Essay Abstract

We argue that space and space-time emerge as a consequence of dynamical collapse of the wave function of macroscopic objects. We live in an approximate universe. At the fundamental level, everything is everywhere all the time: there are no goals to wander to.

Author Bio

Tejinder Singh is Professor of Physics at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai. His research interests are in foundations of quantum mechanics, quantum gravity, and cosmology. For many years he has been thinking about the nature of time, especially in the context of quantum theory. He believes that space and time are emergent properties of a classical universe. And since quantum theory depends on classical time, the current formulation of quantum theory must also be emergent, coming from a deeper theory in which there is no classical time. This issue seems deeply related to the quantum measurement problem.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Dr. Tejinder,

We are very close in our description of our essays, it's just that i am basing consciousness as the fundamental foundation to arrive at my conclusions and trying to provide a mathematical model using Riemann sphere to quantify consciousness as all the scientific community needs is quantification for accepting any theory. I welcome you to read the essay There are no goals as such it's all play and wish you all the best with your essay and my posts in it.

Love,

i.

    I think I suspected as much. In detail: properTime = (clockTime, properTime) and clockTime = (nonStandardFuture, standardPresent, NonStandardPast).

    There is an "infomorphism" from the noncommutative Universe to classical space time based on the usual equation defining proper time in terms of coordinate time.

    The wave function represents possibilities in the nonstandard future, and based on the usual equation for the Born rule there is another infomorphism from there to the nonstandard past. Which translates language about possibilities into language about probabilities.

    Professor Singh, in my humble lay person's opinion, your essay is a 10!

      Thank you for your kind remarks. I look forward to reading your essay.

      Best wishes,

      Tejinder

      Dear Lee,

      Thank you for your kind appreciation, and for your comments. I am glad we are thinking along similar lines. In my view, non-commutative time and space somehow capture in one whole what you nicely refer to as "(nonStandardFuture, standardPresent, NonStandardPast)."

      Best wishes,

      Tejinder

      Dear Steve,

      It is good to meet you again :-) And many thanks for your kind wishes.

      Best,

      Tejinder

      Dear Tejinder,

      Excellently written and brave essay, recognising the Kings New Clothes as fabrication, crying it out loud and even offering a cloaking device. I agree and applaud you 100% for all the identification and analysis (so 8/8 scored so far!) and provisionally 50% for effort with the cloak (~1).

      But I wish to find out if you're the 1 in 20 I've just referred to under Stephen Ternyiks short essay. One who understands QM and its foundations, has not blindly bought it all, and who also can look beyond both convention and just their OWN ideas for a solution.

      I've identified and describe the very simplest and most obvious self evident falsifiable classical solution in my essay. But it's the giant "elephant in the room", to big and simple it seems for anyone to "see"

      In a nutshell, there really ARE two (identifiable) orthogonal complementary classical states of momentum in an electron, consistent with Maxwell (only one is 'curl') Pairs travel on antiparalell polar axes. A detector electron is the same with a rotatable polar axis dictating transfer found (so much for non-locality!) and the momenta vary by the cos of the angle between the poles and equator, with values squared by a well known process.

      That is ALL classical, in absolute time (sorry!) and all of the dozen (you missed a few) illogical effects in QM resolve themselves. And all EXACTLY as John Bell predicted! (It emerged in a test of the 'Discrete Field' relativity you may recall so allows consistent QM & SR in absolute time & 'Local' physics).

      You'll see this really is a rather BIG elephant!

      I'd greatly value your study, questions, comments, advice and, hopefully even, help. As I'm sure I didn't fully understand your 'cloak' and I do agree non commutativity in fundamental principle, there may well be correspondence.

      Very well done and thank you for yours.

      Peter

        Dear Professor Singh.

        Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

        I merely wish to point out that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

        Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

        The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

        A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

        Joe Fisher, Realist

          Dear Tejinder,

          WOW, this is the first essay I have read that has the sma perceptions as mine.

          It is really a pleasure to read it.

          I only have another end to my interpretation : There may be goal...reaching out for the source of the excitations of consciousness in what I call Total Simultaneity.

          But perhaps the search for a goal is just a human wishfull thinking...

          I hope that you will find the time to read (and maybe give a rating my essay "The Purpose of Life"

          best regards

          Wilhelmus

            This is the best essay by far that I have read so far. Although I have heard of the continuous spontaneous collapse theory (CSL), I have not really bothered to look at it that closely. Thanks so much for the nice clear exposition.

            The collapse rate of Eq. 1 is lambda = 1e-17 1/s, which of course is 0.32 ppb/yr. The exact number from aethertime is 0.26 ppb/yr and is not arbitrary. It comes from the collapse needed to unite charge and gravity forces, so it is not a new constant by far and = mH2 G/(q2 c rB 1e-7).

            The collapse radius of 1e-4 cm = 100 nm is actually very close to the exact radius of 70 nm where dispersion and gravity forces are equal. Both of these constants are then not really new constants since they both derive from the properties of the universe.

            It is really pleasing to see mainstream science is finally catching up to the truth of quantum gravity and decoherence. Note that Eq. 3 shows the Schrodinger equation

            i hbar dΨ/ds = HΨ(s)

            which is great with your new non-commuting time, s. But really, once you have CSL, you do not really need s, right? instead, you just use constant dm/dt = mdot as the intrinsic matter decay in this epoch to rescale wavefunctions from time to matter spectra as

            i hbar dΨ/dm dm/dt = HΨ(s)

            and so

            i hbar dΨ(m)/dm = HΨ(m)/mdot

            and you have a made to order quantum universe for both gravity and charge...with a little more work, that is.

            You are very, very close...with luck, you may beat out Carroll and Weinberg and Wetterich...

              ...oh, and quantum wandering is still wandering. Just because your path is not deterministic and is instead probablistic, does not mean that wandering does not exist...it just means that an exact path is unknowable, but there is a likely path...

              Dear Prof Singh sab,

              Thank you for the nice essay on "quantum wandering"

              You are observations are excellent in page 3, like..." The problem of time in quantum theory: The time that appears in quantum theory is part of a classical space-time, whose geometry is determined by macroscopic classical bodies, according to the laws of general relativity. But these classical bodies are a limiting case of quantum theory. In their absence for instance in the very early universe, soon after the big bang] there would be no classical space-time geometry. If there are only quantum matter fields in the entire universe, the gravitational field they produce would also possess quantum fluctuations."

              For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other. That is one of the differences in both the models....

              Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) , 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required', "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations", "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background", "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly', 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

              With axioms like... No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

              Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

              Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and blog also where all my books and available for free downloading...

              http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

              Best wishes to your essay.

              For your blessings please................

              =snp. gupta

                Professor Singh,

                I hope you don't mind if I take this chance to ask you a "Relativity 101" i.e., very basic question about your ideas. First, my understanding is that the equation for defining proper time in terms of coordinate time is an arrow, or function, from a coordinate frame comprising rigid rods and clocks to the proper time of a particle.

                But to model classical space time emerging from the noncommutative Universe, it seems to me that the arrows must go in the other direction-- starting from each proper time of a particle in the noncommutative Universe. And ending at a *set* of possible frames of rigid rods and clocks, or possible coordinate times in classical space time-- where for each possible coordinate time in the set there is an equation back to the proper time.

                (I'm try to see this in terms of "infomorphisms." So I'm attaching a screen shot of the relevant page in Barwise and Seligman's "Information Flow: The Logic of Distributed Systems.")

                To get an informorphism, there must also be an arrow in the other direction-- but now between the "models" supporting the RHS and LHS of the equation for proper time in terms of coordinate time-- the one model supporting the coordinate times in classical space time; the other model in our case being the noncommutative Universe, supporting the proper time. This arrow would represent "emerges from." So this arrow starts at classical space time and ends at the noncommutative Universe-- the opposite direction from the above arrows.

                Is this way of looking at the emergence of classical coordinate time from (in our case) proper time in the noncommutative Universe compatible with how you see it?

                Best Regards,

                Lee BloomquistAttachment #1: infomorphism.png

                Dear Peter,

                Greetings, and good to see you again :-) Many thanks for your kind appreciation.

                You are suggesting a local, classical theory. Its unorthodox alright :-) So which of Bell's assumptions do you drop?

                I will surely see your essay, and get back. Please give me a few days.

                My best wishes,

                Tejinder

                Dear Joe,

                Greetings, and good to meet again. I look forward to reading your essay in the coming days.

                Regarding things being made simple but not simpler... I am of the view that quantum theory appears strange when viewed from a classical space-time. The strangeness can be avoided by getting rid of classical time and finding a new equivalent formulation. So it seems to me that what I am suggesting is more natural and self-consistent, as compared to employing classical time, and in that sense simple. Its simpler than how we formulate quantum theory at present, but I think its not `simpler' in the sense implied by Einstein :-)

                My best wishes,

                Tejinder

                Dear Wilhelmus,

                Greetings, and thank you for reading my essay. I look forward to reading your essay in the coming days.

                Perhaps I should comment on my claim of there being no goals. If we assume that `wandering towards a goal' pre-assumes the existence of time and physical space, I am only saying that the so-called `mindless mathematical equations' are, deep down, even more mindless than they appear to be. In the sense that in the absence of classical space and time, we should not be talking of wandering in the conventional sense.

                At the approximate level though, where space and time emerge, we can legitimately talk of wandering and goals [as in your search "reaching out for the source of the excitations of consciousness in what I call Total Simultaneity."] Perhaps we might want to call this an approximate wandering towards approximate goals in an approximate universe described by approximate mindless mathematical laws. These approximate laws could be called less mindless than the underlying ones, because they at least have a notion of time and space in an emergent sense.

                Kind regards,

                Tejinder

                Dear Steve,

                Many thanks for your kind remarks.

                I am intrigued by your comments:

                " It comes from the collapse needed to unite charge and gravity forces, so it is not a new constant by far and = mH2 G/(q2 c rB 1e-7).

                The collapse radius of 1e-4 cm = 100 nm is actually very close to the exact radius of 70 nm where dispersion and gravity forces are equal. Both of these constants are then not really new constants since they both derive from the properties of the universe."

                I am very interested in knowing how you arrived at your expression for the collapse rate, and also the collapse radius. Can you point me to a reference I can look up. If you have fundamental expressions for the collapse rate and radius, that's great - the CSL community is not aware of this, as far as I know.

                Yes you are right CSL does not need the Trace time s. But I did not understand what you meant by "intrinsic matter decay".

                As to what I mean by `no goals to wander to' please see my response above to the post by Wilhelmus. Thanks.

                Best regards,

                Tejinder

                Dear Prof. Gupta,

                Thank you for reading my essay, and for telling me about your model of Dynamic Universe. I will see your essay and the literature you suggest.

                My best wishes,

                Tejinder

                Dear Lee,

                I think we should map the non-commuting operator time and space coordinates to the trace time s. And of course the ordinary time and space coordinates should be mapped to the usual proper time [this is different from the trace time s] using rigid rods and clocks, as you point out.

                The ordinary space-time coordinates are resulting after a statistical coarse graining of the operator coordinates, and one should not relate the former to the trace time s.

                Hope I understood your question properly.

                Regards,

                Tejinder