It is expected that the next great leap forward in physics shall reconcile quantum mechanics with relativity within a single unifying mathematical construct.
Underpinning this hope lies a very fundamental assumption - specifically, that both quantum mechanics and relativity describe the same thing - the physics of that which exists - the universe!
Although, quantum mechanics and relativity are distinguished in terms of the scale at which they apply, our inability to reconcile these two distinct areas of physics mathematically poses philosophical problems within the context of a universe the existence and persistence of which strongly suggest that a reconciliation must necessarily be possible.
This may be a mistake!
In order to explain clearly what I mean I would ask the reader to indulge me whilst I use a metaphor to describe the beginning of the universe. Let us imagine that the universe does not begin from nothing - it starts as a single unified mega-massive coherent wave function! We shall represent this wave function as a car windshield. A discontinuity occurs!- a pebble hits the windscreen and a maze of cracks appear.
Now, cracks (or discontinuities) need not be static, they can evolve over time and they could, theoretically, embody rules of symmetry and conservation - thermodynamics. If this were the case and these discontinuities formed the boundary conditions of OUR existence, then there would be no reason why we would not call these unfolding discontinuities reality - the universe.
But, here we hit a problem. Although cracks or discontinuities may have effects they are not things in themselves - you cannot take a crack and wave it about. A discontinuity has absolutely no ontological status.
So, what does exist within this scenario that I am creating? What exists is what is between the cracks - the un-collapsed wave function. Of course, this flies in the face of the Copenhagen Interpretation - that the wave function is simply a mathematical construct that has no ontological status.
If we reverse this convention something quite interesting happens that might have relevance to the Relativity/QM problem.
The classical world of physics is one that we infer from our interaction with the world - our senses. If what we experience of the world is simply the unfolding of discontinuities in space and time then what classical physics describes is an implicit reality that, in fact, has no ontological status at all. Whereas, if we accept that the wave function describes an ontological state, then quantum mechanics describes is that which DOES exist!
Can the Relativity Quantum Mechanics problem be resolved by appreciating that the things that they describe have different ontological statuses?
that`s what I already did by using distributions theory, but the results of unifying show that big-bang theory is false, that the so-called universe is open and the presumed natural constants de facto are variable. (s. my work published here on RG)
The universe is infinite, eternal and ever-changing. This is the view of materialist dialectics at least since Epicurus. It is because; for dialectics beginning and end, being and nothing, finite and infinite etc. (“unity of the opposites”) must be together in a contradiction; one cannot exist without its opposite. The endless resolution of this contradiction to an ever-new “becoming” (or emergent beings) is what gives rise to the historical phenomenology of the universe. The “virtual particles” of the quantum vacuum continuously popping in and out of existence serve as both the source and sink of matter particles in the universe; hence quantum electrodynamics abolishes any notion of a Big Bang or such one-time mega-creation (or its opposite Big Crunch) in the universe:
Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its ...
Article "BIG-BANG" CREATED OR AN ETERNAL AND INFINITE UNIVERSE?*
Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh "Matter" and "Motion"?
I think the two can in fact be coupled at a Planck scale using a random walk model. I may be wrong.
Avishek,
I heard recently about some work that was pointing to the idea that the implicit structure of space/time was emergent upon quantum interactions - you may have heard of this.
Also, on a point of principle. Even if QM and Relativity describe different aspects of the Universe - the implicit structure of unfolding discontinuities (non-ontological) and wave functions (ontological), does this necessarily mean that they could not be unified within a single mathematical structure?
Christopher,
My point of view is that quantum mechanics has a kind probabilistic nature that we can get rid of if we consider every variable and parameter (different from the probabilistic nature that we are familiar with in quantum mechanics) at Planck scale. As the scale magnifies, the probabilistic nature magnifies too. I believe that they can be unified at Planck scale and I think that's how String theory works.
it is simple: re-consider all physical terms (mass, energy, time, ...) as functionals (derivatives of 3rd order or more are irrelevant), apply distributions (one can operate in singularities too- that means the so-called universe is homogenous) and you`ve got it.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Quantum Physics
- Quantum Mechanics