Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

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

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/discusswinners

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Wayne Lundberg: on 3/3/18 at 19:33pm UTC, wrote Thank-you for the arXiv refs, Tejinder. I understand that point-like...

Tejinder Singh: on 3/1/18 at 3:03am UTC, wrote Dear Wayne, Your ideas of space-filling objects are very interesting! I do...

Wayne Lundberg: on 2/27/18 at 2:51am UTC, wrote Oddly, in Einstein's time, those clocks were mostly gravity-driven by...

Steven Andresen: on 2/26/18 at 8:59am UTC, wrote Wayne People invent clocks, then Einstein comes along and discovers their...

Wayne Lundberg: on 2/26/18 at 0:33am UTC, wrote Terry, The association with string was originally geometric, and I always...

Wayne Lundberg: on 2/25/18 at 15:24pm UTC, wrote Steven, I'm not really 'looking for more essays to read and rate'' but am...

Peter Jackson: on 2/23/18 at 17:11pm UTC, wrote Wayne Are you saying there has to be a sharp 'cut off' line at the switch?...

Terry Bollinger: on 2/22/18 at 22:37pm UTC, wrote Dear Wayne, What a fascinating essay! I was surprised at how short it was...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

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...

Jorma Seppaenen: "I find this very interesting topic. I am just a amateur enthusiast of..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

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...

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

Hanvi jobs: "Yes i am totally agreed with this article and i just want say that this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

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.


FQXi FORUM
May 24, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: A well-founded formulation for quantum chromo- and electro-dynamics by Wayne R Lundberg [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Wayne R Lundberg wrote on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 21:33 GMT
Essay Abstract

Although we often speak of fundamental particles, those in the standard model lack a formal mathematical foundation. That is, the standard model of particle theory is empirically-founded but could benefit from a formal, causal basis for consistency with cosmology. This essay will explore the notion that such a mathematical foundation exists and discuss its ability to address known problems in fundamental physics.

Author Bio

Dr Lundberg studied mathematics and graduate-level physics at CWRU thru 1980, and has continued learning about, and contributing to, theoretical physics at many conferences since. His 30-year professional career has supported his lifelong learning, based on the premise that geometry and algebraic duality extends to particle theory's quantum algebra.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Andrew Beckwith wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 00:36 GMT
Very Interesting Wayne!

Quote

A key characteristic of a foundational theory is that it be consistent across all

physical scales. Thus a causal particle’s formulation must be consistent with the No-

Boundary Wave Function, which is consistent with cosmological evolution. Takeuti

further proved3 that a self-consistent mathematical system must be finitary. This means

that fundamental particles are finite in extent (whether observable or not).

end of quote

I agree with this, and think it is a good insight.

Before leaving, are you saying that SUSY as an example fits this billet ?

You brought up the example of cyclic cosmology which is a very good point.

Can you add a bit more to it ? Thanks

BTW, you can examine my essay, and I hope you comment on it. It is in December 21st, one of the first ones

Thanks again for your lucid presentation!!

Andrew

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wayne R Lundberg replied on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 02:58 GMT
Thanks, Andrew.

I didn't discuss SUSY much because I wanted to stick to the most fundamental. I recall a discussion with David Gross in which he said that the pi-0 meson requires SUSY, which is true here too. But pi-0 also has no supersymmetric partner... it has an extra internal symmetry. Same is true for Z-0 and I think Higgs. I generally don't get to that point, but did at DPF 02: talk “Architecture of a Comprehensive Theory – Understanding Beth, the Particulate Mass Functional” was posted online at http://dpf2002.velopers.net/talks_pdf/154talk.pdf .

I also referenced my first paper on cyclic cosmology, and the DPF 09 posters include the subject. It is also an easy solution to the cosmological coincidence problem, which I talked about at the Eastern Gravity Meeting in 2015.

I will take a look at your paper after I finish another... wish I had more time,

Wayne

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 21:20 GMT
Wayne,

Fascinating essay and hypothesis, nicely explained, though I suspect maybe to much unexplained formulation and obscured language for the (Sci-Am) target audience, so also the judges. I certainly agree the standard model still needs a lot of work and a more consistent basis. There was much else I agreed with even though our approaches are quite different. Certainly to cyclic cosmology, (but I have a net zero cosmological constant for large t).

I liked the geometric approach but couldn't extract a physical link between the spinning triangles and trecoil. Perhaps you may identify & elucidate. I've also always wondered why the 'triangle' is 'simplest' in 3D +t apart from degrees of freedom, also representable by the axes of a sphere, which I've always felt simpler. I do hope you can read and assess the apparent classical derivation of QM predictions that emerges.

I'm not qualified to judge veracity (is anyone?) but that's anyway no criteria. I felt it an excellent attempt to tackle an important fundamental issue.

Very well done. I have it right up there so far.

Best of luck,

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wayne R Lundberg replied on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 16:00 GMT
Peter,

It was good to hear your review and point of view, as I am not a supporter of blind review processes.

There is an important lesson in "necessary and sufficient conditions" to be made here. Perhaps I should have spun the essay in that way? To be sure, it is possible to choose a finite representation geometry which is (a) insufficient (b) necessary and sufficient or (c)...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 18:47 GMT
Wayne,

You wrote; "I doubt that it has the "necessary" combinatorial algebra intrinsically tied to its geometry. so no QCD?"

It has. I always find it's better to read things rather than make assumptions. It's a common problem these days. I know some professors only read one paper a month! That means I've read some 10,000 more papers than many professors over the last 20 years! I haven't found conferences any substitute.

Dirac's double stacked paired inverse orthogonal ('complementarity') states are physically implicit, and so called 'entanglement' emerges simply from maintained anti-paralell polar axes and interaction momentum exchange. The last part of the puzzle emerged only recently, deriving the Cos^2 from Cos distributions. I'm sure you'll be impressed. QCD provided a key element in the field interactions for that last part - as my last years essay identified. I suspect there's more in common but perhaps you'll advise.

Declan's essay gives the matching computer code and plot for the ontology and experiment in mine.

Very Best

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 12:30 GMT
Wayne, (reply posted in my string)

Thanks for the support. The link to QED was just what someone pointed out about field depth not anything I 'attempted' to do. However your electron model attachment looks shockingly close to my own some years ago;fqXi finalit 2013-14 Do Bob and Alice have a future? (see the figs etc towards the end). However to remove the weirdness from QM just needs those colours to 'bleed into' each other rather then just 'switch'. Is that excluded in QED?

It seems you 'switched off' from the essay just when it opened up the ontology for a classical reproduction of QM predictions, as it headed off your own familiar path (indeed m MOST peoples paths!), so you missed the big finale! Do look again if you get a chance. It's consistent with Bell and this important paper, referred in Gordon Watson's consistent paper; Fröhner, F. H. (1998). “Missing link between probability theory and quantum mechanics: the Riesz-Fejér theorem.” Z. Naturforsch. 53a, 637-654.

Very best

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hans van Leunen wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 14:35 GMT
None of the contemporary physical theories, including QED, QCD, string theory and LQG features a proper foundation.

Only the basic structure that was discovered and introduced by Garrett Birkhoff and John von Neumann in 1936 is a serious candidate for the foundation of physical reality. Some scientists followed that path but never explored it seriously. The Hilbert Book Model Project takes up the button and reaches interesting results.

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Hilbert_Book_Model_P
roject

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wayne R Lundberg replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 23:56 GMT
I would beg to differ about "only" a 1936 mathematics is a candidate. At that time, they had no QCD, only QED. It is important for a fundamental theory to account for all these quanta, and I did so in a one-to-one way with a (tripartite) string-like geometry.

I really wish that the modern theorists who eschew ides such as yours (and mine) would attempt to put together a "whatever happened to" explaining how it is that any given theory was abandoned.

I would suspect that the results lack a causal particle, since Seiberg's criteria seems to hard to pass. Anyway, take another look at the essay and maybe we can find a common interest?

Wayne

Bookmark and Share



Christian Corda wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 10:58 GMT
Dear Wayne, Nice and entertaining work. I chose to became a relativist based on the extraordinary beauty of Einstein's geometric vision of gravity. Thus, despite I am not a particle physicist, I strongly appreciate your approach that what is “Fundamental” for particle theory should be a foundational theorem defining geometric-algebraic space-time objects. Geometrization of all physics is indeed my greatest dream. Thus, your Essay deserves my high rating. Congrats and good luck in the Contest. Cheers, Ch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wayne R Lundberg replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 23:46 GMT
Dear Christian,

I studied QCD as an undergraduate, and took Relativity because I enjoyed it. I have much to learn about astrophysics and BH... in fact I found here an essay from Samir Mather https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3113 which I think you will like a lot.

Wayne

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 12:24 GMT
Prof Wayne R Lundberg

Wonderful thinking sir........That is, the standard model of particle theory is empirically-founded but could benefit from a formal, causal basis for consistency with cosmology. This essay will explore the notion that such a mathematical foundation exists and discuss its ability to address known problems in fundamental physics...........Best wishes for the new...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wayne R Lundberg replied on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 00:13 GMT
SNP Gupta, I did so and I certainly appreciate your enthusiasm!

There is room for insight in better understanding our universe

Bookmark and Share


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 10:58 GMT
Hi Prof Wayne R Lundberg

Thank you for the nice words and observations…..

You raise an interesting topic, but like others I don't find a clear fundamental thing or principle or formulae……

…………..My reply…….

Here I saw many essays discussing what is fundamental etc, but in this essay, I went for the fundamental issue for energy to mass conversions and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wayne R Lundberg replied on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 18:46 GMT
No-one has the means for observational evidence, and in fact observations do more to disprove theory. So you should be looking for evidence among what is already observed that conflicts with your (not very well formulated) intuition.

Why? Because GR works quite well. Better yet with the cosmological constant. In fact even subtle variants away from GR are very often easily disproven... I have some good amusing examples. For now the Modified Gravity camp and the Dark Energy camp are fighting it out, with a high probability of mutual exclusion. We'll have to wait and see what the Dark Energy survey concludes... unfortunately they so far have weak statistics, currently favoring CC by 3sigma or maybe more.

I figure that data excludes your work... but don't feel alone... many well-funded theories (missing mass, i.e. gravitational collapse of the universe) have had spectacular ends (1998).

Wayne

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 22:23 GMT
Dear Wayne Lundberg,

Thanks for reading my essay and commenting. I'm glad you enjoyed it. You suggested that I look at Seiberg, Susskind, and Toumbas on 'Space-time Non-commutation and Causality' – they discuss "the other term is an "advanced" wave which appears to leave the wall before the incoming packet arrived." They then say a conflict with Lorentz invariance is relevant. ...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wayne R Lundberg replied on Feb. 18, 2018 @ 14:59 GMT
Dear Edwin,

You have an interesting belief system. It seems that you've taken a rather different approach to restoring causality to particle theory. It would necessarily be a rather more complex approach if you rely solely on Yang-Mills as fundamental and attempt to reconstruct QCD via a fluid-dynamics idea. I model them as co-fundamental, all quanta are required to have a geometrically...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 07:28 GMT
Dear Wayne

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


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wayne R Lundberg replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 15:24 GMT
Steven,

I'm not really 'looking for more essays to read and rate'' but am interested in innovative ideas. There are many papers here that consider PART of the basis for all 4 fundamental forces... but few even attempt to explain all.

I'll search out yours, but you really didn't need to write a mini-essay to ask... I feel all hypotheses must end somehow, so it is important to understand and be able to explain how. so few even attempt THAT!

WRL

Bookmark and Share



Terry Bollinger wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 22:37 GMT
Dear Wayne,

What a fascinating essay! I was surprised at how short it was in page count, since you cover a lot of turf. I was also very pleased to see an essay that addresses quarks, the strong force, and neutrinos, since without those other non-electrons it’s hard to see how one can make serious inroads into the issue of where fermions come from. Arguably, the far messier and more...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wayne R Lundberg replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 00:33 GMT
Terry,

The association with string was originally geometric, and I always constructed it 'with partitions'. But they couldn't figure out how to do that and the journals were filled with dead-end refs. Eventually, after seminars hosted by Kaufmann and conversations with Smolin, the two collaborated with Bilson-Thompson on another geometric version of TVT combinatorial algebra and quantum...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 08:59 GMT
Wayne

People invent clocks, then Einstein comes along and discovers their rate is modulated in gravitational environments.

What you have done is listen to somebody say, "forces drive a clocks function, so forces must be implicated in general relativitys effects".

To which your respond. Nothing of any interest here, bit of poetic mumbo jumbo maybe!

Maybe it's that you're not very deductive

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wayne R Lundberg replied on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 02:51 GMT
Oddly, in Einstein's time, those clocks were mostly gravity-driven by weights. Since then many other forces are used to MEASURE time, since they impart some effects on physical objects. Of course, that includes atomic clocks, among the most accurate, which use electro-weak forces.

So indeed, since all 4 well-known fundamental forces can be used to measure time, certainly all 4 should be formulated in a causal fashion. But quantum mechanics isn't.

Bookmark and Share



Member Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Mar. 1, 2018 @ 03:03 GMT
Dear Wayne,

Your ideas of space-filling objects are very interesting! I do not have any definite answers, but gravitation theories with torsion, which I have been studying, might be relevant. I have outlined some preliminary ideas in:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.00747

https://arxiv.org/abs/170
5.05330

My best regards,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wayne R Lundberg replied on Mar. 3, 2018 @ 19:33 GMT
Thank-you for the arXiv refs, Tejinder. I understand that point-like particles (or masses) are prohibited in any self-consistent mathematical system. I also find your Compton-Schwarzschild length interesting, although I have very serious doubts about any form or particle-like DM matter candidate, at least for the conical strong lensing signature. No observed clumping= not any form of massive particle.

WRL

Bookmark and Share



Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.