프로그래밍과 경제

Searching for Quantum gravity. what is infinity? (6)

Oh Youngjong

(dmqcka @ gmail.com) 

(This article contains my own personal view and not finished yet so be noted that it may contain wrong information. It can be modified at any time without notice.)

What is infinity?

It is a new model for gravity which describes the fundamental nature of time and space ranging from Plank scale to cosmos scale. There are many papers concerning problem of time (POT) [1, 2 …] It is a most difficult and crucial problem in unifying Quantum theory and theory of general relativity because the notions of time in two great principles are mutually incompatible. In quantum mechanics, time is, especially in the time dependent Schrodinger equation (TDSE), absolute in that it is like a parameter fixed all the “time” which is continuous and differentiable. When we look at the continuous time axis (as far as I know, it is true) in TDSE, we are easy to get an impression that time flows at a fixed rate from past to future because there seems to be no finite region of special importance in this time dimension. On the other hand, time is relative and dynamical in the theory of general relativity. It is common sense that Einstein proved that time is relative, not absolute because he found that time can be distorted under influence of massive matter nearby. It is the outcome of GR that my time flow rate can be varied depending on where I am located in empty space or near surface of earth.

The problem of time must be resolved if we want to put together two great principles in physics but no one succeeded to produce a solution so far. Many difficulties in understanding the nature of time are listed in [1] but I will not recap those for two reasons. The first is I, as a hobbyist studying physics, don’t have enough knowledge and secondly that is not what I try to do. As I already stated many times, I think myself crazy enough to propose another model for gravity which will be different and perhaps batter that Einstein’s theory even I did not major physics in university. If you like some absurdity or are generous with a crazy mind like me, I will do my best to give you some fun and exciting stuffs concerning a whole new crazy idea on the most fundamental notions such as infinity, time, mass and energy. I will begin by explaining the notion of infinity which human cannot touch or measure.

I think many scientists will agree on that QM is so weird that no one understands it as Richard Feynman mentioned early. What makes QM so weird or why we feel difficult in understanding QM? From my study, I concluded it is because QM is a realm ruled by infinity which human do not have clear understanding or is an abstracted notion beyond out of reach. In daily life, it is impossible to see something infinite. There is no infinite money, energy, memory and time. In computer, the most basic error in calculation is dividing by 0 error because it is not defined. When we see infinity in calculation, then we try to find another way yielding no infinity if possible. We feel difficult in dealing with infinity because we do not understand what infinity actually means and how it work in nature. It has been true since Zeno’s paradoxes which were raised in dealing with the notion of infinity were introduced. Understanding infinity properly, I mean to find a whole new different view on infinity which no one noticed before, is the first key thing in explaining my new gravity model. It is not difficult but simple. It does not require any advanced mathematics but require you abandon all your biased knowledge and open minded to a new way of thinking.

The story begins with a simple question: In a dimension, does a point have size? I bet everyone will answer that a point does not have size. If someone says something different, all readers think it crazy. Never in my life have I seen any person arguing a point with non-zero size in a dimension. But I will be first crazy person arguing that and ask you staying with me. Why I think so? Firstly I need to mention I also believe that in principle a point has zero size but with one condition a point can have non-zero size. The condition is related with infinity. If a point is accompanied by infinity, then it becomes non-zero sized. This is first thing readers must be open-minded to. It is the key element to understand superposition in QM which is one of strange phenomena. If a particle is accompanied or given by infinite time, then it can many places at a single instance in “time” showing the property of unitarity. I think this can be reasoned by inspecting the Thompson’s lamp paradox carefully.

Thompson’s lamp with a switch has two states; on and off. Hit the switch once, it turns it on. Hit it again, it turns it off. Whenever the switch hit, lamp changes its state. Here is an endless process. Firstly, he hit the switch to turn lamp on. One second later he hit it to turn lamp off. In half second, he turns it on. At the next a quarter of a second, he turns it off. The story normally ends up with a question; at the end of two seconds, is the lamp one or off? It is the paradoxical because it cannot be easily answered. But here is the very point we need to be creative. My answer here is that the lamp has both states after two seconds. The two states of lamp can be thought as size-less points in a dimension having only two states. Logically, before two second, the state of lamp is simply one among two states; on and off but after two second there is no way to know the exclusive state so the size of state of lamp must be 2 not 1. But initially assumed, the state of lamp is exclusive one, not both of them so the lamp system must show the property of unitarity. The role of infinity here is the same thing that creates superposition in QM. My reasoning may sound weird and hard to believe but it will help you eventually understand deeper level of the nature. Another story concerning infinity will be introduced in the next post.

