Quantizing Geometry or Geometrizing the Quantum?

[inflector]

From the "Intuitive content of Loop Gravity--Rovelli's program" thread:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.2879

Quantizing Geometry or Geometrizing the Quantum?

Bejamin Koch
(Submitted on 16 Apr 2010)
The unsatisfactory status of the search for a consistent and predictive quantization of gravity is taken as motivation to study the question whether geometrical laws could be more fundamental than quantization procedures. In such an approach the quantum mechanical laws should emerge from the geometrical theory. A toy model that incorporates the idea is presented and its necessary formulation in configuration space is emphasized.

From the paper:

Given the problems in applying the laws of quantum mechanics to the geometry of space-time we want to ask the following question:
“Could it be that (classical) geometry is more fundamental than the rules of quantization?”

I haven't seen any discussion of this paper here or the approach: starting with the proposition that geometry is fundamental with quantum mechanics being emergent.

Koch does show how others have proposed emergent quantum mechanics:

The idea that quantum mechanics might not be fundamental but rather emerge from an underlying classical system has been proposed in various ways.

He then goes on to list papers by many other physicists who have proposed an emergent quantum mechanics.

How seriously is this idea being taken within the quantum gravity community? Does anyone know of any other papers that are approaching quantum gravity in this way?

 

[inflector]

Has anyone (besides MTd2 obviously) read the paper? What did you think of it?

 

[MTd2]

Well, t'Hooft made a proposal of QM based on a classical dissipative system. But there are problems in coming up with a QFT version, but I am not sure.

 

[inflector]

No one else finds the paper interesting?

 

[Demystifier]

No one else finds the paper interesting?

I do.

 

[czes]

Kevin Knuth 27 Sept.2010:
In the last decade, our fundamental understanding of probability theory has led to a Bayesian revolution. In addition, we have come to recognize that the foundations go far deeper and that Cox's approach of generalizing a Boolean algebra to a probability calculus is the first specific example of the more fundamental idea of assigning valuations to partially-ordered sets. By considering this as a natural way to introduce quantification to the more fundamental notion of ordering, one obtains an entirely new way of deriving physical laws. I will introduce this new way of thinking by demonstrating how one can quantify partially-ordered sets and, in the process, derive physical laws. The implication is that physical law does not reflect the order in the universe, instead it is derived from the order imposed by our description of the universe. Information physics, which is based on understanding the ways in which we both quantify and process information about the world around us, is a fundamentally new approach to science.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.5161

Koch's geometry may be derived from the notion of ordering of the quantum events. This ordering creates the space-time.
Do you think is it possible ?

 

[qsa]

Baez is into this game these days with his new blog


http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/information-geometry/

 

[czes]

Baez is into this game these days with his new blog
http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/information-geometry/

Thank you qsa for this link. It it very fresh.
Baez wrote it after Verlinde's "Gravity as an entropic force" and the comments due to quantisation.

 

[qsa]

How seriously is this idea being taken within the quantum gravity community? Does anyone know of any other papers that are approaching quantum gravity in this way?

check out this thread, it debates Torsten's paper with himself being involved


https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=412582


http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2230
On the geometrization of matter by exotic smoothness
Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga, Helge Rose

 

[qsa]

another thread with A-M and garrett

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=100984

 

[inflector]

Thanks qsa, those were interesting threads.