2
$\begingroup$

This article states:

It’s really striking that for most of the plausible theories of quantum gravity that we have, in some sense their message is, yeah, general relativistic spacetime isn’t in there at the fundamental level,” Knox says. “People get very excited when different theories of quantum gravity agree on at least something.”

Can you please direct me to papers and other references in which physicists have made the claim that spacetime is emergent and does not exist at the quantum level?

I have a masters in physics but I’m not an expert. I understand the mathematics of general relativity, quantum field theory, and the standard model. In terms of my motivation, I’m trying to get a deeper understanding so that I can begin to read more specialized papers in the areas of quantum gravity, the Higgs boson and other outstanding problems in quantum/particle/relativistic physics. I’m writing a science fiction novel in which I teach all of these things in layman’s terms.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think it might be easier to make recommendations suited for you if you explain how much you know of GR, QFT and related topics. $\endgroup$
    – Gabriel Ybarra Marcaida
    Commented Jul 10 at 22:44
  • $\begingroup$ I have a masters in physics but I’m not an expert. I understand the mathematics of general relativity, quantum field theory, and the standard model. In terms of my motivation, I’m trying to get a deeper understanding so that I can begin to read more specialized papers in the areas of quantum gravity, the Higgs boson and other outstanding problems in quantum/particle/relativistic physics. I’m writing a science fiction novel in which I teach all of these things in layman’s terms. $\endgroup$
    – Cecilia
    Commented Jul 11 at 21:40

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2
$\begingroup$

An influential modern classic is the essay Building up spacetime with quantum entanglement by Mark Van Raamsdonk. This is a good starting point to understand the mainstream of thought in this direction in holography/string theory (in addition to following its references and citations).

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ I always get excited by papers like that... until they introduce ad-hoc (ad-hoc in a geometry free world) concepts like "energy" to talk about quantum states, which requires me to define systems... for which I need some way to differentiate "this" from "that". The only way I know how to do that is by using the words "here" and "there", which implies that I know about geometry already. No offense, but a lot of that sounds like the physics version of Munchhausen pulling on his bootstraps to get out of the swamp. I don't think the paper cited above is markedly different in quality. $\endgroup$
    – FlatterMann
    Commented Jul 11 at 0:12
  • $\begingroup$ @FlatterMann Here/there is not the only way to differentiate things. One could assume that they are intrinsically different, without involving geometry. This may sound like cheating, but we are dealing with a fundamental theory of the universe after all. Some things have to be taken as axioms. $\endgroup$
    – Javier
    Commented Jul 11 at 1:38
  • $\begingroup$ @Javier In physics everything starts with observations. We are not mathematicians. Energy is the ability of a system to perform work on another system. To talk about energy requires us to talk about systems, which are subdivisions of nature. Then we have to define what we mean by work. Simply declaring that there is a mystical beast called energy is not physics. It doesn't "explain" anything but leaves us with an undefined term. The problem, by the way, is not just to explain why spacetime exists. We have to explain why it's three dimensional and has U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3) symmetry for E<1TeV. $\endgroup$
    – FlatterMann
    Commented Jul 11 at 2:07

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.