Skip to main content

Full text of "Higher-Dimensional Algebra and Planck-Scale Physics"

See other formats

Higher-Dimensional Algebra 
and Planck-Scale Physics 

John C. Baez 

Department of Mathematics, University of California 

Riverside, California 92521 




ON : January 28, 1999 

To appear in Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale, 
i-Q ' eds. Craig Callender and Nick Huggett, Cambridge U. Press 








This is a nontechnical introduction to recent work on quantum gravity using 
ideas from higher-dimensional algebra. We argue that reconciling general rel- 
ativity with the Standard Model requires a 'background-free quantum theory 
with local degrees of freedom propagating causally'. We describe the insights 
O ' provided by work on topological quantum field theories such as quantum grav- 

i^;* , ity in 3-dimensional spacetime. These are background-free quantum theories 

Q"^ I lacking local degrees of freedom, so they only display some of the features we 

0\ • seek. However, they suggest a deep link between the concepts of 'space' and 

O . 'state', and similarly those of 'spacetime' and 'process', which we argue is to 

be expected in any background-free quantum theory. We sketch how higher- 
dimensional algebra provides the mathematical tools to make this link precise. 
Finally, we comment on attempts to formulate a theory of quantum gravity in 
4-dimensional spacetime using 'spin networks' and 'spin foams'. 

1 Introduction 

At present our physical worldview is deeply schizophrenic. We have, not one, but two 
fundamental theories of the physical universe: general relativity, and the Standard 
Model of particle physics based on quantum field theory. The former takes gravity into 
account but ignores quantum mechanics, while the latter takes quantum mechanics 
into account but ignores gravity. In other words, the former recognizes that spacetime 
is curved but neglects the uncertainty principle, while the latter takes the uncertainty 
principle into account but pretends that spacetime is fiat. Both theories have been 
spectacularly successful in their own domain, but neither can be anything more than 
an approximation to the truth. Clearly some synthesis is needed: at the very least, 
a theory of quantum gravity, which might or might not be part of a overarching 
'theory of everything'. Unfortunately, attempts to achieve this synthesis have not yet 

Modern theoretical physics is difhcuh to understand for anyone outside the sub- 
ject. Can philosophers really contribute to the project of reconciling general relativity 
and quantum field theory? Or is this a technical business best left to the experts? I 
would argue for the former. General relativity and quantum field theory are based 
on some profound insights about the nature of reality. These insights are crystallized 
in the form of mathematics, but there is a limit to how much progress we can make 
by just playing around with this mathematics. We need to go back to the insights 
behind general relativity and quantum field theory, learn to hold them together in 
our minds, and dare to imagine a world more strange, more beautiful, but ultimately 
more reasonable than our current theories of it. For this daunting task, philosophical 
reflection is bound to be of help. 

However, a word of warning is in order. The paucity of experimental evidence 
concerning quantum gravity has allowed research to proceed in a rather unconstrained 
manner, leading to divergent schools of opinion. If one asks a string theorist about 
quantum gravity, one will get utterly different answers than if one asks someone 
working on loop quantum gravity or some other approach. To make matters worse, 
experts often fail to emphasize the difference between experimental results, theories 
supported by experiment, speculative theories that have gained a certain plausibility 
after years of study, and the latest fads. Philosophers must take what physicists say 
about quantum gravity with a grain of salt. 

To lay my own cards on the table, I should say that as a mathematical physicist 
with an interest in philosophy, I am drawn to a strand of work that emphasizes 
'higher-dimensional algebra'. This branch of mathematics goes back and reconsiders 
some of the presuppositions that mathematicians usually take for granted, such as the 
notion of equality [8] and the emphasis on doing mathematics using 1-dimensional 
strings of symbols [12, 19]. Starting in the late 1980s, it became apparent that 
higher-dimensional algebra is the correct language to formulate so-called 'topological 
quantum field theories' [7, 20, 30]. More recently, various people have begun to 
formulate theories of quantum gravity using ideas from higher-dimensional algebra 
[6, 11, 16, 22, 23]. While they have tantalizing connections to string theory, these 
theories are best seen as an outgrowth of loop quantum gravity [24]. 

The plan of the paper is as follows. In Section 2, I begin by recalling why some 
physicists expect general relativity and quantum field theory to collide at the Planck 
length. This is a unit of distance concocted from three fundamental constants: the 
speed of light c, Newton's gravitational constant G, and Planck's constant h. General 
relativity idealizes reality by treating Planck's constant as negligible, while quantum 
field theory idealizes it by treating Newton's gravitational constant as negligible. By 
analyzing the physics of c, G, and h, we get a glimpse of the sort of theory that 
would be needed to deal with situations where these idealizations break down. In 
particular, I shall argue that we need a background-free quantum theory with local 
degrees of freedom propagating causally. 

In Section 3, I discuss 'topological quantum field theories'. These are the first 

examples of background-free quantum theories. However, they lack local degrees of 
freedom. In other words, they describe imaginary worlds in which everywhere looks 
like everywhere else! This might at first seem to condemn them to the status of 
mathematical curiosities. However, they suggest an important analogy between the 
mathematics of spacetime and the mathematics of quantum theory. I argue that this 
is the beginning of a new bridge between general relativity and quantum field theory. 

In Section 4, I describe one of the most important examples of a topological 
quantum field theory: the Turaev-Viro model of quantum gravity in 3-dimensional 
spacetime. This theory is just a warmup for the 4-dimensional case that is of real 
interest in physics. Nonetheless, it has some startling features which perhaps hint at 
the radical changes in our worldview that a successful synthesis of general relativity 
and quantum field theory would require. 

In Section 5, I discuss the role of higher- dimensional algebra in topological quan- 
tum field theory. I begin with a brief introduction to categories. Category theory 
can be thought of as an attempt to treat processes (or 'morphisms') on an equal 
footing with things (or 'objects'), and it is ultimately for this reason that it serves 
as a good framework for topological quantum field theory. In particular, category 
theory allows one to make the analogy between the mathematics of spacetime and 
the mathematics of quantum theory quite precise. But to fully explore this anal- 
ogy one must introduce 'n-categories', a generalization of categories that allows one 
to speak of processes between processes between processes... and so on to the nth 
degree. Since n-categories are purely algebraic structures but have a natural rela- 
tionship to the study of n-dimensional spacetime, their study is sometimes called 
'higher-dimensional algebra'. 

Finally, in Section 6 I briefly touch upon recent attempts to construct theories 
of 4-dimensional quantum gravity using higher-dimensional algebra. This subjects 
is still in its infancy. Throughout the paper, but especially in this last section, the 
reader must turn to the references for details. To make the bibliography as useful as 
possible, I have chosen references of an expository nature whenever they exist, rather 
than always citing the first paper in which something was done. 

2 The Planck Length 

Two constants appear throughout general relativity: the speed of light c and New- 
ton's gravitational constant G. This should be no surprise, since Einstein created 
general relativity to reconcile the success of Newton's theory of gravity, based on 
instantaneous action at a distance, with his new theory of special relativity, in which 
no influence travels faster than light. The constant c also appears in quantum field 
theory, but paired with a different partner: Planck's constant h. The reason is that 
quantum field theory takes into account special relativity and quantum theory, in 
which h sets the scale at which the uncertainty principle becomes important. 

It is reasonable to suspect that any theory reconcihng general relativity and quan- 
tum theory will involve all three constants c, G, and h. Planck noted that apart from 
numerical factors there is a unique way to use these constants to define units of length, 
time, and mass. For example, we can define the unit of length now called the 'Planck 
length' as follows: 

This is extremely small: about 1.6 ■ 10^^^ meters. Physicists have long suspected 
that quantum gravity will become important for understanding physics at about this 
scale. The reason is very simple: any calculation that predicts a length using only 
the constants c, G and h must give the Planck length, possibly multiplied by an 
unimportant numerical factor like 2n. 

For example, quantum field theory says that associated to any mass m there is 
a length called its Compton wavelength, ic, such that determining the position of 
a particle of mass m to within one Compton wavelength requires enough energy to 
create another particle of that mass. Particle creation is a quintessentially quantum- 
field-theoretic phenomenon. Thus we may say that the Compton wavelength sets the 
distance scale at which quantum field theory becomes crucial for understanding the 
behavior of a particle of a given mass. On the other hand, general relativity says 
that associated to any mass m there is a length called the Schwarzschild radius, £s, 
such that compressing an object of mass m to a size smaller than this results in the 
formation of a black hole. The Schwarzschild radius is roughly the distance scale at 
which general relativity becomes crucial for understanding the behavior of an object 
of a given mass. Now, ignoring some numerical factors, we have 





These two lengths become equal when m is the Planck mass. And when this happens, 
they both equal the Planck length! 

At least naively, we thus expect that both general relativity and quantum field 
theory would be needed to understand the behavior of an object whose mass is about 
the Planck mass and whose radius is about the Planck length. This not only explains 
some of the importance of the Planck scale, but also some of the difficulties in ob- 
taining experimental evidence about physics at this scale. Most of our information 
about general relativity comes from observing heavy objects like planets and stars, 
for which is ^ ic- Most of our information about quantum field theory comes from 
observing light objects like electrons and protons, for which ic ^ ^s- The Planck 
mass is intermediate between these: about the mass of a largish cell. But the Planck 
length is about 10~^° times the radius of a proton! To study a situation where both 

general relativity and quantum field theory are important, we could try to compress a 
cell to a size 10"^'^ times that of a proton. We know no reason why this is impossible 
in principle. But we have no idea how to actually accomplish such a feat. 

There are some well-known loopholes in the above argument. The 'unimportant 
numerical factor' I mentioned above might actually be very large, or very small. A 
theory of quantum gravity might make testable predictions of dimensionless quan- 
tities like the ratio of the muon and electron masses. For that matter, a theory of 
quantum gravity might involve physical constants other than c, G, and h. The latter 
two alternatives are especially plausible if we study quantum gravity as part of a 
larger theory describing other forces and particles. However, even though we cannot 
prove that the Planck length is significant for quantum gravity, 1 think we can glean 
some wisdom from pondering the constants c, G, and h — and more importantly, the 
physical insights that lead us to regard these constants as important. 

What is the importance of the constant c? In special relativity, what matters is 
the appearance of this constant in the Minkowski metric 

ds'^ = (?dt^ — dx^ — dy^ — dz^ 

which defines the geometry of spacetime, and in particular the lightcone through each 
point. Stepping back from the specific formalism here, we can see several ideas at 
work. First, space and time form a unified whole which can be thought of geometri- 
cally. Second, the quantities whose values we seek to predict are localized. That is, 
we can measure them in small regions of spacetime (sometimes idealized as points). 
Physicists call such quantities 'local degrees of freedom'. And third, to predict the 
value of a quantity that can be measured in some region i?, we only need to use values 
of quantities measured in regions that stand in a certain geometrical relation to R. 
This relation is called the 'causal structure' of spacetime. For example, in a relativis- 
tic field theory, to predict the value of the fields in some region i?, it suffices to use 
their values in any other region that intersects every timelike path passing through 
R. The common way of summarizing this idea is to say that nothing travels faster 
than light. I prefer to say that a good theory of physics should have local degrees of 
freedom propagating causally. 

In Newtonian gravity, G is simply the strength of the gravitational field. It takes 
on a deeper significance in general relativity, where the gravitational field is described 
in terms of the curvature of the spacetime metric. Unlike in special relativity, where 
the Minkowski metric is a 'background structure' given a priori, in general relativity 
the metric is treated as a field which not only affects, but also is affected by, the other 
fields present. In other words, the geometry of spacetime becomes a local degree of 
freedom of the theory. Quantitatively, the interaction of the metric and other fields 
is described by Einstein's equation 

G^y = SttGT^u, 

where the Einstein tensor G^j, depends on the curvature of the metric, while the stress- 
energy tensor T^,^ describes the fiow of energy and momentum due to all the other 

fields. The role of the constant G is thus simply to quantify how much the geometry 
of spacetime is affected by other fields. Over the years, people have realized that the 
great lesson of general relativity is that a good theory of physics should contain no 
geometrical structures that affect local degrees of freedom while remaining unaffected 
by them. Instead, all geometrical structures — and in particular the causal structure 
— should themselves be local degrees of freedom. For short, one says that the theory 
should be background-free. 

The struggle to free ourselves from background structures began long before Ein- 
stein developed general relativity, and is still not complete. The conflict between 
Ptolemaic and Copernican cosmologies, the dispute between Newton and Leibniz 
concerning absolute and relative motion, and the modern arguments concerning the 
'problem of time' in quantum gravity — all are but chapters in the story of this 
struggle. I do not have room to sketch this story here, nor even to make more pre- 
cise the all- important notion of 'geometrical structure'. I can only point the reader 
towards the literature, starting perhaps with the books by Barbour [9] and Earman 
[15], various papers by Rovelli [25, 26, 27], and the many references therein. 

Finally, what of hi In quantum theory, this appears most prominently in the 
commutation relation between the momentum p and position g of a particle: 

pq — qp = —ih, 

together with similar commutation relations involving other pairs of measurable quan- 
tities. Because our ability to measure two quantities simultaneously with complete 
precision is limited by their failure to commute, h quantifies our inability to simulta- 
neously know everything one might choose to know about the world. But there is far 
more to quantum theory than the uncertainty principle. In practice, h comes along 
with the whole formalism of complex Hilbert spaces and linear operators. 

There is a widespread sense that the principles behind quantum theory are poorly 
understood compared to those of general relativity. This has led to many discussions 
about interpretational issues. However, I do not think that quantum theory will 
lose its mystery through such discussions. I believe the real challenge is to better 
understand why the mathematical formalism of quantum theory is precisely what it 
is. Research in quantum logic has done a wonderful job of understanding the field of 
candidates from which the particular formalism we use has been chosen. But what is 
so special about this particular choice? Why, for example, do we use complex Hilbert 
spaces rather than real or quaternionic ones? Is this decision made solely to fit the 
experimental data, or is there a deeper reason? Since questions like this do not yet 
have clear answers, I shall summarize the physical insight behind h by saying simply 
that a good theory of the physical universe should be a quantum theory — leaving 
open the possibility of eventually saying something more illuminating. 

Having attempted to extract the ideas lying behind the constants c, G, and h, we 
are in a better position to understand the task of constructing a theory of quantum 
gravity. General relativity acknowledges the importance of c and G but idealizes 

reality by treating h as negligibly small. From our discussion above, we see that this 
is because general relativity is a background-free classical theory with local degrees of 
freedom propagating causally. On the other hand, quantum field theory as normally 
practiced acknowledges c and h but treats G as negligible, because it is a background- 
dependent quantum theory with local degrees of freedom propagating causally. 

The most conservative approach to quantum gravity is to seek a theory that com- 
bines the best features of general relativity and quantum field theory. To do this, 
we must try to find a background-free quantum theory with local degrees of freedom 
propagating causally. While this approach may not succeed, it is definitely worth 
pursuing. Given the lack of experimental evidence that would point us towards fun- 
damentally new principles, we should do our best to understand the full implications 
of the principles we already have! 

From my description of the goal one can perhaps see some of the difficulties. 
Since quantum gravity should be background-free, the geometrical structures defin- 
ing the causal structure of spacetime should themselves be local degrees of freedom 
propagating causally. This much is already true in general relativity. But because 
quantum gravity should be a quantum theory, these degrees of freedom should be 
treated quantum- mechanically. So at the very least, we should develop a quantum 
theory of some sort of geometrical structure that can define a causal structure on 

String theory has not gone far in this direction. This theory is usually formulated 
with the help of a metric on spacetime, which is treated as a background structure 
rather than a local degree of freedom like the rest. Most string theorists recognize 
that this is an unsatisfactory situation, and by now many are struggling towards a 
background-free formulation of the theory. However, in the words of two experts 
[18], "it seems that a still more radical departure from conventional ideas about 
space and time may be required in order to arrive at a truly background independent 

Loop quantum gravity has gone a long way towards developing a background- 
free quantum theory of the geometry of space [1, 28], but not so far when it comes 
to spacetime. This has made it difficult to understand dynamics, and particular 
the causal propagation of degrees of freedom. Work in earnest on these issues has 
begun only recently. One reason for optimism is the recent success in understanding 
quantum gravity in 3 spacetime dimensions. But to explain this, I must first say a 
bit about topological quantum field theory. 

3 Topological Quantum Field Theory 

Besides general relativity and quantum field theory as usually practiced, a third sort 
of idealization of the physical world has attracted a great deal of attention in the 
last decade. These are called topological quantum field theories, or 'TQFTs'. In the 

terminology of the previous section, a TQFT is a background-free quantum theory 
with no local degrees of freedom}. 

A good example is quantum gravity in 3-dimensional spacetime. First let us recall 
some features of classical gravity in 3-dimensional spacetime. Classically, Einstein's 
equations predict qualitatively very different phenomena depending on the dimension 
of spacetime. If spacetime has 4 or more dimensions, Einstein's equations imply that 
the metric has local degrees of freedom. In other words, the curvature of spacetime 
at a given point is not completely determined by the flow of energy and momentum 
through that point: it is an independent variable in its own right. For example, 
even in the vacuum, where the energy-momentum tensor vanishes, localized ripples 
of curvature can propagate in the form of gravitational radiation. In 3-dimensional 
spacetime, however, Einstein's equations suffice to completely determine the curvature 
at a given point of spacetime in terms of the flow of energy and momentum through 
that point. We thus say that the metric has no local degrees of freedom. In particular, 
in the vacuum the metric is fiat, so every small patch of empty spacetime looks exactly 
like every other. 

The absence of local degrees of freedom makes general relativity far simpler in 
3-dimensional spacetime than in higher dimensions. Perhaps surprisingly, it is still 
somewhat interesting. The reason is the presence of 'global' degrees of freedom. For 
example, if we chop a cube out of flat 3-dimensional Minkowski space and form a 
3-dimensional torus by identifying the opposite faces of this cube, we get a spacetime 
with a flat metric on it, and thus a solution of the vacuum Einstein equations. If 
we do the same starting with a larger cube, or a parallelipiped, we get a different 
spacetime that also satisfles the vacuum Einstein equations. The two spacetimes are 
locally indistinguishable, since locally both look just like flat Minkowski spacetime. 
However, they can be distinguished globally — for example, by measuring the volume 
of the whole spacetime, or studying the behavior of geodesies that wrap all the way 
around the torus. 

Since the metric has no local degrees of freedom in 3-dimensional general relativity, 
this theory is much easier to quantize than the physically relevant 4-dimensional case. 
In the simplest situation, where we consider 'pure' gravity without matter, we obtain 
a background-free quantum fleld theory with no local degrees of freedom whatsoever: 
a TQFT. 

I shall say more about 3-dimensional quantum gravity in Section 4. To set the 
stage, let me sketch the axiomatic approach to topological quantum fleld theory pro- 
posed by Atiyah [2] . My earlier deflnition of a TQFT as a 'background- free quantum 
fleld theory with no local degrees of freedom' corresponds fairly well to how physicists 
think about TQFTs. But mathematicians who wish to prove theorems about TQFTs 
need to start with something more precise, so they often use Atiyah's axioms. 

An important feature of TQFTs is that they do not presume a flxed topology 

^It would be nicely symmetrical if TQFTs involved the constants G and H but not c. Unfortu- 
nately I cannot quite see how to make this idea precise. 

for space or spacetime. In other words, when deahng with an rz- dimensional TQFT, 
we are free to choose any (n — l)-dimensional manifold to represent space at a given 
time^. Moreover given two such manifolds, say 5" and S', we are free to choose any 
n-dimensional manifold M to represent the portion of spacetime between S and S'. 
Mathematicians call M a 'cobordism' from S to S'. We write M: S -^ S', because we 
may think of M as the process of time passing from the moment S to the moment 


Figure 1: A cobordism 

For example, in Figure 1 we depict a 2-dimensional manifold M going from a 
1-dimensional manifold S (a pair of circles) to a 1-dimensional manifold S' (a single 
circle). Crudely speaking, M represents a process in which two separate spaces collide 
to form a single one! This may seem outre, but these days physicists are quite willing 
to speculate about processes in which the topology of space changes with the passage 
of time. Other forms of topology change include the the formation of a wormhole, 
the appearance of the universe in a 'big bang', or its disappearance in a 'big crunch'. 

There are various important operations one can perform on cobordisms, but I 
will only describe two. First, we may 'compose' two cobordisms M: S -^ S' and 
M: S' -^ S", obtaining a cobordism M'M: S -^ S", as illustrated in Figure 2. The 
idea here is that the passage of time corresponding to M followed by the passage of 
time corresponding to M' equals the passage of time corresponding to M'M. This is 
analogous to the familiar idea that waiting t seconds followed by waiting t' seconds is 
the same as waiting t + t' seconds. The big difference is that in topological quantum 
field theory we cannot measure time in seconds, because there is no background 
metric available to let us count the passage of time! We can only keep track of 
topology change. Just as ordinary addition is associative, composition of cobordisms 
satisfies the associative law: 

{M"M')M = M"{M'M). 

^Here and in what follows, by 'manifold' I really mean 'compact oriented smooth manifold', and 
cobordisms between these will also be compact, oriented, and smooth. 

However, composition of cobordisms is not commutative. As we shall see, this is 
related to the famous noncommutativity of observables in quantum theory. 

Figure 2: Composition of cobordisms 

Second, for any (n — l)-dimensional manifold S representing space, there is a 
cobordism Is'- S —^ S called the 'identity' cobordism, which represents a passage of 
time without any topology change. For example, when 5" is a circle, the identity 
cobordism l^ is a cylinder, as shown in Figure 3. In general, the identity cobordism 
Is has the property that for any cobordism M: S' -^ S we have 

IsM = M, 

while for any cobordism M: S ^ S' we have 

Mis = M. 

These properties say that an identity cobordism is analogous to waiting seconds: if 
you wait seconds and then wait t more seconds, or wait t seconds and then wait 
more seconds, this is the same as waiting t seconds. 

These operations just formalize of the notion of 'the passage of time' in a context 
where the topology of spacetime is arbitrary and there is no background metric. 
Atiyah's axioms relate this notion to quantum theory as follows. First, a TQFT must 
assign a Hilbert space Z{S) to each (n — 1) -dimensional manifold S. Vectors in this 
Hilbert space represent possible states of the universe given that space is the manifold 
S. Second, the TQFT must assign a linear operator Z{M): Z{S) -^ Z{S') to each n- 
dimensional cobordism M: S ^ S'. This operator describes how states change given 
that the portion of spacetime between S and S' is the manifold M. In other words, if 
space is initially the manifold S and the state of the universe is ip, after the passage 
of time corresponding to M the state of the universe will be Z[M)iIj. 


Figure 3: An identity cobordism 

In addition, the TQFT must satisfy a list of properties. Let me just mention two. 
First, the TQFT must preserve composition. That is, given cobordisms M: S ^ S' 
and M': S' -^ S", we must have 

Z{M'M) = Z{M')Z{M), 

where the right-hand side denotes the composite of the operators Z{M) and Z{M'). 
Second, it must preserve identities. That is, given any manifold S representing space, 
we must have 

Zils) = ^z(s)- 

where the right-hand side denotes the identity operator on the Hilbert space Z{S). 

Both these axioms are eminently reasonable if one ponders them a bit. The first 
says that the passage of time corresponding to the cobordism M followed by the 
passage of time corresponding to M' has the same effect on a state as the combined 
passage of time corresponding to M'M. The second says that a passage of time in 
which no topology change occurs has no effect at all on the state of the universe. This 
seems paradoxical at first, since it seems we regularly observe things happening even 
in the absence of topology change. However, this paradox is easily resolved: a TQFT 
describes a world quite unlike ours, one without local degrees of freedom. In such a 
world, nothing local happens, so the state of the universe can only change when the 
topology of space itself changes^. 

The most interesting thing about the TQFT axioms is their common formal char- 
acter. Loosely speaking, they all say that a TQFT maps structures in differential 
topology — by which I mean the study of manifolds — to corresponding structures 
in quantum theory. In coming up with these axioms, Atiyah took advantage of a 

^Actually, while perfectly correct as far as it goes, this resolution dodges an important issue. 
Some physicists have suggested that the second axiom may hold even in quantum field theories with 

local degrees of freedom, so long as they are background-free 
would take us too far afield here. 

10]. Unfortunately a discussion of this 


powerful analogy between differential topology and quantum theory, summarized in 
Table 1. 



(n — l)-dimensional manifold 

Hilbert space 


cobordism between (n — l)-diniensional manifolds 


composition of cobordisms 

composition of operators 

identity cobordism 

identity operator 

Table 1. Analogy between differential topology and quantum theory 

I shall explain this analogy between differential topology and quantum theory fur- 
ther in Section 5. For now, let me just emphasize that this analogy is exactly the 
sort of clue we should pursue for a deeper understanding of quantum gravity. At first 
glance, general relativity and quantum theory look very different mathematically: 
one deals with space and spacetime, the other with Hilbert spaces and operators. 
Combining them has always seemed a bit like mixing oil and water. But topolog- 
ical quantum field theory suggests that perhaps they are not so different after all! 
Even better, it suggests a concrete program of synthesizing the two, which many 
mathematical physicists are currently pursuing. Sometimes this goes by the name of 
'quantum topology' [3, 30]. 

Quantum topology is very technical, as anything involving mathematical physi- 
cists inevitably becomes. But if we stand back a moment, it should be perfectly 
obvious that differential topology and quantum theory must merge if we are to un- 
derstand background-free quantum field theories. In physics that ignores general 
relativity, we treat space as a background on which states of the world are displayed. 
Similarly, we treat spacetime as a background on which the process of change occurs. 
But these are idealizations which we must overcome in a background-free theory. 
In fact, the concepts of 'space' and 'state' are two aspects of a unified whole, and 
likewise for the concepts of 'spacetime' and 'process'. It is a challenge, not just for 
mathematical physicists, but also for philosophers, to understand this more deeply. 

4 S-Dimensional Quantum Gravity 

Before the late 1980s, quantum gravity was widely thought to be just as intractable 
in 3 spacetime dimensions as in the physically important 4-dimensional case. The 
situation changed drastically when physicists and mathematicians developed the tools 
for handling background-free quantum theories without local degrees of freedom. By 
now, it is easier to give a complete description of 3-dimensional quantum gravity than 
most quantum field theories of the traditional sort! 


Let me sketch how one sets up a theory of 3-dimensional quantum gravity satisfy- 
ing Atiyah's axioms for a TQFT. Before doing so I should warn reader that there are 
a number of inequivalent theories of 3-dimensional quantum gravity [13]. The one I 
shall describe is called the Turaev-Viro model [30]. While in some ways this is not 
the most physically realistic one, since it is a quantum theory of Riemannian rather 
than Lorentzian metrics, it illustrates the points I want to make here. 

To get a TQFT satisfying Atiyah's axioms we need to describe a Hilbert space of 
states for each 2-dimensional manifold and an operator for each cobordism between 
2-dimensional manifolds. We begin by constructing a preliminary Hilbert space Z{S) 
for any 2-dimensional manifold S. This construction requires choosing a background 
structure: a way of chopping S into triangles. Later we will eliminate this background- 
dependence and construct the Hilbert space of real physical interest. 

To define the Hilbert space Z{S), it is enough to specify an orthonormal basis for 
it. We decree that states in this basis are ways of labelling the edges of the triangles 
in S by numbers of the form 0,|,1,|,...,|. An example is shown in Figure 4, where 
we take S* to be a sphere. Physicists call the numbers labelling the edges 'spins', 
alluding to the fact that we are using mathematics developed in the study of angular 
momentum. But here these numbers represent the lengths of the edges as measured in 
units of the Planck length. In this theory, length is a discrete rather than continuous 

Figure 4: A state in the preliminary Hilbert space for 3-dimensional quantum gravity 

Then we construct an operator Z{M): Z{S) — > Z{S') for each cobordism M: S -^ 
S'. Again we do this with the help of a background structure on M: we choose a 
way to chop it into tetrahedra, whose triangular faces must include among them the 
triangles of S and S'. To define Z{M) it is enough to specify the transition amplitudes 
(-0', Z{M)il)) when %Ij and -0' are states in the bases given above. We do this as follows. 
The states -0 and -i/'' tell us how to label the edges of triangles in S and S' by spins. 
Consider any way to label the edges of M by spins that is compatible with these 


labellings of edges in S and S". We can think of this as a 'quantum geometry' for 
spacetime, since it tells us the shape of every tetrahedron in M. Using a certain 
recipe we can compute a complex number for this geometry, which we think of as its 
'amplitude' in the quantum-mechanical sense. We then sum these amplitudes over 
all geometries to get the total transition amplitude from i/j to i/j'. The reader familiar 
with quantum field theory may note that this construction is a discrete version of a 
'path integral'. 

Now let me describe how we erase the background-dependence from this construc- 
tion. Given an identity cobordism I5: S ^ S, the operator Z{ls) is usually not the 
identity, thus violating one of Atiyah's axioms for a topological quantum field theory. 
However, the next best thing happens: this operator maps Z{S) onto a subspace, and 
it acts as the identity on this subspace. This subspace, which we call Z{S), is the 
Hilbert space of real physical interest in 3-dimensional quantum gravity. Amazingly, 
this subspace doesn't depend on how we chopped S into triangles. Even better, for 
any cobordism M: S — * S', the operator Z{M) maps Z{S) to Z{S'). Thus it restricts 
to an operator Z{M): Z{S) -^ Z{S'). Moreover, this operator Z{M) turns out not 
to depend on how we chopped M into tetrahedra. To top it all off, it turns out that 
the Hilbert spaces Z{S) and operators Z{M) satisfy Atiyah's axioms. 

In short, we started by chopping space into triangles and spacetime into tetrahe- 
dra, but at the end of the day nothing depends on this choice of background structure. 
It also turns out that the final theory has no local degrees of freedom: all the mea- 
surable quantities are global in character. For example, there is no operator on Z{S) 
corresponding to the 'length of a triangle's edge', but there is an operator correspond- 
ing to the length of the shortest geodesic wrapping around the space 5" in a particular 
way. These miracles are among the main reasons for interest in quantum topology. 
They only happen because of the carefully chosen recipe for computing amplitudes for 
spacetime geometries. This recipe is the real core of the whole construction. Sadly, 
it is a bit too technical to describe here, so the reader will have to turn elsewhere for 
details [19, 30]. I can say this, though: the reason this recipe works so well is that 
it neatly combines ideas from general relativity, quantum field theory, and a third 
subject that might at first seem unrelated — higher-dimensional algebra. 

5 Higher-Dimensional Algebra 

One of the most remarkable accomplishments of the early 20th century was to for- 
malize all of mathematics in terms of a language with a deliberately impoverished 
vocabulary: the language of set theory. In Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, everything is 
a set, the only fundamental relationships between sets are membership and equality, 
and two sets are equal if and only if they have the same elements. If in Zermelo- 
Fraenkel set theory you ask what sort of thing is the number vr, the relationship 'less 
than', or the exponential function, the answer is always the same: a set! Of course one 
must bend over backwards to think of such varied entities as sets, so this formaliza- 


tion may seem almost deliberately perverse. However, it represents the culmination 
of a worldview in which things are regarded as more fundamental than processes or 

More recently, mathematicians have developed a somewhat more flexible language, 
the language of category theory. Category theory is an attempt to put processes and 
relationships on an equal status with things. A category consists of a collection of 
'objects', and for each pair of objects x and y, a collection of 'morphisms' from x to y. 
We write a morphism from x to y as f: x ^ y. We demand that for any morphisms 
f: X ^ y and g:y —^ z, we can 'compose' them to obtain a morphism gf: x ^ z. 
We also demand that composition be associative. Finally, we demand that for any 
object x there be a morphism 1^, called the 'identity' of x, such that /l^. = / for any 
morphism f: x ^ y and IxQ = g for any morphism g:y ^ x. 

Perhaps the most familiar example of a category is Set. Here the objects are 
sets and the morphisms are functions between sets. However, there are many other 
examples. Fundamental to quantum theory is the category Hilb. Here the objects 
are complex Hilbert spaces and the morphisms are linear operators between Hilbert 
spaces. In Section 3 we also met a category important in differential topology, the 
category nCob. Here the objects are (n— l)-dimensional manifolds and the morphisms 
are cobordisms between such manifolds. Note that in this example, the morphisms 
are not functions! Nonetheless we can still think of them as 'processes' going from 
one object to another. 

An important part of learning category theory is breaking certain habits one may 
have acquired from set theory. For example, in category theory one must resist the 
temptation to 'peek into the objects'. Traditionally, the first thing one asks about 
a set is: what are its elements? A set is like a container, and the contents of this 
container are the most interesting thing about it. But in category theory, an object 
need not have 'elements' or any sort of internal structure. Even if it does, this is not 
what really matters! What really matters about an object is its morphisms to and 
from other objects. Thus category theory encourages a relational worldview in which 
things are described, not in terms of their constituents, but by their relationships to 
other things. 

Category theory also downplays the importance of equality between objects. Given 
two elements of a set, the first thing one asks about them is: are they equal? But for 
objects in a category, we should ask instead whether they are isomorphic. Techni- 
cally, the objects x and y are said to be 'isomorphic' if there is an morphism f:x^y 
that has an 'inverse': a morphism f~^:y -^ x for which f^^f = Ix and //^^ = ly 
A morphism with an inverse is called an 'isomorphism'. An isomorphism between 
two objects lets turn any morphism to or from one of them into a morphism to or 
from the other in a reversible sort of way. Since what matters about objects are their 
morphisms to and from other objects, specifying an isomorphism between two objects 
lets us treat them as 'the same' for all practical purposes. 

Categories can be regarded as higher-dimensional analogs of sets. As shown in Fig. 


5, we may visualize a set as a bunch of points, namely its elements. Similarly, we may 
visualize a category as a bunch of points corresponding to its objects, together with 
a bunch of 1- dimensional arrows corresponding to its morphisms. (For simplicity, I 
have not drawn the identity morphisms in Fig. 5.) 

Figure 5: A set and a category 

We may use the analogy between sets and categories to 'categorify' almost any 
set-theoretic concept, obtaining a category-theoretic counterpart [8]. For example, 
just as there are functions between sets, there are 'functors' between categories. A 
function from one set to another sends each element of the first to an element of the 
second. Similarly, a functor F from one category to another sends each object x of 
the first to an object F{x) of the second, and also sends each morphism f:x^yoi 
the first to a morphism F{f): F{x) -^ F{y) of the second. In addition, functors are 
required to preserve composition and identities: 

Fif'f) = F{f')F{f) 




Functors are important because they allow us to apply the relational worldview dis- 
cussed above, not just to objects in a given category, but to categories themselves. 
Ultimately what matters about a category is not its 'contents' — its objects and 
morphisms — but its functors to and from other categories! 





equations between elements 

isomorphisms between objects 



functions between sets 

functors between categories 

equations between functions 

natural isomorphisms between functors 

Table 2. Analogy between set theory and category theory 


We summarize the analogy between set theory and category theory in Table 2. In 
addition to the terms already discussed there is a concept of 'natural isomorphism' 
between functors. This is the correct analog of an equation between functions, but 
we will not need it here — I include it just for the sake of completeness. 

The full impact of category-theoretic thinking has taken a while to be felt. Cat- 
egories were invented in the 1940s by Eilenberg and Mac Lane for the purpose of 
clarifying relationships between algebra and topology. As time passed they became 
increasingly recognized as a powerful tool for exploiting analogies throughout math- 
ematics [21]. In the early 1960s they led to revolutionary — and still controversial 
— developments in mathematical logic [17]. It gradually became clear that category 
theory was a part of a deeper subject, 'higher- dimensional algebra', in which the con- 
cept of a category is generalized to that of an 'ri-category'. But only by the 1990s 
did the real importance of categories for physics become evident, with the discovery 
that higher-dimensional algebra is the perfect language for topological quantum field 
theory [14, 20]. 

Why are categories important in topological quantum field theory? The most 
obvious answer is that a TQFT is a functor. Recall from Section 3 that a TQFT 
maps each manifold S representing space to a Hilbert space Z{S) and each cobordism 
M: S -^ S' representing spacetime to an operator Z{M): Z{S) -^ Z{S'), in such a 
way that composition and identities are preserved. We may summarize all this by 
saying that a TQFT is a functor 

Z: nCob -^ Hilb. 

In short, category theory makes the analogy in Table 1 completely precise. In terms 
of this analogy, many somewhat mysterious aspects of quantum theory correspond 
to easily understood facts about spacetime! For example, the noncommutativity 
of operators in quantum theory corresponds to the noncommutativity of composing 
cobordisms. Similarly, the all-important 'adjoint' operation in quantum theory, which 
turns an operator A: H ^ H' into an operator A*: H' -^ H, corresponds to the oper- 
ation of reversing the roles of past and future in a cobordism M: S -^ S', obtaining 
a cobordism M*: S' -^ S. 

But the role of category theory goes far beyond this. The real surprise comes when 
one examines the details of specific TQFTs. In Section 4 I sketched the construction of 
3-dimensional quantum gravity, but I left out the recipe for computing amplitudes for 
spacetime geometries. Thus the most interesting features of the whole business were 
left as unexplained 'miracles': the background-independence of the Hilbert spaces 
Z{S) and operators Z{M), and the fact that they satisfy Atiyah's axioms for a TQFT. 
In fact, the recipe for amplitudes and the verification of these facts make heavy use 
of category theory. The same is true for all other theories for which Atiyah's axioms 
have been verified. For some strange reason, it seems that category theory is precisely 
suited to explaining what makes a TQFT tick. 

For the last 10 years or so, various researchers have been trying to understand this 


more deeply. Much remains mysterious, but it now seems that TQFTs are intimately 
related to category theory because of special properties of the category nCob. While 
nCoh is defined using concepts from differential topology, a great deal of evidence 
suggests that it admits a simple description in terms of 'n-categories'. 

I have already alluded to the concept of 'categorification' — the process of re- 
placing sets by categories, functions by functors and so on, as indicated in Table 2. 
The concept of 'n-category' is obtained from the concept of 'set' by categorifying it n 
times! An ri-category has objects, morphisms between objects, 2-morphisms between 
morphisms, and so on up to n-morphisms, together with various composition opera- 
tions satisfying various reasonable laws [5]. Increasing the value of n allows an ever 
more nuanced treatment of the notion of 'sameness'. A 0-category is just a set, and 
in a set the elements are simply equal or unequal. A 1-category is a category, and 
in this context we may speak not only of equal but also of isomorphic objects. Un- 
fortunately, this careful distinction between equality and isomorphism breaks down 
when we study the morphisms. Morphisms in a category are either the same or dif- 
ferent; there is no concept of isomorphic morphisms. In a 2-category this is remedied 
by introducing 2-morphisms between morphisms. Unfortunately, in a 2-category we 
cannot speak of isomorphic 2-morphisms. To remedy this we must introduce the 
notion of 3-category, and so on. 

We may visualize the objects of an n-category as points, the morphisms as arrows 
going between these points, the 2-morphisms as 2-dimensional surfaces going between 
these arrows, and so on. There is thus a natural link between rz-categories and n- 
dimensional topology. Indeed, one reason why n-categories are a bit formidable is 
that calculations with them are most naturally done using ri- dimensional diagrams. 
But this link between n-categories and n- dimensional topology is precisely why there 
may be a nice description of nCoh in the language of ri-categories. 

Dolan and I have proposed such a description, which we call the 'cobordism hy- 
pothesis' [7]. Much work remains to be done to make this hypothesis precise and 
prove or disprove it. Proving it would lay the groundwork for understanding topo- 
logical quantum field theories in a systematic way. But beyond this, it would help 
us towards a purely algebraic understanding of 'space' and 'spacetime' — which is 
precisely what we need to marry them to the quantum-mechanical notions of 'state' 
and 'process'. 

6 4-DirQensional Quantum Gravity 

How important are the lessons of topological quantum field theory for 4-dimensional 
quantum gravity? This is still an open question. Since TQFTs lack local degrees 
of freedom, they are at best a warmup for the problem we really want to tackle: 
constructing a background-free quantum theory with local degrees of freedom propa- 
gating causally. Thus, even though work on TQFTs has suggested new ideas linking 
quantum theory and general relativity, these ideas may be too simphstic to be useful 

in real-world physics. 

However, physics is not done by sitting on ones hands and pessimistically pon- 
dering the immense magnitude of the problems. For decades our only insights into 
quantum gravity came from general relativity and quantum field theory on spacetime 
with a fixed background metric. Now we can view it from a third angle, that of topo- 
logical quantum field theory. Surely it makes sense to invest some effort in trying to 
combine the best aspects of all three theories! 

And indeed, in the last few years various people have begun to do just this, largely 
motivated by tantalizing connections between topological quantum field theory and 
loop quantum gravity. In loop quantum gravity, the preliminary Hilbert space has 
a basis given by 'spin networks' — roughly speaking, graphs with edges labelled by 
spins [4, 29]. We now understand quite well how a spin network describes a quantum 
state of the geometry of space. But spin networks are also used to describe states in 
TQFTs, where they arise naturally from considerations of higher-dimensional algebra. 
For example, in 3-dimensional quantum gravity the state shown in Fig. 4 can also be 
described using the spin network shown in Fig. 6. 

Figure 6: A spin network 

Using the relationships between 4-dimensional quantum gravity and topological 
quantum field theory, researchers have begun to formulate theories in which the quan- 
tum geometry of spacetime is described using 'spin foams' — roughly speaking, 2- 
dimensional structures made of polygons joined at their edges, with all the polygons 
being labelled by spins [6, 11, 16, 23, 24]. The most important part of a spin foam 
model is a recipe assigning an amplitude to each spin foam. Much as Feynman di- 
agrams in ordinary quantum field theory describe processes by which one collection 
of particles evolves into another, spin foams describe processes by which one spin 
network evolves into another. Indeed, there is a category whose objects are spin net- 
works and whose morphisms are spin foams! And like nCob, this category appears 
to arise very naturally from purely n-categorical considerations. 


In the most radical approaches, the concepts of 'space' and 'state' are completely 
merged in the notion of 'spin network', and similarly the concepts of 'spacetime' 
and 'process' are merged in the notion of 'spin foam', eliminating the scaffolding 
of a spacetime manifold entirely. To me, at least, this is a very appealing vision. 
However, there are a great many obstacles to overcome before we have a full-fledged 
theory of quantum gravity along these lines. Let me mention just a few of the most 
pressing. First there is the problem of developing quantum theories of Lorentzian 
rather than Riemannian metrics. Second, and closely related, we need to better 
understand the concept of 'causal structure' in the context of spin foam models. 
Only the work of Markopoulou and Smolin [22] has addressed this point so far. Third, 
there is the problem of formulating physical questions in these theories in such a way 
that divergent sums are eliminated. And fourth, there is the problem of developing 
computational techniques to the point where we can check whether these theories 
approximate general relativity in the limit of large distance scales — i.e., distances 
much greater than the Planck length. Starting from familiar territory we have sailed 
into strange new waters, but only if we circle back to the physics we know will the 
journey be complete. 


Conversations and correspondence with many people have helped form my views on 
these issues. I cannot list them all, but I especially want to thank Abhay Ashtekar, 
John Barrett, Louis Crane, James Dolan, Louis KaufFman, Kirill Krasnov, Carlo 
Rovelli, and Lee Smolin. 


[1] A. Ashtekar, Quantum mechanics of geometry, preprint available as gr- 

[2] M. F. Atiyah, The Geometry and Physics of Knots, Cambridge U. Press, Cam- 
bridge, 1990. 

[3] R. Baadhio and L. Kauffman, editors. Quantum Topology, World Scientific, Sin- 
gapore, 1993. 

[4] J. Baez, Spin networks in nonperturbative quantum gravity, in The Interface 
of Knots and Physics, ed. L. Kauffman, American Mathematical Society, Provi- 
dence, Rhode Island, 1996. 

[5] J. Baez, An introduction to n-categories, 7th Conference on Category Theory and 
Computer Science, eds. E. Moggi and G. Rosolini, Lecture Notes in Computer 
Science 1290, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1997, pp. 1-33. 


[6] J. Baez, Spin foam models, Class. Quantum Grav. 15 (1998), 1827-1858. 

[7] J. Baez and J. Dolan, Higher-dimensional algebra and topological quantum field 
theory. Jour. Math. Phys. 36 (1995), 6073-6105. 

[8] J. Baez and J. Dolan, Categorification, in Higher Category Theory, eds. E. Get- 
zler and M. Kapranov, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1998, pp. 

[9] J. Barbour, Absolute or Relative Motion? A Study from the Machian Point of 
View of the Discovery and the Structure of Dynamical Theories pt. 1, Cambridge 
U. Press, Cambridge, 1989. 

[10] J. Barrett, Quantum gravity as topological quantum field theory. Jour. Math. 
Phys. 36 (1995), 6161-6179. 

[11] J. Barrett and L. Crane, Relativistic spin networks and quantum gravity. Jour. 
Math. Phys. 39 (1998), 3296-3302. 

[12] R. Brown, Out of line, Roy Inst. Proc. 64 (1992), 207-243. 

[13] S. Carlip, Quantum Gravity in 2+1 Dimensions, Cambridge University Press, 
Cambridge, 1998. 

[14] L. Crane, 2-d Physics and 3-d topology, Commun. Math. Phys. 135 (1991), 615- 

[15] J. Earman, World Enough and Spacetime: Absolute vs. Relational Theories of 
Space and Time, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1989. 

[16] L. Freidel and K. Krasnov, Spin foam models and the classical action principle, 
preprint available as hep-th/9807092. 

[17] R. Goldblatt, Topoi, the Categorial Analysis of Logic, North-Holland, New York, 

[18] R. Helling and H. Nicolai, Supermembranes and (M)atrix theory, preprint avail- 
able as hep-th/9809103. 

[19] L. Kauffman, Knots and Physics, World Scientific, Singapore, 1993. 

[20] R. Lawrence, Triangulation, categories and extended field theories, in Quantum 
Topology, eds. R. Baadhio and L. Kauffman, World Scientific, Singapore, 1993, 
pp. 191-208. 

[21] S. Mac Lane, Categories for the Working Mathematician, Springer, Berlin, 1988. 


[22] F. Markopoulou and L. Smolin, Quantum geometry with intrinsic local causality, 
Phys. Rev. D58: 084032. 

[23] M. Reisenberger, A left-handed simplicial action for Euclidean general relativity, 
preprint available as gr-qc/9609002. 

[24] M. Reisenberger and C Rovelli, "Sum over surfaces" form of loop quantum 
gravity, Phys. Rev. D56 (1997), 3490-3508. 

[25] C Rovelli, What is observable in classical and quantum gravity?. Class. Quant. 
Grav. 8 (1991), 297-316. 

[26] C. Rovelli, Quantum reference systems. Class. Quant. Grav. 8 (1991), 317-331. 

[27] C. Rovelli, Halfway through the woods: contemporary research on space and 
time, in The Cosmos of Science: Essays of Exploration, eds. J. Earman and J. 
Norton, U. of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, 1997, pp. 180-223. 

[28] C Rovelli, Loop quantum gravity. Living Reviews in Relativity (1998), available 
at ( 

[29] L. Smolin, The future of spin networks, preprint available as gr-qc/9702030. 

[30] V. Turaev, Quantum Invariants of Knots and 3-Manifolds, de Gruyter, New 
York, 1994.