Pentcho, briefly,
you and I have already discussed this question at length on my page, and I have shown you to be wrong, in a way that even you eventually didn't argue back about. The reason we call it "the spacetime interpretation" is because it's an interpretation. It's untested - unlike SR, which is extremely well confirmed by experiment. People often imply that spacetime is an unavoidable consequence of SR, but no-one will actually say that it is, because it isn't.
Jonathan
(That was me, Jonathan Kerr. It sometimes logs you out just as you post. Any further discussion of this to my page, but it's already been said. Best wishes, JK)
Giovanni wrote:
"In quantum-gravity research there is a long-standing effort
of understanding how spacetime should be described when both
Planck's constant ~ and Newton's constant GN are nonnegligible.
We cannot claim much success addressing this issue."
Giovanni,
what mean "nonnegligible"?
Give me please more detail..
Dear Yuri
I use "nonnegligible" in relation to the different regimes of physics which we are able to explore with different types (and different senstitivity levels for) our experimental setups. If we measure a "spacetime observable" (e.g. distance) pertaining to macroscopic bodies separated by macroscopic distances we can neglect quantum mechanics (because its effects in such setups are negligibly small) but we often then must take into account gravitation. If we measure a "spacetime observable" pertaining to a pair of microscopic particles (e.g. electrons) with energies of say a few GeVs, then their mutual gravitational influence is negligibly small, but their quantum-mechanical properties are tangible. If one day we will manage to measure spacetime observables pertaining pairs of microscopic particles of Planckian wavelength and separated by Planckian distances then we expect that both their mutual gravitational influence and their quantum-mechanical properties will be tangible (non-negligible, affecting tangibly the relevant measurement results).
I hope this clarifies.
best regards
Giovanni
dear Jonathan and Pentcho
I have made a note of reading frequently the pages of the blog for Jonathan's essay, so I can follow your discussion of these matters.
dear Georgina and Don
many thanks for your encouraging comments on my essay. I have downloaded your essays and will explore possible points of contact over the weekend.
In relation to some of Georgina's comments let me stress that the essay I here proposed focuses on my latest speculation. Searching inspires with "f a Amelino-Camelia" you will see that I have in the past investigated (and I am still investigating) also other speculative scenarios, and some of them are not mutually exclusive. But in this essay I thought it would be in the interest of clarity (also considering the word count allowed) if I focused on my speculations "against spacetime" without elaborating for example on what might (or might not) be the implications for the boundaries of the regime of applicability of the (Einsteinian) relativistic theory currently adopted.
best regards
Giovanni
See please my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413
My opinion:Planck constant is major constant of Nature.
Dear Giovanni
I agree a lot of thing with you. I agree that space-time is emergent.
I wrote my own appendix to explanation of emergence of space-time.
Mass can only run inside of elementary particles, and they are rest. Thus, in principle time does not run in empty space. Thus empty space-time does not exist, or if all matter was removed from our universe, space-time would disappear. (If relativistic mass is used in derivation of special relativity, this is still clearer.)
Do you maybe read Markopoulou? Where your theory is distinct from her?
It is interesting your viewpoint about unclear definition of run of clocks. Do you have any reference of this viewpoint, which can be found also on Internet. I am interested in more precisely described mechanism of those differences? Otherwise this seems unlikely to me, because time is the essence of mechanisms of special and general relativity ...
I am not sure also about your generalization of uncertainty principle on time and energy. I wrote about this in my essay where I suggest a different approach.
Thus I suggest my model but we agree that space-time is emergent. I suggest also that space-time is emergent, do you agree to this?
Best regards Janko Kokosar
Hi Giovanni,
I just want to say how much I enjoyed reading your essay. I've been fascinated by your notion of relative locality ever since I wrote about it for New Scientist last year, and it's great to now read about its deep implications in your paper here. Between your group's work and others' work on holography, it's hard to imagine that spacetime can survive as an observer-independent feature of the world.
That is similarly the theme of my essay here. If you have a spare moment to look at it, I'd be extremely interested to hear your thoughts. My argument, in brief, is that given the relativity of the location of information in spacetime, and given the fact that there seems to be no way to patch together different obsevers' spacetimes into a single spacetime without violating the laws of physics, we may have to give up the assumption that there exists a single universe containing multiple observers.
In any case, thanks for your wonderful essay and I look forward to following your work in the future!
All best,
Amanda
correction of the last sentence:
I suggest also that interior of black hole does not exist, do you agree to this?
Dear Giovanni,
This is a very well-written piece, in the tradition of "against" in the philosophy of physics (with Paul Feyerabend's "Against Method" and John Bell's "Against measurement").
I also feel that some of the points you make are not singular and might reflect the views of many other physicists as well. I would enjoy to hear more about your thoughts about the problem of time of tunneling. I agree that it supports the view that time in spacetime is not an absolute quantity but it is instead detector-dependent, but then what's next? Can one construct a theory based on this observation? I realy am looking forward for Ref. [2], for which the current essay is a nice teaser :-).
Best of luck with the contest.
Hi Giovanni,
In my theory everything is emergent all from a mathematical structure that describes random numbers and imperative relations between them. Interpreting the random numbers as line lengths, the relations between these lines generate all of the laws of physics. You get a beautiful unified picture of space (its points are the crossing of the lines-dynamic-), time(change of state-does not actually exist-), mass, charge, and energy.The theory is called "Quantum Statistical Automata".
It is a kind of an automata conjectured by Wolfram and Conway, but mine derived from a more fundamental idea of why reality had to come about. Of course Dr Tegmark is also a believer in the mathematical universe. I did not know any of these great people back then, but I came to believe that reality is nothing but a mathematical structure and went directly to the simplest system to implement such program. I hit on the right system in no time due to a combination of a flash of brilliance (which we all experience), my engineering/problem solving background and extraordinary luck.
From the following results it can be seen that the system shows how ordinary physics results arise plus some results that standard physics can only dream of. But the most important conclusion is that the system points to the REAL final theory. All is needed is some smart people to take it seriously, or wait for me to finish it up in due time. Of course the former will be much quicker than the later.
Fundamental Theory of Reality,"Reality is nothing but a mathematical structure, literally".
1. How I arrived at the idea.
2. Basic results that shows how QM arises, written in BASIC program.
3. Description of two particles interacting and explaining the program in C++.
4. Showing the results for Bohr atom hydrogen 1s simulation.
5. 1/r law and the running phase
6. The amazing formulas deduced from the system.
7. How spin arises from 2D simulation.
8. The appearance of the mass of the electron through simulation.
9. How gravity arises.(basic simulations not shown yet)
There are many other results not shown.Attachment #1: 4_newqsa.pdf
Dear Giovanni,
More than a hundred years, physicists curve space (ideal self), and now you want to make the human race at the homeless and deprived of his memory.
All best,
Victoria
Dear Janko
thanks for your comments
I like that you noticed that there are some shared elements between Fotini's (Markopoulou) perspective and mine. Fotini is indeed among the physicists whose feedback I have most relied upon over the years, so surely there are some reciprocal influences that intertwine with the inevitable differences of perspective
concerning the interior of a black hole...well...to get an answer of the only type I am interested in I would need to find a very passionate, innovative and trustworthy graduate student...
there may be one daring to take the journey inside the black hole
and I am willing to imagine that there can be one creative enough to find a way to send infos (tunneling?) back outside the black hole to me
but how could I trust her/his report of the measurement results?
so I should be the one to go on the journey inside the black hole, but I am not going
cheers
Giovanni
dear Victoria
thanks
I very much like your connection:
spacetimeless homeless
cheers
Giovanni
Dear Amanda
I am glad you liked my essay
yours was one of the first essays I looked at because of the title (well I now like your title...but at first I was simply curious about the title because "solipsism" was not in my English vocabulary, which as you might remember has severe limitations)
I really enoyed your essay and I am routing for you
there are very many essays competing but it is nonetheless surprising to me that quite a few of them are against or partly-against spacetime
it seems however that quantum mechanics is "most popular" (which in a sense means least popular...considered most likely to be superseded soon...)
cheers
Giovanni
dear Gheorghe
I am of course very glad you liked my essay
And I agree that views against or partly-against spacetime are starting to be not uncommon. I get a sense of that also from the choice of subject of some of the essays in this competition
and concerning "what next?"...well....formulating a theory without a "time of spacetime" but only very many (not necessarily mutually consistent in the standard sense) possibilities for a "time of a specific clock" looks like a formidable challenge....but a challenge that I consider interesting conceptually even if in the end Nature turned out not make use of it...
and I confess that I have not so far managed to imagine how to do it...the farthest I have gone along roughly this direction is my work on the "relative-locality framework" but that only goes no more than half way: in relative locality one can still refer to a "time of spacetime" and a "space of spacetime" with the only limitation that inferences about the spacetime location of networks of distant events are less robust, with anomalies governed by the minute Planck length but qualitatively striking
cheers
Giovanni
No Joy. Gravity and inertia are more fundamental to physics than quantum theory. Here's why: Fundamental gravitational and inertial equivalency and balancing (both at half strength/force) fundamentally demonstrates F=ma. (Acceleration is fundamentally balanced and averaged in keeping therewith as well.) My essay clearly demonstates/proves this. Real/true quantum gravity requires fundamental inertial and gravitational equivalency and balancing in conjunction with balanced and equivalent attraction and repulsion, the fact that gravity cannot be shielded, and instantaneity. A larger space must be made smaller, and a smaller space must be made larger.
Giovanni -- Einstein's GR never fundamentally and truly combined, balanced, and included inertia and gravity, and it never fundamentally demonstrated F=ma.
Accordingly, GR never accounted for stabilized (and fundamental) distance in/of space in and with time.
Time requires gravity -- another flaw of GR. The ultimate understanding of physics combines, balances, and includes opposites. MATHEMATICS CANNOT COMBINE, BALANCE, AND INCLUDE OPPOSITES.
Fundamental gravitational and inertial equivalency and balancing (both at half strength/force) fundamentally and truly involves balanced and equivalent attraction and repulsion. Gravity must be reduced proportionate to the extent that inertia is increased. Only our growth and development can fundamentally, theoretically, and generally unify physics. My essay proves all of this, in fact and in detail.
Indeed, the self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximztion of experience in general by combining conscious and unconscious experience.
I have fundamentally and generally unified physics. Can you review and rate my essay Giovanni?
Dear Giovanni,
Quantum mechanics says: if something cannot be measured, this does not exist. Your answer to me show on this property (nonexistence) for interior of a black hole. Admittedly, it is not absolutely clear, if your examples really means nonexistence of measurement.
The second is my argument in my essay that this interior is a similar "almost impossible thing" as tahions.
The third argument is what you hinted in your essay.
The fourth argument is that this is not contradictory supposition.
etc..
It is also interesting your use of imaginary numbers in physics. My article gives a simple argument for nonexistence of space-time, but besides, it here is also one example for use of imaginary numbers. Imaginary distance between two events in space-time of Minkowski means that signaling between these two events is not possible. Your imaginary speed at tunneling can give a similar pedagogical conclusion ...
One essay with this idea of emergent space-time is also of Dribus. I suspect it we are not the only one here.
I am very sure that space-time is emergent. It is not problem to me to bet with someone. Do you also? :)
P.S.
Do you know Italian form of name Janko. The answer is hidden in this post. :)
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.
Dear Giovanni,
As I said in my first post I have read your essay with great interest.
After reading your essay again I thought that you might like to read something that was once intended to be my diploma thesis (in a quiet longer and more complicated version). : About the length of world lines ... (my essay)
My abstract could be like this:
There is a way to test if the metric (based on the notion of distance, given by the Minkowski norm) tying space and time to space-time really exists.
By using an assumption that is (WLOG) weaker then the assumption that has been used to derive Minkowski norm, we can see that reversed triangle inequality (one of the three conditions that have to be met for space and time to be a four-dimensional metric space) is violated. Thus space and time can not be seen as a four-dimensional metric space.
Kind regards,
Frank
