What is the impact of the refutation of "quantum foam"?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter sshai45
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Impact
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the implications of recent findings that suggest "quantum foam" may not exist, particularly in relation to theories of quantum gravity (QG). Participants explore the relevance of this claim to various QG models, including covariant loop quantum gravity (LQG) and others, while also referencing related commentary from experts in the field.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the findings regarding "quantum foam" do not impact covariant LQG (spin foam models) because these theories do not predict an energy-dependent speed of light.
  • There is uncertainty about the definition of "quantum foam," with suggestions that it may refer to a specific theoretical framework or simply be a term used for public interest.
  • One participant mentions that the paper challenges Wheeler's "space-time foam" picture of quantum gravity and sets a benchmark constraint for QG models featuring spacetime quantization.
  • Another participant highlights that the loose wording in the paper may be more to blame for misunderstandings than the reporting by journalists.
  • Some participants express that none of the main proposed theories of QG are significantly impacted by the findings, while a few exotic theories that were already considered unlikely are ruled out.
  • References to Sabine Hossenfelder's blog are made, indicating her analysis of the paper and her expertise in QG testing and phenomenology.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the findings do not significantly impact major QG theories, but there is no consensus on the implications for less mainstream theories. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the broader significance of the term "quantum foam" and its interpretations.

Contextual Notes

Participants express limitations in understanding the specific implications of the findings due to varying definitions of "quantum foam" and the context in which it is discussed. There are also references to historical perspectives that may not align with current theoretical frameworks.

sshai45
Messages
86
Reaction score
1
Hi.

I just saw this:

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-einstein-scientists-spacetime-foam.html

They are saying that they have found data showing that the "quantum foam" does not exist. What is the impact of the disproof of "quantum foam", anyways, on the search for a theory of quantum gravity?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No impact on covariant LQG (spin foam models) because the theory does not predict energy-dependent speed of light.

I don't know of an approach to QG which is currently being worked on which does predict energy-dependent speed of light.

I can't say what the article means by "quantum foam" but the scientists quoted were testing for energy-dependent speed of light, so "quantum foam"must be some theory they have in mind which has that feature.
Or maybe it is just a way they and the journalist thought up to interest the public.
 
Last edited:
sbrothy said:
Sabine Hossenfelder discuss this paper at her blog I think. Or something similar at least.: http://backreaction.blogspot.dk/
...and a very nice and thorough, if perhaps unusually clement analysis of hers that is. Thanks for the link.
 
Last edited:
marcus said:
No impact on covariant LQG (spin foam models) because the theory does not predict energy-dependent speed of light.

I don't know of an approach to QG which is currently being worked on which does predict energy-dependent speed of light.

I can't say what the article means by "quantum foam" but the scientists quoted were testing for energy-dependent speed of light, so "quantum foam"must be some theory they have in mind which has that feature.
Or maybe it is just a way they and the journalist thought up to interest the public.

The abstract for the paper is here:
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphys3270.html

They claim it challenges something called "Wheeler's 'space-time foam' picture of quantum gravity (QG)" and that "Our results set a benchmark constraint to be reckoned with by any QG model that features spacetime quantization.".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes Sabine H. assigns the blame here more to the loose (to say the least) wording of these claims in the paper than to poor reporting by the journalists.

In short, none of the main proposed theories of QG is in the least impacted, the paper rules out a few somewhat exotic ones that were already considered unlikely.
 
Last edited:
sshai45 said:
The abstract for the paper is here:
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphys3270.html

They claim it challenges something called "Wheeler's 'space-time foam' picture of quantum gravity (QG)" and that "Our results set a benchmark constraint to be reckoned with by any QG model that features spacetime quantization.".
Their reference for that "picture" is to some pages in a 1964 book:

Wheeler, J. in Relativity, Groups and Topology (eds DeWitt, C. M. & DeWitt, B. S.) 467–500(Gordon and Breach, 1964).

As I said, I don't know any QG approach that is currently being worked on that fills the bill.

Brody and Wabbit have mentioned Bee Hossenfelder's blog commentary on this paper. You might find it informative. She is a recognized expert on QG testing and phenomenology---and has organized several international conferences on potential tests of QG theories/pictures/effects.

Wheeler (Feynman's PhD advisor) was a wonderfully creative man. Unfortunately he is not around these days to take up these authors' "challenge" to his 1964 foam notion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
8K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K