Quantum Dream Time

I think i am probably saying that in a way that will make mathematicians cringe. I understand the values are finite rational numbers but the sequence of the abstract numbers from which the values of (individual variables pertaining to) the outcomes can be drawn do not have to be. They could be infinite. So there is always another very slightly different value if finer discrimination is used. As humans we are used to having a set discrimination range, that relates to the discrimination of our sensory system. When enhanced by technology it is then limited to the resolution that technology permits. Yet the Object reality is that all scales co-exist and our level of discrimination applied to a scenario is artificial.

How that affects determinism: Rather than many possible equally likely outcomes doing away with determinism, as i had hoped, there is with the new suggestion, determinism but in a chaotic universe. Which could give the effect of randomness because the infinitesimal differences within relation profiles are unknown. We don't know why it does this and not that but at some scale of discrimination there is a value that makes the difference. It could be thought of as the butterfly effect but operating at an extremely small scale A very small difference having a relatively large effect.

Thanks Steve,

that was well and plainly written. I appreciate your providing information about Maccone's work while keeping your own interpretation aside. That's good editorial practice in my book. jrc

Georgina,

yehh, that's the bone of contention between quantum and classical, discrete vs. continuous. From here to infinity, where does symmetry break? And, I think, it's that conundrum which persuades most to cut the Gordian Knot and just go with granular Quantum. Like Marx did after chasing a dialectic that would come full circle and make human nature ultimately beneficent, until he got finally exasperated and said, "Oh Hell! Rebel! :-)

John, even accepting quantum for the states of things there still is the question of why random.

Dear Georgina Woodward and John Cox,

Reality does not consist of humanly contrived finite abstract complex ideas. Please try to remember that Nature must have built the only eternal simplest construct of the real visible Universe obtainable millions of years before man ever appeared on the planet. There am only one single unified visible infinite surface occurring in one single infinite dimension that am mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

The notion of spacetime doesn't imply that phenomena and spacetime are identical manifestations of an underlying reality. In QFT we have the conviction that the main quantum fields (existent everywhere in the universe) create reality (observable and non-observable phenomena). The Planck-Einstein relation - energy of the electromagnetic wave related to frequency - shows that the wave length is a constant. Thus the wave length of every electromagnetic wave is a multiple of the "standard length". The consequence is that time is a constant too.

However, what is the cause of relative time? That is really simple because the invariance of the speed of light, length and time shows that the conservation of energy is also a conservation of all the quantum transfer in space. Thus the amount of quanta transfer is related to volume (space). And that's just what we observe when an altering particle has a velocity of nearly the speed of light. The "internal" alterations of the particle are slowed down because of the conservation of quanta transfer in space. In fact, annihilation shows that mass is a number of concentrated quanta. The reason that mass carrying particles don't move with the speed of light has the same cause, the conservation of quanta transfer in space.

Georgina,

I quite agree. Which also is why I kind of like the notion of an imperfect universe. It relieves the problem that you lay out on an infinitely long number line where a choice has to be made at some point where the value becomes so small as to trivialize out of what would be analytically a reversible computation. Imperfection suggests that it isn't so much a correlation to mathematical choice, but a random physical failure to progress. Albeit at a relatively low value of causal response at quantum scale, and at macro extremes being comparable relative to large numbers.

Its an interesting idea, and I do agree that excluding at least a philosophical rationale for randominity is an Achilles Heel for QM. jr

W. Benshy,

In any given Quantum Field which might be any given multiple of Planck Value energy, does QFT view that 'internal' alteration at velocity in terms of density variability? And Does QFT provide a volumetric for a unitary Quantum Field at relative rest, and how does one field volume meld with the energy quantity(s) of surrounding field volumes? In short, has QFT advanced to where a Quantum Field can be defined as a volume of energy creating a specific spherical boundary within which energy density varies continuously between empirical upper and lower bounds in accord with inverse square law? Thanks, jrc

@John R. Cox,

I am not a native speaker of the English language so maybe I misinterpret your comment partly.

There is no consensus about the exact structure of the main quantum fields but at least there must be 1 scalar field and 1 vector field. The structure of the combined field - in relation to the volume of the universe - is fixed. Thus there are 2 kinds of alterations: alterations between the structure of the "solitary" fields and mutual alterations between both fields. An example of the latter is rest mass (energy from the scalar field - Higgs field - to the vector field).

Within the QF the transfer of an object from A to B isn't real. It is a transfer of "properties" within the structure of the combined fields. The "properties" have a discrete value (h) because the volume of the combined fields is invariant. Alterations within and between the fields are constant, synchronized and therefore topological. Not because someone likes the concept but because of mathematical/physics laws. So it is easy to understand why our universe is non-local and why the velocity of a local alteration (1 quantum) is the constant speed of light.

The total amount of topological deformation/alteration in our universe is constant. However, we see concentrations of quanta (e.g. particles) thus phenomena are the result of spatial transformations (invariant alteration). That's why a concentration of mass (e.g. a galaxy) is obtained from the "emptiness" around. However, when all the alterations are constant and synchronized every "grain" of the structure of the QF alters at the same "speed" and time ("grain" = spatial unit). Thus quanta transfer in space is conserved (like the main law of physics - the conservation of energy - shows). So there is quanta transfer everywhere in space, at any time and between every "grain" to/from adjacent "grains".

When we observe a local concentration of quanta (particle) the volume of the particle is just a small number of "grains" but the number of quanta (deformation) within the boundary is enormous. The transfer of the particle from 1 point within the structure of the QF to another point - that's some "grains" away - is limited to the speed of light. Now the transfer of all the quanta will last much longer so we say that the velocity of the particle is less than the speed of light.

So there is already a "quantum clock" and there are "quantum rulers". Relative time and curved spacetime emerge from the creating quantum fields. Relative time is caused by the decrease of internal alterations of a fast moving object (or by a strong gravity field) and curved spacetime is forced by the scalar field. It is the scalar field that influences the direction of the alterations within the vector field.

I hope that this comment covers your questions.

Dear W. Benshy and John Cox,

It is clear that Nature must have fashioned the only structure of the real visible earth obtainable because the earth existed millions of years before man appeared on its surface. All we need to do now is to open our eyes and report truthfully what we see. Any open eye can only see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed, flat, touching, varied hued, surfaces. There am no visible space. Because there am no visible space, it logically follows that there am no Space/Time. The real visible Universe must consist of only one single unified visible infinite surface occurring in one single infinite dimension that am mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Dear W. Benshy and John Cox,

It is clear that Nature must have fashioned the only structure of the real visible earth obtainable because the earth existed millions of years before man appeared on its surface. All we need to do now is to open our eyes and report truthfully what we see. Any open eye can only see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed, flat, touching, varied hued, surfaces. There am no visible space. Because there am no visible space, it logically follows that there am no Space/Time. The real visible Universe must consist of only one single unified visible infinite surface occurring in one single infinite dimension that am mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

@Joe Fisher,

The geometrical presentation of reality was described by natural philosophers centuries ago (if I remember well). It is true that when we cut an object in 2 halves we only see surface area and no volume. But when we are within an atmosphere we can see "through" the atmosphere and that's why we can observe the moon (an object within a volume). So the geometrical presentation of reality is not only the surface area, we can experience a volume (space) too.

Although I don't agree with your limited concept of reality I have to admit that local topological deformations of an invariant volume will result in local alterations of the internally surface area of a spatial structure (spatial units of a field). So when we want to express the energy in every point of the volume of our universe, we can describe the relations between all these points with the help of the local quantity of surface area in a perfect way (static description). From this point of view your opinion about the importance of surface area is correct (within the right context). However, the scientific research to clarify and describe reality isn't possible when scientists deny everything except surface area. So you have to extend your hypothesis when you want that people are curious to read about it.

W.

Excellent point about the measurement flexibility of topology. The simply connected relations of n-dimensional vector space on the surface of a parallelized 3-sphere allows the static description you describe, which can be likened to a 'snap shot' of an evolving form. jrc

Dear W. Benshy and John R. Cox

One more time. Nature must have devised the only structure of reality that would allow whatever that structure was to persist eternally. The structure of the earth was here millions of years before man ever appeared on the planet. There am no way that Natural singular reality could ever be an invisible finite abstract humanly contrived speculation such as the one you wrote about when you wrote: "The (finite) geometrical presentation of (finite) reality was described by (anonymous finite) natural philosophers (finite) centuries ago (if I remember well)." Nature never structured visible reality to be invisibly mysterious. An open eye, will always see a plethora of flat, seamlessly enmeshed, varied colored surfaces. Although they seem to be seamlessly enmeshed, it logically follows that there must only be one singular visible unified infinite surface occurring infinitely in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Dear W. Benshy and John R. Cox

One more time. Nature must have devised the only structure of reality that would allow whatever that structure was to persist eternally. The structure of the earth was here millions of years before man ever appeared on the planet. There am no way that Natural singular reality could ever be an invisible finite abstract humanly contrived speculation such as the one you wrote about when you wrote: "The (finite) geometrical presentation of (finite) reality was described by (anonymous finite) natural philosophers (finite) centuries ago (if I remember well)." Nature never structured visible reality to be invisibly mysterious. An open eye, will always see a plethora of flat, seamlessly enmeshed, varied colored surfaces. Although they seem to be seamlessly enmeshed, it logically follows that there must only be one singular visible unified infinite surface occurring infinitely in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

rubbish

John, two thoughts occurred to me regarding scale and numerical values. The first the further the position from the decimal place (related to scale) the smaller the duration of that digit value if the relation of object to other things is considered in a universe where everything is n motion. Even when things seem still there is a lot of motion at the scale of atoms and subatomic particles. So the further from the decimal point the less duration in which to exert that value of influence.

The other though was about how we regard things and phenomena as distinct . I think that may be to do with the way in which our sensory system not only has a resolution but also emphasizes boundaries and lines helping us be aware of potential resources and hazards. However, phenomena aren't distinct. I was thinking about a river and how at a small scale how does one classify the water that is spray in the air and moisture on the rocks. Is it still river or just part of the air and just moisture on the rocks, indistinguishable from moisture due to condensation or rainfall? Another thought was a tornado. It doesn't have a 'clear' boundary dividing the air into tornado air and not tornado air, at some distance from the eye there will be ambiguity. Is this just an air current affected by the tornado or is it part of the tornado? Perhaps it is the same at the atomic and sub atomic scale. It isn't that there is a definite boundary but neither is it really infinite in diminution of scale but it just 'peters out ' into ambiguity, so to say.

Objects too are phenomena, happening not just existing. Consider a sheep object. Lets say it is a self shedding variety. When the fleece starts to come away from the body, at what point does the fleece stop being a part of the sheep object? Is it only when it has completely separated? What about when it is held on by a few hairs? How many hairs must be attached to the sheep for the fleece to be sheep not separate fleece object? It is indistinct. If a skin cell is shed but then after re-adheres to the surface by the oils present, is it a part of the body or not? Same for atoms of metal rubbed from a machine surface but then stuck in lubricating oil. Machine or not? Seems to me our thinking about object things and phenomena is more black and white than the Object reality. We seem focused on the distinct categories and don't consider the limits of their existence. Which seems to be without definite boundary but not continuing in infinitely continuous smallness. Rather where does it end, and not it begin is indistinct. With the additional issue of the existential values of variables altering; The faster the further the existential equivalent (scale-wise) of a digit from the decimal point, with smallness of scale, as things move. So the object/phenomenon can't be pinned down. Where its existence ends is indistinct and even if it could be decided wherever that was it isn't anymore because it has changed in location or configuration. As for what happens it doesn't matter what category the boundary regions are placed .If the air currents around a tornado are called tornado or just currents doesn't alter their effect.