vertex-set formula ρ_{π,V}^{poly} = ∏_{x_j∈V} δ_{π(x_j),−v_j} is plausible and consistent with cylindrical functions, but it is not enough to prove equivalence with the polymer representation of the full Weyl algebra. The paper does not compute expectation values of arbitrary Weyl elements with respect to the limiting Wigner functional and compare them with the positive linear functional of the GNS construction. Adding such a comparison, at least for cylindrical observables, would substantiate the central claim that the limiting object is the polymer representation of the scalar field.
[§3, Eq. (53)] The functional integral defining the Wigner functional is formal: the measure Dϕ' is not defined, and the normalization of ρ(π,ϕ) is not specified. For the main result, the normalization matters because the determinant prefactor in the Gaussian integration is precisely what converts the shrinking Gaussian into a delta in the limit. The manuscript should either provide a rigorous definition of the functional integral, for example via finite-dimensional truncations and cylindrical measures, or clearly state the normalization convention and show that the omitted prefactor is exactly the one needed for the delta normalization.

minor comments (5)

[§2, Eq. (23)–(24)] The notation δ_{p,−v} and δ_{q,u} is used without defining whether these are Kronecker deltas on the Bohr compactification or distributional deltas on R; the subsequent discussion in Eqs. (25)–(26) clarifies this, but a remark at the first occurrence would help.
[§3, Eq. (32)] The theorem is spelled 'Bochner-Minlo' in the text; the standard spelling is 'Bochner-Minlos'.
[Throughout] There are several typographical errors, e.g., 'satistying', 'background-independet', 'Schr odinger', 'mesaure', 'precicely', and the metric signature in the text η = diag(+1,+1,+1,−1) is written with four spatial signs; these should be corrected.
[§4, Eq. (62)–(63)] The substitution ω_k ↦ ω_k/d² is introduced after Eq. (62) without specifying the dimension or role of d in the field-theoretic context; since d is later identified with the polymer scale, a comment connecting it to the lattice spacing or the polymer parameter would improve clarity.
[§4, last paragraph before Conclusions] The statement that the vacuum Wigner functional is invariant under translations 'can be verified by a straightforward calculation' is not shown; providing the explicit computation would strengthen the connection to the generalized Stone–von Neumann theorem.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the field-level polymer Wigner functional is obtained by an explicit Gaussian limit and independently matched to GNS/Fock results.

full rationale

The paper's derivation has three load-bearing pieces: the one-dimensional A/B-polymer Wigner functions in Eqs. (23)-(24), imported from [15], [16], and [23]; the field-theoretic Wigner functional in Eq. (53) computed from the Gaussian Schrödinger measure; and the formal mode-by-mode limit in Eqs. (62)-(63), which assembles the field-level polymer Wigner functional as a product of the one-dimensional objects. None of these steps fits a parameter, uses the target representation as its own input, or rests on a uniqueness theorem supplied by self-citation. The identification of the limiting object with the polymer representation is checked against the independent GNS/Fock constructions of [32] and [33], which are not by the author. The self-citation [16] supplies the one-dimensional deformation-quantization language, but that input is also supported by [15] and [23], and the field-level claim is supported by the explicit computations (59)-(63) together with [32] and [33]. The acknowledged formal character of the delta-function and infinite-product limits is a mathematical-rigor concern rather than a circularity, because no fitted value or target-equivalent assumption is hidden in the limit. Therefore no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on the chosen Gaussian measure (a standard Fock vacuum assumption) and on two formal steps that are not rigorously justified: the mode-by-mode limit and the status of the infinite product of deltas. There are no new physical entities.

free parameters (1)

d (polymer scaling parameter) = not fitted; taken to 0 or infinity in limits
Introduced in Eq. (63) via the substitution omega_k to omega_k/d^2 to recast each mode's Wigner function into the one-dimensional polymer form; not a fitted constant, but a hand-chosen scaling parameter whose limit defines the polymer representation.

assumptions (5)

standard math Bochner-Minlos theorem guarantees existence of the Gaussian measure dmu_C with covariance C = (-Delta + m^2)^(-1/2) on S'(R^3).
Invoked in Eq. (32) to justify the characteristic functional chi(f).
domain assumption The Gaussian measure dmu_C corresponds to the Fock vacuum of the free scalar field.
Cited to [27],[28]; this identification is needed for the Wigner functional (53) to describe the standard field theory.
domain assumption The Wigner functional (53) is meaningfully defined via formal functional integration over Dphi'.
The integral is not rigorously defined; it is a formal manipulation standard in physics.
ad hoc to paper The weak limits C^{-1} to 0 and C to 0 can be interchanged with the Fourier mode decomposition and the functional integral.
The paper assumes the mode-by-mode limit in Eqs. (62)-(63) yields the correct limiting Wigner functional; no proof is given.
ad hoc to paper The infinite product of Dirac deltas product_k delta_{pi_k,-v_k} is a legitimate object representing the polymer Wigner functional.
The paper identifies this formal product with the polymer representation but does not establish its measure-theoretic status.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Polymer representation for the scalar field: A Wigner functional approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YDQBITCC

@misc{pith2026190809194,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Polymer representation for the scalar field: A Wigner functional approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YDQBITCC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09194}
}

read the original abstract

In this paper, we analyze the polymer representation of the real-valued scalar field theory within the deformation quantization formalism. Specifically, we obtain the polymer Wigner functional by taking the limit of Gaussian measures in the Schodinger representation. The limiting functional corresponds to the polymer representation derived by using algebraic methods such as the GNS construction, and the Fock quantization procedure.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[4]

Polymer and Fock representations for a Scalar field

A. Ashtekar, J. Lewandowski and H. Sahlmann, Polymer and Fock representations for a Scalar ﬁeld , Class. Quantum Grav. 20, L11 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0211012

work page Pith review arXiv 2003
[32]

Polymer-Fourier quantization of the scalar field revisited

A. Garcia–Chung and J. D. Vergara, Polymer-Fourier quantization of the scalar ﬁeld revisited , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 31, 1650166 (2016), arXiv:1606.07406

work page Pith review arXiv 2016
[16]

Polymer Quantum Mechanics as a Deformation Quantization

J. Berra-Montiel and A. Molgado, Polymer quantum mechanics as a deformation quantization , Class. Quantum Grav. 36, 025001 (2019), arXiv:1805.05943 [gr-qc]

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[1]

Rovelli, Quantum Gravity , (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004)

C. Rovelli, Quantum Gravity , (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004)

work page 2004
[2]

Thiemann, Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity , (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007)

T. Thiemann, Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity , (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007)

work page 2007
[3]

Ashtekar and J

A. Ashtekar and J. Lewandowski, Background independent quantum gravity: a status report , Class. Quantum Grav. 21, R53 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0404018

arXiv 2004
[5]

Rovelli, Black hole entropy from loop quantum gravity , Phys

C. Rovelli, Black hole entropy from loop quantum gravity , Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3288âĂŞ91 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9603063

arXiv 1996
[6]

Ashtekar, J

A. Ashtekar, J. Baez, A. Corichi and K. Krasnov, Quantum geometry and black hole entropy , Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 904–7 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9710007

arXiv 1996

Show all 38 references

[7]

Domagala and J

M. Domagala and J. Lewandowski, Black-hole entropy from quantum geometry , Class. Quantum Grav. 21, 5233–43 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0407051

2004 arXiv
[8]

Bojowald, Loop quantum cosmology, Living Rev

M. Bojowald, Loop quantum cosmology, Living Rev. Relativ. 8, 11 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0601085

2005 arXiv
[9]

Bojowald, Quantum nature of cosmological bounces , Gen

M. Bojowald, Quantum nature of cosmological bounces , Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 40, 2659–83 (2008), arXiv:0801.4001

2008 arXiv
[10]

