Search FQXi


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

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

Contests Home


Previous Contests

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

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

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

read/discusswinners

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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 10/7/12 at 12:42pm UTC, wrote Dear Garnet! Sorry could not read your essay before, during rating. 1. I...

Garnet: on 10/6/12 at 10:24am UTC, wrote Hi Donatello, Thanks for the comments! I shall read your articles with...

Garnet Ord: on 10/5/12 at 18:22pm UTC, wrote Hi Jonathan, thanks for the kind comments. I look forward to reading your...

Donatello Dolce: on 10/5/12 at 14:08pm UTC, wrote dear Garnet, exellent essay. R. Guy Grantham has told me about your work....

Jonathan Dickau: on 10/4/12 at 5:35am UTC, wrote I wanted to mention; I particularly liked the opening of your essay,...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 4:31am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Jonathan Dickau: on 10/4/12 at 3:50am UTC, wrote Hello Garnet, Your essay was an interesting and fun read for me. A lot of...

Curt Youngs: on 10/1/12 at 12:47pm UTC, wrote I agree with Pencho. It is not about intuition, it is about logic. I...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

James Putnam: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..." in Black Hole Photographed...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." in The Nature of Time


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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

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

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

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

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


FQXi FORUM
May 23, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: What Is Wrong With Spacetime? by Garnet Ord [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Garnet Ord wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 16:04 GMT
Essay Abstract

We ask the question in the title in the context that the two postulates leading to spacetime seem to have clear physical content. However, spacetime does not appear to discover or foreshadow quantum mechanics. We question the reason for this by examining a model clock.

Author Bio

Garnet Ord is a Faculty member in the mathematics department at Ryerson university. Much of his research looks for a statistical mechanical layer beneath quantum mechanics.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 20:16 GMT
"in finite frequency limit"

Iinfinite or limit?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 20:19 GMT
Garnet,

You wrote: "The concept of spacetime is a case in point. We can access it efficiently through Einstein's two postulates and it is convincing because the postulates themselves seem straightforward and unambiguous. It is so convincing in fact that we might wonder "What is wrong with the two postulates that their invocation fails to uncover quantum mechanics?"

The second...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Garnet Ord replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 10:26 GMT
Hello,

I agree that the second postulate is non-intuitive and difficult to reconcile with the Newtonian picture that seems so natural at terrestrial speeds. However the essay is less about the validity of the postulate and more about a what-if scenario where we relax the classical picture of smooth worldlines between events. By examining how a simple digital clock works under these circumstances one can see interesting connections to quantum mechanics.

Bookmark and Share


Curt Youngs replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 12:47 GMT
I agree with Pencho. It is not about intuition, it is about logic. I disagree with Pencho in that the situation requires the "ballistic interpretation." Whereas a pulse of light seems to act like a particle in that it has a beginning and an end, and if emitted from a coherent collimated laser, stays relatively compact as it radiates, a strobe flash radiates in a hemispheric pattern, any given observer only intercepting a portion thereof. The wave interpretation has more going for it.

See: A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory

See also my essay: A Logical Analysis of Albert Einstein's Mirror-Light-Clock Gedankin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 00:17 GMT
Dear Dr. Ord,

I found your essay extremely interesting and will return to it for a second read to better understand the concepts you presented. Upon the first reading, I have the impression that there may be certain similarities in our ideas at which we may have arrived from completely different perspectives.

On the apparent disconnect between QM and the two postulates of SR, have...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Garnet Ord replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 10:47 GMT
Hi Armin,

thanks for the comments. I agree there are definite similarities with the ideas you suggest. I shall read your work on QM and relativity with interest!

Bookmark and Share



Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 04:27 GMT
Dear Mr. Ord,

I have read your paper - at least in parts. I was impressed by your approach: It was fascinating to see how you could reveal parts of reality that are in a way obscured by the maps we use. You are asking: What is wrong with the two postulates of special relativity that their invocation fails to uncover quantum mechanics?

To demonstrate this failure you have...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Garnet Ord replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 10:58 GMT
Hello Helmut,

thanks for the comments. I look forward to reading your paper.

Bookmark and Share



Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 06:05 GMT
Dear Garnet Ord,

In Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter model of universe two types of space-time is expressional; one is to describe the motion of orbital-matters in an eigen-rotational string in that the space-time is continuum and the other is to describe the motion of projectile trajectory of independent macro objects of dense tetrahedral-branes, in that the space-time is discrete.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Garnet Ord replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 11:02 GMT
Hello Jayakar,

thanks for the link.

Bookmark and Share



Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 16:35 GMT
Dear Garnet Ord,

Thank you for your essay. Your 'particle-clocks' idea provides an interesting approach to 'what is wrong with spacetime'. Let me suggest another reason for this. Compatible with your keen mathematical analysis. As you point out in your essay, “The [Spacetime] requirement that particles move on smooth worldlines violates the uncertainty principle.” and “Since...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Garnet Ord replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 11:15 GMT
Hi Constantinos,

thanks for the comment. I would be very interested to see the second law used to consider the picture of events as having finite duration vs events as a 'points'. I will read the chapter with interest.

Bookmark and Share


Constantinos Ragazas replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 14:01 GMT
Dear Garnet,

Thanks for your interest in my Chapter (and my essay). There is much in it and can be a little confusing upon the first reading to unravel the results. But specifically on your stated interest of 'my take' on the Second Law. Let me give you a little guidance on how this comes about.

One of the many results to come out of my derivation of Planck's formula for blackbody...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hou Ying Yau wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 03:52 GMT
Dear Garnet,

Your idea is very interesting. It is a mystery that matter has a frequency but its amplitude has only a probabilistic meaning. I share the same idea of a clockwork in a particle. In fact, I have used a similar idea but assuming the particle has a vibration of time rate in my essay and is able to obtain the properties of a particle field. I am reading other papers in the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Garnet Ord wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 11:11 GMT
Hello Yau,

thanks for the comments. Please send me an email if you would like more discussion.

In answer to the first question, the 'moving clock will run slow'. This feature is controlled by the fixed spacetime area between audible events. It is actually the fact that the invariant is an area, that leads to wave propagation and the uncertainty principle in the 'chessboard'...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Hou Ying Yau replied on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 17:43 GMT
Dear Garnet,

Your model has very interesting features using 4 states for the internal clock that lead to some familar properties of Dirac propagator. The model that I developed in my essay has fluctuations in time rate which can produce the quantum field for a zero spin particle. It also has properties that I hope can resolve some fundamental questions for non-locality. The future step...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 17:45 GMT
Dear Garnet,

You have written a very interesting and relevant essay. I have a few questions:

1. Do the causal dymanical triangulations people know about your work? I notice that you referenced the paper by Ambjorn, Jurkiewicz, and Loll.

2. Two different possible “methods of quantization” are confusing me. Following your discussion of continuous spacetime as an infinite...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Garnet Ord replied on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 20:54 GMT
Hi Ben,

thanks for your comments and questions. To save space, I use your numbering system below.

1) I am not sure, but in general I think the relevant binary relation is not symmetric.;-)

2) Up to the middle of page 5, the infinite frequency limit has been taken as in Fig. 3a. The result is Equation (7). The lowest order approximation of this clock is (6) and because it is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Member Benjamin F. Dribus replied on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 02:15 GMT
Dear Garnet,

Thanks for the detailed reply! By the way, have you studied Sorkin's classical sequential growth for causal sets at all? The reason I ask is because this is a stochastic model which is as "primitive as possible," and I wonder how it compares to your view of an underlying statistical structure. I don't agree with all of Sorkin's postulates, but my own ideas are fairly close to his in spirit; in particular, theories like CDT assume a lot of structure that I would prefer to try to explain. Take care,

Ben

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 16:04 GMT
Dear

Very interesting to see your essay.

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

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

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 03:50 GMT
Hello Garnet,

Your essay was an interesting and fun read for me. A lot of the content resonates with me, as well, and I touch on fractal spacetime and other related topics in my own contest essay 'Cherished Assumptions and the Progress of Physics.' You make excellent use of equations and diagrams to render technical aspects of your model accessible in a non-intimidating way. I'm trying to get through a large number of essays right now, but I may have some questions or comments a bit later.

Thanks for some enjoyable reading. That's a nice clock you have.

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Garnet Ord replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 18:22 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

thanks for the kind comments. I look forward to reading your essay.

Bookmark and Share



Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 04:31 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 [equation] and [equation] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [equation] of points. After it anyone give you [equation] of points so you have [equation] of points and [equation] is the common quantity of the people which gave...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 05:35 GMT
I wanted to mention;

I particularly liked the opening of your essay, Garnet, in analogy of Korzybski's 'the word is not the thing, the map is not the territory...' I do hope to get back and comment further, but in the meanwhile - good luck.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Donatello Dolce wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 14:08 GMT
dear Garnet,

exellent essay. R. Guy Grantham has told me about your work. Actually we both describe particles as reference clocks, see my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1519 or my publications on arxiv. You deserve a hugh rate.

Best regards,

Donatello

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Garnet replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 10:24 GMT
Hi Donatello,

Thanks for the comments! I shall read your articles with interest.

Best wishes,

Garnet

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 12:42 GMT
Dear Garnet!

Sorry could not read your essay before, during rating.

1. I also love the geography, moved in my life in different places more than 70 times, but I think that we need not geography, and a new deep ontology. We must remember that as well as mathematics and physics, including basic theories of physics-QM and GR - is operational theory, not ontologically grounded. They work in some parts of the whole world. Mathematics - science also not ontologically grounded. So now the main problem of fundamental physics - the problem of FOUNDATION KNOWLEDGE. And for that we need a new ontological revolution. We need a new conceptual ontological revolution to "grab" (understand) the desired structure of space-time.

2. Archaeology can also be an assistant in order to know how a person ("Protogeometr" - Edmund Husserl "Getting geometry") and learned the triunity of absolute forms of existence of matter.

3. Your drawings are great, but they do not overcome linear thinking. It is therefore necessary to take only three of the state vector - an equilateral triangle, as a representative of the Logos and the triunity of absolute forms of existence of matter, and analyze its invariants.

4. Many physicists want to "kill time". But to «kill time» is to kill the "memory." There is only one way: a new model of the universe is a model of an ETERNAL UNIVERSE. Here mathematics (especially geometry) comes to the fore as the language of nature.

Sincerely, Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.