Search FQXi

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

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - March 16, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

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

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

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

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

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Juan Ramón González Álvarez: on 10/4/12 at 10:42am UTC, wrote Dear Luis, Ana, & Andrea I was not referring to the causality issues of...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 7:02am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/2/12 at 13:47pm UTC, wrote After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I...

Luis, Ana Maria and Andrea: on 10/1/12 at 18:48pm UTC, wrote Dear Bernard, We were very pleased to read your post and to find so many...

Luis, Ana Maria and Andrea: on 10/1/12 at 17:28pm UTC, wrote Dear Juan Ramon, Thanks for your comments. You are right in saying that...

Bernard Guillerminet: on 9/29/12 at 13:58pm UTC, wrote Dear Luis, Ana and Andrea, Very nice and interesting essay. Many essays in...

Anonymous: on 9/25/12 at 19:30pm UTC, wrote Thanks for your interest in our essay. Best regards, L, A & A.

Anonymous: on 9/25/12 at 19:16pm UTC, wrote Dear Alan Kadin, Thanks for your comment. Indeed, particles as physical...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "John, I would say that you need to think what you mean by “physical..." in Emergent Reality: Markus...

John Cox: "Lorraine, That clarifies, thanks. I'd be in the camp that argues for a..." in Emergent Reality: Markus...

Steve Dufourny: "We have a big philosophical problem with the strings and the photons like..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "If my equation is correct, E=mc^2+Xl^2 , so how can we take this enormous..." in Alternative Models of...

Lorraine Ford: "Re "I tend to speed-read then review before scoring after reading a good..." in Undecidability,...

John Cox: "George, We shouldn't conflate contradiction with inconsistency. QM has a..." in Watching the Watchmen:...

John Cox: "Georgi, by and large I agree. Near the end of the discussion panel,..." in Watching the Watchmen:...

RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

FQXi FORUM
January 21, 2020

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Whence the Quantum? by Luis de la Pena, Ana Maria Cetto, and Andrea Valdes Hernandez [refresh]

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Luis de la Pena wrote on Aug. 12, 2012 @ 17:17 GMT
Essay Abstract

We identify an assumption that pervades the whole of quantum physics, and show that its replacement with something that is closer to the real world helps solve many of the present-day quantum puzzles. Classical physics negated the zero-point radiation field, and this assumption remained virtually untouched all along the development of quantum physics. When this field is considered seriously, the quantum description emerges in a most natural way.

Author Bio

Luis de la Pena (PhD, Moscow State University) is emeritus professor at the Instituto de Fisica, UNAM, Mexico. Most of his recent research has been in the foundations of quantum theory. Ana Maria Cetto (MA, Harvard University, PhD, UNAM) is research professor at the Instituto de Fisica, UNAM. Most of her research is in the foundations of quantum theory. Andrea Valdes-Hernandez (PhD, UNAM) has been a postdoctoral fellow at the Instituto de Fisica, UFRJ, Brazil. Besides quantum optics she devotes a good part of her time to the foundations of quantum theory.

Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Aug. 12, 2012 @ 23:01 GMT
I have always thought that the ZPE approach to understanding the microcosm was a very promising start towards a physical understanding of QM without the smoke, mirrors, or Bohr's denial of our ability to actually understand nature on a deep level.

I suspect that when you combine this ZPE approach with the concept of an infinite hierarchy characterized by discrete cosmological self-similarity, i.e., an unbounded discrete fractal paradigm, then much of the empirically observed phenomena of the atomic and subatomic levels will lend themselves to simple and natural physics based primarily on GR, EM and nonlinear dynamical systems theory. A new quantum mechanics conforming more to Schrodinger's original vision of it remains a very interesting possibility.

Keep fighting the good fight!

report post as inappropriate

Luis, Ana, Andrea replied on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 00:38 GMT
Thanks for your encouraging comment.

You have a nice way of putting it: QM without smoke, mirrors, or Bohr’s denial of our ability to actually understand nature. However, we would prefer to say “without Bohr’s denial of our possibility to go farther than observed”. Bohr made an effort to understand nature, but of course, from his personal point of view, i.e. negating the possibility of the human mind to go beyond the experiment.

Your concept of a discrete cosmological fractal structure is novel and very appealing; it suggests that the trajectories followed by electrons should be fractals – or at least stochastic, on which of course we are in full agreement.

We hope your concept of cosmological scales can find its place in the description of nature.

report post as inappropriate

Robert L. Oldershaw replied on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 03:13 GMT
Thanks for your encouragement.

Here is what I mean regarding Bohr's "natural philosophy".

When asked whether a particular QM algorithim was mirroring an underlying physical reality, Bohr responded: "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that it is the task of physics is to find out how nature IS. Physics concerns what we can say about nature."

Personally, I think Einstein was the natural pilosopher and Bohr was the mechanic.

If there is a discrete self-similar Subquantum Scale underlying the Atomic Scale, then it would do for the Atomic Scale what the Atomic Scale does for the Stellar Scale. And all with the exact same neoclassical physics, just occurring on different discrete M, L, T scales.

report post as inappropriate

Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Aug. 12, 2012 @ 23:47 GMT
PS: The resolution of the vacuum energy density problem, according to the discrete fractal paradigm, can be found at the link below.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.3381

report post as inappropriate

Luis, Ana, Andrea replied on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 00:43 GMT
It is not so frequent to find such an inspiring paper.

report post as inappropriate

Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 11:54 GMT
Dear Luis de la Pena,

Quantum vacuum fluctuation is expressional with a modified brane world scenario also, in that, tetrahedral-branes of eigen-rotational strings, is been assigned to describe a quantum noumenon.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Luis de la Pena replied on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 01:08 GMT
Dear Jayakar,

It is nice to find that from our so different perspectives we are both led to vacuum fluctuations as an essential theoretical ingredient.

All the best,

Luis

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 03:52 GMT
Dear Professors de la Pena and Cetto and Dr. Valdes Hernandes.

Greetings. I hesitate to write critically of the learned paper you have presented. Like you I strive to search for a simpler more rational and harmonious physics, but my approach is geometrical and mostly qualitative.

You distinguish between ZPF and matter, and if I understand you correctly, you base your conclusions on thermodynamical and stochastic considerations. I rather like to think Nature is exquisitely ordered at the smallest scales, and have shown how the probability interpretation, although it 'works' emerges from the mistaken notion of the point photon. (Please see Eric Reiter's fqxi essay about that).

I would be honored if you can read my fqxi essay Fix Physics! , which is based on my 2005 Beautiful Universe Theory . In this (BU) theory the vacuum, radiation and matter are all made up of just one type of building block: a node rotating in units of Planck's constant (h) and self-assembling in a universal lattice to (hopefully!) create all of physics. You can consider the vacuum portions of this ether lattice as ZPF but it is not random. Your critical evaluation and comments are most welcome.

To paraphrase Freda Kahlo: Viva la Natura!

With best wishes,

report post as inappropriate

Luis, Ana, Andrea replied on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 01:44 GMT

Thanks for your kind words. As you surely noticed, we are just trying to understand the deep physical meaning of quantum mechanics, being convinced that this understanding is essential to allow us to go to deeper levels of nature. You cannot unify what you do not understand.

Your essay looks really appealing. But, like you, also we hesitate to write critically on it before a careful reading.

All the best,

Luis, Ana María and Andrea

report post as inappropriate

Israel Perez wrote on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 05:12 GMT
Dear Dr. Luis, Ana and Andrea

It is nice seeing people from my country. I'm an experimental physicists working in condensed matter and I realized my graduate studies in Mexico. I am very familiar with the works of Dr. Luis de la Peña and his famous book in Mexico. I would like to congratulate you for your fine and very interesting essay. I would like to make a couple of comments and at the same time invite you to read my essay which I believe has a deep connection with your work.

Although not widely understood in the community of physicists, it appears that the huge difference in energy densities between the ZPE and the cosmological energy is one of the deepest puzzles in physics. From my view, the resolution of this problem will be decisive for the future of physics. Some people contend that the ZPF is not real, that there are no experimental evidences to support it and claim that the Cassimir effect can be explained without alluding to the ZPE. Just in case you are interested I leave you a reference in which the effect is explained without need of the ZPF: R. L. Jaffee PRD, 72, 021301 (2005). Despite this I am confident that the laws of quantum physics are very solid and that the reality of the ZPF can be experimentally demonstrated.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that the vacuum energy makes allusion to the aether that dominated the mind of physicists at the end of the XIX century. The difference between the vacuum energy and the aether is that the former is not material. This being said, I wonder in my essay, how our conception of the world would be today if the aether had never been ruled out from physics. My work basically claims that, from the experimental point of view, the notion of the preferred system of reference is not at variance with the principle of relativity, and thus the notion of the aether remains still legitimate. This could be useful to solve many of the problems of contemporary physics. I would be grateful if you could take some time to read my work and leave me some comments.

Best regards

Israel

report post as inappropriate

Luis de la Pena, Ana Maria Cetto and Andrea Valdes replied on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 01:01 GMT
Dear Israel,

Thanks for your kind words, and congratulations for your well-written essay!

About the experimental observation of the zero-point field: detection of it is not a simple matter because every (material) detector is subject to its action. It would perhaps be easier to observe changes in the spatial structure of this field, due for example to the opening and closing of a slit. The Casimir effect is due to a change of a similar nature, but since, as you say, it can be explained without alluding to the ZPF, it cannot be used as convincing evidence.

From the point of view of our theory, one could say that the emergence of quantum mechanics itself is the most solid proof of the existence of the ZPF. What would be interesting to test is the behavior of the ZPF-matter system for very short times, before the quantum regime is reached. But the pervasiveness of the ZPF makes it difficult to think of such an experimental test – at least for the time being.

Suerte y muchos saludos,

Best regards,

Luis, Ana and Andrea

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Aug. 14, 2012 @ 20:30 GMT
I have encountered the stochastic electrodynamics in the past. It is what I might call quantum Langevin theory, where there is the associated Fokker-Planck equation. In some ways this is similar to the Bohm approach to QM as well, where a Hamilton-Jacobi equation contains a quantum potential. These approaches to QM have from what I understand have a problem with treating intrinsic spin.

The FLRW equation

(a’/a)^2 = H^2 = 8πGρ/3

define a cosmological constant Λ = 8πGρ/3 for the mass energy density ρ = constant. If the mass energy density is ρ = ħ sum_nω_n (assuming a box normalization approximation), then the summation will lead to the 123 order of magnitude larger value than what is actually measured.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Luis de la Pena, Ana Maria Cetto and Andrea Valdes replied on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 18:32 GMT
Thanks for your comments and your interest in our essay.

Formally our theory may appear similar to the Bohm approach of QM; however, physically they are very different. We are indeed dealing with a stochastic process and therefore use the appropriate mathematical machinery. The point is that the presence of the zero-point field makes the difference; without it, the problem would be strictly classical. As we show in our papers, once the system (matter plus field) reaches the state in which energy balance (or ergodicity) holds, it obeys quantum laws. This is completely foreign to Bohm’s approach.

With regard to the spin we have little to say at this point, because the corresponding theory is still under development. Some first results can be seen in our book The Quantum Dice (see reference in the essay).

The problem you point out about the cosmological constant is indeed, as we remark in the essay and is well known, one of the major problems of contemporary physics, and of course not exclusive of our theory.

Best,

Luis, Ana and Andrea

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B Crowell replied on Aug. 18, 2012 @ 00:22 GMT
I am not sure how relevant this to stochastic QFT, but I have done some work using the BCFW recursion relationship with respect to AdS ~ CFT correspondence. My essay is an overview of this work of mine, with two collaborators (Corda and Glinka) and the recursion formula of Britto, Cachazo, Feng and Witten, where the references therein give more detail. This is a recursion formulation of Feynman diagrams on the tree level, or on shell. BTW, this has become in the last few years of growing interest, and forms the basis of the “BlackHat” algorithm used to compute scattering processes for data analysis at the LHC. The work by Bern, Kosower and Dixon, has been instrumental in these developments. This reduces calculation complexity, and it also reduces the role of quantum field locality, and in its full form does not appeal to unitarity.

The loop corrections to the BCFW amplitudes are in your language the result of this quantum stochastic field. The tree diagrams are O(1), while the first loop order is O(ħ) and so forth with O(ħ^n) the nth loop order. The beauty of the recursion formula is that everything can be decomposed down to the tree level. The building blocks of quantum corrections are tree level diagrams with p^2 = m^2. You might take some interest in this, for there appears to be some underlying similarity here.

I’d be interested in hearing what your opinions are of my paper in general. This gets into string theory, D-branes and the rest. I think that string theory is a “theory of something,” though I question whether it is the whole picture.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

John A. Macken wrote on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 20:52 GMT
Luis, Ana and Andrea,

I believe that you make a very good point about the importance of ZPE, but I do not think that you have taken this concept far enough. It is possible to show that all particles, fields and forces are made of the single building block of 4 dimensional spacetime. In this case, spacetime is filled with ZPE at all frequencies up to Planck frequency. This concept is developed in a book available for download at OnlySpacetime.com. This book shows that particles, gravity, electric fields, the strong force and cosmology can be derived from ZPE. One of the many insights derived from this approach is that it can be shown that there is a previously unknown simple mathematical relationship between the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force when both forces are expressed using the wave properties of particles. My essay on the unification of forces includes force equations but discussion of the importance of ZPE is left for the book.

report post as inappropriate

Luis de la Pena, Ana Maria Cetto and Andrea Valdes replied on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 18:53 GMT
Dear John,

Indeed, we are limiting our efforts towards getting a deep understanding of the physical meaning of quantum mechanics, and to this end the ZPE has been shown to be crucial. The problem of the unification of forces is absolutely beyond our scope. It is undoubtedly an important problem, but we are afraid that it is impossible to solve it without first getting a better grasp of the quantum phenomenon.

Best wishes,

Luis, Ana and Andrea

report post as inappropriate

Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 03:27 GMT
I am still studying your paper, so excuse me if these questions are answered in parts I have not gotten to yet.

1. In your view what is the correct conceptual understanding of Psi-squared: probability function, something physical like mass or charge density, not even needed or wanted, other concept?

2. Does the ZPR approach help us to understand the double-slit experiment (especially in light of remarkable 'quantum non-demolition'-type 2-slit experiments reported recently in Nature?

report post as inappropriate

Luis de la Pena, Ana Maria Cetto and Andrea Valdes replied on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 17:38 GMT
Thanks for your interest in our work and for your pertinent questions that go to the heart of the matter. Indeed, the theory provides answers to both your questions.

1. As an integral part of the theory, it follows that the psi-squared function is a probability density, precisely in the sense of Born. It refers to a statistical distribution of particles in the configuration space, and in this regard it is something physical. The psi is, however, a mathematical entity that in addition contains information about the (mean local) motion.

2. The theory leads to an understanding of the double-slit experiment, but for lack of space we did not touch upon this subject in the essay. Essentially, the slits diffract the zero-point field and the motion of the particles is directly affected by this diffracted field. Hence particles with the appropriate momentum convey information about the diffraction pattern of the corresponding (diffracted) field modes. In Phys. Rev E 72, 066605 (2005) an exact calculation is presented of the pattern of the random zero-point field diffracted by a single slit, which shows the presence of scars, and in Physica E 42, 313 (2010) we make a very initial attempt to see how particles are affected by the field in the case of the double slit.

Ragards, L, A & A.

report post as inappropriate

Timothy Boyer wrote on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 12:07 GMT
Dear Luis, Ana, and Andrea,

I enjoyed reading your clear exposition of the ideas of classical zero-point radiation leading to an understanding of quantum theory. Your characterization of the emergence of entanglement seems particularly nice, "But since the quantum description has no room for the background field, it appears as if an action at a distance were at work." Also, I was rereading parts of your "Quantum Dice" recently and wondered whether the information on stochastic optics has changed significantly.

Best wishes,

Tim

report post as inappropriate

Luis, Ana, Andrea replied on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 20:09 GMT
Dear Tim,

Thanks for your kind words, it is important for us to know that you appreciate our work – as we appreciate yours.

Of the four ‘speculative suggestions’ you mention in your nice essay, we have paid attention to three, obtaining some encouraging results. Entanglement is dealt with in several papers specifically for the two-particle case, fully in line with your point of view (see e.g. Physica E 42, 308 (2010) and Found. Phys. 41 (2011) 843-862). About the atomic line spectra, they turn out to be indeed due to sharp resonances, as you envision (some references are Found. Phys. 31, 1703 (2001) and Found. Phys. 39, 1240 (2009).) These two topics are dealt with at more length in Andrea’s Ph D thesis.

