As with “Quantum General Relativity” we take the term “Gravidynamics” in a broad sense,
allowing for any set of field variables (e.g. vielbein and spin connection, Ashtekar’s variables,
Plebanski and BF type formulations, teleparallel, etc.) that can be used to recast general
relativity (see e.g. the review [167]). For example the coupling of fermions might be a good
reason to use a vielbein formulation. If the metric is taken as dynamical variable in four
dimensions we shall also use the term “Quantum Einstein Gravity” as in [154, 133
, 131
]. It is
of course not assumed from the outset that the quantum gravidynamics based on the various
set of field variables are necessarily equivalent.
A non-Gaussian fixed point is simply one where no choice of fields can be found in which the measure becomes Gaussian. Unfortunately this, too, is not a very operational criterion.
Couplings which are relevant or irrelevant in a linearized analysis are called linearly relevant or linearly irrelevant, respectively. A coupling which is neither linearly relevant nor linearly irrelevant is called (linearly) marginal.
(C2) independent of the choice of the coarse graining operation (within a certain class), and
(C3) invariant under point transformations of the fields.
Usually one stipulates Properties (C1) and (C2) for the functional measure after which Property (C3) should be a provable property of physical quantities like the S-matrix. The requirement of having also Properties (C1) and (C2) only for observables is somewhat weaker and in the spirit of the asymptotic safety scenario.
Typically the Properties (C1, C2, C3) cannot be rigorously established, but there are useful criteria which render the existence of a genuine continuum limit plausible in different computational frameworks. In Sections 2.1 and 2.2 we discuss in some detail such criteria for the perturbative and for the FRGE approach, respectively. For convenience we summarize the main points here.
In renormalized perturbation theory the criterion involves two parts:
(PTC1) Existence of a formal continuum limit. This means, the removal of the UV cutoff is possible
and the renormalized physical quantities are independent of the scheme and of the choice of
interpolating fields – all in the sense of formal power series in the loop counting parameter. The
perturbative beta functions always have a trivial (Gaussian) fixed-point but may also have a nontrivial
(non-Gaussian) fixed point.
The second part of the criterion is:
(PTC2) The dimension of the unstable manifold of the (Gaussian or non-Gaussian) fixed point as
computed from the perturbative beta functions equals the number of independent essential couplings.
For example and QED meet Criterion (PTC1) but not (PTC2) while QCD satisfies both
Criterion (PTC1) and (PTC2). In the framework of the functional renormalization group equations
(FRGE) similar criteria for the existence of a genuine continuum limit can be formulated. Specifically
for the FRGE of the effective average action one has:
(FRGC1) The solution of the FRG equation admits (for fine tuned initial data at some
) a global solution
, i.e. one that can be extended both to
and to
(where the latter limit is not part of the UV problem in itself).
(FRGC2) The functional derivatives of (vertex functions) meet certain requirements
which ensure stability/positivity/unitarity.
In Criterion (FRGC1) the existence of the limit in theories with massless degrees of freedom
is nontrivial and the problem of gaining computational control over the infrared physics
should be separated from the UV aspects of the continuum limit as much as possible.
However the
limit is essential to probe stability/positivity/unitarity. For example, to
obtain a (massive) Euclidean quantum field theory the Schwinger functions constructed
from the vertex functions have to obey nonlinear relations which ensure that the Hilbert
space reconstructed via the Osterwalder–Schrader procedure has a positive definite inner
product.
The “non-constant” proviso is needed to exclude cases like a trivial coupling. In a
nonperturbative lattice construction of
theory only a Gaussian fixed point with a
one-dimensional unstable manifold (parameterized by the renormalized mass) is thought to exist,
along which the renormalized
coupling is constant and identically zero. The Gaussian nature of
the fixed-point, on the other hand, is not crucial and we define:
In a non-gravitational context the functional measure of the 3D Gross–Neveu model is presently the best candidate to be asymptotically safe in the above sense (see [101, 60, 198, 105] and references therein). Also 5D Yang–Mills theories (see [93, 148] and references therein) are believed to provide examples. In a gravitational context, however, there are good reasons to modify this definition.
First the choice of couplings has to be physically motivated, which requires to make contact to observables. In the above nongravitational examples with a single coupling the ‘meaning’ of the coupling is obvious; in particular it is clear that it must be finite and positive at the non-Gaussian fixed point. In general however one does not know whether ill behaved couplings are perverse redefinitions of better behaved ones. To avoid this problem the couplings should be defined as coefficients in a power series expansion of the observables themselves (Weinberg’s “reaction rates”; see the discussion in Section 1.1). Of course painfully little is known about (generic) quantum gravity observables, but as a matter of principle this is how couplings should be defined. In particular this will pin down the physically adequate notion of positivity or unitarity.
Second, there may be good reasons to work initially with infinitely many essential or potentially relevant couplings. Recall that the number of essential couplings entering the initial construction of the functional measure is not necessarily equal to the number eventually indispensable. In a secondary step a reduction of couplings might be feasible. That is, relations among the couplings might exist which are compatible with the renormalization flow. If these relations are sufficiently complicated, it might be better to impose them retroactively than to try to switch to a more adapted basis of interaction monomials from the beginning.
Specifically in the context of quantum gravity microscopic actions with infinitely many essential
couplings occur naturally in several ways. First, when starting from the Gomis–Weinberg picture [94]
of perturbative quantum gravity (which is implemented in a non-graviton expansion in Section 3 for
the
reduction). Second, when power counting considerations are taken as a guideline one can
use Newton’s constant (frozen in Planck units) to build dimensionless scalars (dilaton, conformal
factor) and change the conformal frame arbitrarily. The way how these dimensionless scalars enter the
(bare versus renormalized) action is not constrained by power counting considerations. This opens the
door to an infinite number of essential couplings. The effective action for the conformal
factor [149
] and the dilaton field in the
reduction [154
] provide examples of this
phenomenon.
Third, the dimension of the unstable manifold is of secondary importance in this context. Recall that the dimension of the unstable manifold is the maximal number of independent relevant interaction monomials ‘connected’ to the fixed point. This maximal number may be very difficult to determine in Quantum Gravidynamics. It would require identification of all renormalized trajectories emanating from the fixed point – which may be more than what is needed physicswise: The successful construction of a subset of renormalized trajectories for physically motivated couplings may already be enough to obtain predictions/explanations for some observables. Moreover, what matters is not the total number of relevant couplings but the way how observables depend on them. Since generic observables (in the sense used in Section 1.1) are likely to be nonlinearly and nonlocally related to the metric or to the usual basis of interaction monomials (scalars built from polynomials in the curvature tensors, for instance) the condition that the theory should allow for predictions in terms of observables is only indirectly related to the total number of relevant couplings.
In summary, the interplay between the microscopic action, its parameterization through essential or relevant couplings, and observables is considerably more subtle than in the presumed non-gravitational examples of asymptotically safe theories with a single coupling. The existence of an asymptotically safe functional measure in the above sense seems to be neither necessary nor sufficient for a physically viable theory of Quantum Gravidynamics. This leads to our final working definition.
![]() |
http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2006-5 |
© Max Planck Society and the author(s)
Problems/comments to |