Nice, Florin!
I don't see any problem with all answers in quantum computing returning 42, when 42 is renormalized to 1.
In other words, any non-zero integer tells us that the answer to a polynomial time problem is yes, because NP-complete problems should return a probability in the interval [0,1] and NP-hard problems a zero.
That is, suppose we allow states of superposition a correspondence to infinite degrees of freedom in a complex space, where time by quantum rules (just as Scott Aaronson has it) is t = 0. Then any Lesbegue measure (i.e., real physical) result t > = 1 obviates a probabilistic result on the real interval [0,1] representing time T, assuming t --> T is arbitrary length 1 on the sequence of real integers. This assumption holds with the 2 degrees of freedom of the time metric (minus infinity to plus infinity) with minus infinity on the nonphysical part of the complex plane. Time's range is infinite; time's domain is restricted to 2 dimensions.
Therefore:
If one point of real time corresponds to one complex point (i.e., a line in complex analysis) of space, the combined space-time real result should give us an integer real part with zero complex part -- of the form X + 0i.
As a corollary, there is no grandfather paradox in time travel, because for all real solutions in polynomial time there is a unique path in the minus infinity direction (imaginary time) where branching events in space with infinite degrees of freedom correspond to 1 and only 1 real time (real integer) non-probabilistic (deterministic) result. So however probable it may appear to be, applying the "equally likely" hypothesis, to travel back along a time line to where one's grandfather exists, the equally likely hypothesis does not apply, and here's why:
When we assess the likelihood of events in real analysis, we assume existence within boundary conditions constrained by spacetime with events equally distrinbuted. A complex space in which quantum events have infinite degrees of freedom and the time metric only 2 degrees of freedom, conditions the real result such that there is a zero probability of meeting one's grandfather on the trip back through imaginary time, because space without a time metric (and assuming that time structures space), events in imaginary time are not equally likely -- they are equally and uncountably infinite, which means zero probability of continuity with R^3, with its countable infinity of points.
One travels "back" to a completely random field, and since one knows that being a descendant of one's grandfather was not random, that "white noise" of Scott's implies zero probability of matching real point for complex point.
Not being familiar with Scott Aaronson's results, but going by your summary -- it looks to me like he's nailed it.
My own results involving the problem of time and quantum rules are in my preprint "On breaking the time barrier," on the InterJournal archive (google T H Ray).
Thanks, Florin.
Tom
view post as summary
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 21, 2010 @ 17:26 GMT
HIHIHI Hi Dr Cosmic Ray ... 1
1
2
8
42
262
1 828
13 820
110 954
933 458
8 152 860
73 424 650
678 390 116......the combination and the segmentation of the.....
THE CONJECTURE OF THE DAY.
...THE SPHERE CONJECTURE......THE NUMBER OF MEANDERS AND POINCARR2 AND RIEMANN OF COURSE .....OPEN OR CLOSED ...PROFINITE AND FINITRE GROUPS OF COURSE.....THE ZETA FUNCTION LIKE A BRIDGE BETWEEN PRIMES AND GEOMETRY OF COURSE.....
FOR FUN ...1 2 4 6 8 10 16 26 42.....THUS 1 2 3 4 ?.....the algebras of our atoms and particles are ....
Regards
Steve
ps they are crazzy these belgians
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Jul. 21, 2010 @ 18:55 GMT
Dear Ray,
2, 4, 6, 8
who do we appreciate? Ray! Ray! Ray!
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 21, 2010 @ 19:00 GMT
and the volume thus is .....renormalization must be realistic !!! if not even the H and O numbers aren't understood.....
IMAGINARY TIME ....FALSE
INFINITE GROUPS ..FALSE
COMPLEX EXTRAPOLATIONS ...FALSES
ANY SENSE IN A PHYSICAL AND RATIONAL AND LOGIC POINT OF VUE....THE REALISM OF THE SPACE TIME IS NOT THIS ROAD OF CONFUSIONS.
42 AHAHAHAH IT4S MY SIZE OF FEET
hihihi they block of 42 you imagine , for a meander number open perhaps or closed ahahah infinite no but I dream.
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Jul. 21, 2010 @ 19:09 GMT
Making a result realistic is what "renormalization" means.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Steve Duduf replied on Jul. 21, 2010 @ 19:24 GMT
hihih and your results proove the time machine .....renormalization of what .....laugh is good for health no dear Tom the mathematicians, rationals and realistics.
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Jul. 21, 2010 @ 19:49 GMT
Dear Steve,
The history of Physics is a history of using Math to represent Nature. When math seems to give unrealistic singularities, we renormalize those unrealistic "solutions" away. Effectively, that is renormalization, and we use renormalization in QED and the Renormalization Group Equations (RGE's) to manipulate bare masses and bare charges that seem to introduce singularities. I once studied this closely - hoping to overthrow it in favor of my Quantum Statistical Grand Unified Theory (QSGUT) - but ultimately realized that renormalization is a reasonable approach to the problem. Once I broadened my perspective, I realized that the RGE's and QSGUT could BOTH be TRUE. That realization lead to my discovery of Variable Coupling Theory.
My extrapolations seem reasonable to me. In fact, I am trying to renormalize the Black Hole "singularity", which also effectively renormalizes the Big Bang "primordial atom". But I admit that - with the possible exception of Coldea et al, the LHC, and/or Astrophysical data - we may not uncover sufficient experimental evidence of Hyperspace in our lifetimes. I might never convince anyone that 28 dimensions are a reasonable model of reality.
Perhaps I should quit trying to solve puzzles that no one else understands, become a monk or something, and live as a hermit at the top of a mountain.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 21, 2010 @ 20:20 GMT
hihihii like a hermit at the top of a mountain, intersting , hihihii it's better to be in the center of a forest, like siddharta gottama,because at this top, Ray, it's difficult to cultivate, thus ....always a question of soils No????
here we haven't mounatins, snif it's sad, but we have our small mountain of charcoal....the coal fields....it's my region. ........under the cries of mothers,the tired granfathers of the small belgium and the hour without sun.....even the young men worked.
We see these little mountains everywhere around here, like memmories of sweats,of perpirations.
Friendly
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Jul. 21, 2010 @ 20:38 GMT
Dear Steve,
Florida doesn't have any mountains either - just lots of flowers, orange groves, sunshine, beaches, and tourist traps. The last couple of years, we went on vacations to Cherokee, North Carolina (Great Smoky Mountains National Park - my wife is part Cherokee), and Jackson Hole, Wyoming (Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks). I'm not sure that a warm-weather person like myself would want to hassle with a Wyoming winter. I just said "mountain" to be different...
Have Fun!
And remember, the answer is always 42!
report post as inappropriate
Florin Moldoveanu replied on Jul. 22, 2010 @ 05:21 GMT
Thanks Ray,
Scott’s paper generated a lively debate, and I could only ask him a single question at the end before time had run out. He avoids the grandfather paradox via Deutsch’s idea: every stochastic evolution equation has at least a fixed point, and this always corresponds to a self-consistent solution. In particular, the solution to the classic grandfather paradox is to consider 2 parallel universes and the time traveler jumping from one universe to another and back: I go back I time and kill my grandfather from the parallel universe which prevents me from being born in that universe, which prevents “me from the other universe” to kill my grandfather because he was not born, which makes everything consistent upon my return to my own universe. In a way this is the “perfect murder“: a person from a parallel universe committed the crime and escaped without a trace back to his universe.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 22, 2010 @ 08:38 GMT
Florin,
how do you feel about that "solution"? Is that OK with you so long as the mathematics works? Or do you have some disquiet about such "solutions"?
