Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Is spacetime quantized or relative?

  1. Aug 29, 2012 #1
    I was wondering how spacetime could be relative and quantized. It doesn't make sense to me. I am especially interested in how this works in causal dynamical triangulation. I think it is a very interesting theory, and it sometimes doesn't get enough credit. But, I can't understand how at a tiny level, all spacetime is quantized, where at a macroscopic level, spacetime is continuous and relative. If anyone could help explain what I'm missing here, that'd be great!
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 29, 2012 #2

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    It depends on how their parameters are tuned. In some phases the spatial geometry changes randomly with time. Take a look at Fig 1 of http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.1229 .
     
  4. Aug 30, 2012 #3
    Sorry, I'm sure this was a perfect explanation, but I don't really understand it. What I got from this was that there are three phases: A, B, and C. They can transition from one to another.

    I'm new at this. :smile:

    Anyways, these three phases are placed in a phase diagram. However I'm not quite sure what the differences between these phases are.

    My current understanding is that depending on the phase spacetime is in, its geometry could be relative or quantized. It all depends.

    However, I'm not even certain if I am looking at this the right way.
     
  5. Aug 31, 2012 #4
    Yeah, so basically I have no idea. :p
     
  6. Aug 31, 2012 #5

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    As a beginner interested in CDT you should have already read Renate Loll's SciAm article.

    I'll bet you already have. But if not, let us know. I'll try to find link to online copy. Or at least the date so you can find it in library.

    "Quantized" does not mean what you may be thinking. A continuous medium can have a quantum geometry. If angles, lengths, areas etc are uncertain. And if there are some restrictions on what happens when you measure them. Like the energy levels of an atom, a measurement of an area or a volume may only have some discrete possible outcomes.

    When geometry is "quantized" it does not mean that space is "made" of little "grains" or "chunks". Space is not a substance.

    Saying "quantized" is saying something about geometry (a web of relations among measurements of lengths, areas, angles, volumes etc).
    The uncertainty and the discreteness applies to outcomes of measurements, not to some imaginary material or "fabric".

    In CDT they do not say that spacetime is made of little blocks, they MODEL the geometry that way, as if it were made of little blocks.

    Renate Loll's SciAm article was really good. Let me know if you havent read it yet.

    wait, I have a reference, I think it was February 2007 and a free online copy is here:

    www.signallake.com/innovation/SelfOrganizingQuantumJul08.pdf [Broken]

    try this and see if it works. Have to go.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2017
  7. Aug 31, 2012 #6
    That looks like a really good article, I'll take a good look at it.
     
  8. Sep 1, 2012 #7
    Thank you so much for that article, it helped me a lot. I had seen Renate Loll's lecture, (which can be found here: ) but this described more of the history of quantum gravity.

    So, just like particles, spacetime can go into superposition. This means that different geometries can overlap with one another. To describe these geometries, we can approximate with four-simplexes. If we give each of these four-simplexes a direction of time, we get causality, and a universe that is similar to our own. However, quantum spacetime isn't really made of these simplexes, we just used them to give us an approximation of the quantum geometry. In real life, the spacetime isn't split into chunks, but it does go into superposition, and it does have an arrow of time. This way, we still have our relative, continuous, macroscopic spacetime.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
  9. Sep 1, 2012 #8

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    In the tentative conception of CDT, space is split into little chunks at first, and they form superpositions. Depending on some parameters, the little chunks assemble into a nice spacetime that is smooth on large scales. In other parameter ranges, the little chunks don't assemble into anything like our universe. The different behaviours of their model in different parameter ranges are called diffrerent phases - just like liquid, solid and gas are different phases of water depending on parameters like temperature and pressure. Because of the phase behaviour of their model, they hope that the chunks can be made smaller and smaller until the theory is completely smooth on small and large scales. However, this remains conjectural.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
  10. Sep 1, 2012 #9
    So they hope to get closer and closer approximations of quantum spacetime geometry, eventually getting rid of the 4-simplexes all together? They just haven't gotten there yet.

    Thanks for the help on phases, I was just completely lost there.
     
  11. Sep 1, 2012 #10

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Yes, that is related to a conjecture called "Asymptotic Safety".
     
  12. Sep 1, 2012 #11
    If spacetime can go into superposition, does that mean that there is a small probability that the distance between me and my computer could change slightly?
     
  13. Sep 1, 2012 #12

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    It is unclear to me in CDT what a measurement of a distance is.

    In LQG, the answer is tentatively yes, since there are proposed measurement operators. However, having the distance change each time you measure it seems to require multiple identical preparations of you and your computer, so I'm not sure.
     
  14. Sep 1, 2012 #13
    brief answer to your title: 'yes'

    some details:
    here are some good discussions on continuous versus discrete spacetime. Relativists often don't much like the idea of continuous spacetime [because that's not the perspective Einstein developed] but when you stick in 'h' for quantum mechanics formulations of the worold just about everything gets quantized...

    From Wikipedia:



    http://pirsa.org/09090005/
    Spacetime can be simultaneously discrete and continuous, in the same way that information can.


    http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.4354

    “The equivalence of continuous and discrete information, which is of key importance in information theory, is established by Shannon sampling theory: of any band limited signal it suffices to record discrete samples to be able to perfectly reconstruct it everywhere, if the samples are taken at a rate of at least twice the band limit. It is known that physical fields on generic curved spaces obey a sampling theorem if they possess an ultraviolet cutoff.”

    and
    http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.0062
    On Information Theory, Spectral Geometry and Quantum Gravity
    Achim Kempf, Robert Martin
    4 pages
    (Submitted on 1 Aug 2007)
    We show that there exists a deep link between the two disciplines of information theory and spectral geometry.

    In this thread

    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=391989

    "argument for the discreteness of spacetime",

    Ben Crowell posted this question...
    Lee Smolin says this in THREE ROADS TO QUANTUM GRAVITY

    "On the Planck scale space seems to be composed of fundamental discrete units. String bits are one view of this, the Bekenstein bound from black hole thermodynamics is another. (LQG sees these units as spin networks.) It’s possible these are three different approaches to the quantum world..maybe there is a way of unifying them within a single theory.

    The Holographic principle was inspired by the Bekenstein bound. Einstein’s equations of relativity can be derived by using the Bekenstein bound and laws of thermodynamics..."

    If you search these forums you'll find many interesting discussions on your topic.
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2012
  15. Sep 1, 2012 #14
  16. Sep 1, 2012 #15
    "If spacetime could be described by continuous classical fields with infinitely many degrees of freedom, then there would be no such limit. Therefore spacetime is discrete."

    I'm not quite certain how this conclusion is drawn. Is there any way we know how to describe spacetime using fields?

    I'll take a look at that information theory stuff.
     
  17. Sep 1, 2012 #16

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The gauge/gravity duality appears to be provide a mathematically sensible theory of quantum gravity in which spacetime is continuous. It probably does not describe our universe because of the matter content and the cosmological constant. But it appears to be a consistent theory of quantum gravity.

    http://www.sns.ias.edu/~malda/sciam-maldacena-3a.pdf
     
  18. Sep 1, 2012 #17
    The Bekenstein bound just has to do with the amount of entropy in an area, not the quantum structure of spacetime, right?

    When he said string bits, was he talking about this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit-string_physics

    Thanks for all the help, guys. I have a lot of questions. :shy:
     
  19. Sep 1, 2012 #18

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

  20. Sep 2, 2012 #19
    Yeah, I thought that it probably wasn't, but that's what came up when I looked for it. Thanks, I never would have found that information.
     
  21. Sep 2, 2012 #20
    It is my understanding from this article that this is a good way to describe certain aspects of reality, but it can't be a consistent version of quantum gravity, because our universe isn't anti-de Sitter space. To quote the article:
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In this article
    It says that in LQG, spacetime is thought of as "chunks." However in this thread:
    Marcus makes a point that in LQG, spacetime isn't thought of like that. He said that there is a
    but
    How can is not consist of separate points (like marcus said), and at the same time, consist of chunks (like the article said)?
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sorry, still not sure where they are getting infinitely many degrees of freedom and how they are drawing that conclusion. Maybe it's because I don't know enough about fields?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2017
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Is spacetime quantized or relative?
  1. Is time quantized? (Replies: 49)

Loading...