CATEGORY:
FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017
[back]
TOPIC:
A fundamental Universe by Heinrich Päs
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Heinrich Päs wrote on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 21:34 GMT
Essay AbstractIt is argued that the fundamental description of the Universe must be the Universe itself, understood as an entangled quantum object. This seemingly tautological statement is explained in detail, and some related ideas inspired by this view which could guide the future quest for a Theory of Everything are sketched briefly.
Author BioHeinrich Päs is a Professor of Theoretical Physics at Technische Universität Dortmund, Germany. He works on neutrinos and particle physics beyond the Standard Model. Beyond that, he is interested in the nature of space, time and reality. Accomplishments: Scientific American cover feature,Physical Review D Editorial Board, pop-science book "The Perfect Wave".
Download Essay PDF File
Andrew Beckwith wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 00:49 GMT
Having read your essay where you refer to the universe as an entangled object, what do you make of how fundamental say Quantum Entanglement is ?
Thanks for bringing this educated view point to the forum!
Andrew
P.S. I am inviting you to view, and comment on my essay put up in December 21st
Thanks again for your insights!!!
report post as inappropriate
Author Heinrich Päs replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 19:08 GMT
Dear Andrew,
thanks for your comment. I would say fundamental is the Quantum Universe itself, entanglement is aan attribute we are assigning to it - but only since we are looking at subsystems which only exist in our restricted local perspective anyway.
Best regards, Heinrich
Andrew Beckwith wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 00:50 GMT
I mean quantum entanglement as in the sense of the EPR experiment !!
Just put this in for clarification
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 02:33 GMT
Dear Heinrich Pas,
An enjoyable essay. You note that the truly unique factor of our language is "
its ability to transmit information about things that do not exist at all… Thus "any large-scale human cooperation – whether a modern state, a media evil church, and ancient city, or an archaic tribe – is rooted in common myths that exist only in people's collective...
view entire post
Dear Heinrich Pas,
An enjoyable essay. You note that the truly unique factor of our language is "
its ability to transmit information about things that do not exist at all… Thus "
any large-scale human cooperation – whether a modern state, a media evil church, and ancient city, or an archaic tribe – is rooted in common myths that exist only in people's collective imagination."
But, as you say, "
not all realities are equally fundamental."
You note that in the space-time concept of relativity observers moving with different speeds
will measure different times in space, while the space-time distance
ds is not directly observable. My essay reviews the history of relativity in a way that I hope you find interesting. I would appreciate any comments.
With regard to "
information about things that do not exist at all", you note, for example, Heisenberg's creation of isospin to 'describe' proton and neutron. If one grants that protons and neutrons are in some fundamental sense 'real', this represents one of the first (of many) instances in which
a mathematical projection is used to replace reality. It isn't even a particularly clean projection, as isospin symmetry assumes
equal mass, and even this is not true. This projection-based approach continues to
SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) with the same problem. SU(3) assumes 'equal mass' but it is applied to problems where masses differ by two orders of magnitude.
Thus 'symmetry' (a.k.a. group theory) offers a powerful tool, but I believe
ALL actual instances of 'symmetry' are
approximate. In this way Heisenberg's projected Q-bit evolved to Bell's projected Q-bit which is the basis of "entanglement", which you seem to consider fundamental.
However I do agree that information is immaterial and relies on a material carrier and depends on the perspective of the observer. That is,
only energy travels through space. If that energy crosses a threshold and changes a system's configuration, the system becomes "in"-formed and the
informed structure represents the record of 'information', assuming a codebook or perspective is able to interpret it.
Thank you for a very well-written, interesting perspective on 'what is fundamental?'. I hope you find my essay interesting.
My best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Heinrich Päs replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 19:19 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene,
thanks for reading my essay and for your nice comments.
You are right that isospin is a broken symmetry. However the weak isospin of the Standard Model gauge group is only broken spontaneously - by fiat of the Higgs mechanism. Moreover, color SU(3) of the Standard Model gauge group is not broken at all by quark masses as it rotates in color and not in flavor space.
Anyway, it might be that all symmetries are broken at a fundamental level, that is one of the possibilities I'm also mentioning in my paper. But I believe it could also be possible that fundamental reality is perfectly symmetric and essentially featureless and that structure arises only by looking only at a subset of the fundamental degrees of freedoms. Finally, while I believe that we have some ideas in common, I would argue the fundamental reality can not be energy travelling through space, since of course according to general relativity space and time are dynamic concepts themselves, they also carry energy and thus have to be included in the fundamental concept.
Anyway, I will check out your essay!
Thanks! Heinrich
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 20:14 GMT
Dear Heinrich Päs,
You make several points. For example color SU(3) is not broken by quark mass. Over the decades the theory has changed; originally SU(3) was applied to
up, down, and
strange quarks, and was broken by mass. You're correct about today's interpretation. I do think that the "perfect symmetry" of color SU(3) may indicate a misunderstanding of color, but that's outside of my current essay. And we may agree about the possibility that fundamental reality began as perfectly symmetric; I think that symmetry breaking led to inflation.
GR may be a little more complicated. It does not handle energy density well (or at all). Do you conceive of space and time as constituting mass, or is mass simply added to the picture? Weinberg, Feynman, and Hobson, Efstathio, and Lasenby have all derived Einstein's field equations from flat-space, so I tend to look at energy density distributions in Cartesian space as completely equivalent to space-time geometry. That view is more compatible with my own essay.
I've reread your essay again, and still think it is excellent. I fully agree that "no local constituent can really be fundamental". I do tend to agree that the fundamental universe is a single entity, although we might bicker over the details. While I understand you to prefer an information theoretic approach, I strongly agree with your statement that "so far there is no evidence that information can exist without a material medium or carrier." This bears peripherally on my essay so I still hope you will find time to read my essay and comment.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
austin fearnley wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 12:09 GMT
An excellent and enjoyable essay!
report post as inappropriate
Author Heinrich Päs replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 19:29 GMT
Dear Austin,
thank you very much! I will check out your essay as well!
Best regards, Heinrich
Heinrich Luediger wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 16:09 GMT
Dear Heinrich P.
“Fundamental Reality = Universe without Perspective?” HP. The universe without perspective I suppose is a pre-linguistic universe, that is, the universe as it Really, Objectively and in-and-of-itself is. But that means that nothing whatsoever can be said about the Objective universe, which in turn means that it doesn’t exist or, rather, that it is nothing (or everything if you prefer). My question then: Who would be the bearer of the truth of a universe without perspective? Isn’t Objectivity self-defeating or at least the mere dressing in tales of shut-up-and-calculate 'truths'?
Heinrich L.
report post as inappropriate
Author Heinrich Päs replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 19:39 GMT
Dear Heinrich L. -
that's nice, I rarely meet people sharing my name! Thanks for your comments!
>The universe without perspective, that is, the universe as it Really, Objectively and in-and-of-itself is.
Yes, I agree
>But that means that nothing whatsoever can be said about the Objective universe, which in turn means
> that it doesn’t exist or, rather, that it is nothing (or everything if you prefer).
I don't think so. Even if local observers such as ourselves can not experience the full objective reality we can construct models for it, and if we can derive what we experience by folding our perspective into such a model for the directly unobservable fundamental Universe this model isn't so bad.
But after all this applies to any quantum state, that it is not directly observable.
> My question then: Who would be the bearer of the truth of a universe without perspective? Isn’t
> Objectivity self-defeating or at least the mere dressing in tales of shut-up-and-calculate 'truths'?
I'm not sure whether we will ever have a perfect model for the fundamental reality, but maybe we can approach it, or at least construct models which exhibit some of its properties. I believe at least the last is correct, as our models are amazingly successful.
I will check out your essay. Thanks!
Heinrich P.
Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 16:42 GMT
Dear Professor Heinrich Päs,
FQXI is clearly seeking to find out if there is a fundamental REALITY.
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
post approved
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 20:08 GMT
Your paper was interesting to read. The idea of reality as the world plus perspective or what we might call an observation from a frame is to carry the idea of frame and gauge freedom/independence to matters such as quantum interpretations.
That information needs a material conveyance would seem to imply the Higgs mechanism is necessary for information mechanics to make sense. In a massless world all particles move on null geodesics. They can still contain information, just as a photon can carry information. If these particles interact with each other according to the roots of a Lie algebra that raise and lower states this is a process whereby qubits are transferred. If we let the Higgs field interact, such as the Goldstone bosons absorbed by W^{+/-} and Z these particles convert the degree of freedom of the scalar bosons into an m = 0 spin state or equivalently a longitudinal mode. This restriction on symmetry provides information with more of a conveyance, which is matter.
LC
report post as inappropriate
Francesco D'Isa wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 22:37 GMT
Dear Heinrich,
thank you, yours is really an interesting essay, very enjoyable, I wish you all the best with the contest. I think that:
>Reality = Universe + Perspective and that Fundamental Reality = Universe without Perspective
is a very good point, and I agree that it is close to the philosophies that you quoted in the end of the paper. It's close also to Nagarjuna and to the absolute relativism which I propose in my essay. "Fundamental Reality = Universe without Perspective" sounds like the idea that many mystic thinkers pointed out, even if in an unscientific frame.
You write also that
> On the one hand information itself is immaterial - people have been killed by rocks but nobody ever has been killed by a Beethoven symphony
...not if people are information as well ;)
All the best, Francesco D'Isa
report post as inappropriate
Cristinel Stoica wrote on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 08:28 GMT
Dear Heinrich,
I enjoyed reading your essay! You made an excellent case for decoherence and many worlds/many minds, and how they endorse your proposal that the universe as a whole is what is fundamental. This provides a fresh perspective on unification. Other ideas that I found remarkable in your essay are the comparison between social construct and biological organisms (I think that this can be extended in some measure also to the emergent classical world); the interplay between the higher and lower levels (a theme that I discussed in
my previous essay, from a different perspective); the characterization of the degree of how fundamental is a reality by the observer-independence; and especially this remark "the fundamental Universe is a single entity which only looks like many things as perceived through the lens of decoherence". Maybe the fundamental Universe is simply a quantum state with zero information, the most "spherical" density matrix, yet myriads of worlds of immense complexity exist inside it, the only evidence for their existence being their own testimony to themselves. Since we still have the problem of experimentally proving the MWI (to complement its explanatory power), mainly because the worlds are isolated and unobservable from the outside, I am wondering how this can be done. I remember from our discussion in Castiglioncello that you mentioned
your proposal to test MWI. I think it's a great idea which deserves more attention, and it is perfect for
this. BTW, here's a
short story that I hoped you'll enjoy at your leisure. Congratulations for your essay, and success!
Best regards,
Cristi Stoica, Indra's net
report post as inappropriate
Author Heinrich Päs replied on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 18:21 GMT
Dear Christi,
good to hear from you and thanks a lot for your kind feedback.
I have read your short story about the "quantum god" - very nice, indeed.
We need definitely get together again soon and discuss more about this stuff.
I will check out your essay next!
Heinrich
Anonymous wrote on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 08:34 GMT
Dear Professor Heinrich Päs, your essay is full of thoughts that can influence the New Cartesian physics claiming to be the theory of everything. In the foundation of this physics lies the fundamental identity of space and matter of Descartes. Space is matter, and matter is space. And now I use your words and say: space is a source of information and its guide. You may be interested in my essay, in which, among other things, I showed the connection between the Lorentz factor and the probability density of quantum states.
Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.
post approved
Flavio Del Santo wrote on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 09:42 GMT
Dear Prof. Päs,
thank you for sharing this interesting and well written essay.
Your work seems to suggest, however, that decoherence is the best way to get rid of all the fundamental problems of quantum mechanics, and this is based on Occam's razor. I think that this is a bit simplistic, and it does not really reflect the present situation of the still heated debate on foundations of quantum physics.
I really liked your discussion on emergence and reductionsm, though (you find in my essay similar thoughts).
All good wishes,
FLavio Del Santoa
report post as inappropriate
Author Heinrich Päs replied on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 18:11 GMT
Dear Flavio,
thanks for your comments. Regarding your criticisms I'm somewhat disappointed that you are not very specific, so I can't really say much unless I know in which sense the ideas I'm discussing do appear as "simplistic" and "not reflecting the debate on quantum foundations". While it might be that some practitioners working on quantum information do not fully appreciate the importance of decoherence yet, for example in quantum cosmology it is quite common to adopt a fundamental role of decoherence in quantum foundations, you may for example check out recent works by Kiefer, Zeh, Susskind, Bousso, Tegmark, Carroll and many others.
Regarding emergence and reductionism, I believe we actually have quite different opinions, as you seem to reject reductionism while I would plead for a reinterpretation of naive reductionism in terms of information theory. Also I clearly reject strong emergence while I'm not so sure about your stance.
Anyway, I will check out your essay.
Best regards, Heinrich
James N Rose wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 05:46 GMT
I keep hoping to read new notions, new terminology, in the various essays.
This is a well written piece, names all the traditional research and interpretations, but I don't see any new ground covered. Appreciate the effort, none the less.
report post as inappropriate
Ajay Pokhrel wrote on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 04:14 GMT
Hello Heinrich,
A well-written essay.I have rated a good score because of your logic. You think that quantum universe is fundamental through entanglement and that's a good belief as you have presented logic in your essay.
I was confused in a part where you quote: Reality=Universe+ perception.
Here, do you mean that reality is what we view or what we believe? What I believe is reality is what we deduce from mathematics and pattern as discussed in
my essay.
I wish you good luck in the competition.
Kind Regards
Ajay Pokharel
post approved
Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 05:06 GMT
Dear Heinrich Päs
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
report post as inappropriate
James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 06:22 GMT
Heinrich,
We are all searching for the ultimate fundamental universe, but our discoveries tell us again and again that the fundamental evolves and continually remains beyond our reach. You mention a number of the theories and the wonders of our universe: from a Beethoven symphony to Everett's multiverse concept. The LHC will take us to the cusp of the quantum state of the universe. The most sensitive LIGO will take us back to the big bang. But with all of this, quantum biologists see quantum coherence in warm, wet, turbulent environments thru the simple process of photosynthesis. Our Jupiter probe redefines our knowledge of a huge gaseous planet. These are some of the thing I see in my essay. Hope you can check it out.
Jim Hoover
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 12:59 GMT
Respected Prof Heinrich Päs
Nice understanding about the universe..... understood as an entangled quantum object. This seemingly tautological statement is explained in detail, and some related ideas inspired by this view which could guide the future ............
By the way have a look at my essay sir...
Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed...……..….....
view entire post
Respected Prof Heinrich Päs
Nice understanding about the universe..... understood as an entangled quantum object. This seemingly tautological statement is explained in detail, and some related ideas inspired by this view which could guide the future ............
By the way have a look at my essay sir...
Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed...……..….. yours is very nice essay best wishes …. I highly appreciate hope your essay and hope for reciprocity ….You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance
Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :-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 GR on any condition
-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models
-No many mini Bigbangs
-No Missing Mass / Dark matter
-No Dark energy
-No Bigbang generated CMB detected
-No Multi-verses
Here:
-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies
-Newton’s Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way
-All bodies dynamically moving
-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium
-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe
-Single Universe no baby universes
-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only
-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..
-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass
-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step
-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering
-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet
-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy
-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.
- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true….Have a look at
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.h
tml
I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information……..
Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.
In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from “http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ ”
I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you repliedBest
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 18:37 GMT
Dear Heinrich Päs,
I enjoyed your essay, since it tries to squeeze out as much information as possible out of the assumption that there is a global wave function governing all of reality (‚the universe’).
I want to point you to the fact that the many-worlds-interpretation, means the assumption of a psi-ontic global wave function is a logical trickster in the following...
view entire post
Dear Heinrich Päs,
I enjoyed your essay, since it tries to squeeze out as much information as possible out of the assumption that there is a global wave function governing all of reality (‚the universe’).
I want to point you to the fact that the many-worlds-interpretation, means the assumption of a psi-ontic global wave function is a logical trickster in the following sense.
The MWI allows one to use the principle of non-contradiction together with its assumed ‘complement’ – the principle of contradiction.
It does so by assigning a probabilistic as well as a strictly deterministic ontology to one and the same events.
Consider for example me, obsvering a particle’s spin up in a measurement. In a branched universe another individual (although totally identical with me – but nonetheless *another* individual) observes spin down for ‘the same’ particle.
Since such a branching, such a splitting is thought of as happening deterministically, the question remains why the individual should see the ‘complementary’ result of my measurement and not vice versa. One can only deny this dichotomy by assuming that ‘spin up’ and ‘spin down’ are only observer-relative due to decoherence. But one cannot deny that nature must assign a certain well-defined value in my universe.
Since I am distinct from the other individual for which nature has assigned another value (the complementary value for example), I can’t even in the bird’s view answer the question why it should be me and not the other individual that observes the measurement value I observe.
Since the other individual is thought of as identical with me at the moment the measurement outcome is fixed – but only as far as its thoughts and its body is concerned, but *not* in the sense that it has the exact same location within the wave function – the other individual will exactly conclude what I conclude: there is no cause in nature (at least not within a global wave function alone!) that could assign the measurement outcome that I observed. Hence there is also no cause in nature that the other individual should observe its ‘complementary’ measurement outcome.
If there is no cause in nature that assigns a specific event in my world or in the world of the other individual, the global wave function cannot be psi-ontic or must have some additional features.
What the MWI does here is that it mimicks a kind of ‘coincidentia oppositorum’, al melting of mutually exclusive concepts. It mimicks the coincidentia oppositorum of a probabilistic and a strictly deterministic version of natural behaviour for the same event. It can do so, because from a frog’s view, it seems that both individuals in both branches are one and the same – with just a tiny difference in their environment (and finally in their brains where the measurement results are realized!).
Since everything is identical, even the particle before the measurement, this kind of coincidencia opppositorum seems like the mystical enlightenment of the real fundament of all there is. The price to pay is that we have married two mutually exclusive concepts by the very means we started from: namely by the superposition principle. This principle intertwines the law of non-contradiction with its ‘complement’, the principle of deductive explosion.
It may well be that nature is regularily confronted (before an arbitrary measurement takes place) with a multitude of possibilities that the principle of explosion represents, but the MWI does not resolve the presence of the principle of explosion. Moreover, the MWI does shift the problem of this principle from superpositions to branching in a deterministically manner, but cannot get rid of the probabilistic part, since within the formalism of quantum mechanics, there is nothing that could assign the well-defined measurement value that I will see when I make my next measurement. In this sense, the outcome must remain ‘random’, albeit this randomness is surely restricted by the probabilistic part of the formalism.
In conclusion, no individual in any part of the multitude of different branches within the MWI can predict the next outcome of a probabilistic quantum measurement. Since this seems to be true for me, I conclude that the MWI only mimicks a consistent interpretation. It does so to the price of eliminating an observer-independent world by claiming that it is perfectly observer-independent. Stated differently: the frog’s and the bird’s view cannot be complementary, since logically they have to be understood as mutually exclusive. They only can be made complementary by adding the principle of explosion.
One now may argue that the principle of explosion wasn’t added at all, since it is a natural element of the formalism, means the superposition principle. This may be true, but does not eliminate the fact that the principle of explosion is present in the MWI together with the law of non-contradiction. The latter has is expression in the branching and its implication that branched universes cannot anymore communicate or causally interact with each other (unless one doesn’t introduce a special kind of recoherence). The former is a consequence of the formalism itself, namely the superposition principle.
In summary, what the bird’s view perceives as a kind of ‘coincidencia oppositorum’ is true, but it is the interwining of the principle of explosion with the principle of non-contradiction. Therefore it is no wonder that the MWI can ‘deduce’ all kinds of things for different branches – as long as the probability for these things to occur is not exactly zero. Or stated otherwise, as long as these things are not impossible in-principle. Since the main principle in this consideration is the formalism of quantum mechanics, the MWI and its multitude of worlds is a direct consequence of the principle of explosion.
But there is one thing the principle of explosion cannot handle. This is the fact that there are at all observers that can facilitate different interpretations of quantum mechanics. Since the formalism of quantum mechanics does not show the slightest signs that it should enable some self-reflection (in the form of observers), this formalism seems for me to not capture the universe as a whole (unless one interprets the timeless wave function as being fundamentally conscious and able to split this consciousness in some mysterious manner by its own branching).
Don’t bother about my long comment, I like to make my thoughts as tracable as possible for the sake of exchange of viewpoints and arguments.
Hope the formatting problem of the fqxi-editor is now solved... :-)
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Jochen Szangolies wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 20:25 GMT
Dear Heinrich,
there is much I like and agree with about your essay. The notion of the 'fundamental universe' is close to my own thoughts---I think of it as the 'quagmire', after a quotation from Schrödinger:
"Nearly every result [a quantum physicist] pronounces is about the probability of this or that or that... happening—with usually a great many alternatives. The idea that they...
view entire post
Dear Heinrich,
there is much I like and agree with about your essay. The notion of the 'fundamental universe' is close to my own thoughts---I think of it as the 'quagmire', after a quotation from Schrödinger:
"Nearly every result [a quantum physicist] pronounces is about the probability of this or that or that... happening—with usually a great many alternatives. The idea that they be not alternatives but all really happen simultaneously seems lunatic to him, just impossible. He thinks that if the laws of nature took this form for, let me say, a quarter of an hour, we should find our surroundings rapidly turning into a quagmire, or sort of a featureless jelly or plasma, all contours becoming blurred, we ourselves probably becoming jelly fish."
This quagmire can be split into 'observer' and 'environment' in many different ways, all of which give rise to a different set of 'relative facts' (this term, I think, I stole from Jeff Barrett)---relative to one observer, the electron spin is up, relative to another, it's down, and so on.
But let me for the moment be contrarian and try to challenge your rejection of strong emergence. For this, suppose we have a universe with three kinds of particles---A, B, and C---complete with laws governing their behavior. This constitutes the complete set of 'fundamental facts' about this universe: any sort of god needs only fix those, and the rest must follow.
Now, we might add a fourth, D kind of particle: this certainly changes nothing, other than more fundamental, irreducible facts need to be added. But what if this particle, say, is a particular composite of A, B, and C-particles? Thus, A-particles might behave one way when isolated, but another way when in a certain conjunction with B- and C-particles; moreover, that they behave this way is not implied by the fundamental facts pertaining to those particles. It's an additional fundamental fact, albeit not on the same level as the facts about A, B, and C-particles.
To me, this doesn't seem any more controversial than, say, adding charge to a massive ball, and having it move in an electromagnetic field: without the charge, gravity alone suffices to determine its motion, but with charge, we have to take electromagnetism into consideration, too. A ball that would have been falling under the influence of gravity alone might be held in suspension by a clever dynamic arrangement of electromagnetic fields.
Similarly, a conglomerate of A, B, and C-particles (i.e. a D-particle) might move according to the rules for A, B, and C-particles, but might also move in accordance with additional rules that obtain for D-particles.
The real problem is, I think, that all of the fundamental facts about the various kinds of particles are ultimately not further justifiable. They're Archimedean points, incapable of being reduced to more fundamental facts (since if they could be, they'd hardly be fundamental). Facts of such a kind on higher levels do not themselves seem any more suspect to me---the problem is really with their irreducible nature, not with the level they're on. It's just that we're more comfortable with such foundations being all the way at the bottom.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Christophe Tournayre wrote on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 07:09 GMT
Dear Heinrich,
Your essay is interesting. One hypothesis could also be that the material carrier is an information carrier it itself?
Kind regards,
Christophe
report post as inappropriate
James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 17:48 GMT
Heinrich,
I feel every concept contributes to an understanding of “fundamental,” so I am reviewing my own sketchy evaluations to help my understanding and see if I have rated them. I find that I did not rate yours and will remedy that today. Hope you get a chance to check out mine.
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 14:05 GMT
Dear Professor Paz,
I found that an interesting read and view of the issues. I confess I'm still unconvinced about decoherence and the many worlds interpretation but you painted a good picture.
My reservations are on two grounds; as an astronomer/observational cosmologist finding good evidence for another (cyclic) model on which we've published, then more importantly I seem to have new findings suggesting another direction for resolving the mysteries of QM, then apparently more.
Before questioning and discussions I hope you'll have a careful look at the resulting apparent classical derivation in my essay, invoking new momenta from Maxwell, a simple experiment, and a full ontology. (a consistent code and plot is also in Declan Traills essay). I hope you're familiar enough with QM to be able to assess or identify any flaws.
Thank you for yours and good luck in the contest.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 08:18 GMT
Dear Professor Heinrich Päs, your essay is full of thoughts that can influence the New Cartesian physics claiming to be the theory of everything. In the foundation of this physics lies the fundamental identity of space and matter of Descartes. Space is matter, and matter is space. And now I use your words and say: space is a source of information and its guide. You may be interested in my essay, in which, among other things, I showed the connection between the Lorentz factor and the probability density of quantum states. Look at my essay,
FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes. Evaluate and leave your comment there. I highly value your essay; however, do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness, which wants to be the theory of everything OO.
Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 15:39 GMT
Heinrich,
This is a very clear view of a holistic perspective.
I would observe though, that a more precise delineation between information and its medium is between energy and form. Energy can only be known by the form it projects, while form requires energy to manifest, as obviously without energy it would collapse into the void.
This goes to one of my pet issues, that we...
view entire post
Heinrich,
This is a very clear view of a holistic perspective.
I would observe though, that a more precise delineation between information and its medium is between energy and form. Energy can only be known by the form it projects, while form requires energy to manifest, as obviously without energy it would collapse into the void.
This goes to one of my pet issues, that we look at time in reverse. As we experience reality as flashes of distilled perception, we think of it as the point of the present, "flowing" past to future. Physics codifies this as measures of duration, between events. The reality is it is change turning future to past, as in tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth turns. Duration is simply the present, as events form and dissolve.
Different clocks can run at different rates, because they are separate actions. All things being equal, a faster clock uses energy quicker, as with metabolism. Time is asymmetric because it is a measure of action, which is inertial. The earth turns one direction, not both.
There is no underlaying dimension, because time is an effect, like temperature. Time is the individual frequency, while temperature is masses of frequency and amplitude.
So to go back to energy and form, they go opposite directions of time. As energy is conserved, it is always and only present, but changing configurations, goes from prior to succeeding, as these forms come and go, future to past.
Consider the relationship between processes and entities, as in a factory, where the product goes start to finish, future to past, as the process consumes material and expels product, pas to future.
As with species and individuals, where the individual goes birth to death, while the species is constantly moving onto new generations and shedding old.
Or our consciousness and thoughts, as consciousness is constantly generating new perceptions and forgetting old ones.
Yet since the narrative and memory of our minds have become so well developed, it is the basis of history, logic and civilization, so we view it as foundational.
Keep in mind though, that we developed this mind and central nervous system to process form/information, along with the digestive, respiratory and circulatory systems to process the energy to carry it forward. So if one wants to know the past, they study the information, but if they want to know the future, they must study the energy.
Also consider galaxies are composed of energy radiating out, as form coalesces in.
In nature, thermodynamics creates time. Expand, consolidate. Everything is either seed or fertilizer for the next.
Regards,
John B Merryman
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 07:22 GMT
Dear Heinrich
If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don’t rate them at all. Infact I haven’t issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to...
view entire post
Dear Heinrich
If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don’t rate them at all. Infact I haven’t issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to gain.
Beyond my essay’s introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity’s effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me and my essay in questioning this circumstance?
My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a “narrow range of sensitivity” that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn’t then gas accumulation wouldn’t be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.
Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn’t we consider this possibility?
For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we “life” are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.
My essay is attempt of something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up a potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond formation activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemistry processes arose.
By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might explain for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.
To steal a phrase from my essay “A world product of evolved optimization”.
Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest
Kind regards
Steven Andresen
Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 15:08 GMT
Heinrich,
I read your essay some ago, and just now rated it. I would say more, but I don't want to take time away from enjoying your book
The Perfect Wave. Cowabunga, dude.
Best,
Tom https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3124
report post as inappropriate
Kamal L Rajpal wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 17:43 GMT
Dear Heinrich Pas,
I have read your Essay wherein you make a mention of EPR. Einstein was right when he did not agree with the EPR experiment conclusions and had said, “spooky action at a distance” cannot occur and that, “God does not play dice”. Please read Linear Polarization http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0174v5.pdf
QM 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
Kamal Rajpal
report post as inappropriate
corciovei silviu wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 13:24 GMT
Mr. Pas!
A friend of mine recommended your essay. It was a nice read and I fully enjoyed your perspective (especially chapter 5) .
Rate it accordingly. Further words are useless.
If you would have the pleasure for a short axiomatic approach of the subject, I will appreciate your opinion.
Silviu
report post as inappropriate
Don Limuti wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 00:12 GMT
Hello Heinrich,
Sometimes it take a lot of words to describe something extremely fundamental. You did it!
Tell me if this makes sense: The universe is a giant superposition that decoheres into stuff like us and our environment. A quantum multiverse that makes more sense than Everett's multiverse.
I went after something a little smaller than the whole universe....space-time.
Do take a look.
I am glad I found your essay before the end of the contest.
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Mar. 11, 2018 @ 01:00 GMT
The concept of emergence is misunderstood in this Essay. Emergence doesn't imply that higher level properties aren't derivable from lower-level properties. They are. Emergence states that high level properties aren't reducible to lower-level properties of
components alone. This is why P.W. Anderson titled his famous article as "More is different".
As a consequence of this...
view entire post
The concept of emergence is misunderstood in this Essay. Emergence doesn't imply that higher level properties aren't derivable from lower-level properties. They are. Emergence states that high level properties aren't reducible to lower-level properties of
components alone. This is why P.W. Anderson titled his famous article as "More is different".
As a consequence of this misunderstanding all the following discussion about hierarchy of science and "In this hierarchy physics defines the foundation, chemistry is the physics of the outer atomic orbits, biology deals
with the chemistry of complex organic molecules,..." is wrong. As Anderson demonstrated chemistry isn't applied physic, biology isn't applied chemistry,...
"higher levels of description may actually be more deterministic (a typical example is that macroscopic classical physics appears to be more deterministic than microscopic quantum mechanics)". Maybe if one reduces macroscopic to mean "deterministic Hamiltonian physics" only, because many macroscopic descriptions developed by chemists, biologists, during last centuries aren't deterministic. E.g. kinetic chemists have always considered chemical reactions as stochastic processes.
Zeh is wrong, when he claims there is no particles. Of course, there are particles, they are routinely detected in experiments.
Decoherence doesn't have anything to do with observers and lost of information. Decoherence also happen when there is no observers present and the physical mechanism doesn't have anything to do with ignorance about the environment, but is a dynamical consequence of resonances between the environment and the coupled system. Those resonances generate dissipation and lost of purity on the quantum state of the system.
The idea that decoherence produces "quasi-classical objects such as particles with a definite location emerge" is also incorrect. The phenomenon of decoherence erases the non-diagonal components of the density matrix, but the final result continues being a superposition of states, one per diagonal element of the matrix, not a delta-like f(x).
"In rapport with Zeh's understanding, particles are usually understood as field excitations in quantum field theory". Which is incorrect, because (i) field theory cannot fully describe bound states, so cannot describe fully interacting particles and (ii) those 'excitations' aren't real particles, but unphysical bare particles.
The Unruh effect is based in uncritical mixture of quantum field theory ideas with relativistic ideas and thermodynamic ideas.
"Adopting Occam's razor, one can assume now, that the process of decoherence is entirely responsible for the quantum-to-classical transition which leads to various decohered quasi-classical realities, the so-called Everett branches". But it is well-known that decoherence doesn't explain classical world neither measurements. And Everett ideas have been debunked dozens of times.
"This interpretation of the quantum measurement process is usually known as the Many-Worlds-Interpretation, Many-Minds-Interpretation or Universal Quantum Mechanics." In reality MWI isn't a valid interpretation of QM. Some criticism of early Everett ideas can be found here
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physfaq/topics/manywor
lds
"In contrast to dt and dx the spacetime distance ds is, however, not directly observable" because ds is a geometrical construct but the closely related tau is a physical magnitude that can be measured with a proper clock.
Neither it is true that the quantum mechanical wave function is unanimous for any observer.
"the protons and neutrons constituting the atomic nucleus behave so similar that they can be understood as two states of a single particle". They cannot and the reason why we treat them as different particles.
Since when is "direct observability" a requirement for a fundamental description? And what is wrong with an observed-dependent description when the descriptions of the observers can be linked via transformation theory?
"In thermodynamics, states such as gases or liquids are described by parameters or state functions such as temperature, pressure or volume. These state functions are not fundamental in the sense that they do not correspond to a specific configuration of the constituent atoms or molecules (a so-called "microstate"), but to a statistical average of microstates known as "macrostate". This is constraining the concept of thermodynamics to mean XIX century thermodynamics only. Today we can define temperature directly from the microstate, and study fluctuations of temperature around the average; and the same happens with pressure. For instance the pressure in terms of phase space is given by
So if we don't pretend that the discipline of thermodynamics was frozen in century XIX, we can go beyond the classic concepts and even introduce quantum thermodynamics, which is an extension of quantum mechanics to non-pure (thermal) states.
"The normalized logarithm of the number of microstates corresponding to a given macrostate is known as entropy". This is the statistical concept of entropy, not the thermodynamic one, and this Boltzmanian definition of statistical entropy isn't valid for canonical ensembles for instance. Subsequent discussion is based in such confusions.
"Consequently, the fundamental state of the Universe has zero-entropy (and is arguably timeless). In fact, the Wheeler-DeWitt equation [17] of canonical quantum gravity describes a timeless Universe on the fundamental level". The WdW is a wrong equation, as admitted even by one of his authors.
"Turning back to quantum mechanics, it is well known that in the quantum-to-classical transition the von-Neumann entropy increases as a consequence of the information loss into the environment." Even if we loosy associate entropy with 'information', information isn't lost in the process. In fact quantum mechanics conserves the von-Neumann entropy by virtue of the quantum analog of the Liouville theorem.
"Thus the fundamental state of the Universe can not be a constituent, it has to be the total entangled system of observer, measured system, and environment, also known as the quantum Universe itself." Quantum mechanics isn't a fundamental theory (the field of emergent quantum mechanics is a hot topic of research those days); so a "quantum Universe" is only an approximate conception of Universe.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.