Repeated measurements and granular space time

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the possibility of deriving conservation laws within the framework of granular spacetime, exploring how existing theories might adapt to this concept. Participants examine the implications of spacetime granularity on established conservation principles, particularly in the context of quantum gravity and entanglement.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that conservation laws might be derivable in granular spacetime, with entanglement being a key process that could succeed.
  • Another participant argues that current theories assume continuous spacetime and that models incorporating granularity are not sufficiently developed to derive conservation laws.
  • A third participant references a previous discussion on conservation laws in quantum gravity, noting that asymptotic boundary conservation laws could still apply, but quasi-local conservation laws present more complexity.
  • One participant proposes that some conservation laws might be explained by processes that do not depend on space or time, citing the example of Foucault's pendulum, which oscillates independently of external celestial bodies.
  • A later reply challenges the assertion about the Foucault's pendulum, stating that its oscillation does depend on the Earth's rotation from a specific frame of reference.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of conservation laws in granular spacetime, with no consensus reached on whether existing theories can accommodate such a framework or how conservation laws might manifest in this context.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in current models regarding spacetime granularity and the complexity of defining conservation laws in quantum gravity, particularly in the absence of clear asymptotic boundaries or fixed subregions.

Heidi
Messages
420
Reaction score
40
Hi Pfs,
I would like to know if it would be possible for our known theories to derive
conservation laws if space time was really granular.
I think that entanglement is the only process which would succeed.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Our known theories assume continuous spacetime. To derive something in granular spacetime we need models that have it built in. And we don't, at least not developed to the point where we can derive conservation laws.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vanadium 50 and phinds
There was already a thread about this question not too long ago: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/conservation-of-energy-in-quantum-gravity.1061153/

"Conservation laws" can mean many different things in gravity. The most conservative and well-understood of these, asymptotic boundary conservation laws, would apply just as well in quantum gravity, when you have asymptotic boundaries. Asymptotic boundaries are typically fixed boundary conditions in the gravitational path integral.

If you are asking about quasi-local conservation laws then the situation is more complicated as it is not clear how to specify subregions in quantum gravity. But it would be surprising if some form of conservation laws didn't hold. If you have no asymptotic boundaries and you aren't fixing some bulk subregion in the gravity path integral (which again is poorly understood) then you just have the pure gravitational constraints.
 
Would it be possible that severall conservation laws could be explained by the fact
that we have processes vhich do not depend on space or time?
Entanglement seems to be not local.
Take the the Foucault's pendulum. It oscillates in a plane that does not depend on
the rotarion of the earth, the position of the sun or other stars. It only depends on
the initial choice , not on far objects.
 
Heidi said:
Would it be possible

Everything is possible and nothing is possible if we don't have any concrete model at hand.

Heidi said:
Take the the Foucault's pendulum. It oscillates in a plane that does not depend on
the rotarion of the earth

In Earths frame of reference it surely does depend on its rotation.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
874
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
726