So as not to derail other threads, this is an invitation to masque to explain degeomtrization in relation to QM and spacetime. Please give specifics. Maybe start out simply with Space. How would you approach a description of space without resorting to the current model that looks like R^3 locally with its associated geometry?

Please don't just give us a multitude of links we must read before you'll tell us anything. Explain the ideas first and if you must, only include links for reference to technical terms in your explanation. Assume there are lurkers who know as much physics as you do.


Thanks,

PairTheBoard

No. This is still research sensitive material lol that goes against the current models seriously and is yet to be completed by far. Allow me to have my adventure first before i see results. Suffice to say simply that QM is strange only if we insist in seeing through a way that makes it strange but which is fine tuned to make sense to our senses. Objective reality is born because of our condition. Our condition is a statistical game. The moon is indeed there when you are not looking, an electron isnt. The moon is made of many atoms with electrons. The actual moon is indeed vibrating but nobody cares to notice. It is inevitable to be there for anyone that cares to observe it always in the crude way we do that is ignoring the little changes. But a small "particle" is not always there.

I will offer an example like traffic. You observe only the cloud of pollution above cities that nearly periodically evolves every day and has peaks at the usual times plus some randomness. It has its laws. And what your goal now becomes is to derive from this the simple laws of driving as well as human behavior and deduce even the size of the avg car from it all. This is what we face. Spacetime describes nicely everything up to a point. We have reached that point. And all infinities in QM i anticipate are removed if you take into account the true framework in which Geometry emerges.

I fully expect Hawking radiation is nothing like what they think it is.

I ask you this. If GR suggests that Geometry = distribution of matter and energy can you have distribution of matter and energy without endless interactions? Can you have gravity without interactions? There is no such thing as quantum gravity. Gravity is what Geometry says it is and Geometry is what measurement says it is. It is not about quantizing Geometry. It is about understanding how Geometry emerges and how its classical smoothness becomes almost real. The first victim of degeometrization is Calculus. It is also its first miracle in the limit. We can no longer afford to ignore the limit it all fails to be a Geometry. But the calculations of most theories still use integrals. You cannot have Geometry without degeometrization first. You need the recover the mechanism that creates the illusion of Geometry. To get to the new theory you have to sacrifice the most precious founding element of the one before. Is there anything more precious (more dependable) than Geometry to our theories?

Can you have time without change? Can you have Geometry without measurement?

What i am looking for is a mathematical structure than in the limit produces metric spaces through the act of observation.

We have an emergent Geometry in my opinion. What we play is not inside a Geometry. It creates that Geometry. When the true character of that Geometry is revealed the strangeness will evaporate.

What is going on creates the Geometry but nearly all theories postulate space-time.

The real game is not about adding extra dimensions but removing all of them and then recovering them statistically.

Thanks for that great post masque, giving us a glimpse into your creative thinking and research at Stanford. I think it deserves rereading many times and doing some serious pondering of the ideas. Hopefully some intelligent questions will result.


PairTheBoard

No its not what is going on at Stanford really. In fact its quite different. Its highly speculative on my part. Its very ambitious and might not take off as i imagined it because i need a simple test example to show it deriving geometry like you said.

Its interesting that it may be trying to say differently the same thing as what is going on at Stanford and other places but i highly doubt it.

To see what is formally going on there its best to see this video for example;



I did have these ideas however for a while now before the recent rage of entanglement ie EPR from ER. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR

If I am reading your argument is that our rules of geometry do not by necessity hold true.... Could we not take this further and ask a simpler question...is maths correct? Fundamentaly does 1+1 = 2....
Think about every experiment ever conducted under any conditions.....are our results ever perfect? We have to continually in build an experimental error and account for it, what if just another one of the errors we should could account for is that the maths we have is only an approximation....
it is then meaningless to talk about any other theory being flawed on its merits alone when we have had to use a series of numbers that are not by necessity 'evenly distributed'