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

Georgina Woodward

Finding explanations that work for me and that i can understand is what I do.

It does not follow, that what "work for you", has anything to do with what is "working in reality."

Robert McEachern
Yes-nevertheless.

Georgina Woodward
I find it interesting and pleasing how the pieces 'slot together' to give an explanatory framework, without paradox or accepting illusion as real as in current mainstream physics

One of a generated pair of photon particles is sent to Alice. She uses some apparatus set to a certain orientation to detect it. Bob selects the same orientation of apparatus. by doing so they have chosen the same relative 'seen this way' reference frame. This reveals the relationship of the particle pair at creation of the pair that is retained until interaction disturbs it. At measurement the resulting outcome is newly formed but not the particle pair. The particles pre-exist the measurement. The problem is with the theory assuming that the pair are randomly appearing individually at measurement ,and therefore need to co-ordinate their measured states. The fact that things can exist before measurement and choosing the same reference frame for generating the relative measurement takes care of that.

Georgina Woodward
Prior to observation, or measurement involving orientation of apparatus, there can not be a definite relative outcome state, involving orientation, because the outcome is a relative determination.
That does not mean that the subject under investigation does not have an orientation within the pattern of all currently existing things. Which is different from one singled out and described relation. This is showing the error of both QM and ERP. ERP is wrong for assuming the relative outcome is predetermined before measurement, prior to the choosing of individual viewpoint. QM is wrong for not considering absolute observer independent orientation of the subject, and therefore a pre-measurement relation of orientations of a particle pair.

Belief doesn't belong in science, Georgina. One can't be half rational.

maxwell
Lets not call it belief then, but soething thatt can be posited on the basis of copious examples of material things not dematerializing when out of view and which can be revealed or relocated (learned within first few years of life) ,also the fact ofmagical illusion being enabled by manipulation of material reality when unseen by audience. I do not belive a rabbit is materialized upon removing it from a hat . But a new relative, singular, observation product, or sequence of them as the rabbit moves, is formed by the audience member,when sensory data reaches the visual system, of eyes and part of CNS, where as such input was not possible with , material,rabbit hidden. From experience of this trick, including having my own,magic, hat I know that nothing can be removed from it that is not already there.. Though it may be concaled in lining and obscurd from view by lack of illumination. If such 'belief' in external material reality does not belong in science and I must instead believe that unseen a material objects ceases to exist contrary to lifetimes experience as well as materializaation and magic being real not illusion contrary to copious later life experience there is a double standard at play wqhich is biased against thinking a particular way. i do not accept that it is less rational thought 5than the alternative.

maxwell
Please elaborate your objection.
Excuse the spelling mistakes please.

Georgina Woodward
The cost to science of not accepting that there can be material existence and continuing of it in the absence of sensoy outpiut verificarion, modeling of imature perception, and alowing modelihng of magic illusion appearance rather than facts of their production.

@"Georgina Woodward"#p167789That's not quite right. Imature perception modelling and illusion modelling would have nothiñg rather than multiple imagined outcomes.

Georgina Woodward
Imature perception of a young infant, and deception by illusion are similar in the observer not having a mental model corresponding to a concealed material reality. Superposition is a mental model but not of material reality unsensed.
There is a temporal component to the cat thought experiment that ought to only allows one version of the material cat. Only, the time at which transition from live to dead material cat occurs is not known to the ouside observer , because the reality is concealed. Concealment of material reality is the common ground of imature perception, deception by illusion, and this kind of thought experiment.

Georgina Woodward
Thinking about concealed possibilities;
Possibility, defined by Oxford languages 1. “noun
a thing that may happen or be the case.”
The Schrodinger cat thought experiment showcases the type of situation where a possibility may have been extinguished but this is not known so the now impossible is retained as a possibility, though this is incorrect. Smelling poison fumes escaping the closed box could be used as an indication that the live possibility has been extinguished.

Viewpoint or context ‘seen this way’ measurement protocol yet to be established is a different situation. The possibilities remain vital, only being extinguished when a relative viewpoint or measurement protocol is used to give a new singular observation or measurement outcome.

For a macroscopic object subsequent observation or measurement is still possible, depending on how the experiment is conducted. So to say that other possible outcomes have been extinguished is not necessarily true. It is true where only one outcome can be obtained. Such as in subatomic scale experiments or a destructive measurement protocol. At any scale is used. Application of different viewpoints or different measurements can give different outcomes.
This is relativity, an extraction from the absolute, existing, material template that embodies many possibilities. The ‘many worlds’ of possibility are not in the limited relative outcomes, but preceding them as a material. observation independent, Object reality.

THE OBSERVER AND OBSERVED IN EINSTEINIAN FRAMES OF REFERENCE

According to Special Relativity, experiments are overrated by modern science since the truths revealed by experimentation are necessarily restricted to one frame of reference. Regarding the question of length contraction in Special Relativity - Einstein wrote in 1911 that "It doesn't 'really' exist, in so far as it doesn't exist for a co-moving observer; though it 'really' exists, i.e. in such a way that it could be demonstrated in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer." (Einstein [1911]. "Zum Ehrenfestschen Paradoxon. Eine Bemerkung zu V. Variĉaks Aufsatz". Physikalische Zeitschrift 12: 509–510) Demonstration "in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer" is the same meaning as "demonstration by experiments performed by scientists not moving at the speed of light".

Now relate the previous paragraph to this quote - “While an observer stationary with respect to an electric charge will see it as a source of electric field only, a second observer moving relative to the first will see the same charge as a source of both electric and magnetic fields in a way dictated by special relativity.” (Penguin Encyclopedia 2006 - edited by David Crystal - 3rd edition, 2006 - ‘electromagnetism’, p. 443)

So, if a co-moving frame of reference is adopted, we’d need to revise Maxwell’s propagation of electromagnetism by oscillating electric and magnetic fields. In addition to electric-magnetic duality not existing, the unification of all things in space and time (perhaps via quantum gravity) means wave-particle duality would not exist in all frames of reference. It would only exist for a non-comoving observer: it could be demonstrated “… by experiments performed by scientists not moving at the speed of light". * According to this comment, saying light travels is merely convenience, like saying the sun rises and sets when we know Earth is rotating. If we shift our understanding of the universe from one based on experiment to one in which observers and objective reality are united/entangled (one in which we’re in harmony with the universe and therefore co-moving with it), electric-magnetic duality would no longer be perceived. It would then be better to say,
“particles (photons) of light and microwaves etc., that ‘travel’ through space-time would have relatively little movement themselves. It’s the disturbances from the sources of electromagnetism (ripples in space-time called gravitational waves) that travel. A gravitational wave can't travel light years but only the quantum-scale distances between photons and gravitons. These particles then re-transmit the vibrations or disturbances they received, similar to the way an electric impulse travels from one nerve cell to the next. Neurons' electric impulses use chemicals called neurotransmitters - spacetime's gravitational and electromagnetic waves use BITS (the binary digits of 1 and 0) which act as transistors to boost the waves' strength and prevent power loss as the light years are crossed. This agrees with John A. Wheeler's geon - an electromagnetic or gravitational wave which is held together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own field energy. Maxwell's electric and magnetic oscillations would, at least in a comoving frame, "be heId together in a confined (subatomic) region" (since light years can be crossed in the direction of propagation, waves can also exist in macroscopic regions in other directions). If there is little movement of photons and gravitons, the universe could not be expanding (or contracting) but its space and time is static. The Big Bang has impressive points … leading to the idea that it’s a necessary stepping-stone. For example, the Big Bang’s supposed origin from quantum fluctuations is reminiscent of bits switching between 1 and 0.”

Einstein wrote “Do gravitational fields play an essential role in the structure of elementary particles?” (A. Einstein [1919]: “Spielen Gravitationfelder im Aufbau der Elementarteilchen eine Wesentliche Rolle?” [Do gravitational fields play an essential role in the structure of elementary particles?] Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, [Math. Phys.], 349-356, Berlin) This paper, asking if subatomic particles result from gravitational-electromagnetic (G-EM) interaction, is often dismissed because the discovery of the weak and strong nuclear forces is said to make it out of date. But an Opinions-article (R. Bartlett. “The 5th Dimension and its Implications for the String Theory, Conservation of Energy and Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle” – published October 2023 in the journal “IPI Letters” https://doi.org/10.59973/ipil.29) shows, in sections 3 and 4 (Vector-Tensor-Scalar Geometry), that G-EM interaction can produce the mass and quantum spin of not only the nuclear forces’ bosons but also of the Higgs boson. If looked at from the frame of reference of an observer co-moving with the universe, the weirdness of wave-particle duality vanishes and quantum mechanics becomes as understandable as the macroscopic world (gravitational and electromagnetic waves interact to produce a momentum and pressure which can be interpreted as a particle. The particle never actually exists in more than one place - it only appears that way in the human frame of reference).

rbartlett
The IPI Letters journal, in which your paper appears, states that "At IPI Letters, we believe that information is the fundamental currency of the modern world, playing a pivotal role in shaping our understanding of the universe and enabling technological advancements."

Indeed. But information is, in fact, the fundamental currency of the entire world, not just the modern world. It shapes not only "our understanding of the universe", but the entire, actual Nature of the Universe. As I have noted in my comments given above, and the numerous links given within those comments, the physics world has, unfortunately, never even begun to understand what "Information" even is. The two long-range, inverse-square forces (Gravity and Electromagnetic) being described by the equations of physics, are not "causal powers"; they are merely precise, mathematical descriptions of observed effects. But the detection behavior of "Information", as that word is used in Shannon's Information Theory, is the ultimate, sole cause, for the very emergence of, the phenomenon of "Cause and Effect" itself, in any deterministic sense; the mere existence of "Information" is what enables "cause and effect" itself, to emerge from the chaos of random noise processes, and the "detection" of "Information", is what causes long-range forces to appear, and exhibit "inverse-square law" behaviors.

Robert McEachern

I agree that "information is, in fact, the fundamental currency of the entire world" (and of) "the entire, actual Nature of the Universe". Also, I disagree with IPI's video stating there is no dark matter. I think dark matter certainly does exist, and that it needs to be approached as another dimension which can be described with Wick rotation. Just as E=mc² says energy can be converted into mass, we could say "dark" energy can be converted into "dark" matter i.e. DE=DMc² (this concept of dark energy invalidates its role as the cause of an expanding universe … which could be static). Your mention of cause and effect brings a few things to mind.

Max Tegmark, professor of physics and cosmology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the USA,
hypothesizes in his Mathematical Universe Hypothesis that the physical universe is not merely described
by mathematics but IS mathematics [Tegmark, M., Our Mathematical Universe. Random House/Knopf, January 2014]. The hypothesis seems to be supported by the relatively recent discipline of Information Physics. Tegmark’s categorization of the universe has four levels, with level 4 being altogether different
equations or mathematical structures. Building on the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, these “altogether different
mathematical structures” are, in this reply you’re reading, proposed to be topology’s two-dimensional Mobius strips
that are formed by base 2 maths (the binary digits of 1 and 0). The Mobius strips are joined as pairs into figure-8 Klein
bottles [Polthier, K., Imaging maths - Inside the Klein bottle. (2003)
http://plus.maths.org/content/os/issue26/features/mathart/index] which are mathematically immersed in the 3rd dimension. The photon and graviton are created by, respectively, trillions of Mobius
strips and trillions of figure-8 Klein bottles. Adapting Einstein [Einstein, A., Spielen Gravitationfelder im Aufbau der Elementarteilchen eine Wesentliche Rolle? [Do gravitational fields play an essential role in the structure of elementary particles?] Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften [Math. Phys.] 349-356. Berlin. 1919], these photons and gravitons interact via Vector-Tensor-Scalar Geometry to produce a space-time united with every form of mass (in Einstein’s terminology, a Unified Field). Wick Rotation is built into the Mobius strips constituting particles and
its motions form what is called time (being built into the Mobius and the quantum world, Wick rotation creates the
union of space-time).

Both gravitational and electromagnetic waves possess retarded and advanced components which travel forwards
and backwards in time, ["Advanced Waves Detected" by John G. Cramer, 2022, https://www.npl.washington.edu/av/altvw219.html] cancelling one another and entangling all masses. Wick rotation (time) is built into the Mobius strips and figure-8 Klein bottles composing electromagnetism's photons and gravitation's gravitons. Therefore, all time (the entire past and present and future) is united into one thing just as all space and all mass are united into one thing. If time only passed rectilinearly - from past to present to future - the idea of waves travelling back in time would make no sense at all. But if time is curvilinear as General Relativity concludes - with past, present, and future interconnected - time must be able to move from future to present to past. Unity of past/present/future may remove the issue of non-simultaneity – in special relativity – because the timing or sequence of events being different in different frames of reference can only exist if past/present/future are separate (and this is definitely valid in the limited human frame of reference). The concepts of cause and effect are no longer separate when all periods of time are united, and everything can happen “at once”. This is similar to watching a DVD – every event on the DVD exists at once since the whole DVD exists but we’re only aware of sights and sounds occurring in each tiny fraction of a second.)

Robert McEachern

I've been reading about Claude Shannon and Information Theory. I see he is credited with developing the concept of entropy in information theory, which is a measure of the amount of uncertainty or randomness in a system. Do you ever wonder how his concepts might apply to the predicted red giant phase of the Sun in about 5 billion years? Here are a few thoughts that don't include much uncertainty or randomness -

In about 5 billion years the Sun is supposed to expand into a red giant and engulf Mercury and Venus and possibly Earth (the expansion would probably make Earth uninhabitable in less than 1 billion years). It's entirely possible that there may not even be a red giant phase for the Sun. This relies on entropy being looked at from another angle - with the apparent randomness in quantum and cosmic processes obeying Chaos theory, in which there's a hidden order behind apparent randomness. Expansion to a Red Giant could then be described with the Information Theory vital to the Internet, mathematics, deep space, etc. In information theory, entropy is defined as a logarithmic measure of the rate of transfer of information. This definition introduces a hidden exactness, removing superficial probability. It suggests it's possible for information to be transmitted to objects, processes, or systems and restore them to a previous state - like refreshing (reloading) a computer screen. Potentially, the Sun could be prevented from becoming a red giant and returned to a previous state in a billion years (or far less) - and repeatedly every billion years - so Earth could remain habitable permanently. Time slows near the speed of light and near intense gravitation. Thus, even if it's never refreshed/reloaded by future Information Technology, our solar system's star will exist far longer than currently predicted.

Your very first statement - "the human species will almost certainly be extinct, eons before the sun's red-giant phase" - is so predictable. I know enough about 21st century humans to realize that it's impossible for me to change your mind. (Your conviction seems to rest on the assumption that human nature can never fundamentally change.) Nevertheless, I will point out that Claude Shannon's Information Theory indicates that everybody will live on after our present brains and bodies die. Consciousness continues after death because the particles in the brain and the quantum particles in the universe share identical composition at the most fundamental level - they're "physical manifestation of Shannon's information". You'll disagree that my previous comments can be accurate, and thus be exactly like those theoretical physicists and mathematicians you criticize. But if you'll bear with me - and what you'd call a fantasy - for a few seconds, living on after death means you (and the rest of the human species) will actually be alive and well in billions of years.