New Loop Quantum Cosmology Modifications from Gauge-covariant Fluxes

Klaus Liegener; Parampreet Singh

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

New Loop Quantum Cosmology Modifications from Gauge-covariant Fluxes

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Replacing standard fluxes with gauge-covariant fluxes changes the loop quantum cosmology bounce from symmetric to asymmetric.

desk verdict A parameter-free derivation of gauge-covariant flux corrections in LQC that deserves refereeing; the asymmetric bounce and G rescaling are conditional on an unproven effective-dynamics identification. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07001 v2 pith:MTERRPJ7 submitted 2019-08-19 gr-qc hep-th

Klaus Liegener , Parampreet Singh This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qchep-th MSC 83C4583F05

keywords loopquantumcosmologygauge-covariantfluxesasymmetricbounceNewtonconstantrescalingeffectivedynamicssinccorrectionshigher-orderdifferenceequationnon-minimalmattercoupling

open problems Quantum Gravity

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that standard loop quantum cosmology misses a gauge-invariance requirement: on a finite lattice, functions built from the usual discretized fluxes are not SU(2)-gauge-invariant, so one should use gauge-covariant fluxes instead. In a spatially flat FLRW model with a massless scalar field, this replacement changes every occurrence of the triad $p$ to $p\,\mathrm{sinc}^2(c\epsilon/2)$, producing a new regularized Hamiltonian $C_\epsilon$. Analyzing the resulting regularized dynamics, the authors find that the big bang singularity is still replaced by a bounce, but the bounce is generically asymmetric: in the pre-bounce asymptotic regime the Friedmann and Raychaudhuri equations take classical form with a rescaled Newton constant $\bar G = G(2/\pi)^4$. They also find that matter acquires an effective non-minimal coupling and that the quantum difference equation gains higher-order shifts. This matters because it is a concrete step toward deriving loop quantum cosmology dynamics from full loop quantum gravity coherent states, and it shows that the symmetric bounce of standard LQC is not robust once gauge-covariant variables are used.

What carries the argument

The central object is the gauge-covariant flux $P_I(e)$ attached to each edge $e$ of a cubic lattice, which transforms covariantly under SU(2) gauge transformations even at finite lattice spacing. In isotropic cosmology this flux evaluates to the standard flux times $\mathrm{sinc}^2(c\epsilon/2)$, so every appearance of the triad in the regularized Hamiltonian is replaced by $p\,\mathrm{sinc}^2(c\epsilon/2)$. This single substitution generates the new regularized constraint $C_\epsilon$ (Eq. (26)) and all of the paper's subsequent modifications to the bounce, the Friedmann equations, the matter coupling, and the quantum difference equation.

What would settle it

Compute the full quantum evolution generated by $\Theta^{\mathrm{TF}}$ (or the scalar-constraint expectation values in gauge-covariant coherent states) and check whether the resulting bounce is asymmetric with the pre-bounce rescaling $\bar G = G(2/\pi)^4$; a symmetric bounce or a different rescaling would show that the regularized dynamics is not the true effective dynamics. A simpler check is to test whether higher-order terms in the coherent-state expansion change Eq. (26) at leading order; if they do, the central prediction fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that finite-lattice gauge invariance forces one to replace the triad $p$ by $p\,\mathrm{sinc}^2(c\epsilon/2)$ in the symmetry-reduced Hamiltonian, and that the resulting regularized constraint $C_\epsilon$ produces an effective dynamics in which the big bang is replaced by a bounce whose two asymptotic branches are not equivalent. Near the post-bounce branch the usual classical Friedmann and Raychaudhuri equations are recovered, while near the pre-bounce branch they are recovered with a rescaled gravitational constant $\bar G = G(2/\pi)^4$; since no choice of $G$ eliminates this mismatch, the asymmetry is generic. The same $C_\epsilon$ also changes the matter sector into an effective non-minimal coupling and, upon quantization, produces a bounded higher-order quantum difference operator instead of the nearest-neighbour operator of standard LQC.

Load-bearing premise

The whole analysis leans on the conjecture that the expectation value of the loop quantum gravity scalar constraint in suitable coherent states is, at leading order, the regularized constraint $C_\epsilon$ from Eq. (26); the paper states explicitly that this is not yet proven, so if that effective-dynamics step fails, the asymmetric bounce and the $G$ rescaling may not describe the actual quantum theory.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The big bang singularity is replaced by a quantum bounce, as in standard LQC, but the evolution is generically asymmetric between the pre-bounce and post-bounce branches.
In the asymptotic pre-bounce regime the Friedmann and Raychaudhuri equations take classical form with a rescaled Newton constant $\bar G = G(2/\pi)^4$, so a classical universe on one side of the bounce is matched to a classical universe with different gravitational coupling on the other side.
In the $\bar\mu$-scheme the bounce occurs at a universal energy density $\rho_{\max}\approx 0.515\,\rho_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ in the paper's conventions, larger than the standard LQC value, while in the $\mu_0$-scheme the bounce density still depends on the scalar-field momentum.
Matter behaves as if non-minimally coupled because the gauge-covariant flux corrections enter the matter Hamiltonian, enriching the effective dynamics beyond the usual minimally coupled scalar field.
The quantum scalar constraint becomes a higher-order difference equation whose shift contributions decay rapidly with lattice distance, unlike the nearest-neighbour constraint of standard LQC.
The same qualitative results—asymmetric bounce and $G$ rescaling—hold for both the $\mu_0$ and $\bar\mu$ regularizations, indicating that the asymmetry is a feature of gauge-covariant fluxes rather than of a particular regulator choice.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the Newton-constant rescaling survives in the full quantum theory, the two asymptotic branches of the bounce have gravitational couplings differing by a fixed factor $(2/\pi)^4 \approx 0.164$, so any future observation or simulation that could compare both branches would directly test quantum-geometry discreteness rather than a free choice.
Because the matter Hamiltonian acquires an effective non-minimal coupling through the sinc factors, inflationary perturbation spectra derived from standard LQC should be re-derived in this regularization; the paper does not compute those spectra.
The proposed quantum evolution operator $\Theta^{\mathrm{TF}}$ is an infinite sum of shifts, and the paper does not solve it; a natural next step would be to evolve coherent states with $\Theta^{\mathrm{TF}}$ and check whether the asymmetric bounce and the $\bar G$ rescaling survive at the full quantum level or are artifacts of the effective truncation.
The paper works in a fixed cubic lattice and combines Euclidean and Lorentzian terms before discretization; treating the two terms independently, as the companion work does, may either sharpen or soften the asymmetry, so the robustness of the result across regularization choices is still open.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing to know: the paper has one genuinely new and clean result, and one load-bearing gap. The clean result is Eq. (24): replacing standard fluxes by Thiemann's gauge-covariant fluxes turns the symmetry-reduced triad p into p sinc^2(c epsilon/2). That derivation is short, parameter-free, and useful—it gives a direct translation rule from existing LQC regularizations to the gauge-covariant setting. The asymptotic analysis is also solid: expanding the regularized constraint about c=0 and c=pi/mu0 (or b=0,pi in the mu-bar scheme) yields classical Friedmann and Raychaudhuri equations in both branches, with the pre-bounce branch carrying a rescaled Newton constant G -> (2/pi)^4 G. I do not see a hidden assumption in that part; the algebra works as stated.

The numerics support the picture, though the paper gives no code or data for the claimed 500+ test cases. That is a minor transparency issue, not a flaw in the core argument, since the qualitative asymmetry already follows from the asymptotic expansion.

The soft spot is the one the stress-test note identifies, and the authors themselves name it. Section V says the regularized dynamics is 'at the moment not proven to be the effective dynamics' of the corresponding quantum cosmology. The chain is: (i) gauge-covariant fluxes on a lattice produce C_epsilon; (ii) the Hamiltonian flow of C_epsilon gives an asymmetric bounce with G rescaling; (iii) C_epsilon is identified with the leading-order effective dynamics. Step (iii) is not established. No coherent-state expectation value is computed for the quantum constraint, and the constructed operator Theta_TF is left for later work. In standard LQC this connecting step is done by explicit numerical evolution of semiclassical states; here it is missing. So the physical predictions of an asymmetric bounce and a rescaled G should be read as properties of the regularized classical dynamics, conditional on that identification. The paper is honest about this, which is to its credit, but the abstract and introduction present the bounce and rescaling more firmly than the body warrants.

Citation pattern is fine. The companion papers are cited, prior summaries acknowledged, and the relevant LQG/LQC literature is covered.

For whom: anyone working on connecting LQC to full LQG, or on regularization ambiguities in LQC. It deserves a serious referee. A good referee should press the authors on step (iii), and at a minimum ask for language that consistently separates 'regularized dynamics' from 'effective dynamics' in the abstract and conclusions.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces gauge-covariant fluxes, following Thiemann's construction, into loop quantum cosmology. It derives the correction p -> p sinc^2(c epsilon/2) for a cubic-lattice discretization of isotropic, spatially flat FLRW spacetime, and uses it to write a regularized Hamiltonian constraint C_epsilon in Eq. (26) for a massless scalar field. The authors analyze the classical Hamiltonian flow of C_epsilon in both the mu0 and mu-bar schemes, find that the big bang is replaced by an asymmetric bounce, and derive that the pre-bounce asymptotic branch obeys the classical Friedmann and Raychaudhuri equations with a rescaled Newton constant G_bar = G (2/pi)^4. They also propose a quantization of the mu-bar constraint by replacing sinc with a truncated Fourier series, obtaining a higher-order difference operator Theta_TF that is nonlocal on the LQC lattice. The paper concludes that gauge-covariant fluxes lead to an asymmetric bounce, a change in effective constants across the bounce, and an effective non-minimal coupling of matter.

Significance. If the regularized dynamics is indeed the effective dynamics of the corresponding quantum cosmology, the paper is a significant step toward connecting LQC with LQG. The derivation of Eq. (24) is clean, parameter-free, and gives a concrete, falsifiable prediction: a generically asymmetric bounce with a fixed rescaling G -> G(2/pi)^4 in the pre-bounce branch. The numerical evidence is extensive, with more than 500 test cases for both regulators. The paper is also transparent: Sec. V explicitly states that the regularized dynamics is not yet proven to be the effective dynamics of a quantum cosmological theory. That transparency is a strength, but it also delimits what the paper actually establishes. The main advertised physical predictions are conditional on an unproven identification of C_epsilon with the leading-order coherent-state expectation value of the full quantum scalar constraint.

major comments (4)

[Secs. III, IV, V (in particular Eq. (26), Eq. (62), and the final paragraph of Sec. V)] The central claim that the big bang is replaced by an asymmetric quantum bounce, and the associated rescaling of Newton's constant, is not established for the quantum theory. Section III introduces the 'regularized dynamics' as an assumed effective Hamiltonian, and Sec. IV constructs the operator Theta_TF but explicitly defers to a later publication the comparison of its evolution with the regularized dynamics. Section V states: 'regularized dynamics studied in this manuscript is at the moment not proven to be the effective dynamics of a corresponding quantum cosmology theory.' In standard LQC this step is justified by explicit numerical coherent-state evolutions (refs. [55,56]) and by expectation-value computations of the quantum Hamiltonian constraint (ref. [57]); no analogous check is provided here. The abstract and conclusion present the asymmetric bounce and the G rescaling as physical results, not as properties of a candidate classical discretization. The authors should either supply the missing semiclassical/coherent-state verification or substantially weaken the advertised claims.
[Sec. II.B, Eqs. (22)-(24)] The central correction factor sinc^2(c epsilon/2), and hence the pre-bounce rescaling G -> G(2/pi)^4, is obtained from a specific choice of paths in the gauge-covariant flux: in Eq. (22) the path is split as rho_x = rho_{x,a} composed with rho'_{x,b}, with straight segments along the coordinate axes. Thiemann's construction allows other admissible path choices for rho_x, and these can change the resulting flux function and therefore the correction factor. The paper does not discuss or bound this path dependence. Because the asymmetric bounce and the constant rescaling are generated entirely by the sinc^2 factor, the robustness of these predictions under alternative path choices should be addressed.
[Sec. IV, Eqs. (56) and (61)] The quantization section contains two technical problems. First, in Eq. (56) the Fourier coefficient is defined as a_n = (1/(2 pi)) integral_{-2 pi}^{2 pi} dx sin^2(x) cos(nx)/x^2, but the Fourier series is written in the basis cos(nb/2) on the interval (-2 pi, 2 pi); consistency requires cos(nx/2) in the coefficient integral. As written, the series does not approximate sinc^2(b) on the claimed interval. Second, Eq. (61) asserts the equality ||TF_infty psi|| = (a_0/2)||psi|| + (1/2) sum_n a_n(||psi(.+n)||+||psi(.-n)||); this is an equality of norms of a sum with a sum of norms, which holds only in very special cases. The boundedness of TF_infty can be obtained from the triangle inequality and the absolute convergence of the coefficients, but the stated unit-norm property is not proven and may be false. These issues affect the reliability of the proposed quantum evolution operator.
[Sec. III.A, Eq. (28)] The energy-density formula for the mu0 scheme appears to have a typo: from Eq. (26) and the definition rho = H_M/v_{g.c.} with v_{g.c.} = p^{3/2} sinc^3(c epsilon/2), solving the constraint gives rho proportional to p^{-1} sin^2(c mu0) sinc^{-2}(c mu0/2), not p^{1/2} sin^2(c mu0) sinc^{-2}(c mu0/2). The analogous mu-bar expression in Eq. (46) is consistent with the p^{-1} form after substituting mu-bar = sqrt(Delta/p). The authors should correct Eq. (28) and re-check any statements that rely on it.

minor comments (4)

[Sec. III.A, Eqs. (34) and (39)] The solutions for c and c* appear to have sqrt(p) in the denominator; solving Eq. (33) and Eq. (38) gives a denominator of p. The final Friedmann equations (36)-(37) and (40)-(41) are consistent with the p-denominator version, so this is likely a typographical error that should be corrected.
[Sec. II.A, sentence after Eq. (9)] The phrase 'a non-commuting Poisson brackets' should be 'non-commuting Poisson brackets'; there are several similar small grammatical slips throughout the introduction and Sec. II.
[Abstract] The abstract says 'functions build out of the standard discretized variables'; this should be 'functions built out of the standard discretized variables'.
[Sec. IV, paragraph following Eq. (65)] The sentence 'We will come back to this task in a later publication' is clear, but given that the quantum operator is advertised in the abstract, the authors should perhaps note more prominently in the abstract or introduction that the quantum evolution is not yet analyzed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No constructional circularity found: the gauge-covariant flux replacement is derived in Eq. (24), the modified constraint follows by substitution, and the G rescaling is read off from the resulting Hamilton equations; the paper's admitted unproven step is a conjecture that regularized dynamics equals effective dynamics, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and not circular. The gauge-covariant flux P_I(e_k) is computed explicitly in Eq. (24) as P_I = E_I sinc^2(cε/2); this is a derived relation, not an input. Substituting this relation into a standard LQC-style regularization yields the constraint C_epsilon in Eq. (26). The asymptotic Friedmann and Raychaudhuri equations (40)-(41) and the rescaling bar{G}=G(2/pi)^4 in Eq. (43) are obtained by expanding the Hamilton equations generated by C_epsilon, with no free parameters fitted to the bounce or to the pre-bounce branch. The paper's own caveat, stated in Sec. V, that 'regularized dynamics studied in this manuscript is at the moment not proven to be the effective dynamics of a corresponding quantum cosmology theory' is a genuine limitation about the connection to quantum theory, but it is not a circular step: the classical regularized dynamics is not defined in terms of the quantum effective dynamics, nor is the bounce result assumed as an input. The companion citations [38,47] summarize related work, but the core substitution and asymptotic computation in this paper do not load-bear on them. Thus no prediction reduces by construction to the inputs, and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the imported gauge-covariant flux construction, the standard LQC regularization choice, and the unproven effective dynamics conjecture. No free parameters are fitted to data; the only adjustable quantities are the regulator choices (mu0 and mu-bar) and the path choice in the flux construction, both of which are assumptions rather than fitted numbers.

assumptions (5)

standard math Thiemann's gauge-covariant flux P_I(e) and the symplectic bracket algebra (10)-(12) define the discrete phase space.
The paper imports the gauge-covariant flux construction and its Poisson brackets from [1] without reproving them; all subsequent modifications follow from this background result.
domain assumption The scalar constraint is regularized by combining Euclidean and Lorentzian parts using the classical FLRW symmetry before discretization, as in standard LQC.
Section II.B states this choice explicitly; the Lorentzian term is set proportional to the Euclidean part, which is a symmetry reduction before quantization and may fail in the full theory.
domain assumption The expectation value of the full LQG scalar constraint in suitable coherent states equals the discretized constraint C_epsilon in leading order, so C_epsilon can be used as an effective Hamiltonian.
Section I proposes this conjecture and Section V admits it is not proven; the asymmetric bounce result rests on this step.
ad hoc to paper The gauge-covariant flux path choice rho_x = rho_{x,a} composed with rho'_{x,b} in Eq. (22) yields the specific sinc^2 factor; other path choices could modify the correction.
The computation of P_I(e_k) depends on choosing a particular family of paths; this choice is motivated but not uniquely fixed by the theory.
domain assumption The Fourier series replacement TF_N of sinc on the interval (-2pi,2pi) is a valid quantization input because physical trajectories stay in the principal branch c epsilon in (-pi,pi).
Section IV uses boundedness and the principal branch restriction to justify quantizing sinc via its Fourier series; if trajectories left this range, the operator would not represent the classical correction.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of New Loop Quantum Cosmology Modifications from Gauge-covariant Fluxes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MTERRPJ7

@misc{pith2026190807001,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: New Loop Quantum Cosmology Modifications from Gauge-covariant Fluxes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MTERRPJ7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07001}
}

read the original abstract

Loop quantum cosmology is a symmetry reduced quantization of cosmological spacetimes based on loop quantum gravity. While it has been successful in resolution of various cosmological singularities and connecting Planck scale physics to phenomenology, its connection with loop quantum gravity has remained elusive. It is therefore important to integrate more and more features of the full theory into this framework and understand the reliability of physical predictions. In particular, if one wishes to connect the effective Hamiltonian in loop quantum cosmology to an expectation value of the scalar constraint operator in suitable coherent states for the full theory, one has to go beyond the standard setting of loop quantum cosmology. One possibility is to introduce gauge-covariant fluxes, which become necessary because the presence of a finite regularization parameter causes functions build out of the standard discretized variables to be in general not gauge invariant. Following the construction of gauge-covariant fluxes pioneered by Thiemann in [1], we show that the physics of loop quantum cosmology is affected in a non-trivial way. The bounce turns out to be generically asymmetric with a rescaling of the Newton's constant in the pre-bounce branch. Gauge-covariant fluxes result in a higher order quantum difference equation in comparison to loop quantum cosmology. Even the behavior of matter, which behaves innocuously in loop quantum cosmology, is enriched, resulting in an effective non-minimal coupling. These effects are shown to be common to different choices of regularization parameters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07001 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Behavior of connection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Evolution of standard triad with respect to scalar field is shown. Left plot corresponds to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: Variation of gauge-covariant volume with respect to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5: The connection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6: Simulations with different initial values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7: The relative error of the dynamics approximated with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Some physical implications of regularization ambiguities in SU(2) gauge-invariant loop quantum cosmology
gr-qc 2019-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

In Thiemann-regularized loop quantum cosmology, the mu0 scheme produces pre-bounce emergent matter with equation of state w = -1/3 (string gas), while the bar-mu scheme produces an emergent cosmological constant, and ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[57]

Taveras, Corrections to the Friedmann Equations from LQG for a Universe with a Free Scalar Field

V. Taveras, Corrections to the Friedmann Equations from LQG for a Universe with a Free Scalar Field. 28 Phys. Rev. D 78, 064072 (2008)

work page 2008
[1]

More on correlators and contact terms in {\cal N}=4 SYM at order g^4

T. Thiemann, Quantum Spin Dynamics (QSD): VII. Symplectic Structures and Continuum Lattice Formulations of Gauge Field Theories, Class. Quant. Grav. 18, 3293-3338 [arXiv:hep-th/00052232] (2001)

work page Pith review arXiv 2001
[2]

Rovelli, Quantum Gravity, Cambridge University Press (2004)

C. Rovelli, Quantum Gravity, Cambridge University Press (2004)

2004
[3]

Ashtekar, J

A. Ashtekar, J. Lewandowski, Background independent quantum gravity: A Status report, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, R53-R152 (2004)

work page 2004
[4]

Thiemann, Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity, Cambridge University Press (2007)

T. Thiemann, Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity, Cambridge University Press (2007)

work page 2007
[5]

Arnowitt, S

R. Arnowitt, S. Deser, C. Misner, The Dynamics of General Relativity, In: Gravitation: An introduc- tion to current research by L Witten (ed) New York 227-265 (1962)

work page 1962
[6]

Ashtekar, New variables for classical and Quantum Gravity, Phys

A. Ashtekar, New variables for classical and Quantum Gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 2244-2247 (1986)

work page 1986
[7]

Ashtekar, New Hamiltonian formulation of General Relativity, Phys

A. Ashtekar, New Hamiltonian formulation of General Relativity, Phys. Rev. D 36, 1587-1602 (1987) 26

work page 1987

Show all 79 references

[8]

Barbero, A real polynomial formulation of General Relativity in terms of connection, Phys

J.F. Barbero, A real polynomial formulation of General Relativity in terms of connection, Phys. Rev. D 49, 6935-6938 (1994)

1994
[9]

Bojowald, Loop Quantum Cosmology, Living Rev

M. Bojowald, Loop Quantum Cosmology, Living Rev. Relativity 8, 11 (2005)

2005
[10]

Ashtekar, P

A. Ashtekar, P. Singh, Loop Quantum Cosmology: A Status Report, Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 213001 (2011)

2011
[11]

Ashtekar, T

A. Ashtekar, T. Pawlowski, P Singh, Quantum Nature of the Big Bang, Phys. Rev. Let. 96, 141301 (2006)

2006
[12]

Ashtekar, T

A. Ashtekar, T. Pawlowski, P. Singh, Quantum Nature of the Big Bang: An Analytical and Numerical Investigation, Phys. Rev. D 73, 124038 (2006)

2006
[13]

Ashtekar, A

A. Ashtekar, A. Corichi and P. Singh, Robustness of key features of loop quantum cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 77, 024046 (2008)

2008
[14]

Agullo, P

For a recent review of these developments see, I. Agullo, P. Singh, Loop Quantum Cosmology, in Loop Quantum Gravity: The First 30 Years, Eds: A. Ashtekar, J. Pullin, World Scientiﬁc (2017)

2017
[15]

Gambini, J

R. Gambini, J. Omedo and J. Pullin, Quantum black holes in loop quantum gravity, Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 095009 (2014)

2014
[16]

Ashtekar, J

A. Ashtekar, J. Olmedo and P. Singh, Quantum extension of the Kruskal spacetime, Phys. Rev. D 98, 126003 (2018)

2018
[17]

Brunnemann

J. Brunnemann. C Fleischhack, On the Conﬁguration Spaces of Homogeneous Loop Quantum Cosmol- ogy and Loop Quantum Gravity, [arXiv:0709.1621] (2007)

2007 arXiv
[18]

Fleischhack, Kinematical Foundations of Loop Quantum Cosmology, [arXiv:1505.04400] (2015)

C. Fleischhack, Kinematical Foundations of Loop Quantum Cosmology, [arXiv:1505.04400] (2015)

2015 arXiv
[19]

Beetle, J

C. Beetle, J. Engle, M. Hogan, P. Mendonca, Diﬀeomorphism invariant cosmological symmetry in full quantum gravity, Int. J. Mod. Physics D 25, 1642012 (2016)

2016
[20]

Beetle, J

C. Beetle, J. Engle, M. Hogan, P. Mendonca, Diﬀeomorphism invariant cosmological sector in loop quantum gravity, [arXiv:1706.02424] (2017)

2017 arXiv
[21]

Engle, I

J. Engle, I. Vilensky, Deriving loop quantum cosmology dynamics from diﬀeomorphism invariance, [arXiv:1802.01543] (2018)

2018 arXiv
[22]

Alesci, F

E. Alesci, F. Cianfrani, A new perspective on cosmology in Loop Quantum Gravity, [arXiv:1210.4504] (2012)

2012 arXiv
[23]

Alesci, F

E. Alesci, F. Cianfrani, Quantum Reduced Loop Gravity: Semiclassical limit, [arXiv:1402.3155] (2014)

2014 arXiv
[24]

Alesci, G

E. Alesci, G. Botta, G. Luzi, G Stagno, Bianchi I eﬀective dynamics in Quantum Reduced Loop Gravity, [arXiv:1901.07140] (2019)

2019 arXiv
[25]

Dapor, K

A. Dapor, K. Liegener, Cosmological Eﬀective Hamiltonian from full Loop Quantum Gravity, Phys. Lett. B 785, 506-510 (2018)

2018
[26]

Dapor, K

A. Dapor, K. Liegener, Cosmological Coherent State Expectation Values in LQG I. Isotropic Kinemat- ics, Class. Quant. Grav. 35, 135011 [arXiv:1710.04015] (2018)

2018 arXiv
[27]

Liegener, R

K. Liegener, R. Lukasz, Cosmological Coherent State Expectation Values in LQG II. Thiemann- regularized Hamiltonian, (to appear)
[28]

Ashtekar, A

A. Ashtekar, A. Corichi, J. Zapata, Quantum theory of geometry: III. Non-commutativity of Rieman- nian structures, Class. Quant. Grav. 15, 2955-2972 (1998)

1998
[29]

Freidel, D

L. Freidel, D. Louapre, Ponzano-Regge model revisited I: Gauge ﬁxing, observables and interacting spinning particles, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 5685-5726 (2004)

2004
[30]

Baratin, B

A. Baratin, B. Dittrich, D. Oriti, J. Tambornino, Non-commutative ﬂux representation for loop quan- tum gravity, Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 175011 (2010)

2010
[31]

Freidel, M

L. Freidel, M. Geiller, J. Ziprick, Continuous formulation of the Loop Quantum Gravity phase space, Class. Quant. Grav. 30, 085013 (2011) 27

2011
[32]

Bonzom, B

V. Bonzom, B. Dittrich, Dirac’s discrete hypersurface deformation algebras, [arXiv:1304.5983] (2013)

2013 arXiv
[33]

Dittrich, M

B. Dittrich, M. Geiller, A new vacuum for Loop Quantum Gravity, [arXiv:1401.6441] (2015)

2015 arXiv
[34]

A. S. Cattaneo, A. Perez, A note on the Poisson bracket of 2d smeared ﬂuxes in loop quantum gravity, [arXiv:1611.08394] (2016)

2016 arXiv
[35]

Dupuis, L

M. Dupuis, L. Freidel, F. Girelli, Discretization of 3d gravity in diﬀerent polarizations, Phys. Rev. D 96, 086017 (2017)

2017
[36]

Freidel, F

L. Freidel, F. Girelli, B Shoshany, 2+1D Loop Quantum Gravity on the Edge, [arXiv:1811.04360] (2018)

2018 arXiv
[37]

Magliaro, A

E. Magliaro, A. Marciano, C. Perini, Coherent states for FLRW space-times in loop quantum gravity, Phys.Rev. D 83, 044029 (2011)

2011
[38]

Liegener, P

K. Liegener, P. Singh, Gauge-invariant bounce from quantum geometry, arXiv:1906.02759

1906 arXiv
[39]

Thiemann, Gauge Field Theory Coherent States (GCS): I

T. Thiemann, Gauge Field Theory Coherent States (GCS): I. General Properties, Class. Quant. Grav. 18, 2025-2064 (2001)

2001
[40]

Thiemann, O

T. Thiemann, O. Winkler, Gauge Field Theory Coherent States (GCS): II. Peakedness Properties, Class. Quant. Grav. , 2561-2636 18 (2001)

2001
[41]

Thiemann, O

T. Thiemann, O. Winkler, Gauge Field Theory Coherent States (GCS): III. Ehrenfest Theorems, Class. Quant. Grav., 4629-4682 18 (2001)

2001
[42]

Thiemann, Complexiﬁer coherent states for quantum general relativity, Class

T. Thiemann, Complexiﬁer coherent states for quantum general relativity, Class. Quant. Grav. 23, 2063-2118 (2006)

2006
[43]

Sahlmann, T

H. Sahlmann, T. Thiemann, O. Winkler, Coherent states for canonical quantum General Relativity and the inﬁnite tensor product extension, Nucl. Phys. B 606, 401-440 (2001)

2001
[44]

Giesel, T

K. Giesel, T. Thiemann, Algebraic Quantum Gravity (AQG) II. Semiclassical Analysis, Class. Quant.Grav. 24 2499-2564 (2007)

2007
[45]

Ashtekar, M

A. Ashtekar, M. Bojowald and J. Lewandowski, Mathematical structure of loop quantum cosmology, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 7, 233 (2003)

2003
[46]

Ashtekar, T

A. Ashtekar, T. Pawlowski, P. Singh, Quantum Nature of the Big Bang: Improved dynamics, Phys. Rev. D 74, 084003 (2006)

2006
[47]

Liegener, P

K. Liegener, P. Singh, Some physical implications of regularization ambiguities in SU(2) gauge-invariant loop quantum cosmology [arXiv:1908.07543] (2019)

2019 arXiv
[48]

Rovelli, L

C. Rovelli, L. Smolin, Discreteness of area and volume in quantum gravity, Nucl. Phys. B 442, 593-622 (1995)

1995
[49]

Ashtekar, J

A. Ashtekar, J. Lewandowski, Quantum Theory of Gravity I: Area Operators, Class. Quant. Grav. 14, A55-A82 (1996)

1996
[50]

Ashtekar, J

A. Ashtekar, J. Lewandowski, Quantum Theory of Geometry II: Volume Operators, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys 1, 388-429 (1998)

1998
[51]

Thiemann, Quantum Spin Dynamics (QSD) I, Class

T. Thiemann, Quantum Spin Dynamics (QSD) I, Class. Quant. Grav. 15, 839-873 (1998)

1998
[52]

Thiemann, Quantum Spin Dynamics (QSD) II, Class

T. Thiemann, Quantum Spin Dynamics (QSD) II, Class. Quant. Grav. 15, 875-905 (1998)

1998
[53]

Kogut, L Susskind, Hamiltonian Formulation of Wilsons Lattice Gauge Theories, Phys

J. Kogut, L Susskind, Hamiltonian Formulation of Wilsons Lattice Gauge Theories, Phys. Rev. D 11 (1975)

1975
[54]

Corichi, P

A. Corichi, P. Singh, Is loop quantization in cosmology unique?, Phys. Rev. D 78, 024034 (2008)

2008
[55]

Diener, B

P. Diener, B. Gupt, P. Singh, Numerical simulations of a loop quantum cosmos: robustness of the quantum bounce and the validity of eﬀective dynamics, Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 105015 (2014)

2014
[56]

Diener, A

P. Diener, A. Joe, M. Megevand, P. Singh, Numerical simulations of loop quantum Bianchi-I spacetimes, Class. Quant. Grav. 34, 094004 (2017)

2017
[58]

B. Li, P. Singh, A. Wang, Towards Cosmological Dynamics from Loop Quantum Gravity, Phys Rev. D 97, 084029 (2018)

2018
[59]

Ashtekar, E

A. Ashtekar, E. Wilson-Ewing, Loop quantum cosmology of Bianchi type II models, Phys. Rev. D 80, 123532 (2009)

2009
[60]

Wilson-Ewing, Loop quantum cosmology of Bianchi type IX models, Phys

E. Wilson-Ewing, Loop quantum cosmology of Bianchi type IX models, Phys. Rev. D 82, 043508 (2010)

2010
[61]

Corichi, A

A. Corichi, A. Karami, Loop quantum cosmology of k=1 FRW: A tale of two bounces, Phys. Rev. D 84, 044003 (2011)

2011
[62]

Corichi, A

A. Corichi, A. Karami, Loop quantum cosmology of k=1 FLRW: Eﬀects of inverse volume corrections, Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 035008 (2014)

2014
[63]

Saini, P

S. Saini, P. Singh, Generic absence of strong singularities in loop quantum Bianchi-IX spacetimes, Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 105014 (2019)

2019
[64]

Saini and P

S. Saini and P. Singh, Von Neumann stability of modiﬁed loop quantum cosmologies, Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 105010 (2019)

2019
[65]

Singh, E Wilson-Ewing, Quantisation ambiguities and bounds on geometric scalars in anisotropic loop quantum cosmology, Class

P. Singh, E Wilson-Ewing, Quantisation ambiguities and bounds on geometric scalars in anisotropic loop quantum cosmology, Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 035010 (2014)

2014
[66]

A Kolmogoroﬀ, Zur Groessenordnung des Restgliedes Fourierscher Reihen Diﬀerenzierbarer Funktio- nen, Ann. of Math. 36, 521-526 (1935)

1935
[67]

Barrera-Figueroa, A

C. Barrera-Figueroa, A. Lucas-Bravo, J. Lopez-Bonilla, The remainder term in Fourier series and its relationship with the Basel problem, Ann. Math. et Info. 34, 17-28 (2007)

2007
[68]

Bojowald, Loop Quantum Cosmology I: Kinematics, Class

M. Bojowald, Loop Quantum Cosmology I: Kinematics, Class. Quant. Grav. 17, 1489-1508 (1999)

1999
[69]

Bojowald, Loop Quantum Cosmology II: Volume Operators, Class

M. Bojowald, Loop Quantum Cosmology II: Volume Operators, Class. Quant. Grav. 17, 1509-1526 (1999)

1999
[70]

Velhino, The Quantum Conﬁguration Space of Loop Quantum Cosmology, Class Quant Grav

J. Velhino, The Quantum Conﬁguration Space of Loop Quantum Cosmology, Class Quant Grav. 24, 3745-3758 (2007)

2007
[71]

Assanioussi, A

M. Assanioussi, A. Dapor, K. Liegener, T. Pawlowski, Emergent de Sitter epoch of the quantum Cosmos: a detailed analysis. [arXiv:1906.05315] (2019)

2019 arXiv
[72]

Smolin, Did the Universe evolve? Class

L. Smolin, Did the Universe evolve? Class. Quant. Grav. 9, 173 (1992)

1992
[73]

A diﬀerence from earlier studies of [72, 73] is that the change of constants is not random but completely ﬁxed by the dynamics

as well as for Thiemann regularization of LQC using triads [58, 71]. A diﬀerence from earlier studies of [72, 73] is that the change of constants is not random but completely ﬁxed by the dynamics. Let us note that regularized dynamics studied in this manuscript is at the momen...
[74]

Gambini, J

R. Gambini, J. Pullin, Discrete quantum gravity: A Mechanism for selecting the value of fundamental constants, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 12, 1775 (2003)

2003
[75]

Hasenfratz, Prospects for perfect actions, Nucl

P. Hasenfratz, Prospects for perfect actions, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 63, 53-58 (1998)

1998
[76]

Hasenfratz, The theorectical background and properties of perfect actions, [arXiv:hep-lat/9803027] (2008)

P. Hasenfratz, The theorectical background and properties of perfect actions, [arXiv:hep-lat/9803027] (2008)

2008 arXiv
[77]

T. Lang, K. Liegener, T. Thiemann, Hamiltonian Renormalisation III: Renormalisation Flow of 1+1 dimensional scalar ﬁelds: Properties, Class. Quant. Grav. 35, 245013 (2018)

2018
[78]

Assanioussi, Polymer quantization of connection theories: Graph coherent states, Phys

M. Assanioussi, Polymer quantization of connection theories: Graph coherent states, Phys. Rev. D 98, 045016 (2018)

2018
[79]

Thiemann, A

T. Thiemann, A. Zipfel, Stable Coherent States, Phys. Rev. D 93, 084030 (2016)

2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [57]

Taveras, Corrections to the Friedmann Equations from LQG for a Universe with a Free Scalar Field

V. Taveras, Corrections to the Friedmann Equations from LQG for a Universe with a Free Scalar Field. 28 Phys. Rev. D 78, 064072 (2008)

work page 2008

[2] [1]

More on correlators and contact terms in {\cal N}=4 SYM at order g^4

T. Thiemann, Quantum Spin Dynamics (QSD): VII. Symplectic Structures and Continuum Lattice Formulations of Gauge Field Theories, Class. Quant. Grav. 18, 3293-3338 [arXiv:hep-th/00052232] (2001)

work page Pith review arXiv 2001

[3] [2]

Rovelli, Quantum Gravity, Cambridge University Press (2004)

C. Rovelli, Quantum Gravity, Cambridge University Press (2004)

2004

[4] [3]

Ashtekar, J

A. Ashtekar, J. Lewandowski, Background independent quantum gravity: A Status report, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, R53-R152 (2004)

work page 2004

[5] [4]

Thiemann, Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity, Cambridge University Press (2007)

T. Thiemann, Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity, Cambridge University Press (2007)

work page 2007

[6] [5]

Arnowitt, S

R. Arnowitt, S. Deser, C. Misner, The Dynamics of General Relativity, In: Gravitation: An introduc- tion to current research by L Witten (ed) New York 227-265 (1962)

work page 1962

[7] [6]

Ashtekar, New variables for classical and Quantum Gravity, Phys

A. Ashtekar, New variables for classical and Quantum Gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 2244-2247 (1986)

work page 1986

[8] [7]

Ashtekar, New Hamiltonian formulation of General Relativity, Phys

A. Ashtekar, New Hamiltonian formulation of General Relativity, Phys. Rev. D 36, 1587-1602 (1987) 26

work page 1987