Tagged: Asymptotically Safe Gravity Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • richardmitnick 1:16 pm on December 23, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Asymptotically Safe Gravity, Atlantic Magazine, , Causal fermion systems, Cosmic strings, M-theory, Noncommutative geometry, , , The Best Explanation for Everything in the Universe   

    From The Atlantic Magazine: “The Best Explanation for Everything in the Universe” 

    Atlantic Magazine

    The Atlantic Magazine

    Dec 22, 2017
    Natalie Wolchover

    String theory is considered the leading “theory of everything,” but there’s still no empirical evidence for it.

    Olena Shmahalo / Quanta Magazine.

    It’s not easy being a “theory of everything.” A TOE has the very tough job of fitting gravity into the quantum laws of nature in such a way that, on large scales, gravity looks like curves in the fabric of space-time, as Albert Einstein described in his general theory of relativity. Somehow, space-time curvature emerges as the collective effect of quantized units of gravitational energy—particles known as gravitons. But naïve attempts to calculate how gravitons interact result in nonsensical infinities, indicating the need for a deeper understanding of gravity.

    String theory (or, more technically, M-theory) is often described as the leading candidate for the theory of everything in our universe. But there’s no empirical evidence for it, or for any alternative ideas about how gravity might unify with the rest of the fundamental forces. Why, then, is string/M-theory given the edge over the others?

    The theory famously posits that gravitons, as well as electrons, photons, and everything else, are not point particles but rather imperceptibly tiny ribbons of energy, or “strings,” that vibrate in different ways. Interest in string theory soared in the mid-1980s, when physicists realized that it gave mathematically consistent descriptions of quantized gravity. But the five known versions of string theory were all “perturbative,” meaning they broke down in some regimes. Theorists could calculate what happens when two graviton strings collide at high energies, but not when there’s a confluence of gravitons extreme enough to form a black hole.

    Then, in 1995, the physicist Edward Witten discovered the mother of all string theories. He found various indications that the perturbative string theories fit together into a coherent non-perturbative theory, which he dubbed M-theory. M-theory looks like each of the string theories in different physical contexts but does not itself have limits on its regime of validity—a major requirement for the theory of everything. Or so Witten’s calculations suggested. “Witten could make these arguments without writing down the equations of M-theory, which is impressive but left many questions unanswered,” explained David Simmons-Duffin, a theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology.

    Another research explosion ensued two years later, when the physicist Juan Maldacena discovered the AdS/CFT correspondence [International Journal of Theoretical Physics]: a hologram-like relationship connecting gravity in a space-time region called anti–de Sitter (AdS) space to a quantum description of particles (called a “conformal field theory”) moving around on that region’s boundary. AdS/CFT gives a complete definition of M-theory for the special case of AdS space-time geometries, which are infused with negative energy that makes them bend in a different way than our universe does. For such imaginary worlds, physicists can describe processes at all energies, including, in principle, black-hole formation and evaporation. The 16,000 papers that have cited Maldacena’s over the past 20 years mostly aim at carrying out these calculations in order to gain a better understanding of AdS/CFT and quantum gravity.

    This basic sequence of events has led most experts to consider M-theory the leading TOE candidate, even as its exact definition in a universe like ours remains unknown. Whether the theory is correct is an altogether separate question. The strings it posits—as well as extra, curled-up spatial dimensions that these strings supposedly wiggle around in—are 10 million billion times smaller than experiments like the Large Hadron Collider can resolve. And some macroscopic signatures of the theory that might have been seen, such as cosmic strings and supersymmetry, have not shown up.

    Other TOE ideas, meanwhile, are seen as having a variety of technical problems, and none have yet repeated string theory’s demonstrations of mathematical consistency, such as the graviton-graviton scattering calculation. (According to Simmons-Duffin, none of the competitors have managed to complete the first step, or first “quantum correction,” of this calculation.) One philosopher has even argued that string theory’s status as the only known consistent theory counts as evidence that the theory is correct.

    The distant competitors include asymptotically safe gravity, E8 theory, noncommutative geometry, and causal fermion systems. Asymptotically safe gravity, for instance, suggests that the strength of gravity might change as you go to smaller scales in such a way as to cure the infinity-plagued calculations. But no one has yet gotten the trick to work.

    See the full article here .

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    STEM Icon

    Stem Education Coalition

  • richardmitnick 9:41 am on July 26, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Asymptotically Safe Gravity, , Causal Dynamical Triangulation, Dimensional reduction, , ,   

    From Ethan Siegel: “Dimensional Reduction: The Key To Physics’ Greatest Mystery?” 

    From Ethan Siegel

    Jul 26, 2016
    Sabine Hossenfelder

    A visualization of a 3-torus model of space, where lines or sheets in series could reproduce a larger-dimensional structure. Image credit: Bryan Brandenburg, under c.c.a.-s.a.-3.0.

    What if the Universe – and fundamentally, space itself – were like a pile of laundry?

    It doesn’t sound like a sober thought, but it’s got math behind it, so physicists think there might be something to it. Indeed the math has piled up lately. They call it “dimensional reduction,” the idea that space on short distances has fewer than three dimensions – and it might help physicists to quantize gravity.

    We’ve gotten used to space with additional dimensions, rolled up so small (or compactified) that we can’t observe them. But how do you get rid of dimensions instead? To understand how it works we first have clarify what we mean by “dimension.”

    A 3-D object like a pipe will have a Hausdorff dimension of 1, as the lines only have one dimension to spread out as long as they’d like, which is also seen in the reduction to a line as you zoom out. Image credit: Alex Dunkel (Maky) of Wikipedia, based on Brian Greene’s The Elegant Universe, under a c.c.a.-s.a.-4.0 license.

    We normally think about dimensions of space by picturing a series of lines which spread from a point. How quickly the lines dilute with the distance from the point tells us the “Hausdorff dimension” of a space. The faster the lines diverge from each other with distance, the larger the Hausdorff dimension. If you speak through a pipe, for example, sound waves spread less and your voice carries farther. The pipe hence has a lower Hausdorff dimension than our normal 3-dimensional office cubicles. It’s the Hausdorff dimension that we colloquially refer to as just dimension.

    For dimensional reduction, however, it is not the Hausdorff dimension which is relevant, but instead the “spectral dimension,” which is a slightly different concept. We can calculate it by first getting rid of the “time” in “space-time” and making it into space (period). We then place a random walker at one point and measure the probability that it returns to the same point during its walk. The smaller the average return probability, the higher the probability the walker gets lost, and the higher the number of spectral dimensions.

    Isotropic random walk on the euclidean lattice Z^3. This picture shows three different walks after 10 000 unit steps, all three starting from the origin. Image credit: Zweistein, under c.c.a.-s.a.-3.0.

    Normally, for a non-quantum space, both notions of dimension are identical. However, add quantum mechanics and the spectral dimension at short distances goes down from four to two. The return probability for short walks becomes larger than expected, and the walker is less likely to get lost – this is what physicists mean by “dimensional reduction.”

    The spectral dimension is not necessarily an integer; it can take on any value. This value starts at 4 when quantum effects can be neglected, and decreases when the walker’s sensitivity to quantum effects at shortest distances increases. Physicists therefore also like to say that the spectral dimension “runs,” meaning its value depends on the resolution at which space-time is probed.

    Dimensional reduction is an attractive idea because quantizing gravity is considerably easier in lower dimensions, where the infinities that plague traditional attempts to quantize gravity go away. A theory with a reduced number of dimensions at the shortest distances therefore has a much higher chance to remain consistent, and therefore to provide a meaningful theory for the quantum nature of space and time. Not so surprisingly, among physicists, dimensional reduction has received quite some attention lately.

    Cross section of the quintic Calabi–Yau manifold. Unlike taking a cross section, dimensional reduction is about having reduced degrees of freedom when it comes to the probability of returning to your starting point in a finite number of steps. Public domain.

    This strange property of quantum-spaces was first found in Causal Dynamical Triangulation, an approach to quantum gravity that relies on approximating curved spaces by triangular patches. In this work, the researchers did a numerical simulation of a random walk in such a triangulized quantum-space, and found that the spectral dimension goes down from four to two. Or actually, to 1.80 ± 0.25, if you want to know precisely.

    Instead of doing numerical simulations, it is also possible to study the spectral dimension mathematically, which has since been done in various other approaches. For this, physicists exploit that the behavior of the random walk is governed by a differential equation – the diffusion equation (a.k.a., the heat equation) – which depends on the curvature of space. In quantum gravity, spatial curvature has quantum fluctuations, so instead it’s the average curvature value which enters the diffusion equation. From the diffusion equation, one then calculates the return probability for the random walk.

    Through this method, physicists have inferred the spectral dimension also in Asymptotically Safe Gravity, an approach to quantum gravity which relies on the resolution-dependence (the “running”) of quantum field theories. And they found the same drop as in Causal Dynamical Triangulations: from four to two spectral dimensions.

    A representation of a spin network in Loop quantum gravity. Image credit: Markus Poessel (Mapos) of Wikimedia Commons, under c.c.a.-s.a.-3.0.

    Another indication that dimensional reduction might be important comes from Loop Quantum Gravity, where the scaling of the area operator with length changes at short distances. In this case, is somewhat questionable whether the notion of curvature makes sense at all on short distances. Ignoring this philosophical conundrum, one can construct the diffusion equation anyway, and one finds that the spectral dimension – surprise – drops from four to two.

    And finally, there is Horava-Lifshitz gravity, yet another modification of gravity which some believe helps with quantizing it. Here too, dimensional reduction, from four to two, has been found.

    It is difficult to visualize what is happening with the dimensionality of space if it goes down continuously, rather than in discrete steps as in the example with the laundry pile. Perhaps a good way to picture it, as Calcagni, Eichhorn and Saueressig suggest, is to think of the quantum fluctuations of space-time as hindering a particle’s random walk, thereby slowing it down. It wouldn’t have to be that way, though. Quantum fluctuations could have also kicked the particle around wildly, thereby increasing the spectral dimension rather than decreasing it. But that’s not what the math tells us.

    Real gravitational effects occur in spacetime, not just space, and must propagate at the speed of light through space and time. Image credit: SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory.

    One shouldn’t take this picture too seriously though, because we’re talking about a random walk in space, not space-time, and so it’s not a real physical process. Turning time into space might seem strange, but it is a common mathematical simplification which is often used for calculations in quantum theory. Still, it makes it difficult to interpret what is happening physically.

    I find it intriguing that several different approaches to quantum gravity share a behavior like this. Maybe it is a general property of quantum space-time? But then, there are many different types of random walks, and while these different approaches to quantum gravity share a similar scaling behavior for the spectral dimension, they differ in the type of random walk that produces this scaling. So maybe the similarities are only superficial.

    And, of course, this idea has no observational evidence speaking for it. Maybe never will. But one day, I’m sure, all the math will click into place and everything will make perfect sense. Meanwhile, have another.

    See the full article here .

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    STEM Icon

    Stem Education Coalition

    “Starts With A Bang! is a blog/video blog about cosmology, physics, astronomy, and anything else I find interesting enough to write about. I am a firm believer that the highest good in life is learning, and the greatest evil is willful ignorance. The goal of everything on this site is to help inform you about our world, how we came to be here, and to understand how it all works. As I write these pages for you, I hope to not only explain to you what we know, think, and believe, but how we know it, and why we draw the conclusions we do. It is my hope that you find this interesting, informative, and accessible,” says Ethan

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
%d bloggers like this: