FQXi Community

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/discuss • winners

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/discuss • winners

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/discuss • winners

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/discuss • winners

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

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/discuss • winners

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discuss • winners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

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

Peter Leifer: on 4/6/17 at 7:47am UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir, Thank you for your attention to my essay. I would like to...

Peter Leifer: on 4/6/17 at 6:46am UTC, wrote Dear Peter, Thanks for your very kind post! I really missed a lot of...

Vladimir Tamari: on 4/5/17 at 3:09am UTC, wrote Dear Professer Leifer I enjoyed reading your essay, especially since you...

Peter Jackson: on 4/4/17 at 13:57pm UTC, wrote Peter, Brilliant work towards progress on what Penrose has described as...

Héctor Gianni: on 3/12/17 at 0:09am UTC, wrote Dear Peter Leifer I invite you and every physicist to read my work “TIME...

Steve Dufourny: on 3/11/17 at 0:43am UTC, wrote I made an error about my equation, I hed not differe,ciated the wo...

Wilhelmus de Wilde: on 2/27/17 at 14:59pm UTC, wrote Dear Peter, Thanks for your reaction. Different colours make a beautifull...

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 2/24/17 at 14:21pm UTC, wrote Dear Prof Leifer, Thank you for the good essay on “quantum geometry" ...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Michael Hussey: "https://www.google.com" in New Nuclear "Magic...

Michael Hussey: "it is really difficult to understand what is all about all the things..." in New Nuclear "Magic...

Stefan Weckbach: "I have a problem with the notion of time in the multiverse scenario that..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Agnew: "It is interesting that you bring up change in the context of free..." in Cosmological Koans

Roger Granet: "By the way, this post was from Roger." in First Things First: The...

david john: "https://www.google.com google.com/ google.com/" in Black Hole Photographed...

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

Lorraine Ford: "Physics has failed to explain change: physics tries to claim that change is..." in Cosmological Koans

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.

read & discuss all articles

FQXi FORUM

July 17, 2019

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: Quantum relativity as the way towards reality by Peter Leifer [refresh]

Author Peter Leifer wrote on Feb. 21, 2017 @ 17:16 GMT

Essay Abstract

Wandering in quantum researches should lead to the rational goal - understanding. All history of the science shows how meaningful mathematical laws in physics, engineering, chemistry, etc., arose on the ground of rational human practice. I would like show that in the contradictory development of quantum physics, the theory ultimately follows the same line. ``Elementary" particles do exist. This fact does not depend on the procedure of a measurement. The existence, however, requires some description that mostly based on relations between measurable values. Our goal is to bridge this objective reality and its mental reflection. It is assumed that existence should be based on the invariant relations between measurable values. What kind of the invariance should be used?

Author Bio

I am physicist, Ph.D in physics and mathematics (1990), worked as scientific researcher at the Simferopol State University (1981-1992) and at the Institute for Advanced Studies at the Tel-Aviv State University (1993-1997). I worked as associate professor at the Crimea Engineering State University and Crimea Medical State University during (2002-2006) and (2011-2015). I retired and work as independent researcher. The area of my interests: foundations of quantum physics, quantum field theory, general relativity.

Download Essay PDF File

Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 09:02 GMT

Hello Mr Leifer,

A beautiful essay,congratulations I like your ideas.Don't forget 1D gravitational aether ....S3 SU(3) ...S(n) gravitationa sphere tending to infinty.I said me that you play with quantern,ions, octonions, sedenions .....the fracital of the spherical volumes so appear if and only if of course the commutativity and associativity is well utilised like the domains and the groups.

Quantum states indeed ,they turn so they are and the innertial comportments appear.

Good luck in this contest,

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Leifer replied on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 13:47 GMT

Dear Steve,

Thank you for kind notes and tips!

In connection with the mathematical formalism I may note following.

1. Up to now only the differential geometry of the SU(N) and CP(N-1) was taken into account.

2. I use only complex coefficient functions of the SU(N) generators.

More important the physical details:

1. The generalization of the Einstein's relativity to the ``quantum relativity" of a measuring device. This needs the intrinsic unification of quantum and relativity principle and reformulation of the inertia principle. People in the framework of this contest discuss SR and GR trying mostly deny their correctness. I may note shortly that absolute motion does exist but not in spacetime, in quantum state space.

2. Such approach requires new primordial elements.

3. These elements give a possibility to formulate mathematically new conservation laws and field equations.

Best regards,

Peter

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 15:42 GMT

You are welcome Mr Leifer,

Thanks also for these détails,I learn in the same tilme these parallelizations.Very relevant in all case your line of reasoning about these new conservationlaws and fields équations.I beleive strongly Mr LMeifer that we can find this quantum gravitation with this kind of mathjematical method in breaking this klind of bridge implying our standard model with thermo and lectromagntism.I am persuaded that this quantum gravity is a different quantum of E than our photons.I consider even that a photon is a particle of gravitation coded implying themrodynamical and electrompagntic properties.This particle of gravitation seems to be a serie of spherical volumes from the main central volume.I think that this zero absolute and this cold and this heat are more than we can imagine.The photons are not the only one piece of puzzle it seems to me.The aether even seems gravitational from this central cosm singularity, the biggest spherical volume.I am doubting that our universal center is a big star implying a luminiferous aether, a central BH creating particles of gravitation, the speedest seems more logic.But of course it is just my opinion.The main primordial field seems gravitational.The new primordial elements like you said Mr Leifer are these spherons,them they are it seems the ream primordial quantum of E.the gravitation seems really the main chief orchestra at all scales.If we fractalise this S3 SU(3) with the good primordial serie of spherical volumes,we find many things ....The SU(n) with n tending to infinity due to this gravitational aether, the gravitational sphere,so becomes relevant when we consider these volumes and the 3 motions of 3D spherical volumes and the mass.If my equation E=mc²+ml² is correct of course, we can superimpose this matter not baryonic to our standard model with the cold.The other relevance is that we must recalculate the mass because we have two mass ,one baryonic and the other not baryonic.Time also, must be relativel readated withn this qunt gravitation.It is a big puzzle Mr Leifer but I beleive that it is possibkle to check these spherons and correlaterd fields with this entropy tending to infinity like this gravitation in fact.It lacked this matter not baryonic in fact to explain many things, this reasoning explains BHs, quantum BHs,dark matter(spherons, particules of gravitation in the cold),quantum gravitation and spherisation.

Best Regards

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 00:43 GMT

I made an error about my equation, I hed not differe,ciated the wo different matter, baryonic and not baryonic.E=m(b)c²+m(nb)l² m(b( mass baryonic and m(nb) mass not baryonic,we have a road towards this entire infinite pradoxal entropy also and this correlated gravitation.

report post as inappropriate

Francis Duane Moore wrote on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 20:16 GMT

Greetings Peter; I am pleased to see your ideas about the deformation Geometry.My essay and your ideas might be combined into a more understandable model. See My essay "Proton three plane immersion connection theory". Keep going with the idea. Sincerely Francis Duane Moore.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Leifer replied on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 13:53 GMT

Dear Francis Duane Moore,

Thank you for greetings. Please give me a time to read you essay.

Sincerely yours,

Peter

Jeff Yee wrote on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 01:10 GMT

Peter, do you have suggestions on the quantum geometry referred to in your paper? The reason I ask is that our paper that we submitted models particles and shows similarity to atomic elements. In your paper, you conclude with spin and charge may be included in the geometry of space. In ours, we suggest that the geometry of the particle itself may be responsible for spin and charge.

What we were able to show in our paper is that a particle's mass may be similar to the construct of how protons bind in an atomic nucleus to create elements. This applies only to mass and leaves important particle characteristics of spin and charge out, which we know needs to be addressed. Hence my interest in the work that you've done. If you're curious to see our work, I'll attach a link. Meanwhile, I'm giving you a good rating on a job well done.

The Relation of Particles Numbers to Atomic Numbers

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Leifer replied on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 14:01 GMT

Dear Jeff Yee,

Thank you for estimation, interesting questions and you article.

I need some time to read it. I should understand what means the ``geometry of the particle itself".

Sincerely yours,

Peter

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 15:59 GMT

Dear Peter,

It is a very clear essay. Your interpretation of reality is another one s mine. I think that your interpretation together with all the others here in the conquest are forming a totality of human thinking.

I hope you will find some time to read my thinking about reality you find it at : http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2770

Pls be warned that thre are participants throwing one's as rating when you have a good score (I reveived thrre ones!!!)

best regards and good luck

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 16:03 GMT

the direct link is ;

THE PURPOSE OF LIFE[link]

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher wrote on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 17:05 GMT

Dear Professor Leifer,

Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 14:21 GMT

Dear Prof Leifer,

Thank you for the good essay on “quantum geometry"

You are observations are excellent, like…

1. “The experimental foundation is, say, material provision for the correctness of theoretical schemes that gives rational explanation of observations.”

2. “Einstein’s words…. “God does not play dice" . But it is not only the methodological...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Feb. 27, 2017 @ 14:59 GMT

Dear Peter,

Thanks for your reaction.

Different colours make a beautifull rainbow....

I mentioned the ratings because I began with a 6 and a 9 nd then from nothing three 1's appeared , so I had to struggle from downwards on...

It seems to happen more, as I was warned by another author.

I just don't know who is playing this game of ones...

best regards

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 00:09 GMT

Dear Peter Leifer

I invite you and every physicist to read my work “TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I’m not a physicist.

How people interested in “Time” could feel about related things to the subject.

1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as “Time” definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,… a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander…..

6) ….worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn’t a viable theory, but a proved fact.

7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.

9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

11)Time “existence” is exclusive as a “measuring system”, its physical existence can’t be proved by science, as the “time system” is. Experimentally “time” is “movement”, we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure “constant and uniform” movement and not “the so called Time”.

12)The original “time manuscript” has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

I share this brief with people interested in “time” and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.

Héctor

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 13:57 GMT

Peter,

Brilliant work towards progress on what Penrose has described as the "Holy Grail", closing the "Chasm" between SR and QM. You'll now you're not there yet, but I can now offer some solid help. Did you read my (top scored) 'Red & Green socks' essay last year? (or past top 10 finishers deriving Special Relativity in a way possibly compatible with a classical derivation of QM?)

Well this year I identified the final piece of the puzzle, pretty well as you describe, but with actual rotation (angular momentum) and electrical charge identified as real orthogonal momenta on a spinning sphere, the cosine value distribution from an extension of Pythagoras to 3D dynamics, and then the subsequent mechanism producing the squared cosine values. i.e. Classic QM, fully meeting your aim of Quantum Relativity.

See also Bill McHarris's excellent essay (and both ours from 2 years ago).

I have produced papers (inc. joint with John Minkowski) but we're incapable of getting anything published in a mainstream journal, as most would be without much more collaboration. I hope you'll consider that. But do read (and score) my essay first (which first explains why most brains won't allow such progress!)

Top job, well done. And just before time expires. Yours gets a getting a 10 from me right now and I'm pretty sure you'll want to give mine the same.

Very best

Peter

I also have a video. See the essay first and I'll post some links.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Leifer replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 06:46 GMT

Dear Peter,

Thanks for your very kind post! I really missed a lot of interesting and important contributions during last years in FQXi. I think that your ``classical QM" is very close to the relatively new Complex Mechanics of C.-D. Yang.

You may ask me to send pdf in my email peter.leifer@gmail.com. In any case your approach with nice visualization of quantum states and graphics are very prolific! May be it is much more acceptable in comparison with my abstract discussions. I must think about it!

I try to read your essay 2015 and 2017. I hope I may to vote! In any case the manner of the score calculations is VERY DARK. How they do it?

Sincerely yours,

Peter

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 03:09 GMT

Dear Professer Leifer

I enjoyed reading your essay, especially since you so clearly question various Bohrian positions in QM in favor of a more realistic physics such as Einstein wished for.

"God does not play dice." Exactly but I have explained in my fqxi essay how - ironically - it was Einstein's unwarranted description in 1905 of the photon quanta as a point particle (not just a bundle of wave energy =hv). He created the false notion of duality which led to probability and plagues physics to this day.

Heisenberg: " I think that Einstein was sure that quantum theory requires a new more deep kind of“quantum geometry” hidden behind details of measurements. The invariance closely related to the concept of “reality” "

Excellent - perhaps that geometry is Cellular Automata creating space, matter, energy as in my Beautiful Universe Model

"Even spacetime cannot save its independent and a priori structure". Great! I have been outspoken in the need to reconstruct physics without spacetime as in the above papers.

Your essay contained other topics difficult for me to understand such as your proposals for new primordial elements. In my model such elements are of one kind: simple qubits that have dielectric dipolar properties affecting the spin and orientation of their neighbors in a universal lattice.

Wishing you all the best,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Leifer replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 07:47 GMT

Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for your attention to my essay. I would like to do some notes very shortly.

1. ``He created the false notion of duality". I may agree that DUALITY is not the final true! Please take into account that on the concept of duality based not only QFT but quantum solid body state, quantum theory of magnetism, etc. You blame Einstein but he was the first who try to reach the UNITY.

2. Heisenberg: " I think that Einstein was sure that quantum theory requires a new more deep kind of“ quantum geometry” hidden behind details of measurements. The invariance closely related to the concept of “reality” " You prescribed this phrase to Heisenberg but this is my. I erroneously assumed that cite italisation will be enough.

3. I found in you essay the identity ``acceleration=gravity" and it is treated as the equivalence principle. But it is incorrect! Acceleration is only external representation of the motion due to interaction. Please read on of the last my articles.

Sincerely yours,

Peter