Fixed Point Values, Metric Signatures,

and Background Independence

Benjamin Koch1, ∗ and Cristobal Laporte1

1
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
Instituto de Fı́sica, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile,
Casilla 306, Santiago, Chile

MOTIVATION WORKING HYPOTHESIS

• In asymptotic safety the UV behavior of the the-
ory is governed by the existence and in case of exis-
tence the value of the fixed point of the dimnesion-
less coupling constant. In the literature ???cite???,
there have been fairly consistent results for the
fixed point value g ∗ of the dimensionless Newtons
coupling g(k) = G(k) · k 2 . While the fixed point
value λ∗ of the cosmological coupling λ(k) = Λ(k)k2 ,
has been more sensible to specifications of the
model. In particular, changing the matter content
could result in λ∗ → −λ∗ .
• The choice of metric signature
Lets consider the effective average action of the f (R)
type
Z  
p α3 (k)
Γk = dx4 | − g| α0 (k)k 4 + α1 (k)k 2 R + α2 (k)R2 + R3 2 ,
k
(3)
which has the four dimensionless running couplings (αi ),
which are already calculated ???cite???. Since along the
flow certain couplings can change their sign by changing
k, it is clear that a scale dependent action Γk can not be
invariant under a discrete symmetry like (1). However,
in a non-scale dependent regime, such as a fixed point
regime, such a symmetry would be possible. Lets thus
assume that the couplings of (3) have the UV fixed points
???cite???

P
s
lim αi (k) = αi∗ , (4)
(+, −, −, −) −→ (−, +, +, +), (1) k→∞

As working hypothesis lets assume that in the UV, the ef-

in high energy physics is typically a matter of con- fective action (3) is dominated by highly fluctuating path
UV
vention, which means that it does not affect actions, integral contributions of the metric tensor gµν which
equations of motion or observables. However, one have no memory of whether the signature of the classical
0
has to be carefull, since when gravitational cur- background metric gµν was (+, −, −, −) or (−, +, +, +).
vatures are involved, in particular with the Ricci Those dominating contributions should thus have equal
scalar since amounts of (+, −, −, −) and (−, +, +, +) metric signa-
tures. Therefore, we suppose that (1) is an approximate
P
s
UV symmetry of the effective action
R −→ −R. (2)
P
s
Γk |U V −→ ±Γk |U V . (5)
In the simplest case of an Einstein Hilbert action
this change in metric signature, is thus typically ???analogy with LR symmetry restau-
absorbed in a change in sign of the cosmological ration in SM at very high energies
constant Λ → −Λ. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.6486.pdf???

RESULT
A naive observation of those two points is that both, the
change in metric signature and the fixed points found in
functional RG approaches display issues of sign changes The effective action (3) is composed of terms of the
in λ. type

The purpose of this small essay is to study whether
imposing a discrete symmetry associated to the change
in metric signature (1), can be related to the possible
fixed point values in the corresponding effective average
action.
αn (k)Rn · k 4−2n |n=0,1,2,3 , (6)
If one assumes that both αn (k) and k 4−2n do not trans-
form under (1) this sign change applies to the whole term.
At the UV fixed point (4) the dimensionless couplings get
 2

rid of their k dependence. One further might speculate curvatures R ???Hindemarsch-Bonanno-Frank??? which
that both do not transform trivially under (1). Thus, the as-
P
sumption (7) is typically wrong, when it comes to physi-
k 2 −→
s
k2 . (7) cal predictions. Fortunately, there is a selfconsistent scale
setting procedure, that works at the level of the effective
Accordingly, the UV effective action is only symmetric action ???cite-ben???. Lets see how this procedure ad-
under (1) and (7) if dresses the problem. Lets consider the confirmed fixed
points of the AS scenario ???cite???. The UV effective
α0∗ = α2∗ = 0, or if α1∗ = α3∗ = 0. (8)
action reads
If one finds that (8) is not true in a given scenario one Z p
Γ∗k = dx4 | − g| α0∗ k 4 + α1∗ k 2 R + α2∗ R2 ,


tends to conclude that the working hypothesis or the as- (9)
sumption (7) was not true. The former would mean that
the UV fixed point behavior of the theory is for some rea- The optimal scale for (9) is found from δΓ∗k /δk 2 = 0,
son not dominated by background independent quantum giving
UV
fluctuations gµν . This would be a sign for a violation of
α1
the desired UV background independence. k 2 = −R . (10)
2α0

WETTERICH EQUATION AND SCALE Inserting (10) back into (9) one gets the scale indepen-
SETTING dent UV effective action
α12
Z  
∗ 4
p 2
The most studied approach to AS, is the Wet- Γ = dx | − g|R α2 − . (11)
4α0
terich equation. Using this techniques, a fi- The result (11) is indeed symmetric under (1), restor-
nite set of UV fixed points have been found ing background independence, resolving the conflict with
???cite...https://arxiv.org/pdf/0705.1769.pdf???. The our working hypothesis. Note that (11) is further purely
values of those fixed points do, however, not follow the quadratic in the scalar curvature, which resembles a well
rule (8). What could have gone wrong, is UV-background behaved quantum gravity theory ???. Note further, that
independence really not achieved? this procedure would also work and give a very similar
One possible source of the problem might be in the result, if there were further non trivial fixed point in an
assumption that k 2 is an external non-physical control extended effective action.
parameter which fulfills (7). Whenever one tries to ob-
tain an observable prediction for an action like (3) one
has to perform a scale setting procedure. In this scale
setting the scale k 2 has to be identified with physical pa-
∗
rameters of the system like distances d2 = xµ gµν xν or Electronic address: bkoch@fis.puc.cl