An Idea

[Max™]

The background problem is that there is no preferred frame of reference you can define events against in reality.

This is easily determined without the assumption of any physical theory, Relativity simply codifies this into the format of a symmetry of nature.

QM assumes a preferred background frame of spacetime, an absolute against which the events described in QM occur.

Most assume that QM should be more fundamental, and that some quantum theory should ultimately have the equations of relativity emerge from it naturally.

This is a dead end, I fear. It has led us nowhere for the last 40 years, String Theory was the best bet for a quantum theory to resolve the background problem, but it has no ties to reality, making it a curiousity.

Spookiness at a distance is unresolved, contrary to what some may claim.

It happens, for sure, why it happens, and how to explain it without violating the locality demanded by Special Relativity, that is unresolved.


The room which Fred is describing, with it having some fundamental existence regardless of the rest of the universe, is exactly the problem I am describing.

What he is speaking of works fine in Quantum Mechanics, yet there is no evidence that there is any reality behind that assumption.

There is no reason to assume a preferred reference frame, we simply have failed to find the correct description of QM that does not rely upon such an assumption. That is not evidence of some underlying truth that there is in fact such a preferred frame, there is only evidence that it is invalidated by General Relativity.

[Profpat]

Sorry Max:

I'm still confused. Is there a site that could explain this to me, or is this your own theory?

Best,

Pat

P.S. I thought the main irreconcilable difference twixt the two was a deterministic universe vs a probabilistic universe. I believe in the probabilistic quantum model. That underlying our reality is limited freedom, and the deterministic probably pattern is just that.

[Graybeard]

Spookiness at a distance is unresolved, contrary to what some may claim.

Its not unresolved mathematically ? Do you mean conceptually ?

cool bananas ... greg

[austintorn@aol.com]

The background problem is that there is no preferred frame of reference you can define events against in reality.

On To the Real TOE:
The TOE Resides Below the Level of ‘Space’

‘Spacetime’ as an Emergent Phenomenon

Not so many scientists are naive realists any more, for the “elementary” particles are thought to emerge from the quantum realm and are therefore not straight forward physical realities, although they do lead to stars, atoms, molecules, cells, and our own glorious complexity. However great the Universe is, we are after the Super TOE itself.

Of course, we are using ‘space’ here as to be whatever is it, such as the fields that makes ‘space’.

The geometry of space is not fixed, and spacetime is certainly dynamical and contingent—Einstein’s great idea that space evolves in time; therefore, we need a TOE about what makes up ‘space’, not what happens in ‘space’, such as strings wriggling.

A theory of what moves in space would be background-dependent, as in string theory that chooses an appropriate fixed background and therefore obtains the results it wants. These kinds of theories have a “truth” that derives from their choice of background, but, the background is not really fixed at all—it's dynamic.

A theory of what makes space would be a background-independent theory. A purely quantum mechanical theory is needed that shows how space emerges from a deeper level of reality in which space does not even exist—surely the ultimate of background-independence.

Many quantum gravity scientists think that space emerges as an approximation of something discrete, the apparently smooth continuum of space being an illusion, like a movie or the smoothness of water, and that causality is fundamental, especially below the level of space’s emergence.

The keys are emergence of space from the quantum world, and discreteness and fundamental causality within the quantum world.

One approach is non commutative geometry (AB is not equal to BA), since you can’t measure a particle’s position and momentum at once. The casual dynamical triangulations model uses simple building blocks, each of which represents a simple causal process. The quantum spacetime is then a sequence of possible spaces that succeed one another in some kind of “time.”

Whatever the case or approach, as I don’t know much, it seems almost out of reach, but it must be there that the ultimate TOE resides.

The ultimate simplicity is probably not astonishing; nor is it the time or place to introduce some infinite complexity of an alien or Creator type being, for that just starts the descent to simplicity all over again.

The ultimate simplicity could be eternal with no beginning—it’s possible—but that leaves the mystery of how come it was the right stuff, not to mention how it could have always been there. Possibility?

“Nothing”, without any potential whatsoever, seems to be an impossible state to maintain, since there is indeed something.

Now, why would the quantum world be where the buck stops. Perhaps it generates substance through possibility and probability, ending the regress of smaller substance causing larger substance, because, well, we have to throw out the rule book of physical laws of form and time. What could the formless-timeless do? Anything and everything, I suppose.

Now what?

[G_burnett]

As Max has been postulating some rebuttal information here and others reply coming in, and with many fine questions, my interests have been in boundary define the problem I am having.

I am quite convinced that indeed a new math is going to have to come out in the geometric because of Max's postulations I am trying to get through to an understand to fully give a grasp of my dilemmas in boundaries and the reality that I am getting in predictions ....that the define may be immaterial as they are indeed looking close at his postulations in the math and vector geometry. Antonio would be nice to to get in on this perhaps.

Please correct me if I am wrong Max and no need to explain if I am correct as I am way down the begin of the math in this and just a pattern road right now traveled ...IMHO

Ty

~Regards G.

[Max™]

The geometry of space is not fixed, and spacetime is certainly dynamical and contingent—Einstein’s great idea that space evolves in time; therefore, we need a TOE about what makes up ‘space’, not what happens in ‘space’, such as strings wriggling.

A theory of what moves in space would be background-dependent, as in string theory that chooses an appropriate fixed background and therefore obtains the results it wants. These kinds of theories have a “truth” that derives from their choice of background, but, the background is not really fixed at all—it's dynamic.

A theory of what makes space would be a background-independent theory. A purely quantum mechanical theory is needed that shows how space emerges from a deeper level of reality in which space does not even exist—surely the ultimate of background-independence.

Many quantum gravity scientists think that space emerges as an approximation of something discrete, the apparently smooth continuum of space being an illusion, like a movie or the smoothness of water, and that causality is fundamental, especially below the level of space’s emergence.

The keys are emergence of space from the quantum world, and discreteness and fundamental causality within the quantum world.

One approach is non commutative geometry (AB is not equal to BA), since you can’t measure a particle’s position and momentum at once. The casual dynamical triangulations model uses simple building blocks, each of which represents a simple causal process. The quantum spacetime is then a sequence of possible spaces that succeed one another in some kind of “time.”

I thought the main irreconcilable difference twixt the two was a deterministic universe vs a probabilistic universe. I believe in the probabilistic quantum model. That underlying our reality is limited freedom, and the deterministic probably pattern is just that.

The probabilistic model assumes a determined spacetime for it's calculations to work on.

[Fredrick]

I'm not to sure of these partial charges, it makes no sense. It is a way of coming up with a +1 or 0. I was able to accomplish that in my model using only whole charges. If a quark is a quantum particle in its own right it should have a whole charge or none at all.[size=2]

Methods of determining partial atomic charges

Despite its usefulness, the concept of a partial atomic charge is somewhat arbitrary, because it depends on the method used to delimit between one atom and the next (in reality, atoms have no clear boundaries). As a consequence, there are many methods for estimating the partial charges. The following list is taken from Meister and Schwarz, 1994.

And that is the beauty of the partial charges and language, Pat, because I am not referring to partial charges.

The +2/3rd has nothing to do with the -1/3rd, just like the sphere has nothing to do with the remainder of the cylinder (cylinder minus the sphere). It is only from their collective information that the cylinder appears as the background unit from which each derived (them and the electron). It is more like a 200-pound wrestler and a 100-pound wrestler in a fight, and us only able to see the 2/3rd mass and the 1/3rd mass. Just because they can never get out of the ring, the wrestlers can still be considered units in their own right (but not units in the actual right of reality, because they belong to the ring and are therefore dependent parts).

If we consider the universe as the complete story, then my words don't make any sense. Yet you and I already agree that something cannot come from nothing. So, I propose a universe that is the metamorphosis of that what was before (either the whole enchilada from before or just parts, that does not matter).

The matter that we know that exists is then the expression of what existed before but then existing in this new condition. And that new condition is not based on a single state, but on the lack of a single state.

So, the up quark in its own mind is complete, a full representation of that what was before, but maintaining in this new condition as the top heavy-weight wrestler. The down quark — the remainder of that environment from which the up quark was able to subtract itself successfully — is itself not a successful wrestler; it is, however, involved in the sparring with the heavy weight. So, it is able to maintain itself in a certain counter-charged position with the up quark (or better, they exist in certain combinations; please, work with me).

So, we have a successful entity (the up quark), and a non-completely successful entity (the down quark). Yet since these two combined are still not the complete delivery (the electron must fit too), the origin is not fully expressed by just these two. The electron is therefore the outsider watching the fight. And that takes place within the same room in which the ring is also placed.

The only part we need to get right is that this room has no walls. That's all. Lack of walls allows for interactions between fights or creates balances beyond just the single fights. In other words, it can get complex rather quickly.

I do not consider a quark a quantum particle. I consider a quantum delivery a specific outcome, and I cannot state that a quark is a specific outcome, for I cannot know how the quark is particularly positioned. We need the expressions to get that information, yet I would see it as the on-going battle between the two wrestlers in the open room; there is no single outcome, but a series of outcomes. There is no final outcome, nor is there a simple winner or loser. Politics are involved, money and luck of the draw are involved. As said, it gets complex quickly, especially because there are no walls to the room, while the punches that flow are as real as they can get.

Please elaborate on your framework further, but do try to understand where my issue arises.

I can't simply accept any statement that there is no problem between GR and QM as they are formulated, I've been horribly aware of the issue between them for 20 years now.

The two theories do not describe the same Universe, it isn't just a matter of perspective, it is impossible for QM to be correct as it is written, and exist in a universe governed by GR.

QM depends on the assumption of a stable absolute background, it doesn't work without one.

SR and by definition GR tells us that there is no stable absolute background, the universe doesn't work with one.

Since I can observe the truth of GR, I hold it to be a more important description, and thus more fundamental, than QM. QM must be wrong in some deep way.

There is no way to simply adjust the principles of QM and make it mesh with GR, without first discarding the reliance upon a defined background, and this absolute sense of space you seem to be describing does not mesh with GR. This lights up big red error lights in my head. ENK ENK ENK WARNING WARNING!

You are funny, Max. I'll try to keep it light-hearted then too. The only requirement I have for both QM and GR is that they do not exclude the other's existence. I have neither a stable absolute background requirement for GR nor for QM — QM as a whole. GR is the overall delivery in which there is no overall single self-based entity, QM are the many small parts of matter with each their self-based (absolute) aspect.

If I take the single large image again that was made up of many little individual photographs (I hope you have seen it — it was used in commercial images on billboards — so this would then conjure an actual image for you), then the conclusion is that the overall image has no true actuality to it; because, if I dig down to a lower level, the large image simply does not hold up. Yet, while the actual images of the tiny scale do have actuality — they hold up quite well, they are absolutely true — they are nevertheless each by themselves insignificant from the perspective of the overall image.

So, if we want to view both aspects from a single level, we will always end up with at least one of the two not fitting. Therefore, we need to view them in their own context and only require that they do not exclude the accurate existence of the other.

“Nothing”, without any potential whatsoever, seems to be an impossible state to maintain, since there is indeed something.

I really like all you are saying, Austin, but with above quoted are you sure you are not following the rabbit into the hole? Space is indeed the 'background' for something, but without space being a something itself.

[Felix Schrodinger]

I have the feeling that especially you, Max, are not getting the frameworks from which my words derive their meaning. You place my information in your own framework and then declare that they don't fit. As long as you want a singular universe, we will never be able to communicate properly.

Amen to that
Felix

[Felix Schrodinger]

There is no reason to assume a preferred reference frame, we simply have failed to find the correct description of QM that does not rely upon such an assumption. That is not evidence of some underlying truth that there is in fact such a preferred frame, there is only evidence that it is invalidated by General Relativity.

Dear Max

Your absolute faith in SR is about the same as mine in an absolute background. I have a sense of deja vue about this but will try again.

SR does not disprove a preferred reference frame; it describes how we see things when we are in relative motion to eachother and, despite a few mathematical inconsistencies, it gives the correct solutions in those circumstances.

GR is a description of how the fabric of spacetime warps in relation to the preferred reference frame in the presence of mass. It also explains how clocks and rulers distort when subjected to relative motion.

Lorentzian Relativity explains these phenonema using a background.

Both SR and GR are concerned with the issues of macro objects where decoherence requires them to behave in predictable ways.

Newtonian mechanics describe the interaction of macro objects when they interact at relatively low velocities. It uses a stable background.

QM describes the micro world of particles that move as waves and only become part of our real world when they interact (decoherence). The matter particles described in QM (fermions) are just as well proven as SR, GR and EM theories but the particles used to describe the forces (bosons) are not.

String theory was never a good bet to link up QM and GR. It's a mathematical device to overcome the problem with infinities caused by the assumption that particles are infinitesimal points. Once you accept that there is a background (underpinning GR, EM and QM) and that particles have real size then the whole problem goes away.

regards
Felix

[JAK]

Sounds like we're all in the "ether" group. I'm there, too. Some of the TOEfolks have bounced around the idea of space being an "ether". It also seems that if you look at a star (like Arcturus) and keep looking at it while the earth spins (at hundreds of miles per hour while orbiting the Sun at over 65,000MPH), there does not seem to be any gaps of the photons striking the fovea of the retina. Look at another star, and the same phenomena occurs. And with millions and billions of stars, it seems that every point in space is bathed in photos from all energy sources. In other words, we exist in an ocean of photons, no matter where we are in space. And the only interruption in their path is "lensing" from the curvature of space. (Whoa ... this is much too heady for 4 in the morning.)