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

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

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

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, 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

read/discuss

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

*Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation*

read/discuss • winners

**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.

read/discuss • winners

**Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics**

*Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation*

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

**How Should Humanity Steer the Future?**

*January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014*

*Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

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

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

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

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

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

read/discuss • winners

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

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Current Essay Contest

Previous Contests

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Stephen Anastasi**: *on* 7/18/15 at 0:29am UTC, wrote Hello Carey I'm wondering if you are still around, and if so, might we...

**optional**: *on* 2/28/13 at 21:45pm UTC, wrote The two way speed of light is constant but not necessarily the one way...

**Carey R. Carlson**: *on* 11/5/12 at 19:26pm UTC, wrote Hi Marcel, Did you see all my constructions at the link to my viXra...

**Marcel-Marie LeBel**: *on* 11/5/12 at 1:19am UTC, wrote Mr Carlson, I was most impressed by the mass-ratio demonstration. The...

**Marcel-Marie LeBel**: *on* 10/30/12 at 0:33am UTC, wrote Mr Carlson, Excellent course in set theory. Now I understand better the...

**Hoang Hai**: *on* 9/26/12 at 7:13am UTC, wrote Dear Carey Ralph Carlson I understand what you want to present, it is...

**Gurcharn Sandhu**: *on* 9/9/12 at 16:44pm UTC, wrote Dear Carey, I have read your essay and I highly appreciate your clear...

**Anonymous**: *on* 9/2/12 at 21:37pm UTC, wrote I really liked the clear and concise introduction to causal sets.

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.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

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.

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

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.

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: Challenging the Assumptions That Conflict With Causal Set Theory by Carey Ralph Carlson [refresh]

TOPIC: Challenging the Assumptions That Conflict With Causal Set Theory by Carey Ralph Carlson [refresh]

Physics is currently fragmented into competing theoretical approaches that contradict one another in regard to foundational assumptions. Airing these contradictions can clarify the stark choices that confront theoretical physics from within. Causal set theory has found a respectable niche in fundamental physics, and it is particularly brutal in contradicting widely held assumptions.

Graduated from Macalester College, St. Paul, with a BA in math. Went on to graduate studies in philosophy of science with Grover Maxwell at the U of MN. Had a career in electronics, and then published my "belated thesis" on the mind-body problem. I made some formal discoveries at that point, which I have been publishing and posting in my retirement years.

Carey,

You wrote: "The reciprocal of frequency is wavelength. Therefore the frequency ratios inherent in causal sets yield wavelength ratios as well."

This would be true if the speed of the wave were invariable:

(frequency) = (speed of the wave)/(wavelength)

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

You wrote: "The reciprocal of frequency is wavelength. Therefore the frequency ratios inherent in causal sets yield wavelength ratios as well."

This would be true if the speed of the wave were invariable:

(frequency) = (speed of the wave)/(wavelength)

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Dear Pentcho,

Measured locally the speed of light is the constant C.

James

report post as inappropriate

Measured locally the speed of light is the constant C.

James

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote: "Measured locally the speed of light is the constant C".

Please define "locally". You may also try to answer the following questions:

The top of a tower of height h emits light with frequency f, speed c and wavelength L (as measured by the emitter): f=c/L. An observer on the ground measures the frequency to be f'=f(1+gh/c^2), the speed of light to be c' and the wavelength to be L': f'=c'/L'.

The questions: c'=? L'=?

My answers: c'=c(1+gh/c^2) ; L'=L

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Please define "locally". You may also try to answer the following questions:

The top of a tower of height h emits light with frequency f, speed c and wavelength L (as measured by the emitter): f=c/L. An observer on the ground measures the frequency to be f'=f(1+gh/c^2), the speed of light to be c' and the wavelength to be L': f'=c'/L'.

The questions: c'=? L'=?

My answers: c'=c(1+gh/c^2) ; L'=L

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho,

Locally means using a measuring rod that is itself affected by the variation of the speed of the light being measured. That rod will undergo length contraction such that it compensates for the variation of the speed of light and masks it locally. If both observers place their measuring rods vertically in the tower, reaching from one observer's position to the other observer's position, then both will measure the same speed of light and it will be C. If both observers use shorter rods to measure the speed of light only at their respective positions they will both measure the speed of light as C.

