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

Alexei Grinbaum: on 4/8/15 at 20:08pm UTC, wrote Dear Mauro, Alas, I won't be in Växjö this year but I hope we'll have...

Giacomo D'Ariano: on 4/7/15 at 16:34pm UTC, wrote Dear Alexei I found interesting historical notes on you essay. In...

Joe Fisher: on 4/6/15 at 14:58pm UTC, wrote Dear Alexei, I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was...

Michel Planat: on 3/6/15 at 16:12pm UTC, wrote Dear Alexei, I liked much your lucid account of the status of mathematics...

Akinbo Ojo: on 2/27/15 at 10:43am UTC, wrote Dear Alexei, Well done on your essay, although I find the dose of...

Edwin Klingman: on 2/27/15 at 8:41am UTC, wrote Dear Alexei Grinbaum, I very much enjoyed your essay on the mathematical...

Alexei Grinbaum: on 2/26/15 at 21:10pm UTC, wrote Essay Abstract Some mathematical theories in physics have claimed...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Robert, thank you. I now understand the difference between decisions and..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Robert McEachern: "Making a decision, means selecting between discrete, a priori established..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Eckard,you seems persuaded by your Words and thoughts.I don t understand..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: "In Darwinism/Weismannism there is no first cause, just a causal chain...." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "lol no indeed it is not a lot,like I said I liked your general ideas.I have..." in The Demon in the Machine...

Steve Agnew: "There are three assumptions...is that a lot? The aether particle mass, the..." in The Demon in the Machine...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

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

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

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

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


FQXi FORUM
October 15, 2019

CATEGORY: Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015) [back]
TOPIC: Mathematical investigation reveals a new understanding of quantum theory by Alexei Grinbaum [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Alexei Grinbaum wrote on Feb. 26, 2015 @ 21:10 GMT
Essay Abstract

Some mathematical theories in physics have claimed explanatory superiority even in the absence of new predictions. This was justified by the clarity of their postulates. In particular, mathematical derivations drive home the importance of the composition rule and the continuity assumption as two pillars of quantum theory. Our approach sits on these pillars but it combines new mathematics with a testable prediction. If the observer is defined by a limit on string complexity, information dynamics leads to an emergent continuous model in the critical regime. Restricting it to a family of binary codes describing `bipartite systems,' we find strong evidence of an upper bound on bipartite correlations equal to $2.82537$. This is measurably different from the Tsirelson bound. The Hilbert space formalism emerges from this mathematical investigation as but an effective description of a fundamental discrete theory in the critical regime.

Author Bio

Alexei Grinbaum is a researcher at CEA-LARSIM located in Saclay near Paris and member of FQXi. His main interest is in the philosophy of physics and the foundations of quantum mechanics.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 27, 2015 @ 08:41 GMT
Dear Alexei Grinbaum,

I very much enjoyed your essay on the mathematical basis and understanding of quantum mechanics. I would call attention to your statement to the effect that

"Mathematical reconstruction of quantum theory… must be complemented with a quantitative bound on the amount of correlations…"

based on what is claimed to be "a fundamental fact about...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Feb. 27, 2015 @ 10:43 GMT
Dear Alexei,

Well done on your essay, although I find the dose of mathematical spices more than what my philosophy taste buds prefer.

Permit me to ask a philosophical question that may or may not be eventually relevant to the new mathematical model you are formulating:

Can a Universe, along with its mathematical and/or physical objects perish? If the universe can perish, what is the possible implication for physics that mathematical/ physical objects are not eternally existing things but have a finite duration of existence varying from object to object?

Regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michel Planat wrote on Mar. 6, 2015 @ 16:12 GMT
Dear Alexei,

I liked much your lucid account of the status of mathematics in the modern history of physics. May be we are at a stage where mathematics will clarify misconceptions and paradoxes about quantum reality. I have much respect to coding theory in this context, algebraic and quantum. To my knowledge, self dual classical codes and the Clifford quantum computing have been found to share many concepts that are also known in the context of efficient sphere packing (Sloane, Nebe et al). What you write about algebraic codes and anomalous large correlations (encompassing quantum correlations) is an exciting mathematical perspective that is certainly welcome in this contest. Manin-Marcolli maths is difficult and you do an excellent job by relating the KMS states and CHSH. I am familiar with Bost-Connes KMS paper and the relation to RH and quantum computing. In a different direction, I would like to mention another bound 2.566 >> 2v2 for CHSH-like correlations in entangled optical qubits in the paper 1403.0805 [quant-ph] by L. Olislager et al. Thank you for the comments on my essay and the starting of my counter.

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 6, 2015 @ 14:58 GMT
Dear Alexei,

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Member Giacomo Mauro D'Ariano wrote on Apr. 7, 2015 @ 16:34 GMT
Dear Alexei

I found interesting historical notes on you essay. In particular, the citation from Bohr:

“The use of mathematical symbols secures the unambiguity of definition required for objective description”.

This makes apparent how casual was Niels in his writings, and why he was so often obscure and boring. A "symbol" does not secure anything. It is the mathematical definition beyond the symbol which secure objectivity, in the sense that we conventionally agree on everything is well defined mathematically.

Regarding your theory of the observer, I have already followed two of your talks, and have still difficulties understanding. The solution is that you will explain it to me personally, next time we meet, which I hope will be very soon (in Växjö?)

With my warmest regards

Mauro

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Alexei Grinbaum replied on Apr. 8, 2015 @ 20:08 GMT
Dear Mauro,

Alas, I won't be in Växjö this year but I hope we'll have another opportunity soon for a detailed conversation about these things. As for Bohr, I read his phrase as meaning that he was talking about the use of a mathematical formalism in physical theory.

Amitiés,

Alexei

Bookmark and Share



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.