FQXi Community

Essay Abstract

Which of our basic physical assumptions are wrong? Superposition of quantum states and collapse of the wave function are significant assumptions. We address the physics of the wave function, the wave function as probability, the extent of the wave function, quantum correlations, Bell's theorem, spaces in which wave functions are formulated and discuss recent experiments that support our interpretation.

Author Bio

Edwin Eugene Klingman was a NASA Research Physicist (atomic & molecular). His 1979 PhD dissertation, (now published as "The Automatic Theory of Physics"), describes how numbers and math derive from physical reality and how a robot would derive a theory of physics based on pattern recognition and entropy (a theme finally appearing in Science.) Founder of three Silicon Valley companies, he holds 33 technology patents and has published two university texts, "Microprocessor Systems Design" Vol I and II. He is currently working on a book, "The Nature of the Wave Function", expanding the topics in this essay.

Download Essay PDF File

Hi Edwin,

Your papers and essays are always very interesting to me because you are questioning some of the same things that I also question. You are absolutely right to question if the QM wavefunction can be connected to real waves for massive particles (the wavefunction of photons can be easily connected to real EM waves). I think the probability waves of QM were so successful that the real wave aspects were largely ignored. And probably for qood reasons that it was very hard to work out the exact real wave nature of massive particles. But after studying Hestenes' work on "The Zitterbewegung Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" and his real Dirac equation, I think we can now move forward with trying to describe the real wave nature of massive particles. It is a bit different that what you present but also has some similarities.

I am wondering what it would take in your model, to have the C field circulation to be able to go in either direction wrt the direction of propagation? I think this is necessary but I realize that you are locked into the left-handed circulation by curl C. In my theory, I use a Dirac-Fermi field that does allow a circulation similar to yours to go in either direction. And it does match somewhat with what Joy is presenting as far as Nature's 50-50 randomness for either handedness.

Ok, I am going to study your essay some more as I think you have some good clues for me in it. Thanks.

Best,

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 3, 2012 @ 06:36 GMT

Hi Fred,

Thanks for those remarks.

I did not address Zitterbewegung in the essay, but it will be addressed in the book I'm writing. You remark that it is different from the treatment in this essay and I agree. The treatment just did not fit in a nine page essay format. Zitterbewegung is associated with the particle spin moreso than the particle's linear momentum. My treatment uses geometric algebra but differs somewhat from Hestenes' approach. I know that it is a key interest of yours and I think that you will be happy with my approach when you see it.

Also, I think you are right that the success of the probability interpretation both diminished and confused the interest in the physical wave associated with the particle. And then Schroedinger simply threw away the particle for the wave-packet and things went downhill from there. What I hope to accomplish in this essay is to revive interest in and understanding of the physical field, and as I note briefly at the beginning of the essay, the experiments and theoretical arguments of the last year are completely in support of this!

As for the left-handed nature of the C-field, I think that it is cooked into the field itself, and accounts for the left-handed nature of neutrinos and of the Z and W bosons. After Joy's response on the other blog I will focus on the handedness aspects again, and look forward to seeing what you do in your essay.

I should also point out that the reduced equation is based on 'momentum' rather than simply 'mass', and the momentum of the photon is sufficient to induce the field circulation, so we should not discount this circulation for photons. In fact de Broglie and others were rather specific in saying that the wave function was not an EM field.

I hope that you do find more clues in my essay, and I look forward to reading yours.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

A most excellent read. Regarding the preferential counter-clockwise rotation ... That can be explained if both the classical wave equation and Shrodinger are being satisfied. That requires counter-clockwise rotation. Hamilton's work with quaternions combines with Euler's Equation to make some nice vectors.

Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Houston, Tx

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 8, 2012 @ 00:40 GMT

Dear Gary Simpson,

Thanks for the nice comment. I'll think about your remark. I tend to think of the handedness as originating in general relativity, and Schrodinger just has to live with it, but there may be other fruitful ways to conceive of it. I have now read your essay and left a comment there.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dr. Klingman,

Great work! Taking into consideration all of your essay contests' entries, I am glad you are here. I think that theoretical physics, even if mostly correct within its current self-limited domain (my opinion), remains at too low a level of understanding of the nature of the full universe to yet be acceptable as the real foundational science. I have confidence that you are an important contributor to helping theoretical physics advance toward fullfilling in its expected role. I wish that I knew enough to travel that road myself.

Jame

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 6, 2012 @ 22:10 GMT

Dear James Putnam,

Thanks for your kind remarks. I have read your essay and will followup with a post on your thread. Congratulations on the number of posts that you have attracted. I don't always remark upon your comments, but it is my observation that the level of your comments has much improved over the last year, and you truly do contribute a valuable perspective to this forum. For example, you played the part of an honest broker in Joy's threads, and that was very worthwhile. It is clear that the FQXi experience is one of learning and growth, for which we are all thankful.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dr. Klingman,

I too have found your essays fascinating, although my understanding of differential equations is way too rusty.

In the Extent of the Wave Function section, do the cylinders illustrate the bow wave, the trailing vortex (if there is one) or both?

Also, are the lengthening wavelengths as you get further from the particle discrete or continuous? If they are discrete, are the wavelengths harmonics?

Thanks in advance for your response.

Mark Olson

San Jose, CA

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 21:15 GMT

Dear Mark Olson,

Thanks, those are great questions. In geometric algebra the 'trivector' or volume form has both geometric and algebraic properties (as do all GA elements). In particular, it has volume and orientation (handedness) but it does NOT have a fixed shape. It's volume is normalized to unity.

I actually spent a good while trying to figure out how much of the circulation was in the 'bow' or leading wave and how much was trailing wave, and finally decided that it's the volume that is 'fixed', proportional to Planck's quantum of action, h. This follows from combining de Broglie's wavelength relation with the general relativity equation. The volume is the 'cylinder' defined by the circulation cross section times the length of one wavelength.

But whether it is actually a 'cylinder' (doubtful) or a 'teardrop' (perhaps) or something else, I don't know. I suspect it depends on velocity and probably local environmental factors. I find it useful to think of a vortex in terms of a tornado, whose shape changes but the entity endures. [Google 'tornado videos' for amazing examples.]

So I view the lengthening wave as continuous, but if it forms a closed orbit it must (for reasons of self-interference if nothing else) consist of an integral number of 'volumes' where each volume represents a quantum of action. The wavelength may vary slightly around the orbit as shown in on page 5. The relevant equation is (9).

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Errata:

I have noticed that I used the term Fermi-Dirac twice in my paper. The first time, in reference to the partition function, is correct. The second use, on page 8, is in conjunction with the Hartree-Fock method, and here Fermi-Dirac should have been the Thomas-Fermi method.

Also, on page 4, I have used the lower case 'f' as a function of lambda twice. I probably should have used two different symbols, since one of the 'f's is a function of lambda, and the other of inverse lambda. Hopefully these oversights do not cause unnecessary confusion.

Edwin,

I've now had an opportunity to read your fascinating, well-written, well-organized essay carefully. While lacking sufficient expertise to comment intelligently on specific details of your argument, I certainly recognize the importance of the topic and the extent to which it is responsive (extremely) to the spirit of this competition.

Perhaps I'm hallucinating, but I have a strong and growing sense that we're on the verge of resolving some of the conundrums that have plagued physics for roughly the past century. The time to put some of these knotty problems behind us and move forward is long overdue.

Thank you for commenting on my essay. Fwiw, I've added a reply to your comment there which I hope will shed additional light on that topic.

Good luck in the competition!

jcns

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 8, 2012 @ 22:58 GMT

Dear jcns,

Thank you for that very gracious comment.

I hope you are right about resolution of some century-old conceptual problems.

And thanks also for the response on your thread. I am in general agreement with you. I also feel that you are tackling a tougher problem than I am.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 18:35 GMT

I posted the following on jcns's thread:

Dear jcns,

I would direct your attention to Daryl Janzen's essay. It is a fantastic essay and also provides a link to his recent PhD dissertation which is, believe it or not, a very exciting read. He arrives, I think it's safe to say, at much the same conclusion that you and I do, but in a much more scientific and professional manner. Perhaps the most important essay yet published in this contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Edwin,

While reading about your C-field, the question occured to me: what is the difference between a field and an aether medium? I'm working on my own paper in which I argue that there is a medium; it's a medium made of waves. I don't like the word "field" beause a field can be turned off. I think there is a ubiqitous aether medium that is always present. But I get hammered for using the words aether medium. What is a field and how is it different from a medium?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 01:43 GMT

Hi Edwin,

I quoted your paper from page 8: "Basically, 3-space physical waves are real, 3N-space probability waves abstract."

In the paper I hope to submit, I asserted the existence of aether medium waves. I modelled them after wave-functions and the electromagnetic frequency spectrum. When I read your sentence, I interpreted you to be saying that there does exist, as a physical phenomena of nature, a 3-space physical wave. Is that what you meant?

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 02:40 GMT

Hi Jason,

If you believe that the "aether medium" is always present, you should probably use those words. I'm not sure I can provide a simple 'one size fits all' definition that exactly matches your needs. I assume you looked on Wikipedia. There are vector fields and, supposedly, scalar fields, also supposedly Dirac fields, boson fields, axion fields, etc, etc and of course the real physical electromagnetic and gravitomagnetic fields. Mathematically everything can be 'turned off and on', but it sounds like you really want an always present 'background' medium. As for the word 'ether', even Nobelist Frank Wilczek uses it although he updates it with a sexy name. He defines it as "a space-filling material" and considers it the 'primary reality'. (see 'Lightness of Being') By the way, he defines field as 'a space-filling entity'. Take your choice.

And yes, 3-space means waves in three dimensions (plus time) as opposed to (or in addition to) the mathematical waves in higher dimensions, such as Schrodinger's 3N configuration space. But I caution you that your idea of 'wave functions' and my idea of wave functions have been very different in the past, so be careful how much of my essay you try to apply to your ideas. It's probably better just to explain as well as you can what kind of waves you mean.

I look forward to reading your paper when you finish it.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Jason Wolfe replied on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 03:27 GMT

It's funny; what I call aether medium waves are always present in the sense that the EM spectrum is always available, permitivity and permeability are also always available. In another sense, they can vanish. For example, the Double slit diffraction experiment inspired my idea of aether medium waves. There is one wave-function for each slit. In my interpretation, the wavefunctions act like a pathway that the particle can take; these wave-functions are what interfere with one another, not the particle(s). But when you close one of the slits, and there is only one slit, then there is only one wave-function; the other wave function goes away, and there is no interference pattern. I'm not sure how to reconcile this.

report post as inappropriate

Hi Edwin,

I was thinking about your C-field. The C-field is the particle's connection to gravity, is that right? In your essay, you said, "The C-field circulation induced by momentum (or mass current) provides a solution to the general relativistic field equation and also solves the quantum mechanical wave equation:"

The Einstein equations include a Cosmological term, "Eistein's greatest mistake - or not". The cosmological term refers to the intrinsic energy of the vacuum. So the extrinsic energy must be things like matter, photons, mass, kinetic energy, momentum, the stress energy tensor.

Then, the intrinsic energy of the vacuum would be able to expand or contract the vacuum (which is a fancy way of saying that it induces gravitational acceleration).

I think your C-field should be in the intrinsic energy "column", and the momentum that induces the C-field should be in the extrinsic energy column.

Is it reasonable to interpret the C-field this way?

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 06:24 GMT

Jason,

First I'd like to ask a favor. In order to help others (and me) make sense out of these comments, could we keep our discussion to one thread, instead of opening up a new thread every time a new thought arises? Just use the "Reply to this thread" link after the last comment between us. It's easy. Otherwise reading through all the comments becomes much more scatter-brained. Thanks.

Second, you shoot from the hip, and you are amazingly creative in your thinking, but I try not to write any words that I cannot backup in some way. So when you say "The C-field is the particle's connection to gravity, is that right?" I'm not sure how to answer this. Not if you're thinking about the gravito-electric field, which is the acceleration that most people identify as 'gravity'. But the equations also describe a gravito-magnetic field, just as the electro-magnetic equations describe an electric field and a magnetic field. That's why I made the analogy of the (del cross C = p) with the (del cross B = j) where B is the magnetic field and j is the charge current j~qv while C is the gravito-magnetic field and p is the mass current p~mv which is also the momentum (density). But the magnetic field interacts with charge only, and since it is uncharged, it does not interact with itself, while the C-field interacts with mass (in motion) and since the field has energy it can interact with its own mass-energy. The net result is that you need to think of the magnetic field, but with the proviso that it is potentially self-interactive. It's generally safe to analogize with magnetism, but not always.

At the moment I don't make use of the intrinsic-extrinsic categorization that you ask about, so I'm unsure how to answer you. I don't see a great deal of utility in that schema, but of course I may be missing something. You ask if it's reasonable to say "I think your C-field should be in the intrinsic energy "column", and the momentum that induces the C-field should be in the extrinsic energy column." It may be reasonable. In previous essays I've discussed the particle physics implications of the C-field and the cosmological implications of the C-field, but in this essay I'm going to restrict consideration to the quantum mechanical implications of the C-field. That's complex enough for one essay.

As my last essay paragraph indicates, there's a lot packed into this essay, and it will almost certainly require more than one reading if you really want to understand the theory. I would have to read it many times myself, if I were starting from scratch. This could mean that I tried to put too much into it, but the problem is complicated and has confused people for a century, so the answer is important, and I did not feel that leaving out crucial aspects would serve any purpose.

I hope this helps a little.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Jason Wolfe replied on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 15:15 GMT

Hi Steve! :)

Hi Edwin,

Intrinsic energy actually has to do with the expansion of the universe (positive intrinsic energy). Calling intrinsic energy a mere acceleration field is premature on my part.

You said, "Diagram (2) for pCrrr−=×∇ simply shows a circle around momentumpr but from orbital dynamics, we know that the wave must extend over several wavelengths in order to support self-interference. De Broglie's ph=λ defines a wavelength and thus a minimum extent of the wave function, but maximum extent could range from one wavelength to infinity, since Schrödinger’s wave packet is conceptually built of monochromatic plane waves of infinite extent."

It's a great idea to think of wavelengths that extend for an infinite number of cycles in every direction. That is certainly what I had in mind when I thought of aether medium waves. Since nature offers a frequency spectrum to use, I decided to define the vacuum of space as the entire range of frequencies, from radio waves to gamma rays, as the necessary and sufficient foundation of the vacuum and fabric of space-time. Particles have momentum because waves of the EM spectrum have momentum of p = h/lamda; a particle with mass is just a group of AM waves.

Positive intrinsic energy would cause space to expand via the mechanism of causing each frequency in the spectrum to undergo a wavelength expansion of

$\lambda_{initial} --> \lambda_{final}$

Curvature of space-time occurs when the stress energy tensor distorts the frequency spectrum across the entire range of wavelengths. You C-field is probably responsible for some kind of contraction of the wavelengths that surround the momentum.

I like your Eq 9 and how you address Kepler's law. I've puzzled over Kepler's law for many weeks now.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 16:05 GMT

:) Jason

ps I like like always your pure creativity.

Don't stop please

Regards to both of you

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (5 not shown)

Edwin

I would agree with your bottom line. Though I of course can only arrive there in generic terms. These concepts of superposition, etc, are contrary to the way in which physical reality occurs (or at least as far as we can establish, and once one crosses that line any speculative belief is a good-or bad-as any other). Physical existence is not uncertain. At any given point in time it has a definitive existent state, and only one at a time. We are just incapable of defining it, so can only do so via probability, etc. We should not be invoking strange characteristics in physical reality to rationalise our failure. Nothing can affect anything else, directly, unless they are adjacent (obviously anything can have an indirect effect on anything else, but this is a pointless statement). The notion of waves involves a sequence of different physically existent states. And anything that is deemed to exist, must have a physically existent presence to correspond with it.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Dr. Klingman,

I would enjoy seeing your work discussed by other experts. I don't think that they would find themselves on as solid ground as many portray their theoretical physics. The following, along with other points, appears to me to be important:

"Superposition of quantum states and collapse of the wave function are significant assumptions."

...

The problem (ignored for almost a century) isn’t dispersing wave packets in the atom, but the impossibility of such wave packets even existing in the atom.

...

"Why does quantum mechanics predict various outgoing wave packets (probabilistic waves) from a scattering process, if only one such wave actually exists—a real wave induced by the actual particle? Because any alternate path consistent with 3-space physics is a possibility, and thus represented by a solution of Schrödinger’s energy equation despite the fact that a physical particle induces a real wave on only one path. This path—one of many possible paths (~ Schrödinger equation solutions)—has confused physicists for decades and has led to ideas of superposition of wave functions and subsequent collapse of wave packets."

Also from your response to Fred: "I should also point out that the reduced equation is based on 'momentum' rather than simply 'mass', and the momentum of the photon is sufficient to induce the field circulation, so we should not discount this circulation for photons. In fact de Broglie and others were rather specific in saying that the wave function was not an EM field."

I think that other physicists should respond and give their opinions. I don't think that they would find themselves on as solid ground as many portray their theoretical physics. Not for my reasons but for your reasons. Disregarding my own work which I happen to like, I am not a physicist. I follow a thought that I had that theory should be firmly expressible in empirical terms. That is an amatuer's strong feeling. I continue to truly appreciate the ideas and information put forward by experts in the field. I would enjoy seeing your work discussed by other experts.

James

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 21:43 GMT

Thanks James,

You have picked out some key points. There are more. It's early in the contest, so there will probably be more discussion. I'm having trouble keeping up with the essays, and I'm sure others are too. Obviously one problem is that most experts who submit their own essays are pushing their own programs, and quantum theory as mystical and exotic is more alluring than local realism. But FQXi provides a wonderful platform to get the ideas out, and I do believe that there is a 'pentup demand' for quantum mechanics to make sense, as opposed to just 'work'.

Another problem, discussed some on Joy's threads, is that some argue (even today on another thread) that incompatibilities between QM and GR prevent such understanding. This is based on an unsubstantiated belief that the new theory will descend from QM and GR as opposed to the (seemingly obvious) fact that a new theory must arise outside of QM and GR and be compatible with both in key aspects. GR specialists and QM specialists resist this, as they are heavily invested in their specialities. A further problem is shown in an arXiv reference I followed in another essay--the reference noted that they were entering an essay on FQXi "for laymen". This might imply that establishment types do not take these efforts seriously, but would be perfectly willing to pick up a grant or win a prize.

So thanks for your support, and be patient (as if we have a choice.) There are some very nice essays here already (I very much like Norman Cook's) and I have not yet commented on one that addresses a very important assumption. Also, my essay is very complex, treating, in nine pages, the most confused topic of the last century, so I hope that some of those experts you invoke are trying to digest my arguments before responding. Finally, in a sense I come down in the middle of one of the hardest fought campaigns on FQXi and that may make neither side happy.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Eugene

I have read with great interest your learned essay about the wave function. As you say in the concluding remark it needs to be re-read to understand the many highly technical points and new mathematics you use or refer to.

I will simply respond to what I understood from it: Your stress on the reality of the quantum wave function is spot on. You back your belief by impressive mathematics and a solid historical knowledge of what various physicists from Schrodinger to Bell believed about this. As you know my approach to physics is almost purely geometrical and I liked how you illustrated various formulas with figures on the same line as if the illustration was a new type of algebraic notation. Perhaps you can develop your entire physics using such notation? Your photon of Eq. 2 is almost identical to a node element of my Beautiful Universe Theory, but the way it spreads thereafter may be different.

Incidentally in one of the physics forums in recent months I commented on the double-slit experiment illustrated on the first page of your paper. It shows a diffracting field with maxima and minima corresponding to a hydronomical flow that I illustrated in my study of diffraction as streamlined flow. Fig. 6 here

As Norman Cook commented about your Chomodynamics book - your approach may be 'highbrow', nevertheless you explain your ideas clearly enough by way of text and illustrations. I hope that one day soon our views on the reality of quantum waves should be part of standard physics texts!

With best wishes

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 05:06 GMT

Dear Vladimir,

Thanks for reading and commenting and thanks for the link to "THE CANCELLATION OF DIFFRACTION IN WAVE FIELDS" of which I was unaware. I am in awe of your artistic and high geometrical drawings, and look forward to rading that paper, which I have printed out. I have found that one very beneficial aspect of this essay contest is the references to other works, especially those of the author of the specific essay.

As you mention, I use a smattering of geometric algebra, which I recently learned in order to understand Joy Christian's work (one of several things I am indebted to him for) and have found a number of other people in the same situation, ie, learned it for Joy, then fell in love with it for it's own sake. You of all people know how much physics depends on geometry, but in most cases the geometry is drawn on the blackboard and the blackboard is filled with algebraic equations, with nothing but handwaving linking the two. David Hestenes' treatment links the two such that every element in the algebra has both an algebraic and a geometric aspect, and this, to many of us, makes it the ideal tool for physics. The Doran book I reference is an ideal starting point, although one can learn a lot online for free.

Today was a good day for FQXi with your essay and Daryl Janzen's essay being posted.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 01:19 GMT

Dear Eugene

I apologize for not having seen your gracious and interesting post. If you find my diffraction paper interesting you might enjoy similar ones and things about my inventions etc. on My website . I did most of my researches in the days before the Internet - now that so much interesting material for study is available, I regret being less energetic than before (having joined the grandpa set) to make use of these opportunities. I've heard Joy's work being mentioned a lot here, and will study it. The algebraic geometry sounds very interesting, I will look at the reference you kindly provided.

Thanks and best wishes,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Edwin,

Just a quick note to thank you for the helpful "heads up" regarding Daryl Janzen's essay. Much appreciated; I'm falling farther and farther behind in my reading. Have now looked at Janzen's essay (thanks to you) and agree that it looks excellent.

jcns

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 22:07 GMT

Hi jcns,

I'm glad that you find Daryl's essay as interesting as I do. I have added a comment to the exchange that you and Daryl had on his thread. I reproduce that comment here in my own thread so that I can keep the idea 'close at hand':

Dear Daryl and jcns,

A very interesting exchange. JCN says, "humans have come to refer to the changing configurations of the universe as 'the flow of time.' It is ... crucial to recognize ... however, that the changes ... are *not caused by,* and are not in any way a consequence of, the flow of time. Rather, the changes ...*are* the flow of time."

That has sort of been the way I have been thinking, but your very phraseology has caused me to see it in a different perspective. As you know energy and time are conjugate variables, and in the view you [jcns] just espoused, it would be *energy* (or more correctly, "the flow of energy") that is real and time that is emergent. But in the "present as real" perspective, obviously energy is everywhere local, whereas time is global and universal. Therefore there would seem to be a universal 'reality' to time as opposed to merely a handy way of tagging sequential events.

Daryl, I too am working through your wonderfully written dissertation. Wow!

Edwin Eugene Klingman

dwayne replied on Aug. 6, 2012 @ 08:10 GMT

Mr. Klingman, this is something particular interest to me of how energy and time related to 1 another. I am rather unfamiliar with this concept. Where might a good resource be that I could look into this more? Thanks.

Dwaynefries1@gmail.com

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 6, 2012 @ 09:07 GMT

Hi Dwayne,

When things in physics are related to each other in a special way, like position and momentum, or like time and energy, they are called 'conjugate variables'. So I suggest that you start by googling "time and energy conjugate" (without the quote marks). Then probably start with the Wikipedia link and go from there. The arXiv links are usually fairly complicated but you should be able to find just the level you're looking for by scanning ten or twenty links.

That's a very good place to start in physics.

Good luck,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

Well done! This is an excellent essay. Your argument is clear and well-written, and you've given me much to think about. I too think there must be something classical happening at the heart of quantum mechanics, and I think your essay describes a logically consistent way of accounting for the wave equation in that respect, although I'm not an expert and my...

view entire post

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

Well done! This is an excellent essay. Your argument is clear and well-written, and you've given me much to think about. I too think there must be something classical happening at the heart of quantum mechanics, and I think your essay describes a logically consistent way of accounting for the wave equation in that respect, although I'm not an expert and my ability to judge your derivation critically is limited. However, I really do agree with your approach, which I think meets the purpose of this contest right on the mark, and I find your results very intriguing, so I'll definitely be following up on the advice you've given in the final paragraph.

I was particularly interested in the way you've described superposition, although it's something that hasn't bothered me as much. In itself, I don't have an issue with the idea of a cat (one particle) that's both alive and dead while it's in the box. There is a problem, though, when it comes to looking in the box, because then the cat can only be alive or dead, and I'm not a fan of the act of measurement being something that causes the wave function to collapse. So, although I'm not immediately opposed to the idea of one particle that's also a superposition of multiple possibilities, I don't like the implication that the result of looking into the box should be probabilistic. This backs me into a small-ish corner, where I think my best option is along these lines: maybe the particle really is one such thing (the cat's either alive or dead), and the whether of that is the thing that's probabilistic, e.g. depending on a radioactive half-life; but more than that, the physical description of the thing that actually exists is also mathematically something like one root of a polynomial, although the root is more accurately a `superposition' of numbers. If that superposition is consistent with the probabilistic nature of what the particle actually is, then I think you'd have quantum mechanics. I think this is right in line with what you've written in `The Source of the Error', second paragraph, and therefore with your interesting result, that `Each possible solution has a probability yet only one physical solution occurs'.

Anyway, I have a result written up which I think you'd find interesting, and it would explain (more concisely than it does in my dissertation) where I'm coming from in mentioning polynomials here. The result is a long, long way from quantum theory, but I'd be happy to email you the paper that's in review if you thought you'd have time to read it.

Again, excellent work, and I truly wish you success in this contest!

Sincerely,

Daryl

P.S. I only noticed the comment you left about my essay and dissertation on J. C. N. Smith's blog a couple of days ago, which I see you've reproduced above. I can't begin to express the profound gratitude I continue to feel for the enthusiasm and support you've shown for my work.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 20:23 GMT

Dear Daryl Janzen,

Thank you for the above comments.

You and I agree about "going to the source". In your thesis you, "...try to understand the assumptions and presumptions behind the reasonings of those who have played important roles in its philosophical development, with the idea that if we can truly understand what they were thinking and why, we might better understand where they went wrong." I've tried to do the same.

I would be happy to read your paper on polynomial solutions. [My email address is in my essay.] Having finished reading your dissertation last night, I have a guess about what your approach is, and look forward to seeing if I'm right. You could have copied my last essay paragraph and ended your thesis with it. Far too much to fully absorb at one reading, and I hope to find time to make notes and summarize my main impressions and review it again. [I used up three yellow liners on your words.]

This contest is shaping up well. I think some important essays have been submitted, and very likely more will be. I recommend Normal Cook's "Nucleodynamics" for more insight into particles, and I would be interested in your take on Ernst Fischer's essay.

I have no problem with 'superposition' of numbers, either roots of polynomials or Fourier series, but I strongly believe that material particles are not 'super-imposable'. For reasons of lack of space, I simply assume the existence of the particles and deal only with the induced wave (function) in my essay. It is definitely not for lack of theory about particles. All of the known particles (except the Higgs) fall out of my theory, i.e., neutrinos, electrons, up and down quarks, and all three families (but no 'super-partners'). I suspect that an understanding of the material particles (and why they are NOT super-imposable) makes my wave function more credible, but such was far outside the 9 page contraints.

Thanks again for your comments, but mostly I thank you for your essay and your thesis.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin

Great essay, thank you. You make a good point about physics confounding physical waves and probability waves. That is a long-standing area where science has been unable to come up with physical explanations. It’s a worthwhile premise to question.

Good luck with the competition.

Dirk

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 17, 2012 @ 17:36 GMT

Dear Dirk Pons,

Thanks for the above observation. In nine pages packed with information about one of the most complicated and contentious fields of physics, you clearly and succinctly extracted one of the key points in the essay in just seven words, "physics confounding physical waves and probability waves". Congratulations.

I also admire both your imagination in the design approach laid out in your essay and the fact that you managed it as a family project. Congratulations again.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin

There are so many important truisms in your essay and so densely packed it's hard to pick one out. Waves certainly real fluctuations not metaphysical. Particles key actors in propagation, QM real and local (and deriving relativity). The list goes on.

Do you think 'probability' may just be the incomputability of complex interactions between real waves beyond our comprehension? If Heisenberg considered diffraction related to uncertainty it may be so, and again be just interpretation that's nonsense. If you consider a dozen particles driving along a motorway at different speeds emitting different real waves, could we compute how they interact at any point? But given certain information we can at least arrive at a most 'likely' value at any point and moment. For 'likely' then perhaps read 'probable.' This would fit with my derivation of observed SR effects from a QM. How else would the waves interact in a complex scenario?

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 18, 2012 @ 21:17 GMT

Hi Peter,

Thanks for the comment and questions. You're right-- the essay is packed with info (some are truisms, but in QM even that is debatable.) To deal with a century of confusion requires covering a lot of ground in 9 pages. You ask whether I think 'probability' may be just the incomputability of complex interactions beyond our capabilities. In the essay, I use the 'partition function' of statistical mechanics as the basis of probability for energy states and then show how this links to the physical wave (length) to allow the calculation of probability amplitudes. The partition function, which is typically based on huge numbers of combinatorial events, probably meets your specification as to the nature of probability. What I focus on is the generally-not-understood connection of the physical wave to probability wave (as Dirk Pons noted above).

I have not focused on Heisenberg and diffraction (I count on you for that!) but I generally view Heisenberg in two compatible ways. The finite wavelength lends itself a certain Fourier-based limitation that can be considered 'uncertainty'. Also, in previous essays, I have derived a quantum flow condition that generalizes his relations. In any case, the existence of a quantum of action strongly limits what can be measured without disturbing the system. I reference recent Aharonov-based 'weak measurements' that get around this limitation, but only statistically.

Your question about a dozen particles on a motorway is good. In my opinion the wave 'phase' associated with each particle is inherently unknown (unmeasurable) so exact calculations are impossible, leaving us with a distribution of 'most likely' values as you desire for your "derivation of SR from a QM."

My essay shows how one can understand quantum mechanical probability amplitudes from physical waves. Lack of information on individual phases means that probability is the best we can hope for, but this does not imply the mystical consequences that follow from belief in the pure 'probability wave' that has characterized most quantum interpretations for a century.

Thanks as always for your insightful questions.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin,

You do seem to have given a clear and well presented argument, though I lack the expertise to comment on its validity. It is relevant as you clearly point out an error in understanding of a physical phenomenon. Your diagrams are nice too.

I found the beginning bit about the evidence for a real wave rather than wave packet very interesting. Also the part about vortices and the aircraft.

I have appreciated your feedback on my various ideas and essay in this contest. I hope you get lots of readers who are able to appreciate what you have written and give it the score it deserves. Good luck in the competition.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 25, 2012 @ 20:30 GMT

Dear Georgina,

Thank you for your comments. I'm glad that you found several aspects of the essay spoke to your interest. I still commend you on your excellent essay and wish you luck also.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 26, 2012 @ 04:51 GMT

Dear Edwin,

you are kind to me. I wish I had the ability to really appreciate what you have written and say something so nice in return. I have read some of the other very complementary comments on this thread, which show that it is my shortcoming and not your essay that is at fault. Good luck.

report post as inappropriate

Hi Edwin,

I really enjoyed this paper -- I could overlook every nit which I question, and come away only with the argument that the wave function is not probabilistic -- and still be satisified.

So I offer the following as commentary, not criticism.

You write: "We can safely ignore wave functions of infinite extent, but all treatments of atomic orbits are based upon the assumption of an integral number of wavelengths—the link that connects wavefunction to both energy and probability."

Measured experimental outcomes are always integral (no such thing as half an event). I was both puzzled and impressed in first being exposed to Joy's framework, that he was addressing a quantum experiment and there was no probability function in it. None at all. It was only after some time that I was able to work out that the absence of a probability function implies absence of boundary conditions at every scale, which implies absence of reference coordinate frame, which can be explained only by a continuous function in a topological model. Eureka, as our friend from Belgium would say.

We also reach Joy's derivation of -a.b by different paths. To me, it's clear in his one-page paper that the result is the reduction to an input argument for a function continuous from a topological initial condition. That's not saying that it can't be derived another way.

Just one more comment, concerning dialogue here with Daryl, and the characterization of solutions to polynomial equations as analagous to superposition -- just shows how differently physicists and mathematicians think. The number of solutions corresponding to polynomial degree are *all* real solutions, not in superposition. That's the fundamental theorem of algebra! LOL!

Anyway -- thanks for a good read, and best wishes in the competition.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 26, 2012 @ 19:06 GMT

Hi Tom,

Thanks for reading my essay and for your gracious comments. I read your essay and plan to comment. All I remember at the moment is that I very much liked your last paragraph.

Based on all of the "Disproof" blogs, I knew that you would have some trouble with this paper, but I'm glad you worked through it and found it interesting. From our many previous exchanges we both know that our views are quite different despite our mutual desire for an essentially classical (i.e., continuum-based) approach to reality. As the Zen Buddhists say, once you go too far down the path, you have trouble getting off. This applies to us as well -- once we have made things fit together in our minds such that we think we have the truth, it is very hard to see other's truths. I think you and I have things that fit together very well in our own minds but do not overlap to a great extent. I'm sure we share some truth.

I meet with a local group and one of the group has pushed me on how my theory relates to Joy (which he has studied) and I have recently understood both what Joy has done and what I have done in his framework much better than I express it in my essay. I'm writing up the overview now. I think you would enjoy it.

As you remark about Daryl, and about your understanding of Joy's results, physicists and mathematicians do see things quite differently.

Anyway, thanks again Tom.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 13:08 GMT

tom :) I am happy to have friends.

You know the domains , universal are so essential ! How can you have a correct superimposing if the foundamentals are forgotten? The parallelizations must be analyzed in the continuous function with specific limits and series .The simulations and the predictions are correct if and only if all the datas , encoded are dterminsitic respecting all our foundamental laws at all 3D scales.

The fractalization of an universal finite serie is a finite serie, with only an infinite when we add or multiplicate this serie of uniquenss.After all, it depends of what we want to explain.

Edwin, I don't agree about what you said. The maths and physics are the same, the universal essence and its distribution of numbers is in harmony when the mathematical tools are utilized with the most important rationalism. The maths help for a real understanding of our physical laws. These two topics are unified and in harmony.The maths are inside this physicality! It does not really exist differences between maths and physics. An anti thesis is just like a symmetry. Like when we see our face in the miror, it exists only one singularity and its codes...

Regards

post approved

Yo, E.E.K., you asked me, back on the thread of G.F.R. Ellis, F.R.S., to say something here.

I'm afraid I'm far from sure that the mathematics of the QM formalism refers to anything apart from the probability of observing certain quantum events under defined experimental conditions. "Wave function" may be simply an attempt (of precisely the kind Bohr -- yes, I know: hiss the villain -- warned against) to picture that which cannot meaningfully be pictured or diagrammed. Bohr blamed complex numbers and noted that the trend had already surfaced in relativity ... first Minkowski's imaginary time axis, then later the Friedmann universe model adopted by Einstein. QM soon picked up the ball and ran with it.

Micro-wise you first diverge from classical physics with half-integer spin and right off the bat there's a choice: you either accept that a realm of reality exists in which a sphere has the properties of a Moebius strip or else face the possibility that the math you're employing so productively doesn't refer to anything you can concretely envision: its terms are purely symbolic. (Feynman never claimed his diagrams were literal pictures of reality either: they're high-class equivalents of the cheat-notes Sarah Palin jots on her left palm.) Ditto the thing we call Wave Function, this Cosa Nostra.

(Exits hurriedly)

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 07:16 GMT

Hi nmann, thanks for the comments. Of course you may be right, along with Bohr (hiss) but I think you're not. I don't know how much attention you've been paying to Geometric Algebra, but I'm much more comfortable with complex numbers now that I understand their interpretation in that formalism.

As for spin one-half, I too spent many years worrying about that puppy, but it now falls out of my theory in a way that makes more sense than the Mobius strip. This essay is devoted to quantum mechanics, but there is a particle physics aspect of this theory, and spin makes physical sense there in a way that I envision.

So you and Bohr may be right, but I'm increasingly convinced that you're wrong.

The good thing is, we'll probably know before too long (at least if you're wrong.)

Thanks again,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Oh, Bell ...

I know for a fact that BT is NOT violated in macroworld experiments using sets of separable physical objects. It's solid classical mathematical logic, as Venn-diagramming it conclusively proves. So it's sound stuff.

Since it's obviously violated in quantum experiments I accept that quantum ontology is significantly different from classical ontology. I also buy into the idea that we're coarse-grained measuring instruments up here and that's probably why we don't perceive violations.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 07:28 GMT

nmann: This is a harder comment to respond to. I'm finding that others have different ideas about Bell's theorem, and some of those ideas I don't quite understand. But I am more convinced now than when I wrote the essay that Joy's framework is appropriate, and that my theory fits into that framework very well. The no-go theorems that I reference in the essay (PBR especially) argue for the reality of the wave function, versus just information. This too should become clearer before long (I hope).

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Joy Christian replied on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 09:19 GMT

Hi nmann,

You wrote: "BT is NOT violated in macroworld experiments using sets of separable physical objects."

How on earth do you know that? There has never been a single experiment carried out to check what you are claiming. In fact I put my last penny on my claim that Bell-CHSH inequality would be violated as strongly in the macroworld as it is in the microworld, provided an appropriate experiment in the macroscopic domain is carried out. Below I am attaching a proposal for just such a macro-experiment. This proposal also appears as Chapter 3 of my book.

I categorically claim that if my proposed experiment is carried out, then the violation of Bell-CHSH inequality would be confirmed in the macroworld and Bell's theorem would be finally put in its rightful place---i.e., in the graveyard.

Joy Christian

attachments: 32_0806.3078v2.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian:

Material similar to this has been around for decades. We used to try violating BT as a game. We'd use letters in words in blocks of text. Bunches of coins or keys, or coins and keys together. Food containers pulled at random from kitchen shelves. All you do is define your set, select three characteristics applicable to the set members that can be answered Yes or No (longer than, shorter than, lighter than, heavier than, boxed or not, tinned or not, picture of product on container (or not) ... use your imagination. Set up your truth table and go for it.

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/B
ellsTheorem/BellsTheorem.html

I'm too lazy to follow the proper link protocol. Now ... BT can be "violated" macroscopically by simulating entanglement, the probably most notable example of that trick being Dirk Aerts' two-vessels-connected-by-a-tube gedanken. (By the way, he says he contacted you once re: algebra but you were too busy fighting off the attacks on one of your early papers to be of help.) It's not the same thing as a genuine violation, however.

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 16:37 GMT

Hi nmann,

Thanks for the link. I do not want to pollute Edwin's blog space with our own private discussion, but let me make two quick remarks: (1) I do not recall being contacted by Dirk Aerts. I think I would have remembered and responded. Perhaps there was some communication problem. (2) I do not mean the kind of violations of BI you mention. I mean genuine violations using the correct macroscopic analogue of the microscopic EPR correlation. That is what I have proposed in the paper linked above. But thanks anyway for your comments.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

nmann replied on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 21:29 GMT

Joy,

Dated 21 July 2008, part of an online discussion (on GUTalk, now defunct) of "The Violation of Bell Inequalities in the Macroworld". I pretty much facilitated the whole thing by first mentioning the paper and then dragging him into the resulting debate. (I told him people were calling him silly and crazy. As in fact they were. That piqued his interest. He's a fine gentleman, BTW.) You and others here might find this interesting in general:

"Yes, I have read Christian's work. It is, in my opinion, a good example of seeing too much the mathematics and not the rude engineers-like physics reality. One is not in the first place interested in the signs of observables with respect to the Bell-inequality situation, but in the (ordinary) probability of outcomes. By the way, Marek Czachor and myself contacted Christian with respect to his model when it appeared on the archives a year ago, most of all because we also are working with Clifford Algebra's (using them to built a computation with all the advantages of quantum computation but without the need of quantum structures in Hilbert space, see for example http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0611279 ), but he is very much struggling defending his stuff at the moment (see his reactions to some of the critiques). Now, what he does is interesting, but for a different reason, namely Clifford Algebra structures indeed manage to capture some of the quantum structure, which is also why we have been able to use them for a kind of quantum-like computation. It remains hence an interesting question, since Clifford Algebra structures refer to classical geometric structures in physics, in which way this may lead to getting a better grip on the way that some of the quantum structure can also be found in ordinary geometric structures of macroscopic reality. However, I don't think it will be in the way that Christian puts forward in these recent papers, and it is my guess that Bell's theorem is not touched by it for what it means for the nature of reality with respect to locality and hidden variables."

report post as inappropriate

nmann,

Interesting discussion. Yes, Marek Czachor did get in touch with me just after my first paper on Bell came out back in 2007. Dirk's comments about my work, however, are outdated and miss the point about my program. Unfortunately he is not the only one to miss the point. My program is misunderstood by many, including some of its supporters. I urge you to read at least the one-page paper of mine I am attaching below to see for yourself how outdated Dirk's comments are. More details of my program can be found in the second paper I am attaching. I am taking liberty to attach these papers here with hopes that Edwin won't mind, because he is interested in my work and discusses it in his essay.

Joy

attachments: 14_disproof.pdf, 8_Origins.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 11:48 GMT

I am very concerned about my argument against Bell's theorem being misconstrued even further than it already is. Therefore---at a risk of displeasing Edwin---let me reproduce my comments on his essay here from the "Disproofs" blog:

---------------------------------------

Dear Edwin,

Thank you very much for discussing my work in your essay and citing my book and a paper. I have just looked at it very briefly. You have discussed your ideas very clearly, and with beautiful pictures.

I am sorry to say, however, that your argument against Bell does not address his concerns, as far as I can see. In particular, your model does not satisfy his "free will" requirement (i.e., the requirement 6 among the 8 requirements I have listed in Chapter 5 of my book). According to his "free will" requirement Alice and Bob should be completely free to choose any measurement directions at will, for each run (or trial) of the experiment. To show you why your model violates this requirement, let Alice and Bob choose to keep their respective measurement directions *fixed* for all runs of the experiment. They are perfectly entitled to do so under the "free will" requirement. But then your model cannot reproduce the correlation -a.b, since it depends on Alice having chosen a smaller angle than Bob's chosen angle for one half of the runs of the experiment and a greater angle than Bob's chosen angle for the other half of the runs of the experiment. This also makes the model non-local. For how is Alice to ensure the 50/50 balance without knowing which angle Bob has chosen for all runs of the experiment? You cannot simply hope that the balance will turn out to be 50/50. There has to be a mechanism (or "common cause") in the model that ensures that balance.

In short, your model is not a counterexample to Bell's theorem, or a local model for the EPR correlations. It is not that easy to construct a counterexample to Bell's theorem. In fact it is very nearly impossible.

I nevertheless wish you good luck with your essay, for you have discussed many other things besides Bell's theorem. I am sure they will turn out to be both interesting and valuable to many.

With best wishes,

Joy

------------------------------------------

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 22:37 GMT

Dear Joy,

Since I am using your framework, it is only fair that you feel free to comment on its use, so I am happy with your above comment. I am also happy, since I essentially disagree with your physics while retaining your mathematical framework, that you are not offended either. The comments on the "Disproofs" blogs have gotten so nasty that I completely wish to avoid such here. As I remarked to Tom above, I knew, from his support for you on your blogs that he would have trouble with my essay and of course I knew that you too would have difficulty accepting my interpretation of the appropriate use of your framework.

Tom's comment was most gracious and I reproduce his first sentence:

"I really enjoyed this paper -- I could overlook every nit which I question, and come away only with the argument that the wave function is not probabilistic -- and still be satisified."

I'm pleased that he focused on the agreement we have and declined to go into deeper argument. So, Joy, I will also copy over my initial response to you on the Disproof blog, then I will address the specifics in a followup comment:

Dear Joy,

Thanks for reading my essay and responding here. Your argument about Alice and Bob having free will implying that they never vary their angles is not the way I would have interpreted his requirement, but you do have a point. I expected to encounter arguments as a result of publishing this brief treatment in the essay, and of course will consider the arguments that accrue and try to address them.

You know that I think you have an excellent framework and believe it will win out in the end. I hope that I can end up fitting into it in a way that you will support.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear FQXi'ers,

Since my volume form, based on the left-handed C-field, is *not* free to change between runs (as does Joy's physics), I need another means of cancelling the unwanted terms that show up. To do so I choose Bell's "free will" requirement, that I interpret to mean independent uncorrelated choices made by 'Bob' and 'Alice'.

Joy has pointed out that "free will" does not mean the 50/50 distribution that I have assumed. He may be correct on this point, and I will have to answer it, but my first response is that I believe my interpretation is what most researchers assume. In fact they make great efforts to assure that Bob and Alice make *independent* choices, and even go so far as to arrange random decision making processes that will apply while the particles are in flight, removing completely the possibility that Alice and Bob can collude.

In his 2010 book, "Dance of the Photons", the foremost researcher, Anton Zeilinger actually defines "the definitive experiment" as the one in which 'a' and 'b' are selected independently (satisfying my needs) and his definitive experiment "changes settings during the flight of the particles." Thus, despite Joy's claim that my assumption is invalid, it is the assumption employed in the definitive experiments, that is, "both sides operated independently".

Therefore, Joy has brought up an intellectual point that I must address, but the definitive Bell-type experiments seem to agree with me. As Zeilinger states: "events are just events, and they are in no need of interpretation." and "The explanation of the events depends on later actions and decisions we or someone else might make." Zeilinger basically accepts the Copenhagen Interpretation, which my essay goes to great lengths to discredit. As for Bell, Zeilinger does say: "...the final verdict is not in yet" and "Whatever conclusion you draw is up to you."

So I acknowledge that Joy has made a criticism that I must address, but I believe the actual facts are on my side.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Joy Christian replied on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 00:13 GMT

Dear Edwin,

I so hate to disagree with you, but disagree I must.

As a model builder your primary obligation is to reproduce the experimental facts. I am afraid, however, that your model fails this first and the most basic of all tests.

Forget Bell's theorem for a second. Consider a typical EPR-Bohm experiment. Without prejudice for or against Bell, fix the two measurement directions chosen by Alice and Bob. For definiteness, let these directions be a and b, with 30 degree angle between them. Now let Alice and Bob make a large number of observations. They will record +1 and -1 in their logbooks, independently of each other. Then, at the end of the day, they will get together to compare their notes. They will then calculate the correlation between the numbers recorded in their notes, in the standard, well established way. What will they find? They will find a definite, fixed, number:

E(a, b) = -a.b = -cos(30) = 0.866...

What is more, this is exactly the number predicted by quantum mechanics.

Now your obligation is to reproduce this number. Bell and his theorem are irrelevant. Anton Zeilinger is irrelevant. I am irrelevant. What is relevant is that you must reproduce this number for the experiment described, with the fixed directions a and b. If you cannot reproduce this number without varying the directions a and b, then your model fails. It is as simple as that. No elaborate interpretations or deeper reflections are necessary. No need to worry about what Bell did or did not say.

Now I make a claim: The only way you can reproduce this number and beat Bell is my way. There is no other way. It is a zero sum game. Either you accept my whole package and beat Bell, or you accept non-locality or non-reality in the manner of Bell. There is no third way. The reason for this is the fact that EPR correlations are what they are because of the geometry and topology of the unit parallelized 3-sphere, not because of anything else. This is Nature's choice, not mine.

You are of course free to reject the last paragraph, but you are not free to reject the experimental facts described in the preceding paragraphs.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 01:21 GMT

Joy,

This last week I met with several physicists to discuss my model. They asked several questions which I have had to work to answer, and in doing so I now have new insight into (and increased confidence in) my own model. Having worked for several years alone, I have answered most of my own questions, and am now in process of working on others questions. I *always* learn something by answering questions that I myself have not thought of. So I welcome your questions, and I expect to gain from figuring out the correct answer. You may be correct, but if I have to choose between a known field -- first proposed by Maxwell, then predicted by Einstein's relativity, and recently measured by Gravity Probe B and with a coherence factor measured by Martin Tajmar -- that satisfies all of the points raised in my essay and also has the particle physics implications I have worked out over the past few years, and a 7D topology that switches handedness in convenient fashion to accomplish one main thing, beating Bell's claim about -a(dot)b, then I am going to continue going down my path. You have had a number of years to meet others challenges, and still have not met their objections, although I give you full credit for the yeoman-like efforts you have put forth. I have had a few weeks now to respond to others objections and am satisfied with my initial progress.

Of course you may be correct. I realize that. But it is very early in the game for my model, and I must admit that the many successes that my model has had in the realm of particle physics encourage me to hope for similar success in the realm of quantum mechanics. As you mentioned in your first reply to me, I "have discussed [in my essay] many other things besides Bell's theorem [and you are] sure they will turn out to be both interesting and valuable to many." I too am sure that will be the case.

So with all due respect for your expertise in Bell's theorem, and with recognition that I must eventually address all of your points, I am nowhere near throwing in the towel. I realize that your investment in the 'switching topology' will influence your acceptance of my model, and I expect challenges from you. I merely hope to avoid the hostility that has arisen on the Disproof blogs.

Thanks for your inputs.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 03:18 GMT

Dear Edwin,

Ideas can be considered in many different positive ways, as just ideas, separate from egos. You are right to consider all questions and criticism as positive opportunities, either to exhibit the merits of your model or to improve on it over time. I admire your confidence and resolve. Good luck.

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (13 not shown)

Dear Joy Christian,

There are several issues, but let me dispose of the 'personal' first. I did not interpret Georgina's very nice compliment to me as in any way reflecting on you.

Second, I did not mean to imply that I have "taken sides with" your critics from the Disproof blogs, most of whom argue about a mathematical step. Although it is probably poorly worded, it is still true that you have not "met their objections", in the sense that they still object. You also know that I have defended you against their attempt to apply mathematics in a 'same-time' fashion that is explicitly against the spirit of your physics. In fact, you have posted my defense at least a half dozen times. Therefore I think you overstate the case to say, "I am sorry to note that you have taken the silly and ignorant objections to my efforts by some less-than-qualified individuals very seriously."

As I have remarked to you a number of times, I do not find higher-dimensional physics theories credible. Of course I could be mistaken in this. I am perhaps more open to unusual topologies, but I cannot conceive of a likely case in which handedness switches between experiments in a 50/50 fashion while remaining (as I interpret it) fixed for the duration of an indefinitely long experimental run (in theory Alice and Bob can be in different galaxies.)

Therefore I have, rightly or wrongly, divided your approach into a mathematical framework and a physics portion. The math is based on geometric algebra (appropriately so, in my view) and upon physics that is represented in this framework. As stated, I have a hard time accepting the physics of higher dimensions and synchronized switching topologies of space-time, so I instead have attempted to express my own physics in your framework.

I will address this physics in following comments.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 22:15 GMT

Dear Joy,

In a comment you first claim that I should hold the angle fixed ("let Alice and Bob choose to keep their respective measurement directions *fixed* for all runs of the experiment. They are perfectly entitled to do so under the "free will" requirement.") Then in the last comment you claim that ("Because the cosine angle averages out to zero just as the sine angle does ... Edwin's model predicts exactly zero correlation, E(a, b) = 0, not E(a, b) = -a.b "

But assume that Alice and Bob agree to hold the angle fixed, but then decide to flip a coin (or in some other way) decide whose angle will be the clock-wise-most angle. The average, as I understand it will in this case be cos (30) since cos(30) = cos(-30) and the sine components cancel, since sin(30) = -sin(-30). So I don't understand your comment that my model always obtains an answer identically zero. This, as I understand it, is simply the same result that you get by claiming synchronized switching topology.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 22:18 GMT

Dear Joy,

I may be confused about this, but I understand the problem to be one of showing whether or not Bell's theorem leads to 'hidden variable'-based calculations that yield the same predictions as quantum mechanics calculations. Because, as I clearly state in my essay, my wave function *is* the quantum mechanical wave function, then I should reproduce the same quantum mechanical results as quantum mechanics. The question is why Bell does not, given his assumptions. You have claimed that Bell makes a complicated topological error: "Bell's prescription is not only false, it is breathtakingly naive and unphysical." (your book, page 3).

In a way we agree on this. In an earlier paper ("Physics-based Disproof...") referenced in my essay, I claim that Bell's use of a unit vector (a or b) to represent the inhomogeneous Stern-Gerlach field is unphysical. But of course the only way to actually compare any result to Bell's calculation is to use this unit vector, so we are to some degree stuck between a rock and a hard place.

As I have continued to ponder Bell's theorem, I also realized that his use of a simple unit vector to represent the actual physical spin (due to a finite particle and associated fields) is a similar error, since the particle induces fields that do *not* have the character of a simple unit vector. For this reason I believe that his two unit vectors vastly oversimplify the situation in which an inhomogeneous spin field traverses an inhomogeneous magnetic field, and therefore his oversimplified calculation ("Bell's inequality") is not to be taken seriously. At least not seriously enough to change all of our ideas of local realism.

For exactly this reason I believe that your framework in which 'volume forms' are employed instead of unit vectors is both ingenius and appropriate, and I have, as explained in my essay, described a volume form that is appropriate to my theory of the wave function.

To summarize, my wave function, being a solution to the Schrodinger equation, should provide the same results as quantum mechanical calculations. As Feynman stated: "The same equations have the same solutions." But your clever reformulation of Bell's theorem, based on replacing overly simplistic unit vectors with more appropriate volume forms, should also produce the QM results. It is my expectation that my volume form will accomplish this, in the end.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 23:07 GMT

Dear Tom,

I very much appreciate your recognition that Joy and I apparently agree in a number of ways. I fully respect your mathematical capability and also your physics insight, although you and I may have fundamental differences here.

I do not dismiss your conviction that Joy's math agrees with your conceptions. But let me repeat a story here that may be more meaningful now that it may relate to the problem at hand. As you know Kaluza-Klein proposed a fifth dimension to unite gravity and electromagnetism, and ended up explaining the charge of an electron as related to a 'small circle' in the fifth dimension. Elsewhere (see "Chromodynamics War") I invoke a field, the C-field, and also derive charge as related to a 'small circle', but in 3 (or 4 space-time) dimensions. Lee Smolin has remarked that:

"A property of an extra dimension -- the radius of the extra circle in Kaluza-Klein theory -- can be interpreted as a field varying over the other dimension."

This implies to me that perhaps the "extra dimensions" that Joy invokes can be interpreted as a "field varying over the other dimensions", in which case, as you say, we might reach the same place by different roads.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin,

We have all gone through all the various issues you mention, in several blogs, so let me not pollute your author's blog with them again.

The bottom line is this:

Quantum mechanics predicts the following correlation function for the singlet state:

E(a, b) = -a.b.

This correlation function says that, given two fixed directions a and b, if the angle between them happens to be equal to 30 degrees, then the quantum correlation predicted by the singlet state is

E(a, b) = -cos(30) = -0.866...

This is a result from Quantum Mechanics 101. You cannot possibly dispute this result. Any would be modeller of quantum mechanics must reproduce this number, just to get started. All I am asking you for now is to reproduce this number---not in words, or hopes, or intentions---but by explicit calculation---for the fixed directions a and b. If you cannot reproduce this basic prediction of quantum mechanics, then your program---despite all of its worthy intensions---has failed already.

You need not take this as a criticism. If you accomplish this, then it would be a massive boost to your program. According to Bell, as well as me, you will not be able to.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 07:03 GMT

Hi Joy, Edwin,

I have to agree with Joy here. It is pretty well known that particle spins can be parallel or anti-parallel to a particles direction of motion plus it is also well known that EM radiation can be left or right circularly polarized.

So you really need to figure out how to get your C field to be both left and right handed. Nature is that way, so there must be a way. You would need to get the +/- 1 factor in your eq. 11.

Best,

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 21:06 GMT

Dear Fred,

The wave function is *not* the spin your are talking about. The spin, whether for electrons or photons, is measured by its electromagnetic properties. From de Broglie on, it's been understood that the wave function is not the electromagnetic field. On the other hand the wave function *does* correspond to neutrino spin (and Z and W bosons) and here Nature most certainly does do it my way (i.e. lefthanded).

Thanks for the comment. I still hope to bring you around!

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 21:12 GMT

Joy,

You keep asking me to produce a quantum mechanical calculation with my model, which indicates to me you haven't understood my model. My model yields Schrodinger's equation and the solutions to Schrodinger's equation, so I get identically the same results that quantum mechanics gets.

All I do is claim that the wave function is physical, *not* information only. By the way, I received in the mail this morning my latest issue of Physical Review Letters, which seems to agree with me. The article, (PRL 108, 260404 29 June 2012) "Implications of the Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph Quantum No-Go Theorem" undermining the quantum state as "mere information" (or "knowledge") about the real physical state of a system. As I understand it, my model is compatible with this theorem.

You have spent thousands of words telling others that they did not understand your approach, and to read it again. I don't believe that you understand my approach, or you would not keep telling me to use QM to achieve a QM result. I can't achieve anything else, since my equation and solutions are the same as QM. Please try to understand this.

However, like you, I believe that Bell got the wrong answer, and so I take advantage of your framework to reformulate Bell's problem -- using the volume forms that you proposed and that I find very appropriate. In this case I *do* depart from standard QM, since the standard QM does not use trivectors. The intent here is to show that, properly formulated Bell's approach matches QM, not his inequality. I may fail in this regard, but please try to understand what I am doing. Your repeated challenge to derive a QM result is proof that you haven't yet understood my approach.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

show all replies (3 not shown)

Joy Christian replied on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 23:09 GMT

Hi Edwin,

You wrote: "You keep asking me to produce a quantum mechanical calculation with my model..."

No. I am *not* asking you to do that. I am *not* asking you to produce a quantum mechanical calculation. I am asking you to *reproduce* one of the most basic predictions of quantum mechanics within your own model. I am not concerned about what your model is or whether or not I understand it. Whatever your model is, it MUST reproduce the number -0.866 as a singlet correlation along two fixed directions a and b, 30 degrees apart. This number is a well established empirical fact. But you are unable to reproduce it within your model. I claim that you will *never* be able to reproduce this empirical fact---which also happens to be a prediction of quantum mechanics---unless you embrace my framework in its entirety.

Now you can prove me wrong quite easily. All you have to do is to calculate the number -0.866 explicitly, for the fixed directions a and b, within your own model.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 23:11 GMT

Hello,

You confound really Joy what is the Universal dynamic and its irreversibility and the programmation by computing.

1 is not equal to -1 at my knowledge, the symmetries are bad understood in their pure physicality.The calsulations are just a mirror in fact, the same results for the same equations, but ....

all functions do not go to the FUNCTIONS.

Ans also , the informations are encoded in a pure 3D dynamic !!!The waves and the informations.....=......rotations of spheres !!!

Edwin, I agree about your words, that said don't forget that the rotating 3D spheres asnwer to all.So the spin and the waves are linked.

You are right about the physicality of these waves, furthermore the informations also can be encoded in this mass. All is a pure physicality even the informations are under a specific universal dynamic.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 23:25 GMT

Let's play

Let's speak about the entropy and the information ok ?

well

and you speak about predictions ??? and empirical facts ???? you are not rational you know ???

I ask me how is the model implied to an isothermal system with N molecules like in the ideal gas for example with a volume precise .The increase of information ..."is it proportional with entropy ?"

You can speak about the maxwell demon you know. And after we shall link with the disorder and the order !

report post as inappropriate

hide replies

Dear Joy,

You say: "Whatever your model is, it MUST reproduce the number -0.866 as a singlet correlation along two fixed directions a and b, 30 degrees apart. This number is a well established empirical fact. But you are unable to reproduce it within your model. I claim that you will *never* be able to reproduce this empirical fact---which also happens to be a prediction of quantum mechanics---unless you embrace my framework in its entirety."

It's pretty clear that you don't understand what I am saying, which is that I calculate the correlation EXACTLY the way it is done in quantum mechanics. But since the implication seems to be that I don't know how it's done in quantum mechanics, I will tell you how I would do it.

Beginning with equations (4) and (5) in my essay for the time evolution operator and Schrodinger's equation, I would use the appropriate Hamiltonion for the electron spin 'u' in a magnetic field 'B'

U(t) = exp (iHt/h) => exp (iu.B/h)

where U(t) is the evolution operator, t is the time, h is Planck's constant, u is electron spin and B is the external magnetic field and the period is the dot operator and the Hamiltonion becomes time independent. This would be applied to the singlet states to evolve the states to Alice's and Bob's respective directions of the magnetic field and the correlation found in the usual way by calculating the expectation value between initial states and the evolved states, where Bob's evolution operator does not affect Alice's particle and Alice's evolution operator does not affect Bob's particle. The result will involve a term of the form

< singlet | s.a s.b | singlet >

where s is the Pauli spin matrix and a is the direction of Alice's field and b is the direction of Bob's field.

Then I would make use of the identity (s.a)(-s.b) = -a.b plus -is.(axb) and Bell (equation 3) claims this results in -a.b

There may be other ways to explain this, but I believe they are equivalent. Most explanations will involve ensembles and the density matrix, with density rho=(I plus a.s)/2 for an ensemble of spin one-half particles, but the above is about as succinct as I can manage for a text-based comment.

Joy, it's pretty clear that you will never accept any statement that does not agree that you have the only possible way, and it's also clear that you have not understood what it is that I am saying. I do not wish to turn this into an extension of your 'Disproof' blog, so as far as I'm concerned we can leave it that you do not accept the ideas put forth in my essay. For anyone who has followed all of your blogs, that was a foregone conclusion.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Joy Christian replied on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 08:19 GMT

Dear Edwin,

I am sorry, but we cannot leave it at that. As far as I have understood, you are making a claim that your model reproduces quantum mechanical correlations in every respect, but at the same time your model is both *local* and *realistic*, thus providing, in particular, a local-realistic explanation for the singlet correlation, in contradiction to Bell's theorem . If this is not the claim you are making, then I do apologize and withdraw all my comments from this blog.

However, what you have described above, and in your paper, is neither a local model, nor does it reproduce the observed singlet correlation, -a.b, for the fixed observation directions a and b of Alice and Bob. It is pretty clear that you have not understood Bell's theorem at all. The fact that "Bob's evolution operator does not affect Alice's particle and Alice's evolution operator does not affect Bob's particle" DOES NOT make your model local in any way. Nor does your use of the identity (s.a)(-s.b) = -a.b plus -is.(axb) reproduce the scalar result -a.b for the fixed directions a and b.

I am forced to say this because you are making a use of my framework and implying that you have improved upon it. As grateful as I am to you for that, I cannot possibly let you misuse my framework the way you are misusing it and not make a comment. So I assert, as clearly as I can: your model is not a local model, and it does not reproduce the singlet correlation for the fixed observation directions of Alice and Bob (or even for the unfixed directions as far as I can see). Therefore your model is not a counterexample to Bell's theorem.

Having said that, I have no objections to your model explaining---in a different and perhaps more enlightened (but ultimately *non-local*) way---some of the physics usually described by quantum theory. That is very nice. But your claim of producing a local model for the singlet correlation is simply false. You are nowhere near accomplishing that.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 15:27 GMT

Hi Edwin,

On a second thought, I am afraid I will have to take back my comment that at least as a non-local model your model may be nice. In fact even as a non-local model it blatantly violates relativistic causality, because it blatantly violates parameter independence (parameters a and b have to be randomized in harmony to get the correlations right even for the non-fixed a and b). In other words, your model harbors signal non-locality that is even worse than that of Bohm's theory, even if we ignore the manifest backward causation between a and b. This is on the top of the fact that the model cannot reproduce the most basic experimental observations without randomizing a and b. Oh, well.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 20:39 GMT

"Criticism like rain should be gentle enough to nourish a person's growth" Geoffrey Moss

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (2 not shown)

Hi Joy,

You make several points. I still do not believe you understand my model. Since I propose that the wave function is a circulation in a local field induced by a mass current in accordance with the weak field equations of relativity, I think it's clear that the model *is* a local model. As I note above, the PBR No-Go theorem seems to imply a real physical field as opposed to an...

view entire post

Hi Joy,

You make several points. I still do not believe you understand my model. Since I propose that the wave function is a circulation in a local field induced by a mass current in accordance with the weak field equations of relativity, I think it's clear that the model *is* a local model. As I note above, the PBR No-Go theorem seems to imply a real physical field as opposed to an 'information-only' wave function, and the latest experimental measurements of the wave function also seem to imply this.

Therefore I don't believe that you can argue, as you appear to, that my model is not local. What you might argue is that I cannot successfully map this model into quantum mechanics. I believe that the fact that the free particle solution in my model is almost identical to the quantum mechanical free particle suggests that I *can* perform this map. On the other hand all real QM representations assume a Schrodinger 'wave packet' and thus a Fourier superposition that ususally entails a Gaussian apodization function and a close analysis of my equation appears to imply a slightly different apodization function, so there still results a 'spread' of momenta in both models that may or may not be equivalent. Since A. Zee remarks that "a significant fraction of papers in theoretical physics consists of performing variations and elaborations of this basic Gaussian integral" I do not believe that there is a 'God-given' apodization function for QM and therefore my apparently equivalent formulation seems acceptable as a wave function.

You ignore the fact that the actual physical mechanism I postulate in my theory *automatically* makes the wave function local, and therefore your insistence that it is not is misplaced. Also you claim that my use of the identity does not reproduce the scala -a.b, but my claim was that my use is identical to the standard QM use, so does, or does not, that produce -a.b?

You say that I am using your framework and claiming to improve on it, therefore you are forced to comment. I have in a number of places acknowledged your right to comment on this, and do so now, although at some point it becomes a waste of time. Those who see an error in your math certainly could not 'wait you out' as you have never accepted even the possibility that you made an error. As I also mentioned, it is early in the game for my model, and while I am willing to face the fact that I may have made an error, I am not ready to concede that it is irrevocable. So no matter how much you protest, I will simply try to understand your point and determine to address it, either now or in the future.

You claim that I do not understand Bell's theorem as well as you do. But if your contention is correct -- that Bell made a fundamental mistake -- it does not really matter whether or not I know exactly where he is wrong (although as I note above, I think I do know.) If he is wrong, then his inequality that is the primary basis for his claim of non-locality is also wrong, and cannot be used to argue for non-locality, as you seem to be doing against my model. I repeat, I think you are confused about my model. It is not surprising, as you have been twisting your own brain around your topological ideas for years now, while I have been doing similar based on my understanding for a while also. Where you have an advantage on me is that you have been defending against challenges much longer than I, and so have worked out, at least to your own satisfaction, what the answers are.

As I mentioned in an earlier comment, I welcome questions that I have not thought of, as I always learn something from answering these question, or at least trying to.

Since my model is, on its physical face, local, then I must try to translate all of your claims that it is non-local into some understanding of what you could mean, and that is made difficult by the fact that you don't even understand that the field is local. This could go on for a while.

Bst Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 21:42 GMT

Dear FQXi'ers,

Comments above indicate that clarification is needed to connect my real physical model of particle plus wave with the 'standard' quantum mechanical correlations. Specifically, I note that the physical field induced by the (non-point) particles satisfies the Schrodinger equation for the free particle and can even be used to 'derive' the Schrodinger equation. The essay then develops the relation between this physical wave and the mathematical wave function, explaining the correlation of the normalized probability amplitudes and the non-normalizable wave. Quantum Mechanics, per se, is still calculated in terms of the probability amplitudes and thus results in the same answers that have been obtained since Schrodinger first formulated his equation, and Born interpreted the waves as probability. Because many physicists believe that non-locality is implicit in the configuration space formulation of QM I discuss the origin of this concept and show that it derived from the mistaken belief that physical waves propagate without particles. But since Bell also claims to show that non-locality is implicit in QM --- based on his oversimplified analysis (I think Joy and I agree on this statement?)-- I also attempt to show how my model, in Joy Christian's volume-form-based formulation, results in the correct correlation. Joy, not surprisingly, disputes these results, as they do not require or imply his synchronous switching topology. I believe that he is wrong in some of his statements above, but of course I will continue to work on this application of my model to his framework to try to address all criticism.

While I assume that it is possible some combination of my local physical wave function and Joy's topological analysis could both be true, this seems an unlikely and awkward solution to the problem.

I thank Joy for his development of a 'volume-form'-based approach to Bell's theorem and for his fighting the good fight against a non-local (and nonsensical) interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Joy Christian replied on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 22:20 GMT

Hi Edwin,

This is indeed a waste of time for both of us. We will have to agree to disagree. You have made your points and I have made mine. Here is where we stand:

(1) You claim your model is local. I claim your model is nonlocal in the worse possible sense. It harbors an extreme form of signalling non-locality.

(2) You claim, or at least thought earlier, that you can reproduce the strong quantum correlations in your model. I claim you cannot---not even the most basic one (-0.866...)---and not unless you embrace my entire framework by recognizing and understanding the true topological origins of the quantum correlations.

(3) You claim you have produced a counterexample to Bell's theorem. I claim you do not even understand Bell's theorem, let alone producing a counterexample to it.

(4) You claim I do not understand your model. I claim I understand it enough to say what I have said about it (in fact I understand it much better than you do).

(5) You pay attention to some silly criticisms of my model made by some uninformed and unqualified people. I pay attention to them only to point out their own errors.

I think it is best to end this discussion here, as you also seem to be suggesting.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 22:48 GMT

Hi Joy,

I agree that there is no point in continuing this ad nauseam. I disagree with your above points, and I believe you do not understand my model, but as it conflicts with your synchronized switching topology model, I do not expect to change your mind. Hopefully, those who are not committed to your model will continue to give my model a fair critical analysis.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

show all replies (3 not shown)

Joy Christian replied on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 22:55 GMT

Just a small point: If my model is a "synchronized switching topology model", then Obama is the Queen of England.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 1, 2012 @ 23:17 GMT

Then your model is definitely not a "synchronized switching topology model"!

But I have essentially characterized it this way many times as my legitimate way of understanding what you are saying, and you have never explained to me how or why the topology switches between experimental runs but not during experimental runs, so I assumed that my characterization was accurate. If you care to do so here, please do so. I am curious about this point. I do not wish to mislead others about the nature of your topological model. I admit that I do not understand the physics of your topology. Since I have apparently mistakenly described it, please fell free to use my blog space to correct this description. I will not comment further on this point.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Joy Christian replied on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 00:27 GMT

Hi Edwin,

Thank you for being generous with your blog space. It is pity that Internet can be such a two-edged sword. It is a blessing in that we can have open discussions like this, but it could also be a scholar's nightmare in that subtle ideas can be misconstrued on the Internet, if they fall into wrong hands.

In any case, here is what is actually happening in my model. The volume form, mu, is just an outward tool, a garment, if you like, or a representation, of the orientation of the physical space, S^3, which is one of the solutions of Einstein's field equations. Now, mathematically, for any space (not necessarily the physical space) there are always two orientations possible. Let us call them left and right orientations. The choice between them has to do with how the ordered basis of that space is chosen. So, for any space, there exists a natural freedom of choice between left and right orientation. We must make a choice between the two possible orientations before we start solving any mathematical problem within that space. Usually, we instinctively make a choice of the right orientation without even thinking about it, but a choice we must make.

Now think about the moment of creation of the EPR pair of particles. As soon as they begin evolving, in whatever space they may be evolving, they have to make a choice, as a sheer mathematical necessity, before they can even get started doing whatever they want to do. What I noticed, back in 2007, was that this freedom of choice fits hand-in-glove with the notion of the initial state introduced by Bell in his local-realistic framework. He called this initial state "lambda", the hidden variable. All I have done in my model is equate Bell's lambda with the natural freedom of choice in the orientation of space that exists for any physical system before it can get started doing whatever it wants to do. Now Bell took his lambda to be a random variable. But what could be more random than a 50/50 chance? So I equated Bell's random lambda to the random choice of orientation of the physical space, with 50/50 chance for each of the two options. Despite all the fuss some people have made about this, it is the most natural thing any physicist could have done. In any case, it is hardly "a switching topology", because the topology of the space is the same for both of its orientations. It is more like flipping a coin to decide whether to turn left or right at a forking path, for you can't venture on both paths at the same time.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

hide replies

Hello Edwin Eugene,

I have downloaded, and glanced at, your essay - which I plan to read for detail in the next day or so. It appears that you echo or champion some of the same points I make in my essay, which was submitted 24 hours ago. I also mention JC's ideas and the PBR paper that favors a literal interpretation of the wavefunction.

I agree with Joy's comment just above, that there is an inherent choice built in to the topology of spaces, and I actually address this briefly in my endnotes - assuming my paper posts as-is. But I feel it is not only possible, but essential to forge links between the geometric approach and approaches involving the wavefunction.

While some folks tend to feel that you can't have it both ways, I tend to believe that it has to work both ways, being internally consistent within both sides of a dual representation - for it to work in nature at all. That is; the wave-like portion needs to follow the rules for waves and the particle-like aspect needs to follow particle rules - but it's not like we can choose one or the other and know the whole picture.

However; Dieter Zeh clearly argues that the wave-like representation can tell you what is really happening better than the discrete view. More comments will follow once I've read for detail.

Good Luck!

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 2, 2012 @ 03:53 GMT

Hi Jonathan,

Very good to see you back. I do look forward to reading your work. I have just read and given a glowing comment to Ulf Klein's essay and think you might like it also.

Too bad our friend Ray Munroe is not here this year, but here's to his memory.

I very much look forward to your comments after you've read my essay.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hello again,

I've digested more of your paper and glanced at Ulf Klein's and Stanley Reiter's - noting connections across a common theme. I'm putting together a brief paper reviewing my conceptual approach to decoherence, and comments about the wavefunction, so I don't end up recreating the same information in 3 or 4 places.

Expect some comments soon, regardless.

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Hello Edwin Eugene,

Here is some food for thought; the first few pages of the document promised above, with thoughts on decoherence and the wavefunction. It may turn into something that can be published, when complete, but now is just a draft of a Physics letter.

I'll likely have some specific comments on your paper later or tomorrow.

Jonathan

attachments: DecoherenceReviewDraft.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 3, 2012 @ 00:48 GMT

Jonathan,

Great! I'll be reading this while you look at my essay. I'm glad several of us are focused on quantum mechanics and wave function issues. Michael Goodband just posted another, asking if "quantum theory is as fundamental as it seems", but his is very complex and I've only read it once.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 3, 2012 @ 03:18 GMT

Jonathan, -- a very brief review looks as if we have the universe bracketed!

A Great paper!

I enjoyed reading your essay very much, Edwin Eugene. I thought I'd have to put it aside, but then could not put it down and found myself at the end. I will need to read pages 6-9 again, and maybe more too, before I can determine whether you have proved your point or not.

There is certainly a lot to like, in your paper, content wise. You have chosen to champion several insights I favor; so how could I complain? I guess I could wish your theory was more even-handed, as some other folks have commented. I am uncertain where the C-field handedness comes from, but I do recall it is integral to your construction.

Very interesting ideas, and worth a little digging to flesh out my understanding what they are about. More feedback after I re-read and digest, compare notes, and so on.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 3, 2012 @ 19:42 GMT

Jonathan,

A heart-warming comment. Thank you very much. I am very pleased that you enjoy the paper as I have always been impressed by both your essays and your comments in these fora.

By the way, I just finished reading Dan Bruiger's essay, and highly recommend it as well.

Thanks again,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Thank you for addressing basic issues concerning the wave function. It is a long-standing scandal that so many physicists have stated that QM cannot be understoo - not stated as a humble confession that problems remain, but rather as a point of pride: "We 'understand' that we don't understand! And we tell our students to follow our fearless lead to forget about that old idea of 'understanding' and just go ahead and apply the formalism!" It is another scandal that professors teaching what they don't understand has not been seen as the crisis in academia that it represents. Wikipedia is not always a reliable guide, but it is instructive that fully seventeen, mutually incompatible "common" interpretations of QM are listed there. They all have philosophical attractions of one kind or another, but most end with an insoluble paradox. So, it will be interesting to see if the Klingman solution can convince others to follow-up on the physical implications of a wave function that does not allow "superposition" and does not demand "collapse". Good luck in the contest...

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 5, 2012 @ 02:07 GMT

Dear Norman Cook,

Your comments are very meaningful to me. A number of significant essays have already been submitted in this contest, but yours remains one of the very best.

As for the continued existence of contradictory models of basic physical processes, you stated it perfectly in a comment on your own thread:

"In the context of nuclear structure theory, the various nuclear models can account separately for different data sets, but the necessity of jumping from one model to another is jarring for anyone who values coherency... and makes me think there are different understandings of what "understanding" means."

Thanks for your participation -- you always raise the quality level of FQXi essay contests. And thanks again for your gracious comment.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Down the rabbit hole...

Some claim that Bell made a serious mistake and is wrong in his calculations and his conclusions. I have made such arguments and am in process of updating them in "Physics-based Disproof..." and I make another argument in my current essay. Joy Christian also claims that Bell is wrong, for reasons explained in his book and on his blogs. Just today I read a 2011 paper by Hess, De Raedt, and Michielsen on "Hidden Assumptions in the Derivation of the Theorem of Bell". And Ulf Klein's current FQXi essay analyzes the meaning of Bell's conclusions about completeness, and argues that quantum mechanics does not apply to individual events. There are many more such arguments against Bell.

On the other hand, many physicists assume that Bell has banished local reality. That is, reality is non-local and properties don't exist or become real until measurement. Of this 'weirdness' they brag 'we can't possibly understand it' so just "Shut up and calculate!"

To see just how cloud-cuckoo this can become, I call your attention to an Aug 3, 2012 PhysicsWorld article, "Can the future affect the past?" which discusses a new paper by Aharonov et al. based upon weak measurements (as described in my essay). Briefly, "Bell's theorem forbids spin values to exist prior to the final choice of the [EPR] spin-orientation to be measured," and yet the weak measurements [prior to choice] agree with the strong measurements [that 'collapse' the wave function and make the properties "real"].

Get ready. Here it comes:

Aharonov claims that "the only *reasonable* resolution seems to be that ... the weak measurement's outcomes anticipate the experimenter's future choice, even before the experimenters themselves know what their choice is going to be."

Yep, that's "reasonable" in a Bell world.

This is where blind faith in Bell's theorem leads. If this does not constitute de facto proof that Bell mis-analyzed the problem and came to a faulty conclusion, then such proof [as the actual experiments being discussed here] will probably never exist, and physicists will dive deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Joy Christian replied on Aug. 5, 2012 @ 08:03 GMT

Hi Edwin,

Very nice summary! I agree with every word of it, and more importantly, with the spirit of it.

However, what you have not yet appreciated (and this I know from our previous discussions and from your "physics based disproof") is that Bell did not make a silly, easy to overcome mistake. He made a profound discovery and a very instructive mistake. You have not yet understood either his discovery or his mistake. Bell discovered that quantum correlations are stronger, and hence more disciplined than the correlations we usually encounter in the classical world. This is a non-trivial discovery. Consequently, meeting Bell's challenge requires a non-trivial understanding of quantum correlations. It requires understanding what they are all about and where do they originate from.

Your "physics based disproof" does not come anywhere close to disproving Bell's theorem or even recognizing his error---because, as I have said before, you have no understanding of what Bell was concerned about. With all your good intensions, you must first understand Bell's theorem correctly before you can challenge it. The community of physicists who believe in Bell's theorem may be somewhat dogmatic, closed-minded, and naive, but they are most certainly not stupid. They believe in what they believe in for very good scientific reasons. Until you understand these reasons you have not understood Bell's theorem. You cannot disprove that which you haven't understood. I say this with the best of intentions because I know your heart is in the right place. I hope you will use my words for your own benefit.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 5, 2012 @ 08:11 GMT

Hi Edwin,

The scientific community has been asserting it's unquestionable authority that human beings have no soul, there is no hereafter, and that psychic phenomena doesn't exist on the basis that everything is explainable with science. You said,

"Aharonov claims that "the only *reasonable* resolution seems to be that ... the weak measurement's outcomes anticipate the experimenter's future choice, even before the experimenters themselves know what their choice is going to be."

Here you are trying to bring down an accepted theorem, Bell's theorem, on the grounds that weak measurements somehow know what the experimenter will chose. You make it look as if Bell's theorem has to be wrong, because if it's right, it means something spooky and paranormal is occurring.

I am not criticizing your point of view in the least. I am merely injecting my opinion that when science tells us there is no paranormal, no psychic phenomena, no soul, no ghosts, nothing unknown, that science can explain everything, that science is really feeding us a load of crap. Suddenly the choice of the experimenter is now part of some unknown variables. Clearly, quantum mechanics destroys all classical belief that we are soulless biological machines. I'll take back my faith, thank you.

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 5, 2012 @ 11:55 GMT

Hi Edwin,

A lot of physicists have undertaken to explain why action at a distance isn't "spooky." Aharonov's and everyone else's explanation necessarily relies on a probabilistic interpretation of reality. (Richard Gill is also among those who do not think that nonlocality is necessary to quantum mechanics -- that probability alone determines measurement outcomes.)

All of these explanations end up assuming what they intend to prove, for at least one very elementary mathematical reason (a), and one very elementary physical reason(b): a) the measure space is made of a continuous range of variables, while the measurement result is discrete (this is what makes Lamport's discovery profound); b) given that relativity is true, there can be no probabilistic distinction between past and future, which is equivalent to assuming a privileged coordinate frame.

Like Joy Christian, Aharonov et al propose nonlocality as only apparently true: " ... what appears to be nonlocal in space turns out to be perfectly local in spacetime." So far, so good -- except that it is impossible in principle to perform a probability measure on the spacetime continuum. The difference between purportedly entangled discrete particles and demonstrably correlated continuous wave functions is a strict constraint; spacetime can't be discretized without assuming either nonlocality or a privileged frame of reference. If considered to be a complete theory, quantum mechanics *cannot* discard the assumption of nonlocality, or else the theory is incoherent.

Joy does away with the conundrum, by allowing a natural, constructive, and globally continuous topological condition (all proofs of nonlocality are nonconstructive, and all topology is global) to be realized in the local discrete measurement outcomes -- without invoking probability or time, which in turn shows that quantum correlations do not result from particle entanglement, and both nonlocality and entanglement are illusions.

In other words, while Bell's theorem explicitly demonstrates that no classical theory can be derived from the principles of quantum mechanics -- it does not forbid quantum mechanical results from being derived on classical principles. This latter is what Joy has demonstrated, and which satisfies the completeness criterion for a physical theory; i.e., every element of the mathematical theory corresponds to every element of the physical measure.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (5 not shown)

Dear Edwin

Sorry for the delay in commenting on your essay; I have been giving your essay some thought.

As you saw in my essay, I agree with you that the wave function captures a real physical wave and not just some sort of mathematical probability wave. In the example of wave interference for electrons, it is possible to take such a purely mathematical view of the situation far from...

view entire post

Dear Edwin

Sorry for the delay in commenting on your essay; I have been giving your essay some thought.

As you saw in my essay, I agree with you that the wave function captures a real physical wave and not just some sort of mathematical probability wave. In the example of wave interference for electrons, it is possible to take such a purely mathematical view of the situation far from the slits causing the interference pattern. The alternative is to take the view of a physical wave, where the focus is then on the slits. As these must be on the scale of the wavelength of the particle, physical intuition leads to focusing on what is going on at the scale of the wavelength of the particle - as you do in your essay. I also make the same choice of physical intuition over the mathematics as you do, and consequently agree with you on the assumptions that you challenge. The problem is that the maths doesn't agree with our choice. So either we abandon our physical intuition and go with the abstract maths, but as Roger Schlafly discussed in his essay, this could be a major source of the problem physics has had. I point with which I agree.

Models with causal linkage between the particle and wave property generally have problems with Bell-type analysis, or re-analysis. Quantum Theory has a very peculiar form of non-locality, with what can be called non-locality of identity which is confirmed by wave interference and quantum entanglement experiments. However, this is strangely not accompanied by non-locality of causation such that it could be practically used to send a signal faster than light. Unfortunately because your model has causal linkage between the wave and particle properties, when you obtain the non-locality of identity required for comparison with QT you also acquire non-locality of causation. So Joy Christian is right and the model as given in the essay does fall victim to the non-locality issue, as encountered via Bell-type analysis.

However, our physical intuition is based upon the assumption that the physical concepts we use are absolutely defined, whereas they are actually defined relative to a background, as is explicit in GR. This generally doesn't make any difference as the normal space background on which our physical intuition is based generally doesn't change dramatically enough. There is however one scenario in GR where the change in the background metric of space-time is dramatic enough to upset our expectations, and that is the ergo-region of a rotating black hole where the time component of the metric reverses sign. This change would affect what we define as being local and non-local. Consider two events with time separation dt and space separation dx - such as a causally linked particle and wave property - which would have a time-like separation ds2 = -cdt2 + dx2 < 0 in normal space. Now change the background metric by simply reversing the sign of the time component - as occurs in the ergo-region - and the separation becomes space-like ds2 = cdt2 + dx2 > 0. The actual time and distance separations haven't changed, but the change in the background metric has changed local causation into apparently non-local causation. So in a compound model of particle and wave with what our physics intuition would call local causal linkage in normal space, the inclusion of this sign reversal effect on the scale of the wavelength of the particle would give a non-local identity to the compound object. But because the metric is as per normal beyond the wavelength of the compound object, it wouldn't have non-locality of causation and so could be expected to avoid falling victim to Bell-type analysis.

My essay discusses this effect in the context of deriving quantum field theory via a change in mathematical representation because the wave expansion about a particle-like black hole on the Planck scale can be proven to be mathematically incomplete in terms of countable particle (black hole) numbers. However, it does suggest that an approximate causal model of a particle-wave compound object could be possible if it included this effect of sign reversal in the time component of the metric.

Hope this is helpful.

Michael

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 5, 2012 @ 22:58 GMT

Dear Michael James Goodband,

Thank you very much for giving my essay thought and for your extensive comment. I have not yet re-read your essay and I believe your comment will be very helpful to me in understanding it better next time.

As noted, I have more faith in physical intuition than in mathematical abstraction. Not mathematical logic -- that's fine, but the application of mathematical abstractions to the 'real' world of Nature. And if you have not already read them, I recommend Dan Bruiger's and Ulf Klein's essays as thought-provoking.

The century-long history of quantum theory has covered wave functions, with and without particles, and non-locality, understood (or not) in various ways, and has sometimes ventured as far as consciousness and many worlds, while also attempting to cover particle physics and nuclear physics, as well as cosmology. My earlier essays have touched on consciousness and particle physics and cosmological aspects of my model, while my current essay specializes in one aspect of QM, the wave function, without other distractions. Yet although I have not published in detail all of the particle physics aspects of the model, I successfully derive all known particles (except the Higgs) and at least qualitatively answer dozens of questions that current physics appears unable to answer. It is this, going far beyond the wave function, that keeps me on this path, despite Joy's insistence that I have not suitably understood or accounted for Bell's (mistaken) arguments. I believe there is more at stake than Bell.

So I will cogitate on your paragraph about models with causal linkage and I will also try to understand your use of time-like and space-like separation to change local causation into apparently non-local causation. It is exciting to see a new idea applied to a century old problem.

Thanks again for your insightful comment.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Michael James Goodband replied on Aug. 6, 2012 @ 12:20 GMT

Dear Edwin

Thanks for your recommendations of essays to read.

It would seem that when presented with the choice between mathematics and physics, we are not alone in choosing the physics over mathematics. I made mine when I did a course on super-symmetry during my PhD and decided it was just mathematical fantasy. A conclusion that the LHC seems to be confirming - probably conclusively by the end of 2012. Unfortunately the mathematics which directly disagrees with our physical intuition is correct, and so a number of us are concluding that there just MUST be something screwy with our mathematical representation.

Physical intuition leads to the conclusion that the particle aspect of wave-particle duality is more fundamental, and that the wave aspect is causally created by the particle in some way - my essay also contains this. However, experiments reveal that the wave aspect seems to causally determine where the particle aspect is found. This gives a form of causal closure where the fundamental particle property determines the wave, particle -> wave, but the wave aspect then determines the particle, wave -> particle. The difficulty is that the causation particle -> wave will take some time dt>0 and the causation of wave -> particle will take some time dt>0, but experiments reveal that the closed cycle takes no time at all dt=0. My point about a change in the background metric is the only way I can see of squaring this without falling foul of non-locality problems with experiments.

With the particle being fundamental the wave aspect can be said to be created from the bottom-up, but the problematic element is always the reverse from wave to particle, which looks like a problem with top-down causation - the subject of the George Ellis essay. And in fact, my essay somewhat hides that the real issue is an identifiable problem with the mathematical representation of causally closed states under certain conditions. I made this much clearer in a more general philosophy of science paper which I have just put on http://vixra.org/abs/1208.0010

Best,

Michael

report post as inappropriate

Hi Erwin, first of all, a very understandable essay about the essence of physics today. Physicists based in the Uk think that they have proof that ithere is more then meets the eye. (see New Scientist 28 july 2012, : Ghost in the atom, page 28-31, by Marcus Chown) They concoted a thought experiment which involved bringing two independent atoms together and making a particular measurement on them. Their results showed that the wave function cannot be a mere abstract mathematical device, IT MUST BE REAL (?). Their conclusion : Quantum Theory makes no sense if the wave function is merely a probability distribution instead, the wave function HAS TO BE A REAL THING associated with a single quantum system, informing it how to behave. I wonder what your opinion is here, I am doubting this view, because i think that a quantum system has true properties, even before any measurement (observation) has been made on it., further moer in my new essay "THE CONSCIOUNESS CONNECTION" which has still to be accepted by FQXi, I introduce the so called "subjective simultaneity" which is in fact a universal web of interactions (decoherence) in which almost every system influences every other system. The second doubt I have is that the wave function ofv two particles (in their view) exist in an abstract six-dimensional space and for three particles nine-dimensional and so on, this is not logical I think. Furthermore once you accept a wave as a reality (stuff) in an atom where is the origin of this wave ? It means that the wave must be created sometime as a result of particles merging but then ?

thanks in advance for your appreciated answer. Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 6, 2012 @ 19:46 GMT

Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,

Great comments and great questions! And thanks for the link to "Ghost in the atom". I'll start with that. The animation is actually wrong in my view. They say that if the wave function is 'real' then you get a 'taco-dog-burger' in the box until you look at it. That is the 'collapse of the wave function' interpretation that I explain to be incorrect. It surprises me...

view entire post

Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,

Great comments and great questions! And thanks for the link to "Ghost in the atom". I'll start with that. The animation is actually wrong in my view. They say that if the wave function is 'real' then you get a 'taco-dog-burger' in the box until you look at it. That is the 'collapse of the wave function' interpretation that I explain to be incorrect. It surprises me that physicists can insist that the wave function is real and still believe it is a mathematical superposition.

But I do agree with you (and them) that "the wave function cannot be a mere abstract mathematical device, IT MUST BE REAL" and that "Quantum Theory makes no sense if the wave function is a mere probability distribution, instead, the wave function HAS TO BE A REAL THING."

Recent measurements of the wave function (discussed in my essay) agree with a recent proof by Pusey, Barrett, and Rudolph ('PBR') than an "information only" wave function cannot predict quantum results. This is consistent with the work you mention and with my essay.

I also agree with you that the system has true ('real') properties before it is measured [that is, it is a dog or a taco or a burger before you open the box, not a mysterious 'superposition' taco-dog-burger]. To not believe this leads to the situation I described in "down the rabbit hole" above where the first measurement shows what values the experimenter will choose **in the future**, before they have even made their choice. In other words, acting as if Bell's theorem [or the Copenhagen interpretation] is true leads to nonsense.

You describe the wave as "informing it how to behave". I would not interpret this literally. The particle and physical wave function form one inseparable system. The motion of the particle induces the field that constitutes the wave and changes in the wave feed back to the particle. Neither is "boss".

You propose a universal web of interactions in which every system influences every other system. We know that we have something like this (in the gravitational field, for instance) but the real question is how fast the influences travel. If they travel at the spead of light, then one side of the 'web' may not influence the other side for 14 billion years or so. But what if the changes are instantaneous (as you seem to imply with the word 'simultaneity')? Then every change propagates instantly to every other system, the reaction propagates back immediately, and the reaction-to-the-reaction propagates to all other systems immediately and all possible future changes and all reactions to these changes all happen at once, resulting, I believe, in nothing happening. So there must be a finite speed, but then one is back to such long delays that only local interactions seem to make much sense.

You note that two particles are represented in an abstract 6-dimensional space, three particles in a 9-dimensional space and N particle in a 3N or abstract 'configuration' space. I also treat this is my essay (page 7). Einstein and others, believing that wave could exist *without particles*, concluded that momentum and energy were conserved *only statistically* in 3-space. Schrodinger then FORCED the 3N-dimensional solution to conserve energy (after all, Schrodinger's equation is just the conservation of energy relation, written using operators!) As explained in the essay, this seems to imply (in view of Einstein's confused 'statistical conservation' idea) a certain 'non-locality' that has haunted us to this day. I believe this is also the conceptual source of the "stronger correlations" that Joy interprets in a different fashion. It's complicated, but I believe that reading and rereading pages 7-9 in my essay will help clear it up.

Finally, you ask about "the origin of this wave". It is the gravito-magnetic field ('discovered' by Maxwell and 'built-into' Einstein's relativity field equations). Just as an electric charge moving in an electric field induces electro-magnetic circulation, a mass particle moving in a gravitational field induces gravito-magnetic circulation. It's always there as a physical wave and I show in the essay how and why it corresponds to the probability amplitude.

Thanks for those questions. I hope this helps.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Aug. 7, 2012 @ 16:48 GMT

Thank you Edwin for the reply, and excuse for my typo error of Erwin, I will come back to you after the acceptation of my essay by FQXi (there was a refernce which was not 100%) I am now rereading your essay. Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 7, 2012 @ 17:39 GMT

Dear Wilhelmus,

I find that re-reading essays, combined with the comments, helps me to understand these important issues, so thanks for re-reading and for the very good comment above. I look forward to reading your essay and wish you luck in this contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin Eugene,

I think, demonstrating the relativity of simultaneity in accordance with the wave functions of two identical particles, may evolve consistency of wave mechanics with string dynamics within the framework of quantum mechanics.

With best wishes

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Dear Edwin,

I read with interest your essay. I think that one of the major questions in physics is to understand the wavefunction, and how is it able to give the results we observe. I congratulate you for attacking this problem in such a beautiful essay. Good luck with the contest.

Best regards,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 7, 2012 @ 17:46 GMT

Dear Cristi,

As I mentioned on your essay thread, your approach to the problem of singularities is of major significance, and your application to quantum fluctuations agrees with my understanding of this issue.

I do agree that the wave function is another major issue in physics, and I am glad that you read my essay on the wave function with interest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Edwin

I really enjoyed reading your well written essay. You did a very nice work, quite intelligible. I do agree that the wave function represents a real particle. I understand your line of reasoning and why it is important for you the references you asked me.

Eckard Blumschein mentioned in his essay the following:

Hermann Weyl warned: We are less certain than ever about...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 09:01 GMT

Hi Israel,

Thanks for reading the essay and giving well thought out advice. I agree with the gist of your remarks, and will keep them in mind going forward.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear FQXi'ers,

An interesting situation has arisen where Joy's use of the topological spheres S0, S1, S3, S7 has 'collided with' Michael James Goodband's use of the same topologies. Joy, of course, claims that S7 is the *ONLY* solution to Bell's quantum correlation problem, while Michael Goodband employs S7 as 'particle space'. Although I am NOT an expert in these issues, they seem to be...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 17:56 GMT

Edwin,

I agree. It is helpful to follow discussions as they take place. Different viewpoints or different ways of expressing same or similar ideas when contrasted with each other adds clarity even when solutions still appear unclear. Its the reasoning processes that become clearer. More than reading someone's conclusion, I learn from the why they say it. What are their, the speaker's, truths from which their thoughts spring forth. I think the conversations taking place presently are great. Even if my truths are different truths, I want to understand what the professionals think and, if possible, why. I follow your participation with great interest.

James

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 18:03 GMT

Edwin,

Michael wrote,

"Parallelised S3 => group space S3 for the observables {^, _}

Parallelised S7 => 'group space' S7 for the observables {A,B,...}

A straightforward argument doesn't seem to work, which is why I am asking :-)"

Actually, that looks quite straightforward to me -- Joy has always emphasized completeness, i.e., that *all* quantum correlations are explained by his framework. The simply connected space completes all these measure values in a locally realistic manner.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 19:08 GMT

Hi James, Tom,

Yes James, I find this FQXi contest more exciting daily. There are great essays and fantastic conversations going on. I wish I had more bandwidth (me, not my computer!).

Tom,

Of course you may be right, and I'll grant that you probably understand Joy's framework as well as anyone, but I'm not sure that you understand Michael's theory. In any case, the conversation has truly become fascinating. And not just this one, but a number of other essays and associated comments. FQXi made an inspired choice of topic, and this may turn into a seminal event.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

To my level of understanding, this is monumental for theoretical physics:

"The problem (ignored for almost a century) isn’t dispersing wave packets in the atom, but the impossibility of such wave packets even existing in the atom.

The Nature of the Wave Function

The particle-plus-wave is real, but de Broglie failed to specify just what the wave is. We do so here, beginning with an equation from general relativity."

Was beginning to reread your essay just now and am continuing to read though it carefully.

James

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 9, 2012 @ 21:47 GMT

Hi James,

I agree. And I think there are quite a few monumental points being raised. And I assume many more essays are still to come.

I'm glad you are re-reading my essay. I believe many of the current essays need to be read and re-read (and maybe re-read again.)

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

I noted your comment about reading the soliton reference I cited in a comment on John Macken's essay. The universe has a habit of being consistent in presenting a particular manifestation. Since researchers have started looking, soliton action has been identified in a wide spectrum of processes.

I made a comment in another essay, "the universe has very efficient energy transfer processes and the soliton is one manifestation of this process." So far, I have found just one essay in this contest where the author mentioned soliton and it was a very minor element.

You made the statement in response to Gary Simpson (Jul. 8, 2012 @ 00:40 GMT)

"I tend to think of the handedness as originating in general relativity, and Schrodinger just has to live with it, but there may be other fruitful ways to conceive of it." Right and left hand conventions have been used before quantum mechanics. In the Whyte article cited below, "Oersted (1820) discovered the anomalous R-handed screw action of an electric current on a magnet." The "right-hand" rule for expressing vector directions has been around well over a century.

Chirality

Many more handedness examples have been found since the Whyte article was published, but I have not found a good compilation of them.

I consider a soliton as a permitted process, probably mandatory in some processes, wherein I consider handedness the result of some "universal" influence.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 05:05 GMT

Hi Frank,

I agree that a soliton is a 'permitted' process, whereas handedness is 'universal' in character. In the above remark I did not mean that the handedness was 'new' to Schrodinger, only that the *left* handedness I refer to in my essay is based in general relativity, at least a decade before Schrodinger's equation was derived. Even this can be misleading, as Schrodinger's idea of the wave function is different from the explanation given in my essay. Schrodinger, as far as I know, had no knowledge of the handedness under discussion here.

As noted, I did find your "Numerical Simulation of Electromagnetic Solitons" reference interesting, although I haven't had time (or energy) to check the math.

Thanks for commenting on my thread.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

The metric reversal effect I mentioned to you earlier also arose in the discussion of apparent non-locality on Tom's thread, and I illustrated the effect with a toy model in the first 1 page attachment. In the second 1 page attachment I illustrate a toy model version of the particle-with-wave scenario as it arises in my essay, but hopefully the more general point should be clear about how such a change in the background metric could give a particle-with-wave model that might not fall foul to local causality issues.

Michael

attachments: 1_Local_to_nonlocal.pdf, Particle_with_wave.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 19:15 GMT

Hi Michael,

I noticed that Joy glommed onto your change of metric as a potential equivalent to his topological change of handedness, so I am not surprised to see you explore this theme. You work fast!

I still hope to try to summarize my understanding of your interpretation of S0, S1, S3, and S7 versus Joy's, but it seems pretty clear to me that Joy's is related to the space the particles move in while you decompose 10-D space into our 3 space plus another 7 'compacted' dimensions of 'particle space' in the Kaluza-Klein sense. I do not think that your S7 has any relation to Joy's S7, but I can't blame either of you for trying to merge your ideas.

In both of the papers you attached, you say *IF* a particle is a rotating black hole on the Plank scale, then some things might be possible. I was glad to see your diagram of waves in the ergo-region, as I was uncertain what you had in mind.

It's interesting that you say "the confined wave is forced to rotate with the black hole because of the rotational frame-dragging." Of course, my model of particle and wave can be considered frame-dragging associated with the rotating particle but without the black hole or Planck scale or seven dimensions. Your 'dipping into the ergo-region' is quite an imaginative way to postulate non-local space-time variations.

It will be very interesting to see how far you and Joy can carry this.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman and Shan Gao,

Edwin is right. Superposition of wave function associated with different objects leads us to observe them. In PicoPhysics this issue is integrated with action at distance and concept of exchange particle as the mode of interaction between objects. PicoPhysics view on the subject (Though discussed at stage 3 – only stage 1 is available at...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 19:33 GMT

Hi Vijay Mohan Gupta,

I am uncertain of the meaning of your above statements about superposition, but I present my understanding of superposition in my essay.

Good luck to you in this contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Sorry, the Microsoft equation did not show-up. Below is an attempt to re-introduce the same,

K_d = K₁ + iK₂

wave function = (K₁² + K₂²)e^ia

where

tan (a) = K₁ / K₂

Positive sign still not coming.

report post as inappropriate

Edwin,

TIME and SPACE-TIME are recurrent elements of this and many of the other essays. It is evident there is not agreement exactly what TIME really means, especially when it is merged with SPACE-TIME. The definition of TIME was simple when it was expressed in mechanistic terms, such as a "unit of time" based upon the 1/86,400th time division of the rotation of a planet; it was given the term "second." There was no problem with the definition of TIME when it was used to express event durations of mechanical events and planetary orbitals, it fit with the established definition. Maxwell did not know he complicated the TIME issue by mathematically formalizing electromagnetics (EM) as a non-mechanistic form of energy.

It has been long recognized that TIME and ENERGY have a close association. Unfortunately, because of the long established use of the mechanistic second, those that established EM definitions, including Maxwell, did not recognize that "TIME is a manifestation of the presence of energy," EM energy. The definition of TIME still remains defined as a "unit entity" separate from EM energy.

It is now possible to define TIME as a function of the two fundamental characteristics of EM energy. Thomas Young identified the two characteristics some 200 years ago, wavelength and frequency. It is a long established assumption that the size of units have to be defined first in order to utilize them in mathematical equations. This changed in 2011 with the IEEE publication of a paper titled, "A methodology to define physical constants using mathematical constants". See topic 1294 or do a search using the title.

It is known that unspecified length sizes can be used to establish the structure of geometric forms. By defining one geometric form in terms that represent wavelength, and another identical form shape in terms that represent frequency, it was possible to identify the size of a unit wavelength and the size of a unit of frequency without needing to know their physical sizes previously. The size of the duration of a "unit of time" was mutually defined by the relationship.

The philosophical issues of TIME were not mentioned in the IEEE paper. TIME is an inseparable characteristic of EM energy.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 23:58 GMT

Dear Frank Makinson,

I regret overlooking this comment for so long. In particular, I find very interesting your comment:

"It is known that unspecified length sizes can be used to establish the structure of geometric forms. By defining one geometric form in terms that represent wavelength, and another identical form shape in terms that represent frequency, it was possible to identify the size of a unit wavelength and the size of a unit of frequency without needing to know their physical sizes previously. The size of the duration of a "unit of time" was mutually defined by the relationship."

I would be interested in more information on this point.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Frank Makinson replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 04:03 GMT

Edwin,

Ref: "A methodology to define physical constants using mathematical constants" July/August 2011 IEEE Potentials Volume: 30 Issue: 4 On page(s): 39 - 43, ISSN: 0278-6648 Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/MPOT.2011.940377

The "Methodology" applies mathematics to a physical law in a way that it has never been done before. The physical law is the relationship between...

view entire post

Edwin,

Ref: "A methodology to define physical constants using mathematical constants" July/August 2011 IEEE Potentials Volume: 30 Issue: 4 On page(s): 39 - 43, ISSN: 0278-6648 Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/MPOT.2011.940377

The "Methodology" applies mathematics to a physical law in a way that it has never been done before. The physical law is the relationship between wavelength and frequency, specifically electromagnetic waves. What I presented in the paper is not taught in the textbooks, thus I had to explain the process step by step, even though there is nothing in it mathematically beyond basic geometry, simple algebra and one trigonometric relationship.

IEEE no longer allows authors to post the published version anywhere; this applies to anything published after Jan. 1 2011. The link below provides a direct extraction of the postprint. It doesn't have the color image of Euclid with a tablet on the title page. The IEEE editors modified Euclids tablet by adding two right triangles to it, one labeled wavelength and the other frequency; nothing is changed in the text.

Methodology postprint

The duration of a unit of time is a function of the relationship between wavelength and frequency. Essentially, there is no need for time unless there is the presence of electromagnetic energy, and it is everywhere.

I know a few things about the triangle pair that I could not put in the published paper, but I knew mentioning them would cause controversy, and editors don't need much of an excuse to reject a paper. I did not have a Benefits section in the submitted paper, and I was asked to provide one. I was surprised the section was accepted verbatim as submitted, even my statement, "Having mathematically defined basic units of measure will make it desirable to have a separation between those units that are suitable for commerce and those best suited for scientific applications and discovery." I have received substantial flack, over the years, from individuals who think SI units are the best that can be achieved. SI base units, not being based upon fundamental physical constants, are one of the issues that has created the present crisis in physics, but no one had a solution. The Methodology is a solution. I am curious if the FQXi reviewers understand the significance of what the Methodology provides.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Frank Makinson replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 10:12 GMT

Edwin,

I want to point out a particular statement in the IEEE paper. In the Summary I stated, 'All electromagnetic waves have a consistent underlying "energy conditional", their velocity, regardless of their wavelength, which defines the spectral position of a particular emission. This energy conditional is the coincidence point, or reference, for all electromagnetic emissions. When the two fundamental units of measure, length and time, are defined in terms of this electromagnetic point of coincidence, the point can be used to express a unit of energy. The spectral energy of any particular electromagnetic emission then will be either higher or lower than that at the reference level.'

Does anybody in the scientific community even think about this EM "energy conditional?"

The energy conditional of EM waves was completely ignored by those that created the current SI definition for the meter and the second in 1983 (*see below). This is a carry-over from the French definition of the metre, as they were unaware of the existence of EM energy, nor did they know that light was an EM phenomenon. The French behavior can be excused slightly because they had "incomplete information" in the 1890s. But after it was identified that EM waves existed and light was an EM phenomenon, the French forced the "metre" on the scientific community world-wide in the late 1800s. The French action was inexcusable because it was not based upon "incomplete information." I noted Maxwell's objection in the closing paragraph of the Summary section.

* 1983 the CGPM replaced this latter definition by the following definition: " The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second."

report post as inappropriate

Hello Edwin,

Thanks for liking my essay. I read the essays you mentioned, and yours. Thought yours was one of the best I've seen so far. In relativity I'm often suspicious of views in which the weirdness in the theory is removed by pointing out errors that everyone else failed to see for a century. Usually when physicists allow a theory to be weird for that long, it's because they couldn't go anywhere else, and not from lack of trying.

But your bringing in the Lundeen experimental evidence is one of several things that make it look different from that, and I felt that unlike many, you were grasping at an underlying reality by looking at the clues. That's what makes a paper of interest to me these days, if it's looking for ways forward for physics - it's not enough for it to be trying to rejig existing theory into something it wasn't before. Like you, in my essay I'm grasping at an underlying reality by looking at the clues, and the real clues are external things like observations, not internal things like elements of existing theory.

To me, for an approach to be relevant in the present situation it also has to be open to there being bits of the jigsaw missing, that we haven't yet found. Many of the essays I've read have implied within them the idea that the pieces we have are enough to finish the puzzle, if we can only organise them in the correct way. And yet a careful look at the clues shows that this idea is unavoidably wrong - new conceptual elements are needed. And the exciting thing is that we can infer a certain amount about the missing pieces - this (for those who can let go of the framework a bit) is a very worthwhile excercise.

So in the Heisenberg quote "the question [is] whether [the wave function] should be seen as a 'spread-out' entity, a 'guiding field', a 'statistical state', or something else" - we should always be open to the 'something else'.

Thanks for your kind comments on my essay - as you suggest at the end, I'll read yours again.

Best wishes, Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 19, 2012 @ 21:08 GMT

Dear Jonathan Kerr,

Thanks for your comments. We both are attacking long held assumptions and the time appears ripe for such. There seems to be a growing realization that something is rotten in Denmark, and FQXi has done us all a service by focusing on this.

I have come to the same conclusion as have you about block time. In a comment to Vladimir, you point out that block time assumes "every 'now' moment exists at once, and they all sit there alongside each other in a block", whereas in your own essay you show that "one of our two pictures of time has to be ruled out, as they can't co-exist." You do so in an understated, rigorously well thought out manner that makes your essay stand out. And you note that tackling a century-old assumption should not be done lightly.

I also very much liked your comment, "There are around ten different ways of seeing current physics, and the difference between them is often simply the order in which we put things. This concept is fundamental, while this concept is emergent, and further up the food chain." There are interesting essays on this aspect of physics, but I'm not sure they go far enough in questioning assumptions. I comment on related issues below.

Thanks for your work and for studying my work. Good luck in the contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear FQXi'ers,

This essay contest presents a number of contradictions, yet it is enlightening and eye-opening. My thoughts at this stage, after reading most (but not all) of the essays is stated in a comment I posted on Edward J. Gillis' excellent essay. The gist is as follows:

Despite the assumption that Bell's inequality is valid, an assumption I reject, I agree with you that "in order to make current theory logically coherent, we need ... indeterminism...".

You say our brains, "figuring out what we can control" bias intuition in favor of determinism. Yes, but free will does not fit a deterministic view and my intuition is comfortable with it.

As I recall Bernard d'Espagnat noted that our world is based on three assumptions: realism, inductive reasoning, and locality (linked to speed of light). Believers in Bell tend to retain logical inference at the expense of local realism. Perhaps this should be reconsidered.

Several essays in this contest suggest that space-time, locality, unitarity, and causality are "emergent", that is, not fundamental, but artefactual, emerging from deeper fundamentals, akin to temperature emerging from statistical ensembles of particles. Yet they apparently assume that logic and math survive even when space-time, locality, and causality have vanished (coming 'as close to "nothing" as possible').

I have presented logic and math as emergent from real structure (in 'The Automatic Theory of Physics') and if I am correct, then one cannot assume that one can banish spacetime, locality, and causality and yet retain logic and math. [To do so one must be a 'Platonist', having a religious belief in some realm of 'math' not unlike religious belief in a 'Heavenly realm'.]

My intuition and my experience tell me that reality is both 'real' and 'local' while they also inform me that logical coherency is *not* universal. For instance this FQXi contest contains a number of 'logical maps' that span various regions of the 'territory' [physics], but they are logically inconsistent with each other [and potentially contain logical inconsistencies within themselves.] If anything, this problem grows worse daily, as new math and new physics ideas branch in new directions. Despite the claims of various schools of physics, there is no coherent 'Theory of Everything', nor does one seem to be in sight. Many deny even the possibility of such. Given this state of affairs, I am ever more inclined to believe that the Bell'ists have made the wrong bet, trading local realism for logic, and losing on both counts.

Perhaps a new understanding that 'logic is local' needs to replace the [probably faulty] assumption that 'logic is universal'. My essay is one approach that assumes local realism is fundamental.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hello Edwin,

I agree with a lot of what you say. It's hard to know which elements of physics are fundamental, and which are emergent. So the approach I've taken tries to bypass that question, and see what can be deduced anyway. Time is a good place to look, not only because of the present need to solve that puzzle, but also because the deepest cracks in our picture are where the best clues about what the true picture looks like might be found.

To me the two levels of time we seem to find, block time and the apparent motion through time, can't both be real, because of the unpredictability implied in quantum theory, which means they disagree about whether the future is pre-decided. So assuming that only one is real, then you look at both, and try to work out which is real, and which isn't. All of these steps, for those who accept the premisses underneath the reasoning, can be made without knowing what things in physics are basic and what things are emergent. Hope this makes sense... Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 19, 2012 @ 02:56 GMT

Hi Jonathan,

As I commented in your essay, "Your arguments are excellent and convincing." I do reject block time, as a growing number seem to do. And I also agree with this comment about trying to work out which of two possible but inconsistent realities is most likely valid. And it is surely true that this must be done without knowing which things are basic and which are emergent.

As I understand your approach, you are not trying to get rid of space and time, but to support a 3D universe evolving through time, as Daryl Janzen and others do.

The problem I am discussing is subtle because we, in the evolved universe--however it breaks down--can surely use logic. But when one tries to go to the 'basics', possibly *before* logic emerged, then it gets complicated to 'use' logic to imply some evolution or emergence.

I don't claim to have solved this problem, or even defined it well, but I do think that those who wish to 'do away with' space-time, locality, causality, and unitarity (and possibly more?) must not *assume* that math and logic are still unquestionably available. And the question of logic also applies to Bell supporters, as I discuss on another thread with nmann.

Thanks for this comment and the one above that I still need to answer.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Edwin,

thank you. I don't think we have any reason to do away with causality, as long as we don't assume block time to be right. Block time is what has put this essential principle at risk - and all of science is based on it.

If block time is wrong, you get a dynamic universe. We don't immediataly know how many dimensions it has, but we can explain a lot of what happens in it. We can't yet explain why it has motion through time, but we might, once the shackles and cul-de-sacs of block time have been thrown off.

Logic, to me, is a facet of our minds which allows us to get a handle on things, for instance by ruling things out and limiting the possibilities. I think if you try to see how logic arises in the universe, you're asking some very complicated questions about the mind, which physicists don't need to ask at present. I know you've arrived at these questions via quantum theory, but I think until we have a complete solution to the mystery of how to interpret quantum theory, we won't know if we have to ask those questions, and I suspect we'll find that we don't have to, which would be a relief.

And mathematics works wonderfully well as a way of describing the universe, even if ultimately it's only a set of approximations. Why can't we depend on it? Because a half-solved puzzle suggests we might not be able to? I'd say again, it's too early to assume we have that problem.

Best wishes, Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 19, 2012 @ 21:34 GMT

Dear Jonathan,

You note that "we [don't] have any reason to do away with causality, as long as we don't assume block time to be right. Block time is what has put this essential principle at risk - and all of science is based on it."

Having decided in favor of a dynamic universe, I have tended to dismiss block time from my thinking, so I had missed the aspect of causality that you...

view entire post

Dear Jonathan,

You note that "we [don't] have any reason to do away with causality, as long as we don't assume block time to be right. Block time is what has put this essential principle at risk - and all of science is based on it."

Having decided in favor of a dynamic universe, I have tended to dismiss block time from my thinking, so I had missed the aspect of causality that you just pointed out. Thanks.

And although you note that "We don't immediately know how many dimensions it has", I have found no reason to assume any more than three. It is always mathematically possible to take N things and somehow create an N-dimensional map (give or take) and many have done this, but those maps requiring more than three physical dimensions (plus time) are not convincing to me.

You say , "Logic, to me, is a facet of our minds which allows us to get a handle on things, for instance by ruling things out and limiting the possibilities. I think if you try to see how logic arises in the universe, you're asking some very complicated questions about the mind, which physicists don't need to ask at present. I know you've arrived at these questions via quantum theory, but I think until we have a complete solution to the mystery of how to interpret quantum theory, we won't know if we have to ask those questions, and I suspect we'll find that we don't have to, which would be a relief."

Of course you may be right, but my work on logic and math as 'emergent' was done many years ago, even before the emergence of the term 'emergent'. And although you perceive it as "a facet of our minds" my own position [indicated in my first FQXi essay] is that consciousness is "awareness plus volition" and that logic is added only through structure, as indicated in some of the above comments. As most ideas of consciousness are very vague (in the same way that you point out ideas of 'time' are vague) it is very difficult to discuss these issues before converging on a common vocabulary.

But if I am correct, then the 'logical ideas' we have are due to [essentially separate] logical structures that exist in our brains, some learned from playing baseball as children, some learned from sitting in calculus class, and these structures are not unified, nor are they universally correct and compatible. So although you are correct that I'm "asking some very complicated questions about the mind", I have been doing so for almost fifty years, and I have arrived at some interesting insights, which I've outlined in both essays and book form. This does not challenge the idea that "mathematics works wonderfully well as a way of describing the universe, even if ultimately it's only a set of approximations." Nor does it imply that we can't depend on it. But it does suggest that those who wish to base the universe on math have not fully thought things through.

Thanks again for your stimulating comments,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

I agree with a lot of that. I think people who try to make mathematics fundamental are wrong. It's a description of things, and extremists like Max Tegmark who think it may be the most fundamental thing of all, are in fact reacting to the trouble we've had with the conceptual side of physics in the 20th century - which is nevertheless very important as well.

You may very well be right that mathematics and logic are emergent rather than fundamental, and appreciate that you've studied it in detail. But I don't see the problem with that if it's true. As long as we see them as the tools that they are, which allow deduction, reasoning, theory and calculation, all of which help us to describe and understand things, and find out the underlying rules and patterns, we're ok aren't we? I agree that we mustn't elevate them to anything beyond that.

best wishes, Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 19, 2012 @ 23:04 GMT

Dear Jonathan,

As I have understood Max Tegmark's mathematical universe idea he means by mathematics the relationships between abstract entities. Also (which I feel less comfortable about he seems, to me, to be saying if a relationship can exist mathematically it can exist as a reality in this universe or another.) I can see that when we try to describe the very foundation of reality, everything comes down to relationships between the properties we have identified and how they change. That doesn't seem particularly extreme to me but it is highlighting what is really important. I think that means not the stuff we imagine to exist, not what we think about it but just how properties interact and how relationships change.

We can express ideas about that verbally or we can express it mathematically. Max Tegmark argues that human verbal language is superfluous baggage and that therefore the relationships should be expressed mathematically. I agree, at least that some kind of uniform, symbolic, unambiguous representation is desirable, if succinctness and precision and uniformity are the aims. I don't see that proposition as extreme either.

Though if the aim is widespread human comprehension then many different verbal descriptions, in many different languages, as well as many different kinds of symbolic representation are desirable, in my opinion. That however is about teaching rather than what is the best or ultimate form of representation, of the universe (or multiverse).

report post as inappropriate

Hello Georgina,

I'm sure Tegmark is an extremist only in some ways, not in every way. But saying that in some cases all sets of possibilities exist is extreme. It's tough for creatives, because whatever you might come up with, there's the worry that he thinks it exists already. But creatives can have fun thinking up absurd things, and then realising that Tegmark believes that exists - I've played this game with friends occasionally, though only in a loose way.

Anyway, I do think that our conceptual picture is simply incomplete, and instead of facing up to that, and trying to make progress within our existing way of doing physics, many are now messing around with the underlying principles, and trying to reset the whole playing field. I see that in quite a few of the essays here, but to me that's a bit desperate and a bit premature - we haven't finished exploring with our present system yet. There's a need to look carefully at the holes in the jigsaw, and see what we can work out about the missing pieces - that's what I've been trying to do anyway.

Best wishes, Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 01:39 GMT

I tend to agree with this comment, especially the statement that "saying that in some cases all sets of possibilities exist is extreme".

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 02:11 GMT

Jonathan, Edwin,

sometimes ideas that are expressed can be provocation intended to make people stop, take notice and think rather than a statement of conviction that this is how things are-definitely. Whether you or I like what Max Tegmark has said or not he makes people think about it.

My views on what a multiverse is and how they can be a part of reality have changed radically as a result of listening to what Max Tegmark has said in his papers and lectures. I've gone from saying its just mathematical nonsense to thinking it really is a good way of describing what we are dealing with, (if the multiverses are thought of in a particular way).

Now thinking about what an object is I have had to concede that it is all of its possibilities simultaneously and not just what one observer will perceive it to be from his perspective. I doubt I would have got to there without someone demonstrating that there are vastly greater possibilities than I was imagining.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 02:39 GMT

Dear Georgina,

It's always good when someone demonstrates to you that there are vastly greater possibilities than you were imagining.

Nevertheless Tegmark's paper on "The Mathematical Universe" only demonstrated to me that his ideas are completely unrealistic. And provocation to make people think is one thing. The Sokal affair was one such provocation. But I don't see that as Tegmark's goal. He seems serious to me.

My judgment has nothing to do with whether or not you got something out of it. I did not get anything out of it.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

show all replies (2 not shown)

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 04:56 GMT

Edwin,

I think he is being serious too and playful. Edward de Bono wrote :"Hypothesis, speculation and provocation allow us to play in our minds. We try out new things. We carry out the thought experiments that Einstein used to develop his powerful ideas." (1992). IMO Whether it is correct or not is not as important as breaking new ground, finding new ways of thinking about the problems.

Edward de Bono also wrote: "The analysis of data is not enough. We also need the creative ability to speculate and use provocative hypotheses. If we can develop these skills in scientists, science will advance more rapidly.The new hypothesis or provocative idea provides a scaffold on which to organise our information and with which to seek new information." (1992)

I'm not disagreeing with your judgement Edwin just expressing what I think. Max Tegmark knows what his intentions were and I'm not a mind reader. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." It would be a dull world if we all liked exactly the same things.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 06:46 GMT

Georgina, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. and it would indeed be a dull world if we all liked exactly the same things.

hide replies

Dear Edwin:

I hope you don't mind, but I'm copying a comment that I just left on Johathan Kerr's topic over here because it draws on parts of this current discussion. Also, Edwin, Jonathan, and Georgina, thanks for the interesting and insightful discussion. Georgina, I really like those last Edward de Bono quotes.

Dear Jonathan:

I like your essay. I think you present an...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 22:12 GMT

Dear Daryl,

Please feel free to add such illuminating and enlightening comments to my thread at any time. I believe the comments are an important adjunct to the essays, and, ideally, just as interesting to read.

Some of your points are too deep to summarize briefly, but I did particularly like your observation "that without fitting the remaining loose pieces into the puzzle correctly you can only jam about half ... of them in the remaining space." Well put.

Although many excellent essays have appeared since your essay, I still find yours one of the best. I have, as you know, also read your thesis, even worked out some of your equations before becoming swamped by new essays, and I hope you rise to the top. I have not voted on any essays yet, but when I do I will try to move both you and Jonathan closer to the top of the community ranking.

I am convinced that the block universe is completely wrong, a Minkowski artefact that has led physicists astray for a century. But I have not yet fully digested the alternative that fits special relativity into cosmic time. I do believe "that there must instead be an absolute (global) simultaneity-relation amongst *all* observers in a three-dimensional enduring (i.e., flowing) universe." Yet I have to think through the fact that, since 'news' of events travels at the speed of light (variable or constant, doesn't seem to matter) some observers will see an event while the same event will lie in anothers 'future'. If you care to expound any more on this aspect of simultaneity, I would be very interested in your perspective. This and the 'privileged observer' aspect of the problem. In other words, if you care to expand the portion of the above comment between "Elsewhere on this blog..." and "You also wrote to Edwin..." I would be happy to donate the blog space!

Finally, your picture of "without fitting the remaining loose pieces into the puzzle correctly you can only jam about half..." is not unrelated to my other comments about "universal logical coherency". The question is whether it's possible to fit all of the pieces together correctly, or whether there is some aspect of logic that fails at the 'self-referential' theory that is ultimately necessary for observer-based physics.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Daryl Janzen replied on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 04:31 GMT

Dear Edwin:

Thanks very much for the opening, and the heartwarming comments about my essay. I haven't voted on any essays yet either, but yours must be amongst the finalists in my opinion.

Your question about how "some observers will see an event while the same event will lie in anothers 'future'" can be understood by referring to Figure 2 in my essay. Draw two past 45-degree...

view entire post

Dear Edwin:

Thanks very much for the opening, and the heartwarming comments about my essay. I haven't voted on any essays yet either, but yours must be amongst the finalists in my opinion.

Your question about how "some observers will see an event while the same event will lie in anothers 'future'" can be understood by referring to Figure 2 in my essay. Draw two past 45-degree null-lines extending from A in either direction in both frames, but ending at some "past event of photon emission" that's above B's x'-axis. In both frames, those null-lines describe the paths of photons that "will be emitted in B's 'future'", that are presently being observed by A, since the present is, by definition, A's x-axis. This funny result has only to do with the requirement that light has to travel at the same rate in either direction in the proper coordinate system of any inertial observer, and can therefore be understood without also considering the hyperbolic scaling between local coordinate frames that's associated with the Lorentz transformation. The latter is of course necessary to ensure that the speed of light is the *same magnitude* in all frames, and it's important for time-dilation and length-contraction.

The crucial thing to understand is that, along with any one event, it is possible to define an absolute set of other space-time events that occurred simultaneously with it in the three-dimensional universe. Therefore, although the event at which A observes these photons may in one sense be said to lie in B's "future", that's actually false by definition, since simultaneous events all lie along x. This agrees with the "man on the street's" Newtonian intuition about the passage of time: all inertial observers may well consider themselves as being at rest in a three-dimensional universe that exists now---where "now" refers to ever-flowing present space. However, there's a catch: since we're saying that B is *really* moving through the universe, two photons incident on B at one event, coming from either direction, which were emitted at *truly simultaneous* events, will not have synchronous emission times in B's proper coordinate system: the photon that B was effectively "running away from" will have a later emission time, while the one that B was "racing towards" will have an earlier emission time. However, this has to be the case if B is to describe light as moving at the same speed in either direction, since the relative absolute distance covered by the former photon will be less than that of the latter. In contrast, two events that are described as synchronous in B's frame won't actually have occurred simultaneously.

This is why A is called a privileged observer, because synchronous events in A's frame really do occur simultaneously, due to the fact that A has zero absolute motion. But as I've argued in my essay, this aspect of the theory should not actually be at odds with intuition. Putnam's argument hinges on the principle that there can be no privileged inertial observers because any one is as well suited to the position that they "now" exist in a three-dimensional universe; therefore, because everyone has different "nows", and none of them should be special, all "nows" integrate to form a block. However, as I've said in my essay, the "now" doesn't have to be the time that's read on anyone's watch, since there's no intuitive reason to require that anyone's proper time coordinate is orthogonal to space "now"---we don't have a sense of flowing an a direction orthogonal to space, but of space *existing*. Therefore, "now" can be one and the same enduring space for all observers.

I'd sure like to be able to talk with you sometime about whether logic, math, and the emergent physical universe that we observe are parts of a puzzle to be completed.

Best regards,

Daryl

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Daryl Janzen replied on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 17:58 GMT

I thought I might add, because the statements I made above, about events that are really simultaneous not being perceived as synchronous in B's frame, may sound a bit mysterious,---that this is demonstrated in my essay by the fact that observers B and C' are totally causally disconnected, so what B describes as synchronous with the event illustrated by the red dot in Figure 2 is not the blue dot, where C' is "simultaneously in its own separate universe", but C (the yellow dot) at a *later* absolute time---i.e., when it gets to the blue dot as the universe (x-axis) evolves. C could emit a photon towards B at that (cosmic) time, which would travel through the one-dimensional "universe" evolving in absolute time, until it's observed by B; and B would infer that that event, which *really* occurred at a later cosmic time, was synchronous with the event that's illustrated by the red dot.

The thing is, that relativity theory doesn't tell us a priori the location of an observer along its worldline that coincides with the emission of a distant photon, nor the location of the emitter along its worldline that coincides with the later event when the photon is observed: all it describes is the space-time separation between any two events. We are left to infer the rest for ourselves, and the common practice is infer that such coincident (i.e., simultaneous) events in space-time occur at the same "time" in any frame---i.e., synchronously. This is what leads to Rietdijk-Putnam-type deductions that there has to be a block universe. But then those who want to deny this inference, often appeal to the fact that the theory can't really tell us a priori which sets of events were *actually* coincident---and claim, e.g., that the observer could really have been anywhere along its worldline in the region outside the light cone associated with the emission event, in the region known as "absolute elsewhere", thus denying the existence of an objective reality.

Many problems arise as a result of this inconsistency of thought, because when not backed into the corner of the block universe implication, everyone does commonly assume that synchronous events really are simultaneous in any frame, even in general relativistic solutions. And that's where the really new pieces of the puzzle come in when we do make the assumptions of absolute space and time that are consistent with the theory.

report post as inappropriate

Hello all,

Thank you Daryl for your kind and interesting comments on my essay, also the same to Edwin. Daryl, I wasn't referring to your essay before, having only flipped through it until just now. I think it's very good, and unlike many of these essays, I agree with you about some things.

I don't see the linguistic thing you mention as a problem with block time, it might be a slightly different use of the word 'is', but to me the question of whether or not we have the language to describe it doesn't affect the question of whether block time is true or false.

I don't agree with a universal present moment - I think the concept of simultaneity at a large distance is always questionable. In Newtonian time it has some meaning, in Einstein's version it has less. I think it has even less than that - no meaning beyond the light cone. The reason is that in the universe we have different time rates locally. Relating them clearly doesn't work in different frames, as I mentioned in the essay. They're thought to be relatable in the same frame, but we can't easily check that.

Two clocks a million light years apart and not moving in relation to each other might keep the same time and run in sync. But that doesn't prove simultaneity. It just proves that two local time rates at a distance are in step with each other. To me relating the times of events with meaning is saying that an event is before another one if it can affect it by getting a light signal there in time to influence it. That means within the light cone, at short range.

This would explain why block time is wrong - what led to it depends on long-range simultaneity having enough active meaning to allow an event to be in the past to one observer but in the future to another. Without that, there's no block time, and a lot of the confusion about time goes away. Hope this makes sense...

best wishes, Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 07:05 GMT

Daryl and Jonathan,

Thanks for those comments. I was tending to take the view that time is 'emergent' somewhat in the sense of Julian Barbour's essay in which one can simply 'factor out' time and retain only actions and distances as in his equation 5 (page 8) and his final equation. But that seems to reduce everything in the universe to 'local' action, and I have decided that that is just not sensible. In fact, I now consider it to essentially demand simultaneity. I have not put the time into this that either of you have, so I cannot defend this idea as well as either of you, but I'm pretty sure that Daryl's 'Cosmic time' or 'flow of time' is on the money. This semi-infinite universe cannot possible hang together as local actions and local distances with time defined only as a local way to keep score.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Daryl Janzen replied on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 21:00 GMT

Hi Jonathan and Edwin:

The local reconciliation of temporal passage that's supposed to come from denying a metrical relation between events that exist outside one's past light cone is Howard Stein's thing. However, as Craig Callender pointed out in "Shedding Light on Time", by positing that "at least one event in the universe shares its present with another event's present", which he...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 10:55 GMT

Dear Edwin,

You invited me to take part in your discussion. I have to apologize for not reading all contributions. Instead of referring to the weak points in Daryl's view, I just added to my essay a hopefully unmistakable explanation why SR is based on confusion between physical reality and what an observer measures.

"Two events that occur at the same time according to one observer will happen at different times for another observer, ..."

Do they really happen for observers or do they happen at the location where they happen?

Let me tell a story that happened 50 years ago. In a rowing race over 2000 m in about 6 minutes, my crew was defeated by only as little as 0.02 seconds precisely measured with a Swiss Longines system. This was undeniably close to physical reality. Merely at start, we were a bit cheated because the acoustic signal reached us about 0.1 second later than the winning boat.

Best,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Daryl Janzen replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 23:56 GMT

Dear Eckard,

This perfectly demonstrates the point I've been making about problems that arise due to sloppiness with language. You wrote, "Do they really happen for observers or do they happen at the location where they happen?" Well said. The word "for" in the quotation you gave is meant in the sense of "according to" or "as determined by" or "in the proper coordinate system of", and...

view entire post

Dear Eckard,

This perfectly demonstrates the point I've been making about problems that arise due to sloppiness with language. You wrote, "Do they really happen for observers or do they happen at the location where they happen?" Well said. The word "for" in the quotation you gave is meant in the sense of "according to" or "as determined by" or "in the proper coordinate system of", and therefore not in the sense of a gift. Events in space-time are locations or points on the four-dimensional map. What's meant in that quotation is simply that two events at the same value of the time-coordinate of one system will be at different values of the time-coordinate of another system.

Since you've claimed that there are weak parts in my view, I'd very much appreciate those being pointed out so that I might have the opportunity to argue otherwise. I'd consider it a courtesy. I'll even briefly recap my position for that purpose.

The past, present, and future don't all "exist" in the same sense: the past and future "are" purely ideal (ideel in German; i.e., not real anywhere but in *present* brains, computers, etc.) and the three-dimensional enduring present "is" real. Relativity adds another layer, complicating this picture further, because it comes to mean that together with the dual meaning of the copular verb "is" in relation to the dimension of time, there must also be a dual meaning of the word "time" if the theory should be reconciled with a Heraclitean flowing present. Thus, the common-sense impression of "time" that we have when we consider present "existence" in three-dimensional space---which is what we refer to when we say two events occur "simultaneously"---must be separated from the sense of "time" that's described by any space-time coordinate system. This is precisely because any claim that two events occur at the same "time" in the latter sense cannot be universal, since any change of coordinates describes one event as preceding the other; i.e., "synchronicity" is relative.

This latter fact has commonly been taken to imply that relativity is inconsistent with presentism, because "synchronous" and "simultaneous" are thought to be synonymous; but I've shown in my essay the mathematical theory can be consistently reconciled with the above view of time, as long as we make the appropriate split between the meanings of the two words and define a global simultaneity-relation. Therefore, relativity does not require a block universe.

Daryl

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

hide replies

I have read a conversation with Julian Barbour in which he says motion through time must be caused by some sort of psychological illusion. To me that approach fails in trying to interpret gravitational time dilation, and tends to need a second illusion, interacting with the first one, when interpreting motion time dilation. Two interacting illusions does not make for a good explanation.

It is also denying the problem, and rather like marking the unexplored areas on a map with 'here be illusions' (just as the old map makers marked unexplored areas with 'here be dragons'). Barbour says time is 'nothing dressed up in clothes', like the emperor's new clothes. He's looking at it mathematically, but it's a conceptual problem - initially anyway.

To me the thing that is like the emperor's new clothes is the fact that the illusion approach dismisses the laws of physics, and hence physics itself and much of our world, as an illusion. Some people have simply pretended not to see the problems with block time, because like the emperor's new clothes, it has been the standard view, to be accepted. Only recently have we been questioning it, because we need to if we are to get to quantum gravity.

Best wishes, Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Daryl Janzen replied on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 21:32 GMT

Jonathan:

I typed up my previous comment before seeing this one, so I added it there. I agree with what you're saying here about people pretending not to see the problems associated with a block universe, and chalking things up to illusions. I think this happens because people don't want to change the basic way they think about the theory. The problem with that, I believe, is that the basic way people like to think about the theory---as dynamical---is demonstrably incompatible with what the physical theory has to say about the way they like to think about the theory.

Daryl

report post as inappropriate

Hello Daryl,

in reply to your last two posts, I agree with the latest one, that people don't want to change the way they take SR.

They take SR with spacetime, and yet spacetime may be entirely wrong. It is impossible for anything to move through spacetime, almost by definition. Spacetime distances include imaginary numbers, which people accept in an 'emperor's new clothes' kind of way. But this may have no physical meaning. And, for instance, an event 4 minutes ago on Mars has zero separation in spacetime from right now where you are on Earth. All this may have no physical meaning. And because it leads to block time which requires illusions, spacetime is very questionable.

Spacetime hasn't been tested, and like string theory, it can't be tested. Suppose it's entirely wrong - imagine sweeping it away. We'd be looking for missing pieces of the puzzle in a new landscape. Much of our present conjecture would be irrelevant.

You talk about relating things in space, but the issue is, can we relate things in time? That's what we don't know - we know a lot more about space. We have reason to think we can't relate things in time as we have been doing, because look where it led - it led to block time, which doesn't work with the real world we observe. So time may be different. It may be meaningless to relate points in time at all. We don't know. All out attempts to relate points in time may have failed to work. But within the light cone, light signals give us an alternative method, meaningful, but perhaps just a crude approximation, perhaps also ultimately irrelevant to the way time really is.

Best wishes, Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Daryl Janzen replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 00:20 GMT

Dear Jonathan:

It *is* impossible for anything to move through spacetime by definition. I think the quotation by Geroch that I gave in my essay says that the best. Although the one by Weyl comes a close second. It's just that some people mis-construe that due to an inability to break away from the sense that things really change.

If you're interested, I can prove to you that spacetime distances don't include imaginary numbers in de Sitter space. It's not a hard or long proof, and it's done from first principles. But it requires a positive cosmological constant.

Zero distance between two points that are not identical is indeed a peculiar property of Lorentzian metrics. They're weird. But that doesn't mean we should deny the appropriateness of the Lorentzian metrical structure that's used to describe physical reality. That has been very successful, not even just locally, but also for describing cosmological data. Without the assumption of the RW metric to describe an emergent three-dimensional universe, how might you consistently relate all the cosmological observations?

Best,

Daryl

report post as inappropriate

It's true that spacetime has been very succesful in describing the universe. It has also made it possible to simplify many theories. But that may be exactly why we were reluctant to question it until we had to.

The reason spacetime may be wrong, even though it works for describing many things, is that physics is full of equivalence. As I said in my essay, often more than one conceptual picture is described by similar mathematics. So we may eventually have to let go of spacetime, because conceptual flaws have been giving us a hard time, even though the mathematics seems to work. Spacetime is, after all, an interpretation of SR. And if an interpretation gives you conceptual problems, then you might need a different one.

Best wishes, Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Hi All:

The discussion of Julian Barbour's conception of time brings up an issue that I think is important. His conception of time is very much like mine, in that he wants to remove the dimension of time from the description of what is real, and describe instead a succession of "nows". However, I believe he goes a step too far in this, by also denying duration and concentrating only on a...

view entire post

Hi All:

The discussion of Julian Barbour's conception of time brings up an issue that I think is important. His conception of time is very much like mine, in that he wants to remove the dimension of time from the description of what is real, and describe instead a succession of "nows". However, I believe he goes a step too far in this, by also denying duration and concentrating only on a physical description of what exists in the "now". This brings to mind an ancient fallacy about a footrace between Achilles and a tortoise, which is based on a similar denial of duration---viz., in principle. Since Zeno's purpose was to support the Eleatic thesis (block universe) by an argument that motion can't occur, it's his prior removal of duration from the picture that makes the "paradox" a fallacy.

How did he accomplish this? Zeno described the footrace according to a sequence of configurations: the tortoise is halfway between Achilles and the finish line to begin with, but Achilles will have covered twice the distance as the tortoise at any subsequent "time"; thus, at one point the tortoise is three-quarters of the way to the finish line and Achilles is halfway there; when the tortoise is seven-eighths of the way there, Achilles is only three-quarters; etc. The tortoise is therefore "always" halfway between Achilles and the finish line. Therefore, Zeno concludes that motion does not occur.

But motion can be defined as spatial displacement through an element of duration: as everything endures, bodies can move through space in time, with average displacement over time defined average velocity, etc.; therefore, by denying duration in principle Zeno has denied an essential ingredient of motion, and has therefore demonstrated no real paradox. Furthermore, by co-ordinating the axis of duration with space, it is simple to show that Achilles and the tortoise reach the finish line at the exact same time, and that if each keeps going at the same pace Achilles will indeed overtake, running on ahead always at twice the distance as the tortoise from the finish line.

By using coordinate systems to describe space-time, relativity is just as capable of resolving Zeno's "paradox" as Newtonian mechanics. My question to anyone who would deny prior duration, and therefore the appropriateness of the metrical structure of all of space-time---whether emergent or a block---is this: how do you resolve Zeno's paradox? If the rearrangement of bodies in space essentially *causes* time, and there is no prior duration of space, how can one claim that anything moves at all?

Daryl

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 02:32 GMT

Daryl, All,

I like your simple statement: "by denying duration in principle Zeno has denied an essential ingredient of motion".

And the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that universal 'simultaneity' [but not 'synchonism'] must exist. Because, as you say, "If the rearrangement of bodies in space essentially *causes* time, and there is no prior duration of space, how can one claim that anything moves at all?" But any meaningful definition of "rearrangement of bodies in space" must almost certainly be 'local', otherwise we get into the synchronization problems that lead to all of the current confusion, and I cannot conceive of a universe that 'hangs together' though local behaviors, un-synchronized, across the vast reaches of the universe. Even in the absence of noise, this would seem to require perfect laws with perfect precision, operating perfectly, else things would drift into chaos in a way that we do not observe. Only a universal [Cosmic] time that effectively defines a universal 'Now' [presentism] can keep this whole thing going, in my opinion.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 04:17 GMT

Dear Daryl, All,

as I see it, the problem Zeno has is that he is trying to separate the idea of change in spatial separation from the ideas of time and energy. Concentrating just on change in distance. Which makes an unnaturally abstract process.I would like to argue that those three phenomena (change in spatial separation, passage of time and energy) are inseparable in nature, (considering a real change and not just parallax).

In the explanatory framework I have been describing for some time now, passage of time at the foundational level (in the Object reality- like Bohm's pre-space) is the product of sequential change in arrangement of matter. The change (of relationship between the matter) is energy. Which means that change, which may be (indirectly) observed as a spatial change of position by an observer, is inseparable from passage of time and energy.

So though, yes the distance can be halved and halved and halved, it will also be reducing the time taken and the energy involved. He is comparing smaller and smaller distances but also smaller and smaller times and smaller and smaller amounts of energy. He is not comparing the same situation each time, as he is not considering just one variable, distance and keeping the other parameters fixed (ie fixed time interval and/or fixed energy expenditure.) Which makes it an invalid experiment. If either energy or time interval between sample observations is kept constant the change in distance will not be continually halved.

Edwin, perhaps now because as you wrote "And the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that universal 'simultaneity' [but not 'synchonism'] must exist" you may be able to appreciate how the explanatory framework I have been describing enables there to be that universal simultaneity as well as the observation of relativity, without contradiction.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 05:04 GMT

Hi Georgina,

Actually, I've been seeing it that way for a while, and I think I told you that. But I've not been able to reconcile this with General Relativity, as that's not my area of expertise. So when Daryl published his essay, and I read his dissertation, I felt like he'd been doing the GR analysis I had not done -- and coming to the same conclusions.

I do like your framework very much. And this essay contest is potentially working to get rid of a number of other troublesome assumptions. I am at the moment simply trying to keep up with the new entrants and separate essays into two stacks. I then intend to go back and re-read the essays in one stack at least one more time. Right now too many ideas are merging in my head and I am overwhelmed. I see very convincing arguments, but don't have time to check the math or check the references or even analyze the arguments properly. And even the comments on several threads are also a goldmine!

