Remember that it is "logical" as well in EHT that consciousness gives rise to linearity and consciousness is somehow like having the ability to act.
Since we're discussing the Stanford article, let's look at some similar thinking.
They talk of "Spacetime" as "emergent". They go so far as to describe it as a "continuous structure with continuous symmetries...emerge from a fundamentally discrete structure." (citing Butterfield and Isham, 1999 and 2001).
In effect, they have discovered (moving backwards from a different direction) non-linear time. The fact that they fail to recognize it specifically, is more a matter of symantics than anything else. They are coming from the direction of quantum gravity and it has long been clear in E-H-T and N-L-T that gravity is a function of time going from non-linear to linear and that gravity is the force generated by the conversion of NLT to space which in turn is a function of changing time coordinates.
Amusingly, the approach that questions the nature of "gravitational fields of stationary quantum states" is irrelevant in NLT since you would not, in our universe, have a stationary Q-S and if you had it, there would be no gravity since gravity is a function of linearity which presupposes (1) change and (2) a conservation of change equation.
The issue of whether this allows for probabilities or certainties is both critical and a violation of prior theories. It is an examination of non-linear time and a decision as to whether Einstein was right or wrong or perhaps the possibility that he was both.
Multiple dimensions as such have very little to do with EHT, but the possibility of multiple "clock times" associated with a single quantum change in non-linear time does appear to be at least mathematically possible We'd never experience these since we are separated from an instant, but they would act on the exact same quantum and they might as well be separate dimensions. More likely, since a single NLT quanta could create and maintain the entire universe, it could also maintain an infinite number of other universes created exactly the same way but allow for minor variations although how or why this occurs requires a lengthier discussion.
The question of what happens at this point just below Planck length (or Planck length divided by the speed of light squared if you want to look at a further examination of the conversion of energy to space and space to non-linear time as a successive possibility). In NLT, the arguments favoring Planck length as a fundamental conceptual distance have less to do with the Gravitational component (which merely reflects the fact that gravity exists as time goes non-linear on a quantum scale) but instead derives from mass-energy equations and the possibility that these reflect space-energy conversion which in turn reflect NLT-space conversion. The fact that in each case you would expect some sort of conservation and that conservation of time coordinate changes are observed throughout this conversion gives some credence to the minimal size arguments just as the creation of temporary black holes by collisions below Planck Length support the concept.
Hence, to property study space time, we need to avoid attempting (in NLT at least) looking at space "frozen" at some point in time. If you were to do this, you would be studying NLT and not space since space does not exist except as a function of changing coordinates. The better focus would be to determine what the coordinates are and how to manipulate them since that holds the secret to instantaneous travel and possibly even the manipulation of Non-Linear Time (assuming it is not preordained in some fashion that would prevent manipulation even from a platform where you understood it).
No comments:
Post a Comment