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

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

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

Vladimir Fedorov: on 5/16/20 at 13:31pm UTC, wrote Dear Alan, Glad to read your work again. I greatly appreciated your work...

austin fearnley: on 5/16/20 at 9:14am UTC, wrote Dear Alan Kadin Thank you for an enjoyable and very readable essay. I...

barry gilbert: on 5/9/20 at 11:57am UTC, wrote Dear Mr. Kadin: It is a long time between heretics, we’ve been on the...

Israel Perez: on 5/8/20 at 7:11am UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Kadin Thanks for calling my attention to read your essay which I...

Paul Schroeder: on 5/6/20 at 19:01pm UTC, wrote Dear Alan M. Kadin I have my printed copy of your rise and fall of...

David Jewson: on 5/5/20 at 8:13am UTC, wrote Dear Alan, I was really excited by your essay; it gave me the sort of...

Yutaka Shikano: on 5/5/20 at 0:15am UTC, wrote Dear Alan Kadin, Wow!!! This is the opinion essay. I really like this...

Eckard Blumschein: on 4/28/20 at 8:31am UTC, wrote Dear Alan Kadin, Shouldn't Harvard be proud of you? I just wonder why...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "Steve, The issue is consciousness, and more specifically pain. I’m..." in How does the brain...

Georgina Woodward: "John, I don't think which photon of a pair is which can be controlled at..." in On a contextual model...

Steve Dufourny: "For me Lorraine , the main problem os this planet is the vanity and our sad..." in How does the brain...

Paul Hayes: ""According to quantum physics, a system can be in a ’superposition,’..." in The Quantum Engine That...

Alan Lowey: "Brian What % chance would you give of Einstein's gravity theory being..." in Alternative Models of...

Brian Balke: "I offered this to the community roughly ten years ago, and thought that I..." in Alternative Models of...

John Cox: "Georgina, The ChiCom do admit publicly that their QUESS program includes..." in On a contextual model...

Steve Dufourny: "Rudiger, you could explain all what you have told me by mails , regards" in Alternative Models of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Can Choices Curve Spacetime?
Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

The Quantum Engine That Simultaneously Heats and Cools
Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

The Quantum Refrigerator
A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.

Time to Think
Philosopher Jenann Ismael invokes the thermodynamic arrow of time to explain how human intelligence emerged through culture.

Lockdown Lab Life
Grounded physicists are exploring the use of online and virtual-reality conferencing, and AI-controlled experiments, to maintain social distancing. Post-pandemic, these positive innovations could make science more accessible and environmentally-friendly.


FQXi FORUM
June 16, 2021

CATEGORY: Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest (2019-2020) [back]
TOPIC: The Uncertain Future of Physics and Computing by Alan M. Kadin [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Alan M. Kadin wrote on Mar. 13, 2020 @ 16:15 GMT
Essay Abstract

In the 20th century, physics became dominated by abstract mathematics, with a fundamental role for uncertainty. In contrast, computing was built on a foundation of mathematical certainty. John von Neumann was a primary source for both these foundations. I argue that both are misleading, and should be revised to reflect microscopic determinism with varying degrees of macroscopic uncertainty. I predict a future neoclassical physics without quantum entanglement, but no “theory of everything”. Future computing will involve neural networks that can embody consciousness, but no quantum computing. Formal mathematical proofs of undecidability or uncomputability will have little practical impact on either computing or physics, but absolute knowledge will remain unattainable. All future predictions should be regarded with skepticism.

Author Bio

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

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share


John C Hodge wrote on Mar. 13, 2020 @ 17:18 GMT
Agree that math has functions and processes that do not apply to physics.

Disagree, a Theory of everything has already been developed that united General Relativity and Quantum mechanics, that explains many problem observations, that includes faster than light communication by explaining several light interference experiments that reject wave models of light, and that have made predictions that later were found.

Hodge

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Mar. 14, 2020 @ 02:54 GMT
Dear Dr. Hodge,

I am afraid that I am not familiar with the TOE that you mention. Is that discussed in your FQXi essay?

I am also not familiar with any evidence for faster-than-light communication.

Alan Kadin

Bookmark and Share

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 14, 2020 @ 11:20 GMT
Hello to both of you , J C Hodge ?? is it a joke to tell that we have a TOE , are you conscious that a TOE is not possible and even IN 100000 years if we are still there ? it is not possible because we need to know more and understand the generality of this universe. For this we need to know what are really the foundamental mathematical and physical objects and the real general philosophy of our universe , and so the main source and cause of all our geometries, topologies, matters and emergent space time. To tell that we have a TOE is totally ironical , the strings , the geometrodymanics, the quasicrystals or this or that or my theory of spherisation with 3D spheres , all these theories are limited and we cannot have a TOE, we know so few still and we have so many things to discover, we are Youngs even at this universal scale considering the evolution, the thinkers must be humble and recognise our limits in knowledges simply. Let s be rational, logic, deterministic, and humble about our universe and its laws, axioms, equations, we know a so small part of the universal truths.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 14, 2020 @ 11:27 GMT
Furthermore , the GR is only a part of puzzle, I doubt that we have only photons like main essence of puzzle, I see these photons like just particles coded, like a fuel from a gravitationa aether deeper in philosophy, these photons permit just the electromagnetism, the fact to observe and the life Death for me, we have probably a deeper logic to this universe, so frankly please don t tell this about the GR and QM unified, we need to Think beyond the box even to explain our main unknowns like this quantum gravitation, the DE and the DM. All the reasoning utilising only this GR and our actual standard model have not reached and explained these unknowns,

ps I have reached it inj all humility this quantum weakest force, and it is not with photons encoded or a modification of the newtonian mechanics

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Manfred U.E. Pohl wrote on Mar. 13, 2020 @ 22:31 GMT
Dear Alan M Kadin,

i agree to many aspects your essay, just like to point to your suggestion for a definition of time. You worte:

"One can define both time and space in terms of the de Broglie wave of the

electron [13]. The characteristic electron frequency is fe = mc2

/h, and the characteristic Compton

wavelength is e = h/mc. Their product defines the speed of light, c."

I dont't think this is possible. I wrote in another thred that i suggest to very carful think about at what moment we do speed of intensive or extensive quantities regarding length of space and length of time. using mc^2 and mc i guess would lead us to problems that can't be resolved (GRT and QT can' be fully integrated that way i think)

Don't you?

best regards

Manfred

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Mar. 14, 2020 @ 02:55 GMT
Dear Manfred,

I don’t understand your objection to defining time and space in terms of characteristic frequency and wavelength of a de Broglie wave.

Alan

Bookmark and Share

Manfred U.E. Pohl replied on Mar. 14, 2020 @ 08:58 GMT
Dear Alan,

you can use c, c^2 and c^3 as one, two and three dimensional objects. Using the frequency (1 dim) and de Broglie wave (2 dim) you assume QT als valid and define time and Space on base of this assumtion. As this definition would be the groundation for whole physics, it restricts you to your initial assumption (c vs c^2 as contemporary physics is using)

The problem is perfect discussed and shown in the essay of Flavio del Santo:

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3436

Manfred

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 14, 2020 @ 03:37 GMT
Dear Prof Alan M. Kadin,

Thank you for giving a wonderful essay giving full history of Physics and Computing in a simple English. You got a good insight into both the subjects.

Did you also propose any new theories in Physics or computing fields, if yes I hope to get some glimpses of those theories.

By the way I just said few simple words about what what should be the freedom available to an author when the “ real open thinking” is supported. Have a look at my essay please.

“A properly deciding, Computing and Predicting new theory’s Philosophy”

=snp.gupta

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Mar. 14, 2020 @ 13:00 GMT
Dear Dr. Gupta,

Thank you for your comments.

Regarding new theories, these were described in my earlier FQXi essay, “Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics.” This presents a neoclassical synthesis, which incorporates relativity without the need for 4D spacetime. Neoclassical relativity is not a new theory, but rather an alternative interpretation that is equivalent to orthodox relativity. The synthesis also includes quantization without Hilbert space. Neoclassical quantum theory is not an alternative interpretation, but rather a new theory that should be testably different from orthodox quantum mechanics. It predicts that quantum computing will never work.

I also glanced at your essay, and I may have comments later on your web page, after I read it more carefully.

Alan Kadin

Bookmark and Share

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Mar. 21, 2020 @ 10:00 GMT
Thank you Prof Alan M. Kadin,

I saw your wonderful essay "Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics", Even though I could not go through it in full detail. I got some questions like does your model have Blackholes or Multiverses, Does it require Dark matter/ Dark energy, etc..??

Best wishes to your essay sir

Best

=snp.gupta

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John C Hodge wrote on Mar. 14, 2020 @ 14:22 GMT
The TOE I mention is called the Scalar Theory of Everything. It corresponds to both General Relativity and Quantum mechanics. It has a Universal Equation which has been applied to many astronomical problems observations and to light interference experiments including those that reject wave models. For a list see:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328489883_STOE_
replaces_relativity_and_quantum_mechanics

Faster than light experiments include quantum entanglement, quantum eraser, the measured speed of gravity (van Flandern and others), and the measured speed of the coulomb field.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Mar. 14, 2020 @ 15:12 GMT
Dear Dr. Hodge,

Thank you for the link to your work on the Scalar Theory of Everything.

This seems to be based on concepts that I am unfamiliar with, such as hods and plenums. I am not sure that I can follow. Is this similar to an ether-based theory?

In my essay, I argue that we will not have a closed theory of everything, but that the phenomena of GR and QM can be merged in a neoclassical synthesis, without 4D spacetime, Hilbert space, or entanglement. This provides a new interpretation of relativity, combined with an alternative theory of QM (not an interpretation) which is testably distinct.

I will also read your essay.

Alan Kadin

Bookmark and Share


Shawn Halayka wrote on Mar. 14, 2020 @ 22:34 GMT
Dear Alan,

Thank you for your essay.

I don't make a habit of asking people, but could you kindly read my essay (https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3430)? The essay's only a page and a half. It predicts that empty space, on the cosmic scale, contains a certain amount of dark matter -- that is, if space is quantized. Does your essay forbid such 'retrodictions'?

- Shawn

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Mar. 15, 2020 @ 11:52 GMT
Dear Shawn,

I read your brief essay. I am afraid I don’t understand what you are talking about. Are you packing a sphere with tetrahedrons? What does this have to do with physics?

If you have any questions about my essay, I would be happy to address them.

Alan

Bookmark and Share

Shawn Halayka replied on Mar. 15, 2020 @ 16:36 GMT
Dear Alan,

Thank you for taking the time to read my essay. I'm sorry that it's not clear what I'm trying to do. I will think about rewording the essay in the future.

- Shawn

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Shawn Halayka replied on Mar. 15, 2020 @ 16:56 GMT
Dear Alan,

I've attached a screenshot of a 2-sphere tessellation made out of triangles.

I do effectively the same thing with the 3-sphere tessellation made out of tetrahedra. Once I have the tessellation, I calculate curvature based on neighbouring tetrahedra.

- Shawn

attachments: 2-sphere.png

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Branko L Zivlak wrote on Mar. 15, 2020 @ 12:43 GMT
Dear Alan M Kadin,

You argue:

“There have been no experimental tests to higher order in fi, so that we have no way of knowing the physics in this unexplored regime.”

There are no higher order of fi. This is easy to show. I offer you to write a paper at that issue together and analyze the consequences.

If you understand "c", "Speed of light", with a large "S", as a limit then all other speeds of light (for example for any photon) are less than c, v (photon) < c. So, the problem with that constant is more linguistic than physical.

Your term "Dim star" is for me "Almost black hole". The problem with "Dim star" is how to replace term "micro black hole", which is not star.

Your essay is absolutely the best so far, 10.

Regards Branko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John C Hodge wrote on Mar. 15, 2020 @ 14:47 GMT
Like you, the STOE goes back to Newton and reconstructs a model based on experiment and observation. So, Newton's aether that is basic to gravity and light diffraction becomes the plenum (a continuous medium that supports wave action and is modified by matter {hods} and directs hods). So, the plenum density becomes the space-time in the GR field equation and the right side becomes forces (rather than the energy-momentum of late 19th century). Then it becomes a matter of applying the Universal equation to astronomy problems. Photons are columns of hods which allows a simulation of the various interference experiments including the ones that reject waves and wave-particle duality (Afshar's experiment0). Therefore, this new theory DOES incorporate modern theories as limits.

Notice how the plenum is space-time and the medium to support waves at the QM scale.

Finding explanations is difficult.Stating some thing is impossible or very difficult is easy and will usually be correct - it's trivial. The definition of varphi suggest a very modern idea and hence reproduction of all the standard (accepted) tests of GR. But does not explain the ad hoc and problem observations of GR.

Is there some paper where your model is compared to astronomical problems?

The STOE suggest the sequence of star to neutron star to quark star to black hole through changing structure of particles (hods, photons, electrons).

Wave-particle duality has been experimentally rejected. But the experiment to explain is light interference. discrete energies is because hods are discrete, "spin" in experiments are the reaction of magnetic particles with magnetic fields in external magnet field ( not a angular momentum) and quantum entanglement is the faster than light speed of plenum waves.

I've noted your papers on RG. Is there one there that describes the observations/experiments you support?

Hodge

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 18, 2020 @ 07:54 GMT
Hi Dr Kadin, Ypur essay is very relevant generally, I liked it. I agree about the abstratc maths and this uncertainty.

I see a Little bit like you about our limitations about a TOE or about the quantum computing, we need for this to know the real mathematical and physical objects and the main codes if I can say and frankly we are so far at this moment, we must accept our limitations in knowledges after all. Your interpretation of this consciousness also is relevant, thanks for sharing your ideas. I liked your determinism and a kind of wisdom about these limits and the fact that we cannot explain all, Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


David Brown wrote on Mar. 18, 2020 @ 11:45 GMT
“As of 2020, quantum computing (QC) has become a very hot field of research and technology. Governments, corporations, and investors around the world are competing with each other to pour billions of dollars into development projects that promise revolutionary breakthroughs in computer performance. Articles in the popular and scientific press are reporting claims of “quantum supremacy”, that a QC can outperform any conceivable classical computer. … The power of QC depends on the entanglement of interacting quantum bits (qubits), which expands the Hilbert space exponentially.”

With regard to quantum computing, what are the similarities and differences between your view and ’t Hooft’s view?

”Q&A: Gerard 't Hooft on the future of quantum mechanics", Physics Today, 11 July 2017

Have you carefully studied the following?

”MOND Newtonian Dynamics, an Introductory Review" by Riccardo Scarpa, arXiv, 2006

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Mar. 18, 2020 @ 14:50 GMT
Dear Mr. Brown,

With respect to quantum computing, I have several objections, as described in the essay. Some systems are not quantum at all, and others are so noisy as to making practical entanglement-based quantum computing impossible. But I also have a fundamental objection – I believe that the entire Hilbert space formalism of QM (due to John von Neumann), with linear superposition and entanglement, is wrong. This is not an alternative interpretation of QM, it is testably distinct on the laboratory scale. These tests have not been done.

Within the orthodox theoretical physics community, one else has criticized the von Neumann formalism. Not even Einstein, who was right down the hall from von Neumann at Princeton. So there is no similarity with the views of t’Hooft.

Regarding MOND, I believe that modifies classical Newtonian gravitation to avoid the need for dark matter in galaxies. The dark matter puzzle is real, and indicates that something important is missing in our understanding of types of matter. But I’m not ready to accept that MOND is the answer.

My alternative interpretation of GR without spacetime is consistent with Newtonian gravitation, so that also does not provide any insight into dark matter.

Thank you for your interest.

Alan Kadin

Bookmark and Share

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 18, 2020 @ 15:16 GMT
Hi to both of you, Mr Kadin, I beleive the same about this DM, and I consider it essential at all scales, I have even encoded it in nuclei and I have reached this quantum gravitationa in considering different distances because I consider that our standard model has a deeper meaning and is encircled by these BHs and DM, here is my equation about this DM encoded in nuclei, X is a parameter correlated with the cold and l their linear velocity, I must maybe correct a Little bit this equation but I see like this. E=mc^2+Xl^2 , I have also a fith force due to these series of quantum BHs farer than our nuclear forces. I am persuaded also that we must not modify this newtoniam mechanics wich seem important balancing our forces at all scales. Of course I must prove my equation and renormalise correctly this quantum gravitation to quantize it but that converges. must make the same for my gravitational coded aether and my theory and 3D quantum and cosmological spheres in an universal sphere or a future sphere in spherisation optimisation.

About this quantum computing, of course we cannot create it because we don t know these foundamental mathematical and foundamental objects and what is the real planck scale, it is only simple than this.

Let s go deeper, what is this space time for you, what is exactly in your imagination the space, the vacuum, me I consider a gravitational coded aether playing between the zero absolute and the planck temperature, finiet series of spheres where space disappears, the photons are coded also and are these series , they are just a fuel implying this electromagnetism, the life Death and the fact to observe, but what is your space really ? I am curious, tell us more, let s discuss a Little bit about its essence and why philosophically. Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Gene H Barbee wrote on Mar. 23, 2020 @ 01:24 GMT
Dr Kadin,

Congratulations, it seems you are well on your way to winning another contest. We need your contribution. I read and studied your essay and read your vixra publication “A Neoclassical Framework That Reunifies Modern Physics”. I looked up solitons and then discovered the comparison below. Maybe you have seen it.

May I know which block best describes your current thoughts? It seems we live in different worlds. Further thoughts? Not sure we can even communicate without some basic commonality; what a situation! Although I have been at this many years my solutions seem naïve (but of course correct).

Comparison[edit]

The most common interpretations are summarized in the table below. The values shown in the cells of the table are not without controversy, for the precise meanings of some of the concepts involved are unclear and, in fact, are themselves at the center of the controversy surrounding the given interpretation. For another table comparing interpretations of quantum theory, see reference.[57]

No experimental evidence exists that distinguishes among these interpretations. To that extent, the physical theory stands, and is consistent with itself and with reality; difficulties arise only when one attempts to "interpret" the theory. Nevertheless, designing experiments which would test the various interpretations is the subject of active research.

Most of these interpretations have variants. For example, it is difficult to get a precise definition of the Copenhagen interpretation as it was developed and argued about by many people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mec
hanics#Summaries

Page down to summaries and there is a large table.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Mar. 24, 2020 @ 16:04 GMT
Dear Gene,

Thank you for your comments. You are asking the right questions.

We should focus on the big picture, and not get lost in the weeds.

When the foundations of physics have not made sense for a century, that’s because we are not thinking about them in the right way.

Discussions of multiple alternatives interpretations of QM means that there is something seriously wrong with the theory. I have focused my criticism on the von Neumann mathematical formalism, specifically superposition and entanglement. Von Neumann’s reputation during his lifetime was so great, that no one would criticize him, not even Einstein or Schrodinger.

Everyone thinks that QM has been precisely established, but the only aspect that has been established is the Schrodinger equation for atoms and solids, and that does NOT contain either superposition or entanglement.

Quantum computing is the first technology that depends critically on entanglement to be successful. Despite all the hype, this has not been demonstrated. We should have some answers within a few years. If quantum computing is a catastrophic failure, as I predict, then, finally, the physics community may be willing to reconsider the foundations of QM.

Alan

Bookmark and Share

Gene H Barbee replied on Mar. 28, 2020 @ 20:56 GMT
Thanks again for your thoughts. I have been working on some of your concerns and see some things worth considering.

QM should be formulated by incorporating what we know. We know that we see neutrons in space and time (although most have decayed to protons, electrons and anti-electron neutrinos). All of these particles are identical although they are duplicated many, many times. Once...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 26, 2020 @ 18:50 GMT
Alan,

Very well written and a pleasure to read, again. I confess much of that came from consistent close agreement (also again) but you also nailed all the scoring criteria.

I found your starting point perfect agrees with mine; 'A foundation is wrong',, and agree NO quantum computing, entanglement, 4D space time, wormholes or mathematical solution, etc. Then 'spin' is a rotating vector field, and unification IS possible (both agreed previously).

I'm sure you'll also like mine this year, suggesting what foundation is wrong and a logical correction actually producing possible solutions!

But back to yours, I HAVE found some questions;

1. Did Einstein not just 'carelessly' loose ether in 1915, Minkowski having said "everywhere there is substance", finding it in 1921 (space without it being "unthinkable")?? I find that need NOT be contradictory, and found he agreed why in Appx.V 1952; "*bounded* spaces in motion with spaces," with boundary form & process identified.

2. Entanglement. Did AE not 'find' and object to that Bohr solution at Solvay 1927 - pre EPR?

3. QG. Do you consider the wide 'dark energy' findings inc. Casimir, Coulomb, pair production etc. reasonable experimental proof some kind of 'condensate' exists? If so I suggest it MAY be possible to test a coherent hypothesis for SUB-matter gravity (ref.vi in my essay.)

4. GR High Order Tests. A good test seems to be to give deep space probes GR trajectories & see where they go. NASA is reticent of course, but ALL go off course! (frequent 'anomalous accelerations'). No error or correction can be found so they now install on-board AI with star charts to ALL probes as real time corrections are needed. (A solution does emerge from revised foundations.)

