On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 11:14 AM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:
*>>> The entire notion of quantum states and events as localized in regions >>> of space is not entirely applicable. What symmetries exist with these >>> quantum states or field are then not tied to local geometry.* >>> >> >> >> OK, but if quantum states are to explain local geometry, and that is >> the entire point because that is all that experimenters can see, then the >> reverse can not be true, local geometry must be tied to quantum states. >> > > *> I guess this is not quite clear to me. Largely the quantum states that > form spacetime are quantum gravitation states.* > It seems to me if quantum gravitational states form spacetime, and if spacetime is smooth and continuous as the Gamma Ray Burst evidence seems to show, then 2 distinct points that are less than a Planck Length apart must correspond to 2 distinct quantum gravitational states. Am I wrong? >> So if the Gamma Ray Burst results hold up and spacetime really is smooth >> and continuous then, would it be correct to say there are a infinite (not >> just astronomically large) number of quantum symmetries and the Planck >> Length and the Planck Time have no physical significance, they are just >> numbers in units of time and space that for no particular reason happen >> to pop out when you mathematically play around with the constants of nature >> in certain ways? >> > > *> The number of quantum states are Virasoro, which is in principle > infinite. However, because the cosmological horizon can only bound a finite > number of such states, as is the case with a black hole with entropy S = > A/4ℓ_p^2, the number of physical states is bounded above. As a result the > Virasoro algebra has high frequency modes that are mathematically possible, > but not physically accessed.* > Then although mathematically infinite as far as physics is concerned there are only a finite number of quantum gravitational states, but if quantum states produces spacetime then why does the Gamma Ray Burst results say spacetime is smooth and continuous? Can 2 points that are arbitrarily close to each other have any physical meaning, does physics need Real Numbers or not? > *> A Hilbert space H that contains H_a and H_b is not equal to H_a×H_b. > Any unitary transformation between H_a and H_b defines a boundary if we > trace over one of these so S_a = tr_bS = -kTr_b[ρlog(ρ)] and similarly for > S_b. We have removed the off-diagonal terms. We then can define this as a > boundary, aka holographic screen or horizon, between sets of entangled > states. This then defines a form of geometry. The transformation between > H_a and H_b can just as well be time evolution with a boundary that > separates two temporal regions. The Taub-NUT spacetime has this > characteristic as does the region between the spacelike region outside the > inner horizon of a black hole and the mysterious region inside.* > You seem to be saying space may not be fundamental but time is. Would that be a fair representation of your views? John K Clark -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1xYff5tuxkTJGFY_XeP_gtHxF17E3GgvH0Fd31wFtxqg%40mail.gmail.com.
