In the light of almost a century of struggle to make (common) sense of Quantum Mechanics and to reconcile it with General Relativity, it is proposed to (for some time) forget about quantizing gravity or striving for one Theory of Everything or “Weltformel”, which would describe the whole of reality without any joints or suture marks. Instead of one single monolithic formalism, a three-legged compound approach is argued for. Quantum Mechanics, Relativity and Thermodynamics are proposed as the main pillars of reality, each with its well-defined realm, specific features, and clearly marked interfaces between the three of them. Not only classical reality, which is rather directly accessible to us, is then comprehensively modelled by their encompassing combination. Quantum phenomena are understood as undoubtedly lying at the bottom of classical physics and at the same time, they become “fully real” only when embedded in classical frames between preparation and measurement in time. It is then where thermodynamics steps in and provides the mediating glue. The aim of this short contribution is not to deliver novel quantitative results but rather to propose a comprehensive research program and to coarsely lay out a very roughly coherent self-referential sketch starting from the beginning of the one universe, which we inhabit.
In the light of almost a century of struggle to make (common) sense of Quantum Mechanics and to reconcile it with General Relativity, it is proposed to (for some time) forget about quantizing gravity or striving for one Theory of Everything or “Weltformel”, which would describe the whole of reality without any joints or suture marks. Instead of one single monolithic formalism, a three-legged compound approach is argued for. Quantum Mechanics, Relativity and Thermodynamics are proposed as the main pillars of reality, each with its well-defined realm, specific features, and clearly marked interfaces between the three of them. Not only classical reality, which is rather directly accessible to us, is then comprehensively modelled by their encompassing combination. Quantum phenomena are understood as undoubtedly lying at the bottom of classical physics and at the same time, they become “fully real” only when embedded in classical frames between preparation and measurement in time. It is then where thermodynamics steps in and provides the mediating glue. The aim of this short contribution is not to deliver novel quantitative results but rather to propose a comprehensive research program and to coarsely lay out a very roughly coherent self-referential sketch starting from the beginning of the one universe, which we inhabit.
On a scientific meta-level, it is discussed how an overall understanding of the physical universe can be built on the basis of well-proven theories, observations, and recent experiments. In the light of almost a century of struggle to make (common) sense of Quantum Mechanics and to reconcile it with General Relativity, it is proposed to (for some time) forget about quantizing gravity or striving for one Theory of Everything or “Weltformel”, which would describe the whole of reality seamlessly without any joints or suture marks. Instead of one single monolithic formalism, a three-legged compound approach is argued for. Quantum Mechanics, Relativity and Thermodynamics are proposed as the main pillars of reality, each with its well-defined realm, specific features, and clearly marked interfaces between the three of them. Not only classical reality, which is rather directly accessible to us, is then comprehensively modelled by their encompassing combination. Quantum phenomena are understood as undoubtedly lying at the bottom of classical physics and at the same time, they become “fully real” only when embedded in classical frames, i.e., preparation and measurements in time. It is then where thermodynamics steps in and provides the mediating glue as it does at interfaces towards gravity. Decoherence is understood as a smooth way of gradually transferring information and basically dumping entropy to a suitable environment. The aim of this short contribution is not to deliver novel quantitative results but rather to propose a comprehensive research program and to coarsely lay out a very roughly coherent sketch starting from the beginning of the one universe, which we inhabit. The all-embracing picture is claimed to be one of (“mutually induced”) emergence.
Frauchiger and Renner recently cast doubt on the universal applicability of Quantum Mechanics [1]. In the following, it is pointed out that their conclusion of one of three common-sense conditions, demanded for Quantum Mechanics, being inevitably and permanently violated is not inevitable; there is a way out. Here, it is argued for fully accepting encompassing complementarity and for a basic conceptualization of quantum mechanics, in which different aspects are exhibited under different circumstances. The reported result is taken as an indication of a fundamental arrow of time pointing in the direction from the quantum --> classical domain. With the origin of thermodynamic time at that interface, its unrestricted applicability in isolated quantum systems is questioned. The bold proposal is that TIME as we know it just does not exist at the quantum level. Time instead commences together with causality at all interfaces to the classic domain whenever a minimum amount of energy is transferred in an uncontrolled manner, i.e., without well-balanced compensation. Insisting on fully comprehensive self-consistency opens new perspectives on (retro-)causality and also on an inflation phase at the beginnings of our universe.
