The phenomenon and the explanation

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...What does that even mean: 'nongeometric'?

It's whatever geometry and spacetime emerge from, of course!

There seems to be increasing theoretical support for the idea that spacetime is emergent from entanglement, where greater entanglement of degrees of freedom means smaller spatiotemporal separation, resulting in the emergence of locality. But this stuff is way above my pay grade, so I'm basically parroting what I've heard, probably inaccurately.

PS: Thanks so much for that link .. its a corker!

Agreed!

 

[partinobodycular]

The sides of the cone represent the boundary which separates timelike from spacelike regions and is where objects such as photons and gravitational waves travel at the speed of light.

Keeping in mind, that I'm representing the uneducated people in this thread, doesn't this mean that timelike and spacelike are observer dependent? Until we get to the distant future when there are no observers left, and even if there were there's nothing happening in their lightcone to observe anyway. But a question comes to mind, in this cold empty universe, are there things that are still entangled? What things? And how entangled are they?

 

[partinobodycular]

It's natural for us to change from perfection to perfection. To be lifted to a higher state.
It's not natural for our earthly lives to end in death.

At least we've made some progress, because you seem to be admitting that change is an intrinsic part of our existence. So my question remains, where's the need of an unchanging first cause if change is intrinsic to existence?

 

[Eloy Craft]

At least we've made some progress, because you seem to be admitting that change is an intrinsic part of our existence. So my question remains, where's the need of an unchanging first cause if change is intrinsic to existence?

I don't believe change is required to exist. Change is intrinsic to our earthly life. I believe our earthly life reveals who we are eternally.

 

[SelfSim]

It's whatever geometry and spacetime emerge from, of course!

Glad you didn't 'Poe' me there ..

There seems to be increasing theoretical support for the idea that spacetime is emergent from entanglement, where greater entanglement of degrees of freedom means smaller spatiotemporal separation, resulting in the emergence of locality. But this stuff is way above my pay grade, so I'm basically parroting what I've heard, probably inaccurately.

Not sure I understand how the concept of degrees of freedom can be 'entangled' there(?) Seems like a bit of a case of an error in the algebra - ie: the addition of dissimilar concepts(?).. but the idea of ever increasing entanglement of QM objects with a surrounding environment (leading to dechoerence and thence the macroscopic world) was also nicely covered in sjastro's YouTube link, (at about the 11:00 min mark), although the idea seems a little like grasping for a silver bullet, or a QM attempt at a Theory of Everything (?)
Need to see how they justify that I guess.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Glad you didn't 'Poe' me there ..

Oh, I wouldn't do that... would I?

Not sure I understand how the concept of degrees of freedom can be 'entangled' there(?)

AIUI, it's the degrees of freedom of the underlying quantum fields.

 

[sjastro]

Keeping in mind, that I'm representing the uneducated people in this thread, doesn't this mean that timelike and spacelike are observer dependent? Until we get to the distant future when there are no observers left, and even if there were there's nothing happening in their lightcone to observe anyway.

They are 'observer dependent' but not for the reasons you think.
When a particle travels in spacetime, it travels through both space and time known as a world line.
Any two events along this world line is separated in an interval according to the equation;
Δs² = -(cΔt²) + Δx²
where cΔt is the temporal separation and Δx the spatial separation (for a single spatial dimension).
If Δs² < 0, then Δx² < c²Δt² and the spatial separation is less than the distance light travels and the interval is called timelike.
If Δs² = 0, then Δx² = c²Δt² and the spatial separation is equal to the distance light travels and the interval is called lightlike.
If Δs² > 0, then Δx² > c²Δt² and the spatial separation is greater than the distance light travels and the interval is called spacelike.

In the timelike region inside the light cone each observer will agree on the order of the events unlike the spacelike region outside the light cone.

But a question comes to mind, in this cold empty universe, are there things that are still entangled? What things? And how entangled are they?

