The accidental flatness constraint does not mean a wrong classical limit
DOI10.1088/1361-6382/ac655ezbMath1496.83032arXiv2111.03166OpenAlexW3213042283WikidataQ114568728 ScholiaQ114568728MaRDI QIDQ5077301
Publication date: 18 May 2022
Published in: Classical and Quantum Gravity (Search for Journal in Brave)
Full work available at URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.03166
Quantization of the gravitational field (83C45) Semiclassical techniques, including WKB and Maslov methods applied to problems in quantum theory (81Q20) Spinor and twistor methods in general relativity and gravitational theory; Newman-Penrose formalism (83C60) Constrained dynamics, Dirac's theory of constraints (70H45) Flatness and tameness of topological manifolds (57N45)
Cites Work
- LQG vertex with finite Immirzi parameter
- Spin foam models and the classical action principle
- Spin-foams for all loop quantum gravity
- Asymptotic analysis of the Engle–Pereira–Rovelli–Livine four-simplex amplitude
- Discrete gravity dynamics from effective spin foams
- Addendum to ‘EPRL/FK asymptotics and the flatness problem’
- A high-performance code for EPRL spin foam amplitudes
- 4-dimensional spin-foam model with quantum Lorentz group
- On spinfoam models in large spin regime
This page was built for publication: The accidental flatness constraint does not mean a wrong classical limit
