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.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger 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

Roger Fedrer: on 2/20/19 at 10:00am UTC, wrote Are you still facing any issue then check this website I hope you'll get...

Steve Dufourny: on 2/19/19 at 13:27pm UTC, wrote After all if we want to unify G c and h , the general relativity with the...

Georgina Woodward: on 2/6/19 at 4:41am UTC, wrote Thank you Tejinder, it means a lot to me that you have read my comments....

Steve Dufourny: on 2/4/19 at 14:07pm UTC, wrote A thought intrigues me ….It is important to differenciate even if we have...

Robert McEachern: on 2/2/19 at 23:38pm UTC, wrote Georgina, "The results seem to say something about the effect of the field...

Georgina Woodward: on 2/2/19 at 22:02pm UTC, wrote "The problem is, the physics community has always simply ASSUMED that they...

Eckard Blumschein: on 2/2/19 at 18:36pm UTC, wrote Yes Rob: The error in all Bell tests, occurs in the data analysis. Are...

Robert McEachern: on 2/2/19 at 15:43pm UTC, wrote Georgina, Here is something that summarizes the connection between...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Robert, I though there was a problem with sorting the particles, that being..." in The Nature of Time

Eckard Blumschein: "Rob, You wrote: "Stern-Gerlach experiments do not "orient a particles..." in The Nature of Time

Sunil Sharma: "Really very happy to say,your post is very interesting to read. Online..." in FQXi'ers Debate the Deep...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Gravity's Residue

Roger Fedrer: "If people can act as individual agents,"—with free will—"this will..." in Constructing a Theory of...

Roger Fedrer: "Are you still facing any issue then check this website I hope you'll get..." in YouTube Video Lectures:...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Reality Fans, Any sensible person should know that reality could only..." in Gravity's Residue

Steve Dufourny: "After all if we want to unify G c and h , the general relativity with the..." in YouTube Video Lectures:...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

Constructing a Theory of Life
An all-encompassing framework of physics could help to explain the evolution of consciousness, intelligence, and free will.

Usurping Quantum Theory
The search is on for a fundamental framework that allows for even stranger links between particles than quantum theory—which could lead us to a theory of everything.


FQXi BLOGS
February 21, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: YouTube Video Lectures: Thinking about Quantum Gravity [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Blogger Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Jan. 21, 2019 @ 18:09 GMT
There is likely a deep connection between the study of quantum foundations on the one hand, and the much sought after quantum theory of gravity on the other. Despite the enormous success of quantum theory, there are issues in our understanding of the theory, which need addressing. These include: the nature of the quantum to classical transition, the peculiar nature of quantum non-locality, the problem of time in quantum theory, the extreme dependence of the theory on its own classical limit, and the physical meaning of the wave function. Could it be that addressing these issues requires us to reformulate / modify quantum theory, in such a way that we get rid of the theory's dependence on its own limit, and on classical space-time? If that is the case, then introducing non-classical space-time in quantum theory naturally leads us to a falsifiable quantum theory of gravity. This is the viewpoint developed in the ongoing video lecture series `Thinking about Quantum Gravity'. The lectures are addressed to those undergraduate and graduate students in physics who would like to research in quantum gravity. It is not expected that the viewer will agree with everything that is said in these lectures. Rather, it is hoped that you will find something to think about, as you develop your own thinking towards quantum gravity.



The first video is available on YouTube and every video gives the link to the next one. Your comments and criticisms will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

--

Tejinder P. Singh

Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Don C Foster wrote on Jan. 21, 2019 @ 23:32 GMT
Hi,

I could not find a way to link to second lecture. Would like to follow along.

Thanks.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Blogger Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jan. 22, 2019 @ 02:48 GMT
Dear Don,

The link to the next and previous video is given in the comment field at the bottom of each video.

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 22, 2019 @ 10:31 GMT
Hi Tejinder, I can't see that link after video 0 here or on YouTube.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Blogger Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jan. 22, 2019 @ 11:59 GMT
Dear Georgina,

The link is in the Comments field below Video 0

Link to Video#2: (Chapter 1a)

Link to Video #2

Regards,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wahed BANNOURI wrote on Jan. 22, 2019 @ 15:02 GMT
Good afternoon,

After all someone understand !!!!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKVXxcbJ4YY

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 26, 2019 @ 04:28 GMT
That is the address for "Where in the World are SUSY & WIMPS? - Nima Arkani-Hamed" I don't know if it has any relevance to Tejinder's video series. It sounds like the presenter is in a great hurry to present his material. (Confirmed at the end as not wanting to miss lunch). Seems to be about the standard model and suggested solutions to problems with the theory. The Hierarchy problem, the problem of fine tuning mentioned. Got half way then skipped to the end for any takeaway conclusions. Comparing volume of Earth to volume of Hubble ( I presume the supposed volume relating to what can be generated from input received by the Hubble telescope. And is asking if a God's eye view even makes sense. Left wondering why the video was suggested. What did you want to draw our attention to Wahed?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 22, 2019 @ 22:33 GMT
HI Tejinder, thank you for providing a link. It isn't in the comments field, I've been back to check again.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Blogger Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Jan. 23, 2019 @ 19:36 GMT
New Video Uploaded Today

Video#5 The problem of time in quantum theory

Vd#5

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 23, 2019 @ 21:45 GMT
Forgive me for jumping forward to this video as it seems particularly interesting to me. I intend to watch the earlier ones. I have got as far as the circularity issue. Is t in the equation really a part of space-time? As I see it space-time is a product of observation and the evolution of the system prior to measurement does not require being part of an observer's experience. Is classical space-time produced by classical bodies? Types that can be observer's generating a product but not any body. A body's motion can lead to conditions that bend EM radiation paths but that alone is not generating space-time. It requires input of that EM radiation to a system that generates from it the space-time product. Are classical bodies a limiting case of quantum theory? An observation product in seen space-time is not what is evolving in the pre-observation system.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 23, 2019 @ 22:07 GMT
On the page "Could Consciousness Forge the Universe? I have introduced the terms 'pluripotent' and 'multipotent' to refer to beables, firstly in their 'wild condition' no orientation or context of observation applied and the second term referring to a beable considered with constraint or limitation of possible measured outcome states because of the selected view point and /or method to be applied. These consideration of beables are different from a singular limited, partial view of an object formed into a seen image manifestation. Not only is this dealing with the circularity issue but it suggests that 'many worlds' pertains to the potential of the multiipotent beables considered pre-observation and not fracturing of reality into many alternate worlds comprising all observations (known by a singular observer to have been made and not made) upon observation.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 24, 2019 @ 03:04 GMT
Hi Tejinder I have now watched video 5. Thank you for so clearly setting out the issues. From my previous posts it can be understood that the pluripotent and multipotetnt beables that I mentioned are not classical objects in space-time.There is a categorization error in special relativity, a lack of differentiation between the existing and the seen or observed. Space-time pertains to observations, products generated from received signals not existing outside of the observers.So it is an error to imagine space-time as an independently existing manifold (over which the classical metric is overlaid to get a physical explanation of the space-time points.) The space-time is not the dwelling place of material things. Level 1 would be the existing configuration of the universe of all beables. Each configuration being a time and only the youngest existing.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Blogger Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Jan. 23, 2019 @ 19:41 GMT
The playlist of the five videos uploaded so far is available here

Playlist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 26, 2019 @ 04:43 GMT
Very helpful, thank you.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Blogger Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Jan. 25, 2019 @ 19:07 GMT
Video #6 uploaded today

Video #6

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 26, 2019 @ 04:41 GMT
Video 6: Very clearly explains the issues again. I like the pace. My own thoughts on the double slit experiment: The physics involving the particle and its environment is happening in the unseen universe of beables, not in seen space-time. Agreeing on a level 1 but not exactly agreeing on what that level is. The nature and motion of the particle affects the ubiquitous environment around it. Unseen waves generated in it pass through both slits and their interference affects the path taken by the particle beyond the barrier. The 'ubiquitous environment' does not provide sensory data that can be processed into knowledge about it. So it is not a part of the observer's experienced reality.Yet the experimental results imply its presence outside of experience In the beable universe, rather than the products of sensory processing, the vacuum is not empty but filled.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Blogger Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Jan. 26, 2019 @ 18:45 GMT
Video #7 Uploaded today

