How can holonomy corrections be introduced in f(R)f(R) gravity?

We study the introduction of holonomy corrections in $f(R)$ gravity. We will show that there are infinitely many ways, as many as canonical transformations, to introduce this kind of corrections, depending on the canonical variables (two coordinates and its conjugate momenta) used to obtain the Hamiltonian. In each case, these corrections lead, at effective level, to different modified holonomy corrected Friedmann equations in $f(R)$ gravity, which are in practice analytically unworkable, i.e. only numerical analysis can be used to understand its dynamics. Finally, we give arguments in favour of one preferred set of variables, the one that conformally maps $f(R)$ to Einstein gravity, because for these variables the dynamics of the system has a clear physical meaning: the same as in standard Loop Quantum Cosmology, where the effective dynamics of a system can be analytically studied

Bouncing cosmologies in geometries with positively curved spatial sections

Background boucing cosmologies in the framework of General Relativity, driven by a single scalar field filling the Universe, and with a quasi-matter domination period, i.e., depicting the so-called Matter Bounce Scenario, are reconstructed for geometries with positive spatial curvature. These cosmologies lead to a nearly flat power spectrum of the curvature fluctuations in co-moving coordinates for modes that leave the Hubble radius during the quasi-matter domination period, and whose spectral index and its running, which are related with the effective Equation of State parameter given by the quotient of the pressure over the energy density, are compatible with observational data.Comment: Version accepted for publication in PL

Spacetime and Physical Equivalence

In this essay I begin to lay out a conceptual scheme for: (i) analysing dualities as cases of theoretical equivalence; (ii) assessing when cases of theoretical equivalence are also cases of physical equivalence. The scheme is applied to gauge/gravity dualities. I expound what I argue to be their contribution to questions about: (iii) the nature of spacetime in quantum gravity; (iv) broader philosophical and physical discussions of spacetime. (i)-(ii) proceed by analysing duality through four contrasts. A duality will be a suitable isomorphism between models: and the four relevant contrasts are as follows: (a) Bare theory: a triple of states, quantities, and dynamics endowed with appropriate structures and symmetries; vs. interpreted theory: which is endowed with, in addition, a suitable pair of interpretative maps. (b) Extendable vs. unextendable theories: which can, respectively cannot, be extended as regards their domains of application. (c) External vs. internal intepretations: which are constructed, respectively, by coupling the theory to another interpreted theory vs. from within the theory itself. (d) Theoretical vs. physical equivalence: which contrasts formal equivalence with the equivalence of fully interpreted theories. I apply this scheme to answering questions (iii)-(iv) for gauge/gravity dualities. I argue that the things that are physically relevant are those that stand in a bijective correspondence under duality: the common core of the two models. I therefore conclude that most of the mathematical and physical structures that we are familiar with, in these models, are largely, though crucially never entirely, not part of that common core. Thus, the interpretation of dualities for theories of quantum gravity compels us to rethink the roles that spacetime, and many other tools in theoretical physics, play in theories of spacetime.Comment: 25 pages. Winner of the essay contest "Space and Time After Quantum Gravity" of the University of Illinois at Chicago and the University of Genev