Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 32 references

Quantum Spacetime Leaps: Higher Dimensional Energetic Causal Sets

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 2+1d energetic causal set simulation exhibits the same disorder-to-order phase transition observed in the one-dimensional model, with a crystal lattice marking the onset of time-symmetric dynamics.

desk verdict First serious 2+1d attempt at Energetic Causal Sets, but the crystal phase is likely an artifact of a post hoc collision rule rather than a robust emergent phenomenon. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06947 v1 pith:XAIMJWJ7 submitted 2025-02-10 gr-qc

Vasco Gil Gomes This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords energeticcausalsetsquantumgravityarrowoftimephasetransitioncrystallatticelimitcyclesdiscretedynamicalsystems2+1dsimulation
topics Quantum Gravity
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 proposes a 2+1d computer simulation of Energetic Causal Sets, a model in which time irreversibility and energy-momentum are fundamental and spacetime emerges from the dynamics. Its central goal is to test whether the phase transition seen in the 1+1d model survives in two spatial dimensions: early evolution is disordered and time-asymmetric, and later it settles into an ordered, time-symmetric regime. To overcome the fact that point-like null rays in flat 2+1d almost never intersect, the simulation gives particles a finite radius and defines a newborn event at the particle parent's position. With these conventions the run shows a crystal-like lattice emerging from the disordered phase, and the transition is faster when fewer families or larger cross-sections reduce the random input. The paper also identifies limit-cycle behaviour in the language of discrete dynamical systems, with the ratio of deterministic to random parent selection controlling how quickly the system is captured by the limit cycle.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the interaction rule and the event-coordinate rule. In flat 2+1d, the set of intersections of point-like null rays has measure zero, so the simulation gives each particle and antiparticle a finite radius (cross-section $\bar{\sigma}$) and declares an interaction when two discs overlap; it then defines the spacetime position of the newborn event as the position of the particle parent, chosen consistently so that families are conserved. The parent-selection rule is the 'closest pasts' rule, which compares the causal-past measures of available events and picks the pair with the smallest difference, with a tunable probability of replacing that choice by a random pair. These choices together convert a generically non-interacting point-particle system into one with persistent interactions and a reproducible disorder-to-order transition.

What would settle it

Run the deterministic 2+1d algorithm again but assign each newborn event the midpoint of its two parents' centers instead of the particle parent's position, with all other parameters fixed; if a crystal still forms, the reported phase transition cannot depend on the coordinate convention in the way the paper claims.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that the 2+1d ECS dynamics reproduces the central feature of the 1+1d model: given purely local, time-irreversible rules for how events create new events, the system nonetheless relaxes into a time-symmetric phase. In two spatial dimensions this phase appears as a crystal, a regular lattice-like arrangement of events in the emergent Minkowski embedding, which the paper identifies with quasi-particle trajectories. The mechanism that makes this possible is treating particles as discs with a finite cross-section and consistently assigning the coordinates of a new event to its particle parent, so that the number of families in the present stays conserved. Once the crystal forms, the system behaves like a discrete dynamical system captured by a limit cycle; the more deterministic the parent-selection rule, the faster the attraction to that cycle. The paper takes this as evidence that reversible dynamics can emerge from fundamentally irreversible laws in higher dimensions, extending the programme beyond the one-dimensional case.

