i've stumbled upon a new theory that's an alternative for string theory. it's called loop quantum gravity and i think it might replace string theory as the next step in physics, combining quantum theory and special relativity. it's central statement is that space and time come in discrete pieces, like matter. It's a bit too complex too quickly describe here. But i think it might very well be THE big revolution in science, of this time.
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
quantum loop gravity
- Thread starter polytrip
- Start date
I think that all reality is likely information. What I mean by this is that the way in which we think of the external world as a 3-D cartesian coordinate system is a fallacy. We base this view of of subjective experiences (the mind) which are created by the brain. Thus this reality is an internal representation of something external. (Although these very descriptions may have only a relative meaning). There is no external reality of space and time. This is an illusion all that exists is information. This information can be interpreted and used to create the illusion that this space-time reality exists.
This is supported by quantum mechanics specifically the observer effect. Which says that when the external world is not being observed it behaves and exists in a state very different from when it is observed. It exists as a wave function and when it is observed the wave function collapses or condenses into a particle space time state. I like to use the analogy of a website on a computer screen. When a website is up on the screen it looks a certain way, a 2-d space reality. The screen is like the observer. When one moves to the next website what happens to the previous one? It certainly does not exist in the same state as it did while in the screen. It exists as information when this information is on the screen it can be manipulated, interacted with, an altered. These changes can be stored. Thus reality is information.
While we observe reality it exists in a familiar form, however once we are no longer observing it falls back into information state (QM states). We can alter it while we observe and these changes are saved. It is just that this view of an external reality of space and time is just not real. This theory changes nothing about how we see the world while we are observing it and fits well with quantum mechanics. It is similar to field theory but QM has more to do with the moment of observation than the state it is in prior.
Although it is difficult because what is an observer. If the brain its self is information than what causes it to be observed and thus collapse. Then what came first the observer or information... as they both seem dependent on one another in a classical sense anyway...
This is all very interesting things. I believe that we can only ever hope to comprehend these problems relatively. I think the true nature is far more complex and strange than we can even imagine. Logic is a biological process that is useful for surviving however for understanding the true nature of reality it may not be so effective.
This is supported by quantum mechanics specifically the observer effect. Which says that when the external world is not being observed it behaves and exists in a state very different from when it is observed. It exists as a wave function and when it is observed the wave function collapses or condenses into a particle space time state. I like to use the analogy of a website on a computer screen. When a website is up on the screen it looks a certain way, a 2-d space reality. The screen is like the observer. When one moves to the next website what happens to the previous one? It certainly does not exist in the same state as it did while in the screen. It exists as information when this information is on the screen it can be manipulated, interacted with, an altered. These changes can be stored. Thus reality is information.
While we observe reality it exists in a familiar form, however once we are no longer observing it falls back into information state (QM states). We can alter it while we observe and these changes are saved. It is just that this view of an external reality of space and time is just not real. This theory changes nothing about how we see the world while we are observing it and fits well with quantum mechanics. It is similar to field theory but QM has more to do with the moment of observation than the state it is in prior.
Although it is difficult because what is an observer. If the brain its self is information than what causes it to be observed and thus collapse. Then what came first the observer or information... as they both seem dependent on one another in a classical sense anyway...
This is all very interesting things. I believe that we can only ever hope to comprehend these problems relatively. I think the true nature is far more complex and strange than we can even imagine. Logic is a biological process that is useful for surviving however for understanding the true nature of reality it may not be so effective.
Bufoman what consititutes observation in such theories? Thats a question I can't seem to find an answer too.
Exactly this fact is not known. Is it a conscious being or an interaction or .... it is not known. All they know is that when they perform a QM experiment in the presence of a experimenter the outcome occurs one way (particle). If the perform it without the experimenter present it occurs another way (wave). However if they set up a machine to observe the state of the experiment or record the result it occurs as if an observer was present at least when the experimenter looks at the results. These issues are not clear and this is one of the most difficult question of QM today. What is known is the presence of an observer changes the state of the system. The mechanism is unknown.
Observation is a form of interaction. If your theory is correct then it is likely to be a reflective interaction that creates a sort of equilibrium equal in a sense, to a nash-equilibrium where the state/alteration of the object and state/alteration of the subject are such that they're in a balance; the observation changes the observer so that it is in balance with the object and vice versa, so they don't have to keep on changing, adapting to the new state/alteration of the other. This would be nessecary to keep symmetry within the standard model; from any other perspective the same wave/particle could collapse into a different particle.
deedle-doo
Rising Star
bufoman said:
How far does the experimenter have to go? Can he just go to the lunch room and grab a coffee or does he have to leave the building? What if he had a paper bag over his head?
Aren't there any other explanations based on the tools used to detect particles? I don't really know how QM experiments work. How do they know the unobserved results if nothing can be around to record the results. This just seems so strange to me.
I think the issue of the observer is critical. Its also why I have a huge objection to writers such as the guy who wrote "The tao of physics" or "physics of consciousness" or the movie "what the bleep do we know". None of these people clearly define or show experimentally what the observer is. Not even expect quantum physicists have clearly explained it.
One of the main reasons I object to the human mind specifically being the observer is that the universe exists before we were here. Many other life forms are also alive and conscious and interacting with their environment. I think its naive to assume they wouldn't exist without us observing them. Even simple stupid bacteria are alive and interacting with their environment. They aren't directly observing it like we are but yet there still is an external reality for that bacteria. There is an external reality for every single molecule in that bacteria. There is an external reality for an electron flying around a proton in that bacteria. How deep do we take this?
To me the deepest we can take it is the deepest we can detect which is down to the plank length which is what the uncertainty principle implies (correct me if i am wrong). So down there we know there are these things that look like particles or waves depending on the experiment or how its observed etc. This to me implies that the only thing necessary for an observer is some other subatomic particle or energy. The only way to see particle A is with particle B. The only way to see wave A is with wave B (or particle B). Thats the observer.
But what created the division? Why did particle A or B come into being in the first place? Well there is an explanation if you look at cosmological evolution. If the big bang idea is somewhat correct (to anyone who knows the whole story its not complete at all) then at the high density and pressure the normal laws of physics come apart and we have unification. All forces are one. It was the expansion of space and cooling of this 'field' if we want to describe it that way that allowed the forces of nature to begin to divide up and take up the characteristics they have. It was this that allows particle A and B to come into being which is essentially what creates reality and our universe.
Anyway to really answer or prove that such unification exists we need to fire up some badass particle accelarators and blast particles at each other with super high energies to recreate conditions of the early universe. We need to recreate the big bang on a small scale. We need to directly observe unification. From there we can begin to speculate more about gravity. The issue of gravity is important in any complete picture of our universe. The only way to resolve the issue is with experimental evidence. Math and theories are fine but they are nothing without experimental backing.
One of the main reasons I object to the human mind specifically being the observer is that the universe exists before we were here. Many other life forms are also alive and conscious and interacting with their environment. I think its naive to assume they wouldn't exist without us observing them. Even simple stupid bacteria are alive and interacting with their environment. They aren't directly observing it like we are but yet there still is an external reality for that bacteria. There is an external reality for every single molecule in that bacteria. There is an external reality for an electron flying around a proton in that bacteria. How deep do we take this?
To me the deepest we can take it is the deepest we can detect which is down to the plank length which is what the uncertainty principle implies (correct me if i am wrong). So down there we know there are these things that look like particles or waves depending on the experiment or how its observed etc. This to me implies that the only thing necessary for an observer is some other subatomic particle or energy. The only way to see particle A is with particle B. The only way to see wave A is with wave B (or particle B). Thats the observer.
But what created the division? Why did particle A or B come into being in the first place? Well there is an explanation if you look at cosmological evolution. If the big bang idea is somewhat correct (to anyone who knows the whole story its not complete at all) then at the high density and pressure the normal laws of physics come apart and we have unification. All forces are one. It was the expansion of space and cooling of this 'field' if we want to describe it that way that allowed the forces of nature to begin to divide up and take up the characteristics they have. It was this that allows particle A and B to come into being which is essentially what creates reality and our universe.
Anyway to really answer or prove that such unification exists we need to fire up some badass particle accelarators and blast particles at each other with super high energies to recreate conditions of the early universe. We need to recreate the big bang on a small scale. We need to directly observe unification. From there we can begin to speculate more about gravity. The issue of gravity is important in any complete picture of our universe. The only way to resolve the issue is with experimental evidence. Math and theories are fine but they are nothing without experimental backing.
deedle-doo
Rising Star
burnt said:
Yeah, I think this deserves special emphasis. I would remind people that the Ptolemic, earth centric cosmos was mathematically perfect. The math was super complex but it could accurately predict the motions of celestial bodies. So you can make a perfect (internally consistent) meathematical model to explain the movements of the solar system around the earth. Of course we all know that the solar system does not move around the earth so all this ingenious math was so much hot air.
I have a question about spatial quantization and gravity. Mass stretches space-time effectively making space more spacious closer to massy objects. This was predicted by Einstein and has been verified by many experiments.
so, does mass somehow insert more plank lengths or does mass somehow change the plank length?
I think the planck-length is altered, since the planck length is calculated by parameters that are altered. But maybe the math ends up right if planck lenghths are added as well. If the maths for both statements is the same, i wouldn't know. But the first thing seems more logical to me.
burnt said:
What the bleep do we know is completely wrong. They misunderstood physics that film should not even be mentioned in such a conversation. The Tao of physics is a great book and very accurate. The problem is that NO one knows what constitutes an observer. This is a complex issue. This is not a problem with these authors it is a fundamental question of all of quantum mechanics. There is not a single human alive who can answer this question.
There is an interesting paradox that you mention. If the human mind is the observer, yet the human mind is dependent on external particles of the physical world which are themselves dependent on an observer ... it is the chicken or the egg paradox. This is a very interesting paradox. However while I do not have an answer I feel that reality is complex and I do not expect to completely be capable of understanding it, especially with so many pieces of the puzzle missing. Even with the pieces a relative comprehension may be the best we can hope for. Our logic is efficient for survival in a biological system however is it the true logic of the universe at all levels? One things psychedelics have shown me is that reality is made up of many different levels. While each level is dependent on the previous one novel emergent properties emerge with each level. These properties may be more than the sum of their parts... Even our local language systems have strong constricting abilities and lead to strong assumptions about the world. Thus we have an illusion about the world that is very difficult to break. We make many assumptions that are just not supported.
We still have very little idea what this true reality looks like while it is not observed. However even this thing called "looks like" is an artifact of the mind. What does that even mean, what we know of the world is a subjective illusion created by a information code. Thus when we try to think of what it realy looks like it is impossible all we can think with is the senses which we have been given and none of these things exist in the physical realm. They represent observations and interactions not true reality.
Saying reality is a wave or a particle or a probability matrix are a mathematical concepts not a actual facts. This is the very point of QM we only know the world through our measurements of it. Our sense organs are constantly measuring and observing as well as our experimental tools. Thus we only know how these things behave when we measure them. Our picture of these "things" then becomes how they behave in controlled experimental situations. Additionally as already stated many assumptions are made. The true nature of reality is likely incomprehensible by a human mind and this should be expected.
I think we can and will get further than we are currently. However you mention the uncertainty principle and this goes to show that our observations or rather measurements of a system alter the state of the system. And thus while taking one measurement with greater certainty will decrease the measurement of the other property. (Position and momentum) This has to do with the fact that to measure these properties we use photons. Which have energy and thus when you measure position you hit the particle with a high energy photon which results in a change in its momentum and it goes for measuring momentum as well... we change the system by measuring it. Thus there are limitations to science itself. We effect our surroundings. And relativity shows that there is no "true" reference point in the universe.
Quantum field theory is interesting as it touches on this all is actually one concept. Everything is just different disruptions of the field and in many waves observations support this. Do you know even classical empty space is made up of particles! Reality is very complex and we have a long way to go.
Deedle-doo
The observation occurs during the experiment. The results are dependent on weather or not the experiment itself was observed not the results. I do not have time to get into the exact parameters of the experiment however they are called the slit experiments and there exist several variations if you care to look it up.
deedle-doo said:
Space time is different than 3-D space. Space time is a 4-D system.
Matter changes the geometry of space-time and this results in gravity. Space itself does not change I believe you misunderstood.
However regarding your statement if one was traveling close to the speed of light (c) then mass shrinks and time slows down. Thus ones measurement of distance relative to a "stationary" observer (again this is a relative stationary observer as no true reference point exists) would change. This is a strange concept. Einstein came up with it to explain the fact that the speed of light is the same for both observers thus it is a constant. This is strange if you think about it. The speed of light is always the same no matter how fast one is traveling, this is because matter shrinks and time slows down. Thus your ruler becomes shorter and your clock slower and thus the measurement of speed (distance/time) appears the same... as the stationary observer making similar measurements. However you age slower than him.
deedle-doo
Rising Star
I don't understand gravity at all. I was just using the word 'spacious' as a visual metaphor for an essentially unvisualizable phenomenon. I was just trying to get spatial quantization and changing the geometry of space time into a single rendering. Put another way: Are gravitational alterations in the geometry of space-time quantized or continuous?
deedle-doo
Rising Star
bufoman said:
I think this effect has everything to do with the mechanisms used to detect particles and nothing to do with human consciousness. I took your advise and fired up a search engine and found this science paper.
I might be interpreting this wrong but it looks like the observer effect is caused by testable mechanistic interactions between the experimental particles and the particles used to detect them. I'm totally no expert though and I'm totally willing to be proven wrong.
I really like quantum field theory because I hated 'particle/wave duality'. I just want to understand it better without having to learn how to work through the math
One nice way to summarize this observational aspect of QM is 'the act of seeing requires that you disturb something' However the thing seeing could be any form of matter or energy but it must be interacting with another form of matter or energy. Thats again why I throw out the idea that human consciousness is the truest observer. Thats such a human centric view point and I think its very flawed.
Here is a nice talk about all this kind of stuff and the LHC. The speaking focuses a bit on supersymetry which is also a fascinating idea that will probably soon be confirmed or denied. He also explains what you were saying bufoman about empty space not being empty at all.
Here is a nice talk about all this kind of stuff and the LHC. The speaking focuses a bit on supersymetry which is also a fascinating idea that will probably soon be confirmed or denied. He also explains what you were saying bufoman about empty space not being empty at all.
Quantum loop gravity says they are quantized.deedle-doo said:
It also says that this could be measured and confirmed if the speed of light would proof to be not EXACTLY the same at all times.
I also don't think that human consciousness is the cause of quantum state alterations etc. but interaction is.
The idea of supersymmetry is, however that what seems to be particle A from one perspective could be a particle B from another perspective.
To me that seems to be about establishing an equilibrium between interacting phenomena.
The observer effect is not caused by our instruments as with the slit experiment the instruments are not different. Look into them and you will see, it is a very hard concept to grasp because when one first hears about it they try very hard to explain it away logically however you will soon realize this is not possible. The experiments are flawless and have been replicated thousands of times. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is in part caused by our instruments and our way of measuring.
Some theories are trying to quantify gravity although a unified theory that is accepted does not currently exist. The quantum level has great difficulty with gravity as at that level it is hard to explain.
I also agree that human consciousness is not "THE OBSERVER". We are a part of this complex system. I think you are trying to explain reality with pieces missing. The observer is a very complex issue. However experiments have been done showing that any recording or registering of information can cause the collapse of a wave function. Although the interpretation of even what this means is very difficult. But one could say as some on this forum have that it is interactions that constitute an observer. I would agree with this but if interactions (as we know them) themselves can only occur with an observer present.... it is a difficult conundrum and our view of reality is flawed. Instead of what an observer is I like to think about what is the state of matter space-time -reality without any observer present.
Some theories are trying to quantify gravity although a unified theory that is accepted does not currently exist. The quantum level has great difficulty with gravity as at that level it is hard to explain.
I also agree that human consciousness is not "THE OBSERVER". We are a part of this complex system. I think you are trying to explain reality with pieces missing. The observer is a very complex issue. However experiments have been done showing that any recording or registering of information can cause the collapse of a wave function. Although the interpretation of even what this means is very difficult. But one could say as some on this forum have that it is interactions that constitute an observer. I would agree with this but if interactions (as we know them) themselves can only occur with an observer present.... it is a difficult conundrum and our view of reality is flawed. Instead of what an observer is I like to think about what is the state of matter space-time -reality without any observer present.
Thanks for the article deedle-dee. It is very interesting and I will read into it more.
Again what you are referring to is the uncertainty principle. However the slit experiments use the exact same equipment, but with either one or two holes for light to travel out of. The results are based on interference patterns that emerge on photographic plates if both slits are open and the experiment repeated many times as a single photons/particle can not make an interference a pattern (this is where it gets strange how does the photons know..). These patterns are absent in the single slit run. This means that the particle is becoming a wave in the case that we do not know which slit it moves through (it moves through both) and a particle when we do know which slit it moves through. How does the particle know what to do, why should it matter that if we can't know which slit it went through it goes through both. If we then try and measure which hole it actually goes or if it does go through both by using a photons/particle counter it again goes through only one or the other even with both open! Thus our observation of reality changes its state. There are many variations on this theme and all have supported the QM interpretation.
This is a fascinating area and if you are interested I can recommend some great books to start off with. They are fairly simple to read (They lack the math aspect) and are very accurate.
Again what you are referring to is the uncertainty principle. However the slit experiments use the exact same equipment, but with either one or two holes for light to travel out of. The results are based on interference patterns that emerge on photographic plates if both slits are open and the experiment repeated many times as a single photons/particle can not make an interference a pattern (this is where it gets strange how does the photons know..). These patterns are absent in the single slit run. This means that the particle is becoming a wave in the case that we do not know which slit it moves through (it moves through both) and a particle when we do know which slit it moves through. How does the particle know what to do, why should it matter that if we can't know which slit it went through it goes through both. If we then try and measure which hole it actually goes or if it does go through both by using a photons/particle counter it again goes through only one or the other even with both open! Thus our observation of reality changes its state. There are many variations on this theme and all have supported the QM interpretation.
This is a fascinating area and if you are interested I can recommend some great books to start off with. They are fairly simple to read (They lack the math aspect) and are very accurate.
Good question. There are few things that I admit are unknowable. However that just may be the end of what we can know.
I think the universe may have only existed in such an observerless state when there was nothing before the big bang. The void. Altough asking what was before the big bang is meaningless in a sense.
I understand conceptually what the double split experiments and QM are saying about reality even though no one really understands what it means. But I think reality only exists when there is stuff to interact with each other and it does not require a conscious observer as we think of them (life). Of course we can never really answer that question though because we at some point need to observe what happened. Without obervation or interaction there is nothing. There can be nothing.
Observing, in this definition is; appealing to one of the possibilities of the many possiblilities a particle/wave can have.bufoman said:
If, like what you say, registration has such an impact, deeper then just interaction, then again i have to say that it does seems like an equilibrium is created by the registration of one 'aspect' of the wave/particle. An equilibrium between the observer and the observed. The observer possesses a state in wich one aspect of the w/p can be seen towards the w/p and the w/p takes a position towards the observer from wich that aspect can reveal itself.