From: richard@biblewheel.com
Date: Tue Jul 08 2003 - 11:47:27 EDT
Re post http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200307/0147.html
I made this following point with regards to Tegmark's numerical calculations:
>1) Lets assume the validity of the assumption and look at all possible states from a macroscopic viewpoint as suggested. Now lets connect this with reality. Pick up an object - any object. How many rotational orientations relative to you are possible for that one object? The answer is infinity - you can rotate it through any angle you choose. Each one of these orientations must correspond to at least one distinct quantum state which means that the number of posible quantum states for just the room I'm sitting in must be infinite. I think this argument is conclusive.
Gary Collins then asked these questions:
>Q2) Is this not an assumption? I remember reading somewhere (don't ask
me where now!!!) that space itself might be quantized; i.e. that there might
be a minimum quantum length. Might this not also apply to angular measure?
If so, again, it would alter the answer numerically but maybe not in principle.
Same may possibly apply to your (2), (3) and (4) (which I have trimmed out)
- or no?
Yes, it is an assumption, but it is a very good one. I had thought of addressing this point when I wrote the post, but opted against it for reasons of space and time. As far as I know, there is no generally accepted Quantum Theory that quantizes rotational angles. This seems to be because of the fundamental idea of rotational symmetry, i.e. no prefered direction in space. This symmetry principle then gives rise to the conservation of angular momentum. Such symmetry also plays an essential role in the structure of the Bible. I discuss this in the context of fundamental physics in my article discussing A. Zee's Fearful Symmetry:
http://www.biblewheel.com/RR/AZ_Fearful.asp
Ideas relating to the quantization of space are utterly speculative at this time. The Quantum Theory of Gravity still eludes us and that is what would be needed to have any confindence in claims about quantized space.
There is another deeper misunderstanding that plagues this whole discussion. The people pushing for the MWH are using SEMICLASSICAL methods that are plainly understood (by the authors themselves) as approximations which are not yet even fully formalized. Read this article Tegmark cites to see the current state of affairs:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0102010
There is another FUNDAMENTAL misunderstanding in all this talk, which is that even if we quantize space and time and everything, we still have an infinite number of distinct physical configurations due to superpostion states. The semiclassical reasoning that thinks to count up all energy eigenvectors and call the job "done" ignores the position and momentum and other non-commuting variables which can not be generally represented except as infinite sums over all the energy eignestates.
Finally, you will note that no one has yet found an argument against my one-proton Hubble volume with its infinte number of states. If that universe - one of the simplest conceivable - has an infinite number of distinct microscopic and macroscopic states, how could we ever expect a smaller number to emerge from an interacting system with more particles? The typical answer would be something like "The interacting particles are bound, so their energy eigenstates become discrete." That is fine as far as it goes, but it ignores the fact that the bound particles are part of a free _system_, e.g. a free hydrogen atom, so the system as a whole has both contnuous and distrete energy eigenvalues.
It is for these reasons, and many more, that I still believe my four points in question stand.
In service of Christ our Wisdom,
Richard A. McGough
Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at http://www.BibleWheel.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 08 2003 - 11:44:09 EDT