We argue in a model-independent way that the Hilbert space of quantum gravity
is locally finite-dimensional. In other words, the density operator describing
the state corresponding to a small region of space, when such a notion makes
sense, is defined on a finite-dimensional factor of a larger Hilbert space.
Because quantum gravity potentially describes superpo- sitions of different
geometries, it is crucial that we associate Hilbert-space factors with spatial
regions only on individual decohered branches of the universal wave function.
We discuss some implications of this claim, including the fact that quantum
field theory cannot be a fundamental description of Nature.Comment: Essay written for the Gravity Research Foundation 2017 Awards for
  Essays on Gravitation. 6 page

Bao, Ning

Carroll, Sean M.

Singh, Ashmeet

English

arXiv

We argue in a model-independent way that the Hilbert space of quantum gravity is locally finite-dimensional. In other words, the density operator describing the state corresponding to a small region of space, when such a notion makes sense, is defined on a finite-dimensional factor of a larger Hilbert space. Because quantum gravity potentially describes superpositions of different geometries, it is crucial that we associate Hilbert-space factors with spatial regions only on individual decohered branches of the universal wave function. We discuss some implications of this claim, including the fact that quantum-field theory cannot be a fundamental description of nature

Caltech Authors - Main

CALT-TH-2017-17
The Hilbert Space of Quantum Gravity
Is Locally Finite-Dimensional
Ning Bao, Sean M. Carroll, and Ashmeet Singh1
Walter Burke Institute for Theoretical Physics
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125
Abstract
We argue in a model-independent way that the Hilbert space of quantum gravity is locally
finite-dimensional. In other words, the density operator describing the state corresponding
to a small region of space, when such a notion makes sense, is defined on a finite-dimensional
factor of a larger Hilbert space. Because quantum gravity potentially describes superpo-
sitions of different geometries, it is crucial that we associate Hilbert-space factors with
spatial regions only on individual decohered branches of the universal wave function. We
discuss some implications of this claim, including the fact that quantum field theory cannot
be a fundamental description of Nature.
Essay written for the Gravity Research Foundation 2017 Awards for Essays on Gravitation.
1e-mail: ningbao75@gmail.com,seancarroll@gmail.com,ashmeet@theory.caltech.edu
ar
X
iv
:1
70
4.
00
06
6v
1 
 [
he
p-
th
] 
 3
1 
M
ar
 2
01
7
In quantum field theory, the von Neumann entropy of a compact region of space R is infinite,
because an infinite number of degrees of freedom in the region are entangled with an infinite
number outside. In a theory with gravity, however, if we try to excite these degrees of freedom,
many states collapse to black holes with finite entropy S = A/4G, where A is the horizon
area [1, 2]. It is conceivable that there are degrees of freedom within a black hole that do not
contribute to the entropy. However, if such states were low-energy, the entropy of the black
hole could increase via entanglement, violating the Bekenstein bound. If they are sufficiently
high-energy that they don’t become entangled, exciting them would increase the size of the
black hole, taking it out of the “local region” with which it was associated.
The finiteness of black hole entropy therefore upper bounds the number of degrees of freedom
that can be excited within R, and therefore on the dimensionality of HR, the factor of Hilbert
space associated with R (as the dimensionality of Hilbert space is roughly the exponential of the
number of degrees of freedom). Similarly, a patch of de Sitter space, which arguably represents
an equilibrium configuration of spacetime, has a finite entropy proportional to its horizon area,
