CATEGORY:
Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017)
[back]
TOPIC:
There Are No Goals To Wander To by Tejinder Singh
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 21:43 GMT
Essay AbstractWe argue that space and space-time emerge as a consequence of dynamical collapse of the wave function of macroscopic objects. We live in an approximate universe. At the fundamental level, everything is everywhere all the time: there are no goals to wander to.
Author BioTejinder Singh is Professor of Physics at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai. His research interests are in foundations of quantum mechanics, quantum gravity, and cosmology. For many years he has been thinking about the nature of time, especially in the context of quantum theory. He believes that space and time are emergent properties of a classical universe. And since quantum theory depends on classical time, the current formulation of quantum theory must also be emergent, coming from a deeper theory in which there is no classical time. This issue seems deeply related to the quantum measurement problem.
Download Essay PDF File
sridattadev kancharla wrote on Feb. 25, 2017 @ 03:13 GMT
Dear Dr. Tejinder,
We are very close in our description of our essays, it's just that i am basing consciousness as the fundamental foundation to arrive at my conclusions and trying to provide a mathematical model using Riemann sphere to quantify consciousness as all the scientific community needs is quantification for accepting any theory. I welcome you to read the essay
There are no goals as such it's all play and wish you all the best with your essay and my posts in it.
Love,
i.
report post as inappropriate
Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 25, 2017 @ 09:35 GMT
Thank you for your kind remarks. I look forward to reading your essay.
Best wishes,
Tejinder
Lee Bloomquist wrote on Feb. 25, 2017 @ 04:06 GMT
I think I suspected as much. In detail: properTime = (clockTime, properTime) and clockTime = (nonStandardFuture, standardPresent, NonStandardPast).
There is an "infomorphism" from the noncommutative Universe to classical space time based on the usual equation defining proper time in terms of coordinate time.
The wave function represents possibilities in the nonstandard future, and based on the usual equation for the Born rule there is another infomorphism from there to the nonstandard past. Which translates language about possibilities into language about probabilities.
Professor Singh, in my humble lay person's opinion, your essay is a 10!
report post as inappropriate
Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 25, 2017 @ 09:43 GMT
Dear Lee,
Thank you for your kind appreciation, and for your comments. I am glad we are thinking along similar lines. In my view, non-commutative time and space somehow capture in one whole what you nicely refer to as "(nonStandardFuture, standardPresent, NonStandardPast)."
Best wishes,
Tejinder
Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 25, 2017 @ 08:48 GMT
Hi Mr Singh ,
Congratulations for this general work, good luck in this contest.
report post as inappropriate
Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 25, 2017 @ 09:45 GMT
Dear Steve,
It is good to meet you again :-) And many thanks for your kind wishes.
Best,
Tejinder
Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 11:18 GMT
Hi Tejinder,
You are welcome,
:) Good to see you again on fqxi also,
All the best from Belgium
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 25, 2017 @ 11:42 GMT
Dear Tejinder,
Excellently written and brave essay, recognising the Kings New Clothes as fabrication, crying it out loud and
even offering a cloaking device. I agree and applaud you 100% for all the identification and analysis (so 8/8 scored so far!) and provisionally 50% for effort with the cloak (~1).
But I wish to find out if you're the 1 in 20 I've just referred to under Stephen Ternyiks short essay. One who understands QM and its foundations, has not blindly
bought it all, and who also can look beyond both convention
and just their OWN ideas for a solution.
I've identified and describe the very simplest and most obvious self evident falsifiable classical solution in my essay. But it's the giant "elephant in the room", to big and simple it seems for anyone to "see"
In a nutshell, there really ARE two (identifiable) orthogonal complementary classical states of momentum in an electron, consistent with Maxwell (only one is 'curl') Pairs travel on antiparalell polar axes. A detector electron is the same with a
rotatable polar axis dictating transfer found (so much for non-locality!) and the momenta vary by the cos of the angle between the poles and equator, with values squared by a well known process.
That is ALL classical, in absolute time (sorry!) and all of the dozen (you missed a few) illogical effects in QM resolve themselves. And all EXACTLY as John Bell predicted! (It emerged in a test of the 'Discrete Field' relativity you may recall so allows consistent QM & SR in absolute time & 'Local' physics).
You'll see this really is a rather BIG elephant!
I'd greatly value your study, questions, comments, advice and, hopefully even, help. As I'm sure I didn't fully understand your 'cloak' and I do agree non commutativity in fundamental principle, there may well be correspondence.
Very well done and thank you for yours.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 05:02 GMT
Dear Peter,
Greetings, and good to see you again :-) Many thanks for your kind appreciation.
You are suggesting a local, classical theory. Its unorthodox alright :-) So which of Bell's assumptions do you drop?
I will surely see your essay, and get back. Please give me a few days.
My best wishes,
Tejinder
Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 13:42 GMT
Hi Tejinder.
Bell carefully made no assumptions of his own but was testing QM's assumptions "..will use freely all the usual notions". Much of what he said is ignored by most in QM! In his own view he falsified those assumptions.
“in our opinion lead inescapably to the conclusion that quantum mechanics is at the best, incomplete.” He just couldn't find which one and...
view entire post
Hi Tejinder.
Bell carefully made no assumptions of his own but was testing QM's assumptions "..will use freely all the usual notions". Much of what he said is ignored by most in QM! In his own view he falsified those assumptions. “in our opinion lead inescapably to the conclusion that quantum mechanics is at the best, incomplete.” He just couldn't find which one and how.
Basically I add the 'particle morphology' which QM didn't. The simplest one possible; a spinning sphere, and find by looking harder that it produces Maxwells two orthogonal coupling forces, one linear, one 'curl', both bidirectional.
Electrons, or rather 'Fermions', rotate with detector fields, all findings and values are 'relative' between the arriving and field particles (even Bohr said the detector is part of the 'system'!).
Because fermions re-emit at c in their own centre of mass rest frame physics is localised, exactly as Einsteins 1952 conception which I've discussed, and SR and QM are unified. It's that simple (plus a couple of other consequential matters identified which all melts away the great belt of interpretive 'junk' and nonsense.
I get lots of people looking, then looking up my profile, finding I'm not an emeritous professor so dismissing it. (My essay also identifies why).
Bell brilliantly anticipated all this. All quotes from 'Speakable...'; (page numbers available if anyone wants);
"It may be that a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories requires not just technical developments but radical conceptual renewal.”
“The founding fathers of quantum theory decided even that no concepts could possibly be found which could emit direct description of the quantum world. So the theory which they established aimed only to describe systematically the response of the apparatus.”
“...in my opinion the founding fathers were in fact wrong on this point. The quantum phenomena do not exclude a uniform description of micro and macro worlds…systems and apparatus.”
“I think that conventional formulations of quantum theory, and of quantum field theory in particular, are unprofessionally vague and ambiguous. Professional theoretical physicists ought to be able to do better.”
“What is essential is to be able to define the position of things, including the positions of instrument pointers... In making precise the notion of position of things the energy density comes immediately to mind.” (but) We would have to devise a new way of specifying a joint probability distribution. We fall back then on a second choice – fermion number density.”
“...the new way of seeing things will involve an imaginative leap that will astonish us. In any case it seems that the quantum mechanical description will be superseded.”
“...the ‘Problem of Interpretation of QM’ has been encircled. And the solution, invisible from the front, may be seen from the back..”
I just went and looked round the back. But it DOES need that "imaginativ quantum leap!" to first see.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher wrote on Feb. 25, 2017 @ 14:48 GMT
Dear Professor Singh.
Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.
I merely wish to point out that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.
Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.
The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.
A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 05:16 GMT
Dear Joe,
Greetings, and good to meet again. I look forward to reading your essay in the coming days.
Regarding things being made simple but not simpler... I am of the view that quantum theory appears strange when viewed from a classical space-time. The strangeness can be avoided by getting rid of classical time and finding a new equivalent formulation. So it seems to me that what I am suggesting is more natural and self-consistent, as compared to employing classical time, and in that sense simple. Its simpler than how we formulate quantum theory at present, but I think its not `simpler' in the sense implied by Einstein :-)
My best wishes,
Tejinder
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Feb. 25, 2017 @ 16:57 GMT
Dear Tejinder,
WOW, this is the first essay I have read that has the sma perceptions as mine.
It is really a pleasure to read it.
I only have another end to my interpretation : There may be goal...reaching out for the source of the excitations of consciousness in what I call Total Simultaneity.
But perhaps the search for a goal is just a human wishfull thinking...
I hope that you will find the time to read (and maybe give a rating
my essay "The Purpose of Life"best regards
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 09:29 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,
Greetings, and thank you for reading my essay. I look forward to reading your essay in the coming days.
Perhaps I should comment on my claim of there being no goals. If we assume that `wandering towards a goal' pre-assumes the existence of time and physical space, I am only saying that the so-called `mindless mathematical equations' are, deep down, even more mindless than they appear to be. In the sense that in the absence of classical space and time, we should not be talking of wandering in the conventional sense.
At the approximate level though, where space and time emerge, we can legitimately talk of wandering and goals [as in your search "reaching out for the source of the excitations of consciousness in what I call Total Simultaneity."] Perhaps we might want to call this an approximate wandering towards approximate goals in an approximate universe described by approximate mindless mathematical laws. These approximate laws could be called less mindless than the underlying ones, because they at least have a notion of time and space in an emergent sense.
Kind regards,
Tejinder
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 15:00 GMT
Dear Tejinder
The emergent "wandering to a goal" is in my view seemingly reaching out for eternity...
I am still awaiting your esteemed comment and rating on my
my essay : "The Purpose of Life".
thank you and best of luck in this time restricted goal...
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew wrote on Feb. 25, 2017 @ 21:45 GMT
This is the best essay by far that I have read so far. Although I have heard of the continuous spontaneous collapse theory (CSL), I have not really bothered to look at it that closely. Thanks so much for the nice clear exposition.
The collapse rate of Eq. 1 is lambda = 1e-17 1/s, which of course is 0.32 ppb/yr. The exact number from aethertime is 0.26 ppb/yr and is not arbitrary. It comes from the collapse needed to unite charge and gravity forces, so it is not a new constant by far and = m
H2 G/(q
2 c r
B 1e-7).
The collapse radius of 1e-4 cm = 100 nm is actually very close to the exact radius of 70 nm where dispersion and gravity forces are equal. Both of these constants are then not really new constants since they both derive from the properties of the universe.
It is really pleasing to see mainstream science is finally catching up to the truth of quantum gravity and decoherence. Note that Eq. 3 shows the Schrodinger equation
i h
bar dΨ/ds = HΨ(s)
which is great with your new non-commuting time, s. But really, once you have CSL, you do not really need s, right? instead, you just use constant dm/dt = m
dot as the intrinsic matter decay in this epoch to rescale wavefunctions from time to matter spectra as
i h
bar dΨ/dm dm/dt = HΨ(s)
and so
i h
bar dΨ(m)/dm = HΨ(m)/m
dotand you have a made to order quantum universe for both gravity and charge...with a little more work, that is.
You are very, very close...with luck, you may beat out Carroll and Weinberg and Wetterich...
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 25, 2017 @ 21:51 GMT
...oh, and quantum wandering is still wandering. Just because your path is not deterministic and is instead probablistic, does not mean that wandering does not exist...it just means that an exact path is unknowable, but there is a likely path...
report post as inappropriate
Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 10:05 GMT
Dear Steve,
Many thanks for your kind remarks.
I am intrigued by your comments:
" It comes from the collapse needed to unite charge and gravity forces, so it is not a new constant by far and = mH2 G/(q2 c rB 1e-7).
The collapse radius of 1e-4 cm = 100 nm is actually very close to the exact radius of 70 nm where dispersion and gravity forces are equal. Both of these constants are then not really new constants since they both derive from the properties of the universe."
I am very interested in knowing how you arrived at your expression for the collapse rate, and also the collapse radius. Can you point me to a reference I can look up. If you have fundamental expressions for the collapse rate and radius, that's great - the CSL community is not aware of this, as far as I know.
Yes you are right CSL does not need the Trace time s. But I did not understand what you meant by "intrinsic matter decay".
As to what I mean by `no goals to wander to' please see my response above to the post by Wilhelmus. Thanks.
Best regards,
Tejinder
Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 22:55 GMT
The decoherence of aethertime is simply the assumption that the universe force expands and matter shrinks at a rate given by the action of the universe pulse. This means that gravity and charge force are just different manifestations of universe decoherence, what you call continuous spontaneous localization (CSL).
I am not sure why the CSL constants agree so well with aethertime, but it...
view entire post
The decoherence of aethertime is simply the assumption that the universe force expands and matter shrinks at a rate given by the action of the universe pulse. This means that gravity and charge force are just different manifestations of universe decoherence, what you call continuous spontaneous localization (CSL).
I am not sure why the CSL constants agree so well with
aethertime, but it caught my eye. Aethertime came about from simply reconciling gravity and charge forces but still maintaining consistency with measurements and quantum principles along with mass-energy equivalence. The CSL length scale is also curiously close to what
that from standard constants of dispersion and gravity forces.
Aethertime means an expansion of force along with a shrinkage of matter that confuses mainstream science. Much like
Witterich's expanding mass and shrinking force, aethertime is consistent with the observed galaxy red shifts but results in a much different cosomology. It is interesting that
criticisms point to the fact that there is no way to measure a change in mass in time.
This statement is peculiar since the IPK has actually been
shrinking at the rate of 0.51 ppb/yr, which is twice the rate due to the fact that force expands even while mass shrinks and so the actual rate depends on the measurement technique. What Wetterich has not done is show how indeed to measure these kinds of things. however, measurements already exist that show mass shrinkage but are still at the edge of the noise of classical chaos. The shrinkage of the IPK, which is called an artifact in the first place, has also simply been called an artifact and not an indication of new physics.
Your approach is interesting to me since it seems to presume QM emerges from classical. Aethertime presumes that classical emerges from QM and it is clear that a truly unified approach would indeed shown this symmetry...
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 22:58 GMT
...oh and intrinsic matter decay simply extends the notion of CSL to the shrinkage of all matter in the universe and therefore gives a meaning to dm/dt, the shrinkage of matter with time.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 18:26 GMT
Your essay on the continuous spontaneous localization (CSL) model was very useful for me. It is ironic that CSL adds two constants and a nonlinear term to the Hamiltonian to make quantum mechanics real like gravity for macroscopic sources. However, quantum effects still dominate the microscopic world in CSL and so in a sense, nothing really changes except the interpretation of quantum phase noise.
However, with quantum gravity there already is another term in the Hamiltonian besides charge. All this means is that all wavefunctions already have both slowly changing gravity and rapidly changing charge factors and there is no need to add two new constants. The Hamiltonian already has quantum gravity and so does not need a new decay term as aethertime shows.
However, CSL does seem to show how the quadrupole gravity Hamiltonian operator looks and is different from the dipole charge operator. The quantum gravity operator is then what provides the shaking of aether as quantum phase noise. That seems to be a very nice way to describe the universe. The CSL jump step operators now have an easy interpretation as quantum exchange with the aether field not unlike that of QED.
So far, the CSL literature does not seemed to have linked quantum gravity with quantum phase noise, but that seems so obvious. Also, it is better to use matter and action conjugates instead of space and time. Matter and action conform easily to relativity and mass-energy equivalence at all scales while space and time are limited and do not apply at all scales.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 17:30 GMT
The CSL Hamiltonian has two extra terms that are linear and quadratic in the matter density fluctuation operators. A Brownian motion jostling is what drives these density fluctuations follow with the frequency and radius of the two parameters.
Reinterpreting the jostling radius r
d as the point where gravity force equals dispersion or dipole-induced dipole force means that this is where gravity fluctuations equal charge fluctuations. Likewise, reinterpreting the jostling frequency as the hydrogen Bohr frequency c/r
B scaled by the ratio of gravity to charge forces.
What this means that the Brownian jostling of CSL comes from the gravity fluctuations of orbiting electrons, which are negligible until gravity fluctuations equal charge fluctuations at the jostling radius r
d.
The puzzle is that this seems like such an obvious interpretation of CSL fluctuations as due to the quantum gravity fluctuations of orbiting charge. There is a quantum gravity Hamiltonian operator after all, right? The problem is simply finding the right two conjugate dimensions that are consistent with both GR and quantum MEE. Two possible conjugates are matter and action since space and time are simply too limited.
Thus instead of an ad hoc non-linear CSL Hamiltonian, you have the complete Hamiltonian for both charge and gravity with the natural constants of charge and gravity. This CSL quantum gravity does not seem to need any new constants, just a new interpretation...
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 04:06 GMT
Dear Prof Singh sab,
Thank you for the nice essay on “quantum wandering"
You are observations are excellent in page 3, like…” The problem of time in quantum theory: The time that appears in quantum theory is part of a classical space-time, whose geometry is determined by macroscopic classical bodies,
according to the laws of general relativity. But these classical...
view entire post
Dear Prof Singh sab,
Thank you for the nice essay on “quantum wandering"
You are observations are excellent in page 3, like…” The problem of time in quantum theory: The time that appears in quantum theory is part of a classical space-time, whose geometry is determined by macroscopic classical bodies,
according to the laws of general relativity. But these classical bodies are a limiting case of quantum theory. In their absence for instance in the very early universe, soon after the big bang] there would be no classical space-time geometry. If there are only quantum matter fields in the entire universe, the gravitational field they produce would also possess quantum fluctuations.”
For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other. That is one of the differences in both the models….
Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example ‘Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary’ (1994) , ‘Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe’, About “SITA” simulations, ‘Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required’, “New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations”, “Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background”, “Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.”, in 2015 ‘Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, ‘Explaining Pioneer anomaly’, ‘Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets’, ‘Observation of super luminal neutrinos’, ‘Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up’, “Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto” etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.
With axioms like… No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.
Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain
Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and blog also where all my books and available for free downloading…
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/
Be
st wishes to your essay.
For your blessings please…………….
=snp. gupta
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 10:09 GMT
Dear Prof. Gupta,
Thank you for reading my essay, and for telling me about your model of Dynamic Universe. I will see your essay and the literature you suggest.
My best wishes,
Tejinder
Lee Bloomquist wrote on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 04:18 GMT
Professor Singh,
I hope you don't mind if I take this chance to ask you a "Relativity 101" i.e., very basic question about your ideas. First, my understanding is that the equation for defining proper time in terms of coordinate time is an arrow, or function, from a coordinate frame comprising rigid rods and clocks to the proper time of a particle.
But to model classical space time emerging from the noncommutative Universe, it seems to me that the arrows must go in the other direction— starting from each proper time of a particle in the noncommutative Universe. And ending at a *set* of possible frames of rigid rods and clocks, or possible coordinate times in classical space time— where for each possible coordinate time in the set there is an equation back to the proper time.
(I'm try to see this in terms of "infomorphisms." So I'm attaching a screen shot of the relevant page in Barwise and Seligman's "Information Flow: The Logic of Distributed Systems.")
To get an informorphism, there must also be an arrow in the other direction— but now between the "models" supporting the RHS and LHS of the equation for proper time in terms of coordinate time— the one model supporting the coordinate times in classical space time; the other model in our case being the noncommutative Universe, supporting the proper time. This arrow would represent "emerges from." So this arrow starts at classical space time and ends at the noncommutative Universe-- the opposite direction from the above arrows.
Is this way of looking at the emergence of classical coordinate time from (in our case) proper time in the noncommutative Universe compatible with how you see it?
Best Regards,
Lee Bloomquist
attachments:
infomorphism.png
report post as inappropriate
Author Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 11:31 GMT
Dear Lee,
I think we should map the non-commuting operator time and space coordinates to the trace time s. And of course the ordinary time and space coordinates should be mapped to the usual proper time [this is different from the trace time s] using rigid rods and clocks, as you point out.
The ordinary space-time coordinates are resulting after a statistical coarse graining of the operator coordinates, and one should not relate the former to the trace time s.
Hope I understood your question properly.
Regards,
Tejinder
Lee Bloomquist replied on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 13:17 GMT
"The ordinary space-time coordinates are resulting after a statistical coarse graining of the operator coordinates, and one should not relate the former to the trace time s."
Professor Singh, thank you for replying! This is free schooling for me and I very much appreciate your response. So far I have the idea in my head that for a particle in question, in the usual space-time there will be many possible coordinate times, but just one proper time. (?)
If so, are there also many possible operator coordinate times?
Or, does the statistical course graining "average" all the possible operator coordinate times?
In the case that there are many possible operator coordinate times, how should each be mapped to each of the many possible, ordinary coordinate times?
In the case that the statistical course graining course-grains over possible operator coordinate times, how should that course graining be mapped to the many possible ordinary coordinate times?
(If these questions even make sense.)
I'm assuming that the mappings associated with the equations should go from the noncommutative Universe to the usual space-time, since the latter emerges from the former.
Thank you so much for this very valuable online classroom time!
Lee
report post as inappropriate
Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 16:15 GMT
Dear Lee,
If it is OK with you, kindly have a look at this paper I recently wrote:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.09132
Hopefully this addresses the issues you raised above, and you could also have a look at some of the references therein.
I am of course happy to continue our discussion. Thank you for your kind interest.
Tejinder
Lee Bloomquist replied on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 22:40 GMT
Professor Singh,
Thank you for sending me to this paper! I will read it many times. It clarifies for me that while I have been playing with "toy models" (at best, like the toy model of an airplane in a wind tunnel), you are working on the real thing (a test pilot flying the full size plane).
In addition to my essay in this contest, much of the following is in this text (as well as in...
view entire post
Professor Singh,
Thank you for sending me to this paper! I will read it many times. It clarifies for me that while I have been playing with "toy models" (at best, like the toy model of an airplane in a wind tunnel), you are working on the real thing (a test pilot flying the full size plane).
In addition to my essay in this contest, much of the following is in this text (as well as in a previous essay for the FQXI mathematics contest linked within this text):
https://leebloomquist.wordpress.com/
("An overall approach to the observer")
— A model of time that is not classical: In my world of toys I use nonstandard analysis and the co-algebra of streams to glue together a model of time that goes in one direction only.
— The incompleteness of quantum mechanics: I start with Schrodinger's study of the Greeks to arrive at an equation where the particle is not an object, but a process: "particle = (physicalExtension, particle)". Incompleteness means that the Schrodinger equation does not model the existence of the particle, only the possibilities for the elements of its stream. "Particle = (physicalExtension, particle)" models the existence of the particle.
— The collapse of the wave function: This is in my essay for the current contest. I follow Samson Abramsky's "Big Toy Models…". Using Wigner's theorem he obtains a "three valued Chu space," which I then use to show the collapse of the wave function.
— An underlying Universe: Although I don't show it anywhere, a stream representing Bohm's holomovement can be "zippered together" with the stream "particle = (physicalExtension, particle)".
— Derivation of the Born rule: In the world of learning algorithms, when the wave function is installed in the nonStandardFuture of the monad of properTime, and the associated probabilities in the nonStandardPast, there exists the signature of a learning algorithm. What is it learning? The laws of physics. Who is teaching it? The underlying Universe.
— The connection to relativity: Using an informorphism to make this explicit, because ordinary space-time emerges from an underlying Universe, properTime of the particle (as above) maps to a set of possible coordinate times.
Now the question becomes like that in software engineering: There are formal languages for specifying and analyzing software which are quite different from the languages used to write the actual software. For example, to specify and analyze software, one can use Petri nets, streams, and/or Chu spaces. But to write the software, one would use, say, C++.
But is any software written like this?
Very little. It's rare to find a software engineering organization where coders in C++ follow the models or listen to the analyses given to them by other engineers writing specifications and analyses in, say, Petri nets. Probably the only application where you do see this kind of cooperation between specification and coding is where human life is at stake.
By analogy we now have questions like these:
Professor Singh, could any of these toy models possibly be useful to you?
Are there any difficulties for your languages that might be easier in these specification and analysis languages?
Very Best Regards,
Lee
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 27, 2017 @ 13:01 GMT
Dear Lee,
I read with lot of interest your description of your work above. I feel happy that we are trying to address similar issues. I will read your essay with interest and then try to answer your questions above.
Thanks and regards,
Tejinder
Lee Bloomquist replied on Feb. 27, 2017 @ 18:27 GMT
Professor Singh,
I also feel happy!
Since this is a "work in progress" for me, I hope you don't mind if I add on another thought after writing the previous post.
Schrödinger used the possibility of a position, "Ψ(x)", in the wave equation. Born "anded" to this, the possibility of no other position than x, "Ψ*(x)", for the wave equation of a particle.
Then Feynman assigned to the probability amplitude the possibility of a path integral in spacetime.
The results have been beautiful.
So in an informorphism based on a map from the proper time of a particle to the set of possible coordinate times, instead of position and not anything but that position, or path integral, I wonder if we have the opportunity to assign to Ψ (sub i) the possibility of a coordinate time (sub i) in the above set that's mapped from proper time. And not anything but that possible coordinate time, Ψ* (sub i).
The coordinate time involves both the position and momentum for the particle being observed, as well as a time and mass energy. So among the impossibilities for this assignment of coordinate time to Ψ would be those that are outlawed by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
Would this help?
Lee
report post as inappropriate
Lee Bloomquist replied on Mar. 24, 2017 @ 02:17 GMT
Professor Singh-- Here is a
link to a related comment in the contest.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Nirupam Rohatgi wrote on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 17:56 GMT
Dear TP singh,
Went through the article, it is quite interesting. Physics seems to have reached the Superconscient end of the Existence, starting from the Inconscient end. Is it the end of physics, for it seems to be capturing the Ultimate. Its conclusions almost rhyme with what we conceive in Vedas or Gita.
report post as inappropriate
Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 27, 2017 @ 13:22 GMT
Dear Nirupam,
Greetings and thank you. If space-time were to be successfully replaced by something else, it would not be the end of physics but another step forward. I think there is a great deal in physics we do not still understand - the beginning of the universe, the nature of the dark component of the universe, the origin of the pattern of particle masses, the physical basis of living systems, and of the brain and mind...just to name a few issues. I feel we have a very long way to go still.
How did the ancient spiritual masters conclude that `everything is one'? This is a fascinating question and I have no answer!
Kind regards,
Tejinder
David Brown wrote on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 19:03 GMT
"Quantum theory is not the whole truth. It is an approximation to a deeper theory." My guess is that the preceding idea is correct, but in order for its empirical confirmation there must be recognition of the following: Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. If Milgrom's MOdified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) were empirically wrong, then there is no way that Milgrom could have convinced McGaugh and Kroupa.
http://astroweb.case.edu/ssm/mond/burn1.html "Why Consider MOND?" by S. McGaugh
https://astro.uni-bonn.de/~pavel/kroupa_cosmology.htm
l "Pavel Kroupa: Dark Matter, Cosmology and Progress"
The empirical successes of MOND imply that there are 2 alternatives: (1) Newtonian-Einsteinian gravitational theory is 100% correct but appears to be slightly wrong for some unknown reason. (2) Newtonian-Einsteinian gravitational theory really is significantly wrong in terms of empirical statistics.
report post as inappropriate
Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 27, 2017 @ 13:51 GMT
Dear David,
Thank you. I am glad you bring up MOND, because I have been thinking a bit about MOND versus dark matter. I agree that if MOND is correct, any modified quantum theory must yield MOND in the classical limit. I also agree that Kroupa and McGaugh make a good case for MOND with regard to empirical observations of galaxies, and the critical acceleration which shows up again and again in galaxy data. Whereas Lambda-CDM has no scope for providing this critical acceleration.
But then, Lambda-CDM is very successful with structure formation, and matches so well with data such as baryonic acoustic oscillations. Whereas TeVeS does not do well at all on this front.
So where then does the truth lie? Dark matter or MOND? I would like to believe that something like dark matter and something like MOND are both needed - the former to make structures, and the latter to introduce the critical acceleration. But MOND should become irrelevant during structure formation and dark matter should become irrelevant on galactic scales!! I have no idea how to achieve that.
Best regards,
Tejinder
Gary D. Simpson wrote on Feb. 27, 2017 @ 11:36 GMT
Tejinder,
This is an excellent piece of work. It is written simply enough and clearly enough that it can be understood by anyone with a modest background in the subject matter. Yet it expresses some very deep and profound ideas.
In my opinion, the most profound of those ideas is the QM collapse is independent of physical space and hence there is no "spooky action at a distance".
You have formalized many ideas that have been floating around in my intuition for several years. I would be very appreciative if you would read and comment upon my essay "Five Part Harmony". I present a 5-D model that is non-commutative and reduces to 4-D space-time.
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 27, 2017 @ 14:02 GMT
Dear Gary,
Thank you for your kind appreciation and encouragement, and for pointing me to your essay. I look forward to reading it with interest. I am very happy that we have been thinking along similar lines. I am excited also about the possibility that collapse of the wave function might be responsible for the emergence of space. It would be great to think of ways to test this experimentally.
My best wishes for your essay,
Tejinder
Kigen William Ekeson wrote on Feb. 27, 2017 @ 16:35 GMT
Dear Professor Singh,
Thanks for your insightful essay. I can't say that I understood many of the technical terms, but I really found your ideas on how to explain quantum entanglement and non-locality to be very good...in fact, i think that they might be very similar to my own, although I try to explain it in terms of complexity.
I wish you much luck in the competition, and if you find the time, i would appreciate your thoughts on my own essay.
Sincerely,
William Ekeson
report post as inappropriate
Author Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 04:19 GMT
Dear Prof. William Ekeson,
Many thanks for your kind remarks. I look forward to reading your essay.
Tejinder
Georgina Woodward wrote on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 07:35 GMT
Hi Tejinder, do you have any discomfort/cognitive dissonance regarding the conclusion, which is pretty amazing and different from how things seem to be. Or are you immunized by years of physics training?
report post as inappropriate
Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 14:03 GMT
Dear Georgina,
Greetings, and good to meet you again. You put it nicely: "Or are you immunized by years of physics training? " :-) My response is that years of physics training has given me the courage to express this conclusion, howsoever bizarre it might appear :-) We are driven to this conclusion by an attempt to resolve the troubles of quantum theory.
The conclusion is about the deeper underlying layer of matter and space-time, as in quantum theory. It is not a conclusion about out our approximate, largely classical world.
Please allow me a simplistic analogy. If I look at a stone, I can never tell that its insides are made of vibrating atoms whose motion is described by quantum laws, very different from the classical laws which describe the overall motion of the stone. In my discussion, all of the classical universe [stars, galaxies, ...] as well as the space-time in which they reside, are like classical stones. When we look inside them, the troubles of quantum mechanics persuade us to conclude that their `insides' obey new laws - there is no space-time in the inside. Hence the `insides' have no goals and no wandering. Of course the `stones' made from these insides do have space and time, and hence they have goals to wander to.
Thanks for bringing this up. Am happy to discuss it further.
Regards,
Tejinder
Member Angelo Bassi wrote on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 17:39 GMT
Hi TP, I did like you essay. Not only because I am very sympathetic towards the problems of standard quantum theory, which you well presented, but also because I like the idea of non-commutative spacetime underlying physics. Very good job! Angelo.
report post as inappropriate
Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 04:47 GMT
Dear Angelo,
Many thanks, for reading and liking the essay.
Regards,
T
Don Limuti wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 08:04 GMT
Hello Tejinder,
Your essay investigates one of the large QM embarrassments, the collapse of the wave-function. Your reworking of this concept is well done.
I have always suspected that "superposition" is the underlying corruptness in wave-function collapse. Superposition is a leftover from classical Fourier analysis and Huygen's wave interference diagrams. Superposition needs to be modified to work with QM. If this interests you, check out my web pages at www.digitalwavetheory.com
Appreciate your essay,
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 14:58 GMT
Dear Don,
Greetings, and it is good to meet you again. Thank you for your interesting comments. I browsed through some parts of your interesting website. Thanks for telling me about it :-)
Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 15:03 GMT
Sorry, I forgot to sign the above post!
Best,
Tejinder
Ken Hon Seto wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 15:16 GMT
Professor Singh,
I agree with your opening statement:
"Space-time is absolute, in conventional classical physics. Its geometry is determined dy- namically by the distribution of classical objects in the universe. However, the underlying space-time manifold is an absolute given, providing the arena in which material bodies and fields exist." I gave your essay a high rating.
In my theory I described space-time as a continuous, structured and elastic medium called the E-Matrix. The E-Matrix eliminated the problems encountered by QM with the above definition of space-time.
regards,
Ken Seto
report post as inappropriate
Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 15:05 GMT
Thank you Ken, for seeing my essay and telling me about your work.
Best,
Tejinder
Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 00:08 GMT
Dear Tejinder Pal Singh
I invite you and every physicist to read my work “TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I’m not a physicist.
How people interested in “Time” could feel about related things to the subject.
1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.
2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.
3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.
4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as “Time” definition and experimental meaning confronts them?
5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,… a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander…..
6) ….worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn’t a viable theory, but a proved fact.
7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.
8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.
9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.
11)Time “existence” is exclusive as a “measuring system”, its physical existence can’t be proved by science, as the “time system” is. Experimentally “time” is “movement”, we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure “constant and uniform” movement and not “the so called Time”.
12)The original “time manuscript” has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.
I share this brief with people interested in “time” and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.
Héctor
report post as inappropriate
Shaikh Raisuddin wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 12:26 GMT
Tejinder Pal Singh,
There are two types of time
#1. SOCIAL TIME: This is the time that we "measure" changes by clock or by rotation of earth. Where one rotation of earth is standardized as unit called one day. It is usual measuring methodology by comparing with a unit. This is society specific-time.
#2. PHYSICAL TIME: This time is "reason" of life-cycle changes whereby a system of matter undergoes structural changes. This time is object-specific and differ from object to object.
Which type of time you are using?
report post as inappropriate
Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 13:10 GMT
Dear Shaikh,
Thank you. Your definitions of time are strange and non-standard, I think.
I have used time the same way that every physicist does. In Newtonian mechanics it is absolute time, which we measure using clocks. In special relativity it is the coordinate time associated with a specific inertial observer, which is part of a space-time line-element in Minkowski space-time. In general relativity, it is the time coordinate which is a part of the space-time manifold, subject to general coordinate transformations.
Regards,
Tejinder
Avtar Singh wrote on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 16:10 GMT
Dear Tejinder:
I enjoyed reading your paper eloquently describing the incompleteness and shortcomings of QM irrespective of its successes in the technological applications. I agree with your conclusion – “……But it would seem that this is hard to achieve within the confines of standard quantum theory. ... And collapse perhaps requires us to go beyond quantum theory, and modify it....
view entire post
Dear Tejinder:
I enjoyed reading your paper eloquently describing the incompleteness and shortcomings of QM irrespective of its successes in the technological applications. I agree with your conclusion – “……But it would seem that this is hard to achieve within the confines of standard quantum theory. ... And collapse perhaps requires us to go beyond quantum theory, and modify it. When we go to that ‘beyond’, we find that there is a new world out there. …Deep down, if we look very carefully, everything is everywhere all the time, in a manner of speaking.”
Such fundamental reality of the implicate world is described in my contest paper -
FROM LAWS TO AIMS & INTENTIONS - A UNIVERSAL MODEL INTEGRATING MATTER, MIND, CONSCIOUSNESS, AND PURPOSE-A.Singh elaborated below. The paper describes the inner workings of QM resolving its paradoxes and incompleteness.
FQXi is a unique forum to address key open issues related to science that impact humanity and life. The mainstream science has treated the universe, laws, and fundamental particles as inanimate entities devoid of life, consciousness, or free will. As a result, the mainstream theories of science are also devoid of consciousness or free will. While science, especially quantum mechanics, recognizes the spontaneous free-willed (without any cause) birth and decay of particles out of the Zero-point vacuum as a fundamental physical phenomenon, it refutes existence of free will via consciously labeling it as “Randomness” in nature. This vicious circle has failed science in two ways – first is its erroneous prediction of a purposeless universe and life in it making the science itself purposeless and meaningless from a deeper human perspective. Secondly, ignorance of consciousness or free will which is a fundamental dimension of the universe along with mass/energy/space/time leaves scientific theories incomplete leading to their current paradoxes and internal inconsistencies.
Just like a dead mother cannot nurture and give birth to a living baby, a dead universe governed by inanimate laws cannot support any living systems within it. Universal consciousness is fundamental to the emergence and sustenance of any living system – quantum or biological. The mathematical laws must be living to give rise to living aims and intentions. If the fundamentality of the consciousness of the universe and laws is not understood, a scientific theory would be like a castle built on sand.
FQXi forum is participated by brilliant and accomplished scientists representing in-depth knowledge and expertise in diverse fields. I would propose that the forum scientists take on a challenge to enhance and uplift science from its current status quo as an incomplete science of the inanimate (dead) matter to the wholesome science of the living and conscious universe. This would complete science and make it purposeful and meaningful adding to its current successes as a tool for enhancing material life alone. Science deserves its long-awaited recognition to address not only matter but mind as well and not only material but spiritual life as well. Considering the current political and economic threats to the basic survival of science and religious extremism/terrorism threatening the fundamental freedom (free will) of humanity, the role of a wholesome and genuine science has become even more vital to humanity.
I have forwarded a humble and example proposal (see attached paper) detailing how a consciousness-integrated scientific model of the universe entailing matter-mind could be developed that resolves current paradoxes of science including QM, predicts the observed universe, and offers a testable theory via future empirical observations. This proposal and theory are documented in my contest.
I would greatly appreciate your feedback as well as constructive criticism of the proposed approach to advance physics and cosmology.
Best Regards
Avtar Singh
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Avtar Singh replied on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 16:17 GMT
Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 13:03 GMT
Dear Avtar,
Greetings, and thank you so much for reading my essay and commenting on it.
I have not thought of the universe and of mathematical equations as `living' entities possessing a `consciousness'. I very much look forward to reading your essay, and to commenting on it, in case I have something useful to say.
My best regards,
Tejinder
Laurence Hitterdale wrote on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 19:49 GMT
Dear Professor Singh,
After reading your essay, I looked at the article by Steven Weinberg, to which you refer in the first paragraph of your essay. I realize that your essay and Weinberg’s article are very different. He provides an informal overview, while you present a detailed and developed proposal for solving the difficulties which beset quantum theory. Nonetheless, I would be interested in learning more about how you might view your proposal in relation to the suggestion for a possible solution which Weinberg indicates toward the end of his article. He seems to favor trying to find some principles that would lead to an objective collapse of the wave function, as opposed to theories in which consciousness brings about the collapse and theories in which there is no collapse at all (i.e., many worlds and related interpretations). I notice that Weinberg favorably cites the work of Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber, whom you also mention. As best I can tell, you present a concrete proposal that fits into the very general framework which Weinberg endorses. More specifically, one of your original ideas is that the underlying (space-time) manifold should be non-commutative.
This is how I would at present summarize my understanding. Thanks for a stimulating and challenging essay.
Laurence Hitterdale
report post as inappropriate
Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 13:38 GMT
Dear Laurence,
Thank you for your careful reading of my essay. Yes, Weinberg seems to be interested in GRW type objective collapse, which I also think of as a promising solution for the measurement problem.
However, in my opinion the biggest problem that quantum theory faces is its dependence on classical time. I think this is at the root of all the troubles of quantum mechanics. We have to be able to describe quantum theory without classical time, and when we do that, it also provides a way for a fundamental understanding of the GRW theory, and for resolving the non-locality puzzle. Also, I think the dichotomy between physical space and Hilbert space / configuration space is very peculiar, and out to be lifted, in my opinion.
With best wishes,
Tejinder
Alan M. Kadin wrote on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 13:06 GMT
Dear Prof. Singh,
Your interesting essay focuses on flaws in the orthodox understanding of quantum mechanics.
I agree that quantum mechanics has been misunderstood, as I have addressed in
previous FQXi essays.
But I argue that quantum entanglement does not exist, and that time and space are defined by real quantum oscillations of electron waves. This is not merely a philosophical question; there are now billions of dollars being spent on developing practical quantum computing, which requires entanglement, so that these questions will be answered one way or the other in the next 10-20 years.
I address these issues very briefly in the End Notes section of my essay this year,
“No Ghost in the Machine”, which links to other articles that address this in more detail.
In the main body of this year’s FQXi essay, I argue that recognition of self, other agents, and a causal narrative, are built into specific evolved brain structures, based on neural networks, which create a sense of consciousness as part of a dynamic model of the environment. The reason that this is such a difficult problem is that we are being misled by the subjective perceptions of our own minds.
Alan Kadin
report post as inappropriate
Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 16:58 GMT
Dear Alan,
Greetings. It is good to meet you again here. Thank you for your comments and for reading my essay. And my apologies for this delay in replying to your comment.
I remember your viewpoint from our discussion during an earlier contest. I will read your essay before the rating deadline end of next week.
My best regards,
Tejinder
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 15:02 GMT
Dear Tejinder
The emergent "wandering to a goal" is in my view seemingly reaching out for eternity...
