Why Spacetime on the Tiniest Scale May Be Two-Dimensional
The latest thinking about quantum gravity suggests that spacetime is two-dimensional on the smallest scale. And there may be a way to prove it.
kfc 09/08/2010
- 53 Comments
In 1973, George Ellis and Stephen Hawking published a book called The Large Scale Structure of Spacetime. Their aim, they said, was to understand spacetime on the scale ranging from 10^(-13)cm to 10^28cm or, in other words, from the size of elementary particles to the radius of the universe.
That may sound ambitious but nearly 40 years later cosmologists have pretty much nailed it, says Steve Carlip, a theoretical physicist at the University of California, Davis. "To the best of our ability to measure such a thing, it behaves as a smooth (3+1)-dimensional Riemannian manifold."
Which is why theoretical physicists have turned their attention to the structure of spacetime on even smaller scales. However, there is a problem here. "For the most part we have neither direct observations nor a generally accepted theoretical framework for describing the very small-scale structure of spacetime," says Carlip. Indeed, nobody is quite sure whether the terms 'space' and 'time' have any reasonable meaning at this scale.
Today, Carlip outlines his own fascinating take on the problem which is that spacetime on the tiniest scale may be two dimensional. While that may seem a little counterintuitive, he says there is a growing number of indicators (evidence is too strong a word) that point to that conclusion.
Carlip says recent work in loop quantum gravity, high temperature string theory, renormalization group analysis applied to general relativity and other areas of quantum gravity research, all hints at a two dimensional spacetime on the smallest scale. In most of these cases, the number of dimensions simply collapse in a process called spontaneous dimensional reduction as the scale reduces.
One obvious question is that if only two dimensions are present on this scale, which two are they? Carlip calculates that they must be one of time and one of space. "At each point, the dynamics picks out a "preferred" spatial direction, leading to approximately (1+1)-dimensional local physics," he says.
He then moves into interesting territory with the claim that this preferred direction must be determined classically and then randomised by the physical processes at work on these scales. That sounds tantalisingly like a hidden variable theory of the kind that might please at least one Nobel prize-winning physicist.
The million dollar question is whether Carlip's take on the topic is correct. He cheerfully admits that the idea is "still very speculative". That doesn't distinguish it in any significant way from much of the rest of modern cosmology.
However, unlike many quantum gravity theorists, Carlip hints at the kind of experiments that might prove him right. "The process I have described breaks Lorentz invariance at the Planck scale, and even small violations at that scale can be magnified and lead to observable effects at large scales," he says.
That's an interesting thought. What he's saying is that the laws of physics at this scale ought to change according to the direction in which you're travelling. And although they'll constantly vary in a random way, that could still be measurable in a sufficiently clever experiment.
Time for the experimentalists to get to get their thinking caps on.
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1009.1136: The Small Scale Structure of Spacetime
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
lumidek2
13 Comments
Nonsense
Carlip has written some OK papers about the black holes and other things but this paper is just a pile of nonsense.
In string theory, indeed, the entropy - according to the counting of states in all the well understood examples - is ultimately reduced to the 1+1-dimensional black holes. But that's just a mathematical transformation that leads us to an integrable system. Two-dimensional conformal field theories are well understood, especially their entropy, so if you manage to transform your system into the 2D CFT, you may say many things about the number of states. Because all the notions of locality may get completely distorted and lost, the possibility of this transformation surely doesn't mean that there's any useful reduction of spacetime's dimensionality. In particular, it doesn't mean that "dynamics chooses a privileged 1 spatial dimension".
The statement that such dynamics should be "classical" is even more nonsensical because all the calculation of the entropy is only possible if all the postulates of quantum mechanics are fully taken into account. Classically, there can't be any finite temperature or entropy of black holes etc. Moreover, statements that there is any classical physics underlying quantum mechanics may be disproved in a completely general setting, not just in quantum gravity.
It's even more nonsensical to build on string theory in combination with inconsistent would-be theories such as loop quantum gravity. Even if I am extremely conservative in these statements, loop quantum gravity is incompatible with string theory. So how its (irrelevant) statements can be used in combination with string theory? It's like saying that because 2+2=4 and also because 2+2 may be 5, it all suggests that 4+7 = 2.
More generally, Steve Carlip doesn't understand that the "Hilbert space itself" is not measurable. How we parameterize it is up to us. It's not yet about dynamics. Infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces are all unitarily equivalent to each other. There's no information about the detailed laws of physics in them.
To determine dynamical questions, i.e. whether the space becomes 2-dimensional in any sense, one needs to study genuinely physical observables such as the S-matrix. Obviously, if the S-matrix or asymptotic Green's functions or any asymptotic observable of this kind is a starting point, we can't see any "reduction of the dimensionality of the bulk".
Also, according to the holographic principle - which is the only "universal" modification of spacetime dimensionalities in all consistent quantum gravity backgrounds - the spacetime dimension is not 1+1 but rather (D-2)+1 where D is the perceived dimension: one dimension gets eliminated. The statement that all of them get eliminated is just a misunderstanding what happens in holography.
I could go on and on and on. This is the typical pseudoscience that is completely incapable to separate myths, superstitions, prejudices, and wishful thinking from insights that are actually supported by rational evidence.
Reply
MTd2
3 Comments
Re: Nonsense
The problem with that it is Weinberg is strongly supporting CDT, so being non sense or not, this kind of paper will become more common,
Reply
naasking
29 Comments
Re: Nonsense
Moreover, statements that there is any classical physics underlying quantum mechanics may be disproved in a completely general setting, not just in quantum gravity.
This statement stood out to me. Depending on what you mean by "classical physics", I either agree or disagree. For instance, being fully deterministic, the Bohm interpretation of QM could be seen as a classical model of quantum effects. So, if by "classical physics" you meant "deterministic", then the Bohm interpretation clearly disproves your statement, in that it is indistinguishable from other interpretations.
Reply
AKT
453 Comments
Re: Nonsense
> The statement that such dynamics should be "classical" is even more nonsensical because all the calculation of the entropy is only possible if all the postulates of quantum mechanics are fully taken into account. Classically, there can't be any finite temperature or entropy of black holes etc. Moreover, statements that there is any classical physics underlying quantum mechanics may be disproved in a completely general setting, not just in quantum gravity.
What are the postulates of QM you are mentioning?
I thought that Bohm's QM is classical in the sense that it is realistic. I do not know what constitutes non-classical QM. When we talk about classical and non-classical such as quantum mechanical, we MUST have classical limit. Standard QM thus fails as it has no classical limit. Bohr's correspondence principle is not a classical limit as it works only for Planck's energy quanta. Standard QM as per von Neumann involves way more sophisticated quantisation and QED has entirely different quantisation. There is no known classical limit which connects these quantisations to classical mechanics. Without adequate classical limit, there is no discussion on the comparison between quantum and classical. The same criticism for relativity. Einstein's classical limit is false. It holds only for the trivial Galilean relativity where no frames move.
The fundamental error of contemporary physics is that physicists wrongly thought that they could invent whatever new theory they wanted without connecting it to the classical theory. I call it juvenile fever of "revolution".
Bohm's QM is classical in the sense that it has adequate classical limit. Taking the quantum potential to vanish reveals classical theory.
Best regards,
AKT
Reply