Reality as emergent phenomenon

[andsm]

Reposting without link to blog.

So, I wrote hypothesis which consider our reality as emergent phenomenon of more fundamental entity. The hypothesis (hypothesis of emergent reality, ER-hypothesis) makes at least one prediction, so it can be experimentally verified. Goal of the ER-hypothesis is find way how General Relativity, quantum mechanics and Standard Model can be unified in scope of one theory, with one point of view. I think such way was found and goal of the hypothesis is achieved. Equation which unifies GR and QM was not found; otherwise I would name it as ToE.

I know I can make mistakes. It’s actually my second ToE-type theory, but its first I decided it is worth to be published in Internet. In my previous ToE-type theory I have found internal logical contradiction. So I published my ER-hypothesis on Internet and would like to see criticism.

Hypothesis can be viewed at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2c1dR9Ahl3LRFVQc0IwSHRTZE0/view?usp=sharing

(I think it is ok for rules to link to document with hypothesis, not to blog?)

 

Is it contains any obvious problems or contradictions to existing well established theories?

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

You need to outline your theory and the predictions it makes here.

[andsm]

Short summary of ER-hypothesis.

First, about new predictions of ER-hypothesis.

The ER-hypothesis predicts change in laws of physics near gravitation singularity.

It predicts change of space of states and their probabilities, for each particle, near gravitation singularity. Related hamiltonian would be different from usual.

So, if light travels in close vicinity of gravitational singularity, it should have some modifications after passing near gravitational singularity. The behavior should be different on different distances from gravitational singularity.

There are no numbers or calculations for the prediction, only prediction of behavior. There is problem with mathematics in the hypothesis. It lacks one equation, but with the equation it will become candidate for ToE. Light is expected to be changed – may be in its polarization or in something else.

However, I think it is enough to satisfy Popper criteria, because it makes the hypothesis falsifiable, and the prediction allows naming the hypothesis as scientific.

Other predictions:

· Variability of past. It means past of object can looks different at different times. It is expected only near gravitational singularities and for particles with Planck scale energies.

· Approach with space of states, used by quantum mechanics, is expected to be broken near gravitational singularities and for particles with Planck energies. It is hard to name it as new prediction, because Planck energy is obvious limit for quantum mechanics. What is new – ER-hypothesis explains why approach with space of states will be broken and propose way to discover how to calculate behavior of particles at Planck scale energies.

· Parallel universes are predicted. Also, ER-hypothesis predicts ability of interaction between some, but not all, parallel universes.

Other results of the hypothesis:

· ER-hypothesis contains theory of time as one of parts. ER- hypothesis proposed answers to questions such as: what is time, what is space, what is matter, why time flows, why time flows in one direction, are quants of time exists, why time is one-dimensional, is it possible to travel back in time. I think the hypothesis is first hypothesis which tried to answer the questions.

· ER-hypothesis proposed model of formation of spacetime, include model of formation of time and space during Big Bang. The hypothesis describes formation phase, during the phase both time and space not existed, they were in process of formation. I think the hypothesis is first hypothesis which tried to describe how time and space appeared.

· Further development of the ER-hypothesis should allow to look even further before Big Bang, to where there was neither time nor space.

· Was proposed quite natural way how to unify quantum mechanics, includes Standard Model, and General Relativity.

Next, I copied introduction part:

 

 

Time is a phenomenon that each of us observe daily. But physics is still not able to understand what time is. There is no evidence that time is independent phenomenon. Moreover, special and general theories of relativity [2] establish a connection between time, space and gravitation. This suggests that time is not independent, and has relation with space and gravitation. We know properties of time. But there is no knowledge of why time flows, why time flows in one direction, are quants of time exists, why time is one-dimensional, it is possible to travel back in time.

This article presents hypothesis of emergent space-time-matter (ER-hypothesis later in the article). This hypothesis considers space-time and matter as emergent properties of more fundamental entity. The fundamental entity includes everything objectively existing.

If look at physical phenomena around us, they are characterized by several key features:

1. They are caused by something. There are causal links leading to what is happening. Currently there are no phenomenon known that would not fall under causal links
2. We can predict probability of state of any object in future. In order to do so, we need to know current state of the object, and state of other objects in some distance around the object.
3. For some phenomena, we can predict behavior of objects in future only probabilistically. Quantum mechanics says that accurate prediction of state of quantum objects is not possible, we can predict only probability of states.
4. Laws of nature are same in all known space, and are not depends on reference frame.

How space-time can be built on static system?

If there is no time as fundamental phenomenon, it means that underlying structure of universe is completely static. Time in this case must be emergent phenomenon. Special theory of relativity establishes dependency between space, time and speed. It means that if time is emergent phenomenon, observable space is also emergent phenomenon. General relativity establishes dependency between gravitation and spacetime. It means that in order to find emergent spacetime, it is necessary to find gravitation as another emergent phenomenon. Quantum mechanics describes many quantum effects. It means it is necessary to find particles with quantum effects in scope of the hypothesis. All observable physical phenomena have causal relationships. As result, time should be built in such way so that phenomenon that occurred later on, would be predicted on basis of what it was before.

Let’s imagine, space-time-matter, satisfying all the conditions above, was found on basis of static system. Can such space-time-matter describe reality, observable by us? If in such a world life is possible, can sentient being belonging to such world feel reality of surrounding and itself? These questions seem to refer to philosophy, as concept of Being is affected. However, different variants of answer to these questions provides different results in physics, so those questions are related to physics too. Postulate and main idea of this hypothesis is positive answer to these questions.

Occam's Razor helps in positive answer to this questions, since this hypothesis reduces number of independent phenomena and reduces significantly. Instead of various unrelated physical phenomena and independent space-time, this hypothesis suggests that all physical phenomena can be derived from one law of physics and suggests ways to find it.

If in such space-time-matter, found in static field, there is sentient, it will observe following:

· Time exists, and all events have causal relationships.

· There is past, present and future.

Why present time would exist? It may seem that in such system, time will pass immediately. However, it may be only from point of view of external observer. But outside observer in this model cannot exists, because system includes everything objectively existing. Observer here can only be object, capable of self-awareness, and belonging to emergent space-time. If such observer will move with time, it will observe changes of states of surrounding. Human thought - it is some change in state of particles and fields in man. Consequently, observer, who lives in emergent time, will also be able to think, provided that the relevant physics of reality allows for intelligent life to exist. The speed of its thoughts will be determined by rate of change of its states in time. In particular point in space-time, observer will always have same thought. If this hypothesis describes our Universe, it means that any human is, in some sense, immortal. Everyone exists forever, but when our present does not coincide with present of some other persons - they are not available to us. Also, number of human thoughts is limited by human lifespan. This hypothesis is not contradicts to freedom of human action. Anyone can do whatever he wants. However, desire of man to do something is quantum-mechanical state of human body at some point in time. Therefore, one cannot wish for anything other than what was set by his state.

Postulate:

If in objectively existing static timeless system, which includes everything objectively existing, it is possible to find space, time and matter as emergent phenomenon, such space-time-matter is exists, it is emergent objective reality. If in such reality is possible existence of sentient, it can feel, think, feel that it really exists, is in being.

Consequence of this postulate: for case when laws of physics of emergent reality allows intelligent life to exists, sentient belonging to such emergent reality will feel like being in space and feel the passage of time. He will feel emergent physical laws, laws of physics of fundamental static system will be deeply hidden from his feelings.

I will name fundamental static system as Metauniverse.

Metauniverse - objectively existing static timeless system what includes everything objectively existing.

Metauniverse has some number of dimensions. How many dimensions in Metauniverse in this article is not considered. This is one of many questions in the hypothesis that is left for future.

In Metauniverse I suppose existence of scalar field. This means that there is an N-dimensional space M, in which there is a scalar field , where is vector in the space. In this article I do not make assumptions about equation of scalar field of Metauniverse, this requires further studies. I also expect that space of Metauniverse is a Hilbert space or pre-Hilbert space, in order to be able to determine distance between points. I expect that value of the scalar field at each point is determined by values of the field in neighboring points, and that equation of the scalar field is symmetric with respect to rotations. This effectively means that position, speed and properties of all particles at each point of time are determined by states in past, present and future.

Our Universe, in context of this hypothesis, is one of emergent realities. This imposes some restrictions on possible topologies of Metauniverse. For emergent space-time-matter, therefore, it is necessary to find a way to find space, time and matter from these conditions.

[Mordred]

with no mathematics how can your model predict anything? I read your article I didnt see anything with predictive power. No mathematical equations. All I saw was a run of the mill attempt to lay claims without any supportive evidence.

