Emergent space-time from what?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter nomadreid
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Emergent Space-time
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of emergent spacetime, exploring various conjectures and theories related to its nature and origins. Participants examine the relationship between quantum states and spacetime, the implications of holographic theory, and the challenges of defining spacetime without circular reasoning. The conversation touches on theoretical frameworks such as loop quantum gravity and string theory, as well as the philosophical implications of these ideas.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether emergent spacetime can be defined without falling into circular reasoning, particularly regarding the role of quantum states.
  • There is a discussion about the Schrödinger equation and its dependence on time, with some arguing that it does not inherently require spatial definitions.
  • One viewpoint suggests that emergent spacetime necessitates both emergent space and emergent relativity, as spacetime is not merely a combination of space and time.
  • Participants explore the idea that loop quantum gravity theories posit fundamental links between points in spacetime, suggesting that dimensionality and continuity are emergent properties.
  • Some contributions highlight the complexity of defining information and its relationship to spacetime, raising questions about the foundational assumptions of quantum mechanics.
  • A participant proposes that the emergence of spacetime might be viewed as an evolutionary process rather than a circular one, suggesting a need for new theoretical frameworks beyond classical quantum theory.
  • There is a request for concrete examples of distinguishable observable events that do not involve time, indicating the challenge of abstracting the concept of an observer beyond classical contexts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between quantum mechanics and emergent spacetime, with no consensus reached on whether current theories can adequately explain the emergence of spacetime. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the foundational aspects of these theories and their implications.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the limitations of existing theories and the potential need for new frameworks to address the circularity and foundational issues in defining emergent spacetime. The discussion highlights the complexity of integrating quantum mechanics with concepts of spacetime.

  • #31
I understand Demystifier and others this is my first post on a physics forum and I thought later I shouldn't have said that! :)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Yes thanks for that nomadreid its contained and yes I am thinking of Cantor's Absolute, apparently he called it the infinity of infinities. Its paradoxical to talk about bounded infinities even if mathematically they can be tamed but I am thinking from the perspective of the absolute. Does it make any sense to say the infinite hierarchy exists within it, yet the absolute is something beyond, more or different to the hierarchy and so in some sense it does end there, as there is nothing more or beyond the absolute?
 
  • #33
JRB said:
Its paradoxical to talk about bounded infinities
The "paradox" disappears quickly, for example, when you consider that an infinite set is just a set which can be put into one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset. If you are interpreting the word "infinite" as "unattainable" (not to use the word "inaccessible", which is the name of one type of infinite set), then you just need to remember that it is only unattainable using a certain collection of axioms, but is perfectly attainable when you add an appropriate axiom. Also, you may be getting "finite" mixed up with "bounded", which is not the same. A finite set is bounded, but a bounded set need not be finite: bounded will mean that there is something which it is less than, and interpreting "less than" as set membership, since an infinite set can be a member of another set, it is easy to see that an infinite set can be bounded.

JRB said:
yes I am thinking of Cantor's Absolute
That is a problem, since Cantor's Absolute turned out to be rather non-mathematical. There is of course always a kind of absolute from the point of view of a particular theory-model pair, to wit, the universe of that model, but this "relative absolute" was not what Cantor had in mind. For example, the fact that there is no such thing as a greatest ordinal, or Löwenheim-Skolem's upward theorem, and other technicalities made Cantor's idea untenable in mathematics. Of course, the other side of his idea, associating this concept with a divinity, is also outside the realm of mathematics.

JRB said:
Does it make any sense to say
The rest of your questions assume the existence of this Absolute, so since this Absolute is not a tenable notion in mathematics, the answer to those questions is that those assertions do not make mathematical sense. Whether they make some kind of metaphysical sense is not something I would touch upon here.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
9K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
6K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
10K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K