Hole Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics by Constantin Zaharia Leshan

Dear Constantin,

You write: ---"The Universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists, including all matter and spacetime. Consequently, outside of the Universe is nothing in an absolute sense."---

Well, if there's nothing outside the universe, then as 'seen' from the outside, the universe doesn't exist, has no physical reality. This agrees with conservation laws: if the universe creates itself out of nothing, without any stuff or intervention from the outside, then the total of everything inside of it, all objects and events, including spacetime itself, must remain nil. In a self-creating universe particles have to create themselves, each other, like a particle/anti-particle pair can pop up out of nothing without violating any conservation law. If particles only exist as far as they interact, exchange energy, then ---"all particles appear and disappear continually"--- because they alternately borrow and lend each other the energy they need to exist, to express that existence. The higher the frequency they exchange energy at, the higher their energy is. So the particles create and 'un-create' each other in every cycle, forcing each other to reappear again and again after every disappearance. As the frequency of their exchange depends on their distance, they can only preserve their rest energy by forcing each other to reappear at about the same positions, effectively providing each other with inertia. So we wouldn't need holes to explain why ---"an electron can find its original position"---

---"Hence an object is totally decoupled from the rest of the Universe and must show quantum behavior"---

An object which is completely isolated from interacting, from exchanging energy with the rest of the universe, from all fields and influences, even from gravity, doesn't exist, has no physical reality, so cannot show any behavior. If we could isolate it, we'd annihilate it. For details see my essay.

Regards, Anton

Dear Constantin

You write:

---"At the center of a black hole the spacetime curvature becomes infinite: the time has stopped, and gravitational length contraction tends to infinity."---

Though the value of a quantity may not have a limit, in practice the properties of any physical object can be expressed in finite numbers. That we cannot measure or calculate them doesn't mean that the quantities are indefinite. So the curvature does not become infinite, but just extremely great. Similarly, time does not stand still, it just proceeds at an extremely slow pace, and lengths do not become zero, but are contracted extremely. Another point is that as any measured or calculated quantity of some object depends on the distance it is observed from and the field at the observer, then we must add to any value we find, add the specifics of the observer-observed relation. Since to someone nearer the hole, where its field is stronger, time inside the hole proceeds at a faster pace, then the hole to that observer is a different object. We cannot, then, speak about 'the' hole, as if it has some absolute properties of itself, independent from any interaction the hole may be involved in. If we nevertheless do, then we declare our observation position in space as well as in time to be more unique than any other point, which is not what Galilei would approve of.

---"Hence, 'sitting' inside a black hole you'll say that the Universe doesn't exist, has no physical reality."---

Indeed: as seen from deep inside the hole's field, we, our world doesn't exist, not yet or no more or never will exist, so what happens here has no effect on the hole nor on the hypothetical observer inside of it, any physical interaction too far redshifted to be of any consequence.

---"even if you do not see the Universe, it does not mean that the Universe doesn't exist, has no physical reality'."---

To say that an object exists whereas we cannot in any way by observing or interacting with it check whether it exists or not requires supernatural abilities. In nature objects only have reality, exist to one another as far as they interact. Similarly, if your friend sits a hundred meters from you on the beach, then the effects of him disturbing the sea by dipping his finger in it on the waves where you sit are nil. His action cannot be retrieved, be reduced from the wave pattern you see, so his action has no physical reality to you. As far as you are concerned, it has not happened, even if your friend calls on god as his witness that he really did dip his finger in the water. I'm afraid that in our mind we're so used to the company of such a silent witness who's always looking over our shoulder that we assume that the things we see have an absolute, autonomous existence, independent of whether we observe it or not, independent from any interaction. As a result we assume that things which cannot be observed nevertheless can exist. They sure may exist elsewhere/when, but then they exist to another observer. The point is that by thinking about the universe as a whole, we ascribe it properties and thereby assert that there's something outside of it to which it matters what its properties are, as if it is embedded in something which interacts with the universe. By doing so, we actually declare that the universe has been created by some outside intervention, an act of belief which makes the properties of everything inside of it incomprehensible. In a universe which creates itself without any outside interference, particles have to create one another, so they are as much the source as the product of their interactions and exist only within this relation. The consequence is that we cannot speak about their properties as something which is independent from anything, as if it is an absolute, objective, intrinsic, 'hallowed' feature of particles.

---"And here you are wrong about that perfect isolated systems 'cannot show any behavior. If we could isolate it, we'd annihilate it.'"---

What I mean is that if particles only exist to each other as far as they exchange energy or interact (unlike a net energy transmission associated with interactions, their energy exchange is unobservable), then they would stop to exist to each other if by isolating them from each other, we could cut off this exchange. In practice, however, we can only isolate particles to prevent them from absorbing energy in certain frequencies. If we cool a cloud of identical particles to their ground energy and suck most of their kinetic energy away from the system, then their mutual energy exchange becomes so orderly, so strictly coordinated that the cloud starts to act like a single object (BE condensation). It is this continuous energy exchange between particles which is at the heart of quantum mechanics. Though we may impede particles to absorb energy from the outside, that doesn't mean that their exchange with the outside world is completely cut off -in which case they wouldn't feel any gravity from the Earth. Besides, we can only observe their behavior in containers cooled to 0 K if they are not isolated from our observation interaction.

Regards, Anton

Dear Leshan,

I don't think that a physical infinity (Black Hole singularity?) can exist in a finite Universe (13.7 billion light years is huge, but finite). Therefore, I think that the Black Hole "singularity" is prevented by a lattice of the very fabric of Spacetime (which is related to your "holes" - holes are a lattice defect in the very fabric of Spacetime). The lattice geometry that best fits a static Black Hole core is that of a buckyball (soccer ball, truncated icosahedron, Carbon-60, a lattice-like near sphere - a perfect sphere would be deflated by the crushing gravitational pressure of the "singularity"). The curvature of the buckyball introduces the physical necessity for gravitational curvature. This assumption is consistent with Subir Sachdev's expectation of a graphite-based (another Carbon allotrope) Gravitational Holography. Layers of nested buckyballs with flipped symmetries gradually build a lattice very similar to a diamond (except it has a lattice defect - one of your "holes"? - at the point of expected "singularity"). But a rotating Black Hole may generate the homotopic cousin of a pair of nested buckyballs, which is a lattice-like near torus (or donut) as I have discussed extensively on Rafael Castel's blog thread (topic 835). In this example, your "hole" may be the donut hole at the Black Hole "singularity".

Welcome to the essay contest - you should visit FQXi more often than just essay contests. I need to catch-up and read your essay. My latest essay is at topic 816.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Dear Constantin,

I like your way of thinking. But do you have any justification for that continuous spacetime can't exist? you refer to 'spatial atoms'. But length is a quantity. Atoms are physical objects. Do you mean a spactime atom as an object with different kinds of properties such as a discrete length? In what sense is it different from material atoms?

In quantum theory a particle can pop up on Mars or on the Earth. Depends on the wavefunction. But what is your mathematical justification for non-traversable "tunnels"? Is your opinion different from quantum mechanics?

And what do you think about probability waves that are continuous physical phenomena? Are the media that wave continuous or discrete?

Friendly Regards

Peter van Gaalen#903

Dear Constantin,

Indeed, The Official Statement of Modern Science is wrong, one reason being that the speed of light isn't a velocity, so a black hole has no event horizon. The belief that there's a singularity at the center follows from the false assumption that the mass of particles is an absolute, objective quantity, that is, only the source, and not also the product of their interactions. 'Singularities' and 'black holes' are the product of our addiction to fairy tales and use their lingo. This is why in my essay I speak about 'black-hole like' objects. Modern science doesn't 'affirm that black holes really exist', only that there exist very heavy, compact objects. As to 'seen from deep inside the hole's field, we, our world doesn't exist': that doesn't mean that we would see nothing. The speed of light is just a property of spacetime (see the UPDATE 2 post at my thread about Time. This post also touches upon the subject of quantum teleportation, EPR experiments). Though a photon indeed bridges the spaceTIME distance between its source and receiver in no time at all, an observer does measure a time equal to their distance. Whereas in this sense a photon transmission is instantaneous, this is impossible for massive particles. If they express and preserve their mass by exchanging energy, then displacing a mass would affect the energy of the objects it was anchored to in its original location, as well as that of its new neighbors after the displacement. Another problem is how you can instruct the particle to end up where you want it except by accelerating it.

Regards, Anton

Dear Leshan

As to whether holes exist, see my post at my thread (my reply to Dan Benedict) of 1 march.

Regards, Anton

Dear Constantin and Anton,

On Feb 14 in this thread, I gave the analogy that Constantin's quantum hole and a black hole "singularity" may both be lattice defects in the very fabric of spacetime. I think they may be related - if not identical. Of course, Constantin's primary purpose is to make a case for a type of interstellar travel that apparently defies relativity, and not to explain the "stability" of black holes. Nonetheless, it would be cool if these ideas are related. In later runs, the LHC may try to produce mini black holes. What if these phenomena reinforce Constantin's idea?

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Dear Leshan,

''By definition, the velocity is the rate and direction of the change in the position of an object. For example, since light travels a distance ct during the time t, it is in agreement with the definition of the velocity.''

We can only speak about the velocity of an object with respect to objects if and when it interacts with them as it moves. Since the photon has no mass or charge, it cannot express its presence to the objects with respect to which it is supposed to move: having no mass, it cannot have a position. If it doesn't interact, exist to these objects nor the environment to the photon, then it makes no sense to speak about its velocity as there's nothing with respect to which it moves. This is why to the photon itself its transmission is instantaneous: it bridges a spacetime distance in no time at all even though an observer measures a time equal to that space distance. (All interactions the photon is supposed to be involved in as travels, all Feynman diagrams of all possible interactions with virtual electrons, positrons and photons, are actually taken care off at the photon source and receiver.) The idea of a photon as some kind of bullet buzzing from a light source to some random target across spacetime is a classical notion of what in actually is a purely quantum mechanic phenomenon. Since we assume that the universe evolves as a whole with respect to some clock outside of it, we assume the emission of the photon to (causally) precede its absorption elsewhere, according to that clock.

If particle A emits a photon which is absorbed by B, a transmission changing the state of both A and B, then A sees the state of B change at the time it emits the photon, whereas B sees the state of A change as it absorbs the photon. (That is, unless B after absorbing the photon sends back a message to A to confirm the receipt of the photon, a thank-you-note saying that A can from this moment start to see B in its new state). Whereas according to A and B the transmission is instantaneous, having no mass, to the photon there's no space nor time distance between A and B so to the photon its transmission also is instantaneous. Since to a massive observer A and B are separated in space and thus in time, he measures a transmission time equal to their distance. So if there's no time, no clock outside the universe to determine what in an absolute sense precedes what, then we cannot say that either A or B is the cause of the transmission, which is a requisite to be able to speak about a velocity. We can, therefore, only speak about a velocity if it is smaller than c. The difference is that at velocities < c, a bullet may miss the intended target, whereas at the 'speed' of light, the bullet only can be shot if and when it hits the target. For a photon to be emitted, transmitted requires the cooperation of the receiver, so quantum mechanics at heart is non-causal, which is why it seems so strange. The flaw of causality, however, is that if we understand something only if we can reduce it to a cause, and we can understand this cause only as the effect of a preceding cause etcetera, to end at some primordial cause which by definition cannot be understood, then causality ultimately cannot explain anything. More over time and causality you can find in my UPDATE 2 post above (Feb. 8).

Regards, Anton

Constantin

I noted your comments on the leading essay. If you've read mine you'll be aware of my belief that content, with reality, logic and falsifiability, is indeed my priority. I agree our leader does not lead with those, but feel it's value is still beyond simple entertainment, reminding us of a particular scientific approach we'd do well to remember.

I read your essay and couldn't find falsifiability in your main premise, which is not consistent with the significant evidence and logic my own theory uses, which is all consistent with a discontinuous continuum, at 2.7 degrees always in the local (last scattering) rest frame of the CMB. From this I derive CSL, which removes the need for Einstein's original 'denial' of the 'ethers' influence on EM signal propagation. (though he confirmed "space without ether is unthinkable".

None the less I found your essay well written and, considering your task, the point as well argued as it could have been. This alone makes it worth a good score, and better than it's place suggests. Yet I think you need to read such as Ken Wharton or you may end up blinkered and resentful. I hope you've also read or will read mine, and with an open and fully switched on mind as it will test your conceptual abilities.

Best wishes

Peter

Dear Constantin,

As to the eclipse, it is not light which bends around the Sun but spacetime itself which is curved and affects the physical relation between the distant star and the observer. To the photon itself, its path would be perfectly straight if not for the fact that to the photon there is no path, no spacetime distance between the points it is transmitted. If to the photon itself it doesn't interact as it is transmitted, then we cannot insist that it does. Its transmission doesn't consist of three separate, independent events, its emission, its voyage and its (accidental) absorption somewhere else, but is a single event. If A emits a photon which is absorbed by B, a transmission changing the state of both A and B, then A sees the state of B change at the time it emits the photon, whereas B sees the state of A change as it absorbs the photon. Though to us the moment when A sees B change and when B sees A change don't coincide in time, it nevertheless it is a single event taking no time at all. To A its own change doesn't precede that of B, nor sees B change itself before or after it sees A change. Only if we assume that there is a God-Clock, an Absolute Time we can determine in an absolute sense what precedes what, is cause of what, and only then can we interpret the speed of light as a velocity. Without such a clock it is just a property of spacetime, how many meters correspond to how many seconds. In my essay I have repeatedly emphasized that there is no such clock.

As to a photon curving spacetime: according to GR energy only is a source of gravity if and when it can be assigned a position, like I argued in my essay: the energy of a (massive) particle likewise depends on the definiteness in its position. Since the speed of light can be defined as that 'velocity' at which the position of a particle is completely indefinite so it cannot express its energy in interactions, act upon anything, a photon cannot curve spacetime. Another reason why photons cannot, should not interact, is that for photons to be able to transmit force between two particles, they must be impervious to influences which may affect that force, which is why it has no mass, why it isn't delayed by interactions as goes about its business, why it has the 'speed' of light. We should reserve the term 'velocity' for motions proceeding at v < c, for classical situations where causally applies. Though we can describe the propagation of light as if it has a velocity, we should keep in mind that it is a non-causal QM phenomenon. Spacetime is curved by mass, by the continuous energy exchange by means of which particles express and preserve each other's energy, not by photons. This, by the way, is not to say that we cannot predict where and when we can intercept a photon, that is, make the source produce photons for our detector. We should not think about photons as some kind of bullets buzzing through spacetime, as if the state of the source particles can change before that of the absorbing particles, 'before' according to the God-Clock. Unfortunately causality itself cannot exist without such clock, so if we reject Absolute Time (as we must if we are to practice physics instead of metaphysics), then we should discard causality. Though events certainly are related, we shouldn't waste time on irrelevant questions as to what is cause of what. So to say that ''there are some problems with causality in quantum mechanics'' seems to me a gross understatement. I'm well aware that what I propose is completely different from the present consensus about what photons are, so I can imagine your confusion.

I do not describe the EPR paradox with the above AB sketch. In an EPR experiment (like those of Anton Zeilinger) which entangles two photons, the light source (the particles to emit the photons) at all times is informed about the direction of the polarisation filter in the detector as it continuously exchanges energy with all particles of the setup. So if the source keeps producing pairs of entangled photons, then any photon with the right polarisation to pass the detector filter and be detected is produced together with a photon with the opposite polarisation. As the information about the detector already is present at the source at the time of the emission, there's no need for signals traveling instantaneously from the detector to the other photon which then is thought to assume the appropriate polarisation. It already is produced at the source with that polarisation, so no info is transmitted faster than light and there's no teleportation of Q states. The idea of teleportation originates in the belief that there is a God Clock, in the outdated, 19th century idea that speed of light is a velocity.

Regards, Anton