Philosophical Relativity - QM Marriage

Discussions on the nature of being, existence, reality and knowledge. What is? How do we know?

Philosophical Relativity - QM Marriage

Postby DragonFly on October 31st, 2015, 2:43 pm 

The engagement of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics for marriage has been announced by the quest for Quantum Gravity as the offspring, forcing a new look at the seeming incompatibilities.

I can mostly only deal with the philosophical here, with some minimal science, leaving the full details to physicists, which may also allow us to finish long before they do, they having to prove our truths with loads of math models, probably taking fifty years to do it, which I can’t really wait around for.

Both Relativity and QM are confirmed in their own realms of the large and the small, definite versus fuzzy or ‘random’, eternalism versus presentism, respectively, and more, but for a Final Theory they need to converge, each giving something up, it would seem, or we have to formulate a new, deeper theory underlying both.

I will head toward a plan that the basic something (Something) that has to be is a process of ‘becoming’ rather than the whole done deal as ‘being’ of reality already all laid out, my model child being of a combination of the parents, as QM processing the future’s development, but having the past becoming frozen in stone, as in the Relativity block universe, because I don’t know what else to do, and so we’re headed to a a kind of a growing block model, which I never thought I’d have to do, since it still has the tough presentism to overcome, but the search for quantum gravity forces us to try things.

First, though, what is the philosophy behind each parent, which no one really seems to get that deeply into?

Einstein used both philosophy and science in his all-at-once, instantaneous past-future of Relativity that stems from the relativity of simultaneity due to the constant speed of light causing time and distance to change to accommodate light’s speed, making for a timeless representation of reality as 4D distances, at large, time being spatialized as one of them, but internally converted and sensed as change/time to us through some magic of our consciousness being able to move through our world lines.

The whole block is a a 4D hyper sphere with the special-time dimension as a distance being radial from the center, as where the initial conditions of the Big Bang were, which leads to all paths thereby derived from, as only what they can be, but I’ll be darned as to how this arrangement can just be there instantaneously, plus why it only begins at the big bang, and how its concrete extent can go to 4D infinity on the future side.

But, more philosophically, as in deeper and not using prior science, there is the basis of the sense of “what is, is, and what is not, is not”, as Parmenides put it, indicating that what exists has to, since Not can’t even be meant, as so as such, What IS must be causeless, whole, ever continuous, unchanging, and timeless, just as the block universe turned out to be, as a consequence/implication of Relativity.

Again though, what if the Something described above was a process, its nature still remaining unchanging, whole, continuous, timeless, ever, and causeless? We only need add that it is indefinite, a la QM, as would be any basic something with nothing before or outside of it to give it a mission statement, this being a philosophy for QM having to be indefinite (unless there is only one, default, definite way).

OK, now I am stuck, or at least haven’t written down any further thoughts yet.

Of course, there are all sorts of ongoing approaches and schemes by noted thinkers going on to try to resolve the mismatches that one can dig into.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2307
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Philosophical Relativity - QM Marriage

Postby DragonFly on November 1st, 2015, 8:47 pm 

After consideration in my warm bath on a cold night, the Relativity-QM marriage may not be so rocky after all.

0. I cannot go too far with Quantum Mechanics (QM) indefiniteness, for it would lead to the unworkable conclusion that the future would be almost completely uncorrelated with the past, contradicting our observations. Thus, while some indefiniteness as potentials must exist, many of them get canceled or swamped out for reasons unknown that are not yet dealt with herein, but somehow the probability of potentials result in a great consistency in what goes forward as ‘future’, this even if ‘indefiniteness’ is the bedrock of reality, to put it ironically. Quantum fluctuations are the quantum ‘creation’ and ‘annihilation’ of the grains of spacetime.

Note 0: Quantum field theory is one of the most successful theories ever formulated. All matter fields, together with the electromagnetic and nuclear forces, have been successfully embodied in the quantum framework. They form the much celebrated standard model of elementary particles, which not only has been confirmed in all advanced accelerator facilities, but has also become an essential ingredient for the description of the universe and its evolution.


1. I can’t get rid of Relativity, but I can get rid of the near metaphysical derivations from it, especially if I can do this on many counts. So, let say farewell to the ‘future’ portion of the block universe as being static and pre-determined; only the ‘past’ portion will become solid, as determined by the present, with the past not gone but kept around.

1a. ‘Infinite’ is not allowed for an extant extent because such an extent cannot be all there at once because it cannot be capped. The block universe is infinite in its future extent, in both its three space dimensions and in its time dimension (which is a distance dimension in the block), and so that is my first disqualification of the block universe ‘future’. Strike one, in the series of the World.

1aa. The future ain’t what it used to be, Yogi, for now there are the potentials of many world-lines getting considered, not just one already in cement.

1b. Quantum mechanics indicates that futures can be indefinite, thus there cannot be the block universe’s fixed future. Strike two.

1ba. The change from indefinite to definite takes place at the ever changing present, where the uncertain future becomes the determined past. As time evolves along each world line, at different rates, as we will see, spacetime grows by subsuming events and solidifies as the concrete of the past.

1baa. The past must be kept; ex: many parts of the Earth are of the past but they still affect the present. (‘Presentism’ would have to make them all over again in every now.)

1c. The block universe is complete, all at once, in all its connections, which is a complexity, as First, and so it cannot be Fundamental. Strike three.

1ca. Keep it simple. The complex is in the future, not in the past.

1d. Claiming the block universe to be metaphysical and idealistic doesn’t make it a sacred cow. Strike four. Didn’t really need this one, but we can also say it doesn’t match our experience, such as being time-reversible, which is important, so, really another strike.

1e. All that sets itself instantly as an already existent future could not have been foreseen, regardless of the point about QM having indefinite/random outcomes.

1f. The initial conditions of the universe don’t make for its future, since the quantum fluctuations that were amplified to galactic scale by inflation were unpredictable. The outcome is only determined as it happens.


2. I cannot have an absolute ‘now’, nor can I have the ‘no time’ of a timeless block universe (since I just demolished the block universe, at least of the future). What’s left, then, is an undulating or piecemeal wavefront of different ‘nows’ at different places, these ‘places’ being anywhere from bits to the Planck size and up. No need, then, for all process to somehow get in perfect sync. Some take longer or shorter.

2a. Thus, not everything happens at a universal, absolute ‘now’, which avoids pure presentism, plus presentism is also gone from my keeping of the past.


3. Time passes, in our nows, as we are the nows of the various wavefronts, sort of as surfers building on the past at the very points where the possible and probable future takes form and becomes the past reality cast into stone, the wave always carrying us and everything else into the future of the great unknown.


4. I, then, have allowed most of QM, with all change taking place in a variable present, preserving Einstein’s relativity of simultaneity. How QM really and truly works is left out as ‘mysterious’.


5. In summary, time progresses, events happen, and history is shaped. History could have been different, but instant by instant, one and only one specific evolutionary history out of all the possibilities/potentialities is chosen, takes place, and then gets cast in stone.

note 1: It is a fundamental aspect of most quantum theory that the uncertainty is unresolvable: it is not even in principle possible to obtain enough data to determine a unique outcome of quantum events. This unpredictability is not a result of a lack of information: it is the very nature of the underlying physics.

note 2: Despite connections between information/knowledge and quantum states, there has been little progress towards answering the deeply related “quantum reality problem”: What is the underlying reality that quantum states represent knowledge about? If quantum states are information, what is the “informata”? Most research in quantum information has ducked this question, or denied the very possibility of hidden variables, likely due to strong no-go theorems. Indeed some have rejected the basic notion that information needs to be about anything at all, taking the “It from Bit” view that information can somehow be more fundamental than reality.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2307
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Philosophical Relativity - QM Marriage

Postby Natural ChemE on November 2nd, 2015, 1:05 pm 

DragonFly,

Quantum electrodynamics combines quantum with special relativity. It's famous for working very well.
Natural ChemE
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2754
Joined: 28 Dec 2009


Re: Philosophical Relativity - QM Marriage

Postby DragonFly on November 2nd, 2015, 10:49 pm 

Natural ChemE » November 2nd, 2015, 1:05 pm wrote:DragonFly,

Quantum electrodynamics combines quantum with special relativity. It's famous for working very well.


Or QFT, quantizing fields, but neither deals with gravity, which is no great loss in their tiny realm where gravity would hardly come into play.

So far, I've gotten rid of eternalism, allowing evolution in time, as the above quantum theories have. Next, since General Relativity has a dynamic/free, relational background, and quantum theories have a fixed/flat background, we might look into relational schemes, per Leibniz, which are necessarily background free, to quantize gravity/spacetime, which seems a violent thing, perhaps, due to fluctuations.

Or we could say, "Who cares!", and give up, but now, for once in quite a while, philosophers can get in at the ground floor.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2307
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Philosophical Relativity - QM Marriage

Postby DragonFly on November 3rd, 2015, 1:35 pm 

I have adopted QM’s indefiniteness as a basis for a workable reality, although it’s background dependence will probably have to be removed in favor of pure relationalism.

So, how does something definite and workable towards making future arise from an indefinite that seems to be as a bunch of monkeys typing randomly to make a coherent book?

The "monkeys" are not about typing something complete as all at once, sequentially, in a row, but about slow accumulations upon a stable platform, as in evolution.

When something stable arises, like, say, a quark, it may then continue at its emergent level to combine into something higher as stable, such as a proton, everything else just remaining as 'noise'. So, then, only those paths that can go on can amount to anything further.

This is as a kind of brute force 'exploration' of all paths, this being sure to get to something workable over 'foreseeing', which it can't have, anyway.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2307
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Philosophical Relativity - QM Marriage

Postby DragonFly on November 3rd, 2015, 5:16 pm 

In quantum mechanics, one has particles with indefinite properties. In quantum field theory, one again has particles, but these are secondary to the fields with indefinite properties. Spacetime itself then becomes a kind of quantum field, and so becomes indefinite. There would be no more individuating objects and their properties, just an evolving block universe going on in real time.


In review, and with perhaps some expansion, why are general relativity and quantum mechanics not compatible towards a theory of quantum gravity by their unification?

QM has quantization, thus observables are not just numbers, as in the opposite, classical theories, but operators that act on quantum states and then take expectation values. There are also quantum phenomena, such as uncertainty and entanglement, which are not part of any classical system that one wishes to quantize.

The quantization works extremely well when the classical system is not relativistic, that is, that there isn't too much energy involved and everything moves at speeds much less than the speed of light; otherwise, it fails miserably, with infinite that can’t be gotten rid of through renormalization.

The Standard Model (SM) uses Quantum Field Theory (QFT) to describe the three fundamental interactions: electromagnetism, the strong interaction and the weak interaction. These interactions are described by gauge theory, and the SM explains the fundamental interactions as couplings/ interactions between the different fields.

GR describes the 4th fundamental interaction, which is gravity, and fortunately, GR is also a field theory, describing the ‘metric’ that is responsible for the spacetime curvature, which is interpreted as gravity.

It seemed to be a simple matter to just quantize the metric field of GR, which was indeed done, but it completely breaks down at high energies, which is just where we needed it to work for unification. We didn’t know all the parameters, because there are an infinite number of them, meaning gravity is non-renormalizable. (For quantizing the electromagnetic field, there were only a small number of such parameters, and so we could accomplish a very useful approximation.)

There are many different approaches. Most of them involve modifying QM and/or GR in some way such that gravity will be renormalizable. There is also a conceptual problem of how to treat spacetime itself.

We only really understand QM and QFT as theories in which particles or fields interact on a given fixed background spacetime. flat or curved, but the background must be unchanging, and so the background cannot interact in any way with the fields in the foreground.

Yet, the idea behind GR is that spacetime is a dynamical, ever-changing physical entity, which not only influences the motion of particles or fields that move inside it, but is also influenced back by them. Spacetime is no longer just a background. Gravity in GR is what decides whether there even is an empty backdrop and so QM doesn't have anything stable and static to perturb on top of!

QM allows for Special Relativity but not for General Relativity. It deals with mass and energy, but it makes no allowance for mass and energy distorting spacetime. We don’t know what it means quantize spacetime itself, but that’s not my concern in physics but only philosophically. So, GR is consistent and QM is consistent, but when you put them together, a mess results.

Another contradiction is that GR says that when you dump something into a black hole, the information disappears. QM says that information can't disappear. Another problem has to do with the uncertainty theorem. If you reduce the uncertainty in distance to zero, the uncertainty in momentum goes to infinity. 

In GR, curvature of space = energy and momentum of matter, but we know that "energy and momentum of matter" can be calculated only by using quantum operators on the matter's wave functions, so, absolute, GR’s certain classical description of the curvature of space must equals GM’s fuzzy, quantum description of matter, making for a badly broken equation.

(A faint hope is that the fundamental reality could be a continuum and what appears as discrete may result from convergence and condensation of the continuum.)

Non-local quantum entanglement has been shown, so, then, space cannot be a set of dimensionless mathematical points, meaning what appears as two different locations from the “dimensionless point perspective” would really be the same location. A new ‘point’, then, would have to be something that is out of focus and diffused, having a dimension.

A microstructure of spacetime is needed at the Planck scale, at which all fundamental constants of the ingredient theories, c (the velocity of light), ℏ (the reduced Planck's constant), and G (Newton's constant), come together to form units of mass, length, and time.

Some physicists speak of spacetime emerging, as in the context of the AdS/CFT duality in which a ten dimensional string theory is found to be observationally equivalent to a four dimensional gauge theory, called a ‘gauge/gravity’ duality since the string theory contains gravity while the gauge theory does not.

Since there is an equivalence between these descriptions, it makes sense to say that neither is fundamental, and so (elements of) the spacetimes they apparently describe are also not fundamental; thus implying that the spacetime we observe at low-energies is an emergent phenomenon. — Vistarini 2013

There is no single, generally agreed-upon body of theory in quantum gravity. I’m practically done, philosophically, while the physicist provers of truth have only just scratched the surface.

Now I get to go out and play, for Indian summer has arrived.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2307
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Philosophical Relativity - QM Marriage

Postby DragonFly on November 6th, 2015, 1:47 pm 

The Searchers/Philosophers/Scientists

The young philosopher, born in a cave, remains nameless, for I’m making her up, but she duly represents us all. She feels the dirt on the warm floor and thereby infers the existence of the Earth and its beginning as two pieces of dust sticking together, as well as the sun and all of the universe that must be out there to back it up, unto the basic something having to be ‘ever’.

Well, it might not have been that easy, but answers do come to those who seek, braving the devouring flames consuming their myths from the solutions to the perilous ponderings. The side-quests along the way taking them to many daring adventures, through dimly lit avenues, dark-alleys, dead-ends, one-way streets, and even one-way dead-ends, on which journey they risk never feeling the same again, after the unexpected truth is cornered.

We are the universe come to life, made in its image, of multiplicity within unity, with one holistic brain hemisphere operating in parallel, it joined to the other hemisphere of sequential detail, the holistic side as a floodlight of attention illuminating the whole scene at once, connected to the the detail side which is a spotlight of attention moving linearly through the scene, the two alternating their cyclic reign, as the yin in the yang and the yang in the yin, making for a rounded life.

And now it seems the philosophical universe, as us, has slain blame and shame, those evil stepchildren of the notion of totally free will, for we dared to fight the dragon in its den, where fixed will emerged as pretty much victorious, minimizing, evening out, or crushing ‘randomness’, but we are still delighted to have found another of the great revelations sought, never fearing, as seekers, the universal acid that must ever escape from Pandora’a Box of Truths and eat through our folk wisdom, wishes, and hopes.

We, too, have banished the possibility of Nothing’s existence, as in ‘it’ giving rise to anything, leaving in its wake the Eternal ‘IS’ that has no more choice in being here than we do, for the whole and the parts are in the same boat; yet, ’tis more than that, for we are a part of the ‘IS’ come to life as the ship that sails on the winds of time.

Gone, as well, ‘God’, the Imaginary Fellow cursed for nought, as it turns out, as well as the exposed imposter, ‘Infinity’, who pretended to be an uncapped extent extant all at once, plus, most likely, ‘Stillness’ squashed, which can never conquer change, and so, rather ironically, finally rests in peace, and, finally, the non ‘Beginning’ and ‘End’ of what IS—and its stuff shown to be uncreateable and unbreakable.

And long since have we learned of the greatest thought that anyone ever had, that of Evolution working via natural selection, resulting in endless forms most beautiful, their changes slowly accumulated from one stable platform to the next, sifting out the best from the rest, the wise from the silly, and the pointed from the pointless.

And another notions quashed, too, that of the brain process of consciousness being claimed to suddenly become something in itself floating free around the Cosmos as stand-alone Consciousness, as if a word taken alone from its definition could grant this power such as was also attempted as ‘infinity’. Consciousness helps to visualize action scenarios before committing to them, it extending all the way from the brain to the nerve spindles.

Ah, philosophers, thinkers, and scientists, you are the triad of wise men who heralded the birth of the Age of Revelations and the Downfall of Fantasy, this done whether you like or not what’s being shown to be true.

What, though, is the pleasure to this universal play that we must act out, ever thrust onto the stage, blind to the script, living joyfully through the ups of the highest peaks and painfully in the downs of the lowest valleys?

It is experience, perhaps, that is the reward, for now we as the Cosmos have gained it, be it though we are ever as tourists along for the ride, since we we see is always the past, yet the view is awesome.

What to do? Well, we don’t ever ‘do’; it’s the reverse, the Cosmos does us. We don’t come into the Cosmos; we are of it.

So, the time is ever the present now, with neither a past imperfect nor a future tense, and the place is always right here, right now.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2307
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Beginning

Postby Faradave on November 16th, 2015, 2:01 pm 

Hi DF,

Thanks for the prod in Absences, I've been busy but this seems like a thread I'll enjoy.

As I'm late to the party, I'm replying with quotes from the OP going forward. These will be naive of what you posted later. Otherwise, I'd probably never begin.

DragonFly » October 31st, 2015, 2:43 pm wrote:The engagement of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics for marriage has been announced by the quest for Quantum Gravity as the offspring, forcing a new look at the seeming incompatibilities."

You're right to expect, even demand, seamless compatibility from a single coherent model. Settle for nothing less, Reality didn't.

DragonFly wrote:I can mostly only deal with the philosophical here

Reminder: I'm not a philosopher, so I may misunderstand or misuse jargon. Correct me as needed.


DragonFly wrote:Both Relativity and QM are confirmed in their own realms...they need to converge...

Yup. I accomplish this with a "native field". That's no invention of mine. It's the idea that the field of a particle, such as an electron, originates at a central point and extends indefinitely from there. That's how I was originally taught to think of fields and I consider it to be quite workable. It lends quite intuitively to our own self-centered consciousness. An origin from which relationships can be established. A particle's field, at any given instant, coincides quite simply with its future light cone.

This is different from a more recent field concept. For example, a universal "electron field" from which electrons, wherever they are found, are merely perturbations and positrons may be perturbations of opposite phase.

I won't, at this point, deny the existence or potential utility of such a "field". As I see it, at any given time, this is a "composite field" constructed as a spatial cut across native fields.

By analogy, in a crowded room, each person is a source of a personal "vocal field" or native field. However, one might consider the air in the room as a more universal field, providing at any instant, a composite cross section of every voice in the room.

All this, to say that a native field provides a seamless link between quantum mechanics (QM) and relativity (R) by virtue of the point location of its origin and the cosmic extent of the field respectively.

More narrowly, a particle worldline is a fiber knitting together spacetime, as well as QM & R. An event on the worldline is an instance of a "particle", while it's worldline extends indefinitely.

...a process of ‘becoming’ rather than the whole done deal as ‘being’ of reality already all laid out, my model...QM processing the future’s development, but having the past becoming frozen in stone, as in the Relativity block universe, ... a kind of a growing block model

Clear enough, and intuitive, as it is the orientation of consciousness. But it treats the "future" differently than the "past", which I think must be justified.

DragonFly wrote:Einstein used both philosophy and science in his all-at-once, instantaneous past-future of Relativity... through some magic of our consciousness being able to move through our world lines.

I model consciousness as the result of playing a worldline (a process), in much the same way as music arises from a needle following the grove in a vinyl LP. There is a penalty in understanding, if we look too closely at the groove. We won't find consciousness in QM. What we do find there is indeterminism. That makes the future unknowable but it does not deny the (pre) existence of that future.

DragonFly wrote:The whole block is a a 4D hyper sphere with the special-time dimension as a distance being radial from the center, as where the initial conditions of the Big Bang were, which leads to all paths thereby derived from, as only what they can be

Strongly agree that this is the simplest interpretation of the balloon analogy. However, you'll find the "keepers" of that model, vehemently deny radial time. They don't bother to place time in the diagram at all! Instead the inside of the balloon requires an additional 4th spatial dimension (otherwise the balloon is a point not a sphere). Extra dimensions are costly in terms of complexity.

DragonFly wrote:I’ll be darned as to how this arrangement can just be there instantaneously, plus why it only begins at the big bang, and how its concrete extent can go to 4D infinity on the future side.

I don't understand the struggle. Look at your own existence. It has a beginning and an indefinite future.

What IS must be causeless, whole, ever continuous, unchanging, and timeless, just as the block universe turned out to be, as a consequence/implication of Relativity.

As far as modeling physics, I find 4D sufficient. But I'll be the first to admit, I can't fit God or a human spirit (soul?) in that box. And I often need to take a "God's eye view" from outside 4D to explain things.

There's a huge difference between creating something within spacetime (like building a house or writing a post) and creating spacetime itself. In the latter, time naturally has a beginning as established by God's own, separate clock.

You do this yourself. If I ask you to picture an old mouse, the picture essentially arises instantaneously. But the mouse comes with a potentially long lifetime history. Did that mouse "begin" with your picturing it or did it "begin" when it was born?
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1699
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Beginning

Postby DragonFly on November 16th, 2015, 7:12 pm 

Faradave » November 16th, 2015, 2:01 pm wrote:Hi DF,

Thanks for the prod in Absences, I've been busy but this seems like a thread I'll enjoy.


It's the most intellectual fun I've had since Galileo held secret meetings with my illuminati ancestors.

Faradave » November 16th, 2015, 2:01 pm wrote:As I'm late to the party, I'm replying with quotes from the OP going forward. These will be naive of what you posted later. Otherwise, I'd probably never begin.


This party just got underway, we all drinking in the quantum foam that fills our cups to the brim, and it doesn't matter that we're all more than 50 years late to the quantum gravity party because all their varied approaches aren't close to any final result.

Faradave » November 16th, 2015, 2:01 pm wrote:You're right to expect, even demand, seamless compatibility from a single coherent model. Settle for nothing less, Reality didn't.


Yes, we can't let reality stay ahead of us, so I humbly ask for insight from the lower powers at the Planck scale.

Faradave » November 16th, 2015, 2:01 pm wrote:Reminder: I'm not a philosopher, so I may misunderstand or misuse jargon. Correct me as needed.


We philosophers derive truth through logic, and so then we don't even need proof. It's an easy job but has no pay.

Faradave » November 16th, 2015, 2:01 pm wrote:Yup. I accomplish this with a "native field". That's no invention of mine. It's the idea that the field of a particle, such as an electron, originates at a central point and extends indefinitely from there. That's how I was originally taught to think of fields and I consider it to be quite workable. It lends quite intuitively to our own self-centered consciousness. An origin from which relationships can be established. A particle's field, at any given instant, coincides quite simply with its future light cone.


A particle field extending all over matches the QM notion of that such as an electron cloud, and a particle as a spigot of its fields at least localizes something rather than some average of just a huge spread-out field amounting to a particle lump somewhere.

Faradave » November 16th, 2015, 2:01 pm wrote:This is different from a more recent field concept. For example, a universal "electron field" from which electrons, wherever they are found, are merely perturbations and positrons may be perturbations of opposite phase.


A condensation of a kind of knot from the fields… well, we hereby abandoned that idea for now.

Are there discrete field quanta (field explains the 2-slit outcome)?

Faradave » November 16th, 2015, 2:01 pm wrote:I won't, at this point, deny the existence or potential utility of such a "field". As I see it, at any given time, this is a "composite field" constructed as a spatial cut across native fields.

By analogy, in a crowded room, each person is a source of a personal "vocal field" or native field. However, one might consider the air in the room as a more universal field, providing at any instant, a composite cross section of every voice in the room.


No wonder I can't hear on the phone.

Faradave » November 16th, 2015, 2:01 pm wrote:All this, to say that a native field provides a seamless link between quantum mechanics (QM) and relativity (R) by virtue of the point location of its origin and the cosmic extent of the field respectively.


QFT did well on this but for omitting gravity.

Faradave » November 16th, 2015, 2:01 pm wrote:More narrowly, a particle worldline is a fiber knitting together spacetime, as well as QM & R. An event on the worldline is an instance of a "particle", while it's worldline extends indefinitely.


Yes, I've heard about the weave of spacetime, plus it's cold in spacetime and so it can use a sweater.

Faradave » November 16th, 2015, 2:01 pm wrote:Clear enough, and intuitive, as it is the orientation of consciousness. But it treats the "future" differently than the "past", which I think must be justified.


I may have to change the growing block to a thick present, unless the past is like a memory or the actual casual tree that sticks around (but not all its potentials that didn't become definite.)

I also have to save myself from remaking all the metals within the Earth made in the past. I'm not a 'God', so I can't create the universe, much less make it completely anew at every instant of presentism.

Faradave » November 16th, 2015, 2:01 pm wrote:I model consciousness as the result of playing a worldline (a process), in much the same way as music arises from a needle following the grove in a vinyl LP. There is a penalty in understanding, if we look too closely at the groove. We won't find consciousness in QM. What we do find there is indeterminism. That makes the future unknowable but it does not deny the (pre) existence of that future.


So, QM is really deterministic if we knew everything and weren't partly ignorant?

The groove idea is good for the BU in that the record already exists. At the end of our lives, it plays over again at a zillion rpm.

Funny note: When we ask someone how many grooves there are on a record, they start calculating the playing width and such, expecting the answer to be in the hundreds. Even if they're smart and answer "one", we can say, "Wrong; two; one on each side."

Faradave » November 16th, 2015, 2:01 pm wrote:Strongly agree that this is the simplest interpretation of the balloon analogy. However, you'll find the "keepers" of that model, vehemently deny radial time. They don't bother to place time in the diagram at all! Instead the inside of the balloon requires an additional 4th spatial dimension (otherwise the balloon is a point not a sphere). Extra dimensions are costly in terms of complexity.


Well, I meant the special 4D distance converted to our 'time' by the speed of light, for indeed the BU is timeless. How do they show the space-expanding direction?

Faradave » November 16th, 2015, 2:01 pm wrote:I don't understand the struggle. Look at your own existence. It has a beginning and an indefinite future.


That's fine for me because the atoms I came from were available, so I guess I'll have to extend the start of the BU to go back to black holes in pre-existing universes or to the quantum foam as the start.

To cover cases that include the universe coming from something else that banged, I usually refer to absolutely everything as 'Totality', so then it is that Totality has no 'outside', and, so, like Leibniz, I say that cause can only come from within Totality.

Faradave » November 16th, 2015, 2:01 pm wrote:As far as modeling physics, I find 4D sufficient. But I'll be the first to admit, I can't fit God or a human spirit (soul?) in that box. And I often need to take a "God's eye view" from outside 4D to explain things.


Rovelli tells us that a regress ensues if we try to have 'change' in the 4D block by having it to be made in the 5th dimension, so, 4D is a good stop, and as such, as Totality, it has law to it, and much more as a specific frozen path, both of which it can't have, given no outside to impart any definite direction. So, adding n levels would just beg and enlarge the question n times over without even giving an answer.

Getting the 'time problem' (three possible modes) right will get one on the right track to quantum gravity by telling us what has to go in Relativity or QM to recover each from the other.

Thanks for entering this lonely thread. For once, we get in near the ground floor of the next theory.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2307
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Off the Starting Block

Postby Faradave on November 16th, 2015, 8:50 pm 

DragonFly » November 1st, 2015, 8:47 pm wrote:Quantum fluctuations are the quantum ‘creation’ and ‘annihilation’ of the grains of spacetime.

If you're developing a personal theory, no problem. The last I checked however, QM does not quantize space or time. They're considered continuous. Energy (and mass), momentum, angular momentum, and I think, information are among the quantum phenomena. I also believe charge is supposed to be quantized (with some embarrassment relating to fractional quark charges).


DragonFly wrote:1. ...say farewell to the ‘future’ portion of the block universe as being static and pre-determined; only the ‘past’ portion will become solid, as determined by the present, with the past not gone but kept around.

I'm half way through a DVD movie. I don't know what's going to happen next. The characters don't know what's going to happen next. It's absolutely realistic! Why such a good perceptual fit? The future of that story is just as "in cement" as its past.

I could have been more precise in my last post. Quantum indeterminism makes the future absolutely unpredictable in some respects (e.g. when light will emit from a particular energized electron, or when a particular muon will decay). We can never reliably guess the outcomes.

Universal speed limit c makes the future unknowable. Backward time travel of anything, including information, implies superluminal speed. We can never reliably know the outcome of an indeterminate event because no one can call the past and tell us.

Between the two, no one is going to give away the end of our stories, cast in cement or not.

DragonFly wrote:1a. ‘Infinite’ is not allowed for an extant extent because such an extent cannot be all there at once because it cannot be capped.

Honestly, I think capping time is more of a problem. What's beyond that? "More of the same" (i.e. infinite time) is a simpler answer because it requires nothing more than what we already have accounted for in the past.

DragonFly wrote:1aa. ...there are the potentials of many world-lines getting considered, not just one already in cement.
1b. Quantum mechanics indicates that futures can be indefinite, thus there cannot be the block universe’s fixed future.

Not knowing and not predicting, would certainly make it seem that way. No one is taking away free will here. The future can be populated with truly free will decisions just as easily as fated outcomes.

1ba. The change from indefinite to definite takes place at the ever changing present, where the uncertain future becomes the determined past.


That's about as good a way as any to define the "present" but I don't think uncertainty is sufficient to deny the future. I'm uncertain of the outcome of my DVD movie.

DragonFly wrote:1baa. The past must be kept

I agree, perhaps for a different reason. SR assigns different simultaneities to different inertial observers. Let simultaneity A is observer A's "now" (the whole spatial A universe at a given instant). Different observer B has a different now. Since B's now does not overlay A's, B's now intrudes upon the A's past and A's future.

Given one observer's present, implies all other another observers' pasts and futures. It's the basis of relativistic determinism. (I see the clash here, with quantum "indeterminism". It's a semantic problem. The latter should be considered "absolute unpredictability".)

DragonFly wrote:1c. The block universe is complete, all at once,

This is true so long as "at once" is a reference to God's clock and not a clock within spacetime. By our clocks, we should say "The block universe is complete (past, present and future)."

DragonFly wrote:1d. time-reversible

I'm not sure I understood this one.
For thee record, I find no evidence that time is anything but unidirectional. You will read discussions about phenomena that are "symmetrical with respect to time reversal". That's not the same as saying that time does reverse or that anything can travel backward in time.

DragonFly wrote:1e. All that sets itself instantly as an already existent future could not have been foreseen, regardless of the point about QM having indefinite/random outcomes.

I don't know if this helps but, a string of random numbers is still random even after being written down (in the past). And even if it's written in the future. In this sense, randomness is the absence of a discernible relation (structure) between elements, which would enable prediction or independent generation of the same sequence.

DragonFly wrote:1f. The initial conditions of the universe don’t make for its future

Granted. That it can't be reconstructed exactly from a given past, still doesn't deny a particular future. A movie of a random number generator (even a quantum one, based upon a decaying isotope) is just as random on DVD as when the movie was made in real time. No new viewer will reliably predict the predetermined list.

DragonFly wrote:How QM really and truly works is left out as ‘mysterious’.

It can be modeled, without too much difficulty. What actually "reality" is, I don't know.

DragonFly wrote:note 1: It is a fundamental aspect of most quantum theory that the uncertainty is unresolvable: it is not even in principle possible to obtain enough data to determine a unique outcome of quantum events. This unpredictability is not a result of a lack of information: it is the very nature of the underlying physics.
...the deeply related “quantum reality problem

Agreed but not as formidable as it sounds. Remember, this is accomplished routinely by brainless point particles. It has to be that simple!
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1699
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Philosophical Relativity - QM Marriage

Postby DragonFly on November 16th, 2015, 10:07 pm 

P.S. Does the particle spigot need an energy well for its ‘water’?
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2307
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Philosophical Relativity - QM Marriage

Postby Positor on November 16th, 2015, 11:44 pm 

Consider the following two statements:

1. The future is unknowable/unpredictable, but already exists (in a block 4D universe).
2. The future is unknowable/unpredictable, and does not yet exist (i.e. change is real).

Is the difference between these two statements a scientific issue, or just a philosophical one? If it is scientific, how could it be tested? What experiment(s) could be performed to show that an admittedly unpredictable future does or does not already exist?

We have empirical evidence that a complete DVD movie already exists, whether or not we have yet watched it all. Can there be such evidence for the present 'existence' of an unpredictable future?

Does the issue make any mathematical or logical difference? Or is it merely a matter of semantics?

One further point: If we say the future is "indeterminate", is that tantamount to saying it is "unknowable" or "unpredictable", or is it a stronger claim, incompatible with the claim that the future already exists? ("Indeterminate" sounds ontological, whereas "unknowable" and "unpredictable" are epistemological.)
Positor
Active Member
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: 05 Feb 2010


Re: A Drop in the Bucket

Postby Faradave on November 17th, 2015, 1:01 am 

DragonFly » November 16th, 2015, 10:07 pm wrote:P.S. Does the particle spigot need an energy well for its ‘water’?


Side Track: As I model it, no. Not a well. I don't interpret fields as mediated by virtual photons. I consider the smallest element of a field (of potential force pairs), to be a single, unpaired (thus, unobserved) force. A force is ray-like (specifically, lightlike) having an origin and indefinite extent. A continuous field results when a force spins about a worldline (a timeline, in the field's rest frame). This "chronaxial spin" (c-spin) is effectively instantaneous, meaning the force appears to point in all directions at once. But from God's perspective, c-spin may proceed at a variety of rates. The way we distinguish fast instantaneous from slow instantaneous c-spin is called equivalently a particle's "rest mass" or its "rest energy". The field is at rest, not the spinning force element that makes it.

Bottom line: A gravitational field implies (and may be considered an expression of) a discrete quantity of mass-energy.
Last edited by Faradave on November 17th, 2015, 2:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1699
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Time for a Change

Postby Faradave on November 17th, 2015, 1:52 am 

Positor » November 16th, 2015, 11:44 pm wrote:1. The future is unknowable/unpredictable, but already exists (in a block 4D universe).
2. The future is unknowable/unpredictable, and does not yet exist (i.e. change is real).


As I'm driving the road curves. Or does it? My journey changes direction on the landscape, while not deviating from a preexisting road. Change can be "real" and preexist.

Positor wrote:What experiment(s) could be performed to show that an admittedly unpredictable future does or does not already exist?

Every validation of SR (e.g. length contraction, time dilation, relativistic mass, E = mc2) would seem to support its preexisting future. If we look at the x-axis and x'-axis for two differently moving observers in this Minkowski spacetime diagram, it becomes apparent that, because they aren't parallel, each crosses into the other's past and future. So, if we accept relativity of simultaneity, the existence of our own present, declares the existence of moving observer's past and future.

Image
Dividing future above from past below, each x-coordinate evidences the full temporal range of the other's frame (by passing completely through it).

Positor wrote:One further point: If we say the future is "indeterminate", is that tantamount to saying it is "unknowable" or "unpredictable", or is it a stronger claim, incompatible with the claim that the future already exists?

If I know the weather here and now, I can reliably predict it for the next few seconds. Meteorologists, with sufficient data and computers, consistently make reliable predictions, several days in advance. Chaos, destroies reliability more than 10 days or so in advance.

Quantum indeterminism is not nearly so kind. There is no amount of information or computing power that can predict one of its indeterminate outcomes, even a picosecond in advance. That's equivalent to saying that a muon has within it, a spinner of infinite speed, selecting when and in what direction it will decay. (Such a spinner was given in the "Side Track" above.)

I'm going with the former characterization, "unpredictable". That does not, in my view, prevent the future from existing as per SR (and often described as "deterministic".)
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1699
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)
Positor liked this post


Re: Philosophical Relativity - QM Marriage

Postby vivian maxine on November 17th, 2015, 8:52 am 

"Funny note: When we ask someone how many grooves there are on a record, they start calculating the playing width and such, expecting the answer to be in the hundreds. Even if they're smart and answer "one", we can say, "Wrong; two; one on each side."
" (Dragonfly)

Ooh, I wish I'd had that one eons ago. Fun!
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: Time for a Change

Postby DragonFly on November 17th, 2015, 1:37 pm 

Faradave » November 17th, 2015, 12:52 am wrote:Quantum indeterminism is not nearly so kind. There is no amount of information or computing power that can predict one of its indeterminate outcomes, even a picosecond in advance. That's equivalent to saying that a muon has within it, a spinner of infinite speed, selecting when and in what direction it will decay. (Such a spinner was given in the "Side Track" above.)


"Selecting" is fine for a decay event, for one would would think that its when, where, and how has a reason, as well as when and where it doesn't happen has a reason, since the two cases are different (I don't support 'random'.)

I don't like to declare any actual "infinite", though, because some wise guy will always come along and add one more to the infinite total (here, to the spin speed).
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2307
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Off the Starting Block

Postby DragonFly on November 17th, 2015, 2:00 pm 

Faradave » November 16th, 2015, 7:50 pm wrote:
DragonFly » November 1st, 2015, 8:47 pm wrote:Quantum fluctuations are the quantum ‘creation’ and ‘annihilation’ of the grains of spacetime.

If you're developing a personal theory, no problem. The last I checked however, QM does not quantize space or time. They're considered continuous. Energy (and mass), momentum, angular momentum, and I think, information are among the quantum phenomena. I also believe charge is supposed to be quantized (with some embarrassment relating to fractional quark charges).


The flat, fixed but continuous spacetime background of SR that QM uses will have to go away in the new QM or Quantum Gravity to make the continuum just be approximate, at large numbers, to make it discrete at the Planck scale. GR is already mostly just a relational type background free theory but gravity/spacetime seems to need to become more jittery, which is a big problem since it eludes renormalization.

Faradave » November 16th, 2015, 7:50 pm wrote:Honestly, I think capping time is more of a problem. What's beyond that? "More of the same" (i.e. infinite time) is a simpler answer because it requires nothing more than what we already have accounted for in the past.


Yes, what do I do with eternity of duration now that I disallow infinity of extent? QG is going to have to show how time emerges from no time. QG already seems to have no space, if we go relational. What if I have the quantum foam to be ever and always as timeless in its structure/nature, it now and then making a universe in which time emerges?

Faradave » November 16th, 2015, 7:50 pm wrote:I don't know if this helps but, a string of random numbers is still random even after being written down (in the past). And even if it's written in the future. In this sense, randomness is the absence of a discernible relation (structure) between elements, which would enable prediction or independent generation of the same sequence.


I don't think there's any spot for a random generator to fit in outside Totality.

Faradave » November 16th, 2015, 7:50 pm wrote:Agreed but not as formidable as it sounds. Remember, this is accomplished routinely by brainless point particles. It has to be that simple!


We can't let simple pointy heads do what we can't fathom; so, there are points moving around that form some stabilizations onward and upward, and so forth, and that's it. QED
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2307
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Philosophical Relativity - QM Marriage

Postby DragonFly on November 17th, 2015, 2:31 pm 

(General Relativity being possible as presentism rather than eternalism)

(From ‘Temporal Naturalism’, Lee Smolin http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.8539.pdf)

(‘Timeless naturalism’ refers to the strong eternalism of the block universe, while ‘temporal naturalism’ refers to a thick presentism.)

To a timeless naturalist no fundamental law can give a privileged status to the present or refer to the distinction between past, present and future. As there is no objective distinction between past and future any law that is truly fundamental must be timeless and immutable.

Since important work of Stache, Barbour and others the interpretation of general relativity as a relational theory, and the key role of space-time diffeomorphisms in wiping out background structure are well known and appreciated. But recently there is a new development in the interpretation of general relativity which is highly relevant for the nature of time, which is shape dynamics. This gives a different way of defining general relativity by gauging away background structure.

In the old way developed by Einstein, time and space are treated on an equal footing. Spatial temporal coordinates provide a background structure which is gauged away by imposing spacetime diffeomorphism invariance. Indeed, one of the things that is gauged away in this story is any distinction between space and time, because there are space-time diffeomorphisms that will turn any slicing of spacetime into a sequence of spaces into any other. This means there is no meaning to simultaneity.

Barbour has emphasized for years that there is a nagging flaw in the beauty of this story. This resides in the fact that there is a big piece of background structure that is preserved in general relativity which is an absolute scale for the size of objects. We must assume the existence of fixed scales of distance and time which can be compared with each other across the universe. In general relativity two clocks traveling different paths through space-time will not stay synchronized. But their sizes will be preserved, so it makes absolute sense to say whether two objects far from each other in space-time are the same size or not.

You can gauge away this background structure on top of the space-time difeomorphsim invariance of general relativity, but the result will not be general relativity. The reason is that imposing another gauge invariance changes the number of physical degrees of freedom. But the amazing thing is you can get to general relativity by trading the relativity of time of that theory for a relativity of spatial scale, so that the number of gauge transformations, and hence the counting of physical degrees of freedom, are unchanged. The resulting theory is called shape dynamics.

Shape dynamics lacks the freedom to change the slicing of space-time into space and time. Consequently there is a preferred slicing, i.e. a preferred choice of time coordinate that has physical meaning. This means that there is now a physical meaning to the simultaneity of distant events. But physics on these fixed slices is invariant under local changes of distance scale.

Shape dynamics is not actually a new theory-it is for the most part just a reformulation of general relativity. Its preferred slices are expressible in the language of general relativity and, indeed, were already known to specialists of classical general relativity. They are called constant mean curvature or CMC slices because certain components of curvature are constant on each slice. The technical statement is that shape dynamics is equivalent to general relativity so long as the space-time has such slices-and most of them do. (This is modulo space times with black hole horizons, the interiors of which may be different in shape dynamics than in general relativity.)

You might object that these preferred slicings represent a return to a Newtonian conception of absolute time. But they do not, because the CMC condition is a dynamical condition so that which slices satisfy it depend on the distribution of matter, energy and curvature throughout the universe. Moreover, because the predictions of shape dynamics matches those of general relativity, these preferred slices cannot be detected by any local measurements. The slices nonetheless play a role, which can be seen in how the Einstein equations enjoy an impressive simplification when expressed in terms of them.

Shape dynamics, just by its existence, has two important implications for the present argument. First, the impressive empirical success of general relativity cannot be taken as evidence for claims that the universe is fundamentally timeless, or even that there is no preferred simultaneity of distant events. These common claims are nullified by the fact that there is an alternative formulation of general relativity that does feature a preferred simultaneity.

Second, the preferred slices of shape dynamics give us a candidate for a global notion of time needed to provide an objective distinction between past, present and future-and hence makes temporal naturalism a possible position to hold-consistent with current scientific knowledge.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2307
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Instant Fields

Postby Faradave on November 17th, 2015, 3:27 pm 

DragonFly » November 17th, 2015, 1:37 pm wrote:
Faradave wrote:[Regarding chronaxial spin], a spinner of infinite speed

I don't like to declare any actual "infinite", though, because some wise guy will always come along and add one more to the infinite total (here, to the spin speed).

Agreed. I usually refer to c-spin as instantaneous. This effectively creates multiple instances of the unpaired force, pointing in every direction at once (by our own clocks). The force is thus, "distributed" in a "probability field", to put it in QM terms.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1699
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Instant Fields

Postby DragonFly on November 17th, 2015, 3:41 pm 

Faradave » November 17th, 2015, 2:27 pm wrote:Agreed. I usually refer to c-spin as instantaneous. This effectively creates multiple instances of the unpaired force, pointing in every direction at once (by our own clocks). The force is thus, "distributed" in a "probability field", to put it in QM terms.


Then I guess there's no 'here to there', otherwise 'instantaneous' would still be as an infinite speed.

Got to run; my instant coffee is already done.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2307
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Being Forceful

Postby Faradave on November 17th, 2015, 10:52 pm 

DragonFly » November 17th, 2015, 3:41 pm wrote:Then I guess there's no 'here to there', otherwise 'instantaneous' would still be as an infinite speed.


That's right! Once you get to instantaneous, it's no longer motion, it's being.

Side Track: In the case of a field, I model an unpaired force, being at every radial location from its center of chronaxial spin. (The center is a point "particle".) Such a field fits the classical inverse square intensity pattern, and at the same time provides a nifty source of indeterminism. While the field fills a volume symmetrically, a quantum of light energy will traverse only one of its radial field elements (an instance of the force), quite unpredictably.

Obviously, no material object can have c-spin, nor energy, which is restricted by speed limit c. There are however phenomena which are not so restricted, projections being among them. An unpaired force may be seen as a lightlike projection (or wormhole) across spacetime, having zero internal (interval) extent.

P.S. Hadn't heard of Shape Dynamics before. Interesting.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1699
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Being Forceful

Postby DragonFly on November 18th, 2015, 12:16 pm 

Faradave » November 17th, 2015, 9:52 pm wrote:
That's right! Once you get to instantaneous, it's no longer motion, it's being.


Being or becoming: that is the question
That haunts existence’s investigation:
Whether ’tis simpler for the All to offer
The slings and vectors of a told fortune
All at once, as a marble monument,
Or to perform in the sea of actions,
And by disposing ever create them?
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2307
Joined: 04 Aug 2012
spongeFaradave liked this post


Re: Philosophical Relativity - QM Marriage

Postby DragonFly on November 20th, 2015, 12:05 pm 

In a block universe already there in an instant, all the parts, including conglomerations such as us and solar systems are already set in their doings, so our brain calculations to make things happen would be redundant, reaching states through analysis that are already set to play out just as they do, as in a movie, plus the constituents of nature in their processes are not really making future themselves, but are just a series of picture frames ongoing per the film production already in the can and not themselves making future; therefore, I have to disqualify the block universe again.

There is also the qualia angle from Lee Smolin from my other thread: http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=29584&p=291438#p291433

It is also that something complex or definite cannot be First, nor can there be an 'infinite'.

At any rate, quantum theorists ignore the block universe and have the dynamic of evolution in time.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2307
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Philosophical Relativity - QM Marriage

Postby DragonFly on November 24th, 2015, 1:46 pm 

Well, I guess you guys (and Vivian), and I, didn't solve quantum gravity yet. I lean toward a computational informational process, which is fine for an evolving block universe, but don't think of an actual computer, for any kind of real time process involves information transfer.

In Between Something and Nothingness

At some point, matter and radiation may not differ from the so-called vacuum, at the high Planck or banging energies. Our present theories are incomplete; we don’t know why many quantities are the way they are, such as mass, the dimensions, and why the protons 1834 the mass of the electron. The ideas of particles and of spacetime are each defined with the help of the other, which is circular, like Escher’s two hands each drawing the other.

Down, down,
Beyond all death, despair, love, and sorrow,
Past yesterday, today, and tomorrow—
The seer’s guide but the logic of the ‘know’.

Down through the fog, the not, and the void,
Where life and everything fail; Oh, zoids!

The essence beckons us back home,
As the contained-container is the poem.


The quantum fluctuations waver, where Nothing cannot ever form, where we walk the mysterious Planck into the abyss.

To the deep,
Through the cloudy strife
Of this hazy life,
Through the equations of eternity—
Their non-paternity nor maternity,

Past the realm of the things which seem or are,
Even o’er the steps to the remotest bar.


Thanks to the Planck scale, we can say “so long” to the instants of time and the points of space there, dooming the ultimate clocks, the continuous spacetime manifold, and the notions of dimensions, as well as all observables—as now being imprecise quantities defined versus space or time or mass.

Down,
Past the night’s reigns where the air is thin,
Where the sky and stars are not, but within,
Where the complex have not their throne,
Where there is one presiding, all alone.


All composite, non-elementary objects have a simple property: they have a finite, non-vanishing size, which is fine, but the elementaries can’t be points.

When a deep truth is known so intensely
That all of its clothing falls away,
Then one has learned the beauty of truth,
For the reality of meaning is beauty.

At Planck scales, nature closes up, and we cannot determine whether a particle is real or virtual, nor can matter and antimatter be distinguished, nor can spin be defined, nor can fermions be distinguished from bosons, or, in other words, matter cannot be distinguished from radiation.

Down, down!
Truth and beauty must be inseparable,
Although this is seemingly imponderable.


Nor can inertial and gravitational mass be told apart. The margin of error for anything is as large as the Planck scale. In short, the vacuum cannot distinguished from matter.

Down, down, ever down—
Through the antiquity, past all of the known—
Arriving at the lowest, remotest throne,
One of the lowest perfection,
For it is of the two contrasting directions.

Vacuum and particles mix at Planck scales, empty space and particles are made of fluctuating common constituents. All properties emerge from certain configurations of the fundamental broth and so all things are made of the same cloth, of a single entity that defines both particles and spacetime.

Opposite twins rule the causing call,
The positives and negatives constituting All.

It seems that the fires of the basis have destroyed every pillar and concept we’ve used for the description of motion, and thus made the description of the heart of nature impossible, kicking most of the legs out from under us, leaving us mostly in darkness.

Here the enigma of the ever immortal
Is undone and unloosed through its portal:
The Theory of Everything mortal—
The Idea for which we’ve opened the door to.

We have but few cards left to play: the fundamental constituents are extended, and it seems that whatever angles they make still apply, and we still have c, ħ and c4/4G (the maximum force).

Down, down,
To the end at last!

Here be the lawless and the formless
Of the unordered, uncreated scene.


Loop quantum gravity models use relational-only triangles, with sides of the Planck length, our main and perhaps our only grasp toward the vague indefinite bedrock of the All.

Here the causeless reigns supreme.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2307
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Philosophical Relativity - QM Marriage

Postby DragonFly on December 16th, 2015, 2:18 pm 

Every now and then, after various readings, I almost, sort of, get a handle on things, but still with a lot of vagueness. Since gravity in General Relativity is spacetime curvature then gravity derives from geometry, which is also called gauge/gravity duality, yet this law consumes all of the usual 4 dimensions; however, there are more dimensions proposed by string theory and so perhaps the rest of the laws derive from string theory's additional geometry. That's all I got so far.

Another claim that I see, although I'm not sure what's behind it, is that the small but non zero cosmological constant of the vacuum energy most likely indicates a multiverse, as does string theory, and so our dynamics/laws are unique to our universe and of course come from our initial conditions, as they would in other universes; so, we are in a workable universe but many others may not have as many degrees of freedom to operate as well as ours, or some might even work better and faster, I suppose.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2307
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: Philosophical Relativity - QM Marriage

Postby Dave_Oblad on December 17th, 2015, 12:53 am 

Hi Dragonfly,

Have read GR (as far as gravity is concerned) I see no explanation of the mechanics of Gravity. I can accept that the presence of Matter curves Space-Time, which I interpret as reducing and locking the Planck Scale of the underlying Planck Cell structure/continuum. This alone would not create motion.

Basic Science: An object doesn't change velocity unless a force is applied. So I take two objects of Matter and put them near each other and steady them to have zero velocity difference. I let go.. boom.. they gravitate towards each other. Where did the energy come from that put them into motion?

My solution regarding the mechanics is that Matter has a specific Geometry. When absolutely still, that Matter has the simplest Geometry. When pushed, the Matter must change its Geometry to propagate itself through the underlying continuum (Planck Cells). Meaning it takes on a walking pattern. Look Below:

Gospers_glider.gif
Gosper's Glider Gun via Conway's life Simulation

There is an underlying grid (invisible). We see an active Geometry producing Gliders. These Gliders have no momentum nor inertia. What makes them Move? They have a Walking Geometry!

So, if Matter must take on a Walking Geometry to move, then it will keep moving unless a force is applied to change that Geometry. That's Momentum/Inertial. As Matter moves, it is confronted will Planck Cells larger than within itself. As Matter move into such cells, they become Scale Locked to the scale of the cells existing within the material while the reverse is occurring at the tail end of the object. So it would be a null effect except the Matter within has a walking Geometry, so it keeps propagation itself along.

So what happens when one subjects Matter to a Continuum that already has a Scale Differential because some Matter nearby is creating a scale difference in the underlying continuum?

It will have to adapt its Geometry to match, but it is Perpetually off balance, as it moves closer to the remote object, the Scale keeps changing. So the Matter must keep adapting to this continuous differential in Scale. This requires it to change its Geometry to that of a walking (accelerating) Geometry.

Gravity is a Scale Differential in the Space-Time Continuum at the Planck Levels. This is what Curved Space-Time means (in my book anyway). It is normally rather subtle and thus Gravity is not a strong effect. For something as large as a Planet, this differential can extend a long way out from the Planet.

But in essence, this Scale differential has the same effect as changing the Geometry of Matter to an increasingly more complex form of Walking Geometry (acceleration). Bottom line: Acceleration and Gravity create the same effect on the Walking Geometry of Matter. One might also note that the faster said object/matter moves, the more complex its Walking Geometry must become to get all the right pieces into the right places at the right time. This slows down the over all Cyclic Atomic Geometry (because of the increase in complexity) of said object and is called Clock/Length Dilation.

Anyway, that's how I see how stuff works.

Hope this helps some...

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3229
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Philosophical Relativity - QM Marriage

Postby vivian maxine on December 17th, 2015, 9:12 am 

Dave, you make me wonder if the answer to a certain question is more involved than I've always thought.

In our town we had a high school teacher who started every school year presenting the final exam question to his classes. The question: Why is water wet? All I could ever find by way of an answer was that the molecules attract each other.

"Walking geometry". Would you care to comment? Is there a similarity? I suspect we leave gravity out of it. No?
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: Philosophical Relativity - QM Marriage

Postby Dave_Oblad on December 17th, 2015, 4:42 pm 

Hi Viv,

Why is water wet? Wetness is our description of what we feel when we put our hand in water. Saying water is wet is like saying that wood is hard or fire is hot. It is a description for a fluid.

Are you asking if there is a connection between Walking Geometry and how water soaks into a material? No. Take a piece of toilet paper, roll it into a tube and dip into water. The water will soak and climb up the paper against Gravity. I'm sure it has something to do with surface tension and pressure and not Walking Geometry, which would be sub-sub-sub atomic scales.

If you have ever played checkers and move a piece into a position against your opponent, your opponent must jump and take your piece. It's built into the rules. That's closer to Walking Geometry. It's forced by rules.

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3229
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Philosophical Relativity - QM Marriage

Postby vivian maxine on December 17th, 2015, 5:00 pm 

All right. Thank you. If all he is talking about is how it feels, it's a silly question. I thought he was being serious. I do know if you have two spots of water and take a toothpick to slowly drag a bit of one puddle toward the other, before you get all the way there, it will suddenly jump across to meet the other puddle. I have done that. That is why the term 'walking geometry' got my attention. Guess I was wrong. For myself, I'd always wanted to say something in the molecules - the smaller particles - was attracted to its opposite charge.

I had more than one former student come to me about the question and I could not answer. I'd tell them to let me know the answer at the end of the year but you know how children are at school's end. All that is forgotten. No problem. Thanks again.
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: Philosophical Relativity - QM Marriage

Postby DragonFly on December 17th, 2015, 8:33 pm 

vivian maxine » December 17th, 2015, 4:00 pm wrote:If all he is talking about is how it feels, it's a silly question. I thought he was being serious.


He means why is it slippery and flowing and moving all around (and getting you wet). This is because the smaller hydrogen atoms easily roll around the big fat oxygen atoms, plus there are ions (electrons) transferring her and there all over the place.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2307
Joined: 04 Aug 2012
vivian maxine liked this post


Next

Return to Metaphysics & Epistemology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests