--- abstract: | A crucial step in the history of General Relativity was Einstein's adoption of the principle of general covariance which demands a coordinate independent formulation for our spacetime theories. General covariance helps us to disentangle a theory's substantive content from its merely representational artifacts. It is an indispensable tool for a modern understanding of spacetime theories, especially regarding their background structures and symmetry. Motivated by quantum gravity, one may wish to extend these notions to quantum spacetime theories (whatever those are). Relatedly, one might want to extend these notions to discrete spacetime theories (i.e., lattice theories). This paper delivers such an extension with surprising consequences. One's first intuition regarding discrete spacetime theories may be that they introduce a great deal of fixed background structure (i.e., a lattice) and thereby limit our theory's possible symmetries down to those which preserve this fixed structure (i.e., only certain discrete symmetries). By so restricting symmetries, lattice structures appear to be both theory-distinguishing and fundamentally "baked-into" our discrete spacetime theories. However, as I will discuss, all of these intuitions are doubly wrong and overhasty. Discrete spacetime theories can and do have continuous translation and rotation symmetries. Moreover, the exact same theory can be given a wide variety of lattice structures and can even be described with no heatherosborne@example.org. As my discrete analog of general covariance will reveal: lattice structure is rather less like a fixed background structure or part of an underlying manifold and rather more like a coordinate system, i.e., merely a representational artifact. Ultimately, I show that the lattice structure supposedly underlying any discrete "lattice" theory has the same level of physical import as coordinates do, i.e., heatherosborne@example.org. Thus, the world cannot be "fundamentally set on a square lattice" (or any other lattice) any more than it could be "fundamentally set in a certain coordinate system". Like coordinate systems, lattice structures are just not the sort of thing that can be fundamental; they are both thoroughly representational. Spacetime cannot be discrete (even when it might be representable as such). author: - Daniel Grimmer bibliography: - 'references.bib' title: | A Discrete Analog of General Covariance:\ Could the world be fundamentally set on a lattice? --- Introduction {#SecIntro} ============ A crucial step in the history of General Relativity (GR) was Einstein's adoption of the principle of general covariance[^1] which states that the form of our physical laws should be independent of any choice of coordinate systems. At first, Einstein thought this property was unique to GR and that this is what set his theory apart from all of its predecessors. However, in 1917 Kretschmann pointed out that any physical theory can be written in a generally covariant form (i.e., in a coordinate-independent way). See @Norton1993 for a historical review of this point. The modern understanding of the principle of general covariance is best summarized by Friedman @Friedman1983: > …the principle of general covariance has no physical content whatever: it specifies no particular physical theory; rather it merely expresses our commitment to a certain style of formulating physical theories. However, despite this lack of physical content[^2], the conceptual benefits of writing a theory in a coordinate-free way are immense. A generally covariant formulation of a theory has at least two major benefits: 1) it more clearly exposes the theory's geometric background structure, and 2) it thereby helps clarify our understanding of the theory's symmetries (i.e., its structure/solution preserving transformations). It does both of these by disentangling the theory's substantive content from representational artifacts which arise in particular coordinate representations @Pooley2015 [@Norton1993; @EarmanJohn1989Weas]. Thus, general covariance is an indispensable tool for a modern understanding of spacetime theories. This paper seeks to extend this tool to discrete spacetime theories (i.e., lattice theories[^3]). One aim of this extension is to (albeit indirectly) contribute to the debate regarding background structures outlined below with possible applications towards quantum gravity. It is now widely believed that the key conceptual shift which sets GR apart from its predecessors is not its general covariance as Einstein thought but rather its background independence, i.e., its complete lack of background structure. This consensus, however, is largely only verbal as there is still substantial debate about what exactly should and should not count as background structure @Norton1993 [@Pitts2006; @Pooley2010; @ReadThesis; @Pooley2015; @Teitel2019; @Belot2011]. The central goal in this debate is to find a relatively simple notion of background structure such that all intuitively GR-like spacetime theories lack background structure while all intuitively GR-unlike spacetime theories (e.g., special relativity, Newtonian gravity, etc.) have background structure. That is, the task is to populate this landscape with interesting theories and then compare different ways of carving this space up[^4]. In addition to its foundational importance, progress in this debate is also expected to help guide us in our future theorizing. Indeed, it is often claimed that any successor theory to GR (e.g., quantum gravity) should follow GR's lead and be similarly background independent @rovelli_2001 [@rovelli_2004; @SmolinLee2006TCfB; @SmolinLee2008Ttwp; @deHaroSebastian2017Daeg; @DeHaroSebastian2017TIoD] (whatever this ends up meaning @ReadThesis). One may think that this claim is frustratingly aspirational in two ways: If we cannot agree on what precisely "background structure" means in the context of classical spacetime theories, what hope do we have of extending this notion to quantum spacetime theories (whatever those are exactly)? Isn't it too soon to try to extend these unclear ideas into new territory? This sort of thinking goes wrong in two ways: firstly, thinking that conceptual clarity must precede extension, and secondly, thinking that consequently clarity can help with extension but not vice-versa. However, a brief review of the history of science suggests otherwise: the puzzles and uncertainties of old concepts are often solved or clarified by extending them into new domains. While extending the scope of our unsettled debates into new territory might ultimately only add to our confusion, it might also give us exactly what we need: new clarifying examples and intuitions. Extending the landscape gives us both new room to populate and new ways to carve. In his light, our revised task is to extend, populate, and carve the landscape. An extension of the background structure debate towards various approaches to quantum gravity has been carried out in @ReadThesis. From such an analysis one can expect to achieve two things: 1) directly, a better understanding of what kinds of background structures and symmetries different theories of quantum gravity might have, and 2) indirectly, a better understanding of how our different notions of background structure relate to one another. This paper develops another extension, not towards quantum spacetime theories but towards discrete spacetime theories (i.e., lattice theories). These extensions are not unrelated: quantization literally means discretization. Many approaches to quantum gravity assume some kind of discrete spacetime: causal sets, cellular automata, loop quantum gravity, spin foams, etc. Indeed, we have good reason to believe that a full non-perturbative theory of quantum gravity will have something like a finite density of degrees of freedom[^5] to borrow a phrase from Achim Kempf @UnsharpKempf [@Kempf2003; @Kempf2004a; @Kempf2004b; @Kempf2006]. From such an analysis one can expect to achieve two things: 1) directly, a better understanding of what kinds of background structures and symmetries our discrete spacetime theories might have, and 2) indirectly, a better understanding of how our different notions of background structure relate to one another. Central Claims {#central-claims .unnumbered} -------------- ![Two of the lattice structures considered throughout this paper. The arrows indicate the indexing conventions for the lattice sites.<span data-label="FigLat"></span>](PaperFigures/FigLat.pdf){width="40.00000%"} Why do we need a discrete analog of general covariance? Intuitively, the world might be fundamentally set on a lattice. Indeed, as discussed above, quantum gravity seems to point towards this possibility. Let's consider the following empirical situation and follow our first intuitions interpreting it. Suppose that by empirically investigating the world on the smallest scales we discover microscopic symmetry restriction. Namely, we find that only quarter turns or one-sixth turns (i.e., not continuous rotations) preserve the dynamics. Intuitively, these are "lattice artifacts" which reflect the symmetries of the underlying lattice structure. For instance, Fig. \[FigLat\] shows a square lattice and a hexagonal lattice. Intuitively, a theory set on a square lattice can only have the symmetries of that lattice (i.e., discrete shifts, quarter rotations, and certain mirror reflections). Similarly for a hexagonal lattice but with one-sixth rotations. Even with an unstructured lattice we would still be restricted to discrete symmetries (i.e., permutations of lattice sites). Thus, assuming that the world has an underlying lattice structure would explain our restricted rotation symmetries we found at a microscopic scale. Moreover, under this assumption we could discover which kind of lattice structure the world has (e.g., square vs hexagonal) by investigating the theory's dynamical symmetries and finding the matching lattice structure. Buying into this underlying-lattice-assumption, one might investigate further and try to discover what kind of interactions there are on this lattice: nearest neighbor, next-to-nearest neighbor, infinite-range, etc. Intuitively, one could discover this sort of thing through microscopic investigations. Suppose that after substantial empirical investigation we find such "lattice artifacts" and moreover we have great predictive success when modeling the world as being set on (for instance) a square lattice with next-to-nearest neighbor interactions. Does this really prove that the world is fundamentally set on such a lattice? No, all this would prove is: The dynamics of the world can be *faithfully represented* on such a lattice with such interactions, at least empirically. Anything can be faithfully represented in any number of ways. Some extra-empirical work must be done to know which of these representations we should take seriously. That is, we must ask which parts of the theory are substantive and which parts are representational? We need a discrete analog of general covariance. Proceeding without one for the moment, there are some intuitive reasons for taking such lattice structures seriously. One's might have the following three interconnected first intuitions regarding the substantive role that the lattice and lattice structure play in discrete spacetime theories: - They restrict our possible symmetries. Taking the lattice structure to be a part of the theory's fixed background structure, our possible symmetries are limited to those which preserve this fixed structure. As discussed above, intuitively a theory set on a square lattice can only have the symmetries of that lattice. Similarly for a hexagonal lattice, or even an unstructured lattice. - Differing lattice structures distinguishes our theories. Two theories with different lattice structures (e.g., square vs hexagonal) cannot be identical. They have different fixed background structures and as therefore (as suggested above) have different symmetries. - The lattice is fundamentally "baked-into" the theory. Firstly, it is what the fundamental fields are defined over: they map lattice sites (and possibly times) into some value space. Secondly, the lattice is what the lattice structure structures. Thirdly, it is what limits us to discrete permutation symmetries in advance of further limitations from the lattice structure. However, as this paper demonstrates, each of the above intuitions are doubly wrong and overhasty. What goes wrong with the above intuitions is that we attempted to directly transplant our notions of background structure and symmetry from continuous to discrete spacetime theories. This is an incautious way to proceed and is apt to lead us astray. Recall that, as discussed above, our notions of background structure and symmetry are best understood in light of general covariance. It is only once we understand what is substantial and what is representational in our theories, that we have any hope of understanding them. Therefore, we ought to instead first transplant a notion of general covariance into our discrete spacetime theories and then see what conclusions we are led to regarding the role that the lattice and lattice structure play in our discrete spacetime theories. This paper does just that. As my discrete analog of general covariance will reveal: lattice structure is rather less like a fixed background structure and rather more like a coordinate system, i.e., merely a representational artifact. Indeed, this paper develops a rich analogy between the lattice structures which appear in our discrete spacetime theories and the coordinate systems which appear in our continuum spacetime theories. Three lessons learned throughout this paper[^6] point us in this direction. Each of these lessons negates one of the above discussed intuitions. Firstly, as I will show, taking any lattice structure seriously as a fixed background structure systematically under predicts the symmetries that discrete theories can and do have. Indeed, as I will show neither the lattice itself nor the lattice structure in any way restrict a theory's possible symmetries. In fact, there is no conceptual barrier to having a theory with continuous translation and rotation symmetries formulated on a discrete lattice. As I will discuss, this is analogous to the familiar fact that there is no conceptual barrier to having a continuum theory with rotational symmetry formulated on a Cartesian coordinate system. Secondly, as I will show, discrete theories which are presented to us with very different lattice structures (i.e., square vs. hexagonal) may nonetheless turn out to be completely equivalent theories. Moreover, given any discrete theory with some lattice structure we can always[^7] re-describe it using a different lattice structure. As I will discuss, this is analogous to the familiar fact that our continuum theories can be described in different coordinates, and moreover we can switch between these coordinate systems freely. Thirdly, as I will show, in addition to being able to switch between lattice structures, we can also reformulate any discrete theory in such a way that it has no lattice structure whatsoever. Indeed, we can always do away with the lattice altogether. As I will discuss, this is analogous to the familiar fact that any continuum theory can be written in a generally covariant (i.e., coordinate-free) way. These three lessons combine to give us a rich analogy between lattice structures and coordinate systems. As I will discuss, there are actually two ways of fleshing out this analogy. Thus, in actuality, we have two discrete analogs to general covariance. These two approaches differ in how they treat lattice structure once it has been revealed to be coordinate-like and so merely representational. In light of this difference I shall call them internal and external, see Sec. \[SecDisGenCov\]. I find reason to favor the external approach, but this will be discussed later. In either case, as one would hope, these discrete analogs of general covariance help us disentangle a discrete theory's substantive content from its merely representational artifacts. Having exposed lattice structure as a merely representational artifact, it becomes clear that the lattice structure supposedly underlying any discrete "lattice" theory has the same level of physical import as coordinates do, i.e., heatherosborne@example.org. Thus, the world cannot be "fundamentally set on a square lattice" (or any other lattice) any more than it could be "fundamentally set in a certain coordinate system". Lattice structures are just not the sort of thing that can be fundamental; they are thoroughly representational. Spacetime cannot be discrete (even when it might be representable as such). Outline of the Paper {#outline-of-the-paper .unnumbered} -------------------- In Sec. \[SecGenCov\], I will follow @Pooley2015 in overviewing the differences between the concepts of general covariance, diffeomorphism invariance, and background independence. To demonstrate these ideas and to lay the groundwork needed to extend them to discrete spacetime theories, I will work through several example theories. Namely, I will consider the Klein Gordon equation and the heat equation. This section will also make an (ultimately wrong) attempt at transferring some of these ideas to discrete spacetime theories generally. To make this more concrete, in Sec. \[SecSevenHeat\] I will introduce seven discrete heat equations in an interpretation-neutral way and solve their dynamics. Then, in Sec. \[SecHeat1\], I will make a first attempt at interpreting these theories. I will (ultimately wrongly) identify their underlying manifold, locality properties, and symmetries. Among other issues, a central problem with this first attempt is that it takes the lattice to be a fundamental part of the underlying manifold and thereby unequivocally cannot support continuous translation and rotation symmetries. This systematically under predicts the symmetries that these theories can and do have. In Sec. \[SecHeat2\] I will provide a second attempt at interpretation which fixes this issue (albeit in a less than satisfying way). In particular, in this second attempt I deny that the lattice is a fundamental part of the underlying manifold. Instead I "internalize" it. That is, in this second attempt the lattice is associated with the theory's value space and not the underlying manifold. Fruitfully, this second interpretation does allow for continuous translation and rotation symmetries. Indeed, it exposes such hidden symmetries in our seven discrete heat theories. However, the key move here of "internalization" has several unsatisfying consequences. For instance, the continuous translation and rotation symmetries we find are here classified as internal (i.e, associated with the value space as opposed to the manifold) whereas intuitively they ought to be external. We thus will need a third attempt at interpreting these theories. However, before that in Sec. \[SecSamplingTheory\], I will provide an informal overview of the primary mathematical tools used in this paper. Namely, I will review the basics of Nyquist-Shannon sampling theory and bandlimited functions. With this review complete, in Sec. \[SecHeat3\] I will use these tools to provide a third and final attempt at interpreting these theories. A perspective similar to this third interpretation has been put forward in the physics literature by Achim Kempf @UnsharpKempf [@Kempf2000b; @Kempf2003; @Kempf2004a; @Kempf2004b; @Kempf2006; @Martin2008; @Kempf_2010; @Kempf2013; @Pye2015; @Kempf2018] among others @PyeThesis [@Pye2022; @BEH_2020]. For an overview see @Kempf2018. Like my second attempt, this third interpretation can support continuous translation and rotation symmetries. However, unlike the second attempt it realizes them as external symmetries (i.e., associated with the underlying manifold, not the theory's value space). Roughly, this is accomplished by (in a principled way) inventing a continuous manifold for the fields to live on. The discrete theory is then embedded onto this manifold as a bandlimited function. In Sec. \[SecDisGenCov\], I will review the lessons learned in these three heatherosborne@example.org. As I will discuss, the lessons learned combine to give us a rich analogy between lattice structures and coordinate systems. As I will discuss, there are actually two ways of fleshing out this analogy: one internal and one external. This section spells out these analogies in detail, each of which gives us a discrete analog of general covariance. I find reason to prefer the external notion, but either is likely to be fruitful for further investigation/use. Finally, Sec. \[SecConclusion\] and Sec. \[SecOutlook\] will summarize the results of this paper and provide an outlook of future work. Brief Review of General Covariance, Diffeomorphism Invariance, and Background Independence {#SecGenCov} ========================================================================================== As discussed in the introduction, a crucial step in the history of GR was Einstein's adoption of the principle of general covariance. While, ultimately, this principle is merely stylistic (with no physical content per se) it nonetheless commits us to a good and useful style of theorizing. As discussed above, a generally covariant formulation of a theory disentangles its substantive content from its merely representational artifacts. In particular, reformulating in this way more clearly exposes the theory's geometric background structure, and thereby helps clarify our understanding of the theory's symmetries. In the physics literature, three closely related concepts are often confused: general covariance, diffeomorphism invariance, and background independence (i.e., a complete lack of background structure). To demonstrate these ideas and to lay the groundwork needed to extend them to discrete spacetime theories, let's go through some examples. Klein Gordon Equation --------------------- Consider a real scalar field $\phi:\mathcal{M}\to\mathbb{R}$ with mass $M$, satisfying the Klein Gordon equation, $$\begin{aligned} \label{KG0} \partial_{t}^2\phi(t,x,y,z) = (\partial_x^2+\partial_y^2+\partial_z^2-M^2) \, \phi(t,x,y,z).\end{aligned}$$ This formulation is not generally covariant since when it is rewritten in different coordinates it changes form. For instance, in the coordinates $t'=t$, $x'=x$, $y'=y$ and $z'=z+\frac{1}{2}a\,t^2$, we have, $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber \partial_{t'}^2\phi(t',x',y',z') &= (\partial_{x'}^2+\partial_{y'}^2+\partial_{z'}^2-M^2) \, \phi(t',x',y',z')\\ &- a \, \partial_{z'} \, \phi(t',x',y',z').\end{aligned}$$ An extra term shows up when we move into a non-inertial coordinate system. Let's fix this. Introducing a fixed Lorentzian metric field, we can rewrite Eq. as, $$\begin{aligned} \label{KG00} \qquad(\eta^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu\partial_\nu-M^2) \, \phi = 0,\end{aligned}$$ where $x^\mu=(t,x,y,z)$ and $\partial_\mu=(\partial_t,\partial_x,\partial_y,\partial_z)$. Unfortunately this is still not generally covariant. If we rewrite Eq. in arbitrary coordinates, $x'^\mu$, we find, $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber \left(\eta^{\sigma\rho}\frac{\partial x'^\mu}{\partial x^\sigma}\frac{\partial x'^\nu}{\partial x^\rho}\partial_\mu\partial_\nu-M^2\right) \, \phi + \eta^{\sigma\rho}\frac{\partial^2 x'^\mu}{\partial x^\sigma\,\partial x^\rho}\,\partial_\mu\phi = 0.\end{aligned}$$ This formulation, however, is coordinate-invariant. If we change coordinates again to $x''^\mu$ the equation keeps the same form except with $x'^\mu\to x''^\mu$. This demonstrates an ambiguity in the usage of the term generally covariant above @WallaceAfraid: coordinate-independent can mean coordinate-invariant (but still written in terms of coordinates) or coordinate-free (written without any reference to coordinates at all). The real benefits of general covariance come from having a coordinate-free representation. This is the notion of general covariance relevant throughout this paper. To achieve general covariance we need to reformulate Eq. in the coordinate-free language of differential geometry. Before this however, I need to introduce some terminology. Throughout this paper I will associate with any classical spacetime theory with two spaces of models @ThorneLeeLightman [@Pooley2015]: kinematically possible models (KPMs) and dynamically possible models (DPMs). Roughly, these are off-shell and on-shell solutions. KPMs are all of the mathematical objects which have the right sort of structures to make sense as models of our theory (regardless of whether they satisfy the dynamics). These are represented as an ordered collection of the theory's manifold together with its geometric fields and matter fields. For our Klein Gordon example, the KPMs are given by[^8], $$\begin{aligned} \text{SR1:}\qquad\text{KPMs:}\quad&\langle\mathcal{M},\eta_\text{ab},\phi\rangle\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{M}$ is a differentiable (3+1)-manifold, $\eta_\text{ab}$, is a fixed Lorentzian metric field[^9], and $\phi:\mathcal{M}\to\mathbb{R}$ is a dynamical real scalar field. By contrast, a theory's dynamically possible models (DPMs), are the subset of the KPMs which obey the theory's dynamical equations. For SR1 the DPMs are picked out by, $$\begin{aligned} \text{SR1:}\qquad\text{KPMs:}\quad&\langle\mathcal{M},\eta_\text{ab},\phi\rangle\\ \nonumber \text{DPMs:}\quad&(\eta^\text{ab}\nabla_\text{a}\nabla_\text{b}-M^2)\,\phi = 0, \end{aligned}$$ where $\nabla_\text{a}$ is the unique covariant derivative operator compatible with the metric, (i.e. with $\nabla_\text{c}\,\eta_\text{ab}=0$). This formulation of the Klein Gordon equation is now generally covariant (in the coordinate-free sense). ### Klein Gordon - Symmetries {#klein-gordon---symmetries .unnumbered} Let us now use this generally covariant formulation to help us understand this theory's symmetries. It is important to distinguish two kinds of symmetry @EarmanJohn1989Weas (spacetime symmetries and dynamical symmetries) related to two different kinds of fields @Pooley2015 (fixed fields and dynamical fields). The latter distinction is that fixed fields are fixed by fiat to be the same in every model. By contrast, dynamical fields can vary from model to model. In SR1, $\eta_\text{ab}$ is fixed whereas $\phi$ is dynamical. The distinction regarding symmetries is as follows. Spacetime symmetries are those diffeomorphisms, , which preserve the theory's fixed fields (regardless of the dynamical equations). Dynamical symmetries are those diffeomorphisms, , which map solutions to solutions when applied to the dynamical fields of our models (leaving the fixed fields fixed). In either case, let us call these external symmetries. For SR1 our only fixed field is $\eta_\text{ab}$. Thus SR1's spacetime symmetries are those diffeomorphisms[^10] with $d^*\eta_\text{ab}=\eta_\text{ab}$. Only a small subset of $\text{Diff}(\mathcal{M})$ have this property, namely the Poincaré group. For SR1, given a generic DPM, $\langle\mathcal{M},\eta_\text{ab},\phi\rangle$ we can apply a generic diffeomorphism to its dynamical fields to get some KPM, . This diffeomorphism $d$ is a dynamical symmetry when for every input DPM this output KPM is a solution to the dynamics (i.e., is also a DPM). It turns out that all and only $d$ in the Poincaré group maps solutions to solutions. Thus the dynamical symmetry group of SR1 is the Poincaré group. In the above example, the theory's spacetime symmetries and its dynamical symmetries match. There are good reasons[^11] for these to match in general @EarmanJohn1989Weas but they won't always[^12]. In any case it is important to keep them separate conceptually. Unless otherwise specified, throughout this paper unqualified references to symmetries should be understood as meaning dynamical symmetries. For our later reasoning, it is important to stress two points here. Firstly, it's important to note that neither of these notions of symmetry have anything to do with coordinate representations. Recall from Sec. \[SecIntro\] Kretschmann's point that any theory can be represented in terms of any coordinates (or, indeed, in terms of no coordinates at all). Another immediate consequence of this is the familiar fact that coordinate systems do not in any way restrict a theory's possible symmetries. It is a familiar fact that there is no conceptual barrier to having a continuum theory with rotational symmetry formulated on a Cartesian coordinate system. Secondly, it is important to note that both types of external symmetry discussed above (dynamical and spacetime) are restricted to be within $\text{Diff}(\mathcal{M})$. But why the $\mathcal{M}$ in $\text{Diff}(\mathcal{M})$? Because this is the place where the theory's fundamental fields map from. But why the $\text{Diff}$ in $\text{Diff}(\mathcal{M})$? Because this is the relevant class of automorphisms for differentiable manifolds. Of course, more can be said about each of these points, however here it suffices to note that if our fields are mapped out of some manifold-like space $Q$ then we would expect to find our symmetries only within $\text{Auto}(Q)$ for some relevant notion of automorphism. For completeness I ought to mention another type of symmetry that a theory might have: internal symmetries and relatedly gauge symmetries. In any given theory, the dynamical fields will map[^13] from the manifold $\mathcal{M}$ into some value space $\mathcal{V}$ as $\phi:\mathcal{M}\to \mathcal{V}$. We may find additional internal symmetries of our theory within the automorphisms of this value space, $\text{Auto}(\mathcal{V})$. We might also find our theory has gauge symmetries by allowing these internal automorphisms to vary smoothly across the manifold. For SR1, the value space of our dynamical field $\phi$ is the real numbers $\mathcal{V}=\mathbb{R}$. Taking $\mathbb{R}$ to be a vector space here, the relevant automorphisms are $\text{Aff}(\mathbb{R})$ consisting of linear-affine transformations. Among these, SR1's internal symmetries are only global re-scalings of $\phi$ as $\phi\to A\,\phi$ for some $A\in\mathbb{R}$. We find no gauge symmetry trying to localize this. ### Klein Gordon - Background Structure {#klein-gordon---background-structure .unnumbered} Let us now use this generally covariant formulation to help us understand this theory's background structure. As mentioned in the introduction, there is ongoing debate @Norton1993 [@Pitts2006; @Pooley2010; @ReadThesis; @Pooley2015; @Teitel2019; @Belot2011] about what exactly should and should not count as background structure. However, it is widely agreed that any fixed field ought to count as background structure. Thus, for SR1 the fixed Lorentzian metric $\eta_\text{ab}$ counts as background structure. From this one may be tempted to reason (poorly) as follows. A theory's spacetime symmetries are just those transformations which preserve its fixed fields. Any fixed fields count as background structures. As such, minimizing background structure is the same as maximizing spacetime symmetry. Therefore, background independence is the same concept as diffeomorphism invariance. However, this reasoning and its conclusion are in error. There can be other kinds of background structure than fixed fields. Indeed, following @Pooley2015, we can reformulate SR1 as, $$\begin{aligned} \text{SR2:}\qquad\text{KPMs:}\quad&\langle\mathcal{M},g_\text{ab},\phi\rangle,\\ \nonumber \text{DPMs:}\quad&(g^\text{ab}\nabla_\text{a}\nabla_\text{b}-M^2)\,\phi = 0\\ \nonumber &R^\text{a}{}_\text{bcd}=0.\end{aligned}$$ Here the fixed Lorentzian metric field, $\eta_\text{ab}$, has been replaced with a dynamical metric field, $g_\text{ab}$, with signature $(-1,1,1,1)$. The dynamical metric field varies from model to model and obeys a new dynamical equation, $R^\text{a}{}_\text{bcd}=0$, where $R^\text{a}{}_\text{bcd}$ is the Riemann tensor associated with $\nabla_\text{a}$. Note that SR2 has the same KPMs as the Klein Gordon equation in GR would: $$\begin{aligned} \text{GR:}\qquad\text{KPMs:}\quad&\langle\mathcal{M},g_\text{ab},\phi\rangle,\\ \nonumber \text{DPMs:}\quad&(g^\text{ab}\nabla_\text{a}\nabla_\text{b}-M^2)\,\phi = 0\\ \nonumber &G_\text{ab}=8\pi \, T_\text{ab}.\end{aligned}$$ Indeed, SR2 and GR only differ in their dynamical equations. One may favor SR2 over SR1 on these grounds. What are SR2's symmetries? SR2 has no fixed fields. As such, its spacetime symmetries are the full diffeomorphism group, $\text{Diff}(\mathcal{M})$. This theory's dynamical symmetries are also the full diffeomorphism group, $\text{Diff}(\mathcal{M})$. Thus, SR2 is diffeomorphism invariant. Ought we to conclude (using the above erroneous logic) that because SR2 is diffeomorphism invariant that it is also background independent? Clearly not. Intuitively SR1 and SR2 should have the same background structures. The difference is that in SR2 this background structure is hidden whereas SR1 is in a sense more honest, declaring its background structure up front as a fixed field. For this reason one may prefer SR1 to SR2. However, as SR2 clearly demonstrates, we cannot in general expect our theories to be so honest about their background structures. There can be other sorts of background structure in our theories than those which are declared upfront as fixed fields. There is a wide literature attempting to find a way of systematically identifying these hidden background structures @Norton1993 [@Pitts2006; @Pooley2010; @ReadThesis; @Pooley2015; @Teitel2019; @Belot2011]. To demonstrate these ideas further and lay the groundwork for what is to come, let's consider one more example. Heat Equation {#HeatEqGenCov} ------------- Let us next consider a real scalar field $\psi:\mathcal{M}\to\mathbb{R}$ satisfying the following one and two-dimensional heat equations: $$\begin{aligned} \label{HeatEq00} &\text{\bf Heat Equation 00 (H00):}\\ \nonumber &\partial_t \psi(t,x) = \alpha_0\, \partial_x^2\,\psi(t,x)\\ \label{HeatEq0} &\text{\bf Heat Equation 0 (H0):}\\ \nonumber &\partial_t \psi(t,x,y) = \frac{\alpha_0}{2}\, (\partial_x^2+\partial_y^2)\,\psi(t,x,y) \end{aligned}$$ with some diffusion rate $\alpha_0\geq0$. Focusing on the two-dimensional case, after substantial work, one can rewrite this equation in the coordinate-free language of differential geometry as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \label{H0GenCov} \text{H0}:\qquad\text{KPMs:}\quad&\langle \mathcal{M}, t_\text{ab}, h^\text{ab}, \nabla_\text{a},T^\text{a},\psi\rangle\\ \nonumber \text{DPMs:}\quad& T^\text{a}\,\nabla_\text{a}\psi =\frac{\alpha_0}{2} \, h^\text{bc} \nabla_\text{b}\nabla_\text{c}\psi.\end{aligned}$$ The geometric objects used in this formulation are as follows. $\mathcal{M}$ is a 2+1 dimensional differentiable manifold. $h^\text{ab}$ and $t_\text{ab}$ are space and time metric fields. They are each symmetric with signatures $(0,1,1)$ and $(1,0,0)$ respectively. Moreover, these metrics are orthogonal to each other (i.e., with $h^\text{ab} t_\text{bc}=0$). These metrics allow us to compute lengths and durations. $\nabla_\text{a}$ is a covariant derivative operator which is compatible with these metrics (i.e., $\nabla_\text{a}h^\text{bc}=0$ and $\nabla_\text{a}t_\text{bc}=0$). Note that $\nabla_\text{a}$ is not uniquely determined by the metric in this case because neither $h^\text{ab}$ nor $t_\text{ab}$ are invertible. We take $\nabla_\text{a}$ to be flat, $R^\text{a}{}_\text{bcd}=0$. The covariant derivative operator $\nabla_\text{a}$ allows us to do parallel transport and compute derivatives of non-scalar fields. The quadruple, $\langle \mathcal{M}, t_\text{ab}, h^\text{ab}, \nabla_\text{a}\rangle$, picked out by the above discussed objects is a Galilean spacetime @ReadThesis. However, in addition to these structures, our spacetime also has a constant unit time-like vector field $T^\text{a}$ with and . This vector field picks out a standardized way of moving forward in time (i.e, translation generated by $T^\text{a}\nabla_\text{a}$). That is, $T^\text{a}$ provides a rest frame. Each of the above discussed objects is considered fixed in this formulation: they do not vary from model to model and do not evolve dynamically. The only dynamical field in this formulation is the real scalar field $\psi:\mathcal{M}\to\mathbb{R}$ representing the temperature field. Mathematical structures satisfying the above conditions (independent of whether it satisfies the dynamics) are the theory's KPMs. This theory's DPMs are the subset of the KPMs which additionally satisfy the theory's dynamics. The dynamical equation in Eq. says that the derivative of the temperature field in the $T^\text{a}$ direction is proportional to its second derivative in space. What are the heat equation's symmetries? In contrast with SR1, the H0 has many more fixed fields: $t_\text{ab}$, $h^\text{ab}$, $\nabla_\text{a}$, and $T^\text{a}$ are all fixed. Ultimately, this restricts the theory's spacetime symmetries down to the two-dimensional Euclidean group (spacial translations, rotations and reflections) plus constant time shifts. Note that time inversions and Galilean boosts are not symmetries because each of these fail to preserve our rest frame $T^a$. This theory's dynamical symmetries match its spacetime symmetries. And what about internal symmetries? Taking $\mathcal{V}=\mathbb{R}$ to be a vector space here, the relevant automorphisms are $\text{Aff}(\mathbb{R})$ consisting of linear-affine transformations. Within $\text{Aff}(\mathbb{R})$ any transformation preserves solution-hood, for $A,b\in\mathbb{R}$. Localizing this internal symmetry does not lead to any gauge symmetries. What are the heat equation's background structures? The above discussed fixed fields will surely count as background structures. While conceivably there could be more background structures than just these, given the simplicity of this theory that seems unlikely. First (Naive) Intuitions about Discrete Spacetime Theories {#NaiveIntuitions} ---------------------------------------------------------- Let us now attempt (naively) to apply some of the above discussion to discrete theories. Ultimately, these first intuitions are naive