A possible resolution of the quantum measurement problem (part 1 of 3)

Video#7

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 26, 2019 @ 21:09 GMT
Another very clearly explained talk, about wave function collapse. My own thoughts; There is a switching of what is being considered. From thinking about a superposition (related to a multipotent beable particle or phenomenon) to considering the limited, fixed, singular outcome state. Which is not a beable but a measurement state or value. It feels like slight of hand. We don't see macroscopic superposition (the pluropotentt or multipotent condition) because seeing is itself a kind of measurement. Potential sensory information (EM radiation) emanating from the object is used in generating a limited, singular observer view. It is not because the pluripotent and multipotent objects are short lived. They are the wild and constrained normal condition of beables. We don't see beables (actualizations). We see manifestations that are observation products.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Blogger Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jan. 28, 2019 @ 05:29 GMT
Thank you Georgia. I am keeping track of your comments. I hope to understand your analogous perspective better in the coming days. You seem to have come to similar conclusions from a philosophical viewpoint!

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 6, 2019 @ 04:41 GMT
Thank you Tejinder, it means a lot to me that you have read my comments. Some I think are ways of thinking about the same ideas but some are disagreeing; but I am happy for you to refute my suggestions, if you disagree with my arguments.

I feel a bit bad about disagreeing. The videos are very good.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Blogger Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Jan. 28, 2019 @ 05:25 GMT
Video 8 Uploaded Today

Video#8

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 1, 2019 @ 01:14 GMT
It seems to me it is the method, which can include exposure to apparatus, that is limiting the outcome that can be obtained to a singular, fixed state outcome, starting with a beable that is under the chosen method multipotent. Re.resolution of Schrodinger's cat 'issue'; Recognizing it is a bad analogy involving distinct beable objects that are not different states of the same object is needed by physics. With uni-temporal sequential evolution of the configuration of all beables they (decayed and un-decayed atom, shards and intact flask, dead and alive cat) can not be simultaneously in the same configuration. Unlike eg. black and ginger cat or heads tails coin. Similarly left and right pointing of the spin state indicator must belong to different beable configurations (different uni-temporal Nows) and cannot be in superposition (pluri- or multipotent ).

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 1, 2019 @ 01:43 GMT
Tejinder, you offer a black and white choice when you ask "what is right QM or spontaneous collapse?" There is the option of neither being quite right. Seems to me the 'collapse' has something to do with the particle itself and its own evolution (under the particular environmental conditions). Though also to do with the the observation by the observer, that is the switching from considering all allowable possibilities to knowing the singular fixed state measurement outcome. Both related to a named beable but categorically different from it and each other.The starting condition modeled has something to do with the multipotent condition of the beable at the outset, but is not the beable. The state found is not the beable object either but to do with how it is known to us, indication of an aspect of it, subsequent to its exposure to the chosen method.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 1, 2019 @ 01:52 GMT
I just mean eg. heads and tails is not a coin and nor is heads up or tails up a coin. But the beable coin ( an example of a multipotent beable) encompasses both outcome possibilities and can produce singular measurement states.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 31, 2019 @ 11:38 GMT
Hello Tejinder,

Thanks for sharing your general ideas about this quantum weakest force, it is a beautiful reasoning.

Best Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 4, 2019 @ 14:07 GMT
A thought intrigues me ….It is important to differenciate even if we have the waves particles duality.Must we consider that waves imply all like matters and Energy and space time or the opposite that particles imply waves ,geometries, toplogies, matters and energies …..It is a subtil difference when we consider the waves like primordial informations or particles.Personally I have chosen the particles.The geometries, topologies, matters, properties , waves…..are created due to main codes Inside the particles.That said they oscillate and are waves also

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 19, 2019 @ 13:27 GMT
After all if we want to unify G c and h , the general relativity with the quantum gravitation, we must insert the sphères and their motions and oscillations and also the dark matter and quantum BHs in our quantum series Simply.The geometrodynamics are with sphères and their morphisms.The loop is well like others works about geometrical algebras but we need to insert these sphères and their motions and oscillations.They turn so they are :)

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.