4.7 Article

Allowable complex metrics in minisuperspace quantum cosmology

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 105, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.026022

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Research Council [CoG 772295]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Kontsevich and Segal proposed a criterion for determining allowable complex metrics, which has been suggested to apply to gravity as well. The study explored this criterion in the context of gravitational path integrals using simple models, finding that saddle points of the integrals lie at the edge of allowable metrics. The criterion also provides insight into the evolution of scalar fields in the context of the no-boundary proposal.
Kontsevich and Segal (K-S) have proposed a criterion to determine which complex metrics should be allowed, based on the requirement that quantum field theories may consistently be defined on these metrics, and Witten has recently suggested that their proposal should also apply to gravity. We explore this criterion in the context of gravitational path integrals, in simple minisuperspace models, specifically considering de Sitter (dS), no-boundary and anti-de Sitter (AdS) examples. These simple examples allow us to gain some understanding of the off-shell structure of gravitational path integrals. In all cases, we find that the saddle points of the integral lie right at the edge of the allowable domain of metrics, even when the saddle points are complex or Euclidean. Moreover the Lefschetz thimbles, in particular the steepest descent contours for the lapse integral, are cut off as they intrude into the domain of nonallowable metrics. In the AdS case, the implied restriction on the integration contour is found to have a simple physical interpretation. In the dS case, the lapse integral is forced to become asymptotically Euclidean. We also point out that the K-S criterion provides a reason, in the context of the no-boundary proposal, for why scalar fields would start their evolution at local extrema of their potential.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据