Feb 17, 2015
Stephen Hawking described it as the most spectacular failure of any physical theory in history. Can a new theory of information rescue cosmologists?
One of the biggest puzzles in science is the cosmological constant paradox. This arises when physicists attempt to calculate the energy density of the universe from first principles. Using quantum mechanics, the number they come up with is 10^94 g/cm^3.
And yet the observed energy density, calculated from the density of mass in the cosmos and the way the universe is expanding, is about 10^-27 g/cm^3. In other words, our best theory of the universe misses the mark by 120 orders of magnitude.
That’s left cosmologists somewhat red-faced. Indeed, Stephen Hawking has famously described this as the most spectacular failure of any physical theory in history. This huge discrepancy is all the more puzzling because quantum mechanics makes such accurate predictions in other circumstances. Just why it goes so badly wrong here is unknown.
Today, Chris Fields, an independent researcher formerly with New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, puts forward a simple explanation. His idea is that the discrepancy arises because large objects, such as planets and stars, behave classically rather than demonstrating quantum properties. And he’s provided some simple calculations to make his case.
One of the key properties of quantum objects is that they can exist in a superposition of states until they are observed. When that happens, these many possibilities “collapse” and become one specific outcome, a process known as quantum decoherence.
For example, a photon can be in a superposition of states that allow it to be in several places at the same time. However, as soon as the photon is observed the superposition decoheres and the photon appears in one place.
This process of decoherence must apply to everything that has a specific position, says Fields. Even to large objects such as stars, whose position is known with respect to the cosmic microwave background, the echo of the big bang which fills the universe.
In fact, Fields argues that it is the interaction between the cosmic microwave background and all large objects in the universe that causes them to decohere giving them specific positions which astronomers observe.
But there is an important consequence from having a specific position — there must be some information associated with this location in 3D space. If a location is unknown, then the amount of information must be small. But if it is known with precision, the information content is much higher.
And given that there are some 10^25 stars in the universe, that’s a lot of information. Fields calculates that encoding the location of each star to within 10 cubic kilometres requires some 10^93 bits.
That immediately leads to an entirely new way of determining the energy density of the cosmos. Back in the 1960s, the physicist Rolf Landauer suggested that every bit of information had an energy associated with it, an idea that has gained considerable traction since then.
So Fields uses Landauer’s principle to calculate the energy associated with the locations of all the stars in the universe. This turns out to be about 10^-30 g /cm^3, very similar to the observed energy density of the universe.
But here’s the thing. That calculation requires the position of each star to be encoded only to within 10 km^3. Fields also asks how much information is required to encode the position of stars to the much higher resolution associated with the Planck length. “Encoding 10^25 stellar positions at [the Planck length] would incur a free-energy cost ∼ 10^117 larger than that found here,” he says.
That difference is remarkably similar to the 120 orders of magnitude discrepancy between the observed energy density and that calculated using quantum mechanics. Indeed, Fields says that the discrepancy arises because the positions of the stars can be accounted for using quantum mechanics. “It seems reasonable to suggest that the discrepancy between these numbers may be due to the assumption that encoding classical information at [the Planck scale] can be considered physically meaningful.”
That’s a fascinating result that raises important questions about the nature of reality. First, there is the hint in Fields’ ideas that information provides the ghostly bedrock on which the laws of physics are based. That’s an idea that has gained traction among other physicists too.
Then there is the role of energy. One important question is where this energy might have come from in the first place. The process of decoherence seems to create it from nothing.
Cosmologists generally overlook violations of the principle of conservation of energy. After all, the big bang itself is the biggest offender. So don’t expect much hand wringing over this. But Fields’ approach also implies that a purely quantum universe would have an energy density of zero, since nothing would have localised position. That’s bizarre.
Beyond this is the even deeper question of how the universe came to be classical at all, given that cosmologists would have us believe that the big bang was a quantum process. Fields suggests that it is the interaction between the cosmic microwave background and the rest of the universe that causes the quantum nature of the universe to decohere and become classical.
Perhaps. What is all too clear is that there are fundamental and fascinating problems in cosmology — and the role that information plays in reality.
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1502.03424 : Is Dark Energy An Artifact Of Decoherence?