Is Spacetime Fundamental? Or Does It Emerge from Quantum Configuration Space?

Most attempts at quantum gravity treat spacetime as somehow fundamental—albeit quantised, discretised, or reimagined—rather than exploring the more radical idea that configuration space, or some deeper pre-geometric structure, is ontologically prior. Canonical quantisation, loop quantum gravity, spin foams—all these frameworks tend to smuggle spacetime in through the back door: manifolds, coordinate charts, causal orderings. The stage may wobble, shrink, or pixelate, but it remains recognisably a stage.

There is, however, a less-travelled but more conceptually daring road: theories in which configuration space comes first. These approaches ask the unthinkable: If space and time are emergent, then from what exactly are they emerging?

The situation today is not unlike physics in the 1890s. Maxwell’s electrodynamics stood tall, yet the atom remained an enigma, and the aether was taken for granted. A great theoretical edifice loomed, but its foundations were about to be washed away by the incoming tide of Planck and Einstein. We may now be in the same liminal moment—admiring the view from a scaffold that future physicists will dismantle.

In today’s pre-paradigmatic landscape, we face a conceptual standoff. Quantum field theory presumes a smooth, fixed background spacetime. General relativity, by contrast, treats spacetime itself as dynamic—but without the faintest hint of quantum entanglement or superposition. 

Attempts to resolve the tension tend either to bolt quantum mechanics onto classical geometry (as in loop quantum gravity), or to embed spacetime in a higher-dimensional scaffolding (as in string theory). Or, more radically, they dissolve spacetime entirely into something else: a tangle of configurations, causal sets, or entropic gradients.

The real difficulty is not merely technical—it’s philosophical. We lack not just the right equations, but the right questions. What is a “quantum” of geometry? What does a “probability amplitude” mean when there is no background spacetime in which anything can happen? These are not peripheral puzzles. They are ontological wrecking balls.

And unlike past scientific revolutions, we have no empirical anomaly to light the way. There is no ultraviolet catastrophe, no perihelion of Mercury. Quantum gravity has become theoretical physics’ Everest: people attempt the climb not because there is a storm coming, but because the peak is there, mocking us with its silence.

Still, for all their eccentricity and scarcity, these configuration-first approaches may be carving the path toward a Copernican reversal. What if spacetime is not the fundamental canvas, but a dramatis persona—an emergent illusion conjured from a deeper script written in the language of entanglement, topology, and relational structure?

Several research programs are already groping toward such a script. 

• Tensor-network methods in AdS/CFT suggest that spatial geometry may be nothing more than a map of entanglement patterns.
• The “it from qubit” program frames spacetime as the holographic bookkeeping of quantum information.
• Causal set theory posits that causal order, not geometry, is the true primitive, with spacetime volume arising from the density of discrete events.
• Even more abstract approaches - group field theory, amplituhedra, twistor theory - hint that the familiar continuum may be only a projection from higher-dimensional combinatorial or algebraic structures.

Whether any of these daring starts will crystallise into a paradigm is unknown. But the fact that multiple routes converge on the same suspicion - that spacetime is not fundamental at all - may itself be the signal. In the long arc of physics, such convergences often precede a revolution.

Whether that script will ever be legible to physicists in the 21st century is still an open question. But perhaps it’s the right one.