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.

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

Previous Contests

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Tejinder Singh**: *on* 4/7/17 at 18:08pm UTC, wrote Dear Torsten, Many thanks for your kind remarks on my essay. Best, ...

**Tejinder Singh**: *on* 4/7/17 at 15:26pm UTC, wrote Dear Peter, Greetings. I had already read your essay with pleasure, and...

**Tejinder Singh**: *on* 4/7/17 at 15:21pm UTC, wrote Dear Cristi, Greetings, and many thanks for your kind comments. Thanks...

**Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga**: *on* 4/6/17 at 20:19pm UTC, wrote Dear Tejinder, very interesting essay with provocative thesis (quantum...

**Peter Jackson**: *on* 4/6/17 at 18:48pm UTC, wrote Tejinder, I hope to hear from you over on mine before we imminently have...

**Cristinel Stoica**: *on* 4/6/17 at 18:47pm UTC, wrote Dear Tejinder, I enjoyed very much your essay, in which you discuss CSL...

**Tejinder Singh**: *on* 4/6/17 at 14:06pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Malik, Thank you so much for your kind appreciation. If I have...

**Tejinder Singh**: *on* 4/6/17 at 14:01pm UTC, wrote Dear Ch., Thank you so much for your kind remarks and good wishes, and...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Jason Wolfe**: "Hi Steve, It sounds like we have similar interpretations of quantum..."
*in* Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

**Steve Agnew**: "Yes indeed, a wavefunction represents a superposition of locations as well..."
*in* Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

**Jason Wolfe**: "Science is motivated to sever the connection with Deity. They use fluff,..."
*in* Constructing a Theory of...

**Robert McEachern**: ""But what do scientists hope quantum computers will be good for,..."
*in* What Will Quantum...

**Zeeya Merali**: "Over the past couple of months there’s been renewed interest, and quite..."
*in* What Will Quantum...

**Jason Wolfe**: "If I could write an unconventional model of reality, it would come with a..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Steve Dufourny**: "the fuzzy spheres are very relevant in fact ,they are non commutative, I..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Jason Wolfe**: "Joe Fisher, I'm not sure reality is sensible. But the NDE/ghost stuff is..."
*in* First Things First: The...

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.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

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.

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

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.

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

November 22, 2019

CATEGORY:
Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017)
[back]

TOPIC: There Are No Goals To Wander To by Tejinder Singh [refresh]

TOPIC: There Are No Goals To Wander To by Tejinder Singh [refresh]

We argue that space and space-time emerge as a consequence of dynamical collapse of the wave function of macroscopic objects. We live in an approximate universe. At the fundamental level, everything is everywhere all the time: there are no goals to wander to.

Tejinder Singh is Professor of Physics at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai. His research interests are in foundations of quantum mechanics, quantum gravity, and cosmology. For many years he has been thinking about the nature of time, especially in the context of quantum theory. He believes that space and time are emergent properties of a classical universe. And since quantum theory depends on classical time, the current formulation of quantum theory must also be emergent, coming from a deeper theory in which there is no classical time. This issue seems deeply related to the quantum measurement problem.

Dear Dr. Tejinder,

We are very close in our description of our essays, it's just that i am basing consciousness as the fundamental foundation to arrive at my conclusions and trying to provide a mathematical model using Riemann sphere to quantify consciousness as all the scientific community needs is quantification for accepting any theory. I welcome you to read the essay There are no goals as such it's all play and wish you all the best with your essay and my posts in it.

Love,

i.

report post as inappropriate

We are very close in our description of our essays, it's just that i am basing consciousness as the fundamental foundation to arrive at my conclusions and trying to provide a mathematical model using Riemann sphere to quantify consciousness as all the scientific community needs is quantification for accepting any theory. I welcome you to read the essay There are no goals as such it's all play and wish you all the best with your essay and my posts in it.

Love,

i.

report post as inappropriate

I think I suspected as much. In detail: properTime = (clockTime, properTime) and clockTime = (nonStandardFuture, standardPresent, NonStandardPast).

There is an "infomorphism" from the noncommutative Universe to classical space time based on the usual equation defining proper time in terms of coordinate time.

The wave function represents possibilities in the nonstandard future, and based on the usual equation for the Born rule there is another infomorphism from there to the nonstandard past. Which translates language about possibilities into language about probabilities.

Professor Singh, in my humble lay person's opinion, your essay is a 10!

report post as inappropriate

There is an "infomorphism" from the noncommutative Universe to classical space time based on the usual equation defining proper time in terms of coordinate time.

The wave function represents possibilities in the nonstandard future, and based on the usual equation for the Born rule there is another infomorphism from there to the nonstandard past. Which translates language about possibilities into language about probabilities.

Professor Singh, in my humble lay person's opinion, your essay is a 10!

report post as inappropriate

Hi Mr Singh ,

Congratulations for this general work, good luck in this contest.

report post as inappropriate

Congratulations for this general work, good luck in this contest.

report post as inappropriate

Hi Tejinder,

You are welcome,

:) Good to see you again on fqxi also,

All the best from Belgium

report post as inappropriate

You are welcome,

:) Good to see you again on fqxi also,

All the best from Belgium

report post as inappropriate

Dear Tejinder,

Excellently written and brave essay, recognising the Kings New Clothes as fabrication, crying it out loud and*even* offering a cloaking device. I agree and applaud you 100% for all the identification and analysis (so 8/8 scored so far!) and provisionally 50% for effort with the cloak (~1).

But I wish to find out if you're the 1 in 20 I've just referred to under Stephen Ternyiks short essay. One who understands QM and its foundations, has not blindly*bought* it all, and who also can look beyond both convention *and just their OWN* ideas for a solution.

I've identified and describe the very simplest and most obvious self evident falsifiable classical solution in my essay. But it's the giant "elephant in the room", to big and simple it seems for anyone to "see"

In a nutshell, there really ARE two (identifiable) orthogonal complementary classical states of momentum in an electron, consistent with Maxwell (only one is 'curl') Pairs travel on antiparalell polar axes. A detector electron is the same with a*rotatable* polar axis dictating transfer found (so much for non-locality!) and the momenta vary by the cos of the angle between the poles and equator, with values squared by a well known process.

That is ALL classical, in absolute time (sorry!) and all of the dozen (you missed a few) illogical effects in QM resolve themselves. And all EXACTLY as John Bell predicted! (It emerged in a test of the 'Discrete Field' relativity you may recall so allows consistent QM & SR in absolute time & 'Local' physics).

You'll see this really is a rather BIG elephant!

I'd greatly value your study, questions, comments, advice and, hopefully even, help. As I'm sure I didn't fully understand your 'cloak' and I do agree non commutativity in fundamental principle, there may well be correspondence.

Very well done and thank you for yours.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Excellently written and brave essay, recognising the Kings New Clothes as fabrication, crying it out loud and

But I wish to find out if you're the 1 in 20 I've just referred to under Stephen Ternyiks short essay. One who understands QM and its foundations, has not blindly

I've identified and describe the very simplest and most obvious self evident falsifiable classical solution in my essay. But it's the giant "elephant in the room", to big and simple it seems for anyone to "see"

In a nutshell, there really ARE two (identifiable) orthogonal complementary classical states of momentum in an electron, consistent with Maxwell (only one is 'curl') Pairs travel on antiparalell polar axes. A detector electron is the same with a

That is ALL classical, in absolute time (sorry!) and all of the dozen (you missed a few) illogical effects in QM resolve themselves. And all EXACTLY as John Bell predicted! (It emerged in a test of the 'Discrete Field' relativity you may recall so allows consistent QM & SR in absolute time & 'Local' physics).

You'll see this really is a rather BIG elephant!

I'd greatly value your study, questions, comments, advice and, hopefully even, help. As I'm sure I didn't fully understand your 'cloak' and I do agree non commutativity in fundamental principle, there may well be correspondence.

Very well done and thank you for yours.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Dear Peter,

Greetings, and good to see you again :-) Many thanks for your kind appreciation.

You are suggesting a local, classical theory. Its unorthodox alright :-) So which of Bell's assumptions do you drop?

I will surely see your essay, and get back. Please give me a few days.

My best wishes,

Tejinder

Greetings, and good to see you again :-) Many thanks for your kind appreciation.

You are suggesting a local, classical theory. Its unorthodox alright :-) So which of Bell's assumptions do you drop?

I will surely see your essay, and get back. Please give me a few days.

My best wishes,

Tejinder

Hi Tejinder.

Bell carefully made no assumptions of his own but was testing QM's assumptions "..will use freely all the usual notions". Much of what he said is ignored by most in QM! In his own view he falsified those assumptions.*“in our opinion lead inescapably to the conclusion that quantum mechanics is at the best, incomplete.”* He just couldn't find which one and...

view entire post

Bell carefully made no assumptions of his own but was testing QM's assumptions "..will use freely all the usual notions". Much of what he said is ignored by most in QM! In his own view he falsified those assumptions.

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Professor Singh.

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

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

Dear Joe,

Greetings, and good to meet again. I look forward to reading your essay in the coming days.

Regarding things being made simple but not simpler... I am of the view that quantum theory appears strange when viewed from a classical space-time. The strangeness can be avoided by getting rid of classical time and finding a new equivalent formulation. So it seems to me that what I am suggesting is more natural and self-consistent, as compared to employing classical time, and in that sense simple. Its simpler than how we formulate quantum theory at present, but I think its not `simpler' in the sense implied by Einstein :-)

My best wishes,

Tejinder

Greetings, and good to meet again. I look forward to reading your essay in the coming days.

Regarding things being made simple but not simpler... I am of the view that quantum theory appears strange when viewed from a classical space-time. The strangeness can be avoided by getting rid of classical time and finding a new equivalent formulation. So it seems to me that what I am suggesting is more natural and self-consistent, as compared to employing classical time, and in that sense simple. Its simpler than how we formulate quantum theory at present, but I think its not `simpler' in the sense implied by Einstein :-)

My best wishes,

Tejinder

Dear Tejinder,

WOW, this is the first essay I have read that has the sma perceptions as mine.

It is really a pleasure to read it.

I only have another end to my interpretation : There may be goal...reaching out for the source of the excitations of consciousness in what I call Total Simultaneity.

But perhaps the search for a goal is just a human wishfull thinking...

I hope that you will find the time to read (and maybe give a rating my essay "The Purpose of Life"

best regards

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

WOW, this is the first essay I have read that has the sma perceptions as mine.

It is really a pleasure to read it.

I only have another end to my interpretation : There may be goal...reaching out for the source of the excitations of consciousness in what I call Total Simultaneity.

But perhaps the search for a goal is just a human wishfull thinking...

I hope that you will find the time to read (and maybe give a rating my essay "The Purpose of Life"

best regards

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Dear Wilhelmus,

Greetings, and thank you for reading my essay. I look forward to reading your essay in the coming days.

Perhaps I should comment on my claim of there being no goals. If we assume that `wandering towards a goal' pre-assumes the existence of time and physical space, I am only saying that the so-called `mindless mathematical equations' are, deep down, even more mindless than they appear to be. In the sense that in the absence of classical space and time, we should not be talking of wandering in the conventional sense.

At the approximate level though, where space and time emerge, we can legitimately talk of wandering and goals [as in your search "reaching out for the source of the excitations of consciousness in what I call Total Simultaneity."] Perhaps we might want to call this an approximate wandering towards approximate goals in an approximate universe described by approximate mindless mathematical laws. These approximate laws could be called less mindless than the underlying ones, because they at least have a notion of time and space in an emergent sense.

Kind regards,

Tejinder

Greetings, and thank you for reading my essay. I look forward to reading your essay in the coming days.

Perhaps I should comment on my claim of there being no goals. If we assume that `wandering towards a goal' pre-assumes the existence of time and physical space, I am only saying that the so-called `mindless mathematical equations' are, deep down, even more mindless than they appear to be. In the sense that in the absence of classical space and time, we should not be talking of wandering in the conventional sense.

At the approximate level though, where space and time emerge, we can legitimately talk of wandering and goals [as in your search "reaching out for the source of the excitations of consciousness in what I call Total Simultaneity."] Perhaps we might want to call this an approximate wandering towards approximate goals in an approximate universe described by approximate mindless mathematical laws. These approximate laws could be called less mindless than the underlying ones, because they at least have a notion of time and space in an emergent sense.

Kind regards,

Tejinder

Dear Tejinder

The emergent "wandering to a goal" is in my view seemingly reaching out for eternity...

I am still awaiting your esteemed comment and rating on my my essay : "The Purpose of Life".

thank you and best of luck in this time restricted goal...

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

The emergent "wandering to a goal" is in my view seemingly reaching out for eternity...

I am still awaiting your esteemed comment and rating on my my essay : "The Purpose of Life".

thank you and best of luck in this time restricted goal...

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

This is the best essay by far that I have read so far. Although I have heard of the continuous spontaneous collapse theory (CSL), I have not really bothered to look at it that closely. Thanks so much for the nice clear exposition.

The collapse rate of Eq. 1 is lambda = 1e-17 1/s, which of course is 0.32 ppb/yr. The exact number from aethertime is 0.26 ppb/yr and is not arbitrary. It comes from the collapse needed to unite charge and gravity forces, so it is not a new constant by far and = m_{H}^{2} G/(q^{2} c r_{B} 1e-7).

The collapse radius of 1e-4 cm = 100 nm is actually very close to the exact radius of 70 nm where dispersion and gravity forces are equal. Both of these constants are then not really new constants since they both derive from the properties of the universe.

It is really pleasing to see mainstream science is finally catching up to the truth of quantum gravity and decoherence. Note that Eq. 3 shows the Schrodinger equation

i h_{bar} dΨ/ds = HΨ(s)

which is great with your new non-commuting time, s. But really, once you have CSL, you do not really need s, right? instead, you just use constant dm/dt = m_{dot} as the intrinsic matter decay in this epoch to rescale wavefunctions from time to matter spectra as

i h_{bar} dΨ/dm dm/dt = HΨ(s)

and so

i h_{bar} dΨ(m)/dm = HΨ(m)/m_{dot}

and you have a made to order quantum universe for both gravity and charge...with a little more work, that is.

You are very, very close...with luck, you may beat out Carroll and Weinberg and Wetterich...

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

The collapse rate of Eq. 1 is lambda = 1e-17 1/s, which of course is 0.32 ppb/yr. The exact number from aethertime is 0.26 ppb/yr and is not arbitrary. It comes from the collapse needed to unite charge and gravity forces, so it is not a new constant by far and = m

The collapse radius of 1e-4 cm = 100 nm is actually very close to the exact radius of 70 nm where dispersion and gravity forces are equal. Both of these constants are then not really new constants since they both derive from the properties of the universe.

It is really pleasing to see mainstream science is finally catching up to the truth of quantum gravity and decoherence. Note that Eq. 3 shows the Schrodinger equation

i h

which is great with your new non-commuting time, s. But really, once you have CSL, you do not really need s, right? instead, you just use constant dm/dt = m

i h

and so

i h

and you have a made to order quantum universe for both gravity and charge...with a little more work, that is.

You are very, very close...with luck, you may beat out Carroll and Weinberg and Wetterich...

report post as inappropriate

...oh, and quantum wandering is still wandering. Just because your path is not deterministic and is instead probablistic, does not mean that wandering does not exist...it just means that an exact path is unknowable, but there is a likely path...

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dear Steve,

Many thanks for your kind remarks.

I am intrigued by your comments:

" It comes from the collapse needed to unite charge and gravity forces, so it is not a new constant by far and = mH2 G/(q2 c rB 1e-7).

The collapse radius of 1e-4 cm = 100 nm is actually very close to the exact radius of 70 nm where dispersion and gravity forces are equal. Both of these constants are then not really new constants since they both derive from the properties of the universe."

I am very interested in knowing how you arrived at your expression for the collapse rate, and also the collapse radius. Can you point me to a reference I can look up. If you have fundamental expressions for the collapse rate and radius, that's great - the CSL community is not aware of this, as far as I know.

Yes you are right CSL does not need the Trace time s. But I did not understand what you meant by "intrinsic matter decay".

As to what I mean by `no goals to wander to' please see my response above to the post by Wilhelmus. Thanks.

Best regards,

Tejinder

Many thanks for your kind remarks.

I am intrigued by your comments:

" It comes from the collapse needed to unite charge and gravity forces, so it is not a new constant by far and = mH2 G/(q2 c rB 1e-7).

The collapse radius of 1e-4 cm = 100 nm is actually very close to the exact radius of 70 nm where dispersion and gravity forces are equal. Both of these constants are then not really new constants since they both derive from the properties of the universe."

I am very interested in knowing how you arrived at your expression for the collapse rate, and also the collapse radius. Can you point me to a reference I can look up. If you have fundamental expressions for the collapse rate and radius, that's great - the CSL community is not aware of this, as far as I know.

Yes you are right CSL does not need the Trace time s. But I did not understand what you meant by "intrinsic matter decay".

As to what I mean by `no goals to wander to' please see my response above to the post by Wilhelmus. Thanks.

Best regards,

Tejinder

The decoherence of aethertime is simply the assumption that the universe force expands and matter shrinks at a rate given by the action of the universe pulse. This means that gravity and charge force are just different manifestations of universe decoherence, what you call continuous spontaneous localization (CSL).

I am not sure why the CSL constants agree so well with aethertime, but it...

view entire post

I am not sure why the CSL constants agree so well with aethertime, but it...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Prof Singh sab,

Thank you for the nice essay on “quantum wandering"

You are observations are excellent in page 3, like…” The problem of time in quantum theory: The time that appears in quantum theory is part of a classical space-time, whose geometry is determined by macroscopic classical bodies,**according to the laws of general relativity.** But these classical...

view entire post

Thank you for the nice essay on “quantum wandering"

You are observations are excellent in page 3, like…” The problem of time in quantum theory: The time that appears in quantum theory is part of a classical space-time, whose geometry is determined by macroscopic classical bodies,

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Professor Singh,

I hope you don't mind if I take this chance to ask you a "Relativity 101" i.e., very basic question about your ideas. First, my understanding is that the equation for defining proper time in terms of coordinate time is an arrow, or function, from a coordinate frame comprising rigid rods and clocks to the proper time of a particle.

But to model classical space time emerging from the noncommutative Universe, it seems to me that the arrows must go in the other direction— starting from each proper time of a particle in the noncommutative Universe. And ending at a *set* of possible frames of rigid rods and clocks, or possible coordinate times in classical space time— where for each possible coordinate time in the set there is an equation back to the proper time.

(I'm try to see this in terms of "infomorphisms." So I'm attaching a screen shot of the relevant page in Barwise and Seligman's "Information Flow: The Logic of Distributed Systems.")

To get an informorphism, there must also be an arrow in the other direction— but now between the "models" supporting the RHS and LHS of the equation for proper time in terms of coordinate time— the one model supporting the coordinate times in classical space time; the other model in our case being the noncommutative Universe, supporting the proper time. This arrow would represent "emerges from." So this arrow starts at classical space time and ends at the noncommutative Universe-- the opposite direction from the above arrows.

Is this way of looking at the emergence of classical coordinate time from (in our case) proper time in the noncommutative Universe compatible with how you see it?

Best Regards,

Lee Bloomquist

attachments: infomorphism.png

report post as inappropriate

I hope you don't mind if I take this chance to ask you a "Relativity 101" i.e., very basic question about your ideas. First, my understanding is that the equation for defining proper time in terms of coordinate time is an arrow, or function, from a coordinate frame comprising rigid rods and clocks to the proper time of a particle.

But to model classical space time emerging from the noncommutative Universe, it seems to me that the arrows must go in the other direction— starting from each proper time of a particle in the noncommutative Universe. And ending at a *set* of possible frames of rigid rods and clocks, or possible coordinate times in classical space time— where for each possible coordinate time in the set there is an equation back to the proper time.

(I'm try to see this in terms of "infomorphisms." So I'm attaching a screen shot of the relevant page in Barwise and Seligman's "Information Flow: The Logic of Distributed Systems.")

To get an informorphism, there must also be an arrow in the other direction— but now between the "models" supporting the RHS and LHS of the equation for proper time in terms of coordinate time— the one model supporting the coordinate times in classical space time; the other model in our case being the noncommutative Universe, supporting the proper time. This arrow would represent "emerges from." So this arrow starts at classical space time and ends at the noncommutative Universe-- the opposite direction from the above arrows.

Is this way of looking at the emergence of classical coordinate time from (in our case) proper time in the noncommutative Universe compatible with how you see it?

Best Regards,

Lee Bloomquist

attachments: infomorphism.png

report post as inappropriate

Dear Lee,

I think we should map the non-commuting operator time and space coordinates to the trace time s. And of course the ordinary time and space coordinates should be mapped to the usual proper time [this is different from the trace time s] using rigid rods and clocks, as you point out.

The ordinary space-time coordinates are resulting after a statistical coarse graining of the operator coordinates, and one should not relate the former to the trace time s.

Hope I understood your question properly.

Regards,

Tejinder

report post as inappropriate

I think we should map the non-commuting operator time and space coordinates to the trace time s. And of course the ordinary time and space coordinates should be mapped to the usual proper time [this is different from the trace time s] using rigid rods and clocks, as you point out.

The ordinary space-time coordinates are resulting after a statistical coarse graining of the operator coordinates, and one should not relate the former to the trace time s.

Hope I understood your question properly.

Regards,

Tejinder

"The ordinary space-time coordinates are resulting after a statistical coarse graining of the operator coordinates, and one should not relate the former to the trace time s."

Professor Singh, thank you for replying! This is free schooling for me and I very much appreciate your response. So far I have the idea in my head that for a particle in question, in the usual space-time there will be many possible coordinate times, but just one proper time. (?)

If so, are there also many possible operator coordinate times?

Or, does the statistical course graining "average" all the possible operator coordinate times?

In the case that there are many possible operator coordinate times, how should each be mapped to each of the many possible, ordinary coordinate times?

In the case that the statistical course graining course-grains over possible operator coordinate times, how should that course graining be mapped to the many possible ordinary coordinate times?

(If these questions even make sense.)

I'm assuming that the mappings associated with the equations should go from the noncommutative Universe to the usual space-time, since the latter emerges from the former.

Thank you so much for this very valuable online classroom time!

Lee

report post as inappropriate

Professor Singh, thank you for replying! This is free schooling for me and I very much appreciate your response. So far I have the idea in my head that for a particle in question, in the usual space-time there will be many possible coordinate times, but just one proper time. (?)

If so, are there also many possible operator coordinate times?

Or, does the statistical course graining "average" all the possible operator coordinate times?

In the case that there are many possible operator coordinate times, how should each be mapped to each of the many possible, ordinary coordinate times?

In the case that the statistical course graining course-grains over possible operator coordinate times, how should that course graining be mapped to the many possible ordinary coordinate times?

(If these questions even make sense.)

I'm assuming that the mappings associated with the equations should go from the noncommutative Universe to the usual space-time, since the latter emerges from the former.

Thank you so much for this very valuable online classroom time!

Lee

report post as inappropriate

Dear Lee,

If it is OK with you, kindly have a look at this paper I recently wrote:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.09132

Hopefully this addresses the issues you raised above, and you could also have a look at some of the references therein.

I am of course happy to continue our discussion. Thank you for your kind interest.

Tejinder

If it is OK with you, kindly have a look at this paper I recently wrote:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.09132

Hopefully this addresses the issues you raised above, and you could also have a look at some of the references therein.

I am of course happy to continue our discussion. Thank you for your kind interest.

Tejinder

Professor Singh,

Thank you for sending me to this paper! I will read it many times. It clarifies for me that while I have been playing with "toy models" (at best, like the toy model of an airplane in a wind tunnel), you are working on the real thing (a test pilot flying the full size plane).

In addition to my essay in this contest, much of the following is in this text (as well as in...

view entire post

Thank you for sending me to this paper! I will read it many times. It clarifies for me that while I have been playing with "toy models" (at best, like the toy model of an airplane in a wind tunnel), you are working on the real thing (a test pilot flying the full size plane).

In addition to my essay in this contest, much of the following is in this text (as well as in...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear TP singh,

Went through the article, it is quite interesting. Physics seems to have reached the Superconscient end of the Existence, starting from the Inconscient end. Is it the end of physics, for it seems to be capturing the Ultimate. Its conclusions almost rhyme with what we conceive in Vedas or Gita.

report post as inappropriate

Went through the article, it is quite interesting. Physics seems to have reached the Superconscient end of the Existence, starting from the Inconscient end. Is it the end of physics, for it seems to be capturing the Ultimate. Its conclusions almost rhyme with what we conceive in Vedas or Gita.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Nirupam,

Greetings and thank you. If space-time were to be successfully replaced by something else, it would not be the end of physics but another step forward. I think there is a great deal in physics we do not still understand - the beginning of the universe, the nature of the dark component of the universe, the origin of the pattern of particle masses, the physical basis of living systems, and of the brain and mind...just to name a few issues. I feel we have a very long way to go still.

How did the ancient spiritual masters conclude that `everything is one'? This is a fascinating question and I have no answer!

Kind regards,

Tejinder

Greetings and thank you. If space-time were to be successfully replaced by something else, it would not be the end of physics but another step forward. I think there is a great deal in physics we do not still understand - the beginning of the universe, the nature of the dark component of the universe, the origin of the pattern of particle masses, the physical basis of living systems, and of the brain and mind...just to name a few issues. I feel we have a very long way to go still.

How did the ancient spiritual masters conclude that `everything is one'? This is a fascinating question and I have no answer!

Kind regards,

Tejinder

"Quantum theory is not the whole truth. It is an approximation to a deeper theory." My guess is that the preceding idea is correct, but in order for its empirical confirmation there must be recognition of the following: Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. If Milgrom's MOdified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) were empirically wrong, then there is no way that Milgrom could have convinced McGaugh and Kroupa.

http://astroweb.case.edu/ssm/mond/burn1.html "Why Consider MOND?" by S. McGaugh

https://astro.uni-bonn.de/~pavel/kroupa_cosmology.htm

l "Pavel Kroupa: Dark Matter, Cosmology and Progress"

The empirical successes of MOND imply that there are 2 alternatives: (1) Newtonian-Einsteinian gravitational theory is 100% correct but appears to be slightly wrong for some unknown reason. (2) Newtonian-Einsteinian gravitational theory really is significantly wrong in terms of empirical statistics.

report post as inappropriate

http://astroweb.case.edu/ssm/mond/burn1.html "Why Consider MOND?" by S. McGaugh

https://astro.uni-bonn.de/~pavel/kroupa_cosmology.htm

l "Pavel Kroupa: Dark Matter, Cosmology and Progress"

The empirical successes of MOND imply that there are 2 alternatives: (1) Newtonian-Einsteinian gravitational theory is 100% correct but appears to be slightly wrong for some unknown reason. (2) Newtonian-Einsteinian gravitational theory really is significantly wrong in terms of empirical statistics.

report post as inappropriate

Dear David,

Thank you. I am glad you bring up MOND, because I have been thinking a bit about MOND versus dark matter. I agree that if MOND is correct, any modified quantum theory must yield MOND in the classical limit. I also agree that Kroupa and McGaugh make a good case for MOND with regard to empirical observations of galaxies, and the critical acceleration which shows up again and again in galaxy data. Whereas Lambda-CDM has no scope for providing this critical acceleration.

But then, Lambda-CDM is very successful with structure formation, and matches so well with data such as baryonic acoustic oscillations. Whereas TeVeS does not do well at all on this front.

So where then does the truth lie? Dark matter or MOND? I would like to believe that something like dark matter and something like MOND are both needed - the former to make structures, and the latter to introduce the critical acceleration. But MOND should become irrelevant during structure formation and dark matter should become irrelevant on galactic scales!! I have no idea how to achieve that.

Best regards,

Tejinder

Thank you. I am glad you bring up MOND, because I have been thinking a bit about MOND versus dark matter. I agree that if MOND is correct, any modified quantum theory must yield MOND in the classical limit. I also agree that Kroupa and McGaugh make a good case for MOND with regard to empirical observations of galaxies, and the critical acceleration which shows up again and again in galaxy data. Whereas Lambda-CDM has no scope for providing this critical acceleration.

But then, Lambda-CDM is very successful with structure formation, and matches so well with data such as baryonic acoustic oscillations. Whereas TeVeS does not do well at all on this front.

So where then does the truth lie? Dark matter or MOND? I would like to believe that something like dark matter and something like MOND are both needed - the former to make structures, and the latter to introduce the critical acceleration. But MOND should become irrelevant during structure formation and dark matter should become irrelevant on galactic scales!! I have no idea how to achieve that.

Best regards,

Tejinder

Tejinder,

This is an excellent piece of work. It is written simply enough and clearly enough that it can be understood by anyone with a modest background in the subject matter. Yet it expresses some very deep and profound ideas.

In my opinion, the most profound of those ideas is the QM collapse is independent of physical space and hence there is no "spooky action at a distance".

You have formalized many ideas that have been floating around in my intuition for several years. I would be very appreciative if you would read and comment upon my essay "Five Part Harmony". I present a 5-D model that is non-commutative and reduces to 4-D space-time.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

This is an excellent piece of work. It is written simply enough and clearly enough that it can be understood by anyone with a modest background in the subject matter. Yet it expresses some very deep and profound ideas.

In my opinion, the most profound of those ideas is the QM collapse is independent of physical space and hence there is no "spooky action at a distance".

You have formalized many ideas that have been floating around in my intuition for several years. I would be very appreciative if you would read and comment upon my essay "Five Part Harmony". I present a 5-D model that is non-commutative and reduces to 4-D space-time.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Dear Gary,

Thank you for your kind appreciation and encouragement, and for pointing me to your essay. I look forward to reading it with interest. I am very happy that we have been thinking along similar lines. I am excited also about the possibility that collapse of the wave function might be responsible for the emergence of space. It would be great to think of ways to test this experimentally.

My best wishes for your essay,

Tejinder

Thank you for your kind appreciation and encouragement, and for pointing me to your essay. I look forward to reading it with interest. I am very happy that we have been thinking along similar lines. I am excited also about the possibility that collapse of the wave function might be responsible for the emergence of space. It would be great to think of ways to test this experimentally.

My best wishes for your essay,

Tejinder

Dear Professor Singh,

Thanks for your insightful essay. I can't say that I understood many of the technical terms, but I really found your ideas on how to explain quantum entanglement and non-locality to be very good...in fact, i think that they might be very similar to my own, although I try to explain it in terms of complexity.

I wish you much luck in the competition, and if you find the time, i would appreciate your thoughts on my own essay.

Sincerely,

William Ekeson

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for your insightful essay. I can't say that I understood many of the technical terms, but I really found your ideas on how to explain quantum entanglement and non-locality to be very good...in fact, i think that they might be very similar to my own, although I try to explain it in terms of complexity.

I wish you much luck in the competition, and if you find the time, i would appreciate your thoughts on my own essay.

Sincerely,

William Ekeson

report post as inappropriate

Dear Prof. William Ekeson,

Many thanks for your kind remarks. I look forward to reading your essay.

Tejinder

Many thanks for your kind remarks. I look forward to reading your essay.

Tejinder

Hi Tejinder, do you have any discomfort/cognitive dissonance regarding the conclusion, which is pretty amazing and different from how things seem to be. Or are you immunized by years of physics training?

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dear Georgina,

Greetings, and good to meet you again. You put it nicely: "Or are you immunized by years of physics training? " :-) My response is that years of physics training has given me the courage to express this conclusion, howsoever bizarre it might appear :-) We are driven to this conclusion by an attempt to resolve the troubles of quantum theory.

The conclusion is about the deeper underlying layer of matter and space-time, as in quantum theory. It is not a conclusion about out our approximate, largely classical world.

Please allow me a simplistic analogy. If I look at a stone, I can never tell that its insides are made of vibrating atoms whose motion is described by quantum laws, very different from the classical laws which describe the overall motion of the stone. In my discussion, all of the classical universe [stars, galaxies, ...] as well as the space-time in which they reside, are like classical stones. When we look inside them, the troubles of quantum mechanics persuade us to conclude that their `insides' obey new laws - there is no space-time in the inside. Hence the `insides' have no goals and no wandering. Of course the `stones' made from these insides do have space and time, and hence they have goals to wander to.

Thanks for bringing this up. Am happy to discuss it further.

Regards,

Tejinder

Greetings, and good to meet you again. You put it nicely: "Or are you immunized by years of physics training? " :-) My response is that years of physics training has given me the courage to express this conclusion, howsoever bizarre it might appear :-) We are driven to this conclusion by an attempt to resolve the troubles of quantum theory.

The conclusion is about the deeper underlying layer of matter and space-time, as in quantum theory. It is not a conclusion about out our approximate, largely classical world.

Please allow me a simplistic analogy. If I look at a stone, I can never tell that its insides are made of vibrating atoms whose motion is described by quantum laws, very different from the classical laws which describe the overall motion of the stone. In my discussion, all of the classical universe [stars, galaxies, ...] as well as the space-time in which they reside, are like classical stones. When we look inside them, the troubles of quantum mechanics persuade us to conclude that their `insides' obey new laws - there is no space-time in the inside. Hence the `insides' have no goals and no wandering. Of course the `stones' made from these insides do have space and time, and hence they have goals to wander to.

Thanks for bringing this up. Am happy to discuss it further.

Regards,

Tejinder

Hi TP, I did like you essay. Not only because I am very sympathetic towards the problems of standard quantum theory, which you well presented, but also because I like the idea of non-commutative spacetime underlying physics. Very good job! Angelo.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Hello Tejinder,

Your essay investigates one of the large QM embarrassments, the collapse of the wave-function. Your reworking of this concept is well done.

I have always suspected that "superposition" is the underlying corruptness in wave-function collapse. Superposition is a leftover from classical Fourier analysis and Huygen's wave interference diagrams. Superposition needs to be modified to work with QM. If this interests you, check out my web pages at www.digitalwavetheory.com

Appreciate your essay,

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

Your essay investigates one of the large QM embarrassments, the collapse of the wave-function. Your reworking of this concept is well done.

I have always suspected that "superposition" is the underlying corruptness in wave-function collapse. Superposition is a leftover from classical Fourier analysis and Huygen's wave interference diagrams. Superposition needs to be modified to work with QM. If this interests you, check out my web pages at www.digitalwavetheory.com

Appreciate your essay,

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

Dear Don,

Greetings, and it is good to meet you again. Thank you for your interesting comments. I browsed through some parts of your interesting website. Thanks for telling me about it :-)

Greetings, and it is good to meet you again. Thank you for your interesting comments. I browsed through some parts of your interesting website. Thanks for telling me about it :-)

Professor Singh,

I agree with your opening statement:

"Space-time is absolute, in conventional classical physics. Its geometry is determined dy- namically by the distribution of classical objects in the universe. However, the underlying space-time manifold is an absolute given, providing the arena in which material bodies and fields exist." I gave your essay a high rating.

In my theory I described space-time as a continuous, structured and elastic medium called the E-Matrix. The E-Matrix eliminated the problems encountered by QM with the above definition of space-time.

regards,

Ken Seto

report post as inappropriate

I agree with your opening statement:

"Space-time is absolute, in conventional classical physics. Its geometry is determined dy- namically by the distribution of classical objects in the universe. However, the underlying space-time manifold is an absolute given, providing the arena in which material bodies and fields exist." I gave your essay a high rating.

In my theory I described space-time as a continuous, structured and elastic medium called the E-Matrix. The E-Matrix eliminated the problems encountered by QM with the above definition of space-time.

regards,

Ken Seto

report post as inappropriate

Dear Tejinder Pal Singh

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

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

Tejinder Pal Singh,

There are two types of time

#1. SOCIAL TIME: This is the time that we "measure" changes by clock or by rotation of earth. Where one rotation of earth is standardized as unit called one day. It is usual measuring methodology by comparing with a unit. This is society specific-time.

#2. PHYSICAL TIME: This time is "reason" of life-cycle changes whereby a system of matter undergoes structural changes. This time is object-specific and differ from object to object.

Which type of time you are using?

report post as inappropriate

There are two types of time

#1. SOCIAL TIME: This is the time that we "measure" changes by clock or by rotation of earth. Where one rotation of earth is standardized as unit called one day. It is usual measuring methodology by comparing with a unit. This is society specific-time.

#2. PHYSICAL TIME: This time is "reason" of life-cycle changes whereby a system of matter undergoes structural changes. This time is object-specific and differ from object to object.

Which type of time you are using?

report post as inappropriate

Dear Shaikh,

Thank you. Your definitions of time are strange and non-standard, I think.

I have used time the same way that every physicist does. In Newtonian mechanics it is absolute time, which we measure using clocks. In special relativity it is the coordinate time associated with a specific inertial observer, which is part of a space-time line-element in Minkowski space-time. In general relativity, it is the time coordinate which is a part of the space-time manifold, subject to general coordinate transformations.

Regards,

Tejinder

Thank you. Your definitions of time are strange and non-standard, I think.

I have used time the same way that every physicist does. In Newtonian mechanics it is absolute time, which we measure using clocks. In special relativity it is the coordinate time associated with a specific inertial observer, which is part of a space-time line-element in Minkowski space-time. In general relativity, it is the time coordinate which is a part of the space-time manifold, subject to general coordinate transformations.

Regards,

Tejinder

Dear Tejinder:

I enjoyed reading your paper eloquently describing the incompleteness and shortcomings of QM irrespective of its successes in the technological applications. I agree with your conclusion – “……But it would seem that this is hard to achieve within the confines of standard quantum theory. ... And collapse perhaps requires us to go beyond quantum theory, and modify it....

view entire post

I enjoyed reading your paper eloquently describing the incompleteness and shortcomings of QM irrespective of its successes in the technological applications. I agree with your conclusion – “……But it would seem that this is hard to achieve within the confines of standard quantum theory. ... And collapse perhaps requires us to go beyond quantum theory, and modify it....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Second try to link my contest paper:

FROM LAWS TO AIMS & INTENTIONS - A UNIVERSAL MODEL INTEGRATING MATTER, MIND, CONSCIOUSNESS, AND PURPOSE -A. Singh

report post as inappropriate

FROM LAWS TO AIMS & INTENTIONS - A UNIVERSAL MODEL INTEGRATING MATTER, MIND, CONSCIOUSNESS, AND PURPOSE -A. Singh

report post as inappropriate

Dear Avtar,

Greetings, and thank you so much for reading my essay and commenting on it.

I have not thought of the universe and of mathematical equations as `living' entities possessing a `consciousness'. I very much look forward to reading your essay, and to commenting on it, in case I have something useful to say.

My best regards,

Tejinder

Greetings, and thank you so much for reading my essay and commenting on it.

I have not thought of the universe and of mathematical equations as `living' entities possessing a `consciousness'. I very much look forward to reading your essay, and to commenting on it, in case I have something useful to say.

My best regards,

Tejinder

Dear Professor Singh,

After reading your essay, I looked at the article by Steven Weinberg, to which you refer in the first paragraph of your essay. I realize that your essay and Weinberg’s article are very different. He provides an informal overview, while you present a detailed and developed proposal for solving the difficulties which beset quantum theory. Nonetheless, I would be interested in learning more about how you might view your proposal in relation to the suggestion for a possible solution which Weinberg indicates toward the end of his article. He seems to favor trying to find some principles that would lead to an objective collapse of the wave function, as opposed to theories in which consciousness brings about the collapse and theories in which there is no collapse at all (i.e., many worlds and related interpretations). I notice that Weinberg favorably cites the work of Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber, whom you also mention. As best I can tell, you present a concrete proposal that fits into the very general framework which Weinberg endorses. More specifically, one of your original ideas is that the underlying (space-time) manifold should be non-commutative.

This is how I would at present summarize my understanding. Thanks for a stimulating and challenging essay.

Laurence Hitterdale

report post as inappropriate

After reading your essay, I looked at the article by Steven Weinberg, to which you refer in the first paragraph of your essay. I realize that your essay and Weinberg’s article are very different. He provides an informal overview, while you present a detailed and developed proposal for solving the difficulties which beset quantum theory. Nonetheless, I would be interested in learning more about how you might view your proposal in relation to the suggestion for a possible solution which Weinberg indicates toward the end of his article. He seems to favor trying to find some principles that would lead to an objective collapse of the wave function, as opposed to theories in which consciousness brings about the collapse and theories in which there is no collapse at all (i.e., many worlds and related interpretations). I notice that Weinberg favorably cites the work of Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber, whom you also mention. As best I can tell, you present a concrete proposal that fits into the very general framework which Weinberg endorses. More specifically, one of your original ideas is that the underlying (space-time) manifold should be non-commutative.

This is how I would at present summarize my understanding. Thanks for a stimulating and challenging essay.

Laurence Hitterdale

report post as inappropriate

Dear Laurence,

Thank you for your careful reading of my essay. Yes, Weinberg seems to be interested in GRW type objective collapse, which I also think of as a promising solution for the measurement problem.

However, in my opinion the biggest problem that quantum theory faces is its dependence on classical time. I think this is at the root of all the troubles of quantum mechanics. We have to be able to describe quantum theory without classical time, and when we do that, it also provides a way for a fundamental understanding of the GRW theory, and for resolving the non-locality puzzle. Also, I think the dichotomy between physical space and Hilbert space / configuration space is very peculiar, and out to be lifted, in my opinion.

With best wishes,

Tejinder

Thank you for your careful reading of my essay. Yes, Weinberg seems to be interested in GRW type objective collapse, which I also think of as a promising solution for the measurement problem.

However, in my opinion the biggest problem that quantum theory faces is its dependence on classical time. I think this is at the root of all the troubles of quantum mechanics. We have to be able to describe quantum theory without classical time, and when we do that, it also provides a way for a fundamental understanding of the GRW theory, and for resolving the non-locality puzzle. Also, I think the dichotomy between physical space and Hilbert space / configuration space is very peculiar, and out to be lifted, in my opinion.

With best wishes,

Tejinder

Dear Prof. Singh,

Your interesting essay focuses on flaws in the orthodox understanding of quantum mechanics.

I agree that quantum mechanics has been misunderstood, as I have addressed in previous FQXi essays.

But I argue that quantum entanglement does not exist, and that time and space are defined by real quantum oscillations of electron waves. This is not merely a philosophical question; there are now billions of dollars being spent on developing practical quantum computing, which requires entanglement, so that these questions will be answered one way or the other in the next 10-20 years.

I address these issues very briefly in the End Notes section of my essay this year, “No Ghost in the Machine”, which links to other articles that address this in more detail.

In the main body of this year’s FQXi essay, I argue that recognition of self, other agents, and a causal narrative, are built into specific evolved brain structures, based on neural networks, which create a sense of consciousness as part of a dynamic model of the environment. The reason that this is such a difficult problem is that we are being misled by the subjective perceptions of our own minds.

Alan Kadin

report post as inappropriate

Your interesting essay focuses on flaws in the orthodox understanding of quantum mechanics.

I agree that quantum mechanics has been misunderstood, as I have addressed in previous FQXi essays.

But I argue that quantum entanglement does not exist, and that time and space are defined by real quantum oscillations of electron waves. This is not merely a philosophical question; there are now billions of dollars being spent on developing practical quantum computing, which requires entanglement, so that these questions will be answered one way or the other in the next 10-20 years.

I address these issues very briefly in the End Notes section of my essay this year, “No Ghost in the Machine”, which links to other articles that address this in more detail.

In the main body of this year’s FQXi essay, I argue that recognition of self, other agents, and a causal narrative, are built into specific evolved brain structures, based on neural networks, which create a sense of consciousness as part of a dynamic model of the environment. The reason that this is such a difficult problem is that we are being misled by the subjective perceptions of our own minds.

Alan Kadin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Alan,

Greetings. It is good to meet you again here. Thank you for your comments and for reading my essay. And my apologies for this delay in replying to your comment.

I remember your viewpoint from our discussion during an earlier contest. I will read your essay before the rating deadline end of next week.

My best regards,

Tejinder

Greetings. It is good to meet you again here. Thank you for your comments and for reading my essay. And my apologies for this delay in replying to your comment.

I remember your viewpoint from our discussion during an earlier contest. I will read your essay before the rating deadline end of next week.

My best regards,

Tejinder

Dear Tejinder

The emergent "wandering to a goal" is in my view seemingly reaching out for eternity...

I am still awaiting your esteemed comment and rating on my my essay : "The Purpose of Life".

thank you and best of luck in this time restricted goal...

Wilhelmus

PS I posted this comment also on the thread where you answered my comment, but this one is easier to find for you...

report post as inappropriate

The emergent "wandering to a goal" is in my view seemingly reaching out for eternity...

I am still awaiting your esteemed comment and rating on my my essay : "The Purpose of Life".

thank you and best of luck in this time restricted goal...

Wilhelmus

PS I posted this comment also on the thread where you answered my comment, but this one is easier to find for you...

report post as inappropriate

Dear Tejinder,

Thank you for your positive comment on my essay.

In my "emergent phenomenon" called reality "time" is a restriction (like space).

We are experiencing a "flow" of time through the limited consciousness that is creating (emerging) memory at each Eternal Now Moment.

Looking at a Wave collapse we see that it is "happening" always in the past. The emerging particle after the "collapse" is also a past emergent phenomenon. The moment we are aware of the "particle like distribution" in the Young experiment, we are experiencing an image from the past, representing a past ENM (that is timeless (eternal) in Total Simultaneity).

So you could say that the Flow that we experience as TIME is an emergent effect of the memory data we are aware of. Actually I am 71 yeras old,(and remeber the I that has the memories of that age. I cannot reach out to the past (nor to the future). The NOW moment includes the whole FLOW of my past life, so the emergent effect of "living". The whole emergent life as is also reality is compressed in an ENM. (one moment ?)

I do believe that any way of thinking can be the base of an emergent reality.The MWI is a splitting up of realities. In my perception this split up is not a "material" one, it is only the "move" to another "availability" that can become reality in another emergent phenomenon.

I am untill now unable to substantiate this view mathematically, but I am searching.

best regards

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your positive comment on my essay.

In my "emergent phenomenon" called reality "time" is a restriction (like space).

We are experiencing a "flow" of time through the limited consciousness that is creating (emerging) memory at each Eternal Now Moment.

Looking at a Wave collapse we see that it is "happening" always in the past. The emerging particle after the "collapse" is also a past emergent phenomenon. The moment we are aware of the "particle like distribution" in the Young experiment, we are experiencing an image from the past, representing a past ENM (that is timeless (eternal) in Total Simultaneity).

So you could say that the Flow that we experience as TIME is an emergent effect of the memory data we are aware of. Actually I am 71 yeras old,(and remeber the I that has the memories of that age. I cannot reach out to the past (nor to the future). The NOW moment includes the whole FLOW of my past life, so the emergent effect of "living". The whole emergent life as is also reality is compressed in an ENM. (one moment ?)

I do believe that any way of thinking can be the base of an emergent reality.The MWI is a splitting up of realities. In my perception this split up is not a "material" one, it is only the "move" to another "availability" that can become reality in another emergent phenomenon.

I am untill now unable to substantiate this view mathematically, but I am searching.

best regards

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Hi TP,

Nice to see that you are an established veteran at FQXi. You are a member, and have received acclaim and prizes at previous essay competitions. I am new to this forum.

I read your current essay twice, once just when it was posted, and then read again yesterday. You have turned out to be quite a story teller, writing has become very persuasive. Congrats on both counts!

I...

view entire post

Nice to see that you are an established veteran at FQXi. You are a member, and have received acclaim and prizes at previous essay competitions. I am new to this forum.

I read your current essay twice, once just when it was posted, and then read again yesterday. You have turned out to be quite a story teller, writing has become very persuasive. Congrats on both counts!

I...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Rajiv,

It is indeed a great pleasure to hear from you!! :-) My apologies for this delay in replying, and thanks so much for carefully going through my essay. I had browsed through your interesting essay when it appeared, and I will read it again next week.

>I see impressive arguments at places, but wanted to know if you have clarity in your mind as to what those mathematical...

view entire post

It is indeed a great pleasure to hear from you!! :-) My apologies for this delay in replying, and thanks so much for carefully going through my essay. I had browsed through your interesting essay when it appeared, and I will read it again next week.

>I see impressive arguments at places, but wanted to know if you have clarity in your mind as to what those mathematical...

view entire post

Thanks TP,

I understood a few things more about CSL. In my mind, it was always clear how time could emerge, of course from a different consideration, but not how space could emerge. In fact, often I thought of space being the only reality and everything else emerges from it. Anyway, my essay does not deal with any of such things, I only worried about the information aspect. See, I could follow yours, but I am not sure if you could follow mine with as much comfort ! May be you are a better story teller.

Amplification is understood now, but then, does it mean that all nucleons in a macroscopic body could be considered as forming a single entangled state? The answer you already gave as yes.

Rajiv

report post as inappropriate

I understood a few things more about CSL. In my mind, it was always clear how time could emerge, of course from a different consideration, but not how space could emerge. In fact, often I thought of space being the only reality and everything else emerges from it. Anyway, my essay does not deal with any of such things, I only worried about the information aspect. See, I could follow yours, but I am not sure if you could follow mine with as much comfort ! May be you are a better story teller.

Amplification is understood now, but then, does it mean that all nucleons in a macroscopic body could be considered as forming a single entangled state? The answer you already gave as yes.

Rajiv

report post as inappropriate

Dear Tejinder,

I enjoyed your essay in which you focus on the emergence of space-time and quantum mechanics form a supposed underlying theory (trace dynamics). Myself, I discuss emergence on a different scale (goal-oriented macroscopic dynamics from underlying microscopic dynamics, no matter whether the latter is deterministic or stochastic, classical or quantum). But back to your interesting essay. You write: "A serious limitation of the CSL model is that it is non-relativistic, and dedicated efforts to make a relativistic version face serious difficulties." You may be interested in the work of Roderich Tumulka, who introduced a relativistic version of GRW:

R. Tumulka*A Relativistic Version of the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber Model* J. Statist. Phys. 125 (2006) 821-840, arXiv:quant-ph/0406094.

R. Tumulka*Collapse and Relativity* p. 340-352 in A. Bassi, D. Duerr, T. Weber and N. Zanghi (eds), Quantum Mechanics: Are there Quantum Jumps? and On the Present Status of Quantum Mechanics, AIP Conference Proceedings 844, American Institute of Physics (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0602208.

Cheers, Stefan

report post as inappropriate

I enjoyed your essay in which you focus on the emergence of space-time and quantum mechanics form a supposed underlying theory (trace dynamics). Myself, I discuss emergence on a different scale (goal-oriented macroscopic dynamics from underlying microscopic dynamics, no matter whether the latter is deterministic or stochastic, classical or quantum). But back to your interesting essay. You write: "A serious limitation of the CSL model is that it is non-relativistic, and dedicated efforts to make a relativistic version face serious difficulties." You may be interested in the work of Roderich Tumulka, who introduced a relativistic version of GRW:

R. Tumulka

R. Tumulka

Cheers, Stefan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Stefan,

Greetings. Thanks so much for reading my essay. I look forward to reading yours.

Thanks also for telling me about Tumulka's work, which actually I am acquainted with. We discuss it briefly in our review article arXiv:1204.4325 (Section II). It is promising undoubtedly; I think the challenge is to include interactions.

My best wishes,

Tejinder

Greetings. Thanks so much for reading my essay. I look forward to reading yours.

Thanks also for telling me about Tumulka's work, which actually I am acquainted with. We discuss it briefly in our review article arXiv:1204.4325 (Section II). It is promising undoubtedly; I think the challenge is to include interactions.

My best wishes,

Tejinder

Dear Tejinder Singh,

Thank you for an excellently written and self-consistent essay focusing, at time quite rigorously, on the nuances of quantum theory to look for how goals originate in the classical regime. In fact, I paused to contemplate where you say "Classical mechanics is a limiting case of quantum mechanics. Yet, in order to arrive at the canonical quantum theory, one must first know the classical theory." I agree that from our historial vantage point, replete with the chauvinisms of science that we have acquired over time, this is how "canonical quantum theory" has evolved. A perspective we may have to shed in order to make meaningful progress in this regard.

You essay has given me a lot to think about and I wanted to let you know I have in the meantime rated it too.

Regards,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for an excellently written and self-consistent essay focusing, at time quite rigorously, on the nuances of quantum theory to look for how goals originate in the classical regime. In fact, I paused to contemplate where you say "Classical mechanics is a limiting case of quantum mechanics. Yet, in order to arrive at the canonical quantum theory, one must first know the classical theory." I agree that from our historial vantage point, replete with the chauvinisms of science that we have acquired over time, this is how "canonical quantum theory" has evolved. A perspective we may have to shed in order to make meaningful progress in this regard.

You essay has given me a lot to think about and I wanted to let you know I have in the meantime rated it too.

Regards,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Dear Tejinder,

This is a remarkable Essay, despite a bit speculative. I particularly appreciated your observations on the limitations of quantum theory. It was an intellectual pleasure for me reading your Essay, thus, I decided to give you the highest score.

By the way, today I have read also your GRF Essay in arXiv. It is another intriguing work. Maybe I will attempt to apply your new length scale for quantum gravity in my future works on my Bohr-like black hole model. Congratulations and good luck in both of the Contests. I hope you will have a chance to read our Essay on gravitational waves.

Cheers, Ch.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2862

report post as inappropriate

This is a remarkable Essay, despite a bit speculative. I particularly appreciated your observations on the limitations of quantum theory. It was an intellectual pleasure for me reading your Essay, thus, I decided to give you the highest score.

By the way, today I have read also your GRF Essay in arXiv. It is another intriguing work. Maybe I will attempt to apply your new length scale for quantum gravity in my future works on my Bohr-like black hole model. Congratulations and good luck in both of the Contests. I hope you will have a chance to read our Essay on gravitational waves.

Cheers, Ch.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2862

report post as inappropriate

Dear Prof T. P. Singh

A short glimpse and I have a feeling I'm reading a breakthrough. I will have to go on details of the space in which TD resides.

I have difficulty understanding one thing. I don't have any knowledge of Gauge Theory so forgive my ignorance.

How do we form another L^2 Hilbert Space using 2 Hilbert Spaces each of two different N-particle systems? The trace operator you use hints at the quaternions, if I understood it correctly.

report post as inappropriate

A short glimpse and I have a feeling I'm reading a breakthrough. I will have to go on details of the space in which TD resides.

I have difficulty understanding one thing. I don't have any knowledge of Gauge Theory so forgive my ignorance.

How do we form another L^2 Hilbert Space using 2 Hilbert Spaces each of two different N-particle systems? The trace operator you use hints at the quaternions, if I understood it correctly.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. Malik,

Thank you so much for your kind appreciation.

If I have understood you correctly, can we not form the new Hilbert space simply as a direct product of the states of the two different systems?

There possibly is a connection with quaternions, but I am not sure of this. You may want to see Stephen Adler's historical account of his discovery of TD, which was preceded by his work on Quaternionic quantum mechanics, on which he has a book.

My best wishes,

Tejinder

Thank you so much for your kind appreciation.

If I have understood you correctly, can we not form the new Hilbert space simply as a direct product of the states of the two different systems?

There possibly is a connection with quaternions, but I am not sure of this. You may want to see Stephen Adler's historical account of his discovery of TD, which was preceded by his work on Quaternionic quantum mechanics, on which he has a book.

My best wishes,

Tejinder

Dear Tejinder,

I enjoyed very much your essay, in which you discuss CSL and its emergence from TD, the proposal of suppression of quantum superposition at large scales by nonlinearity, and the relation with goals. I agree that superposition has to be suppressed somehow at higher levels, since the classical level doesn't seem to suffer from it (section |7> of my essay). In fact I have a proposal of several experiments that I hope will find some sort of superselection which I hope to suppress superposition in Searching for microscopic classical cats (although in a way compatible with both linear and a possible nonlinear formulation of QM). Best luck in the contest!

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

The Tablet of the Metalaw

report post as inappropriate

I enjoyed very much your essay, in which you discuss CSL and its emergence from TD, the proposal of suppression of quantum superposition at large scales by nonlinearity, and the relation with goals. I agree that superposition has to be suppressed somehow at higher levels, since the classical level doesn't seem to suffer from it (section |7> of my essay). In fact I have a proposal of several experiments that I hope will find some sort of superselection which I hope to suppress superposition in Searching for microscopic classical cats (although in a way compatible with both linear and a possible nonlinear formulation of QM). Best luck in the contest!

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

The Tablet of the Metalaw

report post as inappropriate

Tejinder,

I hope to hear from you over on mine before we imminently have to do our final scoring. I identify some very important new physics that you're well qualified to falsify.

You know the problem;*"Standard quantum theory has no answers. Do these unanswered questions call for new physics?"* Not t really entirely 'new' either.

Very best

Peter

report post as inappropriate

I hope to hear from you over on mine before we imminently have to do our final scoring. I identify some very important new physics that you're well qualified to falsify.

You know the problem;

Very best

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Dear Tejinder,

very interesting essay with provocative thesis (quantum theory as emergent theory) But I like it very much (also along the line of my thinking).

Therefore you got a high mark from my side.

Maybe you are also interested to read my essay? This time not bout exotic smoothness and the fractal spacetime.

All the best

Torsten

report post as inappropriate

very interesting essay with provocative thesis (quantum theory as emergent theory) But I like it very much (also along the line of my thinking).

Therefore you got a high mark from my side.

Maybe you are also interested to read my essay? This time not bout exotic smoothness and the fractal spacetime.

All the best

Torsten

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.