Spacetime granularity from finite-dimensionality of local observable algebras

Matti Raasakka

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 42 references

Spacetime granularity from finite-dimensionality of local observable algebras

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that finite-dimensional local physics forces spacetime to be granular, with no points at the fundamental scale.

desk verdict Paper's core lattice is built on two false closure claims; the framework is interesting but the main result does not follow as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09293 v3 pith:LR5XQACT submitted 2019-08-25 gr-qc hep-th

Matti Raasakka This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qchep-th

keywords locallyfinite-dimensionalphysicslocalobservablealgebrasspacetimegranularityatomisticBooleanalgebraoperationaltopologypoint-freeminimalregionslatticeofsubfactors

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper's aim is to show that local finite-dimensionality of physics—the idea that any bounded region has a finite-dimensional Hilbert space of states—forces spacetime to be granular at small scales. Working in the operator-algebraic approach, it treats a spacetime region as operationally defined by the algebra of observables localized there, so the inclusion order of regions must match the inclusion order of algebras. Under three assumptions (finite-dimensional factor algebras, intersections of local algebras local, commutants of local algebras local), the lattice of causally complete regions becomes atomistic, and the paper proves the resulting spacetime topology is an atomistic Boolean algebra isomorphic to the lattice of subsets of minimal regions. If correct, this gives a general reason why spacetime points and lower-dimensional boundaries should be emergent rather than fundamental, with the continuum recovered only as an infinite-dimensional limit.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the order-isomorphism $L_{\mathrm{cc}}(\mathcal{O}) \cong L_{\mathrm{alg}}(\mathcal{O})$ (Assumption 2.1) together with the construction of the frame $L^{**}_{\mathrm{ds}}(L)$ of double-pseudo-complemented down-sets, which the paper identifies with the topology $\mathcal{T}(\mathcal{O})$ (Proposition 2.2). In the finite-dimensional setting the atoms are the minimal matrix subfactors: the proof that the subfactor lattice $L_{\mathrm{sub}}(M_n)$ is atomistic, combined with closure under intersections and commutants (Assumptions 3.2 and 3.3), makes $L_{\mathrm{alg}}(\mathcal{O})$ atomistic. Proposition 3.5 then transfers this to spacetime by identifying $\mathcal{T}(\mathcal{O})$ with the Boolean lattice of subsets of atoms.

What would settle it

Constructing a locally finite-dimensional model that satisfies Assumptions 3.1–3.3 but contains a bounded region with no minimal nonempty causally complete subregion—or two minimal regions with nonempty intersection—would directly contradict the atomistic Boolean topology. A narrower test is also built into the paper: dropping only the commutant-locality assumption (3.3) leaves an atomic but not necessarily Boolean frame, so a finite-dimensional gauge-theoretic example with nonlocal commutants would show exactly where granularity but not Boolean topology survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the operational topology of spacetime is controlled by the lattice of local observable algebras, and in the locally finite-dimensional case this topology is an atomistic Boolean algebra. The paper proves (Propositions 3.4 and 3.5) that for any complete atomistic lattice $L$, the frame $L^{**}_{\mathrm{ds}}(L)$ of double-pseudo-complemented down-sets is an atomistic Boolean algebra, isomorphic to the lattice of subsets of the atoms of $L$. Because Assumptions 3.1–3.3 make $L_{\mathrm{alg}}(\mathcal{O})$ complete, complemented, and atomistic, and Assumption 2.1 identifies it with $L_{\mathrm{cc}}(\mathcal{O})$, every causally complete region is the causal completion of finitely many minimal regions; minimal regions are pairwise disjoint; and all regions are clopen, so points and lower-dimensional boundaries do not exist at the fundamental level.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the lattice of causally complete regions is order-isomorphic to the lattice of local observable algebras (Assumption 2.1) is the bridge that turns algebraic atomicity into spacetime granularity; if region inclusions are not mirrored by algebra inclusions in a realistic finite-dimensional theory, the conclusion stops following.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every causally complete region in $\mathcal{O}$ is a finite join of minimal regions, so region structure is combinatorial rather than continuous at the fundamental scale.
Minimal regions have pairwise empty intersection and finite volume, so they behave like point-like cells even though points as such do not exist.
Because the topology is complemented and atomic, every region and its complement are both open; no lower-dimensional boundary can be defined between adjacent regions.
Completely prime filters—the order-theoretic stand-ins for spacetime points—are in one-to-one correspondence with minimal regions, not with points, so the usual notion of point is replaced by a finite-volume atom.
The continuum topology of ordinary quantum field theory is recovered only in the infinite-dimensional limit, where the atoms and their Boolean structure are no longer visible.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Beyond the paper, the atomistic Boolean structure supplies a natural finite counting measure: the number of atoms in a region is a combinatorial "volume," and if local finite-dimensionality is rooted in entropy bounds, one would expect this count to scale with area or volume. An explicit model could test that scaling.
Beyond the paper, because the atomic decomposition of a region is generally not unique (different tensor-product factorizations can realize different atom sets), the granular division may be a kind of gauge freedom; a concrete model could check whether all physical predictions are invariant under changing the atomic decomposition.
Beyond the paper, the coexistence of clopen minimal cells with continuous transformations among regions suggests a hybrid of discreteness and continuity that is more specific than ordinary lattice discretizations; building a concrete locally finite-dimensional model would let one see which of these two features, if either, survives dynamical constraints.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear Colleague,

The paper has two serious mathematical gaps, and you should know about both before reading. The first is Definition 2.4, which asserts that the intersection of two causally complete open regions is again causally complete. That is false: in 1+1 Minkowski, two overlapping causal diamonds have an intersection whose double causal complement is a strictly larger diamond. So Lcc(O) is not closed under the stated meet, and Assumption 2.1—the isomorphism between Lcc(O) and Lalg(O)—is not well-posed. The second is the assertion in Section 3.2 that the intersection of two subfactors is always a subfactor. That is also false even in finite dimensions: in M4, the subfactor M2⊗I and a twisted copy of M2 have an intersection isomorphic to C^2, which is not a factor. So the lattice of subfactors Lsub(A) is not actually a lattice under set-theoretic intersection.

These are load-bearing flaws. The entire derivation of atomistic Boolean spacetime topology passes through these two closure claims. If you repair the first by taking the meet as causal completion of the intersection, the order-isomorphism with Lalg(O) is no longer automatic. If you repair the second by adding the intersection-of-local-subfactors-is-a-factor as a new assumption, you need to justify it physically.

The paper still has value: the idea of extracting spacetime topology via double-pseudo-complementation of the observable-algebra net is interesting, and the pure lattice-theory part (Propositions 3.1–3.5, taken as abstract statements) is largely sound. The author is also honest about the speculative physical status. But as written, the central claim is not proven.

Who should read it? People working on algebraic approaches to quantum gravity might find the framework worth discussing, and the errors are instructive. It deserves a serious referee who can untangle the lattice-theoretic repairs, but it should not be accepted in this form. Send it to peer review with a major-revision recommendation.

Best,

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper derives a topological consequence of local finite-dimensionality in algebraic quantum field theory. It assumes that local observable algebras are finite-dimensional factors, that intersections of local algebras are local, and that commutants of local algebras are local (Assumptions 3.1–3.3). It then argues from subfactor-lattice theory that the lattice Lalg(O) of local subfactors is complete, complemented, and atomistic; via Assumption 2.1 (Lcc(O) ≅ Lalg(O)) and a claimed reconstruction of the topology T(O) from the lattice of causally complete regions, it concludes that the operational topology of spacetime is an atomistic Boolean algebra, so spacetime has a point-free granular structure of minimal finite-volume regions. The main mathematical bridge is Proposition 2.2, which identifies T(O) with the double-pseudo-complemented down-set frame of Lcc(O). I note that the specific concern that Definition 2.4 is false does not land: for causally complete A,B, monotonicity of causal completion gives (A∩B)'' ⊆ A'' = A and similarly for B, hence equality, so the intersection is causally complete.