As to your suggestion about particle diffraction, we fully agree with it. With J. Avendaño in Phys. Rev E 72, 066605 (2005) we present an exact calculation of the pattern of the random zero-point field diffracted by a single slit, which shows the presence of scars. In Physica E 42, 313 (2010) we make a very initial to attempt to see how particles are affected by the field diffracted by a double slit diffracted. It is interesting to note that the particles that are most diffracted are those that have a momentum equal to the momentum of the diffracted (and diffracting!) field mode. Unfortunately, due to both technical and personal reasons, this problem has not received due attention lately, but we hope to resume it in the near future.

Regarding your question about stochastic optics, Trevor Marshall and Emilio Santos, along with some younger colleagues, have continued to work on it, obtaining some interesting results, such as an explanation of some of the ‘strictly quantum’ phenomena of quantum optics as a consequence of entanglement with the zero-point field. We are sure that Emilio would be happy to give you more information.

All the best,

Luis, Ana and Andrea.

report post as inappropriate

Avtar Singh wrote on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 22:20 GMT
Hi Luis, Ana, & Andrea:

I enjoyed reading your paper and was especially thrilled to see exactly similar conclusions as described in my paper - -“ From Absurd to Elegant Universe”.

The model described in my paper concludes that the fundamental reality of the universe is the Zero-point state of the mass-energy-momentum-space-time continuum and fundamental dynamic process that governs the manifested universe is the spontaneous (Free-willed) birth and decay of particles. Neither the Particles/strings nor space-time nor biological evolution are fundamental in themselves but their overall state of the wholesome continuum. The inconsistencies and paradoxes of the modern physics theories – Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are shown to be artifacts of this missing physics of the most fundamental state and processes that govern the universe at its core. As shown in my paper, once the missing physics is properly included in current theories, the artifact questions and inconsistencies disappear along with artifact paradoxes listed above leading to a coherent and simple/elegant universe.

When this missing foundational physics is counted in, it not only successfully predicts the observed accelerated expansion of the universe and galactic star velocities but also resolves paradoxes and singularities of the Cosmic Conundrum today. It also provide the correct physics to explain the actually observed cosmological constant value that is much smaller than the quantum vacuum energy predicted by QM. It also provides understanding of the inner working foundations of quantum mechanics and resolves key QM paradoxes –Parallel Universes, multi-dimensions, Quantum Gravity, Quantum Time, Measurement paradox, Wave-particle duality etc.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could please review my paper and provide your comments.

Thanking you in advance,

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

report post as inappropriate

Sandhu G S wrote on Aug. 19, 2012 @ 11:55 GMT
Dear Luis de la Pena,

You say that "electrically charged particles in matter continuously undergo complex and accelerated motions and hence, according to electrodynamics, they radiate." Further, "The minimum expression of this background field, at zero absolute temperature, is just the zero-point Field (ZPF)" Does this ZPF also exist in the inter-galactic free space?

Since in your opinion, the sources of ZPF are the electrical charges in accelerated motions then according to electrodynamics, this ZPF must be an electromagnetic (EM) field which could be measured in units of volts per meter (V/m) and amperes per meter (A/m). Could you please indicate the order of magnitude of this ZPF in unit of V/m or A/m?

Since the ZPF is in fact a background EM field and not the field 'bound' to the matter particles, it must be consisting of EM waves. In your opinion, does the ZPF consist of standing EM waves (as in a cavity) or of propagating EM waves? Since the ZPF discussed in your essay refers to the background free space, it cannot be compared with the situation of a cavity. If therefore, the ZPF consists of propagating EM waves, these waves will keep getting lost in the outer regions of the universe and steady ZPF cannot be maintained unless the universe is bounded and behaves like a big cavity for the EM waves. What is your opinion in this regard?

Best wishes

G S Sandhu

report post as inappropriate

Luis de la Pena, Ana Maria Cetto and Andrea Valdes replied on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 19:34 GMT
Dear G S Sandhu,

The hypothesis of a ZPF is that it is an electromagnetic radiation field that was generated during the evolution of the universe and pervades the entire space, being constantly regenerated by matter. It is a purely random field, with zero average components E and B and with an average energy per normal mode equal to (1/2)(hbar)(omega).

