arxiv

Conservation of energy is a somewhat sacred principle in physics, though it can be tricky in certain circumstances, such as an expanding universe. Quantum mechanics is another context in which energy conservation is a subtle thing — so much so that it’s still worth writing papers about, which Jackie Lodman and I recently did. In this blog post I’d like to explain two things:

• In the Many-Worlds formulation of quantum mechanics, the energy of the wave function of the universe is perfectly conserved. It doesn’t “require energy to make new universes,” so that is not a respectable objection to Many-Worlds.
• In any formulation of quantum mechanics, energy doesn’t appear to be conserved as seen by actual observers performing quantum measurements. This is a not-very-hard-to-see aspect of quantum mechanics, which nevertheless hasn’t received a great deal of attention in the literature. It is a phenomenon that should be experimentally observable, although as far as I know it hasn’t yet been; we propose a simple experiment to do so.

The first point here is well-accepted and completely obvious to anyone who understands Many-Worlds. The second is much less well-known, and it’s what Jackie and I wrote about. I’m going to try to make this post accessible to folks who don’t know QM, but sometimes it’s hard to make sense without letting the math be the math.

First let’s think about energy in classical mechanics. You have a system characterized by some quantities like position, momentum, angular momentum, and so on, for each moving part within the system. Given some facts of the external environment (like the presence of gravitational or electric fields), the energy is simply a function of these quantities. You have for example kinetic energy, which depends on the momentum (or equivalently on the velocity), potential energy, which depends on the location of the object, and so on. The total energy is just the sum of all these contributions. If we don’t explicitly put any energy into the system or take any out, the energy should be conserved — i.e. the total energy remains constant over time.

There are two main things you need to know about quantum mechanics. First, the state of a quantum system is no longer specified by things like “position” or “momentum” or “spin.” Those classical notions are now thought of as possible measurement outcomes, not well-defined characteristics of the system. The quantum state — or wave function — is a superposition of various possible measurement outcomes, where “superposition” is a fancy term for “linear combination.”

Consider a spinning particle. By doing experiments to measure its spin along a certain axis, we discover that we only ever get two possible outcomes, which we might call “spin-up” or “” and “spin-down” or “.” But before we’ve made the measurement, the system can be in some superposition of both possibilities. We would write , the wave function of the spin, as

   

where and are numerical coefficients, the “amplitudes” corresponding to spin-up and spin-down, respectively. (They will generally be complex numbers, but we don’t have to worry about that.)

The second thing you have to know about quantum mechanics is that measuring the system changes its wave function. When we have a spin in a superposition of this type, we can’t predict with certainty what outcome we will see. All we can predict is the probability, which is given by the amplitude squared. And once that measurement is made, the wave function “collapses” into a state that is purely what is observed. So we have

   

At least, that’s what we teach our students — Many-Worlds has a slightly more careful story to tell, as we’ll see.

We can now ask about energy, but the concept of energy in quantum mechanics is a bit different from what we are used to in classical mechanics. …

Energy Conservation and Non-Conservation in Quantum MechanicsRead More »

The other day I was amused to find a quote from Einstein, in 1936, about how hard it would be to quantize gravity: “like an attempt to breathe in empty space.” Eight decades later, I think we can still agree that it’s hard.

So here is a possibility worth considering: rather than quantizing gravity, maybe we should try to gravitize quantum mechanics. Or, more accurately but less evocatively, “find gravity inside quantum mechanics.” Rather than starting with some essentially classical view of gravity and “quantizing” it, we might imagine starting with a quantum view of reality from the start, and find the ordinary three-dimensional space in which we live somehow emerging from quantum information. That’s the project that ChunJun (Charles) Cao, Spyridon (Spiros) Michalakis, and I take a few tentative steps toward in a new paper.

We human beings, even those who have been studying quantum mechanics for a long time, still think in terms of a classical concepts. Positions, momenta, particles, fields, space itself. Quantum mechanics tells a different story. The quantum state of the universe is not a collection of things distributed through space, but something called a wave function. The wave function gives us a way of calculating the outcomes of measurements: whenever we measure an observable quantity like the position or momentum or spin of a particle, the wave function has a value for every possible outcome, and the probability of obtaining that outcome is given by the wave function squared. Indeed, that’s typically how we construct wave functions in practice. Start with some classical-sounding notion like “the position of a particle” or “the amplitude of a field,” and to each possible value we attach a complex number. That complex number, squared, gives us the probability of observing the system with that observed value.

