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

**Peter Leifer**: *on* 3/11/18 at 15:54pm UTC, wrote Dear Peter, thanks for your very kind letter. I tried a few times to...

**Peter Jackson**: *on* 2/26/18 at 16:14pm UTC, wrote Peter, Glad I made it to your essay. It seems like me you've been focussed...

**Don Limuti**: *on* 2/26/18 at 4:40am UTC, wrote Hello Peter, I like this essay very much and will vote so. In particular I...

**Steven Andresen**: *on* 2/22/18 at 9:12am UTC, wrote Dear Peter If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the...

**Peter Leifer**: *on* 2/18/18 at 8:59am UTC, wrote Dear Mr. Terry Bollinger, thanks a lot for critical notes! I accept your...

**Terry Bollinger**: *on* 2/15/18 at 20:44pm UTC, wrote Professor Leifer, [My pledge: goo.gl/KCCujt] First my positive reactions...

**Peter Leifer**: *on* 2/15/18 at 9:41am UTC, wrote Dear Mr. Flavio, Thank you for very kind notes! I think that K. Popper...

**Thomas Ray**: *on* 2/15/18 at 1:57am UTC, wrote Peter, Dynamical spacetime, geometry underlying the quantum. Exactly...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

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

**Jorma Seppaenen**: "Dear Georgina, I think you are perfectly right about the estimate of age..."
*in* Why Time Might Not Be an...

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

**Georgina Woodward**: "Yes. The estimate of age of the visible universe, and age of stars, other..."
*in* Why Time Might Not Be an...

**akash hasan**: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..."
*in* Announcing Physics of the...

**Michael Jordan**: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..."
*in* Review of "Foundations of...

**Anonymous**: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..."
*in* Constructing a Theory of...

**Robert McEachern**: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..."
*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 25, 2019

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

TOPIC: What is ``fundamental" in quantum physics? by Peter Leifer [refresh]

TOPIC: What is ``fundamental" in quantum physics? by Peter Leifer [refresh]

What is more fundamental: geometry or physics? All classical physics before special relativity was based on the Euclidian geometry. In that sense one may conclude that geometry is more fundamental. However, great Riemann clearly understood that only our experience in physical world is the source of all our geometric constructions. Due to Einstein, the Maxwell electrodynamics lead to the pseudo-Euclidian geometry of the spacetime and the relativistic generalization of the Newton's law of gravity lead to pseudo-Riemannian spacetime structure. I will discuss here the following question: what is the fundamental geometry in quantum physics?

Physicist, Simferopol State University, Tel-Aviv University, Crimea State University

Dear Peter

Thanks for this effort. I struggled to understand your core argument, though your conclusions seemed reasonable. You may feel the same about mine...https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3041 but may be able to further develop the geometry of my work and apply your understanding of symmetry to my model.

Best wishes

Stephen Anastasi

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for this effort. I struggled to understand your core argument, though your conclusions seemed reasonable. You may feel the same about mine...https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3041 but may be able to further develop the geometry of my work and apply your understanding of symmetry to my model.

Best wishes

Stephen Anastasi

report post as inappropriate

Dear P. Leifer, fundamental should be simple and clear. So it is in quantum physics, you can declare, but not to find. The principle of identity of space and matter Descartes is simple, but not perceived by physicists because of their conservatism. Formulating principles of New Cartesian Physics, I made a number of discoveries that are outlined in his essay. Read it and try to understand. In this regard, I would like you to have closer contact.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich

report post as inappropriate

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich

report post as inappropriate

Dear Peter Liefer,

I very much enjoyed your essay and agree with your postulates and many of your conclusions. Since, as you note, "we have lost the understanding of quantum theory", you picked a difficult topic.

One might ask whether a Cartesian coordinate frame with variable energy density can be equivalent to an "empty" void with variable geometry: regions of high energy density map into regions of higher curvature.

As you note, Einstein claimed Maxwell electrodynamics led to pseudo-Euclidian geometry of space-time, and "the connection with Minkowski space [is definitely needed] for agreement with experiments". But the experiments deal with relativistic particle physics and are inherently energy-based. You then note that "that initial assumption about Minkowski space-time structure […] was too simple."

Your conclusion is QFT and SM and their initial postulates may not be treated as fundamental. There is not enough detail in your essay for me to understand your QR (quantum relativity) but I will try to read your references.

My own essay contends that the "agreement with experiment" is based on relativistic particle physics and is an energy-time phenomenon, not a space-time phenomenon. I review the history of Einstein's analysis of Maxwell electrodynamics in the context of Hertzian electrodynamics which Einstein references in his 1905 paper. As this is relevant to the Minkowski formulation, it might be of some interest to you. I hope you will read my paper and comment on it.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

I very much enjoyed your essay and agree with your postulates and many of your conclusions. Since, as you note, "we have lost the understanding of quantum theory", you picked a difficult topic.

