What are the remaining obstacles to low-energy quantum gravity?

+ 7 like - 0 dislike
581 views

In a 2003 review Burgess outlined how the QFT perturbative methodology is being extended to gravity, and described some effective quantum gravity expansions that reproduce general relativity in the lowest order, and provide quantum corrections. My question is what were the developments during the last decade, and what remaining issues prevent including such effective quantum gravity into the Standard Model on the same terms as say QCD?

Of course, gravity is non-renormalizable, but after Weinberg renormalizability is considered a mathematical convenience rather than a must, it is nice to have, but... In both renormalizable and non-renormalizable theories it is the cutoff that removes the divergencies and blocks high energy degrees of freedom whose "true" theory is unknown. Burgess writes that "non-renormalizable theories are not fundamentally different from renormalizable ones. They simply differ in their sensitivity to more microscopic scales which have been integrated out".

One problem with the older semi-classical gravity was that when one couples quantum fields to the classical metric tensor of general relativity it becomes possible to track quantum observables through changes in the tensor, so the uncertainty principle is violated. Conservation laws are also violated, see e.g. Rickles (p.20). Does effective quantum gravity avoid these problems? Burgess also mentions that even the leading quantum corrections might be too small to detect. Is it still the case, and is that where the main problem is?

EDIT: Low Energy Theorems of Quantum Gravity from Effective Field Theory (2015) by Donoghue and Holstein seems to be relevant, it draws direct analogy to QCD:"In QCD at the lowest energies there exist only light pions which are dynamically active and the interactions of these pions are constrained by the original chiral symmetery of QCD. The resulting effective field theory — chiral perturbation theory — has many aspects in common with general relativity". But they only treat gravitational scattering.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2016-02-11 14:37 (UTC), posted by SE-user Conifold

edited Feb 11, 2016
@CuriousOne Nonetheless non-renormalizable theories are now routinely admitted, and even renormalizable ones are known to have non-renormalizable low-energy reductions, so there is no avoiding them. If I understand Cao and Burgess correctly restrictions on effective theories that make them physically sensible are far broader than renormalizability, and in EQG in particular the terms of perturbative expansions are more or less uniquely determined, it is no string theory.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2016-02-11 14:37 (UTC), posted by SE-user Conifold
Fermi's theory of CP violating weak interactions is non-renormalizable, it was experimentally confirmed. And "low energy effective theory" is a standard term in physics as you well know. Is there a point to this?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2016-02-11 14:37 (UTC), posted by SE-user Conifold
May I step in as a neutral referee (I've performed and published research calculations with renormalizable theories and with non-renormalizable theories). If you are looking for a final answer then wait for a renormalizable theory. That worked out very well for QED and QCD and the Standard Model to a lesser extent. If you are looking for something to do in the meantime then study effective theories. That is somewhat of a "shut-up and calculate" answer but there are times when it is necessary and not entirely meaningless.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2016-02-11 14:37 (UTC), posted by SE-user Lewis Miller
@Lewis Miller I thought that people do not believe that renormalizable gravity is promising, both string theory and LQG are looking for a "final" theory not in QFT form. But so far they face a lot of issues, it seems that this low energy effective gravity might be a bridge to resolving some of them in simpler context.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2016-02-11 14:37 (UTC), posted by SE-user Conifold
@Conifold I'm not going to disagree.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2016-02-11 14:37 (UTC), posted by SE-user Lewis Miller
 Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead. To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL. Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post. This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button. Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview Your name to display (optional): Email me at this address if my answer is selected or commented on: Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications. Anti-spam verification: If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:p$\hbar$ysicsOv$\varnothing$rflowThen drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds). To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.