Load-bearing premise

The crystal phase appears only because particles are given a finite radius and because newborn events are placed at the particle parent's coordinates; change either convention and, by the paper's own report, the phase transition does not occur.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 2+1d model joins the 1+1d model as a place where time-symmetric, effectively reversible dynamics arises at late times from laws that are explicitly time-irreversible at the event level.
  • The speed of the phase transition is controlled by parameters: fewer initial families, larger particle radius, and smaller Tmax all shorten the disordered phase and hasten the crystal.
  • Even a single randomly chosen parent event can break an already formed crystal and return the system to the disordered phase, implying that the deterministic limit is approached only as the random probability tends to zero.
  • Limit cycles, previously identified in 1+1d ECS, also appear in 2+1d; the proportion of deterministic versus random inputs sets the rate of attraction toward the limit cycle.
  • The crystal phase is accompanied by an apparent loss of discausality, with the total and partial orders aligning so that Minkowski time advances faster per created event.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the paper leaves implicit: since the zero-measure intersection problem is the stated obstruction, the finite disc radius is doing essential work, and a continuum version of 2+1d ECS would need a different interaction mechanism, such as causal chains meeting through finite regions rather than points.
  • The particle-parent coordinate rule is the least motivated convention in the model, and the paper reports that a natural alternative, placing newborn events at the midpoint between parent centers, destroys the phase transition; a more symmetric rule that still conserved both particle and antiparticle families would be a testable alternative.
  • The single-random-event fragility suggests the random input is injected at maximum strength; adopting a gentler source of randomness, for example randomizing the number of boundary crossings before an interaction as in the 1d model, could sharpen the deterministic limit.
  • If the crystal truly is a limit-cycle basin, the identity of the family that forms the crystal and the time of its formation should be reproducible functions of the initial data across many same-parameter runs, and quantifying that reproducibility would give a sharper test of the claim.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript, a 2022 master's thesis posted to arXiv, extends Cortês–Smolin Energetic Causal Sets (ECS) from 1+1d to 2+1d. Because null-ray intersections in 2+1d form a measure-zero set, the author gives events a finite disc cross-section σ̄, introduces a particle/anti-particle quantum number to conserve the number of families, and implements three parent-selection regimes: fully random, deterministic closest-pasts (a 2d analogue of the 1d rule), and a mixed regime with a tunable randomness probability. The central claims are that (i) the deterministic dynamics show a disorder-to-order phase transition in which a 'crystal' lattice structure emerges, interpreted as the 2+1d analogue of the 1+1d transition to time-reversible dynamics, and (ii) the mixed regime shows limit-cycle-like behaviour, with the proportion of deterministic versus random inputs controlling attraction to and breaking of the ordered phase. The evidence is visual inspection of single simulation runs (Figures 2–13); the causal-network analysis needed to confirm the interpretation is explicitly deferred (§5.3, §8).

Significance. If established, the manuscript would be a useful contribution to the ECS program: it would show that the 1+1d phase transition found by Cortês and Smolin (Refs. 12 and 22) has a higher-dimensional counterpart, supporting the claim that time-reversible dynamics can emerge from fundamentally irreversible laws. The paper earns credit for identifying the zero-measure intersection problem explicitly (§3.3, §8), for checking the random limit against a Poisson expectation with family percentages reported (§4.2), and for reporting specific, checkable observations—notably the five random events whose event numbers and collision times coincide with the breaking of the crystal (§4.3, Figure 11). The author is also candid about what is not known (§5.3, §6.2). The significance is nonetheless prospective: the central observation depends on a collision-coordinate rule adopted post hoc to produce it (§6.2), the evidence is qualitative (single runs, no order parameter, no error bars), the link between the crystal phase and the time-symmetric regime is deferred, and no code is shipped despite an advertised appendix.

major comments (4)
  1. [§6.2; cf. §4.1, §5.1] The collision-coordinate rule adopted in §6.2 is load-bearing and is acknowledged by the paper to be a post-hoc choice. The new event is assigned the coordinates of the particle parent; the author states that this rule was found only after 'many, many things' failed, that the midpoint rule prevents the transition by 'constantly adding new initial conditions,' and that using the anti-particle coordinates produces no structure—'Why? Again we don't know for sure yet.' Sections 4.1 and 5 additionally state that the 'main objective... was obtaining this phase transition and control it with the parameters.' On the paper's own account, the central observation (the crystal phase transition) was produced by a coordinate prescription selected so that the transition would appear, and the mechanism by which the prescription works is unexplained. Because the rejected alternatives are also plausible (a torus-aware midpoint that respects the conserved momentum data, or an anti-particle rule with a symmetric family-conservation fix), the author must either derive the parent-coordinate rule from the ECS principles of §2.1 or demonstrate robustness of the transition across coordinate prescriptions that preserve the same conservation laws and torus topology; the qualitatively different outcomes of these otherwise-equivalent rules are exactly the test that would separate a dynamical effect from a bookkeeping one.
  2. [§4.1–4.3, §5.1–5.3; Abstract] The load-bearing claim—that a disorder-to-order phase transition occurs and that its approach is controlled by the proportion of deterministic versus random inputs (Abstract)—is supported only by visual inspection of single runs (Figures 2–13). Section 4.1 concedes that 'these runs are very sensitive to the initial conditions' and that the behaviours 'are to be taken as on average behaviours,' but no averages, ensemble distributions, error bars, or quantitative order parameters are given for the deterministic and mixed runs on which the central claim rests. There is no operational definition of a crystal, of transition time, or of approach speed to the limit cycle; the abstract's statement that the author can 'describe how the proportion of deterministic versus indeterministic inputs... affects the speed of attraction towards the basin of attraction' is not backed by any measurement in §4.3 or §5.2. Moreover, the identification of the crystal phase with the time-symmetric regime rests on a causal-network analysis that the paper explicitly defers (§5.3: 'We don't know for sure yet... What is missing is the causal structure in the set'; §8: 'we have not yet performed an exhaustive analysis of the causal network'). The author should define an order parameter (e.g., the fraction of events in the dominant family, or a lattice structure factor), show its time evolution, and give statistics over many initial-condition draws for each parameter set (number of families, Tmax, σ̄, randomness probability).
  3. [§3.3, §6.1, §8] The abstract and §8 state that point-like null rays in 2+1d have a zero-measure set of intersections, so 'point particles never interact' and a finite disc cross-section σ̄ is required. The model actually studied is therefore not 2+1d ECS as defined by the four principles of §2.1 but ECS augmented by an interaction prescription, with σ̄ a free parameter whose physical status is not discussed. This matters because the transition is not generic in σ̄: §5.1 and Figure 6 report that for σ̄ ≥ 0.2L no structure forms, and for small σ̄ runs abort for lack of intersections. The author should either justify σ̄ from the ECS principles, provide a stability analysis of the transition across the σ̄ window (using the order parameter of the previous comment), or explicitly restrict the central claim to the extended disc model.
  4. [§3; all of §4–5] The paper is not reproducible in its current form. Section 3 states that 'A version of this code is presented in the Appendix,' but the posted text ends at the References with no appendix, and no repository, DOI, random seeds, or pseudo-random number generator details are given. Since every claim rests on runs of this code, the author should provide the code (or complete pseudocode), the exact parameter values and seeds for each figure, and the event tables underlying Figures 2–13, at least for the deterministic and mixed runs that carry the phase-transition claim.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Title and Abstract] The title 'Quantum Spacetime Leaps' and the abstract's claim of having 'successfully derived the mathematical framework for the 2+1d case' overstate the content: Section 2 states that only the classical version of ECS is treated, and the 'framework' as presented consists of Eqs. (8)–(10) plus the disc-intersection algorithm of Section 3. Consider a title and abstract that match the classical content.
  2. [Global] Throughout the text there are typos and garbled phrases that a careful proofread would catch; examples include 'this as nothing to do' (§1.2.3), 'the are two contemplate the dynamics' (§2.1), 'meat' for 'meant' (§3.3), 'poison distribution' for 'Poisson distribution' (§4.2), 'go over σ̄ = 0.5%' (§5.1, presumably σ̄ = 0.5), and 'collisions in the real line' (Abstract, presumably 'in the plane').
  3. [Figure 5 caption; §3.1, §4.1] In the caption of Figure 5, plots (c) and (d) are both given Tmax = 20 × L although the text describes four distinct values (10, 50, 100, 200); the 'sandwich effect' invoked there and in §3.1 is never defined. Also, Figure 3(d) shows no crystal within 10,000 events, so the claimed monotonic trend in transition time versus family number rests on a single longer run (Figure 4) with different parameters.
  4. [§4.2] The criterion 'within a factor of 2 of the theoretical value' is stated without justification as the test of Poisson consistency; at 100,000 events over 10 families the expected per-family fluctuation is about 1%, so reported values such as family 10 at 6.7% (Figure 7) are several standard deviations away from 10%. A chi-squared goodness-of-fit over the ten families would be a more informative check of the claim that the random code conserves families.
  5. [§3.1, §6.2] Because interactions are detected on a grid of time step dt = σ̄ (§3.1), the collision time—and hence the coordinates of every newborn event, which are inherited from the parent particle (§6.2)—carry an uncertainty of order σ̄; this quantization should be stated explicitly since it feeds directly into the lattice structure claimed as the crystal phase.
  6. [§7, §8] The statements that the 3+1d extension is 'fairly straightforward' with no obstacles beyond computational demand are unsupported given the paper's own report that the 2+1d phenomenology is highly sensitive to the randomness prescription (§5.3) and that the interaction prescription had to be re-invented for 2+1d (§6); the zero-measure problem must be re-solved in 3+1d, not merely re-run.
  7. [§1.1–1.3, Acknowledgements] The dedication, acknowledgements, and the philosophical discussion of Sections 1.1–1.3 are appropriate for a dissertation but should be condensed for an archival physics paper; the excursions into free will, legal responsibility, and societal self-organization are not needed to support the technical claims.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Crystal phase is manufactured by the post-hoc collision-coordinate rule; the phase transition is a tuned output, not an independent prediction.

  1. other [Section 6.2 ('Solving for event coordinates: simplification')]
    "Our solution was to define the coordinates of the new event to be the ones of the particle. This naturally means that the anti-particles will be shifted at each interaction... We tried many, many things but nothing seemed to work until we realised this. So that is why we choose, for consistency the coordinates of the final parent. But then we asked, could we choose the particle to be the final parent and the coordinates for the new event to be the ones of the anti-particle? No, we do that, no structure emerges."

    The central 'crystal' result is an output of a coordinate-assignment rule that was adopted because it produces the transition, not a consequence derived from ECS principles. The paper says the midpoint rule prevents the transition by constantly adding new initial conditions (Section 6.1), and the anti-particle rule yields no structure. Hence the phase transition is imposed by the definition of where newborn events are placed; it cannot serve as independent evidence that 2+1d ECS reproduces the 1+1d phase transition.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1 ('The deterministic limit') and Section 5]
    "The main objective in this thesis was obtaining this phase transition and control it with the parameters. ... The objective of this Thesis is to obtain the depicted phase transitions in chapter 4 and to control it the best we can with our parameters."

    The phase transition is the stated design goal, and the parameters and collision rules are tuned to make it appear. Reporting the tuned transition as 'I found the same phase transition...' is a fitted input renamed as a finding. There is no independent order parameter, out-of-sample prediction, or hypothesis test separating the transition from the simulation's construction.

full rationale

The mathematical framework and the random-limit distribution tests are not circular: the parametric equations are derived, and the Poisson-family-distribution check is self-contained. Citations to Refs. [12] and [22] are used as benchmarks and goals rather than as a load-bearing uniqueness theorem, so no self-citation circularity is present. The circularity is concentrated in the central claim. Sections 6.1-6.2 show that the crystal phase is produced by a coordinate-assignment rule chosen after 'many, many things' failed; the midpoint rule is rejected because it prevents the transition, and the anti-particle rule is rejected because 'no structure emerges.' Sections 4.1 and 5 state that obtaining and controlling the phase transition was the explicit objective of the thesis. The abstract and Section 7 then present the resulting crystal as a finding that validates 2+1d ECS. Thus the main result is an output of a post-hoc design choice rather than an independent emergent prediction. The paper itself flags missing support (Section 5.3: 'We don't know for sure yet because we don't have enough information. What is missing is the causal structure in the set'), and the 'limit cycle' identification is visual with no quantitative order parameter. These are limitations and correctness risks rather than additional circular steps, but they make the manufactured nature of the central result more salient. Because the random-limit robustness and the 2+1d extension of equations retain independent content, the score is 6 rather than 8-10.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central result depends on a large set of hand-tuned parameters (sigma-bar, Tmax, dt, number of families, randomness) and on several ad hoc modeling choices (particle/antiparticle split, disc radius, coordinate rule, family inheritance). These choices are not derived from the four ECS principles, and the paper openly states that the phase transition was the design objective. The zero-measure problem, acknowledged in the abstract and conclusion, is the reason the disc entity is needed at all.

free parameters (6)
  • cross-section fraction sigma-bar = 0.05, 0.075, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25 (dimensionless, fraction of box side L)
    Gives each ray a finite disc radius so that interactions occur; without it, null rays intersect with probability zero in 2+1d. The value is chosen by hand and directly controls how quickly the crystal forms.
  • Tmax maximum waiting time = 1 x L, 5 x L, 20 x L (Minkowski time units)
    Maximum time the algorithm waits for an interaction. Larger values allow more boundary windings and delay crystal emergence; tuned to balance runtime and visibility of the phase transition.
  • time step dt = equal to sigma-bar (rule of thumb)
    Controls precision of interaction detection. The author states dt = sigma-bar is a good compromise; it is a free parameter that affects whether intersections are found and the collision-time accuracy.
  • number of families (initial events) = 5, 10, 15, 20
    Number of initial causal pasts. Larger values increase the random initial input and delay crystal formation; the author uses 10 in most runs and 20 to show delayed transitions.
  • randomness probability = 0%, 0.01%, 0.1%, 75%
    Probability that parents are selected randomly instead of by the closest-pasts rule. Tuned to show crystal formation, crystal breaking, and sensitivity to small randomness.
  • box side length L = W = 10
    Defines the compact square with periodic boundary conditions. A scale choice that influences all other parameters via their dependence on L.
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption Flat Minkowski metric in energy-momentum space
    Events live in energy-momentum space with the Minkowski metric eta_ab; used throughout Section 2.1, with no redshift or curvature.
  • domain assumption Rays are massless null photons
    Eq. 5 constrains momenta to the null cone; photons are chosen because they trivially satisfy conservation and cross without altering momenta.
  • domain assumption Periodic boundary conditions on a square torus
    Imported from the 1+1d case to keep rays interacting repeatedly; distances are computed via the shortest path on the torus (Sections 2.2, 3.2.3).
  • domain assumption Energy-momentum conservation at each event
    Eq. 3 enforces conservation; this is the defining dynamics of the ECS model and is taken as given from Cortes and Smolin.
  • domain assumption Each event emits one particle and one anti-particle, and can interact at most twice
    Section 3 introduces this structure to keep the algorithm finite and to ensure family conservation; it is a modeling constraint not derived from ECS principles.
  • domain assumption Closest-pasts selection rule
    Parents are chosen to minimize |past2_I - past2_K| (Eq. 10); this rule is inherited from the 1+1d program and is the sole deterministic evolution rule.
  • ad hoc to paper Finite disc cross-section for interactions
    Particles are modeled as discs of radius sigma-bar*L so that interactions occur when disc separation falls below a diameter; required because point rays intersect with probability zero (Section 3.1).
  • ad hoc to paper New event coordinates are the particle's coordinates
    Section 6.2: the midpoint method failed to produce any phase transition, and the author adopted the particle-position rule after many trials specifically because it made the crystal emerge.
  • ad hoc to paper Family inheritance from the particle's family
    New events are always added to the particle's family, not the anti-particle's, to keep the number of families in the thick present constant; the author states other inheritance choices failed.
invented entities (2)
  • Particle/antiparticle quantum number in 2d ECS
    purpose: Ensures that all families remain present and available for interaction throughout the run, with new events always assigned to the particle's family.
    Section 3 introduces this distinction purely as an algorithmic device after other schemes failed to conserve families. It carries no physical prediction and is not derived from ECS principles.
  • Finite disc radius (cross-section sigma-bar)
    purpose: Gives rays a nonzero spatial extent so that they can interact in 2+1d despite the zero-measure null-ray intersection problem.
    Section 3.1 introduces the radius as a free parameter; the author notes the absolute value is meaningless and only its proportion to the box matters. It is a computational patch, not a physical prediction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Spacetime Leaps: Higher Dimensional Energetic Causal Sets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XAIMJWJ7

@misc{pith2026250206947,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Spacetime Leaps: Higher Dimensional Energetic Causal Sets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XAIMJWJ7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06947}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a 2+1d simulation of Energetic Causal Sets (ECS). These are a class of Causal Sets where the agency of time and its irreversibility are taken as fundamental. Events are endowed with energy-momentum conservation laws being applied at events dictating the dynamics of the Set. Unlike Causal Sets, ECS have three orders, a birth total order, a partial dynamical order which prescribes the flow of energy-momentum between events and a partial causal order that arises from the embedding of these events in Minkowski spacetime. These orders aren't necessarily in agreement with each other, something we call discausality or disordered causality. We therefore explain our first attempts at expanding to two spatial dimensions the simulations of the Energetic Causal Set model to see if we can still obtain reversible dynamics from fundamental time-irreversible laws like in the 1d case.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06947 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The complete state space of a discrete deterministic dynamical system, showing several [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A run from the fully deterministic program, where we select the parent event according to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A run from the fully deterministic families to compare the effect the number of families [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A run of the deterministic program with 20 families. Here we want to show that even if [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A run from the deterministic program to compare the effect of the variable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Run of the deterministic program to see the effect of ¯σ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A run from the fully-random program. Parameters: ¯σ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A run from the fully-random program to show the effect on the distribution of events among [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A run of the final program. Parameters: ¯σ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A run of the final program with more events to show the formation and breaking of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Three runs of the final program to see if we obtain the results of the previous programs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: A run of the deterministic program showing different families trying to form the crystals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: A run of the deterministic program showing two families completely forming the crystal. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: A top view of a run from the fully random program to show the effect of choosing the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Roger Penrose, Singularities and time asymmetry , in General relativity: an Einstein centenary survey, 1979

    work page 1979

  2. [2]

    Plus Mag- azine

    R. Thomas, M. Cortˆ es interview,Time in a block universe, University of Cambridge, “Plus Mag- azine”, in partnership with FQXi, “Foundational Questions Institute” https://plus.maths. org/content/stuff-happens-block-time

    work page

  3. [3]

    Gisin, Time really passes, Science can ’t deny that , in Time in Physics, R

    N. Gisin, Time really passes, Science can ’t deny that , in Time in Physics, R. Renner and S. Stupar (Eds.), Springer 2017, arXiv:1602.01497

    arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    Dieks, Becoming, relativity and locality , Philosophy and Foundations of Physics 1, 157–176 (2006)

    D. Dieks, Becoming, relativity and locality , Philosophy and Foundations of Physics 1, 157–176 (2006)

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    A. C. Elitzur and S. Dolev, Becoming as a bridge between quantum mechanics and relativity , in Endophysics, time, quantum and The subjective, R. Buccheri, A. C. Elitzur and M. Saniga (Eds.), pp. 589–606, World Scientific (2005)

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    Smolin, Time Reborn , Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Penguin and Random House Canada, (2013)

    L. Smolin, Time Reborn , Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Penguin and Random House Canada, (2013)

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Einstein, Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter K¨ orper, Annalen der Physik 17 (1905) 891–921, 1

    A. Einstein, Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter K¨ orper, Annalen der Physik 17 (1905) 891–921, 1

    work page 1905

  8. [8]

    Reichenbach, The Philosophy of Space and Time , Dover, New York (1957)

    H. Reichenbach, The Philosophy of Space and Time , Dover, New York (1957)

    work page 1957

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    G¨ odel,An Example of a New Type of Cosmological Solutions of Einstein ’s Field Equations of Gravitation, Rev

    K. G¨ odel,An Example of a New Type of Cosmological Solutions of Einstein ’s Field Equations of Gravitation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 21 (1949) 447–450. 46

    1949

  2. [10]

    Cohen, M

    E. Cohen, M. Cortˆ es, A.C. Elitzur, and L. Smolin, Realism and Causality II: Retrocausality in energetical causal sets, Phys. Rev. D102, 124028 (2020), arXiv:1902.05082

    2020 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Cortˆ es and L

    M. Cortˆ es and L. Smolin, Energetic Causal Sets , Phys. Rev. D90, 044035 (2014), arXiv:1308.2206

    2014 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Cortˆ es and L

    M. Cortˆ es and L. Smolin,The Universe as a process of unique events , Phys. Rev. D90, 084007 (2014), arXiv:1307.6167

    2014 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Bombeli, J

    L. Bombeli, J. Lee, D. Meyer, R. D. Sorkin, Spacetime as a Causal Set , Phys. Rev. Lett. 59 (1987) 521–524

    1987

  6. [14]

    Dowker, Introduction to causal sets and their phenomenology , Gen

    F. Dowker, Introduction to causal sets and their phenomenology , Gen. Rel. Grav. 9 (2013) 1651– 1667

    2013

  7. [15]

    Dowker, Causal sets as discrete spacetime , Contemporary Physics, Taylor & Francis Vol.47 (2006) 1–9

    F. Dowker, Causal sets as discrete spacetime , Contemporary Physics, Taylor & Francis Vol.47 (2006) 1–9

    2006

  8. [16]

    Dowker, Causal sets and the deep structure of spacetime, ”100 Years of Relativity - Space-time Structure: Einstein and Beyond” ed A

    F. Dowker, Causal sets and the deep structure of spacetime, ”100 Years of Relativity - Space-time Structure: Einstein and Beyond” ed A. Ashtekar (World Scientific), arXiv:gr-qc/0508109

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    Smolin, Four principles for quantum gravity , arXiv:1610.01968

    L. Smolin, Four principles for quantum gravity , arXiv:1610.01968

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Dowker, The birth of spacetime atoms as the passage of time , Ann

    F. Dowker, The birth of spacetime atoms as the passage of time , Ann. NY Acad. Sci. (2014), arXiv:1405.3492

    2014 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Cohen, M

    E. Cohen, M. Cortˆ es, A.C. Elitzur, and L. Smolin, Realism and Causality I: Pilot wave and retrocausal models as possible facilitators , Phys. Rev. D 102, 124027 (2020), arXiv:1902.05108

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Aharonov and L.Vaidman, The two-state vector formalism of quantum mechanics in Time in Quantum Mechanics , J

    Y. Aharonov and L.Vaidman, The two-state vector formalism of quantum mechanics in Time in Quantum Mechanics , J. G. Muga et al. (Eds.) 369–412, Springer (2002)

    2002

  13. [21]

    Wuensche, Exploring Discrete Dynamics; The DDLab Manual , Luniver Press, UK, 2011; Attractor Basins of Discrete Networks , Cognitive Science Research Paper 461, Univ

    A. Wuensche, Exploring Discrete Dynamics; The DDLab Manual , Luniver Press, UK, 2011; Attractor Basins of Discrete Networks , Cognitive Science Research Paper 461, Univ. of Sussex, D.Phil thesis,(1997); A. Wuensche and M.J.Lesser (1992), ”The Global Dynamics of Cellular Automa...

    1997

  14. [22]

    Cortˆ es and L

    M. Cortˆ es and L. Smolin, Reversing the Irreversible: from limit cycles to emergent time sym- metry, Phys. Rev. D 97, 026004 (2018), arXiv:1703.09696

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Rovelli, Quantum Gravity, Cambridge University Press (2004)

    C. Rovelli, Quantum Gravity, Cambridge University Press (2004)

    2004

  16. [24]

    Smolin, Three roads to quantum gravity , Basic Books (2001)

    L. Smolin, Three roads to quantum gravity , Basic Books (2001)

    2001

  17. [25]

    Dowker, Energy-momentum diffusion from spacetime discreteness , Phys

    F. Dowker, Energy-momentum diffusion from spacetime discreteness , Phys. Rev. D79, 124047 (2009), arXiv:0810.5591

    2009 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Cortˆ es, H

    M. Cortˆ es, H. Gomes, and L. Smolin, Time asymmetric extensions of general relativity arXiv:1503.06085, Phys. Rev. D 92, 043502 (2015)

    2015 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Cortˆ es, A

    M. Cortˆ es, A. R. Liddle, and L. Smolin, Cosmological signatures of time-asymmetric gravity , Phys. Rev. D 94, 123514 (2016), arXiv:1606.01256

    2016 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Cortˆ es and L

    M. Cortˆ es and L. Smolin, Spin foam models as energetic causal sets , Phys. Rev. D93, 084039 (2016), arXiv:1407.0032. 47

    2016 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Cortˆ es, S

    M. Cortˆ es, S. A. Kauffman, A. R. Liddle, and L. Smolin, Biocosmology: Towards the birth of a new science, arXiv:2204.09378

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    Cortˆ es, S

    M. Cortˆ es, S. A. Kauffman, A. R. Liddle, and L. Smolin, Biocosmology: Biology from a cosmo- logical perspective, arXiv:2204.09379

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    Cortˆ es, S

    M. Cortˆ es, S. A. Kauffman, A. R. Liddle, and L. Smolin, The TAP equation: evaluating combi- natorial innovation , arXiv:2204.14115

  24. [32]

    Buchalter Research Foundation, http://buchaltercosmologyprize.org/. 48

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.