Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

James Putnam: on 2/27/18 at 4:51am UTC, wrote We are listed next to one another. Two opposites. Since this coincidence...

Jonathan Dickau: on 2/26/18 at 21:48pm UTC, wrote Hello again Lawrence, I appreciate your spelling out your position on the...

Kamal Rajpal: on 2/20/18 at 17:42pm UTC, wrote I have read your Essay. A black hole consists of Dark Matter:...

Steve Dufourny: on 2/20/18 at 12:41pm UTC, wrote Hello Lawrence, Like always it is a pleasure to read your essay, you are...

Lawrence Crowell: on 2/7/18 at 20:35pm UTC, wrote Trying to use the bold tags --- Here is the problem with Klauder's idea....

Lawrence Crowell: on 2/7/18 at 20:28pm UTC, wrote Here is the problem with Klauder's idea. I have to use parentheses for...

Andrew Beckwith: on 2/7/18 at 20:01pm UTC, wrote quote The many world interpretation has this feature in it of a product...

Andrew Beckwith: on 2/7/18 at 20:01pm UTC, wrote quote The many world interpretation has this feature in it of a product...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Dufourny: "lol REVOLUTION SPHERISATION everywhere at all scales,REVOLUTION..." in Alternative Models of...

Georgina Woodward: "The kind of time required, over which the material change is happening, (to..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "after all like Borh has made,this universe and its spheres for me are like..." in Alternative Models of...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Lorraine Ford: "With the “A.I. Feynman” software, Silviu-Marian Udrescu and Max Tegmark..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Georgina Woodward: "Coin toss co-state potentials: With the measurement protocol decided, in..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "If we correlate with the consciousness, can we consider that all is..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 23, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: Quantum Hair on Colliding Black Holes by Lawrence B. Crowell [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 9, 2018 @ 21:06 GMT
Essay Abstract

The foundations of physics is proposed to be quantum information and a duality between spacetime observables and quantum fields. This is a form of the standard AdS/CF T correspondence and the Ryu-Takayanagi formula [1]. Quantum gravity and quantum hair on event horizons is shown can be detected in black hole coalescence. The near horizon condition for two black holes right before collision is a deformed AdS spacetime RT entropy given by quantum hair on the horizons. These qubits may appear in gravitational wave data. The RT formula and its relationship to the Mirzakhani entropy formula [2] suggests a complementarity between quantum and spacetime observables.

Author Bio

Doctoral work at Purdue. Worked on orbital navigation and currently work on IT and programming. I think it is likely there is some subtle, and in some ways simple, physical principle that is not understood, or some current principle that is an obstruction. It is likely our inability to work quantum physics and gravity into a coherent whole is likely to be solved through new postulates or physical axioms, or the removal of current ones.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Author Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 10, 2018 @ 01:09 GMT
I have here a supplementary text to my essay here. This carries out some of the mathematics in greater detail. This essay is fairly on the mathematical side. The formal details concern the Ryu-Takaynagi formula and its relationship to the work Maryam Mirzakhani did on geodesics on hyperbolic manifolds. So this is unavoidable. I have taken some pains however to make this somewhat accessible to a reader who prefers to gloss over the mathematical details.

attachments: supplementary_material_to_quantum_hair_on_BH.pdf

Bookmark and Share



Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 01:53 GMT
Hi Lawrence, I decided to take a look at your essay with trepidation. However I was really pleased that I could understand your introduction which is clear and was educational for me. I have noted that you have said you have taken pains to make the formal details somewhat accessible to those wishing to "gloss over the mathematical details".The English explanations of the mathematics you go along is good. It reassures me that it is ultimately comprehensible, given enough time.It seems to me that you have selected a rather unusual and particular circumstance to utilize for modeling the foundational structure of the universe. I think it would be good if you could spell out,in English just a little about the "complementarity between quantum and spacetime observables" that is shown, mentioned in your abstract, Which seems to be most important? It might be in your essay but it isn't clear to me amongst all the details.

I like the little conclusion at the end the (to paraphrase) 'it could be like this, but each generation and century of scientists have their own ideas'. Then you add, "This may be the most we can ever expect, other than the prospect the ultimate foundation of the universe

is nothingness", which came as a surprise to me. Especially after proposing a highly complex solution. Is that nothing synonymous with un-knowablity, by which I mean a something providing no information whereby it is knowable rather than void? Kind regards Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 11:51 GMT
Thanks for your remarks on my paper. I can say that a part of this was motivated by Maryam Mirzakhani's death. She died of breast cancer last July, and the news for various reason made me angry. I had read one of her paper's back in 2014 when she won the Fields medal, and at the time I thought this had something maybe to do with physics. Last spring I studied the Ryu-Takayanagi (RT) formula and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 20:37 GMT
Lawrence, thank you so much for taking the time to explain the motivation behind, and the theoretic physics utilized in your essay. The analogies help. In your reply you said "The solution with Susskind and others is to say spacetime variables and quantum states are equivalent. I do not disagree completely, but I think this is a complementarity instead of an equivalency." I don't think they can be equivalent either. I'm not sure about complementarity. In space time the thing under consideration is its absolute self and has not been limited to the possibilities obtainable from a selected viewpoint or test method. I suppose the quantum states are a consequence of the way in which relations must be established to know about a thing from a limited human perspective. Kind regards Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Philip Gibbs wrote on Jan. 13, 2018 @ 14:27 GMT
Lawrence, I am glad that you are highlighting some of the recent developments and using them in your work. I have not being following them so much. Do you predict that the effects of quantum hair could be seen by LIGO?

Is there a term missing in your third equation, I don't see the Lambda?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 13, 2018 @ 15:13 GMT
Yes, there should be a Lambda but for some reason in writing this in Word I used the unicode Λ and it did not show up. Good catch on your part! Dang, it is really hard to get things right.

Could these be detected with LIGO? Maybe. However, this largely can best be found with something like LISA or eLISA, which will capture gravitational memory or an aspect of BMS symmetry. Hawking, Perry,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Gary D. Simpson wrote on Jan. 14, 2018 @ 17:37 GMT
Lawrence,

I always look forward to reading your essays since they expose me to ideas I would not encounter otherwise. I must say that you challenge my reading comprehension. I only understand ~25%. However, I do pick up a few things with each essay:-)

It was interesting that you see similarities between the merging of black-holes and the Casimir effect.

I had seen mentions of "time-crystals" on the internet previously. In my ignorance, I assumed that it was just internet gibberish. I see from your essay that it is in fact genuine physics. From some of the alleged properties, it sounds like they might be related to super-conductors. It would be interesting to know if their modulation frequency is dependent upon the velocity of the experimental apparatus.

All in all, a very good (but challenging) essay.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 14, 2018 @ 20:37 GMT
I am glad you appreciated my work here. I have your essay queued up read to read once I can carve out some time and get to it.

Wilczek advanced the idea of time crystals. They may be in some ways a deep aspect of how nature is organized. They are almost paradoxical, and as I think they are tied in with the holographic principle they share properties similar to the image attached. This is why they are analogous to a thermodynamic system that exhibits dynamics.

I will try to get to yours and other's essay ASAP.

Cheers LC

attachments: mc-escher-waterfall.jpg

Bookmark and Share



Cristinel Stoica wrote on Jan. 15, 2018 @ 19:48 GMT
Hi Lawrence,

I like your picture of BMS symmetry and its role in the BH information problem. I find the idea of conversion of qubits into gravitons near the BH horizon appealing. I think it would be great if we would try to detect the quantum hair associated with QCD and EW that produce gravitational waves.

Good luck with the contest!

Best wishes,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 16, 2018 @ 15:44 GMT
This quantum hair would show up in BMS supertranslation symmetries. I have not worked out more detailed calculations of this. In fact there is a vast amount of work to be done here. In working on foundations I offer here the prospect for some measurement or observation of what might be deeper foundations.

Of course in the end there may be no final foundation, or if there is such a foundation I suspect it is basic quantum mechanics. We might be faced with the prospect of finding layers of effective theories with respect to quantum gravity. The reason might be that quantum gravity is similar to the measurement problem and might involve self-referential encoding of quantum states. The issue of the quantum error correction problem I offer a solution involving complementarity between quantum and spacetime principles. However, this might just mean it ends up in the same conundrum as quantum measurement. Ultimately it involves quantum states encoding quantum states. Turing and Gödel rise to the occasion to tell us we can never completely understand this.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 15, 2018 @ 20:02 GMT
Dear Dr. Lawrence B. Crowell,

You wrote in your biographical notes: “It is likely our inability to work quantum physics and gravity into a coherent whole is likely to be solved through new postulates or physical axioms, or the removal of current ones.”

My research has concluded that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 19:01 GMT
Lawrence,

Interesting viewpoint and analysis, more clearly written than others. My own study of Active Nuclei ('Black Hole') dynamics is more about analysing observed data so it's fascinating to take such a different view. Observational findings continue apace. One is that the polar ('Quasar') outflows appear to contain (re-ionize or ionize) more matter than was in the accretion disc. If a the consistent cyclic model is correct the significant growth in mass function is consistent with that. Both numbers and collision/merger population seem well below that needed to explain evolution to far larger bodies. I was looking for hints in you essay but you'll have to point any out.

The acceleration mechanism (contra wound helices similar to a Tokamak toroid) and (precessing giving jet helicity) ejection 'cusp' are also becoming clearer. Sir Martin Rees's work from 50 years ago looks amazingly precise, including the collimated 'shear planes' apparently propagating new fermion plasma.

I fully agreed your abstract, and that only 'looking differently' will reveal solutions. I have some for your thoughts; Position & Momentum as the orthogonal values seem only ever an assumption. I checked the results of substituting Maxwell's quite different linear/curl state momenta, which I show (experimentally) exist within OAM, in absorption/re-emission, represented by orbital velocity distribution. Deeper foundations seem evident as quantum measurement ceases to be a conundrum (though Gödel remains recursively correct). Please do attack with full rigour. Declan's finding (see my comment on yours there) entirely models my ontology to confirm CHSH at >2.

Thank you for yours, very well constructed & written.

Best wishes.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 20, 2018 @ 21:06 GMT
I am pleased you found merit in my essay. Some of the physics I work out here may play out in extremely active galactic nuclei. A huge influx of material with chaotic jumps in the flux would produce gravitational radiation. This might be detectable and bear signatures of the physics I describe.

Thanks and good luck in the contest if you are entered.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 22, 2018 @ 11:34 GMT
Lawrence,

T'was I, logged out! Yes, I hope you'll be able to identify any flaws in the apparently significant classical 'QM' finding in my essay (& Declan Trail's)

Do you distinguish 'gravitational radiation' from fluctuations in the potential? i.e. if we had 2 binary stars nearby and discerned the fluctuations would that be the same effect? I can't find any difference with the LIGO analysis, are you aware of one?

Bset wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 23, 2018 @ 10:42 GMT
There are loads of papers on FQXi that make big digs against modern physics. Klingman has Einstein playing the role of Simplicio in his paper that is bascially anti-relativity. If you follow the real developments in the foundations of quantum physics it is very clear the loop holes for there being a classical underpinning to quantum physics are closed. This is on both the theoretical and experimental fronts. The only possible loophole these days on the experimental front is with the consciousness of the experimenters, and the experimentalists are working on this. I must confess that I have to report there simply is no classical underpinning to QM. Yet curiously these types of papers do quite well with voting on these contests, but in case you have not noticed they never win awards.

I have largely bowed out of this. I was not going to enter another FQXi contest, but a framework of a paper I had written seemed to fit with the topic so I decided to try it one more time. I figured this might be a bit of a trial balloon, where I can take this and rewrite it for a serious publication. That is about how I am taking this at this time. I have only read a few papers posted here.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 14:48 GMT
Hi Lawrence B. Crowell

“Quantum gravity and quantum hair on event horizons is shown can be detected in black hole coalescence. The near horizon condition for two black holes right before collision is a deformed AdS spacetime RT entropy given by quantum hair on the horizons.” Is a very nice idea

I highly appreciate your essay and hope and request you please spend some of the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 23:01 GMT
Dear S. Gupta,

I will try to look at this when time permits. I have not been very active in this contest this year due to time limit. It looks as if there are a lot of "nos" in your conclusions. Thanks for giving me the heads up on your essay.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share



Christian Corda wrote on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 13:45 GMT
Dear LC,

You wrote a remarkable Essay, congrats. Black holes and gravitational waves are my greatest scientific passions. Thus, I enjoyed a lot in reading this new work of yours. I think that this Essay should be suitable also for the Gravity Awards. Some comments:

1) In order to understand if the quantum hair associated with QCD and electroweak interactions producing gravitational waves could be detected by ground-based and (future) space-based detectors we need an estimate of the strain due to such a quantum hair. This could be the object of a future paper.

