Hi Edgar, I like Kevin Knuth's theory of emergent space time. It is far more simple and does not need to get into quantum aspects other than a basic notion of an observer. An observer is a simple entity whose state is changed as the result of an observation/interaction: A nice video of one of his talks can be found on the Perimeter Institute website.

## Advertising

On Sunday, December 29, 2013 12:16:28 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > All, > > I want to try to state my model of how spacetime is created by quantum > events more clearly and succinctly. > > Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. In > particular where the usually imagined single pre-existing dimensional > spacetime background does NOT exist. > > Now consider how we can get a spacetime to emerge from the computations in > a way that conceptually unifies GR and QM, eliminates all quantum > 'paradoxes', and explains the source of quantum randomness in the world. > > There is an easy straightforward way though it takes a little effort to > understand, and one must first set aside some common sense notions about > reality. > > Assume a basic computation that occurs is the conservation of particle > properties in any particle interaction in comp space. > > The conservation of particle properties essentially takes the amounts of > all particle properties of incoming particles and redistributes them among > the outgoing particles in every particle interaction. > > The results of such computational events is that the particle properties > of all outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be > to be conserved in toto. This is called 'entanglement'. The outgoing > particles of every event are always entangled on the particle properties > conserved in that event. > > Now some particle properties (spin, mass, energy) are dimensional particle > properties. These are entangled too by particle interaction events. In > other words, all dimensional particle properties between the outgoing > particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be for them to be > conserved. These relationships are exact. They must be to satisfy the > conservation laws. > > Now assume every such dimensional entanglement effectively creates > a spacetime point, defined as a dimensional interrelationship. > > Now assume those particles keep interacting with other particles. The > result will be an ever expanding network of dimensional interrelationships > which in effect creates a mini spacetime manifold of dimensional > interrelations. > > Now assume a human observer at the classical level which is continuously > involved in myriads of particle interaction (e.g. millions of photons > impinging on its retina). The effect will be that all those continuous > particle events will result in a vast network of dimensional > interrelationships that is perceived by the human observer as a classical > spacetime. > > He cannot observe any actual empty space because it doesn't actually > exist. All that he can actually observe is actual events with dimensional > relationships to him. Now the structure that emerges, due to the math of > the particle property conservation laws in aggregate, is consistent and > manifests at the classical level as the structure of our familiar > spacetime. > > But this, like all aspects of the classical 'physical' world, is actually > a computational illusion. This classical spacetime doesn't actually exist. > It must be continually maintained by myriads of continuing quantum events > or it instantly vanishes back into the computational reality from which it > emerged. > > > Now an absolutely critical point in understand how this model conceptually > unifies GR and QM and eliminates quantum paradox is that every > mini-spacetime network that emerges from quantum events is absolutely > independent of all others (a completely separate space) UNTIL it is linked > and aligned with other networks through some common quantum event. When > that occurs, and only then, all alignments of both networks are resolved > into a single spacetime common to all its elements. > > E.g. in the spin entanglement 'paradox'. When the particles are created > their spins are exactly equal and opposite to each other, but only in their > own frame in their own mini spacetime. They have to be to obey the > conservation laws. That is why their orientation is unknowable to a human > observer in his UNconnected spacetime frame of the laboratory. > > However when the spin of one particle is measured that event links and > aligns the mini-spacetime of the particles with the spacetime of the > laboratory and that makes the spin orientations of both particles aligned > with that of the laboratory and thereafter the spin orientation of the > other particle will always be found equal and opposite to that of the first. > > There is no FTL communication, there is no 'non-locality', there is no > 'paradox'. It all depends on the recognition that the spin orientations of > the particles exist in a completely separate unaligned spacetime fragment > from that of the laboratory until they are linked and aligned via a > measurement event. > > Edgar > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.