|
Author
|
Topic: Universal Memory and Quantum Gravity
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 20. July 2003 01:23
John Archibald Wheeler has some very interesting ideas with feedback:
http://www.discover.com/june_02/featuniverse.html
quote:
In his delayed-choice thought experiment, Wheeler suggests that a single photon emitted from a distant quasar (far right) can simultaneously follow two paths to Earth, even if those paths are separated by many light-years. Here one photon travels past two different galaxies, with both routes deflected by the gravitational pull of the galaxies. Stranger still, Wheeler theorizes, the observations astronomers make on Earth today decide the path the photon took billions of years ago.
The CTMU(conspansive duality) of Chris Langan also explains this type of "feedback".
If the locality principle is not going to be thrown into the trash heap, then a viable option is that space is something analogous to homogeneously distributed probability density functions(a perfect fluid?) i.e. increasing density gradients, giving the observed thermodynamic arrow of time. The observed cosmic expansion is a "relative" one! A "perspective effect" from our local vantage point. A shrinking object gives the illusion of receding motion. Increasing *refractive* density gradients give the appearence of a doppler-red-shift. Space increases density as matter is re-sized.
Spacetime then "remembers" the input! A quantum measurement is made, the action principle demands the shortest distance between two points be taken, whatever that may be. There is no instantaneous action at a distance!
Interesting... Either a creator with infinite god-like intelligence created this universe as
a clockworks mechanism, or the creator and the mechanism are one and the same.
A universal quantum computer?
It seems that in order to continue with the idea of a physically infinite "multiverse" instantaneous communication at a distance must be accepted as an absurd axiom. But we must remember, Newtons classical reality was superceded by Albert Einstein's relativity! There is no action at a distance!
Instantaneous action at a distance was shown to be unecessary, by Einstein's theories of special and general relativity. How can an infinite multiverse be in accordance with probability theory if all of the separate universes are not in a type of corrspondence with each other? Who observes the entire multiverse?
So it can be shown that the multiverse DOES carry to much metaphysical, and heavy conceptual baggage. Goodbye multiverse ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
It appears that the best solution is that our universe is self contained. The locality principle is not violated.
Russell E. Rierson
analog57@yahoo.com
[ 20. July 2003, 01:25: Message edited by: Russell E. Rierson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Claire
Member
Member # 725
|
posted 21. July 2003 00:06
Hya Russell,
That makes sense.
But you know what they say about sense. "It sould make more sense than common sense". However on the other hand it could be noted that in order to make less sense than common sense, the lesser the sense it makes (compared to the more common sense that it doesn't) the more it does make more sense and the more common sense makes much less sense.
Claire
[ 21. July 2003, 00:08: Message edited by: Claire ]
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 22. July 2003 03:55
quote:
Hya Russell,
That makes sense.
But you know what they say about sense. "It sould make more sense than common sense". However on the other hand it could be noted that in order to make less sense than common sense, the lesser the sense it makes (compared to the more common sense that it doesn't) the more it does make more sense and the more common sense makes much less sense.
Claire
Hello Claire.
Yes, if I understand you correctly, how can we really be sure of anything? We can use inductive logic and make tentative conclusions from observing the world. We can also derive first principles and make deductions from those principles.
It seems that a first principle for the world, is that our macroscopic world must be logically consistent. Certain rules must hold for certain conditions.
These rules must be "absolute", otherwise the world could not exist.
Absolute truth?
Russ
[ 22. July 2003, 03:56: Message edited by: Russell E. Rierson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 25. July 2003 13:10
I have simplified the argument down to chaos and self organization only. A logical interpretation of the multiverse concept.
Space "density" continually increases as a function of time, analogous to being inside a black hole, yet we do not feel the crushing force because our atoms are shrinking in correspondence to the increasing density of space-time. We are, after all, made OF space-time.
Yes, the laws of physics break down at the "Planck scale" which is the basis of my conjecture. From chaos, comes complex self organization.
...order-->chaos-->order--> ... chaos-->order...
Lee Smolin might be onto something with his wild idea that black holes give birth to new universes. I take the logic one step further and
postulate a theory of quantum gravity. Our universe could really be the inside of a collapsed star from a parent universe. The physics for a compactified dimension of radius R is the same for the physics of a compactified dimension of radius 1/R. There is no need to hypothesize an external hyperspace for the "baby universe" to expand into. As the star collapses, approaching the Plank scale, it becomes a chaotic "quantum foam". This chaos self organizes into a compressed quantum universe.
So what we observe as an absolute spacetime expansion is not really true. The expansion is relative. From a local perspective, the
universe appears to expand with radius R. From a global perspective energy density is compressed with radius 1/R. The only real constant
for the universe is "h", which is Planck's constant. All other physical constants are related to this basic evolutionary parameter
...h, an energy density ratio. The singularity then becomes a limit that is approched but never reached.
