Foundations argument: Silberstein et al engage Hiley-channeling-Bohm

[RUTA]

Hmm, then isn't your idea similar to Heisenberg picture where time evolution is applied to operators (measurement equipment) rather than state?

Our approach represents every piece of experimental equipment as they relate to each other in the experimental process.

So are you saying that Einstein's field equations are like your consistency criterion?

Yes, although our equation gives K and J for the transition amplitude, not a classical outcome like Einstein's equations (EEs).

Stress-energy tensor determines curvature of spacetime.

The problem is that the curvature of spacetime is a function of the metric g and so is the stress-energy tensor T. So, which is specified and which is solved for in EEs? The answer is, you must solve EEs for T and g "simultaneously." That's why we use the phrase "self-consistency criterion" to describe EEs -- they constitute a "self-consistent" relationship between T and g.

But can there be stress-energy tensor that does not have valid solution for curvature of spacetime in future direction (even if it has valid solution in past direction) and for that reason we exclude particular configuration as a rule?

Wouldn't then all configurations leading to singularities be excluded as a rule. But it isn't the case.

Do we have GR solutions with singularities? Well, if by "solution" you mean a finite T and g for all points of the spacetime manifold, then there are no "solutions" with singularities. We do make solutions from "near" solutions by omitting singular points, e.g., by omitting the Big Bang in FRW cosmologies. We then assume that the singular point omitted to make the GR solution is finite in some (yet to be discovered) theory fundamental to GR.

I am not sure it is matter of personal preference. If such an approach as yours makes the idea not falsifiable in principle then it would be preference of scientific research.

I'm assuming that we are only talking about scientific approaches, i.e., those which are in principle falsifiable. Then one chooses which, if any, he is willing to work on based on personal preference.

 

[Ken G]

In my view, the RBW approach sounds essentially like being very carefully true to what the scientific process actually is and actually can support, rather than entering into more pretentious modes of thought about what we'd like science to be or what we imagine it should be, but never demonstrably was. So I appreciate your careful description of it. Some of it echoes Bohr's brilliant "there is no quantum world," so perhaps it is an epistemological cousin to the Copenhagen interpretation, though I'm sure you can be quick to point out more essential differences and the potential for predictive character.

Ultimately, I do suspect that to make further progress, physics itself will need to recast its fundamental mission, in language that escapes the naive "God's eye" framing of past physics models, and embraces, perhaps, more internally consistent language like what you are striving for so meticulously. I realize that some still hold that a "God's eye" view continues to be the primary goal of physics ("God is a mathematician" and so forth), so to them, adopting your kind of language about reality would be the death of the mission of physics, rather than further progress in its birthing process. But I don't agree with them.

 

[zonde]

RUTA, I have question how relations should look like in spacetime picture of interference. Say how are these two pictures represented using relations:

Basically the question is how do you handle situation where two different paths start and end at the same worldline.

 

[zonde]

I'm assuming that we are only talking about scientific approaches, i.e., those which are in principle falsifiable. Then one chooses which, if any, he is willing to work on based on personal preference.

I do not understand how we can set up experiment that could test retrocausal prediction. And I am not even sure I want to discuss that, sorry. And if you say that GR is making retrocausal predictions then I consider this to be serious argument against GR.

Well I have to admit that to me it seems like process of evolution can produce effects that could look very much like retrocausality while being perfectly causal.

 

[RUTA]

RUTA, I have question how relations should look like in spacetime picture of interference. Say how are these two pictures represented using relations:

Basically the question is how do you handle situation where two different paths start and end at the same worldline.

The situations are different and would be modeled differently. The situation on the left has overlapping connections with the objects on the sides and sequential connections at the end. The situation on the right has sequential connections with objects on the sides and overlapping connections with the object at the end. To understand what would be involved in trying to do this using our fundamental graphical approach, you'll need to read the analysis in http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0908/0908.4348.pdf . Start on p 22 at "Moving now to N dimensions, the Wick rotated version ..." through the solution on p 25, i.e., eqns 23-25. Then read section 3.4 Twin-Slit Experiment. All that analysis would be required just to do the upper half of your situation on the right.

 

[RUTA]

I do not understand how we can set up experiment that could test retrocausal prediction. And I am not even sure I want to discuss that, sorry. And if you say that GR is making retrocausal predictions then I consider this to be serious argument against GR.

Well I have to admit that to me it seems like process of evolution can produce effects that could look very much like retrocausality while being perfectly causal.

We don't advocate retrocausal explanation, we're against explanations (at the fundamental level) couched in terms of interacting 3D objects/substances. In fact, we refer to our interpretation as "acausal," i.e., causation is just not an element of explanation at the fundamental level.

 

[zonde]

We don't advocate retrocausal explanation, we're against explanations (at the fundamental level) couched in terms of interacting 3D objects/substances. In fact, we refer to our interpretation as "acausal," i.e., causation is just not an element of explanation at the fundamental level.

Well yes, you do not advocate causation but if you want to speak about possible tests of your interpretation then you have to translate acausal description into causal one. We develop our knowledge in causal manner and that somewhat limits what we consider knowledge IMHO.

 

[RUTA]

Well yes, you do not advocate causation but if you want to speak about possible tests of your interpretation then you have to translate acausal description into causal one. We develop our knowledge in causal manner and that somewhat limits what we consider knowledge IMHO.

We are 3D time-evolved entities, so we are bound to conduct experiments accordingly. However, the *fundamental* explanation for the experimental outcome does not involve 3D time-evolved entities. Rather, one understands that the 3D time-evolved experimental process results from relations in 4D per a self-consistency criterion. The SCC entails 3D dynamics statistically (thus, classical mechanics), but at the *fundamental* level one does not have a 3D time-evolved story to tell.

 

[DrChinese]

Well yes, you do not advocate causation but if you want to speak about possible tests of your interpretation then you have to translate acausal description into causal one. We develop our knowledge in causal manner and that somewhat limits what we consider knowledge IMHO.

This is a circular argument. There is no requirement whatsoever that any theory must be causal to "match our experience". All that is required is that there be agreement between theory and observation.

 

[zonde]

The situations are different and would be modeled differently. The situation on the left has overlapping connections with the objects on the sides and sequential connections at the end. The situation on the right has sequential connections with objects on the sides and overlapping connections with the object at the end.

Situation is the same (at least it can be the same). Try to overlap two pictures - you will see that they are just incomplete in respect to each other.
Anyway - the point is that there should be connections along worldline of source for there to be interference.

 

[zonde]

We are 3D time-evolved entities, so we are bound to conduct experiments accordingly. However, the *fundamental* explanation for the experimental outcome does not involve 3D time-evolved entities. Rather, one understands that the 3D time-evolved experimental process results from relations in 4D per a self-consistency criterion. The SCC entails 3D dynamics statistically (thus, classical mechanics), but at the *fundamental* level one does not have a 3D time-evolved story to tell.

And what is "projection" of 4D relations + SCC onto 3D dynamics? (I do not mean this as a specific question but rather as the topic of our discussion.)
Can we come up with experiment X and hypothetical results A and B such that X+A satisfies SCC but X+B violates SCC? (This I mean as specific question.)
I have to add that it would be good to get some idea what this SCC represents in itself. As it seems to me it's name suggests that 4D relations should be constructed in such a way that they allow certain type of explanations.

 

[zonde]

This is a circular argument. There is no requirement whatsoever that any theory must be causal to "match our experience". All that is required is that there be agreement between theory and observation.

There is requirement that theory should give it's predictions in a form that we can compare them with observations. And interpretation of observations is independent from theory (we do not have to assume that theory is correct to speak meaningfully about particular observations).

 

[RUTA]

Situation is the same (at least it can be the same). Try to overlap two pictures - you will see that they are just incomplete in respect to each other.
Anyway - the point is that there should be connections along worldline of source for there to be interference.

I thought the situations represented different source configurations (vertical temporal axis of sorts). If they're intended to represent the same situation, then of course the descriptions would be the same. Again, to understand interference in our graphical approach, you need to read that material I referenced previously. What you'll notice is that it's very complicated and no one would use it instead of QM proper. I don't envision our graphical approach replacing QM anymore than QM replaces Newtonian mechanics. Where we *do* offer corrections to current physics is in GR, as shown in our Class. Quant. Grav. paper.

 

[RUTA]

And what is "projection" of 4D relations + SCC onto 3D dynamics? (I do not mean this as a specific question but rather as the topic of our discussion.)
Can we come up with experiment X and hypothetical results A and B such that X+A satisfies SCC but X+B violates SCC? (This I mean as specific question.)
I have to add that it would be good to get some idea what this SCC represents in itself. As it seems to me it's name suggests that 4D relations should be constructed in such a way that they allow certain type of explanations.

In our view, the (3+1)D picture is classical mechanics (there is no size restriction, if you have particle behavior, X and P commute, then you have CM). To understand how one gets CM statistically from our approach, see section 2.2.6 The General Approach in our FoP paper.

We believe the key to (3+1)D stories is time-evolved entities/substances and the possibility of modeling these is contained in a divergence-free source. Thus, since QFT is modeled on coupled harmonic oscillators, we looked for a graphical basis to underwrite divergence-free sources and coupled harmonic oscillators. That is explained in section 2.2.7 The Two-Source Euclidean Symmetry Amplitude/Partition Function of our FoP paper. We found a candidate relationship between the graphical free-particle difference matrix K and the source vector J via boundary operators on the graph d. That is, K = d*d^T and J = d*e so that Kv = J, where v is the vector of vertices and e is the vector of links. Accordingly, K has same form as its graphical counterpart for coupled harmonic oscillators and J is divergence-free. Further, K has a non-trivial null space (whence gauge invariance) and J resides in the row space of K (for graphical counterpart to gauge fixing). We then show how it underwrites classical field theory per Z's roll as a partition function constructed from K and J. So, the approach has a lot of nice properties. Whether or not it's *true* remains to be seen.

 

[zonde]

Again, to understand interference in our graphical approach, you need to read that material I referenced previously.

Material that you referenced does not answer my question.

Simply stated - are two nodes on the same worldline connected only by relations? If yes then how do you approach interference at qualitative level where two alternative paths (I assume that relations are null geodesics, correct if I am wrong) do not connect the same nodes either at source or detector?

 

[zonde]

We believe the key to (3+1)D stories is time-evolved entities/substances and the possibility of modeling these is contained in a divergence-free source.

With this divergence-free source you mean that there are as many relations going in as there are going out from entity, right?

Thus, since QFT is modeled on coupled harmonic oscillators, we looked for a graphical basis to underwrite divergence-free sources and coupled harmonic oscillators.

I am not familiar with QFT, could you please elaborate on the role of coupled harmonic oscillators in QFT? Are they model for field at arbitrary point or are they model for particles?

 

[RUTA]

Material that you referenced does not answer my question.

Simply stated - are two nodes on the same worldline connected only by relations? If yes then how do you approach interference at qualitative level where two alternative paths (I assume that relations are null geodesics, correct if I am wrong) do not connect the same nodes either at source or detector?

The answer is in the cited material, although I concede it is rather involved. The bottom line is that the probability of an outcome depends the difference of squared spatial link lengths between the sources, just as in geometrical optics. The difference is that there are no 'things' interfering -- the probability simply goes from 0 to 1 based on the difference in squared spatial link lengths.

 

[RUTA]

With this divergence-free source you mean that there are as many relations going in as there are going out from entity, right?

Not exactly. The divergence-free property is not local as in the stress-energy tensor of GR. It's global.

I am not familiar with QFT, could you please elaborate on the role of coupled harmonic oscillators in QFT? Are they model for field at arbitrary point or are they model for particles?

Coupled harmonic oscillators model the field and excitations of the field are associated with particles. See our interpretation of QFT in http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.4348