FQXi Community

Essay Abstract

A consistent theory of nature must account for both microscopic quantum waves and macroscopic relativistic particle trajectories. In the recent "New Quantum Paradigm", locally realistic rotating vector fields comprise fundamental particles with spin. These same coherent quantum rotators constitute local clocks that define local time, in a way that agrees with general relativity to first order, but provides surprising new insights (e.g., no black holes). This paradigm avoids conventional paradoxes of quantum indeterminacy and entanglement. All information on quantum systems follows directly from the dynamics of real fields in real space; no further information is obtained by reference to abstract quantum Hilbert space. This simple but unconventional picture provides a consistent unified foundation for all of modern physics.

Author Bio

Alan M. Kadin has been thinking about quantum foundations for 40 years, since his Princeton undergraduate thesis on hidden variables in quantum mechanics. His Ph.D. in Physics at Harvard was on superconducting devices, followed by postdocs at SUNY Stony Brook and University of Minnesota. Dr. Kadin pursued a research career in superconducting devices, in both industry and academia, at Energy Conversion Devices (Troy, MI), University of Rochester, and from 2000-2012 at Hypres, Inc. (Elmsford, NY). Last year he submitted an essay entitled “The Rise and Fall of Wave-Particle Duality”. He now lives in Princeton Junction, NJ, USA.

Download Essay PDF File

Alan

“The resolution to this paradox involves the use of the local quantum rotators as reference clocks”.

The resolution of this paradox actually involves realising that the concept of relativity is incorrect. And one of the reasons for this was a misunderstanding of how timing works. There is no ‘local time’. There is only ‘the time’. Timing devices only ‘tell’ the time, ie the timing reference is a conceptual constant rate of change. That is why the devices are synchronised, otherwise the system is useless. This local time concept reflects Poincaré’s flawed concept of simultaneity. Any given occurrence can only exist at a specific time. The concept of time is associated with the rate of alteration, ie the ‘turnover’ rate of realities. That is, it is not a feature of any given reality, but an aspect of the difference between realities.

And remember, light is the means by which we are enabled to have awareness of reality, ie it enables sight, it is not the reality.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Apr. 20, 2013 @ 16:02 GMT

Paul,

Thank you for your comment, but the concept of absolute Newtonian time is contrary to physical evidence. Time is defined by standard atomic clocks, which may vary at different locations. As discussed in my essay, such variations can be obtained from a simple quantum picture based on special relativity, without invoking general relativity or curved space. This is quite remarkable, and has not previously been obtained in this way. Furthermore, a self-consistent treatment shows that singularities associated with event horizons are avoided, and black holes do not exist. This is quite heretical; everyone from Hawking on down firmly believes in black holes.

Alan

Paul Reed replied on Apr. 21, 2013 @ 04:58 GMT

Alan

“Time is defined by standard atomic clocks, which may vary at different locations”

Not so. The time is not defined by any given timing device. These just ‘tell’ the time. That is, within the realms of practicality, they all relate to a conceptual constant rate of change, otherwise the measuring system is useless. This is why atomic clocks are used as a manifestation of that conceptual reference, because they are accurate, and why all timing devices are synchronised, because they need to be related to this reference.

Leaving aside what SR is, which Einstein defined (it is not 1905), no such variations can be identified through any route, because they do not occur. At any given time, there is a definitive physically existent state. The incorrect notion of the relativity of this state stems from his failure to understand timing (via Poincaré) and lack of differentiation between existent reality and an existent representation of this (eg light). In other words, the variation which he attributes to reality is in fact the timing differential in the receipt of light (ie observation). These mistakes are obvious in 1905, section 1 part 1.

Timing is a measuring system which is calibrating the rate a which alteration occurs, ie a physically existent state is superseded by another.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Apr. 21, 2013 @ 09:57 GMT

Paul,

So do I understand correctly that you do not believe in relativistic changes in clock rates? Then how do you account for the proper operation of the Global Positioning System (GPS), which requires relativistic corrections of atomic clocks for accurate positioning? See, for example,

Relativistic Effects on Clocks Aboard GPS Satellites ,

Wikipedia article on GPS.

Alan

show all replies (4 not shown)

Paul Reed replied on Apr. 21, 2013 @ 15:45 GMT

Alan

Whether the tick rate of a timing device is subject to physical influence is another matter, but is irrelevant to time. The device is a device, it 'tells' the time, it is not time.

The same applies to spatial measuring devices. Within the realms of practicality, rulers are made to exacting standards and of material which resists external influence (eg heat). But if a ruler expands with heat we do not presume the reality has altered. That is because, as with timing, the reference for the system is a conceptual constant, in this case a spatial matrix. In timing it is a rate of change.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Stephen Crowley replied on Apr. 24, 2013 @ 18:17 GMT

GPS might not actually be operating 'correctly' and in fact might be dragging things around unnecessarily due to indirect couplings over the internet and geolocation IP databases...

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Apr. 24, 2013 @ 19:17 GMT

Stephen

You may or may not be correct. But attempting to 'solve' The GPS 'issue' misses the point. Timing devices are not time, they tell the time. Physicaal existence (as knowable to us-and this is science not religion) can only occur in a sequence of discrete existent states with no form of indfiniteness or alteration therein. So the issue becomes how does that work in practice and how does this impact on certain well known 'theories'.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 22, 2013 @ 16:45 GMT

Dear Alan,

You wrote "the concept of absolute Newtonian time is contrary to physical evidence". While I am inclined to again appreciate some of your heretical thoughts, I would like to know what evidence you referred to.

It happens I share Paul's view: We may blame Einstein for adopting from Poincaré or perhaps his teacher Alfred Potier a principle of synchronization that was only correct on condition there is no relative motion between emitter A and reflector B. Otherwise it destroys the symmetry and synchrony between A and B. Einstein made the next mistake when he calculated with c+v and c-v and arrived at the unfounded conclusion that two events that are simultaneous if seen from one coordinate system must not be considered simultaneous if seen from a coordinate system in relative motion to it. Actually, it is only reasonable to attribute the velocity of light to the distance between the position of the emitter at the moment of emission and the position of the detector at the moment of detection divided by the time of flight.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

hide replies

In my essay, BITTERS, I have carefully explained how one real Universe actually operates. Your essay’s opening contention that “A consistent theory of nature must account for microscopic quantum waves and macroscopic relativistic particle trajectories,” is wrong. Fabricated microscopic quantum waves and fabricated macroscopic relativistic particle trajectories are completely unnatural and have nothing whatsoever to do with reality. As far as I can gather, there are holes all over the place. Each person totes around 9 major holes in their bodies and myriads of tiny holes in their skins everywhere they go. Although the smaller holes seem to be invisible, the majority of the larger bodily holes seem to be of a dark color. No building can be accessed except through a hole. All pipework requires a hole.

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Apr. 21, 2013 @ 10:11 GMT

Joe,

Thank you for your comment, but I can't make any sense out of what you're saying. You talk about "holes", but this word does not appear at all in your essay.

Alan

Joe Fisher replied on Apr. 23, 2013 @ 15:00 GMT

Alan,

I may have bit off more than I could eschew!

report post as inappropriate

Alan, Nice essay. You have certainly gone for the heretical approach, but it would solve a lot of problems if you are right. Question is, does it create nre ones that are worse?

Since you are making radical claims that must affect known physics can you provide any predictions or observations that would distinguish your theories from the standard models, or are all consequences beyond current technology?

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Apr. 21, 2013 @ 22:47 GMT

Philip,

Thank you for reading my essay. There should certainly be phenomena that differ from orthodox theories. I am currently thinking about some of these issues.

One difference would be in the field of quantum computing, which may be slightly beyond current technology, but not by much. The exponential speedup predicted for QC is the primary driver for research funding. That prediction requires quantum entanglement; without this, the entire approach should fail.

With respect to optical quantum entanglement experiments, I have suggested that a linearly polarized single photon is an oxymoron, that this really represents a 2-photon state. This should be directly observable using an appropriate photon detector with high quantum efficiency that can count simultaneous photons.

In my own research field of superconductivity, the standard BCS theory is based on Cooper pairs, a composite quantum state of two electrons. But in my quantum picture, only primary quantum fields (single electrons, photons, and quarks) are true quantum waves; a Cooper pair wavefunction cannot exist. I have developed an alternative theory for superconductivity that requires coherent phonon oscillations; these should be detectable via inelastic scattering.

In particle physics, recent attention has focused on observations of the Higgs boson, a spin-0 fundamental particle that is believed to be responsible for mass in the weak interaction. But in my picture, all fundamental particles have spin; that is the quantity that is quantized. So I would suggest that the recently detected resonance may instead represent a metastable bound state of two primary particles with opposite spin, rather than the long-sought Higgs.

Finally, cosmologists have recently focused on understanding the implications of dark energy, a mysterious antigravity force that pervades the universe, as inferred from observations of red-shifts of distant supernovae. But the same gravitational model that eliminates black holes also appears to eliminate the need for dark energy. This also has some important implications for the early stages of the Big Bang expansion.

But the point of this theory is not that it makes heretical predictions. Instead, I am proposing a natural, elegant theory that provides a unified foundation for all of modern physics, based on real objects with deterministic continuous dynamics in real space. The physics community should not have discarded these classical concepts quite so blithely.

Alan

Dear Alan,

Very interesting easy because I also am on the real spin and real vector field track.

I thought about possible experiments.

I think I could propose an experiment to show a large scale entanglement effect between single silver atoms and their origin evaporation oven content by and alternative double Stern Gerlach experiment.

John S. Bell described his doubts about the Stern Gerlach experiment interpretation in his book: “Speakable and unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics on chapter 16 page 140-141.

Ref, [7].

John Bell argued that there is no logic to be found behind the fact, that there is a so called “absence of smearing” of the particle impact pattern on the screen.

The silver atoms should come out the oven with random orientation, as a consequence Joh Bell argued, the impact on the screen of silver atoms should have a smeared effect.

The proposal for my experiment , is based on the hypothesis that all heated and vaporized silver atoms inside the silver oven are entangled as a whole and that magnetic measurement of one atom travelling outside the oven influences the magnetic polarity of all the other atoms in the oven.

If the oven sends the silver atoms (by shutters) alternately to the two magnets, then the resulting impact pattern on both screens will show an additional BAR in the middle of the original impact pattern. (see figure )

Why? because if the first atom leaves the oven it will have a horizontal spin state perpendicular to the N-S axis of the S_G magnet as left over from the former process of ejection with the entanglement effect on the oven to the opposite 90 degree rotated S-G magnet

See perhaps also: http://vixra.org/pdf/1103.0015v1.pdf

attachments: Dual_Stern_Gerlach_experiment.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Sorry for my mistake;

I wrote:

Very interesting easy because I also am on the real spin and real vector field track.

It should have been:

Very interesting essay because I also am on the real spin and real vector field track.

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Apr. 30, 2013 @ 16:57 GMT

Leo,

Thank you for your interest and your comments. I will review your proposal related to the Stern-Gerlach experiment.

Alan

Hi Alan,

In my opinion this is the best essay in this edition, congratulations. It is nice to finally meet someone who prefers physical intuition rather than pure abstract formalism. Nowadays that approach is very rare.

You claim that “NQP provides a unified basis for classical and modern physics on all scales. All matter and energy are comprised of primary relativistic vector...

view entire post

Hi Alan,

In my opinion this is the best essay in this edition, congratulations. It is nice to finally meet someone who prefers physical intuition rather than pure abstract formalism. Nowadays that approach is very rare.

You claim that “NQP provides a unified basis for classical and modern physics on all scales. All matter and energy are comprised of primary relativistic vector fields (electrons, photons, quarks, etc.) which form into coherent wave packets in real space, similar to solitons.” I have never used the soliton notion but only a more general wavepacket. The reason is that the soliton is to restricted e.g it will never merge. Moreover I start from GR and not SR (I do not need the Einstein equations but the idea that a force field is a manifestation of spacetime geometry) and try to apply that idea to all known fundamental "forces”.

Despite the differences I could not criticize your essay because generally it supports mine and vice versa. The idea of real wave instead of an abstract one is the base. Your “true quantum waves are only present at the bottom of the hierarchy” (taken from your publication http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.5794) comes together with “Quantum waves are not universal aspects of all particles, but rather provide a way to quantize the primary fields”. If I understand well the outcome may mean e.g. that gravity is not a fundamental but emergent force?

Our ideas have a lot of important issues in common e.g. no need for dark matter or energy, no wave-particle duality, no Copenhagen interpretation and the most important scale invariance. However in my case the scale invariance means an universal metric (that I am looking for and it is not FLRW or Einstein metric as they are not really universal).

The Schrödinger’s and Einstein’s ideas of true waves were similar but they were too early in history and their visions were burdened with the yoke of the ether and another initial problems and eventually destroyed for barely 90 years.

In my essay I have tried to focus more on the contest subject so I have not described fully my concept and it can be found in references. I have created the prediction and the experiment proposal based on the spacetime geometry.

As I have mentioned I understand that our ideas are far from identical but as Einstein said “fundamental ideas play the most essential role in forming a physical theory. Books on physics are full of complicated mathematical formulae. But thought and ideas, not formulae, are the beginning of every physical theory. The ideas must later take the mathematical form of a quantitative theory, to make possible the comparison with experiment.”

I have rated your essay 10 so you shall take the first place at the moment (with Community Rating 7)! Congratulations.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Jacek Safuta replied on Apr. 29, 2013 @ 21:43 GMT

I have rated you with 10, but you do not have 7 and only 5,3. Probably the method of rating calculation is more complicated?

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Apr. 30, 2013 @ 16:53 GMT

Jacek,

Thank you for your comments and your rating (which I think should be kept confidential!).

In terms of the role of physical intuition vs. abstract formalism, Einstein also commented, "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. "

Alan

Jacek Safuta replied on May. 3, 2013 @ 09:32 GMT

I am sorry Alan, the rating should be kept confidential. I was too enthusiastic.

report post as inappropriate

Alan,

It's good to see you present another perspective on your theory. We agree in many particulars, but not all. I found your discussion of linearly polarized single photons intriguing. You say:

"This linearly polarized light beam is attenuated until the very low count rate corresponds to discrete single photons. But can one really distinguish that from counterrotating photon pairs?"

Are you ignoring the 'herald' photons, or are you suggesting that, even with the herald's trigger, another photon accompanies the heralded photon?

