PHYSICAL REVIEW D VOLUME 27, NUMBER 12 15 JUNE 1983

Strong-coupling approach to the quantization of conformal gravity

Michio Kaku
Physics Department, City College of the City University of New York, New York, New York 10031
(Received 14 October 1982)
Unlike the Einstein-Hilbert action, conformal gravity is a formally renormalizable theory.
However, conformal gravity has nonunitary dipole ghosts when quantized in the weak-
coupling approximation. We conjecture that the weak-coupling limit is not a valid one, be-
cause of the presence of infrared divergences and the existence of nontrivial Dirac con-
straints on the physical eigenstates of the theory. We show that the simplest, realistic ana-
log for conformal gravity is higher-derivative Yang-Mills theory. We study its strong-
coupling limit and show that its eigenstates are stringlike and that the dipole ghosts are
completely eliminated by the gauge constraints. We formulate conformal gravity in the
strong-coupling approximation, both in Hamiltonian and Lagrangian forms. Again, there
seem to be powerful constraints which eliminate dipole ghosts from the eigenstates of the
Hamiltonian and which allow stringlike states. We find "ghost confinement." One inter-
pretation, in this picture, is to identify the graviton as a stringlike solution to the Dirac con-
straints of the conformal group.

theory eliminate the dipole ghosts from the eigen-

I. INTRODUCTION
The Einstein-Hilbert action probably is not a re-
normalizable theory because of the presence of a di-
mensional coupling constant (Newton's constant).
The direction of research in gravitation has been to
take this unitary theory and to show that it is renor-
malizable in the weak-coupling limit.
In this paper, we take the opposite approach and
take a formally renormalizable theory, conformal
gravity, and try to show that it is unitary in the
strong-coupling limit.
Conformal gravity is usually ruled out as a physi-
cal theory because, in weak-coupling perturbation
theory, the free action generates zero-norm states
(dipole ghosts) associated with any free theory with
1/p4 propagators.1 Our conjecture is that confor-
mal gravity may still be a unitary theory if we use
nonperturbative t e ~ h n i ~ u e s .The
~ , ~ presence of di-
pole ghosts may simply be an artifact of the weak-
coupling expansion.
We feel that the free higher-derivative theory is
simply too primitive to approximate the complex
features that are found in conformal gravity, such as
Dirac constraints associated with local gauge invari-
ance. We feel that the simplest realistic analogy to
conformal gravity should be a higher-derivative
Yang-Mills theory. We show that the quantization
of this theory creates constraints on the eigenstates
of the Hamiltonian. The solutions of these con-
straints are given by strings, not by free dipole ghost
states. Apparently, infrared divergences in this
states of the Hamiltonian. The ghosts are "con-
fined." Although higher-derivative Yang-Mills
theory is probably not physical (due to positivity
problems in the Hamiltonian), it does serve as a tool
with which to begin the quantization of conformal
gravity.
Although there are many ways in which to inves-
tigate departures from weak-coupling perturbation
theory, the one we choose for this paper is the
strong-coupling expansion of the wilson4 lattice,
patterning ourselves around the Hamiltonian for-
malism of Kogut and susskind5 and the Lagrangian
strong-coupling methods of Balian, Drouffe, and
~tz~kson.~
There are difficulties in actually calculating the
free energy in the strong-coupling expansion of con-
formal gravity, but general features of the strong-
coupling expansion are apparent. We find that there
are strong constraints placed on the eigenstates of
the Hamiltonian due to local Lorentz invariance,
and that one natural solution of these constraints is
the closed string with zero mass (at least in lowest
energy 1.
Proving the positivity of the Hamiltonian is a
problem, however, because of the presence of com-
plicated operators in the theory. Although we have
apparently eliminated the problem of dipole ghosts,
we have another problem of proving positivity to all
orders.
One question remains even if the mathematics
works out correctly, and that is how to physically
reproduce the physics of the Einstein-Hilbert action

27
- 2819 @ 1983 The American Physical Society
2820 MICHIO KAKU
at large distances. One approach is to use
spontaneous-symmetry-breaking effects to generate
an R term which will dominate the physics at dis-
tances large compared to the Planck length.
Another approach is to identify the graviton as a
closed-string state. If a massless spin-2 state can be
shown to exist in the theory, then we have one can-
didate for the graviton itself. The theory of gravity
is renormalizable, therefore, because the graviton
has structure.
11. HIGHER-DERIVATIVE GAUGE THEORY
Conformal gravity is usually ruled out as a physi-
cal theory because, in lowest-order perturbation
theory, it is not unitary. Conformal gravity in per-
turbation theory appears very much like an ordinary
higher-derivative free-particle theory, which is
known to have dipole ghosts. For example, the free
theory
when quantized canonically has the Hamiltonian
H= d3k(afbk+b:ak+ha:ak),
We see immediately that single-particle states have
zero norm, and that there are problems in diagonal-
izing the Hamiltonian.
In this paper, however, we take the view that
weak-coupling perturbation theory is not a valid for-
malism in which to study conformal gravity. Be-
cause of the presence of infrared divergences in a
massless theory and because of nontrivial Dirac con-
straints, perhaps weak-coupling perturbation theory
does not correctly give the true Milbert space of
asymptotic states.
We wish to explore analogies to ordinary gauge
theories, where free states found in perturbation
theory (colored states) are actually ruled out because
of infrared divergences and because the spectrum of
free states does not satisfy the Dirac constraints of
the theory. We realize that pushing analogies be-
tween gauge theories and conformal gravity may be
dangerous, but the question of the renormalization
of gravity is sufficiently important to warrant a full
exploration of nonperturbative approaches to the
quantization of conformal gravity.
In this section, we therefore make the assumption
that the Hamiltonian (2.2) is too simplified to exhib-
it the complex features found in conformal gravity,
27
-
especially because of the constraints. In the same
way that free colored states are not solutions to the
constraints of gauge theories, we take the view that
the dipole ghosts found in (2.2) are an artifact of
weak-coupling perturbation and they are not solu-
tions to the constraints of conformal gravity.
Thus, we conclude that the simplest model which
should serve as a guide to the quantization of con-
formal gravity is a higher-derivative gauge theory,
which preserves the original constraints of SU(N)
local gauge invariance, while exhibiting 1/ p 4
behavior in the weak-coupling propagators. The
question we ask in this section is the following: Do
the gauge constraints found in higher-derivative
gauge theory forbid the presence of dipole ghosts
found in weak-coupling perturbation theory? Are the
ghosts "confined"?
In this section, we will set up the strong-coupling
expansion of higher-derivative gauge theory to see if
this Kogut-Susskind quantization is sufficient to re-
move the dipole ghosts of weak-coupling perturba-
tion theory.
We begin our discussion of higher-derivative
gauge theory by first considering a gauge-invariant
action which has higher derivatives:
Notice that this gauge theory has higher deriva-
tives, and that we must be careful in handling the
time components of the theory. We expand out the
action into its components:
At this point, we see that there are too many time
derivatives to put the theory into standard canonical
form. We use a trick: inserting an auxiliary field ki
which will soak up the extra time derivatives. We
can introduce this auxiliary field by using Lagrange
multipliers, i.e., by inserting the following term into
the action:
27
- STRONG-COUPLING APPROACH TO THE QUANTIZATION OF
where ri is the Lagrange multiplier. By integration
by parts and simple reordering, we can rewrite this
Lagrange multiplier term into a more transparent
form:
Notice that the Lagrange multiplier has now become
the canonical conjugate to the ki Geld, and that A.
emerges as the Lagrange multiplier for gauge
transformations, and that the generator of gauge
transformations includes the covariant derivative of
ri. Using these two auxiliary fields, it is now a sim-
ple task to reduce out the total action.
The first term in the action can be rearranged by
using the familiar Bianchi identities for gauge
theories:
The second term in the action can be reduced by
introducing yet another auxiliary field f i (the field
f i can be eliminated by functional integration using
Gaussian integrals):
(The equality means that, by functional integration,
the elimination of the f i field reproduces the left-
hand side.) This term can also be rearranged to
make it more transparent,
I,= J d 4 x Tr( -+ f12+ f,kr-igAo[ki,fi]) -
(2.9)
Notice that the f i field is nothing but the canoni-
cal conjugate of the ki field, and that the Lagrange
multiplier A. now introduces another term into the
generator of gauge transformations. The addition of
the ( f , k ) term into the generator simply means that
the f i and ki fields separately transform as the ad-
joint representation of the group S U ( N ) .
The third term will remain the same. The fourth
term can now be rewritten as follows:
... 2821
Putting everything together, we now obtain the com-
plete canonical reduction of the higher-derivative
gauge action,
Although we originally started with a higher-
derivative gauge theory defined in terms of the field
A @ ,we now have four fields, arranged into two sets
of canonical conjugates: ( fi,k,) and (ri,A, ). The
generator of gauge transformations is simply the co-
variant derivative of the r field along with i (f,k)
term.
We can now introduce canonical commutation re-
lations among the canonical fields,
This allows us to define the generator of gauge
transformations
which introduces the following transformations
among the fields:
[ T , A : ] = i ( a , ~ ~ + g f abcAibT c ) ,
[ T ,fF]= -igfakvbf:
It is important to point out that the Hamiltonian
contains terms which may not be positive definite.
Some of the terms occur with an incorrect sign, and
the n term appears linearly in the Hamiltonian,
which may occur with either sign. Although posi-
tivity probably cannot be ruled out to any finite or-
der in perturbation theory, we must point out that
this Hamiltonian is probably not a physical one. We
use it only as a guide to examining the Hamiltonian
of conformal gravity, which is considerably more
difficult.
A t this point, we are now in a position to examine
the states of the theory. We can rescale the fields as
follows:
2822 MICHIO KAKU 27
-

Notice that the commutation relations are not af-

(2.15) fected, but the net effect is to alter the Hamiltonian:

I
In the strong-coupling limit, only the f term dom- As a -0,
inates (which resembles the case of strong-coupling
ia 'gFp,( n )
gauge theory, where the term E~ dominates). P(n)pv-e
Like in gauge theory, the theory cannot be defined
because the eigenvalues of f are not normalizable. and
In strong-coupling gauge theory, we define a nor- P(~),,u,,,P-'(~+8),,~-',,,
malizable Hilbert space by introducing a small pa-
rameter a (the lattice spacing), and then altering the
canonical commutation relations for E f so that the
electric field becomes the generator of rotations for
a rigid body. In principle, however, there are an in- -ia3g~,~p,(n)
finite number of ways in which the strong-coupling -e
action may be modified to reproduce a set of nor-
This implies that
malizable states.
The most compelling method, of course, is the in-
troduction of lattice gauge theory. Transforming
from the Wilson Lagrangian form to the Kogut-
Susskind strong-coupling Hamiltonian form gives us
a unique way in which to modify the canonical com-
mutation relations (2.12).
By analogy, we now introduce a higher-derivative
lattice theory in Lagrangian form and then carefully
convert the theory to Hamiltonian form in order to
find a generalization of the canonical commutation
relations which allow for normalizable states. We
now start to generalize (2.12).
We begin by defining the usual string bit,

We define a plaquette as the complete circuit

around a square in the lattice space.

In order to introduce higher derivatives into the

lattice gauge theory, we must necessarily perform
complete loops over paths which look like Figs. 1
and 2. In these paths, we are essentially taking the
covariant difference between two plaquettes (i.e., the
covariant derivative of a curvature). We now define
our action as
FIG. 1. These paths and those in Fig. 2 represent the
orientation of the plaquettes necessary to generate a
higher-derivative Yang-Mills theory. Notice that we are
essentially taking the difference between two plaquettes
separated by a distance, which ultimately will become the
derivative of a curvature.
 STRONG-COUPLING APPROACH TO THE QUANTIZATION OF ... 2823

In ordinary quantum mechanics, we begin our

discussion of functional methods by defining the
usual eigenstates of the position operator,
4^19)=9/9) ,
19) J d q ( 4 1 = I 9 (2.22)

Similarly, we can generalize these equations to the

FIG. 2. See caption for Fig. 1. case of string states,' where we introduce the string
position operator U defined by

Following the example of gauge theories, we take

the gauge Ao=O, where the string bits in the time As in ordinary quantum mechanics, we can intro-
direction all reduce out to unity. duce the operator p^ which induces translations in the
As before, we can now reduce our four different eigenstates
types of terms in the action

which implies
/ q + Q ) = e - i ~ e / q .)
In the same way, we can introduce the operator
R^(g)which has the properties
h

R^ -'n,iig)9n,iR^,,i(g)= g u n , j , g ESU(N) ,
fin,ign,i(g)I u)=gun,iR^n,i(g)1 u ) 9

which implies that

h

Rn,i(g) 1 U ) = / g U ) = / U') ,
where

UAjZi=gU",I. if n =n', i = j ,
(2.25)
U,',8,i= UnBj if nf n', i#j .
Thus, if we now introduce the following
parametrization:

where

then it necessarily follows that

,
R^n,i(g)R^n,i(gl)=R^n,i(ggt)
In order to make sense out of each of these com-
plicated terms, we must first introduce the function- [f;(n), fib(n)]=ifabcfic(n), (2.27)
h h
al formalism defined on the lattice. We begin our [f;(n),Un,i]= -.PUn,i .
discussion of functional methods by first pursuing
an analogy with ordinary one-dimensional quantum The whole point of this digression was to find
mechanics. these commutation relations.
2824 MICHIO KAKU 27
-

These are the generalizations of the canonical
commutation relations (2.12) for ordinary gauge
theories. We now seek to generalize them to higher
derivatives.
J
In quantum mechanics, we make the transition
between the Lagrangian formalism to the Hamil-
tonian formalism by making the following function-
al manipulations:

F(q,t;q',tf)= J [+ [c ]
exp i
1
~ ( q , c j ) d t [L = i c j 2 - ~ ( q ) ~

Using

-i$.e.
s(ei-9i+9i+1)=(9i-ei 1 q i + 1 ) = ( Ie
~~ 1qi+]) ,

we get

I
which implies that reduce out the first term in the lattice action. Since
we want to express everything in canonical coordi-
nates, it is necessary to introduce auxiliary variables,
In the same way, we can also make the same func- just as in the continuum case. This is achieved by
tional manipulations on the lattice to derive the introducing the following term into the action:
Hamiltonian of the theory.
The manipulations of the lattice functionals, of
course, are more involved than the previous one-
dimensional example, but the same techniques ap-
ply. Let us examine each term in the lattice action
separately.
The first term involves the time displacement of a
one-plaquette state. In the continuum example
given earlier, this term was reduced to canonical
form by use of the Bianchi identities, converting
terms like DoFij into DiFoj, etc. The Bianchi identi-
ties on the lattice are more complicated, but can still
be rigorously defined.'
Consider the six distinct paths given in Fig. 3.
Let U(1) represent the SU(N) matrix corresponding
to the path along route number 1. It is then easy to
see that
FIG. 3. These paths represent the six directions neces-
sary to generate the Bianchi identities on the lattice.
These relations are just identities, and hence yield no new
because the combined paths of the six routes taken information on the lattice. We will use these Bianchi
together yield unity. identities to reduce our higher-derivative action to canoni-
Now we wish to use the above Bianchi identity to cal form.
27
- STRONG-COUPLING APPROACH TO THE QUANTIZATION OF ... 2825

be expressed entirely in terms of canonical string

variables,

It is easy to see that the V matrix represents the A

"time derivative" of the U matrix (as in the usual U-'(4)= Un,jP(n+ j ) o r ~ - ' n , j 7

gauge formalism on the lattice), but now we must ~-'(5)=P(n)~o,

introduce a higher-order auxiliary variable to soak
up the extra time derivative. W then represents the U ( 3 ) U ( 6 ) =~ ( 3 ) ~ - ' ( 5 ) ~ - ' ( 4 )
time derivative of the V matrix, or the "second time u-'(3)~-'(2)u-'(l),
derivative" of the U matrix.
It is now straightforward to show that Il can now which implies that

The previous expression, in the limit of zero lattice spacing, simply reduces to terms like (Dikj12.
We are now in a position to reduce I2into canonical form, using the functional techniques developed for the
simple one-dimensional case. It is necessary to have two sets of independent string operators U and V (because
we are deali~gwith: higher-derivative field theory), and to have two sets of momentum operators associated
with them, R and R ', respectively, which have the following properties:

which implies that

I
where where the lattice spacing in the time direction is set
-I~,&T'
continuously to zero, keeping the lattice spacing in
V ~ ,=Ie , the space directions the same. [If we let a. be the
wn , ~
-el~a7a
time spacing and a be the space spacing on the lat-
- (2.33) tice, then the I,'s, of course, must be modified. In-
h h

[.-",,,,Un,11=-.p~n,1 9
stead of occurring as order ( l / a 2 ) , I, occurs with
(ao/a3), I2with ( l/aoa), I3with (ao/a3), and I4
[ftl,qn.fI = - ~ f n , l with (ao/a3). We now let a. go to zero while keep-
ing the other a fixed.]
We can therefore rewrite I 2 as
In the limit a. goes to zero, we can perform the
Tr (2.34) integration over qa, ipaf;,i
12=-- 2 2 2 (Wn,i+ w-'n,i) .
2ag , i J [ d W ( ~ ) l ( V n +Ige~ I Vn,i)
Inserting I2into the S matrix, we can now function-
ally integrate out over the qa variable, which is a
simple Gaussian integral, because the integral is
dominated by pa when W becomes a maximum.
Tr a
1
- (Vn+6,i1 e ~ ~ - [ ( i g ~ / 2 a ) a ~ (( fVn,i)
~i)~ .l
This occurs because we are now taking the limit (2.35)
2826 MICHIO KAKU
We see immediately that this reproduces the strong-
coupling Hamiltonian. The great advantage in this
rather long derivation of the Hamiltonian is that we
now have the exact commutation relations between
the f field and all other fields in the lattice approxi-
mation, which generates normalizable states. The
whole point is that (2.33) replaces (2.12).
All other terms in the action can be readily ex-
pressed in terms of canonical string variables. 13,
From the first principles, we might not have
guessed that the commutator of the 7~ field with the
Ai must be modified as in (2.33). The advantage of
going to the Lagrangian formulation of the lattice to
the Hamiltonian is that we get the complete commu-
tation relations of all fields immediately. This, in
turn, leads to a normalizable set of eigenstates of the
Hamiltonian.
In the limit that the spacing a goes to zero, we
rederive the old continuum action given earlier,
(2.11).
The purpose of this digression into lattice gauge
theory is to give a new structure to the continuum
commutation relations given earlier, which led to
non-normalizable states. We now see that f actually
has commutation relations identical with the genera-
tors of the algebra itself, meaning that the spectrum
of states resembles those generated by a spinning
rigid rotor, much like in Kogut-Susskind lattice
gauge theory.
The great advantage of going to lattices is that we
can now construct the Hilbert space of the theory to
all orders in the strong-coupling expansion because
(2.33) replaces (2.12).
The first observation we make is that the strong-
coupling Hamiltonian f 2 does not depend on the
string variables $ and U . This means that the
asymptotic set of states includes, to lowest order in
the inverse coupling constant, zero-energy string
states composed of U's which are gauge invariant.
Thus, any state of the form
necessarily has zero energy to lowest order. We can
27
-
like before, is unchanged. And I4becomes
Tr ao
I4= 7~ (~n,iun,/~-'n+/,iu-~n,/-l)
28 a n,i/
+H.c. (2.36)
We can now reassemble all terms in the action, and
we are left with the final lattice Hamiltonian
give a mass to stringlike states by constructing se-
quences like UUUVVVUUUVVV. . .. The U 's do
not change under the action of the Hamiltonian f ',
but the Hamiltonian does count the number of V's
in any such chain. ( U and V, however, transform
differently under the gauge transformation.)
The important thing to realize, of course, is that
the dipole states found in weak-coupling perturba-
tion theory are not part of the lowest-order strong-
coupling expansion, in analogy with gauge theories.
The ghosts are "confined."
111. HAMILTONIAN STRONG-COUPLING
EXPANSION FOR CONFORMAL GRAVITY
The purpose of the previous section was to prove
that nontrivial complications are introduced when
we quantize a higher-derivative theory with gauge
invariance. In particular, we find that the naive set
of dipole ghosts states derived from the weak-
coupling perturbation theory look nothing like the
actual eigenstates of the Hamiltonian. The Dirac
constraints are sufficient to rule out, to lowest order
in the inverse coupling constant, the presence of di-
pole states. (This does not mean that higher-
derivative Yang-Mills theory is a physical theory be-
cause of the question of positivity of the Hamiltoni-
an.) We also note the presence of zero-mass string
states in the theory (which may or may not remain
massless to all orders in the inverse coupling con-
stant). In conclusion, the simple free theory of a
higher-derivative particle action with zero-norm
states cannot serve as the "minimal" model in which
to study conformal gravity.
27
- STRONG-COUPLING APPROACH TO THE QUANTIZATION OF . . . 2827

