text:
# Constraining Post-Newtonian Parameters With Gravitational Waves

## Abstract

We re-express gravitational wave results in terms of post-Newtonian parameters. Using these expressions, and some simplifying assumptions, we compute that in a favorable case, i.e. a ten solar-mass black hole spiraling in to a $`10^6`$ solar-mass black hole, LISA observations will be able to constrain at the 10% level or better a single combination of post-post-Newtonian parameters one order higher than those already constrained by solar system evidence. This significant constraint will be possible even if the signal-to-noise level is so low that the signal can only be found by matched filtering, and hence only deviations between alternate signal interpretations of order one half cycle or more can be detected.

We report here some early results of a study that tries to make an explicit connection between classical parameterized post-Newtonian (PPN) theory as developed by Nordtvedt, Will and othersnw1 ; willbook ; damourreview ; will1 , and one or more of the several forms of PPN analysis now being used to predict gravitational waves, particularly for the case of inspiralling binary black holesthornereview ; damourwaves . Classical PPN theory was used to analyze solar system tests of general relativity (GR) and compare results predicted by GR to the results predicted by any (metric-based) alternate gravity theory (AGT). Classical PPN theory, plus observational results, puts parametric constraints on the spherical geometry of a condensed body in any viable AGT. Our main goal is to make the connection between the PPN analysis of AGTs and the perturbative PPN calculation of gravitational waves, and to determine the extent to which an observed inspiral might be able to put stronger constraints on the PPN representation of a compact object in any possible AGT. In particular, we are interested to see if any second order constraints would be imposed, and if so to find an explicit expression for them. It is known that very high order calculations are required to produce accurate templates for the matched filter detection of gravitational waves from binary inspiralsfinn1 ; cutler1 . This fact suggests that strong constraints will be placed on AGTs by the observation of any inspiral, but the inverse problem of deriving the constraints from the observed inspiral is not easy. This problem is clearly related to the previously studied problem (often called parameter estimation) of recovering the parameters describing the inspiralling binary and the compact objects which it comprises from the observed gravitational wave informationryan1 ; ryan2 ; poisson2 ; poisson1 ; ft1 . Our study tries to extend parameter estimation to include determining the second order (or higher) PPN constraints placed on AGTs by an observed binary inspiral. We report here some successful steps toward this goal.

At the current stage of this study, we consider only the second-order non-rotating spherical solution of fully conservative metric alternate gravity theories. (If this is successful, we may attempt to extend the study to include rotating solutions and/or higher order terms.) For this simplest case, we extend the classical PPN parameters to the second order by adding the second-order parameters $`\delta `$ and $`ϵ`$ to the classical first-order parameters $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ (sometimes called the Eddington parameterseddingtonbook ), resulting in the metric $`ds^2=TT(r)dt^2+SS(r)dr^2+SS(r)r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ where $`TT(r)=1\frac{2\alpha M}{r}+\frac{2\beta M^2}{r^2}+\frac{\frac{3}{2}ϵM^3}{r^3}+\mathrm{}`$ and $`SS(r)=1+\frac{2\gamma M}{r}+\frac{\frac{3}{2}\delta M^2}{r^2}+\mathrm{}`$. (Hereafter M is omitted, and $`1/r`$ is to be interpretted as $`M/r`$.) Setting all the lowercase Greek parameters equal to one in the above metric recovers the leading terms in the isotropic Schwarzschild metric. This is the normalization used in classical PPN theorywillbook . We immediately convert to the standard Schwarzschild metric form, which is used in gravitational wave research. The resulting metric is $`ds^2=T(r)^2dt^2+S(r)^2dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$, where $`T(r)=1\frac{\alpha }{r}+\frac{\alpha ^2+2\beta 2\alpha \gamma }{2r^2}+\frac{\frac{3}{2}\alpha \left(\alpha ^2+2\beta 2\alpha \gamma \right)+\frac{3}{2}\left(8\beta \gamma 2\alpha \gamma ^23\alpha \delta 3ϵ\right)}{3r^3}+\mathrm{}`$, and $`S(r)=1+\frac{\gamma }{r}+\frac{3\delta }{2r^2}+\mathrm{}`$ after conversion from the isotropic metric above. Earlier works that considered similar second order extensions of PPN theory include Epstein and Shapiroepstein1 , Fischbach and Freemanfischbach1 , Richter and Matznermatzner1 , and Damour and Esposito-Faresedamour1 .

Our study has not progressed as far in the area of wave generation as in the area of spacetime geometry. The second order PPN wave generation parameters have not yet been generalized analytically. Therefore, for the purpose of computing the numerical results, the wave generation is assumed to be exactly identical in GR and the AGT tested in the numeric models. This is unlikely to be true, and errs on the side of making this AGT too close to GR. In the analytical calculations, the alternate wave generation variables are treated as totally free parameters (denoted WGn for wave generation of order n): this also is unrealistic, but it does allow for the parameterization of arbitrarily different ATGs.

In this paper, we consider only phase information, and do not consider amplitude information, wave shape information or any other possible observable source of information about the inspiralling system. This means that only one combination of spacetime parameters and wave generation parameters is constrained from the observable frequency results by our current analysis. The second-order PPN component of this constrained combination is the factor we wish to explicitly specify in terms of PPN parameters. Then we wish to analyze the constraints it is possible to place on this parameter combination from a possible future observation of a favorable binary inspiral by LISA. Strictly speaking, this constraint to the second-order parameters only applies if we assume two additional conditions: First that all lower order components are identical. Previous experimental constraints require this to be almost true for all viable theories. (Classical solar system first-order PPN tests constrain the first-order geometric parameters to be less than 1% different from GR. Binary pulsar spin down results require the leading order wave generation parameters to be near GR values. In the specific AGT we test later in the numerical model section of this paper, the first condition is exactly true. The second condition is that parameters of order higher than 2 are either also identical, or are too small to affect the results. In general, this condition is open to question, and will be tested further in later work. In the highly simplified model we consider below, this second condition is also met.)

Expressed most generally, this constrainable combination of second order geometric and wave generation parameters is $`13725+2016WG22352\beta ^2+16762\gamma +10752\gamma ^22\beta \left(8381+23856\gamma \right)+19656\delta +19656ϵ`$. But if we assume that the AGT agrees with GR in all orders lower than 2, then we set $`\alpha =\beta =\gamma =1`$ and the constrained parameter combination reduces to $`2843+224WG2+2184\delta +2184ϵ`$. If we further replace the second-order wave generation parameter WG2 with its GR value of $`\frac{44711}{9072}`$ the constrained combination reduces to $`20123+25272\delta +25272ϵ`$. If we further replace $`\delta `$ and $`ϵ`$ first with their GR values $`\delta =1`$ and $`ϵ=1`$ and then replace these parameters with their values in the AGT we have chosen to test, (which are $`\delta =\frac{3}{2}`$ and $`ϵ=\frac{8}{9}`$) and then take the ratio, we find $`\frac{30421}{40249}`$. This is a difference of approximately 25%. The numeric results of our study indicate that this difference is detectable in the gravity wave frequency information from a binary inspiral of a type that LISA is reasonably likely to seeft1 .

The theory of gravitational waves is now well developed after intensive work in recent years. Of the several alternate methods that have been employed, we followed the pathway pioneered by Teukolskyteuk1 , Poissonpoisson3 , and Sasaki and Nakamurasn1 . This mathematical pathway now also incorporates much work done both earlier and later by other authors including Regge and Wheelerrw1 , Newman and Penrosenp1 , Priceprice1 , Bardeenbp1 , Pressteuk2 , Chandrasekharchandra , and Tagoshi and Sasakits1 ; s1 . We followed this chain of papers, and tried to generalize the results by replacing GR formulas with their PPN equivalents. This plan has not yet been fully completed: to date, only certain of the formulas have been generalized. We are thus able to proceed only part of the way analytically, after which we must switch to an at least partly numeric approach. As indicated above, where the generalization is not yet available, we proceed in two ways: First, by adding an unknown parameter, and second, by using the equivalent GR formula or result unchanged. The major area where this has been necessary has been in the wave generation formula, where we use the WGn parameters described above. These parameters can be replaced by PPN-based formulas when they become available, and replaced by the GR values for numerical work. In the outline below we use mainly the terminology of Teukolskyteuk1 , hereafter Teukolsky1973, Poissonpoisson4  hereafter Poisson1995,and then switch over to Finn and Thorneft1  hereafter FinnThorne2000 for the last two functions which are the focus of the numerical work.

Briefly, the major steps in the above pathway are to characterize the geometry by dE/df, the rate of change in energy with respect to change in frequency (which is a nonlinear but observable fiduciary for radius). The wave generation process is characterized by the change in energy emitted as a function of time, dE/dt. Having these two factors allows one to compute the observable change in frequency with time, df/dt. (This relationship illustrates why it is impossible to disentangle geometry and wave generation without observing or measuring the development over time of at least one further parameter in addition to frequency). It is also necessary to determine the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO). By integrations one can compute the number of orbits to plunge N and the time to plunge T. In the GR case, the lowest order functions can be computed from the linearized theory and include the well known quadrupole formula. The higher order corrections are expressed as a Taylor series in mass over radius or velocity over c, which are directly related for circular orbits. The energy frequency function, dE/df is a function of geometry and is known exactly in both the Kerr and Schwarzschild cases, as is the ISCO, so the relevant series can be expanded as far as necessary. It has also been possible to obtain similar expansions in the generalized case. (The exact results can be expressed as an integrals, or as solutions to fairly simple differential equations.) The formulas to second PPN order, are given in Equations (1) and (2). Equation (1) is the generalised result of this study. Equation (2) is the GR result, taken from Poisson1995, equation (44). When the PPN parameters are all set to their GR values of 1, Equation (1) reduces to Equation (2).

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{df}}`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{9+10\beta 10\gamma }{6r}}`$ (1)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{729+284\beta ^2684\gamma 184\gamma ^2+4\beta \left(171+326\gamma \right)702\delta 702ϵ}{72r^2}}`$
$$\frac{dE}{df}=1\frac{3}{2r}\frac{81}{8r^2}$$
(2)
The wave generation function is not known in general, even in GR, but for the case of a small body orbiting a large body, or other small perturbation, the Teukolsky equation can be used. It is converted to a Regge-Wheeler equation via the Chandrasekhar transform. A further transform converts the Regge-Wheeler equation to the Sasaki-Nakamura equation. (Alternately, this can be done in a single step via a generalized Chandrasekhar transform.) This equation is then solved by a form of Taylor series expansion . This is difficult, but results to quite high orders are now available in GR. We have been able to obtain an exact equation similar to the Teukolsky radial equation in terms of an arbitrary spherical metric for the generalized spherical case we are considering. We obtain this equation by exactly the same Newman-Penrose process used by Teukolsky, except we use a generalized null tetrad. The null tetrad we use reduces to the null tetrad used by Teukolsky when the specific standard Schwarzschild coordinate functions are substituted for the generalized functions used here. The decoupled but not separated equation that results for the non-rotating case is analogous to Equation (4.7) of Teukolsky1973. The separated radial equation for the spherical non-rotating case is displayed in Equations (3) and (4). This equation is the analog of Equation (4.9) of Teukolsky1973 which is displayed in Equation (5) with the specific angular momentum parameter(a) set to zero to reduce to the spherical case we consider, and the coupling constant $`\lambda `$ also omitted for simplicity.

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`(r^4S(r)T(r)^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^2R}{dr^2}}`$ (3)
$`+r^3T(r)\left(3rT(r)S^{}(r)+S(r)\left(2T(r)+rT^{}(r)\right)\right){\displaystyle \frac{dR}{dr}}`$
$`+\left(KK(r)\right)R`$
where

$`KK(r)`$ $`=`$ $`S(r)^3\left(r^4w^26MrT(r)^2\right)+4ir^3wS(r)^2\left(T(r)+rT^{}(r)\right)`$ (4)
$`+r^3T(r)^2\left(S^{}(r)+2rS^{\prime \prime }(r)\right)`$
$`+r^3S(r)\left(4rT^{}(r)^2+T(r)\left(5T^{}(r)+2rT^{\prime \prime }(r)\right)\right)`$
$$r\left(2M+r\right)\frac{d^2R}{dr^2}+2\left(Mr\right)\frac{dR}{dr}+\frac{12iMr\omega +r^2\omega \left(4ir\omega \right)}{2Mr}R=0$$
(5)
Note that we here use the second gauge mentioned above, and that the coefficients have not yet been expanded into Taylor series. The separation method in the generalized non-rotating case is exactly the same as in the Kerr case solved by Teukolsky, and the separated angular equation that results in the generalised non-rotating case is exactly identical to the separated angular equation obtained by Teukolsky in the Kerr case (Equation (4.10) of Teukolsky1973).

The rest of the analytic calculation for N the number of orbits to plunge and T the time to plunge proceeds by integrations of Taylor series, and is exact to the accuracy of the series in both the GR case and the generalized case. (At this point we switch to following the formulas and the notation in FinnThorne2000) This is as far as we proceeded using the unknown parameter approach for the wave generation function dE/dt. In the remainder of this study we used the exact GR result, taken from Poisson1995 Equation (41), displayed here as Equation (6).

$$\frac{dE}{dt}=1\frac{1247}{336r}+\frac{4\pi }{r^{\frac{3}{2}}}\frac{44711}{9072r^2}$$
(6)
In doing a numeric study, it is also necessary to choose one (or more) specific AGT. We chose the exponential metric $`ds^2=\frac{dt^2}{e^{\frac{2M}{r}}}+e^{\frac{2M}{r}}\left(dr^2+d\mathrm{\Omega }^2r^2\right)`$, which is part of several theories and has been studied by many authors, including Yilmazyilmaz1 ; yilmaz2 , Rosenrosen1 , Kaniel and Itinkaniel1 ; itin1 , Muench, Gronwald and Hehlhehl1 , Watt and Misnermisner1 , and Leiter and Robertsonlr1 . We also used the specific numeric values appropriate for the AGT exponential metric or for the Schwarzschild metric or for the Kerr metric to replace the generalized PPN parameters used earlier. (The exponential metric theories agree with GR exactly at first PPN order, and differ by 10 to 30% in the second order PPN parameters.) Thus we ended up with three sets of two equations: one set for each of the three metrics, with each set including an equation for T, time to plunge, and N, number of orbits to plunge. Using these analytic functions with numerical coefficients, we numerically build and compare three inspiral models, called ALT, KERR, and SCHW. Based on the favorable possibilities for LISA (the proposed orbiting gravitational wave observatory) discussed in FinnThorne2000, where many cases result in over 10,000 orbits being observable and favorable cases result in over 100,000 orbits being observable, we chose to make our models have 10,000 orbits from the beginning to the end of the observed inspiral. The three models are displayed in Table 1.

To test whether gravitational wave frequency (phase) information will allow us to distinguish these two alternate theories, (GR and the exponential metric theory), we try to match them as closely as possible. First, an arbitrary ALT model was computed. Since we could vary the angular momentum in the Kerr model to fit the ALT model, but not vice-versa, we froze the ALT model first. Then, the closest possible Schwarzschild solution model(SCHW) and the closest possible Kerr solution model (KERR)were fitted to the resulting gravitational wave frequency (or phase) pattern from the ALT model. (Many different SCHW and KERR models were computed to find the closest possible one.) The final SCHW model has the same number of cycles as the ALT model and is fitted to match the frequency pattern of the ALT model exactly at the beginning and the end of the observed inspiral. The SCHW model was fitted to match the ALT model by adjusting the mass of the Schwarzschild black hole. The resulting fitted mass of the central body in the SCHW model is 1.041 times the mass of the central body in the ALT model. The KERR model was fitted to the alternate model by adjusting both the mass and the angular momentum of the Kerr black hole. The KERR model was was fitted to match the ALT model exactly at three points: the beginning and the end of the observed inspiral, and at one intermediate point (3000 orbits). It fits the non-rotating ALT pattern much more closely than does the Schwarzschild model. The final KERR model central body has a mass 1.012 times the mass of the ALT model central body and a specific angular momentum of .063 per unit mass. The resulting matches and mismatches are displayed in Table 1. The closest possible Schwarzschild match differed from the ALT model by almost ten full orbits. This is easily detectable. The closest Kerr model differed from the ALT model by slightly more than one quarter orbit. This is marginally detectable. This model supports the possibility of constraining a second-order combination of PPN parameters at the 10 to 30% level from only 10,000 orbits. More extensive calculations using up to 100,000 orbits support the possibility of constraints substantially below the 10% level.

It is too early to reach conclusions, but one conclusion toward which the preliminary results of this study point is that it may be possible to constrain a single combination of second-order PPN parameters at the 10 to 30% level or better by gravitational wave frequency data. This is based on the assumption that a favorable case will be observed by LISA, the proposed orbiting gravitational wave observatory.


format: text

text:
# Immirzi parameter in the Barrett-Crane model?

## I Introduction

Spin foam models are an attempt to quantize general relativity in a covariant way. They can be seen as a theory of evolving spin networks . The most sucessful model is the Barrett-Crane model  in Euclidian general relativity, which has shown to have some very interesting finiteness properties . There is also a similar model in Lorentzian general relativity . They are based on the simple representations of the symmetry algebra $`so(4)`$ and of $`so(3,1)`$. There are two ways of deriving the Barrett-Crane model as a theory of gravity (or quantum geometry). First, there is a geometrical method, which relies on a simplicial triangulation of the space-time 4-manifold and uses the isomorphism between the set of bivectors and the rotation Lie algebra ($`so(4)`$ or $`so(3,1)`$) to associate to each triangle of the decomposition a (simple) representation . Then, there is the approach by discretisation of a constrained BF theory . The constraint restricts us to the use of simple representations again.

Recently, a generalised constrained action has been proposed by Capovilla, Montesinos, Prieto and Rojas  in order to introduce an Immirzi parameter as in the canonical approach (loop quantum gravity) . It seemed, as suggested in , that discretising that new BF action would lead us to introduce non-simple representations in spin foam models. Then, checking if those models be consistent or not, it could lead to some constraints on the possible values of the Immirzi parameter, or else we would have an arbitrary parameter in spin foam models as in loop quantum gravity.

Here, I will show that one might, instead, reconsider the way the bivector $`B`$ field is associated to generators of the symmetry algebra. Instead of associating it as usual with the canonical generators of $`so(4)`$ (or $`so(3,1)`$), we are lead to make a change of basis which allow us to keep the simple representations. I then argue that this could have been seen directly by a change of variables on the initial action. The Immirzi parameter then doesn’t have any effect on the representations used in the spin foam model, so that we are still studying the same Barrett-Crane model. I conclude with a calculation of the area spectrum, by trying to apply canonical methods to the BF action, and show how the Immirzi parameter can still introduce a factor between the area and the non-zero Casimir operator of $`so(4)`$ in the Euclidian case or $`so(3,1)`$ in the Lorentzian case.

## II Euclidian BF theory with Immirzi parameter

I start by recalling the action proposed in  for the constrained BF theory for Euclidian general relativity:

$$S=B^{IJ}F_{IJ}\frac{1}{2}\varphi _{IJKL}B^{IJ}B^{KL}+\mu H$$
(1)
where $`H=a_1\varphi _{IJ}^{IJ}+a_2\varphi _{IJKL}ϵ^{IJKL}`$. $`\varphi `$ and $`\mu `$ are Lagrange multipliers and $`\varphi `$ has the symmetries $`\varphi _{IJKL}=\varphi _{JIKL}=\varphi _{IJLK}=\varphi _{KLIJ}`$. $`I,J,K,L`$ are internal indices. The $``$ product is defined on the space-time indices and the $``$ operator acts on internal indices: $`B_{IJ}=1/2ϵ_{IJKL}B^{KL}`$ and $`^2=1`$.

The same action can also be used for Lorentzian general relativity with the same definitions. The difference is that $`^2=1`$ in the Lorentzian case, so that all the equations will be the same up to a sign.

The constraints on the field B are then:

$$B^{IJ}B^{KL}=\frac{1}{6}(B^{MN}B_{MN})\eta ^{[I|K|}\eta ^{J]L}+\frac{1}{12}(B^{MN}B_{MN})ϵ^{IJKL}$$
(2)
$$2a_2B^{IJ}B_{IJ}a_1B^{IJ}B_{IJ}=0$$
(3)
Solving these constraints for the field B , we get:

$$B^{IJ}=\alpha (e^Ie^J)+\beta e^Ie^J$$
(4)
where

$$\frac{a_2}{a_1}=\frac{\alpha ^2+\beta ^2}{4\alpha \beta }$$
(5)
Replacing this expression in the original action, we get an action where the general relativity action is coupled to the “trivial” sector:

$$S=\alpha (e^Ie^J)F_{IJ}+\beta e^Ie^JF_{IJ}$$
(6)
Let’s note that the equations of motion ignore the “trivial” part and still gives the Einstein equations.

We can have a look at the particular cases for which we take only one of the two terms in the constraint $`H`$. For $`a_2=0`$, we get $`\alpha =\beta =0`$, it is a “empty” theory. In fact, only degenerate tetrads are going to contribute to the action. For $`a_1=0`$, we have $`\alpha =0`$ or $`\beta =0`$, which means that we have two distinct sectors of solutions: the general relativity one $`(ee)`$ and the “trivial” one $`ee`$. More precisely, we have four sectors : $`\alpha =\pm 1,\beta =0`$ and $`\alpha =0,\beta =\pm 1`$.

Following , the Immirzi parameter is $`\gamma =\alpha /\beta `$. The equation relating $`a_1,a_2`$ and $`\gamma `$ is:

$$\frac{a_2}{a_1}=\frac{1}{4}\left(\gamma +\frac{1}{\gamma }\right)$$
(7)
There are two solutions to this equation, inverse of each other. We have two sectors in our theory with Immirzi parameter $`\gamma `$ or $`1/\gamma `$: there is a symmetry exchanging $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. I will call that symmetry the $``$-symmetry since the resulting $`B`$ field get changed into its image by the Hodge operator $``$ under the exchange of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$.

To introduce these modifications into the spin foam, we rewrite (3) in an equivalent form:

$$2a_2\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{IJKL}B_{ab}^{IJ}B^{KLab}a_1B_{ab}^{IJ}B_{IJ}^{ab}=0$$
(8)
Indeed, we can get to (8) from (3) by changing the role of the internal indices and space-time indices. What makes the two equations equivalent is that they have the same set of solutions, given by (4) (see in appendix for more details) We could also deal directly with the condition (3) as shown by Reisenberger  and by De Pietri and Freidel  in the case $`a_1=0`$, and it would lead to (a modification of) the Reisenberger spin foam model, which is a different model than the Barrett-Crane one.

Then, we can translate the above constraint on the field B into a constraint on the two Casimirs of $`so(4)`$, using the equivalence between this field and the generators of the $`so(4)su(2)_Lsu(2)_R`$ algebra discussed in the framework of spin foam models . More precisely, replacing $`B_{ab}^{IJ}`$ by the canonical generators $`J^{IJ}`$ of $`so(4)`$, we get:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}B_{ab}^{IJ}B_{IJ}^{ab}& & J^{IJ}J_{IJ}=2((J^{01})^2+\mathrm{})=2C_1\\ \frac{1}{2}ϵ_{IJKL}B_{ab}^{IJ}B^{KLab}& & \frac{1}{2}ϵ_{IJKL}J^{IJ}J^{KL}=4(J^{01}J^{23}+\mathrm{})=2C_2\end{array}$$
(9)
Using the above correspondence, we get to a modified simplicity constraint:

$$2a_2C_2a_1C_1=0$$
(10)
or equivalently:

$$2\alpha \beta C_1=(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)C_2$$

Then we could conclude as stated in  that we should use non-simple representations in our spin foam model. This conclusion is problematic in the Euclidian case where $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ are discrete. More precisely, in the Euclidian case we are studying, an equation $`xC_1=yC_2`$ has an infinite number of solutions only in 3 cases. If $`x=y`$, we get the representations of $`su(2)_L`$ ($`j^{}=0`$). If $`x=y`$, we use the representations of $`su(2)_R`$. And finally $`x=0`$ gives us the simple representations of $`so(4)`$. In the other cases, we have in general no solutions, or sometimes only one solution (one representation $`(j^+,j^{})`$), which would give quite an ill-defined spin foam model.

Apart from those problems, it is hard to understand why we should give up the “simple representations” which are understood to be the simplest and most natural representations of $`so(N)`$ .

In the next section, I describe an alternative: we can identify the $`B`$ field to some generators of the $`so(4)`$ algebras in such a way to that we keep the simple representations. This correspondence is at the heart of the “spin foam quantization” because it is through it that we translate the simplicity (and intersection) constraint to the quantum level.

## III Modifying the correspondence $`BJ`$

We could directly replace $`B^{IJ}`$ by the canonical generator $`J^{IJ}`$ of $`so(4)`$. This would give us the mixed simplicity condition (10). On the other hand, looking at (4), we can associate the following generators to the field $`B`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{J}^{IJ}=\alpha J^{IJ}+\beta J^{IJ}$$
(11)
This is simply a change of basis. It is still the same algebra $`so(4)`$ we are dealing with, in the same chosen representation we would be studying. I will call a choice of basis “consistent” (with the Barrett-Crane simplicity constraint) if it is a change of basis which leads to the simple representations after translating the simplicity constraint (8) to the Lie algebra generators. (11) is a consistent choice as I show below. It corresponds to associating $`J^{IJ}`$ to $`(e^Ie^J)`$ (or to $`e^Ie^J`$) instead of associating it directly to the bivector field $`B^{IJ}`$.

There are other consistent choices of $`\stackrel{~}{J}^{IJ}`$. First, we can exchange $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ in the above formula. This doesn’t seem to affect anything in the theory. We could also rotate (by an $`so(4)`$ rotation) $`\stackrel{~}{J}^{IJ}`$. This wouldn’t change the Casimir, so it wouldn’t affect the discussion below. And also, we could rescale $`\stackrel{~}{J}^{IJ}`$ by a factor $`\lambda `$, this corresponds to a rescaling of the frame field $`e_a^I`$. It rescales the Casimirs by a factor $`\lambda ^2`$ and doesn’t seem to affect any result, except maybe the spectrum of the area as shown in section VII. There are also other changes of basis which don’t affect any of the following result like changing the signs of the generators $`J^{0i}`$. but, we aren’t going to study these here.

Taking a non-consistent choice of basis would lead to a mixed simplicity condition $`xC_1=yC_2`$ which doesn’t give any self-consistent spin foam model in general. Moreover the choice (11) is natural as we replace the geometrical meaningful $`(e^Ie^J)`$ (general relativity sector) by the canonical generators $`J^{IJ}`$.

The Casimir corresponding to $`B^{IJ}B_{IJ}`$ is then

$$\stackrel{~}{C}_2=\frac{1}{4}ϵ_{IJKL}\stackrel{~}{J}^{IJ}\stackrel{~}{J}^{KL}=2\alpha \beta C_1+(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)C_2$$
(12)
where $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ are the usual Casimirs associated to the generators $`J^{IJ}`$:

$$C_1=\frac{1}{2}\left((J_i^+)^2+(J_i^{})^2\right)=\left(j^+(j^++1)+j^{}(j^{}+1)\right)$$

$$C_2=\frac{1}{2}\left((J_i^+)^2(J_i^{})^2\right)=\left(j^+(j^++1)j^{}(j^{}+1)\right)$$

Also the Casimir associated to $`B^{IJ}B_{IJ}`$ becomes

$$\stackrel{~}{C}_1=\stackrel{~}{J}^{IJ}\stackrel{~}{J}_{IJ}=(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)C_1+2\alpha \beta C_2$$
(13)
Now writing the simplicity condition (3), we get the equation:

$$2\alpha \beta \stackrel{~}{C}_1=(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)\stackrel{~}{C}_2(\alpha ^2\beta ^2)^2C_2=0$$
(14)
And in the case $`\alpha ^2\beta ^2`$ ($`\gamma ^21`$), we find back the usual simplicity condition $`C_2=0`$ and the simple representations given by $`j^+=j^{}`$. And the whole modification of the inital action is absorbed by a suitable redefinition of the correspondence between the field $`B`$ and the generators of the Lie algebra. In the degenerate case $`\gamma =\pm 1`$ (Barbero’s choice for canonical gravity), we have to see whether we want to impose directly by hand the condition $`C_2=0`$ or maybe impose something else as discussed in section V. The degeneracy comes from the fact that the $``$-symmetry $`(\alpha ,\beta )(\beta ,\alpha )`$ is exactly realised when $`\alpha =\beta `$.

We can interpret the Casimir $`C_1`$ of a representation as the squared area associated to it. A more rigourous proof of this is done in section VII through a canonical treatment. But here, in our covariant framework, there is no reason to introduce an Immirzi parameter in the definition of the area (we can rescale it as wished) and we can define it in terms of Casimirs $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$:

$$𝒜^2=C_1=\frac{1}{(\alpha ^2\beta ^2)^2}\left((\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)\stackrel{~}{C}_12\alpha \beta \stackrel{~}{C}_2\right)$$
(15)
This definition allows us to relate the area with the correlation of the $`B`$ field that we could calculate using the spin foam model. It could be interesting to check whether calculating those correlations directly (as in ) would yield the same result as above (the Casimir). In fact, the two results are likely to be different. Already in two dimensions and three dimensions (Euclidian), calculating the length associated to a edge labelled by a $`su(2)`$ representation $`j`$ as a correlation of the discretised BF theory gives us $`j+1/2`$ instead of the expected $`\sqrt{j(j+1)}`$ .

Let’s point out that in the Euclidian case, we could think to simply associate the self-dual part of the B field with the self-dual generators and the same for the anti-self dual part. That works up to a normalisation. More precisely,

$$B=\alpha E+\beta EB=B_++B_{}\text{ with }\{\begin{array}{ccc}B_+& =& \frac{\alpha +\beta }{2}(E+E)\\ B_{}& =& \frac{\alpha \beta }{2}(EE)\end{array}$$

The condition (8) then writes $`(\alpha \beta )^2(B_+)^2=(\alpha +\beta )^2(B_{})^2`$. And we realise that we must normalise a correspondence $`B_\pm J_\pm `$ by the factors $`(\alpha \beta )`$ and $`(\alpha +\beta )`$. This causes some problem when $`\alpha =\pm \beta `$ as in the beginning of the section. However, when $`\alpha \pm \beta `$, we find directly the condition $`(J_+)^2=(J_{})^2`$ which is the simplicity condition $`C_2=0`$.

## IV Link with the geometrical picture

The geometrical picture consists of a simplicial triangulation of the 4-manifold (into 4-simplices). We then associate to each triangle (2-simplex) a bivector $`B`$. The Barrett-Crane model  associates to a triangle defined by its edges $`e,f,g`$ the bivector $`B=ef=fg=ge`$. This is a simple bivector. This can be linked up to a discretisation of the constrained BF action for $`a_1=0`$. In the mixed case, the $`B`$ field is not simple anymore, it satisfies the relation (3) and is given by the equation (4). Discretising it, we can translate the constraint (3) by a constraint on the bivector $`B`$:

$$2\alpha \beta BB=(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)BB$$
(16)
This leads to the solution

$$B=\alpha E+\beta E$$
(17)
where $`E`$ is a simple bivector ($`E`$ is then also a simple bivector). This solution corresponds to a discretisation of the classical solution (4).

For two triangles which share an edge, we must impose an intersection constraint stating that $`B=B_1+B_2`$ should still be of the mixed simple form (17). It is easy to check that the corresponding condition can be written:

$$2\alpha \beta B_1B_2=(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)B_1B_2$$
(18)
and that in that case, the simple bivector $`E`$ associated to $`B`$ is simply $`E_1+E_2`$. This shows us that although we have modified the field (or bivector) $`B`$, everything is still working as if we were using simple bivectors (the field or bivector $`E=(\alpha B\beta B)/(\alpha ^2\beta ^2)`$). The simple bivectors (and therefore simple representations) give the whole structure of the theory. We can also see that directly on the action (1) as shown in the following section.

## V From mixed variables to pure simple variables

Starting from the initial action (1), there is a change of variables which makes it obvious that the constraint on the field B is still the pure simplicity constraint. We start by finding $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ verifying (5) for some coefficient $`\lambda `$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}a_1=& \lambda (4\alpha \beta )\\ a_2=& \lambda (\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)\end{array}$$

Then, we can do the change of variables $`(B,\varphi )(E,\stackrel{~}{\varphi })`$:

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}B^{IJ}& =& \alpha E^{IJ}+\beta E^{IJ}\\ \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{IJKL}& =& (\alpha +\beta \frac{1}{2}ϵ_{IJ}^{AB})\varphi _{ABCD}(\alpha +\beta \frac{1}{2}ϵ_{KL}^{CD})\end{array}$$
(19)
This change of variables is well-defined and invertible only if $`\alpha ^2\beta ^2`$. This excludes three possibilities: $`a_2=0`$ and $`2a_2=\pm a_1`$ which we will discuss below. When the change is well-defined, the action (1) becomes:

$$S=\frac{1}{|\alpha ^2\beta ^2|^3}(\alpha E^{IJ}+\beta E^{IJ})F_{IJ}\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{IJKL}E^{IJ}E^{KL}+\mu \lambda ϵ^{IJKL}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{IJKL}$$
(20)
Looking at (20), we notice that the simplicity constraint on the bivector field $`E^{IJ}`$ is the pure simplicity constraint. This shows us how to get to the correspondence (11) which lead from the mixed simplicity condition to the pure simplicity condition.

The case $`a_2=0`$ leads to $`\alpha =\beta =0`$ and the set of solutions for the field $`B`$ contains only degenerate tetrads. The cases $`2a_2=\pm a_1`$ are more interesting. They correspond to the self-dual and the anti-self dual cases. As we have seen earlier, they do not lead directly to the simplicity constraint $`C_2=0`$ after the change of basis of the generators $`J^{IJ}`$ (11). So we have many possibilities. First, we could impose by hand the pure simplicity constraint and say the model is equivalent once more to the Barrett-Crane model (at an infinite coefficient). Or we could forget the change of basis. In fact, as it corresponds to the change of variables (19), it might be ill-defined. Keeping $`B^{IJ}J^{IJ}`$ where $`J^{IJ}`$ is the canonical basis, we get modified simplicity constraints: $`C_1=C_2`$ for $`2a_2=a_1`$ and $`C_1+C_2=0`$ for $`2a_2=a_1`$. The first case leads to $`j^{}=0`$ and the second to $`j^+=0`$. So we are reduced from $`so(4)`$ to $`su(2)_L`$ or to $`su(2)_R`$. What theory do we then get? If we want to build a spin foam model similar to the Barrett-Crane model in 4 dimensions but based on $`SU(2)_L`$ only (or $`SU(2)_R`$ only), we would naturally be lead to the $`\{15j\}`$ and to a topological theory corresponding to $`SU(2)`$ BF theory. However, it can not be the topological $`SU(2)`$ BF theory since although we are reduced to a $`su(2)`$ gauge symmetry, we still have the constraint that the $`B`$ field should be derived from a tetrad field, which is not implemented in the topological theory. More precisely, in the case we are reduced to the representations $`j^+`$ and therefore to the gauge group $`SU(2)_L`$, the $`SU(2)_R`$ degrees of freedom of the connection decouple and we can forget them. We then get the left-handed (self-dual) action for Euclidian gravity. There exist a corresponding spin foam model: it is the Reisenberger model for left-handed euclidian gravity . We derive it discretising the constraint (3) and not its equivalent form (8). But this equivalence works only when $`2a_2\pm a_1`$ (see appendix). So, perhaps, although the Reisenberger model is well-defined in both the full case  and the self-dual case , the Barrett-Crane approach is ill-defined in the self-dual case and need to be regularisd by a choice $`\alpha `$ slightly different than $`\pm \beta `$. It is important to understand what happens precisely for these degenerate cases correspond classically to the self-dual (and anti-self-dual) connection action which is usually used in the canonical treatment of Euclidian general relativity.

## VI Lorentzian case

In the Lorentzian case, starting from the same action (1), we can write the same equations as in the Euclidian case. We are lead to the same conclusion that the representations we should use are the simple ones. More precisely, there is a difference of sign in some equations due to $`^2=1`$ instead of $`^2=1`$. First, the equation defining $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ is:

$$\frac{a_2}{a_1}=\frac{\alpha ^2\beta ^2}{4\alpha \beta }$$
(21)
$`a_2=0`$ now corresonds to the case $`\alpha ^2=\beta ^2`$ while $`a_1=0`$ still corresponds to $`\alpha =0`$ or $`\beta =0`$. The $``$-symmetry is now $`(\alpha ,\beta )(\beta ,\alpha )`$ and $`\gamma 1/\gamma `$.

The simplicity constraint becomes:

$$2a_2B^{IJ}B_{IJ}+a_1B^{IJ}B_{IJ}=0$$
(22)
It is equivalent (same set of solutions) to the equation:

$$2a_2\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{IJKL}B_{ab}^{IJ}B^{KLab}a_1B_{ab}^{IJ}B_{IJ}^{ab}=0$$
(23)
which can be translated to the Lie algebras generators:

$$2a_2\stackrel{~}{C}_2a_1\stackrel{~}{C}_1=0(\alpha ^2\beta ^2)\stackrel{~}{C}_2=2\alpha \beta \stackrel{~}{C}_1$$
(24)
It is the same modified simplicity condition as in the Euclidian case expressed in terms of $`a_1,a_2`$. We modify a sign in the change of basis:

$$B^{IJ}\stackrel{~}{J}^{IJ}=\alpha J^{IJ}\beta J^{IJ}$$

The minus sign is normal since if we associate $`J^{IJ}`$ to $`(e^Ie^J)`$ then we must associate $`J^{IJ}`$ to $`e^Ie^J=((e^Ie^J))`$.

Then the modified Casimirs are:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{C}_1& =& (\alpha ^2\beta ^2)C_12\alpha \beta C_2\\ \stackrel{~}{C}_2& =& +2\alpha \beta C_1+(\alpha ^2\beta ^2)C_2\end{array}$$
(25)
The two Casimirs are , where $`j`$ is a positive half-integer bigger than 1 and $`\rho `$ a positive real number:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}C_1& =& j^2\rho ^21\\ C_2& =& 2j\rho \end{array}$$

The modified simplicity condition then reads $`(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)^2C_2=0`$. Since $`\alpha ^2+\beta ^20`$ in all real cases, we get to the pure simplicity condition $`C_2=0`$. We have two series of simple representations: a discrete series given by $`\rho =0`$ and a continuous series defined by $`j=0`$. We can note that the degenerate case $`\alpha ^2+\beta ^2=0`$ would be the Ashtekar choice of variables with $`\alpha =1`$, $`\beta =i`$ and $`\gamma =\pm i`$. This choice of $`\gamma `$ makes the $``$-symmetry obvious in the Lorentzian case. The Casimirs are then:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{C}_1& =& 2(C_1+iC_2)\\ \stackrel{~}{C}_2& =& 2i(C_1+iC_2)\end{array}$$

We can do the same change of variables as in the Euclidian case. In contrast with the Euclidian case, everything is always well-defined. More precisely, we need $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ such that

$$\begin{array}{cc}a_1=& \lambda (4\alpha \beta )\\ a_2=& \lambda (\alpha ^2\beta ^2)\end{array}$$

Then the change of variable (19) is invertible if $`\alpha ^2+\beta ^20`$, which is the case for any real $`a_1,a_2`$ coefficients. So we don’t have any ambiguous cases as in the Euclidian case. All the cases lead to the Lorentzian Barrett-Crane model.

## VII Calculation of the area spectrum for $`so(4)`$ and $`so(3,1)`$ spin networks

It is interesting to calculate the area spectrum of the theory to see if we find a factor corresponding to the Immirzi parameter as in the case of loop quantum gravity . We could calculate the the area expectation values from the spin foam action as in . However, I choose a more direct approach to compute the area spectrum for this constrained BF theory. I will use the same tools as when calculating the area spectrum in the canonical theory  and try to adapt it to use it on $`so(4)`$ and $`so(3,1)`$ spin networks. More precisely, I will follow the canonical approach as described in . Nevertheless, I will assume a natural quantification for the connections and their conjugate momenta, check whether it gives us consistent results and derive from it a Poisson bracket that one should be able to find directly from the action.

We study the action:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}S(A,e)& =& \alpha (e^Ie^J)F_{IJ}& +& \beta e^Ie^JF_{IJ}\\ & =& \alpha ϵ^{abcd}\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{IJKL}e_a^Ie_b^JF_{cd}^{KL}& +& \beta ϵ^{abcd}e_{aI}e_{bJ}F_{cd}^{IJ}\end{array}$$

The metric is given by $`g_{\mu \nu }=e_\mu ^Ie_{I\nu }`$.

We are working with a real $`so(4)`$ connection $`A`$, its strength field $`F`$ and a real tetrad $`e`$. The conjugate momentum of the variable $`A_c^{IJ}`$ is:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{IJ}^c=ϵ^{abc}(\alpha \frac{1}{2}ϵ_{IJKL}e_a^Ke_b^L+\beta e_{a[I}e_{bJ]})a,b,c=1,2,3$$

In a first calculation, we are going to ignore the (simplicity) constraints linking those conjugate momenta.

We are doing a hamiltonian treatment choosing $`a=0`$ as our time direction and $``$ parametrised by $`x_i,i=1,2,3`$ as our initial hypersurface. As we are interested by spin foams whose surfaces are labelled by $`so(4)`$ representations, we are going to study $`so(4)`$ spin networks. More precisely, the “observables” we consider are the holonomies of the connection $`A=A^{IJ}J_{IJ}`$ so that our spin networks are graphs imbedded in $``$ and labelled by principal unitary irreducible representations of $`so(4)`$. The possible representations are restricted by the (modified) simplicity condition discussed earlier.

We are considering infinitesimal 2\_surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with the coordinate system $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }=(\sigma ^1,\sigma ^2)`$ and we want to compute its area. We will only consider spin networks which intersect that surface just once and never at a node.

$`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is the conjugate momentum of the connection $`A`$. If we cheat and ignore the constraints, the corresponding operator acting on the spin networks is given by:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{IJ}^ai\mathrm{}\frac{\delta }{\delta A_a^{IJ}}\mathrm{}J_{IJ}$$
(26)
To get the area, we must integrate the induced 2\_metric on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. We introduce the following operator:

$$(\mathrm{\Sigma })=\sqrt{^{IJ}(\mathrm{\Sigma })_{IJ}(\mathrm{\Sigma })}$$

where

$$_{IJ}(\mathrm{\Sigma })=_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝑑\sigma ^1𝑑\sigma ^2ϵ_{abc}\frac{x^a(\stackrel{}{\sigma })}{\sigma ^1}\frac{x^b(\stackrel{}{\sigma })}{\sigma ^2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{IJ}^c$$

This operator is closely related to the area. To show this, let’s choose a special parametrisation of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Let’s choose $`x^3=0`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`x^{1,2}=\sigma ^{1,2}`$. Then the quantity $``$ becomes:

$$(\mathrm{\Sigma })=_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝑑\sigma ^1𝑑\sigma ^2\sqrt{ϵ_{abc}\frac{x^a(\stackrel{}{\sigma })}{\sigma ^1}\frac{x^b(\stackrel{}{\sigma })}{\sigma ^2}\mathrm{\Pi }^{cIJ}ϵ_{def}\frac{x^d(\stackrel{}{\sigma })}{\sigma ^1}\frac{x^e(\stackrel{}{\sigma })}{\sigma ^2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{IJ}^f}$$

$$(\mathrm{\Sigma })=_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝑑\sigma ^1𝑑\sigma ^2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Pi }^{3IJ}\mathrm{\Pi }_{IJ}^3}$$

Looking up at the definition of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and of $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, we get:

$$(\mathrm{\Sigma })=_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝑑\sigma ^1𝑑\sigma ^2\sqrt{(\beta ^2+\alpha ^2)(g_{11}g_{22}g_{12}g_{12})}=_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝑑\sigma ^1𝑑\sigma ^2\sqrt{(\beta ^2+\alpha ^2)\text{det}^2g_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}}$$
(27)
Promoting $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ to an operator and we get an operator $``$ acting on $`so(4)`$ spin networks and whose values are the area to a factor $`\sqrt{(\beta ^2+\alpha ^2)}`$. Replacing the variable $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ by the generators of the $`so(4)`$ algebra as in , we find that the eigenvalues of the operator $``$ are given by the square root of the Casimir $`C_1=J^{IJ}J_{IJ}`$ (without any extra sign) times $`\mathrm{}`$.

To sum up the results, we get that the squared area is given by:

$$𝒜^2=\frac{1}{\beta ^2+\alpha ^2}C_1$$
(28)
We could also decide to use the operator $`𝒞`$ defined as follows:

$$𝒞(\mathrm{\Sigma })=\sqrt{^{IJ}(\mathrm{\Sigma })_{IJ}(\mathrm{\Sigma })}$$

Following the same procedure as in the cas of the $``$ operator, we find:

$$𝒞(\mathrm{\Sigma })=_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝑑\sigma ^1𝑑\sigma ^2\sqrt{(2\alpha \beta )\text{det}^2g_{(\mathrm{\Sigma })}}$$
(29)
$$𝒜^2=\frac{1}{2\alpha \beta }C_2$$
(30)
So if we want the results to be consistent ($`𝒜^2=𝒜^2`$), we must impose:

$$2a_2C_2=a_1C_1$$

We see that assuming the canonical bracket between the field $`B`$ and the connection $`A`$, we find the simplicity condition. But we have showed earlier that this wasn’t the “right” condition: we need to use a new correspondence between $`B`$ and the Lie algebra, changing the Casimirs $`C_1,C_2`$ into the new Casimirs $`\stackrel{~}{C}_1,\stackrel{~}{C}_2`$. This means that we must change the assumed Poisson bracket between $`B`$ and $`A`$ so that:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{IJ}^ai\mathrm{}\left(\alpha \frac{\delta }{\delta A_a^{IJ}}+\beta \frac{\delta }{\delta A_a^{IJ}}\right)\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{J}_{IJ}$$
(31)
We then get the right simplicity condition

$$2a_2\stackrel{~}{C}_2=a_1\stackrel{~}{C}_1$$

and, as soon as this condition is fulfilled, the area is

$$𝒜^2=\frac{1}{\beta ^2+\alpha ^2}\stackrel{~}{C}_1=\frac{1}{2\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{C}_2=C_1$$
(32)
And we find no Immirzi parameter. Still, there were different consistent choices for $`\stackrel{~}{J}^{IJ}`$. First, we could exchange $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{IJ}^ai\mathrm{}\left(\beta \frac{\delta }{\delta A_a^{IJ}}+\alpha \frac{\delta }{\delta A_a^{IJ}}\right)$$
(33)
That doesn’t change anything. On another hand, we could rescale the relations (31) and (33) by a factor $`\lambda `$ and that would rescale the area (square) by a factor $`\lambda `$ (square).

More precisely, to make the link with the canonical formalism , we can chose $`\alpha =1`$, and then the Immirzi parameter is $`\gamma =1/\beta `$. Normalising (31) to have a first term $`\gamma \delta /\delta A_a^{IJ}`$, we need a factor $`\lambda =1/\beta =\gamma `$. Then in that case, we find the “usual” area spectrum:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{IJ}^ai\mathrm{}\left(\frac{1}{\beta }\frac{\delta }{\delta A_a^{IJ}}+\frac{\delta }{\delta A_a^{IJ}}\right)$$
(34)
$$𝒜^2=\frac{1}{\beta ^2}C_1=\gamma ^2C_1𝒜=\gamma \sqrt{C_1}=\gamma \sqrt{2j^+(j^++1)}$$
(35)
First, the choice (34) is consistent with the (classical) simplicity constraint (3) (replacing $`B`$ by $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$) as soon as we choose the simple representations $`C_2=0`$ in the holonomies which are the state space of our quantum theory. It works because the simple representations automatically verify $`2\alpha \beta \stackrel{~}{C}_1=(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)\stackrel{~}{C}_2`$ which is the direct translation of the constraint (3) once we have chosen the quantization (34).

Then, we have

$$[A_a^{IJ},\mathrm{\Pi }_{KL}^b]=i\mathrm{}\delta _a^b(\gamma \delta _{KL}^{IJ}+\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{IJ}{}_{KL}{}^{})$$
(36)
Let’s introduce another field $`E`$:

$$E_{IJ}^c=ϵ^{abc}\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{IJKL}e_a^Ke_b^L$$
(37)
Then we have the following commutation relation

$$[A_a^{IJ},E_{KL}^b]=i\mathrm{}\gamma \delta _a^b\delta _{KL}^{IJ}$$
(38)
This commutator corresponds to a classical Poisson bracket

$$\{A_a^{IJ}(x),E_{KL}^b(y)\}=\gamma \delta _a^b\delta _{KL}^{IJ}\delta (xy)$$
(39)
This is to be compared with the Poisson bracket of the canonical approach (loop quantum gravity) which leads directly to a factor $`\gamma `$ in the spectrum of the area :

$$\{A_a^i(x)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^i+\gamma K_a^i,E_j^b(y)\}=\gamma \delta _j^i\delta _a^b\delta (xy)$$
(40)
The two expressions share the same factor $`\gamma `$. What we have done is transfer the transformation done on the spin-connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to a transformation on the tetrads. This is why, in a way, (34) seems to be a natural choice of operator for $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{IJ}^a`$. Nevertheless, the Immirzi parameter is here introduced in the area spectrum in an artificial way by a normalisation. Thus, it would be interesting to derive the Poisson bracket (39) from a direct treatment of the simplicity constraint at the classical level through a study of the corresponding second-class constraints in order to understand the choice of quantization for the $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ field.

The Lorentzian case works mostly the same way as the Euclidian case. We choose:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{IJ}^ai\mathrm{}\left(\alpha \frac{\delta }{\delta A_a^{IJ}}\beta \frac{\delta }{\delta A_a^{IJ}}\right)\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{J}_{IJ}$$
(41)
Then, we get:

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}^2& =& (\beta ^2\alpha ^2)𝒜^2\\ 𝒞^2& =& 2\alpha \beta 𝒜^2\end{array}2a_2\stackrel{~}{C}_2a_1\stackrel{~}{C}_1=0$$

We can take $`\alpha =1`$ and normalise (41) by $`\gamma =1/\beta `$. Then we get the same factor $`\gamma `$ for the area spectrum as in the Euclidian case:

$$𝒜=\gamma \sqrt{C_1}=\gamma \sqrt{j^21}\text{ or }i\gamma \sqrt{\rho ^2+1}$$
(42)
This spectrum raises the question of how to interpret the imaginary eigenvalues of the area. Should they be interpreted as time-like components or should they be ignored? Or does it tell us we can’t build the area that way since it isn’t a hermitian operator?

To conclude, the Immirzi parameter doesn’t change the representations used in the spin foam model, so it doesn’t affect the geometry of the space-time. There is also no reason to introduce it in a area spectrum in the covariant framework since the simplicity constraint is independent of rescaling. Nevertheless, in a canonical framework, the choice of quantization (34) leads to the same factor equal to the Immirzi parameter in the spectrum of the area as in loop quantum gravity. We should check if the choice (34) and the resulting Poisson bracket (39) can be recovered by perfoming a hamiltonian treatment directly on the classical BF action. To understand what happens, we should also investigate in more details the link between the spin foam quantization (through the Barrett-Crane procedure or the discretisation of BF theory) and the canonical approach (loop quantum gravity). We could then possibly apply the same procedure to higher-dimensional constrained BF theory as proposed in  in order to quantize $`D4`$ theories of gravity without breaking explicitely the Lorentz invariance.

## acknowledgments

I am especially grateful to Daniele Oriti for many useful discussions. I am also thankful to Lee Smolin, Carlo Rovelli and Alejandro Perez for their useful comments and suggestions.

## Equivalence of the simplicity conditions

We would like to prove the equivalence of the two simplicity conditions (3) and (8). We are going to follow the proof given in  for the case $`a_1=0`$ and we will restrict ourselves to the Euclidian case. This proof can be adapted to the Lorentzian case provided we change some signs (due to $`^2=1`$).

First, we define:

$$e=\frac{1}{4!}ϵ_{IJKL}B^{IJ}B^{KL}$$
(43)
Then supposing $`a_2=0`$, the constraints (2) and (3) on the $`B`$ field can be written as:

$$ϵ^{abcd}B_{ab}^{IJ}B_{cd}^{KL}=e\left(ϵ^{IJKL}+\frac{a_1}{a_2}\eta ^{[IK}\eta ^{J]L}\right)=e\mathrm{\Omega }^{IJKL}$$
(44)
By raising and lowering indices, we can rewrite (44) under a more convenient form in which we consider all the variables as $`6\times 6`$ matrices (on the antisymmetric couples $`[IJ]`$):

$$B_{IJ}^{ab}ϵ_{ab}^{cd}B_{cd}^{KL}=e\mathrm{\Omega }_{IJ}^{KL}$$
(45)
Then $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{IJ}^{KL}`$ is invertible when

$$\left(\frac{a_1}{2a_2}\right)^21$$

In that case, assuming that $`e0`$ (the B field is non-degenerate), we can define

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{IJ}^{ab}=\frac{1}{e}ϵ^{abcd}\frac{2}{\left(\frac{a_1}{a_2}\right)^24}\left(ϵ_{IJKL}+\frac{a_1}{2a_2}\eta _{[IK}\eta _{J]L}\right)B_{cd}^{KL}$$
(46)
and rewrite (45) under the simple form:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{IJ}^{cd}B_{cd}^{KL}=\delta _{IJ}^{KL}$$
(47)
(47) means that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{IJ}^{cd}`$ and $`B_{cd}^{KL}`$ are invertible and inverse of each other. This means that (47) is equivalent to:

$$B_{cd}^{IJ}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{IJ}^{ab}=\delta _{cd}^{ab}$$
(48)
After writing explicitely this new equation and passing the tensor $`ϵ^{abcd}`$ from the LHS to the RHS, we find:

$$2\left(ϵ_{IJMN}+\frac{a_1}{2a_2}\eta _{[IM}\eta _{J]N}\right)B_{cd}^{MN}B_{ab}^{IJ}=ϵ_{abcd}e\left(\left(\frac{a_1}{a_2}\right)^24\right)$$
(49)
and we recover the simplicity condition (8) in the case $`(ab)=(cd)`$.

Let’s note that in the Lorentzian case, the condition on $`a_1,a_2`$ reads

$$\left(\frac{a_1}{2a_2}\right)^21$$

and is automatically satisfied if we keep real variables.


text:
# Null Singularities in Colliding Waves

## Abstract

Colliding Einstein - Maxwell - Scalar fields need not necessarily doomed to become in a spacelike singularity. Examples are given in which null singularities emerge as intermediate stages between a spacelike singularity and a regular horizon.

Coupling scalar fields to a static charged black hole (BH)  (with the respective Reissner-Nordstrom (RN) and Newman-Janis-Winicour (NJW) limits) converts its horizons into null singularities is a known fact. This fact was rediscovered recently in a related context involving the perturbation of a charged BH by ingoing pulses of scalar fields . It has been shown that the inner horizon of a RN BH is unstable against such perturbations and transforms it into a null singularity. This is an interesting development since it would mean that a BH upon being slightly perturbed will not find it so simple to act as a gateway to ’other worlds’ . With this example in mind and the similarity in the dynamics of collapse of a scalar field and colliding Einstein-Maxwell-Scalar (EMS) fields motivates us to explore analogous singularities in EMS fields. Ori has already discussed null singularities in plane symmetric spacetimes . This must be important because as Tipler  has shown the tidal distortion experienced by an infalling object is small as it hits such a singularity.
In this Letter we consider two concrete cases in the field of colliding plane waves (CPW). Our first case is the collision of two electromagnetic (em) shock waves, known as the Bell-Szekeres (BS)  solution that yields a quasiregular ’singularity’ ( this we consider equivalent to a horizon). In our second example we consider the horizon forming CPW found by Chandrasekhar and Xanthopoulos (CX)  which is isometric to the region in between the horizons of the Kerr-Newman BH. We show that by choosing appropriate scalar fields both the quasiregular ’singularity’ of the BS spacetime and the horizon of the CX metric transform into null singularities.
Our first line element is the linearly polarized metric

$$ds^2=\mathrm{\Delta }^{1A}Z^2\left(\frac{d\tau ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{d\sigma ^2}{\delta }\delta dx^2\right)\mathrm{\Delta }^AZ^2dy^2$$
(1)
where the notation goes as

$`\tau +\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`2u\sqrt{1v^2}`$
$`\tau \sigma `$ $`=`$ $`2v\sqrt{1u^2}`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`1\tau ^2`$
$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`1\sigma ^2`$
$`2Z`$ $`=`$ $`a(1+\tau )^A+b(1\tau )^A`$ (2)
in which $`(a,b)`$ and $`A`$ are constants and $`(u,v)`$ are the null coordinates. We choose $`0<A<1`$ to represent the scalar charge while $`(a,b)`$ stand for the em parameters. The scalar field is

$$\varphi (\tau )=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1A^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1+\tau }{1\tau }$$
(3)
which implies that for $`A=0`$ there would be a background scalar field already and the singularity is spacelike. As we increase $`A`$ toward unity the scalar field diminishes and the singularity of the spacetime transforms to the removable quasiregular ’singularity’. The singularity at $`\tau =1`$, however, becomes null for $`0<A<1`$. Since the null coordinates $`(u,v)`$ are to be multiplied by the step functions $`\theta (u)`$ and $`\theta (v)`$ apt for the collision problem the $`u`$\- dependent incoming pulse energy density is

$`4\pi T_{uu}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{22}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta (u)}{4Z^2(1u^2)^2}}\{(1A^2)[b^2(1u)^{2A}+a^2(1+u)^{2A}]`$ (4)
$`+2ab(1+A^2)(1u^2)^A\}`$
where $`2Z=a(1+u)^A+b(1u)^A`$. For $`A=1`$ (and $`a=b`$ ) this metric reduces to the well-known BS solution. The scale invariant Weyl scalar $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{(0)}`$ is found to be

$`\sqrt{1u^2}\sqrt{1v^2}\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1A}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{A}{4Z^2}}\{a^2(1+\tau )^{2A1}+b^2(1\tau )^{2A1}`$ (5)
$`+2ab(12A)\mathrm{\Delta }^{A1}\}`$
in which the $`\tau =1`$ singularity is manifest. The remaining scalars $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{(0)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_4^{(0)}`$ also have similar structure but these latter two have in addition an impulsive component. For $`A=1`$ ( and $`a=b`$ ) all conformal curvatures vanish for $`u>0,v>0`$ and the singularity $`\tau =1`$ becomes removable. Thus the null singularity arises as an intermediate stage in between a spacelike quasiregular singularity and a horizon.
As a second example we consider the CX metric

$$ds^2=X\left(\frac{d\tau ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{d\sigma ^2}{\delta }\right)\mathrm{\Delta }\delta \frac{X}{Y}dy^2\frac{Y}{X}\left(dxq_2dy\right)^2$$
(6)
where

$`X`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^2}}\left[(1\alpha p\tau )^2+\alpha ^2q^2\sigma ^2\right]`$
$`Y`$ $`=`$ $`1p^2\tau ^2q^2\sigma ^2`$
$`q_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q\delta }{p\alpha ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\alpha ^22\alpha p\tau }{1p^2\tau ^2q^2\sigma ^2}}`$ (7)
in which the constant parameters $`\alpha ,p`$ and $`q`$ must satisfy

$`0<\alpha 1`$
$`p^2+q^2=1`$ (8)
This metric admits a horizon instead of a spacelike singularity at $`\tau =1`$. We add now a scalar field $`\varphi `$ satisfying $`\mathrm{}\varphi =0`$, or equivalently $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _\tau \right)_\tau =\left(\delta \varphi _\sigma \right)_\sigma `$ as follows : By shifting the metric function $`XXe^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we couple the scalar field consistently with Einstein-Maxwell’s fields where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is determined from the line integral

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=2\frac{\varphi _u^2}{U_u}𝑑u+2\frac{\varphi _v^2}{U_v}𝑑v$$
(9)
in which $`e^U=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }\delta }`$. Choosing a simple class of scalar field such as $`\varphi (\tau )=\frac{k}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1+\tau }{1\tau }`$, with $`k=constant`$ results in $`e^\mathrm{\Gamma }=\left(\frac{1\tau ^2}{\tau ^2\sigma ^2}\right)^{k^2}`$. With the addition of this scalar field we can see from the energy momentum scalar $`T_\alpha ^\alpha `$ and $`T_{\mu \nu }T^{\mu \nu }`$, which are divergent that $`\tau =1`$ is singular. Furthermore, the fact that as $`\tau 1`$ the metric function $`g^{\tau \tau }0`$ for the case $`k^2<1`$ implies that it is a null singularity. For $`k^21`$, however, it retains the spacelike character which is standard to CPW. Letting $`q=0`$ and using the transformation

$$t=m\alpha x,y=\varphi ,\tau =\frac{mr}{\sqrt{m^2e^2}},\sigma =\mathrm{cos}\theta $$
(10)
with $`m\alpha =\sqrt{m^2e^2}`$ we obtain

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{r^2}}\right)dt^2e^\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{r^2}}\right)dr^2`$ (11)
$`r^2\left(e^\mathrm{\Gamma }d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)`$
which is a spherically non-symmetric extension of the RN metric with a null singular horizon. Our method generates infinitly many metrics with null ( or directionally null, depending on the choice of the scalar field) singular horizons that may find application in BH’s.