To be continued …

Reference

[1] PROBLEM OF TIME IN QUANTUM GRAVITY

Edward Anderson, APC AstroParticule et Cosmologie, Universit´e Paris Diderot CNRS/IN2P3, CEA/Irfu, Observatoire de Paris, Sorbonne Paris Cit´e, 10 rue Alice Domon et L´eonie Duquet, 75205 Paris Cedex 13, France, arXiv:1206.2403v2 [gr-qc] 16 Aug 2012

[2] Time in Quantum Mechanics

Curt A. Moyer, Department of Physics and Physical Oceanography, UNC Wilmington, arXiv:1305.5525v1 [quant-ph] 23 May 2013

Searching for Quantum gravity. what is infinity? (5)

Oh Youngjong

(dmqcka @ gmail.com) 

(This article contains my own personal view and not finished yet so be noted that it may contain wrong information. It can be modified at any time without notice.)

What is infinity?

Today topic which is concerning about infinity will confuse you and blow you out of mind because never previously have you heard of this new philosophical view what I will discuss. After reading it, you may think me mad, crazy and foolish so most will be ignorant but I am serious. In this series, I have wrote several articles describing the most basic fundamental thing such as the notion of distance, time and infinity because I believe that the so-called quantum gravity and theory of everything later which are expected to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity would be completed only after we have a clear picture on these basics fundamental concepts as already many scientists confessed.

Frankly speaking, many scientists don’t know if time is fundamental or not. One such view of Kate Becker, editor of NATURE OF REALITY is quoted below.

“Space and time are so fundamental to our understanding of the universe that they are woven into nearly every equation in physics. They are the words in which we speak the language of nature—so tried, tested, and true that we don’t even know how to talk about the cosmos without engaging space and time in the conversation.

But what if it turns out that space and time are not the fundamental infrastructure of our cosmos—what if they are themselves products of some deeper physics? This idea is called emergence. We see it in nature, as when birds flock. If you were only to study an individual bird, you would never predict how it would come together as part of a flock.  Yet each bird “knows” the simple rules that, when combined, create a wide range of agile and elegant behaviors. Could it be that physicists have been studying flocks all along, not realizing that it’s the birds that are truly fundamental?  That would mean we don't know if TIME is fundamental or not.”

Not only this, there are so many confessions from physicists about the problem of time. Especially the notion of time is used differently in two great principles, quantum mechanics and general relativity. In classical mechanics, time is treated as a fixed background parameter, independent of any system. The same treatment to time also can be found in the formulation of quantum mechanics. The state of system can be defined only on a certain instance of time and the raw of state evolution, dynamics of a quantum system can be determined solely by itself regardless of the existence of external system if there is no interaction with it. On the other hand, general relativity shows that space-time is actually dynamical. As can be seen in the gravitational wave experiments, matter guide space-time how to vary. The incompatibility in usage of time means that we are lack of enough knowledge on it.

In addition, the notion of infinity also has been problematic to human since its discovery in human history, perhaps introduction of Zeno’s paradoxes. In our daily life, we can see very large numbers but impossible to see the true infinity so it is just an abstracted idea residing only in our mind. Especially in physics if the prediction after mathematical calculation happens to be infinity which is quite normal in quantum mechanics and gravitational force, that means nightmare to physicists. In that case, they try to find a different approach not yielding infinity for the solution because they believe infinity does not exist in physical world or infinity is the fearsome monster we are hard to handle.

Time and infinity are the most basic fundamental notions we need to figure out but it is not easy thing to understand them. Without correct understanding them, the journey to the complete quantum gravity and theory of everything won’t be possible and that why I keep writing those subjects. From my previous study, I recognized that time and infinity are closely related and found a whole new way of thinking on what the infinity truly means to human and how to utilize it. With those understandings, I believe that I can show that Einstein’s relativity theory is incomplete due to the flaw in the principle of relativity, the first postulate of his special relativity. Repeatedly again, I will show the principle of relativity is not 100% true. I argue that must be testable whether an object under uniform motion is moving or stationary and will provide a full explanation in detail later how to test it. For example, a photon in vacuum is always under uniform motion and moving regardless of the choice of any inertial frames. Someone may say photon is not considered as a normal inertial reference of frame and the principle of relativity does not apply to it but I think the better principle will not treat the photon as the exception and will show later. Once you get the clear picture on what the infinity is and how time can switch its form in both QM and GR, then I am sure you will get step further to see the next revolution in physics.

What makes continuum and discontinuum?

Many physicists think time is emergent from unknown non temporal thing but don't know what it is. From my study, I believe that their guess is true and the non temporal thing is just another time. Sound crazy? or interesting? The non temporal hidden structure is actually the fixed time which is believed as undetectable by any mean available to human and the emergent time is what we can measure in the realm of GR.  My proposal of undetectable time as a reality may sound crazy and absurd to you but it is not. In fact, this view is influenced by the metaphysics, especially ontology what Parmenides of Elea, a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher proposed. 

