Juan Maldacena - Why is Quantum Gravity Key?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw3Hd-yXw_c

-----------------------------------
when i was a student i had to choose between
00:04
brain science and physics to try to
00:06
really understand the
00:07
fundamental reality and i chose brain
00:09
science
00:10
and now i see that the search for
00:12
quantum gravity is really the
00:15
where the action is so what what does
00:18
that mean
00:19
well we currently have very good and
00:21
successful theories for
00:23
fundamental laws of physics and one of
00:26
them is the theory of general relativity
00:28
which is a theory of gravity
00:30
and this is the theory that was created
00:32
by einstein
00:33
and it's a theory about space-time so it
00:35
says that gravity is due to the
00:37
shape of space-time so big heavy masses
00:41
curve space-time and
00:42
change the geometry space time and
00:44
that's why we experience
00:46
the force of gravity so that's what the
00:47
theory says and it's a wonderful theory
00:50
and it explains many aspects of our own
00:52
universe
00:53
the most important of them is the
00:56
expansion of the universe
00:58
so it gives us it tells us that the
01:00
expansion of the universe is basically
01:02
inevitable and i mean
01:05
einstein himself tried to remove this
01:07
prediction of the theory and he called
01:08
this
01:09
his greatest mistake and so it's a
01:12
wonderful prediction of the theory it's
01:13
experimentally tested
01:15
and and while it really tells us tells
01:17
us a lot about the universe that the
01:18
universe
01:19
was started being much smaller than it
01:21
is now
01:23
and then the other set of theories are
01:25
the theories that describe particle
01:26
physics so they describe how matter
01:28
works
01:29
and these theories are based on new
01:32
rules of mechanics
01:34
that's called quantum mechanics so
01:36
quantum mechanics is a new form of
01:38
describing the dynamics of particles and
01:41
one of the one of its features is that
01:44
we cannot assign
01:45
positions and velocities to particles
01:47
that are well defined
01:49
if we try to measure the position then
01:51
the velocity is not well defined so it
01:52
is a fundamental
01:54
fussiness or uncertainty in our
01:56
description of
01:57
the of the microscopic world and we have
01:59
to use probabilities instead of
02:01
certainties
02:02
exactly yeah so many things are
02:04
probabilistic
02:05
we cannot say exactly where the electron
02:07
is we're going to only say where
02:09
what the probabilities of finding the
02:10
electron in a certain place
02:12
on the other hand there are some things
02:13
that are extremely well defined
02:15
in quantum mechanics such as the energy
02:18
levels of an atom
02:19
and we use this energy levels for making
02:21
very precise measurements of time and so
02:24
on
02:24
atomic clocks are based on this so it's
02:27
a very precise theory it's been tested
02:29
extremely well
02:30
it's fundamental and crucial for
02:31
describing matter
02:34
but nevertheless uh it's hard to put
02:36
this theory together with gravity
02:38
first of all the gravity general
02:40
relativity deals with a heavy
02:42
exactly yeah very large macroscopic
02:45
scale quantum mechanics
02:46
fundamental structure of matter
02:48
probabilistic small scale
02:50
very tiny right right gravity is
02:51
important for heavy things and quantum
02:53
mechanics for small things
02:55
now in our everyday life it's not this
02:58
is not a big problem because
02:59
very small things are very light so
03:01
gravity is not important
03:02
i'm very heavy things are very big so
03:05
quantum mechanics is not important
03:07
however there are situations where it is
03:10
important the most notable of these
03:11
situations is the beginning of the
03:13
universe
03:13
because there the whole universe was
03:16
which is
03:17
extremely heavy was concentrated in a
03:19
very very small region in microscopic
03:21
size
03:21
region and so their quantum effects are
03:24
very important
03:25
and so for that for describing that we
03:27
need quantum mechanics
03:28
and gravity so a theory that puts them
03:31
together
03:32
we know some approximate ways of doing
03:33
it but we really when you get
03:35
to very small distances you really need
03:37
to do it well
03:38
you need to really put them together in
03:40
a consistent way
03:41
okay now what is the problem
03:44
yeah so the problem is to uh describe
03:47
these two theories in a consistent way
03:49
so that when you calculate something
03:51
you get uh reasonable answers but
03:53
whatever you do yeah if you try to do it
03:55
naively
03:55
yeah you try to apply the rules of
03:57
monetizations that that we
03:59
usually apply for particle physics but
04:00
now to gravity
04:02
so we would say for example in analogy
04:04
with the electromagnetic field where
04:07
uh with quantized electromagnetic field
04:09
and we have a photon
04:10
which is the quantum of electromagnetic
04:12
field then we would say well for gravity
04:14
we have gravitational waves and then we
04:16
quantize that we have the graviton
04:18
but then we don't just have free
04:20
gravitons because gravitons carry energy
04:22
they
04:23
interact with other gravitons and when
04:25
you try to describe these interactions
04:26
in a quantum mechanical way
04:28
you find that you get infinities so you
04:30
try to compute
04:31
the probability that something happens
04:33
and it gives you an infinity so
04:34
in going from the smooth sort of analog
04:38
approach in in electromagnetism we we
04:41
went to the photon that was the origin
04:43
of quantum mechanics and
04:44
and that photon carries is the quantum
04:47
of electromagnetism in
04:49
in in bits and pieces as opposed to a
04:51
continuous exactly
04:52
yeah and we know that's real we know
04:53
that works yeah exactly and it's crucial
04:56
for describing it right now to bring the
04:58
two together we have to do the same
05:00
thing
05:00
yeah for gravity and so we
05:03
make up i don't mean that yeah we create
05:06
a concept called the graviton
05:08
exactly analogous to the photon yeah and
05:10
so now we're
05:11
we're making gravity in little pieces
05:14
exactly yeah
05:15
okay but but the problem is yeah you
05:18
find some inconsistencies
05:20
when you try to make these gravitons
05:21
interact it's crucial that the gravitons
05:24
interact in a theory of gravity yeah
05:26
because the gravitational force would be
05:28
due to the
05:29
exchange of gravitons okay so you need
05:31
to make them interact with matter
05:33
and also with each other when you do the
05:34
photons there's no problem yeah yeah you
05:36
can do it with photons so photons
05:38
interact with electrons and
05:39
uh this is the theory of called quantum
05:41
electrodynamics and it's a very
05:43
successful theory it describes nature
05:44
very well right
05:45
but now with the gravitons you get
05:47
infinities yeah you get infinity so it's
05:49
not even that it doesn't describe nature
05:51
it just couldn't possibly describe
05:52
nature because you get
05:53
inconsistent answers and so the first
05:56
goal is to just
05:57
try to find a theory that gives you a
05:59
consistent answer
06:01
and this has been surprisingly difficult
06:02
so it's been surprisingly difficult to
06:04
find
06:04
a theory that gives you consistent
06:06
answers regardless of whether it agrees
06:08
with nature
06:09
and now a theory but however a theory
06:12
has been found
06:13
uh that describes gravity in a
06:15
consistent way and it's called string
06:17
theory
06:17
it was had a long history was originally
06:20
discovered in the context of strong
06:22
interactions
06:22
which is in the nucleus and the nucleus
06:24
exactly and then
06:26
it was applied to gravity it was
06:28
according to this theory the graviton is
06:30
a small loop of vibrating string
06:32
and you can describe the interactions
06:34
between these strings and
06:36
the interactions at long distances
06:38
reduced to those of gravity but they are
06:40
changed at short distances
06:41
in such a way that you get finite
06:43
answers for
06:44
probabilities and so on this this
06:46
situation where you have theories that
06:48
are incompatible
06:49
that are very successful in their own
06:51
corners as i reasoned before in the
06:53
history of physics
06:54
a good example is the example of
06:58
the loss of electricity and magnetism
07:00
where
07:01
um in the 1800s people
07:04
had some laws to describe the how
07:07
currents
07:09
that is to say motion of electric
07:10
charges generate magnetic fields and
07:12
then
07:13
these charges also interact electrically
07:15
and so on and they had some equations
07:17
but maxwell modified the equations so as
07:19
to make them compatible
07:21
and in doing so he found the right set
07:23
of equations
07:24
so we'd like we like to think that in
07:26
string theory the same thing will happen
07:27
that
07:29
so we stumble across this uh this theory
07:32
of strings and
07:32
uh that this will be perhaps the right
07:35
theory but of course this is a question
07:36
we'll have to answer experimentally
07:38
but strength there is a theorem under
07:40
construction that
07:41
we are exploring trying to understand
07:43
that term better
07:45
but well let me now talk about
07:49
the beginning of the universe where
07:51
quantum mechanics and gravity were
07:53
important
07:54
and because it was very heavy and very
07:56
small it was yeah exactly was very heavy
07:58
and very small
08:00
and and so when you have a
08:04
universe that is expanding very rapidly
08:06
as we have in
08:07
our current theories of the very early
08:09
universe it's a theory called
08:10
inflationary
08:12
inflationary theory of the early
08:13
universe so universe was expanding very
08:15
rapidly and when you have rapid
08:16
expansion of the universe
08:18
quantum effects are important and they
08:21
create small inhomogeneities so you
08:25
cannot have
08:26
an expanding universe that is purely
08:28
uniform quantum mechanics implies a
08:30
certain fuzziness in the universe
08:32
so in the same way that quantum
08:33
mechanics tells us that we cannot
08:35
measure the position and velocity of an
08:36
electron
08:37
we cannot determine the shape of the
08:38
universe exactly i mean
08:40
you cannot determine it to be exactly
08:42
uniform you will have to have some
08:44
homogeneities and then after the
08:47
universe expanded
08:48
this emotion in homogeneities which
08:51
started
08:52
their life being quantum mechanical now
08:54
become classical
08:55
and become stretched over very very long
08:57
distances which
08:59
uh we now see in the cosmic microwave
09:02
background radiation
09:03
and reflected in the galaxies and stars
09:06
and planets yeah exactly unbelievable
09:08
that the quantum mechanical
09:09
uh uh fuzziness in the very early
09:13
universe smaller than a
09:15
single atom has now been transformed
09:20
yeah this is this is what i find
09:22
astonishing
09:23
and if the universe was perfectly
09:25
uniform the galaxies would
09:27
have never formed and we wouldn't be
09:28
here so quantum mechanics
09:31
was crucial for leading to the bands
09:34
that
09:35
create the galaxies and so the quantum
09:37
fuzziness is not something
09:38
restricted to very small things and the
09:41
deepest
09:42
corners of matter but it's actually
09:44
important for the beginning of the
09:45
universe and
09:46
even for the biggest things we see in
09:47
the universe like galaxies and so on

===========================
===========================
===========================

Loop Quantum Gravity Explained - Space Time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2suMPiuog4

----------------------------------------
It’s time we talked about loop quantum gravity.
00:04
What exactly is it?
00:05
What are the loops?
00:06
And can it really defeat string theory in our quest for a Theory of Everything?
00:16
The holy grail of physics is to connect our understanding
00:19
of the tiny scales of atoms and subatomic particles with that of the vast scales of
00:25
planets, galaxies, and the entire universe.
00:28
To connect quantum physics with Einstein’s general theory of relativity.
00:32
Our search for a theory of quantum gravity is a century old, and we’ve talked about
it quite
00:37
a bit already, including what’s probably the lead contender - string theory.
00:42
But string theory isn’t the only game in town - or so some physicists believe.
00:47
There may be another way to reconcile the physics of the tiny and the gigantic -
another
00:53
way to a theory of quantum gravity that avoids a lot of conceptual baggage like
tiny wiggling
00:59
strings made of coiled up extra dimensions.
01:03
That other way would be loop quantum gravity, and today we’re going to find out
exactly what it is.
01:09
Back in the day we talked about why combining quantum mechanics with general
relativity
01:14
was so hard.
01:16
For example, there’s the fact that general relativity - or perhaps quantum
mechanics
01:20
breaks down when we think about the extreme densities of the black hole or the big
bang singularities.
01:26
But there are more fundamental conflicts: namely, background independence and the
problem of time.
01:34
Now, I’ll mention the problem of time briefly in a little bit, but the real focus
is going to be on this
01:39
background independence thing because this is what really inspired the invention of
loop quantum gravity.
01:44
So what is it?
01:46
Quantum mechanics, and indeed most theories in physics, involve a set of equations
describing
01:51
how stuff moves around, exerts force, etc. on some background coordinate system.
01:58
Like actors on a stage, where the actors are particles and wavefunctions and fields
and
02:03
the stage is the coordinates of space and time.
02:06
In quantum mechanics that stage is flat and static and isn’t influenced by the
actors.
02:11
It requires some giant hacks to even attempt regular quantum calculations in a non-
flat geometry.
02:18
In short: quantum mechanics is NOT background independent.
02:23
General relativity, on the other hand, has to be background independent - because
that’s
02:28
what its equations do - they change the background.
02:31
They describe how the presence of mass and energy warp the fabric of spacetime.
02:36
Our background coordinate system itself becomes a dynamic entity.
02:41
More precisely, the metric - the object encapsulating the geometry and causal
structure of spacetime
02:47
- evolves in the equations of GR. So those equations need to work regardless of
that
02:53
background.
02:54
In string theory, a type of background independence emerges in an abstract space of
moving strings
03:01
and with that comes a gravitational field.
03:04
But for that to work first you need those strings to exist - and we don’t know if
03:08
they do.
03:10
Loop quantum gravity tries to quantize general relativity with no strings attached,
while
03:15
preserving the background independence already inherent to GR.
03:20
But why is quantizing general relativity so difficult in the first place?
03:24
The challenge really gets us to the fundamentals of what a quantum theory actually
is.
03:30
So just quickly, let’s review all of quantum mechanics.
03:33
In classical physics, we have variables like position, time, momentum, energy -
mathematical
03:38
expressions that represent the observable properties of the object or system that
you’re
03:43
trying to describe.
03:45
Some of these - say, position and time - also form our background coordinate
system.
03:50
But in quantum mechanics, things aren’t so straightforward.
03:54
Certain properties have an in-built uncertainty and only take concrete values after
measurement.
04:00
Absent measurement, they exist in a fuzzy space of possibilities called a
wavefunction.
04:06
In the first formulations of quantum mechanics, that wavefunction describes the
distribution
04:12
of possible positions and momenta of, say, a particle.
04:16
These can then be resolved into concrete, measured values by acting on the
wavefunction
04:21
with so-called position and momentum operators.
04:25
The wavefunction and operators are fundamentally tied to the coordinate system.
04:30
After all, the position and momentum of quantum mechanics literally describes
location on
04:35
a spatial coordinate system and the change in that location over time.
04:40
That makes it highly background dependent.
04:43
There are other ways to formulate quantum mechanics, like quantum field theory, but
04:47
these ultimately have the same issue
04:49
But it gets worse actually.
04:51
In quantum mechanics, time is treated completely separately to other variables -
04:56
there is no “time wavefunction” or “time operator”.
05:00
This is completely at odds with general relativity, in which time is treated as
just another dimension.
05:06
This is the “problem of time” that I mentioned, and it’s strongly connected to
background independence.
05:13
A quantum theory of gravity needs to fix both of these issues - but we’re going to
focus
05:17
on background independence for now.
05:19
The equations of quantum mechanics let you calculate changing properties of a
particle-
05:24
- like its position or momentum - relative to the background coordinate system.
05:28
The equations of general relativity let you calculate the changing shape of the
coordinate
05:32
system itself, encapsulated in the metric.
05:35
So maybe instead of thinking about the quantum fuzziness of position and momentum
we can
05:41
think about the quantum fuzziness of the metric itself.
05:45
And instead of an equation that describes the quantum evolution of the properties
of
05:50
an object in spacetime, maybe there’s an equation that describes the quantum
evolution
05:56
of the geometry of space.
05:58
Well, there is - or at least an attempt at one.
06:01
It’s called the Wheeler-deWitt equation, based on something called the ADM
Formalism.
06:07
ADM starts by defining this abstract space of spaces - 3-D spatial metrics, 3-D
space
06:16
slices cut out of 4-D spacetime.
06:20
It then gives a sort of equation of motion for how these metrics evolve through
time.
06:25
You can imagine a funky coordinate system describing where you are in this abstract
06:30
space of metrics.
06:32
As you move through this coordinate system, the geometry of space changes.
06:37
You can also imagine analogies of the position and momentum in this space of
metrics.
06:43
So the Wheeler-deWitt equation quantizes these - turns them into quantum operators.
06:48
The result is a quantum equation for the fabric of space.
06:52
A contender for a theory of quantum gravity.
06:57
The Wheeler-deWitt equation was promising, but turned out to be … unsolvable.
07:02
Which makes it not so useful, and impossible to verify as correct.
07:08
So perhaps this whole path of using abstract coordinates is a dead end, or perhaps
we just
07:14
haven’t gone down it far enough.
07:16
That’s what loop quantum gravity does - it takes us down the abstraction rabbit
hole
07:22
- past our space of metrics into a space of something called connections.
07:29
And these connections are going to give us our loops.
07:33
Connections are mathematical functions that tell you how something, like a vector,
changes
07:38
as it moves between two points in a space.
07:41
We saw an example way back in the day when we looked at parallel transport.
07:46
As you move the base of a vector along a path in curved space, the vector rotates.
07:52
And the amount of rotation encodes information about the changes in geometry along
the path.
07:58
If connections contain all the information about spacetime, them maybe we can
represent
08:03
spacetime with these connections instead of with regular coordinates.
08:07
In the 1950s Einstein himself tried to rewrite general relativity in terms of these
parallel
08:14
transport vector connections, but the result was a mess.
08:20
The breakthrough came in the 80s when Abey Ashketar tried a different type of
connection:
08:27
one in which you parallel transport not a vector but something called a spinor - a
vector-like
08:34
thing that also represents a quantum of angular momentum - or spin.
08:39
Ashketar rewrote general relativity in terms of these spin-connections -
08:44
now known as Ashketar variables.
08:47
In this formalism, the “space of metrics” looks just like a space of fields in
08:52
quantum field theory.
08:54
Quantized gravity suddenly looked to be in reach.
08:59
And now we get to the loops of loop quantum gravity.
09:04
Lee Smolin and Carlo Rovelli realized they could fully solve the Wheeler-deWitt
equation
09:11
by representing spatial metrics using Ashketar's spin connections.
09:16
But they needed one more trick - one layer deeper in abstraction.
09:22
They evaluated these connections over closed loops – so each point connected back
to
09:28
itself.
09:29
They realized it was possible to define any geometry of 3-D space out of a sort of
weave
09:35
of these closed loops, with each loop like an elementary closed circuit of
gravitational field.
09:42
So now you have a space of loops with which to construct the fabric of space - and
that
09:48
space of loops can be quantized rather neatly, and in a background independent way.
09:55
After all, there IS no background until these now-quantum loop states build it.
10:01
The result, of course, is loop quantum gravity.
10:03
It’s general relativity – our modern theory of gravity – cast in terms of very
abstract
10:09
building blocks.
10:10
Not with chunks of spacetime but with quantum circuits of gravitational field.
10:15
3-D space can be sort of woven from these loops into something called a spin-
network
10:21
- which is a concept too abstract for even this episode.
10:26
But the resulting 3-D space looks normal on large scales - it looks like space.
10:32
But on the tiniest of scales – the Planck scale - it’s sort of pixelated.
10:38
At the nexuses of this weave you have quantized volume elements – irreducible
grains of
10:44
space - connected by quantized area faces like facets.
10:50
But even that description is too space-like - probably the underlying weave of the
fabric of space
10:58
doesn't resemble anything intuitive at all.
11:01
The big success of loop quantum gravity is that it manages to combine general
relativity
11:06
and quantum mechanics in their currently accepted forms, without taking away
11:11
their most important foundational principles.
11:13
And without adding big assumptions – like the existence of strings or extra
dimensions
11:18
or supersymmetry.
11:20
The theory has some other successes, for example, the theory seems to predict
Hawking radiation
11:26
and black hole entropy consistent with Hawking and Bekenstein’s equations.
11:31
However there are also many who identify serious, fundamental issues the theory.
11:37
While LQG has background independence in terms of different 3-D spatial geometries,
11:44
it’s not actually clear that this independence extends to 4-D spacetime.
11:49
And connected to this, LQG doesn’t solve the problem of time.
11:54
More generally, for this theory to be successful it needs give you the equations of
good old
12:00
general relativity on large, non-quantum scales - in the so-called classical limit.
12:05
But it’s not clear that it can do that.
12:08
This is still a hotly debated topic.
12:10
Some researchers think that the method and foundations are sound and that the
current
12:15
criticisms and shortcomings can be resolved with more research
12:19
and extensions to the existing formalism.
12:22
Others argue that the problems are fundamental and that no amount of tinkering and
extending
12:28
will resolve them.
12:30
A lot more exploration is needed on the theoretical side.
12:33
But what about experiments?
12:36
Surprisingly, some experiments have actually been proposed.
12:41
Loop quantum gravity seems to predict that the speed of light should depend very
slightly
12:47
on the energy of the photon, with, for example, high-energy gamma rays travelling a
wee bit
12:53
slower than low energy radio waves due to the way they propagate through the
graininess
12:58
of a loop quantum gravity spacetime.
13:02
This was tested in 2009 by looking for differences in the arrival time of light
from a
13:07
gamma ray burst nearly a billion light years away.
13:10
If there was any difference it was barely measurable, and that doesn't look great
for
13:15
loop quantum gravity.
13:16
Loop quantum gravity is an intriguing alternative to the more popular string
theory.
13:22
Both currently live deep in their respective theoretical rabbit-holes, not yet able
to
13:27
make experimental contact with the real universe.
13:31
But the mathematics have yielded intriguing clues to the nature of the fabric of
the universe
13:37
– and that nature is very weird.
13:40
One way or another, we live in a seriously loopy space time.
13:46
As always, a huge thanks to our Patreon contributors.
13:49
Your help makes an enormous difference.
13:52
Today I want to give an extra special thanks to David Barnholdt, a new Big Bang
13:57
level supporter.
13:58
David, we already spent all of your money ... on aspirin, after loop quantum
gravity
14:03
broke our brains.
14:05
Honestly, we can't thank you enough.
14:07
Though it does still hurt a bit.
14:09
Now, last time we talked about Black Hole Harmonics, let's see what you had to say.
14:15
David Bennack likes the idea of gravitational lensing of gravitational waves. Well
so do I, David.
14:20
But first the context: this year LIGO detected two black hole merger signals within
20 minutes
14:26
of each other and in similar patches of the sky.
14:30
Now, it's really really really hard to come up with a scenario for two actual black
hole pairs to
14:35
colliding at the same time in the same general location.
14:38
An alternative possibility is that it was just one black hole merger, but the
gravitational
14:43
wave from it was deflected by a galaxy or something on its way to us - it was
gravitationally
14:49
lensed so as to arrive via two separate paths through space.
14:53
If those paths were different lengths we'd see the same signal separated by a small
time delay.
14:59
We do see this effect in the light from gravitationally lensed quasars and
supernovae.
15:03
Gravitational waves should be lensed in the same way as light, so it's a plausible
explanation.
15:09
But in the case of this particular example it's not really the favored explanation
- the signals
15:15
don't look like they were from quite the same location after all, and they were
different
15:19
enough not to have been the same source.
15:22
Still, we'll probably see a lensed gravitational wave at some point.
15:26
I talked about the maximum rate of spin of a back hole, and so Lucas rightly
15:32
asks how fast is that maximum rate?
15:35
So there's a limit to the rotation of a black hole which comes from the fact that
the outward
15:41
centrifugal force of rotation partially counters the gravitatinally attraction -
15:46
if you'll forgive my crude Newtonian speak.
15:49
If the black hole rotates more than a certain amount then the event horizon
evaporates,
15:55
exposing the singularity to the universe - or in the case of a rotating black hole,
an infinite
16:01
density ring.
16:02
Such naked singularities are expected to be impossible, and so we expect a maximum
rotation
16:08
rate for black holes. The details of all this need their own episode, so
16:13
I'll leave it at that.
16:16
A few of you asked a really on-point question: if the fabric of space and time can
be stretched
16:21
and if can have waves, that means it must have a sort of elasticity and resistance
to
16:25
stretching.
16:26
So just how resilient is the fabric of spacetime?
16:29
Well, the answer lies in the Einstein field equation of general relativity
16:33
That equation says that the amount stretching of spacetime is proportional to the
mass and
16:37
and energy contained by that spacetime.
16:40
The constant of proportionality can be thought of as the tensile strength of space
-
16:45
the resistance to stretching.
16:47
The smaller the number, the more energy is needed to stretch spacetime.
16:51
And that constant is very, very small - 2 by 10^-43.
16:58
Spacetime is a very, very stiff fabric.
17:01
A few of you noticed we missed a huge opportunity by not calling quasinormal modes
quasimodos.
17:07
Especially given that I kept saying a struck black hole rings like a bell.
17:12
I had a hunch someone would notice that. Notre Damn.