The first problem is obvious: does every point in space “vibrate?” Are points in space, the constituents of the quantum field, subject to the theory itself vibrating? Are points particles? “A field exists at every point in space” begs the question of the definition of a “point in space.” Is the point in space itself subject to “the uncertainty inherent in quantum measurement?” Or, is a point in reality resolvable to a precision afforded by infinite number of decimal points? Why does quantum theory rely on π, a number which has been carried out to millions of decimal points?[5] The idea of the quantum is simple enough: nature provides energy in “packets” incapable of further subdivision. But, of course, the packet itself may be more energetic or less energetic depending on its frequency. A gamma ray photon is more energetic than a radio wave photon, but it is the same quantum, the same packet. It all depends on what process emits the photon, the most energetic of these processes being gravity driven, as during a supernova as a one time millisecond event or what appear to be multi million year processes which have resolved themselves into quasars. Quantum mechanics must thus answer whether it is arbitrarily mixing apples and oranges in terms of assigning x number of decimal places to a particular class of operators, zero decimals to others, and infinite decimals points to another variety of variables or constants. If at every point in space a multitude of quantum fields exists and if every point in space is describable with infinite precision because it can be measured with a variable capable of being carried to an infinite number of decimal places then how does quantum field theory “deny” this same precision to a value of a particle affixed to any point in the field? In other words, the field itself can be affixed to a point in space measurable with infinite precision but the points inside the field are not even “in principle” measurable with infinite precision. Does this not make the field itself bigger than the point it occupies in space? On this basis physics must confront and resolve a most (if not the most) basic of questions: does the universe contain any rounding errors? If every point in space is assignable a set of coordinates represented by an number consisting of an infinite number of significant digits then the universe is analog, not digital, and the quantum digital world is merely as “subset” of the larger infinitely precise universe. The quantumists theorize quantum field theory is more fundamental than classical theory because the entire universe is permeated with quantum fields none of which have ever been observed, allowing the quantumists to speculate “what we can possibly see is only a small subset of what really exists.” What they are really saying is they have no means of calculating the various physical actions to an infinite degree of precision and are ergo imposing a self styled decimal point limit on the universe and are de facto proving there is rounding error in the universe. But there is zero evidence the universe makes even a single error, let alone is pervaded with error on the most fundamental level. When a particle vibrates around a certain value quantum mechanics assigns only a finite number of values as the set of possibilities in order to compute a most likely value for the particular particle. If quantum mechanics assigned an infinite number of possible values to the particle then if these values were within a certain range (at each end of the range the value would approach a limit), the only way they could be infinite is if each value were computed instantaneously to infinite number of significant digits, i.e., to infinite precision. This is why the good Dr. Guth must say “roughly speaking, anything can happen in a vacuum, although the probability for a digital watch to materialize is absurdly small.”[6] How many significant digits would be required to prove Dr. Guth’s thesis as a viable explanation of reality? Is the proton’s life time greater than 3 x 1032 years only because the instruments can not be calibrated to a higher degree of precision? Many quantumists were very disappointed with the proton’s resilience. If due to general relativity space and time are spacetime, inseparable in principle into time and space, then the time coordinate, just as the space coordinate, is computable to an infinite number of significant digits, meaning the calculation in reality must be instantaneous and which also means Planck time is an approximation. As soon as the number of significant digits in reality is reduced to a very small number, such as 43, over a very short duration the rounding error becomes massive, would cause the universe to tear itself apart. Curiously, any rounding error is yet to be observed, on the classical level the universe is extremely stable, eminently predictable. Earth’s orbit has not decayed in billions of years, with a rounding error where would the Earth be now?[7] Just because quantumists can not solve the three body problem due to rounding error this same inability should not be arbitrarily imposed on the real universe.
[1] From The
Particle at the End of the Universe (Carroll, 2013): “Gravitons are only produced by the
gravitational interaction.” [p.
104]. Gravity is “described by a field,
and ... gravitational waves ... move through space at the speed of light, and
if we looked at such a wave carefully enough we would see a collection of
massless particles called ‘gravitons.’
Gravity is far too weak for us to imagine detecting individual
gravitons, but the basic truth of quantum mechanics insists ... they must be
there.” [p. 130].
[2] From The
Particle at the End of the Universe (Carroll, 2013): “Admittedly, we haven’t actually observed individual
gravitons ... so we use the word ‘graviton’ to refer to those particles we
haven’t yet seen on an individual basis.
The way ... gravity acts as a force on other particles is pretty simple: every particle attracts every other particle
(although very weakly).” [p. 29].
[3] From The
Particle at the End of the Universe (Carroll, 2013): “Matter is really waves (quantum fields), but
when we look at it carefully enough we see particles.” [p. 130].
“According to quantum field theory, absolutely everything is made of a
field or a combination of fields. What
we call ‘particles’ are tiny vibrations in these fields.” [p. 33].
[4] From Particle
at the End of the Universe (Carroll, 2013):
“Conceptually, a field is the opposite of a particle. A particle has a specific location in space,
while a field exists at every point in space.”
[p. 125]. “Just as we can never
quite pin down a single particle to a definite position, we can never really
pin a field down to a definite configuration.
If we look at it closely enough, we see particles appearing and
disappearing in empty space, depending on the local conditions. Virtual particles are a direct consequence of
the uncertainty inherent in quantum measurement.” pp. 129-130].
[5] From The
Particle at the End of the Universe (Carroll, 2013): “In classical mechanics we can at least
imagine being more and more careful and bringing our measurements closer and
closer to reality. Quantum mechanics
denies us [this] possibility, even in principle. In the quantum world, what we can possibly
see is only a small subset of what really exists.” [p. 128].
[6] From The
Encyclopedia of Physics (Lerner, 1991):
“The lightest baryon is the proton, the nucleus of the hydrogen atom ...
a flurry of experimental activity ... to date has yielded no evidence for
proton decay; the current lifetime is
known to be greater than 3 x 1032 years.” [p. 89].
[7] From The
Particle at the End of the Universe (Carroll, 2013): “If the mass of the electron changed just a
little bit, we would still have things like ‘molecules’ and ‘chemistry,’ but
the specific rules ... we know in the real world would change in important ways. Simple molecules like water (H2O) or
methane (CH4) would be basically the same, but complicated molecules
like DNA or proteins or living cells would be messed up beyond repair. To bring it home: Change in the mass of the electron just a
little bit, and all life would instantly end.”
[p. 146].
No comments:
Post a Comment