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

show all replies (1 not shown)

Hello all,

in your version of the paradox, they reach the finishing line at the same time. But in Zeno's version, Achilles runs much faster than twice the tortoise's speed, who has an arbitrary head start. When Achilles gets to where the tortoise was when Achilles started, it has moved on a little. When he gets to this further point, it has moved on a little further, and so on. The paradox is resolved because the tortoise knows a shortcut through the bushes.

I don't see how you'd know if the universe was 'synchronised' in the Newtonian way you talk about. It might look the same anyway, with or without that.

Best wishes, Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Daryl Janzen replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 17:46 GMT

Jonathan:

How is it that you're privy to "Zeno's version"? As with all pre-Socratic philosophers, Zeno's writings didn't survive. His "paradoxes" are known to us through Aristotle's writings. And while your description is probably closer to that than mine, the argument is invalid for the same reason in either case---Zeno denies duration in principle and considers only subsequent states,---and not for the reason you've stated.

Daryl

report post as inappropriate

PS. If there's a universal 'now', then why can't two observers moving differently get results that match up, when each tries to calculate what time it is 'now' for the other one? I've done the calculation, it comes out of SR, which has been confirmed by experiment, and which I think is absolutely right. I only question spacetime, not SR. It seems to me that to get your universal now, you have to deny SR itself.

report post as inappropriate

Daryl Janzen replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 17:24 GMT

Jonathan:

I have argued explicitly that I think synchonicity is the wrong way of looking at things. I'm convinced there is a Cosmic Present, in which events that occur at the same "time" may be called "simultaneous", but the physical description from relativity theory demands that this global simultaneity-relation cannot be the same as what's "synchronous" for arbitrary observers; i.e., things that happen at the same "time" in the former sense don't necessarily happen at the same "time" in the latter sense. I've described in my essay exactly how I think it's possible for SR to emerge as the correct physical description of phenomena in all inertial frames in such an emergent universe, using the same postulates that are used to derive the theory in any case, and shown explicitly why in that situation it is wrong to define "synchronicity" and "simultaneity" synonymously. I'd really like it if you'd carefully read though that derivation/thought experiment and comment on it.

Best,

Daryl

report post as inappropriate

Dear Georgina:

Thank you for joining back into the discussion. I do plan to carefully read through your essay (which I've only been able to glance through up to now), and eventually rate it. I hope you do mine as well.

As to your above comment, I agree with it. I think that from what you've said you consider time and energy to be canonically conjugate variables, though, so I'm not...

view entire post

Dear Georgina:

Thank you for joining back into the discussion. I do plan to carefully read through your essay (which I've only been able to glance through up to now), and eventually rate it. I hope you do mine as well.

As to your above comment, I agree with it. I think that from what you've said you consider time and energy to be canonically conjugate variables, though, so I'm not sure I see the reason for bringing both into the discussion---unless that relates to your second comment about "why gravity can not be caused by curvature of space time[, even though you are] using a framework that allows general relativity to be seen as valid."

In that regard, I think we are in agreement. On Aug 15 at 18:53, I posted a reply to George Ellis on my topic which contained the following:

"General relativity theory describes space-time as a field that is supposed to be warped in the presence of gravitational mass. In contrast, in order to reconcile relativity with true temporal passage, I've described space-time as the emergent map of events that occur in an enduring three-dimensional universe. As such, the space-time continuum of events is not conceived as a real substantive manifold that warps and moulds due to the presence of gravitational mass; and the need to describe the flow of time associated with a uniformly enduring homogeneous present [in cosmology; this statement's given within the context of George's comment], makes the basic concept of space that truly warps under the influence of gravity seem difficult to reconcile. For instance, in cosmology we take the description of perfect fluidity to be valid on the large scale, but if space-time is a substantive manifold that's truly warped under the influence of mass, so that the local passage of time is really influenced by localised mass, is it really very consistent to say that there should be a cosmic time that passes at the same rate in our Local Group as it does in the Coma cluster? Although the description of space-time that's given by Einstein's equations seems to coincide with the idea of a substantive manifold that truly dynamically warps under the influence of mass (although, in what dimension is the warping of space-time described as dynamically changing? Dropping the assumption of a global simultaneity-relation in space-time that coincides with a uniform flow of cosmic time, while retaining the concept of dynamical change, seems to lead to Zeno's paradox of infinite regression), if an absolute cosmic time is required in order to counter the implication [from the Rietdijk-Putnam argument] that we must only imagine ourselves as existing in a block universe, it seems that some more definite background metrical structure must be required to account for that.

"And that's exactly what the RW metric provides in standard cosmology; therefore, although the local passage of time will be different in different gravitational fields and in different states of motion, the standard model still describes uniform global evolution. The same is true in the SdS cosmology I mentioned in my essay, given the description of r as the cosmic time coordinate. The difference, however, is that in FLRW cosmology the overall curvature of space and the evolution of the scale-factor are supposed to be determined by the large scale average energy content of the universe. Therefore, general relativistic dynamics are incorporated into the theory following the prior assumption of a cosmological background metric. Furthermore, this idea is supposed to be correct according to general relativity theory, so that, in taking the RW metric as background structure and passing it through Einstein's equations, we find that the overall empirical and theoretical consistency of the theory implies that the perfect fluidity of matter should be a good approximation to the large scale average; but it's really debatable whether the large scale distribution of matter really has approximated very well as a perfect fluid since structure formation, and it's anyway this aspect of the theory that really makes the horizon problem such a big problem [notwithstanding inflation].

"Now, the idea that the evolution of our Universe might really need to be described through a well-defined background metric, through which space-time emerges as the map of events that occur in the Universe, seems better suited to a metric-affine theory, whereby the metric and local connection are independent quantities and gravitation is described in terms of torsion rather than curvature. If this were the case, then regardless of what the background metric would be (i.e., regardless of the [possible] triviality [of] its stress-energy tensor), space-time would be described locally through different solutions to the Einstein field equations [that could well contain non-vanishing stress-energy].

"Therefore, if the SdS cosmological background could be used as such to describe the existence of galaxies on its fundamental worldlines, and if the distribution of galaxies would appear isotropic from every such perspective, it would be a legitimate cosmological background for a universe that *should* expand at all times, at a well-defined rate that would turn out to be modelled precisely by the flat LambdaCDM scale-factor, regardless of the actual curvature of space or its global energy content. Therefore, it would agree with empirical observations in our Universe, going a large way towards explaining why the Universe does expand, and would eliminate the flatness problem as well as the need for large amounts of dark matter and dark energy---and the horizon problem would no more be a problem than the requirement to account for that particular background metric. But then, it should be noted that this particular metric has the same form as the one that will describe the final state outside every bound cluster of galaxies in our Universe..."

Neither George, nor anyone else, has offered anything in response to this. Since we agree that there can be both "universal simultaneity as well as the observation of relativity, without contradiction"---and I have demonstrated in my essay how this can work in the case of special relativity, with the mathematical theory emerging as the appropriate description of events that occur in an emergent universe with the required inertial and causal structures---I wonder if you (or anyone else) have any thoughts on this.

Best regards,

Daryl

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 03:24 GMT

Dear Daryl,

Much of what I say relates to the explanatory framework that I am using. There is a high resolution version of diagram 1 in my essay discussion thread. The space-time is output from data processing, a fabrication (like an artificial reality, only its completely natural).All of the rest (not the fabricated output)exists fully simultaneously on the other side of the reality interface. But there is also continuous change (energy) generating new potential sensory data,(that might become incorporated into a fabricated reality) and generating that absolute passage of time. That is why Zeno's paradox is not a reality when the explanatory framework is used. Change, energy, and Object universal passage of time can not be separated.

Though I don't understand all of the intricacies of what is being discussed I do think the recently expressed temporal ideas such as (Aug. 24, 2012 @ 17:24 GMT addressed to Jonathan) are very relevant and fit precisely the framework I have developed on the FQXi site since posting my essay in the last competition. I don't want to take up any more of Edwin's thread.I have looked at your essay too but it is complicated for me.I am not a qualified physicist or cosmologist. I wanted to get my head around it better before commenting. Happy to talk on your thread or my own.

report post as inappropriate

Hello all,

without a preferred frame of reference, as in standard SR, observers moving differently estimate each other's 'now' moments in a way that is inconsistent. No universal time emerges. They can even look at each other's watches through telescopes and allow for light travel times, and also for time dilation. They still get results that don't match up. That's why many people see time as more local, and less universal.

This applies in SR with or without the spacetime interpretation, and the local aspect of time might in fact help to explain why the spacetime interpretation is wrong - by making long distance simultaneity meaningless, which would mean that Minkowski's geometry depends on a false assumption. This would remove block time, and all the contractions that go with it.

If you have a preferred frame of reference, such as that of the background radiation, then you can try to make time dilation an effect involving deviations from an underlying universal time rate. But without a preferred frame, it's hard to see how there can be a universal time.

Best wishes, Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Daryl Janzen replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 18:17 GMT

You can't simply remove the metrical relation between events and still call your idea physics. In this respect, you should carefully read and think about Edwin's post from Aug. 24, 2012 @ 02:32, which I think nails the issue with defining existence as something mystical outside the past light cone, as you seem to want to do.

Regarding your last paragraph, with a preferred reference frame, you *can* describe time dilation as an effect involving deviations from an underlying universal time rate, since the mathematical theory gives a consistent description. In relativity theory, it's impossible for there to be a universal time without a preferred system of reference, and vice versa; the two are equivalent.

report post as inappropriate

Ah, hello Daryl,

Sorry, I've just see a post of yours to me I didn't notice before, drawing a distinction between 'synchronicity' and 'simultaneity'. Will look at your essay again. I think our posts crossed in fact.

Best wishes, Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Daryl Janzen replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 18:26 GMT

Hi Jonathan.

Brilliant. Wonderful. Thanks very much! I'll just make one suggestion for when you read it again: please pay close attention to the reason why "observer" B cannot possibly ever "see" (i.e., exchange information, influence, or otherwise ever be in causal contact with) "observer" C'.

I also missed this post when I typed the one above.

Best,

Daryl

report post as inappropriate

Hello Daryl,

I'll be on the road again with my partner from today, and would be wrong to comment on your approach in any complete way. But I can see that given a preferred frame, and coming from that, an underlying universal time, the rest of it might well work, and probably does.

One question is, can we assume a preferred frame? Einstein said we can work with one, as in your quote, but he was talking about a working approximation. And both Einstein and Weyl talked about that approach to cosmology decades before the modern experiments with particles at high speeds, which show that it's very hard to make a case for a preferred frame, except as an approximation. I know your approach includes things that are emergent, so that might make it possible somehow, but looking at the foundations, and what's really going on underneath these things, it's hard to put in a preferred frame. I'm interested in addressing the clues we have, rather than finding ways around them, and they're very counter-intuitive. But because the local aspect fits with several things at once, as in my previous post, I'm particularly interested in that. We all have our different ways of seeing these things, good luck with yours...

Best wishes, Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Hi All,

As noted several places, many essays build on earlier essays. For this reason I would like to reproduce a comment I made on George Ellis's thread, which treats the two-way flow of causality: top-down and bottom-up. Another essayist, Benjamin Dribus, presents a causal metric approach. And I found Carey Carlson's essay on causal set theory a helpful tutorial to causal set theory. My...

view entire post

Hi All,

As noted several places, many essays build on earlier essays. For this reason I would like to reproduce a comment I made on George Ellis's thread, which treats the two-way flow of causality: top-down and bottom-up. Another essayist, Benjamin Dribus, presents a causal metric approach. And I found Carey Carlson's essay on causal set theory a helpful tutorial to causal set theory. My sense is that causal set theory is a mathematician's theory, or a physicist 'gone native'. As I understand it, one begins with time (as an ordered binary relation) and no space. Thus, to handle George's two-way causal flow we appear to need multiple time dimensions -- not a solution that appeals to this physicist.

Also mentioned were quantum phases depending on "the entire universes involved". My essay instead derives 'finite extent' wave functions from a classical field and explains how these relate to probability amplitudes and superposition of [infinite] Fourier components. There is no "quantum wave function of the universe", only local waves.

Which brings us to two-way causality. My previous essays assumed the universe as based on one physical substance (and *nothing else*) and assumed this substance (the primordial field) could evolve only through self-interaction. This led to a scale-independent solution (hence, per Nottale, motion-invariant, ie, time-invariant) with no meaningful physical interpretation of time until the original perfect symmetry breaks. In this sense I begin with space and no time versus the assumption of time and no space.

Although difficult to summarize in a comment, the point is that the essential nature of the primordial field (which turns out to be gravity) is to support self-interaction (since there is initially absolutely nothing else to interact with) and this (evolving as it has into the world as we know it) is at the root of the ability of our universe to support top-down as well as bottom-up causality.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

Dear Eckard Blumschein,

As your questions on your own thread are very relevant to my essay, I am copying my response to make the information available were. You asked about an electromagnetic (EM) wave versus the QM wave my essay postulates is the basis of the QM wave function.

I view a 'single' EM wave as a pure sine wave of 'infinite' extent. The scaled linear superposition of such...

view entire post

Dear Eckard Blumschein,

As your questions on your own thread are very relevant to my essay, I am copying my response to make the information available were. You asked about an electromagnetic (EM) wave versus the QM wave my essay postulates is the basis of the QM wave function.

I view a 'single' EM wave as a pure sine wave of 'infinite' extent. The scaled linear superposition of such components is of course the basis of Fourier analysis.

The key physical basis of such EM waves is their ability to propagate (through a medium or vacuum) far from the source of the radiation. In contrast, the wave that I describe is a circulating field (according to the weak field approximation to GR) induced by a 'mass current density' which has units of momentum density, mv where m is mass density and v is velocity. This wave is best viewed as a 'vortex' which has one field component, C, (versus two, E and B for EM waves) and does not propagate away from the source but travels *with* the source, soliton-like. There is no 'infinite' aspect to this wave but it does decay over a finite distance. Without the finite range of the 'trailing vortex' (analogous to aircraft wingtip vortices) the wave would not extend over the range of excited orbits and there would be no interference leading to quantized stable orbits.

You provided a link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_polarization, to an article discussing circular polarization, that contains a nice animation showing a circularly polarized E-field wave. Note that this wave propagates far from the source, unlike the C-field wave and note also that the E-field is a radially directed field from the axis of propagation, whereas I picture the C-field wave as circular (or cylindrical) circulating about the axis of propagation, and centered on the inducing source current density, as shown in fig 2 in my essay. This is a quite different physical phenomenon.

As for the 'left-handed nature' of this wave, the GR equation is curl C = -p where p is the momentum density. I interpret the minus sign to indicate left-handed circulation. This is compatible with many left-handed aspects of particle physics, from neutrino to boson, and even shows up in biological molecules. The implications are too many to discuss in a comment, but I find them significant.

Finally, you say "You seem to add some temporal and spatial restriction which is entirely unknown to me". You are correct. I have combined de Broglie's wavelength-momentum relation p = h/lambda with the GR equation curl C ~ p to obtain: lambda (dot) curl C = h, where h is Planck's constant. This is interpreted as a quantized 'volume' (as shown on page 5) and I show how an atomic orbit can be viewed as an integer multiple of such volumes. This is a new physical relation that has never been proposed before and probably takes some digestion from those who think everything is already known about quantum mechanics -- we should just "shut up and calculate". In addition, I believe that there are other implications, based on a geometric algebra approach, which I hope to develop further in the future.

I hope that this comment is helpful.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

Hi Ed and others,

Gee there are a lot of fascinating comments on this page. I had intended to leave a remark in response to the comment to Eckard above, but after going back and reading the last ten days or so of comments, all my opinions are washed out. But I will have something to say about the circulating C-field before long.

Maybe the minus sign in curl C = -p does not have to refer to handedness but could simply signify curving inwardly rather than outwardly. This could have something to do with the topology of the particle rather than spin per se.

I'm still thinking about this.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 05:31 GMT

Hi Jonathan,

Yes there are a lot of fascinating comments on this page. Thanks for reading them! And you just added a fascinating comment. I'm fairly sure that the minus sign is indicative of handedness, but I would love to hear a topological explanation that made sense and opened up new possibilities. Keep thinking!

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 16:09 GMT

Hello Edwin and Friends,

I've had a little time for my thoughts on the subject to coalesce, so here goes. If we assume the S3 topology applies to the electron, for example, would not the circulating C-field of the moving particle trace out one fiber of the Hopf fibration? That way; the path could be circular, from the C-fields point (or spiral) of view. And so; the evolution of the field from any point on the surface would be always toward the center - almost.

My guess is that the correct orientation to imagine is with the fiber bundle leaving a hole in the center equal to the Schwarzschild radius of the particle's mass. This 'always spiraling inward' aspect might be what results in the minus sign (in curl C = -p), rather than indicating the particle's handedness, per se. This would allow the model to be in closer agreement with the Zitterbewegung interpretation, and I think with the ideas expressed in Michael's diagrams - attached to the comment above.

Does this make sense?

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 19:26 GMT

Hi Jonathan,

Rather than assume that S3 topology applies to the electron, the C-field naturally evolves to a torus [ as schematically shown on page 5 in my previous FQXI essay ] with a key frequency being the Zitterbewegung frequency. The "hole" in the center has no apparent connection to the Schwartzschild radius but the topology does support the spin one half property of the electron. This is a stable configuration to which the field naturally condenses under the curl C ~ -p weak field equation with appropriate assumptions.

I don't really understand your suggestion about the Hopf fiber leaving a hole equal to the Schwartzschild radius of the particle mass or the 'always spiraling inward' aspect. I'm impressed by how quickly you've come up with such a topological solution, but the solution I describe above seems to evolve according to the weak field approximation to GR and also leads, under reasonable assumptions to the fine structure constant. The consequences of this model are developed in "The Chromodynamics War". I believe that the natural appearance of the Zitterbewegung frequency, the spin one half properties, and the fine structure constant provide points in favor of the model.

Finally, I should point out that while the 'condensing C-field' leads to a stable particle, any linear momentum of this particle then induces a *secondary* circulation which is the wave function discussed in my current essay. Thus the C-field actually accounts for both [primary] particle AND [secondary] wave in QM.

Hope this makes sense to you.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hello again,

I thought this might be a good place to raise the question of whether viewing particles as topological objects might account for the observations of Jenkin and Fischbach of varying decay rates for nuclei, depending on Sun-Earth distance. Apparently this has taken on a new dimension recently, as with more sensitive measurements it works as a kind of early warning system for solar storms.

This would argue heavily for the interpretation that the fabric of spacetime is also of the nature of S3, topologically speaking. Or at least; I think that a topological description with a non-trivial twist in the fibration might easily account for such an effect as follows. When there is a mass ejection, this is a ripple in the topological fabric in the region of the Sun, in effect it is a rapid partial eversion of the Sun's mass.

Would anyone care to comment? Is this relevant here?

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 19:49 GMT

Jonathan,

I had not heard of the recent Jenkins and Fischbach varying decay rate correlated with solar storms. My earlier interpretation [page 415 in "The Chromodynamics War"] is based on neutrino interaction with nuclear structures based on particles of the type described above. I find this far more feasible than a topological explanation. But if there is a topological explanation of the type you suggest, there appear to be enough people working in this field to eventually figure it out.

To clarify my point: I am not opposed to topology, in fact, the topology of the torus is more subtle than is usually realized [I believe] but it is one that evolves naturally from real physical fields, not one that is made up from thin air, in search of an application.

I hope others have comments on this question of decay correlation.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin,

The use of the weak field equation definitely has an advantage that it can provide a link between quantum theory and general relativity. I totally share your idea that there can be reality with the matter wave and it can be related to relativity. One question that may encounter to replace the wave function with real wave is the unobservable overall phase. The wave function can be phase shifted without changing the probability density but a real wave will look different. Will clarification on this point help further substantiate the idea?

Sincerely

Hou Ying Yau

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 04:17 GMT

Dear Hou Ying Yau,

Thanks for the comment. I am glad that you share an appreciation of a real wave as the basis of the wave function. As for the phase of the wave, I do not believe it is measurable in any way. How it is shifted, and what the effects of this will be, is an important question that must be addressed. And yes, it will help either substantiate the idea or will work against the idea. I am investigating this and other aspects but cannot yet answer the question. Many of the current essays are providing me with new ideas, as I am sure is also the case for you.

Additionally, another thread brought to my attention the PNAS article by Menzel et al. of June 12, 2012 vol 109 #24 on "Wave-particle dualism..." wherein a double-slit experiment using two entangled particles (based on down-conversion) observes the wave aspect on one leg at the same time that a particle is detected on the other leg. I believe this to be the first simultaneous experimental detection of particle and wave properties. I will write more on this after studying the paper.

I expect that we will be seeing much more experimental and theoretical support for the idea that "There *IS* Reality Beneath Quantum Theory".

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hou Ying Yau replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 04:07 GMT

Edwin.

Thank you for sharing the information. I am also writing a paper on collapse of wave and entanglement. This information will be extremely useful. I agree with many of your ideas and we have very similar approach. I hope we can communicate further in the future. My e-mail is hyau@fdnresearch.us

Sincerely,

Hou Ying Yau

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 07:52 GMT

Dear Hou Ying Yau,

I will be very interested in reading your paper and am happy that you find the new information extremely useful. I too find it exciting. And I look forward to direct communication, once the rush of final essay submissions dies down. My email address is in my essay.

Sincerely,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

show all replies (1 not shown)

Hi Edwin,

I have read the start of your essay and scanned the rest of it. I would like to get some clarification before I read on.

You introduce a vector quantity C.Initially, I assumed that it is the gravity field in vector form, since a little later you mean that it has been measured.

Later you call it the de-coherent C-field of a thermal body.

What do you mean by that? Is it the notion introduced by Hoyle?

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 21:22 GMT

Dear Ben Baten,

The C-field is my abbreviation for the gravito-magnetic field that is meant to be used with the gravito-electric G field in a manner analogous to the E and B fields of electromagnetism. Equations very similar to Maxwell's equations fall out of the weak-field approximation to general relativity, as described in reference 10 of my essay. Since I am concerned with non-relativistic QM in weak gravity, this seems to me to be the appropriate approximation. Hoyle, many years ago called his "Creation-field" the C-field, and this has the unfortunate effect of bringing up Hoyle in Google searches. For a while I tried to avoid the term, C-field, but it is too convenient, with only 26 characters, and Hoyle's field is dead, except on Google. I regret this inconvenient similarity in names.

Units of the G-field are acceleration, L/T^2 while units of the C-field are frequency, 1/T. The Lorentz-like force equation is F=m(G plus v x C) where m is mass and v is the velocity of the mass in an external C-field. A mass in motion also induces its own C-field circulation, according to the relativity equation curl C ~ -p where p is the particle momentum.

Unknown at the time of Einstein's general relativity was a coherency factor, kappa, measured by Martin Tajmar (see appropriate reference). For particles and superconducting matter, this coherency factor provides a very large multiplier for the C-field effects. For thermal matter (like the Earth) this coherency is lost, and a much weaker C-field is measured (as the recent Gravity Probe B results).

I hope this helps.

Dear FQXi'ers,

There are now several models for 'particles' published in this essay competition. As my essay is based on the wave function induced by a real particle, I feel it's appropriate to at least sketch my own model of how real particles are created, and I do so here:

First, the century old assumption of a 'point'-like electron is clearly wrong.

Several models assume a...

view entire post

Dear FQXi'ers,

There are now several models for 'particles' published in this essay competition. As my essay is based on the wave function induced by a real particle, I feel it's appropriate to at least sketch my own model of how real particles are created, and I do so here:

First, the century old assumption of a 'point'-like electron is clearly wrong.

Several models assume a 'quantum loop' of some sort, often associated with Zitterbewegung. There's no realistic explanation for why a particle circles with Compton radius at light speed, and it's a stretch to obtain known particle parameters based on the Zitterbewegung model.

My own model assumes an intense C-field -- easily encountered at the big bang or in LHC collisions -- where particles are created. A vortex in the field, combined with the relevant field equations describing the self-interacting behavior of the field, results in an ever-faster spinning, ever-tightening vortex in the same way that a skater spins faster when she pulls her arms in. The significance of the Compton radius is that **this is the point where the vortex 'wall' reaches the speed of light**.

Instead of assuming that some 'point-like' particle races around a 'Compton radius' circle at the speed of light, I assume that a new phenomenon occurs here -- the creation of charge (the C-field, or gravito-magnetic field, is uncharged). This charge adds a new outward-based self-repulsion force to the inward directed centripetal force acting on the mass [energy] of the vortex wall moving in the original field [plus self-induced dipole field], and this self-repulsive force provides the limiting condition that prevents the vortex from following it's natural path which is to shrink to an infinitely dense 'point'. Instead, the charged vortex wall resists being compressed to a 'point' and the electron radius stabilizes at radius about 10^-18 meters.

It has been known for 80 years that the electron must "spin faster than the speed of light" to account for the magnetic moment but no one has ever explained why this is forbidden. Nowhere in the relevant equations does 'c' show up to limit this action. In fact, if the skater could pull her arms in to a radius approaching zero, she too would spin faster than the speed of light. If angular momentum is conserved, then the speed is determined by the radial arm -- there is no 'natural' limit. It is *NOT* the same as 'boosting' linear velocity to the speed of light. And the spin frequency is identically equal to the Zitterbewegung frequency!

My key assumption is that electric charge appears when the vortex wall reaches the speed of light at the Compton radius. Then everything else, including the fine structure constant, falls out. All particles are automatically 'indistinguishable' since there is no possible "marking" that could be seen on a particle spinning faster than light. This stable particle possesses a finite radius, a spinning charge that induces the correct magnetic moment, spin-one half and the particle spin provides the Zitterbewegung frequency. I present this process in great detail in The Chromodynamics War where I also treat all of the other particles of the Standard Model [except the Higgs].

A number of recent experiments have shown that the de Broglie model of real particle plus real-field-based wave function provides the best explanation of the observed results. To see how such a non-point electron induces a wave function, please read my essay [top of page].

In summary, electron properties derive from structure and it's high time that physicists focus on this structure. This is inconvenient from the perspective of point-based quantum field theories and QCD, but these theories have a number of problems.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 22:49 GMT

Thanks Ed,

This is an excellent summary of the salient points of your theory, for those who have not yet read your essay, or fail to grasp some important nuance. It's nice that your construction offers a built in limiter (the speed of light) which actually explains why the electron's particle aspect never reduces to a point.

I too feel the point particle idea is plainly wrong. This is actually one of the questions we kicked around in Science club, back in High School (~1974). Why should an electron have a surface radius around 10^-18 when the gravitational radius of that mass is so much smaller?

I noticed the reference to Menzel et al., in the comment above and that work looks like it strongly favors a wave-like aspect as fundamental (from first glance). I've always thought the Mach-Zehnder apparatus clearly shows that photons and electrons cannot be a particle alone - because they only get through the house of mirrors by behaving like waves.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 23:04 GMT

Hi Jonathan,

Thanks for reviewing the comment. One never knows how reduced explanations will be received and interpreted. In fact, I should probably state that it is actually the outward-acting self repulsive force of charge working against the inward-acting force of the C-field on the mass of the C-field [energy] that actually provides the limiting mechanism that prevents the particle from shrinking to a point. I do not believe that the speed of light applies to angular momentum, only Planck's constant.

As for the Menzel experiment, I haven't yet had a chance to study it -- trying to keep up with the final flood of essays. But it appears to prove that a particle and a wave aspect have been detected **simultaneously** which does not agree with the Copenhagen interpretation of 'either particle OR wave'. It is, as my essay claims, 'both particle AND wave'.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Ah yes! I should have read further.

Regarding Menzel et al; you state "it appears to prove that a particle and a wave aspect have been detected **simultaneously** which does not agree with the Copenhagen interpretation of 'either particle OR wave'. It is, as my essay claims, 'both particle AND wave'."

Of course it does. In last year's essay The Best of Both Worlds, I argue it's the only way it could be. I'm very happy experiment has proven me correct, and that this same result makes you correct also.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 23:37 GMT

Yes, it's a big deal!

Hi Edwin,

Thank you for sharing your essay. Your thoughts flowed nicely from one step to the next, and so the essay was very easy to follow. I was reading the comments above, about that experiment pertaining to your essay, and I hope it all works out for you. :)

There are so many great idea-filled comments here, left by so many people. I have to read them all again. This is very illuminating.

Take care.

- Shawn

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 19:28 GMT

Dear Shawn,

Thank you for reading and commenting. I have truly enjoyed your comments on other threads and am very happy that you found my essay and associated comments of interest. As you note, there are many thoughtful comments here.

I have also noted elsewhere that I would like to drink whatever you guys are drinking in Saskatoon!

Edwin Eugene Klingman

S Halayka replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 21:10 GMT

Thank you Edwin, it's very nice to feel included. My knowledge is pretty spotty, and I'm having trouble understanding a lot of the essays, but so far most people have been open to discussing and explaining things. I just want to make it clear that I am not a professional physicist, and that my essay and my comments should probably not be taken extremely seriously. I just figured that since there was an invitation to lay out some assumptions, guilt-free, then why not try. I am so glad that all of these other people accepted the invitation too.

I don't know if there's anything particularly special about the water up here in these parts, but you're more than welcome to come experience them for yourself any time (just bring an ice auger if it's in January). :)

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 21:47 GMT

Shawn, if by 'professional' you mean that one gets paid for doing physics, then be thankful. Those whose livelihood depends on being a member of the guild are very constrained, whether they admit it or not, to following the party line. Those of us who never or no longer depend on money connected to our physics are not so constrained. There are other constraints (being called 'crackpot', etc) but these are of a lesser sort. Of course this does not imply that non-professionals are any more likely to be correct than professionals, but they can look for truth in a larger field.

I am glad so many accepted the invitation as well.

show all replies (1 not shown)

Edwin,

Your comment of Sep. 5, 2012 @ 22:18 GMT in topic 1526 (Sara Walker):"Frank, I have postulated that it is the C-field or gravito-magnetic field that is responsible for the left-handed-only neutrinos, W and Z bosons, and even the left-handed biological molecules."

In your essay, you mention gravito-electric in the last paragraph on page 2, and state it has a dimension of 1/t, which describes a duration, typically referred to as frequency.

There is plenty of evidence that there is a lot of spiral activity and left-hand bias in nature.Not Just Another Old Flame I cited the Whyte "Chirality" article in an earlier in an earlier comment.

Two papers were published by Queen Mary, University of London people in 2004 linkiing EM to Gravity.

Electrifying Gravity

Newton's Gravitation Constant G as a Quantum Coupling Constant

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 21:33 GMT

Dear Frank,

I agree that there is a left-handed bias in Nature, and I do attribute it to the C-field as you noted. I will read the articles you linked to and then make a more extensive comment. I also noticed that you left two previous remarks but I only responded to one. I will remedy this also.

Thanks again for the comments and the links.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 23:54 GMT

Dear Frank Makinson,

According to your next comment below, I haven't relaxed yet! I'll look at the paper, but I'm not a great fan of scalar fields. And while it's not impossible that mathematicians will solve the physics problem, I don't see much of that happening these days.

This response is to your above comment... I found the NASA note on spiraling flames fascinating, and pretty...

view entire post

Dear Frank Makinson,

According to your next comment below, I haven't relaxed yet! I'll look at the paper, but I'm not a great fan of scalar fields. And while it's not impossible that mathematicians will solve the physics problem, I don't see much of that happening these days.

This response is to your above comment... I found the NASA note on spiraling flames fascinating, and pretty much what I would expect, but there doesn't seem to be enough info there to confirm that the spiral is left-handed. And some of the links were dead.

The Gilson paper presented some interesting ratios and several times referenced "an electromagnetic theory of gravity". It may seem a small point, but I prefer a "gravity-based theory of electromagnetism", as my model postulates a 'free lunch' universe in which the kinetic energy of the out-flowing field exactly balances the negative energy of gravitational attraction, resulting in no net energy required at Creation. Not until symmetry breaks does electromagnetism enter the picture (along with the preferred C-field handedness). In fact, as I noted in my previous FQXi essay, until symmetry breaks the primordial field is scale-invariant, hence motion-invariant, and thus there is no meaningful [i.e., measurable] definition of time. Up to this point all C-field circulation is effectively 'suppressed'. When symmetry breaks C-field vortices appear [left-handed] and these can be conceived of as the first 'clocks' [cyclical phenomena] in the universe. Note that they all run 'one-way'; time is NOT symmetrical. The vortices, by a process I've described elsewhere many times, then effectively 'condense' into particles, which, in motion, induce their own C-field circulation and this is the wave function I describe in my current essay.

Ross' paper "Electrifying Gravity" attempts to derive the gravitational constant from the electrostatic force in relation to the mass of the electron and proton. And on the first page he states: "If therefore gravity and the electrostatic force are the same force at different strengths." I do not see how this could be so, as gravity interacts with mass and hence with it's own self-energy, whereas the electric field interacts with charge, but is itself uncharged, and therefore cannot interact with itself. He presents so many formulas and constants it's not surprising he finds some coincidences, but the key is in his last paragraph, where he states he has very little knowledge of math or physics.

The last topic I'd like to treat is from your earlier comment, [Aug 16, 2012 @ 11:18]. I regret over looking it and now find a little gem in it. I'll answer inline following your comment above.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

Edwin,

Everybody can relax now, a couple of mathematicians have identified how gravity works. All they had to do was add dark energy and dark matter with the proper definitions.

"Third, this scalar potential energy density should be viewed as the main cause for the non-homogeneous distribution of the matter/galaxies in the universe, as the dark matter (negative scalar potential energy) attracts and dark energy (positive scalar potential energy) repels different galaxies; see (1.9) below."

Gravitational Field Equations and Theory of Dark Energy and Dark Matter

The final sentence in the report states: "Consequently, when there is no normal matter present (with T = 0), the curvature R of space-time is balanced by R = Phi. Therefore, there is no real vacuum in the universe."

report post as inappropriate

Hi Edwin,

I've read through your essays now, and I can definitely see the appeal of having the dynamics pop out of asymmetry in the field. That seems to close any gap between the "data" and the "processor", and thus makes any spacetime-as-a-computer analogy inaccurate.

I also took a look at the FPGA programming articles on your website. Those were very informative, and a lot of fun to read. It's really interesting to me how the FPGA allows you to have variable logic tables. That must make for some very involved but fun programming. Yet again, my world view has been expanded. :)

- Shawn

report post as inappropriate

Dear Edwin,

I like your excellent essay and appreciate your novel viewpoint. I wish you good luck in the contest.

As you know, our community ratings will be used for selecting top 35 essays as 'Finalists' for further evaluation by a select panel of experts. There is a possibility of existence of a biased group which promotes the essays of that group by rating them all 'High' and jointly demotes some other essays by rating them all 'Low'. Therefore, any biased group should not be permitted to corner all top 'Finalists' positions for their select group.

In order to ensure fair play in this selection, each participants in this contest should select about 50 essays for entry in the finalists list and RATE them 'High'. Next they should select bottom 50 essays and rate them 'Low'. Remaining essays may be rated as usual, if time permits. If all the participants rate at least 100 essays this way then the negative influence of any bias group will certainly get mitigated.

You are requested to read and rate my essay titled,"Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space".

Finally I wish to see your excellent essay reach the list of finalists.

Best Regards

G S Sandhu

report post as inappropriate

Hi Edwin,

Does the C-field theory get rid of the possibility of super-extremal black hole electrons? (Jonathan mentioned this, I believe). Have you thought about what happens when a C-field vortex possesses more than the Planck energy? Does it split off into multiple vortices, or switch orientation, or something else? Have you thought about how to induce the other charges?

One thing I notice about a gravitational field is that there's generally a gradient involved, which provides an orientation that is orthogonal to the gradient. Is the left and right spin of the vortices based on this orientation?

- Shawn

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 00:34 GMT

Dear Shawn,

Great questions, and I really appreciate them. The problem with working alone is that one develops blind spots and these cause questions to be overlooked. That's bad, because answering questions is the way that we best teach ourselves.

First you ask about super extremal black holes [with electron charge and mass]. The radius of these is 10^-57 meters, while I assume ~10^-19 to 10^-18 meters, which gives me good numbers and agrees with experiment. So I believe these don't exist, for reasons related to your next question about high energy vortices.

I assume [haven't worked out exactly why yet] that all such vortices start with a finite [particle size?] radial arm or vortex radius. The dynamics predicted by the equations both produce a central dipole field and non-linearly shrink the radial arm toward zero. Conservation of angular momentum causes the wall to speed up [like the skater pulling in her arms] and, as explained above, I find no reason to assume such motion must remain subluminal. But there are reasons to believe special things happen when v reaches c. At this point a crucial separation occurs between the superluminal spinning 'tip' and the still subluminal vortex major, which 'snaps back' to continue shrinking. This 'vortex as boson' begins with far more energy than a fermion. So after spitting out one fermion, there's plenty of energy to do it again, in the other direction. This is the basis of the 'particle jets' seen at LHC, etc. This process is described in detail in The Chromodynamics War

You ask whether other vortices 'split off'. The superluminal vortex splits off from the subluminal vortex, and the superluminal stabilizes as a toroidal charged particle, characterized by mass, charge, and spin, and dense enough to induce a C-field ["bow wave"] wave function as described in my current essay. Thus energetic vortices spit out particles as long as enough energy remains, then finally decay to a [left-handed] neutrino. If you think about this process, it will produce all particles [essentially from various vortex 'vibration modes'] in quantity, but *not* higher and higher energy particles, and no 'super' particles. In other words, I predict that no matter how many colliders are built, there won't be new particles [but there may be new 'resonances']. The Standard Model particles are "it".

The vortex spin, according to the GR equation, is left-handed, and this is reflected in many things, cosmological, neutrinos, W and Z bosons, and even bio-molecules. I think it can even be related to the 'one-way' nature of time, since C-field vortices were the first 'clocks' in universe.

As for the gradient, I believe the gravity field is too weak [except at black holes?] to affect vortex orientation. Instead the colliding particles establish a rotational plane between them, and the C-field vortex rotates in this plane. Because all particles are essentially simply condensed stabilized C-field 'structured' energy, when two particles collide with sufficient energy the structural stability is overcome [the ice melts and water flows] and a new vortex is formed. This is why I predicted 'super fluid' while QCD was predicting 'quark gas' at the RHIC and LHC.

I hope this answers your questions. It's NOT the QCD picture [hence "War"] but it appears to answer very many questions QCD can't answer, and predicts all of the known particles [except the Higgs]. I think I can calculate all of the particle masses [I'm within 10% of the muon mass] which current science cannot do.

This comment in a way distracts from my essay, but since a few have found it appropriate to knock my score way down, I might as well use this opportunity to inform those who are interested. There is a possibility that all of the problems discussed in this contest may actually have an effect [dream on!]. It should be clear to all involved that what passes for orthodoxy is built on sandy soil.

Thanks again for your interest and your questions.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Frank Makinson replied on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 16:28 GMT

Edwin,

Your response to Shawn "The problem with working alone is that one develops blind spots and these cause questions to be overlooked. That's bad, because answering questions is the way that we best teach ourselves.", applies to my situation also. Periodically, I express alternative ideas on various forums, this to learn about the type of counter arguments used. However, not being...

view entire post

Edwin,

Your response to Shawn "The problem with working alone is that one develops blind spots and these cause questions to be overlooked. That's bad, because answering questions is the way that we best teach ourselves.", applies to my situation also. Periodically, I express alternative ideas on various forums, this to learn about the type of counter arguments used. However, not being constantly immersed in an orthodox science environment (part of the choir), it is possible to examine alternative theories without being constantly exposed to disparaging comments or worse. Too much isolation can result in one being way off-base, and not realizing it.

I have been re-reading a few of the earlier essays that do not get many comments. Some promote what I term as "physics fiction", as least from what I know. More than one have a new approach to the Michelson-Morley (MM) experiment, first conducted in 1886. Once I keyed on the MM experiment, I looked for a specific mention of the assumption that the MM experiment was attempting to prove or disapprove.

Who established the assumption that the aether was a fixed attribute of the universe, and everything moved within it? From what I know currently, that assumption would be difficult to promote.

In 1885, H.Hertz demonstrated that electromagnetic (EM) fields propagate through the air. None of the scientists of that era, including Einstein, were aware that we are constantly bathed in EM fields from local planetary sources, solar system sources and cosmic sources, the later not identified until the 1930s.

I was an EE student at the Univ. of Iowa when Van Allen was building the first Explorer satellite instrument packages. One evening, on one of my trips to the physics building, where I had a part-time job repairing various equipment, I saw a group of individuals at a work bench, and one was wrapping a heavy lead sheet around a Geiger tube. I did not know why this was being done at that time. Later, I found out that empty space was less empty, vast belts of energetic particles were embraced by the earth's various influences, and this "material" is faithfully dragged wherever earth goes. What else is being "dragged along" with our solar system?

Everything has permittivity and/or permeability in various quantities, even what is considered "empty space." I put the term "fabric of space" into one of the big search engines, and it returned 1,470,000 hits. The scientific community has disposed of the aether, but they seemed to have no difficulty in embracing the concept of the "fabric of space." Now they have "invented" the Higgs to perform one or more of the functions that it was assumed the aether provided.

Has it ever occurred to anyone that the miniscule permittivity/permeability of space represents the primordial basis of what eventually becomes matter? The Casmir effect is identifying something in what contemporary scientists consider "nothing", except this nothing has permeability and permittivity.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka replied on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 17:17 GMT

Hi Edwin,

Thanks for taking the time to explain everything in a more detail. Shifting back into thinking mode. :)

- Shawn

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (3 not shown)

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 19:29 GMT

Hi Shawn, Frank,

I do appreciate the questions Shawn, and enjoy your comments.

Frank, it appears that many physicists, including Nobelist Frank Wilczek, are concluding that "something" is there that can be considered as ether, although this ranges from 'vacuum energy' to 'quantum fields' to what have you.

My own preference is to consider the gravitational field as the medium...

view entire post

Hi Shawn, Frank,

I do appreciate the questions Shawn, and enjoy your comments.

Frank, it appears that many physicists, including Nobelist Frank Wilczek, are concluding that "something" is there that can be considered as ether, although this ranges from 'vacuum energy' to 'quantum fields' to what have you.

My own preference is to consider the gravitational field as the medium for electro-magnetic waves. Recall that the Pound-Rebka experiment shows physical changes [red shift] occur over a very small (20 meters) vertical distance at the Earth's surface. And, unlike the 'absolute' ether, the gravitational field would locally be the same at all points in the Earth's orbit, in agreement with the experimental results.

In any case, the old idea of 'empty' space is dead. As you noted this idea was why the van Allen belts were so surprising to many. And Peter Jackson goes even further to 'subdivide' space, with consequences for the speed of light in any region.

As far as "the primordial basis of what eventually becomes matter" that is what I describe in the comment you appended to. In case it wasn't clear, the C-field vortex essentially condenses, soliton-like, to a stable U(1) x U(1) toroidal structure that *is* the electron, and remains such until a disruptive amount of energy is encountered [which normally leads to a new particle-generating vortex (boson)]. You might want to re-read the above comment with this in mind. The actual process for different particles (muon, quarks, etc) is more complex that can be detailed in a comment, but it is still C-field based. Finally, note that the C-field Lorentz-force equation produces inflation-like dynamics that would manifest as 'dark energy'.

In other words, I propose that instead of the literally hundreds of "quantum fields" that Susskind and others propose to derive their multiverse, my model is based on the gravitational field (G and C) and secondary fields (E and B). As long as FQXi continues to run relevant contests, I will continue to spell out the consequences of this theory. It currently covers cosmology, particle physics, and quantum mechanics, with even more possibilities outlined in my first FQXi essay.

Thanks again for your interest, your comments, and your questions.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

The Spherical Jedi replied on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 20:17 GMT

Hello Edwin and S. Halayka,

aether is above our physicality, above our walls, don't confound the physicality, so the light becoming mass, so with motions.And the infinite light without motion. The finite pshere in spherization is the project of this infinite light if you prefer.The aether is not inside this physicality. It is important to tell it. The light, infinite is this Aether. but inside the physicality, this light turns !!! becoming mass.The space also is intriguing inside this physicality. I ask me what are the rotations of this space and the angles and the sense. The universal central sphere is relevant also considering the main singularity of this physicality, the link with this aether. In fact we are linked with this aether, we are connected with our main central spheres inside our singularities. Cosmological and quantic. It is fascinating.

Best Regards,

aether is above our physicality, above our walls, don't confound the physicality, so the light becoming mass, so with motions.And the infinite light without motion. The finite pshere in spherization is the project of this infinite light if you prefer.The aether is not inside this physicality. It is important to tell it. The light, infinite is this Aether. but inside the physicality, this light turns !!! becoming mass.The space also is intriguing inside this physicality. I ask me what are the rotations of this space and the angles and the sense. The universal central sphere is relevant also considering the main singularity of this physicality, the link with this aether. In fact we are linked with this aether, we are connected with our main central spheres inside our singularities. Cosmological and quantic. It is fascinating.

Best Regards

report post as inappropriate

S Halayka replied on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 23:40 GMT

Hi Spherical Jedi,

It seems like you are saying that curvature in the aether makes for mass. Does that mean that you agree with Edwin's theory? I for one think that Edwin's theory is pretty great because of its holistic approach. Anyway, if what you are saying does not relate to Edwin's theory, and you wish to explain further, then perhaps it would be better if you switched over to my essay page, or emailed me.

- Shawn

report post as inappropriate

hide replies

Dear Eugene

I put a comment in this essay a long time ago but somehow it vanished.

Your essay is a nice idea and well put together. However I have consulted my experimental relativity colleagues, and they do not believe the result of Tajmar et al. It has not been reproduced: Wikipedia states

"In 2006 Tajmar and several coworkers announced their claim to have measured a gravitomagnetic version of the Frame-dragging effect caused by a superconductor with an accelerating or decelerating spin.[5] As of April 2008, the effect has not yet been observed independently." I am informed that one of the authors has since repudiated the result (I can't now locate the email that told me this).

So It's a good idea but I don't think it will work in practice. The gravitomagnetic fields are far too small to have the effect you want. That is essentially because gravity is such a weak force. They would have been measured in the solar system if they had a measurable effect at such small scales.

Sorry about that: as I say its a nice idea.

George Ellis

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 06:37 GMT

Dear George,

Thanks for reading my essay and commenting.

I am aware that "As of April 2008, the effect has not yet been observed independently." Neither, to my knowledge, has it been contradicted. It is not a simple experiment to perform, and I am rather impressed with Tajmar's procedure and analysis. It will not be easy to replicate.

As for your comment "I am informed that...

view entire post

Dear George,

Thanks for reading my essay and commenting.

I am aware that "As of April 2008, the effect has not yet been observed independently." Neither, to my knowledge, has it been contradicted. It is not a simple experiment to perform, and I am rather impressed with Tajmar's procedure and analysis. It will not be easy to replicate.

As for your comment "I am informed that one of the authors has since repudiated the result (I can't now locate the email that told me this)" that is news to me. At this point I'll simply treat it as hearsay, but of course it may be true. On the other hand, based on what I've observed over the last few years (including the "resignations" at OPERA) there appear to be real sociological pressures to toe the line, so it would not surprise me if one decided to come back into the fold. 'Cold fusion' is another sterling example of the price people pay for departing from orthodoxy. The establishment is a jealous god, and heretics must be punished.

And yet this essay contest proves that the cherished assumptions are not all what they seem to be. And as I remarked on your thread, "...if he is correct, it's the most revolutionary discovery of recent times. My own position is to treat it as correct and investigate the consequences, which are many." I hope it is correct, as it makes more sense than the many incompatible theories that currently hold sway.

Finally, despite your statement that, "...gravitomagnetic fields are far too small to have the effect you want...because gravity is such a weak force. They would have been measured in the solar system if they had a measurable effect..." I assume that you know that Gravity Probe B actually did measure gravitomagnetic fields in the solar system and reported this in 2011. The measurement was of the non-coherent field of the Earth and was therefore appropriately smaller.

You certainly may be correct, but I think I'll wait for actual data confirming that Tajmar was wrong. If you are correct, then it seems to me that God did not choose the simplest and most beautiful path to today's world.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

Member George F. R. Ellis replied on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 13:35 GMT

Edwin I am in sympathy with the view you put here.

"I assume that you know that Gravity Probe B actually did measure gravitomagnetic fields in the solar system and reported this in 2011" My key point is that if the effect is so weak that this is what is required to detect it, then it can't plausibly be of large enough magnitude to effect everyday life significantly: which would be the case if it affected quantum events.

I am not an expert on experimental relativity, but conveyed their opinion. It could be wring!

George

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 18:34 GMT

George I appreciate your last comment, which is less than absolute rejection of the idea.

I would ask only that you note that the source term is mass current density. Thus means that any quantum effect will depend upon density. For example Michael Goodband's particle model is a rotating black hole at the Planck scale which "drags space-time" [that is, produces a C-field]. Such a particle would have an electron mass and a radius of 10^-57 meters which is more than enough to result in a wave of the type I propose. My own model is far less dense, with a radius of ~10^-19 meters and thus requires the stronger C-field that Tajmar claims to have measured.

The point is that the model is mass density dependent and is therefore particle model dependent. It is also true that mass density is "an ill-defined concept" in general relativity, so for that reason alone relativists may be less inclined to credit it. Finally, we know that the mass density of atoms and molecules, and hence solar objects are very low compared to elementary particles, so the Gravity Probe B measurements are as expected, even if a coherence coefficient does exist.

Thanks again for your consideration,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

FQXi'ers:

As another author observed in a comment, "It's so hard to change others minds." Obviously due to the investment others have made in pushing their own model of understanding. As Rick Lockyer observed "Many people pick [a] choice and run with it [which is optimal because] the collective will succeed faster by leaving no stone unturned."

A number of us like Octonions. Yet despite much effort several octonion approaches have failed to converge. For example Joy's S7 is "physical space" while Michael's S7 is "particle space", which is compactified to produce a fermionic spectrum of topological defects, and *must* be added to S3, the physical space for a total of 10D. Although individual love of S0, S1, S3, S7 is shared, the models do not overlap in a meaningful way.

While I appreciate Quaternions and Octonions, I don't come to my theory through either symmetry groups or topology. Instead I focus on the physical behavior of physical fields implied by Maxwell's equations [he was first to write down the gravito-magnetic equations that also fall out of general relativity]. This is different from the approach exemplified by Lisi's E8, ie, find a large mathematical structure and show how it contains 'everything', even making up new "things" to fill empty slots in the structure.

Of major interest to me is Rick Lockyer's claim [thread #1475] that Octonions fully encompass electromagnetics and gravitomagnetics.

But Michael responds [6 Sep @ 18:46] that "A solely "octionic relativity" can't include both GR and the full gauge symmetries -- not enough degrees of freedom."

To which Rick responds, "It may be that ... the Standard Model actually does have too many knobs to twist" and allows himself to be guided by his intuition [as I do].

Michael responds with a "degree of freedom count" that shows 11 conserved "charges", three of which are color charges.

To which I respond: A gravitomagnetic theory of particles does not require color charges. The dynamics of the C-field achieve the purposes for which color was *invented*: Pauli asymmetric fermionic wave-function, "famous-factor-of-3", asymptotic freedom and quark confinement, and offers a way to compute the mass spectrum. Thus in this model at least 3 degrees of freedom vanish, putting us back to 8. [There are also implications for the S7 "fermionic spectrum of topological defects" but I'll stop here at 8.]

So all agree that Octonions are important but disagree about details. At this point I believe my own model actually fits within Rick's octonion "algebra of everything".

Edwin Eugene Klingman

James Putnam replied on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 01:45 GMT

Dear Edwin:

I hesitated to respond to your attractive message so as to not interrupt its possible future flow of discussion. Since you posted it here, I must say that: Of course each of us sticks to our own presentations. That is because each of us is presenting correct new knowledge that will help to fix physics. :) I know that I have singly offered valid fundamental corrections which have...

view entire post

Dear Edwin:

I hesitated to respond to your attractive message so as to not interrupt its possible future flow of discussion. Since you posted it here, I must say that: Of course each of us sticks to our own presentations. That is because each of us is presenting correct new knowledge that will help to fix physics. :) I know that I have singly offered valid fundamental corrections which have not yet been appreciated. :) I still like my own work best!! A failing perhaps??

However, you are, to my knowledge, the first physicsist to attempt that which physicists should should have been searching for and instead have ignored in favor of the basement entry level model that I refer to as a 'mechanical theoretical interpretation' of the far more meaningful empirical evidence concerning the evolution of the universe. I find it hard to imagine a more grevious omission for scientists than that which I see having occurred in theoretical physics. This is of course only my own opinion.

Now the more immediate reason for my message: I am not a physicist and I admit to not being aware of this concerning Maxwell:

"While I appreciate Quaternions and Octonions, I do not come to my theory through either symmetry groups or topology. Instead I focus on the physical behavior of physical fields implied by Maxwell's equations [he was first to write the gravito-magnetic equations that also fall out of general relativity]."

I am certain that gravity is an electromagnetic effect. For the sake of my own work it has to be. I thank you for mentioning his gravito-magnetic equations. I have been considering how to make this case in my own forum. Learning this about Maxwell might allow me to lean on him. I already leaned on him in order to derive my own replacement equations for electromagnetism. The link to gravity, for me, has mathematical complications even though the result can be expressed by simple equations. I can talk it but I can't yet write it. Anything more said about this belongs in my own forum.

I will look back at your own presentation. The combination of uniting gravity with electromagnetism along with the fullness of your overall presentation of the means by which the universe operates is what I will be studying. Anything additional that you might have to say about it would be helpful. Thank you for your message.

James

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 03:06 GMT

James -- I hit the wrong 'reply' button *and* timed out, so the 'anonymous' comment in the next thread is actually addressed to you. Thanks for your question. I hope the answer makes sense to you. -- Edwin Eugene Klingman

James Putnam replied on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 19:33 GMT

Dr. Klingman,

Thank you for sharing that information. I see separation of forces, definitely including gravity, as theoretical error. Disunity between observable properties is the principal evidence of theoretical error. The theoretical inventions of hidden mechanisms for achieving equations that appear to have brought unity is for others to admire. As usual I do not assume that you agree with this. I appreciate your help.

James

report post as inappropriate

Hi James,

Great to hear from you. Normally we converse more, but with 300 essays it's hard to manage!

Circa 1865 Maxwell noted the symmetry between Coulomb's equation and Newton's equation, in that the divergence of the electric field was sourced by charge and the divergence of the gravitational field was sourced by mass. He wondered if the other equations of electro-magnetics had...

view entire post

Hi James,

Great to hear from you. Normally we converse more, but with 300 essays it's hard to manage!

Circa 1865 Maxwell noted the symmetry between Coulomb's equation and Newton's equation, in that the divergence of the electric field was sourced by charge and the divergence of the gravitational field was sourced by mass. He wondered if the other equations of electro-magnetics had similar analogs. When the equations were written down they implied a 'gravito-magnetic' field analog of the 'electro-magnetic' field, with a major difference: one mass versus positive and negative charges. Because this was fifty years before Einstein's E=mc^2, he did not realize that the energy of the field had a 'mass equivalent' and so did not realize that the gravito-magnetic fields thus interact with themselves [note, since the electro-magnetic fields interact with charge, and are themselves uncharged, they do not interact with themselves].

Heaviside and others pursued this and decided the C-field was too weak to matter. This assumption continued when the same equations were found to fall out of general relativity. But circa 2006, Martin Tajmar found the field to be **much** stronger than had been supposed when material is supercooled. As George Ellis notes above, most people do not accept this measurement, but no one has disproved it. Since I had arrived independently at the numbers Tajmar found, I tend to believe him. My theory is based on the C-field with the strength that Tajmar measured. My current essay describes one consequence of a large coherence factor. If Tajmar made a bad measurement then I have wasted several years of effort. If his measurements hold up, a number of nay-sayers are going to be quite surprised. Although one might think that an analog of Maxwell's equations would be simple to understand and predict, I have found that the consequences are anything but immediately obvious.

My previous essays present a number of aspects of the theory and the current one presents quantum mechanical consequences. It may seem to make no difference whether one says that "gravity is an electromagnetic effect" or "electro-magnetism derives from gravity", but I believe the second is closer to the truth, as the primordial field at the big bang is a gravity field, and charge and hence electromagnetism does not appear until later [10^-43 sec? or so].

This is not to be confused with Kaluza-Klein higher dimensional approaches to unification of gravity and electromagnetism, although there is one sense in which they are analogous.

I would start with Wikipedia and follow links to get a feel for "gravito-magnetism".

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Edwin,

Your essay is interesting, but I would respectively like to propose that that it does not go far enough towards giving a conceptually understandable physical interpretation to the wave function. Suppose we take the real plunge and assume that all particles, fields and forces are made from the single building block of 4 dimensional spacetime. This is the simplest possible starting...

view entire post

Edwin,

Your essay is interesting, but I would respectively like to propose that that it does not go far enough towards giving a conceptually understandable physical interpretation to the wave function. Suppose we take the real plunge and assume that all particles, fields and forces are made from the single building block of 4 dimensional spacetime. This is the simplest possible starting assumption for a wave based theory of everything. The immediate problem is this assumption does not initially appear to be physically possible. However, there is a quantum mechanical model of spacetime that indeed permits it to be the single building block of everything in the universe. It is well known that QED and QCD requires that the vacuum of spacetime has vacuum energy (fluctuations) that imply a tremendous energy density of about 10¹²⁰ larger than the "critical" energy density of the universe required by GR and cosmology. This discrepancy is usually resolved by assuming that there must be some offsetting effect that cancels out the quantum mechanical energy density of the vacuum.

However, there is a wave-based concept that allows the vacuum to possess the energy density implied by quantum mechanics and also be the single building block of all particles, fields and forces. General relativity teaches that quadrupole gravitational waves are permitted but dipole waves in spacetime are forbidden. For this reason the subject of dipole waves in spacetime is usually ignored or only briefly mentioned in GR texts. In this short post, I cannot go into the details but dipole waves in spacetime are permitted by quantum mechanics provided that they conform to a severe amplitude restriction (the Planck length/time limitation). The wave-based model of the universe has the vacuum consisting of a sea of these dipole waves in spacetime at Planck energy density (about 10¹¹³ J/m³). This forms a sea of energetic spacetime that gives spacetime its elasticity and quantum mechanical properties. This sea of vacuum energy lacks angular momentum and possesses superfluid properties. In this model particles are also dipole waves in spacetime but they gain a special status because they possess quantized angular momentum living in a sea of dipole waves that lack angular momentum. In this model there are no point particles with near infinite energy density. The particle-like properties are the result of quantized angular momentum enforced by the surrounding sea of dipole waves (vacuum fluctuations).

By now you are probably wondering if there is any evidence in the form of a new prediction or new insight supporting this model. In fact, there is a lot of evidence. One of the predictions to come out of this is that gravity is vastly weaker than the other forces because it is the result of spacetime being a nonlinear medium for dipole waves in spacetime. This nonlinearity expresses itself in the form of gravity scaling with wave amplitude squared while the other forces scale with wave amplitude to the first power (not squared). This results in a previously unknown mathematical relationship between the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force between fundamental particles. This is explained in my essay available here. For a more complete explanation of the model that generated this insight, download the online book referenced in the essay.

John

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 01:42 GMT

Hi John,

Thanks for the comment. I have already commented on your essay on your thread, so I will simply address the above comment.

You say, "Your essay ... does not go far enough towards giving a conceptually understandable physical interpretation to the wave function." I'm not sure how many times you've read it but I end the essay by remarking that it will probably require more...

view entire post

Hi John,

Thanks for the comment. I have already commented on your essay on your thread, so I will simply address the above comment.

You say, "Your essay ... does not go far enough towards giving a conceptually understandable physical interpretation to the wave function." I'm not sure how many times you've read it but I end the essay by remarking that it will probably require more than one reading to absorb the ideas. Like many others suggest, 9 pages to clarify a century's worth of incorrect assumption(s) is minimal. Nevertheless, there is more material. I note that you ask me to download an online book to understand your theory. I can only point you to another book, The Chromodynamics War, to show you where the details are located.

You also say, "Suppose we ... assume that all particles, fields and forces are made from the single building block of 4 dimensional spacetime." Since I derive the wave function from a general relativity equation, and the book I reference above derives all particles from the gravitomagnetic field, it seems to me that I already have done this. My two previous FQXi essays touch on this to some degree.

You say, "In this model there are no point particles with near infinite energy density". Note that in my essay I point out that the particle is not a point particle with infinite energy density.

You also say, "... QED and QCD requires that the vacuum of spacetime has vacuum energy (fluctuations) that imply a tremendous energy density of about 10^120 larger than the "critical" energy density of the universe required by GR and cosmology." I have noted this in many comments over the last few years. While my theory produces the elementary particles of the Standard Model, it differs significantly from QED and QCD. That's what the "War" in the title of my book is about. So we seem to agree on this as well.

Where we begin to differ is in any dependence on "Planck length/time". I do not require these concepts, not do I require the 10^123 energy of the vacuum. I have actually downloaded your book a month ago, but I have not had time to read it. I tend to believe that all "pure wave"-based approaches fail to explain the apparent eternal life of the proton, as well as the derivation of charge and the fine structure constant and many other aspects of particle physics.

As I noted above, another author observed in a comment, "It's so hard to change others minds." Obviously due to the investment others have made in pushing their own model of understanding. Since, almost by definition, everyone who enters an essay believes that he has 'figured it out', we do not seem to change anyone's mind to make them realize that instead 'we have figured it out'.

In summary, many of the things you seem to suggest are differences, seem to me to be more similar than not. Only when you get to Planck lengths and dipole waves do we seem to part company.

Thanks for the comment. I still hope to read your book, and also hope you'll read mine, or at least my previous essays.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

Robert H McEachern replied on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 10:37 GMT

Edwin,

I have been wanting to read and comment on your essay for some time. But, as you yourself have noted, it requires careful reading and rereading, which requires more time than I have had, to do it justice. Nevertheless, I would like to weigh-in regarding John's comment that "it does not go far enough towards giving a conceptually understandable physical interpretation to the wave...

view entire post

Edwin,

I have been wanting to read and comment on your essay for some time. But, as you yourself have noted, it requires careful reading and rereading, which requires more time than I have had, to do it justice. Nevertheless, I would like to weigh-in regarding John's comment that "it does not go far enough towards giving a conceptually understandable physical interpretation to the wave function." I know you have read and commented on many of the ideas I have presented, and we agree on many points, such as the statements, in your essay's conclusion, that:

"Assumptions of superposition and collapse of wave functions are wrong! Assumptions of non-locality and non-reality of quantum particles are wrong!"

But I do agree with John, that it "does not go far enough." It is my belief, that wave-functions and de Broglie frequencies/waves do not exist at all "in reality", but only as "sufficient", but not "necessary" mathematical abstractions. Physicists have assumed that they are "necessary", and hence, must be real. But they are not "necessary", they are merely "sufficient" to describe experimental results. Physicists have consistently failed to realize that they are merely sufficient, because they misattributed "wave-functions" as attributes of the particles/waves being observed. But they are not. As soon as they compute the "magnitude squared" of the wave-function, to compute observed probabilities, which is the only thing that actually matters, they have transformed the entire mathematical theory into a statement, not about the entity being observed, but rather, a statement about the interaction of that entity with a detector. In other words, the only actual prediction that the theory makes, that can be compared with real observations, is not a prediction of an attribute of the observed entity, but a prediction about what another entity, a detector, will detect, if it were to be placed at the time and location specified in the prediction. And THAT enables an entirely different interpretation of what is actually going on; now, instead of viewing the Fourier superposition of orthogonal basis functions as a "wave-function", one merely needs to note that the entire mathematical formalism amounts to nothing more than a filter-bank, of energy detectors tuned to different energies. As noted in some of the comments I made under my own essay, the entire Fourier Transform mathematical approach, is mathematically identical to a set of bandpass filters, each followed by an AM detector, which, in effect, does nothing more than count detected particles, which is why the whole thing ends up predicting particle count probabilities.

In short, the mathematical description, based on Fourier Transforms and wave-functions, is sufficient to accurately characterize these tuned-energy-detectors. But it is not necessary. It is entirely superfluous, in the sense that, once you realize that it is merely characterizing a filter-bank, then the characteristics of that filter-bank can be described directly, without the need for Fourier Transforms, wave-functions, superpositions, de Broglie frequencies and all the weird interpretations they have spawned.

Hence, I disagree with the statement, in your essay paragraph "The Source of the Error", that "They were confused about physical waves and probability waves." They were confused about the distinction between a necessary mathematical description, and a merely sufficient one. And they were further confused by misattributing this description to the entity being observed, rather than the detector actually performing the observation.

Rob McEachern

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 21:00 GMT

Rob,

I am very happy that you found time for my essay. As I noted in my first comment to you, I view your essay as one of the very best, and I'm glad to see others have given you high ranking.

As for your (and John's) remark that "it does not go far enough towards giving a conceptually understandable physical interpretation to the wave function", let me say that I was in process of...

view entire post

show all replies (4 not shown)

Robert H McEachern replied on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 22:04 GMT

Edwin,

It is true that my essay focused on the two-slit experiment. It was written for a general science audience, who I assume have some familiarity with that experiment, but not with Fourier Transforms. However, the comments I made in my previous post, about Fourier Transforms and filter-banks, have nothing to do with the two slit experiment per se. All Fourier Transforms can be viewed as superpositions of complex sinusoids. But they can all, all of them, also be viewed as filter-banks. Consequently, all wave-functions, based on Fourier Transforms, can also be viewed as filter-banks, rather than superpositions. They are mathematically equivalent. But they are not physically equivalent, or conceptually equivalent. The change in perspective is enlightening, but quite unfamiliar to most physicists. As the past hundred years has shown, it is difficult to discover the "meaning" of a superposition. But it is easy to discover the meaning of a filter-bank. The posts I made, under my essay, on Sept 11-12, contain a rather terse description of why a Fourier transform is equivalent to a filter-bank.

You asked whether I "reject the idea of actual physically real particles plus induced field circulation/disturbance or whether you simply reject the Fourier based analysis that has led to such confusion."

I reject only the "meaning" and "interpretation" that has been slapped onto Fourier Transform based superpositions. The alternative "interpretation" of a Fourier Transform as a filter-bank, rather than a superposition, provides a much easier to understand, common-sense "meaning", devoid of all the weirdness that has come to be associated with the superposition interpretation. In my view, particles are real carriers of quantized energy. The filter-bank directly detects these particles, and by-passes all the weirdness, as unnecessary.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 23:04 GMT

Rob,

I think we're in almost complete agreement. I too reject "the "meaning" and "interpretation" that has been slapped onto Fourier Transform based superpositions." That was the main thing that I tried to convey in my essay, while also trying to describe what I view as the underlying physical reality. I am somewhat disappointed that I failed to convey this clearly enough.

I'm glad...

view entire post

Rob,

I think we're in almost complete agreement. I too reject "the "meaning" and "interpretation" that has been slapped onto Fourier Transform based superpositions." That was the main thing that I tried to convey in my essay, while also trying to describe what I view as the underlying physical reality. I am somewhat disappointed that I failed to convey this clearly enough.

I'm glad to see that you "view particles are real carriers of quantized energy". I would certainly not expect you to accept my specific detailed model of particles based on my 9-page essay. I do think that if you reviewed my complete theory, you would likely buy into it.

As for "All Fourier Transforms can be viewed as superpositions of complex sinusoids. But they can all, all of them, also be viewed as filter-banks." it appears that you've developed this view for a while, since at least your '93 patent on the speech information extractor, which employs a filter bank as noted in Fig. 3.

When you say, "all wave-functions, based on Fourier Transforms, can also be viewed as filter-banks, rather than superpositions", that still seems 'slit-detector-specific'. My point is that one need not view things in terms of filter banks in order to understand that the common Copenhagen concept of 'superposition' and 'collapse' does not apply when the 'wave' is a real circulating field in a 'given' state. These ideas follow from the confusion of the Fourier-based 'probability waves' with the actual physical waves (or vortices) induced by the momentum of the quantized energy. I'm still not sure why you reject that statement, even if you do think that your own 'necessary vs sufficient' statement may be a better way to conceive of the source of confusion. I see these two statements as completely compatible. Belief in a Fourier decomposition as 'real' is at the root of the problem. But also significant is the fact that Schrodinger's equation describes ALL possible energy solutions in a given context or geometry. Once one assigns a probability to each energy eigenvalue and associates a Fourier-based Hilbert-space eigenfunction with said solution, then the superposition confusion follows. But only one energy state actually exists (which is why the superposition must "collapse" when a measurement detects only the actual state that exists. I have tried to show how and why quantum mechanics 'works' but is so confused. I am not at all opposed to the use of Fourier analysis, only the confusion that has come from treating the Fourier components as 'real'.

I realize how difficult it is to find time for each essay, but I am also trying to read the best essays more than once. I hope you find time to review mine based on these comments. Anyway, despite our different perspectives, I think we agree on the major issues.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

Robert H McEachern replied on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 00:22 GMT

Edwin,

Think of "filter-bank" as just another word for "histogram"; specifically, a histogram of particle counts (accumulated energy) versus whatever (whatever the variable is that is being transformed). That is what the magnitude of a Fourier transform "is". It is also a superposition. But it is rather difficult for most people to understand how a superposition relates to probabilities. But it is trivial to see how a histogram relates to probabilities. So in your statement, quoted below, substitute "histograms of particle counts" for the word filter-bank:

"When you say, "all wave-functions, based on Fourier Transforms, can also be viewed as filter-banks, rather than superpositions", that still seems 'slit-detector-specific'. My point is that one need not view things in terms of filter banks in order to understand that the common Copenhagen concept of 'superposition'..."

Indeed, "one need not view things in terms of" "histograms of particle counts". Few people do. But why would you not want to?

The only significant difference between a histogram and a Fourier Transform filter-bank, is that, in traditional histograms, the "bins" are flat-topped and non-overlapping. In Fourier Transforms, they can be controlled to be whatever you desire.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 01:08 GMT

Rob,

I agree with your interpretation, and with the following:

"it is rather difficult for most people to understand how a superposition relates to probabilities. But it is trivial to see how a histogram relates to probabilities."

also:

"one need not view things in terms of" "histograms of particle counts". Few people do. But why would you not want to?"

It is...

view entire post

Rob,

I agree with your interpretation, and with the following:

"it is rather difficult for most people to understand how a superposition relates to probabilities. But it is trivial to see how a histogram relates to probabilities."

also:

"one need not view things in terms of" "histograms of particle counts". Few people do. But why would you not want to?"

It is not that I would not want to. But there are several reasons for my approach. First, a histogram is based essentially on measurement, and, when carried to the extreme (as it often is) this approach can lead to the "there's nothing but measurement" that so distorted (in my view) the Bohr-Heisenberg picture. Unlike many who claim that our brains, having been shaped by bullets and baseballs, are simply incapable of picturing reality at the quantum level, I do believe that we can understand the physics. [My first essay, in the "Ultimate Physics" contest describes where I believe the true limits lie.]

So I am interested in a model of the particle as it exists "between" preparation and detection, a gray area that many seem to prefer to consider simply an eternal mystery, if even a meaningful concept. But this picture has no histograms, as that comes only with measurement. In addition, there is over a century of QM based on Schrodinger's equation, and rather than toss this out, I want to relate physical reality to the solutions, and further, I want to relate it to the probabilistic interpretation that has been attached to the solutions since Born.

This is, for example, the difficulty that Joy faces. He 'solves' the Bell problem with a multi-dimensional twisted topology that no one can visualize, for which he has no dynamics [he hopes to produce such] and that is based on geometric algebra that not enough people understand. And he cannot relate this to any properties of the particle or to a wave function. That's a hard sell, even if he is correct. In other words, a century of history exists, and it has been quite productive in terms of application. It's not going to go away. Any hope of restoring local reality to quantum mechanics *must* relate this reality to this framework that is in place, and to how this framework got to be in place. That's what I'm trying to do. Obviously, judged by my current ranking and judged by the comments of those who, I believe, actually wish me well, I am not succeeding in my task. We only get one essay per contest, so that's that, but I do want to identify my shortcomings so that I can improve the book I am writing. Any such criticisms are welcome.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

hide replies

Edwin,

I am sorry if I did not properly represent a part of your essay in my previous post. I must admit that the high density style necessitated by the essay format made your essay somewhat difficult to follow. From your essay and comments it appears as if our approaches are compatible. I have just ordered your book and I hope that you find time to read the newest revision of my book...

view entire post

Edwin,

I am sorry if I did not properly represent a part of your essay in my previous post. I must admit that the high density style necessitated by the essay format made your essay somewhat difficult to follow. From your essay and comments it appears as if our approaches are compatible. I have just ordered your book and I hope that you find time to read the newest revision of my book (placed online Sept. 7). In your last comment you said, "I tend to believe that all 'pure wave'- based approaches fail to explain the apparent eternal life of the proton..." You will find this model different. When I construct all particles, fields and forces out of 4 dimensional spacetime a new stability condition emerges based on the properties of vacuum energy. This is explained in the book. Furthermore, the mention of Planck length and Planck time does not imply what is commonly referred to as "Planck scale". Instead these are associated with the maximum displacement wave amplitude permitted by quantum mechanics for dipole waves in spacetime. Combining this amplitude with the impedance of spacetime (Z_s = c³/G) and the particle's Compton frequency permits the calculation of many important particle characteristics including energy, spin, spacetime curvature, gravity, size, etc. I do not derive the fine structure constant, but injecting this constant into the model gives the electrostatic force between particles. This book gives a clear description of both electrical charge and electric field. Both of these are asymmetric distortions of spacetime. A new constant of nature is proposed called the "charge conversion constant". This leads to proposed experiments and a prediction that there is a wavelength dependent maximum intensity of electromagnetic radiation that would cause 100% modulation of the properties of spacetime. When this condition is analyzed it is found to correspond to the intensity that would produce a black hole. I could go on but you get the point that this model is specific and easily checked.

John

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 18:09 GMT

Dear John A. Macken,

It's good to find more points of agreement. Reviewing the comments on your thread you also seem to have a number of other authors who find some agreement with your ideas. That's probably a good sign.

As I noted on your thread, "You have generated a truly fascinating relation, Fg=Fe^2, that I have not seen before. A quick read of your essay did not show me any obvious mistakes, so I assume that all of the conversions you do are done correctly. A very interesting result!"

Since people have been trying to do what you have done for at least a century, this is a significant result. And it is a result that I believe is quite compatible with my theory. When things settle down I will read your book. My immediate opinion is that we have somewhat different ideas and my hope is that we can make them more compatible. There may be two or more paths to certain results, and it's possible that we take different paths in some cases. At this point it seems clear that it's worth investing a little more time in each others ideas.

I also noted your remark to another commenter: "I am an inventor (36 patents), so I decided to see if it was possible to invent a model of the universe made out of only 4 dimensional spacetime. " By coincidence, I also hold 36 patents. And Rob McEachern also holds a few patents. I wonder how many other FQXi authors hold patents. It might be a surprising number, since a patent is proof of new ideas (that work!).

From your bio I see that you are in the Bay Area, as am I. My email address is in my essay. After we've had time to study each others models, perhaps we should communicate further.

Thanks for this followup comment.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

On his own thread Robert H McEachern said "my main conclusion is this:

1) QM claims to be a good description of how "elementary particles" behave; they have a "wave-function"

2) QM claims to be a good description of how "human observers of elementary particles" behave; they too have a "wave-function"

I believe the first proposition is true. But the second is false."

He noted that the problem is not that the particles behave weirdly, but that the physicists behave weirdly, when they have attempted to interpret their own observations and theories. "...while treating reality as a "Fourier Superposition" may be "sufficient" for many purposes, it is neither "Necessary" nor even "Desirable", for many others. Physicists have yet to appreciate that fact."

--

Once again he puts his finger on the problem. I agree that the first proposition is true, the second false. As I note in my essay, the assumption that wave functions are Fourier superpositions of sine waves has 'built into it' the assumption of single frequency sinusoidals of infinite extent. This has (mis)lead some physicists to speak of "the wave function of the universe", and confused John Bell, who claimed: "nobody knows just where the boundary between the classical and quantum domain is situated" [p.29, 'Speakable...']. He claimed the "shifty split" between microscopic and macroscopic defies precise definition.

And yet the physical wave described in my essay has finite extent [p.5]. It has real dimensions and the 'trailing vortex' is finite -- typically the length of an atomic orbit [see essay]. Fourier decompositions of infinite extent are believed by many to be limitless. With a real field, there is a real boundary.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 02:02 GMT

An excellent point Ed,

While we may assume that any wavefunction has harmonic structure, this does not have to be an infinite series - or an infinitely extended progression - if you are talking about the vibrations of a real field. Notes sounded on actual physical instruments may have rich harmonic structure, but (for example) a guitar string's vibration also decays over time.

Keep fighting the good fight!

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Edwin,

This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

Thank you and good luck.

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is

$R_1$

and

$N_1$

was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have

$S_1=R_1 N_1$

of points. After it anyone give you

$dS$

of points so you have

$S_2=S_1+ dS$

of points and

$N_2=N_1+1$

is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have

$S_2=R_2 N_2$

of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:

$S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1$

or

$(S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1$

or

$dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1$

In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points

$dS$

then the participant`s rating

$R_1$

was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Edwin

Can I suggest a different way to think about Rob McEachern's 2nd proposition;

QM claims to be a good description of how "human observers of elementary particles" behave; they too have a "wave-function."

Actually of course we are very sloppy with logic as my essay points out. The proposition is that QM claims to be a good description of it, which I agree is wrong, but I believe you are objecting to the embedded compound element of the proposition, that 'observers have a wave function.'

I'm suggesting that most of the problems in current physics are due to us not understanding how that CAN be true. Ergo;

An observer is a DETECTOR, who must have a lens, made of matter, so a dielectric medium, to take a SAMPLE of an incoming wave or 'photons,' by interaction, i.e. absorption and re-emission.

Now, to make it easier, imagine the optical nerve to your eye a foot longer. So the eyeball (lens) is way out in front of your brain. If your eye/brain 'system' is approaching a light source at v; The sequence of waves entering the medium will be compressed, so lambda is thus reduced. This is why both wavelength and frequency (it's derivative! - using time, calculated by the brain - AFTER the delta lambda!!).

So in that sense, observers DO have a wave function, but the function commutes. it is lambda that does not when it's a frame transition. Refractive index is the red herring working alongside to screen the smell of the elephant ding. If you re read my essay all the meaning and beautiful logic should now emerge. I think this will be quite consistent with a review and slight advancement of your own thesis, which I think deserves a good score anyway.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Congratulations on being among the finalists Edwin! It's well deserved.

I've enjoyed the discussions, you're one of a few, with Ben, Conrad and Daryl, who have made it particularly good. I hope to be in touch by email at some point.

Good luck in the finals, I hope you win a prize.....

Best wishes, Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 19:01 GMT

Dear Jonathan,

Thank you very much for this comment and your congratulations. It is of course the nature of this contest and the rules that the result is imperfect, although I do think that the top twenty essays show that the scheme works!

I thought your essay, and your approach, were correct, as I told you, and I would have replaced half of the top forty essays with other essays that did not make it. The final result certainly has some arbitrariness, but as I noted on another blog, we cannot expect anonymous judges to review almost 3000 highly dense pages to pick the finalists.

I look forward to continued communications and hope that you will also enter an essay in the next FQXi contest.

Thanks again for your kind words,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hello Ed,

It is my pleasure to congratulate you as a finalist. You wrote well, and defended your points ably. Of course; you had a good idea to run with. Plus; you made a genuine effort to understand the views of others when they differed with yours. Assuming the chaotic oscillations are in the rankings over; I wish you the best of luck in the finals.

And I look forward to plenty of participation on the forum.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Your work is mentioned here

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1383#post_68802

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 16:06 GMT

Yes, I saw that. A perennial cry baby is once again bemoaning the fact that others, whom he considers inferior, placed above him. He does this every year. He thinks that if others didn't "advance silly propositions" but instead had serious propositions like his own: "the foundations of physics may lead underlying principles based on quantum error correction codes" and "there is only one electron, one up quark, one photon and so forth" in the entire universe, then they would deserve to be taken seriously.

I also noted that you have posted to everyone whom he insults to try to get something going. When I was a teenager my girlfriend's grandmother used to call party A and say that party B had said such and such. Then she would call party B and say that party A had said such and such, then she would be in the middle of a fight. You remind me of this woman.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Lawrence B Crowell replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 16:17 GMT

Klingman’s theory can be seen to be false from a number of perspectives. He advances the idea of a C-field which gives

∇xC = 8πG/c^4 p

where the coupling constant 8πG/c^4 is absorbed into p. This would mean the pressure is a rotational field, much as the magnetic field is from ∇xA = -B. This is clearly not generally true, for ordinary matter in spacetime...

view entire post

Klingman’s theory can be seen to be false from a number of perspectives. He advances the idea of a C-field which gives

∇xC = 8πG/c^4 p

where the coupling constant 8πG/c^4 is absorbed into p. This would mean the pressure is a rotational field, much as the magnetic field is from ∇xA = -B. This is clearly not generally true, for ordinary matter in spacetime does not necessarily constitute a rotational mass-energy distribution. This does happen for frame dragging or the Lense-Thirring effect, but that is a special case and not a general rule.

What Klingman further advanced is that for a particle with a deBroglie wavelength λ, identified with the wave vector k, that

λ•∇xC = nħ

This can be seen to be wrong from just dimensional grounds. In naturalized units with c = ħ = 1 (no length or reciprocal length units) the Einstein tensor G_{ab} is composed of the Ricci curvature and scalar curvature with naturalized units of 1/length^2. The left hand side of this equation has naturalized units of 1/length, but the right hand side is unitless or ~ length^0. This is utterly fatal to the remaining part of his essay.

This error then gets folded into Joy Christian’s geometric algebraic conjecture about the falsehood of Bell’s theorem. This frankly heaps more damage onto something that is already a nonstarter. At the risk of Joy Christian showing up here with his “you don’t know quantum locality the way I do” shibboleths, his work is almost universally judged to be wrong by those in the foundations of QM. We have had arguments over this, and frankly the matter is settled.

Yet in spite of this Klingman’s essay floated fairly near the top of the community rating, and finished at #32 with 4.3 score, more than doubling my ranking and beating my score by .3. and similarly surpassing a number of papers far more solid in their analysis and conclusions. I am not sure what happened here, but I think anyone with sufficient understanding of physics can readily see these problems; at least certainly the problem with naturalized units. It takes a matter of minutes to see this. When I first read his essay I quickly saw this and dropped it right there --- the rest of it had to be nonsense.

This is in some ways a “clean” example of this sort of problem which richly peppered the whole contest. Many papers suffer from just this sort of problem, where it takes a brief period of time to see how they are wrong. Often they are wrong on very elementary grounds. An equal number of papers read in some ways like a dream of some physics theory, with word salads of nonsense that were meant to somehow sound profound. If I were to make such point by point critiques of all these papers it would become virtually a full time job. I can’t do that, and clearly contestants who knew better did not deign to make such critiques for concern over low scores.

Cheers LC

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 16:35 GMT

Mr. Crywell,

By now I have demonstrated a number of times that you are completely clueless about foundations of quantum mechanics. You have absolutely zero background in the subject.

"...his work is almost universally judged to be wrong by those in the foundations of QM."

This statement is factually wrong and slanderous. Provide a proof for it or withdraw it completely and apologize.

"We have had arguments over this, and frankly the matter is settled."

Yes, the matter is indeed settled. Bell was mistaken and you don't have the brains to see it.

Joy Christian

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (17 not shown)

Joy, Bell was correct that invisible and visible space must be in fundamental equilibium and balance. This explains instantaneity and the fact that gravity cannot be shielded. Inertial and gravitational equivalency and balancing is fundamental to physics. Mathematics has very clear and fundamental limits regarding physical description and prediction. Even a small child can see this. Gravity, inertia, and electromagnetism enjoin and balance visible and invisible space -- MOST IMPORTANT. Comments Joy?

Lawrence, everything is not General Relativity. You do not see the fundamental limitations of it? My prior posts and essay prove this. What is your reply to them please?

Edwin, for someone who wants to know the fundamentals of life, thought, and physics, you sure were silent about all of my ideas.

The best essay stands in opposition and contradiction to the most other essays and to FQXi.org's agenda in general. Accordingly, this essay contest was a joke. It is not about a consensus of understanding and truth. That means less money and essays. Modern physics is about money, power, and control over other people and nature.

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Oct. 8, 2012 @ 18:18 GMT

Frank, I think your ideas are very nice, but your physics must be backed up by more than prose. And I disagree that "this essay contest was a joke". Of the almost 300 essays there were some very interesting and well developed ideas presented. The scoring fiasco that occurred at the end of the contest was very unfortunate, and has left a number of people rightly dissatisfied.

Another problem is that the only people who even enter the contest have already "figured it all out" from their own perspective and rarely if ever are any converts made. Nevertheless, we can 'borrow' ideas from others essays to improve our own ideas and that is legitimate and a good thing.

After each contest there is a period where those unhappy with the results spend time tearing down the contest. That appears to be human nature. I have already put in my two cents worth of advice, which is that I believe it would be better to not show the community scoring, since that would remove the focus from the 'relative' rankings and leave it on the quality of the individual essays. If no one knows who is on top, then they can't try to pull him or her down.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman