Uncovering the Mystery of Quantum Foam

[wolram]

From Wikipidia
John Wheeler derived the concept of the quantum foam in 1955. It is also referred to as spacetime foam and bears a superficial resemblance to the old concept of the ether (or Aether).
How does the time component of this" foam" progress? is it governed
by the expansion rate of the U? or some more basic evolution.

 

[marlon]

From Wikipidia
John Wheeler derived the concept of the quantum foam in 1955. It is also referred to as spacetime foam and bears a superficial resemblance to the old concept of the ether (or Aether).
How does the time component of this" foam" progress? is it governed
by the expansion rate of the U? or some more basic evolution.

Check out the LQG introduction in this sub-forum.

The concept is that one can construct a volume-operator and it's spectrum is discrete. This means that the manifold we work with is a mere superposition of very small grains of volume, each denoted by a quantum-number. think of space time as being made out of little grains...This granular structure of space time really is the very base of LQG. The time is not quantized ofcourse, only space is...

But don't compare this to the aether since this way of working is background independent...

Here is an extract :

In LQG space has a “granular” structure that represents the fact that space is divided into elementary space-quanta of which the dimensions can be measured in LQG. The main problem of QFT is the fact that it relies on the existence of some physical background. As stated one of the main postulates of LQG is the fact that we need background independence. The diffeomorfisms give us the possibility to go from one metric to another and the physical laws must remain the same. Basically some physical state in LQG is a superposition over all possible backgrounds or in other words a physical state is a wavefunction over all geometries

marlon

 

[nightcleaner]

This means that the manifold we work with is a mere superposition of very small grains of volume, each denoted by a quantum-number. think of space time as being made out of little grains...This granular structure of space time really is the very base of LQG. The time is not quantized ofcourse, only space is...
marlon

Hi Wolram, and Marlon

I am just curious about what you think of the idea that space and time are equivalent. You say, Marlon, that space is quantized but time is not...I wonder how one can be quantized and the other isn't. I believe the ST equivalence argument has to do with the speed of light, and the fact that a very small volume of space is filled with a radient event in a very short time. Doesn't quantized space then imply a time quanta?

Thanks,

Richard

 

[Chronos]

I agree with nightcleaner. I see no way to quantize space and not time without introducing background dependence.

 

[spicerack]

are all units of quantum foam the same size ?

Am I right in imagining a bubble bath of bubbles all connected to each other except all the bubbles are the same shape and size or as in a real bath they are not ?

...with each bubble haviing a universe inside it that evolved from the bubble beside it reaching a critical mass then forcing another bubble to be blown out from it..ad infinitum

 

[marlon]

Maybe i should have expressed myself more clearly...sorry for that...

First about time : indeed time is discrete but when i meant it is not quantized i wanted to say that in LQG space is divided into these little quanta of space. I should not have brought up this time-aspect because it was not my main point, sorry for that.


Secondly, i quote my own LQG-introduction :

The main consequence of Loop Quantum Gravity is the fact that our space-time-continuum is no longer infinitely divisible. In LQG space has a “granular” structure that represents the fact that space is divided into elementary space-quanta of which the dimensions can be measured in LQG. The main problem of QFT is the fact that it relies on the existence of some physical background. As stated one of the main postulates of LQG is the fact that we need background independence. The diffeomorfisms give us the possibility to go from one metric to another and the physical laws must remain the same. Basically some physical state in LQG is a superposition over all possible backgrounds or in other words a physical state is a wavefunction over all geometries...


Quantization is indeed NOT the same as 'being discrete'

By quantizing a physical theory, operators that calculate physical quantities will acquire a certain set of possible outcomes or values. It can be proven that in our case the area of the surface between two nodes is quantized and the corresponding quantumnumbers can be denoted along a link. These surfaces I am referring are drawn as purple triangles. In this way a three-dimensional space can be constructed.


One can also assign a quantumnumber which each node, that corresponds to the volume of the grain. Finally, a physical state is now represented as a superposition of such spin-networks.

marlon

 

[marcus]

some physical state in LQG is a superposition over all possible backgrounds or in other words a physical state is a wavefunction over all geometries...

I am curious, in your understanding of LQG, how is the set of all geometries represented mathematically?

Then, as you say, a physical state is a wavefunction defined on the set of all geometries. Can you give me an example of such a function? I suppose it is complex valued. If I pick a "geometry" from your set of all geometries then your wavefunction will be able to compute a complex number from it.

I suppose then that the wavefunction, because it is defined on the set of all geometries, can be thought of as a state of geometry.

I have deleted my objections since I don't want to argue. I think it is possible for you to have one LQG in mind and for me to have another. As long as we understand that we are talking about two different things we don't have to come to agreement. Your viewpoint may be perfectly valid and it would just be a waste of energy for one to try to convince the other.

BTW let me point out exactly where we part company:

This means that the manifold we work with is a mere superposition of very small grains of volume, each denoted by a quantum-number. think of space time as being made out of little grains...This granular structure of space time really is the very base of LQG.

in the LQG that I know space is not made out of little grains.
and a manifold (a differential manifold, a continuum) can only be one thing. It is nothing else than a manifold as one works with it in differential geometry. In the LQG of my experience space is represented by a differential manifold, and therefore space is a continuum. It is the geometry imposed on this continuum which (along with matter) is quantized. Perhaps I am wrong to make this distinction. But I do make it, so I cannot think of space as being made up of little grains.

I think the most comfortable thing would be for us simply to agree that we are talking about two different LQGs.

 

[marlon]

I am curious, in your understanding of LQG, how is the set of all geometries represented mathematically?

Again i quote the introduction :

Well, we want background independence, so we must be able to chose any metric or connection we want in order to describe our manifold we are working on. In the early stages of LQG all possible metrics were used in order to implement this concept of back-ground-independence. A certain physical state was then represented as a probability-density containing all these metrics. This way of working was not very practical and in the mid-eighties it was even replaced by a description based upon the set of connections instead of all possible metrics.

So basically, when we speak about 'all geometries' then you just integrate out all the indices of the connections. This is just like the 'sum over all possible connections (and they describe the manifolds and thus the geometries)'

in the LQG that I know space is not made out of little grains.

ANSWER : SPIN NETWORKS

I don't think i get your objection here, but to state my point i refer to the Rovelli-article at the end of the LQG-intro. You will need to look in my journal at the very last page...Point is that in LQG (at least alla Rovelli and friends) you connect for example three spheres by lines that are called the links. The spheres are the quanta of space...and these are the granulae i keep on referring to.

This is a very short version of my point but please, i refer to the above mentioned article

regards
marlon

 

[spicerack]

In the loop quantum universe everything is quantized, or discrete, including time. Space can be chopped up into discrete 'cubes', just 10-99 cm3. One cube would equal the smallest unit of space, but it is not 'empty' space; each cube incorporates space, time and matter in the form of intersecting 'loops'.

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v433/n7021/full/433012a_r.html

 

[marlon]

Besides it is important to realize that in LQG, space is replaced by the spin networks and spacetime is replaced by spinfoams which are a 'history' of spin networks or the superposition of all spin networks at some time interval delta t...

Just like a line is the description of the history of a point (eg Feynman diagrams), is the spinfoam a description of the history of a node or even a spin network. These spinfoams are DISCRETE quantumgeometries (one spinnetwork per second ...) and over a period of time, the superposition of these spin-networks evolves into a smooth continuous space if you don't look at distancescales that are 'too' small.

Thus : spacetime is smooth but space and time apart are indeed discrete in nature. That is my point

marlon

 

[nightcleaner]

From Wikipidia
John Wheeler derived the concept of the quantum foam in 1955. It is also referred to as spacetime foam and bears a superficial resemblance to the old concept of the ether (or Aether).
How does the time component of this" foam" progress? is it governed
by the expansion rate of the U? or some more basic evolution.

Hi wolram

I don't really understand much so please don't take anything I put forward as an authority. But I have found some satisfaction in looking for better questions rather than in looking for answers. Perhaps I can apply a logic to your first question here.

"How does the time component of this "foam" progress?"

Well surely this question can be made more compact, anyway. The idea of progress and the idea of a time component are closely connected. The problem is highlighted by asking more simply, how does time progress? I would ask then, how can it not?

But this is not to gut the meaning from your question, but to find a way to make a better question. Perhaps the bowels of your question can be brought back in by asking, "How does this foam progress (in time?)"

Well progress is a relitive term and may not be what you really want here? Could we substitute another word and not lose the meaning? Could we sub another word, and make the meaning more clear? Progress. Advance. Evolve. Develop.

Well all these words seem to me to be emotionally weighted, not that that is in itself a bad thing, but is it needed here? What if we try a neutral emotive word, such as change? "How does quantum foam change in time?"

Probably you have seen the same pictures I have seen, of quantum foam looking something like suds in a washing machine. It leaps up and down and curls back on itself and does all sorts of cute tricks. I am not sure what up and down and cute or even curl mean in quantum foam terms, but perhaps the use of these words show how wrong the picture is. It does give us an idea, but, for example, it usually is shown as a surface. Surface of what? Foam in a washing machine has a surface. But what quantum scale surface is being referred to in the washing machine image?

Foam in a washing machine is a bright analogy and easy to remember. But like most analogy it must not be pushed to absurdity, however tempting that may be to a reductionist. Instead, let me try to find the meaningful parts of the analogy.

Foam has bubbles. What are the bubbles meant to represent in quantum terms? A bubble is a gas under pressure in a liquid. Foam is a special case bubble, which has a closed cell structure in a liguid reduced to a collection of membrane-like surfaces under tension. Is quantum foam the bubbles, or the membranes, or a combination of the two?

Well we know about branes in quantum theory, sort of, except these liquid membranes in soap foam are not exactly the branes of brane theory. A bubble membrane is locally a two dimensional surface which at a larger scale curves back on itself and is closed in three dimensions.

Quantum theory seems to me to be much concerned with the idea of geometry in higher dimensions. Foam in a washing machine is a three dimensional model with time thrown in as agitation. A single instant of foam looks rather like a closed cell sponge, which has the same form without all the agitation. Throw in time as a fourth dimension and you can start and stop the action at will, something like taking a closed cell sponge and slicing it into thin layers, then looking at the layers in sequence. In a series of thin slices, you might see a bubble or cell open up, expand, and close again, more or less as a bubble in an agitated soap foam might grow, merge with other bubbles, and eventually reach the outer surface of the foam where it might pop, releasing its pressure and the tension on the membrane locally and so collapsing back to whence it came.

Consider the sponge slices again. You can look at the sponge slices in sequence and watch a bubble emerge, grow, and collapse. But what is it really? The sponge was chosen as an image of a single instant in foam. How can we now take a single instant, slice it fine, lay it out in sequence, and see a progression in time?

We can do this because in this case it is easy to see how space and time are the same thing. We slice space without time, and see development.

Now to progress to a higher dimensional model, we have to do the same thing, only we are slicing a four dimensional structure into a sequence of three dimensional images. So we see the whole sponge, perhaps as a living animal or perhaps as a chemical process, and we see it first as a baby sponge, then as a slightly older sponge, then again slightly older, and so on as it grows. So a sequence of three dimensional sponges demonstrates the life cycle of a sponge in four dimensions.

Only in a living sponge, the animal, in its growth sequence, experiences all kinds of events, some favorable to growth, others catastrophic. So each sponge that grows experiences a different history and so no two sponges are really identical. You can't really watch a single bubble develop in live sponges by slicing them into bits. But maybe you get the idea.

A fourth dimensional view, to be comprehensive, has to include all the possible sponges. How does a sponge grow? How does a quantum foam change in time? We have to generalize. How many different ways can it change? We have to include all of the ways it can change, or our answer is incomplete.

In this sense, looking at the washing machine model, we have to look at all the possible forms of bubbles. Some leap up and down, some merge with others, still others are divided. There is no contradiction because one leaps up while the other is falling down. There is no contradiction because one grows while another shrinks, no contradiction because one merges with another, or another divides into many smaller copies of itself. Foam bubbles do all these things.

Compare and contrast. In what way is foam like quantum process? Where does the analogy fail to describe reality? I cannot give you an answer, but maybe I have helped you find a better question. What I have concluded from all this is that fourth dimensional reality includes every possible outcome of any situation. You will, of course, draw your own conclusions.

Be well,

Richard

 

[spicerack]

if space is foamlike what causes more foam to be made causing objects to recede from each other at sometimes faster than light speeds ?

Is inflation happening at a boundary of an expanding spherical universe or injected into every point in the universe ?

see white hole thread for an even more nonsensical attempted expanded form of the question.

Sorry, if it is a dumb question or irrelevent

 

[Chronos]

I resist the graininess analogy. I'm more inclined to think of it as blurriness. In my mind space and time are coordinate systems describing topological relationships between particles in the universe. I'm also inclined to think gravity is a form of quantum entanglement between particles that originated in the big bang singularity.

 

[spicerack]

This is what i think I'm talking about...

The idea of space being made of discrete quanta might introduce further
conceptual problems. In an expanding model new cells have to be produced
to fill in the gaps. But if we make analogy with cell division in living or-
ganisms, how are cells produced without error? Because presumably there
is no analogy with DNA, there seems the need of providing “scaffolding” to
force cells to have their correct form. One might try and claim the classical
equations impose this by stricture, but if only a few cells are present the
classical structure is still unformed. Constant quantum fluctuations at short
distance have continually now to be kept in check.

continue here...

Contrasting Quantum Cosmologies
D.H. Coule
Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation,
University of Portsmouth, Mercantile House, Hampshire Terrace,
Portsmouth PO1 2EG.

Abstract
We compare the recent loop quantum cosmology approach of Bo-
jowald and co-workers with earlier quantum cosmological schemes.
Because the weak-energy condition can now be violated at short dis-
tances, and not necessarily with a high energy density, a bounce from
an earlier collapsing phase might easier be implemented. However,
this approach could render flat space unstable to rapid expansion or
baby universe production; unless a Machian style principle can be in-
voked. It also seems to require a flipping in the arrow of time, and vi-
olates notions of unitarity, on passing through the bounce. Preventing
rapid oscillations in the wavefunction seems incompatible with more
general scalar-tensor gravity theories or other classically accelerating
solutions.
Other approaches such as “creation from nothing” or from some
quiescent state, static or time machine, are also assessed on grounds
of naturalness and fine tuning.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0312/0312045.pdf

...can someone please interpret for me and others not mathematically inclined ?

cheers

 

[marcus]

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0312/0312045.pdf

...can someone please interpret for me and others not mathematically inclined ?

hi spicerack, when you give links to arxiv it would be extra helpful if you could give the link to the ABSTRACT page like this

http://xxx.lanl.gov/gr-qc/0312045

that saves us the trouble of copying and pasting and then editing your link to make it not link to the PDF, before we can use it to get the abstract

it is advisable to always look over the abstract page, with its links, first.

if you go directly to the abstract, it is helpful because there are further links there to important things like WHO HAS CITED the paper, and
there is often information about HAS IT MADE IT THRU PEER REVIEW into a scholarly publication
and HOW MANY TIMES HAS THE GUY REVISED IT
and also, very important, WHAT OTHER PAPERS HAS THE GUY WRITTEN AND PUBLISHED

for instance this paper is a 2003 paper, so it has had a couple of years to make it thru the peer review process. I will look now and see.

==============

hmmm, sorry to disappoint you
the paper has been revised 3 times, it has not made publication
it has not been cited to any significant extent: just once by the author himself in another of his own (somewhat marginal) papers, and once
apparently as a courtesy in a Bojowald paper that came out within a month or so of this one.

Bojowald refers non-committally to Coule's analysis of some other kinds of quantum gravity. He does not mention Coule's discussion of LQG

"... generically, curvatures and energy densities still diverge and the classical singularity presents a boundary to the evolution (in some special models one can argue for a more regular behavior in a different sense, see e.g. [31])..."

In the past, Coule, the author, has struck me as someone who is out of touch. has no reliable understanding of LQG, and who writes papers that would interest few if any working cosmologists. But I always want to re-check my impressions, because I want to be accurate in judging what papers I need to read (with limited time).

So in this case I was glad to go to the abstract,
check for possible publication, and use the links there to see what other papers Coule has written and where they have been published etc.
I might have discovered signs that Coule had suddenly become creative and excellent and risen to the forefront!
But in fact did not.

 

[spicerack]

thanks Marcus for the link tip

I'm not disappointed but i would still like to know how and where units of space come from and are inputted into the universe to allow for expansion

can you help ?

cheers

 

[nightcleaner]

Perhaps Spicerack, you will be happy with a model of "explosive" expansion, such as would be found, for example, in a pressure cooker where the pressure and temperature were raised above the boiling point, and then the pressure is suddenly reduced, say by removing the lid. Don't try this at home.

In this model, bubbles form very quickly throughout the liquid. A bubble forming creates a temporary balance in the pressure, but when it reaches maximum size it quits growing, and at that point the water in the walls of the bubble may be free to start new bubbles.

If the universe we know is made of some condensed form of matter suddenly released into a vacuum, the bubbles would form and expand from the bulk of the membrane. Maybe this idea is falsifiable.

We still havn't addressed the question of what the membrane is made of in quantum foam, nor how a super condensed matter came to be released into a vacuum. We don't really have a clear idea of what vacuum is.

My point is that your line of speculation is possible, but we need something that can be tested experimentally, or at least by observation in the cosmic laboratory. I am also struggling with this in my own visualizations.

Be well,

nc

 

[nightcleaner]

Quantization is indeed NOT the same as 'being discrete'

By quantizing a physical theory, operators that calculate physical quantities will acquire a certain set of possible outcomes or values. It can be proven that in our case the area of the surface between two nodes is quantized and the corresponding quantumnumbers can be denoted along a link. These surfaces I am referring are drawn as purple triangles. In this way a three-dimensional space can be constructed.

marlon

I think this difference is worth exploring. But I am still not clear on the implications of the difference. My first thought is that it has to do with countability. If the discrete quanta are blurry, we may not be able to count them. But perhaps the blurr is correctable somehow, as is near-sightedness, or dirty lenses. Or maybe the blurr is fundamental to the uncertainty principle.

I would like to know more about the difference between quantizable and discrete, if anyone has any thoughts.

I am not sure about the purple trianges...is this a reference to dynamical triangulations? Could we have a link here?

Thanks,

nc

 

[marcus]

thanks Marcus for the link tip

I'm not disappointed but i would still like to know how and where units of space come from and are inputted into the universe to allow for expansion

can you help ?

cheers

I will try to help.
first the answer to any question depends on the model.
(all human models eventually get proven wrong, you just keep testing them until they fail and get replaced by something that is better)
right now the prevailing theory of spacetime is Gen Rel (1915)

LQG is a possible eventual replacement but is still incomplete and untested.

In Gen Rel there are no units of space. Space can expand simply by distances between places getting longer, without any gaps forming.
Space is entirely unlike a material. what expands is something rather abstract---the distance-function or "metric" does the expanding. just by its distance readings getting longer. there is no material expansion.

LQG is like Gen Rel.in this.However there is a popular misconception that it has "GRAINS" of space. On the contrary, that is not how real LQG is built. It is built on a smooth continuum just like Gen Rel.
So space can expand, in LQG treatment e.g. in LQC cosmology papers by Bojowald, without any grains being needed!

So i would say your question is disconnected from reality, so don't worry about it. the granularity mistake comes when well-intentioned people try to give a popular explanation and then they use simplifications, images, metaphors, loose comparisons etc. and people get the idea that they understand and that LQG space is granular and to be thought of as made of little grains. Regrettable. But it can happen

So do not worry about it is all i can say. THERE ARE NO UNITS OF SPACE in any physics theory I know of. Certainly not in LQG, but i will keep an eye out for it in other theories just in case.
indeed there are units of MEASUREMENT, like square inch and Planck length. But SPACE IS NOT A MATERIAL SUBSTANCE so one does not need to have units or chunks or tiles or cells or grains of it.

It worries me a little that you are asking this:
" i would still like to know how and where units of space come from and are inputted into the universe to allow for expansion"
Where did you get the idea that there are units of space that have to be inputted into the universe? Did someone here at PF give you this idea?

 

[nightcleaner]

thanks Marcus for the link tip

I'm not disappointed but i would still like to know how and where units of space come from and are inputted into the universe to allow for expansion

can you help ?

cheers

Hi again.

Space units can come from time units, via velocity. I think you really need to clear up the spacetime confusion. Have you read Flatland?

nc

 

[marcus]

Hi again.

Space units can come from time units, via velocity. I think you really need to clear up the spacetime confusion. Have you read Flatland?

nc

units of measurement
like meter foot second
a lightyear is a unit of length that comes from the year a unit of time

but be careful Richard because I think spicerack does not mean units of measurement (like square yard, quart, liter, acre etc)
spicerack really means what she says----a unit of SPACE
as if you could get space in cans or frozen packages and bring it in and INPUT IT INTO THE UNIVERSE (as spicerack says) to provide for expansion.

like if you have a growing child you input units of food so it can grow.

 

[nightcleaner]

units of measurement
like meter foot second
a lightyear is a unit of length that comes from the year a unit of time

but be careful Richard because I think spicerack does not mean units of measurement (like square yard, quart, liter, acre etc)
spicerack really means what she says----a unit of SPACE
as if you could get space in cans or frozen packages and bring it in and INPUT IT INTO THE UNIVERSE (as spicerack says) to provide for expansion.

like if you have a growing child you input units of food so it can grow.

Hi Marcus.

Yes, I thought about asking Spicerack about that. Where does the input come from?

I take your caution seriously. So I want to look at the conditions some more, to see what they are made of. Personally, I fear we cannot isolate a unit of space from its units of time, without finding unresolvable paradox, like the moving finger penetrating flatland...it looks to flatlanders as an impossible fleshly globe that appears and dissappears as it will.

So IMHO being is extended in time, and deserves to get chunked up into smaller pieces, at least from our point of view. The boundaries between chunks may turn out to be horizons. I have observed, from time to time, and even had prescience to make sense of the observation, that being is not conserved in the fourth dimension.

Thanks,

nc

 

[marcus]

Hi Marcus.

... unresolvable paradox, like the moving finger penetrating flatland...it looks to flatlanders as an impossible fleshly globe that appears and dissappears as it will.
...

NC in what theory are there "units of space"?
I don't mean units of measurement like cubic yard
I really mean "units of space"

I don't know of any physical theory in which such things appear or play a role. maybe you do.

Where the dickens did spicerack get this notion? it is likely to cause a big waste of time if people get the notion it is associated with some scientific theory which it is not.

BTW I never read Flatland. Is there a Moving Finger in the story?

there is someone named MF at this forum. could have taken the name from Flatland?

 

[nightcleaner]

Hi Marcus

Flatland is a non-mathematical treatment of dimensionality, worthy reading I think. There is a finger, but I am just mixing up the metaphores, part of my creative process. It amuses me; I don't intend to confuse anyone.

I don't know about the unit of space thing. I am still trying to get my mind around what you are saying. I do take it seriously.

 

[marcus]

There is a finger, but I am just mixing up the metaphores, part of my creative process. It amuses me; I don't intend to confuse anyone.

I wasnt confused. I am just trying to guess where the poster called Moving Finger got his name. My first guess was it was an echo from the Rubaiyat of omar khayam. there is a famous moving finger there.

his name is bound to be a literary reference of some sort.

I know a bit ABOUT the book Flatland but nver read it. the sphere that appears and disappears suddenly (as finger penetrates flatland and withdraws) makes perfect sense. I've had my own flatland fantasies and when people tell me things from the book they don't sound too unfamiliar.

 

[nightcleaner]

Units of space. Granularity. hmmmm.

A figure can be closed in three dimensions and yet open in four. In three dimensions, it looks like a sphere. Add the space-like time dimension, and it looks like a cone or a rod or something. Maybe a string of sausages. Maybe an isomatrix.

Think of a slice through a garden hose. It forms a circle, which is closed in two dimensions. However, in three dimensions, the hose is open at both ends. By extension of this argument, a closed figure in three dimensions may be open in four. Although we sense being as a closed figure, having limits in every direction in space, we also know that being has a beginning and an ending in time, and it is an open question if those time limits are horizons, which appear to us a boundaries, or actual boundaries, which we can actually touch and feel. What graffitti artist can scrawl a gnomen on the horizon? How do you get to the horizon to touch it, or scrawl your name? Everyone has a horizon in time, perhaps, but you can't exactly plant a flag on it. Does this make sense to anyone other than me?

nc

 

[nightcleaner]

I think you are right about the MF reference. Thanks for providing the text of that poem in the other thread.

So for discussion, can we talk about spacetime units instead of space units? I am happy to agree that space units are not well-defined. But questions like what came before the BB assume that the universe is open at that end...if we take the point of view that the BB is the beginning of space and time, the question about before the BB becomes meaningless. North of the north pole, you see. This is a case where we really need a better question.

nc

 

[nightcleaner]

what I am saying is that in LQG there are not any "units of space" in the sense of granules.
It is totally irresponsible to suggest to people that to understand LQG they should think of space as composed of little grains.

no techical paper would support this view. A non-mathematical popularization paper by Rovelli has been cited in support, as if it were
anything more than a popular account.

Yeah, I see what you mean I think. The problem is that there is a popular demand for explanations that do not involve complicated mathematics. Can Rovelli be condemned for making a quick and easy buck? Can the public be condemned for wanting quick and easy answers?

Many people do not have the time or ability to study abstract reasoning, let alone mathematics. Can mathematicians have anything to say to them? Or should we just not try to communicate?

I like your thread on force constant partly because of the way it makes the math easier, more accessible. But it is still math. 8piG doesn't mean bacon to most folks.

nc

 

[nightcleaner]

I am sorry to have to leave this here. I have to go to work and will be back mid-morning, I hope.

The open question, I think, has to do with granularity...is it ok to talk about a granular, closed spatial structure, in relation to LQG, which is a four dimensional theory?

And, more fundamentally, can we speak meaningfully of a four-dimensional geometry, in a way that makes sense to three dimensional viewers who want to know? My approach has been to try to develop 4D glasses, so we can look at the red and the purple and the green view, in quick succession, to get an idea of what the 4_D reality is.

Be well, and I hope for more on this topic.

Thanks,

Richard.

 

[spicerack]

hmmm...

ok so what is Marlon talking about

The main consequence of Loop Quantum Gravity is the fact that our space-time-continuum is no longer infinitely divisible. In LQG space has a “granular” structure that represents the fact that space is divided into elementary space-quanta of which the dimensions can be measured in LQG.

i wanted to say that in LQG space is divided into these little quanta of space.

...sounds like a unit of space to me

correct me if I am wrong but at T=0 there was only compressed matter , no space, no time, then BANG...space expands between the matter and forces it out at superluminal speed meaning a distance is traveled in a certain time.

In LQG a loop is the smallest link in the fabric of spacetime connected to other links and so on to form the universe minus the objects in it.

So if the universe is expanding and more space/loops is being added to the fabric/universe then where are these loops/units of space/elementary space quanta coming from ?

What is fuelling the expansion to create more of the universe ?

In another thread I suggested 3 speculative ways of which I really know nothing about and was seeking some clarification or at the least a complete refutation. They were a white hole, a black hole bounce or a cell like structure where space divides and mulitplies like a self organizing bacteria...

does that make sense or am I making a critical error in assumption ?

 

[marcus]

hmmm...

ok so what is Marlon talking about

The main consequence of Loop Quantum Gravity is the fact that our space-time-continuum is no longer infinitely divisible. In LQG space has a “granular” structure that represents the fact that space is divided into elementary space-quanta of which the dimensions can be measured in LQG.

i wanted to say that in LQG space is divided into these little quanta of space.

...sounds like a unit of space to me

correct me if I am wrong but at T=0 there was only compressed matter , no space, no time, then BANG...space expands between the matter and forces it out at superluminal speed meaning a distance is traveled in a certain time.

In LQG a loop is the smallest link in the fabric of spacetime connected to other links and so on to form the universe minus the objects in it.

So if the universe is expanding and more space/loops is being added to the fabric/universe then where are these loops/units of space/elementary space quanta coming from ?

What is fuelling the expansion to create more of the universe ?

In another thread I suggested 3 speculative ways of which I really know nothing about and was seeking some clarification or at the least a complete refutation. They were a white hole, a black hole bounce or a cell like structure where space divides and mulitplies like a self organizing bacteria...

does that make sense or am I making a critical error in assumption ?

You ask what is marlon talking about. I cannot say what he is talking about. In any case it is not academic-level LQG that you would find in standard textbook-style presentations by the usual LQG people (Rovelli, Thiemann, Ashtekar, Smolin). It sounds like he got it from brief, not-to-careful reading of one (or more) popularized account(s). Or is making it up. I don't know what marlon is talking about. It is not actual LQG or any allied approach to quantum gravity that I know.

I guess it is "marlon-LQG"

he cites a populariized non-math account by Rovelli as his source.

I think it's fine to use popularized accounts as an introduction, to get acquainted at the start, but you have to recognize that you are getting a non-mathematical impressionistic version. don't get hung up on the initial verbal description.

What is fuelling the expansion to create more of the universe ?

Spicerack the idea that it should need fuel in order to expand is not intuitive to me. In Gen Rel (1915) the universe just naturally expands, without any fuel, or it contracts (without any "anti-fuel" ). Why should it need fuel?

Admittedly the expansion process can be slowed down or speeded up by various types of matter. ordinary matter tends to slow it down. a hypothetical mathematical entity called "dark energy" which may or may not exist would tend to speed expansion up (if it exists). But if simple expansion or contraction is all you want, the 1915 theory does not need these things! In standard old Gen Rel, the best theory of spacetime we have up till now, pure empty space will either expand or contract of its own accord without any extra stuff, without assuming any "dark energy" and even without any matter in it. Which it does depends on how you start it out.

this goes for LQG too. It tries to copy Gen Rel fairly closely and deal with the same things, but in a realistically uncertain way (quantum does not always mean discrete or granular, it can have to do with how we represent the incomplete information that we have about what we observe).
In LQG also the universe can simply expand, or simply contract, without any fuel.

It is interesting that you include the idea of a "bounce", spicerack. In LQG at the end of a contraction there is not a singularity where time ends but a changeover to expansion. I guess contraction to a point would represent too much certainty and "pin the universe down" too much. heh heh. Honestly i can't give you a clear simple explanation for why you get bounce. In standard 1915 Gen Rel you have singularities. If you copy Gen Rel as closely and faithfully as you know how but include "quantum-mechanics-style" uncertainty and incomplete knowledge, then the mathematics that results makes the classical singularities go away! You get a bounce instead.

remember there is no "fuel" and there are no "grains" or "units" of space that have to be taken away or added. those are naive popularization ideas.

but the bounce idea is very real and comes out of the mathematics and is discussed in many technical journal-articles. So it belongs to real-LQG.
i am glad you brought it up.

 

[spicerack]

thanks once again Marcus I realize the frustration you may feel in coming down to my level of understanding

is it then safe to assume that no one knows as yet where all the space is coming from to make the universe bigger ?

that is to say is it just empty space bouncing back or is there no such thing as empty space ?...actually that would imply a finite volume of space constantly getting recycled but this isn't the case so it must be coming from somewhere. Leaking from another dimension you reckon ?

with regards to the "fuel" thing. It is because accepting natural and perpetual expansion/contraction is counterintutitve to me. It reminds me of a balloon that is getting bigger wwithout something blowing it up or adding more air to it.

on a stringy note...if at every point in spacetime exists a C-Y manifold and the universe is expanding then it is reasonable to assume there are more manifolds popping into existence somewhere also or is the background larger than the size of the universe and extends out to a possible infinite multiverse with our universe constantly moving into the dependent background or maybe manfold reproduction is happening by division and multiplication as in cell structure as well ?

apologies for getting way out there with the dumb questions but if i don't ask i'll always be wondering and never forgive myself for not asking when i had the chance

 

[nightcleaner]

Hi Marcus and Spicerack

And I too would like to add my thanks to Marcus for taking time to explain these things. I am also a student here, and sorry not to be a better one. But, we all have to work with what we are given.

Spicerack, a balloon requires energy to blow it up because you have to do work against the surface tension in the stretched elastic material. But it should not be counter intuitive to use a different common physical model if you need one. How about a dust cloud in free space? It expands, spreads out, due to the scattering and, I think I am using this correctly, Brownian motion of the particles in the cloud.

I too am working to get what Marcus says about the difference between expanding units and space expanding in and of itself. Again, as in the dust cloud, space does not have to come into the dust cloud from anywhere...it just is there, and the dust cloud expands to occupy it.

I don't know if Marcus will like this model either. In fact, I am sure it is not exactly right. To really understand these things, we probably need to do away with the need for models entirely, and just rely on the beauty of the mathematics itself.

nc

 

[spicerack]

thanks NC

but it seems to me that if we relied solely on the beauty of the maths we would have the very problems we have with string theory, where the maths provide more solutions than we require answers for and cannot be empirically tested aginst actual reality.

Besides I'm no good with maths and I suspect neither is 98% of the population so it wouldn't do me any good and I really do want to know what the best guess for a first cause is and the lasting effect of a theory of everything. I'm destined it seems to ask dumb questions that maybe no one knows the answers to

With regards to the balloon analogy wasn't there and still is energy coming from somewhere to "fuel" the expansion ?...cos I really don't get how the universe does it. If it is left over from the big bang then to me it implies a leading edge/horizon and besides inflation shouldn't be speeding up and there shouldn't be more space being created.

Am I confusing anybody but myself more ?

please continue to help a simple inquisitive observer trying to keep things simple while events conspire to keep things complicated

 

[nightcleaner]

Hi Spicerack

Well the dust cloud doesn't need additional energy to expand, it just does so because all of its particles are moving randomly, and since there are more directions away from the center than there are directions toward the center, more particles move outward than inward. Hence the cloud expands. Of course it has a certain amount of energy, but it doesn't need any more energy, if you see what I mean. And no one is injecting any space into the middle.

It is a principle in physics that when a substance is concentrated in one area, it tends to spread out over time to occupy all the space that is available to it. I recommend that you do not become fixated on anyone model, but try all the models you can think of.

Richard

 

[marcus]

...With regards to the balloon analogy wasn't there and still is energy coming from somewhere to "fuel" the expansion ?...cos I really don't get how the universe does it. If it is left over from the big bang then to me it implies a leading edge/horizon and besides inflation shouldn't be speeding up and there shouldn't be more space being created.
...

hi spicerack, and Richard too!

you two are doing fine in exploring these basic questions
I only came into the discussion because I get enraged when i hear someone say that in LQG space is divided into little bits.
the exasperating thing is that measurements about geometry DO get discretized in LQG so there is information that one system has about another, geometrical information, that does turn out to be discrete. So it is one of these ideas that creates confusion because it is ALMOST true.
And maybe indeed in some other perfectly nice theory space is divided up into little bits! Just please don't attribute that idea of LQG. I do not think people yet have the right theory of what space and time are. I don't know how the right theory will turn out.

The big questions are not about specific theories that people are working on. The big questions are much simpler. and cannot be encompassed by asking about some particular theoryl The fact is, i am fundamentally clueless about what space is or how to think of it. I cannot answer your questions, which are fundamental questions. So I am very glad that you keep patiently asking and speculating between yourselves about it. this is even, in a sense, your job. it needs to be done so that people will be constantly reminded of what they don't know.

For example, I think important questions are like

Why is the light redshifted?

You spicerack have probably wondered. We get all this light from far-off galaxies. when u study it thru a prism u see a pattern of lines that show that it originally was much higherfrequency shorter wavelength light, because atoms like hydrogen and sodium have a signature in the lines and the pattern has been shifted. we recognize the signature of atoms but the pattern has been stretched out. Why? How did this happen?

It doesn't seem to work to try to explain it by DOPPLER. you try to put together a jigsaw of different redshifts from different galaxies and if you try to attribut the shift to a SPEED that the galaxy had when it spit out the light, then you have to put togethere this jigsaw of thousands of speeds and it doesn't work. People keep trying but no realistic picture emerges that cosmologists can accept. So we conclude that the redshift IS NOT DUE TO THE SPEED THE GALAXY HAD WHEN IT EMITTED THE LIGHT.

the picture that has emerged over 70 some years is that the redshift is due to all the distance increase that happened in the space that the light traveled thru while it was traveling

this is an extremely strange idea. you are right to question it constantly and say over and over again "How can this be?" And i cannot answer you
(not only am I not the expert authority who should answer but I also find it quite strange)

All I can tell you is that we have so far only one theory of gravity that works well, Gen Rel. that is the only one that gives really accurate answers about little things like the light-bending angle and tiny distortions of time.
And Gen Rel has no solutions for the universe except where distances are constantly increasing (or, in other case, decreasing)

this doesn't mean that Gen Rel is true. only that we don't yet have anything that works better. it doesn't mean that distances are increasing, that is merely a theoretical result of Gen Rel.

however this business of distances increasing seems to explain the redshift!

indeed it predicted it ahead of time. Gen Rel came in 1915 and the redshift was noticed around 1930 if I remember.

Now the increasing distance business in Gen Rel DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY FUEL. It is, so to speak, just how distance behaves.
Gen Rel, at most basic level, is a theory (which matches observation out to 6 or so decimal places) of how distance behaves.

It says that it is not realistic to expect the distance between two stationary galaxies to remain the same. It would take fuel to keep them the same distance from each other. If you do nothing then the distance between quietly gets larger.

and this seems to be the simplest consistent explanation of the stretched out wavelength pattern in the light of thousands of galaxies that we are all the time getting.

and yet is is a profoundly strange and almost unacceptable idea

and furthermore, since all human theories are eventually proven wrong, we know in particular that Gen Rel will eventually be replaced, so we cannot even say that this idea is certain to be true. yet there is nothing better.

you see what a problem

 

[marcus]

Have to say that as a practical matter I have very high confidence in Gen Rel and in the quantized versions of it that are emerging under the heading of LQG. I don't expect better for a long time and suspect that eventual replacements of Gen Rel will retain salient features like expansion and modeling gravity geometrically. I may sound too agonizing and plagued by doubts in prev. post, but have to emphasize lack of certainty.
On a more upbeat note, a lot of progress is being made and so on.

In another thread Moving Finger cited this Lineweaver Davis article called "expanding confusion". It is a good thing to read as a cure for people's confusions about expansion.
Here is a quote from page 18 in the "conclusions" section at the end:

" An abundance of observational evidence supports the general relativistic big bang model of the universe. The duration of supernovae light curves shows that models predicting no expansion are in conflict with observation. Using magnitude-redshift data from supernovae we were able to rule out the SR interpretation of cosmological redshifts at the approx. 23 sigma level. Together these observations provide strong evidence that the general relativistic interpretation of the cosmological redshifts is preferred over special relativistic and tired light interpretations. "

See how careful. they don't say Gen Rel is RIGHT they say that the alternative explanation that the redshift is from Doppler can be ruled out to 23 sigma confidence level.
that is, one can assume the redshift is due to stretching by expansion of space, not because one can prove it but because the only other reasonable explanation people could think of can be ruled out to extremely high statistical level of confidence (for discussion of that see the main part of the paper)

Here is a link to the "Expanding Confusion" article by Tamara Davis and Charles Lineweaver:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808

 

[wolram]

By Chronos
I resist the graininess analogy. I'm more inclined to think of it as blurriness. In my mind space and time are coordinate systems describing topological relationships between particles in the universe. I'm also inclined to think gravity is a form of quantum entanglement between particles that originated in the big bang singularity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
WOW a whiff of fresh air, you could be right chronos, give it a couple
more years and people may look to ideas like this.

 

[marlon]

he cites a populariized non-math account by Rovelli as his source.

I think it's fine to use popularized accounts as an introduction, to get acquainted at the start, but you have to recognize that you are getting a non-mathematical impressionistic version. don't get hung up on the initial verbal description.

Sorry marcus but i find it very hard to believe that Rovelli would write an (indeed i admit) very introductory article that is basically wrong in nature. If i made any mistakes, then please do correct me but saying only that this content is wrong is a bit easy in my opinion. Besides, i really don't see why you are always talking about the non-existence of the space-granulae since it is quoted by Rovelli in the article and also in his book. Why is this wrong ? What is it that i misinterpreted about these granulae?

marlon

 

[marlon]

Sorry marcus but i find it very hard to believe that Rovelli would write an (indeed i admit) very introductory article that is basically wrong in nature. If i made any mistakes, then please do correct me but saying only that this content is wrong is a bit easy in my opinion. Besides, i really don't see why you are always talking about the non-existence of the space-granulae since it is quoted by Rovelli in the article and also in his book. Why is this wrong ? What is it that i misinterpreted about these granulae?

marlon

Could someone help me out with my questions, please ?

regards
marlon

 

[marcus]

Could someone help me out with my questions, please ?

regards
marlon

here is primer
it is old (1998) but it is the most elementary treatment I know (that is not a popularization or mere verbal description)

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9806079
Loop quantum gravity and quanta of space: a primer
Carlo Rovelli, Peush Upadhya
11 pages

Abstract: "We present a straightforward and self-contained introduction to the basics of the loop approach to quantum gravity, and a derivation of what is arguably its key result, namely the spectral analysis of the area operator. We also discuss the arguments supporting the physical prediction following this result: that physical geometrical quantities are quantized in a non-trivial, computable, fashion. These results are not new; we present them here in a simple form that avoids the many non-essential complications of the first derivations."

MARLON, if you want to discuss LQQ, please do not try to reproduce ideas from popularized accounts and your impressions taken from other people's verbal imagery. The only way to have any technical knowledge is to assimilate a mathematical treatment, at least beginning level.

this article (Rovelli/Upadhya) is out of date, but it is the simplest technical treatment to start with. I will keep watch to see whether your ideas of LQG change. Right now our notions of it are too different to permit discourse. As long as you are talking about "granulae" or "granules" of space I do not want to try to talk with you. I suspect it would be impossible to communicate.

 

[setAI]

once again- the computational view on the issue of quantized spacetime makes all of these Zeno-esque arguments moot- when the metric is emergent from relationships you've got no problems dealing with a discrete spacetime

 

[spicerack]

sorry setAI

but could you dumb that last post of yours down for me? I would love to know what you said and mean.

Can you post to a link preferably in simple english for a simple person ?

thanks

 

[marlon]

here is primer
it is old (1998) but it is the most elementary treatment I know (that is not a popularization or mere verbal description)

Marcus, in all honesty, have you actually read this article ? I seriously doubt it.

Besides, you call my reference out of date yet this article is 5 years older ?
I mean, really, what's up ?

As long as you are talking about "granulae" or "granules" of space I do not want to try to talk with you. I suspect it would be impossible to communicate.

I am glad you ain't no politician because you sure as hell ain't got no sense for democracy. I am a bit dissapointed here. I mean, dear Marcus, posting arxiv-links and copying their content is NOT how science is done. I have noticed that everytime a topic gets difficult, you tend to back out by saying you are not an authority. Now, i have no problem with this but, then again, don't correct others if you are no specialist (and indeed you are not, you are a librarian). The intention of my intro to LQG was very much what is stated in the actual title, so stop whinning about that.

Whether or not you want to discuss this with my really is your business but please, don't be such a big baby in saying that something correct is wrong. besides you are no king, you cannot insult others by saying their 'vision' of LQG is wrong. I am trying to do something usefull here: i am trying to explain LQG, which i am learning myself. I asked you two specific questions which you did not answer (posting some arxiv-link that you did not even read is not answering my problems). So either, you really help me out or otherwise, just stop demonizing me with respect to others and stop the whinning...

regards
marlon

 

[setAI]

sorry setAI

but could you dumb that last post of yours down for me? I would love to know what you said and mean.

Can you post to a link preferably in simple english for a simple person ?

thanks

the issue here is whether spacetime has a granular quantized structure [or as Lee Smolin refers to it- an atomic structure]

the argument has been that space is granular and the there is no such thing as a truly continuous spacetime- and the other view that granularity does not exist- that spacetime IS continuous and that quantum theories are only approximations so granularity is only added to the equations to get rid of infinities and make them computable-

but the computational view makes this argument go away- because it conjectures that the metric of spacetime emerges from fundamental quantum bit relationships that yield a 'virtual' spacetime metric in which matter/energy are a back-reaction and propagate through the lattice/graph of quantum bits like a cellular automaton [actually they ARE probably a simple quantum cellular automaton- it's likely not just a metaphor]- so that distance itself is expressed as a connection between entangled quantum bits- so spacetime IS granular because the smallest unit of space and time must be the relationship between two quantum bits- [as suggested by the Holographic Principle] but this result speaks NOTHING about the potential continuity of a Euclidean space- because no such space exists!- or it doesn't exist at the level of the quantum universe that we observe because spacetime is essentially a VIRTUAL space generated by quantum computation- it certainly may be that the level of the universe where quantum bits interact [the "natural quantum computer" [black holes in nested spacetimes?] that is running the q-algorithm that generates our spacetime] is continuous in some way- but spatial metrics mean nothing at that level because space-ness and time-ness are virtually emergent from the degrees of freedom of the computations of those q-bits interacting in an orderly causal lattice- so the idea of a Euclidean space that can be infinitely divided is just an idea- QM/ Quantum Gravity [including LQG/ quantum geometry/ BH thermodynamics/ etc] and the Holographic Principle all suggest that space and time emerge from a causal matrix of discrete bits

so spacetime is not discrete per se- but the interacting bits which create the virtual spacetime and define the metric ARE

 

[Mike2]

Maybe I missed something. Are you suggesting that quantum computing is done by something that does not occupy (or is described in terms of) spacetime? I thought quantum computing was done through the means of physical objects.

The question is how does the quantum foam arise out of the structure of spacetime, or visa verse. Perhaps the structure of spacetime is a prerequisite for the formation of virtual particles. It seems obvious that you cannot have particles without a spacetime as a background in which to describe the particles. But there can be spacetime without particles since virtual particles aren't everywhere all at once, and they travel through spacetime before recombining. So there must be something inherent in the nature of space time that causes virtual particles to appear. If VP (virtual particles) have a probabilistic nature, then there must be some probabilistic nature to spacetime itself. But what are the probabilities of spacetime associated with? Is it as with Dynamical triangulation where there is a probability associated with various dimensional manifolds that are added in quantum mechanical superposition? If particles are extended objects, then they are probably submanifolds embedded within overall spacetime. Then the particles may be where the various dimensional spaces are not mixing exactly, leaving submanifolds behind in the process.

the issue here is whether spacetime has a granular quantized structure [or as Lee Smolin refers to it- an atomic structure]

the argument has been that space is granular and the there is no such thing as a truly continuous spacetime- and the other view that granularity does not exist- that spacetime IS continuous and that quantum theories are only approximations so granularity is only added to the equations to get rid of infinities and make them computable-

but the computational view makes this argument go away- because it conjectures that the metric of spacetime emerges from fundamental quantum bit relationships that yield a 'virtual' spacetime metric in which matter/energy are a back-reaction and propagate through the lattice/graph of quantum bits like a cellular automaton [actually they ARE probably a simple quantum cellular automaton- it's likely not just a metaphor]- so that distance itself is expressed as a connection between entangled quantum bits- so spacetime IS granular because the smallest unit of space and time must be the relationship between two quantum bits- [as suggested by the Holographic Principle] but this result speaks NOTHING about the potential continuity of a Euclidean space- because no such space exists!- or it doesn't exist at the level of the quantum universe that we observe because spacetime is essentially a VIRTUAL space generated by quantum computation- it certainly may be that the level of the universe where quantum bits interact [the "natural quantum computer" [black holes in nested spacetimes?] that is running the q-algorithm that generates our spacetime] is continuous in some way- but spatial metrics mean nothing at that level because space-ness and time-ness are virtually emergent from the degrees of freedom of the computations of those q-bits interacting in an orderly causal lattice- so the idea of a Euclidean space that can be infinitely divided is just an idea- QM/ Quantum Gravity [including LQG/ quantum geometry/ BH thermodynamics/ etc] and the Holographic Principle all suggest that space and time emerge from a causal matrix of discrete bits

so spacetime is not discrete per se- but the interacting bits which create the virtual spacetime and define the metric ARE

 

[setAI]

Maybe I missed something. Are you suggesting that quantum computing is done by something that does not occupy (or is described in terms of) spacetime? I thought quantum computing was done through the means of physical objects.

what is the "quantum computer" that is computing our universe? that's a dicey question like what is a string made of- or what was before the Big Bang- there are some different ideas [computational cosmology takes quantum information as fundamental and all other aspects of the universe are derived] but generally we are talking about fluctuations of the Dirac/Feynman/Pauli/et al quantum field-

but I have been thinking lately that we are looking at some sort of nested black hole framework like with Lee Smolin's CNS toy-idea or Guth's inflation field- where you have new spacetime regions expanding but the expansions are actually quantum computations in a parent universe- black holes are by definition the ultimate quantum computer- perhaps what they compute are whole cosmological wavefunctions and the resulting universes virtually emerge- supermassive black holes have the processing power and memory to spare to compute universes like ours- [there are actually theories that any quantum computer can be configured to perform infinite/universal computation] but this is just my current toy model-[I have a newer/weirder toy idea where there is only one quantum bit- a single zero dimensional pulse from off to on-and because it is the only thing it is it's own singularity- a feedback loop where it must interfere/interact with itself in an infinite number of configurations occurs- the infinite feedback echo resulting in an infinite dimensional matrix yielding the Multiverse]-

but the Computational Universe research program has been so rigerously rational and empirical- I feel that this sort of metaphysical speculation somehow diminishes the work

here is an interesting paper on black hole quantum computation and quantum foam:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0403057

 

[Mike2]

what is the "quantum computer" that is computing our universe? that's a dicey question like what is a string made of- or what was before the Big Bang- there are some different ideas [computational cosmology takes quantum information as fundamental and all other aspects of the universe are derived] but generally we are talking about fluctuations of the Dirac/Feynman/Pauli/et al quantum field-

I've been wondering if all of QM can be exressed in terms of quantum information theory. Is there an Information Theory equivalent formulation to the probabilistic nature of QM and QED and QCD, etc?

We may be talking about the same thing where spacetime itself is the quantum computer that calculates the world. The question is what gives rise the the fluctuation of spacetime? It would seem to require a quantum mechanical superposition of states to give rise to uncertainty, right? But what are the different states of space?

One thing seems certain, if there is a foam, then there is a dynamical process going on that has a time dependence. Surely this is connected with the other time dependence of space known as expansion. Expansion must be related to any spacetime fluctuations, right?

 

[marlon]

I've been wondering if all of QM can be exressed in terms of quantum information theory.

Sure it can, QIT is a child of QM. the question really is : can QIT be expressed or put into a real classical computer. Answer : YES IT CAN because all you need to be able to do is rotate some vectors and work with matrices. Who ever said QM was difficult ? Just look at the group theory part of QM : that's nothing but matrices

marlon

 

[spicerack]

jeez SetAI, if that is as dumbed down as you can make it then there might not be much hope for me.

One thing though does your theory require extra dimensions ?

cos it seems it would make it handy for when the switch is "off" for it to still be "on" somewhere else that isn't locked in 4d space. So if it did require manifolds as kind of circuits for the switches then while one was "off" another could be "on" in exactly the same place but be part of a different configuration of space as time has moved on even if it was imperceptiible to observation and allow for different particles to change shape without changing place and seemingly occupy 2 spaces at the same time.

did that make sense if it didn't just ignore me and carry on cos with a bit more visualising i'mpretty sure i could see what you guys are on about

thanks heaps though you 2Mike