Loop Quantum Gravity and the Concept of the Universe as a Co

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of the universe as a computational machine, exploring ideas related to loop quantum gravity, information theory, and the nature of gravity and black holes. Participants engage with theoretical implications, potential models, and references to existing literature in physics.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that gravity could act as a barrier to prevent computational complexity from exceeding a limit in spacetime, proposing that time slows where there is more information.
  • Another participant references the Bekenstein bound as a related concept to the idea of computational limits imposed by gravity.
  • There is a notion that wave-particle duality might be understood if the fundamental unit is information, with matter being emergent only during interactions.
  • A hypothesis is presented that information falling into a black hole could be akin to writing the universe's laws onto its surface, with questions about the reversibility of this process.
  • Some participants mention Leonard Susskind's work and the holographic principle, suggesting that the informational content of black holes might be stored holographically.
  • References to Edward Fredkin's Finite Nature Hypothesis and Stephen Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science" are made, although one participant notes that computational analogies are not widely accepted in the physics community.
  • Concerns are raised about the speculative nature of some theories discussed, with suggestions to consider more mainstream literature for foundational understanding.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with some supporting the computational analogy of the universe and others cautioning against its acceptance in the broader physics community. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing ideas and no consensus reached.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in their understanding of complex physics concepts, indicating a need for further foundational knowledge in physics and mathematics to engage more deeply with the topics discussed.

ricardo81
Messages
39
Reaction score
1
Disclaimer: I'm just an amateur enthusiast who is a programmer during the day

I suppose everyone who takes an interest in physics who doesn't have the mathematical tools to further their enquiries end up writing posts like mine, and that at the very least it's nice to see where the ideas reside amongst (or outside of) what is more mathematically sound, or just simply hearing the wisdom of people who know better.</disclaimer>

I like the idea that the universe is a computational machine, either conceptually or in actuality (I prefer the latter). I also like( or believe) that the universe is indeed deterministic and that there is a granularity of its fundamental units, and the emergent property of it is information. After reading Seth Lloyd's "Computing the Universe", it'd seem he's happy with the conceptual angle (and wouldn't go as far to say it is actually computing "something" more than itself).

I would very much appreciate if you could humour me on this and see whether there's any potential truth or refutable in my statements.

- According to Einstein, gravity is not a force but a property of spacetime itself. Could it be that in a computational sense, gravity acts as a barrier to prevent computational complexity exceeding a 'limit' within an area of spacetime? i.e. time is relatively slowed where there is more information, and the number of bit flips required in a more conceptually average time frame would not exceed a limit created by the effect of gravity.

- I can get my head round wave-particle duality if the fundamental unit is information, and that matter is only emergent when it is interacting with other matter. i.e. matter/information is only observable when it needs to be. The probability wave only needs to collapse when the information is forced to reveal itself at a particular place and time. Could it perhaps be that this preferred form is an 'insurance' that a given locality would not exceed a computational complexity also?

- Is it possible that matter/information falling into a black hole is equivalent to writing the universe's laws onto its spinning disk? i.e. every unique bit of information is written on there linearly (and I assume written back out but but perhaps encoded differently or the data is effectively wiped (which I understand is considered bad form if the process could not be reversed)).

My own cobbled-up notion is that the universe can be thought of as a series of computational 'cores' of a similar size or few orders of magnitude larger or smaller than the Planck scale, though I'm slightly confused about Planck scales. My understanding is that it's the most fundamental "unit of action" and perhaps in the computational sense, a unit of action could be considered at two different scales.

Thanks for reading
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Read Leonard Susskind and the Holographic Principle
 
ricardo81 said:
- According to Einstein, gravity is not a force but a property of spacetime itself. Could it be that in a computational sense, gravity acts as a barrier to prevent computational complexity exceeding a 'limit' within an area of spacetime? i.e. time is relatively slowed where there is more information, and the number of bit flips required in a more conceptually average time frame would not exceed a limit created by the effect of gravity.

The closest notion I can think of is the Bekenstein bound: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bekenstein_bound.

ricardo81 said:
- I can get my head round wave-particle duality if the fundamental unit is information, and that matter is only emergent when it is interacting with other matter. i.e. matter/information is only observable when it needs to be. The probability wave only needs to collapse when the information is forced to reveal itself at a particular place and time. Could it perhaps be that this preferred form is an 'insurance' that a given locality would not exceed a computational complexity also?

One derivation of quantum mechanics involving notions of locality and information is Chiribella, D'Ariano and Perinotti's http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.5533. They use a number of assumptions, among which are:
Principle 4 (Ideal Compression) Information can be compressed in a lossless and maximally efficient fashion.
Principle 5 (Local tomography) The state of a composite system is determined by the statistics of local measurements on the components.

ricardo81 said:
- Is it possible that matter/information falling into a black hole is equivalent to writing the universe's laws onto its spinning disk? i.e. every unique bit of information is written on there linearly (and I assume written back out but but perhaps encoded differently or the data is effectively wiped (which I understand is considered bad form if the process could not be reversed)).

I don't think there is any theory like this. The most usual comparison is that the information is conjectured to be stored holographically. Take a look at the Susskind book that Doug Huffman recommended in post #2.
 
Thank you for your replies, much appreciated.

I'd gleaned some of L.Susskind's idea as a lot of his lectures are on YouTube, the idea that the informational content going into a black hole could easy be contained on its surface area. I find him hard to follow without some additional physics knowledge it seems I should have (the equations lining up with one another basically). He goes 'straight into' the physics without a fuss which has made him (and the book you mentioned) harder to follow. Perhaps that's something I can build up to.

The other references are fascinating and resonate a lot with me. Scott Aaronson's book goes into great detail about computational complexity and I read a large chunk of it last night.

Thanks to all three of you for your references.
 
I found a couple of more references that tie in with my fuzzy notions.

Edward Fredkin's Finite Nature Hypothesis
Stephen Wolfram's "A New Kind of of Science"

I think I'll see what Coursera has to offer to get a more solid foundation of physics and maths to...err... think for myself.
 
ricardo81 said:
Edward Fredkin's Finite Nature Hypothesis
Stephen Wolfram's "A New Kind of of Science"

You should probably stick to Susskind for something solid.
 
Last edited:
I'll bear that in mind, from what I've read these computational analogies are not taken too seriously by the physics community at large.

Susskind has his whole set of lectures online so I'll get round to them. I do get the impression he teaches his own ideas more than some of the alternatives but I'm attentive all the same.

Having watches this one about causality... ... I was 'hoping' that his explanation would have involved a black hole causing information loss and subsequently creating causality. Interestingly much of the video revolves around a boolean logic system.
 
ricardo81 said:
Susskind has his whole set of lectures online so I'll get round to them. I do get the impression he teaches his own ideas more than some of the alternatives but I'm attentive all the same.

Yeah, I guess that lecture was extremely speculative. I was thinking something more like what Doug Huffman recommended in post #2, I think he meant https://www.amazon.com/dp/9812561315/?tag=pfamazon01-20, which is speculative also, but much more mainstream. You can also try reading books from his "Theoretical Minimum" series, which are basic non-speculative physics.

To complement the Susskind book on the holographic universe, here's a short article by Maldacena, who made a very precise conjecture for the holographic principle that can be investigated theoretically. Even if the conjecture were right, it wouldn't describe our universe, but it would be a theory of quantum gravity for some possible universe. http://www.pma.caltech.edu/~physlab/ph10_references/scientificamerican1105-56.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
Indeed, I understand that video isn't the kind of seminal work he's best known for.

I previewed the book and much like his online lectures, there's a lot of physics for a mere mortal like myself (having to Google the likes of Rindler space or Fourier transforms), the book is also rich in physics terminology and assumes a fair bit of knowledge. It's something I'll have to work up to. Perhaps if he had a Susskind for Dummies release that would suit me in the current timeframe :)

On a more philosophical note I'm sceptical of explanations requiring more universes and dimensions, but hopefully with the coming months I can get my head round such a book.

Thanks again
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K