Understanding of complex networks could help unify gravity and quantum mechanics

September 10, 2015
Credit: QMUL

Mathematicians investigating one of science's great questions—how to unite the physics of the very big with that of the very small—have discovered that when the understanding of complex networks such as the brain or the Internet is applied to geometry the results match up with quantum behavior.

The findings, published today in Scientific Reports, by researchers from Queen Mary University of London and Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, could explain one of the great problems in .

Currently ideas of gravity, developed by Einstein and Newton, explain how physics operates on a very large scale, but do not work at the sub-atomic level. Conversely, quantum mechanics works on the very small scale but does not explain the interactions of larger objects like stars. Scientists are looking for a so called 'grand unified theory' that joins the two, known as .

Several models have been proposed for how different quantum spaces are linked but most assume that the links between quantum spaces are fairly uniform, with little deviation from the average number of links between each space. The new model, which applies ideas from the theory of , has found that some quantum spaces might actually include hubs, i.e. nodes with significantly more links than others, like a particularly popular Facebook user.

Calculations run with this model show that these spaces are described by well-known quantum Fermi-Dirac, and Bose-Einstein statistics, used in , indicating that they could be useful to physicists working on quantum gravity.

Dr Ginestra Bianconi, from Queen Mary University of London, and lead author of the paper, said:

"We hope that by applying our understanding of complex networks to one of the fundamental questions in physics we might be able to help explain how discrete quantum spaces emerge.

An image illustrating the different dimensions of Complex Quantum Network Manifolds. Annotations in other image. Credit: QMUL

"What we can see is that space-time at the quantum-scale might be networked in a very similar way to things we are starting to understand very well like biological networks in cells, our brains and ."

Explore further: Einstein saves the quantum cat

More information: The paper 'Complex Quantum Network Manifolds in Dimension d>2 are Scale-Free' (2015) Ginestra Bianconi and Christoph Rahmede will be published by Scientific Reports on Thursday 10 September 2015.

Related Stories

Einstein saves the quantum cat

June 16, 2015

Einstein's theory of time and space will celebrate its 100th anniversary this year. Even today it captures the imagination of scientists. In an international collaboration, researchers from the universities of Vienna, Harvard ...

How spacetime is built by quantum entanglement

May 27, 2015

A collaboration of physicists and a mathematician has made a significant step toward unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics by explaining how spacetime emerges from quantum entanglement in a more fundamental theory. ...

Seeing quantum motion

August 28, 2015

Consider the pendulum of a grandfather clock. If you forget to wind it, you will eventually find the pendulum at rest, unmoving. However, this simple observation is only valid at the level of classical physics—the laws ...

Recommended for you

Using optical chaos to control the momentum of light

October 19, 2017

Integrated photonic circuits, which rely on light rather than electrons to move information, promise to revolutionize communications, sensing and data processing. But controlling and moving light poses serious challenges. ...

Black butterfly wings offer a model for better solar cells

October 19, 2017

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers with California Institute of Technology and the Karlsruh Institute of Technology has improved the efficiency of thin film solar cells by mimicking the architecture of rose butterfly wings. ...

Terahertz spectroscopy goes nano

October 19, 2017

Brown University researchers have demonstrated a way to bring a powerful form of spectroscopy—a technique used to study a wide variety of materials—into the nano-world.

32 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

thefurlong
5 / 5 (9) Sep 10, 2015
Here is the pre-print:

http://arxiv.org/...48v1.pdf
docile
Sep 10, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 10, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 10, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (10) Sep 10, 2015
The physical objects from smallest to largest are running the behavior programs. This is the reason why Newtonian gravity can not explain the behavior of distant cosmic objects. The are running slightly different programs and in any moment can be preprogrammed by the God's will. Gravity can be universal phenomena but how far objects will respond to it depends on the their behavior programs set by the universal divine matrix.
docile
Sep 10, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 10, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 10, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 10, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 10, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
arom
Sep 10, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
david_gold
1 / 5 (2) Sep 11, 2015
Taken over a grand scale Dark Matter links galaxies, galactic clusters and superclusters in an overall fibrous megastructure that appears very similar to the network presented in this article. Also is remarkably similar to my solution for quantum gravity in which reconciles the microscopic with the macroscopic; that ultimately unites the extreme classical scale of the universe, with its structural formations and containment, to a process that originates at the utmost quantum scale.

http://www.scienc...cale.pdf
docile
Sep 11, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (11) Sep 12, 2015
In AWT
this is called PSEUDOSCIENCE

your aw BELIEF can be proven to be completely false as well, with a simple link: http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf

until you can provide evidence that is equivalent to the above, with the accuracy of the above, validated repeatedly, like above, then you are simply promoting a KNOWN LIE with a religious tenacity that is considered fanaticism
docile
Sep 12, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (12) Sep 12, 2015
Dispute ...with them
@docile/ZEPHIR
why would i want to dispute the fact that your aw/daw BS is your religion and that you are promoting pseudoscience with a modern physicist?

specifically when they're NOT promoting aw/daw... however, you are!
so facts are simple to produce re: aw/daw

this link is a VALIDATED STUDY: http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf

it proves your aw/daw is falsified, to a very high degree, so when you say
I can only explain, how and why their models are working
this is like saying:
god did it

IOW- you have NO empirical evidence
NO studies
NOTHING at all!!!!

you are simply saying: LOOKY HERE... this must mean aw/daw is right!
you can't actually PROVE anything!
it is assumption on your part because you don't understand physics
(Dunning-Kruger)
and you promote pseudoscience like a religion
docile
Sep 12, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (11) Sep 13, 2015
Your validated study proves anything
@docile/ZEPHIR
the validated study very specifically shows, with evidence that has been repeated and validated, that your aw/daw cannot exist

it specifically demonstrates (again) that your belief in aw/daw is just another faith based upon your hopes and dreams...

that is not "proves anything"... it is a very specific proof that your delusion cannot exist: it also specifically offers evidence that you cannot refute with anything but a claim
your personal interpretations of the evidence you linked (in the wiki page) do not constitute evidence or support for aw/daw

the difference is simple: the scientific method works
your speculations are nothing but the tenacious clinging to a belief despite the evidence produced, thus you are promoting religion, not science
docile
Sep 13, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 13, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 14, 2015
Why the scientists
@docile/ZEPHIR
1- that link is Roger J Anderton, not Wilzek
2-it is conjecture not validated
3- it isn't a study, it is opinion with references
4- talking about something or hypothesizing is NOT validation nor proof of your claims
my posts about it are still deleted from anonymous forum
1- what does $$ have to do with it?
2- that is because PSEUDOSCIENCE is deleted- probably in the rules: try reading them and actually complying for once
but currently we have no method how to enforce the mainstream scientists into its following in most effective way
you mean, you don't have a way to force them to follow the method YOU want them to follow (conspiracy ideation) thus you will call it pluralistic ignorance (Dunning-Kruger) because you can't actually produce empirical evidence and get a study validated to prove a point (pseudoscience)
IOW- you post pseudoscience and get mad because it is not accepted as legit science
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 14, 2015
Why the scientists (including Nobelists like Wilzek) talk about aether
@docile/ZEPHIR
more on this point: Sean Carroll has also talked about Star Trek and some other Sci-Fi movies... does that mean, even though he references them in his blog, that it is validated physics?
NO!
this is the problem with you and your aw/daw! you CLAIM, you CONJECTURE, you POST, you OPINE, you BLOG, you REDDIT...
BUT YOU DON'T PROVIDE EVIDENCE!
It's sorta Utopian recommendation in similar way
no, it is nowhere close to Utopian anything
it is a methodology for validating and repeating things to build knowledge and present things that the layman would call FACTS because it can be repeatedly demonstrated

it is a method to build knowledge
it is NOT utopia... that is your delusional belief
and the reason you have this distorted analogy is because you are a "true believer" in your own religion of aw/daw... when evidence refutes it, you IGNORE THE EVIDENCE
just like any religious fanatic
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 14, 2015
lastly @ZEPHIR... nothign shows your ignorance of the scientific method than this quote
At the moment, when some method doesn't provide the method of its enforcing and supervision, it's not so perfect anymore
even with the retractions... it is the best method and it is incredibly effective.

you should do the math for yourself: statistically speaking, a miniscule number of papers are retracted... that shows it WORKS

your problem is that it will not allow pseudoscience to be equivalent to science

this is proven every time you rant about cf, aw/daw, your water ripples transverse water strider waves longitudinally skipping rocks in a pond because WTF

just because you don't understand physics doesn't mean no one else does
that's your DUNNING KRUGER

PS
uprating yourself with your socks doesn't make you any more correct than standing in a field makes you a cow

downrating with them proves you are stupid
EVIDENCE is what you need... not sock armies
docile
Sep 14, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 14, 2015
BTW Captain, you should update the link for your study
@ZEPHIR
there is no need... for a simple reason... the study i linked is VALIDATED... anything else that you can link will only support my link with further evidence

so, my link works well because it isn't just "the latest paper".. it is validated.

this is one of your basic problems, BTW... you like to think anything that is even talked about is valid scientific research (hence your link to a blog or paper discussing someone else's opinions, etc)

because you refuse to accept validated scientific evidence as real, then you are the one displaying not only "pluralistic ignorance"... but also Dunning Kruger.

how can you actually comprehend science when you don't comprehend what valid evidence is?

the rest of your post is your Dunning-Kruger & delusion in action
you are reaching for ANYTHING that will let you keep your religions like beliefs sound in your mind
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2015
IMO it could be said reliably, that the (motion of) aether remains undetectable with microwaves
@ZEPHIR
at least you admit this is opinion... problem is: NO EVIDENCE
The dense aether model also predicts zero result just for CMBR wavelength
and again... you have NO EVIDENCE

also, you need to think about either getting a new spell/grammar check or translator... per your post and last quote: that means that simply having a CMBR refutes your daw religion... if it "predicts zero result ...CMBR" then there should be no CMBR per your post, therefore, because we see CMBR, we know your argument is invalid

AGAIN... evidence says your religious like belief is invalid because you have NONE
therefore, posting about it is simply proselytizing
docile
Sep 14, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 14, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Sep 15, 2015
what do you think about this, for example?
@ZEPHIR
1- it is an ARTICLE, not a study, for starters
2- it says MIGHT right in the title
3- it doesn't present empirical evidence no more than linking to reddit and your personal site constitutes peer reviewed studies
THAT is what i think about that link, and as for what the researchers think... i don't CARE what they think. that is called trying to bring interest into the subject. so what if they use colour to explain or describe something... we know the sun is not a "golden orb", yet is has been used to adequately describe it in literature... this is NO DIFFERENT, IMHO

evidence is the hey here, and your evidence is lacking
it is also all subjective in based upon your interpretation of it
plus, there is your continued conspiracist ideation... the world is not conspiring against you, zephir, it is just that SCIENCE requires evidence different than "i think" or "perhaps"
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Sep 15, 2015
@ZEPHIR cont'd
Apparently physicists don't give a sh*t, what some retired fire fighters believe in - they just derive stuffs...
and that was supposed to hurt my feelings?
do you expect me to take hours out of my life and create a sock army and downvote you like you did here http://phys.org/n...ons.html ????

this is a failing of yours: you assume that other people think like you do
THEY DON'T
this is your Dunning-Kruger and pluralistic ignorance... this isn't Reddit or 4chan, this is a SCIENCE site, you know... where evidence and validated studies trump religion or pseudoscience?

just because it is talked about doesn't mean it is real... otherwise you would be running around with DarkWing Duck and playing with faeries
docile
Sep 15, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2015
So why we aren't discussing the scientific articles and ideas here?
@ZEPHIR
well, to start with... in order for us to discuss SCIENCE, there must be criteria:
https://en.wikipe.../Science

there must be methodology: https://en.wikipe...c_method

you say that you post "ideas"? but you are the absolute worst violator of the posting guidelines... but you want to argue that any refute to yours is "complete OT BS"...

WHY?
https://en.wikipe...oscience

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is incorrectly presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status
this describes 99.9% of all your posts

WHY IS IT OK FOR YOU TO POST but not OK to point out that it is pseudoscience?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.