Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 28 references

Geometrical Quantum Time in the $U(1)^3$ Model of Euclidean Quantum Gravity

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In the $U(1)^3$ model of Euclidean quantum gravity, the Hamiltonian constraint can be rewritten as a discrete relative-time evolution and, in the continuous limit, as a Schrödinger-like equation with an explicitly self-adjoint time…

desk verdict Discrete relative-time equation is a genuine new result, but the continuum Schrödinger equation rests on an unjustified identification of Q with t_v, so the main claim fails as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19435 v1 pith:VZQHAIYD submitted 2024-11-29 gr-qc hep-th

Sepideh Bakhoda , Yongge Ma This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-th
keywords U(1)^3modelloopquantumgravityHamiltonianconstrainttimerelationalformalismfluxrepresentationSchrödinger-likeequationdiscrete
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

The paper seeks to establish that, in the $U(1)^3$ model—a simplified gauge theory sharing background independence and general covariance with general relativity—the quantum Hamiltonian constraint can be rearranged into a discrete time evolution of quantum states. In a continuous limit, this becomes a Schrödinger-like equation whose physical states can be written out explicitly. The time variable is not added by hand: it is a gauge-invariant combination of flux variables that is conjugate to the holonomy component isolated from the constraint. Because the corresponding time operator is self-adjoint, the model offers a concrete example of how a quantum notion of time could emerge from geometry inside a background-independent quantization.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the isolated holonomy $\hat{h}^1_{\alpha_{xy}}$ around a loop formed by two graph edges and one auxiliary edge. In the flux representation this holonomy becomes a translation by the integer $Q$ in the flux variable $t_v=u^1_x+u^1_y+u^1_{xy}$, which is conjugate to the holonomy through $\{\hat{h}^1_{\alpha_{xy}}, t_v\}=Q\,\hat{h}^1_{\alpha_{xy}}$. The constraint equation then becomes a discrete second difference in $t_v$; dividing by $Q^2$ and taking the continuous limit turns it into a second-order equation, and restricting to the negative spectral subspace of $\hat{M}(v)$ allows the square root that produces the first-order Schrödinger-like equation. The exponential of the unbounded self-adjoint operator is defined on its analytic vectors, which is what makes the explicit physical states (4.24) meaningful.

What would settle it

Compute the action of the original discrete constraint (4.9) on the proposed physical states (4.24) for finite $Q$; if the remainder does not vanish as $Q\to 0$, or if the limit forces $\hat{M}(v)$ to scale as $Q^2$ while no such scaling is present, the continuous Schrödinger-like equation is not the continuum form of the constraint. Concretely, one can check whether the second-difference operator in (4.18) converges to the claimed derivative on states with sharp flux support, and whether the positive-spectrum components of $\hat{M}(v)$ can be excluded without changing the physical Hilbert space.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in the $U(1)^3$ model the Hamiltonian constraint can be recast—after isolating one holonomy component $\hat{h}^1_{\alpha_{xy}}$ and moving to the flux representation—as a discrete relative-time evolution equation (Eq. 4.17) at each graph vertex. Taking the continuous limit by identifying the integer step $Q$ with the time variable $t_v$ gives the Schrödinger-like equation $-i\,\partial\psi/\partial t_v \approx \hat{H}(v)\,\psi/|t_v|$ (Eq. 4.21), whose physical states are $|\psi\rangle_P = e^{\pm i\,\ln|t_v|\,\hat{H}(v)}\,\psi_0$ (Eq. 4.24). The time parameter $t_v$ is a gauge-invariant flux sum, and its quantum operator $\hat{t}_v = \hat{E}^1(S_x)+\hat{E}^1(S_{xy})+\hat{E}^1(S_y)$ is self-adjoint with discrete integer eigenvalues $Q$; states with zero time are those on which the Hamiltonian constraint has not yet acted. The model therefore provides a worked example of geometrical quantum time inside constrained-system quantization, complementary to reduced-phase-space approaches.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation depends on replacing the discrete integer step $Q$ by the continuous time variable $t_v$ in the second-difference equation; if this identification is not a valid continuum limit, the Schrödinger-like equation and its physical states do not follow from the Hamiltonian constraint.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Hamiltonian constraint of the $U(1)^3$ model can be written as a discrete relative time evolution equation, Eq. (4.17), at each vertex of the charge network.
  • In the continuous limit it becomes the Schrödinger-like equation (4.21) with time-dependent Hamiltonian $\hat{H}(v)/|t_v|$ and explicit solutions (4.24).
  • The time variable emerges from geometry: it is a gauge-invariant flux sum $t_v = E^1(S_x)+E^1(S_{xy})+E^1(S_y)$, conjugate to the isolated holonomy.
  • The time operator is self-adjoint with discrete integer eigenvalues $Q$, and zero time is assigned to states not yet acted on by the Hamiltonian constraint.
  • The construction can be extended to an almost diffeomorphism-invariant Hilbert space $H_{np3}$, where the regulator can be naturally removed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this toy-model construction is taken as a template, the same isolate-a-holonomy-and-read-its-conjugate-flux-as-time move could be attempted on other background-independent systems whose constraints are linear in momenta; the paper notes the full non-Abelian theory is considerably more complex, so the template would need a new idea.
  • The discreteness of the time operator's eigenvalues suggests that in this quantization time is an integer-valued observable, a concrete structural prediction for any extended version of the model.
  • It remains unproven that choosing a different loop $\alpha_{ab}$ as the clock leads to unitarily equivalent physical Hilbert spaces; the paper argues the choice is arbitrary but does not demonstrate equivalence, so this is a testable open question.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper studies the U(1)^3 model as a simplified testbed for loop quantum gravity. After constructing a Thiemann-type regulated Hamiltonian constraint operator (Section 3), the authors isolate one holonomy component of the constraint and, in a flux representation, rewrite the resulting equation as a discrete evolution equation in a variable t_v built from flux variables (Eqs. (4.15)-(4.17)). They then claim a "continuous limit" in which the discrete step Q is identified with the time variable t_v, obtaining a Schrödinger-like equation (4.21), whose solutions are written as exponentials of a Hamiltonian H(v) (Eq. (4.24)). The paper further defines a quantum time operator (4.28), asserts its self-adjointness, and claims its eigenvalues are the integers Q, so that time is discrete at the quantum level. The central physical claim is that this procedure yields a geometrical quantum time emerging from the Hamiltonian constraint.

Significance. If the central derivation were sound, the paper would offer a concrete example of a relational time extracted from a quantum Hamiltonian constraint in a background-independent setting, with a self-adjoint time operator and explicit physical states. The construction of the regulated constraint and the discrete equation (4.17) are useful steps, and the paper is careful about domains of the exponential map and the unboundedness of H(v). However, the main new result—the continuum Schrödinger-like equation and its physical states—rests on an uncontrolled replacement of the discrete label Q by the continuous variable t_v. Since this identification is not derived from the theory, the central claim is not presently supported. The paper does provide a clear derivation of the discrete equation, which could be a starting point for further work, but the advertised continuum time evolution does not follow as written.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2, Eqs. (4.18)-(4.19)] The transition from the exact discrete equation (4.18) to the approximate continuum equation (4.19) is not a controlled limit. In (4.18), Q is the fixed integer charge label of the newly added edge e_xy, introduced in Section 4.1 and stated to be arbitrary. The left-hand side is a discrete second difference with step Q, not a derivative with a vanishing step. Sending Q to 0 would make the right-hand side M(v)/Q^2 diverge unless M(v) itself scales as Q^2, and no such scaling is argued. The paper instead replaces Q^2 by t_v^2 because Q is "restricted to the values that t_v is permitted to assume," but t_v = u_x^1+u_xy^1+u_y^1 is a continuous flux variable in the flux representation, and on generic charge-network states its eigenvalue is a sum of three flux eigenvalues that need not equal Q. Thus Eqs. (4.19), (4.20), and (4.21), and the physical states (4.24), do not follow from the Hamiltonian constraint (3.20)/(4.9).
  2. [§4.3, Eq. (4.30)] The eigenvalue statement (4.30), "t_v |T_c> = Q |T_c>," is inconsistent with the definition (4.15) and with the flux representation used in Section 4.1. The variable t_v is the sum u_x^1 + u_xy^1 + u_y^1, while Q is the arbitrarily chosen first component of the label of the added edge e_xy. For a generic charge network state, the flux eigenvalues u_x^1, u_xy^1, u_y^1 are determined by the pre-existing charges and the added edge label; there is no reason for their sum to equal Q. Consequently, the discreteness of time is not an output of the quantization; it is an input imposed by identifying the arbitrary label Q with the time variable. The self-adjointness of the operator (4.28) is not affected, but the claimed spectral discreteness and the associated physical interpretation are unsupported.
  3. [§4.2, Eqs. (4.20)-(4.21)] The square-root step leading to Eq. (4.21) is performed only on the negative spectral subspace of M(v), with the restriction stated in the text. This is acknowledged by the authors, but it means that the proposed physical Hilbert space (4.27) is built from a subspace that is not characterized in terms of the original charge network data. In particular, the paper does not show that the negative spectral subspace is non-empty for the U(1)^3 model, nor does it explain how the restriction is compatible with the claim that the physical states (4.24) satisfy the original constraint. This is a load-bearing gap in the construction of the physical Hilbert space, even setting aside the continuum-limit issue above.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Throughout] The name "Schrödinger" is consistently misspelled as "Shrödinger" in the abstract, introduction, and Section 4; this should be corrected.
  2. [Section 2] There are several typographical errors, including "detonoted" (page 3), "independant" (page 4), and "New Yord" in reference [27]; the reference list would benefit from a careful proofread.
  3. [Eq. (3.9)] In the third line of Eq. (3.9), the term "h_J(A^j)" appears where the notation established in the paper would suggest "h^j_J"; please clarify the intended expression.
  4. [§4.1, Eq. (4.1)] The assumption H^{xy}_1(v) ≠ 0 is described as "without loss of generality," but no argument is given that at least one H^{ab}_i(v) is nonvanishing for every allowed vertex v; the text should justify this genericity assumption or state it as an additional condition.
  5. [§4.2, Eq. (4.24)] The exponentials in (4.24) are defined on analytic vectors of H(v), as discussed, but the paper does not prove that the initial states ψ_0 of interest belong to the analytic domain of the unbounded operator H(v); a brief comment on this domain issue would be helpful.
  6. [§4.2, after Eq. (4.21)] The phrase "the arbitrary variable Q ... is restricted to the values that t_v is permitted to assume" is a key step in the derivation, but it is not justified in the text; it should either be derived from the spectral analysis of t_v or removed.
  7. [Section 5] The claim that the analysis can be extended to an "almost diffeomorphism invariant Hilbert space" H_{np3} is made without construction or proof; this is more of a research program than a result of the present paper.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The continuous limit in Eqs. (4.18)-(4.19) identifies the arbitrary charge label Q with the time variable t_v, so the Schrödinger-like equation and the physical states (4.24) restate an input rather than deriving time from the constraint.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.2, between Eqs. (4.18) and (4.19)]
    "As we will demonstrate subsequently, the variable t_v possesses a quantum counterpart whose eigenvalues are precisely Q ∈ Z. Consequently, the arbitrary variable Q in the left hand side of (4.18) is restricted to the values that t_v is permitted to assume. Therefore, if we seek to approximate the aforementioned equation in the continuous limit, we obtain"

    Eq. (4.18) is a discrete second-difference identity with step Q, where Q was introduced in Section 4.1 as the arbitrary first-component charge label of the added edge: 'Q ∈ Z is the first component of the label of the newly added edge e_xy and is arbitrary.' The passage does not take a limit; it declares that Q is restricted to the values t_v may assume and then replaces Q^2 by t_v^2 in Eq. (4.19). This is an identification of the discrete step with the continuous time variable, not a limiting procedure, and it makes the continuous time parameter and its discreteness inputs rather than outputs. Sending Q to 0 would make the right-hand side of (4.18) diverge unless M(v) scaled as Q^2, which is not argued. Hence Eqs.