2) I have seen that you considered Reissnor-Nordstrom black holes. Coalescence of Reissnor-Nordstrom black holes is quite speculative. I think indeed that real black holes should have also a spin. Thus, Kerr-Newmann black holes should be more suitable. On one hand, this will make computations more difficult. On the other hand, also this approximation with Reissnor-Nordstrom black holes is intriguing.

Good luck in the Contest!

Cheers, Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 14:53 GMT
The triplet entanglement of two massless gauge bosons is equivalent to graviton in quantum numbers. Of course gluons, W^{+/-}, Z and photons do not form gravitons per se, but these under an STU transformation are dual to other possible gauge-like fields that do form gravitons. The Berg-Dixon theory is interesting to follow, for they lay down a lot on how gluons can for graviton-like states in entanglements. Check out Hossefelder's paper, where this is interesting, and I have a comment on QCD/gravity duality.

The approximation comes of course from the fact the coalescence of black holes is a sort of transformation between type D to type D plus N solutions in the Petrov classification. This is mathematically almost impossible to understand. For classical calculations numerical work is needed to simulate gravitational waves, type N solutions, generated by such mergers.

There is a whole lot that potentially could be done here. Good luck on the contest.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share



austin fearnley wrote on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 15:49 GMT
Dear Lawrence

I have seen your essay which is very interesting but beyond me. I suspect that the obstruction is real but not fatal, at least not fatal to spacetime.

If entanglement is used in constructing a space metric you have, for one datum of entanglement, one entangled particle outside the BH and one or two particles inside.

I thought that the space metric inside a BH was separate from the metric outside? Are the hairs in both metrics or in neither?

I can imagine two entangled particles being a data pair used in whatever computer program the universe is running to make its space metrics. But would that be making a space metric either inside or outside a BH but not being used to create a joint metric of outside and inside simultaneously.

The obstruction may mean that hairs cannot have a metric (and hence cannot exist?)?

Best

Austin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 13:29 GMT
The quantum hair appears on the event horizon, or really the quantum membrane called the stretched horizon, as seen by a stationary observer. For a distant observer the tortoise or time delayed coordinate r' = r - 2m ln|r' - 2m| means these are redshifted enormously. However, an observer on an accelerated frame close to the horizon will observe more of this physics. Of course this requires an...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


austin fearnley replied on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 19:12 GMT
Dear Lawrence

[I have sent this post to both our threads.]

Thank you very much for your reply. Making and breaking of space metrics are a minor part of my essay (pages 3 and 5). My employment background includes making metrics for examination scores using Rasch pairs analysis [fortunately I never encountered FQXI-style 1-bombing ratings there]. Obviously trying to make a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 13:18 GMT
I looked at the wikipedia site on Rasch model. It does look similar to statistical mechanics. I am not sure where it can go from there with respect to physics and physical modeling.

LC

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 21:35 GMT
Dear Fellow Essayists

This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 11:07 GMT
To be honest I have absolutely no idea what you keep writing about with this.

LC

Bookmark and Share


Gary D. Simpson replied on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 05:54 GMT
ROFL:-)

Gary Simpson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 14:09 GMT
Dear Gary,

I have yet to read your paper I hate to say. I have been not as able to get to papers easily this contest cycle.

LC

Bookmark and Share



Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 04:55 GMT
I enjoyed this essay Lawrence,

It is more readable than some of your past efforts and demonstrates your point well, so I give you kudos and high marks for that. As a special aside; it appears you are now more glib at filling in some of the descriptions less Math literate people require to understand what all the Math is about, or at least more mindful of when such comments and explanations about applicability are needed. This essay is still a bit Math intensive for average readers and requires a certain level of proficiency to understand. You lost me a few times, starting with the reference to time crystals, but you pulled it together later each time.

You impressed me linking RT and Mirzakhani, but not so much by showing the fundamentality of the correspondence, or its relationship to fundamental issues in Physics. I think there is a connection to press there, but you did not highlight it so well. I think you more wish to celebrate that Mirzakhani made some important advances in fundamental Physics that also tell us something about the black hole hair issue. I think it is interesting that from such a different construction, you also arrived at the result it reduces to a harmonic oscillator problem, just as Christian Corda did in earlier work.

I like that you talked about a means of verification, and that it is possibly within the sensitivity range of current or pending instruments. Your writing continues to improve. I had to give you partial credit in some areas, but I elevated your score.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 05:14 GMT
As a further comment,

I understand that gravitational memory also occurs in models where the event horizon is treated as the quantum critical point of BEC formation, as studied by Dvali and colleagues. There is a correspondence with BMS supertranslations and modes at the horizon, as I recall. My talk at FFP15 was on Gravitation by Condensation, so I talked a lot about the Bose-Einstein condensation model for Schwarzschild EHs and briefly touched on the other.

My current essay incorporates a large subset of what I presented in Spain, in relation to the question of whether gravity is fundamental or emergent. You will probably find my offering a bit too wordy, for your taste, but I do reference some interesting Maths and explain part of it with full rigor in the endnotes.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 14:15 GMT
I scored your essay a week or two ago. It makes a bold proposition about how fractal geometry, and Julia/Mandelbrot sets enter into physics. I will in the ensuing year or so be introducing concepts along these lines. This does play a role in renormalization group flow, and in one sense time is a form of RG flow.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share



austin fearnley wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 17:17 GMT
I have rated your paper and also left a comment on both our papers on my own thread.

Austin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Laurence Hitterdale wrote on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 07:07 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

First I want to thank you for commenting on my essay. I appreciate your mentioning epiphenomenalism. I regard it as a serious alternative, although I also consider it strange and somewhat paradoxical. Overall I am puzzled by the issue of the relationship between consciousness and the rest of things.

Concerning your essay, I have to say that I cannot comment on the mathematical details. As you stated, you are presenting some “serious physics.” However, I did learn from your general conceptual structure. I think I understand the point with which you begin, namely, the two ways of characterizing what is fundamental for physics. If two physical systems apply to the same phenomena, the more fundamental of the two allows for fewer degrees of freedom. The way this is accomplished is through the dynamical laws of the more fundamental system. Those laws show how what were previously thought to be independent degrees of freedom are not in fact independent but “are related to each other by some transformation principle.” At any rate, that is how I read your statements. I had not thought of this way of looking at fundamentality. You can correct me if I have misinterpreted. As I said, I will not comment on the further development of your ideas, but I appreciate the opportunity to become acquainted with your work.

Laurence Hitterdale

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 13:13 GMT
Your description of two descriptions with different degrees of freedom is right. That is in one sense how one can assign which is more fundamental. The description with the fewer is often most fundamental. What I am finding is that two descriptions of quantum gravitation may be equivalent. One description has spacetime variables, while the other has quantum mechanical observables. This is the duality between unitarity of quantum mechanics and the equivalence principle of general relativity.

The application of this is not so clear. I suspect the quantum mechanical variant that upholds unitarity is compatible with string theory. The description with the equivalence principle might be some form of loop variables with something like Penrose's R-process for collapse. I have yet to get to this phenomenological aspect of things.

Currently I am finding the RT formula has information theoretic properties analogous to chaotic and open thermodynamic (Prigogine etc) systems. That is what currently I am finding interesting.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share



Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 04:53 GMT
Dear Lawrence B. Crowell

Just letting you know that I am making a start on reading of your essay, and hope that you might also take a glance over mine please? I look forward to the sharing of thoughtful opinion. Congratulations on your essay rating as it stands, and best of luck for the contest conclusion.

My essay is titled

“Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin”. It stands as a novel test for whether a natural organisational principle can serve a rationale, for emergence of complex systems of physics and cosmology. I will be interested to have my effort judged on both the basis of prospect and of novelty.

Thank you & kind regards

Steven Andresen

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 23:36 GMT
With the measurement issue a quantum system with some set of states, usually rather small in number or with a few number of degrees of freedom, by a classical-like system. By the use of “like” it is a reference to the fact this system is really in fact quantum mechanical. In the sense that Zurek outlines there is a form of quantum decoherence that induces superposition or entanglement phase of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Andrew Beckwith replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 20:01 GMT
quote

The many world interpretation has this feature in it of a product structure of increasingly entangled states. This ψ-ontological interpretation has its mirror in ψ-epistemic interpretations, such as in GRW objective collapse models. Further, quantum interpretations tends to be incomplete and contradict each other. I see this as a possible feature of a Gödelian nature of quantum physics.nWhen it comes to quantum gravity there is a similar gap.

end of quote

Excellent point. THe incompleteness of quantum interpretation you allude to is actually why I used Klauders enhanced quantization in my esssay

Could you please give me your expert opinion of if the enhanced quantization procedure I appealed to in my essay is akin or different from what you are intending to reference in your above quote?

Thanks

Andrew

P.S. my essay is as of December 21st, 2017

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Andrew Beckwith wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 20:01 GMT
quote

The many world interpretation has this feature in it of a product structure of increasingly entangled states. This ψ-ontological interpretation has its mirror in ψ-epistemic interpretations, such as in GRW objective collapse models. Further, quantum interpretations tends to be incomplete and contradict each other. I see this as a possible feature of a Gödelian nature of quantum physics.nWhen it comes to quantum gravity there is a similar gap.

end of quote

Excellent point. THe incompleteness of quantum interpretation you allude to is actually why I used Klauders enhanced quantization in my esssay

Could you please give me your expert opinion of if the enhanced quantization procedure I appealed to in my essay is akin or different from what you are intending to reference in your above quote?

Thanks

Andrew

P.S. my essay is as of December 21st, 2017

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 20:28 GMT
Here is the problem with Klauder's idea. I have to use parentheses for langle and rangle or bra-ket stuff because this system snags up on those. If we have quantum states ψ(p,r,t) = (ψ(t)|p,r) then the operators bf p and bf r (bf before letter stands for operators) act on the wave function

bf pbf rψ(p,r,t) = (ψ(t) bf |pbf r|p,r) = (ψ(t)| bf pr|p,r) = pr(ψ(t)|p,r)

and similarly I can write

bf rbf pψ(p,r,t) = (ψ(t)| bf rbf p|p,r) = (ψ(t)| bf rp|p,r) =rp(ψ(t)|p,r)

where r and p are just eigenvalues or numbers and so rp = pr. We can then conclude [bf p, bf r] = 0, which is a big oopsie. I hinted at this problem and he responded in a way that was a bit testy. There is a problem with pointing out a possible error in somebody’s paper in that they can one-bomb you.

Klauder maintains we can have a position and momentum representation of QM simultaneously. This is generally not admitted. In your paper you use the Schrödinger equation i∂ψ/∂t =Hψ to get under “langle rangle” pdq - Hdt in the classical setting. This turns out to be alright in general.

Quantum mechanics has only one representation at once. Either one has the position or momentum configurations. This hearkens back to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The operators used in a representation act on the variables of that representation. Unfortunately Klauder is trying to do QM in incommensurate variables or operators.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share


Author Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 20:35 GMT
Trying to use the bold tags ---

Here is the problem with Klauder's idea. If we have quantum states ψ(p,r,t) = (ψ(t)|p,r) then the operators p and r act on the wave function

prψ(p,r,t) = (ψ(t) pr|p,r) = (ψ(t)| pr|p,r) = pr(ψ(t)|p,r)

and similarly I can write

rpψ(p,r,t) = (ψ(t) r p|p,r) = (ψ(t)| rp|p,r) = rp(ψ(t)|p,r)

where r and p are just eigenvalues or numbers and so rp = pr. We can then conclude [ p, r] = 0, which is a big oopsie. I hinted at this problem and he responded in a way that was a bit testy. There is a problem with pointing out a possible error in somebody’s paper in that they can one-bomb you.

Klauder maintains we can have a position and momentum representation of QM simultaneously. This is generally not admitted. In your paper you use the Schrödinger equation i∂ψ/∂t =Hψ to get under “langle rangle” pdq - Hdt in the classical setting. This turns out to be alright in general.

Quantum mechanics has only one representation at once. Either one has the position or momentum configurations. This harkens back to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The operators used in a representation act on the variables of that representation. Unfortunately Klauder is trying to do QM in incommensurate variables or operators.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share



Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 12:41 GMT
Hello Lawrence,

Like always it is a pleasure to read your essay, you are surprising Iliked how you arrive at these event horizons and how you inser this QG.

All the best, friendly

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Kamal L Rajpal wrote on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 17:42 GMT
I have read your Essay. A black hole consists of Dark Matter: http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0207v3.pdf

Quantum Mechanics claims that an electron can be both spin-up and spin-down at the same time. In my conceptual physics Essay on Electron Spin, I have proved that this is not true. Please read: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145 or https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Rajpal_1306.0141v3
.pdf

Kamal Rajpal

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 21:48 GMT
Hello again Lawrence,

I appreciate your spelling out your position on the Klauder approach to Andy above. I did not catch the incommensurate usage, so I'll have to go back over it with both eyes open.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James A Putnam wrote on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 04:51 GMT
We are listed next to one another. Two opposites. Since this coincidence has happened, I want you to know that that last ten you got was from me. I consider the order of community ratings an embarrassment. You should be far up there.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.