We examine the possible relations between general relativity and quantum mechanics, from the point of view of their representations of space and time, which are different. We refer to our own understanding of space and time, built in opposition to each other from the physical phenomena, and not constituting an a priori external frame. Within a relation-based thinking, we can only compare the phenomena to the other phenomena, and, from this confrontation, space-time frames arise, as drawn by the trajectories of certain phenomena arbitrarily considered in a privileged way. It is within this framework that one must think the possible association of general relativity (which has not the monopoly of space and time) and quantum mechanics (which has not the monopoly of quantization, to be understood from the comparison of two classes of phenomena within a probabilistic approach). The general question to ask is that of possible exchanges between the different points of views, supported by the various possible phenomena, that is to say those on which space and time are defined, and the others. Space and time do not disappear, the points of views are exchanged. These exchanges are made possible by representing space and time, like the other phenomena, by a pair of fields (r, t); r and t are vectors in a three-dimensional space (time is marked by the position of a moving point in the same space as that defining the positions of the ordinary points), as opposed to field pairs (f, g) associated with the other phenomena (such as the pair of the electric and magnetic fields). One may ultimately envisage quantization of space and time; one may also envisage the definition of time and space solely by quantum mechanics. A preliminary and qualitative framework is presented as a basis for future quantitative research.
We sketch a quantum-mechanical framework for the universe as a whole. \nWithin that framework we propose a program for describing the ultimate \norigin in quantum cosmology of the "quasiclassical domain" of familiar experience and for characterizing the process of measurement. Predictions \nin quantum mechanics are made from probabilities for sets of alternative \nhistories. Probabilities (approximately obeying the rules of probability theory) can be assigned only to sets of histories that approximately decohere. \nDecoherence is defined and the mechanism of decoherence is reviewed. Decoherence requires a sufficiently coarse-grained description of alternative \nhistories of the universe. A quasiclassical domain consists of a branching set \nof alternative decohering histories, described by a coarse graining that is, in \nan appropriate sense, maximally refined consistent with decoherence, with \nindividual branches that exhibit a high level of classical correlation in time. \nWe pose the problem of making these notions precise and quantitative. A \nquasiclassical domain is emergent in the universe as a consequence of the \ninitial condition and the action function of the elementary particles. It is \nan important question whether all the quasiclassical domains are roughly \nequivalent or whether there are various essentially inequivalent ones. A \nmeasurement is a correlation with variables in a quasiclassical domain. An "observer" (or information gathering and utilizing system) is a complex \nadaptive system that has evolved to exploit the relative predictability of a \nquasiclassical domain, or rather a set of such domains among which it cannot discriminate because of its own very coarse graining. We suggest that \nresolution of many of the problems of interpretation presented by quantum \nmechanics is to be accomplished, not by further scrutiny of the subject as it \napplies to reproducible laboratory situations, but rather by an examination \nof alternative histories of the universe, stemming from its initial condition, \nand a study of the problem of quasiclassical domains.
Modern fundamental physics remains fragmented: quantum mechanics and general relativity describe different regimes of reality but do not fit into a single coherent architecture. The status of quantization and Planck’s constant is unclear (why the world is fundamentally discrete), the role of information as a physical entity is not well defined (how it relates to energy and matter), and questions of initial conditions and the arrow of time remain unresolved. There is also a gap between the quantum description, the Standard Model, and the macroscopic classical world where complex structures and life emerge. In my work, I propose to view reality as a system of layers connected by a single mechanism: the flow of binary quantum information (0/1 and their superpositions). On the fundamental quantum layer, these binary quanta of distinguishability operate; their collective dynamics generate the Standard Model as an effective field theory and then project onto our macroscopic layer with a specific geometry (in terms of a torus-like structure). In this framework, quantization, gravity, the parameters of the Standard Model, and the quantum-to-classical transition become different manifestations of the same underlying architecture, rather than a set of unrelated patches. For feedback or questions: Email: linkoln.linty@gmail.com Telegram: @AntonZibnitsky
Start with time, that it commits forward, and it explains gravity, entanglement, and measurement without new assumptions. This essay argues that the treatment of time in general relativity and quantum mechanics is coarse-grained. The theories are time-symmetric because they average or dismiss time. One cannot be folded into the other because they have accounted for the ordering in different ways. Consider: We accepted absolute time because Newton's gravity was so accurate. We then accepted "no universal now" because relativity was even more accurate. We somehow also accept the background time on which QM relies. These are clues: Newton's formula has no t. Einstein's is reversible. And QM uses the decohered-environment's time but can't explain decoherence itself. We know what our best physics says about time. And we know how time actually flows from everyday experience. A scientific mind is justified in concluding that any theory which doesn't account for the forward march of time is incomplete. This essay introduces the Event Density framework, which makes time fundamental. The commitment of (Planck-scale) events is the tick of time. Gravity is the tendency toward slower-ticking time. QM is the study of before (or between) commitments; before the first ticks of entangled particles, for example. Measurement is just commitment — possibilities becoming facts and becoming a tick. Reality, what we call the classical world, is relentless ticking. Everything is updating and ticking with existence. If you remember learning once that solid objects are most empty, consider that they are also blinking and enjoy that wonder again.