1

Gravity as Entanglement
Entanglement as gravity

Vasil Penchev, DSc, Assoc. Prof, The Bulgarian Academy of Sciences

vasildinev@gmail.com http://vasil7penchev.wordpress.com http://www.scribd.com/vasil7penchev CV: http://old-philosophy.issk-bas.org/CV/cvpdf/V.Penchev-CV-eng.pdf

The objectives are:

To investigate the conditions under which the mathematical formalisms of general relativity and of quantum mechanics go over each other To interpret those conditions meaningfully and physically To comment that interpretation mathematically and philosophically

Scientific prudence, or what are not our objectives:

To say whether entanglement and gravity are the same or they are not: For example, our argument may be glossed as a proof that any of the two mathematical formalisms needs perfection because gravity and entanglement really are not the same To investigate whether other approaches for quantum gravity are consistent with that if any at all

Background
Eric Verlindes entropic theory of gravity (2009): Gravity is explained as an entropic force caused by changes in the information associated with the positions of material bodies The accelerating number of publications on the links between gravity and entanglement, e.g. Jae-Weon Lee, Hyeong-Chan Kim, Jungjai Lees Gravity as Quantum Entanglement Force : We conjecture that quantum entanglement of matter and vacuum in the universe tend to increase with time, like entropy

Background
Jae-Weon Lee, Hyeong-Chan Kim, Jungjai Lees Gravity as Quantum Entanglement Force : , and there is an effective force called quantum entanglement force associated with this tendency. It is also suggested that gravity and dark energy are types of the quantum entanglement force Or: Mark Van Raamsdonks Comments on quantum gravity and entanglement

Background: For the gauge/gravity 4 duality

The gauge/gravity duality is an equality between two theories: On one side we have a quantum field theory in d spacetime dimensions. On the other side we have a gravity theory on a d+1 dimensional spacetime that has an asymptotic boundary which is d dimensional Dr. Juan Maldacena is the recipient of the prestigious Fundamental Physics Prize ($3M)

Background: Poincar conjecture

The third (of 7 and only solved) Millennium Prize Problem proved by Gregory Perelman ($1M refused): Every simply connected, closed 3-manifold is homeomorphic to the 3-sphere The corollary important for us is: 3D space is homeomorhic to a cyclic 3+1 topological structure like the 3-sphere: e.g. the cyclically connected Minkowski space

The gauge/gravity duality & Poincar conjecture

3D (gauge) /3D+1 (gravity) are dual in a sense 3D & a 3D+1 cyclic structure are homeomorphic What about that duality if 3D+1 (gravity) is cyclic in a sense? will be one of our questions

Background: The Higgs boson

It completes the standard model without gravity, even without leaving any room for it:
6

The Higgs boson means: No quantum gravity!

As the French academy declared "No perpetuum mobile" and it was a new principle of nature that generated thermodynamics:

Background: The Higgs boson

"No quantum gravity!" and it is a new very strange and amazing principle of nature If the best minds tried a century to invent quantum gravity and they did not manage to do it, then it merely means that quantum gravity does not exist in principle So that no sense in persisting to invent the "perpetuum mobile" of quantum gravity, however there is a great sense to build a new theory on that new principle:

Background: The Higgs boson

1. The theory of gravity which is sure is general relativity, and it is not quantum: This is not a random fact 2. If the standard model is completed by the Higgs boson but without gravity, then the cause for that is: The standard model is quantum. It cannot include gravity in principle just being a quantum theory 3. Of course, a non-universality of quantum theory is a big surprise and quite incomprehensible at present, but all scientific experience of mankind is full of surprises

General relativity vs. the standard model

Interaction, Force, Energy (mass) 7 Inertial mass Gravitational mass Gravitational ones Inertial mass is the measure General relativity, of resistance vs. the action which is smooth

Their mechanical action

of any force field. Gravitational mass is The weak, the measure of gravity action electromagnetic,

And what about entanglement and inertial mass?

The standard model, which is quantum

strong ones

Our strategy on that background is...

1. ... to show that entanglement is another and equivalent interpretation of the mathematical formalism of any force field (the right side of the previous slide) 2. ... to identify entanglement as inertial mass (the left side) 3. ... to identify entanglement just as gravitational mass by the equality of gravitational and inertial mass 4. ... to sense gravity as another and equivalent interpretation of any quantum-mechanical movement and in last analysis, of any mechanical (i.e. space-time) movement at all

If we sense gravity as another and equivalent interpretation of any movement, then ... 8
Complex probability distribution = Two probability entangledistributions ment Complex

Energy-momentum

Banach (Hilbert) Space

Space-time

trajectory quantum PseudoRiemanian force basis field It does not and cannot reThe standard model repre- present gravity because it sents any quantum force is not a quantum field at field: strong, electromag- all: It is the smooth image of all quantum fields netic, or weak field

The Higgs boson is an answer ... and many questions:

What about the Higgs field? The standard model unifies electromagnetic, weak and strong field. Is there room for the Higgs field? What about the Higgs field and gravity? What about the Higgs field and entanglement? ... and too many others ...

We will consider the Higgs field as a translation of gravity & entanglement in the language of the standard model as a theory of unified quantum field

However what does quantum field mean? Is not this a very strange and controversial term?
Quantum field means that field whose value in any space-time point is a wave function. If the corresponding operator between any two field points is self-adjoint, then: A quantum physical quantity corresponds to it, and All wave function and self-adjoint operators share a common Hilbert space or in other words, they are not entangled

Quantum field is the only possible field in quantum mechanics, because:

It is the only kind of field which can satisfy Heisenbergs uncertainty The gradient between any two field points is the gradient of a certain physical quantity However the notion of quantum field does not include or even maybe excludes that of entanglement: If our suspicion about the close connection between entanglement and gravity is justified, then this would explain the difficulties about quantum gravity

Then we can outline the path to gravity from the viewpoint of quantum mechanics: ... as an appropriate generalization of quantum field so that to include entanglement:
If all wave functions and operators (which will not already be selfadjoint in general) of the quantum filed share rather a common Banach than Hilbert space, this is enough. That quantum field is a generalized one. However there would be some troubles with its physical interpretation

Which are the troubles?

The cure for them is to be generalized correspondingly the notion of quantity in quantum mechanics. If the operator is in Banach space (correspondingly, yet no selfadjoint operator), then its functional is a complex number in general Its modulus is the value of the physical quantity The expectation of two quantities is nonadditive in general

More about the cure

The quantity of subadditivity (which can be zero, too) is the degree (or quantity) of entanglement : = 1 + 2 : 1 + 2 1 + 2 , where 1 , 2 are as quantities in the two entangled quantum systems 1 and 2. To recall that any quantity in quantum mechanics is defined as mathematical expectation, i.e. as a sum or integral of the product of any possible value and its probability, or as a functional:

( )

More and more about the cure

(!!!) cannot be quantized in principle even if 1 , 2 are quantum or quantized, because as expectation as probability are neither quantum, nor quantizable since wave function is smooth (a leap in probability would mean infinite energy) (!!!) Granted entanglement and gravity are the same or closely connected, this explains: (1) why gravity cannot be quantized;

(2) why gravity is always nonnegative (there is no antigravity)

More and more about the cure

Then what is gravity?
It cannot be define in terms of classical quantum field, but only in those of generalized quantum field It is always the smooth curvature or distortion of classical quantum field It is an interaction (force, field) of second order: rather the change of quantum field in space-time than a new quantum field That change of quantum field is neither quantum, nor quantizable: It cannot be a new quantum field in principle Its representation as a whole (or from the viewpoint of eternity) is entanglement

Then, in a few words, what would gravity be in terms of generalized quantum field?
... a smooth space-time DoF constraint imposed

on any quantum entity by any or all others

Entanglement is another (possibly equivalent) mapping of gravity from the probabilistic rather than space-time viewpoint of eternity The smooth space-time DoF constraint in each moment represents a deformed inwards3D light sphere of the 4-Minkowski-space light cone (outwards would mean antigravity) The well-ordered (in time) set of all such spheres in all moments constitutes the pseudo-Riemannian space of general relativity

