So, the book arrived the other day, and for the first time in a while I found myself wanting to read a first chapter a few times before moving on, to make sure that I have a grasp for what's to follow. If you care to reply I might suggest using the 'quote' option so you can insert your replies, and perhaps checking out all of my questions before replying. If I'm too out of touch on some of these let me know, it's OK. I realize that I may be way off track and I don't mind being told so.
First, starting with my general understanding of things before I cracked open your book. To summarize that much:
For over a century we have known very well that 17th century "classical" sciences, although of immense practical utility, are incomplete because
A- Thanks to Einstein's relativity, time and space turn out to be inextricably related rather than absolutely separate, as previously thought and;
B- Thanks to quantum theory we know that the observer determines what is observed to at least some extent, which also runs contrary to classical thinking.
Have I got that much right?
1. The first thing I would like further clarification on is why you consider relativity and quantum theory to be incompatible. You seem to base this on quantum theory having 'no notion of time' whereas space-time and gravity 'aren't quantized.' What exactly do you mean by the latter? Are you saying that space-time and gravity are things that appear in the 'physical' dimension where classical sciences are relevant? I would think that this is only half true, since the quantum realm must pervade one or both...
2. Reading between the lines here, is it your hunch that the 95% ubiquitous 'dark matter' is the likely field where this incompatibility will eventually be reconciled?
3. In your section entitled 'information is physical,' you go on to say that quarks are 'point particles' that have 'no internal composition' OR 'one that's too small to be measurable by current techniques.'
I suspect that this is very important to where you are going, so let me ask
a-If quarks and electrons have 'no internal composition' how can you say that they are 'physical'? Is this a post-facto thing, where they are 'real-ized' through the act of observation?
b-You have said that space is 99.999999 percent empty, or thereabouts. This isn't new information for me either, but I wonder how this squares with your either-or scenario. Are you aligning with the idea that quarks might be 'small' for the sake of argument, 'too small to be measurable by current techniques.' The other option seems to suggest that space is 100 percent empty. My hunch now is that you feel that this difference is trivial.
4. I feel that this 'trivial' matter may have something to do with your discussion on Max Planck. So, Planck elucidated a three-way relationship between the universe's size, the speed of light and gravity. I believe I've got that much right, but then you go on to liken the Plank length to something the size of a 'soil amoeba' relative to the universe and here's where I get confused. Soil Amoebas are variable in size. The universe is not, I think (!) for being tied to the speed of light and the big bang. To my previous question, are you really only saying that the variability of amoebas is 'trivial' to the greater point? And similarly, does this kind of standard apply to 'gravity' and that point where 'quantum and gravitational forces become equivalent? That is, we must be well inside the boundaries where quantum and gravity are the same?
5- On page 11 you say 'the classical electromagnetic theory of heat and light maintained that such [hot oven] radiation should occur in a continuous and unlimited basis' and 'a nonsensical result.' I get that Einstein overcame this by reframing light-heat in finite Planck-friendly packets, but can you explain how the former is necessarily 'infinite?
6- And so from this, we can now conclude that 'energy and matter' are also reducible to waves and particles? This would be a further, more inclusive subsequent generalization from the slit screen experiment, would it not, that was strictly about light?
7- So, Claude Shannon, the IBM, guy, showed that the 'entropy of the energy of a gas in thermodynamic terms and the information content of a system is exactly the same.' What I'm not clear on is exactly what you mean by 'information'. Is this the end result of wave-particle manifestation, where qubits exist as waves and particles until observation, after which time there's'no way to retrospectively access information about their [quantum bits] superposed state prior to measurement'?
8 - If I understand you correctly you are saying that this wave AND particle complementary is now known to extend to organic molecules, which are huge compared to quantum entities. Then you seem to go on to make a further generalization, saying that there is 'actually no difference' between the informational behavior of quantum entities and macroscopic ones. How big are you going when you say macroscopic? Is it not a bit of a leap of faith, although perhaps very likely, to say that this must be true, as you seem to
9- Finally, you refer to the 'many worlds interpretation' as one of the most unhelpful diversions in the history of science. Is this an extrapolation of Shrodinger's formula which 'incorporates all of the possible quantum states of a system,' where, according to the 'many worlds interpretation', each state is deemed to be an actual reality rather than only a potential one? And do the notions of multiverses, parallel realities and the like fall under this general domain?
10 - Lastly, why did you, a Brit, spell centre as 'center' on your cover!?
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 21-Nov-17 03:23 by Poster Boy.
|Chapter One questions - Cosmic Hologram||278||Poster Boy||20-Nov-17 18:59|
|Re: Chapter One questions - Cosmic Hologram||46||judecurrivan||22-Nov-17 12:15|
|Re: Chapter One questions - Cosmic Hologram||73||Poster Boy||22-Nov-17 19:45|