Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 61 references

Lessons for loop quantum gravity from emergent modified gravity

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read None of the loop-quantum-gravity black-hole models examined here has a spacetime geometry compatible with its modified constraints; covariance can be restored, and the mu0 and mu-bar schemes are canonically related.

desk verdict Useful and mostly convincing: the mu0/mu-bar unification is real at the effective level, but the no-go claims inherit EMG's covariance criterion and the quantum lift is unverified. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17545 v1 pith:B4JGL7RZ submitted 2024-11-26 gr-qc

Idrus Husin Belfaqih , Martin Bojowald , Suddhasattwa Brahma , Erick I. Duque This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc MSC 83C4583C57 PACS 04.60.Pp
keywords loopquantumgravityemergentmodifiedholonomyschemesmu0-schememu-barschemecanonicaltransformationssphericalsymmetryblackholemodels
topics Quantum Gravity
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 tests the black-hole models of loop quantum gravity against the covariance conditions of emergent modified gravity. It argues that none of the recently discussed models has a compatible spacetime geometry, because the classical identification of metric components with phase-space variables is not preserved under gauge transformations once the constraints are modified. The paper then shows that adding symmetry-restoring terms can make some modified constraints covariant, and that the traditional $\mu_0$ and $\bar\mu$ holonomy schemes are related by a canonical transformation. If correct, the distinction between these schemes is a choice of canonical variables rather than a physical difference, and reliable black-hole predictions must be based on the emergent metric derived from the structure function.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the emergent space-time metric, obtained from the structure function in the Poisson bracket of two Hamiltonian constraints rather than from the classical phase-space metric identification. In spherical symmetry the bracket gives $\{H[N_1],H[N_2]\}=D[E^x(E^\phi)^{-2}(N_1N_2' - N_1'N_2)]$; after modifications the coefficient is replaced by $\tilde q_{xx}$, and covariance requires $\tilde q_{xx}$ to transform as an inverse radial metric. The second piece is the canonical transformation (31)--(32), replacing a constant holonomy length $\bar\lambda$ by an arbitrary function $\lambda(\tilde E^x)$; this transformation carries the claimed equivalence between $\mu_0$ and $\bar\mu$ schemes and shows why a strictly periodic dependence on $P_\phi$ requires a constant holonomy length.

What would settle it

Take a specific covariant black-hole solution, compute the emergent line element using the structure function in the constant-holonomy formulation, then apply the inverse of the canonical transformation (31)--(32), and compare gauge-invariant curvature invariants such as the Kretschmann scalar of the two emergent metrics; if they differ for the same physical solution, the claimed canonical equivalence does not preserve predictions. A quantum version of the test would ask whether the transformation is unitarily implementable between holonomy-flux representations with $\bar\lambda$ and $\lambda(\tilde E^x)$; if the commutator algebra closes only in the constant case, the schemes remain physically distinct.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that covariance imposes strict conditions on holonomy modifications in spherically symmetric loop quantum gravity, and that the field's standard black-hole line elements fail them. Working from emergent modified gravity, the paper shows that anomaly-free constraint algebras are necessary but not sufficient for a spacetime interpretation: the structure function in the Poisson bracket of Hamiltonian constraints must transform like an inverse spatial metric under gauge transformations. No model of the restricted form usually considered in loop quantum gravity satisfies this unless symmetry-restoring terms are added. Once those terms are included, the constant-holonomy ($\mu_0$) and scale-dependent-holonomy ($\bar\mu$) schemes are not physically distinct: the canonical transformation in Eqs. (31)--(32) maps any covariant constraint with constant $\bar\lambda$ to one with $\lambda(\tilde E^x)$, re-expressing the holonomy scheme as a choice of phase-space variables combined with a full set of modification functions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a canonical transformation, a substitution of phase-space variables that keeps Poisson brackets intact, cannot change physical predictions; if the constant-holonomy and non-constant-holonomy formulations of the same covariant constraint are not physically equivalent in the quantum theory, the claimed unification of $\mu_0$ and $\bar\mu$ schemes collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Black-hole line elements that simply read $q_{xx}$ and $q_{\vartheta\vartheta}$ off the phase-space variables are not gauge-invariant descriptions once the constraints are modified; reliable curvature, horizon, and geodesic predictions require the emergent metric built from the structure function.
  • Anomaly-freedom is necessary but not sufficient for covariance, so models that only check closure of the constraint algebra can still be ruled out by the transformation behavior of $\tilde q_{xx}$.
  • Symmetry-restoring terms, which couple momentum-periodic functions to spatial derivatives of the triad, can make previously proposed modifications covariant and give first consistent black-hole geometries.
  • The $\mu_0$ and $\bar\mu$ schemes belong to the same equivalence class under the canonical transformation (31)--(32); only constant holonomy length can be quantized with a closed holonomy-flux algebra, so the constant-length frame is the natural starting point for quantization.
  • Small holonomy effects in semiclassical regimes are controlled by the whole set of modification functions $\chi$, $c_f$, $V$, $\alpha$, and $q$, not by the single function $\lambda(E^x)$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the equivalence is correct, many published "scheme-dependence" studies of loop-quantum-gravity black holes would need to be re-expressed in terms of gauge-invariant emergent-metric observables, since the apparent differences may be artifacts of the chosen canonical variables.
  • Editorial inference: the covariance conditions suggest a practical quantization strategy: quantize in the constant-holonomy frame where the operator algebra closes, then use canonical transformations only to rewrite effective equations for phenomenological convenience.
  • Editorial inference: the same logic may not extend unchanged to models with local degrees of freedom such as polarized Gowdy waves, where covariant holonomy modifications require anisotropy-dependent combinations of momenta; testing the unification there would bound its domain of validity.
  • Editorial inference: a natural next calculation is to derive the full set of modification functions for the recent scale-dependent-$\lambda$ black-hole models and see which combinations of $\chi$ and $c_f$ actually suppress holonomy effects at large radius; this would give a testable reparameterization of lattice-refinement claims.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper applies the authors' emergent modified gravity (EMG) framework to spherically symmetric effective loop quantum gravity models. It argues that covariance requires more than first-class constraint brackets: the structure function of the constraint algebra must transform as a metric component, and an independent on-shell covariance condition must be imposed. It then claims that no existing LQG black-hole model of the restricted anomaly-free form (13) is covariant, that symmetry-restoring terms can make some of them covariant, and that the µ0 and µ-bar holonomy schemes are canonically equivalent effective descriptions. The main new technical result is the explicit canonical transformation (31)-(32) that maps a constant-holonomy constraint (25) to a scale-dependent-holonomy constraint (33), together with the argument that strict periodicity in P_phi forces a constant lambda-bar within the EMG derivative-order classification.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper is significant: it would remove a traditional dichotomy in LQG phenomenology, put a concrete covariance filter on black-hole models, and identify the full set of modification functions that must accompany holonomy terms in a covariant effective theory. The canonical-transformation result in Section 3.2.2 is explicit and checkable, and the paper's structural conclusions are falsifiable by construction: any covariant model with nonconstant lambda must contain compensating modification functions, and any strictly periodic covariant constraint must have constant lambda. The main limitation is that the 'no physical distinction' claim is established only at the effective-classical level; the quantum-lift question is acknowledged but not resolved, and the global no-go statements are inherited from earlier EMG papers rather than re-derived here.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2.2, Eqs. (31)-(33)] The canonical transformation is explicit and its Poisson brackets appear consistent, so the effective-classical equivalence of (25) and (33) is well supported. What is not supported is the stronger conclusion drawn in the abstract and in Section 3.2.3 that the µ0/µ-bar distinction is 'an artifact of the choice of canonical variables' and therefore not physically real. The paper itself notes in Section 3.2.3, citing [38], that only a constant holonomy length admits a closed holonomy-flux commutator algebra. No demonstration is given that the transformation (31)-(32) lifts to a unitary map on the LQG kinematic Hilbert space or that the two quantized theories are equivalent. Please either state explicitly that the unification holds only at the effective-classical level, or provide the missing quantum-lift argument before claiming that the schemes are not physically distinct.
  2. [Section 3.1, Eq. (28)] The central negative claim that 'none of the models originally suggested in loop quantum gravity, which are all of the form (13), are covariant' is quoted from the authors' earlier EMG work rather than proved in this paper. The manuscript summarizes the covariance condition but does not exhibit the violation of the transformation law for a concrete model, so a reader cannot independently verify the most load-bearing negative result. Since the paper is presented as a set of lessons rather than as a review, I ask that the authors either add a short explicit demonstration (for example, using Eq. (28) in the on-shell gauge transformation of qxx) or state clearly that the result is an application of the theorem proved in [6].
  3. [Section 3.2.2, paragraph beginning 'In modified 1+1-dimensional models'] The conclusion that 'strictly periodic dependence on P_phi is possible only with a scale-independent coefficient lambda-bar' depends on the completeness of the classification (23) up to second-order spatial derivatives and on the definition of 'strictly periodic' for functions whose period becomes phase-space dependent when lambda(E_x) varies. For fixed E_x, sin(lambda(E_x) P_phi) is periodic in P_phi with a lambda-dependent period, so the wording is ambiguous. Please define the periodicity notion used and state the hypotheses of the classification theorem; otherwise the no-go condition risks being read as an artifact of the chosen definition.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.4, Eq. (23)] The modification functions chi, c_f, V, alpha, q are introduced without stating their classical values. A short table or a sentence (for example, chi=1, c_f=1, V=-2/sqrt(E_x), alpha=1, q=0 in general relativity) would make the constraint much easier to parse.
  2. [Section 3.6.1, Eqs. (40)-(43)] The limiting procedure with mu_phi = -i eps and eps -> infinity is difficult to follow. The arrows in Eq. (43) do not explain which terms are kept and why the limiting structure function is real; please spell out the limit more carefully or move this technical construction to an appendix.
  3. [Section 3.6.2] The sentence describing the model of [37] as 'a mathematical curiosity' is editorializing and does not contribute to the technical argument; consider rephrasing it in neutral terms.
  4. [References [38] and [52]] Two key references, [38] and [52], are cited as companion papers or 'to appear'. Since [38] carries the load for the closed commutator-algebra statement used in Section 3.2.3, please provide a published or arXiv-stable version or state the property explicitly in the text.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The µ0/µ-bar canonical equivalence itself is an explicit, non-circular derivation, but the quantization conclusion imports a uniqueness claim from the authors' own [38].

  1. uniqueness imported from authors [Section 3.2.3, closing paragraph (after Eq. (37))]
    "This result is important for loop quantum gravity because only constant holonomy length (µ0-type schemes) can be implemented by a Hamiltonian constraint quantized in terms of basic holonomy-flux operators in a closed commutator algebra; see [38]."

    The paper's quantum-level argument for privileging µ0 over µ-bar rests on a uniqueness statement ('only constant holonomy length ... can be implemented') that is not derived here but delegated to [38], a companion paper by the same four authors. As quoted, no assumptions or derivation are supplied, so the special quantum-implementability status of µ0 is imported from the authors' own prior work rather than independently established in this paper. This import is load-bearing for the practical conclusion that loop-quantized versions should be based on the constant-¯λ representative of the canonical equivalence class. It is not, however, a reduction of the main classical equivalence claim: Eqs.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is the explicit canonical transformation (31)-(32) that maps a covariant Hamiltonian with constant holonomy parameter ¯λ, Eq. (25), into one with scale-dependent λ(Ex), Eq. (33); the map is written out and the transformed constraint is displayed. No fitted parameters are renamed as predictions and no data-derived constants enter, so the self_definitional and fitted_input_called_prediction patterns do not occur. The main negative claim (that models of the form (13) lack a compatible space-time geometry) is an application of the covariance condition developed in the authors' prior emergent-modified-gravity papers, especially [6]; that is self-citation, but the condition is a consistency requirement and has partial external support from [7,8,9]. The only place where the argument delegates a load-bearing uniqueness statement to the authors' own work is the closing of Section 3.2.3, where the assertion that only constant-holonomy µ0 schemes admit a closed holonomy-flux commutator algebra is cited to [38] without proof. Because the classical equivalence itself does not reduce to this citation, the paper has substantial independent content; the score reflects the imported quantum-implementability uniqueness rather than a by-construction equivalence.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. It relies on EMG's classification of modification functions and on a canonical-equivalence principle that is classical in status. The main unconsumed assumptions are the EMG covariance criteria from the authors' prior work and the preservation of physical equivalence under canonical transformations.

free parameters (2)
  • Modification functions chi, c_f, V, alpha, q and constant lambda-bar
    These functions parameterize the general covariant Hamiltonian (23) from emergent modified gravity. They are not fitted to data; the paper's claims are statements about the whole family, so they are model inputs rather than fitted parameters.
  • Scale-dependent holonomy function lambda(E_x)
    Obtained from lambda-bar through the canonical transformation (31)-(32). It is a derived input of the unified scheme, not an independently measured constant.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The EMG covariance conditions from [6] are necessary and sufficient for the existence of a compatible space-time metric.
    Section 2.4: the paper's strongest claims rely on this classification. The conditions are derived in earlier work by the same authors and are not re-derived here. Partial independent support exists in [7,8,9].
  • domain assumption Canonical transformations between effective constraints preserve physical equivalence.
    Section 3.2.2 and 3.2.3: the mu0/mu-bar unification assumes physical predictions are invariant under (31)-(32). This is true classically but not proven for the quantum holonomy-flux algebra.
  • domain assumption Up to second order in spatial derivatives, (23) is the most general covariant Hamiltonian constraint.
    Section 2.4, quoting [6]. All no-go and equivalence results are restricted to this derivative order; higher-derivative terms could in principle change the classification.
  • domain assumption The phase space is the classical one (E_x, P_x; E_phi, P_phi) with no additional variables from higher-derivative corrections.
    Section 2.4: EMG is formulated on the same phase space as classical spherical gravity, so the conclusions do not cover extensions of the phase space.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lessons for loop quantum gravity from emergent modified gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B4JGL7RZ

@misc{pith2026241117545,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lessons for loop quantum gravity from emergent modified gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B4JGL7RZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17545}
}
read the original abstract

Most of the potential physical effects of loop quantum gravity have been derived in effective models that modify the constraints of canonical general relativity in specific forms. Emergent modified gravity evaluates important conditions that ensure the existence of a compatible geometrical space-time interpretation of canonical solutions, as well as phase-space covariance under different choices of canonical variables. This setting, specialized to modifications suggested by loop quantum gravity, is therefore an important contribution to physical evaluations of this approach to quantum gravity. Here, it is shown that emergent modified gravity restricts several ambiguities that existed in previous formulations, rules out several specific candidates, and provides a unified treatment of different types of (holonomy) modifications that had been thought to be physically distinct.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [25]

    Giesel, H

    K. Giesel, H. Liu, P. Singh, and S. A. Weigl, Generalized analysis of a dust collapse in effective loop quantum gravity: fate of shocks and covariance, [ arXiv:2308.10953]

    arXiv

  2. [26]

    Han and H

    M. Han and H. Liu, Covariant ¯ µ-scheme effective dynamics, mimetic gravity, and non-singular black holes: Applications to spherical symmetric quant um gravity and CGHS model, [arXiv:2212.04605]

    arXiv

  3. [37]

    Zhang, J

    C. Zhang, J. Lewandowski, Y. Ma, and J. Yang, Black Holes and C ovariance in Effective Quantum Gravity, [arXiv:2407.10168]

    arXiv

  4. [56]

    Fazzini, V

    F. Fazzini, V. Husain, and E. Wilson-Ewing, Shell-crossings and sh ock formation during gravitational collapse in effective loop quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 084052, [arXiv:2312.02032]

    arXiv 2024

  5. [38]

    I. H. Belfaqih, M. Bojowald, S. Brahma, and E. I. Duque, Black h oles in effective loop quantum gravity: Covariant holonomy modifications, [arXiv:2407.12 087]

    work page

  6. [6]

    Bojowald and E

    M. Bojowald and E. I. Duque, Emergent modified gravity: Covaria nce regained, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 084066, [arXiv:2310.06798]

    arXiv 2023

  7. [1]

    P. A. M. Dirac, The theory of gravitation in Hamiltonian form, Proc. Roy. Soc. A 246 (1958) 333–343

    1958

  8. [2]

    Katz, Les crochets de Poisson des contraintes du champ gra vitationne, Comptes Rendus Acad

    J. Katz, Les crochets de Poisson des contraintes du champ gra vitationne, Comptes Rendus Acad. Sci. Paris 254 (1962) 1386–1387

    work page 1962

Show all 61 references
  1. [3]

    Arnowitt, S

    R. Arnowitt, S. Deser, and C. W. Misner, The Dynamics of Genera l Relativity, In L. Witten, editor, Gravitation: An Introduction to Current Research , Wiley, New York, 1962, Reprinted in [61]

    1962

  2. [4]

    Bojowald, E

    M. Bojowald, E. I. Duque, and A. Shah, Hypersurface deforma tions, [arXiv:2410.18807]

    arXiv

  3. [5]

    Bojowald and E

    M. Bojowald and E. I. Duque, Emergent modified gravity, Class. Quantum Grav. 41 (2024) 095008, [arXiv:2404.06375]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [7]

    Alonso-Bardaj ´ ı and D

    A. Alonso-Bardaj ´ ı and D. Brizuela, Spacetime geometry from c anonical spherical gravity, [arXiv:2310.12951]

    arXiv

  5. [8]

    Alonso-Bardaj ´ ı, D

    A. Alonso-Bardaj ´ ı, D. Brizuela, and R. Vera, An effective model for the quantum Schwarzschild black hole, Phys. Lett. B 829 (2022) 137075, [arXiv:2112.12110]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [9]

    Alonso-Bardaj ´ ı, D

    A. Alonso-Bardaj ´ ı, D. Brizuela, and R. Vera, Nonsingular spher ically symmet- ric black-hole model with holonomy corrections, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 024035, [arXiv:2205.02098]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [10]

    Bojowald and H

    M. Bojowald and H. A. Kastrup, Symmetry Reduction for Quant ized Diffeomor- phism Invariant Theories of Connections, Class. Quantum Grav. 17 (2000) 3009–3043, [hep-th/9907042]

    2000 arXiv

  8. [11]

    Bojowald, Spherically Symmetric Quantum Geometry: States and Basic Opera- tors, Class

    M. Bojowald, Spherically Symmetric Quantum Geometry: States and Basic Opera- tors, Class. Quantum Grav. 21 (2004) 3733–3753, [gr-qc/0407017]

    2004 arXiv

  9. [12]

    Bojowald and R

    M. Bojowald and R. Swiderski, Spherically Symmetric Quantum Geo metry: Hamil- tonian Constraint, Class. Quantum Grav. 23 (2006) 2129–2154, [gr-qc/0511108]

    2006 arXiv

  10. [13]

    Schwinger, Quantized gravitational field, Phys

    J. Schwinger, Quantized gravitational field, Phys. Rev. 130 (1962) 1253–1258

    1962

  11. [14]

    Rovelli and L

    C. Rovelli and L. Smolin, Loop Space Representation of Quantum General Relativity, Nucl. Phys. B 331 (1990) 80–152

    1990

  12. [15]

    Thiemann, Anomaly-Free Formulation of Non-Perturbative, Four-Dimensional Lorentzian Quantum Gravity, Phys

    T. Thiemann, Anomaly-Free Formulation of Non-Perturbative, Four-Dimensional Lorentzian Quantum Gravity, Phys. Lett. B 380 (1996) 257–264, [gr-qc/9606088] 27

    1996 arXiv

  13. [16]

    Brahma, Spherically symmetric canonical quantum gravity, Phys

    S. Brahma, Spherically symmetric canonical quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 124003, [arXiv:1411.3661]

    2015 arXiv

  14. [17]

    J. D. Reyes, Spherically Symmetric Loop Quantum Gravity: Connections t o 2- Dimensional Models and Applications to Gravitational Coll apse, PhD thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, 2009

    2009

  15. [18]

    Barrau, M

    A. Barrau, M. Bojowald, G. Calcagni, J. Grain, and M. Kagan, An omaly-free cos- mological perturbations in effective canonical quantum gravity, JCAP 05 (2015) 051, [arXiv:1404.1018]

    2015 arXiv

  16. [19]

    Tibrewala, Spherically symmetric Einstein-Maxwell theory and loop quantum gravity corrections, Class

    R. Tibrewala, Spherically symmetric Einstein-Maxwell theory and loop quantum gravity corrections, Class. Quantum Grav. 29 (2012) 235012, [arXiv:1207.2585]

    2012 arXiv

  17. [20]

    Giesel, H

    K. Giesel, H. Liu, E. Rullit, P. Singh, and S. A. Weigl, Embedding gene ralized LTB models in polymerized spherically symmetric spacetimes, [arXiv:2308.10 949]

  18. [21]

    Alonso-Bardaj ´ ı and D

    A. Alonso-Bardaj ´ ı and D. Brizuela, Holonomy and inverse-triad corrections in spher- ical models coupled to matter, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 283, [arXiv:2010.14437]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [22]

    Alonso-Bardaj ´ ı and D

    A. Alonso-Bardaj ´ ı and D. Brizuela, Anomaly-free deformatio ns of spherical general relativity coupled to matter, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 084064, [arXiv:2106.07595]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [23]

    Bojowald, Loop quantum cosmology and inhomogeneities, Gen

    M. Bojowald, Loop quantum cosmology and inhomogeneities, Gen. Rel. Grav. 38 (2006) 1771–1795, [gr-qc/0609034]

    2006 arXiv

  21. [24]

    Bojowald, D

    M. Bojowald, D. Cartin, and G. Khanna, Lattice refining loop qua ntum cosmology, anisotropic models and stability, Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 064018, [arXiv:0704.1137]

    2007 arXiv

  22. [27]

    covariant polymerization

    M. Bojowald, Non-covariance of “covariant polymerization” in m odels of loop quan- tum gravity, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 126025, [arXiv:2102.11130]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [28]

    Tibrewala, Inhomogeneities, loop quantum gravity correctio ns, constraint algebra and general covariance, Class

    R. Tibrewala, Inhomogeneities, loop quantum gravity correctio ns, constraint algebra and general covariance, Class. Quantum Grav. 31 (2014) 055010, [arXiv:1311.1297]

    2014 arXiv

  24. [29]

    Alonso-Bardaj ´ ı, D

    A. Alonso-Bardaj ´ ı, D. Brizuela, and R. Vera, Singularity resolu tion by holonomy corrections: Spherical charged black holes in cosmological backgr ounds, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 064067, [arXiv:2302.10619] 28

    2023 arXiv

  25. [30]

    Bojowald, S

    M. Bojowald, S. Brahma, and D.-H. Yeom, Effective line elements a nd black- hole models in canonical (loop) quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 046015, [arXiv:1803.01119]

    2018 arXiv

  26. [31]

    Gambini and J

    R. Gambini and J. Pullin, Loop quantization of the Schwarzschild b lack hole, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 211301, [arXiv:1302.5265]

    2013 arXiv

  27. [32]

    Gambini and J

    R. Gambini and J. Pullin, Hawking radiation from a spherical loop qu antum gravity black hole, Class. Quant. Grav. 31 (2014) 115003, [arXiv:1312.3595]

    2014 arXiv

  28. [33]

    J. G. Kelly, R. Santacruz, and E. Wilson-Ewing, Effective loop qua ntum gravity framework for vacuum spherically symmetric space-times, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 106024, [arXiv:2006.09302]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [34]

    Bojowald, E

    M. Bojowald, E. I. Duque, and D. Hartmann, A new type of large -scale sig- nature change in emergent modified gravity, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 084001, [arXiv:2312.09217]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [35]

    Ashtekar, T

    A. Ashtekar, T. Pawlowski, and P. Singh, Quantum Nature of th e Big Bang: Improved dynamics, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 084003, [gr-qc/0607039]

    2006 arXiv

  31. [36]

    Rovelli and L

    C. Rovelli and L. Smolin, The physical Hamiltonian in nonperturbat ive quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72 (1994) 446–449, [gr-qc/9308002]

    1994 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Bojowald and E

    M. Bojowald and E. I. Duque, Emergent modified gravity coupled to scalar matter, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 084006, [arXiv:2311.10693]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [40]

    E. I. Duque, Emergent modified gravity: The perfect fluid and g ravitational collapse, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 044014, [arXiv:2311.08616]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [41]

    E. I. Duque, Emergent electromagnetism, Phys. Rev. D page to appear, [arXiv:2407.14954]

    arXiv

  35. [42]

    Bojowald and E

    M. Bojowald and E. I. Duque, Emergent modified gravity: Polariz ed Gowdy model on a torus, Phys. Rev. D (2024) to appear, [arXiv:2407.13583]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Bojowald and S

    M. Bojowald and S. Brahma, Covariance in models of loop quantum gravity: Gowdy systems, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 065002, [arXiv:1507.00679]

    2015 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Banerjee and G

    K. Banerjee and G. Date, Loop quantization of polarized Gowdy model on T 3: Clas- sical theory, Class. Quantum Grav. 25 (2008) 105014, [arXiv:0712.0683] 29

    2008 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Henneaux, Geometry of Zero Signature Space-times, Bull

    M. Henneaux, Geometry of Zero Signature Space-times, Bull. Soc. Math. Belg. 31 (1979) 47

    1979

  39. [46]

    Tadros and I

    P. Tadros and I. Kol´ aˇ r, Uniqueness of Galilean and Carrollian limit s of gravitational theories and application to higher derivative gravity, [arXiv:2401.00 967]

  40. [47]

    Husain, J

    V. Husain, J. G. Kelly, R. Santacruz, and E. Wilson-Ewing, Quant um gravity of dust collapse: shock waves from black holes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) 121301, [arXiv:2109.08667]

    2022 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Bojowald, S

    M. Bojowald, S. Brahma, and J. D. Reyes, Covariance in models o f loop quantum gravity: Spherical symmetry, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 045043, [arXiv:1507.00329]

    2015 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Bojowald and G

    M. Bojowald and G. M. Paily, Deformed General Relativity and Effe ctive Actions from Loop Quantum Gravity, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 104018, [arXiv:1112.1899]

    2012 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Mielczarek, Signature change in loop quantum cosmology, Springer Proc

    J. Mielczarek, Signature change in loop quantum cosmology, Springer Proc. Phys. 157 (2014) 555, [arXiv:1207.4657]

    2014 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Bojowald and J

    M. Bojowald and J. Mielczarek, Some implications of signature-ch ange in cosmological models of loop quantum gravity, JCAP 08 (2015) 052, [arXiv:1503.09154]

    2015 arXiv

  45. [52]

    I. H. Belfaqih, M. Bojowald, S. Brahma, and E. I. Duque, [to app ear]

  46. [53]

    Bolliet, A

    B. Bolliet, A. Barrau, J. Grain, and S. Schander, Observationa l Exclusion of a Consis- tent Quantum Cosmology Scenario, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 124011, [arXiv:1510.08766]

    2016 arXiv

  47. [54]

    B.-F. Li, T. Zhu, A. Wang, K. Kirsten, G. Cleaver, and Q. Sheng, Preinflationary perturbations from the closed algebra approach in loop quantum co smology, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 103536, [arXiv:1812.11191]

    2019 arXiv

  48. [55]

    S. A. Hojman, K. Kuchaˇ r, and C. Teitelboim, Geometrodynamic s Regained, Ann. Phys. (New York) 96 (1976) 88–135

    1976

  49. [57]

    Lewandowski, Y

    J. Lewandowski, Y. Ma, J. Yang, and C. Zhang, Quantum Oppen heimer–Snyder and Swiss Cheese models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (2023) 101501, [arXiv:2210.02253]

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Alonso-Bardaj ´ ı and D

    A. Alonso-Bardaj ´ ı and D. Brizuela, Nonsingular collapse of a sp herical dust cloud, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 064023, [arXiv:2312.15505]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Alonso-Bardaj ´ ı, Formation of nonsingular spherical black h oles with holonomy corrections, [arXiv:2410.20529] 30

    A. Alonso-Bardaj ´ ı, Formation of nonsingular spherical black h oles with holonomy corrections, [arXiv:2410.20529] 30

    arXiv

  52. [60]

    Bojowald and E

    M. Bojowald and E. I. Duque, Inequivalence of mimetic gravity wit h models of loop quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 084044, [arXiv:2401.15040]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Arnowitt, S

    R. Arnowitt, S. Deser, and C. W. Misner, The Dynamics of Gener al Relativity, Gen. Rel. Grav. 40 (2008) 1997–2027 31

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.