Agullo and P

I. Agullo and P. Singh, Loop quantum cosmology: a brief review 100 years of General R elativity, (Loop Quantum Gravity: the First 30 years vol 4) ed. A. Ashtek ar and J. Pullin (Singapore: World Scientiﬁc, 2017)

2017
[11]

Ashtekar, An Introduction to Loop Quantum Gravity through Cosmology , Nuevo Cim

A. Ashtekar, An Introduction to Loop Quantum Gravity through Cosmology , Nuevo Cim. B 122, 135 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0702030

2007 arXiv
[12]

Bayen, M

F. Bayen, M. Flato, C. Fronsda, A. Lichnerowicz and D. St ernheimer, Deformation theory and quantization I. Deformations of symplectic structures , Ann. Phys. 111, 61–110 (1978)

1978
[13]

Bayen, M

F. Bayen, M. Flato, C. Fronsdal, A. Lichnerowicz and D. S ternheimer, Deformation theory and quantization. II. Physical applications , Ann. Phys. 111, 111–51 (1978)

1978
[14]

Waldmann, Recent Developments in Deformation Quantization , in: F

S. Waldmann, Recent Developments in Deformation Quantization , in: F. Finster, J. Kleiner, C. R ¨ken and J. Tolksdorf, (eds) Quantum Mathematical Physics, ( Birkh¨ auser, Cham, 2016), arXiv:1502.00097

2016 arXiv
[15]

Corichi, T

A. Corichi, T. Vukasinac and J. A. Zapata, Polymer quantum mechanics and its continuum limit , Phys. Rev. D 76, 044016 (2007), arXiv:0704.0007 [gr-qc]

2007 arXiv
[17]

D¨ utsch and K

M. D¨ utsch and K. Fredenhagen, Perturbative Algebraic Field Theory, and Deformation Quantization, Field Int. Commun. 30, 151 (2001), arXiv:hep-th/0101079

2001 arXiv
[18]

L. A. Takhtajan, Quantum Mechanics for Mathematicians , Graduate Studies in Mathematics vol 95, (Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 2008) . The Polymer representation for the scalar ﬁeld: A Wigner fun ctional approach 17

2008
[19]

F. Strocchi, An Introduction to the Mathematical Structure of Quantum Me chanics: a Short Course for Mathematicians , Advanced Series in Mathematical Physics vol 28, (Singapor e: World Scientiﬁc, 2008)

2008
[20]

Reed and B

M. Reed and B. Simon, Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics , Functional Analysis vol I, 2nd edn (San Diego, CA: Academic, 1980)

1980
[21]

Garc ´ ıa-Compean, J

H. Garc ´ ıa-Compean, J. F. Plebansky, M. Przanowski and F. J. Turrubiates, Deformation quantization of classical ﬁelds , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 16, 2533–58 (2001), arXiv:hep-th/9909206

2001 arXiv
[22]

C. K. Zachos, D. B. Fairlie and T. L. Curtright, Quantum Mechanics in Phase Space: An Overview with Selected Papers , World Scientiﬁc Series in 20th Century Physics vol 34, (Sin gapore: World Scientiﬁc, 2005)

2005
[23]

C. J. Fewester, H. Sahlmann, Phase space quantization and loop quantum cosmology: a Wigner function for the Bohr-compactiﬁed real line , Class. Quantum Grav. 25 225015, (2008), arXiv:0804.2541 [math-ph]

2008 arXiv
[24]

Glimm and A

J. Glimm and A. Jaﬀe, Quantum Physics, A Functional Integral Point of View , (Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1987)

1987
[25]

Gelfand and N

I. Gelfand and N. Vilenkin, Generalized functions: Integral Geometry and Representat ion Theory vol 5, (New York: Academic Press, 1966)

1966
[26]

Asorey, A concise introduction to quantum ﬁeld theory , Int

M. Asorey, A concise introduction to quantum ﬁeld theory , Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 16 1940005 (2019)

2019
[27]

Corichi, J

A. Corichi, J. Cortez and H. Quevedo, Schr¨ odinger and Fock representation for a ﬁeld theory on curved spacetime, Ann. Phys. 313 446 (2004)

