Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 2 cited by

Hilbert space formalisms for group field theory

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This review argues that in the free parametrised group field theory, Dirac constraint quantisation and the deparametrised Schrödinger picture produce identical physical Hilbert spaces and identical relational observables.

desk verdict A honest, well-scoped review of Hilbert space formalisms for GFT; no new results, but the synthesis is useful and the limitations are stated plainly. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07847 v3 pith:NLAVQQ5B submitted 2024-12-10 gr-qc hep-th

Steffen Gielen This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-th
keywords groupfieldtheorycanonicalquantisationrelationaldynamicsPage-WoottersformalismdeparametrisationquantumgravityFockspacespinfoam
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 review of Hilbert-space formulations of group field theory (GFT) is centrally concerned with what it means to quantise a theory that has no background time. Its main claim is that, for a free GFT with a scalar matter field playing the role of a clock, the deparametrised Schrödinger picture and the Page-Wootters-style Dirac quantisation are completely equivalent: they give the same physical Hilbert space and the same relational observables. If correct, this means the choice of time picture is interpretational rather than physical, and the usual objection that deparametrisation treats time classically before quantisation is answered by promoting the clock to a quantum operator. The review also contrasts this with the algebraic Fock-space approach, which remains incomplete because no clear physical Hilbert space has been defined.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construction is the scalar matter clock $\chi$ together with a mode-diagonal quadratic action, $S_0[\phi] = \frac{1}{2}\sum_J \int d\chi \, \phi_J(\chi)(K_J^{(0)} - K_J^{(2)}\partial_\chi^2)\phi_J(\chi)$ after a reality redefinition, so each Peter-Weyl mode is a harmonic oscillator or upside-down oscillator. Parametrising $\chi(\tau)$ turns this into a constrained system with the Hamiltonian constraint $p_\chi + H_\phi^{\rm tot} \approx 0$, whose quantum version is the Schrödinger equation of the deparametrised approach. This machinery makes the two formalisms the same Hilbert-space construction: the deparametrised Fock space $\mathcal{H}_\phi$ with its $\chi$-evolution is recovered as the physical sector of $\mathcal{H}_\chi \otimes \mathcal{H}_\phi$ after imposing the constraint.

What would settle it

Compute the expectation value of a relational observable, say the mode occupation number $\hat n_J(\chi) = \hat a_J^\dagger(\chi)\hat a_J(\chi)$, in the physical state (35) for a mode with $K_J^{(0)}K_J^{(2)}<0$ and compare it with the deparametrised Schrödinger-picture expectation value for the same initial state; the equivalence claim predicts exact agreement for every $\chi$, so any mismatch would falsify it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, in the free parametrised group field theory, the Dirac quantisation is completely equivalent to the deparametrised Schrödinger picture: the physical Hilbert spaces are identical and all relational observables agree. Starting from a quadratic action of the form $S_0[\phi] = \frac{1}{2}\sum_J \int d\chi \, \bar\phi_J(\chi)(K_J^{(0)} + K_J^{(2)}\partial_\chi^2)\phi_J(\chi)$, one promotes the clock field $\chi$ to a function of a fiducial parameter $\tau$, obtaining a constrained system whose quantum constraint is $p_\chi + H_\phi^{\rm tot} \approx 0$. Physical states are $\int d\chi_0\, |\chi_0\rangle \otimes |\psi(\chi_0)\rangle$, where $|\psi(\chi_0)\rangle$ solves the Schrödinger equation of the deparametrised approach. The equivalence is therefore not an approximation but an identity of Hilbert-space constructions: the reparametrisation symmetry added by hand only reinterprets Schrödinger evolution as relational quantum correlation.

Load-bearing premise

The construction rests on the assumption that the quadratic part of the GFT action has the simple mode-diagonal form (27), with at most second derivatives, shift symmetry, parity symmetry, and a scalar field $\chi$ that can serve as a clock; if the kinetic term is nonlocal in $\chi$ or contains higher derivatives, canonical quantisation is presumably impossible and the claimed equivalence has no starting point.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the free parametrised theory, the physics is identical whether one uses a timeless constrained Hilbert space or a deparametrised Schrödinger picture, so the choice between them is a matter of interpretation rather than content.
  • The Page-Wootters reformulation gives a direct answer to the objection that deparametrisation treats the clock as classical before quantisation: the clock is a quantum degree of freedom in the physical state (35).
  • Every relational observable available in the deparametrised approach is also a Dirac observable in the constrained picture, so predictions of the free theory can be computed in either picture and translated without loss.
  • The equivalence is limited to free (quadratic) GFT with the simple kinetic term (27); for nonlocal or higher-derivative kinetic terms canonical quantisation is presumably impossible, so the claimed equivalence does not yet reach realistic GFT models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the review leaves implicit is that if the equivalence survives the addition of interactions, the recognised problem of time in quantum gravity would, within GFT, be a representational choice rather than a physical shortcoming: the same relational content can be described timelessly or through a clock.
  • A testable extension is to add an interaction term in a single-mode toy GFT and compare group-averaged physical inner products and relational observables with deparametrised evolution; the free-theory theorem suggests the two must agree order by order in perturbation theory, which is a nontrivial check.
  • The mode-diagonal condition (27) can be read as a separability criterion for a good clock; realistic nonlocal GFT models would need a smeared relational time, and the Page-Wootters argument indicates the resulting physics should not depend on how that smearing is chosen.
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

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a review of Hilbert space formulations of group field theory (GFT). It first presents the algebraic/Fock-space approach, in which GFT states are built from creation and annihilation operators and identified with loop quantum gravity spin networks, and it discusses the unresolved issue of defining physical states via constraints or Schwinger–Dyson equations. It then presents the deparametrised approach, in which a free massless scalar field provides a clock chi, the quadratic GFT action is written in mode-diagonal form (27), and each mode is quantised as a harmonic or upside-down harmonic oscillator. Finally, Section V promotes chi to a dynamical variable and obtains the reparametrisation constraint (34); it claims that the Dirac quantisation of this parametrised system is completely equivalent to the deparametrised Schrödinger picture, with identical physical Hilbert spaces and relational observables. The manuscript explicitly limits this equivalence to free theories with actions of the form (27).

Significance. The review is useful and well-scoped. Its central claim, if taken as a consistency result for the free theory, is correct and significant: it shows that the Page–Wootters reformulation of GFT does not alter the physics of the deparametrised approach while providing a framework in which the matter clock is quantum rather than classical. The paper is unusually candid about its limitations: it states that the algebraic-approach commutation relations are postulated (Section III), that the deparametrised construction relies on the simple mode-diagonal action (27) and would fail for nonlocal or higher-derivative kinetic terms (Section IV), and that the Section V equivalence is to be expected because the reparametrisation symmetry was added by hand. These caveats are load-bearing for interpretation but are explicitly scoped, so they do not undermine the stated claims. As a review, it also performs a valuable service by collecting and contrasting approaches that are usually presented only in application-specific contexts, and the standard derivation of the constraint (34) from the action (33) is presented correctly.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (11)] Please clarify the notation in Eq. (11): if g_j is a single group element, the integral over dh of the group delta function gives a constant rather than the intertwiner kernel needed for spin-network states. Specify that g_j denotes a d-tuple and that delta^(4) is a product of d group delta functions, or give the explicit d-argument form of the commutator.
  2. [Section III, Eq. (13)] The product \prod_{i=1}^n \hat{a}^\dagger(g_{ij}) in Eq. (13) is ambiguous; it should be spelled out as one creation operator per vertex with d arguments, i.e., \prod_i \hat{a}^\dagger(g_{i1},\ldots,g_{id}), rather than n*d separate single-argument operations. This is important for the interpretation as second-quantised spin networks.
  3. [Section V] The central equivalence claim would be more self-contained if the paper explicitly stated the physical-Hilbert-space isometry, for example |\psi\rangle \mapsto \int d\chi_0 |\chi_0\rangle \otimes |\psi(\chi_0)\rangle, and if it defined the relational observables whose expectation values match the deparametrised Schrödinger picture. Currently this is asserted and referred to reference [42]; the assertion is plausible, but a concise statement of the map would prevent overinterpretation.
  4. [Section IV, after Eq. (28)] The sentence introducing Eq. (28) says the Hamiltonian is expressed in terms of ladder operators \hat{a}^\dagger_J and \hat{a}^\dagger_J; the second operator should presumably be \hat{a}_J. Please correct this typo.
  5. [Section II heading] The section heading 'WHA T ACTUALL Y IS A GFT?' contains inserted spaces; this appears to be a typesetting artifact and should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the Section V equivalence is explicitly presented as an expected consistency check, not as an independent prediction.

full rationale

I walked the paper's derivation chain from the deparametrised quadratic action (27)/(32) through the parametrised action (33), the constraint (34), and the claimed equivalence in Section V. The central equivalence between Dirac quantisation and the deparametrised Schrödinger picture is not a hidden assumption dressed as a result: the paper constructs the parametrised system by the standard substitution chi -> chi(tau), derives the constraint p_chi + H_tot ≈ 0, and then states that the physical Hilbert spaces are identical, adding, 'This is perhaps what would one expect, given that the reparametrisation symmetry has been added by hand into a system that was already deparametrised.' This is a transparent consistency theorem, not an empirical prediction, and the paper does not claim otherwise. The main limitation, that the deparametrised approach requires the quadratic action to take the special form (27), is stated explicitly in Section IV, where the paper notes that higher-derivative or nonlocal-in-chi theories would require different methods or may not admit a canonical quantisation. I found no fitted parameter that is later relabelled as a prediction, and no load-bearing argument that reduces to a self-citation: the derivation in Section V is sketched in the paper itself, with reference [42] providing details rather than serving as the sole justification. The review is self-contained against external benchmarks and is explicit about its assumptions and limitations. Consequently, there is no significant circularity.

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

The review's central claims rest on a restricted class of GFT models: free or weakly interacting theories with quadratic kinetics of the form (27). The algebraic approach additionally postulates the Fock-space commutation relations. The Page-Wootters section inherits these assumptions and adds a reparametrisation symmetry by hand.

assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The algebraic approach postulates commutation relations [a(g), a†(g')] = I(g(g')^{-1}) for the group field operators.
    Section III A: this algebra is introduced by analogy with non-relativistic QFT and is not derivable from the GFT action; the review states it is 'an assumption that cannot directly be motivated from the structure of dynamical equations'.
  • domain assumption The quadratic part of the GFT action can be written in the diagonal mode form (27) with no higher derivatives or nonlocality, and with chi as a clock.
    Section IV: the deparametrised approach requires this to proceed; the review notes that if kinetic terms include higher derivatives or nonlocalities, canonical quantisation is presumably impossible.
  • domain assumption chi can be treated as a classical time parameter before quantisation (deparametrisation) and the theory is quantised canonically as an oscillator system per mode.
    Section IV and footnote 6; the review acknowledges the tempus ante quantum criticism and later addresses it via Page-Wootters.
  • standard math The standard Dirac constraint quantisation machinery (group averaging, physical inner product) applies to the parametrised action (33).
    Section V: the Page-Wootters construction uses standard constraint quantisation; the review references [38, 39, 40] for these techniques.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hilbert space formalisms for group field theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NLAVQQ5B

@misc{pith2026241207847,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hilbert space formalisms for group field theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NLAVQQ5B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07847}
}
read the original abstract

Group field theory is a background-independent approach to quantum gravity whose starting point is the definition of a quantum field theory on an auxiliary group manifold (not interpreted as spacetime, but rather as the finite-dimensional configuration space of a single "atom" of geometry). Group field theory models can be seen as an extension of matrix and tensor models by additional data, and are traditionally defined through a functional integral whose perturbative expansion generates a sum over discrete geometries. More recently, some efforts have been directed towards formulations of group field theory based on a Hilbert space and operators, in particular in applications to cosmology. This is an attempt to review some of these formulations and their main ideas, to disentangle these constructions as much as possible from applications and phenomenology, and to put them into a wider context of quantum gravity research.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.07847 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A graph with four four-valent vertices; we have split each edge into a “source” and a “target” part. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Relational Observables in Group Field Theory

    gr-qc 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    POVM-based conditioning on scalar-field quantum reference frames defines relational observables in group field theory that match prior number and volume results on coherent states.

  2. An Exactly Soluble Group Field Theory

    gr-qc 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A non-interacting group field theory exactly reproduces the Husain-Kuchar model's spinfoam amplitudes and Fock space, bridging canonical and covariant quantization approaches.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [42]

    Relational dynamics and Page–Wootters formalism in group field theory,

    A. Calcinari and S. Gielen, “Relational dynamics and Page–Wootters formalism in group field theory,” Quantum 9 (2025), 1610, arXiv:2407.03432

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    N. M. J. Woodhouse, Geometric Quantization (Oxford Mathematical Monographs) (Oxford University Press, 1991)

    work page 1991

  3. [2]

    Deformation Quantization of Poisson Manifolds,

    M. Kontsevich, “Deformation Quantization of Poisson Manifolds,” Lett. Math. Phys. 66 (2003), 157– 216, q-alg/9709040

    arXiv 2003

  4. [3]

    Kleinert, Path Integrals in Quantum Mechanics, Statistics, Polymer Physics, and Financial Markets (World Scientific, Singapore, 2006)

    H. Kleinert, Path Integrals in Quantum Mechanics, Statistics, Polymer Physics, and Financial Markets (World Scientific, Singapore, 2006)

    work page 2006

  5. [4]

    Nonperturbative quantum gravity,

    J. Ambjørn, A. G¨ orlich, J. Jurkiewicz and R. Loll, “Nonperturbative quantum gravity,” Phys. Rept. 519 (2012), 127–210, arXiv:1203.3591

    arXiv 2012

  6. [5]

    Suppression of non-manifold-like sets in the causal set path integral

    S. P. Loomis and S. Carlip, “Suppression of non-manifold-like sets in the causal set path integral,” Class. Quant. Grav. 35 (2018), 024002, arXiv:1709.00064

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  7. [6]

    The Spin-Foam Approach to Quantum Gravity,

    A. Perez, “The Spin-Foam Approach to Quantum Gravity,” Living Rev. Rel. 16 (2013), 3, arXiv:1205.2019

    arXiv 2013

  8. [7]

    Ten questions on Group Field Theory (and their tentative answers)

    A. Baratin and D. Oriti, “Ten questions on Group Field Theory (and their tentative answers),” J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 360 (2012), 012002, arXiv:1112.3270

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

Show all 56 references
  1. [8]

    Group Field Theory: An Overview,

    L. Freidel, “Group Field Theory: An Overview,” Int. J. Theor. Phys. 44 (2005), 1769–1783, hep-th/0505016

    2005 arXiv

  2. [9]

    The group field theory approach to Quantum Gravity,

    D. Oriti, “The group field theory approach to Quantum Gravity,” in Approaches to Quantum Grav- ity – Toward a New Understanding of Space, Time and Matter , ed. D. Oriti (Cambridge University Press, 2009), gr-qc/0607032; T. Krajewski, “Group Field Theories,” PoS QGQGS2011 (2011...

    2011 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Group field theory as the second quantization of loop quantum gravity,

    D. Oriti, “Group field theory as the second quantization of loop quantum gravity,” Class. Quant. Grav. 33 (2016), 085005, arXiv:1310.7786

    2016 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Cosmology from Group Field Theory Formalism for Quantum Gravity,

    S. Gielen, D. Oriti and L. Sindoni, “Cosmology from Group Field Theory Formalism for Quantum Gravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013), 031301, arXiv:1303.3576; “Homogeneous cosmologies as group field theory condensates,” JHEP 06 (2014), 013, arXiv:1311.1238. 20

    2013 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Group Field Theory Condensate Cosmology: An Appetizer,

    A. G. A. Pithis and M. Sakellariadou, “Group Field Theory Condensate Cosmology: An Appetizer,” Universe 5 (2019), 147, arXiv:1904.00598

    2019 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Emergent Friedmann dynamics with a quantum bounce from quantum gravity condensates,

    D. Oriti, L. Sindoni and E. Wilson-Ewing, “Emergent Friedmann dynamics with a quantum bounce from quantum gravity condensates,” Class. Quant. Grav. 33 (2016), 224001, arXiv:1602.05881; “Bouncing cosmologies from quantum gravity condensates,” Class. Quant. Grav. 34 (2017), 04LT...

    2016 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Thermal representations in group field theory: squeezed vacua and quantum gravity condensates,

    M. Assanioussi and I. Kotecha, “Thermal representations in group field theory: squeezed vacua and quantum gravity condensates,” JHEP 02 (2020), 173, arXiv:1910.06889

    2020 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Relational Hamiltonian for group field theory,

    E. Wilson-Ewing, “Relational Hamiltonian for group field theory,” Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019), 086017, arXiv:1810.01259

    2019 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Mean-Field Phase Transitions in Tensorial Group Field Theory Quantum Gravity,

    L. Marchetti, D. Oriti, A. G. A. Pithis and J. Th¨ urigen, “Mean-Field Phase Transitions in Tensorial Group Field Theory Quantum Gravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (2023), 141501, arXiv:2211.12768

    2023 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Flowing in Group Field Theory Space: a Review,

    S. Carrozza, “Flowing in Group Field Theory Space: a Review,” SIGMA 12 (2016), 070, arXiv:1603.01902

    2016 arXiv

  11. [18]

    A Model of three-dimensional lattice gravity,

    D. V. Boulatov, “A Model of three-dimensional lattice gravity,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A 7 (1992), 1629–1646, hep-th/9202074

    1992 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Semiclassical limit of Racah coefficients,

    G. Ponzano and T. Regge, “Semiclassical limit of Racah coefficients,” in Spectroscopic and group theo- retical methods in physics , ed. F. Bloch (North-Holland Publ. Co., 1968), 1–58

    1968

  13. [20]

    The Ponzano-Regge model,

    J. W. Barrett and I. Naish-Guzman, “The Ponzano-Regge model,” Class. Quant. Grav. 26 (2009), 155014, arXiv:0803.3319

    2009 arXiv

  14. [21]

    An Introduction to Spin Foam Models of BF Theory and Quantum Gravity,

    J. C. Baez, “An Introduction to Spin Foam Models of BF Theory and Quantum Gravity,” Lect. Notes Phys. 543 (2000), 25–93, gr-qc/9905087

    2000 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Spacetime as a Feynman diagram: the connection formulation,

    M. P. Reisenberger and C. Rovelli, “Spacetime as a Feynman diagram: the connection formulation,” Class. Quant. Grav. 18 (2001), 121–140, gr-qc/0002095

    2001 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Barrett–Crane model from a Boulatov–Ooguri field theory over a homogeneous space,

    R. De Pietri, L. Freidel, K. Krasnov and C. Rovelli, “Barrett–Crane model from a Boulatov–Ooguri field theory over a homogeneous space,” Nucl. Phys. B 574 (2000), 785–806, hep-th/9907154; J. Ben Geloun, R. Gurau and V. Rivasseau, “EPRL/FK group field theory,” EPL 92 (2010), 60...

    2000 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Rovelli, Quantum Gravity (Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics) (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2007); T

    C. Rovelli, Quantum Gravity (Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics) (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2007); T. Thiemann, Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity (Cambridge Mono- graphs on Mathematical Physics) (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

    2007

  18. [25]

    Radiative Corrections in the Boulatov-Ooguri Tensor Model: The 2-Point Function,

    J. Ben Geloun and V. Bonzom, “Radiative Corrections in the Boulatov-Ooguri Tensor Model: The 2-Point Function,” Int. J. Theor. Phys. 50 (2011), 2819–2841, arXiv:1101.4294

    2011 arXiv

  19. [26]

    A new class of group field theories for first order discrete quantum gravity,

    D. Oriti and T. Tlas, “A new class of group field theories for first order discrete quantum gravity,” Class. Quant. Grav. 25 (2008), 085011, arXiv:0710.2679

    2008 arXiv

  20. [27]

    2D gravity and random matrices,

    P. Di Francesco, P. H. Ginsparg and J. Zinn-Justin, “2D gravity and random matrices,” Phys. Rept. 254 (1995), 1–133, hep-th/9306153

    1995 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Colored Group Field Theory,

    R. Gurau, “Colored Group Field Theory,” Commun. Math. Phys. 304 (2011), 69–93, arXiv:0907.2582; R. Gurau and J. P. Ryan, “Colored Tensor Models - a Review,” SIGMA 8 (2012), 020, arXiv:1109.4812

    2011 arXiv

  22. [29]

    A Renormalizable 4-Dimensional Tensor Field Theory,

    J. Ben Geloun and V. Rivasseau, “A Renormalizable 4-Dimensional Tensor Field Theory,” Commun. Math. Phys. 318 (2013), 69–109, arXiv:1111.4997

    2013 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Toward matter dynamics in spin foam quantum gravity,

    M. Ali and S. Steinhaus, “Toward matter dynamics in spin foam quantum gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022), 106016, arXiv:2206.04076; M. Han, H. Liu, D. Qu, F. Vidotto and C. Zhang, “Cosmological Dynamics from Covariant Loop Quantum Gravity with Scalar Matter,” arXiv:2402.07984. 21

    2022 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Fermions in three-dimensional spinfoam quantum gravity,

    W. J. Fairbairn, “Fermions in three-dimensional spinfoam quantum gravity,”Gen. Rel. Grav. 39 (2007), 427–476, gr-qc/0609040

    2007 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Group field theory for quantum gravity minimally coupled to a scalar field,

    Y. Li, D. Oriti and M. Zhang, “Group field theory for quantum gravity minimally coupled to a scalar field,” Class. Quant. Grav. 34 (2017), 195001, arXiv:1701.08719

    2017 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Lancaster and S

    T. Lancaster and S. J. Blundell, Quantum Field Theory for the Gifted Amateur (Oxford University Press, 2015)

    2015

  27. [34]

    Generalized Gaussian states in group field theory and su(1, 1) quantum cosmology,

    A. Calcinari and S. Gielen, “Generalized Gaussian states in group field theory and su(1, 1) quantum cosmology,” Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024), 066022, arXiv:2310.08667

    2024 arXiv

  28. [35]

    M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder, An Introduction To Quantum Field Theory (CRC Press, 1995)

    1995

  29. [36]

    Kegeles, Algebraic foundation of Group Field Theory (PhD Thesis, University of Potsdam, 2018)

    A. Kegeles, Algebraic foundation of Group Field Theory (PhD Thesis, University of Potsdam, 2018)

    2018

  30. [37]

    Frozen formalism and canonical quantization in group field theory,

    S. Gielen, “Frozen formalism and canonical quantization in group field theory,” Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021), 106011, arXiv:2105.01100

    2021 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Dirac’s Canonical Quantization Programme,

    P. A. M. Dirac, Lectures on quantum mechanics (Dover Publications, 2001); H. J. Matschull, “Dirac’s Canonical Quantization Programme,” quant-ph/9606031

    2001 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Loop quantum cosmology: a status report,

    A. Ashtekar and P. Singh, “Loop quantum cosmology: a status report,” Class. Quant. Grav. 28 (2011), 213001, arXiv:1108.0893

    2011 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Switching Internal Times and a New Perspective on the ‘Wave Function of the Universe’,

    P. A. H¨ ohn, “Switching Internal Times and a New Perspective on the ‘Wave Function of the Universe’,” Universe 5 (2019), 116, arXiv:1811.00611

    2019 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Generalised effective cosmology from group field theory,

    S. Gielen and A. Polaczek, “Generalised effective cosmology from group field theory,” Class. Quant. Grav. 37 (2020), 165004, arXiv:1912.06143

    2020 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Stationary cosmology in group field theory,

    S. Gielen and R. Santacruz, “Stationary cosmology in group field theory,” Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023), 026001, arXiv:2303.16942

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Gravity quantized: Loop quantum gravity with a scalar field,

    M. Domaga la, K. Giesel, W. Kami´ nski and J. Lewandowski, “Gravity quantized: Loop quantum gravity with a scalar field,” Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010), 104038, arXiv:1009.2445; V. Husain and T. Paw lowski, “Time and a Physical Hamiltonian for Quantum Gravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (...

    2010 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Canonical Quantum Gravity and the Problem of Time,

    C. J. Isham, “Canonical Quantum Gravity and the Problem of Time,” in Integrable Systems, Quantum Groups, and Quantum Field Theories , ed. L. A. Ibort and M. A. Rodr ´ ıguez (Springer Dordrecht, 1993), NATO Sci. Ser. C 409 (1993), 157–287, gr-qc/9210011

    1993 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Effective relational cosmological dynamics from quantum gravity,

    L. Marchetti and D. Oriti, “Effective relational cosmological dynamics from quantum gravity,” JHEP 05 (2021), 025, arXiv:2008.02774

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Diffeomorphisms in group field theories,

    A. Baratin, F. Girelli and D. Oriti, “Diffeomorphisms in group field theories,” Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011), 104051, arXiv:1101.0590

    2011 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Discrete and Continuum Third Quantization of Gravity,

    S. Gielen and D. Oriti, “Discrete and Continuum Third Quantization of Gravity,” in Quantum Field Theory and Gravity. Conceptual and Mathematical Advances in the Search for a Unified Framework , ed. F. Finster et al. (Birk¨ auser Basel, 2012), 41–64,arXiv:1102.2226

    2012 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Trinity of relational quantum dynamics,

    P. A. H¨ ohn, A. R. H. Smith and M. P. E. Lock, “Trinity of relational quantum dynamics,” Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021), 066001, arXiv:1912.00033

    2021 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Evolution without evolution: Dynamics described by stationary observables,

    D. N. Page and W. K. Wootters, “Evolution without evolution: Dynamics described by stationary observables,” Phys. Rev. D 27 (1983), 2885–2892; W. K. Wootters, “‘Time’ replaced by quantum correlations,” Int. J. Theor. Phys. 23 (1984), 701-711

    1983

  43. [51]

    An Exactly Soluble Group Field Theory,

    L. Marchetti, H. Mehmood, and V. Husain, “An Exactly Soluble Group Field Theory,” arXiv:2412.09851

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    Ostrogradsky instability can be overcome by quantum physics,

    J. F. Donoghue and G. Menezes, “Ostrogradsky instability can be overcome by quantum physics,” Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021), 045010, arXiv:2105.00898. 22

    2021 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Path integrals for classical-quantum dynamics,

    J. Oppenheim and Z. Weller-Davies, “Path integrals for classical-quantum dynamics,” arXiv:2301.04677

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    Frontiers of Quantum Gravity: shared challenges, converging directions,

    J. de Boer, B. Dittrich, A. Eichhorn, S. B. Giddings, S. Gielen, S. Liberati, E. R. Livine, D. Oriti, K. Papadodimas and A. D. Pereira, et al. “Frontiers of Quantum Gravity: shared challenges, converging directions,” Snowmass 2021 White Paper , arXiv:2207.10618

    2021 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Relational Observables in Group Field Theory,

    L. Marchetti and E. Wilson-Ewing, “Relational Observables in Group Field Theory,” arXiv:2412.14622

    arXiv

  48. [56]

    Linking covariant and canonical loop quantum gravity: New solutions to the Euclidean scalar constraint,

    E. Alesci, T. Thiemann and A. Zipfel, “Linking covariant and canonical loop quantum gravity: New solutions to the Euclidean scalar constraint,” Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012), 024017, arXiv:1109.1290

    2012 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.