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 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

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

Previous Contests

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
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


Thomas Ray: "(reposted in correct thread) Lorraine, Nah. That's nothing like my view...." in 2015 in Review: New...

Lorraine Ford: "Clearly “law-of-nature” relationships and associated numbers represent..." in Physics of the Observer -...

Lee Bloomquist: "Information Channel. An example from Jon Barwise. At the workshop..." in Physics of the Observer -...

Lee Bloomquist: "Please clarify. I just tried to put a simple model of an observer in the..." in Alternative Models of...

Lee Bloomquist: "Footnote...for the above post, the one with the equation existence =..." in Alternative Models of...

Thomas Ray: "In fact, symmetry is the most pervasive physical principle that exists. ..." in “Spookiness”...

Thomas Ray: "It's easy to get wound around the axle with black hole thermodynamics,..." in “Spookiness”...

Joe Fisher: "It seems to have escaped Wolpert’s somewhat limited attention that no two..." in Inferring the Limits on...

click titles to read articles

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

February 22, 2018

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: Choice Driven by Fear Is Universal, Consciousness Rare by Lee Bloomquist [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Lee Bloomquist wrote on Jan. 10, 2017 @ 21:50 GMT
Essay Abstract

This is a toy model of dark energy.

Author Bio

Lee Bloomquist is a retired Engineer, who also worked as an industrial researcher. He learned of the theory of information in this paper (Jon Barwise's informationalism) from organizing a workshop at Stanford's Center for the Study of Language and Information with Keith Devlin and Ted Goranson: The Business Applications of Situation Theory. From the workshop and from what he had learned about physics at Macalester College, he saw there was "the Born infomrophism." This essay is an attempt to inform physicists who might be able to use the information.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share

Gary D. Simpson wrote on Jan. 12, 2017 @ 15:58 GMT

Many thanks for an interesting read. I had to study it a little while to understand your nomenclature but it is worthwhile.

Your essay seems to argue that an object has a physical property that allows it to predict the future! To some, this might seem impossible, but to me, this seems very possible. You might find my essay to be interesting in this regard. I will combine your thoughts with mine and speculate that our reference frame is moving in a direction wherein the objects in our reference frame have a very slight thickness. And that this allows these objects to know what is about to happen:-)

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Lee Bloomquist replied on Jan. 13, 2017 @ 03:08 GMT
Thanks Gary. Looks like you are interested in the Division Algebras. They are fascinating. Division let's you say things about "possibility." If that interests you, there's something about it in the first section of a paper you can download here. I wonder what it would mean for the wave functions you are studying.

Bookmark and Share

Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 14, 2017 @ 16:59 GMT
Dear Mr. Bloomquist,

All visible objects have a real surface. As I have thoughtfully pointed out in my brilliant essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY, the real Universe consists only of one unified visible infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Reality am NOT guesswork.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Lee Bloomquist replied on Jan. 15, 2017 @ 01:56 GMT
Thanks for commenting, Joe. Reminds me of-- "Darkness sees no light and light sees no darkness."

Bookmark and Share

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 9, 2017 @ 00:59 GMT
Very nice essay Bloomquest,

Very good idea and logic is good. Probably you need to make some corrections in your essay. In page 7 last para and in page 8 first and second para… You mentioned dark energy and Blackhole. These concepts not required. They are not even required in large scale universe also. Physics at large scales can be explained without these in a much better way. Probably you also can find a better explanation using some other concepts. I was also thinking about this, we can discuss it later.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Lee Bloomquist wrote on Feb. 10, 2017 @ 02:41 GMT
Thanks for commenting!

More generally the idea is to look for equations that might reveal an information channel between different parts of the same system (as when using certain maths, the Born rule can be used to construct an information channel between the nonStandardFuture and the nonStandardPast).

As another example, the equation defining proper time in terms of coordinate time could be used to construct an information channel from a model of entanglement to a model of spacetime.

Bookmark and Share

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 09:22 GMT
Thank you sir,

I saw that essay. It was good and nicely discussed about nicely. your words......." However, despite a great deal of evidence for the validity of this correspondence, we do not have a deep understanding of why or how spacetime/gravity emerges from the degrees of freedom of the field theory. In this essay, we will argue, based on widely accepted examples of gauge theory / gravity duality, that the emergence of spacetime in the gravity picture is intimately related to the quantum entanglement of degrees of freedom in the corresponding conventional quantum system"....... Good Idea....

I request you to please have a look at my essay with a different approach...

I am requesting you to have a look at Dynamic Universe Model also…. For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example ‘Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary’ (1994) , ‘Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe’, About “SITA” simulations, ‘Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required’, “New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations”, “Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background”, “Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.”, in 2015 ‘Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, ‘Explaining Pioneer anomaly’, ‘Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets’, ‘Observation of super luminal neutrinos’, ‘Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up’, “Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto” etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

With axioms like… No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading…

st wishes to your essay.

For your blessings please…………….

=snp. gupta

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Member George F. R. Ellis wrote on Feb. 19, 2017 @ 07:07 GMT
Dear Lee

this is a very interesting essay. I very much like the breadth of vision. And I agree very much about Feynman and wandering.

Two specific issues. First, your concept of the origin of dark energy may relate to a very interesting paper by Thibaut Josset, Alejandro Perez, Daniel Sudarsky: arXiv:1604.04183.

Second, Probability Learning is crucial to life: it is adaptation at the psychological level. But it does not have to be based on fear. Cooperation could be more fundamental.

Best wishes


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Lee Bloomquist wrote on Feb. 19, 2017 @ 23:53 GMT
Professor Ellis,

First I must express my sincere respect. You have been recognized by Nelson Mandela for your opposition to apartheid. Perhaps of related interest, I have recently watched the video of a speaker in Soweto say that now South Africa has the chance to light, and lead, the world in peace.

Second, your essay demonstrates the logical equations of physics and then the logical languages of living systems. Ted Goranson, who then worked for ARPA and co-organized the workshop with myself and others on "The Business Applications of Situation Theory," has since that time begun to explore "apoptosis." He is now working with others on a "situation theoretic" approach to the hierarchy of systems you describe— in some ways differently, in some ways similarly. Situation theory takes context quite seriously— as do you. My starting point was Jon Barwise's "The Situation in Logic."

Third, this is a wonderful paper on dark energy. It recovers the Born rule! I have put that equation on my list of those I must study. In my own essay I see the signature of a learning algorithm in the Born rule. What is being learned? The laws of physics— in context! Abstracting this situation into a study of probability learning using game theory— "forces" become learning. And, the game takes energy— energy which in the game is hidden from the player. And also, hidden when we see in its expanding effects on the Universe. And, there is thermodynamic waste, by analogy from the thermodynamic engine of probability learning. The basic forces of the Universe, in this abstraction, become "entropic." Perhaps as in the above equation.

Fourth, at the highest level of life (arguably, our own) I agree that cooperation is indeed fundamental. "Wandering towards a goal" then suggests to me the fixed point as way to illustrate a kind of cooperation. Say that in a shopping mall my goal is the sporting goods store. So I stand in front of the map of the mall. What enables me to plan a path towards my goal is that there is, on the map in front of me, the point "You are here." Which is where I actually stand in the mall. Without this "fixed point" I would be faced with a random walk towards the goal (unless I am willing to ask strangers— an unlikely event for me as the typical male).

The fixed point-- "You are here"-- enables me more efficiently and more effectively to move towards my goal. It's a kind of cooperation. However to me, the key in an effective use of a map for moving towards a goal is first to know where I am. So I first focus on "self." Without that focus, this manner of cooperation would not be possible. After "self" is identified both in the real world and on the map, then a goal can be located on the map and a route in the real world planned towards that goal.

Applying the mathematical idea of "fixed point" to the process of traveling towards a goal works not only for this map of a shopping mall, but perhaps also for the classic and well known story of a journey told many centuries ago by Parmenides (friend of Zeno, who devised his "paradoxes" as an attempt to help Parmenides). The goal in Parmenides' story is to enter a hidden world. Applying the mathematical idea of "fixed point" to the map of a mall and also— to this well known story— may demonstrate a way for goals and a manner of cooperation to enter otherwise "mindless" mathematics.

Learning from the map might be the kind of cooperation needed. Someone in those days learning from Parmenides' story might be the needed cooperation.

Bookmark and Share

Author Lee Bloomquist wrote on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 01:07 GMT
This is an Extended Abstract of the essay.

This is a toy model of dark energy. The original motivation for building this model was to report to physicists the finding of a new mathematical object I called the Born infomorphism, a transmission of information from the nonstandard future into the nonstandard past involving the Born rule and a nonstandard...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share

Richard J Benish wrote on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 23:48 GMT
Dr. Bloomquist,

I enjoyed your thought-provoking essay which attaches human emotions to particles and stars:

"The toy model says we are all the same in the Universe: star- dust, stars, particles, human beings— all are driven by unconscious fear of some kind. And for human beings in the current world situation— this is a problem. Many important choices seem to be largely based on...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Lee Bloomquist replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 02:04 GMT
Richard, Thank you so much for commenting. There are a lot of interesting essays in this contest-- including yours. And, it's clear to me that you are enjoying your work! I hope that some gifted experimentalists get interested. Very Best Regards, Lee

Bookmark and Share

Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 23:11 GMT
Dear Lee Bloomquist

I inform all the participants that use the electronic translator, therefore, my essay is written badly. I participate in the contest to familiarize English-speaking scientists with New Cartesian Physic, the basis of which the principle of identity of space and matter. Combining space and matter into a single essence, the New Cartesian Physic is able to integrate modern...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Lee Bloomquist replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 00:25 GMT
Thank you Dizhechko Boris,

"self = (thinking, self)"

Bookmark and Share

Member Rick Searle wrote on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 00:14 GMT
Hello Lee,

I enjoyed your essay. In a way it brings things full circle from my own more literary take. Science began by taking mind out of matter, but if you're right, will conclude by having brought it back in.

Best of luck,

Rick Searle

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Lee Bloomquist replied on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 10:27 GMT
Thank you Rick.

"Being is thinking and being." -Parmenides

Bookmark and Share

Author Lee Bloomquist wrote on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 02:10 GMT
Fyi-- Here's a link to some other comments in the contest.

Bookmark and Share

Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Choisuren wrote on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 07:32 GMT
Dear Bloomquest,

I enjoyed your essay.

Very good idea and logic is good. I think that your idea is to look for equations that might reveal an information channel.

And also I like this phrase that

“This is a toy model of dark energy. The original motivation for building this model was to report to physicists the finding of a new mathematical object I called the Born infomorphism, a transmission of information from the nonstandard future into the nonstandard past involving the Born rule and a nonstandard model of time…”

With Best Regards,


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Lee Bloomquist replied on Apr. 9, 2017 @ 12:07 GMT
"I think that your idea is to look for equations that might reveal an information channel."

Dear Ch.Bayarsaikhan,

Thank you for your comment!

Yes, it does seem to me that the equation for the Born rule in David Bohm's book on Quantum Theory and the equation defining proper time in terms of coordinate time— both— support "local logic" for respective infomorphisms: the former involving an information channel from the nonStandard future into the nonStandard past, the latter an information channel from this process into a locally flat piece of spacetime and therefore into a local quantum field, the slight curvature between such local fields then being the result of escaped hidden energy from this process. It would be like a "thermodynamic Computer Automaton"— as in this video about the CA Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics by G. 't Hooft. But instead of linking a CA to each location of space as 't Hooft describes, I would see a "thermodynamic CA" in each of these particle-related processes.

Then the particle-as-object is like the continuous flow that we see in a motion picture comprising discrete image frames. Everything we physically perceive is technically the past like this, not the present. Because it takes time for the brain to assemble and process the incoming information from the discrete frames. So all of our intuition is based on this image of the past, which we think of as the present. Hence discrete images from the thermodynamic CA create an image recorded in the past of a continuously existing object— which we perceive as the classical, continuously existing "particle." The wave nature exists as a field of possibilities in the future, which we perceive only through our mathematical imagination, and not our physical perception as we do the past. In this way the "thermodynamic CA" is both wave and particle.

Granted, using the "hidden" character of this energy as it must be in order to support the game required, in terms of mathematical game theory, may be a stretch. But I suspect that we are approaching the limit of our ability to understand the Universe, and at this limit, the mathematical methods become sparse. This is my justification for saying that because this energy must be hidden for the mathematical game to work— therefore it must be "dark" in terms of the current mathematical methods.

Very Best Regards!


Bookmark and Share

Author Lee Bloomquist wrote on Apr. 22, 2017 @ 11:49 GMT

It's been said that writing is learning. Hemingway re-wrote one of his endings 47 times and according to this idea, he was simply learning what he wanted to say. For me writing this essay has been learning about the Born infomorphism and the associated proper time for the individual particle. Then after writing the essay, writing comments has been learning about N particles. Specifically I have been learning about this question:

If there's a Born infomorphism for N particles, what physically specifies the worldline of the associated proper time?

In the Schrödinger equation for N particles, there is just one time for the system of N particles and not multiple proper times, one for each particle. Then— is this one time in the Schrödinger equation the proper time for the system of N particles— is it the proper time for the system of N particles, which holds the Born infomorphism for the system? For support I look to Richard Feynman:

In Space-Time Approach to Non-Relativistic Quantum Mechanics, Richard Feynman wrote, "The formulation is mathematically equivalent to the more usual formulations. There are, therefore, no fundamentally new results…The total contribution from all paths reaching x, t from the past is the wave function Ψ(x,t). This is shown to satisfy Schroedinger's equation."

Rather than finding something like "1+2 = 3 is the same as 2+1=3," Feynman seems to have discovered, here, an "information channel" from the entangled system of N particles to the their quantum fields as represented by a Feynman diagram of the N particles. But Feynman didn't use mathematics to describe the information channel he'd discovered— instead he used natural language, as above.

In this essay, I used some mathematics to describe an information channel. To show that an information channel exists, I first have to show that an infomorphism exists. Which means showing there are two functions or arrows pointing in opposite directions, with heads connected to tails by each pointing to a respective situation, each situation supporting infons or elements of information from which the respective function or arrow originates— altogether meaning that the information supported in the one situation is connected by these arrows to the information supported in the other situation. The arrows take you back and forth in a closed circuit to the same information, with two equivalent translations. (Please see the diagram attached to this comment.)

So from the proper time of the system of N entangled particles specified by the Schrödinger equation, there is an arrow to the SET (I must emphasize) of possible coordinate time frames in spacetime, where for each coordinate time frame, the usual defining equation of proper time holds.

To get the above function describing an infomorphism, an arrow must go from the proper time of the entangled system to the SET of possible coordinate time frames.

Because in the other direction, there is the arrow from spacetime to the wave function of the entangled system.

Because (recalling what I learned in the essay) the entangled wave function includes not only possibilities in space but also possibilities in spin (etc.).

Space is just a "part" of these possibilities.

In "part of" relations, there is a function mapping each part to the system of which it is a part.

Which determines the direction of the arrow between the two kinds situations in the infomorphism.

To get a function going in the opposite direction, as required to identify an informorphism, there must also be a function from the proper time of the entangled system of N particles to the SET of possible coordinate time frames in spacetime.

Then to obtain Bohr's correspondence principle, which ultimately enabled Newton to have calculated using centers of mass (which don't exist in relativity), the worldline associated with proper time of the entangled system must be attached to the Fokker-Pryce center of inertia. About which, Pryce wrote, "Of these only one is independent of the frame in which it is defined. It suffers from the disadvantage that its components do not commute (in classical mechanics, do not have zero Poisson brackets), and are therefore unsuitable as generalized co-ordinates in mechanics."

Which "unsuitability" seems compatible with the idea of space emerging or depending upon entangled possibilities— and not the other way around.

attachments: 1_infomorphism.png

Bookmark and Share

Author Lee Bloomquist wrote on Apr. 24, 2017 @ 15:17 GMT
Applying G. 't Hooft's Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

First I assume it can be inferred from 't Hooft's paper (above) that algorithms may underlie Hilbert Space.

Then for an algorithm implementing a stream, there would exist in the mathematical models two functions:

(1) a function from the stream to a set of types, which would be the possible types of an element of the stream.

For example—

aStream = (elementOfSomeType, aStream)

which produces the stream of elements:

elementOfSomeType_1, elementOfSomeType_2, elementOfSomeType_3 and so on

Which requires a function from aStream for example, to the set--

{type_a, type_b, type_c}

Where an element produced by the aStream could, then, be any of the three types— type_a, type_b, or type_c— as specified by the above set.

(2) As well— for each cycle of aStream— a function from the specific cycle to the actual element produced in that cycle. For example:

aStreamInCycle1 -> anElementOfType_a

aStreamInCycle2 -> anElementOfType_c

aStreamInCycle3 -> anElementOfType_b

and so on.

Then if we see these functions in the mathematical model, by the assumed inference from 't Hooft's work on Cellular Automata, we can infer that an algorithm exists— in this case, an algorithm that generates a stream.

In the ADDENDUM (previous post here), "the Feynman infomorphism" exists (to give it a name). Which requires the existence of a function from proper time of the entangled system of particles to the SET of possible coordinate time frames that support the usual formula for defining proper time, applied to this proper time.

This set is then like the above set used to define the types of aStream.

And in that case, we are just one step away from finding an algorithm— which from the assumed inference based on 't Hooft, would underlie Hilbert space.

The next step:

Find the second function, as above, which maps each cycle of the stream to an actual instance of type specified in the set.

(In the essay, this is apparent in the Born infomorphism for the 3-valued Chu space suggested by Abramsky.)

More later.

Bookmark and Share

Author Lee Bloomquist wrote on May. 5, 2017 @ 12:28 GMT
The (perhaps) smallest possible connection between General Relativity and the Standard Model of Particle Physics

In previous posts— to establish an infomorphism or information channel between the proper time of a system of entangled particles and coordinate times of spacetime, a function was said to exist from (a) this proper time to (b) a set of coordinate times from which this proper time can be defined.

In this context, it is possible to imagine this set to be associated with a set of Feynman diagrams. For example consider Compton scattering. In the Standard Model of Particle Physics, in Compton scattering there is a set of Feynman diagrams.

While in General Relativity, there is just the lightcone on which the photon in Compton scattering travels. In the diagram from GR, the proper time of the photon to be Compton scattered has an interval of zero time from creation in the experiment to destruction in the Compton scattering event (as in the Feynman diagrams of the scattering event).

Nonstandard analysis can be applied to connect this diagram in GR to its Feynman diagrams in the Standard Model.

On the GR diagram of the lightcone on which the photon to be scattered exists, for any point on the worldline of the photon on that light cone (starting from the initial event in the experiment and ending at the Compton scattering event), the photon at that point will have in front of it an amount of time left to travel the worldline that is infinitely close to zero. And behind it, an amount of time already travelled that is infinitely close to zero.

Then in this case, "zero time" for the photon to travel this worldline in the usual GR diagram comprises instead a "nonstandard past" and a "nonstandard future"— in nonstandard analysis, both being intervals of time infinitely close to zero.

And in this nonstandard future, exists the set of possibilities diagrammed in the Standard Model by the Feynman diagrams of Compton scattering.

This connection of worldline diagram in GR to Feynam diagrams in the Standard Model (based on nonstandard analysis) might be the smallest possible connection that one could draw between GR and the Standard Model.

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.