It sounds completely fantastic and contrived, which makes the mathematics irrelevant to me. There is no paradox when the misunderstanding of time is rectified. It is the false assumption that time is a part of the structure of the material universe that has caused the misunderstanding and leads to such nonsense.It is only a part of the observed simulation of the universe.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 22, 2010 @ 10:53 GMT
Hi all,
dear Florin, brrrr I fear now of this paradox ....hihih
Dear Dr Cosmic Ray,
that seems very beautyiful the florida....perhaps one day I will visit the oranges plantations.hihi and I will drink a cocktail on the beach,
could you tell me if the florida women are beautiful, if yes I arrive hihihi
Ps 42 ..interesting indeed this meandric number.....the primordial serie and the primes distributions, the volumes are their sisters ,the rotations are their bothers.....
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Florin Moldoveanu replied on Jul. 22, 2010 @ 21:45 GMT
Georgina,
The answer is not contrived at all. A similar thing happens in a standard interferometer: a light source is split 50/50 with a half-silvered mirror and recombined with another half-silvered mirror generating 2 output beams. Then the arms are adjusted in such a way that in one output one gets 100% interference and 0 output, and the other port gets 100% of the output. This has a nice classical feeling about it, but it also has a corresponding QM description which if told in the language of Everett’s interpretation is similar with the same description from my earlier post. Think in this case of interferences with a single photon at a time and how the universe splits in 2 copies when the photon passes through the 50% mirror. Even stranger things happen when one combines 2 interferometers like in Hardy’s paradox.
About time travel, while self-consistent solutions are possible in both QM and classical cases, once one turns on interaction problems start appearing, mostly in terms of loosing coherence. But problems are best illustrated when one considers free will as well. In this case Deutsch’s solution does not hold water anymore, as the overall system is no longer obeying his original assumption of stochastic evolution, and genuine paradoxes appear. However, this argument may not sway the non-believers in free will who contend that free will is only an illusion.
So back to the interferometer, here is the Everett description. A single photon is emitted by the source, and passes through the first 50/50 mirror. At that point the universe splits in 2 and in universe 1 (U1) the photon travel through the left arm of the interferometer (L), while in universe 2 (U2) the photon travels through the right arm (R). They reunite at the second 50/50 mirror and the U1 photon is killed by the U2 photon making the U2 photon to emerge victorious on the R port 100% of the time, while the L port has 0% output. (If you want to add time travel, to this description, do it in the transactional interpretation of QM.)
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 24, 2010 @ 01:55 GMT
Florin,
thank you for your reply. I do appreciate the time you spent. I do not underestimate the cleverness involved in such work and the paradox solution is itself amusing. Why don't both selves decide to enter the other's universe simultaneously and either overlap in their missions annihilating each other by killing reciprocal grandfather's or collide mid swap and prevent the mission? Contrived does seem to fit my intended meaning. My dictionary says, planned, artificial, forced, unnatural. I agree with all of those descriptors other than forced. I do not know how difficult this stuff is to achieve or if it falls into place quite easily and that is why such ideas are given credibility.
report post as inappropriate
Florin Moldoveanu replied on Jul. 24, 2010 @ 05:13 GMT
Georgina,
The main feature of QM is the superposition principle (which looks very strage from our macroscopic point of view) All this multi-universe idea is only trying to make sense of the superposition principle and thinking along those lines, in some cases, one can easily do the QM math in one's head which would otherwise require paper and pencil. Personally, I don't take Everett's description seriously because think of what it tells you: a most humble electron when faced with a decision is able to split the entire universe in 2 copies. To put it in perspective, when was the last time when someone was able to part the Red Sea, (and that was only a minuscule part of the universe)?
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Jul. 24, 2010 @ 11:47 GMT
Florin,
Universes don't split into two copies; that will violate conservation of energy. You just have to accept that the universe is made out of wavy objects. Wavy objects can't be points. Although we can occasionally detect the presence of a particle at a point.
report post as inappropriate
Florin Moldoveanu replied on Jul. 25, 2010 @ 01:41 GMT
Jason,
Universe branching in Everett's interpretation does not violate energy conservation. In each copy the energy is converved. And in a "multi-verse" union of universes, the energy conservation would mean that the notion of time is well defined, which is not. Everett's idea brings intuition to the notion of the cat beying both dead and alive at the same time: it is dead in one universe, and alive in another. QM is trange and something has to give: you have to either accept quantum superposition (the cat beying dead and alive - standard QM), or multi-copies of the universe (Everett), or superluminal communication (Bohm), or information form the future (transactional interpretation), etc.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Jul. 25, 2010 @ 02:03 GMT
Florin,
"QM is strange and something has to give:.." Ugh! I'm not even sure if that is true anymore.
Universe branching is portrayed as physically real universes. But universes have an energy content of 1BB or one Big Bang. That is a lot of energy just to bring into existence a whole other complete universe. I have paid very strict attention to energy conservation within a multiverse. In fact, I have even stated that FTL physics requires that the spaceship transfer its total energy content from one space-time to another with a more favorable speed of light.
The reason the superposition of states (cat is both dead and alive, but not sick) is confusing is because of the misconception that all states are fully manifest. Try this instead. Every where there are multiple eigenstates, insert dice. Take a marker and a coin and write on one side DEAD and on the other side ALIVE. That will determines Schrodinger's cat's fate. By the way, cats only live 20 years. If Schrodinger had a cat, it's dead now.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 25, 2010 @ 11:48 GMT
Florin,
If it is accepted that a thing is existentially real but continuously changing and unknowable until observation, then there is no need for supposition of states prior to observation and subsequent wave collapse upon observation, imo. Thus no need for a multiverse either. If the 4th dimension is spatial rather than time and there is continuous spatial change as an object progresses along it, then an object seemingly stationary in 3D space, can change unobserved and supposition need not be assumed.
This seems to me a far more natural and reasonable explanation than creation of a multiverse. I understand that the spatial nature of the 4th dimension was overridden by the desire of the scientific community to understand it to be time. That decision needs re examination. If the 4th spatial dimension is not included in quantum physics models then there is a missing dimension of spatial freedom in which sub atomic particles can move and be influenced.
The 3D spatial arrangement gives a static view of space and relative position of particles, whereas everything is rushing around in space, not static at all. If that framework is static in absolute space then there will be a sequence of such frameworks that the observed matter passes through in order to appear stationary within it. Or the framework itself might be imagined moving around in absolute space. Either way absolute position changes even when 3d position is static. As the earth rotates, orbits, and the solar system and galaxy move.
Passage of everything through absolute space not time. The passage along the 4th dimension will be from one part of space to another- but not in a single direction. As the actual motion is complex involving the motion of the earth in relation to astronomical structures of various scales. Therefore this is non vector spatial change but still definitely spatial not temporal.IMO The natural, continual, regular change is continuous absolute spatial change of position not regular discreet time intervals measured with a clock.
report post as inappropriate
Florin Moldoveanu replied on Jul. 25, 2010 @ 13:57 GMT
Georgina,
You state:
“If it is accepted that a thing is existentially real but continuously changing and unknowable until observation, then there is no need for supposition of states prior to observation and subsequent wave collapse upon observation, imo.”
Here is part of the problem. Local realism does not hold in QM. A quantum state is only information, while a classical state is reality and information about reality. This can be best seen in the geometry of the state spaces. In general a phase space is a convex cone because one can make superpositions about 2 unknown states (even in classical physics): the ensemble I prepared for this measurement was done 30% in this way and 70% in that way. The faces of this cone are called pure states because they cannot be decomposed as a linear combination of other states. The interior spates are called mixed states because in general there exists at least one (if not more) decompositions into pure states. In classical mechanics, “existentially real” states are isolated points on the boundary, while in QM “existentially real” states are any pure states on the boundary. The difference between QM and CM is in the continuity of pure states which blurs the line between reality and information. This continuity is expressed as the superposition principle which holds in CM only for mixed states, while in QM it holds for pure states as well.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 25, 2010 @ 22:13 GMT
Florin,
yes I understand this. I think it is QM that is the problem. It it can not be made to fit with classical mechanics because it has the assumption that reality only exists following observation built into it. I am, I suppose, saying that I think material realism should return to physics. It does require change of explanatory model on which assumptions are based but it does then answer the questions and does not require supposition of states, alive dead cats or imaginary realms in which both exist until made real by observation.
Though the reality that is experienced at the macroscopic scale is -constructed- from information, I do not disagree with that, I say it is one version of reality only. At observation a sample is produced that provides a "snap shot", which is then formed into the inter-subjective reality ( experienced reality) of what it is, or is thought to be. In order for that information (from which experienced reality is formed) to exist, there must be a reality that exists at no elapsed time t=0, prior to observation. That is atemporal objective Now. While it could be regarded as information not yet received it could also be regarded as that which exists in a continuously changing but unobserved real state. The really real- real thing, not just the simulation of the thing constructed from information received over elapsed time, or "unreal" unreceived information only.
How can there be any change if one is only considering t=0, atemporal objective Now? Physical change progresses from atemporal objective Now to atemporal objective Now in space alone not space-time. Not present moment to present moment, which is experience, subject to relativity and temporal as well as spatial distribution within each space-time time snap shot or present moment.
If a physical point is stationary in 3D space, it is not stationary in absolute space. Therefore change of position is occurring unobserved. Below the smallest possible time interval to be perceived using the most accurate instrument, there will be absolute or astronomic changes of spatial position. With slightest change of trajectory rather than remaining stationary within 3D space an absolute change in position could occur giving a 3D change in position that is below the threshold of detection.
Observation only forms the inter-subjective reality when the information is detected and analyzed. Objective reality must already exists unobserved to give that information. Thus there should be two co-existing compatible explanatory models. One that explains the physics of experience and observation at the macroscopic scale, space-time . Another that explains the physics at the smallest scale that provides the information for the space-time experience to be constructed. That reality exists before and independently of observation. It can be modeled in atemporal 4 dimensional space.IMO. Both classical mechanics.
report post as inappropriate
Florin Moldoveanu replied on Jul. 26, 2010 @ 00:45 GMT
Georgina,
You state:
“I am, I suppose, saying that I think material realism should return to physics.”
Can you please explain what do you mean by material realism? After Bell we know that local realism is dead, so I don’t quite get what would material realism be.
Also your position reminds me of Barbour’s who boldly claimed the end of time. However, his position is rather wrong, because Diff M is not a gauge principle when considering the other forces of nature and one goes beyond general relativity.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 26, 2010 @ 02:28 GMT
Florin,
there has been development of ideas over time. That does not mean that all of those accepted ideas are the best solutions. Taking physics in the best "direction". That is taking nothing away from the hard work and intelligence required to develop and understand the ideas and mathematics of QM.
If I do not know were my cat is the room before entering I do not assume that it exists only as a cloud of probability distributed throughout the room or replica cats in every possible position distributed throughout a multiverse. It is definitely somewhere in 3D space, (though continuously changing position in absolute space) prior to the observation. That is realism. Using the mathematics of probability to describe the existence of the cat in the room would give an unrealistic, artificial outcome even if the mathematics is perfectly constructed.
If an object on the earth is stationary in 3D space but the earth is rotating and moving through the universe, the object is moving. So it can have 1 3D spatial position that spans a range of absolute spatial positions. There is no need to invent supposition of states as this is a real spatial distribution This can only be denied if it is insisted that the earth and all astronomical systems in which the earth exists are static. If it is static in 3D space it has to be moving in absolute terms.
Yes Florin IMO it is necessary to retain relativity and the space-time construct as the best model to explain the experience of reality and therefore that which is observed at the macroscopic realm. However it is also necessary to step out of that construct to remove the effect of time, and delay, and special relativity upon the model of reality. It is what exists before transmission of the information to the observer and formation of the experienced reality. The coal face where interactions and causality are happening in atemporal space. Not within the space-time experienced reality.
The two models, one constructed from atemporal quaternion space and the other space-time have to co-exist because REALITY, The greater really real reality, is both objective physical material-spatial change incorporating causality AND the time distorted and delayed simulation formed from information into relative experience with both spatial and temporal spread.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 26, 2010 @ 02:55 GMT
Florin,
I was assuming the cat to be asleep somewhere. It could of course be moving around in 3d space. In which case both 3D spatial and absolute spatial position would be changing.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 26, 2010 @ 07:00 GMT
Florin ,
Material realism may be an inappropriate term when talking of sub atomic particles but I was using it to mean existential reality composed of that which is given the identity of matter or of those sub atomic particles that are assumed to exist within matter. Though their actual objective nature is unknowable and open to speculation. This is to differentiate it from abstract realities such as that which exists only within mathematical constructs or as abstract mental concepts. Probability clouds, imaginary realms, subjective magical thinking etc.
It think it is is important to remember that the means of representing or making sense of something is not the reality itself. A streak of blue and white paint might represent the sky rather well but it is not a real sky. Likewise a mathematical construct might represent some process beautifully but it is not the independent existential reality itself.I accept that the ground level reality is unknowable because it can not be observed. That does not mean that anything goes or that it can not form a part of a complete and self compatible model of Greater reality. Which requires both that which is observed and that which must exist to give rise to those observations.
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Jul. 26, 2010 @ 14:22 GMT
Georgina,
I think you're not getting Florin's point that we know (by Bell's Theorem) that quantum configuration space cannot be mapped into physical space without a nonlocal model.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Florin Moldoveanu replied on Jul. 26, 2010 @ 15:32 GMT
Georgina,
You state:
“If I do not know were my cat is the room before entering I do not assume that it exists only as a cloud of probability distributed throughout the room or replica cats in every possible position distributed throughout a multiverse. It is definitely somewhere in 3D space, (though continuously changing position in absolute space) prior to the observation. That is realism. Using the mathematics of probability to describe the existence of the cat in the room would give an unrealistic, artificial outcome even if the mathematics is perfectly constructed.”
This version of realism was already ruled out by experiments. Forget mathematics. Ask nature instead. Einstein once said: “I believe the Moon is there even if I don’t look at it.” He was wrong. The reason the Moon (and other macroscopic objects) is (are) there is because of decoherence. I other words, someone does look at them. And that “someone” are cosmic radiation, light from the Sun, etc, etc.
At core, realism implies Boolean logic and set theory: objects A, B, C, etc. However, QM is incompatible will all that. QM has the logic of sub-spaces in geometry: one QM sentence may correspond to a plane in a 3d geometry, another one to some line, another one to a point, etc. And the logic of and-s and or-s does not apply in subspaces the way it applies in set theory because unions and intersection can change the geometric object, while the union and intersection of sets of objects is always another set of objects.
Bell’s theorem (and other theorems like it) say basically the same thing: you cannot put square pegs in round holes, or the logic of geometric objects in the logic of individual points. The power of Bell’s theorem is that it makes actual experimental predictions which allowed experimentalists to settle the Einstein-Bohr debate once and for all. Einstein and realism lost.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Jul. 26, 2010 @ 16:32 GMT
What is "information?"
We see it every where and it's the basis of our understanding of reality, but information isn't an absolute. It is relational. We can only know something in terms of its relation to other things. If there are no distinctions, it is an absolute state. No comparisons, no anomalies, not even any symmetries, just a featureless state. Now we are constantly trying to quantize everything. Some even argue time and space must consist of discrete units. But what if that is not so? It seems that with indeterminacy and nonlocality that QM is circling around some fundamental unitary state out of which all these distinctions emerge, yet no matter how we sum up the parts, we never quite get the whole, only fuzz the clarity of information we assume must exist.
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Jul. 26, 2010 @ 18:19 GMT
Dear John,
What is information? In my models, information is stored in hidden dimensions. Scale invariance allows discrete forms of information (every electron 'knows' it has an electric charge of -1e and an intrinsic spin of 1/2 h-bar) and apparantly continuous forms of information (every electron 'knows' it has a rest mass of 511 KeV/c^2) to coexist side by side.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jul. 26, 2010 @ 21:11 GMT
Florin,
you are speaking as if it is fait acompli. QM is indisputably the best kind of model and nothing else should be considered. You say " The moon is there because of decoherence." That is claiming that things exist via decoherence and therefore that is why it is there. That is just like saying God makes things exist therefore the moon is there because of God. Its not a good enough argument.It is an expressed belief. I do not share that belief.
I agree with you that photons reflect from the moon. Those photons can then be used as information to generate the moon within a space-time simulation of that external reality. The simulated reality not being the same as the independently existing external reality. What exists independently of observation is not the moon -as it is observed- but the objective reality version of it in objective atemporal Now. Not the image generated from EM carrying "old news"
Space-time does not provide all of the answers because it is the a model of experience generated from observation not the independent objective external reality. It is not wrong it is just something different. The space-time experienced reality is actively generated, not passively received. It is only one of the two versions of reality and not the one that scientists are investigating at the sub atomic scale. The Greater reality is composed of both what is and what is observed and experienced. It comprises co-existing space-time and atemporal space realities.
A good model will be one that is able to co-exist alongside relativity not replace it. It is logical and does not require or create large amounts of anything imaginary.IMO A model that creates a new universe for each choice or relies on a supposition of non materialized possibilities ( not distributed in space but "magically" superimposed) is not good enough. Though that is not saying it is not exceedingly clever.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 26, 2010 @ 21:22 GMT
That last anaonymous reply to Florin was me.
Florin, I would just like to add that I think the reason there has been such a struggle to prone or dis-prove space-time relativity is because people are looking for a black or white answer. Wrong or right. Its not that easy. Sometimes it will be right because it is the appropriate model to use in those circumstances other times it will be wrong because it is the wrong model. Things don't become real when they are observed they change from being within one kind of reality to being regarded or experienced within another version of reality. (Both parts of a single Greater reality) Unfortunately for physics observation can not be separated from an observer. Human biology and physics overlap not just physics and mathematics.
report post as inappropriate
Florin Moldoveanu replied on Jul. 26, 2010 @ 23:37 GMT
Georgina,
You state:
“you are speaking as if it is fait acompli. QM is indisputably the best kind of model and nothing else should be considered. You say " The moon is there because of decoherence." That is claiming that things exist via decoherence and therefore that is why it is there. That is just like saying God makes things exist therefore the moon is there because of God. Its not a good enough argument.It is an expressed belief.”
I am not sure what God has to do with this. There are basically 2 arguments: one is mathematical, the other is experimental. You can argue with the math, or with the model, but you cannot argue with experiments. In the end feel free to propose any model or theory you want. Then extract experimental consequences and ask Nature if your predictions are true.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Jul. 27, 2010 @ 01:42 GMT
Ray,
By unitary I'm not talking about continuous, as opposed to discrete, though it may have seemed that. I'm just wondering if every distinction which allows us to compare something, even if it is one electron to another and wonder why they are identical in effect and function, are not emergent distortions of some unitary state and this fuzziness of QM is a reflection of that. Why would such elemental properties of electrons be so consistent, if not because of some unitary field? It is a very basic question; What is this vacuum which fluctuates. It just seems we are chasing our tails measuring the fluctuations, without fully considering the properties of the vacuum. It's the same argument I've been making, that space is both infinite and absolute, as in manifesting an inertial state. So when it is unstable and fluctuates, the result reflects this polarity, with radiation expanding towards the infinite and mass as the cumulative effect of inertia. Time just being the changing configuration.
This may all seem simplistic, but if space is fundamental to what occupies it, as opposed to being an effect of these measurable quantities, like time, then the Big Bang theory falls apart. Expansion would simply be both property and cause of radiation in the same way gravitational contraction is related to mass. Thus they balance out because they are two sides of the same cycle, not because we are at some special moment in the history of the universe.
I realize I running up against strong theoretical headwinds, but when I consider some of the ideas required to support the current model, from Inflation to the multiverse, it seems as though the cracks I think I see are not just figments of my imagination.
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Jul. 27, 2010 @ 17:03 GMT
Dear John,
The vacuum does have strange properties. I think that the vacuum is scale invariant and self-similar, which causes some things to behave like discrete information (like the simple 0 or 1 of computer bits), and causes some things to behave continuously (like the electron mass of 511 KeV/c^2 which does not seem quantized). Ultimately, this may reinforce the Particle (discrete) vs. Wave (continuous) Duality of Nature.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 27, 2010 @ 17:50 GMT
Dear Ray .....continuous===linearity===fisrt main sense.....discrete===stability===other main sense.....mass or light....the duality is just a tranfer of oscillations between spheres with and without rotations....the space is better understood.....Hope you see this link.
The duality is just due to the universal contact between all spheres, quantics here.
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Jul. 27, 2010 @ 18:12 GMT
Dear Steve,
No - the duality is even more simple than that. Particle/ Wave Duality directly corresponds with Discrete/ Continuous Duality AND Sphere/ String Duality. So we have:
Particles & Discrete & Spheres versus Waves & Continuous & Strings
In other words, spheres (discrete) are correct, but they only represent half of the problem. If you ignore strings (continuous), then you are throwing the other half of the problem into the trash. Likewise, if Constantinos only uses Bose (continuous) statistics, and ignores Fermi (discrete) statistics, then he is ignoring the other half of the problem.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 27, 2010 @ 18:46 GMT
Hi Ray,
It's interesting,I like your capacity to link all.
Now I don't forget the strings, You know I have thought a lot about that before.
The problem is about the changements of form and the oscillations....if the strings are inserted, we loose many foundamentals....it's like a fashion in fact but the idea was interesting.
It's not a question of a part of the problem, but about the real sense of the problem, the linearity and the stability can be explained with rotatings spheres and their oscillations in my humble opinion.
When a theory is correct, we see its correlations, universals in all centers of interest.
Now of course the waves are interestings for the oscillations and the linear motion, spherical furthermore.
I reread your beautiful book.
You have a real capacity of resume,I think only the global referential is false,if you insert the 3D and the real thermodynamics,that will be very relevant.We search the cause of mass in fact, the rotating spheres, now what is the cause of rotations...thus the codes of informations thus where are synchronized the velocities of rot.The volume seems very important.....
The discreteneww and the continuity are just different in some parameters, the quantic number doesn't change, the volumes also, ....
Thanking You
Steve
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Jul. 28, 2010 @ 09:49 GMT
Ray,
We seem to be pretty much in agreement there, but if the vacuum is fundamental to the effects propagating in it, what does this do to Big Bang theory? It seems largely built up around two data points, redshift as inspiration and background radiation as prediction, but has required some enormous fudge factors, specifically Inflation theory and Dark Energy, to fill gaps between theory and observation.
All it would take to completely remove any need for it would be to find some explanation for redshift/expansion as a property of radiation, just as gravity/contraction is a property of mass. Background radiation could easily be explained as radiation which traveled so far it has been completely redshifted off any color scale.
If the vacuum of space is fundamental, it couldn't be argued that space was created at the singularity and expands out with the energy defining it. It's like I keep asking how it can be said that space has expanded from a point, but the speed of light is constant to a seemingly predetermined space.
If redshift is an optical effect, similar to gravity bending light waves, but not actually moving the source of that light, it would explain why we and every other point, appear at the center, far better than the Big Bang assumption of actual recession.
Yes, space does appear to expand between galaxies, but it also appears to fall into them at an equal rate, thus the large scale effect is of flat space. Some form of convection cycle would explain this relationship better than the Big Bang notion that we are at some balancing point in the history of the universe.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies