• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Let's not talk about the Big Bang

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
OK, this may be what you choose to believe, but you have to realise that this is not in any way accepted science, as your link in fact makes clear. That article is getting into the various philosophical interpretations of quantum theory, about which is there is, notoriously, no consensus.

It seems to me these people, whoever they are, have a bit of a conundrum to deal with since time is a variable assumed in the construction of QM . There is in fact a Wiki entry on all this, which if you have not seen it is worth a read: Problem of time - Wikipedia

Please note it states that "In classical mechanics, a special status is assigned to time in the sense that it is treated as a classical background parameter, external to the system itself. This special role is seen in the standard formulation of quantum mechanics. It is regarded as part of an a priori given classical background with a well defined value."

Your dismissing this article with a 'handwave' is not acceptable. There aspects of this article involving time that is not speculation. Yout selctive citation to bias your view of the article needs more explanation.

I disagree with you on 'What is accepted science.' There are too many unanswered questions concerning Quantum Mechanics for you and the others to take such a combative one sided argument. I believe in previous references and this one with the view that time is an emergent property pf Quantum Mechanics, and the Nature of Quantum Particles at the small scale is different from the continuous time/space of the macro scale universe,

More to follow . . .
 
Last edited:

exchemist

Veteran Member
I disagree with you on 'What is accepted science.' There are too many unanswered questions concerning Quantum Mechanics for you and the others to take such a combative one sided argument. I believe in previous references and this one the view that time is an emergent property pf Quantum Mechanics, and the Nature of Quantum Particles at the small scale is different from the continuous time/space of the macro scale universe,

More to follow . . .
Your own link makes it clear that the ideas of Page and Wooters are not accepted science. The fact that you personally may believe in them does not make them acccepted science. Unless for you "accepted science" means just accepted by you, of course.;)
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
From the very same page:

An obvious question, then, would be: is time divided up into discrete quanta? According to quantum mechanics, the answer appears to be “no”, and time appears to be in fact smooth and continuous (contrary to common belief, not everything in quantum theory is quantized). [my emphasis]​

The clue in the passage you quoted was the "Some quantum physicists....". We are again talking about speculative hypotheses, not standard quantum mechanics as you have claimed. On that, the above quote from the same page flatly contradicts your claim.

Susch a biased combative response does not deserve much of a response when you did not constructively address the content of the article.

I
believe research is cited that supports the hypothesis.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
OK, so it is a hypothesis and not accepted physics, right?
I believe the concept of emergent time is widely accepted. I believe research is cited that supports.

Fortunately you do not determine what is accepted as science.

More to follow . . .
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
More details . . .




0*Txyx0XyYp6ZwebFl.png

Quantum Experiment Shows How Time ‘Emerges’ from Entanglement​

Time is an emergent phenomenon that is a side effect of quantum entanglement, say physicists. And they have the first experimental results to prove it​

https://medium.com/@arxivblog?source=post_page-----d5d3dc850933--------------------------------
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxi...-d5d3dc850933--------------------------------
The Physics arXiv Blog
·
Follow
Published in
The Physics arXiv Blog
·
·Oct 23, 2013
https://medium.com/m/signin?actionU...33---------------------clap_footer-----------
https://medium.com/m/signin?actionU...-----------------post_audio_button-----------

When the new ideas of quantum mechanics spread through science like wildfire in the first half of the 20th century, one of the first things physicists did was to apply them to gravity and general relativity. The results were not pretty.

It immediately became clear that these two foundations of modern physics were entirely incompatible. When physicists attempted to meld the approaches, the resulting equations were bedeviled with infinities making it impossible to make sense of the results.

Then in the mid-1960s, there was a breakthrough. The physicists John Wheeler and Bryce DeWitt successfully combined the previously incompatible ideas in a key result that has since become known as the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. This is important because it avoids the troublesome infinites—a huge advance.

But it didn’t take physicists long to realise that while the Wheeler-DeWitt equation solved one significant problem, it introduced another. The new problem was that time played no role in this equation. In effect, it says that nothing ever happens in the universe, a prediction that is clearly at odds with the observational evidence.

This conundrum, which physicists call ‘the problem of time’, has proved to be a thorn in flesh of modern physicists, who have tried to ignore it but with little success.

Then in 1983, the theorists Don Page and William Wootters came up with a novel solution based on the quantum phenomenon of entanglement. This is the exotic property in which two quantum particles share the same existence, even though they are physically separated.

Entanglement is a deep and powerful link and Page and Wootters showed how it can be used to measure time. Their idea was that the way a pair of entangled particles evolve is a kind of clock that can be used to measure change.

But the results depend on how the observation is made. One way to do this is to compare the change in the entangled particles with an external clock that is entirely independent of the universe. This is equivalent to god-like observer outside the universe measuring the evolution of the particles using an external clock.

In this case, Page and Wootters showed that the particles would appear entirely unchanging—that time would not exist in this scenario.

But there is another way to do it that gives a different result. This is for an observer inside the universe to compare the evolution of the particles with the rest of the universe. In this case, the internal observer would see a change and this difference in the evolution of entangled particles compared with everything else is an important a measure of time.

This is an elegant and powerful idea. It suggests that time is an emergent phenomenon that comes about because of the nature of entanglement. And it exists only for observers inside the universe. Any god-like observer outside sees a static, unchanging universe, just as the Wheeler-DeWitt equations predict.

Of course, without experimental verification, Page and Wootter’s ideas are little more than a philosophical curiosity. And since it is never possible to have an observer outside the universe, there seemed little chance of ever testing the idea.

Until now. Today, Ekaterina Moreva at the Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica (INRIM) in Turin, Italy, and a few pals have performed the first experimental test of Page and Wootters’ ideas. And they confirm that time is indeed an emergent phenomenon for ‘internal’ observers but absent for external ones.

The experiment involves the creation of a toy universe consisting of a pair of entangled photons and an observer that can measure their state in one of two ways. In the first, the observer measures the evolution of the system by becoming entangled with it. In the second, a god-like observer measures the evolution against an external clock which is entirely independent of the toy universe.

The experimental details are straightforward. The entangled photons each have a polarisation which can be changed by passing it through a birefringent plate. In the first set up, the observer measures the polarisation of one photon, thereby becoming entangled with it. He or she then compares this with the polarisation of the second photon. The difference is a measure of time.

In the second set up, the photons again both pass through the birefringent plates which change their polarisations. However, in this case, the observer only measures the global properties of both photons by comparing them against an independent clock.

In this case, the observer cannot detect any difference between the photons without becoming entangled with one or the other. And if there is no difference, the system appears static. In other words, time does not emerge.

“Although extremely simple, our model captures the two, seemingly contradictory, properties of the Page-Wootters mechanism,” say Moreva and co.

That’s an impressive experiment. Emergence is a popular idea in science. In particular, physicists have recently become excited about the idea that gravity is an emergent phenomenon. So it’s a relatively small step to think that time may emerge in a similar way.

What emergent gravity has lacked, of course, is an experimental demonstration that shows how it works in practice. That’s why Moreva and co’s work is significant. It places an abstract and exotic idea on firm experimental footing for the first time.

Perhaps most significant of all is the implication that quantum mechanics and general relativity are not so incompatible after all. When viewed through the lens of entanglement, the famous ‘problem of time’ just melts away.

The next step will be to extend the idea further, particularly to the macroscopic scale. It’s one thing to show how time emerges for photons, it’s quite another to show how it emerges for larger things such as humans and train timetables.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
  • Home
  • /
  • News
  • /
  • How to build an emergent space-time in the laboratory

8

How to build an emergent space-time in the laboratory​

The hunt for a theory of quantum gravity suggests that spacetimes might emerge more easily than anyone imagined.
By The Physics arXiv Blog | Published: Tuesday, December 20, 2022
RELATED TOPICS: COSMOLOGY
emergentspacetime
Forance/Shutterstock
Perhaps the most intriguing endeavor in modern science is the ongoing work to unify the laws of physics at the very largest and smallest scales. That means finding a way to combine gravity with the laws of quantum mechanics to create a theory of quantum gravity.
One of the big ideas at the heart of this work is that the boundary of our cosmos contains all the information to describe what goes on within the universe. That’s weird because the boundary is only two dimensional while the universe is three-dimensional. Somehow, the extra dimension emerges from the properties of the other dimensions.
Physicists call this holographic duality because it is similar to the way that a third dimension appears in two dimensional holograms. The idea that we live in an emergent space-time has captured the attention of numerous physicists, who would dearly like to explore this notion further.


