Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Previous Contests

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American


How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

Juan Ramón González Álvarez: on 12/6/12 at 19:35pm UTC, wrote Congrats for your fourth prize! Although, after seeing the complete list of...

Juan Ramón González Álvarez: on 10/25/12 at 9:44am UTC, wrote Sorry, I post above a non-working link. The working link is positive...

Juan Ramón González Álvarez: on 10/25/12 at 9:41am UTC, wrote Dear Angelo Bassia , Tejinder Singhb, and Hendrik Ulbrichtc, The answer to...

Eckard Blumschein: on 10/21/12 at 6:05am UTC, wrote Dear authors, You see "a need for reconciliation between CSL induced...

Eckard Blumschein: on 10/21/12 at 4:02am UTC, wrote Robert, Let me object to "Superposition and the uncertainty principle are...

Steve Dufourny: on 10/17/12 at 15:14pm UTC, wrote it is true there in fact, put your name dear anonymous , you are a...

Steve Dufourny: on 10/17/12 at 15:11pm UTC, wrote Hello, It is not the fault of FQXi, but it is the fault of several...

Tejinder Singh: on 10/17/12 at 14:54pm UTC, wrote Dear Anonymous, Thank you for your post. We beg to differ with you. The...


Joe Fisher: "Dear Fellow Qualified Physics Researchers. Visible reality contains no..." in Wandering Towards a Goal:...

Thomas Ray: "Lorraine, "'Objective' truth only exists as subjective experience. It is a..." in Wandering Towards a Goal:...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Eugene Lim and Richard Easther, “Undaunted by the lack of tools to..." in Our Place in the...

agaric backlink: "Obat Liver Paling Ampuh Cara Mengobati Bronkitis Paling Ampuh Cara..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

anil sharma: "Sometimes it is not possible to take care of infant babies especially while..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Amanda Spencer: "hi there" in Quantum Replicants:...

Amanda Spencer: "hi there Hi there nice article." in Quantum Replicants:...

Marshall Barnes, R&D Eng: "Farzad: Thanks for that helpful breakout of the documentary..." in The Multiverse - Part 2...

click titles to read articles

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

September 24, 2017

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Is Quantum Linear Superposition an Exact Principle of Nature? by Angelo Bassi, Tejinder Singh, and Hendrik Ulbricht [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 14:20 GMT
Essay Abstract

The principle of linear superposition is a hallmark of quantum theory. It has been confirmed experimentally for photons, electrons, neutrons, atoms, for molecules having masses up to ten thousand amu, and also in collective states such as SQUIDs and Bose-Einstein condensates. However, the principle does not seem to hold for positions of large objects! Why for instance, a table is never found to be in two places at the same time? One possible explanation for the absence of macroscopic superpositions is that quantum theory is an approximation to a stochastic nonlinear theory. This hypothesis may have its fundamental origins in gravitational physics, and is being put to test by modern ongoing experiments on matter wave interferometry.

Author Bio

Angelo Bassi works on foundations of quantum mechanics and has a Ph.D. degree in Physics from University of Trieste. After completing post-docs at ICTP and University Ludwig-Maxmillian he joined University of Trieste as faculty. Tejinder Singh is Professor at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in Mumbai. His research interests are in quantum gravity and measurement problem. Hendrik Ulbricht received his Ph.D. in the surface science experimental group of Gerhard Ertl, and after completing post-docs at Vanderbilt and Vienna he is now Reader at Southampton University where he leads an experimental effort on Matter-wave Interferometry and quantum-nanophysics.

Download Essay PDF File

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 05:23 GMT
Dear Dr's Bassi, Singh, and Ulbricht,

I enjoyed your essay and the fact that you use real numbers for particle masses and slit dimensions. I was somewhat disappointed to see the emphasis on GRW 'theory' which, as a "phenomenological modification of quantum theory" is as ugly as sin and also violates energy conservation, in addition to requiring two new unexplained universal constants that seem to show up nowhere else (unlike g, c and h). But I was glad that you noted "beyond doubt" that there should be deeper principles underlying this radical approach (though none are known).

You suggest, with Penrose and others, that gravity is responsible for the absence of macroscopic superpositions. Although you note that the GRW/CSL approach is non-relativistic and efforts to relativize it have failed, still you see collapse as "instantaneous and non-local", per Bell.

You are left with a century-old prediction that fails at macroscopic dimensions and a phenomenological model that can only be characterized as 'ugly'.

Although you've invested quite a bit in this model you do suggest that it is possible that linear superposition is a wrong assumption and that something radical is needed. I invite you to read my essay, The Nature of the Wave Function, for a gravity-based approach that radically departs from the century old assumption of superposition and collapse. I hope you find it interesting, and invite your comments.

Best of luck in the contest,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 12:04 GMT
Dear Dr. Klingman,

We refer to collapse models as phenomenological modifications of quantum theory precisely because they lack the degree of universality and beauty typical of theories such as classical mechanics or electromagnetism. Therefore the comment "as ugly as sin" apart from not being a scientific comment, does not come as a surprise. Moreover, phenomenological models contain phenomenological constants, which are expected to be justified by the underlying theory. It has always been like this in the history of science. So, there is not much to be surprised about the introduction of two new constants.

However, in spite of being phenomenological models, collapse models have some important scientific merits.

1. They provide a consistent resolution to the measurement problem of quantum mechanics. One may not like the way the problem is solved, but it is a consistent solution. And this is important.

2. They achieve what many people thought was impossible beforehand: to reconcile the linear evolution as given by the Schroedinger equation and the collapse of the wave function into a single dynamical principle. The new dynamics is compatible with all known experimental facts, and moreover explains why we see the world the way we see it. Again, one may not like the explanation, but it is a consistent explanation.

3. They are the only theory mathematically well formulated, which makes predictions which are different from those of standard quantum mechanics. Having models against which quantum mechanics can be tested experimentally is of paramount importance for devising novel experiments and, ultimately, for the development of physics.

4. They suggest a direction to look at, for unfolding the underlying theory of nature. The direction might eventually prove wrong, but it is valuable that one has a clear direction to follow.

