Universal Wormhole Observers
—My paradigm of modern physics begins with the theoretical perspective of universal wormhole observers (2016, section 5.1; 2021 sections, 2.6-7).
—Universal wormhole observers detect every object in the universe as if the object were local to the observer, regardless of the location of the observer.
—Universal wormhole observers detect no universal timescale.
—Universal wormhole observers detect the preferred universal chronology and similarly the preferred foliation of spacetime.
—Universal wormhole observers require a solution of general relativity that permits the theoretical construction of wormholes.
—Universal wormhole observers by no means imply the realistic possibility of traversable wormholes.
—The ER=EPR conjecture and the pervasiveness of quantum entanglement in laboratories and outer space support universal wormhole observers, but the observers do not depend on the validity of the conjecture.
Quantum Mechanics
—Quantum logic can explain all quantum phenomena (2021, section 2.5.2).
—The von Neumann uncertainty principle refers to the certainty of any quantum state and the uncertainty for the evolution of any quantum system (Hogan and Lakey 2005, pages 293-295).
—Quantum physics and quantum chemistry indicate indeterminism in the universe.
—Gravity involves quantum.
Sources
—Jeffrey A. Hogan and Joseph D. Lakey, "Time-Frequency and Time-Scale Methods: Adaptive Decompositions, Uncertainty Principles, and Sampling," 2005, https://doi.org/10.1007/b139077
—James Goetz, "Semiclassical Theism and the Passage of Planck Times," Theology and Science, 2016, volume 14, issue 3, pages 325-339, https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2016.
1191881 or the free preprint at https://philpapers.org/rec/GOESTA-2
—James Goetz, "Theodicy, Supreme Providence, and Semiclassical Theism," Theology and Science, 2021, volume 19, issue 1, pages 42-64, https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2020.1825195 or the free preprint at https://philpapers.org/rec/GOETSP-4
major revision 12/7/2023
Copyright © 2022-2023 James Edward Goetz
December 8, 2022
My Propositions for Foundations of Modern Physics
November 23, 2022
The Argument
Part 3 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum
Parts 1 and 2 set the stage for my semiclassical cosmological argument.
For example, I defined the general concept of a cosmological argument. That is, a cosmological argument uses premises and deduction to prove the existence of God by logically implying the necessity of God and the dependency of all natural phenomena.
Now, I clarify that my cosmological argument leans toward the kalam cosmological argument proposed by William Lane Craig.
For instance, The syllogism of Craig's kalam cosmological argument follows:
—"Major premise: Whatever begins to exist had a cause."
—"Minor premise: The physical universe began to exist."
—"Conclusion: Therefore, the physical universe had a cause."
My modification follows:
—"Major premise: Whatever begins to exist had a cause."
—"Minor premise: Tensed Planck time intervals foremostly began to exist."
—"Conclusion: Therefore, the foremost beginning of tensed Planck time intervals had a cause."
And this leads to my Proposition 3:
"Proposition 3: The kalam cosmological syllogism implies that an uncaused entity caused the foremost beginning of tensed Planck time intervals."
Now, I clarify a major caveat of the minor premise.
That is, if eternalism is true, then tensed time intervals do not exist. For example, if eternalism is true, then everything considered in the past, present, or future has always existed and will always exist. Therefore, eternalism implies that everything exists without cause and objective tense.
And that explains why I put together parts 1 and 2 to defend clarified presentism.
The Logical Impossibility for an Infinite Passage of Time
Next, let me illustrate how an infinite passage of time, let alone a past infinite passage of time, is logically impossible.
Consider the future from any starting point in time. The future can endure without end, but the amount of elapsed time intervals will always equal a finite number.
For example, we can say that the future is potentially infinite. However, potential infinity is not a number but a process that never ends. And in the case of elapsed time intervals, potential infinity with a starting point always results in a finite age.
A Universe from So-Called Nothing
Some physicists, such as Lawrence Kraus, propose that the physical universe arose from nothing. However, when we read the fine print of his proposal, we see that he defines that nothingness exhibits instability.
All theoretical physics proposals of a universe from nothing ultimately imply an infinite past of quantum instability. Typical references to quantum instability are quantum foam or spacetime foam. And quantum foam exhibits the passage of time.
The Attributes of God
Next, assuming presentism or some other A-Theory of time, an uncaused entity caused the foremost beginning of tensed time intervals. The uncaused entity created the first physical universe. We commonly refer to this entity as God or the Supreme Being.
One attribute of God is the ability to originate a physical universe.
I imagine that God started by generating a finely tuned quantum vacuum.
And the quantum vacuum originated with a radius of a mere Planck length (the theoretically smallest possible measurement of spatial distance).
And the quantum vacuum started with zero-point energy (the lowest possible amount of energy in a quantum system.)
Then, God heated the Planck length, finely tuned quantum vacuum to the Planck temperature (the highest possible temperature, 10 to the power of 32 degrees Kelvin).
And from there, the universe proceeded to expand according to the big bang theory.
However, I clarify that this ability to generate a finely tuned quantum vacuum and then heat it to the Planck temperature does not logically imply that God can meticulously control the universe after the expansion began.
For example, consider my "Proposition 1: God could possibly create a physical universe out of nothing while that universe is beyond meticulous control."
Also, "God's everlasting force that can create a spacetime universe out of nothing cannot
meticulously control the particles of the creation,"
"but synergy between God and created agents can exhibit limited intervention in the creation that is subject to the possibilities of physics."
Further, I hold to open theism. That is, God knows everything about the present, which consists of all future possibilities. And that includes God knowing the best responses to the present and all possible future circumstances.
Everything considered, I propose that God's original attributes are everlasting within logical consistency.
And we can tell people that God loves them with everlasting love despite God's inability to immediately eradicate senseless, horrific evil.
Sources
—William Lane Craig and James D. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological Argument," in "The
Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology," 2009, pages 101-201, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444308334.ch3
—Lawrence M. Krauss, "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than
Nothing," 2012.
—James Goetz, "Theodicy, Supreme Providence, and Semiclassical Theism," Theology and Science, 2021, volume 19, issue 1, pages 42-64, https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2020.1825195 or the free preprint at https://philpapers.org/rec/GOETSP-4
The Three-Part Series
1) Quantum Entanglement, ER=EPR, and Observers: Part 1 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum
2) Universal Wormhole Observers and Clarified Presentism: Part 2 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum
3) The Argument: Part 3 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum
Copyright © 2022 James Edward Goetz
Universal Wormhole Observers and Clarified Presentism
Part 2 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum
In my previous post, I described my universal wormhole observers. Here, I describe how the observers support clarified presentism.
First, I define presentism. Presentism means that only the present exists while the past and future do not exist.
Second, clarified presentism in my 2021 article means phenomena exist only in the present and do not exist in the past or future.
Third, all universal wormhole observers, regardless of their location, detect the preferred universal chronology. Therefore, all of them also detect the associated preferred foliation of spacetime.
(Spacetime refers to the four-dimensional geometry that unifies the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time. And an event is a point in spacetime with three spatial coordinates and one time coordinate.)
The Preferred Universal Chronology
Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity in 1905 proved the impossibility of classical absolute space and time. For example, special relativity logically implies the relativity of simultaneity, which means that no two events that are distant from each other have the same chronology from every possible reference frame.
For instance, the relativity of simultaneity implies the following scenario:
—Event A and Event B are distant from each other.
—Some distant observers detect that Event A and Event B occur at the same time.
—Other distant observers detect that Event A occurs before Event B.
—Still, other distant observers detect that Event A occurs after Event B.
And the implications of special relativity quickly led to disbelief in the possibility of a preferred reference frame for a universal chronology.
However, universal wormhole observers bridge through all of the distance in the universe. And all universal wormhole observers, regardless of their reference frame, detect the same universal chronology.
Clarified Presentism versus Eternalism
I earlier defined that clarified presentism means that phenomena exist only in the present and do not exist in the past or future. However, most living philosophers of time hold to eternalism. That is, eternalism means that all phenomena from what we consider the past, present, or future have always existed and will always exist.
(Presentism is a type of A-theory of time while eternalism is related to the B-theory of time.)
Contemporary models of eternalism typically incorporate modern physics while focusing on the relativity of simultaneity. For example, C. Wim Rietdijk in 1966 proposed eternalism based on special relativity and said, "A proof is given that there does not exist an event, that is not already in the past for some possible distant observer at the (our) moment that the latter is 'now' for us."
Rietdijk noted that special relativity implies that all events that are present to humans on Earth are already in the past for some distant observer. And from this, he argues that everything considered in the past, present, or future has always existed and will always exist.
And the argument for eternalism based on special relativity is called the Rietdijk-Putnam argument. (Putnam in 1967 proposed a similar argument.)
However, universal wormhole observers bridge through the relativity of simultaneity and permit a preferred universal chronology, which supports clarified presentism.
In the next post, I will use the points from parts 1 and 2 to set the stage for my semiclassical cosmological argument.
Sources
—Albert Einstein, "Relativity: The Special and the General Theory," translated by Robert W. Lawson, 1920
—C. Wim Rietdijk, "A Rigorous Proof of Determinism Derived from the Special Theory of Relativity," Philosophy of Science, 1966, volume 33, issue 4, pages 341–344, https://doi.org/10.1086/288106 or https://www.jstor.org/stable/186637
—Hilary Putnam, "Time and Physical Geometry," The Journal of Philosophy, 1967, volume 64, issue 8, 240-247, https://doi.org/10.2307/2024493 or https://www.jstor.org/stable/2024493
—James Goetz, "Theodicy, Supreme Providence, and Semiclassical Theism," Theology and Science, 2021, volume 19, issue 1, pages 42-64, https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2020.1825195 or the free preprint at https://philpapers.org/rec/GOETSP-4
The Three-Part Series
1) Quantum Entanglement, ER=EPR, and Observers: Part 1 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum
2) Universal Wormhole Observers and Clarified Presentism: Part 2 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum
3) The Argument: Part 3 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum
Copyright © 2022 James Edward Goetz
Quantum Entanglement, ER=EPR, and Observers
Part 1 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum
I introduced my cosmological argument in my 2021 paper "Theodicy, Supreme Providence, and Semiclassical Theism." Here, I will summarize my argument for a general audience.
I will begin by defining the term cosmological argument. That is, a cosmological argument uses premises and deduction to prove the existence of God by logically implying the necessity of God and the dependency of all natural phenomena.
Next, I will divide my summary into three parts. And the first two set the stage for Part 3 which focuses on my definition of God and my argument.
This first part centers on my hypothetical model of universal wormhole observers and its relationship to quantum entanglement. Now, I will describe observers, wormhole theory, and quantum entanglement.
First, Albert Einstein used hypothetical observers to illustrate his introduction to the theory of special relativity. And the observers function as a reference frame for making measurements.
Second, Einstein and Nathan Rosen in 1935 introduced what are called either Einstein-Rosen bridges or wormholes. For example, some solutions for the theory of general relativity permit the mathematical construction of wormholes, and wormholes connect otherwise distant (causally disconnected) regions of space and time.
Third, quantum entanglement refers to distant particles that act as if entangled (causally connected).
Also, Einstein, Boris Podolski, and Rosen in 1935 analyzed entangled electrons and defined a thought experiment known as the Einstein-Podolski-Rosen paradox or simply the EPR paradox. The trio juxtaposed the following while defining their paradox:
—Special relativity implies no possibility of distant particles interacting with each other.
—Cases of distant electrons exhibit correlating action with no evidence of determinism caused by local variables.
And Einstein, Podolski, and Rosen concluded that relativity never permits exceptions for distant particles to entangle while the authors proposed local hidden-variable theory. That is, undetectable local variables caused the determinism of electrons to appear as if they interact with each other at a distance while they never actually interact at a distance.
Eventually, Einstein made his famous quip about "spooky action at a distance." He said this while colorfully rejecting the possibility of quantum entanglement.
However, the 2022 Noble Prize in Physics went to Alain Aspect, John Clauser, and Anton Zeilinger for their research on entangled photons.
The ER=EPR Conjecture
Juan Maldacena and Leonard Susskind in 2013 proposed the ER=EPR conjecture. For example, ER refers to Einstein-Rosen bridges (wormholes) and EPR refers to the EPR paradox. More specifically, the ER=EPR conjecture proposes that each case of quantum entanglement involves a quantum wormhole.
(A quantum wormhole has a radius of 1 Planck length, and a Planck length is the theoretically smallest possible measurement of spatial distance and equals 10 to the negative power of 33 meters.)
In my 2021 paper, section 2.6, I referenced fascinating examples that imply the ubiquity of quantum entanglement.
For example, one astrophysics project discovered "30,000 pairs of entangled photons in the Milky Way that were entangled for at least 600 years."
Another project detected two photons that survived entanglement for 8 billion years. And 2,000 light-years separate the photons. (The 2,000 light-years equal 1 quadrillion miles.)
The 8 billion years is older than the Sun. And the 2,000 light-years are "23 times the distance from the Sun to its closest neighboring star," Proxima Centauri.
Also, laboratories routinely generate entangled photons. And they use the established entangled pathways for quantum teleportation.
(Quantum teleportation involves the immediate transfer of quantum information from one location to a distant location.)
In the context of the ER=EPR conjecture, the universal pervasiveness of quantum entanglement implies the pervasiveness of quantum wormholes.
Further, in each case of entanglement, a quantum wormhole connects the otherwise distant particles. Therefore, the entangled particles are distant from each other in the context of space but connected in the context of the quantum wormhole.
Universal Wormhole Observers
I introduced a model of hypothetical universal wormhole observers in my 2016 paper "Semiclassical Theism and the Passage of Planck Times." And I refined the model in 2021 while incorporating the ER=EPR conjecture and the latest research on quantum entanglement.
First, I clarify that the term universal wormhole refers to the universal potential for wormholes and does not imply the realistic possibility of any wormhole that permits particles to travel through it. (A theoretical wormhole that permits one or more particles to travel through it is called traversable wormhole.)
Second, a universal wormhole observer detects everything in the universe with no interval between the observer and the object.
Third, the next post addresses the nature of the past and future in the context of universal wormhole observers.
Sources
—Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen, "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?" Physical Review, 1935, volume 47, pages 777-780, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777
— Albert Einstein and Nathan Rosen, "The Particle Problem in the General Theory of Relativity, Physical Review, 1935, volume 48, pages 73-77, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.48.73
—Juan Maldacena and Leonard Susskind, "Cool Horizons for Entangled Black Holes," Fortschritte der Physik (Progress of Physics), 2013, volume 61, issue 9, pages 781-811, https://doi.org/10.1002/prop.201300020
—James Goetz, "Semiclassical Theism and the Passage of Planck Times," Theology and Science, 2016, volume 14, issue 3, pages 325-339, https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2016.1191881 or the free preprint at https://philpapers.org/rec/GOESTA-2
—James Goetz, "Theodicy, Supreme Providence, and Semiclassical Theism," Theology and Science, 2021, volume 19, issue 1, pages 42-64, https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2020.1825195 or the free preprint at https://philpapers.org/rec/GOETSP-4
The Three-Part Series
1) Quantum Entanglement, ER=EPR, and Observers: Part 1 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum
2) Universal Wormhole Observers and Clarified Presentism: Part 2 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum
3) The Argument: Part 3 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum
Copyright © 2022 James Edward Goetz
Posts
