You asked…

According to standard physics, you need mass in order to get gravity. Are you saying that massive objects just are quanta of the gravitational field?

Did you mean "qualia"

qua·le
n. pl. qua·li·a
A property, such as whiteness, considered independently from things having the property.

"Quanta" is the plural of "Quantum".

The short answer is that I think gravity causes the objectiveness of matter.

Excuse me, but I need to get back to work.

As you are probably aware, the answer to the riddle of gravity has, so far, eluded physicists. You might as well ask me to explain why things fall down instead of falling up. I wish I could answer that.

There's no doubt about it, gravity is very strange.

Penrose (and others) suggest gravity is fundamentally different from other energy fields.

And yet, as is true of other forms of energy, gravitational energy = mc^2.

In a sense, gravity may be the only real reality there is. It takes energy to defy gravity. Therefore, Penrose suggests that it takes energy to maintain quantum super-position and, therefore, self collapse is as inevitable as a thrown rock falling back to earth.

Well indeed. But I still wonder why gravity can't itself provide the energy needed to maintain quantum superposition.

me: I assume retrocausality is required because the collapse process Penrose hypothesizes occurs with superluminal speed. But I'm thinking that this doesn't follow unless the process is not non-local. Why not just say the process is a non-local Bell-style correlation, given that such correlations have been empirically confirmed by Aspect already anyway? I imagine it's because non-locality is not materialist enough a concept to handle a thing like gravitational energy.

TP: I am refining my understanding of this based on the Huw Price link I found. Huw was suggesting the choice is non-locality OR retrocausality.

Yes that's how I understand Huw Price's article. The non-local effect can be fundamental OR a manifestation of retrocausality OR the luminal speed limit of Special Relativity on signaling is just false.

He suggested that all non-local quantum effects can be thought of as a result of as retrocausalty occurring at the time of quantum entanglement. This would be consistent with the results of the Aspect experiment.

The problem is deciding which alternatve is really, er, real: non-locality or retrocausality? I don't know of an experiment which could decide this.

This make sense to me. Especially when it applies to the GHZ experiment. After two out of three measurements are made. The non-retrocausual, non-local assumption does not match experimental observation. What is observered is the exact opposite of what would be expected. One or both of the assumptions must be incorrect. A retrocausual explanation is the simpler one and is sufficient by itself.

My understanding is that the GHZ result does not force us to pick retrocausality over non-locality.

me: But then, isn't gravitational energy itself a real wave?

TP: I don't think so. I don't believe Penrose think so either. Gravity is warped space-time.

That seems to conflict with this:

In physics, a gravitational wave is a fluctuation in the curvature of spacetime which propagates as a wave, traveling outward from a moving object or system of objects. Gravitational radiation is the energy transported by these waves. Important examples of systems which emit gravitational waves are binary star systems, where the two stars in the binary are white dwarfs, neutron stars, or black holes.

Although gravitational radiation has not yet been directly detected, it has been indirectly shown to exist. This was the basis for the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics, awarded for measurements of the Hulse-Taylor binary system.

(Gravitational waves are sometimes called gravity waves, but this term should be reserved for a completely different kind of wave encountered in hydrodynamics.)
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Introduction
* 2 Effects of a passing gravitational wave
* 3 Sources of gravitational waves
o 3.1 Power radiated by the Earth-Sun system
o 3.2 Wave amplitudes from the Earth-Sun system
o 3.3 Radiation from other sources
* 4 Astrophysics and gravitational waves
o 4.1 Energy, momentum, and angular momentum carried by gravitational waves
* 5 Gravitational wave detectors
o 5.1 Einstein@Home
* 6 Mathematics
o 6.1 Linear approximation
o 6.2 Relation to the source
* 7 See also
* 8 References
* 9 External links

me: And doesn't that mean that the longer the distance it has to traverse, the longer the time before its effects should be felt, regardless of the speed it's travelling at (provided only that its speed is finite and constant)? And shouldn't that mean that the more macroscopic something is, the longer a gravitational wave will take to have an effect on it?

The alternative is to say that the speed of gravity is non-finite. But that's just the same as saying it's a non-local process, in which case one doesn't need retrocausality. And gravity being a non-local effect is just empirically false anyway, no?

TP: This is why I hinted that gravity might not be a process of reality but might the definition of physical reality itself. Gravity just IS, everything else is just fallout of that reality.

According to standard physics, you need mass in order to get gravity. Are you saying that massive objects just are quanta of the gravitational field?

Thank you for your thoughtful and reasoned comment.

You wrote…

Why does gravitational energy only cause a superpositional waveform to collapse? Why does it not supply the energy required for the superpositional waveform to be maintained, such that the greater the mass, the longer the collapse can be delayed?

In short, why does mass-energy always operate in the collapse direction towards collapse and never in the direction away from collapse? After all, E=mc^2. If superpositional waveforms need energy to be sustained, why shouldn't gravity provide it?

As you are probably aware, the answer to the riddle of gravity has, so far, eluded physicists. You might as well ask me to explain why things fall down instead of falling up. I wish I could answer that.

Penrose (and others) suggest gravity is fundamentally different from other energy fields. In a sense, gravity may be the only real reality there is. It takes energy to defy gravity. Therefore, Penrose suggests that it takes energy to maintain quantum super-position and, therefore, self collapse is as inevitable as a thrown rock falling back to earth.

I assume retrocausality is required because the collapse process Penrose hypothesizes occurs with superluminal speed. But I'm thinking that this doesn't follow unless the process is not non-local. Why not just say the process is a non-local Bell-style correlation, given that such correlations have been empirically confirmed by Aspect already anyway? I imagine it's because non-locality is not materialist enough a concept to handle a thing like gravitational energy.

I am refining my understanding of this based on the Huw Price link I found. Huw was suggesting the choice is non-locality OR retrocausality. He suggested that all non-local quantum effects can be thought of as a result of as retrocausalty occurring at the time of quantum entanglement. This would be consistent with the results of the Aspect experiment.

This make sense to me. Especially when it applies to the GHZ experiment. After two out of three measurements are made. The non-retrocausual, non-local assumption does not match experimental observation. What is observered is the exact opposite of what would be expected. One or both of the assumptions must be incorrect. A retrocausual explanation is the simpler one and is sufficient by itself.

But then, isn't gravitational energy itself a real wave?

I don't think so. I don't believe Penrose think so either. Gravity is warped space-time.

And doesn't that mean that the longer the distance it has to traverse, the longer the time before its effects should be felt, regardless of the speed it's travelling at (provided only that its speed is finite and constant)? And shouldn't that mean that the more macroscopic something is, the longer a gravitational wave will take to have an effect on it?

The alternative is to say that the speed of gravity is non-finite. But that's just the same as saying it's a non-local process, in which case one doesn't need retrocausality. And gravity being a non-local effect is just empirically false anyway, no?

This is why I hinted that gravity might not be a process of reality but might the definition of physical reality itself. Gravity just IS, everything else is just fallout of that reality.

>Because God's consciousness collapses the universe's wavefunction. That's the best answer I've been able to come up with to date. And I think it's more economical than the many-worlds idea. If you like, God can be the ultimate retrocausal agent, because God observes the whole of spacetime all at once, in God's timeless 'now'.
>What QM weirdity shows is that consciousness is absolutely necessary to reality because observation and measurement are absolutely necessary to what counts as reality. But why should reality be that way?

This reminds me of something that John Gribbin wrote n his book, The Search for Schrodinger's Cat.

>"By definition, the universe is self contained. It includes everything, so there is no outside observer who notices the universe and therefore collapses its web of inter-acting alterative realities into one wave function. Wheeler's idea of consciousness"”ourselves"”as the crucial observer operating through reverse causality back to the Big Bang is one way out of this dilemma but it involves a circular argument as puzzling as the puzzle it is supposed to eliminate. I would prefer even the solipsist argument, the that there is only one observer myself, and that my observations are the all important factor that crystallizes reality out of the web of quantum possibilities"”but extreme solipsism is a deeply unsatisfying philosophy for some ones whose own contribution to the world is writing books to be read by other people."

Notice that Gribbin begins with a metaphysical assumption: "By definition, the universe is self contained. It includes everything, so there is no outside observer who notices the universe and therefore collapses its web of inter-acting alterative realities into one wave function." It is metaphysical because it neither logically necessary, self evident nor is it provable. No doubt it is a logical possibility (that our universe is all that exists) and something that Gribbin himself believes, but in no sense does he eliminate the possibility that there is some kind of causal agency that transcends present universe. Such a possibility needs to be considered IMO whenever we think of the universe in a holistic sense which includes how it originated. To arbitrarily exclude such a possibility is presumptive because it assumes a kind of meta-knowledge that no human being possesses. In other words, just because one cannot get outside the box to see if there is anything outside the box does not allow one to conclude that nothing exists outside the box.

The short answer is that Penrose thinks that objects automatically collapse based on their own mass. The more the mass, the faster the collapse.

Why does gravitational energy only cause a superpositional waveform to collapse? Why does it not supply the energy required for the superpositional waveform to be maintained, such that the greater the mass, the longer the collapse can be delayed?

In short, why does mass-energy always operate in the collapse direction towards collapse and never in the direction away from collapse? After all, E=mc^2. If superpositional waveforms need energy to be sustained, why shouldn't gravity provide it?

