CATEGORY:
Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012)
[back]
TOPIC:
The Myth of a Theory of Everything by Armin Nikkhah Shirazi
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 17:26 GMT
Essay AbstractA fundamental assumption embedded in our current worldview is that there exists an as yet undiscovered `theory of everything', a final unified framework according to which all interactions in nature are but different manifestations of the same underlying thing. This paper argues that this assumption is wrong because our current distinct fundamental theories of nature already have mutually exclusive domains of validity, though under our current worldview this is far from obvious. As a concrete example, it is shown that if the concepts of mass in general relativity and quantum theory are distinct in a specific way, their domains become non-overlapping. The key to recognizing the boundaries of the domains of validity of our fundamental theories is an aspect of the frame of reference of an observer which has not yet been appreciated in mainstream physics. This aspect, called the dimensional frame of reference (DFR), depends on the number of length dimensions that constitute an observer frame. Edwin Abbott's Flatland is used as point of departure from which to provide a gentle introduction to the applications of this idea. Finally, a 'metatheory of nature' is proposed to encompass the collection of theories of nature with mutually exclusive domains of validity.
Author BioArmin Nikkhah Shirazi studies physics and philosophy at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor because of a deep curiosity and passion for understanding the basic aspects of nature. He is also a composer and pianist, having composed about 100 musical works(some of his works are available on his Youtube channel). His work as a pharmacist funds the pursuit of his other passions.
Download Essay PDF File
Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 03:13 GMT
Dear Armin Nikkhah Shirazi,
Unification of fundamental particle interactions is not vindicated in a
Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter universe model, in that the fundamental matters are considered as string-like structures. Thus, only gravity and electromagnetic force are expressional in this scenario of string dynamics, in that these forces have a common origin.
With best wishes,
Jayakar
report post as inappropriate
Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 08:14 GMT
Jayakar,
Thank you for your comments. I did take a look at your paper, but must admit that I got lost. Perhaps this is because my knowledge of string theory is very little, you may be better advised to consult with a string theorist on your theory.
Thanks again and take care,
Armin
ABRAHAM wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 03:46 GMT
Hi Armin,
Great essay highlighting some of the fundamental obstacles that we need to overcome in order to develop a TOE [and that is where I disagree with your conclusion]
Space is limited here in this reply but I but in short here a number of points I would like to make in consideration of your essay:
1. Tetryonics is a unified Theory of Everything that has developed from...
view entire post
Hi Armin,
Great essay highlighting some of the fundamental obstacles that we need to overcome in order to develop a TOE [and that is where I disagree with your conclusion]
Space is limited here in this reply but I but in short here a number of points I would like to make in consideration of your essay:
1. Tetryonics is a unified Theory of Everything that has developed from equilateral Energy geometries [as opposed to the spherical geometries currently supposed by physicists]
2. It is a change in the underlying geometry of physics - not its mathematical formulation and to date I have produced over 1300 illustrations detailing its application to QM, QED, Chemistry & Relativity [SR& GR] with considerable success.
3. One of its major priori points is the strict definition and distinction of mass vs Matter (and their geometries wrt spatial co-ordinate systems] which goes a long way to providing a suitable framework to advance the unification of numerous physical disciplines.
4. 2D EM mass in 'Flatland' manifests as 3D tetrahedral [standing-waveform] Matter [as opposed to the cubic geometries you employed in your illustrations]
5. Gravitation [as defined by Newton and Einstein] is based on observations of the force created by bodies of large-scale Matter [whereas in reality it is the nett attractive force created from the gravitation of Matter and the interactive forces created by its associated quantum masses [radiative magnetic & kinetic energies etc]. GR is Newtonian gravity with SR effects [8pi vs 4pi]
6. The GR 'bending' of light is thus revealed to be, in fact, a SR effect [refraction] and the use of photons & EM waves to measure gravitational effects should be abandoned under the proper definitions of mass & Matter as afforded by Tetryonics [particularly as GR's Stress-energy tensor doesn't differentiate between either mass-energies or Matter]
7. All Forces (& physical constants) can now be shown to be the result of super-positioned Energy geometries [save gravitative Matter which can be modelled as such hence its similarity to Coulomb's force law in Newton's formulation of it]
8. Dimensionality [as defined by EM energy vectors] can be reconciled with Flatland, Cartesian co-ordinates, Relativity & Tetryonics (as attached).
9. A TOE is possible as evidenced by Tetryonics - the Charged geometry of EM mass-ENERGY-Matter [I don't call it a TOE as I believe that term is over-used and its current title better reflects what it represents].
I trust you will take a look at my work [and FQXi essay] and start a dialogue so we can discuss the finer points of my theory and how it may lead the way to a better understanding of physics and our Universe in general (perhaps it may very well change your mind on this matter).
view post as summary
attachments:
3_Figure_01.03__Spatial_geometries_800x600.jpg,
1_EM__massENERGYMatter_800x600.jpg
report post as inappropriate
Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 08:39 GMT
Kelvin,
I looked at your essay, it has some very nice illustrations and the narrative gives a rough idea of what you are trying to convey.
Unfortunately you make a number of very strong statements of fact without showing how they follow from the mathematics associated with your idea. For example, you write:
"It [i.e. your theory] effortlessly merges all the tested features of...
view entire post
Kelvin,
I looked at your essay, it has some very nice illustrations and the narrative gives a rough idea of what you are trying to convey.
Unfortunately you make a number of very strong statements of fact without showing how they follow from the mathematics associated with your idea. For example, you write:
"It [i.e. your theory] effortlessly merges all the tested features of Classical mechanics with the statistical probabilities of quantum mechanics and scales up to the cosmological scales of General Relativity."
without showing any equations to substantiate this claim.
I know that in your post thread you said that you are not a mathematician, but, for better or for worse, mathematics is the language of science and for no science is this more true than for physics. In fact, our most fundamental theories of nature tend to bear a greater resemblance to mathematics than to physics because they often involve concepts that are beyond our ability to visualize. One is left in those instances to fall back on mathematics to provide an unmatched level precision of expression, an ability to check the implications of a given relation as well as the consistency of an conceptual structure.
I came, like you, into this area from outside mainstream physics, but I have attempted to take the lesson to be taken from this to heart. The paper in which I presented my full theory contains a mathematical derivation of the Feynman path integral for the simplest situation, a single free particle, from my ideas. My derivation might be imperfect in the sense that involves only a special case and that the expression of some of the ideas could benefit from greater precision, but given an attitude which accepts that mathematics plays a fundamental role in any theory that models nature (which is an inducement to improve one's mathematical abilities, these issues will likely be resolved over time).
I would suggest that you either reduce the strength of your statements, in which case you might frame them more as philosophical speculations, or to present the mathematics that back up your very strong claims.
Finally, I would strongly advise against including any statement like the concluding remark of your essay ["This is my gift to our Planet and all future generations"]
Good luck and take care,
Armin
view post as summary
ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 10:36 GMT
Hi Armin,
Noted your comments and would like to point out that my full work is peppered with the relevant equations but I do note that they are not included in my competition essay [if that is what you are referring to].
I was limited by space and had to condense the 1300 illustrations I have produced to a short essay for the comp [but I did include the unified equation for EM mass-ENERGY-Matter].
The application of equilateral energy geometries to the current Math does not change the current Math formulations as they apply to physical processes, only the 'assumed' geometry underlying them - and in turn it explains many of the mysteries at the heart of physics today - mass, Matter, wave-function probabilities, wave-particle duality, constants etc.]
These 'errors of mathematical perception' are readily corrected, as outlined in the essay, when equilateral geometry is applied as the foundation of the mathematics used to describe physics - and I stand by my statements particularly as they apply to the advancement of Science - more detail is available in my full eBooks [and a 4th eBook will detail its application to GR and gravity culminating in the true 'fusion' mechanism at the heart of Stars and how we can replicate this process on Earth for clean, limitless energy]
However I do understand where you are coming from with regard to succinctly conveying my entire theory [especially in the context of an essay competition]
Thanks and good luck in the comp.
report post as inappropriate
Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 11:09 GMT
Hi Kelvin,
Thank you for the clarification, based on your statement it appears that you have done a substantial amount of work. I did look for a reference in your paper but did not find any. If you did not reference your ebooks, may I ask why you didn't?
ABRAHAM replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 00:07 GMT
Hi Armin,
No references were quoted as the work is a completely original work on quantum geometry by myself [equilateral vs Spherical geometries used by all scientists and text to date].
If I was to quote references then I would have to list all textbooks, science mags etc. in print along with Wikipedia [but as I only used then to point out the current Math formulations & problems in physics I was solving for using Tetryonic geometry I thought it was completely futile to list them]
Especially when so much of Tetryonics is devoted to changing the underlying geometric foundation to physics and correcting the 'errors' arising in physical Maths as a result of this incorrect perception.
Even basic formulations for Energy [hv=E=hf] had to be redefined [2hv^2=E=hf] to correct for errors made from Math without models approach historically used [along with many, many more examples found throughout my full EBooks online]
All the geometry, illustrations and changes to accepted physics formulations found in Tetryonics are my original work [done over the past 4 years] but I do acknowledge that "if I have seen further it because I was standing on the shoulders of past giants in the fields"
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 06:20 GMT
Armin,
Interesting essay. A few thoughts and questions come to mind.
1. What do you mean geometrically/topologically when you say that "spacetime reduces to a 2+1 dimensional analogue?"
2. You refer to "actualizable worldlines," but Feynman's sum over histories doesn't give a probability amplitude for worldlines, it gives a probability amplitude for terminal events. It...
view entire post
Armin,
Interesting essay. A few thoughts and questions come to mind.
1. What do you mean geometrically/topologically when you say that "spacetime reduces to a 2+1 dimensional analogue?"
2. You refer to "actualizable worldlines," but Feynman's sum over histories doesn't give a probability amplitude for worldlines, it gives a probability amplitude for terminal events. It seems that you gain a spatial dimension when you consider all maps from "areatime" to "spacetime," but you lose the time "dimension" (causal direction or extent) when you measure, since all you know is the terminal state. Are you really changing dimensions, or just converting 2+1 to 3?
2. You reject the dichotomy of existence and nonexistence, but I am not quite sure what you mean by "existence" in the first place. Evidently more than mathematical existence, since Feynman's world lines exist in that sense. The actualizations seem to exist and are distinguished by interacting dynamically with the 3 (+1) space. Is that the point then, that things "exist" if they interact dynamically with the space in which they live? If so, is areatime dynamical too?
3. If spacetime is not special, presumably areatime is not special either. Taking this to its logical conclusion, you could imagine maps from time to line-time, line-time to area-time, and so on. The constant feature here is a partial order which may be identified with causality. But then, we should realize that manifolds themselves are quite "anthropocentric" as well. If you take a step back and think of morphisms of partial orders, you get something like my "causal metric hypothesis" described here:
On the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics.4. Finally, on a lighthearted note, string/superstring/M-theory involves "branes" of different dimensions too, but no one can agree on what the "M" stands for. Perhaps you should suggest "M" for "meta."
Take care,
Ben Dribus
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 12:32 GMT
Hello again,
This reply comes after the previous (below, inadvertently posted separately). I just realized that I may have partially misinterpreted your second question (1st labeled 2.)
Upon re-reading, I'm actually not sure if I am understanding. The propagator clearly allows us to proceed from an initial state to a final or terminal state. I understand, in particular, the path integral to help us determine a state given an initial earlier state. If this is correct, then it would seem to me that one would not lose the time dimension. If you could clarify, I will try to give a better answer.
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 09:23 GMT
Hi Armin, good to see that you posted your essay. It is indeed a further thinking of the earlier one, this one is more detailed and with avery good ending the metatheory.
Your perception : " The key to recognising the boundaries of the domains of validity of our fundamental theories is an aspect of the frame of reference of an observer which has not yet been appreciated in mainstream...
view entire post
Hi Armin, good to see that you posted your essay. It is indeed a further thinking of the earlier one, this one is more detailed and with avery good ending the metatheory.
Your perception : " The key to recognising the boundaries of the domains of validity of our fundamental theories is an aspect of the frame of reference of an observer which has not yet been appreciated in mainstream physics" is also my starting point only you let diminish the dimensions and I just draw a line at the Planck length and time.
When I read your DFR concept, it again brought me to essentials like "a square has only one side" or is two sides ? for a flatlander it has only one side , and a moebiusring does not exist in his 2 dimensional universe. On page 5 you are creating the column of squares, just as a straight line , a fixed z coordinate, however the Z coordinate can take any value, so that any form is "actualizable".
This part I like tha "actualizable" can become actual. 5What I name the Total Simultaneity is in fact all the actualizable histories possible and non possible (in our perception).
Your page 6 is in fact the same as the theory of the collapse of the wave function, even the comparision to the Feynman path, I like your description of area time as "it manifests itself to spacetime observers as asuperposition of two actualizable matter distributions describable by ....". The only remark here is that you accept already the existance of the "observer" (!)
On page 7 you mention "two or more objects described by the same non-factorizable wave function who share the same wave-function, share common wave factors", I came to a different interpretation (with almost the same result) and introduced the Objective Simultaneity Speres, together forming a foam being the origin of "decoherence".
I fully agree that "anthropocentrism" in the way some theological theories apply it to our universe is not the whole truth, however the way we are experiencing our "reality" is the result of our perceptions and in this part of the "metaverse" it is by the decoherence of all our observations that it "seems" as if we are the center of the universe, of course we are not, but really if you want to know more please read
THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION that I wrote about the subject, there you will also see why I could ask you how you could see the "observer" as already existing.
I liked very much you schema of the "METATHEORY OF NATURE", very good , the only thing you could think about is that the dimensional frames could also go to the negative side and perhaps there all the dark energy and so on can be found.
I hope that you take the time to comment also on my essay, this tile I took also at heart your posts wher you gave me indications how to be more clear.
best regards and the best of luck
Wilhelmus
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 11:06 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus,
Good to hear from you, too. Thank you for your detailed comments, I did see your essay but will take another look and post a comment on your thread.
Thanks again,
Armin
Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 10:27 GMT
Dear Ben,
Thank you for looking at my especially and thank you especially for your serious questions about my framework. I will attempt to answer them the best I can, and I hope that if I failed to be clear or if you disagree with something I say, you will let me know.
You asked: "What do you mean geometrically/topologically when you say that "spacetime reduces to a 2+1 dimensional...
view entire post
Dear Ben,
Thank you for looking at my especially and thank you especially for your serious questions about my framework. I will attempt to answer them the best I can, and I hope that if I failed to be clear or if you disagree with something I say, you will let me know.
You asked: "What do you mean geometrically/topologically when you say that "spacetime reduces to a 2+1 dimensional analogue?"
A more mathematical statement would be this: consider a four-volume x^0x^1x^2x^3 in some frame (x^0 denotes time in this fourvolume). We can write very generally the following statement:
where k is taken to be a constant because of homogeneity and isotropy of space. Now, I believe that, although I have not seen this stated explicitly, it is generally tacitly assumed that
This would seem to be implied by the fact that we model elementary particles as point (i.e. zero dimensional particles) which means that we are not considering in our current mainstream theories any spaces or objects of intermediate dimensionality between zero and three.
I believe, however, that already special relativity gives us a hint that this conception cannot be quite correct. Consider that objects described by v=c undergo complete length contraction along the direction of motion. In other words *they are reduced by one spatial dimension* (as opposed to three).
So, in my view, it is not true that k=0. In fact, the first axiom of my theory specifically postulates that
where the term on the right is defined as a constant quantity with dimensional units of areaxtime of variable shape (the variability in shape is analogous to the variability of a four-volume in different inertial frames even though its magnitude is constant as the Lotrentz factors for one direction in space and for time cancel).
Now, I agree that this is statement is still imprecise in the sense that it does not specify exactly how this limit is approached. This is an area I am still trying to figure out, but my suspicion is that due to the close association of mass with the emergence of spacetime in my theory (recall, acutal mass--> finite spacetime proper time--> actual worldline --> spacetime) this geometric limit manifests itself to us as a dynamical limit with dimensional units of action.
There are some additional ideas I have on this, but in order to make this response manageable, I will defer mentioning them to a future point in our discussion.
You said:"2. You refer to "actualizable worldlines," but Feynman's sum over histories doesn't give a probability amplitude for worldlines, it gives a probability amplitude for terminal events. It seems that you gain a spatial dimension when you consider all maps from "areatime" to "spacetime," but you lose the time "dimension" (causal direction or extent) when you measure, since all you know is the terminal state. Are you really changing dimensions, or just converting 2+1 to 3?"
Well, you are of course correct in your statement about probability amplitudes in Feynman's formulation and if you thought that this is what I claimed, then I failed to clearly express my ideas. In my defense, it was not so easy given the small amount of space available to summarize my idea.
I was implicitly already referring to the canonical formulation in my paper where I said something about the "vanishing probability amplitude"as the situation it referred to involved a two-state system.
In my formulation, as in standard theory, each path contributes equally to the overall path integral, so I think we completely agree.
You said:"You reject the dichotomy of existence and nonexistence, but I am not quite sure what you mean by "existence" in the first place. Evidently more than mathematical existence, since Feynman's world lines exist in that sense. The actualizations seem to exist and are distinguished by interacting dynamically with the 3 (+1) space. Is that the point then, that things "exist" if they interact dynamically with the space in which they live? If so, is areatime dynamical too?"
Excellent observation! Yes, with one qualification: Massless objects evidently interact with spacetime objects, too, but they always cease to exist during those events.
As for "mathematical existence" I believe (and please forgive if this sounds pretentious) that this involves an area of mathematics where there exists a distinction that has so far been overlooked. I recently gave a talk at a conference in which I presented my ideas, and the first 7 minutes of that talk may be relevant to your question. The talk is here:
http://youtu.be/GurBISsM308
I am sure that you will have additional questions, so I'll let you take look before discussing this further.
You said" If spacetime is not special, presumably areatime is not special either. Taking this to its logical conclusion, you could imagine maps from time to line-time, line-time to area-time, and so on. The constant feature here is a partial order which may be identified with causality. But then, we should realize that manifolds themselves are quite "anthropocentric" as well. If you take a step back and think of morphisms of partial orders, you get something like my "causal metric hypothesis" described here: On the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics."
Yes indeed, the first part of your response makes me think that you might not have seen the appendix to my paper, for it takes this idea exactly in that direction. Did you see the appendix?
As for the second part, yes, I will take a look at your paper and comment in your thread.
You wrote: "Finally, on a lighthearted note, string/superstring/M-theory involves "branes" of different dimensions too, but no one can agree on what the "M" stands for. Perhaps you should suggest "M" for "meta.""
Ha! I did not even think of that, that's funny. It reminds me of this quote by Nathan Seiberg at the 80th anniversary IAS conference:
“Most string theorists are very arrogant,” says Seiberg with a smile. “If there is something [beyond string theory], we will call it string theory.”
or, rather, M-theory :)
Finally let me mention that I present a more mathematical version of my theory in a paper called "A Dimensional Theory of Quantum Mechanics" which, if you like, you can access here:
http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/83865
Basically, in my theory I start with a set of axioms and attempt to derive the usual Feynman formulation, i.e. sum over histories, each of which is associated with a phase factor e^iS/hbar(and its complex conjugate)which then allows one to go from there to canonical quantum mechanics.
I feel that there are several shortcomings in that paper, including some concepts that could be stated more precisely, some misconceptions that reflect my lesser understanding at the time, and some awkward wording which might potentially turn off readers, so I am working on an updated version, which, if you are interested, I can let you know about when it is completed.
Again, thank you for your questions and I hope I was able to at least address them somewhat.
Armin
view post as summary
Ted Erikson wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 15:58 GMT
Armin:
Great essay. The 1-D, 2-D, 3-D versions of observed and observer are key to differences of gravity and quantum approaches. Perhaps you may see better, from a mathematical point of view, my say @
To Seek Unknown Shores
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1409
I have attempted to look at the problem globally, difficult to do in 12 pages, but..it's my attempt.
Comment(s)?
report post as inappropriate
Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 17:06 GMT
Hi Ted,
I did read your essay, it struck me as poetic.
All the best,
Armin
Joe Fisher wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 16:21 GMT
Dear Mr. Shirazi,
I quite enjoyed reading your very well written cogently arranged essay, although due to my lack of a formal education I did not fully understand some of the portions of it concerning fundamental physics. I do have a question for you concerning the observation of a square. I believe that one real Universe can only be occurring eternally once in one real dimension. One real dimension can only be verified from its interior by the singular use of two real observation points. That is why every animal, bird, fish, and most insects have two eyes in the front of their heads. What pragmatic proof is there that there are three dimensions?
report post as inappropriate
Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 17:09 GMT
Hi Joe,
I am honestly not sure if you are asking me in jest or if you are serious, but I will give you a serious reply: I think we have to assume certain very basic facts about our existence simply as a given in order to make sense out of our reality. One of these that I take as a given that in a normal state of mind my sense do not deceive me. Since my sense experience tells me that there are three dimensions of space and I know of no evidence to the contrary, this is sufficient for me to accept this as a basic part of reality.
take care,
Armin
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 03:32 GMT
Dear Mr Shirazi
I have deep passion to 2D world.
See http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 16:53 GMT
If we understand the two-dimensional world, we realize that all?
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 11:54 GMT
Mr Witten has a stringit , small disease about 2d. :)
report post as inappropriate
Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 08:10 GMT
Armin,
You're right, I did miss your appendix; I didn't look below the reference page. I also watched your video, so I have a somewhat better idea of what you have in mind.
It seems that by definition you can't work with manifolds and get the limiting properties you need. This isn't necessarily a bad thing in my view, but at some point one would need to know the precise definitions and properties of the "spaces" involved.
One thing I would like to point out since you mentioned the limit of length contraction is that this is partly what motivated the deformed special relativity theories (DSR), which use the postulate that the Planck length is the smallest possible length. These theories involve noncommutative geometry; I mentioned them briefly in my essay. I don't know if using a fundamental scale like this would be helpful to you or not; a "layer" would be information-theoretically two-dimensional, but it would also exist at a particular place in the larger space, which you prefer to avoid, since objects in the lower-dimensional space are supposed to be actualizable in different places.
This also reminds me of the holographic principle and the AdS/CFT correspondence. Both involve lower-dimensional information "actualized" in a higher-dimensional space.
I agree that the scale-dependence of various types of interactions from the nuclear forces up to dark energy has some meaning that has not been fully grasped by modern physics. I also agree that dimension is probably scale-dependent in a sense, although my framework has non-integer dimensions in general.
It's interesting that the string compactifications involve higher dimensions at small scales, while you propose lower dimensions. I lean toward higher dimensions associated with matter-energy density.
report post as inappropriate
Member Benjamin F. Dribus replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 19:06 GMT
Hi, Steve!
By the way, I was saddened to read about your piano... Ironically enough, my piano may flood in the next few hours because of a hurricane, but there are lots of other places where I can play. Anyway, I imagine Armin doesn't want his thread to degenerate into a discussion of music and misfortune, but I was interested to see a couple of fellow composers here... I have 200+ piano compositions but most are not recorded and no youtube channel. I enjoyed listening to Armin's, though. Do you have an essay here? Take care,
Ben
report post as inappropriate
Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 17:14 GMT
Hi Ben,
Wow, I hope your piano (and the rest of your stuff) did not suffer any damage. Also, is any of your music available to listen to anywhere?
I have noticed that many people with a predilection for math/physics are also musically talented. There should be a record label just for people like us. It could be called quantum music or something like that. Ha!
Armin
Member Benjamin F. Dribus replied on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 07:25 GMT
Armin,
Yeah, I came out OK... usually hurricanes turn out to be false alarms. On the music front, I have a bunch of recordings from a few years ago on CD's, but I never posted anything online. I particularly liked your Toccata and Fugue, by the the way. Take care,
Ben
report post as inappropriate
Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 17:00 GMT
Hi Ben,
I'm glad to hear that you came out alright (I somehow missed this post, hence the late post). Given that you have composed so many works, perhaps you might be inclined to share a few with world? I'd be certainly looking forward to hearing them.
On the Toccata and Fugue, well, given that you are a mathematician perhaps it is not so unexpected that (occasionally) complex interlocking melodic patterns might sound pleasing to you. I find this style very challenging to emulate, btw. It is truly astounding that Bach could compose (and by some accounts even improvise (!!!)) contrapunctal works with 5 or 6 independent voices.
All the best,
Armin
hide replies
Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 20:45 GMT
Hi Armin. Direct bodily experience (seen and felt) is fundamental to physics, as it is necessarily fundamental to the unification and elucidation of the most fundamental, integrated, and important physical ideas.
report post as inappropriate
Author diMeglio wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 20:59 GMT
Life is not possible without fundamentally stabilized distance in/of space.
report post as inappropriate
John A. Macken wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 22:12 GMT
Armin,
It is wonderful when conflicting essays stimulate debate. My essay shows that there is a previously unknown close relationship between the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force when the forces between two charged particles are analyzed in a way that emphases the wave properties of the particles. The only difference in the gravitational and electrostatic force equations is a square term. (It is necessary to read my essay to understand this point.)
There are two reasons that this conflicts with your essay. 1) I am actually proposing that this square relationship is a step towards unifying gravity with the other forces and 2) this mathematical relationship emerged as a prediction from the assumption that all particles, fields and forces are made of the single building block of 4 dimensional spacetime. Therefore the spacetime model assumed is the single component of everything in the universe (the basis of a theory of everything).
Thus far I have emphasized differences between out essays. However, there are also points of agreement and points that must be pondered further. Thank you for a stimulating essay.
report post as inappropriate
Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 17:20 GMT
Hi john,
I briefly read your essay but need to reread it and do the calculations myself because some of the relations, and especially the square force equation, are just too unexpected to me. I will let you know when I do so,
Thanks,
Armin
Avtar Singh wrote on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 18:13 GMT
Hi Armin:
I enjoyed reading your well-written paper. Some comments and what is missing are discussed below.
Your paper makes a strong and convincing argument that our current distinct fundamental theories (GR and QM) of nature already have mutually exclusive domains of validity. You also suggest that the concept of mass may not have the same meaning in two theories, because gravity may be an emergent rather than associated phenomenon.
It is interesting to note that in my paper - -“
From Absurd to Elegant Universe”, it is shown that the exclusive domain between GR and QM is nothing but an artifact of the missing physics of the well-known spontaneous decay/birth of mass particles. A Gravity Nullification Model is developed to describe this missing physics. When this missing physics is combined with relativity, the inner workings of QM are explained in a deterministic manner eliminating current singularities as well as paradoxes and inconsistencies between the two theories. The new proposed theory is shown to predict the observed behavior of the universe as well as the classic behavior.
Even if a Meta-theory consisting of GR and QM with their individual domains of validity is accepted, such a Meta-theory would not be able to explain 96% (dark energy and dark matter) of the universe because of the missing physics of the spontaneous mass-energy conversion to bridge the individual domains.
I would greatly appreciate your comments on my paper.
Best Regards
Avtar Singh
report post as inappropriate
Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 18:02 GMT
Hi Avtar,
I did ask you some questions on your paper, which you were kind of enough to answer. As regards the relationship of the metatheor to dark matter and dark energy, I suspect that you may have missed the appendix of my paper, in which I present a guess, based on the overall pattern of how our theories of nature fit the schema, that these may be manifestations of higher-dimensional events/objects observable to us.
Thank you for your comments,
Armin
Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 20:30 GMT
Armin
As I've come to expect this was an excellently written and argued essay, covering some very important issues. I agree with most of your proposals, but do still cling on to the fundamental belief that nature IS logical and comprehensible to intelligent creatures, without 'divisions'. When we will become intelligent enough to comprehend it is the only question.
Also that our antropocentricity is also one of the main factors preventing this.
I hope you'll read and comment on and score my essay as I think I show, in a readable way if dense, that we do have indentifiable room for improvement in our kinetic thinking methods (and math) which may remove the mutual exclusivity of divisions of physics, but utilise it in inertial frames with a quantum mechanism.
Well done. and best of luck.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 18:12 GMT
Hi Peter,
Thank you for your comments. I must admit your comment "I agree with most of your proposals, but do still cling on to the fundamental belief that nature IS logical and comprehensible to intelligent creatures, without 'divisions'" puzzles me a little.
Surely you recognize that there are already 'divisions' in the domains of validity of any area of human endeavor, be they the arts, sciences, mathematics etc.? The 'division' I propose is modeled after one that is already an integral feature of Euclidean Geometry, so I'm not sure why you find that it should be avoided. But it doesn't matter because my framework makes a definite prediction: If we fail to find superposed gravity fields for objects in a quantum superposition, as predicted, we have no choice but to go with a 'division'. I see no other way to save the internal consistency of our description of nature under that circumstance.
Thanks again,
Armin
Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 19:46 GMT
Armin
I do indeed recognise the divisions between domains, but suggest most may be imposed by humans because we do not understand nature. For instance I don't accept in principle the division we have evolved between 'science' and 'the arts' but find so much overlap as to suggest a graded continuum, a little like a GRIN lens refracts light progressively due to graded particle density.
I would not postulate this if I had not already tested it to the extreme and found much consistency. I hope you might read my own essay to gain an understanding of how nature may in fact be consistently unified, and comment. Despite falsifiability I crave falsification as I've failed to do so.
Mine is not as well written and argued as yours, as I have to present a number of elements and use a logical foundations to construct a complex ontological structure that unifies whole tracts of apparently contradictory findings. In other words, suggests it is our assumptions and interpretations that were wrong and divided, not nature.
I respect and admire your work and look forward to your comments.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 17:11 GMT
Dear Peter,
When you say that you have tested the idea that there are no clear distinctions between areas of human activity, I take it that you have thought about several concrete examples that serve as an epitome of such division and then come up with specific counterarguments to refute that view.
To help me understand your perspective better, it would be helpful if you could give one or two examples in which the division seems especially obvious and in which you have found that this was ultimately due to lack of sufficiently deep understanding or other factors.
Let me give one example that at least in my mind clearly divides the sciences and the arts, and you can provide a counterargument if you are so inclined.
In my view, the correspondence principle as the general idea that subsequent frameworks or theories in science need to subsume the domains of previous theories in addition to providing explanations for new ill-understood phenomena marks as a division between the arts and the sciences. I see no comparable compulsory requirement for an analog to the correspondence principle in the arts. Incidentally, should you be interested, several years ago I wrote a paper in which this was a key point, so if you like a greater elaboration of this argument, you can find the paper here:
http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/79042
All the best,
Armin
Colin Walker wrote on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 02:07 GMT
Hi Armin,
On turning to page 3 to finish the quote from Wald on quantum gravity I was taken by the simplicity of his proposition, a state of matter that could exist with 50 percent probablility in two regions, and its relevance to a problem I have been considering relating to potential energy we discussed last year. After that I was a captive audience, and was not disappointed to ultimately find an explanation for the difficulties Wald perceived.
Briefly, I consider that two bodies reduce each other's potential energy so that the amount of potential energy involved is twice the binding energy. This can be solved using the principle put forward in my
essay. But then there would be unaccounted energy equal to the binding energy. If the potential energy involved was in a state similar to Wald's example, that difficulty would be removed. The idea of mutual effect naturally suggests Mach's principle.
I also enjoyed your video
presentation. I found the short time spent very worthwhile.
I am motivated to re-reread your dimensional theory and try to get a grasp on the details of the phase term, and the actualization condition.
Your essay is a gentle readable introduction to a revolutionary idea which questions foundational assumptions in a fundamental way.
Colin
report post as inappropriate
Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 18:18 GMT
Dear Colin,
Thank you for so much for your comments. I have the impression that you have obtained a good idea about what my theory, given that you read the original paper, my essay paper and watched the talk. I find it very gratifying that someone has understood the main points of my idea. I don't nearly care as much about whether one agrees or disagrees with my ideas(though in the latter case I would care to know the reasons for disagreement) as I do about just being understood.
thank you, Colin, and if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.
Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 23:15 GMT
Hi Armin,
I really struggled through your essay. You never gave me time to pause and think. A paragraph is a good point to pause and your page long paragraphs make heavy reading, I hope others are not put off because of this.
I fully agree with you; who ever thinks that by unifying two possible incomplete and/or faulty theories to arrive at a theory of everything is grossly mistaken. I rest my statement, by just one example, on the fact that we have no idea of the workings of an accretion disk and it's observed jets in terms of accepted mainstream theory. However, once we have correct theories in place our little corner should be able to explain the diversity of the universe with just one base theory.
Regards and good luck
Anton @ ( .../topic/1458 )
report post as inappropriate
Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 18:25 GMT
Hi Anton,
thank you for your useful criticism. The problem you point out may be partly due to the font style and the fact that some paragraphs just happened to end at the end of the line. Neverteless, it is important for me to take into account just how easily my papers can be read and I thank you for sharing your perspective.
My knowledge of accretion disks is too little to be able to usefully comment on your second paragraph.
thanks once more,
Armin
Jerzy Krol wrote on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 08:37 GMT
Dear Armin,
it's a pleasure to read your essay, though it is not very easy task (for me). Very well argued and with conviencing historical perspective. I have, however, some thoughts coming to mind during the reading: one can have different physical domains though, still, mathematics bridges them; otherwise, you refer to some kind of irrationality, but I do not think so. If mathematical description is possible, what would be the relation between 'instantonuous' pictures (labeled by the additional dimension) and the superposed (non-actual) entity. Should it be understood as the relation between eigenvalues and the self-adjoint operator with these eigenvalues? Otherwise, we lose quantumness, and are left with just 'set of pictures'. There are also some other things which are interesting to me, but maybe later.
Again, congratulation for your work, and best wishes,
Jerzy
report post as inappropriate
Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 18:51 GMT
Hi Jerzy,
Thank you for your feedback. Would you care to elaborate why you did not find it a very easy task to read my essay? Was this also because of overly long paragraphs? Having seen some of your work I suspect that instead it may be that my paper is not nearly as mathematical and precise in the expression of some of the core concepts as one would expect of a mathematical paper. But I'm...
view entire post
Hi Jerzy,
Thank you for your feedback. Would you care to elaborate why you did not find it a very easy task to read my essay? Was this also because of overly long paragraphs? Having seen some of your work I suspect that instead it may be that my paper is not nearly as mathematical and precise in the expression of some of the core concepts as one would expect of a mathematical paper. But I'm not sure, and your feedback would certainly help me improve my writing style.
I completely agree that mathematics bridges the separate domains, just as the concept of area does not suddenly become meaningless in three-space. It is just the entities that are the subject of the theory and described by it which are confined to those domains.
As for your question about the relationship between the pictures, I take it that you are asking me about the relationship between the object in fig. 3 and that in fig.4 and how it relates to quantum theory. I think you understand the analogy correctly: fig. 3 is an analogy for a an eigenstate immediately after it has been 'measured' and fig. 4 is an analogy for the superposition state just before the measurement (also fig.5 which is an analogy for the 2-state system). the attribution of an interval along z is an analogy for a 'measurement'. note that the analogy can even to a limited extent accommodate a change in basis: Instead of 1 unit length along z, we could chose 2 or n unit length to attribute to the column, in which case fig. 4 would turn into a superposition of an infinite number of objects with unit width and depth but n-unit height.
The purpose of these pictures and analogies is just to help develop intuition for the basic idea, which is simply that an object (really a worldline) in areatime manifests itself to spacetime observers as a superposition of spacetime worldlines which however do not have the same quality of existence as the worldlines of spacetime objects., and that a 'measurement' is what happens when the superposition of worldlines collapses to just one actual one.
I hope I was able to answer your questions. if you have more feel free to let me know.
take care,
Armin
view post as summary
Jerzy Krol replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 13:56 GMT
Hi Armin,
Thanks a lot for your explanations. The difficulty which I met reading your essay was on my side - your essay is certainly perfectly written. Only in some cases when I tried to digg details more carefully the length of sentences was an obstraction to me. Simply, I am not good enough in English.
Regarding superposition etc. I think I understand what you mean, mathematics is a little help here; but still the difference between just collection of pictures (call it superposition) organized in higher dimensional object, and the QM superposed object can be relevant. I mean that if it is not the case we could call any collection a superposition. Even we use a probability on instances it is not enough to have QM superposition. OK, you say that this is solved by considering the collection as merely potential and the instant picture as actual. Do you mean by this anything different than the relation between an operator and its eigenvalues? If not can we represent the potential collection by an self-adjoint operator and (somehow) the instances by its eigenvectors? If yes, does it reduce to the ordinary Hilbert space QM? I ask because I am realy interested in understanding of your work.
Thanks for your explanations.
Good luck,
Jerzy
report post as inappropriate
Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 18:36 GMT
Dear Jerzy,
I want to give you a fuller response, but my work week starts today (I work midnights 7 nights on and 7 nights off while going to school) so a more elaborate version will have to wait until next week.
For now, let me just say that you are basically correct. The QM operator corresponds in my analogy to the operation "add an interval of length z" and the eigenvalue...
view entire post
Dear Jerzy,
I want to give you a fuller response, but my work week starts today (I work midnights 7 nights on and 7 nights off while going to school) so a more elaborate version will have to wait until next week.
For now, let me just say that you are basically correct. The QM operator corresponds in my analogy to the operation "add an interval of length z" and the eigenvalue corresponds to the length of the side of the cube wherever it 'actualizes'. I did not mention probabilities in my paper, except very indirectly when I said that being 'actualizable' corresponds to an intermediate state of existence. Some time ago, I replied to another person what I meant and for the sake of time I will just paste my response because it may help understand better. (The person to whom I responded was an educated layperson, not someone like you who understands the implications at a very deep mathematical level, so the tone of my exposition was meant for a different audience).
here it is:
"The more challenging concept to understand is what I have called 'actualizable'.
Before I attempt to explain it, let me acknowledge that it is not your fault for having this conceptual difficulty. In all of my papers about my theory and the talk, I have so far described the concept of actualizability only within a very limited context, namely how it is different from "actual". But to get a deep understanding of what this concept really means one needs more than an understanding in terms of what it does not mean. The fact that I have not been more specific is not entirely an accident.
You see, I have found that when in discussing my ideas with others I introduce too many unfamiliar ideas at once, the risk that they will be dismissed as being too far "out there" dramatically goes up (you can even see that in this thread), so I have tried to be strategic about it: I try to introduce just enough so that it becomes evident that one can reframe quantum mechanics in a novel way that no longer seems mystical (as in my talk), leaving more subtle clarifications of the conceptual basis which have truly radical implications for later, after the basic picture painted by my theory is at least somewhat understood and it becomes clear how the radical implications of the novel concepts are required in order to form a self-consistent worldview (which is different from the present one). Describing precisely what I mean by "actualizable" is one of these concepts (but unfortunately not the only one).
I take it that you have perused the references I provided and that therefore you are ready for the more precise definition:
My concept of 'Actualizablity' refers to an intermediate state of existence.
I mean it in the following way: According to our current worldview, existence is a binary concept, which means you can assign one of two values to the ontological status of anything
0- it does not exist
1- it exists
end of story
The notion that something could have an ontological status somewhere in between, which is what I mean by "intermediate state of existence", at first sight seems absurd. If one is going to claim such a thing, one better have a darn good reason for doing so. Well, my reason for doing so is that this definition is required to provide a consistent conceptual basis for a framework that seems to make sense out of a lot of the seemingly mysterious parts of QM.
So, does that mean that something could have an ontological status of, say, 0.3? Yep. 0.6? Yep. And that the latter in this sense twice exists "twice as much" as the former? Yep.
I can appreciate how bizarre this must seem to you, but I would argue that a large part of this is just due to the fact that since you were a little kid you have been conditioned to think of existence as binary and you are reading this for the first time. If this idea is generally accepted, future generations will find it a lot less strange. If you doubt this, just ask yourself how strange you find the idea that the earth goes around the sun? Well, today almost nobody finds this strange, even though it is exactly opposite to what our sense experience tells us. That is why if you had suggested that to someone in the 16th century before Copernicus, they would have considered it an extremely bizarre idea.
We actually already have way for quantitatively expressing actualizability, but we have not yet recognized it as such. It is called the Born Rule. I am certain that you don't see the connection, so I will try to be more specific.
First, let me review how the need for "squaring the wave function" arises in my theory. As you should recall, I postulate a symmetry that serves as a mechanism by which the passage of time for an areatime object (its proper time) can be matched or "translated" into the proper time for each actualizable object that traverses an actualizable path in space. Upon a simple transformation, the symmetry can be decomposed into two complex conjugate phase factors which are associated with each actualizable path, and upon appropriate substitution become e^plusminus(iS/hbar). Since the areatime object manifests itself in spacetime in terms of a superposition of all possible actualizable paths, and each is associated with the phase factors, the proper representation of the areatime object in spacetime is the Feynman path integral.
Now, in transforming from the Lagrangian to the Hamiltonian Formulation, the exponent of the phase factor changes but there is still a direct link between it and the phase factor of the Wave function Psi. This implies that Psi only represents the square root of all the spacetime manifestations of the areatime object in a specified region of space (Each phase factor represents 1/2 of the symmetry associated with the angle in the exponent, and 1/2 in the exponent is the square root). To represent it fully, you must multiply it by its complex conjugate, which is to say that you must take the absolute square.
But just as in my Euclidean analogy a point in 2-space manifests itself as an infinite line in 3-space, the representation of the areatime object in terms of the squared wave function extends over all of space (in the non-relativistic limit at least. In the relativistic limit, I believe, it extends only to the boundaries of the light cone originating from where the paths started).
So if you integrate the absolute square of the of the wave function over all of space, you have finally obtained a complete spacetime representation of the underlying areatime object under the Hamiltonian formulation. Under the Born rule, this is set equal to one and interpreted as a probability.
Let us suppose that the the wave function represents a particle. One often finds a statement to the effect that the above reflects the fact that the particle is certain to be somewhere in space. Under my interpretation it means that if a "measurement" is performed everywhere in space, one is certain to detect a particle somewhere (Since a "measurement" is the mechanism by which a spacetime object emerges out of areatime).
At first glance, the two statements might seem equivalent but they are not: The first assumes that there is a particle out there, independent of whether you are trying to measure it, whereas the second does not. Prior to a measurement, you still have merely the representation of an areatime object in spacetime, not a particle in space. You can hopefully see my interpretation comes closest to the Copenhagen interpretation, but unfortunately the CI tends to substitute mysticism for genuine gaps in understanding.
Alright, after this basic review, let me now get down to how the Born rule can be interpreted as a reflection of "partially existing objects" ('actualizable' sounds much better to me) .
Suppose a quantum state in a particular basis consisted of only two eigenstates. Each of the eigenstates has a coefficient which tells you how much it contributes to the total state. In standard QM, the coefficent has a purely operational interpretation. What I mean is this: The coefficient is ideally determined by running measurements on a large number of identically prepared states, and the frequency of the two different possible outcomes is recorded. Since the calculation of the expectation value for the measurement outcome involves both the wave function and its complex conjugate in a product, the coefficients are the square roots of the relative frequencies. For example, if both outcomes are equally likely, then, the coefficients become sqr (1/2)=1/sqr(2). Since, as far as I know, there is in standard QM no "deeper" interpretation of this, the coefficients must be interpreted purely operationally, as mentioned.
In my framework, the coefficients have an ontological interpretation: The coefficients tell you how much each actualizable eigenstate contributes to the total representation of the areatime object in spacetime, and their contribution is a measure of the extent to which the areatime object "fractionally" exists in spacetime in that particular manifestation.
The problem is that when you do 'measurement', you cannot detect "fractionally existing" objects, only ones that fully exist in spacetime, hence the ontological status of the eigenstate you detect upon a measurement must change from some value less than 1 to 1. This is consistent with the fact that if you immediately repeat a measurement, you will obtain the same outcome, and directly connects this to the probability interpretation, since under a the latter, being certain of obtaining a particular result is equal to a probability of 1.
So let us now examine the bizarre notion that one eigenstate could exist "twice as much" as the second. Well, it just means that the coefficient of the first is sqr (2/3) and the coefficient of the second is sqr(1/3). Because both states are associated with some form of existence, in a small number of runs you might measure one or the other in some different proportion, but in the limit in which the number of runs on identically prepared systems goes to infinity you recover the fractional existence of each state. This is essentially the definition of the (frequentist interpretation of) probability.
"Conservation of probability" then is really conservation of existence. Unfortunately, existence is not currently considered a physics concept but I strongly believe it needs to be. As you might imagine, this makes the idea all the more difficult to accept. I had written a paper a while back called "Ontology and the Wave Function Collapse" where I hinted at this problem.
Alright, if you have really read my papers and watched my talk, I hope that you will see how this fits in with everything and have a better understanding of what I mean by actual vs. actualizable, but if you have not done so, I doubt that the above will make much sense to you. "
hope you found this useful,
Armin
view post as summary
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 14:57 GMT
Dear Armin, I reacted on your constructive and critical post on my thread. Thank you for your time and effort, for easy find I'll give you the
the link I am still awaiting your answers of my post of 25 august, but take your time I saw on the net that you are very busy with video's and so on, sorry but here in the country of France I have only very slow internet so that viewing a video is not a pleasant thing.
best regards
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 18:53 GMT
Hi Wilhelmus,
My posting on your thread was the response to your august 25th post, but I will shortly post something in addition.
Take care,
Armin
Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 08:39 GMT
Hi I went back to your post and saw that it contained some questions I did not see. Ok, here is my best attempt to answer your questions:
You said: "When I read your DFR concept, it again brought me to essentials like "a square has only one side" or is two sides ? for a flatlander it has only one side , and a moebiusring does not exist in his 2 dimensional universe. On page 5 you are...
view entire post
Hi I went back to your post and saw that it contained some questions I did not see. Ok, here is my best attempt to answer your questions:
You said: "When I read your DFR concept, it again brought me to essentials like "a square has only one side" or is two sides ? for a flatlander it has only one side , and a moebiusring does not exist in his 2 dimensional universe. On page 5 you are creating the column of squares, just as a straight line , a fixed z coordinate, however the Z coordinate can take any value, so that any form is "actualizable".
Saying that to a flatlander a square has only one side is like saying that to us a cube (when looked at face-on) has only one face. Do you see that you are conflating perspective with dimensionality? A flat lander can go around the square and thereby establish that it has four sides and that it is not just a line segment. A moebius ring like region in flatland could exist in principle: cut at two places into sheet of paper to make a long strip without separating the strip, then twist that part between the cuts (the strip) by 180 degrees and glue the ends of the strip to the edges. You won't be able to glue the entire strip, but if it is long and narrow enough, you can glue that part that is the closest to where you started to cut. For us, this would be like a region in space for us in which if you go in and come out in a certain directions everything is mirror-reversed, but that is just exotica that I don't think is relevant to my idea. The last part of your paragraph seems to agree with my idea.
You said:"Your page 6 is in fact the same as the theory of the collapse of the wave function, even the comparision to the Feynman path, I like your description of area time as "it manifests itself to spacetime observers as asuperposition of two actualizable matter distributions describable by ....". The only remark here is that you accept already the existance of the "observer" (!)"
Indeed, I do already accept the existence of the (spacetime) observer. this is required by the fact that quantum mechanics goes in the (2,3) box (refer to the appendix). I could have also not accepted the existence of a spacetime observer; that would be a theory of areatime interactions when spacetime has not yet emerged, and this theory goes into the (2,2) box, such a theory is only metaphysical for us, since we cannot observe in 2+1 dimensions, so I see no problem.
You said:"On page 7 you mention "two or more objects described by the same non-factorizable wave function who share the same wave-function, share common wave factors", I came to a different interpretation (with almost the same result) and introduced the Objective Simultaneity Speres, together forming a foam being the origin of "decoherence".
No, in my paper I stated that"... two or more objects... described by the same non-factorizable wave function...share common *phase* factors." This is a big difference that can only be appreciated if you know something about the mathematical structure of the wave function. Also, I would be very careful in claiming that a an idea you have corresponds to a well-defined concept like "decoherence" without showing how it exactly does that. To understand decoherence you will already have to know quite a bit of quantum mechanics. Using a technical term like "decoherence" in your theory without actually showing how your theory corresponds to it will damage the credibility of your theory.
You said:" I liked very much you schema of the "METATHEORY OF NATURE", very good , the only thing you could think about is that the dimensional frames could also go to the negative side and perhaps there all the dark energy and so on can be found."
We use negative dimensions already all the time, they are called *densities*. For example, mass density is mass per volume or mass times length^(-3). If you look at the schema, you see that, for example area=length ^2, so a negative dimension has to be a density. If you meant negative signs in front of a dimension i.e. as a coefficient, then I don't know what that means, other than perhaps a direction in an arbitrarily defined coordinate system.
While Dark Energy indeed appears to be a negative energy density, I don't think your suggestion will help understand it any better, because "negative" in this context has a completely different meaning:it refers to the energy not to the density.
You said:"I hope that you take the time to comment also on my essay, this tile I took also at heart your posts wher you gave me indications how to be more clear."
Well I did and as I said, you have greatly improved how you communicate your ideas. Communicating one's ideas is very important but it is not enough: You also have to make sure your ideas match what we know, and the only way to be certain that you can do this is to learn what we already know. I was in your situation several years ago, but I have made a sincere effort to learn what we know, and continue to do so. I am sure that you are making some effort to learn what we know, but to be effective, it should not be from a science popularization but a text book. Also, in response to our exchange I suggested to Max Tegmark that FQXi add a physics resource section, and they did. Have you seen it? If not, go to the community page and look at the upper left corner.
Thanks for your comments and good luck in your endeavors,
Armin
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 19:34 GMT
Armin, you rock! Loved your Borodin. Have you heard of his the Little Suite? The first piece, "In a monastery" is sheer magic. Very Russian. If you find it online, please let me know. I've never heard it performed and am curious about other interpretations.
I found your essay very interesting. Funny that you too reference Flatland. (me too,
here, which makes 4 of us so far. The other essay is
very good too. Check it out. I forget now who the 4th person is...)
Re your essay: "It is created by the fact that the Euclidean plane was not assigned a z-coordinate and hence the representation of the square in 3-space requires the inclusion of all z-coordinates."
from where does it "require"?
Re: "What hubris to think that the description of nature in all its richness would be exhausted just by unifying a few types of interactions in our small corner and calling this a `theory of everything'."
that was very good.
report post as inappropriate
Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 11:06 GMT
Mi M.V.,
Thank you for the critique and for listening. I had planned to upload more music but reading all these essays has caused me to fall behind.
Yes, I had heard some of its pieces but not "In a monastery". I did find the link below:
http://youtu.be/ix1t4AsQXdo
I find Borodin's music has a very unique quality which I like a lot. Very few composers have such a...
view entire post
Mi M.V.,
Thank you for the critique and for listening. I had planned to upload more music but reading all these essays has caused me to fall behind.
Yes, I had heard some of its pieces but not "In a monastery". I did find the link below:
http://youtu.be/ix1t4AsQXdo
I find Borodin's music has a very unique quality which I like a lot. Very few composers have such a distinctness pervading their work. The other composer like that who comes to mind is Chopin, whose music is also very beautiful.
I thought that probably many readers here are familiar with flatland, and that it would not be a bad idea to start from familiar place to launch some ideas that are no doubt highly unfamiliar to many.
About your question: I will give a mathematical and a conceptual answer.
The mathematical answer is that if in a given coordinate system you wish to specify a lower-dimensional "surface", you just specify that part of it that you want to assign a position in space and leave the rest unspecified. Thus, x=3, for example, specifies an infinite plane that intersects the x-axis at 3. r=3 in a spherical coordinate system specifies a sphere of radius 3, and so on. So when you leave certain properties of the surface unspecified, they mathematically take on all possible values for that property.
The conceptual answer to your question is that when you leave the property unspecified, it attains an "empty slot" for that value. This means that you cannot assign it any definite value (that would be filling the slot with a definite value), but you still wish to represent it somehow in the higher-dimensional space. If you think of an empty slot as one that is "waiting to be filled" then the representation would include all possible values, since any of those could eventually fill the slot.
I don't know if my conceptual explanation made any sense to you, but I would appreciate your feedback on whether it did or not. I believe it is important to be able to communicate my unfamiliar ideas clearly to others, so your question is received with much gratitude.
Thank you also for the final comment.
All the best,
Armin
view post as summary
M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 16:47 GMT
Thanks for the Borodin link on youtube. She needs to up the tempo and add some passion to it. Also, her.. forgot what they are called in English... are too stubby. I am afraid this was not a good intro to this magical piece. I loved your sunny variations though. They kept playing in my head for a few days.
Thank you for answering my question and good luck to you!
report post as inappropriate
Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 08:25 GMT
Dear Armin,
you yourself might think that there is no final theory of the universe, but your work as far as I know it is already moving in this direction. Take your paper: A Novel Way of Understanding Quantum Mechanics. In this paper you are attempting to clarify what Quantum Mechanics tells us about reality.
I have no doubt an deeper understanding of Quantum Mechanics is the key to a final theory. The physicst S. Weinberg f.e. is convinced that Quantum Mechanics is that part of today's physics, that survives unchanged in a final theory. I agree..
In your paper above-mentioned you are dealing with a simple pattern that is composed of a Square and of a Circle. And just this simple geometrical pattern is - as conceived by me - part of a space-time-picture, that allows us to understand Quantum Mechanics on a deeper level. My FQXI_2012-paper ---Is the Speed of Light c of Dual Nature?--- is implicitly talking about this space-time-picture. In my reply to your current comment I have sketched this space-time-picture in an explicit manner - at least in parts.
Kind Regards
Helmut
report post as inappropriate
Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 11:12 GMT
Dear Helmut,
Thank you for your comments. I agree too that quantum mechanics will survive, too unchanged, in the sense that its predictions won't be proven wrong. My framework, which I'm pleased to find out you are familiar with, introduces only an additional distinction that is not present in standard quantum theory. The distinction, however, has to my mind the effect of separating the boundaries of validity of quantum theory and general relativity, as I explain in my essay. If the schema I present in the appendix to my above paper has any merit, then you could call this the outline of a "final theory' but for the reasons I discuss in my essay and the appendix I take on a different perspective.
Incidentally, the square-circle example in my "understanding" paper was just a device to try to more easily get the concept across about how my framework explains entanglement. Originally I had instead a x and + pattern in mind, but found that it was too confusing to represent in 3 dimensions. I did read your paper and lef a comment.
Thanks again.
All the best,
Armin
Roger Granet wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 04:09 GMT
Armin,
Hi. Great essay! My comments are:
1. First off, you're an excellent writer!
2. Second off, your way of thinking where you describe what things might visually look like to observers from different perspectives, like from a two-dimensional or a three-dimensional perspective, is a very good way of thinking. Because the minds of mathematicians and physicists (and...
view entire post
Armin,
Hi. Great essay! My comments are:
1. First off, you're an excellent writer!
2. Second off, your way of thinking where you describe what things might visually look like to observers from different perspectives, like from a two-dimensional or a three-dimensional perspective, is a very good way of thinking. Because the minds of mathematicians and physicists (and everybody) are observing things from an existent, finite (not infinite), and 3-dimensional perspective, they can easily miss things that might not be finite or three-dimensional or that might be described better from a different perspective. I've tried to do something similar in one of my essays where I talk about how an infinite set of finite-sized balls spreading out in all directions might appear to a finite observer within the set and to a hypothetical, infinite observer outside the set. The different views of this set as discrete and continuous, respectively, may have relevance to our different descriptions of our universe as discrete or continuous (https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/filecabinet/i
nfinite-sets-ii)?
3. The one thing I might either not understand or disagree with is that it seems like if a square were truly 2-dimensional (2-DFR), it wouldn't exist? It would flatten down to nothing and then disappear completely. I have trouble accepting that anything with one of its dimensions being zero (not just approaching zero but actually zero) could actually exist. If the square were to exist, I think it would be a very flat 3-FDR. Also, if a 2-FDR square were not associated with a z coordinate in 3-space, is it really in 3-space? It seems like that to exist in 3-space, the square must exist at some location or set of possible locations (ie, z coordinates) in 3-space?
But, my lack of understanding of this point doesn't negate your main arguments at all. As you point out, I think it's of great importance that mathematicians, physicists, and philosophers realize that things can look totally different depending on the perspective they're being observed/thought-about from. If they could see this, I think there'd be some major progress along the lines of what you talk about in your essay.
Anyways, I think this is one of the best essays in the contest. Nice going!
Roger
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Roger replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 06:00 GMT
Armin,
Hi. One additional comment about representing a 2-DFR square that's not associated with a a z coordinate in 3-space as an infinitely long column is this:
Actually, I'd say that a 2-DFR square that is not associated with a z coordinate in 3-space is not yet in 3-space. Only after it appears in 3-space does it seem to us "after the fact" that it could have been in any z-plane before it appeared. But, none of these z-planes existed for the 2-DFR square before it appeared. So, we're retroactively putting a continuous column of possible z-plane locations onto the 2-DFR square even though none of these z-planes existed for the square before it appeared. I think this relates to quantum weirdness. For instance, with the cat in Schroedinger's Box, it's assumed that before the box is opened, the cat exists in all possible states. But, I'd say that the cat doesn't exist in the box at all. Once we open the box, this is equivalent to actualizing the cat (causing it to come into existence), and then we go back "after the fact" and say the cat could have been in any possible state. But, none of those states even existed until after we opened the box.
I've been kind of thinking about this in regards to my ideas on the question of "why is there something rather than nothing?". As the fundamental units of spatial existence are created, these units are also creating spatial locations/positions. There was no space and no locations until after they were created. But, then we go back after the fact and say, well those fundamental units could have been created in any location, not realizing that there were no locations until after they were created. My thinking on this questions is at:
https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/filecabinet
/why-things-exist-something-nothing
Thanks! Once again, excellent essay. I think our thinking is along the same lines and, unfortunately, outside the mainstream.
report post as inappropriate
Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 18:46 GMT
Dear Roger,
thank you for your kind comments.
You said:"Actually, I'd say that a 2-DFR square that is not associated with a z coordinate in 3-space is not yet in 3-space. Only after it appears in 3-space does it seem to us "after the fact" that it could have been in any z-plane before it appeared. But, none of these z-planes existed for the 2-DFR square before it appeared. So, we're retroactively putting a continuous column of possible z-plane locations onto the 2-DFR square even though none of these z-planes existed for the square before it appeared. "
Yes, I think this is basically equivalent to the idea I was proposing that should be applied to QM.
You said: "I think this relates to quantum weirdness. For instance, with the cat in Schroedinger's Box, it's assumed that before the box is opened, the cat exists in all possible states. But, I'd say that the cat doesn't exist in the box at all. Once we open the box, this is equivalent to actualizing the cat (causing it to come into existence), and then we go back "after the fact" and say the cat could have been in any possible state. But, none of those states even existed until after we opened the box."
If you are using the cat example metaphorically, then I agree with you. I think that QM is basically a theory of objects in areatime observed by spacetime observers before such objects have emerged in spacetime, and I believe that macroscopic objects like cats are far beyond the limit where the emergence occurs, so I do not think that QM literally applies to the cat example.
I will take a look at the paper you mention in the near future.
All the best,
Armin
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 14:24 GMT
Armin
I cook metatheory of nature on last essay contest
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/946
On the base this essay i cook my wrong assumption food
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach wrote on Sep. 12, 2012 @ 03:20 GMT
Dear Armin,
i have now begun to read your essay, but i am yet not fully through the text, because at the moment i have very less time and i had to finish some other comments and experimental descriptions.
As soon as possible, i will post again. But for now, our writing style is excellent, combined with deep specialist knowledge.
Greetings,
Stefan
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 17:36 GMT
Dear Armin,
i am now half through your essay, but already at this point i am exited about what i read in your essay. Many authors claim "read my essay, your lines of thoughts are somewhat similar to mine". But your promised similarities are such interesting, i will also watch your video on youtube and afterwards give you a detailed feedback!
Best wishes,
Stefan
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 18:14 GMT
Dear Armin,
i took a look at your publishing date and found that you published your ideas roughly 2 weeks earlier than i did with my essay. If i had read your essay prior to my publication, i surely had made a reference to your work!
There are several point in your essay which are interesting:
First, it is assumed that the speed of light limit can only be attached to the light...
view entire post
Dear Armin,
i took a look at your publishing date and found that you published your ideas roughly 2 weeks earlier than i did with my essay. If i had read your essay prior to my publication, i surely had made a reference to your work!
There are several point in your essay which are interesting:
First, it is assumed that the speed of light limit can only be attached to the light in our 3D-spacetime. In lower dimensions, this limit cannot be attached to the dimension, because there simply is no "mass" defined by our standard physical theories.
Second, this could be the reason, why in your areatime, the "time" is of different "duration" than ours in 3D-spacetime - our formulated explicitely, what is connected in areatime, is separated in our spacetime. This fits very well into my own explanation scheme you wrote in my essay.
Third, your idea of relativity for dimensional differences is very engaging.
Fourth, you mention infinity when explaining the z-axis. I alluded in my older posts concerning the last two essay contests, that "infinity" can be thought as something that is not "finite", not "de-finite" and therefore not "defined".
I simply understand infinity as the "undefined", as outlined in my actual essay (the empty containers that haven't yet definite properties - they yet belong to the realm of areatime!).
Armin, you wrote:
"the notion that the concepts of mass in general relativity and in quantum theory are the same; that lower-dimensional objects should necessarily appear
lower-dimensional to us; that an object can either exist or not exit and nothing in between; that our current concept of an observer frame of reference is complete, and that spacetime encompasses all of nature."
The first declaration was outlined in your essay very precisely. The second declaration is very clever and attests you a very bright mind (i have yet to think about the implications of that possibility). The third declaration is one that i too have in mind for a very long time (due to pondering about the fundamentals of "everything"). The fourth statement is in direct congruence with my own lines of reasoning described in my essay.
You wrote:
"What hubris to think that the description of nature in all its richness would
be exhausted just by unifying a few types of interactions in our small corner and calling this a `theory of everything'."
Exactly - if we treat the whole issue with logics and less with emotions! (This does not mean that human nature has NO meaning, it only means that there could be more than one reference frame!).
"But perhaps this is the beauty of approaching an understanding of nature at the deepest level: the objective distinctions between physics and metaphysics (and possibly even mathematics) simply vanish as they have now become dependent on the frame of the observer. For example, to an observer with a 4-DFR, Newtonian mechanics is not physics but mathematical metaphysics. In this
very dierent sense, the metatheory could even be argued to be more unied than our current conception of a theory of everything.""
Wow, very intelligent in my humble opinion!!
In my humble opinion you've done a very good job and this deserves a high ranking.
I wish you all the best in the current constest, Armin.
Stefan
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 11:21 GMT
Dear Stefan,
Thank you so much for your detailed feedback and kind comments. I actually think that most of my ideas are rather very simple, certainly much simpler than many of the sophisticated presentations I have seen here. In part, this may be due to an inherent bias in my worldview, according to which nature at the most fundamental level is simple. While this may or may not be true, it guides how I think about fundamental problems.
There is a specific comment of yours on which I'd like to give feedback. You said: "First, it is assumed that the speed of light limit can only be attached to the light in our 3D-spacetime."
Although I did not directly talk about the speed of light as a limit in this paper, I did say something very similar in the discussion section of my entry to the first FQXi contest. If you are interested, you can have a look, it is topic 329. I also hope to soon post a series of youtube videos in which I present some of my ideas in a more conversational way, beginning with the speed of light invariance.
Again, thank you very much and I also wish you all the best,
Armin
report post as inappropriate
Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 15:43 GMT
Dear Armin,
I have some addition to the idea of separation of quantum mechanics (QM) and general relativity (GR).QM uses wave function, summing of probability of events, quantization of physical values and so on. QM studies amount of similar atomic systems in order to find probability of events. GR can work with a single system and give right answer about it without any probabilities. The methods of both theories are different. On the other hand we can use quantum approach on the other levels of matter, for example, at the level of star. See my essay about the theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter and
Similarity of matter levels. Also it is possible to use theory of gravitation in the atomic world. For it we must use
Strong gravitational constant. From here I am not sure that QM and GR have mutually exclusive domains of validity.
Sergey Fedosin
report post as inappropriate
Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 11:41 GMT
Dear Sergey,
Thank you for your comments, I have looked at your paper, and I will give honest feedback at your thread.
All the best,
Armin
Peter Rowlands wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 14:37 GMT
Dear Armin
I am replying here to say thank you for your comments on my essay because there because, for some reason, there was no place to make a comment there. I will make my comments on your essay separately after I have had the opportunity to read it.
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 21:36 GMT
Dear Peter,
Thank you for your remarks and I look forward to your comments (should you be inclined to make any), especially since you have a particularly broad perspective on the history and philosophy of physics.
Armin
Inger Stjernqvist wrote on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 18:39 GMT
Dear Armin!
You were kind enough to comment on my essay, and thereby lead me to your own - even though I would have found it anyway, because of its interesting title. I have now read and re-read your essay - and will have to read it at least once more before I - hopefully - will be able to come up with some concrete comments/questions. I have much to learn here - and it makes me happy! Just to mention one of my many underlingings and exclamation marks, when reading you ressay: You reasoning about actual and actualizable is fascinating, to say the least.
Au revoir!
Inger
report post as inappropriate
Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 21:43 GMT
Dear Inger,
Thank you for your kind remark, you are of course under no obligation to make any comments or ask any questions, just the fact that you read it twice is an indication that some of my ideas were found to be worthwhile and I find that is a reward in and of itself.
Thanks again and all the best,
Armin
James Lee Hoover wrote on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 19:32 GMT
Armin,
Doesn't superposition say that a net effect is equal to the sum of the individual effects. Common belief says that gravitational forces must be added vectorially to account for the total effects on an object. How does this figure in your concepts? Certainly gravity will have different properties if it can be cancelled as my essay asks.
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 22:12 GMT
Dear James,
Well, in the generality you stated it the superposition principle could already be applied to the classical physics, such as Maxwell's or Newton's theories. In fact, your second sentence indicates to me that this is what you had in mind.
What makes quantum superposition quite distinct is the fact that a state of a system is a linear superposition of 'measurement outcome states', and this something you just don't find in any classical theory.
There is a quantum mechanical version of 'Force' which you can either derive in terms of a change in the expectation value of a system's momentum over time using Ehrenfest's theorem, or (in certain cases only) as as the change in the expectation value of the Hamiltonian of which the wave function is an eigenfunction with respect to a coordinate using the Feynman-Hellman theorem but these are nothing like classical forces because they do not refer to definite objects.
I don't dispute the validity of either General Relativity or Quantum Theory, which actually makes my stance the most conservative one could take. The entire point of my essay was to show that if we realize that quantum theory and general relativity are fundamentally about different objects, then the seeming contradiction between them vanishes.
As for your paper, I will leave an honest comment on your thread.
Thank you for your remark and your question.
All the best,
Armin
Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 19:09 GMT
Dear Armin Nikkhah Shirazi,
I completely agree with your statement of that a theory of everything is a myth. Precisely, I started my essay with a short historical introduction on how physicists, from Laplace to Witten, have claimed that they were close to obtain a theory of everything, but Nature has shown how wrong they were!
Regards
report post as inappropriate
Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 18:01 GMT
Dear Juan,
I just re-read your essay (I had read it once soon after it came out but wanted to refresh my memory).
I agree with several of the eight points you made, and indeed some of them are quite close to the arguments discussed in my paper.
In particular, the idea that spacetime is not fundamental (or "special" as I like to say) would seem to be an unavoidable...
view entire post
Dear Juan,
I just re-read your essay (I had read it once soon after it came out but wanted to refresh my memory).
I agree with several of the eight points you made, and indeed some of them are quite close to the arguments discussed in my paper.
In particular, the idea that spacetime is not fundamental (or "special" as I like to say) would seem to be an unavoidable consequence of attributing quantum phenomena to the spacetime manifestation of objects that actually exist in lower dimensional analogs.
Also, I agree with the notion that unitarity is not fundamental, but it appears to me that this is for a different reason than given in your paper: In my framework, the mathematical requirement of unitarity arises ultimately from a simple symmetry that serves as a mechanism for comparing two distinct proper time dimensions: the proper time of the underlying onject in areatime, and the proper time associated with each path that is part of the path integral. Since objects we observe in spacetime do not require this "comparison mechanism" this would seem to refute the notion of unitarity being fundamental.
My knowledge of black hole thermodynamics is insufficient to be able to give sound evaluation of your argument, but let me just say that I am a bit suspicious about whether any of the seemingly reasonable assumptions that had to go into combining quantum theory with general relativity will in the end turn out not to be reasonable.
You raise an interesting point under your "quantum state vectors are not fundamental" section: If one has a multiparticle entangled state, how sensible is it to consider each describable by its own "state"? Probably due to my own prejudices, I tend to shy away from claims that descriptions that are even more mathematically abstract than this as being the "fundamental" description (such as the state operator in Liouville space) because at least in my view, whenever one abstracts, one loses some part of the thing one tries to model, and the extent of that loss defines how much less fundamental the abstraction becomes. To me, path integrals are the most fundamental description. They may seem abstract, but as far as I can tell, they are the most concrete models of quantum object in that they describe objects directly in spacetime rather than in some abstract phase, state or configuration space.
The point that GR is not an ordinary field theory is congruent with that presented in my paper, although again for different reasons. In my view, the notion of a quantum field captures in the greatest generality the idea that there is some lower-dimensional fundament from which spacetime is continuously emerging, and that close to that limit where, as it were, the "phase transition" occurs, there is a constant flux between the "phases" perhaps not so unlike what can observe in certain thermodynamic regimes. Since GR is about "equal dimensional" objects in relation to the observer's dimensional frame of reference, GR cannot, according to this view, be an ordinary (quantum) field theory.
Finally, I suspect that dark matter may be related to gravity somewhat as gravity is related to electrodynamics: In the proper limits there may be some similar or even formally identical relations (say, Newton's vs. Coulomb's law) which may confound our observations and lead us to believe that there is a gravitational explanation for it, but these might reflect totally different underlying conceptual entitities.
Milgrom's relation does not seem in contradiction with this view, for one could imagine an analogy in which Newton's law was replaced with a special kind of "Coulomb's law" that holds only under certain circumstances (e.g. it is only noticeable at very large scales, it is always attractive, it even holds for entities in which all electrical charges cancel etc. etc. ). I suspect that Milgrom's relation is something like this special "Coulomb's law".
Incidentally, if you did not see the appendix to my paper, you may find it interesting to see the proposed schema of the metahteory.
So, overall it seems that we agree on many of the points albeit for substantial different underlying reasons. Thank you for reading my essay,
All the best,
Armin
view post as summary
Juan Ramón González Álvarez replied on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 16:17 GMT
Dear Armin,
Thank you for emphasizing the analogies on our arguments. It is a good notice for science when two or more lines of reasoning converge at the same point. This increases the confidence of each one of them.
Let me emphasize that my reasons against unitarity are general and apply as well in cases when proper time is not even defined.
There is not problem in defining...
view entire post
Dear Armin,
Thank you for emphasizing the analogies on our arguments. It is a good notice for science when two or more lines of reasoning converge at the same point. This increases the confidence of each one of them.
Let me emphasize that my reasons against unitarity are general and apply as well in cases when proper time is not even defined.
There is not problem in defining the state of a particle in a multiparticle entangled state. Of course, in this case the state cannot be given by a state vector as Dirac first noticed. Observables for each particle are computed in the ordinary way using the state operator for the particle.
Path integrals are not fundamental, they are derived as special case for a restricted class of systems. Moreover, in quantum field theory the spacetime associated to the path integrals is dummy and has no physical meaning:
"Every physicist would easily convince himself that all quantum calculations are made in the energy-momentum space and that the Minkowski x^\mu are just dummy variables without physical meaning (although almost all textbooks insist on the fact that these variables are not related with position, they use them to express locality of interactions!)"
--------
H. Bacry
"It is important to note that the x and t that appear in the quantized field A(x, t) are not quantum-mechanical variables but just parameters on which the field operator depends. In particular, x and t should not be regarded as the space-time coordinates of the photon."
----------
J. Sakurai
Regarding GR, my point is not that "GR cannot, according to this view, be an ordinary (quantum) field theory". What I am emphasizing is that GR fails to satisfy dynamical and energetic consistency even at the classical field theory level. This is the reason which GR is plagued with a number of serious difficulties as described in textbooks. Such difficulties are absent in the Field Theory of Gravity (FTG).
The idea that Milgrom law can be reproduced by a scale modification of some existent law is not new. It has been explored by many but it does not work, because Milgrom law is an acceleration scale modification of Newtonian mechanics. It does not predict deviations from Newtonian gravity for certain distances (.e.g. galactic scale), but deviations for certain accelerations below the Milgrom one. In my own work I derive all observed phenomena plus the value of this acceleration scale.
With my best regards.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Member Hector Zenil wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 05:46 GMT
Dear Armin,
I think you make a fair and sound case against the idea of a ToE (yet I don't think the idea of a ToE is as generally accepted as your essay may suggest). I wonder what is your position regarding information theory as a possible mean to reconnect areas of physics currently disconnected, perhaps even creating an overlapping dimension between quantum mechanics and general relativity as it is turning out to be the case with some proposals of quantum gravity (specially around ideas related to black holes).
Also, you make a fair historical account of previous unifications, but I wonder (and you don't seem to mention) whether back then they thought that these then unrelated areas had no overlapping whatsoever. I guess it was this was the case, but as someone interested in philosophy (and perhaps history) you could tell us something about it. If history tells us that it has always been the case that such connections were completely unforeseeable and that we have basically connected most theories of different natural phenomena, from the historical point of view it seems that thinking of a ToE is justifiable, to say the least.
report post as inappropriate
Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 19:01 GMT
Dear Hector,
Thank you for raising some extremely interesting questions. I would love to discuss them without the restraints of space and time, but this is not always possible, so I will attempt to give reasonably concise answers.
1. Re: Information theory. Given that I don't have much knowledge in this area, I am agnostic on your specific question, mainly because I don't trust...
view entire post
Dear Hector,
Thank you for raising some extremely interesting questions. I would love to discuss them without the restraints of space and time, but this is not always possible, so I will attempt to give reasonably concise answers.
1. Re: Information theory. Given that I don't have much knowledge in this area, I am agnostic on your specific question, mainly because I don't trust myself to know what has yet to be imagined in the future.
I can perhaps give a more satisfactory answer about my point of view on the interpretation of information as a foundation for reality, a view one does find occasionally, particularly in the area of quantum foundations (If I am not mistaken, Anton Zeilinger is a prominent proponent of such a view). I am sympathetic to this view, for if this turns out to be true, then, it seems to me, it would effectively unify mathematics with physics.
There are, however, two profound problems that I see, and I'm not sure due to my lack of a deep understanding of the subject matter whether these are genuinely original objections or problems solved a long time ago, or even worse, non-problems or reflections of my personal misunderstanding. Should the latter be the case, please do let me know, so that I can correct my mistakes.
1) The problem of the "map": Suppose Wheeler's "it from bit" is true, it seems to me then that there is a "map" which leads one from "information" to "substance"(using this term to stand in for concrete physical quantities like matter, energy, space and time). The reverse "map" seems to be pretty well understood: we can think of "information" generically as some pattern of distinctions in otherwise formless "substance" , but I have difficulty envisaging the "map" that leads the other way around. Of course, an extreme proponent of "reality is information" might say that the map is a simple isomorphism, but to me that seems merely a case of "defining the problem away". What does it really mean to claim this? How does it contribute to the understanding that purportedly a quantity of "substanceless" information is equivalent to a quantity of "substance"? Moreover, if there really was such an isomorphism should it not be impossible to draw distinctions between the knowledge about a system and the reality of the system itself? The mere fact that we can easily conceive of situations in which such distinctions occur would seem to serve as a counterexample to this argument. One can also turn this around: Consider a scenario in which a quantum system has undergone one of those "measurements" in which the observer could "in principle" know the state of the system but in practice doesn't. The state collapses, and its information is known, but by whom? A hypothetical observer? If so, and information is reality, then a hypothetical observer, who only exists as an "informational construct", as it were, would seem to have to be every bit as real as an actual one. Is this a tenable position to hold?
I suspect that if we better understood the "map" that leads from information to substance (assuming it really exists) then many of these problems would suddenly become resolved in an obvious manner.
2) The information vs. Substance chicken vs. egg problem: Let us suppose the map exists and we are able to describe its nature satisfactorily. Then we would have grounds for claiming that there is a certain type of "fundamental" information (namely the kind which does not depend on any kind of "substance" in order to exist) which leads to "substance". But we know that there is also less fundamental information, namely the kind which does depend on substance for its existence. If so, could it not be the case that there exists also a more "fundamental" kind of substance which underlies our original "fundamental" kind of information? And if that is the case, is it not possible to continue this on in the manner of an infinite regress?
Again, I'm not sure how worthwhile these arguments are but they are at least the hurdles that strike me as the ones that need to be overcome before one can seriously consider information as a basis for reality.
Finally, on your question on whether the connections were completely unforeseeable. I'm not sure that this is completely right. Let's take E&M as an example: Oersted discovered the induced magnetic field in 1820, and Faraday surely had already a good conceptual picture of the relation between the fields at least in some settings well before Maxwell's treatise. So I would argue that the unification was, at least for over 40 years prior to its occurrence, not completely unforeseeable.
There is, however, a more interesting angle which adds some support to your point of view. It was only with the advent of special relativity that people could appreciate that it is not the fields that are the fundamental objects of the classical electromagnetic theory but the electromagnetic field tensor, for, as you know, that is the true spacetime object underlying the fields. I completely agree that before SR, this more unified understanding of the fields was indeed completely unforeseeable. Now, the irony here is that, since relativity is profoundly concerned with the concept of a reference frame, in this case, a deeper understanding of this concept led to a more unified picture.
But as I argue in my paper, our current conception of a reference frame is still not the deepest conception, and the unexpected nature of expanding this aspect leaves the door open for future developments in our understanding to be different from past ones in regards to unification.
Furthermore, as I pointed out toward the end of my essay, one can have multiple deeply significant trends in the history of science the resolution of one of which may well portend the termination of the other. It seems rather arbitrary to say that one trend is more important than the other, which is what would have to effectively do in order to ignore the consequences of this interplay between the trends.
I included the historical discussion in my essay precisely because I wanted to give the reader a greater sense for these broader considerations that surround the question of the existence of a theory of everything.
I hope that I was able to usefully address your questions,
All the best,
Armin
view post as summary
Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 15:05 GMT
Dear Armin Nikkhah Shirazi
Did we form the word "myth"?
Unfortunately, I have to oppose you.
Hopefully not so that you ignore essay and my new theory.
Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY
August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 16:50 GMT
Armin
Can you advise if I'm a scientist or artist? Astronomy perhaps is clear, but an Architect? and a racing yachtsman? In the former I am creating a sculpture which people view internally as well as externally, must sit harmoneously in it's context, and give confidence but also delight and inspire. Yet it is made of precisely specified materials, I must design or consider structure, heating, cooling, ventilation, natural and artificial lighting, renewables, sound etc. etc, which is all science. I see no distinction in my work as each is intermingled with the other.
Similarly with sailing. It's an art intuitively steering a boat though changing waves and wind to maximise speed, but at the same time I'd dealing with aero and hydrodynamics, mast and sail shape and multiple instrument inputs. I can 'feel' the water over the rudder and know in advance of any flow separation. The superposed surface waves also appear random, but always have a hidden pattern allowing a good helmsman to anticipate and 'set up' each impact, or use each wave face downwind. Fourier transforms on the fly!
I also part designed my current boat, she is both beautiful and very efficient. How can I draw a line anywhere there between art and science. I can only 'impose' a division to suit words we have invented. What is it I'm missing? Can you identify which of natures own natural divisions match ours?
Having said that, I still agree entirely with the rest of your thesis as referred above. I can never truly anticipate the '7th wave' a priori from topology due to the massive complexity. Your essay should be higher and my score should help. I hope you're able to read and comment on mine.
Best of luck
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 19:34 GMT
Ah, I think I better understand your perspective. It seems to me that you are saying that if a practitioner of the arts and/or the sciences can see aspects in his practice that appear to fall equally well into either domain, then this is a reflection of the inherent unity between those subjects.
From this point of view, the issue becomes a bit tricky, because a lot depends on how you define 'the arts' or 'the sciences'. Let me state my belief that it is always possible to find a definition for either field that is broad enough that you will always find examples that validate your point of view. So in this sense, we agree.
The danger I see, however, is that if a field is defined overly broadly, the definition becomes less meaningful, and in the most extreme situations it could become meaningless.
If I, say, mix some kool aid in water, am I doing physics? Well, again, I believe you can always find a definition in support of affirming this question. After all, in order to achieve the desired result, I might have to precisely weigh a quantity of powder and/or measure out a precise quantity of liquid. Perhaps to achieve the right kind of temperature I could also calculate how much ice to add using the specific heat capacity of ice and water. I might try to be careful not to add too much energy to the system via mixing (after all, this was basically the method Joule used to estimate the mechanical equivalent of heat) and so on.
The point is, yes, you can defend this point of view, but it just seems a lot more reasonable to me to say that I am not doing physics, I'm just mixing some kool aid. If I did consider this as doing physics, then, yes of course, by the same reasoning, everything becomes everything.
This is certainly a very unified point of view, but does it really add any deeper understanding?
Thanks for sharing your perspective,
Armin
Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 18:09 GMT
Armin
Thanks. I agree deeper understanding is the thing, which is where I came in stage left with my own essay. There I did not find unity added to deeper understanding, but found the deeper understanding led to unity of the quanta and classical. I suppose that is symmetrical?
I can't recall if you've read it but please do if you haven't. Do you know how the harmonic synchronisation of the iambic pentameter works?
Very best of luck.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Inger Stjernqvist wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 15:02 GMT
Dear Armin,
I'm here to learn! So I have re.read your essay again. Your reasoning about size, dimensionality, actual and actrualizability excites my courisity.
In your Appendix you write "For instance, of two 3-D objects of same shape but different size, the smaller one has more units of area per unit of volume than the larger one, which can be interpreted as the smaller object being more 2-dimensional than the larger one..."
Does this mean that the smaller object is less acrual than the larger one, in a 3-dimensional frame of reference? This is how I intepret your schema.
Analoguously, of two 2-D objects of same shape but different size, the smaller one has more units of length per unit of area than the larger one, which can be interpreted as the smaller object being more 1-dimensional than the larger one.
Does this mean that the smaller object is less actural than the larger one in Flatland - and even less actual in a 3-dimensional frame of reference? Would this be the reason behind quark confinement?
In your schema, you place dark energy in the fourth dimension of observed event (box 4.3). How would we, in our 3-dimensional frame of reference, experience a 4-dimensional phenomenon? I have read somewhere - but unfortunately forgot where - that we would experience its impact equally in all directions. The accelerating expansion of the Universe is equal in all directions. As is also the CBR.
Would placing the CBR in the same box as dark energy (4.3) facilitate an alternative to the Big Bang theory?
Best regards!
Inger
report post as inappropriate
Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 20:30 GMT
Dear Inger,
Thank you so much for your interest, and your investment of time and attention. I am certainly happy to attempt to answer your questions.
You said:
"Does this mean that the smaller object is less acrual than the larger one, in a 3-dimensional frame of reference? This is how I intepret your schema. "
I suspect you might have meant "actual" (at least that way...
view entire post
Dear Inger,
Thank you so much for your interest, and your investment of time and attention. I am certainly happy to attempt to answer your questions.
You said:
"Does this mean that the smaller object is less acrual than the larger one, in a 3-dimensional frame of reference? This is how I intepret your schema. "
I suspect you might have meant "actual" (at least that way I can understand your question). Well, this is a bit tricky for me to answer because a full explanation depends on ideas that I have not yet publicly discussed or disclosed anywhere and introducing them here informally without detailed background information (as in a paper) does not seem such a good idea. I have already experienced the reactions of people who hear a really strange sounding idea without sufficient backing sufficiently often to know better.
Within the context of the paper and everything else I have discussed so far, the answer is no. The gradations in existence as I have discussed in my paper only apply to actualizable objects. For actual objects, existence is still binary: Either an object actually exists or it doesn't actually exist. Actualizablity, on the other hand can take on intermediate "ontological values", where by ontological value I mean this:
0- it doesn't exist
1- it exists
I did present a fuller description of this in my post above on Sept. 10th 18.36 in response to Jerzy Krol, and hope you don't mind if I refer you to that for more details as it was a bit long.
Having said that the answer is no, I will also mention that I believe that the answer is ultimately a qualified yes. I actually don't believe that actual existence is binary, but a quantity. Explaining my reasons for believing this at this point would take me too far. Suffice it say that if you can have quantitative gradations between actual existence, then of course it implies that some objects can be less actually existing than others, and you could create situations in which smaller objects are less actual than larger ones, but I would like to emphasize that in this case size is not the relevant factor, rather it is the energy-momentum associated with the object. Again, if this sounds really strange, just ignore this paragraph until I have had time to present my argument in a detailed paper at some future date.
What the schema does is to present a broad pattern into which we might be able to fit our current theories to obtain an overview of how they relate to each other. while there is a definite relation between size and dimensionality, the boundaries between the integer dimensionalities have to be abrupt to keep the domains of the theories apart. I envision this very much in analogy to phase transitions. As you heat, say, a quantity of water under constant pressure its temperature only increases up to a certain point, beyond that it becomes something that is macroscopically totally different, even though it is composed of the same basic building blocks.
You said:"
Analoguously, of two 2-D objects of same shape but different size, the smaller one has more units of length per unit of area than the larger one, which can be interpreted as the smaller object being more 1-dimensional than the larger one.
Does this mean that the smaller object is less actural than the larger one in Flatland - and even less actual in a 3-dimensional frame of reference? Would this be the reason behind quark confinement?"
Well, here I can only give a metaphysical speculation, but it does not seem unreasonable to me to believe that when 2-dimensional objects are observed in a 2-DFR, the same kinds of distinctions and relations apply as those between 3-dimensional objects as observed in a 3-DFR.
It would be very foolish of me to speculate on any direct relations between this framework at this stage of development and quark confinement. The task ahead to seriously answer this question is as follows:
1. Find the underlying physical description that gives rise to the SU(2) symmetry of the weak force and the SU(3) symmetry of the strong force (I believe that the mechanism I described, namely that the phase factor exp{tau/tau_A) arises from an indirect mechanism for comparing distinct proper times already gives an underlying physical description to the U(1) symmetry, as it can be directly related to the phase factor and a change in the gauge associated with the potential of the relevant field).
2. Once the underlying physical description for the symmetries is found, map the associated Lie Algebra to underlying physical processes in lower-dimensional analogs as observed by higher-dimensional observers.
3. Discover (hopefully!) a fundamental reason why quark confinement must arise as a direct consequence of this deeper physical understanding (rather than as a "patch" which one could uncharitably say how it was originally discovered).
So connecting my framework to quark confinement is far from a trivial task. It may well take me years (if it is even possible).
You said: "In your schema, you place dark energy in the fourth dimension of observed event (box 4.3). How would we, in our 3-dimensional frame of reference, experience a 4-dimensional phenomenon? I have read somewhere - but unfortunately forgot where - that we would experience its impact equally in all directions. The accelerating expansion of the Universe is equal in all directions. As is also the CBR.
Would placing the CBR in the same box as dark energy (4.3) facilitate an alternative to the Big Bang theory?"
As to how we would experience a higher dimensional phenomenon, the honest answer is that I don't know. However, I can offer a speculation based, again, on an analogy with phase transitions: From the perspective of a molecule sized observer it would seem very strange that above a certain average random motion, the molecules forming a substance suddenly seem to be a lot less constrained and literally fly off in all directions. An observer our size has no trouble with this: We might just say that the substance changed, say, from a liquid state to a gaseous state. In this analogy, one could imagine that we are like the molecule sized observer, and the human-sized observer is like the observer with a 4-DFR.
The point is, we might not see any direct "extra" objects, but instead unexpected behavior of objects we already have observed at very large scales, which indeed we do.
The CBR is most fundamentally an aggregation of photons, so it should properly be placed in the (2,3) box. However it can be a marker of what, in a sense, is going on in spacetime. The visual analogy of here might be that if you spill some paint on a balloon, and then expand the balloon, the paint spots will increase in size but become less dense.
i hope I was able to answer your questions, If you have more, don't hesitate to ask (It may take a few days for me to respond, due to my combined school and work schedule).
Thank you again so much for your interest,
All the best,
Armin
view post as summary
Inger Stjernqvist replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 13:25 GMT
Dear Armin,
I am most grateful for your long and detailed answer! Like I said, I'm here to learn. The possibility to read interesting essays and be a part of this community was the major reason for me to enter my own (amateurish) essay into the contest. I very much look forward to follow your future publications. Will I find them where I found your lecture in Vaxjo?
My very best wishes!
Inger
report post as inappropriate
Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 09:27 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 @ 06:11 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
Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 16:28 GMT
Hi Sergey,
I think the whole notion of authors being able to vote on each others' essays is problematic because of the inherent conflict of interest and because of the possibility of "gaming the system". If it absolutely has to be that way, then in my view it should be so that one knows nothing about where someone's essay ranks until the voting period is over, that way people can vote largely based on the merits of the essay, and not extraneous considerations like trying to advance or demote the ranking of a particular essay.
I had not so long ago suggested to Max Tegmark that the voting procedure in these essay contests should be abandoned, but I guess the folks at FQXi see greater value in keeping it, most likely because of the engagement factor.
Armin
Georgina Woodward wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 10:28 GMT
Dear Armin Nikkhah Shirazi,
sorry it has taken so long for me to get to your essay. I have not spent as long with it as I would like but have found it well explained and interesting to me.
There is some overlap in our thinking.A 2 dimensional pre space-time 'thing that might be actualised' particularly struck my attention.
QM and relativity are IMHO related to different facets of reality. Potential sensory data within the unobserved pre-space-time that I call Object reality, and the fabricated space-time output of sensory data processing. Decoherence (or wave function collapse) being the transition from considering one facet to considering the other.
Good luck, Kind regards Georgina
report post as inappropriate
Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 16:34 GMT
Dear Georgina,
No problem, thank you for taking the time to read it.
I agree that, broadly speaking, "QM and relativity are ...related to different facets of reality." and indeed that was the central point of my essay, for if this is truly the case, we cannot have the kind of unified theory of nature that is almost universally assumed to exist.
While I agree that wave function collapse brings about the transition from one domain of nature to the other, I see this less so with Decoherence, because under decoherence you still have superposition even though it is less apparent. This is not to say that decoherence is not important, I believe it is, I just do not see it as the solution for understanding how a classical world arises from an underlying quantum reality.
Thank you for your comments,
Armin
Member Gheorghe-Sorin Sorin Paraoanu wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 20:16 GMT
Hi Armin,
I really enjoyed realding your essay. Very clearly written and very catchy!
I was a bit surprised that you discuss the conceptual tension between quantum superpositions and gravitation without mentioning the theoretical ideas of Penrose and Diosi (gravitationally-induced decoherence) and also without mentioning the experimental efforts in this diection (for example at Leiden).
But maybe it's better that you are not aware of all these ... it has allow you to make some interesting arguments (e.g. about the non-identity of the concept of mass in QM and GR) in some undexpected directions - for me at least.
Best of luck in the competition!
report post as inappropriate
Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 17:04 GMT
Dear Gheorghe,
Thank you so much for your positive comments. It turns out when I first discussed my ideas in depth with some of my professors early last year, two of them did note some similarity with Penrose's idea. I subsequently attempted to contact him to see what he, as the originator his framework, thought, but unfortunately never got a reply back.
I think that there are some similarities, but there is a major difference which makes the two frameworks really different, and actually incompatible with each other. The best I can tell, Penrose's framework still (at least implicitly) assumes that the concepts of mass in the two theories is the same, but that is, as you know the key distinction of my framework.
It did not occur to me that it would be relevant to mention Penrose' idea, but now that you have mentioned it, perhaps I should have.
As for the Leiden Experiments, I am in fact unaware of what you are referring to. A quick google search revealed the name of Dirk Brouwmeester, and a plan for an experiment using a mirror in a superposition, but I could not find an actual experiment. I would be very grateful if you could clarify what you were referring to.
Thank you again,
Armin
Edward J. Gillis wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 11:45 GMT
Armin,
Congratulations on your good showing in the contest. I am sorry that I did not have time to more thoroughly evaluate and discuss your essay. Perhaps, we can communicate by e-mail when things are less hectic. Good Luck.
Ed
report post as inappropriate
Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 17:09 GMT
Thank you Ed,
It looks like it was not enough to make it to the top 35, but at least I had an opportunity to introduce some of my ideas to a broader audience than I could have otherwise.
I would be really interested in an exchange as you propose as I think that you are a thoughtful person who is technically very knowledgeable in this area. Given that I go to school and work full-time I suffer some similar constraints as you do with respect to time, but it would be great if we could pursue such an exchange of minds.
Best Wishes,
Armin
Anonymous wrote on Oct. 13, 2012 @ 11:39 GMT
Dear Armin
Your bold claims against this essay contest deserve further clarification from you. Please return and answer the questions made
here or
here
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.