Applying these same techniques to conformal

gravity meets considerable problems, as we shall see,
but we can make considerable progress in defining
the strong-coupling expansion of the theory.
We first start with the group structure of the con-
formal group 0(4,2) [locally isomorphic to SU(2,2)]
with six Lorentz rotations Mob,four translations Pa,
four conformal transformations KO, and one dilata-
tion D,'

We are using the usual convention adopted in

canonical vierbein theories where the raised index
i,j, k,. . . refer to a lower index which has been raised
by 3g'j, which is the three-dimensional inverse of
3gij,i.e.,
In the usual way, we form curvatures

(see Refs. 2 and 3 for more conventions).

where
The kf has 12 independent fields. We further
decompose this mixed tensor into a six-component
antisymmetric tensor kab and a six-component sym-
metric tensor kij as follows:

- 2 ( e ~ ~ - e ~ ; - e ~ ~ + e etc.
~ ; ) ,

In the usual theory, the b, field drops out of the
action. Here, however, we want to keep this field
because it will eventually become one of the dynami-
cal fields of the canonical theory.
~ e f o r e , we
~ , ~showed that the conformal action
In much the same way, we now take the 16 com-
ponents within the f tensor and decompose it into a
three-vector fin, another three-vector fni, two scalars
f,,, and f:, a symmetric traceless tensor x,,
antisymmetric tensor fij with three components:
and an

can be put into canonical form by first identifying

which fields are physical and which ones are not.
It turns out that the theory cannot be placed into
canonical form unless we introduce auxiliary fields.
We introduce the field kf (the generalized second
fundamental form) which is related to the time
derivative of the ef field. We introduce the kf field
into the action by using a Lagrange multiplier

We now can rearrange the action into the familiar

canonical form of a Hamiltonian plus Dirac con-
straints.
The Lagrange multipliers for the first-class Dirac
where constraints are (composing the 15-parameter confor-
2828 MICHIO KAKU

ma1 group):
(ep,+") ,
e t =multiplier for general covariance, (&,,Ti') ,
kab=multiplier for local Lorentz transformations,
fin, f,,=multipliers for proper conformal (bi,fni),
transformations, (k,f;) .
b =n 'ba =multiplier for scale transformations.

Furthermore, we can now identify the canonical We can now put the action into the usual canoni-
pairs of coordinates cal form

where
Ka=fieai(4f3 S k , i - ~ ; & ~f
- bik)
,-
+6na(--Tk;jk'J+ f k 2 + 3 b k b k - 2 ~ ; b k - 4 f : - ~ 3 ~ ) ,

I
1 = DiA j. +gijbkAk-bjA;
D r* Aj .- , terms. We actually find that, by carefully including
surface effects, the form of the two generators Ho
and and Hi, given as

We notice immediately that, like the case with the

Einstein-Hilbert action, the Hamiltonian is actually
a total derivative.'' However, this surface term is
nonvanishing and can be calculated. actually creates surface terms in the Hamilton's
In the case of the Einstein-Hilbert action, we no- equations. The correct equations, including total
tice that the full Hamiltonian formalism is not com- derivative terms, actually reads as follows:
plete unless we include the surface term. In the
metric form of gravity, where we have the canonical
field gij and its conjugate d j , we find that the equa-
tion

is actually not satisfied unless we add in surface If we take boundary conditions equivalent to a
27
- STRONG-COUPLING APPROACH TO THE QUANTIZATION OF
Schwarzschild metric at large distances, we find that
the only term which survives is
Thus, the Hamiltonian is actually not zero in the
Einstein-Hilbert example.
We find an exact parallel in the conformal case.
We also find that the simple-minded variation of the
and M~~is unchanged.
Once again, it is easily checked that the equation
(3.17)
does not represent the correct variation of the con-
straints unless we add in an extra surface term S.
The actual calculation of the surface terms is very
straightforward, but rather tedious, and certainly
not enlightening. However, we can take a short cut
to the final answer.
First, if we set Pa to be zero (thereby breaking
general covariance), then the variation of the con-
straint also is zero. But the variation of the P con-
... 2829
constraints by the canonical fields does not repro-
duce the correct equations of motions because sur-
face terms were deleted.
To begin this reduction, we find it convenient to
first eliminate some of the invariances. We will ex-
plicitly eliminate proper conformal transformations
by setting Ka=O, and then by choosing four more
constraints: bi =O and k =O. Of course, we still
have the usual Poincari group and dilatations. In
this reduced form, we can write down an equivalent
theory based on the following constraints:
I
straint yields two types of terms, one corresponding
to surface terms and the other corresponding to nor-
mal terms which make up the A,B,C,D found above.
The sum of these two terms is zero. But the surface
terms make up the real Harniltonian. By setting the
P constraints to zero, then, we can use the nonsur-
face terms instead of the surface terms as our Ham-
iltonian (since they sum to zero).
Second, we can use the strong-coupling limit
(scaling f by a factor of g and scaling k down by a
factor of g-'), in which case only the f term dom-
inates. (The other terms can also be ruled out by
asymptotic arguments concerning reasonable as-
sumptions about the large-scale behavior of the
fields.)
The expression for S is
 MICHIO KAKU
where
If we now take the limit as the coupling gets
strong, take into account reasonable asymptotic ex-
pressions for the fields at infinity, and use the fact
that Pa=O, we find that the Hamiltonian reduces to
Like the higher-derivative gauge theory found in
Sec. 11, we find that the conformal Hamiltonian is
nothing but the square of the f field in the strong-
coupling limit.
The crucial difference, however, between the con-
formal case and the higher-derivative gauge theory
is that the commutation relations are much more in-
volved, and so are the higher-order interactions. Be-
cause we have explicitly broken general covariance
by taking Pa=O, we must necessarily choose four
more constraints for the theory. Fortunately, a sim-
ple examination of the Dirac brackets shows that
there is a wide class of constraints which can be ar-
bitrarily imposed which preserve nice properties of
the theory.
For example, by choosing our constraints so that
we find that
so that, to lowest order in the inverse coupling con-
stant, we find that a string state composed of
Lorentz string bits has zero mass and satisfies all
constraints,
T r P exp [ $~ ' ~ o ? ~] d1 Ox) .
We find, therefore, that string loops defined over
the Lorentz group have zero energy and satisfy all
constraints. (Unfortunately, we also find that any
combination of metric tensors gij, because they have
zero Poisson brackets with the Lorentz generator
M'~, also have the property of having zero mass.
Apparently, higher-order corrections will give them
mass.)
The great difficulty, however, in actually calculat-
ing with this system is that we do not know exactly
how to generalize the commutation relations among
f, k, e, and a so that we have normalizable eigen-
states. In the case of higher-derivative gauge theory,
we appealed to the lattice to give us a prescription
which generalized the commutation relations found
in the continuum theory. Using the quantum
mechanics of rigid rotors, we then can construct the
Hilbert space of the theory.
There may be an infinite number of ways in
which to generalize the commutation relations so
that a normalizable set of eigenstates emerges. The
lattice, however, should give us the most convenient
set of generalized commutation relations, so we now
turn to a lattice description of conformal gravity.
Unfortunately, we will find that the lattice formula-
tion of conformal gravity is not sufficiently
developed to give a definite answer concerning the
spectrum of states of the theory.
IV. LATTICE CONFORMAL GRAVITY
In the previous section, much like the case of con-
tinuum higher-derivative gauge theory, we found
that the commutation relations were not sufficient
to define a normalizable set of eigenstates. This
problem was solved by going to the lattice approxi-
mation.
We begin a discussion of the lattice formulation
of conformal gravity by warning ahead of time that
the present formulation is incomplete.
Starting with a string bit [using the Dirac ma-
trices as 0(4,2) generators],
It is easy to show that the following action has the
desired properties:
We see that in the limit of zero lattice spacing, we
reproduce the original continuum action.
In the continuum case, however, we had to add
one more constraint into the theory,
(4.3)
This constraint allows us to make the usual iden-
tification with the connection on the group. We
must impose this constraint, because the equation of
motion for the connection field for Lorentz transfor-
mations does not reproduce the usual result.
27
- STRONG-COUPLING APPROACH TO THE QUANTIZATION OF
On the lattice, this constraint can be reproduced
by imposing
Now, let us test to see that our lattice action is actu-
ally invariant under conformal transformations.
First, let us discuss local Lorentz transformations.
If Z is a matrix created by exponentiating the
Lorentz operator M'~, then we find that the
transformation
keeps the action invariant because y5 commutes with
z.
The constraint can similarly be treated. Under
the action of Z, we note that the matrix associated
with P a transformations simply rotates into itself,
The entire action, including the constraint, is there-
fore invariant under local Lorentz transformations.
The variation of the action under dilatations is
also easy to calculate, because D commutes with the
y5 found in the action, and D simply transforms
ya( 1+ys) into itself. Thus, both the action and the
constraint are again invariant.
Under the action of proper conformal transforma-
tions, the situation is a bit more difficult. First, no-
tice that the constraint does not change under the
action of proper conformal transformations, because
And second, notice that the action of proper confor-
mal transformations induces
yU(1+y5)c'I --~~(l+y~)€~
e Y5e =y5+2ya(l+y5ka+ . . .
Therefore, we now must check that
However, this term is also zero because we can in-
sert a complete set of states between the two pla-
quettes, and each term in this expansion is separate-
ly zero,
..
This means that the action and the constraint are
each invariant under proper conformal transforma-
tions.
The theory, however, is not invariant under ordi-
nary translations Pa. This is because, in the contin-
uum theory, the Weyl action is only invariant under
a modified P transformation, and this modified P
transformation can be shown to be exactly a general
covariant transformation. Thus, the P transforma-
tion in the fiber space becomes, after modification,
the general covariant transformation. This is very
elegant, but for our purposes it means that we can-
not treat the P transformation like the others. Be-
cause our lattice theory explicitly breaks general co-
variance (which is only restored in the continuum
limit), we find that our lattice action is actually in-
variant under the conformal subgroup of the Poin-
card transformations and dilatations, not the entire
0(4,2).
At this point, one may proceed in two directions,
both of which will receive more attention in further
work.
(1) We can try to use the radiation gauge to
transform the lattice into a Kogut-Susskind Hamil-
tonian form, in which case we may be able to derive
the correct commutation relations which will permit
a normalizable set of eigenstates for the strong-
coupling limit. The difficulty here is that the gauge
Un,,= 1 cannot be chosen, because we do not have
enough invariances to completely eliminate the
fields corresponding to the P transformations (the
vierbein). Because general covariance is only re-
stored in the continuum, we cannot impose the
gauge Ungo=1 from the start. This means that any
generalization of the commutation relations must, at
some point, include the effects of general covariance
(which is explicitly broken on the lattice).
(2) One may proceed with the strong-coupling ex-
pansion of the lattice in the Lagrangian formalism
without imposing the radiation gauge. As in the
usual gauge theory on the lattice, we can power ex-
pand in powers of the inverse coupling,
2832 MICHIO KAKU
We must be careful in integrating over noncom-
pact groups such as 0(4,2) [or SU(2,2)], but other-
wise all integrations in the previous equation can be
performed to any order in the inverse coupling.
The problem, however, is that even the integration
without any powers of the inverse coupling is just as
hard as solving the original gauge theory because of
the presence of the Lagrange multiplier term.
In principle, it should be possible, perhaps with
Monte Carlo techniques, to calculate the space
dependence of terms like
where C1 and C2 correspond to closed loops in con-
formal space.
Analytical methods of actually calculating the
strong-coupling expansion are currently being stud-
ied.
In summary, our lattice techniques are not yet
developed enough to give a definitive answer on how
to modify the commutation relations so that the
strong-coupling Hamiltonian f can generate a nor-
malizable set of states.
V. DISCUSSION
We have proven what we set out to prove, namely,
that the free higher-derivative action with dipole
ghosts is simply too elementary to serve as a model
for the quantization of conformal gravity.
We have further shown that the dipole ghost
states are actually forbidden (to lowest order in in-
verse coupling) because they do not satisfy the gauge
constraints of the higher-derivative gauge theory.
We thus make the case that higher-derivative
gauge theory is the simplest model where nontrivial
complications due to gauge constraints begin to
emerge. We suspect that, due to infrared diver-
gences, the naive weak-coupling expansion is not
adequate to describe the asymptotic states of the
theory. The ghosts are "confined."
Although higher-derivative gauge theory is not a
physical theory (because there are terms which may
eventually violate positivity in the Hamiltonian), we
do see novel features, such as the presence of closed
string states with zero mass (to lowest order).
Because the continuum theory in the strong-
coupling limit did not yield a normalizable set of
states, we had to go to the lattice to make a modifi-
cation of the commutation relations compatible with
normalizable states.
27
-
Similarly, conformal gravity also possesses a
strong-coupling expansion which allows zero-mass
closed string states (the strings are defined over the
Lorentz group). Like higher-derivative gauge
theory, we find that the Hamiltonian to lowest order
is simply f 2 . There may be many ways in which to
modify the commutation relations so that we obtain
a renormalizable set of eigenstates.
The simplest nontrivial generalization of the com-
mutation relations should come out of the lattice.
However, because general covariance is not a sym-
metry of the lattice version of conformal gravity, we
have a certain amount of difficulty in making the
transition from the Lagrangian to the Hamiltonian
approach. Meanwhile, the lattice itself has a
strong-coupling expansion in the Lagrangian for-
malism. We find that all integrations can formally
be performed, but that it is difficult to obtain this
strong-coupling power expansion analytically.
Eventually, we hope to be able to establish posi-
tivity of the Hamiltonian of conformal gravity. Be-
cause conformal gravity is renormalizable, proving
that it is also unitary would render the theory a
leading candidate for a quantum theory of gravity.
One remaining question may be asked: where is
the graviton in this theory? One approach may be
to use symmetry breaking1' to derive an R term in
the action, which would then dominate interactions
at distances large compared to the Planck length.
There is another possibility, however. We men-
tioned that the constraints to the theory are very re-
strictive, and that we want conformal dipoles to be
eliminated by these constraints. The solutions to
these constraints would be Lorentz-invariant states.
One possibility is to identify the graviton as a string-
like state of the theory. The graviton would have
structure, which would disappear at distances large
compared to the Planck length. In order to show
this, we must first establish that the free energy of
our lattice is compatible with zero-mass states. (Be-
cause higher-derivative gauge theory seems to have
zero-mass strings, at least in lowest order, it may be
possible that there are massless particles in the con-
formal case as well given by closed strings.) Then
we must establish that there are spin-2 states in the
theory (most likely given by a linear combination of
several plaquettes, each one rotated with respect to
the other). This is an unorthodox conjecture, postu-
lating that the graviton emerges as a string in the
strong-coupling limit, but it is a conjecture that we
wish to explore. W e have developed a generally co-
27 STRONG-COUPLING APPROACH TO THE QUANTIZATION O F
variant random lattice formalism to explore this pos-
sibility.12
Of course, because the assumptions underlying
this approach in this paper are speculative, serious
objections can still be raised. We comment on two
of them.
(1) If an R term is nonperturbatively generated by
the R 2 action, then it seems that we can now use
weak-coupling perturbation theory to expand around
the R term and hence ghosts are once again intro-
duced as a possibility. This most likely does not
happen in our scenario because Einstein's action is
only an effective van der Waals force that emerges
at large distances between real states of the Hamil-
tonian. In field theory, it is possible that the effec-
tive, van der Waals force between bound states has
interactions which are seemingly nonphysical (e.g.,
nonrenormalizable, nonunitary) because the "real"
dynamics does not take place at the effective scale.
In our approach, the real states of the Hamiltonian
are solutions of the Dirac constraints, which may be
bound states quite unlike the ghost states found in
weak-coupling perturbation theory, while the long-
range force of Einstein's R term only emerges as a
van der Waals force, and hence should not be quan-
tized in the usual way.
(2) Because conformal gravity and superconfor-
ma1 gravity might be asymptotically free, then per-
turbation theory should be a valid tool for exploring
the ultraviolet behavior of correlation functions,
which in turn should show nonunitary behavior.
We evade this problem in our approach with the fol-
lowing analogy. In QCD, the ultraviolet behavior of
correlation functions does manifest the pointlike
structure of the quarks, but these quarks are only
"free" within the confines of a "bag." At high ener-
gies, the quarks are like free particles as long as they
are within the effective bag, but quarks as physical
objects are never seen. In a crude analogy, we con-
jecture that, if these theories are found to be asymp-
totically free, then once again the ultraviolet
'J. Kiskis, Phys. Rev. D l5, 2178 (1974); S. Ferrara and
m,
B. Zumino, Nucl. Phys. 301 (1978).
2M. Kaku, Nucl. Phys. m, 285 (1982).
3M. Kaku, preceding paper, Phys. Rev. D 27, 2809 (1983).
4K. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D 10,2445 (1974).
5J. Kogut and L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D 15,395 (1974).
6R. Balian, J. Drouffe, and C . Itzykson, Phys. Rev. D 10,
.. . 2833
behavior of the correlation functions will indeed
show free ghosts, but that they are confined within
the boundaries of a bag whose size emerges from a
dynamical breaking of scale symmetry (such as
found, perhaps, in a lattice approach). These ghosts,
in some crude sense, are confined, so that they are
never manifested as physical states of the theory, but
nevertheless the correlation functions will detect the
presence of such ghosts. If we can use these correla-
tion functions in the ultraviolet region to extract a
physically meaningful result which is nonunitary
due to the presence of ghosts, then our approach to
the quantization of gravity may be shown to be in-
correct. Our conjecture is that, if the theory is
asymptotically free, then the pointlike ghosts may
show up in Green's functions of the theory, but not
in any physically measurable fashion.
In conclusion, we would like to stress that many
of these questions are being explored and that our
approach is speculative, and that it represents a
drastic departure from the current direction of
research in the quantization/renormalization prob-
lems of gravity. Although this new avenue of
research significantly deviates from the current phi-
losophy and conventional wisdom, we feel that the
question of the renormalization of gravity is a suffi-
ciently important problem to warrant new ideas.
Using the renormalization properties of conformal
gravity to explore the strong-coupling or nonpertur-
bative properties of the theory, which may yield en-
tirely new physical states or confined objects, may
be a promising new approach to the question of the
nonunitary structure of the theory in the weak-
coupling expansion and to the question of the renor-
malization of gravity itself.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank B. Sakita for critical com-
ments and valuable discussions. M. K. was support-
ed in part by Grants Nos. NSF PHY-78-24888 and
CUNY F R A P R F 13090.
3376 (1974);11, 2090 (1975);11,2104 (1975).
'M. Creutz, Phys. Rev. D 15,1128 (1976).
8J. Kiskis, Phys. Rev. D 26, 429 (1982).
9M. Kaku, P. Townsend, and P. van Nieuwenhuizen,
Phys. Lett.m, 304 (1977); Phys. Rev. D u, 3179
(1978). For discussions of lattice gravity, see A. Das,
M . Kaku, and P. Townsend, Phys. Lett. m, 11
2834 MICHIO KAKU 27
-

( 1979); M. Kaku, in Superspace and Supergrauity, edit- (1974).

ed by M. Rocek and S. Hawking (Cambridge University "See S. Adler, Rev. Mod. Phys. 54, 729 (1982) for com-
Press, Cambridge, England, 1980). See also L. Smolin, plete references. M. Kaku and P. Townsend, Phys.
Nucl. Phys. w, 333 (1978). Lett.m, 54 (1978).
l q . Regge and C . Teitelboim, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 88, 286 12M. Kaku (unpublished).