Under Our Noses: Existing Theories of Everything

8/9/2019 Under Our Noses: Existing Theories of Everything

1/46

Copyright: Trevor Pitts, 31 January 2015 1

Under Our Noses: Existing Theories of

Everything

Trevor Pitts

[email protected]

2015-01-31

Copyright 2015


2/46


Abstract

The essays subject is the dynamics of the creation, and the operation in time, of any andall possible universes capable of or presently harboring intelligent beings. It attempts to

demonstrate that there can be exactly one such universe of any practical relevance by

gathering together existing experimental results and accepted theories to form a summaryof a totally quantized and symmetric physical model of reality. It contains areinterpretation of an existing candidate for a theory of quantum gravity in order to

explain time symmetry, and Quantum quasi-teleology, a speculative extension of theconcept of the sum-of-all-paths version of quantum mechanics in order to explain fine-

tuning and by extension the lack of need for theories of supersymmetry. Much of thematerial involves neglected topics in conventional physics and their philosophical

implications. The results suggest significant consequences in moral philosophy.

Introduction

Assumptions

I trust that the professional physicists who built all the separate moving parts that I amgathering together to form a summary of a totally quantized and symmetric physical

model of reality are correct in their experiments, mathematics, and accepted theories.They already have provided the conceptual tools to eliminate any purportedcontradictions and build this model. However, if we cant put something into

comprehensible verbal form (according to Freeman Dyson), we dont clearly understandit. This is an attempt to do so.

What Does this Essay Offer?

It is not a new proposed Theory of Everything (TOE); it is a proposal to assemble andconnect various neglected parts of late 20C and 21C science to provide an empirical,

testable approach to explain large-scale perceived reality and its creation from nothing.This may be a revelation of how much we already know about the supposed mysteries

listed below, that a new TOE might be expected to resolve. Perhaps it is a Theory ofMost (TOM).

This essay seeks to demonstrate that everything - space, energy, mass and time, is

discontinuous and quantized. Consider the quantization of mass:

An atom or molecule is a discrete local unit of matter separated by gaps of empty space;atomic or sub-atomic particle numbers can only exist in whole numbers (integers) or

change by a limited number of integer amounts. The same is true of all particles- everymember of each type is indistinguishable from every other of that type and each

mass/energy state is separated by an empty gap. That gap can be, for example, a gapbetween two energy levels of rotation in a molecule, or of vibration in a molecule, or of


3/46


an electrons distance from the nucleus in an atom. There can be no in-between valuesand no time exists between the two levels (or, more generally, states). Change is

instantaneous. The quantum change is a jump of a fixed quantity or quantum ofenergy.

The quotes around the word instantaneous are necessary because the word maywrongly imply continuous time. Time itself is quantized according to this essay.Capitalized NOW in this essay means the postulated universe-wide single moment of the

present.

One pervasive theme of this essay is the sum of all paths version of quantummechanics, which is generally agreed to be fundamental to operation of our universe, and

I will argue, to its formation. This, combined with the second theme, the symmetries,especially general relativity, already can produce consistent answers to all of the truly

basic issues listed below, if properly understood. Remarkably, physics, followingcontradictory philosophical/formalistic assumptions, has no widely accepted explanations

for any of the issues below, nor do philosophers:

Einsteins relativity supposedly implies determinism, which is inphilosophical and mathematical formalistconflict with quantum

indeterminacy, basic to quantum mechanics, the most successful theory ofall- with implied determinism, we cannot reconcile the two most basic

theories of reality The irreversible forward arrow of time and the uniqueness of the present

moment- we do not understand time The collapse of the wave function we do not understand how events arise

Causality and the entanglement of distant quantum states with each other,or spooky action at a distance- Einstein spent much of his life on this, with

no resolution The imbalance of matter versus antimatter in the universe, equivalently, why

was matter not completely annihilated at the origin by the required equalamounts of antimatter- we have no accepted explanation for the existence of

matter Why there is something rather than nothing, and how could our particular

spacetime background be constructed consistently with known physics How did our universe arise, whose most fundamental constants and

parameters appear to have been tweaked to be perfect for life, againstastronomical odds: The Fine-Tuning Problem

The accepted, symmetry-based Standard Model of particle physics requires19 unrelated constants of arbitrary magnitudes. Further, the possibility of

neutrino mass seems likely to require at least six more, in the view of mostspecialists in the field: another fine-tuning problem?

Roger Penroses concern about the anomalously extreme low entropy stateapparently required at the origin

Free will and responsibility versus the jazz song lyric Im depraved becauseIm deprived


4/46


5/46


only one possible future state at any time, given any past state. 19th

C (Classical) physicsassumed determinism as basic. Strangely, most physicists today are still Classical

determinists at heart.

Science began by a carefully observed and practical approach to real events. It became

dedicated to testing theories based on experimental or observational, as opposed toargumentative, linguistic evidence. This led to the goal of skeptical demolition of alland every hypothesis, theory or conclusion (to the extent that is practicable) with a view

to the survival of only the fittest descriptions of reality and to the elimination of the rest.Science has evolutionary logic,starting with evident reality as its basis, proceeding

temporarily with some concrete and usually useful experimental conclusion, theniterating more and more exact experimentation to eliminate failed theories to reach better-

fitting theories. This essay argues that, from the late 19th

Century onward, existingphilosophical and mathematical formalist prejudices have had a negative influence on

clarity in physics by fostering specious arguments against new, philosophicallyuncomfortable experimental evidence.

Currently, in physics there is a common view that the theory explaining gravity, general

relativity, and the theory explaining change, quantum mechanics, cannot be reconciled. Itis true that the problems listed above cannot be solved without using both sets of insights.

This essay, however, proposes that they cannot and need not be combined into a newtheory of quantum gravity. The supposed problem is that Classical determinism, (the idea

that any and every situation inevitably has only one possible future) is thought tocontradict quantum mechanical indeterminacy, preventing their combination into some

final theory of Quantum Gravity. But, there is zero actual experimental evidence forsuch determinism in physics. At root, physical law is completely defined by symmetry

and operates via quantum mechanics. Symmetry is a constraint over possible events; itboth allows and enables different outcomes, as long as its rules are obeyed. The great

mathematician, Emmy Noether, derived the laws of nature- conservation laws, from thesymmetries in 1915. The (usually assumed to be deterministic) laws of nature are not

basic, being entirelyderived from the truly basic symmetries. The unnoticed distinctionwas that symmetries are like the rules of chess: vastly different outcomes are possible

within the rules. Since special and general relativity are both examples of these universalsymmetries, the same argument applies. There is no conflict, because neither is in fact

determinist in the Classical sense. So the future is open, subject to the symmetries, notineluctable fate. (Symmetries, quantum mechanics and quantum indeterminacy will be

defined and considered later). Relativity is perhaps among the most basic symmetries, butit is no different in essence. The key concept to unraveling supposed contradictions is to

accept that symmetries provide both the rulesand the particle actorsthemselveswhilequantum mechanics is the mechanism which moves the universe from one state to the

next. Symmetries provide a three dimensional structure of the world and create theparticle actors which quantum mechanics animates in time, while quantum indeterminacy

allows script variations in the universal movie.This essay argues that we can simplyaccept that both relativity and quantum mechanics are true, mutually interacting, entirely

separate descriptions of the relevant parts of reality. We resolve the unanswered


6/46


questions above by using both together. We do not cripple ourselves intellectually byunnecessarily insisting that it is impossible to do so.

The assumption of Classical determinism casts doubt on quantum indeterminacy, a

fundamental component of quantum mechanics, the most successful physical theory of

all, so far. However, there is no experimental evidence purporting to supportdeterminism that the symmetries cannot wholly explain. The symmetries behind specialand general relativity, and the theories behind quantum mechanics have survived every

theoretical challenge and experimental test of their predictions, no matter how apparentlybizarre their predictions may seem. Neither can be fundamentally wrong. Adding

consideration for some late 20th

and 21stcentury physical insights refutes unwarranted

reservations as to the true reality and meaning of quantum mechanics and the symmetries.

Additionally, this essay fully accepts special and general relativity and quantummechanics as experimental fact and submits that they already have been successfully

combined by Roger Penroses decoherence by mass hypothesis, if certain recent solutionsof the Einstein equations of general relativity are also accepted.

The foregoing statements set the stage for addressing the repercussions of physical

deterministic assumptions, highlighted by the following comparison: Both quantummechanics and relativity theories arose at the turn of the twentieth century as a result of

experimentally driven crises in Classical Maxwellian and Newtonian theories. Now, intheir aftermath, the crisis of the twenty-first century is philosophical, not physical.

Indeed, the assumed determinism in physics via philosophy and mathematical formalismproduces assumptions corrosive to morality, politics and diplomacy. If science shows

that everything is ineluctable fate, who can be individually guilty, even of the worstatrocity? Are the depraved guiltless if they were deprived? Yet, who is not deprived of

something? And how can biological evolution by random mutations be explained if thephysical world we live in is completely determined moment to moment from the Big

Bang, forever? The historic fact is that the contribution of fatalist cultures to humanadvancement has been negligible versus that made by cultures emphasizing individual

freedom and responsibility. So determinism is unlikely to prove positivesociologically/economically.

The theme here is universal rule by the symmetries, which function as constraints, but not

absolute controls, of events, in contrast to the usual deterministic assumptions as to theirderivatives, the conservation laws of nature. I propose that we already have the means to

solve all the mysterious issues in the above list, using the four basic tools of modernphysics: microscopically, the sum of all paths version of quantum mechanics, working

subject to the 248 symmetries of the E8 Lie group. These lead to, macroscopically, twomore tools. These two emergent phenomena are Chaos (Lorenz 1993) and Self-Limiting

Criticality (Bak 1996, Jensen 1998). I prefer to call the latter avalanche theory, and willdefine both later. One fundamental process, quantum mechanics, one basic principle,

symmetry, and these two emergent phenomena, working subject to a basket of a halfdozen universal constants or parameters unique to our universe(Rees 2000),plus up to

26 less well-known, but vital, parameters inherent in the Standard Model of particlephysics, can explain the entire basic nature of reality. This is not to say that there are no


7/46


unexplained phenomena, especially on the cosmological level, but we can sufficientlyaddress the list of issues in the Introduction above. All the above four fundamentals are

experimentally confirmed and theoretically sound, but philosophically unappreciated.This is due to Classical deterministic assumptions and the overly revered formalism of

the mathematics. Indeed, most of these fundamentals have not yet permeated the

philosophy of science sufficiently to change the persistent default deterministic stance,that of 19th

Century Classical physics.

Authors BackgroundI should point out that I am a chemist, not a physicist. I have an advantage in that all of

chemistry from the nuclei of the elements to the geology of the planet is entirely aquantum phenomenon. I have to be comfortable with it. Very few of us truly understand

quantum mechanics or all of the symmetries, even fewer understand both.But that isunnecessary. We simply have to accept the latest physical evidence as the

theoretical/experimental reality on which to base ontological or epistemologicalphilosophy rather than the other way around.

Quantum Mechanics

The central fact of any quantum phenomenon is the quantum jump. Every quantumtransition is very different from how we perceive the usual big, warm, heavy world

circumstances. If you climb a staircase, you gradually move, from one step to another,using energy apparently continuously the whole way, more or less evenly between the

steps. The atoms electrons are similarly at a series of levels of energy approximatelycorresponding to stepwise average distances from the nucleus. Approximately, the

electron can move from one step to another one, if it is vacant. The difference is thatthere is no time or space occupied by the electron between the two states. Rather, it can

jump instantaneously to a lower position, closer to the nucleus, by emitting a precisefrequency of light (or similar electromagnetic energy such as X-rays) as it does so. It can

jump back up, to its vacant position equally instantaneously, if exactly the sameenergy/frequency is absorbed by it. So in this aspect - reality isdiscontinuous, all

microscopic changes occur in specific increments, instantaneously, not gradually.(Weshall explore later what is an instant.)This will be of supreme importance in our

transition from the comfortable, illusory Classical clockwork view to thequantum/symmetric real world.

The facts of quantum mechanics are contradictory to ordinary, nave observation of largeobjects on a huge warm planet. They only become demonstrable at a tiny scale, at lowtemperatures and in isolation from uncontrolled interaction with the world of large

objects. But if we consider them together with general relativity, we can extract thenature of the present moment itself, and propose answers to all the conundrums listed

above. I believe that we already have theories of all issues in physics that can fix thesupposed irreconcilability of quantum mechanics and relativity, this section intends to

present only the bare bones of huge subjects in order to extract the key points.


8/46


Quantum mechanics. Why use this form of words rather than quantum theory? Quantumscience has proceeded beyond mere theory. It is now an exact science, able to calculate

physical quantities accurate to a dozen decimal places, having withstood the determinedattacks of many of the greatest minds in physics for over a century. It is empirical fact,

like the thermodynamics of steam engines, no matter how weird it seems. So now, thegenuine weirdness is the refusal to whole-heartedly accept quantum mechanics as

experimental fact. At root, modern quantum mechanics is the sum-of-all-paths approach,which is the means by which all events occur. This, as I discuss below, includes the most

important event, the origin of our universe, optimized for the existence and flourishing ofinterplanetary technical civilizations.

Quantum mechanics (in its modern form - happily, fully compatible with special

relativity, thanks to Dirac and Feynman) is the fundamental process by which all theparticles get from one event to another. These particles altogether produce all

macroscopic events. The current, supremely successful approach to quantum mechanical

calculation is variously titled the sum of all paths or path integral or sum of allhistories method (Feynman 1985, Feynman, Hibbs et al. 2010). All are different namesfor the approach begun by Richard Feynman with his Feynman diagrams in quantum

electrodynamics (Feynman 1985). Essentially, every particle explores all the ways to getto the next state of reality, however bizarre, unlikely, or apparently impossible each such

path may be.

Is every tiny particle so smart as to be able to explore all imaginable and unimaginablepaths? No, but if the universe as a whole is a giant, massively entangled quantum

computer, then it is smart enough to perform the only actual task in the universe, creatingthe next moment, otherwise known as Reality. Entanglement will be explored later.

Everythingin Nature at the microscopic level proceeds by quantum mechanicalprocesses. They are the means by which all change occurs at the fundamental particle

level. Experimentally, such processes alwaysend with an interaction involving someentity of sufficient mass, generating some aspect of perceptible reality. This universal

end/interaction is the collapse of the wave function, sometimes called decoherence, whichI consider to be the most common phenomenon in Nature. Indeed, as we see later, it is the

only basic actual eventin Nature. This collapse cannot be excused away if we are toconstruct a testablemodel of reality consistent with the fundamental, universal

experience known as the present moment.

This essay does not address interpretations of quantum mechanics because there isnothing to interpret. The quantum phenomena discussed here are simply experimental

and experiential facts or testable predictions.Intellectual philosophical discomfort is nota valid reason to try to explain away the facts of experiments. Now we come to many

physicists pet hate, the collapse of the wave function. The Schrodinger wave equationcalculates the probabilistic evolution of particle states in time as a wave functionin an

abstract deterministic mathematical form. It deals with superpositions betweendifferent possible particle positions and velocities. But in the end, it can only produce


9/46


probability amplitudes of the final position and velocity using the sum of the squares ofthese amplitudes. Many of these amplitudes involve i, the square root of minus 1, an

imaginary number. These, by being negative when squared, cancel out some positivesquared components of the wave equation when summed, with excellent results in terms

of describing actual reality. One can barely imagine the shock and horror of most

scientists a century ago when this was first proposed, all reared on the Newtonianclockwork universe, the Maxwell Equations of electromagnetism and the Laws ofThermodynamics, when confronted with negative, squared probability amplitudes and

indeterminacy. Their shock prefaces the incredulity and reluctance to accept theoverwhelming experimental evidence, reluctance that persists to this day.

There are problems apparent with the approach initiated by Bohr, Schrodinger, and

Heisenberg, by which one starts with some original state, calculating some physicalchange over time. The physical system proceeds through a variety of superposed states

at once (superimposed together on top of each other, always remembering that only onestate will be real when the stack collapses the sum into only one real state ), in different

places, with different velocities etc. These individual superposed quasi-events are eachcalculated to proceed deterministically. Only when measured by interacting with some

macroscopic apparatus does this superposition of different likely, unlikely orimpossible routes and states collapseprobabilisticallyinto an actual, factual reality.

This led to huge (and absurd) issues: What is a measurement? Is it the motion of aninstrument needle? The observation of this needle movement by a conscious entity? Or

even the publication of the result in Nature magazine? This chain of observers ispotentially endless. The Schrodingers Cat diabolical thought experiment in which an

outside observer cannot measure whether the cat inside the box is dead or not wasSchrodingers masterpiece of sarcasmon this subject - the cat supposedly must be both

dead and alive at once if not observed! Schrodingers cat was far too large and warm tobe quantum superposed as Schrodinger intuited and as Roger Penroses suggestions are

about to experimentally confirmed. The error here was, because everything discussed wasan experiment, there was always an observer, but what of the real macroscopic world,

where, famously, contrary to Bishop Berkeleys subjective idealism, the physics isbelieved to be independent of the presence of observers?

Experimentally, all this measurement argument is utterly pointless. It is extraordinarily

difficult to maintain any quantum system in a superposition of states. High vacuum,extreme cold, very low mass, and total isolation from other masses and outside influences

is required, and even then the achieved elapsed superposition time is very short. A cat isway too hot, heavy and complicated to be in a superposition as a whole. It will be dead or

alive, in a box or not. Measurement has nothing to do with collapse of the wavefunction - any sufficiently large object, including Schrodingers cat itself, in or out of a

box, will do it. Clearly, when the universe was simply dumb rocks, radiation etc., itmanaged to collapse itself into reality for billions of years, by itself. Why believe it had to

have conscious observers to convert all those billions of years of previoussuperpositions of maybe history into actual history? Would a dinosaur or a caveman be

enough? Or was a Ph.D. necessary?


10/46


In regard to this matter, Roger Penrose (Karolhazy, Frenkel et al. 1986, Penrose andIsham 1986) has a theory, which is testable (with difficulty and at significant expense). If

this theory survives it will revolutionize physical understanding of quantum mechanicsby explaining wave function collapse. Crucially, according to Penrose (Penrose 1996),

a macroscopic quantum superposition of two differing mass distributions is unstable

and would decay after a characteristic time T, into one or another of the two states. Tis approximately of the order of the Planck time, of which much more later.

Roger Penrose has thereby suggested a very profound solution. All superpositionsgravitationally collapse when an interaction with a sufficient mass occurs. Of equal

importance, he claims that if an isolated state has a sufficient mass, it will collapse itself(self-decohere)into a fixed reality at a certain point in spacetime. Thus he gives us an

objective collapsetheory. How? Penrose suggests that spacetime is intolerant ofsuperpositions of different amounts and positions of the particles mass since they would

warp spacetime gravitationally, according to the symmetry of general relativity, inslightly different ways. The idea here is that there is a strict limit to the tolerable

distortion by the different mass distributions in spacetime of different superposed statesin order to avoid a problematic superposition of slightly differently curved spacetimes.

That would be like trying to jam a slightly bent and distorted part into a precisionmachine. The machine of proceeding quantum superpositions in time would stop

proceeding and collapse to a fixed immobile state. This is the point where generalrelativity and quantum mechanics gravitationally cooperate to collapse the superpositions

to create the precise momentary static state we measure in the present moment. Onecould say that Penrose has therefore already found a form of quantum gravity.

In other words, quantum mechanics and general relativity are complementary, not

contradictory. They are essential to create, using Penroses insight, an absolutelyrealmoment by collapse/decoherence of the wave function. Why absolute? Because, as I

will argue later, the moment of the collapse is fixed and immobile in all 4 dimensions- anabsolute rest frame, as we shall see, a 3D slice of spacetime, minimal in thickness along

the time axis.

For example, a photon from a distant galaxy hits (interacts with) the Rock of Gibraltar.The wave function, in order to continue evolving, would now require the rock/particle

combo wave function to be inexact in position. The universe, as we all know, will nottolerate something as big as that rock + particle, being partially in two places at once,

certainly not millions of light years apart. So, the particle now has to be where the rock is,because the rock, due to its mass, has a lot less indeterminacy of position than the

particle. (See De Broglie wavelength below). Thus, the particle/rock superposition has tocollapse into reality, there and then, changing the rocks state slightly. How big does the

rock or whatever the photon hits have to be? Nobody knows, but until recently thebiggest objects maintained in a superposition (to my knowledge) were 60-carbon

buckminsterfullerene molecules, totaling 720 hydrogen atom masses. Interestingly,someone (Iskhakov, Agafonov et al. 2012) has recently maintained as many as 100,000

photons in a superposition; but then, they are massless! Crucially, experiments are


11/46


ongoing attempting to superpose larger masses to determine the upper limits to suchsuperpositions before self-decoherence occurs (Brooks, M. 2015).

Why does this matter? The current theory for the creation of the universe is by means of a

quantum fluctuation by which some very small mass very, very briefly came into

virtual existence. Penroses theory suggests that if such a virtual mass were largeenough it might be sufficient to collapse its own wave function into actual reality-causing the Big Bang. Now we have a Creation mechanism. Ongoing and planned

experiments will test this theory- not to attempt to create a new universe, but to see if thisself-collapse, better known as the self-decoherence mechanism, is real.

Today, Feynmans sum of all paths approach is used in physics. It is indeed, as a

practical matter, indeterminate in so far as being unable to exactlypredict microscopicevents, rather than making highly accurate calculation of quantities and of explanations of

macroscopic events, for example light reflection by mirrors (Feynman, R. P. (1985).Again, this is not a contradiction. The universe contains many fixed quantities and

parameters, such as the gravitational constant, that are unchanging, everywhere affectingevents in predictable ways, but not absolutely defining all possible events. By analogy, if

your car has a chassis 11 inches above road level, you cant drive over a rock 13 incheshigh, but your choiceof route and destination is only limited, not eliminated, by that

restriction. This analogy also holds for every Law of Nature derived frominvariances/symmetries, with the caveat that the car, the road, boulder and driver

are also the product of the entirety of the symmetries/invariances.

Parenthetically, any tiny amplitude component consisting of an impossible pathimproves a quantum path integral calculations accuracy. The impossible components

include tiny amplitudes to move backward in time. This means that the final probabilisticanswer to the calculation, via the sum of the squares of all amplitudes, must contain some

contribution from this strange amplitude. Richard Feynman concludes that all particleshave an amplitude to move backward in time. This is unavoidable in the path integral

approach to quantum mechanics. Later, we will see that his concept is crucial to my time-symmetry approach.

This essay accepts as indisputable experimental fact that Penroses objective mechanism

for wave function collapse is real, ubiquitous, and the foundation of reality. The mostpopular alternative view that has survived is the Many Worlds Hypothesis, invented to

avoid the philosophical angst many scientists and philosophers feel about wave functioncollapse, and/or randomness and indeterminacy. Many Worlds disciples propose that

every interaction, or any change in the whole universe, even one change in a single tinyneutrinos state, no matter how minuscule or macroscopically insignificant, splits off an

entire new universe. This would produce huge numbers of them for every femtosecond.All of these hypothesized universes are considered fully deterministic. As none of these

universes (including our own) is any more real than others or detectable by each other,this notion is incapable of disproof according to its own terms. So it cannot be science,

according to Sir Karl Poppers criterion. I regard this Many Worlds Hypothesis as themost extreme violation of the Occams Razor Principle of Minimal Assumption in all


12/46


history. It begs far more questions than it answers. As we see later, wave functioncollapse is the only mechanism that can provide a unique moment of time and a means to

cement evolutionary changes into reality, the process that allowed us to eventually exist.The Many Worlds Hypothesis is the opposite of an explanation. It is merely an excuse to

allow denial of wave function collapse into a single universal state, and thereby solve

the illusory measurement problem. Hopefully, it is a sign of such philosophicaldesperation that it predicts an imminent philosophical capitulation: acceptance of thereality of the wave function collapsing into the momentary unique reality, according to

Penrose gravitational decoherence of the wave function.

The Ancient Greeks, Leucippus and Democritus concluded that the act of dividingmasses could not go on forever; there was a minimum size, the atom, separated from

others by the void. We now know the universe is almost all vacuum (the Greeksvoid). If physical reality somehow failed to keep the electrons in atoms so very far

from the nucleus, our planet and everything upon it would collapse into a brightly shiningball of neutrons less than a mile in diameter. Consider then, that until recently, few seem

to have considered spacetime itself, in the same atomized or quantized way as matter.The resulting assumption that space is continuous predicts that a singularity should

exist at the center of a black hole, where the mass is concentrated in zero space at infinitedensity. This ought to give us pause. When infinity appears in physics it means you are

wrong somewhere. Similarly, continuous spacetime implies that the Big Bang started at asingularity, despite the fact that physics fails at singularities.

This essay, conservatively, relies on known physics being valid everywhere, at the origin

or inside black holes. That favors one official candidate for quantum gravity, LoopQuantum Gravity Theory, (LQGT) which avoids singularities by providing a minimum

interval of spacetime. Consequently, some form of a discontinuous structure of spacetimearguably is real, hopefully explained in detail in future by extension or development of

this theory. As we shall see later, a clearly quantized version of time is consistent withthe Einstein equations of spacetime, and can be integrated with LQGT to provide a

symmetry for time and a mechanism for the present moment.

In a continuous spacetime there is no lower limit to size. I suggest this is a corephilosophical error: using apparentlycontinuous deterministic mathematical formalism

(which assumes such infinite divisibility) to describe the discontinuous universe thatLQGT proposes. Calculus assumes that the quantities integrated are extremely small at

the limit, beyond measurement, yetfinite enough to still retain their characteristics suchas dimensions like mass, velocity and position. I would argue that these so-called

infinitesimal quantities must be finite to preserve any useful characteristics, because atrueinfinitesimal (anything finite divided by infinity) is indistinguishable from zero

values of magnitude, dimensions and indeed, all characteristics. True infinitesimals then,are indistinguishable from nothing, unsurprising since we arrive at infinity by dividing by

zero. Yet summing many such mathematical, calculusinfinitesimals results in ameaningful integral. Integrals are ubiquitous in mathematical physics and they work

beautifully.


13/46


14/46


below. We will agree with Hume in a certain manner, expanding beyond the classicalrepresentation of the collision and rebound of billiard balls. We will simply demonstrate

that all causes precede or are simultaneous with effects, equivalent to an outward arrowof time from the origin.

Why are Classical physics prejudices so powerful, even today? The end of the 19

th

C wasfelt to be the pinnacle of scientific achievement, with only a few issues remainingunresolved. However, those issues became the main substance of 20

thC science, and led

to the comprehensive demolition of the Classical worldview. We must try to imagine themist of ignorance and nonsense that had been dispelled by the end of the 19

thC and the

turn of the next century. The planetary orbits, the operation of steam engines, electricityand magnetism had been codified, and even biology, chemistry and medicine, perennially

full of magical notions, had been put into an initially scientific and effective form. Allwere based on deterministic models, after centuries of struggle against superstitious,

superficial, or magical interpretations of reality. Deterministic triumphalism seemedjustified at last.

But, Classical physics is dead. We persist in thinking of particles and the laws of nature

although these ideas are simply 19th century classical descriptive survivals.Macroscopically, classical deterministic ideas are a useful approximation in the limit of

large masses, big distances and ambient to high temperatures. This is of no significancefundamentally or philosophically, because the universe operates moment to moment

entirely on a microscopic level, even to create macroscopic emergent effects. We mustnot allow these ancient ideas to continue to distort our perspective. The modern view to

which I subscribe is that the macroscopic, seemingly Classical world of large warmobjects which we inhabit is emergent from an underlying quantum reality. It is this

transition upward in scale from quantum reality we will explore.

First, consider the symmetries. All experimentally known particles are bothproduced by,and obey,the rules created by the Standard Model (Elert 1998-2014), which is a non-

abelian gauge theory with the symmetry group U(1)!SU(2)xSU(3). This is the trulyrevolutionary concept in the Standard Model in particle physics. More, as we will see

later, the whole corpus of relevant universal symmetries is likely to be both within and, Isuggest, completely fill the Lie group of E8 symmetries (Lisi 2007, Lisi 2008). As

described above, a physical symmetry, or alternatively, an invariance, constrains thepossibilities available in reality. We need to remove ourselves from the ordinary world of

visible objects where we make nave philosophical analogies between some of them andthe fundamental elements of physics. We need to think upward from the micro-world to

understand the macro-world, not the traditional reverse.

We think of a particle, but it is only a manifestation of certain symmetries/constraintsin the Standard Model, as part of the E8symmetry group, that constrain its nature and

behavior. It is a spinning multiply attributed, twisted knot,part of and not separablefromour verypeculiarvacuum. This will be significant later. Different constraints give a

particle entity that behaves differently - that is allwe can know. It is not a tiny billiardball with exotic properties, it is only and always a manifestation of universal rules of


15/46


behavior, neither entirely a wave nor a particle. All we can know are the invariances,which we persist in trying to imagineas waves/particles. The waviclepicture is a

Classically-derived hybrid idea, a metaphoricalimage only.

For a simpler example, consider rotational symmetry, which among other things means

that a uniform unmarked cylinder when rotated about its axis is invariantin that wecannot distinguish its final position from its initial position after an arbitrary amount ofrotation. Noethers Theorem showed that these symmetries create conservation laws,

which are, broadly, the laws of nature. Hence, when a spinning ice-skater brings her armsor legs closer to her body and thereby speeds up her rotation, she is obeying the law of

conservation of angular momentum, which is Noethers result from rotational symmetry.Obeying is probably a poor choice of words, since she had no alternative to that result,

once she chose to move her arms or legs at all.

Imagine that the Ten Commandments or the rules of soccer were not mere moralimperatives or rules of the game about which personal decisions could be made whether

to obey them or not, but absolute, unbreakable laws of nature. The particular sins or foulscould not exist - a force would prevent them. These rulesthemselves could be derived

bydeterministic logic, but vast possibilities of life choices or sports events would still bepossible within these much narrower constraints; some would argue that better soccer

games might result. The hundreds of universal symmetries enable, constrain and allowthe possibilities, but they do not absolutely determinethe resulting course of events in

time. There isZEROexperimental evidencefor determinism beyond this limited sense.The symmetries supply the mechanical design and particles, allowing the quantum

changes to createthe course of events in time, but like a mechanical phonograph thechoice of actual tune played is not fixed.

The experimental fact is that symmetries/invariances merely allow or disallow certain

actions, they do not completely determine when, how or whether they occur. Theinvariances both constrain particle interactions and allow/create their existence. They

enable or prevent certain classes of particle behavior, not the everyday details of life.The distinction from the ordinary Ten Commandments is that invariance sins are

impossible. The spinning ice-skater is free to decide whether or not or in what manner toextend or retract her arms or legs in order to win or lose the Olympic Gold Medal, but the

invariances will keep her angular momentum constant, whether she earns a ten or a onefrom the judges. This means that the Laws of Nature (really, derivative from the

symmetries by Noethers Theorem) do notabsolutelydetermineevents, they provide therules and also the active entities (particles)by which only events compatible with

these rulesmay proceed. This state of affairs is not Classical determinism as usuallyunderstood, where only one future state after a given time interval is possible from a

given starting state, because, in the same way as the Ten Commandments, vast crowds offuture possibilities may occur, equally compatible with these rules. The E8symmetries

operate as if the Commandments, the world and the humans who were supposed to obeythem were all part and parcel of each other. Moses, like scientists, got to announce the

existence of the rules, not negotiate their terms. We need to never forget the vitaldistinction between the symmetry view ofconstraining events within a range of


16/46


possibilities, and at the same time enabling them by providing the particles and forces,versus the Classical view of absolutely determining events by mysteriously provided laws

and particles.

Rockets fly through empty space, but they may as well be trains on rails in reality,

gripped tightly by gravity, curving around the planets and the sun, in orbits calculable toinches, the consequence of a symmetry: general relativity (technically-diffeomorphisminvariance). If an astronaut chooses to do so, he can expend some fuel, boosting himself

to join another orbit, obeying similarly operating, but different, invariance rules as theice-skating Olympian. Why should we accept that such symmetries completely eliminate

his or her choices?

So what is the role of quantum mechanics in our picture of the universe? Invariancesconstrain reality - only certain kinds of particles can exist and invariances both create

them and limit their range of behaviors both microscopically and macroscopically (theLaws of Nature). The theatre for this universal movie is the volume in one time

dimension and three space dimensions, plus mass-energy in which all this mayhappen,but not musthappen. If the characters, the particles, are to act on this universal stage,

by what means are they to strut about, as Shakespeare might put it? They will findthemselves in certain states of position, velocity, spin, quantum excitation etc. and their

next state will be found by a quantum mechanical summation of all paths to any nextstate of the particles. It will be strongly related to, but not be precisely determined by, the

input state(s).

