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

Anonymous: on 11/28/10 at 20:49pm UTC, wrote The requisite photon energy is about 10^{19} GeV. Our best bet on the...

mark: on 4/2/10 at 19:30pm UTC, wrote excuse my ignorance, is this model, a hidden variables model ?

Steve Dufourny: on 1/26/10 at 11:44am UTC, wrote Congratulations dear Tejinder, I am happy for you . All the best Steve

Tejinder Singh: on 11/30/09 at 1:58am UTC, wrote Dear Frank, Thank you for your enquiry. My honest admission is that I find...

Frank DiMeglio: on 11/29/09 at 18:47pm UTC, wrote Hi Tejinder. Kindly reply to the following please. According to Jonathan...

NN: on 11/29/09 at 16:27pm UTC, wrote Thanks for the explanantion. May i request you to enlighten with the...

Tejinder Singh: on 11/28/09 at 4:55am UTC, wrote Dear Narendra, There is perhaps a more promising experimental test of the...

Tejinder Singh: on 11/21/09 at 5:00am UTC, wrote Thanks Narendra, for your suggestion. I will need some time to think it...


Joe Fisher: "Dear Lorraine Ford, Your stubborn provision of copied finite complex..." in Wandering Towards a Goal:...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Gary D. Simpson and John R. Cox, Please stop trivializing this site..." in Sounding the Drums to...

Lorraine Ford: "Tom, A hurricane is not a true thing, just like fine weather is not a true..." in Wandering Towards a Goal:...

jack mart: "This is such a great resource that you are providing and you it away for..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Gary D. Simpson and John R. Cox, Please stop trivializing this site..." in Sounding the Drums to...

roll ball: "Thank you for sharing this article with us! I believe there will be more..." in Hyung Choi and the nature...

Valencia Xian: "We have an opportunity now to really unlock the secrets of the universe" in Tegmark's Mathematical...

Valencia Xian: "We have an opportunity now to really unlock the secrets of the universe..." in Tegmark's Mathematical...

click titles to read articles

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.

Painting a QBist Picture of Reality
A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.

September 19, 2017

CATEGORY: What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Essay Contest (2009) [back]
TOPIC: Quantum theory, gravity, and the standard model of particle physics : using the hints of today to build the final theory of tomorrow by Tejinder Singh [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Tejinder Singh wrote on Sep. 29, 2009 @ 12:13 GMT
Essay Abstract

When a mountaineer is ascending one of the great peaks of the Himalayas she knows that an entirely new vista awaits her at the top, whose ramifications will be known only after she gets there. Her immediate goal though, is to tackle the obstacles on the way up, and reach the peak. In a similar vein, one of the immediate goals of contemporary theoretical physics is to build a quantum, unified description of general relativity and the standard model of particle physics. Once that peak has been reached, a new (yet unknown) vista will open up. In this essay I propose a novel approach towards this goal. One must address and resolve a fundamental unsolved problem in the presently known formulation of quantum theory : the unsatisfactory presence of an external classical time in the formulation. Solving this problem takes us to the very edge of theoretical physics as we know it today!

Author Bio

Associate Professor, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai, India. Research Interests : Quantum Gravity, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Cosmology. Three time winner of the Gravity Research Foundation Essay Competition [3rd Prize (1998); 4th Prize (jointly with Cenalo Vaz, 2004); 2nd Prize (2008)]

Download Essay PDF File

Uncle Al wrote on Sep. 29, 2009 @ 17:10 GMT
GR physical systems are spatially separable into independent components. Three or more particle systems require cluster separability (macroscopic locality). System into subsystems, overall mathematical description reduces to descriptions of the subsystems (scattering problems with two or more fragments). QM allows entangled states (superpositions of product states) that require a fundamental irresolvable connection within empirical physical systems (two-slit diffraction, EPR paradox). Macroscopic locality is violated: Measuring the state of one slit in a double slit experiment obtains single slit diffraction patterns (quantum eraser experiments).

GR models continuous spacetime beyond conformal symmetry (scale independence) to symmetry under all smooth coordinate transformations - general covariance (stress-energy tensor re local energy and momentum) - resisting quantization. GR predicts evolution of an initial system state with arbitrary certainty. QM observables display discrete states. Heisenberg Uncertainty limits knowledge about conjugate variables in a system state, disallowing exact prediction of its evolution.

The Standard Model is a curve fit and massless. SM requires explicit insertion of 6 quarks', 3 leptons', W, Z, and Higgs bosons' masses); 3 neutrino masses and 4 parameters for the Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata matrix, electromagnetic and strong coupling constants, four parameters for the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix... The Higgs is absent. SUSY partners are absent; no solar axions (CERN Solar Axion Telescope). Protons do not decay (Super-Kamiokande). The Standard Model predicts what it already knows. U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3) or S((U2)xU(3))?

You conclude, "Perhaps its fair to say that in the end Einstein will turn out to be the winner after all. Unification will be achieved by a generalization of general covariance to the noncommutative case." That is 1931 teleparallel gravitation (Einstein, Cartan, Weitzenböck) with chiral anisotropic vacuum. Conservation of angular momentum through Noether's theorems fails. How would you test your contentions?

"Autoritätsdusel ist der größte Feind der Wahrheit," Albert Einstein, 1901.

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Singh wrote on Sep. 29, 2009 @ 17:53 GMT
Dear Uncle Al,

Thank you for your comments. For more details on the relation between noncommutative geometry and the standard model you may want to have a look at the paper of Chamseddine and Connes that I cite in my essay.

Regarding the merger of general relativity and quantum theory, the philosophy I am espousing is that there is an underlying theory, different from both, of which the two are approximate limits. Thus, the underlying theory neither has a spacetime continuum, nor does it obey the linear superposition principle of quantum mechanics.

I think the most direct way to experimentally test these ideas in the foreseeable future is to test if wave function collapse during a quantum measurement is being caused by a nonlinearity in the Schrodinger equation. The test will be very similar to what is described in the paper by C. Papaliolios, [Phys. Rev. Lett.18, 622 (1967)]. I and my colleagues are working on a theoretical proposal in this regard.

Thanks also for the information on teleparallel gravitation. That is a classical theory, isn't it, unlike what I am suggesting?


J.C.N. Smith wrote on Sep. 29, 2009 @ 21:40 GMT
Mr. Singh,

Thank you for an interesting essay.

One thing which I'll wager you *won't* view from the summit (unless it's a false summit) is a device which purports to be a working time machine. You'll find the reason for this assertion in my essay 'On the Impossibility of Time Travel,' which appears elsewhere among these collected essays.

If I correctly understand your thinking about the desirability of eliminating external classical time from quantum mechanics, I believe that you'll find my perspective on time to be consistent with that aim.

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Singh wrote on Sep. 30, 2009 @ 02:23 GMT
Dear Mr. Smith,

Thank you for your comments. You may well be right in your essay when you argue about the impossibility of a time-machine. In my essay I was taking the stance that (in my opinion) a question such as this one can be answered only after we have the requisite theory in hand [in this case quantum gravity).

