Search This Blog

Monday, October 12, 2020

It is very exciting to read a prominent quantum physics paper that finally really unifies charge and gravity forces...or at least is on a viable path for unification. Tejinder Singh has published a series of papers on his quantum matter gravity (QMG) theory that not only unify gravity and charge, but he also shows many measurements that then validate QMG. Furthermore, the principles of QMG are consistent with my quantum matter action theory (shown below, published in three years ago) as well as with the well known continuous spontaneous localization (CSL) theory...QMG is so, so sweet...

Singh’s quantum matter gravity (QMG) unification of gravity and charge is therefore a very exciting development and is especially so for me since QMG has many of the same puzzle pieces as does my quantum matter action universe puzzle. Although QMG is not quite right yet and has not been thoroughly validated by Science, it will be. Basically, QMG defines aikyon particles as the generic aether of the universe and so QMG builds electrons, protons, neutrons, and all else with either fermion or boson aikyon. An 8-D octanion matrix represents each fermion and boson and has the correct quantum spin symmetry for both charge and gravity. Here is the basic action integral, S, which is proportional to the integral of the gravity trace dynamic mass or velocities of fermions and bosons:

Then QMG uses Connes time, , and classical Euclidean or atomic time emerges from QMG. As a result, QMG defines a new constant of = 1.0e17 s or 3.2 Byrs, but in Connes time, not atomic time. Alain Connes proposed t  as thermodynamic time, i.e. entropy or temperature time, as have many others in the past. This is a universe or cosmic time that defines the evolution of the universe and so now cosmic time is different from atomic time.

Another key to QMG is in continuous spontaneous localization, CSL, which is a very well know way to collapse the quantum wavefunction conundrum. So CSL is how the reality of classical gravity relativity emerges from QMG. That is very fun…

The 1e-39th scaling between gravity and charge emerges from the ratio (LP/L)2, and both L and LP are characteristic lengths that each come from known constants. The Planck length is LP and QMG length L is L = ћ/(c m), a characteristic length that scales with inverse mass ћ/c * 1/m. Here is the QMG Lagrangian equation of motion:

Dark matter simply emerges as a vector gravity from QMG and does not therefore need a new particle at all. However, there are many pesky singularities with many aspects of QMG, but QMG does manage to dodge the renormalization problem from gravity in quantum field theory.

Octonions are eight dimensional matrices that unify gravity and charge in this hypothetical 8-D space. Instead of atomic time, Singh uses thermodynamic or entropy time, , which was proposed by Alain Connes and so Singh calls t  Connes time, but many others have proposed entropy as the time arrow as well. Of course, the classical evolution of the universe is what drives thermodynamics and entropy and so Connes time is also equivalent to that universe time as well.

The deep dive of QMG into octonion algebra is quite complex and it is not yet clear if the really simple QMG assumptions really justifies the rabbit hole of octonion complexification. A classical 4-D spacetime emerges from the QMG trace of just half of the 8-D octonion matrix and then quantum spin emerges from the other octonion half. The QMG introduces 4-D aikyons to represent fundamental octonion fermion and boson particles along with QMG length (L), gauge (), and fermi matrices (b1b2). Each 4-D fermion has progress variables that scale with QMG L, qF  and mass from momentum of velocity F and each 4-D boson is on a path, qB with mass B. The dot above the q is a single derivative in Coones time, which is an 8-D velocity and proportional to momentum and therefore mass, and so q̣̈ is the double derivative, which is acceleration.

The next step is to renormalize qB and qF into q1 and q2 to make things pretty and avoid some ugly math...with an even deeper rabbit hole, so buckle up. The QMG aikyons are now either commutating bosons [qBpF] from which classical gravity relativity emerges or noncommuting fermions {qFpF} as quantum field theory emerges. The QMG paths q1 and q2 now have both symmetric and antisymmetric superpositions as well as momenta and all show the classic quantum uncertainty noncommutation: [p, q] = -iћ...and voilá! The Hamiltonian wave equation follows with frequency eigenvalues and so oscillating wavefunctions...oops, QMG still has some convergence issues hiding here and there...and so there are many more papers to write…

The QMG goes down a very deep rabbit hole because multiplying 8-D matrices results in two 64-D matrices with a total of 128 matrix elements. Wow! This will be a lot of papers in the future...

Although QMG has many of the features of quantum gravity, it is not yet completely clear if the complexity of octonion algebra is really necessary. After all, matter action has many of the same features, but only uses 3-D, not 8-D. Matter, action, and quantum phase unite into a very nice quantum universe with a Lagrangian, density matrix, and creation/annihilation operators. The quantum matter action causal set has all of the properties such as a Lagrangian for action. It could be that simply including the Fermi spin matrices in the action integral will provide for spin within just matter and action.

The matter action photon is the basic dipole exchange particle for charge and the universe biphoton is the basic quadrupole exchange particle for gravity. Just like the QMG aikyon, matter action has a pervasive aether particle that makes up the whole universe. Instead of using the dimensionless QMG LP / L for gravity scaling and QMG Connes time, , matter action uses the dimensionless universe radius over the Bohr radius, radius Ru / rB. Thus, instead of an arbitrary QMG L, matter action uses the universe radius. 

Connes or entropy time represents the primary QMG quantum time dimension, t  = 1e17 s or 3.2 Byrs. Matter action universe time is t  = 1.2e-17 s, but comes from the time pulse of the universe size, Ru. Atomic time emerges from both QMG and matter action as the classical time of gravity relativity, and so the second primary dimension of universe time plays a key role in quantum gravity relativity.

The QMG length L is inversely proportional to particle mass and so for hydrogen, L = 2.2e-16 m, which turns out to be too small for CSL hydrogen. Matter action defines the characteristic CSL length as 7.0e-8 m, which is the radius at which hydrogen dipole-induced dipole attraction, which goes as 1/r6, equals hydrogen-hydrogen gravity attraction, which goes as 1/r2. Thus matter action completely agrees with CSL while QMG L for hydrogen CSL seems to be a billion times too small.

The QMG constants are action as ћ / c and time t  = 1.0e17 s from which length emerges proportional to inverse mass. Matter action constants are action as 

ћae = ћ / c2 and aether particle mass mae as

which scales as the ratio of gravity and charge and inversely with the hydrogen Bohr time, tB. Matter action defines universe cosmic time, Tu = ½ * hae / mae = 13.4 Byrs, from the transform of the universe pulse length. However, the inverse Hubble constant determines our current cosmic time as Ta = k / Hubble = 1.2e17 s = 3.4 Byrs with a matter-action luminous distance correction, k. The matter-action luminous correction is not a new constant but simply expresses the acceleration of matter-action light over cosmic time.

Finally, Singh's QMG gives Science a truly significant unification theory. It is very pleasing to finally see this happen, but Science will now fight the coming QMG revolution quite fiercely as well it should...eventually, Science will accept something very similar but much simpler than QMG to finally show unification at long last...

Friday, October 9, 2020

The Measurement Problem

It is quite amazing that the quantum measurement “problem” is still considered a quantum “problem” by a very large number of very smart people. Despite having been explained countless times by countless people in countless ways, somehow many very smart people are still making their careers out of being either for and against the quantum measurement “problem.”

Determinate gravity relativity does not include quantum phase incoherence and so quantum phase precursors are simply not important for classical outcomes, which only involve coherent and not incoherent quantum phase. However, both coherent and incoherent quantum phase precursors are very important for quantum outcomes. Quantum phase decoherence and incoherence are at the very root of the quantum measurement “problem” as well as the many worlds interpretation. 

While incoherent quantum phase precursors seem to play no role in the coherent quantum phase of the outcomes of determinant gravity relativity geodesics, quantum phase precursors and therefore quantum phase incoherence are key to the uncertainties of quantum outcomes. The Mermin device as well as its Stern-Gerlach effect both illustrate quantum phase superposition...

The Mermin device illustrates quantum phase superposition and correlation for two particles patterned after the Stern-Gerlach apparatus, which shows quantum spin superposition for just a single silver atom. The quantum measurement “problem” is all about quantum phase superposition and correlation and, of course, quantum phase decoherence. Quantum reality is all about quantum phase coherence and decoherence while the classical reality of gravity relativity only involves coherent quantum phase. 

A single quantum particle can exist as an incoherent superposition of two quantum phase states before a measurement, but after a measurement, the particle becomes coherent with one phase or the other and so the wavefunction seems to have “collapsed” from incoherence into coherence. This is the essence of the quantum measurement “problem” because a particle spin only seems to have a particular spin reality after the measurement. Thus it seems the measurement suddenly collapsed the particle spin wavefunction, which made the particle quantum spin coherent and therefore classically real.

However, a quantum particle spin both before and after a measurement is a superposition of two spin states. A linear spin state is just a coherent superposition of a right and left circular polarization and so the measurement does not really collapse the particle spin into a coherent linear spin state.The measurement rather correlates particle quantum spin phase the measurement device quantum spin phase. This correlation is not instantaneous and rather occurs over a finite time from an uncorrelated superposition to a correlated superposition of particle and measurement device spin states.

The very typical approximation of a quantum measurement as instantaneous makes it seem like a wavefunction collapses suddenly into a single-spin state. Any actual quantum measurement, however, takes a finite time to create a coherent phase superposition from an incoherent one and that finite time involves the exchange of a large number of virtual photons. The typical statement of the measurement “problem” claims that the reality of a particular phase for a quantum state for a particle does not seem to exist until a measurement of the quantum phase of that particle.

Very smart people have been arguing about the nature of our quantum reality and quantum incoherence for over a hundred years. Really, no classical measurement is ever instantaneous either and so there is a dynamic evolution in any real measurement and a real measurement of a real particle’s quantum phase does not instantaneously change or collapse quantum phase at all. 

However, the measurement problem is not the real quantum dilemma. The real quantum dilemma is about the uncertain nature of quantum precursors and causality given incoherent quantum phase versus that of classical coherent quantum phase causality, which does not include the incoherence of quantum phase. In our causal reality, every quantum outcome has a precursor and there are no supernatural or mystical precursors for any outcomes. However, we cannot always know about the incoherent precursor of a coherent quantum outcome. 

Classically, all causal outcomes have knowable coherent precursors even those outcomes where we might not immediately know the precursor. Classical gravity relativity is therefore determinate and there are no unknowable precursors. Classical noise does typically limit classical knowledge, but classical noise is knowable up to the limit of the classical universe and therefore all determinate classical outcomes are in principle predictable in the universe limit. Classically, there are also no supernatural or mystical precursors for any classical outcomes.

Quantum outcomes, however, are inherently uncertain since quantum precursors can be in an incoherent superposition even though quantum outcomes are also causal and coherent and do have precursors. Therefore, an incoherent quantum phase superposition precursor is not precisely knowable beyond some well-defined uncertainty and therefore a coherent quantum outcome depends on the quantum phase of the measurement device as well as the particle measured. Therefore, incoherent quantum phase represents an unknowable precursor because, before a measurement, the coherent outcomes are only limited by a well-defined uncertainty. 

With incoherent quantum phase precursors, then, it is simply not possible for Science to preclude the existence of supernatural or mystical effects for some coherent quantum phase outcomes. This really bothers many classical materialists because precursors with quantum phase incoherence are not precisely knowable, but that is the nature of our quantum reality.

The quantum measurement “problem” has been a dilemma ever since the discovery of quantum mechanics. All classical particles follow classical determinant geodesic paths in gravity relativity and so all classical geodesic path outcomes have knowable classical precursors. The earth orbits the sun and that orbit consists of all knowable precursors, but all quantum particles that have quantum phase incoherence have a well-defined uncertainty in quantum phase paths. Quantum phase incoherence means that some incoherent precursors exist in quantum phase superpositions that cause coherent outcomes with fundamentally unknowable incoherent precursors, albeit limited by a well-defined uncertainty.

The typical depiction of a superposition of quantum spin = ½ state for a particle starts with a superposition of spin-up and spin-down wavefunctions with coherent phases, so the incoherence of quantum phase is simply ignored. Measuring a spin state, though, always results in either coherent spin-up or spin-down state outcomes despite the existence of an incoherent superposition of state precursors to the measurement outcomes.

The quantum superposition state seems to have instantaneously collapsed or rephased into spin up or spin down upon measurement even though the quantum particle was in a superposition state of incoherent quantum phase prior to the measurement. In other words, measuring a coherent spin-up state does not then mean the particle was in the coherent spin-up state prior to the measurement. The coherent spin phase of the measurement along with many virtual photon exchanges are what transforms an incoherent superposition into a coherent spin-up state over some definite time.

However, the measured coherent linear spin state is also a superposition of two orthogonal spins as spin-right and spin-left circular phases. A superposition of circularly coherent phased spin-right and spin-left states is equivalent to coherent spin-up state. The action of the measurement transforms an incoherent superposition into a coherent linear or equivalent circular spin-right and spin-left superposition.

The measurement then transforms the incoherent circular phases of the two orthogonal spins into a coherent spin up as coherent rcp plus lcp. Instead of a state seeming to instantaneously disappear upon measurement, measurement simply polarizes or phases an incoherent spin superposition into a coherent superposition of spin states.

Gravity relativity does not yet include quantum phase incoherence because gravity force represents only coherent quantum phase. Gravity is similar to the always attractive coherent quantum phase of an dipole-induced-dipole dispersive force between two neutral atoms, but dispersive forces vary as 1/r^6 power while gravity dispersion varies as 1/r^2. Gravity relativity is a coherent dispersive dipole-induced-dipole force, but now between the resultant quadrupoles of each atom wavefunction with the universe wavefunction. Thus the universe size fixes the dispersive attractive gravity force as an attraction of atom quadrupole biphotons or gravitons. Each atom’s biphoton quadrupole attracts all other atom biphoton quadrupoles and that defines the coherence of gravity force.

A single photon has spin = 1 and is always therefore in a superposition of two polarizations, {+1, -1} or {rcp, lcp} and so there are many different polarization wavefunction bases possible. One common basis is linear {parallel, perpendicular} and a second common basis is right circular/left circular, {rcp, lcp}.

A linear polarization is a superposition of rcp(phase1) + lcp(phase1) and rcp is a superposition of parallel(phase1) + perpendicular(phase1+90deg). There is a spin phase factor for each polarization and so a single light photon can actually be in an incoherent polarization state relative to other photons. Another photon of the same color entangled with the first photon has its same incoherent polarization state and this is coherence. That polarization entanglement will persist until there is a decoherence event of either or both photons. 

A measurement is just such a decoherence event and the classical presumption is that the measurement outcome of a single photon polarization then reveals what the photon polarization precursor was before the measurement. However, our cruel quantum logic says the precise precursor polarization is actually unknowable and there are rather a very large, but limited, number of possible polarization precursors. 

Measuring a single photon polarization only reveals its precursor as many possible, but still limited, superpositions. Thus, the action of one measurement seems to have created a new world from the old world with the measurement apparatus that made a single photon polarization coherent and that new world is different from the many possible precursor polarization worlds of an incoherent single photon polarization. How can that be mon ami? That is simply the way of our uncertain quantum world.

A photon polarizer or analyzer, which are the same device but used for different precursors, involves a complex dispersive interaction between a single photon electric field and a large number of bound electrons in an transparent medium. There are many different kinds of polarizers like the Glans-Thompsen, which has two calcite crystals with different orientations and each cut at a particular angle and glued together. An ideal polarizer transmits only linear parallel polarized photons at the interface and reflects only linear perpendicular polarized photons. Assuming the incoming light is incoherent, each photon dipole induces an image dipole in the bound electrons of the calcite crystals interface. Therefore, the polarizer actually changes the photon polarization just as much as the photon polarization changes the electron clouds of each calcite crystal.

Thus, the measurement of a single photon polarization affects the photon polarization in a very well defined way to produce a single photon polarization now coherent with the polarizer spin phase. While the polarizer will only polarize a single incoherent photon into one of two possible path, each photon will still be in a superposition of {rcp, lcp}. Therefore, it is not possible to know what the precursor photon polarization any better than 50%.