I assume retrocausality is required because the collapse process Penrose hypothesizes occurs with superluminal speed. But I'm thinking that this doesn't follow unless the process is not non-local. Why not just say the process is a non-local Bell-style correlation, given that such correlations have been empirically confirmed by Aspect already anyway? I imagine it's because non-locality is not materialist enough a concept to handle a thing like gravitational energy.

But then, isn't gravitational energy itself a real wave? And doesn't that mean that the longer the distance it has to traverse, the longer the time before its effects should be felt, regardless of the speed it's travelling at (provided only that its speed is finite and constant)? And shouldn't that mean that the more macroscopic something is, the longer a gravitational wave will take to have an effect on it?

The alternative is to say that the speed of gravity is non-finite. But that's just the same as saying it's a non-local process, in which case one doesn't need retrocausality. And gravity being a non-local effect is just empirically false anyway, no?

You asked…

In other words [Schrödinger's cat] was already "really' alive or dead when some observer opened the box. Isn't that what your hypothesis implies?

YES! (I think you got it).

I believe that is what Penrose was arguing in the debate with Hawking. Reality is really real. Schrödinger's cat is really dead or alive before the box is opened because its mass forces an OR collapse.

BTW, to eliminate any confusion over the possible consciousness of the cat, Penrose says the same thing about obviously unconscious objects like metal balls and small mirrors.

I wrote… "Why don't macro objects act like quantum objects?"

Obviously, there is something that you would like to explain to me. So, go ahead. (I can hardly wait.)

If I knew for sure and could show it experimentally, it would probably be worth at least a Nobel prize.

However, I have this hypothesis; it is based on ideas from Penrose.

The short answer is that Penrose thinks that objects automatically collapse based on their own mass. The more the mass, the faster the collapse.

Macro objects collapse too quickly for us to notice their quantum behavior. Small objects take longer, long enough that we can, and do, perform experiments verifying quantum effects are really real.

Newton extrapolated falling apples into understanding orbiting planets. What Penrose is doing is the same thing. Trusting that physics is universally consistent at all levels and that IT IS REAL not a metaphysical construct.

For NOMA, I make the distinction between the unknown and the unknowable.
The Truth (capital "T") is unknowable. Objective Reduction by gravitational self collapse is just unknown. If Penrose is correct, it will forever remain unknowable whether or not the universe is ruled by God or a non-teleological process.

Not everyone will agree with you that God, if by God you mean an eternally existing transcendent intelligence, is unknowable. Theologian J.I. Packer, the author of, Knowing God, would certainly not agree that God is unknowable as would the authors of the Bible. For example the author of "First John" writes:

7Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us. (I John 4:7-12)

TP:

>Modest scientists need to be cautious and tentative when it comes to quantum mechanics, whereas arrogant bloggers, like me, don't. I am brain storming, I am putting different pieces together to see if they fit. The first time Watson and Crick attempted building a DNA model they ""¦were way out in front of where the science"¦" was in 1951 and got it wrong. When they tried again, they got it right.

In 1989 Chemists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishmann announced that they had produced a sustained "cold fusion" reaction. Whatever happened to that? The idea looks scientifically sound and was great on paper but there have been problems with repeatability ever since. For every success story I am sure one can find half a dozen good ideas that don't pan out.

I feel very confident that I am going to win the lottery. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a bank that will loan me the 10 million dollars that I would like so that I can start enjoying my future winnings today. I'm going to win; I just know it. Why don't they believe me?

>In the debate with Hawking, Penrose kept referencing the Schrödinger's cat paradox. Bucky balls were mentioned in Penrose's Shadows of the Mind. The FELIX experiment is centered on the Objective Reduction of the small mirror, not the photons.

You are absolutely correct. That's what I get for speed reading and watching baseball at the same time, all while I'm dog tired. On the other hand, if it didn't do some multi-tasking in my spare time I would have very little time for this type of thing.

>The Penrose OR model is all about transitioning from the quantum world to the macro world. Here the "innocuous question" is"¦
>Why don't macro objects act like quantum objects?

Obviously, there is something that you would like to explain to me. So, go ahead. (I can hardly wait.)

One more thing. Three of the toughest nuts to crack are Time, Causation, and Consciousness. Add QM and you, and science, have really got your work cut out for ye, and no mistake.:sad:

I happen to think that retrocausality is a very interesting idea because it combines all these problems into one, and possibly that will lead to progress on all fronts.

I also happen to think that retrocausality or similar notions will be of very considerable interest to philosophical theology in a number of ways, for example the doctrines of creation, divine foreknowledge (or maybe retroknowledge), papal infallibility, redemption, God-world interaction, divine providence, and so forth.