Search FQXi


If you have an idea for a blog post or a new forum thread, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org, with a summary of the topic and its source (e.g., an academic paper, conference talk, external blog post or news item).
Contests Home


Previous Contests

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
read/discusswinners

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

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
read/discusswinners

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

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

Sridattadev: on 6/9/11 at 19:41pm UTC, wrote Dear Tejinder, Congratulations. Several layers of dynamics you have...

Tejinder Singh: on 6/6/11 at 9:53am UTC, wrote Many thanks Vladimir, Best regards, Tejinder

Tejinder Singh: on 6/6/11 at 9:51am UTC, wrote Thank you for your good wishes Georgina. It was a pleasure discussing with...

Vladimir Tamari: on 6/6/11 at 8:48am UTC, wrote Congratulations for your win!

Georgina Parry: on 6/6/11 at 7:43am UTC, wrote Dear Tejinder, Congratulations on winning a prize. I did think your...

Alan Lowey: on 3/20/11 at 13:16pm UTC, wrote Thanks for the reply Tejinder. I need to do more w.r.t a simulation model...

Tejinder Singh: on 3/20/11 at 6:38am UTC, wrote Dear Alan, Thank you for your kind remarks. I would not rule out the...

Tejinder Singh: on 3/20/11 at 6:26am UTC, wrote Thanks for your kindness Sreenath. But I am also embarrassed by what you...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Akinbo Ojo: "Steve et al, Steve because of your strong attraction to E = mc2, otherwise..." in Ripping Apart Einstein

Steve Agnew: "Oh for goodness sakes...really? Einstein's relativity is based..." in Real-Time Physics

Marcel-Marie LeBel: "Darius, I read you text on the link. Very long and learned. The essential..." in Alternative Models of...

Darius M: "Theory of Everything using Leibniz, Kant and German Idealism" in Why Quantum?

Darius M: "My theory on the limits of mathematics: Theory of Everything using..." in Limits of mathematics in...

Darius M: "Theory of Everything using Leibniz, Kant and German Idealism ..." in Alternative Models of...

Darius M: "http://www.academia.edu/8991727/Phenomenal_World_as_an_Output_of_Cognitive_Q..." in Is the Past Infinite?

Thomas Ray: "Peter, you've got such a nice review of the issues here, that I'm not going..." in A Physicist and a Science...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Spot the Difference to Reveal Exotic Particles
Questioning the symmetrization postulate of quantum mechanics and the notion that electrons are indistinguishable could reveal whether hypothetical new particles exist.

Life's Quantum Crystal Ball
Does the ability to predict the future—perhaps with quantum help—define the fundamental difference between living and inanimate matter?

The Quantum Truth Seeker
Watching particles fly through an interferometer might help to unveil higher-order weirdness behind quantum theory.

Quantifying Occam
Is the simplest answer always the best? Connecting Medieval monks to computational complexity, using the branch of mathematics known as category theory.

Heart of Darkness
An intrepid physicist attempts to climb into the core of black hole.


FQXi FORUM
November 1, 2014

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Is Reality Digital or Analog? [back]
TOPIC: The Three and a Half Layers of Dynamics: Analog, Digital, Semi-Digital, Analog by Tejinder Singh [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Feb. 2, 2011 @ 12:03 GMT
Essay Abstract

Quantum theory is extremely successful in explaining most physical phenomena, and is not contradicted by any experiment. Yet, the theory has many puzzling features : the occurrence of probabilities, the unclear distinction between the microscopic and the macroscopic, the unexplained absence of superpositions in positions of macroscopic objects, the dependence of the theory on an external classical time, and the experimentally verified but peculiar `influence' outside the light-cone in EPR experiments. These puzzles point towards a conflict between quantum theory and our present understanding of spacetime structure, and suggest the existence of a deeper theory. In this essay we make the case that in the underlying theory the matter and spacetime degrees of freedom are non-commuting matrices, and yet the dynamics is analog. A digital quantum-theory like dynamics for matter as well as spacetime emerges in the statistical thermodynamic approximation to this deeper theory. When most of the matter clumps into macroscopic structures, it is shown to behave classically, and it induces classical dynamics on spacetime; this is the eventual analog limit, our macroscopic world. In between the digital layer and the uppermost analog layer is the realm of standard quantum theory - microscopic objects and their interaction with measuring apparatuses on a classical spacetime background : the semi-digital approximation. Such a multi-layered description of dynamics can explain the puzzling features of quantum theory, and is testable by ongoing laboratory experiments.

Author Bio

Professor of Physics at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai, India. Research Interests : Quantum Gravity, The Quantum Measurement Problem, The Origin of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, Formation of Large Scale structures in the Universe, Gravitational Collapse of Compact Objects and the Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis. Member of FQXi and Recipient of the John Templeton Foundation Grant (2011) for research on Quantum Measurement. Fourth Prize in FQXi essay competition 2009. Three time Gravity Research Foundation Essay Prize Awardee. Other interests : Teaching and Science Popularization. URL : www.tifr.res.in/~tpsingh

Download Essay PDF File




John Merryman wrote on Feb. 3, 2011 @ 04:38 GMT
Tejinder,

I think a basic way to peel time out of the equation is to consider that we may be looking at it backwards. We experience it as a flow from past events to future ones, but the physical reality is that it is the changing configuration of what is that turns future potential into past circumstance. We don't travel from past to future, the future becomes the past because the configuration changes. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates.

This way, time is an effect of motion, similar to temperature, not an external factor which must be considered.

There can be no dimensionless point in time, as that would freeze the very motion creating it, much like trying to take a picture with the shutter speed set at zero. As with a temperature of absolute zero, it would freeze motion. Thus objects, macro as well as micro, cannot be truly separated from their motion.

So when we try measuring anything, it becomes a balance between precision and contextual inclusion. Much like taking a picture is a balance between clarity and depth.

Time is a serial measurement, while temperature is a scalar measurement. These two balance each other, just as the two sides of the brain balance each other. The left, serial processor side is essentially a clock, in that it records the cause and effect of action. While the right, parallel processor side is a thermostat, in that it measures the non-linear energies. As a physical entity, our brain proceeds from past events to future ones, while our mind, as the recording of these configuration states, is the memory of these events being created and receding into the past.

The fact though, is that it is what is physically real that is the constant and it is the configurations which are emergent, that's why it makes more sense to view the arrow of time as the future becoming the past. In this way, multiworlds isn't necessary, as it's this very collapse of probabilities which creates time. Yes, for a microsecond, the cat is both dead and alive, because the point of death is not a dimensionless point. In fact, for some, it can take quite awhile. The wave only collapses from the subjective perspective, as its energy continues in other forms.

report post as inappropriate

basudeba replied on Feb. 3, 2011 @ 13:09 GMT
Dear Sir,

We have a wrong notion about time traveling backwards. We have discussed this aspect in our essay. You are welcome to comment on it.

Regards.

basudeba

report post as inappropriate


Karl Coryat wrote on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 02:12 GMT
Dr. Singh: I am glad to see that you have discussed decoherence in your essay. Dieter Zeh has made a convincing argument that all "particle" or "quantum jump" phenomena are in fact continuous in the light of environmental decoherence. I wonder what you might think of the discussion of decoherence in my essay. I describe how decoherence apparently only happens in an interaction between subsystems, such as an object and its environment; that closed, unpartitioned systems do not experience decoherence; but that the nature of this partitioning in the early universe is unclear, leading to a cosmological expression of the measurement problem. I propose a couple of models that may resolve this problem. I am curious why this question doesn't receive more attention, given that Penrose and others have pointed it out. Best of luck....

report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 09:09 GMT
Dear Professor Tejinder,

I enjoyed reading the first part of your paper where you expressed succinctly and clearly your discomfiture concerning the fundamentals of Quantum Mechanics. I regret that the second part was too mathematically abstract for my understanding and interest.

You noted "Moreover, unlike in the case of tossing of the dice, where the probability of any one outcome can be reasoned to be 1/6, quantum theory provides no explanation for the Born rule, simply adopting it as an ad hoc postulate which agrees well with experiment."

A very specific suggestion for the physical basis of quantum probability is contained in section 2.7 (particularly Figs. 28 and 29) of my original 2005 Beautiful Universe paper on which my present fqxi paper is based. There I propose that the basis of quantum probability (and many other phenomena such as radiation in the vacuume) is in the diffusion of angular momentum in units of (h) through a crystal-like universal ether lattice of nodes. Your expert feedback is welcome on this and on any other aspects of the theory..

Kind regards, Vladimir.

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 15:27 GMT
Hi Tejinder, you seem to talk a lot of sense. I have a nagging question: why can't the Archimedes screw be the answer to solving the particle/wave duality paradox? I think it does. Am I wrong?

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 16:33 GMT
Dear Alan,

Thank you for your kind remarks on my essay.

Could you explain how the Archimedes screw explains wave-particle duality? Then we can surely discuss it further.

I wish to take this opportunity to mention, as pointed out in my essay, that in my picture wave-particle duality is not a paradox. The basic nature of fundamental entities in quantum theory is wavelike and described by the wave-function. Only when this wave interacts with a macroscopic apparatus and gets localized [via wave-function collapse] do we attribute it a particle-like characteristic.

Best regards,

Tejinder

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 11:12 GMT
Not only can it explain particle/wave duality but also gravity and dark energy, believe it or not. It's the mechanical nature of the helical screw which is important. The idea of the fundamental nature of reality having structure. It's this structure in a helical configuration which can cause a force of attraction if this dynamic particle interacts with another particle. If this Archimedes screw then travelled around a hypersphere, or wraparound universe, then it would emerge on the other side as a force of repulsion i.e. dark energy.

You have to physically plat with a wood screw or a bottle opener to really understand the simplicity of this idea. Many thanks for taking the time if try this. Alan

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 11:17 GMT
(P.S I forgot to login the first time)

Also Tejinder, if you can lay your hands on two cork crew bottle openers, then you'll see that they can travel past on another in a helical ring-donut configuration. Two spinning helical threads could exist in a double-helix configuration, either travelling in opposite directions or the same direction i.e. like neutrons and protons/anti-protons? Do you begin to see what I'm getting at?

report post as inappropriate


Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 02:15 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

You write

---"the puzzling features of quantum theory"---

If a universe is to create itself out of nothing so particles have to create themselves, each other, then they are as much the source as the product of their interactions, the cause as well as the effect of each other's existence. If so, then there's nothing puzzling about quantum mechanics. For details see my essay.

Kind regards, Anton

report post as inappropriate


Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 16:28 GMT
I have been reading with pleasure your highly technical Essay and I think that may be useful to highlight some analogies and differences between our respective approaches.

As explained in my Essay, the canonical theory goes beyond less fundamental approaches as the superstring theory. This includes also the matrix formulation of M-theory (based in a Trace dynamics as that summarized in your...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 15:39 GMT
Dear Juan,

Here I try to answer the questions posed by you in your post above.

The non-commutative Minkowski spacetime I talk of is defined in the technical endnotes. In this spacetime there live the `particles' [i.e. matrices], each having coordinates (q,t). I only have in mind a noncommutative generalization of ordinary mechanics, resulting here in a 4N dimensional noncommutative configuration space for N particles.

Regarding the introduction of the phase space (q,p,t,E) : The resulting dynamics is more general than quantum dynamics, as I discuss in my essay. So it is not required that one works off shell. The reduction from here to ordinary quantum theory, where time is not an operator, is discussed in the essay : the dominant part of the Universe must become classical, providing a classical time, for us to be able to formulate quantum theory in the standard way.

Regarding the Block universe argument : My reason for suggesting a Block Universe in the underlying analog dynamics is just that I do not see any other way out, when classical time has been raised to operator status. But I will see the references you mention, and try to understand what you refer to as Pavsic's interpretation (i).

Arrow of time : I would not claim that the explanation I give is the only one or the best one. But I feel [subject to the cosmological argument being given : please let me know why you say it fails] my reasoning is plausible, even without trying to build up technical detail. If the Universe begins in a single microstate of the Block Universe described by analog dynamics, the Boltzmann entropy is zero by definition.

I hope to make time to see the references on canonical theory in your essay. I appreciate your points that the canonical theory can deal with nonequilibrium situations, and with fluctuations in a manner more general than discussed in my essay.

Once again, thank you very much for your careful reading of essay, and your detailed comments, especially regarding `Stueckelberg time'.

Kind regards,

Tejinder

report post as inappropriate

Juan Ramón González Álvarez replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 12:36 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

Thanks by confirming my above assumption about the 4N dimensionality of the spacetime in your Essay.

When classical dimensional time is raised to dimensional time operator, the Stuckelberg-like evolution time continues labeling the evolution of the generalized quantum states, without any need to take a Block universe viewpoint. Indeed, as showed in the references cited in my Essay, the picture based in an evolution time is more fundamental.

The cosmological argument cannot explain the arrow of time because initial low entropy states lead to evolutions incompatible with the second law. In the Chapter 1 of the BAS reference that I gave to you in the forum of my Essay, the authors show how an initial low entropy state belongs to both semigroups Lambda^{+} and Lambda^{-}, whereas only Lambda^{+} is compatible with the second law and the observed phenomena. They then choose the correct semigroup by comparison with observation. It is this selection which explains the arrow of time. Their demonstration can be extended to initial pure states with zero entropy and also to more general classes of dynamical systems.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 06:04 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

I wanted to let you know that I have read through your essay. I have not come across this kind of multilevel consideration of reality before and so it catch my attention. Although not having a mathematical background I did also find it hard to follow. The lack of beaks in the text also made it visually daunting. It is the kind of work that I would need to tackle slowly and a little at a time. However I appreciate that this was not written for the likes of me but rather mathematically competent physicists.

I have given a lot of thought to what is meant by reality and the question of time.You did point out an unknown underlying mechanism. That is something I am addressing in my essay. I am not sure if you were saying that the multilevel analysis was a potential solution or that it could not give full answers because of the unknown foundational mechanism. As you can probably tell I couldn't follow it very well, even though I think you had something very interesting to tell us. The fault lies with my lack of necessary mathematical education, abilities and skill.

I do hope that you find lots of interested readers, who are competent in maths and can give you more constructive and positive feedback.

Wishing you good luck. Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 17:13 GMT
Dear Georgina,

Thank you for your very kind remarks. I too have enjoyed reading your essay.

I can try to summarize here the key points of my essay. I believe our present understanding of quantum theory is incomplete, because of the quantum measurement problem, and because of the presence of an external classical time in the theory. A *potential solution* is suggested by proposing that quantum theory is an approximation to a deeper theory. This deeper theory, motivated by the great work of Stephen Adler, is the classical mechanics of matrices [particle positions and spacetime coordinates are matrices]. this is an *analog* theory. The digital quantum theory that we know of emerges from this analog theory in the thermodynamic approximation. This emergence explains the puzzles of quantum theory.Furthermore one can one explain how our analog macroscopic world emerges from digital quantum theory. Thus one has a three layered description of dynamical laws : analog, digital, analog. The `three and a half' comes from noting that the world of our physics laboratories consists of quantum systems interacting with analog classical apparatuses in a classical spacetime.

Good luck to you too, for the contest.

Kind regards,

Tejinder

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 20:37 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

Thank you for taking the time to summarize the core of the essay. It is helpful.I do agree with the first paragraph of your summary. Also that QM is part of a deeper theory. I would have it as part of a greater theory, encompassing both QM and space-time. Time being the "problem child".

I also see a 3 level reality. Foundational level unobservable objects, data transmission( One might say the raw file of photon data) and emergent space-time image reality. QM models the unobserved timeless objects. Unique input selected by type and position of detector allows space-time construction. Emergent as a temporally distorted artifact from the transmission delay of data between object and observer.I suppose that as a non physicist my explanations may appear naive. Though Einstein did say "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler".

I have said I am not competent to comprehend the work that you discuss, let alone evaluate it. So please forgive me for not doing so. What a dull world if we all thought in the same way and had identical talents and interests. It is good that you have brought it here for others to see and consider.

Once again, Good luck, Georgina.

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 15:15 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

While your approach is quite different from mine, and quantum theory is not my primary concern, I nonetheless appreciate your list of belonging problems.

I am not sure whether a peculiar ‘influence’ outside the light-cone has really been experimentally verified in EPR experiments. You gave no reference for your sentence: "The ‘action-at-a-distance’ in an EPR type experiment, which Einstein called spooky, has been experimentally proven to exist [however, we know it cannot be used for signalling]." If you refer to Nimtz type claims, I strongly disagree. To my knowledge there is no correct evidence for action at a distance.

I tried to explain why Planck's constant has nothing to do with the non-commutativity.

What I am tempted to ironically call the Schulman length between micro and macroworld might have a simple explanation: Quantum theory is affected by erroneous interpretation after arbitrarily choosing a complex ansatz. You may trust in my competence in this case.

What about the allegedly compelling accuracy of agreement between predicted and measured values, I see two question marks. First I recall Lighthill's theory of cochlea whose results were tweaked very close to reality, even too good as to be honest, because the passive model did not yet consider cochlear amplification. I also recall not yet understood discrepancies, in particular concerning a paper by Gompf et al. Secondly, I suspect there might be a qualitative mistake even in case of quantitative agreement. Before I abandon the causality conjecture I am ready to put any theory in question, even spacetime.

Please do not take it amiss if I consider it justified to look for possible mistakes at the most basic level, and this layer is in my understanding the fundamentals of mathematics. Do you object?

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 02:42 GMT
Dear Eckard,

Thank you for your interesting remarks and your criticism is most welcome. I plan to read your essay soon and will leave my comments on your page.

By `action at a distance' I only meant the experimental verification of EPR correlations and Bell's inequalities by the experiments of Aspect and others. On this aspect, my view of quantum theory is conservative - there is no superluminal signalling.

More soon, and with best regards,

Tejinder

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 11:53 GMT
Dear member Tejinder Singh,

You wrote: "... your criticism is most welcome. I plan to read your essay soon and will leave my comments on your page."

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 20:17 GMT
Your essay was thought provoking and I gave it a high score. I do take some pause with the conclusion that quantum theory is purely a statistical result. Experiments with W and GHZ states illustrate Bell inequalities for a single experiment. I will have to read this again to see how this can be reconciled accordingly.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 02:28 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Thank you for your kind response to my essay. I too plan to read your essay soon.

You raise an important question. Actually, here the statistical character of quantum theory is relevant only in so far as its derivation from the underlying dynamical theory of matrices is concerned. Once one has that derivation, the underlying theory could be `forgotten', in the sense that one is not examining dynamics at the level of precision of the underlying theory. The stochastic nonlinear Schrodinger equation thus derived does describe an individual system, as you rightly point out. The stochastic term drives the quantum system to a definite outcome during a measurement, but because it is a stochastic process, one cannot predict exactly which outcome it is. Only the probability of the outcome can be calculated, and this is proven to be equal to the Born probability. You might like to see the nice discussion in Chapter 6 of Adler's book [Ref. 1 in my essay].

Good luck to you in the essay contest. Cheers ...Tejinder

report post as inappropriate

Stve Dufourny replied on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 16:18 GMT
Hi to both of you,all, you are relevant.here is some ideas for fun.

The caratheodory method of axiomatization seems universal and I like it, I suppose you also, in logic the kelvin Planck satetment of the the second law is interesting also.Because all is under these universal thermodynamical laws.The specification of an intergrer is always logic respecting the momentum and the kinetic energy.It's really the base of many things our thermodynamics and this heat.The quantum statistical mechanicsis precise and the real degrees of freedom are there in a pure thermodynamical logic.A little of maxwell law of velocities and vibrations and a Boltzmann helping with the correct finite numbe, and it's very relevant.1/2mv²...1/2m alpha²..1/2m beta².....correlated with volumes.The pression and the volumes dance with the velocities of rotations orbitals and spinals and the kinetic energy.....more mvV constant, general for all physical entangled spheres and hop all our thermodynamics and all our Quantum statistical mechanics is simplified and generalized in a spherical logic as the ideal gas.Avogadro will agree no hihii, in all case if the time operator is inserted, thus the relativity can be inserted rationally respecting the entropy and the arrow of time.But the axiomatization still is essential with its limits due to the finite universal serie.That implies an intrinsic cause in the gravitational stability, thus of course not actions at distance, but simply some informations arriving in the gravity and which fuses, it's totally different than a instant action from an other point inside this Universal sphere.The thermodynamics prove that.

Best to all and good luck in the contest.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B Crowell replied on Mar. 7, 2011 @ 02:53 GMT
I am having to read your paper again. I forgot that I had written on your space here. I responded to your comments on my space at

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/810

and I will try to comment further. I will have to finish reading your paper on Monday.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 16:30 GMT
Dear Dr. T P Singh,

Your essay is thought provoking,because you are trying to explain how digitality arises out of continuous (analog) nature of reality;for that you are inventing the concept of mesoscopic physics.It is a good idea. But in my essay,Iam trying to reconcile digital and analog nature of reality in a different way.Why dont you,please,go thro' my essay and express your openion on it.

Best regards and great success in the competition.

Sreenath B N.

report post as inappropriate


Cristinel Stoica wrote on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 10:21 GMT
Dear Dr. Singh,

Ingenuous your vision of a fundamental continuous layer underlying the quantum one, then the classical level, interfaced through the semi-digital layer, in the context of trace dynamics. It seems to capture a deep meaning of the quantum world and its relation with the classical level. The title is very suggestive; it also makes me thinking at the three and a half layers of the dynamical energy.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica, Infinite Resolution

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 12:58 GMT
Dear Tijender

My spirits were raised by your exceptional essay. In my view you are absolutely correct in virtually all your assumptions and conclusions (at least all those I think I understood).

I believe the concepts within our essays completely parallel each other, yet yours is a physics paper and mine is in a wholly different, naive but fully falsifiable and predictive, empirical language. I offer a link between the micro and macro space time structures, equivalent to non commuting matrices or discrete manifolds, with time emerging from it's simple dynamics. You may read my essay title as equivalent to the block universe, using a discrete field model (DFM) and well known boundary mechanism. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803

Duality emerges as the simple symmetry transition to implement any change to the analogue energy of motion, i.e. changing f and Lambda to preserve c and E locally.

You'll see from the thread there are a number of other very consistent essays which build to a fuller picture consistent with yours.

Our failure would prove to have been in ability of dynamic conceptualisation.

I truly hope you are able to read and understand the structure behind the model. I will be as happy with any scientific (rather than belief) based falsification as with confirmation, as I have as yet had none.

I currently have papers in preprint and under consideration further exploring important fundamental consequences. If you have time I will post links.

Very best wishes and thank you humbly in advance for your views on my essay.

Peter Jackson

report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 10:31 GMT
Dear Dr.TP Singh,

Thanks for your reply and query.I have identified QG field to 'exponentially varying accelerated field' in which the gravity/acceleration varies exponentially.So it is possible for us to derive GR from QG but not vice-versa.Regarding how I have done this can be seen in my article on QG,which you find in my web-site I have mentioned in my essay("http://www.sreenath.webs.com" and click on abstract).The path described in QG field is Logarithmic (Equiangular) spiral path on a plane and conical spiral path in three dimensions.So QG field is a 'Torsion" field.When torsion vanishes QG field becomes uniform accelerated field i.e.,GR.

I have different views on QM which you see in my above article.In it,I have tried to connect the Schrodinger equation to 'how a particle gains energy in the QG field'.If you want me to send my article by e-mail to you,please,inform me and your mathematical frame work to my work I welcome most.

Best regards

Sreenath B N

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 16:15 GMT
Tejinder,

Masterful!

To your point of experiencing spacetime as classical, while acknowledging the infinite linear superposition of quantum states (and the challenge of computability in finite time) -- you might appreciate a less technical treatment of the same conclusions in my essay ("Can we see reality from here?")

Best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 7, 2011 @ 11:03 GMT
Tejinda

I greatly appreciate your supportive comments on my essay and the discrete field model, (DFM). I repeat me response below;

"Thanks for your agreement and sympathy. I'm acutely aware of the need to extend it with mathematical proof to allow physicists to "feel more at home". If you feel you may be of any help in collaboration I'd be delighted. As it's a logic and empirically based 'conceptual' theory the first problem is what to calculate!"

Perhaps nature is too complex for a single human brain process to make sense of. In the Architectural profession astonishing things are only achieved by teamwork. I not only have to have specialist skills but conceptual overview, and understand and co-ordinate a wide range of brilliant specialists, with entirely different ways of looking at things, into the whole. It seems physics as a whole may benefit from more of that, being more inclusive and holistic rather than exclusive and disparate. I'd be interested in your view, generally and specifically to exploring the DFM.

Very many thanks for your time.

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 00:24 GMT
I read your paper through in detail last night and started writing this. I wrote further today, so this got a bit long. I even looked at Adler huge paper, though being 175 pages in length I of course could not read the whole. The A-M matrices, traceless diagonal elements of i = sqrt{-1} and -i, forms is related to the Kahler matrix. This is a line bundle form of the symplectic matrix. To...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B Crowell replied on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 00:25 GMT
continued from above

If this is so then gravity is an effective theory with a classical background. The middle or semi-digital aspects of the world are a form of effective theory. If gravitation or quantum gravity is an emergent theory, we might also ask the same about quantum mechanics? This is based on some aspects of my paper, which I did not illuminate much. Lightcone structure is a...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 07:58 GMT
Tejinder,

My approach is that you can never fully know reality in spite of models that simulate discrete points in time, but my support for this seems meager after reading your impressive essay.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate


Paul Halpern wrote on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 15:22 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

I found your essay, with its idea of multiple layers, most fascinating! I enjoyed your discussion of quantum measurement theory and the role of stochastic fluctuations.

Best wishes,

Paul

Paul Halpern, The Discreet Charm of the Discrete

report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 18:23 GMT
Dear Dr. Singh,

Congrats for being in top 5. It seems that winning prizes is easy and efforless for you because of your indepth knowledge and vast experience of the subject with which you skilfully deal.

Sincerely,

Sreenath.

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 06:26 GMT
Thanks for your kindness Sreenath. But I am also embarrassed by what you say! We just do our bit ...

Best regards,

Tejinder

report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 18, 2011 @ 14:46 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

Congratulations on your dedication to the competition and your much deserved top ten placing. I have a bugging question for you, which I've also posed to all the top front runners btw:

Q: Coulomb's Law of electrostatics was modelled by Maxwell by mechanical means after his mathematical deductions as an added verification (thanks for that bit of info Edwin), which I highly admire. To me, this gives his equation some substance. I have a problem with the laws of gravity though, especially the mathematical representation that "every object attracts every other object equally in all directions." The 'fabric' of spacetime model of gravity doesn't lend itself to explain the law of electrostatics. Coulomb's law denotes two types of matter, one 'charged' positive and the opposite type 'charged' negative. An Archimedes screw model for the graviton can explain -both- the gravity law and the electrostatic law, whilst the 'fabric' of spacetime can't. Doesn't this by definition make the helical screw model better than than anything else that has been suggested for the mechanism of the gravity force?? Otherwise the unification of all the forces is an impossiblity imo. Do you have an opinion on my analysis at all?

Best wishes,

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 06:38 GMT
Dear Alan,

Thank you for your kind remarks.

I would not rule out the possibility of unification via a generalized geometry - a noncommutative geometry for example. This has been developed beautifully by Alan Connes, though the connection with quantum theory remains to be achieved.

We talked a bit about your helical screw idea earlier, if I recall right. I do not know how this can be fitted with the existing mathematical framework in physics, nor I understand why you would like to think overwhelmingly from the viewpoint of just the screw idea alone.

Best wishes,

Tejinder

report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 13:16 GMT
Thanks for the reply Tejinder. I need to do more w.r.t a simulation model of the proton and neutron in action I think.

Best wishes,

Alan

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Jun. 6, 2011 @ 07:43 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

Congratulations on winning a prize. I did think your multilevel consideration of reality was very interesting. Wish I could have grasped more of what you were presenting. I am glad though that the judges found what they were looking for in your essay. Well done.

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jun. 6, 2011 @ 09:51 GMT
Thank you for your good wishes Georgina. It was a pleasure discussing with you.

Cheers,

Tejinder

report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jun. 6, 2011 @ 08:48 GMT
Congratulations for your win!

report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jun. 6, 2011 @ 09:53 GMT
Many thanks Vladimir,

Best regards,

Tejinder

report post as inappropriate


Sridattadev wrote on Jun. 9, 2011 @ 19:41 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

Congratulations. Several layers of dynamics you have put forth are similar to our levels of consciousness. Sometimes we feel we are separate from the universe and at times we will realize we are one with it. Duality is on one side of the event horizon of a black hole and singularity is inside of it. So is reality, digital from one perspective and anolog from another and semi-digital-analog as well.

S=BM^2

Love,

Sridattadev.

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.