James

report post as inappropriate

Locally means using a measuring rod that is itself affected by the variation of the speed of the light being measured. That rod will undergo length contraction such that it compensates for the variation of the speed of light and masks it locally. If both observers place their measuring rods vertically in the tower, reaching from one observer's position to the other observer's position, then both will measure the same speed of light and it will be C. If both observers use shorter rods to measure the speed of light only at their respective positions they will both measure the speed of light as C.

James

report post as inappropriate

Carey,

I was interested to see an essay about causal set theory, since this approach also features prominently in my own viewpoint, albeit with a number of important exceptions. You may be interested in reading my essay

On the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics

We certainly don't agree on all the particulars, although the way you describe local finiteness seems perhaps closer to my view than the corresponding axiom that usually appears in the literature, which I call interval finiteness. I prefer to regard geometry as emergent (along with interactions) from underlying relations, rather than nonexistent; I call this the causal metric hypothesis. Rafael Sorkin and his collaborators use a discrete measure on the set of elements, which might possibly work, but I don't make this assumption. Also, I expect quantum phenomena to be described by a sum over relations a la Feynman, rather than a single relation.

In any case, I enjoyed reading it. Take care,

Ben Dribus

report post as inappropriate

I was interested to see an essay about causal set theory, since this approach also features prominently in my own viewpoint, albeit with a number of important exceptions. You may be interested in reading my essay

On the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics

We certainly don't agree on all the particulars, although the way you describe local finiteness seems perhaps closer to my view than the corresponding axiom that usually appears in the literature, which I call interval finiteness. I prefer to regard geometry as emergent (along with interactions) from underlying relations, rather than nonexistent; I call this the causal metric hypothesis. Rafael Sorkin and his collaborators use a discrete measure on the set of elements, which might possibly work, but I don't make this assumption. Also, I expect quantum phenomena to be described by a sum over relations a la Feynman, rather than a single relation.

In any case, I enjoyed reading it. Take care,

Ben Dribus

report post as inappropriate

Wow! the first essay read with the word "panpsychism".

My essay is perhaps overly simplified, but addresses the real problem of Physics. Wherein lies "consciousness"? Very murky, but emergentism (growth) and panpsychism (memory are properties suggested that aligns them with probabilities of a 1-D, 2-D, and 3-D geometric world, where sphere and tetrahedron have identical "activities"at any size... See:

To Seek Unknown Shores

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1409

I think you may appreciate the last 2 pages of my essay..

Good Luck with yours..

report post as inappropriate

My essay is perhaps overly simplified, but addresses the real problem of Physics. Wherein lies "consciousness"? Very murky, but emergentism (growth) and panpsychism (memory are properties suggested that aligns them with probabilities of a 1-D, 2-D, and 3-D geometric world, where sphere and tetrahedron have identical "activities"at any size... See:

To Seek Unknown Shores

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1409

I think you may appreciate the last 2 pages of my essay..

Good Luck with yours..

report post as inappropriate

Hi Carey!

I enjoyed reading your FQXi essay, as well as your viXra article on its implications for nuclear physics. As you may know from my FQXi essay, I think there are strong grounds for thinking that the nucleus itself has a lattice structure. (The neutral statement of that argument is that: “The independent-particle model of the nucleus is firmly established as the central paradigm of nuclear structure theory, and implies that each nucleon has a unique set of quantum numbers, n, j, m, etc., that have been experimentally measured countless times in the 2000+ known isotopes and their countless excited states. The exact same pattern of quantum states and their occupancies are reproduced in an fcc lattice. Conventional theorists feign surprise and say, ‘Weird coincidence!’, but the unbiased observer must conclude that the nucleus is either a gas of nucleons, as presumed in the shell model, OR a lattice of nucleons with those same properties.”)

Anyway, the point is that if nucleons are close-packed in an fcc lattice, then the local interactions of each nucleon gives it the symmetries of your model of the neutron, the cuboctahedron!

What I would like to ask you is if you have pursued the “parton substructure” of the many other “elementary” particles? Clearly, the relative stability of the nucleons makes them special, but if such simple geometry underlies the nucleons, then similar parton structures might explain the masses/stability of other particles. My own explorations have been inconclusive, but maybe only because of a lack of stubborn pursuit….

Cheers

Norman

report post as inappropriate

I enjoyed reading your FQXi essay, as well as your viXra article on its implications for nuclear physics. As you may know from my FQXi essay, I think there are strong grounds for thinking that the nucleus itself has a lattice structure. (The neutral statement of that argument is that: “The independent-particle model of the nucleus is firmly established as the central paradigm of nuclear structure theory, and implies that each nucleon has a unique set of quantum numbers, n, j, m, etc., that have been experimentally measured countless times in the 2000+ known isotopes and their countless excited states. The exact same pattern of quantum states and their occupancies are reproduced in an fcc lattice. Conventional theorists feign surprise and say, ‘Weird coincidence!’, but the unbiased observer must conclude that the nucleus is either a gas of nucleons, as presumed in the shell model, OR a lattice of nucleons with those same properties.”)

Anyway, the point is that if nucleons are close-packed in an fcc lattice, then the local interactions of each nucleon gives it the symmetries of your model of the neutron, the cuboctahedron!

What I would like to ask you is if you have pursued the “parton substructure” of the many other “elementary” particles? Clearly, the relative stability of the nucleons makes them special, but if such simple geometry underlies the nucleons, then similar parton structures might explain the masses/stability of other particles. My own explorations have been inconclusive, but maybe only because of a lack of stubborn pursuit….

Cheers

Norman

report post as inappropriate

Hello Norman! So far, I've only modeled with causal sets derived from the tetrahedron, octahedron, cube, and cuboctahedron. The rhombododecahedron, the dual of the cuboctahedron, has twelve rhombus faces, and is likely very important. The icosahedron and dodecahedron likely provide a pair of more exotic quarks. When the experimenters find a new "resonance," they are finding a high-symmetry finite causal set that propagates in chained repetition at its unique deBroglie frequency. Inferring the structure of the finite causal set in question is a matter of combing through the finite causal sets up to a hefty order-- let's say 1000 elements-- looking for instances of outstanding symmetry-- and picking the one that matches the experimental mass value of the new resonance. An algorithm can be used to generate the causal sets up to a given order, and compute the symmetry rankings of the sets generated, to find examples of extraordinary symmetry. These are the ones that can "resonate."

I've worked more with visualization, which works well with the simplest causal sets, and could work further for someone with a facility in Coxeter's type of "beautiful mathematics." But this is an outline for a general program, not specific new modeling on my part. My knowledge of technical physics could fit in a thimble. Your knowledge of physics is greater, and my wish is that someone like you would grasp the reduction to time and carry the program through its next stage of development. -- Carey

report post as inappropriate

I've worked more with visualization, which works well with the simplest causal sets, and could work further for someone with a facility in Coxeter's type of "beautiful mathematics." But this is an outline for a general program, not specific new modeling on my part. My knowledge of technical physics could fit in a thimble. Your knowledge of physics is greater, and my wish is that someone like you would grasp the reduction to time and carry the program through its next stage of development. -- Carey

report post as inappropriate

Dear Carey

I enjoyed reading the clear description of causal set theory (CST) and its applications in physics. As with Norman Cook's nuclear dynamics, my own Beautiful Universe Theory is also based on an fcc discrete lattice elements transferring energy locally and causally. I appreciate your approach because it covers the discreteness and causality, but I am loth to give up space. I wonder how properties such as intensity and phase can be described in CST? It is not what you wish, but would it be technically possible to recast (CST) in a lattice without time but with space? The vectors would not look too different than in your diagrams?

I could not relate to the second part of your essay about mental processes, metaphysics and experience. Its just the way my mind works ... or rather doesn't! Please read Constantinos Ragazas' fqxi essay where he analyzes physical and metaphysical conceptions - he also has an interesting approach to Planck's (h) that may play a quantitative role in your CST. I also would be honored if you would read my fqxi essay Fix Physics! .

With all best wishes,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

I enjoyed reading the clear description of causal set theory (CST) and its applications in physics. As with Norman Cook's nuclear dynamics, my own Beautiful Universe Theory is also based on an fcc discrete lattice elements transferring energy locally and causally. I appreciate your approach because it covers the discreteness and causality, but I am loth to give up space. I wonder how properties such as intensity and phase can be described in CST? It is not what you wish, but would it be technically possible to recast (CST) in a lattice without time but with space? The vectors would not look too different than in your diagrams?

I could not relate to the second part of your essay about mental processes, metaphysics and experience. Its just the way my mind works ... or rather doesn't! Please read Constantinos Ragazas' fqxi essay where he analyzes physical and metaphysical conceptions - he also has an interesting approach to Planck's (h) that may play a quantitative role in your CST. I also would be honored if you would read my fqxi essay Fix Physics! .