The language of quantum field theory: the conception of second quantization

What does the second quantization mean in terms of the first quantization? If the first quantization gives us the wave function of all the quantum system as a whole, then the second quantization divides it into the quantum subsystems of particles with wave functions orthogonal between each other; or in other words, these wave functions are not entangled. Consequently, the second quantization excludes as entanglement as gravity in principle

The second quantization in terms of Hilbert space

The second quantization divides infinitedimensional Hilbert space into also infinitedimensional subspaces A subspace can be created or annihilated: This means that a particle is created or annihilated The second quantization juxtaposes a certain set of Hilbert subspaces with any space-time point One or more particles can be created or annihilated from any point to any point However though the Hilbert space is divided into subspaces from a space-time point to another in different ways, all subspaces share it

A philosophical interpretation both of quantum (I) and of quantized (II) field

Quantum vs. quantized field means for any spacetime point to juxtapose the Hilbert space and a division into subspaces of its The gauge theories interpret that as if the Hilbert space with its division into subspaces is inserted within the corresponding space-time point Any quantum conservation law is a symmetry or a representation into Hilbert space of the corresponding group The standard model describes the general and complete group including all the strong, electromagnetic and weak symmetries

A philosophical interpretation as to the closedness of the standard model

The standard model describes the general and complete group including all the strong, electromagnetic and weak symmetries within any space-time point Consequently the standard model is inside of any space-time point, and describes movement as a change of the inside structure between any two or more space-time points However gravity is outside and remains outside of the standard model: It is a relation between two or more space-time points but outside and outside of them as wholenesses

Need to add an interpretation of quantum duality la Nicolas of Cusa:

After Niels Bohr quantum duality has been illustrated by the Chinese Yin and Yang However now we need to juxtapose them in scale in Nicolas of Cusa's manner: Yin becomes Yang as the smallest becoming the biggest, and vice versa: Yang becomes Yin as the biggest becoming the smallest Besides moreover, Yin and Yang continue to be as parallel as successive in the same scale

And now, from the philosophical to the mathematical and physical ...:

1 0

A wave function Hilbert space

A space-time trajectory Minkowski space

A Yin-Yang mathematical structure

However ...: Have already added la Nicolas of Cusas interpretation to that 1 Yin-Yang structure, so that ... 1
The biggest of the space-time whole

is inserted within
the smallest of any space-time point

The biggest of the Hilbert-space whole

is inserted within
the smallest of any Hilbert-space point

In last analysis we got a cyclic and frac-tal Yin-Yang mathematical structure ...
Will check whether it satisfies our requirements: 1 2 Yin and Yang are parallel to each other Yin and Yang are successive to each other Yin and Yang as the biggest are within themselves as the smallest Besides, please note: it being cyclic need not be infinite! Need only two entities, Yin and Yang, and a special structure tried to be described above

Will interpret that Yin-Yang structure in terms of the standard model & gravity
Our question is how the gravity being outside space-time points as a curving of a smooth trajectory, to which they belong, will express itself inside, i.e. within space-time points representing Hilbert space divided into subspaces in different ways Will try to show that: The expression of gravity outside looks like entanglement inside and vice versa Besides, the expression of entanglement outside looks like gravity inside of all the spacetime and vice versa

Back to the philosophical interpretation of quantum (I) or quantized (II) field

The principle is: The global change of a spacetime trajectory (or an operator in pseudoRiemannian space) is equivalent to, or merely another representation of a mapping between two local Hilbert spaces of Banach space (entanglement) The same principle from the viewpoint of quantum mechanics and information looks like as follows: Entanglement in the smallest returns and comes from the outsides of the universe, i.e. from the biggest, as gravity

Turns out the yet innocent quantum duality generates more and more already vicious dualities more and more extraordinary from each to other, namely: ... of the continuous (smooth) & discrete ... of whole & part ... of the single one & many ... of eternity & time ... of the biggest & smallest ... of the external & internal ... and even ... of & and duality

Back to the philosophical interpretation, or more and more miracles

... where & means ...

... equivalence ... relativity ... invariance ... conservation

The second quantization in terms of Banach space

If the Banach space is smooth, it is locally flat, which means that any its point separately implies a flat and tangential Hilbert space at this point However the system of two or more points in Banach space do not share in general a common tangential Hilbert space, which is another formulation of entanglement One can always determines a self-adjoint operator (i.e. a physical quantity) between any two points in Banach space (i.e. between the two corresponding tangential Hilbert spaces mapping by the operator)

The second quantization in terms of Banach space

If we can always determine a self-adjoint operator (i.e. a physical quantity) between any two points in Banach space, then follows the second quantization is invariant (or the same) from Hilbert to any smooth Banach space, and vice versa, consequently between any two smooth Banach spaces As entanglement as gravity is only external, or both are orthogonal to the second quantization: It means that no any interaction or unity between both gravity and entanglement, on the one hand ...

As entanglement as gravity is only external, or both are orthogonal to the second quantization: It means that no any interaction or unity between both gravity and entanglement, on the one hand, and the three rest, on the other, since the latters are within Hilbert space while the formers are between two (tangential) Hilbert spaces However as entanglement as gravity can be divided into the second-quantized parts (subspaces) of the Hilbert space, which internally is granted for the same though they are at some generalized angle externally

The second quantization in terms of Banach space

The problem of Lorentz invariance

Try to unite the following facts: The Lorentz noninvariant are: Schrdingers Newtons mechanics quantum mechanics The Lorentz invariant are: Maxwells theory of Diracs electromagnetic field quantum mechanics Einsteins special relativity of electromagnetic field The locally Lorentz invariant (but noninvariant globally) are: Our hypothesis Einsteins general relativity of entanglement & gravity
1 3

Relativity

Quantum theory

... whether gravity is not a defect of electromagnetic field...

However mass unlike electric (or Diracs magnetic) charge is a universal physical quantity which characterizes anything existing A perfect, Yin-Yang symmetry would require as the locally flat to become globally curved as the locally curved to become globally flat as the biggest to return back as the smallest and locally flat For example this might mean that the universe would have a charge (perhaps Diracs monopole of magnetic charge), but not any mass: the curved Banach space can be seen as a space of entangled spinors

Electromagnetic field as a Janus with a global and a local face

Such a kind of consideration like that in the previous slide cannot be generalized to the weak and strong field: They are always local since their quanta have a nonzero mass at rest unlike the quantum of electromagnetic field: the photon As to the electromagnetic field, both global and local (the latter is within the standard model) consideration is possible

Electromagnetic field as a Janus with a global and a local face

Conclusion: gravity (& entanglement) is only global (external), weak & strong interaction is only local (internal), and electromagnetic field is both local and global: It serves to mediate both between the global and the local and between the external and the internal Consequently, it conserves the unity of the universe

More about the photon two faces:

It being global has no mass at rest It being local has a finite speed in spacetime In comparison with it: o Entanglement & gravity being only global has no quantum, thus neither mass at rest nor a finite speed in spacetime o Weak & strong interaction being only local has quanta both with a nonzero mass at rest and with a finite speed in spacetime

Lorentz invariance has a local and a global face, too:

In turn, this generates the two faces of photon The local face of Lorentz invariance is both within and at any spacetime point. It within such a point is as the flat Hilbert space, and at it is as the tangential, also flat Minkowski space Its global face is both within and at the totality of the universe. It is within the totality flattening Banach space by the axiom of choice. It is at the totality transforming it into a spacetime point

It is about time to gaze that Janus in details in Diracs brilliant solving by spinors
In terms of philosophy, spinor is the total half (or squire root) of the totality. In terms of physics, it generalizes the decomposition of electromagnetic field into its electric and magnetic component. The electromagnetic wave looks like the following:

1 4

That is a quantum kind of generalization. Why on Earth?

