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

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

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

Current Essay Contest

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

Previous Contests

**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

read/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**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/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Current Essay Contest

Previous Contests

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Jose Koshy**: *on* 3/21/15 at 10:09am UTC, wrote Dear Constantinos Ragazas, Our opinions about 'mathematics' and 'modern...

**[[ddlink]]**: *on* 11/18/11 at 12:14pm UTC, wrote lightness and purity of one of the three also because the successful...

**Vladimir Tamari**: *on* 5/16/11 at 3:42am UTC, wrote Dear Constantinos, You are more focused in your approach to physics than...

**Constantinos Ragazas**: *on* 5/15/11 at 15:15pm UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir, I am entirely guided by 'physical realism' in all my...

**Vladimir Tamari**: *on* 5/15/11 at 13:48pm UTC, wrote Hello Constantinos Sorry if I misunderstood your ideas. I too do not...

**Constantinos Ragazas**: *on* 5/14/11 at 16:44pm UTC, wrote Hello Vladimir, You write, “...your starting point is accepting the...

**Vladimir Tamari**: *on* 5/14/11 at 14:11pm UTC, wrote Dear Constantinos, More power to us to help demystify physics - I cannot...

**Constantinos Ragazas**: *on* 5/9/11 at 16:54pm UTC, wrote Hello Vladimir, and thank you for your good wishes. I am pleased that we...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**kurt stocklmeir**: "spring constant of time and space is not linear - this influences a lot of..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Joe Fisher**: "Dear Steve, The Universe cannot possibly be “finite.” Human abstract..."
*in* Watching the Observers

**Kevin Adams**: "Very interesting theme! Thanks a lot for this information. I just going to..."
*in* Multiversal Journeys —...

**Steve Agnew**: "The universe is finite and not infinite. The notion of infinity or..."
*in* Watching the Observers

**Colin Richardson**: ""According to quantum mechanics, a vacuum isn't empty at all. It's actually..."
*in* Manipulating the Quantum...

**Lorraine Ford**: "Dear Rajiv, I have already addressed your 3 points, but I will put it to..."
*in* FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

**Peter Morgan**: "An e-mail sent to me by Springer Nature today tells me that because I am at..."
*in* Manipulating the Quantum...

**munized ward**: "Variety exists inside all populaces of life forms. This happens somewhat in..."
*in* Natural Selection in...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**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.

**The Spacetime Revolutionary**

Carlo Rovelli describes how black holes may transition to "white holes," according to loop quantum gravity, a radical rewrite of fundamental physics.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

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

Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?

To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.

Carlo Rovelli describes how black holes may transition to "white holes," according to loop quantum gravity, a radical rewrite of fundamental physics.

FQXi FORUM

June 24, 2017

CATEGORY:
Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011)
[back]

TOPIC: A World Without Quanta? by Constantinos Ragazas [refresh]

TOPIC: A World Without Quanta? by Constantinos Ragazas [refresh]

Quantum Physics has its historical beginnings with Planck's derivation of his formula for blackbody radiation, more than one hundred years ago. In his derivation, Planck used what latter became known as 'energy quanta'. In spite of the best efforts at the time and for decades later, a more 'classical approach' to derive this formula has not been found. Along with Einstein's Photon Hypothesis, the Quantization of Energy Hypothesis became the foundation for all the Physics that followed. This 'physical reality' has shaped our view of the Universe and has resulted in mathematical certainties of Quantum Mechanics that are counter-intuitive and contradict our experience. We are told that 'this is how the world is' and are asked by physicists to simply accept such 'facts of Nature'. That we need to mentally adjust to this 'view' of the Universe (the 'metaphysics of physics') and change our 'sense and reason' accordingly. We argue in this essay for a world without quanta. To the question, “Is the Universe Continuous or Discrete? ”, we argue that we cannot know 'what is' and strike a philosophical balance and answer, “it is neither and both”. In this essay I will present a mathematical derivation of Planck's Law that uses simple continuous processes, without using energy quanta and discrete statistics. This mathematical derivation shows that Planck's Law is an exact mathematical identity (a tautology) that describes the interaction of energy. Planck's Law viewed in this way becomes a Rosetta Stone that is used to translate known physics into a simple and consistent formulation. We are able to define such physical quantities as energy, force, momentum, temperature and entropy consistently in terms of the prime 'physis' quantity η -- the same as Planck's constant h. Basic Law can thus be mathematically derived and not be physically postulated.

Constantinos Ragazas thinks a lot, but sensibly. He was born in the mountains of Western Macedonia, Greece, but considers the Universe his home. Among his many interests are Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness. He can be reached through telepathy or by email only.

Dear Constantinos ,

I am glad that you have entered this contest. You have some very interesting ideas that you have shared on FQXi blogs and I have read some the papers you have recommended. I did find your "Unhenging of Stonehenge" a fascinating interpretation of the evidence.I have visited there several times as well as Avebury, and Carnac in France. They certainly are awe inspiring sites where something extraordinary has happened. It is perhaps that extraordinary-ness that has drawn people to them from prehistoric to current times.

Anyway I know that I will enjoy your current essay. I do not have the time to read it fully now, so I do not know what you have in store for me. However the brief skim did show me that you are appealing for a return to a greater level of realism in scientific theory. An appeal that a number of contestants are making.

In the meantime I hope you get lots of interested readers and do well in the contest. I will try to leave some feedback when I have finished reading it. Your biography stood out from the crowd! Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

I am glad that you have entered this contest. You have some very interesting ideas that you have shared on FQXi blogs and I have read some the papers you have recommended. I did find your "Unhenging of Stonehenge" a fascinating interpretation of the evidence.I have visited there several times as well as Avebury, and Carnac in France. They certainly are awe inspiring sites where something extraordinary has happened. It is perhaps that extraordinary-ness that has drawn people to them from prehistoric to current times.

Anyway I know that I will enjoy your current essay. I do not have the time to read it fully now, so I do not know what you have in store for me. However the brief skim did show me that you are appealing for a return to a greater level of realism in scientific theory. An appeal that a number of contestants are making.

In the meantime I hope you get lots of interested readers and do well in the contest. I will try to leave some feedback when I have finished reading it. Your biography stood out from the crowd! Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Georgina,

Always enjoy hearing from you. I recall fondly some intense exchanges we had on these blogs last year. We have many ideas in common and hope our intellectual explorations find resonance with others as well. You are very correct in characterizing my views as a call for a return to 'physical realism'. I try to make my arguments as mathematically rigorous as I can, but the underlying idea is simple: Physics must provide us with 'physical explanations' that 'make sense'. Too much reliance on mathematical derivations is no different than failed metaphysical attempts to answer the question 'what is' the Universe. Mathematical models of the Universe are metaphysical. They ultimately fail.

My attempt to show that we can have 'a world without quanta' begins with a mathematical derivation of Planck's Law (what started it all one hundred years ago) using only continuous processes and not needing energy quanta. This Law is shown to be a mathematical description of the interaction of measurement – what in essence Physics is or should be.

Constantinos

Always enjoy hearing from you. I recall fondly some intense exchanges we had on these blogs last year. We have many ideas in common and hope our intellectual explorations find resonance with others as well. You are very correct in characterizing my views as a call for a return to 'physical realism'. I try to make my arguments as mathematically rigorous as I can, but the underlying idea is simple: Physics must provide us with 'physical explanations' that 'make sense'. Too much reliance on mathematical derivations is no different than failed metaphysical attempts to answer the question 'what is' the Universe. Mathematical models of the Universe are metaphysical. They ultimately fail.

My attempt to show that we can have 'a world without quanta' begins with a mathematical derivation of Planck's Law (what started it all one hundred years ago) using only continuous processes and not needing energy quanta. This Law is shown to be a mathematical description of the interaction of measurement – what in essence Physics is or should be.

Constantinos

Hello dear Constantinos, but where were you ??? Happy to see you again on FQXi,that lacked.

Good luck for this contest

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Good luck for this contest

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Dear Steve,

Thank you for your good wishes! I hope my essay adds positively to the much needed conversation about physics and man.

My absence from the fqxi blog pages in the past few weeks was because I am more focused now in writing my results for a chapter in an upcoming book on Thermodynamics. I was contacted by Hayrani Oz (a professor of aerospace engineering) to coauthor this chapter with him. He has read my posted papers and finds them significant. These fit well with ideas and methods he has been using in his own work and teaching.

Hope to be more involved once again after this project is over. But this essay contest will surely be bringing me back more regularly! Good to have the opportunity to share ideas with others. We are all on the same side seeking clarity of what we 'know'!

Constantinos

Thank you for your good wishes! I hope my essay adds positively to the much needed conversation about physics and man.

My absence from the fqxi blog pages in the past few weeks was because I am more focused now in writing my results for a chapter in an upcoming book on Thermodynamics. I was contacted by Hayrani Oz (a professor of aerospace engineering) to coauthor this chapter with him. He has read my posted papers and finds them significant. These fit well with ideas and methods he has been using in his own work and teaching.

Hope to be more involved once again after this project is over. But this essay contest will surely be bringing me back more regularly! Good to have the opportunity to share ideas with others. We are all on the same side seeking clarity of what we 'know'!

Constantinos

Hello dear Constantinos,

You are welcome. I am happy for you, it's cool that your ideas are recognized.You merit it.

We search indeed all the truths and truth, as starwalkers of our Univers.

Best Regards and good luck still.

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate

You are welcome. I am happy for you, it's cool that your ideas are recognized.You merit it.

We search indeed all the truths and truth, as starwalkers of our Univers.

Best Regards and good luck still.

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos,

It is a good thing I got my paper in before yours, or it would seem mine is a simplistic knock-off. Of course, our conversations have been influential to my thinking.

Israel Perez offered some papers you may be interested in;

here here

Baring politics, it's a winner.

report post as inappropriate

It is a good thing I got my paper in before yours, or it would seem mine is a simplistic knock-off. Of course, our conversations have been influential to my thinking.

Israel Perez offered some papers you may be interested in;

here here

Baring politics, it's a winner.

report post as inappropriate

John,

Thanks for your kind thoughts! I should tell you that in these blogs responding to your posts has always been an interesting challenge. Our conversations on cosmology emboldened me to make my views public (though reluctantly). But I decided against 'self-censorship' and if I truly believe in an idea I am also obligated to share it with others interested in having a good and open discussion. Physics, we both agree, needs more of this openness. The dominant attitude should be 'how to make sense' of an idea, rather than 'how to knock it down'. We are very fortunate for FQXi that allows this open honest public discussion.

I have tried opening the links in your post, but failed to connect.

Best wishes,

Constantinos

Thanks for your kind thoughts! I should tell you that in these blogs responding to your posts has always been an interesting challenge. Our conversations on cosmology emboldened me to make my views public (though reluctantly). But I decided against 'self-censorship' and if I truly believe in an idea I am also obligated to share it with others interested in having a good and open discussion. Physics, we both agree, needs more of this openness. The dominant attitude should be 'how to make sense' of an idea, rather than 'how to knock it down'. We are very fortunate for FQXi that allows this open honest public discussion.

I have tried opening the links in your post, but failed to connect.

Best wishes,

Constantinos

Constantinos,

Thanks. There isn't much sense in censoring what makes sense to ourselves, or we really get lost.

Here are the links, minus the embedding:

http://www.fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CCh

ristov_WaveMotion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdf

http://www.fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CChristov_AIP

_978_3_SpaceMaterialContinuumCosmologicalRedshift.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Thanks. There isn't much sense in censoring what makes sense to ourselves, or we really get lost.

Here are the links, minus the embedding:

http://www.fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CCh

ristov_WaveMotion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdf

http://www.fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CChristov_AIP

_978_3_SpaceMaterialContinuumCosmologicalRedshift.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Trying to make sense of a lot of these essays is tying my brain in a knot.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas,

I had forgotten how much I enjoyed your previous essay.

In my essay I note that "A continuous universe evolves to discrete reality, where quantum conditions carve up the continuum, such that analog inputs occasion digital outputs or threshold crossings."

Your approach seems to "accumulate energy until a threshold crossing".

I also agree with you that "space must be filled with something", but I wonder how you account for mass, charge, and gravity in terms of 'eta'. I would invite you to look at my essay for concepts that are compatible with yours.

I also think that you might find Marty Green's essay very interesting. I did.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

I had forgotten how much I enjoyed your previous essay.

In my essay I note that "A continuous universe evolves to discrete reality, where quantum conditions carve up the continuum, such that analog inputs occasion digital outputs or threshold crossings."

Your approach seems to "accumulate energy until a threshold crossing".

I also agree with you that "space must be filled with something", but I wonder how you account for mass, charge, and gravity in terms of 'eta'. I would invite you to look at my essay for concepts that are compatible with yours.

I also think that you might find Marty Green's essay very interesting. I did.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Hello Edwin,

Thank you for your comment. Hope you don't mind me greeting you by your personal name! Blame it on FQXi for fostering such atmosphere!

The most significant result in my essay is the mathematical derivation of Planck's Law using simple continuous processes and without using 'energy quanta'. This derivation shows that Planck's Law is a mathematical truism (not a Law of...

view entire post

Thank you for your comment. Hope you don't mind me greeting you by your personal name! Blame it on FQXi for fostering such atmosphere!

The most significant result in my essay is the mathematical derivation of Planck's Law using simple continuous processes and without using 'energy quanta'. This derivation shows that Planck's Law is a mathematical truism (not a Law of...

view entire post

Constantinos,

Thanks for your reply. I have studied your essay, and there is much I like about it. I think we agree upon the desirability of "a physical view that makes sense".

You state: "I just don't believe that the Universe operates by some God-given Universal Laws and we can 'know' them! This is the Metaphysics of Physics and I just don't believe in it! But I do believe in a Creative and Evolving Universe. As such, the Universe 'creates' its own Laws..."