Significance. If the conclusion were established, the result would be a striking and rare example of a robust structural consequence (granularity, absence of lower-dimensional boundaries) following from finite-dimensionality plus locality assumptions, without fitted parameters or post-hoc exclusions. The paper's explicit axiomatic style, the absence of free parameters in the derivation, and the use of lattice theory (subfactor lattices of matrix algebras, atomisticity, double-pseudo-complement frames) are genuine strengths. The claim is falsifiable in principle by constructing a concrete locally finite-dimensional model whose infinite-dimensional limit reproduces a QFT. However, the validity of the central topological identification determines whether the conclusion applies to the usual topology of spacetime; the current gap makes the result unproven as stated. The underlying algebraic propositions, especially Propositions 3.1–3.5, appear largely correct and are potentially reusable.

major comments (2)

[Section 2, Proposition 2.2] The claimed isomorphism T(O) ≅ L**ds(Lcc(O)) is false as stated. Let p ∈ O and U = O\{p}, and put ω = φ(U) = {A ∈ Lcc(O) : A ⊆ U}. Since U is dense in O, the only causally complete open region disjoint from U is empty, so ω* = {∅} and hence ω** is the whole down-set lattice, whereas O ∉ ω. Thus φ(U) is not **-closed and U is not in the image of φ. The proof's step 'ω** = φ(χ(ω))' effectively replaces χ(ω) by int(cl(χ(ω))), i.e., it assumes every open set in the image of χ is regular open; this is false in any non-discrete Lorentzian spacetime. Because Section 3 relies on this identification to conclude that the topology T(O) is an atomistic Boolean algebra, the main physical conclusion is not established as stated. A correct statement would involve the regular-open (Booleanization) frame rather than the frame of all open subsets, unless the notion of operational topology is explicitly redefined.
[Section 3.3 and Section 4] The granularity conclusion 'there are no lower-dimensional boundaries' and the point interpretation via completely prime filters depend on the same identification of T(O) with L**ds(Lcc(O)). In the standard topology, the excluded example U = O\{p} is an open region whose closure contains the removed point; in the regular-open frame, such non-regular opens are identified away. The paper should either replace T(O) throughout by the regular-open frame and re-examine the QFT 'points recovered' discussion (the regular-open algebra of a connected non-discrete spacetime has no completely prime filters), or give a physically motivated argument that only regular-open regions are operationally accessible. Without this, Proposition 3.4 establishes granularity of an algebraic frame, not of the spacetime topology asserted in the abstract.

minor comments (4)

[Definition 2.7] The displayed definitions of meet and join in L**ds(L) are interchanged: the meet should be intersection and the join should be the double-pseudo-complement of the union.
[Introduction] There are several typographical errors, including 'a rising' (should be 'arising'), 'suppress la Jacobson' (apparently garbled), and similar slips that should be corrected in a revision.
[Corollary 3.1] The statement 'the intersection of any two minimal spacetime regions is empty' should specify 'distinct' minimal regions; otherwise it is trivially false when A1 = A2.
[Assumption 2.1] The map A is already surjective onto Lalg(O) by construction, so the wording 'since this map is bijective' is slightly misleading; the substantive content is the order-isomorphism, which should be stated as the assumption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the granularity conclusion is a conditional lattice-theoretic derivation from explicit postulates, with no fitted parameters or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained in the sense relevant to circularity. Assumption 2.1 postulates Lcc(O) is isomorphic to Lalg(O); Assumptions 3.1-3.3 make Lalg(O) finite-dimensional, meet-closed, and complement-closed; Propositions 3.1-3.3 then show Lalg(O) is a complete complemented atomistic lattice of finite length. Propositions 2.2, 3.4, and 3.5 are general lattice/topology statements that convert atomisticity of Lalg(O) into the claim that T(O) is an atomistic Boolean algebra isomorphic to Latom(Lalg(O)). No empirical quantity is fitted and later called a prediction; no uniqueness theorem is imported from the author's prior work; the self-citations ([15], [31]) are contextual and not used as premises in these proofs. The main caveat is well-posedness rather than circularity: Definition 2.4 asserts that the intersection of two causally complete open regions is again causally complete, which is not generally true in Lorentzian geometry; if Lcc(O) is not closed under this meet, the lattice formalism and Assumption 2.1 need repair (e.g., by defining the meet as causal completion). This would affect correctness of the stated construction, but it does not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation is an explicit chain of postulates and standard lattice theory. Assumptions 2.1, 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 carry the physical content; there are no free parameters and no invented entities. The proof also relies on the standard mathematical background of frames, locales, and matrix algebras.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Assumption 2.1: The lattices Lcc(O) and Lalg(O) are isomorphic.
Bridges the algebraic lattice of local algebras to the lattice of causally complete spacetime regions, enabling the reconstruction of spacetime topology from algebra.
domain assumption Assumption 3.1: For any region with finite Cauchy volume, the local observable algebra is a finite-dimensional factor.
The central physical premise of local finite-dimensionality, motivated by Bekenstein bound and emergent gravity.
domain assumption Assumption 3.2: The intersection of two local subfactors is again a local subfactor.
Used to show Lalg(O) is a topped intersection structure and thus complete via the closure operation.
domain assumption Assumption 3.3: The commutant of a local subfactor is again a local subfactor.
Used to prove Lalg(O) is complemented, needed for the Boolean character of the topology; acknowledged to fail in gauge theories.
domain assumption The lattice of causally complete open regions forms a base for the topology in the sense that any open set is a union of such regions (implicit in Prop 2.2).
Proposition 2.2 requires that the union of causally complete regions generates all open sets; this is not proven in the paper.
standard math Background lattice theory: frames, pseudo-complements, completely prime filters, and Stone duality.
Unproved background results from lattice theory used throughout.
standard math Finite-dimensional factors are isomorphic to full matrix algebras, and unital inclusions require divisibility of matrix dimensions.
Used to establish the structure of the subfactor lattice.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spacetime granularity from finite-dimensionality of local observable algebras." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LR5XQACT

@misc{pith2026190809293,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spacetime granularity from finite-dimensionality of local observable algebras},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LR5XQACT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09293}
}

read the original abstract

There are important indications that nature may be locally finite-dimensional, i.e., that any spatially bounded subsystem can be described by a finite-dimensional local observable algebra. Motivated by these ideas, we show that operational spacetime topology is described by an atomistic Boolean algebra if (i) local observable algebras are finite-dimensional factors, (ii) the intersection of two local algebras is also local, and (iii) the commutant of a local algebra is also local. Thus, in this case, spacetime has a point-free granular behavior at small scales.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[1]

N. Bao, S. M. Carroll, and A. Singh, The Hilbert space of quantum g ravity is locally ﬁnite- dimensional, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D26:1743013 (2017), arXiv:1704.00066 [hep-th]

arXiv 2017
[2]

J. D. Bekenstein, Black holes and entropy, Phys. Rev. D7:2333 (1973)

work page 1973
[3]

J. D. Bekenstein, Universal upper bound on the entropy-to-e nergy ratio for bounded systems, Phys. Rev. D23:287 (1981)

work page 1981
[4]

Bousso, A covariant entropy conjecture, JHEP 07:004 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9905177

R. Bousso, A covariant entropy conjecture, JHEP 07:004 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9905177

arXiv 1999
[5]

Bousso, The holographic principle for general backgrounds, Class

R. Bousso, The holographic principle for general backgrounds, Class. Quant. Grav. 17:997 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/9911002

arXiv 2000
[6]

Jacobson, Thermodynamics of space-time: The Einstein equa tion of state, Phys

T. Jacobson, Thermodynamics of space-time: The Einstein equa tion of state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75:1260 (1995), arXiv:gr-qc/9504004

arXiv 1995
[8]

Gravitation and vacuum entanglement entropy

T. Jacobson, Entanglement equilibrium and the Einstein equation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116:201101 (2016), arXiv:1204.6349 [gr-qc]

work page Pith review arXiv 2016
[9]

Jacobson and M

T. Jacobson and M. R. Visser, Spacetime equilibrium at negative te mperature and the attraction of gravity, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D (2019), arXiv:1904.04843 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2019

Show all 42 references

[10]

C. J. Fewster and R. Verch, The necessity of the Hadamard co ndition, Class. Quant. Grav. 30:235027 (2013), arXiv:1307.5242 [gr-qc]

2013 arXiv
[11]

M. J. Radzikowski, Micro-local approach to the Hadamard cond ition in quantum ﬁeld theory on curved space-time, Commun. Math. Phys. 179:529 (1996)

1996
[12]

Mattingly, Modern tests of Lorentz invariance, Living Rev

D. Mattingly, Modern tests of Lorentz invariance, Living Rev. Rel. 8:5 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0502097

2005 arXiv
[13]

Susskind, The world as a hologram, J

L. Susskind, The world as a hologram, J. Math. Phys. 36:6377 (1995), arXiv:hep-th/9409089

1995 arXiv
[14]

Bousso, Positive vacuum energy and the N-bound, JHEP 0011:038 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/0010252

R. Bousso, Positive vacuum energy and the N-bound, JHEP 0011:038 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/0010252

2000 arXiv
[15]

Raasakka, Local Lorentz covariance in ﬁnite-dimensional lo cal quantum physics, Phys

M. Raasakka, Local Lorentz covariance in ﬁnite-dimensional lo cal quantum physics, Phys. Rev. D96:086023 (2017), arXiv:1705.06711 [gr-qc]. 8One could, of course, always just straight-forwardly discr etize some QFT model on a lattice with some cutoﬀs in place, but this is not v...

2017 arXiv
[16]

C. G. Torre, Gravitational observables and local symmetries, Phys. Rev. D48:2373 (1993), arXiv:gr-qc/9306030

1993 arXiv
[17]

Marolf, Emergent gravity requires (kinematic) non-locality, Phys

D. Marolf, Emergent gravity requires (kinematic) non-locality, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114:031104 (2015), arXiv:1409.2509 [hep-th]

2015 arXiv
[18]

S. B. Giddings, Hilbert space structure in quantum gravity: an a lgebraic perspective, JHEP 12:099 (2015), arXiv:1503.08207 [hep-th]

2015 arXiv
[19]

Donnelly and S

W. Donnelly and S. B. Giddings, Observables, gravitational dres sing, and obstructions to locality and subsystems, Phys. Rev. D94:104038 (2016), arXiv:1607.01025 [hep-th]

2016 arXiv
[20]

Carlip, Challenges for emergent gravity, Stud

S. Carlip, Challenges for emergent gravity, Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. B46:200 (2014), arXiv:1207.2504 [gr-qc]

2014 arXiv
[21]

Rovelli, Partial observables, Phys

C. Rovelli, Partial observables, Phys. Rev. D65:124013 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0110035

2002 arXiv
[22]

Brunetti, K

R. Brunetti, K. Fredenhagen and R. Verch, The generally cova riant locality principle – A new paradigm for local quantum physics, Commun. Math. Phys. 237:31 (2003), arXiv:math-ph/0112041

2003 arXiv
[23]

Bannier, Intrinsic algebraic characterization of space-time structure, Int

U. Bannier, Intrinsic algebraic characterization of space-time structure, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 33:1797 (1994)

1994
[24]

Keyl, Causal spaces, causal complements and their relation s to quantum ﬁeld theory, Rev

M. Keyl, Causal spaces, causal complements and their relation s to quantum ﬁeld theory, Rev. Math. Phys. 8:229 (1996)

1996
[25]

Keyl, How to describe the space-time structure with nets of C∗-algebras, Int

M. Keyl, How to describe the space-time structure with nets of C∗-algebras, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 37:375 (1998)

1998
[26]

Corichi, M

A. Corichi, M. P. Ryan, and D. Sudarsky, Quantum geometry as a relational construct, Mod. Phys. Lett. A17:555 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0203072

2002 arXiv
[27]

S. J. Summers and R. White, On deriving space-time from quantu m observables and states, Commun. Math. Phys. 237:203 (2003), arXiv:hep-th/0304179

2003 arXiv
[28]

Bertozzini, R

P. Bertozzini, R. Conti and W. Lewkeeratiyutkul, Modular theo ry, non-commutative geome- try and quantum gravity, SIGMA 6:067 (2010), arXiv:1007.4094 [gr-qc]

2010 arXiv
[29]

Aguilar, Y

P. Aguilar, Y. Bonder, C. Chryssomalakos and D. Sudarsky, Op erational geometry on de Sitter spacetime, Mod. Phys. Lett. A27:1250130 (2012), arXiv:1205.0501 [gr-qc]

2012 arXiv
[30]

Cao, S.M

C. Cao, S.M. Carroll and S. Michalakis, Space from Hilbert space: Recovering geometry from bulk entanglement, Phys. Rev. D95:024031 (2017), arXiv:1606.08444 [hep-th]

2017 arXiv
[31]

Raasakka, Spacetime-free approach to quantum theory a nd eﬀective spacetime structure, SIGMA 13:006 (2017), arXiv:1605.03942 [gr-qc]

M. Raasakka, Spacetime-free approach to quantum theory a nd eﬀective spacetime structure, SIGMA 13:006 (2017), arXiv:1605.03942 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[32]

J. S. Cotler, G. R. Penington and D. H. Ranard, Locality from th e spectrum, Commun. Math. Phys. 368:1267 (2019), arXiv:1702.06142 [quant-ph]

2019 arXiv
[33]

C. J. Fewster and K. Rejzner, Algebraic Quantum Field Theory - an introduction, arXiv:1904.04051 [hep-th] (2019)

2019 arXiv
[34]

Haag, Local Quantum Physics: Fields, Particles, Algebras , Springer, 1996

R. Haag, Local Quantum Physics: Fields, Particles, Algebras , Springer, 1996

1996
[35]

B¨ ar and K

C. B¨ ar and K. Fredenhagen, Quantum Field Theory on Curved Spacetimes: Concepts and Mathematical Foundations, Springer, 2009. 15

2009
[36]

Buchholz, C

D. Buchholz, C. D’Antoni and K. Fredenhagen, The universal s tructure of local algebras, Commun. Math. Phys. 111:123 (1987)

1987
[37]

Birkhoﬀ, Lattice theory, American Mathematical Society, 1948

G. Birkhoﬀ, Lattice theory, American Mathematical Society, 1948

1948
[38]

H. A. Priestley and B. A. Davey, Introduction to Lattices and Order (Second Edition) . Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002

2002
[39]

P. T. Johnstone, Stone spaces, Cambridge University Press, 1982

1982
[40]

Picado and A

J. Picado and A. Pultr, Frames and locales: Topology without points , Springer, 2012

2012
[41]

M. K. Parikh and E. P. Verlinde, De Sitter holography with a ﬁnite n umber of states, JHEP 0501:054 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0410227

2005 arXiv
[42]

Singh and S

A. Singh and S. M. Carroll, Modeling position and momentum in ﬁnite- dimensional Hilbert spaces via generalized Cliﬀord algebra, arXiv:1806.10134 [quant-ph], 2018

2018 arXiv
[43]

C. Cao, A. Chatwin-Davies and A. Singh, How low can vacuum ener gy go when your ﬁelds are ﬁnite-dimensional?, arXiv:1905.11199 [hep-th], 2019. 16

1905 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

N. Bao, S. M. Carroll, and A. Singh, The Hilbert space of quantum g ravity is locally ﬁnite- dimensional, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D26:1743013 (2017), arXiv:1704.00066 [hep-th]

arXiv 2017

[2] [2]

J. D. Bekenstein, Black holes and entropy, Phys. Rev. D7:2333 (1973)

work page 1973

[3] [3]

J. D. Bekenstein, Universal upper bound on the entropy-to-e nergy ratio for bounded systems, Phys. Rev. D23:287 (1981)

work page 1981

[4] [4]

Bousso, A covariant entropy conjecture, JHEP 07:004 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9905177

R. Bousso, A covariant entropy conjecture, JHEP 07:004 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9905177

arXiv 1999

[5] [5]

Bousso, The holographic principle for general backgrounds, Class

R. Bousso, The holographic principle for general backgrounds, Class. Quant. Grav. 17:997 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/9911002

arXiv 2000

[6] [6]

Jacobson, Thermodynamics of space-time: The Einstein equa tion of state, Phys

T. Jacobson, Thermodynamics of space-time: The Einstein equa tion of state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75:1260 (1995), arXiv:gr-qc/9504004

arXiv 1995

[7] [8]

Gravitation and vacuum entanglement entropy

T. Jacobson, Entanglement equilibrium and the Einstein equation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116:201101 (2016), arXiv:1204.6349 [gr-qc]

work page Pith review arXiv 2016

[8] [9]

Jacobson and M

T. Jacobson and M. R. Visser, Spacetime equilibrium at negative te mperature and the attraction of gravity, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D (2019), arXiv:1904.04843 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2019