Planck length and Quantum Gravity and space in Non-Linear Time Theory-Quantum Time meets quantum gravity
In the Stanford paper on Quantum Gravity, “Gravity meets quantum theory” (predicted by NLT and EHT) a number of interesting questions are raised which are answered by NLT. Sadly, I have not been able to present NLT to Stanford yet, probably because it would be like inviting a mongrel to a poodle show.
Now, I normally don't refer to leading institutional physicists as mongrels because I don't want to be skewered with questions I can't answer, but we know who is afraid of being scooped in this situation (and I assure all the physicists out there this paragraph is written in jest.)
Anyway, the funny thing is that in their discussion, they touch on many of the issues which were suggested and largely answered (by shifting all the weight onto non-linear time) in NLT theory and these are worth discussion.
There are several issues which require discussion which I will lay out, give a general framework for the discussion and then address as time allows:
Diffeomorphism invariance and relational observables. It should be noted that relativity, a key element in any discussion of quantum time, is largely the study of “relative change” and NLT says that the ability to observe space (and therefore energy and matter) are functions of the change rates of the different features of time and that the very nature of the observed item (as space, energy or matter) is a function of what features are changing and which are not and the rate of speed with which they change in transition (e.g. matter becomes energy as clock time(1) goes to zero through rapid changes in dimensional coordinates through a “conservation of change” theory of NLT.
Probability and symetries-This refers to the “predictive” nature of the universe, discussed previously in several posts, particularly those related to Asimov. Relationalism and substantivalism are less specifically addressed, but the mistake NLT suggests is that “space possibilities” are irrelevant because space is merely a creation of non-linear time and therefore is a quantum event capable of determination for any given quantum time.
Later this same concept is discussed in terms of the “super position principle and general relativity” and particularly general covariance which is threatened by their examination without NLT.
Differential manifolds as space or the failure of the same-spacetime is an emergent entity: Well, this is as close as they get to defining quantum time in terms of quantum time. The problem that these physicists have is that they are trying to work backwards. This is why NLT is such a good predictor, because it comes from a different direction and reaches these same conclusions. Later they refer to “dynamical, quantized spacetime” which is a good description of non-linear time since it necessarily is dynamic to be observed. The problem continues to be recognizing an artificial difference between space and time when a careful examination (see above even in this document) shows that there is conservation of space and time relative to one another so that they should be “the same” to the extent that interconvertables like energy and matter are the same.
So when they try to force the universe into “states”, they run into problems because “stationary states” (which cannot exist according to EHT). You eliminate these classical problems because “gravity” is a function of time going non-linear. If time were to stop (that is if time coordinates (which are shown to be conserved) stop changing) you have a black hole event. You would (a) expect gravity to be a constant-just as there is conservation of coordinate change, so too you would have to have the force generated by this change to be constant and (b) you would expect something a fundamentally huge as time going non-linear to result in some sort of energy release which is just what gravity reflects. That is, in NLT gravity is a creation of time coordinates changing which makes sense as the “creation of space” thereby, the creation of dimension itself, should result in some huge force and what's more the force for any amount of space would be expected to be exponentially small and gravity is a very weak force, although once the whole universe of non-linearity is taken into account it is rather significant.
Quantization of spacetime:matter distributed in space and time is described as “at best an approximation) but in not says just the opposite. It is not an approximation but is instead a certain quantum state with specific coordinates. The terms that should be investigated from the paper include the statement “not only the metric but also the underlying differential structure and topology” be quantized. This says that space is capable of quantization but fails to establish a structural framework for its examination (time coordinates in NLT).
I will discuss this further and add a couple of terms, but first, I want to deal with the quantum/analog question just briefly.
The non quantum change in quantum fluctuation is an issue which would appear unlikely, but is it really?
This is merely the suggestion that in nature we observe linearity until we drop out of space and may therefore drop back into it though this is not suggested by not...yet. However, isn't the absence of all quantum when time goes non-linear, when there are no quantum changes in coordinates, a type of analog non-quantum linearity? This is the province of what is called G-space in EHT.
More on this later.
No comments:
Post a Comment