But great essay Alan, certainly marked down for a top score. I look forward to also discussing mine.

Very best regards

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Mar. 30, 2020 @ 16:03 GMT
Peter,

Thank you for your interest and comments. In response to your questions:

1) Ether

Einstein’s 4D spacetime is effectively a generalization of an ether.

I have flipped relativity on its head. There is no spacetime, but time and space remain relative, due to the varying quantum clocks and rulers that calibrate time and space. This is an alternative interpretation of GR that no one else seems to have considered.

Both quantum waves and EM waves travel through vacuum – no ether with any special properties is necessary.

2) Entanglement

Yes, Einstein had early objections to entanglement, although that term had not yet been identified by Schrodinger. But I find it particularly interesting that Einstein did not directly question von Neumann’s mathematical formalism, and neither did anyone else at the time. They were both at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton in the 1930s, but evidently they didn’t get along. You can’t find them in the same photograph together.

3) Quantum Gravity

I don’t think that it is useful to consider regimes that cannot be accessed in observations. That is virtually unknowable, and is not science.

4) GR

Yes, I think higher order tests of GR would be helpful. We have no way to knowing what the results will be, although I suspect that the divergent form that gives rise to event horizons will turn out to be wrong.

I will read your essay more carefully, and may have some further comments on your essay page.

Alan

Bookmark and Share

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 12, 2020 @ 10:38 GMT
Hi To both of You,

I see your answer to Peter, I don t agree really about how you see the generality. If you conclude these things about the aether or the QG or others in telling that it is not sciences, so you just focus on things knowns and you don t go deeper in trying to understand our main unknowns. I can understand your philosophy and your knowledges but maybe the generality also is essential and not only the details about the known things. If you just consider this GR and that all others extrapolations are not sciences, never we shall find these unknowns, but I respect your philosophy.

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 12, 2020 @ 10:43 GMT
What I tell so in conclusion is that many are very good for details but they cannot link the philosophy general of this universe, the sciences, physics and maths , for me it is essential this generality, it is like this that we can find our unknowns in extyrapolating assumptions that we try to prove with Concrete mathematical Tools. I respect a lot these persons specialised in details but these persons also must respect the rare generalists trying to understand this universal puzzle, we are Youngs at this universal scale considering the evolution and we must accept that we have many things to discover, in we focus only on details of things already knowns, so how can we foind new secrets ? Best Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 31, 2020 @ 15:49 GMT
Hi, I don t know if you are just specialised in computing and sperconductivity only or if you are general also in theoretical physics.

Like I am curious, I d like to know your general philosophy about this universe and what do you consider like foundamental mathematicalobjects at this planck scale. Strings or points,and how do you formalise all this puzzle with the geometrical algebras for example? It is a question personal but I beleive it is important to have a general point of vue, explain me please. Like that we can extrapolate and correlate with the universal informations and what they are and by what they are created, if these questions are not important for you and that you search only some details, forget my questions, regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Apr. 1, 2020 @ 12:04 GMT
Dear Steve,

Thank you for your interest.

I make it clear in my essay that I have broad interests that encompass science, math, technology, history, philosophy, and futurism.

Regarding objects on the Planck scale, I don’t believe any of that is science, since it is not testable. Further, math and physics are different. Points, lines, planes, infinities, and extra dimensions may “exist” in math, but do not exist in the real world. Math can model aspects of the physical world, but abstract math should not be expected to provide inspiration for new physics.

I believe that confusion between abstract math and physics led much of 20th century physics into unproductive dead ends. A neoclassical synthesis can reunify physics, as I argued in my previous FQXi essay, ”Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics”

Alan

Bookmark and Share

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 1, 2020 @ 17:06 GMT
Dear Dr Kadin,

Your are welcome, and thanks for developping. I understand your Words, it is a kind a wisdom and pure determinism. I beleive also like that even if I have several extrapolations in theoretical physics and my 3D spheres and this spherisation of the universe, an optimisation evolution of this universal sphere or future sphere.

I make Always so a difference between a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 25, 2020 @ 20:06 GMT
Hi Dr Kadin,

I thought about the generality in linking what you told, the maths, physics, sciences, philosophy, history, futurism, the important point for me is this evolution, it is the meaning of my theory of spherisation, this evolution optimisation of the universal sphere or future sphere. The evolution is very important for me and we see it in all sciences , in studying also the stoy ,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lachlan Cresswell wrote on Apr. 11, 2020 @ 08:39 GMT
Dear Alan,

I particularly enjoyed your sub-essay on “Why We Should Be Skeptical About Quantum Computing” It is a topic that my friend Barry Gilbert and I often discuss, and we are in agreement with you over the future of QC. You have provided me with many references to pursue over the next few months of Covid19 isolation.

