Consistency check on the fundamental and alternative flux operators in loop quantum gravity

Jinsong Yang; Yongge Ma

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Consistency check on the fundamental and alternative flux operators in loop quantum gravity

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The fundamental and alternative flux operators of loop quantum gravity can be made consistent, but only by fixing the volume-operator regulating factor to 1/2.

desk verdict A careful graphical re-derivation that yields κ_reg = 1/2 only under a specific ordering choice; the 'corrects' claim overreaches, but the computation is solid and worth reviewing. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10600 v2 pith:EJ25RDJA submitted 2019-08-28 gr-qc

Jinsong Yang , Yongge Ma This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qc MSC 83C45 PACS 04.60.Pp

keywords loopquantumgravityfluxoperatortriadvolumeregulatingfactorspinnetworkgraphicalcalculusconsistencycheck

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 checks whether two different ways of quantizing the flux of the densitized triad in loop quantum gravity agree on spin-network states. The check is done with the Brink graphical calculus rather than algebraic manipulation, which the authors say is simpler. The central result is that the alternative flux operator matches the fundamental flux operator exactly when the regulating constant $\kappa_{\rm reg}$ in the Ashtekar-Lewandowski volume operator is set to $1/2$. This corrects the value implied by earlier algebraic treatments, with the relation $\kappa_{\rm reg}=48C_{\rm reg}$. If the paper is right, a previously free constant in the volume operator is fixed by a consistency requirement, and the cotriad-based construction used in the Hamiltonian constraint is supported.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the Brink graphical calculus for $SU(2)$ spin networks, applied to the volume operator $\hat Q_v$ appearing in Eq. (5). Graphical identities convert holonomy contractions and intertwiners into closed diagrams, so the action of the alternative flux operator on a state reduces to a single diagram whose coefficient is read off as a product of angular-momentum factors; the matrix element of $\hat q_{134}$ in Eq. (18) carries the factor $\kappa_{\rm reg}\,\ell_p^6\beta^3/4$ into the final answer. The choice of operator ordering in Eq. (10), with the two holonomies placed to the right of the volume operator, and the limiting definition in Eq. (32) for vertex fluxes are the steps that make the alternative flux act on edges separately, mirroring the fundamental flux.

What would settle it

Recompute the action in Eq. (28) with the holonomies moved to the left of the volume operator in Eq. (10), keeping everything else unchanged; if consistency then requires a value of $\kappa_{\rm reg}$ other than $1/2$, the result is a property of the chosen ordering rather than of the two flux operators themselves.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the alternative flux operator, defined through the cotriad and the Ashtekar-Lewandowski volume operator, reproduces the action of the fundamental flux operator on the spin-network states considered, provided $\kappa_{\rm reg}=1/2$. On a state where an edge punctures a surface, the alternative flux contributes a coefficient $-2\kappa_{\rm reg}\,\ell_p^2\beta\chi(j)$ while the fundamental flux contributes $-\ell_p^2\beta\chi(j)$; equality of the two actions forces $2\kappa_{\rm reg}=1$. The same coefficient is obtained for up- and down-type edges, and for flux through vertices the paper uses a limiting definition that averages surfaces over an infinitesimal family, so the two operators agree there as well. This fixes the earlier value reported in the literature, which the authors trace to a different regularization of the alternative flux operator.

Load-bearing premise

The value $1/2$ follows only after choosing a specific order of factors in the alternative flux operator, with holonomies placed to the right of the volume operator, and a surface-averaging limiting definition for the flux at vertices; the paper does not show these choices are forced by the quantization.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The Ashtekar-Lewandowski volume operator should be used with $\kappa_{\rm reg}=1/2$ in computations that combine it with cotriad-based flux or constraint operators.
Thiemann's Hamiltonian constraint, which builds the cotriad from the volume operator, inherits a definite numerical normalization from this value.
The limiting definition of the alternative flux at vertices is sufficient to decouple the actions on different edges, so the two flux operators agree for interior punctures and for endpoint intersections.
The previous discrepancy between the graphical and algebraic consistency checks is attributed to regularization choices, not to the two calculi; with the same regularization they agree.
The relation $\kappa_{\rm reg}=48C_{\rm reg}$ lets earlier results expressed in terms of $C_{\rm reg}$ be translated to the new value.

Reading between the lines

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

If $\kappa_{\rm reg}=1/2$ is adopted elsewhere, other operators built from the same volume operator, such as new volume or inverse volume operators, would need their normalizations re-derived.
The consistency condition suggests a general principle: matching two quantizations of the same classical function can fix regularization constants internally, reducing the freedom in defining geometric operators.
A natural extension is to repeat the check for higher-valent or coplanar vertices to see whether the same value $1/2$ is forced in those cases.
The value is tied to the operator ordering chosen in Eq. (10); a different ordering or regularization would likely produce a different effective constant.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here is my take. The paper does something useful and then overstates it. It redoes the Giesel-Thiemann consistency check between the fundamental and alternative flux operators using Brink graphical calculus. The derivation is detailed and the final condition is exact: the two operators agree on the states they consider when 2 κ_reg = 1. That is a new result, and the graphical method is clearly simpler than the algebraic route. The authors also show the computation in enough detail that a specialist can verify each step.

The soft spot is the claim that this fixes the Ashtekar-Lewandowski regulating factor to 1/2. That value is obtained only after choosing a specific operator ordering in Eq. (10) and a specific limiting definition in Eq. (32). These choices are not forced by the classical expression; they are motivated by the desire that the alternative flux act on edges separately, like the fundamental flux. A different ordering would generally give a different coefficient. The paper lists these choices in Section III, but the abstract and the opening of the discussion present κ_reg = 1/2 as a correction to the literature value. The authors argue the algebraic calculation in [31] used an inconsistent edge treatment and would give the same result if corrected; that might be true, but they do not demonstrate it. So the headline is stronger than the evidence.

Two minor points. The sentence around Eq. (28) defining αFun/Alt is easy to misread and should be rephrased. The reduction in Eq. (12) is asserted tersely; the graphical identities are taken from the authors' own [35], which is legitimate, but more detail would help a reader who is not already fluent. The citation pattern is otherwise fine, and the paper does not rely on any suspicious self-reference.

Who is this for: LQG specialists working with triad operators, volume operators, or the Hamiltonian constraint. It is a legitimate technical check, not a breakthrough. I would send it to peer review, but ask the authors to soften the 'corrects' framing and to state plainly that the value 1/2 is relative to their quantization choices. With that revision, it should be acceptable.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a consistency check, using the Brink graphical calculus, between the fundamental flux operator and an alternative flux operator constructed from the cotriad in loop quantum gravity. The authors compute the action of both operators on a single-edge spin-network state carrying a J=0 intertwiner at its intersection with a surface, treating both up- and down-type edges, and then extend the comparison to intersections at graph vertices by defining a limiting operator (Eq. (32)). The central result is that consistency between the two flux operators requires the Ashtekar–Lewandowski volume regularization constant to satisfy 2κ_reg = 1, i.e., κ_reg = 1/2. The authors claim this fixes κ_reg and corrects the value obtained in earlier algebraic calculations by Giesel and Thiemann. The graphical computation is detailed and the final consistency condition is exact, but the derivation relies on a specific operator ordering in Eq. (10) and a specific limiting prescription in Eq. (32), whose uniqueness is not established.

Significance. If the result were universal, it would provide a nontrivial determination of a regularization constant in loop quantum gravity and a direct demonstration that the fundamental and cotriad-based flux operators can be made consistent. The paper is a technically useful contribution: the graphical calculus is carried out explicitly, the coefficients in Eqs. (23) and (27) are exact, and the reduction to a single condition on κ_reg is elegant. The paper also honestly lists the choices made (volume operator, operator ordering, limiting definition) in Section III. However, because the value κ_reg = 1/2 is obtained only under those choices and the paper does not show that the choices are forced, the claimed 'fixing' of κ_reg is not as strong as the abstract suggests.

major comments (3)

[§II.A, Eq. (10) and abstract] The derivation of κ_reg = 1/2 is performed for the specific operator ordering in Eq. (10), in which the holonomies involving e^t_3 and e^t_4 are placed to the right of the volume operator. The paper states that this ordering is chosen so that the alternative flux acts on edges separately, like the fundamental flux, but it does not show that this ordering is forced by the quantization of the classical expression (3). With a different classically equivalent ordering, for example with the holonomies on the left of the volume operator, the volume operator would act on a different set of edges at the introduced vertex, and the coefficient in Eq. (23) would in general differ. The abstract and Section III therefore overstate the result when they say the consistency check 'fixes' κ_reg = 1/2 and 'corrects' its previous value, since the fixed value is conditional on a non-unique ordering choice. The authors should either prove ordering independence of the obtained condition or explicitly qualify the result as applying to the chosen ordering.
[§II.B, Eqs. (32)–(33)] The extension of the consistency check to intersections at graph vertices relies on the limiting definition in Eq. (32) and the claim that the t = 0 contribution is a measure-zero set in the integral. The operator E^Alt_μ(S_t) changes its action discontinuously at t = 0, because the graph is modified by adding a vertex at the intersection point. The paper does not justify, at the operator level, that the integral over t can be interchanged with the limit ϵ→0 or that the t = 0 term indeed drops out. Since the vertex case is one of the three cases needed for the universal claim, the consistency condition for this case should be justified more rigorously or the claim should be restricted to the interior-intersection case.
[§II.A, Eqs. (23) and (28)] The consistency check is performed only on a two-edge spin-network state with a J = 0 intertwiner at the new vertex. The authors note that the same result holds for multiple edges intersecting at interior points, but they do not analyze states with higher-valence vertices or nontrivial intertwiners at the intersection. Because the claimed fixing of κ_reg is a statement about the volume operator in general, the paper should either extend the computation to a wider class of states or state explicitly that the result is derived only for the J = 0 two-edge family and is not claimed to be universal.

minor comments (4)

[§II.A, Eq. (28)] The sentence 'where the factor α^{Fun/Alt} takes 1/(2κ_reg) for the fundamental/alternative flux operator' is ambiguous and appears inconsistent with the actual coefficients in Eqs. (23) and (27), which are -2κ_reg and -1 times l_p^2 β χ(j), respectively. It should read that α^Fun = 1 and α^Alt = 2κ_reg (or the equivalent statement), so that consistency imposes 2κ_reg = 1.
[§II.A, Eq. (23)] The 'trivial limit' taken in the third step of Eq. (23) is not fully explained. The graph being evaluated still contains the edges e^t_3 and e^t_4 of length ϵ′, and the limit ϵ′→0 is taken after the graphical evaluation. A sentence clarifying how the ϵ′ dependence disappears from the graph would help the reader.
[General] The phrase 'our derivation is obviously simpler than the algebraic calculation' in the introduction is subjective and could be softened to 'more compact' or 'more transparent' without changing the claim.
[General] There are several minor grammatical and typographical issues, such as 'It is shown that S can be identified with the sign that appears inside the absolute value under the square roots' and 'the six step' for 'the sixth step' in the paragraph after Eq. (3). A careful proofread would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the consistency check solves for κ_reg from an equality between two independently defined operators rather than assuming the target value.

full rationale

The paper derives the action of two independently defined flux operators on the same spin-network states: the fundamental flux operator in Eq. (25) and the alternative flux operator in Eqs. (10) and (32). The alternative operator contains the Ashtekar-Lewandowski volume operator, which carries a free regularization constant κ_reg. The actions are computed explicitly in Eqs. (23), (27), (28), and (30), and consistency is imposed by requiring the two results to match, giving 2κ_reg = 1. This is a parameter determination from an external benchmark, not a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. The self-citations, most notably [35] for the graphical calculus, supply diagrammatic identities and volume matrix elements that are technical lemmas and do not contain the κ_reg = 1/2 conclusion. The paper also explicitly lists the operator ordering and limiting definitions on which the result depends; those choices make the result conditional and ordering-dependent, but they do not make the derivation circular. No step of the derivation assumes the equality it purports to prove.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger covers the inputs of the calculation: the AL volume operator and its κ_reg, standard recoupling identities, volume matrix elements, the ordering and limiting choices, and the one-term reduction. The only number solved for is κ_reg; the auxiliary spin l in the cotriad regularization cancels out.

free parameters (1)

κ_reg (volume regularization constant) = 1/2 (derived from consistency, not fitted to data)
Appears in the AL volume operator Eq. (5). The consistency check equates the alternative flux action, proportional to 2κ_reg, with the fundamental flux action, proportional to 1, giving κ_reg=1/2. It is not fitted to data, but it is a free constant of the chosen volume operator regularization.

assumptions (5)

standard math Graphical recoupling identities from [35] (Eqs. (14), (22), (24) of this paper)
Used throughout to contract holonomies and intertwiners; a sign or phase error in any identity would change the coefficient in Eq. (28).
standard math Volume-operator matrix-element formulas from [35,39] (Eqs. (4.35), (4.36))
Used in Eq. (18) to evaluate Q acting on the intertwiner; the selection rule (a'_2=1) and the numerical prefactor set the 2κ_reg coefficient.
domain assumption The Ashtekar-Lewandowski volume operator Eq. (5) is the volume operator to use for the cotriad
The alternative flux is built from the cotriad via {A,V}; only the AL volume from [10,38] is considered, not other volume operators.
ad hoc to paper Operator ordering in Eq. (10) and limiting definition in Eq. (32) define the alternative flux operator
These choices are made so the alternative flux acts on edges in a decoupled way; they determine the value κ_reg=1/2 and are not derived from the fundamental flux.
domain assumption Only one commutator term contributes in Eq. (12)
The paper asserts that the volume operator vanishes on coplanar vertices so the double commutator reduces to Q acting, but the dropped terms are not displayed.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Consistency check on the fundamental and alternative flux operators in loop quantum gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EJ25RDJA

@misc{pith2026190810600,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Consistency check on the fundamental and alternative flux operators in loop quantum gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EJ25RDJA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10600}
}

abstract

There are different constructions of the flux of triad in loop quantum gravity, namely the fundamental and alternative flux operators. In parallel to the consistency check on the two versions of operator by the algebraic calculus in the literature, we check their consistency by the graphical calculus. Our calculation based on the original Brink graphical method is obviously simpler than the algebraic calculation. It turns out that our consistency check fixes the regulating factor $\kappa_{\rm reg}$ of the Ashtekar-Lewandowski volume operator as $\frac12$, which corrects its previous value in the literature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10600 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: A partition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: (a) A edge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: (a) A surface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[31]

Consistency Check on Volume and Triad Operator Quantisation in Loop Quantum Gravity I

K. Giesel and T. Thiemann, Consistency check on volume and triad operator quantization in loop quantum gravity: I, Class. Quant. Grav. 23, 5667 (2006), [arXiv:gr-qc/0507036]

work page Pith review arXiv 2006
[35]

A. P. Yutsis, I. B. Levinson, and V . V . Vanagas,Mathematical Apparatus of the Theory of Angular Momentum (Israel Program for Scientiﬁc Translations, Translated from Russian by A. Sen and R. N. Sen, 1962)

work page 1962
[1]

Rovelli, Quantum Gravity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2004)

C. Rovelli, Quantum Gravity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2004)

work page 2004
[2]

On the other hand, it is easy to see that ˆ˜EAlt µ (S t) has the same way of action from Eq. (26). Hence it is not surprising to us that the two ﬂux operators are also consistent to each other for this case. However, the situation in the third case di ﬀers from that in the ﬁrst case, because in the former the intersection points are the end points, at whi...

work page
[3]

Thiemann, Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2007)

T. Thiemann, Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2007)

work page 2007
[4]

Thiemann, Lectures on loop quantum gravity, Lect

T. Thiemann, Lectures on loop quantum gravity, Lect. Notes Phys. 631, 41 (2003), [arXiv:gr-qc/0210094]

arXiv 2003
[5]

Ashtekar and J

A. Ashtekar and J. Lewandowski, Background independent quantum gravity: A status report, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, R53 (2004), [arXiv:gr-qc/0404018]

arXiv 2004
[6]

M. Han, Y . Ma, and W. Huang, Fundamental structure of loop quantum gravity, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 16, 1397 (2007), [arXiv:gr- qc/0509064]

work page arXiv 2007

Show all 40 references

[7]

Giesel and H

K. Giesel and H. Sahlmann, From classical to quantum gravity: Introduction to loop quantum gravity, Proc. Sci. QGQGS2011, 002 (2011), [arXiv:1203.2733]

2011 arXiv
[8]

Lewandowski, A

J. Lewandowski, A. Okoł´ow, H. Sahlmann, and T. Thiemann, Uniqueness of diﬀeomorphism invariant states on holonomy–ﬂux algebras, Commun. Math. Phys. 267, 703 (2006), [arXiv:gr-qc/0504147]

2006 arXiv
[9]

Rovelli and L

C. Rovelli and L. Smolin, Discreteness of area and volume in quantum gravity, Nucl. Phys. B 442, 593 (1995), [arXiv:gr-qc/9411005]

1995 arXiv
[10]

Ashtekar and J

A. Ashtekar and J. Lewandowski, Quantum theory of geometry: I. Area operators, Class. Quant. Grav. 14, A55 (1997), [arXiv:gr- qc/9602046]

1997
[11]

Ashtekar and J

A. Ashtekar and J. Lewandowski, Quantum theory of geometry II: V olume operators, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 1, 388 (1997), [arXiv:gr- qc/9711031]

1997
[12]

Thiemann, A length operator for canonical quantum gravity, J

T. Thiemann, A length operator for canonical quantum gravity, J. Math. Phys. 39, 3372 (1998), [arXiv:gr-qc/9606092]

1998 arXiv
[13]

Y . Ma, C. Soo, and J. Yang, New length operator for loop quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D81, 124026 (2010), [arXiv:1004.1063]

2010 arXiv
[14]

Thiemann, Quantum spin dynamics (QSD), Class

T. Thiemann, Quantum spin dynamics (QSD), Class. Quant. Grav. 15, 839 (1998), [arXiv:gr-qc/9606089]

1998 arXiv
[15]

Yang and Y

J. Yang and Y . Ma, New Hamiltonian constraint operator for loop quantum gravity, Phys. Lett. B751, 343 (2015), [arXiv:1507.00986]

2015 arXiv
[16]

Alesci, M

E. Alesci, M. Assanioussi, J. Lewandowski, and I. M ¨akinen, Hamiltonian operator for loop quantum gravity coupled to a scalar ﬁeld, Phys. Rev. D 91, 124067 (2015), [arXiv:1504.02068]. 11

2015 arXiv
[17]

Alesci, T

E. Alesci, T. Thiemann, and A. Zipfel, Linking covariant and canonical LQG: New solutions to the Euclidean scalar constraint, Phys. Rev. D 86, 024017 (2012), [arXiv:1109.1290]

2012 arXiv
[18]

Thiemann and A

T. Thiemann and A. Zipfel, Linking covariant and canonical LQG II: Spin foam projector, Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 125008 (2014), [arXiv:1307.5885]

2014 arXiv
[19]

Zhang, J

C. Zhang, J. Lewandowski, and Y . Ma, Towards the self-adjointness of a Hamiltonian operator in loop quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D98, 086014 (2018), [arXiv:1805.08644]

2018 arXiv
[20]

Zhang, J

C. Zhang, J. Lewandowski, H. Li, and Y . Ma, Bouncing evolution in a model of loop quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D 99, 124012 (2019), [arXiv:1904.07046]

2019 arXiv
[21]

Zhang and Y

X. Zhang and Y . Ma, Extension of loop quantum gravity to f (R) theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 171301 (2011), [arXiv:1101.1752]

2011 arXiv
[22]

Zhang and Y

X. Zhang and Y . Ma, Loop quantum f (R) theories, Phys. Rev. D 84, 064040 (2011), [arXiv:1107.4921]

2011 arXiv
[23]

Zhang and Y

X. Zhang and Y . Ma, Nonperturbative loop quantization of scalar-tensor theories of gravity, Phys. Rev. D 84, 104045 (2011), [arXiv:1107.5157]

2011 arXiv
[24]

Zhang and Y

X. Zhang and Y . Ma, Loop quantum Brans-Dicke theory, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.360, 012055 (2012), [arXiv:1111.2215]

2012 arXiv
[25]

Ma, Extension of loop quantum gravity to metric theories beyond general relativity, J

Y . Ma, Extension of loop quantum gravity to metric theories beyond general relativity, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 360, 012006 (2012), [arXiv:1112.2085]

2012 arXiv
[26]

Engle, R

J. Engle, R. Pereira, and C. Rovelli, Flipped spinfoam vertex and loop gravity, Nucl. Phys. B 798, 251 (2008), [arXiv:0708.1236]

2008 arXiv
[27]

Freidel and K

L. Freidel and K. Krasnov, A new spin foam model for 4d gravity, Class. Quant. Grav. 25, 125018 (2008), [arXiv:0708.1595]

2008 arXiv
[28]

Kami ´nski, M

W. Kami ´nski, M. Kisielowski, and J. Lewandowski, Spin-foams for all loop quantum gravity, Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 095006 (2010), [arXiv:0909.0939]

2010 arXiv
[29]

Y . Ding, M. Han, and C. Rovelli, Generalized spinfoams, Phys. Rev. D83, 124020 (2011), [arXiv:1011.2149]

2011 arXiv
[30]

Thiemann, Quantum spin dynamics (QSD): V

T. Thiemann, Quantum spin dynamics (QSD): V . Quantum gravity as the natural regulator of matter quantum ﬁeld theories, Class. Quant. Grav. 15, 1281 (1998), [arXiv:gr-qc/9705019]

1998 arXiv
[32]

Giesel and T

K. Giesel and T. Thiemann, Consistency check on volume and triad operator quantization in loop quantum gravity: II, Class. Quant. Grav. 23, 5693 (2006), [arXiv:gr-qc/0507037]

2006 arXiv
[33]

Yang and Y

J. Yang and Y . Ma, New volume and inverse volume operators for loop quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D 94, 044003 (2016), [arXiv:1602.08688]

2016 arXiv
[34]

D. M. Brink and G. R. Satchler, Angular Momentum (Clarendon Press, 1968)

1968
[36]

Yang and Y

J. Yang and Y . Ma, Graphical calculus of volume, inverse volume and Hamiltonian operators in loop quantum gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 235 (2017), [arXiv:1505.00223, arXiv:1505.00225]

2017 arXiv
[37]

Ashtekar and C

A. Ashtekar and C. J. Isham, Representations of the holonomy algebras of gravity and nonAbelian gauge theories, Class. Quant. Grav. 9, 1433 (1992), [arXiv:hep-th/9202053]

1992 arXiv
[38]

Ashtekar and J

A. Ashtekar and J. Lewandowski, Projective techniques and functional integration for gauge theories, J. Math. Phys. 36, 2170 (1995), [arXiv:gr-qc/9411046]

1995 arXiv
[39]

Thiemann, Closed formula for the matrix elements of the volume operator in canonical quantum gravity, J

T. Thiemann, Closed formula for the matrix elements of the volume operator in canonical quantum gravity, J. Math. Phys. 39, 3347 (1998), [arXiv:gr-qc/9606091]

1998 arXiv
[40]

Brunnemann and T

J. Brunnemann and T. Thiemann, Simpliﬁcation of the spectral analysis of the volume operator in loop quantum gravity, Class. Quant. Grav. 23, 1289 (2006), [arXiv:gr-qc/0405060]. 12

2006 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [31]

Consistency Check on Volume and Triad Operator Quantisation in Loop Quantum Gravity I

K. Giesel and T. Thiemann, Consistency check on volume and triad operator quantization in loop quantum gravity: I, Class. Quant. Grav. 23, 5667 (2006), [arXiv:gr-qc/0507036]

work page Pith review arXiv 2006

[2] [35]

A. P. Yutsis, I. B. Levinson, and V . V . Vanagas,Mathematical Apparatus of the Theory of Angular Momentum (Israel Program for Scientiﬁc Translations, Translated from Russian by A. Sen and R. N. Sen, 1962)

work page 1962

[3] [1]

Rovelli, Quantum Gravity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2004)

C. Rovelli, Quantum Gravity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2004)

work page 2004

[4] [2]

On the other hand, it is easy to see that ˆ˜EAlt µ (S t) has the same way of action from Eq. (26). Hence it is not surprising to us that the two ﬂux operators are also consistent to each other for this case. However, the situation in the third case di ﬀers from that in the ﬁrst case, because in the former the intersection points are the end points, at whi...

work page

[5] [3]

Thiemann, Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2007)

T. Thiemann, Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2007)

work page 2007

[6] [4]

Thiemann, Lectures on loop quantum gravity, Lect

T. Thiemann, Lectures on loop quantum gravity, Lect. Notes Phys. 631, 41 (2003), [arXiv:gr-qc/0210094]

arXiv 2003

[7] [5]

Ashtekar and J

A. Ashtekar and J. Lewandowski, Background independent quantum gravity: A status report, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, R53 (2004), [arXiv:gr-qc/0404018]

arXiv 2004

[8] [6]

M. Han, Y . Ma, and W. Huang, Fundamental structure of loop quantum gravity, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 16, 1397 (2007), [arXiv:gr- qc/0509064]

work page arXiv 2007