Post New

As for "what is reality"? That gets very hairy, since almost everyone will dive into quantum mechanics at some points when discussing that. Even if they don't understand QM. (I was a physicist, so I can tell you most people who talk about it don't actually understand it. Heck, some aspects I won't claim to understand.) Distilled down a lot, one could argue that this universe is a collection of fields that manifest the various observational phenomena that we see/observe/measure.

I don't claim to understand QM, or even General Relativity, though I do my best to comprehend both and to integrate them, resolving their apparent inconsistencies. The problem is that both QM and GR are among the best verified of scientific theories. Reconciling QM and GR may be the most fundamental of all scientific challenges. To the best of my knowledge, no one — physicist or philosopher — has yet managed that.

As I see it, GR is an assessment of macroscopic observations drawn from within existence, accurately describing the most sophisticated experience of earthly denizens to date. From that perspective, we humans have managed to discern that the universe of our experience is exponentially expanding. Accordingly, the universe of our past is regarded as exponentially receding, motivating theories like inflation to get from original nothingness to everything observable.

On the other hand, QM verifiably relates our most minuscule observations to date with overwhelming consistency. It describes molecules comprised of atoms consisting of protons, neutrons and electrons, all composed of quarks and gluons. The whole affair is macroscopically communicated via photons, perceived as light.

At the most fundamental level, quarks, atemporally emergent within infinite potential, comprise materiality.

It's true that all such materiality seems to boil down to fields of one sort or another — as best we know, strong force, weak force, electromagnetism and gravity.

The strong force is mediated by gluons, dictating the behavior of quarks comprising positively charged nuclear protons along with neutrons, and their counterbalancing negatively charged electrons. Together these components comprise atoms, which, in combination, compose molecules of what's regarded as matter.

The weak force, often detected as radiation, more fundamentally aggregates atoms into molecules.

The electromagnetic force is mediated by emanations that we humans perceive as light, propagating at a finite speed. That's the origin of GR. Electromagnetism also includes natively imperceptible radio waves, microwaves, infrared, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays, all components of its widely ranging spectrum. Thus does the finite speed of light render perception within a temporally evolving universe.

The force of gravity is often regarded as the source of perception, as it recognizes spatial-temporal differentiation among masses. Yet its imperceptibility at quantum scale is significant.

My suggestion is that quantum emergence of organically entangling experience within infinite potential is atemporal, eliminating any need for inflationary theories.

Neil Turok's proposal of simultaneous mirror universes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dt5cFLN65fI) seems to accord with that.

Tom

My suggestion is that quantum emergence of organically entangling experience within infinite potential is atemporal, eliminating any need for inflationary theories.

So, do you prefer pastrami or corned beef on a reuben?

Just as a point of clarification, the strong nuclear force drops off dramatically once you go "outside" the nucleus. It's effectively zero long before you reach the Bohr radius. It basically holds the nucleus together (because positively charged protons wouldn't normally like being in close proximity due to repulsion of like charges). The weak force seems to govern radioactive decay, and is manifest in both photons and particles (which, I suppose, you could lump as "radiation" in common parlance).

I've been reading a few things that are asserting that there is no GUT because gravitation cannot be reconciled with QM. Here's a pretty tame article that doesn't get too far into the weeds:

https://www.space.com/wavy-space-time-theory-quant...

Wouldn't be the first time we were pursuing something that wasn't soluble. Newton spent a large part of his life trying to explain the wave characteristics of light in terms of particles ("corpuscles"). We later discovered the dual nature of light. We also tried to find the medium in which light waves propagated, again to no avail (because it doesn't work like that for light...though this latter work led to the interferometer).

Maybe gravity is NOT united with the other three forces, and so we're chasing something that isn't so.

1pg: I'm sure you'll find this recent research interesting. It's essentially about "nuclear seismology"! The proton is revealing itself to be ever more complex that previously thought:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/swirling-forces-cru...

"The experiments literally shine a new light on the proton. Over decades, researchers have meticulously mapped out the electromagnetic influence of the positively charged particle. But in the new research, the Jefferson Lab physicists are instead mapping the proton’s gravitational influence — namely, the distribution of energies, pressures and shear stresses throughout, which bend the space-time fabric in and around the particle. The researchers do so by exploiting a peculiar way in which pairs of photons, particles of light, can imitate a graviton, the hypothesized particle that conveys the force of gravity. By pinging the proton with photons, they indirectly infer how gravity would interact with it, realizing a decades-old dream of interrogating the proton in this alternative way."

Also be sure to click on the "related" links at the end of the article, particularly the one titled "Inside the Proton, the ‘Most Complicated Thing You Could Possibly Imagine’

onepoorguy: Maybe gravity is NOT united with the other three forces, and so we're chasing something that isn't so.

That's my thought as well, though LIGO's recent detection of 'gravitational waves' is interesting.

https://www.space.com/gravitational-wave-backgroun...

From the article: signals of gravitational waves that make up that background have been hard to detect due to being faint, in addition to vibrating at decade-long timescales.

Those detections lie within the macroscopic realm described by General Relativity. It's interesting that decades-long wavelengths are likely emanated by an infant universe, and would seem to confirm universal expansion of whatever's perceived.

By way of explanation, wavelength is a function of light-speed, reflecting distance traveled over time, as in miles per hour. Light travels at about 300 kilometers/second; fast enough that nearby interactions feel instantaneous, while those most distant are thought to have occurred as long ago as 13.7 billion contemporary orbits of our mother planet about its parent star.

Observations suggest that space exponentially expands over time. My guess is that accommodates the exploding complexity of organically evolving experience exemplified in you, me and all perceived, as reflected in an ever-expanding spatial-temporal macrosphere.

More fundamentally, ephemeral quarks comprise the indefinitely persisting protons, neutrons and electrons that compose our perceptual universe. Quark existence is so brief that it's macroscopically undetectable.

I'd suggest that atemporally emergent quarks are the interface between the infinite potential of erstwhile nothingness and finite realization.

Organically evolving perception is informed by photons traveling at light-speed, conveying an impression of a macroscopic environment.

Enough already.

Tom

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.