Restoring no preferred frame of reference to a single universe
 

Many threads have discussed the argument between a hidden variables approach versus a multi-verse approach in attempting to describe an underlying reality.

The centrepiece of the argument seems to relate to a TOE possessing no preferred frame of reference which is a very valid argument if attempting to account for complete unification.

Bells theorem seems to have dispatched the hidden variables camp to the sin bin, but IMO this is only in the context of those hidden variable theories seeking to explain a TOE in the context of properties of objects which invokes HUP eg. the notion of non-locality or counterfactual definiteness.

The question I have is whether the features of QM (eg the principle of superposition) can still be found in a theory of vibrating energy quanta that operates in a 3D and 1T universe. If we think in terms of a universe 'as a container of energy' in which this energy vibrates within a granular spacetime fabric that fills the universe, can we restore the notion of no preferred frame of reference at the local level by adopting a global frame of reference requirement...... A bit Machian in intent...... For example, I see the frame of reference argument only being directed at the local level. If we were forced to account for a frame of reference at the global level, we would need to take into account the sum total of all the interacting waves of energy that fill the universe.

I am actually trying to work out whether a multi-verse proposition versus the above description are actually two ways to look at the same underlying principle.

In effect I think I am trying to force the mathematics describing a hilbert space to occupy a 3D and 1T universe by virtue of the requirement that you are forced to take into account the geometrical properties of each grid of the spacetime fabric in defining a global wavefunction......if that makes any sense........*gack*....(probably doesn't).

The picture I have in my mind is an elastic structural grid in which energy is contained. If the grid was rigid, and identical throughout the universe, then homogeneity would rule and no discernible properties would be attributed to these locales, however as the grid is elastic, certain locales could be filled with a greater energy content than others resulting in observable differences between certain locales. The ENTIRE elastic grid however works to confine to a degree the energy at each specific location in spacetime resulting in an array of differring vibrational resonances within each grid that attributes specific properties to each location in spacetime. Recognising the conservation of energy, when a measurement is performed in a laboratory we are actually re-distributing the energy from one location of the grid to another via our measuring device. This displaces energy contained in one spacetime location and tops up the energy in another spacetime location. The result alters the resonance at each spacetime location and is expressed by a change in resonance that alters the properties attributed to this location in in the grid. You can probably see where I am going with this idea. Disturbing the grid creates energy re-distributions that move from the point of disturbance throughout the grid like a pebble dropped into the water......anyway, food for thought.

PS The thread should be titled, "Restoring no preferred LOCAL frame of reference to a single universe"

:-))

A bit of background from here

Why do we need space-time descriptions? Well, quantum states are basic
elements of abstract Hilbert space and as such they do not have space-time
localization. Abstract quantum mechanics provides a general framework that
would cover all possibilities a system may show up; it is a foundational construct
but one does not get hints to construct actual models for most operators. The only
thing one can require in abstract space is existence that is ensured by endowing
the framework with a definite mathematical structure. But the world of laboratory
experiments imposes space-time frameworks.
Real space descriptions require concepts of spatiality and temporality lying
down foundational elements supporting space and time approaches construction.
But its mathematical structure cannot be induced from experiments reflecting
quantum phenomena in laboratory (real) space. While these levels are
incommensurate mappings bridging both would do the job.
Because abstract Hilbert space is a pure mathematical structure, the task
(problem) is to relate the abstract level to the laboratory world via a quantum
theory incorporating aspects of space-time physics. To delineate these mappings
the concept of Fence helps “interfacing” pure mathematics to real space
representations; they point to selected measurable responses in laboratory world.
Laboratory benches are placed in real world space; experiments are performed
at particular moments and locations; electromagnetic energy (photons) serves
communication purposes; interaction outcomes have a character of events that
can be recorded, read and/or used to set up further experiments; all these elements
use a space-time framework. In the space separating/relating these realms (Fence)
the formalism is cast in terms of elements allowing for a bridge linking real to
quantum levels. Inertial frames play such a role.

Theories based on local symmetries (ie gauge theories) are more general than theories based on global symmetries (eg special relativity). An example is to consider scale symmetry. General relativity is already covariant to global scale transformations, but requires an additional connection field to make it covariant to conformal transformations (local scale transformations). The Weyl conformal tensor (as the name indicates) is a conformal tensor. The Ricci tensor however is not a conformal tensor in general relativity. According to my interpretation of reality, conformal symmetry must be a symmetry of the laws of physics. However, I find this difficult to reconcile with the scale-dependence of quantum theory. One way around this is to introduce a "quantum field" that breaks the scale symmetry. This implies a small-scale structure to reality that I would prefer to be unnecessary. The multiverse might be a solution by going beyond individual spacetimes towards relationships between them. It is specifically the non-gravitational relationship between energy-momentum and spacetime that is the essence of quantum theory (classical general relativity is the gravitational relationship between energy-momentum and spacetime, and this is mathematically independent).

I wish I had your handle on things KJW. It really is a struggle for me. PS I added a bit to my original post to give you an idea where I was coming from. :-))

There may be hope for a spacetime fabric yet that has emerged from this symmetry breaking. :-))

Excellent paragraph IMO. However, what makes spacetime spacetime? I would regard the spacetime variables as meaningless in absolute terms and that we simply define the given variables as spacetime variables. Thus, when we measure energy-momentum, we are constructing the instrument in terms of the given variables, and the energy-momentum we measure is relative to the given variables. In other words, energy-momentum has a definite relationship to spacetime even if energy-momentum and spacetime are meaningless in absolute terms. That is, quantum mechanical operators are relative to the spacetime operators.

There may be hope for a spacetime fabric yet that has emerged from this symmetry breaking. :-)) It appears to me that all the physical objects of reality are broken symmetries. The laws of physics are highly symmetric (I believe completely symmetric), whereas the observed reality does not possess any of this symmetry. I think this confuses many people, and I find it difficult to explain the difference between the laws of physics and physical reality.

For example, does a momentum measuring device look like a position measuring device in the momentum domain?

I think this confuses many people, and I find it difficult to explain the difference between the laws of physics and physical reality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



Can I have a shot at this?
The Laws of Physics:
The laws of physics, although as the name suggests are laws and fixed, are only so according to the technological standards and knowledge of that era...eg: We once thought that space and time were invariant and light speed was variable according to the local FoR.
Then along came Albert. Now we observe that time will appear as variable and space can be twisted and curved every which way and the speed of light is constant and independent of the FoR and motion of the observer and/or the emmitter.



Physical Reality:
Physical reality can be termed the basic underlying nature of the Universe which may or may not be aligned to how we interprete our observations and/or the limits of tolerances of our measureing devices.
Both our interpretations of observations and tolerances of our measuring devices, will most probably change over time, enabling us to get more correct interpretations on our observations that align more closely to physical reality.

That's not what I mean by the difference between laws of physics and physical reality. The simplest expression of the difference is that physical reality are the things that exist in a given reality, while the laws of physics are a general statement of how physical reality behaves. As simple as this statement is, there are subtleties that blur the distinction. An example of the difficulty is why the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) is not a preferred frame of reference in the theory of relativity. This is because the CMBR is a physical object (field) that is a broken symmetry, whereas the absence of a preferred frame of reference is the symmetry of the laws of physics.

That really is nice KJW. It's hard to refute the relativist argument. You not only have tied loose ends up in the context of the ultimate reality but then you have embedded the relativists argument into a multi-verse description of reality (which I assume is eternal) which therefore means that we don't therefore have to contemplate 'where' or 'if' it all began. You must be working towards your long service leave..../tic :-))