Regarding the energy non-conservation, take as an example a particle in a gas. Its energy is not conserved, because the particles moves to thermal equilibrium. No one however is shocked by this fact. The non-coserved energy goes to the bath. The overall energy is conserved. In collapse models the same thing happens. The non-conserved energy goes to the noise responsible for the collapse. When we will have the underlying theory (the analog of classical mechanics for explaining the behavior of a particle in a gas), we will also restore energy conservation.

Regarding non-locality, the issue is simple. The violation of Bell inequalities is an experimental fact. Within the framework of a theory (or model...) containing just the wave function and its dynamics and nothing else, the only way to comply with the violation of Bell inequalities is to have a superluminal collapse of the wave function.

We look forward to reading your essay.



Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 18:26 GMT
Dear Dr. Singh,

I certainly agree that 'ugly as sin' is not a scientific characterization, and that all phenomenological models (MOND, etc) share this feature to some degree. I further agree with your reasons for taking GRW seriously, so it really is just a case of "one may not like the explanation". I do like your explanation for 'restoring' energy conservation.

I also agree that "The violation of Bell inequalities is an experimental fact". It is the assumptions underlying Bell's inequality that I believe to be wrong. Because this topic has been discussed in great detail on other threads, I will not clog your space here. Thank you for agreeing to read my essay, I look forward to your comments.


Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Daniel Sudarsky replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 01:20 GMT
Dear colleagues,

I found the essay quite stimulating. Congratulations.

Regarding the issue at hand here, I view very favorably the the idea that Quantum Gravity could be behind the modifications that look effectively like CSL.

In that case I think the issue of energy conservation should be considered in a rather different light. In General Relativity there are no generic laws of energy conservation (Energy becomes a well defied concept only in rather spacial situations, such as space-times with time-like Killing Fields). The

only thing that is relevant in a general context is the conservation of the energy momentum tensor (i.e it should have zero divergence). But that, again, relies on physics taking place in a well defied space-time metric.What will be the form of whatever is left of such notions in a situation where metric is ill defied, or fuzzy, or fluctuating, is, I believe anybody's guess.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 15:48 GMT

"In order to describe dynamical evolution the theory depends on an external classical time, which is part of a classical spacetime geometry."

The point I make in my entry is that the classical timeline is an effect of the underlaying dynamic, such that it isn't the present moving from past to future, but the changing configuration of what is, that turns future into past....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 13:19 GMT
Thank you for your comments John.


Domenico Oricchio wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 17:41 GMT
It is only a chat in a blog, not a complete theory: I read your article and I start to thinking on your interesting essay.

I think that for the third law of thermodynamics exist a single quantum function for a macroscopic object: a superconductive apple (superconductive Newton's apple) is a quantum object that produce tunneling, double slit interference and others quantum effect.

The problem with the real apple is the unattainability of the absolute zero, because of the phonon oscillations (thermal absorption); is it possible to built material transparent for phonons, like diamond, or glasses, or irregular lattice material (only apple shape)?

Exist in the Universe macroscopic objects near the absolute zero?

I think that a black dwarf is a macroscopic object with a single quantum function that emit like a single neutron in a gravitational field (hypothetical observable quantum jumps of the black dwarf).



report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 13:21 GMT
Thanks for your comments Domenico.


Ted Erikson wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 20:56 GMT

Way over my head, but interesting. Does nature recognize fancy mathematics? My essay is perhaps overly simplified, but addresses the real problem of Physics. Wherein lies "consciousness"? Very murky, but emergentism (growth) and panpsychism (memory are properties suggested that aligns them with probabilities of a 1-D, 2-D, and 3-D geometric world. See:

To Seek Unknown Shores

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 13:22 GMT
Then Ted. We look forward to reading your essay.


Michael Lee wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 07:34 GMT
Dear authors,

there is little to read about the decoherence theory to explain why macroscopic superpositions are so difficult to achieve. What do you think about this theory and it's recent experimental tests that confirm this framework?

Would be happy about some answers.

Best regards,

Michael Lee

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 18:00 GMT
Hello Michael,

You may kindly want to have a look at the article by Stephen Adler at

and Section I of our review article

B. V. Oman wrote on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 14:34 GMT
A clearly written essay, which, unlike many others here proposed, concerns physics and not science fiction.

One may like these models or not, but one has to acknowledge that they give a logic and fully-consistent explanation of the failure of the superposition principle for macroscopic objects.

B. V. Oman

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 13:18 GMT
Thank you Dr. Oman


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 17:32 GMT
Interesting essay. Nice job.

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 13:15 GMT
Thank you!


Member George F. R. Ellis wrote on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 13:22 GMT
Dear authors

I really like your essay and the way that it tackles a crucial issue for present day physics that so many choose to sweep under the carpet. You suggest "1. Given a system of n distinguishable particles, each particle experiences a sudden spontaneous localization (i.e. collapse of position state) with a mean rate lambda, to a spatial region of extent r_C." I agree that this needs investigation. But my own view would be that this would be very likely to depend on the local context, in much the same way that state vector preparation does (see here for a discussion). Thus the rate lambda would be environmentally dependent. Penrose' idea is one way that this dependence might occur; but it could be that it is a far more local effect than that (i.e. on the scale of the measuring apparatus).

George Ellis

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 13:13 GMT
Dear George,

Thanks for your liking our essay, and for your interesting viewpoint.

What you suggest might very well be the case, for a consistent theory of spontaneous wave function collapse. However as you know it is not what is assumed to happen in collapse models such as CSL. There, the collapse rate lambda is a uniquely fixed constant, which does not depend on anything. If collapse models were a fundamental theory, it would play the role of a new constant of nature. The equations of motion then tell you that, when you have a systems of particles, the collapse rate of the center of mass scales with the size of the systems. This scaling seems to be something like the contextually feature proposed by you. But the value of lambda remains always the same.

We are currently reading your detailed paper on quantum measurement mentioned by you above. Your essay here on top-down causation is fascinating. Do you have a picture on how corresponding mathematical models can be built, including specifically in the context of quantum measurement?



Member George F. R. Ellis replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 16:40 GMT
Thanks for that. I don't yet have a mathematical model in the case of measurement: am thinking about it. The first step is to look at state vector preparation, which is an analogous non-unitary process, involving a projection operator depending on the local macro context. With that in place, the steps to a contextual measurement model - maybe with a new universal constant, as you say - may become clearer. But the essential comment is that the local measurement context may be the "hidden variable" (it's non-local as far as the micro system is concerned, so the non-locality criterion is satisfied). It's hidden simply because we don't usually take into into account.


report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 18:17 GMT
Dear Angelo, Tejinder and Hendrik,

I think the criterion for this departure from linear QM may come with horizon scales. The de Broglie wave equation tells us the wave length of a particle with momentum p is λ = h/p. If we use the momentum p = mc (thinking in a relativistic sense of p = E/c) we may estimate the wave length for a Planck momentum particle p = m_pc = 6.5x10^5gcm/s, for...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 13:25 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

1. You seem to subscribe the idea that decoherence solves the measurement problem, if we interpret correctly what you write. We strongly object against the possibility that decoherence alone provides a solution to the measurement problem. See [Adler's paper against decoherence] for a thorough criticism, which we think is convincing enough.

2. About John Wheeler's idea. They are certainly very appealing, and there could be much truth in them. However, they have not been translated so far into consistent mathematical models. In our essay, we stick on purpose only to ideas which find application in well-defined mathematical models, like collapse models and trace dynamics. Moreover, collapse models make precise predictions, which can be tested experimentally. In this way, one has what we think is a perfect match between speculation, mathematical modeling and experimental analysis.

3. Regarding superfluidity, superconductivity and related collective overcomplete or coherent states. They can be very well described within collapse models, and the answer is that they behave as we see them behaving. In other words, collapse models do not predict a (too) different behavior for such collective phenomena, with respect to standard quantum mechanics. The reason is that these phenomena do not involve the *superposition of a large number of particle in two appreciably different positions in space*, the only type of superpositions which are strongly suppressed by collapse models.



Lawrence B Crowell replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 02:39 GMT
I don’t think decoherence solves the measurement problem per se. It does indicate how superpositions of a quantum system are teken up by a reservoir of states in entanglements. This then reduces the density matrix of the system to a diagonal matrix which correspond to probabilities. Decoherence does not tell us which outcome actually happens.

I framed this within the decoherence perspective. It seemed as if the criterion for the sort of nonlinear quantum physics would happen when the time of the state reduction occurs at a time comparable to the Planck time. This can happen for a system with approximately 10^{18} amu or proton masses. This might be the maximal size at which a system can have quantum properties.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 15:07 GMT
As noted at the beginning of your article:

"The principle of linear superposition...Along with the uncertainty principle, it provides the basis for the mathematical formulation of quantum theory." You then suggest that it might only hold as an approximation.

I view the problem rather differently. Fourier Analysis is the actual mathematical basis for quantum theory. Superposition and...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Oct. 12, 2012 @ 19:57 GMT

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 04:02 GMT

Let me object to "Superposition and the uncertainty principle are merely properties of Fourier Analysis."

The authors did perhaps decide to ignore such claims.


report post as inappropriate

Inger Stjernqvist wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 15:18 GMT
Dear authors,

When reading your excellent essay, a (perhaps silly) question compes to my mind. You write: "Suppose one has prepared in a controlled manner a beam of very large identical molecules...". What I wonder is: Mustn't there be an upper limit where the very large (hence comlex) molecules can no longer be assumed to be positively identical? Might the lack of controlled identity be the limit where linear superposition no longer holds? Might it be a question of molecular complexity, rather than size/weight?

Best regards!


report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 18:26 GMT

Your question is not silly at all. It is very near the heart of the issue. One need only go a little bit deeper to arrive at "the issue."

What is the significance of the particles all being "identical" in the first place? If they remain, forever identical, then they cannot change with the passage of time. If they cannot change with the passage of time, then they cannot store...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Inger Stjernqvist replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 21:46 GMT
Dear Robert,

Thank you very much for your enlighening reply! You gave me more than a hint of the role of information theory in physics, which I would like to follow up further. I entered this essay contest in order to have the opportunity to ask some silly questions to people that are more knowing than me - and kind enough to answer. See, if you like, my essay "Every Why Hath a Wherefore".

You saved my day!


report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 10:22 GMT
Dear Inger,

No, it is only the mass. If you take a look at some of the recent publications on molecule interferometry (Gerlich2011, Nat. Comm. 2, 263), then you can find that the molecules are already very complex. However one finds always the maximum predicted quantum visibility in interferometry experiments. So why is that so? First, what we observe is single particle interferometry...

view entire post

Don Limuti wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 16:48 GMT
Dear Authors,

You are tackling one of the elephants in the physics room, and as George Ellis commented above this one is hard to sweep under the rug.

Your solution of Continuous Spontaneous Localization [CSL] seems like a good idea to me.

My own work points to the Planck mass as the upper limit of all quantum phenomena including superposition. See my essay for two methods that show this. My essay is "An Elephant in the Room". This is a different elephant than yours (there are plenty of elephants to go around).

Here is a vague outline of an experiment that I believe can be performed that would correlate with your theory:

1. Chose a crystal like diamond to investigate. This is done because diamonds are considered to be a single molecule independent the number of carbon atoms.

2. Create bins of diamonds with increasing numbers of carbon atoms up to the Planck mass.

3. Test these diamond bins via the University of Vienna for the property of interference.

4. I suspect that interference phenomena will gradually decrease with mass and will disappear at the Planck mass. This experiment (if it can be performed) should provide confirmation of your theory.

Good to see you in this contest.

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 10:12 GMT
Dear Don.

The logic of your proposed experiment is basically what the experiments are aiming for: to increase the mass of particles in matter wave experiments. However, It is technically very challenging to perform these de Broglie interferometry experiments. Problems include: the generation of intense beams of particles at slow speeds, the implementation of an appropriate interferometer to see interference pattern of molecules with higher and higher masses and also the detection of single molecules with sufficient temporal and spatial resolution. On top of that all has to be implemented at ultra-high vacuum conditions. Diamonds would be possible, but there are many other molecules and nanoparticles and clusters, which have to be considered for such experiments. They have to be chosen depending on their special properties for beam generation, interferometry and detection. It is a huge puzzle with many experimental options. To give you an idea about the complexity and influencing parameters, which have to be considered for the experiment see the experimental section of our recent review (Bassi et al. 2012 arXiv:1204.4325) and Hornberger 2012. It would be great to perform an experiment as you suggest, but it will take some time to work out all experimental options to find the optimal setup.

Your results about Planck mass as the cut-off are intriguing. Curiously enough, as you know, Planck mass is already essentially in the macro-regime. Various studies based on gravity induced quantum-classical transition, as reviewed for instance in our above mentioned article, suggest that the transition happens at a few orders of magnitude lower than Planck mass. It would be interesting to try and understand why you get a different result.



Anonymous replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 03:34 GMT
Hi Tejinder,

Can you point me to information on testing particles for interference (that I would understand)?

In the essay ( I logically derive the Planck mass (via two methods) as the ultimate mass for a particle. This does not mean there are any particles in nature that can make it to this mass. I define particle as an object with mass that shows the property of interference. It does not surprise me that real particles never get close to the Planck mass.

This is why I was interested in diamonds. They are peculiar because they are hard crystals that are thought to be quantum mechanical at all sizes. I think they have a chance of getting close to the Planck mass.

Let me know what you think,


Don L.

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 19:40 GMT
Dear Don,

Please have a look at this review:

Alan Kadin wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 11:39 GMT
Dr. Singh and Colleagues:

You ask an important fundamental question about quantum linear superposition. But implicit in that question is the assumption that linear superposition should be universal. Instead, I would suggest that linear superposition applies ONLY to primary quantum fields such as electrons and photons. Please see my essay "The Rise and Fall of Wave-Particle Duality", In this picture, Quantum Mechanics is not a universal theory of all matter, but rather a mechanism for generating localized particle properties from primary continuous fields, where these localized (but not point) particles then follow classical trajectories (as derived from the quantum equations). Composites of fundamental fields such as nucleons and atoms are localized composite objects WITHOUT wave properties of their own, and hence completely without linear superposition. Beams of neutrons or atoms do not require de Broglie waves for quantum diffraction from a crystal lattice, which instead reflects quantized momentum transfer between the beam particle and the crystal. Remarkably, this reinvisioned quantum picture is logically consistent and avoids quantum paradoxes. Even more remarkably, this interpretation seems to be virtually new in the history of quantum theory, although it could have been proposed right at the beginning. The FQXi contest would seem to be an ideal venue to explore such concepts, but this has drawn relatively little attention.

Thank you.

Alan M. Kadin, Ph.D.

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 09:35 GMT
Dear Dr. Kadin,

Thank you for your comments and for your intriguing essay. Experiments which perform matter-wave interferometry with atoms and molecules as large as fullerenes already establish their wave nature and the validity of superposition for them [e.g. please see arXiv:1204.4325]. We wonder how your proposal can be made consistent with these experimental results?



Alan Kadin replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 23:53 GMT
Dear Authors:

Thank you for responding to my comment, but you have missed the key point which is at the heart of the quantum paradoxes. The quantum diffraction experiments (all referenced in my essay) are obviously correct, but their interpretation is based on an assumption that is incorrect. As described in my essay, and referenced to the work of Van Vliet, the scattering of a neutron requires a quantum transition of the crystal, which in turn requires a quantized momentum transfer to a degenerate phonon with momentum hG, where G is a reciprocal lattice vector. This gives rise to the classical wave diffraction result, but does NOT require an incident coherent wave. The same is true for an atom, molecule, or buckyball. They are all localized particles, not extended phase-coherent waves. (This is in contrast to electron and photon waves, which really are extended coherent waves with linear superposition.) I realize that this is heresy, but that is exactly the point of this FQXi essay contest - to question assumptions that no one ever questions. Please read my essay more carefully. I have taken great pains to explain everything clearly and consistently. I would be happy to discuss this offline, if that would be appropriate. My email is given in my bio.

Alan M. Kadin, Ph.D.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 21:49 GMT
Dear Alan Kadin,

"The FQXi contest would seem to be an ideal venue to explore such concepts, but this has drawn relatively little attention."

Perhaps you meant the attention to your essay rather than to the contest. Be sure you explained your remarkable result clearly, consistently, and understandably enough as to persuade any unbiased reader. Your essay was the only one that I called more convincing than quantum logics while everybody so far called my essay overly critical.

I hope, those who read uncommon or even heretical ideas will memorize them and eventually be in position to judge independent of the crowd.

Concerning the discrete vs. analog or linear vs. non-linear issue I would like to iterate what I tied to make aware of in the previous contest where it got unnoticed among more than 400 posts:

Cosine or Fourier transformations are non-linear integral transformations that render a continuous function of (elapsed or anticipated as elapsed) time into a discrete function of (likewise positive) frequency and vice versa.



report post as inappropriate

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 08:32 GMT
Dear Dr. Bassi and Dr. Singh,

It was a pleasure to meet you at the Quantum Malta conference and I am delighted to see that you have made what is in my view one of the two most important features of quantum theory the subject of your paper.

I agree with the belief that quantum superposition does not hold for macroscopic objects (but for different reasons which are outlined in my paper) and am glad that the predictions of CSL are being put to the experimental test. I just hope that it won't take 20 years, as you suggest in your paper, to test the theory in an adequate regime.

All the best,


report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 09:37 GMT
Dear Armin,

Thank you for your comments, and good to see your essay here.



Andrey Akhmeteli wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 15:50 GMT
Dear Authors,

Thank you for an interesting essay.

Maybe I am missing something, but, on the face of it, there may be some contradiction between the following statements in your essay:

1). "When one considers doing such an interference experiment for bigger objects such as a beam of large molecules the technological challenges become enormous."

2)."However when we look...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 19:34 GMT
Dear Andrey,

Thank you for your comments.

There is no contradiction actually. When doing an interference experiment with a large molecule, one overcomes the technological challenges to prepare an initial superposed state, and then essentially one waits and watches. If quantum theory is right, the superposition will last forever, an interference pattern will be seen, and indeed it will have been shown that the observed absence of superpositions in daily life is because of practical limitations. On the other hand, if CSL is right, then the superposed state which one has prepared after overcoming the technological challenges will not last forever, and interference will not be seen. This would mean that the absence of macroscopic superpositions is not because of technological challenges, but because of new fundamental physics to which quantum theory is an approximation.

With regards,


Andrey Akhmeteli replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 03:34 GMT
Thank you for the explanation of your position.

report post as inappropriate

DANIEL WAGNER FONTELES ALVES wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 00:06 GMT
Very interesting and clear. Your proposal seems to solve many very difficult problems at the foundation of quantum theory. I wish you luck in the contest, and above all, in the development of your research programme.

Best Regards


report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 12:52 GMT
Thank you for your kind comments, Daniel.


Eric Stanley Reiter wrote on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 07:52 GMT

I show by experiment in this essay contest how quantum theory is an approximation. My experiments refute the Born rule. A singly emitted gamma-ray should go one way or another at a beam splitter, but I show coincident detection exceeding chance. Similarly for an alpha-ray. This supports the Loading Theory, which was misrepresented and misunderstood for ~70 years, which is why no...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 12:56 GMT
Thank you Eric for your remarks. We are trying to understand your essay and the one by Ragazas.



Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 05:41 GMT
Dear Angelo, Tejinder, and Hendrik,

You present a very good idea, all the more so because of the very realistic possibility of experimental verification in the near future. I don’t know if it’s right, but the case you present for pursuing this direction is quite convincing. Indeed, I hope it’s wrong, because it would wreck some of my own ideas about quantum gravity! The universe...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 13:13 GMT
Dear Ben,

Thank you for your interesting and important comments.

1. The answer here depends on the stand one has towards collapse models. If one considers the stochastic collapse dynamics as an intrinsic feature of nature, then collapse models define an arrow of time, given by the direction along which pure states become statistical mixtures. Since for material particle lambda is always finite, their dynamics always contains an arrow of time.

On the other hand, if one considers collapse models as phenomenological models emerging from an underlying theory, like the dissipative dynamics of a (classical) particle in a bath is, with respect to the underlying Netwonian dynamics, then there is no in-built arrow of time.

2. The behavior of a system (like in any theory) depends on its state, in this case on its wave function. If the wave function is entangled with a larger system, then it will evolve in a certain way (typically, enhancing the collapse rate); If on the other hand the wave function is factorized from the rest of the world, it will evolve as an isolated system. Whether the system's wave function is entangled or factorized, depends on the previous history of the system.

3. In our view, it would not be a matter of choice whether to obtain a quantum theory from quantizing a classical theory, or derive it from an underlying theory. One cannot assume classical mechanics, define quantum mechanics from that, and then derive classical mechanics. IT is not logical. We agree with you that if experiments show departure from quantum theory in the mesoscopic regime, the need for an underlying theory will be strongly indicated.

Looking forward to reading your essay.



Sreenath B N. wrote on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 16:22 GMT
Dear Dr. T P Singh,

Thanks for your beautifully written enchanting essay. It contains up to date information on QM and its various versions. I, too, have my own version of QM and to know this,please, go through my essay ( and express your comments on it in my forum. It is continuation of my last year's essay.

In your essay, you have expressed your views with crystal clarity and also proposed an experiment to verify it. However, I feel that, currently there is lot of confusion in distiguishing between the classical world and the quantum one. This confusion,it appears,has arisen as a result of the failure to realise the seperate fundamental traits laying behind both worlds. If we realise this dichotomy then the results of your experiment become obvious before conducting it.

Best regards and good luck in the essay contest.


report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 13:15 GMT
Thank you Sreenath, for your remarks; we look forward to reading your essay.


Patrick Alan Hutchinson wrote on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 18:56 GMT
Dear Tejinder Singh and collaborators

Thank you for your essay, which presents a lot of material completely new to me. We seem to be thinking on the same lines.

I tried to describe a possible form for the kind of nonlinear theory which you suggest. It starts from the notions that

- space-time may have an asymmetric metric $g$ and an asymmetric connection $\nabla$.

From the metric, one can derive (at least) two interesting algebraic features. One is a model of the complex numbers, so $i^2 = -1$. The other is an element $R$ of a Hopf algebra discovered by Dubois-Violette and Launer. $R$ satisfies the "Quantum Yang-Baxter" equation.

$g$ and $\nabla$ are constrained by insisting that

- $\nabla i = 0$ and $\nabla R = 0$.

A solution is a pair $(g, \nabla)$ for which

- the Yang-Mills functional is stationary under all small variations of $g$ and $\nabla$ for which $\nabla i$ and $\nabla R$ are stationary.

There are other variants of this model.

A "particle" is a basic solution, an eddy in the geometry of space-time.

I have no evidence that real physics is like this, but it seems to offer all the apparatus one would expect: variational calculus, Hopf algebras. It fits naturally with general relativity. Solutions $(g, \nabla)$ may form a smooth manifold whose tangent spaces are the Hilbert spaces of quantum mechanics. If so, it seems likely that superpositions of states are unstable, as you suggest.

I would be glad to hear any views you may have on all this.

Best wishes

Alan H.

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 13:57 GMT
Thank you Alan. I left a short comment on your post.


Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 12:20 GMT
Angelo et al.

Fascinating essay. I disagree with proofs of Bells inequalities but that does no affect the substance, and I agree Optomechanics and Trace Dynamics, both consistent with my own fully mechanistic approach to causal unification, using a “ radical rethink of how we comprehend quantum theory, and the structure of spacetime.”

I suggest matter can be superposed in terms of additivity, i.e. fluids. Fine sawdust is additive, and at a larger scale 3 billion tables may be equally additive.

Have you considered superposition as long term macroscopic evolution subject to binding energy, so rigidity (viscosity) is the key variable?

And ref the twin slit molecular results; Have considered that molecules may propagate photons on surface interaction at the dense surface electron fine structure slit edges?

I've been discussing a simple causal re-interpretation of the measurement problem and the Copenhagen interpretation based on the mechanism of detection as 'sampling' and modulation discussed in my essay. I hope you'll get a change to read and discuss.

Best wishes


report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 14:09 GMT
Many thanks Peter. Hope to read your essay soon.



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 14:22 GMT

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Regard !


August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 17:53 GMT

You and your collaborators have done a superb job of explaining why continuous function physics is very much alive, even with all the success of quantum theory over the years.

Nice! Thanks for an essay I am sure to read a few more times.

I hope you get a chance to visti my essay site ("The Perfect First Question.")



report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 14:01 GMT
Thank you for your kind remarks Tom. Could you possibly give a brief gist of your essay - meaning, what the key points are? I have tried reading it, but some pointers from you will be helpful.



Anonymous replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 18:12 GMT
Thanks, Tejinder. I am honored that you ask.

The gist, following Wheeler ("it from bit") is that there is zero distance between a yes-no question and its answer, no matter how separated in time; in other words, a relativistic "finite and unbounded" reality does not have to be finite in time and unbounded in space -- general relativity suffers no loss of generality in a model finite in...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 18:13 GMT
Sorry, got logged off. The above is mine.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 19:16 GMT
Dear Angelo Bassi, Tejinder Singh and Hendrik Ulbricht,

I enjoyed your essay. It is very clearly written and accessible.I particularly like the thought provoking questions that you have at the beginning and where you end up, suggestion a possible need to reconsider the relationship of the wave function with space-time.It is good that you are able to propose detailed practical work that will support the presented idea. Good luck in the competition.

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 14:03 GMT
Thank you Georgina, for your kind comments.


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 18:30 GMT
Tejinder, the fact that gravity cannot be shielded and also instantaneity mean that gravity and inertia are in fundamental equilibrium/balance -- in keeping with balanced and equivalent attraction and repulsion -- this means that inertia, gravity, and electromagnetism fundamentally enjoin and balance visible and invisible space in keeping with fundamentally demonstrating F=ma.

The issues raised in your essay, and fundamental unification in physics, requires all of this. Do you agree?

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 02:28 GMT
Dear Frank,

We have no issues with classical mechanics, of which the equation F=ma is a part. Our point is that quantum theory predicts that the classical world should behave in a certain way, and it apparently does not behave that way [superpositions are not seen in the classical world]. And in our view this calls for an [experimentally falsifiable] explanation. The explanation we discuss possibly involves gravity.

We do not have anything specific to say here about electromagnetism.


Frank Martin DiMeglio replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 02:58 GMT
Hi Authors, fundamental gravitational and inertial equivalency and balancing (both at half strength force) fundamentally proves and demonstrates F=ma. A MOST IMPORTANT POINT -- DO YOU AGREE? (As acceleration is fundamentally balanced and averaged as well.) You will need to show this, in conjunction with the important fact that BOTH gravity and electromagnetism enjoin and balance visible and invisible space. Now, all of this is consistent with instantaneity and the fact that gravity cannot be shielded. You will need to show this too. As you well know, light is known to be quantum mechanical in nature, so all of the above necessarily involves balanced and equivalent attraction and repulsion as well. This will give you fundamental/true quantum gravity. My essay discusses and proves all of this. Can you review and rate it please?

report post as inappropriate

Peter Warwick Morgan wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 22:49 GMT
It's not clear to me that you have adequately considered the possibility that the linearity of QM is conventional (or axiomatic, if you will)? The linearity of probability measures, for example, is /axiomatic/ for disjoint events. I suggest that our practice is to use operators to model the statistics of datasets that we obtain from experimental preparations and measurements /on the conventional...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 14:00 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thank you for your comments. We whole-heartedly agree that linearity is axiomatic to quantum theory. Our point is: this axiom of linearity leads to a dynamical equation [the Schrodinger equation] whose predictions do not agree with what we see in the macroscopic world around us. The Schrodinger equation predicts that we should be able to observe linear superpositions of...

view entire post

Peter Warwick Morgan replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 16:39 GMT
Thank you for your reply, which I do find effective, even though my intuition directs me elsewhere. My comments in my second paragraph are too embedded in perhaps singular ideas about QM that I ought to have edited out and will not pursue here.

I'm more an EFT person than a ToE person, but I nonetheless find CSL-type modifications of QFT somewhat uncongenial, although I do accept them as...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 10:15 GMT
Dear Dr's Bassi, Singh, and Ulbricht!

Physicists build their phenomenological model of the world ignoring the ontology. But besides the Empirical Standard of foundation of the Fundamental Knowledge required Ontological Standard of foundation. Quantum theory-operative theory, but not conceptual, theory without ontological foundation. Ontology displays dialectical thought to the fact that the whole world is Triune Superposition. What do you understand more broadly in your output «…radical rethink of how we comprehend quantum theory, and the structure of spacetime.»? What is your model of the structure of Space-Time? Thanks for your doubts! Sincerely, Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 14:12 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

By `rethink of how we comprehend quantum theory’ we meant that quantum theory is an approximation to a deeper theory, in the same spirit in which Newtonian mechanics is an approximation to special relativity, and Newtonian gravitation is an approximation to general relativity.

By `rethink of how we comprehend the structure of space-time’ we meant that space-time geometry as described by special and general relativity is an approximation to a more fundamental description of space-time. This is because an aspect of quantum theory such as instantaneous collapse of the wave-function might possibly be inconsistent with the way we are accustomed to describing space-time geometry.

We do not yet have at hand a complete description/understanding of what this underlying space-time structure might be. We are working at it, from various angles. For one possible line of thought, please see one of our recent papers [to appear in Foundations of Physics].



Vijay Mohan Gupta replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 22:24 GMT
Dear Mr Singh,

How do you find 'Foundations of Physics'. Being electronic gives the papers a better coverage. Are hard copy journals better to solicit response from Scientific community.

