rob langley
May14-06, 05:00 AM
I would be very grateful for comments on the claim that unification of
GR and QM requires that QM linearity is the higher dimensional analogue
of GR free-fall.
This is based on the following suppositions -
(1) that classical physics (including GR) is recovered from QM as some
appropriately-defined limit
(2) in *GR-physics*, the presence of an horizon indicates curvature of a
D(n)-manifold, and an horizon that occurs at a *constant* value or
threshold indicates that the manifold is *globally* closed with constant
positive curvature (ie, it is an object) (in the 2- and 3-space instance
the sphericity of earth can be deduced by observing a constant collapse
threshold for any given consistent material)
(3) observers in *accelerated* frames are subject to a thermal bath
(Rindler particles or Unruh radiation) and observe the formation of an
horizon; to accelerate in D4 spacetime is here thought of as *raising a
potential* on the D4 manifold (in D5 acceleration-space), thus
generating horizons for as long as the potential is maintained;
observers *in spaces* in which horizons are not detected are in
free-fall
(4) in *QM-math*, psi-linearity means that the wavefunction *spreads*
from the experimental set-up to involve the measurement apparatus
(and/or cats), the observer and ultimately (according to the Everett
interpretation) *worlds*, in which case the von Neumann formalism
requires that human observers necessarily become *involved*, with a
resulting loss of awareness or *objectivity* of state-bifurcation
(5) therefore in the same way that one can be *bodily* in a *GR* space
and be unaware of the *objective status* of that space (ie, uncertainty
concerning whether or not it is legitimate to describe *the Universe* as
an *object*), so one can be in a *mathematical* space and be unaware of
the objective *state* of that space; thus QM linearity is the higher
dimensional analogue of GR free-fall
(6) further to this, in the same way that QG requires a corespondence
between the GR value *mass* (change of D4 velocity) and the QM value
*information* (change of D4 energy), so there is also a correspondence
between the GR-freedom *acceleration* and the QM freedom *observation*
(where *observation* is defined as the derivation of information
regarding D5 *spacelike* experimental configuration, such as slits,
screen and detectors, etc - *measurement* would be defined as the
derivation of *timelike* experimental configuration in the case where
the source intensity is sufficiently reduced in order to emit
individual, timelike separated particles)
(7) this correspondence might be supported by the facts (i) that one can
*look at* an object following a D4 geodesic but as soon as one *touches*
(accelerates) it, the D4 geodesic is destroyed, and (ii) that one can
*look at* the 2-slit interference pattern without destroying it, but
observation (deriving *which-slit* information) destroys the pattern
(8) this then suggests a QG correspondence between the facts (i) that
accelerated (GR-physical) *mass*, when the external force is removed,
re-establishes geodesic motion, and (ii) that *observed* QM particles
(which are individually by definition below and just up to the
sensitivity threshold of unaided bodily senses), when *un-observed*
(just *looked-at*), re-establish the interference pattern at the
1-quantum sense-threshold.
Many thanks
R H Langley
__________________________________________________ _______________
Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters!
http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters
GR and QM requires that QM linearity is the higher dimensional analogue
of GR free-fall.
This is based on the following suppositions -
(1) that classical physics (including GR) is recovered from QM as some
appropriately-defined limit
(2) in *GR-physics*, the presence of an horizon indicates curvature of a
D(n)-manifold, and an horizon that occurs at a *constant* value or
threshold indicates that the manifold is *globally* closed with constant
positive curvature (ie, it is an object) (in the 2- and 3-space instance
the sphericity of earth can be deduced by observing a constant collapse
threshold for any given consistent material)
(3) observers in *accelerated* frames are subject to a thermal bath
(Rindler particles or Unruh radiation) and observe the formation of an
horizon; to accelerate in D4 spacetime is here thought of as *raising a
potential* on the D4 manifold (in D5 acceleration-space), thus
generating horizons for as long as the potential is maintained;
observers *in spaces* in which horizons are not detected are in
free-fall
(4) in *QM-math*, psi-linearity means that the wavefunction *spreads*
from the experimental set-up to involve the measurement apparatus
(and/or cats), the observer and ultimately (according to the Everett
interpretation) *worlds*, in which case the von Neumann formalism
requires that human observers necessarily become *involved*, with a
resulting loss of awareness or *objectivity* of state-bifurcation
(5) therefore in the same way that one can be *bodily* in a *GR* space
and be unaware of the *objective status* of that space (ie, uncertainty
concerning whether or not it is legitimate to describe *the Universe* as
an *object*), so one can be in a *mathematical* space and be unaware of
the objective *state* of that space; thus QM linearity is the higher
dimensional analogue of GR free-fall
(6) further to this, in the same way that QG requires a corespondence
between the GR value *mass* (change of D4 velocity) and the QM value
*information* (change of D4 energy), so there is also a correspondence
between the GR-freedom *acceleration* and the QM freedom *observation*
(where *observation* is defined as the derivation of information
regarding D5 *spacelike* experimental configuration, such as slits,
screen and detectors, etc - *measurement* would be defined as the
derivation of *timelike* experimental configuration in the case where
the source intensity is sufficiently reduced in order to emit
individual, timelike separated particles)
(7) this correspondence might be supported by the facts (i) that one can
*look at* an object following a D4 geodesic but as soon as one *touches*
(accelerates) it, the D4 geodesic is destroyed, and (ii) that one can
*look at* the 2-slit interference pattern without destroying it, but
observation (deriving *which-slit* information) destroys the pattern
(8) this then suggests a QG correspondence between the facts (i) that
accelerated (GR-physical) *mass*, when the external force is removed,
re-establishes geodesic motion, and (ii) that *observed* QM particles
(which are individually by definition below and just up to the
sensitivity threshold of unaided bodily senses), when *un-observed*
(just *looked-at*), re-establish the interference pattern at the
1-quantum sense-threshold.
Many thanks
R H Langley
__________________________________________________ _______________
Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters!
http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters