JvNrocks

John von Neumann gave a formal axiomatic treatment that united the equations of Heisenberg and Shrodinger in 1932. This is one of his astonishing achievements in physics and many other fields. I'm writing a book on Johnny (his preferred name) and would like some opinions on the gravity and staying power of his work. Thanks.

I'm working on a book on John von Neumann and need to gauge his importance in 21st century math. Any anecdotes or personal experience with his work and his legacy will be appreciated. Thanks.

Thanks!

Time is not a spacial dimension, but rather an emergent one--emergent from fundamental spacetime. Gravity may not be a fundamental but an emergent dimension of spacetime, as is time. Gravity may be a "band" of spacetime that manages the balance of the very large, reconciling it with the expansion of spacetime, and ultimately with the repacking of matter for the next bang.

But the point of this thread is to either compare or contrast gravity with spacetime (3+1 dimensions.) Is it more related to them OR to the forces?

The forces of physics just don't seem to relate to gravity in the same basic quantum way they relate to each other. For instance gravity is much weaker than even the weak force. In the macro world we see ungodly gravity wells and think this is universal. But in the micro world gravity is just flat missing. This cannot be said of any of the forces. Einstein's beautiful equation for Special Relativity is gravity independent, which created the necessity of a theory of gravity, General Relativity. But GR doesn't survive quantum physics. So we look to the quantum forces for answers, with not much to show for it. I'm just fishing for a brain bigger than mine that's considered the dimensionality of gravity.

According to the impeccable axiomatic mathematics of John von Neumann in 1932, only "conscious" observation of the wavefunction's contents makes it "collapse."

I think you speak truth. There's a REASON General Relativty can't absorb quantum gravity. We are missing something about gravity. I propose gravity is a dimension and not a field.

And which particle is that?

The Higgs...the Higgs the Higgs the Higgs! So what? Well, we've topped off the Standard Model. At the same time, the Anthropic Principle is gaining ground. The uptake? People are starting to shift their spirituality to science. Many of us feel God and science are becoming good bedfellows. In the field of medicine, Carl Jung showed us that we need the spirit in the same way children need love. We just wither internally without it. Materialism takes over--a dangerous substitute for spirituality. Many people will say, "I believe in something," without naming anything. At least atheists take a stand by actively disbelieving. But by the 1930s we knew statements of absolute fact were unworthy of the title, via the Uncertainty Principle and von Neumann's Catastrophe. Nothing is certain; certainty is a privelage we have not earned, apparently. Will certainty ever return to the mind of man? How? Heisenberg seems more solid that Einstein to me. To Einstein, sensibly but erroneously, a fact was untouchable. Without flat facts that have certainty, he was unable to accept anything. We remember his words, "God does not play dice with the universe," but we forgot his interlocutor Bohr's response: "Einstein, don't tell God what to do." It turns out the only way anything happens is by probablity, not provenance, and Einstein paid a huge price for that position, declining into old age with no Unified Field Theory. His theory of gravity stands on trembling ground today, in danger of being "Newtonized" into mere functional utility that doesn't reach the fundamental quantum standard. Can a theory of quantum gravity unify physics for mankind? Your opinions please.

but an experiment could come as close to c as there is fuel in the universe and that's pretty close. Time dilation virtually stops time for that experiment. And for c itself, the velocity isn't relative to another frame, nor is it clock, because this stripping of relevance is necessary for c to be constant. The velocity of light involves time, though, because whichever human unity of measurement (186,000 mi./sec. or anything else) you use there are two fundamentals of spacetime in play: time and distance. C's constant velocity and its self-referential time are two phenomena of the same fundamental equation. Special Relativity. I used to think of Special Relativity as the crown jewel of science. But if you take Heisenberg seriously and follow the bouncing quantum ball, nothing in this universe is certain. Not even c. And please don't try to minimize him because he worked in the world of the very small. It's really von Neumann's Catastrophe of the Infinite Regress that convinces me there is no "real" reality. We are at least that one step away at all times.

Gravity is a guess. But time stops for light--a flat fact implicit in time dilation, a consequence of special relativity. I'm pretty ignorant, but I know time slows for anything approaching the velocity of light. At c there is no time. Again, a basic consequence of E=mc2. what if we found out gravity is what causes the universe to expand?

relativity itself stops in a static universe. Quantum physics has had plenty of time to incorporate gravity. It's time for thinking "outside the box," folks. We already know Einstein's smooth spacetime breaks down in establishing gravity as a field. (At the Plank scale. With such quantum barriers as "quantum foam.") Simpler solution? General Relativity results in mathematical singularities when set up as a quantum field. Not simple at all.

It would be independent from dimensions one two and three. It would be describable only by its effects. If time is the dimension of changing then gravity would be the dimension of moving. Like time, it would exist only when measured--both for "static" observers and observers changing or moving. Time is more similar to gravity than it is to the three directional dimensions. If you could stop Hubble's universe from expanding you would stop time and gravity. For light, there is no time. For gravity, there is no first, second or third dimensions. Just as light eliminates time via c, gravity crushes space in a matter equal and opposite to universal expansion. A future state of our universe may be one where gravity from black holes overpowers Hubble's expansion. Not universally, but locally. Destruction from within.

Thanks for the reply. Why can't we fit gravity into a unified field theory of wave/particle fields?