  2. self definitional [Section 4.3, Eq. (4.30)]
    "As previously discussed, the eigenvalues corresponding to the time operator are the values t_v, which are restricted to non-zero integers. t_v|T_c> = Q|T_c>. So time parameter is discrete in this scenario and we cannot have arbitrary value for time in quantum level."

    The eigenvalue statement is not a derived spectral result. In the flux representation t_v = u_x^1 + u_xy^1 + u_y^1, and on a charge-network state the flux operators return the charge labels already assigned to the edges; Q was fixed earlier as the arbitrary label of the added loop edge. Thus the discreteness of the time operator and the value Q are restatements of the input label, and Eq. (4.30) is then used retroactively to justify the replacement Q^2 -> t_v^2 in the continuum limit. The claimed conclusion that 'time parameter is discrete in this scenario' is therefore equivalent to the arbitrary choice of Q, closing the circle.

full rationale

The quantization of the Hamiltonian constraint and the discrete rewriting up to Eq. (4.18) are algebraic manipulations with independent content and are not circular. The circularity enters at the continuous limit: Q is an arbitrary integer label assigned to the added edge, and the paper justifies replacing Q^2 by t_v^2 by asserting that t_v has eigenvalues precisely Q and that Q is restricted to the values t_v may assume. That is a definitional identification, not a limit, and it is the load-bearing step for the Schrödinger-like equation (4.21) and the physical states (4.24), which are constructed to solve that equation. The eigenvalue claim in Eq. (4.30) similarly restates the input Q rather than deriving it from the Hamiltonian constraint. No self-citation chain is load-bearing here; the problem is the self-definitional use of Q as both the discrete step and the time variable. Score 7 reflects that the central continuum-time claim reduces to an input by construction, while the earlier discrete part of the paper remains non-circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central derivation rests on two ad hoc assumptions: the identification of the discrete charge label Q with the continuous time variable t_v in the continuum limit, and the restriction to the negative spectral subspace of M(v). The volume operator and its inverse introduce regularization-dependent constants (C_AL, alpha) whose values are not determined. The flux representation's extension to the proposed physical states is assumed. These assumptions are documented so a reader can see what the paper adds versus what it takes from prior literature.

free parameters (4)
  • Q = arbitrary integer (small value chosen by hand)
    Charge label of the added edge e_xy in Section 4.1; sets the discrete time step and is later identified with t_v in the continuum limit. The discrete time spectrum is an input.
  • C_AL = undetermined
    Overall multiplicative constant of the volume operator (2.22), fixed only by requiring diffeomorphism covariance; enters the Hamiltonian constraint via Upsilon(v) in (3.15).
  • alpha (regulator-dependent) = depends on triangulation
    Coefficient (pi/18 sqrt(3))^2 e^{-1} in the inverse-volume operator (3.9); depends on the coordinate tangents of the chosen edges, so it is not a universal constant.
  • Immirzi parameter beta = beta1=beta2=beta3=beta
    Free parameter of the model, set equal for the three U(1) factors for simplicity in Section 2; it scales all holonomy-flux brackets and operators.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Quantization rule {.,.} goes to (1/i hbar)[.,.] promotes classical brackets to commutators, used throughout Sections 3 and 4.
    Standard canonical quantization prescription.
  • standard math A dense set of analytic vectors exists for unbounded self-adjoint operators, used in Eq. (4.25) to define the exponential map.
    Cited to Reed and Simon [27].
  • domain assumption Permissible regulators exist in the sense of Ashtekar-Lewandowski [20], invoked after Eq. (2.19) for the volume operator.
    The regularization is assumed diffeomorphism covariant and background independent; details are deferred to [20].
  • domain assumption The regulated Hamiltonian constraint converges in the URS topology as epsilon goes to 0, stated after Eq. (3.18).
    The paper asserts convergence without a proof, referring to reference [1].
  • ad hoc to paper The continuum limit of the discrete equation is obtained by replacing Q^2 with t_v^2, Eqs. (4.18)-(4.19).
    This is not a standard limit; it is an ad hoc identification needed to produce the Schrödinger-like equation.
  • ad hoc to paper The square root defining H(v) is taken on the negative spectral subspace of M(v), Eq. (4.20).
    The paper restricts to states on which -2M is positive without showing they exist or are physical.
  • domain assumption The noncommutative flux representation of [23] is unitary and extends to the physical states (4.24).
    The paper relies on unitarity for cylindrical functions; the extension to non-cylindrical states is not proved.
invented entities (1)
  • Geometrical quantum time operator t_v
    purpose: Serves as a quantum clock; generates the time evolution in the Schrödinger-like equation (4.21) and is claimed to have discrete eigenvalues Q.
    Defined in Eq. (4.28) from flux operators on surfaces intersecting the added loop edges. The interpretation as time is imposed by the relational-clock choice, and no independent observable is provided. The claimed discrete spectrum (4.30) conflicts with the continuous flux variables in the flux representation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Geometrical Quantum Time in the $U(1)^3$ Model of Euclidean Quantum Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VZQHAIYD

@misc{pith2026241119435,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Geometrical Quantum Time in the $U(1)^3$ Model of Euclidean Quantum Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VZQHAIYD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19435}
}
abstract

Loop Quantum Gravity faces challenges in constructing a well-defined Hamiltonian constraint and understanding the quantum notion of time. In this paper these issues are studied by quantizing the $U(1)^3$ model, a simplified system exhibiting features similar to general relativity. By isolating a holonomy component within the Hamiltonian constraint, a discrete relative time evolution equation for quantum states is obtained. Then a Shr\"{o}dinger-like equation is derived in continuous limit. Thus the physical states solving this Shr\"{o}dinger-like equation can be written out. The emergence of the time parameter and its corresponding quantum operator are analyzed. It indicates the notion of a geometrical quantum time for quantum gravity.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity

    T. Thiemann, “ Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity ”, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007. C. Rovelli, “ Quantum Gravity ”, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004. A. Ashtekar and J. Lewandowski, “Background independent qu antum gravity: A Status re- port,” Class. Quant. Grav. 21 (2004), R53 [arXiv:gr-qc/0404018 [gr-qc]]. J. Pullin an...

    arXiv 2004

  2. [2]

    Hamiltonian Theory: Dynamic s,

    T. Thiemann and K. Giesel, “Hamiltonian Theory: Dynamic s,” [arXiv:2303.18172 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    Quantum spin dynamics (QSD),

    T. Thiemann, “Quantum spin dynamics (QSD),” Class. Quan t. Grav. 15 (1998), 839-873 [arXiv:gr-qc/9606089 [gr-qc]]. T. Thiemann, “Quantum spin dynamics (QSD): II. The kernel of the Wheeler - DeWitt con- straint operator,” Class. Quant. Grav. 15 (1998), 875-905 [arXiv:gr-qc/9606090 [gr-qc]]. T. Thiemann, “Quantum spin dynamics (QSD): III. Quantum con strain...

    arXiv 1998

  4. [4]

    Quantum spin dynamics. VIII. The Master co nstraint,

    T. Thiemann, “Quantum spin dynamics. VIII. The Master co nstraint,” Class. Quant. Grav. 23 (2006), 2249-2266 [arXiv:gr-qc/0510011 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2006

  5. [5]

    Gaussian reference fluid and interpretation of quantum ge- ometrodynamics,

    K. V. Kuchar and C. G. Torre, “Gaussian reference fluid and interpretation of quantum ge- ometrodynamics,” Phys. Rev. D 43 (1991), 419-441 J. D. Brown and K. V. Kuchar, “Dust as a standard of space and ti me in canonical quantum gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995), 5600-5629 [arXiv:gr-qc/9409001 [gr-qc]]. M. Domagala, K. Giesel, W. Kaminski and J. Lewandowski...

    arXiv 1991

  6. [6]

    Hamiltonian constraint in Euclidean LQG revisited: First hints of off-shell Closure

    A. Laddha, “Hamiltonian constraint in Euclidean LQG rev isited: First hints of off-shell Clo- sure,” [arXiv:1401.0931 [gr-qc]]. A. Ashtekar and M. Varadarajan, “Gravitational Dynamics—A Novel Shift in the Hamilto- nian Paradigm,” Universe 7 (2021) no.1, 13 [arXiv:2012.12094 [gr-qc]]. M. Varadarajan, “Euclidean LQG Dynamics: An Electric Shift in Perspective...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Canonical Quantum Gravity, Constructive QFT, and Renormalisation,

    T. Thiemann, “Canonical Quantum Gravity, Constructive QFT, and Renormalisation,” Front. in Phys. 8 (2020), 548232 [arXiv:2003.13622 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    The G(Newton) — > 0 limit of Euclidean quantum gravity,

    L. Smolin, “The G(Newton) — > 0 limit of Euclidean quantum gravity,” Class. Quant. Grav. 9 (1992), 883-894 [arXiv:hep-th/9202076 [hep-th]]. 18

    arXiv 1992

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    Parametrized Scalar Field on R X S(1): Dynami cal Pictures, Space-time Diffeo- morphisms, and Conformal Isometries,

    K. Kuchar, “Parametrized Scalar Field on R X S(1): Dynami cal Pictures, Space-time Diffeo- morphisms, and Conformal Isometries,” Phys. Rev. D 39 (1989), 1579-1593 P. Hajicek and K. V. Kuchar, “Constraint quantization of par ametrized relativistic gauge systems in curved space-t...

    1989 arXiv

  2. [10]

    General covariance, new var iables and dynamics without dy- namics,

    V. Husain and k. V. Kuchar, “General covariance, new var iables and dynamics without dy- namics,” Phys. Rev. D 42 (1990), 4070-4077 A. Laddha and M. Varadarajan, “The Diffeomorphism Constrain t Operator in Loop Quantum Gravity,” Class. Quant. Grav. 28 (2011), 195010 [arXiv:1105...

    1990 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Constraint alge bra in loop quantum gravity reloaded. I. Toy model of a U (1)3 gauge theory,

    A. Henderson, A. Laddha and C. Tomlin, “Constraint alge bra in loop quantum gravity reloaded. I. Toy model of a U (1)3 gauge theory,” Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) no.4, 044028 [arXiv:1204.0211 [gr-qc]]. A. Henderson, A. Laddha and C. Tomlin, “Constraint algebra i n loop quantum grav...

    2013 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Exact quantisation of U(1) 3 quantum gravity via exponentiation of the hyper- surface deformation algebroid,

    T. Thiemann, “Exact quantisation of U(1) 3 quantum gravity via exponentiation of the hyper- surface deformation algebroid,” Class. Quant. Grav. 40 (2023) no.24, 245003 [arXiv:2207.08302 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Reduced phase space approa ch to the U (1)3 model for Eu- clidean quantum gravity,

    S. Bakhoda and T. Thiemann, “Reduced phase space approa ch to the U (1)3 model for Eu- clidean quantum gravity,” Class. Quant. Grav. 38 (2021) no.21, 215006 [arXiv:2010.16351 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Asymptoticall y Flat Boundary Conditions for the U (1)3 Model for Euclidean Quantum Gravity,

    S. Bakhoda, H. Shojaie and T. Thiemann, “Asymptoticall y Flat Boundary Conditions for the U (1)3 Model for Euclidean Quantum Gravity,” Universe 7 (2021) no.3, 68 [arXiv:2010.16359 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Covariant origin of the U(1 )3 model for Euclidean quantum gravity,

    S. Bakhoda and T. Thiemann, “Covariant origin of the U(1 )3 model for Euclidean quantum gravity,” Class. Quant. Grav. 39 (2022) no.2, 025006 [arXiv:2011.00031 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Effective dynamics of weak coupling lo op quantum gravity,

    G. Long and Y. Ma, “Effective dynamics of weak coupling lo op quantum gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) no.4, 044043 [arXiv:2111.11844 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Gauge invariant canonical cos mological perturbation theory with geometrical clocks in extended phase-space — A review and ap plications,

    K. Giesel and A. Herzog, “Gauge invariant canonical cos mological perturbation theory with geometrical clocks in extended phase-space — A review and ap plications,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 27 (2018) no.08, 1830005 [arXiv:1712.09878 [gr-qc]]. K. Giesel, A. Herzog and P. Singh, “Ga...

