← Latest papers
⚛️ general relativity

On the Unitarity of the Gravitational S-Matrix in High Dimension

The paper argues that the gravitational S-matrix in dimensions greater than four fails to be a unitary operator in Fock space due to the orthogonality of high-energy black hole states, yet suggests that physical unitarity may be recovered through an algebraic formulation based on fermionic oscillators, pending a rigorous proof of Poincaré invariance for the S-matrix amplitudes.

Original authors: T. Banks

Published 2026-02-17
📖 6 min read🧠 Deep dive

Original authors: T. Banks

Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer

The Big Question: Is Gravity a Perfect Game of Billiards?

Imagine you are watching a game of billiards. You hit the cue ball, it smashes into the others, and they scatter. In a perfect, mathematical world, if you knew the exact position and speed of every ball at the start, you could predict exactly where they would end up. In physics, we call this unitarity. It means information is never lost; the "before" and "after" states are perfectly connected.

For a long time, physicists believed that gravity works just like this billiard game. They thought that if you smashed two particles together, the result would always be a predictable number of other particles flying out. This is what we call the Fock space view: a universe made of distinct, countable particles (like 1, 2, or 3 gravitons).

Tom Banks' paper argues that this view is wrong for gravity, especially in higher dimensions (like 5, 6, or 11 dimensions).

He suggests that when you smash particles together at extremely high energies, the result isn't a neat pile of particles. Instead, the universe gets "fuzzy" and messy in a way that breaks the perfect billiard game rules.


The Problem: The "Infinite Fog"

Let's use an analogy to understand why.

Imagine you are trying to hear a whisper (a single particle) in a quiet room. Easy. Now, imagine you are in a stadium during a rock concert. If you try to whisper, your voice is drowned out by the noise.

In gravity, when you smash particles together with huge energy, they don't just bounce off each other. They create a massive amount of "soft" gravitational radiation. Think of this as a giant, invisible fog of low-energy ripples spreading out everywhere.

  1. The Low Energy Case: If you smash particles gently, the fog is thin. You can still count the main particles (the billiard balls) easily.
  2. The High Energy Case: As you increase the energy, the fog gets thicker and thicker.
    • In 4 dimensions (our universe), this fog is messy, but we have tricks to handle it.
    • In higher dimensions (5+), the fog becomes overwhelming.

Banks argues that at ultra-high energies, the "fog" becomes so dense that the final state of the collision looks like a coherent state.

  • Analogy: Imagine a single billiard ball (a particle) vs. a giant, rolling wave of water (a coherent state).
  • The wave contains infinite tiny droplets. If you try to count the droplets, you can't. If you try to find the original billiard ball inside the wave, it's gone.

The Conclusion: As energy goes to infinity, the final state becomes so "foggy" that it has zero overlap with any state that has a finite number of particles. It's like trying to find a specific grain of sand in a tsunami. The math says the probability of finding a "normal" particle state is zero.

The Black Hole Twist

The paper also brings in black holes.

  • If you smash particles hard enough, they might form a black hole.
  • Black holes eventually evaporate (Hawking radiation), releasing a thermal cloud of particles.
  • Banks argues that this thermal cloud is even "fuzzier" than the wave mentioned above. It is so disordered that it is mathematically impossible to describe it as a collection of a few distinct particles.

The Result: The "S-matrix" (the machine that calculates the "before" and "after" of a collision) cannot be a perfect, unitary machine inside the standard "particle counting" room (Fock space). The rules of the game change when the energy gets too high.

The Solution: A New Kind of Room (Algebraic Scattering)

If the old room (Fock space) doesn't work, where do we go?

Banks proposes moving to a different kind of room called Algebraic Quantum Scattering.

  • The Old Room: You count particles (1, 2, 3...).
  • The New Room: You don't count particles. Instead, you look at constraints and patterns.

The Analogy of the "Frozen Q-Bits":
Imagine a giant, flexible net (the causal diamond) that fills space.

  • Normally, the net is vibrating randomly (the vacuum).
  • When a particle passes through, it doesn't just "add a ball" to the net. Instead, it freezes a specific pattern of knots in the net.
  • The "particle" is actually just a specific arrangement of frozen knots relative to the rest of the vibrating net.

Banks suggests that if we describe gravity this way—using a finite number of "q-bits" (quantum bits) that get frozen and unfrozen as they move through time—we can save the concept of unitarity.

  • The "S-matrix" becomes a map that tells us how the pattern of frozen knots changes from the start to the finish.
  • Even though the "fog" of soft radiation makes it look like particles are disappearing, the information is actually preserved in the complex pattern of the knots.

The "Missing Proof"

The paper ends with a bit of a cliffhanger.
Banks has built a beautiful mathematical model (using these "frozen knots" and a specific algebra called the Awada-Gibbons-Shaw algebra) that should work. It looks like it preserves information (unitarity).

However, there is one big hurdle:
He hasn't fully proven that this model respects Poincaré invariance.

  • Translation: He hasn't proven that his model looks the same to everyone, regardless of how fast they are moving or where they are standing.
  • Analogy: He built a perfect car engine, but he hasn't proven yet that the car drives straight on a moving train.

Summary in One Sentence

Tom Banks argues that at extreme energies, gravity creates such a massive "fog" of radiation that we can no longer describe the universe as a collection of distinct particles, but we can save the laws of physics by viewing collisions as changes in a complex, frozen pattern of quantum information.

Why This Matters

This paper challenges the standard way physicists think about string theory and quantum gravity. It suggests that the "particle" view is an illusion that breaks down at high energies, and that the true nature of the universe is more like a shifting, fuzzy tapestry of information than a box of Lego bricks.

Drowning in papers in your field?

Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.

Try Digest →