Last, the exact magnitude of certain observed but inexplicably sized constants and freeparameters determine whether technologically advanced life is or is not possible in a

universe in terms of the four other components of reality above. The macroscopic,emerging deterministic but unpredictable mechanisms chaos theory and self-limiting

criticality amplify quantum indeterminacy to produce an open future for reality as awhole. How the extremely narrow and precise magnitudes of these constants and

parameters were chosen from a hypothetically huge range of life-hostile variants,against huge odds, to make us, the observers, possible, is called the Fine-Tuning Problem

(Leslie 1989).

Spacetime and the Present Moment

Next, consider space, time and mass-energy. Einstein showed us that none of these exists

individually. There is no time without space, only space-time, no mass separate fromenergy, but as alternate forms of mass-energy, and in fact no space-time without mass-energy and vice versa. So we need to think of space-time-mass-energy or STME for

short. If mass appears, so does spacetime. So there can be no mere arrow of time. Allmass-energy spreads outward in space and time in four dimensions from the origin. We

know that space is expanding (increasing in three dimensions). But there is no spacewithout time, so time must also increase, outward from the origin, in its dimension. All

STME expands outward from the origin. We ride upon this arrow of space-time-mass-


17/46


energy. I believe we steer this arrow into the future, partially and locally, via free-ishwill, as we shall see below.

Einstein was clear that STME is a unity, but was surprised when it was discovered that

the universe is expanding in space, even though his equations in their original form

predicted that. His view was that spacetime was a solid four-dimensional block, with nodistinction as to past, present or future, totally determined forever along the axis of time.Thispicture is fine for all moments at least one tiny Planck time (see later) before NOW.

The suggested difference in this essay, and I argue, in reality, from Einsteins view is theutter non-existence of the past or future; existence is only the present, the resultsof the

past. While there is only one past history, consistent with Einsteins image, this does notimply there can be only one future. Simply, all futures must be consistent with that past,

and the past and future must be consistent with the symmetries. Every moment is the seedof the next; the quantum processes, amplified by chaos and self-limiting criticality allow

a range of possibilities as to how that seed shapes the future.

What if we accept the experimental evidence of the intertwining of the symmetries andquantum mechanics at every level? Then there mustbe a deeper explanation for any

significantasymmetries in Nature. Physicists are right; time must somehow besymmetric. But we cant deny facts, such as the glaringly obvious forward arrow of time,

and the unique present moment, in any such explanation.

This was the basis of Einsteins great misunderstanding. He assumed determinism, and heassumed that there was no absolute rest frame or special present moment. These were

untrue; but both were useful conceptually, and mathematically simplifying for hisdiscoveries. The fact is, Lorentz Invariance (Special Relativity) and Diffeomorphism

Invariance (General Relativity) were two new invariances. They are constraints, notcontrols, just like all other invariances in physics. There appear to be no reasons to

especially elevate themas incompatible with quantum mechanical indeterminacy. Sincesymmetries are universal, either allinvariances are in conflict with quantum mechanics,

or none of them are.

The great confusion here is to believe that symmetries, deterministic in mathematicalformalism, thereby compel reality to be so. To calculate this skeleton from which reality

is built is far from determining the fate of the body of reality as a whole. Symmetryallows or disallows limited aspects of events that Classical physicists and philosophers

believed, wrongly, were completely determined. Total, Classical determinism was and isimpossible as a practical matter, as we shall see below. It is not a paradox to be able to

use deterministic, logical mathematics to correctly calculate quantitiesin amicroscopically indeterminate universe. It is the genius of great physicists like Dirac and

Feynman to be able to do so. The logical error is to assume that a deterministicmathematical process correctly calculating an isolatedquantityis tantamount to proving

that thesequence of events(i.e. reality)to which the quantity relatesis also deterministic.A quantityfor this discussion, is defined as any measurable magnitude which can be

expressed in a mathematical formula.


18/46


Gravitation has so far resisted traditional methods of quantization because Einstein wasright; it is purely a result of one of the symmetries. It does not need the graviton, the

theoretical quantum gravitational force-associated particle, to do its job. Einsteinscurving of spacetime by mass is entirely sufficient. Interestingly, even ifthe graviton, an

entirely theoretical massless spin-2 boson, behaved as believed, there is no feasible way

to detect it experimentally, or to disprove its existence. This failure by Sir Karl Popperscriterion - the requirement in science of the possibility of disproof - would consign thegraviton to fantasy, not science. Absent a graviton, and with general relativity working

entirely satisfactorily, why do we need the elusive quantum gravity theory as it is usuallyconsidered?

In answer to that question, I say we do not need a new theory of quantum gravity, if we

consider spacetime itself as quantized. In that light, gravity does not need to be quantized.Gravity is simply the result of Diffeomorphism Invariance, the constancy (invariance) of

physical law even when spacetime geometry is curved by the presence of mass-energy.There is no need for a theory of quantum gravity, only a quixotic desire to fix a non-

existent philosophical determinism problem. Thegenuine question, to me, is whetherspacetime itselfis continuous or discontinuous, i.e. quantized, being composed of distinct

minimal quanta ofspacetimeintervals. This will be explored later.

Toward a Consistent 21st Century Physics Free of 19th

Century

Philosophical Prejudice

Lets explore the two emergent phenomena on the macroscopic scale: Chaos and Self-Limiting Criticality. Please keep in mind that, for this essay, determined means strictly

Classical, absolute inevitable fate, Einsteins opinion.

First, Chaos is a consequence of sensitive dependence on initial conditions. All Chaoticsystems deterministically amplify tiny differences to create large, unpredictable effects.

So we get mathematicallydeterministic, but actually unpredictablephenomena.(Remember that determinism works fine as an approximation, for most large, warm,

unintelligent objects rumbling around in the world.) The famous example is a singlebutterflys wing-flapping effects changing the weather. The Chaos effect is in fact

immensely more powerful than that. Consider the tiniest imaginable disturbance to ourplanet: removing one electrons mass from some mass at the visible edge of the universe,

13 thousand million light years away. It has been calculated (Ruelle 1991) that on arrivalhere, this unimaginably weak gravitational effect on our atmosphere would measurably

alter the weather in two weeks, though the actual nature and magnitude of the effect

could not be predicted! Chaos is a phenomenon where however tiny and precisely knownthe input of a change to a state of the world, the eventual resulting larger-scale changescannot be precisely calculated. Chaos Theory means that many important macroscopic

systems are both deterministic in mathematical formalism and unpredictable no matterhow accurately we know the initial conditions or the input change and how exact are our

attempted calculations of the result. The effect is to massively amplify tiny effects ofquantum indeterminacy, to a greater and greater extent over time, to defeat deterministic


19/46


projections of past events and to create significant differences in alternative possiblefutures.

The second, Self-Limiting Criticality is clumsily named. For short and for better

illustration I prefer avalanche theory. It is as ubiquitous as Chaos Theory and similarly

deterministic mathematically. If grains of sand, slightly different as they inevitably are insize, shape, density, etc., are added to a pile at a certain rate, at some point the pile willcollapse in an avalanche. It is impossible to calculate or predict exactly when, or in what

size, such an avalanche will occur. Instead, avalanches follow a logarithmic scale, one tentimes as big as avalanche X occurs ten times less often than X-sized ones. Such power

laws, not necessarily integer-valued, apply for stock market declines, earthquakes andmany other large and small-scale phenomena. Criticality is the point at which collapse

is imminent, when any tiny addition will start the avalanche or a last added stress cancause the earthquake fault to slip. It is mathematically distinct from Chaos, but each can

work together. In contrast with Chaos, it is the result of macroscopic amplification ofsome relatively variable size, but small sequential addition to a state causing an

incalculable, vastly larger change. A fine example is the effect of a loud sound starting amassive snow slide by just one or a few snowflakes being dislodged and falling

downslope, quickly snowballing into an avalanche, with possibly huge practicalconsequences.

Avalanche theory is another unpredictableand extraordinarily sensitive(but

deterministicin its mathematical formalism) emergent large-scale phenomenon. LikeChaos, it amplifies any tiny quantum indeterminacy, driving a massive proliferation of

alternative paths for quantum mechanics to eventually collapse intoone unique reality atthe present moment.

So Einstein must be wrong for prediction. But determinists would argue that everything is

still absolutely inevitable despite the impossibility of prediction. Their problem isHeisenberg Quantum Indeterminacy, not Heisenberg Uncertainty - an outmoded

terminology. It is not that we have an uncertain measurement; the actual reality is inexactand to some degree indeterminate. The smaller the object the greater is the indeterminacy

as a percentage of the energy and time, or of position and velocity. This much isexperimental fact. So David Humes billiard balls, even if impossibly perfectly spherical

and built of impossibly identical numbers of identical atoms in identical relativepositions, would still have extremely tiny inexactitudes in initial and continuing position

and velocity, and after bouncing and re-colliding many times would deviate fromNewtonian paths according to Chaos Theory plus de Broglie/Heisenberg Indeterminacy.

The significant increase in indeterminacy for small objects is seen via the de Broglie

wavelength, lambda, which can be thought of as the combined indeterminacy of positionand velocity.

!= h/mv

Hereh, is Plancks constant of action, the momentum is the mass, mtimes the velocity, v.Plancks constant is extremely tiny (about 7x10-34Joule-seconds, (energy multiplied by


20/46


time, or actionto a physicist). It is divided by the momentum, by comparison a very largenumber for heavy objects such as billiard balls. However, for liquid molecules, and small

particulate solids like tiny sperm cells, their momentum is small enough to lead tosignificant indeterminacy of position and velocity, especially over increasing time.

The single, unique sperm cell that fertilized your mothers egg, like that of every one ofthe billions of our ancestors, was buffeted along the way by quadrillions of moving liquidmolecules, (Brownian motion, earlier explained in this way by Einstein!), and each

collision was significantly de Broglie indeterminate in the amount of its path-disturbingeffects. So did the best men or women win? Each of the billions of fertilization events

making our ancestors was like a horserace through a swamp, in a whirlwind, with a fewhundred million participants of differing abilities starting at slightly different places and

times. Would Einstein wager deterministically on who wins that race to conception?Calculated this way, how likely were you to exist, a priori? On the level of a miracle, I

would suggest. Avalanche theory therefore makes things even worse when attempting tocalculate particle paths forever, now multiplied by chaos and minuscule quantum

indeterminacy. Although at the macroscopic level for short time periods, indeterminacy isexceedingly small, it is not zero. As we saw above, Chaos and Avalanche Theory causes

huge amplification of any however tiny, quantum inexactitude over time.

The problem is that, the Laws of Nature do not change; they are the same now as at theorigin, in the macro and micro world. So, if we were following Classical determinism, we

must be able to reverse a completely deterministic history, if only we knew exactlyalldetails of todays particle positions and motion. That is, if Einstein were right about this,

he would be equally right about any point in the past, so that if one were to create, say,his life, or indeed any known series of events after the origin, then every particle at the

Big Bang would have had to be in a position fixed to less than a quintillion quintillionquintillionth etc. of their tiny diameter to determine everything up to his birth and

beyond. Why, because the universe had to expand, massively amplifying any particlepositional errors at the origin, and every moment since. Additionally, Chaos and

avalanche theory multiply any original and continuing indeterminacy. So determinismrequires absolutely exact identification, selection and positioning of every particle at the

origin to produce our world as we see it.

To the contrary, we know that such a feat of precise selection at or near the origin, oranywhere else, to determine Einsteins or your existence is impossible according to

quantum mechanical indeterminacy at the origin and in every moment since. It is evenmore ludicrous when we actually contemplate organizing the swirling, turbulent mass

of identicalquarks and gluons at billions of degrees in temperature near the origin ofspacetime. How could a Maxwell Demon-type God select, segregate and herd the

necessarily separate, individual (but indistinguishable) quarks into exactly correctpositions to determine the entire future path toward Einsteins existence and precise life

history thirteen thousand million years later? Seriously?

There is no physics for that type of outcome, and I confidently predict that there neverwill be. Einstein was neither an accident nor an inevitability, he was just one of a vast


21/46


number of possibilities at the origin. So are we all. Darwinian evolution is the onlycredible means of arriving at an Einstein, you or me, from a bunch of small molecules on

Earth three and a half thousand million years ago, or from the extreme temperature soupof quarks and gluons at the origin. That means social, economic, artistic, political, and

technical evolution, all in a modifiedby-human-activity, quasi-Darwinian sense, not just

the usual biological sense. This requires a multiplicity of possible paths to the future to beavailable at the origin, and every moment since, in order to multiply the effects ofimprovements, over time. Even God, if He obeys His own rules of physics, could not

manipulate the quark/gluon soup in so precisely the right way to make Einstein or you,the reader, inevitablyexist 13 thousand million years after the origin. All of us were

absurdly unlikely, and are miracles in that sense, and so were all our ancestors.Determinism must argue that we were inevitable, essentially predestined. Nothing here

denies that there is now only one single historical path from the origin to now, for everyparticle in the universe. Nor does it imply Liebnizs or the fictional Candides idea of a

best-of-all possible worlds. It is simply that vastly varied other events were inherentlypossible, but did not happen. This is necessary to allow Evolution in the broadest sense.

Determinism = total predestination from the Big Bang to now = impossibility

Digression: A Philosophical Application of 21stCentury Physics

Many believe that the brain is a giant avalanche system constantly in criticality atsome very high fraction of its constituent neurons (De Arcangelis, Perrone-

Capano et al. 2006). Because each of these billions of neurons on average isconnected to thousands of others, we must consider an arrangement of

sandpiles. Many sandpiles are connected to thousands of others, like hugely

multidimensional dominoes. Every dominos topple can topple many others. Soeach criticality incident at an individual neuron will propagate widely, tippingmany other connected neurons up to or beyond criticality. Further, all of the

billions of neurons are awash in a multitude of signal molecules and chemicalstimulants or depressants. These chemicals and their cellular receptors are subject

to quantum indeterminacy and quantum tunneling which affect the chemicalreactions, and hence the timing and scope, of every neuronal critical incident.

(Quantum tunneling is a quantum effect whereby a reaction can occur more easilyor often despite a high energy barrier otherwise hindering that reaction. It is a

form of especially gross chemical indeterminacy). Consciousness is likely to beclosely related to all these phenomena in a brain structure that in this way cannot

be deterministic in the Classical sense.

If physics drove philosophy, we could definefree-ish will, as incompletelydeterministicdecision-making, which is inclusive of, but not fully determined by,

outside operative inputs. This couldtend to improved outcomes from theperspective of the individual or group. Free-ish will has obvious survival value in

encouraging social and cultural evolution. For evidence of the evolutionary utilityof free-ish will, just look at the historical under-performance of societies,


22/46


religions, or politico-economic systems that attempt to force people to think alikeor not at all.

The vital issue here is to accept the massive contribution of genetic, cultural, and

personal history in a decision, but to always be aware of the final role of the

individual consciousness. If one were trying to design a biological machine for aghost to inhabit, the human brain could not be beaten. No matter howephemeral the hands on the steering wheel of consciousness, or how truly weak

the will may be in proportion to brain inputs, the brain is the ideally sensitivevehicle to drive due to quantum indeterminacy and avalanche theory. Doesnt

the massive contribution of genetic, cultural, and personal history above simplydefine the individual? Why would it absolutely restrict his/her free(-ish)dom to

decide, given the biophysics above?

We have to consider that consciousness is an integrative phenomenon thatrequires a finite and variable time to input, process and summarize sensory and

intentional data. This would make a psychological present. For example, onecould process hearing the sound of ones bare toe painfully tripping over a bell in

about 2 milliseconds. Seeing the bell, in the sense of integrating and interpretingthe visible stimulus as a bell in a dangerous position would take about 200

milliseconds. The pain or touch signals would arrive via the nerves more slowly.The reflexive motor reaction, too late to avoid kicking the bell, but trying to avoid

falling over, might start before the pain signal arrived and was processed at thebrain. One would experience this entire sequence as simultaneous, and would then

perhaps decide to tidy up the area more effectively in future. Our effectivemoment of the present is in fact quite wide and varies from about 500

milliseconds to 3 seconds as measured in different experiments. Benjamin Libetsmeasurement that the brain begins to form the motor signal for an action before

the conscious intent is aware in consciousness does not deny free-ish will,because this readiness potential was present regardless of the decision

(Ananthaswamy, A 2013). It can also be argued that the 200 or so millisecond gapis well within the brains length of subjective simultaneity. Neither can be said to

be first. (Spinney, L. (2015)

Goodbye then, for Classical determinism versus Chance and Evolution. What about

Hume and causality? When two quantum entities are produced in some interaction, theyare entangled. They do not have their own separate quantum states; they are interrelated,

sharing at least two quantum states between them, onlyprovided that neither of theirwave functions has collapsed yet. Essentially, they share a combined wave function. The

basic example is two entangled, physically separated photons and their opposite spinstates. If one entangled photon has one of its only two possible quantum spin states when

measured at laboratory A, the other at laboratory B will instantaneouslyhave the otheravailable spin state no matter how large the distance between labs A and B. Nobody had

any prior knowledge of which spin state As photon would turn out to have whenmeasured - it would be absolutely random, as expected according to quantum mechanics.


23/46


Yet lab Bs photon would, then always, instantly, have the other spin direction. All thishas been confirmed repeatedly over great distances and is not in dispute. Scientists have

been unnecessarily struggling with this spooky quantum action at a distance as Einsteinput it, for most of a century. Why that struggle was unnecessary is the subject of the next

section.

21st Century Physics and the Present Moment

So what is causality? It must be extended so that it is not limited by Humes proximity in

space criterion, but only for entangled quantum objects. The two entangled photonscoincided in time, not necessarily in space. Because their constraint to have different spin

quantum numbers was instantaneous, there was no difference in time. Once one of thepair was fixed in one spin orientation by its interaction with some mass, the other was

immediately forced into the opposite spin, no matter how distant from the other. Thecause did not precede the effect, but was simultaneous. So a cause can precede or be

simultaneous with an effect, but it cannot be later. This will be of great significance

below when considering the universal versus the subjective present moment.

This profound quantum-based alteration in how we define the real basis of causality is

key to reconciling all sorts of apparent contradictions. How? By explaining the presentmoment and the arrow of spacetime. Einstein once attempted to console the widow of his

friend Besso (Flsing 1997)by saying she should not grieve because her husband was

alive in the past! This past was supposedly as real as the present she felt trapped in. This

is bizarre. We might consider the past to seem similar to such a fixed four-dimensionalsolid. Still, it is nothing like the present moment; Bessos widow cannot revisit her past

and touch her formerly living husband. In fact, Einsteins equations allow a very differentsolution, called a foliation of 4D spacetime (Marsden and Tipler 1980, Lockwood, M,

2005) to produce a unique, universe-wide present moment. This means that the pastappears as a stack of 3D slices along the time dimension of 4D spacetime. It looks like

Einsteins block time, unless looked at very closely. It is made of very thin sequential 3Dslices, about the thickness across of the extremely tiny Planck timein the time dimension,

with gaps of a similar width between them. This clarifies spooky quantum action at adistance as happening at a defined moment of time, one Planck time wide, regardless of

distance, across the foliation, orthogonal to times arrow. There is no time across thefoliation, it is a frozen instant. So entangled quantum states are not quite instantaneous

in the old sense, they occur within a minute slice of time. Then time increases by onemore slice, and so on. More on this and Planck units later. It is a paradox that physicists

still think in terms of continuous Nature on the one hand, yet have accepted the

infinitesimal Planck units as minimal sizes of mass, length and time on the other.

We need also to consider that this foliation extends beyond the visible edge of the

universe from our position. Obviously, a physicist beyond our horizon might believe thatdifferent physics pertains in our area, or vice-versa we may believe the same. All would

be wrong. No matter how big the universe may be, there is the same physics and the samemoment of time, because the foliation is everything real, everywhere and the entangled

particles link every part of it together across the foliation. In a very real sense, two


24/46


entangled particles are a joint particle, bridging any distance across foliations until onedecohereswith the other. There will be more on foliated time and the Planck time later.

Another of Einsteins assumptions was that there was no absolute rest frame in space, so

we could only consider relative motion between bodies. Einstein did not live to see that

he was wrong. According to J.S. Bell, (Bell 1987) Einstein's theory assumes, but does notrequire,that the laws of physics will look the same to all observers in uniform motion,with no fixed rest frame. This permitted a very concise and elegant form of the theory.

H.A. Lorentz preferred the view that there is indeed a state of "real" rest, defined by theaether. On this subject, Bell said, "the facts of physics do not oblige us to accept one

philosophy rather than the other". The facts of physics as known today include the cosmicmicrowave background radiation (CMBR), unknown to both Lorentz and Einstein, and it

is indeed a suitable universal rest frame corresponding to the mythical aether.

The universe is permeated everywhere by electromagnetic radiation left over from theBig Bang. Cosmic microwave background radiation is Big Bang electromagnetic

radiation made longer and longer in wavelength as the universe expanded and stretchedit. It is now microwave radiation, called 3 degree Kelvin radiation because it matches the

radiation characteristics of bodies at that temperature, about 3 degrees above absolutezero. This radiation is stationary in the sense that it has no differential motion relative to

itself or the point of origin. It radiated equally outward everywhere, from everywhere inthe universe, as soon as the relatively tiny universe became transparent to

electromagnetic radiation (about 350,000 years ABB - after the Big Bang). It turns outthat all we have to do is measure the frequency of this radiation in all directions in order

to calculate our absolute velocity in space. The radiation is bluer (higher frequency) ifwe are heading more in one direction, redder (lower frequency) if we are moving away.

The bluest reading gives our absolute direction, and the amount of this Doppler shift tothe blue (higher frequency) gives our absolutespeed. This is true for everywhere and

everywhen. Our solar systems absolute speed and direction have been determined in thisway.

Digression: Philosophical Misapplications of 20th Century Physics

There is an interesting parallel here to the moral damage done by determinism.

The popular conclusion from Einsteins relativity was that everything isrelative. This leads to the kind of nihilism realized in the mid-20

thCentury Post-

Structuralist view wherein moral value distinctions between, say, a gangster and asaint are disdained. Einstein lived at a time when the aether wind hypothesis

had recently been disproved, and the only imaginable way to measure velocitywas relativeto some other object. So there seemed a rootless and drifting aspect

to the new conception of motion. This unfortunate name has led tomisunderstandings, especially since relativity became a worldwide sensation

when it was proved by astronomical observations. A tendency to moral relativismensued. Relativity itself could not be more specific in physical meaning or less

relevant to moral meaning. Ironically, the assumption that there was no othermeans of measuring velocity is wrong, as we see below. As with determinism, the


25/46


physics works, but the assumption was wrong, so these attitude changes weredoubly baseless. The idea of quantum uncertainty also contributed to

postmodernist radical antinomian nihilism where truth itself is shrugged off asoptional, derivative and unknowable.

No red or blue shift in any direction, (absent a significant gravitational field or anyacceleration) means an absolute universal rest frame has been reached. So we have adefined absolute spacerest frame. If the present could be defined in that frame, we would

have an absolute time. If we have both, we have an absolute spacetime, or the presentmoment. This is where the foliation solution to the Einstein equations of general relativity

(Marsden and Tipler 1980, Lockwood 2005) comes in again. To foliate spacetime, we cutit into very thin sequential slices- like foliage or leaves. Here, we ask how thin are the

slices. Einstein, I imagine, would prefer they were infinitely thin, but that would not beany different from his continuous, four dimensional block spacetime. They are not.

Here we need to look back to the controversy over quantum jumps when quantum

effects were first explored. All quantum changes have no intermediate state or states thata quantum entity passes through on the way from one state to another. Worse for

Classical prejudices, this jump happens instantly. This was a major issue in the early 20 thcentury. Quantum jumps did not fit Classical continuous time or motion, but they

happened anyway. They were the very basis of Plancks original answer to the problemof the anomalous (in Classical terms) spectrum of light emission from hot bodies. He

gave us the famous Planck relation:

E=h"

E, the light energy, equals a constant multiplied by v,the frequency of the light. The

constant h,above, is Plancks constant of action. As shown above, its dimensions areenergy multiplied by time. As Plancks constant is extremely small in magnitude relativeto everyday objects, quantum phenomena are noticeable on only the tiniest of scales-

atomic and molecular scales. Planck said light was emitted according to this equation indiscreet lumps of energy, quanta, which was later described as fueled by instant jumps

from one electrons energy level in an atom to a lower one, without traversing theenergy gap between them. The Sun heats up atoms by nuclear fusion. Counter-

intuitively, it is when they cool down at the surface that the light of the Sun is sent to usas the electrons fall inward closer to the nuclei, losing light energy in the process.

If we propose to quantize everything, what is the detailed mechanism by which the

universe gets from one Planck times state of the universe to the next? This is as hard toimagine as the symmetries. It is the earlier referenced sum of all paths. It is as if a

particle tries out all the ways of getting from state A to state B, no matter how complex,exotic or outright impossible they may be in macroscopic terms. The more different crazy

routes are added, the more precise our calculation becomes. Everything adds, subtractsand cancels out to give us an answer, not the answer. By similar means we can

calculate physical quantities to extraordinary accuracy. Some quantities can be calculatedwith such precision that a sniper with similar accuracy could hit a bulls-eye on the moon,


26/46


given enough power in the ammunition. So the universe sniffs around a vast horde ofmaybes, maybe-nots, and no-ways-in-Hell to give us NOW. Effectively there are indeed

many worlds branching off from every changing particle and moment, but they inhabitthe narrow undecided cracks between sequential Planck-scale STME quantum jumps to

the next real moment, and are never entirely real. The next moment of reality partakes to

some extent in all of them, emerging as a unique summation.

The summation of the wave functions of all the momentarilyrelevantparticles in the

entire universe collapses into reality, instant by separate instant. (It should be noted thatonly about one particle in the universe per ten billion is interacting, i.e. relevant, at any

moment. All the particles in your chair are constantly interacting with each other, whichis why it is solidly, constantly real.) Then the next moment arises from the newly existing

reality plus those previously superposed particles that are now relevant due to potentialinteraction with components of immediately past reality. This creates the next moment

and so on, forever. The universe-wide present moment is NOW - the collapse of thequantum state of the whole universe into the only momentary reality there has ever been,

from the first moment to this, expanding in four dimensions outward from the origin intiny (Planck interval) quantum jumps of spacetime.

Maybe it should long ago have been obvious that the instantaneous quantum jumps

appear because there is no time, and therefore no possible real events, between the priorstate and the present one, just a tiny interval for the universe to calculate what happens

next by summing the relevant superpositions/virtual particle paths. So, I suggest, theseparation and thickness of each proposed foliation of spacetime should be on the order

of the Planck time, extremely thin, 10-44

seconds, the thinnest time interval possible withquantum physics. This means that time is quantized, it moves forward in tiny quantum

jumps with no time and therefore no realevents in that inconceivably brief intervalbetween one real moment and the next. So this would be the Planck interval,the no-time

gap across which quanta jump in order to participate in a moment. This idea makescomplete sense of quantum jumps and gives us an interval, call it a placetime, for all

the not-yet-real but relevant paths to be summed and give us the next foliation. The nextfoliation is the next moment of reality. So it is better to think of a Planck intervalas the

minimum placetime between events. An event (4D) is a sum over placetime of therelated parts of effectively 3D, states (foliations) of the whole universe in this model. Add

the Planck intervals sequentially and you get the flow of time, but the flow is aquantum movie. Reality is always and only a single 3D momentary slice, one frame of a

3D movie at about 1044

frames per second (the number of Planck times per second) andvery high definition, over 10

100potential Planck volumes per cubic inch. (A Planck

volume is defined as having length, width and height of one Planck length, about 1.6x10-

35meters cubed.).

Analogously to a movie film, a frame of reality would stop to be illuminated in the

projector gate for one Planck time, then quantum sprockets- decoherence - move thenext frame/moment into place during the Planck interval. The general opinion in physics

is that the Planck time and space scale is the point where quantum gravity supposedlyenters the picture. But we can see here, that the whole universes quantum path integral


27/46


gives us the next moment of reality. So who needs a new theory of quantum gravity sincewe already have one, right there at the Planck scale? The actual phenomenon within the

Planck interval is simply Penrose self-decoherence, due to the mass of various parts ofthe universe collapsing local parts of the universal wave function, resulting in the unique

nature of the 3D foliated present moment and the exponentially open future that expands

beyond it, Planck interval by Planck interval.

Clearly, we should use the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation as the reference

frame for this foliation. If we slice four dimensional spacetime this way, we get a frozen,motionless, effectively 3D space relative to the CMBR with only one moment of time

across the whole universe. Then the universal movie advances one frame by Penrose self-decoherence of relevant superpositions, and so on forever. There is a total coincidence in

time anywhere across the universal foliation, so all then-current quantum correlations,like the measurement of one of the two experimental entangled photons above, being

instantaneous, are causalby the new definition, regardless of separation distance. Thereis no spookiness in instantaneous action at a distance, therefore, because the zero

distance in time, during the Planck interval, by multiplication, means zero distance inspacetime. Such action mustbe instantaneous i.e. occurs during a Planck interval, since

it is a quantum entanglement ended where one of the particles has interacted with the restof the universe (by being measured in the above case). Time is the sequence of moments

in which the whole universe collapses forward to create the expanding 3D front ofReality.

One might ask what is the rate of time? Newton would have said, one second per second,

flowing majestically, unchanging, everywhere, forever. Einstein showed that as measuredfrom one Earth-based twins rest frame (Alices), the flow of time as measured by some

reliably steady internal flow of events, such as a clock, would be somewhat slower inanother (Bobs) moving at very high speed relative to Alice. So Bob would be younger

than Alice on returning from his journey. The rate of time is fastest in the rest frame ofthe CMBR (assuming no significant gravitational field), relative to any object moving

relative to it, which is every object. So, there, in the absolute rest frame of the CMBR, isthe absolute rate of time. Time exists only as the present moment, about one Planck time

separated from the next. Any motion of a particle appears as a quantum jump into thenext slice of spacetime.Historyis the physical addition over timeof the quantum

changesby which all events proceed, one Planck interval at a time. The sum of all priorPlanck intervals is the image of the past, forever gone, Einsteins friend Besso and all.

The only time, in the sense of a place in time where events occur, that ever has existedwas and is no more than approximately a Planck time wide: the expanding edge of time

in space, the outermost 3D slice of a 4D sphere.

The speed of light is the maximum distance a massless particle such as a photon cantravel from its emission point in vacuum to its absorption point in vacuum in a given sum

of Planck times. This Planck time is one of the natural units called Planck units; it is thetime required for a photon to travel a Planck length, about 5.4x10

-44seconds. The Planck

length is about 1.6x10-35

meters. These Planck units are calculated from basic quantitiessuch as the gravitational constant, Plancks constant of action, h,and the speed of light.


28/46


These three are parameters typical of this universe, but we have no clue why they shouldbe precisely (or even vaguely approximately) the size they are relative to our standard

measures of time, space etc.- that is, relative to the scale of our world. This is the Fine-Tuning Problem, because if they were even slightly different, life could not have evolved.

Consider that a quantum computer is expected to be able to do enormous calculations,and then give a result when it collapses into a real state. The scope and rapidity ofcomputation is a rapidly escalating function of the number of superposed particle states

(qubits) usable in the computation. The usual estimate is that every massive real particleis outnumbered by about 10

10in superpositions at any time, mostly photons and

neutrinos. A computer with so many potential qubits per real particle could, I submit,easily calculate the fate of those

that were previously

real, but are momentarily part of the

universal superposition plus a relative few that will be newly real.It could then self-

decohere to give an answer, the next moment, with everything fixed as a 3D slice of 4D

spacetime, waiting for the next quantum jump to the next moment.

Why are the laws, parameters, and constants the same everywhere? These undecidedsuperposed particles, like non-superposed, presently real particles, are simply

individual embodiments of the totality of our universes basic physics. They are non-localized to varying extents. Real particles, part of NOW, are local. Because some were

entangled with others everywhere, in many cases even beyond the visible horizon of theuniverse, they transmitted the same physics non-locally throughout spacetime with

them, during each Planck interval in which they decohered.

Why would anyone question the direction of the arrow of time, when we know space isexpanding outward from a minuscule origin point in both time and space, and we know

from Einstein there is no separate time, only space and time inextricably together? Soobviously the expansion must be that of space and time together, outward from the

origin? The answer is that no matter how obvious the direction of time is, we have aproblem of symmetry. Everything arises from symmetries. The laws and equations work

perfectly well in either di

Under Our Noses: Existing Theories of Everything

Documents

Transcript of Under Our Noses: Existing Theories of Everything