If the locality principle is not going to be thrown into the trash heap, then a viable option is that space is something analogous to
homogeneously distributed probability density functions(a perfect fluid?) i.e. increasing energy-density gradients, giving the observed
thermodynamic arrow of time. The observed cosmic expansion is, again, a "relative" one. A perspective effect from our local vantage point. A
shrinking object gives the illusion of receding motion. Increasing *refractive* density gradients give the appearence of a doppler-red-shift. Space increases density as matter is re-sized.
Quantum Gravity.
Solve the Swcharzschild solution for the entire universe. Solve for the imaginary time value of the Schwarzchild solution using analytic
continuation, which becomes periodic in the imaginary time direction. Quantum field theory calculations where imaginary time is periodic,
with period 1/T are equivalent to statistical mechanics calculations where the temperature is T.
The periodic waveforms that are opposed yet "in phase" would be at standing wave resonance, giving the action, also, equivalent to an
observed statistics for evaporation of black holes. In effect, a damped oscillation. Reality at resonance.
As the energy density continues to be compressed, it becomes a quantum gravitational refractive effect, with paths of light rays being
deflected by energy density variations. Light rays are deflected near massive objects. As the compression approaches singularity, the local
observers will percieve an asymptotically flat, expanding universe.
Russell E. Rierson
analog57@yahoo.com
IP: Logged
|
|
Richard
Member
Member # 857
|
posted 28. July 2003 12:50
Hi,
I'm a new member and have been recently directed to this forum by a friend. I been working on similar ideas (www.geocities.com/richardwquist) as those discussed here. My solution to the problem of unifying the multiverse is to extent the definition of special relativity to include unique accelerated time reference frames. This gives you the means to move from universe to universe while maintaining the integrity of each universe.
Richard
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 29. July 2003 02:38
The Wheeler DeWitt Equation:
H(psi) = 0
The Hamiltonian has a dual formulation with the Lagrangian path integral approach, which can be interpreted as a path optimization for one universe, if my interpretation is correct ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Quantum mechanics leads us to the realization that all matter-energy can be explained in terms of "waves". In a confined region(i.e. or a closed universe or a black hole) the waves exists as standing waves. In a closed system, the entropy never decreases. There is the realization that the law of conservation of energy may be violated for brief periods smaller than the Planck time. Richard Feynman explains that a positron which is an anti matter particle corresponding to the matter particle called the electron, can also be interpreted as an electron moving backwards in time. Quantum Field Theory calculations using imaginary time with period 1/T, is the same as statistical mechanics calculations with temperature T.
Thermodynamics explains that any body with a temperature above absolute zero will radiate its energy away.
What kind of waves are possible inside a black hole? The answer is standing waves, waves that "fit" inside the black hole with a node at the event horizon. The possible wave states are very similar to standing waves on a circular drum; they aren't quite the same because the black hole standing waves exist in three dimensions instead of just the two of the drum head, analogysically speaking.
The universe has a size of about 13 billion light years or so. It also has a total(constant?) amount of mass-energy. If this mass-energy is represented as quantum mechanical standing waves, just the same for black holes, the total entropy of the universe can be calculated. It turns out that the entropy of either a black hole or the universe is proportional to its size squared. Thus for a given amount of total mass-energy, the larger the object the higher the entropy.
The universe is supposed to be expanding, so its size is increasing, relatively speaking. Thus the total entropy of the universe is also increasing. Motion is relative, so an expanding spacetime can also have a reciprocal transformation. The Second Law of Thermodynamics may be a consequence of the spacetime expanding in the universe with radius R, or the matter energy density contracting, as spacetime increases density in a universe with radius 1/R.
The T-Duality Universe.
Russ
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 01. August 2003 07:18
Mass "m" is a form of condensed space-time.
Yes, the mass-energy equivalence is given by the equation
E = m*c^2
Since h/lambda is the momentum of a photon of light with h/lambda = p the equation becomes:
E/p = c
Light is also a wave with a frequency (f) of oscillation and its energy is also given by the equation:
E = h*f = hc/lambda = p*c
h is Planck's constant
wavelength, lambda = c/f
E/f = h = p*lambda
Waves are ripples in a basic medium. Einstein explains that the ether is unecessary as a medium, so the ripples are vibrations of spacetime itself. Mass-energy is a form of condensed space-time.
As the ripples intersect with each other, it becomes a domino effect with the ripples coninually increasing in density. Very similar to taking a penny and doubling it as an iterative sequence.
2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, ... 2^n
Since the ripples are increasing in density they are "compressed" . As spacetime becomes compressed, matter is re-sized as a balancing effect, so the force of gravity and accelerations are perceived as "constant".
This becomes an extension of Einstein's general relativity and nothing really has to be changed with his brilliant theory.
From our local vantage point, we observe what appears to be an expansion of space-time. From "God's persective" the matter shrinks while spacetime {God's perspective} is constant.
It becomes extremely difficult and even paradoxical trying to explain how this universe can exist without some sort of creation factor. That is to say there must be some sort of creator or possibly divine intervention? that gives our universe an existence.
Russ
[ 03. August 2003, 01:07: Message edited by: Russell E. Rierson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Richard
Member
Member # 857
|
posted 02. August 2003 10:13
Russ,
Have you considered the possibility that the universe we perceive is simultaneously the initial singularity, though perceived from a different condition, a condition that gives us the perception of space, though in actuallity all space is still collapsed into the singularity. We simply don't perceive the collapsing action, or dimension, thus we perceive space. This can also be applied to your universe in a black hole idea, but makes the black hole the same size as the original universe.
My ideas on accelerated time reference frames aren't an addition to special relativity, though they may seem to be. They actually are similar to your universe in a black hole in that I'm saying that what we consider to be motionless non-dilated frames must also be considered to be dilated frames relative to accelerated frames which are expanded relative to what we perceive as a non-dilated frame.
Rich
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 02. August 2003 16:25
Very interesting Richard, thanks
The "singularity" is a mathematical condition of
a/0 which is undefined. So I am searching for a way to eliminate all of the infinities. By unifying gravity and quantum mechanics, the singularity becomes a condition of quantum chaos below the Planck length sqrt[hG/c^3], 10^(-35) meters. The T-Duality of string theory explains that the physics for a compactified dimension of radius R is equivalent to the physics for a compactified dimension of radius 1/R. A relative expansion-compression.
Chaos sets the stage for complex self organization i.e. The self configuring universe. Postulating our universe to be the collapsed star of a parent universe is an interesting exercise in imagination, but again, it sort of creates the problem of fractals-turtles all the way down, or more infinities, that we all love so much.
Instead of an infinite regress, why not admit that there are certain limitations on our ability to theorize ...and realize, that there will always be unknowns?
Russ
[ 03. August 2003, 01:03: Message edited by: Russell E. Rierson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Claire
Member
Member # 725
|
posted 02. August 2003 23:37
Totally agree Russ,
There might allways be unknowns. It's a good job because where else would we want to know more, apart from us only knowing that it is the known part that would give it us?
Or we could ask a toad.
Claire
[ 15. December 2003, 00:28: Message edited by: Claire ]
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 03. August 2003 01:16
The toad would probably give a common sense, down to earth answer
The whole problem seems to revolve around the concepts of unity, zero, and infinity.
Truth becomes fuzzy around the edges. Reality appears to correspond to some classical ideal, only as a limit. There is no 100% absolute truth. It can only be very close to absolute, not exactly absolute.
Reality corresponds to some absolute truth, but not exactly
Russ
IP: Logged
|
|
Richard
Member
Member # 857
|
posted 03. August 2003 07:47
Russ,
I agree with your comments about approximation and limits. Einstein once stated that physics laws gives us only a tiny glimpse of what actually goes on in the physical world. Of course he added that he and others are attempting to make that glimpse a bit bigger. I used the term singularity because it's usually used to describe blackholes and the primordial condition of the Universe. I see your point of seeking to define a finite stable condition. My own view is that the primordial condtion can simultaneously exist as finite and nothing. This can be conceived in terms two compression waves containing all the energy of the Universe. When they are completely out phase with each other there is nothing. When they are in phase, with a period equal to planck's time, you have the primordial condtion, similar to what you are describing. Adding the concept of time acceleration, we have another period for the wave, equal to the perceived age of the Universe, though this period actually has the same duration as planck's time, but with the resulting reality the expanded Universe we perceive today. Richard
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 03. August 2003 16:57
Actually the statement "There are no absolute truths" is itself an absolute truth!
True?
or
False?
IP: Logged
|
|
Parallel
Member
Member # 744
|
posted 03. August 2003 21:34
Mr. Rierson, how about saying "There may be an absolute truth" instead? But is there doubt that there is some ultimate truth? I believe scientific uncertainty addresses the problem of knowing exactly what any such ultimate truth may be. So perhaps it's not a question of if but what the absolute truth is.
Richard, your Big Shrink theory is fascinating. Does it make any testable predictions?
"Truth is what stands the test of experience." Albert Einstein
IP: Logged
|
|
chimp
Member
Member # 333
|
posted 04. August 2003 02:50
Thank you Mr. Parallel
If by no "Ultimate Truth exists" you mean there is no first truth, I might agree. What if spacetime is a curve that closes back on itself? Non linear, iterative time that feeds back into itself?
Space is at right angles to time.
Electricity is at right angles to magnetism.
Gravity is at right angles to inertia.
All are aspects of one unified field.
Photons are wave-fronts of processed space-time, alot like the frames on a movie reel. Time is a process. We don't move through time, we are processed BY time.
|-->|-->|-->|-->[photon]
Wavefronts ==> cotangent vectors = one forms
[ 04. August 2003, 11:42: Message edited by: Russell E. Rierson ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic