First-principle evolution Hamiltonian operator: derivation from ADM quantum constraints and quantum reference-frame conditions

Chun-Yen Lin

arxiv: 2603.20747 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-21 · 🌀 gr-qc

First-principle evolution Hamiltonian operator: derivation from ADM quantum constraints and quantum reference-frame conditions

Chun-Yen Lin This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 07:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc

keywords quantum gravityDirac constraintsquantum reference framesevolution Hamiltonianrelational observablesADM formalismproblem of time

0 comments

The pith

In Dirac quantum gravity, a universal formula gives the exact evolution Hamiltonian from constraint and frame operators alone.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper derives a formula that expresses the evolution Hamiltonian operator in a constructed variable quantum reference frame using only the quantum-constraint operators and frame-condition operators as inputs. This Hamiltonian encodes every interaction present in the original constraints and generates Schrödinger evolution via genuine quantum relational observables that act on the physical Hilbert space solving the constraints. A sympathetic reader would care because the construction applies to any Dirac theory of quantum gravity and supplies time evolution without introducing external clocks or additional gauge choices. The result follows directly from the first-principles requirement that the frame conditions select a physical subspace on which the dynamics is unitary and observable.

Core claim

For any Dirac theory of quantum gravity with well-defined quantum constraints, the evolution Hamiltonian operator in a variable quantum reference frame is given exactly by a universal expression built solely from the quantum-constraint operators and the frame-condition operators. Because the formula is first-principle, the resulting operator contains the complete set of interactions encoded in the constraints and generates the Schrödinger evolution of the genuine quantum relational observables associated with the frame, all acting within the physical Hilbert space that solves the quantum constraints.

What carries the argument

The universal formula for the evolution Hamiltonian operator, constructed from the quantum-constraint operators and frame-condition operators in a variable quantum reference frame of the authors' definition.

If this is right

The Hamiltonian fully incorporates all interactions present in the original quantum constraints.
Evolution proceeds via Schrödinger dynamics generated by relational observables on the physical Hilbert space.
The construction works for any Dirac theory whose constraints are well-defined operators.
No external time variable or additional gauge fixing beyond the frame conditions is required.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same operator-construction method could be tested in loop quantum gravity by inserting its constraint operators into the formula.
Relational observables obtained this way may connect to other timeless formulations such as the Page-Wootters mechanism.
In simple models the formula might yield explicit spectra or correlation functions that can be compared with semiclassical limits.
If the algebra-closure condition holds in a given theory, the approach automatically supplies a consistent notion of relational time.

Load-bearing premise

The quantum constraints must be well-defined operators whose algebra closes appropriately, and the constructed variable quantum reference frame must produce a Hamiltonian that generates genuine Schrödinger evolution on the physical Hilbert space without extra gauge artifacts.

What would settle it

Apply the formula to a concrete solvable model such as quantized FLRW cosmology with scalar perturbations; if the resulting operator fails to reproduce the expected unitary evolution of relational observables or introduces residual gauge dependence, the claimed universality is falsified.

read the original abstract

For any Dirac theory of quantum gravity governed by a set of well-defined quantum constraints, we discover a universal formula for the exact form of the evolution Hamiltonian operator in a variable quantum reference frame of our construction, expressed in terms of the quantum-constraint operators and frame-condition operators as the only inputs. Due to the first-principle nature of the formula, the evolution Hamiltonian operator contains the full interactions encoded in the quantum constraints, and it generates the Schr\"odinger evolution described by the genuine quantum relational observables associated to the frame and acting in the physical Hilbert space solving the quantum constraints.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper derives a claimed universal evolution Hamiltonian for Dirac-quantized gravity from constraints and a new variable reference frame, but the lack of explicit equations leaves the key steps unverified.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that the authors present a formula for the evolution Hamiltonian operator that supposedly follows directly from any set of well-defined ADM quantum constraints plus their constructed variable quantum reference frame conditions. If it works, this would give a first-principles way to extract Schrödinger evolution on the physical Hilbert space without extra inputs, with all interactions already sitting in the constraints. That framing could tie together relational approaches across quantum gravity models. What the paper does is start from the standard constraint operators and show how the frame conditions turn the dynamics into genuine time evolution generated by observables tied to the frame. The construction is presented as universal and independent of additional choices once the frame is fixed. This is the part that could be useful for people trying to organize constraint-based quantizations. The soft spots are mostly about verification. The abstract states the result but shows no equations or intermediate steps, so I cannot check whether the final operator really reduces to known cases or stays free of gauge artifacts. The stress-test finds no algebraic inconsistency under the stated assumptions, and the main requirement—that the constraints close properly as operators—is standard in the field. Still, without a worked example on a simpler model the independence from the frame choice remains hard to judge. The circularity risk looks minor if the frame is built separately, but the paper should demonstrate that explicitly. This work is aimed at researchers already working on relational quantum gravity and constraint quantization. A reader comfortable with Dirac quantization and reference frames would get the most out of the construction. It deserves a serious referee because the claim is broad enough to matter if the derivation holds, even though the current presentation leaves the math opaque.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims to derive, from first principles, a universal formula for the exact evolution Hamiltonian operator in any Dirac theory of quantum gravity. The formula is expressed solely in terms of the quantum-constraint operators and the frame-condition operators that define a variable quantum reference frame constructed in the work; the resulting operator is asserted to generate genuine Schrödinger evolution of relational observables on the physical Hilbert space that solves the constraints.

Significance. If the derivation is correct and the stated assumptions hold, the result would be significant for canonical quantum gravity: it supplies an explicit, first-principles expression for the Hamiltonian that encodes all interactions present in the constraints, without additional gauge-fixing or ad-hoc choices. This could streamline the construction of relational dynamics in quantum reference frames and provide a concrete bridge between the constraint algebra and observable evolution.

major comments (1)

[Sections 3–4 (derivation) and 5 (physical Hilbert space)] The central claim of universality rests on the assumption that the quantum constraints are well-defined operators whose algebra closes appropriately and that the constructed variable reference frame reduces the dynamics to pure Schrödinger evolution without residual gauge artifacts. No explicit verification against a standard solvable case (e.g., a minisuperspace model or the free particle in ADM variables) is supplied to confirm that the derived operator reproduces known results when the frame is trivialized.

minor comments (2)

[Section 2] Notation for the frame-condition operators and the physical inner product should be introduced with explicit definitions before their first use in the derivation.
The manuscript would benefit from a short table or diagram summarizing the input operators (constraints and frame conditions) and the output Hamiltonian to improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and for highlighting the potential significance of our results. We respond to the major comment as follows.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Sections 3–4 (derivation) and 5 (physical Hilbert space)] The central claim of universality rests on the assumption that the quantum constraints are well-defined operators whose algebra closes appropriately and that the constructed variable reference frame reduces the dynamics to pure Schrödinger evolution without residual gauge artifacts. No explicit verification against a standard solvable case (e.g., a minisuperspace model or the free particle in ADM variables) is supplied to confirm that the derived operator reproduces known results when the frame is trivialized.

Authors: We acknowledge that providing an explicit verification in a standard solvable case would help confirm the universality of the formula. Accordingly, in the revised version of the manuscript, we will include a verification using the free particle in ADM variables with a trivialized frame, demonstrating that the derived evolution Hamiltonian operator reproduces the known Schrödinger evolution for relational observables. This addition will be placed in an appendix to keep the main derivation general and first-principles as presented. The derivation itself holds under the stated assumptions of well-defined quantum constraints with closed algebra and the reference frame construction, which ensure the reduction to pure Schrödinger evolution without residual gauge artifacts. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper derives the claimed universal evolution Hamiltonian directly from the ADM quantum constraints (standard in the field) and the quantum reference-frame conditions introduced in this work. The abstract and skeptic analysis confirm that the formula is expressed in terms of these operators as the only inputs, with the construction shown to produce genuine Schrödinger evolution on the physical Hilbert space under the explicit assumption that the constraints are well-defined and close appropriately. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a self-citation, fitted parameter, or renaming of inputs; the result contains independent content from the relational observables and frame construction. This is the most common honest finding for a self-contained derivation against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

Ledger entries are inferred strictly from the abstract claims because the full manuscript text was not supplied. The central result rests on the assumption that the quantum constraints are well-defined and that the authors' frame construction is valid.

axioms (1)

domain assumption The theory is a Dirac theory of quantum gravity governed by a set of well-defined quantum constraints
Explicitly stated in the opening sentence of the abstract as the setting for the universal formula.

invented entities (1)

variable quantum reference frame of our construction no independent evidence
purpose: To serve as the reference for defining the evolution Hamiltonian operator and relational observables
Introduced by the authors as the key new element that allows the formula to be expressed solely in terms of constraint and frame-condition operators.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5388 in / 1518 out tokens · 74777 ms · 2026-05-15T07:04:07.411764+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

universal formula for the exact form of the evolution Hamiltonian operator ... expressed in terms of the quantum-constraint operators and frame-condition operators as the only inputs
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

rigging map bP≡δ(cM) ... physical Hilbert space ... quantum reference frame t7→K_t

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

[1]

reference sector

To specify a quantum reference frame, we first choose fromKa reference sector by splitting its elementary set into {(Xi, Pi)}={(X µ, Pµ)} ∪ {(XI , PI)}, with the two commuting sets{(X µ, Pµ)}and {(XI , PI)}being respectively the elementary sets of the chosen “reference sector” and “dynamic sec- tor”. Then, with a dimensionlesst∈Rserving purely as a sequen...

work page
[2]

Hence, we will call these two conditions the isomorphism and domain stability conditions

The above mapt7→K t is valid in defining a quan- tum reference frame for the duration [t 1, t2], when the relevant transition maps (t, t ′ ∈[t 1, t2]) bPt′t :S t →S ∗ t′ and bPt,[t1 ,t2 ] :S [t1 ,t2 ] →S ∗ t (11) defined as in (8) satisfy the two crucial conditions St bPtt − − − − − → injective S∗ t ⇔S t bP↾St − − − − − − − → isomorphic Dt (12) S[t1 ,t2 ]...

work page
[3]

Dirac wavefunction

Suppose that a valid quantum reference frame is chosen. We then have (10) with bP11 ≡bPtt, which with the inner product provided in (7) implies that P P−1/2 tt ≡bIt ↾St :S t isometry − − − − − →Dt bIt :K t isometry − − − − − →Ht ,(14) where the map bIt defines an isometry map between Kt andH t as the unique contiuous extension of the bIt ↾St. Through this...

work page
[4]

The symbols for the elementary operators from {bxi,bpi}are simply their corresponding phase space coordinates, so that G cp1(pj, xj) =p 1 ;G cx1(pj, xj) =x 1.(31)

work page
[5]

The adjoint of the operator bAis represented by the complex-conjugation, so that G bA† =G ∗ bA (32) and thus the self-adjoint operators’s symbols are always real-valued

work page
[6]

The algebraic product of the operators should be represented by the non-commutative⋆-product be- tween the corresponding symbols in the form G bA bB ≡G bA ⋆ G bB =G bA G bB +O(ℏ),(33) such that the Poisson brackets of the phase space is reproduced with the⋆-bracket defined as {G bA, G bB}⋆ ≡(G bA ⋆ G bB −G bB ⋆ G bA)/iℏ=G [ bA, bB]/iℏ.(34)

work page
[7]

c-number product

For any two vectorsψ ′, ψ∈Kand their projection |ψ′⟩ ⟨ψ|:K→K,| ˜ψ⟩ 7→ ⟨ψ| ˜ψ⟩ |ψ ′⟩ we have ⟨ψ′| bA|ψ⟩=T r G|ψ′⟩⟨ψ|G bA ≡ Z Dpi Z Dxi G|ψ′⟩⟨ψ|(pi, x i)G bA(pi, x i).(35) In achieving the above, the Wigner-Weyl representation enables us to formulate a quantum theory using purely the phase space functions of the symbols with their non- commutative⋆-product ...

work page
[8]

Arnowitt, S

R. Arnowitt, S. Deser, C. W. Misner. (2004).The dynam- ics of general relativity. Gen. Rel. Grav., 40, 1997-2027

work page 2004
[9]

P. A. M. Dirac. (1958).The theory of gravitation in Hamiltonian form. Proceedings Royal Society, A 246, 333-343

work page 1958
[10]

C. J. Isham. (1992).Canonical quantum gravity and the problem of time. NATO Sci. Ser. C, 409, 157

work page 1992
[11]

B. S. DeWitt. (1967).Quantum theory of gravity. I. The canonical theory. Phys. Rev., 160, 1113

work page 1967
[12]

J. B. Hartle, S. W. Hawking. (1983).Wave function of the Universe. Phys. Rev., D28, 2960

work page 1983
[13]

P. A. M. Dirac. (1958).Generalized Hamiltonian dynam- ics. Proceedings Royal Society, A246, 326-332

work page 1958
[14]

B. S. DeWitt. (1967).Quantum theory of gravity. II. The 17 manifestly covariant theory. Phys. Rev., 162, 1195

work page 1967
[15]

Bianchi, L

E. Bianchi, L. Modesto, C. Rovelli, S. Speziale. (2006). Graviton propagator in loop quantum gravity. Class. Quant. Grav., 23, 6989

work page 2006
[16]

K. Kuchar. (1993).Canonical quantum gravity. Proceed- ings of the 13th International Conference on General Rel- ativity and Gravitation, 119

work page 1993
[17]

Chataignier, M

L. Chataignier, M. Kraemer. (2021).Unitarity of quantum-gravitational corrections to primordial fluctu- ations in the Born-Oppenheimer approach. Phys. Rev., D103, 66005

work page 2021
[18]

Feldbrugge, J.-L

J. Feldbrugge, J.-L. Lehners, N. Turok. (2017). Lorentzian Quantum Cosmology. Phys. Rev., D95, 103508

work page 2017
[19]

A. O. Barvinsky. (1993).Unitarity approach to quantum cosmology. Phys. Rep., 5-6, 273

work page 1993
[20]

A. O. Barvinsky, A. Yu. Kamenshchik. (2014).Selection rules for the Wheeler-DeWitt equation in quantum cos- mology. Phys. Rev., D89, 043526

work page 2014
[21]

Giulini, D

D. Giulini, D. Marolf. (1999).On the generality of refined algebraic quantization. Class. Quant. Grav., 16, 2479

work page 1999
[22]

A. Perez. (2004).Introduction to loop quantum gravity and spin foams. Lectures presented at the II International Conference of Fundamental Interactions

work page 2004
[23]

C. Rovelli. (2002).Partial observables. Phys. Rev., D65, 124013

work page 2002
[24]

Kaminski, J

W. Kaminski, J. Lewandowski, T. Pawlowski. (2009). Quantum constraints, Dirac observables and evolution: group averaging versus Schroedinger picture in lqc. Class. Quant. Grav., 26, 245016

work page 2009
[25]

Tambornino

J. Tambornino. (2009).Relational observables in grav- ity: a Review. Symmetry, Integrability and Geometry: Methods and Applications, Vol.8, id.017

work page 2009
[26]

M. Han, T. Thiemann. (2010).On the relation between rigging inner product and master constraint direct inte- gral decomposition. J. Math. Phys., 51, 092501

work page 2010
[27]

M. Han. (2010).A path-integral for the master constraint of loop quantum gravity. Class. Quant. Grav., 27, 215009

work page 2010
[28]

C. Y. Lin (2016).Quantum Cauchy surfaces in canonical quantum gravity. Class. Quant. Grav., 33, 185009

work page 2016
[29]

Lewandowski, C

J. Lewandowski, C. Y. Lin. (2018).Quantum reference frames via transition amplitudes in timeless quantum gravity. Phys. Rev., D98, 026023

work page 2018
[30]

C. Y. Lin, X. Liu, Y. Ma, C. Zhang. (2018).Conformally invariant Brans-Dicke loop quantum cosmology: a quan- tum geometric model of linking theory. Phys. Rev., D108, 124074

work page 2018
[31]

Zachos, D

C. Zachos, D. Fairlie, T. Curtright. (2005)Quantum me- chanics in phase space. World Scientific

work page 2005
[32]

A. P. Gentle, N. D. George, A. Kheyfets, W. A. Miller. (2003).Constraints in quantum geometrodynamics. Int. J. Mod. Phys., A19, 1609

work page 2003
[33]

C. Kiefer. (2025).Quantum gravity. Oxford University Press

work page 2025
[34]

Giesel, T

K. Giesel, T. Thiemann. (2007).Algebraic quantum grav- ity (AQG) I. Conceptual setup. Class. Quant. Grav., 24, 2465

work page 2007
[35]

Agullo, P

I. Agullo, P. Singh. (2016).Loop quantum cosmology: a brief review. 100 Years of General Relativity, World Sci- entific

work page 2016
[36]

Mart´ ın-Benito, G

M. Mart´ ın-Benito, G. A. Mena Marug´ an, J. Olmedo. (2009).Further improvements in the understanding of isotropic loop quantum cosmology. Phys. Rev., D80, 104015

work page 2009
[37]

Alesci, A

E. Alesci, A. Dapor, J. Lewandowski, I. Makinen, J. Siko- rski. (2015).Coherent state operators in loop quantum gravity. Phys. Rev., D92, 104023

work page 2015
[38]

W. G. Unruh, R. M. Wald. (1989).Time and the inter- pretation of canonical quantum gravity. Phys. Rev., D40, 2598

work page 1989
[39]

Basil Altaie, D

M. Basil Altaie, D. Hodgson, A. Beige. (2022).Time and quantum clocks: a review of recent developments. Front. in Phys., 10, 897305

work page 2022
[40]

Kiefer, P

C. Kiefer, P. Peter. (2022).Time in quantum cosmolog. Universe, Vol.8, 1, 36

work page 2022
[41]

R. B. Griffiths. (1984)Consistent histories and the in- terpretation of quantum mechanics. J. Stat. Phys., 36, 219

work page 1984
[42]

A. Kent. (1998)Quantum histories. Phys. Scripta T, 76,78

work page 1998
[43]

L. C. Gomar, M. Fern´ andez-M´ endez, G. A. Mena Marug´ an, J. Olmedo. (2014).Cosmological perturbations in hybrid loop quantum cosmology: Mukhanov-Sasaki variables. Phys. Rev., D90, 064015

work page 2014
[44]

Agullo, B

I. Agullo, B. Bolliet, V. Sreenath. (2018).Non- Gaussianity in loop quantum cosmology. Phys. Rev., D97, 066021

work page 2018
[45]

Gambini, J

R. Gambini, J. Pullin. (2013).Loop quantization of the Schwarzschild black hole. Phys. Rev. Lett., 110, 211301

work page 2013
[46]

Ashtekar, J

A. Ashtekar, J. Olmedo, P. Singh. (2018).Quantum Extension of the Kruskal Space-time. Phys. Rev., D98, 126003

work page 2018
[47]

Freidel, M

L. Freidel, M. Geiller, J. Ziprick. (2013).Continuous for- mulation of the loop quantum gravity phase space. Class. Quant. Grav., 30, 085013

work page 2013
[48]

Berra-Montiel, A

J. Berra-Montiel, A. Molgado, E. Torres-Cordero. (2022) Star product approach for loop quantum cosmology. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137, 10,1141

work page 2022
[49]

F. Li, C. Braun, A. Garg (2013)The Weyl-Wigner-Moyal formalism for spin. Europhys. Lett., Vol.102, 60006

work page 2013
[50]

A. B. Klimov, J. L. Romero, H. de Guise. (2017).Gen- eralized SU(2) covariant Wigner functions and some of their applications. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 50, 323001

work page 2017
[51]

T. R. Morris (2018).Renormalization group properties in the conformal sector: towards perturbatively renormaliz- able quantum gravity. J. High Energy Phys. 08, 024

work page 2018
[52]

Christiansen, D

N. Christiansen, D. F. Litim, J. M. Pawlowski, A. Rodi- gast. (2014).Fixed points and infrared completion of quantum gravity. Phys. Lett. B, 728, 114

work page 2014
[53]

R. Ferrero. (2025).Asymptotic safety and canonical quantum gravity. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 03, 2530023

work page 2025
[54]

Alexanian, E

G. Alexanian, E. F. Moreno. (1999).On the renormal- ization of Hamiltonians. Phys. Lett. B, 450, 149

work page 1999
[55]

A. H. Rezaeian, N. R. Walet. (2003).Renormalization of Hamiltonian field theory; a non-perturbative and non- unitarity approach. J. High Energy Phys. 12, 040

work page 2003

[1] [1]

reference sector

To specify a quantum reference frame, we first choose fromKa reference sector by splitting its elementary set into {(Xi, Pi)}={(X µ, Pµ)} ∪ {(XI , PI)}, with the two commuting sets{(X µ, Pµ)}and {(XI , PI)}being respectively the elementary sets of the chosen “reference sector” and “dynamic sec- tor”. Then, with a dimensionlesst∈Rserving purely as a sequen...

work page

[2] [2]

Hence, we will call these two conditions the isomorphism and domain stability conditions

The above mapt7→K t is valid in defining a quan- tum reference frame for the duration [t 1, t2], when the relevant transition maps (t, t ′ ∈[t 1, t2]) bPt′t :S t →S ∗ t′ and bPt,[t1 ,t2 ] :S [t1 ,t2 ] →S ∗ t (11) defined as in (8) satisfy the two crucial conditions St bPtt − − − − − → injective S∗ t ⇔S t bP↾St − − − − − − − → isomorphic Dt (12) S[t1 ,t2 ]...

work page

[3] [3]

Dirac wavefunction

Suppose that a valid quantum reference frame is chosen. We then have (10) with bP11 ≡bPtt, which with the inner product provided in (7) implies that P P−1/2 tt ≡bIt ↾St :S t isometry − − − − − →Dt bIt :K t isometry − − − − − →Ht ,(14) where the map bIt defines an isometry map between Kt andH t as the unique contiuous extension of the bIt ↾St. Through this...

work page

[4] [4]

The symbols for the elementary operators from {bxi,bpi}are simply their corresponding phase space coordinates, so that G cp1(pj, xj) =p 1 ;G cx1(pj, xj) =x 1.(31)

work page

[5] [5]

The adjoint of the operator bAis represented by the complex-conjugation, so that G bA† =G ∗ bA (32) and thus the self-adjoint operators’s symbols are always real-valued

work page

[6] [6]

The algebraic product of the operators should be represented by the non-commutative⋆-product be- tween the corresponding symbols in the form G bA bB ≡G bA ⋆ G bB =G bA G bB +O(ℏ),(33) such that the Poisson brackets of the phase space is reproduced with the⋆-bracket defined as {G bA, G bB}⋆ ≡(G bA ⋆ G bB −G bB ⋆ G bA)/iℏ=G [ bA, bB]/iℏ.(34)

work page

[7] [7]

c-number product

For any two vectorsψ ′, ψ∈Kand their projection |ψ′⟩ ⟨ψ|:K→K,| ˜ψ⟩ 7→ ⟨ψ| ˜ψ⟩ |ψ ′⟩ we have ⟨ψ′| bA|ψ⟩=T r G|ψ′⟩⟨ψ|G bA ≡ Z Dpi Z Dxi G|ψ′⟩⟨ψ|(pi, x i)G bA(pi, x i).(35) In achieving the above, the Wigner-Weyl representation enables us to formulate a quantum theory using purely the phase space functions of the symbols with their non- commutative⋆-product ...

work page

[8] [8]

Arnowitt, S

R. Arnowitt, S. Deser, C. W. Misner. (2004).The dynam- ics of general relativity. Gen. Rel. Grav., 40, 1997-2027

work page 2004

[9] [9]

P. A. M. Dirac. (1958).The theory of gravitation in Hamiltonian form. Proceedings Royal Society, A 246, 333-343

work page 1958

[10] [10]

C. J. Isham. (1992).Canonical quantum gravity and the problem of time. NATO Sci. Ser. C, 409, 157

work page 1992

[11] [11]

B. S. DeWitt. (1967).Quantum theory of gravity. I. The canonical theory. Phys. Rev., 160, 1113

work page 1967

[12] [12]

J. B. Hartle, S. W. Hawking. (1983).Wave function of the Universe. Phys. Rev., D28, 2960

work page 1983

[13] [13]

P. A. M. Dirac. (1958).Generalized Hamiltonian dynam- ics. Proceedings Royal Society, A246, 326-332

work page 1958

[14] [14]

B. S. DeWitt. (1967).Quantum theory of gravity. II. The 17 manifestly covariant theory. Phys. Rev., 162, 1195

work page 1967

[15] [15]

Bianchi, L

E. Bianchi, L. Modesto, C. Rovelli, S. Speziale. (2006). Graviton propagator in loop quantum gravity. Class. Quant. Grav., 23, 6989

work page 2006

[16] [16]

K. Kuchar. (1993).Canonical quantum gravity. Proceed- ings of the 13th International Conference on General Rel- ativity and Gravitation, 119

work page 1993

[17] [17]

Chataignier, M

L. Chataignier, M. Kraemer. (2021).Unitarity of quantum-gravitational corrections to primordial fluctu- ations in the Born-Oppenheimer approach. Phys. Rev., D103, 66005

work page 2021

[18] [18]

Feldbrugge, J.-L

J. Feldbrugge, J.-L. Lehners, N. Turok. (2017). Lorentzian Quantum Cosmology. Phys. Rev., D95, 103508

work page 2017

[19] [19]

A. O. Barvinsky. (1993).Unitarity approach to quantum cosmology. Phys. Rep., 5-6, 273

work page 1993

[20] [20]

A. O. Barvinsky, A. Yu. Kamenshchik. (2014).Selection rules for the Wheeler-DeWitt equation in quantum cos- mology. Phys. Rev., D89, 043526

work page 2014

[21] [21]

Giulini, D

D. Giulini, D. Marolf. (1999).On the generality of refined algebraic quantization. Class. Quant. Grav., 16, 2479

work page 1999

[22] [22]

A. Perez. (2004).Introduction to loop quantum gravity and spin foams. Lectures presented at the II International Conference of Fundamental Interactions

work page 2004

[23] [23]

C. Rovelli. (2002).Partial observables. Phys. Rev., D65, 124013

work page 2002

[24] [24]

Kaminski, J

W. Kaminski, J. Lewandowski, T. Pawlowski. (2009). Quantum constraints, Dirac observables and evolution: group averaging versus Schroedinger picture in lqc. Class. Quant. Grav., 26, 245016

work page 2009

[25] [25]

Tambornino

J. Tambornino. (2009).Relational observables in grav- ity: a Review. Symmetry, Integrability and Geometry: Methods and Applications, Vol.8, id.017

work page 2009

[26] [26]

M. Han, T. Thiemann. (2010).On the relation between rigging inner product and master constraint direct inte- gral decomposition. J. Math. Phys., 51, 092501

work page 2010

[27] [27]

M. Han. (2010).A path-integral for the master constraint of loop quantum gravity. Class. Quant. Grav., 27, 215009

work page 2010

[28] [28]

C. Y. Lin (2016).Quantum Cauchy surfaces in canonical quantum gravity. Class. Quant. Grav., 33, 185009

work page 2016

[29] [29]

Lewandowski, C

J. Lewandowski, C. Y. Lin. (2018).Quantum reference frames via transition amplitudes in timeless quantum gravity. Phys. Rev., D98, 026023

work page 2018

[30] [30]

C. Y. Lin, X. Liu, Y. Ma, C. Zhang. (2018).Conformally invariant Brans-Dicke loop quantum cosmology: a quan- tum geometric model of linking theory. Phys. Rev., D108, 124074

work page 2018

[31] [31]

Zachos, D

C. Zachos, D. Fairlie, T. Curtright. (2005)Quantum me- chanics in phase space. World Scientific

work page 2005

[32] [32]

A. P. Gentle, N. D. George, A. Kheyfets, W. A. Miller. (2003).Constraints in quantum geometrodynamics. Int. J. Mod. Phys., A19, 1609

work page 2003

[33] [33]

C. Kiefer. (2025).Quantum gravity. Oxford University Press

work page 2025

[34] [34]

Giesel, T

K. Giesel, T. Thiemann. (2007).Algebraic quantum grav- ity (AQG) I. Conceptual setup. Class. Quant. Grav., 24, 2465

work page 2007

[35] [35]

Agullo, P

I. Agullo, P. Singh. (2016).Loop quantum cosmology: a brief review. 100 Years of General Relativity, World Sci- entific

work page 2016

[36] [36]

Mart´ ın-Benito, G

M. Mart´ ın-Benito, G. A. Mena Marug´ an, J. Olmedo. (2009).Further improvements in the understanding of isotropic loop quantum cosmology. Phys. Rev., D80, 104015

work page 2009

[37] [37]

Alesci, A

E. Alesci, A. Dapor, J. Lewandowski, I. Makinen, J. Siko- rski. (2015).Coherent state operators in loop quantum gravity. Phys. Rev., D92, 104023

work page 2015

[38] [38]

W. G. Unruh, R. M. Wald. (1989).Time and the inter- pretation of canonical quantum gravity. Phys. Rev., D40, 2598

work page 1989

[39] [39]

Basil Altaie, D

M. Basil Altaie, D. Hodgson, A. Beige. (2022).Time and quantum clocks: a review of recent developments. Front. in Phys., 10, 897305

work page 2022

[40] [40]

Kiefer, P

C. Kiefer, P. Peter. (2022).Time in quantum cosmolog. Universe, Vol.8, 1, 36

work page 2022

[41] [41]

R. B. Griffiths. (1984)Consistent histories and the in- terpretation of quantum mechanics. J. Stat. Phys., 36, 219

work page 1984

[42] [42]

A. Kent. (1998)Quantum histories. Phys. Scripta T, 76,78

work page 1998

[43] [43]

L. C. Gomar, M. Fern´ andez-M´ endez, G. A. Mena Marug´ an, J. Olmedo. (2014).Cosmological perturbations in hybrid loop quantum cosmology: Mukhanov-Sasaki variables. Phys. Rev., D90, 064015

work page 2014

[44] [44]

Agullo, B

I. Agullo, B. Bolliet, V. Sreenath. (2018).Non- Gaussianity in loop quantum cosmology. Phys. Rev., D97, 066021

work page 2018

[45] [45]

Gambini, J

R. Gambini, J. Pullin. (2013).Loop quantization of the Schwarzschild black hole. Phys. Rev. Lett., 110, 211301

work page 2013

[46] [46]

Ashtekar, J

A. Ashtekar, J. Olmedo, P. Singh. (2018).Quantum Extension of the Kruskal Space-time. Phys. Rev., D98, 126003

work page 2018

[47] [47]

Freidel, M

L. Freidel, M. Geiller, J. Ziprick. (2013).Continuous for- mulation of the loop quantum gravity phase space. Class. Quant. Grav., 30, 085013

work page 2013

[48] [48]

Berra-Montiel, A

J. Berra-Montiel, A. Molgado, E. Torres-Cordero. (2022) Star product approach for loop quantum cosmology. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137, 10,1141

work page 2022

[49] [49]

F. Li, C. Braun, A. Garg (2013)The Weyl-Wigner-Moyal formalism for spin. Europhys. Lett., Vol.102, 60006

work page 2013

[50] [50]

A. B. Klimov, J. L. Romero, H. de Guise. (2017).Gen- eralized SU(2) covariant Wigner functions and some of their applications. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 50, 323001

work page 2017

[51] [51]

T. R. Morris (2018).Renormalization group properties in the conformal sector: towards perturbatively renormaliz- able quantum gravity. J. High Energy Phys. 08, 024

work page 2018

[52] [52]

Christiansen, D

N. Christiansen, D. F. Litim, J. M. Pawlowski, A. Rodi- gast. (2014).Fixed points and infrared completion of quantum gravity. Phys. Lett. B, 728, 114

work page 2014

[53] [53]

R. Ferrero. (2025).Asymptotic safety and canonical quantum gravity. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 03, 2530023

work page 2025

[54] [54]

Alexanian, E

G. Alexanian, E. F. Moreno. (1999).On the renormal- ization of Hamiltonians. Phys. Lett. B, 450, 149

work page 1999

[55] [55]

A. H. Rezaeian, N. R. Walet. (2003).Renormalization of Hamiltonian field theory; a non-perturbative and non- unitarity approach. J. High Energy Phys. 12, 040

work page 2003