Time, Space and Everything In Between

• Addendum: Proton magnetic resonance
• A design proposal for an Interstellar Drive
• Addendum: Electron and Neutrino Structure
• Addendum: Dark Matter Structure
• Addendum: Why more matter than anti-matter?
• The Universe as a Perpetual Quantum Motion Machine
• Speculation on the Continuum
• Entropy: The Fate of the Quantum Forest
• Postscript: The Last ‘Tick’

Addendum: Proton magnetic resonance

The energy of a free proton in a uniform magnetic field depends directly on the energy of that field. Protons of opposite spin will separate into different energy levels, depending on the alignment of their magnetic moments with the external field.

If an additional external magnetic field is applied perpendicular to the uniform field, then the proton’s spin can ‘flip’. This is a change in intrinsic energy. It occurs only with protons not aligned with the field, and only at a specific frequency. This frequency varies directly with the energy of the uniform field, so it increases as the strength of the field increases.

For external fields on the order of several Tesla, the flipping frequency is in the range of radio frequencies (rf), with wavelengths on the order of fractions of a meter. If the external field is removed, the excited protons return to their previous spin state.

How can such a long wavelength, purely magnetic disturbance alter the internal spin of a proton? Why is the flipping frequency a function of the strength of an external uniform field? And why must the rf field have a nonzero component that is orthogonal to the external field? Why is the external uniform field necessary to maintain the flipped spin state?

We resolve these questions by posing  more fundamental ones: 

1. The quarks comprising a proton are pointwise projections of static mass, charge and spin. What exactly is “spinning” in the quarks? 

2. What provides both the charge and spin orientation that drives the proton’s net magnetic moment?

3. How are the combined energies of two external orthogonal magnetic fields captured by the proton?

4. How does this combined energy ‘flip’ the intrinsic spin?

5. Why does removal of the external uniform field result in spin reverting to its original state?  

To visualize answers to the above, we return to our model of the proton as a resonant cavity hosting a circulating photon. The cavity is comprised of locally entangled QESTs. It forms a spacetime orthogonal to the Vacuum Network (VN), with its own internal entanglement clock and metric.

We shall also review our model of the photon, and the properties of transverse wave propagation in cavity resonators.

By propagating energy in momentary magnetic fields, quantum foam plays a key role in expressing energy in the VN and the proton’s local spacetime. Both spacetimes are transparent to quantum foam which has no coherent metric. It can hold magnetic energy in a dimensional manner, but only momentarily, and only between ‘tick’s of the VN clock.

We address each question in turn:

1. What exactly is “spinning” in the quarks? 

Our model of the proton combines a set of entangled QESTs forming a local spacetime, and a single photon. Quarks form as connected parts of the spacetime hosting the photon. Together, they effectively extend the set of boundary QESTs of the massive proton so as not to isolate entanglement energy from the VN.

Up and down quarks differ in their number of entangled QESTs, expressing different static mass. Their QESTs are all jointly entangled by the energy that forms their local spacetime. This appears as the ‘strong force’ to the VN. It is essentially gravitational in nature.

We model the photon as a self-sustaining packet of discrete positive and negative charges, with an overall net charge of zero. Each QEST that participates in photon transmission holds a single charge, but only for a single ‘tick’ of the entanglement clock.

With each ‘tick’, quantum foam expresses a momentary, locally dimensional magnetic field that restores charge to new QESTs on the next clock ‘tick’. No time passes relative to the photon, so energy is isolated within the photon. The local density of the charged QESTs determines the wavelength and inherent energy of the photon. It also determines the wavelength of the magnetic field supporting transmission.

This same process applies to photon transmission within a proton. It circulates in transverse electric mode, expressing positive charge on boundary QESTs. We visualize the magnetic field supporting this resonant transmission as localized to boundary QESTs, orthogonal to the alternating charge field. By symmetry, the photon can circulate in this manner in either of two directions. It is local photon circulation that is “spinning” within the quarks.

2. What provides both the charge and spin orientation that drives the proton’s net magnetic moment?

We visualized how ‘projection’ momentarily expresses all energy onto the VN. This includes energy in the VN and energy localized in particles. The projected energy from particles appears as dimensionless points in the VN, as the VN and local spacetimes are orthogonal Hilbert spaces. 

Projection occurs with each ‘tick’ of the global entanglement clock. The energy projected from a proton is in the form of local entanglement, charge in motion, and the directional magnetic field supporting photon transmission.

All of these must be expressed on QESTs of the VN, but only momentarily. Otherwise, net energy transfer would occur with the VN. This would violate conservation of energy in both the VN and the local spacetimes.

As projection is momentary, all projected energy appears static. Local entanglement energy appears as static mass. The charge from boundary QESTs appears as static charge. This propagates outward at light speed in the VN as a charge field (facilitated by local magnetic fields, and always on different QESTs. It does not propagate as a self-sustaining photon).

The relative motion from the photon’s magnetic fields on boundary QESTs appears as static spin. It is directional. The direction aligns with the magnetic moment arising from the photon’s charge rotation.

3. How are the combined energies of two external orthogonal magnetic fields captured by the proton?

The entangled QESTs forming proton quarks are transparent to quantum foam, which transmits the external magnetic fields in the VN. Quantum foam restores the charge driving the fields back to QESTs hosting the (moving) charge in the VN. By interacting with an orthogonal magnetic field, the combined fields can be momentarily restored to QESTs forming quarks.

We visualize this as the proton forming a local cavity resonator acting in transverse magnetic mode. No charge is transmitted on boundary QESTs in this mode, only alternating, orthogonal magnetic fields. These are express dimensionally in the local spacetime. The latter is key to how a magnetic oscillation, with wavelength on the order of meters, is rendered on the boundary of a proton. In the local spacetime, the wavelength is preserved. In the VN, only the dimensionless quarks are observed. Combined they express the proton’s fixed charge, spin and mass, and higher internal magnetic energy.

To be captured in transverse magnetic mode, the wavelength of the oscillating component must a resonant value. Higher frequency modes arise that match the energy of the uniform external field. In effect, the uniform field is ‘strobed’ in resonance with the oscillating field on boundary QESTs of the proton.

The resonance is sustained by the external uniform field. Removing this field collapses the resonant magnetic field of the excited proton.

4. How does this combined energy ‘flip’ the intrinsic spin?

In the VN, the net magnetic field from internal transverse resonance, which increases in magnitude with external field strength, can interact with that same field. As it is sourced from the external field, it aligns with that field. As it reaches a specific energy level, it can ‘flip’ the proton orientation to align with the external field.

Note that the intrinsic spin of the proton does not change. Only an apparent magnetic moment from the ‘flipped’ proton is observed. Its transverse magnetic field must be of sufficient energy to mask the intrinsic moment and express a ‘flipped’ spin.

Higher field strengths and oscillation frequency should act to increase this intrinsic moment. Spin ‘flipping’ will not occur with protons already aligned with the external field.

5. Why does removal of the external uniform field result in spin reverting to its original state?  

The energy producing the intrinsic magnetic moment from transverse magnetic resonance is sourced from the external, uniformly aligned field. Removing that field eliminates the resonant field.

The intrinsic spin and magnetic moment of the proton, which have not been changed, appear to be ‘restored’. The circulating photon continues in the same fashion throughout the ‘spin flipping’ process. 

A design proposal for an Interstellar Drive

Even at relativistic speeds, interstellar distances dictate very lengthy travel times. Sufficient resources and reliable energy to sustain life are required for the travel duration. A correspondingly large reaction mass would be required to achieve relativistic speeds.

The design trade-off becomes clear: the larger the vehicle mass, the greater the reaction mass required to accelerate it, adding to vehicle mass. Short of antigravity containment, is there another way to source reaction mass?

The most abundant atomic species comprising the interstellar medium is neutral, atomic hydrogen. It could provide the necessary reaction mass. The supply of hydrogen would increase in proportion to vehicle speed. Ideally, hydrogen harvested enroute would also serve as the main energy source.

As an energy source, the most efficient use of hydrogen is direct mass to energy conversion. Most of the mass is from the atomic nucleus, where a single proton provides up to 940 MeV as an energy equivalent.

How can we use the ready supply of protons as both an energy source and a reaction mass? Our model of the proton allows that its internal energy state can be altered through magnetic resonance. This may provide us with a design approach.

We view the proton as a massive neutrino hosting a circulating photon. The neutrino is so massive that a quark structure is required to express it in the Vacuum Network (VN). This occurs via localised energy ‘projection’, with each ‘tick’ of the entanglement clock.

The ‘strong force’ binding quarks is purely local entanglement energy: the neutrino forms its own Hilbert space. The quark binding force is essentially gravitational in nature. This is the holographic principle applied at the level of particles.

The proton neutrino mass is expressed by locally entangled QESTs (Quantum Elements of Spacetime). Quarks form as a mechanism that enhances the number of boundary QESTs projected onto the VN from the local spacetime. Without these additional boundary QESTs, the proton neutrino would isolate energy from the VN, over multiple clock ‘tick’s. Such energy transfer would violate conservation of energy, both in the VN and the local spacetime.

The proton does not exhibit a spontaneous decay process. How can such an intense concentration of energy acquire such stability? The answer must lie in the attractive Coulomb forces that the circulating photon expresses via ‘projection’ in the VN.

Although the proton has a net positive charge, the component quarks include two relatively light up-quarks with fractional positive charge, and a very heavy down-quark with fractional negative charge. In combination, their static charges contribute to overall stability.

If the photon could be dislodged from its null geodesic path, at least momentarily, then this structure may become unstable. How this is achieved will determine the likely decay products. If we can avoid charge-based interactions, then the most likely products will be gravitational in nature: mostly neutrinos and antineutrinos (and a photon).

Proton destabilization may convert a significant fraction of its mass to energy in the form of a flux of accelerated neutrinos and antineutrinos.

Typical neutrino mass is on the order of .5 eV, travelling at relativistic velocity, although neutrinos with mass many orders of magnitude greater have been detected. We can visualize many millions of such relativistic neutrinos from each proton decay. To achieve a net thrust these would need to be collimated.

One aspect of relativistic neutrino propagation does work in favour of this design: neutrinos of both spins prefer the same direction of transmission (all appearing ‘left-handed’).

Our model of proton magnetic resonance suggests an approach to proton destabilization. This avoids high energy photon or charged particle interactions, encouraging neutrino production.

We can imagine the physical requirements: (1) a polarized, relativistic, high-density flux of protons; (2) a momentary pulse of an extremely high energy, uniform magnetic field that is aligned with this flux; (3) a pulsed ultra-high frequency magnetic field applied orthogonal to the proton flux.

In this arrangement, transverse magnetic fields would propagate by resonance in the proton’s local spacetime. If the resonant frequency is high enough (as determined by the strength of the uniform magnetic field), then the circulating photon may be disrupted.

The photon relies on quantum foam to express a magnetic field with a specific frequency for self-sustained propagation in the neutrino’s spacetime. If the intensity of the combined magnetic fields at this frequency is too great, quantum foam may express the photon back to the VN. This would destabilize the proton.

The entire process would need to be cycled at high frequency, to achieve collimation of the resulting neutrino/antineutrino flux. The amount of energy and reaction force produced would make containment a significant challenge!

The supply of relativistic protons might be obtained with a linear accelerator, oriented along the interior extent of the spacecraft. These would have be collimated and spin aligned. To achieve a high-density flux, some form of magnetic pinching may be required (perhaps by a pulse of electrons stripped from the neutral hydrogen).

Additional reaction mass would have to be included as part of an overall design, as the process we are imagining requires a high flux of interstellar hydrogen. 

Addendum: Electron and Neutrino Structure

Here we extend our models of the electron and neutrino and try to visualize their internal structures.

Our model for the neutrino specifies a domain of QESTs that, through local entanglement, form a Hilbert space orthogonal to the Vacuum Network (VN). This gives the neutrino a small static mass, and a local gravitational field strong enough to ‘trap’ a photon. Our model for the electron is essentially an (anti-)neutrino with the addition of such a trapped photon.

We also described how both particles, as local spacetimes, interact with the global VN. We visualized a projection “operator” that expresses the total energy of each particle momentarily in the VN. Each ‘moment’ arises as a ‘tick’ of the VN’s global entanglement clock.

This repeated application of the projection operator forms the basis of quantum time. Quantum foam updates the state of the VN from ‘tick’ to ‘tick’. It does this through momentary magnetic fields, which are transparent to all spacetimes.

To ensure energy conservation between spacetimes, no energy is transferred by projection. Effectively, projection momentarily ‘strobes’ energy onto the VN from particles such as neutrinos and electrons. QESTs in the VN hold this energy for only a single clock ‘tick’, so no time passes relative to any QESTs forming the VN. In this way, particles act to isolate local excesses of energy from the VN.

We further imagined how a photon that is “trapped’” in an antineutrino expresses charge (and momentum) back to the VN. The antineutrino forms a cavity resonator, and the photon circulates on the boundary in transverse electric mode. The ‘negative going’ portion of the photon’s EMF is expressed in the VN as charge. Quantum foam propagates the charge outward as a static potential, if the electron is not accelerated.

There is a key feature of the electron that is not explained by this model, and that is its gyromagnetic ratio of approximately 2. A ratio of this magnitude suggests that as a rotating charge, an electron is twice as efficient at expressing magnetic moment from its internal angular momentum than one expressing magnetic moment from nuclear orbital angular momentum.

How might we predict this property with our model? With the help of results from particle physics and the theory of rotating Black Holes, we can see how internal structure of both particles provides an answer.

We proceed by analogy, using the following results:

1. The Dirac model describes the electron as a 4-component spinor (a complex 4-vector). Two components describe a fermion having positive mass with two spin states. The other two components also describe a fermion with two spin states, but with ‘negative mass’. It predicts a gyromagnetic ratio of 2 for an electron in an external magnetic field.

2. The Kerr model predicts that two counterrotating null geodesics exist in the equatorial plane of a rotating Black Hole (BH) having no charge.

3. Particle physics shows us that the electron is hosted by an antineutrino. From the Dirac model, neutrinos are spin ½ fermions with two spin states. However, only the one with right-hand spin in the direction of propagation has been observed.

4. Antineutrinos have a very small mass, no magnetic moment, and no charge.

5. A Principle due to Ernst Mach relates an object’s inertia to all other matter in the universe.

A discrepancy in our model of the electron arises when we try to predict its magnetic moment. We shall ignore the spin of the antineutrino and consider only its entangled QESTs forming a local  spacetime (denoted as the Antineutrino Network, “AN”).

With projection, QESTs in the VN are momentarily entangled with those on the boundary of the AN. The ‘trapped’ photon circulating in the neutrino’s equatorial plane will express a magnetic moment in the VN.

We can imagine how the detailed interaction proceeds. The ‘negative going’ EMF of the photon appears momentarily as charge on QESTs of the VN. The VN sees a rotating charge, which produces a magnetic field. By Fleming’s ‘right-hand rule’, we can visualize it projecting from the plane of photon rotation.

Because the AN is orthogonal to the VN, the projected electron appears as a dimensionless point with charged static mass, spin and magnetic moment. Energy from both the photon momentum and the entangled QESTs of the neutrino must be accounted for in this mass.

But what happens to the ‘positive going’ EMF expressed on QESTs in the AN? These QESTs also see a rotating positive charge. By the right-hand rule, it produces a momentary magnetic field of equal but opposite direction to the one expressed in the VN. Quantum foam expresses this momentary magnetic field in the VN (again, no transfer of energy is involved, as no time passes relative to any QESTs expressing charge).

The net result in the VN is an electron as a point negative charge, but with no net magnetic field! Our simple model does not produce magnetic moments with spin states in the VN.

How can we enhance our model to be consistent with the electron’s observed spin states and gyromagnetic ratio?

For guidance, we turn to the Dirac model for the electron, and the Kerr BH model. We keep in mind that the latter is useful only by way of analogy, as a neutrino is NOT a BH. It is a domain of locally entangled QESTs forming its own spacetime, the AN. We have seen that BHs are entirely creatures of the VN.

The Dirac model is directly relevant, however, if we interpret ‘negative mass’ as entanglement energy isolated from the VN. As noted earlier, two components of the Dirac spinor describe a particle with negative mass.

How can the two Dirac component particles arise in our model? We need to account for the extreme rotation of the neutrino, which provides the gravitational well that traps a photon.

Using the Kerr model as an analogy, we visualize two null geodesics in the equatorial plane of the spinning neutrino: one prograde (same direction of rotation), and one retrograde (opposite direction of rotation). The Kerr model is appropriate as the neutrino has no charge, rotation, and an extreme local gravitational field. The latter is enhanced by local entanglement energy in an extreme state of rotation.

A photon in the retrograde geodesic is further from the center of the neutrino. With projection, it can interact most directly with the VN. Its negative EMF will produce a magnetic moment perpendicular to the equatorial plane. Let’s label the moment in that direction “spin up”.

The positive component of the photon’s EMF appears on counterrotating QESTs of the AN. The right-hand rule now points that moment in the same direction as “spin up”. Upon projection, it adds to the moment produced by the negative portion of EMF in the VN. The “spin up” electron has a net magnetic moment with gyromagnetic ratio 2.

The Dirac model specifies two spin states for the ‘negative mass’ component particle. We will assume that the antineutrino, as a fermion, has a spin state that corresponds to the opposite direction of rotation in the “spin up” electron.

With a photon occupying the retrograde null geodesic on a neutrino with this opposite rotation, we see by symmetry that a magnetic moment in the opposite direction to “spin up” will result. This we label “spin down”. It also produces a moment with gyromagnetic ratio 2.

The second Dirac component particle describes the positive charge rotating in the AN. Its “negative mass” arises from entanglement energy isolated from the VN.

How does our model account for the lack of evidence of neutrinos with left-hand spin in the direction of neutrino propagation?

To visualize an answer, we invoke the Mach Principle and imagine ourselves located in the AN spacetime of the neutrino. The AN is a Hilbert space orthogonal to the VN. We imagined this spacetime forming a cavity resonator with spherical local geometry.

The neutrino projects onto the VN as a point. The converse must be true. All particles localized in the VN project onto our neutrino’s spacetime as points. And these points have spin. The entire VN is also a point, and it too must have spin.

The spherical symmetry of the neutrino suggests that there is no external difference to distinguish the two neutrino spin states in the VN. A simple rotation of 180 degrees will make them appear identical. The right-hand rotation must be the preferred direction for both spin states when the neutrino has momentum.

But how are the two spin states inherently different, as the Dirac model suggests? The answer may lie in the spin expressed by the VN when it is projected onto the AN. “Standing” in a neutrino with right-hand spin produces a different view of VN rotation than in a neutrino with left-hand spin.

Essentially, we apply Mach’s principle locally to the AN to determine the difference between the two neutrino spin states. They are different, and the difference arises from the rotation of the VN!

Addendum: Dark Matter Structure

With our model of the internal structure of an electron in mind, how might we visualize the internal structure of a Dark Matter (DM) particle?

We visualized the electron as a photon ‘trapped’ in the strong local gravitational field of a rapidly spinning antineutrino. Similarly, our model for a DM particle features a spinning neutrino, but in this case it is a graviton that is ‘trapped’ in the gravitational well.

We need to highlight the differences between a photon and a graviton to infer more about DM structure. Doing so will lead us to an enhanced model for the graviton.

Both the photon and graviton are disturbances propagating at light speed in the VN. The photon has net zero charge, while the graviton has net zero mass. The photon expresses a self-sustaining imbalance in local charge held momentarily by QESTs in the VN.

The graviton is a self-sustaining imbalance in local spacetime curvature. We model this as a local disturbance to entangled QESTs forming the VN’s network structure. Again, there is no net additional entanglement from the graviton since it has zero mass.

Viewed as particles, the photon is spin 1 while the graviton is spin 2. This implies a 360-degree rotational symmetry for the photon, and a 180-degree symmetry for the graviton.

Our model of the photon specifies a local charge imbalance in the VN that is self-sustaining. It propagates with each ‘tick’ of the entanglement clock by establishing a momentary magnetic field through entanglement of QESTs of quantum foam. This gives the magnetic field dimensional extent in the VN. A 360-degree rotational symmetry is explicit in this transverse wave model, giving the photon spin 1.

The graviton is also self-sustaining, but only entanglement energy is involved. In the VN, it expresses a wave-like structure of local excess (‘compression’) and deficiency (‘rarefaction’) of entanglement energy. With each ‘tick’ of the entanglement clock, QESTs of quantum foam momentarily establish the same entanglement structure, and propagate this back to the VN.

We visualize this momentary entanglement being at 90-degree to the direction of propagation. Through entanglement in the VN, it has dimensional extent that is expressed in the VN over a single ‘tick’. It also propagates at light speed.

Let’s imagine this combined process rotated 180-degrees. How can the rotated graviton produce the same entanglement effect in the VN as one that is not rotated? It can do so if its component domains of excess and deficiency of entanglement energy have rotational symmetry.

We are guided to enhance our model of the graviton. We visualize it as a longitudinal compression wave in the VN possessing rotational symmetry. Rotating the combined dynamic structure 180-degress reproduces the original configuration. With this enhancement, our model of the graviton becomes a spin 2 particle. This contrasts with the transverse wave structure of the photon, which has spin1 symmetry.

As with our model of the electron, we can imagine an antineutrino forming a gravity well with enhanced strength from rapid rotation. In analogy with the Kerr BH model, we visualize two counter-rotating null geodesics expressed in the equatorial plane of the antineutrino.

Further, as a localized longitudinal disturbance, we can visualize a graviton circulating in the retrograde geodesic. It can do so without disrupting the null geodesic’s property of providing a path for particles travelling at light speed in the antineutrino’s local spacetime.

This combined entity possesses no charge or magnetic moment, but it does have inherent spin. As we saw with the electron, the antineutrino is a fermion with two spin states. This property should also apply to a DM particle.

What about the DM particle’s mass? In analogy with the electron’s gyromagnetic ratio of 2, we can infer that the DM particle will express twice the ‘effective’ mass of the compression component of a free graviton. The graviton has net zero mass, but in isolation, its longitudinal components do.

We can visualize how a DM particle acquires a net static mass by using the electron as an analogy. With each clock ‘tick’, the compression component is expressed in the VN through projection. The rarefaction component of the graviton is expressed in the counter-rotating local spacetime of antineutrino. Through projection, this entanglement energy must be expressed back to the VN, with each ‘tick’ of the entanglement clock. This is required by conservation of energy.

We can visualize an effect quite analogous to the electron’s gyromagnetic ratio. Let’s call this the ‘gyro-entanglement ratio’. It doubles the effective gravitational effect of the compression component of the graviton’s longitudinal wave structure.

With the help of an antineutrino, the massless graviton of spin 2 becomes a DM particle with spin ½ and a ‘gyro-entanglement ratio’ of 2. As a resonant structure, only a specific frequency of graviton can participate in DM formation. Consequently, only DM particles with a specific mass are produced.

By absorbing gravitons however, a DM particle can increase its momentum. And through gradual acceleration, DM can produce gravitational Bremsstrahlung by emitting gravitons. It is this latter effect that may explain the enhanced rotation rates observed with spiral galaxies.

Addendum: Why more matter than anti-matter?

Particle physics allows that all matter particles, encompassing all the leptons and hadrons forming our material universe, have anti-matter counterparts.

Anti-matter particles have equal mass but opposite quantum properties to those of matter particles. An example of this is seen with electron-positron pair creation. With the help of quantum foam, the Vacuum Network (VN) creates these particles from high energy photons. It isolates, within a single ‘tick’ of the entanglement clock, both excess charge and entanglement energy.

We visualized how local motion determined the chirality, or ‘handedness’, of the local spacetimes hosting the particles that are formed by such an interaction. Momentary magnetic fields are established in the quantum foam. These act to restore charge in a local spacetime as paired photons, 180 degrees out of phase. The “positive” and “negative” going phases of the pair are separately isolated by the ‘splitting’ of this spacetime into two mirror image components.

One forms an antineutrino hosting the “negative” going photon, which expresses negative charge on its boundary QESTs, in the manner of a cavity resonator. This forms an electron, with static mass, spin and charge formed through projection in the VN.

The other component spacetime forms a neutrino expressing the opposite charge due to the 180 degree phase shift. This forms the positron, with equal mass to the electron because of equal entanglement energy. It has opposite spin and charge, due to the locally propagating photon,180 degrees out of phase to the electron.

With this process in mind, and with our model of the Big Entanglement, we can see how our universe came to have an excess of matter over antimatter. The key to this picture is the state of quantum foam at the moment of entanglement.

We visualized the Big Entanglement arising from a Continuum. Discrete elements in this Continuum, which we called QESTs (Quantum Elements of SpaceTime), form Quantum Foam: a domain of QESTs having measure zero (that is, a set with a countably infinite number of discrete elements).

Elements of this set do not express a coherent metric unless they become entangled to form a network. We called this the Vacuum Network. It hosts all energy momentarily captured from the Continuum at the moment of the Big Entanglement.

The native currency of energy in the Continuum is charge. The Vacuum Network has no net charge, only local imbalances. Local excesses and deficits of charge are expressed momentarily on QESTs in the VN as photons.  Similarly, local imbalances of entanglement are expressed as gravitons. When packaged in local spacetimes, these form particles and Dark Matter.

With every ‘tick’ of a global entanglement clock, all energy in both the VN and in local spacetimes is “projected” in the VN. This is the basis of conservation of energy.

How did more matter than antimatter form with the Big Entanglement? We have to consider where in the phase space of the Continuum the moment of the Big Entanglement occurred.

With no net charge captured in the VN, the Continuum must have been in a phase of purely transient charge, having no net imbalance. As a point in the Continuum, the VN captured this transient as the pointwise, momentary expression of photons.

With entanglement energy, the picture is different. The point in Continuum phase space that was sampled in the Big Entanglement may also have been a transient. But the ‘transient’ produced a net imbalance of entanglement energy in the VN. The result is a coherent spacetime, maintained with each strobe of the entanglement clock.

What aspect of this entanglement transient in Continuum phase space determined the imbalance of matter over antimatter?  We can imagine the transient ‘rising’ and ‘falling’ in energy, The Big Entanglement sampled only a portion of this transient, producing a net imbalance in the VN.

But quantum foam also experienced this point in Continuum phase space. With the first ‘tick’ of the entanglement clock, the VN isolated excess charge (and entanglement) in local spacetimes. It used quantum foam to do this. If quantum foam, in the same moment, was experiencing a ‘rising’ or ‘falling’ second order effect, then a preferred helicity would result.

More particles would be formed with this preferred helicity. There would still be a balance in overall charge. More ‘matter’ than ‘antimatter’ local spacetimes would be produced.

This preference in entanglement helicity also suggests a net surplus of Dark Matter over ‘anti-Dark Matter’ in our universe. If two such particles combine, a graviton would be the result.

It is fun to visualize the physical consequences if the moment of the Big Entanglement had occurred at another point in Continuum phase space. For example, if a transient opposite to the entanglement transient of our universe was sampled, then an ‘anti-universe’ would result.

Suppose a point of net zero entanglement was sampled. Would a ‘null’ universe be the result?

Top

We have wandered over some lofty metaphysical hilltops, in our exploration of the quantum forest. When we speculated on what intent and purpose might be ascribed to the Continuum, the clues to guide us seemed less than beckoning. 

By contrast, the nature of time provided a relatively clear sign post.  We imagined its uniformity and precision. Both are properties necessary to maintain the VN (Vacuum Network), and to isolate energy in local spacetimes.

The precise 'ticking' of the quantum clock in the VN ensured persistence of structure, conservation of energy, lossless transmission of photons and gravitons across interstellar space, and the preservation of the quantum properties of all particles. The latter include static mass, spin, and magnetic moment. All such static  properties are expressed instantaneously through entanglement, and magnetic fields, formed in the foam, and driven in synchrony with the entanglement clock.

Such complete uniformity and precision could only arise in a Continuum.

Another sign post emerges if we take a wider view: the universe is a perpetual quantum motion machine.  Energy is perfectly conserved from 'tick' to 'tick' of the quantum clock,  while permitting state changes, fueled primarily by entanglement. 

Beyond the entanglement energy forming the VN, the original charge expressed across the VN at the instant of the Big Entanglement (BE) is also a conserved quantity. This charge resides either on the VN or in local, orthogonal Hilbert spaces. 

The property of energy conservation that we perceive provides a clue to the physical nature of the universe, from the perspective of the Continuum.  The original domain of QESTs (Quantum Elements of Space Time) form a set of measure zero, and these QESTs were completely disentangled at the moment of the BE. All entanglement energy and charge sourced from the Continuum in the instant of the BE are preserved within this same domain of QESTs.

We can imagine then, that energy from the Continuum, arising both as charge and local quantum entanglement, and expressed on a fixed, closed set of QESTs, are all the ingredients necessary for our universe. Our model provides that energy remains in the Continuum, as QESTs are themselves quantum expressions of the Continuum. 

From the perspective of the Continuum, all quantum dynamics are restricted to the domain of QESTs, a set of measure zero. These dynamics are expressed in the VN, as well as in all quantum events localized to the VN. As a set, they form the complete quantum history of the universe. And as a set of measure zero, these are accessible to the Continuum all at once, in their entirety. 

The guiding constraint here is that all structure and dynamics are localized to the original domain of QESTs, and energy is conserved within this domain.

This leads to a new perspective of our quantum forest for us to imagine. The BE stored a portion of its energy in the VN as entanglement energy, and charge. Energy surplus to the capacity of the VN was stored in local spacetimes, in the form of particles and Dark Matter. The evolution of their ensuing quantum dynamics is restricted to the original domain of QESTs. 

Recall that as a set of measure zero, all of this structure is accessible to the Continuum in an instant. From a purely physical sense then, our perceived time, and the entire record of the universe's associated state changes, serve to store and conserve energy in a fixed domain of QESTs, without any dissipation. 

This is a marvel, as quantum chaos would threaten to dissipate the energy in our universe across any 'nearby' sets of measure zero within the Continuum. 

We imagine then, our universe as a perpetual quantum motion machine, providing the Continuum with a perfect reservoir to store energy, all accessible in an instant.

Entropy: The Fate of the Quantum Forest

One trail in the quantum forest connects all others, and that’s the one marked “entropy”. 

We imagined the quantum forest as perpetual quantum system, as a set of measure zero when viewed within the Continuum. But relative to the forest itself, entropy decides its fate. If we hope to glimpse our fate, we need to explore this trail.

It will help us to find our way if we use a notion of entropy that applies to most physical systems. It serves as a measure of the disorder, or randomness, of a system’s components. The classic definition is Shannon’s entropy. Applied to a communication system, it measures the information in a signal. The more noise in a signal, the greater its entropy.

Von Neumann entropy provides a similar measure of statistical uncertainty in a quantum setting. Expressed over a suitable basis, it resembles the Shannon entropy, with state probabilities reflecting uncertainty at the quantum level.

If we try using this definition in the quantum forest, we encounter fundamental challenges!

Let’s start by imagining the Vacuum Network (VN), devoid of any particles. It is comprised purely of entangled QESTs embedded in quantum foam. Even in this simplest setting, we shall see that the nature of time poses an immediate challenge.

Time is discrete in the VN. We imagined the moment of the Big Entanglement as the first ‘tick’ of an entanglement clock. Without subsequent ‘tick’s, the QESTs forming the VN would remain static. We introduced a precise, uniform clock that indexes change in entanglement, and transmission of charge, globally in the VN (as well as independent clocks, synchronized with the VN, that do the same in local spacetimes).

Quantum foam mediates instantaneous expression of the state of the VN across the entire network, from ‘tick’ to ‘tick’. It can do this because it is a completely disentangled domain with no coherent metric. So, to fully imagine entropy in the VN, we must visualize how quantum foam mediates state evolution, with each ‘tick’ of the entanglement clock.

Von Neumann entropy asks us to specify all possible quantum states. For the isolated VN, we have only states of entanglement and charge. Quantum foam does not directly contribute to entropy, as it has no coherent state vector.

Note that position is not a separate state in the VN.  For a given QEST, position is recovered as relative entanglement with other QESTs in the network (if it was not entangled, it would be part of the quantum foam, where there is no notion of “position”). Velocity and momentum are also not part of the state vector, as we assume entanglement captures all dynamics of the isolated VN.

Recall that charge is held only momentarily in any QEST (otherwise it is bundled and transmitted as a photon). We shall try to visualize how the states of entanglement and charge evolve for a single QEST in the network.

Let’s start at the beginning: the very first ‘tick’. We visualized the Big Entanglement creating the VN and storing excess charge and entanglement in the QESTs of that network. With the first ‘tick’, the VN acts with quantum foam to isolate excess energy by creating photons and gravitons in the VN, as well as particles and Dark Matter in local spacetimes.

These initial conditions limit the state of our QEST to the following possibilities (subject to the global effect of Dark Energy). The QEST has either:

(1) NO local excess of charge or entanglement, and is in equilibrium with all neighbours in the VN;

(2) NO local excess of charge or entanglement, but is NOT in equilibrium with its neighbours; or, 

(3) local excess of charge or entanglement, so it is NOT in equilibrium with its neighbours.

We can visualize how the VN state vector represents the first possibility. The components describing charge distribution specify the ground state, with certainty. The entanglement components of the state ‘vector’ are better imagined as a quantum tensor, expressing the local geometry of the VN network. If the local VN is expressing a static gravitational field, this tensor will capture any local spatial tension (shortening) or torsion (twisting).

With the first ‘tick’ of the entanglement clock, the state vector is updated but not altered. So, there is no change in QEST entropy for the quiescent state.

There is a very important exception to this local equilibrium scenario: the global effect of Dark Energy. The latter will expand the VN by adding entangled QESTs, sourced from quantum foam.

We can visualize the state vector being altered to reflect local, newly entangled QESTs. This spacetime expansion acts to increase local entropy. Subsequent ‘tick’s will be necessary to arrive at a new equilibrium. But as we imagined initial conditions for the Big Entanglement, the effect of Dark Energy is not expressed until subsequent ‘tick’s.

To summarize possibility (1) representing the quiescent VN, no change in entropy occurs. Only the global effect of Dark Energy can alter this, producing a local increase in entropy.

Possibility (2) has multiple outcomes, each resulting in an increase in entropy. Some of these outcomes involve particle creation, which we consider in possibility (3).

If a gravitational transient is being expressed in the local VN, our QEST will participate. Such transients propagate at light speed, indexed by the ‘ticking’ of the VN’s entanglement clock. So, with each ‘tick’, our QEST will experience an update to the tensor components describing its gravitational entanglement.

If we assume that in the absence of gravity, the VN is in its most highly ordered state (with lowest possible entropy), then local gravitational transients will increase the entropy of our QEST (the reverse scenario arises in possibility (3), where entropy will decrease).

A similar increase in entropy occurs if our QEST increases its entanglement with the expanding gravitational field of a local particle (including Dark Matter). Here we are visualizing the static field being established in the VN with the first ‘tick’.

Another outcome for possibility (2) produces an increase in entropy, but only for the duration of one ‘tick’. Here we visualize a transient of charge expressed in the local VN. Such a condition will arise, for example, if our QEST expresses the charge of an electron.

The electric field of the electron propagates across QESTs in the VN at light speed, with the usual global constraint: no QEST holds charge longer than one ‘tick’ (to preserve conservation of energy in both in the VN, and in the electron’s local spacetime). Again, assuming the quiescent state has lowest entropy, the momentary expression of charge will increase the entropy of our QEST.

We can now visualize a fundamental property of entropy in our quantum forest. Charged particles act to increase local entropy, but only for an instant relative to any QEST experiencing that charge (the same must be true of QESTs participating in charge transmitted as a photon in the VN).

Possibility (3) has several outcomes, including particle creation.

As we saw earlier, a QEST with excess entanglement energy produces a local gravitational field as a transient in the VN. This acts to decrease entropy for that QEST.

If the excess is great enough, and local QESTs are also in a state of high entanglement energy, our QEST can participate in formation of a graviton. This will decrease entropy locally in the VN. The corresponding increase in entropy is felt only for an instant by QESTs that transmit the graviton, at light speed.

The net effect is to isolate excess entropy in the VN, by ‘freezing’ it in time. A similar process occurs with excess charge, in the creation of a photon: excess entropy is again isolated but still expressed in the VN.

If we have a configuration of very high entanglement in both our QEST and its neighbouring QESTs, the graviton that forms may be removed from the VN by the formation of a Dark Matter particle.

Once again, the entropy is not lost. It is frozen relative to the VN’s clock, and isolated from the VN. Our QEST and its neighbours experience a decrease in entropy.

A similar process resulting in entropy decrease occurs with the formation of a particle. Here excess charge is also isolated from the VN.

With these three possibilities as background, we now try to visualize the dynamics of entropy for a Black Hole (BH).

We have described how a local network of QESTs, in conjunction with quantum foam, acts to isolate local excesses of entanglement and charge by forming photons, gravitons, particles and Dark Matter.

A point is reached where the concentration of entanglement and charge energy is too great for this process to relieve the local excess. We visualized this occurring in the innermost extent of a BH, as a scene of disentanglement of the VN itself.

The network structure collapses, but conservation of energy still maintains, from ‘tick’ to ‘tick’ of global and local clocks. Entanglement and charge are released to the quantum foam (much the same process as we imagined for the Big Entanglement).

The charge flux establishes massive, internal magnetic fields. These in turn produce photons and particles interior to the BH, but outside the collapsing core. Entropy from localized charge is only momentarily ‘destroyed’, as it is reestablished with the next ‘tick’.

Energy from entanglement is also conserved, but outside the BH. Quantum foam, as we imagined for the Big Entanglement, interacts with the entire VN in an instant. To conserve energy, it adds to the VN by entangling QESTs from the foam. The VN expands.

This process also preserves entropy, as we visualized earlier. We see that there is no possibility for a BH to form an essential ‘singularity’.

The high entropy expressed by the VN at the surface of a BH is not lost, as this surface expands. Some QESTs form the expanding horizon, while others form Dark Matter in a process of positive feedback. This encourages rapid BH expansion. Again, the entropy in Dark Matter is isolated from the VN.

We can begin to imagine the evolution of entropy in the quantum forest.

Excess energy appeared along with the formation of the VN, at the first moment of the Big Entanglement. The subsequent formation of photons, gravitons, particles and Dark Matter all serve to isolate this excess from the VN. 

This also preserves the high entropy associated with random charge and excess entanglement.

The effects of gravitation internal to stars acts to redistribute energy as heavier particles and radiation, but all still isolated from the VN. It is only in BHs that energy, and entropy, are redistributed to the VN itself, through the effects of Dark Energy.

We can perceive then, an end state for our forest.

The VN, in conjunction with quantum foam, achieves a lower entropy state through particle, photon and graviton formation. This leads to BH formation where entanglement is recycled out to the VN, but charge and entropy remain isolated internally.

We visualize a universe-scale heat engine, with entanglement as the working fluid. The initial high entropy state from the Big Entanglement evolves to one of low entropy in the VN, and high entropy interior to BH’s. The second law of thermodynamics is not violated relative to the VN, as this accumulation of entropy is held in local spacetimes.

So, we can imagine a distant future featuring an expanding, quiescent VN, hosting an immense collection of supermassive BHs. 

Excess charge and entanglement from the Big Entanglement, including the remnants of our sun, are entombed in these BHs. And all within orthogonal spacetimes.

Postscript: The Last ‘Tick’

When we imagined what purpose the Continuum may have contemplated by creating our Quantum Forest, we had to consider an existential differential. What are the fundamental differences in the ‘intelligent’ experience of ‘being’ that distinguish us, as transient creatures of a quantum domain, from the timeless unity of the Continuum?

Whatever the purpose, we can imagine that the Continuum will decide the fate of our Forest well before the fate reserved for us by entropy. That decision point could well be marked by the last ‘tick’ of the entanglement clock. With this last ‘tick’, we can visualize our entire universe frozen in a final, static foliation.

Accompanying this last ‘tick’, a message may appear in the Continuum. Perhaps it goes something like this:

          Simulation Terminated

          Results Saved to QEST Temporary Storage

          Reboot (Y/N)?

If the response is “Y”, then our universe, with its complete quantum history, would simply be erased. Our moment in the Continuum will have come and gone, leaving no trace.

If the response is “N”, then other outcomes are possible.

One outcome might see the simulation replayed, at the detail of every quantum event. The Continuum could alter some of these events, changing the course of our perceived time. This may already have happened, over countless iterations.

If we happen to be the outcome that the Continuum finds most worthy, on some value scale, then perhaps we may be stored to a permanent QEST memory. This outcome depends on the value scale the Continuum uses to assess each simulation.

And that brings us back to the “existential differential”.

As self-aware quantum beings, we are completely separate, and each experiences an entirely unique reality. We have the myth of shared experience, but at the quantum level there is only momentary entanglement. Our perceived time is individual and unique. And we manage to both exist and not exist, over the course of our lifetimes.

Contrast this with the Continuum, where ‘self-awareness’ is a limiting construct. There is no ‘self’. It possesses complete and total awareness.

The notion of separateness, with the experience of separate realities, is totally incongruous. And non-existence could be its deepest puzzle, as everything exists in the Continuum, if only for an instant.

If the value scale hinges on these differentials, then perhaps we can imagine how our particular iteration might become the permanent one. If we illustrate most clearly our own awareness of the nature of our existence, then it may be worth preserving (not a trend I see developing, of late).

We can never know if we have passed the test! With any outcome, our value and fate remain with the Continuum.

So, with that as denouement, and our quantum imagining still keen, a parting sentiment for those who have joined me on these forest walks:

Happy trails! It’s been a slice.

Top