Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Testing general covariance in effective models motivated by Loop Quantum Gravity

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read General covariance in effective quantum gravity reduces to a divergence test on a phase-space Einstein tensor.

desk verdict A new divergence-based covariance test for effective LQG models, honestly presented and worth engaging, but the test's sufficiency is not proven and the q^2 family claims rest on omitted calculations. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03355 v2 pith:AE56TJEO submitted 2025-01-06 gr-qc

Juan Carlos Del Águila , Hugo A. Morales This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc PACS 04.60.Pp
keywords loopquantumgravitygeneralcovarianceemergentmetricinversetriadcorrectionsholonomysphericallysymmetricvacuummodelsKantowski-Sachsmodelphase-spaceEinsteintensor
topics 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 claims that general covariance of a canonically formulated effective gravity theory can be checked by computing $\nabla_\mu \mathcal{G}^{\mu\nu}|_K=0$, where $\mathcal{G}^{\mu\nu}$ is the phase-space-projected effective Einstein tensor and $|_K$ means evaluating on the half of the Hamilton equations that express extrinsic-curvature variables in terms of the triad. Applying this test to spherically symmetric vacuum models with inverse triad corrections, it finds that the unmodified classical metric breaks covariance, while two families of 'emergent' metrics -- $\bar{E}^r=\alpha_2^2 E^r$ or $\bar{N}=\alpha_2 N$, each with an arbitrary angular coefficient $q^2$ -- restore it. For holonomy corrections, a metric with a corrected radial spatial component fails the test, but a lapse-corrected emergent metric $\bar{N}=\sqrt{|\partial\gamma_2/\partial K_\phi|}\,N$ passes. The paper also shows that the inverse-triad spherical model matches an exterior Kantowski-Sachs model with the same line element only when such emergent metrics are used, and that the matching fails for a standard holonomy-modified Kantowski-Sachs model. The practical point is that a modified effective Hamiltonian plus an unmodified metric is not a covariant effective theory; quantum corrections to the metric itself are part of what makes a model general covariant.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the phase-space-projected Einstein tensor $\mathcal{G}^{\mu\nu}$, obtained by inverting the matrix $g_\Gamma=\delta g_{\mu\nu}/\delta(N,N^a,P^A)$ that maps variations of the metric coefficients to variations of canonical variables, and then computing its divergence $\nabla_\mu\mathcal{G}^{\mu\nu}$ with respect to a chosen (possibly 'emergent') metric. The classical Bianchi identity $\nabla_\mu G^{\mu\nu}=0$ -- derived from diffeomorphism invariance of the Einstein-Hilbert action -- serves as the compatibility condition: an effective theory is covariant with respect to a given metric when that divergence vanishes after evaluating on the solutions $K$ of the Hamilton equations that define the curvature variables. The companion idea is the emergent metric: replacing metric coefficients such as $E^r$ or $N$ by correction-function-modified expressions restores the classical structure of the constraint algebra and makes the divergence vanish.

What would settle it

Construct an effective action whose phase-space Einstein tensor satisfies $\nabla_\mu\mathcal{G}^{\mu\nu}|_K=0$ on-shell while its constraint algebra is not the classical hypersurface-deformation algebra (or while the action is not invariant under diffeomorphisms); such a model would show the test is insufficient and would overturn the paper's verdicts on which emergent metrics restore covariance. A more targeted check is to apply both the divergence test and the gauge-transformation covariance criterion to a concrete model whose metric correction factor depends on radial derivatives of phase-space variables, a case the paper notes lies beyond its current treatment.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an effective canonical theory with total Hamiltonian $H_T=N H_{\rm eff}+N^r C_{\rm eff}$ is generally covariant with respect to a chosen metric precisely when the divergence of its phase-space Einstein tensor, constructed by inverting the matrix $g_\Gamma=\delta g_{\mu\nu}/\delta(N,N^r,P^A)$ and then taking $\nabla_\mu\mathcal{G}^{\mu\nu}$, vanishes after the $K$-evaluation. In the classical spherically symmetric model this reproduces the ordinary Einstein tensor and its Bianchi-conserved divergence; with inverse triad corrections it does not, unless $\alpha_2^2=1$. Covariance is regained with the emergent metrics $\bar{g}^{(IT1)}_{\mu\nu}$ and $\bar{g}^{(IT2)}_{\mu\nu}$, which correspond respectively to $\bar{E}^r=\alpha_2^2E^r$ and $\bar{N}=\alpha_2N$. For holonomy corrections, the emergent metric with corrected radial spatial metric satisfies only spatial-diffeomorphism invariance, whereas the lapse-corrected metric $\bar{N}=\sqrt{|\partial\gamma_2/\partial K_\phi|}\,N$ is generally covariant, including for phase-space-dependent holonomy parameters. The paper's overall message is that the line element must be corrected alongside the Hamiltonian for an effective LQG model to qualify as a covariant gravity theory.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the divergence test $\nabla_\mu\mathcal{G}^{\mu\nu}|_K=0$ is sufficient, not merely necessary, for general covariance; the paper proves the necessity from the classical Bianchi identity but explicitly leaves open whether the two covariance criteria could disagree for a particular effective action.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For inverse triad corrections, a covariant effective theory requires a quantum-corrected metric, not just a corrected Hamiltonian; the two allowed families are $\bar{E}^r=\alpha_2^2E^r$ and $\bar{N}=\alpha_2N$, each with arbitrary angular coefficient $q^2$.
  • A holonomy-modified spherical model with a corrected radial spatial metric alone is not generally covariant; only the lapse-corrected emergent metric $\bar{N}=\sqrt{|\partial\gamma_2/\partial K_\phi|}N$ passes the divergence test.
  • The inverse-triad spherical model and an exterior Kantowski-Sachs model describe the same line element when their correction functions are mapped as $\alpha_1=\beta_1$, $\alpha_2=\beta_2$, or as $\beta_2/\beta_1=\alpha_2/\alpha_1$, provided emergent metrics are used on both sides.
  • For the specific holonomy-modified exterior Kantowski-Sachs model with $\lambda_1=\lambda_2=\sinh(\delta B)/\delta$, no matching covariant spherical model within the studied class exists.
  • Because the two emergent inverse-triad metrics are not related by a diffeomorphism, choosing which one describes physics must rely on boundary conditions or asymptotic behavior once explicit solutions are known.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the divergence test turns out to be only necessary and not sufficient, a model that passes it could still fail a full constraint-algebra or action-based covariance check; the paper's verdicts on which emergent metrics restore covariance are therefore conditional on the two tests agreeing.
  • The same construction should extend to other inhomogeneous midisuperspace models, such as Gowdy cosmologies, whenever the reduced phase space admits the same canonical form.
  • For effective black-hole models, the lapse-corrected holonomy metric carries the signature factor $s_\gamma=\mathrm{sgn}(\partial\gamma_2/\partial K_\phi)$, so a possible signature change inside the horizon could serve as a physical differentiator among emergent-metric proposals.
  • The map between inverse-triad spherical and exterior Kantowski-Sachs models suggests a systematic route for transferring covariance results between midi- and mini-superspace quantizations, but only when the emergent metric appears on both sides.
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 proposes a criterion for testing general covariance in canonically formulated effective gravity theories. The criterion is to compute an effective Einstein tensor G^{μν} in phase space by inverting the map from metric variations to variations with respect to (N, N^a, P^A), then to evaluate the covariant divergence ∇_μ G^{μν} on solutions of the half of Hamilton's equations that express conjugate momenta in terms of configuration variables; vanishing of this quantity is taken as the signature of diffeomorphism invariance. The criterion is applied to spherically symmetric vacuum models with inverse triad and holonomy corrections inspired by loop quantum gravity. The paper finds that inverse triad corrections require emergent metrics, such as E^r→α_2^2 E^r or N→α_2 N, with arbitrary angular metric functions, while holonomy corrections require a lapse-corrected metric N̄=√|∂γ_2/∂K_φ|N. It also establishes a correspondence between inverse-triad-corrected spherical symmetry and an exterior Kantowski-Sachs model, and shows that a specific holonomy-corrected exterior Kantowski-Sachs model cannot be matched to a covariant spherically symmetric model of the type considered.

Significance. If the proposed criterion is valid, it provides a new and explicitly computable tool for assessing the consistency of effective canonical gravity models, and the paper's results would sharpen the ongoing debate about emergent metrics in LQG-inspired effective theories. The explicit phase-space computations, including the appendix with the coefficients of ∇_μ G^{μν}, are a useful resource, and the paper is honest about several limitations. A notable strength is the example of the holonomy-corrected metric ḡ^{(3)}, where the constraint algebra is closed but the divergence test fails, showing that the two criteria do not always agree. However, the paper's central claim depends on a sufficiency step that is not proved; Section VI.A explicitly concedes that the relation between the divergence test and the constraint-algebra/diffeomorphism criterion remains open. The conclusions about which emergent metrics restore general covariance are therefore conditional on an additional assumption.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (6); Section III; Section VI.A] The paper establishes only the classical implication from diffeomorphism invariance of an action to the vanishing of ∇_μ G^{μν}, and then uses ∇_μ G^{μν}|_K=0 as a sufficient test of general covariance. The converse is not proved, and Section VI.A states that the equivalence with the constraint-algebra/diffeomorphism criterion 'remains to be seen' and that the two tests 'could disagree for a particular effective action.' Because this sufficiency step is load-bearing for the central claims in Sections IV.B and IV.C that the emergent metrics restore general covariance, the verdicts should either be accompanied by a proof that the test is sufficient (for instance, by deriving an off-shell Bianchi identity for the effective action) or be weakened to statements that the models pass a necessary consistency test.
  2. [Section IV.B, Eqs. (31)-(32)] The claim that both metric families with arbitrary angular functions q^2(E^r,E^φ) and q̄^2(E^r,E^φ) satisfy ∇_μ G^{μν}|_K=0 is asserted without displaying the calculation, with the text saying only that 'the steps of the analysis will be omitted to avoid unnecessary repetition.' This verification underpins the subsequent conclusion that the inverse triad model is generally covariant with respect to only these two families of metrics. Please include the calculation, or at least a concise argument showing that the q^2 dependence cancels in the divergence, and discuss whether g_Γ remains invertible for generic choices of q^2.
  3. [Section IV.C, Eq. (43)] For the lapse-corrected holonomy metric ḡ^{(4)}, the divergence ∇_μ G^{μν} contains a term K^ν H_eff, so it vanishes only when the Hamiltonian constraint H_eff=0 is imposed. The paper notes that this on-shell requirement was not needed in the previous cases, but it does not reconcile this with the criterion's motivation from the off-shell Bianchi identity. This difference is consequential because it changes the status of the test from an off-shell identity to an on-shell condition, and it should be clarified whether the criterion is intended to be evaluated on the constraint surface in this case.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV.A, near Eq. (20)] The sentence defining the vectors reads 'Aμ(i) = Aμ(i)(Γ+) and Bμ(i) = Aμ(i)(Γ+)'; the second expression should presumably read 'Bμ(i) = Bμ(i)(Γ+).'
  2. [Section IV.A, final paragraph] In the sentence 'the constraints or the other half of the Hamilton equations, i.e., ˙Er = {Er, HT...} and ˙Eϕ = {Eϕ, HT...}, were not required', the two displayed equations should refer to ˙Kr and ˙Kϕ, not ˙Er and ˙Eϕ.
  3. [References] Reference [33] is incomplete: the title ends with '...loop quantum geometry of the maximally' and is missing the remaining words. Please supply the full title.
  4. [Section IV.C, Eq. (38)] The metric (38) contains a signature-changing factor sc, but the paper does not discuss how the divergence computation and the notion of the covariant derivative are adapted when the metric is not Lorentzian in the usual sense. A brief comment would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity found; the covariance test is anchored to the classical Bianchi identity, and the main caveat is the admitted sufficiency gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central test, ∇_μ G^{μν}|_K = 0, is anchored to the classical contracted Bianchi identity, an external standard, rather than to the conclusions it is used to draw. The effective Hamiltonians in (21) and (33) are imported from standard LQG regularization and holonomy constructions, not fitted to the test, and the emergent metrics are motivated by deformed Poisson brackets, e.g., (24) and (34), with the divergence computations then presented as independent checks in (27), (29), and (43), supported by the appendix coefficients. No equation is exhibited in which the test variable is defined as the predicted result. The most significant caveat is in Section VI.A, where the authors state that equivalence with the constraint-algebra criterion 'remains to be seen' and that the two tests 'could disagree' for a particular effective action; this is an admitted sufficiency gap that weakens the force of the covariance verdicts, but it is an open correctness issue rather than a circular derivation. The arbitrary q2 functions in (31)–(32) and the omitted verification of those cases reduce selectivity and transparency, but they do not make the derivation self-referential. Minor self-citations, such as [9] and [12], appear in contextual introductory remarks and are not load-bearing for the main argument. Overall, no significant load-bearing circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claims rest on unspecified correction functions from the LQG effective-model literature and on an unproven sufficiency of the divergence test. No parameters are fitted to data, so the main burden is conceptual rather than empirical: the paper assumes the effective Hamiltonians are the right models and that its covariance test fully captures diffeomorphism invariance.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha_1(E^r), alpha_2(E^r) inverse triad correction functions
    Unspecified functions inserted into the effective Hamiltonian; covariance results depend on alpha_2 (and require alpha_2^2 != 1 generically). No functional form or independent determination is provided.
  • beta_1(p_c), beta_2(p_c) exterior KS inverse triad corrections
    Analogous corrections in the Kantowski-Sachs Hamiltonian; the correspondence requires alpha_i = beta_i.
  • Holonomy functions gamma_1(K_phi,E^r), gamma_2(K_phi,E^r) = explicit constant-delta forms: gamma_2=sin(delta K_phi)/delta, gamma_1=2 sin(delta K_phi/2)/delta for c=1
    Chosen holonomy replacements; the integration constant c is set to 1; phase-space dependent delta(E^r) is left unspecified.
  • lambda_3(B,p_c) KS holonomy lapse correction
    Arbitrary function proposed for the exterior KS holonomy model; no explicit form is given.
  • q^2(E^r,E_phi), \bar q^2(E^r,E_phi) angular metric functions
    Arbitrary functions in the emergent metrics (31) and (32); the paper claims covariance for any choice.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Contracted Bianchi identity from diffeomorphism invariance of the Einstein-Hilbert action
    Used as the foundation of the covariance criterion in Sections II and III.
  • domain assumption The effective action can be treated as a Lagrangian functional of the metric, with g_{\mu\nu}=g_{\mu\nu}(N,N^a,P^A) and no dependence on configuration variables Q^A
    Chain rule (7) and inversion (11) rely on this; the paper says Q<->P interchange is allowed, but the metric dependence choice is a modeling assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper Vanishing of \nabla_\mu \mathcal{G}^{\mu\nu}|_K is sufficient (not just necessary) for general covariance of the effective action
    The paper uses this as a test throughout, but only proves necessity via the Bianchi argument; sufficiency is left open in Section VI.A.
  • domain assumption The anomaly-free condition closes the effective constraint algebra, gamma_2 - gamma_1 partial gamma_1/partial K_phi + 2 E^r partial gamma_2/partial E^r = 0
    Needed in Section IV.C to define the covariant holonomy model.
  • domain assumption Wick-rotated exterior Kantowski-Sachs model correctly describes the exterior Schwarzschild region
    Section V adopts the analytic continuation of [36,37] to relate spherical symmetry and KS.
  • domain assumption The specific LQG effective Hamiltonians (21) and (33) faithfully represent inverse triad and holonomy corrections
    Taken from [31,32] and LQC heuristics; the test applies to these models, so the claim depends on these being the right effective models.
invented entities (2)
  • Emergent metrics \bar{g}^{(1)}, \bar{g}^{(2)}, \bar{g}^{(3)}, \bar{g}^{(4)} (and families with q^2)
    purpose: Rescue general covariance by deforming the classical line element with the same correction functions that deform the Hamiltonian
    These metrics are constructed by hand (or suggested by the deformed constraint algebra) and no independent observable distinguishes them; the paper itself says physical arguments are needed to choose among them.
  • Signature signs s_c and s_gamma in holonomy-corrected metrics
    purpose: Account for possible metric signature flips in holonomy models
    Introduced as signs in emergent metrics; no independent observational handle is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Testing general covariance in effective models motivated by Loop Quantum Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AE56TJEO

@misc{pith2026250103355,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Testing general covariance in effective models motivated by Loop Quantum Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AE56TJEO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03355}
}
read the original abstract

In this work we introduce a criterion for testing general covariance in effective quantum gravity theories. It adapts the analysis of invariance under general spacetime diffeomorphisms of the Einstein-Hilbert action to the case of effective canonical models. While the main purpose is to test models obtained in Loop Quantum Gravity, the criterion is not limited to those physical systems and may be applied to any canonically formulated modified theory of gravity. The approach here is hence not that of finding an effective model, but rather to examine a given one represented by a quantum corrected Hamiltonian. Specifically, we will apply the criterion to spherically symmetric spacetimes in vacuum with inverse triad and holonomy modifications that arise as a consequence of the loop quantization procedure. It is found that, in addition to the initial modifications of the Hamiltonian, quantum corrections of the classical metric itself are needed as well in order to obtain generally covariant models. A comparison with recent alternative criteria is included in the discussion.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ashtekar and J

    A. Ashtekar and J. Lewandowski, Background independent quantum gravity: a status report, Classical and Quantum Gravity 21, R53 (2004)

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    Ashtekar, Symmetry reduced loop quantum gravity: A bi rd’s eye view, International Journal of Modern Physics D 25, 1642010 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1142/S02182718164 20104

    A. Ashtekar, Symmetry reduced loop quantum gravity: A bi rd’s eye view, International Journal of Modern Physics D 25, 1642010 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1142/S02182718164 20104

    work page doi:10.1142/s02182718164 2016

  3. [3]

    Ashtekar, M

    A. Ashtekar, M. Bojowald, and J. Lewandowski, Mathemati cal structure of loop quantum cosmology, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 7, 233 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0304074

    arXiv 2003

  4. [4]

    Ashtekar, T

    A. Ashtekar, T. Pawlowski, and P. Singh, Quantum nature o f the big bang: Improved dynamics, Phys. Rev. D 74, 084003 (2006)

    2006

  5. [5]

    Ashtekar and M

    A. Ashtekar and M. Bojowald, Quantum geometry and the sch warzschild singularity, Classical and Quantum Gravity 23, 391 (2005)

    2005

  6. [6]

    Modesto, Loop quantum black hole, Classical and Quant um Gravity 23, 5587 (2006)

    L. Modesto, Loop quantum black hole, Classical and Quant um Gravity 23, 5587 (2006)

    2006

  7. [7]

    Corichi and P

    A. Corichi and P. Singh, Loop quantization of the schwarz schild interior revisited, Classical and Quantum Gravity 33, 055006 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Ashtekar, M

    A. Ashtekar, M. Campiglia, and A. Henderson, Path integr als and the wkb approximation in loop quantum cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 82, 124043 (2010)

    work page 2010

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    H. A. Morales-T´ ecotl, S. Rastgoo, and J. C. Ruelas, Effec tive dynamics of the schwarzschild black hole interior with inverse triad corrections, Annals of Physics 426, 168401 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Corichi and P

    A. Corichi and P. Singh, Geometric perspective on singu larity resolution and uniqueness in loop quantum cosmology , Phys. Rev. D 80, 044024 (2009)

    2009

  3. [11]

    Joe and P

    A. Joe and P. Singh, Kantowski–sachs spacetime in loop q uantum cosmology: bounds on expansion and shear scalars and the viability of quantization prescriptions, Classical an d Quantum Gravity 32, 015009 (2014)

    2014

  4. [12]

    Cortez, W

    J. Cortez, W. Cuervo, H. A. Morales-T´ ecotl, and J. C. Ru elas, Effective loop quantum geometry of schwarzschild inte rior, Phys. Rev. D 95, 064041 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    C. G. B¨ ohmer and K. Vandersloot, Loop quantum dynamics of the schwarzschild interior, Phys. Rev. D 76, 104030 (2007)

    2007

  6. [14]

    Diener, B

    P. Diener, B. Gupt, and P. Singh, Numerical simulations of a loop quantum cosmos: robustness of the quantum bounce and the validity of effective dynamics, Classical and Quantu m Gravity 31, 105015 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    Bojowald and G

    M. Bojowald and G. M. Paily, Deformed general relativit y and effective actions from loop quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D 86, 104018 (2012)

    2012

  8. [16]

    Bojowald, S

    M. Bojowald, S. Brahma, D. Ding, and M. Ronco, Deformed c ovariance in spherically symmetric vacuum models of loop quantum gravity: Consistency in euclidean and self-dual gr avity, Phys. Rev. D 101, 026001 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    C. G. Torre, Midisuperspace models of canonical quantu m gravity, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 38, 10.1023/A:1026650212053 (1999)

    1999 doi

  10. [18]

    Gambini, J

    R. Gambini, J. Olmedo, and J. Pullin, Towards a quantum n otion of covariance in spherically symmetric loop quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D 105, 026017 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Alonso-Bardaji, D

    A. Alonso-Bardaji, D. Brizuela, and R. Vera, Nonsingul ar spherically symmetric black-hole model with holonomy co rrec- tions, Phys. Rev. D 106, 024035 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Zhang, J

    C. Zhang, J. Lewandowski, Y. Ma, and J. Yang, Black holes and covariance in effective quantum gravity (2024), arXiv:2407.10168 [gr-qc]

    2024

  13. [21]

    Zhang, J

    C. Zhang, J. Lewandowski, Y. Ma, and J. Yang, Black holes and covariance in effective quantum gravity: A solution with out cauchy horizons (2025), arXiv:2412.02487 [gr-qc]. 26

    2025

  14. [22]

    Bojowald, S

    M. Bojowald, S. Brahma, and D.-h. Yeom, Effective line el ements and black-hole models in canonical loop quantum grav ity, Phys. Rev. D 98, 046015 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    I. H. Belfaqih, M. Bojowald, S. Brahma, and E. I. Duque, B lack holes in effective loop quantum gravity: Covariant holo nomy modifications (2024), arXiv:2407.12087 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Alonso-Bardaji and D

    A. Alonso-Bardaji and D. Brizuela, Spacetime geometry from canonical spherical gravity, Phys. Rev. D 109, 044065 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    R. M. Wald, General Relativity (The University of Chicago Press, 1984)

    1984

  18. [26]

    Bojowald, Canonical Gravity and Applications: Cosmology, Black Hole s, and Quantum Gravity (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    M. Bojowald, Canonical Gravity and Applications: Cosmology, Black Hole s, and Quantum Gravity (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  19. [27]

    Thiemann, Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity , Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cam- bridge University Press, 2007)

    T. Thiemann, Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity , Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cam- bridge University Press, 2007)

    2007

  20. [28]

    Bojowald, Spherically symmetric quantum geometry: states and basic operators, Classical and Quantum Gravity 21, 3733 (2004)

    M. Bojowald, Spherically symmetric quantum geometry: states and basic operators, Classical and Quantum Gravity 21, 3733 (2004)

    2004

  21. [29]

    Bojowald and R

    M. Bojowald and R. Swiderski, Spherically symmetric qu antum geometry: Hamiltonian constraint, Classical and Quantum Gravity 23, 2129 (2006)

    2006

  22. [30]

    Campiglia, R

    M. Campiglia, R. Gambini, and J. Pullin, Loop quantizat ion of spherically symmetric midi-superspaces, Classical and Quantum Gravity 24, 3649 (2007)

    2007

  23. [31]

    Tibrewala, Spherically symmetric einstein–maxwel l theory and loop quantum gravity corrections, Classical and Quantum Gravity 29, 235012 (2012)

    R. Tibrewala, Spherically symmetric einstein–maxwel l theory and loop quantum gravity corrections, Classical and Quantum Gravity 29, 235012 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    Tibrewala, Inhomogeneities, loop quantum gravity c orrections, constraint algebra and general covariance, Classical and Quantum Gravity 31, 055010 (2014)

    R. Tibrewala, Inhomogeneities, loop quantum gravity c orrections, constraint algebra and general covariance, Classical and Quantum Gravity 31, 055010 (2014)

    2014

  25. [33]

    Chiou, W.-T

    D.-W. Chiou, W.-T. Ni, and A. Tang, Loop quantization of spherically symmetric midisuperspaces and loop quantum ge ometry of the maximally (2013), arXiv:1212.1265 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Gambini, J

    R. Gambini, J. Olmedo, and J. Pullin, Spherically symme tric loop quantum gravity: analysis of improved dynamics, Classical and Quantum Gravity 37, 205012 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    J. G. Kelly, R. Santacruz, and E. Wilson-Ewing, Effectiv e loop quantum gravity framework for vacuum spherically sym - metric spacetimes, Phys. Rev. D 102, 106024 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    Ashtekar, J

    A. Ashtekar, J. Olmedo, and P. Singh, Quantum transfigur ation of kruskal black holes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 241301 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Ashtekar, J

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

    2018

  30. [38]

    Bojowald, No-go result for covariance in models of lo op quantum gravity, Phys

    M. Bojowald, No-go result for covariance in models of lo op quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D 102, 046006 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.