Physicists who propose that symmetries are emergent?

[jake jot]

IMO, the two questions belong together.

As my own line of reasoning is close to smolins, thinking, i find it easy to extrapolate and make sense between out what he says. But there is also a risk that my own bias risks misinterpreting his ideas. In short, all of Smolins explicit ideas are IMO not the final answers, and its also "incomplete", beeing sometimes a reconstruction "designed to give the right answers" so i can see what he means when he refers to future progress, and that the principles hold the possibility open for replacing the assumptions to increase the explanatory value (my own thinking circles in the domains which smolin skipped). I can not defend the specific examples smolins makes. IMO they are likely a first attempt to create a mathematical model, that partly implements or illustrates the possible power of the idea. But to make up your own mind, I recommend reading these papers, relating to emergence of QM

-- Precedence and freedom in quantum physics, arXiv:1205.3707v1 [quant-ph] 16 May 2012

-- Quantum mechanics and the principle of maximal variety arXiv:1506.02938v1 [quant-ph] 9 Jun 2015

But if you read it with a too critical axiomatic mindset, one likely dismisses the whole points. I consider the papers to outline and try to make simple mathematical dressings of intuitive ideas; but they can, and need improvements. Smolin for a LONG time has also advocated a new paradigm in THINKING about the nature of law, that has more in common with evolution than with classical reductionism.

/Fredrik

I reread the paper and it gave me more clarity after Lord Crc described about "intrinsic momentum space" (see above two messages) but after reading the quantum mechanics ensemble idea in Smolin old book where nonlocality was said to occur because simple electrons were alike compared to more complex objects and at that time I didn't like the idea because it was quite simple and no richness left. I want to know what happens if Smolin would be agnostic of quantum mechanics interpretation but just used his momentum space and ideas of the universe as consisting of "views of itself" represented by causal sets. Would the latter stand alone? Or what would be modified if no quantum interpretation was used?

By the way. This is related to this thread because of this passage in the paper

" The views do not live in spacetime. They live rather in products of momentum spaces, as a view is made up of incoming energy-momentum. The fact that we perceive our past as a set of incoming energy-momenta does not commit ourselves to the expectation that the universe is a lorentzian spacetime. This approach is, in a way, Kantian, in that the apparent 3 + 1 dimensionality and lorentz invariance of our perceived world reflects the structures through which we perceive the worldthe views-and are not necessarily realized as properties of the world itself. ".

I'm interested in the paper about Momentum space because I have been for a decade interested in the idea of dual physics in both real space and a separate momentum space. Have you read or heard anything like this?

 

[Fra]

" The views do not live in spacetime. They live rather in products of momentum spaces, as a view is made up of incoming energy-momentum. The fact that we perceive our past as a set of incoming energy-momenta does not commit ourselves to the expectation that the universe is a lorentzian spacetime. This approach is, in a way, Kantian, in that the apparent 3 + 1 dimensionality and lorentz invariance of our perceived world reflects the structures through which we perceive the worldthe views-and are not necessarily realized as properties of the world itself. ".

I'm interested in the paper about Momentum space because I have been for a decade interested in the idea of dual physics in both real space and a separate momentum space. Have you read or heard anything like this?

From my perspective, I'm mainly interested in constructing/understanding/explaining the concepts of energy, momenyum and mass from more abstraction information theoretic terms; so that more self-organisation principles can EXPLAIN first of of why new dimenstions appear, why it stops at 3+1. The abstraction of "inertia" exists also in bayesian like decision making or probabilistic reasoning, where it simply means that you weight a priori support against the the evidence of conflicting evidence.

After all, when going from classical mechanics, the association of old terms, and the operators are somewhat heuristic. I think there is a deeper explanation of QM. I think Smolins approach as a good step towards this direction. But some details are missing, and i wish to have them solved before proceeding; so for this reason i have not analysed all the technical details in smolins approach (as I fear the details might need reworking anyway once the starting point is adjusted).

/Fredrik

 

[jake jot]

From my perspective, I'm mainly interested in constructing/understanding/explaining the concepts of energy, momenyum and mass from more abstraction information theoretic terms; so that more self-organisation principles can EXPLAIN first of of why new dimenstions appear, why it stops at 3+1. The abstraction of "inertia" exists also in bayesian like decision making or probabilistic reasoning, where it simply means that you weight a priori support against the the evidence of conflicting evidence.

After all, when going from classical mechanics, the association of old terms, and the operators are somewhat heuristic. I think there is a deeper explanation of QM. I think Smolins approach as a good step towards this direction. But some details are missing, and i wish to have them solved before proceeding; so for this reason i have not analysed all the technical details in smolins approach (as I fear the details might need reworking anyway once the starting point is adjusted).

/Fredrik

I can't wait for Smolin next paper on this "physical correlates of qualia" he mentioned in "Finally, there are implications of this proposal for foundational issues such as the measurement problem and the question of physical correlates of qualia."

Why is there implications related to qualia? Can you or anyone please ask Smolin? (Are these physics giants so out of reach for us normal mortals or public?)

For a long time. I've been pondering on Momentum space and physical correlates of qualia after reading a proposal that an intrinsic momentum space could be where our qualia could reside, with a barrier to the normal spacetime and matter. What is said to bridge the gap (barrier) or connect them is our intention. This word "intention" is taboo for physics, but since Smolin mentions "physical correlates of qualia". The word "intention" would be less taboo.

So it is said that whenever there is intention and the bridge is gap (between dual physics in an intrinsic momentum space and normal space). Extra energetic input from intrinsic momentum space would show up in the thermodynamics of molecules. Many unofficial underground experiments were always said to measure such changes. And the reasons official channels won't do any such experiments is because they ignore this outrageous idea in the first place so discount it automatically. But compared to some physicists belief in Multiverse where all laws of physics is possible. Won't this be not so outrageous at all?

I don't want to ask it separately in the chemistry forum because the idea is far off. I only mention it now in BSM since Smolin talked about intrinsic momentum space and qualia. So let me ask this one and last time to this that I've been wondering it for years. I hope someone can at least give counterarguments why it couldn't exist. For a very convincing argument. I'd exchange it for not posting anything anymore at PF. At least then I can focus on Smolin theory of Momentum space and Qualia that can relate the two (if they are connected at all). Thank you.

 

[Fra]

I can't wait for Smolin next paper on this "physical correlates of qualia" he mentioned in "Finally, there are implications of this proposal for foundational issues such as the measurement problem and the question of physical correlates of qualia."

Why is there implications related to qualia? Can you or anyone please ask Smolin? (Are these physics giants so out of reach for us normal mortals or public?)

"The measurement problem is naturally and simply solved. Microscopic systems appear statistical because they are members of large ensembles of similar systems which interact non-locally. Macroscopic systems are unique, and are not members of any ensembles of similar systems. Consequently their collective coordinates may evolve deterministically.
...
All the relational information about a subsystem of the universe is contained in the view that subsystem has of the rest of the universe, through its causal links or other relations to other subsystems."
...
Systems which have no causally indistinguishable copies in the universe are expected to behave classically, because for such systems there is no confusion possible and no quantum potential.
...
In this paper we develop this idea by showing that the quantum potential of Bohm can be understood to be a measure of the variety of a system of similar subsystems of the universe."

-- Quantum mechanics and the principle of maximal variety arXiv:1506.02938v1 [quant-ph] 9 Jun 2015

I can not defend Smolins explicit choice of construction of the "views" however.

/Fredrik