Search FQXi

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

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

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

Georgina Parry: on 3/16/09 at 23:03pm UTC, wrote A photon may be considered as a disturbance in the objective reality of the...

Roumen Tsekov: on 3/9/08 at 13:59pm UTC, wrote It is clear that isolated systems do not exist in nature. Thus, the...

Koen van Vlaenderen: on 2/20/08 at 7:31am UTC, wrote Plenty of alternative interpretations of the math of micro-physics. Bohmiam...

paul valletta: on 2/11/08 at 7:46am UTC, wrote Zurek:‚ÄúWe‚Äôve gotten used to believing our senses, and our...

reasonmclucus: on 2/10/08 at 21:21pm UTC, wrote Wojciech Zurek is correct about the problem of relying on our human...

November 29, 2022

ARTICLE: Shining A Light on a Dream [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

reasonmclucus wrote on Feb. 10, 2008 @ 21:21 GMT
Wojciech Zurek is correct about the problem of relying on our human perceptions to understand physical reality. The information obtained by our physical senses and interpretation of that information is depends on brain "software" concerned with survival. The idea of physical dimensions being limited to the 3 Euclidean dimensions,and possibly time, is related to functioning in a physical world rather than understanding it in a mathematical physical context.

Forces and forms of energy may involve other types of dimensions or be other dimensions. An understanding of light has been hampered by the false dichotomy of whether light IS a wave or light IS a particle(s). Light is more likely a form of energy which can be transmitted by waves or particles like kinetic energy can be transmitted by waves or particles. A tsunami wave can carry the kinetic energy of an underwater earthquake thousands of miles. A rock or a baseball can carry the kinetic energy imparted to it over a distance to a target.

Light itself may have its own physical dimensions such as wavelength/frequency and intensity which affect other aspects of physical reality differently.

Quantum physics differs from macro physics in that macro physics involves organization. Individual humans may behave differently on their own and as part of a group. Gas molecules move independently within a large air mass and at any one time many molecules will be moving in the opposite direction from the mass itself.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

paul valletta wrote on Feb. 11, 2008 @ 07:46 GMT
Zurek:“We’ve gotten used to believing our senses, and our senses are not a fine enough probe of physics,” Zurek says.

“Our senses did not evolve for the purpose of verifying quantum mechanics, rather they developed through a process

in which survival of the fittest played a central role. And when nothing can be gained from prediction, there is no evolutionary reason for perception.” . But surely, in some Quantum arena's our perception is a fundemental, and integral process of wave functional collapse's?

A metal bar, did not evolve to be a nightmare, to an observers dream?

The SOLID surface of any material, reflects light differently to that of a comparable, or similar molecular LIQUID surface. Dimensionality is also PHASE of matter orientation?

In Genaral Reality is, the function that promotes certain Relatives.

In Quantum Reality there is, no function of Time, thus there is no Reality for Relative Observers, consequently there are no visual particles.

It is surprising how a sentaence can be misunderstood just by the placing of a little commer!

A 3-Dimensional solid, can have a 3-Dimensional " structured molecular " identical counterpart.

Show me a 5-Dimensional Solid, Liquid, or Gas, that is composed of Proton based Nuclie? cannot measure or produce these "extra-fabricated-structure", from a regular 3+1 spacetime environment, because that is the Universe we reside within, what makes you think you can peer into a 2-D domain, or a 5-Dimensional domain, from a 3-D vantage point?

It may be achieved mathematical, such as certain stringtheories, but what level of REALITY would you ascribe to this?..why do humans evolve to calculate the density of a metal, to then build bridges across rivers etc..etc.

The fundemental question here is:Why did certain metals NOT evolve, and organize itself into high quality steel bridges before the dawn of man?

Mathematically the metal had the ability to structure itself thus, prior to the evolution to the needs of man!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Koen van Vlaenderen wrote on Feb. 20, 2008 @ 07:31 GMT
Plenty of alternative interpretations of the math of micro-physics. Bohmiam physics, for example, and not to mention Werner Hofer's re-evaluation of QM (called micro-dynamics):

I agree fully with prof. Hofer's remarks regarding the arbitrary assumption that defines the QM philosofy, but not necessary agree with all aspects of prof. Hofer's developed microdynamics.

Hofer on QM: "The particle wave has no intrinsic potential energy according to QM, and this is an arbitrary assumption". My additional remark: "potential energy is only external to an elementary particle, while classical wave physics always include an internal potential energy that is intrinsic to the classical wave itself".

Nobody has written as clearly about this arbitrary choice made by the founders of QM as Werner Hofer, and I am grateful for Werner's brilliant thoughts on this subject. If you ask me, prof. Hofer fully explained the "strangeness" of QM as an irrational and silly assumption. Then let nobody pretend that there is no alternative to QM; that would be just another lie, that no matter how often it is repeated, will always be a lie.

The emperor called "QM non-determinism" has no clothes.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Roumen Tsekov wrote on Mar. 9, 2008 @ 13:59 GMT
It is clear that isolated systems do not exist in nature. Thus, the interaction between the target system and its environment always leads to decoherence. The traditional decoherence theory developed by Zeh, Zurek and others is based, however, on linear master equations. As a result, there is a time interval, where decoherence takes place. Recently it was demonstrated that the entropy (information) exchange between the system and its environment results in a nonlinear Schrodinger equation (see for instance the file attached bellow). Hence, from the very beginning the superposition principle of quantum mechanics is not valid for open systems thus solving the contradiction to classical reality.

attachments: arXiv_0711.1442.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Mar. 16, 2009 @ 23:03 GMT
A photon may be considered as a disturbance in the objective reality of the void. What that reality is called makes no difference, except to those with prejudice against any model that states that the void is not a vacuum but must have substance.It is unknowable since we appear to have no information from it that travels across the Prime reality interface to inform our conceptualisation of it.

A disturbance in the objective reality of the void will only be detectable if it is able to cause a noticeable change in (observed) subjective reality. So a large enough disturbance of the objective reality of the void, to change the position of an electron, is required for it to be observed in subjective reality. This does not preclude the possibility of smaller disturbances. But if they have no observable effect in (observed) subjective reality there can be no knowledge of them.

Thus a photon of energy is the amount of disturbance required to move an electron. Lesser amounts are not called photons because they are not detected and therefore no concept of them has been developed.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.