CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 98Noncommutative and Quantum Gravity TheoriesRelativity and Gravitational TheoryAdvanced Operator Algebra Research

Discreteness without symmetry breaking: a theorem

Open access
Bombelli, Luca, Henson, Joe, Sorkin, Rafael D.·2006·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.gr-qc/0605006arXiv gr-qc/0605006
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This paper concerns sprinklings into Minkowski space (Poisson processes). It proves that there exists no equivariant measurable map from sprinklings to spacetime directions (even locally). Therefore, if a discrete structure is associated to a sprinkling in an intrinsic manner, then the structure will not pick out a preferred frame, locally or globally. This implies that the discreteness of a sprinkled causal set will not give rise to ``Lorentz breaking'' effects like modified dispersion relations. Another consequence is that there is no way to associate a finite-valency graph to a sprinkling consistently with Lorentz invariance.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.gr-qc/0605006

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Lorentz invariance is preserved exactly by the causal set.

    “In this sense, Lorentz invariance is preserved exactly by the causal set, and one sees again how artificial would be its decomposition into any sequence of antichains or other analogs of space-at-a-moment-of-time.”

    From Relativity Theory Does Not Imply that the Future Already Exists: A Counterexample (2007) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Introduction (pp. 1–3) says causal-set sprinkling is Lorentz invariant and that Lorentz invariance is recovered in the effective continuum description. The theorem (p. 5) rules out extracting a preferred frame from a sprinkling. The claim’s unqualified “preserved exactly by the causal set” goes beyond that specified sense of invariance: the paper distinguishes invariance of the sprinkling process from invariance of an individual outcome. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • With probability unity, it is impossible to deduce a distinguished timelike direction from the embedding of a causal set randomly embedded in Minkowski space M4.

    “With respect to the Poisson probability-measure one can then prove that, with probability unity, it is impossible to deduce a distinguished timelike direction from the embedding [8].”

    From Relativity Theory Does Not Imply that the Future Already Exists: A Counterexample (2007) · cites this paper as [8]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [2][2] R. D. Sorkin, (2003), gr-qc/0309009. - · arXiv
  2. [3][3] J. Henson, (2006), gr-qc/0601121, extended version of a review to be published in 'Approaches to Quantum Gravity: Towards a New Understanding of Space and Time'. Edited by D. Oriti. Cambridge University Press, 2006. - · arXiv
  3. [4][4] L. Bombelli, A. Corichi, and O. Winkler, (2004), gr-qc/0409006. - · arXiv
  4. [6][6] D. Stoyan, W. Kendall, and J. Mecke, Stochastic geometry and its applications , 2nd ed. (Wiley, 1995), chap. 2. -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bombelli, L., Henson, J., & Sorkin, R. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Mississippi (US)
  • Perimeter Institute (CA)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2006
Volume
24
Issue
32
Pages
2579-2587
ISSN
0217-7323 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.gr-qc/0605006
arXiv
gr-qc/0605006
OpenAlex
W1980756322
Cited by
97
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/assumed-1991-2003/
Locations
  • Modern Physics Letters A (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Noncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Relativity and Gravitational Theory
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Mathematical Physics › Advanced Operator Algebra Research
Keywords
causal sets, Poisson point process, Minkowski space, Lorentz invariance, preferred frame, modified dispersion relations, discreteness, symmetry breaking

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review