Talks

Quantum cosmology faces the problem of time: the Universe has no background time, only interacting dynamical degrees of freedom within it. The relational view is to use one degree of freedom (which can be matter or geometry) as a clock for the others. In this talk we discuss a cosmological model of a flat FLRW universe filled with a massless scalar field and a perfect fluid. We study three quantum theories based on three different choices of (relational) clock and show that, if we require the dynamics to be unitary, all three make drastically different predictions regarding resolution of the classical (Big Bang) singularity or a possible quantum recollapse at large volume. The talk is based on [arXiv:2005.05357] and a second paper to appear on arXiv in May 2021. We plan to give two talks: one covering the foundations and general properties of the model, and one showing detailed results and physical interpretation. (We will merge these talks into one if the organisers decide to accept only one talk.)

I discuss the new dimension that the relational approach to the problem of time takes in quantum gravity contexts in which spacetime and geometry are understood as emergent. I argue that, in this case, the relational strategy is best realized at an approximate and effective level, after suitable coarse graining and only in terms of special quantum states. I then show a concrete realization of such effective relational dynamics in the context of a cosmological application of the tensorial group field theory formalism for quantum gravity.

"Candidate theories of quantum gravity must answer the questions: how can the dynamics of quantum states of matter and geometry be defined in a diffeomorphism-invariant way? How are the quantum states related to probabilities in the absence of a preferred time? To address these issues, we discuss the construction and interpretation of relational observables in quantum theories with worldline diffeomorphism invariance, which serve as toy models of quantum gravity. In this context, we present a method of construction of quantum relational observables which is analogous to the construction of gauge-invariant extensions of noninvariant quantities in usual gauge (Yang-Mills) theories. Furthermore, we discuss how the notion of a physical propagator may be used to define a unitary evolution in the quantum theory, which is to be understood in terms of a generalized clock, as is the classical theory.  We also discuss under which circumstances this formalism can be related to the use of conditional probabilities in a generalization of the Page-Wootters approach. Finally, we also examine how our formalism can be adapted to calculations of quantum-gravitational effects in the early Universe. Refs.: L. Chataignier, Phys. Rev. D 101, 086001 (2020); 103, 026013 (2021); 103, 066005 (2021)"

Strong gravity tests indicate that general relativity is a very accurate description of the classical dynamics of spacetime even at extreme regimes. Yet, the same dynamics can be described by "alternative" versions of general relativity such as unimodular gravity. In the quest for a quantum theory of the gravitational field, it is unclear if the quantization of such classically equivalent theories leads to the same physical predictions. In this talk, I will report on some recent results regarding this issue in the framework of continuum and perturbative quantum field theory. With a view towards ultraviolet completion, I will discuss some evidence for asymptotic safety in unimodular quantum gravity. Moreover, I will comment on the role of matter fields which couple very differently to gravity in those settings.   

 

The concrete perspective of using interference to measure Gravity Induced Entanglement in the lab is a very exciting development for quantum gravity. While the measurements considered so far only test the nonrelativistic regime, the same technique might allow access to genuine relativistic quantum effects. Among these, there might be the possibility of direct detection of time quantum discreteness.

Time plays a fundamental role in our ability to make sense of the physical laws in the world around us. The nature of time has puzzled people –- from the ancient Greeks to the present day -– resulting in a long running debate between philosophers and physicists alike to whether time needs change to exist (the so-called relatival theory), or whether time flows regardless of change (the so-called substantival theory). One way to decide between the two is to attempt to measure the flow of time with a stationary clock, since if time were substantival, the flow of time would manifest itself in the experiment. Alas, conventional wisdom suggests that in order for a clock to function, it cannot be a static object, thus rendering this experiment seemingly impossible. We show that counter-intuitively, a quantum clock can measure the passage of time, even while being switched off, lending support for the substantival theory of time.

"Physics is formulated in terms of timeless axiomatic mathematics. However, time is essential in all our stories, in particular in physics. For example, to think of an event is to think of something in time. A formulation of physics based of intuitionism, a constructive form of mathematics built on time-evolving processes, would offer a perspective that is closer to our experience of physical reality and may help bridging the gap between static relativity and quantum indeterminacy. Historically, intuitionistic mathematics was introduced by L.E.J. Brouwer with a very subjectivist view where an idealized mathematician continually produces new information by solving conjectures. Here, in contrast, I’ll introduce intuitionism as an objective mathematics that incorporates a dynamical/creative time and an open future. Standard (classical) mathematics appears as the view from the “end of time” and the usual real numbers appear as the hidden variables of classical physics. Similarly, determinism appears as indeterminism seen from the “end of time”. Relativity is often presented as incompatible with indeterminism. Hence, at the end of this presentation I’ll argue that these incompatibility arguments are based on unjustified assumptions and present the “relativity of indeterminacy”. References: C. Posy, Mathematical Intuitionism, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2020. N. Gisin, Indeterminism in Physics, Classical Chaos and Bohmian Mechanics. Are Real Numbers Really Real?, Erkenntnis (2019), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-019-00165-8 N. Gisin, Real Numbers are the Hidden Variables of Classical Mechanics, Quantum Studies: Mathematics and Foundations 7, 197-201 (2020). Flavio Del Santo and N. Gisin, Physics without determinism: Alternative interpretations of classical physics, Physical Review A 100.6 (2019). N. Gisin, Mathematical languages shape our understanding of time in physics, Nature Physics 16, 114-119 (2020). N. Gisin Indeterminism in Physics and Intuitionistic Mathematics, arXiv:2011.02348 Flavio Del Santo and N. Gisin, The Relativity of Indeterminacy, arXiv:2101.04134"

I argue that modern physics gives us good reason to take seriously the possibility of laws which are non-local, global, or in some other way non-dynamical. I set out a general framework for lawhood which does not presuppose the standard kinematical/dynamical split, and I apply it to the problem of giving a generalized definition of determinism for the non-dynamical context. Finally I make some suggestions about how to draw conclusions about the global structure of the laws of nature from the local observations we are able to make.

"It is widely believed that the homogeneity of time is the symmetry related by Noether's (first) theorem to the conservation of energy, and indeed that it explains energy conservation. Both claims are questionable, and in particular seemingly hard to reconcile with the modern version of Noether's first theorem due independently to Martínes Alonso (1979) and Olver (1986). The talk is based on: 'Do symmetries ""explain"" conservation laws? ...' arXiv:2010.10909v1"