Hamiltonian Weak Gravitational Field - Learn Free Particle Theory

Andre' Quanta
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
In weak field regime i know that it is possible to quantize the gravitational field obtaining a quantum theory of free particles, called gravitons, which is very similar to the one for the electtromagnetic field.
Do you know some book in wiich i can study this theory?
In anycase what is the expression for the Hamiltonian of this theory in terms of creations and destructions operators?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'd suggest starting with Donoghue's lecture notes http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9512024. The first part of DeWitt's http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.2445, as well as the original papers by Feynman and DeWitt might be useful at some point too, but I think that the effective field theory point of view is important and those older references predate that whole perspective, so might not be the best pedagogy anymore.
 
  • Like
Likes Andre' Quanta
I was interested in the Hamiltonian operator for the theory, is it the same as the one of the free electromagnetic field?
 
Andre' Quanta said:
I was interested in the Hamiltonian operator for the theory, is it the same as the one of the free electromagnetic field?

The field operator in linearized gravity has spin 2 so it cannot be the same. I don't know off hand any place to find an explict expression for the Hamiltonian. It's best if you learn what the Lagrangian is, then you can see if it's easy to make a Legendre transformation to write a Hamiltonian. The Lagrangian is more useful for covariant QFT, though you might have some particular reason to study the Hamiltonian.
 
The weak gravitational field, the usual h mu nu, satisfies the simple D' Alemebert equation, so the lagrangian is the one of Klein-Gordon replacing the scalar field with the tensorial one in our theory: this will be valid also for the Hamiltonian so i would say the Hamiltonian that i am looking for is simply the same as the one used for the free Klein-Gordon field and the free electromagnetic field, am i wrong?
ps: there would be difference in some costant for the dimensionality, but we can neglect it, i am only looking for a formal expression
 
Maybe you want to use the Wheeler-DeWitt and linearize. Otherwise, you can start with the linearized Lagrangian and you'll have to apply constraints for the gauge conditions etc.
 
I asked a question here, probably over 15 years ago on entanglement and I appreciated the thoughtful answers I received back then. The intervening years haven't made me any more knowledgeable in physics, so forgive my naïveté ! If a have a piece of paper in an area of high gravity, lets say near a black hole, and I draw a triangle on this paper and 'measure' the angles of the triangle, will they add to 180 degrees? How about if I'm looking at this paper outside of the (reasonable)...
Thread 'Relativity of simultaneity in actuality'
I’m attaching two figures from the book, Basic concepts in relativity and QT, by Resnick and Halliday. They are describing the relativity of simultaneity from a theoretical pov, which I understand. Basically, the lightning strikes at AA’ and BB’ can be deemed simultaneous either in frame S, in which case they will not be simultaneous in frame S’, and vice versa. Only in one of the frames are the two events simultaneous, but not in both, and this claim of simultaneity can be done by either of...
Back
Top