Holographic mystery​



How to build an emergent space-time in the laboratory

Now they could have the chance, thanks to the work of Koji Hashimoto and colleagues at Kyoto University in Japan who have found a way to create emergent space-times in a simple tabletop experiment. Their key insight is to suggest that under certain conditions, space-times can emerge in ordinary materials, just as a third dimension emerges in holograms.
Hashimoto and co have sketched out the conditions in which this might work and calculated how physicists can spot these emergent space-times. If they’re correct, the team’s work lays the foundation for the first experimental detection of an emergent space-time.
First some background. Holographic duality is the result of a conjecture that physicists came up with in the 1990s to reconcile two entirely different theories of the universe. The first is conformal field theory or CFT which describes particle physics on the smallest quantum scales. The second is anti-de Sitter Spaces which describes quantum gravity in terms of string theories and often requires many dimensions to do this. These become compactified in most real situations.

The conjecture is that conformal field theories and Anti-de Sitter Spaces are essentially the same thing, even though they have different numbers of dimensions. In this so-called AdS/CFT correspondence, conformal field theory exactly maps to anti-de Sitter Space and vice versa. This mapping shows how our extra dimension of space emerges from the lower dimensional description of the universe.
But if AdS/CFT correspondence is true, Hashimoto and co reasoned that perhaps there are other circumstances in which space-time can emerge. For example, perhaps it is possible to create a one-dimensional boundary within which a two-dimensional space-time can emerge.


They then explored the conditions in which this might occur and how it could be visible to an external observer.
They note that it is straightforward to create a one-dimensional boundary using a thin line of atoms or molecules arranged in a circle. It’s straightforward to calculate the appearance of such a system in ordinary circumstances.
However, if this system allows the emergence of its own space-time, it should interact with our own space-time in a way that distorts its appearance in a predictable way, just like a hologram.
Hashimoto and co go on to calculate the properties of this distortion in a system made of thallium copper chloride, which has quantum properties that should allow the effect to occur.

Ring mechanics​

They calculate that the thallium copper chloride ring should have a circumference of about 100 nanometers and be cooled to 0.1 Kelvin. And they predict what it will look like if its own space-time emerges. “The imaging in the low temperature phase exhibits a distinct difference from the ordinary materials,” say the researchers.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member

Journal of Physics: Conference Series
PAPER • THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE ISOPEN ACCESS

The time as an emergent property of quantum mechanics, a synthetic description of a first experimental approach​

E Moreva1,2, G Brida1, M Gramegna1, V Giovannetti3, L Maccone4 and M Genovese1
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd
Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Volume 626, 7th International Workshop DICE2014 Spacetime – Matter – Quantum Mechanics 15–19 September 2014, Castiglioncello, ItalyCitation E Moreva et al 2015 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 626 012019DOI 10.1088/1742-6596/626/1/012019
DownloadArticle PDF


Article and author information

Abstract​

The ''problem of time" in present physics substantially consists in the fact that a straightforward quantization of the general relativistic evolution equation and constraints generates for the Universe wave function the Wheeler-De Witt equation, which describes a static Universe. Page and Wootters considered the fact that there exist states of a system composed by entangled subsystems that are stationary, but one can interpret the component subsystems as evolving: this leads them to suppose that the global state of the universe can be envisaged as one of this static entangled state, whereas the state of the subsystems can evolve. Here we synthetically present an experiment, based on PDC polarization entangled photons, that shows a practical example where this idea works, i.e. a subsystem of an entangled state works as a 'clock" of another subsystem.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Sort of my point. Define the terms you are using first, so there is no doubt. Then ask the question precisely.
Again, we're talking about 'nothing.' What it means that the earth hangs on 'nothing.' Please excuse me if I don't keep arguing about this, but it seems clear (terminology because I wear glasses) to me that Moses wrote accurately as he saw it, the earth hangs on -- nothing. He was not wrong. That 'nothing' can have gravitational pull within whatever is considered as nothing does not alter the descriptive concept of nothing. Because -- it was a descriptive picture of what the earth looks like from space anyway.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
That doesn't mean they said germs exist? It could mean it's bad luck? Had they said there are little tiny living things you cannot see that cause illness people would have made a big deal out of it because when it was proposed the scientists were called crazy.



Some people don't believe the world is round. So? Evidence.



Some people believe aliens run the government. Evidence is what demonstrates it's true. Some animals evolve INTO sea animals, it's not always one way. At Galapagos island there are land animals turning into fish because of demand for food. They are developing gills and spending more time under water looking for food. In thousands of years they will be fully in the water.

And, pretty sure we have fossils of all the intermediate stages of sea to land animals.
One thing at a time.
Actually God is proved by what's around us.
I am aware of the ideas of scientists attempting to show that fish became (or evolved to become) land animals. The idea that there are fossils supposedly showing "intermediate" stages of sea to land animals is not only not conclusive to demonstrating that sea animals evolved by natural selection or otherwise causing them to live entirely on the land but it is not proof (which I know you probably don't believe there IS proof of that), but it's not substantiated by anything more than supposition looking at fossils and placing them as the scientist will in the theory.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
One thing at a time.
Actually God is proved by what's around us.
I am aware of the ideas of scientists attempting to show that fish became (or evolved to become) land animals. The idea that there are fossils supposedly showing "intermediate" stages of sea to land animals is not only not conclusive to demonstrating that sea animals evolved by natural selection or otherwise causing them to live entirely on the land but it is not proof (which I know you probably don't believe there IS proof of that), but it's not substantiated by anything more than supposition looking at fossils and placing them as the scientist will in the theory.
And once again you totally disqualify your own opinions about the science by demonstrating that you do not even understand the scientific method.

Why don't you try to learn? You pride only makes you look even worse.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Well, the earth does not clearly hang on nothing. In fact, it is constrained to follow a well defined relative movement around the sun by a gravitational field. That is, the earth actually hangs on curved spacetime, and it is constrained by it. And curved spacetime is not nothing. Ergo, the earth does not hang on nothing.

unless you can offer us a definition of “nothing” that would save your case, without damaging others.

ciao

- viole
Whether you see it as a poetic description or not, the use of the words hang and nothing there are depictions accurately portraying as it "stands" in the universe. I've offered an explanation of nothing, and it depends on the item being described and the viewer. I'll offer it again in case you didn't read it. If someone enters a room and it has no furniture in it and he wants to describe it to someone, he can rightly say there was nothing in the room. He doesn't need to go into oxygen and gravity and other 'things' being there. Who knows? Maybe bacteria and mold. Etc. So the word nothing is properly applied there.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Whether you see it as a poetic description or not, the use of the words hang and nothing there are depictions accurately portraying as it "stands" in the universe. I've offered an explanation of nothing, and it depends on the item being described and the viewer. I'll offer it again in case you didn't read it. If someone enters a room and it has no furniture in it and he wants to describe it to someone, he can rightly say there was nothing in the room. He doesn't need to go into oxygen and gravity and other 'things' being there. Who knows? Maybe bacteria and mold. Etc. So the word nothing is properly applied there.
You are making excuses. You are not explaining anything.. There is a difference. That is why no one has taken your "explanation" seriously.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Susch a biased combative response does not deserve much of a response when you did not constructively address the content of the article.
Considering some of your posts on this subject, accusing others of a "biased combative response" is a bit rich.

You have posted some interesting looking links to ongoing research (I'll have a detailed look when I have some time to do so), which is fine but the fact remains that this is not part of standard quantum mechanics or currently accepted theory as you claimed, and the page you initially linked to even stated that fact.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Considering some of your posts on this subject, accusing others of a "biased combative response" is a bit rich.

Rich and very real, including many references and the failure of you and others to provide any references to the contrary.

Your misrepresentation of the Particle in a Box experiment is a classic example. The Particle in a Box is simply a one dimensional aproximation model of the limits of one particle constantly moving within limits of impenetrable barriers.
You have posted some interesting looking links to ongoing research (I'll have a detailed look when I have some time to do so), which is fine but the fact remains that this is not part of standard quantum mechanics or currently accepted theory as you claimed, and the page you initially linked to even stated that fact.
Your stonewalling with persistent denial. The concept of emergent time is widely accepted theory with research confirming the hypothesis as referenced. You and others demanded references and I provided them. In fact several references clearly accepted the emergence of time, and proposed the current goals of research to determine how it takes place.

I will provide more on the emergent properties of of both time and space. You have provided absolutely NOTHING.
 
Last edited:

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Rich and very real, including the failure of you and others to provide any references to the contrary
I, and others, have provided references. I have directly pointed out that the mathematics involved demonstrates that standard quantum mechanics uses continuous time. That you have studiously ignored that, seems significant.

I'll ask again: do you understand calculus? Do you understand that you can't take a derivative with respect to a variable that isn't continuous? Do you see that the Schrödinger equation is a differential equation? Did you notice that all the references you gave to standard QM involved differentiation and integration?

The concept of emergent time is widely accepted theory...
Your own references say otherwise.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Again, we're talking about 'nothing.' What it means that the earth hangs on 'nothing.' Please excuse me if I don't keep arguing about this, but it seems clear (terminology because I wear glasses) to me that Moses wrote accurately as he saw it, the earth hangs on -- nothing. He was not wrong. That 'nothing' can have gravitational pull within whatever is considered as nothing does not alter the descriptive concept of nothing. Because -- it was a descriptive picture of what the earth looks like from space anyway.

And my point is that 'hanging' is not an appropriate description. Something moving at 18 miles per second can hardly be described as hanging.

Also, Moses didn't write that. It is in the book of Job.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Whether you see it as a poetic description or not, the use of the words hang and nothing there are depictions accurately portraying as it "stands" in the universe. I've offered an explanation of nothing, and it depends on the item being described and the viewer. I'll offer it again in case you didn't read it. If someone enters a room and it has no furniture in it and he wants to describe it to someone, he can rightly say there was nothing in the room. He doesn't need to go into oxygen and gravity and other 'things' being there. Who knows? Maybe bacteria and mold. Etc. So the word nothing is properly applied there.

But would you describe a bullet as 'hanging' after it had been fired? The Earth moves much faster than that bullet.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I, and others, have provided references. I have directly pointed out that the mathematics involved demonstrates that standard quantum mechanics uses continuous time. That you have studiously ignored that, seems significant.

I'll ask again: do you understand calculus? Do you understand that you can't take a derivative with respect to a variable that isn't continuous? Do you see that the Schrödinger equation is a differential equation? Did you notice that all the references you gave to standard QM involved differentiation and integration?


Your own references say otherwise.


False, my references clearly demonstrated that the emergence of time is considered standard acceptance of science. You have failed to cite my references as 'saying otherwise.'

References?!?!?! Your misrepresentation of the Particle in a Box experiment is a classic example. The Particle in a Box is simply a one dimensional approximation model of the limits of one particle constantly moving within limits of impenetrable barriers.

Also your reference concerning the Hydrogen only addressed properties of the electron of the Hydrogen atom. Nothing motr,
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Concerning emergent space: I also believe that gravity is an entropic emergent gravity from entanglement, but this is motr hypothetical. * will provide references,

Space Emerging from Quantum Mechanics​

70 Comments / arxiv, Science
The other day I was amused to find a quote from Einstein, in 1936, about how hard it would be to quantize gravity: “like an attempt to breathe in empty space.” Eight decades later, I think we can still agree that it’s hard.

So here is a possibility worth considering: rather than quantizing gravity, maybe we should try to gravitize quantum mechanics. Or, more accurately but less evocatively, “find gravity inside quantum mechanics.” Rather than starting with some essentially classical view of gravity and “quantizing” it, we might imagine starting with a quantum view of reality from the start, and find the ordinary three-dimensional space in which we live somehow emerging from quantum information. That’s the project that ChunJun (Charles) Cao, Spyridon (Spiros) Michalakis, and I take a few tentative steps toward in a new paper.

We human beings, even those who have been studying quantum mechanics for a long time, still think in terms of a classical concepts. Positions, momenta, particles, fields, space itself. Quantum mechanics tells a different story. The quantum state of the universe is not a collection of things distributed through space, but something called a wave function. The wave function gives us a way of calculating the outcomes of measurements: whenever we measure an observable quantity like the position or momentum or spin of a particle, the wave function has a value for every possible outcome, and the probability of obtaining that outcome is given by the wave function squared. Indeed, that’s typically how we construct wave functions in practice. Start with some classical-sounding notion like “the position of a particle” or “the amplitude of a field,” and to each possible value we attach a complex number. That complex number, squared, gives us the probability of observing the system with that observed value.

Mathematically, wave functions are elements of a mathematical structure called Hilbert space. That means they are vectors — we can add quantum states together (the origin of superpositions in quantum mechanics) and calculate the angle (“dot product”) between them. (We’re skipping over some technicalities here, especially regarding complex numbers — see e.g. The Theoretical Minimum for more.) The word “space” in “Hilbert space” doesn’t mean the good old three-dimensional space we walk through every day, or even the four-dimensional spacetime of relativity. It’s just math-speak for “a collection of things,” in this case “possible quantum states of the universe.”

read on . . .
 
Top