quantum universe

42 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN July 2008 jean-francois Podevinon the very smallest scales —the voids in between the smallest known elementary particles —by quantum laws and possibly explain it in terms of some fundamental constituents. Superstring theory is often described as the leading candidate to fill this role, but it has not yet provided an answer to any of these pressing questions. Instead, following its own inner log - ic, it has uncovered ever more complex layers of new, exotic ingredients and relations among them, leading to a bewildering variety of possi - ble outcomes. Over the past few years our collaboration has developed a promising alternative to this much traveled superhighway of theoretical physics. It follows a recipe that is almost embarrassingly simple: take a few very basic ingredients, assem -How did space and time come about? How did they form the smooth four- dimensional emptiness that serves as a backdrop for our physical world? What do they look like at the very tiniest distances? Questions such as these lie at the outer boundary of mod - ern science and are driving the search for a the - ory of quantum gravity —the long-sought unifi - cation of Einstein’s general theory of relativity with quantum theory. Relativity theory describes how space time on large scales can take on countless different shapes, producing what we perceive as the force of gravity. In contrast, quantum theory describes the laws of physics at atomic and subatomic scales, ignoring gravita - tional effects altogether. A theory of quantum gravity aims to describe the nature of space time KEY CONCEPTS n Quantum theory and Einstein’s general theory of relativity are famously at loggerheads. Physicists have long tried to reconcile them in a theory of quan ­ tum gravity —with only limited success. n A new approach introduces no exotic components but rather provides a novel way to apply existing laws to individual motes of space­ time. The motes fall into place of their own accord, like molecules in a crystal. n This approach shows how four­dimensional spacetime as we know it can emerge dynamically from more basic ingredients. It also suggests that spacetime shades from a smooth arena to a funky fractal on small scales. —The Editorsp h y sics A new approach to the decades-old problem of quantum gravity goes back to basics and shows how the building blocks of space and time pull themselves together By Jan Ambjørn, Jerzy Jurkiewicz and Renate Loll © 2008 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC. www.SciAm.com SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN 43 ble them according to well-known quantum principles (nothing exotic), stir well, let settle — and you have created quantum space time. The process is straightforward enough to simulate on a laptop. To put it differently, if we think of empty space time as some immaterial substance, con - sisting of a very large number of minute, struc - tureless pieces, and if we then let these micro - scopic building blocks interact with one anoth - er according to simple rules dictated by gravity and quantum theory, they will spontaneously arrange themselves into a whole that in many ways looks like the observed universe. It is sim - ilar to the way that molecules assemble them - selves into crystalline or amorphous solids. Space time, then, might be more like a simple stir fry than an elaborate wedding cake. More - over, unlike other approaches to quantum grav - ity our recipe is very robust. When we vary the details in our simulations, the result hardly changes. This robustness gives reason to believe we are on the right track. If the outcome were sensitive to where we put down each piece of this enormous ensemble, we could generate an enormous number of baroque shapes, each a priori equally likely to occur —so we would lose all explanatory power for why the universe turned out as it did. Similar mechanisms of self-assembly and self-organization occur across physics, biology and other fields of science. A beautiful example is the behavior of large flocks of birds, such as European starlings. Individual birds interact only with a small number of nearby birds; no leader tells them what to do. Yet the flock still forms and moves as a whole. The flock possess - es collective, or emergent, properties that are not obvious in each bird’s behavior. A Brief History of Quantum Gravity Past attempts to explain the quantum structure of space time as a process of emergence had only limited success. They were rooted in Euclidean quantum gravity, a research program initiated at the end of the 1970s and popularized by phys - icist Stephen Hawking’s best-selling book A Brief History of Time. It is based on a funda - mental principle from quantum mechanics: superposition. Any object, whether a classical or quantum one, is in a certain state —charac - terizing its position and velocity, say. But where - as the state of a classical object can be described by a unique set of numbers, the state of a quan - © 2008 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC. 44 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN July 2008THEORIES OF QUANTUM GRAVITY String theory The approach favored by most theoretical physicists, it is a theory not just of quantum gravity but of all matter and forces. It is based on the idea that particles (including the hypothetical ones that transmit gravity) are vibrating strings. Loop quantum gravity The main alternative to string theory, it invokes a new technique for applying quantum rules to Einstein’s general theory of relativity. Space is divided into discrete “atoms” of volume. eucLidean quantum gravity Made famous by physicist Stephen Hawking, this approach supposes that spacetime emerges from a grand quantum average of all possible shapes. It puts time on the same footing as space. cauSaL dynamica L triangu LationS This approach, the subject of this article, is a modern version of the Euclidean approach. It approximates spacetime as a mosaic of triangles, which have a built ­in distinction between space and time. On small scales, spacetime takes on a fractal shape. jean-francois Podevin; Karl weatherly Corbis (mogul skier )triangles at their edges creates a two-dimen - sional curved surface, gluing four-simplices along their “faces” (which are actually three- dimensional tetrahedra) can produce a four- dimensional space time. The tiny building blocks themselves have no direct physical meaning. If one could examine real space time with an ultrapowerful micro - scope, one would not see small triangles. They are merely approximations. The only physically relevant information comes from the collective behavior of the building blocks imagining that each one is shrunk down to zero size. In this limit, nothing depends on whether the blocks were triangular, cubic, pentagonal or any mix - ture thereof to start with. The insensitivity to a variety of small-scale details also goes under the name of “universal - ity.” It is a well-known phenomenon in statisti - cal mechanics, the study of molecular motion in gases and fluids; these substances behave much the same whatever their detailed composition is. Universality is associated with properties of sys - tems of many interacting parts and shows up on a scale much larger than that of the individual constituents. The analogous statement for a flock of starlings is that the color, size, wing - span and age of individual birds are completely tum object is far richer. It is the sum, or super - position, of all possible classical states. For instance, a classical billiard ball moves along a single trajectory with a precise position and velocity at all times. That would not be a good description for how the much smaller elec - tron moves. Its motion is described by quantum laws, which imply that it can exist simultane - ously in a wide range of positions and velocities. When an electron travels from point A to point B in the absence of any external forces, it does not just take the straight line between A and B but all available routes simultaneously. This qualitative picture of all possible electron paths conspiring together translates into the precise mathematical prescription of a quantum super - position, formulated by Nobel laureate Richard Feynman, which is a weighted average of all these distinct possibilities. With this prescription, one can compute the probability of finding the electron in any partic - ular range of positions and velocities away from the straight path that we would expect if the electrons followed the laws of classical mechan - ics. What makes the particles’ behavior distinct - ly quantum mechanical are the deviations from a single sharp trajectory, called quantum fluc - tuations. The smaller the size of a physical sys - tem one considers, the more important the quantum fluctuations become. Euclidean quantum gravity applies the su - perposition principle to the entire universe. In this case, the superposition consists not of dif - ferent particle paths but of different ways the entire universe could evolve in time —in partic - ular, the various possible shapes of space time. To make the problem tractable, physicists typi - cally consider only the general shape and size of space time, rather than every single one of its conceivable contortions [see “Quantum Cos - mology and the Creation of the Universe,” by Jonathan J. Halliwell; Scientific American, December 1991]. Euclidean quantum gravity took a big tech - nical leap during the 1980s and 1990s with the development of powerful computer simula - tions. These models represent curved space time geometries using tiny building blocks, which, for convenience, are taken to be triangular. Tri - angle meshes can efficiently approximate curved surfaces, which is why they are fre - quently used in computer animations. For space time, the elementary building blocks are four-dimensional generalizations of triangles, called four-simplices. Just as gluing together Space: the Final Frontier Although we usually think of space as mere void, both it and time have an invisible structure that guides how we move—much as the moguls (bumps) on a slope guide a skier. We perceive this structure as the force of gravity. Explaining the detailed shape of spacetime is the main goal of a theory of quantum gravity.[SLaLoming through Space ] © 2008 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC. www.SciAm.com SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN 45jean-francois Podeviner-than-light transmission of signals. Although such phenomena have never been observed, phys - icists have speculated that wormholes might find a justification within the still unknown theory of quantum gravity. In view of the negative re - sults from the computer simulations of Euclidean quantum gravity, the viability of wormholes now seems exceedingly unlikely. Wormholes come in such a huge variety that they tend to dominate the superposition and destabilize it, and so the quantum universe never gets to grow beyond a irrelevant in determining the flying behavior of the flock as a whole. Only a few microscopic de - tails filter through to macroscopic scales. Shriveling Up With these computer simulations, quantum gravity theorists began to explore the effects of superposing space time shapes that classical rel - ativity cannot handle —specifically, ones that are highly curved on very small distance scales. This so-called nonperturbative regime is pre - cisely what physicists are most interested in but is largely inaccessible with the usual pen-and- paper calculations. Unfortunately, these simulations revealed that Euclidean quantum gravity is clearly missing an important ingredient somewhere along the line. They found that nonperturbative superpositions of four-dimensional universes are inherently un - stable. The quantum fluctuations of curvature on short scales, which characterize the different superposed universes contributing to the average, do not cancel one another out to produce a smooth, classical universe on large scales. In - stead they typically reinforce one another to make the entire space crumple up into a tiny ball with an infinite number of dimensions. In such a space, arbitrary pairs of points are never more than a tiny distance apart, even if the space has an enormous volume. In some instances, space goes to the other extreme and becomes maximal - ly thin and extended, like a chemical polymer with many branches. Neither of these possibili - ties remotely resembles our own universe. Before we reexamine the assumptions that led physicists down this dead-end street, let us pause to consider an odd aspect of this result. The building blocks are four-dimensional, yet they collectively give rise to a space having an infinite number of dimensions (the crumpled universe) or two dimensions (the polymer uni - verse). Once the genie is let out of the bottle by allowing large quantum fluctuations of empty space, even a very basic notion such as dimen - sion becomes changeable. This outcome could not possibly have been anticipated from the classical theory of gravity, in which the number of dimensions is always taken as a given. One implication may come as a bit of a dis - appointment to science-fiction aficionados. Sci - ence-fiction stories commonly make use of worm - holes —thin handles attached to the universe that provide a shortcut between regions that would otherwise be far apart. What makes wormholes so exciting is their promise of time travel and fast -a mosaic of triangles To determine how space sculpts itself, physicists first need a way to describe its shape. They do so using triangles and their higher ­dimensional analogues, a mosaic of which can readily approximate a curved shape. The curvature at a point is reflected in the total angle subtended by the triangles that surround it. For a flat surface, the angle is exactly 360 degrees, but for curved surfaces it can be less or more.[deScribing the S hape o F Space ] Shapeapproximation of shape using equilateral trianglesview of triangles when flattened plane Sphere Saddle © 2008 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC. 46 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN July 2008taking the average Spacetime can take on a huge number of possible shapes. According to quantum theory, the shape we are most likely to observe is a superposition, or weighted average, of all these possibilities. When constructing shapes from triangles, theorists weight each shape depending on how exactly they glue together triangles to form it. The authors have discovered that the triangles must follow certain rules for the average to match what we observe. In particular, the triangles must have a built ­in arrow of time. jean-francois Podevin; imagesho P Corbis (dominoes )Instead of disregarding causality when as - sembling individual universes and hoping for it to reappear through the collective wisdom of the superposition, we decided to incorporate the causal structure at a much earlier stage. The technical term for our method is causal dynam - ical triangulations. In it, we first assign each simplex an arrow of time pointing from the past to the future. Then we enforce causal gluing rules: two simplices must be glued together to keep their arrows pointing in the same direc - tion. The simplices must share a notion of time, which unfolds