Best regards,

Luis, Ana and Andrea

report post as inappropriate

Emilio Santos wrote on Aug. 19, 2012 @ 16:50 GMT
Dear Luis, Ana María and Andrea:

I have enjoyed reading your essay. In my opinion it puts in an extremely clear form the basic ideas for an interpretation of quantum physics resting essentially on the existence of a zeropoint field that causes a random motion on the particles.

As you know very well by our continuous exchange of ideas (during more than forty years now), our opinions are coincident to a large extent, although there are small differences. To point out one of these, I am not so sure as you that the action of the ZPF on a material oscillator gives rise to stationary states with discrete energies. I am inclined to think that this happens only in nonlinear systems having a (classical ) motion where there are harmonics of the fundamental frequency.

Best wishes

Emilio

report post as inappropriate

Paul O Hara wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 16:25 GMT
Hi,

This is a great essay and I enjoyed reading it. Have you ever considered that spin singlet states may be the natural outcome of your ZPE formulation, which in turn would ground the Pauli exclusion principle. In this regard, you might want to look at my essay entitled Rethinking the Pauli Exclusion Principle which I submitted for the contest.

Paul O'Hara

report post as inappropriate

Luis de la Pena, Ana Maria Cetto and Andrea Valdes replied on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 20:15 GMT
Dear Paul,

Many thanks for your encouraging comment.

Concerning your question, we have indeed tried to understand spin within SED, along the lines discussed in our book The Quantum Dice (Ref. 4).

In more recent papers (Ref. 10) we study entanglement as a result of the presence of the ZPF, and it is clear to us that a most immediate application would be to spin. This is part of our current research programme.

A glance at your essay indicates a close parallelism between our lines of thought; we shall study it more carefully.

Best regards,

Luis, Ana María and Andrea

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 13:13 GMT
Luis,you wrote:

"In conclusion, we feel free to reaffirm that, rather than being an intrinsic

property of matter or field, the quantum phenomenon emerges as a result of

the permanent interaction with the zpf."

What is cause zpf?

report post as inappropriate

Luis de la Pena, Ana Maria Cetto and Andrea Valdes replied on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 22:21 GMT
Dear Anonymous,

A theory of this kind considers the zero-point field as given - just as spacetime and geometry. Probably the simplest answer is to consider that the zero-point field is a product of the evolution of the Universe. Given the Universe as it is today, it is possible to understand the zpf as the result of a self-regenerating system in which matter radiates and absorbs energy by equal amounts. An explanation of this kind can be found in our paper in Found. Phys. Letters vol. 10 (1997) 591.

Regards,

L, A & A.

report post as inappropriate

Alan Kadin wrote on Sep. 16, 2012 @ 21:50 GMT
Dear Authors:

I enjoyed reading your essay, which focuses on the semi-classical treatment of zero point quantum fluctuations. But something needs to be quantized for this to be consistent. This reminds me that "quantization noise" in digital systems theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantization_error) derives directly from classical discretization of continuous variables. I would go further and suggest that quantum mechanics has been profoundly misunderstood since the beginning. Rather than a universal theory of all matter, QM should be viewed as a mechanism to bundle a fundamental classical field into coherent units that act in certain respects as classical particles (but NOT point particles). In fact, as I have shown in my essay (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1296), one can easily derive classical Hamiltonian trajectories from the behavior of a confined coherent relativistic field. This simple change in paradigm eliminates quantum paradoxes, including wave-particle duality and quantum entanglement. Remarkably, this seems never to have been considered before. Equally remarkably, this is being mostly ignored in a contest dedicated to the proposition that some of our fundamental physical assumptions may be wrong. I would appreciate your thoughts in this matter.

Thank you.

Alan M. Kadin, Ph.D.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 19:16 GMT

Thanks for your comment.

Indeed, particles as physical objects and not mathematical entities cannot be strictly dimensionless, including the electron. In our case the electron acquires an effective structure due to the interaction with the zero-point field.

We should emphasize, however, that our theory is not semiclassical, and quantization is not introduced as a hypothesis; rather, it comes about from the permanent interaction with this (otherwise classical) background radiation field.

Regards,

L, A & A.

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 14:42 GMT
Dear

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Regard !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 21, 2012 @ 15:50 GMT
Dear Luis, Ana and Andrea,

Did you calculate the energy density of the zero-point radiation field? My result is equal to 2 1035 J/m3. Also I find that Lamb shift may be explained if calculate total relativistic kinetic energy of electron. See § 14 of the book: The physical theories and infinite nesting of matter. Perm, 2009-2012, 858 p. ISBN 978-5-9901951-1-0

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 19:30 GMT
Thanks for your interest in our essay.

Best regards,

L, A & A.

report post as inappropriate

Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 18:54 GMT
Dear Luis de la Pena, Ana Maria Cetto, and Andrea Valdes Hernandez,

For many physicist the idea that a classical equation of motion plus a ZPE effect can explain many phenomena traditionally associated to QED sound repugnant, but it has an easy explanation.

The best way to understand the success of SED (and variations such as LSED) is using the Wigner & Moyal formulation of quantum...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Luis, Ana Maria and Andrea replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 17:28 GMT
Dear Juan Ramon,

Thanks for your comments. You are right in saying that the Abraham-Lorentz equation - like most equations in Physics - is of limited validity. However, the noncausality associated with this equation is an artifact arising from its approximate derivation, the ultimate source of it being perfectly causal. (You may find a causal version of it in our book The Quantum Dice).

We feel that there is an important difference between your theory and ours. The zeropoint field in our theory is not simply an added ingredient - such as the salt that you add to the salad - to transform a classical theory into something quantum. The dynamics of the particle is affected in a fundamental way by its interaction with this field. A manifestation of its effect is precisely the appearance of the quantum potential, as a result of the fluctuations impressed on the momentum.

Cordiales saludos,

L, A & A.

report post as inappropriate

Juan Ramón González Álvarez replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 10:42 GMT
Dear Luis, Ana, & Andrea

I was not referring to the causality issues of the Abraham-Lorentz equation because such issues arise only when the equation is misapplied. I was referring to that broad kind of physical systems for which the equation either cannot give answers or gives incorrect answers. The Liouville equation, however, can be used to study such systems beyond the scope of the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Bernard Guillerminet wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 13:58 GMT
Dear Luis, Ana and Andrea,

Very nice and interesting essay. Many essays in this contest address the emergence of quantum mechanics (including mine: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1425 )from different point of views (holistic, information loss, running forward and backward in time, ZPF ...). We all agree there is a single world where the classical and the quantum world must be combined and explained by a single theory. It's mandatory before going further (quantum gravity ...).

ZPF, Diffusion equation or fractal paths yield to Heisenberg inequalities but my concerns are the explanations of psi*-psi (density probabilty, how it physically emerges?)and of the entanglement (non locality, you wrote the background field share common resonant modes which appears as an action at distance). Thanks if you could elaborate these points in a few words.

Best wishes for your essay,

Bernard

report post as inappropriate

Luis, Ana Maria and Andrea replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 18:48 GMT
Dear Bernard,

We were very pleased to read your post and to find so many points of convergence with our views, both in your comments and in your interesting essay, which we intend to read more carefully. It is stimulating to see your ambitious effort to find a fundamental explanation for the emergence of quantum mechanics. We fully agree that before going further it is mandatory to solve the conceptual problems of quantum physics and classical-quantum duality.

To understand entanglement, for us it has been essential to consider that the particle resonates with certain modes of the background field. When the system contains two (formally noninteracting) identical particles, they may share common modes of resonance. The self-correlation of each of these modes impresses correlations between the particle variables. The only possible description of the corresponding two-particle states is through entangled states. The interaction between the particles via the nackground field is concealed in quantum theory, with the well-known unfortunate consequences.

The statistical nature of the problem due to the presence of the zeropoint field leads quite naturally to a probability density. In order to try to give you a meaningful response to your question, however, we would appreciate it if you could make it more explicit.

With our best regards,

Luis, Ana Maria and Andrea.

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 13:47 GMT
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 07:02 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
$R_1$
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

Login or create account to post reply or comment.