Hi Lawrence,
I like your picture of BMS symmetry and its role in the BH information problem. I find the idea of conversion of qubits into gravitons near the BH horizon appealing. I think it would be great if we would try to detect the quantum hair associated with QCD and EW that produce gravitational waves.
Good luck with the contest!
Best wishes,
Dear Dr. Lawrence B. Crowell,
You wrote in your biographical notes: "It is likely our inability to work quantum physics and gravity into a coherent whole is likely to be solved through new postulates or physical axioms, or the removal of current ones."
My research has concluded that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated
This quantum hair would show up in BMS supertranslation symmetries. I have not worked out more detailed calculations of this. In fact there is a vast amount of work to be done here. In working on foundations I offer here the prospect for some measurement or observation of what might be deeper foundations.
Of course in the end there may be no final foundation, or if there is such a foundation I suspect it is basic quantum mechanics. We might be faced with the prospect of finding layers of effective theories with respect to quantum gravity. The reason might be that quantum gravity is similar to the measurement problem and might involve self-referential encoding of quantum states. The issue of the quantum error correction problem I offer a solution involving complementarity between quantum and spacetime principles. However, this might just mean it ends up in the same conundrum as quantum measurement. Ultimately it involves quantum states encoding quantum states. Turing and Gödel rise to the occasion to tell us we can never completely understand this.
Cheers LC
Lawrence,
Interesting viewpoint and analysis, more clearly written than others. My own study of Active Nuclei ('Black Hole') dynamics is more about analysing observed data so it's fascinating to take such a different view. Observational findings continue apace. One is that the polar ('Quasar') outflows appear to contain (re-ionize or ionize) more matter than was in the accretion disc. If a the consistent cyclic model is correct the significant growth in mass function is consistent with that. Both numbers and collision/merger population seem well below that needed to explain evolution to far larger bodies. I was looking for hints in you essay but you'll have to point any out.
The acceleration mechanism (contra wound helices similar to a Tokamak toroid) and (precessing giving jet helicity) ejection 'cusp' are also becoming clearer. Sir Martin Rees's work from 50 years ago looks amazingly precise, including the collimated 'shear planes' apparently propagating new fermion plasma.
I fully agreed your abstract, and that only 'looking differently' will reveal solutions. I have some for your thoughts; Position & Momentum as the orthogonal values seem only ever an assumption. I checked the results of substituting Maxwell's quite different linear/curl state momenta, which I show (experimentally) exist within OAM, in absorption/re-emission, represented by orbital velocity distribution. Deeper foundations seem evident as quantum measurement ceases to be a conundrum (though Gödel remains recursively correct). Please do attack with full rigour. Declan's finding (see my comment on yours there) entirely models my ontology to confirm CHSH at >2.
Thank you for yours, very well constructed & written.
Best wishes.
Peter
I am pleased you found merit in my essay. Some of the physics I work out here may play out in extremely active galactic nuclei. A huge influx of material with chaotic jumps in the flux would produce gravitational radiation. This might be detectable and bear signatures of the physics I describe.
Thanks and good luck in the contest if you are entered.
Cheers LC
Lawrence,
T'was I, logged out! Yes, I hope you'll be able to identify any flaws in the apparently significant classical 'QM' finding in my essay (& Declan Trail's)
Do you distinguish 'gravitational radiation' from fluctuations in the potential? i.e. if we had 2 binary stars nearby and discerned the fluctuations would that be the same effect? I can't find any difference with the LIGO analysis, are you aware of one?
Bset wishes
Peter
There are loads of papers on FQXi that make big digs against modern physics. Klingman has Einstein playing the role of Simplicio in his paper that is bascially anti-relativity. If you follow the real developments in the foundations of quantum physics it is very clear the loop holes for there being a classical underpinning to quantum physics are closed. This is on both the theoretical and experimental fronts. The only possible loophole these days on the experimental front is with the consciousness of the experimenters, and the experimentalists are working on this. I must confess that I have to report there simply is no classical underpinning to QM. Yet curiously these types of papers do quite well with voting on these contests, but in case you have not noticed they never win awards.
I have largely bowed out of this. I was not going to enter another FQXi contest, but a framework of a paper I had written seemed to fit with the topic so I decided to try it one more time. I figured this might be a bit of a trial balloon, where I can take this and rewrite it for a serious publication. That is about how I am taking this at this time. I have only read a few papers posted here.
Cheers LC
Lawrence,
You suggest; "it is very clear the loop holes for there being a classical underpinning to quantum physics are closed." So most believe, but John Bell, who closed them for certain assumptions DID NOT! so most misunderstand his 'theorem'. If you study the solution you'll see for yourself, but for rigour let me quote Bell;
"The founding fathers of quantum theory decided even that no concepts could possibly be found which could emit direct description of the quantum world. So the theory which they established aimed only to describe systematically the response of the apparatus... ...in my opinion the founding fathers were in fact wrong on this point. The quantum phenomena do not exclude a uniform description of micro and macro worlds...systems and apparatus." 'Speakable'...p.170-171. also p 172 & 173;
"a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories requires not just technical developments but radical conceptual renewal.
"..conventional formulations of quantum theory, and of quantum field theory in particular, are unprofessionally vague and ambiguous. Professional theoretical physicists ought to be able to do better." ."
Ch.3. In stating his belief that his theorem must be effectively circumvented with some new approach; "...the new way of seeing things will involve an imaginative leap that will astonish us. In any case it seems that the quantum mechanical description will be superseded." p.27. And Ch 20 p.194;
"...the 'Problem of Interpretation of QM' has been encircled. And the solution, invisible from the front, may be seen from the back.."
Experiments have NOT changed that, only confirmed his theorem using the same QM assumptions he 'freely used' for it. Indeed he actually suggested the 'round the back' solution we use (p.175) as "fermion number density."
So we shouldn't just accept the beliefs about QM banded around. John Bell knew better and I think we show he was correct. Take a look. It may inspire you!
Very best.
Peter
Quantum physics is such that various interpretations exist that fit largely into the two classes of ψ-epistemology and ψ-ontology, seen in the Copenhagen interpretation and Qubism for the first and many worlds and Bohm mechanics in the second. The problem is that quantum physics really fails to fit well into either of these. Quantum physics is something other than any metaphysics we are able to imagine. There is only one metaphysics that describes quantum mechanics and that is quantum mechanics itself. I have written a paper that is yet unpublished on how QM does not fit into either of these two classes of interpretations, but is somewhere in between. I found that the Pusey Barrett Rudolf theorem for ψ-ontology only really holds for two state systems or entanglements. That quantum mechanics is more or less ψ-epistemic or ψ-ontic is in effect observer dependent and not really physical.
The situation is far more advanced than the day of John Bell. Work on the foundations of QM has advanced far beyond the inequality conditions Bell found QM violated.
LC
Hi Lawrence B. Crowell
"Quantum gravity and quantum hair on event horizons is shown can be detected in black hole coalescence. The near horizon condition for two black holes right before collision is a deformed AdS spacetime RT entropy given by quantum hair on the horizons." Is a very nice idea
I highly appreciate your essay and hope and request you please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance...... which is on the other side.... Hope you don't mind this request.......
Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :
-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 GR on any condition
-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models
-No many mini Bigbangs
-No Missing Mass / Dark matter
-No Dark energy
-No Bigbang generated CMB detected
-No Multi-verses
Here:
-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies
-Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way
-All bodies dynamically moving
-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium
-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe
-Single Universe no baby universes
-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only
-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..
-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass
-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step
-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering
-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet
-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy
-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.
- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html
I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........
Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.
In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "
I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied
Best
=snp
Dear S. Gupta,
I will try to look at this when time permits. I have not been very active in this contest this year due to time limit. It looks as if there are a lot of "nos" in your conclusions. Thanks for giving me the heads up on your essay.
Cheers LC
Lawrence,
Yes, far more 'advanced' I well know. But it looks like up the wrong road in the wrong direction! You'd better read my paper carefully before finalizing your own.
Changing the fundamental decision formulating QM not to make ANY assumption about pairs states so giving just 'superposed spin up/down' is shown to be the error, provable in a table top experiment, which prevented a classical solution. If we substitute Maxwell's orthogonal states we get the Spins statistics theorem and Dirac's equation.
Yes, shocking and entirely unexpected. Just like all advancements in understanding! The Academic community is in stunned silence for now. If there was a mistake it would likely have been jumped on already, but do check.
very best
Peter
".....I think it is likely there is some subtle, and in some ways simple, physical principle that is not understood, or some current principle that is an obstruction. It is likely our inability to work quantum physics and gravity into a coherent whole is likely to be solved through new postulates or physical axioms, or the removal of current ones."
Spot on. But it seems no longer.
P
Dear LC,
You wrote a remarkable Essay, congrats. Black holes and gravitational waves are my greatest scientific passions. Thus, I enjoyed a lot in reading this new work of yours. I think that this Essay should be suitable also for the Gravity Awards. Some comments:
1) In order to understand if the quantum hair associated with QCD and electroweak interactions producing gravitational waves could be detected by ground-based and (future) space-based detectors we need an estimate of the strain due to such a quantum hair. This could be the object of a future paper.
2) I have seen that you considered Reissnor-Nordstrom black holes. Coalescence of Reissnor-Nordstrom black holes is quite speculative. I think indeed that real black holes should have also a spin. Thus, Kerr-Newmann black holes should be more suitable. On one hand, this will make computations more difficult. On the other hand, also this approximation with Reissnor-Nordstrom black holes is intriguing.
Good luck in the Contest!
Cheers, Ch.
The triplet entanglement of two massless gauge bosons is equivalent to graviton in quantum numbers. Of course gluons, W^{+/-}, Z and photons do not form gravitons per se, but these under an STU transformation are dual to other possible gauge-like fields that do form gravitons. The Berg-Dixon theory is interesting to follow, for they lay down a lot on how gluons can for graviton-like states in entanglements. Check out Hossefelder's paper, where this is interesting, and I have a comment on QCD/gravity duality.
The approximation comes of course from the fact the coalescence of black holes is a sort of transformation between type D to type D plus N solutions in the Petrov classification. This is mathematically almost impossible to understand. For classical calculations numerical work is needed to simulate gravitational waves, type N solutions, generated by such mergers.
There is a whole lot that potentially could be done here. Good luck on the contest.
Cheers LC
I think this guy knew a thing or two about this issue. The real question is how it is that classical mechanics is built up from the quantum world. What do we mean by classical physics? Is it something real or just FAPP real as an approximation for large action.
Cheers LC
Dear Lawrence
I have seen your essay which is very interesting but beyond me. I suspect that the obstruction is real but not fatal, at least not fatal to spacetime.
If entanglement is used in constructing a space metric you have, for one datum of entanglement, one entangled particle outside the BH and one or two particles inside.
I thought that the space metric inside a BH was separate from the metric outside? Are the hairs in both metrics or in neither?
I can imagine two entangled particles being a data pair used in whatever computer program the universe is running to make its space metrics. But would that be making a space metric either inside or outside a BH but not being used to create a joint metric of outside and inside simultaneously.
The obstruction may mean that hairs cannot have a metric (and hence cannot exist?)?
Best
Austin
The quantum hair appears on the event horizon, or really the quantum membrane called the stretched horizon, as seen by a stationary observer. For a distant observer the tortoise or time delayed coordinate r' = r - 2m ln|r' - 2m| means these are redshifted enormously. However, an observer on an accelerated frame close to the horizon will observe more of this physics. Of course this requires an observer or probe on a frame with an enormous acceleration up to 10^{30}m/s^2.
In the collision of black holes quantum hair participates in the production of gravitons or quantum signatures in gravitational radiation. This is one big thrust of my essay; quantum gravitational signatures at the foundations of the universe are potentially detectable.
There is this problem with how gravitation and quantum mechanics merge or function in a single system. It is often said we understand nothing of quantum gravity, and this is not quite so. Even with the based canonical quantization of gravity from the 1970s in a weak limit is computable and tells you something. This theoretical understanding is very limited and big open questions remain. Of course since then far more progress has been made. The AdS/CFT correspondence, the Raamsdonk equivalence between entanglement and spacetime and the RT formula are some of the more recent developments. These indicate how spacetime physics has a correspondence or maybe equivalency with quantum mechanics or quantum Yang-Mills fields. However, an obstruction exists that appears very stubborn.
The vacuum is filled with virtual pairs of fields. With a black hole the gravity field causes one of these pairs to fall into the black hole and the other to escape. This means the quantum particle or photon that escapes as Hawking radiation is entangled with the pair that falls into the black hole, and so this means Hawking radiation is entangled with the black hole. So at first blush there seems to be no problem. However, if we think of a thermal cavity heated to high temperature photons that escape are entangled with quantum states of atoms composing the cavity. Once the entanglement entropy reaches a maximum at half the energy released the subsequent photons released are entangled with prior photons released. This would hold with black holes as well, but because of the virtual pair nature of this radiation it means Hawking radiation previously emitted in a bipartite entanglement are now entangled not just with the black hole, but with more recently emitted radiation as well. This means a bipartite entanglement is transformed into a tripartite entanglement. Such transformations are not permitted by quantum unitary evolution. This is called quantum monogamy requirement, and what this suggests is unitarity fails. To prevent the failure of quantum mechanics some proposed a firewall that violates the equivalency principle. This is called a firewall.
The firewall occurs when half the possible radiation is emitted, which is also the Page time. This also corresponds to the failure of a quantum error correction code. Error correction codes involve some deep mathematics; it is connected with the RT formula and I illustrate in my essay the connection with Mirzakhani's mathematics on the geodesics in hyperbolic spaces. Error correction is also tied with the packing of spheres or how oranges stack at the grocery store, the Kepler problem. This gets into the guts of what my paper is about. However focusing in an error correction corrects the mixing of information. Think of a library, in particular an elementary school library with little kids, and the patrons scramble up the order of books. The distance a books ends up from its right position is the Hamming distance. As the library gets mixed up an algorithm can manage this disordering. However, at about half mixing up things break down. The librarian has to virtually start over.
The solution with Susskind and others is to say spacetime variables and quantum states are equivalent. I do not disagree completely, but I think this is a complementarity instead of an equivalency. It means with either spacetime or quantum states you can account for the system, but at the expense of abandoning a description of the system by the other. You can't describe quantum gravity completely by both in the same measurement description. So this is a sort of Heisenberg uncertainty, if you will.
Cheers LC
Dear Lawrence
[I have sent this post to both our threads.]
Thank you very much for your reply. Making and breaking of space metrics are a minor part of my essay (pages 3 and 5). My employment background includes making metrics for examination scores using Rasch pairs analysis [fortunately I never encountered FQXI-style 1-bombing ratings there]. Obviously trying to make a connection between psychometric metrics and the spacetime metrics of BH hairs is a long and tenuous stretch. I have followed all of Susskind's online "theoretical minimum" courses including SR, GR and cosmology which includes BHs but only the starting point basics. I have read your reply but will need to work at it extensively to follow it. I still have some points though which you might kindly clarify.
You mention the Raamsdonk equivalence between entanglement and spacetime:that equivalence sounds somewhat similar in aim to an idea I wrote in sci.physics .foundations in 2011.
".... two entangled binary spins of electrons with random total spin, but perfectly correlated within the pair, seems a little like looking at the raw data for a rasch [pairs] analysis. ... Surely the binary spin data can't be the raw decisions which determine the emergent space [?]..."
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.physics.foundations/UIpgAj43QXg/lmXQajBksZUJ
I tried the idea in a Rasch pairs analysis soon afterwards and reported it in my 2016 paper at http://vixra.org/abs/1609.0329
where I was trying to see if I could compress the emergent space metric [arising from a Rasch pairs analysis] near a large 'mass': it seemed to work OK. Alas, the paper is not aimed at physics and has hardly any discussion. I need to re-write it to discus GR and CCC physics.
For examinations one often has two metrics which one needs to link together, such as for two parallel alternative tests. They need to be linked for comparability of grading outcomes. One way is to put a small amount of overlapping data in both of the alternative tests.
In the BH context this amounts to having pairs of entangled particles in both spaces simultaneously i.e. both inside and outside the BH simultaneously. But both entangled particles need to be in both spaces. I cannot simulate, in a Rasch pairs analysis, the use of only half of one pair in one metric. So I suspect that it may be impossible in general to use entangled pairs to make a metric when the two single particles, of an entangled pair, are in different spaces.
At a Penrose CCC node, all the stuff in the universe is in the form of photons in a single state at almost infinite wavelengths. The metric breaks down at the node in his model and I agree with that. But the stuff in the photons continues to exist even though the metric has gone. So a broken metric does not imply destruction of the 'stuff' in the old metric.
Page time etc is all new to me, but I am familiar with a metric breaking down gradually (your library books analogy). I suggested in my essay that the breakdown of the space metric may occur gradually before the CCC node is reached. The metrics I produced in my 2016 paper (ref above) show that, in special circumstances, some pairs of data do not get included in the metric. And sometimes the metric fails completely to plot any data. And I agree that this is connected to a sort of Heisenburg uncertainty. But in my psychometric area the problem is referred to as the problem of Guttman data. Guttman data kills metrics. And Guttman data is data with zero uncertainty.
As an example one could use Rasch pairs analysis to construct a metric for ratings in this contest. One datum point is where essay A is deemed to be better than essay B. Deemed, that is, by contestant C. Repeat for all pairs of essays and all contestants as raters. The metric would be most compressed if all the ratings of 'better' or 'worse' were at random. Corresponding to large uncertainty. But on the other hand, if every rater put the scripts is the same order of merit as every other rater than the analysis would collapse because there was no error in the system: corresponding to Guttman data and zero uncertainty. This is a nice explanation for the need for the existence of uncertainty as we would not be placed in our space metric without it.
I looked at the wikipedia site on Rasch model. It does look similar to statistical mechanics. I am not sure where it can go from there with respect to physics and physical modeling.
LC