Given that photons remain in this cold empty universe I don't know of any natural process outside laboratories were photons become entangled.
If anyone knows of a natural process please provide a link.

Here is Roger Penrose explaining the CCC.

 

[partinobodycular]

Here is Roger Penrose explaining the CCC.

Ugh, that's gotta be one of my least favorite CCC videos.

This one is longer, but much better in my opinion.

 

[partinobodycular]

Given that photons remain in this cold empty universe I don't know of any natural process outside laboratories were photons become entangled.
If anyone knows of a natural process please provide a link.

Can one bit of light bounce off another bit of light?

The short answer is no, with a caveat. What I'm wondering is, how important does that caveat become when all you have left in the universe is photons. If you've sorta lost the concept of time and space, maybe rare events aren't quite so rare anymore. But what difference does it make if all that you're doing is creating particle anti-particle pairs that immediately destroy each other? It would seem that at best you just get a very noisy place. Then again, if rare events become commonplace, maybe you get more complicated interactions than simple particle anti-particle annihilations.

No need to answer these questions. I'm just wondering out loud.

I'm a very curious person.

 

[partinobodycular]

There seems to be increasing theoretical support for the idea that spacetime is emergent from entanglement, where greater entanglement of degrees of freedom means smaller spatiotemporal separation, resulting in the emergence of locality.

Somehow I can't help but wonder, doesn't this leave the physicist with the exact same question that I've been asking, only framed a bit differently. Does physical reality give rise to consciousness, or does consciousness give rise to physical reality?

It appears as if the physicist is simply reframing it as, does physical reality give rise to entanglement, or does entanglement give rise to physical reality?

Basically what I've been alluding to all along is that entanglement is consciousness. And reality is simply consciousness expressed in a geometric/intelligible framework.

And just as you might assert that entanglement needs to come from somewhere, I would assert that consciousness needs to come from somewhere as well. I would also assert that entanglement and physical reality are in fact descriptions of the same thing. It's not that entanglement causes physical reality, nor the other way around. You can describe entanglement in terms of physical reality, or you can describe physical reality in terms of entanglement, but neither one of them is the actual cause of the other.

So logically, there must be an underlying cause.

 

[SelfSim]

What I'm wondering is, how important does that caveat become when all you have left in the universe is photons. If you've sorta lost the concept of time and space, maybe rare events aren't quite so rare anymore. But what difference does it make if all that you're doing is creating particle anti-particle pairs that immediately destroy each other? It would seem that at best you just get a very noisy place. Then again, if rare events become commonplace, maybe you get more complicated interactions than simple particle anti-particle annihilations.

No need to answer these questions. I'm just wondering out loud.

I'm a very curious person.

Its all just aimless stuff, going round in circles. Eg: You're questions all bring the concept of time back into the universe you just lost it in.

 

[SelfSim]

Somehow I can't help but wonder, doesn't this leave the physicist with the exact same question that I've been asking, only framed a bit differently. Does physical reality give rise to consciousness, or does consciousness give rise to physical reality?

It appears as if the physicist is simply reframing it as, does physical reality give rise to entanglement, or does entanglement give rise to physical reality?

Basically what I've been alluding to all along is that entanglement is consciousness. And reality is simply consciousness expressed in a geometric/intelligible framework.

And just as you might assert that entanglement needs to come from somewhere, I would assert that consciousness needs to come from somewhere as well. I would also assert that entanglement and physical reality are in fact descriptions of the same thing. It's not that entanglement causes physical reality, nor the other way around. You can describe entanglement in terms of physical reality, or you can describe physical reality in terms of entanglement, but neither one of them is the actual cause of the other.

So logically, there must be an underlying cause.

The assertions don't mean anything .. Same goes for idle speculation. You've come full circle and then fallen into the same thinking pattern (ie: the 'hole') Penrose has, with with his CCC. (Which is kind of amusing, given that you disliked CCC for all the same underlying reasons).

 

[sjastro]

Can one bit of light bounce off another bit of light?

The short answer is no, with a caveat. What I'm wondering is, how important does that caveat become when all you have left in the universe is photons. If you've sorta lost the concept of time and space, maybe rare events aren't quite so rare anymore. But what difference does it make if all that you're doing is creating particle anti-particle pairs that immediately destroy each other? It would seem that at best you just get a very noisy place. Then again, if rare events become commonplace, maybe you get more complicated interactions than simple particle anti-particle annihilations.

No need to answer these questions. I'm just wondering out loud.

I'm a very curious person.

The Feynman diagram in your link doesn’t give the total picture.

When a photon produces an electron/positron pair both energy and momentum are conserved.
In order for momentum to be conserved matter must already exist; a nucleus for example takes some of the momentum and recoils.
The total picture is given in the classical physics diagram which includes scattering.

Hence pair production from photons cannot occur in a universe devoid of matter.

On the subject of videos; the video I supplied highlights the problems of a scientist presenting a subject to the general public.
Penrose simplified the subject matter so much the message was lost.

The video you supplied clearly indicates Penrose is prone to confirmation bias.
For example one of the early criticisms of gravitational wave discoveries came from Danish researchers who claimed after the noise was subtracted from the raw data it left artifacts that were misinterpreted as real gravitational wave signals.
I recall our resident electric universe nutter at the time wildly proclaimed this as further evidence the discoveries were nothing more than a con job.
Penrose is not much better, he claims as pointed out in your video the supposed artifacts is evidence of erebons, in other words the data conveniently fits a preconceived idea.
The same argument can be made with his use of non standard analysis of the CMB in supporting the existence of a previous aeon, where you get a result you a looking for instead of using mainstream multipole analysis of the CMB.

Here is a video not produced by the Roger Penrose fan club which gives a more impartial view.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Somehow I can't help but wonder, doesn't this leave the physicist with the exact same question that I've been asking, only framed a bit differently. Does physical reality give rise to consciousness, or does consciousness give rise to physical reality?

Physical reality gives rise to consciousness and consciousness experiences an internal construct derived from physical reality. Consciousness is a process that, if nothing else, requires a physical substrate; the consciousnesses we know about also evolved - evolution is another process requiring a physical substrate.

It appears as if the physicist is simply reframing it as, does physical reality give rise to entanglement, or does entanglement give rise to physical reality?

Entanglement is a well-defined (if not well explained!) relation between elements of physical reality. The hypothesis is that this relation gives rise to the higher-level emergent properties of physical reality, i.e. spacetime, that we are familiar with.

Basically what I've been alluding to all along is that entanglement is consciousness. And reality is simply consciousness expressed in a geometric/intelligible framework.

Please explain how you arrive at that conclusion.

And just as you might assert that entanglement needs to come from somewhere, I would assert that consciousness needs to come from somewhere as well.

As previously described, the evidence strongly points to consciousness being a process/set of processes, a particular mode of brain activity that has evolved because it enables flexible, complex, and sophisticated behaviours that have selective advantage.

I would also assert that entanglement and physical reality are in fact descriptions of the same thing. It's not that entanglement causes physical reality, nor the other way around. You can describe entanglement in terms of physical reality, or you can describe physical reality in terms of entanglement, but neither one of them is the actual cause of the other.

I think you may be equivocating 'physical reality'. I suggest you define exactly what you mean by it and stick to that definition.

Entanglement, by definition, is a relation between elements, i.e. it requires elements that can become entangled. There can be greater or lesser degrees of entanglement of these elements or no entanglement; i.e. they can become entangled. If the hypothesis is correct, spacetime emerges as a 'network' of entanglement relations. It's all physical reality, but it can be described at different levels. It can only be consciously experienced at the level of spacetime because conscious experience is a process occurring in creatures that are themselves constructed of properties emergent at that level.

So logically, there must be an underlying cause.

If spacetime is emergent, then causality will also be emergent. Causality emerges with the arrow of time.

You can, in a looser sense, talk of 'causes' in terms of 'reasons', so you could say that the reason that the arrow of time and causality emerged was the low entropy in the past.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Feynman diagram in your link doesn’t give the total picture.

When a photon produces an electron/positron pair both energy and momentum are conserved.
In order for momentum to be conserved matter must already exist; a nucleus for example takes some of the momentum and recoils.
The total picture is given in the classical physics diagram which includes scattering.

Hence pair production from photons cannot occur in a universe devoid of matter.

On the subject of videos; the video I supplied highlights the problems of a scientist presenting a subject to the general public.
Penrose simplified the subject matter so much the message was lost.

The video you supplied clearly indicates Penrose is prone to confirmation bias.
For example one of the early criticisms of gravitational wave discoveries came from Danish researchers who claimed after the noise was subtracted from the raw data it left artifacts that were misinterpreted as real gravitational wave signals.
I recall our resident electric universe nutter at the time wildly proclaimed this as further evidence the discoveries were nothing more than a con job.
Penrose is not much better, he claims as pointed out in your video the supposed artifacts is evidence of erebons, in other words the data conveniently fits a preconceived idea.
The same argument can be made with his use of non standard analysis of the CMB in supporting the existence of a previous aeon, where you get a result you a looking for instead of using mainstream multipole analysis of the CMB.

Here is a video not produced by the Roger Penrose fan club which gives a more impartial view.

Your argument appears to fail on several levels. Light itself has momentum. So momentum would exist in a particleless universe that only had light. Second in pair production the momentum of the two particles is opposite. The law is the conservation of momentum. Momentum is a vector quantity, not a scalar. When adding momentum of different particle on must remember that. In pair production the added momentum of the particles will cancel out, except for the momentum of the original photons.

 

[partinobodycular]

I think you may be equivocating 'physical reality'. I suggest you define exactly what you mean by it and stick to that definition.

Normally I would've simply used the term "reality", and in this case I probably should've stuck with that routine. Thinking about it now, the word "physical" was unnecessary. But for some reason, at the time, I thought that I should put it in there.

Basically what I've been alluding to all along is that entanglement is consciousness. And reality is simply consciousness expressed in a geometric/intelligible framework.

Please explain how you arrive at that conclusion.

I like physics, unfortunately I don't know physics very well, and I can't do the math, so that leaves me with one rather ineffective tool... I have to visualize things. And when I do that, consciousness and entanglement kinda look like the same thing. But let's see if I can explain how.

Generally when people try to explain entanglement they show a picture or video of two particles with arrows pointing up and down indicating spin. Then they explain how the particles can be both up and down at the same time, until you measure one of them, and so on, and so on, yadda, yadda, yadda. Sometimes they'll even show a wormhole connecting the two particles. Now in my mind this visualization works great when you've got just two particles. But if you try visualizing the entire environment as a bunch of particles connected by wormholes you don't get anything that looks like reality. Or even explains it very well. So you have to try to re-imagine your visualization. Maybe you try imagining the particles as vibrations in a field, but that goes pretty much nowhere.

But eventually you hit on the idea of visualizing particles simply as wave functions. And counterintuitively perhaps this actually works really well. For example, I like to ponder things while watching the groundskeeper mow the lawn on the golf course next to my house, and I can imagine that lawnmower as a set of wave functions. There's a wave function describing the lawnmower as a whole, and included in that overall wave function is a wave function describing the drivetrain, and included in that is a wave function describing the engine, and included in that is a wave function describing a washer. So I can visualize the lawnmower as set of embedded wave functions. And I can reverse this process and work outward as well, so that it seems as if I should eventually come to one wave function that describes the entire universe.

So I'm done, right? I can visualize the entire universe as a wave function. Unfortunately, physics tells me that I can't do that. What makes me say that? Because that process only works out to the edge of my light cone. Beyond that it doesn't work anymore. Outside my light cone it's just a big jumbled mess. So what is it about my light cone that's so darn special? Well it's the only thing about which I can have any information. So maybe I should re-imagine those wave functions as information.

Okay, let's do that. We re-imagine entanglement as a set of embedded wave functions. We shrink it down to include only things within my personal light cone, and we call it information.

So entanglement is the interconnected set of all the information available to me. Hmmm... isn't that what consciousness is? Okay, so there's a similarity, but that doesn't mean that entanglement IS consciousness. Very true. But let's imagine for a second that entanglement really IS consciousness, what are the implications? The implication is that consciousness can't simply create whatever it wants to, because the interconnectedness of the underlying information prevents that. Disrupt the entanglement and consciousness ceases to exist, because they're one and the same thing.

Either way we begin with entanglement. You can either assume that that entanglement gives rise to "physical" reality. (Yes I intended to put it in there this time) And then that "physical" reality gives rise to consciousness, or you can cut out the middle step and simply assume that entanglement gives rise to consciousness. Either way reality will end up looking exactly the same.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Normally I would've simply used the term "reality", and in this case I probably should've stuck with that routine. Thinking about it now, the word "physical" was unnecessary. But for some reason, at the time, I thought that I should put it in there.

It's a useful way to distinguish objective reality from subjective reality (our internal model).

Generally when people try to explain entanglement they show a picture or video of two particles with arrows pointing up and down indicating spin. Then they explain how the particles can be both up and down at the same time, until you measure one of them, and so on, and so on, yadda, yadda, yadda. Sometimes they'll even show a wormhole connecting the two particles. Now in my mind this visualization works great when you've got just two particles. But if you try visualizing the entire environment as a bunch of particles connected by wormholes you don't get anything that looks like reality. Or even explains it very well. So you have to try to re-imagine your visualization. Maybe you try imagining the particles as vibrations in a field, but that goes pretty much nowhere.

You can't expect visualisations of one level of reality to look like the high-level emergent reality you're familiar with. You can visualise a human being as a vast collection of atoms and electrons interacting via the electromagnetic force, with vast distances between them, but at that level, it doesn't look anything like a human being.

... I can imagine that lawnmower as a set of wave functions. There's a wave function describing the lawnmower as a whole, and included in that overall wave function is a wave function describing the drivetrain, and included in that is a wave function describing the engine, and included in that is a wave function describing a washer. So I can visualize the lawnmower as set of embedded wave functions. And I can reverse this process and work outward as well, so that it seems as if I should eventually come to one wave function that describes the entire universe.

So I'm done, right? I can visualize the entire universe as a wave function. Unfortunately, physics tells me that I can't do that.

As far as we know, that is how the universe is. A universal wavefunction of which the wavefunctions of individual objects are parts that you can treat separately for convenience.

What makes me say that? Because that process only works out to the edge of my light cone. Beyond that it doesn't work anymore. Outside my light cone it's just a big jumbled mess. So what is it about my light cone that's so darn special? Well it's the only thing about which I can have any information. So maybe I should re-imagine those wave functions as information.

I don't really see the problem - a visualisation is not a precise physical model, it's just a way to grasp some aspect of the situation. Wavefunctions are information - they tell you everything there is to know about the state of the system.

We re-imagine entanglement as a set of embedded wave functions. We shrink it down to include only things within my personal light cone, and we call it information.

So entanglement is the interconnected set of all the information available to me.

Entanglement isn't about nested or embedded wavefunctions, they're just ways of viewing parts of the universal wavefunction. Entanglement is what happens when particular wavefunctions interact in isolation, becoming correlated, and it 'goes away' when interactions occur with anything else.

Hmmm... isn't that what consciousness is? Okay, so there's a similarity, but that doesn't mean that entanglement IS consciousness. Very true. But let's imagine for a second that entanglement really IS consciousness, what are the implications? The implication is that consciousness can't simply create whatever it wants to, because the interconnectedness of the underlying information prevents that. Disrupt the entanglement and consciousness ceases to exist, because they're one and the same thing.

Not sure what you mean by 'create' in this context. If you mean 'imagine' or 'conceive of', I would agree that creativity at any one time is constrained by prior experience. But I see no good reason to equate consciousness with entanglement, nor any reason to think consciousness is dependent on entanglement - which can't last a significant time in the relatively hot & dense environment of the brain - consider how hard it is to keep the qubits entangled in a quantum computer.

Either way we begin with entanglement. You can either assume that that entanglement gives rise to "physical" reality. (Yes I intended to put it in there this time) And then that "physical" reality gives rise to consciousness, or you can cut out the middle step and simply assume that entanglement gives rise to consciousness. Either way reality will end up looking exactly the same.

If you're suggesting entanglement gives rise to physical reality, what are you suggesting is entangled, something non-physical or something not real or both?

AIUI, wavefunctions are mathematical descriptions of the quantum state of parts of physical reality and when those parts of physical reality interact they become entangled, meaning their properties become correlated in specific ways. What you're describing doesn't sound like entanglement at all...

 

[SelfSim]

It's a useful way to distinguish objective reality from subjective reality (our internal model).

And this is where you are being inconsistent. Objective reality is what the objective method, via tested/operational scientific models, produces. Those models are entirely conceived (and tested) by scientifically thinking minds, via the scientific method.

There is no objective evidence which allows for distinguishing between so called 'internal' and 'external' reality. Both are demonstrably, perceptual constructs formed by healthy human minds.

The scientific method allows for us to distinguish between what you're referring to there as 'subjective' reality, when some perceptual model is found as being untestable. They are simply called called 'beliefs'.

 

[SelfSim]

.. Light itself has momentum. So momentum would exist in a particleless universe that only had light.

A photon is still a particle in the Standard Model of Elementary Particles.

I think the term 'matter' is being used in the general sense of meaning everything other than a photon(?) (Aka: 'nucleus' was referred to as the example mentioned and in the diagram).

Also, momentum can be transverse to the direction of propagation. (See Evanescent field).

 

[sjastro]

Your argument appears to fail on several levels. Light itself has momentum. So momentum would exist in a particleless universe that only had light. Second in pair production the momentum of the two particles is opposite. The law is the conservation of momentum. Momentum is a vector quantity, not a scalar. When adding momentum of different particle on must remember that. In pair production the added momentum of the particles will cancel out, except for the momentum of the original photons.

I’m afraid you have misunderstood my post.
What I stated was that momentum is not conserved in pair production in the absence of external matter.
Pair production is where the photon λ produces a positron electron pair e⁺e⁻ according to the reaction;

λ → e⁺ + e⁻

The momentum p(λ) = E/c for a photon is clearly not zero.
For momentum to be conserved in this reaction;

E/c = m(e⁺)v₁ + m(e⁻)v₂

where m(e⁺)v₁ and m(e⁻)v₂ are the electron and positron momentum at velocities v₁ and v₂ respectively, m(e⁺) and m(e⁻) are the relativistic masses.
The reaction never occurs in a vacuum as momentum is not conserved since;

E/c ≠ m(e⁺)v₁ + m(e⁻)v₂.

It requires external matter of mass m such as a nucleus so that momentum is conserved according to the equation;

E/c = m(e⁺)v₁ + m(e⁻)v₂ + mv.

where mv is the momentum of the nucleus and v is its recoil velocity.

Furthermore in pair production the momentum of the electron and positron never cancel each other out.
This can only occur if they travel in opposite directions.
It would also imply E/c = mv which is clearly false as the recoiling nucleus would gain all the photon momentum.
For the conservation of momentum to occur in the presence of the nucleus the positron and electron move in the same general direction as the incident photon and therefore do not cancel each other out.