Fwd: The final TOE?
Thank you for your reply! My response is interleaved below: On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 1:03 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: This is a commonplace. So far as I know there are *no* physicists who think there are singularities in spacetime (and haven't been for a long time). Everybody thinks that quantum effects prevent a singularity. So as testable predictions goes thats (a) not very distinctive and (b) not really testable unless you fall into a black hole. OK but I am not suggesting quantum effects do it, at least not quantum effects as we understand it now. I am suggesting that it all reduces to gravity and topology. Therefore every apparent event horizon is really a separation of two universes, Be careful. A Rindler wedge is also an event horizon for the accelerated frame - but it hardly separates two universes. OK I'm not sure about what that is, but I will look into the concept later. where the outside universe is entangled geometrically with the inside universe. Yes, that's a common idea too. Some speculate that information is lost from this universe but is transferred into another universe via the black hole. I don't know of any explicit calculation of this though. The Hubble volume is sitting inside of an expanding supermassive black hole, of another universe. The trouble with this is it implies a singularity is in our future. But the experimental evidence points to accelerating expansion and a de Sitter universe. Well, my point is that, since no singularity exists, the separation between every volume of space and its outside could be seen as an event horizon from some frame of reference. There's no such thing as a real event horizon because a black hole never truly forms, and there is never enough gravity to make it so that light cannot escape from any volume. In fact, all the light that enters any volume of space eventually comes out, in the future, from the point of view of the outside. From the point of view of the inside, the light basically travels through a wormhole into a closed inner universe. However, the inner and outer views are equivalent. Both universes see the other universe as the inner universe and its own universe as the outer. As you fall through the wormhole, you basically travel along a torus and invert the view. However, because of uncertainty about the macrostate of the universe, this means the outside universe is effectively in a superposition of all possible universes consistent with our observations. Why isn't the inside universe in a superposition? That's where we observe superpositions. See above. I mean to say that both views are equivalent. If you're inside, you see the outside as in a superposition. If you're outside, you see the inside as superposition. It basically means that the uncertainty principle holds macroscopically as well as microscopically, because you have limited information in both cases. Equivalently, every classical black hole is really in a microscopic superposition of all possible states consistent with the outside world. However, the Hubble volume in not truly closed: it receives information one photon at a time Why one-at-a-time? What would that even mean since there is no universal time? Ok, I don't really mean one-at-a-time in some serial quantized manner. I just mean that, in some computable universe sense, the information transfer is bit-by-bit, but that computation time might not have any relationship to real time. from the outside in the form of cosmic background radiation, We already have a very good explanation for the CMB. And this is another equivalent one. I'm not supplanting any explanation of cosmology right not, but merely adding to it in conceptual terms. which is information being about the prior state of the otherwise casually disconnected universe, i.e. the CMB and other parts of the observable universe outside our Hubble volume. The CMB is well inside our Hubble volume. Otherwise we couldn't see it. Right maybe I was being imprecise about the CMB. I mean, everything outside of our Hubble volume but within the observable universe. But actually the Hubble volume is just an arbitrary choice too. I mean to say that this property of exchanging information bit-by-bit across event horizons is true at the borders of every system and its surroundings. That's why length contraction and time dilation hold universally around gravitational bodies. Similarity, every classical black hole must leak information to the outside world in the form of photons, i.e. Hawking radiation. Equivalence between the CMB and Hawking radiation implies that space must be compressed within a black hole in order to fit all the information that is to leak out later, i.e. length contraction. Current theories point to the information in a BH being proportional to the surface area, most think that it is actually encoded on or just above the event horizon.
Re: Fwd: The final TOE?
I'm afraid I don't understand how your idea qualitatively predicts all features of GR without QCD or QFT. or what it means for (Feynmann diagram?) loops to have net entanglement coming out. I think you need to be more explicit and precise (e.g. mathematical). The idea that GR can be explained in terms of QFT and entropic fluctuations has been around a long time (c.f. Sakarov). Here's a recent post of from a friend on the question: I read the message you posted, and it seems like what I'm saying has some similarity to what I'm saying: gravity and the other 3 fundamental forces are linked together. But I'm actually saying the opposite of what he is: rather than the other forces being fundamental and gravity arising from quantum fuzziness, gravity is fundamental and the other forces arise from locally looping topology, which are more or less the strings of string theory. However, the strings do not have some fixed number of dimension, but depend on the microscale topology of local space, which in turn depend on the initial conditions during the big bang. My theory also produces a testable prediction: no black holes truly exist, because no singularity can truly form. Therefore every apparent event horizon is really a separation of two universes, where the outside universe is entangled geometrically with the inside universe. The Hubble volume is sitting inside of an expanding supermassive black hole, of another universe. However, because of uncertainty about the macrostate of the universe, this means the outside universe is effectively in a superposition of all possible universes consistent with our observations. Equivalently, every classical black hole is really in a microscopic superposition of all possible states consistent with the outside world. However, the Hubble volume in not truly closed: it receives information one photon at a time from the outside in the form of cosmic background radiation, which is information being about the prior state of the otherwise casually disconnected universe, i.e. the CMB and other parts of the observable universe outside our Hubble volume. Similarity, every classical black hole must leak information to the outside world in the form of photons, i.e. Hawking radiation. Equivalence between the CMB and Hawking radiation implies that space must be compressed within a black hole in order to fit all the information that is to leak out later, i.e. length contraction. Also, since information comes out of a black hole more slowly than it goes in, this implies time dilation. This is what I mean when I say that my theory retrodicts the qualitative features of QM and GR. Finally, my theory is that gravity is the only true force, but that the other forces arise through photons going through microscopic black holes at every point in space. In fact, since black holes do not truly exist in my theory, *every* point in space is, in theory, a black hole, the topology of which depends on the initial conditions in the Big Bang in our section of the universe. Does that make any more sense? Please let me know if it does not. F.H. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Fwd: The final TOE?
Hi Russell, Do you have any further thoughts on my idea that entanglement and gravity are linked together? I really believe that this is the solution to the EPR paradox and the black hole information paradox, but I haven't heard any qualified opinion on the subject yet. Thank you! F.H. -- Forwarded message -- From: Felix Hoenikker fhoenikk...@gmail.com Date: Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:03 AM Subject: The final TOE? To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Hi all, Consider the following fully general way of saying this is the following: quantum mechanics and general relativity are symmetrically the exact same theory, modulo the additional bit of information that quantum entanglement reduces net gravitational energy. This is the EXACT answer to the EPR paradox, and all paradoxes about singularities, and consistent with our picture of reality in every respect, as it necessarily must be since it follows exactly from the asssumption of 3+1 spacetime embedded within some higher dimensional structure of any form (i.e. including string theory). Since no true gravitational singularities exist, then every point in space is an apparent black hole because no point in space is an apparent black hole. Thus, at every point in space, a bit of information (or a photon) can escape from the observable universe on our scale, go into the past, and come out in the future in a symmetric manner for all observers, without considering your frame of reference in 3+1 space time. This qualitatively predicts all features of GR without QCD or QFT. However, since photons travelling through locally closed loops can look like point particles with some net entanglement coming out, then they can look like bundles that, for all intents and purposes, appear to randomly add information in some way, and in some spherically symmetric fashion, which predicts the divergence and appearance of other fundamental forces early in the inflating universe. It is often said that QM and GR differ from each other exactly by the contemplation of the singularity, and that our inability to discover the true laws of the universe has been limited by our lack of knowledge about the twin singularities: the inflationary bubble and the black hole. It follows that this fact was exactly true all along, and the laws of physics are a completely dimensionless consequences of our local geometry of space, and our civilization has, in fact, rather than been trying to discover the next laws of physics, has in fact been struggling to unlearn the concept of Indeterminacy and quantum mechanics, since QM follows from GR, the postulate of 3+1 spacetime and E = mc^2 (a nice, dimensionless equation). Einstein, in fact, was right all along, and successfully completed the fully deterministic general laws of physics. Consider then, the reason why indeterministic QM was ever suggested: the apparently subjective indeterminacy of the universe from each observer point of view (i.e. the uncertainty principle). Or actually, consider the fact that, if the universe is completely deterministic, and you for any defined you is getting non-random information from any source, then that information must, in fact, be added to you by the rest of the universe in some systematic fashion, down to the tiniest quantum of universe. This implies that there is actually, some quanta of the universe, a photon, and each photon is having information added to it from the rest of the universe, in a systematic fashion, and recursively so for every observer. This is actually a fully generic model for the universe, and the absolute generalization of QM and SR. Next, consider the fact that you are conscious and possibly indeterminstic (i.e. have subjective free will). I think I do. Therefore, I am not a quanta of information, or a bit, but it was added to me from somewhere. No, consider the mathematical closure of this observation. What does this imply about and anthropic principle and fine tuning? Does that make sense anymore. Also, does this not mean that our observable universe, for some definition of observable, from any subjective observer's point of view, is constantly being added non-random information from outside. I truly beg you all to consider this argument fully. Please let me know what you think, F.H. On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Felix Hoenikker fhoenikk...@gmail.com wrote: Every apparent event horizon is really a separation of two universes, where the outside universe is entangled geometrically with the inside universe. The Hubble volume is sitting inside of an expanding supermassive black hole, of another universe. However, by the uncertainty principle, this means the outside universe is really simultaneously in a superposition of a large but countably finite many possible universes (i.e. bitstates), with the net information between the inside and outside views cancelling out to zero. Equivalently, every classical black hole is really
Re: Fwd: The final TOE?
On 6/11/2011 1:20 AM, Felix Hoenikker wrote:
Hi Russell,
Do you have any further thoughts on my idea that entanglement and
gravity are linked together? I really believe that this is the
solution to the EPR paradox and the black hole information paradox,
but I haven't heard any qualified opinion on the subject yet.
Thank you!
F.H.
I'm afraid I don't understand how your idea qualitatively predicts all
features of GR without QCD or QFT. or what it means for (Feynmann
diagram?) loops to have net entanglement coming out. I think you need
to be more explicit and precise (e.g. mathematical). The idea that GR
can be explained in terms of QFT and entropic fluctuations has been
around a long time (c.f. Sakarov). Here's a recent post of from a friend
on the question:
===
Cosmological Constant in Induced Gravity
The recent work of Velinde, Padmanabhan and others have provided
significant support for the proposal by Sakharov that gravity, rather
than being a fundamental force in nature is the result of the quantum
fuzziness of all the other forces in nature. That is gravity naturally
results from the uncertainty principle when applied to the zero point
energy of the quantum fields.
In QFT this zero point energy is predicted to be many orders of
magnitudes greater than is actually observed, this is the famous
cosmological constant problem. Recently, it has been proposed that the
calculation of the zero point energy of quantum fields can be corrected
by including a ghost” sector where there are particles which give an
opposite action to gravity. Based on this idea, the vacuum state is
balanced between the action density of the normal and ghost sector,
canceling out the predicted vacuum energy. In several models proposed
Dark energy results from a small imbalance between the normal and ghost
sectors as a function of the future horizon in the Hubble volume,
analogous to negative vacuum energy density that is expected around the
event horizon of a black hole. We can write the equation for this as;
rho_vac= chi^a*integral Dw L(+) + chi_a*Integral Dw L(-)
Therefore, it might be useful to turn Einstein's General Relativity on
its head , and express the curvature of space time as a function of a
local and global cosmological constant, that is a shift in the vacuum
energy density of the vacuum.
Given the fundamental set of equations from General Relativity
R_mu,nu -(1/2)*R*g_mu,nu = kappa*T_mu,nu =G_mu,nu
We can write
G_mu,nu= kappa*{ T_mu,nu ( matter) - T_mu,nu(vacuum)}
G_mu,nu={ Lambda( local) + Lambda(global)} *g_mu,nu
Here we can say that the energy of the gravitational field, as is Dark
Energy, is stored in the vacuum. In any region of space we can say there
is a density of energy proportional to minus the square of the gravity
field.
Rho_vac(local) =- - k*g^2
Where k is a constant of proportion. Using Einstein's equation for the
CC we can easily define k.
g= Lambda*c^2*R/3
We can define R as the Rindler Horizon
R= sqrt[3/lambda]
Therefore
kappa*rho_loc= - 3*g^2/c^4
rho_loc= - {3/(8*pi*G)}*g^2
Given
dS/dE= 1/(K_b*T) = (1/F)*(dS/dR) = 1/(K_b*T)
Where K_b is the Boltzmann constant and S is entropy related to the
gravity field.
F= (dS/dR)*K_b*T
Given the Bekenstein Bound
S= 2*pi*R*m*c/hbar
And the Davies -Unruh equation
K_b*T= g*hbar/ (2*pi*c)
We get
F= m*g
A significant problem with this approach is the expected SUSY cutoff for
the ZPE. Ideally this model can hopefully be combined with a cut off at
the Planck scale, not the SUSY scale. This problem becomes even more
severe in models where SUSY breaks at low energy. One possibility is
that there are string modes unaffected by SUSY which can bring the
cutoff to the Planck scale or the some scale close to the Planck scale.
The upper KK spectrum might be a good candidate. There may also be mass
splitting that evade the SUSY symmetry in the high energy symmetry
breaking events such as the GUT scale or even the Planck scale. Or
outside the string paradigm SUSY may not be symmetry of nature, though
this seems unlikely given the effect on the inclusion of SUSY in the
calculations of the running couplings.
Bob Zannelli
Brent
-- Forwarded message --
From: Felix Hoenikkerfhoenikk...@gmail.com
Date: Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:03 AM
Subject: The final TOE?
To: Everything Listeverything-list@googlegroups.com
Hi all,
Consider the following fully general way of saying this is the
following: quantum mechanics and general relativity are symmetrically
the exact same theory, modulo the additional bit of information
that quantum entanglement reduces net gravitational energy. This is
the EXACT answer to the EPR paradox, and all paradoxes about
singularities, and consistent with our picture of reality in every
respect, as it necessarily must be since it follows
The final TOE?
Hi all, Consider the following fully general way of saying this is the following: quantum mechanics and general relativity are symmetrically the exact same theory, modulo the additional bit of information that quantum entanglement reduces net gravitational energy. This is the EXACT answer to the EPR paradox, and all paradoxes about singularities, and consistent with our picture of reality in every respect, as it necessarily must be since it follows exactly from the asssumption of 3+1 spacetime embedded within some higher dimensional structure of any form (i.e. including string theory). Since no true gravitational singularities exist, then every point in space is an apparent black hole because no point in space is an apparent black hole. Thus, at every point in space, a bit of information (or a photon) can escape from the observable universe on our scale, go into the past, and come out in the future in a symmetric manner for all observers, without considering your frame of reference in 3+1 space time. This qualitatively predicts all features of GR without QCD or QFT. However, since photons travelling through locally closed loops can look like point particles with some net entanglement coming out, then they can look like bundles that, for all intents and purposes, appear to randomly add information in some way, and in some spherically symmetric fashion, which predicts the divergence and appearance of other fundamental forces early in the inflating universe. It is often said that QM and GR differ from each other exactly by the contemplation of the singularity, and that our inability to discover the true laws of the universe has been limited by our lack of knowledge about the twin singularities: the inflationary bubble and the black hole. It follows that this fact was exactly true all along, and the laws of physics are a completely dimensionless consequences of our local geometry of space, and our civilization has, in fact, rather than been trying to discover the next laws of physics, has in fact been struggling to unlearn the concept of Indeterminacy and quantum mechanics, since QM follows from GR, the postulate of 3+1 spacetime and E = mc^2 (a nice, dimensionless equation). Einstein, in fact, was right all along, and successfully completed the fully deterministic general laws of physics. Consider then, the reason why indeterministic QM was ever suggested: the apparently subjective indeterminacy of the universe from each observer point of view (i.e. the uncertainty principle). Or actually, consider the fact that, if the universe is completely deterministic, and you for any defined you is getting non-random information from any source, then that information must, in fact, be added to you by the rest of the universe in some systematic fashion, down to the tiniest quantum of universe. This implies that there is actually, some quanta of the universe, a photon, and each photon is having information added to it from the rest of the universe, in a systematic fashion, and recursively so for every observer. This is actually a fully generic model for the universe, and the absolute generalization of QM and SR. Next, consider the fact that you are conscious and possibly indeterminstic (i.e. have subjective free will). I think I do. Therefore, I am not a quanta of information, or a bit, but it was added to me from somewhere. No, consider the mathematical closure of this observation. What does this imply about and anthropic principle and fine tuning? Does that make sense anymore. Also, does this not mean that our observable universe, for some definition of observable, from any subjective observer's point of view, is constantly being added non-random information from outside. I truly beg you all to consider this argument fully. Please let me know what you think, F.H. On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Felix Hoenikker fhoenikk...@gmail.com wrote: Every apparent event horizon is really a separation of two universes, where the outside universe is entangled geometrically with the inside universe. The Hubble volume is sitting inside of an expanding supermassive black hole, of another universe. However, by the uncertainty principle, this means the outside universe is really simultaneously in a superposition of a large but countably finite many possible universes (i.e. bitstates), with the net information between the inside and outside views cancelling out to zero. Equivalently, every classical black hole is really in a microscopic superposition of countably finite many bitstates, again with the net information inside and outside cancelling zero. However, it cannot converge to a singularity, because it cannot encode bitstates forever in the same volume, therefore it must leak information in the form of photons (i.e. Hawking radiation). Equivalently, the Hubble volume receives information one photon at a time from the outside in the form of cosmic background radiation, that information being