With all best wishes,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Hi Vladimir, Thank you for the comments, but using primitive spatial relations instead of primitive time relations would produce only statics without dynamics. My whole thing is a reduction of mass, energy, charge, and color-charge to patterns of discrete temporal succession. -- Carey

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dear Carey,

I have read your essay and I highly appreciate your clear description of causal set theory and its applications in physics. All authors in this contest have presented their viewpoints in different styles. In the grand maze of the unknown it is important to consider all possible alternatives and different viewpoints for building a consolidated common approach. I wish you good...

view entire post

I have read your essay and I highly appreciate your clear description of causal set theory and its applications in physics. All authors in this contest have presented their viewpoints in different styles. In the grand maze of the unknown it is important to consider all possible alternatives and different viewpoints for building a consolidated common approach. I wish you good...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Carey Ralph Carlson

I understand what you want to present, it is interesting and relevant.

Would be more attractive if you take out your own opinion of yourself, instead of quoting the opinions of others.

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

I understand what you want to present, it is interesting and relevant.

Would be more attractive if you take out your own opinion of yourself, instead of quoting the opinions of others.

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

Mr Carlson,

Excellent course in set theory. Now I understand better the theory. I have a few questions, if I may.

My approach uses logic and the rules of non contradiction as my primary law. This lead me beyond the perceptual reality into metaphysics, which is everything that is real, everything else is experience, a relation between observer and substance. This relation only...

view entire post

Excellent course in set theory. Now I understand better the theory. I have a few questions, if I may.

My approach uses logic and the rules of non contradiction as my primary law. This lead me beyond the perceptual reality into metaphysics, which is everything that is real, everything else is experience, a relation between observer and substance. This relation only...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Mr Carlson,

I was most impressed by the mass-ratio demonstration. The theory is almost perfect and can almost stand on its own. The only arbitrary finger is stuck in your second paragraph where you say that the pair ordering is “designated” causal.

My essays show how causality can originate simply in logic and be used to remove that finger.

In essence, condensed time, i.e. your causal network, will have a higher probability of existence where it can stay longer or, where time flows more slowly. Consider a particle moving in all directions at various speeds... Where does it exist the most? ... Where is resides the longest of course. And where is that? Where time is slower... as in gravitation.

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

I was most impressed by the mass-ratio demonstration. The theory is almost perfect and can almost stand on its own. The only arbitrary finger is stuck in your second paragraph where you say that the pair ordering is “designated” causal.

My essays show how causality can originate simply in logic and be used to remove that finger.

In essence, condensed time, i.e. your causal network, will have a higher probability of existence where it can stay longer or, where time flows more slowly. Consider a particle moving in all directions at various speeds... Where does it exist the most? ... Where is resides the longest of course. And where is that? Where time is slower... as in gravitation.

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

Hi Marcel, Did you see all my constructions at the link to my viXra posting? I do find a stepwise time dilation of the 4-D metric in the modeling of Bohr's formula, which serves as a basis for a discrete version of General Relativity.

I ascribe to the simplest form referential language and logic-- that of "word and object," or the "picture theory of language." The relational structure of a primitive statement in an idealized language correlates 1-to-1 with the relational structure of a primitive fact in whatever domain of reference one intends to describe. In the case of physics, the quantum of action is the primitive fact that correlates to the single arrow of causal set theoy's diagrams. I distinguish pure mathematics from the contingent facts of the temporal world. The math can only apply if the contingent world is composed of contingent relations and relata. I explain my position in depth in a posting titled "The Adequacy of Language for Finite Domains of Reference." Please see that posting, and thank you for your interest. - Carey

report post as inappropriate

I ascribe to the simplest form referential language and logic-- that of "word and object," or the "picture theory of language." The relational structure of a primitive statement in an idealized language correlates 1-to-1 with the relational structure of a primitive fact in whatever domain of reference one intends to describe. In the case of physics, the quantum of action is the primitive fact that correlates to the single arrow of causal set theoy's diagrams. I distinguish pure mathematics from the contingent facts of the temporal world. The math can only apply if the contingent world is composed of contingent relations and relata. I explain my position in depth in a posting titled "The Adequacy of Language for Finite Domains of Reference." Please see that posting, and thank you for your interest. - Carey

report post as inappropriate

The two way speed of light is constant but not necessarily the one way speed.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Hello Carey

I'm wondering if you are still around, and if so, might we engage in a dialogue relating to you work (and mine)?

Stephen Anastasi

report post as inappropriate

I'm wondering if you are still around, and if so, might we engage in a dialogue relating to you work (and mine)?

Stephen Anastasi

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.