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
/cv-pdf/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

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 entangl
ement

Background: For
the gauge/gravity 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 solv

ed) Millennium Prize Problem
proved by Gregory Perelman
($1M refused): Every simply
connected, closed 3-manifold
is homeomorphic to the 3sphere
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

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

D+1 (gravity) is cyclic in a sense
will be one of our questions

Background: The Higgs boson

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

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

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,
Their mechanical
Energy (mass) 7
action
Inertial mass Gravitational mass
Gravitational
ones
rtial mass is the measure
General
relativity,
esistance vs. the action
which is smooth
ny force field.

vitational mass is
The weak,
measure of gravity action

electromagnetic,
And what about strong
ones
entanglement and
The
standard mode

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 quantummechanical movement and in last analysis,
of any mechanical (i.e. space-time)
movement at all

we sense gravity as another and equivalent

nterpretation of any movement, then ... 8

plex probability distribution = Two proba

p
entangledistribu
Complex
ment
nergy-momentum
Space-tim
Banach

(Hilbert)
Space
quantumPseudo-

trajectory

force
Riemanian
not and cannot r
field It does
basis
e standard modelpresent
repre- gravity because
nts any quantum is
force
not a quantum field a

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 selfadjoint, then:
A quantum physical quantity
corresponds to it, and
All wave function and self-adjoint
operators share a common Hilbert

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

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

More about the cure

The
quantity of subadditivity (which can be
zero, too) is the degree (or quantity) of
entanglement :
,
where 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

More and more about the cure

cannot be quantized in principle even if

(!!!)

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-

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
space-time 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 spacetime 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

1
to the mathematical and physical ...: 0

a
s
A

e
l
o
wh

A space-time
A wave
trajectory
function
e
l
o
h
w
Hilbert spaces a Minkowski space
A

A Yin-Yang mathematical structur

.
.
.
r
e
v
e
ow

However ...: Have already added la Nicolas of

Cusas interpretation to that
Yin-Yang structure, so that ...

1
1

he biggest of the space-time whol

is inserted within

he smallest of any space-time poin

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 fractal Yin-Yang mathematical structure ...
Will check whether it satisfies our requirements:12
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 spacetime 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
space-time and vice versa

Back to the philosophical interpretation

of quantum (I) or quantized (II) field
The principle is: The global change of a
space-time trajectory (or an operator in
pseudo-Riemannian 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

Back to the philosophical interpretation,

or more and more miracles
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

... where &

means ...

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

The second
quantization in terms of
IfBanach
the Banachspace
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
IfBanach
we can always
determine a self-adjoint
space

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

The second
quantization in terms of
As
entanglement
as gravity is only external,
Banach
space

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

The problem of Lorentz invariance

Try to unite the following facts: 1

3
The Lorentz noninvariant are:
Newtons mechanicsSchrdingers
quantumare:
mechanics
The Lorentz invariant

Maxwells theory Diracs

of
quantum mechanics
electromagnetic of electromagnetic fie
The locally Lorentz invariant
field
(but noninvariant globally) are:
Einsteins special
Our hypothesis
relativity
steins
general relativity
of entanglement &
gravity
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

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

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

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 1
4
electromagnetic wave looks like the
following:

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

frame is usually understood as

Reference

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 .
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

a sphere with radius decomposed

Given

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

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:

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 1
8
(physical) approach

No axiom of choice (the Paradise)

Probabilistic (mathematical) appro

Totality aka eternity aka infini

Mechanical (physical) approach

tim
e
energ
y

Hilbert space:
Both
om the Paradiseneed
to the Earth choice
by the stairs (axiom)
of energy

Minkowski spac
from the Earth
to the Paradise
by the stairs
of time

E a r t h (choice)

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

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

The axiom of choice

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

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

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

1
9

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

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
True
indistinguish(in)distinguishNaming
distinguish
ability
ability
Quantum indistinguishability

Bosons

ability

Fermions Positive

Quantum vs. classical movement in

terms of (quantum in)distinguishability
2
0

Static
Dynamic
(fermion)
(boson)
Dynamic
aspect: true aspect: weak
(momentum)

ave
function
as
ininWave
function aspect
edistinguisha
characteristic
Static
distinguisha
as
a (wellnction
(position
bility of
bility
ordered)

random
Pseudo-aspect
vector
mplex quantity
Riemannian
Hilbert space
Distinguisha
Quantum indistinguishability
space
bility to static
Dynamic to static Dynamic
aspect: one to on
aspect:
much
to
many
Quantum movement
Classical moveme

Our interpretation of
fermion antisymmetry vs.
boson
symmetry

The usual interpretation suggests that

both the fermion and boson ensembles
are well-ordered: 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 well-orders the unorderable
The true much many transition

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

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

2
of philosophy rather than of physics?
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

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 pseudoRiemannian space is curved
Any point in Hilbert space represents a
complete process, i.e. an actual
infinity, and any trajectory in pseudoRiemannian space a process in time,
i.e. in development, or in other words,

Hilbert vs. pseudo-Riemannian space:

2
completing the puzzle
2

Opp
ositio
n

Process in
time

PseudoRiemannian
Curv space
e
Gravity,
General
relativity
Minkowski

Actual infinity

Banach space
Entanglement
Quantum
information
Hilbert space

Our thesis in terms of that table

Curv
e

PseudoRiemannian
space

Gravity,
General
relativity

2
3

Banach space

Entangle
ment

Quantum
information
glement is gravity as a
complete pro

ity is entanglement as a process in t

The thesis

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

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 ...:

2
5

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 str
to an inseparable whole of a merely mu
to the last one as the secondside of th
bius band cyclically passing into the ot
Quantum
thingamabobs

Holism of the East vs. linear time

2
of the 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

The axiom of choice selfreferentially

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 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
outside
inside
the universe

Exactly the half of the universe between

2
two electrons of a helium atom
8

Here is a helium atom. Exactly the

ehalf
universe is inserted between its
electrons which differ from each
r only with reversed spin:
West thinks of the universe as
fermion
extremely immense, and of fermion
the
trons and atoms as the extretiny. However as quantum
hanics as Chinese thought
ws that they pass into each other
ywhere and always
The universe

Taiji is the Chinese transition

between the tiniest and the most
immense fermion

The West's single pathway

along or through Taiji
is mathematics, though

2
9

fermion

A fortunate
exception is
Nicolas of
Kues

How on Earth is it
possible?
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 wellorderable 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

Taiji in the language of

3
0

mathematics

fermion

Quantum
He
things

The universe as
n unorderable set:

thout space-time fermion

Onelength
single
boson!!!!
Half the universe
The universe
between them
as
a wellorderable
Wave function interpretedWave
function
set:
with
the
s a characteristic function as a vector
common and universal Hilbertmost
(Banach) s

Quantum
field

Taiji in the language of

mathematics
3

he axiom of fermion
choice
colems
The
universe
as
paradox

Quantum
He
things

n unorderable set:

thout space-time fermion

Onelength
single
boson!!!!
Half the universe
The universe
between them
as
a wellorderable
Wave function interpretedWave
function
set:
with
the
s a characteristic function as a vector
common and universal Hilbertmost
(Banach) s

Quantum
field

3
2

Wuji as the Kochen-Specker

theorem

Taiji

he axiom of choice
Quantum compute
colems
The
universe
as
The universe of
paradox

unorderable set:
(or as) sundry

thout any measure Tu r i n g a l g o r i t h m

One single
A most and mo
qubit!!!!
ordinary bit
The universe
Half the computing
as
universe between the
a wello states
of one
single bitorderable
set:
Its point
interpreted
Its point
with
the
most
s a characteristic function
as
a
vector
common and universal Hilbert (Banach) s

The mapping between numbers and

3
a sundry
3

few simplifying assumptions:

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

Quantum mechanics solves the general

problem under those assumptions

eneral problem is the quantitative descr

of the universe: too complic
Well-orderable
Wave
numbers
function
Wave
as a field
function
fermions
as a
3
probability
4
bosons
distribution
All the universe
as a sundry Hilbert space
e general problem The simplifying solvin

r
o
F
Taiji

r
o
F

Wuji

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 Topologica
lly
flat

two-side

3
5

Mbius strip as a fiber

bundle

3
6

circle for bundl

radius for fiber

the same radius

from the other
side for base

The definition of fiber bundle by

the example of a Mbuis strip 37
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:

means
Cartesian product

3
8

The definition without any

illustration

Arbitrary neighborhoods of
arbitrary topological spaces
for the radiuses
of the illustration
3
9
wever the topological spaces
e usual Hilbert spaces or subspaces
the physical interpretation of
er bundle in the gauge theories

ther words, Hilbert spaces subst

for the radiuses of Mbius s

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
4
same
afterbundle
the preciseCartesian
calibrating:
Fiber
product 0
0

The Standard
Model

n uncalibrated indicator
the indicator calibrat

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

Why is quantum gravity

a philosophical problem?
Not for Alan Socals

"Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a T

ransformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravit
y

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

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
well-known 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

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

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 Einsteins
relativity principle :
4
2

Scolems

paradox The axiom of choice

No hidden variables Wave-particle
duality The invariance of discrete and
continuous morphisms (functions) The
invariance of discrete and smooth spacetime movements Our generalization of
Einsteins relativity principle (GRP)
Skolems paradox
formulation of GRP

is

weaker

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:

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 waveparticle invariance to wave-particle duality

More about the embedding of wave-particle

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 , 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 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 one44
more inter-pretation:
as a (covariant) set of
harmonics
as
a
(contravariant)
set of

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:

Is there any mathematical model, which

can coincide with the modeled reality?

4
5

A philosophical interlude about the logical

equivalence of two physical interpretations

4
6

Can they be equivalent?

Let the former (any quantity) be physically

interpreted as the argument in the latter:

4
7

Besides, let the same argument be

physically interpreted as time:

4
8

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:

For
example, if A is distance

4
9

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

Dual Hilbert space

5
2

Hilbert spac

Obviously Parsevals theorem is due

to the flatness of Hilbert space. To
get it curved into Banach one?

5
3

Dual Banach space

Banach spac

Fourier transform by 3D Cartesian product

5
4

Riesz representation theorem by

5
3D Cartesian product
5

An
About
and the coincidence of , , )and
H

o
d
ilb p
in form
e
5
z
e
i
l
er ra
6
a
r
t
t

e
sp or
n n
e
g
a
o
i
i
(
n
he zest isce
A n ct
hat about
fu
anach space
!

A functional

lane determined by the three p

is getting curved into
(please imagine it )

That is:

Now the case is:

No entanglement No gravity
( is the Hilbert space of the compound
system )

he surface of Banach space

5
7

The planes represent three Hilbert spaces

tensor product

such as:

However the case in

general is:

5
8

Entanglement No gravity

s the Hilbert space of the compound system

he surface of Banach space

The planes form an arbitrary triangle: Such that

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:
ontinuous perspective:
Discrete perspective
(countable)
expanding
in time

Minkowski space

(countable)
expanding
in frequenc
Hilbert space

The different perspectives on an impulse

a trajectory: Hilbert Minkowski space

a trajectory

an impulse

6
0

a world
line

a quantum
leap

ontinuous perspective:
Discrete perspective
(countable)
expanding
in time

Minkowski space

(countable)
expanding
in frequenc
Hilbert space

Hilbert Minkowski space:

wave-particle duality
a trajectory

6
1

an impulse

a world
line

a quantum
leap

particle moving a wave function

ontinuously
simultaneous in al
n that trajectory the space
well-ordered by time
Minkowski space

Hilbert space

Hilbert Minkowski space: a perfect

symmetry of positions and probabilities

a trajectory

an impulse

6
2

particle moving a wave function

ontinuously
simultaneous in all
n that trajectory the space but wellwell-ordered by time
ordered in frequen

owever the particle However the wave

rajectory is a singular
function is a singula
mix of frequencies
mix of positions

The quadrilateral: Hilbert Banach

Minkowski pseudo-Riemannian space
6
3

Banach spacePseudo-Riemannia
space

Hilbert space

Minkowski spac

The known sides of the quadrilateral:

6
as Hilbert Banach space
4
as Minkowski pseudo-Riemannian space

Banach space Hilbert space

varying scalar product
depending on the space points

anach space as a curved Hilbert spac

hange of the scalar product in each
can be interpreted as a function of
the curvature in that point

The known sides of the quadrilateral:

as Minkowski pseudo-Riemannian space
as Hilbert Banach space
6
5

varying scalar product

depending on the space points

do-Riemannian space as curved Mink

: The change of the scalar product in
int can be interpreted as a function
the curvature in that point

The close analogy of the two transforms

as different views on the same transform:

???

6
6

???

We can use the two perspectives

mentioned above, on Hilbert
Minkowski space:

The two transforms as the same transform

6
7

2
1

dual space

time
frequency

The curving or flattening in both cases: one

Shifting&
rotating
of each
corresponding
sphere
in the
dual
space
space

6
8

2
1

The curving or flattening in the first

6
case: two comments
9

time
frequency

is the first case what one knows till now

e curved pseudoThe
flat
Hilbert
spac
iemannian space
of
quantum
mechanic
f general relativity
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

2
1

dual space

frequency
time

The curving or flattening in both cases: two

Shifting&
rotating
of each
corresponding
sphere
in the
dual
space
space

7
0

2
1

The curving or flattening in the

second case: two comments

7
1

frequency
time

s the second case what one would emph

The curved
The flat Minkowski
Banach space
of entanglementspace of special relativi

2) A methodological reflection on the

equavalence of both cases: No need of
quantum gravity!, or: Entan-glement
represents quantum gravity integrally.
Of course, does one wish, both spaces
could be curved, and a partial degree of

The unknown sides of the quadrilateral:

7
as Hilbert Minkowski space
2
as Banach pseudo-Riemannian space

Discreteness

Continuity

dual space

frequency (energy)
time

The sides of the quadrilateral one by one:

1| Minkowski pseudo-Riemannian space
momentum
position
in the gravitational
A body
7
ld
Shifting&
3
rotating
n
n
of each
corresponding
sphere
in the
dual
2
2
space

space

The quadrilateral one by one: Minkowski

pseudo-Riemannian space: conclusion

7
he curved
4
inkowski space
The flat
s pseudo-Riemannian
Minkowski space
ne represents
includes
l the universe
the space-time
s a gravitational field
trajectory
f the whole,
of the body
r of all the rest
o the body

dual space

space

The sides of the quadrilateral one by one:

2| Hilbert Banach space

dual space

probabilit
The wave
function of
Shifting&

position
position

robability
in entanglement

rotating
anything
of
each
corresponding
sphere
in the
dual
space
space

n
7
5

2
1

The quadrilateral one by one: Hilbert

Banach space: conclusion

7
he curved
6
Hilbert space
The flat
s Banach one
Hilbert space
epresents
includes
ll the universe
the wave functio
s an entanglement of the quantum
f the quantum
anything
nything
with all the rest

dual space

space

The quadrilateral two by two:

Hilbert Banach, and Minkowski
pseudo-Riemannian space: conclusion

The close analogy between those

two sides of the quadrilateral
hints their common essence
as two different ways for
Banach
(Hilbert)
space as
expressing
the same:

functions globally, and

pseudo-Riemannian
(Minkowski) space
as point trajectories locally

A few important notes: on the conclusion

first earnest note: The time (instead

uency) interpretation of pseudo-Rieman

owski) space is due only to tradition or f
rce of habit: In fact, both Banach (Hilbert
d pseudo-Riemannian (Minkowski) space
nvariant to time frequency, or continuo
ete interpretation, or wave particle dua
as mere mathematical formalisms
Banach (Hilbert) space represents
the same as functions globally, and
pseudo-Riemannian (Minkowski)

A few important notes: on the conclusion

The second earnest note:

h pseudo-Riemanian (Minkowski) and Ban

ert) space are well-ordered in the param
either time or frequency in (geodesic) lin
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)

A few important notes: on the conclusion

he answer is the third earnest note

ndoning the axiom of choice in all the ca
o well-ordering, the whole becomes a co
f all its possible states or parts (well-ord
me or in frequency before that ). Any pos
e or part can be featured by its probabili
pen. We can illustrate that probability as
ined by projection number or measure of
corresponding state or part
Banach (Hilbert) space represents
the same as functions globally, and
pseudo-Riemannian (Minkowski)

The fourth earnest note on the conclusion

unction space A point in

A point in
Hilbert space
t f Banach space
A trajecA line in A traA line in
Line space
tory inpseudo- jec-Minkowa force
Riemann.

7
p toryski spac
pfield space
7

Projection inx A defected x

robabilities
probability A normed
space
distribution probability
being due to distribution
The entanglement
curved case
The flat case
(the force
field)
Banach (Hilbert)
space
represents
the same as functions globally, and

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

The sides of the quadrilateral one by one:

3) Hilbert Minkowski space

Both spaces are flat, well-ordered,

expressing the same, but:
difference: Hilbert space is a function sp
Minkowski space is an ordinary, point s
ged difference:
s, Hilbert space is interpreted (but incor
s a frequent space representing discre
es, while Minkowski space (but also
ectly) only as a time space representin
h trajectories. In fact, both spaces are eq
retable as a time, as a frequent spac
cted by a Fourier or Fourier-like transform

The sides of the quadrilateral one by one:

3| Hilbert Minkowski space

y important corollary from the real diffe

icet: Hilbert space is a function space, w
owski space is an ordinary, point spac
So that a trajectory in Minkowski
space represents
a potentially infinite, current process
in time or
in frequency, while a point in Hilbert
space
The two views mentioned before on a
represents the same process as
single Hilbert-Minkowski space
complete or
represent it correspondingly as a

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

varying angle&distnance
orthogonality

The quadrilateral, one by one: 4|Banach

pseudo-Riemannian space: the curvature

resented in each case by the two dual sp

n'

x
x
DUAL SPACE

B
A
N
A
PR
C
SI
H
EE
UM
P
DA
R
ON
O
.B N

x
SPACE

7
8

The dual-spaces representation of

mechanical movement in a force field

7
9

n'

force field

he juxtaposition of Lagrange and Hamilto

approach to mechanical movement

n both
cases, three 4-vectors
etermines the movement in any point, b
here as three
and here
discrete
ual p,E space
x,t space
as a smoot
corresponding 4trajectory
points

ilton (dual spaces) approach

Lagrange (derivatives) appro

The juxtaposition of Lagrange and

Hamilton approach to mechanical
movement: conclusion

h approaches are equivalent in classical

nics a well-known fact

e accept the equivalence of gravity (Lag

anglement (Hamilton), both approaches w
diately equivalent in quantum mechanics

universal equivalence of both approach

s from discrete-continuous invariance, or
particle dualism, or from Skolems para
ast analysis from the axiom of choice

A little philosophical digression about

gravitational field and force field
Unlike any other of the three rest fields (forces)
known to physics, gravity is universal: Since any
physical entity must have energy to be, it
undergoes the impact of gravity
However that universality can be interpreted
differently:
It is inexplicable in the standard model: The
con-jecture of Higgs boson is an attempt to
clarify it
We can unfold it as the manifestation of
quantum universality: Since the Planck constant
exists, gravity is the other, equivalent, and
smooth hypostasis of any discrete movement
(quantum leap)

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: SoThe
it can
be called
so:
source
of probability
or
probability field 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

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

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?

Interpreting the
connection between the
f(E) t
A
quantum
leap
in
ti
two
dual
spaces

ther (or the same??)

8
0

antum leap in energy

quency)

e probability field
The probability fie
all the momenta
of all the position
Heisenbergs uncertainty
Any
Any
Fourier transforms
Dual space

Space

How can entanglement field act?

Interpreting the connection between
Complex
Hilbert
space
the two
dual spaces

8
1

P(p) P(x)
P(p,x)
P(x,p)
The complex The
probability fie
probability
of all the position
field of all as
The complex
emomenta
probability field
probabi-lity field
all
momenta
as the
positions
of all as posiHeisenbergs uncertainty
Any
Any
tions as

Fourier transforms
Dual space
Space

How can entanglement field act?

Interpreting the connection between
Complex
Hilbert
space
the two
dual spaces

8
2

P(p,x)
P(x,p)
The same complex
The same complex
probability field of all probability field of all
as momenta as
as

viewas
View
from
positions
positions
momenta

Its derivative
trajectory

A trajectory
well-ordered
in time

Dual space

Space

A digression about the arrow of time

The arrow of time is a fundamental,

known to eve-ryone, 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 quan-tity. The
arrow of time and the wellordering are merely full synonyms
expressing the same
Consequently, the axiom of choice,

 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

 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

 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

 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
energy-momentum 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
energy-momentum 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
pseudo-Riemannian 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 well-ordering in space-time (energymomentum) eo ipso removing the axiom of
choice, and eo ipso the choice itself

That second representation is quantum

A view on a system in a force field in terms

of eternity instead of time
8
3

OK,
but we
have
already
introdu
ced it a
little
above

 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

 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

 ... 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 selfreferentiality of:

view
View from

Our solving is going to be:

Eternity and time are merely
two different interpretations
of the same mathematical
structure:

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

ave function as
eternity
Fourier transform for entanglement
two (conjugate) b
o
th
Compl distributions
obability
ex
Hilbert The Same!!!
(Banac
for gravitah)
tional field
Space
ell-ordering in time
nd frequency (energy)
time&

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 space87

and physical space

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