I am still awaiting your esteemed comment and rating on my my essay : "The Purpose of Life".
thank you and best of luck in this time restricted goal...
Wilhelmus
PS I posted this comment also on the thread where you answered my comment, but this one is easier to find for you...
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 15:36 GMT
Dear Tejinder,
Thank you for your positive comment on my essay.
In my "emergent phenomenon" called reality "time" is a restriction (like space).
We are experiencing a "flow" of time through the limited consciousness that is creating (emerging) memory at each Eternal Now Moment.
Looking at a Wave collapse we see that it is "happening" always in the past. The emerging particle after the "collapse" is also a past emergent phenomenon. The moment we are aware of the "particle like distribution" in the Young experiment, we are experiencing an image from the past, representing a past ENM (that is timeless (eternal) in Total Simultaneity).
So you could say that the Flow that we experience as TIME is an emergent effect of the memory data we are aware of. Actually I am 71 yeras old,(and remeber the I that has the memories of that age. I cannot reach out to the past (nor to the future). The NOW moment includes the whole FLOW of my past life, so the emergent effect of "living". The whole emergent life as is also reality is compressed in an ENM. (one moment ?)
I do believe that any way of thinking can be the base of an emergent reality.The MWI is a splitting up of realities. In my perception this split up is not a "material" one, it is only the "move" to another "availability" that can become reality in another emergent phenomenon.
I am untill now unable to substantiate this view mathematically, but I am searching.
best regards
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Rajiv K Singh wrote on Mar. 24, 2017 @ 04:56 GMT
Hi TP,
Nice to see that you are an established veteran at FQXi. You are a member, and have received acclaim and prizes at previous essay competitions. I am new to this forum.
I read your current essay twice, once just when it was posted, and then read again yesterday. You have turned out to be quite a story teller, writing has become very persuasive. Congrats on both counts!
I...
view entire post
Hi TP,
Nice to see that you are an established veteran at FQXi. You are a member, and have received acclaim and prizes at previous essay competitions. I am new to this forum.
I read your current essay twice, once just when it was posted, and then read again yesterday. You have turned out to be quite a story teller, writing has become very persuasive. Congrats on both counts!
I see impressive arguments at places, but wanted to know if you have clarity in your mind as to what those mathematical arguments in fact map to in reality? That is, do you have physical insights for every step in the argument?
From 'stochastic element responsible for randomness', can one infer that CSL is an indeterministic model? If so, then can one identify the source of stochastic behavior even if one cannot have a definitive formulation for the process?
One thing I liked most is that in CSL the space-time emerges from collapse. But, I could not figure out how the collapse would choose the values for (t,x,y,z), I mean when to appear and where to appear. I am sure, you do not depend on probability field, do you? You have also given a fundamental constant rc=10^-5 cm; so there is a sense of relative distance and location within the span of emerged universe. Moreover, after the collapse if there is a measure of space and time, then why is it called 'illusion'?
Since I do not understand the nitty gritties of CSL, and the math or physical insights, I would have many questions. But even if you answered, I may not understand. The collapse rate seems to be about a few times in the whole life time of the universe. "Between every two collapses, the wave function follows the usual Schrodinger evolution." So after a collapse, how does it regain its global configuration quality to be able to collapse again causing relocalization, or does it remain confined to the space? And why does a collection of N nucleons, or let me suppose M atoms function like unified object to acquire the amplification factor of N.lambda. Then can one consider some arbitrary distribution of N neucleon, not necessarily bound?
In a lighter vein, so far the observations (experiments) shaped the path of conceptual and theoretical development. But then theoreticians are going to have the last laugh by producing theories in plenty such that each conforms to all observations yet widely different in their projection of reality. Daunting it is to think that the underlying mathematics is potent enough to support them all.
Rajiv
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 06:07 GMT
Dear Rajiv,
It is indeed a great pleasure to hear from you!! :-) My apologies for this delay in replying, and thanks so much for carefully going through my essay. I had browsed through your interesting essay when it appeared, and I will read it again next week.
>I see impressive arguments at places, but wanted to know if you have clarity in your mind as to what those mathematical...
view entire post
Dear Rajiv,
It is indeed a great pleasure to hear from you!! :-) My apologies for this delay in replying, and thanks so much for carefully going through my essay. I had browsed through your interesting essay when it appeared, and I will read it again next week.
>I see impressive arguments at places, but wanted to know if you have clarity in your mind as to what those mathematical arguments in fact map to in reality? That is, do you have physical insights for every step in the argument?
At the level of the underlying non-commutative special relativity, it is difficult for me to form a visual picture. But I think physical insight is there: our conceptions are being prejudiced by thinking of quantum mechanics on an ordinary space-time background. We have trouble understanding what the wave function represents. But the wave function makes a lot of sense on a non-commutative background.
>From 'stochastic element responsible for randomness', can one infer that CSL is an indeterministic model If so, then can one identify the source of stochastic behavior even if one cannot have a definitive formulation for the process?
CSL is a phenomenological model which assumes a stochastic process to exist, without specifying where that process is coming from. It might come from gravity, or from Trace Dynamics (statistical fluctuations about equilibrium) - we have ideas, but we do not know for sure.
> One thing I liked most is that in CSL the space-time emerges from collapse. But, I could not figure out how the collapse would choose the values for (t,x,y,z), I mean when to appear and where to appear. I am sure, you do not depend on probability field, do you? You have also given a fundamental constant rc=10^-5 cm; so there is a sense of relative distance and location within the span of emerged universe. Moreover, after the collapse if there is a measure of space and time, then why is it called 'illusion'?
When to appear and where to appear: it is random indeed. By illusion I meant that if you examine microscopically you realise there is no such thing as space ad time.
>The collapse rate seems to be about a few times in the whole life time of the universe. "Between every two collapses, the wave function follows the usual Schrodinger evolution." So after a collapse, how does it regain its global configuration quality to be able to collapse again causing relocalization, or does it remain confined to the space? And why does a collection of N nucleons, or let me suppose M atoms function like unified object to acquire the amplification factor of N.lambda. Then can one consider some arbitrary distribution of N neucleon, not necessarily bound?
The collapse rate is of the order of the age of the universe for a nucleon. It increases linearly with mass [the rate] becoming very very rapid for macroscopic objects. After a collapse, a particle does not remain confined - it expands again, because of ordinary Schrodinger evolution. So it is a repetitive cycle of collapses and expansions. But for a macroscopic object collapses happen so very rapidly that it appears confined at one place.
Amplification: Consider two particles A and B, with A in a superposition of two position states A_1 and A_2, and B in a superposition of two position states B_1 and B_2. If they are bound, then their states are entangled:
(A_1 B_1 + A_2 B_2)
If they are not bound, they are in a product state: (A_1 + A_2) * (B_1 + B_2)
If they are bound, the collapse of EITHER A or B causes the state of both to collapse: say to A_1 B_1.
So any one of them collapsing causes both to collapse. Hence the amplification.
But if they are not bound, collapse of one does not cause the other to collapse: say if A collapses, the state goes to A_1 * (B_1 + B_2). B is unaffected..no amplification.
My best wishes to you in this contest,
TP
view post as summary
Rajiv K Singh replied on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 12:19 GMT
Thanks TP,
I understood a few things more about CSL. In my mind, it was always clear how time could emerge, of course from a different consideration, but not how space could emerge. In fact, often I thought of space being the only reality and everything else emerges from it. Anyway, my essay does not deal with any of such things, I only worried about the information aspect. See, I could follow yours, but I am not sure if you could follow mine with as much comfort ! May be you are a better story teller.
Amplification is understood now, but then, does it mean that all nucleons in a macroscopic body could be considered as forming a single entangled state? The answer you already gave as yes.
Rajiv
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Keppeler wrote on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 17:58 GMT
Dear Tejinder,
I enjoyed your essay in which you focus on the emergence of space-time and quantum mechanics form a supposed underlying theory (trace dynamics). Myself, I discuss emergence on a different scale (goal-oriented macroscopic dynamics from underlying microscopic dynamics, no matter whether the latter is deterministic or stochastic, classical or quantum). But back to your interesting essay. You write: "A serious limitation of the CSL model is that it is non-relativistic, and dedicated efforts to make a relativistic version face serious difficulties." You may be interested in the work of Roderich Tumulka, who introduced a relativistic version of GRW:
R. Tumulka
A Relativistic Version of the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber Model J. Statist. Phys. 125 (2006) 821-840,
arXiv:quant-ph/0406094.
R. Tumulka
Collapse and Relativity p. 340-352 in A. Bassi, D. Duerr, T. Weber and N. Zanghi (eds), Quantum Mechanics: Are there Quantum Jumps? and On the Present Status of Quantum Mechanics, AIP Conference Proceedings 844, American Institute of Physics (2006),
arXiv:quant-ph/0602208.
Cheers, Stefan
report post as inappropriate
Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 07:20 GMT
Dear Stefan,
Greetings. Thanks so much for reading my essay. I look forward to reading yours.
Thanks also for telling me about Tumulka's work, which actually I am acquainted with. We discuss it briefly in our review article arXiv:1204.4325 (Section II). It is promising undoubtedly; I think the challenge is to include interactions.
My best wishes,
Tejinder
Robert Groess wrote on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 04:31 GMT
Dear Tejinder Singh,
Thank you for an excellently written and self-consistent essay focusing, at time quite rigorously, on the nuances of quantum theory to look for how goals originate in the classical regime. In fact, I paused to contemplate where you say "Classical mechanics is a limiting case of quantum mechanics. Yet, in order to arrive at the canonical quantum theory, one must first know the classical theory." I agree that from our historial vantage point, replete with the chauvinisms of science that we have acquired over time, this is how "canonical quantum theory" has evolved. A perspective we may have to shed in order to make meaningful progress in this regard.
You essay has given me a lot to think about and I wanted to let you know I have in the meantime rated it too.
Regards,
Robert
report post as inappropriate
Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 07:24 GMT
Dear Robert,
Thank you so much for reading and appreciating my essay. That is very kind of you.
Let us hope that there will be an experimental breakthrough in the next few years, which can tell us decisively about the validity of the CSL model.
My best regards,
Tejinder
Christian Corda wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 09:57 GMT
Dear Tejinder,
This is a remarkable Essay, despite a bit speculative. I particularly appreciated your observations on the limitations of quantum theory. It was an intellectual pleasure for me reading your Essay, thus, I decided to give you the highest score.
By the way, today I have read also your GRF Essay in arXiv. It is another intriguing work. Maybe I will attempt to apply your new length scale for quantum gravity in my future works on my
Bohr-like black hole model. Congratulations and good luck in both of the Contests. I hope you will have a chance to read
our Essay on gravitational waves.Cheers, Ch.
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2862
report post as inappropriate
Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 14:01 GMT
Dear Ch.,
Thank you so much for your kind remarks and good wishes, and also for seeing my GRF essay. I will be honoured if you consider this new length scale in your work. i am talking to some colleagues about looking for possible experimental tests of this new length.
Best wishes,
Tejinder
Abdullah Naeem Malik wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 04:22 GMT
Dear Prof T. P. Singh
A short glimpse and I have a feeling I'm reading a breakthrough. I will have to go on details of the space in which TD resides.
I have difficulty understanding one thing. I don't have any knowledge of Gauge Theory so forgive my ignorance.
How do we form another L^2 Hilbert Space using 2 Hilbert Spaces each of two different N-particle systems? The trace operator you use hints at the quaternions, if I understood it correctly.
report post as inappropriate
Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 14:06 GMT
Dear Dr. Malik,
Thank you so much for your kind appreciation.
If I have understood you correctly, can we not form the new Hilbert space simply as a direct product of the states of the two different systems?
There possibly is a connection with quaternions, but I am not sure of this. You may want to see Stephen Adler's historical account of his discovery of TD, which was preceded by his work on Quaternionic quantum mechanics, on which he has a book.
My best wishes,
Tejinder
Cristinel Stoica wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 18:47 GMT
Dear Tejinder,
I enjoyed very much your essay, in which you discuss CSL and its emergence from TD, the proposal of suppression of quantum superposition at large scales by nonlinearity, and the relation with goals. I agree that superposition has to be suppressed somehow at higher levels, since the classical level doesn't seem to suffer from it (section |7> of
my essay). In fact I have a proposal of several experiments that I hope will find some sort of superselection which I hope to suppress superposition in
Searching for microscopic classical cats (although in a way compatible with both linear and a possible nonlinear formulation of QM). Best luck in the contest!
Best regards,
Cristi Stoica
The Tablet of the Metalaw
report post as inappropriate
Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 15:21 GMT
Dear Cristi,
Greetings, and many thanks for your kind comments.
Thanks also for pointing to your essay, which actually I had already read (and rated) and enjoyed reading, though I did not leave a comment :-)
Best,
Tejinder
Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 18:48 GMT
Tejinder,
I hope to hear from you over on mine before we imminently have to do our final scoring. I identify some very important new physics that you're well qualified to falsify.
You know the problem;
"Standard quantum theory has no answers. Do these unanswered questions call for new physics?" Not t really entirely 'new' either.
Very best
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 15:26 GMT
Dear Peter,
Greetings. I had already read your essay with pleasure, and rated it too. Though I have not left any comment.
And I agree! QM needs something done to it! :-)
My best wishes to you for success in this contest,
Tejinder
Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 20:19 GMT
Dear Tejinder,
very interesting essay with provocative thesis (quantum theory as emergent theory) But I like it very much (also along the line of my thinking).
Therefore you got a high mark from my side.
Maybe you are also interested to read
my essay? This time not bout exotic smoothness and the fractal spacetime.
All the best
Torsten
report post as inappropriate
Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 18:08 GMT
Dear Torsten,
Many thanks for your kind remarks on my essay.
Best,
Tejinder
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.