Foundations of a theory of quantum gravity - Johan Noldus' book.

MTd2

http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.5113

Foundations of a theory of quantum gravity

Johan Noldus
(Submitted on 26 Jan 2011)
After a long technical and consequently philosophical disgression about the necessity of the construction presented in this book, a logically consistent and precise theory of quantum gravity is presented. The construction of this theory goes in several steps; at first we take a fairly conservative point of view and stumble upon some technical difficulties. Consequently, we investigate a new mathematical implication of an old idea to solve these problems; the latter suggest however a completely new way of doing quantum theory. This novel theory automatically incoorporates an extended form of gravity as well as a quantum gauge theory. We compute that the well known free quantum field theories and Newtonian gravity emerge in a suitable limit. The philosophy constructed here is to a high degree Whiteheadian.

*******

This paper/book was uploaded today. I put his name on google and saw that marcus put him on an observation list a few years ago:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=102147

This thread was attended by Garrett Lisi, Thomas Larson and Careful. It seems that careful also keeps track of this author, as google point out his participation explaining Johan Noldus' ideas on other threads.

This is kind of a surprise to me. I thought that he, like Fra, didn't like anything...

marcus

We can help Noldus if each person will take a paragraph from the book and correct the spelling---he may also appreciate positive or negative comment (authors sometimes do like to get feedback on a draft) especially since the book is not yet finished. The conclusion section remains to be written. Here are some minor spelling corrections:

==quote page 156==
Only meaning resists definition, it transcends knowledge and all the rest; still it is the driving force behind our actions and the way we think about the world. Meaning, I believe, is an eternal self-reffering concept which catches words like: I, You, Survival, Food, Procreation, Love and so on ... which never ever change. Knowledge is a dynamic relational component between entities having a certain meaning; therefore it is only very basic in the sense that it only uses well defined words like (probably) implies, is (more or less) equivalent to and so on. The creation of new knowledge always involves an interplay between meaning and contemporary knowledge; therefore, by the lack of a definition of meaning, we will never ever be able to write down a theory of everything. Science will always be a game of humans running behind their own tale as well as a vital ingredient in changing our own future and the laws of the universe themselves; therefore the way things are will also change depending on the knowledge we have of it. There is however hope and the scientific enterprise is certainly not doomed; that is, I think it is fair to say that microscopic physics will satisfy the general principles we laid out in section eight. Surely, one may increase complexity in the gravitation theory by going over to higher bundles; this will necessarily change the way we think about quantum physics too meaning that the implementation of the principle of Lorentz covariance has to undergo some modifications. Likewise, we may further generalize quantum physics by allowing for nonassociative ”algebra’s” or by introducing some nonlocality by letting the product depend upon the number of factors. But that doesn’t imply we don’t understand microscopic phyisics, we do: we know the basic principles and all the rest is merely representation. Likewise, I have tried to formulate a principle for macroscopic physics; in contrast to the microscopic world, this does not allow for a well defined theory but we can produce well defined approximations. This is good enough and we better learn to live with this limitation. It is as if we are allowed to understand and grasp the linearization of a reality in which the nonlinear terms involve that what we cannot define: understanding.
==endquote==

"well defined" takes a hyphen when the noun modified immediately follows: well-defined theory

"phyisics" : physics

"self-reffering": self-referring

"tale" : tail

The idiom is "like a cat chasing its tail" or more generally the image of anything "chasing its own tail".

Hopefully the author will find this helpful, if he happens to see this thread.

Careful

Well, people always make premature observations like that. If one is critical towards half-baked mainstream approaches, then they automatically presume you are inherently negative about everything.

MTd2

Probably you've read the paper, then. Would you mind explaining the central idea contained, very very roughly?

Fra

For a change I agree with what Careful said :)

About the paper, my first impression is: it's long, and the first pages seems to contain very little selling points as to why I should keep reading. Skimming further I see parts I don't like but also some parts I do like.

> "But the unification of the ’state’ and ’action’ in a single measure is certainly a much
> better idea which is also capable of encapsulating topology change in quantum gravity."

Without having read this paper, this associates to something that is exactly what I've advocated in several threads, namely that the principle of maximum entropy and the principle of minimum action are really the one and the same principle, which unifies entropy and action. This is a key component in my own thinking as well.

My argument for this, is that one you take the intrinsic construction of a measure seriously, there is no way to artifically distinguishing information about states and information about motion, so states and states of motion must be unified. Specifically they are both information divergences. The only difference is if you consider "a priori probabilities" or transition probabilities (ie motion). If you look at the mathematics and an alternative foundations of probability theory based on "counting evidence", that I'm working on then max ent principle and principle of least action is in fact just ONE principle. Their unification is interesting. Since he mentiones this it motivates me to skim a little further to see how this is developed.

More later... when/if I get the time need to read it. I would prefer that he tries to write that paper from a more sales perspective. His first 5 pages should sell the rest of hte paper, because there is a decent chance that people stop reading and make premature judgement.

/Fredrik

Careful

The introduction treats all major obstacles to quantum gravity so I don't understand why you say it would not ''sell the book''. Not liking something because it clearly doesn't work is fine, but not liking something because it conflicts your fine taste is a whole other thing.

Fra

What I mean is that, it's an impression obvious from the title and the abstract that "this is a guy that might propose an original idea to the problem of quantum gravity quest".

But I've seen quite lot of such papers, and I don't have the time to read them all, even if I wanted to.

So what I expect in the introduction is something the seduce me to the point where I am inclined to this that this is more promising that all other papers, so that I will actually maybe even read all of it.

For example, the layout of a TEXTBOOK in say "the foundations of quantum mechanics" that is targeted for an audience that is taking a course, or trying to learn en established theory, is and should be different. It usually starts by lenghty definitions etc, introducing the mathematical framework. The payoff is usually in the end. That is I think fine if the reader is comitted to reading the book already - which is the case when you read a textbook for a course.

But my first impression is that this is yet another speculative idea... and I have no a priori reason to comit to reading it all like I would when deciding to read a textbook on say algebra.

Before I even read it, the author trying to push a new idea, need to convince the reader to actually keep on reading.

So my only opinon is that perhaps the early part (which people read first) should be more focused on declaring the unique sellings points of his approach, and why this paper is more likely to satisfy the reader than other papers.

But I haven't read it yet, so maybe it's great? I don't konw yet :) the bits I noted in skimming the intro above, is what motivates me... alot of words like "free will" "god" and other things that appeared on skimming are more like warning bells to me. Maybe that's just the introduction though, but then it seems dangerous to put that in the beginning of the paper.

/Fredrik

Careful

I don't know from what planet you come but the author clearly states that a full, well defined, non perturbative formulation is presented and that some necessary consistency checks are presented in full detail. So again, I do not see your problem, perhaps you need flashlights and buzzwords, but I think the technical language is pretty clear for anybody who has mastered it.

Fra

If that's the motivation enough for you to sit down and actually go through and read 160 pages, sure.

I skimmed the first few pages, and I will try to skim more later. But for me to take my time to actually in depth, dedicatedly read and analyse 160 pages it better be damn good. Becuase I simply don't have that much time at hand. Because this is not the only 160 page paper I have to choose from.

I'm not sure if the author is supposedly famous or so, that would sell itself, but as an outsider heard of him before.

My point was supposed to be a constructive comment, in line with marcus initiation, that notes that in case he happens to read. But that's just MY impression. Perhaps most people are like you that will actually sit down and read the paper, but that sounds unlikely, noone has that kind of time at hand.

/Fredrik

Careful

I always love it when people standing on the shore know how to sail better than a qualified boatsman. If you know something about quantum gravity technically and not just philosophically, then you must understand that these claims are very unusual. Nobody so far had a good answer to Coleman-Mandula, Weinberg-Witten and Haag theorem... these are the cornerstones of quantum gravity.

Fra

I never made such a claim.

I just make my own decisions where to invest my own time. There is nothing bold in that at all. I just tried to clarify that I just gave my first impression.

So I take you have or will read the paper, then I'm interested to hear your brief analysis.

I can only speak for myself, and I don't know if we ask the same questions. Those theorems are formulated relative to a context that I question anyway. I have made a choice to try to rethink alot. QFT to start with is based on a continuum. IF you reconstruct the basic structure I surely am not skilled enough to just like that predict how these theorems sort of "scale" long with that. It will be complex fore sure, and I'm not even sure to what extent they apply.

I have a certain perspective, and whenever I see a paper I look for connections to my own projects. I assume everyone does.

But I would really appreciate if you (if you read the paper) can answer MTd2's question. Summarize their main constructing principles, and characterize the approach suggested.

That's what I would liket extract for a starter, but it will take time... time I need to decide to invest or not. I have plenty of really interesting other papers on the poset and causal set stuff I have saved for reading but I stumble on new papers at a rate higher than I can read the old ones.

Anyone that has read the paper and analysed it could share their picture.

/Fredrik

Careful

MTd2 got an answer to his question since he was bold enough to ask.

Careful

Fra

Your recent responses in some thread has made me curious as to what your own vision or preferred direction of research is? It would probably help me understand your responses better. Are you doing some research for a living/professionally or is it a hobby for you?

On one hand you seem to not be too happy about some mainstream work, on the other hand you also seem slightly disturbed about when other people object to the same. This makes me curious & confused as to what your own perspective is.

Edit: Found some old Careful-threads and found some clues.. I think I see some hints now :)

"the danger about philosophers in physics who actually cannot understand technical papers (and even have not some degree in the subject), is that they have the tendency to behave like high-priests in church."
-- Careful, http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...=115705&page=2

I am btw, not a philosopher, if that's part of the issue here.

but I still am curious to briefly see your own view (if it's already in past threads, referencing that is better).

/Fredrik

Careful

I think I am done giving hints. If you are confused, ask MTd2, he was less so. For example, if you want to know more, why don't you contact the author ?

Careful

Fra

You're certainly right about that. Sorry perhaps I was unclear, what I meant in the last question was YOUR views of QG. I don't mean your views of that paper, but your own take on the QG quest overall. I was curious to see where you are coming from. I was trying to understand the rational behind your comments.

What I mean is: Are you working on something original, not yet pubslihed, or are you working related to some of the major programs? Strings, LQG, causal sets, hidden variables etc? I haven't been able to get a coherent picture.

With some of the most active posters you easily acquire a picture of their way of reasoning. But with you I'm confused.

My own perspective I've declared throughout myposts here. This is a passionate hobby for me, not a job were I made a living. I also try to the extent I have time to work out some original ideas I have. Meanwhile there are some people to which ides I connect: Ariel caticha, some of Smolin/ungers evolving law, SOME of Rovellis RQM motivation (but not all), and I find some of the order methods of poset and causal sets to be interesting and underdeveloped as compared to the more pure algebraic methods. I also like some of the entropic reasoning ideas.

I'm curious where your perspective sits?

Edit: To stay ontopic, I'll get back with my personal impressions if I get around to keep skimming that paper.

Edit2: I've started to skim on, and it may prove interesting, but some formulations reminde me faintly of some of Carefuls past posts. Could it even be that Careful is the author? :)

/Fredrik

Careful

Who knows ?

Demystifier

Let me just say that I agree with most objections and observations of Fra.

To convince others that one is right, it is not enough to be right. Not even in science. Sometimes less is more, especially when one wants to attract attention to a completely new idea.

Or to quote Einstein:
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."