• Blog
  • Quantum Physics and the End of Reality by Sabine Hossenfelder and Carlo Rovelli

Carlo I think mentions spacetime being somehow emergent.

Being rational Tom, existential matter should not be put into spacetime to avoid paradox- which is logically disallowed. Spacetime (observed) is a product of EMr receipt and processing. There needs to be distributed matter which is source of emitted and /or reflected Emr. The arrangement of the matter needs to change giving foundational time. EMr transmission occurs in that environment. Justification: unambiguous sequential processes, relative perception, no paradox,

Correction.

Sabine says she's not a realist but realism is a good working hypothesis. She describes herself as an instrumentalist. (I wrote epistemologist, which was incorrect) Her own standpoint: "I can't prove anything exists besides me." "The task of science is not to figure out some truth about reality, whatever that might mean. The task is to find descriptions of our observations, not more and not less." Sabine Hossenfelder

Hi Olivier, information' already has lots of meanings. Using a prefix or adjective with it, to make it a name that fits precisely your particular concept, would be helpful.

Hi Georgina, It is what I tell also about the fact that we need to know the origin philosophical like the meaning of these informations, they must have a strucutre also in correlating with the spacetime of the GR like for the loop quantum gravitation has made. Without a structure, an origin also , it is not sufficient, the informations are a complex puzzle conmsidering what they are really in their pure universal meaning which is different than the qubits that we have invented with the computing,

Perhaps I should arrange the words to be clear that Space time is a result not a premise. When electromagnetic radiation is received and processed, the product contains temporal spread due to the different travel times of the inputs. Giving a space time product. Existential matter is not a space time product unlike seen semblances generated from electromagnetic radiation receipt.

Georgina,

What is your idea of the physical form of electromagnetic radiation? QM holds it to be a discrete (massless) particle, so why does it also register a sinusoidal response in a receiver? To assert that Spacetime is a product of emission and receipt of EMR kind of beggs the question; "What IS it?"

Hi john,

I have seen some interesting results with oil droplets on a vibrating bed of oil. Also a hydrophobic oil droplet on water. These are not exactly photons . However the results are showing some quantum like behavior-Such as quantum corral like, quantum tunneling-like and being both particle and wave able to pass as a particle part though one slit and wave portion through both. Wave interference hasn't been reproducibly demonstrated though. This combo-form would allow particle and wave together to be detected as a wave and the particle part to be detected as a particle. A divisible wave that can give an interference pattern affecting the particle portions location when recombined but not (yet) detectable otherwise could account for some 'weirdness'.

Georgi,

I'm inclined to favor that interpretation also, or something quite similar. Lot's of room for hypothesis. :-) jrc

Hi John, happy to see you on FQXi, and what about the hypothesis of hypothesis lol like if the assumption of an hypotheisis was just a hypothesis

all is clear about consciousness

https://bistra.si/images/2022/Time_observer_consciousness_8.pdf

    Your ideas Amrit are interesting about how you interpret this consciousness but we must recognise that we have still many limitations physical, biological,philosophical. There are many models about this hard problem of consciousness but no model explains it correctly , it is still due to these limitations that we have unfortunately,regards

    Steve,

    It is best to be able to laugh about it, lest we take ourselves too seriously. Logic began in antiquity as a quest to find if we could know if what we thought about things was at all true to reality, and now more than two millennia later with a lot more math we still wonder!

    Hi John, all this is laughing I must say indeed even the theoretical physics community, all persuaded to understand the universe, the maths, the physics, the philosophy , but in fact we know nothing still, that said when we observe the universe and when we study these sciences and when we search answers in philosophy also, some truths appear , that is why these spheres 3D are for me the choice of God simply , after all there are only this inside this universe cosmologically speaking, they are not too simple, they are very complex in details and the same for the 3D quantum series of spheres .What I find laughing to be frank is that since einstein they are all endoctrinated like the only one truth with these photons like the light of god playing at guitar now with strings inside and creating the mass with the mass energy equivalence lol and in considering the informations there in the strings inside the photons connected with the hand of god in this GR, it is laughing no John frankly , and you are right we know nothing in a sense about the complexity of all these 3D spheres, they are not simple, what we observe and measure actually are just 0,000000000001 percent of properties emergent of these spheres in motions rotations oscillations , what a world, and us the humans and our vanity we beleive that we have understood god and the physics laughing is a weak word and they take this seriously furthermore indeed, the vanity is the problem, we have a problem us the humans encoded in our minds and DNA due to a sad common past of adaptation or maybe god drunk belgian beers when he has created the nhumans I don t know lol we are simply an error lol all persuaded the humans

    2 months later

    Link to new paper uploaded to viXra

    Equipossibility, Over-Inflated Basket Balls, Photons and Polarizers

    I have put in a request to change my author name for consistency

    An explanation for the statistical results for photon and polarizer experiments, that differ from classical expectation and linear output variation with changing angle. Brief discussion of what is equipossibility. Basket ball inflation analogy used to help visualize the issue. Positing polarizers produce a population of photons with different wave component orientations with different ease of passing different orientations of polarizer, rather than a uniform population. In this way talk of the necessity for faster than light communication or need to abandon local realism becomes superfluous. Relevant to Bell's inequalities.

    http://viXra.org/abs/2211.0009 2 pages, separate appendix

      "The best-known formulation of the rule is Laplace's principle of indifference (or principle of insufficient reason), which states that, when "we have no other information than" that exactly mutually exclusive events can occur, we are justified in assigning each the probability 1/N This subjective assignment of probabilities is especially justified for situations such as rolling dice and lotteries since these experiments carry a symmetry structure, and one's state of knowledge must clearly be invariant under this symmetry." Wikipedia equiprobability

      The assumption of equipossibility (equally likely) is the start of the problem.

      "We can. however, rig up an experiment where the interactions can not affect each other without faster than light communication but where the same impossible numerical weirdness persists. The key is not to have the photon pass through filters at different points in time but through different points in space at the same time." Bell's Theorem: The Quantum Venn Diagram Paradox.

      Addressing the "impossible numerical weirdness" http://viXra.org/abs/2211.0009

      2 pages

      Ref. Bell's Theorem: The Quantum Venn Diagram Paradox. YouTube video https://youtu.be/zcqZHYo7ONs

      I start by mentioning a fishing scenario but could have been more explicit. Lets say there are equal numbers of vegetarian grass carp and piranhas. If the bait used is a strip of steak , there is little likelihood the catch will have even numbers of each species. A model built upon the assumption of an equally distributed catch would be wrong. Wrong because equipossibility has been assumed as the difference in behavioural biology was not known. "Recall Laplace's formulation, when "we have no other information than" that exactly mutually exclusive events can occur, we are justified in assigning each the probability 1/N "The catches are mutually exclusive. You are going o catch fish of one kind or the other with one hook.

      http://viXra.org/abs/2211.0009 2 pages

      It's not about fish and their likes..

      It becomes more relevant when we are taking account of something that does not give a definite will or won't answer but affects the probability. (So not a variable like red hat or has glasses!) I give the analogy of basketball inflation affecting probability a ball will pass through a hoop of fixed size. For comparison with-

      Photon wave component orientation affecting probability a photon will pass a polarizer of certain orientation. Giving the characteristic probability distribution. For sequential polarizers or the same angle between orientations of distant polarizers testing entangled pairs. Even if I didn't precisely spell it out.

      http://viXra.org/abs/2211.0009 2 page