DOCSLIB.ORG

Quantum Gravity: a Primer for Philosophers∗

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Quantum Gravity: a Primer for Philosophers∗ View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Philsci-Archive Quantum Gravity: A Primer for Philosophers∗ Dean Rickles ‘Quantum Gravity’ does not denote any existing theory: the field of quantum gravity is very much a ‘work in progress’. As you will see in this chapter, there are multiple lines of attack each with the same core goal: to find a theory that unifies, in some sense, general relativity (Einstein’s classical field theory of gravitation) and quantum field theory (the theoretical framework through which we understand the behaviour of particles in non-gravitational fields). Quantum field theory and general relativity seem to be like oil and water, they don’t like to mix—it is fair to say that combining them to produce a theory of quantum gravity constitutes the greatest unresolved puzzle in physics. Our goal in this chapter is to give the reader an impression of what the problem of quantum gravity is; why it is an important problem; the ways that have been suggested to resolve it; and what philosophical issues these approaches, and the problem itself, generate. This review is extremely selective, as it has to be to remain a manageable size: generally, rather than going into great detail in some area, we highlight the key features and the options, in the hope that readers may take up the problem for themselves—however, some of the basic formalism will be introduced so that the reader is able to enter the physics and (what little there is of) the philosophy of physics literature prepared.1 I have also supplied references for those cases where I have omitted some important facts. Hence, this chapter is intended primarily as a catalyst for future research projects by philosophers of physics, both budding and well- matured. 1 The Strange Case of Quantum Gravity Quantum gravity involves the unification of the principles of quantum theory and gen- eral relativity. Constructing such a theory constitutes one of the greatest challenges in theoretical physics. It is a particularly hard challenge for many reasons, both formal and conceptual, some of which I aim to elucidate in what follows. Even up until the 1970s, quantum gravity was, as Michael Duff remarks, “a subject ... pursued only by mad dogs and Englishmen” ([Duff, 1999], p. 185). That is something of an exagger- ation, of course: for starters, when Duff speaks of quantum gravity, he has in mind the particle physicist’s approach to the problem, according to which the gravitational ∗Appeared in D. Rickles (ed.), The Ashgate Companion to Contemporary Philosophy of Physics. Ash- gate, 2008. Please cite the published version. 1Unlike the chapters on quantum theory and statistical mechanics—less so quantum information theory— this chapter is, therefore, mainly devoted to spelling the various research programmes out, without quite so much emphasis on the nitty gritty philosophical problems. 1 interaction involves an exchange of gravitons (the quanta of the gravitational field). However, quantum gravity, understood as the general unificatory problem sketched above, has been pursed for around eighty years in some form or another, by many of the greatest physicists, many of whom were not English! The remark has more than a grain truth to it though; even now quantum gravity research is looked upon with some trepidation and, often, bemusement. This attitude stems primarily from the extreme de- tachment of quantum gravity research from experimental physics—a feature that leads Nambu [1985] to refer to quantum gravity research as “postmodern physics”! As a re- sult, much of the research conducted in quantum gravity looks like an exercise in pure mathematics or, sometimes, metaphysics. This aspect makes quantum gravity espe- cially interesting from a philosophical point of view, as I shall attempt to demonstrate throughout this chapter. Quantum gravity is, in fact, rather curious from the point of view of the philosopher of physics because it is one of the few areas of contemporary physics where (some of) the physicists who are central figures in the field actively engage with philosophers, col- laborating with them, participating in philosophy conferences, and contributing chap- ters to philosophical books and journals (a pair of recent examples are: [Callender and Huggett, 2001], and [Rickles et al., 2006]). Carlo Rovelli, co-founder of one of the main lines of attack known as ‘loop quantum gravity’, explicitly invites philosophers’ cooperation, writing (in an essay from another philosophy collection: [Earman and Norton, 1997]): As a physicist involved in this effort [quantum gravity—DR], I wish the philosophers who are interested in the scientific description of the world would not confine themselves to commenting and polishing the present fragmentary physical theories, but would take the risk of trying to look ahead.([Rovelli, 1997], p. 182) Similarly, John Baez—a mathematical physicist who has done important work in mak- ing loop gravity rigorous—(again writing in a philosophical collection: [Callender and Huggett, 2001]) writes: Can philosophers really contribute to the project of reconciling general relativity and quantum field theory? Or is this a technical business best left to the experts? [...] General relativity and quantum field theory are based on some profound insights about the nature of reality. These insights are crystallized in the form of mathematics, but there is a limit to how much progress we can make by just playing around with this mathematics. We need to go back to the insights behind general relativity and quantum field theory, learn to hold them together in our minds, and dare to imagine a world more strange, more beautiful, but ultimately more reasonable than our current theories of it. For this daunting task, philosophical reflection is bound to be of help. ([Baez, 2001], p. 177) This ‘intellectually open’ attitude, coupled with what we might call the ‘fluid’ state of play in quantum gravity, makes it possible that philosophers of physics might get involved with the constructive business of physics, as the philosopher Tian Yu Cao 2 points out, “with a good chance to make some positive contributions, rather than just analysing philosophically what physicists have already established” ([Cao, 2001], p. 183).2 However, the exact nature of these ‘positive contributions’ is still unclear at the present stage, though this primer will point out some possible directions. However, perhaps the most important reason for the introduction of philosophical reflection in the area of quantum gravity research is, as suggested above, the fact that it does not (thus far) have the character of an empirical problem: current physics, as exemplified by the standard model of particle physics plus general relativity, does not contradict any piece of experimental evidence.3 What matters most, in quantum grav- ity, is internal consistency, in the sense of some particular approach to the problem being logically coherent, and external compatibility, in the sense of the particular ap- proach being compatible with our most well-established background knowledge (i.e. with what we know from both theory and experiment)—cf. [t’Hooft, 2001]. These constraints do not appear to be sufficiently stringent to uniquely determine the desired theory of quantum gravity; instead there are multiple research avenues that each seem to satisfy the constraints (or at least approximate them). The extent to which the vari- ous approaches are really quantum theories of gravity is somewhat controversial: string theory is only known at a perturbative level (as is quantum electrodynamics), which is not sufficient to provide the full theory of quantum gravity we are seeking; loop quan- tum gravity faces (amongst other problems) a ‘reconstruction problem’ according to which classical general relativity is not demonstrably proven to be its classical limit. This problem aside, satisfying these demands can often direct the specific research programmes into conceptual problems that philosophers are well acquainted with— problems to do with the nature of space, time, matter, causality, change, identity, sub- stance, and so on (i.e. the warhorses of traditional philosophy). We discuss this aspect in the next section, and also consider what the possible motivations of quantum gravity research might be if not empirical ones. Let us now turn to the general characterization of quantum gravity—this primarily involves explaining the nature of the problem that such a theory is intended to resolve. We will then give a brief history of quantum gravity. After this, we shall present the central ideas required from the ingredient theories of quantum gravity, namely quantum theory and general relativity. Then we can turn our attention to the various approaches aimed at reconciling these two theories. We then consider several issues of ‘special interest’: the nature and roleˆ of background independence, the experimental status of 2We should not get too carried away though, and ought to heed Dirac’s warning—self-professed enemy of philosophy though he was—that “[u]nless such [philosophical] ideas have a mathematical basis they will be ineffective” ([Dirac, 1978], p. 1). What the above quotations are intended to convey is the fact that ‘mathematical’ and ‘philosophical’ are woven together more tightly than usual in a great deal of quantum gravity research, not that we can make scientific progress by idle philosophical speculation. 3Very roughly, the standard model of particle physics is our best description of the strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and electromagnetic forces (or interactions)—of course, the standard model unifies the weak and electromagnetic into a single ‘electroweak’ force. It tells us that matter is composed of particles called ‘fermions’ bound together by the exchange of (strong, weak, and electromagnetic) force-carrying particles called ‘bosons’. Gravity is not included in the interactions treated in the standard model. Some quantum gravity researchers—especially those from the particle physics community—view the search for a quantum theory of gravity as tantamount to the search for a unified description of all interactions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Philosophical Reflections on Modern Quantum Gravity Research
    Stringed along or caught in a loop? Stringed along or caught in a loop? Philosophical reflections on modern quantum gravity research Keizo Matsubara Dissertation presented at Uppsala University to be publicly examined in Geijersalen, Building 6, (Eng 6-1023), English Park Campus, Thunbergsvägen 3P, Uppsala, Friday, January 18, 2013 at 10:15 for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The examination will be conducted in English. Abstract Matsubara, K. 2013. Stringed along or caught in a loop?: Philosophical reflections on modern quantum gravity research. Filosofiska Institutionen. 139 pp. Uppsala. ISBN 978-91-506-2324-6. A number of philosophical questions, all connected to modern research in quantum gravity, are discussed in this dissertation. The goal of research in quantum gravity is to find a quantum theory for gravitation; the ot- her fundamental forces are already understood in terms of quantum physics. Quantum gravity is studied within a number of different research programmes. The most popular are string theory and loop quantum gravity; besides these a number of other approaches are pursued. Due to the lack of empirical support, it is relevant to assess the scientific status of this rese- arch. This is done from four different points of view, namely the ones held by: logical positi- vists, Popper, Kuhn and Lakatos. It is then argued that research in quantum gravity may be considered scientific, conditional on scientists being open with the tentative and speculative nature of their pursuits. Given the lack of empirical progress, in all approaches to quantum gravity, a pluralistic strategy is advised. In string theory there are different theoretical formulations, or dualities, which are physi- cally equivalent.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Gravity: a Primer for Philosophers∗
    Quantum Gravity: A Primer for Philosophers∗ Dean Rickles ‘Quantum Gravity’ does not denote any existing theory: the field of quantum gravity is very much a ‘work in progress’. As you will see in this chapter, there are multiple lines of attack each with the same core goal: to find a theory that unifies, in some sense, general relativity (Einstein’s classical field theory of gravitation) and quantum field theory (the theoretical framework through which we understand the behaviour of particles in non-gravitational fields). Quantum field theory and general relativity seem to be like oil and water, they don’t like to mix—it is fair to say that combining them to produce a theory of quantum gravity constitutes the greatest unresolved puzzle in physics. Our goal in this chapter is to give the reader an impression of what the problem of quantum gravity is; why it is an important problem; the ways that have been suggested to resolve it; and what philosophical issues these approaches, and the problem itself, generate. This review is extremely selective, as it has to be to remain a manageable size: generally, rather than going into great detail in some area, we highlight the key features and the options, in the hope that readers may take up the problem for themselves—however, some of the basic formalism will be introduced so that the reader is able to enter the physics and (what little there is of) the philosophy of physics literature prepared.1 I have also supplied references for those cases where I have omitted some important facts.
    [Show full text]
  • Subjectifying Objectivity: Delineating Tastes in Theoretical Quantum Gravity Research
    SSS0010.1177/0306312720949691Social Studies of ScienceGilbert and Loveridge 949691research-article2020 Article Social Studies of Science 1 –27 Subjectifying objectivity: © The Author(s) 2020 Article reuse guidelines: Delineating tastes in sagepub.com/journals-permissions https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312720949691DOI: 10.1177/0306312720949691 theoretical quantum gravity journals.sagepub.com/home/sss research Thomas Krendl Gilbert1 and Andrew Loveridge2 Abstract Research in theoretical quantum gravity has continued expansively even as it has become detached from classic arbiters of research such as direct empirical falsification. This makes it an interesting test case for theories of what motivates and mediates contemporary scientific research and of the nature of scientific objectivity. We conducted 50 semi-structured interviews with researchers in the rival camps of string theory and loop quantum gravity, coded a subset for reoccurring themes, and subjected the resulting data to statistical analysis. To delineate the subjective tastes and the related process of collective consensus-making in contemporary quantum gravity research, we mobilize aspects of Daston and Galison’s depiction of the scientific self and its relation to epistemic virtues, Bourdieu’s field-centered account of social space, and Kantian notions of aesthetics. We make two key contributions. First, our analysis sheds light on the inner workings of the field by connecting its internal epistemic struggles with approaches to understanding scientific fields. Second, our application of theories of social reproduction to the substance of scientific inquiry allows some substantive generalizations of Daston and Galison’s framework. Keywords objectivity, scientific self, social fields, Kantian aesthetics, quantum gravity, high energy physics 1University of California, Berkeley, USA 2University of Texas at Austin, USA Correspondence to: Thomas Krendl Gilbert, UC Berkeley Graduate Division, Berkeley, CA 94720-5900, USA.
    [Show full text]
  • Theorists Snap Over String Pieces
    NATURE|Vol 443|5 October 2006 NEWS JAVA MUD VOLCANO SEEMS UNSTOPPABLE Could Indonesia’s mud flow be put to good use? www.nature.com/news CRISP Theorists snap over string pieces Two recently published books are riling the Brian Greene’s 1999 bestseller The Elegant small but influential community of string Universe, which said that the approach might theorists, by arguing that the field is wandering unify the incompatible theories of gravity and D. F. GRASER F. D. dangerously far from the mainstream. quantum mechanics. The books’ titles say it all: Not Even Wrong, a phrase that physicist Wolfgang Pauli used Strung up to describe incomplete ideas, and The Trou- But the theory has its share of problems, and ble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the these are the focus of the new works. For one Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next. Both thing, recent calculations suggest that it gen- articulate a fear that the field is becoming too erates 10500 possible models of the Universe abstract and is focusing on aesthetics rather (see Nature 439, 10–12; 2006). This renders than reality. Some physicists even warn that the theory essentially meaningless, according the theory’s dominance could pose a threat to to critics. When these countless possibilities the scientific method itself (see page 507). were first announced, Lee Smolin was already Those accusations are vehemently denied working on the book that eventually became “None of the major string theory by string theorists, and the books — written by The Trouble With Physics. A physicist at the outsiders — have stirred deep resentment in the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics groups has hired someone tight-knit community.
    [Show full text]
  • Connecting Loop Quantum Gravity and String Theory Via Quantum Geometry
    SciPost Physics Submission Connecting Loop Quantum Gravity and String Theory via Quantum Geometry D. Vaid* Department of Physics, National Institute of Technology Karnataka (NITK), India * [email protected] January 9, 2018 Abstract We argue that String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity can be thought of as describing different regimes of a single unified theory of quantum gravity. LQG can be thought of as providing the pre-geometric exoskeleton out of which macro- scopic geometry emerges and String Theory then becomes the effective theory which describes the dynamics of that exoskeleton. The core of the argument rests on the claim that the Nambu-Goto action of String Theory can be viewed as the expectation value of the LQG area operator evaluated on the string worldsheet. A concrete result is that the string tension of String Theory and the Barbero- Immirzi parameter of LQG turn out to be proportional to each other. Contents 1 Strings vs. Loops 2 2 LQG Area Operator 3 2.1 Minimum Area and Conformal Symmetry 6 3 String Theory and Quantum Geometry 7 3.1 Gravity From String Theory 7 3.2 Geometry vs. Pre-Geometry 8 arXiv:1711.05693v3 [gr-qc] 8 Jan 2018 4 Geometry from Pre-Geometry 9 4.1 Barbero-Immirzi parameter as String Tension 10 5 Discussion and Future Work 11 References 13 1 SciPost Physics Submission 1 Strings vs. Loops There are several competing candidates for a theory of quantum gravity. Two of the strongest contenders are Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) [1{3] and String Theory [4{6]. Of these, string theory has been around for much longer, is more mature and has a far greater number of practitioners.
    [Show full text]
  • Rebooting Physics: Smolin on Strings, Relativity, and the Dark Underbelly of the Academy
    Rebooting Physics: Smolin on Strings, Relativity, and the Dark Underbelly of the Academy Kent Peacock Department of Philosophy University of Lethbridge 2006 Who is Lee Smolin? • PhD (Harvard). • Many publications on GR, cosmology, theoretical biology, quantum gravity, and particle theory (including 18 papers on string theory) • Currently at Perimeter Institute, Waterloo. • Books include the following: – The Trouble With Physics, 2006. – Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, 2001. – The Life of the Cosmos, 1997. • Smolin’s question: “Why, despite so much effort by thousands of the most talented and well- trained scientists, has fundamental physics made so little definitive progress in the last twenty-five years?” It’s Not Just the Fault of String Theory! • There are serious theoretical problems with string theory; however, the real problems lie with the way science is done these days: – “Group think” – Excessive risk-aversion – Short-term perspective (“how do we get the next grant?”) – Unwillingness to think philosophically. What Is String Theory? • Hypothesis that elementary particles are quantized excitations of tiny 1-d elastic lines of force (strings). – It seems that all elementary particles could be understood as functions of natural eigenfunctions (β-functions) of such strings. – Veneziano (1968); Nambu, Nielsen, Susskind (1970), Green and Schwarz (1984). • For details, see Smolin 2006, or Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe (1999). Open and Closed Strings in Space Spatial and Spacetime Views of Strings Encouraging Facts about Strings • In its early days, it seemed to offer a natural unification of the forces, and automatically predicted the existence of the graviton (massless spin 2 quantum of gravity). • String theory has many cool features, such as multiple spatial dimensions and “branes” which are fun to think about and mathematically interesting.
    [Show full text]
  • The Emergence of Platonism in Modern Physics
    TRANSCENDENTAL MINDS AND MYTHICAL STRINGS: THE EMERGENCE OF PLATONISM IN MODERN PHYSICS. by Daniel Bernard Gopman A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The Wilkes Honors College in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts and Sciences with a Concentration in History Wilkes Honors College of Florida Atlantic University Jupiter, Florida May 2008 ii TRANSCENDENTAL MINDS AND MYTHICAL STRINGS: THE EMERGENCE OF PLATONISM IN MODERN PHYSICS by Daniel Bernard Gopman This thesis was prepared under the direction of the candidate’s thesis advisor, Dr. Christopher D. Ely, and has been approved by the members of his supervisory committee. It was submitted to the faculty of The Honors College and was accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts and Sciences. THESIS ADVISORY COMMITTEE: _____________________________ Dr. Christopher D. Ely _____________________________ Dr. Daniel R. White _____________________________ Dean, Wilkes Honors College ____________ Date iii Acknowledgments I am deeply grateful for the guidance of my advisor, Dr. Christopher Ely, who kept me focused on a vastly broad, speculative subject. I would also like to express my gratitude to my second advisor, Dr. Daniel White, who introduced me to the great philosophical works on science of the 20th Century. Finally, I want to thank my father, Miles, for the seemingly endless conversations that helped to inspire many of my ideas. iv ABSTRACT Author: Daniel Bernard Gopman Title: Transcendental minds and mythical strings: the emergence of Platonism in modern physics. Institution: Wilkes Honors College of Florida Atlantic University Thesis Advisor: Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Conceptual Challenges on the Road to the Multiverse
    Article Conceptual challenges on the road to the multiverse Ana Alonso-Serrano 1 and Gil Jannes 2 1 Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics, Albert Einstein Institute, Am Mühlenberg 1, D-14476 Golm, Germany; [email protected] 2 Department of Financial and Actuarial Economics & Statistics, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Campus Somosaguas s/n, 28223 Pozuelo de Alarcón (Madrid), Spain; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] † The authors contributed equally to this work. Version October 17, 2019 submitted to Universe Abstract: The current debate about a possible change of paradigm from a single universe to a multiverse scenario could have deep implications on our view of cosmology and of science in general. These implications therefore deserve to be analyzed from a fundamental conceptual level. We briefly review the different multiverse ideas, both historically and within contemporary physics. We then discuss several positions within philosophy of science with regard to scientific progress, and apply these to the multiverse debate. Finally, we construct some key concepts for a physical multiverse scenario and discuss the challenges this scenario has to deal with in order to provide a solid, testable theory. Keywords: Multiverse. Physical multiverse. Philosophy of science. Empirical testability. Falsifiability. Bayesian analysis. Fine-tuning 1. Introduction Ideas related to what we nowadays call “the multiverse” have historically always attracted both supporters and detractors. The multiverse is not really a theory, but a scenario that arises in several theories and can be defined in different ways depending on the underlying theory. This apparently vague remark in fact has deep consequences on the discussion about the possible existence of other universes and the associated change of the very definition of “the universe”, but also of what a scientific theory is or should be, and how it should be assessed.
    [Show full text]
  • Multiverse Discourse As a Scene of Response
    “Why These Laws?”— Multiverse Discourse as a Scene of Response Jacob Pearce University of Melbourne This paper traces the emergence of “why” questions in modern cosmology and the responding proliferation of multiverse discourse in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Critics who see speculative theorizing as delving into the metaphysical are not hard to find. George Ellis’ concern that we are entering a new era of ‘cosmological myth’ resonates with the 1937 debate re- garding “cosmythology” and the shifting boundary between physics and meta- physics. However, the charge that multiverse proposals are nothing but speculative metaphysics can be considered in terms other than criteria relating to empirical testability. A historicist reading of what metaphysics represents in this context is presented in order to emphasize that “metaphysical” as a pejo- rative term in science discourse is a fluid and historically contingent concept. It appears that proposals are being considered metaphysical precisely when there is no consensus on what constitutes empirical testability. Drawing on the work of Nicholas Jardine, Hans-Jörg Rheinberger and Christopher Hookway, I argue that in cosmology during this period, particularly in relation to multiverse proposals, there appears a well-defined “scene of response”, rather than of fully-fledged inquiry. Thus, intelligible questions may be considered meta- physical, but not timelessly so. 1. Introduction By the end of the twentieth century, many prominent cosmologists were fascinated by the questions why is the universe the way it is, and why does the universe appear to be just right for life to emerge.1 Indeed, the shift to 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Trouble with Spacetime
    The Trouble with Spacetime: The Rise of the Planck Length, The Fall of a System of Theory, and What Comes Next Abstract In ancient times, the incommensurability of discrete numbers, and continuous physical magnitudes, destroyed the Pythagorean cult. Now, in modern times, the incompatibility of the discrete theory of matter, and the continuous theory of spacetime, vexes, if not threatens, the theoretical community with a similar fate. With the rise of string theory, hopes of reconciling quantum physics with continuous physics arose, only to inflate into a Landscape of near infinite possibilities and, with that, the prospect of describing the physical laws of a unique, predictable, universe, diminished significantly. Even worse, our very notion of space now appears to “evaporate,” at the Planck length, leading to the conclusion that both space and time, as we know them today, are “doomed,” as fundamental entities of theoretical physics. Since no one yet knows how to do physics without time, we reexamine Einstein’s notion of spacetime, specifically the dimension of time in spacetime, in the light of an old algebra, once proposed, as the basis for the science of pure time. The most relevant message of Lee Smolin’s book1 is not the alleged failure of string theory, but the fundamental crisis in theoretical physics, which the pursuit of string theory seems to have only exacerbated. Smolin and others, like Peter Woit, author of another anti-string theory book2 are worried that, based on ideas coming from string theory research, physicists are abandoning hope that a unique, unified, solution to fundamental challenges in theoretical physics actually exists.
    [Show full text]
  • The Multiverse • Mariusz P
    The The Multiverse • Mariusz P. Dąbrowski, Ana Alonso-Serrano • Mariusz P. and Thomas Naumann The Multiverse Edited by Mariusz P. Dąbrowski, Ana Alonso-Serrano and Thomas Naumann Printed Edition of the Special Issue Published in Universe www.mdpi.com/journal/universe The Multiverse The Multiverse Special Issue Editors Mariusz P. D¸abrowski Ana Alonso-Serrano Thomas Naumann MDPI • Basel • Beijing • Wuhan • Barcelona • Belgrade • Manchester • Tokyo • Cluj • Tianjin Special Issue Editors Mariusz P. Da¸browski Ana Alonso-Serrano Thomas Naumann Institute of Physics, Max-Planck Institute for Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron University of Szczecin Gravitational Physics, DESY Poland Albert Einstein Institute Germany Germany Editorial Office MDPI St. Alban-Anlage 66 4052 Basel, Switzerland This is a reprint of articles from the Special Issue published online in the open access journal Universe (ISSN 2218-1997) (available at: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/universe/special issues/ the multiverse). For citation purposes, cite each article independently as indicated on the article page online and as indicated below: LastName, A.A.; LastName, B.B.; LastName, C.C. Article Title. Journal Name Year, Article Number, Page Range. ISBN 978-3-03928-867-0 (Hbk) ISBN 978-3-03928-868-7 (PDF) c 2020 by the authors. Articles in this book are Open Access and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license, which allows users to download, copy and build upon published articles, as long as the author and publisher are properly credited, which ensures maximum dissemination and a wider impact of our publications. The book as a whole is distributed by MDPI under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND.
    [Show full text]
  • Sean M. Carroll U 626/568-8473 B [email protected] California Institute of Technology Í
    Caltech MC 452-48 1200 East California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125, USA T 626/395-6830 Sean M. Carroll u 626/568-8473 B [email protected] California Institute of Technology Í www.preposterousuniverse.com Current Positions 2006- California Institute of Technology Research Professor (Senior Research Associate, 2006-14) Department of Physics and Walter Burke Institute of Theoretical Physics 2019- Santa Fe Institute External Professor Research Interests Theoretical physics. Quantum spacetime, cosmology, field theory, gravitation, statistical mechanics, emergence and complexity. Philosophy. Foundations of quantum mechanics and statistical mechanics, philosophy of cosmology, emergence, causation, naturalism. Education 1984-1988 Villanova University B.S. Astronomy and Astrophysics, B.A. Honors Program Magna Cum Laude; Minors in Physics, Philosophy 1988-1993 Harvard University Ph.D. Astronomy (George Field, advisor) Thesis: Cosmological Consequences of Topological and Geometric Phenomena in Field Theories Previous Positions 1993-1996 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Postdoctoral Researcher, Center for Theoretical Physics, and Lecturer, Physics 1996-1999 Institute for Theoretical Physics, UC Santa Barbara Postdoctoral Researcher 1999-2006 University of Chicago Assistant Professor, Physics and Enrico Fermi Institute Research Highlights Spacetime I pioneered the study of Lorentz violation through low-energy effective Lagrangians, Symmetries including proposed observational tests [1, 18]. I also proposed some of the first experimen- tal limits on non-commutative modifications of electromagnetism [29], and constraints on dynamical Lorentz-violating fields [35, 45, 52, 53]. I have developed frameworks in which to analyze possible large-scale deviations from cosmological isotropy [44, 46, 48, 50]. Closer to home, I pointed out that average energy is not conserved in quantum measurements, and proposed an experimental test [98].
    [Show full text]