The final TOE?
Felix Hoenikker
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 <fhoen...@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 about the prior state of the otherwise casually
> disconnected universe. (i.e. CMB == Hawking radiation). The
> equivalence principle implies length contraction and time dilation.
> Gravity mediated by photons is the single fundamental force of the
> universe. All other sources of apparent information and causal
> connectivity (i.e. all other forces) are the result of the initial
> state of the universe at the Big Bang, the only true singularity. The
> laws of the universe are extremely simple.
>
> This is the digital unification of GR and QM. What do you think?
Felix Hoenikker
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.
meekerdb
> 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 Hoenikker<fhoen...@gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:03 AM
> Subject: The final TOE?
> To: Everything List<everyth...@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 , then they can look like bundles that, for all
Felix Hoenikker
> 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.
Stephen Lin
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 1:03 PM, meekerdb <meek...@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.
Right, well, my theory is that it is encoded with the BH, because the
BH does not have "no hair". In fact, you can go "into" a supermassive
black hole and be perfectly fine, you basically would just be
travelling along a wormhole and inverting the local topology like a
torus. A smaller blackhole will probably tear you apart though, not
because of a singularity but because of tidal forces.
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> It comes out later, but if BH evaporate as predicted by Hawking it has to
> come very, very rapidly at the end of evaporation.
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Makes no sense. Gravity isn't a force in GR yet you seem to be arguing that
> is can be the only force based on GR. How does "arise" work in the above.
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> You seem to be arguing for a topological theory of phyiscs - but it needs to
> be fleshed out. What are the dynamics of these BHs or wormholes and how
> does that produce the other forces?
Right, I am suggesting that all physics is essentially topology, and
that the topology is essentially completely based on general
relativity, except for modifications to handle cosmology and the black
hole information paradox.
Also, I want to make clear that my theory generates the following
testable hypotheses:
1. Since no black holes truly exist, the "supermassive black hole" is
really wormhole into another part of our universe which is
topologically distant in flat 3+1 space.
2. Entanglement and gravity are tied together, in the sense that when
entangled particles move apart from each other, the net gravitational
pull of the system decreases. When the entangled particles come back
together, the process unwinds itself. This is a solution to the EPR
paradox: i.e. it explains the mechanism for the apparent non-local
transfer of information between entangled particles.
3. The source of dark energy (and possibly dark matter) is
entanglement between portions of the visible universe. The fact that
this dark matter and dark energy seem to cancel out with visible
matter to produce an almost exactly flat local universe is NOT a
coincidence: the universe is and must always be approximately flat,
from a local point of view.
4. Quantum mechanics is deterministic based on non-local hidden
variables (i.e. something like Bohmian mechanics, when extended
relativistically, is true).
5. If we probe the observable but non-causally connected universe
(i.e. the universe outside the Hubble volume) as deeply as possible,
we may be able to find the primordial supermassive wormholes which
correspond to the other three fundamental forces of nature.
>
> Brent