As I know, In 70s Foundations of Physics has one of pioneer journals on physics.

Vijay Gupta

Proponent - Unary Law 'Space Conatins Knergy'.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 12:34 GMT
Angelo, Tejinder, Hendrik.

A real mechanism for 'Continuous Spontaneous Localization' or it's equivalent is discussed in my essay, which you hoped to read but may not have yet. CSL and the STR postulates emerge from the quanta, consistent with your prediction.

An extension towards curved space time then also emerges. I'd still be very interested in your views on my rather ontological construction.

I've now also looked through your recent arXiv paper, and think I agreed with the rather limited areas amongst the mathematics that I understood! There was more conceptual commonality with the foundations of my thesis than I'd expected.

Very best of luck in the final run in. I think all the final 35 and more will be of high quality.


report post as inappropriate

doug wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 02:26 GMT
Perhaps the difference is the speed of the particles. The smaller particles (electrons/photons/atoms/molecules/etc.) travel much faster. Therefore, they exhibit their spatial equivalency in accordance with CIG (, and can be "in two places at once" (actually, it is in as many places as the new spatial volume allows).

The large particles (apples/oranges/planets/etc.) do not travel as fast, exhibit little manifestation into new spatial quantities, and therfore no "hallmark linear superposition of quantum theory".

Why do small particles travel faster than large ones, that's what I want to know!


doug ( comments welcome

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 06:28 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Sig wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 11:51 GMT


C(ig) C(ig) C(ig)

Professor Feinstein:

Yes - my ratings have dropped (don't know if they were ever up)



report post as inappropriate

Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 18:43 GMT
Dear Dr. Singh, Dr. Bassi, and Dr. Ulbricht,

The problem of why superposition disappears at macro scale, while at micro scale is ubiquitous, is wonderful, and I am fascinated by it as well*. If I understand well, your approach takes GRW to a higher level, offering a nice explanation for it, and QM as an approximation of a stochastic nonlinear theory. It seems to me compelling and elegant.

Dr. Singh, at the previous FQXi contest you commented on my research on singularities in GR. At that time I only had examples of singularities which behave nicely. In the meantime I was able to prove that this behavior is shared by stationary black hole, and FLRW and more general big bang singularities. Moreover, they introduce a metric dimensional reduction, which may be a hope to regularize quantum gravity. I review these results in my current essay, "Did God Divide by Zero?".

Best wishes,

Cristi Stoica


* Here is my take on the problems of quantum mechanics: "Global and local aspects of causality".

report post as inappropriate

Eric Stanley Reiter wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 00:24 GMT
Excellent essay. Forgive me for not seeing how relevant it was earlier. It seems Continuous Spontaneous Localization is very similar to what I call the Loading Theory. If we are talking about the same thing, my evidence for CSL dates from 2001. The works of your team are new to me, so I am studying it. Very encouraging. I think my experimental technique can measure your lambda time constant. For light (if CSL=LT) it is easy to measure. It may have been measured by Lawrence and Beams ~1928, as the average loading time for the photoelectric effect. You may also like how I re-interpret some fundamental constants to be maximums; we are only able to measure their maximums. In equations for famous experiments exhibiting duality, the constants (e,h,m)are in ratios. We do not see that action, for example, has gone sub-quantum because the ratio is conserved. Hope you liked and rated my essay.

Thank you

Eric Reiter

report post as inappropriate

Jin He wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 11:36 GMT
You mainstreamsians controle science for over 50 years. You mainstream and Hawking failed. The bad science is because of the Top-Down controle of the people like you. Why do you need money and fame from FQXI where the authors are mostly jobless, are mostly independent researchers, are mostly authers? Do you need money and fame by controling jobless???

I want to rate you 0!

report post as inappropriate

Douglas wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 12:17 GMT
Jim He,

If you are tired of top down physics, may we suggest - as bottom up as it gets.

It explains the described superposition problem by positing that matter turns spatial as it moves ( the faster the rate of travel, the more spatial the manifestation). It is based on a new interpretation of relativity. It is "Plenty Good"!

Bottoms Up!

(OK - maybe I should have left out the part about he alien beings)

I will try to be more professional.....

Did anyone watch my three stooges Dr. Feinstein post??

OK - need feed back on :

Can someone familar with & allowed to post on Google finish my work?

I am trying to fit my theory into Interpretations of Quantum Physics: see -

Please take the time to understand my theory & fill in the blanks below.

So far, as I understand physics, I have fit my theory into the following:

Interpretation : CIG Theory

Author(s): Douglas Willaim Lipp

Deterministic? YES

Wavefunction real? YES

Unique history? What does this mean?

Hidden variables? NO ( no need for them - I think)

Collapsing wavefunctions? YES (actual - space back to particle)

Observer role? Must be breathing. (i.e. what does this mean)

Local? YES

Counterfactual definiteness? YES ( I think)

Other examples -

Ensemble interpretation Max Born, 1926 Agnostic No Yes Agnostic No None No No

Copenhagen interpretation Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, 1927 No No1 Yes No Yes2 None No No

Bottoms Up!



report post as inappropriate

doug replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 23:41 GMT
I think I'm getting there, let me know if you agree:

definition (partial) from WIKI

Subject: QI CIG

1) COUNTERFACTUAL DEFINITENESS (CFD) is the ability to speak meaningfully of the definiteness of the results of measurements that have not been performed (i.e. the ability to assume the existence of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Jin He wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 13:45 GMT
I visited your website, and I found out that

The mainstream theories are not better than yours.

Therefore, you should be happy with your own life.

report post as inappropriate

Jin He wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 19:18 GMT

An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents; it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out and that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning.

report post as inappropriate

Doug wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 19:02 GMT
Jin He, (I got the name right this time)

Thank you for visiting my website.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 17:27 GMT
Tejinder et al.

Congratulations on your place, also with mine a top 10 finish 2 years running. You did say you hoped to read my essay soon, but have not been able to respond yet, or to my subsequent post of Oct 2nd. I will be very interested in your comments. I paste from that second post below;

"A real mechanism for 'Continuous Spontaneous Localization' or it's equivalent is discussed in my essay, which you hoped to read but may not have yet. CSL and the STR postulates emerge from the quanta, consistent with your prediction.

An extension towards curved space time then also emerges. I'd still be very interested in your views on my rather ontological construction.

I've now also looked through your recent arXiv paper, and think I agreed with the rather limited areas amongst the mathematics that I understood! There was more conceptual commonality with the foundations of my thesis than I'd expected."

Thanks, and very best wishes


report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 15, 2012 @ 16:30 GMT
Tejinder et al.

Thanks for your kind comment ref intuition on by blog. To me the correct conception must come before the mathematics, as Wheeler said, and as proposed in many good essays here. But then more detailed mathematics than the basic logical function I can produce are needed. For your convenience, I replied to your post there as follows;

"Thank you. I see Continuous...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Oct. 15, 2012 @ 14:58 GMT
Dear Tejinder Pal Singh,

As the fundamental matters are described as string like structures rather than point like particles, the wave particle duality is not expressional with Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm of universe, and thus the phenomenon of superposition differs in this paradigm, in that the string-length is imperative for the description of the nature and variability of this phenomenon and a different physical theory for observation is applicable.

With best wishes


report post as inappropriate

paul valletta wrote on Oct. 16, 2012 @ 18:04 GMT
This is quite interesting. I have only glanced at he first pages, up to the first diagram. It is my belief that you may have missed a crucial factor, the observer plays a very important role, our detecting brains, do not record superpositions via our consciousness?

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 14:32 GMT
In spite of the fact that FQXi suggests the topical questions for contest, many authors simply ignore these questions. For example Rajna, Crowell, Barbour, Singh.. and others offered their pet theories instead of answering the topical questions. Many other scientists (Dribus,Wharton, Amelino-Camelia..) offered only a few neligible 'wrong' assumptions for formal agreement, whereas the rest of the paper is filled by pet theories. Moreover, it seems that the authors that respect FQXi's questions are considered as "crackpots" and "cranks" by those who ignore the topical questions.

In such a case, FQXi must do one of the two: 1) Since some authors ignore the topical questions then FQXi could prepare an essay contest without any questions. (And all authors simply will republish here their pet theories). 2) The other option is that FQXi must NOT award essays that ignore the topical questions. If FQXi will award an essay that ignores the contest' questions then it will mean that FQXi does not respect its own rules and questions.

Also I should mention that the public and community voting are not able to establish the best essay because most of voters are not competent to judge essays; moreover some voters use fraud. FQXi must establish the best essay using experts but not the public/community voting.

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 14:54 GMT
Dear Anonymous,

Thank you for your post. We beg to differ with you. The topical question is : “Which of our basic assumptions are wrong?”

Our essay proposes that there are reasons to believe that the long cherished assumption of universal validity of quantum linear superposition is wrong. So we do address the topical question!

What you call our `pet theory’ happens to be a possible alternative to this assumption and it explains the observed world. It is being tested by current experiments.

What is your scientific objection to what we say in the above few lines?

Also, if you are really convinced about what you have said in your post, you should not be hiding behind the cloak of anonymity but rather have the courage to name yourself :-)



Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 15:11 GMT

It is not the fault of FQXi, but it is the fault of several uncompetents inside a kind of team. It is not well indeed. The sciences are not a play. The natural sciences are so important. The business and the economy is a kind of under sciences. If people confounds what are the foundamental roads, so it is sad simply. But it is not due to FQXi,but simply due to several persons implying confusions with their algorythms and bad tools. I beleive that FQXi is a beautiful platform. The play of "known persons" is just a play of unconscious people. In fact,Mr Tegmark and Mr Aguirre have a responsability, they must sort the members and optimize their algorythmic systems. They must also be rational and dterministic. The ideas must be shared with a total transparence. The critics must be transparent and the exhausted publicity of irrational extrapolations is not necessary for a correct universal innovant platform. The strategies must be universal and respectfull of universal values. The natural sciences can save this planet. It is not with extra-irrational-extrapolations that this planet can be harmonized.

Several sockpuppets are not necessary. Like is not necessary the strategies of lies. A general scientist cannot accept these comportments. To be or not to be that is the question dear Jedis of The sphere.

This planet is bizare, but we evolve after all....fortunaly furthermore.


report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 15:14 GMT
it is true there in fact, put your name dear anonymous , you are a celebrity ? :)

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 06:05 GMT
Dear authors,

You see "a need for reconciliation between CSL induced localization, and the

causal structure of spacetime dictated by special relativity."

If I understood your argumentation correctly, CSL is a starting point to an alternative theory that preserves all confirmed predictions of quantum theory; and the CSL model is a stochastic generalization of the nonrelativisitic Schroedinger equation. In other words,

- quantum theories are not entirely wrong but incomplete, and

- CSL doesn't fit to a predefined global causal order.

Isn't a pre-defined order anyway at odds with mere probability?

See Fig. 1 of my essay.

Isn't the still assumed predetermined causal structure of spacetime unrealistic?

Schroedinger did indeed calculate the correct hydrogen spectrum without using SR which seems to require reconsideration too, at least in part.

Could quantum theories be based on cosine instead of Fourier transformation?

With CT there are conjugate pairs like time and frequency, radius and wave number, or position and momentum and therefore uncertainty too.

Eckard Blumschein

report post as inappropriate

Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Oct. 25, 2012 @ 09:41 GMT
Dear Angelo Bassia , Tejinder Singhb, and Hendrik Ulbrichtc,

The answer to your essay question is "no". Quantum linear superpositions are only valid as approximation to an underlying stochastic nonlinear theory. I am glad to find so many points of agreement between our respective approaches; however, I would object to some few points.

First, I would object to the claim that the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Oct. 25, 2012 @ 09:44 GMT
Sorry, I post above a non-working link. The working link is positive definite phase space quantum mechanics

report post as inappropriate

Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Dec. 6, 2012 @ 19:35 GMT
Congrats for your fourth prize! Although, after seeing the complete list of winners, I believe that your work deserved a better prize.

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.