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

Juan Ramón González Álvarez: on 3/3/18 at 19:37pm UTC, wrote Figure 1: There is nothing fundamental on fields, Dirac algebra, or...

Peter Jackson: on 2/27/18 at 16:01pm UTC, wrote That was me. It lied. It told me I was logged in! Do mail me direct; ...

Anonymous: on 2/27/18 at 15:58pm UTC, wrote Peter, Shame you seemed to drop away at the end. Answers to your questions...

richard nixey: on 2/26/18 at 21:19pm UTC, wrote Peter, Sigh, in a universe where supposed intelligent people throw 1 bombs...

Gary Hansen: on 2/26/18 at 20:48pm UTC, wrote Hello Michaele and Peter, I am happy to be able to stretch my time on the...

peter cameron: on 2/26/18 at 19:34pm UTC, wrote Peter - My habit is to rate essays immediately after commenting, in the...

Peter Jackson: on 2/26/18 at 15:09pm UTC, wrote Peter, Thanks for your post on mine. Reply (2nd try!) below; Just lost...

Gordon Watson: on 2/26/18 at 3:22am UTC, wrote Peter, to be clearer re my last above: "[nb: the temptation to re-edit...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...

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


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 21, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: Space and Time, Geometry and Fields: An Historical Essay on the Fundamental and its Physical Manifestation by Michaele Suisse and Peter Cameron [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author peter cameron wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 22:35 GMT
Essay Abstract

We address historical circumstances surrounding the absence of two essential tools - geometric interpretation of Clifford algebra and generalization of impedance quantization - from the particle physicist's tool kit, and present details of the new perspective that follows from their inclusion. The resulting geometric wavefunction model permits one to examine the interface between fundamental and emergent.

Author Bio

independent researchers

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



David Lyle Peterson wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 11:00 GMT
Dear Peter and Michaele,

This is an intelligent essay, and I appreciate your timely reminder of the history and utility of Clifford algebra for physics. I agree that its relevance has been under-appreciated and will continue to broaden my knowledge of it.

Best Wishes

David Peterson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 14:12 GMT
David,

Thanks for looking. I browsed your essay, admire your knowledge of group theory, and left some comments about the physics side of your groups there.

Pete

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 13:27 GMT
Dear Michaele Suisse and Peter Cameron you wonderful outlined in his essay the need in geometric interpretation of Clifford algebra and generalization of quantization-impedance from the particle physicists tool kit and the importance of a geometric model for the wave function to examine the interface between fundamental and emergent, to determine the boundary between the fundamental and the emergent. You may be interested in my essay, in which I showed the connection between the Lorentz factor and the wave function, and most importantly showed that the mass-energy equivalence formula is due to the pressure of the universe. I appreciate your work. However, I ask you to leave a comment on my page.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 14:22 GMT
Boris,

Left a comment on your thread. Can you do quantum mechanics with your model? Is there a wave function?

Pete

Bookmark and Share


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 21:29 GMT
Peter! New Cartesian Physics more than a model, it wants to be the theory of everything OO. In it, the wave function describes the rotation of space, which according to Descartes is matter.

Look at my essay, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes. Evaluate and leave your comment there. I highly value your essay; however, I'll give you a rating as the bearer of Descartes' idea. Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 22:54 GMT
Boris - I looked prior to posting my previous message, looked again just now, see nothing that makes me think of a wavefunction. Where are the things you multiply together to get an observable?

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 22:16 GMT
Dear Michaele Suisse and Peter Cameron,

Thanks for entering another essay focused on geometric algebra as the preferred tool for physicists. I had intended to review your viXra papers during the last year, but never found the time. Assume that I am reasonably competent in GA and please tell me which papers I should study to best understand your impedance-based approach (pre-quantum, if possible).

One thing I have had time to do is study John W Arthur's excellent book, 'Understanding Geometric Algebra for Electromagnetic Theory'. Thankfully, he presents both 3D+1 and 4D approaches. Until recently, I tended toward 4D, but after developing my current essay, I find 3D+1 extremely interesting.

Much of your work seems focused on the quantum interpretation of the impedance model. Since "impedance governs the flow of energy", I am interested not so much in E8-based schemes as in how one applies your concepts to Maxwell-Hertz-Heaviside equations(5) in my essay. I hope you will read my essay and comment from your impedance perspective. Thanks.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 15:28 GMT
Ed- Understand where you're coming from re finding time to chase our interests.

regarding your request

"Assume that I am reasonably competent in GA and please tell me which papers I should study to best understand your impedance-based approach (pre-quantum, if possible)."

The first thing to keep in mind is that the impedances are calculated from electromechanical interactions,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 15:31 GMT
Ed - link to electron impedances paper is here

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V18NO2PDF/V18N2CAM.
pdf

Bookmark and Share


Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 15:32 GMT
url{http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V18NO2PDF/V18N2CAM.
pdf}

Bookmark and Share



Author peter cameron wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 15:10 GMT
Ed - pasting in here my comment to the thread on your paper:

Browsing your paper for the first time surprised by the opening implicit assertion that there is something wrong with light defining a 'preferred' reference frame. Isn't that exactly what it's supposed to do? Light is the fiducial in our definition of space. The laws of physics don't change when we take light as the fiducial....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 01:28 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thank you for the above information and links to info on your approach to impedance. I will try to understand it.

Special relativity means different things to different people (I know this from a year of discussions). In your opinion light is to define a 'preferred' reference frame. I cannot believe this makes sense in reality, and as I point out, the nonsense flows from space-time symmetry [i.e., light as 'preferred' frame] and vanishes with energy-time asymmetry.

You're also of the opinion that one needs to understand quantum gravity to appreciate your point. You claim to understand quantum gravity, yet I have an understanding that I'm sure differs from yours. I have a GA-based theory of gravity that leads to the field equations and also to the Klein-Gordon equation and other equations. Like you, I think there is much to be gained from re-formulating physics in terms of geometric algebra.

For many I talked with last year, the first statement that they disagree with tends to shut them down, rather than try to understand how their belief may be reinterpreted. Although quantum mechanics has probably a dozen interpretations, almost all of which yield exactly the same calculations, there is surprising resistance to a re-interpretation of special relativity that makes sense but differs from the received wisdom. I'm disappointed that you "didn't dig into the remainder of the paper", but with 200 essays it's hard to study them all.

I'm fairly knowledgeable about GA and I do not see an E8-type assignment of GA product terms to the standard model as meaningful, so we do agree on the significance of GA, but not on all physics. I'm glad you are happy to hear about John W. Arthur's "Understanding geometric algebra for electromagnetic theory". I suggest after you read this book you may wish to reread my essay.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 15:29 GMT
Hi all, Edwin, this work does not reach this quantum gravitation unfortunatelly, it is that said a wonderful works about the works of Hestenes and the algebric structures in QFT , that is all.That said I liked its generality and the understanding of groups of forces.This QG cannot be found in this line of reasoning , it is the same with the lie algebras, it lacks several parameters.I don't undertand why peôple tries to find it with an electromagntic fractalisation without inserting new parameters like this matter not baryo,nic for example.

Best Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 15:31 GMT
impedance, impedance, me I want well but ?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Gary D. Simpson wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 14:28 GMT
Peter and Michaele,

Now I remember you folks from the last contest. Did we learn something about one-bombing? BTW, I did not criticize your mathematics. I stated that you did not include any mathematics in your essay. That was an accurate statement. In any event, I don't hold a grudge:-)

This is an excellent essay. It is As good as your previous one I'll say. I was able (I think) to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 23:22 GMT
Gary - thanks for the good thoughts, much appreciate the opportunity to share.

a brief aside - Does your comment appear properly formatted on your screen? On mine it seems all the carriage returns have been taken out and replaced by the letter 'n'. Have seen this elsewhere as well, in both the same and slightly differents contexts. A bug floating around somewhere, my impression so far is it enters via the fqxi gui. Broken links there work when accessed directly from chrome, and at the same time this phenomenon arose this formatting bug appeared.

Pasted that to Brendan, perhaps he has had other reports.

re the math, but of course the math is there, all that is needed to do the physics. One is required to take the geometric product of two Pauli algebras, of two Pauli wavefunctions. That gives the geometric structure of the physicist's S-matrix. Having the history is essential to the understanding. Perhaps to your mathematician's mind that doesn't qualify as 'doing the math', no argument here with such a view. Just took what I needed for the, nothing more. Have vague idea what quaternions and octonions are, but never played with them, so no real sense. So far don't see the need for the physics I want to do. Which is mostly condensed matter at this point. Practical stuff. Quantum impedance matching in quantum computing. So far mainstream appears to still be ignoring this, tho one never knows. No different than classical, gotta match to get the bits to move.

Brings to mind your mention of Hamilton/Grassman dispute. New to me, thanks for this. Got a good url?

imo your basics plus Maxwell is all you need to understand what Michaele and I are doing. It is just geometry plus fields. You have the geometric algebra, and the fields are just E and B. No connections in your head to undo.

gotta pause, gonna post and run. Will come back to eqns 4, 5, 5.1, 5.2,...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 23:30 GMT
testing now, trying to sort out the formatting problem.

Previous post was not logged in, posted as anon. Now logged in as a contributor.

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 01:35 GMT
Hi peter cameron

Nice addressing of history of geometric Algebra, interpretation of Clifford algebra and generalization of impedance quantization ..... The resulting geometric wavefunction model permits one to examine the interface between fundamental and emergent..... very good... By the way...

Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed...……..….. yours is very...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 17:21 GMT
Peter,

Nice job in explaining the important fundamental errors hiding the fundamental truths we've discussed before. Sadly it's still unlikely the gatekeepers of doctrine will slap their foreheads and say 'Doh! ..Yes ..of course!' but how even a hint of that's achieved I really wish I knew!

I confess I'm still not familiar enough with that side of physics but now suspect our work may have a lot closer connections than I'd realized. I describe an ontological mechanism for EM wave interactions with fermions which successfully (are you sitting down?!) seems to precisely reproduce QM's predictions classically. A way to unify QM with SR then reveals itself. So of course I have the same problem as you!

I wonder if a combined description may be more powerful. I'd need you to look closely, ask any questions, and and give me a view. Gordon Watson's essay is consistent and Declan Traill's provides the matching computer code and plot.

Your correctness fundamentality, import and rigorous argument mean I have yours down for a high score. Very well done. I hope you agree the same of mine.

Very best of luck in the contest and looking forward to discussing.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 20:29 GMT
Peter,

thanks for the good thoughts. gatekeepers are an issue, yes. And this whole comments/scoring thing is a trip, still getting the feel for how that goes.

Took a look at your essay, going to comment on your thread. Will likely take a look at Watson and Trail's first, try to get a clearer picture.

Bookmark and Share


Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 16:54 GMT
Peter,

Looked at Watson and Trail, didn't find much i could relate to.

Liked the appearance of your interferometer experiment. You have access to hardware?

This article discusses an interesting time symmetry experiment in the nested Mach-Zender interferometer

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/133

If you look at my author page on vixra, you will see a delayed-choice variant on this experiment. Any thoughts on how to get it done?

Pete

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 12:45 GMT
Peter,

Thanks for the link, yes, confirms my thesis. Backward causality is just backward thinking.

I'm afraid I have no access to sophisticated hardware. I can do simple bench top experiments, but consistent with that. Also as in my paper, the controversial 'novel' non singlet state momenta I now find already existing on a 'Poincare sphere'!

Declan just shows the classical mechanistic sequence using that start point produces CLASSICAL QM! But hard to follow without some expertise in Quantum optics etc.

We seem both to have exposed aspects of the same fundamental issues with current theory. Our essays are very close (and mine has just been hit with some 1's!) so I hope, as it seems, we equally agree the high value and fundamentality of each others work and score accordingly. Do comment on my string. I'll be applying scores shortly. Well done for yours.

Very best.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 23:55 GMT
Peter,

I completely lack the formal education in physics and electrical engineering to do more that intuit your essay. That said, I do sense some essential agreement with one of my more elementary observations; That energy and form(as in everything from math to mass) are opposite sides of the same coin. Energy as medium and form as message. such that while there is not platonic realm of information/math, any dynamic is going to manifest form.

As I've observed elsewhere, the basic premise of geometry as dimensionless form is self negating, as it is a multiple of zero. A dimensionless point is no more extant than a dimensionless apple, but insisting on some infinitesimal dimensionality creates more conceptual problems, so, as pure abstraction, it is more efficient to make it dimensionless. As such, though, it becomes message without a medium. Sort of like taking a picture with the shutter speed set at zero.



So while our minds work best with abstraction, some of what is distilled away is still essential.

On a personal note, thank you very much for your seeing some sense in my observations about cosmology and time, as about 90% of the responses I get from people with strong math background is vehement rejection and insistence I make no sense, so having a few who do see the logic stands as proof some of these ideas are not total gibberish. As i said, I originally came at physics from an amateur sociological perspective; The physics of politics, so to speak, but found quite a lot of politics of physics.

If any of these ideas are useful, feel free with them. As most of my input is open source, my output might as well be also. The world seems headed for a significant reset anyway and hopefully it will have some benefits to go along with the likely negative effects.

Regards,

John

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 16:21 GMT
John,

sociology of physics is an ever-deepening education. At this point i know more than i want to. and am still an innocent child by so many yardsticks. what a weird world this is becoming.

there are as many ways to understand things as there are sentient beings. how one strings the moments together makes sense to some and not to others. one woman's math is another man's poetry. our best rationalizations only serve to let us go with what we feel.

Pete

Bookmark and Share



Member Dean Rickles wrote on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 23:32 GMT
Hi Peter and Michaela,

Great review of geometric algebra in here!

I was a little curious about your claim that phase cannot be given by a single measurement on account of its being relative. Can you not get phase information in a single measurement? It is of course true that you need to measure the relative phase of two things (so it is not absolute), but is it not a single measurement nonetheless: phase difference?

Best

Dean

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 16:45 GMT
Dean,

Glad you like the review. Are you familiar with the algebra?

re unobservability of phase, particles are little oscillators. When you dephase them, break them apart, you get a lump of energy. incoherent. The coherent phase information of the coupled modes that comprised the oscillator is gone.

this is what gauge invariance is about. One's model has to permit local phase shifts (so unfortunate that weyl's 1918 paper ended up with the word gauge in place of phase) without changing the physics. For this to be true phase cannot be a single measurement observable.

one might consider the phase difference to be a measure of how precisely one can define simultaniety. Need two things for them to be simultaneous. How does one make just one measurement of two things when those to thing are at separate locations?

this is basis of special relativity. Need three things to get special relativity. The two objects plus the observer. Lorentz transform is just trigonometry, Pythagoreus.

quantum logic at foundational level is just two things, two interacting wavefunctions. To assume logic beyond that is epistemologically incorrect imo. Phase is not a single measurement observable.

Bookmark and Share



Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Feb. 17, 2018 @ 11:13 GMT
Dear Michaele Suisse and Peter Cameron!

Descartes wanted to do physics as geometry. The physical space according to Descartes is a matter which rotates and oscillates as a wave. I'm sorry that you didn't see my essay the wave function. It there divides into two subfunctions, one of which contains the angular momentum of rotation, and the other energy fluctuations. The ratio of the modules of these functions are included in the factor of Lorentz. Thus, shows the relationship of the theory of relativity with quantum mechanics. Visit my page and leave a rating. FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich

Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 16:48 GMT
Boris - the link you post doesn't work.

Bookmark and Share



Terry Bollinger wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 05:19 GMT
Dear Michaele Suisse and Peter Cameron,

My less formal comments, including a couple of strategy suggestions, are provided in reply to under your kind comments on my essay. Here I want to be a bit more formal and put on my technical editor hat, because I think your ideas are not getting as much traction as you would like in part because of your paper writing style.

The biggest problem...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author peter cameron wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 13:16 GMT
Dear Terry,

Pretty cool to start the day with comments such as yours. Thanks for screwing up my schedule.

you nailed it with the frustration thing. Quick summary

- arxiv won't let us post

- can't get past the editors at most journals

- those editors who do send papers out can't find referees

- in seven years since foundation of present work synthesized...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 13:46 GMT
coming back again to fig. 4, your comment

"I can't even figure out how it relates to standard particles,..."

caption has the phrase

"Modes indicated by symbols (triangle, square, dot, diamond) have their impedances plotted in figure 8, opening new windows on the unstable particle spectrum."

Conclusion from figure 8 could be that production and decay of the remainder of massive particle spectrum is governed by the impedance structure of the most easily excited massive particle, by the excitation of the full eight-component geometric electromagnetic Pauli wavefunction of the particle we call the electron.

Figure 4 is impedance representation of the scattering matrix. Figure 8 shows how a portion of the resulting network is related to the unstable particle spectrum.

Bookmark and Share


Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 14:02 GMT
pdf of early calculations is available on the cloud

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_pzihZZV6IfckpQTVFRQz
RtMm8/view?ts=5a182f53

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 06:46 GMT
Dear Michaele and Peter,

I highly appreciate your well-written essay in an effort to understand «andpresent details of the new perspective»

It is so close to me. «Of itself the geometry and its algebra are abstractions. It is only with the possibility of excitation by physical fields that the concept of geometric vacuum wavefunction becomes useful».

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 07:13 GMT
Dear Michaele, 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


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Gary D. Simpson wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 19:53 GMT
Peter & Michaele,

You have mentioned bi-vectors and tri-vectors. Can you elaborate on this please. If a bi-vector is the product of two vectors, how is that different from a vector that is perpendicular to both? If a tri-vector is the product of three vectors, how is that different from a scalar?

Thanks,

Gary Simpson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 20:41 GMT
Gary,

i'm no expert, but my understanding is that bivector is 'dual' of the conventional orthogonal vector of the Gibbs vector cross product. Thing with geometric algebra is that the product changes dimensionality in such a way that scalar/vector/bivector/... formalism works in any dimension, but dual Gibbs representation works only in 3D space and 4D flat Minkowski spacetime. This seems to me to be a rather profound sort of 'symmetry breaking', wondering how it might be related to the topological symmetry breaking that results from great strength of magnetic charge. Brings to mind Veneziano's dual resonance model, as shown in fig. 7 of our essay. It was one of the big steps on the way to string theory.

in 3D Pauli algebra

scalar is scalar - one singularity, electric charge

vector is vector - two singularities, edm and magnetic flux quantum

bivector is pseudovector - Bohr magneton and electric flux quantum

trivector is pseudoscalar - no singularity, magnetic charge

a caution there is a topological inversion buried in that little list, due to strength of magnetic charge. Position of Bohr magneton and magnetic flux quantum are swapped relative to what one might intuitively expect.

figure 4 of the essay shows that in a little more detail for electron and positron wavefunctions at top and left, but one has to go to the references to get the details. We didn't delve into the topological stuff for the essay. Information overload already, we are too different enough.

if you look at the thread on Terry Bollinger's essay you'll see about 80% way to the end he and i have a subthread. He seems to know quite a bit about this, please if you quiz him do so in that thread so i can learn as well.

Bookmark and Share


Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 21:03 GMT
bivector pseudovector has no singularity, like trivector pseudoscalar.

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 14:04 GMT
Peter,

You need to follow my essay ontology before analysing Declan's code & plot built from it. I note you haven't commented there yet (Little time left). See also Watson's.

The 1's continue to annoy. A simple added rule I've proposed would solve it! (no post and the 1 may get put back on theirs!) As, though different, we seem to appreciate each others I'm sure we'll both be gentlemen and rate them appropriately highly? I hope to see your comment on mine. To help I posted the below on my page.;

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' dir. 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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author peter cameron replied on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 18:40 GMT
Peter,

Looked again a couple times at Traill's essay. Perhaps starting to get the connection Terry Bollinger was trying to point out.

From perspective of the geometric wavefunction interaction (GWI) model Michaele and I are working with two essential points relevant to Declan's essay seem to stand out.

1. There exist two different varieties of quantized impedances - scale invariant and scale dependent. Forces associated with invariant impedances can do no work, cannot share energy/information. Resulting motion is perpendicular to direction of applied force. These are the conduits of non-locality. They communicate only the quantum phase of entanglement, not a single measurement observable. Here the GWI approach appears to be in harmony with what Declan shows.

2. What distinguishes quantum from classical is quantum phase. Once one accounts for the fact that phase is not a single measurement observable, from the perspective of our synthesis of geometric wavefunction interactions with quantized impedance networks QM appears 'classical', again in agreement with Declan's conclusion.

Having arrived at this, now feel ready to take a look at Watson, and then yours again. Tho we're not math folks here, Poincare sphere is only slightly familiar to me from Penrose's road to reality.

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 19:44 GMT
Peter,

No maths in mine to worry about, just needs a little brain power to follow the ontological construction. Declan's is essentially just the matching code & Plot. Haven't seen a comment yet, (on the above or my essay) hope you get to it. The 2 pairs of momenta are simply linear, max at the equator, and polar curl' which is orthogonal. Both go to zero at 90 degrees, and both change non linearly over 90o by Cos latitude (known in geophysics).

With that starting assumption replacing 'superposed singlet' states the classical derivation becomes possible (with a few similar more careful analyses including of WHAT we actually 'measure!).

Final reading now & scoring shortly - hope to do most but clearly those who read/understand/like mine obviously get priority!

Best of luck in the run-in & judging

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 15:09 GMT
Peter,

Thanks for your post on mine. Reply (2nd try!) below;

Just lost the will to live. Spent an hour answering your questions and lost the post!

Most answers, i.e. always LOCAL backgrounds but no 'absolute' one, are clear, consistent and in my prev essays from 2011 and/or archived here; Academia.edu, plus see also This 100 sec video glimpse inc all non-integer spins from 3 axis rotations.

Then come back with probably a better ideal greatly reduced list.

Just checked and I have yours down for a top score, not yet applied, so will do now. Hope you wish to do similar.

Very best

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 21:16 GMT
Dear Peter Cameron,

In a response I had overlooked on my page you asked about my view of quantum gravity. My view of this topic is here: The Nature of Quantum Gravity.

You also mention that Hawking suggests that a 'Planck particle' would have a Compton wavelength thousands of times the observable universe. For me, that's a proof of no Planck particles.

In my quantum gravity...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Gordon Watson wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 01:20 GMT
Dear Michaele and Peter,

I've just discovered that a 2-hr blackout has wiped a long enthusiastic WIP response to your essay -- probably via a valid log-out at FQXi -- and I'm not good at rewritings! So this is short-&-sweet as I look forward to many more ongoing discussions!

Thanking you for a (for me) beautifully presented and breath-taking essay, I regret (just a little; as...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Gordon Watson replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 03:22 GMT
Peter, to be clearer re my last above: "[nb: the temptation to re-edit resisted]" should more clearly say: [nb: the temptation to NOW read AND THEN re-edit BEFORE SENDING HAS BEEN resisted]. This next is quick and dirty to get things moving: I'm time-poor on many fronts at the moment.

Now, having begun to read [but needing much more time]: please [in future] number your paragraphs and sub-points as I do in my essay. For there are many points that we hold in common but a few that raise questions.

Re this from you above, with -- [CAPS] -- by me: "I like your logic approach to the problem, in principle should be clear of inadequacies of particle theory models (renormalization comes to mind) -- [YES + AAD, NL AND WFC (WF-COLLAPSE); SO FAR SO GOOD] --, but lacks the intuitive advantage of simple geometric electromagnetic wavefunction model in 3D space -- [GEWM-3D: THIS I MUST SEE] --" for I'm seeking intuitive advances at every step. So please see Fröhner re WFs and superpositions: and tell me about [point me to] the GEWM-3D!

PS: We build a bridge via dialogue! I need to learn about your use of "mechanical-impedance" -- in baby steps please + references to the related online literature (if any): hoping to see the end of "the impedance matrix". TKS; G -- I've brung this from my essay-thread.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Gary Valentine Hansen wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 20:48 GMT
Hello Michaele and Peter,

I am happy to be able to stretch my time on the last day of the FQXi essay contest to include a reading of your essay.

In the universe of all-there-is - (known and unknown), distinguished from the universe of all-that-is-known, that physicists understandably prefer to embrace for no better reason than ‘it marks the boundary [of] interactions that cannot be...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


richard kingsley nixey wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 21:19 GMT
Peter,

Sigh, in a universe where supposed intelligent people throw 1 bombs about it seems us decent folk are destined to do the opposite! But at least we can live with ourselves. Excellent if rather off the thoroughfare essay.

Peter Jackson pointed me your way and it seems he was right, though less familiar to me than QM. He was good enough to score mine up over his, but his is far better so I did the same to his. Now with you one below me I must do the same to yours! All quite bizarre, but at least QM doesn't have to be any more, at last! Yes I spent time checking out his mechanism and it works brilliantly.

I trust you've supported it. Of course all will squeal or ignore it, as with any advance. I think your insights stand even less chance of penetrating mainstream but my score should help infinitessimally. (if you get a chance to read my short offering, like it and can spare the odd bit of change above it's rating I'd be delighted.

Very best of luck in the judging, but don't hold your breath - from past evidence the playing field is clearly as level as the 'big air' olympic snowboard ramp!

Best of luck anyway. Hold tight for a sec..

Rich

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 15:58 GMT
Peter,

Shame you seemed to drop away at the end. Answers to your questions on my post.

1. "How does your understanding of relative motion relate to the concept of background independence?" Not needed, always a LOCAL background, one of an infinite heirerchy. The LT is at Maxwells 'REAL' near far field 2 fluid plasma TZ, subject to J D Jackson/ Ewald-Oseen extinction...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 16:01 GMT
That was me. It lied. It told me I was logged in!

Do mail me direct;

pj.ukc.edu@physics.org

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Mar. 3, 2018 @ 19:37 GMT
Figure 1: There is nothing fundamental on fields, Dirac algebra, or S-matrix... They are all derivable.

There is nothing fundamental about wavefunctions. They can be derived.

"Spinors of the Dirac equation wavefunction". As has been known for last 50 years, the Dirac equation is not a valid wavefunction equation. It is reinterpreted as an identity for fermion operators in QFT.

"The photon-electron interaction is the keystone of QED". Only in the field-based formulation. There is no photons in the action-at-a-distance formulation of QED. Real interactions in the universe are only charge-charge.

"We presented a model in which the fundamental is that which cannot be observed, the wavefunction." Not only wavefuctions are't observable, but as mentioned above they aren't fundamental. The quantum state of a cat is not given by any wavefunction because the cat is an open system.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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.