Advertisement

Quantum-First Gravity

  • Steven B. GiddingsEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper elaborates on an intrinsically quantum approach to gravity, which begins with a general framework for quantum mechanics and then seeks to identify additional mathematical structure on Hilbert space that is responsible for gravity and other phenomena. A key principle in this approach is that of correspondence: this structure should reproduce spacetime, general relativity, and quantum field theory in a limit of weak gravitational fields. A central question is that of “Einstein separability,” and asks how to define mutually independent subsystems, e.g. through localization. Familiar definitions involving tensor products or operator subalgebras do not clearly accomplish this in gravity, as is seen in the correspondence limit. Instead, gravitational behavior, particularly gauge invariance, suggests a network of Hilbert subspaces related via inclusion maps, contrasting with other approaches based on tensor-factorized Hilbert spaces. Any such localization structure is also expected to place strong constraints on evolution, which are also supplemented by the constraint of unitarity.

Keywords

Quantum gravity Subsystems Locality Separability 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, under Award Number DE-SC0011702. I thank J. Hartle for useful conversations and comments on a draft of this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Giddings, S.B.: Universal quantum mechanics. Phys. Rev. D 78, 084004 (2008)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Giddings, S.B.: Black holes, quantum information, and unitary evolution. Phys. Rev. D 85, 124063 (2012)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Giddings, S.B.: Hilbert space structure in quantum gravity: an algebraic perspective. JHEP 1512, 099 (2015)ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cao, C., Carroll, S.M., Michalakis, S.: Space from Hilbert space: recovering geometry from bulk entanglement. Phys. Rev. D 95(2), 024031 (2017)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cao, C., Carroll, S.M.: Bulk entanglement gravity without a boundary: towards finding Einstein’s equation in Hilbert space. Phys. Rev. D 97(8), 086003 (2018)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carroll, S.M., Singh, A.: Mad-Dog everettianism: quantum mechanics at its most minimal. arXiv:1801.08132 [quant-ph]
  7. 7.
    Banks, T., Fischler, W.: M theory observables for cosmological space-times. arXiv:hep-th/0102077
  8. 8.
    Banks, T.: Lectures on holographic space time. arXiv:1311.0755 [hep-th]
  9. 9.
    Hartle, J.B.: The quantum mechanics of cosmology. In: Coleman, S., Hartle, J., Piran, T., Weinberg, S. (eds.) Quantum Cosmology and Baby Universes: Proceedings, 7th Jerusalem Winter School for Theoretical Physics, Jerusalem, Israel, December 1989. World Scientific (1991)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hartle, J.B.: Space-time coarse grainings in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. Phys. Rev. D 44, 3173 (1991)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hartle, J.B.: Space-time quantum mechanics and the quantum mechanics of space-time. arXiv:gr-qc/9304006
  12. 12.
    Hartle, J.B.: Quantum mechanics at the planck scale. arXiv:gr-qc/9508023
  13. 13.
    Giddings, S.B.: (Non)perturbative gravity, nonlocality, and nice slices. Phys. Rev. D 74, 106009 (2006)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Einstein, A.: Quanten-Mechanik und Wirklichkeit. Dialectica 2, 320 (1948)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Howard, D.: Einstein on locality and separability. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. A 16(3), 171 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Van Raamsdonk, M.: Building up spacetime with quantum entanglement. Gen. Relativ. Grav. 42, 2323 (2010) [Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 19, 2429 (2010)]Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maldacena, J., Susskind, L.: Cool horizons for entangled black holes. Fortsch. Phys. 61, 781 (2013)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Giddings, S.B., Rota, M.: Quantum information/entanglement transfer rates between subsystems. arXiv:1710.00005 [quant-ph]
  19. 19.
    Brown, A.R., Roberts, D.A., Susskind, L., Swingle, B., Zhao, Y.: Complexity, action, and black holes. Phys. Rev. D 93(8), 086006 (2016)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zurek, W.H.: Quantum darwinism, classical reality, and the randomness of quantum jumps. Phys. Today 67, 44 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Haag, R.: Local Quantum Physics, Fields, Particles. Algebras. Springer, Berlin (1996)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Donnelly, W., Giddings, S.B.: Diffeomorphism-invariant observables and their nonlocal algebra. Phys. Rev. D 93(2), 024030 (2016), Erratum: [Phys. Rev. D 94, no. 2, 029903 (2016)]Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Donnelly, W., Giddings, S.B.: Observables, gravitational dressing, and obstructions to locality and subsystems. Phys. Rev. D 94(10), 104038 (2016)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hawking, S.W., Perry, M.J., Strominger, A.: Soft hair on black holes. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116(23), 231301 (2016)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hawking, S.W., Perry, M.J., Strominger, A.: Superrotation charge and supertranslation hair on black holes. JHEP 1705, 161 (2017)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Buchholz, D., Verch, R.: Scaling algebras and renormalization group in algebraic quantum field theory. Rev. Math. Phys. 7, 1195 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yngvason, J.: The role of type III factors in quantum field theory. Rep. Math. Phys. 55, 135 (2005)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Heemskerk, I.: Construction of bulk fields with gauge redundancy. JHEP 1209, 106 (2012)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kabat, D., Lifschytz, G.: Decoding the hologram: scalar fields interacting with gravity. Phys. Rev. D 89(6), 066010 (2014)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Giddings, S.B., Lippert, M.: Precursors, black holes, and a locality bound. Phys. Rev. D 65, 024006 (2002)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Giddings, S.B., Lippert, M.: The Information paradox and the locality bound. Phys. Rev. D 69, 124019 (2004)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chruściel, P.T.: Anti-gravity à la Carlotto-Schoen. arXiv:1611.01808 [math.DG]
  33. 33.
    Bao, N., Carroll, S.M., Singh, A.: The Hilbert space of quantum gravity is locally finite-dimensional. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 26(12), 1743013 (2017)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Donnelly, W., Giddings, S.B.: How is quantum information localized in gravity? Phys. Rev. D 96(8), 086013 (2017)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Corvino, J., Schoen, R.M.: On the asymptotics for the vacuum Einstein constraint equations. J. Diff. Geom. 73(2), 185 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chrusciel, P.T., Delay, E.: On mapping properties of the general relativistic constraints operator in weighted function spaces, with applications. Mem. Soc. Math. France 94, 1 (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Donnelly, W., Giddings, S.B.: Gravitational splitting at first order: quantum information localization in gravity. Phys. Rev. D 98, 086006 (2018)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Giddings, S.B.: Locality in quantum gravity and string theory. Phys. Rev. D 74, 106006 (2006)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bzowski, A., Gnecchi, A., Hertog, T.: Interactions resolve state-dependence in a toy-model of AdS black holes. arXiv:1802.02580 [hep-th]
  40. 40.
    Giddings, S.B., Kinsella, A.: Gauge-invariant observables, gravitational dressings, and holography in AdS. arXiv:1802.01602 [hep-th]
  41. 41.
    Zanardi, P., Lidar, D.A., Lloyd, S.: Quantum tensor product structures are observable induced. Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 060402 (2004)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cotler, J.S., Penington, G.R., Ranard, D.H.: Locality from the spectrum. arXiv:1702.06142 [quant-ph]
  43. 43.
    Maldacena, J.M.: Eternal black holes in anti-de Sitter. JHEP 0304, 021 (2003)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Harlow, D.: Wormholes, emergent gauge fields, and the weak gravity conjecture. JHEP 1601, 122 (2016)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Donnelly, W., Freidel, L.: Local subsystems in gauge theory and gravity. JHEP 1609, 102 (2016)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Guica, M., Jafferis, D.L.: On the construction of charged operators inside an eternal black hole. SciPost Phys. 3(2), 016 (2017)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Papadodimas, K., Raju, S.: Local operators in the eternal Black hole. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115(21), 211601 (2015)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Susskind, L.: Why do things fall? arXiv:1802.01198 [hep-th]
  49. 49.
    Giddings, S.B.: Models for unitary black hole disintegration. Phys. Rev. D 85, 044038 (2012)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Giddings, S.B.: Nonviolent nonlocality. Phys. Rev. D 88, 064023 (2013)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Giddings, S.B.: Modulated Hawking radiation and a nonviolent channel for information release. arXiv:1401.5804 [hep-th]
  52. 52.
    Giddings, S.B.: Nonviolent unitarization: basic postulates to soft quantum structure of black holes. JHEP 1712, 047 (2017)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhysicsUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations