Abstract
We review a novel and authentic way to quantize gravity. This novel approach is based on the fact that Einstein gravity can be formulated in terms of a symplectic geometry rather than a Riemannian geometry in the context of emergent gravity. An essential step for emergent gravity is to realize the equivalence principle, the most important property in the theory of gravity (general relativity), from U(1) gauge theory on a symplectic or Poisson manifold. Through the realization of the equivalence principle, which is an intrinsic property in symplectic geometry known as the Darboux theorem or the Moser lemma, one can understand how diffeomorphism symmetry arises from noncommutative U(1) gauge theory; thus, gravity can emerge from the noncommutative electromagnetism, which is also an interacting theory. As a consequence, a background-independent quantum gravity in which the prior existence of any spacetime structure is not a priori assumed but is defined by using the fundamental ingredients in quantum gravity theory can be formulated. This scheme for quantum gravity can be used to resolve many notorious problems in theoretical physics, such as the cosmological constant problem, to understand the nature of dark energy, and to explain why gravity is so weak compared to other forces. In particular, it leads to a remarkable picture of what matter is. A matter field, such as leptons and quarks, simply arises as a stable localized geometry, which is a topological object in the defining algebra (noncommutative ★-algebra) of quantum gravity.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Nevertheless, gravitational phenomena are ubiquitous in our everyday life. The reason is that the gravitational force is only attractive and always additive. As a result, the standard gravitational parameter GM for an astronomical body with mass M is not small. For example, GM e = 4 × 1014 m 3/s 2 for the Earth, where M e = 5.96 × 1024 Kg, which corresponds to 1 cm compared to the Planck length L pl = \(\sqrt G \) ~ 10−33 cm.
Niels Henrik Abel (1802–1829): A problem that seems insurmountable is just seemingly so because we have not asked the right question. You should always ask the right question and then you can solve the problem.
C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation (W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1973).
H. S. Yang, Europhys. Lett. 88, 31002 (2009), [hepth/0608013].
H. S. Yang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 24, 4473 (2009), [hepth/0611174].
H. S. Yang, Eur. Phys. J. C 64, 445 (2009), [arXiv:0704.0929].
H. S. Yang, J. High Energy Phys. 05, 012 (2009), [arXiv:0809.4728].
R. Abraham and J. E. Marsden, Foundations of Mechanics (Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1978).
M. R. Douglas and N. A. Nekrasov, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 977 (2001), [hep-th/0106048]; R. J. Szabo, Phys. Rep. 378, 207 (2003), [hep-th/0109162].
R. J. Szabo, Class. Quantum Grav. 23, R199 (2006), [hep-th/0606233].
K. Becker, M. Becker and J. Schwarz, String Theory and M-Theory: A Modern Introduction (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2007).
There is an interesting peculiarity in D = 6 that the gauge coupling constant e 2 in natural units c = ħ = 1 carries the physical dimension of (length)2. Thus, the gauge coupling constant e 2 in six dimensions operates like a noncommutative parameter |θ| or a string length α′, i.e., e 2 ~ |θ| ~ α′. This may imply that a six-dimensional gauge theory intrinsically behaves like a string theory without assuming any noncommutative spacetime.
The theory on a D-brane also needs an intrinsic length parameter because it is always defined with the action \({\smallint _M}\sqrt {\det \left( {g + 2\pi \alpha 'F} \right)} ,\;so\;\alpha ' \equiv \;l_s^2\) should carry the dimension of (length)2 for a dimensional reason. Because the parameter l s 2 disappears from the theory if F = 0, it is necessary for the field strength F to be nowhere vanishing in order for the parameter l s 2 to have an operational meaning as an intrinsic length scale of the theory. In this case where 〈F〉 r→∞ = B, the two theories will be physically equivalent, as was shown in Ref. [16].
A. Connes, Noncommutative Geometry (Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 1994).
M. Kontsevich, Lett. Math. Phys. 66, 157 (2003), [qalg/9709040].
N. Seiberg and E. Witten, J. High Energy Phys. 09, 032 (1999), [hep-th/9908142].
T. Banks, W. Fischler, S. H. Shenker and L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D 55, 5112 (1997), [hep-th/9610043].
N. Ishibashi, H. Kawai, Y. Kitazawa and A. Tsuchiya, Nucl. Phys. B 498, 467 (1997), [hep-th/9612115]; H. Aoki, S. Iso, H. Kawai, Y. Kitazawa and T. Tada, Prog. Theor. Phys. 99, 713 (1998), [hep-th/9802085]; H. Aoki, N. Ishibashi, S. Iso, H. Kawai, Y. Kitazawa and T. Tada, Nucl. Phys. B 565, 176 (2000), [hep-th/9908141].
L. Motl, [hep-th/9701025]; R. Dijkgraaf, E. Verlinde and H. Verlinde, Nucl. Phys. B 500, 43 (1997), [hepth/9703030].
W. Taylor, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 419 (2001), [hepth/0101126].
G. E. Volovik, The Universe in a Helium Droplet (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003); C. Barcelo, S. Liberati and M. Visser, Living Rev. Rel. 8, 12 (2005), [gr-qc/0505065].
J. M. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 231 (1998), [hep-th/9711200]; S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov and A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B 428, 105 (1998), [hepth/9802109]; E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 253 (1998), [hep-th/9802150].
V. O. Rivelles, Phys. Lett. B 558, 191 (2003), [hepth/0212262].
H. S. Yang, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 21, 2637 (2006), [hepth/0402002]; R. Banerjee and H. S. Yang, Nucl. Phys. B B708, 434 (2005), [hep-th/0404064].
H. Steinacker, J. High Energy Phys. 12, 049 (2007), [arXiv:0708.2426]; H. Grosse, H. Steinacker and M. Wohlgenannt, ibid. 04, 023 (2008), [arXiv:0802.0973]; D. Klammer and H. Steinacker, ibid. 08, 074 (2008), [arXiv:0805.1157]; ibid. 02, 074 (2010), [arXiv:0909.5298]; H. Steinacker, Nucl. Phys. B 810, 1 (2009), [arXiv:0806.2032]; J. High Energy Phys. 02, 044 (2009), [arXiv:0812.3761].
D. Klammer and H. Steinacker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 221301 (2009), [arXiv:0903.0986].
H. Steinacker, J. High Energy Phys. 12, 024 (2009), [arXiv:0909.4621]; D. N. Blaschke and H. Steinacker, Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 165010 (2010), [arXiv:1003.4132].
H. Steinacker, Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 133001 (2010), [arXiv:1003.4134].
A. D. Sakharov, Sov. Phys. Dokl. 12, 1040 (1968); A. H. Chamseddine and A. Connes, Commun. Math. Phys. 186, 731 (1997), [hep-th/9606001]; A. H. Chamseddine, A. Connes and M. Marcolli, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 11, 991 (2007), [hep-th/0610241].
J. Madore and J. Mourad, J. Math. Phys. 39, 423 (1998), [gr-qc/9607060]; S. I. Vacaru, Phys. Lett. B 498, 74 (2001), [hep-th/0009163]; E. Langmann and R. J. Szabo, Phys. Rev. D 64, 104019 (2001), [hepth/0105094]; R. J. Szabo, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 42, 1 (2010), [arXiv:0906.2913].
M. Burić, T. Grammatikopoulos, J. Madore and G. Zoupanos, J. High Energy Phys. 04, 054 (2006), [hepth/0603044]; M. Burić, J. Madore and G. Zoupanos, SIGMA 3, 125 (2007), [arXiv:0712.4024]; M. Burić, H. Grosse and J. Madore, J. High Energy Phys. 07, 010 (2010), [arXiv:1003.2284].
B. Muthukumar, Phys. Rev. D 71, 105007 (2005), [hep-th/0412069]; A. H. Fatollahi, Phys. Lett. B 665, 257 (2008), [arXiv:0805.1159]; A. Stern, Phys. Rev. D 80, 067703 (2009), [arXiv:0907.4532]; R. Banerjee, B. Chakraborty, S. Ghosh, P. Mukherjee and S. Samanta, Found. Phys. 39, 1297 (2009), [arXiv:0909.1000].
H. Lin, O. Lunin and J. Maldacena, J. High Energy Phys. 10, 025 (2004), [hep-th/0409174]; H. Lin and J. Maldacena, Phys. Rev. D 74, 084014 (2006), [hep-th/0509235].
D. Berenstein, J. High Energy Phys. 01, 125 (2006), [hep-th/0507203]; D. Berenstein and D. H. Correa, ibid. 08, 006 (2006), [hep-th/0511104]; D. Berenstein and R. Cotta, Phys. Rev. D 74, 026006 (2006), [hep-th/0605220]; D. Berenstein, M. Hanada and S. A. Hartnoll, J. High Energy Phys. 02, 010 (2009), [arXiv:0805.4658].
S. Iso, Y. Kimura, K. Tanaka and K. Wakatsuki, Nucl. Phys. B 604, 121 (2001), [hep-th/0101102]; R. Delgadillo-Blando, D. O’Connor and B. Ydri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 201601 (2008), [arXiv:0712.3011]; J. High Energy Phys. 05, 049 (2009), [arXiv:0806.0558]; M. Hanada, Y. Hyakutake, J. Nishimura and S. Takeuchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 191602 (2009), [arXiv:0811.3102]; H. Aoki, J. Nishimura and Y. Susaki, J. High Energy Phys. 04, 055 (2009), [arXiv:0810.5234]; ibid. 09, 084 (2009), [arXiv:0907.2107].
T. Ishii, G. Ishiki, S. Shimasaki and A. Tsuchiya, Phys. Rev. D 78, 106001 (2008), [arXiv:0807.2352]; G. Ishiki, S.-W. Kim, J. Nishimura and A. Tsuchiya, J. High Energy Phys. 09, 029 (2009), [arXiv:0907.1488].
T. Ohl and A. Schenkel, Gen. Rel. Grav. 42, 2785 (2010), [arXiv:0912.2252]; A. Schenkel and C. F. Uhlemann, SIGMA 6, 061 (2010), [arXiv:1003.3190].
M. Salizzoni, A. Torrielli and H. S. Yang, Phys. Lett. B 634, 427 (2006), [hep-th/0510249]; H. S. Yang and M. Salizzoni, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 201602 (2006), [hepth/0512215].
H. S. Yang, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 22, 1119 (2007), [hepth/0612231].
H. S. Yang, Bulg. J. Phys. 35, 323 (2008), [arXiv:0711.0234].
H. S. Yang, [arXiv:0711.2797]; Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 23, 2181 (2008), [arXiv:0803.3272]; Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1, 266 (2011), [arXiv:0902.0035].
H. S. Yang and M. Sivakumar, Phys. Rev. D 82, 045004 (2010), [arXiv:0908.2809].
M. Kontsevich, Homological Algebra of Mirror Symmetry, [alg-geom/9411018].
G. Darboux, Sur le probl‘eme de Pfaff, Bull. Sci. Math. 6, 14–36, 49–68 (1882).
J. Moser, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 120, 286 (1965).
F. J. Dyson, Am. J. Phys. 58, 209 (1990).
C. R. Lee, Phys. Lett. A 148, 146 (1990).
S. Tanimura, Ann. Phys. 220, 229 (1992), [hepth/9306066]; J. F. Carinena, L. A. Ibort, G. Marmo and A. Stern, Phys. Rep. 263, 153 (1995), [hep-th/9306066].
S. Sternberg, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 74, 5253 (1977).
M. Karoubi, K-Theory: An Introduction (Springer, Berlin, 1978).
R. Minasian and G. Moore, J. High Energy Phys. 11, 002 (1997), [hep-th/9710230]; P. Hořava, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 1373 (1998), [hep-th/9812135].
E. Witten, J. High Energy Phys. 12, 019 (1998), [hepth/9810188]; Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 16, 063 (2001), [hepth/0007175].
K. Olsen and R. J. Szabo, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 3, 889 (1999), [hep-th/9907140]; J. A. Harvey, Komaba Lectures on Noncommutative Solitons and D-Branes, [hep-th/0102076].
M. F. Atiyah, R. Bott and A. Shapiro, Topology 3, 3 (1964).
N. Hitchin, Quart. J. Math. Oxford Ser. 54, 281 (2003), [math.DG/0209099]; M. Gualtieri, [math.DG/0401221]; [math.DG/0703298]; G. R. Cavalcanti, [math.DG/0501406].
L. Cornalba, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 4, 271 (2000), [hep-th/9909081].
However, Eq. (56) shows that the SU(2) gauge fields A μ (±) have their own gauge fields, i.e., the vierbeins E a whose degrees of freedom match with those of the U(1) gauge fields D a in the action in Eq. (44) when applying the map in Eq. (12). Therefore, it is sensible that SU(2) gauge theory describing self-dual gravity can be mapped to the U(1) gauge theory described by the action in Eq. (44), as will be shown later.
S. W. Hawking, Phys. Lett. 60A, 81 (1977); T. Eguchi and A. J. Hanson, Phys. Lett. 74B, 249 (1978); G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Lett. 78B, 430 (1978).
J. J. Oh, C. Park and H. S. Yang, J. High Energy Phys. 04, 087 (2011), [arXiv:1101.1357].
Y. Hashimoto, Y. Yasui, S. Miyagi and T. Ootsuka, J. Math. Phys. 38, 5833 (1997), [hep-th/9610069]; T. Ootsuka, S. Miyagi, Y. Yasui and S. Zeze, Class. Quant. Grav. 16, 1305 (1999), [gr-qc/9809083].
One can show that the ansatz in Eq. (83) is equivalent to Eq. (69) (up to a sign) by the identification of the volume form ν = λ−2 E 1 ⋀ ··· ⋀ E 4 = λ−2 ν g. See Eq. (95). According to the definition in Eq. (83), we have \({J^{\left( \pm \right)i}} = \frac{1}{2}\eta _{ab}^{\left( \pm \right)i}{\iota _a}{\iota _b}\left( {{\lambda ^{ - 2}}{\upsilon _g}} \right) = \frac{1}{2}\eta _{ab}^{\left( \pm \right)i}{\iota _{\lambda {E_a}}}{\iota _{\lambda {E_b}}}\left( {{\lambda ^{ - 2}}{\upsilon _g}} \right) = \frac{1}{2}\eta _{ab}^{\left( \pm \right)i}{\iota _{{E_a}}}{\iota _{{E_b}}}{\upsilon _g} = \frac{1}{2}\left( {\frac{1}{2}{\varepsilon _{abcd}}\eta _{ab}^{\left( \pm \right)i}} \right){E^c} \wedge {E^d} = \pm \frac{1}{2}\eta _{ab}^{\left( \pm \right)i}{E^a} \wedge {E^b}\).
A. Ashtekar, T. Jabobson and L. Smolin, Commun. Math. Phys. 115, 631 (1988); L. J. Mason and E. T. Newman, Commun. Math. Phys. 121, 659 (1989); S. Chakravarty, L. Mason and E. T. Newman, J. Math. Phys. 32, 1458 (1991); D. D. Joyce, Duke Math. J. 77, 519 (1995).
This formula can be easily derived by applying Cartan’s homotopy formula ℒ X β = ι X dβ+dι X β for β = ι Y α and [ℒ X, ι Y] = ι [X, Y] [8].
N. Nekrasov and A. Schwarz, Commun. Math. Phys. 198, 689 (1998), [hep-th/9802068]; K.-Y. Kim, B.-H. Lee, H. S. Yang, J. Korean Phys. Soc. 41, 290 (2002), [hep-th/0003093]; Phys. Lett. B 523, 357 (2001), [hepth/0109121].
There is a perverse sign problem in reversing the map. We still don’t understand how to properly translate the map Γ(TM) → C ∞ (M) to avoid the sign problem. In a way, one may consider some analytic continuation such that every module is defined over ℂ, as was suggested in Ref. [7]. Anyway, the sign issue will be insignificant at this stage.
F. Bayen, M. Flato, C. Fronsdal, A. Lichnerowicz and D. Sternheimer, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 111, 61; 111 (1978); B. V. Fedosov, J. Diff. Geom. 40, 213 (1994).
Here, ħ is a formal deformation parameter that may be identified with either |θ|or the Planck constant ħ, depending on the choice of a Poisson manifold M or P. For the Poisson manifold M with the Poisson structure θ ∈ Γ(Λ2 TM), it would be convenient to take the rescaling θ μν → ħθ μν because ħ is regarded as a plain parameter without any indices. In the end, one may set ħ = 1.
Our notation here may be sloppy. D a in Eq. (157) contains an extra −i compared to Eq. (131). This sloppy notation is for a parallel march with D μ.
R. S. Ward, Class. Quantum Grav. 7, L217 (1990).
E. Corrigan, C. Devchand, D. B. Fairlie and J. Nuyts, Nucl. Phys. B 214, 452 (1983); R. S. Ward, Nucl. Phys. B 236, 381 (1984).
D. Bak, K. Lee and J.-H. Park, Phys. Rev. D 66, 025021 (2002), [hep-th/0204221].
H. Elvang and J. Polchinski, C. R. Physique 4, 405 (2003), [hep-th/0209104].
In this respect, quoting a recent comment by Zee [74] would be interesting: “The basic equation for the graviton field has the same form g μν = η μν + h μν. This naturally suggests that η μν = 〈g μν〉 and perhaps some sort of spontaneous symmetry breaking.” It turns out that this pattern is not an accidental happening.
A. Zee, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 23, 1295 (2008), [arXiv:0805.2183].
L. Cornalba, J. High Energy Phys. 09, 017 (2000), [hepth/9912293]; Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 4, 1259 (2002), [hep-th/0006018]; L. Cornalba and R. Schiappa, Commun. Math. Phys. 225, 33 (2002), [hep-th/0101219].
Y. M. Cho and P. G. O. Freund, Phys. Rev. D 12, 1711 (1975).
I. Vaisman, Lectures on the geometry of Poisson manifolds (Birkhäuser, Basel, 1994).
A. Weinstein, J. Diff. Geom. 18, 523 (1983).
S. K. Wong, Nuovo Cimento 65A, 689 (1970).
V. Guillemin and S. Sternberg, Symplectic Techniques in Physics (Cambridge University Press, 1984).
A. Weinstein, Lett. Math. Phys. 2, 417 (1978).
P. Hořava, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 016405 (2005), [hepth/0503006].
G. E. Volovik, Lect. Notes Phys. 718, 31 (2007), [condmat/0601372]; Fermi-point scenario of emergent gravity, [arXiv:0709.1258].
H. Georgi, Lie Algebras in Particle Physics: From Isospin to Unified Theories (Advanced Book Program, 1999).
One may imagine that the system in Eq. (277) is quantized a la Eq. (5}). Then, the time evolution of a quantum system is derived from a Heisenberg algebra, i.e., \(i\hbar \frac{{d\hat f}}{{dt}} = \left[ {\hat f,\hat H} \right]\;for\;\hat f,\hat H\; \in \;{A_h}\). This is also in line with our philosophy that a geometry is derived from an algebra
H. S. Yang, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 343, 012132 (2012), [arXiv:1111.0015].
T. Padmanabhan, Gen. Rel. Grav. 40, 529 (2008), [arXiv:0705.2533]; AIP Conf. Proc. 939, 114 (2007), [arXiv:0706.1654]; Adv. Sci. Lett. 2, 174 (2009), [arXiv:0807.2356].
This argument was corrected in Ref. [86], but we will not delete this incorrect argument to illustrate how a prejudice easily ignores important physics.
S. Minwalla, M. Van Raamsdonk and N. Seiberg, J. High Energy Phys. 02, 020 (2000), [hep-th/9912072].
A. Raychaudhuri, Relativistic Cosmology. I, Phys. Rev. 98, 1123 (1955).
S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time (Cambridge University Press, 1973).
M. Blau and S. Theisen, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 41, 743 (2009).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lee, J., Yang, H.S. Quantum gravity from noncommutative spacetime. Journal of the Korean Physical Society 65, 1754–1798 (2014). https://doi.org/10.3938/jkps.65.1754
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3938/jkps.65.1754