Does LQG Do Nothing Cool Even If It Is Right?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ohwilleke
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cool even Lqg
ohwilleke
Gold Member
Messages
2,650
Reaction score
1,609
In "Loop quantum gravity and observations" by A. Barrau and J. Grain at http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.1714 the bottom line seems to be that the phenomenological implications of LQG relative to existing predictions from GR are so extremely subtle that they have virtually no practical effects that can be discerned without ultrahigh precision instruments. It makes the tweak to the orbit of Mars predicted by GR relative to Newtonian gravity look veritably spectacular and vivid by comparison.

Am I missing something, or is the correct conclusion that LQG, if proven right, is basically just wrapping up loose ends that would otherwise lack a mathematically rigorous treatment?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are missing the fact that the same can also be said about even more revolutionary theories of the 20'th century, such as theory of relativity and quantum theory. Compared to the 19'th century theories, the 20'th century theories make little difference for phenomena seen under normal everyday-life conditions. And yet, they make a very big difference under certain very extreme conditions, such as velocities close to the velocity of light (special relativity), strong gravitational fields (general relativity), and small distances (quantum mechanics). Likewise, LQG makes a very big difference under extreme conditions of a sufficiently high energy concentrated within a sufficiently small volume (Planck scale).
 
  • Like
Likes David Horgan, marcus and julcab12
ohwilleke said:
...
Am I missing something, or is the correct conclusion that LQG, if proven right, is basically just wrapping up loose ends that would otherwise lack a mathematically rigorous treatment?
I agree with Demystifier about the importance of understanding phenomena that involve extremely high energy density.

Also I wouldn't knock "wrapping up loose ends" i.e. resolving paradoxes and inconsistencies between theories.

As a comment on your shorthand "LQG, if proven right, is basically..." I'd like to suggest Wieland's July 2014 paper and September ILQGS talk as exemplifying the current development of the theory and ask (if that extension of Spinfoam QG is "proven right" and gains acceptance, which is assuming a lot!) what do you think that would entail?

For one thing, unless I'm mistaken, since it joins Spinfoam QG with the Cortês-Smolin energetic causal set (ECS) picture, it addresses issues such as the passage of time, and the experience of the present moment---but does so in a polychronistic manner rather than the monochronistic one of conventional quantum mechanics and quantum field theory---suggesting a fundamental alternative to the block universe picture of the world.

You've probably already checked out the relevant papers by Wieland and by Cortês-Smolin. For convenience, I'll get links. They're on Part II of the third quarter MIP poll and in some other threads as well.
Both abstracts are here, scroll down, they are #9 and #10 on the list:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...portant-qg-paper-part-ii.773590/#post-4867362
New action for simplicial gravity in four dimensions
Wolfgang M. Wieland

Spin foam models as energetic causal sets
Marina Cortês, Lee Smolin

One of the cool things about Wieland's paper is that he extends LQG in such a way that it makes ECS able to connect with it.
 
Last edited:
Wieland's "New Action" paper does some other cool things as well. It resolves a conceptual tension around the Hamiltonian in Spinfoam QG and arrives at a new way of looking at the 4d simplicial complex. Here is a quote from page 1:

"...We will propose such a theory, and prove an intriguing correspondence: The entire simplicial complex represents a system of free particles propagating in a locally flat auxiliary spacetime, with every tetrahedron representing one of those particles, the volume-weighted time-normals representing the particles’ four-momenta, and the entire discretized action turning into an integral over the worldlines of those auxiliary particles..."

Just to keep it handy, here's the link to the July 2014 "New Action..." paper:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.0025
The number is 1407.0025 is fairly easy to remember in any case.

This might be the Loop theory paper currently best to focus on
(theory, that is, as contrasted with observations/phenomenology where a lot else is happening).
 
Last edited:
"just wrapping up loose ends that would otherwise lack a mathematically rigorous treatment?"

According to the no hair theorem for black holes in classical GR the entropy of a black hole is zero and so seems to be in contradiction of physical arguments that it should have entropy. In LQG it is realized that the entropy of a black hole is accounted for by purely quantum mechanical degrees of freedom of the gravitational field.
 
Last edited:
Lee Smolin:

… someone might earn a Clay prize by rigorously constructing quantum Yang-Mills within LQG. It will certainly not be me, but there are people working on exactly that program. The conjecture is that background independent QFTs are more likely to exist rigorously in 3+1 dimensions than Poincare invariant QFTs.
 
I think the relation of the LQC bounce to inflation is one of the remarkably cool things it does. And LQC has been derived from LQG so the cosmological tests serve to test the full LQG theory, not only the LQC application of it.
The Barrau Grain paper that Ohwilleke cited actually outlines this the predictions for cosmology and astrophysics observations (cool if you happen to be interested in cosmology and astrophysics, various unexplained signals in the gammaray and microwave and radio wavelength sky, understanding the start of expansion, the CMB etc). And the Barrau Grain paper has references if anyone wants to pursue such coolness further : ^)

But what currently intrigues me is this, particularly the new version of causal sets that results from Cortes-Smolin putting ECS together with Spinfoam QG. I think it can lead to an improved understanding of the passage of time and the experience of the present moment .
I'll try to explain that.
marcus said:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.0032
Spin foam models as energetic causal sets
Marina Cortês, Lee Smolin
(Submitted on 30 Jun 2014)
Energetic causal sets are causal sets endowed by a flow of energy-momentum between causally related events. These incorporate a novel mechanism for the emergence of space-time from causal relations. Here we construct a spin foam model which is also an energetic causal set model. This model is closely related to the model introduced in parallel by Wolfgang Wieland in arXiv:1407.0025, and this construction makes use of results used there. What makes a spin foam model also an energetic causal set is Wieland's identification of new momenta, conserved at events (or four-simplices), whose norms are not mass, but the volume of tetrahedra. This realizes the torsion constraints, which are missing in previous spin foam models, and are needed to relate the connection dynamics to those of the metric, as in general relativity. This identification makes it possible to apply the new mechanism for the emergence of space-time to a spin foam model.
Comments:16 pages, 4 figures.

arXiv:1407.0025
New action for simplicial gravity in four dimensions
Wolfgang M. Wieland
(Submitted on 30 Jun 2014)
We develop a proposal for a theory of simplicial gravity with spinors as the fundamental configuration variables. The underlying action describes a mechanical system with finitely many degrees of freedom, the system has a Hamiltonian and local gauge symmetries. We will close with some comments on the resulting quantum theory, and explain the relation to loop quantum gravity and twisted geometries. The paper appears in parallel with an article by Cortês and Smolin, who study the relevance of the model for energetic causal sets and various other approaches to quantum gravity.
26 pages, 2 figures

http://relativity.phys.lsu.edu/ilqgs/
Tuesday, September 16th
Wolfgang Wieland, PennState
Title: Covariant loop quantum gravity: Its classical action, phase space and gauge symmetries
PDF of the talk (1Mb)
Audio [.wav 36MB]

The 16 September seminar talk presents the results of http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.0025. Download the PDF first, before you start the audio. The talk is well-organized and the slides are rather complete so that one can understand a lot just by reading the slides PDF.

Both regular Causal Sets (e.g. as developed by Rafael Sorkin, David Rideout, Fay Dowker and others) and regular Spin Foam QG (covariant LQG) are active lines of research with important results. This makes it especially interesting to see how the two recent tweaked versions of each can be closely related.
 
The causal set idea of the passage of time is well described in this talk by Fay Dowker which summarizes work by Rafael Sorkin and collaborators:
google "dowker passage arxiv" to get the arxiv copy.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.3492
The birth of spacetime atoms as the passage of time
The idea is that there is no 3D instantaneous version of reality, what we experience is a confused disorderly process of causation at the frontier of the past where space-time cells are proliferating and the order in which they appear is pure gauge that is physically meaningless.

Any experience of reality I may have involves this current process of causation. Say I want to see if the wall is firm so I put the computer down and walk over and push on it. At every step this experience involves the birth of space-time atoms and the occurrence of events. Which go to build up the past, a kind of crystal of dead events which can no longer be influenced by our actions or experienced.
Best if you have a look at Dowker's paper, it is short and written for a wide audience, not just for physicists.

The relevance is that Cortes-Smolin have devised a version of causal sets in which the space-time cells or atoms are 4-simplices and they are undergoing Pachner moves . This means that the authors can ascribe dynamics to the growth of the past (and this disorderly proliferation we call the present) based on Wieland's action .
 
Last edited:
  • #10
That May 2014 paper by Fay Dowker used brief dialog to point out the need for a change in our theory of space-time to include the experience of the present and the passage of time. She compares the present situation to an anomaly in Newtonian gravity. Newtonian gravity was at odds with experience in that it suggested that gravity was a force. But we do not feel the force of gravity the way we feel other forces. People put up with that curious anomaly for 300 years and then in 1915 it was discovered that gravity was not a force after all, it was the curvature of space-time geometry. By the principle of equivalence one can zero it out. It is not felt in free fall.
So one had a mismatch of theory with experience that eventually required a fundamental change in the theory. Here's the dialog:
==quote Dowker http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.3492.pdf ==

... challenges the view that quantum gravity effects can only show themselves as phenomena in regimes far beyond our immediate reach. The idea is that we may have access, through our intimate experience, to a physical phenomenon that is not present in General Relativity but is part of a more complete theory of spacetime. Lest this seem far-fetched, let me introduce an example from history ...

Every day in the centuries between Newton’s discovery of the Law of Universal Gravitation and Einstein’s discovery of General Relativity, every human being was making an observation with no explanation within the Newtonian theory but which correlates perfectly with GR. This observational fact, was, throughout that time in history, “hidden in plain sight.” ...

17th Century Scientist: There is a physical force of weight on you. Look at all the data, celestial mechanics, etc. The Newtonian theory of gravitation accounts for all that data.

17th Century Sceptic: But I don’t experience this gravitational force of weight whereas I can feel mechanical forces of comparable magnitude. Why?

Scientist: The force of weight is physical. So your sense-experience of no force must be an illusion. Neurology, psychology, the way the mind and body work to produce sense-experience must be responsible for this illusion of lack of gravitational force of weight.

Sceptic: Maybe. But maybe this is telling us to look again at our theory, with the lack of gravitational force of weight as a heuristic.

The following is a parallel conversation that may, in the future, make similar sense:

21st Century Blockhead: There is no physical passage of time. Look at all the data, celestial mechanics, etc. The theory of General Relativity with spacetime as a Block perfectly accounts for all that data.

21st century Sceptic: But I don’t experience a Block. I experience a sequence of moments. Why?

Blockhead: The Block is physical, the passage of time is not physical. So your sense-experience of time passing must be an illusion. Neurology, psychology, the way the mind and body work to produce sense-experience must be responsible for this illusion of the passage of time.

Sceptic: Maybe. But maybe this is telling us to look again at our theory, with a physical passage of time as a heuristic.
==footnote==

5 If there is only a force upwards on you from your chair and no weight acting down on you then you must be accelerating upwards, away from the earth. And so must someone sitting on a chair on the other side of the planet. For everyone on the surface of the Earth to be stationary and yet also accelerating away from the centre of the Earth requires that the spacetime around the Earth be curved.
===endquote===
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
  • #11
I think it's a safe conclusion that whatever physical world-theory arises from the current confusion will definitely have a place in it for the experience of the present and the passage of time.

==quote Dowker http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.3492.pdf ==

Blockhead: The Block is physical, the passage of time is not physical. So your sense-experience of time passing must be an illusion. Neurology, psychology, the way the mind and body work to produce sense-experience must be responsible for this illusion of the passage of time.
Sceptic: Maybe. But maybe this is telling us to look again at our theory, with a physical passage of time as a heuristic.

===endquote===

So this is a big deal. Major change in store. Physics has so far been using a Block universe, or basing models on simple flat Lorentz spacetime--even on a naive global time variable.
This provides a way to respond to Ohwilleke's question that started the thread: What's the potential importance of Spinfoam QG, assuming it passes astrophysical tests described in Barrau Grain http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.1714?

What's the potential importance? It's different from the Block universe world trajectory--the past has a frontier where it is taking shape. A frontier which (if I understand Wieland's presentation) does not correspond to a reading on anyone's physical clock.

Because the ORDER one imagines new space-time simplices being added to the past is pure gauge.
There's a swarm of tetrahedra moving on time-oriented edges that form a branched manifold and the evolution parameter is not a physical time. Where paths come together, and where they branch out into several, are vertices corresponding to spacetime simplices. Cells from which the spacetime past is built, or by which it grows. there is no synchronicity about the weaving worldliness of this swarm of tets. Spacetime arises from their interactions (Pachner moves). But you can't specify a state at some particular instant.
This accumulation of interactions ( = pentachorons = 4-simplices) does not take place IN time because there is no time. One only gets proper time for the individual path of a particular tetrahedron after the fact.

Maybe I can make this clearer. I'll try to say it better. I'm trying to paraphrase from the two papers:
(google "cortes causal spin foam" and "wieland new action")
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Demystifier said:
You are missing the fact that the same can also be said about even more revolutionary theories of the 20'th century, such as theory of relativity and quantum theory. Compared to the 19'th century theories, the 20'th century theories make little difference for phenomena seen under normal everyday-life conditions. And yet, they make a very big difference under certain very extreme conditions, such as velocities close to the velocity of light (special relativity), strong gravitational fields (general relativity), and small distances (quantum mechanics). Likewise, LQG makes a very big difference under extreme conditions of a sufficiently high energy concentrated within a sufficiently small volume (Planck scale).

I don't agree that this is true for the 20th century modern physics discoveries.

SR & GR implied: (1) time can be slowed down by moving something very fast, (2) light is influenced by gravity, (3) time is influence by gravity, (4) E=mc^2 which is at the heart of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy, (5) black holes exist and indeed turn out to be central of the structure of galaxies, and (6) interstellar travel during human length lifetimes faces fundamental barriers different in kind from those involved in breaking the sound barrier (i.e. change in velocity takes more additional momentum at higher velocities and nature has a speed limit).

QM implied: (1) quantum tunnelling which makes transistors possible, (2) QM makes it possible to understand and predict superconductivity, (3) QM provides an easily accessible example of non-deterministic behavior in the physical world, (4) radioactive decay is essentially perfectly understood in principle and critical to nuclear fission power generation, (5) QM provides an easily demonstrable example of non-local phenomena (entanglement), (6) phenomena from heat to X-rays are fundamentally the same, (7) lead can be changed into gold (in principle), (8) the last "1% of phenomena" have an immensely elaborate explanation, (9) pure energy can give rise to matter and routinely does, (10) anti-matter exists, and (11) there is an arrow of time in the laws of physics.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Ohwilleke, excluding (11) (because it is very questionable that QM implies arrow of time), which of these phenomena can you see in normal everyday-life conditions?
 
  • #14
Barrau and Grain wrote (on Page 4 of their paper, see Post # 1 )

"In bouncing cosmologies, either from the loop approach or any other, the question
of anisotropies is very important for a clear reason: the shear term varies as
a^(-6) where a is the "mean" scale factor of the Universe . When the
Universe is contracting, the shear term becomes more and more important and
eventually drives the dynamics.", so for them shear is an important factor. By way of emphasis, they add, on
Page 6:

"The phase and shear are the initial variables to set." but conclude onPage 7:

that "An important issue however remains: what would be a "natural" initial value for the shear? "

Shear is a spatially relative displacement gradient associated with spatial inhomogeneities like vortices in a finite liquid, or structural
defects in a finite continuum solid (see V. Volterra Ecol. Norm. Sup., 324 (1907), pp. 401––517) How could shear possibly arise on a non-localised bouncing cosmological scale, that includes by definition all that exists (whether the geometry be open or closed) and serve as an important issue in the present context?
 
  • #15
ohwilleke said:
In "Loop quantum gravity and observations" by A. Barrau and J. Grain at http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.1714 the bottom line seems to be that the phenomenological implications of LQG relative to existing predictions from GR are so extremely subtle that they have virtually no practical effects that can be discerned without ultrahigh precision instruments. It makes the tweak to the orbit of Mars predicted by GR relative to Newtonian gravity look veritably spectacular and vivid by comparison.

Am I missing something, or is the correct conclusion that LQG, if proven right, is basically just wrapping up loose ends that would otherwise lack a mathematically rigorous treatment?
This is an interesting topic in part because it points to the fact that our PERSPECTIVE on quantum gravity research may be changing. As interest in string theorizing declines, more people have been looking at the alternatives, including LQG-SF, but also Causal Sets, CDT, Shape Dynamics, AsymptoticSafetyQG...
and may have been revising their perspectives.
So what Ohwilleke is prompting is an examination of LQG, how has it been progressing? How has it been changing? What can we expect from it, if a version of LQG is tested observationally and checks out well enough to gain provisional acceptance?

There was just recently (26 October) a brief review of the situation consisting of a few comments by Lee Smolin made in Peter Woit's block. He gave a number of links to papers touching on these issues. It might be helpful here to quote.
Lee began the discussion by commenting on a recent narrowly-focused conference as follows:

Lee Smolin says:
October 24, 2014 at 2:53 pm
Dear Peter,

If the conferees want an answer to the question “Are there any plausible alternatives to string/M-theory as a fundamental theory of physics?” they ought to invite some of the people contributing to the development of such alternatives and have an honest examination of the question. They have plenty to choose from, they could start with the speakers at Loops 13, which 200 people attended: http://www.pirsa.org/C13029 .

Fifteen or twenty years ago it was possible to say that string theory was more promising than its alternatives, and indeed 15 years ago I switched my research from LQG to M theory. But I think that any objective evaluation of the evidence has to credit much more substantial progress has taken place since concerning the alternatives; especially spin foam models, but also other background independent approaches including shape dynamics, CDT, group field theory and tensor models, etc.

To support this I would point to the fact that much more is known from spin foam models about the challenges it faced 15 years ago, including substantial recent results on the emergence of GR in the semiclassical limit, the entropy and temperature of generic black holes, the elimination of cosmological and black hole singularities, finiteness, etc.

So, I would urge my string theory friends who think they know the answer to the question to have another look. There is a whole generation of brilliant young theorists working on alternatives to string theory you should meet!

Thanks,

Lee
=======================
The following series of comment then ensued:
  • Jesper says:
    October 25, 2014 at 5:27 pm
    Dear Lee
    could you provide links/references to the recent results you mention on emergence of GR in a semi-classical limit?
    Thanks
  • Bob says:
    October 26, 2014 at 1:03 pm
    Dear Lee,
    Thanks for those paper references. They look interesting. I have a question for you. LQG, spin foams, etc., are characterized as a quantum theory of pure gravity, without matter and matter interactions. Can you discuss the ways in which Loop Quantum Gravity addresses the criticisms that quantum gravity needs to unify gravity with the other interactions because gravity cannot be decoupled at Planck scales from all other interactions (if there are any) at Standard Model, and higher, energy scales?
    Thanks very much!
  • Lee Smolin says:
    October 26, 2014 at 2:16 pm
    Dear Bob,
    Actually there is a moderate sized literature on matter coupling and unification within LQG. To summarize, let me emphasize that there are several different questions.

    1) It is just not true that “LQG, spin foams, etc., are characterized as a quantum theory of pure gravity, without matter and matter interactions.” From very early in its development, it was worked out in detail how to include gauge fields, fermions and scalars in LQG. For example, see Thomas Thiemann’s book.

    2) Extension to supergravity is also straightforward, at least for N=1, including D=11. See papers by Yi Ling and myself as well as recent papers by Thiemann and collaborators,

    3) Hence, even if LQG doesn’t constrain the matter or gauge field content of what it is coupled to, LQG provides a framework in which matter gauge fields and gravity are all coupled together.

    4) There are issues that need to be addressed with fermion doubling which are the subject of work in progress with Jacob Barnett.

    5) You can ask in addition whether, “quantum gravity needs to unify gravity with the other interactions”. This from a LQG point of view is an open question.

    6) But you can ask if LQG gives a compelling framework for unifying the different interactions? Here the answer appears to be yes. The simplest possible extension of the theory, gotten by extending the gauge group of gravity, which is the Lorentz group, to a larger group, G, yields a natural extension of Einstein-Yang Mills. This comes about from a built in spontaneous breaking of the gauge group G to the product of the Lorentz group with a compact factor H, which becomes the Yang-Mills gauge group. See http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.0977, older papers by Peldan and later papers by Krasnov et al. See also http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.5246 which explores implications for a unification of the electroweak interactions with gravity.

    7) Going beyond all these solid results are indications that the chiral fermions of the standard model may emerge from topological excitations of spin network states, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0603022.

    Clearly there is much still to do in this direction, but these are sufficient to assure us that LQG provides a framework within which to describe matter and gauge fields coupled to quantum gravity which can suggest hypotheses as to further unification.

    Lee
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
ohwilleke said:
...
SR & GR implied: (1) time can be slowed down by moving something very fast, (2) light is influenced by gravity, (3) time is influence by gravity, (4) E=mc^2 which is at the heart of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy, (5) black holes exist and indeed turn out to be central of the structure of galaxies, and (6) interstellar travel during human length lifetimes faces fundamental barriers different in kind from those involved in breaking the sound barrier (i.e. change in velocity takes more additional momentum at higher velocities and nature has a speed limit).

QM implied: (1) quantum tunnelling which makes transistors possible, (2) QM makes it possible to understand and predict superconductivity, (3) QM provides an easily accessible example of non-deterministic behavior in the physical world, (4) radioactive decay is essentially perfectly understood in principle and critical to nuclear fission power generation, ... (9) pure energy can give rise to matter and routinely does, (10) anti-matter exists, ...

The analogies with GR and QM may be more pronounced than you suggest. You mention a MISCELLANY of significant commercial applications (e.g. transistors) and implications (e.g. antimatter exists, speed limited by growing inertia) which impress astonish fascinate normally curious people.
Most of the things you mention are things we do not actually SEE in everyday life. We see transistors but we do not actually see quantum tunneling or antimatter or nuclear fission.

"(9) pure energy can give rise to matter and routinely does..." The reverse would be a possible application of QG. We suspect that very small black holes could convert ordinary matter (like sand or water) completely into pure energy. This is a QG process and small BH are QG systems par excellence. But we don't really understand BH do we? There are a lot of puzzles still. So if you want to imagine a commercial application.

Actually it's hard to foresee commercial applications for really new theoretical developments and it WOULD HAVE BEEN hard in the cases of 1915 GR and 1925 QM. The motivation of the original researchers is probably more likely to have been philosophical, that is "to tie up conceptual loose ends." To understand geometry better, or time, or inertia, or energy, or atoms, or the thermodynamics of light...

ohwilleke said:
In "Loop quantum gravity and observations" by A. Barrau and J. Grain at http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.1714 the bottom line ...LQG, if proven right, is basically just wrapping up loose ends that would otherwise lack a mathematically rigorous treatment?

The comparison with the two major developments (GR and QM) of the 20th century is apt. As I suggested, the original motivation for them was, more likely than not, philosophical---to understand the concepts better, in effect "tie up loose ends".

So what about the problem of "now" and the passage of time? Is our experience of the specialness of the present not an effect of quantum space-time geometry? Classical theories only give us a Block Universe worldview in which time does not pass and there is no representation of the present moment. which we constantly experience.

For discussion's sake, I propose that spacetime is constantly being made from the interactions of Planck-scale quanta of geometry. And it does not exist for us because (since we cannot interact with it) we cannot experience it. It is the past--something we know about but do not experience. We do experience the present---the interactions of quanta of geometry and matter which are forming the past, as we speak : ^) this is a QG phenomenon.
The present moment is a QG phenomenon which we constantly experience and which to understand is one of the jobs of LQG and other theoretical attempts at QG.

Seriously Ohwilleke, you toss out a miscellany of commercial applications on one hand and impressive fascinating IMPLICATIONS on the other. I think it is not hard to imagine, in the case of QG (i.e. quantum space-time geometry and how it interacts with quantum matter) applications and implications that are just as fascinating and impressive as those of 1915 GR and 1925 QM.
: ^)
 
Last edited:
  • #17
It occurs to me to suspect that when you said "Am I missing something, or...?" you were playing "duffle's advocate" in this thread,
and were hoping that your challenge would provoke just the sort of responses that Demystifier, others, and I have been offering. ; ^))
 
  • #18
Marcus, what is a "duffle's advocate"? oo)
 
  • #20
Don't let the people that invest the money for this research know that there's nothing spectacular about it...
 
  • #21
Demystifier said:
Marcus, what is a "duffle's advocate"? oo)
Duffle is the title of Chapter 89
of the classic novel Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut
http://books.google.com/books?id=w25sx0G6nRsC&pg=PA199&dq=89+Duffle#v=onepage&q=89 Duffle&f=false

The term is defined at the beginning of the chapter. You can get the chapter simply by googling "89 duffle"

Frank was giving a classic illustration of what Bokonon calls duffle. Duffle, in the Bokononist sense, is the destiny of thousands upon thousands of persons when placed in the hands of a stuppa. A stuppa is a fogbound child.​

Alternative link: http://catscradle.neocities.org/chapter-89.html

I guess the etymology is somewhere between the German word Teufel, and the dull carry-all shapelessness of a kind of canvas suitcase called a "duffle bag" : ^)
 
  • #22
Part of answering the topic question involves what one thinks is "cool". the OP cited a paper by Aurelien Barrau et al. about opportunities for observational testing of LQG and the LQC application to cosmology. ("Loop quantum gravity and observations by A. Barrau and J. Grain at http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.1714 ")

Today another Aurelien Barrau paper came out which I think has some rather cool consequences IF it turns out that LQG gives a reasonably good picture of the start of expansion (the bounce) in the early universe. Look especially at FIGURE 5, on page 8, where you see light cones slimming down to straight lines as the density increases to critical. In effect space momentarily consists of isolated points right around the bounce, and space-time geometry becomes a congruence of lines ("asymptotic silence", effective speed of light --> 0.)

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.0272v1.pdf

See also page 12, one of the conclusions:
==quote==
The main results of the paper are the following:

• The state of silence provides a natural way to set initial conditions for the cosmological perturbations. This state is the beginning of the Lorentzian phase, and, in some sense, the beginning of time. This is qualitatively a new feature in cosmology.
...
...
===endquote===

It should say "This state is the resumption of the Lorentzian phase, and, in some sense, the resumption of time. This is qualitatively a new feature in cosmology."

Before the bounce time proceeds normally and there is a normal Lorentzian phase. The difference is the U is contracting rather than expanding. It's one of two ways the Friedman equation can go (H(t) can be negative as well as positive, the equation only governs the square of H(t))

So then towards the end of contraction there is a signature change. Density rises to critical level, in effect c --> 0 and the light cones slim down to lines. The Lorentz signature is Euclidianized---but only temporarily, there is a bounce, density declines, Euclidian changes back to Lorentz, the lines open out to cones again.

Here's the abstract:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.0272
Silent initial conditions for cosmological perturbations with a change of space-time signature
Jakub Mielczarek, Linda Linsefors, Aurelien Barrau
(Submitted on 2 Nov 2014)
Recent calculations in loop quantum cosmology suggest that a transition from a Lorentzian to an Euclidean space-time might take place in the very early Universe. The transition point leads to a state of silence, characterized by a vanishing speed of light. This behavior can be interpreted as a decoupling of different space points, similar to the one characterizing the BKL phase.
In this study, we address the issue of imposing initial conditions for the cosmological perturbations at the transition point between the Lorentzian and Euclidean phases. Motivated by the decoupling of space points, initial conditions characterized by a lack of correlations are investigated. We show that the "white noise" initial conditions are supported by the analysis of the vacuum state in the Euclidean regime adjacent to the state of silence.
Furthermore, the possibility of imposing the silent initial conditions at the trans-Planckian surface, characterized by a vanishing speed for the propagation of modes with wavelengths of the order of the Planck length, is studied. Such initial conditions might result from a loop-deformations of the Poincaré algebra. The conversion of the silent initial power spectrum to a scale-invariant one is also examined.
12 pages, 8 figures
 
Last edited:
  • #23
Very interesting new developments gentleman. I can't but wonder if this doesn't tie into Jim Gates's work given the interesting four-node connections in the network diagrams he pulls out of the equations of Supersymmetric String Theory, he calls them Adinkras, the Peacock in particular shows this and it makes one wonder if the tetrahedral substrate of CDT and the 4-simplices of the above mentioned theories are not dancing around the same underlying mechanisms.
 
  • #24
Inflector, I cannot say about the relation to the "equations of Supersymmetric String Theory" that you mention, but whatever it might be related to I find the Mielczarek Linsefors Barrau paper fascinating! According to MLB during the Loop cosmology bounce the lightcones slim down to one dimensional "time lines" (spacetime becomes a "congruence of timelines" as they say, a bundle of parallel worldlines of isolated points out of contact with each other).

And then immediately after the bounce they open out into lightcones again. there is a brief interval when the highest density is reached where the the speed of light decreases to zero (visualized as the slimming of the lightcones which they depict in figure 5) so that even neighboring points are out of communication.
This has been written about, as I recall, in a dozen or so LQG papers under the heading "SIGNATURE CHANGE". One way to describe the speed of light briefly shrinking to zero is to say that there is a change from Minkowski (- +++) signature to Euclidean (++++), and then normal Minkowski signature is resumed.

I'm wondering how to relate this to another recent paper which describes something going on at the BLACK HOLE singularity. This is not a bounce, as in the cosmology case, but has the broad outlines of normal BH evaporation. However because of the underlying LQG degrees of freedom unitarity is preserved and there is no firewall. The paper is by Alejandro Perez.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.7062
No firewalls in quantum gravity: the role of discreteness of quantum geometry in resolving the information loss paradox
I think both the MLB paper and the Perez paper should be considered for the fourth quarter 2014 MIP poll.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
I mentioned Alejandro Perez' paper that just came out, as a possible cool one. I should give the abstract so you can see what it is about. He seems to have a remarkably simple solution to the BH information loss problem which has plagued theorists for well over 30 years and has been the occasion of much drama. Can Perez' solution be right? It looks so simple.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.7062
No firewalls in quantum gravity: the role of discreteness of quantum geometry in resolving the information loss paradox
Alejandro Perez
(Submitted on 26 Oct 2014)
In an approach to quantum gravity where space-time arises from coarse graining of fundamentally discrete structures, black hole formation and subsequent evaporation can be described by a unitary evolution without the problems encountered by the standard remnant scenario or the schemes where information is assumed to come out with the radiation while evaporation (firewalls and complementarity). The final state is purified by correlations with the fundamental pre-geometric structures (in the sense of Wheeler) which are available in such approaches, and, like defects in the underlying space-time weave, can carry zero energy.
12 pages, 7 figures.
 
  • #26
Hi marcus. Have you looked at the paper "A loop quantum multiverse?" http://uk.arxiv.org/pdf/1212.5150 where Bojowald talks about the possibility of signature change and implication for the initial conditions and the entropy problem?
 
  • #27
julian said:
Hi marcus. Have you looked at the paper "A loop quantum multiverse?" http://uk.arxiv.org/pdf/1212.5150 where Bojowald talks about the possibility of signature change and implication for the initial conditions and the entropy problem?
Hi Julian,
I looked at that paper briefly in 2012 when it came out. It was not the first paper of Bojowald to talk about signature change, nor the last, so that aspect did not make it stand out for me. By "entropy problem" I think you mean the issue about why, from our perspective in the expanding phase, looking back, the entropy in early universe (as we measure it) is low. I should probably take another look at that paper and see what he says. Thanks for the reminder!

It could be that mentioning "multiverse" in this context is just an unnecessary and distracting complication. It could be fun to consider what the putative signature change might do to entropy or entropies (as defined by which observers?)

It seems that entropies are measured in a way that depends very much on the observer---how he coarse-grains, what variables he interacts with, what he is necessarily ignorant of, what outside his horizon and beyond his ken.

BTW Bojowald co-authored with Barrau et al very recently. Just this year I think. Signature change was discussed. I don't know if you looked at that paper. It might give an up to date indication of how Bojowald currently sees it. I did not get into that paper. Maybe I should, but right now I'm more excited by what Barrau is making of it, as in the MLB paper. I like the echo of the classical BKL conjecture, asymptotic silence.

A propos BKL and asymptotic silence, in case not familiar to some readers, here's a tidbit from Steve Carlip. Julian you may have other background material you want to quote that could shed light on the topic! Anyway Carlip connects it to the signs of dimensional reduction that have come up in QG:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.4503
Spontaneous Dimensional Reduction?
S. Carlip
(Submitted on 18 Jul 2012)
Over the past few years, evidence has begun to accumulate suggesting that spacetime may undergo a "spontaneous dimensional reduction" to two dimensions near the Planck scale. I review some of this evidence, and discuss the (still very speculative) proposal that the underlying mechanism may be related to short-distance focusing of light rays by quantum fluctuations.
9 pages. Proc. of the Sixth International School on Field Theory and Gravity, Petropolis, Brazil, 2012
==quote Carlip==
The BKL behavior of the preceding section has been carefully studied in a different context, that of classical cosmology near a generic spacelike singularity [37]. There, the essential feature is what is called “asymptotic silence.” Light cones along world lines orthogonal to the singularity collapse to lines as the singularity is approached, leading to causal disconnection of nearby points. This behavior can be described as an anti- Newtonian limit: rather than approaching infinity, as in the Newtonian limit, the effective speed of light shrinks to zero. If this causal disconnection occurs rapidly enough, the structure of the field equations leads almost automatically to BKL behavior.

The ultralocal nature of the short distance Wheeler-DeWitt equation provides one indication of asymptotic silence in quantum gravity. Let us search for others. Note that unlike the cosmological setting, in which the initial singularity defines a preferred set of world lines, we now need light cones to collapse along world lines orthogonal to an arbitrary initial surface...
==endquote==
 
Last edited:
  • #28
marcus said:
Hi Julian,
I looked at that paper briefly in 2012 when it came out. It was not the first paper of Bojowald to talk about signature change, nor the last, so that aspect did not make it stand out for me. By "entropy problem" I think you mean the issue about why, from our perspective in the expanding phase, looking back, the entropy in early universe (as we measure it) is low. I should probably take another look at that paper and see what he says. Thanks for the reminder!

It could be that mentioning "multiverse" in this context is just an unnecessary and distracting complication. It could be fun to consider what the putative signature change might do to entropy or entropies (as defined by which observers?)

It seems that entropies are measured in a way that depends very much on the observer---how he coarse-grains, what variables he interacts with, what he is necessarily ignorant of, what outside his horizon and beyond his ken.

BTW Bojowald co-authored with Barrau et al very recently. Just this year I think. Signature change was discussed. I don't know if you looked at that paper. It might give an up to date indication of how Bojowald currently sees it. I did not get into that paper. Maybe I should, but right now I'm more excited by what Barrau is making of it, as in the MLB paper. I like the echo of the classical BKL conjecture, asymptotic silence.

Hi Marcus

Was it it not the first? Hmmm.

In this context the "multiverse" may be an unnecessary and distracting complication. But the question of its physical prediction being valid and its implications is another issue!

How the observer course-grains and questions of entropy is an issue brought up by Rovelli I think? Is that right? And I wish to understand this better.

I have not yet looked at the paper co-authored with Barrau et al. This may be another idea Bojowald maybe pursuing, but I would be surprised if he doesn't have intention of following his "Multiverse" idea and its implications - even if this may a difficult programme to complete.

I will look at the new papers you have mentioned - very interesting.

p.s. I still mean to review a paper by Thiemann on the limitations of LQC - I've partly written it up.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
julian said:
Was it it not the first? Hmmm.
...
For example
http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.1899
"...the emergence of the universe from Euclidean space at high density. This new version of signature-change cosmology suggests a natural way of posing initial conditions, and a solution to the entropy problem..."

I'm not suggesting that what someone e.g. Martin Bojowald says in 2011 or 2012 should be taken as authoritative final word. But the signature change thing does go back a ways with him and I guess others, even Steven Hawking?
I haven't thought about this enough to be helpful but I'm glad you have raised these issues.
Bojo collaborated with Barrau and friends in an April 2014 paper.
I really like where Barrau et al are going with this! I can't say more (at present) that would make any sense : ^)
 
  • #30
The No-Boundary Proposal of Hartle and Hawking?
 
  • #31
julian said:
The No-Boundary Proposal of Hartle and Hawking?
That's what I was vaguely referring to : ^)
Don't want to overemphasize that though. You may understand it better. Have to admit I never paid much attention to that idea.
Bounce always seemed more straightforward to me, ockham-minimal, no special assumption magic.

It is just what happens when you extend the quantization of gravity "into the UV", that is, to extremely high energy density, and then trace the history of the universe back in time.

Instead of finding a singularity at the start of expansion you find a rebound from a contracting phase.

So you don't have to "make up" any new physics. You just do your best you to quantize geometry and the result tells you quantum geometry resists being pinned down and says there's a bounce.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
I agree.
 
  • #33
Julian, I'm glad you agree! We have similar perspectives on the cosmological bounce, I think. Today I was exploring the idea that the bounce may solve the (early universe low) ENTROPY PROBLEM

It's the idea that for the gravitational field more and more structure means increasing entropy. More clumping more collapsing, more intricate varigated structure... But if you keep writing on a slate eventually you get a blank slate! There comes a time when every pixel is marked and you recover the "tabula rasa" of no structure at all: zero entropy.

An important part of this is the discreteness of geometric information---the LQG "area gap" and such---which is the root cause of the bounce as well.

I want to bring forward the abstract of the 2014 Mielczarek Linsefors Barrau paper from post #23. And also post the abstract of a 2012 Mielczarek paper that is related. That way we will have these things in front of us to look over. I think the condition of total causal disconnection where every point is causally isolated from all the others (and thus no memory storage is possible) constitutes zero entropy---from the standpoint of anyone point.
Entropy is observer dependent and the the isolated points are the only observers. For each point, it is all that exists and it knows all there is to know.

marcus said:
Part of answering the topic question involves what one thinks is "cool". the OP cited a paper by Aurelien Barrau et al. about opportunities for observational testing of LQG and the LQC application to cosmology. ("Loop quantum gravity and observations by A. Barrau and J. Grain at http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.1714 ")

Today another Aurelien Barrau paper came out which I think has some rather cool consequences IF it turns out that LQG gives a reasonably good picture of the start of expansion (the bounce) in the early universe. Look especially at FIGURE 5, on page 8, where you see light cones slimming down to straight lines as the density increases to critical. In effect space momentarily consists of isolated points right around the bounce, and space-time geometry becomes a congruence of lines ("asymptotic silence", effective speed of light --> 0.)

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.0272v1.pdf

See also page 12, one of the conclusions:
==quote==
The main results of the paper are the following:

• The state of silence provides a natural way to set initial conditions for the cosmological perturbations. This state is the beginning of the Lorentzian phase, and, in some sense, the beginning of time. This is qualitatively a new feature in cosmology.
...
...
===endquote===

It should say "This state is the resumption of the Lorentzian phase, and, in some sense, the resumption of time. This is qualitatively a new feature in cosmology."

Before the bounce time proceeds normally and there is a normal Lorentzian phase. The difference is the U is contracting rather than expanding. It's one of two ways the Friedman equation can go (H(t) can be negative as well as positive, the equation only governs the square of H(t))

So then towards the end of contraction there is a signature change. Density rises to critical level, in effect c --> 0 and the light cones slim down to lines. The Lorentz signature is Euclidianized---but only temporarily, there is a bounce, density declines, Euclidian changes back to Lorentz, the lines open out to cones again.

Here's the abstract:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.0272
Silent initial conditions for cosmological perturbations with a change of space-time signature
Jakub Mielczarek, Linda Linsefors, Aurelien Barrau
(Submitted on 2 Nov 2014)
Recent calculations in loop quantum cosmology suggest that a transition from a Lorentzian to an Euclidean space-time might take place in the very early Universe. The transition point leads to a state of silence, characterized by a vanishing speed of light. This behavior can be interpreted as a decoupling of different space points, similar to the one characterizing the BKL phase.
In this study, we address the issue of imposing initial conditions for the cosmological perturbations at the transition point between the Lorentzian and Euclidean phases. Motivated by the decoupling of space points, initial conditions characterized by a lack of correlations are investigated. We show that the "white noise" initial conditions are supported by the analysis of the vacuum state in the Euclidean regime adjacent to the state of silence.
Furthermore, the possibility of imposing the silent initial conditions at the trans-Planckian surface, characterized by a vanishing speed for the propagation of modes with wavelengths of the order of the Planck length, is studied. Such initial conditions might result from a loop-deformations of the Poincaré algebra. The conversion of the silent initial power spectrum to a scale-invariant one is also examined.
12 pages, 8 figures
Here's the 2012 Mielczarek paper:
http://inspirehep.net/record/1207431?ln=en
http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1212.3527
Asymptotic silence in loop quantum cosmology
Jakub Mielczarek
(Submitted on 14 Dec 2012)
The state of asymptotic silence, characterized by causal disconnection of the space points, emerges from various approaches aiming to describe gravitational phenomena in the limit of large curvatures. In particular, such behavior was anticipated by Belinsky, Khalatnikov and Lifshitz (BKL) in their famous conjecture put forward in the early seventies of the last century. While the BKL conjecture is based on purely classical considerations, one can expect that asymptotic silence should have its quantum counterpart at the level of a more fundamental theory of quantum gravity, which is the relevant description of gravitational phenomena in the limit of large energy densities. Here, we summarize some recent results which give support to such a possibility. More precisely, we discuss occurrence of the asymptotic silence due to polymerization of space at the Planck scale, in the framework of loop quantum cosmology. In the discussed model, the state of asymptotic silence is realized at the energy density ρ=ρc/2, where ρc is the maximal allowed energy density, being of the order of the Planck energy density. At energy densities ρ>ρc/2, the universe becomes 4D Euclidean space without causal structure. Therefore, the asymptotic silence appears to be an intermediate state of space between the Lorentzian and Euclidean phases.
4 pages, 3 figures, talk presented at the Multiverse and Fundamental Cosmology Conference, 10-14 September, 2012, Szczecin, Poland

BTW this paper gives some nice background on the asymptotic silence limit, which Levy-Leblond dubbed the "Carrollian limit" in honor of the the author of Through the Looking-glass.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.0657v5.pdf
One of the authors is Gary Gibbons (DAMTP), others based in Marseille, Tours...
 
Last edited:
  • #34
To recall and summarize some of the cool things LQG does which we have been focusing on here:
1. The Loop cosmology bounce makes adequate inflation (with modest assumptions) a near certainty without incurring the excessive persistent inflation that leads to a multiplicity of universes.
Google "linsefors duration inflation arxiv" or see http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1264 and references therein.
2. Indications are that LQG is testable (see Ohwilleke's post #1 or google "barrau loop observations"). Loop cosmology has been derived from LQG.
3. A brief episode of signature change at the bounce may clarify the imposition of initial conditions and the low entropy at start of expansion.(Mielczarek et al 2014, see preceding post, #33)
4. Causal spin foam QG addresses the passage of time and growth of space-time.
To get the July 2014 papers on this, google "wieland new action arxiv" and "cortes causal spin foam".
To emphasize the need to address the passage of time, I'll quote from a new paper by Ruth E. Kastner and also bring forward a pointed dialog quoted earlier in this thread.
marcus said:
That May 2014 paper by Fay Dowker used brief dialog to point out the need for a change in our theory of space-time to include the experience of the present and the passage of time. She compares the present situation to an anomaly in Newtonian gravity. Newtonian gravity was at odds with experience in that it suggested that gravity was a force. But we do not feel the force of gravity the way we feel other forces. People put up with that curious anomaly for 300 years and then in 1915 it was discovered that gravity was not a force after all, it was the curvature of space-time geometry. By the principle of equivalence one can zero it out. It is not felt in free fall.
So one had a mismatch of theory with experience that eventually required a fundamental change in the theory. Here's the dialog:
==quote Dowker http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.3492.pdf ==

... challenges the view that quantum gravity effects can only show themselves as phenomena in regimes far beyond our immediate reach. The idea is that we may have access, through our intimate experience, to a physical phenomenon that is not present in General Relativity but is part of a more complete theory of spacetime. Lest this seem far-fetched, let me introduce an example from history ...

Every day in the centuries between Newton’s discovery of the Law of Universal Gravitation and Einstein’s discovery of General Relativity, every human being was making an observation with no explanation within the Newtonian theory but which correlates perfectly with GR. This observational fact, was, throughout that time in history, “hidden in plain sight.” ...

17th Century Scientist: There is a physical force of weight on you. Look at all the data, celestial mechanics, etc. The Newtonian theory of gravitation accounts for all that data.

17th Century Sceptic: But I don’t experience this gravitational force of weight whereas I can feel mechanical forces of comparable magnitude. Why?

Scientist: The force of weight is physical. So your sense-experience of no force must be an illusion. Neurology, psychology, the way the mind and body work to produce sense-experience must be responsible for this illusion of lack of gravitational force of weight.

Sceptic: Maybe. But maybe this is telling us to look again at our theory, with the lack of gravitational force of weight as a heuristic.

The following is a parallel conversation that may, in the future, make similar sense:

21st Century Blockhead: There is no physical passage of time. Look at all the data, celestial mechanics, etc. The theory of General Relativity with spacetime as a Block perfectly accounts for all that data.

21st century Sceptic: But I don’t experience a Block. I experience a sequence of moments. Why?

Blockhead: The Block is physical, the passage of time is not physical. So your sense-experience of time passing must be an illusion. Neurology, psychology, the way the mind and body work to produce sense-experience must be responsible for this illusion of the passage of time.

Sceptic: Maybe. But maybe this is telling us to look again at our theory, with a physical passage of time as a heuristic.
==footnote==

5 If there is only a force upwards on you from your chair and no weight acting down on you then you must be accelerating upwards, away from the earth. And so must someone sitting on a chair on the other side of the planet. For everyone on the surface of the Earth to be stationary and yet also accelerating away from the centre of the Earth requires that the spacetime around the Earth be curved.
===endquote===
 
Last edited:
  • #35
I mentioned a recent paper by Ruth E. Kastner and want to quote from it. It's part of a trend to retire the BLOCK spacetime in which time does not pass and replace it with a GROWING spacetime ontology in which the experience of time's passage and the present moment have a place.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.2072
The Emergence of Spacetime: Transactions and Causal Sets
Ruth E. Kastner
(Submitted on 8 Nov 2014)
This paper discusses how the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics can provide for a natural account of the emergence of spacetime events from a quantum substratum. In this account, spacetime is not a substantive manifold that becomes occupied with events; rather, spacetime itself exists only in virtue of specific actualized events. This implies that spacetime is discrete rather than continuous, and that properties attributed to spacetime based on the notion of a continuum are idealizations that do not apply to the real physical world. It is further noted that the transactional picture of the emergence of spacetime can provide the quantum dynamics that underlie the causal set approach as proposed by Sorkin and others.
14 pages, 4 figures. Contribution to The Algebraic Way, edited by Ignazio Licata.

===quote Kastner conclusions section==
5. Conclusion

The possibilist transactional picture can be viewed as a physical basis for the emergence of the partially ordered set of events in the causal set formalism. This formalism is currently being explored as a means to constructing a satisfactory theory of quantum gravity, and it has much promise in that regard. However, even apart from general relativistic considerations, the formalism breaks new ground in showing that, contrary to a well-entrenched belief, a block world ontology is not required for consistency with relativity. The causal set structure is a ‘growing universe’ ontology which nevertheless preserves the relativistic prohibition on a preferred frame.
Likewise, the transactional ontology proposed here is a variation on the 'growing universe' picture. The account is consistent with relativity theory in that the set of events is amenable to a covariant description: no preferred frame is required. This is because the transactional process is inherently Poissonian, and therefore preserves the relativistic covariance of the causal set model.
==endquote==
Googling "kastner spacetime causal" will get this one, if the link is not readily at hand.

The relevance to Loop and Spinfoam QG is that, given Wieland's "new action" formulation of spin foam the July 2014 Cortes Smolin paper (google "cortes causal spin foam") shows how Wieland's model implements the passage of time and the "growing universe", as Kastner calls it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes BCHC and julcab12
  • #36
Trying to read some of these amazing papers - Do I understand correctly that these are ways of modeling how "space-time" atoms "proceed" or become events. But that they are not trying to address what they "contain".

For the Energetic-Causal Sets, Is the idea that the energy-momenta values are somehow non-zero to begin just a starting assumption.

Similarly for the Spin Foam model, what allows the the volumes of the tetrahedron (the mass?) to be non-zero to start with?

From what comes the pool of "un-ordered events"

Is the tacit assumption just ... Our universe got "non-zero" stuff from the big bang...we are interested here in understanding how the stuff we got works, not where it came from (mostly because we can't possibly speculate on that).

Or am I missing the way these models somehow really do obviate the need for that mysterious initial "content, potential, momentum". If this is the case, then I have to do a reset on my estimated level of confusion...
 
  • #37
Jimster your questions and comments are a big encouragement to me to try to understand better. thanks! I think we are just at a preliminary stage of understanding nature's existence (as an ongoing process, never mind about beginnings : ^). Also I can only give my non-expert point of view, as someone who is fascinated by the stuff these professional researchers are working on.

There's a tentative merger between the two approaches (Causal Sets and Spinfoam) and as I see it both model ongoing process without attempting to say where it "came from" or why existence exists.

An important difference is that Loop cosmology has a BOUNCE at the start of expansion. When the Loop-Spinfoam people run their models back in time (essentially quantum versions of General Relativity and big bang cosmology) instead of breakdown at a "singularity" considered an unnatural glitch they find a rebound and a prior contracting phase of the universe.

This does not answer an ultimate question---it doesn't explain why existence exists, obviously. It just gets rid of the singularity where the classical un-quantized GR model broke down. In the quantized model, quantum effects come into play at extreme density and make gravity repel. Geometry (like other aspects of nature) has a kind of Heisenberg Uncertainty behavior and resists being "pinned down", so there's a rebound. Instead of contraction causing time-evolution to end, there's a bounce. Spinfoam QG is an outgrowth of LQG and presumably would share this feature if applied to cosmology.

But Causal Sets doesn't have that feature! And the new "Energetic" version of Causal Sets? I think it is very new and we can't say what it will look like a couple of years from now. I can't foresee. What I would LIKE to see is surely irrelevant, but i might as well tell you. I would like to see a successful merger which would see ECS acquire the bounce cosmology feature and become a new version of LQG perhaps called by the name which Cortes and Smolin offered, namely Causal Spin Foam.

"In exchange" so to speak, Loop/Spinfoam QG would get the growing universe ontology discussed a couple of posts back in post #35. IOW a physical representation of the present moment and the progress of time.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
Thanks again for the assistance Marcus. I appreciate the catalog of threads you provide, it's really a useful guide. I saw the reference you made to the Bounce vs. the infinity problem at Planck scales. I do understand this has been the big thorn in the sides of QM and gravity(GR). I'm going after those papers now.

I'm a little bit confused that Cortes and Smolin start with a conserved Minkowski metric for momenta and then derive relativistic space-time as an emergent process by chaining events under that constraint? Is that a bit circular... Is it meant to be?

Regarding momenta having content, I keep imagining that Verlinde is saying that somehow momenta are non-zero because of entropy? I interpret him as saying you could start with the same rules as ECS, but zero values for momenta, add a bleed term ("our entropy") that has to be accounted for somehow, like a certain momentum change across all chains of n events (but no one event or specific event chain), and you would get "emergent" non-zero momenta - space-time atoms with mass and energy - per ECS. He's saying entropy is a force that affects/creates momenta?

I am looking forward to reading about about the bounce. I think it will help.
 
Last edited:
  • #39
Jimster41 said:
...I'm a little bit confused that Cortes and Smolin start with a conserved Minkowski metric for momenta and then derive relativistic space-time as an emergent process by chaining events under that constraint? Is that a bit circular... Is it meant to be?
...
That's an interesting point. It does seem a bit circular, albeit not entirely so. One starts with a feature of the "atoms", they then interact and a global reality is woven...and that global reality presents that same feature in the large. On the one hand it seems trivial, but it may not be as circular as it seems.
 
  • #40
I think there are two ways of looking at this convergence of ECS and LQG (causal spin foams). One way, which is how I look at it, is that it represents a major new development in LQG (a "growing universe" version, the present/passage represented, Wieland's new action)
The other way is to see it from the perspective of Smolin Unger's new book: the idea that the laws of physics themselves evolve.

I will briefly sketch what I have seen of this new book, which has not come out on the market yet but is described in the Cambridge U.P. catalogue.
http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/physics/history-philosophy-and-foundations-physics/singular-universe-and-reality-time-proposal-natural-philosophy

One could overschematize and say that the reason Smolin wants time and change to be represented in the theory as a real fundamental process is that he wants the very rules of the game to be continually evolving according to a deeper simpler rule.
He wants the regularities which we think of as the laws of physics to be explainable as having evolved (having become habituated by repetition, survival, and the accumulation of precedent somewhat as happens with human civil law). The laws of physics are to have evolved, then. Evolved over what? Evolved over TIME! Ahah, then time must be real and fundamental, not merely emergent or a phantom of our imagination.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
I'll copy some catalogue description to have it handy for us:
==quote Cambridge UP catalogue "The Singular Universe" Smolin&Unger==
Description
Contents
About the Authors
  • Cosmology is in crisis. The more we discover, the more puzzling the universe appears to be. How and why are the laws of nature what they are? A philosopher and a physicist, world-renowned for their radical ideas in their fields, argue for a revolution. To keep cosmology scientific, we must replace the old view in which the universe is governed by immutable laws by a new one in which laws evolve. Then we can hope to explain them. The revolution that Roberto Mangabeira Unger and Lee Smolin propose relies on three central ideas. There is only one universe at a time. Time is real: everything in the structure and regularities of nature changes sooner or later. Mathematics, which has trouble with time, is not the oracle of nature and the prophet of science; it is simply a tool with great power and immense limitations. The argument is readily accessible to non-scientists as well as to the physicists and cosmologists whom it challenges.
    ==endquote==
 
Last edited:
  • #42
Quote from TOC
http://www.cambridge.org/us/academi...ity-time-proposal-natural-philosophy#contents
Introduction
Part I. Roberto Mangabeira Unger:------------------------- -1
1. The science of the one universe in time----------------- 5
2. The context and consequences of the argument------ 46
3. The singular existence of the universe----------------100
4. The inclusive reality of time----------------------------162
5. The mutability of the laws of nature-------------------259
6. The selective realism of mathematics-----------------302
Part II. Lee Smolin:---------------------------------------------------- 349
1. Cosmology in crisis------------------------------------------------- 353
2. Principles for a cosmological theory----------------------------- 367
3. The setting: the puzzles of contemporary cosmology---------- 393
4. Hypotheses for a new cosmology--------------------------------- 414
5. Mathematics--------------------------------------------------------- 422
6. Approaches to solving the metalaw dilemma------------------- 447
7. Implications of temporal naturalism for philosophy of mind-- 480
8. An agenda for science---------------------------------------------- 484
9. Concluding remarks------------------------------------------------- 500
A note concerning disagreements between our views.------------ 512

A more detailed TOC listing topics under these headings is available online as PDF here:
http://assets.cambridge.org/97811070/74064/toc/9781107074064_toc.pdf
If anyone wants to get an idea of how the book goes and the points they are making, I would suggest reading parts of this detailed TOC because the many subheadings (which I do not show here) are like the topic sentences of successive paragraphs and clarify the main themes of each section of the book.
An excerpt from the first part of Unger's section of the book is here:
http://assets.cambridge.org/97811070/74064/excerpt/9781107074064_excerpt.pdf
To get a preliminary idea of what Smolin, on the other hand, is saying one can find PIRSA videos of several of his seminar talks by googling "pirsa smolin"
 
Last edited:
  • #43
Thanks Marcus, once again I greatly appreciate the introduction to sources. I'm going to read it as soon as it's out and I look forward to talking about it here.

I tried to get into the paper on the implications of LQG for Inflation and bounce http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1264. Got caught out wondering if we did run a model into the "universe" before ours, would we have any idea we were there, If there's no singularity to define the edge? I know that's a bit goofy but it's distracting... Also, just can't get past the way the FLRW is already talking about mass. It just leaves me wondering where to go to find out where that mass came from.

I hope I didn't sound like I was trying to suggest the emergence of relativistic space time from the rules given by ECS (Cortes&Smolin) wasn't pretty shocking... My eyes popped out, even at the ideas they are proposing.

And I don't mean to try and diminish it when I sort of interpret it as a successful test of the ability of the ECS model to create emergent local reversibility, and relativistic dynamics, things they seemed heavily focused on in the first paper. I can imagine failing those tests with ECS and rules 1 and 3 would have provided a pretty solid "go back to the drawing board" - and that passing them provides a foothold from which to continue on.

And maybe I'm jumping the gun or misunderstanding but I can't shake the idea, which I keep getting from Verlinde somehow, and about which I think I am looking forward to reading in the coming book you reference, that Causal or Evolutionary Sets probably don't need the specific solution-like assumptions of rules 1 and 3 because some simpler set construction rule might provide emergence of those exact features. (As I thInk you also suggest in an earlier post).

One thing has been bugging me a lot though, about the "Causality" rule of ECS. What about quantum entanglement and "spook-like action at a distance", EPR Paradox and Bell's theorem? Hasn't it been shown unequivocally that there is non-locality, a-causality, when events are constructed a certain way at least?

Ooof. I have a headache now. Need beer.
 
Last edited:
  • #44
Jimster, I wish there were a more knowledgeable and alert person than myself around at the moment to reply to you. I'm intrigued and stimulated by your questions but I'm not equipped to give confident/useful answers. I want to make it clear where I stand as regards the Smolin Unger book, and since we've turned a page I'll bring foreword my posts #37 and #40 to make the point. I think their book is something to know about but I personally do not follow their line of thought about evolving physical law.
They could be right! Laws of nature may have evolved. But as I see it we do not understand well enough how they are at present to productively consider the question of evolution. There is a right time to ask questions, one needs to focus on what is ready to be asked. So I want to know about this new book and share what I know of it, but I do not want to recommend it to you. My focus is on the development of quantum general relativity. The quantum theory of geometry and matter. I am "old school" in that I think of the laws of nature as (approximately) immutable and I do not try to explain why they are what they are and not something else. I trust that if they change it is so slowly that it is practical for us to try to discover them as if (for all practical purposes) they are static, eternal and inexplicable. They are the laws and they just are.

So what excites me about the seeming convergence (even collaboration) of Wieland's spin foam model and the ECS of Cortes Smolin does not have to do with evolving natural law. It has to do with something much simpler, but still very beautiful. The representation of "now" (and the passage of time) in Spin Foam QG. It has been called "causal spin foam". Wieland's action, with the swarm of interacting tetrahedra, appeals to me enormously. I want it to be verified that when this model is applied to cosmology one gets the bounce, as one gets with other versions of LQG.

I'll quote posts #37 and #40 to emphasize this "old school" attitude:
marcus said:
... I think we are just at a preliminary stage of understanding nature's existence (as an ongoing process, never mind about beginnings : ^). Also I can only give my non-expert point of view, as someone who is fascinated by the stuff these professional researchers are working on.

There's a tentative merger between the two approaches (Causal Sets and Spinfoam) and as I see it both model ongoing process without attempting to say where it "came from" or why existence exists.

An important difference is that Loop cosmology has a BOUNCE at the start of expansion. When the Loop-Spinfoam people run their models back in time (essentially quantum versions of General Relativity and big bang cosmology) instead of breakdown at a "singularity" considered an unnatural glitch they find a rebound and a prior contracting phase of the universe.

This does not answer an ultimate question---it doesn't explain why existence exists, obviously. It just gets rid of the singularity where the classical un-quantized GR model broke down. In the quantized model, quantum effects come into play at extreme density and make gravity repel. Geometry (like other aspects of nature) has a kind of Heisenberg Uncertainty behavior and resists being "pinned down", so there's a rebound. Instead of contraction causing time-evolution to end, there's a bounce. Spinfoam QG is an outgrowth of LQG and presumably would share this feature if applied to cosmology.

But Causal Sets doesn't have that feature! And the new "Energetic" version of Causal Sets? I think it is very new and we can't say what it will look like a couple of years from now. I can't foresee. What I would LIKE to see is surely irrelevant, but i might as well tell you. I would like to see a successful merger which would see ECS acquire the bounce cosmology feature and become a new version of LQG perhaps called by the name which Cortes and Smolin offered, namely Causal Spin Foam.

"In exchange" so to speak, Loop/Spinfoam QG would get the growing universe ontology discussed a couple of posts back in post #35. IOW a physical representation of the present moment and the progress of time.

marcus said:
I think there are two ways of looking at this convergence of ECS and LQG (causal spin foams). One way, which is how I look at it, is that it represents a major new development in LQG (a "growing universe" version, the present/passage represented, Wieland's new action)
The other way is to see it from the perspective of Smolin Unger's new book: the idea that the laws of physics themselves evolve.

I will briefly sketch what I have seen of this new book, which has not come out on the market yet but is described in the Cambridge U.P. catalogue.
http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/physics/history-philosophy-and-foundations-physics/singular-universe-and-reality-time-proposal-natural-philosophy

One could overschematize and say that the reason Smolin wants time and change to be represented in the theory as a real fundamental process is that he wants the very rules of the game to be continually evolving according to a deeper simpler rule.
He wants the regularities which we think of as the laws of physics to be explainable as having evolved (having become habituated by repetition, survival, and the accumulation of precedent somewhat as happens with human civil law). The laws of physics are to have evolved, then. Evolved over what? Evolved over TIME! Ahah, then time must be real and fundamental, not merely emergent or a phantom of our imagination.

Let's see if the quote mechanism worked, and how this looks. It worked, I used the "+Quote" button at the lower right of each post to "add as quote", selecting the two posts, and then when writing this I clicked on "insert quotes" button that appears at the lower left of the space for writing when you have previously selected stuff to quote.
 
Last edited:
  • #45
I apologize for not listening more carefully Marcus. By way of excuses, I have only that - as I started trying to Grok the Weiland paper I encountered immediate failure. There are just so many symbols and terms that refer to the vast canon of mathematics that I am immediately in a glossary swarm and my short term memory is insufficient to support any imago whatsoever of the model. This is just pathetic, because the stuff can be known. I just don't have the background. It's so daunting and I'm impatient. Thank god for Wikipedia.

Just to clarify (and agree I hope) I was thinking of the up-coming book more as an opportunity to connect to you and others here in a linguistic space around concepts related to the work going on in the canon of mathematical physics, so I might better understand the latter.
If there was one that might provide similar footing around CSF, or LQG I'd be totally interested.

Like you I am pretty uncomfortable with the notion of the laws of physics as we know them... changing. That doesn't seem that interesting, since they are static for all practical purposes for us... I'm more interested though in the way that they could be shown to be emergent, as we have them, from some background process that is more fundamental. This seems more about illuminating distant surroundings (and sources) than making reality some kind of unstable trip, which clearly it isn't. (Though I have to admit I've read enough sci-fi to wonder what might happen if we figured out that gravity is a function of information - somehow partially independent or a-priori at least, of mass and energy)

To do better at listening! I am taking your recommendations above...
And trying again (harder) on Wieland http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.0025v1 and also Cortes and Smolin http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.0032v2

I get the image of the CSF (Causal Spin Foam) better after a few runs at the first few pages of both (Cortes and Smolin is more accessible for me - and has allowed me to get further on the Weiland paper). In my imagination I see CSF connecting, how did you put it? "the sky high" notion of Causal Sets to a well developed model proven to describe (at least partly) fundamental particles and their interactions (Abelian Gauge Group?) if this is correct, I can see why that is a very useful reference against which to measure the former, and why the integration of the two would be profound and thrilling.

I also have harvested some additional papers from the references of the two mentioned here and also from your on-going thread on "Intuitive Loop Rovelli's... etc".

With Regards
Jimster
 
Last edited:
  • #46
No apology called for! I didn't mean my post in any sense critically. Just wanted to make my personal "old school" view clear to anyone who happened to be reading. I also find the technical part of Wieland's paper tough going, and it helps me to do two things: spend more time mulling over the NON-technical parts where he says what he is doing and communicates more intuitively instead of with equations, and secondly to read Cortes Smolin along with it (even though I don't necessarily go along with the evolving laws part of their larger program).

I had an idea today that the two of us (plus whoever else wanted to join in) could start working on tutorial material about some basics like the PACHNER moves. Pachner moves are how, in Wieland's model, the swarming tetrahedra interact, giving rise to the next generation of Tets.
Pachner moves are important in a lot of geometry (differential, piecewise linear, anything involving triangulations which includes a lot) and its a beautiful simple idea you can do in any dimension. We could talk about Pachner moves in 2+1d and then move up to 3+1d by analogy.

I'll look up Pachner and see who he was.
==quote==
Pachner moves
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In topology, a branch of mathematics, Pachner moves, named after Udo Pachner, are ways of replacing a triangulation of a piecewise linear manifold by a different triangulation of a homoeomorphic manifold. Pachner moves are also called bistellar flips. Any two triangulations of a piecewise linear manifold are related by a finite sequence of Pachner moves.
Pachner, Udo (1991), P.L. homeomorphic manifolds are equivalent by elementary shellings, European Journal of Combinatorics 12 (2): 129–145
==endquote==
They are so simple that it amazes me they were not identified by mathematicians until the 1990s!
 
Last edited:
  • #47
the challenge is to describe a simple pictorial idea without scratch paper or a black board, just using words.
In 2D the simplices are triangles and there are 3 Pachner moves.
2 --> 2 means for example two triangles joined along a NS edge are merged into a diamond shape and re-divided on a EW line. So you again have two triangles.
1 -->3 means one divides into 3, you put a point somewhere inside the first triangle and draw lines out to the corners, and cut into three.
3--> 1 is just the reverse, you take 3 triangles which all share a single vertex and they merge along the three sides radiating from that vertex, and then you remove that vertex which is no longer needed, and you have a single larger triangle.

The nice thing is that each of those moves corresponds to a Tet in 2+1d
1-->3 is like a Tet sitting on its flat bottom triangle, process time is upwards, process comes in the base triangle and branches out into the 3 upwards slanting sides
3-->1 is like a Tet balanced on a single vertex, the first picture turned upside down. process comes in the 3 bottom triangles and goes out the top
2-->2 is like a Tet balanced on an edge that runs NS. Two downwards facing triangles meet at that edge and two upwards facing triangles meet at a horizontal EW running edge. The process comes in the two lower and goes out the two upper.

The elementary interactions of triangles are mediated by tetrahedra. If the world were 2+1d then Wieland's action would involve a swarm of triangles interacting and constantly remaking themselves and by their interactions they would create the tetrahedra of 2+1d space-time.
=============
Dual: taking the dual of a "triangulation" (really a tetrahedralization) of 2+1d space-time means to replace each Tet by a point (a node) and replace each of the triangles which are sides to that Tet by line segments or links radiating from that point. So the dual is a kind of network where the nodes have "valence" equal to four. Unless they are at the boundary but let's imagine there is no boundary and not worry about such nodes.

I have to write Tet with a capital T because otherwise the spellchecker tries to change it to "get"
and if I write Tets without capitalizing it thinks I meant to write "test" and fixes it for me.
Hope its OK to capitalize

The official name for a 4d analog of a tetrahedron is a PENTACHORON. choron means a 3d space or room, just like heron means 2d side or wall.
We can say Pent for short. A Pent (or "4-simplex") has 5 sides each of which are Tets. 5 Tets surround a Pent. Just like 4 triangles form the boundary of a Tet.

Here are some basic interactions of tetrahedra:
1 --> 4 put a point inside the Tet and draw lines radiating out to each of the 4 vertices, you see how it divides into 4 Tets.
4 --> 1 take 4 Tets that share a vertex and merge them and reverse the 1 --> 4 process, to get one single Tet
2 --> 3 join 2 Tets along a horizontal triangle side...one points up and one points down. run an axis straight down from N pole to S pole, cut into 3 Tets. Like cutting an orange into 3 sectors, each 120 degrees of the full equatorial circumference.
3 --> 2 (have to go do something for wife, back later)

Back now. Anyway those four moves are all the Pachner moves for Tets. They are all the basic changes in a 3d triangulation. All the other triangulation changes, Pachner showed, can be gotten by repeating those four moves. The result of 2-->3 produces three Tets that are a bit funny looking. Each has one very long edge which was the N to S axis down the middle, and one relatively short edge which used to be out at the equator and is perpendicular to the axis. It runs EW.
You might want to sketch this 2-->3 move.
 
Last edited:
  • #48
Very intersting Marcus, and helpful. You have supplied more than I had been able to glean from the C&S diagrams.

In the first two paragraphs where you translate the three move cases to tets,I think I must be missing a trick in the mind's eye cause I get the first two cases switched, when I read it, compared to what I see. I will give it another shot in the morning.

That said, to a first approximation at least I am now tracking the tets as moves or "events" in a three space, and I kindof believe those are the only ways to go from 3n triangles to more or less triangles with continuity. And I get this is a way of talking about action in state space.

I'm going to give his intro paragraphs another read tomorrow and try to collect some questions that I think are mostly due to lack of familiarity with terms. Like what does he mean by "first order gravity". I thought first order generally referred to the first derivative. I got confused right there before he even mentioned "lattice". At least I can picture a lattice.
 
Last edited:
  • #49

I made a quick animation 1-4 move during my free time(hope it's correct/ Evolution not included).



2-3 move. Ill try to animate a "Causal spin network evolution" soon. Any suggestion is welcome.^^
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes inflector and marcus
  • #50
Those are really cool.

I think I could really use a remedial version, like one animation of Marcus 2d (triangle case) case. It's the introduction of process time to state evolution in that case that I need a key for. I can follow the process of your 1-4 evolutions just in terms of breaking and making triangles from/to triangles or tets from/to tets. But I'm having a hard time understanding how the sequence of process time is flowing through the state changes, and how the value constraints on the states play into it.

Do I understand correctly that the division into more states, or integration into fewer states, is tracing the possible paths of evolution of a set of states? It's combinatorial right?

But for instance in the 1-3 triangle case, if my 2d coordinates can only take 2 values (say 0 or 1) how do I divide 1 triangle defined by {01,00,10} into three triangles?

Sorry to be dense about it. That's my problem... I can understand things eventually, but in no way fast...
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

I Two recent tests of loop quantum gravity theory
Replies
15
Views
5K
I LQG dark matter candidate vs rival dark matter candidates
Replies
2
Views
3K
Cosmological footprints of LQG (Aurelien Barrau and Julien Grain)
Replies
1
Views
3K
I Is There A Simple Dark Matter Solution Rooted In GR?
Replies
11
Views
3K
Luboš Motl's Criticism of LQG - What Does He Miss?
Replies
16
Views
9K
I What Are the Empirical Challenges Facing Quantum Gravity Theories?
3
Replies
105
Views
14K
Recent papers on self-dual loop quantum black holes
Replies
28
Views
5K
An interesting new paper on f(X) gravity
Replies
1
Views
2K
Could a Black Hole Bounce Lead to a New Universe?
Replies
1
Views
3K
Another MOND prediction confirmed.
Replies
16
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top