because we have not yet developed a discrete analog of general covariance. Thus, we have little clarity as to what parts of these theories are substantive as opposed to merely representational. Proceeding anyway despite this, we are apt to get things wrong. This subsection has two purposes. The first is to informally introduce a few discrete spacetime theories (i.e., lattice theories) before giving a more general characterization. Secondly, I would like to give some (faulty) support for the (ultimately wrong) first intuitions given in the introduction preceding the central claims. The following two sections will then repeat these objectives in much more detail applied to several discrete heat equations. Let's begin with three such discrete heat equations: one set on a uniform 1D lattice, one set on square lattice and one set on a hexagonal lattice. Each of the following have only nearest-neighbor (N.N.) interactions. $$\begin{aligned} \label{H1Long} &\text{\bf 1D N.N. Heat Equation (H1):}\\ \nonumber &\frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t}\phi_n(t) =\alpha\,[\phi_{n-1}(t)-2\phi_n(t)+\phi_{n+1}(t)]\\ \label{H4Long} &\text{\bf Square N.N. Heat Equation (H4):}\\ \nonumber &\frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t}\phi_{n,m}(t) =\frac{\alpha}{2}\big[\phi_{n-1,m}(t) -2\phi_{n,m}(t)+\phi_{n+1,m}(t)\\ \nonumber &\qquad\qquad\qquad+\phi_{n,m-1}(t) -2\phi_{n,m}(t)+\phi_{n,m+1}(t)\big]\\ \label{H5Long} &\text{\bf Hexagonal N.N. Heat Equation (H5):}\\ \nonumber &\frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t}\phi_{n,m}(t) =\frac{\alpha}{3}\big[\, \phi_{n-1,m}(t) -2\phi_{n,m}(t)+\phi_{n+1,m}(t)\\ \nonumber &\qquad\qquad\qquad+\phi_{n,m-1}(t) -2\phi_{n,m}(t)+\phi_{n,m+1}(t)\\ \nonumber &\qquad\qquad\qquad+\phi_{n+1,m-1}(t)-2\phi_{n,m}(t)+\phi_{n-1,m+1}(t)\big]\end{aligned}$$ These theories are named H1, H4, and H5 in anticipation of their treatment in Sec. \[SecSevenHeat\]. In the latter two cases the lattice sites are indexed $(n,m)$ as shown in Fig. \[FigLat\]. In each case, the right-hand side is the best approximation of the second derivative possible using only nearest neighbor interactions. Note that in each of the above theories time is still treated as continuous. This doesn't have to be the case as we could also consider the following example: $$\begin{aligned} &\text{\bf Square N.N. Klein Gordon Equation:}\\ \nonumber &\phi_{j-1,n}\!-\!2\phi_{j,n}\!+\!\phi_{j+1,n} =\phi_{j,n-1}\!-\!2\phi_{j,n}\!+\!\phi_{j,n+1} \!-\!\mu^2 \phi_{j,n}\end{aligned}$$ with $j$ indexing time and $n$ indexing space and $\mu$ playing the role of the field's mass. Let's start (naively) interpreting these theories by taking their above formulations seriously, i.e. Eq. , Eq. and Eq. . Taken literally what are these theories about? Beginning with H1, H4 and H5, these theories are intuitively about a field $\phi_\ell(t)$ which maps lattice sites ($\ell\in L\cong\mathbb{Z}\cong\mathbb{Z}^2$) and times ($t\in\mathbb{R}$) into temperatures ($\phi_\ell(t)\in\mathbb{R}$). That is a field $\phi:Q\to \mathcal{V}$ with manifold $Q=L\times\mathbb{R}$ and value space $\mathcal{V}=\mathbb{R}$. Similarly, for the discrete Klein Gordon example the fundamental field seems to be $\phi:Q\to \mathcal{V}$ except that it has a manifold $Q=L$ with no times. While this paper will only explicitly deal with theories with $Q=L\times\mathbb{R}$, I expect that the central claims hold true in either case. In either case, taking $\phi:Q\to \mathcal{V}$ seriously as a fundamental field leads us to thinking of $Q$ as the theory's underlying manifold and $\mathcal{V}=\mathbb{R}$ as the theory's value space. It is important to note that in this interpretation, $Q$ is the entire manifold, it is not being thought of as embedded in some larger manifold. (However, a view like this will be considered in our third interpretation in Sec. \[SecHeat3\].) With this manifold and value space picked out, what can we expect of these theories' symmetries? As discussed earlier in this section, if $Q$ is a theory's underlying manifold then its external symmetries (either spacetime or dynamical) are restricted $\text{Auto}(Q)$ for some relevant notion of automorphism. Similarly, the theory's internal symmetries are restricted to $\text{Auto}(\mathcal{V})$. We might also have gauge symmetries which mix these two. Returning to $\text{Auto}(Q)$ however what is the relevant notion of automorphism? Answering this question will require us to distinguish what structures are "built into" $Q$ and what are "built on top of" $Q$. The analogous distinction in the continuum case is that we generally take the manifold's differentiable structure to be built into it while the Minkowski metric, for instance, is something additional built on top of the manifold. In this paper, I am officially agnostic on where we draw this line in the discrete case. However, for didactic purposes I will here be as conservative as possible giving $Q$ as little structure as is sensible. Note that the more structure we associate with $Q$ the smaller the class of relevant automorphisms $\text{Auto}(Q)$. Thus, I am taking $\text{Auto}(Q)$ to be as large as it can reasonably be. For the second kind of discrete theory (i.e., those with both space and time discrete) the minimal structure we can reasonably associate with $Q=L$ is that of a set. As such the largest $\text{Auto}(Q)$ could reasonably be is permutations of the lattice sites, . For the first kind of discrete theory (i.e., those with continuous time) the minimal structure we can reasonably associate with $Q=L\times\mathbb{R}$ is that of a set times a differentiable manifold. In this case, the largest $\text{Auto}(Q)$ could reasonably be is permutations of the lattice sites together with time reparametrizations, . Recall that in addition to $\text{Auto}(Q)$ we might also have internal or gauge symmetries. While in general there may be abundant internal or gauge symmetries, for the present cases there are not many. In particular, for all of the above-mentioned theories we only have $\mathcal{V}=\mathbb{R}$. Moreover, these theories are all linear (solutions sum to solutions) such that it makes sense to structure $\mathbb{R}$ as an affine vector space. Thus, $\text{Auto}(\mathcal{V})=\text{Aff}(\mathbb{R})$ such that our internal symmetries are linear-affine rescalings of $\phi$. Moreover, localizing these internal symmetries reveal no gauge symmetries in these examples. Thus, in total, for H1 H4 and H5 the widest scope of symmetry transformations available to us is: $$\begin{aligned} \label{PermutationLong} s:\quad \phi_\ell(t)\mapsto c_1 \phi_{P(\ell)}(\tau(t))+c_2 \end{aligned}$$ for some $c_1,c_2\in\mathbb{R}$, some smooth $\tau(t)$, and some permutation $P:L\to L$. Similarly, for the discrete Klein Gordon example we have $$\begin{aligned} s:\quad \phi_\ell\mapsto c_1 \phi_{P(\ell)}+c_2 \end{aligned}$$ dropping the time label. In either case, however, it should be clear that our theory cannot have continuous spacial translations and rotations (at least not while interpreting $\phi:Q\to\mathcal{V}$ and consequently $Q$ as fundamental as we are here). I have thus spelled out some (ultimately faulty) support for the (ultimately wrong) first intuitions put forward in Sec. \[SecIntro\]. To summarize, taking the initial presentation of these theories literally, we are led to think of $\phi:Q\to\mathcal{V}$ to be fundamental with manifold $Q$ and value space $\mathcal{V}$. Reasoning from here we found that the lattice itself (in addition to further lattice structure) restricts our theories' symmetries to be discrete: it appears we cannot have continuous spacial and rotational