With regard to the question of time, I think it is a purely clasical concept. I am very smpathetic to the idea of a `block Universe' in quantum gravity. This is consistent with what we see in a noncommutative spacetime - if time and space do not commute, they both become non-loal entities and we can no longer label spatial sections by a flowing unidirectional time. This of course is analogous to the position-momentum noncommutation in ordinary quantum mechanics.

Thus a`time' which does not commute with `space' is clearly a very different concept from ordinary time. And yet, time must emerge from noncommutative geometry, in the clasical limit. Here, perhaps Connes observation of the existence of a `God-given time' in noncommutative geometry, on the basis of the so-called Tomita-Takesaki theorem, might help. Maybe, it might have soething to do with the Lorentzian signature of spacetime, but that remains to be seen.


Narendra nath wrote on Sep. 30, 2009 @ 02:51 GMT
Dear Tajendra,

it is a pleasure to note some conceptual similarities between yours and my essay on this forum. You have used the term ' mesomic ' for the region of Physics where neither the classical nor the quantum physics is likely to be valid strictly. You have correctly indicated such a theory to act as a significant link in order to make Physics become comprehensive. As an experimetalist, my own essay indicates the missing link as one where the Planck's constant 'h' can neither be considered as negilgible nor its full significance is relevant in certain physical processes that have yet to be encountered experimentally on account of practical limitations. i am sure in the days ahead both theoretical people like you and the younger generation of experimental physicist will explore such possibilities specifically. i personal will welcome your comments on my essay too, if you can spare the time to go through it too!

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Singh wrote on Sep. 30, 2009 @ 03:47 GMT
Dear Narendra,

I am very pleased to note that we agree that the physics of the mesoscopic domain is likely to be different from that of the microscopic and the macroscopic domain.

I have read your essay with interest. I am curious to know how you are led to the above conclusion regarding the mesoscopic arena. It seems to me you have a strong intuitive grasp of the related physics! For me, it came from issues having to do with quantum theory. Also, would you have uggestions about how to develop a mathematical theory of the mesoscopic domain, which will have the correct limits?

I agree it is very important at this stage to get experimentalists working on quantum mechanics to get interested in this problem. I would venture to state that what we can hope to learn from such table top experiments in the next decade or two will be no less revealing than the large scale accelerator experiments, and the enormous amount of cosmological data that is coming in.



Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Sep. 30, 2009 @ 03:56 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

First I want to congratulate you a very good essay. I have a few comments and questions.

You say: “there must exist an equivalent formulation of quantum mechanics, which does not refer to an external classical time”

And indeed there is one and moreover, the right way to understand it is in the non-commutative framework. Please see my essay: “Heuristic rule…” and Emile Grgin’s essay: “A Historical Approach…”. I am talking about the algebra of quantions. (You can see an overview of it at: arXiv:0901.0332, but ignore the second section, it is superseded by my essay as my understanding deepened after its publication).

One feature of this algebra is that it also has a “God-given time” and I was trying to read Connes archive paper (arXiv:math/1100193) but I could not find it. Is the reference correct?

This algebra generates a peculiar (non-commutative) state space that is no longer the usual Hilbert space and has a larger degree of freedom and no dimensionality as far as I can tell for now.

Another question I have is regarding the use of nonlinearity to explain the wavefunction collapse. Why we cannot understand the collapse simply as gaining knowledge in a Bayesian approach? I would expect that any nonlinear model of the collapse to be at odds with relativity.

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Singh wrote on Sep. 30, 2009 @ 04:45 GMT
Dear Florin,

Thank you for your very kind remarks. I have already been going through the very interesting papers by you and Emile and hope to respond soon. It will be wonderful if we agree, coming from different paths, that a time-independent formulation of quantum mechanics must exist, and that it will be in a noncommutative framework.

There is a typo in my reference to the paper of Connes. It should read, NOT My sincere apologies. The relevant discussion is on page 8. You may also want to see the related paper

gr-qc/9406019 by Connes and Rovelli (perhaps you already know of it).

Regarding nonlinearity : could you please explain at some stage what you would mean by `collapse as knowledge gained in a Bayesian approach'? In my picture, the nonlinearity is forced upon us, during the measurement process. I would say that it is unavoiadable; rather than it is being invoked by hand to invoke collapse.

Also, I feel more comfortable if I think of a quantum measurement as a process in which an individual quantum sytem interacts with an individual macroscopic apparatus, and we ought to provide a dynamical explanation of this process. I will be glad to know your views on this.

As for the question of incompatibility between relativity and nonlinear quantum mechanics, I feel it is a debated and controversial issue, not yet fully resolved. We could discuss it in this forum perhaps, at some time. In any case, it probably would not directly affect the ideas I suggest because the nonlinearity is arising in the experimentally untested mesoscopic domain. Radical though it might seem, its fair to say that Lorentz invariance and causality has not been tested either, for mesoscopic systems. Perhaps there is some relation with EPR ...I do not know.



Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Sep. 30, 2009 @ 21:56 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

Thank you for the updated archive reference, I look forward to reading it. For the second link, I was already aware of it and I even cite it in my essay. I concur, it will be wonderful if we arrive at the same destination coming from different perspective, and this validates further that we are on the right track.

Nonlinearity is indeed unavoidable, but I do not quite see it necessary to explaining the wavefunction collapse. If the collapse is due to nonlinearity (and conceivably this involves irreversibility), how can the quantum erasure (un-collapsing the wave function) be explained then? The Bayesian approach is much more natural. Suppose someone gives me a pair of gloves and I only look at one and see it is red. At that moment I know that its pair is red as well and there is no mystery in this knowledge gain process. You can object that this is not quantum mechanics, but the only difference between classical and quantum mechanics is that the pure state space is continuous and in QM even pure states are not immune to collapse.

The measurement problem is however not solved because one can show that there is no consistent mathematical description of a mixed classical-quantum system. So Zurek’s decoherence and Bayesian’s explanation of the collapse goes a long way towards solving the measurement problem, but not all the way. One has to show that either everything is quantum mechanical, or everything is classical mechanical. The proof is highly non-trivial even with Kochen Specker, or Bell, because of ‘t Hooft’s program of emergent QM from a deterministic theory.


report post as inappropriate

NN wrote on Oct. 1, 2009 @ 00:32 GMT
i have posted some comments in response to yours on my essay site. May be you see and then respond as you may desire

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Singh wrote on Oct. 1, 2009 @ 03:24 GMT
Dear Florin,

Thank you for your remarks. I would distinguish between a quantum erasure experiment and a conventional quantum measurement. In a quantum erasure experiment, the information about entanglement is not lost. This is what allows the erasure. On the other hand, conventional quantum measurement destroys entanglement, and this is indeed an irreversible process.

I would like to treat a quantum-classical system as one large quantum syatem. I believe this is the modern outlook most physicists would agree with. The establishment viewpoint on quantum measurement then is that it is to be explained by decoherence, in conjunction with the many worlds interpretation. The many worlds part is crucial, because decoherence, while it destroys interference amongst alternatives, it continues to preserve superposition, since it is working within the framework of the linear theory. Only the Everett-type branching into many worlds can result in us seeing only one out of the various superpositions.

I am fully in support of the decoherence process - it is physically a very clear and inevitable process, which is also experimentally observed. However, when it comes to the many worlds branching, I have two serious concerns, which are not philosophical. How is one to test experimentally whether the many worlds picture is correct? Secondly, does many worlds explain the Born probability rule. That is not sorted out till date, to my understanding. I believe this rule needs to be explained.

If one does not accept many worlds, then its unavoidable that quantum mechanics will have to be modified to explain measurement. I do not claim that nonlinearity is the only possible modification. It could be something else, such as the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber theory of spontaneously induced collapse.

I think experimentalists will have to examine the measurement process much more minutely, as and when technology permits. As of today, it is as if the duration over which a measurement lasts is taken to be zero. When technology permits, we must examine measurement as a process of finite duration, and study what happens to the wave function of the quantum system.



Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Oct. 1, 2009 @ 04:37 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

I am not a believer either in many worlds interpretation, although it is surprisingly widespread in conjunction with Wheeler-de Witt. I am much more inclined to accept Rovelli’s relational interpretation of the wavefunction as observer-dependent. In classical mechanics one has a crisp difference between uncertainty and pure states. There the information gaining via the Bayesian interpretation is intuitive and non controversial because the pure states are safe from collapse. In QM the boundary is blurred and moreover for a given state one may even have nonunique decompositions of quantum mixtures. Quantum mechanics is first and foremost a different kind of statistical theory. Because of the Bayesian interpretation of the collapse as simply gaining knowledge there is no need for the many worlds interpretation (and therefore the wavefunction does not have an intrinsic ontological value).

I think that the right mathematical foundation of QM is not in state space, but in the algebra of observables. Here there is nothing un-intuitive and because of the GNS construction this formulation is well defined. (Also the Hilbert space is rather uninteresting because it is only determined by its dimensionality; the true action happens in the operator algebra.)

The measurement problem has two parts. First is the actual experimental setup and the freedom to choose what to measure (currently not captured by QM). Second, there is the actual interaction with the apparatus and the emergence of the superselection rules. Superselection rules are necessary to avoid inconsistencies on a classical-quantum system description, and they are definitely not derivable from a pure QM foundation.

I am currently not following Penrose’s ideas of combining QM with gravity, but he may be on the right track. When I will have some free time I will try to understand his ideas. My intuition/speculation about superselection rules stems from the problem of force separation from the unification energy going down on the energy scale. If at high enough energies all interactions are unified, why is that at lower energies they no longer interact? This is also a kind of superselection rule prohibiting force mixing. If we can understand this mechanism then we are one step closer to understanding the measurement problem in general. So here is a wild idea. Maybe our whole universe is a giant relativistic (quantionic) wavefunction and the classical parts of our universe (including classical space-time) are just the manifestations of quantionic superselection rules.


report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti ( wrote on Oct. 1, 2009 @ 07:52 GMT
Dear Professor Singh,

I enjoyed your essay. I particularly liked the concept of a mesomic region between quantum mechanics and classical physics. I believe I have a graph of this region that you may find interesting. It is located in the essay "Gravity from the Ground Up". I start with the concept of digital waves. This is where particles move digitally and therefore experience discontinuous space and time even though the space time fabric is continuous. So, time is not quite classical, but I do not think it is the timelessness you expressed for quantum mechanics. I am interested in any opinions you may have.

I also liked your ending quote by Einstein, and think it will be proven correct.

Thank you,

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Singh wrote on Oct. 1, 2009 @ 09:14 GMT
Thanks for your comments Don.

Its gratifying that you too think that there may be interesting *new* physics near the Planck *mass* scale. Perhaps you already knpow that besides Penrose, Feynman also suggested the possibility of gravity induced modification of quantum mechanics. I cite a remark from Feynman in this regard at the beginning of my article arXiv:0711.3773 [gr-qc]

In my view, it is crucial to experimentally test the mesoscopic domain for departures from both quantum mechanics and classical mechanics. These experiments will perhaps be as important as the Michelson Morley experiment. A null result will be a great victory for standard quantum mechanics. I have talked a bit with experimentalists from the group in Vienna - they would be interested if a clean doable experiment can be proposed.

One prediction I have is the following : there is a dynamical equation of motion for a perticle of mass m. If this mass is near about Planck mass, but much larger than atomic mass, and much smaller than a macroscopic mass, the dynamic equation differs both from the Schrodinger equation and from Newton's laws. In this equation, Planck's constant is replaced by a Planck parameter, which depends on the mass of the particle. Can one do an experiment with a mesoscopic particle to measure this Planck parameter - for m near Planck mass, a significant departure is expected.

I am posting some comments regarding your essay on your site.



Don Limuti ( wrote on Oct. 3, 2009 @ 08:42 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

From my viewpoint the problem is how do things stay together to make for a stable "hop". It is like a rigidity test in mechanics. Electrons are excellent hoppers because they have no parts. Protons may have parts, but when it hops it is rigid. Buckyballs C60 are big and distributed but the forces holding it together keep it rigid enough so that it hops and has QM properties. Nothing has been found to date that is bigger (more massive) than the buckyball that has QM properties.

At the Planck mass there are things like "fleas" that are far from quantum mechanical. So, the experiment would be to find a QM flea! It will be a ferocious flea.

Beyond the Planck mass I believe space time does not allow anything to hop.

I like it that you have given a name to these missing massive particles "mesoscopic Particles" and you abbreviate it m-mass. I think it is going to stick.

Best of luck,

Don L.

report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Oct. 4, 2009 @ 21:44 GMT
Dear Dr. Tejinder Singh

You wrote:

Consider, as a thought experiment, a Universe which has only quantum mechanical particles, such that their total mass-energy is much less than Planck mass. There is no longer a classical spacetime and no point structure, but in principle there is an equivalent reformulation of the quantum theory.

Consider a thought experiment that space-time is merely a math model and cosmic space itself is timeless. Physical time is run of clocks in timeless space. I see this thought experiment a possibility to resolve "action on distance" by gravity.

Gravity works between quanta of timeless space. Gravity is result of curvature of timeless quantum space. More mass is in a given volume of quantum space more space is curved. Curvature of quantum space depends on its density. More mass is in given volume of quantum space, less space is dense and more is curved. Density of quantum space Ds in a centre of massive object is Ds = 1/m, where m is a mass of stellar object.

Fg = G/Ds1 x Ds2 x r on square.

yours amrit

attachments: 5_TIMELLESS_QUANTUM_SPACE.doc

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti ( wrote on Oct. 5, 2009 @ 00:19 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

1. You may want to contact these researchers in Vienna. This info came from the Physics World Archive.

"The interference pattern formed when a beam of electrons passes through a double slit is clear

evidence that electrons can behave as both waves and particles. This wave-particle duality lies at

the heart of quantum mechanics, but...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Narendra Nath wrote on Oct. 5, 2009 @ 13:57 GMT
i am fascinated with gravity as it seems to be the main mystry that lead the many we still have in Physics. Its connection with quantum mechanics is still doubtful. To me gravity may have different strengths and nature too, e.g both attractive and repulsive, depending on the sitaution faced in nature. After all , stong nuclear changes both its strength and nature as it encounters distances less than the nucleon size! At the level of cosmos it is difficult to plan test experiments and so also in a lab. on earth. Its long term manifestations are making us sense this inetraction , the first to emerge on the horizon, followed by strong, electromagnetic and nuclear weak. ay be gravity has different components too!

report post as inappropriate

NN wrote on Oct. 7, 2009 @ 04:21 GMT
Dear Tajinder,

i await your response to some off beat suggestions i made for your mesascopic region studies on my essay site as also some others on your essay site. Perhaps

you have pressure on time that i do not have in my retired life.

report post as inappropriate

Tejinder Singh wrote on Oct. 7, 2009 @ 04:51 GMT
Dear Narendra,

Apologies for this delayed response. I try to respond to some of your points.

It is really very difficult for me to say what gravity `actually is'. At best, after unification with other forces has been fully understood, one should think of gravity as a relic of a noncommutative geometry - that was the picture in my essay, and the one I believe in.

With regard to the mesoscopic region, what are usually known as nanoparticles are still too small to show any significant departures from linear quantum mechanics. One needs bigger mesoscopic objects, having about 10^{15} atoms say, to test for the new effect. And these objects must be isolated from the environment [suppession of decoherence] - this perhaps is the hardest part.


report post as inappropriate

NN wrote on Oct. 7, 2009 @ 13:26 GMT

i mean nanostructured materials and not a single structure entity. These days some such materials/compounds are available for study, amy be in amorphous or eben crystalline forms, to satisy the mass limit specified by you. Carbon nanotubes are known. may be Gold nanostructured materials may also be available.i do hope the experimentalist in TIFR may feel interested too.

i am very happy to see your good eswsay getting the recognition from the FQXI community.

report post as inappropriate

Tejinder Singh wrote on Oct. 7, 2009 @ 13:53 GMT
Thanks Narendra, for your kind remarks and good wishes, and for your interest in this work, and probing questions.

I understand now what you are saying - something I mssed in my previous comment. Undoubtedly, this kind of material will in principlebe very useful. But you see there is still a technological handicap,and that is the phenomenon of decoherence.

A mesoscopic object lke this comes into contact with the environment, and the two

together start behaving like a macroscopic object, which is something we do not want. We want to isolate this object, and this is well appreciated by experimentalists, especially those who are looking for a possible breakdown of superposition in mesoscopic systems. My understanding is that experimentalists are

making progress at create decoherence free set-ups, but they are not there yet.

Do let me know what you think ... Tejinder

report post as inappropriate

NN wrote on Oct. 8, 2009 @ 04:29 GMT
Tajinder, you may well be right about what expeimentalists are doing to avoid environmental problems affectin g such samples during actual study. Today we have excellent vacuum created in the lab and the process of creating such nanostructured material xtals can also be undertaken in a twin vacuum chamber, one for preparation and the other for study. i am unable to say much more, except to indicate that a recent study from Israel has reported the detection of cancer using highly sensitive nanostructured gold sensors, by merely sensing the breath coming out of one's mouth. i have written to the Israli scientists to provide the details about the nanostructured gold sensers that they have used in their study. May be that can help your study go further the experimental route. Best of luck and have faith.

report post as inappropriate

Terry Padden wrote on Oct. 9, 2009 @ 11:50 GMT

A good essay with many strong points. Some very minor comments:

1. Have you considered the other possibility that the transition is sharp, not gradual. In other words the mesoscopic domain, like the Now of Time, has a null extent. Do you have any grounds for rejecting that alternative ?

2. At the top of page 4 you write "that the (CORRECTLY inferred) feature of non-linearity". It is a bit "cheeky" to describe your own inferences as "correct". It may be RATIONAL in your conceptual framework; but until you have empirical validation of your hypothesis (remember Newton's caution !) it is unREASONABLE to presume it is correct. My essay expands on the dangers of assuming that just because something is rational it is necessarily correct.

3. You derive the inferred non-linearity in your new QM from "self gravity". At some stage you will need to do some calculations (to see if they match experiments). Here is what I guess will happen. You will need perturbative computations. You will get infinities. You will need to invent the concept of "Bare gravity" and find a method of re-normalising your calculations. It is now standard doctrine (at least in HEP) that effective theories must be re-normalisable. Re-normalisation is a technique for getting from a non-linear formalism results matching the linear universe we experience - but don't really understand yet.

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Singh wrote on Oct. 9, 2009 @ 17:04 GMT
Dear Terry,

Thanks for your kind remarks, and also for your comments, which I found very interesting. I try to respond below :

1. The self-gravity of an object grows monotonically, and in a continuous fashion, with its mass, and its importance is determined by the ratio of this mass to Planck mass. Therefore I do not expect the mesoscopic region to be of null extent. To the extent that the mass of the object is not mch larger than nor much smaller than Planck mass, the mesoscopic region will be significant. For me a useful analogy is the transition from Newtonian mechanics to special relativity, which as we know is a continuous function of the ratio of the velocity of the object to the speed of light.

2. I fully agree with what you say here. The `correctly inferred' is only stated in the context of my reasoning, and must be confirmed/ruled out by experiment.

3. In my work that I refer to in the essay, the effect of nonlinearity on quantum measurement is actually calculated. More exact calculations, which will allow comparison with experiment, are in progress.

Thank you for your interest,


Narendra nath wrote on Oct. 10, 2009 @ 14:23 GMT

i have posted some coments on the essay of Ellis from Soth Africa. There i quote your approach in my context of the argument presented there . May be you also may find the same interesting from your own point of view.

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Singh wrote on Oct. 10, 2009 @ 19:20 GMT
Dear Naendra,

I agree with Goerge Ellis that quantum mechanics as it stands cannot explain the observed absence of macroscopic superpositions without invoking the many worlds interpretation. If many worlds does not hold, then the explanation for the unobserved superpositions has to come from elsewhere.

I would say that from this point on Ellis and I take different paths. Whereas Ellis proposes an `autonomous emergent higher level dynamics' I am arguing, from first principles, that nonlinearity is the essential way to explain quantum measurement and absence of macroscopic superpositions. I of course must admit that trying to understand something as complex as a living system,

and consciousness, is beyond the scope of my essay.


nn wrote on Oct. 11, 2009 @ 02:25 GMT
i enjoyed reading your comments on Ellis's essay that i happen to make. You are confident of your approach is a good sign. However,whenever you meet someone with an alternete approach do not take it otherwise. One never knows when the right idea may come out of blue!

i understand your reluctance at this time to forget about obscure parameter like 'consciousness'/ mind. But then we do our entire Physics using the mind and being aware of things within and around us. Have you seen the essay, forgetting the author's name, where he has worked out the Mathematics for physics based on two of the 'directly' felt variables, gravity and consciousness, treating the latter as a rotational vector due to mass assemble around the gravity vector that comes without the rotational aspect of mass ensemble. if you feel intersted i will let you know the essay and author on this forum. No compulsion to you, but i for one wish you to keep your mind open and try a wholesome approach. You have exhibited the same through your mesascopic region approach.

