A Principle Explanation of the “Mysteries” of Modern Physics

[RUTA]

I am certainly happy that you are content to find an explanation of QM that satisfies you. However, gently, I will point out to you that in this lengthy discussion you have not been able to present a clear explanation of how allowing h to be variable solves any problem in understanding QM, ... If physics is going to really explain how Nature works, it must be clear and understandable, not just the "hit-and-run" game of stating a nonobvious principle and then running away. If you are playing a game with me, Ruta, I do not like it much.

The relativity principle applied to the measurement of the speed of light c constitute the postulates of SR. As of now, 116 years after the publication of SR, we have nothing else to explain time dilation, length contraction, and the relativity of simultaneity. The relativity principle is not considered "nonobvious" in physics. On the contrary, it has been widely accepted since Galileo. What we showed in our publications (reviewed in this Insight) is that you can recover all of denumerable-dimensional QM with the very same relativity principle applied to the measurement of another fundamental constant of Nature, Planck's constant h. If you believe this principle account of QM lacks explanatory value, then you must also believe the postulates of SR lack explanatory value. You wouldn't be alone in that belief, but the vast majority of physicists disagree and all introductory physics textbooks introduce SR via its postulates.

 

[David Spector]

We are getting nowhere. I certainly agree with the standard derivation of SR from the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum. Please give me a reference for what you are talking about so I can educate myself, since obviously you refuse to discuss Bohmian Mechanics.

 

[RUTA]

We are getting nowhere. I certainly agree with the standard derivation of SR from the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum. Please give me a reference for what you are talking about so I can educate myself, since obviously you refuse to discuss Bohmian Mechanics.

My Insight has nothing to do with the dBB interpretation nor have I ever published anything to do with dBB, so I don't know why you expected me to engage in a discussion of dBB. If you want to see how the relativity principle + h underwrites QM just as the relativity principle + c underwrites SR, see https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.12043 written for physics educators. It references our relevant publications if you're interested.

 

[RUTA]

We are getting nowhere. I certainly agree with the standard derivation of SR from the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum. Please give me a reference for what you are talking about so I can educate myself, since obviously you refuse to discuss Bohmian Mechanics.

This article https://arxiv.org/pdf/2107.02089.pdf was just posted on another thread I've been following. You might be interested in reading Section 5.1 "De Broglie-Bohm theory"

 

[Lynch101]

All this is covered in our book, as you'll see. Chapters 7 & 8 cover the reconciliation of our dynamical experience of time with adynamical or block universe physics.

What is the name of the book again RUTA?

EDIT: Is this it - 'Beyond the Dynamical Universe: Unifying Block Universe Physics and Time as Experienced'?

 

[RUTA]

What is the name of the book again RUTA?

EDIT: Is this it - 'Beyond the Dynamical Universe: Unifying Block Universe Physics and Time as Experienced'?

Yes that’s it

 

[Lynch101]

I've been reading Part 3 of the book and it is very interesting indeed. I would love to explore the ideas further and check to make sure I have understood them. Is this thread the right place for that discussion, or would it be advisable to start a new one?

 

[RUTA]

I've been reading Part 3 of the book and it is very interesting indeed. I would love to explore the ideas further and check to make sure I have understood them. Is this thread the right place for that discussion, or would it be advisable to start a new one?

In a private conversation is best :-)

 

[Jimster41]

Ch 4 fig 4.20 re K. I want to get this question down because it seems clear re that diagram.

In RBW where “all contextual levels” interact… I buy the “boundary of a boundary is zero” math but I am struggling to imagine a single boundary that is really zero (an experiment with any real “spacetime source elements”) given the second law. You can artificially create one but only at the expense of displacing crucial entropy increasing interaction to some other level or boundary.
So for any real spacetime source element that boundary has be drawn such that entropy doesn’t cancel.

What I mean, is… isn’t that a cube with a temperature or entropy equivalent to “1 bit” or something like that. If it is real doesn’t it have to a spacetime “cost” vis a vis the AGC.

 

[RUTA]

Ch 4 fig 4.20 re K. I want to get this question down because it seems clear re that diagram.

In RBW where “all contextual levels” interact… I buy the “boundary of a boundary is zero” math but I am struggling to imagine a single boundary that is really zero (an experiment with any real “spacetime source elements”) given the second law. You can artificially create one but only at the expense of displacing crucial entropy increasing interaction to some other level or boundary.
So for any real spacetime source element that boundary has be drawn such that entropy doesn’t cancel.

What I mean, is… isn’t that a cube with a temperature or entropy equivalent to “1 bit” or something like that. If it is real doesn’t it have to a spacetime “cost” vis a vis the AGC.

I don’t think of a spacetimesource element as “real”. It just represents the relational nature of quantum exchanges of energy-momentum.

 

[Jimster41]

I don’t think of a spacetimesource element as “real”. It just represents the relational nature of quantum exchanges of energy-momentum.

I got excited by all the talk about ontological contextual emergence. Re-reading clarified that you consider spacetime source elements as psi-epistemic and what is real are classical events. Is that correct? I also saw a line where you seemed to leave open that what is considered a “classical event” might be over-constrained. I will have to look for that quote.
(One lame thing about an e-book is you can’t mark up the margins etc. I would have marked that one)

I am still confused about how an entity can be psi-epistemic and ontological but maybe I finally start to understand the nuance of those terms.

and I am still curious where the Second Law fits in, if at all I guess, in the fundamental relational exchanges and the relative realism of the diachronic experience.

It also occurred to me while reading the chapter on emergence that non-linearity is a big feature of emergent phenomena (at least what I have read about them). And non-linear math is… not an easy or particularly useful place to start building the idea of math. So it’s not surprising human beings started with smooth differential manifolds, symmetry rules etc.

 

[RUTA]

I got excited by all the talk about ontological contextual emergence. Re-reading clarified that you consider spacetime source elements as psi-epistemic and what is real are classical events. Is that correct? I also saw a line where you seemed to leave open that what is considered a “classical event” might be over-constrained. I will have to look for that quote.
(One lame thing about an e-book is you can’t mark up the margins etc. I would have marked that one)

I am still confused about how an entity can be psi-epistemic and ontological but maybe I finally start to understand the nuance of those terms.

and I am still curious where the Second Law fits in, if at all I guess, in the fundamental relational exchanges and the relative realism of the diachronic experience.

It also occurred to me while reading the chapter on emergence that non-linearity is a big feature of emergent phenomena (at least what I have read about them). And non-linear math is… not an easy or particularly useful place to start building the idea of math. So it’s not surprising human beings started with smooth differential manifolds, symmetry rules etc.

See Section 3.2.1 of this paper: https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/5/551/htm for the role of Newton's 2nd law. That's not in the book.