First, the decomposition into a magnetic and an electric component is not a decomposition of two spinors because the electromagnetic field is the vector rather than tensor product of them Both components are exactly defined in any point time just as position and momentum as to a classical mechanical movement. The quantity of action is just the same way the vector than tensor product of them Consequently, there is another way (the Dirac one) quantization to be described: as a transition or generalization from vector to tensor product

Well, what about such a way gravity to be quantized?

The answer is really quite too surprising: General relativity has already quantized gravity this way! That is general relativity has already been a quantum theory and that is the reason not to be able to be quantized once again just as the quant itself cannot be quantized once again! What only need is to gaze at it and contemplate it to see how it has already sneaked to become a quantum theory unwittingly

Cannot be, or general relativity as a quantum theory

Of course the Dirac way of keeping Lorentz invariance onto the quantum theory is the most obvious for general relativity: It arises to keep and generalize just the Lorentz invariance for any reference frame However the notion of reference frame conserves the smoothness of any admissable movement requiring a definite speed toward any other reference frame or movement Should see how the Dirac approach generalizes implicitly and unwittingly reference frame for discrete (quantum) movements. How?

Reference frame after the Dirac approach

1 5

Reference frame is usually understood as two coordinate frames moving to each other with a relative speed () However we should already think of it after Dirac as the tensor product of the given coordinate frames. This means to replace () with () (Dirac delta function) in any = 0 . Given a sphere with radius + + + , it can represent any corresponding reference frame in Minkowski space. can be decomposed into any two great circles of its, perpendicular to each other, as the tensor product of them

Reference frame after the Dirac approach

1 6

Given a sphere with radius + + + decomposed into any two great circles of its, , , are with the same radius. We can think of , as the two spinors of a reference frame after Dirac If we are thinking of Minkowski space as an expanding sphere, then its spinor decomposition would represent two planar, expanding circles perpendicular to each other, e.g. the magnetic and electric component of electromagnetic wave as if being quantumly independent of each other

The praising and celebration of sphere

The well-known and most ordinary sphere is the crosspoint of: ... quantization ... Lorentz invariance ... Minkowski space ... Hilbert space ... qubit ... spinor decomposition ... electromagnetic wave ... wave function ... making their uniting, common consideration, and mutual conceptual translation possible!

More about the virtues of the sphere

1 7

It is the atom of Fourier transform: The essence of Fourier transform is the (mutual) replacement between the argument of a function and its reciprocal: = (), or quantumly: () (), As such an atom, it is both: - as any harmonic in Hilbert space: = - as any inertial reference frame in Minkowski space: = () = 2 2 2 2 2
1

Again about the spinor decomposition

Since the sphere is what is spinorly decomposed into two orthogonal great circles, the spinor decomposition is invariant to Fourier transform or to the mutual transition of Hilbert and Minkowski space In particular this implies the spinor decompsition of wave function and even of its probabilistic interpretation: Each of its two real spinor components can be interpreted as the probability both of a discrete quantum leap to, and of a smooth reaching the corresponding value

A necessary elucidation of the connection between probabilistic (mathematical) and mechanical (physical) approach 1
No axiom of choice (the Paradise)
8

Probabilistic (mathematical) approach

Totality aka eternity aka infinity

Mechanical (physical) approach
Hilbert space: from the Paradise to the Earth by the stairs of energy Both need choice (axiom) Minkowski space: from the Earth to the Paradise by the stairs of time

Coherent state, statistical ensemble, and two kinds of quantum statistics

The process of measuring transforms the coherent state into a classical statistical ensemble Consequently, it requires the axiom of choice However yet the mathematical formalism of Hilbert space allows two materially different interpretations corresponding to the two basic kinds of quantum statistics, of quantum indistinguishability, and of quantum particles: bosons and fermions

The axiom of choice as the boundary between bosons and fermions

The two interpretations of a coherent state mentioned above are: As a nonordered ensemble of complex (= two real ones) probability distribution after missing the axiom of choice aka bosons

As a well-ordered series either in time or in frequency (energy) equivalent to the axiom of choice aka fermions

The sense of quantum movement represented in Hilbert space

From classical to quantum movement: the way of generalization: A common (namely Euclidean) space includes the two aspects of any classical movement, which are static and dynamic one and corresponding physical quantities to each of them Analogically, a common (namely Hilbert) space includes the two aspects of any quantum movement: static (fermion) and dynamic (boson) one, and their physical quantities

Quantum vs. classical movement

However the two (as static as dynamic) aspects of classical movement are included within the just static (fermion) aspect of quantum movement as the two possible hypostases of the same quantum state The static (fermion) aspect of quantum movement points at a quantum leap (the one fermion of the pair) or at the equivalent smooth trajectory between the same states (the other) These two fermions for the same quantum state can be seen as two spinors keeping Lorentz invariance

The spin statistics theorem about fermions

If one swaps the places of any two quantum particles, this means to swap the places between particle and field, or in other words to reverse the direction from time to energy into from energy to time, or to reverse the sign of wave function The following set-theory explanation may be useful: If there are many things, which are the same or quantumly indistinguishable, there are anyway two opportunities: either to be well-ordered as the positive integers are (fermions), or not to be ordered at all as the elements of a set (bosons). Though indistinguishable, the swap of their corresponding ordinal (serial) number is distinguishable in the former case unlike the latter one

However that positive-integers analogy is limited

The well-ordering of positive integers has memory in a sense: One can distinguish two swaps, too, rather than only being one or more swaps available (as the fermions swap) The well-ordering of fermions has no such memory. The axiom of choice and well-ordering theorem do not require such a memory However if all the choices (or the choices after the well-ordering of a given set) constitute a set, then such a memory is posited just by the axiom of choice

Positive integers vs. fermions vs. bosons illustrated

Initial state Swap After a time Naming
...

1 9

...

...

..... ..... .....

Bosons

...

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...

...

1, 5, 3, 4, 2, ... 1, 5, 3, 4, 2, ...
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... 1, 5, 3, 4, 2, ...

...

True Weak indistinguish- (in)distinguishability ability Quantum indistinguishability

True distinguishability
Positive integers

Fermions

Quantum vs. classical movement in terms of (quantum in)distinguishability Dynamic (boson) Static (fermion) aspect: true in- aspect: weak inDynamic distinguishability distinguishability (momentum) aspect Wave function as Wave function the characteristic as a (wellStatic function of ordered) (position) a random aspect complex quantity vector Pseudo Riemannian space Hilbert space Quantum indistinguishability Distinguishability Dynamic to static Dynamic to static aspect: one to one aspect: much to many Quantum movement Classical movement
2 0

Our interpretation of fermion antisymmetry vs. boson symmetry

The usual interpretation suggests that both the fermion and boson ensembles are wellordered: However any fermion swap reverses the sign of their common wave function unlike any boson swap Our interpretation is quite different: Any ensemble of bosons is not and cannot be well-ordered in principle unlike a fermion one: The former is much rather than many, which is correct only as to the latter

The well-ordering of the unorderable: fermions vs. bosons

The unorderable boson ensemble represents the real essence of quantum field unlike the second quantization. The latter replaces the former almost equivalently with a well-ordered, as if a fermion image of it In turn this hides the essence of quantum movement, which is much many, substituting it with a semi-classical many many

What will spin be in our interpretation?

In particular, a new, specifically quantum quantity, namely spin, is added to distinguish between the well-ordered (fermion) and the unorderable (boson) state in a well-ordered way However this makes any quantum understanding of gravity (or so-called quantum gravity) impossible, because quantum gravity requires the spin to be an arbitrary real number In other words, gravity is the process in time (i.e. the time image of that process), which wellorders the unorderable The true much many transition permits as a many (gravity in time, or fermion) interpretation as a much (entanglement out of time, or boson) interpretation

Our interpretation of fermion vs. boson wave function

In turn it requires distinguishing between:
the standard, fermion interpretation of wave function as a vector in Hilbert space (a square integrable function), and a new,bosoninterpretation of it as the characteristic function of a random complex quantity

The former represents the static aspect of quantum movement, the latter the dynamic one. The static aspect of quantum movement comprises both the static (position) and dynamic (momentum) aspect of classical movement, because both are well-ordered, and they constitute a common well-ordering

Entangled observables in terms of spin distinction

The standard definition of quantum quantity as observable allows its understanding: as a fermion fermion transform, as a boson boson one as well as fermion boson and boson fermion one Only entanglement and gravity can create distinctions between the former two and the latter two cases. Those distinctions are recognizable only in Banach space, but vanishing in Hilbert space

The two parallel phases of quantum movement

Quantum field (the bosons) can be thought of as the one phase of quantum movement parallel to the other of fermion well-ordering: The phase of quantum field requires the universe to be consider as a whole or indivisible much or even as a single quant The parallel phase of well-ordering (usually represented as some space, e.g. space-time) requires the universe to yield the well-known appearance of immense and unbounded space, cosmos, i.e. of an indefinitely divisible many or merely as many quanta

Why be quantum gravity a problem of philosophy rather than of physics? 2 1

The Chinese "Taiji (literally "great pole"), the "Supreme Ultimate" can comprise both phases of quantum movement. Then entanglement & gravity can be seen as Wuji "Without Ultimate" In other words, gravity can be seen as quantum gravity only from the "Great Pole" This shows why "quantum gravity" is rather a problem of philosophy, than and only then of physics

Hilbert vs. pseudo-Riemannian space: a preliminary comparison

As classical as quantum movement need a common space uniting the dynamic and static aspect: Hilbert space does it for quantum movement, and pseudo-Riemannian for classical movement Quantum gravity should describe uniformly as quantum as classical movement. This requires a forthcoming comparison of Hilbert and pseudoRiemannian space as well as one, already started, of quantum and classical movement

Hilbert vs. pseudo-Riemannian space as actual vs. potential infinity

Two oppositions are enough to represent that comparison from the viewpoint of philosophy: Hilbert space is flat, and pseudo-Riemannian space is curved Any point in Hilbert space represents a complete process, i.e. an actual infinity, and any trajectory in pseudo-Riemannian space a process in time, i.e. in development, or in other words, a potential infinity

Hilbert vs. pseudo-Riemannian space: 2 completing the puzzle 2

OppoProcess in time sition PseudoRiemannian Curve space Gravity, General relativity Minkowski space Flat Electromagnetism Special relativity Actual infinity Banach space Entanglement Quantum information Hilbert space Electromagnetic, weak and strong interaction Quantum mechanics The standard model

Our thesis in terms of that table

PseudoRiemannian space Curve , General relativity
Banach space

2 3

Gravity

Entanglement
Quantum information

Entanglement is gravity as a complete process Gravity is entanglement as a process in time

A fundamental prejudice needs elucidation not to bar:

The complete wholeness of any process is more than the same process in time, in development Actual infinity is more than potential infinity The power of continuum is more than the power of integers The objects of gravity are bigger than the objects of quantum mechanics The bodies of our everyday world are much bigger than the particles of the quantum world, and much smaller than the universe

Why is that prejudice an obstacle?

According to the first three statements entanglement should be intuitively more than gravity However according to the second two statements gravity should be intuitively much smaller than entanglement Consequently a contradiction arises according to our intuition: Gravity should be as less in the first relation as much bigger in the second relation An obvious, but inappropriate way out of it is to emphasis the difference between the relations

Why is such a way out inappropriate?

The first relation links the mathematical models of entanglement and gravity, and the second one does the phenomena of gravity and entanglement To be adequate both relations to each other, one must double both by an image of the other relation into the domain of the first one. However one can show that the no hidden parameters theorems forbid that For that our way out of the contradiction must not be such a one

Cycling is about to be our way out of the contradiction

2 4

Should merely glue down both ends to each other: the biggest as the most to the least as the smallest. However there is a trick: There not be anymore the two sides conformably of the big or small as well as of the more or less but only a single one like this:

Once again the pathway is ...:

from the two sides of a noncyclic strip to the two cyclic sides of a cylinder to a single and cyclic side of a Mbius strip to an inseparable whole of a merely much to the last one as the secondside of the Mbius band cyclically passing into the other

2 5

Holism of the East vs. linear time of the 2 West 6

The edge of gluing the Mbius strip is a very special kind: It is everywhere and nowhere. We can think of it in terms of the East, together: as Taiji (literally "great pole"), or "Supreme Ultimate as Wuji (literally "without ridgepole") or "ultimateless; boundless; infinite As a rule, the West thought torments and bars quantum mechanics: It feels good in the Chinese Yin-Yang holism. (In the West, to be everywhere and nowhere is God's property)

The Great Pole of cycling in terms of the axiom of choice or movement

The Great Pole as if simultaneously both (1) crawls in a roundabout way along the cycle as Taiji, and (2) comprises all the points or possible trajectories in a single and inseparable whole as

Wuji
By the way, quantum mechanics itself is like a Great Pole between the West and the East: It must describe the holism of the East in the linear terms of the West, or in other words whole as time

Being people of the West, we should realize the linearity of all western science!
Physics incl. quantum mechanics is linear as all the science, too For example we think of movement as a universal feature of all, because of which there is need whole to be described as movement or as time. In terms of the Chinese thought, it would sound as Wiji in terms of Taiji, or Yin in terms of Yang Fortunately, the very well developed mathematics of the West includes enough bridges to think of whole linearly: The most essential and important link among them is the axiom of choice

The axiom of choice self-referentially

The choice of all the choices is to choose the choice itself, i.e. the axiom of choice itself , or in philosophical terms to choose between the West and the East However it is a choice already made for all of us and instead of all of us, we being here (in the West) and now (in the age of the West). Consequently we doom to think whole as movement and time, i.e. linearly The mathematical notions and conceptions can aid us in uniting whole and linearity (interpreted in physics and philosophy as movement and time), though In particular, just this feature of mathematics determines its leading role in contemporary physics, especially quantum mechanics

Boson fermion distinction in terms both of whole and movement

The two version of any fermion with different spin can be explain in terms of the whole as the same being correspondingly insides and outsides the whole since the outsides of the whole has to be inside it in a sense As an illustration, a fermion rotated through a full 360 turns out to be its twin with reversed spin: In other words, it turns outsides after a 2 rotation in a smooth trajectory passing along the half of the universe. Look at it on a Mbuis strip:

A Mbius illustration of how a smooth trajectory can reverse the spin

+

fermion

) ;

fermion ) ;

fermion ) ;

) ;

) ;

2 7

a the same fermion inside outside the universe

Exactly the half of the universe between 2 two electrons of a helium atom 8
Here is a helium atom. Exactly the half of the universe is inserted between its two electrons which differ from each other only with reversed spin: The West thinks of the universe as the extremely immense, and of the+ fermion fermion electrons and atoms as the extremely tiny. However as quantum mechanics as Chinese thought shows that they pass into each other everywhere and always The universe

Taiji is the Chinese transition between the 2 tiniest and the most immense 9
The West's single pathway along or through Taiji is mathematics, though
+

fermion

fermion

A fortunate exception is Nicolas of Kues

Mathematics offers the universe to be considered in two equivalent Yin Yang aspects corresponding relatively to quantum field (bosons) and quantum things (fermions): an unorderable at all set for the former, and a well-orderable space for the latter It is just the axiom of choice (more exactly, Scolems paradox) that makes them equivalent or relative. Hilbert space can unite both aspects as two different (and of course, equivalent by means of it) interpretations of it: (1) as the characteristic function of a complex (or two real) quantity(es) (quantum field, bosons), and (2) as a vector (or a square integrable function)

How on Earth is it possible?

Taiji in the language of mathematics

3 0

fermion

He One single boson!!!!

fermion

Wave function interpreted Wave function as a characteristic function as a vector The common and universal Hilbert (Banach) space

Taiji in the language of mathematics

The axiom of choice Scolems + fermion paradox
One single boson!!!!

3 1

He
fermion

Wave function interpreted Wave function as a characteristic function as a vector The common and universal Hilbert (Banach) space

3 2

Taiji The axiom of choice Scolems Quantum computer paradox

Wuji as the Kochen-Specker theorem

One single qubit!!!!

The universe of (or as) sundry Tu r i n g a l g o r i t h m s

A most and most ordinary bit

one single bit Its point interpreted Its point as a characteristic function as a vector The common and universal Hilbert (Banach) space

The mapping between numbers and a sundry

A few simplifying assumptions: 1. The sundry constitutes a set, 1 as well as the numbers, 2 2. Two smooth functions can substitute for the state of that mapping in any moment 3. Those two functions 1 , 2 are correspondingly: a probability distribution: 1 a field: 2
2 1

3 3

Quantum mechanics solves the general problem under those assumptions

The general problem is the quantitative description of the universe: too complicated! Well-orderable Wave numbers function as a field Wave function as a probability distribution 3 4 All the universe as a sundry The general problem in terms of Taiji and Wuji The simplifying solving of quantum mechanics

The solving of quantum mechanics in terms of gauge theories

The leading notion is fiber bundle: The Mbius strip is an as good as simple enough example of fiber bundle: Its as topologic as metric properties are quite different locally vs. globally
Mbius strip Locally Metrically flat Topologically two-side

3 5

Globally

curved

one-side

Mbius strip as a fiber bundle

3 6

circle for bundle radius for fiber, F the same radius from the other side for base

The definition of fiber bundle by the 3 example of a Mbuis strip 7

The fiber bundle is determined and defined precisely by the topological transform from it to base space or vice versa: i.e. correspondingly as unfolding from a flat sheet (base space) to the Mbius strip (fiber strip), or folding vice versa, in our example:

By its unfolding

Or

By its folding

More precise definition of fiber bundle yet using the "Mbius" illustration
Let us and are two radiuses of the two sides of a Mbius strip, and , are the same radiuses on the sheet. Then the fiber bundle is described as the triangle of mappings for any , , , as follows:
3 8

means Cartesian product

The definition without any illustration

Arbitrary neighborhoods of arbitrary topological spaces for the radiuses of the illustration However the topological spaces are usual Hilbert spaces or subspaces in the physical interpretation of fiber bundle in the gauge theories
3 9

In other words, Hilbert spaces substitute for the radiuses of Mbius strip, in gauge theories

The leading idea of gauge theory

Let us fancy the two radiuses or Hilbert spaces and correspondingly as the reference and gauge mark of an uncalibrated indicator, and and are the same after the precise calibrating: 4 0 Fiber bundle Cartesian product The Standard 0 0 Model

an uncalibrated indicator

the indicator calibrated

The universality of calibration

The calibration should be identical for any indication, and this is true as to weak, electromagnetic, and strong interaction, but not as to gravity For that the Standard Model comprises the former three but not the latter A necessary condition is quantization, which guarantees the two vectors A and B to exist Our conjecture will be: It is quantization that gravity cannot satisfy and in principle, there can be no gauge theory of gravity, as a corollary

More about Diracs spinors

Can think of them both ways: - As two electromagnetic waves - As the complex (=quantum) generalization of electromagnetic wave The latter is going to show us the original Dirac theory However the former is much more instructive and useful for our objectives: It is going to show us the connection and unity of gravity and electromagnetism, and hence then the links of gravity and quantum theory by the mediation of electromagnetism

 Not for Alan Socals "Transgressing the

Why is quantum gravity a philosophical problem?

Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity But for the need of transgressing the boundaries of our gestalt: the gestalt of the contemporary physical picture of the world!
Thus, our answer when an unsolved scientific problem becomes a philosophical one is: When it cannot be solved in the gestalt of the dominating at present picture of the world despite all outrageous efforts

Our suggestion to change the gestalt: the physical picture of the world
Its essence is: a new invariance of discrete and continual (smooth) mechanical movements and their corresponding morphisms in mathematics This means a generalization of Einsteins (general) principle of relativity (1918): Relativittsprinzip: Die Naturgesetze sind nur Aussagen ber zeitrumliche Koinzidenzen; sie finden deshalb ihren einzig natrlichen Ausdruck in allgemein kovarianten Gleichungen.

An equivalent reformulation of Einsteins principle of relativity:

All physical laws must be invariant to any smooth movement (space-time transformation) Comment: However all quantum movements are not smooth in space-time at all: Even they are not continuous in it Besides: the relativity movements are not flat in space-time in general while all quantum movements are flat in Hilbert space Definition: A movement is flat when it is represented by a linear operator in the space of movement

Our suggestion the general relativity principle to be generalized:

All physical laws must be invariant to any movement (space-time transformation) The difference between Einsteins formulation and our generalization is that the word smooth is excluded so the movement can already be quantum However such a kind of invariance (in fact, an invariance as with the discrete as with the continuous) meets a huge obstacle in set theory: consequently, in the true fundament of mathematics requiring to change gestalt

The huge obstacle in set theory:

The invariance of the discrete and continuous cannot be any isometry in principle since the standard measure of any discrete set is zero (while the measure of a continuum can be as zero as nonzero) Moreover, the obstacle is deeper situated in set theory since the power of any discrete set is less than that of any continuum even if its measure is zero Fortunately Skolems paradox offers a solution, however, transgressing boundaries of the gestalt: Unfortunately Skolems paradox is based on, and necessarily requires the axiom of choice alleged sometimes as unacceptable

The inevitability of the axiom of choice in quantum mechanics

The axiom of choice in quantum mechanics is wellknown as its randomness in principle or as the no-go theorems about the hidden variables (Neumann 1932; Kochen, Specker 1967): Given the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics (based on Hilbert space), quantum randomness is not equivalent to any statistical ensemble: Its members or their quantities would be the alleged hidden variables

The Kochen Specker theorem is the most general no hidden variables theorem:

Its essence: wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics is equivalent with no hidden variables in it The most important corollary facts of its: A qubit is not equivalent to a bit or to any finite sequence of bits Bells inequalities The inseparability of apparatus and quantum entity The contextuality of quantum mechanics Quantum wholeness is not equivalent to the set or sum of its parts; quantum logic is not a classical one

The quantum wholeness of the axiom of choice and the no hiddenness theorems
Preliminary notes: If there is an algorithm, which leads to the choice, the axiom neednt: Consequently, the axiom core is the opportunity of choice without any algorithm be guaranteed Given the choice without any algorithm is a random choice in definition, the axiom of choice postulates that a random choice can always be made even if a rational choice by means of any algorithm cannot

The quantum wholeness of the axiom of choice and the no hiddenness theorems:
The no hidden variables theorems state that any choice of a definite value in measuring is random: Thus, they postulate the axiom of choice in quantum mechanics How, however, can we explain intuitively the randomness of choice in quantum mechanics? The apparatus chooses randomly a value among all probable values by the mechanism of decoherence, e.g. a time interpretation of coherent state and decoherence is possible:

The time interpretation of coherent state and decoherence:

4 1

The de Broglie wave periods of the measuring apparatus and of the measured quantum entity ( ) correspondingly: =
;

Consequently, coherent state corresponds to , and decoherence to , i.e. to a random choice of a () point among the continual interval of Now, we can explain the difference between a coherent state and a statistical ensemble so:

The time interpretation of the difference between a coherent state and a statistical ensemble
A discrete (quantum) leap of any function in a point (an argument value) generates a coherent state. For the so-called time interpretation we may accept the argument be time A continuous function (e.g. of time) generates a statistical ensemble (e.g. of the measured values in different time points) The transformation between a discrete leap and a continuous function implies the corresponding transformation between a coherent state and a statistical ensemble

The chain of sequences from Skolems paradox to our generalization of 4 Einsteins relativity principle : 2
Scolems paradox hidden variables

The axiom of choice

No Wave-

particle duality The invariance of discrete and continuous morphisms (functions) The invariance of discrete and smooth space-time movements Our generalization of Einsteins relativity principle (GRP)

""

Skolems paradox is a weaker formulation of GRP

A few comments: the first one: wave-particle duality as invariance

After Niels Bohr we are keen to understand duality as complementarity: The two dual aspects or quantities cannot be together (e.g. measured simultaneously) However according to the true formalism of quantum mechanics based on complex Hilbert space, they should be equal: Hence, the dual aspect of quantity is merely redundant In fact, the no hidden variables theorems imply the same: So we should speak of wave-particle invariance. In particular, our intuition distinctly separating waves from particles misleads us: They are the same in principle

A second comment: wave-particle invariance embedded in complex Hilbert space

Two important features of complex Hilbert space allow of such embedding in it: (1) It and its dual space are anti-isomorphic (Riesz representation theorem); So (1) allows the following: The four pairs can be identified: (1.1) the two corresponding points of the two dual space; (1.2-3) the Fourier transformation and its reverse one of the probability distribution of a random quantum quantity and its reciprocal one (these are two pairs); (1.4) any quantum quantity and its conjugate one. Besides, (1.5) any point in Hilbert space can be interpreted as a function as a vector

A necessary gloss about the probability distribution of a random quantum quantity:

The probability distribution of a classical random quantity is a real function of a real argument. If however any point in Hilbert space is interpreted as a probability distribution of a random quantum quantity, we need a complement gloss about the meaning both of a complex probability and of a complex value as to a physical quantity. Our postulate: any quantum quantity and its probability distribution is composed by two classical ones and their probability distributions sharing a common physical dimension: one for the discrete and another for continuous aspect

A short comment on the postulate:

Consequently when we measure a quantum quantity, we lose information Any quantum probability distribution is reduced to a statistical ensemble The principle of complementary forbids the question about the lost information The most natural hypothesis is that as the two components as their corresponding probability distributions coincide This conjecture founded by the axiom of choice in quantum mechanics adds wave-particle invariance to wave-particle duality

More about the embedding of waveparticle invariance in complex Hilbert space

That multiple identification can be complemented more: It identifies a generalized (e.g. -function) and ungenerelized function (e.g. a constant). We can interpret it as 1 , or as the interchange between the set of arguments and that of values, or as the interchange of the axes of Cartesian product. Note that is an anti-isometric rotation. The same 2 physically interpreted is the wave-particle invariance in question. The really necessary condition of it is only Skolems paradox. However whether is not the last also a sufficient condition for it?

A set-theory generalization of waveparticle invariance

4 3

Let us introduce the set of qubit integers : Any integer is generalized as a numbered qubit: The set of qubit integers is isomorphic to complex Hilbert space . According to the well-ordering theorem (an equivalent of the axiom of choice) Hilbert space is isomorphic to the set of integers by means of the set of qubit integers : Now already, the equivalence of Skolems paradox and wave-particle invariance can be considered as that isomorphism:

Another useful, now physical interpretation of the invariance (duality)

Given the wave-particle invariance (duality) as the two (possibly coinciding) points of the dual anti-isomorphic Hilbert spaces, it admits one more inter4 pretation: 4 as a (covariant) set of harmonics as a (contravariant) set of points, the two sets being anti-isomorphic (antiisometric measurable)

4 Another useful, now physical 4 interpretation of the invariance (duality)

Formally, we can yield that interpretation by another physical interpretation of a function and its Fourier transformation: 1 F

1 ()

Is there any mathematical model, which can coincide with the modeled reality?4

1 F

1 () 1 F

1 ()

A philosophical interlude about the logical equivalence of two physical interpretations

4 1 6 F 1 ()

1 F 1 ()

Let the former (any quantity) be physically interpreted as the argument in the latter:

1 F

4 7

1 ()

1 F

1 ()

Besides, let the same argument be physically interpreted as time:

1 F

4 8

1 () 1 F

1 [ ] ()

A gloss on physical dimensions:

4 9

First of all, what is the physical dimension of the products, . and [ ]. ? Since whatever is is reduced, . = ~. And about . ? . () :

A gloss on physical dimensions: 4 9

For example, if A is distance = ~ ~ ~ ~ = =

.

.() ~ ~ .()

[ ] ()

=0

Parsevals theorem

5 0

() . . =

. ().

Parsevals theorem about the generalization of a quantum quantity and of its conjugate quantity
5 1

()

. . =

. .

= (the so-called wave-particle invariance)

Parsevals theorem simply illustrated as a cross rule

= () = ()

5 2

= ()

= ()

Obviously Parsevals theorem is due to the flatness of Hilbert space. To get it curved into Banach one?
() () ()
5 3

()

Fourier transform by 3D Cartesian product

()

5 4

()

()

Riesz representation theorem by 3D Cartesian product

() ()

5 5

, ,

About () and the coincidence of (), (), and () in form 5

6

The zest is what about Banach space! , , : () [ ]

() A functional

The plane determined by the three points , , , is getting curved into (please imagine it )

That is:
Now the case is: No entanglement = No gravity The surface of Banach space

( is the Hilbert space of the compound system & )

5 7

(, , ) 1 The planes (, , , ) represent three Hilbert spaces 2 3 ( , ) tensor product

such as: 1 2 = 3

However the case in general is:

Entanglement No gravity

5 8

( is the Hilbert space of the compound system & )

The surface of Banach space

= (, , ) The planes = (, , , ) form an arbitrary 3 = ( , )

triangle: Such that , are not orthogonal to each other in general (i.e. they may be in particular)

The different perspectives on Hilbert and Minkowski space

5 9

In fact the two spaces are the same space seen in different perspectives: As Hilbert space by frequency, = , As Minkowski space by time, Indeed, we can compare the atoms of their bases: Continuous perspective: Discrete perspective: (countable) expanding in time

???

Minkowski space

(countable) expanding in frequency Hilbert space

The different perspectives on an impulse a trajectory: Hilbert Minkowski space

a trajectory
6 0

an impulse

a world line

a quantum leap

Continuous perspective: (countable) expanding in time

Discrete perspective: (countable) expanding in frequency Hilbert space

Minkowski space

Hilbert Minkowski space: wave-particle duality

a trajectory an impulse

6 1

a world line

a quantum leap

a particle moving continuously in that trajectory well-ordered by time

Minkowski space

a wave function simultaneous in all the space

Hilbert space

Hilbert Minkowski space: a perfect symmetry of positions and probabilities

a trajectory
6 2

an impulse

a particle moving continuously in that trajectory well-ordered by time

However the particle trajectory is a singular mix of frequencies

a wave function simultaneous in all the space but wellordered in frequency

However the wave function is a singular mix of positions

The quadrilateral: Hilbert Banach Minkowski pseudo-Riemannian space

6 3

Banach space

Fourier transform

Pseudo-Riemannian space

Hilbert space

Minkowski space

The known sides of the quadrilateral: 6 as Hilbert Banach space 4 as Minkowski pseudo-Riemannian space
Banach space

varying scalar product depending on the space points

Hilbert space

Banach space as a curved Hilbert space: The change of the scalar product in each point can be interpreted as a function of the curvature in that point

The known sides of the quadrilateral: as Minkowski pseudo-Riemannian space 6 as Hilbert Banach space 5
Minkowski space

varying scalar product depending on the space points

pseudo space

Pseudo-Riemannian space as curved Minkowski space: The change of the scalar product in each point can be interpreted as a function of the curvature in that point

The close analogy of the two transforms as different views on the same transform:
Hilbert space

Banach space

6 6

Minkowski space

pseudo space

We can use the two perspectives mentioned above, on Hilbert Minkowski space:

frequency time:

The two transforms as the same transform

Hilbert space

Banach space

6 7

Minkowski space

pseudo space

The curving or flattening in both cases: one

Shifting& rotating of each corresponding sphere in the dual space

time frequency

6 8

2 1

dual space

space

The curving or flattening in the first case: 6 two comments 9

1) It is the first case what one knows till now:

The curved pseudoRiemannian space of general relativity

time frequency

The flat Hilbert space of quantum mechanics

2) A philosophical reflection on the quantum mapping of infinity: The actual infinity of a time series is mapped as the actual infinity of a frequency series and by means of the latter as an impulse, i.e. as a quantum leap: Consequently, quantum mechanics is an empirical knowledge of actual infinity !

The curving or flattening in both cases: two

Shifting& rotating of each corresponding sphere in the dual space

frequency time

7 0

2 1

dual space

space

The curving or flattening in the second 7 case: two comments 1

1) It is the second case what one would emphases:

The curved Banach space of entanglement

frequency time

The flat Minkowski space of special relativity

2) A methodological reflection on the equavalence of both cases: No need of quantum gravity!, or: Entanglement represents quantum gravity integrally. Of course, does one wish, both spaces could be curved, and a partial degree of entanglement might be combined with a corresponding partial degree of gravity

The unknown sides of the quadrilateral: 7 as Hilbert Minkowski space 2 as Banach pseudo-Riemannian space

Discreteness Continuity

frequency (energy) time

2
dual space

momentum in the gravitational field

The sides of the quadrilateral one by one: 1| Minkowski pseudo-Riemannian space

position A body 7 Shifting& 3 rotating n of each corresponding sphere in the dual 2 space
space

The quadrilateral one by one: Minkowski pseudo-Riemannian space: conclusion

The curved Minkowski space as pseudo-Riemannian one represents all the universe as a gravitational field of the whole, or of all the rest to the body
dual space

The flat Minkowski space includes the space-time trajectory of the body

7 4

space

position position

2
dual space

rotating of each corresponding sphere in the dual space

probability in entanglement

The sides of the quadrilateral one by one: 2| Hilbert Banach space

probability The wave function of Shifting& anything

n
7 5

space

The quadrilateral one by one: Hilbert Banach space: conclusion

The curved Hilbert space as Banach one represents all the universe as an entanglement of the quantum anything with all the rest
dual space

The flat Hilbert space includes the wave function of the quantum anything

7 6

space

The quadrilateral two by two: Hilbert Banach, and Minkowski pseudoRiemannian space: conclusion

The close analogy between those two sides of the quadrilateral hints their common essence as two different ways for expressing the same:

Banach (Hilbert) space as functions globally, and pseudo-Riemannian (Minkowski) space as point trajectories locally

A few important notes: on the conclusion The first earnest note: The time (instead of
frequency) interpretation of pseudo-Riemanian (Minkowski) space is due only to tradition or from force of habit: In fact, both Banach (Hilbert) and pseudo-Riemannian (Minkowski) space are invariant to time frequency, or continuous discrete interpretation, or wave particle duality as mere mathematical formalisms
Banach (Hilbert) space represents the same as functions globally, and pseudo-Riemannian (Minkowski) space as point trajectories locally

A few important notes: on the conclusion The second earnest note:

Both pseudo-Riemanian (Minkowski) and Banach (Hilbert) space are well-ordered in the parameter of either time or frequency in (geodesic) line. However what is up if the well-ordering is abandoned in all cases eo ipso abandoning the axiom of choice?
Banach (Hilbert) space represents the same as functions globally, and pseudo-Riemannian (Minkowski) space as point trajectories locally

A few important notes: on the conclusion The answer is the third earnest note:
Abandoning the axiom of choice in all the cases eo ipso well-ordering, the whole becomes a coherent mix of all its possible states or parts (well-ordered in time or in frequency before that ). Any possible state or part can be featured by its probability to happen. We can illustrate that probability as the obtained by projection number or measure of the corresponding state or part Banach (Hilbert) space represents the same as functions globally, and pseudo-Riemannian (Minkowski) space as point trajectories locally

A point in A point in Function space Banach space Hilbert space t f A trajec- A line in A tra-A line in tory in pseudojec- MinkowLine space a force Riemann. tory ski space field space p 7 p 7 <

The fourth earnest note on the conclusion

Projection in probabilities space

A defected probability A normed distribution probability being due to distribution entanglement (the force field) The curved case The flat case Banach (Hilbert) space represents the same as functions globally, and pseudo-Riemannian (Minkowski) space as point trajectories locally x

A homily about negative probability

The defected probability distribution being due to entanglement (i.e. to an interrelation) can be also interpreted as an alleged substance featured by negative probability. However that requires for quantum wholeness to be transformed into an equivalent statistical ensemble. If doing so, we can consider entanglement as a new kind of substance: the substance of quantum information

The sides of the quadrilateral one by one: 3) Hilbert Minkowski space

Both spaces are flat, well-ordered, expressing the same, but: A real difference: Hilbert space is a function space, while Minkowski space is an ordinary, point space An alleged difference: Besides, Hilbert space is interpreted (but incorrectly) only as a frequent space representing discrete impulses, while Minkowski space (but also incorrectly) only as a time space representing smooth trajectories. In fact, both spaces are equally interpretable as a time, as a frequent space connected by a Fourier or Fourier-like transform

The sides of the quadrilateral one by one: 3| Hilbert Minkowski space

A very important corollary from the real difference, videlicet: Hilbert space is a function space, while Minkowski space is an ordinary, point space: So that a trajectory in Minkowski space represents a potentially infinite, current process in time or in frequency, while a point in Hilbert space represents the same process as complete or as an actual infinity The two views mentioned before on a single HilbertMinkowski space represent it correspondingly as a potential infinity and as an actual infinity

The sides of the quadrilateral one by one: 4|Banach pseudo-Riemannian space

Both spaces are curved, and all the rest said about Hilbert Minkowski space is valid to their pair, too: Both spaces express the same in different perspectives: Both spaces can be interpreted as a time as a frequency space, but the Minkowski space represents a process in potential infinity as a world line in an ordinary, point space, while Hilbert space an actual infinity as a complete result, namely as a point in a function space

The quadrilateral, one by one: 4|Banach pseudo-Riemannian space: the curvature

A varying angle&distnance orthogonality represented in each case by the two dual spaces ()
7 8

B A N A C () H PR SI n' EE UM DA ON . N p P R O p p B A B I L x x I T DUAL SPACE Y

SPACE

The dual-spaces representation of mechanical movement in a force field

7 9

The juxtaposition of Lagrange and Hamilton approach to mechanical movement In both cases, three 4-vectors , ; , ; , determines the movement in any point, but here as three discrete corresponding 4-points and here as a smooth dual p,E space x,t space trajectory

Hamilton (dual spaces) approach

n'

(), ()

Lagrange (derivatives) approach

force field

The juxtaposition of Lagrange and Hamilton approach to mechanical movement: conclusion

A. Both approaches are equivalent in classical mechanics a well-known fact B. If we accept the equivalence of gravity (Lagrange) & entanglement (Hamilton), both approaches will be immediately equivalent in quantum mechanics, too C. The universal equivalence of both approaches origins from discrete-continuous invariance, or from wave-particle dualism, or from Skolems paradox, or in last analysis from the axiom of choice

A little philosophical digression about gravitational field and force field

A new conjecture: entanglement field

If any ordinary field acts to the values of certain physical quantities, the entanglement field acts to the probabilities of those values: So it can be called so: probability field The source of probability or entanglement field can be any discrete, jump-like change of the same quantity in any point of space-time. It can act upon any other discrete change of that quantity anywhere:

However how?

How can entanglement field act?

Its origin is rather mathematical and universal for that: Any discrete, or jump-like change is equivalent to a probability field in a sense: Since a definitive speed of change is impossible to determine, it is substituted by all the values with certain probabilities or in other words, by the probability field of all the values. If there are two or more discrete changes, they can share some values with different probabilities in each probability field generated by a quantum leap. In the last case, a common and equal probability calculable appears instead of the two or more different ones

How can entanglement field act?

Next: If and only if the probability is zero for each other field where the probability of one of them is nonzero, then the probability fields do not interact, they are orthogonal and no entanglement If there is entanglement, it happens mathematically by means of the pair of dual spaces:

How?
Firstly, we should interpret the connection between the two dual spaces

How can entanglement field act?

A quantum leap in Another (or the same??) quantum leap in energy (frequency)

Interpreting the connection between the two dual spaces f(E) t

8 0

The probability field probability f The of all the momenta all the positio of Any Heisenbergs uncertainty Any momentum positio
Fourier transforms Dual space Space

How can entanglement field act?

Interpreting the connection between the two dual spacesComplex Hilbert space

P(p) P(x) P(x,p) P(p,x)

8 1

Heisenbergs uncertainty position momentum Fourier transforms (& position) (& mom Dual space Space

The complex The probability f probability of all the positio field of all as momenta The complex as positions The probability field probabi-lity field of of all the momenta as posi-tions as all momenta Any Any

How can entanglement field act?

Interpreting the connection between the two dual spacesComplex Hilbert space

8 2

P(p,x) P(x,p)

The same complex probability field of all as momenta as positions View from
~ = /

The same complex probability field of all as positions as momenta view

Dual space

Space

A digression about the arrow of time

The arrow of time is a fundamental, known to everyone, but partly explainable fact about time unlike all other physical quantities, which are isotropic Our simple and obvious explanation is the following: Time is the well-ordering of any other physical quantity. The arrow of time and the well-ordering are merely full synonyms expressing the same Consequently, the axiom of choice, which is equivalent with well-ordering, means that any set can be represented as a physical quantity in time or as a trajectory in a special space corresponding to that set: Or in other words, the set can always be transformed into another set. The theory of categories states generalizing that even if the set is not a set, but a category, it can be transformed

Three restrictions of choice for a trajectory point

The dependence of momentum on position: The value of momentum in a moment is proportional the position derivative in the same moment, i.e. to the value of speed The smooth choice of both momentum and position: The choice of the trajectory following point is restricted to an infinitely small neighborhood of the point, so that the trajectory and its derivative are smooth in any point The exact correspondence of the measure of the same value set with the value probability

The same restrictions of choice for the same trajectory point as a field point
Any trajectory point undergoes a force being due to the field in the same space-time point
That force represents merely a second and different trajectory but only in the dual space of energy and momentum. Such a second energy-momentum trajectory is determined to any possible space-time trajectory There is a single difference: The first restriction is absent: Position and momentum are independent of each other for the second trajectory: However the other two restrictions are valid!

An interpretation of both trajectories in terms of whole and part

The first trajectory represents the case without any force field, including gravitational one. The system is closed as if it was alone in the universe and its mechanical energy is only kinetic. That is the case where a part is considered as the whole. The second trajectory represents the universe, or the whole including the first system as a part (subsystem). It is closed, too, really alone, and which is the source both of the force field and of the potential mechanical energy

The interaction of a system with a force field in terms of whole and part
The energy-momentum of the system interacts with the energy-momentum of the field in the same space-time point as adding 4-vectors in Minkowski space We can interpret that as forming a new whole of two previous wholes. The whole of the universe includes the whole of the system in consideration. We have also discussed such an operation as set-theory curving as inverse to a flattening choice according to the axiom of choice

A view on a system in a force field in terms of frequency (energy) instead of time

The energy-momentum representation is that viewpoint. Any force field, which comprises a system, represents a mismatch of the discrete and continuous aspect of the system By tradition that mismatch is embedded in energymomentum or in other words, in terms of frequency and discrete impulse In fact, it represents the impact of the whole or of the environment onto the system, and it is equivalently representable as in terms of frequency and discrete impulse as in those of time and smooth trajectory

Einstein's general relativity revolution represented in the same terms

Since any force field including gravitational one can be equivalently represented as a second but space-time for and instead of energymomentum trajectory, that second trajectory can be considered as the basis of a curved, namely pseudo-Riemannian space, in which the first trajectory of any partial subsystem happens. The space comprises trajectory as a spacetime expression of the way, in which any whole comprises any part of its

The deep meaning is not in the geometrization of physics, i.e. not in the representation of a force field as a curved space-time, namely pseudoRiemannian space The real meaning is in the equivalence of the two representation of any force field: as a second energy-momentum space (or trajectory) as a second space-time (or trajectory) However, let us emphasis it, both representations are not only continuous but smooth (in fact, in tradition)

Following Einsteins lesson beyond him:

we introduce a second representation, namely that from eternity rather for a new equivalence (or relativity) than only for it itself

That relativity or equivalence is between the discrete and the continuous (smooth)
And the second representation, which is from the viewpoint of eternity merely removes the wellordering in space-time (energy-momentum) eo ipso removing the axiom of choice, and eo ipso the choice itself

That second representation is quantum mechanics

A view on a system in a force field in terms of eternity instead of time 8

3

OK, but we have already introduc ed it a little above

Note, please, an amazing property of that relativity self-referentiality

Particularly, duality offers a new model of double referentiality as self-referentiality: Both the dual (e.g. spaces) can be considered as a generalization of each other if each of the two dual (e.g. spaces) is equivalent to the ensemble of the two ones: Besides that ensemble is as the generalization as the equivalent of both of them The flat Hilbert space of quantum mechanics with its principle of complementarity is a good example for that kind of self-referentality

A few remarks on that amazing kind of self-referentiality

Totality, infinity, and wholeness should possess the same property: Consequently, the ensemble of two dual (e.g.) spaces would be an appropriate model of any of them, and quantum mechanics using the same model can be considered as an empirical (note!) science of all of them! There are at least a few important interpretations of the same idea in physics, mathematics and philosophy: The ensemble of 'things' and their 'movements' is dually complete in the sense above

A few remarks on that amazing kind of self-referentiality

... besides, the ensemble of functors and categories in category theory is dually complete; the ensemble of proper (without the axiom of choice) and improper (with the axiom of choice) interpretation in set theory, too; Truly said, we refer to that self-referentiality (again) for the pair of the eternity ("no axiom of choice") and time (by the axiom of choice) view to mechanical movement

The most essential remark on the dual self-referentiality of eternity and time
Our problem is the dual self-referentiality of: View from

view

Our solving is going to be: Eternity and time are merely two different interpretations of the same mathematical structure: namely, Hilbert (Banach) space

Be eternity and time two different interpretations, then

frequency (energy), time and eternity are three equivalent interpretations; eternity interprets Hilbert (Banach) space as a dual (double) probability distribution and its Fourier(-like) transform; ... time interprets Hilbert (Banach) space as Minkowski (pseudo-Riemannian) space and movement as a smooth trajectory; ... frequency (energy) interprets them as representations of a discrete impulse;

Be eternity and time two different interpretations, then

we should admit the equivalent curvature (i.e. the nonorthogonality) as between eternity and time as between time and frequency (energy) as between frequency (energy) and eternity, and as between all of them; as entanglement (from the particular view of eternity) as gravity (from the particular view of time and energy) as any equivalent combination of them expresses the same; we should admit even an interaction between entanglement and gravity

Be eternity and time two different interpretations, then

that which is the same but expressed differently by gravity (in terms of time and energy) and entanglement (in terms of two probability distributions) represents the same interaction between a system and the universe (environment), in which it is included, from the two viewpoints of time (and energy) and eternity whatever about the eventual interaction of gravity and entanglement is a quite open question

Be eternity and time two different interpretations, then 8

Wave function as a Fourier transform of two (conjugate) probability distributions eternity
for entanglement
4

Complex Hilbert (Banach) Space

The Same!!!
for gravitational field

Well-ordering in time and frequency (energy) by the axiom of choice

time& frequency

Consequently, our conclusion is ... !!!

Entanglement is a view on a system in a force field in terms of eternity instead of time (or frequency, energy)

A set-theory interpretation of the links between functional and physical space

()

()

()
8 5

, , : = , = ; ,

The set-theory interpretation being continued

8 5

= , , , : = ,
() : ()

Links between function space and physical space

8 7

()

()

()
= = , , =
,

Two very intriguing philosophical conclusions from that :

(1) Quantum mechanics as an interpretation of Hilbert space can be considered as a physical theory of mathematical infinity (2) Reality by means of the physical reality based on quantum mechanics can be interpreted purely mathematically as a class of infinities admitting an internal proof of its completeness; in other words, as that model, which can be identified with reality