Alternative Models of Reality

Steve Dufourny

R=2MG/c^2 S=Ac^3/4reduced hG

T=reduced h/8piMG now let s consider my equation E=mc^2+Xl^2 and let s correlate R=2MG/c^2+Xl^2 S=Ac^3 X^2 l^3 /4 reduced h G and dE=T dS Black holes and dark matter :) informations, holography and entropy

Steve Dufourny

Er^2-p^2c^2Xl^2=m^2c^4X^2l^4

Er^2-(pcl)^2X=(m0c^2+Xl^2)

Er=Root(m0c^2+Xl^2)^2+(pcXl)^2

Steve Dufourny

If my equation is correct, E=mc^2+Xl^2 , so how can we take this enormous energy in our nuclei if this energy is different than our actual nuclear logic. I consider the cold correlated with this cold dark matter encoded in our nuclei but how to check this, what is the method and technology to arrive to take it ? I search a road but not easy considering the energy matter tarnsformation.

Steve Dufourny

We have a big philosophical problem with the strings and the photons like only one essence of our reality, like if a kind of God created vibrations, oscillations to create our physicality. In fact that don t take into account the evolution, it is the meaning of my theory of spherisation, why we evolve ? it is important, why we have all these problems on Earth and so why this infinite eternal consciousness don t change the oscillations, Waves, fields to create the harmony? you see well that there is a big problem , philosophical, if we evolve there are reasons, and for this infinite consciousness, it needs to code and transform the energy in matters and create an evolutive system, that is why we have particles coded and not Waves like origin.

Zeug Gezeugt

How might one go about modelling our observable universe as a subsystem of the wavefunction of the universe, Ψ(U), which is itself a subsystem of the wavefunction of a multiverse that is the superposition of all possible universes, Ψ(Ψ,U)?

1. This model would assume universal entanglement and gross nonlocality ala Bohm & Hiley.

2. Its wavefunction realism however, would assume that Ψ(U) mathematically describes an abstract continuum of constantly evolving information rather than an external spacetime reality of physical structures.

3. The observable universe is to be modelled as a single 'world particle' in flux which is the instantaneous product of the intersection of the four fundamental force vectors.

4. The world particle is also an instantiation of one relative state vector of the branching wavefunction of the multiverse.

5. The world particle exists in multidimensional Hilbert space.

6. The world particle has as many degrees of freedom as needed to encode the observable universe. Its degrees of freedom with respect to the multiverse would be non-finite.

7. This encoding would be a function of the world particle's entanglement entropy.

8. The world particle exists only for a Planck second before it is annihilated in a new alignment of the four force vectors that form a new world particle.

9. The speed limit of entangled information (such as a photon) is to be derived from the speed of the four vector flux, as in 1 bit (world particle) per Planck second.

10. Space and linear, calculable time would also be relative properties derived from this world particle flux.

My interest is philosophical and focused on the metaphysics of quantum foundations and its various 'pictures' of physical reality. Any suggestions, criticisms or queries are welcome.

Robert McEachern

In regards to (2):

The wavefunction does not describe "an abstract continuum of constantly evolving information", rather it describes a real "drug test" - see my Jan. 6, 2020 @ 15:58 GMT comment

In other words, like a "drug test", the wavefunction is not describing any "substance" at all, but rather, is only describing the detection statistics for determining if some substance is actually present, right "here", right "now" at the detector, that (rightly or wrongly) happens to match the detection criteria built into the detector. The problem is, such a theory utterly fails to deal with the reality of that fact that all such "drug tests" produce some "false positives". As a direct result, all the standard interpretations of quantum theory result in absurdities, because they have all assumed that "bit errors" (false positives) never occur. And that assumption completely distorts (via a systematic bias) the view of reality, embedded into all such interpretations.

Rob McEachern

Zeug Gezeugt

@Robert, sorry this forum software is rather obtuse and I couldn't find your "drug test" comments.

So as regards to (2), you can't operationalise the wave function of the universe can you? Any 'drug tests' you perform will be with its subsystems whereas, as I understand it, Ψ(U) is more an ontological concept.

And for your average mad dog Everettian there is only the branching wave function of the universe in Hilbert space isn't there? Ψ(U) defines fundamental reality, and such is wave function realism as opposed to more operational or experimentalist notions of what a wave function is useful for.

The reference to information is my simple attempt to clearly delineate this approach from more classical minded notions of an external physical spacetime. Inasmuch as it remains meaningful to talk of an 'external reality' somehow propping up our observable universe, that externality is 'It from Bit', or Qubit, which again is an ontological proposition. I like the information picture of physical reality that is slowly emerging from writers like Deutsch etc., as it seems appropriately abstract to me.

How we get from a multiverse of information to the encoded reality we experience as observers at the centre of our observable universe is what I'm interested in. This is a philosophical question concerning empirical reality, and my model outline is an attempt to align that with some of the more esoteric metaphysical pictures coming out of quantum foundations--From Bohm, Everett, Bell and Wheeler to Deutsch, Mermin and Tegmark... I very much enjoy reading scientists uncovering their natural philosophies. Don't you?

Robert McEachern

It is unfortunate that there is no easy way to "show all replies", so that a link will go directly to a comment that is hidden. To see my comment, click on the "show all replies" under this comment

Your interests coincide with my own. You might find my work on the misunderstandings regarding information in physics to be of some interest:

What is Information?

The limiting case of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle corresponds to a single bit of information

The behavior of that single bit, is the ultimate cause of the seemingly weird correlations observed in Bell-tests

Discussion with Barry Plotkin: How this relates to "It from Bit"

The concepts of "Many-Worlds" and a Multiverse, originated from a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the nature of superpositions, in Fourier Analysis

Rob McEachern

Zeug Gezeugt

@Robert, thanks for those links. And again in regards to (2):

Personally I tend to try and simplify the term 'information' to mean a more general and abstract concept as opposed to its instantiation in empirical data.

So on the one hand, empirically we can see 'real patterns' (cf Dennett) in/as our observable world, or data streams or symbolic representations and so on. This is information actualised, as a fact of whatever matter is at hand, and something that we can at least try to make sense of.

On the other hand, information in the general sense is more an ontological concept about how our sense making arises, if that makes sense? Information is then the whole potential from which we can empirically derive actual knowledge, actual form, actual data and so on.

As I understand it, it's this abstract potentiality that is amenable to mathematical formalisation in theorems such as Shannon's entropy or the Nyquist theorem etc.

Philosophically, potentiality is what gives (or allows or constrains) form to actuality, it 'informs' in the old Latin sense of the informare.

So with information as pure potentiality there is by definition no fact of the matter of its actuality, it has no actual place of occurrence, no time or space, and no materiality. And that's how I'd like to understand the wave function of the multiverse, as a mathematical formalisation of purely potential physical realities where the total potential includes all possible universes.

Somehow, we observers are such that we actualise one subsystem, a cross section, of that multiversal potentiality.

This then follows onto (3) and the quasi-Bohmian proposition of modelling the actual observer/observed universe as a multidimensional 'world particle' entangled with a constantly evolving multiverse of potentiality (this latter is also how I understand Tegmark's notion of the Level IV multiverse, as a totality of mathematical/informational potential).

Fundamentally speaking, we're each of us a subsystem of the wave function of the multiverse that has evolved to reflect back on itself and so adapt to and modify its flux of entanglements.

Basically I'm here to pitch for a collaboration with a physicist although it's probably far too late for the current FQXi grants round and I'm just an itinerant philosopher!

Robert McEachern

In Shannon's conception of information, unlike any other, information has nothing to do with empirical data per se. It has to do with the innate properties of all mathematical functions, under certain conditions. Hence, when a physicist attempts to describe empirical data via any mathematical functions at all, the properties of the functions themselves, will be transferred to the data, where they will very probably be mistaken for properties of the data (physical phenomenon), rather than properties of the description of the data. This conception can easily be extended to any possible description of reality - along with the consequence of mistaking the properties of the descriptions, for properties of the things being described. Such is the case with both wavefunctions and interpretations of wavefunctions.

So, as you have observed, "with information as pure potentiality there is by definition no fact of the matter"; except one - information is not about "facts of the matter" at all. Rather, it is about the maximum number of "facts of the matter", that can ever be discerned/determined/derived from within any set of observations, or any set of descriptions of observations, such as a set of mathematical equations describing "laws of nature". The quantum realm exists, precisely because that maximum number of "facts of the matter" can be exactly equal to one - the lone fact that something, rather than nothing (the "drug test"), can be determined to exist, right here, right now. That lone fact, is what a single bit of information either is, or can ever represent. Wavefunctions merely describe the statistics of multiple "drug tests", that merely test for "something rather than nothing", right here, right now, at some testing site. And as is the case with all such drug tests, there is no guarantee that the "something" you managed to detect, is the same sort of thing as the "something" that you were hoping to detect. That is precisely why quantum theory seems so weird; what is being detected, is frequently quite different (the exact opposite - a bit-error, or false-positive) than what was meant to be detected.

Rob McEachern

Zeug Gezeugt

@Robert: "Wavefunctions merely describe the statistics of multiple "drug tests""

This is a statement of your own fundamental assumption regarding what wave functions are good for. And your interpretation of Shannon's concept of information would appear to devolve from that basis.

As already mentioned, I'm not particularly interested in those sort of more operational or experimentalist arguments regarding the utility or otherwise of wave functions but rather I'm trying to follow the logic of 'wave function realism' concerning the possibility of a wave function of the universe/multiverse.

This latter, Ψ(U), can't describe a 'drug test' can it? It could only describe you and your lab world entangled with your 'drug test'. As far as I can see this is a purely conceptual setup that is useful for considering things like Everett's relative state formulation of QM for example. Or some multiverse cosmologies and so on.

Whether or not you want to ascribe the mathematical regularities uncovered by wave function 'drug tests' to an artefact of the mathematic formalism itself, or to the objective properties of the phenomena you're 'drug testing', is for me beside the point.

I'm interested in the real patterns we see in the world, the empirical totality of the regularities of our sense perception, and mathematical regularities are certainly part of that observable world, especially if you're a mathematician! But that's just my Husserlian bias speaking of course.

So I think we can safely agree to significantly diverge with respect to what a wave function is describing as well as the definitional distinction between information and empirical data. Our ontological assumptions would appear to be orthogonal branches in this observable universe!

That said, do you have any other suggestions, criticisms or queries relating to my post?

Robert McEachern

"This latter, Ψ(U), can't describe a 'drug test' can it?" For that very reason, it also cannot describe anything else. In other words, it cannot even exist.

"Our ontological assumptions would appear to be orthogonal branches in this observable universe!"

Unfortunately, your assumption that orthogonality even exists, as a property, of "the real patterns we see in the world", is no longer even a logical possibility, when those patterns manifest only a single bit of information; because the very concept of orthogonality, then becomes self-contradictory. There is nothing for a single bit, to be orthogonal to. That is why entanglement exists; You can never make uncorrelated measurements of two independent variables, when only one exists. When the information content drops below two bits, something strange, analogous to a "phase change", occurs in the mathematics (not physics) of multi-variable functions - like water freezing into ice - two or more frozen-together water molecules can no longer move independently - And neither can two or more, formerly independent variables, that have become "frozen-together" as the consequence of mathematical conditions, that result in only a single bit of information being manifested - within the entire entangled system.

Think of a test for "humanness". The condition of "being human" cannot be determined by measuring a single variable, like mass. Detecting such a condition, is a complex combination of many "entangled" variables - that yield a single (possibly erroneous) yes/no (single bit) answer to the question "Is there a thing, near the test setup, that matches the "entangled" condition for being human?" When that thing is also so "dirty" and "blurry" that nothing else, other than its "humanness" can ever be reliably detected, then you have just entered the twilight-zone, known as the quantum realm. That peculiar condition, is what Shannon's conception of information, is all about.

That said, I have no other comments.

Rob McEachern

Zeug Gezeugt

@Robert: ""This latter, Ψ(U), can't describe a 'drug test' can it?" For that very reason, it also cannot describe anything else. In other words, it cannot even exist."

Your statement that a wave function of the universe "cannot even exist" is not a statement of fact though is it?

At most, your statement is a simple proposition regarding your own interpretation of the (im)possibility of 'wave function realism' that you might then argue for based on your ontological assumptions and various other definitions, like what you might mean by the term 'to exist' for example.

For me, 'existence' means actuality but that gets us back to the notion of potentiality, for only what is potentially actual can then become actual.

And Ψ(U) is an actual concept in quantum foundations concerning the whole universal set of potential phenomena. Actuality arises out of this potentiality, and constantly dissolves back into it as well. At least that's the premise.

Are there any Everettians or other wave function realists on this forum? It seems rather quiet here.

Robert McEachern

"At least that's the premise."

That's the problem.

"the theorems that failed to survive are ones that certainly served as apparent starting points for all theoretical developments, but only because they were thought to be so self-evident that it was usually considered unnecessary to mention them specifically, or they were completely forgotten." Max Planck

The EPR paradox and Schrodinger's Cat were meant to serve as Reductio ad absurdum warnings, that some truly fundamental premise of quantum theory must be false. That famous claim, has finally been demonstrated to be true.

"Your statement that a wave function of the universe "cannot even exist" is not a statement of fact though is it?" Unfortunately for existing quantum theory, it is, if by "wavefunction", you mean anything other than a computational device for predicting the results of "drug tests."

"Are there any Everettians or other wave function realists on this forum? It seems rather quiet here."

And it will eventually be getting a lot quieter in that regard, now that the false premises underlying all of quantum theory, have finally been identified. Dead man walking. And all those men are not happy about their fate. But that is why they were warned.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Max Planck

Rob McEachern

Zeug Gezeugt

@Robert, sorry but I find your claim that non-realist interpretations of Ψ, such as your 'drug test' notion, have "finally been demonstrated to be true", to be ludicrously unfounded. It's basically just a statement of your own faith based belief in whatever ontology you have assumed that then more or less logically upholds that belief.

And it's your ontology that is questionable, just like the rest of us. In philosophy we start with questions rather than absolute certitudes. The trick then is how far can you go in questioning your certainties?

You are free of course to keep believing in your certainty, but as far as I know the contemporary debates in quantum foundations are still ongoing precisely because there is a total lack of consensus, and empirical evidence, concerning the relation between our experience and what the wave function mathematically describes. This is an ongoing metaphysical debate and any belief that you might have somehow grasped the absolute truth of the matter is, frankly speaking, philosophically naive.

But you've made your point more or less clear: You do not believe in the 'existence' of a wave function of the universe because you assume a utilitarian concept of Ψ as a fundamental premise of your various arguments. Given that the very first sentence of this post assumes 'wavefunction realism' as a basis for its arguments then as I've already said, we can agree to disagree on our basic assumptions.

So thanks for the opportunity to work through some notions of information, potentiality, and actuality. If you have any further suggestions, criticisms or queries relating to the 10 points of this post concerning my proposed alternative model of reality, please feel free to join in!

Robert McEachern

Do you believe that wavefunctions can be used to compute the probability of finding some particular, real entity at some particular point, at some particular time, as is commonly believed?

If so, then how would you go about computing the probability of finding me, at some particular place and time? Let me be perfectly clear about what I am asking. I am not asking if you can use wavefunctions to determine the probability of finding some mathematical abstraction, such as my center-of-mass, at some given point, but of finding me myself, the real thing, at that point. And even if you did find something, at that point, what would ever induce you to believe that you had just found me, rather than my twin brother, with every last atom, exactly where it should be? How did you go about confirming my Identity as being absolutely identical to ME - down to the very last atom? Or do you believe that it is acceptable to simply assume in every instance, that the things you manage to detect, are absolutely identical to the things that you believe you have detected, so that there is never any need to confirm the identity of anything, ever?

As a philosopher, I am sure you are aware of the question debated by the ancient Greek philosophers "Can you find something, without knowing exactly what you are looking for?" That is the nature of the problem.

Rob McEachern

Zeug Gezeugt

@Robert, thanks but I'm not interested in discussing your notion of identity, I'm much more interested in getting feedback on my 10 points I posted above. Which I would assume was at some point the purpose of this now apparently abandoned forum. You know, discussing other people's ideas as they post them.

So is this forum dead? I can't see much activity since 2017 or so. Do you know where the physicists went? Is there a more modern version of the FQXi forum somewhere?

Robert McEachern

"Do you know where the physicists went?" Apparently, the same place as all the soldiers...

"Where have all the soldiers gone? Gone to graveyards every one..."

"It is enough to make poor William of Ockham turn in his grave... little appeal to professional scientists, whose instincts are to seek for a tight and economic understanding of the world. Very few of them indeed have espoused the Everett interpretation. It has, however, been more popular with what one might call the "gee-whiz" school of science popularizers, always out to stun the public with the weirdness of what they have to offer."

My, my, how the world has changed, since John Polkinghorne wrote those words a generation ago. Real physicists seem to have all died-off, like the dinosaurs, and the stunned public (now grown into "virtual" physicists, earnestly devoting themselves to studying the "gee-whiz" that so excited them in their youth) has inherited the earth... only to abandon it, flitting about, preferring to inhabit a metaphysical swampland they themselves created, from nothing more than one of their own quantum vacuum fluctuations, via an act of sheer will-power; Actuality arising from potentiality.

"Is there a more modern version of the FQXi forum somewhere?"

It would seem probable to some... in one of Everett's alternate universes.

Personally, I've been trying to find a less modern version, like back when theoretical physicists actually studied the properties of nature, rather than only studying the properties of their speculations. You have yet to perceive, that I have been referring to an actual, independently-replicated, quod erat demonstrandum, that has been viewed by thousands and refuted by none (silence speaks volumes); not just more of the same-old-same-old "gee-whiz" speculation.

Rob McEachern

Zeug Gezeugt

@Robert, I take it you are the troll lurking under the bridge of this abandoned forum and you have no interest in actually engaging with my or anyone else's ideas except your own.

That's not a question just a statement of apparent fact.

I take it you can also not resist the urge to have the last reply, thus burying this and other threads in an inaccessible stream of your doctrinaire non sequiturs.

Oh and by 'modern forum' I meant in terms of software that allows ease of navigation, editing of posts and so on, as opposed to this tedious sub-forum of posts and buried replies going back to 2013 on just a single slow loading page. Have you tried accessing this on a mobile platform? Hopeless!

Given the amount of money they're disbursing in 2020 grants you'd think they might afford a moderated forum on a modern platform that would encourage discussion while stomping on trolls like yourself. Or are the moderators here just on holiday?

IS THERE ANYBODY HOME AT FQXi?

Robert McEachern

I envision myself more as a gadfly, than a troll; as a self-professed "itinerant philosopher", you ought to be cognizant of the distinction.

Moderated Forums? You mean like those of peer-reviewed physics journals, that provoked Julian Schwinger to declare "The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors' rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science."? In the thirty years since that was written, the situation has only deteriorated further. Do you really suppose that the inhabitants of such a world, have any desire to "encourage discussion" between themselves, and the likes of either you or me?

"That's not a question just a statement of apparent fact."

I have said that "Your interests coincide with my own." You simply have yet to realize how that can possibly be true. Are you yourself so "philosophically naive" that you did not understand the notice at the top of this page? This page was created precisely to quarantine the likes of you and me, so that "real" physicists don't ever have to sully their shoes, while "stomping on trolls" like you and me.

"IS THERE ANYBODY HOME AT FQXi?" Just the likes of you and me. Real physicists are only to be found, "on holiday" at one of FQXi's "invitation only" conferences - free from all annoying philosophers, gadflys, trolls and all other manner of persona non grata. I sincerely do hope that I have not rained too hard on your parade. But perhaps you might now at least understand why this "abandoned forum", like all of fundamental physics, has come to exist in its present state. Oh and Welcome to the forum. Not much left to it these days, other than a few old gadflys, still trying to revive a moribund steed, known by the proud sobriquet "modern physics", back in its glory days. A few, as yet, still undeterred by the "hopeless" interface, now serving only to keep us at bay.

Rob McEachern

Georgina Woodward

Hi Malcolm. Robert is not a troll but like everyone who comments on this site, he has his own ideas he would like to promote.

This page is slow because of the number of posts but is not typical. Have you found the most recent first button in the left hand column? You are proposing what seems to me a rather complex framework. It might be helpful to ask how is it an improvement over other quantum models? What foundational questions does it answer? What questions does it raise that are amenable to experiment? If your framework is in any way associated with the topic of the latest FQXi competition, you could try putting together an essay. You will have up to 9 pages to explain your thinking. Readers and author can leave comments and discuss the essay on its own dedicated page.

Lorraine Ford

Malcolm,

I don't agree for one minute with Rob's or Georgina's views of the world.

However, you have made a huge set of assumptions about the world: that there exists multiverses and superpositions of possible universes; that masses of rules (presumably representable by us human beings as algorithmic steps and mathematical equations) exist that structure the whole thing; that numbers exist (what do you think numbers are?); that codes (i.e. systems of symbolic representation of what already exists) exist; that the world somehow "knows" about and keeps track of all these universes, rules, numbers and codes; etc. Why don't you keep it simple?

Zeug Gezeugt

@Lorraine, re my assumption that the mathematical regularities we observe in our observable universe might be understood in terms of a wave function of the multiverse that describes all potential universes including this one--have you heard of the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH) and its level IV multiverse?

Its main proponent is the founding and current scientific director of FQXi, Max Tegmark. While I can't agree with his notions of static mathematical structure (I prefer the irreducible Heraclitean flux as a ground) I do like the overall notion that mathematical regularities are informational regularities, and that this is ultimately what physical reality consists of.

Many other theorists are also working through these information possibilities, people like Sara Amari Walker for example, and of course David Deutsch famously understands the multiverse in informational terms. Not to mention that Everettian notions of QM are more or less mainstream nowadays for which the wave function of the universe defines what is real.

I have no idea where you get from my post "that numbers exist (what do you think numbers are?)" and so on. I'd make a joke about the existence of 'real' numbers but I fear you might take me literally!

Lorraine Ford

Malcolm,

Ideas of multiverses where other laws of nature (represented by other equations) exist and/or other physical outcomes (represented by other numeric values for the variables in the equations) exist are only for wimps who can't face up to the real world. Sorry, but there are NO universes where the koalas didn't get burned in the bushfires, people didn't die, and landscapes didn't get razed.

I have no respect for the ideas of people like Max Tegmark and Davis Deutsch, and the "mainstream" in their ivory towers, dreaming that other worlds exist while their own world burns. I wish they'd grow up!

Re numbers:

1) Numbers (equated to variables representing categories of information like relative mass or position) are what physics uses to represent potential and actual outcomes. When you assume that multiverses exist, you are assuming that a different universe exists for every different number i.e. a new universe springs into existence for every possible numeric value for every category of information, for every point position in the universe, for every moment in time.

2) Clearly, something exists at the micro-level which underlies our numeric symbolic representations: you've got the category and the number to account for. And clearly, the micro-world is not advanced enough to be doing set theory, which requires sophisticated processing steps; so realistically, numbers can only be derived from relationships, in the same sense that laws of nature are relationships, but where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out. Don't tell me you believe in Platonic realms, which are another cop-out for those who are not willing to face the real world.

Steve Agnew

Feedback on ten questions...

First of all, physical reality is made up of changes in matter action and space and time emerge from those changes. However, the universe is a wavefunction just as a photon is a wavefunction as well. The universe wavefunction is what we call quantum gravity relativity and the photon wavefunction is what bonds matter.

"How might one go about modelling our observable universe as a subsystem of the wavefunction of the universe, Ψ(U), which is itself a subsystem of the wavefunction of a multiverse that is the superposition of all possible universes, Ψ(Ψ,U)?"

The universe is a wavefunction, but is all that we can know about. We cannot know about the multiverse...

"1. This model would assume universal entanglement and gross nonlocality ala Bohm & Hiley."

For wavefunctions, entanglement, superposition, and nonlocality directly follow.

"2. Its wavefunction realism however, would assume that Ψ(U) mathematically describes an abstract continuum of constantly evolving information rather than an external spacetime reality of physical structures."

The matter action universe is discrete and not a continuum.

"3. The observable universe is to be modeled as a single 'world particle' in flux which is the instantaneous product of the intersection of the four fundamental force vectors."

The universe is made up of a finite number of particles. Forces emerge from the acceleration of light.

"4. The world particle is also an instantiation of one relative state vector of the branching wavefunction of the multiverse."

It is not possible to measure anything outside of the universe.

"5. The world particle exists in multidimensional Hilbert space."

Physics uses dimensions to fill in the blanks. There are only two dimensions needed: matter and action. Along with quantum phase, matter and action wavefunctions make up physical reality.

"6. The world particle has as many degrees of freedom as needed to encode the observable universe. Its degrees of freedom with respect to the multiverse would be non-finite."

Degrees of freedom are like fudge factors...none are needed for matter action.

"7. This encoding would be a function of the world particle's entanglement entropy."

Entropy is a classical notion that helps physics cover up for what it does not yet know. Universe decay drives the arrow of time, not really entropy.

"8. The world particle exists only for a Planck second before it is annihilated in a new alignment of the four force vectors that form a new world particle."

There is only one fundamental fundamental particle. It is the acceleration of light that leads to all forces...

"9. The speed limit of entangled information (such as a photon) is to be derived from the speed of the four vector flux, as in 1 bit (world particle) per Planck second."

The speed of light only accounts for one time dimension. The very slow acceleration of light is the second time dimension. There are two dimensions of time in matter action.

"10. Space and linear, calculable time would also be relative properties

derived from this world particle flux."

Yes. Time and space both emerge from the acceleration of the universe particle flux along with all quantum exchange forces. Quantum wavefunctions with phase make up all of physical reality...

Zeug Gezeugt

@Steve Agnew: "physical reality is made up of changes in matter action"

So, just to be clear, this notion of the "matter action universe" is your own personal metaphysics of science? While I have no time to delve into it please feel free to correct any of my probable misconceptions regarding the basic physics and mathematical formalism of my own proposed model. I am not a physicist, I am merely an itinerant philosopher.

SA: "The universe is a wavefunction, but is all that we can know about."

I thought that, strictly speaking, our actual observable universe is all that we can know as we are its observers. The wave function of the universe on the other hand, at least in the Everettian sense, is precisely what we can't know as we're already entangled in/as one of its relative state vectors--Wigner's friend has no possible perspective external to their relative entanglement in Ψ(U).

SA: "We cannot know about the multiverse..."

Not directly in a many worlds / relative state sense, where our actual observable universe is simply our experience of one branch of a constantly branching many worlds multiverse.

But what about inflationary bubble universes? They're just an extension of our own observable universe but accelerating away from our accelerating horizon--at least as far as I understand inflation. Tegmark makes an argument that the observed finetuning in our universe is evidence for that kind of what he calls Level I multiverse.

Then there's his Level IV multiverse that I read as the superposition of all possible universes, its wave function would describe the mathematical regularity of any and all states. One cross-section of this wave function would be our universe, another might describe a universe that evolves negative entropy over a reversed Planck second before annihilating itself. Obviously ours is easier to be alive in, observe, and know about, so we can't know/observe the whole multiverse in that sense.

However, this notion of a Level IV multiverse does change how we might think about and conceive of our observable universe as a subsystem of its wave function. I think its truth or falsity as a multiverse theory will probably rest on how effective it might be as a fundamental concept for any future metaphysics that actually succeeds in making some sense of a quantum mechanical worldview.

SA: "2. The matter action universe is discrete and not a continuum."

I was just referring to the way the Schrodinger equation is a continuous differential equation so wave functions evolve as continuums, mathematically at least, or as I might say their evolving potential is a continuum. Our actual, observable ('matter action' or otherwise) universe does appear to be fundamentally discrete though. Which is to say our observations of physical phenomena are discrete. Schrodinger himself was rather erudite on this apparently fundamental relation between the mathematical continuum and the discreteness of atomism / quanta.

MR: "3. The observable universe is to be modeled as a single 'world particle' in flux which is the instantaneous product of the intersection of the four fundamental force vectors."

SA: "The universe is made up of a finite number of particles."

Yes, or empirically observable physical stuff as I like to say. The 'world particle' would be the unitary flux of forces that at any moment in the evolution of the wave function of our universe gives rise to our fundamentally discrete observational experiences. Observations in this sense are higher order phenomena emergent on that Planck magnitude flux. So you can experience your observable universe of discrete particles where that discreteness emerges from the continuum of Ψ(U) of which the observer is a subsystem.

The 'world particle' is thus a model of our observable universe with an observer as its entangled centre.

SA: "4. It is not possible to measure anything outside of the universe."

Yes, more or less by definition if you mean trying to measure something not in our observable universe and thus by definition non-observable. The 'world particle' isn't something we might observe though as in this model it simply is the observable universe described as a unitary observational flux. I'm looking for a possible collaborator who might be able to mathematically model that flux of forces as an evolving set of entanglements.

SA: "5. Physics uses dimensions to fill in the blanks."

Hilbert Space is a multidimensional mathematical tool and as far as I know exceptionally useful for quantum calculation. As I understand it, Ψ(U) evolves in Hilbert Space following the Schrodinger equation. But here the 'world particles' dimensionality describes the total possible entanglements that might constitute it at any moment, and presumably by definition those entanglements would be defined by the wave function of its observable universe.

SA: "7. Entropy is a classical notion that helps physics cover up for what it does not yet know."

Yes, it's a measure of 'uncertainty' which as I understand it can also be used as a measure of randomness / regularity in data sets according to Shannon's notion; or as a measure of the overall energy density of a physical system, which also means its dis-orderliness according to the Boltzmann notion; whereas Von Neumann's entanglement entropy is a measure of the degree of entanglement in a system. And thus entropy in general can also be thought of as a measure of the complexity of any set, structure, or system ... more or less.

So then, I understand the 'world particles' degrees of freedom in Hilbert space as a function of its complexity in terms of its entanglement entropy. That entanglement would also define the scale of its observable universe: Would its holographic entanglement entropy define the boundary limit of that universe as a function of the surface area large enough to encompass it? This would be a spatial volume derived from HEE rather than from an external classical spacetime.

These are just some of the metaphysical 'picture' concepts I'm playing with based on a rather specific philosophical concept of the observer / observable universe. Please feel free to correct my language in your own terms!

Steve Agnew

You have impressive detail about a diverse number of sometimes quite complex notions. Yes...matter action is the only way that I can explain the observations of science and also unite quantum gravity with quantum charge. It bothers me that no one else seems to be able to unite gravity and charge since matter action does it so well.

I hope this will be useful to you and I do encourage your further endeavors. Matter action does explain the nature of physical reality but I really cannot claim to have the only solution to the universe and matter action may indeed have some fatal flaw that is not yet apparent. After all, there are lots more people smarter than I am out there so why should I be the only one with unification?

The notion of a wavefunction is simply an expression of the quantum nature of matter. All matter oscillates and when matter oscillates in phase, it can bond. The phase coherence of matter oscillation can persist even with separation and that is entanglement. Exchange of light photons is how matter bonds and so light exchange is the glue of both charge and gravity.

You bring up the notion of the universe as a wavefunction, with which I agree. In fact, the universe wavefunction is how matter action quantum gravity relativity works. There is no way to measure and therefore know anything outside of the universe. In fact, just as you point out, there are even many things even within the quantum universe, i.e. mysteries, that we cannot measure and therefore cannot know as well. Quantum entanglement is at the root of things that we cannot know and yet entanglement does affect our lives and so you are right in your surmise about entanglement.

The multiverse and multidimensional stringy and loopy notions are all interesting religious beliefs just like reality as a simulation by some master simulator. Since there are no measurements that affirm or deny these religions, I prefer to avoid them. My preference is to keep things that science measures separate from religious beliefs about the mysteries that do exist. Philosophical discourse is about questions and mysteries that really have no unique answers and yet there are many questions that may in fact have answers that we just do not yet know. Therefore philosophy does provide a useful discourse distinct from the measurements of science the beliefs of religion.

Inflationary bubble universes emerge from the notion of inflation, which is a patch to the make big-bang universe singularity consistent with the uniformity of the CMB. Since matter action is already consistent with the uniformity of the CMB, matter action does not have any singularities like the the big bang or the patches like inflation.

The fundamental notion of a singularities in spacetime is what spins many narratives and also spoils many notions of unification. Since matter action is made of discrete particles, there are no singularities since space and time both emerge from discrete matter action. Black holes are singularities in spacetime but black holes are just pure phase in matter action. Black holes are the ultimate destiny of the matter action universe and not really a singularity.

Matter action supposes that the universe is made up of a very large but finite number of aether particles. Matter, space, time, and motion then all emerge from the actions of those particles, what we call change.

Boy, you bring up quite a cornucopia of notions. The notion of finetuning makes no sense in matter action since matter action is a cycle of universes where many constants vary together, not individually. There are just two constants for each universe cycle: aether particle mass and action constant, i.e., Planck's constant. All of the other constants derive from just these two along with the dimensions of matter and action with quantum phase.

The universe collapse is the half cycle outcome that emerges from a half cycle precursor that is an antiverse expansion of antimatter. This is the causal set of precursors and outcomes from which space and time then emerge.

It is true that the Schrödinger equation is based on continuous space and time. However, the Hamiltonian step operators are the discrete basis for quantum electrodynamics (QED), which is actually how things work. Discrete operators form the bases of the Hilbert spaces that you mention, but do not elaborate on. It is important to limit the complexification of things by bringing in too many complex terms. It is better to use as simple language as possible for civilians and save the complex math for the technicals...

You mention four force vectors but this means you are in spacetime. All spacetime forces emerge from particle exchange of quantum field theory and so matter action forces are all exchange forces, not vector forces. Vectors emerge from space and time.

Physics often uses extra dimensions to fill in blanks of knowledge. Matter action has just the two dimensions of matter and action and along with quantum phase, is consistent with measurements. Matter and action are a Hilbert Space, but there is no need in matter action for another 8 to 48 dimensions to unite gravity and charge. All that is necessary to unify gravity with charge is to include the acceleration of light along with the speed of light. Then the bonding of charge is a result of photon exchange and the bonding of gravity is due to biphoton exchange. All matter, after all, is the result of photon exchange bonds with complementary and entangled photon emission. This entangled biphoton exchange is the basis of quantum gravity relativity.

Thanks for mentioning holographic entanglement entropy, HEE. I had not even known that this was a big deal until you mentioned it. Of course, it is quite a complex notion and involves lots of quantum field theories, anti de Sitter spacetime, and so on. These are all notions that might unify gravity and charge in spacetime, but matter action already unifies gravity and charge. So HEE is just a lot of complexity just like stringy and loopy and antiverse and singularity that matter action does not need.

Zeug Gezeugt

Steve Agnew: "I hope this will be useful to you and I do encourage your further endeavors."

Thanks for your patience and open minded replies. I came here to bounce some metaphysical ideas around with physicists and adapt my terms and logic to that discourse ... you are very useful indeed Steve!

SA: "You bring up the notion of the universe as a wavefunction, with which I agree.... Quantum entanglement is at the root of things that we cannot know and yet entanglement does affect our lives and so you are right in your surmise about entanglement."

I have a quite specific philosophical model in mind for the observer-observable universe that treats these two not as a dualism but as a unity where you can't conceive of one apart from the other, and I would like to think entanglement as the physical basis for that unity. But this doesn't mean there's a classical physical observer on one end and its observable universe on the other, somehow connected by entangled quantum systems. I'm trying to think of the whole as an entangled system such that the wave function of the observable universe is the universe observing itself. Any notion of the observer being merely one's own subjective individuality here would then be weakly emergent on a fundamentally universal physical phenomenon, that of the wave function of the observable universe and its constantly evolving observational subsystems.

So I think for this model to work, the observer must be defined not as just an isolated physical system, an individual body with sense organs and a physical memory (Everett's automaton), but rather the observer is nothing more than its sensory observations. From this perspective, the wave function of the observer is defined by its constantly evolving observational entanglements with its observable universe. And the total set of possible observational entanglements is described by the wavefunction of that observable universe.

For us humans this observational flux includes one's body senses, but also vision, audition, and the chemical senses. For example, when you look at Achernar in the night sky you become physically entangled with its photons incident on your retina, and that entanglement spanning 140 light years proceeds through to the electrochemical excitation of brain states and whatever cognitive behavioural outputs that may ensue. Unknown to you as you gaze is the faint radiation from the CMB filtering through the atmosphere and incident on your body thus also entangling that physical form and its environment with the horizon of our observable universe. So too with the laboratory setup just at much closer range, there is a sensory flux associated with the somatosensory, audio-visual and chemical sensory inputs, and these flux of physical entanglements together make up the totality of the observational environment within the lab, subject also to the earth's gravitational pull and the other fundamental interactions keeping it all bound together the right way up, so to speak. From this observational perspective the observer and its environment / universe are a constantly decohering / entangling whole.

And as such, there can be no definite physical boundary between this observer and its environment--the whole set of entanglements is the 'observer' in the sense of an ongoing observational event, a flux of entanglements. It's this entangling flux of observation that I want to model as the 'world particle'. As an observational event it has a duration, such as an eyeblink for example, within which time we can observe say the alarm indicating the laser has emitted a photon in the lab. At 1/10 of a second there's a still a world of information that can be conveyed, and assuming the Planck second is a physical limit there would be about 1043 Planck level observational events comprising a single eyeblink.

SA: "You mention four force vectors but this means you are in spacetime. All spacetime forces emerge from particle exchange of quantum field theory and so matter action forces are all exchange forces, not vector forces. Vectors emerge from space and time."

I was more thinking of the four fundamental forces / interactions (strong, weak, EM and gravity) as vectors in the 'world particles' Hilbert space. Is this not an appropriate terminology?

The 'world particle' would then consist of the intersection of these fundamental forces, with the sum of their vectors defining the eigenstate of the 'world particle' at any Planck moment. This momentary eigenstate would be the product of the total entanglements constituting the observer's observable universe before it annihilates and is reconstituted in the next Planck second with the next set of constantly evolving entanglements. It's this series of Planck level events that makes actual the evolution of the observer's physical observational environment, on the order of 1044 times every second.

SA: "It is important to limit the complexification of things by bringing in too many complex terms. It is better to use as simple language as possible for civilians and save the complex math for the technicals..."

I totally agree! And this is absolutely true of philosophical discourse, where there are as many philosophies as there are philosophers to debate them. And we're always talking past one another by using the same terms but in fundamentally different senses. What I would like to do here is find our lowest common metaphysical denominators and work up from there which is why I'm deliberately trying my best not to introduce any technical terms from the philosophy of mind in favour of this world particle 'picture'. From a physics perspective I'm sure it is looking rather more like a cartoon?

Steve Agnew

I agree that we and the universe exist together as a whole, but be careful of the term dualism. Dualism has a long history in philosophy and is defined in about as many ways as there are philosophers. Usually people disparage dualism because of the soul separate from body or mind distinct from body and so on.

A wavefunction has both phase and amplitude but a classical particle has only intensity, which is the wavefunction squared. Gravity is a very tiny force that does not seem to have quantum phase while charge and other forces are 1e39th greater and have phase and show interference and entanglement.

When we are in phase, we bond and when we are out of phase, we conflict or scatter. Entanglement is all about phase correlation, but that entanglement can therefore be either bonding or conflicting. Since we bond to this universe and not another, we are in phase and entangled with this universe just as you say.

It is useful to think of light exchange as the glue that binds or indeed scatters all matter. An electron bonds to a proton by exchanging a photon in a hydrogen atom. An observer bonds to a measurement by exchanging a large number of photons. Remember that we get both phase and amplitude with each photon, but we shine on the measurements just as it shines on us and also affects whatever we measure as well. Light exchange is what bonds us to the universe and results in the noncommuting matter and action operators (or position and momentum or many other pairs).

Matter and action are both wavefunctions with quantum phase and therefore show entanglement. Matter and action are a Hilbert space and so you seem to be okay with that term. Be careful with the term annihilate since creation/annihilation operations are what make quantum field theory work.

The collapse of wavefunctions is really no mystery since the quantum fluctuations of charge also result in gravity fluctuations. The noise of gravity fluctuations seems to be more than sufficient to explain wavefunction collapse...

« Previous Page Next Page »