Are space and time quantized quantities?

[rpt]

Does assuming time and space are quantized quantities make predictions of quantum physics more accurate?
I have heard about the "Planks time" but do not know whether its is really a concept in quantum theories.

 

[andrebourbaki]

No.

To begin with, QM does not proceed by starting with quantities and then quantising them.
So one should avoid using the phrase you use, except when it can do no harm.

When an observable has a discrete spectrum, then the result of measuring it can only take on those discrete values, and so it looks like something has been 'quantised'. But this is not the explanation for why charge is quantised, since charge is not an observable, it is not something that is measured in the sense of measurement in QM axioms. Spatial position is, but the eigenvalues are continuous, so it does not look like something that has been quantised even though it is a quantum observable.

I do not believe in trying to artificially quantise time or space, it would be a revolution in Physics to do so. The consequences would be unpredictable, and so far I have not heard of any good consequences at all.

 

[rpt]

I raised this issue not because I believed space and time are quantized but I thought that the subsequent discussion would clarify the real nature of space and time.

Strangely I have the feeling that time and space are not real but exists only in the mind of a conscious observer.

 

[fleem]

IMO neither space nor time have ever been observed directly. They are axioms upon which we based the classical behavior of matter. They are so ingrained in our classical minds that we insist they must also be axioms for a deeper understanding of particle interactions. They have to do with the "average" (large scale) interaction density (number of states) among a group of particles relative to that of the universe. Could it be that two nearby co-moving macroscopic clocks tick at the same rate on the average because they are both experiencing the same average interaction density with the rest of the universe, and there is no time "field" that exists regardless of the presence of the clocks? If you isolate a group of particles then their time and space can vary notably from the ambient. Perhaps that's why, for example, a decay rate is random (because tiny objects interact less with the rest of the universe, adding granularity) and why decay rate has less meaning when you consider what's going on within that tiny system without regard to the rest of the universe--it is the interactions with the rest of the universe that regulates the "rate" that an otherwise isolated system cycles through its various states. Without those interactions with the rest of the universe, it is welcome to cycle many states between one interaction with the universe and the next--as long as doing so obeys certain laws. I admit there are still questions, like why does a photon apparently follow a geodesic when it doesn't interact with its environment while it is in transit (i.e. maybe what we've been calling photons are really simply local interactions in a reference frame moving at c), but I suspect those answers will come.

 

[A. Neumaier]

I raised this issue not because I believed space and time are quantized but I thought that the subsequent discussion would clarify the real nature of space and time.

Strangely I have the feeling that time and space are not real but exists only in the mind of a conscious observer.

In QED (the most accurate theory we have), space and time are continuous parameters ranging in R^4, coordinatizing the fields that contain the physical information. These coordinates are not quantized in any sense, and have no absolute meaning since changing them by means of a Poincare transformation (a combination of translation + rotation + Lorentz boost) does not alter the physics.

But the resulting affine pseudo-metric space, called Minkowski space, is absolute and meaningful (as long as we don't consider quantum gravity, which would change this picture). This means that the Minkowski distance between space-time points that can be defined in terms of the fields can (in principle) be determined objectively. Such space-time points include all positions of stars, which are local maxima of field intensities in the backward light cone of an observer at a particular time, singled out objectively by appropriate observables. (Example: The observer might be the Mount Palomar observatory, one year after it was built. This may be encoded in terms of QED using known physics.)

 

[tom.stoer]

There are two ways to introduce "quantized" space and time.

1) Discretization, assumptions, ... as calculational tricks, mathematical re-formulation, ..., w/o any physical justification
2) Discrete spectrum of observables: refer e.g. to rotational symmetry where a continuous symmetry (rotational invariance) 'produces' a discrete spectrum for angular momentum both mathematically and hysically (you can measure it ;-)

In quantum gravity (we do not have a final theory) we are not really there: there are indications for discreteness e.g. in Loop Quantum Gravity - the area operator has a discrete spectrum - but unfortunately this area operator is no (Dirac) observable, so you can't measure it (neither in principal nor in practice).

That means that it may very well be that we can use continuous/discrete mathematical entities to construct a theory mathematically, but that this does not mean that physical obervables are continuous/discrete automatically.

To bring it to the point: yes, it's a concept ...

 

[sterss]

it is welcome to cycle many states between one interaction with the universe and the next--as long as doing so obeys certain laws.http://www.uklv.info/g.gif

 

[rpt]

Whether it is Minkowski space or otherwise, the space to have a precise quantifiable meaning, we should be able to accurately define the meaning of distance. In doing so we have to use the abstract mathematical idea called "point" which does not really exist.
Point is only an abstract mathematical idea in the mind. Without reconciling this issue we accept that the space really exist. This is the main problem I have in understanding space.

 

[A. Neumaier]

Whether it is Minkowski space or otherwise, the space to have a precise quantifiable meaning, we should be able to accurately define the meaning of distance. In doing so we have to use the abstract mathematical idea called "point" which does not really exist.
Point is only an abstract mathematical idea in the mind. Without reconciling this issue we accept that the space really exist. This is the main problem I have in understanding space.

Physics is not about exact points, distances or anything else, but about approximations valid at the level of measurement accuracies.

It is enough to have an approximate notion of point and distance, and to verify that these approximately satisfy the properties demanded from the ideal points and distances the theory speaks about. And this is amply satisfied.

A far away star is an excellent example of an approximate point - it appears pointlike in all our experiments.

According to established physics, a real observer is a macroscopic
object with the capacity to record information. The recording process
is described by means of irreversible thermodynamics. In particular,
observers can be described to good accuracy classically, in terms of
their associated macroscopic observables. These are expectation values
of corresponding aggregated microscopic variables, behaving essentially
classically according to Ehrenfest's theorem. Large objects such as
stars can similarly be described by their associated macroscopic
observables. The position of an observer and the objects it observes changes
in time, defining their trajectories = world lines (apart from a global Poincare
transformation). This change is (on the macroscopic description level
appropriate for observers) continuous. (The world lines get fuzzy as one
focusses on smaller and smaller details, and become undetermined in
principle when the scale is reached where quantum effects dominate.
Indeed, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle forbids well-defined
trajectories of arbitrary accuracy.)

Suppose that the observer is the Mount Palomar observatory at a given time t. The observer's past light cone cuts out from 4-space a 3-dimensional manifold, which intersects the world lines of the objects observed at definite points (within the accuracy of the whole construction) - the positions x(t) of the visible stars at time t. This is indeed consistent with how astronomical positions are determined.

All this has a precise quantifiable meaning, to the accuracy needed to compare with experiments.

 

[rpt]

Thanks Neumaier,

What I understand from your reply is that the ideal of 'point' in the space really exists, and a distance can be measured with a given accuracy subjected to limitations imposed by uncertainty principle. It is a matter of measurement accuracy.
Furthermore, if world lines become undetermined at the scales where quantum effects dominate, is it because space is not fundamental in nature or it again a limitation on measurement process.
Please correct me if I misinterpreted what you said.

 

[A. Neumaier]

What I understand from your reply is that the ideal of 'point' in the space really exists, and a distance can be measured with a given accuracy subjected to limitations imposed by uncertainty principle. It is a matter of measurement accuracy.

The ideal points exist in the sense that they must be presupposed to be able to organize available data
in a sensible way; without an underlying space no meaningful concept of distance or coordinates.

Furthermore, if world lines become undetermined at the scales where quantum effects dominate, is it because space is not fundamental in nature or it again a limitation on measurement process.
Please correct me if I misinterpreted what you said.

Space is fundamental.

World lines cease to exist not because the nature of space changes but because the concept of a world line is not fundamental: The pointlikeness of the objects is the property that fails dramatically at small scales; and fuzzy points only have fuzzy trajectories.

Already in classical relativity, there is no good concept of interacting point particles with world lines, and one needs a field theory to specify the properties of tiny lumps of matter. Quantum theory just adds more color to this.

 

[rpt]

Thanks Neumaier,

You said that "Space is fundamental"
Is this an axiom?

You said,
"The pointlikeness of the objects is the property that fails dramatically at small scales; and fuzzy points only have fuzzy trajectories".

Does this mean that space becomes fuzzy at smaller scales or there is a measurement limitation at these scales and therefore points become fuzzy.?

 

[Mazulu]

One second is defined as "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second).

Can the number of cycles counted, from caesium 133 atoms, be considered a standard of both time and distance (between points in space-time) that is reliable even in general relativity?

Disregard.

 

[tom.stoer]

You said that "Space is fundamental"
Is this an axiom?

I would rather call it a belief.

From Wikipedia:

"In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proven or demonstrated but considered either to be self-evident or to define and delimit the realm of analysis. In other words, an axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths."

There are research directions in quantum gravity and related topics which do not take the truth of the statement "Space is fundamental" for granted.

 

[rpt]

Thanks tom.stoer,

It would be really interesting to know how the concept of space is addressed in the research directions where space is not considered fundamental. Hope it does not involve lot of maths.

 

[rpt]

If we accept that point in space is something that really exists, space is nothing but infinite number of singularities (point in the space is a singularity).

If space becomes fuzzy at scales where quantum effects dominates due to some other reason than measurement limitations, space is not fundamental.

 

[andrebourbaki]

A point by itself is not a singularity. It is always some function on the surrounding space that has a singularity at that point...(or, of course, doesn't). We talk quickly and sloppily of a point as being a singularity and this may have misled you but if you look at the context, there is always some function there. For example, the pointy part of a cone is a singularity but only because the transition functions of the coordinate charts of the cone have an infinity or lack a derivative or are undefined at that point. Or in GR, some physical quantity like gravity becomes infinite at that point. Or the Coulomb potential at the centre of the electron, or something like that.

Also, the kind of approximation or idealisation referred to by several here (correctly) is the same as in classical physics...it is not the new kind of uncertainty that arises in Quantum Mechanics. Space and time are not quantum observables just because they can never be measured with certainty and absolute accuracy: if it is merely classical style uncertainty, they remain classical style coordinates and "point" remains the kind of object it always was for, say, Newton. (The exact natrue of such an object or concept is philosophy, not physics.) But if someone discovered a quantum-style uncertainty about this measurement of location and duration (*in themselves*, rather than what we really do, which is "location of a particle's collision with the detector"), that would be very different and would then suggest they needed to be quantised because they were observables.

 

[A. Neumaier]

You said that "Space is fundamental"
Is this an axiom?

It is (essentially) an axiom in quantum field theory - i.e., in that part of subatomic physics that has a solid experimental verification. Many physicists are tinkering with this axiom, and study what happens when it is dropped or modified, but so far nothing of relevance to experiment has come out of such studies.

You said,
"The pointlikeness of the objects is the property that fails dramatically at small scales; and fuzzy points only have fuzzy trajectories".
Does this mean that space becomes fuzzy at smaller scales or there is a measurement limitation at these scales and therefore points become fuzzy.?

I explicitly denied that. Space is space - very neat and elegant, with nothing fuzzy about it.

But the objects are fuzzy. Indeed, objects in QFT are nothing but regions of space where a field has certain conspicuous properties - and their delineation cannot be made precise except by placing a boundary somewhat arbitrarily. Moreover, ascertaining anything really tiny by measurement is exceedingly difficult, as all observation requires a macroscopic magnification.

 

[Naty1]

Hi rpt:

Does assuming time and space are quantized quantities make predictions of quantum physics more accurate?

not yet.

I have heard about the "Planks time" but do not know whether its is really a concept in quantum theories

At "Planck scale" space and time and everything else becomes "fuzzy" amid "quantum foam".

You can read about both in Wikipedia.

People who love QED and relativity rely on continuous, not discrete, space and time. And those models explain a lot...very,very well. So they are may be loath to consider space and time as quantized. Also in relativity, space and time are treated equally...they morph into one another. That suggests they are closely linked.

Quantum activity involves the smallest of scales and discontinuous events, like energy exchange events, for example, and it is not possible to predict the instant at which such a jump in energy will occur. An example is radioactive decay. Often, quantum theory approaches classical (macroscopic) theory asymptotically for large numbers of events. So one has to wonder if space and time ARE continuous ,why don't observed phenomena at the microscopic/ sub atomic scale comport with the continuous macroscopic world.

Here is a post I made previously which you may find interesting...a "discrete" view...mix some structureless pieces with energy in a self assembly simulation and a universe seems to emerge!.

In the Cosmology forum Marcus references an article in Scientific American I think might be of interest to Quantum Physics readers:

(What are the (quantum) building blocks of space and time?)

http://www.signallake.com/innovation/SelfOrganizingQuantumJul08.pdf
(by Ambjorn, Jurkiewicz and Loll)

Here's a series of excerpts which provides an overview of the paper, a quantum gravity model: (Italic scripts are my additions for clarity from other portions of the text )

(The) dynamical emergence of a four dimensional universe of essentially correct physical shape from first principles is the central achievement of our approach

If we think of empty spacetime as consisting of a very large number of minute structureless pieces (triangles which approximate curvature) and if we then let these interact with one another according to simple rules dictated by gravity and quantum theory they will spontaneously arrange themselves into a whole that in many ways looks like the observed universe...(four dimensions with sufficient time) Similar mechanisms of self assembly and self organization occur across physics, biology and other fields of science...Casual Dynamic Triangulations approximates space time as a mosaic of triangles...Computer simulations dashed the (Stephen Hawking) hope that causality would emerge as a large scale property from microscopic quantum fluctuations...Euclidean geometry indicates that space and time are treated equally...and does not build in a notion of causality...we must enforce causal gluing rules...an arrow of of time...for our model to work we needed to include from the outset a so-called cosmological constant (energy)...It is truly remarkable that by assembling microscopic building blocks (triangles) in an essentially random manner we end up with spacetime that on large scales has the highly symmetric shape of the de Sitter Universe...

 

[A. Neumaier]

At "Planck scale" space and time and everything else becomes "fuzzy" amid "quantum foam".

At present, this is not a verifiable statement, but at best a plausible scenario, a conjecture without
any experimental support.

 

[rpt]

Thanks Naty1 for your link on quantum gravity.

Would it be possible that at quantum scales, objects becomes fuzzy because space-time dimensions are reduced from 4 to a lower value. We make the observations in the macroscopic world with four dimensions, but in the the microscopic world, space-time dimensions are reduced hierarchically so that the observations of microscopic world becomes fuzzy.

Is it possible that the observations of double-slit experiment, EPR paradox etc. are due to the fact that microscopic world space-time dimensions (or what ever you call it) are reduced so that we see the presence of objects everywhere simultaneously when observe in macroscopic world.
So can't we argue that the 4-D space time we observe in macroscopic world is not fundamental?

 

[A. Neumaier]

Would it be possible that at quantum scales, objects becomes fuzzy because space-time dimensions are reduced from 4 to a lower value.

The typical scenarios for Planck scale physics rather suggest that the number of dimensions are increased at such tiny scales.

 

[rpt]

Then what is meant by "Spontaneous dimension reduction" of space-time?

I have read that some physicists believe that the early universe only had one spatial dimension and a time dimension (2-D space time). Then it became 3-D and finally 4-D,
the universe that we experience today.
All this imply that the 4-D space-time we observe today is not fundamental.

 

[A. Neumaier]

Then what is meant by "Spontaneous dimension reduction" of space-time?.

It means that the 10 or 11 dimensions favored by string theory at tiny scales are reduced to 4 effective dimensions at larger scales.

 

[rpt]

I found the following thread by Marcus on spontaneous dimension reduction

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=323417

What I understand from this thread is not what you are saying.

 

[A. Neumaier]

I found the following thread by Marcus on spontaneous dimension reduction

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=323417

What I understand from this thread is not what you are saying.

Indeed, I didn't know about this. Anyway, my knowledge of quantum physics beyond the standard model is very limited, since I never saw the need to spend much time on stuff unconnected with experiment. So you'd ask in that thread.

I was referring to the fact that of the 10 or 11 dimensions, all but 4 are compactified toa very small diameter,
so that the extra dimensions show up only at very small scales. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[rpt]

I found this information in the article link given by Naty1.
It was your (A. Neumaier) contribution to the discussion that lead me find that information.
However this may still be a theory without experimental verification. They say that this model converge to the 4-D space time at large scales. I would consider that as an experimental verification of some sort.

If I am right you were referring to dimension of a quantum state rather than space-time dimensions.

That article gives a good insight into as to how 4-D space-time is fabricated from 3-D space-time. And the same idea can be applied iteratively to understand how 3-D space-time is fabricated from 2-D space time.

 

[A. Neumaier]

I found this information in the article link given by Naty1.
It was your (A. Neumaier) contribution to the discussion that lead me find that information.
However this may still be a theory without experimental verification. They say that this model converge to the 4-D space time at large scales. I would consider that as an experimental verification of some sort.

I don't. If the experimental record demands 4 dimensions and some exotic theory gets it as a limiting case while the standard theory has it exactly, I apply Occam's razor and count the evidence in favor of the simpler, traditional model, not for the putative alternative.

If I am right you were referring to dimension of a quantum state rather than space-time dimensions.

String theorists talk about 10 or 11 spacetime dimensions, not about quantum state dimensions (which is infinite already for a hydrogen atom).

 

[my_wan]

I don't. If the experimental record demands 4 dimensions and some exotic theory gets it as a limiting case while the standard theory has it exactly, I apply Occam's razor and count the evidence in favor of the simpler, traditional model, not for the putative alternative.

String theorists talk about 10 or 11 spacetime dimensions, not about quantum state dimensions (which is infinite already for a hydrogen atom).

Both of these points are extremely important to the concept of "experimental verification". A failure to recognize this leads to many conceptual problems in physics. This seems to me to be why so many are chasing the one right interpretation of physics. The modern version of the ether mentality. The false notion of "experimental verification" Arnold spoke of is even more problematic than his criticism implies. It implies that the theory dependent content has the same level of "experimental verification" as the experimental results themselves. Hence why some use the oxymoron called "theory dependent facts". There simply is no such thing unless you fail to heed Arnold's criticism here. Nor does does this criticism entail that the traditional model is factual in the sense used. It is only valid in the sense that it properly accounts for a large number of facts, not that the theory itself is verified factual in the sense that the facts themselves are.

 

[rpt]

If the standard model explains everything, why don't they declare that. Why do people research beyond standard model.

I am not a physicist but I think the only way to experimentally verify such a theory is to make observations in the macroscopic world. I thinks its not any different in the case of standard model. I believe that nobody knows exactly what is going on even in the quantum world. People build theories based on the observations they make in the macro world.

 

[tom.stoer]

Why do people research beyond standard model.

b/c they know that the model (SM of elementary particle physics + gravity) incomplete and (partially) inconsistent mathematically

 

[andrebourbaki]

>People build theories based on the observations they make in the macro world.

The existing theories, from QM to the Standard Model, and GR by itself, are all, as you say, based on macroscopic observations. We observe (in 1900) the spectral lines of Hydrogen, and after a lot of ingenious work, *deduce* something about the energy levels and the reason why electrons are not classical particles and do not radiate while in a stationary state (for example). Later, we look at tracks of bubbles big enough for us to see, in a bubble chamber at a particle accelerator, and deduce amazing microscopic physics things like
the omega minus particle, and the unification of the electro-weak force (1970s). This experience shows that we can have a lot of success at using macroscopic observations to deduce things about the microscopic world that we cannot 'see' with our eyes, but by combining logic, physical intuition, and these experimental data which are always based on macroscopic observations by our senses. So your comment

>I believe that nobody knows exactly what is going on even in the quantum world.

is, perhaps, unduly negative. We do not yet know everything going on in the interaction between curved space-time and quantum fields, nor cosmology. But probably most of what we know we know exactly...except for the effects of gravity on quantum systems. And there are problems of inconsistency and circularity and overlapping domains when and if one tries to *axiomatise* our knowledge.
This refers to what tom.stoer said in

>the model (SM of elementary particle physics + gravity) incomplete and (partially) inconsistent mathematically

But this does not mean that we don't know all sorts of things...it just means we have trouble organising our knowledge into an axiomatic system. The history of physics shows that usually this trouble is temporary.

 

[rpt]

It is difficult to believe in theories which say "can explain everything except few things, its a matter of clarifying those few exceptions"
Once people believed that classical physics could explain everything except few things like the movement of the planet Mercury. However when a new theory emerged to explain this, it changed the entire framework on which the previous theory was build upon.

 

[andrebourbaki]

Someone will, I hope, correct me if I am wrong, but the current state
is different than the perihelion of Mercury and the Stefan-Boltzmann
paradox, back before the GR rev and the Quantum rev. What you
refer to is stubborn (although small) experimental facts. But at present
what we have are not discrepancies with experiment, just logical contradictions, like the infinities of renormalisation or quantum measurement conceptual issues.

 

[tom.stoer]

...
But at present what we have are not discrepancies with experiment, just logical contradictions, like the infinities of renormalisation or quantum measurement conceptual issues.

Yes, something like that.

There seems to be a little chance to get the standard model + gravity consistent up to Planck scale using ordinary quantum field theory plus non-perturbative renormalization (asymptotic safety of gravity, current discussion regarding Higgs in the 125 GeV range using this approach). Nevertheless many people think that there are various theoretical or conceptual indications that something is missing.

For me this indicates a kind of paradigm change in physics.