One might ask whether a Cartesian coordinate frame with variable energy density can be equivalent to an "empty" void with variable geometry: regions of high energy density map into regions of higher curvature.

As you note, Einstein claimed Maxwell electrodynamics led to pseudo-Euclidian geometry of space-time, and "the connection with Minkowski space [is definitely needed] for agreement with experiments". But the experiments deal with relativistic particle physics and are inherently energy-based. You then note that "that initial assumption about Minkowski space-time structure […] was too simple."

Your conclusion is QFT and SM and their initial postulates may not be treated as fundamental. There is not enough detail in your essay for me to understand your QR (quantum relativity) but I will try to read your references.

My own essay contends that the "agreement with experiment" is based on relativistic particle physics and is an energy-time phenomenon, not a space-time phenomenon. I review the history of Einstein's analysis of Maxwell electrodynamics in the context of Hertzian electrodynamics which Einstein references in his 1905 paper. As this is relevant to the Minkowski formulation, it might be of some interest to you. I hope you will read my paper and comment on it.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Dear Edwin, thanks a lot for you kind reply!

I try to understand (with big difficulties!) essentially new construction of the dynamical spacetime (DST) by pure quantum field means. Partly these efforts were already published but I would like to publish soon new more clear results.

Since I'm busy now I will read your article ASAP.

Sincerely yours,

Peter

I try to understand (with big difficulties!) essentially new construction of the dynamical spacetime (DST) by pure quantum field means. Partly these efforts were already published but I would like to publish soon new more clear results.

Since I'm busy now I will read your article ASAP.

Sincerely yours,

Peter

Hi Professor Peter Leifer,

Very nicely said starting from… “Euclidian geometry, Riemann geometry, Maxwell electrodynamics to pseudo-Euclidian geometry of the spacetime and the relativistic generalization of the Newton's law of gravity lead to pseudo-Riemannian spacetime structure.” And the discussion of “what is the fundamental geometry in quantum physics?” wonderful...

view entire post

Very nicely said starting from… “Euclidian geometry, Riemann geometry, Maxwell electrodynamics to pseudo-Euclidian geometry of the spacetime and the relativistic generalization of the Newton's law of gravity lead to pseudo-Riemannian spacetime structure.” And the discussion of “what is the fundamental geometry in quantum physics?” wonderful...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Mr. Gupta,

Thank you for very kind notes!

I agree with most of your ``No” like ``No singularities” but I think that attempt to reject

SR and GR is a crude mistake. I am sure that a new ``quantum geometry” should unavoidably contains the relativistic physics as a natural limit but nobody knows how to do it!

Best regards and wishes

Peter

Thank you for very kind notes!

I agree with most of your ``No” like ``No singularities” but I think that attempt to reject

SR and GR is a crude mistake. I am sure that a new ``quantum geometry” should unavoidably contains the relativistic physics as a natural limit but nobody knows how to do it!

Best regards and wishes

Peter

Dear Dr. Leifer,

excellent essay. Our approach to the posed question of this contest are so different that I cannot even tell with certainty whether we would eventually agree. However, I find your conclusion very appropriate and agreeable. I will rate you high.

I hope you could find time to look through my essay

Best wishes,

Flavio

report post as inappropriate

excellent essay. Our approach to the posed question of this contest are so different that I cannot even tell with certainty whether we would eventually agree. However, I find your conclusion very appropriate and agreeable. I will rate you high.

I hope you could find time to look through my essay

Best wishes,

Flavio

report post as inappropriate

Dear Mr. Flavio,

Thank you for very kind notes!

I think that K. Popper contribution in the modern philosophy is overestimated and it looks like a new religion of the scientific and quasi-scientific community.

Indeed, the famous principle of falsification is trivial. This principle being applied to the principle itself gives ``desirable” result – it is scientific since this may be falsified by an example of any physical (not mathematical!), biological or humanitarians doctrines - all these doctrines have limited area of the confirmation with experience and will be falsified early or later. The difference is hidden only in the area of their applicability and in the time of verification/falsification. Say, very silly statement may be disproved almost immediately, but smart theory like classical thermodynamics has a vast area of applicability up to now but in XX centaury the quantum theory was prolific for more deep understanding.

This principle is unpractical: nobody from scientists waiting for falsification of his prediction – this unavoidably will be more or less soon! (see the Einstein’s notes about the fate of physical theories). All our efforts are more or less perishable!

So, shortly speaking, all attempts in ``harassment of our consciousness” (Schrodinger) should be rejected! The main aim of the science is understanding. All different targets are secondary. As far as I understand you are young researcher. You have a time avoid the dangerous way of the formal following misty instructions.

Best regards and wishes

Peter

Thank you for very kind notes!

I think that K. Popper contribution in the modern philosophy is overestimated and it looks like a new religion of the scientific and quasi-scientific community.

Indeed, the famous principle of falsification is trivial. This principle being applied to the principle itself gives ``desirable” result – it is scientific since this may be falsified by an example of any physical (not mathematical!), biological or humanitarians doctrines - all these doctrines have limited area of the confirmation with experience and will be falsified early or later. The difference is hidden only in the area of their applicability and in the time of verification/falsification. Say, very silly statement may be disproved almost immediately, but smart theory like classical thermodynamics has a vast area of applicability up to now but in XX centaury the quantum theory was prolific for more deep understanding.

This principle is unpractical: nobody from scientists waiting for falsification of his prediction – this unavoidably will be more or less soon! (see the Einstein’s notes about the fate of physical theories). All our efforts are more or less perishable!

So, shortly speaking, all attempts in ``harassment of our consciousness” (Schrodinger) should be rejected! The main aim of the science is understanding. All different targets are secondary. As far as I understand you are young researcher. You have a time avoid the dangerous way of the formal following misty instructions.

Best regards and wishes

Peter

Peter,

Dynamical spacetime, geometry underlying the quantum. Exactly matches my idea of fundamental! High score.

I think you will find a lot to agree with in my essay, too.

Thanks for a great read.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Dynamical spacetime, geometry underlying the quantum. Exactly matches my idea of fundamental! High score.

I think you will find a lot to agree with in my essay, too.

Thanks for a great read.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Professor Leifer,

[My pledge: goo.gl/KCCujt] First my positive reactions to your essay:

-- I like the idea that there is some kind of geometric interpretation of quantum mechanics, and that through this interpretation some form of unification should be possible with the broader perspective of space time.

-- You aptly point out issues such as how the second quantization of...

view entire post

[My pledge: goo.gl/KCCujt] First my positive reactions to your essay:

-- I like the idea that there is some kind of geometric interpretation of quantum mechanics, and that through this interpretation some form of unification should be possible with the broader perspective of space time.

-- You aptly point out issues such as how the second quantization of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Mr. Terry Bollinger, thanks a lot for critical notes!

I accept your critics without any negative emotions. I know that what I would like to write as simple as possible almost never achievable. So, I may only to add some notes that probably will be helpful.

1. What I called Quantum Relativity (QR) is not some interpretation of QM. I assumed that QM is not fundamental and should be treated as some limit of more general quantum field theory (in my case over CP(N-1)).

2. Deformations of quantum states, I think it is a key element of the future theory. Some details may be found in the section 2.1 of my essay and in my articles.

3. I know that for most of readers of FQXi so detailed references are simply not needed. But may be for some readers it will be very useful. I would like to subscribe that reference on the nice article by Littlejohn and Reinsch [20] is absolutely needed for such kinds of readers since ``flexible quantum setup” in my theory akin to the gauge theory of classical deformable body nicely written in [20].

4. PDE’s mentioned above was already discussed in my articles [16,17,18]. Last time I found more logically simple construction of the DST and some modified equations come out. This matter will be published soon.

Sincerely your,

Peter

I accept your critics without any negative emotions. I know that what I would like to write as simple as possible almost never achievable. So, I may only to add some notes that probably will be helpful.

1. What I called Quantum Relativity (QR) is not some interpretation of QM. I assumed that QM is not fundamental and should be treated as some limit of more general quantum field theory (in my case over CP(N-1)).

2. Deformations of quantum states, I think it is a key element of the future theory. Some details may be found in the section 2.1 of my essay and in my articles.

3. I know that for most of readers of FQXi so detailed references are simply not needed. But may be for some readers it will be very useful. I would like to subscribe that reference on the nice article by Littlejohn and Reinsch [20] is absolutely needed for such kinds of readers since ``flexible quantum setup” in my theory akin to the gauge theory of classical deformable body nicely written in [20].

4. PDE’s mentioned above was already discussed in my articles [16,17,18]. Last time I found more logically simple construction of the DST and some modified equations come out. This matter will be published soon.

Sincerely your,

Peter

Dear Peter

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don’t rate them at all. Infact I haven’t issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to...

view entire post

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don’t rate them at all. Infact I haven’t issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hello Peter,

I like this essay very much and will vote so. In particular I like: "The main aim of the science is understanding. All different targets are secondary."

Also you commented: "I like the idea that there is some kind of geometric interpretation of quantum mechanics, and that through this interpretation some form of unification should be possible with the broader perspective of space time."

Do visit my essay "The Thing That is Space-Time". It postulates a different type of graviton and it fits with a traveling wave description.

Thanks for your essay,

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

I like this essay very much and will vote so. In particular I like: "The main aim of the science is understanding. All different targets are secondary."

Also you commented: "I like the idea that there is some kind of geometric interpretation of quantum mechanics, and that through this interpretation some form of unification should be possible with the broader perspective of space time."

Do visit my essay "The Thing That is Space-Time". It postulates a different type of graviton and it fits with a traveling wave description.

Thanks for your essay,

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

Peter,

Glad I made it to your essay. It seems like me you've been focussed on quantum physics for a while. I found it a very nicely conceived and written article, and entirely agree;*"QM is not fundamental and should be treated as some limit of more general quantum field theory*.

Did you see my (top scored) 2015 Red/Green Sock Trick essay? That built on a compatible SR rationale which implied a Classical QM solution, which after 3yrs has clicked into place and is described in this years essay.

A full ontology is constructed, though not assuming 'singlet states' but from the different starting assumption of Maxwell's, and the Poincare Sphere's two momenta pairs in OAM. I hope you may get to it and comment. Measurement is considered as a momentum exchange mechanism with absorbing field electrons. Antiparalell (pair) polar axes and analysis of re-emission as a RELATIVE state ('same' or 'opposite') removes 'non-locality'.

Phase/hellicity of the 3 axis amplitudes.. Anyway, do read my essay, I'm sure you'll like it. A quick sequence intro in in my recent posts. Declan Traill's has the matching computer code and CHSH >2 plot with closed detection loophole.

Well done for yours, penciled in for a boost. Must talk more.

Best wishes

peter

report post as inappropriate

Glad I made it to your essay. It seems like me you've been focussed on quantum physics for a while. I found it a very nicely conceived and written article, and entirely agree;

Did you see my (top scored) 2015 Red/Green Sock Trick essay? That built on a compatible SR rationale which implied a Classical QM solution, which after 3yrs has clicked into place and is described in this years essay.

A full ontology is constructed, though not assuming 'singlet states' but from the different starting assumption of Maxwell's, and the Poincare Sphere's two momenta pairs in OAM. I hope you may get to it and comment. Measurement is considered as a momentum exchange mechanism with absorbing field electrons. Antiparalell (pair) polar axes and analysis of re-emission as a RELATIVE state ('same' or 'opposite') removes 'non-locality'.

Phase/hellicity of the 3 axis amplitudes.. Anyway, do read my essay, I'm sure you'll like it. A quick sequence intro in in my recent posts. Declan Traill's has the matching computer code and CHSH >2 plot with closed detection loophole.

Well done for yours, penciled in for a boost. Must talk more.

Best wishes

peter

report post as inappropriate

Dear Peter, thanks for your very kind letter.

I tried a few times to read you essays (2015,2017,2018) but I would like sincerely say that I cannot grasp your main idea and targets. Probably my poor English in non sufficient for your British (late Yuval Ne’enan wrote to me (1994) that my English is horrible). I think that it is the main obstacle for me. May I ask some simple questions in order to clarify your point of view?

1. What means the phrase ``compatible SR rationale which implied a Classical QM solution”?

2. What is you main target: to build modified QM or clarify QM at its status quo?

3. What means the phrase: ``full ontology is constructed, though not assuming 'singlet states' but from the different starting assumption of Maxwell's, and the Poincare Sphere's two momenta pairs in OAM”?

4. What is the difference between your `` full ontology” and, say, what we may read in QM textbook (Shiff, Dirac, etc.)?

Best regards,

Peter Leifer

I tried a few times to read you essays (2015,2017,2018) but I would like sincerely say that I cannot grasp your main idea and targets. Probably my poor English in non sufficient for your British (late Yuval Ne’enan wrote to me (1994) that my English is horrible). I think that it is the main obstacle for me. May I ask some simple questions in order to clarify your point of view?

1. What means the phrase ``compatible SR rationale which implied a Classical QM solution”?

2. What is you main target: to build modified QM or clarify QM at its status quo?

3. What means the phrase: ``full ontology is constructed, though not assuming 'singlet states' but from the different starting assumption of Maxwell's, and the Poincare Sphere's two momenta pairs in OAM”?

4. What is the difference between your `` full ontology” and, say, what we may read in QM textbook (Shiff, Dirac, etc.)?

Best regards,

Peter Leifer

Login or create account to post reply or comment.