Radical new take on *uni*verse questions by Smolin, could be important

[negativzero]

Not a spokesman, i can still relate my take:
.
Just on the most populous form of non-toroidal holes, the mass, spin, direction, charge, and related stats like surface area of event horizon are only apparent from the outside of the hole, i think. I'm taking the most populous form of hole because the theory relies on maximal reproductive capacity. What happens in toriodal holes and super holes is less significant.
.
To me, Guth's inflationary theory always smelled like a jury rigged patch on the big bang theory. i agree, one of the first places to look would be the whole inflationary mythology. Smolin might straighten out a few issues. One thing that occurs to me is that inflation either accompanied/included the creation of "new" mass energy or immediately followed it.
.
Smolin's illustration of space emerging from accumulation of sequential events powered by momentum would be analogous to a bang creating space.
.
i would add again that what is really measured and confirmed is fields, fields on fields, not space. When Smolin says "space" in his universe, he's not talking about eternal classical space. If energy appears inside the hole, let's say when the event horizon is made, onlookers can't verify directly what's going on from the outside. All outsiders know is that, some stuff went in, and with frame drag it pulled in some fields with it. Once alone inside, space would be created in between the bits of energy over time. That would be expansion. (Assuming there is no singularity once inside.)
.
It would not be an "explosion" of mass/energy, it would be an insertion of space between particles. But whether you call it "expansion" or "insertion," it amounts to the same thing.
.
i'm still searching for a mechanism to explain what looks like creation of mass energy. Somehow uncertainty and misbehaving Cauchy formulations don't persuade me. i want to believe, but remain agnostic, re the creation of mass energy.
.
To bad professor Smolin can't grade my paper and tell me where I'm off!
-0

 

[Mordred]

Not a spokesman, i can still relate my take:

To me, Guth's conflationary theory always smelled like a jury rigged patch on the big bang theory. i agree, one of the first places to look would be the whole inflationary mythology. Smolin might straighten out a few issues. One thing that occurs to me is that inflation either accompanied/included the creation of "new" mass energy or immediately followed it.

That one I am not familiar with, could you do me a fav and post some related links?

 

[negativzero]

My apologies Mordred.
.
Originally Guth used the term, "conflation." It has since been renamed, "inflation."
.
i'm just a hick clinging to my, International Dictionary of Applied Mathematics, and a BB gun. The word, is dated. But i like it better than inflation.
.
Since it is creating confusion, rather than sourcing the etymology, i'll just edit my post above.
.
Thanks, Mordred.
-0

 

[Mordred]

lol gotcha, you had me going there for a minute. The name conflation is in some ways a better descriptive

 

[Chalnoth]

A black hole could just be matter with sufficient density to prevent photons from escaping. Isnt this still the most likely explanation? Occam etc.

If this matter is dense enough to prevent light from escaping, then the outer extent of the light cone is traveling inward toward the center of this object. This means that in order for matter to remain stationary inside the horizon of a black hole, it would have to be traveling faster than light in its local frame.

 

[negativzero]

Chalnoth, do you mean the event horizon?
If Smolin is correct, some math must turn inside out when the event horizon is penetrated. Possibly something like a Mobius transformation. I'm probably wrong, because i haven't heard him say this, but i wouldn't be surprised if a photon sphere wasn't predicted to exist barely "inside" the event horizon as well as just outside it. If one assumes that mass entering the hole continues onward relentlessly to a singularity [if that's what you are saying], then it would contradict Smolin's basic assumptions.
.
Perhaps i misunderstood your post, but as far as i know, empirical evidence doesn't confirm existence of singularities, but only black holes.
-0

 

[Tanelorn]

I also did not understand Chalnoth's reply. I only meant this:
"A black hole is a region of spacetime from which gravity prevents anything, including light, from escaping."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

 

[Tanelorn]

Another interesting thought about Smolin's model is that old parent Universes do not just end by fading away into some kind of heat death after 10^100 years or so, but instead perhaps the parents energy continues onwards into their child Universes, over and over like a kind of cycle.

 

[Chalnoth]

I also did not understand Chalnoth's reply. I only meant this:
"A black hole is a region of spacetime from which gravity prevents anything, including light, from escaping."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

Right. The point is that this fact, that light is not allowed to escape, means that inside this event horizon, the outer edge of the light cone actually travels inward.

The speed of light limitation means that every object must necessarily stay within its own light cone. Thus, since the outer edge of the light cone is traveling inward inside a black hole, all matter must also travel inward. No amount of pressure from matter just inside can prevent this (incidentally, at these gravities, pressure just increases the gravitational pull anyway!).

 

[negativzero]

Chalnoth, that's an interesting theory. Do you have any experiments verifying the climate inside holes? It sounds to me as if you are insisting upon perpetuating some of the expectations that would be valid outside the hole. Smolin has to be suggesting a rule change at or beyond the event horizon. If you don't accept that, you are rejecting the essential premise.
.
Think, "Mobius."
-0

 

[negativzero]

We should all draw straws and the winner has to read Smolin's book!
-0

 

[WannabeNewton]

If Smolin is correct, some math must turn inside out when the event horizon is penetrated. Possibly something like a Mobius transformation.

What? This doesn't really make any sense at all.

If one assumes that mass entering the hole continues onward relentlessly to a singularity...

There is no assumption being made. In the framework of general relativity this is exactly what happens.

Perhaps i misunderstood your post, but as far as i know, empirical evidence doesn't confirm existence of singularities, but only black holes.
-0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_theorems

 

[negativzero]

Wannabe, thanks for communicating.
.
i'm making the best effort i can to understand Smolin, who in fact is a general relativist.
.
Since you are referencing Wikipedia, take a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Möbius_transformation
.
One way to look at it would be like this, but the process would be truncated by the creation of the event horizon: you take the information from the celestial sphere, and project it through any point and you get a kind of inside out map. Project it through the so called point of "singularity" and you map a new universe. (And can i add a big, "PERHAPS" here?)
.
Or take a look at this stuff on sphere eversions:
http://torus.math.uiuc.edu/jms/Papers/isama/color/opt2.htm
.
Here are some sphere eversion videos i rank ordered by my own preference:

.

.

.

.

There is math for turning things inside out. Whether or not it's "nonsense," i discuss below.
.
i'm trying to understand here. i can repeatedly say, "Hey! Wait a minute! That not the dogma I'm used too!," or i can try to get it. I'm trying to get it, and i guess that makes me an emergent advocate for Smolin at this time. It's just me here though, not the Dr. himself.
.
Your source gave, "...1.a situation where matter is forced to be compressed to a point...," as an example of a space like singularity.
.
Excuse me, but examples of matter are physical, and a point is geometry. Just how is one supposed to squish physical stuff into a mathematical fiction smaller than Planck length? Experiments confirming the accuracy of GR, don't prove the case here. There is no experiment confirming that matter, real physical matter, can be compressed into a metaphysical element.
.
And that is what point, line, and plane are; they are fictions. They are mythical objects for which there is no physical example. (A word for that is "nonsense.") Show me a point. In modern math people assume postulates by faith re undefined elements, and derive theorems from them. In Smolin's use of Knopf algebra, for instance, the elements were: events, and momenta.
.
Just ask the Pythagoreans, the math is a fictional almost religious ideation which remarkably resembles reality sometimes. No offense, but you sound like a true believer. i think altogether it is Smolin who is the skeptic here. Make that, "the heretic."
.
Now back to my question above; it's not rhetorical: "...how is one supposed to squish physical stuff into a mathematical fiction smaller than Planck length?"
.
What are you gunna do with that WannabeNewton?
.
The creation of a black hole doesn't allow physical stuff to become metaphysical or Platonic. THAT would be nonsense reminiscent of Descartes' assumption that the pineal gland was man's connection with the metaphysical. Since there is no agreed answer in GR given the reality of QM as to what happens at the singularity, Smolin suggests that some of the fundamental questions of cosmology and physics could conveniently be answered if it can be shown that our U is inside an event horizon and that his precious parameters are tweaked to maximize stellar black hole births.
.
GR powerful as it is still can't make real physical stuff into an element of Euclidean geometry, it's just a handy dandy fiction. And there are a variety of kinds of GR, and there is debate within GR. So if you think it's settled as to what happens at or beyond the event horizon or the singularity, we are in disagreement. It's not settled.
.
Thx as always for your thoughtful responses,
-0

 

[negativzero]

Tanelorn my friend,
you said again, "...we have not found first cause or final effect..."
i start with the assumption that no one will ever find IT.
But that means that every time i come back to the subject, it's not resolved.
So much fun for so many!
Hopefully for us all, cosmetology and it's smaller cousin cosmology are not purely and exclusively a total waste of time.
-0

 

[negativzero]

My personal problem with buying his book is that i like to think about what should be in a book before i read it.
This proclivity is very rewarding for me because i can say, "Hey! i thought of that too! Just before i read it. Since you bring it up."
.
Knowing myself, if I'm still interested in Smolin in a month, i will have bought his latest book, sheepishly.
.
Until i buy the book, i can say i only saw 2 or 3 of his videos and i agree with what i hear.
.
But the reason i am here at all is because i see space emerging from energy over time and that's what my boy Smolin says!
.
i'm not a fan of many, but Wheeler was once upon a time my only celeb until Smolin arose as a figure in physics. i admit. I'm an instantaneous fan of his. If i met him i might get agitated and ask him to autograph my forehead in indelible ink. But it's because i came to similar conclusions before i ever heard of him. i think too.
.
In this group, on this message board, i guess you would have to say I'm one of the few fans posting.
.
[i hate being a fan! In tennis i don't care about anyone's game but mine. Outside my family and friends, I'm a fan of nobody but Wheeler and Smolin, and Nader, on anything. That sounds soooo creepy! i need intervention from the physics dept!]
-0

 

[Tanelorn]

Tanelorn my friend,
you said again, "...we have not found first cause or final effect..."
i start with the assumption that no one will ever find IT.
But that means that every time i come back to the subject, it's not resolved.
So much fun for so many!
Hopefully for us all, cosmetology and it's smaller cousin cosmology are not purely and exclusively a total waste of time.
-0

minus, I couldn't agree more, the eternal search will go on!

The road is long
With many a winding turn
That leads us to who knows where
Who knows whenInteresting that spacetime is warped by mass which is equivalent to energy..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

Perhaps first cause is final effect :)

 

[rbj]

Laws depend on the circumstances underlying them. Why these laws could also read why these circumstances.
Take gravity for example 3 choices
1 The value of G was predetermined before the universe began
2 Did it start at 0 and settle at its current value for some unknown reason
3 It was decided by a third party (God)

Only with option 2 could the laws evolve, for 1 and 3 G is predetermined and so must be the law it is set by circumstances.

the value of G is 1.^** always has been and does not change w.r.t. time or anything. same for c, \hbar, \epsilon_0, k_\mathrm{B}.


^** actually, if it were up to me, i would set G=\frac{1}{4\pi}.

 

[Tanelorn]

I tried setting G = 1/(4*Pi) and ran my BB simulation overnight and all I ended up with was a Universe consisting entirely of marsh mallow! :)

 

[rbj]

i see the :) smiley. but just to make sure, the value of dimensionful constants are not "operationally meaningful". saying "The value of G was predetermined before the universe began" is not really operationally meaningful.

saying "The value of \alpha was predetermined before the universe began" might be meaningful. at least if "... before the universe began" is meaningful.

 

[Tanelorn]

rbj, actually I didn't have my glasses on as well as not thinking about whether they were dimensionful.

I presume you normalize to 1 from this value?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant

 

[negativzero]

Could the missing energy in the Smolinverse be vacuum?
Looking for an answer to this question i found this appropriate bit by John Baez, Smolin's buddy.
It occurred to me that when a hole is formed it might gulp down some space along with energy. What would be the values:
1. as measured outside the hole, like mass, proportion of energy in spin, etc;
2. as cut off from the rest of the universe from inside the event horizon. Would the gulped bit of empty space suddenly acquire huge vacuum energy density? Enough to provide energy for a baby Smolinverse?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html
.
By "missing energy" i mean an answer to the mystery of how the new universes acquire a universe of mass/energy from what looks from the outside to be just a few solar masses?
.
i notice that Baez is happy with explaining expansion as vacuum pressure but didn't mention it as the cause of gravity. Anti-gravity, yes. Gravity, silence. Einstein attacked this problem [with Fried? Freed?...can't remember], and similarly to Baez's comments found that vacuum energy seemed to provide far TOO MUCH energy to explain the weakness of gravity. So he shelved the idea; it didn't make sense.
.
It first occurred to me that space might create the force of gravity when i was 10 years old, one lazy hot afternoon in Dallas. Then i found the idea at age 20 in Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler's fantastic book, Gravitation. Page 50. The text read that you couldn't tell the difference between the force coming from above or below. Exultations!
.
By 34 i had realized that vacuum pressure would form voids and accelerate the universe. That was 30 years ago. Now I've decided that space emerges from energy over time and Smolin has a model saying the same thing! Not only that but he likes a finite universe too! I've finally fallen in with the right crowd, for sure. This is the only bunch of cosmologists who agree with me. Now i want Smolin and Baez to talk about how entanglement re-explains what has been up to now called, "continuity."
-0

 

[Tanelorn]

Perhaps you don't need additional energy, just a kick to start it all off as in an unstable system.

Perhaps this Universe reproduction cycle could be considered the main event. All the normal matter in the Universe is only 5% of the total energy. Could almost consider it to be just a by product..

 

[negativzero]

Baez mentions, "...A slightly less naive way to calculate the vacuum energy in quantum field theory is to admit that we don't know spacetime is a continuum,..."
.
Yes! No infinities, no infinitesimals. Entanglement defines the smallest unit of continuity. When any two particles interact, they continue to be connected until one of them interacts with another particle. The fastest shortest quickest interval in space/time is that unit. There is no need for an infinitesimally continuous space; the choppy nature of entanglement is the reality.
.
But Baez didn't say that, he just kinda hinted at it. i have no information that he buys into CNS, so i guess i shouldn't harp on some tangential issue. i'll cut it off here.
-0

 

[Tanelorn]

i see the :) smiley. but just to make sure, the value of dimensionful constants are not "operationally meaningful". saying "The value of G was predetermined before the universe began" is not really operationally meaningful.

saying "The value of \alpha was predetermined before the universe began" might be meaningful. at least if "... before the universe began" is meaningful.

This page on Planck units and normalization is very useful for understanding what rbj mentioned. If I covered this at all, it was at least 32 years ago so good to see this again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_unitsApparently we would not know if the speed of light has changed, even drastically. We say that the speed of light is constant but it appears that we cannot tell even if it isn't. Are there any implications for CMBR redshift here at all?

 

[negativzero]

Assuming that consensus shifts to support the Smolinverse,
what cosmological questions will remain, and what new questions will be generated by acceptance of CNS?
i've been having fun with this one, and i'd like to read what anyone else imagines.
-0

 

[negativzero]

This thread introduced CNS to me. An admirable new notion!
i came here already advocating a finite universe, with a quantum space/time emerging from energy over time. i assume both dark energy and gravity result from vacuum pressure. i think space is a construct used to describe fields. That "space" is anywhere energy can go, that's all. So the longer a particle exists the more space there is associated with it. This describes expansion. Another definition of space is that it is all the differences that can be measured. i think entanglement shows empirically that the classic notion of continuity is flawed.
.
i find so many points of agreement with Smolin that it seems like a wonderful stroke of luck to find this thread!
.
i've been so lonely so long.
.
So cold.
.
[Insert big whimpering sigh after a good cry here.]
.
Thx again marcus!

 

[negativzero]

Smolinverse, the movie.
Inevitably his theory will be integrated into SF. Here is a brief treatment.
As Joseph Campbell says, every hero story is the same story, after all.
.
An offshoot group of Creationists hollow out a small asteroid and look for stars that are almost massive enough to implode into a black hole, where they intend to add enough mass to create a new Smolinverse, which they name after a mythical character in their liturgy, "Hernik, Fysiks Foramen Pastor." Which of course makes no sense, because the mythology of the Hernik One is shrouded, shrouded in, well, shrouds.
.
In all drama, character drives plot, and paradox drives character.
.
The lead character, Tanalorn, is a skeptic. He's the elected governor/captain of the religious zealots on the asteroid colony. He wasn't a doubter when he boarded the interstellar asteroid, but now that his cult has found a candidate star, he finds that his math has evolved and he's a heretic to Smolin's physics. BUT, he's in love with the Chocolatiers' daughter! And she and her father, Chronos, ARE true believers. Tanelorn trusts his chocolaty love interest to work out the math and figure just how much mass the faithful need to toss into the star to implode it, but her math is ersatz. She's off by about the BMI of one human male. One lean muscular handsome charismatic male, like the protagonist, Tanelorn. In the end, even though he doesn't believe, he throws himself into the star to create what his beloved thinks will be a new universe.
.
Why the Chocolatier's daughter? Well, this particular cult wants to make a universe with running chocolate streams and Spaten Optimator waterfalls. So they bring Hersheys bars and dark beer as mass to throw in. You know, chocolate and beer in, chocolate and beer out. And the Beirmeister, marcus, has only sons.
.
Until and unless, Smolin's CNS is produced as a 1 star SF movie, his idea is not going to find the public mind.
-0

 

[Tanelorn]

hehe minus that's quite an imagination. Did I really come over as a skeptic? I question everything and rarely believe anything outright. btw Tanelorn is a city, a city of peace that exists in every Universe, but I will play it as a character :) I was an extra in X3 and a few others. Although I don't think Disney's Black Hole movie was a big success as I recall. So if I could somehow create a black hole inside my own body I could then say that I became a whole new Universe?

Actually there's the background for a story right there using Smolins theory of CNS. Tanelorn a city of peace which exists in each of his Universes and which provides a means for traveling between these Universes for what ever reason is required for a good story.

 

[negativzero]

Don't push it Tanni, rumor is Brucie willis is looking at the script.
-0
[edit. negativzero started this rumor]
Hernik collaborated on the treatment.

 

[negativzero]

One other thing i absolutely agree with Smolin on is, NO PARALLEL UNIVERSES!
Entanglement again shows the way.
If particles are still connected between interactions, then there is no need for any parallel universe theory.
-0
P.S. Since I'm talking about agreements with Smolin...yeah! The Universe IS emergent! Been sayin' this for 34years now!
.
i even sent out a monograph.

 

[Tanelorn]

NO PARALLEL UNIVERSES? Just a single parent and a billion billion sibling universes each generation! :)

 

[negativzero]

Tandisimo, That's an extremely small number you mention. Just to refresh memories... the whole parallel universe surmise came from trying to imagine what was happening in the double slit experiment.
.
But now we know that the runner on first base keeps his foot on first base until and unless he reaches second, or....second base interacts with some other player...wait...this whole baseball metaphor is breaking down badly...particles stay interacted until they interact with the next particle in their world path ...that's the lesson of entanglement. They don't disappear into infinite other universes, they are still here. Entangled.
-0

 

[Tanelorn]

http://www.universetoday.com/30305/how-many-galaxies-in-the-universe/

I forgot about all the other BHs )

 

[negativzero]

NO PARALLEL UNIVERSES? Just a single parent and a billion billion sibling universes each generation! :)

Well yes, if you buy Smolin's argument.
This is so weird because usually I'm the devil's advocate, according to my Biology teacher. And now I'm the resident advocate for Smolin...okay ...okay... i will pretend that i have bought into Smolin's universe.
.
But even if i stray from Smolin, parallel universes are not there. Entanglement, you see.
.
Let me just scream it...entanglement contradicts parallel universe theories!
.
Oh yes, just to stay on point, Smolin did say, he's not into parallel universes.
.
i have no idea whether he agrees with me on the parallel U issue, for the same reasons i do, but i don't really care. It's hard enough to find one PhD Cosmologist on Terra who agrees with me on anything!
.
{Insert 30 minutes of sobbing here.}

-0

 

[negativzero]

Smolin should patent his ideas on universe creation.
Just send it in! "Application for Process for universe creation."
The Patent Office is extremely open minded. The only question is, "Will it work?"
-0

 

[Chronos]

Oh well, you have your own theory and this is not the place to post it.

 

[negativzero]

Yes Chronos, i have lots of theories. What is remarkable is the overlap between Smolin's ideas and my own.
.
Moreover, Smolin's quantum loop crew agree with me where Smolin hasn't yet made that clear to me. After all, I've only watched 3 of his lectures.
.
We have Baez seriously questioning the nature of contininuty, for instance.
.
If it weren't for the fact that i agree with Smolin, I'm sure there are folks here who would claim my theories aren't physics at all.
.
If you could find the time to point out just where Smolin and i diverge, i might find out what you mean so that i can inform you where i find agreement in the physics community.
.
Just to recount similarities, i agree with Smolin: the universe is emergent [i argued that 30 years ago]; finite;
math is just physical stuff; he sees space emerging from momenta and events, and my way of saying that is space emerges from energy over time; he's also trying to find gravity emerging similarly; another loop quantum theorist Roveli has quipped, "No more fields on spacetime: just fields on fields." i write again, "i agree." Re background-independence, i find this too: "...This is the true meaning of the saying "The stage disappears and becomes one of the actors"; space-time as a `container' over which physics takes place has no objective physical meaning and instead the gravitational interaction is represented as just one of the fields forming the world..." True that! When something, in this case space, "...has no objective physical meaning..." i calls it an unnecessary construct. It could be called other things, i guess.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity
.
All in all, the area of agreement is huge. Since he said clearly he was looking to find gravity emerging too, even my idea that gravity is a form of vacuum pressure passes the appropriateness test. Also it seems significant that Einstein had the exact same idea about 100 yrs ago. After all, he did dream up GR in the first place, along with the photo-electric effect, and Brownian motion. Seems to me that i am on the right subject here, especially considering that vacuum pressure is given credit for the accelerated expansion---which i predicted also 30 years ago.
.
i make every effort to keep this thread on topic, namely on Smolin, and since he talks about his friends who are theorists also, it seems fair to include them since Smolin does. i hope you will excuse me for rejoicing that I've found significant scientists who agree with me.
.
If you spot a theory of mine which seems to have no support from Smolin or his buddies, please point it out.
-0

 

[negativzero]

Trying to zero-in on the nexus between entanglement and continuity i found this:
"...There is no reason this cannot be a "locally realistic" theory, provided we understand that locality in a quasi-metric manifold is non-transitive. Realism is simply the premise that the results of our measurements and observations are determined by an objective world, and it's perfectly possible that the objective world might possesses a non-transitive locality, commensurate with the non-transitive metrical aspects of Minkowski spacetime... we should have learned from special relativity that locality is not transitive, and this should have led us to expect non-Euclidean connections and correlations between events, not just metrically, but topologically as well... many of the seeming paradoxes associated with quantum mechanics and locality are really just manifestations of the non-intuitive fact that the manifold we inhabit does not obey the triangle inequality (which is one of our most basic spatio-intuitions), and that elementary processes are temporally reversible..."
.
http://mathpages.com/rr/s9-09/9-09.htm
.
And this from the same source: "...Dirac points out that observed velocities are always average velocities over appreciable time intervals, whereas the equations of motion of the particle show that its velocity oscillates between +c and -c in such a way that the mean value agrees with the average value. He argues that this must be the case in any relativistic theory that incorporates the uncertainty principle, because in order to measure the velocity of a particle we must measure its position at two different times, and then divide the change in position by the elapsed time. To approximate as closely as possible to the instantaneous velocity, the time interval must go to zero, which implies that the position measurements must approach infinite precision. However, according to the uncertainty principle, the extreme precision of the position measurement implies an approach to infinite indeterminancy in the momentum, which means that almost all values of momentum - from zero to infinity - become equally probable. Hence the momentum is almost certainly infinite, which corresponds to a speed of ±c. This is obviously a very general argument, and applies to all massive particles (not just fermions)..."
.
This is from Smolin: "...The inverse of the Planck energy is the Planck length. It is where the classical picture of space as smooth and continuous is predicted by our theories to break down, and it is some twenty powers of ten smaller than an atomic nucleus..."
.
And more: My colleague Ted Jacobson... and I then found in 1986 that we could use this new formalism of Ashtekar's to get real results about quantum spacetime. Since the 1950s, the key equation of quantum gravity has been one called the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. Bryce DeWitt and John Wheeler wrote it down, but in all the time since then, no one had been able to solve it. We found we could solve it exactly, and in fact we found an infinite number of exact solutions. They revealed a microscopic structure to the geometry of space and told us that space, at the Planck scale, looks like a network with discrete edges joined into graphs. The next year, I was joined by Carlo Rovelli ... and we were able to make a full-fledged quantum theory of gravity out of these solutions. This became loop quantum gravity..."
.
And: "...The most surprising aspect of this picture is that on that scale, space is not continuous but made up of discrete elements. There is a smallest unit of space: Its minimum volume is given roughly by the cube of the Planck length (which is 10-33 cm)..."
http://edge.org/conversation/loop-quantum-gravity-lee-smolin
.
Schrödinger coined the term ‘entanglement’ to describe this peculiar connection between quantum systems (Schrödinger, 1935; p. 555):

"...When two systems, of which we know the states by their respective representatives, enter into temporary physical interaction due to known forces between them, and when after a time of mutual influence the systems separate again, then they can no longer be described in the same way as before, viz. by endowing each of them with a representative of its own. I would not call that one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics, the one that enforces its entire departure from classical lines of thought. By the interaction the two representatives [the quantum states] have become entangled..."
.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/
.
Bell himself saw all quantum events as non-local, not just the outlying "spooky action at a distance" events.
-0

 

[kye]

Smolin has a new book (Time Reborn) coming out this month. Amazon has a page on it, with advance reviews.

He gave a talk on the main ideas at Perimeter in February. I was impressed by the depth and cogency. It is a 60 minute talk followed by a lengthy discussion with Rob Myers, Laurent Freidel, Neil Turok and other members of the Perimeter audience. Here's the video:
http://pirsa.org/13020146/

The first 35 minutes lays out the main ideas for wide audience and is readily understandable. I think it would well repay anyone's time to listen to it. He presents certain principles (buttressed by quotes from Dirac, Feynman, Wheeler, Peirce) some going back to Leibniz. In the next 25 minutes he presents new work on a spacetime and quantum dynamics based on those principles which he and a collaborator are currently attempting to simulate in toy version on computer. Some advanced background is needed to understand the final 25 minutes of the talk. He constructs one or more actions/Lagrangians based on simplified models under study.

The enterprise is high risk. As I recall, the most active audience member is Rob Myers, who keeps commenting and asking questions both during the first hour and in the following 20 minute discussion. But Laurent Freidel is pretty active too. The enterprise could clearly fail. However I find it very interesting and having a real potential to change the foundations.

I'd appreciate comment from anyone who has listened to (at least the first half hour or so of) the talk.

Hi Markus, I bought this book "Time Reborn" by Lee Smolin you mentioned and I'm wondering if there is no principle in GR that go against the existence of as Smolin put it "a preferred time that is perceptible at the scale of the universe as a whole, with the validity of the principle of relativity on smaller scales ... the preferred time in shape dynamics is not absolute, it is determined dynamically as a result of the distribution of matter and fields in the universe."?

 

[marcus]

accidentally deleted

 

[marcus]

Kye, it sounds as if in what you quoted Smolin saying he was talking very specifically about the recently developed theory of Shape Dynamics, which is different from GR. A lot has been written about SD. If anyone is interested, authors to look up: Julian Barbour, Tim Koslowski, Henrique Gomes...
If interested in SD, I would look up Koslowski on arxiv.org and see what papers he has written.
http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/au:+koslowski_t/0/1/0/all/0/1

He will be giving a seminar on it this month at ILQGS. The audio and his slides will be online.
http://relativity.phys.lsu.edu/ilqgs/

As far as we can tell at present, SD is just as valid as GR. It makes the same predictions as GR as regards wht we have been able to observe. Or so the SD people (like Koslowski) have said. I'm not an expert.

You ask does GR "go against" SD. Well of course they are fundamentally different theories so they go against each other at the most basic axiomatic level. They are based on different principles and assumptions.

But the tension is so far not resolved.

Everybody knows that GR is wrong, an incomplete theory with limited applicability, so many people are working on various prospective replacements---most on QUANTUM theories to replace GR which will not develop singularities and break down (e.g. in black hole or at start of expansion). SD is not typical of this widespread effort---it is not even a quantum theory yet and I haven't heard anything about its resolving the singularities of GR. However it is new: it may be developed into a quantum version and may be able to extend into regimes where classical GR breaks down. Maybe---I think it is work in progress and we don't know future outcomes of research.

You raise the issue of PREFERRED TIME. One needs to realize that cosmologists have been using a preferred time for many years. It can be allowed by GR if there is matter in the universe. For example if the matter and radiation is approximately evenly distributed throughout space ("homogeneous and isotropic") then you have a criterion of being at REST (and a preferred rest gives rise to preferred time).

The criteria for being at rest all agree and lead to the same idea of time: at rest with respect to the expansion process itself, or the ancient light of the cosmic microwave background, or with respect to the ancient nearly uniform distribution of ancient matter that emitted the Background.
The temperature of the CMB is uniform in all directions to within 1/1000 of one percent, so it gives a nice criterion of being at rest. and from that comes an idea of universe time, or Friedman time, that cosmologists have used for decades for pretty much all their work.

Even before the CMB was observed there was the idea of the comoving or isotropic observer to whom the expansion process looked the same in all directions---the expansion process looks LOPSIDED to us because the solar system is moving with respect to the expansion (expansion looks slower in the direction of constellation Leo and faster in the opposite) so the observations have to be corrected to compensate for the solar system's "absolute" motion, i.e motion relative to a preferred rest-frame.

This is routine. Because there is roughly evenly distributed matter in the universe there is a preferred concept of rest (allowed by GR) and therefore a preferred concept of time (allowed by GR). It's no big deal. I guess it goes back to 1922 when the Friedman model was published (the equation model of the expanding universe that is still the model cosmologists use.)

 

[marcus]

Kye, I think Smolin's book is really about something not mentioned in the title.

It is really about how can you explain the fact that we have THESE laws of nature rather than some other conceivable laws? What produced these regularities, these patterns we see in the world? How did they come about? Why are they these and not others?

In the commercial publishing world, I am told, it is the publisher who ultimately decides on the TITLE of the book.

Apparently someone thought you likely would sell more books with a title like
"Time reborn: from the crisis in physics to the future of the universe"

than you could sell with a title like
"How come these laws? The observed laws of physics may have evolved from random formlessness."

 

[kye]

You raise the issue of PREFERRED TIME. One needs to realize that cosmologists have been using a preferred time for many years. It can be allowed by GR if there is matter in the universe. For example if the matter and radiation is approximately evenly distributed throughout space ("homogeneous and isotropic") then you have a criterion of being at REST (and a preferred rest gives rise to preferred time).

The criteria for being at rest all agree and lead to the same idea of time: at rest with respect to the expansion process itself, or the ancient light of the cosmic microwave background, or with respect to the ancient nearly uniform distribution of ancient matter that emitted the Background.
The temperature of the CMB is uniform in all directions to within 1/1000 of one percent, so it gives a nice criterion of being at rest. and from that comes an idea of universe time, or Friedman time, that cosmologists have used for decades for pretty much all their work.

Even before the CMB was observed there was the idea of the comoving or isotropic observer to whom the expansion process looked the same in all directions---the expansion process looks LOPSIDED to us because the solar system is moving with respect to the expansion (expansion looks slower in the direction of constellation Leo and faster in the opposite) so the observations have to be corrected to compensate for the solar system's "absolute" motion, i.e motion relative to a preferred rest-frame.

This is routine. Because there is roughly evenly distributed matter in the universe there is a preferred concept of rest (allowed by GR) and therefore a preferred concept of time (allowed by GR). It's no big deal. I guess it goes back to 1922 when the Friedman model was published (the equation model of the expanding universe that is still the model cosmologists use.)

Marcus. I'm more interested in the technical aspects in Smolin book. What I'd like to know is if his ideas of the consequence of Shape Dynamics is also found in other author's work? There are so many papers on Shape Dynamics but I haven't found the following implied (is this Smolin's own idea or inherent in Shape dynamics?):

(quoting Lee Smolin in Time Reborn):
"This global notion of time implies that at each event in space and time there is a preferred
observer whose clock measures its passage. But there is no way to pick out that special observer
by any measurements made in a small region. The choice of the special global time
is determined by how matter is distributed across the universe. This coincides with the fact
that experiments agree with the principle of relativity on scales smaller than that of the universe.
Thus, shape dynamics achieves an accord between the experimental success of the
principle of relativity and the need for a global time demanded by theories of evolving laws
and hidden-variable explanations of quantum phenomena."

I'm interested in it because Lee Smolin explained it can explain quantum correlations. In fact in the book he explained it. I'd just summarize the essence with the brief quote:

(Quoting Lee Smolin Time Reborn)
"To describe how the correlations are established, a hidden-variables theory must embrace
one observer’s definition of simultaneity. This means, in turn, that there is a preferred notion
of rest. And that, in turn, implies that motion is absolute. Motion is absolutely meaningful,
because you can talk absolutely about who is moving with respect to that one observer—
call him Aristotle. Aristotle is at rest. Anything he sees as moving is really moving.
End of story.
In other words, Einstein was wrong. Newton was wrong. Galileo was wrong. There is no
relativity of motion.
This is our choice. Either quantum mechanics is the final theory and there is no penetrating
its statistical veil to reach a deeper level of description, or Aristotle was right and there
is a preferred version of motion and rest."

Comment?

 

[marcus]

...
You quote Smolin. Do you have a page reference or a link, so we could see the quote in context?

It would be nice to see what he was saying in context...

Hi Kye, now as you say, you are quoting from the BOOK. Could you please give the page reference. Make it easy for those of us who have the book to find?

So far I have seen no indication that Smolin logically DERIVES his ideas from SD. He gives SD as an example of a theory with a global time. But there are several such. I don't think SD is essential to his argument.

You seem to be asking "do other scholars derive the same conclusions from SD that Smolin does?" I don't think that makes sense because he does not take SD as a premise, as far as I know. But maybe he does! If you find a place where he actually assumes SD is RIGHT (not just a conspicuous example of one of several current theory developments) then please give me the page reference so I can read it and judge for myself!

Thanks.
m

 

[marcus]

What I'd like to know is if his ideas of the consequence of Shape Dynamics is also found in other author's work? ...
(quoting Lee Smolin in Time Reborn):
"...
Thus, shape dynamics achieves an accord between the experimental success of the
principle of relativity and the need for a global time demanded by theories of evolving laws
and hidden-variable explanations of quantum phenomena."
...

SD is just ONE OF SEVERAL theories that let's you have a global time. Another is "unimodular" gravity which Smolin was writing about earlier before SD began to get so much attention.
What he is really interested in is evolving laws

Dirac and Feynman both speculated about evolving laws. It is a very unusual thing to try to think about and pursue. Evolving laws IS NOT A CONSEQUENCE OF GLOBAL TIME. (Global time is necessary but not sufficient.) You could spend your research career working on various theories that have global time and never once dream of evolving laws. Smolin is in select company, very few physicists (I know of only Smolin Dirac and Feynman)

But evolving laws appears to DEMAND a global time as one condition. So by pointing out the obvious: that there are theories like Unimodular and SD which have it he kind of makes it plausible that this demand can be met (some way or another)

 

[kye]

Hi Kye, now as you say, you are quoting from the BOOK. Could you please give the page reference. Make it easy for those of us who have the book to find?

So far I have seen no indication that Smolin logically DERIVES his ideas from SD. He gives SD as an example of a theory with a global time. But there are several such. I don't think SD is essential to his argument.

You seem to be asking "do other scholars derive the same conclusions from SD that Smolin does?" I don't think that makes sense because he does not take SD as a premise, as far as I know. But maybe he does! If you find a place where he actually assumes SD is RIGHT (not just a conspicuous example of one of several current theory developments) then please give me the page reference so I can read it and judge for myself!

Thanks.
m

Marcus, but in the book (it's the last page before chapter 15 (The Emergence of Space) as there is no page numbers written in my file)), Smolin seemed to derive his conclusion directly from shape dynamics and nothing more. Quoting (last time I'd quote for discussions purposes), these are the paragraphs before the previous quote in my previous message:

(Quoting Lee Smolin):

"When that history is described in the language of general relativity, the definition of time
is arbitrary. Time is relative and there’s no meaning to what it is at distant locations. But
when the history is described in the language of shape dynamics, a universal notion of time
is revealed. The price you pay is that size becomes relative and it becomes meaningless to
compare the sizes of objects far from one another.

Like the wave/particle picture of quantum theory, this is an example of what physicists
call a duality—two descriptions of a single phenomenon, each of which is complete yet
incompatible with the other. This particular duality is one of the deepest discoveries of contemporary theoretical physics. It was proposed in a different form8 in 1995 by Juan Maldacena
in the context of string theory and has since become the most influential idea in that
field. As of this writing, the exact relationship between shape dynamics and Maldacena’s
duality is unclear, but it seems likely that there’s a correspondence.

Whereas there’s no preferred time in general relativity, there is one in the dual theory.
We can use the fact that the two theories are interchangeable to translate time in the shape
dynamics world to the general relativity world. There it reveals itself as a preferred time,
hidden in the equations."

------
So guys, it seems Smolin gets the idea directly from Shape Dynamics. But do other Shape Dynamics researchers think also that there is preferred time in GR and logically if there is, this can be the mechanism of quantum entanglement like what Smolin concluded (he subscribed to Bohm theory with preferred time... remember Bohm theory now is so difficult to make relativistic because of the relativity of simultaneity, but Smolin said a preferred time can make Bohm Theory become relativistic and complete solving a 100 year old mystery). Comments?

 

[amos carine]

I think that Smolin is working with Roberto U, like he said in the video clip, and I am looking forward to that. The Time Reborn book was mainly about getting his ideas out there, and to provide general fodder for people who might be interested in the subject. So it was written for everybody. I like that he used Leibniz principle of suffiencient reason, that every 'why' must have a true, satisfactory answer, and he has even published a quantum pap where space is emergent. Sd is cool, and while I don't know much about Barbour's ideas besides some videos, I think that Smolin was leaning away from it, but praising it for being real science, creative and as a good role model theory for further development. Leibniz, An Introduction is a very readable book at the undergraduate level.

 

[marcus]

... I think that Smolin was leaning away from [SD], but praising it for being real science, creative and as a good role model theory for further development. Leibniz, An Introduction is a very readable book at the undergraduate level.

I agree. He was thinking about evolution of laws in global time long before "Shape Dynamics" existed as a theory. He often chooses his words carefully and in every reference to SD I've seen he has carefully avoided saying that he assumes SD or DERIVES his ideas from that.

Rather, as you suggest, he uses it as an EXAMPLE of an attractive recently proposed replacement for GR which (like several earlier proposals) has global time--something his idea of global evolution requires as one of the necessary conditions for it to work.

I think in the popular book he is basically contriving to coax the naive reader thru a thought process. "Look at this new theory SD, isn't it interesting?! Isn't it ingenious? Look at these novel features. And by the way it just happens to provide yet another example of a GR substitute theory that has global time. Doesnt that make you think of something? My evolution idea (and Dirac's and Feynman's.) Doesn't that make it seem more plausible?. Of course there have been earlier GR replacements proposed that have global time, like for instance Unimodular, and there will be others proposed, so stay tuned!..."

You are right about the collaboration with Roberto Unger. They have a book in the works. I personally expect that Smolin and Unger and Cortes are probably going to bring out their OWN new proposal of a scheme to replace GR with some kind of process or construct that will have its own global time, and (natural law) regular pattern evolution as well.

My guess is that we might see some advance notices about the Smolin Unger book sometime in next six months.

Anyway what he's doing in the popular book is more like coaxing wide-audience readers along a speculative process where they will arrive at conjectures similar to his own, starting from a particular EXAMPLE of a novel proposed GR replacement that is currently attracting a lot of attention. It's a good expository method to guide them along that path.

 

[marcus]

Here is his page about the Smolin Unger book, it is in draft and the (provisional?) title is:
The Singular Universe--and the Reality of Time.
http://leesmolin.com/writings/the-singular-universe-and-the-reality-of-time/

The book will have two sections, one by each author. The first, more philosophical, and longer portion will be by Unger. The second portion, by Smolin, will have more science-oriented specifics and more physics and cosmology detail.

Here's an excerpt from Lee Smolin's webpage about the draft book.

==quote==
The book develops four inter-related themes:

1) There is only one universe at a time. Our universe is not one of many worlds. It has no copy or complete model, even in mathematics. The current interest in multiverse cosmologies is based on fallacious reasoning.

2) Time is real, and indeed the only aspect of our description of nature which is not emergent or approximate. The inclusive reality of time has revolutionary implications for many of our conventional beliefs.

3) Everything evolves in this real time including laws of nature. There is only a relative distinction between laws and the states of affairs that they govern..

4) Mathematics deals with the one real world. We need not imagine it to be a shortcut to timeless truth about an immaterial reality (Platonism) in order to make sense of its “unreasonable effectiveness” in science.

We argue by systematic philosophical and scientific reasoning , as well as by detailed examples, that these principles are the only way theoretical cosmology can break out of its current crisis in a manner that is scientific, i.e. results in falsifiable predictions for doable experiments.
The book is in two parts: the first part by Roberto Mangabeira Unger and the second, shorter part by Lee Smolin...
==endquote==

 

[kye]

I agree. He was thinking about evolution of laws in global time long before "Shape Dynamics" existed as a theory. He often chooses his words carefully and in every reference to SD I've seen he has carefully avoided saying that he assumes SD or DERIVES his ideas from that.

Rather, as you suggest, he uses it as an EXAMPLE of an attractive recently proposed replacement for GR which (like several earlier proposals) has global time--something his idea of global evolution requires as one of the necessary conditions for it to work.

I think in the popular book he is basically contriving to coax the naive reader thru a thought process. "Look at this new theory SD, isn't it interesting?! Isn't it ingenious? Look at these novel features. And by the way it just happens to provide yet another example of a GR substitute theory that has global time. Doesnt that make you think of something? My evolution idea (and Dirac's and Feynman's.) Doesn't that make it seem more plausible?. Of course there have been earlier GR replacements proposed that have global time, like for instance Unimodular, and there will be others proposed, so stay tuned!..."

Marcus. Questions:

1. Besides Unimodular, what other GR proposed replacements have global time.. and why doesn't this violate the principle of relativity? how many percentage of physicists believe this is possible at all?

2. What do you think about Shape Dynamics. Its main principle is that all that is real in physics is connected with the shapes of objects, and all real change is simply changes in those shapes. Size is said to be means nothing, fundamentally, and the fact that objects seem to us to have an intrinsic size is said to have an illusion. What are physicists main objections to this?

3. Does Loop Quantum Gravity use the principle of Shape Dynamics or are they independent GR theories?

4. In one of the Sci-Am article about Loop Quantum Gravity. It is said if different wavelength photons from far away in space are measured to arrive differently, it can support the discreteness of space. Isn't it this experiment has been done already? Is the result null or non-null?

Thanks.