Previously,
I suggested that the confirmation of gravity waves grounds general
relativity theory (GR) more firmly than the Standard Model of quantum
physics (SM). The latter remains incomplete in a way the former is
not. Relativity accounts for gravity (as a bending of spacetime);
the Standard Model is still looking to
do the same,
perhaps via supersymmetry or string theory. For this reason,
it seemed perhaps useful to look at quantum physics in light of
relativity, instead of trying to extend the SM to account for
gravity. GR is complete as it is and now provides the basis of
classical cosmology which traces the origin of the universe to
the Big Bang. But practitioners of the SM are busy seeking to use
quantum physics to get beyond the Big Bang. One important and
interesting effort is contained in the unbounded-universe approach
pioneered by Stephen
Hawking and James Hartle (see also this SETI
talk brought to attention through @GeorgeShiber). This posits
the origin of the universe not with a Big Bang but with the
conversion of a dimension of space into a dimension of time.
With
GR, the universe originates with a Big Bang that by itself has no
explanation. Where does the original singularity that explodes come
from? According to what physical laws does it exist? The
Hawking-Hartle approach seeks to explain this by suggesting that four
dimensions of space without time – and therefore without origin –
give rise to the universe through a process akin to quantum tunneling
that converts one space dimension into time and thus produces
spacetime. But even the Hawking-Hartle approach does not offer an
explanation of where and how the four dimensions of space come from.
Neither theory provides any way to get a grip on the question of
first causes. Both approaches reveal in their own way a reality that
apparently was given, suggesting there may be no
more layers of the onion to peel back.
Perhaps, mathematically based science has brought us to the edge of
what we can know in this way. There may simply be nothing beyond
what we presently understand; we now know the givens
of the universe we exist within. Or it may be that both are useful
in understanding a reality that we cannot ultimately know through a
single lens. The key may lie in pondering more deeply consciousness
and the role of the observer.
GR
and the SM appear
fundamentally incompatible. Yet the observer
seems central to both approaches. For the SM, it is the act of
observing – measuring – which collapses the wave function of
probabilities of a quantum wave (or entangled state) into a specific
value. For GR, there is no privileged place to measure the state of
anything else, all is in motion and each observer will see time and
space differently depending upon his position relative to everything
else. The relationship
between light and mass creates the framework
for observation by providing a measure of time and the three
dimensions of space. Light “travels” at the cosmic speed limit
but takes no time to get anywhere since at its speed, time stops. A
surfer riding a photon is everywhere that
photon will ever be at the same moment. It is stuff with mass
that experiences, bends and moves through
spacetime.
Observation
requires consciousness; without being heard, trees that fall
in the forest make no sound. Tied in some way to mass, consciousness
manifests probabilities as it moves through spacetime. Looking from
the perspective of what both GR and the SM tell us, the universe is
one big wave function outside of time where at one level everything
happens at once while to the observers immersed in the Higgs field,
time exists. Why should this be true?
The
practitioners of quantum physics remain focused on considering
various ways to reconcile the SM with GR. Whether these efforts will
ever lead to anything that can be observed and measured is an open
question. But even in the event of some unification – or a new
theory that subsumes both – the problem would remain of where
does that come from? This leads to the ultimate question of the
origin of the universe. If it's not the Big Bang but some other
beginning or even some steady state, it would then beg the question
of why that?
Both
GR and the SM describe the universe we find ourselves in from
different points of the observer's view. In one we experience
relative time. In the other, we determine what is by looking at it.
As conscious observers and living creatures, we are, in effect, at
the center of everything. This would suggest that if we are to gain
further, deeper understanding of reality we must understand more
about consciousness and its relation to reality. Those who try to
explain consciousness as a product of organic matter and processes
get it exactly wrong. In some way, consciousness creates reality.
Consciousness is not derivative but somehow primordial. There is a
ghost
in the machine.
This
leaves us with two apparent options. One would be to accept that we
can go no further. Science may yet produce new ways to manipulate
the world – via technology – but we will be unable to penetrate
further the veils of the cosmos we inhabit. The other would be to
start with a more profound understanding of consciousness and perhaps
by creating a science based upon qualia
rather than quantity. This would require a
new way of thinking more akin, perhaps, to
philosophy than mathematics. And it might start with the question of
why there should be anything rather than nothing.
