Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 78 references

A state sum for four-dimensional Lorentzian quantum geometry in terms of edge vectors

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new state sum for 4d Lorentzian quantum gravity built from edge vectors expands into a combination of Barrett-Crane amplitudes.

desk verdict First explicit edge-vector state sum for 4D Lorentzian quantum gravity, worth engaging, but the central amplitude is under-specified and the Barrett–Crane link is sketched, not shown. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10115 v1 pith:6S2TTXQ6 submitted 2025-01-17 gr-qc hep-thmath-phmath.MP

Roukaya Dekhil , Matteo Laudonio , Daniele Oriti This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-thmath-phmath.MP MSC 83C2783C4581S40
keywords spinfoammodelsstatesumLorentzianquantumgravityedgevectorstranslationgrouprepresentationsexpansorsBarrett-Cranemodelnon-commutativestarproduct
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 constructs a state sum model for four-dimensional Lorentzian quantum gravity whose fundamental variables are the edge vectors of a simplicial complex, rather than the triangle bivectors used in most spin foam models. Quantum states of triangles and tetrahedra are built from irreducible representations of the translation group, identified with four-dimensional Lorentzian harmonic oscillator states, and then related to representations of the Lorentz group through expansors. The central result is that the new 4-simplex amplitude, once expanded in Lorentz-group representations, is a nontrivial combination of Barrett-Crane amplitudes, with non-commutative plane waves carrying the extra edge-vector information. If this holds, the model provides a state sum that encodes all simplicial geometric data and embeds the Barrett-Crane quantization in a more complete edge-vector framework.

What carries the argument

The central object is the quantum edge vector, represented as a function on the translation group and realized as a state of the four-dimensional Lorentzian harmonic oscillator. The bridge to the familiar spin foam language is provided by expansors, infinite-component coefficients of homogeneous polynomials on Minkowski space, which express Lorentz-group representations in terms of harmonic oscillator states. This yields non-commutative plane waves and a star product on functions of edge vectors; the 4-simplex amplitude is a star-product convolution of closure and gluing delta functions whose ordering is fixed graphically. The expansion into Lorentz representations uses the non-commutative Fourier transform on the Lorentz group to convert bivector data into $D$-matrices of the balanced series, producing the Barrett-Crane kernel $K_\mu(\eta) = \sin(\mu d_\eta)/(\mu \sinh d_\eta)$.

What would settle it

Compute the ordered star-product convolutions in Eq. (5.1.3) for a single 4-simplex with an explicit quantization map (for example normal ordering or the Duflo map); if the result diverges, changes under the choice of convolution ordering, or breaks the switching-operator invariance of the triangle states, the edge-vector state sum is not well defined. A complementary check is to take the semiclassical limit and verify that the amplitude is dominated by edge-length configurations solving the discrete Regge equations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that the state sum amplitude $A_\Gamma$ of Eq. (5.1.1), defined as an integral over edge-vector configurations with 4-simplex amplitudes built from non-commutative delta functions imposing triangle closures and edge identifications, is a valid quantum gravity amplitude. Using the expansor-based link between translation-group representations and the balanced (simple) representations $R_{0,\mu}$ of the Lorentz group, they expand the edge-vector amplitudes in Lorentz-group irreps and show that the result is a nontrivial combination of Barrett-Crane amplitudes. The demonstration is given for timelike bivectors (spacelike tetrahedra), with the timelike sector of the Barrett-Crane model recovered after integrating out the auxiliary group elements. The construction is completed by a group field theory formulation whose Feynman amplitudes are exactly the new state sums.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the non-commutative star product on edge-vector functions and the chosen ordering of the convolutions in the 4-simplex amplitude actually exist and define a finite, unambiguous amplitude; the paper specifies the ordering only through a diagram and does not explicitly compute the star product.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The new amplitudes encode the full set of simplicial geometric data (edge vectors and lengths), so no separate imposition of simplicity constraints on bivectors is needed at the level of the state sum.
  • When expanded in Lorentz representations, the model reproduces the Barrett-Crane vertex as part of a larger amplitude, with non-commutative plane waves carrying the missing edge-vector information.
  • The group field theory formulation gives a complete definition of the model, including a sum over simplicial complexes, so the standard questions of renormalization and continuum limit can be posed.
  • The edge-vector states carry enough information to reconstruct the four-dimensional normal to each tetrahedron, which bivector states lack, and this may exclude degenerate bivector geometries in the amplitudes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The explicit star product has not been computed; deriving it for a concrete quantization map and evaluating the single-4-simplex amplitude numerically would be a direct test of whether the model is finite and ordering-independent.
  • If the semiclassical limit works out, the edge-vector formulation should produce a path integral over Regge edge lengths, making contact with non-commutative discrete gravity path integrals; this is a testable extension of the paper's claims.
  • The construction suggests that the Barrett-Crane model should be understood as the bivector-sector completion of a larger edge-vector state sum, which would shift how one interprets the known issues of the Barrett-Crane vertex.
  • The expansor/harmonic-oscillator relation may allow a reformulation of the model in terms of Poincaré-group or 2-group representations, as the authors mention; constructing that reformulation explicitly would be a natural next step.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Formalized claims in Lean

  1. Claim #1: The authors claim that the state sum amplitude $A_\Gamma$ of Eq. (5.1.1), defined as an integral over edge-vector configurations with 4-simplex amplitudes built from non-commutative delta functions imposing triangle closures and edge identifications, is a valid quantum gravity amplitude. Using the expansor-based link between translation-group representations and the balanced (simple) representatio

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new state sum / group field theory model for 4d Lorentzian quantum gravity in which the fundamental geometric variables are edge vectors rather than triangle bivectors. Edge vectors are quantized through representations of the translation group, realized via Dirac expansors and the 4d Lorentzian harmonic oscillator. The paper constructs quantum triangle and tetrahedron states, writes a 4-simplex amplitude in Eq. (5.1.1)–(5.1.3) as a product of non-commutative delta functions imposing closure and gluing conditions, and claims that after expansion in Lorentz group representations the amplitude becomes a nontrivial combination of Barrett–Crane amplitudes. A GFT action is also given whose Feynman amplitudes reproduce the state sum. The central technical tool is a non-commutative star product and an associated non-commutative Fourier transform, which the paper only partially specifies.

Significance. If made fully explicit, the construction would be significant: it would give a Lorentzian spin-foam-like amplitude that directly encodes simplicial geometry in edge lengths rather than area/bivector data, potentially addressing long-standing issues of simplicity constraints and non-metricity. The paper also contributes concrete representation-theoretic ingredients, such as the switching-operator invariance proof in Proposition 1 and the explicit harmonic-oscillator coefficient maps in Appendix A, and it contains no fitted free parameters. However, the central amplitude is not presently well defined because the non-commutative star product and the convolution ordering are only described graphically or by reference to prior work. The claimed connection to Barrett–Crane therefore remains a formal sketch rather than a verifiable computation, and the manuscript itself acknowledges that several of these structures still need to be analyzed.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.1, Eq. (5.1.3)] The 4-simplex amplitude is not a uniquely defined mathematical object. The text states: 'A non-trivial ordering for the convolution operations, which is not a linear concatenation, has to be chosen and affects the result. Our choice of ordering is expressed graphically in Fig. (3).' Figure 3, however, shows only the combinatorics of the 4-simplex boundary; it does not specify an algebraic ordering of the non-commutative convolutions in Eq. (5.1.3). Moreover, §3.2 concedes that the explicit star-product formula 'involves rather tedious (and not particularly illuminating) calculations' and does not provide it. Consequently Eq. (5.1.3) depends on choices that are not specified, and the later derivations that rely on it, including the Barrett–Crane correspondence, cannot be checked.
  2. [§5.2, Eqs. (5.2.12)–(5.2.17)] The derivation of the Barrett–Crane expansion is a formal sketch rather than a computation. The non-commutative plane waves e⋆(g,x) and the non-commutative delta functions used in Eqs. (5.2.12)–(5.2.16) are not explicitly constructed in this paper; the reader is only referred to earlier work [41]. The central claim that the new amplitudes 'correspond to a nontrivial combination of Barrett-Crane amplitudes' is based on Eq. (5.2.17), which is obtained by formal manipulations without showing how the star products and delta functions are evaluated or how the integrals over group elements are performed. In addition, Eq. (5.2.7) presents the D-matrix as an integral of products of Legendre functions without derivation, and the notation is unclear about the role of the radial quantum number. The paper should either provide the explicit e⋆ and delta-function expressions or clearly state them as assumptions on which the Barrett–Crane relation rests.
  3. [§2.2 and Appendix A] The 'timelike' eigenfunctions of the Lorentzian harmonic oscillator are assigned complex energies E = 2nr + iµ + 1 in Eq. (2.2.18) and (A.0.5). Since the Hamiltonian in Eq. (A.0.1) is a real differential operator, such complex eigenvalues do not belong to the spectrum on the standard L² Hilbert space with the inner product used in Eq. (2.2.4). The paper does not specify the Hilbert space, the scalar product, or the analytic continuation that would make these states normalizable and unitary. This issue affects the claimed unitary equivalence between the translation-group coherent states and the balanced Lorentz representations in Eqs. (2.2.24), (3.2.28), and (5.2.9), and therefore is load-bearing for the entire construction.
  4. [§4.2, Eq. (4.2.5)] The non-commutative delta function δ⋆ is used to impose the closure constraints, but its definition and properties are not given. It is not shown that δ⋆(λ1 + λ2 + λ3) acts as the identity under star-multiplication, nor how it is normalized under the integration over edge-vector data. Without this information the tetrahedron amplitude, the 4-simplex amplitude (5.1.3), and the GFT action (6.0.6) cannot be evaluated, and the 'closing' of triangles and tetrahedra remains symbolic.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (3.2.16)] There is a misprint in the notation: the line 'a†_1 := a†(λ)' should read 'a†_2 := a†(λ)', since a†_1 has already been defined as a†(ζ).
  2. [§5.2, Eq. (5.2.11)] The condition for a null edge vector with e = (1, λx, λy, λz) should be 1 − λx² − λy² − λz² = 0; the equation as printed, 1 − λx² + λy² + λz² = 0, has incorrect signs.
  3. [§5.1] The integration measure [dλ] in Eq. (5.1.1) is not defined; the domain, the number of integrations, and the normalization with respect to the non-commutative star product should be specified.
  4. [§3.2, Eq. (3.2.29)] In the second displayed expression for the bivector matrix element, the integrand contains only the product of wave functions and no explicit bivector operator; the text says the primed coordinates encode the action of b, but this is not demonstrated and the reader cannot reproduce the expression.
  5. [Appendix A] The term 'Clebsh-Gordan' appears in Eqs. (2.2.20) and (A.0.30) and should be spelled 'Clebsch–Gordan'.
  6. [§5.1 and Fig. 3] The reference to Fig. 3 as specifying the ordering of convolutions is misleading: the figure depicts the boundary combinatorics of the 4-simplex but does not encode an ordering of non-commutative operations. The authors should either supplement the figure with an algebraic ordering prescription or remove the claim that the figure provides this information.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction by construction: the Barrett–Crane relation is a representation-theoretic expansion, but the derivation leans on a self-cited noncommutative Fourier transform and an explicitly unrestricted ordering choice.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. The new amplitude (5.1.1)–(5.1.3) is a state sum over edge-vector configurations with equal weights; no parameter is fitted to data and no prediction is statistically forced. The claimed connection to Barrett–Crane in §5.2 is obtained by expanding bivector wave functions in the Plancherel basis of balanced Lorentz representations, using the exact change-of-basis coefficients (2.2.20)–(2.2.24) between harmonic-oscillator and hyperbolic bases; this is a genuine representation-theoretic computation rather than an input assumption. The paper itself flags the places where the derivation is conditional rather than circular: the star product is not computed explicitly ('the explicit formula for the star product between generic functions can in principle be derived from this definition, but it involves rather tedious (and not particularly illuminating) calculations', §3.2), and the convolution ordering 'has to be chosen and affects the result', with the choice deferred to Fig. 3 (§5.1). Likewise, §5.2 states that 'deriving an explicit expression of this non-commutative plane wave depends on the choice of a quantization map'. The non-commutative Fourier transform e⋆(g,x) that carries the amplitude to the Barrett–Crane form is imported from the self-cited work [41] (Oriti–Rosati), but that is an independently published construction of the tool, not the conclusion of this paper; this is a reliance and completeness caveat, not a circular step. These gaps make Eq. (5.2.17) formal, but they do not make Eq. (5.2.17) equivalent to Eq. (5.1.3) by definition. The score of 2 reflects the load-bearing self-citation and the under-specified star-product/ordering ingredients, without claiming circularity of the central claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted; the model is a formal construction. It relies on mathematical assumptions about non-commutative products, the choice of balanced representations, the gauge restriction to the hyperboloid, and prior results on noncommutative Fourier transforms.

assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The non-commutative star product and convolution ordering for the 4-simplex amplitude are well-defined and independent of the choice of ordering.
    Section 5.1, Eq. (5.1.3) depends on a choice of ordering that is not explicitly written; the model's validity rests on this choice being sensible.
  • domain assumption The edge-vector wave functions form a Hilbert space with a consistent non-commutative product under the chosen quantization map.
    The paper treats L2[e1,e2] as a non-commutative space of functions, but the explicit star product is not given, only defined through a quantization map example.
  • domain assumption The restriction to balanced representations with j = 0 suffices to describe timelike bivectors and spacelike tetrahedra.
    The detailed construction in Section 5.2 is limited to this case, with the general case only asserted to be straightforward.
  • domain assumption The non-commutative Fourier transform on the Lorentz group, established in prior work by Oriti and Rosati, applies to the amplitudes constructed here.
    Section 5.2 uses this transform without derivation, citing references [39,41,48].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A state sum for four-dimensional Lorentzian quantum geometry in terms of edge vectors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6S2TTXQ6

@misc{pith2026250110115,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A state sum for four-dimensional Lorentzian quantum geometry in terms of edge vectors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6S2TTXQ6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10115}
}
abstract

We present the construction of a new state sum model for $4d$ Lorentzian quantum gravity based on the description of quantum simplicial geometry in terms of edge vectors. Quantum states and amplitudes for simplicial geometry are built from irreducible representations of the translation group, then related to the representations of the Lorentz group via expansors, leading to interesting (and intricate) non-commutative structures. We also show how the new model connects to the Lorentzian Barrett-Crane spin foam model, formulated in terms of quantized triangle bivectors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10115 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Triangle with edge vectors e1, e2, e3 ∈ M4 and closure relation (3.1.2). In blue is the bivector part. 2. Skew-symmetry: the normal to the plane spanned by the constrained three vectors, in which the triangle lies, is given by the restriction to the wedge (or external) product of any two edge vectors (up to a change of orientation). The first condition alone would reduce the information contained in the three (edge)… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Combinatorics of τ and its closure constraints from edge vectors. 1. Dependence relation: the wedge product of each pair of bivectors bi , bj ⊂ {b1, b2, b3, b4} vanishes: bi ∧ bj = 0; 2. Closure relation: each of the four bivectors is given by the sum of the other three: b1 + b2 + b3 + b4 = 0. The first condition ensures that each bivector shares one and only one vector with each of the others (thus it is indeed a s… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. 4-simplex boundary construction: five tetrahedra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The tetrahedron amplitude of the Barrett-Crane mo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [41]

    Non-commutative Fourier transform for the Lorentz group via the Duflo map

    Oriti, D. and Rosati, G. Noncommutative Fourier transform for the Lorentz group via the Duflo map . Phys. Rev. D , 99 (2019), 106005. arXiv:1812.08616, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.106005

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  2. [1]

    Quantum Gravity

    Rovelli, C. Quantum Gravity . Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press (2004). ISBN 97805218 37330. Available from: https://books.google.ca/books?id=HrAzTmXdssQC

    work page 2004

  3. [2]

    Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity

    Thiemann, T. Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity . Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press (2007). doi:10.1017/CBO9780511755682

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511755682 2007

  4. [3]

    Introduction to loop quantum gravity and spin foams (2004)

    Perez, A. Introduction to loop quantum gravity and spin foams (2004). Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0409061, doi:10.48550/ARXIV.GR-QC/0409061

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.gr-qc/0409061 2004

  5. [4]

    (2+1)-Dimensional Gravity as an Exactly Soluble System

    Witten, E. (2+1)-Dimensional Gravity as an Exactly Soluble System . Nucl. Phys. B , 311 (1988), 46. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(88)90143-5

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(88)90143-5 1988

  6. [5]

    Barrett, J. W. Quantum gravity as topological quantum field theory . J. Math. Phys. , 36 (1995), 6161. arXiv:gr-qc/9506070, doi:10.1063/1.531239

    arXiv 1995

  7. [6]

    and Yetter, D

    Crane, L. and Yetter, D. A categorical construction of 4d topological quantum field theories (1993)

    work page 1993

  8. [7]

    H., and Yetter, D

    Crane, L., Kauffman, L. H., and Yetter, D. N. State sum invariants of four manifolds. 1. (1994). arXiv:hep-th/9409167

    arXiv 1994

Show all 78 references
  1. [8]

    W., Oriti, D., and Williams, R

    Barrett, J. W., Oriti, D., and Williams, R. M. Tullio Regge’s legacy: Regge calculus and discrete gravity (2018). arXiv:1812.06193

    2018 arXiv

  2. [9]

    and Ryan, J

    Dittrich, B. and Ryan, J. P. Phase space descriptions for simplicial 4d geometries. Class. Quant. Grav. , 28 (2011), 065006. arXiv:0807.2806, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/28/6/065006

    2011 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Group Field Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity (2014)

    Oriti, D. Group Field Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity (2014). arXiv:1408.7112

    2014 arXiv

  4. [11]

    The microscopic dynamics of quantum space as a group field the ory

    Oriti, D. The microscopic dynamics of quantum space as a group field the ory. In Foundations of Space and Time: Reflections on Quantum Gravity , pp. 257–320 (2011). arXiv:1110.5606

    2011 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Group field theory: An overview

    Freidel, L. Group field theory: An overview. International Journal of Theoretical Physics , 44 (2005), 1769. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10773-005-8894-1 , doi:10.1007/s10773-005-8894-1

    2005 doi

  6. [13]

    Group field theories

    Krajewski, T. Group field theories . PoS, QGQGS2011 (2011), 005. arXiv:1210.6257, doi:10.22323/1.140.0005

    2011 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Baez, J. C. Spin foam models. Classical and Quantum Gravity , 15 (1998),

    1998

  8. [15]

    Baez, J. C. An introduction to spin foam models of quantum gravity and bf theory. (1999). Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9905087, doi:10.48550/ARXIV.GR-QC/9905087

    1999 doi arXiv

  9. [16]

    The Spin Foam Approach to Quantum Gravity

    Perez, A. The Spin Foam Approach to Quantum Gravity . Living Rev. Rel. , 16 (2013), 3. arXiv:1205.2019, doi:10.12942/lrr-2013-3. 41

    2013 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Engle, J. S. Spin foams. In Springer Handbook of Space- time, pp. 783–807. Springer Berlin Heidelberg (2014). Avail- able from: https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-3-642-41992-8_38 , doi:10.1007/978-3-642-41992-8_38

    2014 doi

  11. [18]

    Spacetime geometry from algebra: spin foam models for non- perturbative quantum gravity

    Oriti, D. Spacetime geometry from algebra: spin foam models for non- perturbative quantum gravity. Reports on Progress in Physics , 64 (2001),

    2001

  12. [19]

    and Rovelli, C

    Gaul, M. and Rovelli, C. Loop quantum gravity and the meaning of diffeomor- phism invariance. (1999). Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9910079, doi:10.48550/ARXIV.GR-QC/9910079

    1999 doi arXiv

  13. [20]

    Barrett, J. W. and Crane, L. Relativistic spin networks and quantum gravity. Journal of Mathematical Physics , 39 (1998), 3296. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1063%2F1.532254, doi:10.1063/1.532254

    1998 doi

  14. [21]

    and Oriti, D

    Baratin, A. and Oriti, D. Quantum simplicial geometry in the group field theory formalism: reconsidering the Barrett-Crane model . New J. Phys. , 13 (2011), 125011. arXiv:1108.1178, doi:10.1088/1367-2630/13/12/125011

    2011 arXiv

  15. [22]

    F., Oriti, D., and Pithis, A

    Jercher, A. F., Oriti, D., and Pithis, A. G. A. The Complete Barrett-Crane Model and its Causal Structure. (2022). arXiv:2206.15442

    2022 arXiv

  16. [23]

    LQG vertex with fi- nite Immirzi parameter

    Engle, J., Livine, E., Pereira, R., and Rovelli, C. LQG vertex with fi- nite Immirzi parameter . Nucl. Phys. B , 799 (2008), 136. arXiv:0711.0146, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2008.02.018

    2008 arXiv

  17. [24]

    and Oriti, D

    Baratin, A. and Oriti, D. Group field theory and simplicial gravity path integrals: A model for Holst-Plebanski gravity. Phys. Rev. D , 85 (2012), 044003. arXiv:1111.5842, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.044003

    2012 arXiv

  18. [25]

    and Yetter, D

    Crane, L. and Yetter, D. A More sensitive Lorentzian state sum . (2003). arXiv:gr-qc/0301017

    2003 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Dirac, P. A. M. Unitary representations of the Lorentz group . Royal Society of London. A183284–295, 183 (1945). arXiv:{}, doi:http://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1945.0003

    1945

  20. [27]

    and Rovelli, C

    Reisenberger, M. and Rovelli, C. Spin foams as feynman diagrams (2000). Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0002083, doi:10.48550/ARXIV.GR-QC/0002083

    2000 doi arXiv

  21. [28]

    The Lorentz group and harmonic analysis

    IRUEHL, W. The Lorentz group and harmonic analysis. New York, W. A. Benja min, Inc

  22. [29]

    Gel’fand, M

    I.M. Gel’fand, M. G. Geometry of homogeneous spaces, representations of groups in homogeneous spaces and related questions of integral geome try

  23. [31]

    Dao Vong Duc, N. V. H. On the theory of unitary representations of the SL(2,C) group. Annales de l’I. H. P., section A, tome 6 , 11 (1967), 17. arXiv:{}, doi:10.1007/BF03159474. 42

    1967 doi

  24. [32]

    Infinite Irreducible Representations of the Lorentz Group

    Chandra, H. Infinite Irreducible Representations of the Lorentz Group . Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences 189 , 1018 (1947), 372. arXiv:{}, doi:http://www.jstor.org/stable/97833

    1947

  25. [33]

    A primer of group theory for loop quantum gravity and spin-fo ams

    Martin-Dussaud, P. A primer of group theory for loop quantum gravity and spin-fo ams. General Relativity and Gravitation , 51 (2019). doi:10.1007/s10714-019-2583-5

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    Reisenberger, M. P. On relativistic spin network vertices . J. Math. Phys. , 40 (1999),

    1999

  27. [36]

    X., Vinet, L., and Zhedanov, A

    Genest, V. X., Vinet, L., and Zhedanov, A. Interbasis expansions for the isotropic 3d harmonic oscillator and bivariate krawtchouk polynomials. Jour- nal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical , 47 (2013). Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.0692http://dx.doi.org/10....

    2013 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Cohl, H. S. and Kalnins, E. G. Fundamental solution of the lapla- cian in the hyperboloid model of hyperbolic geometry (2012) . Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4406, doi:10.48550/ARXIV.1201.4406

    2012 doi arXiv

  29. [38]

    The four-dimensional hyperbolic spherical harmonics

    Xuegang, Y., Wuming, L., and Junli, G. The four-dimensional hyperbolic spherical harmonics

  30. [39]

    and Oriti, D

    Finocchiaro, M. and Oriti, D. Spin foam models and the Duflo map . Class. Quant. Grav., 37 (2020), 015010. arXiv:1812.03550, doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ab58da

    2020 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Barrett, J. W. and Crane, L. A Lorentzian signature model for quantum general relativity . Class. Quant. Grav. , 17 (2000), 3101. arXiv:gr-qc/9904025, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/17/16/302

    2000 arXiv

  32. [43]

    Baez, J. C. and Barrett, J. W. The quantum tetrahedron in 3 and 4 dimensions. (1999). Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903060, doi:10.48550/ARXIV.GR-QC/9903060

    1999 doi arXiv

  33. [44]

    Quantum tetrahedra and simplicial spin net- works

    Barbieri, A. Quantum tetrahedra and simplicial spin net- works. Nuclear Physics B , 518 (1998), 714. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fs0550-3213%2898%2900093-5, doi:10.1016/s0550-3213(98)00093-5

    1998 doi

  34. [45]

    Non-commutative flux representation for loop quantum gravity

    Baratin, A., Dittrich, B., Oriti, D., and Tambornino, J. Non-commutative flux representation for loop quantum gravity . Class. Quant. Grav. , 28 (2011), 175011. arXiv:1004.3450, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/28/17/175011

    2011 arXiv

  35. [46]

    and Oriti, D

    Baratin, A. and Oriti, D. Group field theory with non-commutative met- ric variables . Phys. Rev. Lett. , 105 (2010), 221302. arXiv:1002.4723, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.221302. 43

    2010 arXiv

  36. [47]

    Minkowski space-time and hyperbolic geometry (original 20 15 version) (2015)

    Barrett, J. Minkowski space-time and hyperbolic geometry (original 20 15 version) (2015)

    2015

  37. [48]

    Quantization maps, algebra representation and non-commutative Fourier transform for Lie groups

    Guedes, C., Oriti, D., and Raasakka, M. Quantization maps, algebra representation and non-commutative Fourier transform for Lie groups . J. Math. Phys. , 54 (2013), 083508. arXiv:1301.7750, doi:10.1063/1.4818638

    2013 arXiv

  38. [49]

    and Rovelli, C

    Perez, A. and Rovelli, C. Spin foam model for Lorentzian general relativity. Phys. Rev. D , 63 (2001), 041501. arXiv:gr-qc/0009021, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.041501

    2001 arXiv

  39. [50]

    Spin foam models for quantum gravity

    Perez, A. Spin foam models for quantum gravity . Class. Quant. Grav. , 20 (2003), R43. arXiv:gr-qc/0301113, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/20/6/202

    2003 arXiv

  40. [51]

    and Rovelli, C

    Perez, A. and Rovelli, C. 3+1 spinfoam model of quantum gravity with space- like and timelike components. Physical Review D , 64 (2000). Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0011037http://dx.doi.org /10.1103/PhysRevD.64.064002, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.64.064002

    2000 arXiv

  41. [52]

    F., Oriti, D., and Pithis, A

    Jercher, A. F., Oriti, D., and Pithis, A. G. A. Emergent cosmology from quantum gravity in the Lorentzian Barrett-Crane tensorial group fiel d theory model . JCAP, 01 (2022), 050. arXiv:2112.00091, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/01/050

    2022 arXiv

  42. [53]

    Group field theories (2012)

    Krajewski, T. Group field theories (2012). Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.6257, doi:10.48550/ARXIV.1210.6257

    2012 doi arXiv

  43. [54]

    and Ryan, J

    Gurau, R. and Ryan, J. P. Colored Tensor Models - a review . SIGMA, 8 (2012), 020. arXiv:1109.4812, doi:10.3842/SIGMA.2012.020

    2012 arXiv

  44. [55]

    and Vitale, P

    Lizzi, F. and Vitale, P. Matrix Bases for Star Products: a Review. SIGMA, 10 (2014),

    2014

  45. [56]

    and Frisoni, P

    Dona, P. and Frisoni, P. How-to Compute EPRL Spin Foam Amplitudes. Universe, 8 (2022), 208. arXiv:2202.04360, doi:10.3390/universe8040208

    2022 arXiv

  46. [57]

    Livine, E. R. and Tambornino, J. Spinor Representation for Loop Quantum Gravity. J. Math. Phys. , 53 (2012), 012503. arXiv:1105.3385, doi:10.1063/1.3675465

    2012 arXiv

  47. [58]

    Dupuis, M., Girelli, F., and Livine, E. R. Spinors and Voros star-product for Group Field Theory: First Contact. Phys. Rev. D , 86 (2012), 105034. arXiv:1107.5693, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.105034

    2012 arXiv

  48. [59]

    and Livine, E

    Girelli, F. and Livine, E. R. Reconstructing quantum geometry from quantum in- formation: Spin networks as harmonic oscillators. Class. Quant. Grav. , 22 (2005), 3295. arXiv:gr-qc/0501075, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/22/16/011

    2005 arXiv

  49. [60]

    Regge Calculus as a Local Theory of the Poincare Group

    Caselle, M., D’Adda, A., and Magnea, L. Regge Calculus as a Local Theory of the Poincare Group. Phys. Lett. B , 232 (1989), 457. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(89)90441-3

    1989 doi

  50. [61]

    and Krajewski, T

    Han, M. and Krajewski, T. Path integral representation of lorentzian spinfoam model, asymptotics and simplicial geometries. Classical and Quantum Gravity , 31 (2013), 015009. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1088%2F0264-9381%2F31%2F1%2F0150 09, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/31/1/015009

    2013 doi

  51. [62]

    and Raasakka, M

    Oriti, D. and Raasakka, M. Asymptotic Analysis of the Ponzano-Regge Model with Non-Commutative Metric Boundary Data. SIGMA, 10 (2014), 067. arXiv:1401.5819, doi:10.3842/SIGMA.2014.067. 44

    2014 arXiv

  52. [63]

    and Padua-Arg ¨uelles, J

    Dittrich, B. and Padua-Arg ¨uelles, J. Twisted geometries are area-metric geometries. (2023). arXiv:2302.11586

    2023 arXiv

  53. [64]

    K., Dittrich, B., and Haggard, H

    Asante, S. K., Dittrich, B., and Haggard, H. M. The Degrees of Freedom of Area Regge Calculus: Dynamics, Non-metricity, and Broken Diffeom orphisms. Class. Quant. Grav., 35 (2018), 135009. arXiv:1802.09551, doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aac588

    2018 arXiv

  54. [65]

    W., Rocek, M., and Williams, R

    Barrett, J. W., Rocek, M., and Williams, R. M. A Note on area variables in Regge calculus. Class. Quant. Grav. , 16 (1999), 1373. arXiv:gr-qc/9710056, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/16/4/025

    1999 arXiv

  55. [66]

    and Tsimiklis, P

    Girelli, F. and Tsimiklis, P. Discretization of 4D Poincar´ e BF theory: From groups to 2-groups. Phys. Rev. D , 106 (2022), 046003. arXiv:2105.01817, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.046003

    2022 arXiv

  56. [67]

    Group field theory on 2-groups

    Girelli, F., Laudonio, M., Tanasa, A., and Tsimiklis, P. Group field theory on 2-groups. Phys. Rev. D , 108 (2023), 046009. arXiv:2205.05837, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.046009

    2023 arXiv

  57. [68]

    K., Dittrich, B., Girelli, F., Riello, A., and Tsimikli s, P

    Asante, S. K., Dittrich, B., Girelli, F., Riello, A., and Tsimikli s, P. Quan- tum geometry from higher gauge theory. Class. Quant. Grav. , 37 (2020), 205001. arXiv:1908.05970, doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aba589

    2020 arXiv

  58. [69]

    and Freidel, L

    Baratin, A. and Freidel, L. A 2-categorical state sum model. J. Math. Phys. , 56 (2015), 011705. arXiv:1409.3526, doi:10.1063/1.4906369

    2015 arXiv

  59. [70]

    and Wise, D

    Baratin, A. and Wise, D. K. 2-Group Representations for Spin Foams. AIP Conf. Proc., 1196 (2009), 28. arXiv:0910.1542, doi:10.1063/1.3284396

    2009 arXiv

  60. [71]

    Flowing in Group Field Theory Space: a Review

    Carrozza, S. Flowing in Group Field Theory Space: a Review . SIGMA, 12 (2016), 070. arXiv:1603.01902, doi:10.3842/SIGMA.2016.070

    2016 arXiv

  61. [72]

    Marchetti, L., Oriti, D., Pithis, A. G. A., and Th ¨urigen, J. Mean-Field Phase Transitions in Tensorial Group Field Theory Quantum Gravit y. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 130 (2023), 141501. arXiv:2211.12768, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.141501

    2023 arXiv

  62. [73]

    Eichhorn, A., Bahr, B., and Pereira, A. D. Editorial: Coarse graining in quantum gravity – Bridging the gap between microscopic models and sp acetime physics. (2021). arXiv:2103.14605

    2021 arXiv

  63. [74]

    The universe as a quantum gravity condensate

    Oriti, D. The universe as a quantum gravity condensate . Comptes Rendus Physique , 18 (2017), 235. arXiv:1612.09521, doi:10.1016/j.crhy.2017.02.003

    2017 arXiv

  64. [75]

    Tensorial Group Field Theory condensate cosmology as an exam ple of spacetime emergence in quantum gravity (2021)

    Oriti, D. Tensorial Group Field Theory condensate cosmology as an exam ple of spacetime emergence in quantum gravity (2021). arXiv:2112.02585

    2021 arXiv

  65. [76]

    Pithis, A. G. A. and Sakellariadou, M. Group field theory condensate cosmology: An appetizer. Universe, 5 (2019), 147. arXiv:1904.00598, doi:10.3390/universe5060147

    2019 arXiv

  66. [77]

    Barrett, J. W. and Crane, L. Relativistic spin networks and quantum gravity . J. Math. Phys. , 39 (1998), 3296. arXiv:gr-qc/9709028, doi:10.1063/1.532254. 45

    1998 arXiv

  67. [86]

    arXiv:1403.0808, doi:10.3842/SIGMA.2014.086

    2014 arXiv

  68. [1703]

    Available from: https://doi.org/10.1088%2F0034-4885%2F64%2F12%2F203, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/64/12/203

    doi

  69. [1827]

    Available from: https://doi.org/10.1088%2F0264-9381%2F15%2F7%2F004, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/15/7/004

    doi

  70. [2046]

    arXiv:gr-qc/9809067, doi:10.1063/1.532850

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.