The quantum graphity question

Emergent gravity

Physicists have been searching for a quantum theory of gravity some time. Most believe that the new theory will require some kind of modification to general relativity or quantum theory.

One of the ideas in vogue at the moment is that general relativity is actually an emergent phenomenon from some deeper physics.

Now Tomasz Konopka from Utrecht University in the Netherlands and others are developing an idea called quantum graphity that could prove it.

The thinking is that on a fundamental level the universe is like a dynamic graph with vertices and nodes. At high energies, this graph is highly connected and symmetric. But at low energies, it condenses into a system that has properties such as a geometry, thermodynamics and locality (the property that distant objects cannot influence each other).

That sounds suspiciously like the universe we live in, which is manna to theoretical physicists.

Could this so-called “quantum graphity” be the deeper physics from which general relativity emerges?

Who knows but a few physicists think it’s worth exploring further. The idea raises various interesting questions. What is the nature of the temperature at which the condensation occurs? Is it a real physical temperature or something else? How exactly do the familiar properties of geometry and gravity behave in this model?

And, most important of all, what evidence might we look for to confirm the idea that a condensation took place earlier in the history of the cosmos? If these guys can make some kind of testable prediction, then quantum graphity will alreayd be one giant step ahead of every other attempt to create a quantum theory of gravity.

Ref: Quantum Graphity: a Model of Eemergent Locality

One Response to “The quantum graphity question”

  1. Where did the idea that a qt of gravity is needed since there is already one, the only possible one since it is required by geometry: GR? Although it must be admitted that it is quite boring since it agrees with reality. And wild ideas are not needed (nor possible) since GR follows from geometry. For proof, discussion and (unavoidable) derivation of GR see the book
    Massless Representations of the Poincaré Group