# Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

```On 12/29/2013 9:16 AM, 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.
```
```
"Dimensional" seems to have just been thrown in with no real meaning. What is needed is an operational definition of interval between two such "point".
```
```
```
```
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.
```
But you need to show the definition of interval produces a 3+1 spacetime.

```
```
```
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
```
```
Hold it!? A mini-spacetime network consists of interaction events that must be related in some way to form a network. So how can the network be "abosultely" independent of other networks? They might even share some of the same 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.
```
```
This requires that the intervals between events arise or be induced and that they form a 3+1 spacetime. What are the dynamics of this process?
```
Brent

```
```
```
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.
```