kkwan, I understand your argument and inside spacetime one event may or may not cause another event. It depends on the aggregate potentials of existing conditions. But that would imply that all energy existed in physical form prior to the BB and we are back to “square one” on the question of ‘original’ causality and if the BB was the beginning or just an expression of a greater whole. Did the BB occur as a result of E = Mc^2 or was E = Mc^2 born at the time of the BB?
Is E = Mc^2 a causality or a result? IMO it is both.
If time is associated with change and change is fundamental in the universe, then there is no reason to assume the BB was the “beginning” as what was “before” the BB can be considered and as such, the question of “original causality” does not arise at all. There is no “greater whole” than the universe and thus E = Mc^2 is valid “eternally” in the universe which has no “beginning” or “end”.
I agree with your first paragraph that the potential E =Mc^2 is a universal constant.
I have trouble with the second paragraph. What role did the Big Bang play in a universe that has no beginning or end?
I am trying to use the noun Potential in in most fundamental and abstract form. The potential for E = Mc^2 existed before it was expressed as an observable natural law (BB) in our reality in spacetime. By definition .
As explained above, the question of the “potential” of the existence of E =Mc^2 prior to the BB does not arise in the context of an eternal universe with no beginning or end.
This is where Bohm’s proposals are so intriguing to me.
The holomovement concept is introduced in incremental steps. It is first presented under the aspect of wholeness in the lead essay, called “Fragmentation and Wholeness”. There Bohm states the major claim of the book: “The new form of insight can perhaps best be called Undivided Wholeness in Flowing Movement” (Bohm, 1980, 11). This view implies that flow is, in some sense, prior to that of the ‘things’ that can be seen to form and dissolve in this flow. He notes how “each relatively autonomous and stable structure is to be understood not as something independently and permanently existent but rather as a product that has been formed in the whole flowing movement and what will ultimately dissolve back into this movement. How it forms and maintains itself, then, depends on its place function within the whole” (14). For Bohm, movement is what is primary; and what seem like permanent structures are only relatively autonomous sub-entities which emerge out of the whole of flowing movement and then dissolve back into it an unceasing process of becoming.
Bohm’s proposals are grounded in the dynamic “unceasing process of becoming” rather than what is grounded in the static “reality” that the universe is all there is in existence and thus there is no greater “whole” per se.
Consider relational quantum mechanics (RQM).
RQM and quantum cosmology:
The universe is the sum total of all that is in existence. Physically, a (physical) observer outside of the universe would require the breaking of gauge invariance, and a concomitant alteration in the mathematical structure of gauge-invariance theory. Similarly, RQM conceptually forbids the possibility of an external observer.
Hidden variables theories:
Bohm’s interpretation of QM does not sit well with RQM. One of the explicit hypotheses in the construction of RQM is that quantum mechanics is a complete theory, that is it provides a full account of the world. Moreover, the Bohmian view seems to imply an underlying, “absolute” set of states of all systems, which is also ruled out as a consequence of RQM.
We find a similar incompatibility between RQM and suggestions such as that of Penrose, which postulate that some process (in Penrose’s case, gravitational effects) violate the linear evolution of the Schrödinger equation for the system.
Many worlds interpretation (MWI) of QM:
The many-worlds family of interpretations (MWI) shares an important feature with RQM, that is, the relational nature of all value assignments (that is, properties). Everett, however, maintains that the universal wavefunction gives a complete description of the entire universe, while Rovelli argues that this is problematic, both because this description is not tied to a specific observer (and hence is “meaningless” in RQM), and because RQM maintains that there is no single, absolute description of the universe as a whole, but rather a net of inter-related partial descriptions.
OTOH, we should consider this as well.
Hiley has repeatedly discussed the reasons for which the Bohm interpretation has met resistance, these reasons relating for instance to the role of the quantum potential term and to assumptions on particle trajectories. He has shown how the energy-momentum-relations in the Bohm model can be obtained directly from the energy-momentum tensor of quantum field theory. He has referred to this as “a remarkable discovery, so obvious that I am surprised we didn’t spot it sooner”, pointing out that on this basis the quantum potential constitutes the missing energy term that is required for local energy-momentum conservation. In Hiley’s view the Bohm model and Bell’s inequalities allowed a debate on the notion of non-locality in quantum physics or, in Niels Bohr’s words, wholeness to surface.
And also quantum potential:
Building on the interpretation of the quantum theory introduced by Bohm in 1952, David Bohm and Basil Hiley in 1975 presented how the concept of a quantum potential leads to the notion of an “unbroken wholeness of the entire universe”, proposing that the fundamental new quality introduced by quantum physics is nonlocality.
Quantum potential and relativity:
Bohm and Hiley demonstrated that the non-locality of quantum theory can be understood as limit case of a purely local theory, provided the transmission of active information is allowed to be greater than the speed of light, and that this limit case yields approximations to both quantum theory and relativity.
Which approach is the complete description of reality and nature?
Thanks for the links.
None seems to describe it all. I don’t believe there is an acceptable fundamental TOE yet, but we know that the ability to express all these probable expressions in reality.
IMO, Bohm tried to create a fundamental state of the universe in a non pertutbative way, a state of timeless latencies and potentials.
A state of pure potential from which all causal events emerge.
But as to wholeness, if you claim that the universe is all there is, then BB was the beginning and the universe is expanding or contracting, and has boundaries. The effect of the release of all universal energetic potential in a single mega-quantum event.
But the implication and apparent probability for this event was already Implied in the timeless Potential field. An infinity of little possibilities, just waiting for a “change” (not a chance) to become expressed in reality, little blips, such as our Big Bang, bubbling up , existing for a few billion years , eventually disappearing into the eternal state of Potential.
Bohm’s “Holomovents” of an impersonal metaphysical wholeness seems satisfy both the objective physical science as well as the subjective spiritual experience by an observer.
btw, I am not arguing for a greater physical wholeness outside the universe, but the potential that allowed for expansion (inflation) of this universe.