text:
# RARE CHARM DECAYS

## 1 Introductory Remarks

I dedicate this paper (as I did my talk) to Jean Tran Thanh Van and his wife for their valuable contributions over many years to our discipline.

My talk summarized a recent paper $`^\mathrm{?}`$ written in collaboration with Gustavo Burdman, JoAnne Hewett and Sandip Pakvasa on the topic of rare flavor-changing neutral current (FCNC) decays of $`D`$ mesons. Transitions of this class include: (i) $`DV\gamma (V=\rho ,\omega ,\varphi ,\mathrm{})`$, aaaThe single-photon decays were considered previously by the authors in a separate paper. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ (ii) $`DX\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}(X=\pi ,K,\eta ,\rho ,\omega ,\varphi ,\mathrm{})`$, (iii) $`DX\nu _{\mathrm{}}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}(X=\pi ,K,\eta ,\mathrm{})`$, (iv) $`D\gamma \gamma `$, (v) $`D\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$.

Perhaps the most noteworthy aspect of the above list is that, at the time of this writing, exactly zero FCNC events have been detected. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ We are optimistic that this situation will be rectified in the fairly near future. The database for charm-related physics continues to expand, and experiments at B-factories, hadron collidiers and tau/charm facilities will soon achieve truly interesting sensitivities.

As such, one can reasonably imagine a future conference talk which announces the detection of a $`D`$ meson FCNC transition. How to interpret such a signal? There is a commonly adopted procedure which should be followed. First one determines whether the Standard Model (SM) can explain the observed events. If not, one proceeds to consider a menu of New Physics models.

## 2 Standard Model Analysis

In principle, the task of producing SM predictions for FCNC $`D`$ meson decays is straightforward. There are two components to the analysis, short-distance (SD) and long-distance (LD), which must be separately calculated. We consider each in turn.

### 2.1 The short-distance component

Short-distance amplitudes are concerned with the QCD degrees of freedom (quarks, gluons) and any relevant additional fields (leptons, photons). Thus, the short distance part of the $`DX_u\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ amplitude involves the quark process $`cu\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$. It is usually most natural to employ an effective description in which the weak hamiltonian is expressed in terms of local multiquark operators and Wilson coefficients. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ For example, the effective hamiltonian for $`cu\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ with renormalization scale $`\mu `$ in the range $`m_b\mu m_c`$ is bbbQuantities with primes have had the explicit $`b`$-quark contributions integrated out

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}^{cu\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}}=\frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}\left(\underset{q=d,s}{}C_i^{(q)}(\mu )𝒪_i^{(q)}(\mu )\right)+\underset{i=3}{\overset{10}{}}C_i^{^{}}(\mu )𝒪_i^{^{}}(\mu )\right].$$
(1)
In the above, $`𝒪_{1,2}^{(q)}`$ are four-quark current-current operators, $`𝒪_{36}^{^{}}`$ are the QCD penguin operators, $`𝒪_7`$ ($`𝒪_8`$) is the electromagnetic (chromomagnetic) dipole operator and $`𝒪_{9,10}`$ explicitly couple quark and lepton currents. For example, we have

$$O_7^{^{}}=\frac{e}{16\pi ^2}m_c(\overline{u}_L\sigma _{\mu \nu }c_R)F^{\mu \nu },O_9^{^{}}=\frac{e^2}{16\pi ^2}(\overline{u}_L\gamma _\mu c_L)(\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{}).$$
(2)
The famous Inami-Lim functions $`^\mathrm{?}`$ contribute to the Wilson coefficients $`C_{710}`$ at scale $`\mu =M_\mathrm{W}`$.

Figure 1 displays the predicted dilepton mass spectrum for $`D^+\pi ^+\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$. Several distinct kinds of contributions are included. The short-distance SM component corresponds to the dashed line, which is seen to lie beneath the other two curves. For reference, we cite the inclusive ‘short distance’ branching ratio,

$$r_{D^+X_u^+e^+e^{}}^{(\mathrm{sd})}2\times 10^8.$$
(3)
### 2.2 The long-distance component

The long-distance component to a transition amplitude is often cast in terms of hadronic entities rather than the underlying quark and gluonic degrees of freedom. For charm decays, the long-distance amplitudes are typically important but difficult to determine with any rigor. There are generally several long-distance mechanisms for a given transition, e.g. as indicated for $`D^0\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ in Fig. 2 and for $`D^+\pi ^+\overline{\nu }\nu `$ in Fig. 3.

Let us return to the case of $`D^+\pi ^+\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ depicted in Fig. 1. The solid curve represents the total SM signal, summed over both SD and LD contribution. In this case the LD component dominates, and from studying the dilepton mass distribution we can see what is happening. The peaks in the solid curve must correspond to intermediate resonances ($`\varphi `$, etc). The corresponding Feynman graph would be analogous to that in Fig. 3(a) in which the final state neutrino pair is replaced by a charged lepton pair. One finds numerically that

$$r_{D^+\pi ^+e^+e^{}}^{(\mathrm{SM})}r_{D^+\pi ^+e^+e^{}}^{(\mathrm{}\mathrm{d})}2\times 10^6.$$
(4)
### 2.3 The Standard Model Predictions

Basing our analysis in part on existing literature, $`^\mathrm{?}`$ we have calculated both SD and LD amplitudes for a number of FCNC $`D`$ transitions. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ Results are collected in Table 1. As stated earlier, the current database for processes appearing in Table 1 consists entirely of upper bounds (or in the case of $`D^0\gamma \gamma `$ no data entry at all). In all cases existing experimental bounds lie below the SM predictions, so there is no conflict between the two. For some (e.g. $`D\pi \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$) the gap between SM theory and experiment is not so large and there is hope for detection in the near future. In others (e.g. $`D^0\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$) the gap is enormous, leaving ample opportunity for signals from New Physics to appear. This point is sometimes not fully appreciated and thus warrants some emphasis. It is why, for example, attempts to detect $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_\mathrm{D}`$ via $`D^0`$-$`\overline{D}^0`$ mixing experiments are so important.

## 3 New Physics Analysis

At this time, there is a wide collection of possible New Physics models leading to FCNC $`D`$ transitions. Among those considered in Ref. 1 are (i) Supersymmetry (SUSY): R-parity conserving, R-parity violating, (ii) Extra Degrees of Freedom: Higgs bosons, Gauge bosons, Fermions, Spatial dimensions, (iii) Strong Dynamics: Extended technicolor, Top-condensation.

Due to limitations of time (for the talk) and space (for this summary) we restrict most of our attention to the case of supersymmetry. However, at the end we also make a few remarks on the topic of large extra dimensions. The SUSY discussion divides naturally according to how the R-parity $`R_\mathrm{P}`$ is treated, where

$$R_\mathrm{P}=()^{3(BL)+2S}=\{\begin{array}{cc}+1& (\mathrm{particle})\\ 1& (\mathrm{sparticle}).\end{array}$$
(5)
### 3.1 R-parity conserving SUSY

R-parity conserving SUSY will contribute to charm FCNC amplitudes via loops. For a penguin-like amplitude whose external lines are SM particles, the internal lines can be (i) gluino-squark pairs, (ii) charged Higgs-quark pairs or (iii) chargino/neutralino-squark pairs. Case (i) is the one considered here as case (ii) will be suppressed for the same CKM reason as in the SM and case (iii) is relatively suppressed to (i) because the vertices are weak-interaction rather than strong-interaction.

To calculate R-parity conserving SUSY contributions, we employ the so-called mass insertion approximation$`^\mathrm{?}`$ which is oriented towards phenomenological studies and is also model independent. Let us first describe what is actually done and then provide a brief explanation of the underlying rationale.

In this approach, a squark propagator becomes modified by a mass insertion (e.g. the ‘$`\times `$’ in Fig. 4) that changes the squark flavor. $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ For convenience, one expands the squark propagator in powers of the dimensionless quantity $`(\delta _{ij}^u)_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}`$,

$$(\delta _{ij}^u)_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}=\frac{(M_{ij}^u)_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}^2}{M_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2},$$
(6)
where $`ij`$ are generation indices, $`\lambda ,\lambda ^{}`$ denote the chirality, $`(M_{ij}^u)^2`$ are the off-diagonal elements of the up-type squark mass matrix and $`M_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ represents the average squark mass. The exchange of squarks in loops thus leads to FCNC through diagrams such as the one in Fig. 4. The role of experiment is to either detect the predicted (SUSY-induced) FCNC signal or to constrain the contributing $`(\delta _{ij}^u)_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}`$.

This topic is actually part of the super-CKM problem. If one works in a basis which diagonalizes the fermion mass matrices, then sfermion mass matrices (and thus sfermion propagators) will generally be nondiagonal. As a result, flavor changing processes can occur. One can use phenomenology to restrict these FCNC phenomena. The $`Q=1/3`$ sector has yielded fairly strong constraints but thus far only $`D^0`$-$`\overline{D}^0`$ mixing has been used to limit the $`Q=+2/3`$ sector. In our analysis, we have taken charm FCNCs to be as large as allowed by the $`D`$-mixing upper bounds.

For the decays $`DX_u\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ discussed earlier in Sect. 2.1, the gluino contributions will occur additively relative to those from the SM and so we can write for the Wilson coefficients,

$$C_i=C_i^{(\mathrm{SM})}+C_i^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}.$$
(7)
To get some feeling for dependence on the $`(\delta _{12}^u)_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}`$ parameters, we display the examples

$$C_7^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}(\delta _{12}^u)_{\mathrm{LL}}\mathrm{and}(\delta _{12}^u)_{\mathrm{LR}},C_9^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}(\delta _{12}^u)_{\mathrm{LL}},$$
(8)
whereas for quark helicities opposite cccWe use the notation $`\widehat{C}`$ for the associated Wilson coefficients. to those in the operators of Eq. (2), one finds

$$\widehat{C}_7^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}(\delta _{12}^u)_{\mathrm{RR}}\mathrm{and}(\delta _{12}^u)_{\mathrm{LR}},\widehat{C}_9^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}(\delta _{12}^u)_{\mathrm{RR}}.$$
(9)
Moreover, the term in $`\widehat{C}_7^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}`$ which contains $`(\delta _{12}^u)_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ experiences the enhancement factor $`M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}/m_c`$.

We have numerically studied the effects in $`cu\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ for the range of masses: (I) $`M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=M_{\stackrel{~}{q}}=250`$ GeV, (II) $`M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=2M_{\stackrel{~}{q}}=500`$ GeV, (III) $`M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=M_{\stackrel{~}{q}}=1000`$ GeV and (IV) $`M_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=(1/2)M_{\stackrel{~}{q}}=250`$ GeV. For some modes in $`DX_u\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, the effect of the squark-gluino contributions can be large relative to the SM component, both in the total branching ratio and for certain kinematic regions of the dilepton mass. The mode $`D^0\rho ^0e^+e^{}`$ is given in Fig. 5. This figure should make clear the importance of measuring the low $`m_\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ part of the dilepton mass spectrum.

### 3.2 R-parity violating SUSY

The effect of assuming that $`R`$-parity can be violated is to allow additional interactions between particles and sparticles. Ignoring bilinear terms which are not relevant to our discussion of FCNC effects, we introduce the $`R`$-parity violating (RPV) super-potential of trilinear couplings,

$$𝒲_\mathit{}_p=ϵ_{ab}\left[\frac{1}{2}\lambda _{ijk}L_i^aL_j^b\overline{E}_k+\lambda _{ijk}^{}L_i^aQ_j^b\overline{D}_k+\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\lambda _{ijk}^{^{\prime \prime }}\overline{U}_i^\alpha \overline{D}_j^\beta \overline{D}_k^\gamma \right],$$
(10)
where $`L`$, $`Q`$, $`\overline{E}`$, $`\overline{U}`$ and $`\overline{D}`$ are the standard chiral super-fields of the MSSM and $`i,j,k`$ are generation indices. The quantities $`\lambda _{ijk}`$, $`\lambda _{ijk}^{}`$ and $`\lambda _{ijk}^{^{\prime \prime }}`$ are a priori arbitrary couplings which total $`9+27+9=45`$ unknown parameters in the theory.

For our purposes, the presence of RPV means that tree-level amplitudes become possible in which a virtual sparticle propagates from one of the trilinear vertices in Eq. (10) to another In order to avoid significant FCNC signals (which would be in contradiction with current experimental limits), bounds must be placed on the (unknown) coupling parameters. As experimental probes become more sensitive, the bounds become ever tighter. In particular, the FCNC sector probed by charm decays involves the $`\{\lambda _{ijk}^{}\}`$. Introducing matrices $`𝒰_\mathrm{L}`$, $`𝒟_\mathrm{R}`$ to rotate left-handed up-quark fields and right-handed down-quark fields to the mass basis, we obtain for the relevant part of the superpotential

$$𝒲_\lambda ^{}=\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{ijk}^{}\left[\stackrel{~}{e}_L^i\overline{d}_R^ku_L^j\stackrel{~}{u}_L^j\overline{d}_R^ke_L^i(\stackrel{~}{d}_R^k)^{}(\overline{e_L^i})^cu_L^j+\mathrm{}\right],$$
(11)
where neutrino interactions are not shown and we define

$$\stackrel{~}{\lambda ^{}}_{ijk}\lambda _{irs}^{}𝒰_{rj}^L𝒟_{sk}^R.$$
(12)
Some bounds on the $`\{\stackrel{~}{\lambda ^{}}_{ijk}\}`$ are already available from data on such diverse sources as charged-current universality, the ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi e\nu _e}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi \mu \nu _\mu }`$, the semileptonic decay $`DK\mathrm{}\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ , etc$`^\mathrm{?}`$ We have considered additional experimental implications of the preceding formalism:

(i) For the decay $`D^+\pi ^+e^+e^{}`$, we display the effect of RPV as the dot-dash line in Fig. 1. Here, the effect is proportional to $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{11k}^{}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{12k}^{}`$ and we have employed existing limits on these couplings. Although the effect on the branching ratio is not large, but the dilepton spectrum away from resonance poles is seen to be sensitive to the RPV contributions. This case is not optimal because the current experimental limit on $`r_{D^+\pi ^+e^+e^{}}`$ is well above the dot-dash curve.

(ii) For $`D^+\pi ^+\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, the current experimental limit on $`r_{D^+\pi ^+\mu ^+\mu ^{}}`$ actually provides the new bound

$$\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{11k}^{}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{12k}^{}0.004.$$
(13)
(iii) Another interesting mode is $`D^0\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$. Upon using the bound of Eq. (13) we obtain

$$r_{D^0\mu ^+\mu ^{}}^\mathit{}_p<3.5\times 10^6\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{12k}^{}}{0.04}\right)^2\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{11k}^{}}{0.02}\right)^2.$$
(14)
A modest improvement in the existing limit on $`r_{D^0\mu ^+\mu ^{}}`$ will yield a new bound on the product $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{11k}^{}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{12k}^{}`$.

(iv) Lepton flavor violating processes are allowed by the RPV lagrangian. One example is the mode $`D^0e^+\mu ^{}`$, for which existing parameter bounds predict

$$r_{D^0\mu ^+e^{}}^\mathit{}_p<0.5\times 10^6\times \left[\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{11k}^{}}{0.02}\right)\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{22k}^{}}{0.21}\right)+\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{21k}^{}}{0.06}\right)\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{12k}^{}}{0.04}\right)\right].$$
(15)
An order-of-magnitude improvement in $`r_{D^0\mu ^+e^{}}^\mathit{}_p`$ will provide a new bound on the above combination of RPV couplings.

### 3.3 Large Extra Dimensions

For several years, the study of large extra dimensions (‘large’ means much greater than the Planck scale) has been an area of intense study. This approach might hold the solution of the hierarchy problem while having verifiable consequences at the TeV scale or less. Regarding the subject of rare charm decays, one’s reaction might be to ask How could extra dimensions possibly affect the decays of ordinary hadrons?. We provide a few examples in the following.

Suppose the spacetime of our world amounts to a $`3+1`$ brane which together with a manifold of additional dimensions (the bulk) is part of some higher-dimensional space. A field $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ which can propagate in a large extra dimension will exhibit a Kaluza-Klein (KK) tower of states $`\{\mathrm{\Theta }_n\}`$, detection of which would signal existence of the extra dimension. Given our ignorance regarding properties of the bulk or of which fields are allowed to propagate in it, one naturally considers a variety of different models.

Assume, for example, the existence of an extra dimension of scale $`1/R10^4`$ eV such that the gravitational field (denote it simply as $`G`$) alone can propagate in the extra dimension. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ There are then bulk-graviton KK states $`\{G_n\}`$ which couple to matter. In principle there will be the FCNC transitions $`cuG_n`$ and since the $`\{G_n\}`$ remain undetected, there will be apparent missing energy. However this mechanism leads to too small a rate to be observable.

Another possibility which has been studied is that the scale of the extra dimension is $`1/R1`$ TeV and that SM gauge fields propagate in the bulk. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ However, precision electroweak data constrain the mass of the first gauge KK excitation to be in excess of 4 TeV $`^\mathrm{?}`$, and hence their contributions to rare decays are small $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

More elaborate constructions, such as allowing fermion fields to propagate in the five-dimensional bulk of the Randall-Sundrum localized-gravity model $`^\mathrm{?}`$, are currently being actively explored. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ Interesting issues remain and a good deal more study deserves to be done.

## 4 Concluding Remarks

In the Standard Model, FCNC processes are suppressed. Both photon and Z-boson SM vertices are flavor diagonal, so tree level diagrams involving virtual propagation of these particles will not contribute to FCNC processes. One must instead consider loops. As regards FCNC processes, SM loops are largest for kaon and B-meson transitions due mainly to the large $`t`$-quark mass and also to favorable CKM dependence. The upshot is that studies of FCNC processes for charm have lagged behind those of the other flavors. There is of course a basic irony in this – it is precisely because SM signals are expected to be so small for charm FCNC that the opportunity for evidence of New Physics to emerge becomes enhanced relative to the other flavors. The situation begs for experimental input.

## Acknowledgments

The work described in this talk was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant PHY-9801875.

## References


format: text

text:
# 1. Introduction

## 1. Introduction

Loop quantum gravity  is an attempt to apply standard Dirac quantization techniques to a classical Hamiltonian formulation of 3+1 gravity in which the basic variables are a spatial $`SU(2)`$ connection and its conjugate triad field. In addition to the usual diffeomorphism and Hamiltonian constraints, the formulation also has an $`SU(2)`$ Gauss law constraint which ensures that triad rotations are gauge. At the $`SU(2)`$ gauge invariant level (also referred to as the kinematic level), the representation space is generated by the action of (traces of) holonomies of the connection on a cyclic state. Since holonomies are labelled by 1 dimensional, arbitrarily complicated loops, the basic quantum excitations may be visualised as 1 dimensional and ‘polymer- like’. Physical states, which are in the kernel of all the constraints, are expressible as certain kinematically non- normalizable, linear combinations of these polymer-like excitations .

A key open question is: how do classical configurations of the gravitational field arise ? In particular, how does flat spacetime (and small perturbations around it) arise from non-perturbative quantum states of the gravitational field? The latter question is particularly interesting for the following reason. Small perturbations about flat spacetime correspond to solutions of linearized gravity. Quantum states of linearised gravity lie in the familiar graviton Fock space on which the conventional perturbative approaches to quantum gravity are based. Such approaches seem to fail due to nonrenormalizability problems. Thus, an understanding of the relation between the quantum states of linearised gravity and states in full nonperturbative loop quantum gravity would shed light on the reasons behind the failure of perturbative methods.

In this work we focus exclusively on understanding certain structures in quantum linearised gravity, which concievably (but by no means, assuredly!) could play a role in the much deeper issue of the relation between perturbative and non-perturbative states. Our starting point is the linearization of the classical $`SU(2)`$ formulation  on which loop quantum gravity is based. This linearization is described in section 2 wherein we also show that the linearized Gauss Law constraint generates $`U(1)\times U(1)\times U(1)`$ transformations on the linearized connection.

Using the methods of , $`U(1)^3`$ counterparts of the $`SU(2)`$ based structures of loop quantum gravity can be constructed. In particular, at the $`U(1)^3`$ gauge invariant level, a ‘kinematic’ Hilbert space $`_{kin}`$ exists which is spanned by 1 dimensional polymer-like excitations associated with (triplets  of) loops. Holonomies of the linearised connection are represented as unitary operators on $`_{kin}`$. We exhibit this representation in section 3a.

As realised in , the operator corresponding to the magnetic field of the linearised connection plays a key role in expressing the linearised diffeomorphism and Hamiltonian constraints as quantum operators. It turns out that this operator is not well defined in $`_{kin}`$. Neverthless it can be represented on a vector space $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{kin}^L`$ of appropriately well behaved distributional combinations of elements in $`_{kin}`$. Using this representation of the magnetic field operator, we identify the kernel, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{phys}^L`$, of all the constraints. Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{phys}^L\mathrm{\Phi }_{kin}^L`$, elements of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{phys}^L`$ are also associated with infinite, kinematically non-normalizable sums of 1 dimensional polymer-like excitations. Section 3b is devoted to a discussion of the magnetic field operator and an evaluation of the kernel of the quantum constraints.

The standard graviton Fock space representation of linearised gravity is very different from the above ‘loop’ representation. The basic excitations in Fock space are 3d and wavelike in contrast to the polymer-like nature of excitations in the loop representation. Moreover, in the Fock representation the connection is an operator valued distribution which needs to be smeared in 3 dimensions to obtain a well defined operator. Since holonomies involve only 1 dimensional smearings along loops, they are not well defined operators on Fock space.

In view of the above remarks, it is a non-trivial task to relate Fock space gravitons to elements in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{phys}^L`$. In section 4, we generalise the considerations of  to relate the loop representation of linearised gravity to its standard Fock representation. As in  we use the Poincare invariance of the Fock vacuum to identify graviton states in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{phys}^L`$. 111In this paragraph (but not in section 4) we gloss over the very important difference between the standard Fock representation and the $`r`$\- Fock representation  for reasons of brevity and pedagogy.

Recall that the starting point of this work is the linearization of a real $`SU(2)`$ formulation  of classical gravity. The basic variable is a real $`SU(2)`$ connection and the associated Barbero-Immirzi parameter  is real. In contrast Ashtekar, Rovelli and Smolin use the complex self dual Ashtekar-Sen connection  in their pioneering work  on a loop representation of linearised gravity. This corresponds to the choice of an imaginary Barbero-Immirzi parameter. In section 5, we show how to extend the considerations of sections 2- 4 to the case of an arbitrary complex Barbero- Immirzi parameter. Section 6 is devoted to a discussion of our results.

As mentioned above, our real interest is in the deeper issue of the relation between states in linearised gravity and in full quantum gravity rather than just in structures in linearised gravity. One possible way to approach the deeper issue is to divide it into two parts. First, since both loop quantum gravity and the $`U(1)^3`$ representation are structurally similar, we may try to relate the two. This is the really hard part. The second (and much easier) part is to relate the $`U(1)^3`$ representation to the standard graviton Fock representation. It is only the second part that we accomplish in this paper.

This work is heavily based on the Ashtekar-Rovelli-Smolin paper  and on . For this reason, we shall be very brief in our presentation and sketch only the important points. The reader may consult  for more details. Indeed, this work may be read as a mathematically precise formulation of the earlier ARS  work in the context of the subsequent developments in the field as reflected in, for example, .

We use units in which Newton’s constant, Planck’s constant and the speed of light are unity.

## 2. Classical linearised gravity as theory of $`U(1)\times U(1)\times U(1)`$ connections.

Our starting point is the Hamiltonian formulation of 3+1 gravity discussed in  The spacetime manifold has topology $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times R`$ where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a 3 dimensional orientable manifold. The phase space variables are a spatial $`SU(2)`$ connection, $`A_a^i(\stackrel{}{x})`$ and a densitized triad field $`E_j^b(\stackrel{}{y})`$. Here $`a,b`$ denote spatial components, $`i,j`$ denote internal $`SU(2)`$ Lie algebra components and $`\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y}`$ denote (in general, local) coordinates on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The only non- vanishing Poisson bracket is

$$\{A_a^i(\stackrel{}{x}),E_j^b(\stackrel{}{y})\}=\frac{\gamma _0}{2}\delta _a^b\delta _j^i\delta (\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y}).$$
(1)
Here, $`\gamma _0`$ is the Barbero-Immirzi parameter . The spin connection associated with the triad field is denoted by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^i`$, the curvature of $`A_a^i`$ by $`F_{ab}^i`$ and the gauge covariant derivative associated with $`A_a^i`$ by $`𝒟_a`$. The constraints of the theory are the Gauss law constraint $`G_i`$, the vector or diffeomorphism constraint $`V_a`$ and the Hamiltonian constraint $`C`$. They are given by

$`G_i`$ $`=`$ $`𝒟_aE_i^a,`$ (2)
$`V_a`$ $`=`$ $`E_i^aF_{ab}^i,`$ (3)
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{ijk}E_i^aE_j^bF_{abk}2{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0^2+1}{\gamma _0^2}}E_{[i}^aE_{j]}^b(A_a^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^i)(A_a^j\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^j).`$ (4)
The $`SU(2)`$ variables are related to the ADM variables as follows. The densitized triad and the 3- metric, $`q_{ab}`$, are related through

$$qq^{ab}=E^{ai}E_i^b$$
(5)
where $`q`$ is the determinant of $`q_{ab}`$. When $`G_i=0`$ the extrinsic curvature, $`K_{ab}`$, can be extracted from the $`SU(2)`$ variables through

$$\gamma _0K_{ab}E_i^b=\sqrt{q}(A_a^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_a^i).$$
(6)
To define the linearised theory about a flat background we choose $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=R^3`$ and fix, once and for all, a cartesian coordinate system $`\{\stackrel{}{x}\}`$ as well as an orthonormal basis in the Lie algebra of $`SU(2)`$. Henceforth all components refer to this cartesian coordinate system and to this internal basis. We linearise the $`SU(2)`$ formulation about the phase space point $`(A_a^i=0,E_i^a=\delta _i^a)`$. As in , we denote the fluctuation in the triad field by $`e_i^a`$ so that

$$E_i^a=\delta _i^a+e_i^a.$$
(7)
Since the background connection vanishes, there is no need to introduce a new symbol for the fluctuation in the connection. The Poisson brackets between the linearised variables are induced from (1). The only non-vanishing Poisson bracket is

$$\{A_a^i(\stackrel{}{x}),e_j^b(\stackrel{}{y})\}_L=\frac{\gamma _0}{2}\delta _a^b\delta _j^i\delta (\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y}).$$
(8)
Here the subscript ‘$`L`$’ denotes the fact that the Poisson bracket is for linearised theory.

Note that the flat spatial metric corresponding to the background triad is just the Kronecker delta, $`\delta _{ab}`$. In what follows spatial indices are lowered and raised with this flat metric and its inverse. Internal indices are, of course, lowered and raised by the $`SU(2)`$ Cartan-Killing metric. We also use the background triad to freely interchange internal and spatial indices. The flat derivative operator which annihilates the background triad is denoted by $`_a`$.

The linearised constraints are obtained from (2), (3)and (4) by keeping terms at most linear in the fluctuations and are denoted by $`G_i^L,V_a^L,`$ and $`C^L`$ with

$`G_i^L`$ $`=`$ $`_ae_i^a+ϵ_i^{ja}A_{aj},`$ (9)
$`V_a^L`$ $`=`$ $`f_{ab}^a,`$ (10)
$`C^L`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{abc}f_{abc}.`$ (11)
Here $`f_{ab}^i=_aA_b^i_bA_a^i`$ is the linearised curvature.

The transformations generated by $`G^L(\mathrm{\Lambda }):=d^3x\mathrm{\Lambda }^iG_i^L`$ are

$$\delta A_a^i=\{A_a^i,G^L(\mathrm{\Lambda })\}=_a(\frac{\gamma _0\mathrm{\Lambda }^i}{2})$$
(12)
and

$$\delta e_i^a=\{e_i^a,G^L(\mathrm{\Lambda })\}=ϵ_i^{ak}(\frac{\gamma _0\mathrm{\Lambda }_k}{2}).$$
(13)
From (12), $`A_a^i`$ for each ‘$`i`$’ transforms as a $`U(1)`$ connection. Thus, the configuration space of linearised gravity in this formulation is coordinatized by a triplet of $`U(1)`$ connections $`A_a^1,A_a^2,A_a^3`$.

In order to construct the loop representation in the next section, we define the following set of $`G_i^L`$\- invariant functions on phase space:

$`h^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{ab}+e^{ba},`$ (14)
$`H_\alpha ^k`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}i{\displaystyle _\alpha }A_a^k𝑑x^a.`$ (15)
Here $`\alpha `$ is a piecewise analytic, oriented loop in $`R^3`$ and $`H_\alpha ^k`$ is the $`U(1)`$ holonomy of $`A_a^k`$ around the loop $`\alpha `$.

It is also useful to define the magnetic field of the connection by

$$B_k^a=\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{abc}f_{bck}.$$
(16)
In terms of the magnetic field the vector and scalar constraints are

$`V_a^L`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{cab}B^{ca}`$ (17)
$`C^L`$ $`=`$ $`B_c^c.`$ (18)
Thus the vanishing of the vector and scalar constraints imply that the magnetic field is symmetric and tracefree.

## 3. The ‘loop’ representation of quantum linearised gravity

We construct a loop representation based on the $`U(1)^3`$ holonomies of section 2. The representation at the kinematic ($`G_i^L`$ invariant) level is just the tensor product of 3 copies of the $`U(1)`$ representation worked out in detail in . We use the notation of, and assume familiarity with that work.

After presenting the kinematic Hilbert space in section 3a, we turn our attention to the linearised vector and scalar constraints in section 3b. Since the constraints are algebraic statements about the magnetic field, we express the classical magnetic field via a limit of the holonomy of a shrinking loop in the usual way. The corresponding quantum operator is not defined on the kinematic Hilbert space because the diffeomorphism invariance of the Hilbert space measure precludes the existence of the required limit. We show how to define the magnetic field operator based on the dual action of the holonomy operator on a suitable space of distributions. We use this defintion to find the kernel of the linearised vector and scalar constraints.

### 3a. The kinematic Hilbert space representation

The kinematic Hilbert space, $`_{kin}`$, inherits its measure from the Haar measure on $`U(1)`$ (it is just the triple product of the Ashtekar-Lewandowski measure for $`U(1)`$ connections ). A spanning orthonormal basis is given by the triple tensor product of the $`U(1)`$ flux network basis of . 222In  this was called the charge network basis; we use the term flux network to agree with the more recent work . Each basis state is labelled by a triplet of closed, oriented, piecwise analytic graphs as well as 3 sets of integers (these are representation labels for $`U(1)`$), one for each graph of the triplet. Each set of integers labels the edges of its corresponding graph in such a way that at every vertex the sum of labels of outgoing edges equals the sum of labels of incoming edges.

We denote the flux network labelled by the graphs $`\alpha _i`$ and the sets of integers $`q_i`$, $`i=\mathrm{1..3}`$ as

$$|𝜶,\{𝐪\}>=|\alpha _1\{q_1\}>|\alpha _2\{q_2\}>|\alpha _3\{q_3\}>.$$
(19)
As shown in , the $`U(1)`$ holonomy of any piecewise analytic loop $`\beta `$ is equally well associated with a $`U(1)`$ flux network label $`\alpha ,\{q\}`$ such that

$$X_{\alpha ,\{q\}}^a(\stackrel{}{x})=X_\beta ^a(\stackrel{}{x}).$$
(20)
Here

$$X_\beta ^a(\stackrel{}{x}):=_\beta 𝑑s\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{\beta }(s),\stackrel{}{x})\dot{\beta }^a,$$
(21)
and

$$X_{\alpha ,\{q\}}^a(\stackrel{}{x}):=\underset{I=1}{\overset{N}{}}q_I_{e_I}𝑑s_I\delta ^3(\stackrel{}{e}_I(s_I),\stackrel{}{x})\dot{e_I}^a.$$
(22)
where $`e_I`$ is the $`I`$th edge of $`\alpha `$ and is labelled by the integer $`q_I`$.

The gauge invariant operators $`\widehat{H}^i`$ and $`\widehat{h}^{ab}`$ are represented on the kinematic Hilbert space as follows. We first describe the action of $`\widehat{H}^1`$. This operator acts only on the first ket on the right hand side of (19) exactly as in the case of $`U(1)`$ theory . Recall, from  that, there, the $`U(1)`$ operator $`\widehat{H}_{\eta ,\{p\}}`$ maps $`|\alpha ,\{q\}>`$ to a new flux network state based on the graph $`\alpha \eta `$ consisting of the union of the sets of edges belonging to $`\alpha `$ and $`\eta `$. 333It is assumed that edges of $`\eta ,\alpha `$ overlap only if they are identical and that intersections of $`\eta ,\alpha `$ occur only at vertices of $`\eta ,\alpha `$ . This entails no loss of generality, since we can always find graphs which are holonomically equivalent to $`\eta ,\alpha `$ and for which the assumption holds. The edges of $`\alpha \eta `$ are oriented and labelled with integers as follows. Edges which are not shared by $`\eta `$ and $`\alpha `$ retain their orientations and labels. Any shared edge labelled by the integer $`q`$ in $`\alpha `$ retains its orientation from $`\alpha `$ and has the label $`q+p`$ if it has the same orientation in $`\eta `$ and the label $`qp`$ if it has opposite orientation in $`\eta `$. The new state is denoted (with a minor change of notation with respect to ) by $`|\alpha ,\{q\}\eta ,\{p\}>`$. This implies that in the $`U(1)^3`$ case we have,

$$\widehat{H}_{\eta ,\{p\}}^1|𝜶,\{𝐪\}>=|\alpha _1,\{q_1\}\eta ,\{p\}>|\alpha _2,\{q_2\}>|\alpha _3,\{q_3\}>.$$
(23)
Similarly $`\widehat{H}^2,\widehat{H}^3`$ act by the union operation on the labels $`\alpha _2\{q_2\}`$ and $`\alpha _3\{q_3\}`$. Using the notation of , we write

$$\widehat{H}_{\eta ,\{p\}}^k|𝜶,\{𝐪\}>=|𝜶,\{𝐪\}_k\eta ,\{p\}>.$$
(24)
As in  we shall use the labelling of holonomies by their associated flux network labels (i.e. $`H_{\alpha \{q\}}^k)`$ interchangeably with their labelling by loops (i.e. $`H_\beta ^k`$). Thus if there is no integer label in the subscript to $`H`$, the label is to be understood as a loop else as an associated flux network label.

Also, note that if $`\beta `$ is a loop with a single edge, then the associated flux network label comprises of the graph $`\beta `$ with its single edge labelled by the integer $`1`$. For this special case we write

$$H_\beta ^k=H_{\beta ,\{1\}}^k.$$
(25)
$`\widehat{h}^{ab}`$ is represented as

$$\widehat{h}^{ab}(\stackrel{}{x})|𝜶,\{𝐪\}>=\gamma _0X_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}^{(ab)}(\stackrel{}{x})$$
(26)
where we have defined

$$X_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}^{ab}(\stackrel{}{x})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}X_{\alpha _i,\{q_i\}}^a(\stackrel{}{x})\delta _i^b$$
(27)
It can be verified that (24) and (26) provide a  representation (on the kinematic Hilbert space) of the Poisson bracket algebra of the $`G_i^L`$ invariant functions $`H_\alpha ^k`$ and $`h_{ab}(\stackrel{}{x})`$. Therefore the linearised Gauss law constraint is already taken care of and we need to analyse only the remaining (quantum) vector and scalar constraints.

### 3b. The Magnetic field operator and physical states

The magnetic field is extracted from the holonomies of small loops through

$$B^{ck}(\stackrel{}{x})=\underset{\delta 0}{lim}\frac{i}{\pi \delta ^2}(H_{(\gamma _{\stackrel{}{x},\delta }^c)^1}^k1)$$
(28)
where $``$ denotes complex conjugation and $`\gamma _{\stackrel{}{x},\delta }^c`$ is a circular loop of radius $`\delta `$ centered at $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ traversing anticlockwise about and with its plane normal to, the ‘$`c`$’ axis. $`(\gamma _{\stackrel{}{x},\delta }^c)^1`$ denotes the same loop running clockwise. The corresponding operator

$$\widehat{B}^{ck}(\stackrel{}{x})=\underset{\delta 0}{lim}\frac{i}{\pi \delta ^2}(\widehat{H}_{(\gamma _{\stackrel{}{x},\delta }^c)^1}^k1)$$
(29)
is not well defined on the finite span of flux network states. The reason is that, due to the diffeomorphism invariance of the $`U(1)^3`$ Ashtekar-Lewandowski measure, flux network states associated with the triplet of graphs $`𝜶_k(\gamma _{\stackrel{}{x},\delta }^c)^1`$ (here we use the notation of ) for different values of $`\delta `$ are orthogonal.

Instead we attempt to define the operator $`\widehat{B}^{ck}`$ by its dual action on the space of algebraic duals to the finite span of flux network states. Recall that the dual (anti-)representation of an operator $`\widehat{A}`$ is given by

$$\widehat{A}\mathrm{\Phi }(|\psi >)=\mathrm{\Phi }(\widehat{A}^{}|\psi >)$$
(30)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is an element of the algebraic dual and $`|\psi >`$ is a finite linear combination of flux network states. Every element of the algebraic dual can be formally written as an infinite sum over all flux network states i.e.

$$\mathrm{\Phi }:=\underset{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}{}c_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}<𝜶,\{𝐪\}|$$
(31)
with $`c_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}=\mathrm{\Phi }(|𝜶,\{𝐪\}>)`$. It follows that

$`\widehat{B}^{ck}(\stackrel{}{x})\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{\delta 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}{}}c_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}<𝜶,\{𝐪\}|{\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{H}_{(\gamma _{\stackrel{}{x},\delta }^c)^1}^{}1)}{i\pi \delta ^2}}`$ (32)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}{}}\underset{\delta 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{c_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}_k\gamma _{\stackrel{}{x},\delta }^c,\{1\}}c_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}}{i\pi \delta ^2}}<𝜶,\{𝐪\}|.`$
We shall say that $`\widehat{B}^{ck}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ is well defined iff

$$\frac{\delta c_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}}{\delta \gamma ^{ck}(\stackrel{}{x})}:=\underset{\delta 0}{lim}\frac{c_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}_k\gamma _{\stackrel{}{x},\delta }^c,\{1\}}c_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}}{\pi \delta ^2}$$
(33)
is well defined.

We further require that $`c_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}`$ is a functional of $`X_{\alpha _i,\{q_i\}}^a,i=\mathrm{1..3}`$. This requirement combined with the requirement that $`\widehat{B}^{ck}`$ be well defined singles out a vector space, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{kin}^L`$, of ‘well behaved’ distributions. To summarise: the magnetic field operator is defineable, via the dual action of holonomy operators, on the space $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{kin}^L`$.

The Fourier transform of $`X_{\alpha _i,\{q_i\}}^b(\stackrel{}{x})`$ is

$$X_{\alpha _i,\{q_i\}}^b(\stackrel{}{p})=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{\frac{3}{2}}}d^3xX_{\alpha _i,\{q_i\}}^b(\stackrel{}{x})e^{i\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{x}}.$$
(34)
Define

$$\frac{\delta X_{\alpha _j,\{q_j\}}^b(\stackrel{}{p})}{\delta \gamma ^{ci}(\stackrel{}{x})}:=\delta _{ij}\underset{\delta 0}{lim}\frac{X_{\alpha _j,\{q_j\}\gamma _{\stackrel{}{x},\delta }^c,\{1\}}^bX_{\alpha _j,\{q_j\}}^b}{\pi \delta ^2}.$$
(35)
From (22) it follows that

$$\frac{\delta X_{\alpha _j,\{q_j\}}^b(\stackrel{}{p})}{\delta \gamma ^{ci}(\stackrel{}{x})}=\frac{i}{(2\pi )^{\frac{3}{2}}}\delta _{ij}p_mϵ^{cmb}e^{i\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{x}}.$$
(36)
Note that

$$\frac{\delta c_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}}{\delta \gamma ^{ck}(\stackrel{}{x})}=d^3p\frac{\delta c_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}}{\delta X_{\alpha _j,\{q_j\}}^b(\stackrel{}{p})}\frac{\delta X_{\alpha _j,\{q_j\}}^b(\stackrel{}{p})}{\delta \gamma ^{ci}(\stackrel{}{x})}.$$
(37)
Using (36) and (37) in (32) and taking the Fourier transform of $`\widehat{B}^{ck}(\stackrel{}{x})`$, we obtain

$$\widehat{B}^{ck}(\stackrel{}{p})=\underset{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}{}\frac{\delta c_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}}{\delta X_{\alpha _j,\{q_j\}}^b(\stackrel{}{p})}<𝜶,\{𝐪\}|.$$
(38)
It is straightforward to show that the constraints in the form (17) and (18)imply that $`c_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}`$ depends only on the symmetric, transverse, traceless (STT) part of $`X_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}^{bc}`$ (the latter is defined in (27)). In the standard helicity basis of transverse vectors $`m_a,\overline{m}_a`$ () the STT part of $`X_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}^{bc}`$ can be written as

$$X_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}^{ab(STT)}(\stackrel{}{k})=X_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}^+(\stackrel{}{k})m^am^b+X_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}^{}(\stackrel{}{k})\overline{m}^a\overline{m}^b.$$
(39)
Denote the space of physical states by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{phys}^L`$. Then we have shown that $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{phys}^L`$ iff the coefficients $`c_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}`$ in (31) are functionals only of $`X_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}^+(\stackrel{}{k})`$ and $`X_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}^{}(\stackrel{}{k})`$.

## 4. The relation between gravitons and states in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{phys}^L`$

The abelian Poisson bracket algebra of holonomies plays a crucial role in the construction of $`_{kin}`$ . As mentioned in section 1, holonomy operators are not well defined on the standard graviton Fock space. However, suitably defined “smeared holonomies” are well defined operators on Fock space . It was noticed in  that for the $`U(1)`$ case, the algebra of smeared holonomies is isomorphic to the holonomy algebra. This isomorphism was used to construct a representation, indistinguishable 444Whether (in the $`U(1)`$ case) indistinguishable even in principle or only practically indistinguishable at scales large compared to the smearing scale, is discussed in . from the Fock representation, in which holonomies are well defined operators. Since holonomy operators are defined in the $`U(1)`$ loop representation (called the ‘qef’ representation in ) as well as the new ‘$`r`$\- Fock’ representation in  (here $`r`$ is a length scale used to define the smearing), it was possible to relate the $`r`$-Fock representation to the loop representation in . The considerations of  can be extended to the case of linearised gravity in an obvious and straightforward manner and we shall only present the main results of such an extension in this section.

In section 4a, we briefly review the standard graviton Fock space representation based on linearised ADM variables. In section 4b, we use the Poincare invariance condition  to identify the element of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{phys}^L`$ which corresponds to the $`r`$\- Fock vacuum. We expect that this identification can then be used to relate a suitable subspace of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{phys}^L`$ to (a dense subspace of) the $`r`$\- Fock space, modulo a couple of open technical issues which we discuss in section 4c.

### 4a. Review of the standard Fock space representation of linearised gravity

The standard Fock representation is obtained by quantizing the true degrees of freedom in the ADM description. In the ADM description the phase space variables are the linearised metric , $`\alpha _{ab}`$ and the linearised ADM momentum, $`P^{ab}`$ with

$$\{\alpha _{ab}(\stackrel{}{x}),P^{cd}(\stackrel{}{y})\}=\delta _a^{(c}\delta _b^{d)}\delta (\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{y}).$$
(40)
The true degrees of freedom are parametrised by the transverse, traceless part of $`\alpha _{ab}`$ and $`P^{cd}`$ and are denoted by $`\alpha _{ab}^{TT}`$ and $`P^{cdTT}`$. The true Hamiltonian is

$$H_L=d^3x(\frac{_m\alpha _{cd}^{TT}}{2}\frac{^m\alpha ^{cdTT}}{2}+P^{cdTT}P_{cd}^{TT})$$
(41)
so that

$$\dot{\alpha }_{cd}^{TT}=2P_{cd}^{TT},\dot{P}_{cd}^{TT}=\frac{^m_m\alpha _{cd}^{TT}}{2}.$$
(42)
These evolution equations together imply that

$$\mathrm{}\alpha _{cd}^{TT}=0$$
(43)
which in turn implies that $`\alpha _{cd}^{TT}`$ has the following plane wave expansion

$`\alpha _{cd}^{TT}(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^{\frac{3}{2}}}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{\sqrt{k}}}(a_{(+)}(\stackrel{}{k})e^{i(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{x}kt)}m_cm_d+a_{(+)}^{}(\stackrel{}{k})e^{i(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{x}kt)}\overline{m}_c\overline{m}_d`$ (44)
$`+a_{()}(\stackrel{}{k})e^{i(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{x}kt)}\overline{m}_c\overline{m}_d+a_{()}^{}(\stackrel{}{k})e^{i(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{x}kt)}m_cm_d).`$
Here $`k=|\stackrel{}{k}|`$ and $`t`$ is the background Minkowskian time. From (40) and (42) the only non-vanishing Poisson brackets between the mode coefficients are

$$\{a_{(\pm )}(\stackrel{}{k}),a_{(\pm )}^{}(\stackrel{}{l})\}=i\delta (\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{l}).$$
(45)
In quantum theory, $`\widehat{a}_{(+)}(\stackrel{}{k})`$ and $`\widehat{a}_{()}(\stackrel{}{k})`$ are represented as annihilation operators for positive and negative helicity gravitons of wave number $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ and $`\widehat{a}_{(+)}^{}(\stackrel{}{k})`$ and $`\widehat{a}_{()}^{}(\stackrel{}{k})`$ are the corresponding creation operators.

### 4b. $`r`$-Fock states as elements of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{phys}^L`$

It is straightforward to show that the reduced phase space in the connection based description of section 2 is naturally coordinatized by the symmetric, transverse, traceless part of $`A_{ab}`$ and the transverse, tracelss part of $`h^{ab}`$ (recall that $`h^{ab}`$ is symmetric). From (5),(6) and (7) it follows that

$$h^{abTT}=\alpha ^{abTT}$$
(46)
and that

$$A_{af}^{STT}=ϵ_f^{cd}\frac{_c\alpha _{ad}^{TT}}{2}+\gamma _0P_{af}^{TT}.$$
(47)
Using (44) to express the Fourier transform of $`\widehat{A}_{af}^{STT}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ on Fock space in terms of creation and annihilation operators, we get

$`\widehat{A}_{ab}^{STT}(\stackrel{}{k})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{k}m_am_b}{2}}(\widehat{a}_{(+)}(\stackrel{}{k})[1i\gamma _0]+\widehat{a}_{(+)}^{}(\stackrel{}{k})[1+i\gamma _0]`$ (48)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{k}\overline{m}_a\overline{m}_b}{2}}(\widehat{a}_{()}(\stackrel{}{k})[1i\gamma _0]+\widehat{a}_{()}^{}(\stackrel{}{k})[1+i\gamma _0]).`$
We define the smeared holonomy (also called the $`r`$-holonomy) labelled by $`𝜶,\{𝐪\}`$ as

$$H_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}(𝐫)}^{STT}:=\mathrm{exp}id^3kX_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}(𝐫)}^{ab}(\stackrel{}{k})A_{ab}^{STT}(\stackrel{}{k})$$
(49)
where

$$X_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}(𝐫)}^{ab}(\stackrel{}{k})=e^{\frac{k^2r^2}{2}}X_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}^{ab}(\stackrel{}{k}).$$
(50)
Poincare invariance is fed into the construction of the Fock space representation through the specific choice of complex structure (i.e. the positive- negative frequency decomposition (44)). This choice is equivalent to the requirement that the Fock vacuum be a zero eigenstate of the annhilation operators. This requirement can, in turn, be encoded in terms of the smeared holonomy operators as

$`\mathrm{exp}\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0}{4}}{\displaystyle d^3xX_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}(𝐫)}^{ab}(\stackrel{}{x})G_{ab}^{𝜶,\{𝐪\}(𝐫)}(\stackrel{}{x})}\right)`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3xG_{ab}^{𝜶,\{𝐪\}(𝐫)}(\stackrel{}{x})\widehat{h}^{ab}(\stackrel{}{x})}\right)|0>`$ (51)
$`=\widehat{H}_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}(𝐫)}^{STT}|0>`$
where $`G_{ab}^{𝜶,\{𝐪\}(𝐫)}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ is defined through its Fourier transform,

$$G_{ab}^{𝜶,\{𝐪\}(𝐫)}(\stackrel{}{k})=kX_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}(𝐫)}^+(\stackrel{}{k})(1+i\gamma _0)m_am_bkX_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}(𝐫)}^{}(\stackrel{}{k})(1i\gamma _0)\overline{m}_a\overline{m}_b$$
(52)
The image of this condition in the $`r`$-Fock representation is

$`\mathrm{exp}\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0}{4}}{\displaystyle d^3xX_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}(𝐫)}^{ab}(\stackrel{}{x})G_{ab}^{𝜶,\{𝐪\}(𝐫)}(\stackrel{}{x})}\right)`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3xG_{ab}^{𝜶,\{𝐪\}(𝐫)}(\stackrel{}{x})\widehat{h}_r^{ab}(\stackrel{}{x})|0_r>}\right)`$ (53)
$`=\widehat{H}_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}^{STT}|0_r>`$
where

$$h_r^{ab}(\stackrel{}{k})=e^{\frac{k^2r^2}{2}}h^{ab}(\stackrel{}{k})$$
(54)
and

$$H_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}^{STT}=\mathrm{exp}id^3xX_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}(𝐫)}^{ab}(\stackrel{}{x})A_{ab}^{STT}(\stackrel{}{x}).$$
(55)
The $`r`$-Fock vacuum bra, $`<0_r|`$, can be identified with the element $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{\Phi }_{phys}^L`$ via the following equation in the dual representation (see (30)). Let $`|\psi >`$ be a finite linear combination of flux network states. Then

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(\mathrm{exp}(i{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0}{4}}{\displaystyle }d^3xX_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}(𝐫)}^{ab}(\stackrel{}{x})(G_{ab}^{𝜶,\{𝐪\}(𝐫)}(\stackrel{}{x}))^{})`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3x(G_{ab}^{𝜶,\{𝐪\}(𝐫)}(\stackrel{}{x}))^{}\widehat{h}_r^{ab}(\stackrel{}{x})|\psi >}\right)`$ (56)
$`=\mathrm{\Phi }_0(\widehat{H}_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}^{}|\psi >).`$
Here $`\widehat{H}_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}^{}`$ is defined through

$`H_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}i{\displaystyle d^3xX_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}^{ab}(\stackrel{}{x})A_{ab}(\stackrel{}{x})}`$ (57)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\mathrm{exp}i{\displaystyle d^3xX_{\alpha _k,\{q_k\}}^a(\stackrel{}{x})A_a^k(\stackrel{}{x})}.`$
Note that in (56) we have effectively replaced $`A_{ab}^{STT}`$ in (49)by $`A_a^i`$. This is correct because the operator $`\widehat{H}_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}`$ is defined on physical states. Since such states are in the kernel of the constraints and since $`H_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}`$ is a Dirac observable, the $`STT`$ condition is automatically enforced on $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{phys}^L`$.

As in (31) we set

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0:=\underset{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}{}c_{0𝜶,\{𝐪\}}<𝜶,\{𝐪\}|$$
(58)
and solve for the coefficients $`c_{0𝜶,\{𝐪\}}`$ The unique (upto an overall multiplicative constant) solution is

$$c_{0𝜶,\{𝐪\}}=\mathrm{exp}(i\frac{\gamma _0}{4}d^3xG_{ab}^{𝜶,\{𝐪\}(𝐫)}(\stackrel{}{x}))^{}X_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}(𝐫)}^{ab}(\stackrel{}{x})).$$
(59)
### 4c. Open technical issues

In , it was shown that the set of states obtained by the action of the holonomy operators on the $`r`$-Fock vacuum is dense in the $`r`$-Fock space. Denote this set by $`D`$. A corresponding set of distributions, $`𝒟^{}`$, in the (dual) loop representation was obtained by the dual action of the holonomy operators on $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. The inner product between two elements of $`𝒟^{}`$ was defined to be equal to the $`r`$-Fock inner product between the two corresponding elements of $`D`$ (see (45) of ). This procedure is consistent provided the set of distributions in $`𝒟^{}`$ corresponding to any (finite) linearly independent set of vectors in $`D`$, is linearly independent in $`𝒟^{}`$. A cursory glance at this provisio indicates that its validity is very plausible but a proof, as yet, does not exist. 555We did not realise the necessity of proving this in .

In the case of linearised gravity, it should be straightforward to generalise the results of  to show that the set of states obtained by the action of the operators $`\widehat{H}_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}^{STT}`$ on $`|0_r>`$ generates a dense subspace, $`D_{rFock}`$, of the $`r`$-graviton Fock space. The corresponding set, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{rFock}^L`$ can be identified by the dual action of $`\widehat{H}_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ and the inner product on $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{rFock}^L`$ can be induced from that on $`D_{rFock}`$ by

$$(\widehat{H}_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}\mathrm{\Phi }_0,\widehat{H}_{𝜷,\{𝐩\}}\mathrm{\Phi }_0)=<0_r|\widehat{H}_{𝜷,\{𝐩\}}^{STT}\widehat{H}_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}^{STT}|0_r>$$
(60)
Further, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{rFock}^L`$ can be completed to a Hilbert space naturally isomorphic to the $`r`$-Fock space. Again, the procedure is consistent provided every finite linearly independent set of vectors in $`D_{rFock}`$ defines a corresponding linearly independent set of vectors in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{rFock}^L`$. This remains to be shown but seems to be quite plausible.

We close with some remarks on the incorporation of the reality properties of the phase space variables in terms of adjointness properties of appropriate quantum operators.

Modulo the open issues above, note that:
(1) the operators $`\widehat{H}_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}`$ and

$$\widehat{M}_{𝜷,\{𝐩\}(𝐫)}:=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{2}d^3xG_{ab}^{𝜷,\{𝐩\}(𝐫)}(\stackrel{}{x})\widehat{h}_{(r)}^{ab}(\stackrel{}{x})\right).$$
(61)
provide an (anti-) representation on $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{phys}^L`$ of the corresponding Poisson bracket algebra.

(2) the action on $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ of the operator $`\widehat{M}_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}(𝐫)}`$ is uniquely determined in terms of that of $`\widehat{H}_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}`$ from (56). This, in conjunction with (1), implies that the action of the operators $`\widehat{H}_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}`$ and $`\widehat{M}_{𝜷,\{𝐩\}(𝐫)}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{rFock}^L`$ is naturally isomorphic to the action of the corresponding operators on $`D_{rFock}`$ in the (dual) $`r`$-Fock representation.

(3)the $`r`$-Fock inner product correctly enforces the adjointness properties of these operators in the $`r`$-Fock representation.

From (1)- (3) above, it is reasonable to expect that the inner product (60) incorporates the appropriate reality conditions. However, an explicit proof of this is still lacking and is expected to be a bit involved for the following reason. The function $`G_{ab}^{𝜶,\{𝐪\}(𝐫)}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ is complex. As a result, $`\widehat{M}_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}(𝐫)}`$ is neither unitary nor hermitian and consequently it is expected that the algebra of operators generated by $`\widehat{M}_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}(𝐫)}`$ and $`\widehat{H}_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}`$ is not closed under the adjoint operation, thus complicating the required proof.

## 5. The case of complex $`\gamma _0`$

Our considerations till now have been based on the real $`SU(2)`$ formulation of gravity. Remarkably, much of our analysis can also be applied to the formulation of section 2 with an arbitrary complex Barbero- Immirzi parameter, $`\gamma _0`$, including the case of $`\gamma _0=i`$ which corresponds to the choice of self dual variables .

We adopt the viewpoint that the kinematic $`U(1)^3`$ based Hilbert space, $`_{kin}`$, is simply an auxilliary structure whose only role is to furnish a (dual) representation of the algebra (not the * algebra) generated by $`H_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}`$ and $`h^{ab}`$. This representation is to be used to find the kernel of the quantum constraints and the physical inner product is to be chosen in such a way as to enforce the * relations on Dirac observables as adjointness relations on the corresponding operators.

To this end, the analysis of sections 2 and 3 holds with a complex $`\gamma _0`$. Note that the dual representation is defined by (30) with the adjoint operation taken with respect to the kinematic Hilbert space inner product. For $`\gamma _0`$ complex, this ‘kinematic’ adjoint operation does not enforce the * relations obtained from the ‘reality conditions’ . The reality conditions on the linearised variables are

$$(h^{ab})^{}=h^{ab}\left(\frac{A_{(ab)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(ab)}}{\gamma _0}\right)^{}=\left(\frac{A_{(ab)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(ab)}}{\gamma _0}\right)$$
(62)
and are to be incorporated in the quantum theory by the physical inner product, not necessarily the kinematic one. In fact, with respect to the kinematic adjoint operation, $`\widehat{h}^{ab}`$ is not self adjoint. Instead in contrast to (26) we have that

$$\widehat{h}^{ab}(\stackrel{}{x})|𝜶,\{𝐪\}>=\gamma _0^{}X_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}^{(ab)}(\stackrel{}{x})|𝜶,\{𝐪\}>$$
(63)
The contents of section 4b upto and including (55) are valid even for complex $`\gamma _0`$. In particular, the Poincare invariance of the vacuum is still encoded in (51). Equation (53) too, is unchanged but (56) in the dual representation must be defined through (30). Since $`X_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}^{(ab)}(\stackrel{}{x})`$ is real and since (with the kinematic adjoint) $`\widehat{h}^{ab}\widehat{h}^{ab}`$ when $`\gamma _0`$ is complex, (56) is replaced by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(\mathrm{exp}(i{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0^{}}{4}}{\displaystyle }d^3xX_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}(𝐫)}^{ab}(\stackrel{}{x})(G_{ab}^{𝜶,\{𝐪\}(𝐫)}(\stackrel{}{x}))^{})`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3x(G_{ab}^{𝜶,\{𝐪\}(𝐫)}(\stackrel{}{x}))^{}\widehat{h}_r^{ab}(\stackrel{}{x})|\psi >}\right)`$ (64)
$`=\mathrm{\Phi }_0(\widehat{H}_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}^{}|\psi >).`$
This equation admits the unique (upto an overall multiplicative constant) solution

$$c_{0𝜶,\{𝐪\}}=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{\gamma _0^{}}{4}d^3x(G_{ab}^{𝜶,\{𝐪\}(𝐫)}(\stackrel{}{x}))^{}X_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}(𝐫)}^{ab}(\stackrel{}{x})\right).$$
(65)
When $`\gamma _0\pm i`$ , we again expect the steps of section 4c to go through with the inner product on $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{Fock}^L`$ specified through

$$(\widehat{H}_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}\mathrm{\Phi }_0,\widehat{H}_{𝜷,\{𝐩\}}\mathrm{\Phi }_0)=<0_r|\widehat{H}_{𝜷,\{𝐩\}}^{STT}\widehat{H}_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}^{STT}|0_r>$$
(66)
where $`\widehat{H}_{𝜷,\{𝐩\}}^{STT}`$ is the adjoint with respect to the $`r`$\- Fock inner product. The latter correctly incorporates the reality conditions given by (62). In particular, since $`\gamma _0`$ is complex, $`\widehat{H}_{𝜷,\{𝐩\}}^{STT}`$ is not a unitary operator. Note that the comments in section 4c regarding the incorporation of reality conditions in terms of adjointness conditions also apply to the inner product (66).

When $`\gamma _0=i`$ or $`i`$, (48) implies that $`\widehat{A}_{ab}^{STT}(\stackrel{}{k})`$ lacks either the positive helicity creation operator or the negative helicity creation operator. Hence $`\widehat{H}_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}(𝐫)}^{STT}`$ cannot generate the positive helicity (respectively, negative helicity) graviton sector from the vacuum. Instead, operators involving the linearised metric would have to be used to generate the Hilbert space from the vacuum. Although we have not attempted the relevant analysis, we do expect that the methods of  can be recast in the language of this paper to successfully do so.

## 6. Discussion

In this work we have shown how the $`r`$-Fock representation for linearised gravity can be constructed, starting from the ‘loop’ representation on the kinematic Hilbert space, $`_{kin}`$. The role of the representation on $`_{kin}`$ in this construction is that it provides the structure to define, with mathematical precision, the dual (anti-)representation on an appropriate space of distributions. In particular, the role of the kinematic Hilbert space inner product is to define the kinematic adjoint operation which is, in turn, used to define the dual representation through (30).

One of the features of this work is that it highlights the importance of the dual representation on the space of distributions. Physical states (as opposed to kinematic ones) lie in this space. The condition (53) which is satisfied by the $`r`$\- Fock vacuum in the $`r`$-Fock representation not only makes sense (in the form of (56)), but also admits an essentially unique solution, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, in the dual representation. Modulo the comments in sections 4c and 5, the rest of (a dense subspace of) the $`r`$\- Fock space is then generated from $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, once again, via the dual representation of appropriately chosen Dirac observables.

Another feature of this work is that the inner product on physical states, namely the $`r`$\- Fock inner product, is very different from the kinematic inner product. Indeed, the physical states are not kinematically normalizable. The results of section 5 further de-emphasize the physical significance of the kinematic inner product and seem to strengthen the old viewpoint in the loop quantum gravity approach wherein the physical inner product is to be determined by the reality conditions. Note, however, that the kinematic structures continue to play a key mathematical role in defining the dual representation even when $`\gamma _0`$ is complex. Thus, even though the rigorous mathematical structures of  are defined only for compact gauge groups, we were able to use such structures profitably, even for the self dual description of linearised gravity.

We now turn to a brief discussion of the physical indistinguishability of the $`r`$-Fock and the Fock representations. In the $`U(1)`$ context we noted in  that there were two possible viewpoints with regard to this issue. One viewpoint is that only algebraic properties of functions on phase space are measurable. This viewpoint applied to linearised gravity would imply that there is no way of asserting whether the pair $`(H_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}(𝐫)}^{STT},h^{abSTT})`$ is being measured in the Fock representation or the pair $`(H_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}^{STT},h_{(r)}^{abSTT})`$ is being measured in the $`r`$-Fock representation. Thus, with this viewpoint, the physics of the $`r`$-Fock representation is exactly (not approximately) identical to that of the Fock representation.

The other viewpoint is valid in the case that there is some property other than purely algebraic properties of the pair $`(H_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}(𝐫)}^{STT},h^{abSTT})`$ by virtue of which the measuring apparatus measures them rather than the pair, $`(H_{𝜶,\{𝐪\}}^{STT},h_{(r)}^{abSTT})`$. In such a case, the $`r`$-Fock representation is physically indistinguishable from the Fock representation only for finite accuracy measurements at distance scales much larger than $`r`$ . Linearised gravity is a truncation of full general relativity. In the latter, the primary object which is measured is the full metric. The notion of smearing does not extend to an arbitrary metric in any natural way (note that the smearing we use is heavily dependent on the background flat metric). Thus, for a reason external to the narrow confines of linearised gravity, we expect that the physical apparatus measures the combination $`\delta ^{ab}+h^{ab}`$ from which $`h^{ab}`$ can be estimated. Hence the object $`h^{ab}`$ rather than $`h_{(r)}^{ab}`$ is preferred and the second viewpoint mentioned above seems to be the valid one. We have explored consequences of this viewpoint for violation of Poincare invariance at scales smaller than $`r`$ and will report our results elsewhere .

As mentioned in the introduction, the deeper question of how (if at all!) the $`U(1)^3`$ loop representation arises from loop quantum gravity is as yet unsolved. A small preliminary step in this direction would be to investigate if the linearised constraints can be solved via an ‘averaging’ procedure  similar to that used in loop quantum gravity , rather than by using the magnetic field operator. This would bring the $`U(1)^3`$ approach structurally even closer to the loop quantum gravity approach.

This work represents the culmination of our efforts, initiated in  and continued in , to understand the older results of  in the mathematically precise language currently used in the field. We hope that this work may aid current efforts to construct semiclassical states in loop quantum gravity  and suggest that it may be a profitable venture to revisit the older efforts of Iwasaki and Rovelli  in the light of subsequent developments in the field.

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Professor Kleber and Professor Sackmann for providing a wonderful research environment at the Technische Universität, München (Garching), where a large part of this work was completed.