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.

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

barry gilbert: on 2/27/21 at 7:53am UTC, wrote Dear all. My observations have lead me to the notion that people can be...

barry gilbert: on 2/22/21 at 12:54pm UTC, wrote John said I was unaware of that disagreement between Planck and Einstein....

Ulla Mattfolk: on 2/18/21 at 21:34pm UTC, wrote Thanks. I have noted the classical Plancks constant earlier. Then nobody...

barry gilbert: on 2/17/21 at 8:05am UTC, wrote Dear John, Steve, Ulla. Planck preceded Dirac by about 20 years, with his...

Steve Dufourny: on 2/16/21 at 12:47pm UTC, wrote Hello Ulla, happy to see you again on FQXi,

John Cox: on 2/14/21 at 22:53pm UTC, wrote Barry, and others, along this line of reasoning, Constantinos Ragazas...

Ulla Mattfolk: on 2/14/21 at 21:22pm UTC, wrote Hi. It was Dirac that told about his Sea,not Planck, what I know about. ...

Steve Dufourny: on 2/14/21 at 19:51pm UTC, wrote Of course this constant and the frequences are essential for our...



FQXi FORUM
February 28, 2021

ARTICLE: Is Causality Fundamental? [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Nick Mackenzie wrote on Jun. 19, 2020 @ 09:39 GMT
This reminds me of the beginning of empiricism and David Hume. He wondered what is the relationship between effect and cause, whether the causal relationship is a necessary one, and how it relates to our belief in the facts. He was concerned about how a person knows the cause and effects. He posed the question, on what basis can we determine the necessity of a relationship? We can know in two...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Morgan wrote on Jun. 19, 2020 @ 15:15 GMT
I'm curious how much this kind of project can benefit from considering the relationship between classical and quantum statistical formalisms as I present it in "An algebraic approach to Koopman classical mechanics", in Annals of Physics 2020 (preprint URL, Annals of Physics URL). Specifically, we can take there to be no distinction between classical systems and quantum systems, only distinctions between commutative and noncommutative algebras of measurements and admissible transformations of measurements.

Furthermore, in any given experimental context we can take joint measurements always to be mutually commutative (and in that sense "classical"), whereas measurements in different experimental contexts that are not joint measurements may well require that we use, in a classically natural way, a noncommutative algebra of measurements. There are at least three ways of doing this, using Wigner functions, generalized probability theory, or Koopman-type Hilbert space formalisms for classical physics, as well as others: an algebraic Koopman approach, however, makes the classical naturalness of such extensions more apparent (obviously, that's IMO).

To my shame, I do not understand Judea Pearl's work well enough to know how he copes with statistics when there are different experimental contexts, but it's such a classically natural concept, and often discussed as such in the literature on statistics, that I can only imagine that he does.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Robert H McEachern wrote on Jun. 20, 2020 @ 18:10 GMT
"In 2019, Cavalcanti and student J. C. Pearl proved that such peculiar quantum effects defy explanation via classical causality"

All such "proofs" are based on idealist, false assumptions, that have no relevance, to the real world. There is simple, causal, classical explanation: unrecognized inevitable Bit-Errors in the measurements.

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Wayne R Lundberg replied on Aug. 5, 2020 @ 13:23 GMT
...via classical causality? meaning as in classical mechanics?

The quantum world is held in balance with a negative-time-going duality, but it does require a causal formulation in order to be consistent with the REST of Physics

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Aug. 5, 2020 @ 18:12 GMT
My point is, quantum theory IS classical physics. It has just been completely misinterpreted, as was suspected ever since it was created, a century ago, due to physicists utterly confusing Shannon's conception of information, with there own misconceptions. Classical, World War II era, RADAR signal detection processes, applied to entangled, polarized objects like coins, perfectly reproduce the so-called "Bell Correlations", with detection efficiencies that are supposedly, theoretically, impossible to obtain, in the classical realm; but they are, in fact, perfectly and easily obtainable, by exploiting Shannon's insights into the nature and behavior of information. The problem is, physicists have never recognized, that in addition to the well-known detector inefficiency problem, another far more consequential problem exists, that has gone unrecognized for an entire century - real detectors will always produce frequent "false alarms" (AKA bit-errors), under the test conditions required by every "Bell" test - just as Shannon predicted, long before Bell ever even derived his theorem. In other words, Bell's theorem (as well as other aspects of quantum misinterpretations) is based on idealistic (unreal) assumptions, that have no relevance whatsoever, to the real world; we do not live in an idealistic world, composed of "perfectly identical" particles and "perfect error-free" detectors.

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 6, 2020 @ 07:07 GMT
Does any of this lead to new physics? I mean, is it so unlikely that someone might ask if wave functions are actually foundational in such a way that they could be the building blocks of spacetime? It's like the physics community has hypnotized itself into thinking that quantum mechanics is impossible to understand and it's all about live cat/dead cat superposition. But that is all completely missing the point.

You've got this wave function thing that is calculated; maybe what is being calculated is actually foundational. You have



and



which are operators that help you calculate the possible eigenstates that can be measured. There is no live cat/dead cat operator. You have something that behaves like waves and has properties of momentum and energy, with time/position built into it.

It just seems like there is an opportunity to interpret physics in a more creative way. Does it always have to be about mathematics? Maybe if we made casual observations such as: wave functions are real things that should be added to the standard model, maybe then we might make a break through.

There is too much rigidity in the physics community to come up with any creative ideas. As a result, physicists are more concerned about calculating when the universe is going to undergo heat death, then they are of coming up with new technology or new insights into physics.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Charles Harrow wrote on Jul. 10, 2020 @ 11:31 GMT
The AI only works really well in the "comfort zone", i.e. under test conditions. In the real world, on the other hand, it is very easy to trick it.

The core weakness of the AI itself are a few problems. The use of machine learning systems in sensitive areas such as medicine is still a risky undertaking in many cases. Example? The AI used in an experiment conducted by a network of New York hospitals, where the system learned to 'detect' cases of pneumonia not from medical data, but by identifying the institution from which the results came. The machine simply knew that during training, most cases of the disease were in a given institution, and based its "diagnosis" on this.

Another example of disappointing expectations of the AI today are autonomous vehicles. "The Economist" cites the case of the American company Starsky Robotics, which was working on autonomous trucks and was closed down in March this year. Among the reasons for the company's collapse, its founder mentions both the focus on the safety of the designed solutions (which annoyed impatient investors) and the shortcomings of the technology itself.

---------------------

Pulno

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Jul. 25, 2020 @ 09:51 GMT
I'm sure there is an easy to understand explanation to causality, quantum gravity, something so easy, even a first year undergraduate physics student could understand.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Wayne R Lundberg replied on Aug. 5, 2020 @ 13:45 GMT
There will be... 1st ask yourself: "What is the simplest geometric space-filling 'object' in 3+t dims?"

or, more obviously, in only 3D, with the question: "when or where is time stopped?"

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 5, 2020 @ 13:54 GMT
the time stopped ? where and how and why, I d like to know more because inside this physicality, the time is real and cannot be stopped, and what is the simplest geometric space filling object ?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Wayne R Lundberg replied on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 15:15 GMT
Steve,

I'm sure if you studied Black Hole astrophysics you'd be aware that time slows for objects approaching the horizon. Now, a fundamental problem lies in _preserving_ information in BH - which can only be done by considering that _preserved matter_ (in a BH) stops experiencing time.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0007100

Anyway, it should also be obvious (and taught in every elementary school geometry class) that a tetrahedron is the simplest geometric object space-filling in 3D (note- spheres have only 1D - radius)

This SHOULD be very intriguing ---

1st it explains the factor of 1/4 on the Beckenstein-Hawking area-entropy law,

2nd, a tetrahedron is bilaterally assymetric. Well, SO IS THE GALACTIC ANNIHILATION FOUNTAIN. Think about that real hard... there is NO other valid explanation for the electron-positron annihilation radiation from our own galaxy (and all others).

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jul. 27, 2020 @ 21:17 GMT
Objects fall spontaneously in a gravitational field. We are not touching anything here... There is here a most fundamental cause, in front of us.

Objects fall from where time runs faster toward where it runs slower. Why?

Things have a higher probability of existence (to be) where time runs slower ...

because they get to be there.. longer.... One may extend this to motion, momentum,

planetary orbits etc.

This whole universe is about where to be, where to go. Closer, farther or just stay put.

MM

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Jul. 28, 2020 @ 12:33 GMT
The speed of light is invariant for all observers.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jul. 28, 2020 @ 13:09 GMT
For the last 40 years, I have encountered often the same people over and over in different fora, .. Each has a thesis or group of ideas they want to promote, discuss and polish. I wish I had taken note of each thesis, made some sort of personal file, so that I would know what you are up to JASON.

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 28, 2020 @ 13:57 GMT
Hi Marcel, maybe it is time to forget all our theisis and works and lifes and habits and this vanity and work in team to solve our major global problems, this is important, but like I said the vanity will be the biggest problem, the humans have difficulties to follow , they follow a system stupid but they cannot follow other things , they survive in a system not equal and they try to be strong and adapted, it is sad knowing our potential, the global familly is a reality and the responsability seems essential where we are universally conscious

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jul. 28, 2020 @ 13:23 GMT
Yeah! We are kind of family... My latest spasm gives some problem to the standard Model and throws in the magnetic monopole...

[/ go to item 16.1]

Hope I got this URL right..

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate


Wayne R Lundberg PhD wrote on Jul. 30, 2020 @ 21:19 GMT
FQXi community, and authors,

This discussion seems to need to seriously consider the work of Seiberg, Susskind & Toumbas in “Space/Time Non-Commutativity and Causality” JHEP 0006:044,2000 hep-th/0005015v3 , where they observe-

"In particular if the time coordinate is involved in the non–commutativity the theory seems to be seriously acausal and inconsistent with conventional Hamiltonian evolution."

This criterion is only passed by the NBWF, or the well-known non-commutative matrix algebra used to describe Band Theory, which is very similar.

WRL

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 3, 2020 @ 09:32 GMT
Hello Professor Lundberg, All this seems very interesting, do you know the works of the specialist of this non Commutativity , Alain Connes, I love his works and methods, he is relevant, this non commutativity is an important piece to encircle our unknowns, regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Wayne R Lundberg replied on Aug. 3, 2020 @ 13:54 GMT
Steve Dufourny,

While I am not familiar with the work of Alain Connes (feel free to cite an example), there are certainly many mathematical possibilities,re "non-commutativity. My fav is a cross product of two wreath products.. which I first read about in the 80s

R-

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 4, 2020 @ 09:04 GMT
Professor Lundberg, you could like his works , he is specialised in several topics about the non commutativity geometry, like the spectral standpoint or the links with scaling hamiltonian, the fixed map points , the spectral truncations, ....I like hos works and methods, I learn them for my theory, you could like his reasonings I beleive, regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Aug. 7, 2020 @ 04:21 GMT
It is pretty safe to say that we do indeed live in a causal universe and so the title has no meaning. The real issue is whether a causal set of precursors and outcomes makes up the causal universe. Sorkin and Dawker have shown that quantum gravity is consistent with a classical causal set, but no one has yet shown a quantum causal set that is consistent with reality.

Now these two projects are implementing quantum phase correlation and superposition for graph nodes along with hidden nodes to show that quantum charge is consistent with a quantum causal set. It is not quite clear that this is possible without some further assumptions about the nature of physical reality.

It is not possible to unify gravity and charge with constant speed of light in space and time. This is because space and time both emerge from the matter action of the causal set and so the speed of light has a different meaning in the causal set precursor to space and time. In effect, it is the acceleration of light that then allows unification of gravity and charge in the matter-action causal set that is the universe...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 7, 2020 @ 06:58 GMT
Hi Steve,

I don't know what a causal set is. Does it have anything to do with things we know about from empirical experimental physics?

You said, "It is not possible to unify gravity and charge with constant speed of light in space and time. " There actually is a model that can explain lots of things in physics. All you have to do is to entertain the idea that virtual photons, wave functions and gravitons are actually different aspects of the same thing. When I say gravitons, I mean a kind of graviton that begins at a point and expands at the speed of light such that it obeys the equation,



The idea is that these expanding gravitons are constantly filling every point in space. When these expanding gravitons get large, they overlap and become spacetime itself.

Two gravitons with zero relative velocity to one another can explain the spacetime interval given by,



Likewise, if two gravitons that are both expanding and moving with a relative velocity to one another, than they simply behave in a way that gives us the derivation of special relativity.

There is a lot more to say, but I think it makes to sense to retire string theory/quantum loop gravity, and replace them with an expanding graviton theory.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 7, 2020 @ 09:11 GMT
Hi to both of you, what you tell is very important and relevant Steve Sgnew, it is what I have made to reach this quantum gravitation generallt, I work about the mathemtical details for the publication, I was happy to reach it in considering a deeper logic about the encodings in our nuclei and I have respected this classical mechanics, newtonian if I can say in changing simply the distances because the main codes are farer and that this electronagntism is just emergent but the gravitation seems the main chief orchestyra, I have also a fith force , the gravitons of Jason of spin 2 are a little bit in the same reasoning, but I consider that they are simply spherical volumes with specific different properties , motions, rotations, oscillations, regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Aug. 8, 2020 @ 03:02 GMT
Yes, very nice...you actually do have the right idea, but space and time are simply too limiting to have as fundamental dimensions. The actual primitive dimensions of the universe are matter and action, not space and time. With the matter-action postulate, discrete aether particles make up the universe along with action.

If you want the civilian interpretation, Civilian Discrete Aether

If you want the technical details, Discrete Aether

So if you want to stay in space and time, you will never be able to explain physical reality. If you move to matter and action, the universe opens up to new understanding...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 7, 2020 @ 21:30 GMT
String theory is all razzle dazzle, no hyperdrive. Physicists walk around in some math based imagination state, magical unicorns with kaluza Klein equations written on their bellies. But physicists don't actually know that they're supposed to be figuring out how to harness gravity as a form of propulsion.

Well, at least the physics community has plenty of time to move past the magical mathematics of string theory and quantum loop gravity, at least until the next species ending meteor strikes the Earth.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 7, 2020 @ 21:41 GMT
Hi Jason, I agree that these strings of Witten ghave created a prison and even if some good maths can be relevant for the fields, now they are all focus on these strings and the fields like main origin philosophical of our physicality with 1D string at this planck scale more cosmic fields, and after they create the extradiemsnions and insert the geonetrical algebras like lie and this E8 and they explain the geonetries, topologies, and matters, but all this is a pure assumption, I beleive in fact that they had not others general theories, my 3D spheres in all humility , coded particles seem more logic, and I agree with you that this gravitation seems the main cheif orchestra and that our standard model is just emergent due to main gravitational codes, it d be very relevant to focus on this to find and check this gravitation really indeed, and it will be revolutionary even for the propulsion like you told, but this prison of strings and fields have taken all the heads of thinkers and now they cannot think differently, I find this very odd that they beleive all that this reality come from fieldsand oscillations instead to consider coded particles, I don t understand how is it possible even, the fields are due to bosons , particles encoded. Maybe it is philosphical, they considered an infinite heat before the physicality, after they have created the photons and the relativistic space time and now they have inserted strings inside simply and play with partitions of fields and oscillations simply but all this seems not foundamental at all scales. It seems that the crisis inside the theoretical sciencex community is serious lol but there is hope that they can change and consider a more simple and foundamental logic general, regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 8, 2020 @ 07:13 GMT
Hi Steve,

It is my belief that I solved the puzzle of physics. On that premise, I will tell you what I did. Strings and loops don't act like an expanding universe following a big bang event. So we should be looking for a new kind of "something to build a universe out of" stuff. I got the idea for an expanding graviton by looking at the spacetime interval AND the derivation of special relativity. Also, the invariance of the speed of light, something that most physicists ignore, let seems to be tied to the mechanism of time keeping and length, one had to figure out how an expanding graviton could keep time and measure distance. It made sense to tie it to the speed of light, such that the sphere itself is expanding at the speed of light. Since there are an infinite number of inertial reference frames, then there should be a near infinite number of expanding gravitons. Sorry if my argument is completely non linear. Oh! Physicists ignore the wave function as something that exists. I thought it made sense to assume the wave function does exist, and to tie it to virtual photons which do exist. I think the surface area of an expanding graviton IS a virtual photon.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Aug. 8, 2020 @ 13:39 GMT
Of course, the only really useful thing about a new model is if it can solve a problem with the old model. Right now, there are lots of problems in spacetime with relativity and quantum charge. Your model should solve all of these problems if it is to be useful. Can your model solve the problems of quantum gravity and quantum charge?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wayne R Lundberg wrote on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 16:21 GMT
This seems like an odd question to ask, since particle theorists have been ignoring the subject for decades. In fact, a causal formulation cannot be published simply because of their obsession over noncommutative algenras that do NOT meet Seiberg's causality criteria:

N. Seiberg, L. Susskind and N. Toumbas, “Space/Time Non-Commutivity and Causality”, hep-th/0005015v3, May 2000

In fact, I was one of a very few participants in FQXi essay asking "What is Foundational?" a couple years ago who replied with CAUSALITY as one of five fundamental requirements of a self-consistent theory applicable across all physical scales.

Wayne

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 17:56 GMT
I am the only person anywhere who has a model that can explain how to create a gravity propulsion drive with actual hardware and things that exist in established physics and engineering. I can explain what spacetime is made out of. My views are based on established physics, not made of things like superstrings and quantum loops.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Wayne R Lundberg replied on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 18:49 GMT
meaning the traditional method using F=ma??

otherwise, you seem to be lost. any and every attempt to modify gravity (either to explain observed effects, such as MOND, or as you seem to suggest, to use for propulsion) has failed thorough testing against observed data.

(Lately MOND has had some success with the CMB.. but it still has severe troubles)

WRL

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 18:57 GMT
I don t beleive that he wants to modify this newtonian mechanics, I agree that the MONDs seem no sense, the newtonian mechanics must be respected, it is what I have made to explain this quantum gravitattion in changing the distances simply because the main codes are farer and that this electromagnetism is just emergent,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 19:38 GMT
The Einstein equations are describing gravity in an equilibrium condition of gravitons. Gravitational propulsion would be a non equilibrium condition of quantum entanglements.

Gravitons express themselves as: (1) wave functions, (2) virtual photons, (3) quantum entanglements.

The overlap of gravitons express themselves as: (1) standard model particle fields and (2) the spacetime continuum.

Gravitons have quantum states for position, momentum, spin, etc., built into them. They expand at the speed of light from a Planck scale point, everywhere in space.