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    New Variables for Classical and Quantum G ravity,

    A. Ashtekar, “New Variables for Classical and Quantum G ravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 57 (1986), 2244-2247 A. Ashtekar, “New Hamiltonian Formulation of General Relat ivity,” Phys. Rev. D 36 (1987), 1587-1602 J. F. Barbero G., “Real Ashtekar variables for Lorentzian si gnature spac...

    1986 arXiv

  11. [19]

    The U (1)3 Model of Euclidean Quantum Gravity,

    S. Bakhoda, “The U (1)3 Model of Euclidean Quantum Gravity,” PhD dissertation (202 2)

  12. [20]

    Quantum theory of geom etry. II. Volume operators,

    A. Ashtekar and J. Lewandowski, “Quantum theory of geom etry. II. Volume operators,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 1 (1998), 388-429 [arXiv:gr-qc/9711031 [gr-qc]]

    1998 arXiv

  13. [21]

    New sca lar constraint operator for loop quantum gravity,

    M. Assanioussi, J. Lewandowski and I. Mäkinen, “New sca lar constraint operator for loop quantum gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) no.4, 044042 [arXiv:1506.00299 [gr-qc]]. C. Zhang, J. Lewandowski and Y. Ma, “Towards the self-adjoin tness of a Hamiltonian operator in loop quant...

    2015 arXiv

  14. [22]

    New Hamiltonian constraint operator for loop quantum gravity,

    J. Yang and Y. Ma, “New Hamiltonian constraint operator for loop quantum gravity,” Phys. Lett. B 751 (2015), 343-347 [arXiv:1507.00986 [gr-qc]]

    2015 arXiv

  15. [23]

    No n-commutative flux representation for loop quantum gravity,

    A. Baratin, B. Dittrich, D. Oriti and J. Tambornino, “No n-commutative flux representation for loop quantum gravity,” Class. Quant. Grav. 28 (2011), 175011 [arXiv:1004.3450 [hep-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  16. [24]

    3D Quantum Gravity and Effec tive Noncommutative Quantum Field Theory,

    L. Freidel and E. R. Livine, “3D Quantum Gravity and Effec tive Noncommutative Quantum Field Theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006), 221301 [arXiv:hep-th/0512113 [hep-th]]. L. Freidel and S. Majid, “Noncommutative harmonic analysis , sampling theory and the Duflo map in 2+1 quantum...

    2006 arXiv

  17. [25]

    On the regularization ambiguities in loop qu antum gravity,

    A. Perez, “On the regularization ambiguities in loop qu antum gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006), 044007 [arXiv:gr-qc/0509118 [gr-qc]]

    2006 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Euclidean LQG Dynamics: An Electric S hift in Perspective,

    M. Varadarajan, “Euclidean LQG Dynamics: An Electric S hift in Perspective,” Class. Quant. Grav. 38 (2021) no.13, 135020 [arXiv:2101.03115 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics. II. Fourier Analys is, Self-adjointness

    M. Reed and B. Simon, “ Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics. II. Fourier Analys is, Self-adjointness”, New Yord, 1975

    1975

  20. [28]

    QUANTUM REFERENCE SYSTEMS,

    C. Rovelli, “QUANTUM REFERENCE SYSTEMS,” Class. Quant . Grav. 8 (1991), 317-332 C. Rovelli, “Time in Quantum Gravity: Physics Beyond the Sch rodinger Regime,” Phys. Rev. D 43 (1991), 442-456 C. Rovelli, “QUANTUM MECHANICS WITHOUT TIME: A MODEL,” Phys . Rev. D 42 (1990), 2638-2...

    1991 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.