Emergent time - emergent space?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Bojan Keevill
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    emergent space time
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of emergent time and space in the context of particle interactions and theoretical physics. Participants explore whether time and space can be considered emergent phenomena and reference various theories and conjectures related to this idea.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the objectivity of time and suggests that space may also be emergent based on interactions among virtual point-particles.
  • Another participant references Lee Smolin's work, proposing that space is emergent while time is fundamental, linking this to background-independent physics.
  • A different viewpoint emphasizes the necessity for conjectures in science to be testable, contrasting scientific inquiry with philosophical speculation.
  • One participant critiques the Standard Models for being verified yet sparsely falsifiable, suggesting a limitation in their applicability.
  • A specific conjecture related to emergent space is mentioned, namely Maldacena's gauge/gravity duality, which posits a potential framework for quantum gravity, although it suggests that time may not be emergent in this context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on whether time and space are emergent phenomena, with no consensus reached. Some support the idea of emergence, while others emphasize the need for testability and critique existing models.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the challenges of falsifiability in theoretical physics and the distinction between scientific conjectures and philosophical arguments. The discussion reflects ongoing uncertainties and assumptions regarding the nature of time and space.

Bojan Keevill
Messages
24
Reaction score
1
Hello all,

In 2009, I had clumsily posed a question to these forums, regarding the objectivity of time.
In 2012, I had posted a short piece of writing, clumsily suggesting that three dimensional space is an emergent property of interactions between virtual point-particles.
Last year, my attention was drawn to this article, suggesting that time is an emergent property.

I now return to these forums, in order to ask you, the physics community, whether you assume the Moreva et al article (posted above) to be of relevant value to physics?

If you accept time as an emergent phenomenon of particle interactions (correlations), then should space not also be accepted as an emergent phenomenon of particle interactions?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Doug Huffman
Physics news on Phys.org
Lee Smolin is advancing your suggestion in his later writings and he regularly cites Charles Sanders Peirce. If I understand aright, space is emergent, defined by the relations among the present particles, while time is fundamental. I believe that the topic sails under the flag of background-independent physics. Do an author search for Smolin at arXiv and read through his and his major co-authors' papers. His Temporal Naturalism is good.

Beware, though, attacking conventional wisdom is not always well received. That extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is tough to satisfy in a field sparse of Popperian falsifiability.

Somewhere there is an argument for the speed of light in a vacuum being due to the low particle density minimizing the relations effecting the space but affecting and extending the time required to that needed for establishing the relations among those few particles.
 
Last edited:
Sure time may be an emergent property - or not, space may be an emergent property - or not.

Science is all about putting forth conjectures and seeing where they lead.

The thing though is in science the conjectures must be TESTABLE.

If not you end up with philosophy which is notorious for never reaching any actual conclusions.

Thanks
Bill
 
That is precisely the issue with the Standard Models. They are well and truly verified while sparsely falsifiable.
 
A specific conjecture for a quantum theory with emergent space is Maldacena's gauge/gravity duality or AdS/CFT. This conjecture probably does not describe our universe, but it is potentially a non-perturbative definition of a quantum gravity theory, and it is hoped that understanding it will help us make progress. However, time (so far) seems not emergent in that conjecture.

http://www.pma.caltech.edu/~physlab/ph10_references/scientificamerican1105-56.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 87 ·
3
Replies
87
Views
9K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K