I note in your second last paragraph you say:...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Alan M. Kadin replied on Apr. 11, 2020 @ 16:00 GMT
Dear Lockie,

Thank you for your comments and insights about my essay. It seems that you read the entire essay, which covers a wide range of topics.

Regarding Quantum Computing, I am an inside observer, and I know some of the key players. No one wants to hear that there may be fundamental flaws in the entire approach, and that includes both government funding agents and investors. It is striking but not surprising the degree to which large sums of money are corrupting the entire R&D community. I predict an international scandal in a few years, when the field fails to produce anything useful.

I looked at your essay, and noticed the crossword puzzle, which is a unique feature. I did the puzzle, and found all the entries in your essay. I may have more comments after I read the essay more carefully.

Best wishes from another plague zone, near New York City.

Alan

Bookmark and Share


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Apr. 14, 2020 @ 21:01 GMT
Dear Alan,

Thanks again for reading my paper and commenting. You mentioned that I did not treat general relativity in my essay on the ontology of special relativity. It didn’t fit in the 9 pages and didn’t jive smoothly with my example. Nevertheless, you might find interesting a recent paper in which I provide a physical interpretation to a 98-year old metric solution to Einstein’s field equations, whose physical interpretation had been “obscure“. It is a soliton solution of sorts.

A Primordial Spacetime Metric

I hope that you enjoy it. I plan a follow-up to it.

I will score your essay now, and hope you remember to score mine.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 26, 2020 @ 23:18 GMT
Alan,

I have updated my essay (last 3 pages) to address the new Wolfram paper of 14 April 2020. It is a major addition to my take on ontology, and I think you might find it interesting.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Apr. 23, 2020 @ 09:21 GMT
Dear Prof Alan M. Kadin,

I know you got a wonderful knowledge in Physics! I got a small general question for you....

This Godel's law is applicable to Quantum Mechanics, but will this law be applicable to COSMOLOGY.......?????.........

I never encountered any such a problem in Dynamic Universe Model in the Last 40 years, all the the other conditions mentioned in that statement are applicable ok

I hope you will have CRITICAL examination of my essay... "A properly deciding, Computing and Predicting new theory’s Philosophy".....

Best Regards

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Apr. 28, 2020 @ 08:31 GMT
Dear Alan Kadin,

Shouldn't Harvard be proud of you? I just wonder why didn't McEachern take issue. Klingman recently admitted his support for you in a comment on my essay.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Yutaka Shikano wrote on May. 5, 2020 @ 00:15 GMT
Dear Alan Kadin,

Wow!!! This is the opinion essay. I really like this style. On the computational viewpoint, this is really interesting. Especially, you mentioned

3) No Quantum Computing

Quantum computing is unachievable for both fundamental and practical reasons, and will not be the future of computing; the experimental evidence thus far has been misinterpreted.

In this point, what concept of quantum computing is unachievable? My essay pointed out the different perspective on the random number generation. This is not for fundamental and practical?

Best wishes,

Yutaka

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


David Jewson wrote on May. 5, 2020 @ 08:13 GMT
Dear Alan,

I was really excited by your essay; it gave me the sort of feeling that you get when you’ve just thought of something special.

Sometimes just viewing things slightly differently can cause big changes.

You said that De Broglie and Schrodinger believed the waves of the wave equation were real, whereas Bohr and Heisenberg thought it gave the probability of an electron being at a particular point. It is possible to merge the two points of view, so the waves are real, but the amplitude of a wave at a particular point also gives the probability of a new wave starting there.

This rather insignificant rethink actually has surprisingly large implications, while retaining the same maths. So, it results in something like the moving ‘wavicles’ that you describe, but also in some quite unthinkable things, so, for example, Special Relativity becomes a logical consequence of Quantum Theory. Actually, this rethink has implications for just about every idea you mention in your essay.

If you’re interested, it’s discussed in detail in my essay.

Thank you for a lovely piece,

All the best,

David

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Schroeder wrote on May. 6, 2020 @ 19:01 GMT
Dear Alan M. Kadin

I have my printed copy of your rise and fall of wave-particle duality paper with many notes or inserts. Your standing wave discussion gained a place in my universe. I have retained the paper from the prior contest as it remains the closest to my theory ideas in overview as anything else I have seen. I do not address all the history you do and I am less professional regarding the technical physics. My work is more encompassing across the universe and displaces many questionable concepts. You can see this in my paper. There are no direct conflicts with Relativity or QM . This cosmology covers many facets of astrophysics. The way is open provided we get others to agree with you saying ‘mathematical proofs will not provide the answers’.

Believers can then review how the wave particle duality becomes useless. Moving on then, the cause of orbitals awaits. Then overcoming of the ignorance of the ‘reality of pushing gravity’ and the EM nature of space will awaken the world. It may be that nothing is enough to be the ‘Theory of Everything’ but a thorough alternative perspective of most concepts should spur some interest.

By the way, a point does spin and it deflects gravity. You started here with ‘nothing is really spinning’ and advance to ‘the coherent rotation of a vector field around a spin axis’. Spin is no longer mysterious.

Spin is within electrons when they are created by opposing beams intersecting each other. If interested, you will need to see a creation of matter paper.

You encourage us all when you say the conscious mind is slow as that always seemed to be a flaw of mine.

You are a very involved person, but ‘The Universe is Otherwise’ and It might be interesting enough to discuss this with some interchange outside of the contest.

Paul Schroeder

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Israel Perez wrote on May. 8, 2020 @ 07:11 GMT
Dear Dr. Kadin

Thanks for calling my attention to read your essay which I enjoyed and found quite attractive. I guess we have several points in common. I started my scientific career in the field of superconductors, I agree with your view that we should build a neoclassical theory unifying quantum and relativistic effects (I see no future in current approaches to the unification of physics). I also agree that solitons can help to solve most of our present problems, etc. Overall, I share the same vision as you. Something that drew my attention is the proposal that you put forth about the electron spin. I have seen that other researchers have elaborated the origin of the spin in the zero point field, just in a similar way you do it, assuming a circular polarization of the electromagnetic field. This was explained under the framework of stochastic electrodynamics; are you aware of this theory?

As for QC, I also agree, NN seem to have a more promising future than QC.

I also noticed that you have published several manuscripts in vixra and arxiv but not in orthodox journals, have you submitted your manuscripts to these journals? What can you tell me about it.

Congratulations for being a winner from the 2017 contest, I was also a winner in 2012.

Best regards

Israel Perez

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


barry gilbert wrote on May. 9, 2020 @ 11:57 GMT
Dear Mr. Kadin:

It is a long time between heretics, we’ve been on the endangered species list for quite some time now.

I am rather flattered that you bothered to read my essay considering your Bio compared to mine.

I am no philosopher I am an Experimentalist and a fan of Maxwell, Plank and Newton.



I thoroughly enjoyed your essay and in total agreement with...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


austin fearnley wrote on May. 16, 2020 @ 09:14 GMT
Dear Alan Kadin

Thank you for an enjoyable and very readable essay.

I agreed with you in some important places, for example that QC will end with the whimper of a damp squib. This is a consequence of my essay also although I did not have space to spell that out. My essay subverts Bell's theorem by having time travel backwards within antiparticles. Antiparticles are assigned as...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on May. 16, 2020 @ 13:31 GMT
Dear Alan,

Glad to read your work again.

I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad that you are not thinking in abstract patterns.

"The amplitude of a soliton is fixed; neither larger nor smaller wavepackets are possible. his suggests that a quantum “particle” may be more properly a “wavicle”:a localized soliton-like wave packet, rather than a statistical distribution of point particles. Furthermore, two solitons tend to repel each other;they cannot be in the same place at the same time".

"Thisalternative quantum model makes predictions that are sharply different from those of the orthodox quantum theory[17]".



While the discussion lasted, I wrote an article: “Practical guidance on calculating resonant frequencies at four levels of diagnosis and inactivation of COVID-19 coronavirus”, due to the high relevance of this topic. The work is based on the practical solution of problems in quantum mechanics, presented in the essay FQXi 2019-2020 “Universal quantum laws of the universe to solve the problems of unsolvability, computability and unpredictability”.

I hope that my modest results of work will provide you with information for thought.

Warm Regards, `

Vladimir

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.