CATEGORY:
Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012)
[back]
TOPIC:
Does Quantum Theory Need Space-Time? by Felix M Lev
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Felix M Lev wrote on Jul. 6, 2012 @ 11:26 GMT
Essay Abstract
We argue that the notion of space-time has a physical meaning only for describing real classical bodies while for constructing fundamental quantum theories this notion is not needed at all. As an illustration, we describe our approaches to the cosmological constant problem and gravity.
Author Bio
I graduated from the Moscow Institute for Physics and Technology, got a PhD from the Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics (Moscow), got a Dr. Sci. degree from the Institute for High Energy Physics (also known as the Serpukhov Accelerator) and worked at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (Dubna, Moscow Region). Currently I am working at a software company in the greater Los Angeles area.
Download Essay PDF File
post approved
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jul. 6, 2012 @ 21:29 GMT
Dear Felix Lev,
Thanks for an interesting treatment of some problems with quantum field theory (QFT). Of particular interest is your discussion about the fact that "their [local fields] products at the same point are poorly defined." This, in my mind, is an example of Dirac's complaint about "physical ideas that were not correctly incorporated into the theory", resulting in "no sound mathematical foundation."
If one assumes (as I do) that particles are not points, then the infinities that arise from mathematical points should not be taken too seriously.
You clearly and concisely observe that "The interaction Lagrangians where the fields interact at the same points is the main source of difficulties and inconsistencies in QFT", followed by your question as to whether this notion is needed at all.
Whereas you treat relativistic QFT and general relativity, I work the other end of the universe in my essay,
The Nature of the Wave Function, in the sense that I treat non-relativistic quantum mechanics and the weak field approximation to general relativity. At first reading I am unable to bridge the gap between these two extremes, but I found your end fascinating and hope that you obtain something of value from my essay.
Your derivation of the cosmological acceleration and its connection to quantum theory is fascinating, as is your problem of finding a symmetry algebra that reproduces Newton's gravity for two free particles. Yours is a fresh view and a joy to read.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Author Felix M Lev replied on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 06:47 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,
Thank you very much for reading my essay and your comments. I tried to understand your approach but my impression is similar to yours, i.e. that our approaches are very different. My understanding of some problems follows. The terms "wave function" and "particle-wave duality" have arisen at the beginning of quantum era in efforts to explain quantum behavior in terms of classical waves but now it is clear that no such explanation exists. The notion of wave is purely classical; it has a physical meaning only as a way of describing systems of many particles by their average characteristics. In particular, such notions as frequency and wave length can be applied only to classical waves, i.e. to systems consisting of many particles. If a particle state vector contains exp[i(px-Et)/\hbar] then by analogy with the theory of classical waves one might say that the particle is a wave with the frequency omega=E/\hbar and the (de Broglie) wave length lambda=2\pi\hbar/p. However, such defined quantities omega and lambda are not real frequencies and wave lengths measured e.g. in spectroscopic experiments. The term "wave function" might be misleading since in quantum theory it defines not amplitudes of waves but only amplitudes of probabilities. In my opinion the term "state vector" is more pertinent than "wave function" but for historical reasons the latter is used when it has the meaning of the former. In addition, GR is a pure classical theory. However, your philosophy seems to be almost fully opposite, right?
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 17:30 GMT
Dear Felix Lev,
Thanks for your response. I suspected that we might be too far apart to bridge the gap. In earlier essays I pointed to a theory that effectively derives a quantum condition from a classical field. On other threads we've discussed the notion that a new theory will not derive from either QM or GR but must of course cover both where appropriate. This is one reason I deem it appropriate to "meet in the middle" of weak field GR and non-relativistic QM.
You are correct that my philosophy is opposite to the beliefs you hold about the wave function, and my essay attempts to trace the history of those beliefs and show the wrong assumptions that led to a century of confusion, with special focus on the configuration space of the 'many-particle wave function'.
There does seem to be a wide fault line between physicists who put their faith in abstract math that no one believes to be complete or flawlessly correct and those who believe that physical "reality" [however defined] exists as the territory and all maps fail to cover it completely. Both sides on this issue advance the physics.
Thanks again for reading and commenting on my essay and for writing an excellent essay. Good luck in the contest.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey wrote on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 11:18 GMT
Dear Felix Lev,
I suspect you are right in your title question because this fits with my own science/reality philosophy(!). I'm glad someone of your mathematical skill and background has chosen this point of view to explore. Excellent work by all accounts.
report post as inappropriate
Author Felix M Lev replied on Jul. 7, 2012 @ 16:41 GMT
Dear Alan Lowey,
Thank you for your remarks. I agree with you that Newton’s isotropy is a simplicity which should be generalized. In our essays we try to implement this in different directions.
Alan Lowey replied on Jul. 9, 2012 @ 09:56 GMT
Hi Felix,
Could you expand on the your last post please, I'm unsure about your view on Newton's isotropy needing "generalization". What does that mean exactly? I'm convinced that Isotropy it's simply wrong and that Einstein continued this simplicity with mathematical cleverness which unfortunately gives us the modern day clash with quantum theory *and* common sense.
report post as inappropriate
Author Felix M Lev replied on Jul. 9, 2012 @ 18:53 GMT
Dear Alan,
The title of your essay is "Newton’s Isotropy and Equivalence Is Simplicity..." but in your question you say
"Isotropy it's simply wrong and that Einstein continued this simplicity...". So the statements:
1) Theory A is wrong
2) Theory A is a simplicity
are equivalent or not?
Alan Lowey replied on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 09:32 GMT
You might have missed the trick in the essay title: I said "..that has led to mass misconceptions of reality". I believe that the basic buildings blocks of matter and radiation are anisotropic, but slightly larger structures are isotropic. It's this simplification which gives us the inverse square law and therefore the definition of 'mass'. But by definition quantum particles behave in an anisotropic way and not isotropically. So yes, in a nutshell, isotropy of matter is both a simplification *and* wrong.
report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey replied on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 09:52 GMT
It's this misconception of matter and reality which means we are still getting article headings such as
UKIRT discovers 'impossible' binary stars (June 5 2012) and this article title:
Do planets form within only a few years ? (July 5 2012).
Non-isotropic matter on a very large scale is a not only a possiblity that has been neglected but strong evidence suggests that this is indeed the missing part of the cosmological puzzle.
report post as inappropriate
Author Felix M Lev replied on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 03:31 GMT
Dear Alan,
I remember that many years ago there were theories where particles were described not by a scalar (i.e. isotropic) mass m but by a nonisotropic tensor m_{ik}. When you say that “quantum particles behave in an anisotropic way and not isotropically”, probably you mean not existing theories (e.g. with Galilei or Poincare invariance) but more complicated theories, right? So in fact this is a generalization of Galilei or Poincare theories. In your essay I tried to find those more complicated groups or algebras which should be used instead of Galilei or Poincare groups or algebras. Do I understand your ideas correctly? Thank you. Felix.
Alan Lowey replied on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 11:33 GMT
Felix, I'm on a very simple line of thought now. Let's compare gravity with magnetism. The magnetic force eminating from a bar magnet is anisotropic yet it's gravitational influence is isotropic. Is it not common sense that the fundamentals of the two forces ar the same? If so, is it not common sense that the gravity force is also anisotropic, but it's internal arrangement produces matter which eminates force particles isotropically i.e. in all directions equally? The magnetic force *can't* be fundamentally isotropic and produce a larger structure which is anisotropic but the gravity force *can* be fundamentally anisotropic and produce a larger structure which is isotropic. Do you begin to see what I'm getting at?
report post as inappropriate
Author Felix M Lev replied on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 20:11 GMT
Alan, so if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the gravitational force is fundamentally anisotropic but seems to become isotropic when we take average values over large structures. The fact that the gravitational force is anisotropic is well-known (e.g. post-Newtonian corrections depend on velocities). Only in the nonrelativistic approximation, when we neglect all powers of (v/c) it is isotropic. The magnetic force is anisotropic since it depends on velocities already in the main approximation, so when v->0, the force goes to zero too.
Alan Lowey replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 09:42 GMT
Okay Felix, yes, you understand me correctly with your opening sentence. I wasn't fully aware of the known anisotropic nature of gravity when the concept of Einstein's relativity is applied. I assume that it's just for velocities which approach the speed of light. Am I right in thinking that there's no scientific reason why there *can't possibly* be non-baryonic matter at the centre of the Earth assuming that Einstein's relativity has a fundamental problem? This is what the Higgs-like particle discovery indicates, doesn't it?
report post as inappropriate
Author Felix M Lev replied on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 19:17 GMT
Dear Alan,
My example with post-Newtonian terms was only for illustration. As I note in my essay, in my approach there is no "fundamental" gravity at all; gravity is simply a kinematical effect which takes place only if at least one body is microscopic. So I believe that nothing should be excluded right away. I am not a geologist, so cannot say anything definite about your idea on non-baryonic matter but it is not clear to me how the recent discovery can shed light on this problem.
Alan Lowey replied on Jul. 14, 2012 @ 10:45 GMT
Thanks for taking the time Felix. How do you feel about the concept of 'saturated maximum energy density matter' who's gravitational attraction is dependent on it's x-sectional area, rather than the amount of material?? This assumes that the surface can't emit any more force carrying particles and is at it's maximum limit, so therefore it doesn't matter how much material is behind it at that moment relative to another body of maximum energy density material. This is at the crux of my idea for additional exotic matter tidal forcing.
attachments:
1_Exotic_Cores.jpg
report post as inappropriate
Author Felix M Lev replied on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 00:01 GMT
Alan, in your essay this idea is not described in detail, right? Do you have a more detailed description elsewhere? My first impression is that this is in the spirit of holographic principle that information about a body depends on the area of a surface surrounding the body, not the amount of material in the body (see e.g. a paper by Verlinde which is Ref. [3] in my essay).
Alan Lowey replied on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 15:40 GMT
Thanks for the reference Felix, I'll take a look as though it does sound much the same concept in principle. You're right, I didn't go into great detail in the essay or stress the points with repeated ideas. It's work in progress and very visual based on a lifetime of gathering the puzzle pieces. I've added a few diagrams and doodles to help explain which can be seen on my post forum at the bottom of my essay entry. Speak to you soon.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Jul. 8, 2012 @ 03:26 GMT
Dear Felix
Your approach close to my intuition.
I wish good luck to you in this competition.
All the best
Yuri
report post as inappropriate
Sridattadev wrote on Jul. 9, 2012 @ 14:08 GMT
Dear Felix,
I read your essay and agree with your point and it is same as the truth that I am putting forth in the following essay
Conscience is the cosmological constant.
There is no space unless one chooses to measure and there is no time until one chooses to count. There is no space-time besides one absolute self or singularity.
Who am i? I am concrete, i is abstract. I am physics, i is mathematics.
Love,
Sridattadev.
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 10:55 GMT
Dear Lev
You addressed the reader at one point "if you are still reading this" well I read the entire essay and understood perhaps 20% of the very technical discussion. Nevertheless from everything you said and from the comments above I can see you have swallowed whole the assumptions of 20th. c. physics. I mean you seem to have mastered the methods of SR GR and QM even though they speak such different languages and address different domains. In my essay, naive as it may appear to you, there is an appeal for a concerted effort to find a better, simpler understanding of Nature. I would appreciate it if you read it as well as my
Beautiful Universe theory upon which it is based. Yes it is a simplistic approach but I strongly believe one day some such simple approach will explain all of physics without the painful complications that you struggle with so bravely in your essay.
BTW I downloaded your essay a week ago but now I see that your abstract, bio and pdf download link have disappeared!!
Wishing you the best of luck,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Felix M Lev replied on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 18:26 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
Thank you for your comments. I tried to understand your approach; on some problems we have similar opinions but there are problems where we have considerably different opinions. As far as particle-wave duality is concerned, you could read my response to Edvin Eugene Klingman in this thread. You refer to the experiment 2 2 by Eric Reiter. Your reference is a cite unquantum.net but I could not find a detailed description of the experiment there. Could you please tell me where the details of the experiment can be found.
Thank you. Felix.
Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jul. 19, 2012 @ 13:22 GMT
Dear Felix
Thanks for your response. In your reply to Eugene you say that "The notion of wave is purely classical; it has a physical meaning only as a way of describing systems of many particles by their average characteristics". On the contrary a wave can define each element it is made of very precisely at any given time and following sinusoidal pattern. The problem of course is what 'element' we are talking about. Since Einstein banished the ether it is considered laughable to say that quantum mechanics could be just a description of ether elements undergoing wave motion of one sort or another. This has got to change and for the reasons I mentioned in my fqxi essay Fix Physics!. I mentioned the fqxi contest to Eric Reiter and I think he will be submitting an essay here and will doubtless mention his experiments. On unquantum.net click the Home tab and the experiment is described in a 2003 pdf in Part I of the Unquntum Effect Book.
Cheers Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry wrote on Jul. 15, 2012 @ 20:53 GMT
Dear Felix M Lev,
I have had a couple of looks at your essay. I will need more to fully appreciate what you have written. I think it is clearly written and largely accessible, even though it is dealing with subjects that are not simple for non physicists. You wrote "One of the key ingredients of QFT is the notion of space-time background" and then proceeded to argue that the space-time background might not be necessary. I agree. The reason being, as I see it, because the space-time background for objects and events emerges from processing of received sensory data and is not the foundational source of the data or output reality. That insight allows many long standing questions of physics to be answered when the ideas are put into the correct working relationship.
That holographic models do not have a space-time assumption makes a lot of sense to me. I can imagine EM sensory data spreading out as a cascade from a source and there being spherical shells of data related to the event, of different sizes within different iterations of the Object universe. Giving a hypersphere within the superimposed layers of 3D space, if all of the historical iterations are combined into an imaginary structure, rather than space-time. I can imagine how the 2D data can be intercepted and formed into Image realities of 3D objects. I do not think material objects are formed from such data but that the holographic model could have a place within the data pool existing along with material structures and particles, which are the source of the data, within Object reality.
Your essay may be even more interesting that I have yet realised. I have only picked out those parts that are relatively easy for me to comprehend and relate to my own way of thinking.You have picked a very important false assumption as the basis of your essay. Good luck in the competition.
report post as inappropriate
Author Felix M Lev replied on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 19:03 GMT
Dear Georgina,
I wish you good luck in the competition too. In the previous contest you criticized my essay for being too mathematical but my impression is that now your attitude is more favorable. In my understanding your essay can be treated as a program on what should be done. I agree with many points of this program. I believe that in my approach several points of this program have been already implemented. For example, gravity is derived from a pure quantum approach and it has nothing to do with the curvature of the space-time.
Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 16, 2012 @ 20:24 GMT
Dear Felix,
It is still demanding for someone without a physics or maths background but there are papers that contain far more mathematics than your own entry in the competition.For me it looks like a good balance between clear verbal explanation and some mathematical precision.
Thank you for looking at my essay. The explanatory framework answers a lot of questions but can also be used in many different areas of physics to interpret experimental results within a coherent context.It is a framework that details can be fitted into and it indicates some areas that will be worthwhile to investigate and others that are most likely dead ends.I have added a high definition version of diagram 1. to my essay thread which makes it much easier to read.
I am glad you can see some overlap in our ways of thinking. It is still early in the competition and I expect that as well as reading new entries I will return to re-read those that I have found most interesting or would like to better understand. Which is likely to include your own essay. Good luck.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 06:53 GMT
Dear Felix,
here is a link to a web site that gives more information about the "RICP" explanatory framework used to -answer the essay question-,
Reality in the context of physics I do need to spend some more time improving that web site but I think it is a fairly good introduction nonetheless. The key letters on the older version on that site were a link to the word definitions. Precise terminology and understanding of the restriction it imposes is necessary for the correct interpretation of the framework. It was not possible to include that accompanying list of terminology for this FQXi contest as it fell outside what is acceptable as notes.
Regards, Georgina.
report post as inappropriate
Daniel L Burnstein wrote on Jul. 23, 2012 @ 14:19 GMT
Dear Felix,
Though from a different reasoning than yours, I arrive at some of the same conclusions you have.
I explained in my reply to the FQXi recent article titled "Killing Time" that I find no reason to believe that time is anything else than a purely relational concept. It follows that the union of purely relational concept, that is, with space, a physical aspect of reality, is a mistake. Thus, not only can quantum theory do without space-time, so does all physics (in my humble opinion). There exist, if I am correct, no such thing as space-time.
As for space however, I believe that it an aspect of reality that does not emerge from the presence of matter or depends on it. I further speculate that space is as physical as matter. That is is as dynamical as matter (but not in the sense that is understood by GR).
On that, I congratulate you on a well written and interesting essay. I will certainly go back to it myself.
report post as inappropriate
Author Felix M Lev replied on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 00:29 GMT
Dear Daniel,
Thank you for your comments. I agree that our approaches are different. I tried to understand your essay, so far it's rather difficult.
Best regards, Felix.
Daniel L Burnstein wrote on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 00:59 GMT
Sorry that you find understanding the essay difficult. If there is any suggestions you have or clarifications you find may be necessary, please do not hesitate to express them.
From comments I have received in the past years, I think once the axioms of discreteness and matter are understood, the rest pretty much should follow. The problem some of my readers have been having can be traced back to trying to understand the ideas from within the framework of a theory that uses a completely different axiom set. I'm not saying that this is your case, but when it is, the easiest way to understand the ideas is to try to understand them from within the proposed system and then evaluate it for internal consistency and, later, consistency with observational and experimental data (the data, not the theoretical interpretations of it).
In the case of the essay, it may be that there is not enough space to appropriately expand on some of the key concepts. It is difficult to reach an optimal balance between the amount of concepts and the depth to which they are explored. It is even more difficult here since the ideas found in the essay were based on a much larger work, the first part of which can be found
here .
That said, the important thing for me, and the only reason I participated in the contest, was to participate into and initiate discussions.
report post as inappropriate
Lev Goldfarb wrote on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 15:01 GMT
Hi Felix,
Good to see you participating here!
I just have one question about your essay:
Are you concerned that the vast majority of physicists would be very reluctant to *further* increase the conceptual and the 'physical' gaps between the classical and the quantum physics?
report post as inappropriate
Author Felix M Lev replied on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 19:41 GMT
Hi Lev,
I simply tried to clearly describe what I think. So whether "the vast majority of physicists would be very reluctant" or not I don't know. Probably your question should be addressed to them, not to me.
Lev Goldfarb replied on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 21:28 GMT
Felix,
This might be a legitimate concern: if you want to pull quantum mechanics even further away from the classical physics, why not to look for some framework which can accommodate better (with no gap) both of them? Or is it too big of a task? ;-)
As you understand, physics is not the science that would suffer gladly any new important gaps. ;-)
Of course, as far as QFT is concerned, you might be right: I'm not competent to judge. ;-) And it is possible that by increasing the gap you might be doing a service to the future, more radical undertaking. What are your thoughts?
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 11:04 GMT
Felix
Read please.
Very interesting
http://www.mathnet.ru/links/0626801608fe67f3de4c0
72e8175a7c9/zvmmf4626.pdf
http://ufn.ru/ufn02/ufn02_2/Russian
/r022f.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 06:53 GMT
Dear PhD Felix M Lev
Too unique!
"The above examples with the cosmological constant problem and gravity
give strong arguments that the space-time description has a physical meaning only
for describing real classical bodies while the construction of fundamental quantum
theories should not involve space-time at all."
Seems you intend to put Quantum to outside the universe that we are studying?
Kind Regards !
Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY
August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.
report post as inappropriate
Author Felix M Lev replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 20:12 GMT
Dear Hải.Caohoàng,
Thank you for your comments. To be honest, your phrase "Seems you intend to put Quantum to outside the universe that we are studying?" is not quite clear to me.
Best regards, Felix.
Stephen M Sycamore wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 07:16 GMT
Hello Felix,
I'm just reading your essay. It's exceptionally clear and well-written in addition to being well-reasoned. I believe I agree with your findings essentially and would even want to drive the thinking further. I'll try to write down some of the thoughts that spontaneously occurred as I read the essay.
When you say
"The phenomenon of quantum field theory (QFT) has...
view entire post
Hello Felix,
I'm just reading your essay. It's exceptionally clear and well-written in addition to being well-reasoned. I believe I agree with your findings essentially and would even want to drive the thinking further. I'll try to write down some of the thoughts that spontaneously occurred as I read the essay.
When you say
"The phenomenon of quantum field theory (QFT) has no analogs in the history of science. There is no branch of science where so impressive agreements between theory and experiment have been achieved."
It's hard to say how much of that very precise experimental agreement can be credited to QFT. Though the Dirac equation is far from perfect, it's outstanding numerical success for certain calculations seems to be the star performer. Would it be fair to say that it was acquired by QFT rather than having been derived from QFT procedures? The related Dirac Lagrangian is an important part of QFT but we should probably remember that all Lagrangians, specifying path independence, are no longer applicable in a topology that is not simply connected and so have limitations. The quote by Dirac which follows really sets the tone of your later arguments nicely.
This statement you make is critical I believe:
"Then a very important observation is that, from the point of view of the measurability principle, the space has a physical meaning only as a space of events for real particles while if particles are absent, the notion of empty space has no physical meaning. Indeed, there is no way to measure coordinates of a space which exists only in our imagination."
That very much reflects a point I make in
my essay that the source-less Maxwell equations (for vacuum) that are used as the foundation on which the Lorentz transformation is built do not apply rigorously to any body with which you are making a measurement on. To perform a measurement you must move a charge and then it becomes necessary to employ the Maxwell equations with sources.
Lorentz, in his book on electrons, specifically states that the Lorentz transformation is proven (valid) only in a vacuum. Voigt states also that his transformation is valid only when the the divergence of all fields is zero. The E and D fields are, in principle, zero only when there are no sources. This presents a real conundrum which is difficult to impossible to resolve within the space-time paradigm.
I'd gladly discuss more details as time permits.
Steve
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Felix M Lev replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 20:40 GMT
Dear Stephen,
Thank you for your comments. I agree with your remark that "It's hard to say how much of that very precise experimental agreement can be credited to QFT....". Probably, the most striking predictions of QFT are those obtained beyond the Dirac equation, e.g. for the electron and muon anomalous magnetic moments, Lamb shift etc. It is difficult to believe that those results are only coincidences. At the same time, it's obvious that the level of mathematical rigor in QFT is very poor.
Your essay is interesting and in general I agree with your conclusions. My understanding is that you consider only classical Lorenz transformations, right? Any transformation can be considered from the "active" or "passive" point of view. The former describes how physical quantities change when a transformation is applied to a given system while the latter means that we simply consider how quantities describing a system change when we describe the same system from the point of view of different observers. What is your preference? As I note in my essay, on quantum level global transformations are problematic.
Best regards, Felix.
Stephen M Sycamore replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 15:28 GMT
Hello again Felix,
To answer your question I suppose I would prefer the active transformation as that avoids what could be regarded as the abstraction of creating a new coordinate system. Better still is to not use a transformation at all but do the slightly harder work of modeling everything you're interested in the same frame of reference and thereby account for all dynamics of the situation. I quite agree that global transformations are problematic. There would seem to be a loss of information when you split the universe (all known facts that apply) into separate disconnected domains.
To highlight that problem with space-time, if you define the concept of simultaneous events based solely per observer, then you lose the information that all observers possess together. What all observers see simultaneously has at least as much value as what only one observer sees, doesn't it?
Louis De Broglie in "Non-linear Wave Mechanics" expressed a mostly intuitive distrust of transformations. I think that distrust is due to a subconscious acknowledgement of the potential loss or lack of information entailed in their use.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Stephen M Sycamore replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 15:38 GMT
P.S. In case it wasn't obvious, my essay shows how one can arrive at the same results using no transformations as when one applies the Lorentz transformation. But the additional input variables of charge and mass are required.
report post as inappropriate
Author Felix M Lev replied on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 05:34 GMT
Dear Stephen,
Thank you for your explanations. We have a full agreement that transformations of the empty space-time have no physical meaning, so they can be meaningful only if charges and fields are present. How to define the Lorenz transformation in this case? In quantum theory a canonical way is such that first one should construct operators of the Poincare group Lie algebra (including the operators of Lorenz boosts) and then extend the representation of the algebra to the representation of the Poincare group. The formal procedure of constructing those operators is well-known but the problem is that nobody has succeeded in the implementation of this procedure such that the operators are well defined (in my essay I discuss this problem in detail). Maybe your modification of the Lorenz transformation will give a hint on how to correctly implement the Lorentz transformation in quantum case?
Best regards, Felix.
Stephen M Sycamore replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 10:51 GMT
Felix,
For reasons I mentioned, I wouldn't advocate the use of transformations. We might also consider that fields transform differently than particles. It could be argued that the Galilean transformation is suitable for a particle in the case where no change in momentum occurs. But of course, as soon as the particle starts interacting with a field the usefulness of the Galilean transformation dissolves.
Field or wave equations are vastly superior and more rigorous than field transformations in my opinion and can be derived very easily from the results of my paper. So I'd argue that there is no single transformation, modification of the Lorentz transformation or otherwise, that rigorously applies to both particles and fields. And that is especially vivid when a transfer of momentum or energy occurs.
However, if you still wish to consider possible modifications of the LT, we could leverage these findings:
report post as inappropriate
Stephen M Sycamore replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 11:04 GMT
Then the Lorentz transformation have the alternate expressions
report post as inappropriate
Stephen M Sycamore replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 11:11 GMT
P.S. There are some typos in the above equations and the web server here seems to have a bug in attempting to display a ' character inside LaTex code. But you probably get the idea.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Author Felix M Lev replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 18:01 GMT
Dear Stephen,
Probably, it was a misunderstanding. In my approach symmetry is described by a Lie algebra over a Galois field and there are no transformations at all simply because the meaning of space and time on quantum level is not clear and a theory over a Galois field cannot involve continuous parameters. So only discrete analogs of transformations are possible and their meaning is problematic. In some cases the fact that my approach does not involve transformations was a reason for rejecting my papers. So if you prefer not to work with transformations then we have the same preferences. I thought you tried to reconcile your approach with standard problems in transformations.
I think that the notion of continuous classical field is only an approximation when a system of many particles is described by their average characteristics. In this case continuity might be a good approximation. For example, such quantity as frequency is meaningful only on classical level for describing classical waves but not for describing a single photon.
Best regards, Felix.
hide replies
Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 17:48 GMT
Dear Felix,
You present a very interesting and useful point of view. Particularly striking is the lack of necessity for the notion of gravitational interaction between elementary particles. A few questions and remarks:
1. As you point out, the usual approach (e.g. Weinberg) to QFT is “symmetries first,” where the symmetries arise from a “spacetime” background that is taken...
view entire post
Dear Felix,
You present a very interesting and useful point of view. Particularly striking is the lack of necessity for the notion of gravitational interaction between elementary particles. A few questions and remarks:
1. As you point out, the usual approach (e.g. Weinberg) to QFT is “symmetries first,” where the symmetries arise from a “spacetime” background that is taken for granted. Your approach seems to be “algebras first,” which eliminates the primary status of spacetime. Now, as you know, Alain Connes and his collaborators working in the field of noncommutative geometry begin with Hilbert spaces and operator algebras too. If it’s possible to do so in a few sentences, could you briefly contrast your approach to theirs?
2. You mention (page 6) that “there is no reason to believe that [Galilei and Poincare symmetries] are exact symmetries of nature,” and I strongly agree with this point. However, I am not sure if you mean that some different symmetries (such as dS or AdS) are “exact symmetries,” or if you mean that the symmetry interpretation of covariance is ultimately only an approximation. For instance, you mention (in regard to GFQT) that “sooner or later quantum theory will be discrete and finite,” and this would seem to definitely rule out Lie group symmetries in the fundamental picture. Do you expect finite symmetry groups in GFQT, or is group symmetry replaced with something else?
3. Following question 2, I will remark that I personally believe the symmetry interpretation of covariance breaks down at the fundamental level, and an alternative interpretation in terms of order theory takes over (if you are interested, you may see my essay
On the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics for more details on this).
4. As you know, there is a version of QM that appears superficially to be diametrically opposed to your thesis, namely the interpretation “spacetime first,” where I take the terminology from the title of Feynman’s 1948 paper on what is now known as the path integral or sum-over-histories version. Of course, this approach is very general and does not actually require spacetime in the traditional sense; any partially ordered set will do (where the partial order supplants time in defining the action, which is used to weight the various paths.) I am wondering what your general view of this approach is. Do you think it is ultimately wrongheaded, or does it play some role?
5. Following question 4, I will reveal that my favorite approach to quantum gravity is a version of the sum-over-histories method, which I would call “relations first,” or “interactions first.” The partial orders used are causal orders, and Schrodinger equations, operator algebras, etc. emerge via path sums. I know this method is quite different from your approach, but I would still be grateful for any remarks you might have about it. In particular, if you know some good reason why it absolutely won’t work, it would save me a lot of trouble!
Thanks for the great read! Take care,
Ben Dribus
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Felix M Lev replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 20:08 GMT
Dear Ben,
Thank you for your comments. Within a few days I will respond with greater details.
Best regards, Felix.
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 09:16 GMT
Dear Felix
Hello. 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
Kremlev sergey wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 01:07 GMT
Kremlev sergey wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 01:20 GMT
my address kremlevsu@yakutsk.vtb24.ru
report post as inappropriate
Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 09:02 GMT
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
and
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
of points. After it anyone give you
of points so you have
of points and
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
or
or
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
then the participant`s rating
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
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 13:55 GMT
c = 1; h = 1
if c vary, h not your assumption not valid
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 14:18 GMT
"Then gravitational constant has the dimension (length)2"
Therefore it is wrong
Therefore G=R/Mnlpr wrong conclusion.
report post as inappropriate
Member Gheorghe-Sorin Sorin Paraoanu wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 19:37 GMT
Hi Felix,
I enjoyed reading your essay. Especially the first part and the arguments about the role of spacetime are very nicely and clearly spelled out.
Good luck in the contest!!!
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.