[andsm]

It can predict behavior even without mathematics, I wrote above about passage of light near gravitational singularity. But such prediction will be very broad of course. No mathematics is main problem of the hypothesis.

I expect differential equations of particles, so algebra is not suitable.

That, unknown, differential equations should be fully compatible with hamiltonian on big range of conditions.

And equations of particles should be derived from equation of scalar field of Metauniverse, also unknown.

So, there is problem with mathematic of the hypothesis.

[Mordred]

Your right it is the main problem with your hypothesis. You can't predict behavior without the mathematics. How else can you know the hypothesis works. It's easy to suggest a leads to b, but if you can't show how or why it does then it's lacking.

 

For example if Eistein tried convincing everyone that time is relative to the observer without mathematics. No one would have believed him.

 

A model requires the mathematics, those mathematics allows for the possibility of testable and repeatable tests.

 

I didn't even see any of the well known and related mathematics. Where are your related GR equations? How does your Hamilton apply? How is your dimensions being applied, in which specific interactions?

 

Your ToE doesn't even include the basics.

Particle physics include lie algebra which includes differential equations. So that statement on particles requiring differential equations but not algebra makes no sense at all. It also tells me you spent no time understanding The current applicable models.

 

It's always best to learn what we do know before trying to solve the mysteries of the universe.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Mordred

[andsm]

However, if model predicts something and it will be found - it will be good for model even without full mathematical model.

 

I think I can add equations for GR to the model, it just requires some time.

Hamiltonian - need to think how it can be done, no ideas yet but I not yet thought about it except "it looks as it can be done".

And before doing it, I prefer to understand how my model looks, its one of goals why I published the hypothesis in Internet.

About my knowledge - I am MSc in physics, was PhD student. So I think I know basics. Some knowledge was forgotten I admit, I left science more than 10 years ago.

Also, my hypothesis is not ToE. It will become ToE-candidate if add all necessary math.

[Strange]

However, if model predicts something and it will be found - it will be good for model even without full mathematical model.

 

Both Newton's law of gravity and General Relativity predict that light will be affected by gravity. So how do we know which is correct? They make quantitative predictions so we know that one is wrong and one is right.

 

 

I wrote above about passage of light near gravitational singularity.

 

So how, exactly, does your prediction differ from that of GR or Newton?

 

My prediction is that something will affect something else to a greater or lesser extent. So I win.

[andsm]

 

Both Newton's law of gravity and General Relativity predict that light will be affected by gravity. So how do we know which is correct? They make quantitative predictions so we know that one is wrong and one is right.

 

If one model predicts some behavior, and other model not predicts it - there is difference.

 

So how, exactly, does your prediction differ from that of GR or Newton?

My prediction is not about declining of light by gravity. Its about change of states of photons after passing.

Edited January 12, 2015 by andsm

[Mordred]

Well if you were a former student of physics then you know the importance of the mathematics.

 

My signature contains some material that may help. A couple of GR related articles. For particle physics look for SO(10) standard model+ Higgs. It's more current than SO(5) in terms of predictive ability.

 

Lots has changed in 10 years both in Cosmology and particle physics

[Strange]

 

If one model predicts some behavior, and other model not predicts it - there is difference.

 

You miss the point: they BOTH predict it. Which one is right?

[Delta1212]

 

You miss the point: they BOTH predict it. Which one is right?

While I usually come down on the "you really need math" side (I almost just said 'maths.' What are you people doing to me?) I'm going to try to inject a little fairness here.

 

I think he's trying to talk about a behavior that is not predicted by one theory at all, but is by another.

 

So, for instance, if you have two competing theories, and one says that event X is going to happen at 1:00 on Wednesday, and the other says it's going to happen at 2:35.56 on Wednesday that is your GR vs Newtonian gravity. Now say that I have an idea that event X can only happen on weekends.

 

If it happens at 3:45 on Saturday, that lends some credence to my hypothesis over the other two theories. The problem, of course, is that I've painted a target for myself that covers practically half the week (Fri-Sun), I can't explain exactly why it happens and I can't predict precisely when it might happen again. So this means A) my idea is not yet very useful and B) There's a nontrivial chance that I just got lucky and my idea is just as off base as the other two.

 

Essentially, it is possible to test the predictions of a hypothesis without math. What needs to be emphasized is that without math, the precision of the test is going to be very, very low. The lower the precision, the less support even a positive result wi provide to your specific idea and the less useful others wi find your idea even if it's essentially correct in some way.

 

And finally, if we already have a great deal of experimental confirmation of a particular idea, then your idea needs to account for that at least as precisely in order to successfully distinguish your idea from the existing one in that area. (i.e. If current theory predicts that X will happen at 5:02 on Saturday, and you think current theory is wrong but your alternative only has enough precision to state that X should happen sometime over the weekend, then when it happens at 5:03, it's impossible to say whether you're looking in a better direction than current theory because the difference between current theory and experimental result is smaller than the level of precision your idea can handle.

[Strange]

While I usually come down on the "you really need math" side (I almost just said 'maths.' What are you people doing to me?) I'm going to try to inject a little fairness here.

 

I think he's trying to talk about a behavior that is not predicted by one theory at all, but is by another.

 

Fair enough. Except this is his prediction:

So, if light travels in close vicinity of gravitational singularity, it should have some modifications after passing near gravitational singularity.

...

Light is expected to be changed – may be in its polarization or in something else.

 

So not only is the change not described quantitatively, it isn't even described qualitatively. Just "some attribute of the light will be changed in some way."

What will change? Don't know.

How much will it change? Don't know.

Will it get bigger or smaller? Don't know.

 

Even Doris Stokes would be embarrassed by a prediction that vague.

S If look at physical phenomena around us, they are characterized by several key features:

1. They are caused by something. There are causal links leading to what is happening. Currently there are no phenomenon known that would not fall under causal links.

 

This isn't true. There are phenomena which are, as far as we know, entirely acausal.

[swansont]

 

· Approach with space of states, used by quantum mechanics, is expected to be broken near gravitational singularities and for particles with Planck energies. It is hard to name it as new prediction, because Planck energy is obvious limit for quantum mechanics.

 

 

What fails at the Planck energy?

 

 

There are causal links leading to what is happening. Currently there are no phenomenon known that would not fall under causal links

 

What causes radioactive decay? i.e. why does one unstable nucleus decay at a particular time?

[andsm]

After some thinking, I found way how to make more precise prediction.

First, I want to write I not trying to say what GR is wrong or QM/QFT is wrong. I trying to unify GR and QM/QFT to describe them from one point of view and expand area of applicability of resulting theory. ER hypothesis, as I think, is able to explain both QM/QFT and GR on conceptual level from one point of view and it predicts what both GR and QM can be derived from one equation. Also, it imposes some restrictions on that predicted equation.

As a result, I expect what effects of ER-hypothesis are negligible for typical conditions. New effects of ER-hypothesis, as I wrote in my article, are expected to become non zero near black holes, become strong at Planck scale energies and come to full power during Big Bang.

According to my hypothesis, strong gravitational field should emit particles. Hawking radiation is about emitting of particles near horizon of events of black hole. Explanation of the radiation in my hypothesis is different. I consider it as same process which created time, space and matter during Big Bang, it just works not at full power. Same process leads to loss of information near gravitational singularity – see prediction in one of posts above. What I expect will happen with light after it will pass near black hole? – Loss of information. How much? – Proportional to Hawking radiation, because it should be done by same process. How to calculate Hawking radiation in my hypothesis? – There is no way to do it, mathematic of ER-hypothesis is not developed. But I may use numbers, calculated by other methods, to make prediction for another process.

So, my prediction:

 

If polarized light will pass near black hole, it will lose part of polarization. The loss of polarization will be proportional to integral of rates of Hawking radiation over its pass.

 

Even in the form, the prediction is still not precise. Factor for proportionality is unknown and, at least now, I not see how to make it more precise. However, many other theories did such type of prediction. Standard Model, for example, predicted existence of Higgs boson at very broad range of energies.

Next, about SO(10), SO(5) etc.

My hypothesis predicts what ToE is non-gauge theory, and Lie groups are not suitable for ToE. It is actually one of main sources of problem with math in ER-hypothesis. It points outside of well developed areas of math.

 

About GR in hypothesis. Is anyone noticed what Standard Relativity is embedded into ER-hypothesis?

Another thought. Expansion of Universe fits very naturally to ER-hypothesis.

Radioactive decay is not acausal process, it is probabilistic process.

[swansont]

 

Radioactive decay is not acausal process, it is probabilistic process.

 

What's the distinction? Can you predict when a specific atom will decay? Why not?

[andsm]

What fails at the Planck energy?

During approach to Planck energy, first I expect splitting of states. Next, if continue to increase energy, space of states will start to consists of discrete space of non-discrete, continuous, states. At that energy, quantum mechanics will fail. I think with some modifications QM still would be able to explain processes at such energy level. However, if increase energy more – all states should combine into one continuous state and theories based on space of states will be unable to predict anything.

 

What's the distinction? Can you predict when a specific atom will decay? Why not?

In ER-hypothesis - answer is yes and no.

Yes because it can be, in theory, predicted.

No - because our spacetime have no all information necessary to make such prediction.

[swansont]

 

Yes because it can be, in theory, predicted.

No - because our spacetime have no all information necessary to make such prediction.

 

What does the theory say that predicts it?

[andsm]

 

What does the theory say that predicts it?

I think it is answered in my article with ER-hypothesis. Link to the article is in first post.

If you have more detailed question about it, I would like to answer.

[Mordred]

Every form of math involved you claim cannot be used. You also claimed to be a former physics student with degrees. Sorry the two don't work. Anyone who has studied the field of physics knows you can't predict anything without the supporting math.

 

Without math your model predicts nothing zero zip.

[andsm]

Every form of math involved you claim cannot be used.

You did some math for the model? May you share it?

Mordred, on 14 Jan 2015 - 3:30 PM, said:

Every form of math involved you claim cannot be used. You also claimed to be a former physics student with degrees. Sorry the two don't work. Anyone who has studied the field of physics knows you can't predict anything without the supporting math.

 

Without math your model predicts nothing zero zip.

Did you read my updated prediction about loss of light polarization near black hole? Is you disagree on something?

Also, there is no need to try to convince me in importance of math. I fully understand it.

However, do you know difference between hypothesis and theory?

I proposed hypothesis, not a theory.

Hypothesis, unlike theory, have freedom to not fully describe their areas in math, they just must offer explanation of their area.

Hypothesis, however, must describe its area at least on conceptual level.

Next, hypothesis goes through working hypothesis stage. At this stage, if it lack some math, the math should be added.

Also, it should go through experimental verification.

Currently, mainstream search for ToE looking for gauge theory.

So, typical ToE type theory now - its some gauge theory with different Lie algebras and with some quantum foam.

String theory, LQG, Standard Model, Lisi's theory - its all different mixes of mentioned above.

Because of non triviality of area of ToE, any hypothesis which will go outside of the well developed area of gauge theory,

will have problem with mathematical formulation, at least initially.

What you basically saying - non gauge theories of ToE should not be considered.

[Mordred]

You have a hypothetical idea you know as well as I do you need math to have a predictive ability.

[andsm]

At start, any hypothesis should have power of conceptual explanation.

Predictive ability should appear by further development of conceptual model of hypothesis.

 

However, if speak about my hypothesis - it is already have predictive ability.

[Mordred]

You miss the point you have a hypothesis.

 

You need math to claim it can predict.

 

Hawking radiation only works when you have differences in thermodynamic states. So how will your idea work? During a period in thermal equilibrium?

It seems your also claiming unification of the 4 forces. For that you need to run the gauge constants as per the methodology in the GUT models. You will also need to apply the VeV formula as your dealing with temperatures above 246 GeV.

But in your case you need to show how gravity will affect the VeV vaccuum expectation value.

 

You did some math for the model? May you share it?

 

 

I'm not the one with the model that needs proof. This is your model that needs proving. I mentioned nothing more than the already recognized and accepted models already established.

[andsm]

 

Hawking radiation only works when you have differences in thermodynamic states. So how will your idea work? During a period in thermal equilibrium?

 

Initial Hawking radiation , as far as know, have no dependency on thermodynamic states. I guess you talk about predictions of String Theory?

It seems your also claiming unification of the 4 forces. For that you need to run the gauge constants as per the methodology in the GUT models. You will also need to apply the VeV formula as your dealing with temperatures above 246 GeV.

But in your case you need to show how gravity will affect the VeV vaccuum expectation value.

 

But you miss my point. VeV vaccuum expectation value - it is operator. So what you saying - you points me to math of gauge theories, but my hypothesis says ToE is non gauge theory.

I'm not the one with the model that needs proof. This is your model that needs proving. I mentioned nothing more than the already recognized and accepted models already established.

I know it.

However, you wrote "Every form of math involved you claim cannot be used. "

And such sentence is possible to interpret - you looked at possible math involving my hypothesis, and found it is useless.