Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

```On 1/15/2014 3:12 PM, 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

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.

```
```
```
OK, these are just computations of interactions. The particles aren't 'at the same spacetime event' because you want to derive spacetime events. But then it seems unexplained why some particles are interacting and others aren't and whether there is a sequence to these interactions. Is a sequence (time) already assumed? "Time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once."
```
```
```
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.

```
```
Ingoing and outgoing seems to assume both space (in and out) and time (going).

```
```
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.

```
```
OK.  Does your theory address why the conserved properties are the ones
observed?

```
```
Now some particle properties (spin, mass, energy) are dimensional particle
properties.

```
```
```
Don't know what "dimensional" means in this context. Usually "dimensional" means having units, as opposed to "dimensionless" which means a pure number.
```
```
```    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.

```
```
Ok.

```
```
Now assume every such dimensional entanglement effectively creates
a spacetime point, defined as a dimensional interrelationship.

```
```
```
?? OK, but it can only be a *spacetime* point if it is one of set of points forming a Riemannian manifold. How are the other requirements of such points met: continuum topology, local coordinates, metric,...
```
```
```
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.

```
```
```
How does it expand? Is there a distance relation defined between each interaction event? Is is spatial?
```
```
```
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.

```
```
```
Only if it has the properties of a Riemannian manifold with a 3+1 metric. You may hope to extract that from the theory, but it's not clear that you can. But to be fair I don't think Bruno can extract it from arithmetic either.
```
```
```
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.

```
```
```
But what is a "dimensional relation". Are you saying a person can directly experience the distance and direction and time of one of these particle events?
```
```
```    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.

```
```
```
How did these particle interactions get to be "quantum events". Everything above is consistent with them just being elastic collisions of Laplace or the swerves of Democritus. What gives them quantum character? Can you show that their properties correspond to conjugate operators that don't commute?
```
```
```

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.

```
```
```
That sounds like loop-quantum-gravity at the hand-waving level. Whenever someone writes "it is critical to understand" you know they're hoping they won't have to explain it.
```
```
```
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.

```
```
```
Ok, that's roughly the picture in Hilbert space. But there are *two spacelike interactions*, neither one is before the other, so this alignment is a non-local phenomena. It aligns stuff at Bob due to Alice's measurement, faster than light can travel from Alice to Bob.
```
```
```
There is no FTL communication, there is no 'non-locality', there is no
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.

```
```
```
No, that would be a local hidden variable and it is empirically ruled out by the experiments of Alain Aspect et al.
```
Brent

--
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