steadily in the direction of these arrows and never stands still or runs backward. Space keeps its overall form as time advances; it cannot break up into disconnected pieces or create wormholes. After we formulated this strategy in 1998, we demonstrated in highly simplified models that causal gluing rules lead to a large-scale shape different from that of Euclidean quantum grav - ity. That was encouraging but not yet the same as showing that these rules are enough to stabi - lize a full four-dimensional universe. Thus, we held our breath in 2004 when our computer was about to give us the first calculations of a large causal superposition of four-simplices. Did this space time really behave on large distances like a four-dimensional, extended object and not like a crumpled ball or polymer?small but highly interconnected neighborhood. What could the trouble be? In our search for loop holes and loose ends in the Euclidean approach, we finally hit on the crucial idea, the one ingredient absolutely necessary to make the stir fry come out right: the universe must encode what physicists call causality. Causality means that empty space time has a structure that allows us to distinguish unambiguously between cause and effect. It is an integral part of the classical theories of special and general relativity. Euclidean quantum gravity does not build in a notion of causality. The term “Euclidean” in - dicates that space and time are treated equally. The universes that enter the Euclidean superpo - sition have four spatial directions instead of the usual one of time and three of space. Because Euclidean universes have no distinct notion of time, they have no structure to put events into a specific order; people living in these universes would not have the words “cause” or “effect” in their vocabulary. Hawking and others taking this approach have said that “time is imaginary,” in both a mathematical sense and a colloquial one. Their hope was that causality would emerge as a large-scale property from micro - scopic quantum fluctuations that individually carry no imprint of a causal structure. But the computer simulations dashed that hope.WHAT IS CAUSA lITY ? causality is the principle that events occur in a specific temporal sequence of cause and effect, rather than as a haphazard jumble. i n the authors’ approach to quan - tum gravity, the distinction between cause and effect is fundamental to nature, rath - er than a derived property.[appLying quantum ruLeS to S pacetime] + + ++++ + + Superposition of Shapes © 2008 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC. www.SciAm.com SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN 47energy. This requirement is good news, because cosmologists have found observational evidence for such energy. What is more, the emergent space time has what physicists call a de Sitter ge - ometry, which is exactly the solution to Ein - stein’s equations for a universe that contains nothing but the cosmological constant. It is tru - ly remarkable that by assembling microscopic building blocks in an essentially random man - ner—without regard to any symmetry or pre - ferred geometric structure —we end up with a space time that on large scales has the highly symmetric shape of the de Sitter universe. This dynamical emergence of a four-dimen - sional universe of essentially the correct physi - cal shape from first principles is the central achievement of our approach. Whether this re - markable outcome can be understood in terms of the interactions of some yet to be identified fundamental “atoms” of space time is the sub - ject of ongoing research. Having convinced ourselves that our quan - tum-gravity model passed a number of classical tests, it was time to turn to another kind of ex - periment, one that probes the distinctively quantum structure of space time that Einstein’s classical theory fails to capture. One of the sim - ulations we have performed is a diffusion pro - cess —that is, we let a suitable analogue of an ink drop fall into the superposition of universes Imagine our elation when the number of di - mensions came out as four (more precisely, as 4.02 ± 0.1). It was the first time anyone had ever derived the observed number of dimensions from first principles. To this day, putting causal - ity back into quantum-gravitational models is the only known cure for the instabilities of su - perposed space time geometries. Space time at Large This simulation was the first in an ongoing series of computational experiments whereby we have attempted to extract the physical and geometric properties of quantum space time from the computer simulations. Our next step was to study the shape of space time over large distances and to verify that it agrees with reali - ty—that is, with the predictions of general rela - tivity. This test is very challenging in nonpertur - bative models of quantum gravity, which do not presume a particular default shape for space - time. In fact, it is so difficult that most approach - es to quantum gravity —including string theory, except for special cases —are not sufficiently advanced to accomplish it. It turned out that for our model to work we needed to include from the outset a so-called cosmological constant, an invisible and imma - terial substance that space contains even in the complete absence of other forms of matter and [the authorS ] Jan ambjørn , Jerzy Jurkiewicz and renate Loll developed their approach to quantum gravity in 1998. a mbjørn is a member of the royal d anish a cademy and a pro - fessor at the niels bohr institute in copenhagen and at utrecht university in the netherlands. he has a reputation as an accom - plished thai cook, a claim that the editors look forward to evalu - ating firsthand. Jurkiewicz is head of the department of the theory of com - plex systems at the i nstitute of physics at the Jagiellonian u niver - sity in Kraków. h is many past posi - tions include one at the niels bohr institute in copenhagen, along whose shores he was introduced to the beauty of sailing. Loll is a professor at utrecht university, where she heads one of the largest groups for quantum gravity research in e urope. p revi- ously she worked at the max planck institute for gravitational physics in golm, germany, where she held a heisenberg Fellowship. in her rare spare time, Loll enjoys playing chamber music. Wrong right restricted by principle of causality When physicists add the rule that adjacent triangles must have a consistent notion of time —so that cause and effect are unambiguously distinguished —the outcome is a four ­dimensional space­ time that looks tantalizingly like our universe.two possible gluing rules anything goes When physicists consider all possible ways of arranging triangles —a total free ­for­ all—the outcome is a tightly wadded ball with an infinite number of dimensions. © 2008 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC. jean-francois Podevin 48 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN July 2008In general, different ways to calculate the number of dimensions give different numbers, because they probe different aspects of the geometry. For some geometric figures, the number of dimensions is not fixed. For instance, diffusion may be a more complicated function than time to a certain power. Quantum ­gravity simulations focus on the spectral dimension. They imagine dropping a tiny being into one building block in the quantum spacetime. From there the being walks around at random. The total number of space time building blocks it touches over a given period reveals the spectral dimension.In everyday life the number of dimensions refers to the minimum number of measurements required to specify the position of an object, such as latitude, longitude and altitude. Implicit in this definition is that space is smooth and obeys the laws of classical physics. But what if space is not so well behaved? What if its shape is determined by quantum processes in which everyday notions cannot be taken for grant ­ ed? For these cases, physicists and mathematicians must develop more sophisticated notions of dimensionality. The number of dimensions need not even be an integer, as in the case of fractals —patterns that look the same on all scales. integer dimensions  Fractal dimensions  generalized definitions of dimensionscantor Set Take a line, chop out the middle third and repeat ad infinitum. The resulting fractal is larger than a solitary point but smaller than a continuous line. Its Hausdorff dimension [ see below ] is 0.6309 .Sierpi ´ nski gasket A triangle from which ever smaller subtriangles have been cut, this figure is intermediate between a one ­dimensional line and a 2 ­D surface. Its Hausdorff dimension is 1.5850 .[What i S a dimen Sion, any Way?] a Whole new dimension to Space Spectral dimension  This definition describes how things spread through a medium over time, be it an ink drop in a tank of water or a disease in a population. Each molecule of water or individual in the pop ­ ulation has a certain number of closest neighbors, which determines the rate at which the ink or disease diffuses. In a three ­dimensional medium, a cloud of ink grows in size as time to the 3/2 power. In the Sierpi´ nski gasket, ink must ooze through a twisty shape, so it spreads more slowly —as time to the 0.6826 power, corresponding to a spectral dimension of 1.3652. 4 dimensions 3 dimensions 2 dimensions 1 dimension hausdorff dimension  Formulated by the early 20th ­century German mathematician Felix Hausdorff, this definition is based on how the volume, V, of a region depends on its linear size, r. For ordinary three ­ dimensional space, V is proportional to r3. The exponent gives the number of dimensions. “Volume” can also refer to other measures of total size, such as area. For the Sierpi´ nski gasket, V is proportional to r1.5850, reflecting the fact that this figure does not even fully cover an area. menger Sponge A cube from which subcubes have been cut, this fractal is a surface that partially spans a volume. Its Hausdorff dimension is 2.7268 , similar to that of the human brain. applying the definitions © 2008 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC. www.SciAm.com SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN 49lucy reading-i KKanda; noaa/ Photo researchers, inc. ( snowflake ); terry w. eggers Corbis (snowdrift )ers imagined. The geometry of space time obeys nonstandard and nonclassical rules, but the concept of distance still applies. We are now in the process of probing even finer scales. One possibility is that the universe becomes self-sim - ilar and looks the same on all scales below a cer - tain threshold. If so, space time does not consist of strings or atoms of space time, but a region of infinite boredom: the structure found just below the threshold will simply repeat itself on every smaller scale, ad infinitum. It is difficult to imagine how physicists could get away with fewer ingredients and technical tools than we have used to create a quantum universe with realistic properties. We still need to perform many tests and experiments —for ex - ample, to understand how matter behaves in the universe and how matter in turn influences the universe’s overall shape. The holy grail, as with any candidate theory for quantum gravity, is the prediction of observable consequences de - rived from the microscopic quantum structure. That will be the ultimate criterion for deciding whether our model really is the correct theory of quantum gravity. nand watch how it spreads and is tossed around by the quantum fluctuations. Measuring the size of the ink cloud after a certain time allows us to determine the number of dimensions in space [ see box on opposite page ]. The outcome is pretty mind-boggling: the number of dimensions depends on the scale. In other words, if we let the diffusion go on for just a short while, space time appears to have a dif - ferent number of dimensions than when we let it run for a long time. Even those of us who spe - cialize in quantum gravity can scarcely imagine how space time could smoothly change its di - mension depending on the resolution of one’s microscope. Evidently, a small object experienc - es space time in a profoundly different way than a large object does. To that object, the universe has something akin to a fractal structure. A fractal is a bizarre kind of space where the con - cept of size simply does not exist. It is self-simi - lar, which means that it looks the same on all scales. This implies there are no rulers and no other objects of a characteristic size that can serve as a yardstick. How small is “small”? Down to a size of about 10–34 meter, the quantum universe at large is well described by the classical, four-dimensional de Sitter geometry, although quantum fluctua - tions become increasingly significant. That one can trust the classical approximation to such short distances is rather astonishing. It has im - portant implications for the universe both very early in its history and very far into its future. At both these extremes the universe is effectively empty. Early on, gravitational quantum fluctua - tions may have been so enormous that matter barely registered; it was a tiny raft tossed on a roiling ocean. Billions of years from now, be - cause of the universe’s rapid expansion, matter will be so diluted that it likewise will play little or no role. Our technique may explain the shape of space in both cases. On still shorter scales, quantum fluctuations of space time become so strong that classical, in - tuitive notions of geometry break down alto - gether. The number of dimensions drops from the classical four to a value of about two. Nev - ertheless, as far as we can tell, space time is still continuous and does not have any wormholes. It is not as wild as a burbling space time foam, as the late physicist John Wheeler and many oth -Zooming in on Spacetime By the authors’ calculations, the spectral dimension of spacetime shades from four (on large scales) to two (on small scales), and spacetime breaks up from a smooth continuum into a gnarled fractal. Physicists are still puzzling over whether this conclusion means that spacetime ultimately consists of localized “atoms” or is built up out of intricate patterns only very loosely related to our usual concepts of geometry. ➥ MORE TO Expl ORE deriving dimensions. Adrian Cho in Physical Review Focus; September 28, 2004. http://focus.aps.org/ story/v14/st13 planckian birth of a quantum de Sitter universe. J. Ambjørn, A. Görlich, J. Jurkiewicz and R. Loll n Physical Review Letters, Vol. 100, Article No. 091304; March 7, 2008. Preprint at arxiv.org/abs/0712.2485 the complete idiot’s guide to String theory. George Musser. Alpha, 2008. the emergence of Spacetime, or, quantum gravity on your desktop. R. Loll in Classical and Quantum Gravity, Vol. 25, No. 11, Article No. 114006; June 7, 2008. arxiv.org/abs/0711.0273 Renate Loll’s Web site is www.phys.uu.nl/~loll[SimuLation reSu LtS] Diffusion Time SpectraL dimenSion oF qu antum Sp acetime 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 On t He We B For animations of higher-dimensional objects and fractals, visit www.SciAm.com/jul2008 Quantum spacetime may be like snow, which is fractal on small scales ... . . . but smooth and fully three ­ dimensional on large ones. © 2008 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.