Can our extremely complicated world be explained, starting from simple conditions and laws? Such questions easily become metaphysical, but at the same time they have historically served science well by promoting new and fruitful ideas. Of particular interest in this paper is the unification of general relativity and quantum mechanics. It is suggested that a way to find a common basis for these theories could be to view them both as stochastic theories which, among all possible macroscopic developments, promote the simplest ones. But with the difference that general relativity uses real probabilities, whereas quantum mechanics uses complex weights. In a certain sense this approach goes back to the Principle of Least Action, although the perspective on this principle in the present paper is different from the one which is commonly used in contemporary physics. It is also suggested that a more general principle, which applies to both theories and which is beyond both stationarity and minimizing, could give us a better starting point for the unification.
Can our extremely complicated world be explained, starting from simple conditions and laws? Such questions easily become metaphysical, but at the same time they have historically served science well by promoting new and fruitful ideas. Of particular interest in this paper is the unification of general relativity and quantum mechanics. It is suggested that a way to find a common basis for these theories could be to view them both as stochastic theories which, among all possible macroscopic developments, promote the simplest ones. But with the difference that general relativity uses real probabilities, whereas quantum mechanics uses complex weights. In a certain sense this approach goes back to the Principle of Least Action, although the perspective on this principle in the present paper is different from the one which is commonly used in contemporary physics. It is also suggested that a more general principle, which applies to both theories and which is beyond both stationarity and minimizing, could give us a better starting point for the unification.
We discuss the problems of quantum theory (QT) complicating its merging with general relativity (GR). QT is treated as a general theory of micro-phenomena—a bunch of models. Quantum mechanics (QM) and quantum field theory (QFT) are the most widely known (but, e.g., Bohmian mechanics is also a part of QT). The basic problems of QM and QFT are considered in interrelation. For QM, we stress its nonrelativistic character and the presence of spooky action at a distance. For QFT, we highlight the old problem of infinities. And this is the main point of the paper: it is meaningless to try to unify QFT so heavily suffering of infinities with GR. We also highlight difficulties of the QFT-treatment of entanglement. We compare the QFT and QM based measurement theories by presenting both theoretical and experimental viewpoints. Then we discuss two basic mathematical constraints of both QM and QFT, namely, the use of real (and, hence, complex) numbers and the Hilbert state space. We briefly present non-archimedean and non-hilbertian approaches to QT and their consequences. Finally, we claim that, in spite of the Bell theorem, it is still possible to treat quantum phenomena on the basis of a classical-like causal theory. We present a random field model generating the QM and QFT formalisms. This emergence viewpoint can serve as the basis for unification of novel QT (may be totally different from presently powerful QM and QFT) and GR. (It may happen that the latter would also be revolutionary modified.)
I suppose one could imagine laws of physics which would dictate that a world be exactly so, and not otherwise, allowing no detail to be varied. But what could dictate that those laws of physics be ‘the’ laws of physics? By considering a spectrum of possible laws, one could again consider a spectrum of possible worlds. In fact the laws of physics of our actual world, as presently understood, have no such dictatorial character. So that even with the laws given, a spectrum of different worlds is possible. There are two kinds of freedom. Although the laws say something about how a given state of the world may develop, they say nothing (or anyway very little) about in what state the world should start. So, to begin with, we have freedom as regards ‘initial conditions’. To go on with, the future that can evolve from a given present is not uniquely determined, according to contemporary orthodoxy. The laws list various possibilities, and attach to them various probabilities. The relation between the set of possibilities and the unique actuality which emerges is quite peculiar in modern ‘quantum theory’ – the contemporary all-embracing basic physical theory. The absence of determinism, the probabilistic nature of the assertions of the theory, is already a little peculiar… at least in the light of pre-twentieth-century ‘classical’ physics. But after all everyday life, if not classical physics, prepares us very well for the idea that not everything is predictable, that chance is important.
The general view is that all fundamental physical laws should be formulated within the framework given by quantum mechanics (QM). In a sense, QM therefore has the character of a metaphysical theory. Consequently, if it is possible to derive QM from more basic principles, these principles should be of general, philosophical nature. Here, we derive the formalism of QM from well-motivated epistemic principles. A key assumption is that a physical theory that relies on entities or distinctions that are unknowable in principle gives rise to wrong predictions. First, an epistemic formalism is developed, using concepts like knowledge and potential knowledge, identifying a physical state S with the potential knowledge of the physical world. It is demonstrated that QM emerges from this formalism. However, Hilbert spaces, wave functions and probabilities are defined in certain well-defined observational contexts only. This means that the epistemic formalism is broader than QM. In the fundamental layer of description, the physical state S is a subset of a state space S={Z}, such that S always contains many elements Z. These elements correspond to unattainable states of complete knowledge of the world. The evolution of S cannot be determined in terms of the individual evolution of the elements Z, unlike the evolution of an ensemble in classical phase space. The evolution of S is described in terms of sequential time n∈N, which is updated according to n→n+1 each time an event occurs, each time potential knowledge changes. Sequential time n can be separated from relational time t, which describes distances between events in space-time. There is an entire space-time associated with each n, in which t represents the knowledge at sequential time n about the temporal relations between present and past events.
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.
Many attempts have been made at the unification of General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Theory (QT), but there is a fundamental error made with these attempts, as we will discuss. What is the point of such theories? Well, obviously to describe the physical world we live in. QT describes what happens on the tiny scale, and GR describes what happens to bodies on a large scale. The fundamental error in unifying the two subjects is that QT doesn’t provide the physical happenings for GR to work, or in other words, QT describes why the world is the way it is, but not how, and this does not philosophically suffice in GR. Must we simply give up, in that the subjects are two different entities? I think the answer is that we mustn't. I think that we should put one theory in terms of the basic mechanics of the other, perhaps by simplifying, or perhaps by taking the physical reality to be our guide. Do I believe QT describes the world? Accurately. Do I believe that QT is the physical truth? Of course not… it is simply a mathematical construct to provide a model that allows for us to predict future outcomes. I will begin very simplistic, but the goal for the first part of the paper is to Classically describe the physical mechanics of QT. I will stick with particles in their ground state, and hence no translational motion.