A Lagrangian framework for canonical analysis for the Holst model with $\beta = 0$

Lorenzo Fatibene; Roberto Ciccarelli

arxiv: 2604.19280 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-21 · 🌀 gr-qc · math-ph· math.MP

A Lagrangian framework for canonical analysis for the Holst model with β = 0

Roberto Ciccarelli , Lorenzo Fatibene This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 02:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc math-phmath.MP

keywords Holst modelcanonical analysisBarbero parameter3+1 decompositionEinstein equationsconstraintsLagrangian formalismgauge freedom

0 comments

The pith

Setting β=0 in the Holst model produces a consistent canonical analysis matching the standard 3+1 Einstein equations without constraints on lapse or shift.

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

The paper establishes a canonical analysis of the Holst model for general relativity by choosing the Barbero parameter equal to zero and leaving the lapse and shift functions completely free. This setup is interesting because a vanishing Barbero parameter works in every spacetime dimension. The authors decompose the fields and project the equations to obtain exactly ten differential constraints, twenty-one algebraic constraints, and six evolution equations, which together account for all thirty-seven field components. They further show that three equations usually treated as automatic identities are in reality differential constraints whose validity hinges on the gauge choice. A reader should care because the result supplies a gauge-unfixed, dimensionally general starting point for the canonical treatment of gravity that stays faithful to the Einstein equations.

Core claim

By applying field decomposition and projecting the equations of the Holst model with β=0, we derive a closed system of 10 differential constraints, 21 algebraic constraints, and 6 evolution equations that together determine all 37 field components. Leaving the gauge unfixed shows that three equations usually considered identities are in fact differential constraints whose satisfaction depends on the choice of gauge. This system is fully consistent with the standard 3+1 decomposition of the Einstein equations and imposes no restrictions on the lapse and shift functions.

What carries the argument

The field decomposition followed by projection of the Holst field equations onto spatial and temporal parts, applied without fixing the gauge or setting β away from zero.

If this is right

The system exactly matches the 37 field components with 10 differential constraints, 21 algebraic constraints and 6 evolution equations.
Three equations previously regarded as identities turn out to be differential constraints that hold only for particular gauge choices.
The derived equations reproduce the standard 3+1 form of the Einstein equations with no imposed conditions on the lapse and shift.
The analysis applies in any spacetime dimension because the β=0 choice does not rely on four-dimensional specifics.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The unfixed-gauge treatment could make the transition to quantization cleaner by preserving more freedom until necessary.
The same decomposition might be tested in five or more dimensions to see whether the constraint structure remains as clean.
Previous canonical analyses that fixed the gauge early may have overlooked the differential nature of certain equations.
This provides a dimension-independent Lagrangian starting point for canonical treatments of gravity.

Load-bearing premise

The field decomposition and projection procedure remains valid when the Barbero parameter is set exactly to zero and the gauge is left completely unfixed.

What would settle it

Deriving the full set of projected equations explicitly and verifying whether they continue to match the known 3+1 form of the Einstein equations when the lapse and shift are treated as completely free variables.

read the original abstract

We perform a canonical analysis of the Holst model for General Relativity, within the framework laid out in arXiv:2401.07307 and arXiv:2010.07725, distinguishing our approach by setting the Barbero parameter to $\beta=0$ and leaving the lapse and shift functions unconstrained. The $\beta = 0$ choice is of particular interest because it is viable across all dimensions, providing a necessary foundation for extending the Loop Quantum Gravity formalism beyond $3+1$ dimensions. Through field decomposition and the projection of the field equations, we derive a system of 37 equations (10 differential constraints, 21 algebraic constraints, and 6 evolution equations) exactly matching the 37 field components to be determined. Moreover, leaving the gauge unfixed reveals that three equations, which are typically identically satisfied under normal evolution, are actually differential constraints whose triviality depends on specific gauge choices. The resulting framework remains fully consistent with the standard $3+1$ decomposition of the Einstein equations without requiring any constraints on the lapse and shift functions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper gives a precise equation count for the β=0 Holst model in unfixed gauge but depends on prior decompositions without fresh verification of the algebra.

read the letter

This paper applies an existing Lagrangian framework for canonical analysis to the Holst model specifically at β=0, with lapse and shift left completely free. The new details are the breakdown into 10 differential constraints, 21 algebraic constraints, and 6 evolution equations, plus the observation that three equations usually treated as identities are actually gauge-dependent differential constraints. The work does a solid job of showing that this setup produces exactly 37 equations for 37 field components and stays consistent with the 3+1 Einstein system. The motivation for β=0 is clear: it opens the door to higher-dimensional extensions of loop quantum gravity methods, which has been tricky before. The soft spot is the reliance on the decomposition and projection from the authors' earlier papers. When β is set to zero, the equations of motion can change character, and it's not obvious that the same projection isolates the constraints correctly for arbitrary lapse and shift. The paper asserts consistency with Einstein equations, but the abstract does not include an explicit check of the constraint algebra or a direct comparison of the equation content beyond the count. That leaves some room for doubt about whether everything holds without hidden gauge fixing. This is a technical note for specialists in canonical gravity and loop quantum gravity. It will be useful to readers already familiar with the framework in arXiv:2401.07307 and arXiv:2010.07725, as it fills in the β=0 case. The counting and the gauge observation are concrete enough to merit a serious referee, even if the core method is incremental. I would recommend sending it to peer review, with referees asked to check the validity of the projection at β=0 and the independence of the constraints.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript performs a canonical analysis of the Holst action for GR with the Barbero-Immirzi parameter fixed to β=0, employing the Lagrangian decomposition and projection framework of two prior papers. It derives a closed set of 37 equations (10 differential constraints, 21 algebraic constraints, and 6 evolution equations) whose number exactly matches the independent field components, and asserts that the system reproduces the standard 3+1 Einstein equations for completely arbitrary lapse and shift (i.e., without gauge fixing). Three of the differential constraints are identified as gauge-dependent in their triviality. The β=0 choice is motivated as a prerequisite for extending LQG techniques to higher dimensions.

Significance. If the consistency claim is rigorously established, the work supplies a gauge-unfixed canonical formulation of the Holst model at the degenerate β=0 point. This could serve as a technical foundation for higher-dimensional LQG, where β=0 is required. The explicit counting of equations to degrees of freedom and the observation that certain constraints become non-trivial only for specific gauge choices are useful structural insights, provided they are backed by explicit verification rather than inheritance from earlier results.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that the derived 37 equations 'remain fully consistent with the standard 3+1 decomposition of the Einstein equations without requiring any constraints on the lapse and shift functions' is load-bearing. At β=0 the Holst action reduces to its dual-curvature term, which can alter the primary constraint structure relative to β≠0. The manuscript must therefore supply an explicit verification (or direct comparison with the known ADM constraints) that the 10 differential constraints, including the three whose triviality is gauge-dependent, hold identically for generic lapse and shift; the mere equality of equation count to field components does not establish dynamical equivalence.
[main derivation] The projection and decomposition steps (inherited from arXiv:2401.07307 and arXiv:2010.07725): because the paper sets β exactly to zero and leaves the gauge completely unfixed, the validity of the inherited projection must be re-checked in this limit. If the projection fails to isolate the correct new constraint structure, some of the identified differential constraints may implicitly restrict the lapse and shift, undermining the 'arbitrary gauge' assertion. An explicit calculation of at least the primary constraints and their preservation under evolution is required.

minor comments (1)

The abstract would be clearer if it briefly indicated how the 37 equations are distributed among the tetrad, connection, and auxiliary fields, rather than only stating the aggregate counts.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We are grateful to the referee for the thorough reading and insightful comments on our manuscript. The suggestions highlight important aspects of rigor in establishing the consistency of the canonical analysis at β=0. We respond to each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to include the requested explicit verifications.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that the derived 37 equations 'remain fully consistent with the standard 3+1 decomposition of the Einstein equations without requiring any constraints on the lapse and shift functions' is load-bearing. At β=0 the Holst action reduces to its dual-curvature term, which can alter the primary constraint structure relative to β≠0. The manuscript must therefore supply an explicit verification (or direct comparison with the known ADM constraints) that the 10 differential constraints, including the three whose triviality is gauge-dependent, hold identically for generic lapse and shift; the mere equality of equation count to field components does not establish dynamical equivalence.

Authors: We concur that the equality of the number of equations to field components alone does not suffice to prove dynamical equivalence, and that explicit verification is necessary, particularly given the special nature of β=0. In our derivation, the constraints are obtained directly from the projection of the Euler-Lagrange equations of the Holst action at β=0, which by construction reproduce the Einstein equations in 3+1 form. To make this explicit, we will add a new subsection in the revised manuscript that compares the derived differential constraints with the standard ADM constraints (or their Holst equivalent) for arbitrary lapse and shift, including verification that the three gauge-dependent constraints are satisfied identically without restricting the gauge functions. revision: yes
Referee: [main derivation] The projection and decomposition steps (inherited from arXiv:2401.07307 and arXiv:2010.07725): because the paper sets β exactly to zero and leaves the gauge completely unfixed, the validity of the inherited projection must be re-checked in this limit. If the projection fails to isolate the correct new constraint structure, some of the identified differential constraints may implicitly restrict the lapse and shift, undermining the 'arbitrary gauge' assertion. An explicit calculation of at least the primary constraints and their preservation under evolution is required.

Authors: The projection framework is formulated in a manner independent of the value of β, as it relies on the general decomposition of the tetrad and connection fields into temporal and spatial parts. However, we agree that re-verifying the steps explicitly at β=0 strengthens the argument against any potential implicit gauge fixing. In the revision, we will provide an explicit calculation of the primary constraints arising from the β=0 Holst action and demonstrate their preservation in time for completely arbitrary lapse and shift, confirming that no additional restrictions are imposed. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Central consistency claim depends on validity of self-cited decomposition framework at β=0

specific steps

self citation load bearing [Abstract]
"We perform a canonical analysis of the Holst model for General Relativity, within the framework laid out in arXiv:2401.07307 and arXiv:2010.07725, distinguishing our approach by setting the Barbero parameter to β=0 and leaving the lapse and shift functions unconstrained. ... Through field decomposition and the projection of the field equations, we derive a system of 37 equations ... The resulting framework remains fully consistent with the standard 3+1 decomposition of the Einstein equations without requiring any constraints on the lapse and shift functions."

The consistency assertion (that the derived equations match the Einstein system for unfixed gauge) is justified solely by performing the analysis 'within the framework' of the two self-cited papers; no independent verification is supplied that the inherited decomposition and projection isolate the correct constraint structure when the Holst action reduces to its dual-curvature term at exactly β=0.

full rationale

The paper adopts its field decomposition and projection procedure wholesale from two prior works by overlapping authors (arXiv:2401.07307 and arXiv:2010.07725) and then asserts that the resulting 37 equations are fully consistent with the standard 3+1 Einstein system for arbitrary lapse and shift. While the β=0 specialization and the counting of differential/algebraic/evolution equations are performed here, the substantive claim that the projected equations reproduce Einstein content (rather than a degenerate or gauge-restricted system) is not re-derived from the Holst action but inherited from the cited framework. This constitutes partial circularity via self-citation load-bearing on the key technical step.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis inherits the Lagrangian framework and projection technique from two earlier papers; β=0 is imposed by hand as a simplifying choice rather than derived.

free parameters (1)

β
Set exactly to zero by hand to obtain dimension-independent viability; no fitting to data but chosen to simplify the theory.

axioms (2)

domain assumption The Holst action with β=0 is equivalent to the Einstein-Hilbert action up to boundary terms.
Invoked implicitly when claiming consistency with standard 3+1 Einstein equations.
domain assumption The field decomposition and projection rules from the referenced Lagrangian framework remain valid at β=0.
Central technical step taken from arXiv:2401.07307 and arXiv:2010.07725.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5491 in / 1469 out tokens · 26268 ms · 2026-05-10T02:34:08.924601+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

[1]

SpeedNet: dual- channel CNN-GRU network with adaptive noise fusion for robust vehicle dead reckoning in GNSS-denied environments,

Abhay Ashtekar and Eugenio Bianchi. “A short review of loop quantum gravity” . In: Reports on Progress in Physics 84.4 (Mar. 2021), p. 042001. issn: 1361-6633. doi: 10.1088/1361- 6633/abed91 . url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361- 6633/abed91. 21

work page doi:10.1088/1361- 2021
[2]

Ashtekar and J

Abhay Ashtekar and Jerzy Lewandowski. “Background independent quantum grav- ity: a status report” . In: Classical and Quantum Gravity 21.15 (June 2004), R53. doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/21/15/R01 . url: https://doi.org/10.1088/0264- 9381/21/15/R01

work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/21/15/r01 2004
[3]

Lecture Notes in Loop Quantum Gravity. LN2: Cauchy Problems and Pre-Quantum States

Sandro Coriasco et al. “Lecture Notes in Loop Quantum Gravity. LN2: Cauchy Problems and Pre-Quantum States” . In: International Journal of Geometric Meth- ods in Modern Physics 23.03 (Mar. 15, 2026)

2026
[4]

Relativistic Theories, Gravitational Theories and General Rel- ativity

Lorenzo Fatibene. Relativistic Theories, Gravitational Theories and General Rel- ativity. (unpublished); http://www.fatibene.org/book.html
[5]

Do Barbero-Immirzi connections exist in different dimensions and signatures?

Lorenzo Fatibene, Mauro Francaviglia, and Simon Garruto. “Do Barbero-Immirzi connections exist in different dimensions and signatures?” In: (June 2012). arXiv: 1206.3689 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2012
[6]

On a Covariant For- mulation of the Barbero–Immirzi Connection

Lorenzo Fatibene, Mauro Francaviglia, and Carlo Rovelli. “On a Covariant For- mulation of the Barbero–Immirzi Connection” . In: Classical and Quantum Gravity 24.11 (May 2007), p. 3055

2007
[7]

Spacetime Lagrangian Formulation of Barbero–Immirzi Gravity

Lorenzo Fatibene, Mauro Francaviglia, and Carlo Rovelli. “Spacetime Lagrangian Formulation of Barbero–Immirzi Gravity” . In: Classical and Quantum Gravity 24.16 (July 2007), p. 4207

2007
[8]

Background independent quantum gravity: a sta- tus report

Lorenzo Fatibene and Simon Garruto. “Principal symbol of Euler-Lagrange op- erators” . In: Class. Quant. Grav. 33.14 (2016), p. 145012. doi: 10.1088/0264- 9381/33/14/145012. arXiv: 1603.04732 [gr-qc]

work page doi:10.1088/0264- 2016
[9]

The Cauchy problem in General Relativity: An algebraic characterization

Lorenzo Fatibene and Simon Garruto. “The Cauchy problem in General Relativity: An algebraic characterization” . In: Class. Quant. Grav. 32.23 (2015), p. 235010. doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/23/235010. arXiv: 1507.00476 [gr-qc]

work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/23/235010 2015
[10]

Lecture Notes in Loop Quantum Grav- ity. LN3: Boundary Equations for Ashtekar-Barbero-Immirzi Model

Lorenzo Fatibene and Andrea Orizzonte. “Lecture Notes in Loop Quantum Grav- ity. LN3: Boundary Equations for Ashtekar-Barbero-Immirzi Model” . In: Interna- tional Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics (Jan. 13, 2026)

2026
[11]

Introduction to Loop Quantum Gravity. The Holst’s Ac- tion and the Covariant Formalism

Lorenzo Fatibene et al. “Introduction to Loop Quantum Gravity. The Holst’s Ac- tion and the Covariant Formalism” . In: International Journal of Geometric Meth- ods in Modern Physics 21.10 (Sept. 15, 2024)

2024
[12]

A Note on the Holst Action, the Time Gauge, and the Barbero–Immirzi Parameter

Marc Geiller and Karim Noui. “A Note on the Holst Action, the Time Gauge, and the Barbero–Immirzi Parameter” . In: General Relativity and Gravitation 45.9 (Sept. 2013), pp. 1733–1760

2013
[13]

3+1 Formalism in General Relativity: Bases of Numerical Rel- ativity

Eric Gourgoulhon. 3+1 Formalism in General Relativity: Bases of Numerical Rel- ativity. Vol. 846. Lecture Notes in Physics. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012

2012
[14]

Barbero’s Hamiltonian Derived from a Generalized Hilbert-Palatini Action

Sören Holst. “Barbero’s Hamiltonian Derived from a Generalized Hilbert-Palatini Action” . In:Physical Review D 53.10 (May 15, 1996). 22

1996
[15]

Real and Complex Connections for Canonical Gravity

Giorgio Immirzi. “Real and Complex Connections for Canonical Gravity” . In: Clas- sical and Quantum Gravity 14.10 (Oct. 1, 1997), pp. L177–L181. arXiv: gr- qc/ 9612030

1997
[16]

Foundations of Differential Geometry. 1

Shōshichi Kobayashi and Katsumi Nomizu. “Foundations of Differential Geometry. 1” . In: Wiley Classics Library. New York, NY: Wiley, 1996

1996
[17]

Canonical Analysis of Holst Action without Second-Class Constraints

Merced Montesinos, Jorge Romero, and Mariano Celada. “Canonical Analysis of Holst Action without Second-Class Constraints” . In: Physical Review D 101.8 (Apr. 2, 2020), p. 084003

2020
[18]

Barbero-Immirzi Connections and How to Build Them

Andrea Orizzonte and Lorenzo Fatibene. “Barbero-Immirzi Connections and How to Build Them” . In: Journal of Geometry and Physics 167 (Sept. 2021). arXiv: 2010.07725 [math]

work page arXiv 2021
[19]

Quantum Gravity

Carlo Rovelli. Quantum Gravity. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 2004

2004
[20]

Covariant Loop Quantum Gravity: Elemen- tary Introduction to Quantum Gravity and Spinfoam Theory

Carlo Rovelli and Francesca Vidotto. Covariant Loop Quantum Gravity: Elemen- tary Introduction to Quantum Gravity and Spinfoam Theory . Cambridge: Cam- bridge university press, 2015

2015
[21]

Lectures on Loop Quantum Gravity

Thomas Thiemann. “Lectures on Loop Quantum Gravity” . In: Quantum Grav- ity: From Theory to Experimental Search . Ed. by Domenico J. W. Giulini, Claus Kiefer, and Claus Lämmerzahl. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2003, pp. 41–135

2003
[22]

Lectures on loop quantum gravity

Thomas Thiemann. “Lectures on loop quantum gravity” . In: Lect. Notes Phys. 631 (2003), pp. 41–135. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-45230-0_3 . arXiv: gr-qc/0210094

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-45230-0_3 2003
[23]

Thiemann, Modern Canonical Quantum Gen- eral Relativity, Cambridge University Press, 2007, ISBN 978-0-511-75568-2, 978-0-521-84263-1 doi:10.1017/CBO9780511755682

Thomas Thiemann. Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity . Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 2007. isbn: 978-0-511-75568-2, 978-0-521-84263-1. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511755682

work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511755682 2007
[24]

The Barbero–Immirzi Parameter: An Enig- matic Parameter of Loop Quantum Gravity

Rakshit P. Vyas and Mihir J. Joshi. “The Barbero–Immirzi Parameter: An Enig- matic Parameter of Loop Quantum Gravity” . In: Physics 4.4 (2022), pp. 1094– 1116

2022
[25]

Robert M. Wald. General Relativity. Repr. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 2009. 491 pp. 23

2009

[1] [1]

SpeedNet: dual- channel CNN-GRU network with adaptive noise fusion for robust vehicle dead reckoning in GNSS-denied environments,

Abhay Ashtekar and Eugenio Bianchi. “A short review of loop quantum gravity” . In: Reports on Progress in Physics 84.4 (Mar. 2021), p. 042001. issn: 1361-6633. doi: 10.1088/1361- 6633/abed91 . url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361- 6633/abed91. 21

work page doi:10.1088/1361- 2021

[2] [2]

Ashtekar and J

Abhay Ashtekar and Jerzy Lewandowski. “Background independent quantum grav- ity: a status report” . In: Classical and Quantum Gravity 21.15 (June 2004), R53. doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/21/15/R01 . url: https://doi.org/10.1088/0264- 9381/21/15/R01

work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/21/15/r01 2004

[3] [3]

Lecture Notes in Loop Quantum Gravity. LN2: Cauchy Problems and Pre-Quantum States

Sandro Coriasco et al. “Lecture Notes in Loop Quantum Gravity. LN2: Cauchy Problems and Pre-Quantum States” . In: International Journal of Geometric Meth- ods in Modern Physics 23.03 (Mar. 15, 2026)

2026

[4] [4]

Relativistic Theories, Gravitational Theories and General Rel- ativity

Lorenzo Fatibene. Relativistic Theories, Gravitational Theories and General Rel- ativity. (unpublished); http://www.fatibene.org/book.html

[5] [5]

Do Barbero-Immirzi connections exist in different dimensions and signatures?

Lorenzo Fatibene, Mauro Francaviglia, and Simon Garruto. “Do Barbero-Immirzi connections exist in different dimensions and signatures?” In: (June 2012). arXiv: 1206.3689 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2012

[6] [6]

On a Covariant For- mulation of the Barbero–Immirzi Connection

Lorenzo Fatibene, Mauro Francaviglia, and Carlo Rovelli. “On a Covariant For- mulation of the Barbero–Immirzi Connection” . In: Classical and Quantum Gravity 24.11 (May 2007), p. 3055

2007

[7] [7]

Spacetime Lagrangian Formulation of Barbero–Immirzi Gravity

Lorenzo Fatibene, Mauro Francaviglia, and Carlo Rovelli. “Spacetime Lagrangian Formulation of Barbero–Immirzi Gravity” . In: Classical and Quantum Gravity 24.16 (July 2007), p. 4207

2007

[8] [8]

Background independent quantum gravity: a sta- tus report

Lorenzo Fatibene and Simon Garruto. “Principal symbol of Euler-Lagrange op- erators” . In: Class. Quant. Grav. 33.14 (2016), p. 145012. doi: 10.1088/0264- 9381/33/14/145012. arXiv: 1603.04732 [gr-qc]

work page doi:10.1088/0264- 2016

[9] [9]

The Cauchy problem in General Relativity: An algebraic characterization

Lorenzo Fatibene and Simon Garruto. “The Cauchy problem in General Relativity: An algebraic characterization” . In: Class. Quant. Grav. 32.23 (2015), p. 235010. doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/23/235010. arXiv: 1507.00476 [gr-qc]

work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/23/235010 2015

[10] [10]

Lecture Notes in Loop Quantum Grav- ity. LN3: Boundary Equations for Ashtekar-Barbero-Immirzi Model

Lorenzo Fatibene and Andrea Orizzonte. “Lecture Notes in Loop Quantum Grav- ity. LN3: Boundary Equations for Ashtekar-Barbero-Immirzi Model” . In: Interna- tional Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics (Jan. 13, 2026)

2026

[11] [11]

Introduction to Loop Quantum Gravity. The Holst’s Ac- tion and the Covariant Formalism

Lorenzo Fatibene et al. “Introduction to Loop Quantum Gravity. The Holst’s Ac- tion and the Covariant Formalism” . In: International Journal of Geometric Meth- ods in Modern Physics 21.10 (Sept. 15, 2024)

2024

[12] [12]

A Note on the Holst Action, the Time Gauge, and the Barbero–Immirzi Parameter

Marc Geiller and Karim Noui. “A Note on the Holst Action, the Time Gauge, and the Barbero–Immirzi Parameter” . In: General Relativity and Gravitation 45.9 (Sept. 2013), pp. 1733–1760

2013

[13] [13]

3+1 Formalism in General Relativity: Bases of Numerical Rel- ativity

Eric Gourgoulhon. 3+1 Formalism in General Relativity: Bases of Numerical Rel- ativity. Vol. 846. Lecture Notes in Physics. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012

2012

[14] [14]

Barbero’s Hamiltonian Derived from a Generalized Hilbert-Palatini Action

Sören Holst. “Barbero’s Hamiltonian Derived from a Generalized Hilbert-Palatini Action” . In:Physical Review D 53.10 (May 15, 1996). 22

1996

[15] [15]

Real and Complex Connections for Canonical Gravity

Giorgio Immirzi. “Real and Complex Connections for Canonical Gravity” . In: Clas- sical and Quantum Gravity 14.10 (Oct. 1, 1997), pp. L177–L181. arXiv: gr- qc/ 9612030

1997

[16] [16]

Foundations of Differential Geometry. 1

Shōshichi Kobayashi and Katsumi Nomizu. “Foundations of Differential Geometry. 1” . In: Wiley Classics Library. New York, NY: Wiley, 1996

1996

[17] [17]

Canonical Analysis of Holst Action without Second-Class Constraints

Merced Montesinos, Jorge Romero, and Mariano Celada. “Canonical Analysis of Holst Action without Second-Class Constraints” . In: Physical Review D 101.8 (Apr. 2, 2020), p. 084003

2020

[18] [18]

Barbero-Immirzi Connections and How to Build Them

Andrea Orizzonte and Lorenzo Fatibene. “Barbero-Immirzi Connections and How to Build Them” . In: Journal of Geometry and Physics 167 (Sept. 2021). arXiv: 2010.07725 [math]

work page arXiv 2021

[19] [19]

Quantum Gravity

Carlo Rovelli. Quantum Gravity. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 2004

2004

[20] [20]

Covariant Loop Quantum Gravity: Elemen- tary Introduction to Quantum Gravity and Spinfoam Theory

Carlo Rovelli and Francesca Vidotto. Covariant Loop Quantum Gravity: Elemen- tary Introduction to Quantum Gravity and Spinfoam Theory . Cambridge: Cam- bridge university press, 2015

2015

[21] [21]

Lectures on Loop Quantum Gravity

Thomas Thiemann. “Lectures on Loop Quantum Gravity” . In: Quantum Grav- ity: From Theory to Experimental Search . Ed. by Domenico J. W. Giulini, Claus Kiefer, and Claus Lämmerzahl. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2003, pp. 41–135

2003

[22] [22]

Lectures on loop quantum gravity

Thomas Thiemann. “Lectures on loop quantum gravity” . In: Lect. Notes Phys. 631 (2003), pp. 41–135. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-45230-0_3 . arXiv: gr-qc/0210094

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-45230-0_3 2003

[23] [23]

Thiemann, Modern Canonical Quantum Gen- eral Relativity, Cambridge University Press, 2007, ISBN 978-0-511-75568-2, 978-0-521-84263-1 doi:10.1017/CBO9780511755682

Thomas Thiemann. Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity . Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 2007. isbn: 978-0-511-75568-2, 978-0-521-84263-1. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511755682

work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511755682 2007

[24] [24]

The Barbero–Immirzi Parameter: An Enig- matic Parameter of Loop Quantum Gravity

Rakshit P. Vyas and Mihir J. Joshi. “The Barbero–Immirzi Parameter: An Enig- matic Parameter of Loop Quantum Gravity” . In: Physics 4.4 (2022), pp. 1094– 1116

2022

[25] [25]

Robert M. Wald. General Relativity. Repr. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 2009. 491 pp. 23

2009