jason miller mit liouville quantum gravity and the
play

Jason Miller (MIT) Liouville quantum gravity and the Brownian map - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Sep 03, 2022 •228 likes •1.55k views

Jason Miller (MIT) Liouville quantum gravity and the Brownian map Jason Miller and Scott Sheffield Cambridge and MIT July 15, 2015 Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 1 / 24 Overview Part I: Picking surfaces at random

  1. The Gaussian free field ◮ The discrete Gaussian free field (DGFF) is a Gaussian random surface model. ◮ Measure on functions h : D → R for D ⊆ Z 2 and h | ∂ D = ψ with density respect to Lebesgue measure on R | D | : � � 1 − 1 � ( h ( x ) − h ( y )) 2 Z exp 2 x ∼ y ◮ Natural perturbation of a harmonic function ◮ Fine mesh limit: converges to the continuum GFF, i.e. the standard Gaussian wrt the Dirichlet inner product ( f , g ) ∇ = 1 � ∇ f ( x ) · ∇ g ( x ) dx . 2 π Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 8 / 24

  2. The Gaussian free field ◮ The discrete Gaussian free field (DGFF) is a Gaussian random surface model. ◮ Measure on functions h : D → R for D ⊆ Z 2 and h | ∂ D = ψ with density respect to Lebesgue measure on R | D | : � � 1 − 1 � ( h ( x ) − h ( y )) 2 Z exp 2 x ∼ y ◮ Natural perturbation of a harmonic function ◮ Fine mesh limit: converges to the continuum GFF, i.e. the standard Gaussian wrt the Dirichlet inner product ( f , g ) ∇ = 1 � ∇ f ( x ) · ∇ g ( x ) dx . 2 π ◮ Continuum GFF not a function — only a generalized function Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 8 / 24

  3. Liouville quantum gravity γ = 0 . 5 ◮ Liouville quantum gravity: e γ h ( z ) dz where h is a GFF and γ ∈ [0 , 2) (Number of subdivisions) Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 9 / 24

  4. Liouville quantum gravity γ = 0 . 5 ◮ Liouville quantum gravity: e γ h ( z ) dz where h is a GFF and γ ∈ [0 , 2) ◮ Introduced by Polyakov in the 1980s (Number of subdivisions) Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 9 / 24

  5. Liouville quantum gravity γ = 0 . 5 ◮ Liouville quantum gravity: e γ h ( z ) dz where h is a GFF and γ ∈ [0 , 2) ◮ Introduced by Polyakov in the 1980s ◮ Does not make literal sense since h takes values in the space of distributions (Number of subdivisions) Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 9 / 24

  6. Liouville quantum gravity γ = 0 . 5 ◮ Liouville quantum gravity: e γ h ( z ) dz where h is a GFF and γ ∈ [0 , 2) ◮ Introduced by Polyakov in the 1980s ◮ Does not make literal sense since h takes values in the space of distributions ◮ Has been made sense of as a random area measure using a regularization procedure ◮ Can compute areas of regions and lengths of curves ◮ Does not come with an obvious notion of “distance” (Number of subdivisions) Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 9 / 24

  7. Liouville quantum gravity γ = 1 . 0 ◮ Liouville quantum gravity: e γ h ( z ) dz where h is a GFF and γ ∈ [0 , 2) ◮ Introduced by Polyakov in the 1980s ◮ Does not make literal sense since h takes values in the space of distributions ◮ Has been made sense of as a random area measure using a regularization procedure ◮ Can compute areas of regions and lengths of curves ◮ Does not come with an obvious notion of “distance” (Number of subdivisions) Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 9 / 24

  8. Liouville quantum gravity γ = 1 . 5 ◮ Liouville quantum gravity: e γ h ( z ) dz where h is a GFF and γ ∈ [0 , 2) ◮ Introduced by Polyakov in the 1980s ◮ Does not make literal sense since h takes values in the space of distributions ◮ Has been made sense of as a random area measure using a regularization procedure ◮ Can compute areas of regions and lengths of curves ◮ Does not come with an obvious notion of “distance” (Number of subdivisions) Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 9 / 24

  9. Liouville quantum gravity γ = 2 . 0 ◮ Liouville quantum gravity: e γ h ( z ) dz where h is a GFF and γ ∈ [0 , 2) ◮ Introduced by Polyakov in the 1980s ◮ Does not make literal sense since h takes values in the space of distributions ◮ Has been made sense of as a random area measure using a regularization procedure ◮ Can compute areas of regions and lengths of curves ◮ Does not come with an obvious notion of “distance” (Number of subdivisions) Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 9 / 24

  10. LQG and TBM ◮ Two “canonical” (but very different) constructions of random surfaces: Liouville quantum gravity (LQG) and the Brownian map (TBM) Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 10 / 24

  11. LQG and TBM ◮ Two “canonical” (but very different) constructions of random surfaces: Liouville quantum gravity (LQG) and the Brownian map (TBM) ◮ For γ ∈ [0 , 2), Liouville quantum gravity (LQG) is the “random surface” with “Riemannian metric” e γ h ( z ) ( dx 2 + dy 2 ) Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 10 / 24

  12. LQG and TBM ◮ Two “canonical” (but very different) constructions of random surfaces: Liouville quantum gravity (LQG) and the Brownian map (TBM) ◮ For γ ∈ [0 , 2), Liouville quantum gravity (LQG) is the “random surface” with “Riemannian metric” e γ h ( z ) ( dx 2 + dy 2 ) ◮ So far, only made sense of as an area measure using a regularization procedure Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 10 / 24

  13. LQG and TBM ◮ Two “canonical” (but very different) constructions of random surfaces: Liouville quantum gravity (LQG) and the Brownian map (TBM) ◮ For γ ∈ [0 , 2), Liouville quantum gravity (LQG) is the “random surface” with “Riemannian metric” e γ h ( z ) ( dx 2 + dy 2 ) ◮ So far, only made sense of as an area measure using a regularization procedure ◮ LQG has a conformal structure (compute angles, etc...) and an area measure Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 10 / 24

  14. LQG and TBM ◮ Two “canonical” (but very different) constructions of random surfaces: Liouville quantum gravity (LQG) and the Brownian map (TBM) ◮ For γ ∈ [0 , 2), Liouville quantum gravity (LQG) is the “random surface” with “Riemannian metric” e γ h ( z ) ( dx 2 + dy 2 ) ◮ So far, only made sense of as an area measure using a regularization procedure ◮ LQG has a conformal structure (compute angles, etc...) and an area measure ◮ In contrast, TBM has a metric structure and an area measure Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 10 / 24

  15. LQG and TBM ◮ Two “canonical” (but very different) constructions of random surfaces: Liouville quantum gravity (LQG) and the Brownian map (TBM) ◮ For γ ∈ [0 , 2), Liouville quantum gravity (LQG) is the “random surface” with “Riemannian metric” e γ h ( z ) ( dx 2 + dy 2 ) ◮ So far, only made sense of as an area measure using a regularization procedure ◮ LQG has a conformal structure (compute angles, etc...) and an area measure ◮ In contrast, TBM has a metric structure and an area measure This talk is about endowing each of these objects with the other’s structure and showing they are equivalent. Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 10 / 24

  16. Canonical embedding of TBM into S 2 ◮ TBM is an abstract metric measure space homeomorphic to S 2 , but it does not obviously come with a canonical embedding into S 2 Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 11 / 24

  17. Canonical embedding of TBM into S 2 ◮ TBM is an abstract metric measure space homeomorphic to S 2 , but it does not obviously come with a canonical embedding into S 2 ◮ It is believed that there should be a “natural embedding” of TBM into S 2 and that the embedded surface is described by a form of Liouville quantum gravity (LQG) � with γ = 8 / 3 Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 11 / 24

  18. Canonical embedding of TBM into S 2 ◮ TBM is an abstract metric measure space homeomorphic to S 2 , but it does not obviously come with a canonical embedding into S 2 ◮ It is believed that there should be a “natural embedding” of TBM into S 2 and that the embedded surface is described by a form of Liouville quantum gravity (LQG) � with γ = 8 / 3 ψ ◮ Discrete approach: take a uniformly random planar map and embed it conformally into S 2 (circle packing, uniformization, etc...), then in the n → ∞ limit it converges � to a form of 8 / 3-LQG. Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 11 / 24

  19. Canonical embedding of TBM into S 2 ◮ TBM is an abstract metric measure space homeomorphic to S 2 , but it does not obviously come with a canonical embedding into S 2 ◮ It is believed that there should be a “natural embedding” of TBM into S 2 and that the embedded surface is described by a form of Liouville quantum gravity (LQG) � with γ = 8 / 3 ψ ◮ Discrete approach: take a uniformly random planar map and embed it conformally into S 2 (circle packing, uniformization, etc...), then in the n → ∞ limit it converges � to a form of 8 / 3-LQG. Not the approach we will describe today ... Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 11 / 24

  20. Main result Theorem (M., Sheffield) Suppose that ( M , d , µ ) is an instance of TBM. Then there exists a H¨ older homeomorphism ϕ : ( M , d ) → S 2 such that the pushforward of µ by ϕ has the law of a � 8 / 3 -LQG sphere ( S 2 , h ) . Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 12 / 24

  21. Main result Theorem (M., Sheffield) Suppose that ( M , d , µ ) is an instance of TBM. Then there exists a H¨ older homeomorphism ϕ : ( M , d ) → S 2 such that the pushforward of µ by ϕ has the law of a � 8 / 3 -LQG sphere ( S 2 , h ) . Moreover, Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 12 / 24

  22. Main result Theorem (M., Sheffield) Suppose that ( M , d , µ ) is an instance of TBM. Then there exists a H¨ older homeomorphism ϕ : ( M , d ) → S 2 such that the pushforward of µ by ϕ has the law of a � 8 / 3 -LQG sphere ( S 2 , h ) . Moreover, ◮ ϕ is determined by ( M , d , µ ) Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 12 / 24

  23. Main result Theorem (M., Sheffield) Suppose that ( M , d , µ ) is an instance of TBM. Then there exists a H¨ older homeomorphism ϕ : ( M , d ) → S 2 such that the pushforward of µ by ϕ has the law of a � 8 / 3 -LQG sphere ( S 2 , h ) . Moreover, ◮ ϕ is determined by ( M , d , µ ) (TBM determines its conformal structure) Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 12 / 24

  24. Main result Theorem (M., Sheffield) Suppose that ( M , d , µ ) is an instance of TBM. Then there exists a H¨ older homeomorphism ϕ : ( M , d ) → S 2 such that the pushforward of µ by ϕ has the law of a � 8 / 3 -LQG sphere ( S 2 , h ) . Moreover, ◮ ϕ is determined by ( M , d , µ ) (TBM determines its conformal structure) ◮ ( M , d , µ ) and ϕ are determined by ( S 2 , h ) Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 12 / 24

  25. Main result Theorem (M., Sheffield) Suppose that ( M , d , µ ) is an instance of TBM. Then there exists a H¨ older homeomorphism ϕ : ( M , d ) → S 2 such that the pushforward of µ by ϕ has the law of a � 8 / 3 -LQG sphere ( S 2 , h ) . Moreover, ◮ ϕ is determined by ( M , d , µ ) (TBM determines its conformal structure) ◮ ( M , d , µ ) and ϕ are determined by ( S 2 , h ) (LQG determines its metric structure) Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 12 / 24

  26. Main result Theorem (M., Sheffield) Suppose that ( M , d , µ ) is an instance of TBM. Then there exists a H¨ older homeomorphism ϕ : ( M , d ) → S 2 such that the pushforward of µ by ϕ has the law of a � 8 / 3 -LQG sphere ( S 2 , h ) . Moreover, ◮ ϕ is determined by ( M , d , µ ) (TBM determines its conformal structure) ◮ ( M , d , µ ) and ϕ are determined by ( S 2 , h ) (LQG determines its metric structure) That is, ( M , d , µ ) and ( S 2 , h ) are equivalent. Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 12 / 24

  27. Main result Theorem (M., Sheffield) Suppose that ( M , d , µ ) is an instance of TBM. Then there exists a H¨ older homeomorphism ϕ : ( M , d ) → S 2 such that the pushforward of µ by ϕ has the law of a � 8 / 3 -LQG sphere ( S 2 , h ) . Moreover, ◮ ϕ is determined by ( M , d , µ ) (TBM determines its conformal structure) ◮ ( M , d , µ ) and ϕ are determined by ( S 2 , h ) (LQG determines its metric structure) That is, ( M , d , µ ) and ( S 2 , h ) are equivalent. Comments Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 12 / 24

  28. Main result Theorem (M., Sheffield) Suppose that ( M , d , µ ) is an instance of TBM. Then there exists a H¨ older homeomorphism ϕ : ( M , d ) → S 2 such that the pushforward of µ by ϕ has the law of a � 8 / 3 -LQG sphere ( S 2 , h ) . Moreover, ◮ ϕ is determined by ( M , d , µ ) (TBM determines its conformal structure) ◮ ( M , d , µ ) and ϕ are determined by ( S 2 , h ) (LQG determines its metric structure) That is, ( M , d , µ ) and ( S 2 , h ) are equivalent. Comments 1. Construction is purely in the continuum Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 12 / 24

  29. Main result Theorem (M., Sheffield) Suppose that ( M , d , µ ) is an instance of TBM. Then there exists a H¨ older homeomorphism ϕ : ( M , d ) → S 2 such that the pushforward of µ by ϕ has the law of a � 8 / 3 -LQG sphere ( S 2 , h ) . Moreover, ◮ ϕ is determined by ( M , d , µ ) (TBM determines its conformal structure) ◮ ( M , d , µ ) and ϕ are determined by ( S 2 , h ) (LQG determines its metric structure) That is, ( M , d , µ ) and ( S 2 , h ) are equivalent. Comments 1. Construction is purely in the continuum � 2. Proof by endowing a metric space structure directly on 8 / 3-LQG using the growth process QLE (8 / 3 , 0) Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 12 / 24

  30. Main result Theorem (M., Sheffield) Suppose that ( M , d , µ ) is an instance of TBM. Then there exists a H¨ older homeomorphism ϕ : ( M , d ) → S 2 such that the pushforward of µ by ϕ has the law of a � 8 / 3 -LQG sphere ( S 2 , h ) . Moreover, ◮ ϕ is determined by ( M , d , µ ) (TBM determines its conformal structure) ◮ ( M , d , µ ) and ϕ are determined by ( S 2 , h ) (LQG determines its metric structure) That is, ( M , d , µ ) and ( S 2 , h ) are equivalent. Comments 1. Construction is purely in the continuum � 2. Proof by endowing a metric space structure directly on 8 / 3-LQG using the growth process QLE (8 / 3 , 0) 3. Resulting metric space structure is shown to satisfy axioms which characterize TBM Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 12 / 24

  31. Main result Theorem (M., Sheffield) Suppose that ( M , d , µ ) is an instance of TBM. Then there exists a H¨ older homeomorphism ϕ : ( M , d ) → S 2 such that the pushforward of µ by ϕ has the law of a � 8 / 3 -LQG sphere ( S 2 , h ) . Moreover, ◮ ϕ is determined by ( M , d , µ ) (TBM determines its conformal structure) ◮ ( M , d , µ ) and ϕ are determined by ( S 2 , h ) (LQG determines its metric structure) That is, ( M , d , µ ) and ( S 2 , h ) are equivalent. Comments 1. Construction is purely in the continuum � 2. Proof by endowing a metric space structure directly on 8 / 3-LQG using the growth process QLE (8 / 3 , 0) 3. Resulting metric space structure is shown to satisfy axioms which characterize TBM � 4. Separate argument shows the embedding of TBM into 8 / 3-LQG is determined by TBM Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 12 / 24

  32. Main result Theorem (M., Sheffield) Suppose that ( M , d , µ ) is an instance of TBM. Then there exists a H¨ older homeomorphism ϕ : ( M , d ) → S 2 such that the pushforward of µ by ϕ has the law of a � 8 / 3 -LQG sphere ( S 2 , h ) . Moreover, ◮ ϕ is determined by ( M , d , µ ) (TBM determines its conformal structure) ◮ ( M , d , µ ) and ϕ are determined by ( S 2 , h ) (LQG determines its metric structure) That is, ( M , d , µ ) and ( S 2 , h ) are equivalent. Comments 1. Construction is purely in the continuum � 2. Proof by endowing a metric space structure directly on 8 / 3-LQG using the growth process QLE (8 / 3 , 0) 3. Resulting metric space structure is shown to satisfy axioms which characterize TBM � 4. Separate argument shows the embedding of TBM into 8 / 3-LQG is determined by TBM � 5. Metric construction is for the 8 / 3-LQG sphere. By absolute continuity, can construct a � metric on any 8 / 3-LQG surface. Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 12 / 24

  33. Part II: � 8 / 3-LQG Construction of the metric on Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 13 / 24

  34. Detour: first passage percolation (FPP) ◮ Associate with a graph ( V , E ) i.i.d. exp(1) edge weights Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 14 / 24

  35. Detour: first passage percolation (FPP) ◮ Associate with a graph ( V , E ) i.i.d. exp(1) edge weights 1 . 36 4 . 61 0 . 42 0 . 32 0 . 75 0 . 16 1 . 84 1 . 27 0 . 47 Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 14 / 24

  36. Detour: first passage percolation (FPP) ◮ Associate with a graph ( V , E ) i.i.d. exp(1) edge weights ◮ Introduced by Eden (1961) and Hammersley and Welsh (1965) 1 . 36 4 . 61 0 . 42 0 . 32 0 . 75 0 . 16 1 . 84 1 . 27 0 . 47 Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 14 / 24

  37. Detour: first passage percolation (FPP) ◮ Associate with a graph ( V , E ) i.i.d. exp(1) edge weights ◮ Introduced by Eden (1961) and Hammersley and Welsh (1965) ◮ On Z 2 ? Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 14 / 24

  38. Detour: first passage percolation (FPP) ◮ Associate with a graph ( V , E ) i.i.d. exp(1) edge weights ◮ Introduced by Eden (1961) and Hammersley and Welsh (1965) ◮ On Z 2 ? ◮ Question: Large scale behavior of shape of ball wrt perturbed metric? Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 14 / 24

  39. Detour: first passage percolation (FPP) ◮ Associate with a graph ( V , E ) i.i.d. exp(1) edge weights ◮ Introduced by Eden (1961) and Hammersley and Welsh (1965) ◮ On Z 2 ? ◮ Question: Large scale behavior of shape of ball wrt perturbed metric? Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 14 / 24

  40. Detour: first passage percolation (FPP) ◮ Associate with a graph ( V , E ) i.i.d. exp(1) edge weights ◮ Introduced by Eden (1961) and Hammersley and Welsh (1965) ◮ On Z 2 ? ◮ Question: Large scale behavior of shape of ball wrt perturbed metric? ◮ Cox and Durrett (1981) showed that the macroscopic shape is convex Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 14 / 24

  41. Detour: first passage percolation (FPP) ◮ Associate with a graph ( V , E ) i.i.d. exp(1) edge weights ◮ Introduced by Eden (1961) and Hammersley and Welsh (1965) ◮ On Z 2 ? ◮ Question: Large scale behavior of shape of ball wrt perturbed metric? ◮ Cox and Durrett (1981) showed that the macroscopic shape is convex ◮ Computer simulations show that it is not a Euclidean disk Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 14 / 24

  42. Detour: first passage percolation (FPP) ◮ Associate with a graph ( V , E ) i.i.d. exp(1) edge weights ◮ Introduced by Eden (1961) and Hammersley and Welsh (1965) ◮ On Z 2 ? ◮ Question: Large scale behavior of shape of ball wrt perturbed metric? ◮ Cox and Durrett (1981) showed that the macroscopic shape is convex ◮ Computer simulations show that it is not a Euclidean disk ◮ Z 2 is not isotropic enough Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 14 / 24

  43. Detour: first passage percolation (FPP) ◮ Associate with a graph ( V , E ) i.i.d. exp(1) edge weights ◮ Introduced by Eden (1961) and Hammersley and Welsh (1965) ◮ On Z 2 ? ◮ Question: Large scale behavior of shape of ball wrt perturbed metric? ◮ Cox and Durrett (1981) showed that the macroscopic shape is convex ◮ Computer simulations show that it is not a Euclidean disk ◮ Z 2 is not isotropic enough ◮ Vahidi-Asl and Weirmann (1990) showed that the rescaled ball converges to a disk if Z 2 is replaced by the Voronoi tesselation associated with a Poisson process Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 14 / 24

  44. FPP on random planar maps I ◮ RPM, random vertex x . Perform FPP from x (Angel’s peeling process). Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 15 / 24

  45. FPP on random planar maps I ◮ RPM, random vertex x . Perform FPP from x (Angel’s peeling process). Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 15 / 24

  46. FPP on random planar maps I ◮ RPM, random vertex x . Perform FPP from x (Angel’s peeling process). Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 15 / 24

  47. FPP on random planar maps I ◮ RPM, random vertex x . Perform FPP from x (Angel’s peeling process). Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 15 / 24

  48. FPP on random planar maps I ◮ RPM, random vertex x . Perform FPP from x (Angel’s peeling process). Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 15 / 24

  49. FPP on random planar maps I ◮ RPM, random vertex x . Perform FPP from x (Angel’s peeling process). Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 15 / 24

  50. FPP on random planar maps I ◮ RPM, random vertex x . Perform FPP from x (Angel’s peeling process). Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 15 / 24

  51. FPP on random planar maps I ◮ RPM, random vertex x . Perform FPP from x (Angel’s peeling process). Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 15 / 24

  52. FPP on random planar maps I ◮ RPM, random vertex x . Perform FPP from x (Angel’s peeling process). Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 15 / 24

  53. FPP on random planar maps I ◮ RPM, random vertex x . Perform FPP from x (Angel’s peeling process). Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 15 / 24

  54. FPP on random planar maps I ◮ RPM, random vertex x . Perform FPP from x (Angel’s peeling process). Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 15 / 24

  55. FPP on random planar maps I ◮ RPM, random vertex x . Perform FPP from x (Angel’s peeling process). Important observations: ◮ Conditional law of map given growth at time n only depends on the boundary lengths of the outside components. Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 15 / 24

  56. FPP on random planar maps I ◮ RPM, random vertex x . Perform FPP from x (Angel’s peeling process). Important observations: ◮ Conditional law of map given growth at time n only depends on the boundary lengths of the outside components. Exploration respects the Markovian structure of the map. Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 15 / 24

  57. FPP on random planar maps I ◮ RPM, random vertex x . Perform FPP from x (Angel’s peeling process). Important observations: ◮ Conditional law of map given growth at time n only depends on the boundary lengths of the outside components. Exploration respects the Markovian structure of the map. Belief: Isotropic enough so that at large scales this is close to a ball in the graph metric (now proved by Curien and Le Gall) Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 15 / 24

  58. First passage percolation on random planar maps II Goal: Make sense of FPP in the continuum on top of a LQG surface ◮ We do not know how to take a continuum limit of FPP on a random planar map and couple it directly with LQG ◮ Explain a discrete variant of FPP that involves two operations that we do know how to perform in the continuum: ◮ Sample random points according to boundary length ◮ Draw (scaling limits of) critical percolation interfaces ( SLE 6 ) Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 16 / 24

  59. FPP on random planar maps II Variant: ◮ Pick two edges on outer boundary of cluster Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 17 / 24

  60. FPP on random planar maps II Variant: ◮ Pick two edges on outer boundary of cluster ◮ Color vertices between edges blue and yellow Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 17 / 24

  61. FPP on random planar maps II Variant: ◮ Pick two edges on outer boundary of cluster ◮ Color vertices between edges blue and yellow ◮ Color vertices on rest of map blue or yellow with prob. 1 2 Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 17 / 24

  62. FPP on random planar maps II Variant: ◮ Pick two edges on outer boundary of cluster ◮ Color vertices between edges blue and yellow ◮ Color vertices on rest of map blue or yellow with prob. 1 2 ◮ Explore percolation (blue/yellow) interface Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 17 / 24

  63. FPP on random planar maps II Variant: ◮ Pick two edges on outer boundary of cluster ◮ Color vertices between edges blue and yellow ◮ Color vertices on rest of map blue or yellow with prob. 1 2 ◮ Explore percolation (blue/yellow) interface ◮ Forget colors Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 17 / 24

  64. FPP on random planar maps II Variant: ◮ Pick two edges on outer boundary of cluster ◮ Color vertices between edges blue and yellow ◮ Color vertices on rest of map blue or yellow with prob. 1 2 ◮ Explore percolation (blue/yellow) interface ◮ Forget colors ◮ Repeat Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 17 / 24

  65. FPP on random planar maps II Variant: ◮ Pick two edges on outer boundary of cluster ◮ Color vertices between edges blue and yellow ◮ Color vertices on rest of map blue or yellow with prob. 1 2 ◮ Explore percolation (blue/yellow) interface ◮ Forget colors ◮ Repeat Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 17 / 24

  66. FPP on random planar maps II Variant: ◮ Pick two edges on outer boundary of cluster ◮ Color vertices between edges blue and yellow ◮ Color vertices on rest of map blue or yellow with prob. 1 2 ◮ Explore percolation (blue/yellow) interface ◮ Forget colors ◮ Repeat Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 17 / 24

  67. FPP on random planar maps II Variant: ◮ Pick two edges on outer boundary of cluster ◮ Color vertices between edges blue and yellow ◮ Color vertices on rest of map blue or yellow with prob. 1 2 ◮ Explore percolation (blue/yellow) interface ◮ Forget colors ◮ Repeat Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 17 / 24

  68. FPP on random planar maps II Variant: ◮ Pick two edges on outer boundary of cluster ◮ Color vertices between edges blue and yellow ◮ Color vertices on rest of map blue or yellow with prob. 1 2 ◮ Explore percolation (blue/yellow) interface ◮ Forget colors ◮ Repeat Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 17 / 24

  69. FPP on random planar maps II Variant: ◮ Pick two edges on outer boundary of cluster ◮ Color vertices between edges blue and yellow ◮ Color vertices on rest of map blue or yellow with prob. 1 2 ◮ Explore percolation (blue/yellow) interface ◮ Forget colors ◮ Repeat Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 17 / 24

  70. FPP on random planar maps II Variant: ◮ Pick two edges on outer boundary of cluster ◮ Color vertices between edges blue and yellow ◮ Color vertices on rest of map blue or yellow with prob. 1 2 ◮ Explore percolation (blue/yellow) interface ◮ Forget colors ◮ Repeat Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 17 / 24

  71. FPP on random planar maps II Variant: ◮ Pick two edges on outer boundary of cluster ◮ Color vertices between edges blue and yellow ◮ Color vertices on rest of map blue or yellow with prob. 1 2 ◮ Explore percolation (blue/yellow) interface ◮ Forget colors ◮ Repeat Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 17 / 24

  72. FPP on random planar maps II Variant: ◮ Pick two edges on outer boundary of cluster ◮ Color vertices between edges blue and yellow ◮ Color vertices on rest of map blue or yellow with prob. 1 2 ◮ Explore percolation (blue/yellow) interface ◮ Forget colors ◮ Repeat Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 17 / 24

  73. FPP on random planar maps II Variant: ◮ Pick two edges on outer boundary of cluster ◮ Color vertices between edges blue and yellow ◮ Color vertices on rest of map blue or yellow with prob. 1 2 ◮ Explore percolation (blue/yellow) interface ◮ Forget colors ◮ Repeat Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 17 / 24

  74. FPP on random planar maps II Variant: ◮ Pick two edges on outer boundary of cluster ◮ Color vertices between edges blue and yellow ◮ Color vertices on rest of map blue or yellow with prob. 1 2 ◮ Explore percolation (blue/yellow) interface ◮ Forget colors ◮ Repeat ◮ This exploration also respects the Markovian structure of the map. Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 17 / 24

  75. FPP on random planar maps II Variant: ◮ Pick two edges on outer boundary of cluster ◮ Color vertices between edges blue and yellow ◮ Color vertices on rest of map blue or yellow with prob. 1 2 ◮ Explore percolation (blue/yellow) interface ◮ Forget colors ◮ Repeat ◮ This exploration also respects the Markovian structure of the map. ◮ Expect that at large scales this growth process looks the same as FPP, hence the same as the graph metric ball Jason Miller (Cambridge) LQG and TBM July 15, 2015 17 / 24

Recommend

Liouville Quantum Gravity as a Mating of Trees Bertrand Duplantier, Jason Miller, and Scott

Liouville Quantum Gravity as a Mating of Trees Bertrand Duplantier, Jason Miller, and Scott

Liouville Quantum Gravity as a Mating of Trees Bertrand Duplantier, Jason Miller, and Scott Sheffield CEA/Saclay and Massachusetts Institute of Technology September 30, 2014 Duplantier, Miller, Sheffield Liouville Quantum Gravity as a Mating of

1.78k views • 122 slides
Bijective approach to percolation on triangulations and Liouville quantum gravity Olivier

Bijective approach to percolation on triangulations and Liouville quantum gravity Olivier

Bijective approach to percolation on triangulations and Liouville quantum gravity Olivier Bernardi - Brandeis University Joint work with Nina Holden & Xin Sun MIT, March 2019 Percolation on triangulation CLE on Liouville Quantum Gravity

943 views • 81 slides
Liouville Quantum gravity and KPZ Scott Sheffield Scaling limits of random planar maps Central

Liouville Quantum gravity and KPZ Scott Sheffield Scaling limits of random planar maps Central

Liouville Quantum gravity and KPZ Scott Sheffield Scaling limits of random planar maps Central mathematical puzzle: Show that the scaling limit of some kind of discrete quantum gravity (perhaps decorated by random loops, random trees, etc.) is

704 views • 29 slides
Liouville Quantum Gravity on Riemann Surfaces Guillaume Remy Ecole Normale Sup erieure

Liouville Quantum Gravity on Riemann Surfaces Guillaume Remy Ecole Normale Sup erieure

Liouville Quantum Gravity on Riemann Surfaces Guillaume Remy Ecole Normale Sup erieure May 17, 2016 Guillaume Remy (ENS) Liouville Quantum Gravity May 17, 2016 1 / 9 Field Theory: a general framework Quantum Field Theory: a general

544 views • 9 slides
Projections of random fractals and measures and Liouville quantum gravity Kenneth Falconer

Projections of random fractals and measures and Liouville quantum gravity Kenneth Falconer

Projections of random fractals and measures and Liouville quantum gravity Kenneth Falconer University of St Andrews, Scotland, UK Joint with Xiong Jin (Manchester) Kenneth Falconer Projections of random fractals and measures and Liouville

539 views • 43 slides
QUANTUM GRAVITY EFFECT ON NEUTRINO OSCILLATION Jonathan Miller Universidad Tecnica Federico

QUANTUM GRAVITY EFFECT ON NEUTRINO OSCILLATION Jonathan Miller Universidad Tecnica Federico

QUANTUM GRAVITY EFFECT ON NEUTRINO OSCILLATION Jonathan Miller Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria ARXIV 1305.4430 (Collaborator Roman Pasechnik) 1 NOTES ON LANGUAGE Strong gravity in the paper referred to the gravitational field

677 views • 34 slides
Quantum gravity and TQFTs with defects Marc Geiller Perimeter Institute Quantum Gravity in Paris

Quantum gravity and TQFTs with defects Marc Geiller Perimeter Institute Quantum Gravity in Paris

Quantum gravity and TQFTs with defects Marc Geiller Perimeter Institute Quantum Gravity in Paris March 20 th 23 rd 2017 0 / 24 Introduction Bottom-up approach to quantum gravity Think of quantum gravity as a theory of quantum geometry

617 views • 51 slides
Quantum Gravity Phenomenology Sabine Hossenfelder Sabine Hossenfelder, Quantum Gravity

Quantum Gravity Phenomenology Sabine Hossenfelder Sabine Hossenfelder, Quantum Gravity

Quantum Gravity Phenomenology Sabine Hossenfelder Sabine Hossenfelder, Quantum Gravity Phenomenology 1/16 Why do we need quantum gravity? Because We dont know what is the gravitational field of a quantum superposition. Black holes seem

556 views • 18 slides
On the correlation numbers in Minimal Gravity and Matrix Models A.Belavin, A.Zamolodchikov Two

On the correlation numbers in Minimal Gravity and Matrix Models A.Belavin, A.Zamolodchikov Two

On the correlation numbers in Minimal Gravity and Matrix Models A.Belavin, A.Zamolodchikov Two approaches to 2D quantum geometry Continuous approach Discret approach Liouville Gravity Matrix Models Impressive body of

681 views • 36 slides
What have we learned about quantum gravity from quantum error correction? Daniel Harlow

What have we learned about quantum gravity from quantum error correction? Daniel Harlow

What have we learned about quantum gravity from quantum error correction? Daniel Harlow Massachusetts Institute of Technology September 12, 2018 1 Introduction Our Favorite Theory of Quantum Gravity The Anti de Sitter/Conformal Field Theory

1.07k views • 77 slides
Testing asymptotically safe quantum gravity through coupling to dynamical matter Astrid Eichhorn

Testing asymptotically safe quantum gravity through coupling to dynamical matter Astrid Eichhorn

Testing asymptotically safe quantum gravity through coupling to dynamical matter Astrid Eichhorn Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics Experimental search for quantum gravity 2014, SISSA, Trieste How to test quantum gravity

1.07k views • 69 slides
Infrared Divergences in Quantum Gravity General reference: Herbert W. Hamber Quantum

Infrared Divergences in Quantum Gravity General reference: Herbert W. Hamber Quantum

Infrared Divergences in Quantum Gravity General reference: Herbert W. Hamber Quantum Gravitation (Springer Tracts in Modern Physics, 2009). IHES, Sep.15 2011 Outline QFT Treatment of Gravity (PT and non-PT) QFT/RG Motivations for

782 views • 75 slides
On quantum gravity problem within geometric approach D.G. Pak JINR, LTP Int. Workshop

On quantum gravity problem within geometric approach D.G. Pak JINR, LTP Int. Workshop

On quantum gravity problem within geometric approach D.G. Pak JINR, LTP Int. Workshop Bogolyubov Readings Sept. 2010 Plan of talk * Preliminaries: geometric approach to quantum gravity problem I. Vacuum tunneling in Einstein gravity.

640 views • 29 slides
Higher Derivative Quantum Gravity and Vertex Functions Trieste, ERG 2016 September 22, 2016

Higher Derivative Quantum Gravity and Vertex Functions Trieste, ERG 2016 September 22, 2016

Nicolai Christiansen (ITP Heidelberg) Higher Derivative Quantum Gravity and Vertex Functions Trieste, ERG 2016 September 22, 2016 Outline (Introduction: Quantum Gravity and Asymptotic Safety) Quantum Gravity and Vertex Expansions

315 views • 18 slides
Lattice Quantum Gravity and Asymptotic Safety Jack Laiho Syracuse University April 22, 2016

Lattice Quantum Gravity and Asymptotic Safety Jack Laiho Syracuse University April 22, 2016

Lattice Quantum Gravity and Asymptotic Safety Jack Laiho Syracuse University April 22, 2016 Quantum Gravity Understanding quantum gravity is one of the outstanding problems in theoretical physics. Straightforward implementation as a

401 views • 26 slides
Lecture series on 3d gravity Lecture 1: Geometry of Classical 3d Gravity Quantum Structure of

Lecture series on 3d gravity Lecture 1: Geometry of Classical 3d Gravity Quantum Structure of

Lecture series on 3d gravity Lecture 1: Geometry of Classical 3d Gravity Quantum Structure of Spacetime and Gravity 2016 August 21-28 2016 Belgrade, Serbia Catherine Meusburger Department Mathematik, Universitt Erlangen-Nrnberg

502 views • 19 slides
Restricted Gravity A New Approach to Quantum Gravity Y. M. Cho School of Electrical and

Restricted Gravity A New Approach to Quantum Gravity Y. M. Cho School of Electrical and

Restricted Gravity A New Approach to Quantum Gravity Y. M. Cho School of Electrical and Computer Engineering Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology and School of Physics and Astronomy College of Natural Science, Seoul

731 views • 47 slides
Black holes and quantum gravity from super Yang-Mills Toby Wiseman (Imperial) Kyoto 15

Black holes and quantum gravity from super Yang-Mills Toby Wiseman (Imperial) Kyoto 15

Black holes and quantum gravity from super Yang-Mills Toby Wiseman (Imperial) Kyoto 15 Numerical approaches to the holographic principle, quantum gravity and cosmology Plan Introduction Quantum gravity, black holes, large N SYM and

732 views • 45 slides
Approaches to Quantum Gravity a brief survey Rencontres du Vietnam, 9 - 15 August 2015

Approaches to Quantum Gravity a brief survey Rencontres du Vietnam, 9 - 15 August 2015

bla Approaches to Quantum Gravity a brief survey Rencontres du Vietnam, 9 - 15 August 2015 Hermann Nicolai MPI f ur Gravitationsphysik, Potsdam (Albert Einstein Institut) See also: arXiv:1301.5481 Why Quantum Gravity? Singularities

811 views • 35 slides
QLE Jason Miller and Scott Sheffield MIT August 1, 2013 Jason Miller and Scott Sheffield (MIT)

QLE Jason Miller and Scott Sheffield MIT August 1, 2013 Jason Miller and Scott Sheffield (MIT)

QLE Jason Miller and Scott Sheffield MIT August 1, 2013 Jason Miller and Scott Sheffield (MIT) QLE August 1, 2013 1 / 37 Surfaces, curves, metric balls: how are they related? FPP: first passage percolation. Random metric on graph

1.24k views • 100 slides
QUANTUM REDUCED LOOP GRAVITY: STATUS AND PERSPECTIVES Francesco Cianfrani , Institute of

QUANTUM REDUCED LOOP GRAVITY: STATUS AND PERSPECTIVES Francesco Cianfrani , Institute of

QUANTUM REDUCED LOOP GRAVITY: STATUS AND PERSPECTIVES Francesco Cianfrani , Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Wrocaw, Poland Experimental Search for Quantum Gravity in collaboration SISSA Trieste, 3 rd September 2014 with E.

658 views • 19 slides
Welcome & landscape David L Miller & Jason J Roberts Welcome! Who are we? David L

Welcome & landscape David L Miller & Jason J Roberts Welcome! Who are we? David L

Welcome & landscape David L Miller & Jason J Roberts Welcome! Who are we? David L Miller (Dave) Research fellow, CREEM, University of St Andrews PhD with Simon Wood (author of mgcv ) Worked on R distance sampling (software) since 2005

384 views • 20 slides
Critical exponents of gravity with quantum perturbations Center for Astrophysics,

Critical exponents of gravity with quantum perturbations Center for Astrophysics,

Critical exponents of gravity with quantum perturbations Center for Astrophysics, Shanghai Normal University Prime ref: H Zhang ( ), X Li, arXiv:1208.0106 Outline 1. Introduction to thermo dynamical gravity 2.

253 views • 22 slides
Cosmological Perturbation Theory and Perturbative Quantum Gravity Klaus Fredenhagen 1 II.

Cosmological Perturbation Theory and Perturbative Quantum Gravity Klaus Fredenhagen 1 II.

Introduction Quantum Field Theory on curved spacetimes Application to gravity Application to cosmology Conclusions Cosmological Perturbation Theory and Perturbative Quantum Gravity Klaus Fredenhagen 1 II. Institut f ur Theoretische Physik,

526 views • 23 slides

More recommend