2004
[28]

Corichi, J

A. Corichi, J. Cortez and H. Quevedo, On the Schr¨ odinger Representation for a Scalar Field on Curved Spacetime, Phys. Rev. D 66 085025 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0207088

2002 arXiv
[29]

J. C. Baez, I. E. Segal, and Z. F. Zhou, Introduction to Algebraic and Constructive Quantum Field Theory, (Princeton University Press, 1992)

1992
[30]

Velinho, Canonical Quantization of the Scalar Field: The Measure The oretic Perspective, Adv

J. Velinho, Canonical Quantization of the Scalar Field: The Measure The oretic Perspective, Adv. in Math. Phys. 2015, 608940 (2015)

2015
[31]

Zachos and T

C. Zachos and T. Curtright, Phase-Space Quantization of Field Theory , Prog. Theor. Phys. Supp. 135, 244–258 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9903254

1999 arXiv
[33]

G. M. Hossain, V. Husain and S. S. Seahra, Propagator in polymer quantum ﬁeld theory , Phys. Rev. D bf 82, 124032 (2010), arXiv:1007.5500

2010 arXiv
[34]

J. M. Mour˜ ao, T. Thiemann and J. M. Velinho, Physical properties of quantum ﬁeld theory measures, J. Math. Phys. 40 2337 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9711139

1999 arXiv
[35]

Ashtekar and J

A. Ashtekar and J. Lewandowski, Quantum theory of geometry: I. Area operators , Class. Quantum Grav. A 14, 55 (1997), arXiv:gr-qc/9602046

1997 arXiv
[36]

Ashtekar and J

A. Ashtekar and J. Lewandowski, Quantum theory of geometry: II. Volume operators , Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 1, 388 (1997), arXiv:gr-qc/9711031

1997 arXiv
[37]

Rovelli and L

C. Rovelli and L. Smolin, Spin networks and quantum gravity , Phys. Rev. D 52, 5743 (1995), arXiv:gr-qc/9505006

1995 arXiv
[38]

Cavallaro, G

S. Cavallaro, G. Morchio and F. Strocchi, A Generalization of the Stone–von Neumann Theorem to Nonregular Representations of the CCR–Algebra , Lett. Math. Phys. 47, 307 (1999)

1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [4]

Polymer and Fock representations for a Scalar field

A. Ashtekar, J. Lewandowski and H. Sahlmann, Polymer and Fock representations for a Scalar ﬁeld , Class. Quantum Grav. 20, L11 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0211012

work page Pith review arXiv 2003

[2] [32]

Polymer-Fourier quantization of the scalar field revisited

A. Garcia–Chung and J. D. Vergara, Polymer-Fourier quantization of the scalar ﬁeld revisited , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 31, 1650166 (2016), arXiv:1606.07406

work page Pith review arXiv 2016

[3] [16]

Polymer Quantum Mechanics as a Deformation Quantization

J. Berra-Montiel and A. Molgado, Polymer quantum mechanics as a deformation quantization , Class. Quantum Grav. 36, 025001 (2019), arXiv:1805.05943 [gr-qc]

work page Pith review arXiv 2019

[4] [1]

Rovelli, Quantum Gravity , (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004)

C. Rovelli, Quantum Gravity , (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004)

work page 2004

[5] [2]

Thiemann, Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity , (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007)

T. Thiemann, Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity , (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007)

work page 2007

[6] [3]

Ashtekar and J

A. Ashtekar and J. Lewandowski, Background independent quantum gravity: a status report , Class. Quantum Grav. 21, R53 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0404018

arXiv 2004

[7] [5]

Rovelli, Black hole entropy from loop quantum gravity , Phys

C. Rovelli, Black hole entropy from loop quantum gravity , Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3288âĂŞ91 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9603063

arXiv 1996

[8] [6]

Ashtekar, J

A. Ashtekar, J. Baez, A. Corichi and K. Krasnov, Quantum geometry and black hole entropy , Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 904–7 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9710007

arXiv 1996