Reality as emergent phenomenon

[Mordred]

Hawking radiation from a BH only functions when the blackbody temperature of the universe is lowered than the blackbody temperature of the BH. If the BB temp of the universe is higher then the BH will increase in mass not decrease. As it will absorb the thermodynamic energy

Vacuum expectation value formula is used to describe the universe as an ideal gas when particles are in thermal equilibrium. Which is during the Planck epoch.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Mordred

[andsm]

Vacuum expectation value formula is used to describe the universe as an ideal gas when particles are in thermal equilibrium. Which is during the Planck epoch.

Its conceptual vision of current theories.

My hypothesis see Planck epoch differently.

I wrote in one of posts above why I think QM/QFT will fail at Planck energies.

So, what I expect at Planck epoch.

I expect particles will stop to exists at all during Planck epoch.

Instead of individual particles, will exists wave without specific states.

Also, somewhere before or near Planch epoch, I expect failure of time and space.

What it means is described in my article.

Hawking radiation from a BH only functions when the blackbody temperature of the universe is lowered than the blackbody temperature of the BH. If the BB temp of the universe is higher then the BH will increase in mass not decrease. As it will absorb the thermodynamic energy

 

I not know Hawking radiation in details, it was just mentioned on one of lectures in my university.

However, it seems as you talk about equilibrium of energy. But in such case, radiation still exists, it just balanced by absorbtion.

Edited January 14, 2015 by andsm

[Mordred]

What you describe here is thermal equilibrium. Just as I stated. You might want to research the specific issues as to why we caanot accurately describe the universe prior to 10^-43 seconds instead of merely hand waving away those issues with the statement that's not my model.

 

For one thing you have not shown how you deal with the singularity conditions. You also chose to ignore the planch temperature issue and it's relations to the Compton wavelength.

 

In all honesty you need to sit back and look at the math from 10^-43 seconds forward in time. Then you need to show how your model leads to those mathematics. You can't just hand wave them away.

 

A must lead to b if not you need to show why in terms of the math

Now you say all particles disappear. So how did fundamental particles form ?

Quarks electrons?

[andsm]

What you describe here is thermal equilibrium.

Ok. In such case my prediction is still unaffected.

Polarization of light should be changed after pass near black hole in accordance with integral of rates of Hawking radiation over path.

 

For thermal equilibrium case - just remove absorbtion part.

You might want to research the specific issues as to why we caanot accurately describe the universe prior to 10^-43 seconds instead of merely hand waving away those issues with the statement that's not my model.

 

Big part of my article describe time before 10^-43 seconds . It is in my model.

For one thing you have not shown how you deal with the singularity conditions.

Sorry, but did you read my article?

Singularity is described, and it fits really well in my model.

Edited January 14, 2015 by andsm

[Mordred]

Really no particles how do you have gravity? No particles how do you have Hawking radiation? How do particles form? What makes up electrons that get formed during your Epoch to lead to the GUT epoch? How do the quarks form?

Not very well described in my opinion

[andsm]

Now you say all particles disappear. So how did fundamental particles form ?

Quarks electrons?

No. You thinks in terms of gauge theories and space of states.

Quark electrons, and any other theoretical particles belongs to space of states.

As it was written in my article, all comes from static scalar field of Metauniverse.

Particles are just soliton-like waves-like of on the static field.

They should be described by some differential equations, which must contains some characteristic values, eigenvalues-like.

On our typical conditions, such description, based on characteristic values of particles, which forms algebra of states, should be enough.

However, during Planck epoch such description will become inappropriate, and becomes necessary to describe full scalar field of Metauniverse in the place to have predicting power. So, at that moment particles, both fermions and bosons, disappear.

But time and space should disappear either at that time or even earlier. - See how I describe space and time.

[Mordred]

 

 

You need to show how your Planch epock model leads to the GUT epock not ignore it

That is the point.

[andsm]

Really no particles how do you have gravity? No particles how do you have Hawking radiation? How do particles form? What makes up electrons that get formed during your Epoch to lead to the GUT epoch? How do the quarks form?

Not very well described in my opinion

No particles no gravity.

No particles no time and no space. It is formation phase, transition period when reality is in process of emergence. Its also described in my artcile.

Also, my hypothesis predicts absense of quantum gravity.

How do particles form? What makes up electrons that get formed during your Epoch to lead to the GUT epoch? How do the quarks form?

Not very well described in my opinion

Process of formation of matter (it includes particles), time, and space is described in article.

Unfortunately, only on qualitative level.

I may copy paste it of course. But have you more specific, conceptual,questions about the process, not covered in article?

As for not very well described - yes, I understood it.

I plan to write new version of it. No any changes in hypothesis, just increase its readability and add answers to some questions asked.

You need to show how your Planch epock model leads to the GUT epock not ignore it

That is the point.

On qualitative level, it is described.

Do you see any conceptual problems with description how goes transition from Planck Epoch to GUT epoch?

On mathematical level - yes, I cannot answer. Yet.

Edited January 14, 2015 by andsm

[Mordred]

Fair enough for the scalar field you can use the necessary modifications to the vacuum equation of state.

 

See scalar modelling bottom formula

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology)

 

this formula works for above VeV conditions

You need to mathematically show how the particles form for the fundmental ones. Not merely describe it they are fundamental for a reason. Energy is a property of particles it does not exist on it's own.

[andsm]

Fair enough for the scalar field you can use the necessary modifications to the vacuum equation of state.

 

See scalar modelling bottom formula

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology)

 

this formula works for above VeV conditions

In the formula, scalar field is function of time.

In my hypothesis, time is function of scalar field.

[Mordred]

Yeah you will have to modify the formula.

[andsm]

You need to mathematically show how the particles form for the fundmental ones. Not merely describe it they are fundamental for a reason. Energy is a property of particles it does not exist on it's own.

May be it is possible to mathematically describe process of formation of particles without knowing their equations, not sure. Its one of tasks I left for future, I want to see critisism of conceptual model of my hypothesis first to understand is it worth to do.

As of now, seems as on conceptual level model looks simply excellent.

 

Energy conservation law, according to my hypothesis, not works at Planck epoch. Or, more correct, it transformed into more complex conservation law.

[Mordred]

Well you got a direction on some of the issues. Good luck

[andsm]

First, thanks to Mordred for his critisism, it was really helpful.

I wrote new version of article with ER-hypothesis.

In the new version, I tried to increase its readability, plus expanded description of some areas.

It was done based on discussions on forums, thanks to everyone who participated.

No any changes in hypothesis, just improvement of description of the hypothesis.

About math model. I think I found math model of gravity in ER-hypothesis. I tried to calculate Christoffel symbols for the model, but quickly understood I forgot a lot about differential geometry, and I need to refresh my knowledge first. I expect equations will be ready in 1-3 months. Physics is just one of my hobbies, and I spend 4-5 hours weekly for the hobby, so the hypothesis will not be improved quickly.

For full math model. Small progress. I have some very rough math model, possibly it can predict something. Looks as it predict existence of 5th fundamental force, but I am not sure. Anyway, I decided to stop trying to develop it until gravity will be ready. If gravity for ER-hypothesis will fit to all existing experimental data, I will resume search for full model.

New version of ER-hypothesis is available in Word format

Also, I may add I enjoy developing the hypothesis. I not know what I will have in result (typically all home made theories contains mistakes like not taking nto account some experimental data etc), but developing the hypothesis is interesting for me.

How is readability now, are any problems with understanding?

Are any conceptual problems?

Edited January 25, 2015 by andsm

[andsm]

Its continuation of previous thread, Reality as emergent phenomenon

 

I wrote new version of emergent reality hypothesis. significantly improved math of the hypothesis. It have now equations of gravity. Feel free to read it and critisize.

I submitted article for viXra.
The article is available on viXra

I want to publish the article on arXiv, but the site requires endorsement.

All my previous publications (publications with me as coauthor) were done in physics of accelerators, plus more than 10 years ago, I was PhD student at that time.
So I looking for endorsement to publish it on arXiv. If someone is ready to endorse me for arXiv - please contact me.

Below is abstract from article.

Abstract

In this article, I propose new paradigm of physics. The paradigm leads to simple and unified picture of world. Such simplification and unification has cost of several key concepts of philosophy, including Being. I propose very radical hypothesis of emergent space-time-matter, in which space-time-matter are emergent properties of more fundamental entity. The hypothesis of emergent reality (ER- hypothesis later) shows how it is possible to find space-time-matter from a more fundamental, static field and space without time and matter. In the article, I show how it is possible to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity in one conceptual model, how to unify all existing forces. Changes in equations of general relativity are proposed in the article, same as changes to overall conceptual model of gravitation. New model of Big Bang is described and new cosmological model is proposed. New law for recession velocity was proposed, the hypothesis predicts what Hubble law is not applicable at large distance. ER-hypothesis predicts what Theory of Everything is non-gauge theory and cannot be based on space of states. The ER-hypothesis also describes possible parallel universes, propose way of theoretical finding of parallel universes, and way to calculate interactions between parallel universes. Theory of time is described in the article.

 

Keywords: TOE, hep-th, gr-qc, astro-ph

About my plans for future, related to ER-hypothesis.

First I want to publish my article on arXiv and in some peer-reviewed journal. I think current state of article should be good enough for publications. May be some minor editiorial changes will be required, not sure. As of now, I consider task of adding math for gravitation to ER-hypothesis as mostly completed. May be I am wrong, and its one of reason why I ask for critisism.

I want to receive feedback from professionals about ER-hypothesis, my changes of gravitation equations and cosmology models. Based on feedback, may be some changes in article will be required.

More distant plans. I think about mathematical description of how to add quantum mechanics to ER-model. Currently, compatibility of quantum mechanics and ER-hypothesis in my article is described mostly in words, no equations. I have several thoughts how it can be done, it just requires some time.

Another idea - mathemetically prove inability to pass information from future to present. It also looks interesting for me, and looks as doable. And one more idea - mathematically prove what quantum gravity, in ER-hypothesis, leads to contradictions to experimental results. It will have, as result, absense of quantum gravity in ER-hypothesis. As of now, I was unable to fully exclude possibility of existense of quantum gravity in ER-hypothesis. It also looks doable, however it looks as most complex from the ideas. However, I not decided yet what to do next. I will decide it based on feedback of current version of ER-hypothesis.

[Strange]

I think current state of article should be good enough for publications.

 

Then why not submit it to some journals to find out.

[andsm]

 

Then why not submit it to some journals to find out.

Already submitted, waiting result.

However, I want it published on arXiv first

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Threads merged. One per topic, please.

[andsm]

!

Moderator Note

Threads merged. One per topic, please.

And what reader will see?

He will look at start post, quickly notice there is no math in hypothesis, and leave.

And he would not even notice there is math in ER-hypothesis now, there are laws of gravitation, new law for recession velocity instead of Hubble law etc.

Big change in math of hypothesis was done, so separate thread is necessary.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

See previous modnote.

[Mordred]

Ok recognizing this as under development I will offer some advise on direction.

 

1) get a spell/ grammar checker as well as someone to proof read it.

 

(Numerous spelling errors and broken sentences)

 

2) show in mathematical details how GR or QM and the ideal gas laws describe a homogeneous and isotropic universe (accurately in accordance with well tested and well established models).

 

2) mathematically describe where those models break down or become inaccurate

 

3) show how your model can better describe or overcome those problems (again mathematically)

 

4) come up with a means to provide testability.

 

5) finish with a conclusions section reviewing the details within the article.

 

Treat the paper in a similar format as a short dissertation that you would hand to a professor who strongly believes in GR. (Naturally requires detailed math and comparisons to the concordance models)

 

Particularly if your goal is to gain a sponsor for arxiv

 

(I didn't see any references to your reference articles, your going to need those as well. You will need to detail which reference applies at which principle and how it applies to your paper)

Edited May 12, 2015 by Mordred

[andsm]

Ok recognizing this as under development I will offer some advise on direction.

 

1) get a spell/ grammar checker as well as someone to proof read it.

 

(Numerous spelling errors and broken sentences)

 

 

I somehow thought number of such errors is small. Ok, I will improve it.

 

2) show in mathematical details how GR or QM and the ideal gas laws describe a homogeneous and isotropic universe (accurately in accordance with well tested and well established models).

I already described it in mathematical details, for GR. And it fits to well tested and well established theories.Where you see need for improvement here?

As for QM - yes, it is one of areas I plan for future development in ER-hypothesis.

 

4) come up with a means to provide testability.

 

I understand the more testability the beter. However, some testability already exists. It predicts recession velocity law different from Hubble law, so it can be tested. Of course, it is small, but it makes the hypothesis testable and falsifiable. What do you think?

 

Overall, thanks for comments. Somehow the speculations forum is very quiet when someone comes with more or less reasonable speculation.

 

As for you other comments - yes, I already have such plans. It just requires some time. Probably, first I will add math for QM in ER-hypothesis, not decided yet.

[Mordred]

The improvement I see needed in the GR section is in details. One recommendation is to show its compatibility to the SO(3) symmetry Lorentz group. Details on how you arrive at your modifications is also recommended.

 

Remember GR is incredibly well tested. So the more detail the better your chances of publication you have.

Currently traveling willing look closer later on.

[andsm]

The improvement I see needed in the GR section is in details. One recommendation is to show its compatibility to the SO(3) symmetry Lorentz group. Details on how you arrive at your modifications is also recommended.

 

As far as I know, solutions of GR, even without my changes, has no compatibility to SO(3) in general case.

 

About details.

I have impression I explained how and why I did modifications to GR in details, but may be I am wrong.

May you wrote which details are not clear?

[Mordred]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_group

 

See details on the Lorentz group