Does Verlinde argument imply 3 spatial dimensions and rules out String theory?

In summary, the conversation discusses string theory and M-theory as well as a follow-up paper by Liu Zhao on the thermodynamic origin of gravity proposed by Verlinde. The paper raises some problems with the proposal and suggests a large group of hidden symmetries in thermodynamics which explains the principle of relativity. One claim is that Verlinde's argument rules out higher spatial dimensions than 3, while also providing an alternative approach to gravity through spin-2 gravitons. However, it is still early stages and more rigorous treatment is needed to fully understand the implications.
  • #1
ensabah6
695
0
String theory requires 9 spatial dimensions, M-theory 10.

One followup to Verlinde's paper is this:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0488

Hidden symmetries for thermodynamics and emergence of relativity

Liu Zhao
(Submitted on 2 Feb 2010)
Verlinde recently proposed an idea about the thermodynamic origin of gravity. Though this is a beautiful idea which may resolve many long standing problems in the theories of gravity, it also raises many other problems. In this article I will comment on some of the problems of Verlinde's proposal with special emphasis on the thermodynamical origin of the principle of relativity. It is found that there is a large group of hidden symmetries of thermodynamics which contains the Poincare group of the spacetime for which space is emergent. This explains the thermodynamic origin of the principle of relativity.

One claim is that Verlinde's line of argument rules out higher spatial dimensions than 3, and just as string theory uniquely singles out 10 dimensions, via anomly cancellations, so Verlinde argument picks out 3, consistent with known observation.

Does it also rprovide an alternative string theory's approach to gravity via spin-2 gravitons?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hello Ensebah,

I'm studying the Verlinde paper as well - quite interesting.

The questions posed by Liu Zhao are relevant, but it is very early days for this new point of view, and I'd say that it is hard at this stage to offer definite answers. Verlinde's paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785" is just a first step, mainly based on general heuristic arguments. As far as I know (I've attended a talk by him), there will be a much more rigorous treatment later.

However, the current paper does offer some hints:

section 6.2 - Implications for string theory [...] contains pointers towards the use of open strings (on the 'inside' of the screen) dual with closed strings on the other side - described as 'emergent' and macroscopic as well. However, closed strings might be a very efficient tool as a stepping stone between the microscopic and macroscopic theory.

Erik Verlinde's explanatory notes at http://staff.science.uva.nl/~erikv/page20/page18/page18.html" says under 13/03 - Essential points of the paper:
If the previous papers had made the emergence of gravity so clear, why are people still regarding string theory as the final theory of quantum gravity? Somehow, not everyone was convinced that these similarities mean something, or at least, people had no clear idea of what they mean.

Some people may think that when we develop string theory further that eventually we will learn about this. I am not sure that string theory will necessarily take us in the right direction, if we keep regarding the definition in terms of closed strings as being microscopically defined, or may be equivalent to some other formulation. And not if we keep our eyes closed for emergent phenomena. Gravitons can not be fundamental particles in a theory of emergent space time and gravity.


... which also points to a role for open strings certainly. Also I'm wondering how the degrees of freedom on the 'screen' will be implemented - it might need need multiple dimensions after all.

So, NO, it does NOT imply 3 spatial dimensions necessarily - at least not at this stage!

Cheers!

ensabah6 said:
String theory requires 9 spatial dimensions, M-theory 10.

One followup to Verlinde's paper is this:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0488

Hidden symmetries for thermodynamics and emergence of relativity

Liu Zhao
(Submitted on 2 Feb 2010)
Verlinde recently proposed an idea about the thermodynamic origin of gravity. Though this is a beautiful idea which may resolve many long standing problems in the theories of gravity, it also raises many other problems. In this article I will comment on some of the problems of Verlinde's proposal with special emphasis on the thermodynamical origin of the principle of relativity. It is found that there is a large group of hidden symmetries of thermodynamics which contains the Poincare group of the spacetime for which space is emergent. This explains the thermodynamic origin of the principle of relativity.

One claim is that Verlinde's line of argument rules out higher spatial dimensions than 3, and just as string theory uniquely singles out 10 dimensions, via anomly cancellations, so Verlinde argument picks out 3, consistent with known observation.

Does it also rprovide an alternative string theory's approach to gravity via spin-2 gravitons?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

1. Does Verlinde's argument actually imply that there are only 3 spatial dimensions?

Yes, Verlinde's argument is based on the holographic principle which suggests that our perceived 3-dimensional world is actually a projection of information stored on a 2-dimensional surface. This means that there are only 3 spatial dimensions being used to construct our reality.

2. Does this mean that String theory is no longer a valid theory?

No, Verlinde's argument does not completely rule out String theory. It simply proposes a different way of understanding the underlying principles of our universe. String theory is still a valid and widely studied theory in the scientific community.

3. How does Verlinde's argument affect our understanding of the universe?

Verlinde's argument challenges our traditional understanding of gravity and the concept of space itself. It suggests that gravity is not a fundamental force, but rather an emergent phenomenon caused by the interactions of information on a 2-dimensional surface.

4. Are there any observable consequences of Verlinde's argument?

Verlinde's argument has yet to be proven or disproven, so there are currently no direct observable consequences. However, if it is found to be true, it could potentially lead to new understandings of gravity and the universe as a whole.

5. Is there evidence to support Verlinde's argument?

Verlinde's argument is still a hypothesis and has not been definitively proven. However, there have been some studies and experiments that have shown some support for the idea of an emergent gravity based on information on a 2-dimensional surface.

Similar threads

  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
0
Views
990
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
6
Views
380
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
12
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
14
Views
3K
Back
Top