I got the idea of an expanding graviton from (1) the derivation of special relativity and (2) the spacetime interval.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 10, 2021 @ 03:26 GMT
Measurables are not be-ables. Measurables are attributed to the beable particles but need not actually be properties solely of the particle alone, but reflection of a relation between the particle and measurement apparatus and method. At least sometimes, the apparatus is causing change not just passively measuring. Counterfactual results cease to be possibilities once the particle apparatus relationship plays out. Prior to decision of what measurement to carry out the particle can be considered pluripotent; able to provide outcomes to different kinds of measurement. After choosing one type of measurement the particle is multipotent; able to provide outcomes to each different configuration of chosen apparatus. The outcome of a singular experiment is a singular state, negating all other states that might have been.

For analogy; Imagine if as part of an interview process candidates are given test questions to prepare answers for. Each for a different job, given out randomly. One of the sets of questions is used for the interview. One candidate is successful due to innate suitability and preparation. The measurement of suitability has used a process affecting perceived suitability.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 10, 2021 @ 03:29 GMT
. At the macroscopic scale we assume things are as they are and are not changed by measurement. However imagine trying to measure the velocity or area of a large shoal of fish by interacting with it with a clock and measuring rod. Whenever it is approached it changes direction and shape. Whatever you have measured is not the velocity or area of the shoal.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 11, 2021 @ 00:55 GMT
From the article: "

" Entanglement is a quantum property that allows events to have mysterious connections—correlations that can’t fully be explained in terms of common causes with the classical rules of causality." I think it probably can if the common causes are not just the preparation and maintenance of the relation established at preparation but how that relationship affects the outcomes of same tests on each partner.

"But they do know that whatever direction it snaps to, its partner electron will immediately snap into moving in the opposite direction." It is not the electron velocity snapping to, but the measurement coming into being and from that the knowledge. Those are products, 'effects' of the experimental procedure.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


barry gilbert wrote on Feb. 14, 2021 @ 08:13 GMT
Many of the paradox's in physics are as a result of Einstein's biggest blunder:

the "photon".

Planck argued with Einstein that discrete energy levels only exist within the matter, there after radiation evolves as per Maxwell. Einstein disagreed based on sound energy conservation grounds. Some years later Planck solved Einsteins dilemma, by proposing a universal sea of energy, some of us refer to as zero point energy. This sea, biases the Planck threshold of all atoms in the ground state to transition to another state with a very small amount of additional energy, well below a Planck unit of energy for any particular frequency. This sea is stochastic, and self regulating, because any random fluctuation that exceeds a Planck energy threshold of an atom absorbs the energy from the sea thus maintaining an average energy of half Planck's constant per frequency. This sea accounts for QM's quantum fluctuations and the uncertainty principle, along with quantum noise. A small group of scientists have embraced zero point radiation and have derived an alternative quantum theory named, stochastic Electrodynamics (SED). To be continued if comments are favorable.



I eagerly await Comments.

Barry

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Feb. 14, 2021 @ 19:10 GMT
Barry,

I was unaware of that disagreement between Planck and Einstein. I would appreciate some references of select reading. Does this go to Planck's 'pre-loaded' hypothesis? And did Planck argue an inherent causality. There are good arguments that the Planck Constant (however tiny) is an averaged least observable, empirically derived value. Constantinos Ragazaz (I'll have to refresh on spelling) offered an Essay Contest entry on the subject with a mathematical argument, several years ago. I'll look it up later and post a link, or watch here for an edit. Cordially, jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 14, 2021 @ 19:21 GMT
Hi John, it is this planck constant and the fact to consider only these photons wich has created this philosophical prison with the strings added,that implies that all they consider now that the frequences, vibrations oscillations of photons are the only one piece to understand the matter energy tranformations and the energies, that is why they have inserted the geometrical algebras , if my equation is correct, we must add several things and not only this , so the aim is not to unify G c and h only

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 14, 2021 @ 19:51 GMT
Of course this constant and the frequences are essential for our electromagnetism and for the photoemectric effect, we measure these effects due to fact that we can only measure these photons and their properties, but if we measure beyond our actual logic, we have probably the two other energies to consider , probably in considering observations different and also in going farer in our scales for the main codes of this DE , for the DM the cold probably balancing is the answer. The actions in fact must be considered with a superimposed different reasoning added. That implies so a constant correlated also for this DM, and an other for this DE and all is balanced together under a gravitational logic. The electromagnetism so is emergent and the gravitation is the main chief orchestra simply, it is an opposite general reasoning in fact.The problem is that it is not easy to observe, measure and check them, because it is not relativistic.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 14, 2021 @ 14:42 GMT
Hi Mr Gilbert,

All this is very interesting, we have evolved a lot since this wonderful period where the best past thinkers spoke together to explain the unknowns about this matter energy. It was easier I must say for them due to easier measurements and the fact that they worked about this electromagnetism, of course einstein , plancl , Maxwell and the others were famous and have well...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
barry gilbert replied on Feb. 17, 2021 @ 08:05 GMT
Dear John, Steve, Ulla.

Planck preceded Dirac by about 20 years, with his second quantization paper or, presentation. I will start with a Scientific American article (SA) before they went to pop science. Please pay attention to the highlights in the SA article

https://jumpshare.com/v/Fj0809OpYJdnq8CgYBtY

The discussion on Planck's work To be continued.

Regards All

Barry

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ulla Marianne Mattfolk replied on Feb. 18, 2021 @ 21:34 GMT
Thanks.

I have noted the classical Plancks constant earlier. Then nobody was interested in it.... Note that at Plancks time we had no quantum physics.

Here the link to discussions.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jerry_Decke
r

I will read the article later./Ulla.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


barry gilbert wrote on Feb. 22, 2021 @ 12:54 GMT
John said

I was unaware of that disagreement between Planck and Einstein. I would appreciate some references of select reading. Does this go to Planck's 'pre-loaded' hypothesis? And did Planck argue an inherent causality.

Reply

If you go to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy#Second_quant
um_theory

You will find Planck comes up with the notion that we now know as "zero point radiation", I have not heard of the "pre-loaded" hypothesis in the old literature, but Eric Rieter refers to it. I suspect that that the "pre loaded" hypothesis, and zero point radiation have morphed over time to be the same.

Note, Einstein states, Planck's zero point radiation is as dead as a door nail early in the article. "Zero point", whether real or virtual, is considered crucial in modern physics.

Regards

Barry

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


barry gilbert wrote on Feb. 27, 2021 @ 07:53 GMT
Dear all.

My observations have lead me to the notion that people can be roughly divided into three camps:

#1. Practical, hands on realists, seeing is believing and tend to be boring although handy in a crisis (your car breaks down).

#2. Don’t know, don’t care, wont commit, follow the crowd.

#3. Love Disney land, conspiracy theories, supernatural stuff, astrology, Theism, and the wonderful, mystical world of Quantum mechanics, abstract mathematics and beauty of paradox’s It physics. Oh! did I forget Aliens and ghosts!

There are overlaps in these camps as the boundaries are soft. These camps extend or apply to physics and physicists. If you combine this with “Paradigm inertia”, then you have the present “crisis in physics”!

What crisis you say? There is confusion between the wonderful advances in ENGINEERING technology, say: optical fibres, the internet, lasers, cellphones, space travel, jumbo jets etc.

Much of this advancement is commonly attributed to modern physics and QM. I beg to differ, the field effect transistor (FET), the most important advance in technology since the wheel, was patented in 1926, and not by a QM. The inventor of the laser, H R Townes, was told by Niels Bohr that it could not possibly work because of the uncertainty principle.

Why did Feynman say this: “From a long view of the history of mankind, seen from, say, ten thousand years from now, there can be little doubt that the most significant event of the 19th century will be judged as Maxwell's discovery of the laws of electrodynamics.” how could he get it so wrong, Maxwell is all but forgotten, he is certainly ignored by the current generation.

My thought’s for comment.

Barry

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.