• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,064 questions , 2,215 unanswered
5,347 answers , 22,728 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  Quantum gravity at D = 3

+ 7 like - 0 dislike

Quantization of gravity (general relativity) seems to be impossible for spacetime dimension D >= 4. Instead, quantum gravity is described by string theory which is something more than quantization (for example it introduces an infinite number of fields). More direct approaches to quantization of gravity have failed (my opinion; not everyone would agree on this).

However, gravity in dimensions D < 4 is special, because it is topological (carries no dynamic degrees of freedom locally). It is possible to quantize gravity coupled to other fields at D = 2: in fact perturbative string theory is exactly that! What about D = 3? Are there approaches to quantization of gravity (coupled to other fields) which have been more successful at D = 3 than at D = 4?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
asked Dec 17, 2011 in Theoretical Physics by Squark (1,725 points) [ no revision ]
Yes, this question has many layers and I wouldn't be able to cover all of them. But 3D quantum gravity has been attacked in many ways: by AdS3/CFT2 which has some special features because of the Virasoro symmetry of CFT2 (Witten's CFT dual for pure 3D gravity involves monster symmetry); by equivalences with other topological theories i.e. Chern-Simons theory (which only holds perturbatively etc.), and others. The dynamics of pure gravity in 3D is seemingly trivial.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
But I think that what we're learned is that when we study the problem nonperturbatively and accurately, the simplicity really goes away, the simplified formulae and equivalences to field theory don't work, and there's still a whole emerging structure that requires a theory of the "same degree of complexity" as string theory, if I want to avoid questions whether e.g. the CFT duals of pure 3D gravity are a part of string theory or not.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Classically, GR can be written as a BF-theory, with a simplicity constraint on B. Quantum mechanically this can be made to work in 3D (i.e. canonical quantization as a constrained system). Google terms: "Turaev-Viro theory". This gives the expected TQFT.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

1 Answer

+ 6 like - 0 dislike

Two quick comments:

First, having no perturbative excitations is not the same as being topological, at least with the conventional use of these terms.

Secondly, whether quantization of the metric “works” depends strongly on what your expectations are and what tests you subject your theory to, so you’ll get different stories from different camps. For gravity with negative CC, Witten’s work in http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3359 and especially some followups strongly suggest that regardless of which trick you might try using to quantize gravity, in the end there is simply no quantum theory with the two properties:

  1. It reproduces the correct spectrum of black hole states.
  2. Its classical limit is pure classical gravity.

This seems a model independent result to me, excluding many previous attempts including Witten’s own celebrated contribution which started the ball rolling. It could also be that with zero or positive CC the result may be different, but I personally don’t see why tricks that give the wrong answer for negative CC (for which we at least know which questions are well-defined) will somehow miraculously work in a much less well-understood context.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Dec 18, 2011 by Moshe (2,405 points) [ no revision ]
Quick comment before I understand the rest of the answer: I think that having no excitations and being diffeomorphism invariant _is_ the same as being topological.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
The qualifier "perturbative" in my statement is important.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
If you're interested in the state of affairs before Witten's reconsideration above, you can check out Carlip's book, "Quantum Gravity in 2+1 Dimensions". It's been claimed that Witten's old quantization (Moshe's second link) via CS theory with a noncompact gauge group is equivalent to various LQG techniques, but the actual reference where that is done seems to be hard to track down.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
But @Moshe, the abstract suggests "The monster theory may be the first in a discrete series of CFT's that are dual to three-dimensional gravity" so apparently Witten thinks 3D quantum gravity _does_ make sense. What am I missing?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
The classical limit is the large k limit, Witten found the k=1 theory, subject to constraint 1 above. Subsequent papers suggest k is bounded by a relatively small number, so theories that produce the right black hole spectrum have no classical limit. This essentially says there are no large enough unitary representations of the asymptotic symmetry group, whose modular invariant partition functions fits the spectrum of black hole degeneracy.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Or, you can start with a classical theory you hope to obtain as a limit of some quantum theory, and "quantize" it, which means do an $\hbar$ (in this context 1/k) expansion starting with that classical theory. None of the methods to obtain such quantization, all of which involve quite a bit of guesswork, obtain the right black hole spectrum for negative CC. The failed search for a quantum theory with the right properties, something which does not single out a method of "quantization", is likely the underlying reason.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

Your answer

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):
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:
Then 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).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights