Kaluza-Klein ansatz from Lorentzian quantum gravity on the fuzzy sphere

Chengcheng Liu; Shahn Majid

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 26 references

Kaluza-Klein ansatz from Lorentzian quantum gravity on the fuzzy sphere

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fuzzy-sphere quantum gravity produces a spherical expected fibre metric and uses renormalisation freedom to fix its size, completing the Kaluza-Klein route to gravity plus Yang-Mills.

desk verdict A careful proposal that the spherical fibre metric can emerge from quantizing the fuzzy sphere, but the constant-size step is assumed rather than derived. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21861 v1 pith:A3SYRO6H submitted 2025-07-29 hep-th gr-qcmath.QA

Chengcheng Liu , Shahn Majid This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thgr-qcmath.QA MSC 81T7583E1581T13

keywords Kaluza-KleintheoryfuzzyspherenoncommutativegeometryquantumRiemannianLorentziangravityYang-Millsfieldsmetricrenormalisationcylinderansatz

topics Quantum Gravity Yang-Mills Mass Gap

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 is trying to close the gap in Kaluza-Klein theory where the compact extra dimension must have a spherical geometry of constant size, a condition that classical equations of motion cannot supply. It proposes that this condition comes from quantum gravity on the fibre itself. Working with a fuzzy sphere fibre and a Lorentzian action, it finds that the expected value of the metric is spherical, $\langle h_{ij}\rangle \propto \delta_{ij}$, under each of three integration measures. It then argues that the divergences of the theory leave renormalisation freedom, and that applying the same renormalisation at every spacetime point makes the fibre size constant. If this proposal is right, gravity and Yang-Mills fields would emerge at low energies from one quantum gravitational action on a noncommutative product space.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the expectation $\langle h_{ij}\rangle$ computed from the fibre part of the Einstein-Hilbert action, restricted to diagonal metrics $h_{ij}=\operatorname{diag}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3)$ under the assumption that observables depend only on the metric's eigenvalues. The fuzzy sphere is the noncommutative coordinate algebra generated by $y_i$ with $[y_i,y_j]=2\mathrm{i}\lambda\epsilon_{ijk}y_k$ and $\sum_i y_i^2=1-\lambda^2$, modelling the 2-sphere with a minimal quantum of area. The calculation evaluates the Lorentzian partition function, with the factor of $\mathrm{i}$ in the exponent, for three measures on the eigenvalue space; the $\operatorname{Im}(G)<0$ convergence prescription handles intermediate integrals and the result is then read for real $G$. The mechanism works because the regulated expectation values preserve rotational symmetry among the $\lambda_i$, giving a spherical average, while the divergences supply the renormalisation freedom used to set $h$ constant on spacetime.

What would settle it

A concrete check would be to include the off-diagonal components of the symmetric fibre metric in the partition function, or to repeat the calculation with a fourth natural measure on the space of metrics; if the equalities $\langle\lambda_1\rangle=\langle\lambda_2\rangle=\langle\lambda_3\rangle$ fail, or if no choice of cutoffs yields a real, spacetime-constant $h$ matching both Newton's and Yang-Mills couplings, the central claim would be falsified. A more targeted version is to push the hybrid analytic-numerical integrals to the physically required values of $G/L^2$ below $10^{-14}$, where the paper's extrapolations are currently untested.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that Lorentzian quantum gravity on a fuzzy sphere fibre supplies the last condition that classical Kaluza-Klein theory cannot: the fibre metric has spherical expectation value and can be treated as a constant-size sphere. Section VII states that $\langle h_{ij}\rangle \propto \delta_{ij}$ holds with any of the three measures used (naive, Liouville, and geometric), and that the freedom in controlling divergences is enough to take $h=|\lambda_i|$ to be constant. This completes the authors' earlier derivation in which noncommutativity of the fibre forces the Kaluza-Klein cylinder-ansatz form of the metric (all metric components constant on the fibre), leaving only a matrix-valued Liouville field $h_{ij}$ on spacetime. The new step is to quantise that field on the fibre, so that its expectation value fixes the spherical, constant-size geometry needed for standard Yang-Mills plus gravity.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on reducing the metric to its diagonal eigenvalues and on choosing a measure over the space of metrics, because the spherical expectation and the renormalisation freedom could fail if off-diagonal modes matter or if the true measure lies outside the three families considered.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The equations-of-motion obstruction to a constant fibre sphere is bypassed, because the fibre metric is quantised rather than varied classically; the unphysical constraint on the Yang-Mills field strength is not part of the quantum prescription.
Gravity and Yang-Mills with spacetime-independent couplings become the low-energy content of a single gravitational action on the product, with no classical metric ansatz imposed by hand.
Matching to the electroweak coupling fixes $\sqrt{h}=11\,l_p$ in the base scenario, and the required ultraviolet cutoff on the fibre emerges around $200\,l_p$ for the naive measure, giving the mechanism a dynamical range of roughly one to two hundred Planck lengths.
The argument transfers to any fibre whose coordinate algebra has trivial centre and whose one-forms have a central basis, so larger noncommutative fibres with $\mathrm{SU}(3)\times\mathrm{SU}(2)\times\mathrm{U}(1)$ symmetry are natural candidates for extending the mechanism.
A finite-dimensional noncommutative fibre yields only a finite tower of Kaluza-Klein modes, so matter appears as finite multiplets with computable mass ratios, such as $0:1:\sqrt{3}$ for a massless real scalar on the reduced fuzzy sphere and $1:5/3:7/3$ for a massless spinor.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: repeating the expectation-value calculation for a classical $\mathrm{S}^3$ fibre with quantised metric modes would test whether the spherical average depends essentially on noncommutativity or follows from quantising the fibre metric in general.
Editorial inference: the paper matches couplings using absolute values of complex expectation values, so it implicitly predicts that the imaginary part of the effective Yang-Mills coupling is either exactly zero at matched scales or dynamically negligible; computing higher moments of $\lambda_i$ analytically would test this absolute-value prescription.
Editorial inference: the claim that renormalisation is performed identically at every spacetime point is a choice of renormalisation-group trajectory; a direct extension would be to compute the running of $h(x)$ and show that the constant-sphere configuration is a fixed point rather than an imposed matching condition.

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

Colleague,

The genuinely new piece here is the Lorentzian version of fuzzy-sphere quantum gravity—an imaginary action with three integration measures—and the explicit computation of ⟨hij⟩ and related expectation values. The paper is honest about what is proposal and what is computed, and the matching section actually shows that some scenarios fail, which gives the framework some falsifiable content. If this program is right, it would turn the Kaluza-Klein cylinder ansatz into a consequence of quantum gravity on the fibre, which is a real conceptual step.

That said, the load-bearing conclusion is weaker than the abstract suggests. The equality ⟨λ1⟩=⟨λ2⟩=⟨λ3⟩ follows from the permutation symmetry of the action, the cutoffs, and the measures; it is a symmetry identity, not a dynamical output. It does not distinguish the three measures and would hold for any symmetric regulator. The real step is the claim that renormalisation freedom allows h=|⟨λi⟩| to be constant on spacetime. No renormalisation scheme is actually specified—no running scale, no flow, no demonstration that the same condition can be imposed at every spacetime point while preserving locality. So the mechanism remains an ansatz, albeit a plausible one.

The matching in Section VI is also somewhat fragile: it fixes h from the electroweak coupling and then solves for cutoffs, which is an existence check, not a derivation; and it uses absolute values of complex expectation values without a principled justification. The numerical extrapolations are acknowledged to be indicative, but they are not error-controlled. None of this is fatal, because the paper is upfront about these gaps, but it means the central claim should not be read as established.

Who this is for: people working in quantum Riemannian geometry and noncommutative Kaluza-Klein models. It deserves a serious referee—the calculations are explicit and the program is coherent. I would send it out, with the expectation that the referee asks for a more precise statement of what is derived versus assumed, and ideally some analytic control on the small-G extrapolations.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a mechanism by which Lorentzian quantum gravity on a fuzzy-sphere fibre produces a spherical, constant-size fibre metric, thereby completing a derivation of the Kaluza-Klein ansatz from quantum Riemannian geometry. The authors compute partition functions and expectation values of the metric eigenvalues for three choices of integration measure (naive, Liouville, geometric) after reducing to diagonal metrics, using an Im(G)<0 convergence prescription followed by continuation to real G. They find ⟨λ1⟩=⟨λ2⟩=⟨λ3⟩ in all three cases and argue that renormalization freedom allows the fibre scale h to be chosen constant on spacetime. They then match h to the electroweak Yang-Mills coupling and check consistency with Newton's constant and a cosmological scale, reporting that some scenarios work while one fails, which they present as falsifiability.

Significance. If the mechanism were fully established, it would resolve a long-standing obstruction in Kaluza-Klein theory, namely the incompatibility of a constant spherical fibre with the classical equations of motion, and would give a dynamical reason for the fibre geometry and coupling constants. The paper contains substantial explicit analytic work, including exact integration of several eigenvalue integrals and a consistency check of the spherical expectation across three measures. It also honestly identifies its own caveats, including the extrapolation problem, the complex expectation values, and the absence of a definitive measure. These strengths make the paper a useful proof-of-concept even though, as detailed below, the central derivation is incomplete.

major comments (4)

[Section V, partition function and Figs. 1-3] The equality ⟨λ1⟩=⟨λ2⟩=⟨λ3⟩ reported in Section V and summarized in Section VII is a symmetry identity rather than a dynamical output. The action, the three measures, and the integration domains are all invariant under simultaneous permutation of λ1,λ2,λ3; hence the equality holds for any theory with this diagonal reduction and permutation-invariant action. The paper's own statement in Section V that the theory 'should be rotationally invariant and hence ⟨hij⟩=h(x)δij' indicates that the spherical expectation is built in by assumption. The claim in Section VII that 'we have shown ⟨hij⟩∝δij ... with any of the three measures' should be rephrased as a consistency check of the assumed symmetry, not an independent result.
[Section V, paragraph 'The issue here is...', and Section VI A] The constancy of h on spacetime is not derived from renormalization properties of the model. Section V proposes that the theories at different spacetime points 'would naturally be regularised and renormalised uniformly, so as to have a constant value of h', but no renormalization scheme is specified: there is no running scale, no flow equation, no renormalized coupling, and no analysis of whether a uniform condition is compatible with the other terms in action (3). The matching in Section VI A solves for the cutoff L from the condition |⟨λi⟩| = h (Eq. (17)), which is an existence check for a possible renormalization condition, not a derivation that quantum gravity forces h to be constant.
[Section VI, first paragraph 'The first wrinkle...' and Section VII] The use of absolute values |⟨λi⟩| for physical matching is an ad hoc prescription that is load-bearing for the numerical conclusions. Equations (17)-(18) and the analogous Liouville-measure results in Section VI C all use |⟨λi⟩| with no physical justification; the paper itself flags in Section VII that 'this question should be looked at further, either to further justify absolute values or to see if a very small imaginary component in the Yang-Mills coupling is of interest.' Since the central quantitative claims depend on this choice, a justification or a sensitivity analysis to the complex phase is needed.
[Section VI A, Eqs. (10)-(11) and Section VII caveat] The small-G extrapolations used for matching are not error-controlled. The fits (10) and (11) are obtained down to machine limitations (g ~ 10^-14 for the naive measure and g ~ 10^-6 for the determinant expectations), but the physical matching requires values of G/L^2 many orders of magnitude smaller, and the final numbers (e.g., L ≈ 200 lp in Eq. (18) or 152 lp in Section VI C) depend on the assumed functional forms. The paper acknowledges the extrapolation in Section VII but does not provide error bars or alternative fits. This undermines the quantitative viability claims, even if the qualitative scenario remains plausible.

minor comments (6)

[Section V A, Eq. (10)] The sign of the logarithmic terms in the approximation for ⟨λ3⟩/L appears inconsistent with the form used in Eq. (17) (G ≈ L^2 e^{-1.28 L/h}); please clarify the sign convention.
[Section VI B] The text contains a duplicated word: 'we do not treat treat Vf'.
[Reference [20]] The reference lists 'S. Majid, S. Majid' as authors; the duplication should be corrected.
[Sections V A and V B/C] The symbol g is used for both G/L^2 and G/ε^2, which is confusing; consider using different symbols such as g_L and g_ε.
[Abstract and Section VII] The abstract and the concluding remarks use 'we propose' and 'we have shown' with inconsistent strength; the language should be aligned with what is actually derived.
[Section V C, expression for f(λ2,λ3,m2,m3)] The long analytic expression contains subscripts such as 'm2 3' and 'm2 2' that appear to be typos for m3 and m2; please check the formulas for consistency.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Spherical expectation is a permutation-symmetry identity of the inputs; constant h is the uniform-renormalisation premise restated, with √h=11lp fitted from the observed electroweak coupling.

self definitional [Section VII (Concluding Remarks); Section V.A (after Fig. 1)]
"We have shown that ⟨hij⟩ ∝ δij in the Lorentzian fuzzy sphere quantum gravity with any of the three measures that we used... This confirms that our regulatory scheme preserves the symmetry between the λi."

The integrand exp[i(λ1²+λ2²+λ3²−2(λ1λ2+λ2λ3+λ3λ1))/(2G)], each of the three measures (1; 1/(λ1λ2λ3); |(λ1−λ2)(λ2−λ3)(λ3−λ1)|/(λ1²λ2²λ3²)) and the symmetric cut-off domains [ε,L]³ or [ε,∞)³ are fully invariant under permutations of (λ1,λ2,λ3). Hence ⟨λ1⟩=⟨λ2⟩=⟨λ3⟩ for every G and every cutoff is an identity of the inputs, not a dynamical output; the paper itself describes the numerical check only as showing that the scheme 'preserves the symmetry'. Since off-diagonal components are removed by the diagonal ansatz, ⟨hij⟩∝δij is built in by construction. All three measures are symmetric, so the 'with any of the three measures' robustness claim is equally automatic and does not distinguish the measures.
ansatz smuggled in via citation [Section V, opening paragraph]
"We still use the idea in [13, 20] that as long as we are interested in observables that depend only on the eigenvalues of the metric as a positive matrix, it suffices to limit attention to diagonal metrics hij = diag(λ1, λ2, λ3)."

This diagonal reduction is an ansatz taken from prior work of the same group (Lira-Torres–Majid [13]; Majid [20]) by citation, and it is exactly what forces the off-diagonal components of ⟨hij⟩ to vanish. The stated justification — observables depend only on the eigenvalues — is itself the assumption that off-diagonal metric modes are irrelevant, which is part of the content of the claimed spherical conclusion for the full matrix metric. A load-bearing component of ⟨hij⟩∝δij is therefore assumed via self-citation rather than derived from the Lorentzian fibre quantum gravity, and no argument is given that off-diagonal fluctuations decouple at the quantum level.

1 more flagged steps

self definitional [Section V (opening); Section VI (matching); Section VII (Concluding Remarks)]
"We will then have significant freedom in the renormalisation process and we propose that the quantum gravity theories at different spacetime points in M would naturally be regularised and renormalised uniformly, so as to have a constant value of h independently of spacetime."

The 'freedom to take h constant' is the uniform-renormalisation prescription itself: no renormalisation scheme, running scale or flow equation is given, so the Section VII claim to have shown 'enough freedom to take h = |λi| to be constant' restates the premise, and the phrase '⟨hij⟩ would emerge naturally as constant on spacetime due to the inherent freedom' presents a choice as an emergence. Moreover the value of h is not derived: √h = 11lp is fixed from the observed electroweak coupling via (15) and the cutoff L is then solved for ('choosing G(L) so that |⟨λi⟩L,G(L)| lands on it is exactly what we did'), so Section VI is a consistency or fit check for L, not a prediction of the sphere size.

full rationale

The partition-function integrals and the expectation values ⟨λi⟩, ⟨λiλj⟩ as functions of G, including the small-g asymptotics (10)–(13) and the matching equation (17), are genuine new computational work and are not circular: they are self-contained against the stated cutoffs and prescriptions. The unique quantum Levi-Civita connection and the cylinder-ansatz forcing are imported from same-group papers [14],[15],[2],[20], but the connection theorem rests on stated mathematical assumptions that do not include the target spherical result, so it counts as real (self-cited) support rather than circularity. The circular core is the two-part central claim of Section VII. First, ⟨hij⟩∝δij: with hij reduced to diag(λ1,λ2,λ3) by the ansatz of [13,20], the action, all three measures and the cutoffs are permutation-symmetric, so equality of the ⟨λi⟩ is an identity; the three-measure robustness is automatic because all three measures are symmetric. Second, constant h: the uniform-renormalisation 'freedom' is asserted without a scheme, so the conclusion equals the premise, and the numerical matching imports √h=11lp from the observed electroweak coupling before solving for L. The paper is candid about the undetermined measure ('the measure on the space of metrics is additional data for which we do not have a definitive theory') and about machine-precision extrapolations, and the constant-h step is often labeled a 'proposal', which keeps this from being a fully forced self-citation chain; but the headline spherical result still reduces by construction, giving partial circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or dimensions beyond the fuzzy sphere fibre already present in prior work. The main load-bearing inputs are modelling choices: the diagonal-metric truncation, the measure on the space of metrics, the convergence prescription, and the renormalisation-freedom assumption that makes h constant. These are the items a reader must accept to reach the claimed mechanism.

free parameters (5)

G (fibre quantum gravity coupling) = matched via h; e.g., G/L^2 ~ exp(-1.28 L/h) (naive), G/epsilon^2 = 16 pi h l_p^2 / l_u^4 (Liouville)
Introduced as the coupling in the fibre action; its value is chosen by matching to the observed h in Section VI, so it is not predicted independently.
L (IR cutoff for naive measure) = L/h ~ 447 in the naive base scenario, giving sqrt(L) about 230 l_p
Regularization cutoff whose value is determined by the matching condition, not fixed by the theory before matching.
epsilon (UV cutoff for Liouville and geometric measures) = epsilon = 0.1 in figures; example matching sets sqrt(epsilon) = l_p
Regularization cutoff; the freedom in choosing epsilon is essential to the claim that h can be constant.
h (fibre metric scale) = sqrt(h) = 11 l_p for electroweak matching; TeV-scale for ultraweak SU(2)
Input from observed Yang-Mills coupling, used to fix G and the cutoffs; the paper does not derive this value.
l_u (cosmological scale in matching) = e.g., 5.4e61 l_p (size of Universe) or any macroscopic scale
A free choice in the matching equations of Section VI; it affects whether the model can reproduce observed couplings.

assumptions (8)

domain assumption Quantum gravity on the fibre is rotationally invariant, so the expectation value satisfies <h_ij> = h(x) delta_ij.
Section V, paragraph before the diagonal reduction; the spherical result is partly a consistency check of this assumption.
domain assumption It suffices to integrate over diagonal metrics h_ij = diag(lambda1, lambda2, lambda3) for eigenvalue observables.
Section V opening; taken from prior work [13,20], but off-diagonal modes are not quantised.
domain assumption The integration measure on the space of metrics is one of the naive, Liouville, or geometric choices.
Section V states the measure is additional data without a definitive theory; the central results are checked only within this family.
ad hoc to paper The Im(G) < 0 convergence prescription followed by taking real G is valid.
Used repeatedly for analytic integration in Section V; the paper calls it a prescription rather than a derived rule.
domain assumption Background spacetime source terms in the fibre action can be neglected compared to Planck-scale quantum gravity.
Section V item (i); the fibre is quantised in isolation at each spacetime point.
ad hoc to paper Renormalisation freedom can be exercised uniformly across spacetime so that the fibre size h is constant.
Section V and Section VI; this is the key proposed step that completes the Kaluza-Klein mechanism, but it is not derived.
ad hoc to paper Complex expectation values can be interpreted through absolute values for physical matching.
Section VI: 'Our approach to this will be to take the absolute value for the purposes of matching.'
domain assumption After quantising the fibre, the effective metric for spacetime fields is replaced by its expectation value, with V_f = h^3 in the base scenario.
Section V item (ii) and Section VI base scenario; used to write the effective gravity and Yang-Mills action.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kaluza-Klein ansatz from Lorentzian quantum gravity on the fuzzy sphere." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A3SYRO6H

@misc{pith2026250721861,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kaluza-Klein ansatz from Lorentzian quantum gravity on the fuzzy sphere},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A3SYRO6H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21861}
}

read the original abstract

If Kaluza-Klein ideas were correct as an explanation of Yang-Mills and General Relativity on spacetime, the extra fibre geometry would have to be a sphere of constant size of the order of 10 Planck lengths, hence subject to quantum gravity corrections. Conversely, it was shown in previous work that modelling such corrections by noncommutative coordinates indeed forces the Kaluza-Klein cylinder ansatz form of the metric, and we now propose that the remaining restrictions needed come from quantum gravity on the fibre. Working with a fuzzy sphere fibre, we find that the expected value of the metric is indeed spherical and we propose that it can be taken as of constant size due to freedom in the renormalisation of divergences. In this way, we outline a mechanism whereby the observed structure of gravity plus Yang-Mills can emerge at low energies as a consequence of quantum gravity effects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21861 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Lorentzian fuzzy sphere quantum gravity expecta [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Lorentzian fuzzy sphere quantum gravity expecta [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: Further Lorentzian fuzzy sphere quantum gravity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

[1]

Amelino-Camelia and S

G. Amelino-Camelia and S. Majid, Waves on noncom- mutative spacetime and gamma-ray bursts, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 15 (2000) 4301–4323

work page 2000
[2]

Argota-Quiroz and S

J. Argota-Quiroz and S. Majid, Quantum gravity on fi- nite spacetimes and dynamical mass, PoS (2022) 210 (41pp)

work page 2022
[3]

as shown. We then integrate this numerically over λ2, λ3 for the two regions λ2 ∈ (ε, ∞), λ3 ∈ (λ2, ∞) where we use m2 = λ3, m3 = λ2, and λ3 ∈ (ε, ∞), λ2 ∈ (λ3, ∞), where we use m2 = λ2, m3 = λ3. These two regions contribute equally due to the symmetry between λ2, λ3, generating a factor 2 times the second case. The numerator of ⟨λ2 1⟩ is therefore the in...

work page
[4]

Berryman and D

J.M. Berryman and D. Hern´ andez, Standard model flavor from an SU (2) symmetry, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 115007

work page 2017
[5]

Beggs and S

E.J. Beggs and S. Majid, Quantum Riemannian Geom- etry, Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Vol. 355, Springer (2020) 809pp

work page 2020
[6]

Cabibbo and L

N. Cabibbo and L. Maiani, Weak interactions and the breaking of hadron symmetries, in Evolution of particle physics: A volume dedicated to Edoardo Amaldi on his sixtieth birthday, M. Conversi, ed. (1970) pp. 50–80

work page 1970
[7]

Blitz and S

S. Blitz and S. Majid, Quantum curvature fluctuations and the cosmological constant in a single plaquette quan- tum gravity model, Class. Quantum Grav. 42 (2025) 12 04LT01 (12pp)

work page 2025
[8]

Connes, Noncommutative Geometry, Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA, 1994

A. Connes, Noncommutative Geometry, Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA, 1994

work page 1994

Show all 26 references

[9]

Chamsedine and A

A. Chamsedine and A. Connes, Why the Standard Model, J. Geom. Phys. 58 (2008) 38-47

2008
[10]

Doplicher, K

S. Doplicher, K. Fredenhagen and J. E. Roberts, The quantum structure of spacetime at the Planck scale and quantum fields, Commun. Math. Phys. 172 (1995) 187– 220

1995
[11]

Coquereaux and A

R. Coquereaux and A. Jadczyk, Riemannian Geometry Fiber Bundles Kaluza-Klein Theories and All That...., World Scientific, 1988

1988
[12]

’t Hooft, Quantization of point particles in 2+1 di- mensional gravity and space- time discreteness, Class

G. ’t Hooft, Quantization of point particles in 2+1 di- mensional gravity and space- time discreteness, Class. Quant. Grav. 13 (1996) 1023

1996
[13]

Ghosh, S

P. Ghosh, S. Mahapatra, N. Narendra and N. Sahu, TeV scale modified type-II seesaw mechanism and dark matter in a gauged U (1)B−L symmetric model, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 015001

2022
[14]

Liu and S

C. Liu and S. Majid, Quantum Kaluza-Klein theory with M2(C), JHEP (2023) 102 (33pp)

2023
[15]

Lira-Torres and S

E. Lira-Torres and S. Majid, Quantum gravity and Rie- mannian geometry on the fuzzy sphere, Lett. Math. Phys. (2021) 111:29 (21pp)

2021
[16]

Liu and S

C. Liu and S. Majid, Fermions in fuzzy sphere quantum Kaluza-Klein model, arXiv:2409:06668 (hep-th)
[17]

Liu and S

C. Liu and S. Majid, Yang-Mills fields from fuzzy sphere quantum Kaluza-Klein model, JHEP 07 (2024) 195 (27pp)

2024
[18]

Majid, Hopf algebras for physics at the Planck scale, Class

S. Majid, Hopf algebras for physics at the Planck scale, Class. Quant. Grav. 5 (1988) 1587–1607

1988
[19]

Madore, The fuzzy sphere, Class

J. Madore, The fuzzy sphere, Class. Quant. Grav. 9 (1992) 69–88

1992
[20]

Note that the large L expansions there correspond to weakG → 0 expansions here, or more precisely expansions of ⟨λi⟩/L and ⟨λiλj⟩/L2 as functions of g for small g

(for the geometric measure and in other conventions where we set G = 1). Note that the large L expansions there correspond to weakG → 0 expansions here, or more precisely expansions of ⟨λi⟩/L and ⟨λiλj⟩/L2 as functions of g for small g. For example ⟨λ3⟩/L ≈ −1.28 ln(g) − 0.6ı ...
[21]

Majid, Quantum gravity on a square graph, Class

S. Majid, Quantum gravity on a square graph, Class. Quant. Grav 36 (2019) 245009 (23pp)

2019
[22]

Majid, S

S. Majid, S. Majid, Quantum gravity:are we there yet?, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A 383 (2025) 20230377 (20pp)

2025
[23]

Majid and H

S. Majid and H. Ruegg, Bicrossproduct structure of the κ-Poincare group and non-commutative geometry, Phys. Lett. B. 334 (1994) 348–354

1994
[24]

Overduin and P.S

J.M. Overduin and P.S. Wesson, Kaluza-Klein Gravity. Physics Reports. 283 (1997) 303–378

1997
[25]

Snyder, Quantized space-time, Phys

H.S. Snyder, Quantized space-time, Phys. Rev. 71 (1947) 38–41

1947
[26]

Stratonovich, On distributions in representation space, Sov

R.L. Stratonovich, On distributions in representation space, Sov. Phys. JETP 4 (1957) 891-898

1957

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Amelino-Camelia and S

G. Amelino-Camelia and S. Majid, Waves on noncom- mutative spacetime and gamma-ray bursts, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 15 (2000) 4301–4323

work page 2000

[2] [2]

Argota-Quiroz and S

J. Argota-Quiroz and S. Majid, Quantum gravity on fi- nite spacetimes and dynamical mass, PoS (2022) 210 (41pp)

work page 2022

[3] [3]

as shown. We then integrate this numerically over λ2, λ3 for the two regions λ2 ∈ (ε, ∞), λ3 ∈ (λ2, ∞) where we use m2 = λ3, m3 = λ2, and λ3 ∈ (ε, ∞), λ2 ∈ (λ3, ∞), where we use m2 = λ2, m3 = λ3. These two regions contribute equally due to the symmetry between λ2, λ3, generating a factor 2 times the second case. The numerator of ⟨λ2 1⟩ is therefore the in...

work page

[4] [4]

Berryman and D

J.M. Berryman and D. Hern´ andez, Standard model flavor from an SU (2) symmetry, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 115007

work page 2017

[5] [5]

Beggs and S

E.J. Beggs and S. Majid, Quantum Riemannian Geom- etry, Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Vol. 355, Springer (2020) 809pp

work page 2020

[6] [6]

Cabibbo and L

N. Cabibbo and L. Maiani, Weak interactions and the breaking of hadron symmetries, in Evolution of particle physics: A volume dedicated to Edoardo Amaldi on his sixtieth birthday, M. Conversi, ed. (1970) pp. 50–80

work page 1970

[7] [7]

Blitz and S

S. Blitz and S. Majid, Quantum curvature fluctuations and the cosmological constant in a single plaquette quan- tum gravity model, Class. Quantum Grav. 42 (2025) 12 04LT01 (12pp)

work page 2025

[8] [8]

Connes, Noncommutative Geometry, Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA, 1994

A. Connes, Noncommutative Geometry, Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA, 1994

work page 1994