Mathematically, wave functions are elements of a mathematical structure called Hilbert space. That means they are vectors — we can add quantum states together (the origin of superpositions in quantum mechanics) and calculate the angle (“dot product”) between them. (We’re skipping over some technicalities here, especially regarding complex numbers — see e.g. The Theoretical Minimum for more.) The word “space” in “Hilbert space” doesn’t mean the good old three-dimensional space we walk through every day, or even the four-dimensional spacetime of relativity. It’s just math-speak for “a collection of things,” in this case “possible quantum states of the universe.”

Hilbert space is quite an abstract thing, which can seem at times pretty removed from the tangible phenomena of our everyday lives. This leads some people to wonder whether we need to supplement ordinary quantum mechanics by additional new variables, or alternatively to imagine that wave functions reflect our knowledge of the world, rather than being representations of reality. For purposes of this post I’ll take the straightforward view that quantum mechanics says that the real world is best described by a wave function, an element of Hilbert space, evolving through time. (Of course time could be emergent too … something for another day.)

Here’s the thing: we can construct a Hilbert space by starting with a classical idea like “all possible positions of a particle” and attaching a complex number to each value, obtaining a wave function. All the conceivable wave functions of that form constitute the Hilbert space we’re interested in. But we don’t have to do it that way. As Einstein might have said, God doesn’t do it that way. Once we make wave functions by quantizing some classical system, we have states that live in Hilbert space. At this point it essentially doesn’t matter where we came from; now we’re in Hilbert space and we’ve left our classical starting point behind. Indeed, it’s well-known that very different classical theories lead to the same theory when we quantize them, and likewise some quantum theories don’t have classical predecessors at all.

The real world simply is quantum-mechanical from the start; it’s not a quantization of some classical system. The universe is described by an element of Hilbert space. All of our usual classical notions should be derived from that, not the other way around. Even space itself. We think of the space through which we move as one of the most basic and irreducible constituents of the real world, but it might be better thought of as an approximate notion that emerges at large distances and low energies. …

Space Emerging from Quantum MechanicsRead More »

It has often been said, including by me, that one of the most intriguing aspects of dark matter is that provides us with the best current evidence for physics beyond the Core Theory (general relativity plus the Standard Model of particle physics). The basis of that claim is that we have good evidence from at least two fronts — Big Bang nucleosynthesis, and perturbations in the cosmic microwave background — that the total density of matter in the universe is much greater than the density of “ordinary” matter like we find in the Standard Model.

There is one important loophole to this idea. The Core Theory includes not only the Standard Model, but also gravity. Gravitons themselves can’t be the dark matter — they’re massless particles, moving at the speed of light, while we know from its effects on galaxies that dark matter is “cold” (moving slowly compared to light). But there are massive, slowly-moving objects that are made of “pure gravity,” namely black holes. Could black holes be the dark matter?

It depends. The constraints from nucleosynthesis, for example, imply that the dark matter was not made of ordinary particles by the time the universe was a minute old. So you can’t have a universe with just regular matter and then form black-hole-dark-matter in the conventional ways (like collapsing stars) at late times. What you can do is imagine that the black holes were there from almost the start — that they’re primordial. Having primordial black holes isn’t the most natural thing in the world, but there are ways to make it happen, such as having very strong density perturbations at relatively small length scales (as opposed to the very weak density perturbations we see at universe-sized scales).

Recently, of course, black holes were in the news, when LIGO detected gravitational waves from the inspiral of  two black holes of approximately 30 solar masses each. This raises an interesting question, at least if you’re clever enough to put the pieces together: could the dark matter be made of primordial black holes of around 30 solar masses, and could two of them have come together to produce the LIGO signal? (So the question is not, “Are the black holes made of dark matter?”, it’s “Is the dark matter made of black holes?”)

This idea has just been examined in a new paper by Bird et al.:

Did LIGO detect dark matter?