If you read my first page, you will find that that is exactly what I am saying, that the laws must evolve from the universe itself.

As for the C-field, Maxwell first noted that if mass replaced charge, and gravity replaced the electric field, then Coulomb's law and Newton's law are identical. He decided, based on this symmetry, to use G and mass in place of E and charge in all of Maxwell's equations. But since there is an (electro-)magnetic field, he needed an analogous (gravito-)magnetic field to complete the equations. The C-field is my name for what Maxwell and others refer to simply as the gravito-magnetic field. It has nothing to do with the magnetic field, it is the gravity analog thereof.

Later it was found that the same equations fall out of the 'weak field approximation' of General Relativity.

So the field exists. There is some argument as to the strength of the field. Martin Tajmar has measured it to be 10^31 times stronger than Maxwell believed (based only on simple symmetry) and my calculations agree with Tajmar's results.

You seem to think that your mathematics is 'observed' by the behavior of the universe. I hope you decide to give 'my mathematics' the same chance.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for your reply. I have studied your essay, and there is much I like about it. I think we agree upon the desirability of "a physical view that makes sense".

You state: "I just don't believe that the Universe operates by some God-given Universal Laws and we can 'know' them! This is the Metaphysics of Physics and I just don't believe in it! But I do believe in a Creative and Evolving Universe. As such, the Universe 'creates' its own Laws..."

If you read my first page, you will find that that is exactly what I am saying, that the laws must evolve from the universe itself.

As for the C-field, Maxwell first noted that if mass replaced charge, and gravity replaced the electric field, then Coulomb's law and Newton's law are identical. He decided, based on this symmetry, to use G and mass in place of E and charge in all of Maxwell's equations. But since there is an (electro-)magnetic field, he needed an analogous (gravito-)magnetic field to complete the equations. The C-field is my name for what Maxwell and others refer to simply as the gravito-magnetic field. It has nothing to do with the magnetic field, it is the gravity analog thereof.

Later it was found that the same equations fall out of the 'weak field approximation' of General Relativity.

So the field exists. There is some argument as to the strength of the field. Martin Tajmar has measured it to be 10^31 times stronger than Maxwell believed (based only on simple symmetry) and my calculations agree with Tajmar's results.

You seem to think that your mathematics is 'observed' by the behavior of the universe. I hope you decide to give 'my mathematics' the same chance.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Edwin,

You write, “You seem to think that your mathematics is 'observed' by the behavior of the universe”

Actually I don't! That quote sounds like 'mathematical modeling' and I don't believe in it! The results in my papers are really mathematical truisms (tautologies) that describe the interaction of measurement. My formulation of Planck's Law, for example, is just a mathematical identity that describes the functional relationship between E, ΔE and Eav. What is the quantity E does not matter!!! In Planck's Law, of course, E is energy.

None of the mathematics in my essay seeks to 'model' physical phenomena. But these mathematical formulations describe our measurements and the concepts and ideas (like force and energy) we use in understanding our measurements mathematically. The only real tie to 'physical reality' in any of this is the 'prime physis' quantity 'eta'. This may be thought of as the 'what is' (as 'Being'). But in my formulation it remains undefined and undefinable!

Planck's constant h is 'eta'. But in my work 'eta' is a variable while h is a constant. Many surprising outcomes flow from this 'small but significant' distinction. Besides what I mentioned in my previous reply to you, another surprise is that Plancks' Law and Boltzmann's entropy equation are mathematically equivalent! Want more? Read my essay!

Energy is mathematically defined as the time-derivative of 'eta' while momentum is defined as the space-derivative of 'eta'. Similarly temperature and entropy can also be mathematically defined. Newtons' Second Law of Motion for example expresses the mathematical truism that 'mixed partials are equal'. And so for all other results in my essay! But these are mathematically valid. Nothing to do with 'modeling' of physical behavior. Like the Law of Gravity, or Maxwell's Equations, etc. seek to do.

In my view, 'measurement' is the essence of Physics. And a mathematical formulation of Physics based on mathematical identities describing measurement establish the connection between Math and Nature. And answer the question “why should our mathematical calculations be reflected in our measurements of Nature?”

We have barely scratched the surface, Edwin! And this from a non-physicist! Imagine if ...

Constantinos

You write, “You seem to think that your mathematics is 'observed' by the behavior of the universe”

Actually I don't! That quote sounds like 'mathematical modeling' and I don't believe in it! The results in my papers are really mathematical truisms (tautologies) that describe the interaction of measurement. My formulation of Planck's Law, for example, is just a mathematical identity that describes the functional relationship between E, ΔE and Eav. What is the quantity E does not matter!!! In Planck's Law, of course, E is energy.

None of the mathematics in my essay seeks to 'model' physical phenomena. But these mathematical formulations describe our measurements and the concepts and ideas (like force and energy) we use in understanding our measurements mathematically. The only real tie to 'physical reality' in any of this is the 'prime physis' quantity 'eta'. This may be thought of as the 'what is' (as 'Being'). But in my formulation it remains undefined and undefinable!

Planck's constant h is 'eta'. But in my work 'eta' is a variable while h is a constant. Many surprising outcomes flow from this 'small but significant' distinction. Besides what I mentioned in my previous reply to you, another surprise is that Plancks' Law and Boltzmann's entropy equation are mathematically equivalent! Want more? Read my essay!

Energy is mathematically defined as the time-derivative of 'eta' while momentum is defined as the space-derivative of 'eta'. Similarly temperature and entropy can also be mathematically defined. Newtons' Second Law of Motion for example expresses the mathematical truism that 'mixed partials are equal'. And so for all other results in my essay! But these are mathematically valid. Nothing to do with 'modeling' of physical behavior. Like the Law of Gravity, or Maxwell's Equations, etc. seek to do.

In my view, 'measurement' is the essence of Physics. And a mathematical formulation of Physics based on mathematical identities describing measurement establish the connection between Math and Nature. And answer the question “why should our mathematical calculations be reflected in our measurements of Nature?”

We have barely scratched the surface, Edwin! And this from a non-physicist! Imagine if ...

Constantinos

Gus,

What a nice and bold piece of work you have written! I know you have been working and thinking about this for quite some time. I want to wish you the best, as your work begins to be exposed and seen by others...

Miguel

report post as inappropriate

What a nice and bold piece of work you have written! I know you have been working and thinking about this for quite some time. I want to wish you the best, as your work begins to be exposed and seen by others...

Miguel

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos,

I really like the way your essay is written. Right from the outset you "lay it on the line." It is also written in a very clear way that takes the reader on a smooth journey from your original premise right through to your conclusion. It does not confuse the reader with too much information nor does it merely reiterate current mainstream thinking.

You said "Just as we...

view entire post

I really like the way your essay is written. Right from the outset you "lay it on the line." It is also written in a very clear way that takes the reader on a smooth journey from your original premise right through to your conclusion. It does not confuse the reader with too much information nor does it merely reiterate current mainstream thinking.

You said "Just as we...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Georgina,

Thank you for your very kind and thoughtful comments. We agree on many of the fundamental attitudes. I will try to address questions that you raised ...

You write,

“...[Planck's Law] is not a Law of the Universe...”

That is a key distinction that I believe needs discussion. Yes, I do say that my derivation of Planck's Law shows that this Law is not some...

view entire post

Thank you for your very kind and thoughtful comments. We agree on many of the fundamental attitudes. I will try to address questions that you raised ...

You write,

“...[Planck's Law] is not a Law of the Universe...”

That is a key distinction that I believe needs discussion. Yes, I do say that my derivation of Planck's Law shows that this Law is not some...

view entire post

Hi Constantinos thank you.

I am glad that you have reiterated those points and confirmed my understanding of them in your essay. I didn't understand "where you were coming from" when you were posting on FQXi blog forum and assumed that because you were using mathematical arguments you were trying to mathematically describe the function of the universe. Now its very clear and I do not disagree.

Good luck, Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

I am glad that you have reiterated those points and confirmed my understanding of them in your essay. I didn't understand "where you were coming from" when you were posting on FQXi blog forum and assumed that because you were using mathematical arguments you were trying to mathematically describe the function of the universe. Now its very clear and I do not disagree.

Good luck, Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos,

also about duration. I agree with you on this point too. I have said (words to the effect) "Some configurations are replaced by new ones and some configurations persist." Those that persist are the ones we are able to continue to experience (so they have duration).I don't think time has to be brought into it but it does make it clearer and easier to understand when you do.

For the equilibrium idea I can imagine a sand bar. So long as the sand eroded by the wave action is balanced by the sand deposited it will remain in equilibrium and will persist. If the equilibrium becomes unbalanced the sand bar might be completely eroded or might grow into an island. So the recognition of it as an unchanging object or feature depends upon equilibrium over a duration of time , as you say. It is an analogy that applies to all sorts of other ideas. For example water droplet that might evaporate or freeze, or population of animals that retains the same morphology or evolves or dies out.

Best regards, Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

also about duration. I agree with you on this point too. I have said (words to the effect) "Some configurations are replaced by new ones and some configurations persist." Those that persist are the ones we are able to continue to experience (so they have duration).I don't think time has to be brought into it but it does make it clearer and easier to understand when you do.

For the equilibrium idea I can imagine a sand bar. So long as the sand eroded by the wave action is balanced by the sand deposited it will remain in equilibrium and will persist. If the equilibrium becomes unbalanced the sand bar might be completely eroded or might grow into an island. So the recognition of it as an unchanging object or feature depends upon equilibrium over a duration of time , as you say. It is an analogy that applies to all sorts of other ideas. For example water droplet that might evaporate or freeze, or population of animals that retains the same morphology or evolves or dies out.

Best regards, Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Constantinos,

I agree with some of your views and the basic approach.I like,in return,you too to read my article and express your views on it.

Good work and best wishes.

Sreenath B N.

report post as inappropriate

I agree with some of your views and the basic approach.I like,in return,you too to read my article and express your views on it.

Good work and best wishes.

Sreenath B N.

report post as inappropriate

Fascinating essay. Really makes one think about all the conventional thought processes.....

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Georgina,

Just one further point to stress in my previous post regarding Planck's Law.

Planck's Law marks the turning point in Physics that brought us to where we are today, and all the 'quantum weirdness' and assault on common sense. It has been thought by physicists that this Law proves we live in a 'quantized Universe'. They came to that conclusion because no one at the time, and for decades latter, was able to derive this Law without using energy quanta. I show in this essay that there is a very simple mathematical derivation of this Law that does not require energy quanta. Had this derivation been known 100 years ago, it would have changed the direction Physics has taken.

Constantinos

Just one further point to stress in my previous post regarding Planck's Law.

Planck's Law marks the turning point in Physics that brought us to where we are today, and all the 'quantum weirdness' and assault on common sense. It has been thought by physicists that this Law proves we live in a 'quantized Universe'. They came to that conclusion because no one at the time, and for decades latter, was able to derive this Law without using energy quanta. I show in this essay that there is a very simple mathematical derivation of this Law that does not require energy quanta. Had this derivation been known 100 years ago, it would have changed the direction Physics has taken.

Constantinos

Constantinos

A wonderful essay, and with both an important point and fundamental conceptions astonishingly consistent with and part of a falsifiable picture of Local/Reality physics painted by a whole swathe of other essays here, but needing a deeper comprehension and broader viewpoint than in the past to understand. (You'll have seen the threads on Georgina's Edwin's and mine to link to the others). The threads are as interesting as the essays!

I believe this is quite unprecedented, which gives us hope that physics may be about to arise out of it's current deep rut. But then again we may all just be ignored again! Let's not let that stop us this time.

Keep up the good work.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

A wonderful essay, and with both an important point and fundamental conceptions astonishingly consistent with and part of a falsifiable picture of Local/Reality physics painted by a whole swathe of other essays here, but needing a deeper comprehension and broader viewpoint than in the past to understand. (You'll have seen the threads on Georgina's Edwin's and mine to link to the others). The threads are as interesting as the essays!

I believe this is quite unprecedented, which gives us hope that physics may be about to arise out of it's current deep rut. But then again we may all just be ignored again! Let's not let that stop us this time.

Keep up the good work.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Hello Peter,

Thanks for your comment. I do believe that there is a group now coalescing around similar ideas. What's binding us together, however, is our loud call for 'physical realism'. My sense is that call may be getting heard. More from the ranks of physicists are now considering 'a world without quanta'.

We have at least gotten the conversation going. And that's a good think!

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for your comment. I do believe that there is a group now coalescing around similar ideas. What's binding us together, however, is our loud call for 'physical realism'. My sense is that call may be getting heard. More from the ranks of physicists are now considering 'a world without quanta'.

We have at least gotten the conversation going. And that's a good think!

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Hello Constantinos,

Loved your essay and your characterization of time. I have a similar view.

If you get a chance check out my essay here

I'm sending good thoughts.

Pete

report post as inappropriate

Loved your essay and your characterization of time. I have a similar view.

If you get a chance check out my essay here

I'm sending good thoughts.

Pete

report post as inappropriate

Thank you Peter for your good thoughts. I am especially pleased that you found my characterization of time interesting and useful. Though I have spoken about this very unique and different concept of physical time before, I don't believe anybody truly saw how deeply profound and significant this idea is. I suppose it takes a 'conceptual artist' to appreciate it.

I am very intrigued by your art background. I would love to see what some of your work is. Have you posted any of your work on the web? If so please send me where I can look this up. Are you currently showing anywhere in the East coast, New York / Philadelphia area?

Best wishes,

Constantinos

I am very intrigued by your art background. I would love to see what some of your work is. Have you posted any of your work on the web? If so please send me where I can look this up. Are you currently showing anywhere in the East coast, New York / Philadelphia area?

