4 ms·

While I understand these are just idle musings, you should note that this is failing to address the biggest problems that actually "require" a theory of everyth

While I understand these are just idle musings, you should note that this is failing to address the biggest problems that actually "require" a theory of everything. Most importantly, it doesn't explain how quantum fields interact with a non-flat space-time. If you try to combine QM with the space-time-deforming characteristics of mass from GR, you quickly get infinities all over the place, which is obviously not what we observe. Secondly, the object that you are calling a black hole is simply different from the object called a black hole in GR. That object, by definition, has a huge mass in an extremely small volume. All the other descriptions of it are derived properties of how GR says masses affect the structure of space-time. And it should also be noted that the event horizon of a black hole is much wider than the size of the object just before collapse, as far as I know - which sounds different from what your model would predict (but perhaps not?).

jiggawatts 3y ago
Of course, the experimental observations that lead to QFT need to be accounted for, but not any specific mathematical model of QM. If two models like GR and QM disagree, we’ve got to drop one of the two. In my opinion it’s easier to keep GR, because I’ve never heard of a way to make QM particles produce spacetime curvature. (Conversely there is an entire zoo of theories that extend GR down to particles.) Fundamentally, GR predicts that even an individual electron curves spacetime, and not just at “interstellar” distances. The effect ought to be continuous all the way down to the particle’s “surface” for a want of a better term. It’s a consistency principle. Theories don’t end at the edge of the experimental benchtop or the surface of a planet. Either everything everywhere follows a rule or nothing does. The experimenter themselves is QM and GR, as is every particle and every planet. In this sense, there are several ways to “add” most of QM theory to any extension of GR such as Kaluza Klein theory. Most of these are some variants of the many worlds interpretation (MWI). This can reproduce superposition and the various “spooky action at a distance” effects without anything spooky actually being needed. Locality can be preserved and the hidden variables are in parallel universes. The mathematical issues with hidden variables also vanish if you assume the experimenter is also a part of the quantum experiment and not just standing outside of it like some sort of God looking down at space time from above. My pet variant of MWI is to do away with the discrete, tree-like “splits” and assume that the many worlds form a continuum. Essentially this means that there are multiple time dimensions, smoothly splitting the universe at every instant. Hence observations are not special in any way, and can’t even be clearly identified. It’s just stuff that “goes on”. The really hard part for any TOE is not QM! The brutally difficult aspect is explaining the three particle generations. Very few theories even begin to explain that…
- simiones 3y ago
  > In my opinion it’s easier to keep GR As far as I've read, most physicists have the opposite impression: that QM is much closer to the truth, and that it's almost impossible to add explain the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in GR. As some others have shown in the comments here, there are even models of QM that actually predict various GR phenomena for relatively flat space times (i.e. anything that's not very close to the event horizon of a black hole). > Fundamentally, GR predicts that even an individual electron curves spacetime, and not just at “interstellar” distances. That's exactly the problem. Since the electron is not localized in space-time according to all QM observations, it's very hard to define how it can then bend space-time. This is not an interpretation problem (so MWI vs CI has nothing to do with it), it's a problem with the math itself. The problem with MWI on the other hand is that there is no satisfactory way to arrive at the observed measurement outcome probabilities, especially in these continuous splitting scenarios. These become an extra postulate just like in the CI interpretation. > The really hard part for any TOE is not QM! The brutally difficult aspect is explaining the three particle generations. Well, that's hardly a real problem. That there are multiple kinds of particles may very well just be a fundamental aspect of nature, one that doesn't require any explanation, any more than the value of c or pi does. If we had a theory that unifies QM and GR, that could be the final theory of how the universe works (well, assuming it also somehow explained what dark matter and dark energy are, to be fair).
  - jiggawatts 3y ago
    My personal goal has always been a TOE that allows aspects like particle generations and their various properties to be derived ab-initio from axioms with only simple constants such as integers or pi. So particle generations ought to be an output, or an essential aspect of the geometry of the thing. In any event, the theory must model the generations, not just layer fields on top of fields like layers of pancake, or... epicycles on top of epicycles. > most physicists have the opposite impression: that QM is much closer to the truth This is the crux of the problem: QFT is newer than GR, and people often assume that newer is better. It had one huge numeric prediction success, and that has cemented the theory as more successful than all others in the minds of researchers. Never mind that they've sprinted up a valley to stare at a dead end, a proverbial insurmountable cliff up ahead. > the electron is not localized in space-time QM theorists would like to have things both ways at the same time, and then they make the surprised Pikachu face when things turn into nonsense. You can't have point particles smeared in space or even space-time. Pick one. Or... use a model that allows a point in 3D space but treats it as a higher-dimensional object (surface/volume) in a higher dimensional space, such as the parallel worlds of MWI. There are other options also. But throwing up one's hands is not the right path to a TOE, in my opinion...

jiggawatts 3y ago

Of course, the experimental observations that lead to QFT need to be accounted for, but not any specific mathematical model of QM. If two models like GR and QM disagree, we’ve got to drop one of the two. In my opinion it’s easier to keep GR, because I’ve never heard of a way to make QM particles produce spacetime curvature. (Conversely there is an entire zoo of theories that extend GR down to particles.) Fundamentally, GR predicts that even an individual electron curves spacetime, and not just at “interstellar” distances. The effect ought to be continuous all the way down to the particle’s “surface” for a want of a better term. It’s a consistency principle. Theories don’t end at the edge of the experimental benchtop or the surface of a planet. Either everything everywhere follows a rule or nothing does. The experimenter themselves is QM and GR, as is every particle and every planet. In this sense, there are several ways to “add” most of QM theory to any extension of GR such as Kaluza Klein theory. Most of these are some variants of the many worlds interpretation (MWI). This can reproduce superposition and the various “spooky action at a distance” effects without anything spooky actually being needed. Locality can be preserved and the hidden variables are in parallel universes. The mathematical issues with hidden variables also vanish if you assume the experimenter is also a part of the quantum experiment and not just standing outside of it like some sort of God looking down at space time from above. My pet variant of MWI is to do away with the discrete, tree-like “splits” and assume that the many worlds form a continuum. Essentially this means that there are multiple time dimensions, smoothly splitting the universe at every instant. Hence observations are not special in any way, and can’t even be clearly identified. It’s just stuff that “goes on”. The really hard part for any TOE is not QM! The brutally difficult aspect is explaining the three particle generations. Very few theories even begin to explain that…

simiones 3y ago
> In my opinion it’s easier to keep GR As far as I've read, most physicists have the opposite impression: that QM is much closer to the truth, and that it's almost impossible to add explain the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in GR. As some others have shown in the comments here, there are even models of QM that actually predict various GR phenomena for relatively flat space times (i.e. anything that's not very close to the event horizon of a black hole). > Fundamentally, GR predicts that even an individual electron curves spacetime, and not just at “interstellar” distances. That's exactly the problem. Since the electron is not localized in space-time according to all QM observations, it's very hard to define how it can then bend space-time. This is not an interpretation problem (so MWI vs CI has nothing to do with it), it's a problem with the math itself. The problem with MWI on the other hand is that there is no satisfactory way to arrive at the observed measurement outcome probabilities, especially in these continuous splitting scenarios. These become an extra postulate just like in the CI interpretation. > The really hard part for any TOE is not QM! The brutally difficult aspect is explaining the three particle generations. Well, that's hardly a real problem. That there are multiple kinds of particles may very well just be a fundamental aspect of nature, one that doesn't require any explanation, any more than the value of c or pi does. If we had a theory that unifies QM and GR, that could be the final theory of how the universe works (well, assuming it also somehow explained what dark matter and dark energy are, to be fair).
- jiggawatts 3y ago
  My personal goal has always been a TOE that allows aspects like particle generations and their various properties to be derived ab-initio from axioms with only simple constants such as integers or pi. So particle generations ought to be an output, or an essential aspect of the geometry of the thing. In any event, the theory must model the generations, not just layer fields on top of fields like layers of pancake, or... epicycles on top of epicycles. > most physicists have the opposite impression: that QM is much closer to the truth This is the crux of the problem: QFT is newer than GR, and people often assume that newer is better. It had one huge numeric prediction success, and that has cemented the theory as more successful than all others in the minds of researchers. Never mind that they've sprinted up a valley to stare at a dead end, a proverbial insurmountable cliff up ahead. > the electron is not localized in space-time QM theorists would like to have things both ways at the same time, and then they make the surprised Pikachu face when things turn into nonsense. You can't have point particles smeared in space or even space-time. Pick one. Or... use a model that allows a point in 3D space but treats it as a higher-dimensional object (surface/volume) in a higher dimensional space, such as the parallel worlds of MWI. There are other options also. But throwing up one's hands is not the right path to a TOE, in my opinion...