Quantum Gravity Nexus: Unifying the Fundamental Forces
As per my mind maps above, harmonizing GR & QM (like through SST) hinges on resolving their differences. Its extensive mathematical framework remains valuable despite no direct evidence. Still, validating it empirically is challenging and will be a gradual journey.
Conversely, this latest study I read unveils a paradigm where spacetime remains classical in QM (Oppenheim et al., 2023). It reveals a decoherence-diffusion balance, which enables new ways of experimentally probing gravity's quantum traits and its interaction with quantum matter.
It was brought to my attention by social media user, after I returned to the utterly crazy world of the internet community, that there is skepticism regarding my ideas reflected on these maps- the idea that time can be treated as a classical object within quantum mechanics. The user seems to have criticized the block universe concept, implying it is outdated or flawed and expressed a view that equating quantum matter with mysticism is nonsensical. This response could be rooted in a disagreement with the harmonization attempts between General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Mechanics (QM) that my mind maps are discussing, or a broader critique of attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics with classical interpretations of spacetime.
Now the idea itself is interesting, and worth pondering about, yet it is quite an unpopular perspective on time's physicality. The user’s skepticism may not be about the unification itself but rather about the approach to it. They could be implying that any theory attempting to unify GR and QM might be incomplete if it does not consider the possibility that time could have physical properties. They seem to suggest that a failure to incorporate such a concept of time might be why current unification efforts have not yet succeeded. It reflects one of the many debates in theoretical physics. Einstein's theory of General Relativity indeed models time as a fourth dimension, integral to the fabric of spacetime. However, in Quantum Mechanics, time is typically treated as a separate parameter, not as a dimension in the same way. This discrepancy is part of why unifying GR and QM is challenging. The user seems to be suggesting that we should maybe consider time as an object with physical properties, which is not how current theories typically treat it. Therefore, whether time as a 4D concept is an illusion is still a matter of theoretical investigation and debate in the physics community.
So, I challenged the user with the most obvious and important questions like while considering Oppenheim et al.'s classical spacetime in QM, how would one see time's intrinsic properties reconciling with entanglement and non-locality, elements that defy classical dimensionality? And if time possesses physical dimensions, as per that logic, could we then infer that quantum entanglement might be a spatial phenomenon, with time as its canvas? And then like how might this redefine causality? I mean lets go even further, in light of time potentially having physical properties, could the apparent discrepancies between GR and QM be a matter of scale rather than fundamental incompatibility? Might we need a new scale-invariant framework??? Might we consider time's role in the quantum superposition and its collapse? Lastly, if time is indeed a physical dimension, how would this interact with the holographic principle and the information paradox in black holes? Does this offer a new angle on information retention and retrieval in the universe?
Their reply further suggested that time might be a construct that has emerged from biological evolution to help organisms, like cells, perceive and navigate the world. This person seems to view time as necessary for biological processes, but not as a fundamental physical dimension like the three spatial dimensions. They also appear to tie this concept to information theory, mentioning "Planck triangles," possibly referring to a unit derived from the Planck length, which is used in theoretical physics to represent a discrete unit of spacetime. However, this perspective is quite speculative and not widely accepted in mainstream physics.
I challenged the user further, at this time purely out of awe and intellectual curiosity. Time as a biological construct is quite a provocative take, but doesn’t it oversimplify the role of time in non-biological systems, where quantum entanglement and decay processes occur without a perceiver? And well, the user then attempts to enrich his response by using a philosophical thought experiment i.e., "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" to illustrate their point. This experiment questions the nature of observation and reality, suggesting that phenomena like quantum entanglement and decay might only be perceived as happening independently of observers because of our limited understanding of consciousness and perception. By linking to this thought experiment, the replier implies that all processes, including those considered "non-biological," are ultimately intertwined with the perception of observers, challenging the notion of objective observation independent of consciousness.
Now, I think the plausibility of this perspective really depends on one's philosophical view on consciousness and reality. The argument suggests that all processes, including those not directly observed, might still be tied to the concept of perception. This challenges traditional views of objective reality but aligns with some interpretations of quantum mechanics, where the observer plays a crucial role in determining the state of a system. Whether this is a universally applicable concept, especially in the context of time and non-biological processes, remains a subject of debate in both physics and philosophy. So I had to challenge the user further by posing the question, that according to quantum mechanics particles have definitive states beyond perception. Aren’t we conflating the observer effect with the intrinsic nature of reality here and further suggesting a universe that’s independent yet accessible through observation?\
The user ultimately agreed, and further emphasized that what we perceive as particles are actually the information we derive about these particles through observation and mathematical frameworks. They note that quantum states, while definite and subject to deterministic laws, can only be described as such after they've been observed or measured (initialized). The user also references to no-cloning, no-deleting, and no-hiding theorems which underscores the unique nature of quantum information, suggesting that our understanding of quantum states is inherently tied to our interaction with them. This perspective indeed has merit in highlighting the observer's role in quantum mechanics and the limitations it imposes on our knowledge of quantum states.
However, I think that it’s the Quantum fields, not just perceivable particles, define the universe. Observation informs us, but fields exist independently, shaping the cosmos unseen. Isn't the universe more than our observations?
—Sanj/05.03.2024