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 7/5/21 at 13:05pm UTC, wrote The concept of causality led us out of the dark ages, to question it seems...

Steve Dufourny: on 5/2/21 at 20:30pm UTC, wrote Hi Barry, I asked me the same questions in being young, and at the age of...

barry gilbert: on 5/1/21 at 16:48pm UTC, wrote G’day Steve. When I was 10 or 12 years old, I pondered the origin of...

Steve Dufourny: on 5/1/21 at 9:15am UTC, wrote Hi Barry, we try all to respect this empirism and deterministic realism ,...

John Cox: on 5/1/21 at 3:16am UTC, wrote Barry Yep. New force, same old problem.

barry gilbert: on 4/30/21 at 7:50am UTC, wrote Having spent most of my career in a telecommunications laboratory, I spent...

John Cox: on 4/29/21 at 18:40pm UTC, wrote Robert, Very succinctly stated. I especially applaud the last half of the...

Robert McEachern: on 4/29/21 at 13:27pm UTC, wrote Barry, Yes. I am referring to Claude Shannon's Information Theory....



FQXi FORUM
July 25, 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


Petio Hristov wrote on Mar. 30, 2021 @ 15:07 GMT
What is the reason for the existence of the universe?

The only exact answer, in my opinion, is the life of the universe.

According to the New Unity Physics, the universe is defined as a living being that on Earth resembles an angiosperm plant. This plant is from the seventh level of circulation in the universe.

Each galaxy or constellation is also the same angiosperm...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 30, 2021 @ 15:45 GMT
We don t know in fact simply, we have our own philosophies but we have too much limitations and we cannot affirm to possess the truth. Personally I work my theory in physics , the theory of spherisation, an optimisation evolution of the universal sphere or future sphere with quantum and cosmological 3D spheres to be very simple.

The philosophies and the religions have created confusions and they are mainly assumptions, and it d be odd to pretend to affirm the truth. The sciences community is divided about the origin of the universe , a part consider a kind of conscious infinite energy that we name god, others consider that we come from a mathematical accident , but nobody knows, we have the same problem about the foudamental mathematical and physical objects creating this physicality, we don t know what they are really, we are divided also inside the theoretical sciences community, a part consider points and geometrodynamics, others consider strings in 1D at this planck scales oscillating, vibrating connected withna 1D cosmic field of the gneral relativity , so they try to explain the geometries, topologies with different geometrical algebras like hopf, clifford, lie or the hilbert spaces or others in extending the euclidian space. But we don t affirm to know in fact the truth.

Personally Like I said I consider an infinite eternal consciousness beyond this physicality and this thing that we cannot define in my model has created a central sphere , a kind of super matter energy physical sending informations coded in the quantum spheres to create the universe and its more than 10000 billions of galaxies. But I have many limitations of scales about these foundamental objects and the philosophical origin of this universe.

We search answers and a sure thing is that we are obliged to prove our assumptions, we cannot affrim them , the same for a general philosophy about the origin of this physicality and from what .

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


barry gilbert wrote on Apr. 5, 2021 @ 06:57 GMT
G’day Steve

"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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 5, 2021 @ 11:24 GMT
Hi Mr Gilbert, like I told we have more difficulties to reach the unknowns . The actual works consider like I explained the GR , the photons, strings at this planck scale in 1D connected with a 1D main cosmic field of this GR and so with the geometrical algebras and the extradimensions they create the topologies, geometries,... Their philosophy considers a kind of god , and it is not really mysticism, they just try to understand how this infinite eternal energy probably conscious tranforms this energy.

I consider myself also a kind of god , but in respecting the pure determinsim and I never affrim my assumptions. You know the best past and actual thinkers consider philosophically this kind of god of spinoza , that permits to consider a coder, transformer.

A sure thing is that we are limited in knowledges and nobody knows the answer, personally I don t consider only this GR and the strings, I consider 3 main ethers and spheres like you know.

I agree that the foundations of physics must be revised , we must superimposed deeper logic for me , I doubt really that this universe is just an infinite heat and after has just created these photons and after strings inside, the truth is deeper than this.They are just a tool for this universe these photons, permitting the electromagnetic forces, the fact to observe and the heat, that is all, these forces are just emergent and the main chief orchestra like force seems the gravitation.

Best Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 5, 2021 @ 11:54 GMT
You know Mr Gilbert, if we find these bridges beyond this GR and the electromagnetism, we shall understand deep unknowns very relevant. All seems a question of philosophy about the general origin of this universe and these foundamental mathematical and physical objects. The evolution also must be considered, it is a little bit the meaning of my theory of spherisation , an evolution of the universe. There are several major problems in considering only our actual logic with this GR , the main problems cannot be explained and all the best thinkers have tried with many mathematical tools but the hierarchy problem, the cosmological constant problem, the gap mass problem, the quantum gravitation, the gluons problem, the consciousness even also, and others are not explained, it proves that it lacks pieces in this puzzle and for me this DE , this DM, the foundamental objects like spheres coded and 3 main primoridal finite series seem the answer to solve these deep unknowns. We turn in round actually in this GR prison. The fields also like main origin are a problem, they are just emergent and under a deeper logic also. So the EM theory and these photons have well been detailed and they don t solve , we need to superimpose other foundamentals for me. The problem is the scales and also the obsetvations non relativistic . Other mathematical tools also must be invented , that is why I work about these spherical geometrical topological algebras and spheres 3D like foundamental objects. The non associativity and non commutativity are important to go beyond this relativistic bridge at my humble opinion. The EM forces and photons cannot answer.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


barry gilbert wrote on Apr. 26, 2021 @ 10:36 GMT
Dear Steve

The whole edifice of modern theoretical physics is predicated on the flawed concept of QM and nonsensical abstract mathematics. A case in point is the pioneer anomaly. Space scientists were flummoxed by the observation that pioneer space craft was decelerating, new physics was proposed. The space craft’s electrical power was was provided by, heat generated by several kilogram’s of Plutonium, heating one side of an array of Peltier cell’s, radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG, RITEG). Peltier cell’s are 20% efficient at best. For every 100 watt’s of electric power, 500 Watt's is rejected to space. This radiation provides thrust, a well known and observed prediction of Maxwell. This thrust could have been used to accelerate the spacecraft if it had been oriented correctly, instead of decelerating it. This fiasco was caused by insufficient knowledge of Maxwell’s equation’s. Maxwell or your average RF engineer would have solved this problem. There is a simple resolution of the EPR paradox using Maxwell.



Regards

Barry

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 28, 2021 @ 15:31 GMT
Hi Barry, the modern theoretical physics has not easy to reach these deep unknowns, like this quantum gravitation, the hard problem of consciousness, the DE and DM, the gap mass problem,the cosmological constant problem.... It is more difficult than 100 years ago where it was easier due to fact that the observations, measurements, experiments were less complicated to create. It is mainly due to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


barry gilbert wrote on Apr. 27, 2021 @ 14:47 GMT
Dear all is, Robert H McEachern around, I believe we may have something in common?

There was no response to my last post, so I will keep on with my heresy.

The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) is not quantum fluctuations left over from the big bang, but rather the signature of the black body radiation from the missing Baryonic matter in the universe. Cold H1, protons, electrons, Helium, Lithium, also iron and carbon dust etc. The so called dark matter is in fact optically dark, but reasonably bright at microwave frequencies. This matter slightly attenuates optical light (scattering and absorption), therefore negating the dark energy hypothesis (dimming of the standard candles), causes frequency and pulse dispersion and just for good measure, solves Olber’s paradox. Olber’s was a bit right, the sky should be bright, but only in radio frequency and infrared region. That’s not all, zero point radiation (ZPR) is that part the total radiated energy in the IGM that falls below the threshold of Planck’s constant per mode, it is therefore normally undetectable. Feeble signal’s below the Planck threshold are detectable, because Detecting atom’s can be biased by the zero point radiation in such a way that the vector sum of ZPR and signal exceeds the threshold. Such detection is subquantal and addresses Einstein’s original objection (energy conservation) to Planck’s plea that discreteness only occurs in matter and not in the radiated field.

Dust and zero point radiation are real all round paradox solver's really!

Regards

All

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Apr. 27, 2021 @ 19:10 GMT
Still here. And here. And many more comments on Disqus.

As you may infer from my comments in the first two links above, I believe that the real problem with fundamental physics, is not "nonsensical abstract mathematics" per se, but that much of that math is being built upon foundational premises that have little or no relevance to the real world. All the actual Physics, is contained entirely in the premises. All the rest (like Bell's theorem and all other such theorems), is just math, not physics. The math is not "wrong" or "nonsensical"; It just is not relevant to real-world physics, in spite of the fact that it may perfectly describe the "toy" world of some thought experiment, based upon idealized conceptions, such as absolutely identical particles etc. A good computational model, is not the same as a good physical model, even if the former happens to perfectly agree with observational results; physically, identifying the correct mechanism for producing the results, is more important than the mere ability to produce the correct results.

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


barry gilbert wrote on Apr. 28, 2021 @ 07:54 GMT
G'day Robert

I appreciate your reply, but I don't want to get bogged down arguing about math.

The model is all important, as is crucial assumptions! Bell's crucial assumption, was Einstein's "absurd photon", Bell insisted that the photon must "maintain its integrity". Maxwellian wave theory is in total agreement with Quantum predictions, 60 or more elaborate experiment's. What has been refuted is the notion of the particle nature photon's as well as classical particle particles. The elaborate experiment's are predominately performed with light using polarizers to determine outcomes. Most experimental configurations simply produce the law of Malus. I can produce that at home with with a pair polarizing sunglass lens's and a light meter. Although the "talk" is always about spin and Stern Gerlach it's all Gedanken. To my knowledge such experiments are not realized. It is the QM community that have the problem of explaining Their "absurd math" that predicts the the law of Malus from paticles without faster than light influences? I discussed the early part of this post in last years FQXi essay. There is no EPR paradox or "entanglement", you simply abandon the photon, causality and local realism will be restored. What about the photoelectric effect, or Compton scattering, I hear some wag's say, I say Maxwell can!

[https://jumpshare.com/v/WNETrGGUb7UYcoR4YacS]Stern Gerlach

Regards

Barry

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


barry gilbert wrote on Apr. 28, 2021 @ 08:20 GMT
G'day Robert

I appreciate your reply, but I don't want to get bogged down arguing about math.

The model is all important, as is crucial assumptions! Bell's crucial assumption, was Einstein's "absurd photon", Bell insisted that the photon must "maintain its integrity". Maxwellian wave theory is in total agreement with Quantum predictions, 60 or more elaborate experiment's. What has been refuted is the notion of the particle nature photon's as well as classical particle particles. The elaborate experiment's are predominately performed with light using polarizer's to determine outcomes. Most experimental configurations simply produce the law of Malus. I can produce that at home with with a pair polarizing sun glass lens's and a light meter. Although the "talk" is always about spin and Stern Gerlach it's all Gedanken. To my knowledge such experiments are not realized. It is the QM community that have the problem of explaining Their "absurd math" (you may be able to convince me otherwise Robert?) that predicts the the law of Malus from particles with faster than light influences between them? I discussed the early part of this post in last years FQXi essay. There is no EPR paradox or "entanglement", you simply abandon the photon, causality and local realism will be restored. What about the photoelectric effect, or Compton scattering, I hear some wag's say, I say Maxwell can!

I'm experimenting with using links, If it's successfull I'll post some more links to peer reviewed material.

Stern Gerlach

Regards

Barry

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Apr. 28, 2021 @ 14:58 GMT
Barry,

The problem is much more fundamental than "waves" versus "particles", or even "classical" versus "quantum"; what Shannon demonstrated over seventy years ago, is that regardless of whether or not an input to a decision-making process is "continuous" or "discrete", if the decision-making process always "elects" to "behave" as if there are "discrete symbols" embedded within that...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 28, 2021 @ 15:33 GMT
Hi Robert, It is very interesting what you tell, I like a thinker, one of my favorites it is von neumann, he is incredible and you could like his interpretations about all this.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


barry gilbert wrote on Apr. 28, 2021 @ 08:30 GMT
Sorry all

I failed to attach the link correctly in the 07:54 GMT post, the 08:20 GMT post contains the correct link.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


barry gilbert wrote on Apr. 28, 2021 @ 17:26 GMT
Robert

I spent almost 50 years in the communication industry. So Claude Shannon is one of my hero's, is this your Shannon?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 28, 2021 @ 19:02 GMT
Barry, yes probably , he was famous indeed, the father of the information theory, you could like Von neumann, this thinker was also a general thinker very very incredible, see if you are interested what he has imagined , see the links with the von neumann entropy, the gibbs works and the shannon ones, regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Apr. 29, 2021 @ 13:27 GMT
Barry,

Yes. I am referring to Claude Shannon's Information Theory. Although I was educated as a physicist, I spent most of my career in the Signal Intelligence world, where my forte was developing algorithms for doing things like extracting the maximum amount of "Information" from highly-garbled communications signals. Consequently, I became very familiar with the limitations to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Apr. 29, 2021 @ 18:40 GMT
Robert,

Very succinctly stated. I especially applaud the last half of the last paragraph. We can model what we might imagine the physical reality to be but it will be due to like behavior to like conditions, and our observations limited to our criteria of what we choose to measure. best jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


barry gilbert wrote on Apr. 30, 2021 @ 07:50 GMT
Having spent most of my career in a telecommunications laboratory, I spent about half exploiting Shannon's work developing digital digital telephone exchanges. The second half exploiting Maxwell's and Shannon's work developing "smart antennas"leading to 5G, near field probing and low noise amplifier techniques, Adsl, Vdsl and fibre to the home. As a hobby I have authored or co authored several papers in international peer reviewed physics journals. All of these papers have exploited Maxwell as the arbiter of crucial experiments that underpin QM. Namely, the AB effect, uncertainty principle, the absurd photon, Stern Gerlach, Compton, EPR and entanglement etc. In my dotage I'm here peddling my wares. I'm trying to sell "local realism" and "causality" as precious commodities and I'm prepared to de-radicalize QM's, flat Earther's, water-diviner's, never landed on the mooner's, theist's and creationist's. Let's get back to the scientific method. A new renascence I guess you would call it. We are currently in a dark age, dark energy, dark matter black holes etc. Dark is code for total ignorance. I think It is probably a male thing to always proffer an answer rather than admit I don't know, no matter how absurd or illogical the answer. BTW I have solved that hoary old problem of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. New physics, new force and faster than light are very popular these days, there's a rumor that a very intelligent ant collapsed a wave function the other day, yes he peered into a box and killed a cat?

End of rant, gee! I needed that, I'll be OK now.

Barry

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on May. 1, 2021 @ 03:16 GMT
Barry

Yep. New force, same old problem.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 1, 2021 @ 09:15 GMT
Hi Barry, we try all to respect this empirism and deterministic realism , and we are at a age where the unknowns are difficult to explain, it is mainly due to problems of scales and limitations. The philosophy and the ontology are essentials to consider , that permits to give ideas and roads for the experiments and mathematical extrapolations.

I am curious Barry, what is for you the philosophical origin of the universe, why we exist and from What ? and what is for you the foundamental objects, are they points in the relativistic spacetime, or strings in 1D , or others ?

What is also for you the Dark Matter, the Dark Energy, and this quantum gravitation for example? have you ideas respecting the local realism like tou tell ?

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


barry gilbert wrote on May. 1, 2021 @ 16:48 GMT
G’day Steve. When I was 10 or 12 years old, I pondered the origin of the universe and why anything exists at all. This troubled me to the point of mental anguish, so I consciously chose to drop it in favour of all the other wonderful things around me. I have been tempted many times to ponder these thing, but I have concluded that that these questions are unknowable. I find sufficient...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 2, 2021 @ 20:30 GMT
Hi Barry, I asked me the same questions in being young, and at the age of 17 I have searched deeper answers in the religions, I have read all the sacred books, the bible, the talmud, the coran, the hinduism and vedas, the buddhism, ...after I have continued in reading many philosophes, descartes and the discourse about the method, nietsche, freud, and greek philosophes also,ptolemee, and this and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


barry gilbert wrote on Jul. 5, 2021 @ 13:05 GMT
The concept of causality led us out of the dark ages, to question it seems to be leading us back to mysticism and the belief in the supernatural. Quantum mechanics (QM) proudly embraces these pre-renaissance ideas. QM’s boast about the beauty of paradox’s such as Schrodinger’s cat. Whenever a problem in the standard model occurs, new physics, new dimensions are proposed and general relativity is questioned. Remember the “Pioneer anomaly”. Well, they are at it again with the “muon anomaly”. QED and measurement are in disagreement at the umpteenth decimal place! Remember that QED boasts that it is the most accurate theory in the whole of physics. The truth is that QED never predicted anything, it was always catching up with ever more precise measurements. QED was hand tuned to match only two precise measurements: The Lamb shift and the anomalous g-factor of the electron. Ironically this could all be blamed on Einstein’s absurd “photon” that reintroduced mysticism and magic back into physics. Einstein eventually became disenchanted with the revolution he initiated and was reported to say: "All the fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no closer to answer the question, “What are light quanta?” Of course today every rascal thinks he knows the answer, but he is deluding himself".

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.