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 forums@fqxi.org 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.

Forum Home
Introduction
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
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Peter Jackson: on 10/29/14 at 14:25pm UTC, wrote Any who don't believe in spooks may like this more down-to-Earth way of...

Steve Agnew: on 10/4/14 at 1:32am UTC, wrote I liked your multidimensional time...but only up to two time dimensions....

Thomas Ray: on 10/3/14 at 11:14am UTC, wrote "How about an earth-moon gravity beamsplitter a the Lagrange point? Now,...

Steve Agnew: on 10/3/14 at 4:51am UTC, wrote Repeating the same experiment over and over again and expecting a different...

Thomas Ray: on 9/24/14 at 14:38pm UTC, wrote " ... if experiment and tweaking confirms the discreteness, then it...

John Cox: on 9/24/14 at 13:49pm UTC, wrote James Franson - "It is good to repeat the experiment with particles that...

Peter Jackson: on 9/24/14 at 11:47am UTC, wrote Tom, "It does not follow that...relativity can withstand tweaking. If some...

Akinbo Ojo: on 9/24/14 at 11:18am UTC, wrote Welding Quantum theory and Einstein's relativity together has so far being...



FQXi FORUM
August 17, 2017

ARTICLE: The Quantum Truth Seeker [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Akinbo Ojo wrote on Sep. 23, 2014 @ 19:29 GMT
If seeking the truth is the purpose of this FQXi $160,000 grant, why not use a fraction of this to confirm or refute the experiment Eric Reiter did showing gamma rays are not particles? While wishing Joseph Emerson well, I am eager for Eric Reiter's experiment to be confined to dustbin or otherwise.

Regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate


Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Sep. 23, 2014 @ 20:21 GMT
It does not follow that because quantum theory needs tweaking that relativity can withstand tweaking. If some tweaking of quantum theory falsifies relativity -- now, that would be news. I'm not holding my breath.

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Sep. 24, 2014 @ 11:18 GMT
Welding Quantum theory and Einstein's relativity together has so far being unworkable. One reason being that Quantum theory seems to accept that at the smallest of scales, space (or spacetime as some insist) is discrete. While Relativity says it is continuous. Therefore, if experiment and tweaking confirms the discreteness, then it follows that Relativity is merely an approximation that will ultimately breakdown and hopefully Tom this will not seize your breath. I pray not.

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 24, 2014 @ 11:47 GMT
Tom,

"It does not follow that...relativity can withstand tweaking. If some tweaking of quantum theory falsifies relativity -- now, that would be news." I've suggested 'tweaking' the postulates not "falsifying relativity" matches a tweaked QM.

and Akinbo; "Welding Quantum theory and Einstein's relativity together has so far being unworkable." True, but you haven't falsified my...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 24, 2014 @ 14:38 GMT
" ... if experiment and tweaking confirms the discreteness, then it follows that Relativity is merely an approximation that will ultimately breakdown and hopefully Tom this will not seize your breath. I pray not."

Oh yeah? I think you protest and pray too much.

It does not follow that relativity is an approximation to a hypothetical quantum foundation -- because one cannot derive a continuous function of correlated events from discrete probabilistic measures, without ad hoc assumptions. The converse holds, however -- one can derive discrete correlations from continuous functions, complete and without ad hoc assumptions.

report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Sep. 24, 2014 @ 13:49 GMT
James Franson - "It is good to repeat the experiment with particles that have mass; that might change the results."

Assuming that there is no mass at any moment in the emission pulse of a photon. jrc

report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Oct. 3, 2014 @ 04:51 GMT
Repeating the same experiment over and over again and expecting a different result is some kind of definition of insanity.

Look, we know how light and matter interferometers work and they are quite useful for lots of cool stuff. What we do not need is yet another version of quantum entanglement to mess with people's classical minds.

How about an earth-moon gravity beamsplitter a the Lagrange point? Now, that would be a novel device and would help the poor gravitologists see the light of quantumology...or the other way around.

gravity beamsplitter

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Oct. 3, 2014 @ 11:14 GMT
"How about an earth-moon gravity beamsplitter a the Lagrange point? Now, that would be a novel device and would help the poor gravitologists see the light of quantumology...or the other way around."

I actually suggested such a thing in one FQXi essay. I'm afraid the theory and evidence is in favor of "gravitology."

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Oct. 4, 2014 @ 01:32 GMT
I liked your multidimensional time...but only up to two time dimensions. Time with greater than four dimensions seems like a stretch. But having a proper time along with an atomic time does seem to work.

I did not actually see you mention that coherent particles might coexist in at the earth moon lagrange point, but you did seem to use phase coherence in your approach. Therefore you can't be that devout of a gravitologist after all.

I think this experiment would show the integration of GR and QM because of the earth-moon orbital decay and both would win. There will be variations in the earth moon decay that will be due to matter waves in the galaxy, like the 11.4 yr solar cycle and any magnetar activity as well as supernovas and so on. A Lagrange gravity interferometer should be extremely sensitive to such things.

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 29, 2014 @ 14:25 GMT
Any who don't believe in spooks may like this more down-to-Earth way of explaining 'QM's predictions'. The same skills required for self assembling a wardrobe are needed (but without locking yourself in or falling asleep inside). All components and step by step instructions are here under test. Do please just post any questions, comments or apparent falsifications here.

The model...

view entire post


attachments: 1_Latitudinal_Cosines..jpg

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.