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

**Stefan Weckbach**: *on* 2/27/18 at 8:09am UTC, wrote Dear Alan, very sorry to hear this, know that I feel with you. I am also...

**Jonathan Dickau**: *on* 2/26/18 at 21:40pm UTC, wrote So sorry to hear... My thoughts go out to you in this time of trial Alan. ...

**Alan Kadin**: *on* 2/26/18 at 20:35pm UTC, wrote Richard, I have been distracted recently, as my mother is dying in the...

**richard nixey**: *on* 2/26/18 at 20:27pm UTC, wrote Alan, I did have questions but it seems a waste of time as you haven't...

**Peter Jackson**: *on* 2/24/18 at 13:04pm UTC, wrote Alan, You probably lost our string above (14.1?) or like me time is short....

**Don Limuti**: *on* 2/23/18 at 1:38am UTC, wrote Hi Alan, Your conclusion: "Within this picture, time and space are defined...

**Gordon Watson**: *on* 2/22/18 at 4:47am UTC, wrote Alan, have you seen this -- http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319655925...

**Peter Jackson**: *on* 2/21/18 at 19:48pm UTC, wrote Alan, I said above I'd read again and have. I'm afraid it's may have to be...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Joe Fisher**: "Dear Steve Agnew, Naturally provided VISIBLE realty am not a silly humanly..."
*in* Can Time Be Saved From...

**James Putnam**: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..."
*in* Black Hole Photographed...

**Steve Agnew**: "Stringy and loop quantum are the two big contenders, but neither has a..."
*in* Can Time Be Saved From...

**Robert McEachern**: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..."
*in* Review of "Foundations of...

**Georgina Woodward**: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..."
*in* The Nature of Time

**Steve Agnew**: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..."
*in* The Nature of Time

**Douglas Hemmick**: "begin{quote} For example, in his chapter on Bell's theorem, he concludes..."
*in* Review of "Foundations of...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**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.

**Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes**

The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

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.

The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

FQXi FORUM

May 19, 2019

CATEGORY:
FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017
[back]

TOPIC: Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics by Alan M. Kadin [refresh]

TOPIC: Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics by Alan M. Kadin [refresh]

In the 20th century, physics was split into quantum mechanics on the microscale, classical mechanics on the macroscale, and general relativity on the cosmic scale, each with a distinct conceptual framework. On the contrary, a simple realistic picture of fundamental waves can provide the basis for reunifying physics on all scales. This neoclassical synthesis combines aspects of classical, quantum, and relativistic physics, but is distinct from each of them. Electrons are soliton-like waves with quantized spin, which locally define time and space. In contrast, nucleons and atoms are simply composites, with no wave nature of their own. There are no point particles, quantum entanglement, or gravitational singularities. Furthermore, mathematical abstractions such as curved spacetime and complex quantum waves in Hilbert space are not fundamental at all. This approach makes predictions that differ from orthodox theory, which can be tested.

Alan M. Kadin is a physicist and engineer with a Ph.D. in Physics from Harvard on superconducting devices. Following a career in both academia and industry, Dr. Kadin is now an independent technical consultant. He has been submitting essays to FQXi since 2012. He was named a winner for his 2017 essay, “No Ghost in the Machine.” For further information, see his LinkedIn page.

Hi Alan - It is obvious you have an extensive background in physics and you have dared to challenge the status quo - For that you deserve Kudos. There was a statement in this essay that caught my attention,

"What is needed is a set of equations whereby an electron field spontaneously self-organizes into domains of rotating vector fields with spin ±h(bar)/2, and a photon field self-organizes into domains of spin nh(bar). Unfortunately, we do not yet have those equations"

I bring this up because I am sure that over the years you have tried to come up with "those equations". Do you think it is possible to derive "those equations" from the current mathematical model or does the entire model have to be re-worked? In addition - you have re-worked the current model significantly in what you are proposing in your essay and yet still have not come up with "those equations". Which makes me wonder how certain you are of this proposal. In any case - You have presented a different picture and like Bill Murray said in the movie GroundHog Day, Anything different is good!

report post as inappropriate

"What is needed is a set of equations whereby an electron field spontaneously self-organizes into domains of rotating vector fields with spin ±h(bar)/2, and a photon field self-organizes into domains of spin nh(bar). Unfortunately, we do not yet have those equations"

I bring this up because I am sure that over the years you have tried to come up with "those equations". Do you think it is possible to derive "those equations" from the current mathematical model or does the entire model have to be re-worked? In addition - you have re-worked the current model significantly in what you are proposing in your essay and yet still have not come up with "those equations". Which makes me wonder how certain you are of this proposal. In any case - You have presented a different picture and like Bill Murray said in the movie GroundHog Day, Anything different is good!

report post as inappropriate

Scott,

Thank you for reading my essay and for your comments and questions. The key problem is that the mathematical tools from 19th century mathematics are mostly for linear differential equations. These are very powerful tools, but they are completely useless in dealing with nonlinear differential equations. The operator approach of Hilbert space is incompatible with nonlinear operators. It is clear that only a nonlinear equation can lead naturally to spin quantization, but I have not been able to find an equation with the right combination of properties. I would suggest looking into some kind of self-phase modulation, but I’m open to other suggestions.

Regarding my confidence in this approach, the unification of physics is a strong motivation. I find the missing link of a nonlinear equation much more plausible than quantum entanglement.

Physicists have been metaphorically looking under the lamppost for solutions to these problems for the past century. The answer is probably somewhere else.

I have not yet read your essay, but I plan to do so.

Alan

Thank you for reading my essay and for your comments and questions. The key problem is that the mathematical tools from 19th century mathematics are mostly for linear differential equations. These are very powerful tools, but they are completely useless in dealing with nonlinear differential equations. The operator approach of Hilbert space is incompatible with nonlinear operators. It is clear that only a nonlinear equation can lead naturally to spin quantization, but I have not been able to find an equation with the right combination of properties. I would suggest looking into some kind of self-phase modulation, but I’m open to other suggestions.

Regarding my confidence in this approach, the unification of physics is a strong motivation. I find the missing link of a nonlinear equation much more plausible than quantum entanglement.

Physicists have been metaphorically looking under the lamppost for solutions to these problems for the past century. The answer is probably somewhere else.

I have not yet read your essay, but I plan to do so.

Alan

Alan,

From your reply to Scott above:

"It is clear that only a nonlinear equation can lead naturally to spin quantization, but I have not been able to find an equation with the right combination of properties. I would suggest looking into some kind of self-phase modulation, but I’m open to other suggestions.

Regarding my confidence in this approach, the unification of physics is a strong motivation. I find the missing link of a nonlinear equation much more plausible than quantum entanglement."

Please have a look at this suggestion:

Fritz Fröhner (1998). "Missing link between probability theory and quantum mechanics: the Riesz-Fejér theorem."

A link is provided in the Reference section of my essay:

More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss

I will welcome your comments on Fröhner in due course.

PS: I cite Fritz's work on the way to establishing the classical foundations of modern physics: from true local realism, through (what I call) the Laws of Malus, Bayes and Born, to Planck's constant, relativity, etc. I'll explain in more detail when I reply to your comment on my essay. [I will also post it as a comment below so you'll know that it is done.]

Gordon Watson

More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss

report post as inappropriate

From your reply to Scott above:

"It is clear that only a nonlinear equation can lead naturally to spin quantization, but I have not been able to find an equation with the right combination of properties. I would suggest looking into some kind of self-phase modulation, but I’m open to other suggestions.

Regarding my confidence in this approach, the unification of physics is a strong motivation. I find the missing link of a nonlinear equation much more plausible than quantum entanglement."

Please have a look at this suggestion:

Fritz Fröhner (1998). "Missing link between probability theory and quantum mechanics: the Riesz-Fejér theorem."

A link is provided in the Reference section of my essay:

More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss

I will welcome your comments on Fröhner in due course.

PS: I cite Fritz's work on the way to establishing the classical foundations of modern physics: from true local realism, through (what I call) the Laws of Malus, Bayes and Born, to Planck's constant, relativity, etc. I'll explain in more detail when I reply to your comment on my essay. [I will also post it as a comment below so you'll know that it is done.]

Gordon Watson

More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss

report post as inappropriate

Alan,

Hi Doc. Nicely written!

I think you have made a very cogent case for a neoclassical reform that many would feel is long overdue. It is worth adding to your concise catalogue of conventions in physics, that the 'orthodox picture of spin in quantum, mechanics' is an ad hoc characteristic in which the Newtonian gravitational model failed in the first order to define the orbit of an electron as a hard particle around the nucleus which was also taken to be a hard particle. For the electron mass to maintain a stable orbit around a proton mass in a ground state simple Hydrogen atom, the orbital velocity would have to exceed light velocity. Spin as a measure of rotation subsumes the c proportional difference between the electric and magnetic fields strengths in a point charge. So in QM the whole argument of superposition is really valid only in the sense that the infinite complex 2D plane is a vector probability space that already exists at light velocity (!), and hence mass is actually energy without self-organized form. So YES! we should treat quantum spin as a solitonic wave packet just as the photon. And this would mean that there physically exists a real volumetric, specific energy quantity that would be the break even value between self-organization into a luminal velocity capable soliton, and a sub-luminal velocity capable soliton.

Thanks much for a Tour de Force of the many years of accumulated knowledge and theorizing. Best wishes jrc

report post as inappropriate

Hi Doc. Nicely written!

I think you have made a very cogent case for a neoclassical reform that many would feel is long overdue. It is worth adding to your concise catalogue of conventions in physics, that the 'orthodox picture of spin in quantum, mechanics' is an ad hoc characteristic in which the Newtonian gravitational model failed in the first order to define the orbit of an electron as a hard particle around the nucleus which was also taken to be a hard particle. For the electron mass to maintain a stable orbit around a proton mass in a ground state simple Hydrogen atom, the orbital velocity would have to exceed light velocity. Spin as a measure of rotation subsumes the c proportional difference between the electric and magnetic fields strengths in a point charge. So in QM the whole argument of superposition is really valid only in the sense that the infinite complex 2D plane is a vector probability space that already exists at light velocity (!), and hence mass is actually energy without self-organized form. So YES! we should treat quantum spin as a solitonic wave packet just as the photon. And this would mean that there physically exists a real volumetric, specific energy quantity that would be the break even value between self-organization into a luminal velocity capable soliton, and a sub-luminal velocity capable soliton.

Thanks much for a Tour de Force of the many years of accumulated knowledge and theorizing. Best wishes jrc

report post as inappropriate

Dear John,

Thank you for reading my essay and for your encouraging comments.

One minor correction about your observation that a classical electron in a hydrogen atom would have to exceed the speed of light. If I recall correctly, the orbital speed of such an electron is c/137, where 1/137 is the fine-structure constant. However, the rotational speed of the surface of a solid-body electron with the classical radius e^2/mc^2, which would be needed to generate the observed spin of the electron, would indeed exceed the speed of light, indicating that solid-body rotation cannot account for spin. On the other hand, rotating vector fields that I have proposed do not constitute solid-body rotation, and would not be subject to this limitation.

The most remarkable aspect of the neoclassical synthesis that I have proposed is that it regarded as heretical by the theoretical physics community. I am hoping that this essay can start a serious discussion as to why this should be out of bounds.

If you are submitting an essay, I will take a look at it.

Alan

Thank you for reading my essay and for your encouraging comments.

One minor correction about your observation that a classical electron in a hydrogen atom would have to exceed the speed of light. If I recall correctly, the orbital speed of such an electron is c/137, where 1/137 is the fine-structure constant. However, the rotational speed of the surface of a solid-body electron with the classical radius e^2/mc^2, which would be needed to generate the observed spin of the electron, would indeed exceed the speed of light, indicating that solid-body rotation cannot account for spin. On the other hand, rotating vector fields that I have proposed do not constitute solid-body rotation, and would not be subject to this limitation.

The most remarkable aspect of the neoclassical synthesis that I have proposed is that it regarded as heretical by the theoretical physics community. I am hoping that this essay can start a serious discussion as to why this should be out of bounds.

If you are submitting an essay, I will take a look at it.

Alan

Thanks Alan,

Good clarification on the Newtonian (naïve) atomic model. All of which was the basis of Lorentz's Electron Model which he abandoned with the advent of the Planck-Einstein photo-electric reduction to e=hf. Planck never did find a rationale for his distribution theorem, though he had apologized for that when he introduced it in December of 1900. It is there, in any modern effort to find a bridge between the classical basis of both QM and Relativistic physics, that many whom have career investments shout 'heresy!'. I have long thought that Lorentz was working in the right direction in that he found that the greater the level of charge, the smaller the diameter of volume; hence energy density. And the LT in SR is two dimensional, and invariant as observing one body from another. Length contraction to be covariant would limit at a c proportion of rest size. The Relativistic arguments of time can also be stated in terms of quantity of time in a bottle. It measures as light going slower in a gravity well because it is transiting through a greater amount of time in a confined volume of space. But I'm not presently thinking of subjecting myself to the fray of putting out a paper, I've been too easy a target in other real world matters. Best of Luck getting any community support, there is probably a bit more than will risk the limelight. Go for the experimentalist support in the tech world. As I am fond of pointing out, the big money doesn't want a particle that looks like a donut that can't get a grip on a swizzle stick. They want one that will put a hole in an adversary's shield. :-) jrc

report post as inappropriate

Good clarification on the Newtonian (naïve) atomic model. All of which was the basis of Lorentz's Electron Model which he abandoned with the advent of the Planck-Einstein photo-electric reduction to e=hf. Planck never did find a rationale for his distribution theorem, though he had apologized for that when he introduced it in December of 1900. It is there, in any modern effort to find a bridge between the classical basis of both QM and Relativistic physics, that many whom have career investments shout 'heresy!'. I have long thought that Lorentz was working in the right direction in that he found that the greater the level of charge, the smaller the diameter of volume; hence energy density. And the LT in SR is two dimensional, and invariant as observing one body from another. Length contraction to be covariant would limit at a c proportion of rest size. The Relativistic arguments of time can also be stated in terms of quantity of time in a bottle. It measures as light going slower in a gravity well because it is transiting through a greater amount of time in a confined volume of space. But I'm not presently thinking of subjecting myself to the fray of putting out a paper, I've been too easy a target in other real world matters. Best of Luck getting any community support, there is probably a bit more than will risk the limelight. Go for the experimentalist support in the tech world. As I am fond of pointing out, the big money doesn't want a particle that looks like a donut that can't get a grip on a swizzle stick. They want one that will put a hole in an adversary's shield. :-) jrc

report post as inappropriate

Alan,

I have found all of your essays to be beneficial. This one is no exception. Many thanks.

The "shut up and calculate" mentality is very similar to the mentality prior to the Helios-centric paradigm shift. Perhaps this means another paradigm shift is in the works. You present a good argument regarding what that shift might look like.

Your emphasis is upon waves. So I will ask you ... "What is waving?" Soliton waves might explain a lot. But what is the medium? Can a wave be more fundamental than the medium that is waving?

Is it possible or practical to empirically test for deviations beyond first order to falsify any of your predictions? This is where the truth will be found.

Taking spin as fundamental seems reasonable to me ... especially since it is a property that is so difficult to comprehend based upon macro-world experience. The fact that you are able to fit it into so many properties is very promising I think.

Lastly, you have identified a number of paradigm shifts that you believe were incorrect. I will simply note that as science advances, interpretations are made as to the meaning of observations. If enough such interpretations are made, sooner or later one of them will be wrong and everything thereafter will also be wrong. I don't necessarily know which one in our history is wrong, but I'm pretty sure that at least one of them is.

Well done.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

I have found all of your essays to be beneficial. This one is no exception. Many thanks.

The "shut up and calculate" mentality is very similar to the mentality prior to the Helios-centric paradigm shift. Perhaps this means another paradigm shift is in the works. You present a good argument regarding what that shift might look like.

Your emphasis is upon waves. So I will ask you ... "What is waving?" Soliton waves might explain a lot. But what is the medium? Can a wave be more fundamental than the medium that is waving?

Is it possible or practical to empirically test for deviations beyond first order to falsify any of your predictions? This is where the truth will be found.

Taking spin as fundamental seems reasonable to me ... especially since it is a property that is so difficult to comprehend based upon macro-world experience. The fact that you are able to fit it into so many properties is very promising I think.

Lastly, you have identified a number of paradigm shifts that you believe were incorrect. I will simply note that as science advances, interpretations are made as to the meaning of observations. If enough such interpretations are made, sooner or later one of them will be wrong and everything thereafter will also be wrong. I don't necessarily know which one in our history is wrong, but I'm pretty sure that at least one of them is.

Well done.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Gary,

I'm interested in how Dr. Kadin might reply to your queries, and will wait and see. However, Spin as you note is an ambiguous property, and I wonder if it physically represents the orthogonal relationship within the spherical geometry of spatial efficiency. Like squeezing a ball of Silly Putty, the compression has to go sideways. So rotating vector fields would be time dependent orthogonal potential. And the electron (I just want to know what an electron is. - Albert Einstein) is more a propensity to self-organize in an energy field which can become ejected as a stable volume, than being a persistent real form within the 4D atomic volume. jrc

report post as inappropriate

I'm interested in how Dr. Kadin might reply to your queries, and will wait and see. However, Spin as you note is an ambiguous property, and I wonder if it physically represents the orthogonal relationship within the spherical geometry of spatial efficiency. Like squeezing a ball of Silly Putty, the compression has to go sideways. So rotating vector fields would be time dependent orthogonal potential. And the electron (I just want to know what an electron is. - Albert Einstein) is more a propensity to self-organize in an energy field which can become ejected as a stable volume, than being a persistent real form within the 4D atomic volume. jrc

report post as inappropriate

Dear Gary and John,

You both make some interesting points, which I will try to address.

When I say that waves are fundamental, I mean fields in vacuum. These are not abstract mathematical quantities, but real objects varying in space and time. In fact, space and time are embodied in these varying fields. We have no trouble thinking about real electric or magnetic fields, because...

view entire post

You both make some interesting points, which I will try to address.

When I say that waves are fundamental, I mean fields in vacuum. These are not abstract mathematical quantities, but real objects varying in space and time. In fact, space and time are embodied in these varying fields. We have no trouble thinking about real electric or magnetic fields, because...

view entire post

Thanks Al,

that's a goodly bit to chew on. I've often thought that the numerous 'fundamental particles', or particle zoo, might become explicable if we find a recursive resonance formulation that would be somewhat like the set of field equations you seek. That is to say that; geometry as we know it has a spherical component and an orthogonal component, and so far that's the best we can do from observation - the sphere being the most efficient encapsulation of space and any point on the surface reachable in the same light nth second from zero point center, yet the orthogonal relationship discovered by Faraday physically exists in electromagnetic induction (!). We can't be far wrong. So if we conclude that for any mass/energy quantity, that quantity would ideally and naturally prescribe the SIZE of a spherical volume as a free rest mass which would be optimal...such as the ground state electron... then we could possibly find the algorithm for preferred quantities which would naturally prescribe metastable volumes of the particle species. I agree that there is both an inward or gravitational tendency, and an outward or kinematic, or electrical, tendency in any particle species. Which makes the lonely Neutron a best candidate for developing a physically real, general definition of electric charge. (Like the scene in Men in Black where the Bug wrenches open the little pot with the diamonds in it, searching for the Galaxy and howl's "Aurghhh... where IS it!?!) What the hell do people mean when they say 'charge'? :-) jrc

report post as inappropriate

that's a goodly bit to chew on. I've often thought that the numerous 'fundamental particles', or particle zoo, might become explicable if we find a recursive resonance formulation that would be somewhat like the set of field equations you seek. That is to say that; geometry as we know it has a spherical component and an orthogonal component, and so far that's the best we can do from observation - the sphere being the most efficient encapsulation of space and any point on the surface reachable in the same light nth second from zero point center, yet the orthogonal relationship discovered by Faraday physically exists in electromagnetic induction (!). We can't be far wrong. So if we conclude that for any mass/energy quantity, that quantity would ideally and naturally prescribe the SIZE of a spherical volume as a free rest mass which would be optimal...such as the ground state electron... then we could possibly find the algorithm for preferred quantities which would naturally prescribe metastable volumes of the particle species. I agree that there is both an inward or gravitational tendency, and an outward or kinematic, or electrical, tendency in any particle species. Which makes the lonely Neutron a best candidate for developing a physically real, general definition of electric charge. (Like the scene in Men in Black where the Bug wrenches open the little pot with the diamonds in it, searching for the Galaxy and howl's "Aurghhh... where IS it!?!) What the hell do people mean when they say 'charge'? :-) jrc

report post as inappropriate

Hi Alan - I don't know if you read my essay yet but there was a reason why I quoted you in my last post to you...

"What is needed is a set of equations whereby an electron field spontaneously self-organizes into domains of rotating vector fields with spin ±h(bar)/2, and a photon field self-organizes into domains of spin nh(bar). Unfortunately, we do not yet have those equations"

I have derived the rotating vector field that had spontaneously self-organised where its math derives its spin value of ±h(bar)/2. My theory also derives the photon field with a spin of nh(bar). The problem is that part of my theory is not presented in my paper. The reason why no one has figured this out is because no one has found the hierarchy of energy. (See the equation below)

where the value of G can only be 0, 1, or 2. When G = 2 it's E = mc^2 and when G = 1 it's E = (h/wavelength)c^1. When G = 0, it is the energy of spacetime which is proportional to c^0.

I don't expect you to believe me now - but if you are interested, read my paper here to get a taste of the theory. Maybe read this one too... https://www.academia.edu/27987699/_Why_Cant_the_LHC_Find_New

_Math_

attachments: 1_The_GOD_Equation_bold_with_trademark_r.jpg

report post as inappropriate

"What is needed is a set of equations whereby an electron field spontaneously self-organizes into domains of rotating vector fields with spin ±h(bar)/2, and a photon field self-organizes into domains of spin nh(bar). Unfortunately, we do not yet have those equations"

I have derived the rotating vector field that had spontaneously self-organised where its math derives its spin value of ±h(bar)/2. My theory also derives the photon field with a spin of nh(bar). The problem is that part of my theory is not presented in my paper. The reason why no one has figured this out is because no one has found the hierarchy of energy. (See the equation below)

where the value of G can only be 0, 1, or 2. When G = 2 it's E = mc^2 and when G = 1 it's E = (h/wavelength)c^1. When G = 0, it is the energy of spacetime which is proportional to c^0.

I don't expect you to believe me now - but if you are interested, read my paper here to get a taste of the theory. Maybe read this one too... https://www.academia.edu/27987699/_Why_Cant_the_LHC_Find_New

_Math_

attachments: 1_The_GOD_Equation_bold_with_trademark_r.jpg

report post as inappropriate

Hi Alan,

Your essay is well written and expresses what is wrong with the current state of Physics. I particularly like your description of what particles are/should be: constructed from waves rather than considered a point particles.

I have constructed a 3D computer model of the electron/positron, and determined their wave functions which describe these particle's properties exactly - both Classical and Quantum Mechanical descriptions match. My paper can be found here:

http://vixra.org/abs/1507.0054

I would be interested in your feedback on this paper if you can find the time to review it...

Regards,

Declan Traill

report post as inappropriate

Your essay is well written and expresses what is wrong with the current state of Physics. I particularly like your description of what particles are/should be: constructed from waves rather than considered a point particles.

I have constructed a 3D computer model of the electron/positron, and determined their wave functions which describe these particle's properties exactly - both Classical and Quantum Mechanical descriptions match. My paper can be found here:

http://vixra.org/abs/1507.0054

I would be interested in your feedback on this paper if you can find the time to review it...

Regards,

Declan Traill

report post as inappropriate

Dear Declan,

Thank you for reading my essay. I looked briefly at your paper. If I understand correctly, your trial wave is a complex oscillating wave with a Gaussian envelope, which should represent a localized electron at rest. The frequency is the proper quantum frequency based on the rest energy. A Gaussian envelope might make sense, if one can find a basis for confining the electron. The problem is that according to the Schrodinger equation, an unbound electron wave will quickly spread out.

But what is the size of your electron wave? Your units are not consistent – as it stands, the size of the wave is units of sqrt(meters). The scale should probably be the Compton wavelength h/mc.

A second observation is that you have a complex scalar wave. But if you want to incorporate spin, a real vector field makes more sense, since spin is associated with rotation of this field. (I have shown that a complex scalar wave is mathematically equivalent to a rotating vector field, but the pictures are quite different.)

Will you be submitting an essay this year?

Best wishes,

Alan Kadin

Thank you for reading my essay. I looked briefly at your paper. If I understand correctly, your trial wave is a complex oscillating wave with a Gaussian envelope, which should represent a localized electron at rest. The frequency is the proper quantum frequency based on the rest energy. A Gaussian envelope might make sense, if one can find a basis for confining the electron. The problem is that according to the Schrodinger equation, an unbound electron wave will quickly spread out.

But what is the size of your electron wave? Your units are not consistent – as it stands, the size of the wave is units of sqrt(meters). The scale should probably be the Compton wavelength h/mc.

A second observation is that you have a complex scalar wave. But if you want to incorporate spin, a real vector field makes more sense, since spin is associated with rotation of this field. (I have shown that a complex scalar wave is mathematically equivalent to a rotating vector field, but the pictures are quite different.)

Will you be submitting an essay this year?

Best wishes,

Alan Kadin

Alan,

When you say, " The problem is that according to the Schrodinger equation, an unbound electron wave will quickly spread out." ... does that mean in physical reality that it does not have a rest state, definite size at an energy density that exhibits electrostatic behavior? (that would be a problem for Schrodinger, methinks) :-) jrc

report post as inappropriate

When you say, " The problem is that according to the Schrodinger equation, an unbound electron wave will quickly spread out." ... does that mean in physical reality that it does not have a rest state, definite size at an energy density that exhibits electrostatic behavior? (that would be a problem for Schrodinger, methinks) :-) jrc

report post as inappropriate

"instead, only realize the truth: there is no spoon"

instead, only realize the truth: there is no second bit -

It is not possible to get anything other than weirdly correlated measurements, when the entity being observed, only possesses a single bit of information, that is being misinterpreted as an entity that possesses more than one bit of information.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

instead, only realize the truth: there is no second bit -

It is not possible to get anything other than weirdly correlated measurements, when the entity being observed, only possesses a single bit of information, that is being misinterpreted as an entity that possesses more than one bit of information.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Dear Mr. McEachern,

I am not quite sure that I understand what you are addressing. Are you talking about Bell’s inequality measurements that measure the polarization of a photon? If you had two separate photon beams sent to two separate detectors, the results would be uncorrelated.

My criticism of these experiments is somewhat different – they may not be measuring single photons at all!

Will you be submitting an essay this year?

Regards,

Alan Kadin

I am not quite sure that I understand what you are addressing. Are you talking about Bell’s inequality measurements that measure the polarization of a photon? If you had two separate photon beams sent to two separate detectors, the results would be uncorrelated.

My criticism of these experiments is somewhat different – they may not be measuring single photons at all!

Will you be submitting an essay this year?

Regards,

Alan Kadin

I agree that they are certainly not measuring the kind of thing that they have assumed that they were measuring.

"If you had two separate photon beams sent to two separate detectors, the results would be uncorrelated."

In Bell tests on classical objects, it is possible to force "weird" correlations to exist, by systematically removing all but a single bit of measureable information from the entities being measured

Since there is then only one bit to ever be measured, it is impossible to make two measurements that are uncorrelated. That is what Bell did not take into account.

I have submitted entries in the past, but have no plans to do so this year.

Best of luck with your own entry.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

"If you had two separate photon beams sent to two separate detectors, the results would be uncorrelated."

In Bell tests on classical objects, it is possible to force "weird" correlations to exist, by systematically removing all but a single bit of measureable information from the entities being measured

Since there is then only one bit to ever be measured, it is impossible to make two measurements that are uncorrelated. That is what Bell did not take into account.

I have submitted entries in the past, but have no plans to do so this year.

Best of luck with your own entry.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Alan,

Yes the model represents an electron/positron at rest, and is an oscillating wave comprised of rotating vectors.

The Schrodinger equation when applied to a point-particle electron may behave as you say, but I am using the wave function that describes the actual structure of the electron, and solutions to the Schrodinger equation and Classical wave equation will be stable 3D waves that persist.

I'm not sure what you mean by "what size?" the 3D wave function is infinite in extent, but diminishes in intensity with distance from the particle center.

The reason that the vectors are complex, is that the Schrodinger equation requires them to be, as it relates two vector quantities with a complex 'i' in the equation. The reason for that is that the two quantities are orthogonal - multiplying any complex vector by 'i' has the effect of rotating it 90 degrees around the origin in complex space. The vectors are actually real, but the Schrodinger equation uses this mathematical 'trick' to express orthogonality in a concise way.

No, I'm not submitting an essay this year - don't have the time and the topic disn't inspire me enough this time.

Best Regards,

Declan Traill

report post as inappropriate

Yes the model represents an electron/positron at rest, and is an oscillating wave comprised of rotating vectors.

The Schrodinger equation when applied to a point-particle electron may behave as you say, but I am using the wave function that describes the actual structure of the electron, and solutions to the Schrodinger equation and Classical wave equation will be stable 3D waves that persist.

I'm not sure what you mean by "what size?" the 3D wave function is infinite in extent, but diminishes in intensity with distance from the particle center.

The reason that the vectors are complex, is that the Schrodinger equation requires them to be, as it relates two vector quantities with a complex 'i' in the equation. The reason for that is that the two quantities are orthogonal - multiplying any complex vector by 'i' has the effect of rotating it 90 degrees around the origin in complex space. The vectors are actually real, but the Schrodinger equation uses this mathematical 'trick' to express orthogonality in a concise way.

No, I'm not submitting an essay this year - don't have the time and the topic disn't inspire me enough this time.

Best Regards,

Declan Traill

report post as inappropriate

Hi Alan, thank you for sharing your recipe for unification. I am grateful that it is written in accessible English, so that I can easily follow your arguments. I do think you are right to discount space-time as a foundational necessity. Hilbert space is an analytical tool rather than actual stage where subatomic physics is happening. So I'm not worried about dispensing with that either. The little bold italic touches were nice. Little sage sound bites I could see on a fridge magnet : ). I think the entanglement issue stems from thinking of states or values as properties wholly belonging to the entity under investigation rather than being the outcome of the relations that have pertained in finding it. So although an isolated relative value or state does not exist until the experiment or viewpoint is imposed,(IE the character or value forming relation happens), applying the same context to two separate particles formed as a pair that are in some way opposites, will inevitably identify opposite singular values or states. I appreciate the time that must have gone into developing your model and preparing this presentation. Kind regards Georgina

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dear Georgina,

Thank you for your reading and your comments. I aim toward clarity and simplicity. The key point of my essay is that nature should be simple and unified at the fundamental level. Obscurity and complexity are indications that something is seriously wrong. Remarkably, some of my sympathetic colleagues have suggested that I might be able to publish in a journal if I narrow the focus and make my intention LESS clear. I have not taken their advice.

Alan

Thank you for your reading and your comments. I aim toward clarity and simplicity. The key point of my essay is that nature should be simple and unified at the fundamental level. Obscurity and complexity are indications that something is seriously wrong. Remarkably, some of my sympathetic colleagues have suggested that I might be able to publish in a journal if I narrow the focus and make my intention LESS clear. I have not taken their advice.

Alan

Alan,

Thanks very much for the interesting paper. I was able to make a Braille-like assessment of it while sliding lightly over some of the equations. Still, you held my interest and I believe I got the broad strokes of your thesis because you developed it well.

Hope to have a paper in the mix before the deadline.

Regards, Don Foster

report post as inappropriate

Thanks very much for the interesting paper. I was able to make a Braille-like assessment of it while sliding lightly over some of the equations. Still, you held my interest and I believe I got the broad strokes of your thesis because you developed it well.

Hope to have a paper in the mix before the deadline.

Regards, Don Foster

report post as inappropriate

Dear Don,

I’m not sure what you mean by a “Braille-like assessment”, but my main point is that reunification of physics can be achieved only if we reconsider several aspects that have long been accepted as proven. Otherwise, we are stuck trying to make sense out of aspects that are logically incompatible.

I will look for your essay.

Alan

I’m not sure what you mean by a “Braille-like assessment”, but my main point is that reunification of physics can be achieved only if we reconsider several aspects that have long been accepted as proven. Otherwise, we are stuck trying to make sense out of aspects that are logically incompatible.

I will look for your essay.

Alan

Dear Alan Kadin,

your paper is interesting insofar as it makes a provable statement, namely that orthodox quantum mechanics differs from the predictions of your approach.

Assuming that your predictions are confirmed by experiment, I nonetheless cannot unequivocally conclude what principles should be considered ‘fundamental’ in your approach, or put differently, how your approach answers the essay contest’s question “what is ‘fundamental’?”?

You merely seem to answer what is *not* fundamental, what – if it turns out to be true – would be a major success indeed (no non-locality, no superpositions, no black holes, no singularities), no doubt about this. But what has your approach to say about what is fundamental regarding ultimate reality? Unfortunately I wasn’t able to decipher a possible answer from your essay.

report post as inappropriate

your paper is interesting insofar as it makes a provable statement, namely that orthodox quantum mechanics differs from the predictions of your approach.

Assuming that your predictions are confirmed by experiment, I nonetheless cannot unequivocally conclude what principles should be considered ‘fundamental’ in your approach, or put differently, how your approach answers the essay contest’s question “what is ‘fundamental’?”?

You merely seem to answer what is *not* fundamental, what – if it turns out to be true – would be a major success indeed (no non-locality, no superpositions, no black holes, no singularities), no doubt about this. But what has your approach to say about what is fundamental regarding ultimate reality? Unfortunately I wasn’t able to decipher a possible answer from your essay.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Stefan Weckbach,

Yes, I state that many things that are generally considered fundamental are not really fundamental at all.

However, I argue clearly that real waves of fundamental particles, particularly electrons and photons, are at least MORE fundamental than other things, defining even time and space. Of course, one may respond that there are too many fundamental particles of this type – you can add positrons, muons, neutrinos, 6 kinds of quarks and antiparticles, gluons, and W and Z bosons. Can all of these really be fundamental? There may well be a layer underlying this, but so far, we do not really have insights into it. The various theoretical approaches for grand unification are really just mathematical guesses.

Still, I believe that unifying physics around quantum waves provides a good first step looking toward the future of physics.

Best wishes,

Alan Kadin

Yes, I state that many things that are generally considered fundamental are not really fundamental at all.

However, I argue clearly that real waves of fundamental particles, particularly electrons and photons, are at least MORE fundamental than other things, defining even time and space. Of course, one may respond that there are too many fundamental particles of this type – you can add positrons, muons, neutrinos, 6 kinds of quarks and antiparticles, gluons, and W and Z bosons. Can all of these really be fundamental? There may well be a layer underlying this, but so far, we do not really have insights into it. The various theoretical approaches for grand unification are really just mathematical guesses.

Still, I believe that unifying physics around quantum waves provides a good first step looking toward the future of physics.

Best wishes,

Alan Kadin

Hello dear Mr Kadin,

I liked a lot your general essay even if I consider the singularities, the black holes and dark matter like important. I wish you all the best in this contest.It was a relevant reading.This space time still and always but if we have only matter and energy instead of this Space time.....so it is just a tool electromagntically speaking but not gravitationally.

Best Regards

report post as inappropriate

I liked a lot your general essay even if I consider the singularities, the black holes and dark matter like important. I wish you all the best in this contest.It was a relevant reading.This space time still and always but if we have only matter and energy instead of this Space time.....so it is just a tool electromagntically speaking but not gravitationally.

Best Regards

report post as inappropriate

These électrons are very intriguing when we analyse deeper the exchanges.I read the works of Dirac and Hestenes about the électron respecting the pauli principle.The real question is what are they really ?

And what is really the interactions of an electron and a photon? How have they been produced at this instant zero at the creation of this universe ? a photon a positron and an electron with the good thermodynamical parameters ? I am doubting , I beleive that they are like all a gravitational coded serie of spherical volumes, of course it is just my opinion, but in this logic the Big Bang is not a reality.

We have like a gravitational system giving the properties to these series due probably to intrinsic codes in the quantum singularities.

We see easily that in fact the main gravitational codes are the essential for these finite series of uniquenss, primordial, able to have all these comportments respecting our standard model.We can consider this gravitation in encircling this standard model.That explains the stable gravitation.The cold and heat dances in fact if I can say implying properties and the encodings furthermore continue. The électrons if we insert the series more the motions orbital and spinal and linear can be better understood in their gravitational cmportment in this matter. The works of Dirac, Hestenes, Compton seem very relevant to better understand them.I am persuaded that these gravitational codes are the secret giving the properties, stable of matters.

Good luck in this contest, it is wonderful general work.

Best Regards

report post as inappropriate

And what is really the interactions of an electron and a photon? How have they been produced at this instant zero at the creation of this universe ? a photon a positron and an electron with the good thermodynamical parameters ? I am doubting , I beleive that they are like all a gravitational coded serie of spherical volumes, of course it is just my opinion, but in this logic the Big Bang is not a reality.

We have like a gravitational system giving the properties to these series due probably to intrinsic codes in the quantum singularities.

We see easily that in fact the main gravitational codes are the essential for these finite series of uniquenss, primordial, able to have all these comportments respecting our standard model.We can consider this gravitation in encircling this standard model.That explains the stable gravitation.The cold and heat dances in fact if I can say implying properties and the encodings furthermore continue. The électrons if we insert the series more the motions orbital and spinal and linear can be better understood in their gravitational cmportment in this matter. The works of Dirac, Hestenes, Compton seem very relevant to better understand them.I am persuaded that these gravitational codes are the secret giving the properties, stable of matters.

Good luck in this contest, it is wonderful general work.

Best Regards

report post as inappropriate

Dear Mr. Dufourny,

Thank you for your interest in my essay. You make a number of interesting points, and others that I don’t quite follow.

Regarding the Pauli principle, as I state in my essay, this is quite fundamental, but I believe that Pauli’s mathematical explanation is wrong. This was how entanglement snuck into quantum theory. I don’t know the more correct explanation, except that is may follow from a nonlinear self-interaction of the electron field, producing a soliton-like domain (with quantized spin) that repels other electrons with the same spin.

Alan Kadin

Thank you for your interest in my essay. You make a number of interesting points, and others that I don’t quite follow.

Regarding the Pauli principle, as I state in my essay, this is quite fundamental, but I believe that Pauli’s mathematical explanation is wrong. This was how entanglement snuck into quantum theory. I don’t know the more correct explanation, except that is may follow from a nonlinear self-interaction of the electron field, producing a soliton-like domain (with quantized spin) that repels other electrons with the same spin.

Alan Kadin

Dear Mr Kadin,

You are welcome, thanks for sharing your ideas, it is relevant, I learn in the same time about these electron field, what are these électrons after all, Dirac help us lol :)

best regards and good luck in this contest

report post as inappropriate

You are welcome, thanks for sharing your ideas, it is relevant, I learn in the same time about these electron field, what are these électrons after all, Dirac help us lol :)

best regards and good luck in this contest

report post as inappropriate

Alan

Thanks for an interesting article. You are fighting for a more realistic physics. Physics of today contains lots of science fiction. Your efforts are important.

Another risk today is that physics is too much dominated by mathematics. You cannot just shut up and calculate! What do you think?

Regards from _____________________ John- Erik Persson

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for an interesting article. You are fighting for a more realistic physics. Physics of today contains lots of science fiction. Your efforts are important.

Another risk today is that physics is too much dominated by mathematics. You cannot just shut up and calculate! What do you think?

Regards from _____________________ John- Erik Persson

report post as inappropriate

Response 1/9/18

John-Erik,

Thank you for your comments. Yes, I agree with you that abstract mathematics has become too dominant in physics. Many theoretical physicists believe that mathematics is MORE fundamental than realistic pictures of objects moving in space.

I am a big fan of science fiction, but most of it is FICTION. There is no time travel, or warp-drive through wormholes, or alternate universes. And the only aliens any of us are likely to encounter are immigrants from other countries!

Alan

John-Erik,

Thank you for your comments. Yes, I agree with you that abstract mathematics has become too dominant in physics. Many theoretical physicists believe that mathematics is MORE fundamental than realistic pictures of objects moving in space.

I am a big fan of science fiction, but most of it is FICTION. There is no time travel, or warp-drive through wormholes, or alternate universes. And the only aliens any of us are likely to encounter are immigrants from other countries!

Alan

Alan

I am glad to here your realistic views. I agree to everything. Thank you.

Regards _____________________ John-Erik

report post as inappropriate

I am glad to here your realistic views. I agree to everything. Thank you.

Regards _____________________ John-Erik

report post as inappropriate

Alan,

I carefully read your essay and your references. I admire your dedication to re-unifying physics. The other essays indicate there is a lot of variability and divergence in what people believe…physics needs a solid reentry point.

I simply reduced some data in a different way and developed a model of the neutron. I haven’t been able to communicate it well but I now know...

view entire post

I carefully read your essay and your references. I admire your dedication to re-unifying physics. The other essays indicate there is a lot of variability and divergence in what people believe…physics needs a solid reentry point.

I simply reduced some data in a different way and developed a model of the neutron. I haven’t been able to communicate it well but I now know...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Gene,

I can’t quite follow what you are proposing. I will review your essay, and your Vixra article, and see if I can understand it better. But this does not seem similar to what I am talking about.

You talk about Et/H, where you say that H is Heisenberg’s constant. Do you mean Planck’s constant h-bar? Heisenberg has an uncertainty principle named after him, but not a constant as far as I know. Et/h-bar is the complex phase factor, in radians, of a stationary wave function. This phase factor cancels out when one takes the square of the wavefunction. The total integrated probability is 1 by definition, but it is normally a distribution over a range of states. So I am afraid that I don’t understand what you are doing.

When I talk about a wave, I mean a real dynamic vector field in real space, similar to an electromagnetic wave packet. The phase factor is then the angle of a rotating vector field, and its rotation corresponds to spin. In general a wave has a frequency and a wavelength, and these can be used to define time and space. So time and space are not abstract mathematical quantities, but rather are embedded in the quantum waves that constitute all matter.

Alan

I can’t quite follow what you are proposing. I will review your essay, and your Vixra article, and see if I can understand it better. But this does not seem similar to what I am talking about.

You talk about Et/H, where you say that H is Heisenberg’s constant. Do you mean Planck’s constant h-bar? Heisenberg has an uncertainty principle named after him, but not a constant as far as I know. Et/h-bar is the complex phase factor, in radians, of a stationary wave function. This phase factor cancels out when one takes the square of the wavefunction. The total integrated probability is 1 by definition, but it is normally a distribution over a range of states. So I am afraid that I don’t understand what you are doing.

When I talk about a wave, I mean a real dynamic vector field in real space, similar to an electromagnetic wave packet. The phase factor is then the angle of a rotating vector field, and its rotation corresponds to spin. In general a wave has a frequency and a wavelength, and these can be used to define time and space. So time and space are not abstract mathematical quantities, but rather are embedded in the quantum waves that constitute all matter.

Alan

Dr. Kadin,

Thank you for your correction, the symbol H is 2*pi*h-bar=4.1357e-21 MeV-sec. For example, time is travel time at velocity C around a circle of radius R=1.93e-13 MeV-m/E meters. If E=2.73 MeV, tE/H=1.513e-21*2.73/4.136e-21=1.

Please bear with me, my work is naïve but I just reduce data. I want to share the logarithmic relationships behind the data.

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your correction, the symbol H is 2*pi*h-bar=4.1357e-21 MeV-sec. For example, time is travel time at velocity C around a circle of radius R=1.93e-13 MeV-m/E meters. If E=2.73 MeV, tE/H=1.513e-21*2.73/4.136e-21=1.

Please bear with me, my work is naïve but I just reduce data. I want to share the logarithmic relationships behind the data.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Alan Kadin,

We agree on so much and I believe we can be made compatible in our areas of disagreement. Quantization of spin**is** fundamental and space and time **are** distinct. We agree on many other aspects treated in your essays but we disagree on the nature of gravity, which you claim is "a modulation of fundamental quantum waves by other quantum waves."

As your...

view entire post

We agree on so much and I believe we can be made compatible in our areas of disagreement. Quantization of spin

As your...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Alan Kadin,

Although I appreciated your clear language in case of your essay "Just too many people", I feel we both may sometimes sound a bit too blunt. Was it necessary to write "And the only aliens any of us are likely to encounter are immigrants from other countries!"? Are those poor people guilty? I prefer blaming my own lacking ideas how to persuade the women in the exploding regions to have considerably less children.

I hope your dispute with Klingman may clarify fundamental questions, and I will

read your new essay as carefully as I can.

Best,

Eckard Blumschein

report post as inappropriate

Although I appreciated your clear language in case of your essay "Just too many people", I feel we both may sometimes sound a bit too blunt. Was it necessary to write "And the only aliens any of us are likely to encounter are immigrants from other countries!"? Are those poor people guilty? I prefer blaming my own lacking ideas how to persuade the women in the exploding regions to have considerably less children.

I hope your dispute with Klingman may clarify fundamental questions, and I will

read your new essay as carefully as I can.

Best,

Eckard Blumschein

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard,

Thank for your interest, but you may have misinterpreted my poor attempt at a joke. In common English language usage, “alien” has a double meaning of both a foreigner and an extraterrestrial. This was not intended to be insulting to either immigrants or extraterrestrials.

Just to be clear: I do not associate myself in any way with a particular prominent individual who has recently made disparaging remarks regarding immigrants.

I would also appreciate any comments you might have about my essay, and I will look for your essay.

Alan

Thank for your interest, but you may have misinterpreted my poor attempt at a joke. In common English language usage, “alien” has a double meaning of both a foreigner and an extraterrestrial. This was not intended to be insulting to either immigrants or extraterrestrials.

Just to be clear: I do not associate myself in any way with a particular prominent individual who has recently made disparaging remarks regarding immigrants.

I would also appreciate any comments you might have about my essay, and I will look for your essay.

Alan

Alan,

You left a comment on my paper (The Fundamental Universe) but I believe you get notifications of comments only if I post on your page. Just wanted to let you know that I had read your paper even prior to the submission of mine. Now that I have the author code, I've completed a rating for yours. Thanks for the opportunity to read it.

Given our similar thinking, I'd enjoy a discussion with you one day. Good luck with the contest.

Jeff Yee

report post as inappropriate

You left a comment on my paper (The Fundamental Universe) but I believe you get notifications of comments only if I post on your page. Just wanted to let you know that I had read your paper even prior to the submission of mine. Now that I have the author code, I've completed a rating for yours. Thanks for the opportunity to read it.

Given our similar thinking, I'd enjoy a discussion with you one day. Good luck with the contest.

Jeff Yee

report post as inappropriate

Alan M.

I must say that the fundamental is the rotation space, which according to Descartes is the matter. Carefully you can see that the wave is periodic rotation.

I agree with you that Planck's constant is the smallest measure of the rotation of space. It and the speed of light form the pressure of the Universe, which compresses the particles.

Me is easy and interesting to read the comments and your answers on your page. In contrast to the PDF of the essay, she quickly translated.

I propose to go to my page https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2999 and exchange views regarding "What is space" at the same time discard the concept of time.

With respect. . Boris. S. Dizhechko

report post as inappropriate

I must say that the fundamental is the rotation space, which according to Descartes is the matter. Carefully you can see that the wave is periodic rotation.

I agree with you that Planck's constant is the smallest measure of the rotation of space. It and the speed of light form the pressure of the Universe, which compresses the particles.

Me is easy and interesting to read the comments and your answers on your page. In contrast to the PDF of the essay, she quickly translated.

I propose to go to my page https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2999 and exchange views regarding "What is space" at the same time discard the concept of time.

With respect. . Boris. S. Dizhechko

report post as inappropriate

Alan,

I gave yours a 1st read. Looked excellent but with maybe 2 queries. I want to read again carefully before I discuss. In the meantime thanks for you comment on mine. I repost my response here for your convenience.;;

I greatly look forward to reading yours. I never did subscribe to 'point' particles, Hilbert space or 'space-time' as an entity. Have you done any new 'direct experimental tests'?

I'm sad mine looked "less clear and simple" but all new concepts first will!

It really IS simple and I hope you'll look less quickly & help to falsify it. Look at this short video, 100 second video Classic QM & non-integer spin, but in a nutshell;

1. 'Pairs' have random (x,y,z) but parallel polar axes, and each the TWO (Maxwell curl/linear) states, inversely proportional over 90o as I show.

2. A,B polarizer fermions have the same or opposite axis subject to setting angle.

3. Momentum (as known), so exchange varies by Cos theta 'latitude' inversely for each state (equivalent to rotational velocity distribution).

4. An amplitude varying with (x,y,z axis) angle hits orthogonal photomultiplier channel (fields again! but charged). The Cos angle distribution repeats (so Cos2). High energy at any angle = *click* low doesn't.

5. Click rates are then 'collated' and misinterpreted! Diracs 4 'spinor' equation and offset Cos2 plot is reproduced. CHSH >2 and 'steering equality' >1 so closing the so called 'detection loophole'.

My experiment (see photo's & end notes) confirms it. Also see Declan Trail's short essay with a perfectly matching maths code & plot!

Re-emission is always at fermion centre of mass rest frame. Speed c is thus localised by ALL interactions! SR is then implicit (though not quite as present misinterpretation).

I was counting on your help. Initially to falsify. Do ask questions.

Best

Peter

report post as inappropriate

I gave yours a 1st read. Looked excellent but with maybe 2 queries. I want to read again carefully before I discuss. In the meantime thanks for you comment on mine. I repost my response here for your convenience.;;

I greatly look forward to reading yours. I never did subscribe to 'point' particles, Hilbert space or 'space-time' as an entity. Have you done any new 'direct experimental tests'?

I'm sad mine looked "less clear and simple" but all new concepts first will!

It really IS simple and I hope you'll look less quickly & help to falsify it. Look at this short video, 100 second video Classic QM & non-integer spin, but in a nutshell;

1. 'Pairs' have random (x,y,z) but parallel polar axes, and each the TWO (Maxwell curl/linear) states, inversely proportional over 90o as I show.

2. A,B polarizer fermions have the same or opposite axis subject to setting angle.

3. Momentum (as known), so exchange varies by Cos theta 'latitude' inversely for each state (equivalent to rotational velocity distribution).

4. An amplitude varying with (x,y,z axis) angle hits orthogonal photomultiplier channel (fields again! but charged). The Cos angle distribution repeats (so Cos2). High energy at any angle = *click* low doesn't.

5. Click rates are then 'collated' and misinterpreted! Diracs 4 'spinor' equation and offset Cos2 plot is reproduced. CHSH >2 and 'steering equality' >1 so closing the so called 'detection loophole'.

My experiment (see photo's & end notes) confirms it. Also see Declan Trail's short essay with a perfectly matching maths code & plot!

Re-emission is always at fermion centre of mass rest frame. Speed c is thus localised by ALL interactions! SR is then implicit (though not quite as present misinterpretation).

I was counting on your help. Initially to falsify. Do ask questions.

Best

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Alan,

In my earlier message I said I was not submitting an essay this year.

I changed my mind due to a recent finding, and have submitted an essay titled ‘A Fundamental Misunderstanding” about a Classical explanation for the EPR experiment (including the latest loophole free Steering Inequality experiments).

It is very much aligned with your ideas and is a easy read.

I would appreciate it if you could take a look and vote on it as I have done yours.

Thanks,

Declan Traill

report post as inappropriate

In my earlier message I said I was not submitting an essay this year.

I changed my mind due to a recent finding, and have submitted an essay titled ‘A Fundamental Misunderstanding” about a Classical explanation for the EPR experiment (including the latest loophole free Steering Inequality experiments).

It is very much aligned with your ideas and is a easy read.

I would appreciate it if you could take a look and vote on it as I have done yours.

Thanks,

Declan Traill

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. Alan M. Kadin,

You wrote: “The next decade promises to be particularly interesting. Either we will have entanglement-based quantum computers, or the entire edifice of quantum foundations will collapse, leading to a new quantum paradigm.”

My research has concluded that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

You wrote: “The next decade promises to be particularly interesting. Either we will have entanglement-based quantum computers, or the entire edifice of quantum foundations will collapse, leading to a new quantum paradigm.”

My research has concluded that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

FQXi Colleagues,

The primary purpose of these comments should be to exchange views and offer criticism. However, I seldom get criticism, although I get Community Ratings that indicate a highly split view – the ratings are all either 7-10 or 1, with nothing in between. I would be interested in finding out why certain colleagues are giving my essay a ‘1’ rating. I can only assume that some authors are afraid to express criticism under their own name, for fear of retaliation on the ratings. I would encourage other authors to create an “anonymous” account, or one with a fictitious name or “handle” that could not be traced back to them. That could lead to more honest exchanges of views.

Incidentally, I have not yet voted on any essays. I am waiting for the rest of the essays to appear, so that I can get a sense of the overall level for the entire batch.

Any opinions on this?

Alan Kadin

The primary purpose of these comments should be to exchange views and offer criticism. However, I seldom get criticism, although I get Community Ratings that indicate a highly split view – the ratings are all either 7-10 or 1, with nothing in between. I would be interested in finding out why certain colleagues are giving my essay a ‘1’ rating. I can only assume that some authors are afraid to express criticism under their own name, for fear of retaliation on the ratings. I would encourage other authors to create an “anonymous” account, or one with a fictitious name or “handle” that could not be traced back to them. That could lead to more honest exchanges of views.

Incidentally, I have not yet voted on any essays. I am waiting for the rest of the essays to appear, so that I can get a sense of the overall level for the entire batch.

Any opinions on this?

Alan Kadin

Dear Author Alan M. Kadin,

I understood that the theme of the essay contest was for the essayist to try to provide a new cogent explanation for any possible unified singular fundamental basis of reality. All of my fellow essayists seem to have only provided slale rehashes of finite incomprehensible speculation about the behavior of invisible particles. I have awarded only 1 point to some essayists for not compling with the contest’s theme.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

I understood that the theme of the essay contest was for the essayist to try to provide a new cogent explanation for any possible unified singular fundamental basis of reality. All of my fellow essayists seem to have only provided slale rehashes of finite incomprehensible speculation about the behavior of invisible particles. I have awarded only 1 point to some essayists for not compling with the contest’s theme.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

report post as inappropriate

Alan,

It is a good idea. To read all the essays and rank them regarding their essays as they reflect the wave nature of the world.

It is obvious that my essay will be in last place because I claim that space is matter that moves. You say - no space is an abstraction of empty place, wherein the moving body and itself it can not move.

Boris S. Dizhechko

report post as inappropriate

It is a good idea. To read all the essays and rank them regarding their essays as they reflect the wave nature of the world.

It is obvious that my essay will be in last place because I claim that space is matter that moves. You say - no space is an abstraction of empty place, wherein the moving body and itself it can not move.

Boris S. Dizhechko

report post as inappropriate

Dear Alan,

I think in what you wrote at the start of your essay illustrates how spacetime is potentially not fundamental and is built from quantum states. That alone means your essay warrants a good score. As for waves over particles and the wave-particle duality, quantum mechanics is indeed a wave theory. Particles are more in a sense a way of interpreting experimental outcomes. So in ways I agree with you there.

Anyway, I really liked the discussion on the gravitational potential with respect to quantum frequencies. Good luck on the essay contest.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

I think in what you wrote at the start of your essay illustrates how spacetime is potentially not fundamental and is built from quantum states. That alone means your essay warrants a good score. As for waves over particles and the wave-particle duality, quantum mechanics is indeed a wave theory. Particles are more in a sense a way of interpreting experimental outcomes. So in ways I agree with you there.

Anyway, I really liked the discussion on the gravitational potential with respect to quantum frequencies. Good luck on the essay contest.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Dear Lawrence,

Thank you for your comments and your interest.

It is quite remarkable that the trajectories of standard GR can be reproduced using a picture that includes only gravitational time-dilation and length-contraction of quantum waves. Within this picture, the speed of light is not a universal invariant, but Planck’s constant is!

The criticism of orthodox QM is even more fundamental. But if superposition, entanglement, and indeterminacy are really just mathematical artifacts, that opens the door to reconciling with classical physics, which does not have these properties either. The unity and simplicity of fundamental physical laws are too precious to be discarded.

Best wishes,

Alan

Thank you for your comments and your interest.

It is quite remarkable that the trajectories of standard GR can be reproduced using a picture that includes only gravitational time-dilation and length-contraction of quantum waves. Within this picture, the speed of light is not a universal invariant, but Planck’s constant is!

The criticism of orthodox QM is even more fundamental. But if superposition, entanglement, and indeterminacy are really just mathematical artifacts, that opens the door to reconciling with classical physics, which does not have these properties either. The unity and simplicity of fundamental physical laws are too precious to be discarded.

Best wishes,

Alan

You actually have very many good ideas in your approach to reality. However, your approach is affected by your allegiance to spacetime. Continuous space and time are very useful notions, but they limit how we can see reality and so we must give those notions up.

You discuss the illusion of entanglement but do not discuss the illusion of space and time. Quantum phase coherence is a reality that is the root of quantum entanglement. Space and time emerge from matter and action...

report post as inappropriate

You discuss the illusion of entanglement but do not discuss the illusion of space and time. Quantum phase coherence is a reality that is the root of quantum entanglement. Space and time emerge from matter and action...

report post as inappropriate

Mr Kadin,

I conclude that you apply a simplistic interpretation of the Hilbert space. The orthomodular lattice that was discovered by Birkhoff and von Neumann emerges into a separable Hilbert space, but many realizations of separable Hilbert spaces exist and every infinite dimensional separable Hilbert space owns a companion non-separable Hilbert space that embeds its separable partner. Further, Hilbert spaces apply division rings for specifying their inner products. Many Hilbert spaces can share the same underlying vector space.

Look at "Diversity of Floating Platforms"; http://vixra.org/abs/1712.0242 for examples.

Sincerely yours,

Hans van Leunen

report post as inappropriate

I conclude that you apply a simplistic interpretation of the Hilbert space. The orthomodular lattice that was discovered by Birkhoff and von Neumann emerges into a separable Hilbert space, but many realizations of separable Hilbert spaces exist and every infinite dimensional separable Hilbert space owns a companion non-separable Hilbert space that embeds its separable partner. Further, Hilbert spaces apply division rings for specifying their inner products. Many Hilbert spaces can share the same underlying vector space.

Look at "Diversity of Floating Platforms"; http://vixra.org/abs/1712.0242 for examples.

Sincerely yours,

Hans van Leunen

report post as inappropriate

Alan--

I think that this is a very good attempt at totally revamping our entire approach to doing physics, compared to any other attempt that I've seen. You make a number of interesting points and suggest experimental tests of some ideas. I particularly like you suggestions of nonlinearity being important. However, I do have some serious questions about your proposal.

My main issue that that you ignore so much of the success that QM in its present form has enjoyed, and you don't offer any comparable examples of such success for your theory. For example, if you put an electron into a periodic potential and solve Schrodinger's Eqn. you get band structure. That is not like Ptolemaic epicycles--it was a big surprise that popped out the theory. If you put your soliton-like electron waves into a periodic potential, can you get band structure? If you put two of them near a helium nucleus, can you calculate the energy levels of helium? One more example: exchange-correlation energies using current theory are used extensively in density functional theory, resulting in a huge number of comparisons with experiment. A few "crucis experimenti" that agree with your predictions might not be enough to offset generations of success.

I also think you are a little cavalier about dismissing entangled states and the experimental body of work showing that Bell's inequality is violated.

But I don't want to sound negative. I understand your motivation and I congratulate you on what you have accomplished so far. I'm only trying to suggest the difficulty of the task.

report post as inappropriate

I think that this is a very good attempt at totally revamping our entire approach to doing physics, compared to any other attempt that I've seen. You make a number of interesting points and suggest experimental tests of some ideas. I particularly like you suggestions of nonlinearity being important. However, I do have some serious questions about your proposal.

My main issue that that you ignore so much of the success that QM in its present form has enjoyed, and you don't offer any comparable examples of such success for your theory. For example, if you put an electron into a periodic potential and solve Schrodinger's Eqn. you get band structure. That is not like Ptolemaic epicycles--it was a big surprise that popped out the theory. If you put your soliton-like electron waves into a periodic potential, can you get band structure? If you put two of them near a helium nucleus, can you calculate the energy levels of helium? One more example: exchange-correlation energies using current theory are used extensively in density functional theory, resulting in a huge number of comparisons with experiment. A few "crucis experimenti" that agree with your predictions might not be enough to offset generations of success.

I also think you are a little cavalier about dismissing entangled states and the experimental body of work showing that Bell's inequality is violated.

But I don't want to sound negative. I understand your motivation and I congratulate you on what you have accomplished so far. I'm only trying to suggest the difficulty of the task.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Gregory,

Thank you for your comments and your questions. I am aware of the difficulties, and I have been trying to start a discussion. Amateurs, engineers, and experimental physicists have been interested and willing to talk. Theoretical physicists have refused to engage in any way. I am hoping that FQXi may provide a forum for such discussions. (I am an experimental device physicist...

view entire post

Thank you for your comments and your questions. I am aware of the difficulties, and I have been trying to start a discussion. Amateurs, engineers, and experimental physicists have been interested and willing to talk. Theoretical physicists have refused to engage in any way. I am hoping that FQXi may provide a forum for such discussions. (I am an experimental device physicist...

view entire post

Dear Alan,

I read with great interest your deep analytical essay with extremely important conclusions and ideas aimed at solving the fundamental problems of modern physics. I see that our ideas are close, but our ontologies of the basis of knowledge are slightly different. But this is good, as it forces us to argue and search for a single primordial construction of reality, the construction of the "beginning." Yes, physics needs the deepest ontological re-unification. My highest score.

Successes in the Сontest!

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

I read with great interest your deep analytical essay with extremely important conclusions and ideas aimed at solving the fundamental problems of modern physics. I see that our ideas are close, but our ontologies of the basis of knowledge are slightly different. But this is good, as it forces us to argue and search for a single primordial construction of reality, the construction of the "beginning." Yes, physics needs the deepest ontological re-unification. My highest score.

Successes in the Сontest!

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Alan, I largely agree with you. Space and time exist separately. Quantum mechanics must change. All quantum phenomena arise from the existence pressure of the Universe, which is equal to the force flux through a closed surface is equal to the product of the speed of light on Planck's constant (a generalized Gaussian Law).

Your essay is worthy of the winner. But I appreciate those who read my Essay.

Take a look at it and give your comment.

Sincerely, Dicecco Boris Semenovich.

report post as inappropriate

Your essay is worthy of the winner. But I appreciate those who read my Essay.

Take a look at it and give your comment.

Sincerely, Dicecco Boris Semenovich.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Alan;

In my view, what your proposal shows is how the lack of a fundamental (ontological) concept of time, space, and other parametric concepts used in classical and modern physics leads to paradoxes and contradictions.

The solution you propose, if you or any other could fine the set of equations that satisfy all the conditions of your theory, will in the end be plagued with the same type of paradoxes and contradictions.

In order to see truth, it is necessary to drop all the veils that distort the view. Most physicists are today trapped behind the veils of mathematical formalisms without an ontological and epistemological basis.

In my essay I described those veils and propose ways to drop them. There I start by establishing the general concept of “Fundamental”. Then I summarize an epistemological critique of the practice of theoretical science, where it is demonstrated the inadequacy of the ways science constructs the fundamental concepts for studying the fine grain of reality. Afterward I propose an expansion of the scope of physical science to include the aspects of reality that cannot be observed directly or indirectly. Then I discusses the concepts of SPACE, DISTANCE,TIME, INERTIA, MASS AND ELECTRIC CHARGE, and develop new concepts for each of these scientific parameters; redefining them in ways that allows the determination of whether or not they could be categorized as Fundamental

report post as inappropriate

In my view, what your proposal shows is how the lack of a fundamental (ontological) concept of time, space, and other parametric concepts used in classical and modern physics leads to paradoxes and contradictions.

The solution you propose, if you or any other could fine the set of equations that satisfy all the conditions of your theory, will in the end be plagued with the same type of paradoxes and contradictions.

In order to see truth, it is necessary to drop all the veils that distort the view. Most physicists are today trapped behind the veils of mathematical formalisms without an ontological and epistemological basis.

In my essay I described those veils and propose ways to drop them. There I start by establishing the general concept of “Fundamental”. Then I summarize an epistemological critique of the practice of theoretical science, where it is demonstrated the inadequacy of the ways science constructs the fundamental concepts for studying the fine grain of reality. Afterward I propose an expansion of the scope of physical science to include the aspects of reality that cannot be observed directly or indirectly. Then I discusses the concepts of SPACE, DISTANCE,TIME, INERTIA, MASS AND ELECTRIC CHARGE, and develop new concepts for each of these scientific parameters; redefining them in ways that allows the determination of whether or not they could be categorized as Fundamental

report post as inappropriate

Dear Diogenes,

I agree with you that complex mathematical formalisms are not a substitute for true understanding of fundamentals.

I argue that unity and simplicity are the real fundamentals. Quantum waves are also fundamental, and functionally define time and space. Mass is really just wave oscillation, and gravity is just the small influence of each oscillation on every other such oscillation in the universe.

Best wishes,

Alan

I agree with you that complex mathematical formalisms are not a substitute for true understanding of fundamentals.

I argue that unity and simplicity are the real fundamentals. Quantum waves are also fundamental, and functionally define time and space. Mass is really just wave oscillation, and gravity is just the small influence of each oscillation on every other such oscillation in the universe.

Best wishes,

Alan

Hi Alan,

I am with you on your neoclassical approach in general, and with the sentiment that physics is in need of renewal. I find it very interesting that you reproduce the radial dimensional variability of general relativity. The first order variability with gravitational potential that you present for the speed of light forms the basis of the Shapiro experiment. The speed of light in...

view entire post

I am with you on your neoclassical approach in general, and with the sentiment that physics is in need of renewal. I find it very interesting that you reproduce the radial dimensional variability of general relativity. The first order variability with gravitational potential that you present for the speed of light forms the basis of the Shapiro experiment. The speed of light in...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Fellow Essayists

This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for commenting on my essay.

I agree the edifice of quantum foundations will fall. I think my diffraction experiment may contribute to that.

However, I suggest the "entanglement" can be viewed in a classical setting. All we need is for gravity waves to travel much faster than light. Photons need not be the only signal mechanism. So, entanglement can continue after the quantum edifice collapses.

report post as inappropriate

I agree the edifice of quantum foundations will fall. I think my diffraction experiment may contribute to that.

However, I suggest the "entanglement" can be viewed in a classical setting. All we need is for gravity waves to travel much faster than light. Photons need not be the only signal mechanism. So, entanglement can continue after the quantum edifice collapses.

report post as inappropriate

Hi dear Alan

I have read your attractive essay and find there whole group of very unusual things (that can bring many of advanced theorists even to heart attack!)

You say:

1.There is not space-time!

2.Electron should be a rotating vector field!

3.I have argued that quantum mechanics has been profoundly misunderstood since the beginning, and that a premature...

view entire post

I have read your attractive essay and find there whole group of very unusual things (that can bring many of advanced theorists even to heart attack!)

You say:

1.There is not space-time!

2.Electron should be a rotating vector field!

3.I have argued that quantum mechanics has been profoundly misunderstood since the beginning, and that a premature...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hi Alan,

I wanted to take a moment to reassure you that I am not taken in by the prevailing consensus, and that I am in accord with you on a good many things. Your title and abstract made me immediately place your essay in my reading bin, but there was a queue already when it was added. Seeing your comments to Bill McHarris suggests you and I share an appreciation for nonlinear phenomena that is nontrivial. But your comments on my essay suggest you read it only superficially, or you would know I am a champion of some of the same ideas Bill talks about.

But perhaps I did not communicate myself well enough, or you were fooled by the window dressing. I deliberately cast my descriptions in terms that conform to the norm of Physics terminology, because I'm talking about controversial stuff. But I did use caveats like "the description preferred by physicists is..." to delineate that I was not necessarily in agreement. In my talk at FFP15; I was careful to speak about black holes as idealized examples, and I did cite caveats and provide counterexamples, but showed they also support the metaphor of gravitation by condensation.

So I do care about why there is gravity, as well as if it is fundamental. And I thought I did talk a fair amount about that question in my essay, but I guess not as clearly as you would have liked. You should look at my slides 38 and 39, especially. I hope to get to your essay soon, but I wanted to inform you that we are entirely in agreement on some issues, even if my essay's tone does not reflect that. I am familiar with the work of Chapline and Laughlin, Mazur and Mottola, and others in that crowd. I've corresponded with Abhas Mitra, and I still have some correspondence with Stan Robertson.

Those investigations are not erased by the fact I heard so many lectures on black holes at GR21.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

I wanted to take a moment to reassure you that I am not taken in by the prevailing consensus, and that I am in accord with you on a good many things. Your title and abstract made me immediately place your essay in my reading bin, but there was a queue already when it was added. Seeing your comments to Bill McHarris suggests you and I share an appreciation for nonlinear phenomena that is nontrivial. But your comments on my essay suggest you read it only superficially, or you would know I am a champion of some of the same ideas Bill talks about.

But perhaps I did not communicate myself well enough, or you were fooled by the window dressing. I deliberately cast my descriptions in terms that conform to the norm of Physics terminology, because I'm talking about controversial stuff. But I did use caveats like "the description preferred by physicists is..." to delineate that I was not necessarily in agreement. In my talk at FFP15; I was careful to speak about black holes as idealized examples, and I did cite caveats and provide counterexamples, but showed they also support the metaphor of gravitation by condensation.

So I do care about why there is gravity, as well as if it is fundamental. And I thought I did talk a fair amount about that question in my essay, but I guess not as clearly as you would have liked. You should look at my slides 38 and 39, especially. I hope to get to your essay soon, but I wanted to inform you that we are entirely in agreement on some issues, even if my essay's tone does not reflect that. I am familiar with the work of Chapline and Laughlin, Mazur and Mottola, and others in that crowd. I've corresponded with Abhas Mitra, and I still have some correspondence with Stan Robertson.

Those investigations are not erased by the fact I heard so many lectures on black holes at GR21.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Alan,

On one hand, being a classic relativist, I disagree with the main claims of your Essay. On the other hand, your Essay has been a pleasant reading for me. In particular, I appreciate your attempt to connect quantum waves with gravity. Hence, you deserves a good score.

I have a crucial question: 1) How can you reconcile your framework with Einstein equivalence principle, which has today an unchallengeable empiric evidence, and with the recent detections of gravitational waves?

Maybe you could be interested in my Essay, where I discuss an opposite approach to the fundamental physics with... Albert Einstein!

Good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

report post as inappropriate

On one hand, being a classic relativist, I disagree with the main claims of your Essay. On the other hand, your Essay has been a pleasant reading for me. In particular, I appreciate your attempt to connect quantum waves with gravity. Hence, you deserves a good score.

I have a crucial question: 1) How can you reconcile your framework with Einstein equivalence principle, which has today an unchallengeable empiric evidence, and with the recent detections of gravitational waves?

Maybe you could be interested in my Essay, where I discuss an opposite approach to the fundamental physics with... Albert Einstein!

Good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Christian,

Thank you for your reading of my essay and for your questions.

First, the treatment of GR in my framework is an alternative interpretation of the same standard GR trajectories. This has gravitational time dilation and length contraction built in, with the same first order dependence on gravitational potential as the standard metric. I don’t think we have any knowledge of higher order gravitational dependence. My skepticism of black holes is basically the same as Einstein’s – Nature does not have mathematical singularities. Gravitational waves would follow from any relativistic field theory – the LIGO observation does not have the precision to select between alternatives.

In contrast, my treatment of QM is NOT simply an alternative interpretation – it is a different theory, particularly for multiple particles, with some different experimental implications, particularly regarding superposition and entanglement. The proposed nonlinearity is incompatible with the entire framework of Hilbert space. That is why I present Quantum Computing as a test case – if I am right, Quantum Computing will fail to achieve its promised results.

This is not in any way a quantum theory of gravity, but rather an effort to place both GR and QM within the same neoclassical framework. It also does not address unifying different forces of nature. But to go further in fundamental physics, it is essential to establish a consistent set of foundations.

I noticed your dialog with Einstein, but I will read it more carefully.

Best Wishes,

Alan Kadin

Thank you for your reading of my essay and for your questions.

First, the treatment of GR in my framework is an alternative interpretation of the same standard GR trajectories. This has gravitational time dilation and length contraction built in, with the same first order dependence on gravitational potential as the standard metric. I don’t think we have any knowledge of higher order gravitational dependence. My skepticism of black holes is basically the same as Einstein’s – Nature does not have mathematical singularities. Gravitational waves would follow from any relativistic field theory – the LIGO observation does not have the precision to select between alternatives.

In contrast, my treatment of QM is NOT simply an alternative interpretation – it is a different theory, particularly for multiple particles, with some different experimental implications, particularly regarding superposition and entanglement. The proposed nonlinearity is incompatible with the entire framework of Hilbert space. That is why I present Quantum Computing as a test case – if I am right, Quantum Computing will fail to achieve its promised results.

This is not in any way a quantum theory of gravity, but rather an effort to place both GR and QM within the same neoclassical framework. It also does not address unifying different forces of nature. But to go further in fundamental physics, it is essential to establish a consistent set of foundations.

I noticed your dialog with Einstein, but I will read it more carefully.

Best Wishes,

Alan Kadin

Dear Alan,

Thanks for clarifying.

Your point of view on quantum mechanics is interesting.

You tell

"Gravitational waves would follow from any relativistic field theory – the LIGO observation does not have the precision to select between alternatives."

This is perhaps the research field where I have the major experience, give a look to this paper. Here is also my last contribution which has been published just last week.

Cheers, Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for clarifying.

Your point of view on quantum mechanics is interesting.

You tell

"Gravitational waves would follow from any relativistic field theory – the LIGO observation does not have the precision to select between alternatives."

This is perhaps the research field where I have the major experience, give a look to this paper. Here is also my last contribution which has been published just last week.

Cheers, Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr Kadin,

I enjoyed reading your very different take on quantum mechanics, though I hope you will tolerate that my view on entanglement is almost the diametric opposite of the one in your essay. That is, for more reasons than I can get into here, I am strongly inclined to view*locality* as the concept that is a bit of an illusion, one that is created and imposed on otherwise...

view entire post

I enjoyed reading your very different take on quantum mechanics, though I hope you will tolerate that my view on entanglement is almost the diametric opposite of the one in your essay. That is, for more reasons than I can get into here, I am strongly inclined to view

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. Bollinger,

Thank you for your quick reading and your comments and suggestions. This is the type of interaction that I have been seeking. Let me address your points individually.

Regarding locality and entanglement, space and time, I believe that the heart of physics consists of pictures, not abstract mathematics. Pictures of real objects with real motion in real time...

view entire post

Thank you for your quick reading and your comments and suggestions. This is the type of interaction that I have been seeking. Let me address your points individually.

Regarding locality and entanglement, space and time, I believe that the heart of physics consists of pictures, not abstract mathematics. Pictures of real objects with real motion in real time...

view entire post

Where do I start?

I like this essay, but you have written a paper it is extremely hard for me to grade Alan. Your theory is an unfinished work of art. I agree with your core premise, and I've explored that somewhat, but I warn you there are other other notions further up the chain. Waves are indeed more fundamental than particles, however. And I tend to agree that QM as it it generally applied contains major fallacies. I put Hilbert space in the category of invented Maths, rather than the fundamental kind, because it was devised for a purpose. It is a hypercubic projection into discrete measure spaces, and nature prefers spheres.

If one constructs spheres of increasingly higher dimension, the volume then the surface area reach a maximum and decrease thereafter, while hypercubic expansions go on forever. An illusion therefore arises in QM, when the Hilbert space formulation is incorrectly applied, or is assumed to be a universal generalization. John Klauder is among the few who does it correctly, while Sean Carroll and Ashmeet Singh appear to use the framework inaptly, or abuse the generalization, in my opinion. I've never believed in point-particles, and I like the idea that space is defined by wave expansion.

I have written since my very 1st FQXi essay that the property of waves is to be spread out or extended in space and time, and to move or propagate. This also was in my FFP10 presentation, in Perth back in 2009. While it is a particle-like property to be localized, waves are inherently non-local by virtue of being spread out or extended. Do you agree? At the very least; I see it as a space defining property. But I attach a paper by H.D. Zeh which also claims that waves are more fundamental than physical reality - from a more conventional framework. I have more to say, but I hope you enjoy the prior comments and paper.

I'll have to read again, before I rate this.

All the Best,

Jonathan

attachments: 2_no-quantum-jumps.pdf

report post as inappropriate

I like this essay, but you have written a paper it is extremely hard for me to grade Alan. Your theory is an unfinished work of art. I agree with your core premise, and I've explored that somewhat, but I warn you there are other other notions further up the chain. Waves are indeed more fundamental than particles, however. And I tend to agree that QM as it it generally applied contains major fallacies. I put Hilbert space in the category of invented Maths, rather than the fundamental kind, because it was devised for a purpose. It is a hypercubic projection into discrete measure spaces, and nature prefers spheres.

If one constructs spheres of increasingly higher dimension, the volume then the surface area reach a maximum and decrease thereafter, while hypercubic expansions go on forever. An illusion therefore arises in QM, when the Hilbert space formulation is incorrectly applied, or is assumed to be a universal generalization. John Klauder is among the few who does it correctly, while Sean Carroll and Ashmeet Singh appear to use the framework inaptly, or abuse the generalization, in my opinion. I've never believed in point-particles, and I like the idea that space is defined by wave expansion.

I have written since my very 1st FQXi essay that the property of waves is to be spread out or extended in space and time, and to move or propagate. This also was in my FFP10 presentation, in Perth back in 2009. While it is a particle-like property to be localized, waves are inherently non-local by virtue of being spread out or extended. Do you agree? At the very least; I see it as a space defining property. But I attach a paper by H.D. Zeh which also claims that waves are more fundamental than physical reality - from a more conventional framework. I have more to say, but I hope you enjoy the prior comments and paper.

I'll have to read again, before I rate this.

All the Best,

Jonathan

attachments: 2_no-quantum-jumps.pdf

report post as inappropriate

As it turns out...

Back in 2008 and '09; I was exploring ideas myself that incorporate several of the core concepts of the work you present in this year's essay Alan. I was invited to write an article for a special issue of Entropy, and I made a poster presentation at FFP10, but I hit a wall before my work saw publication. I later found out that it was Dieter Zeh who sunk my proceedings paper, and I got to have a long discussion as to why it failed and what was expected. But this rejection came after I encountered an $800 processing fee requirement from entropy, when a change in management nullified the previous fee waiver arrangement for that special issue.

I never got as far as you have come, and I pursued other lines of research for a while after that. But I don't think your ideas are crazy at all, only that you are a bit shy of the same level of formalism Dieter Zeh was requiring of me. I have friends and colleagues working in a similar direction who have taken bits and pieces of your framework further than you have, so I know for a fact that the Math can be filled in. They might not all be comfortable with my sharing their work in progress, but I can always point them at you. And I can probably point you at a lot of published work that supports your central thesis or offers additional corroborating evidence.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Back in 2008 and '09; I was exploring ideas myself that incorporate several of the core concepts of the work you present in this year's essay Alan. I was invited to write an article for a special issue of Entropy, and I made a poster presentation at FFP10, but I hit a wall before my work saw publication. I later found out that it was Dieter Zeh who sunk my proceedings paper, and I got to have a long discussion as to why it failed and what was expected. But this rejection came after I encountered an $800 processing fee requirement from entropy, when a change in management nullified the previous fee waiver arrangement for that special issue.

I never got as far as you have come, and I pursued other lines of research for a while after that. But I don't think your ideas are crazy at all, only that you are a bit shy of the same level of formalism Dieter Zeh was requiring of me. I have friends and colleagues working in a similar direction who have taken bits and pieces of your framework further than you have, so I know for a fact that the Math can be filled in. They might not all be comfortable with my sharing their work in progress, but I can always point them at you. And I can probably point you at a lot of published work that supports your central thesis or offers additional corroborating evidence.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Jonathan,

Thank you again for all of your comments and suggestions.

Regarding locality, this can mean several different things. It can refer to a point interaction, but alternatively, a wavepacket can be local if it remains localized in a region of space.

One can never use experiments to prove that a theory is correct, but appropriate experiments can disprove a theory. An alternative picture that makes different predictions is needed to establish what experiments should be carried out. Remarkably, I have been unable to publish proposals for such experiments, because questioning the foundations is viewed as heresy. As I mentioned in my essay, the two-stage Stern-Gerlach experiment is used in textbooks to illustrate quantum measurement theory. This goes beyond what the original (single-stage) SG experiment did. The two-stage experiment could easily be done using modern atomic beam systems, but everyone believes it was done long ago, and they already know the answer. In the Feynman lectures, Feynman admitted that it was never done, but other textbooks neglect to mention this.

In the past few years, quantum computing has become a fashionable field for R&D by governments and corporations, and billions of dollars are being invested. But the predicted power of quantum computing comes directly from entanglement. I predict that the entire quantum computing enterprise will fail within about 5 years. Only then will the mainstream start to question the foundations of quantum mechanics.

Regarding rating essays, I am waiting for all of the essays to be posted before I rate any of them. We have until Feb. 26.

Best Wishes,

Alan Kadin

Thank you again for all of your comments and suggestions.

Regarding locality, this can mean several different things. It can refer to a point interaction, but alternatively, a wavepacket can be local if it remains localized in a region of space.

One can never use experiments to prove that a theory is correct, but appropriate experiments can disprove a theory. An alternative picture that makes different predictions is needed to establish what experiments should be carried out. Remarkably, I have been unable to publish proposals for such experiments, because questioning the foundations is viewed as heresy. As I mentioned in my essay, the two-stage Stern-Gerlach experiment is used in textbooks to illustrate quantum measurement theory. This goes beyond what the original (single-stage) SG experiment did. The two-stage experiment could easily be done using modern atomic beam systems, but everyone believes it was done long ago, and they already know the answer. In the Feynman lectures, Feynman admitted that it was never done, but other textbooks neglect to mention this.

In the past few years, quantum computing has become a fashionable field for R&D by governments and corporations, and billions of dollars are being invested. But the predicted power of quantum computing comes directly from entanglement. I predict that the entire quantum computing enterprise will fail within about 5 years. Only then will the mainstream start to question the foundations of quantum mechanics.

Regarding rating essays, I am waiting for all of the essays to be posted before I rate any of them. We have until Feb. 26.

Best Wishes,

Alan Kadin

Thank you Alan.

You may find interesting some of the papers by Laszlo Kish at Texas A&M and his colleagues. He is among those who explores how some of the subtleties of nonlinear EM encountered in antenna or waveguide design and elsewhere aptly explain much of what has been regarded as exclusively quantum effects. But of course; arXiv relegates all his papers to gen-ph even if they later get published in respected QM journals. Nor is he the only established researcher to encounter active resistance for pursuing ideas like this.

But knowledge today is organized in information silos with thick walls. So when people exploring quantum thermodynamics saw the appearance of extra degrees of freedom, they labeled it as something completely new and exciting. But as J. Miguel Rubi pointed out in Scientific American back in '08 or '09, this is a consequence of Onsager reciprocity that has become fairly well-known in studies of non-equilibrium entropy in the mesoscale. There too; we see that linked variables like position and momentum become independent ones.

So what is new depends greatly on the context in which we find it.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

You may find interesting some of the papers by Laszlo Kish at Texas A&M and his colleagues. He is among those who explores how some of the subtleties of nonlinear EM encountered in antenna or waveguide design and elsewhere aptly explain much of what has been regarded as exclusively quantum effects. But of course; arXiv relegates all his papers to gen-ph even if they later get published in respected QM journals. Nor is he the only established researcher to encounter active resistance for pursuing ideas like this.

But knowledge today is organized in information silos with thick walls. So when people exploring quantum thermodynamics saw the appearance of extra degrees of freedom, they labeled it as something completely new and exciting. But as J. Miguel Rubi pointed out in Scientific American back in '08 or '09, this is a consequence of Onsager reciprocity that has become fairly well-known in studies of non-equilibrium entropy in the mesoscale. There too; we see that linked variables like position and momentum become independent ones.

So what is new depends greatly on the context in which we find it.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Alan

I agree with you: there is no spacetime. The new concept of Space and Time explains quantum entanglement (see my essay “Fundamental entities in Physics” ).

Regards,

Ilgaitis

report post as inappropriate

I agree with you: there is no spacetime. The new concept of Space and Time explains quantum entanglement (see my essay “Fundamental entities in Physics” ).

Regards,

Ilgaitis

report post as inappropriate

Alan Kadin,

A question about the concept - spin.

Waves in EM radiation must be seen as coils in 3 dimensions with the altitude circling continuously during beam flow. A picture example of the beam is the spring in a pen. Now consider bending the spring. At some point adjacent coils will touch. The particles making up the coil are moving in opposite directions to each other at contact point. This contact has specific identity and a location unlike the rest of the beam which is just flow. Call this contact ½ spin.

The example coil is of solid metal. Change that to sub-atomic particles. Now we can bend the spring further so adjacent coils intersect – cross each other. At the intersect adjacent particle flows are up to 90 degree different in direction. Subsequently each crossing has to be undone/reversed elsewhere by the two coils. Call that spin-1. Additional intersections are possible within one coil pair. The intersections remain in place and begin the formation of matter. The intersections may be electrons. The total spin assigned is the number of crossings and touches by the two adjacent coils.

Does this make any sense to you?

Regards

Paul Schroeder

report post as inappropriate

A question about the concept - spin.

Waves in EM radiation must be seen as coils in 3 dimensions with the altitude circling continuously during beam flow. A picture example of the beam is the spring in a pen. Now consider bending the spring. At some point adjacent coils will touch. The particles making up the coil are moving in opposite directions to each other at contact point. This contact has specific identity and a location unlike the rest of the beam which is just flow. Call this contact ½ spin.

The example coil is of solid metal. Change that to sub-atomic particles. Now we can bend the spring further so adjacent coils intersect – cross each other. At the intersect adjacent particle flows are up to 90 degree different in direction. Subsequently each crossing has to be undone/reversed elsewhere by the two coils. Call that spin-1. Additional intersections are possible within one coil pair. The intersections remain in place and begin the formation of matter. The intersections may be electrons. The total spin assigned is the number of crossings and touches by the two adjacent coils.

Does this make any sense to you?

Regards

Paul Schroeder

report post as inappropriate

Dear Mr. Schroeder,

Thank you for your interest and your question about spin, but I’m afraid that I can’t follow it.

Spin is a form of angular momentum, and is generally associated with something rotating. In a circularly polarized electromagnetic wave, which is known to carry angular momentum (spin), the electrical field vector rotates as the wavefront moves forward, generating a helical waveform. Maybe this is what you are indicating, but there is no solid coil present.

I have extended this picture to other fundamental quantum fields with spin such as the electron, corresponding to an angular momentum distributed through a wave packet. See ”The Rise and Fall of Wave-Particle Duality”.

Note that these pictures of real rotating vector fields differ from the orthodox view of point particles with no rotation but with intrinsic spin associated with the point particle.

Alan Kadin

Thank you for your interest and your question about spin, but I’m afraid that I can’t follow it.

Spin is a form of angular momentum, and is generally associated with something rotating. In a circularly polarized electromagnetic wave, which is known to carry angular momentum (spin), the electrical field vector rotates as the wavefront moves forward, generating a helical waveform. Maybe this is what you are indicating, but there is no solid coil present.

I have extended this picture to other fundamental quantum fields with spin such as the electron, corresponding to an angular momentum distributed through a wave packet. See ”The Rise and Fall of Wave-Particle Duality”.

Note that these pictures of real rotating vector fields differ from the orthodox view of point particles with no rotation but with intrinsic spin associated with the point particle.

Alan Kadin

Alan, hoping to help, this is an edited carry-over from my answer to you at

More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

........................

Dear Alan,

1. Many thanks for this:**"I agree with you that true local realism is at the heart of physics."** For it's on this foundation that I hope we (with others) might build a productive...

view entire post

More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

........................

Dear Alan,

1. Many thanks for this:

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Alan, if/when you reply to my post, please copy it to my essay-thread so that I'm alerted to it. I'm having trouble keeping abreast of many good discussions this year.

Many thanks; Gordon More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

report post as inappropriate

Many thanks; Gordon More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

report post as inappropriate

Alan, have you seen this -- http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319655925 -- ?

"Quantum Theory from a Nonlinear Perspective: Riccati Equations in Fundamental Physics." Cheers; Gordon

report post as inappropriate

"Quantum Theory from a Nonlinear Perspective: Riccati Equations in Fundamental Physics." Cheers; Gordon

report post as inappropriate

Dear Alan,

Given that I already stated in our exchange on my blog where I stand on the likelihood that quantum mechanics will be overturned, let me point out some of the positive aspects of your paper that stood out to me:

1. You made effective use of hyperlinks to help anyone who needs a refresher on a particular concept to attain it

2. You made what appears to be the...

view entire post

Given that I already stated in our exchange on my blog where I stand on the likelihood that quantum mechanics will be overturned, let me point out some of the positive aspects of your paper that stood out to me:

1. You made effective use of hyperlinks to help anyone who needs a refresher on a particular concept to attain it

2. You made what appears to be the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Armin,

Thank you for your detailed reading and comments. This is the kind of exchange that is particularly helpful.

You said in your earlier comment (which I finally read, back on your page) that “the ship to go back to a classical or neoclassical theory has sailed.” But you should note that my neoclassical synthesis incorporates GR in weak fields and the Schrodinger equation, which are precisely the aspects that have had clear verification. Something like this could have been introduced decades ago, but I can find nothing like it in the literature, perhaps because it is impossible to publish.

Simplicity and unity are so important that the physics community needs to be very sure before discarding them. Unfortunately, this was not done in the 20th century. My neoclassical synthesis is clear and coherent, as you admit, and can be tested. My favorite test at this point is the 2-stage Stern Gerlach experiment, which everyone believes was already done.

Regarding quantum computing, there are literally billions of dollars being invested in this technology, which is built on shaky foundations. I have spoken to active experimental researchers in the field, and to government funding agents, but they are all afraid of the theorists, who refuse to talk to me. But given the size of the investments, people will start to ask serious questions within a few years. Time will tell.

I have been thinking about the foundations of quantum mechanics since my senior thesis at Princeton in 1973-74. I am now 65, and I hope to be still active when this is resolved.

Incidentally, I have not yet rated your essay; there is still time before the Feb. 26 deadline.

I noticed that someone else just rated my essay a ‘2’. I suspect that this is someone who objects to its criticism of orthodoxy, but I can’t tell because there are no comments of that type.

Best Wishes,

Alan

Thank you for your detailed reading and comments. This is the kind of exchange that is particularly helpful.

You said in your earlier comment (which I finally read, back on your page) that “the ship to go back to a classical or neoclassical theory has sailed.” But you should note that my neoclassical synthesis incorporates GR in weak fields and the Schrodinger equation, which are precisely the aspects that have had clear verification. Something like this could have been introduced decades ago, but I can find nothing like it in the literature, perhaps because it is impossible to publish.

Simplicity and unity are so important that the physics community needs to be very sure before discarding them. Unfortunately, this was not done in the 20th century. My neoclassical synthesis is clear and coherent, as you admit, and can be tested. My favorite test at this point is the 2-stage Stern Gerlach experiment, which everyone believes was already done.

Regarding quantum computing, there are literally billions of dollars being invested in this technology, which is built on shaky foundations. I have spoken to active experimental researchers in the field, and to government funding agents, but they are all afraid of the theorists, who refuse to talk to me. But given the size of the investments, people will start to ask serious questions within a few years. Time will tell.

I have been thinking about the foundations of quantum mechanics since my senior thesis at Princeton in 1973-74. I am now 65, and I hope to be still active when this is resolved.

Incidentally, I have not yet rated your essay; there is still time before the Feb. 26 deadline.

I noticed that someone else just rated my essay a ‘2’. I suspect that this is someone who objects to its criticism of orthodoxy, but I can’t tell because there are no comments of that type.

Best Wishes,

Alan

Alan,

I was wondering if you have heard of Carver Meade? He has a system similar to yours;

This was an interview from some years ago; http://worrydream.com/refs/Mead%20-%20American%20Spectator%2

0Interview.html

"That has hung people up ever since the time of Clerk Maxwell, and it's the missing piece of intuition that we need to develop in young people. The electron isn't...

view entire post

I was wondering if you have heard of Carver Meade? He has a system similar to yours;

This was an interview from some years ago; http://worrydream.com/refs/Mead%20-%20American%20Spectator%2

0Interview.html

"That has hung people up ever since the time of Clerk Maxwell, and it's the missing piece of intuition that we need to develop in young people. The electron isn't...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Alan,

I have been trying to communicate with you via email. Your likedin is blocking me. I have a lot to discuss from spin and the rest of the NQP.

Paul Schroeder

pshrodr8@aol.com

report post as inappropriate

I have been trying to communicate with you via email. Your likedin is blocking me. I have a lot to discuss from spin and the rest of the NQP.

Paul Schroeder

pshrodr8@aol.com

report post as inappropriate

Dear Alan:

Congratulations on your well-written paper and forwarding the concept of fundamental waves that can provide the basis for reunifying physics on all scales.

You may be interested in my paper with wave/particle model of a photon -“What is Fundamental – Is C the Speed of Light”. that describes the fundamental physics of antigravity missing from the widely-accepted mainstream physics and cosmology theories resolving their current inconsistencies and paradoxes. The missing physics depicts a spontaneous relativistic mass creation/dilation photon model that explains the yet unknown dark energy, inner workings of quantum mechanics, and bridges the gaps among relativity and Maxwell’s theories. The model also provides field equations governing the spontaneous wave-particle complimentarity or mass-energy equivalence. The key significance or contribution of the proposed work is to enhance fundamental understanding of C, commonly known as the speed of light, and Cosmological Constant, commonly known as the dark energy.

The paper not only provides comparisons against existing empirical observations but also forwards testable predictions for future falsification of the proposed model.

I would like to invite you to read my paper and appreciate any feedback comments.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

report post as inappropriate

Congratulations on your well-written paper and forwarding the concept of fundamental waves that can provide the basis for reunifying physics on all scales.

You may be interested in my paper with wave/particle model of a photon -“What is Fundamental – Is C the Speed of Light”. that describes the fundamental physics of antigravity missing from the widely-accepted mainstream physics and cosmology theories resolving their current inconsistencies and paradoxes. The missing physics depicts a spontaneous relativistic mass creation/dilation photon model that explains the yet unknown dark energy, inner workings of quantum mechanics, and bridges the gaps among relativity and Maxwell’s theories. The model also provides field equations governing the spontaneous wave-particle complimentarity or mass-energy equivalence. The key significance or contribution of the proposed work is to enhance fundamental understanding of C, commonly known as the speed of light, and Cosmological Constant, commonly known as the dark energy.

The paper not only provides comparisons against existing empirical observations but also forwards testable predictions for future falsification of the proposed model.

I would like to invite you to read my paper and appreciate any feedback comments.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

report post as inappropriate

Just a note Alan,

I sent some comments, to the e-mail in your essay, which I hope you will read and appreciate. It deals with derivation of the product rule. If not received; I can try again.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

I sent some comments, to the e-mail in your essay, which I hope you will read and appreciate. It deals with derivation of the product rule. If not received; I can try again.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

You can e-mail me at...

jonathan@jonathandickau.com

Since it appears other folks have tried unsuccessfully to make contact off-forum; I imagine you may have to e-mail us, before it will recognize our addresses as familiar or allowed, Alan. But there will always be things worth saying, which you might want to hear, but are inappropriate for a public forum.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

jonathan@jonathandickau.com

Since it appears other folks have tried unsuccessfully to make contact off-forum; I imagine you may have to e-mail us, before it will recognize our addresses as familiar or allowed, Alan. But there will always be things worth saying, which you might want to hear, but are inappropriate for a public forum.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Alan,

The best and the most clear essay I have read, which is a lot to say for a non-physicist. This is not to say I have a clear understanding of the neo-classical approach you outline, but it helps.

The breakdown of fundamental concepts and the specificity of their meanings is quite clear and useful in our analysis of fundamental. Your history and sectional previews give clear guidance for a difficult subject. What is abstract, what is fundamental and what is constant are clear as you progress. You identify the character of important components of your argument.

Helpful clarifications we amateurs don't always consider:

Quantum mechanics should be viewed not as a general theory of nature, but rather as a mechanism to generate discrete particle behavior from continuous fundamental waves.

Quantum entanglement provided the final rupture in the unified fabric of physics.

Not sure about this: "Exotic effects of orthodox quantum theory such as superposition and entanglement are mathematical artifacts of linear theories forced to explain nonlinear physics." In my interest in Quantum Biology I noted: "the discovery of quantum coherence in warm, wet, turbulent systems such as plants and microbes has come as a huge shock to quantum physicists' Jim Al-Khalili in Life on the Edge and a Discovery Magazine article on quantum physics and microtubes. Fascinating subject in itself.

Hope you get a chance to check out my essay -- more general than your impressive work which rates high.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

The best and the most clear essay I have read, which is a lot to say for a non-physicist. This is not to say I have a clear understanding of the neo-classical approach you outline, but it helps.

The breakdown of fundamental concepts and the specificity of their meanings is quite clear and useful in our analysis of fundamental. Your history and sectional previews give clear guidance for a difficult subject. What is abstract, what is fundamental and what is constant are clear as you progress. You identify the character of important components of your argument.

Helpful clarifications we amateurs don't always consider:

Quantum mechanics should be viewed not as a general theory of nature, but rather as a mechanism to generate discrete particle behavior from continuous fundamental waves.

Quantum entanglement provided the final rupture in the unified fabric of physics.

Not sure about this: "Exotic effects of orthodox quantum theory such as superposition and entanglement are mathematical artifacts of linear theories forced to explain nonlinear physics." In my interest in Quantum Biology I noted: "the discovery of quantum coherence in warm, wet, turbulent systems such as plants and microbes has come as a huge shock to quantum physicists' Jim Al-Khalili in Life on the Edge and a Discovery Magazine article on quantum physics and microtubes. Fascinating subject in itself.

Hope you get a chance to check out my essay -- more general than your impressive work which rates high.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Alan,

I disagree with you, but in a good way. I mean, that while I am sympathetic with your premises, esp. "Nonlinear wave equations with soliton-like solutions", I don't agree entirely with the particle physics.

At least one soliton wave solution is described in my essay.

I liked your essay. I hope it gets the attention it deserves.

Best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

I disagree with you, but in a good way. I mean, that while I am sympathetic with your premises, esp. "Nonlinear wave equations with soliton-like solutions", I don't agree entirely with the particle physics.

At least one soliton wave solution is described in my essay.

I liked your essay. I hope it gets the attention it deserves.

Best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Dear Alan

I congratulate you on what you have accomplished so far. I highly appreciate your well-written essay in an effort to understand. It is so close to me.

I'm sorry that I missed your work in 2017. It happened by accident, I did not like the phrase in your abstract, and I did not read any further, and now I reproach myself for short-sightedness.

However, you asked for...

view entire post

I congratulate you on what you have accomplished so far. I highly appreciate your well-written essay in an effort to understand. It is so close to me.

I'm sorry that I missed your work in 2017. It happened by accident, I did not like the phrase in your abstract, and I did not read any further, and now I reproach myself for short-sightedness.

However, you asked for...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Alan,

I said above I'd read again and have. I'm afraid it's may have to be in the 7-10 bracket but better than the 1's I to keep getting hit with! A few points.

Are you aware that after the final big (Chicago) experiment M&M concluded 'Ether'!! (Strictly Michelson Gore Pearson I recall) or at least a significant motion. Actually I've identified small asymmetries in most ALL interferometer experiments giving a slight delay between paths, so phase change (so fringe shifts) due to more glass crossings & reflections on one path. Nanoseconds count, and a 3 phase shift will look exactly like a 1 phase shift!

Actually Stokes model is then supported by M&M ('near field' out to the ionosphere) as found by NASA antenna engineers. Lodge falsely falsified that with a major frame analysis error in his spinning glass disc experiment. Are you familiar with 'Kinetic Reverse refraction'? Anyway it's not fatal to your thesis but is to understanding and the ecliptic plane problem! You regain all you may have lost by dismissing 'space/time'!!

Also I agree entanglement is an illusion. In fact if it's simply shared (anti) polar axes of a Poincase (4vector) sphere then classic QM emerges. From you first scan you said it's 'not clear and obvious' Indeed it isn't. It has 5 components and takes a careful read - otherwise it would have long been found!!

It also agrees;*"Quantum mechanics should be viewed not as a general theory of nature, but rather as a mechanism to generate discrete particle behavior from continuous fundamental waves."* even considering field electrons as standing waves.

Lastely exclusion; I find simply a rotation can only have one set of vectors. On interaction the wave 'collapses' and is re-emitted modulated, (or they annihilate!) Nuff for now but wish to chat further. I clarified a number of points for you in my response re mine above (14.1) I'm sure you'll find mine also a - 7-10 once understood!

very best.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

I said above I'd read again and have. I'm afraid it's may have to be in the 7-10 bracket but better than the 1's I to keep getting hit with! A few points.

Are you aware that after the final big (Chicago) experiment M&M concluded 'Ether'!! (Strictly Michelson Gore Pearson I recall) or at least a significant motion. Actually I've identified small asymmetries in most ALL interferometer experiments giving a slight delay between paths, so phase change (so fringe shifts) due to more glass crossings & reflections on one path. Nanoseconds count, and a 3 phase shift will look exactly like a 1 phase shift!

Actually Stokes model is then supported by M&M ('near field' out to the ionosphere) as found by NASA antenna engineers. Lodge falsely falsified that with a major frame analysis error in his spinning glass disc experiment. Are you familiar with 'Kinetic Reverse refraction'? Anyway it's not fatal to your thesis but is to understanding and the ecliptic plane problem! You regain all you may have lost by dismissing 'space/time'!!

Also I agree entanglement is an illusion. In fact if it's simply shared (anti) polar axes of a Poincase (4vector) sphere then classic QM emerges. From you first scan you said it's 'not clear and obvious' Indeed it isn't. It has 5 components and takes a careful read - otherwise it would have long been found!!

It also agrees;

Lastely exclusion; I find simply a rotation can only have one set of vectors. On interaction the wave 'collapses' and is re-emitted modulated, (or they annihilate!) Nuff for now but wish to chat further. I clarified a number of points for you in my response re mine above (14.1) I'm sure you'll find mine also a - 7-10 once understood!

very best.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Hi Alan,

Your conclusion: "Within this picture, time and space are defined by microscopic quantum waves, but space-time is an unnecessary abstraction, and entanglement does not exist on any scale."

I favor alternative theories of physics also. I cannot address all of your essay, however, I have a peculiar view of Space-Time, that could advance your theory. Take a look at the essay "The Thing That is Space-time".

It has:

1. Nonlinear wave equations with soliton like solutions for the graviton.

2. Local self interaction compatible with special relativity, because space-time is always a "local" ether.

Thanks for not settling for inferior solutions,

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

Your conclusion: "Within this picture, time and space are defined by microscopic quantum waves, but space-time is an unnecessary abstraction, and entanglement does not exist on any scale."

I favor alternative theories of physics also. I cannot address all of your essay, however, I have a peculiar view of Space-Time, that could advance your theory. Take a look at the essay "The Thing That is Space-time".

It has:

1. Nonlinear wave equations with soliton like solutions for the graviton.

2. Local self interaction compatible with special relativity, because space-time is always a "local" ether.

Thanks for not settling for inferior solutions,

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

Alan,

You probably lost our string above (14.1?) or like me time is short. In case you get a chance, I've now put a quick ontology 'check list' together to help in the tricky job of building the classical model of QM. Posted below. All expanded on in the essay which should then make more sense. Hope you get the chance.

;

AS MOST STRUGGLE WITH THE CLASSICAL SEQUENCE (TO MUCH TO HOLD IN MIND ALL AT ONCE) A QUICK OUTLINE INTRO IS HERE;

1. Start with Poincare sphere OAM; with 2 orthogonal momenta pairs NOT 'singlets'.

2. Pairs have antiparalell axis (random shared y,z). (photon wavefront sim.)

3. Interact with identical (polariser electron) spheres rotatable by A,B.

4. Momentum exchange as actually proved, by Cos latitude at tan intersection.

5. Result;= 'SAME' or 'OPP' vector! Re-emit polarised with amplitude phase dependent.

6. Photomultiplier electrons give 2nd Cos distribution & 90o phase values.

7. The non detects are all below a threshold amplitude at either channel angle.

8. Statisticians then analyse using CORRECT assumptions about what's 'measured!

The numbers match CHSH>2 and steering inequality >1 As the matching computer code & plot in Declan Traill's short essay. All is Bell compliant as he didn't falsify the trick with reversible green/red socks (the TWO pairs of states).

After deriving it in last years figs I only discovered the Poincare sphere already existed thanks to Ulla M during this contest. I hope that helps introduce the ontology.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

You probably lost our string above (14.1?) or like me time is short. In case you get a chance, I've now put a quick ontology 'check list' together to help in the tricky job of building the classical model of QM. Posted below. All expanded on in the essay which should then make more sense. Hope you get the chance.

;

AS MOST STRUGGLE WITH THE CLASSICAL SEQUENCE (TO MUCH TO HOLD IN MIND ALL AT ONCE) A QUICK OUTLINE INTRO IS HERE;

1. Start with Poincare sphere OAM; with 2 orthogonal momenta pairs NOT 'singlets'.

2. Pairs have antiparalell axis (random shared y,z). (photon wavefront sim.)

3. Interact with identical (polariser electron) spheres rotatable by A,B.

4. Momentum exchange as actually proved, by Cos latitude at tan intersection.

5. Result;= 'SAME' or 'OPP' vector! Re-emit polarised with amplitude phase dependent.

6. Photomultiplier electrons give 2nd Cos distribution & 90o phase values.

7. The non detects are all below a threshold amplitude at either channel angle.

8. Statisticians then analyse using CORRECT assumptions about what's 'measured!

The numbers match CHSH>2 and steering inequality >1 As the matching computer code & plot in Declan Traill's short essay. All is Bell compliant as he didn't falsify the trick with reversible green/red socks (the TWO pairs of states).

After deriving it in last years figs I only discovered the Poincare sphere already existed thanks to Ulla M during this contest. I hope that helps introduce the ontology.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Alan,

I did have questions but it seems a waste of time as you haven't answered the many good ones above. Less than impressive I feel.

Richard

report post as inappropriate

I did have questions but it seems a waste of time as you haven't answered the many good ones above. Less than impressive I feel.

Richard

report post as inappropriate

Richard,

I have been distracted recently, as my mother is dying in the hospital. I think that is a good excuse.

I will respond later.

Alan

I have been distracted recently, as my mother is dying in the hospital. I think that is a good excuse.

I will respond later.

Alan

Dear Alan,

very sorry to hear this, know that I feel with you.

I am also distracted in a similar manner, my mother is on ICU in artifical coma and lung machine, my father was a few days before. I am thankful to God that I could save their lifes by taking them straight into the emergency unit of a hospital a week ago.

Only deep praying helps (and it helps), together with the confession that we aren’t that omnipotent as we usually think we are. There is something bigger, independent of us… Sciences does help, but it is not a God.

The contest renders meaningless in such trials, but anyways these contests are quite meaningless in themselves since they cannot deliver the big answers desired (and needed).

Warm regards,

Stefan Weckbach

report post as inappropriate

very sorry to hear this, know that I feel with you.

I am also distracted in a similar manner, my mother is on ICU in artifical coma and lung machine, my father was a few days before. I am thankful to God that I could save their lifes by taking them straight into the emergency unit of a hospital a week ago.

Only deep praying helps (and it helps), together with the confession that we aren’t that omnipotent as we usually think we are. There is something bigger, independent of us… Sciences does help, but it is not a God.

The contest renders meaningless in such trials, but anyways these contests are quite meaningless in themselves since they cannot deliver the big answers desired (and needed).

Warm regards,

Stefan Weckbach

report post as inappropriate

So sorry to hear...

My thoughts go out to you in this time of trial Alan. I hope there can be some communication afterward.

Warm Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

My thoughts go out to you in this time of trial Alan. I hope there can be some communication afterward.

Warm Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.