The Crystallizing Universe

This program is likely not sufficient. Quantum gravity and holography means that concepts of locality are approximations. An event can occur in two entirely different places and times. For this reason the entire spacetime cosmology we observe may be equivalent to a spacetime quantum fluctuation in a black hole or a virtual wormhole interior in some other universe.

A string which falls towards a black hole will be observed to time dilate, Lorentz contract, and splay out over the horizon of the BH. This splaying out can be seen in the elongated shape of galaxies in Einstein lenses! So a string approaching a black hole gets wound around the black hole, and frozen there. Now if an observer waits long enough Hawing radiation will begin to destroy the BH as it radiates away. This will destroy the string over time and transform it into another string (or strings) which escape the black hole. However, for an observer who falls into the black hole with the string nothing particularly strange happens to the string at the horizon --- nothing at all strange is observed to happen. However, as the string approaches the interior region of near infinite curvature we call a singularity, there the tidal forces start to pull the string apart and merge it with the singularity. I will avoid for now the physics of what happens there (very strange actually), but the string is transformed or destroyed in the interior. So two observers record very different results for this string! One says it is destroyed by Hawking radiation on the horizon, the other says it is destroyed by the interior region. The whole notion of locality with quantum gravity is gone! An assumption which has been used in quantum field theory is removed, think of it as excess baggage or some obstruction to progress.

Cheers LC

I was surprised that the (linked) paper did not mention the relational interpretation. RQM would have the particle going through both slits as a wave, and then when an observer measures "which slit," he becomes correlated with the particle and receives path information, destroying the wave nature of the particle. No causality acting on the past required. If I'm not mistaken, though, RQM would predict that if the experiment could be set up such that a second, independent observer interacted with the particle but did not receive which-path information, that observer #2 should see the particle act like a wave. Someone should try that....

Observere is a function of cosmic space and idea of biocentricity is too partial to be aqdequate picture of the universe.

yours amritAttachment #1: 1_Observer_is_a_function_of_Fourdimensional_Timeless_Space__for_WEB.pdf

Wave or particle? Ripple or bullet? Single slit or double slit? Causality...

From our perspective, photons behave ambiguously; like they avoid deciding what they are until the last moment, until an experiment forces them to reveal themselves.

In Newtonian mechanics, everything knows where everything else is. In reality, it's like the universe is secretive, it doesn't like to give information; even to other parts of the universe. Quantum waves looks like attempts to evade the question.

It's true. Just think that the universe (space-time) same the tree. the nodes go to the différents directions to potentiels life-events = paralels universes. You understand me ?

I'm just a Frenchy that like physik and astronomy.

Bye. Good brainstorming.

In AWT the simplest model of space-time is the water surface (gradient of matter density in general). The space dimensions are formed by directions parallel with surface plane and the time dimension is formed by direction perpendiculat to it. This explains (between others), why time dimension has always an "arrow", while the spatial not, why travel in time is much more diffilcult/dangerous then the travel in space, etc...

http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2008/09/aether-and-definition-of-time.html

Inside of multidimensional foam forming real space-time things may get slightly more complex, but they're still remain imaginable.

http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/08/awt-and-cosmological-time-arrow.html

In AWT the time goes forward for objects smaller then the wavelength of CMB and backward for larger objects. It's a result of geometrical perspective of observation through quantum foam penetrating the vacuum.

You can't test light's wave properties and particle properties at the same time anymore than you can pinpoint an elementary particle's position while you're calculating velocity. That's a whole different ballpark, but that's why the experiment of "tricking" the photons didn't work and it's called Complementarity.

The Crystallized Block Universe... Makes sense, honestly. It seems obvious to me, that the true present (the very moment you consciously experience, second-to-second) can not be fully analyzed until it has already happened. That's just logic. If you see a dog running out into the road and a car coming at it, you can't say it was hit by car until it has already been hit, and as soon as it has been hit (or not), it is the past and therefore verifiable.

In terms of particle physics, the reason why the photons arrive at different times is because, quite simply, waves and particles do not travel at the same speed. However the present can't influence the past, not in terms of perceived events, it can only change the way past information is viewed. The passing of real time (which is witnessed through entropy) is undeniable, measurement is relative.

If you're familiar with Susskind and 't Hooft's idea about Black Hole Complementarity (BHC) (which deals with the idea you just described), you know about the holographic qualities of the BH. The basis for it is that there is a layer of "horizon-atoms" (what they're composed of is undetermined as far as I know) that create a layer called the stretch-horizon (as defined by Susskind, specifically, not the general term) that is so hot any matter approaching disintegrates like a drop of ink in a pool. The layer is said to be only about a Planck's length thick. But getting straight down to business, BHC dictates that just as you must choose to measure particle or wave properties with photons, you must choose to either record results from outside the horizon or inside, that those things can never accurately be measured at the same time but that they complement each other as pieces of information. Hence, Black Hole Complementarity.

Right, and the two observers, FIxed Distance Observer (FIDO) and the FREeling Falling Observer (FREFO) record the fate of the string very differently. The FIDO says the string is quantum radiated out on the stretched horizon and "destroyed," while the FREFO says the string is "destroyed" by the interior. There are some gaps here, but the BHC does tell us that locality of events is not a general property of the universe.

The big gap here is we don't know how the string is transformed by the singularity in a way which is complementary to how the string is quantum tunneled off the horizon as Hawking radiation. The singularity is a form of D-brane which is dual to the stretched horizon, or its NS5-brane equivalent. This is an open area, which Susskind and Lindesay admit in their book.

Cheers LC

Reason being, you can't observe that action from outside the horizon. Heisenberg's microscope applied to the situation dictates that at that distance, it would require such high-energy photons that it would disrupt the information falling to the horizon, creating a large black hole that would then require low-energy photons creating a very blurry image.

Reading discussion here I see people still think in terms change running in the universe in space and in time, in so called space-time.

This thinking belongs is now developed into vision the change run in space only and with time (with clocks) we measure them.

yours amritAttachment #1: Analysis_of_Relation_between_Spacetime.......pdf

Dont forget that if everything happened all at once, that is to say that everthing is always in the "now",how is 1 second to be(future), created, some things we cannot locate in the present/now must be in the near_future, creating the spacetime pathway we will arrive in?

We cannot always locate everything, somethings are no longer needed by the present time, whatever is not here in the now, is busy creating the future!

Suppose one had some sort of mirror right near the event horizon at a fixed distance (ignoring the problems with a hugely tough tether to hold it up and so forth) and you tried to measure the near horizon physics of particle approaching the BH by their reflection. The elongation of transverse modes would mean a huge increase in the uncertainty in the position of the string, which creates this fuzziness. The mirror can only be held up to the limit of the stretched horizon. A string length above the GR horizon, and the only thing you could observe is their shortest transverse modes for gravity near the Planck scale--- everything else would be so uncertain that their positions are unobservable. Now if you decided to stand on that mirror to get a direct view you would find that the temperature of the vacuum region there would be horrendous. This has a curious duality of sorts with the more distant observation. The distant observer has set up a situation where the states of the vacuum near the mirror are observed in a squeezed state which increases the uncertainty in their transverse positions. The observer near the horizon or on this mirror observes a thermal hot bath. In both cases there is something analogous to the von Neumann entropy with a measurement.

The string tension is determined by the string coupling parameter α' as T = 1/2πα' and generalizes the uncertainty principle as

Δx ~ ħ/Δp α'p/ħ.

This is a form of T-duality as well where p is replaced by the radius of compactification or for p ~ 1/R. The uncertainty in length is then large (small) if α' is large (small), and the string tension is very small (large) correspondingly. If α' is very large then the string tension is small and the string can be stretched out enormously. This is similar to QCD at high energy where quarks are in a state of asymptotic freedom. Equivalently the uncertainty in the length of the string is large as well. This is a general sort of uncertainty principle

ΔxΔp ~ ħ α'pΔp /ħ,

and if we write Δp = Fδt so that

Fδx ~ ħc/δx α'pF/ħ .

Now we perform a summation over elements of δx_i and get

Σ_i F_iδx_i ~ ħc/δx^N Σ_i α'pF_i/ħ.

This is the scale of a fluctuation with an imaginary time τ = ħ/E, E = Σ_i F_iδx_i and E = kT. The temperature here is then an effective temperature corresponding to the degree of "chaos" induced by quantum uncertainty. The first term ħc/δx^N ~ 0 for N large and we get an effective entropy

kT ~ Σ_i α'pF_i/ħ.

So for the distant observer there is a Verlinde type of entropy or "entropy force of gravity," while for the close observer there is an enormous thermal bath of bosons (bosnoic strings etc) which manifests the same entropy.

Cheers LC

Dear Paul Valletta

Now, past, future, present belongs to the mind.

Universe is timeless, change run in space only. Clock/time is a device to describe change. Read attentively my article on file attached.

Imagine tree is falling in the forest.

Tree is falling in space only and not in time.

With clock/time we measure duration of tree falling.

Tree is falling in sequences t0, t1, t2,..........tn. Numerical order of this sequences we measure with clocks. Numerical order of tree falling exists without measuring it.

Duration of tree falling exist only when measured.

Duration of an event is result of measurement.

Clock/time is a measuring device for material change i.e. motion in the universe that itself is timeless.

yours amrit

I do understand that you can replace "time" with any other material "measure" object, for instance if you jump from a building and take ten seconds to fall to ground. You can just replace the seconds with, say 50 crates of apples (the apple boxes measuring the distance only). Now you can do the same with the falling tree, there can be no "time" reference of it falling, just a distance, again using boxes of pears if one wishes. Thus tree falls not t0,t1't2...AF, but 1 box, 2 box 3 box...etc.

Distance between ground and top of tree is so many boxes high in 3-D space, the problem is that you can replace the measuring devise with apples, oranges..pears or jars of peanut butter, but there is only ONE time?

I prefer that the 5th Dimension, 6-D,7-D...ad finitum, is of the mind, that way I know what is relative to my reality, or my spacetime?

Paul fundamental unity of time (with which me measure change that run in space

only and not in time) is Planck time.

yours amrit

Kate Becker's parody of spacetime should enjoy all those who not yet entirely lost contact to reality. I see no present between what we call past, i.e., the frozen into unchangeable reality, and what we may expect, predict, prepare on an open scale called future.

I do not agree with the essay when it blames symmetry of "microphysical laws" for the lets mildly say "current theoretical physics". While physics deserves a study how Einstein was perhaps influenced by Boltzmann's ideas and his religious background, already Ritz agreed with him to disagree in 1909 and died. I would appreciate anybody who has a compelling reason for the impossibility to maintain some essentials of relativity when abandoning the burden of an a priori given future.

Maybe, Ellis is too much a well educated in the negative sense physicist. I would already abstain from uncommented use of words like worldline and spacetime. I agree with him in that there is no time-symmetry and time-reversibility in the microworld. I also argue that the not yet existing future must not be considered a reasonable mathematical object. Ellis correctly adds that a quantum measurement process is not reversible.

Ellis mentioned various concurring candidates for a remedy: collapse of the wave function, many worlds, multiple histories, many fingered time, interpretation as an approximation, and even braking of an given symmetry. He looks for an interpretation inside quantum interpretation. Presumably he is or at least would be correct in that: Such attempts are doomed to fail altogether. Why did Ellis obviously fail to convey this message to the community of physicists?

It is not quite clear to me whether and if so how Ellis himself authorized the blog "The Crystallizing Universe". I cannot appreciate the the "elegant" idea to explain the transition from possibility to reality as change from quantum potentiality of a complex wave function into a single observed reality. Why did he and Rothman not learn from Wheeler's experiment? Heisenberg was most likely simply wrong when he attributed reality to observation instead the other way round. I envision a much simpler explanation of the duality between wave and particle: ripple-shaped bullets that extend unidirectionally over a coherence length with just a single tail. Is there any reason to imagine a particle like a point or a small ball? Maybe, cloud chambers were rather misleading.

By the way, I feel cheated by the word PET which suggests that positrons definitely exist. Actually, the method is based on dipole-pairs of photons.

Eckard Blumschein

In topic 617 a more plausible explanation of the double slit experiment has been offered. Are there any objections?

Eckard

Dear Constantinos,

I decided to reply here in the hope for provoking serious objections by experts who missed what we discussed in topic 617. Let me briefly describe how I understood your argumentation:

You referred to a pattern measured with a detector by Hitachi showing many subsequently measured single points of detected single photons behind a double slit. The density of these points forms the interference pattern to be expected for electromagnetic waves. The points were so far interpreted as evidence for single point-like particles.

If I understood you correctly, you are arguing that any single photons does not hit only a particular point of the area of the detector but the whole area. The obstacle causes a phase shift resulting in an interference that utters itself in higher or lower probability of responding points. I do not know how the detector works and I guess the measured points indicate multiplied secondary emission.

Can you please confirm or correct this description?

If I correctly understood this random discrete response to photons of continuous extension, then the peculiar measurement by Gompf et al. becomes understandable: Single-photon counting is superimposed by a random behavior of the detector.

When I did not appreciate your wording "stop the weirdness" in connection with a simple mathematical proof, I was not offended. I merely anticipated those who will not take you seriously.

Studying the original scriptures, I realized that Planck's energy quanta go back to the assumption of N oscillators each of which has a given frequency f, cf. Ann. Phys. 4, 553, 1901 "On the Energy Distribution in the Blackbody Spectrum" where Planck derived from entropy S the energy density U=hf/(exp(hf/kT)-1) as his Eqn11.

Perhaps the late Planck was wrong when he wrote in 1943: "... trying to fit the action quantum into the system of classical physics. But it seems to me that this is not possible."

Curious,

Eckard