Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

A Quantization isn't fundamental

  1. Jan 8, 2019 #141
    Thank you for wading through my questions. Regarding your answer above, where would I find a description of the ‘underlying mechanics’ from which quantum fields are ‘emergent?’ Do you mean their mathematical description or something 'deeper'?
  2. Jan 8, 2019 #142
    I have been giving the bifurcation aspect of this model a bit more thought: locally, period doubling bifurcations are supercritical pitchfork bifurcations, with the visual aspect of the 'pitchfork' clear upon inspection of the bifurcation diagram; this implies that there is some symmetry in the governing equation behind the dynamics of this vacuum polarization. What on earth is this symmetry, physically speaking?
    I mean something deeper: a mathematical description of some more fundamental dynamics of vacuum fluctuations which reduces in some particular limit to the equations of QFT. As far as I know, no one has ever succeeded in doing such a thing yet.

    In other words, I am explicitly saying that this is an outstanding open problem in mathematical physics: identify through (trial-and-error) construction a unique nonlinear generalization of QFT which fully and non-perturbatively describes the dynamics of vacuum fluctuations as a dissipative process and at the same time has standard QFT as a well-defined limit.
  3. Jan 8, 2019 #143
    Due to my contemplations in the previous post, I just reread the paper and now see that I missed something crucial in my answer to you: in section V, Figure 8d (pg. 8) the author shows that the simplest version of the model implies the existence of a spin-2 particle i.e. possibly the graviton, but he doesn't speculate any further. Moreover, the author explicitly states in the end of section VI that the model is a space-time independent framework.
  4. Jan 10, 2019 #144
    Your observations do seem crucial and more interesting, thanks Auto-Didact.
  5. Jan 10, 2019 #145
    A few, perhaps erroneous, observations:

    1) The notion of particles being dissipative dynamical structures as opposed to some sort of steady state systems is a major shift of paradigm. I will have to read more to understand the mechanism for that dissipation.

    2) Philip Anderson’s emergence in a nut-shell: “This, then, is the fundamental philosophical insight of twentieth century science: everything we observe emerges from a more primitive substrate, in the precise meaning of the term “emergent”, which is to say obedient to the laws of the more primitive level, but not conceptually consequent from that level”. “More is Different” – Anderson (1995, p. 2020)

    3) It would seem that identifying the equations that describe ‘a unique nonlinear generalization of QFT’ would first require a characterization of the ‘more primitive substrate’ within which their dynamics would arise and sustain. In other words, the soil must suit the seed. Is that the case?

    4) Upon the emergence of phenomenologically new dynamics, those of the ‘more primitive substrate’ continue to serve as their dynamical foundation.

    5) I am curious to know if there is an axiomatic approach to characterizing the dynamical substrate in which self-organizing, dissipative systems could arise.

  6. Jan 13, 2019 at 10:58 AM #146
    Agree with 1) and 2).
    3) Yes, the substrate would have to be identified; this is certainly possible and actually there are already many existing sub-particle theories (such as strings or loops) which can readily be tried.

    The really nice thing however is that a macroscopic formulation, based on a purely statistical or continuum (e.g. hydrodynamic) treatment, may lend itself through the utilization of theorems and techniques to a (physically) completely generic but mathematically essentially correct microscopic formulation.

    4) Yes. Moreover, the author, Manasson, has in fact offered a tentative toy model of the proposed dynamical substrate for the vacuum field himself in his 2017 paper (see here a few posts back).

    In his toy model, Manasson proposes that the vacuum consists of dust particles, themselves either essentially infinitesimal (a la Cantor dust) or roughly Planck length sized. On the characteristic scale in question - i.e. the scale of particle physics - these dust particles form a fluid: the vacuum.

    This vacuum fluid has self-aggregational and self-diffusive properties, which means that 'temperature' or heat differences will spontaneously lead to the formation of convective vortex cells; vortex cells with a higher than average dust influx are positively charged, higher than average dust efflux negatively charged and zero average dust flux neutrally charged.

    Using a network theoretic formulation, Manasson then demonstrates how the collective dynamics of such discrete charged vortex cells is capable of essentially reproducing all of quantum statistics, perhaps without entanglement, at least not explicitly. In particular, he effortlessly goes on to derive both Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein statistics, as well as all all known Standard Model interactions directly from this toy model.
    5) If by axiomatic approach you mean purely formally i.e. giving proofs based on axioms, then I urge you to read this.

    On the other hand, if you just meant a purely mathematical general characterization, then yes, of course. This has been achieved for thermodynamics, condensed matter theory and fluid mechanics and is still active research in countless other fields, from chemistry, to biology, to economics; it is one of the main research directions in nonlinear dynamics, non-equilibrium statistical mechanics and complexity theory.
  7. Jan 13, 2019 at 3:10 PM #147
    Very much appreciate your taking time to reply. Will reflect...
  8. Jan 16, 2019 at 11:05 AM #148
    Here the notion of a game space resonates for me. Once one sees something it is difficult to un-see it. And so, despite the incredible breadth and cognitive density of current physical theory, I am left with a very improbable proposition.

    Improbable Proposition:

    There is a foundational principle implicit in our physical theory that is not fully recognized as such because it is formulaically treated in a myriad of case-by-case instances rather than seen as a general, overarching principle. It would both simplify and deepen our understanding of the universe’s foundational game-space were we to identify this principle and recognize its implications.

    As slender props of this notion we note that Neils Bohr placed the yin/yang symbol on his coat of arms with the Latin motto, “Contraria Sunt Complementa," – opposites are complementary". Edward Teller wrote: "Bohr was the incarnation of complementarity, the insistence that every important issue has an opposite side that appears as mutually exclusive with the other. The understanding of the question becomes possible only if the existence of both sides is recognized".

    And from David Bohm, we have a characterization of views: The universe is an "undivided wholeness" with everything in a state of process or becoming, a "universal flux" which is not static, but rather a dynamic interconnected process. There is no ultimate set of separately existent entities, out of which all is supposed to be constituted. Rather, unbroken and undivided movement is the primary notion. Movement gives shape to all forms and structure gives order to movement, and a deeper a more extensive inner movement creates, maintains, and ultimately dissolves structure".

    So, here’s the question. In a very coarse-grain, cartoon sketch of our physics, leaving out 99% of the detail we would see energy as the principal player. For the sake of narrative interest, to make it more of a game, can we identify energy’s ‘counterpoise’, what’s on the other side of the net, its ‘opposable thumb?’

    I would appreciate your thoughts on this.
  9. Jan 16, 2019 at 11:11 AM #149
    And from David Bohm, we have a characterization of his views: "The universe is an "undivided wholeness" with everything in a state of process or becoming, a "universal flux" which is not static, but rather a dynamic interconnected process. There is no ultimate set of separately existent entities, out of which all is supposed to be constituted. Rather, unbroken and undivided movement is the primary notion. Movement gives shape to all forms and structure gives order to movement, and a deeper a more extensive inner movement creates, maintains, and ultimately dissolves structure". (emphasis mine)
  10. Jan 19, 2019 at 5:23 AM #150


    User Avatar

    Your question and the matter is naturally fuzzy and easy to misinterpret, but given that disclaimer i can make sense of what you write, and the answer to your question from my perspective is loosely this:

    As we learned from relativity, mass, inertia and energy are related in that mass is simlply a form of confined / trapped / bound energy, where the confinement usually refers to the 3D space.

    Further in my views I associate structures in conditional bayesian information and probabilities with "energy" and "inertia". In information perspectives, inertia is simlpy the "amount" of evidence pointing in a certain direction, this is "confined" to the observers "subsystem", and in my view are bound to someone relted to inertia and mass. Temperatuire here is simply a kind of information divergence. You can with toy models play around with this, and notice mathematical similarities with stat mech models and heat dissipation, and models for information disspiation. But once you combine systems of non-commutative information processing systems, you have lots of opportunity to map this into the structure of physics and its laws.

    So in this perspect i would say energy loosely related to "amount of evidence", which is dependent on a structure able to encode it and the opposite is this "lack of evidence", or lack of complexions. This is why i think self organisation also is related to the origin on mass and energy. So energy is not a "thing", is somehow a measure of "relational" information storage. This is a conceptual fuzzy answer.

    The precise mathematical answer requires nothing less that actually completing this research program.

    Edit: forgot a point. In the new perspective i paint above, the confinement does not refer to 3D space as space does not yet exist in this level of the vision. Instead spacetime and the dimensionality must be emergent as evolved self-organised relations between the interacting encoding structures. So before that happens, the confinement i more tinkg of as existing in an abstract space indexed by the observers identity. Where two observers that have the SAME information with same confidence, by definition ARE the same (indistinguishable). So "distance" and space emerges from disagreement, and along with disagreement follows "interactions" to counter them, and in all this the laws of interactions are encoded - or so goes the idea.

    Last edited: Jan 19, 2019 at 5:32 AM
  11. Jan 19, 2019 at 7:58 AM #151
    I am grateful for your tentative reply. I was about ready to post an apology for my question thinking it was inappropriate due to lack of clarity, excessive speculation or simple naivete. Perhaps it was a bit of all these things. In any case, your reply gives me perspectives to consider.
  12. Jan 19, 2019 at 8:01 AM #152
    My understanding of physics it is probably not deep enough to fully appreciate all this thread, but I think the link below of 'cell emergence' from a simple rule might be relevant for the discussion.

    This is the link to the Nature paper:


  13. Jan 19, 2019 at 8:07 AM #153
    This seems to be a relevant insight.
  14. Jan 19, 2019 at 9:19 PM #154
    Wow - that is a pretty interesting paper. I want to find some of the counter-arguments to it as well, but thanks for bringing this one to my attention. Surely there must be some testable things here that can be checked...
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?