# Simple question on the foundations of spin foam formalism

+ 6 like - 0 dislike
10 views

To make it simple, take the spin foam formalism of ($SU(2)$) 3D gravity. My question is about the choice of the data that will replace the (smoothly defined) fields $e$ (the triad) and $\omega$ (the connection) on the disretized version of space-time $\mathcal{M}$: the 2-complex $\Delta$: why choose to replace $e$ by the assignment of elemnts $e\in su(2)$ to each 1-cell of $\Delta$, and elements $g_{e}\in SU(2)$ to each edge in the dual 2-complex $\mathcal{J}_{\Delta}$? I mean, these are both $su(2)$-valued 1-forms, thus, roughly speaking, assigning elements of $su(2)$ to vectors of the tangent bundle $\mathcal{TM}$, in other terms assigning elements of $su(2)$ to infinitesimal displacements represented by the 1-cells of $\Delta$. I can understand the choise for $e$, but not for $\omega$, why this is so? Why it is not the inverse choice?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Note: this question is cross-posted to MathOverflow, http://mathoverflow.net/questions/82413/simple-question-on-the-foundations-of-spin-foam-formalism

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

+ 6 like - 0 dislike

Well, I'll take a shot at this - most of what I'm going to say comes from the text of Thiemann or Rovelli. The choice of $g_e\in SU(2)$ is connected to the holonomy, which we choose to use because it is a gauge-invariant. In fact, it's probably more pedagogical to say "the loops come from the holonomy $g_e\in SU(2)$, which we know can be made to be gauge-invariant Wilson loops" or something. Now as far as the choice for the 2-complex, we want something related to the triads so that the original Poisson algebra between the connection $A$ and fields $E$ is preserved. It actually turns out that $E$ is an $SU(2)$-valued vector density - dual to a 2-form represented by the 2-complex. In other words, we don't have two 1-forms, but rather a 1-form and an $SU(2)$-valued vector.

So that's a short answer coming mostly from Thiemann's excellent text. This issue is taken up in depth in the third of the Ashtekar series of papers:

Ashtekar, Corichi, Zapata (1998), Quantum Theory of Geometry: III. Non-commutativity of Riemannian structures, Class. Quan. Grav. 15, 2955-2972.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Dec 13, 2011 by (160 points)

 Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead. To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL. Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post. This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button. Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview Your name to display (optional): Email me at this address if my answer is selected or commented on: Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications. Anti-spam verification: If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:p$\hbar$ys$\varnothing$csOverflowThen drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds). To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.