Simeon Bird, Ilias Cholis, Julian B. Muñoz, Yacine Ali-Haïmoud, Marc Kamionkowski, Ely D. Kovetz, Alvise Raccanelli, Adam G. Riess

We consider the possibility that the black-hole (BH) binary detected by LIGO may be a signature of dark matter. Interestingly enough, there remains a window for masses 10M_⊙≲M_bh≲100M_⊙ where primordial black holes (PBHs) may constitute the dark matter. If two BHs in a galactic halo pass sufficiently close, they can radiate enough energy in gravitational waves to become gravitationally bound. The bound BHs will then rapidly spiral inward due to emission of gravitational radiation and ultimately merge. Uncertainties in the rate for such events arise from our imprecise knowledge of the phase-space structure of galactic halos on the smallest scales. Still, reasonable estimates span a range that overlaps the 2−53 Gpc⁻³ yr⁻¹ rate estimated from GW150914, thus raising the possibility that LIGO has detected PBH dark matter. PBH mergers are likely to be distributed spatially more like dark matter than luminous matter and have no optical nor neutrino counterparts. They may be distinguished from mergers of BHs from more traditional astrophysical sources through the observed mass spectrum, their high ellipticities, or their stochastic gravitational wave background. Next generation experiments will be invaluable in performing these tests.

Given this intriguing idea, there are a couple of things you can do. First, of course, you’d like to check that it’s not ruled out by some other data. This turns out to be a very interesting question, as there are good limits on what masses are allowed for primordial-black-hole dark matter, from things like gravitational microlensing and the fact that sufficiently massive objects would disrupt the orbits of wide binary stars. The authors claim (and quote papers to the effect) that 30 solar masses fits snugly inside the range of values that are not ruled out by the data.

The other thing you’d like to do is figure out how many mergers like the one LIGO saw should be expected under such a scenario. Remember, LIGO seemed to get lucky by seeing such a big beautiful event right out of the gate — the thought was that most detectable signals would be from relatively puny neutron-star/neutron-star mergers, not ones from such gloriously massive black holes.

The expected rate of such mergers, under the assumption that the dark matter is made of such big black holes, isn’t easy to estimate, but the authors do their best and come up with a figure of about 5 mergers per cubic gigaparsec per year. You can then ask what the rate should be if LIGO didn’t actually get lucky, but simply observed something that is happening all the time; the answer, remarkably, is between about 2 and 50 per cubic gigaparsec per year. The numbers kind of make sense!

The scenario would be quite remarkable and significant, if it turns out to be right. Good news: we’ve found that dark matter! Bad news: hopes would dim considerably for finding new particles at energies accessible to particle accelerators. The Core Theory would turn out to be even more triumphant than we had believed.

Happily, there are ways to test the idea. If events like the ones LIGO saw came from dark-matter black holes, there would be no reason for them to be closely associated with stars. They would be distributed through space like dark matter is rather than like ordinary matter is, and we wouldn’t expect to see many visible electromagnetic counterpart events (as we might if the black holes were surrounded by gas and dust).

We shall see. It’s a popular truism, especially among gravitational-wave enthusiasts, that every time we look at the universe in a new kind of way we end up seeing something we hadn’t anticipated. If the LIGO black holes are the dark matter of the universe, that would be an understatement indeed.

In my senior year of college, when I was beginning to think seriously about graduate school, a magical article appeared in the New York Times magazine. Called “A Theory of Everything,” by KC Cole, it conveyed the immense excitement that had built in the theoretical physics community behind an idea that had suddenly exploded in popularity after burbling beneath the surface for a number of years: a little thing called “superstring theory.” The human-interest hook for the story was simple — work on string theory was being led by a brilliant 36-year-old genius, a guy named Ed Witten. It was enough to cement Princeton as the place I most wanted to go to for graduate school. (In the end, they didn’t let me in.)

Nearly thirty years later, Witten is still going strong. As evidence, check out this paper that recently appeared on the arxiv, with co-authors Davide Gaiotto and Greg Moore:

Algebra of the Infrared: String Field Theoretic Structures in Massive N=(2,2) Field Theory In Two Dimensions
Davide Gaiotto, Gregory W. Moore, Edward Witten

We introduce a “web-based formalism” for describing the category of half-supersymmetric boundary conditions in 1+1 dimensional massive field theories with N=(2,2) supersymmetry and unbroken U(1)R symmetry. We show that the category can be completely constructed from data available in the far infrared, namely, the vacua, the central charges of soliton sectors, and the spaces of soliton states on ℝ, together with certain “interaction and boundary emission amplitudes”. These amplitudes are shown to satisfy a system of algebraic constraints related to the theory of A∞ and L∞ algebras. The web-based formalism also gives a method of finding the BPS states for the theory on a half-line and on an interval. We investigate half-supersymmetric interfaces between theories and show that they have, in a certain sense, an associative “operator product.” We derive a categorification of wall-crossing formulae. The example of Landau-Ginzburg theories is described in depth drawing on ideas from Morse theory, and its interpretation in terms of supersymmetric quantum mechanics. In this context we show that the web-based category is equivalent to a version of the Fukaya-Seidel A∞-category associated to a holomorphic Lefschetz fibration, and we describe unusual local operators that appear in massive Landau-Ginzburg theories. We indicate potential applications to the theory of surface defects in theories of class S and to the gauge-theoretic approach to knot homology.

I cannot, in good conscience, say that I understand very much about this new paper. It’s a kind of mathematica/formal field theory that is pretty far outside my bailiwick. (This is why scientists roll their eyes when a movie “physicist” is able to invent a unified field theory, build a time machine, and construct nanobots that can cure cancer. Specialization is real, folks!)

But there are two things about the paper that I nevertheless can’t help but remarking on. One is that it’s 429 pages long. I mean, damn. That’s a book, not a paper. Scuttlebutt informs me that the authors had to negotiate specially with the arxiv administrators just to upload the beast. Most amusingly, they knew perfectly well that a 400+ page work might come across as a little intimidating, so they wrote a summary paper!

An Introduction To The Web-Based Formalism
Davide Gaiotto, Gregory W. Moore, Edward Witten

This paper summarizes our rather lengthy paper, “Algebra of the Infrared: String Field Theoretic Structures in Massive N=(2,2) Field Theory In Two Dimensions,” and is meant to be an informal, yet detailed, introduction and summary of that larger work.

This short, user-friendly introduction is a mere 45 pages — still longer than 95% of the papers in this field. After a one-paragraph introduction, the first words of the lighthearted summary paper are “Let X be a Kähler manifold, and W : X → C a holomorphic Morse function.” So maybe it’s not that informal.

The second remarkable thing is — hey look, there’s my name! Both of the papers cite one of my old works from when I was a grad student, with Simeon Hellerman and Mark Trodden. (A related paper was written near the same time by Gary Gibbons and Paul Townsend.)

Domain Wall Junctions are 1/4-BPS States
Sean M. Carroll, Simeon Hellerman, Mark Trodden

We study N=1 SUSY theories in four dimensions with multiple discrete vacua, which admit solitonic solutions describing segments of domain walls meeting at one-dimensional junctions. We show that there exist solutions preserving one quarter of the underlying supersymmetry — a single Hermitian supercharge. We derive a BPS bound for the masses of these solutions and construct a solution explicitly in a special case. The relevance to the confining phase of N=1 SUSY Yang-Mills and the M-theory/SYM relationship is discussed.

Simeon, who was a graduate student at UCSB at the time and is now faculty at the Kavli IPMU in Japan, was the driving force behind this paper. Mark and I had recently written a paper on different ways that topological defects could intersect and join together. Simeon, who is an expert in supersymmetry, noticed that there was a natural way to make something like that happen in supersymmetric theories: in particular, you could have domain walls (sheets that stretch through space, separating different possible vacuum states) could intersect at “junctions.” Even better, domain-wall junction configurations would break some of the supersymmetry but not all of it. Setups like that are known as BPS states, and are highly valued and useful to supersymmetry aficionados. In general, solutions to quantum field theories are very difficult to find and characterize with any precision, but the BPS property lets you invoke some of the magic of supersymmetry to prove results that would otherwise be intractable.

Admittedly, the above paragraph is likely to be just as opaque to the person on the street as the Gaiotto/Moore/Witten paper is to me. The point is that we were able to study the behavior of domain walls and how they come together using some simple but elegant techniques in field theory. Think of drawing some configuration of walls as a network of lines in a plane. (All of the configurations we studied were invariant along some “vertical” direction in space, as well as static in time, so all the action happens in a two-dimensional plane.) Then we were able to investigate the set of all possible ways such walls could come together to form allowed solutions. Here’s an example, using walls that separate four different possible vacuum states:

As far as I understand it (remember — not that far!), this is a very baby version of what Gaiotto, Moore, and Witten have done. Like us, they look at a large-distance limit, worrying about how defects come together rather than the detailed profiles of the individual configurations. That’s the “infrared” in their title. Unlike us, they go way farther, down a road known as “categorification” of the solutions. In particular, they use a famous property of BPS states: you can multiply them together to get other BPS states. That’s the “algebra” of their title. To mathematicians, algebras aren’t just ways of “solving for x” in equations that tortured you in high school; they are mathematical structures describing sets of vectors that can be multiplied by each other to produce other vectors. (Complex numbers are an algebra; so are ordinary three-dimensional vectors, using the cross product operation.)

At this point you’re allowed to ask: Why should I care? At least, why should I imagine putting in the work to read a 429-page opus about this stuff? For that matter, why did these smart guys put in the work to write such an opus?

It’s a reasonable question, but there’s also a reasonable answer. In theoretical physics there are a number of puzzles and unanswered questions that we are faced with, from “Why is the mass of the Higgs 125 GeV?” to “How does information escape from black holes?” Really these are all different sub-questions of the big one, “How does Nature work?” By construction, we don’t know the answer to these questions — if we did, we’d move onto other ones. But we don’t even know the right way to go about getting the answers. When Einstein started thinking about fitting gravity into the framework of special relativity, Riemannian geometry was absolutely the last thing on his mind. It’s hard to tell what paths you’ll have to walk down to get to the final answer.

So there are different techniques. Some people will try a direct approach: if you want to know how information comes out of a black hole, think as hard as you can about what happens when black holes radiate. If you want to know why the Higgs mass is what it is, think as hard as you can about the Higgs field and other possible fields we haven’t yet found.

But there’s also a more patient, foundational approach. Quantum field theory is hard; to be honest, we don’t understand it all that well. There’s little question that there’s a lot to be learned by studying the fundamental behavior of quantum field theories in highly idealized contexts, if only to better understand the space of things that can possibly happen with an eye to eventually applying them to the real world. That, I suspect, is the kind of motivation behind a massive undertaking like this. I don’t want to speak for the authors; maybe they just thought the math was cool and had fun learning about these highly unrealistic (but still extremely rich) toy models. But the ultimate goal is to learn some basic wisdom that we will someday put to use in answering that underlying question: How does Nature work?

As I said, it’s not really my bag. I don’t have nearly the patience nor that mathematical aptitude that is required to make real progress in this kind of way. I’d rather try to work out on general principles what could have happened near the Big Bang, or how our classical world emerges out of the quantum wave function.

But, let a thousand flowers bloom! Gaiotto, Moore, and Witten certainly know what they’re doing, and hardly need to look for my approval. It’s one strategy among many, and as a community we’re smart enough to probe in a number of different directions. Hopefully this approach will revolutionize our understanding of quantum field theory — and at my retirement party everyone will be asking me why I didn’t stick to working on domain-wall junctions.

Quantizing gravity is an important goal of contemporary physics, but after decades of effort it’s proven to be an extremely tough nut to crack. So it’s worth considering a very slight shift of emphasis. What if the right strategy is not “finding the right theory of gravity and quantizing it,” but “finding a quantum theory out of which gravity emerges”?

That’s one way of thinking about a new and exciting approach to the problem known as “tensor networks” or the “AdS/MERA correspondence.” If you want to have the background and basic ideas presented in a digestible way, the talented Jennifer Ouellette has just published an article at Quanta that lays it all out. If you want to dive right into some of the nitty-gritty, my young and energetic collaborators and I have a new paper out:

Consistency Conditions for an AdS/MERA Correspondence
Ning Bao, ChunJun Cao, Sean M. Carroll, Aidan Chatwin-Davies, Nicholas Hunter-Jones, Jason Pollack, Grant N. Remmen

The Multi-scale Entanglement Renormalization Ansatz (MERA) is a tensor network that provides an efficient way of variationally estimating the ground state of a critical quantum system. The network geometry resembles a discretization of spatial slices of an AdS spacetime and “geodesics” in the MERA reproduce the Ryu-Takayanagi formula for the entanglement entropy of a boundary region in terms of bulk properties. It has therefore been suggested that there could be an AdS/MERA correspondence, relating states in the Hilbert space of the boundary quantum system to ones defined on the bulk lattice. Here we investigate this proposal and derive necessary conditions for it to apply, using geometric features and entropy inequalities that we expect to hold in the bulk. We show that, perhaps unsurprisingly, the MERA lattice can only describe physics on length scales larger than the AdS radius. Further, using the covariant entropy bound in the bulk, we show that there are no conventional MERA parameters that completely reproduce bulk physics even on super-AdS scales. We suggest modifications or generalizations of this kind of tensor network that may be able to provide a more robust correspondence.

(And we’re not the only Caltech-flavored group to be thinking about this stuff.)

Between the Quanta article and our paper you should basically be covered, but let me give the basic idea. It started when quantum-information theorists interested in condensed-matter physics, in particular Giufre Vidal and Glen Evenbly, were looking for ways to find the quantum ground state (the wave function with lowest possible energy) of toy-model systems of spins (qubits) arranged on a line. A simple problem, but one that is very hard to solve, even on a computer — Hilbert space is just too big to efficiently search through it. So they turned to the idea of a “tensor network.”

A tensor network is a way of building up a complicated, highly-entangled state of many particles, by starting with a simple initial state. The particular kind of network that Vidal and Evenbly became interested in is called the MERA, for Multiscale Entanglement Renormalization Ansatz (see for example). Details can be found in the links above; what matters here is that the MERA takes the form of a lattice that looks a bit like this.

Our initial simple starting point is actually at the center of this diagram. The various links represent tensors acting on that initial state to make something increasingly more complicated, culminating in the many-body state at the circular boundary of the picture.

Here’s the thing: none of this had anything to do with gravity. It was a just a cute calculational trick to find quantum states of interacting electron spins. But this kind of picture can’t help but remind certain theoretical physicists of a very famous kind of spacetime: Anti-de Sitter space (AdS), the maximally symmetric solution to Einstein’s equation in the presence of a negative cosmological constant. (Or at least the “spatial” part thereof, which is simply a hyperbolic plane.)

Of course, someone has to be the first to actually do the noticing, and in this case it was a young physicist named Brian Swingle. Brian is a condensed-matter physicist himself, but he was intellectually curious enough to take courses on string theory as a grad student. There he learned that string theorists love AdS — it’s the natural home of Maldacena’s celebrated gauge/gravity duality, with a gauge theory living on the flat-space “boundary” and gravity lurking in the AdS “bulk.” Swingle wondered whether the superficial similarity between the MERA tensor network and AdS geometry wasn’t actually a sign of something deeper — an AdS/MERA correspondence?

And the answer is — maybe! Some of the features of AdS gravity are certainly captured by the MERA, so the whole thing kind of smells right. But, as we say in the paper above with the expansive list of authors, it doesn’t all just fall together right away. Some things you would like to be true in AdS don’t happen automatically in the MERA interpretation. Which isn’t a deal-killer — it’s just a sign that we have to, at the very least, work a bit harder. Perhaps there’s a generalization of the simple MERA that must be considered, or a slightly more subtle version of the purported correspondence.

The possibility is well worth pursuing. As amazing (and thoroughly checked) as the traditional AdS/CFT correspondence is, there are still questions about it that we haven’t satisfactorily answered. The tensor networks, on the other hand, are extremely concrete, well-defined objects, for which you should in principle be able to answer any question you might have. Perhaps more intriguingly, the idea of “string theory” never really enters the game. The “bulk” where gravity lives emerges directly from a set of interacting spins, in a context where the original investigators weren’t thinking about gravity at all. The starting point doesn’t even necessarily have anything to do with “spacetime,” and certainly not with the dynamics of spacetime geometry. So I certainly hope that people remain excited and keep thinking in this direction — it would be revolutionary if you could build a complete theory of quantum gravity directly from some interacting qubits.