Beyond the Dynamical Universe

Abstract

Theoretical physics and foundations of physics have not made much progress in the last few decades. There is no consensus among researchers on how to approach unifying general relativity and quantum field theory (quantum gravity), explaining so-called dark energy and dark matter (cosmology), or the interpretation and implications of quantum mechanics and relativity. In addition, both fields are deeply puzzled about various facets of time including, above all, time as experienced. This book argues that this impasse is the result of the “dynamical universe paradigm,” the idea that reality fundamentally comprises physical entities that evolve in time from some initial state according to dynamical laws. Thus, in the dynamical universe, the initial conditions plus the dynamical laws explain everything else going exclusively forward in time. In cosmology, for example, the initial conditions reside in the Big Bang and the dynamical law is supplied by general relativity. Accordingly, the present state of the universe is explained exclusively by its past. A completely new paradigm (called Relational Blockworld) is offered here whereby the past, present, and future co-determine each other via “adynamical global constraints,” such as the least action principle. Accordingly, the future is just as important for explaining the present as the past is. Most of the book is devoted to showing how Relational Blockworld resolves many of the current conundrums of both theoretical physics and foundations of physics, including the mystery of time as experienced and how that experience relates to the block universe.

Why the Tsirelson Bound? Bub’s Question and Fuchs’ Desideratum

“…By accepting the constraint-based explanation as fundamental, the lack of a compelling, consensus dynamical interpretation is not a problem. This is just one of many mysteries in physics created by dynamical thinking and resolved by constraint-based thinking [ 19 ].…”

“…We assume at this point the reader is prepared to consider a constraint-based/principle explanation [ 18 , 19 ] of the phenomena responsible for the Tsirelson bound. We present the physics that is germane to our argument though much of it is doubtless familiar to the reader.…”

“…Herein, we propose a constraint-based answer to QIT’s version of “Why the quantum?” that we can state in “one clear, simple sentence” The Tsirelson bound obtains because of conservation per no preferred reference frame. Assuming the reader is willing to suspend their anthropocentric bias against constraint-based explanation [ 18 , 19 ], Section 2 shows how the phenomena described by two Bell basis states, the spin singlet state and the “Mermin photon state” , satisfy conservation of angular momentum [ 20 ] per no preferred reference frame (NPRF) [ 21 ]. The term “reference frame” has many meanings in physics related to microscopic and macroscopic phenomena, Galilean versus Lorentz transformations, relatively moving observers, etc.…”

A New Class of Retrocausal Models

“…Retrocausal accounts of quantum phenomena have come a long way since the initial proposal by Costa de Beauregard [ 31 ]. Notably, the number of retrocausal models in the literature has expanded significantly in the past decade alone [ 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 22 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 ], but more ideas are clearly needed. The central novelties in the class of models discussed here are: (1) using fields (exclusively) rather than particles; and (2) introducing uncertainty to even the initial and final boundary constraints.…”

Some Notes on Counterfactuals in Quantum Mechanics

“…We now propose a third option. The Two State-Vector Formalism (TSVF) [ 3 , 4 , 5 ] and related time-symmetric approaches [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 ] offer fresh insight into all the oddities of quantum mechanics, on the basis of the well-established time-symmetry of the quantum realm. Forward—and backward—evolving wavefunctions are granted equal causal efficacy.…”