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Singh wrote on Oct. 11, 2009 @ 04:25 GMT
Dear Narendra,

I did not at all intend to suggest that one will not learn something useful from other approaches. I apologize if my remarks give that impression. Actually I intended to say that my essay deals only with the issue of quantum theory and the unification of interactions.

In my opinion, judging by the historical development of physics and mathematics, it should be possible to develop a quantum theory of unified interactions without having to bring in the physics and biology of mind and consciousness. In ways that we do not comprehend [like Einstein said] nature `permits' the mind to pick out the truth from `out there', and express it as physics and mathematics, and compare it with experiment.

I would very willingly agree that mind and consciousness must be understood as emergent phenomena, from the underlying physics, chemistry and biology. I would agree with Ellis that physics may not be able to do so in a reductionist sense, (say by writing evolutionary differential equations). I also fully agree with you that physicists and biologists ought to engage in a dailogue on this subject, in order for it to make better progress.

But in so far as the limited goal of understanding quantum theory and unification is concerned, in my view this will be possible in an objective (as opposed to subjective) sense, without an explicit reference to mind. In my view mind and consciousness are fundamental tools (whose existence we humbly accept, without yet fully understanding them) which we use to construct a description of theoretical physics [the inanimate physical world out there].


Author Tejinder Singh wrote on Oct. 11, 2009 @ 04:44 GMT
Dear Narendra,

I wanted to add, from the viewpoint of my essay, [which I end by talking of `The view from the summit'], that a whole new vista will open up once unification has been achieved. Once we have a unified description of interactions which we can describe in terms of a `single force', we still have the task of understanding `where this force came from'? We will seemingly then be led to even deeper layers of physics and mathematics - how that relates to mind and consciousness (if it does) would seem extremely difficult to address at this stage. I am essentially taking a very conservative approach - one could call it baby steps. But I do very much respect your looking at a larger picture and trying to look beyond.


NN wrote on Oct. 11, 2009 @ 15:15 GMT
Tejinder, i agree with your strategy of unification first, specially now that you have introduced the consideration of the mesascopic region, in between the classical and quantum domains. Yes, continue to view the overall progress from the top of the Himalayas while persuing your own goal with limited strategy at present, seeking a unified field. In fact it has to be this very field that originated the universe. Only subsequently the four fields emerged sequentially by way of gravity, nuclear strong, electromegnetic and nuclear weak, to correspond with the requirements of the evolution of the Universe fixed by the logic of its birth out of 'nothing physical' pre-existing. We can't know why the Big bang took place and what existed prior to it.

i have further visualised the field strengths of these four fields at emergence, have not remained constant, specially in the conditions prevailing in the earliest history of the universe( in the first billion year of its life!) In a way, physics at that time was not the same as it is now. That is why we are unable to understand the origin of dark and visible matter, dark energy etc.,, although all these must have originated from the same primordial matter born at the Big bang, along with the unified field existing at that moment. Gravity is a complex field compared to the others that emerged later only, as it has apparently played different roles, sych as near instantaneous inflation of a point universe into a the initial size. It is the laterthat had both the dark and visible matter where the dominating dark matter started repelling the visible amtter through the dark energy asociated with it.

report post as inappropriate

Darryl Jay Leiter wrote on Oct. 12, 2009 @ 01:32 GMT
Dear Stephan, Georgina, Tejinder, Cristi, Amrit, and Anonymous,

I would like to draw your attention to the summary of comments between myself and Jonathan in regard to the observer-participant MC-QED formalism", which are presented below. Since many of you have been skeptical about the ideas

present in my essay it would be helpful to me if we could we have critical group discussion...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Singh wrote on Oct. 12, 2009 @ 01:58 GMT
Dear Don,

Apologies for this delay in replying to your post above. I agree with you that the physics near the Planck mass scale will contain what you call a `mxture of the QM stuff and the classical stuff'. As an example, what I have in mind is a nonlinear Schrodinger equation, valid in the Planck mass region, which goes to Newton's laws in the large mass limit, and to the usual linear Schrodinger equation in the small mass limit. Such an equation is presented and analysed in the works I cite in my essay.

With regard to your kind suggestion to contact the Vienna group, we are right now preparing a proposal for an experiment on nonlinearity induced quantum measurement where predictions of rapidly repeated quantum measurements differ slightly from those of the standard theory. Right now this is at

the stage of a `thought expriment' but we will contact the Vienna group to seek their view on the technological feasibility of doing such an experiment.

Thank you for your interest and suggestions,


NN wrote on Oct. 12, 2009 @ 14:30 GMT
Tejinder, i feel satisfied with your phasing of the research efforts as per your own plan. All success in your efforts. I am just a bystander at my stage of life. Active physics is the domain of persons like you and many others bright young ones. My role can be only helpful suggestions/advice, without any folow-up from my side!It was my personal experience what a quiet and disciplined mind can help do better Physics, whuch i try to put into my posts. The tools of mathematics i respect as also the experimental efforts. What i don't like is mathematical jugglary and becoming trigger happy with whatever one happens to be doing. There the human individual mind plays a good role. I also distingush between brain functions and the mind. It is the latter that carries the strength of 'consciousness' which is just not confined to the physical limits of an individual concerned.

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti ( wrote on Oct. 12, 2009 @ 23:07 GMT

Your work is exciting, and advancing physics with "real" experiments.

If any of your work with the Vienna group becomes public, I would be very interested in seeing it. Is there or will there be a web site or blog?

For what it is worth, here is an idea for getting info on the mesascopic region:

1. Diamond is a very stable crystal that is considered one molecule (similar to a Buckyball C60).

2. Diamond is different than C60 because it scales. A diamond with 8 atoms is a single molecule

with what I would suspect is strong quantum mechanical properties. Meaning that it will interfere

with itself in double slit experiments. The Hope Diamond (9.1 grams) is also considered a single

molecule with what I would suspect is no quantum mechanical properties. Meaning it will not

interfere with itself in double slit experiments.

3. Sort industrial grade diamonds into 16 bins. Bin #1 containing diamonds with mass 10^-24 kg,

Bin #2 containing diamonds with mass 10^-23 kg, ...Bin #16 containing diamonds with mass

10^-8 kg. I am making an assumption that such small diamonds can be made to order.

4. Deliver these 16 bins of diamonds to the Vienna group for their QM analysis. I am not sure how

they make their measurements, I am just guessing that they do double slit experiments.

5. Do you believe this range of "particles" will span the mesascopic region and perhaps show how

quantum mechanical mass progresses to "ordinary" mass.

Always interested in your thoughts,

Don L.

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Singh wrote on Oct. 13, 2009 @ 00:21 GMT
Dear Don,

Thank you for your exciting remarks. I did not know about these properties of diamond.I think you and people at the Vienna group surely know more about material properties than I do! Their website by the way is Under the link Research/Molecular Interferometry they do talk of interferometry with large molecules, but they do not seem to mention diamond - I do not know the reason for that.

The range and bins you mention certainly are ideal for covering the mesoscopic domain. Yes, interference experiments are one of the best ways to test quantum mechanics in the mesoscopic domain. A real challenge that will have to be faced though, is to eliminate interaction with the environment (the so-called decoherence process). I believe this will apply to diamond as much as to anything else - but please correct me if you think I am wrong.

Another experiment, in principle, is to measure the effective value of `Planck's constant' using a mesoscopic particle such as the diamond grain you mention. This value is predicted to be significantly different from the bare quantum value. I have not been able to come up with an idea how to make such a measurement.

Also of direct interest is the measurement process itself. In my way of looking at things, suppose you make a quantum measurement of an observable of a quantum system which is in a superposition of two states. The way nonlinearity destroys superposition is as follows : when a measurement begins, one of the two states starts to grow exponentially, while the other starts to decay exponentially. The growth/decay process can be said to be `complete' over some calculable time scale tau. Now suppose we were to suddenly take away the measuring apparatus `during' the measurement, [i.e. after a time less than tau since the start of measurement] the state we will be left with is a certain superposition of the two states of the kind that is not seen in ordinary quantum mechanics. It is a sum of an exponentially grown state and an exponentially decayed state - this prediction is different from quantum mechanics. If we feed such a state into a second measuring apparatus, `quickly' after the first partial measurement, the outcome will be different from that predicted by quantum mechanics. I and a colleague of mine are working on converting this into something precise and quantitative, but at this stage it is still a thought experiment. One will have to worry about eliminating decoherence. Decoherence is a very major hurdle to testing mesoscopic quantum mechanics - it will be a great success if someone can propose a test of mesoscopic quantum mechanics which does not depend on decoherence.



Narendra Nath wrote on Oct. 13, 2009 @ 02:26 GMT
May i draw your kind attention to a posting i happen to make on the essay which have now become the top one in community votings. it covers also the theme of your own essay in some sense.Look forward to your response, either on my essay site, yours or Ajek's.

report post as inappropriate

NN wrote on Oct. 13, 2009 @ 02:28 GMT
it is Arjins essay that i meant, soory to spell it wrong as ' Ajek '

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Singh wrote on Oct. 13, 2009 @ 04:44 GMT
Dear Narendra,

I broadly agree with your remarks. While I fully support trying to develop better ways to understand/visualize quantum mechanics, I am of the opinion that understanding the quantum measurement problem requires new physics. This must be accompanied by experimental tests of the many worlds interpretation (if any such tests are possible), of the details of quantum measurement, and of the mesoscopic domain.


Don Limuti ( wrote on Oct. 23, 2009 @ 07:47 GMT

Here is a mechanical idea for checking the "quantumness" of particles. I am going to do this with just words, so I wish myself luck.

1. Fire a single file stream of uniformly spaced particles at a detector screen. A single dot will appear on the screen.

2. Fire an identical stream of particles at the screen and have it cross the first stream at a slight angle. This stream by itself would also produce a dot in a different position than the first stream. (It would be neat if the first stream could double back on itself so that a second stream would not be necessary.)

3. Operate both streams simultaneously. At the place that they cross there will be the expected collisions which will produce a smooth distribution of particles at the screen. If the particles are QM in nature there will be a slight difference in the pattern due to interference.

4. I think of one stream as creating a "grid". The second stream interacts with this grid. If a ratio of the "interference pattern" to the "classical pattern" can be made it would give a measure of just how good a QM particle we have.

And as usual the devil is in the details.

Best of luck,

Don L

report post as inappropriate

Narendra Nath wrote on Oct. 25, 2009 @ 04:04 GMT

i saw your comment on my essay site and have visited the site recommended. i enjoyed seeing the details of the proposed experiments. i have put my own comments on that very FQXI sepeeatw site. You may visit it again and let me know your response to my comments.

meanwhile i am immensely happy with the increasing appreciation your essay is receiving on this forum. The very best to your excellent effort, i hope others at TIFR appreciate too. Interest in this website is still lacking here and it saddens me.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 26, 2009 @ 18:50 GMT
Hello Mr Tejinder Singh,

Nice to know you .

I congratulate you for your beautiful essay .I liked a lot the last pages .Very relevant about the scales and the gravity.

You say

"At the Planck scale, this will be a

nonlinear quantum theory. At lower energy scales, the quantum theory becomes linear, and gravity

becomes classical. This is consistent with the picture we have developed in this essay."

It's far of us but indeed probably that this place ,this wall is out our physicality .But I doubt it's possible to understand this limit .In all case it's the maxuimum energy there thus impossible to check it .It's not necessary .On the other side ,the differents steps ,like you say ,between the interactions thus the fields ,energies and complexification of evolution are in the linearity of the gravity .It's interesting to link this mass .

The mass is the result of specific motion ,the rotations of particles ,spheres for me .

Between all the steps of interactions ,the spheres are there with their rotations .In the micro ,the meso or the macro and all between them .The rotating spheres are interesting in an universal point of vue I think .All can be classed with the evolution inside a thermodynamical sphere .

A pleasure to read your essay ,I wish you good luck .



report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Singh wrote on Oct. 27, 2009 @ 04:12 GMT
Dear Narendra and Steve,

Thank you for your kind remarks.

Steve, if I get you right, then we are in agreement that there is interesting new physics at the Planck *mass* scale. I would just like to add that this is in principle testable by experiment, and likely feasible with the technology of the near future. For instance, the experiments being planned by the Vienna group are very noteworthy in this regard.


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 27, 2009 @ 09:53 GMT
Hi Dear Tejinder ,

You are welcome.

It seems what the center of Vienne works hard and pragmatically ,it's the most important .

The Bose Einstein condensate seems interesting too to encircle our wall and the architecture before and its steps of gravity and energy .

The system has a specific frequence and specific number in my opinion .It's better to analyze step by step thus with rationality .

I wish you all the best in your works and researchs ,of course all is mesurable and testable with the good serie .

Best Regards

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 27, 2009 @ 17:36 GMT
Normally ,the fact to decrease the temperature thus must imply a different velocities and lattices of the rotating spheres .

The bosons thus change their rotations.

At the absolute zero I am persuaded what all is in the same quantum architecture .There I imagine the complete entanglement of specific spheres .I beleive that It exists a specif fractal of spheres, begining with tha main central sphere like the center of our Universe .The superfluidity is universal at this temperature of zero probably.Normally their structure at this temperature is the perfect entanglement like our future universal sphere and its PV .Thus we can take our quantum spheres like a code of becoming for the macrocospic sphere and its cosmological spheres .

Now of course the decimals become very complex near the zero absolute .The step of condensates thus are specifics and the nature of bosons must be analyzed.It's really always a question of relativity and walls .We can extrapolate but we rest with our limits .But we evolve fortunally ,thus we shall understand step by step this quantum and cosmological architecture of spheres .

The number of superimposing is incredible in these decimals .

Probably that The thermodynamic implies effects on the rotating spheres ,changing their properties at different step.In all case it's fascinating .The volumes of central spheres is very important in my opinion .And the relation with the rotations and the fourth interactions is too important .All is a superimposings of rotating spheres implying all .If the number is the same than our cosmological spheres(stars,planets ,moons ,BH ,Super BH ,clusters of galaxies,..and our unique sphere)thus the serie begins with 1 for the main center and finishes with 1 for the Universal sphere,between let's calculate the volumes and specificities of these spheres .I think it's fundamental and universal . We can approach the number but it will be difficult .I think each galaxy or system is specific with its spheres .

Could you tell me more please about the researchs at Vienne .It seems relevant about the thermodynamic?



report post as inappropriate

NN wrote on Oct. 28, 2009 @ 06:03 GMT
Steve & Tejinder,

i have attempted to interact directly with the Vieena group about their experimental plans on their own site. Hope they take along the collaboration of all the well meaning scientists across the world in this unique endevour to look for new insights into the currently stalemated Physics.

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Singh wrote on Oct. 28, 2009 @ 07:54 GMT

Please have a look at the article `Quantum Upsizing' on FQXi's home page, for a discussion of the work of the Vienna group.



I believe we should suggest an accurate prediction to the experimentalists. As we agreed, one such prediction is that the Planck `constant' is not a constant, but runs with the number of degrees of freedom in the aggregate object; going from one to zero as one goes from the microscopic to macroscopic regime. The question is, what experiment can one perform with a mesoscopic aggregate object, to measure Planck's `constant', and test for this possible departure from standard quantum mechanics?


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 28, 2009 @ 17:57 GMT
Dear Tejinder ,

Thanks ,it seems really relevant their researchs .The collaborations are too a key ,with the complemenatrity and synergies .



report post as inappropriate

nn wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 14:16 GMT
i agree fully with your response. i visited the Vienna site you referred to me and have put this suggestion to the group dealing with the experimental set-up. i will think over on the kind of measurement they need to do , in order to isolate the effect of varaition in Plancks's h variation between 0 and its standard quantum magnitude.

report post as inappropriate

nn wrote on Oct. 31, 2009 @ 11:54 GMT
An experiment comes to my mind to test the evaluation of h using photoelctrc measurement set up with a sample of massive nanostructured crystal of gold. It may also be undertaken using the light signal from a far away galaxy over 12 billion years away.Organizing the experiment may pose some problems of intensity and background isolation.

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Singh wrote on Oct. 31, 2009 @ 17:24 GMT
Dear Narendra,

If one uses the photoelectric effect, the Planck constant measured will reflect the quantum properties of the photon, not the mesoscopic obect. Thus to check a possible departure from quantum mechanics the photon will have to have an energy comparable to Planck energy, which is very very high.

What we need is an experiment which measures Planck constant from the quantum mechanics of a mesoscopic obect, without involving photons.


NN wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 14:57 GMT
anks, tejinder for correcting me. The other experiments involve h along wirh e and m of electrons. Pure varaition of h will require further isoation of exptal conditions. On the cosmologcal side i expect nanostructured structures to have existed in the early regime of high temperature universe environemnt when haevy elements may have existed in some stars /galaxies in this manner. But as you say we need to an experiment without the involvement of photon and so spectroscopic aspects get ruled out. Please eloborate a little more so that i may exert my experimental background a bit harder. What is the range of gamma rays coming from some supernovas,to satisfy the Planck's energy needed.

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Singh wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 15:10 GMT
Dear Narendra,

The requisite photon energy is about 10^{19} GeV. Our best bet on the astronomical front might be the highest energy cosmic rays. I am no expert in that subject. From what I know, cosmic ray data in this energy range is sparse but there yet might be some interesting new physics happening there.


NN wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 00:37 GMT
May be space scientists involved look up your suggestion and do some spme experiments in deep space where the intensity of extreme energy cosmic rays will satisy an experiment on a gold nanostructured sample, to test your theory for mesomorphic region.

report post as inappropriate

Darryl Jay Leiter wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 05:26 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

Thanks for your reply and your interesting essay. Here are the answers to your two questions:

Q1. While you discuss decoherence, would you also not need to invoke the many worlds interpretation?

A1. No! In Measurement Color Quantum Electrodynamics (MC-QED) (arXiv:0902.4667) it is shown that an intrinsic time irreversibility occurs thru spontaneous symmetry...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

NN wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 09:45 GMT
As competiton voting comes to an end in next 16 hrs. ot so, your essay has come to the top in the community. You deserve it. The work ahead remains challenging and i wish you all the best in the times ahead. This contest may have provided you with the breadth in Physics and hopefully it will help you think of fresh innovations in your research.

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Singh wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 13:32 GMT
Dear Narendra,

Thank you for your kindness and generosity. My very sincere thanks also to the community for their interest in my work. I certainly want to wish the very best to all of us here who are taking part by writing the essays [many of which I have read with great interest, and learnt from] and discussing them.

Undoubtedly, we need some major breakthrough in physics, to get things going again. By allowing for a generous expression of offbeat but relevant ideas, FQXi is doing an extraordinary service to physicists, for which I am undoubtedly thankful.


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 22:32 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

"Perhaps its fair to say that in the end Einstein will turn out to be the winner after all"?

In "A still valid argument by Ritz"

I quote a quote by Zeh.

Check my objections. They could open a new way.



report post as inappropriate

Darryl Jay Leiter wrote on Nov. 7, 2009 @ 15:45 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

Your question about the MC-QED formalism was:

...since you mention that many worlds is not needed in your approach ...can one see how the Born probability rule is being obtained in your study?

The answer is:

In the MC-QED formalism the fact that the photon carries the arrow of time causes the Schrodinger equation for the state vector to contain

nonlocal-in-time retarded operator contributions which cause the time evolution of the state vector to take the form of a retarded differential-delay equation.

In the context of this formalism an S-matrix approximation can be found that leads to the Born probablity rule which predicts the "quantum potentia" of the probable events which may occur. In Von Neumann's language this would called the Type 2 evolution of the state vector.

In addition the formalism contains a quantum measurement interaction term which causes the quantum potentia of probable events to become the "quantum actua" of actual events. In Von Neumann's language this would called the

Type 1 evolution of the state vector.

Thanks for your interest. Further comments or questions would be appreciated.


report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Nov. 7, 2009 @ 19:20 GMT
We may understand quantum probability if we assume or accept a variable internal time rate. A cloud of probability of position of a particle is the best example.

The probability of finding a particle in a certain position is ontologically proportional to the average and relative time actually spent by this particle in that position with respect to any other positions it is free to occupy, the total being equal to unity; it is somewhere in there.

A particle spending 80% of its time in C and 20% of its time in D, assuming we use a same external time rate in C and D, can be said to have an existence that is 80% in C and 20% in D. (the % difference in transit time). So, the existence of a particle is spread around within its range of freedom.

Its existence in one place depends on the time spent on average in this place. But why does it spend more time on average in this place?

Physics symmetry is never as beautiful as when one glances into its mirror for a corollary. The particle spends 80% of its existence in C and 20% of its existence in D because the time runs 80% relatively slower in C with respect to D. This variable internal time rate is what determines (causality) where the particle will slow down and stay longer. To the relative internal time rate distribution corresponds the distribution of the relative existence of the particle within its range of freedom.

The observer uses the same clock to observe the particle in C and D. But the time rate is different in C and D. In quantum mechanics, we traded the unobservable internal variable time rate (a.k.a. the hidden variable) for the observable probability of finding the particle, its ontological equivalent.

The Wave Function is just that; a description of the distribution of highs and lows in the internal time rate that determine the highs and lows in the distributed existence of a particle.

By understanding the presence and role of the variable internal time rate we gain causality and unity. It is so simple and certainly crazy enough.


report post as inappropriate

Narendra Nath wrote on Nov. 8, 2009 @ 06:06 GMT
Though it may seem strange, one may wonder what will happen in a measurement of the quantum phenomenon that one makes as one g shortens the detector/senser response time as short as feasable and also simultaneously try the excitor laser or ion beams having shorted and shorter time bursts, at appropriate energy levels. One may work out such possibilities to come close to the quantum uncertainties. Electronically it is possible now to go to femtosec or lower, and reduce the response time to far lower than the normal value artificially at the sacrifice of signal size. Intense beams will permit such artificial way of lowering response/sensing times.

i am myself not sure if i am talking sense, as numbers need to be worked out along with the technical possibilities.

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Singh wrote on Nov. 8, 2009 @ 12:15 GMT
Dear Marcel,

Thank you for your remarks. Can one convert your ideas into a mathematical theory, especially a quantitative theory of measurement? I would be curious to know.


Author Tejinder Singh wrote on Nov. 8, 2009 @ 12:34 GMT
Dear Narendra,

Indeed along with a student of mine I am constructing a thought experiment for what we call a partial measurement [remove the detector before the wave function has completely collapsed to one eigenstate]. The collapse time-scale is possibly around 10^{-18} seconds (as discussed in one of my papers I refer in the essay). This partially measured state will look very different from linear quantum mechanics, if the nonlinear theory is correct. If one `feeds' the partially measured state into a second measured apparatus, the difference from the prediction of standard quantum mechanics will show up in the outcome.

It will be a major challenge to convert such a thought experiment into a real laboratory experiment. First and foremost, decoherence effects will have to be eliminated.


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Nov. 8, 2009 @ 18:21 GMT
My dear Tejinder,

I think you got the situation upside down. Allow me to explain. Lets say we already knew about the internal variable time rate and also knew about the impossibility to measure such small variations, we would then devise a clever way to expose it. We would measure the probability of finding the particle in a specific place and write down the equation to describe the distribution of this probability. This is exactly what we have done!

My exposé simply tells you what it is that you are really doing, WHY it is that you are doing it and WHAT it is that you have uncovered about the underlying reality in doing so; the variable time rate.

So you see, the descriptive equations are already out there. We just don’t know what they mean and somehow don’t care. Pitty! The descriptive equation is but the beginning of the process of learning about the universe.


report post as inappropriate

NN wrote on Nov. 20, 2009 @ 14:44 GMT

i think nanoparticle gold xtal can serve as an ideal target to look for Compton scattering of high energy gamma ray beams and the Compton scattered electron will then show the variation in Planck's constant value, as different nanostructured gold samples are put as scatterers. we need to work out the appropriate energy gamma rays that can be obtained form the Brehmmstrahlung radiation using a high energy electron accelerator.

May be you react to this suggestion and we can then work out the appropriate parameters for proposing the experimental plan. It will be a different way from what Vienna group is planning to do!

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Singh wrote on Nov. 21, 2009 @ 05:00 GMT
Thanks Narendra, for your suggestion. I will need some time to think it over.


Author Tejinder Singh wrote on Nov. 28, 2009 @ 04:55 GMT
Dear Narendra,

There is perhaps a more promising experimental test of the nonlinearity. The experiment being planned by the group of Aspelmeyer at Vienna (jointly with Kieth Schwab of Cornell) will attempt to create a superposed quantum state of micromirrors having a billion atoms [as described in the articlees Quantum Upsizing and `A cat with two tails' on FQXi's page].

If the nonlinearity idea is correct, this superposition will not last forever. It will have a finite lifetime, which decreases with the increasing number of atoms in the micro mirror. According to the calculations based on my paper

the superposition will last for about ten days (!) for a micro-mirror with a billion atoms, and then break down. If the number of atoms in the mirror is increased a thousand fold, the lifetime comes down to about thousand seconds.

This ties up nicely with the measurement problem. During a quantum measurement, the quantum system suddenly goes from being microscopic, to macroscopic [after interacting with the apparatus], so that the superposition lifetime comes down drastically. This is what is perceived as collapse of the wavefunction.


NN wrote on Nov. 29, 2009 @ 16:27 GMT
Thanks for the explanantion. May i request you to enlighten with the proposal that i ahppen to make off the cuff for your consideration , at your convenience. Being out of commission from available infrastructure , i can only help provide suggestions. The youngers can only conduct such an experimnent.

report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Nov. 29, 2009 @ 18:47 GMT
Hi Tejinder. Kindly reply to the following please.

According to Jonathan Dickau, my idea of "how space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy" is "right on" as a central and valuable idea/concept in physics.

Since dreams make thought more like sensory experience (including gravity and electromagnetism/light) in general, the idea of "how space manifests as...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Singh wrote on Nov. 30, 2009 @ 01:58 GMT
Dear Frank,

Thank you for your enquiry. My honest admission is that I find myself thoroughly incompetent to address this line of thinking. You have thought much more along these lines than I have, so I could hardly add anything useful. But I would like to try to put what you say, in the context of my way of looking at things.

I believe that classical mechanics correctly describes the physics of large objects, and quantum mechanics correctly describes the physics of small objects. But we do not fully understand the relation between the two. Electromagnetism and gravity are correct theories on large scales, if we assume spacetime and matter as given. But we do not understand the relation between spacetime and matter.

I believe these issues have to be understood before physics can be applied to understand animate processes such as consciousness, thought, and dreams. I feel this is right now an extremely difficult problem - you put together a lot and lot of carbon atoms in a certain way, and it becomes a living thing. How does one explain that from the underlying laws of physics and chemistry that individual carbon atoms obey? In the physicists's traditional language of motion, position and momenta, and electromagnetic fields, what is the mathematical definition of a thought or a dream? I don't know of course. Physics I feel has a long way to go before it can answer such things. But I would like to come along this conservative path. In my mind I find it extremely difficult right now to be able to talk of thought/dreams and spacetime/gravity/electromagnetism/wave-particle duality at the same time. I

could be wrong, and old-fashioned perhaps!


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 26, 2010 @ 11:44 GMT
Congratulations dear Tejinder,

I am happy for you .

All the best


report post as inappropriate

mark wrote on Apr. 2, 2010 @ 19:30 GMT
excuse my ignorance, is this model, a hidden variables model ?

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Nov. 28, 2010 @ 20:49 GMT
The requisite photon energy is about 10^{19} GeV. Our best bet on the astronomical front might be the highest energy cosmic rays. I am no expert in that subject. From what I know, cosmic ray data in this energy range is sparse but there yet might be some interesting new physics happening there.



incredible !

you dont know........

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.