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

DURGA DATTA.: on 7/8/16 at 13:47pm UTC, wrote Let us be very careful about classical and quantum concepts. Sometimes we...

Steve Dufourny: on 6/24/16 at 15:44pm UTC, wrote What are your geometrical algebras implying this ?...

Sky Leach: on 6/24/16 at 15:14pm UTC, wrote @Joe Fisher That's not quite accurate. You can't sum infinity, but you...

Sky Leach: on 6/24/16 at 15:08pm UTC, wrote @Georgina Woodward Don't worry about it, very few do. They all get this...

Steve Dufourny: on 6/24/16 at 12:17pm UTC, wrote Do you see REPLY TO THIS THREAD? Me I cannot and you ?Regards

Georgina Woodward: on 6/24/16 at 12:13pm UTC, wrote Hi Steve D., if you are talking about 'Sky Leach wrote on Jun. 23, 2016 @...

Steve Dufourny: on 6/24/16 at 9:01am UTC, wrote Hi Georgina ,Mr Fisher ,Mr Agnew,All, You can answer you on the post of...

Georgina Woodward: on 6/24/16 at 5:30am UTC, wrote Hi Steve, I don't really follow everything you are saying. You wrote "Once...



FQXi FORUM
April 30, 2017

ARTICLE: Collapsing Physics: Q&A with Catalina Oana Curceanu [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Joe Fisher wrote on May. 26, 2016 @ 14:52 GMT
The real observable Universe consists of infinite surface illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Observable infinite surface is the one and only macroscopic entity one real observable Universe could acquire. The real Universe does not consist of invisible atoms swirling round in invisible space.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


jim h wrote on May. 26, 2016 @ 15:57 GMT
Wouldn't this "special collapsing field" be identified with the consciousness of the observer?

report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on May. 27, 2016 @ 03:54 GMT
It is really so nice to see researchers promote the idea of a collapsing universe. My wish is that Curseanu's research will allow her to find the fundamental universe decay rate of 0.26 ppb/yr. Her lambda is 0.31 ppb/yr at 1e-17 interactions per s, which is so very close to the right answer, but at least she is heading down a productive path and away from the blind alley of GR.

Now if Hossenfelder can only see the light as well, there might be a quorum and this silly little gravity problem will finally be licked...

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 27, 2016 @ 07:24 GMT
It is really nice indeed.Could you develop a little please Mr Agnew about this small problem of gravity?

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on May. 27, 2016 @ 14:34 GMT
It is utterly pathetic that any researcher would waste time researching any invisible “collapsing “ universe. The real observable Universe consists only of infinite surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Infinity is incapable of inflating or collapsing.

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 28, 2016 @ 01:03 GMT
Joe, I think you will have a hard time proving something is infinite but even so there are limits to what is observable. What is observable is something different from the totality of what might exist. Do you disagree with the notion that what is observable can change over time?

My personal favoured speculation at this time is that the change is due to the motion of the observer relative to the EM radiation in the environment. I have recently been considering the idea that the Milky way and local group are in a different frame of reference from more distant galaxies. The local group having similar accelerated motion not showing cosmological red shift but some motion of members of the group towards the Milky way giving blue shift. Thinking about looking at faraway everyday objects there is much less change seen for a particular movement over a distance than when that happens close to hand. If the distant objects light is from or seems to be from a more inertial frame of reference a red shift of the EM from distant star origin is what SR would predict. Not indicating expansion of the material universe but just gradual loss of observability.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on May. 28, 2016 @ 01:24 GMT
Re "collapse" of the wavefunction giving a fixed macroscopic outcome: I really don't think there is a mysterious field causing this but it is a change in the way the universe is being considered. A switching from one model to another.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on May. 28, 2016 @ 15:03 GMT
Infinite surface is neither inflatable nor collapsible.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Sky Leach replied on Jun. 24, 2016 @ 15:14 GMT
@Joe Fisher

That's not quite accurate. You can't sum infinity, but you can describe set interactions at specific points without bounding the set itself. This gives behavior in regions.

report post as inappropriate


Brian Balke wrote on May. 28, 2016 @ 04:26 GMT
I thought the wavefunction collapsed continuously because the particles in a macroscopic object are constantly reacting to each others' presence. Measurements are being made constantly, causing the wave functions to collapse.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 28, 2016 @ 07:01 GMT
Hi Brian, is a reaction the same thing as a measurement?

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on May. 28, 2016 @ 15:05 GMT
Infinite surface is not measurable.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Nicholas I. Hosein wrote on Jun. 1, 2016 @ 18:34 GMT
Here is a new thread I just created called "Reality Quantum-geometrodynamically Embedded." It identifies Quantum theory and spacetime with First-Order Logic.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/reality-quantum-geome
trodynamically-embedded.156578/

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 2, 2016 @ 15:12 GMT
Finite invisible quanta has nothing to do with observable infinite surface.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Nicholas I Hosein replied on Jun. 6, 2016 @ 20:19 GMT
First-order logic

Main article: First-order logic

Whereas universal algebra provides the semantics for a signature, logic provides the syntax. With terms, identities and quasi-identities, even universal algebra has some limited syntactic tools; first-order logic is the result of making quantification explicit and adding negation into the picture.

A first-order formula is built...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Jun. 8, 2016 @ 02:36 GMT
"Finite invisible quanta has nothing to do with observable infinite surface."

Joe, this is equivalent to saying that the quanta of an infinite surface are countably infinite (observable). Thus qualifying these quanta as a finite sum of an infinite series.

Now you may dismiss this as "abstract codswallop", but there are objective facts that make invisible things visible to the mind's-eye, if one dares to open it.

(Steve, thanks. :-) )

report post as inappropriate


Robert H McEachern wrote on Jun. 2, 2016 @ 18:51 GMT
"Do you think we are close to fully understanding the relationship between the quantum and classical worlds?" Yes. We already know exactly what is involved. In the classical realm, all measurements ALWAYS extract multiple bits of information; that is what makes them "classical". But when only a single bit of information can be extracted, you have entered into the quantum realm, in which, after any one measurement has been made, ALL subsequent measurements MUST be correlated with the first measurement, in ways not observed "classically", since the very definition of "only a single bit of information exists within the measured entity", means that no additional INDEPENDENT variables remain to be measured.

In other words, once you have measured position, it is foolhardy to even ATTEMPT to measure momentum, or, once you have measured one particle in a pair of "entangled" particles, it is foolhardy to even ATTEMPT to make an independent measurement of the second, if the entity being measured contains only a single bit of information. If there is only one bit of information present, there CANNOT EVER BE a second, uncorrelated measurement of anything. Every additional measurement MUST be correlated in some way that will appear to be "weird", from a classical perspective, because single, isolated bits of information do not exist in the classical realm, anymore than isolated quarks exist in nature.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 3, 2016 @ 00:40 GMT
It isn't just in the 'quantum realm' that there can not be directly measured counterfactual definiteness. If it is thought that objects exist spread over time then the momentum of an object is a preexisting quantity prior to measurement. I think there is no evidence that material objects are spread over time. At every Now there is an unmeasured position but there is no momentum because momentum is a calculation involving different positions at different times; a characterization including behaviour over time. At the macroscopic scale the object does not have to be directly interacted with to get a position measurement, because of the way in which objects are observed via vision ( with or without use of a device), allowing momentum over time to be measured as well. It isn't a direct measurement of the object itself but a measurement formed from the received EM information.(The measurement of the position of the 'object' at the macroscopic scale will involve relativity because objects are not seen directly but because of the light emitted and subsequently received by the observer.) Akin to what happens at the 'quantum scale': If a blind person is asked to say the position of an object by touching it as it passes that would, due to the forces involved, alter momentum of the object. If the forces involved in the measurement by direct interaction are very small the effect on momentum of a sufficiently large object might be negligible but that would not be the case for an exceedingly small object.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 3, 2016 @ 04:01 GMT
Rob, I think your point about lack of information is a good one but I don't think it is enough on its own to explain the difficulties of reconciling quantum and macroscopic scales. My previous post is a mixture of different relevant ideas, making it a bit unclear , I think.

1. Position and momentum are different kinds of attributes, a position can exist at one time but not momentum. Momentum is a mix of a quality of the object (its mass) and velocity which can be thought of as a behaviour over time. It isn't possible to have a limited fixed state position at the same time as a changing position , necessary for momentum. That is true whatever the size of the object.

2. Macroscopic 'objects' are often measured indirectly. The image of the object substituted for the material object itself. That doesn't happen for quantum objects.

3.Indirect measurement of macroscopic properties ( via use of images produced from emitted Em radiation )leaves the material object itself undisturbed so further measurements can be made. That is not happening in quantum physics.

report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Jun. 3, 2016 @ 11:49 GMT
Georgina,

You need to think about it some more. If there is only one bit, then there is only one thing to be measured. It has no attributes at all, other than its existence, much less multiple, different kinds of attributes. Think about it.

When you set the expression for the Shannon Capacity (the information carrying capacity of a time-limited signal) equal to one bit, and evaluate it for the case of the signal being a photon, you get EXACTLY the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. This is not just some weird coincidence. Although the uncertainty principle consists of the product of two numbers, there are not two numbers to be measured, in this limiting case, there is only the one product, and it can only be measured (determined) with an accuracy of one bit. Any attempt to measure anything else, is doomed to produce "spooky correlations at a distance". This has nothing to do with "weird" physics (other than the fact that nature has somehow managed to construct entities containing only one bit of information). It has to do with the misunderstood nature of information.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 10, 2016 @ 14:29 GMT
I have now informed the Heads of the American Institute of Physics; the Canadian Institute of Physics; the English Institute of Physics; the Australian Institute of Physics, and I intend to inform the Heads of the Chinese Institute of Physics and the Russian Institute of Physics that Einstein’s Theory of (invisible) Relativity: the Special and General is utterly wrong. The rude, ignorant executives will not even give me a form letter response. I have also notified Professor Max Tegmark by telephone and by numerous emails, he has not replied. Apparently, the fact that I have an ORCID means nothing to him.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 10, 2016 @ 15:43 GMT
:) You are a phenomenon Mr Fisher.Take care Jedi :)

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 10, 2016 @ 21:15 GMT
Joe,

IMHO it would be good for you to take a break and get some quality rest.Rather than writing more unproductive letters that you may regret later on. Your efforts are not going to produce the results you desire while you maintain the same frame of mind. Said with the best intentions for your well being. Georgina

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 11, 2016 @ 13:06 GMT
Georgina,

In 2013, the National Science Foundation provided researchers at the Physics Department of the University of California and the Kavi Institute with a grant of $1.32 million to examine the accuracy of Einstein’s Theory of (invisible) Relativity: General and Special. The researchers reported that Einstein was correct. I have a valid ORCID. Einstein was utterly wrong. I should not be “resting” for being right. You ought to be supporting me in at least asking Professor Max Tegmark why he will not answer me. You have had no problem answering me, why is he so ignorant?

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Jun. 12, 2016 @ 17:20 GMT
The Lisa Pathfinder at 145 days mission has returned its first paper after 55 days of science and it shows very low noise...except an unexplained bump at low frequency.

It is very nice to see some real data from the L1 saddlepoint for the two 2 kg Pt/Au cubes. FQXI should really do an article on this paper and more data is coming. The spacecraft is 475 kg and follows one 2 kg cube and then measures the noise for the other cube as it dephases from the followed cube.

They measure 5e-15 m/s2/sqrt(hz) until about 0.6 mHz, which is something happening about every 27 minutes or so. The noise jumps to 1e-14 and then they do not yet report anything longer than about 3 hours or so.

Unless they can get to at least six months or so, they will not see aethertime decoherence, which also shows up at about 1e-14 or so, but with the frequency of a year. There is a dc offset that they throw out but already in the paper, they mention the possibility of a very small variation in G...which of course should not be. No experiment has ever been able to measure G with such precision over time.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 13, 2016 @ 06:08 GMT
Hello Mr Agnew,

I post here your answer ,thanks for these developments, it is interesting about the recycling of informations.There is a beauty to aethertime gravity where it is the periods of quantum orbits that scale all force.

Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 3, 2016 @ 16:31 GMT as "I forgot this thread, thanks for your answer Mr Agnew.It is a beautiful appraoch towards this gravity,we search it after all."

Instead of force being body-centered and 1/r^2 with a singularity at r=0, aethertime force is action-centered with a quantum period as 1/tau^2. Since a quantum orbit always has a finite period, the singularities of space and time do not actually exist. Spacetime singularities are the result of the limitations of the notions of continuous space and time. Aethertime changes the meaning of a black hole since it is the black hole finite quantum period that is what defines an event horizon.

There is a decoherence time for all quantum phase including that of a black hole spin down. Unlike atomic time, decoherence time does not stop at an event horizon. The decoherence of the boson matter of a black hole spin down simply represents the destiny of all matter in the universe.

In effect, the spin down of black holes encodes all of the information of the fermion matter and there is no information lost in a black hole. Black holes are a sink for the entropy and all of the information of accreted fermion matter, Therefore it is the spin downs of black holes that point the arrow of time and it is the spin downs of black holes that provide the order that characterizes the universe.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 13, 2016 @ 06:37 GMT
These BH are fascinating.We know so few about them.We know how our electromagnetism and informations act near them.The works of Hawking about the event horizons are relevant.We see their compostments at these walls.I beleive strongly that these BH have rules, properties....and that their mechanics are different.They probably,for the supermassive BH central to galaxies,recycle the bosonic...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Jun. 18, 2016 @ 05:11 GMT
Once you have a universal quantum force like aethertime, it is a lot easier to deal with the event horizon of a black hole. In fact, with quantum gravity there are incipient black holes at the center of any matter body larger than about six Jupiters. So all stars have a boson matter center that is a black hole.

Black holes are not really the voracious singularities of spacetime but rather...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Nicholas Hosein wrote on Jun. 17, 2016 @ 18:46 GMT
REALITY CHANGES WITH TIME (topic from sciforums)

John Archibald Wheeler sought a more fundamental reformulation of General Relativity than the Arnowitt, Deser, and Misner formalism that posits a dynamic geometry whose curvature changes with time. This has come to be known as Wheeler's Geometrodynamics.

This assumes that spacetime is not immaterial, but subject to warps, curves and...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 18, 2016 @ 13:02 GMT
Nicholas,

Albert Einstein’s equation e=mc² was incorrect. Einstein was essentially stating that a finite amount of invisible energy was exactly equal to a finite amount of invisible mass multiplied by the constant speed of a finite amount of invisible light passing through a finite invisible vacuum tube multiplied by its finite invisible light self.

The real observable Universe consists only of unified visible infinite surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. There have never been any invisible finite atoms swirling around in invisible finite space in the real Universe.

Please note that there are no invisible finite “building blocks of nature” There is only visible infinite surface. Infinite surface was not created by an invisible God.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jun. 19, 2016 @ 13:45 GMT
Steve,

All matter has a unified observable infinite surface. You have a complete surface including your eyes. No matter in which direction you look, you will only ever see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed flattish shaped varied colored surface. Imagine if you will a cannonball and an inflated toy balloon lying side by side on your front lawn. You have measured the seeming finite physical dimensions of the cannonball and the balloon, yet, as you approach them, you will see that their surface appears to grow greater at the same rate of growth. If you retreat from the two surface spheres, both surfaces shrink. Your surface can only retreat along a physical surface, so all surface must be unified and INFINITE. Real light cannot have a finite surface.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 19, 2016 @ 17:45 GMT
Hello Mr Fisher,

I try really to encircle your line of reasoning.All surface you say must be unified and infinite.I have really difficulties to accept this.The finite series are essential.I beleive strongly that it is due to an infinite aether luminerous in your reasoning where the infinite is connected with all finite systems.If the luminerous aether is not really infinite but the real infinite aether is the gravitational aether from the central singularity in my line of reasoning.The photonic sphere aged of 13;7 billions years is not infinite because the main codes are not from a super mega star , central to our universe.The infinite surface is gravitational Mr Fisher at this wall separating our universe and the physicality, the universal sphere in my model.The universal sphere is not a photonic sphere, this phot sphere is Inside.That is why we must even restudy really our universal age because we cannot consider only photons for our universal laws.The photons are just a tool,they are not the foundamental bricks of evolution but gravitation yes.Real light has so a finite sphere in increasing but the gravitational sphere is different because we tends towards infinity at these singularities.One cosmologic and the quantum singularities.All islinked but with relativity.Take care Jedi ofthe sphere........We are finite but our entropy is infinite.:)

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 19, 2016 @ 22:59 GMT
Hi Steve, I think it is good that you differentiate the photons in the environment from the matter of the universe and identify a problem in only considering the photons. It is important, as I see it, because photons when received can be used to form an image of the universe. Giving two kinds of universe -the observed image and the unobserved material universe.

I think it is good that you have given Joe's ideas consideration but I have found that they are not founded on reasoning that can be debated but his own 'indisputable 'belief.

When talking about the cannon ball and balloon he is talking about outputs of the human visual system and yet his 'model' does not permit functioning of that system as it does not permit the movement of photons that are the inputs to the system.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 20, 2016 @ 14:33 GMT
Steve,

One real observable Universe only has one observable infinite surface.

Georgina,

Real observable infinite surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light does not have to be differentiated from invisible finite photons wafting about in an invisible finite environment. Please concentrate on utterly simple visible infinite surface and stop trying to make sense of invisible codswallop.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Jun. 21, 2016 @ 03:53 GMT
Finite matter and finite action are what define the universe and it is just from a large number of finite particles that a surface or a line or a volume appear infinitely divisible.

Infinite divisibility and infinite extent are very useful approximations that allow us to predict many actions of reality quite well. However, the universe is not made up of infinitely continuous matter.

Discrete photon exchange is the way charge works and photon emission is how we see objects. We measure objects with the matter spectrometer of consciousness and use that information to predict object action. However, our spectrometer does not record instantaneously but rather takes data over a moment of thought.

During that moment of thought, we entangle with the object's future and that entanglement means that we cannot ever precisely know the future since we become a part of the object and therefore a part of its possible futures. This also means that any choice we make is neither absolutely certain nor predictable. This is the essence of free will...

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jun. 21, 2016 @ 08:21 GMT
Hi Steve, you do not seem to be differentiating object in external reality ( as you say seen by photon emission ) and the information received from that, processed by the CNS ( you say we become a part of the object ). The information in the brain and the external object made of atoms seem categorically different to me although you are referring to both as 'the object'. I agree that the manifestation produced and experienced is affected by the biological processes by which it comes into being. However the object in external reality is unaffected by what is going on inside the observer. Its future is independent of the processes of observation.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Jun. 21, 2016 @ 15:17 GMT
Steve,

There is no such a thing as “finite matter.” All observable matter, whether it is solid, liquid, or vaporous is part of one unified infinite surface.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Jun. 22, 2016 @ 03:32 GMT
Object external reality is what we can agree about. Our spectrometers Ias consciousness) measure the light of objects and with similar spectrometers of others, we measure similar matter spectra. We can objectively agree about those matter spectra.

However, the correlation length of photons can be quite long and a single photon can connect us with an object in a two-way recursion. If we are 6 ft away from an object that is 6 ns time delay and many photon emissions are longer than 6 ns and a photon emission longer than 6 ns means that photon actually connects us with the object and vice versa.

In this case, for a short time we are connected with the reality of that object and so what is going on inside of us affects the object as well as what is going on inside of the object. That is just the way that the universe works and sort of at the root of uncertainty and entanglement.

Although many people like to think of space and time as infinite continuums, all of the universe is actually made up of discrete particles and discrete action. There are no singularities and there are no infinities.

And when we are entangled with a object, there are probable futures but not absolutely determinate futures.

report post as inappropriate


DURGA DAS DATTA. wrote on Jul. 8, 2016 @ 13:47 GMT
Let us be very careful about classical and quantum concepts. Sometimes we talk of one such idea in quantum gravity which will also explain classical. The question of GR and its application in quantum is a huge problem Time ideas in both the theories does not match . We do not even know whether Einstein is correct in his GR approach. The fact of matter is gravity is not a potential or field of infinite range etc. Gravity is emergent due two types of gravitons. One is FERMION GRAVITON with mass and another is BOSON GRAVITON with zero mass. FERMION GRAVITONS DEVELOP PUSH MOLECULES FOR EQUAL FALL OF ALL MOLECULES IN CLASSICAL GRAVITY DUE TO M/R.R CONSTANT FOR ALL MOLECULES. But BOSON GRAVITONS act at quantum level inside protons and neutrons for short range reaction with color charge quarks for a strong nuclear force . Here BOSON GRAVITONS play the role of force carrier as has been assumed in gluon. As such quantum gravity is strong nuclear force. I am attaching a paper for your perusal and deliberation, publication etc.

attachments: TWO_PRONGED_EMERGENT_GRAVITY_MECHANISM_AND_A_NEW_PHYSICS..doc

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.