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

Click For Summary
Verlinde's proposal suggests a thermodynamic origin of gravity, which may address longstanding issues in gravity theories but also introduces new challenges. Some argue that his argument implies a preference for three spatial dimensions, contrasting with string theory's requirement of nine dimensions and M-theory's ten. However, the discussion emphasizes that it is premature to conclude that Verlinde's framework definitively rules out higher dimensions. The potential for emergent phenomena and the role of open strings are highlighted as areas needing further exploration. Ultimately, the implications of Verlinde's ideas on the dimensionality of space and their relationship to string theory remain uncertain at this stage.
ensabah6
Messages
691
Reaction score
0
String theory requires 9 spatial dimensions, M-theory 10.

One followup to Verlinde's paper is this:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0488

Hidden symmetries for thermodynamics and emergence of relativity

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

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

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

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

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

However, the current paper does offer some hints:

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

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

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


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

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

Cheers!

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

One followup to Verlinde's paper is this:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0488

Hidden symmetries for thermodynamics and emergence of relativity

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

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

Does it also rprovide an alternative string theory's approach to gravity via spin-2 gravitons?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Supernovae evidence for foundational change to cosmological models" https://arxiv.org/pdf/2412.15143 The paper claims: We compare the standard homogeneous cosmological model, i.e., spatially flat ΛCDM, and the timescape cosmology which invokes backreaction of inhomogeneities. Timescape, while statistically homogeneous and isotropic, departs from average Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker evolution, and replaces dark energy by kinetic gravitational energy and its gradients, in explaining...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
7K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
18K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
9K
Replies
1
Views
3K