Relativistic Cellular Automata - MathOverflow most recent 30 from http://mathoverflow.net2013-05-19T06:21:08Zhttp://mathoverflow.net/feeds/question/46212http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdfhttp://mathoverflow.net/questions/46212/relativistic-cellular-automataRelativistic Cellular AutomataHans Stricker2010-11-16T08:42:14Z2010-11-18T01:26:39Z
<p>Cellular automata provide interesting models of physics: Google Scholar gives more than 25,000 results when searching for <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22cellular+automata%22+physics&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2001&as_sdtp=on" rel="nofollow">"cellular automata" physics</a>.</p>
<p>Google Scholar still gives more than 2,000 results when searching for <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22quantum+cellular+automata%22&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0" rel="nofollow">"quantum cellular automata"</a>.</p>
<p>But it gives only <a href="http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=sab-9fGPCEcC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=%22relativistic+cellular+automata%22&ots=rG9eoNgPYh&sig=ZNQpI-0B-0S2358zX9To-h4NtdI#v=onepage&q=%22relativistic%20cellular%20automata%22&f=false" rel="nofollow">1</a> (one!) result when searching for <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22relativistic+cellular+automata%22&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0" rel="nofollow">"relativistic cellular automata"</a>, i.e. cellular automata with a (discrete) Minkoswki space-time instead of an Euclidean one.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>How can this be understood? </p>
<p>Why does the concept of QCA seem more
promising than that of RCA?</p>
<p>Are there conceptual or technical barriers for a thorough treatment of RCA?</p>
</blockquote>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/46212/relativistic-cellular-automata/46227#46227Answer by Willie Wong for Relativistic Cellular AutomataWillie Wong2010-11-16T12:10:45Z2010-11-17T00:37:06Z<p>One of the reasons that it may be difficult to model Minkowski space based on cellular automata is that <a href="http://jmp.aip.org/resource/1/jmapaq/v21/i2/p234_s1" rel="nofollow">there are no "non-trivial" finite sub-groups of $O(3,1)$</a>, where non-trivial means that it doesn't just reduce to just a finite sub group of $O(3)$ via conjugation. So while cellular automata can be manifestly be homogeneous and isotropic (so admits a discrete $O(3)$ symmetry), it becomes conceptually difficult to imagine some cellular automata capturing Lorentz symmetry. </p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/46212/relativistic-cellular-automata/46341#46341Answer by Hans Stricker for Relativistic Cellular AutomataHans Stricker2010-11-17T09:57:30Z2010-11-17T09:57:30Z<p>I asked this very same question at physics.stackexchange, too (do the policies of MO have anything against this?), and got an interesting hint, which I leave to your attention:</p>
<p><a href="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/887/relativistic-cellular-automata/896#896" rel="nofollow">Cellular automata methods in mathematical physics</a></p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/46212/relativistic-cellular-automata/46370#46370Answer by Peter Shor for Relativistic Cellular AutomataPeter Shor2010-11-17T15:32:43Z2010-11-18T01:26:39Z<p>What Willie's answer shows is that, for some non-trivial Lorentz-translatable cellular automaton, every cell would need an infinite number of neighbors, a contradiction. There's a way of getting around this, though. You could make each cell correspond to a point in space-time and also a boost (a boost is essentially a velocity in the Lorentz group). Then, cells would interact with cells both close to them in space-time and also close in boost. I don't know whether anybody has considered cellular automata like this.</p>
<p>In order for this to have a correspondence to realistic quantum field theories, it would have to be the case that when two particles interact at a high boost, the interaction strength goes to 0 as the boost goes to infinity. I don't know whether this is true, although the thought experiment of considering particles falling into a black hole through a sea of Hawking radiation makes it seem like it might be. </p>