AG-2024.09-522·physics.hist-ph·cross-listed: gr-qc
Spacetime emergence: an (in)effective story
Authors
- Mike D. Schneider
Abstract
Physicists and philosophers are increasingly prone to regarding our current physical theories as providing 'effective descriptions' of real-world systems. In the context of quantum gravity research, this fuels a common view that the classical spacetime theory of general relativity provides effective descriptions where it is successfully applied. That common view of general relativity, in turn, encourages an 'effective' understanding of spacetime emergence. But descriptions of spacetime in general relativity irreducibly include global physical content, which is not effective. Recognizing this fact reigns in the interpretive scope of the common view of general relativity and specifically undermines our thinking about spacetime emergence effectively.
Submitted
30 September 20241 year ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2410.00932
Summary
The paper argues that general relativity's description of spacetime contains irreducible global features that cannot be treated as merely 'effective,' challenging the popular view that spacetime emerges from more fundamental physics.
- When physicists call a theory 'effective,' they usually mean it works well in a limited range but breaks down elsewhere—but general relativity's spacetime descriptions include global structure that doesn't fit this pattern.
- The paper clarifies that spacetime isn't just a useful approximate tool in general relativity; some of its features are fundamental to the theory itself, not emergent approximations.
- This distinction matters for quantum gravity research: if spacetime has non-effective global content, then proposals for 'spacetime emergence' from quantum gravity need rethinking about what is actually emerging.
curious · generated by claude-haiku-4-5
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.