One of the key predictions of loop quantum gravity is that the area of a surface can only take on a discrete spectrum of values. In particular, there is a smallest nonzero area that a surface can have. We can call this the `quantum of area', so long as we bear in mind that not all areas are integer multiples of this one -- at least, not in the most popular version of the theory.
So far, calculations working strictly within the framework of loop quantum gravity have been unable to determine the quantum of area. But now, thanks to work of Olaf Dreyer  and Luboš Motl , two very different methods of calculating the quantum of area have been shown to give the same answer: times the Planck area. Both methods use semiclassical ideas from outside loop quantum gravity. The first uses Hawking's formula for the entropy of a black hole, while the second uses a formula for the frequencies of highly damped vibrational modes of a classical black hole. It is still completely mysterious why they give the same answer. It could be a misleading coincidence, or it could be an important clue. In any event, the story is well worth telling.
The importance of area in quantum gravity has been obvious
ever since the early days of black hole thermodynamics. In
1973, Bekenstein  argued that the entropy of a
black hole was proportional to its area. By 1975, Hawking
 was able to determine the constant of proportionality,
arriving at the famous formula
Things took a new turn around 1995, when Rovelli and Smolin  showed that in loop quantum gravity, area is quantized. The geometry of space is described using `spin networks', which are roughly graphs with edges labeled by spins:
Any surface gets its area from spin network edges that puncture it, and an edge labeled by the spin contributes an area of , where is a dimensionless quantity called the Barbero-Immirzi parameter [6,7].
Given this, it was tempting to attribute the entropy of a black hole to microstates of its event horizon, and to describe these in terms of spin network edges puncturing the horizon. After some pioneering work by Rovelli and Smolin, Krasnov  noticed that the horizon of a nonrotating black hole could be described using a field theory called Chern-Simons theory. He began working with Ashtekar, Corichi and myself on using this to compute the entropy of such a black hole.
By 1997 we felt we were getting somewhere, and we came out with a short
paper outlining our approach . While the details are
technical , the final calculation is easy to describe. The
geometry of the event horizon is described not only by a list of nonzero spins
label ling the spin network edges that puncture the horizon, but
also by a list of numbers which can range from to in
integer steps. The intrinsic geometry of the horizon is flat except at
the punctures, and the numbers describes the angle deficit at each
puncture. To count the total number of microstates of a black hole of
area near , we must therefore count all lists , for which
Meanwhile, as far back as 1974, Bekenstein  had argued that Schwarzschild black holes should have a discrete spectrum of evenly spaced areas. While this law does not hold in the loop quantum gravity description of black holes, it has some of the same consequences. For example, in 1986 Mukhanov  noted that with a law of this sort, the formula can only hold exactly if the th area eigenstate has degeneracy and the spacing between area eigenstates is for some number .... He also gave a philosophical argument that the value is preferred, since then the states in the th energy level can be described using qubits.
Many researchers have continued this line of thought in different ways,
but in 1995, Hod  gave an remarkable argument in favor
His idea was to determine the quantum of area by looking at the
vibrational modes of a classical black hole! Hod argues that
if classically a system can undergo periodic motion at some frequency
, then in the quantum theory it can emit or absorb quanta of
radiation with the corresponding energy. But the energy of a
Schwarzschild black hole is just its mass, and this is related to the
area of its event horizon by
Our story now catches up with recent developments.
In November 2002, Dreyer  found an ingenious way to
reconcile Hod's result with the loop quantum gravity calculation. The
calculation due to Ashtekar et al used a version of
loop quantum gravity where the gauge group is . This is why so
many formulas resemble those familiar from the quantum mechanics of
angular momentum, and this is why the smallest nonzero area comes from a
spin network edge labeled by the smallest nonzero spin: . But
there is also a version of loop quantum gravity with gauge group
, in which the smallest nonzero spin is .
Dreyer observed out that if we repeat the black hole
entropy calculation using this theory, we get a quantum of area
that matches Hod's result! One can easily
check this by redoing the calculation sketched earlier, replacing
by . One finds a new value of the Immirzi parameter:
While exciting, these developments raise even more questions than they answer. Why should loop quantum gravity be the right theory to use? After all, it seems impossible to couple spin-1/2 particles to this version of the theory. Corichi has sketched a way out of this problem , but much work remains to see whether his proposal is feasible. Can we turn Hod's argument from a heuristic into something a bit more rigorous? He cites Bohr's correspondence principle in this form: ``transition frequencies at large quantum numbers should equal classical oscillation frequencies.'' However, this differs significantly from the idea behind Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization, and it is also unclear why we should apply it only to the asymptotic frequencies of highly damped quasinormal modes. Can the mysterious agreement between loop quantum gravity and Hod's calculation be extended to rotating black holes? Here a new paper by Hod makes some interesting progress . Can it be extended to black holes in higher dimensions? Here Motl's new work with Neitzke gives some enigmatic clues . Stay tuned for further developments.
 O. Dreyer, gr-qc/0211076.
 L. Motl, gr-qc/0212096.
 J. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D7 (1973), 2333-2346.
 S. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. 43 (1975), 199.
 C. Rovelli and L. Smolin, Nucl. Phys. B442 (1995), 593. Erratum: Nucl. Phys. B456 (1995), 734. Also at gr-qc/9411005.
 G. Immirzi, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 57 (1997), 65. Also at gr-qc/9701052.
 F. Barbero, Phys. Rev. D51 (1995), 5507. Also at gr-qc/9410014.
 K. Krasnov, Gen. Rel. Grav. 30 (1998), 53. Also at gr-qc/9605047.
 A. Ashtekar, J. Baez, A. Corichi and K. Krasnov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (1998), 904. Also at gr-qc/9710007.
 A. Ashtekar, A. Corichi and K. Krasnov, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 3 (2000), 418. Also at gr-qc/9905089. A. Ashtekar, J. Baez, and K. Krasnov, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 4 (2000), 1. Also at gr-qc/0005126.
 J. Wheeler, in Sakharov Memorial Lecture on Physics, vol. 2, eds. L. Keldysh and V. Feinberg, Nova Science, New York, 1992.
 J. Bekenstein, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 11 (1974), 467.
 V. Mukhanov, JETP Lett. 44 (1986), 63. J. Bekenstein and V. Mukhanov, Phys. Lett. B360 (1995), 7. Also at gr-qc/9505012.
 S. Hod, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998), 4293. Also at gr-qc/9812002.
S. Hod, Gen. Rel. Grav. 31 (1999), 1639. Also at gr-qc/0002002.
 H.-P. Nollert, Phys. Rev. D47 (1993), 5253.
 A. Corichi, gr-qc/0212126.
 S. Hod, gr-qc/0301122.
 L. Motl and A. Neitzke, hep-th/0301173.