Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Hamiltonian renormalisation IX. U(1)**3 quantum gravity

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Hamiltonian renormalisation flow of the $U(1)^3$ model of Euclidean quantum gravity, fed with the states and algebras of the known exact solutions, has those exact solutions as its fixed point.

desk verdict Genuinely new application of the Hamiltonian renormalisation program to a self-interacting 3+1D toy model, with real convergence estimates but a headline fixed-point claim that is partly built into the input and should be presented as a consistency check. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13037 v2 pith:STFMKTXZ submitted 2025-05-19 gr-qc hep-th

M. Rodriguez Zarate , T. Thiemann This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-th PACS 04.60.-m
keywords HamiltonianrenormalisationU(1)^3modelNarnhofer-ThirringrepresentationFockcoarsegrainingDirichletkernelconstraintalgebrablock-spintransformation
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

The paper aims to show that the Hamiltonian renormalisation flow of the $U(1)^3$ toy model of Euclidean quantum gravity in $3+1$ dimensions has the known continuum solutions as fixed points. The model is self-interacting, so this is a test of the coarse-graining method on an interacting gauge theory in four spacetime dimensions. For the Narnhofer-Thirring (groupoid) solution the flow is already fixed under coarse graining via smooth projections; for the Fock (algebroid) solution the blocked normal-ordered constraints coincide with the known continuum quadratic forms. Starting instead from a local lattice discretisation, the couplings converge to the same fixed point, in finitely many steps when the lapse has compact momentum support. If the claim is right, coarse-grained Hamiltonian quantisation of this gravity model is consistent across resolutions and recovers the exactly solved continuum constraint algebra.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing devices are two. The first is the Dirichlet-kernel coarse graining map: a smooth orthogonal projection $P_M$ with image $L_M$ that commutes with spatial derivatives, together with its discretised version $I_M$, $I_M^\dagger$ and the intertwining identity $\partial_M I_{M} = I_{M} \partial_M$; this identity moves the blocking action onto the couplings in the flow equations. The second, needed only for the groupoid flow, is the $\epsilon$-$\epsilon^2$ regulated derivative: replacing the non-existent field $A$ in Narnhofer-Thirring representations by shifts $+\epsilon$ and $+\epsilon^2$ in the orthogonal projection directions, so that powers of the orthogonal component drop out of projected matrix elements and projection commutes with exponentiation even though the representation is too discontinuous for weak limits. For the algebroid flow the machine is normal ordering of polynomial constraints plus the mode-cut-off limiting pattern taken from the continuum Fock solution.

What would settle it

Carry out the expansion of the $N$-th power of the regulated Hamiltonian constraint (3.35)-(3.38) for $w=2$ and a generic label $F_M$, collecting all terms after setting the orthogonal component to zero; any surviving term of order $\epsilon^{-1}$ or $\epsilon^0$ from the orthogonal directions would contradict the claimed fixed point, since the paper asserts only $k=l=0$ terms survive and leaves the proof to the reader. For the discrete Fock flow, repeat the estimate (3.86) with a lapse $N$ whose Fourier coefficients decay polynomially rather than having compact support and check whether the $r \to \infty$ limit still vanishes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that block-spin renormalisation of $U(1)^3$ quantum gravity terminates exactly on the theories that were solved in the continuum in earlier work. With the Narnhofer-Thirring state as input, the projected state family is already fixed, and the exponentiated diffeomorphism and Hamiltonian constraints, regulated by the $\epsilon$ and $\epsilon^2$ shift prescription, keep their action inside the projected subspace; the groupoid flow is therefore a fixed point for any density weight, limited only by the non-degeneracy condition $\det(F) \neq 0$. With the Fock state, the constraint quadratic forms cut off by Dirichlet projections are already the ones obtained by blocking the continuum theory, and the limiting pattern from the continuum solution makes the algebra close without anomalies. When the flow is started from a local real-space discretisation instead, it is not fixed, but the coupling flow converges to the same quasi-local fixed point; for compact momentum support the convergence is exact after finitely many steps and exponentially fast in the iteration number.

Load-bearing premise

The groupoid fixed point rests on the new $\epsilon,\epsilon^2$ shift regulation of the constraints and on taking coarse-graining limits in the discrete topology; if that regulation is not what genuine blocking of the continuum constraints does, the claimed fixed point is an artifact of the prescription.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The $3+1$ $U(1)^3$ model becomes a worked example of Hamiltonian block-spin renormalisation for an interacting gauge theory, not just for free fields or lower-dimensional interactions.
  • In the Narnhofer-Thirring representation the fixed point exists for arbitrary density weight $w$, because the mechanism does not use the polynomial structure of the Hamiltonian constraint; the only condition is that the smearing $F$ stays non-degenerate.
  • In the Fock case the fixed point is reached at the zeroth step for trivial covariance, and for translation-invariant non-trivial covariance the same coupling flow equations apply, provided the Hamiltonian constraint is polynomial ($w-2=4k$).
  • For local lattice initial data, the block-spin flow reaches the fixed point after finitely many iterations at fixed resolution when the lapse has compact momentum support, and the convergence is exponential in the iteration count.
  • The finite-resolution blocked constraint algebra does not close, but its anomalies vanish in the weak operator topology as $M$ tends to infinity, so the continuum limit returns the closed algebra.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct check of the $\epsilon$, $\epsilon^2$ cancellation for the first few powers of the regulated Hamiltonian constraint, which the paper leaves to the reader, would either confirm the groupoid fixed point or expose residual $\epsilon^{-1}$ terms.
  • The same shift regularisation may transfer to the full SU(2) theory if the direction-dependent smearing appropriate for density weight $w=1$ is used, but the non-polynomial dependence would make the flow equations far more complex; the paper itself treats that as future work.
  • Because the groupoid fixed-point mechanism uses orthonormality of the Narnhofer-Thirring basis, the result is representation-specific: a regular representation with the same coarse graining would not automatically give the same fixed point.
  • Dropping compact momentum support but keeping rapid Fourier decay should preserve convergence of the local flow, since the paper's own estimate only needs $\sum_{n_0} |\hat{N}(n_0)|$ to converge; testing this would extend the result beyond the stated assumption.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies the Hamiltonian renormalisation scheme developed earlier in this series to the U(1)^3 model of Euclidean quantum gravity in 3+1 dimensions, which is self-interacting. For the Narnhofer–Thirring (groupoid) representation, the authors show that the state family is already fixed under coarse graining because the delta state restricts to itself (3.11)–(3.13), and they introduce an epsilon, epsilon^2-regularised derivative to define a projected flow of the exponentiated constraints. They argue that the perpendicular shifts cancel in matrix elements, so the fixed point is the continuum constraint action of [15]. In the discretised formulation, they derive explicit flow equations for the couplings (3.64) and show, under a compact-momentum-support assumption on the lapse, that local initial data converge geometrically to the projected fixed point (3.75)–(3.92). For the Fock (algebroid) representation with trivial covariance, the blocked quadratic forms coincide with the continuum ones at the zeroth step, and the no-anomaly result of [17] is carried over; for non-trivial translation-invariant covariance, the fixed-point statement is extended, but anomaly-free closure is left to future work.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper is a valuable step: it provides a concrete 3+1-dimensional self-interacting model in which Hamiltonian renormalisation has computable fixed points that match known continuum solutions, with explicit estimates and a careful discussion of the discontinuity of Narnhofer–Thirring representations. The toy model in Section 3.1.1 is instructive, the intertwining identity (3.66) is clean, and the convergence estimates in Section 3.2 are explicit and reproducible. The significance is, however, conditional: the groupoid fixed point relies on an unproved combinatorial cancellation, and the adapted flow is not independently justified as the correct blocking procedure. The paper is therefore more convincing as a consistency check of the proposed framework than as an unconditional renormalisation proof.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1.2, Eqs. (3.35)–(3.38)] The groupoid fixed-point statement for the constraints depends on the claim that the perpendicular epsilon- and epsilon^2-shifts proportional to P_{M3M} cancel in matrix elements of powers of the regulated constraint, leaving only the projected vector field X^{epsilon,M}. The paper explicitly defers the proof ("Writing this out in detail is a tedious exercise left to the interested reader"), but this cancellation is load-bearing: without it Eq. (3.38) does not follow, and the same mechanism underpins the discretised flow equations (3.64) and the convergence computation of Section 3.2. Since the choice of strictly positive shifts epsilon, epsilon^2 is essential (paragraph after Eq. (3.33)), the correctness of the adapted flow cannot be separated from this unproved combinatorial statement. I ask that a complete proof be supplied, or that the abstract and Section 5 be qualified to state explicitly that the groupoid fixed point is obtained under this unproved cancellation assumption.
  2. [§3.1.1–§3.1.2] The adapted flow is introduced because the naive flow (3.14) returns zero for all exponentiated constraints. The authors correctly identify that projection and exponentiation do not commute in the Narnhofer–Thirring representation and therefore replace the weak-operator limit by a discrete-topology limit with positive epsilon-shifts. However, no independent argument establishes that this adapted flow, rather than some other regularisation of the non-commuting operations, is the correct blocking of the continuum theory of [15]. As it stands, the construction is tailored so that the projected matrix elements reproduce the input quantisation, which creates a circularity risk for the claim that the flow 'finds' the fixed point rather than being engineered to do so. The paper should either justify the adapted flow from a general principle, such as a locality or continuity axiom, or explicitly reformulate the claim as a consistency check of the framework rather than a predictive renormalisation result.
  3. [§3.2, Eqs. (3.75)–(3.92)] The convergence proof for the discretised flow assumes compact momentum support of the lapse N (and hence of N,b), and the extension to general N is left to the reader ("We leave the details to the interested reader"). The fixed point of (3.64) is exact without this assumption, but the claimed convergence of local initial data to that fixed point is only established under the compact-support hypothesis. Given that Section 3.2 is presented as the 'real space' block-spin analysis, this is a substantial gap; at minimum the abstract and Section 5 should state the condition under which convergence is proven.
  4. [§4.2 and §5] For non-trivial translation-invariant covariance, Section 4.2 establishes that the blocked couplings coincide with the fixed point and that the flow is fixed at zeroth order, but the paper explicitly states that anomaly-free closure of the constraint algebra has not been checked in this case. Since the algebroid flow is advertised in the introduction to Section 4 as showing 'not only that the quadratic forms do flow to their correct limit but also that the constraint algebra closes without anomalies', the scope of that claim should be restricted to the trivial-covariance case of Section 4.1, or the anomaly check must be supplied. This does not invalidate the central claim involving the exact solutions of [17], but it is necessary for the accuracy of the presentation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (3.50)] There appears to be an index inconsistency in H_loc M: the two electric-field factors are written e^a_{M,k}(m)e^b_{M,k}(m), which conflicts with the antisymmetric epsilon^{jkl} and with the corresponding fixed-point expression (3.72). Please correct to the intended antisymmetrised expression e^[a_{M,k}(m)e^b]_{M,l}(m).
  2. [§3.1.1, Eq. (3.15)] In the toy model, the Weyl elements are introduced as W[F]=e^{-iF^I A_I} and W[F]=e^{-iG_I E^I}; the second should presumably be W[G]=e^{-iG_I E^I}.
  3. [§3.2, after Eq. (3.50)] The definition of the forward derivative '[partial_{M,b} f_M](m)=M[f_M(m+delta_b)-f_M(m) with the lattice vector with components...' is missing a closing parenthesis; please fix the typo.
  4. [§3.2.3] Section 3.2.3 is only a sketch: the decay assumptions on the Fourier transform are described qualitatively, and the details are left to the reader. Please spell out the concrete decay condition and state the resulting convergence statement, even if briefly.
  5. [Abstract and §5] The abstract says 'if one uses as input algebras and states in analogy to those used in the recent exact solutions', while the body and Section 5 say 'using as input algebras and states that were used'. Please align the wording with the actual content, especially given the qualifications identified in Sections 3.1.2 and 3.2.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Groupoid fixed point is the input state plus an adapted, unproved epsilon-shift regulisation; algebroid fixed point is true by definition of blocking.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.1, Eqs. (3.11)-(3.13)]
    "ω(1) M (WM[FM]WM[GM]) :=ω(0) 3M(W3M[FM]W3M[GM]) =δFM,0 (3.11) where FM,GM are considered as elements of L3M since LM⊂L3M is a subspace. Accordingly ω(1) M =ω(0) M =ω(n) M =ω∗ M (3.12)"

    The Narnhofer-Thirring state is δ_{F,0} at every resolution, so restricting it from L3M to LM produces the same functional by the subspace relation LM⊂L3M. The 'fixed point' of the state flow is therefore the input state itself, not a computed output. No nontrivial coarse graining of the state is involved; the flow equation merely pulls back the already chosen continuum state.

  2. other [Section 3.1.2, Eqs. (3.14), (3.35)-(3.38)]
    "The mechanism is now completely analogous to the toy model: The N-th power of ρ(Dϵ[u]) produces terms with shifts of the form [ kϵ +lϵ2]PM3M(x,. ) with k,l ≥ 0, 0≤ k +l≤ N but only the terms with k =l = 0 survive the matrix element calculation. Writing this out in detail is a tedious exercise left to the interested reader. It follows that ... This limit coincides with (3.7), hence the flow is already fixed pointed."

    The naive flow (3.14) vanishes, so the paper introduces an adapted regulisation with strictly positive ε, ε² shifts in the perpendicular projection direction, specifically so that perpendicular shifts drop out and (3.38) reproduces the initial quantisation (3.7). Eq. (3.7) is itself the projected version of the continuum solution of [15], i.e. the exact-solution input. The key cancellation is asserted and left unproved ('tedious exercise'), and the positive-shift choice is declared crucial. Thus the claimed fixed point is built into the adapted flow rather than derived from the exact solution in an independent way.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self definitional [Section 4.1]
    "It follows that the algebroid flow in terms of projections has the solution [17] as fixed point. This fixed is point is reached already at the zeroth step, that is, the constraints with A,E replaced by AM =PM·A,EM =PM·E and normal ordered result in the same quadratic form as the one that results by blocking from the continuum. ... Since we leave the smearing functions r,u,N untouched the resulting quadratic forms trivially coincide."

    The 'blocking from the continuum' is defined in Appendix A as substituting P_M fields into the continuum expression, so the statement that the projected [17] quantisation equals the blocked continuum form is a direct consequence of P_M^2=P_M. The paper itself says the quadratic forms 'trivially coincide.' The anomaly-free limiting pattern, which is the remaining load-bearing ingredient, is imported by citation from [17], the same author's prior work that is also the claimed fixed point.

full rationale

The abstract's central conditional claim is, in part, a restatement of the chosen inputs. For the groupoid flow, the state is fixed because the Narnhofer-Thirring state restricts to itself, and the constraint fixed point is obtained with an adapted ε, ε² regulisation whose key cancellation is left to the reader; the naive flow (3.14) would have returned zero. For the algebroid flow, the fixed point is reached at the zeroth step because blocking is defined as projection and the projected [17] quantisation 'trivially coincide[s]' with itself. These are partial cases of construction-driven circularity. However, the paper does contain non-circular content: the real-space lattice flow in Sections 3.2.1-3.2.2 starts from genuinely local initial couplings (3.50) and proves convergence to the fixed point by explicit Fourier estimates, and Section 4.2 extends the Fock construction to non-trivial covariance. These computations do not reduce to the input by construction. The score 6 reflects that one or more central 'predictions' reduce by construction while independent computational content remains.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main imported input is the exact solution data from [15] and [17] themselves: the Narnhofer-Thirring state, the Fock state, and the anomaly-free limiting patterns. The paper's own new assumption is the discrete-topology regulisation of the groupoid flow. No invented physical entities and no fitted coupling parameters appear; all couplings in Section 3.2 are fixed by the continuum definitions once the discretisation is chosen.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Narnhofer-Thirring functional omega(W[F]W[G]) = delta_{F,0} is a valid GNS state whose GNS vectors W[F]Omega form an orthonormal basis.
    Taken from [15]; the whole groupoid flow uses this nonseparable, irregular representation and its orthogonality to drop off-subspace shifts.
  • standard math The Dirichlet-kernel projection PM satisfies partial_a L_M subset L_M and is smooth, so derivatives commute with projection.
    Appendix A, eqs. (A.13)-(A.20); used in projected constraints, eq. (3.47), and in the intertwining identities for the discrete lattice derivative and covariance.
  • domain assumption The smearing functions u and N have compact Fourier support for the convergence estimates.
    Assumed in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 to make the modulo-arithmetic finite-step convergence proof exact; the authors sketch a lift via rapid decay in Section 3.2.3 but do not prove it.
  • ad hoc to paper For the Narnhofer-Thirring representation, the correct regulated constraint uses shifts +epsilon and +epsilon^2 in the orthogonal projection directions and a limit in the discrete topology of labels.
    Introduced in the toy model of Section 3.1.1 and applied in Section 3.1.2; it is a new choice not implied by Stone's theorem because the representation is not strongly continuous.
  • domain assumption For the Fock algebroid with trivial covariance, the quadratic-form constraint algebra closes without anomalies under the limiting patterns of [17].
    Imported from [17] in Section 4.1; the paper does not rederive the limiting pattern and explicitly leaves the non-trivial covariance case open.
  • standard math The translation-invariant covariance kappa satisfies I_{M3M} kappa^{+-1}_M = kappa^{+-1}_{3M} I_{M3M}.
    Section 4.2, eq. (4.4); follows from the spectral theorem because the discrete Laplacians commute with the embedding map.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hamiltonian renormalisation IX. U(1)**3 quantum gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/STFMKTXZ

@misc{pith2026250513037,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hamiltonian renormalisation IX. U(1)**3 quantum gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/STFMKTXZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13037}
}
read the original abstract

In previous works in this series we focussed on Hamiltonian renormalisation of free field theories in all spacetime dimensions or interacting theories in spacetime dimensions lower than four. In this paper we address the Hamiltonian renormalisation of the U(1)**3 model for Euclidian general relativity in four spacetime dimensions which is self-interacting. The Hamiltonian flow needs as an input a choice of *-algebra and corresponding representation thereof or state on it at each resolution scale. If one uses as input the algebras and states that were used in the recent exact solutions of this model, then one finds that the flow finds as fixed point those exact solution theories.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [15]

    Thiemann

    T. Thiemann. Exact quantisation of U(1) 3 quantum gravity via exponentiation of the hypersurface deformation algebroid. Class. Quant. Grav. 40 (2023) 24, 245003. e-Print: 2207.08302 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [17]

    Thiemann

    T. Thiemann. Nonperturbative quantum gravity in Fock representations. Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 12, 124023. e-Print: 2405.01212 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2024

  3. [1]

    Local Quantum Physics

    R. Haag, “Local Quantum Physics”, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1984

    1984

  4. [2]

    Quantum Physics

    J. Glimm and A. Jaffe, “Quantum Physics”, Springer Verlag, New York, 1987

    1987

  5. [3]

    K. G. Wilson. The renormalization group: Critical phenomena and the Kondo problem. Rev. Mod. Phys. 47 (1975) 773

    work page 1975

  6. [4]

    Thiemann

    T. Thiemann. Canonical quantum gravity, constructive QFT and renormalisation. Front. in Phys. 8 (2020) 548232. arXiv:2003.13622 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [5]

    T. Lang, K. Liegener, T. Thiemann. Hamiltonian Renormalisation I. Derivation from Osterwalder- Schrader Reconstruction. Class. Quant. Grav. 35 (2018) 245011. [arXiv:1711.05685]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  8. [6]

    T. Lang, K. Liegener, T. Thiemann. Hamiltonian Renormalisation II. Renormalisation Flow of 1+1 dimensional free, scalar fields: Derivation. Class. Quant. Grav. 35 (2018) 245012. [arXiv:1711.06727]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

Show all 32 references
  1. [7]

    T. Lang, K. Liegener, T. Thiemann. Hamiltonian Renormalisation III. Renormalisation Flow of 1+1 dimensional free, scalar fields: Properties. Class. Quant. Grav. 35 (2018) 245013. [arXiv:1711.05688] 31

    2018 arXiv

  2. [8]

    T. Lang, K. Liegener, T. Thiemann. Hamiltonian Renormalisation IV. Renormalisation Flow of D+1 dimensional free scalar fields and Rotation Invariance. Class. Quant. Grav. 35 (2018) 245014, [arXiv:1711.05695]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Liegener, T

    K. Liegener, T. Thiemann. Hamiltonian Renormalisation V. Free Vector Bosons. Front. Astron. Space Sci. 7 (2021) 547550. e-Print: 2003.13059 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Thiemann

    T. Thiemann. Hamiltonian Renormalisation VII. Free Fermions and doubler free kernels. Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 12, 125007. e-Print: 2207.08291 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Zwicknagel

    E.-A. Zwicknagel. Hamiltonian renormalization. VI. Parametrized field theory on the cylinder. Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 12, 125006. e-Print: 2207.08290 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Rodriguez Zarate, T

    M. Rodriguez Zarate, T. Thiemann. Hamiltonian renormalisation VIII. P (Φ)2 quantum field theory

  7. [13]

    The P( ϕ)2 Euclidean (Quantum) Field Theory

    B. Simon, “The P( ϕ)2 Euclidean (Quantum) Field Theory”, Princeton Unviersity Press, 1974

    1974

  8. [14]

    L. Smolin. The G(Newton) → 0 limit of Euclidean quantum gravity. Class. Quant. Grav. 9 (1992) 883-894. e-Print: hep-th/9202076 [hep-th]

    1992 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Narnhofer, W.E

    H. Narnhofer, W.E. Thirring. Covariant QED without indefinite metric. Rev. Math. Phys. 4 (1992) spec01, 197-211

    1992

  10. [18]

    Quantum Gravity

    C. Rovelli, “Quantum Gravity”, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004. T. Thiemann, “Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity”, Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 2007. J. Pullin, R. Gambini, “A first course in Loop Quantum Gravity”, Oxford University Press, New ...