Parmenides believed the by human sensory the true reality cannot be detectable but only the distorted illusory image can be sensed and touched. In this my own personal view, what I understand is that he saw a paradox that the existence of the true reality cannot be proved to be true experimentally because there is no way to see or touch it but only what human can see is the illusion which is considered as not existence. We can find similar cases from what we have experienced already. For example, imaginary number i in complex number theory is accepted as a useful concept by everyone although it cannot be detectable in our physical world. Also never in our life have we detected or measured the full complete digits of any irrational number such as π, e because it need infinity amount of time and storage to get complete digits. I interpret that the symbol of π is the absolute fixed unmeasurable reality and any approximated values such as 3.14, 3.14592653 are the emergent relativistic measurements which we can physically measure and feel. The number symbol π and its approximated decimal expressions above are actually two different aspects of the same thing and time also is considered to have two different aspects and one can be emergent from the non temporal thing. I hope it makes sense to readers. In the next post, I will continue discussion based on this observation.

To be continued ...

Searching for Quantum gravity. what is distance? (2)

Oh Youngjong

(dmqcka @ gmail.com) 

(This article contains my own personal view and not finished yet so be noted that it may contain wrong information. It can be modified at any time without notice.)

In the previous writing, there proposed a radical idea that the notion of distance in any continuous dimension can be defined only after there is a way to generate the indivisible finite length unit out of it. The problem in defining the notion of distance can be traced back to ancient Greek philosophers. Specifically Dichotomy paradox which is one of Zeno’s paradoxes shows the paradoxical conclusion that traveling over any finite distance can neither be completed nor begun in any continuous dimension or space and so leading to another conclusion that distinguishing distance is meaningless.

Many scalars interested in it tried to provide reasonable explanation to resolve it. From the wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes, two suggestions for possible resolution would be worth to be mentioned for further discussion. First resolution is Hermann Weyl’s one that the paradox can be resolved if it is not true that between any two different points in space including time, there is always another point. I strongly support his view with the confidence that his assumption is true, which will be explained later with a new working model. Secondly, Pat Corvini claims that the paradox can be resolved by distinguishing the physical world from the abstract mathematics used to describe it. According to the wiki, it seems that Corvini distinguishes the abstract mathematical notion that between any two different points in space, there is always another point from the physical world of a moving object to traverse an infinite number of divisions. So I totally agree with the quote “The physical world requires a resolution amount used to distinguish distance while mathematics can use any resolution”.

Regarding Corvini’s view, I found a new concept would be quite useful to understand the necessity for distinction between the mathematical abstracted notion and the physical world and it is the cost which is needed to complete the determination of distance. In mathematics, i.e. over real number line which is a manifestation for any continuous dimension, the needed process to measuring distance is just a subtraction of two numbers which requires a constant cost over any distance. It means that no matter how far two numbers are separated from each other, the cost for the subtraction is all the same. For example, in the computer, the required time to complete subtracting two numbers in CPU is constant so it is independent on distance. On the other hand, in the physical world, our daily experiences show that the cost for measuring distance must increase as distance is getting larger. So regarding in determining distance, from this observation of time independence in mathematics and time dependence in physics, it is obvious that it would be too dangerous to apply a mathematical abstraction directly to the physical world.

To get the better understanding on the notion of distance in any dimension, especially space and time, I focus three things in this article. First is the conflict of quantum mechanics and theory of general relativity at singularity due to mainly (I think) the different notion of space and time. Since Max Planck opened a door leading to quantum mechanics by postulating the existence of quantized energy which was considered as continuous measurable property in classical physics, QM assume that space and time also must be quantized while GR dealing with cosmos scale objects treats space and time as continuous. In order to predict the behaviors of heavy matter such as stars and galaxies being absorbed by black hole, I believe that we must get a clear understanding about how heavy matters ruled by general relativity at larger continuous space moves at the scale of quantum mechanics assuming discrete Planck length inside of Schwarzschild radius of black hole.

Similar to what Corvini suggested that mathematical abstraction cannot be applied directly to the physical world, I think that there is a crucial boundary between the mathematical abstracted concepts and the physical tools used to describe the physical world. The key element making the separation is infinity. Actually to spoil my conclusion in advance, it is the mass. We human are all massive and have limited time, meanwhile light is massless so it has unlimited time. The mass plays a core role in assigning time and space to every physical object residing in the universe. The reason for this will be explained in details later.

Putting it with two suggested solutions for Zeno’s paradoxes mentioned above together, I argue that in physical world, there should be a way or model to generate an indivisible finite unit length in space and time which can be observable or measureable out of the absolute continuous space and time.

In next time, the common underlying model for every elementary particle will be introduced.

 References

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes