CATEGORY:
Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest (2019-2020)
[back]
TOPIC:
The Uncertain Future of Physics and Computing by Alan M. Kadin
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Alan M. Kadin wrote on Mar. 13, 2020 @ 16:15 GMT
Essay AbstractIn 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 BioAlan 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
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
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
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.
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
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 14, 2020 @ 11:37 GMT
An other things also Mr Hodgem how can we have superluminal velocities with a reasoning with photons ??? it is totally anti relativistic , if you told us that we have different particles, it could be relevant but not with photons please, it is not possible, the photons have a maximum velocity in a vacuum of c, it is proved and accepted by all rational thinkers.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 2017Have you carefully studied the following?
”MOND Newtonian Dynamics, an Introductory Review" by Riccardo Scarpa, arXiv, 2006
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
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
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.
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
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
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 the neutron and its associated space is understood we understand everything. Neutron duplication was outside each other, consistent with the Pauli exclusion principle. Could it explain it (one of your goals)? I agree with you that QM should be formulated without logical inconsistencies like macroscopic superposition. Of course it has to recognize entanglement of properties because that has been demonstrated but I don’t think this includes entanglement of energy. QM must also be formulated in a way that explains where energy originates. Also, as you point out it has to have a fundamental time base. My essay incorporates all of the above but it takes some time to understand (since I am not a PhD no one has tried).
I use the unitary solution to Schrodinger’s equation exp(iEt/H)*(-iEt/H)=1. But probability=1 means “we observe neutrons in nature”. The neutron components are 1=1*1*1*1, where each 1 is a set of four probabilities. For one of the quarks P=1=exp(-15.43)*exp(-12.43)/(exp(-17.43)*exp(-10.43)). Energy is defined by another probability: p=e0/E where e0 is a constant. The energy components of the neutron then are E=e0*exp(N) (Example: E=2.02e-5*exp(10.136)= 0.511 MeV, the energy of the electron). The two energies that are positive for quark above are mass plus kinetic energy and the two negative ones are field energies. This means for this quark that: (101.95+5.08+646.96)- (753.23+0.69)= 0. The first constraint for the model was P=1 and this provides the second constraint E-E=0. Pleased don’t be put off by a quark with 101.95 MeV, it actually decays to the measured value 4.3 MeV while conserving mass plus kinetic energy. But energy in this model is an information operation that separates energy from zero. I think zero is a great starting point in an information based universe. The proton becomes our peephole into reality if and when we eventually involve from protons.
The remainder of the construction has been carefully worked out with consistent rules and reported many times (reference 12 for example). I won’t bore you with details but I would like to suggest/discuss how it relates to your quest to re-formulate QM. I am aware that the Schrodinger equation is linear and allows superposition but the Schrodinger equation in my model becomes unity every 1.47e-21 seconds. The field energy I associate with gravity is 2.801 MeV. The radius associated with the energy is R=hC/E=7.04e-14 meters and time around this circle is 1.47e-21 seconds. My “proof” that they define time and space is the calculation for gravitational constant G. But many I think are put off by my use of a scale factor. I want to consider everything by considering one proton. But G is a macroscopic measurement. But all mass in the universe is central mass, one proton would orbit as some kinetic that would define G for that proton. The equation is in my essay and the kinetic energy is 10.15 MeV, one of the basic energies in the model and the scale value 1/exp(90) comes from the probability of the components. Back to the superposition problem: With my interpretation of P=1 being re-established every 1.47e-21 seconds, there can be no macroscopic superposition. Re-formulating with no entanglement violates EPR measurements if the experimental conclusions are correct. But I don’t believe energy entanglement is possible. My essay recognizes that the Left Hand Side of the Schrodinger construction represents mass plus kinetic energy. The proton mass is unchangeable but the overall energy balance E-E=0 has energy outside the proton-electron. The electron can emit light, be polarized and then changed in the EPR experiments. The light emitted is now outside the proton and in the “energy reservoir” that balances everything to E-E=0. I point out that zero can’t be fooled. Each proton is energy complete and identical all the time but my theory doesn’t speak to properties in the reservoir before they are statistically reduced to zero.
Of course all protons do not have the same kinetic energy. Interacting protons share their energy and obey all the statistical laws of thermodynamics. But there are many other kinds of energy that must be considered in the total.
view post as summary
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 proved laws, axioms or equations and intuitive assumptions if I can say.
I agree also about what you tell with the maths, these maths permit to prove our assumptions but they must be interpreted with a kind of wisdom also. Let s take for example the whormholes, or the warp drives or the multiverses or the reversibility of time, they are all for me mathematical plays but they don t seem to be rational and objective.
It is due to these maths and how we interpret our symmetries, or mirrors or this or that, so I agree with you , we must be prudent.
I make the same for my works, I don t affirm , I just suppose intuitively. I am very deterministic also you know but about my theory, I say me that these 3D quantum spheres could be the answer seeing the nature, I have ranked a Little bit of all, animals, vegetals, minerals, maths, physics, Chemistry, biology, evolution,and it is due to this that I found this theory of spherisation and these spheres, I beleive that they are the choice of this universe , the spheres, spheroids, ellipsoids are everywhere and when we consider for the quantum series these 3D coded spheres, and the Ricci flow, the poincare conjecture,the Hamilton Ricci flow, the assymetric Ricci flow that I have invented, the topological and euclidian spaces, the lie groups, the lie derivatives, and others mathemtical Tools, that becomes relevant.
I don t consider that all comes from Waves or fields, I beleive strongly that all is made of particles coded and they oscillate also these spheres in a kind of superfluid space, vacuum, that is why I have considered 3 E8, and series finite of 3D spheres playing between the zero absolute and the planck temperature instead of points or strings. I have a specific fractal where this space disappears for these series sent for me from the central cosmological sphere, this center intrigues me a lot. All this is intuitive but we can solve many problems in considering this generality.
The maths and the fashion of strings and geonetrodynamics in considering that all is made of Waves, fields and Cosmic fields has created for me a prison, We can create all geonetries, topologies, properties of matters.These 3 E8 superimposed so with the spheres instead of points or strings are relevant at my humble opinion because we have one E8 for the space , coded and the two others are for fuels if I can say, one for the photons and one for the Dark cold matter. I have reached this quantum gravitation with this reasoning, I formalise all this but not easy I must say,the quantization renormalization is important and must be precise and deterministic.
I know now that you are not interested to know these foundamental objects and its correlated philosophy, but maybe you could Think about all this.
I liked your essay and I wish you good luck,,best regards
Steve
view post as summary
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
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 , on Earth and cosmological and in correlating with the philosophy. The fact that we evolve seems so important and the futurism is like an universal improvement after all, this consciousness seems correlated and even this darwinism is not really correct when we consider this evolution of this consciousness, because we can open our civilization to this universe , first of all in colonising correctly this solar system and in permitting to other animals and vegetals to evolve in correlation of this consciousness, so this consciousness becomes an essential point of harmonisation for the different interactions. The competition is decreased when we see that we don t lack of space and energy and that we can help the other species simply, so this free will and the lamarckist adaptation can be correlated and permits different encodings than this limited darwinism, the futurism it is this also.The technology evolves also of course and we improve our technologies in discovering new lwas and inventions. For me the next revolutionary step will be this gravitation and when we shall check it really it will be really revolutionary because we shall utilise this gravitation like a force with the need of electromagnetic forces or correlated heat. The correlated Waves also could be relevant. The futurism is also the Discovery of this universe and we have a problem technological at this moment considering the speed to travel inside this milky way and to discover the other galaxies, but it is our future if our civilisation survive after a long time. We have many secrets still to discover and this relativity seems a prison at this moment, we have probably a deeper logic than photons like main primordial essence but we cannot still find its secrets unfortunally. The philosophy is important for me and these questions seem essential. Why we exist? What are these foundamental objects and why they create this reality? what is the origin of these codes, informations creating these topologies, geomatries, matters and evolution ? that needs to be understood but we have limitations indeed and I beleive that it is necessary to encircle them if we want to complete our universal puzzle and its unknowns. I beleive so that it is necessary to analyse these things and it is the sciences, we search answers after all.
There is an incredible crisis inside the sciences Community and specially in the theoretical sciences Community, maybe it is due to fact that many easy things have been found and that now it is more difficult , we have several problems of scales, technological, this and that, but we continue to evolve fortunally but less quickly than 100 years ago unfortunally. It is mainly technological I beleive and due to limitations, it could be well also if the scientists, searchers worked together instead to be divided, maybe our global system does not help , that decreases the velocity of discoveries instead to accelerate them but it is like that, we must accept this fact.
Regards
view post as summary
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
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:
“For qubits to entangle, they must interact. But an array of classical coupled oscillators will form a band of collective modes throughout the system, at slightly different frequencies. The same is true for coupled electronic states in solids – they form energy bands. But this does not increase the phase space of the system; N oscillators give rise to N delocalized modes, without the exponential increase from entanglement needed for QC”.
I thought that entanglement stopped the need for exponential increase in phase space, whereas a proliferation of classical oscillators gave QC an advantage over classical computing. For in a system of N cubits where each cubit can be represented by two classical oscillators, we have 2N oscillators. Now if the N cubits give rise to 2
N quantum states, the simulation of a general coupled system requires 2
N classical oscillators. It is this that gives the QC the advantage over the classical computer in performing certain classes of algorithms, rather than entanglement.
Reading your main essay, I very much liked your summary of the foundations of physics. With respect to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP), I would make a comment that from my ‘Machian’ perspective all particles and their attendant fields are infinitely connected in some degree to all other particles and their fields, and hence there is always going to be an uncertainty in position and momentum of a particle, such as an electron, in a dynamic system. However, I think HUP has been grossly misused when arguments are made that as we go down in scale (at particle scales) that momentum (and hence energy) increases accordingly. For those of us, like myself, who have developed working preon theorie, such a notion is preposterous, as the preon units that make up the fundamental particles have only their binding energies (which tally to produce the particle energy), not some enormous energy as predicted by HUP.
I have made arguments against wave/particle duality with respect to the photon in my
essay, which I hope you will comment on.
You discuss Bell test experiments and quantum theory, and I would like to say that I think a fundamental premise behind these tests is flawed. Bell believed in the photon as a particle, and hence the criteria used for the tests is incorrect if we consider the photon as a wave.
In your section on the Future of Physics, we share a lot of common ground. Marts Liena referenced my talk on ‘The Future of Physics Part 2’, in which I discuss space and time and relativity, in his
essay on the aether .
I liked your ‘Soliton Theory’ which is quite different my particle approach to explaining your ‘4 quantum phenomena that need to be explained’.
All in all a most interesting and enjoyable read!
Best wishes
Lockie Cresswell
view post as summary
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
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 MetricI 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 most subjects you addressed.
I agree that the quantum computer (QC) is quantum mechanics (QM) biggest mistake.
By trying to actually create something useful and practical, using pre renaissance alchemy and voodoo will fail spectacularly. They would be better off sticking to useless EPR tests at ever greater distances and ever more bizarre random No. generators. Me thinks they protest too much? they must have inner doubts to spend 50 years proving the same point. Another 60 tests and their score will be 100 to 2 in favour of Bohr. If Popper is to believed, the first experiment to disprove Bohr’s theory (the second experiment ever performed) is all you need. The QC has two strikes against it, firstly, noise (decoherence) even at 20 mK, Then they have zero point or quantum noise to contend with. Massive parallelism may save the day, instead of 54 qbits try 54000 qbits, 1000 sets of 54 in parallel (broadly equivalent to optical stacking in astrophotography to improve signal to noise ratio ). Secondly you have that spooky entanglement that has never been demonstrated to wave mechanics ((WM), new term). The best they can hope for is a damn fast analogue computer, because that is what a failed QC reverts to in the absence of entanglement.
AI is set back by the digital computer and it heritage, primitive programming languages that are all virtually the same, serial state machines with the odd branch or loop totally dependent on the programmers logic. The computers should rely on about half programmers logic and the rest environmental learning, involving “heuristics,” guided and supervised trial and error, just like humans. They might also benefit from some analogue computation. Digital computers are obscenely accurate 64 bit, this slows them down although their figure of merit may be good If we define figure of merit as the product of speed by accuracy. How does that compare with an analogue computer. Consider a 64 paralleled 4 bit digital computer, this concept may approach the analogue figure of merit. (fast but not vary accurate) also consider letting the least significant bit be randomised this means the computer will never give the same answer repeatedly, similar to us. The programming can also introduce sophisticated weighted randomness, with weighted time constants. In other words it starts off dumb and gets better, then starts to forget you can archive the trivial stuff instead of forgetting. This equates to long and short term memory, trivia slowly fades important stuff stay put.
The Analogue computers some of us remember may have been implemented with operational amplifier etc. but other examples are wind tunnels wave tanks pulleys and strings small models etc. NASA uses many and varied analogue computers, they are very fast with a good figure of merit.
Spatial filtering of images from deep space collages can be cleaned up almost instantly with spatial filtering using lenses. Your camera is an exceedingly fast Fourier transformer, starting from what appears to be stray random light into an image at the focal plane, as does your eye. It performs at the speed of light, uses no power, only limited by the Rayleigh limit, it is not the conventional “fast” Fourier transform, but a continuous, complex slow transform, executed with massive parallelism at light speed, who would have thunk-ed it?
The massive parallelism approx the area of the lens in term of wavelengths across the lens, that is the number of parallel processors, about 10 billion. Multiplied this by the 1ns time for each pixel to perform the transform about: 10 ^20 words per second.
I think the lens beats the pants off a digital computer and may be potentially similar to the D-Wave computer that is sold around the world as a QC. The D-Wave has not passed a Bell test for entanglement, but if it conceptually could approach the speed of our camera lens, then It’s no wonder they think It’s a QC. A similar 54 qbit 20mK computer apparently beat the socks off an IBM’s super computer and I’ve been getting bruised and battered something shocking over it by my own radio frequency (RF) colleagues, as well as died in the wool QM’s on some other forums.
I’d like to elaborate a bit about my RF colleagues, you see they don’t have a clue about QM’s by and large, but they do know quite a lot about Maxwell from their EM text books, they are professional and expect all other professionals to be as straight laced as themselves, so when they read in light weight physics journals, the exaggerated, inflated claims along with spiffy graphics and other added value from Hollywood / Disney style articles, they're totally intoxicated, me to, I’ve had to stop reading the stuff lest I fall under the spell. I subscribe to some of these journals, both for hard copies and electronic access to archives, 175 years of archives in one case (hope that's not a clue) I love the archives but most of the hard copies of recent times, are still in their protective wrapper, you see they scare me with their piffle on physics, the other disciplines are OK. I’ve been known to sneak a peak at articles on biology, geology history palaeontology and other interesting ologies.
QM love to claim anything that’s successful, laser, transistors, smart phone etc.
It’s pretty simple, you just rewrite history.
Maxwell's equations are a work in progress and underpin all modern technology, optical fibres, 5g, smart phone containing 250 billion field effect transistors. (FET’s) Shockley a QM, failed to produce a working FET after 10 years of effort. He did manage to share the Nobel prize with Bardeen and Brattain, even though he played no part in their purely accidental discovery of the point contact transistor, that they new little about. After all their brief was to develop a FET. That said, Shockley did manage to improve the point contact transistor to a junction transistor, a much superior device that served us many years. The modern FET is a simpler device that operates similar to the old vacuum tube triode, except a semiconductor replaces the vacuum. The FET concept was patented in 1926 by J. E. Lilienfeld and finally developed in 1959 by Dawon Kahng and Martin Atalla. What were QM’s doing all those 33 years to address the simple problem that plagued the experimenters, nothing!
The problem was that an electric field could not penetrate their pure silicon semiconductor. QM’s weird wave function model failed spectacularly. (I love using this phrase, I’ve sneakily borrowed it from the QM’s lexicon)
The problem was solved by simply oxidising the surface of the chosen semiconductor, it could even have been discovered accidentally. QM’s owe more to the transistor and the persistent experimenters, than the transistor owes to QM. The laser is a similar storey I’ll save that until another time.
Even today the laser is erroneously thought to produce photons that obey Poisson statistics. This is demonstrably wrong, If you inspect an inverse Fourier transform a narrow line-width laser it’s obviously sub Poisson, the error comes about in their measurement technique. The huge attenuation required to reduce high intensity laser beams, to single photons, introduces the Poisson distribution, the thermal properties of the attenuater modulate the beam.
I believe there is a crisis in physics due to the introduction of QM. While they are dreaming in their sandpit, engineers are left to do all the heavy lifting, developing modern technology: rockets, internet, smart phones, solid state discs with thousands of billions of transistors, 5G, frequency domain multiplexing on the optical fibre network, stealth technology, the list goes on. Mr Kadin, I believe that people with your reversion to a scientific method, free of supernatural magical influences from the dark ages, could lead to a renaissance. One proviso, abandon QM completely, revitalise or simply reintroduce Maxwell's Equations to the physics community. The equations originally had 20 equations and 20 unknowns, Heaviside and others simplified them to 4 equations and 4 unknowns. I have read, that the original equations are better at addressing some of the more esoteric problems in astrophysics. I predict that Maxwell's equations along with dust in the intergalactic medium (IGM) are going play an ever increasing role in the paradox's of dark matter, dark energy, CMB, non Doppler red-shift etc. There is another elephant in the IGM, the so called vacuum in the IGM. This so called vaccuum is full of EM fields, EM waves, gravity fields and waves, whats-more, (waves are simply disturbances in fields,) I agree with my friend Lockie Cresswell that all particles in the observable universe (within the event horizon) are in continual communication via these waves and fields, at the speed of light, at all times.
This resolves the “measurement problem” in QM. Any particular measurement you perform is in constant contact with the local environment via these fields including the experimenter and his equipment. The universe is an observer as well as the experimenter, and the so called “noise” in the experiment is simply signals from the local environment there is also noise from the distant environment. Your noise is simply other peoples signals!
This noise is not intrinsically random (as per the uncertainty principle(UP)) but chaotic and has causal sources. This noise is the equivalent of QM’s UP. This soup of fields and waves have a defined reference frame, the physical matter in the universe (stars, galaxies etc.) they are in fact the sources of the fields and waves. We now have an ether, whats-more It’s not Lorentz invariant, this new ether is revealing itself in a measurable drift in the CMB. Remember Mach’s principle and Newtons water bucket? This interpretation is not a theory it’s an assemblage of facts and observations. I’m therefore calling it the “observable ether” Einstein in his later years almost insisted on an ether, however I’m not sure It’s the same as the one I have just described. I also do not propose this ether is the medium required for radiation to take place, (the Michelson and Morley ether) I leave that for others to ponder?
Subjects I could expanded upon somehow, sometime, that I’m working on:
Fields:
stochastic electrodynamics (SED)
zero point radiation without UV catastrophe ( really gamma raycatastrophe) we’ll call this gamma limited SED or GLSED
SEDS is SED with spin
zero point with real sources
zero-point without Lorentz in-variance, therefore ether.
total energy of zero point, capped by no reasonable realistic gamma sources.
has zero point effective mass via e=mc^2
does zero point exert friction (tidal forces)
Zwicky and his friction, modern interpretation, photons and particles slowed by friction caused by tidal effect interaction with the new “observable ether” modern version of “tired light” not Hoyle's old tired light, it is prone be used as another straw-man, may need a better name, “weary light.”
Dust:
metal and carbon dust from supernovae pervading the IGM, new finding
attenuation constant of IGM, can light really travel 13 billion light years without attenuation or and getting “weary?”
radiation pressure on dust, increases its temperature
CMB from warm dust? Grote Rebers theory.
dielectric constant or refractive index of dusty IGM?
dust lensing, similar to gravity lensing?
non Doppler red-shift, various proponents, Grote Reber etc.
dust or smoke does not blur, demonstrable, look at moon thru smoke its red and sharp
dark energy? Due to optical attenuation, standard candles dimmed by dust?
dark matter? Due to mass of dust, galaxies much bigger than we measure due to super novae metals and carbon?
Cheers
Barry
view post as summary
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
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 travelling backwards in time on Feynman diagrams and I just went further with that idea despite knowing that professional physicists see it as a mathematical trick which is convenient but unreal. The upshot is that the consequence for me is that entanglement is not spooky and not non-local and has no action-at-a-distance. And hence no huge benefits in quantum computing.
Before I forget, let me comment as an aside on your 'conscousness' wording late on in your essay: "The sense of consciousness is largely the continuing recognition of oneself in the environment, mapping onto previous incarnations of the self. The second key feature of consciousness is the creation of a narrative, a coherent story of oneself in the environment. This narrative continues from the past and projects to the future, and includes decision points. Note that these features do not necessarily include linguistic competence or intelligent thinking. "
I do not normally read essays about consciousness so came across your wording almost by accident. I wrote about my own memories of babyhood here: https://ben6993.wordpress.com/2008/09/13/early-memories-as-a
-baby/
EXTRACT Age two months. My very first thoughts are “ I must remember this time. I must, must, must remember this time. I will try my hardest to remember. I will be the first one ever to remember being born again.” If you read further you will find that I, as an adult, rationally attribute this to remembering being awake before, rather than having been born before. Or as you put "previous incarnations of oneself". Anyway that is just an aside as your words, including the linguistic competence comments, chimed with my memories expressed in my babyhood essay.
But back to the physics. Who needs QC if one has time travel via antiparticles? Well, that was supposed to be humorous as I do not think it likely that there is signalling from the future back to the present. And even if there were signalling, if something is uncomputable to infinity we will not get answers from the future.
I need to read more about solitons, so I cannot comment about that idea, which seems potentially useful.
Your conclusions 1 and 6 may be at odds with each other with respect to uncertainty? As an ex-statistician, I would not like to deprive uncertainty of its existence, even for quantum uncertainty. So conclusion 6 is fine. I have already agreed about there being no spooky entanglement.
I am less sure about Conclusion 2. In my model, not discussed in this year's essay, dimensions are a property of particles/fields. Space or the metric of space requires negotiation between particles, which is why the metric of space collapses in Penrose's CCC at a node. But the property of dimension lives on within a particle even at the node or Big Bang. So, for me, dimensions exist as long as particles/fields exist. And for me they do always exist and do not get created nor annihilated. But space and its metric are emergent and can cease to exist, for example at a CCC node. Also, my model has more than 4D which goes against the importance of real space. So given all my biases, I do not really subscribe to Conclusion 2.
Best wishes
Austin
view post as summary
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
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.