Obvious Leo
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3146
Joined: October 30th, 2012, 1:53 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)


Archives
- December 2012
Quantum Gravity final instalment
   December 17th, 2012, 4:57 pm
Quantum Gravity Part 3
   December 16th, 2012, 2:32 am
Quantum Gravity Part 2
   December 15th, 2012, 12:54 am
Quantum Gravity Part 1
   December 14th, 2012, 6:13 am

Search Blogs

Advanced search (keyword or author)

Setting aside the philosophical implications of this quantum gravity model, which I explore extensively in my philosophy of the bloody obvious, there are some consequences for physics which may make this important science once again accessible to the man of common sense.
We are easily able to draw many conclusions from this model which eradicate the inherent paradoxes of general relativity, but my life’s goal has been to hurl quantum mechanics into the conceptual dustbin where it belongs. It has been the most confusing mathematical fiddle in the history of science and a monstrous affront to fundamental reason. Every event has a cause. There are no exceptions. Only existence itself can be self-causal.

It is no easy matter to regard ourselves as hurtling through time at the speed of light like a cosmic missile but if we manage to conceptualise this we see the universe quite differently.
Naturally time warps, wormholes, singularities, causal loops and all the other impossibilities vanish from general relativity, which has long been in need of a mathematical shake-up.
The cornerstone notion of quantum mechanics is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and it has been held up for a century up as a statement of inscrutable profundity. It now reduces to a simple statement of the bloody obvious and provides me with a handy title for my thesis. We cannot specify the location and the momentum of a particle at the same time for the simple reason that it cannot have both at the same time. Its momentum is now defined as the sum of its locations over a finite number of quantum moments. The enigma of wave/particle duality is a puzzle no more. The particle is the particle and the wave is its information wake. It propagates at the speed of time, as do we who are watching it. Electrons orbit their nucleuses in specific computable orbits and if it were otherwise then atoms would be unable to exchange information with other atoms in a meaningful way and the universe could have no structure.
This is the incomprehensible universe offered to us by quantum mechanics, but 20th century logicians were asleep at the wheel, leaving the physicists in charge, steering the ship of knowledge into fantasyland. There is no such thing as a random occurrence, merely an unpredictable outcome. With a sigh of relief the multiverse can be blasted off the explanatory landscape forever, along with the heterotic string theories. We have dimensions to spare.

Observer effects can play havoc with one’s frame of reference. The universe exists in only one dimension but we perceive it in three. We intuit the fourth but don’t perceive it because we are expanding through it. In other words the real universe exists only in the dimension we can’t see because we’re in it.

It gives me no pleasure to slaughter some of the sacred cows of physics. I do so because I have a deep reverence for science. However I reserve my deepest respect for the laws of simple logic. The man of common sense requires that matters proceed in an orderly fashion otherwise he wouldn’t be able to make sense of the world around him. The universe is causal.
If it appears otherwise then our frame of reference is deceiving us because orderly reality is conceptually impossible in a non-causal universe. Causal means causal all the way down to the most fundamental units of reality. The photons and gravitons are at work in their binary logic gates, orchestrating the light show which dictates the whole performance. If it were otherwise the chain of causal reality would break down, information could not be exchanged, and the universe would be incomprehensible, in which case we couldn’t have evolved into it to arrive at this conclusion.

The philosophy of the bloody obvious is intended as a conceptual approach to quantum gravity and a conceptual approach to many other ideas. It ranges across a broad suite of sciences but skims only lightly across their surfaces. I am no mathematician but feel certain that the mathematics of the cosmos I describe will be exquisitely simple. The nerds can start taking some of the bullshit out of their sums because there can be no such thing as a constant in an eternal reality. Likewise infinities and zero are unrealisable abstractions and cannot exist in a real universe. I am no physicist but I know enough of physics to understand many of the implications of this model. The Relativity theories and quantum mechanics were devised as mathematical systems to explain the workings of the universe. They are very close approximations, as was Newton’s model, and these remarkable insights will always continue to inform our sciences. However mathematical systems are only tools and have no explanatory authority. If they describe a universe which is logically impossible then their very mathematical virtuosity is their greatest weakness. Beguiling mathematics can suck the capacity to reason from even the sharpest of human minds. A quantum model of gravity and time will probably eradicate some puzzles, solve some puzzles, and perhaps create some puzzles. But it will appeal to the man of common sense because it simplifies matters.

Clearly an eternal reality precludes the possibility of a creator, but the demise of such a possibility will be no great loss to the man of common sense, who has never been particularly comfortable with the idea anyway. It may be a different matter, however, if we find that such a cosmos is dictated by physical law. The philosophy of the bloody obvious then becomes the only workable paradigm for human existence. All actions have consequences.

My philosophy shows that the evolution of societies and the evolution of mind are closely related to the evolution of knowledge. Sentient minds do not blindly execute a programme, as do stars and planets and daffodils. A mind is a self-programming evolutionary construct of the brain. It programmes its own input, like any universal Turing machine.
The brain starts out with its initial conditions and developmental laws and turns itself into a mind which becomes self-aware. It is conceptually impossible for a cosmic programme to command the actions of a sentient mind because informational complexity over-rides the second law of thermodynamics. The cosmic programme did not specify that we have pyramids and symphonies and robotic scientists on Mars. We are a loose cannon overturning the second law. The universe is a blind automaton executing a programme. It cannot be said to have a purpose. However the programme bequeaths a purpose to the sentient minds that it brings forth.

This purpose is our own to define.

Regards Leo

P.S This essay is a summary of a much larger work. Necessarily many steps of reasoning have been foreshortened and many entirely new conceptual angles have simply been omitted. I concede my disappointment that it has not been warmly received. I expected scepticism, as is only proper, but my hope was that perhaps one mathematician would be intrigiued enough to actually test this model. Such a mathematical treatment is way beyond my expertise but would definitively either support or falsify my model.
If the orbit of an electron, or a planet for that matter, were to be computed using a 4-dimensional co-ordinate system with c as a relativistic quantity rather than a constant, then this question could be resolved.

My confidence is unshaken but it seems I must seek my geek elsewhere.

6 Comments Viewed 4416 times

Comments

RE: Quantum Gravity final instalment

Permanent Linkby BurtJordaan on December 18th, 2012, 12:00 am

Obvious Leo wrote:If the orbit of an electron, or a planet for that matter, were to be computed using a 4-dimensional co-ordinate system with c as a relativistic quantity rather than a constant, then this question could be resolved.

Leo, the problem is that you have apparently failed to convince anybody around here (that could perhaps do this) that you have a valid concept. You have rather demonstrated some misconceptions about current mainstream theories, albeit perhaps due to semantics...

Few people will invest time into such a shaky concept. A 4-dimensional co-ordinate system with c as a universal constant has been used for over a hundred years now. There are even variants where c is still a constant, but the one-way speed of light is not c, in other words, in a sense c is a relativistic quantity there. It has proved to be so cumbersome to make it conform to experiment, that it has been dropped long ago.

So, good luck with your quest.

--
Regards
Jorrie
Last edited by BurtJordaan on December 18th, 2012, 1:26 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: October 17th, 2009, 2:19 am
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

Comments

Re: Quantum Gravity final instalment

Permanent Linkby Gregorygregg1 on December 20th, 2012, 2:59 pm

"Clearly an eternal reality precludes the possibility of a creator, but the demise of such a possibility will be no great loss to the man of common sense, who has never been particularly comfortable with the idea anyway. It may be a different matter, however, if we find that such a cosmos is dictated by physical law. The philosophy of the bloody obvious then becomes the only workable paradigm for human existence. All actions have consequences.

My philosophy shows that the evolution of societies and the evolution of mind are closely related to the evolution of knowledge. Sentient minds do not blindly execute a programme, as do stars and planets and daffodils. A mind is a self-programming evolutionary construct of the brain. It programmes its own input, like any universal Turing machine.
The brain starts out with its initial conditions and developmental laws and turns itself into a mind which becomes self-aware. It is conceptually impossible for a cosmic programme to command the actions of a sentient mind because informational complexity over-rides the second law of thermodynamics. The cosmic programme did not specify that we have pyramids and symphonies and robotic scientists on Mars. We are a loose cannon overturning the second law. The universe is a blind automaton executing a programme. It cannot be said to have a purpose. However the programme bequeaths a purpose to the sentient minds that it brings forth.

This purpose is our own to define."


Your background is obviously in logic and computer science. Mine is in Biology. While I may see the "common sense" of this perception of time and space, I will disagree on a "creator". I think this difference is probably semantic. You have described "the Creator" as a Universal Turing program with the laws of physics as the original input. When I think of "God", it is not the big man in the sky. On the other hand, the organizing principle which resulted in the existence we know is a creator. There are levels within this organizing principle, so one might say the creator exists like an onion with layers of organization.
The uppermost layer of organization at this time is life. It is directly responsive for the "sentience" of man. When we know this, and live it as a species, we may become the next layer in the onion of creation. As of now, we are a biological anomaly. in order to be more, we have to transcend. To take a purely objective perspective denies the potential contribution of man. We are the perceivers. We have the function of self knowledge. We are the self knowledge of life and the universe.

What will I say, and how shall it be interpreted? Life is the most complex layer of existence. Life can continue forever, but only if we worship her. If we do not worship Life, we will die, and Life will go on much diminished. If we look into our hearts and cannot see that life, is the most important thing there is, the part of existence for which we have responsibility, we are blind. We should worship Life because we are so insignificant in the light of what Life has accomplished without us, and we should serve life because of how much life might accomplish with us. Instead we allow ourselves to assume the position of "The Creator" and worship and serve ourselves. What Hubris!

This is how I would define purpose: to worship and serve life.
As you say, it is ours to define.
User avatar
Gregorygregg1
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: May 16th, 2012, 9:38 pm
Location: The center of the universe
Blog: View Blog (0)

Comments

Re: Quantum Gravity final instalment

Permanent Linkby Gregorygregg1 on December 21st, 2012, 11:59 am

Hmmm...
Last edited by Gregorygregg1 on December 21st, 2012, 12:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gregorygregg1
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: May 16th, 2012, 9:38 pm
Location: The center of the universe
Blog: View Blog (0)

Comments

Re: Quantum Gravity final instalment

Permanent Linkby Gregorygregg1 on December 21st, 2012, 12:02 pm

Gregorygregg1 wrote:1. Because two events may not occur in the same space at the same time, space is created by event. This happens at the subatomic level in plank units at the speed of light, and accounts for the expansion of space.
2. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Gravity is the result of the compaction effect of the expansion of space.
3. event persists as space.

If light is the clue to the nature of space because it is visible event expanding outward with space. Why is it not entirely unaffected by gravity? Is it because light represents mass in two dimensional Planck space which is not entirely two dimensional, and therefore light, having the smallest possible mass is still subject to the compaction of mass by large sources of event?

At some distance between two sources of event, should the effect of gravity not be overcome and the space between them then begin expanding proportionally to the sum of their masses?


I'm beginning to have serious doubts about this hypothesis.
User avatar
Gregorygregg1
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: May 16th, 2012, 9:38 pm
Location: The center of the universe
Blog: View Blog (0)

Comments

Re: Quantum Gravity final instalment

Permanent Linkby Obvious Leo on December 22nd, 2012, 5:22 pm

I've been away for a couple of days and find some lively activity at my essay, exactly what I was hoping for.

Perhaps a liitle clarification is in order. I guess you could say that the core theme of this philosophy is the notion of causality. I use "the man of common sense" and "a statement of the bloody obvious" as characters in a narrative which is intended for a lay readership with an interest in science.

Alas the 20th century has disconnected the common man from the world of science and the philosophers are to blame. We observe that our universe is comprehensible because we have laws that make it so. This is a new thing in the history of our species. Until the past few centuries there were very few minds amongst our forebears who conceived of the possibility that we could learn anything at all about our world simply by studying it. We in these pages take this for granted but should bear in mind that we defend a minority position.

Our laws of nature allow us to conclude that there is such a thing as objective reality and we live in a real world. Pinning this reality down is not so easy but when finally cornered this "real" model of our universe must be accsessible to the ordinary man of common sense. I know that this is an unsupportable statement but all our instincts should not be lightly ignored when we explore the mysterious world of mathematics. Some very simple mathematical constructs underlie some very deep discoveries in science.

I have concocted my model in my own head and haven't got a single equation to support it because I approached the matter from a different angle. I took the perspective of an ordinary bloke who I named Obvious Leo who required nothing more of his explanation than that it made sense to him. What the hell is a continuum? What do you mean nothing causes it? These are fair questions and our man is entitled to an answer. A comprehensible universe will not be the private knowledge domain of a handful of geeks speaking an inscrutable mathematical language. That is a laughable proposition that simply beggars belief and forms the basis of the second major theme of my philosophy which is the notion of evolution towards informational complexity.

My balloon analogy is totally different from the one normally used in cosmology. Try it this way Greg. The skin of the balloon is the expanding time dimension. We regard it as one-dimensional, not two, which is a little conceptually challenging. This is where objective reality is emerging one quantum moment at a time. We are inside the balloon along with the entire universe of our perceptions. The boundary of our universe is expanding time. The space around us expands also and thus the galaxies are moving away from each other, within the balloon, as opposed to on its surface in the traditional cosmology balloon.

What then do we see from inside our balloon? This where the problems start and various frames of reference can get tangled up because we are contained within our observation. Paradoxically the early days of quantum theory and relativity encouraged a lot of talk around frame of reference issues but these conversations appear to have lost popularity.

From within the balloon we see the boundary of spacetime. We get a delayed telecast because the speed of light is finite and here we have the notion of a continuum. We could define the distance between ourselves and our observation by a single time co-ordinate. This is where the subtlety comes in and the beauty and simplicity comes in. My quantum moment is the very briefest it can be, its duration is just long enough to prevent 2 things from happening in the same cell of space at the same moment in time. Quantum moments emerge at a non-constant rate, which is determined by gravity, therefore our one-dimensional balloon surface has been turned into an object quite impossible to visualise. However within the balloon we are presented with a comprehensible universe offered to our senses in three comfortable dimensions. The non-constant expansion of time gives our cosmos its shape but this shape is a construct of our senses. Our depth of field is a temporal one of one dimension but it changes at such astonishingly fast Planck-like speeds that we get a magically coherent movie to watch.

So we can never see what's really going on? asks our man of common sense and we say no, sorry mate, you can only see what's already happened. But I'll guarantee you that's the way it really was.

We try to avoid telling our man that his 3-dimensional world is simply an observer effect but we can know if for ourselves.

Regards Leo
Obvious Leo
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3146
Joined: October 30th, 2012, 1:53 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Comments

Re: Quantum Gravity final instalment

Permanent Linkby Gregorygregg1 on April 17th, 2013, 1:05 am

If time travels at the speed of light, and we are traveling at the speed of time, are we then not also traveling at the speed of light? And how then do we perceive light? If we are not traveling at the speed of time, how then do we perceive now?
User avatar
Gregorygregg1
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: May 16th, 2012, 9:38 pm
Location: The center of the universe
Blog: View Blog (0)

Who is online

Registered users currently online: Brent696, Exabot [Bot], Faradave, gnom15, Google Adsense [Bot], Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], MasterOgon