indicative of a finite-dimensional Hilbert space [3–7].
The most straightforward interpretation of this situation is that in the true theory of nature,
which includes gravity, any local region is characterized by a finite-dimensional factor of Hilbert
space. Some take this statement as well-established, while others find it obviously wrong. Here
we argue that the straightforward interpretation is most likely correct, even if the current state
of the art prevents us from drawing definitive conclusions.
This discussion begs an important question: what is “the Hilbert space associated with
a region”? Quantum theories describe states in Hilbert space, and notions like “space” and
“locality” should emerge from that fundamental level [8–10]. Our burden is therefore to under-
stand what might be meant by the Hilbert space of a local region, and whether that notion is
well-defined in quantum gravity.
We imagine that the fundamental quantum theory of nature describes a density operator ρ
acting on a Hilbert space HQG. The entanglement structure of near-vacuum states in spacetime
is very specific, so generic states in HQG won’t look like spacetime at all [9, 10]. Rather, in
phenomenologically relevant, far-from-equilibrium states ρ, there will be macroscopic pointer
states representing semiclassical geometries. To that end, we imagine a decomposition
HQG = Hsys ⊗Henv, (1)
where the system factor Hsys will describe a region of space and its associated long-wavelength
fields, and the environment factor Henv is traced over to obtain our system density matrix,
ρsys = Trenv ρ. The environment might include microscopic degrees of freedom that are either
irrelevant or spatially distant. Then decoherence approximately diagonalizes the system density
matrix in the pointer basis,
|Ψa〉 ∈ Hsys, ρsys =
∑
a
pa|Ψa〉〈Ψa|. (2)
2
Σ 1
Σ 2
g
(1)
ij , π
(1)
ij , |φ(1)
g
(2)
ij , π
(2)
ij , |φ(2)
|Ψ1 sys
|Ψ1 env
|Ψ2 env |Ψ2 sys
envH sysH
Φ
Φ
Figure 1: On the left, the Hilbert space of quantum gravity is portrayed as a tensor product,
HQG = Hsys⊗Henv, and two decohered branches |Ψa〉sys⊗|Ψa〉env are shown. Under the map Φ,
the system factors of these states map to regions Σa of a semiclassical spacetime background,
on which are defined a spatial metric and its conjugate momentum as well as the quantum state
of an effective field theory.
An emergence map Φ associates decohered branches of the quantum-gravity wave function
with states of an effective field theory defined on a semiclassical background spacetime. In a
space+time decomposition, the emergent theory describes spatial manifolds Σ with 3-metric γij
and conjugate momentum πij, along with a Hilbert space H(Σ)EFT of quantum fields on Σ,
Φ : |Ψa〉 →
{
Σa, g
(a)
ij , π
(a)
ij , |φ(a)〉
}
, (3)
where |φ(a)〉 ∈ H(Σa)EFT. We don’t insist that Σa be a boundaryless surface; it may simply be a
finite region of space (e.g., the interior of a de Sitter horizon). Horizon complementarity [11]
suggests that there could be a limit on the extent of Σa, perhaps in the form of an entropy
bound à la Bousso [12].
Now imagine that, in some emergent geometry, we divide Σ into a closed region R and its
exterior R̄. The proposition “a region of space is described by a finite-dimensional factor of
Hilbert space” should be interpreted as the claim that we can decompose the system Hilbert
space in the fundamental theory as Hsys = HR ⊗ HR̄, representing factors describing physics
inside and outside R, such that dimHR is finite. (As is standard with emergent theories, the
map HR ⊗HR̄ → H(Σ)R ⊗H
(Σ)
R̄
represents an approximation. In particular, our ability to divide
space into two sets of degrees of freedom doesn’t imply that we can continue to subdivide it into
many small regions simultaneously.)
Such a decomposition is familiar in the case of quantum field theories on a fixed spacetime
background. (There may be subtleties due to gauge invariance on the boundary, e.g. [13, 14].)
This is necessitated by the success of locality as an underlying principle of everyday physics. If
a single degree of freedom were accessible both in R and R̄, a unitary operator localized within
R could change the state elsewhere – not in the sense of branching the wave function, but in the
sense of direct superluminal information transfer, as the reduced density matrix ρR̄ = TrR ρsys
would change instantly. Indeed, the notion that we can sensibly talk about the entropy of a
3
black hole implicitly assumes this kind of locality.
A complication could arise due to the fact that gravity is a long-range force coupled to a
conserved charge (mass-energy) that is always positive [15–18]. Any operator with nonzero
energy or other conserved Poincaré charges is “dressed” by a gravitational field stretching out
to infinity, representing an apparent obstacle to localization. In particular, diffeomorphism-
invariant operators are considered from the start.
A locally-finite theory, however, need not give rise directly to a diffeomorphism-invariant
description of gravity. The fundamental description could correspond to a particular gauge, in
which the symmetries of the theory weren’t manifest, even though they could be restored once
the effective theory had emerged. It is dangerous to start with symmetries of the sought-after
continuum theory, defined in the context of an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space, and demand
that they be present at the discrete level; all that we should require is that crucial physical
properties ultimately emerge (e.g. [19]).
From our perspective, gravitational dressing is not inconsistent with localizing a finite number
of degrees of freedom within a region of space. (Even the notion of “at infinity” is unlikely to
be well-defined as a statement about HQG, but we won’t rely on that loophole.) Rather, there
are superselection sectors corresponding to total gauge charges, including energy; operators that
change the total energy connect one quantum-gravity pointer state to a state with a different
energy. Such operators are not necessary for describing the local dynamics, which can be
captured entirely by operators that commute with global charges; physical changes in the local
state of a system are not instantaneously communicated to infinity. Equivalently, there is no
obstacle to decomposing the Hamiltonian into a term acting only within R, one acting only
within R̄, and an interaction defined by a sum of tensor products of such local operators. When
working in any one such sector, then, we are allowed to factorize our system Hilbert space as
Hsys = HR ⊗HR̄.
Given the validity of this factorization, the finite dimensionality ofHR follows from the black-
hole arguments above, with one consideration: when we attempt to excite degrees of freedom
until we reach a black hole, we shouldn’t consider operators that change the Poincaré charges at
infinity. This is no problem; it is easy enough to imagine creating black holes simply by moving
around existing mass/energy within the state (as actually happens in the real world when black
holes are created). The upper bound from black-hole entropy on the number of ways this could
happen implies an upper bound on the effective degrees of freedom, and therefore on dimHsys.
We therefore conclude that it is sensible to associate factors of Hilbert space with regions
of space, at the level of individual branches representing semiclassical spacetimes, and that
such factors have finite dimensionality. There are well-known obstacles to constructing phe-
nomenological acceptable theories with finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, including a lack of
exact Lorentz invariance. It is therefore imperative to investigate whether such features can
arise in an approximate fashion without violating experimental bounds [20].
4
Locally finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces entail a number of consequences. This perspective
suggests new tools for investigating the behavior of quantum spacetime, such as the quantum-
circuit approach [21]. It also implies an attitude toward ultraviolet divergences in quantum
gravity: there are no such divergences, as there are only finitely many degrees of freedom
locally. The cosmological constant problem becomes the question of why the factor associated
with our de Sitter patch has its particular large, finite dimensionality, exp(10122) [3]; perhaps
other fine-tuning questions, such as the hierarchy problem, can be similarly recast.
Acknowledgments
We thank Scott Aaronson, Steven Giddings, and John Preskill for helpful discussions. This
research is funded in part by the Walter Burke Institute for Theoretical Physics at Caltech, by
DOE grant DE-SC0011632, and by the Foundational Questions Institute.
References
[1] J. D. Bekenstein, “Black holes and entropy,” Phys. Rev. D 7 (Apr, 1973) 2333–2346.
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.7.2333.
[2] J. D. Bekenstein, “Universal upper bound on the entropy-to-energy ratio for bounded
systems,” Phys. Rev. D 23 (Jan, 1981) 287–298.
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.23.287.
[3] T. Banks, “Cosmological breaking of supersymmetry?,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A16 (2001)
910–921, arXiv:hep-th/0007146 [hep-th].
[4] E. Witten, “Quantum gravity in de Sitter space,” in Strings 2001: International
Conference Mumbai, India, January 5-10, 2001. 2001. arXiv:hep-th/0106109
[hep-th]. http://alice.cern.ch/format/showfull?sysnb=2259607.
[5] L. Dyson, M. Kleban, and L. Susskind, “Disturbing implications of a cosmological
constant,” JHEP 10 (2002) 011, arXiv:hep-th/0208013.
[6] M. K. Parikh and E. P. Verlinde, “De Sitter holography with a finite number of states,”
JHEP 01 (2005) 054, arXiv:hep-th/0410227 [hep-th].
[7] S. M. Carroll and A. Chatwin-Davies, “Cosmic Equilibration: A Holographic No-Hair
Theorem from the Generalized Second Law,” arXiv:1703.09241 [hep-th].
[8] M. Van Raamsdonk, “Building up spacetime with quantum entanglement,” Gen. Rel.
Grav. 42 (2010) 2323–2329, arXiv:1005.3035 [hep-th]. [Int. J. Mod.
Phys.D19,2429(2010)].
5
[9] C. Cao, S. M. Carroll, and S. Michalakis, “Space from Hilbert Space: Recovering
Geometry from Bulk Entanglement,” Phys. Rev. D95 no. 2, (2017) 024031,
arXiv:1606.08444 [hep-th].
[10] J. S. Cotler, G. R. Penington, and D. H. Ranard, “Locality from the Spectrum,”
arXiv:1702.06142 [quant-ph].
[11] L. Susskind, L. Thorlacius, and J. Uglum, “The Stretched horizon and black hole
complementarity,” Phys. Rev. D48 (1993) 3743–3761, arXiv:hep-th/9306069 [hep-th].
[12] R. Bousso, “A Covariant entropy conjecture,” JHEP 07 (1999) 004,
arXiv:hep-th/9905177 [hep-th].
[13] H. Casini, M. Huerta, and J. A. Rosabal, “Remarks on entanglement entropy for gauge
fields,” Phys. Rev. D89 no. 8, (2014) 085012, arXiv:1312.1183 [hep-th].
[14] D. Harlow, “Wormholes, Emergent Gauge Fields, and the Weak Gravity Conjecture,”
JHEP 01 (2016) 122, arXiv:1510.07911 [hep-th].
[15] D. Marolf, “Emergent Gravity Requires Kinematic Nonlocality,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 114
no. 3, (2015) 031104, arXiv:1409.2509 [hep-th].
[16] S. B. Giddings, “Hilbert space structure in quantum gravity: an algebraic perspective,”
JHEP 12 (2015) 099, arXiv:1503.08207 [hep-th].
[17] W. Donnelly and S. B. Giddings, “Diffeomorphism-invariant observables and their
nonlocal algebra,” Phys. Rev. D93 no. 2, (2016) 024030, arXiv:1507.07921 [hep-th].
[Erratum: Phys. Rev.D94,no.2,029903(2016)].
[18] W. Donnelly and S. B. Giddings, “Observables, gravitational dressing, and obstructions to
locality and subsystems,” Phys. Rev. D94 no. 10, (2016) 104038, arXiv:1607.01025
[hep-th].
[19] C. Barcel, R. Carballo-Rubio, F. Di Filippo, and L. J. Garay, “From physical symmetries
to emergent gauge symmetries,” JHEP 10 (2016) 084, arXiv:1608.07473 [gr-qc].
[20] D. Mattingly, “Modern tests of Lorentz invariance,” Living Rev. Rel. 8 (2005) 5,
arXiv:gr-qc/0502097 [gr-qc].
[21] N. Bao, C. Cao, S. M. Carroll, and L. McAllister, “Quantum Circuit Cosmology: The
Expansion of the Universe Since the First Qubit,” arXiv:1702.06959 [hep-th].
6


The Hilbert Space of Quantum Gravity Is Locally Finite-Dimensional

CALT-TH-2017-17
The Hilbert Space of Quantum Gravity
Is Locally Finite-Dimensional
Ning Bao, Sean M. Carroll, and Ashmeet Singh1
Walter Burke Institute for Theoretical Physics
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125
Abstract
We argue in a model-independent way that the Hilbert space of quantum gravity is locally
finite-dimensional. In other words, the density operator describing the state corresponding
to a small region of space, when such a notion makes sense, is defined on a finite-dimensional
factor of a larger Hilbert space. Because quantum gravity potentially describes superpo-
sitions of different geometries, it is crucial that we associate Hilbert-space factors with
spatial regions only on individual decohered branches of the universal wave function. We
discuss some implications of this claim, including the fact that quantum field theory cannot
be a fundamental description of Nature.
Essay written for the Gravity Research Foundation 2017 Awards for Essays on Gravitation.
1e-mail: ningbao75@gmail.com,seancarroll@gmail.com,ashmeet@theory.caltech.edu
ar
X
iv
:1
70
4.
00
06
6v
1 
 [h
ep
-th
]  
31
 M
ar 
20
17
In quantum field theory, the von Neumann entropy of a compact region of space R is infinite,
because an infinite number of degrees of freedom in the region are entangled with an infinite
number outside. In a theory with gravity, however, if we try to excite these degrees of freedom,
many states collapse to black holes with finite entropy S = A/4G, where A is the horizon
area [1, 2]. It is conceivable that there are degrees of freedom within a black hole that do not
contribute to the entropy. However, if such states were low-energy, the entropy of the black
hole could increase via entanglement, violating the Bekenstein bound. If they are sufficiently
high-energy that they don’t become entangled, exciting them would increase the size of the
black hole, taking it out of the “local region” with which it was associated.
The finiteness of black hole entropy therefore upper bounds the number of degrees of freedom
that can be excited within R, and therefore on the dimensionality of HR, the factor of Hilbert
space associated with R (as the dimensionality of Hilbert space is roughly the exponential of the
number of degrees of freedom). Similarly, a patch of de Sitter space, which arguably represents
an equilibrium configuration of spacetime, has a finite entropy proportional to its horizon area,
indicative of a finite-dimensional Hilbert space [3–7].
The most straightforward interpretation of this situation is that in the true theory of nature,
which includes gravity, any local region is characterized by a finite-dimensional factor of Hilbert
space. Some take this statement as well-established, while others find it obviously wrong. Here
we argue that the straightforward interpretation is most likely correct, even if the current state
of the art prevents us from drawing definitive conclusions.
This discussion begs an important question: what is “the Hilbert space associated with
a region”? Quantum theories describe states in Hilbert space, and notions like “space” and
“locality” should emerge from that fundamental level [8–10]. Our burden is therefore to under-
stand what might be meant by the Hilbert space of a local region, and whether that notion is
well-defined in quantum gravity.
We imagine that the fundamental quantum theory of nature describes a density operator ρ
acting on a Hilbert space HQG. The entanglement structure of near-vacuum states in spacetime
is very specific, so generic states in HQG won’t look like spacetime at all [9, 10]. Rather, in
phenomenologically relevant, far-from-equilibrium states ρ, there will be macroscopic pointer
states representing semiclassical geometries. To that end, we imagine a decomposition
HQG = Hsys ⊗Henv, (1)
where the system factor Hsys will describe a region of space and its associated long-wavelength
fields, and the environment factor Henv is traced over to obtain our system density matrix,
ρsys = Trenv ρ. The environment might include microscopic degrees of freedom that are either
irrelevant or spatially distant. Then decoherence approximately diagonalizes the system density
matrix in the pointer basis,
|Ψa〉 ∈ Hsys, ρsys =
∑
a
pa|Ψa〉〈Ψa|. (2)
2
Σ 1
Σ 2
g
(1)
ij , pi
(1)
ij , |φ(1)
g
(2)
ij , pi
(2)
ij , |φ(2)
|Ψ1 sys
|Ψ1 env|Ψ2 env
|Ψ2 sys
envH sysH
Φ
Φ
Figure 1: On the left, the Hilbert space of quantum gravity is portrayed as a tensor product,
HQG = Hsys⊗Henv, and two decohered branches |Ψa〉sys⊗|Ψa〉env are shown. Under the map Φ,
the system factors of these states map to regions Σa of a semiclassical spacetime background,
on which are defined a spatial metric and its conjugate momentum as well as the quantum state
of an effective field theory.
An emergence map Φ associates decohered branches of the quantum-gravity wave function
with states of an effective field theory defined on a semiclassical background spacetime. In a
space+time decomposition, the emergent theory describes spatial manifolds Σ with 3-metric γij
and conjugate momentum piij, along with a Hilbert space H(Σ)EFT of quantum fields on Σ,
Φ : |Ψa〉 →
{
Σa, g
(a)
ij , pi
(a)
ij , |φ(a)〉
}
, (3)
where |φ(a)〉 ∈ H(Σa)EFT. We don’t insist that Σa be a boundaryless surface; it may simply be a
finite region of space (e.g., the interior of a de Sitter horizon). Horizon complementarity [11]
suggests that there could be a limit on the extent of Σa, perhaps in the form of an entropy
bound a` la Bousso [12].
Now imagine that, in some emergent geometry, we divide Σ into a closed region R and its
exterior R¯. The proposition “a region of space is described by a finite-dimensional factor of
Hilbert space” should be interpreted as the claim that we can decompose the system Hilbert
space in the fundamental theory as Hsys = HR ⊗ HR¯, representing factors describing physics
inside and outside R, such that dimHR is finite. (As is standard with emergent theories, the
map HR ⊗HR¯ → H(Σ)R ⊗H(Σ)R¯ represents an approximation. In particular, our ability to divide
space into two sets of degrees of freedom doesn’t imply that we can continue to subdivide it into
many small regions simultaneously.)
Such a decomposition is familiar in the case of quantum field theories on a fixed spacetime
background. (There may be subtleties due to gauge invariance on the boundary, e.g. [13, 14].)
This is necessitated by the success of locality as an underlying principle of everyday physics. If
a single degree of freedom were accessible both in R and R¯, a unitary operator localized within
R could change the state elsewhere – not in the sense of branching the wave function, but in the
sense of direct superluminal information transfer, as the reduced density matrix ρR¯ = TrR ρsys
would change instantly. Indeed, the notion that we can sensibly talk about the entropy of a
3
black hole implicitly assumes this kind of locality.
A complication could arise due to the fact that gravity is a long-range force coupled to a
conserved charge (mass-energy) that is always positive [15–18]. Any operator with nonzero
energy or other conserved Poincare´ charges is “dressed” by a gravitational field stretching out
to infinity, representing an apparent obstacle to localization. In particular, diffeomorphism-
invariant operators are considered from the start.
A locally-finite theory, however, need not give rise directly to a diffeomorphism-invariant
description of gravity. The fundamental description could correspond to a particular gauge, in
which the symmetries of the theory weren’t manifest, even though they could be restored once
the effective theory had emerged. It is dangerous to start with symmetries of the sought-after
continuum theory, defined in the context of an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space, and demand
that they be present at the discrete level; all that we should require is that crucial physical
properties ultimately emerge (e.g. [19]).
From our perspective, gravitational dressing is not inconsistent with localizing a finite number
of degrees of freedom within a region of space. (Even the notion of “at infinity” is unlikely to
be well-defined as a statement about HQG, but we won’t rely on that loophole.) Rather, there
are superselection sectors corresponding to total gauge charges, including energy; operators that
change the total energy connect one quantum-gravity pointer state to a state with a different
energy. Such operators are not necessary for describing the local dynamics, which can be
captured entirely by operators that commute with global charges; physical changes in the local
state of a system are not instantaneously communicated to infinity. Equivalently, there is no
obstacle to decomposing the Hamiltonian into a term acting only within R, one acting only
within R¯, and an interaction defined by a sum of tensor products of such local operators. When
working in any one such sector, then, we are allowed to factorize our system Hilbert space as
Hsys = HR ⊗HR¯.
Given the validity of this factorization, the finite dimensionality ofHR follows from the black-
hole arguments above, with one consideration: when we attempt to excite degrees of freedom
until we reach a black hole, we shouldn’t consider operators that change the Poincare´ charges at
infinity. This is no problem; it is easy enough to imagine creating black holes simply by moving
around existing mass/energy within the state (as actually happens in the real world when black
holes are created). The upper bound from black-hole entropy on the number of ways this could
happen implies an upper bound on the effective degrees of freedom, and therefore on dimHsys.
We therefore conclude that it is sensible to associate factors of Hilbert space with regions
of space, at the level of individual branches representing semiclassical spacetimes, and that
such factors have finite dimensionality. There are well-known obstacles to constructing phe-
nomenological acceptable theories with finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, including a lack of
exact Lorentz invariance. It is therefore imperative to investigate whether such features can
arise in an approximate fashion without violating experimental bounds [20].
4
Locally finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces entail a number of consequences. This perspective
suggests new tools for investigating the behavior of quantum spacetime, such as the quantum-
circuit approach [21]. It also implies an attitude toward ultraviolet divergences in quantum
gravity: there are no such divergences, as there are only finitely many degrees of freedom
locally. The cosmological constant problem becomes the question of why the factor associated
with our de Sitter patch has its particular large, finite dimensionality, exp(10122) [3]; perhaps
other fine-tuning questions, such as the hierarchy problem, can be similarly recast.
Acknowledgments
We thank Scott Aaronson, Steven Giddings, and John Preskill for helpful discussions. This
research is funded in part by the Walter Burke Institute for Theoretical Physics at Caltech, by
DOE grant DE-SC0011632, and by the Foundational Questions Institute.
References
[1] J. D. Bekenstein, “Black holes and entropy,” Phys. Rev. D 7 (Apr, 1973) 2333–2346.
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.7.2333.
[2] J. D. Bekenstein, “Universal upper bound on the entropy-to-energy ratio for bounded
systems,” Phys. Rev. D 23 (Jan, 1981) 287–298.
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.23.287.
[3] T. Banks, “Cosmological breaking of supersymmetry?,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A16 (2001)
910–921, arXiv:hep-th/0007146 [hep-th].
[4] E. Witten, “Quantum gravity in de Sitter space,” in Strings 2001: International
Conference Mumbai, India, January 5-10, 2001. 2001. arXiv:hep-th/0106109
[hep-th]. http://alice.cern.ch/format/showfull?sysnb=2259607.
[5] L. Dyson, M. Kleban, and L. Susskind, “Disturbing implications of a cosmological
constant,” JHEP 10 (2002) 011, arXiv:hep-th/0208013.
[6] M. K. Parikh and E. P. Verlinde, “De Sitter holography with a finite number of states,”
JHEP 01 (2005) 054, arXiv:hep-th/0410227 [hep-th].
[7] S. M. Carroll and A. Chatwin-Davies, “Cosmic Equilibration: A Holographic No-Hair
Theorem from the Generalized Second Law,” arXiv:1703.09241 [hep-th].
[8] M. Van Raamsdonk, “Building up spacetime with quantum entanglement,” Gen. Rel.
Grav. 42 (2010) 2323–2329, arXiv:1005.3035 [hep-th]. [Int. J. Mod.
Phys.D19,2429(2010)].
5
[9] C. Cao, S. M. Carroll, and S. Michalakis, “Space from Hilbert Space: Recovering
Geometry from Bulk Entanglement,” Phys. Rev. D95 no. 2, (2017) 024031,
arXiv:1606.08444 [hep-th].
[10] J. S. Cotler, G. R. Penington, and D. H. Ranard, “Locality from the Spectrum,”
arXiv:1702.06142 [quant-ph].
[11] L. Susskind, L. Thorlacius, and J. Uglum, “The Stretched horizon and black hole
complementarity,” Phys. Rev. D48 (1993) 3743–3761, arXiv:hep-th/9306069 [hep-th].
[12] R. Bousso, “A Covariant entropy conjecture,” JHEP 07 (1999) 004,
arXiv:hep-th/9905177 [hep-th].
[13] H. Casini, M. Huerta, and J. A. Rosabal, “Remarks on entanglement entropy for gauge
fields,” Phys. Rev. D89 no. 8, (2014) 085012, arXiv:1312.1183 [hep-th].
[14] D. Harlow, “Wormholes, Emergent Gauge Fields, and the Weak Gravity Conjecture,”
JHEP 01 (2016) 122, arXiv:1510.07911 [hep-th].
[15] D. Marolf, “Emergent Gravity Requires Kinematic Nonlocality,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 114
no. 3, (2015) 031104, arXiv:1409.2509 [hep-th].
[16] S. B. Giddings, “Hilbert space structure in quantum gravity: an algebraic perspective,”
JHEP 12 (2015) 099, arXiv:1503.08207 [hep-th].
[17] W. Donnelly and S. B. Giddings, “Diffeomorphism-invariant observables and their
nonlocal algebra,” Phys. Rev. D93 no. 2, (2016) 024030, arXiv:1507.07921 [hep-th].
[Erratum: Phys. Rev.D94,no.2,029903(2016)].
[18] W. Donnelly and S. B. Giddings, “Observables, gravitational dressing, and obstructions to
locality and subsystems,” Phys. Rev. D94 no. 10, (2016) 104038, arXiv:1607.01025
[hep-th].
[19] C. Barcel, R. Carballo-Rubio, F. Di Filippo, and L. J. Garay, “From physical symmetries
to emergent gauge symmetries,” JHEP 10 (2016) 084, arXiv:1608.07473 [gr-qc].
[20] D. Mattingly, “Modern tests of Lorentz invariance,” Living Rev. Rel. 8 (2005) 5,
arXiv:gr-qc/0502097 [gr-qc].
[21] N. Bao, C. Cao, S. M. Carroll, and L. McAllister, “Quantum Circuit Cosmology: The
Expansion of the Universe Since the First Qubit,” arXiv:1702.06959 [hep-th].
6


https://authors.library.caltech.edu/77018/1/1704.00066.pdf

The Hilbert Space of Quantum Gravity Is Locally Finite-Dimensional

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Caltech Authors - Main

Caltech Authors - Main