Best wishes,

Constantinos

Hi Constantinos,

I understand that you are trying to find a common-sense approach to understanding Nature, but I'm not sure that Hamiltonian mechanics had to be rewritten (eta is closely related to H). H is Energy, and is very important in Liouville's Equation. In contrast, eta is energy absorbed within a time interval, and thus may have applications with Measurement Theory.

Your treatment of Planck's Law as a truism is interesting, but ultimately this may be due to the facts that 1) Planck's Law is based on bosonic photons, and the 2) Partition Function for Bosons has the same features as your Planck-like Characterization of Exponential Functions. Check out Equations 1-4 of the free partial preview of my book.

If Planck's Law is a truism, then this would have devastating implications for Maxwell-Botlzmann Statistics, and for Fermi-Dirac Statistics. Remember, Planck had to modify the "standard" Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics to explain Blackbody radiation, but Maxwell-Boltzmann has many other valid uses.

I know that Multiverses are not generally popular - after all, we shouldn't be able to directly observe alternate Universes or Realities. But could other "minimum sips" of eta be possible? Would these imply other scales, and how similar or different would those scales be relative to our reality?

I agree that there may be a scale at which spacetime is comprised of something - whether that "something" is the prime eta that you propose, or the "vacuum" related to the Higgs vev, or Causal Dynamical Triangulation or Spin Foam, or a revised quantum version of the old classical "aether"...

I would appreciate your professional opinion of my essay.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

I understand that you are trying to find a common-sense approach to understanding Nature, but I'm not sure that Hamiltonian mechanics had to be rewritten (eta is closely related to H). H is Energy, and is very important in Liouville's Equation. In contrast, eta is energy absorbed within a time interval, and thus may have applications with Measurement Theory.

Your treatment of Planck's Law as a truism is interesting, but ultimately this may be due to the facts that 1) Planck's Law is based on bosonic photons, and the 2) Partition Function for Bosons has the same features as your Planck-like Characterization of Exponential Functions. Check out Equations 1-4 of the free partial preview of my book.

If Planck's Law is a truism, then this would have devastating implications for Maxwell-Botlzmann Statistics, and for Fermi-Dirac Statistics. Remember, Planck had to modify the "standard" Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics to explain Blackbody radiation, but Maxwell-Boltzmann has many other valid uses.

I know that Multiverses are not generally popular - after all, we shouldn't be able to directly observe alternate Universes or Realities. But could other "minimum sips" of eta be possible? Would these imply other scales, and how similar or different would those scales be relative to our reality?

I agree that there may be a scale at which spacetime is comprised of something - whether that "something" is the prime eta that you propose, or the "vacuum" related to the Higgs vev, or Causal Dynamical Triangulation or Spin Foam, or a revised quantum version of the old classical "aether"...

I would appreciate your professional opinion of my essay.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Dear Ray,

Wonderful hearing from you again, after how many months of silence? Since the publication of your last paper on scales? I should update you with some interesting developments.

I am coauthoring a chapter in a book on Thermodynamics to be out this July. My coauthor is Hayrani Oz, Prof. Of Aerospace Engineering at Ohio State University. The quantity eta you mention in your post above turns out to be Prof. Oz's 'enerxaction' which he has been using successfully in his work and teaching for many years. Our work will demonstrate, among other things, how this approach combines and supersedes both Hamiltonian as well as Lagrangian mechanics. In my paper on 'prime physis', as well as in my essay, I explain that the quantity eta is both, 'accumulation of energy' (H) as well as 'action' (L).

Ray, have you checked this amazing link showing the indistinguishable match between experimental data and Planck's Law of the blackbody spectrum? Aren't you amazed? And if so, doesn't this beg the question “why so exact?”.

My mathematical derivation of Planck's Law, showing that this Law is a mathematical tautology, explains this striking experimental fact. Can you think of any other explanation? There is nothing more accurate than a tautology A = A. I go on to suggest that the amazing accuracy of QED may similarly be due to mathematical tautologies inherent in the theory. A little like mathematical card tricks!

Ray, the reason that Planck's Law is a mathematical truism has NOTHING to do with Physics! This is a mathematical result, pure and simple! It just has a camouflaged appearance in Physics, dressed up as some physical law. As such, this should not contradict anything in Physics that stands in good order and has no self-contradictions!

Ray, I would look at your essay. But if it in written in 'incomprehensible code' (as before) I doubt if I will have much to say about it!

Best wishes,

Constantinos

Wonderful hearing from you again, after how many months of silence? Since the publication of your last paper on scales? I should update you with some interesting developments.

I am coauthoring a chapter in a book on Thermodynamics to be out this July. My coauthor is Hayrani Oz, Prof. Of Aerospace Engineering at Ohio State University. The quantity eta you mention in your post above turns out to be Prof. Oz's 'enerxaction' which he has been using successfully in his work and teaching for many years. Our work will demonstrate, among other things, how this approach combines and supersedes both Hamiltonian as well as Lagrangian mechanics. In my paper on 'prime physis', as well as in my essay, I explain that the quantity eta is both, 'accumulation of energy' (H) as well as 'action' (L).

Ray, have you checked this amazing link showing the indistinguishable match between experimental data and Planck's Law of the blackbody spectrum? Aren't you amazed? And if so, doesn't this beg the question “why so exact?”.

My mathematical derivation of Planck's Law, showing that this Law is a mathematical tautology, explains this striking experimental fact. Can you think of any other explanation? There is nothing more accurate than a tautology A = A. I go on to suggest that the amazing accuracy of QED may similarly be due to mathematical tautologies inherent in the theory. A little like mathematical card tricks!

Ray, the reason that Planck's Law is a mathematical truism has NOTHING to do with Physics! This is a mathematical result, pure and simple! It just has a camouflaged appearance in Physics, dressed up as some physical law. As such, this should not contradict anything in Physics that stands in good order and has no self-contradictions!

Ray, I would look at your essay. But if it in written in 'incomprehensible code' (as before) I doubt if I will have much to say about it!

Best wishes,

Constantinos

Hi Constantinos,

I enjoyed this paper because it included more of your ideas. Most of your prior papers were 2 or 3 page papers that referenced other 2 or 3 page papers.

I am not challenging the accuracy of Planck's Law. I'm asking which is more fundamental - Planck's Law vs. the Partition functions of Quantum Statistical Mechanics? If Planck's Law is a truism (based on your assumptions involving the properties of exponential functions), then it seems to negate the fundamentality of Fermi and Maxwell statistics. If the Partition Functions are truisms, then all three statistics, Bose, Maxwell and Fermi are allowed.

Planck developed his ideas in 1900. Einstein took Planck's ideas to the next level with his explanation of the Photoelectric Effect in 1905. For all of the talk about Relativity, Einstein won his Nobel Prize for his early development of Quantum Statistical Mechanics - ironically Einstein later questioned Quantum Mechanics...

I see how mechanics can be derived from eta, but also see huge similarities between eta, the Hamiltonion, and Action. I don't consider eta so much of a new concept, as just being a different (perhaps more common-sense?) way to formalize these old concepts.

I have been quiet on the blog site lately. Too many of the discussions sound too similar...

I hope my latest essay is not an incomprehensible code. As a mathematician, you might enjoy some of it. I only have a little bit of physics involving scales, intrinsic spin, and supersymmetry.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

I enjoyed this paper because it included more of your ideas. Most of your prior papers were 2 or 3 page papers that referenced other 2 or 3 page papers.

I am not challenging the accuracy of Planck's Law. I'm asking which is more fundamental - Planck's Law vs. the Partition functions of Quantum Statistical Mechanics? If Planck's Law is a truism (based on your assumptions involving the properties of exponential functions), then it seems to negate the fundamentality of Fermi and Maxwell statistics. If the Partition Functions are truisms, then all three statistics, Bose, Maxwell and Fermi are allowed.

Planck developed his ideas in 1900. Einstein took Planck's ideas to the next level with his explanation of the Photoelectric Effect in 1905. For all of the talk about Relativity, Einstein won his Nobel Prize for his early development of Quantum Statistical Mechanics - ironically Einstein later questioned Quantum Mechanics...

I see how mechanics can be derived from eta, but also see huge similarities between eta, the Hamiltonion, and Action. I don't consider eta so much of a new concept, as just being a different (perhaps more common-sense?) way to formalize these old concepts.

I have been quiet on the blog site lately. Too many of the discussions sound too similar...

I hope my latest essay is not an incomprehensible code. As a mathematician, you might enjoy some of it. I only have a little bit of physics involving scales, intrinsic spin, and supersymmetry.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Ray,

You write, “I am not challenging the accuracy of Planck's Law.”

That is not the issue! The real question is WHY Planck's Law is indistinguishable from the experimental data! The reason for this remarkable fact is because, as I show in my essay, Planck's Law is actually a mathematical tautology! This does not in any way take away any other 'truisms'. Rather provides more understanding of these. If such a mathematical fact brings to serious question other physical results, than in my humble opinion the physical results have to be more carefully reconsidered. Perhaps here lies more fruitful application of the Rosetta Stone in my essay!

Furthermore, it is a mistake to think that this results (re: Planck's Law) depends on any assumptions regarding the 'energy function', E(t). I show in my essay that Planck's Law taken as EXACT is mathematically equivalent to E(t) being a simple exponential function. However, if we take Planck's Law as a limit approximation (better than any experimental accuracy) then E(t) can be ANY integrable function. Thus, in all circumstances Planck's Law is a mathematical statement describing the interaction of measurement. And that explains why the 'measurements' are indistinguishable from the theory.

Ray, there are so many other results in my essay that neatly tie all together. Let me highlight three:

1)A relationship between entropy and time. This leads to a more intuitive interpretation of The Second Law of Thermodynamics to say that “all physical processes take some positive duration of time to occur”.

2)Planck's Law and Boltzmann's entropy equation are mathematically equivalent.

3)The Photoelectric Effect can be explained without using photons. The photoelectric current obtained provides a better experimental fit that includes the 'asymptotic tail' to the data.

(I have not included this result in my essay, but details can be found at ”The Photoelectric Effect Without Photons”.

Best wishes,

Constantinos

You write, “I am not challenging the accuracy of Planck's Law.”

That is not the issue! The real question is WHY Planck's Law is indistinguishable from the experimental data! The reason for this remarkable fact is because, as I show in my essay, Planck's Law is actually a mathematical tautology! This does not in any way take away any other 'truisms'. Rather provides more understanding of these. If such a mathematical fact brings to serious question other physical results, than in my humble opinion the physical results have to be more carefully reconsidered. Perhaps here lies more fruitful application of the Rosetta Stone in my essay!

Furthermore, it is a mistake to think that this results (re: Planck's Law) depends on any assumptions regarding the 'energy function', E(t). I show in my essay that Planck's Law taken as EXACT is mathematically equivalent to E(t) being a simple exponential function. However, if we take Planck's Law as a limit approximation (better than any experimental accuracy) then E(t) can be ANY integrable function. Thus, in all circumstances Planck's Law is a mathematical statement describing the interaction of measurement. And that explains why the 'measurements' are indistinguishable from the theory.

Ray, there are so many other results in my essay that neatly tie all together. Let me highlight three:

1)A relationship between entropy and time. This leads to a more intuitive interpretation of The Second Law of Thermodynamics to say that “all physical processes take some positive duration of time to occur”.

2)Planck's Law and Boltzmann's entropy equation are mathematically equivalent.

3)The Photoelectric Effect can be explained without using photons. The photoelectric current obtained provides a better experimental fit that includes the 'asymptotic tail' to the data.

(I have not included this result in my essay, but details can be found at ”The Photoelectric Effect Without Photons”.

Best wishes,

Constantinos

Community Appeal!

The key result (and the Rosetta Stone in this essay) is the mathematical derivation of Planck's Law without using energy quanta. I ask that you check this link showing the experimental blackbody spectrum and the theoretical curve obtained using Planck's Law. “The FIRAS data match the curve so exactly, with error uncertainties less than the width of the blackbody curve, that it is impossible to distinguish the data from the theoretical curve”! I show in my essay that Planck's Law is a mathematical tautology. Such remarkable fit of data I argue can only be explained by this result!

I have tried for several years to have the results in this essay be 'peer reviewed' by professional physics journals. Though all these efforts were rejected, the results were not refuted. My sole purpose for submitting my essay to this contest is to get the 'generals' to consider this 'message'. This is the closest to 'peer review' that I can hope to get. Read the essay. Study the mathematical arguments. Consider 'a world without quanta' sketched by these results. And if you feel, as I do, that these deserve consideration by the 'panel of experts', I ask that you support my efforts to get this 'message' to the 'panel'.

Constantinos

The key result (and the Rosetta Stone in this essay) is the mathematical derivation of Planck's Law without using energy quanta. I ask that you check this link showing the experimental blackbody spectrum and the theoretical curve obtained using Planck's Law. “The FIRAS data match the curve so exactly, with error uncertainties less than the width of the blackbody curve, that it is impossible to distinguish the data from the theoretical curve”! I show in my essay that Planck's Law is a mathematical tautology. Such remarkable fit of data I argue can only be explained by this result!

I have tried for several years to have the results in this essay be 'peer reviewed' by professional physics journals. Though all these efforts were rejected, the results were not refuted. My sole purpose for submitting my essay to this contest is to get the 'generals' to consider this 'message'. This is the closest to 'peer review' that I can hope to get. Read the essay. Study the mathematical arguments. Consider 'a world without quanta' sketched by these results. And if you feel, as I do, that these deserve consideration by the 'panel of experts', I ask that you support my efforts to get this 'message' to the 'panel'.

Constantinos

Dear Constantinos,

While I'm really just an uneducated, highly experienced information systems analyst (retired) who can't do the math, I very much enjoyed much of what I understood of your essay. I particularly liked: "energy propagates continuously but interacts discretely"; Ptolemy's epicycles: "...we can write bad physics using good math"; "We can't fault Math for the failings of Physics". I had previously been struck by Ptolemy's equations predicting the motions of planets through the sky as an example of a correct but invalid mathematical proof - are the quotes original?

I was compelled to delve into physics in 2008 when, recovering from a long illness, "Most of our Universe is Missing" was on TV and happened to hear astronomer Vera Rubin explain the observations leading to the establishment of dark matter saying (paraphrased): "...we had expected that they [stars in spiral galaxies] would rotate [orbit] just like planets in the Solar system." I've spent much of my time since trying to learn how to explain that she had meticulously applied standard analytical processes to the first survey of spiral galaxy rotational characteristics to produce a simply incorrect assessment - establishing the requirement for dark matter in physics! I think that the simple answer to that whole debacle is that, in all cases, galaxies are not planetary systems.

I really can't do the math, but I'd very much appreciate if you could read last year's brief (2 page) essay: "Mass Distribution Characteristics Invalidate the Galaxy Rotation Problem". I think you'll see why I particularly liked your essay.

Thanks,

Jim

report post as inappropriate

While I'm really just an uneducated, highly experienced information systems analyst (retired) who can't do the math, I very much enjoyed much of what I understood of your essay. I particularly liked: "energy propagates continuously but interacts discretely"; Ptolemy's epicycles: "...we can write bad physics using good math"; "We can't fault Math for the failings of Physics". I had previously been struck by Ptolemy's equations predicting the motions of planets through the sky as an example of a correct but invalid mathematical proof - are the quotes original?

I was compelled to delve into physics in 2008 when, recovering from a long illness, "Most of our Universe is Missing" was on TV and happened to hear astronomer Vera Rubin explain the observations leading to the establishment of dark matter saying (paraphrased): "...we had expected that they [stars in spiral galaxies] would rotate [orbit] just like planets in the Solar system." I've spent much of my time since trying to learn how to explain that she had meticulously applied standard analytical processes to the first survey of spiral galaxy rotational characteristics to produce a simply incorrect assessment - establishing the requirement for dark matter in physics! I think that the simple answer to that whole debacle is that, in all cases, galaxies are not planetary systems.

I really can't do the math, but I'd very much appreciate if you could read last year's brief (2 page) essay: "Mass Distribution Characteristics Invalidate the Galaxy Rotation Problem". I think you'll see why I particularly liked your essay.

Thanks,

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Dear Jim,

Thanks for your kind words. And thanks for your vote of confidence in what the essay seeks to accomplish. To your question, “...are the quotes original?”. Most everything that I write is original. That's why there are rarely any references to outside sources. The writing is my conscious effort to communicate my thoughts in as clear and concise way as I can. I find long expositions rather imposing and often confusing. So I try to capture the essence of what I seek to communicate in brief haiku-like statements.

What is important in your intellectual venture in physics is not your education, but your passion for ideas and commitment to Truth and Reason. Contrary views by many physicists, as to the need for specialized expertise to do physics, have only dug us deeper into the 'rabbit's hole'. They have created a Universe that defies common sense-experience. These theorists have put us in conflict with our lives. This cannot be good! What is mostly needed in physics are 'physical explanations that make sense'. Physics has failed to deliver on this mission. More abstract math is not needed. Great new ideas can be found in unsuspected places by unsuspected people.

I have read your linked paper and agree with much of what you say. But I must confess to you that I have not kept up with the many fascinating discoveries in astrophysics and cosmology, or given any of this thoughtful reflection. It's only just recently that I started to show more interest in cosmology, thanks to Peter Jackson and John Merryman in these forums. So please take my comments as provisional and with some skepticism.

I agree with you that 'dark matter' is used like another 'epicycle' to bring observation in line with theory. And I also agree that the application of established theory to new fronts is a little like generals fighting the 'last war'! We simply take on faith that the laws of physics we have established here on earth are the same everywhere else in the Universe.

I don't believe in 'universal laws'. But I do believe in our ability to describe mathematically regularities in the world we know. But we must not confuse 'description' for 'explanation'. We have yet to 'explain' anything!

Fortunately, non of this has any bearing on any of the mathematical derivations and physical results in my essay!

Best wishes,

Constantinos

Thanks for your kind words. And thanks for your vote of confidence in what the essay seeks to accomplish. To your question, “...are the quotes original?”. Most everything that I write is original. That's why there are rarely any references to outside sources. The writing is my conscious effort to communicate my thoughts in as clear and concise way as I can. I find long expositions rather imposing and often confusing. So I try to capture the essence of what I seek to communicate in brief haiku-like statements.

What is important in your intellectual venture in physics is not your education, but your passion for ideas and commitment to Truth and Reason. Contrary views by many physicists, as to the need for specialized expertise to do physics, have only dug us deeper into the 'rabbit's hole'. They have created a Universe that defies common sense-experience. These theorists have put us in conflict with our lives. This cannot be good! What is mostly needed in physics are 'physical explanations that make sense'. Physics has failed to deliver on this mission. More abstract math is not needed. Great new ideas can be found in unsuspected places by unsuspected people.

I have read your linked paper and agree with much of what you say. But I must confess to you that I have not kept up with the many fascinating discoveries in astrophysics and cosmology, or given any of this thoughtful reflection. It's only just recently that I started to show more interest in cosmology, thanks to Peter Jackson and John Merryman in these forums. So please take my comments as provisional and with some skepticism.

I agree with you that 'dark matter' is used like another 'epicycle' to bring observation in line with theory. And I also agree that the application of established theory to new fronts is a little like generals fighting the 'last war'! We simply take on faith that the laws of physics we have established here on earth are the same everywhere else in the Universe.

I don't believe in 'universal laws'. But I do believe in our ability to describe mathematically regularities in the world we know. But we must not confuse 'description' for 'explanation'. We have yet to 'explain' anything!

Fortunately, non of this has any bearing on any of the mathematical derivations and physical results in my essay!

Best wishes,

Constantinos

Dear Constantinos,

Thanks very much for your quick response and consideration.

Sorry if I strayed too far afield, but you might be more interested in a mathematical approach (I had had considerable correspondence with one of the authors), "General relativistic dynamics applied to the rotation curves of galaxies".

I wholeheartedly agree with an assessment that there is an overreliance on mathematical proofs to establish correctness. Of course I'm biased by my ineptitude, but I personally think that analytical methods of prediction, while offering perhaps practical utility in analyzing events, do not necessarily enhance understanding of causal processes. I think that physical effects are still actually produced by mechanical processes and that understanding those actual processes is the essence of knowledge rather than any reliance on some mysteriously derived predictive analytical model.

Best wishes to you and your work,

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Thanks very much for your quick response and consideration.

Sorry if I strayed too far afield, but you might be more interested in a mathematical approach (I had had considerable correspondence with one of the authors), "General relativistic dynamics applied to the rotation curves of galaxies".

I wholeheartedly agree with an assessment that there is an overreliance on mathematical proofs to establish correctness. Of course I'm biased by my ineptitude, but I personally think that analytical methods of prediction, while offering perhaps practical utility in analyzing events, do not necessarily enhance understanding of causal processes. I think that physical effects are still actually produced by mechanical processes and that understanding those actual processes is the essence of knowledge rather than any reliance on some mysteriously derived predictive analytical model.

Best wishes to you and your work,

Jim

report post as inappropriate

To the question, “Is the Universe Continuous or Discrete? ”, we argue that we cannot know 'what is' and strike a philosophical balance and answer, “it is neither and both”.

Quite well argued, Constantinos.

With so many theories about multiple universes, reality can discretely get entangled in the concept of one universe. Is reality one truth for all universes?

Best regards,

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Quite well argued, Constantinos.

With so many theories about multiple universes, reality can discretely get entangled in the concept of one universe. Is reality one truth for all universes?

Best regards,

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Jim,

Thank you for your encouraging words. Such vote of confidence means a lot to me and my efforts.

For me, the notion that we can 'know' the Universe is no different than the notion that we can 'know' someone else's experiences. In all cases (whether human or physics) we can only know what we feel and what we understand of what we feel. All 'mathematical models' of the Universe are premised on the notion that we can know 'what is'. Thus, in my humble opinion, these are deeply flawed and will ultimately fail.

Best wishes,

Constantinos

Thank you for your encouraging words. Such vote of confidence means a lot to me and my efforts.

For me, the notion that we can 'know' the Universe is no different than the notion that we can 'know' someone else's experiences. In all cases (whether human or physics) we can only know what we feel and what we understand of what we feel. All 'mathematical models' of the Universe are premised on the notion that we can know 'what is'. Thus, in my humble opinion, these are deeply flawed and will ultimately fail.

Best wishes,

Constantinos

Dear Constantinos,

Mathematical models do not assume that we can know what is. They assume that we can objectively describe narure in mathematical language.

Nevertheless, as promised, I did read and will comment on your essay. I have a number of technical objections, though I will only address one show-stopper that I see no way to fix: paragraph 5 (prime physis). Your claim that all attempts to give physical meaning to quantum mechanics have failed cannot possibly be true, because QM is founded in nothing BUT physical observation, which is prior to the mathematics. There is no "mind boggling mystery" in the calculation of the probability function, an extension of the statistical mechanics that is well understood in classical terms. Then, to identify the wave function psi as a "quantity" (?) which redefines the Schroedinger equation as a Hamiltonian operator infinitely extended over the universe ... you just managed to say that the energy content of the universe (Hamiltonian) is equal to the total energy content of the universe. Yes, I should say that it is.

I didn't want to do this. I just wanted to leave it at agreement that a foundational model in continuous function physics is a noble goal. I truly do wish you luck in getting the hearing you desire. You'll have to be prepared to meet some serious referee objections, however.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Mathematical models do not assume that we can know what is. They assume that we can objectively describe narure in mathematical language.

Nevertheless, as promised, I did read and will comment on your essay. I have a number of technical objections, though I will only address one show-stopper that I see no way to fix: paragraph 5 (prime physis). Your claim that all attempts to give physical meaning to quantum mechanics have failed cannot possibly be true, because QM is founded in nothing BUT physical observation, which is prior to the mathematics. There is no "mind boggling mystery" in the calculation of the probability function, an extension of the statistical mechanics that is well understood in classical terms. Then, to identify the wave function psi as a "quantity" (?) which redefines the Schroedinger equation as a Hamiltonian operator infinitely extended over the universe ... you just managed to say that the energy content of the universe (Hamiltonian) is equal to the total energy content of the universe. Yes, I should say that it is.

I didn't want to do this. I just wanted to leave it at agreement that a foundational model in continuous function physics is a noble goal. I truly do wish you luck in getting the hearing you desire. You'll have to be prepared to meet some serious referee objections, however.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Dear Tom,

Welcome to my world! Sorry about barging into yours uninvited and admitedly a little rude. But more to your comments.

Tom, you say "... we can objectively describe nature in mathematical language"

Judging the behavior of a person according to our system of values, thinking and expectations I claim is not 'knowing' the other person. Same is true of Nature.

Tom, your first 'technical objection' is the easiest to respond to. You write,

"Your claim that all attempts to give physical meaning to quantum mechanics have failed cannot possibly be true, because QM is founded in nothing BUT physical observation"

Tom 'physical meaning' is not the same as 'physical observation'. If you feel that QM has indeed provided us with 'physical meaning', can you please explain your 'physical understanding' of wavefunctions and of QM more generally? Even the great Feynman humbly acknowledged that 'no one understands QM'.

You write, "There is no "mind boggling mystery" in the calculation of the probability function,..."

Well Tom, the calculations can and do 'boggle the mind' if these calculations have no 'physical meaning'. Are we now so far removed from reality to not even 'make sense' of what 'making sense' means? Even the revered Einstein asked of Bohr, "what is the physical picture"? Let's not confuss mathematical abstractions with reality! The failing of physics is in not providing physical explanations that make sense.

As for associating in my essay the wavefunction with the quantity eta, this is a suggestion that seems to emerge from all the other results. Nothing more at this time.

Looking over your post, I don't see in your comments anything about the most important results in my essay. To begin with, my mathematical derivation of Planck's Law using simple continuous processes and without needing energy quanta. As important is the demonstration that Planck's Law is a mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement. And this, I claim, explains why the experimental blackbody spectrum is indistinguishable from the theoretical curve.

Tom, whether you believe these results are correct or not, don't you agree that these are significant and deserving of a careful review by the panel? And Tom, I am prepared to answer honest questions from referees concerning all my mathematical derivations in my essay. I only ask for that opportunity. You can help!

Wishing you well,

Constantinos

Welcome to my world! Sorry about barging into yours uninvited and admitedly a little rude. But more to your comments.

Tom, you say "... we can objectively describe nature in mathematical language"

Judging the behavior of a person according to our system of values, thinking and expectations I claim is not 'knowing' the other person. Same is true of Nature.

Tom, your first 'technical objection' is the easiest to respond to. You write,

"Your claim that all attempts to give physical meaning to quantum mechanics have failed cannot possibly be true, because QM is founded in nothing BUT physical observation"

Tom 'physical meaning' is not the same as 'physical observation'. If you feel that QM has indeed provided us with 'physical meaning', can you please explain your 'physical understanding' of wavefunctions and of QM more generally? Even the great Feynman humbly acknowledged that 'no one understands QM'.

You write, "There is no "mind boggling mystery" in the calculation of the probability function,..."

Well Tom, the calculations can and do 'boggle the mind' if these calculations have no 'physical meaning'. Are we now so far removed from reality to not even 'make sense' of what 'making sense' means? Even the revered Einstein asked of Bohr, "what is the physical picture"? Let's not confuss mathematical abstractions with reality! The failing of physics is in not providing physical explanations that make sense.

As for associating in my essay the wavefunction with the quantity eta, this is a suggestion that seems to emerge from all the other results. Nothing more at this time.

Looking over your post, I don't see in your comments anything about the most important results in my essay. To begin with, my mathematical derivation of Planck's Law using simple continuous processes and without needing energy quanta. As important is the demonstration that Planck's Law is a mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement. And this, I claim, explains why the experimental blackbody spectrum is indistinguishable from the theoretical curve.

Tom, whether you believe these results are correct or not, don't you agree that these are significant and deserving of a careful review by the panel? And Tom, I am prepared to answer honest questions from referees concerning all my mathematical derivations in my essay. I only ask for that opportunity. You can help!

Wishing you well,

Constantinos

In reading your paper I find one curious question. This is I think the same as the question I raised last summer. The equation δt/ħ = 1/kT defines a scale of fluctuation, here with a Euclideanized time. This is a scale of time where the observable uncertainty or disorder of a quantum system is equivalent to thermal fluctuations at some temperature. However, in much of what you do it appears to be used as a variable. It is used as a time in various integrations and as units in a time line. This step actually requires some subtle justification.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Dear Lawrence,

In “A World Without Quanta” there are no “scales of fluctuation” or “disorders of a quantum system”. All the simple logic and mathematical derivations in my essay become clear and convincing if viewed without using the prism of current theory. I am not a physicist! I have no idea what you are talking about. But we can have a good conversation on the results in my essay if you keep to the language and terms I use in it.

The time variable t is a continuous variable, but the equation you point to δt/ħ = 1/kT does not appear anywhere in my essay in that form. The closest to it, I think, is Δt = h/kT. If that is what you are referring to than I can explain that this duration of time is for an 'accumulation of energy' h to occur. This is a result shown in the essay.

You write,

“... in much of what you do it appears to be used as a variable...”

If the 'it' is time t, then yes. It is a continuous variable. The view in all of this is of a 'continuous Universe'. The amazing think is that it is possible to have such a naïve view, and still explain and derive basic results in physics. That's all I can do! Perhaps you and others can do much more. Take it as 'food for thought' and see if it can nourish your physics.

The key result in the essay is “Planck's Law is an exact mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement”. The mathematical derivation is simple and elegant. It does not use 'energy quanta' or statistics. Furthermore I argue that it can fully explain why the experimental blackbody spectrum is indistinguishable from theory. Please comment on that!

As a further enticement, I am about to post a paper that proves the following proposition using and extending the same ideas in my essay:

“If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave”

Please help me get this essay to the 'church'!

Best regards,

Constantinos

In “A World Without Quanta” there are no “scales of fluctuation” or “disorders of a quantum system”. All the simple logic and mathematical derivations in my essay become clear and convincing if viewed without using the prism of current theory. I am not a physicist! I have no idea what you are talking about. But we can have a good conversation on the results in my essay if you keep to the language and terms I use in it.

The time variable t is a continuous variable, but the equation you point to δt/ħ = 1/kT does not appear anywhere in my essay in that form. The closest to it, I think, is Δt = h/kT. If that is what you are referring to than I can explain that this duration of time is for an 'accumulation of energy' h to occur. This is a result shown in the essay.

You write,

“... in much of what you do it appears to be used as a variable...”

If the 'it' is time t, then yes. It is a continuous variable. The view in all of this is of a 'continuous Universe'. The amazing think is that it is possible to have such a naïve view, and still explain and derive basic results in physics. That's all I can do! Perhaps you and others can do much more. Take it as 'food for thought' and see if it can nourish your physics.

The key result in the essay is “Planck's Law is an exact mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement”. The mathematical derivation is simple and elegant. It does not use 'energy quanta' or statistics. Furthermore I argue that it can fully explain why the experimental blackbody spectrum is indistinguishable from theory. Please comment on that!

As a further enticement, I am about to post a paper that proves the following proposition using and extending the same ideas in my essay:

“If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave”

Please help me get this essay to the 'church'!

Best regards,

Constantinos

Hi Constantinos,

Your Properties of Exponentials assumes (I suspect accidentally) the same "fundamental" form as Bose's Partition function (derived in the 1920's). Bose was also studying Planck's Blackbody Radiation Law, so it is no wonder that you and Bose agree on the form of your equations and agreement with experimental data.

My point is that this Bose Partition function IS FUNDAMENTAL TO BOSONS. Photons are bosons, and therefore it is legit to use this for photons. BUT, fermions obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle, have a fundamentally different type of symmetry from bosons (now I'm reverting back to the importance of Supersymmetry in handling these two distinct and disjoint symmetries in a unified manner) and cannot be analyzed with Planck's Law.

Planck's Law is great for studying photons, but unless all is photons (isn't that Jason Wolfe's claim?), you cannot use Planck's Law universally as your Rosetta stone.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Your Properties of Exponentials assumes (I suspect accidentally) the same "fundamental" form as Bose's Partition function (derived in the 1920's). Bose was also studying Planck's Blackbody Radiation Law, so it is no wonder that you and Bose agree on the form of your equations and agreement with experimental data.

My point is that this Bose Partition function IS FUNDAMENTAL TO BOSONS. Photons are bosons, and therefore it is legit to use this for photons. BUT, fermions obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle, have a fundamentally different type of symmetry from bosons (now I'm reverting back to the importance of Supersymmetry in handling these two distinct and disjoint symmetries in a unified manner) and cannot be analyzed with Planck's Law.

Planck's Law is great for studying photons, but unless all is photons (isn't that Jason Wolfe's claim?), you cannot use Planck's Law universally as your Rosetta stone.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Dear Ray,

You keep making the same point over and over. And I keep responding that my derivation of Planck's Formula shows that it is a mathematical tautology. Ray, it is a mathematical result! Mathematical tautologies do not care anything about bosons or fermion or quantum fluctuations! Just like the Pythagorean Theorem can be used to measure the distance between stones or the distance between stars. It does not matter! A mathematical tautology does not change if applied to different things!

Perhaps it is not me you are seeking to influence!

Constantinos

P.S. Within the next few hours I will be posting a very short paper mathematically proving the following proposition: “If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave”. I can't wait to read your comments to that! Please, make it this time something other than bosons and fermions!

You keep making the same point over and over. And I keep responding that my derivation of Planck's Formula shows that it is a mathematical tautology. Ray, it is a mathematical result! Mathematical tautologies do not care anything about bosons or fermion or quantum fluctuations! Just like the Pythagorean Theorem can be used to measure the distance between stones or the distance between stars. It does not matter! A mathematical tautology does not change if applied to different things!

Perhaps it is not me you are seeking to influence!

Constantinos

P.S. Within the next few hours I will be posting a very short paper mathematically proving the following proposition: “If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave”. I can't wait to read your comments to that! Please, make it this time something other than bosons and fermions!

Dear All,

Using the same ideas in my essay, I am now able to mathematically prove the following proposition:

IF THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT, THEN LIGHT IS A WAVE.

I will be posting this result as soon as I have a clean writeup of it.

Best wishes,

Constantinos

Using the same ideas in my essay, I am now able to mathematically prove the following proposition:

IF THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT, THEN LIGHT IS A WAVE.

I will be posting this result as soon as I have a clean writeup of it.

Best wishes,

Constantinos

Constantinos,

I clicked on the link you generously left in your comment and indeed I am deeper into the rabbit's hole!

Everything that exists comes from a prior condition. It was once something that could exist but did not exist. In that condition it was a potential, possibility, or probability. The distinction here would be how much otherness would have to occur in sequence and magnitude in order for its existence to become an actuality. If just a little a probability if more a possibility or if a lot a potential.

In all cases the link to everything that could or does not exist is already established. And in this statement the most fundamental question is not what is it but what creates the "potential" of it. How can it and all other alternative its be accommodated in our sensory environment? It seems to me that the creation of a single it would have to include the potential for the existence of all alternative its.

If reality is not deterministic but instead evolving from previous events, decisions and consequences we are not going to discover a creation event for it but a creation event for the potential of it and all other possible its. Is this your prime physis eta and was it created?

Respectfully,

Irvon

report post as inappropriate

I clicked on the link you generously left in your comment and indeed I am deeper into the rabbit's hole!

Everything that exists comes from a prior condition. It was once something that could exist but did not exist. In that condition it was a potential, possibility, or probability. The distinction here would be how much otherness would have to occur in sequence and magnitude in order for its existence to become an actuality. If just a little a probability if more a possibility or if a lot a potential.

In all cases the link to everything that could or does not exist is already established. And in this statement the most fundamental question is not what is it but what creates the "potential" of it. How can it and all other alternative its be accommodated in our sensory environment? It seems to me that the creation of a single it would have to include the potential for the existence of all alternative its.

If reality is not deterministic but instead evolving from previous events, decisions and consequences we are not going to discover a creation event for it but a creation event for the potential of it and all other possible its. Is this your prime physis eta and was it created?

Respectfully,

Irvon

report post as inappropriate

Dear Irvon,

Sorry that you feel “...deeper into the rabbit hole”. And I apologize for the comment with the link I posted under your forum. Take that as a sign of how deeply I feel about the results I must communicate to the 'panel'. Please believe me when I say that this is not about me, winning or losing. But rather getting a fair and honest review of results that are profoundly controversial and need to be considered.

Nothing in my essay should have mystified you. To the contrary. I seek to make a strong case for 'physical realism'. Non of my results have anything to do with 'probabilities' or 'chains of causality' or any claims of knowing 'what is', or how events occur in the Universe. Simply, my position is that we can only know our 'measurements' and 'observations' of Nature. The mathematical formulation of physics, therefore, should reflect this. I question 'mathematical models' of the Universe. In my humble opinion, these are 'metaphysical' and flawed. They ultimately will fail.

The central result, my Planck's Law derivation, shows that this Law is a mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement. It relates mathematically the value of E, with the amount of E absorbed in the interaction when the average of E is known. This, I argue, is why the experimental blackbody spectrum is so indistinguishable from the theoretical curve.

You write,“If reality is not deterministic but instead evolving from previous events, decisions and consequences we are not going to discover a creation event for it but a creation event for the potential of it and all other possible its. Is this your prime physis eta and was it created?”

I do not seek to understand the Universe using 'determinism' or anything else that characterizes 'what is' in terms other than 'what is'. The only quantity that can be thought of as 'physically existing' is the 'prime physis quantity eta'. It can be perhaps thought as 'ether' or as what fills space. But I do not ascribe any properties to it. This quantity by logical necessity is undefined and undefinable. Nothing can logically precede it or create it. But using eta, we are able to mathematically derive Basic Law. I sketch briefly how this is possible.

Another result in this list of wide ranging results is a mathematical proof that if the speed of light is constant then light is a wave. I will be posting this in a few hours and as soon as I can clean up the writeup.

Again, my apologies for the uncharacteristic post under your forum!

Best wishes,

Constantinos

Sorry that you feel “...deeper into the rabbit hole”. And I apologize for the comment with the link I posted under your forum. Take that as a sign of how deeply I feel about the results I must communicate to the 'panel'. Please believe me when I say that this is not about me, winning or losing. But rather getting a fair and honest review of results that are profoundly controversial and need to be considered.

Nothing in my essay should have mystified you. To the contrary. I seek to make a strong case for 'physical realism'. Non of my results have anything to do with 'probabilities' or 'chains of causality' or any claims of knowing 'what is', or how events occur in the Universe. Simply, my position is that we can only know our 'measurements' and 'observations' of Nature. The mathematical formulation of physics, therefore, should reflect this. I question 'mathematical models' of the Universe. In my humble opinion, these are 'metaphysical' and flawed. They ultimately will fail.

The central result, my Planck's Law derivation, shows that this Law is a mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement. It relates mathematically the value of E, with the amount of E absorbed in the interaction when the average of E is known. This, I argue, is why the experimental blackbody spectrum is so indistinguishable from the theoretical curve.

You write,“If reality is not deterministic but instead evolving from previous events, decisions and consequences we are not going to discover a creation event for it but a creation event for the potential of it and all other possible its. Is this your prime physis eta and was it created?”

I do not seek to understand the Universe using 'determinism' or anything else that characterizes 'what is' in terms other than 'what is'. The only quantity that can be thought of as 'physically existing' is the 'prime physis quantity eta'. It can be perhaps thought as 'ether' or as what fills space. But I do not ascribe any properties to it. This quantity by logical necessity is undefined and undefinable. Nothing can logically precede it or create it. But using eta, we are able to mathematically derive Basic Law. I sketch briefly how this is possible.

Another result in this list of wide ranging results is a mathematical proof that if the speed of light is constant then light is a wave. I will be posting this in a few hours and as soon as I can clean up the writeup.

Again, my apologies for the uncharacteristic post under your forum!

Best wishes,

Constantinos

Dear Irvon,

Sorry that you feel “...deeper into the rabbit hole”. And I apologize for the comment with the link I posted under your forum. Take that as a sign of how deeply I feel about the results I must communicate to the 'panel'. Please believe me when I say that this is not about me, winning or losing. But rather getting a fair and honest review of results that are profoundly controversial and need to be considered.

Nothing in my essay should have mystified you. To the contrary. I seek to make a strong case for 'physical realism'. Non of my results have anything to do with 'probabilities' or 'chains of causality' or any claims of knowing 'what is', or how events occur in the Universe. Simply, my position is that we can only know our 'measurements' and 'observations' of Nature. The mathematical formulation of physics, therefore, should reflect this. I question 'mathematical models' of the Universe. In my humble opinion, these are 'metaphysical' and flawed. They ultimately will fail.

The central result, my Planck's Law derivation, shows that this Law is a mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement. It relates mathematically the value of E, with the amount of E absorbed when the average of E is known. This, I argue, is why the experimental blackbody spectrum is so indistinguishable from the theoretical curve.

You write,

“If reality is not deterministic but instead evolving from previous events, decisions and consequences we are not going to discover a creation event for it but a creation event for the potential of it and all other possible its. Is this your prime physis eta and was it created?”

I do not seek to understand the Universe using 'determinism' or anything else that characterizes 'what is' in terms other than 'what is'. The only quantity that can be thought of as 'physically existing' is the 'prime physis quantity eta'. It can be perhaps thought as 'ether' or as what fills space. But I do not ascribe any properties to it. This quantity by logical necessity is undefined and undefinable. Nothing can logically precede it or create it or destroy it. But using eta, we are able to mathematically derive Basic Law. I sketch briefly how this is possible.

Another result in this list of wide ranging results is a mathematical proof that if the speed of light is constant then light is a wave. I will be posting this in a few hours and as soon as I can clean up the writeup.

Again, my apologies for the uncharacteristic post under your forum!

Best wishes,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Sorry that you feel “...deeper into the rabbit hole”. And I apologize for the comment with the link I posted under your forum. Take that as a sign of how deeply I feel about the results I must communicate to the 'panel'. Please believe me when I say that this is not about me, winning or losing. But rather getting a fair and honest review of results that are profoundly controversial and need to be considered.

Nothing in my essay should have mystified you. To the contrary. I seek to make a strong case for 'physical realism'. Non of my results have anything to do with 'probabilities' or 'chains of causality' or any claims of knowing 'what is', or how events occur in the Universe. Simply, my position is that we can only know our 'measurements' and 'observations' of Nature. The mathematical formulation of physics, therefore, should reflect this. I question 'mathematical models' of the Universe. In my humble opinion, these are 'metaphysical' and flawed. They ultimately will fail.

The central result, my Planck's Law derivation, shows that this Law is a mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement. It relates mathematically the value of E, with the amount of E absorbed when the average of E is known. This, I argue, is why the experimental blackbody spectrum is so indistinguishable from the theoretical curve.

You write,

“If reality is not deterministic but instead evolving from previous events, decisions and consequences we are not going to discover a creation event for it but a creation event for the potential of it and all other possible its. Is this your prime physis eta and was it created?”

I do not seek to understand the Universe using 'determinism' or anything else that characterizes 'what is' in terms other than 'what is'. The only quantity that can be thought of as 'physically existing' is the 'prime physis quantity eta'. It can be perhaps thought as 'ether' or as what fills space. But I do not ascribe any properties to it. This quantity by logical necessity is undefined and undefinable. Nothing can logically precede it or create it or destroy it. But using eta, we are able to mathematically derive Basic Law. I sketch briefly how this is possible.

Another result in this list of wide ranging results is a mathematical proof that if the speed of light is constant then light is a wave. I will be posting this in a few hours and as soon as I can clean up the writeup.

Again, my apologies for the uncharacteristic post under your forum!

Best wishes,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos,

There has to be one property ascribed to the ether that you suggest fills space: the potential for existence...not of anything specific but for everything that can possibly exist that doesn't exist...without this property space is simply filled with a property less ether and nothing exists or will exist within it. Given this condition you have identified nothingness without the ability to evolve anything.

Observations of Nature (avoidance of God?) should include not just identity but also an awareness of what the identified object itself can create. Imagine identifying Constantinos as a human being and ignoring what Constantinos can do.

I agree with your sense of importance in regards to seeking physical realism as a basis for understanding our environment. I also agree that your essay is one of the front runners and deserves careful consideration.

Irvon

report post as inappropriate

There has to be one property ascribed to the ether that you suggest fills space: the potential for existence...not of anything specific but for everything that can possibly exist that doesn't exist...without this property space is simply filled with a property less ether and nothing exists or will exist within it. Given this condition you have identified nothingness without the ability to evolve anything.

Observations of Nature (avoidance of God?) should include not just identity but also an awareness of what the identified object itself can create. Imagine identifying Constantinos as a human being and ignoring what Constantinos can do.

I agree with your sense of importance in regards to seeking physical realism as a basis for understanding our environment. I also agree that your essay is one of the front runners and deserves careful consideration.

Irvon

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your kind thoughts Irvon, regarding my essay. I too feel it deserves careful consideration. But as being “one of the front runners” … it's really up to others to support and make it happen. Right now, the essay is ranked out of the 35 that will be “carefully considered” by the panel. But the ranking is close enough that just a few good ratings could make the difference of “being or not being” considered.

As for the quantity 'eta'. This in my papers is left undefined. But one way of thinking about 'eta' (besides 'ether' and all the prejudice of that term) is as 'being'. Just as 'being' does not allow any further characterization, 'eta' is likewise logically 'undefinable'. However, when considering specific 'being' of something or other, then this can give 'eta' more quantitative content too. I envision this to lead to all other physics that my essay leaves out – like gravity and charge.

That all the results in my papers mathematically derive from 'eta' means that this formulation that I present (this 'physics') can be applied in any other context where 'space' and 'time' and 'being' can be properly defined. It is truly a “theory of everything”. That I should from this derive Basic Law of Physics, such as Newton's Second Law of Motion, or Planck's Law, or The Second Law of Thermodynamics, and many other results too numerous to list here, it truly amazing!

Just a few days ago I posted an astounding result proving mathematically the proposition “If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave”.

I am 'shouting from the rooftop', but I need people on the ground to move these results along and to the panel for review! Please help if you can!

Best wishes,

Constantinos

As for the quantity 'eta'. This in my papers is left undefined. But one way of thinking about 'eta' (besides 'ether' and all the prejudice of that term) is as 'being'. Just as 'being' does not allow any further characterization, 'eta' is likewise logically 'undefinable'. However, when considering specific 'being' of something or other, then this can give 'eta' more quantitative content too. I envision this to lead to all other physics that my essay leaves out – like gravity and charge.

That all the results in my papers mathematically derive from 'eta' means that this formulation that I present (this 'physics') can be applied in any other context where 'space' and 'time' and 'being' can be properly defined. It is truly a “theory of everything”. That I should from this derive Basic Law of Physics, such as Newton's Second Law of Motion, or Planck's Law, or The Second Law of Thermodynamics, and many other results too numerous to list here, it truly amazing!

Just a few days ago I posted an astounding result proving mathematically the proposition “If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave”.

I am 'shouting from the rooftop', but I need people on the ground to move these results along and to the panel for review! Please help if you can!

Best wishes,

Constantinos

As promised: “If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave”

Constantinos

Constantinos

Constantinos,

A sweet little result, and you titled it perfectly.

After this contest is over and there is more time (yeah, right!) I'll try to look through your other papers, listed as references.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

A sweet little result, and you titled it perfectly.

After this contest is over and there is more time (yeah, right!) I'll try to look through your other papers, listed as references.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for your encouragement Edwin! Likes like me like that!

I look forward to having a good conversation with you about the results in my papers.

Hope you go on to win this! All I can hope for is to just be considered!

Best,

Constantinos

I look forward to having a good conversation with you about the results in my papers.

Hope you go on to win this! All I can hope for is to just be considered!

Best,

Constantinos

I thank you for your words of wisdom my brother. I am here to clarify that which is unclear,for my name stands for the candle of light. But i will use the words which inspired my heart, to express your truth.

Thank you, with much love and care.

Loubriel

report post as inappropriate

Thank you, with much love and care.

Loubriel

report post as inappropriate

Thanks Loubriel. Your good vibes can be felt all the way here! Hope the also carry some good numbers also!

Excellent!

You make a point to "question the questions before you develop an answer"

Good luck,

Chris Kennedy

report post as inappropriate

You make a point to "question the questions before you develop an answer"

Good luck,

Chris Kennedy

report post as inappropriate

Thanks Chris!

Being that we are 'neighbors' in the rankings, if we pull each others bootstraps its possible that we can both rise! An experiment worth trying?

Good luck,

Constantinos

Being that we are 'neighbors' in the rankings, if we pull each others bootstraps its possible that we can both rise! An experiment worth trying?

Good luck,

Constantinos

Constantinos

Thanks for your kind message on my string, where I've responded. I agree ours are highly consistent, as the number of others. Is that really a paradigm shift on the horizon?

I think you'd also like Lucian Ionescue's, quite mathematical and technical but very good.

I hope you scrape in!

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for your kind message on my string, where I've responded. I agree ours are highly consistent, as the number of others. Is that really a paradigm shift on the horizon?

I think you'd also like Lucian Ionescue's, quite mathematical and technical but very good.

I hope you scrape in!

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos,

About your comments on my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/915 I am attaching as follows part of a paper I wrote several years ago. I did several thougs about we do not need a photon in order to explain the lihgt velocity or EM waves propagation.

Following is that paper:

TRUE NATURE OF THE VACUUM: Let´s go to the basic. (By Dante H....

view entire post

About your comments on my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/915 I am attaching as follows part of a paper I wrote several years ago. I did several thougs about we do not need a photon in order to explain the lihgt velocity or EM waves propagation.

Following is that paper:

TRUE NATURE OF THE VACUUM: Let´s go to the basic. (By Dante H....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dante,

What a fascinating theory. Too much here to take it all in one reading. Your theory reminds me a lot of Peter Jackson's Discrete Field Model (DFM). Have you been in touch with him? Look him up and tell him that I send you his way. In the meantime, can I count on your support in getting my essay before the panel for review? There is much in it that truly needs to be carefully considered. Just as I feel yours also deserves the same consideration ;).

best wishes,

Constantinos

What a fascinating theory. Too much here to take it all in one reading. Your theory reminds me a lot of Peter Jackson's Discrete Field Model (DFM). Have you been in touch with him? Look him up and tell him that I send you his way. In the meantime, can I count on your support in getting my essay before the panel for review? There is much in it that truly needs to be carefully considered. Just as I feel yours also deserves the same consideration ;).

best wishes,

Constantinos

Constantinos,

I agree most you wrote on your essay. I rated your essay also.

Thanks also because the link about Peter Jackson essay.

Best regards,

Dante

report post as inappropriate

I agree most you wrote on your essay. I rated your essay also.

Thanks also because the link about Peter Jackson essay.

Best regards,

Dante

report post as inappropriate

Dante,

Your support is greatly appreciated! Let's keep in touch. I think you'll find Peter's ideas very compatible to yours.

Best wishes,

Constantinos

Your support is greatly appreciated! Let's keep in touch. I think you'll find Peter's ideas very compatible to yours.

Best wishes,

Constantinos

Hi Constantinos,

I liked your essay and I like the fact that it seems to offer a sense of mathematical simplicity. Maybe you should run it by some college physics professors and get their thoughts. Your mathematical approach suggests that "Prime Physic" is something that actually exists, I don't know if it can actually be measured. However, it makes a great placeholder while trying to understand what the laws of physics will actually allow.

Keep up the good work. I look forward to your approach to gravity using prime physic.

report post as inappropriate

I liked your essay and I like the fact that it seems to offer a sense of mathematical simplicity. Maybe you should run it by some college physics professors and get their thoughts. Your mathematical approach suggests that "Prime Physic" is something that actually exists, I don't know if it can actually be measured. However, it makes a great placeholder while trying to understand what the laws of physics will actually allow.

Keep up the good work. I look forward to your approach to gravity using prime physic.

report post as inappropriate

Hi Jason,

I just posted under your forum about gravity! So I wont repeat myself here.

About eta, however. One way of viewing this is as the time-integral of energy. One good example of this quantity eta is in fact Planck's constant! So I guess eta can be measured.

Prof. Hayrani Oz of Ohio State University has used the time-integral of energy (what he calls enerxaction) very successfully for many years. We will be coauthoring a chapter on this in a book on Thermodynamics coming out this July. So everything that I am presenting in my essay has lots of practical as well as theoretical backing. All these results in my essay are for real. But I need to get the essay reviewed by the panel for greater acceptability. Can I count on your help and your friends help to get this essay to the 'church' on time?

Best wishes,

Constantinos

I just posted under your forum about gravity! So I wont repeat myself here.

About eta, however. One way of viewing this is as the time-integral of energy. One good example of this quantity eta is in fact Planck's constant! So I guess eta can be measured.

Prof. Hayrani Oz of Ohio State University has used the time-integral of energy (what he calls enerxaction) very successfully for many years. We will be coauthoring a chapter on this in a book on Thermodynamics coming out this July. So everything that I am presenting in my essay has lots of practical as well as theoretical backing. All these results in my essay are for real. But I need to get the essay reviewed by the panel for greater acceptability. Can I count on your help and your friends help to get this essay to the 'church' on time?

Best wishes,

Constantinos

Hi Constantinos,

I've already scored your essay. I think you have a great idea. This prime physis should be sufficient to explain the properties of gravity; although it may not be so obvious how, at the moment.

Your prime physis might be equivalent to what string theorists call, the brane.

report post as inappropriate

I've already scored your essay. I think you have a great idea. This prime physis should be sufficient to explain the properties of gravity; although it may not be so obvious how, at the moment.

Your prime physis might be equivalent to what string theorists call, the brane.

report post as inappropriate

I gave you a boost yesterday, but I think you might have given me a bigger boost than I gave you. I seem to get boosts now and then and then slowly sink downwards over a number of days.

Thanks LC

report post as inappropriate

Thanks LC

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos,

Congratulations on getting to where your essay will be evaluated!

There is good news on the C-field front!

The 12 Mar 2011 issue of 'Science News' has two articles on the C-field:

The first (p.14) states that the C-field generated by a spinning Black Hole imparts (detectable) angular momentum to light passing through the field, circularly polarizing the light. Martin Bojowald suggests upgrading most telescopes to search for more of this.

The second article (p.20) on quantum vortices has Kerson Huang of MIT speculating that the vortices in the (C-field) 'superfluid' after the big bang may be responsible for the gaps of empty space between galaxies.

From 'Fly-by' mysteries to spinning Black Holes to the Big Bang, the C-field is being recognized as having physical reality responsible for observable effects.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Congratulations on getting to where your essay will be evaluated!

There is good news on the C-field front!

The 12 Mar 2011 issue of 'Science News' has two articles on the C-field:

The first (p.14) states that the C-field generated by a spinning Black Hole imparts (detectable) angular momentum to light passing through the field, circularly polarizing the light. Martin Bojowald suggests upgrading most telescopes to search for more of this.

The second article (p.20) on quantum vortices has Kerson Huang of MIT speculating that the vortices in the (C-field) 'superfluid' after the big bang may be responsible for the gaps of empty space between galaxies.

From 'Fly-by' mysteries to spinning Black Holes to the Big Bang, the C-field is being recognized as having physical reality responsible for observable effects.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Dear Constantinos,

You are the one mathematician in this contest that will ever get closest to what I am trying to convey spiritually / philosophically in Theory of everything. I wish you all the best in your pursuit to make the scientific world see what we are trying to convey. I hope that we can together make the science and spirituality converge and let the future generations enjoy the singularity of love.

Love and Peace,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate

You are the one mathematician in this contest that will ever get closest to what I am trying to convey spiritually / philosophically in Theory of everything. I wish you all the best in your pursuit to make the scientific world see what we are trying to convey. I hope that we can together make the science and spirituality converge and let the future generations enjoy the singularity of love.

Love and Peace,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate

Hi Constantinos,

I'm glad you are going to get the hearing you have been waiting for!

Best wishes,

Lev

report post as inappropriate

I'm glad you are going to get the hearing you have been waiting for!

Best wishes,

Lev

report post as inappropriate

Dear All,

Thank you for your good wishes! I am humbled by your support.

best wishes,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your good wishes! I am humbled by your support.

best wishes,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Dear Constantinos,

Congratulations on your dedication to the competition and your much deserved top 35 placing. I have a bugging question for you, which I've also posed to all the potential prize winners 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

Congratulations on your dedication to the competition and your much deserved top 35 placing. I have a bugging question for you, which I've also posed to all the potential prize winners 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

Alan,

Thank you for your post and good wishes.

Regarding gravity, however. Non of my papers deal with either gravity or electricity. And though I have some ideas, I am not prepared at this time to sensibly express them. Let me just say only that I don't believe in gravity as a Universal Law! I just don't believe in Universal Law entirely! I just can't imagine God setting forth 'universal laws' that men could know and God be so restricted. I think that God makes up the rules 'on the fly' and always a step or two ahead of any human understanding. In my opinion, we cannot 'explain' anything. The best we can do is simply 'describe' what we see.

Your Archimedes screw idea sounds mysterious to me. But I cant evaluate it to give you proper feedback. In all my papers I seek to 'make sense' of physics and provide physical meaning to physical ideas. At this time, I have no such sense about an Archimedes screw view of gravitons. Especially since I don't believe in gravitons! And as far as spacetime is concerned, my view is that this contradicts basic thermodynamics.

But that's just me. I don't rule out anything that has the power of explanation and that can make sense.

All the best,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your post and good wishes.

Regarding gravity, however. Non of my papers deal with either gravity or electricity. And though I have some ideas, I am not prepared at this time to sensibly express them. Let me just say only that I don't believe in gravity as a Universal Law! I just don't believe in Universal Law entirely! I just can't imagine God setting forth 'universal laws' that men could know and God be so restricted. I think that God makes up the rules 'on the fly' and always a step or two ahead of any human understanding. In my opinion, we cannot 'explain' anything. The best we can do is simply 'describe' what we see.

Your Archimedes screw idea sounds mysterious to me. But I cant evaluate it to give you proper feedback. In all my papers I seek to 'make sense' of physics and provide physical meaning to physical ideas. At this time, I have no such sense about an Archimedes screw view of gravitons. Especially since I don't believe in gravitons! And as far as spacetime is concerned, my view is that this contradicts basic thermodynamics.

But that's just me. I don't rule out anything that has the power of explanation and that can make sense.

All the best,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Hello Constantinos,

As promised, I'm posting my comments on your essay. I'm not sure, if you will like it, but I've tried to do my best.

The main result is a claim that the well-known Planck radiation law could be derived mathematically, as " an exact mathematical identity (a tautology) that describes the interaction of energy". The presented derivation is based on the "Mathematical...

view entire post

As promised, I'm posting my comments on your essay. I'm not sure, if you will like it, but I've tried to do my best.

The main result is a claim that the well-known Planck radiation law could be derived mathematically, as " an exact mathematical identity (a tautology) that describes the interaction of energy". The presented derivation is based on the "Mathematical...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Joachim,

Thank you for taking the time to not only read my essay and referenced papers, but even to critique these on paper. I will try to answer you as clearly as I understand your points. Some of the mathematical notation did not clearly come through in the text and I'll try to piece together what you may have meant from the text itself.

1) “Notice that the demanded...

view entire post

Thank you for taking the time to not only read my essay and referenced papers, but even to critique these on paper. I will try to answer you as clearly as I understand your points. Some of the mathematical notation did not clearly come through in the text and I'll try to piece together what you may have meant from the text itself.

1) “Notice that the demanded...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hello again Constantinos,

Let me clarify my points:

1) If E(t) is not continuous in [0,t], but only integrable, then E_{av} may be "out of range", i.e. not allowed as a value of E(t). Certainly, exponential real functions used in your derivations are extremely regular and not affected by such problems. Indeed, "the math is clear and simple" in such cases, but nevertheless the...

view entire post

Let me clarify my points:

1) If E(t) is not continuous in [0,t], but only integrable, then E

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hello Joachim,

Let me clarify your points:

1) You write, “... Eav may be "out of range", i.e. not allowed as a value of E(t)”. Nowhere in any of my results is Eav associated with a particular time, say E(t) = Eav. So this objection is mute and inconsequential.

2) You write, “... I guess that starting from Eq.(1) it is possible to promote many known relations or "laws" to...

view entire post

Let me clarify your points:

1) You write, “... Eav may be "out of range", i.e. not allowed as a value of E(t)”. Nowhere in any of my results is Eav associated with a particular time, say E(t) = Eav. So this objection is mute and inconsequential.

2) You write, “... I guess that starting from Eq.(1) it is possible to promote many known relations or "laws" to...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Lawrence,

You seem to see in my derivation of Planck's Formula Laplace transform. That may lead you to some deeper insights, but from my perspective I don't see the point. I just lose the physical meaning of that math.

All the results in my essay have a clear and simple physical meaning and are mathematically argued. What is the physical meaning of the Laplace transform you are arguing I inadvertently used in my derivation of Planck's formula? And does this also show what I am showing? Namely, that Planck's formula is a mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement. This is why the experimental blackbody spectrum is indistinguishable from the one obtained from Planck's formula.

I do not argue with the mathematics used in physics. Rather, I argue with the physics in the mathematics used. What motivates me in this intellectual venture is my desire to understand physics physically. Modern Physics lacks physical meaning that makes sense. The 'man in the street' knows more about 'time travel', for example, than the theorist who with mathematical certainty asserts it.

We need 'physical realism'. I show in my essay this is possible. My derivation of Planck's Formula avoids energy quanta and discrete statistics. In this view, we gain a clearer understanding of what the Formula actually means.

Constantinos

You seem to see in my derivation of Planck's Formula Laplace transform. That may lead you to some deeper insights, but from my perspective I don't see the point. I just lose the physical meaning of that math.

All the results in my essay have a clear and simple physical meaning and are mathematically argued. What is the physical meaning of the Laplace transform you are arguing I inadvertently used in my derivation of Planck's formula? And does this also show what I am showing? Namely, that Planck's formula is a mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement. This is why the experimental blackbody spectrum is indistinguishable from the one obtained from Planck's formula.

I do not argue with the mathematics used in physics. Rather, I argue with the physics in the mathematics used. What motivates me in this intellectual venture is my desire to understand physics physically. Modern Physics lacks physical meaning that makes sense. The 'man in the street' knows more about 'time travel', for example, than the theorist who with mathematical certainty asserts it.

We need 'physical realism'. I show in my essay this is possible. My derivation of Planck's Formula avoids energy quanta and discrete statistics. In this view, we gain a clearer understanding of what the Formula actually means.

Constantinos

Hello Anthony Dicarlo,

Thanks for your email. Sorry that I wasn't as clear as I thought I was in describing the physics that you thought you'd find in the essay. Especially since my main objective is greater 'physical realism' in physics. One suggestion perhaps that may help. Don't try to understand the essay from the perspective of current physics! It's much simpler than that! Certainly, don't look to find in the essay a formulation of physics based on 'information'.

In the first sentence that you referenced, I wasn't attempting in any way to trace the history of quantum physics. Rather, I was only setting the stage for the discussion to follow in the essay. And that originates with Planck's Law which even now is taken to conclusively demonstrate the existence and need of 'energy quanta'. The central theme in my essay is to show that this just is not necessary. I provide a mathematical derivation of Planck's Law which does not use quanta and discrete statistics. In fact, I demonstrate that Planck's Law is not even a 'physical law' that in some deep way depends and describes some inner workings of the Universe. This Law I show is a mathematical tautology. It describes how we can calculate identically the 'intensity of energy' from the 'changes in energy' (the amount of energy absorbed by the sensor) at a given temperature.

You write, “I can’t quite envision a physical model of your “interaction of energy.” “

Simple: Consider a sensor that can absorb energy (something like a thermometer). Think of the sensor at some fixed point. The sensor is radiated by energy with intensity E0 and after a short interval of microscopic time Δt the sensor absorbs an amount of energy ΔE (as with osmosis). These 'equal size sips' of energy ΔE occur in discrete imperceptible steps Δt which collectively raise the sensor (thermometer) to that final reading. This explains why the final reading is not reached asymptotically but is reached actually through such discrete Δt steps. Planck's Law I argue is a mathematical tautology that describes at each discrete step Δt how E0 and ΔE are related at a given temperature T. The 'interaction of energy' here is the radiation/absorption that takes place at the sensor.

You further write, “please provide me with one piece of information you can obtain regarding the cosmos that does not include as the root electromagnetic coupling to your senses. “

I would even go further and argue that even the “electromagnetic coupling to your senses” is only our human way of understanding such experience. I don't go that far in my essay to explain how we humans can know! But I can say with certainty that I know Planck's Law is a mathematical tautology and not some 'physical law'.

All the best,

Constantinos

Thanks for your email. Sorry that I wasn't as clear as I thought I was in describing the physics that you thought you'd find in the essay. Especially since my main objective is greater 'physical realism' in physics. One suggestion perhaps that may help. Don't try to understand the essay from the perspective of current physics! It's much simpler than that! Certainly, don't look to find in the essay a formulation of physics based on 'information'.

In the first sentence that you referenced, I wasn't attempting in any way to trace the history of quantum physics. Rather, I was only setting the stage for the discussion to follow in the essay. And that originates with Planck's Law which even now is taken to conclusively demonstrate the existence and need of 'energy quanta'. The central theme in my essay is to show that this just is not necessary. I provide a mathematical derivation of Planck's Law which does not use quanta and discrete statistics. In fact, I demonstrate that Planck's Law is not even a 'physical law' that in some deep way depends and describes some inner workings of the Universe. This Law I show is a mathematical tautology. It describes how we can calculate identically the 'intensity of energy' from the 'changes in energy' (the amount of energy absorbed by the sensor) at a given temperature.

You write, “I can’t quite envision a physical model of your “interaction of energy.” “

Simple: Consider a sensor that can absorb energy (something like a thermometer). Think of the sensor at some fixed point. The sensor is radiated by energy with intensity E0 and after a short interval of microscopic time Δt the sensor absorbs an amount of energy ΔE (as with osmosis). These 'equal size sips' of energy ΔE occur in discrete imperceptible steps Δt which collectively raise the sensor (thermometer) to that final reading. This explains why the final reading is not reached asymptotically but is reached actually through such discrete Δt steps. Planck's Law I argue is a mathematical tautology that describes at each discrete step Δt how E0 and ΔE are related at a given temperature T. The 'interaction of energy' here is the radiation/absorption that takes place at the sensor.

You further write, “please provide me with one piece of information you can obtain regarding the cosmos that does not include as the root electromagnetic coupling to your senses. “

I would even go further and argue that even the “electromagnetic coupling to your senses” is only our human way of understanding such experience. I don't go that far in my essay to explain how we humans can know! But I can say with certainty that I know Planck's Law is a mathematical tautology and not some 'physical law'.

All the best,

Constantinos

Hello Constantinos

Sorry if I misunderstood your ideas. I too do not believe in the vacuum (in my theory everything - matter space, radiation is made up of the lattice nodes, but I used the word vacuum to stress the fact that the speed of light can change in a gravitational potential in space...a different case than when it slows down while passing through a transparent medium such as glass or water (refraction). In fact the two effects are identical in my theory ...

It is interesting to think of things this way: Einstein proposed CSL = contracting space / dilating time. In other words observations are absolute (light) but spacetime are relative. This is so physically unrealistic and unnecessary. Rather, think of it this way: c = variable measured distance traveled / fixed (absolute) time interval. In fact as many have argued - a time interval can be thought of as a change of state of the entire universe and there is not time dimension. I wonder how the laws of thermodynamics can be stated in such a world?

Best wishes from Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Sorry if I misunderstood your ideas. I too do not believe in the vacuum (in my theory everything - matter space, radiation is made up of the lattice nodes, but I used the word vacuum to stress the fact that the speed of light can change in a gravitational potential in space...a different case than when it slows down while passing through a transparent medium such as glass or water (refraction). In fact the two effects are identical in my theory ...

It is interesting to think of things this way: Einstein proposed CSL = contracting space / dilating time. In other words observations are absolute (light) but spacetime are relative. This is so physically unrealistic and unnecessary. Rather, think of it this way: c = variable measured distance traveled / fixed (absolute) time interval. In fact as many have argued - a time interval can be thought of as a change of state of the entire universe and there is not time dimension. I wonder how the laws of thermodynamics can be stated in such a world?

Best wishes from Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Dear Vladimir,

I am entirely guided by 'physical realism' in all my reflections and reasoning in physics. I have as much trouble with 'lattice points' as I do with 'vacuums'! Does that mean that 'vacuums' and 'lattice points' cannot be considered? I don't go that far. Certainly these and other abstract mathematical formulations have been successfully used in physics.

But here is my problem with all this. We do not 'know' what all these results so obtained mean! These don't 'make sense' to us, though we believe these have 'mathematical certainty'. Physics, unlike mathematics, requires more of us. Having 'mathematical certainty' is not enough! We must also maintain the connection of our ideas with our 'senses'. Who do you trust to know the truth about time-travel. The 'man in the street' or the 'theoretical physicists'?

Simply put, all my efforts are to 'find meaning where meaning is not found'. I have done that successfully with Planck's Law; showing that the counter-intuitive concept of 'energy quanta' and 'bundles of energy' is not necessary. In my essay I prove that Planck's Law is a 'mathematical truism' and not a 'physical law' and can be derived continuously without statistics.

Have you discussed your ideas with Peter Jackson and Ray Munroe? They may be more in tune with this than I.

Best wishes,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

I am entirely guided by 'physical realism' in all my reflections and reasoning in physics. I have as much trouble with 'lattice points' as I do with 'vacuums'! Does that mean that 'vacuums' and 'lattice points' cannot be considered? I don't go that far. Certainly these and other abstract mathematical formulations have been successfully used in physics.

But here is my problem with all this. We do not 'know' what all these results so obtained mean! These don't 'make sense' to us, though we believe these have 'mathematical certainty'. Physics, unlike mathematics, requires more of us. Having 'mathematical certainty' is not enough! We must also maintain the connection of our ideas with our 'senses'. Who do you trust to know the truth about time-travel. The 'man in the street' or the 'theoretical physicists'?

Simply put, all my efforts are to 'find meaning where meaning is not found'. I have done that successfully with Planck's Law; showing that the counter-intuitive concept of 'energy quanta' and 'bundles of energy' is not necessary. In my essay I prove that Planck's Law is a 'mathematical truism' and not a 'physical law' and can be derived continuously without statistics.

Have you discussed your ideas with Peter Jackson and Ray Munroe? They may be more in tune with this than I.

Best wishes,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Dear Constantinos,

You are more focused in your approach to physics than my rather swashbuckling forays into imagined worlds of nodes gyrating to create us and our universe!

Perhaps both our approaches are necessary, considering how mainstream physics seems to hover between the entrenched even ossified positions of many physicists, with the wild quantum-weirdness-many-universes infinite dimensions where 'anything goes' seems to be the slogan. Both Peter Jackson and Ray Munroe have already kindly encouraged me with their stimulating responses. I should spend more time on physics and hope to do so. More power to them and to you.

Vladumir

report post as inappropriate

You are more focused in your approach to physics than my rather swashbuckling forays into imagined worlds of nodes gyrating to create us and our universe!

Perhaps both our approaches are necessary, considering how mainstream physics seems to hover between the entrenched even ossified positions of many physicists, with the wild quantum-weirdness-many-universes infinite dimensions where 'anything goes' seems to be the slogan. Both Peter Jackson and Ray Munroe have already kindly encouraged me with their stimulating responses. I should spend more time on physics and hope to do so. More power to them and to you.

Vladumir

report post as inappropriate

I'm still rooting for you brother! :) May your heart be at peace, and your mind beautiful.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Yasu Constantinos

As I understand it your essay and addenum are mathematical elucidations of a physically realistic model of physics based on a unique new derivation of Planck's constant (h). That is great. You singled out Einstein's quantum assumption as the basis of the conceptual troubles that faced quantum mechanics later on. I fully agree with your approach and think that that the idea (that the photon is a point in space as well as a package of energy) is at the basis of half the trouble with the foundational understanding (and future development) of physics today. I have presented my reasons for that in my present fqxi paper and also in the earlier 2005 Beautiful Universe paper on which it is based.

You have presented the idea of energy absorption in "equal-sized sips" that is only manifested when 'delta E' energy is accumulated. As I understand this is somehow related to the so-called 'semi-classical theory' that has been debated following Einstein's 1905 paper and then abandoned when Schrodinger presented his equation. I liken the gradual absorption of energy in the sensor and its sudden release to that of water in the Japanese garden 'deer-chaser' mechanism .

The other half of the trouble with physics today that you do not deal with (gravity and quantum mechanics incompatibility) is also due to one of Einstein's assumptions - the constancy of the speed of light in SR (and GR) and again the sensible objections raised at the time were swept away by SR's success, albeit for the wrong reasons. I wish I had your skill to describe my physical intuitions in mathematical form! Incidentally your continuous derivation of planck's constant (h) solves a fundamental problem in my own theory: the spinning of the universal node I theorized is continuous yet the transfer of momentum is in units of (h). Your formulation can explain that little problem.

Best wishes from Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

As I understand it your essay and addenum are mathematical elucidations of a physically realistic model of physics based on a unique new derivation of Planck's constant (h). That is great. You singled out Einstein's quantum assumption as the basis of the conceptual troubles that faced quantum mechanics later on. I fully agree with your approach and think that that the idea (that the photon is a point in space as well as a package of energy) is at the basis of half the trouble with the foundational understanding (and future development) of physics today. I have presented my reasons for that in my present fqxi paper and also in the earlier 2005 Beautiful Universe paper on which it is based.

You have presented the idea of energy absorption in "equal-sized sips" that is only manifested when 'delta E' energy is accumulated. As I understand this is somehow related to the so-called 'semi-classical theory' that has been debated following Einstein's 1905 paper and then abandoned when Schrodinger presented his equation. I liken the gradual absorption of energy in the sensor and its sudden release to that of water in the Japanese garden 'deer-chaser' mechanism .

The other half of the trouble with physics today that you do not deal with (gravity and quantum mechanics incompatibility) is also due to one of Einstein's assumptions - the constancy of the speed of light in SR (and GR) and again the sensible objections raised at the time were swept away by SR's success, albeit for the wrong reasons. I wish I had your skill to describe my physical intuitions in mathematical form! Incidentally your continuous derivation of planck's constant (h) solves a fundamental problem in my own theory: the spinning of the universal node I theorized is continuous yet the transfer of momentum is in units of (h). Your formulation can explain that little problem.

Best wishes from Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Hello Vladimir, and thank you for your good wishes.

I am pleased that we agree on many important points. Certainly what I have demonstrated in my papers and essay is that it is possible to have “A World Without Quanta” and demystify Physics of the many counter-intuitive and non-sensical results. 'Physical Realism' in Physics is not only possible but necessary!

Have you read my very short proof of the proposition that “if the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave”? This is a mathematical proof that shows Einstein's CSL postulate contradicts his 'photon hypothesis'!

What more need we say! Furthermore, as I argue in the essay, the Second law of Thermodynamics requires that every physical event takes some positive duration of time to occur. It cannot occur 'instantaneously' at t = s. Thus, the whole concept of 'spacetime continuum' where a 'physical event' is represented by (x,y,z,t) contradicts Thermodynamics.

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

I am pleased that we agree on many important points. Certainly what I have demonstrated in my papers and essay is that it is possible to have “A World Without Quanta” and demystify Physics of the many counter-intuitive and non-sensical results. 'Physical Realism' in Physics is not only possible but necessary!

Have you read my very short proof of the proposition that “if the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave”? This is a mathematical proof that shows Einstein's CSL postulate contradicts his 'photon hypothesis'!

What more need we say! Furthermore, as I argue in the essay, the Second law of Thermodynamics requires that every physical event takes some positive duration of time to occur. It cannot occur 'instantaneously' at t = s. Thus, the whole concept of 'spacetime continuum' where a 'physical event' is represented by (x,y,z,t) contradicts Thermodynamics.

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Dear Constantinos,

More power to us to help demystify physics - I cannot imagine it will be easy to do that using our partial forays against this or that concept - it is all connected, and unless it is all re-written correctly from scratch it will not be a clear and simple theory.

I mention this because your starting point is accepting the c=constant hypothesis, then you cleverly show that assuming light velocity is constant implies wave motion, On the other hand you reject the concept of spacetime because of the thermodynamics argument. However the constancy of the speed of light is the basis and reason for flexible and continuous spacetime. This may constitute a contradiction?

In my theory I assume that light velocity in vacuum is not constant but is a maximum of c and slows down in gravitational fields - the concept of spacetime has to be trashed once and for all, and the Lorentz transformations applied in an 'absolute' universe as I have outlined.

Best wishes from Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

More power to us to help demystify physics - I cannot imagine it will be easy to do that using our partial forays against this or that concept - it is all connected, and unless it is all re-written correctly from scratch it will not be a clear and simple theory.

I mention this because your starting point is accepting the c=constant hypothesis, then you cleverly show that assuming light velocity is constant implies wave motion, On the other hand you reject the concept of spacetime because of the thermodynamics argument. However the constancy of the speed of light is the basis and reason for flexible and continuous spacetime. This may constitute a contradiction?

In my theory I assume that light velocity in vacuum is not constant but is a maximum of c and slows down in gravitational fields - the concept of spacetime has to be trashed once and for all, and the Lorentz transformations applied in an 'absolute' universe as I have outlined.

Best wishes from Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Hello Vladimir,

You write, “...your starting point is accepting the c=constant hypothesis...”.

Just to clarify this point, nothing in my essay or papers assume CSL. It is not needed, it is not necessary, it is not relevant to my work. To tell the truth, I really have not much considered SR or GR in my work, with the exception of the spacetime continuum. And this only in the context of my results concerning entropy, time, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. For me it makes so much sense that there must be a positive duration of time for any physical event to occur. That it just is plainly false to talk about 'events' happening instantaneously at t = s.

I believe that CSL must be derived and not simply assumed. I have some ideas how that can be, which are in line with what you argue: that c is a maximum but the speed of light can vary in a 'vacuum'. One problem! I don't believe in 'vacuums'. Though we can think and consider 'empty space' as a mathematical abstraction, physically and philosophically it does not make sense. 'Physical space' by definition can't possibly be 'empty'.

All the best,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

You write, “...your starting point is accepting the c=constant hypothesis...”.

Just to clarify this point, nothing in my essay or papers assume CSL. It is not needed, it is not necessary, it is not relevant to my work. To tell the truth, I really have not much considered SR or GR in my work, with the exception of the spacetime continuum. And this only in the context of my results concerning entropy, time, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. For me it makes so much sense that there must be a positive duration of time for any physical event to occur. That it just is plainly false to talk about 'events' happening instantaneously at t = s.

I believe that CSL must be derived and not simply assumed. I have some ideas how that can be, which are in line with what you argue: that c is a maximum but the speed of light can vary in a 'vacuum'. One problem! I don't believe in 'vacuums'. Though we can think and consider 'empty space' as a mathematical abstraction, physically and philosophically it does not make sense. 'Physical space' by definition can't possibly be 'empty'.

All the best,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

lightness and purity of one of the three also because the successful operation of generation Mido Mido beauty lies in .

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dear Constantinos Ragazas,

Our opinions about 'mathematics' and 'modern physics' converge: 'Writing bad physics using good mathematics leads to counter-intuitive physical explanations', and 'modern physics does not provide physical explanations that make sense'. As you have stated somewhere above, physical realism is necessary, and is possible; and I would like to add, physical realism is the truth.

The existing convention is that we arrive at certain 'mathematical relations', verify these with experimental results, and based on these arrive at conclusions regarding 'the nature of the physical world'. This may appear to be the right path. But mathematics can trick us. A unique mathematical relation can have different physical interpretations, from which we have to select the right one. But from the time of Newton, physicists habitually selected the interpretation that looked 'mathematically simple and beautiful'. They did not care whether there can be other interpretations. The net result is that we have arrived at wrong conclusions that does not make any sense.

What is required is a 'physicalist' approach: Out of the possible interpretations based on a certain equation, select 'one' that has a clear physical meaning. And it is possible to do so. The equations of Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics and relativity mechanics can be interpreted in alternate ways to obtain physical explanations having sense. Please go through my essay: A physicalist interpretation of the relation between Physics and Mathematics.

Regarding energy I would like to ask a question: What is energy? My answer is that fundamental particles of matter move at speed 'c', or motion is a fundamental property of matter. Energy is a measure of this motion, and is always discrete. If you feel interested, please visit my site: finitenesstheory.com.

report post as inappropriate

Our opinions about 'mathematics' and 'modern physics' converge: 'Writing bad physics using good mathematics leads to counter-intuitive physical explanations', and 'modern physics does not provide physical explanations that make sense'. As you have stated somewhere above, physical realism is necessary, and is possible; and I would like to add, physical realism is the truth.

The existing convention is that we arrive at certain 'mathematical relations', verify these with experimental results, and based on these arrive at conclusions regarding 'the nature of the physical world'. This may appear to be the right path. But mathematics can trick us. A unique mathematical relation can have different physical interpretations, from which we have to select the right one. But from the time of Newton, physicists habitually selected the interpretation that looked 'mathematically simple and beautiful'. They did not care whether there can be other interpretations. The net result is that we have arrived at wrong conclusions that does not make any sense.

What is required is a 'physicalist' approach: Out of the possible interpretations based on a certain equation, select 'one' that has a clear physical meaning. And it is possible to do so. The equations of Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics and relativity mechanics can be interpreted in alternate ways to obtain physical explanations having sense. Please go through my essay: A physicalist interpretation of the relation between Physics and Mathematics.

Regarding energy I would like to ask a question: What is energy? My answer is that fundamental particles of matter move at speed 'c', or motion is a fundamental property of matter. Energy is a measure of this motion, and is always discrete. If you feel interested, please visit my site: finitenesstheory.com.

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.