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

Previous Contests

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.

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 6:17am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Bernard Guillerminet: on 9/29/12 at 10:58am UTC, wrote Hou, Thanks for pointing to me your essay. It is very interesting even if...

Bernard Guillerminet: on 9/29/12 at 10:16am UTC, wrote Anton, Thanks for your comments and remarks. I agree with some of them and...

Bernard Guillerminet: on 9/29/12 at 9:56am UTC, wrote Thanks for your interesting comments and I am going to try replying to your...

Hoang Hai: on 9/28/12 at 1:59am UTC, wrote Dear Bernard Guillerminet Very interesting to see your essay. Perhaps all...

Hou Ying Yau: on 9/27/12 at 4:55am UTC, wrote Dear Bernard, Instead of matter from quantum vacuum fluctuation, I have an...

Benjamin Dribus: on 9/25/12 at 2:09am UTC, wrote Dear Bernard, I found your essay very interesting and splendidly...

Anton Biermans: on 9/15/12 at 9:28am UTC, wrote Bernard, In my essay I asked myself: How can a universe create itself out...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Yes. The estimate of age of the visible universe, and age of stars, other..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

akash hasan: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..." in Announcing Physics of the...

Jorma Seppaenen: "I find this very interesting topic. I am just a amateur enthusiast of..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Anonymous: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Constructing a Theory of...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Hanvi jobs: "Yes i am totally agreed with this article and i just want say that this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...

RECENT ARTICLES

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.

The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

FQXi FORUM
May 24, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Dance With the Time: Emergent Quantum Mechanic and Time’s Arrow by Bernard Guillerminet [refresh]

Author Bernard Guillerminet wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 17:04 GMT
Essay Abstract

Explanations of the quantum theory and of the arrow of time are two major unsolved issues in physics. Most approaches are based on a human vantage where the microscopic world is quantum and follows reversible physical laws while the macroscopic world is classical and has an irreversible arrow of time. In this paper, we address these issues in a completely new way without the unnecessary splitting of the world. Using very simple assumptions, the Quantum Mechanic (QM) is emerging naturally from a local world which is consistent with our usual classical world. The explanation of the arrow of time does not rely on a large number of particles or on very specific initial conditions but emerges from the interaction at the quantum level. The derivations are based on a simple principle consistent with a Universe coming from nothing: physical laws must emerge from nothing.

Author Bio

Bernard Guillerminet holds a doctorate in particle physics from CERN and University of Grenoble, France. Since 1984, he works as a computer scientist in a Fusion Magnetic Research Laboratory and he is developing a framework for the simulation of Fusion plasma in a European project (Integrated Tokamak Modelling) and for the ITER project.

John Merryman wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 17:43 GMT
Bernard,

I think the problem with time is that we perceive it as a sequence of events and physics re-enforces this assumption by treating it as a measure from one event to the next in the series, but the underlaying process is dynamic change, so the sequence emerges from the action. Thus it is not the present moving from past to future, but the changing configuration turning future into...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Bernard Guillerminet replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 09:07 GMT
Thanks John for your comments but I am not sure to catch your view/proposal: time turns the future into present.

My opinion is maybe simpler:

-our time is the entropy

In a sense, there are neither past nor future. The configuration is changing randomly and the new configuration which is emerging is only the most probable, the one which has the highest entropy.

The 2nd point about the entropy, it is increasing due to the interactions at quantum level, not to a statistical effect due to the huge number of particles. In this way, the arrow of time emerges at the lowest level (particle). The arrow of time at the macroscopic level is an outcome of this microscopic level, not the other way.

Best Regards,

Bernard

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 03:39 GMT
Bernard,

Actually, it would be that action turns potential into actual and the effect is the sequencing called "time." Which is as you describe it, "there are neither past nor future. The configuration is changing randomly and the new configuration which is emerging is only the most probable, the one which has the highest entropy."

Entropy being the path of least resistance, ie, water flowing downhill.

It only appears random, ie. non-linear, because cause and effect is due to the transfer of energy, not the emergent sequencing. We perceive a sequence of events, such as yesterday, today, tomorrow, but yesterday doesn't "cause" today anymore than one rung on a ladder causes the next. It is the transfer of energy from the sun, to the rotating earth, which creates this sequence called "days."

It is the changing configuration of energy which creates and dissolves information. So energy goes from one configuration to the next, ie, past to future. While the information goes from potential, to actual, to residual, ie. future to past. So if we want to know what the future holds, it is where the energy flows, not where the information points. Which is usually self-referencing prior configurations. This is valid only so long as those configurations can adapt to energy flows, otherwise they break down and recede into the past.

report post as inappropriate

Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 18:52 GMT
Dear Bernard Guillerminet,

As time emerges within a system, universe does not have any beginning. In an eternal universe the consistency of matter is in continuum rather than discrete. Thus the matters including fundamental matters are 1-D eigen-rotational strings that form 3-D tetrahedral-branes, and this mechanics is quantized with the emergence of discrete time, that has referential function of time with the holarchy of universe, in that, homeomorphic segmental-fluctuations of universe is cyclic in cyclic-time.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Bernard Guillerminet replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 07:13 GMT
Hi Jayakar,

Actually, there are 2 times: one is our usual time (e-time) which is the entropy and emerges from the fluctuations of the vacuum and the other (c-time) is driving the changes of the quantum fluctuations. Our universe has a beginning in e-time (it has an orientation). The c-time does not have a direction so it does not make sense to say it has a beginning. Hoping it clarify my opinion,

Best Regards,

Bernard

report post as inappropriate

Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 09:28 GMT
Bernard,

In my essay I asked myself: How can a universe create itself out of nothing, without any outside intervention?, so I cannot but agree with your statement that

''If the Universe is emerging from nothing, not only the stuff (matter, particles) but also the physical laws .. and space-time must emerge from nothing.''

We can only understand a universe rationally if it...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Bernard Guillerminet replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 10:16 GMT
Anton,

Thanks for your comments and remarks. I agree with some of them and disagree with others. We agree together the sum of the constituents (matter, antimatter, energy ...) must add to 0 and in that case, a SCU looks more appropriate than a BBU. Possibly SCU and BBU are not completly othogonal. I need to revisite the quantum gravity before making any assumptions on the origin of the Universe especially with an emerging time.

I can't follow you about the origin of mass; for me, the Higgs particle exists and the particle interaction with the vacuum through the Higgs is the origin of the mass.

I am going to read more carefully your essay and with my best wishes for the contest,

Bernard

report post as inappropriate

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 02:09 GMT
Dear Bernard,

I found your essay very interesting and splendidly illustrated. A few questions and comments:

1. I agree the Feynman’s path integral (sum over histories) formulation is the “closest to a physical interpretation” of quantum theory. It actually has a clear conceptual meaning, unlike the Hilbert space/operator algebra approach, which is mathematically convenient by physically obscure.

2. In your “principles of e-QM” on page 2, you say “space is emerging from nothing,” yet you discuss “paths.” What does a path mean in this context? Usually a path exists in some sort of “space” (more precisely, a path is usually viewed as a map from an ordered set such as a real interval into a space.)

3. In the same section, you define the contribution of a path in terms of the classical action, similar to what Feynman did. Now, what is the classical action in this context? Usually, the action is the time integral of the Lagrangian, but how do we define the action if time is emergent?

4. I agree that the arrow of time should be defined for a single particle.

5. I wonder if the c-time, as you call it, is ultimately necessary. The e-time seems to be what is obviously “physical,” since it’s what we observe. Also, it is related to the second law of thermodynamics, which will likely be crucial to any theory.

6. Your observation about the dimension in terms of intersection theory is very interesting.

7. I agree that entities such as strings, branes, curvature, etc., must be emergent.

Thanks for the great read, and good luck in the contest! Take care,

Ben Dribus

report post as inappropriate

Bernard Guillerminet replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 09:56 GMT

2. Our usual Spacetime is emerging from the interactions between particles but a single particle interacts with the vacuum. The quantum behaviour emerges from this interaction with the vacuum and the path here is more a mathematical expression for describing this behaviour than a physical reality.

3. I used the Feynman path contribution (S/h) to recover the quantum law but I think it must be elaborated more deeply; a brownian motion is more appropriate but I didn't have enough space (in this essay)to explain it.

4. It's amusing because Julian Barbour in this contest take the opposite position: arrow of time and quantum mechanics must emerge from a holistic universe.

5. I agree with you. c-time is not ultimately necessary but it is useful to connect with our current equations (the basic and reversible physic laws). On the contrary, the gravitation is concerned with e-time (and e-space) not with c-time.

Thanks again and best wish too for your essay in this contest,

Bernard

report post as inappropriate

Hou Ying Yau wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 04:55 GMT
Dear Bernard,

Instead of matter from quantum vacuum fluctuation, I have an idea that I hope can be of some interest to you. Nothing mathematical fancy, I find that the zero spin quantum field can be reconciled from a system with vibrations in space and time. The model has some unique features that seem to be extendable to gravity and non-locality of quantum theory.

Is there really no reality in quantum theory

Best wishes for you in the contest.

Hou Yau

report post as inappropriate

Bernard Guillerminet replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 10:58 GMT
Hou,

Thanks for pointing to me your essay. It is very interesting even if it starts from a different conception. Basically:

-your essay: determinism + information loss => emergent quantum theory

-my view:

1)random walk + no time => emergent quantum theory

2)interactions => information loss => emergent arrow of time

We are still looking for an explanation and I hope one of us is right.

Best wishes for the contest,

Bernard

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 01:59 GMT
Dear Bernard Guillerminet

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 (definition from the ABSOLUTE theory of me) - 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.

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

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 06:17 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