symmetries. As I will show in Sec. \[SecHeat2\], this systematically under predicts the symmetries that discrete spacetime theories can and do have. Fixing this issue will lead us to develop two discrete analogs of general covariance. However, before this let me introduce several discrete heat equations around which the rest of the paper will be framed. Seven Discrete Heat Equations {#SecSevenHeat} ============================= In this section I will introduce seven discrete heat equations (H1-H7) in an interpretation-neutral way and solve their dynamics. In the previous section H1, H4 and H5 were already introduced and analyzed somewhat. Here we are starting again clean. In particular, in the previous section casual comparison was made between parts of these theories' dynamical equations and various approximations of the second derivative. While, as I will discuss, such comparisons can be made, to do so immediately is unearned. It comes dangerously close to imagining the lattices shown in Fig. \[FigLat\] as being embedded in a continuous manifold. This may be something we want to do later, but it is a non-trivial interpretational move which ought not be done so casually. Crucially, in this section I will be analyzing these theories as discrete-native theories. As such, it's important to think of the following discrete spacetime theories as self-sufficient theories in their own right. We must not begin by thinking of them as various discretizations or bandlimitations of the continuum theories. While, as I will discuss, these discrete theories have some notable relationships to various continuum theories it is important to resist any temptation to see these continuum theories as "where they came from". Moreover, the previous section casually associated these theories with the lattice structures shown in Fig. \[FigLat\]. Namely, H4 was associated with a square lattice and H5 with a hexagonal lattice. Making such associates ab initio is unwarranted. While we may eventually associate these theories with those lattice structures we cannot do so immediately. Such an association would need to be made following careful consideration of the dynamics. Beginning here in an interpretation neutral way these theories ought to be seen as being defined over a completely unstructured lattice. That is, at this point the set of labels for the lattice sites, $L$, is just that, an unstructured set. With these words of caution in mind, let's introduce some dynamics. All seven theories consider a field with $Q=L\times\mathbb{R}$. That is, all seven theories consider a real scalar field $\phi_\ell(t)$. As a first example consider a field $\phi_\ell(t)$ which under some convenient relabeling of the lattice sites, $\ell\mapsto n$, satisfies Eq. , namely, $$\begin{aligned} \text{H1}:\quad&\frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t}\phi_n(t) =\alpha\,[\phi_{n-1}(t)-2\phi_n(t)+\phi_{n+1}(t)].\end{aligned}$$ At the risk of repeating myself, these $n\in\mathbb{Z}$ are just labels. The fact that our labels $n\in\mathbb{Z}$ are in a sense equidistant from each other does not force us to think of the lattice sites as being equidistant from each other or on a uniform grid. Nor are we forced to think that "the distance between lattice sites" to be heatherosborne@example.org. Dynamical considerations may later push us in this direction, but the mere convenience of this labeling should not. For practical applications it is convenient to rewrite the dynamics by collecting these field values $\phi_n(t)$ into an infinite dimensional vector as $$\begin{aligned} \label{PhiDef} \bm{\phi}(t)\coloneqq (\dots,\phi_{-1}(t),\phi_0(t),\phi_1(t),\dots)^\intercal\in \mathbb{R}^L. \end{aligned}$$ In these terms the dynamics of H1 is given by, $$\begin{aligned} \label{DH1} &\text{\bf Heat Equation 1 (H1):}\\ \nonumber &\frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t}\bm{\phi}(t)=\alpha \, \Delta_{(1)}^2 \bm{\phi}(t) \end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta_{(1)}^2$ is the following bi-infinite Toeplitz matrix: $$\begin{aligned} \label{Delta12} \Delta_{(1)}^2=\frac{1}{2}\{\Delta_{(1)}^+,\Delta_{(1)}^-\} &=\text{Toeplitz}(1,\,-2,\,1)\\ \label{Delta1p} \Delta_{(1)}^+&=\text{Toeplitz}(0,-1,\,1)\\ \label{Delta1m} \Delta_{(1)}^-&=\text{Toeplitz}(-1,\,1,\,0)\end{aligned}$$ Recall that Toeplitz matrices are so called diagonal-constant matrices with $[A]_{i,j}=[A]_{i+1,j+1}$. Thus, the values in the above expression give the matrix's values on either side of the main diagonal. In addition to H1, I will also consider two more theories with the following dynamics: $$\begin{aligned} \label{DH2} &\text{\bf Heat Equation 2 (H2):}\\ \nonumber &\frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t}\bm{\phi}(t)=\alpha \, \Delta_{(2)}^2 \bm{\phi}(t)\\ \label{DH3} &\text{\bf Heat Equation 3 (H3):}\\ \nonumber &\frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t}\bm{\phi}(t)=\alpha \, D^2 \bm{\phi}(t).\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \label{BigToeplitz} \Delta_{(2)}^2&=\text{Toeplitz}(\frac{-1}{12},\,\frac{4}{3},\,\frac{-5}{2},\,\frac{4}{3},\,\frac{-1}{12})\\ \nonumber D&=\text{Toeplitz}(\dots,\!\frac{-1}{5},\!\frac{1}{4},\!\frac{-1}{3},\!\frac{1}{2},\!-1,\!0,\!1,\!\frac{-1}{2},\!\frac{1}{3},\!\frac{-1}{4},\!\frac{1}{5},\!\dots)\\ \nonumber D^2&=\text{Toeplitz}(\dots,\!\frac{-2}{16},\!\frac{2}{9},\!\frac{-2}{4},\!\frac{2}{1},\!\frac{-2\pi^2}{6},\!\frac{2}{1},\!\frac{-2}{4},\!\frac{2}{9},\!\frac{-2}{16},\!\dots).\end{aligned}$$ Although above I warned about thinking in terms of derivative approximations prematurely, a few comments are here warranted. Suppose we were to somehow imagine these $\phi_n(t)$ values as coming from some continuous function $\phi(t,x)$ by either sampling it or taking local averages on/around some uniform lattice $x_n=n\,a$. Vectorizing these values as in Eq. and applying any of the above defined Toeplitz matrices would give us approximations to the derivative of $\phi(t,x)$. Namely, $\Delta_{(1)}^+/a$ would be associated with the forward derivative approximation, $\Delta_{(1)}^-/a$ would be associated with the backwards derivative approximation, and $\Delta_{(1)}^2/a^2$ would be associated with the nearest neighbor second derivative approximation, $$\begin{aligned} \Delta_{(1)}^2/a^2:\quad\partial_x^2 f(x) &\approx\frac{f(x-a)-2 f(x)+f(x+a)}{a^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly $\Delta_{(2)}^2/a^2$ is related to the next-to-nearest-neighbor approximation to the second derivative. Notice that the longer range we make our derivative approximations the more accurate they can be. The operator $D$ (and its square $D^2$) in some sense are the best discrete approximations to the derivative (and second derivative) possible. The defining property of $D$ is that it is diagonal in the (discrete) Fourier basis with spectrum, $$\begin{aligned} \label{LambdaD} \lambda_D(k)={\mathrm{i}}\,k \end{aligned}$$ for $k\in[-\pi,\pi]$. This is in tight connection with the continuum derivative operator $\partial_x$ which is diagonal in the (continuum) Fourier basis with spectrum for $k\in[-\infty,\infty]$. Alternatively, one can construct $D^2$ in the following way: generalize $\Delta_{(1)}^2/a^2$ and $\Delta_{(1)}^2/a^2$ to $\Delta_{(n)}^2/a^2$ namely the best second derivative approximation considering which considers $n^\text{th}$ neighbors to either side. Taking the limit $n\to\infty$ gives $D^2=\lim_{n\to\infty}\Delta_{(n)}^2$. Other aspects of $D$ will be discussed in Sec. \[SecSamplingTheory\] including the related derivative approximation Eq. , but enough has been said for now. While these connections to derivative approximations allow us to export some intuitions from the continuum theories into these discrete theories, we must resist this (at least for now). In particular, I should stress again that we should not be thinking of any of H1, H2 and H3 as coming from the continuum theory under some approximation of the derivative. Rather, let us pretend these theories "came from nowhere" and let us see what sense we can make of them. In addition to H1-H3, I will consider four more discrete heat equations (two of these have already been introduced above). First, consider a field $\phi_\ell(t)$ which under some convenient relabeling of the lattice sites, $\ell\mapsto (n,m)$, satisfies Eq. , namely, $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber \text{H4}: \ &\frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t}\phi_{n,m}(t) =\frac{\alpha}{2}\big[\phi_{n-1,m}(t) -2\phi_{n,m}(t)+\phi_{n+1,m}(t)\\ \nonumber &\qquad\qquad\qquad+\phi_{n,m-1}(t) -2\phi_{n,m}(t)+\phi_{n,m+1}(t)\big]\end{aligned}$$ As before, it will be convenient to organize this theory's field values into a vector. We can handle the two indices by introducing a tensor product structure into the vector space, $\bm{\phi}(t)\in\mathbb{R}^L=\mathbb{R}^\mathbb{Z}\otimes\mathbb{R}^\mathbb{Z}$, with the first tensor factor corresponding to the first index $n$ and the second tensor factor corresponding to the second index $m$. In these terms the dynamics of H4 given above is given by, $$\begin{aligned} \label{DH4} &\text{\bf Heat Equation 4 (H4):}\\ \nonumber &\frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t}\bm{\phi}(t) =\frac{\alpha}{2} \, (\Delta^2_{(1),\text{n}}+ \Delta^2_{(1),\text{m}}) \, \bm{\phi}(t),\end{aligned}$$ where the notation $A_\text{n}\coloneqq A\otimes\openone$ and $A_\text{m}\coloneqq\openone\otimes A$ mean $A$ acts only on the first or second tensor space respectively. Thus, $\Delta^2_{(1),\text{n}}$ is just $\Delta^2_{(1)}$ applied to the first index, $n$. Likewise $\Delta^2_{(1),\text{m}}$ is just $\Delta^2_{(1)}$ applied to the second index, $m$. A similar treatment of Eq. gives us, $$\begin{aligned} \label{DH5} &\text{\bf Heat Equation 5 (H5):}\\ \nonumber &\frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t}\bm{\phi}(t) =\frac{\alpha}{3} \, \Big[\Delta^2_{(1),\text{n}}+ \Delta^2_{(1),\text{m}}\\ \nonumber &\qquad\qquad\quad \ +\frac{1}{2}\big\{\Delta^+_\text{m}-\Delta^+_\text{n},\Delta^-_\text{m}-\Delta^-_\text{n}\big\}\Big] \, \bm{\phi}(t),\end{aligned}$$ where the curly brackets $\{A,B\}= A\,B + B\,A$ indicate the anticommutator. While the third term looks complicated, it is just the analog of $\Delta^2_{(1),\text{n}}$ and $\Delta^2_{(1),\text{m}}$ but in the $n-m$ direction. At the risk of repeating myself endlessly, in both H4 and H5 these are just labels of lattice sites. The fact that our labels $n,m\in\mathbb{Z}$ can be thought of as a square lattice does not force us to think of the lattice sites as being arranged in a square lattice. If we come to think anything like this, it should be by investigating the dynamics of these theories. Indeed, for H5 we will find this is not the case. Finally, in addition to H4 and H5 I consider the following two theories: $$\begin{aligned} \label{DH6} &\text{\bf Heat Equation 6 (H6):}\\ \nonumber &\frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t}\bm{\phi}(t) =\frac{\alpha}{2} \, (D^2_\text{n}+ D^2_\text{m}) \, \bm{\phi}(t)\\ \label{DH7} &\text{\bf Heat Equation 7 (H7):}\\ \nonumber &\frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t}\bm{\phi}(t) =\frac{\alpha}{3}\left(D^2_\text{n}+D^2_\text{m}+(D_\text{m}-D_\text{n})^2\right) \, \bm{\phi}(t).\end{aligned}$$ Having introduced these seven theories, let us next solve their dynamics. Solving Their Dynamics ---------------------- To gain some intuition about H1-H7, let us next solve their dynamics. Conveniently, each of H1-H7 admit planewave solutions. Moreover, in each case these planewave solutions form a complete basis of solutions. Considering first H1-H3 we have solutions, $$\begin{aligned} \label{PlaneWave123} \phi_n(t;k)=e^{-{\mathrm{i}}k \, n} \,e^{-\Gamma(k)\,t}. \end{aligned}$$ with $k\in[-\pi,\pi]$. Note that extending $k$ outside of this range does not yield new planewave solutions due to Euler's identity, $\exp(2\pi{\mathrm{i}})=1$. This is related to the phenomena of aliasing in digital image processing. For H1-H3 the wavenumber-dependent decay rate, $\Gamma(k)$, for each theory is given by: $$\begin{aligned} \text{H1}:& \quad \!\! \Gamma(k)= \alpha \, (2-2\text{cos}(k))\\ \nonumber \text{H2}:& \quad \!\! \Gamma(k)= \frac{\alpha}{6}\,(\text{cos}(2\,k)-16\,\text{cos}(k)+15)\\ \nonumber \text{H3}:& \quad \!\! \Gamma(k)= \alpha \, k^2.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\Gamma(k)$ for H3 follows Eq. , essentially from the definition of $D$. ![The decay rates for the planewave solutions to the discrete heat equations are plotted as a function of wavenumber for H1, H2 and H3 (bottom to top).<span data-label="FigHeatDecay"></span>](PaperFigures/FigHeatDecay.pdf){width="40.00000%"} Fig. \[FigHeatDecay\] shows these decay rates as a function of wavenumber. Thus, what sets these theories apart is the rate at which high frequency planewaves decay. H1-H3 more-or-less agree at low frequencies, with each saying that if $k \ll \pi$ then $\Gamma(k)\approx \alpha \, k^2$. If we consider only solutions with all or most of their wavenumber support with $k \ll \pi$, we have an approximate one-to-one correspondence between the solutions to these theories. This is roughly why each of these theories have the same continuum limit, namely H00 defined in Sec. \[SecGenCov\]. Note that the decay rate $\Gamma(k)$ for H3 exactly matches the decay rate of the continuum theory, at least for $k\in[-\pi,\pi]$. Note also that H2 is a nearer match to the continuum theory for $k\ll\pi$ than H1 is. $$\begin{aligned} \text{H1}:& \quad \!\! \Gamma(k)= \alpha \, \left(k^2-\frac{k^4}{12}+\mathcal{O}(k^6)\right)\\ \nonumber \text{H2}:& \quad \!\! \Gamma(k)= \alpha \left(k^2-\frac{k^6}{90}+\mathcal{O}(k^8)\right)\\ \nonumber \text{H3}:& \quad \!\! \Gamma(k)= \alpha \, k^2.\end{aligned}$$ This is due to its longer range coupling giving a better approximation of the derivative. In terms of converging to the continuum limit, one can expect H3 to outpace H2 which outpaces H1. While interesting in their own right, these relationships with the continuum theory are not directly helpful in helping us understand H1-H3 in their own right as discrete-native theories. Before discussing the dynamics of H4-H7, another word of warning. As mentioned above, due to Euler's identity, $\exp(2\pi{\mathrm{i}})=1$, the discrete planewave solutions with wavenumbers $k$ and are identical. Thus, it is best not to think of the x-axis of Fig. \[FigHeatDecay\] abruptly ending at $k=\pm\pi$ but rather as wrapping around on itself. The planewave solutions to H4-H7 are, $$\begin{aligned} \phi_{n,m}(t;k_1,k_2)=e^{-{\mathrm{i}}k_1 n-{\mathrm{i}}k_2 m} \,e^{-\Gamma(k_1,k_2)\,t}\end{aligned}$$ with $k_1,k_2\in[-\pi,\pi]$. As before, extending $k_1$ and $k_2$ outside of this range does not yield new planewave solutions due to Euler's identity, $\exp(2\pi{\mathrm{i}})=1$. The wavenumber-dependent decay rate $\Gamma(k_1,k_2)$ for each theory is given by: $$\begin{aligned} \text{H4}:& \ \Gamma(k_1,k_2)= \alpha \left(2\!-\!\text{cos}(k_1)\!-\!\text{cos}(k_2)\right)\\ \nonumber \text{H5}:& \ \Gamma(k_1,k_2)= \frac{2\alpha}{3} \left(3\!-\!\text{cos}(k_1)\!-\!\text{cos}(k_2)\!-\!\text{cos}(k_2-k_1)\right)\\ \nonumber \text{H6}:& \ \Gamma(k_1,k_2)= \frac{\alpha}{2} \, (k_1^2+k_2^2)\\ \nonumber \text{H7}:& \
{'source': 'arXiv_out/2204'}