Is Causality Fundamental?

Does any of this lead to new physics? I mean, is it so unlikely that someone might ask if wave functions are actually foundational in such a way that they could be the building blocks of spacetime? It's like the physics community has hypnotized itself into thinking that quantum mechanics is impossible to understand and it's all about live cat/dead cat superposition. But that is all completely missing the point.

You've got this wave function thing that is calculated; maybe what is being calculated is actually foundational. You have

[math]p_x = -i \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial x}[/math]

and

[math]H = - i \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t}[/math]

which are operators that help you calculate the possible eigenstates that can be measured. There is no live cat/dead cat operator. You have something that behaves like waves and has properties of momentum and energy, with time/position built into it.

It just seems like there is an opportunity to interpret physics in a more creative way. Does it always have to be about mathematics? Maybe if we made casual observations such as: wave functions are real things that should be added to the standard model, maybe then we might make a break through.

There is too much rigidity in the physics community to come up with any creative ideas. As a result, physicists are more concerned about calculating when the universe is going to undergo heat death, then they are of coming up with new technology or new insights into physics.

Wavefunctions are no more real, physical entities than Ptolemy's epicycles. Nor does it "always have to be about mathematics." Quite the contrary. The problem is exactly what Einstein et al suspected, long ago: all the mathematical theorems etc. are being founded upon and subsequently derived from, inappropriate, idealistic, unrealistic, physical assumptions, that are false assumptions about the real world. In other words, the math is correct, but it is not describing what all the physicists have believed it to be describing. It is not describing the behavior of any matter at all. It is only describing the detection process itself - which is entirely based on energy detection, which is why only the wavefunction-squared and not the wavefunction itself corresponds to any observable. This is also the origin of the spurious belief in a "negative-time-going duality" or retro-causality, mentioned above by Lundberg. A "matched filter" detector is constructed by convolving a conjugated, time-reversed copy of a signal with the signal itself; in the Fourier transform (wavefunction) domain, that means "square the wavefunction".

Put simply, quantum theory is not describing any "drug" (matter) or even its behavior. It is merely describing a faulty "drug test", to determine if the drug (matter) is present at some particular points in space and time. That is why the presence of an observer matters so much - the theory is not describing what is being observed at all, it is only describing the detection statistics of a faulty "drug test" being performed by the observer.

Rob McEachern

Rob,

Wave functions are real! Lack of progress in physics is what happens when you have a wrong assumption. There are thousands of cosmologists who are literally wasting their talent and careers on topics like "the heat death of universe" because a wrong assumption like yours (physics community) makes it impossible to understand what spacetime itself is made of. If you can look at a wave function, even a simple wave function of the form,

[math]\psi(x,y,z,t) = Ae^{_i(k_x x k_y y k_z z - \omega t)}[/math],

and see that it is a real thing that has physics constants built into it and has been proven to exist because virtual photons have been proven to exist, THEN, we can start to talk about what spacetime geometry is made of.

We could be controlling gravity (spacetime curvature) to create propulsion WITHOUT USING LARGE AMOUNTS OF MASS! But we can't make any breakthroughs of this sort until we abandon false assumptions.

It is pretty safe to say that we do indeed live in a causal universe and so the title has no meaning. The real issue is whether a causal set of precursors and outcomes makes up the causal universe. Sorkin and Dawker have shown that quantum gravity is consistent with a classical causal set, but no one has yet shown a quantum causal set that is consistent with reality.

Now these two projects are implementing quantum phase correlation and superposition for graph nodes along with hidden nodes to show that quantum charge is consistent with a quantum causal set. It is not quite clear that this is possible without some further assumptions about the nature of physical reality.

It is not possible to unify gravity and charge with constant speed of light in space and time. This is because space and time both emerge from the matter action of the causal set and so the speed of light has a different meaning in the causal set precursor to space and time. In effect, it is the acceleration of light that then allows unification of gravity and charge in the matter-action causal set that is the universe...

Hi Steve,

I don't know what a causal set is. Does it have anything to do with things we know about from empirical experimental physics?

You said, "It is not possible to unify gravity and charge with constant speed of light in space and time. " There actually is a model that can explain lots of things in physics. All you have to do is to entertain the idea that virtual photons, wave functions and gravitons are actually different aspects of the same thing. When I say gravitons, I mean a kind of graviton that begins at a point and expands at the speed of light such that it obeys the equation,

[math]x^2 y^2 z^2 - (ct)^2 = 0[/math]

The idea is that these expanding gravitons are constantly filling every point in space. When these expanding gravitons get large, they overlap and become spacetime itself.

Two gravitons with zero relative velocity to one another can explain the spacetime interval given by,

[math]\Delta s^2 = \Delta x^2 \Delta y^2 \Delta z^2 - (c \Delta t)^2n[/math]

Likewise, if two gravitons that are both expanding and moving with a relative velocity to one another, than they simply behave in a way that gives us the derivation of special relativity.

There is a lot more to say, but I think it makes to sense to retire string theory/quantum loop gravity, and replace them with an expanding graviton theory.

Hi to both of you, what you tell is very important and relevant Steve Sgnew, it is what I have made to reach this quantum gravitation generallt, I work about the mathemtical details for the publication, I was happy to reach it in considering a deeper logic about the encodings in our nuclei and I have respected this classical mechanics, newtonian if I can say in changing simply the distances because the main codes are farer and that this electronagntism is just emergent but the gravitation seems the main chief orchestyra, I have also a fith force , the gravitons of Jason of spin 2 are a little bit in the same reasoning, but I consider that they are simply spherical volumes with specific different properties , motions, rotations, oscillations, regards

String theory is all razzle dazzle, no hyperdrive. Physicists walk around in some math based imagination state, magical unicorns with kaluza Klein equations written on their bellies. But physicists don't actually know that they're supposed to be figuring out how to harness gravity as a form of propulsion.

Well, at least the physics community has plenty of time to move past the magical mathematics of string theory and quantum loop gravity, at least until the next species ending meteor strikes the Earth.

Hi Jason, I agree that these strings of Witten ghave created a prison and even if some good maths can be relevant for the fields, now they are all focus on these strings and the fields like main origin philosophical of our physicality with 1D string at this planck scale more cosmic fields, and after they create the extradiemsnions and insert the geonetrical algebras like lie and this E8 and they explain the geonetries, topologies, and matters, but all this is a pure assumption, I beleive in fact that they had not others general theories, my 3D spheres in all humility , coded particles seem more logic, and I agree with you that this gravitation seems the main cheif orchestra and that our standard model is just emergent due to main gravitational codes, it d be very relevant to focus on this to find and check this gravitation really indeed, and it will be revolutionary even for the propulsion like you told, but this prison of strings and fields have taken all the heads of thinkers and now they cannot think differently, I find this very odd that they beleive all that this reality come from fieldsand oscillations instead to consider coded particles, I don t understand how is it possible even, the fields are due to bosons , particles encoded. Maybe it is philosphical, they considered an infinite heat before the physicality, after they have created the photons and the relativistic space time and now they have inserted strings inside simply and play with partitions of fields and oscillations simply but all this seems not foundamental at all scales. It seems that the crisis inside the theoretical sciencex community is serious lol but there is hope that they can change and consider a more simple and foundamental logic general, regards

Yes, very nice...you actually do have the right idea, but space and time are simply too limiting to have as fundamental dimensions. The actual primitive dimensions of the universe are matter and action, not space and time. With the matter-action postulate, discrete aether particles make up the universe along with action.

If you want the civilian interpretation, Civilian Discrete Aether

If you want the technical details, Discrete Aether

So if you want to stay in space and time, you will never be able to explain physical reality. If you move to matter and action, the universe opens up to new understanding...

The basis idea of a causal set is quite simple in that there is a fundamental particle, aether, that makes up the matter of the universe. Then, the action of aether as Planck's constant, makes up the fundamental changes of both quantum gravity and quantum charge...just with 1e-39th difference...

Steve,

I have to comment that the design of the universe is simple from one point of view, but so very abundant in other ways. Yes, I agree there is something like an aether. But it my opinion, it's more like a constant flow of gravitons that emit from a point, from every point in space, and expand at the speed of light. I think these gravitons have quantum states built into them. They fill all space with fields for all the standard model particles. Physics constants are built into these gravitons. When gravitons get big enough, they overlap and contribute to spacetime geometry.

My idea of an expanding graviton is that either it will become part of a quantum system and actually be what the wave function is describing, or it will expand beyond the quantum system, overlap with other gravitons, to become spacetime geometry. A graviton is made of quantum states that are subject to momentum, energy, operators. They idea is that spacetime geometry is made of quantum states.

Of course, the only really useful thing about a new model is if it can solve a problem with the old model. Right now, there are lots of problems in spacetime with relativity and quantum charge. Your model should solve all of these problems if it is to be useful. Can your model solve the problems of quantum gravity and quantum charge?

During the big bang, leptogenesis occurred at some time t_L; baryogenesis occurred at a time t_B. In my model, the fields for electron, gluons/quarks, etc., are created by the overlap of expanding gravitons. Since gravirtons have a radius r = ct, I would expect gravitons at time t_L to create a lepton field, and at t_B to create a baryon field.

At some time t_STC (which may be 1 second and longer) gravitons will overlap to contribute to the spacetime continuum. The Einstein equations, IMO, represent gravitons in equilibrium. When gravitons are not in equilibrium, they can be used to create artificial gravity fields (which was the whole reason for creating this graviton model).

One expanding graviton, of radius r = ct, has a surface area of 4pi r^2, which is a virtual photon, unless excited with energy; THEN, it's a real photon. During the big bang, when particles and charges were created, energy was stored in standard model fields that are made of n different gravitons. One could calculate the n (number of gravitons) for each type of particle field. Charges would also be caused by energy that is stored inside of the n-gravitons (of each kind).

Hello , dear Jason, your general analysis is interesting, that implies a kind of gravitational aether , I consider this also in my model. We need indeed a main gravitational cause and that permits to balance even our standard model and this cosmological scale also.

A new model will be useful if and only if it can explain something that the old model cannot explain...

Like why the universe expands? Why the speed of light is invariant?

Rob McEachern,

Well, you'd have a Nobel Prize to OVERTURN to prove that anti-matter doesn't exist. While we can merely _sample_, or see effects of, it via high-energy physics (where it is required of the formulation, to model many effects - not merely a 'data-match').

Black Holes actually _preserve_ matter (information, if you must) for release in a negative-time-going universe. This is how the universe achieves its initial state, and a FUNDAMENTAL issue for cosmology as well. It is important that a cosmology be causal, which NBWF achieves - but Steinberg's theory is NOT.

I actually presented+published work entitled Causal Particle Theory at DPF 09: https://indico.cern.ch/event/41044/contributions/1866467/ which was eventually included in http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0205176 .