[HN Gopher] Geometry from Quantum Temporal Correlations
___________________________________________________________________
Geometry from Quantum Temporal Correlations
Author : ljosifov
Score : 42 points
Date : 2025-06-13 13:21 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arxiv.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (arxiv.org)
| tomrod wrote:
| My understanding is limited, but this seems pretty interesting.
| I'm not quite sure I follow the argument that space is a
| correlated interaction at the quantum level.
|
| As a total tangent: it would be interesting to have an LLM-based
| modality, like a browser extension, where a user could highlight
| academic concepts in a pdf and drill down. Academic writing, by
| convention and necessity, is terse and references prior
| literature, sometimes opaquely. So getting up to speed in the
| literature takes significant effort.
| yababa_y wrote:
| semanticscholar does this!
| dist-epoch wrote:
| You can do it with todays LLMs. First describe your level (how
| much math, etc you know) then ask it to explain a concept. Then
| ask further questions.
| tough wrote:
| emergentmind is a great llm wrapper / search for scholar
| articles
| nyeah wrote:
| Any physicist willing to comment? Sure, the spin matrices were
| built to deal with three spatial axes. Is there more to the paper
| than that?
| n4r9 wrote:
| > the spin matrices were built to deal with three spatial axes
|
| If I understand correctly, it kinda happened the other way
| around. First the Pauli matrices were introduced to explain
| unexpected degrees of freedom in experimental observations;
| then the term "spin" was proposed because the operators related
| to each other in the same way as classical angular momentum
| operators. See e.g.
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13552...
| naasking wrote:
| Hossenfelder actually did a video on this just yesterday:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7See8OhtN-k
| dawnofdusk wrote:
| Not in this field directly, but first of all, talking about the
| "geometry of space" is more than just saying there are three
| spatial dimensions: geometry involves the local curvature of
| the object. Historically the Pauli matrices are discovered by
| assuming certain symmetries of spacetime. This paper shows the
| other direction also makes sense: if we assume certain
| structure on quantum observables, measurable only by temporal
| measurements and _independent_ of the content of the quantum
| state (i.e., a measurement of any system will do), we can get
| the spatial symmetries we want.
|
| I suppose the ideal outcome is that there is some sort of
| exotic algebra of observables which is well motivated somehow
| by purely quantum considerations and by serendipity induces all
| the usual spacetime symmetries + extra stuff we didn't know
| about. This paper itself is cute but not sure if it's very
| impactful, I would defer to domain experts.
| patcon wrote:
| Can't assess content beyond amateur attempt, but am curious.
|
| Second author seems very established, so some social proof there:
| https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Geom...
|
| EDIT: yesterday's video on the paper by Sabine Hossenfelder:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7See8OhtN-k (h/t user naasking
| below)
| stared wrote:
| Well, it feels shaky. First, it starts with:
|
| > There is a growing consensus in theoretical physics that
| spacetime is not a primitive notion
|
| That's a very strong statement. I'm not sure what the actual
| distribution of views on spacetime is, but there certainly isn't
| a _consensus_ on that matter. If I wanted to establish
| credibility, I wouldn't open a paper with such a dubious claim.
|
| Second, Pauli matrices are highly relevant to space (see: Dirac
| spinors; but also, they can be used for quaternions--i.e.,
| rotations in 3D). Using Pauli matrices to argue that we live in a
| 1+3 spacetime feels, at the very least, like a circular argument.
| bofadeez wrote:
| No this has been a talking point by top spacetime theorists for
| a very long time. E.g. https://www.cornell.edu/video/nima-
| arkani-hamed-spacetime-is...
| sigmoid10 wrote:
| The idea that spacetime is emergent and not fundamental dates
| back to the 60s and has seen some pretty neat stuff along the
| way, like Bekenstein and Hawking discussing information
| problems in the 70s that hinted at a deep connection between
| gravity and thermodynamics. Then in the 90s we had Jacobson
| deriving General Relativity from the first law of
| thermodynamics and in the 2000s we had Verlinde combining this
| with holography. It's not a "solved" problem by any stretch,
| but some of the greatest physicists of their generation have
| meddled with this and I think there are almost none left who
| would refute the basic idea. It's the details that people are
| still arguing about - which now include this paper.
| stared wrote:
| There are quite a few ideas! Myself, I would bet on
| Polymarket that there is something more fundamental than
| curved 1+3 spacetime.
|
| Some are, as you said, in thermodynamics. In the String
| Theory, 1+3 is a somewhat reduced space from original 26
| dimensions or so. (This "somewhat" is the core issue.)
|
| So sure, "The idea that spacetime is emergent and not
| fundamental dates back to the 60s" would work as an awesome
| opening of the paper.
| sigmoid10 wrote:
| The "growing consensus" bit literally alludes to all these
| developments. But granted, you have to be versed in the
| field to understand this. On the other hand, this is a
| research paper. It is not written for laypeople.
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| "Growing consensus" is not the same thing as consensus. If
| currently 20% of the top physicists think spacetime is not a
| primitive notion and this number has monotonically increased by
| 1% every year for the past decade, that would be an example of
| "growing consensus".
|
| Besides, Vlatko Vedral is a top theorist in the area, who talks
| other top theorists at conferences and workshops. He wouldn't
| say this if he didn't think other top theorists didn't agree
| with him.
| stared wrote:
| Weasel words (or other common sense statements said passed as
| objective truths) should not be a part a scientific paper,
| regardless of who is writing that (yes, I know that Vlatko
| Vedral is an established researcher).
|
| Myself, I am quantum physicist by training. While I have
| certain views on stuff (e.g. many-world interpretation and
| decoherence, in the line of ZH Zurek), I actually cite
| surveys on the view on physicist on QM interpretation. (Even
| though I "know" from my personal observations that all almost
| all theoretical physicists are in the MWI.)
|
| > If currently 20% of the top physicists think spacetime is
| not a primitive notion and this number has monotonically
| increased by 1% every year for the past decade, that would be
| an example of "growing consensus".
|
| Awesome! Then any reference with such data would be useful.
| If one cannot make (or even create a personal survey), then
| one should not write such things as facts.
| nh23423fefe wrote:
| I don't think the Pauli matrices are used per se I think they
| are derived from the anti-commutation criteria of the basis
| elements. I don't know what justifies that criteria though.
|
| ianap
| ljosifov wrote:
| A recent Vedral (one of the authors) talk -
|
| Decoding quantum reality - with Vlatko Vedral @ The Royal
| Institution (4-Mar-2025; 59:26)
|
| https://youtu.be/70FhS6NAbuA
|
| (I mostly watch while reading the running transcript these days -
| https://www.appblit.com/scribe?v=70FhS6NAbuA)
| neom wrote:
| As a side note, The Royal Institution is one of the best
| youtube channels around, cannot recommend it enough, they do a
| great job with their playlists:
| https://www.youtube.com/@TheRoyalInstitution/playlists - Also
| recommend World Science Festival:
| https://www.youtube.com/@WorldScienceFestival/playlists
| neom wrote:
| There was a long paper on HN recently that I've been stuck
| thinking about.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43990843
|
| Jaeger et al.'s ideas on consciousness is in which many "baked
| in" structures are emergent, and that living or "cognitive
| systems" similarly generate meaning from underlying complexity
| without being reducible to a straightforward set of rules. Macro
| level "givens" (geometry) can arise from deep nonclassical
| processes. "procedurally generated quantum reality" or something.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-06-13 23:01 UTC)