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Edwin,

Thank you for pointing out the importance of "heralded photons" in single-photon experiments. For those unfamiliar with this, many modern single-photon experiments (including those that address quantum entanglement and Bell's inequalities) are actually done using a source that emits a correlated pair of photons at the same time, in different directions. One member of this pair is used as a trigger, while the other is used in the measurement of interest. This increases the signal-to-noise ratio.

I have suggested that a state identified as a linearly polarized single photon may actually be a simultaneous overlapping pair of circularly polarized (CP) photons. For heralded photons, the source would need to produce two such CP pairs, one of which is used as a trigger and the other for the measurement. I am not (yet) asserting that this will explain all of the experimental results that point to quantum entanglement, but this may represent a new "loophole" in the interpretation that has not yet been closed. Further, there is a new class of single-photon detectors that can accurately measure the energy of an absorbed photon, and such a detector could clearly distinguish the absorption of a single photon from that of two photons at the same time.

Alan

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on May. 3, 2013 @ 19:42 GMT

Alan,

I did not know about the new detector capabilities. It will be fascinating to see if they measure two photons. I hope you are correct, as I too prefer only circular polarization.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

.Alan, I can agree with much that you write, I have raised a simple information-relativity paradox hoping that it will become equally legendary as the 20th century paradoxes in physics.

Recent results in quantum communication, i.e. entangled photons, are in fact an embarrassment to the relativists. You must also remember sitting in an enclosed elevator ones view becomes rather incestuous. I am looking forward to exiting change in science it will come one way or another.

report post as inappropriate

Alan, nice essay. I'd just like to point out that current technology is capable of determining whether black holes are possible. Unless there is something seriously wrong with the scientific establishment, there should be some resolution to the question of black holes by the end of the decade. The missions proposed will be as historic as Eddington's nearly a century ago, whatever the outcome. We live in interesting times.

For example, the Laser Astrometric Test Of Relativity (LATOR) would be capable of duplicating Eddington's measurement of deflection of starlight due to the Sun except with much greater accuracy using laser interferometry. The predicted accuracy is enough to measure the second order term in the expansion of your equation (5) which would be negative in the case of general relativity, and positive with twice the magnitude for the metric in your essay. Yet another choice is the exponential metric which has a positive second order term equal in magnitude to that of general relativity and is an approach I think you would find interesting. In my last year's essay there is a novel derivation based on a modern reformulation of Newtonian gravitational potential energy. -Colin

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan M. Kadin replied on May. 18, 2013 @ 14:51 GMT

Colin,

You make an excellent point. What distinguishes science from pure philosophy is that science is subject to experimental or observational tests that may contradict a theory or interpretation. However, showing that a particular theory is consistent with the given evidence does not prove that the theory will be correct in other regimes. As new evidence becomes available, we should be prepared for surprises that may alter our understanding of the universe.

Alan

Alan,

A very enjoyable read, not just as it's well written and argued but because I agree with not only your thesis but most of the detail. In may ways our essays firmly support each other as they have many basics in common, founded on the power of orbital angular momentum (OAM).

Your approach is well balanced between the theoretic and physical. If anything mine errs more to the physical and experimental proofs, but also delves into some more fundamental limits on mathematical applications to QM. I think you may understand and like my 'test' of OAM and the principles discussed for resolving power in the EPR paradox. I suspect and fear the resolution may be beyond the power of many others to follow. I greatly look forward to your comments.

Best of luck in the contest. I think the essay certainly deserves a much higher score that it so far carries. A sad indictment on something or other!

Best wishes

Peter Jackson

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Jun. 1, 2013 @ 21:04 GMT

Peter,

Thank you for your comments. I will read your essay carefully. Regarding Community Ratings, I have been keeping track of the individual ratings on my essay, and the distribution is bimodal - 1 and 2 alternating with much higher numbers. I suspect that the low scores may come from people who do not read past the unconventional assertions in the abstract.

Alan

Dear Alan,

I think it is important to look for a consistent picture of Quantum Mechanics, in particular of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), how do you do it. But I think, too, that every attempt to solve the wave-particle duality in favor of a wave-like or particle-like picture does not work.

You may be successful to a certain degree but at the end you will be faced with unsolvable...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Helmut,

I appreciate your comments, and I agree that prior attempts to resolve wave-particle duality were unsuccessful. However, my essay shows explicitly how macroscopic particle trajectories may be derived from microscopic quantum waves, even including relativistic time effects. This approach avoids the conventional quantum indeterminacy which is incompatible with general relativity. There are no point particles; on a microscopic level, everything consists of distributed relativistic rotating vector fields with quantized spin. These can be fully visualized in real space; there is no mysterious nonlocal quantum entanglement. Yes, this is quite unconventional, but appears to be consistent with the real physical foundations of both quantum mechanics and relativity. This could have been proposed in the early days of QM, but apparently never was.

Alan

Dear Alan M. Kadin

You've found our common problems : "The foundations of modern physics are neither consistent nor unified".But if the conclusion is : "The New Quantum Paradigm provides a logically consistent foundation for all of physics,and reestablishes the classical guiding principles of local reality and determinism."can be enough for us to solve all the problems of the theory on reality platform?what is the specific answers for problems on our topics ?

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 20:23 GMT

Hoang,

This is the final sentence in the Conclusion of my Essay:

In response to the essay question: "It from Bit, or Bit from It? ", this essay comes down decisively in support of the latter; all physical information flows from real objects in real space.

Alan

Dear Alan,

Nice to see such an original approach. Away from the contest I utilise geometry to explain spin and quantum entanglement as hidden fixed constants, so appreciated something along the lines which you work.

Also, despite my essay concluding differently, I like that you are one of the few who opt for Bit from It, as I feel too many assume the opposite.

Refreshing read!

Best wishes,

Antony

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 20:16 GMT

Antony,

Thank you for your comments. From general principles, I am convinced that information needs to be based on something physical, a real representation in the real world. That was certainly the case with classical physics, and I believe that the more modern efforts at giving quantum mechanics magical and mysterious properties divorced from real pictures was unnecessary and misleading.

Alan

Antony Ryan replied on Jun. 29, 2013 @ 11:10 GMT

I agree with this too!

report post as inappropriate

Alan

What do you thinking about variation rest mass of proton and electron?

http://vixra.org/pdf/1212.0080v3.pdf

Regards

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 20:01 GMT

Yuri,

With regard to the rest masses of elementary particles, I am suggesting that these decrease in a gravitational field, at least as far as their long-range gravitational influence outside the field. However, because of the slowing of the local clocks inside the field, any local measurements will obtain the standard unmodified values of the rest masses. That is a subtle but important distinction.

Alan

Send to all of you

THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT

To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :

1 . THE...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Alan,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, “It’s good to be the king,” is serious about our subject.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Dear Alan,

It was interesting to read about your NQP. Could you kindly point me to some of your work that contains the mathematics of NQP - I would be interested in reading about it.

Do you find any parallels between NQP and Bohmian mechanics?

One issue is not clear to me: if I understood you right, you make a distinction between elementary and composite objects, and you say that microscopic composites do not exhibit Schrodinger cat states. Now we know that experiments do show double slit interference for composites such as atoms, fullerenes and even heavier molecules. Now the interference pattern does not `know’ whether the incoming particles are elementary or composite. Qualitatively, the pattern is the same in both cases. If I understand you right, if the incoming particles are electrons you use superposition to explain interference. But if these are composites, you use an explanation other than superposition. I wonder why this should be so, and what this different explanation is. All this is explained in your essay I think - I haven’t grasped it though.

Regards,

Tejinder

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 13:59 GMT

Tejinder,

Thank you for reading my essay and for your questions.

My essay last year dealt with wave-particle duality and quantum diffraction in more depth ("The Rise and Fall of Wave-Particle Duality" ). See also a paper from 2011, Waves, Particles, and Quantized Transitions: A New Realistic Model of the Microworld . Yes, it is generally believed that diffraction experiments with...

view entire post

Tejinder,

Thank you for reading my essay and for your questions.

My essay last year dealt with wave-particle duality and quantum diffraction in more depth ("The Rise and Fall of Wave-Particle Duality" ). See also a paper from 2011, Waves, Particles, and Quantized Transitions: A New Realistic Model of the Microworld . Yes, it is generally believed that diffraction experiments with objects as large as buckyballs prove the existence of de Broglie waves for these objects. However, let me refer you to the published theoretical work of Prof. Van Vliet (Linear Momentum Quantization in Periodic Structures ), who pointed out that the screen that constitutes the slits must itself be considered a quantum object. Van Vliet showed using conventional quantum operators that any interaction involving momentum transfer between the incoming object and the slits requires a quantum transition subject to exactly the same constraints that one would obtain from a wave picture. So for example, neutron diffraction from a crystal does not prove that the neutron is a coherent de Broglie wave that extends over multiple lattice spacings. It could just as easily be a small bound particle on the fm scale, as indeed is obtained from nuclear scattering experiments.

So what, then, actually proves that an electron is really a wave? A directional bond in a molecule (such as a p or d orbital) requires a superposition of electron waves rotating in opposite directions. But one never has states comprising superposition of rotations of molecules in both directions at the same time. (Molecular rotations are not excited inside a crystal.) That tells me that an electron is a wave, while a molecule is not.

Note that this picture has NO point particles, in contrast to the Bohm-deBroglie pilot wave picture. But the quantum wave packet itself follows a quasi-classical trajectory, as derived directly from the quantum wave equation. No special decoherence is needed to recover classical physics, and there are no nonlocal influences.

I am surprised that I have not been getting more questions about the major points of this year's essay: 1) General relativity may be simply derived from quantum waves, in a way that eliminates black holes, and (2) The generalized Quantum Hilbert Space Model, which gives rise to quantum entanglement and quantum computing, may be invalid.

Yes, all this requires a radical re-thinking of physical pictures that have been well established for a century. But the very existence of this essay contest indicates that something is rotten in the state of physics.

Alan

view post as summary

The topic for this round of essays is broad; one could submit an essay on home repair and have a good argument that the essay was within topic. How can one have a point mass with angular momentum? Spin might not be the same as macroscopic angular momentum, but spin behaves like angular momentum. We have a possible answer - swirls instead of dots. In over-simplified terms, Wheeler’s bits (or dots) are really wheels, the whole premise of “it from bit or bit from it” has started out on the wrong foot. This New Quantum Paradigm (NQP) model seems to solve the issue of locality where quantum mechanics and relativity seem to conflict.

I like the idea going back to the fundamentals and this clear and breezy writing style gets the point across well. The author does a very good job at keeping this essay accessible to as many general science readers as possible. The first year of Physics is all one needs to keep up with the math.

The problem with this model is that it is not relative. All rotating vectors are related by just the addition of a constant to some master clock. What is the motional frame and location of this master clock? This model uses absolute (not relative) time.

Jeff Schmitz

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 14:20 GMT

Jeff,

Thank you for your careful reading of my essay, and for your interest. Regarding time, I don't believe that my model requires a master clock as you suggest. This is all compatible with special relativity, so one can view this from any reference frame. The presence of a gravitational potential slows down all of the clocks in a given location by the same factor, creating a slowed "proper time". For this reason, if all measurements are inside a closed elevator (a la Einstein), one cannot tell that one is in a gravitational potential. But distant measurements outside the potential can measure the changes. This is a subtle distinction, but quite important.

Alan

Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 23:48 GMT

Alan,

In your model, how could clocks in a gravitational potential be slowed the same as an accelerated frame?

To me, you seem to solve the problem of locality by having a non-local master frame.

Thank you for your response,

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. Kadin -

I find your ideas of great interest.

The gist of your dissertation is that the inner space of quanta can be projected across the Cosmos: 'Time is not a dimension imposed from without; instead, it is a parameter for characterizing the local evolution of quantum fields.'

This parameter then becomes extended across the Cosmos: 'Quantum mechanics describes...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 11:42 GMT

John,

Thank you for your careful reading of my essay. Let me see if I understand your comments correctly. It is well known that temperature is not an attribute of a single isolated atom; it is an average property of a large number of interacting atoms. So are you saying that in a similar way, space-time is not an attribute of an isolated quantum system, but requires a large number of interacting quantum systems? If so, I think I agree.

Alan

Dear Alan,

I just read your essay and I have some serious questions:

1) Does the background vector field define a preferred rest frame?

Since your framework is explicitly relativistic, the answer would have to be be no, but then I have difficulty seeing how the frame in which the rotators are all at rest is not preferred over all others. Indeed I come away with the impression...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Jul. 12, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

Armin,

Thank you for taking the time to read my essay, and for your detailed set of questions. As you know, this presents a neo-classical picture, going back to the very beginning, and reconstructing quantum mechanics on a consistent realistic wave basis. Much of this was described in my essay last year, "The Rise and Fall of Wave-Particle Duality" . Let me respond to your questions...

view entire post

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 19:30 GMT

Dear Alan,

Thank you for your patient reply. You have provided a satisfactory answer to most of my questions, except for two.

On question 1) I am still somewhat confused. If a wave packet that moves less than c is composed of waves "comprised" (for lack of a better expression) of rotator fields that moves at c, then this implies that the length-contraction/time dilation effects must apply to them (Your framework is meant to be consistent with SR, correct?). Are the rotators perpendicular to the direction of motion? What about the time dilation effect on the period of rotation? I understand that in the standard relativistic quantum picture, the proper time must be replaced by an affine parameter for photons. Do you need to do something similar?

On question 6) I wonder whether permitting a measurement to change the state of an system will be enough to comply with the constraints imposed by contextuality. If you haven't already, you may wish to take a look at two papers: one by Peres "Two simple proofs of the Kochen-Specker Theorem" and the other (more important) one by Mermin "Simple unified form for the major no-hidden variable theorems" to check for yourself.

I hope you found my questions useful. Good luck with your framework.

All the best,

Armin

"

report post as inappropriate

Alan,

This is quite an interesting entry. It really does seem to peel away the math and dig up the physics.

My answer to the time problem is that we experience it as sequence from past to future and physics validates this by treating it as a measure of interval, but the actual process is dynamic change which turns future into past. We are not traveling some dimension from yesterday to tomorrow. tomorrow becomes yesterday. There is only what is physically real and that is what we experience as present. So every action is its own clock, but they all exist as a dynamic space.

Of course, as individual points of reference, we still experience it as sequence, but then we still experience the sun moving across the sky.

You know this all far better than I, but what you are arguing seems to fit what I'm seeing, so you have my vote.

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Jul. 14, 2013 @ 22:26 GMT

John,

Thank you for your comments. Simplicity and clarity are what I am aiming for. The intuitive pictures provide the heart of physics; the math just provides a quantitative description of these pictures. Somehow, this principle has gotten inverted in much of modern physics.

Thank you also for your vote. I need just a few more good ratings to make it into the "Top Forty".

Alan

KoGuan Leo replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 01:00 GMT

Dear John,

I have similar observation. KQID is satisfies this simple factual logic that A, anti-entropic bits-waves function of time-future exchanges bits with S, entropic bits-waves of time-past that creates and distributes E, energetic bits-waves function of time-present that maximizing the flow of , minimizing the low of S and optimizing he low of E. You wrote above: "My answer to the time problem is that we experience it as sequence from past to future and physics validates this by treating it as a measure of interval, but the actual process is dynamic change which turns future into past. We are not traveling some dimension from yesterday to tomorrow. tomorrow becomes yesterday. There is only what is physically real and that is what we experience as present. So every action is its own clock." Really excellent statement. I will look at your essay "What is Information" and I shall comment rate it accordingly.

Dear Alan, you got my vote. Your essay is far underrated. Yours is really fantastically profound essay. I wish you the best.

Best wishes,

Lo KoGuan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Alan M. Kadin:

I am an old physician, and I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics, but after the common people your discipline is the one that uses more the so called “time” than any other. May be you can find something of your interest, related with your undergraduate thesis on hidden...

view entire post

Dear Alan M. Kadin:

I am an old physician, and I don’t know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics, but after the common people your discipline is the one that uses more the so called “time” than any other. May be you can find something of your interest, related with your undergraduate thesis on hidden variables in quantum mechanics.

I am sending you a practical summary, so you can easy decide if you read or not my essay “The deep nature of reality”.

I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don’t understand it, and is not just because of my bad English). Hawking, “A brief history of time” where he said , “Which is the nature of time?” yes he don’t know what time is, and also continue saying…………Some day this answer could seem to us “obvious”, as much than that the earth rotate around the sun…..” In fact the answer is “obvious”, but how he could say that, if he didn’t know what’s time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be “obvious”, I think that with this adjective, he is implying: simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn’t explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure “time” since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure “time” from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental “time” meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls “time” and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the “time” experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the “time” creators and users didn’t. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein’s “Ideas and Opinions” pg. 354 “Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought” he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about “time” he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect “time”, he does not use the word “time” instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or “motion”, instead of saying that slows “time”. FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that “time” was a man creation, but he didn’t know what man is measuring with the clock.

I insist, that for “measuring motion” we should always and only use a unique: “constant” or “uniform” “motion” to measure “no constant motions” “which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of “motion” whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to “motion fractions”, which I call “motion units” as hours, minutes and seconds. “Motion” which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using “motion”?, time just has been used to measure the “duration” of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand “motion” is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

With my best whishes

Héctor

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 23:21 GMT

Hector,

Thank you for your interest in my essay and how it deals with time. I'm not sure that I fully understand what you are saying, but if you are saying that time really follows from the motion of matter (rather than the other way around), then I think we are in general agreement. I am suggesting that one may parameterize particle trajectories in terms of rotation frequencies of fundamental quantum fields.

Incidentally, I also have Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" on my bookshelf, and I found the passage you mentioned on page 364 (not 354) in my (very old) edition. Further down on the page, he says, "The formation of the concept of the material object must precede our concepts of time and space". That seems to be more "Bit from It" than "It from Bit".

I will go back and read your essay more carefully.

Alan

Dear Alan,

I have been reading your essay for 2 days because your serious dense work of a lifetime requires serious attention. I got the feeling that we are using different terms and terminology to describe similar idea. Your idea that everything comes from "this rotating vector field" is very profound and fantastically beyond belief. You wrote: "...from New Quantum Paradigm (NQP). There...

view entire post

Dear Alan,

I have been reading your essay for 2 days because your serious dense work of a lifetime requires serious attention. I got the feeling that we are using different terms and terminology to describe similar idea. Your idea that everything comes from "this rotating vector field" is very profound and fantastically beyond belief. You wrote: "...from New Quantum Paradigm (NQP). There is no point particle; mass m, energy E, momentum p , and spin S are all associated with this rotating vector field. (a) Electron field rotating at frequency f = mc2/h, with uniform phase angle , and total spin S = /2 perpendicular to the plane, corresponding to electron at rest. (b) Electron moving at velocity v, showing phase gradient d/dx = p/ and de Broglie wavelength  = h/p from Lorentz transformation. The rotating vectors also constitute local clocks that define time, with a frequency that is modified by particle velocity and by a gravitational potential." In KQID, everything emerges from one singularity Qbit Multiverse that projects Einstein complex coordinates( Einstein triangles similar to Pythagorean triangles) on the event horizon of our Multiverse as Minkowski Null geodesics Lm in zeroth dimension that instantaneously project those coordinates in the bulk ψτ(iLx,y,z, Lm) as the KQID relativity Multiverse. In brief: All things are one Qbit. As a bonus, KQID calculates the dark energy of our Multiverse and how many bits are they in our Multiverse. I believe the only theory out there that has done so.

I agreed that i (√- 1) is not an imaginary number but real number just like 123. Agreed that the Ψ is real physical entity and if I may say that in KQID framework, each ψ is ψI(CTE) as the bits-waves function of consciousness (C), time (T) and energy (E) which is equal to A+S. Thus, as you wrote below: "This transformation from a real wave F(x,t) to a complex wave  = exp(i0t)F contributed to the widespread belief that the matter wave was an abstract mathematical representation of information about a quantum system, rather than a true physical wave in real space. However, the complex down-converted wave  contains the same information as the original real physical wave F, in exact analogy to radio communication signals." Fantastic! I concur.

You are a bold thinker extraordinaire! You defies the conventional genius thinkers like Susskind, Wilczek and Hooft. You wrote: "But this picture also indicates that black holes are a mathematical artifact not present in the real universe." In KQID, the black hole is one accumulated S qbit that has zero bit since the H is infinity because this singularity S qbits is in quantum superposition thus it is everywhere and nowhere simultaneously according to my equation of the KQID Fourth Law of Multiverse derived from Shannon's entropy: α = I/1 + H^2 = 0. In brief. A black hole is a zero bit located everywhere and nowhere in zeroth dimension of Lm. But it is within our Multiverse! Here we agree in general but I say a black hole is as real as ψ function as you agreed as physical and real. In KQID, a black hole is a wave function: ψI(CTE).

I need to read again you work for several times and have a discussion online or in person.

Let us continue our discussion later if you desire. I rate this essay fantastically great serious work. Please if I may request you to comment and rate my essay Child of Qbit in time.

My honor,

Leo KoGuan

view post as summary

post approved

Dear Alan,

I have been reading your essay for 2 days because your serious dense work of a lifetime requires serious attention. I got the feeling that we are using different terms and terminology to describe similar idea. Your idea that everything comes from "this rotating vector field" is very profound and fantastically beyond belief. You wrote: "...from New Quantum Paradigm (NQP). There...

view entire post

Dear Alan,

I have been reading your essay for 2 days because your serious dense work of a lifetime requires serious attention. I got the feeling that we are using different terms and terminology to describe similar idea. Your idea that everything comes from "this rotating vector field" is very profound and fantastically beyond belief. You wrote: "...from New Quantum Paradigm (NQP). There is no point particle; mass m, energy E, momentum p , and spin S are all associated with this rotating vector field. (a) Electron field rotating at frequency f = mc2/h, with uniform phase angle , and total spin S = /2 perpendicular to the plane, corresponding to electron at rest. (b) Electron moving at velocity v, showing phase gradient d/dx = p/ and de Broglie wavelength  = h/p from Lorentz transformation. The rotating vectors also constitute local clocks that define time, with a frequency that is modified by particle velocity and by a gravitational potential." In KQID, everything emerges from one singularity Qbit Multiverse that projects Einstein complex coordinates( Einstein triangles similar to Pythagorean triangles) on the event horizon of our Multiverse as Minkowski Null geodesics Lm in zeroth dimension that instantaneously project those coordinates in the bulk ψτ(iLx,y,z, Lm) as the KQID relativity Multiverse. In brief: All things are one Qbit. As a bonus, KQID calculates the dark energy of our Multiverse 1.523 x 10-153Pm/Pv. and how many bits are they in our Multiverse 6.3 x 10^153 bits. I believe the only theory out there that has done so.

I agreed that i (√- 1) is not an imaginary number but real number just like 123. Agreed that the Ψ is real physical entity and if I may say that in KQID framework, each ψ is ψI(CTE) as the bits-waves function of consciousness (C), time (T) and energy (E) which is equal to A+S. Thus, as you wrote below: "This transformation from a real wave F(x,t) to a complex wave  = exp(i0t)F contributed to the widespread belief that the matter wave was an abstract mathematical representation of information about a quantum system, rather than a true physical wave in real space. However, the complex down-converted wave  contains the same information as the original real physical wave F, in exact analogy to radio communication signals." Fantastic! I concur.

You are a bold thinker extraordinaire! You defies the conventional genius thinkers like Susskind, Wilczek and Hooft. You wrote: "But this picture also indicates that black holes are a mathematical artifact not present in the real universe." In KQID, the black hole is one accumulated S qbit that has zero bit since the H is zero (0)because this singularity graviton S qbits is in quantum superposition thus it is everywhere and nowhere simultaneously according to my equation of the KQID Fourth Law of Multiverse derived from Shannon's entropy: with coefficient ratio α = I/1 + H^2 = 1 or perfect efficiency every time. singularity photon A qbits has only coefficient ratio = 1 In brief. A black hole is a zero bit located everywhere and nowhere in zeroth dimension of Lm. But it is within our Multiverse! Here we agree in general but I say a black hole is as real as ψ function as you agreed as physical and real. In KQID, a black hole is a wave function: ψI(CTE). In short, KQID prescribes both photon A and graviton S have zero bit or H = 0.

I need to read you work for several more times and have a discussion online or in person.

Let us continue our discussion later if you desire. I rate this essay fantastically great serious work. Please if I may request you to comment and rate my essay Child of Qbit in time.

My honor,

Leo KoGuan

view post as summary

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 15:39 GMT

Leo,

Thank you for your reading my essay, and for your favorable comments. I will take another look at your essay.

Alan

Dear Alan, my apology posting it in your thread by mistake that supposed to be posted in my thread. I removed it accordingly. Best, Leo KoGuan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Alan

Now I understand why you agree with me that common sense and intuition are very important in science. I read your insightful essay that clarifies most of the mysteries in QM. I'm in agreement with your view and I'd like to congratulate you for your work. I think, I understand you well because I have dedicated a lot of time to study the foundations of...

view entire post

Dear Alan

Now I understand why you agree with me that common sense and intuition are very important in science. I read your insightful essay that clarifies most of the mysteries in QM. I'm in agreement with your view and I'd like to congratulate you for your work. I think, I understand you well because I have dedicated a lot of time to study the foundations of relativity.

Contemporary physics has been built with two pillars, i.e, QM and relativity. Some years ago I decided to study the foundations of these theories. I started with relativity and after some time I realized that the notion of space, according to this theory, was in disagreement with intuition. In the current view, space is conceived as an empty container which in turn is filled with particles and fields. However, I arrived at the opposite conclusion. That space is a material medium and that fields and particles are states and excitations of this medium. The fact that the vacuum has non-zero magnetic permeability and electric permittivity strongly suggests that the vacuum is a paramagnetic medium, in contradiction to the customary view.

If you remember my essay at the end I argue that the vacuum is not mere geometry as relativity claims but a material medium. This view paves the way to introduce the notion of solitons as the fundamental realities above waves and particles. As you suggest in your work, particles can be seen as solitons but you must be aware that solitons require a material nonlinear medium which I identify as the material vacuum itself. In my previous essay, I made clear that the view that space as a material continuos medium implies the existence of a privilege frame. I also discuss that the existence of a privilege frame is not at variance with the principle of relativity provided that we understood this principle as the invariance of all physical laws and not as the exclusion of privilege frames. So, I think that the notion of space as a medium is not compatible with the notion of space in relativity. It follows that it would be contradictory to introduce solitons which require a medium into GR that rejects the space as a medium. As you can see this is also heresy.

I still have some questions about your work. I wonder how can you derived GR from your formulation and how you explain entanglement. I would be glad if you could show me the calculations of the derivation of GR. You also argue that the photons at the moment of the emission already have their state well determined. Then, why experiments seems to show that the state of the photons is only determined after a measurement is carried out in one of the photons, just as the conventional QM predicts (spooky action at a distance). I mean, according to your NQP how shall we interpret the entanglement experiments?

Best regards

Israel

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 23:02 GMT

Israel,

Thank you for your careful reading of my essay, and for your questions. As you can tell, this is a work-in-progress. Some of the key aspects are still being developed, such as the nonlinear self-interaction that turn a continuous field into a discrete particle with quantized spin. This analysis started out as a way to go back to the beginning and understand QM (avoiding the...

view entire post

Israel,

Thank you for your careful reading of my essay, and for your questions. As you can tell, this is a work-in-progress. Some of the key aspects are still being developed, such as the nonlinear self-interaction that turn a continuous field into a discrete particle with quantized spin. This analysis started out as a way to go back to the beginning and understand QM (avoiding the paradoxes), but GR falls out naturally, from an unconventional point of view. A gravitational potential pervades the universe, and this reduces the natural frequencies of all quantum oscillators (from a shift in the rest mass). This in turn slows time locally, and also reduces the speed of light - but you can't tell that by local (uncorrected) measurements. I have not yet carried out a complete formal derivation, but I believe that this will reproduce conventional GR to first order. Further, a self-consistent treatment of the frequency shift leads to the surprising conclusion that event horizons and gravitational singularities are mathematical artifacts of an incomplete theory, and do not exist in nature. I am surprised that I have not received any comments on my essay page on this remarkable observation.

With regard to quantum entanglement, I assert that this also does not exist. Entanglement follows in QM from nonlocality which is built into the Hilbert space formalism of composite states. As I describe in my essay, I don't see the physical basis for this. Now clearly, the careful experiments on photons are measuring something, but the interpretation in terms of nonlocality is strongly model-dependent. I cannot, as yet, explain these results, but I will be working on that. Further, I have suggested an experiment that tests whether a linearly polarized single photon truly exists.

Best wishes in the contest, although right now both of us appear to be below threshold. If you are interested in discussing this further, please send an email to the address given at the top of my essay.

Alan

view post as summary

Israel Perez replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 09:05 GMT

Dear Alan

Thanks for your reply. I understand that the quest for a unify theory is a titanic task. What you have achieved so far is a great headway. Indeed, I agree that there is still work to be done in order to deprive QM from its "mysteries", but I believe it is just a matter of time. Some other people are working in the same direction.

You :such as the nonlinear self-interaction...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Alan,

I'm curious if your work provides any new insights on superconductivity and the related quantum computation.

I hope your essay will make into the next round and get a serious review by the board. In analogy to all these proposals (past, present and future) of alternative computer technologies to replace semiconductor transistors for computational evices, any new physics theory so broad like yours will always an impossible fight. You need to have enough time, people, and resources for working out all the details perfectly.

Best wishes,

Brian

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 15:39 GMT

Brian,

Yes, my work provides new insights on superconductivity, in a way that is highly unconventional (and therefore impossible to publish). See Superconductivity without Pairing and Josephson Junctions without Pairing . Specifically, I have an alternative derivation of the BCS formalism without Cooper pairs, which still obtains h/2e. This follows from a real-space ordering of localized single-electron states, where the localization follows from a dynamic lattice interaction similar to charge-density waves. This is also consistent with my quantum picture, in which composite quantum waves (such as a Cooper pair) do not exist.

Thank you again for your interest and support. Right now, it seems that neither my essay nor yours are ranked high enough to become finalists. But a few more good reviews in the next week might make the difference.

Alan

Alan,

I'm pleased to say I find I hadn't scored your essay at the time of our discussions (1st June) so a well earned 10 going on now to help it closer to where it should be. I've seen no other essay discussing the important question of orbital angular momentum except ours.

I don't recall a comment on mine yet (but it is now hard to track everyone!) and hope you've read it, or will, and comment, and of course score it. I hope we can also talk more of the NQP after the contest.

Very best of luck in the roller coaster run in.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 15:47 GMT

Peter,

Thanks for your high score, although I would rather preserve the confidentiality of a secret ballot. I would like to believe that those who have rated my essay with a 1 or 2 have not actually read it.

It is conventional wisdom that quantum mechanics is unavoidably paradoxical and abstract. I am directly challenging that, by presenting a simple neo-classical microscopic model that avoids paradoxes and also accounts for the emergence of macroscopic physics, including general relativity. I am a bit surprised that people are not commenting on my assertion that Black Holes are a myth.

Please feel free to contact me at my email address (given in my essay) for discussions after the contest.

Alan

A nice new fundamental idea: rotating vector fields comprise fundamental particle with spin. “The rotating vectors constitute ‘local clocks that define time,’ with a frequency modified by particle velocity and gravitational potential. In a very real sense, these form the physical basis for time itself.”

I have not yet had time to read all of your reference (the voluminous quantity of FQXi papers is enough to keep me occupied). Consequently, I do not understand how the unquantized continuous electron field breaks up into discrete solitons. There is insufficient description to take a reader through this argument.

There are a few conclusions early in this paper which are not presented with an unbroken logic from basic postulates. However the ideas are intriguing enough that I will follow up and read all of your publications when the contest is over in a couple of weeks. I suspect I may find the rest of the logic there.

The idea that photons lose momentum as they move away from the star is profoundly interesting. This alone is worth thinking about more deeply.

It is clear that you have profound insights. However, as you concede in the paper, the theory of the corresponding self-interaction in the NQP “remains to be completely defined”. I still think you are really on to something and will look forward to your future work in this area.

It might have been easier to follow if you had split out the two arguments for Quantum Hilbert space/entanglement and general relativity into two papers—each appear to have merit on their own, and are both educational and inspirational.

Thank you.

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 16:09 GMT

Paul,

Thank you for your careful reading of my essay, and for your helpful comments. In response to your observation that I am trying to cover too many topics in this essay, I plead "no contest". I have an ambitious program to reinvent modern physics from the ground up. The emergence of GR from QM is a new observation that has me quite excited, and the criticism of the Quantum Hilbert Space model was included to address the topic of Information.

The concept of a photon in a gravitational potential well that loses momentum as it SPEEDS UP is quite remarkable. The same would be true of an ultrarelativistic electron following a similar trajectory. Most remarkable, of course, is the assertion that the event horizon and the black hole singularity are mathematical artifacts that do not exist in a self-consistent theory. It is interesting to note that Einstein himself doubted the existence of black holes, despite their being derived from his field equations. Maybe he was right!

Alan

Dr. Kadin

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)

said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don’t know why that is – it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn’t look at all like the way you said it before. I don’t know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature.”

I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

The belief that “Nature is simple” is however being expressed differently in my essay “Analogical Engine” linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

Specifically though, I said “Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities” and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism … and so on.

Taken two at a time, it can be read as “what quantum is to classical” is similar to (~) “what wave is to particle.” You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

Since “Nature is Analogical”, we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.

Good luck,

Than Tin

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 15:29 GMT

Than,

I will read your essay to follow your comments, but my central assertion is that quantum paradoxes (including wave-particle duality) are not paradoxes at all if properly understood. See my essay from last year's FQXi contest "The Rise and Fall of Wave-Particle Duality".

Alan

Dear Alan,

I just detected an error. My comment on your essay should have been here but I posted it on my blog. So here I reproduce.

I have read your article on the wave-particle duality. As I said some of the problems may result from the view that space is a 'nothing'.

You said "So if an electron is truly a fundamental particle, it had to be a point particle,which clearly cannot be divided further.." Is your definition of point particle one of zero dimension?

You also said "Applying special relativity to this massive photon in its rest

frame.." Can a photon be at rest in any frame? What is the velocity in other frames? These are unintended fall outs of what you rightly pointed out as "Generations of physicists have been educated to ignore physical intuition about the paradoxes, while focusing on mathematics divorced from physical pictures. In response, the field of theoretical physics became more mathematically abstract, straying far from its origins explaining the behavior of real objects

moving in real space"

The correctness or not of NQP proposal must come after you have first settled the question whether space is nothing but a relational entity or on the contrary a substantial thing.

Regards,

Akinbo

Then, a question for you:

Is it being implied by the relational view of space and as suggested by Mach's principle that what decides whether a centrifugal force would act between two bodies in *constant relation*, would not be the bodies themselves, since they are at fixed distance to each other, nor the space in which they are located since it is a nothing, but by a distant sub-atomic particle light-years away in one of the fixed stars in whose reference frame the *constantly related* bodies are in circular motion?

You can reply me here or on my blog. And please pardon my naive view of physics.

Accept my best regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate

Dear Alan and all,

Thank you for posting in my essay. Here is some work I am doing to achieve what you are trying to do as well.

Simple mathematical truth of zero=I=infinity, iSphere and iSeries as described below can explain all the aspects of reality mathematically.

I am attaching the iDNASeries.bmp that I have envisioned and how it shows the DNA structure in its...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 15:15 GMT

Sridattadev,

I'm sorry, but I did not post in your essay. Maybe you have me confused with someone else.

Alan

Dear Alan,

Here is the iDNASeries image.

Love,

Sridattadev.

attachments: 9_iDNASeries.bmp

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. Kadin,

A most impressive essay, and an alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation well worth exploring. I have a few more specific comments in my reply to your comments about my essay, "It from Bit from It from Bit," (an overview of quantum mechanics and nonlinear logic). But I need some time to study your arXiv papers, which I hope to accomplish within in the few weeks.

Best wishes,

Bill McHarris

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 15:09 GMT

Dr. McHarris,

Thank you for your careful reading and your compliments. I will also re-read your essay more carefully. I replied to some of your specific comments on your own essay page.

I agree with you that while linear equations enable quite powerful mathematical techniques, these same techniques (including the entire Hilbert space formalism) are effectively blinders that have made consideration of nonlinear physics impossible.

Alan Kadin

Alan

What is your attitude to this quote?

Lawrence Bragg, another great contemporary, expressed Bohr'idea more simply: Everything in the future is a wave, everthing in the past is a particle

Freemen Dyson,

The Scientist as Rebel

Random House Inc.

2008 ,222

Regards

Yuri

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 14:56 GMT

Yuri,

I found a variant of this quote in Lawrence Bragg's book The Development of X-Ray Analysis (1975):

"The dividing line between the wave or particle nature of matter and radiation is the moment 'Now'. As this moment steadily advances through time it coagulates a wavy future into a particle past. "

However, I find this statement confusing and obscure. I would rather say that both matter and radiation are fundamentally waves, but with particle properties derivable from the wave equations.

I addressed Wave-Particle Duality in my essay in last year's FQXi context, "The Rise and Fall of Wave-Particle Duality".

Alan

Dear Alan,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

report post as inappropriate

I enjoyed your essay very much. I would be interested to know your view on what is rotating in your quantum rotations, is it small rotations of space? My essay assumes quantum oscillations of space that then build up matter which is close to your assumption of quantum rotations. The main difference would be contiguity of the quanta that my model requires. I will explore the NQP model further. Thank you

Carolyn Devereux

report post as inappropriate

Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 16:58 GMT

Carolyn,

Thank you for your comments and your interest. I have been tracking the ratings of my essay - people either love it or hate it - there is nothing in between.

The model is based on a classical electromagnetic wave a la Maxwell. A circularly polarized EM wave packet consists of a coherently rotating, propagating E field (also a B field), and carries angular momentum which is quantized if this represents a quantum photon field. By direct analogy, an electron also consists of a rotating field (essentially a Dirac field) with spin h-bar/2, which in its rest frame is not propagating. This is a deterministic picture with no quantum uncertainty. This is built on space and time compatible with special relativity (no ether), but as I've shown, general relativity (with gravitational time dilation) also follows simply from this. If you have further questions, please feel free to send me an email (address shown in the essay).

Alan

Dear Mr Kadin.

Your approach is very similar to Feynyman's approach in "The Strange Theory of Light and Matter" and also in my approach. It is not important for me, if such oscillations of elementary particles exist, but if visualization of background mathematics is useful, such oscillations are useful. Especially your fig. 1 is very fine and useful.

I claim that interior of black hole do not exist. (This is similarly as your claim.) My arguments are that QM claims that what cannot be seen, cannot exist, and that space is emergent.

But I am not sure, if your approach is correct. You did not write whether it is not in contradiction with physical experiments of GR? It is also possible that your approach is much lesser simple than GR.

Will you look also my essay, although it is late for scores? But maybe it will be useful for references of further papers.

I hope that we will be in correspondence further.

report post as inappropriate

Hector,

Thank you for your interest in my essay and how it deals with time. I'm not sure that I fully understand what you are saying, but if you are saying that time really follows from the motion of matter (rather than the other way around), then I think we are in general agreement. I am suggesting that one may parameterize particle trajectories in terms of rotation frequencies of...

view entire post

Hector,

Thank you for your interest in my essay and how it deals with time. I'm not sure that I fully understand what you are saying, but if you are saying that time really follows from the motion of matter (rather than the other way around), then I think we are in general agreement. I am suggesting that one may parameterize particle trajectories in terms of rotation frequencies of fundamental quantum fields.

Incidentally, I also have Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" on my bookshelf, and I found the passage you mentioned on page 364 (not 354) in my (very old) edition. Further down on the page, he says, "The formation of the concept of the material object must precede our concepts of time and space". That seems to be more "Bit from It" than "It from Bit".

I will go back and read your essay more carefully.

Alan

Dear Alan:

I am referring here at your july15 post: you are a physicist I am not, maybe sound incredible to you and most physicists, that to understand that “time” is not an entity with physical existence like gravity or inertia, you don’t need to know mathematics or physics, which as a discipline the discipline came to believe “time” it as their own. “Time” is just a remnant word, probably representing a very important concept related to the measurement of “motion” from which mankind forgot it meaning, as Einstein call pre-scientific concepts. What you have at page 364 "The formation of the concept of the material object must precede our concepts of time and space". Being the so called “time” “motion” as I think I demonstrate in the essay. To exist “motion” must be something that’s moves (material object) to exist “space concept” also has to be (materials objects) as he said boxes. Look in your book around 20 or 25 lines above you would find what I concrete as: “Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought” As you can see he knew that “time” was a man creation. What he did no know was what we measure with the clock, that it is “motion” one of the most foundational things of physics, about this is my essay. When this is understood , will shake physics. You said “I will go back and read your essay more carefully” please do that slow with attention and always thinking that there are not prove what so ever of “time” physical existence. If you do that you would be the second person in this world to know that the so called “time” is “motion”.

My very best whishes

Héctor

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Hector,

Thank you for your interest in my essay and how it deals with time. I'm not sure that I fully understand what you are saying, but if you are saying that time really follows from the motion of matter (rather than the other way around), then I think we are in general agreement. I am suggesting that one may parameterize particle trajectories in terms of rotation frequencies of...

view entire post

Hector,

Thank you for your interest in my essay and how it deals with time. I'm not sure that I fully understand what you are saying, but if you are saying that time really follows from the motion of matter (rather than the other way around), then I think we are in general agreement. I am suggesting that one may parameterize particle trajectories in terms of rotation frequencies of fundamental quantum fields.

Incidentally, I also have Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" on my bookshelf, and I found the passage you mentioned on page 364 (not 354) in my (very old) edition. Further down on the page, he says, "The formation of the concept of the material object must precede our concepts of time and space". That seems to be more "Bit from It" than "It from Bit".

I will go back and read your essay more carefully.

Alan

Dear Alan:

I am referring here at your july15 post: you are a physicist I am not, maybe sound incredible to you and most physicists, that to understand that “time” is not an entity with physical existence like gravity or inertia, you don’t need to know mathematics or physics, which as a discipline the discipline came to believe “time” it as their own. “Time” is just a remnant word, probably representing a very important concept related to the measurement of “motion” from which mankind forgot it meaning, as Einstein call pre-scientific concepts. What you have at page 364 "The formation of the concept of the material object must precede our concepts of time and space". Being the so called “time” “motion” as I think I demonstrate in the essay. To exist “motion” must be something that’s moves (material object) to exist “space concept” also has to be (materials objects) as he said boxes. Look in your book around 20 or 25 lines above you would find what I concrete as: “Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought” As you can see he knew that “time” was a man creation. What he did no know was what we measure with the clock, that it is “motion” one of the most foundational things of physics, about this is my essay. When this is understood , will shake physics. You said “I will go back and read your essay more carefully” please do that slow with attention and always thinking that there are not prove what so ever of “time” physical existence. If you do that you would be the second person in this world to know that the so called “time” is “motion”.

My very best whishes

Héctor

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate