Is Backreaction in Curved Spacetime Sufficient Without Quantizing Spacetime?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter star apple
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gr Qft
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of backreaction in curved spacetime and whether it can be considered sufficient without the need to quantize spacetime. Participants explore the implications of quantum field theory (QFT) in relation to general relativity and the potential necessity of a more fundamental theory of spacetime.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes the inability to dynamically solve for QFT and background spacetime simultaneously, suggesting that backreaction must be accounted for if the stress-energy tensor does not match the background geometry.
  • Another participant questions whether the existence of approximations in QFT indicates an incomplete theory or if some approximations might be final, particularly in the context of the incompatibility between QFT and general relativity.
  • A later post references a claim that spacetime may behave like a fluid and questions whether backreaction approximations would still hold if spacetime is not fundamental and composed of smaller entities.
  • Some participants challenge the notion of "mathematical evidence," arguing that it differs from scientific evidence, with one suggesting that the term may imply mathematical consistency instead.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of backreaction and its sufficiency without quantizing spacetime, as well as the interpretation of mathematical evidence versus scientific evidence. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexities of integrating QFT with general relativity, including issues related to infinities and the foundational nature of spacetime. There are unresolved questions regarding the implications of approximations in theoretical physics.

star apple
I know we do not have a version of QFT (?) in which we can dynamically solve for the QFT and the background spacetime at once. What we can do is where if we come up with a QFT whose expectation value of the stress-energy tensor doesn't match the fixed background spacetime geometry via the Einstein Field Equation, we go back and try again taking or taking *back reaction* into account.

The question I’d like to ask is. Is this normal due to simply incomplete QFT tool.. or is it really necessary to quantize spacetime--or at least to build a quantum theory of something whose classical limit looks like spacetime?

In our daily life. We think Schroedinger Equation is enough in our biochemistry and we walk visualizing Galilean space. Sometimes we may think of QFT a bit as we navigate in minkowski spacetime. But I want to get used to think in terms of QFT in curved spacetime as this is the more complete mode. Therefore I’d like to know if the backreaction thing described above can exist by its own (meaning can be complete itself) without quantizing spacetime or create something where the classical limit looks like spacetime.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In other words, if something is approximate.. does it always mean there is another more complete theory lurking around.. like in our QFT using perturbation approximation.. does it mean it's a sign of incomplete theory? Isn't there anything in physics in which approximation is the final thing and nothing more to it? In regards QFT and General Relativity.. I guess the incompatibility is more than having to take backreaction into account.. or more about the infinities.. how is this related to the problem of backreaction.. are they separate problems?
 
Let me rephrase my question so it makes more sense.

Bee said that http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/10/space-may-not-be-as-immaterial-as-we.html

"Physicists have gathered evidence that space-time can behave like a fluid. Mathematical evidence, that is, but still evidence. If this relation isn’t a coincidence, then space-time – like a fluid – may have substructure...
<bypassing several paragraphs later>
"If space-time is made of smaller things, this could solve a major problem: How to describe the quantum behavior of space time. Unlike all the other interactions we know of, gravity is a non-quantum theory. This means it doesn’t fit together with the quantum theories that physicists use for elementary particles. All attempts to quantize gravity so-far have either failed or remained unconfirmed speculations. That space itself isn’t fundamental but made of other things is one way to approach the problem."

Of course spacetime being not fundamental makes more sense that its being fundamental. It's like a stone age man asking if a pixel in a computer screen is infinitely small.

But my question is. If spacetime was not fundamental and made up of smaller things. Would the back reaction approximation used by QFT in curved spacetime still valid?

(A Yes or No answer is enough.. lol.. thanks)
 
Small nit, but this statement makes no sense: "Mathematical evidence, that is, but still evidence." I can come up with mathematical "evidence" for anything. Scientific evidence is a whole other matter.
 
bapowell said:
Small nit, but this statement makes no sense: "Mathematical evidence, that is, but still evidence." I can come up with mathematical "evidence" for anything. Scientific evidence is a whole other matter.

Thanks for pointing that out. Maybe she meant mathematicaly consistent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Graduate Approaches towards quantum gravity
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate "Monstrous Higgs and Leech Spacetime"
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
Undergrad Polarization mode symmetries of massless particles
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate CC Problem Beyond the Standard Model
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate A Proposed Black Hole Entropy Calculation
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
Studying How to learn QFT on curved spacetimes by myself?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
High School Free Fall in Curved Spacetime: Does Minkowski Spacetime Exist?
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
Graduate Minimal property of Spacelike geodesics in GR/curved spacetime?
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
4K
Graduate How to construct a spin-3/2 theory from the ground up
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
Graduate How Does String Theory Address QFT in Curved Spacetime?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K