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 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.
Please download the paper and then read the abstract (since crucial formulas are not appearing in this window, and also hyperlinks are not working). This is just a brief overview: Relativity is inside the light cone phenomena, while Quantum Mechanics is outside the light cone phenomena, dictated just by the scale (i.e. whether we use classical/human scale or sub-atomic scale). This recent paper [ ‘ Quantum principle of relativity’; Andrzej Dragan, Artur Ekert, New. J. Phys. 22 (2020) 033098] has shown that every exotic Quantum effect like superposition, entanglement, probabilistic behavior, multiple paths etc. can be explained just by allowing super-luminal possibility. The 'inside the light cone' phenomena, and the 'outside the light cone' phenomena together span the entire region within the space and time axes. Only in unison they complete the entire picture. We failed to realize that the same spacetime is getting split into 'space like' and 'time like’ regions based on scale. And the reason behind this is not the magical ( ? ) speed of light. That would have turned both relativity and quantum mechanics into mere branches of electromagnetism. The true reason is much deeper and at a very fundamental level of our universe. It turns out that the c is the radial expansion velocity of our universe. But why does the transition from Relativity to Quantum Mechanics happens with decreasing size scale? That’s because, this is what is happens to spatial and temporal dimensions at different scales: 3+1 (Classical regime) <=> 2+2 (Compton regime) <=> 1+3 (Planck regime). Just as space and time exchange roles at the event horizon of a Black Hole, similarly, spatial and temporal dimensions switch roles for extremely small scales (although due to a completely different mechanism). Why this happens is difficult to expalin without the true model of our universe. But, once explained, it becomes "Why didn't I think about it before? I was plain silly!" From the center of universe viewpoint, simultaneity is absolute (as demanded by Sagnac effect), and there is indeed absolute universal time (as demanded by quantum mechanics). From our viewpoint (located at an awkward position in the universe), locality is absolute, and velocity c is the upper limit, and remains constant for every observer. This turns (our) space and time into inseparable twins, and makes (our) time a relative concept. This solves the time problem which had so stubbornly resisted the reconciliation of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity are like two sides of the same coin. But understanding the relation between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity is a bit tricky, because according to General Relativity, gravity is the warping/curvature of the 4 dimensional spacetime itself. At first sight, Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity seem to be utterly incompatible! But actually, Special Relativity’s big brother General Relativity only complicates things a bit, but does not become inconsistent with Quantum Mechanics altogether. The only difference between the warped spacetime of General Relativity, and the flat spacetime of Special Relativity is very similar to the difference between a stretched rubber membrane, with and without a metal ball placed on it. This paper does not sacrifice any of the spectacular success of General Relativity and also does not compromise with any of the stunningly accurate predictions of Quantum Mechanics. And yet, this paper harmoniously brings Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity together. Just bear in mind that Nature simply cannot afford to make our two greatest theories incompatible. After all, both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics were based on what nature was actually telling us, and nature herself would be accountable for any genuine contradiction (but not for the breakdown of our physics due to our misunderstanding!). And, by the way, this paper solves some of the most pressing problems in both Physics & Cosmology. The 'Principle of Least Action' which comes closest to a 'Theory of Everything' arises as a direct consequence of better SpaceTime theory proposed in this paper. Also, we can see why the symmetries of nature (which gives rise to the crucial conservation principles in Physics according to the Noether's theorems) arises in the first place. Gentle reminder: Please download the paper and then read the abstract.
Please download the paper and then read the abstract (since crucial formulas are not appearing in this window, and also hyperlinks are not working). This is just a brief overview: Relativity is inside the light cone phenomena, while Quantum Mechanics is outside the light cone phenomena, dictated just by the scale (i.e. whether we use classical/human scale or sub-atomic scale). This recent paper [ ‘ Quantum principle of relativity’; Andrzej Dragan, Artur Ekert, New. J. Phys. 22 (2020) 033098] has shown that every exotic Quantum effect like superposition, entanglement, probabilistic behavior, multiple paths etc. can be explained just by allowing super-luminal possibility. The 'inside the light cone' phenomena, and the 'outside the light cone' phenomena together span the entire region within the space and time axes. Only in unison they complete the entire picture. We failed to realize that the same spacetime is getting split into 'space like' and 'time like’ regions based on scale. And the reason behind this is not the magical ( ? ) speed of light. That would have turned both relativity and quantum mechanics into mere branches of electromagnetism. The true reason is much deeper and at a very fundamental level of our universe. It turns out that the c is the radial expansion velocity of our universe. But why does the transition from Relativity to Quantum Mechanics happens with decreasing size scale? That’s because, this is what is happens to spatial and temporal dimensions at different scales: 3+1 (Classical regime) <=> 2+2 (Compton regime) <=> 1+3 (Planck regime). Just as space and time exchange roles at the event horizon of a Black Hole, similarly, spatial and temporal dimensions switch roles for extremely small scales (although due to a completely different mechanism). Why this happens is difficult to expalin without the true model of our universe. But, once explained, it becomes "Why didn't I think about it before? I was plain silly!" From the center of universe viewpoint, simultaneity is absolute (as demanded by Sagnac effect), and there is indeed absolute universal time (as demanded by quantum mechanics). From our viewpoint (located at an awkward position in the universe), locality is absolute, and velocity c is the upper limit, and remains constant for every observer. This turns (our) space and time into inseparable twins, and makes (our) time a relative concept. This solves the time problem which had so stubbornly resisted the reconciliation of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity are like two sides of the same coin. But understanding the relation between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity is a bit tricky, because according to General Relativity, gravity is the warping/curvature of the 4 dimensional spacetime itself. At first sight, Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity seem to be utterly incompatible! But actually, Special Relativity’s big brother General Relativity only complicates things a bit, but does not become inconsistent with Quantum Mechanics altogether. The only difference between the warped spacetime of General Relativity, and the flat spacetime of Special Relativity is very similar to the difference between a stretched rubber membrane, with and without a metal ball placed on it. This paper does not sacrifice any of the spectacular success of General Relativity and also does not compromise with any of the stunningly accurate predictions of Quantum Mechanics. And yet, this paper harmoniously brings Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity together. Just bear in mind that Nature simply cannot afford to make our two greatest theories incompatible. After all, both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics were based on what nature was actually telling us, and nature herself would be accountable for any genuine contradiction (but not for the breakdown of our physics due to our misunderstanding!). And, by the way, this paper solves some of the most pressing problems in both Physics & Cosmology. The 'Principle of Least Action' which comes closest to a 'Theory of Everything' arises as a direct consequence of better SpaceTime theory proposed in this paper. Also, we can see why the symmetries of nature (which gives rise to the crucial conservation principles in Physics according to the Noether's theorems) arises in the first place. Gentle reminder: Please download the paper and then read the abstract.
This paper is the first of two papers devoted to formulation of quantum mechanics of a particle in a normal geodesic frame of reference in the general Riemannian space-time. Here canonical quantization of geodesic motion in the 1+3-formalism is considered, the result of which will be compared in the subsequent paper II with that of the field-theoretical approach, see also gr-qc/9807030. The Schrödinger representation of quantum-mechanical kinematics and dynamics is presented in the general-covariant form and a physical interpretation of the state vectors and the position operators is discussed.
The possibility that quantum mechanics is foundationally the same as classical theories in explaining phenomena in space and time is postulated. Such a view is motivated by interpreting the experimental violation of Bell inequalities as resulting from questions of geometry and algebraic representation of variables, and thereby the structure of space, rather than realism or locality. While time remains Euclidean in the proposed new structure, space is described by Projective geometry. A dual geometry facilitates description of a physically real quantum particle trajectory. Implications for the physical basis of Bohmian mechanics is briefly examined, and found that the hidden variables pilot-wave model is local. Conceptually, the consequence of this proposal is that quantum mechanics has common ground with relativity as ultimately geometrical. This permits the derivation of physically meaningful quantum Lorentz transformations. Departure from classical notions of measurability is discussed.
In Part 1, we argued that P(x)dx=dx/L (where L is an arbitrary length) applies to a particle at rest. If one views such a particle from a frame moving at constant -v, it is moving. We argued that in such a case, the relevant probability is not simply linked to the position x, but also to the momentum p at x because this delivers an impulse hit. In particular, probability is presumably to be used in a physical problem with interactions and probability and a dynamical particle requires a dynamical probability describing both x,t and E,p. This led to exp(-iEt+px) which actually predicts intervals in space hbar/p and time hbar/E. In other words, a probabilistic view point leads to these results. Here, we ask the question: What if one simply wishes to use deterministic physics to describe a moving particle? After all, Newtonian mechanics is deterministic and one does not really need to focus on P(x)=1/L or its modification for a moving particle. In such a case, a particle moving with constant v (starting at x=0, t=0) is described by x/t=v both in Newtonian mechanics and special relativity. There is no uncertainty in x and t here which begs the question: Why does it appear in the probabilistic formalism of Part 1? In particular, exp(-iEt+ipx) derived in Part 1 implies physical regions: dx = hbar/p and dt=hbar/E and these seem to be absent in x/t=v and this is a problem. We suggest that a probabilistic approach is buried in the Lagrangian formalism which leads to the result d/dt v = 0, i.e describes the particle’s motion in space. This motion is actually x/t=v, but this equation only presents a subset of the description of a particle that is moving with constant speed, even in a deterministic Lagrangian/Action approach. We have already pointed this out in (1). We briefly explain it again here, but the real question is why does one need to consider the Lagrangian in order to describe x/t=v? In other words, the probabilistic approach associated with v=x/t only emerges in the Lagrangian formalism using a relativistic action Lt = -Et+px, with x/t=v. Ignoring the action and Lagrangian leads to an absence of hbar/p and hbar/E and one is only concerned with x/t=v. We note that the Lagrangian is primarily linked to the result: p = dL/dv partial and so argue that one is not simply interested in motion (x/t=v), but also in interaction because p is associated with an impulse hit. Thus, the Lagrangian approach is more than simply a mechanism which describes x,t motion, it is associated with p and E (through Hamiltonian = E = pv-L.) Using the Lagrangian approach suggests that it does not suffice to consider x and t by themselves when p and E are present. One must consider all four variables x,t,E,p which is the same point made in Part 1. The physics of the problem dictates that it is not enough to simply think in terms of x,t,v. The Lagrangian approach, which is constructed to ultimately yield x/t=v, when written in terms of E, p, i.e. Lt = -Et+px demonstrates uncertainty in x, hbar/p and t, hbar/E as shown in (1). This uncertainty must then be written in terms of a probability which is Lorentz invariant and leads to exp(-iEt+ipx). The point is that one would not even consider a probability if one did not consider E,p and x,t together as a complete treatment of a moving particle. In other words, x/t=v is an incomplete description of the state of a particle moving with constant speed, even in a deterministic framework.. At first this might seem surprising, but it is well known that energy and p are linked to interactions. In special relativity, one does not consider x,t,v alone and then compute p and E from these, but considers four vectors and Lorentz invariant equations. It is possible to create a Lorentz invariant equation involving all four state variables x,t,E,p and it turns out that this is the relativistic Lagrangian which describes motion, so this approach is more general than simply stating x/t=v. Thus, delta x = hbar/p and delta t= hbar/E appear in both the probabilistic approach of Part 1 and the deterministic one of the Lagrangian used here.