    2011 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Boson Fields with the : ϕ4 : Interaction in Three Dimensions

    J. Glimm, “Boson Fields with the : ϕ4 : Interaction in Three Dimensions”, Comm. Math. Phys. 10 (1968) 1-47. J. Glimm, A. Jaffe, Positivity of the ϕ4 3 Hamiltonian”, Fortschr. Phys. 21 (1973) 327–376

    1968

  12. [20]

    Daubechies

    I. Daubechies. Ten lectures of wavelets. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1993. A. Cohen, I. Daubechies, P.Vial. Wavelets on the interval and fast wavelet transforms. Appl. and Comp. Harm. Anlysis, Elsevier, 1993. [hal-01311753]

    1993

  13. [21]

    Thiemann

    T. Thiemann. Renormalization, wavelets, and the Dirichlet-Shannon kernels. Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 12, 125008. e-Print: 2207.08294 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Bakhoda, T

    S. Bakhoda, T. Thiemann. Covariant origin of the U(1)3 model for Euclidean quantum gravity Class. Quant. Grav. 39 (2022) 2, 025006. e-Print: 2011.00031 [gr-qc]. S. Bakhoda, T. Thiemann. Reduced Phase Space Approach to the U(1)3 model for Euclidean Quantum Gravity. Class. Quant...

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Bakhoda, T

    S. Bakhoda, T. Thiemann. Asymptotically Flat Boundary Conditions for theU(1)3 Model for Euclidean Quantum Gravity. Universe 7 (2021) 3, 68. e-Print: 2010.16359 [gr-qc] S. Bakhoda, Y. Ma. Geometrical quantum time in the U(1) 3 model of Euclidean quantum gravity. Commun. Theor. ...

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Operator Algebras and Quantum Statistical Mechanics

    O. Bratteli, D. W. Robinson, “Operator Algebras and Quantum Statistical Mechanics”, vol. 1,2, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1997

    1997

  17. [25]

    Thiemann

    T. Thiemann. Non-degenerate metrics, hypersurface deformation algebra, non-anomalous representa- tions and density weights in quantum gravity. Gen. Rel. Grav. 56 (2024) 10, 122. e-Print: 2207.08299 [gr-qc] K. Giesel, T. Thiemann. Hamiltonian Theory: Dynamics. In Handbook of qu...

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Thiemann

    T. Thiemann. Quantum Spin Dynamics (QSD) : V. Quantum Gravity as the Natural Regulator of the Hamiltonian Constraint of Matter Quantum Field Theories. Class. Quantum Grav.15 (1998) 1281-1314, [gr-qc/9705019] 32

    1998 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Thiemann

    T. Thiemann. Quantum Spin Dynamics (QSD). Class. Quantum Grav. 15 (1998) 839-73, [gr- qc/9606089]; Quantum Spin Dynamics (QSD): II. The Kernel of the Wheeler-DeWitt Constraint Oper- ator. Class. Quantum Grav. 15 (1998) 875-905, [gr-qc/9606090]; Quantum Spin Dynamics (QSD): III...

    1998

  20. [28]

    Giesel, T

    K. Giesel, T. Thiemann, Scalar Material Reference Systems and Loop Quantum Gravity, Class. Quant. Grav. 32 (2015) 135015, [arXiv:1206.3807 [gr-qc]]

    2015 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Thiemann

    T. Thiemann. Quantum spin dynamics. VIII. The Master constraint. Class. Quant. Grav. 23 (2006) 2249-2266, [gr-qc/0510011]

    2006 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Gambini, J

    R. Gambini, J. Lewandowski, D. Marolf, J. Pullin On the consistency of the constraint algebra in spin network quantum gravity. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 7 (1998) 97-109; e-Print: gr-qc/9710018 [gr-qc]

    1998 arXiv

  23. [31]

    A. Laddha. Hamiltonian constraint in Euclidean LQG revisited: First hints of off-shell Closure. e-Print: 1401.0931 [gr-qc] M. Varadarajan. Anomaly free quantum dynamics for Euclidean LQG. e-Print: 2205.10779 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Liegener

    K. Liegener. Renormalisation in Loop Quantum Gravity. Ph.D. thesis, Friedrich-Alexander-Universit¨ at Erlangen-N¨ urnberg, 2019. 33

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.