Subject: Process Physics
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 13:24:01 +0200
From: "Dimiter G. Chakalov" <dchakalov@surfeu.at>
To: reg.cahill@flinders.edu.au
CC: George.Jaroszkiewicz@nottingham.ac.uk, Matej.Pavsic@ijs.si,
     vitiello@sa.infn.it, stuckeym@etown.edu, aziz@ntt.it,
     mkafatos@compton.gmu.edu, perelmanc@hotmail.com,
     c.isham@ic.ac.uk, j.fearns@ic.ac.uk, e.zafiris@ic.ac.uk,
     i.raptis@ic.ac.uk, jb56@cus.cam.ac.uk
BCC: [snip]
 

Dear Reg,

I'm reading your recent gr-qc/0203015 [Ref. 1] with great interest.

It seems to me that if the world is in a state (stage) of flux, as suggested by Heraclitus of Ephesus, we face the highly non-trivial problem of emergence, as in the stages paradigm: "relative to a given present, both the past and future do not exist." [Ref. 2]

I'm wondering how do you cope with this problem encoded in the very requirement for unitarity. Once you apply it, the universe should contain states from both the past and the future, otherwise there will be no transition (no flux).

In other words, how do you conserve the probability current? I think this problem is generic to all process physics.

I believe the task we have to solve after Heraclitus, the appearance of stability, should be approached by a correct geometrical presentation of the infinitesimal. Perhaps the process physics is encoded in the *structure* of the infinitesimal, as modeled with two modes of time, global and local,

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/dimi.html

Alternatively, if we start with the final outcome -- a dimensionless point -- we are doomed to fail, because the process physics "taking place" inside the infinitesimal is wiped out ab initio. We are destined to reach a universe with nothing "outside" it, contrary to what we know from Plato, and we have to define dynamics with nothing to "hold on", i.e., no background whatsoever,

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Ashtekar.html

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Smolin.html

How would you then recover the 3-D space of tables and chairs, the truly stable world around us?

I will be very happy to hear from you and from all colleagues reading these lines. I do need help, the task seems to be well beyond my very limited knowledge and intellectual capacity, to be completely honest.

With best regards,

Dimi
--
Dimiter G. Chakalov
http://members.aon.at/chakalov
http://members.aon.at/chakalov/dimi.html
(last update 5 March 2002)
 

References

[Ref. 1] R.T. Cahill. Process Physics.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0203015

"What needs to be explained, Heraclitus argued, is not change but the appearance of stability."
 

[Ref. 2] J. Eakins, G. Jaroszkiewicz. The Quantum Universe.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0203020

"The future is not there until it happens and this is the correct way to understand the uncertainty principle. (...) The old stage [omega]_n now becomes unphysical and not even a memory.
...

Eq. 1: "(...) assuming that all potential outcome states are normalized to unity."
...

"The information content  In  is a form of memory which tracks over time the possibility of correlations between various factor states, from which emergent structures such as continuous space with a metric can be generated. The rules R_n are currently not understood in any significant way. How they might change in time is related to the question of how the laws of physics might change in time, and understanding them is a challenge for the future, as is the difficult problem of emergence.

"Finally, the stages paradigm is based on the notion of process time. Therefore, only one stage (known as the present) can be assumed certain in any discussion. Relative to a given present, both the past and future do not exist."
 
 

=======
Subject: Re: Process Physics
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 10:35:34 -0000
From: "Dimi Chakalov" <dchakalov@surfeu.at>
To: "Ioannis Raptis" <i.raptis@ic.ac.uk>
Cc: <reg.cahill@flinders.edu.au>, "George Jaroszkiewicz" <George.Jaroszkiewicz@nottingham.ac.uk>,  <Matej.Pavsic@ijs.si>,  <vitiello@sa.infn.it>, "Mark Stuckey" <stuckeym@etown.edu>, <aziz@ntt.it>, <mkafatos@compton.gmu.edu>, <perelmanc@hotmail.com>, <c.isham@ic.ac.uk>, <j.fearns@ic.ac.uk>, <e.zafiris@ic.ac.uk>, <jb56@cus.cam.ac.uk>
 

Thank you, Ioannis, for your feedback and for reminding me of the river metaphor due to Heraclitus.

It seems to me that the task stated in the subject line can be formulated in a very simple way: how can a table or time interval be of finite length or duration, say, 2 min,

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Zafiris.html#below

The infinitesimals for space and time, which build up the 3-D world of tables and chairs, are hidden for the following reasons: we can think of things having finite dimensions in space and time as being either discrete or continual. No third option seems available to derive from the 3-D world around us. Subsequently, we can not recover any finite thing, and hence the 3-D space. I will be happy to elaborate, if necessary.

I suggest a third possibility: the spacetime is both discrete and continual, being the outcome from a creative process. It consists of two stages: a discrete and pre-geometrical stage "taking place" in a putative global time mode "inside" the infinitesimal, and a continual, geometrical stage at which we enjoy the so-called points and finite things measured with real numbers (e.g., a table being 2 m long). I believe one can explain this third possibility with some simple cognitive processes in the human brain.

Again, I will be happy to elaborate, if necessary. I'll be in London until March 19th at the address below.

Kindest regards,

Dimi
--
Dimiter G. Chakalov
35 Sutherland St.
London SW1V 4JU
http://members.aon.at/chakalov
Tel. & Fax 020/7834-3113