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.

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

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

*Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.*

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

FQXi FORUM

February 20, 2018

I'm happy with entropy because it is simple and I am unhappy with quantum because it is a Frankenstein and unnecessarily complicated. I'm interested in the ordering parameter they are using and if that parameter will include imaginary numbers. If imaginary time is used it cannot be ordered because imaginary numbers have no natural ordering. I'm glad Jon Dowling does not like the consciousness creates collapse model and by using an entropy explanation I assume he is unhappy with the many worlds interpretation. I have been thinking a lot about entropy, time and the wavefunction collapse I would appreciate any feedback on my attached derivations. The below two attachments are the combinatorial explanations for entropy. Does quantum information theory use a similar method?

attachments: 1_FQXI_Entropy_1.pdf, 1_FQXI_Entropy_2.pdf

report post as inappropriate

attachments: 1_FQXI_Entropy_1.pdf, 1_FQXI_Entropy_2.pdf

report post as inappropriate

The first attachment is the canonical distribution and an argument for a discrete model for time and space. The second attachment sums up my problems with quantum mechanics and imaginary time.

attachments: 1_FQXI_Nublackbody.pdf, 2_FQXI_Quantum.pdf

report post as inappropriate

attachments: 1_FQXI_Nublackbody.pdf, 2_FQXI_Quantum.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Lastly here is the derivation of entropy from the principle of inclusion and exclusion. I would appreciate any feedback including errata. Jon Dowling is right entropy is connected to the wavefunction collapse I hope he ends the era of mystical mechanics.

attachments: 1_FQXI_InExclusion.pdf

report post as inappropriate

attachments: 1_FQXI_InExclusion.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Brad Pitt is getting older in space only and not in time; time is a measure of this process (we measure it with clocks) that would be faster on the Moon and slower on the Jupiter.

attachments: Relation_between_Time_Space_And_Motion_Sorli__2009.pdf

report post as inappropriate

attachments: Relation_between_Time_Space_And_Motion_Sorli__2009.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Brian,

First, I suggest a small but very important correction to your statement, "imaginary numbers have no natural ordering." You must mean, "*complex* numbers have no natural ordering." Purely imaginary numbers alone cannot be distinguished from the purely real numbers without a rotation operator or some relation enforcing independence; thus, taken alone, they are ordered. A physical problem gives meaning to the symmetry. Refer to the dispersion and attenuation of x-rays for an example.

Second, I sympathize with your concern regarding the treatment of the complex numbers in quantum mechanics. However, your complaint gives a superficial appearance by your reference to "complicated." It sounds as though you are complaining about difficulty rather than validity. On the contrary, I did read your PDF note, and I believe you are "on to something," perhaps the same thing at which I am digging... read on.

Third, we must carefully voice our concerns without any superstition or fear about the complex numbers. We know "complex" does not mean "complicated" as in "difficult," but rather, the term implies "augmented." The union of two similar but independent parts forms a "complex," a complex number. OK, with that caveat stated, we can proceed.

Finally, I'll reiterate the complex-number thought-problem with Schrodinger's equation: we axiomatically assume a monotonic (entropic) time evolution in quantum mechanics. Schrodinger's equation is often written with the time-forward energy on the left and the Hamiltonian operator on the right (of the equality). This mathematical statement requires the time-evolution of energy from "real" to "imaginary." The rotation thus implied neglects the reciprocity of nature. This is a diffusion/heat equation rather than a wave equation. Though time appears irreversible to us (as it must, according to the causal biophysics of memory - the anthropic principle), how can we forbid its reversal? Can we really believe nature is non-reciprocal at a fundamental level? If energy is conserved, and yet we allow it to flow, we ought admit the ebb solution.

The world once was believed flat, but science and exploration found its great circle. If time is presently believed monotonic, when will we look for a great circle?

report post as inappropriate

First, I suggest a small but very important correction to your statement, "imaginary numbers have no natural ordering." You must mean, "*complex* numbers have no natural ordering." Purely imaginary numbers alone cannot be distinguished from the purely real numbers without a rotation operator or some relation enforcing independence; thus, taken alone, they are ordered. A physical problem gives meaning to the symmetry. Refer to the dispersion and attenuation of x-rays for an example.

Second, I sympathize with your concern regarding the treatment of the complex numbers in quantum mechanics. However, your complaint gives a superficial appearance by your reference to "complicated." It sounds as though you are complaining about difficulty rather than validity. On the contrary, I did read your PDF note, and I believe you are "on to something," perhaps the same thing at which I am digging... read on.

Third, we must carefully voice our concerns without any superstition or fear about the complex numbers. We know "complex" does not mean "complicated" as in "difficult," but rather, the term implies "augmented." The union of two similar but independent parts forms a "complex," a complex number. OK, with that caveat stated, we can proceed.

Finally, I'll reiterate the complex-number thought-problem with Schrodinger's equation: we axiomatically assume a monotonic (entropic) time evolution in quantum mechanics. Schrodinger's equation is often written with the time-forward energy on the left and the Hamiltonian operator on the right (of the equality). This mathematical statement requires the time-evolution of energy from "real" to "imaginary." The rotation thus implied neglects the reciprocity of nature. This is a diffusion/heat equation rather than a wave equation. Though time appears irreversible to us (as it must, according to the causal biophysics of memory - the anthropic principle), how can we forbid its reversal? Can we really believe nature is non-reciprocal at a fundamental level? If energy is conserved, and yet we allow it to flow, we ought admit the ebb solution.

The world once was believed flat, but science and exploration found its great circle. If time is presently believed monotonic, when will we look for a great circle?

report post as inappropriate

Ryan in the block universe “matter-energy(of space)” energy transformation “matter-space-matter-space-matter” is in a permanent dynamic equilibrium. Universe is a timeless perpetual system where time is only a measure of energy transfer. “Back” and “forward” does not exist in the universe, time has no an arrow. Sure events are irreversible, you cannot go back, but you can also not go forward because time is not part of the space, time is only a measure of events running in space.

attachments: ITT_Phenomena__Sorli_209.pdf

report post as inappropriate

attachments: ITT_Phenomena__Sorli_209.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Ryan,

I already replied to your objections on Jan. 22, 2009 @ 00:33 GMT here:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/295

Saying unnecessarily complicated was word play. Complaining about the difficulty? Ryan have you studied the standard model? The theory needs simplifying. Imaginary numbers waste time (again that is word play).

Complex numbers and purely imaginary numbers do not have a natural ordering. If you must use rotation I suggest a review of the unit circle as well as cylindrical and spherical coordinates.

The dispersion and attenuation of x-rays is electromagnetic theory and quantum mechanics was created to resolve the ultraviolet catastrophe and to explain the photoelectric effect. The theory still retains much of its classical electromagnetic formalism and not surprisingly QED is very successful, however, it entirely fails to explain gravity.

I am pleased to see that you are approaching the problem using quantum statistics.

Brian

report post as inappropriate

I already replied to your objections on Jan. 22, 2009 @ 00:33 GMT here:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/295

Saying unnecessarily complicated was word play. Complaining about the difficulty? Ryan have you studied the standard model? The theory needs simplifying. Imaginary numbers waste time (again that is word play).

Complex numbers and purely imaginary numbers do not have a natural ordering. If you must use rotation I suggest a review of the unit circle as well as cylindrical and spherical coordinates.

The dispersion and attenuation of x-rays is electromagnetic theory and quantum mechanics was created to resolve the ultraviolet catastrophe and to explain the photoelectric effect. The theory still retains much of its classical electromagnetic formalism and not surprisingly QED is very successful, however, it entirely fails to explain gravity.

I am pleased to see that you are approaching the problem using quantum statistics.

Brian

report post as inappropriate

An arrow is a lethal quantum of action. It is a distant action but not a spooky one. Let's consider two two simultaneously shot bullets, one with positive "spin" the other one with negative. They have a good chance to coexist for some coherence length. However, I doubt that they might be suited to build a computer with the promised extraordinary performance. At least, I have no idea how to individually steer bullets in flight, while I recall claims that quantum computer are available. If I recall correctly, then they were announced already a few years ago.

If Jonathan Downing has still enough power as to make sure that all seven of his inventions are on job, and he also resolved the enigma of cat and donkey, then I would appreciate him to explain to me what is wrong with single electron counting in the PRL 1997 paper by Gompf et al. I pointed to elsewhere.

report post as inappropriate

If Jonathan Downing has still enough power as to make sure that all seven of his inventions are on job, and he also resolved the enigma of cat and donkey, then I would appreciate him to explain to me what is wrong with single electron counting in the PRL 1997 paper by Gompf et al. I pointed to elsewhere.

report post as inappropriate

Amrit and anyone else who thinks that time has no "arrow",

According to the Prime quaternion model subjective time most definitely has direction. All macroscopic objects are in continuous motion along the 4th dimension of the quaternion spatio-energetic continuum. This motion gives rise to subjective time, gravity and creation of matter at all scales. There is no stopping or going in reverse because this motion also holds all matter together. This motion can also be considered as decrease in potential energy of the matter of the objective universe.It is this decrease of potential energy and corresponding increase in mass energy of the universe that gives the arrow of time. The objective universe is increasing in order and complexity not entropy.

In objective reality there are only 4- spatio energetic dimensions. There is no time dimension, only the 4th dimension which is scalar from our 3D vector space perspective due to the way in which all matter moves along it.

Sub atomic particles can move within space defined by all 4 spatio-energetic dimension including afore and aft-ward along the 4th dimension. They do not follow the direction of the "arrow of time". Since the 4th dimension has been considered the time dimension this continues to causes difficulty to quantum physicist.

The prime quaternion model solves the time travel paradox, explains gravity , gives an explanation for the creation of matter at all scales, explains the origin and fate of the universe, gives an alternative explanation for black holes and dark matter, explains the arrow of time. There is no other current model that can be used to explain all of the fundamental questions in physics. It also solves "the Zeno of Eleas paradoxes".

report post as inappropriate

According to the Prime quaternion model subjective time most definitely has direction. All macroscopic objects are in continuous motion along the 4th dimension of the quaternion spatio-energetic continuum. This motion gives rise to subjective time, gravity and creation of matter at all scales. There is no stopping or going in reverse because this motion also holds all matter together. This motion can also be considered as decrease in potential energy of the matter of the objective universe.It is this decrease of potential energy and corresponding increase in mass energy of the universe that gives the arrow of time. The objective universe is increasing in order and complexity not entropy.

In objective reality there are only 4- spatio energetic dimensions. There is no time dimension, only the 4th dimension which is scalar from our 3D vector space perspective due to the way in which all matter moves along it.

Sub atomic particles can move within space defined by all 4 spatio-energetic dimension including afore and aft-ward along the 4th dimension. They do not follow the direction of the "arrow of time". Since the 4th dimension has been considered the time dimension this continues to causes difficulty to quantum physicist.

The prime quaternion model solves the time travel paradox, explains gravity , gives an explanation for the creation of matter at all scales, explains the origin and fate of the universe, gives an alternative explanation for black holes and dark matter, explains the arrow of time. There is no other current model that can be used to explain all of the fundamental questions in physics. It also solves "the Zeno of Eleas paradoxes".

report post as inappropriate

Georgina,

today in physics there are two fundamental approaches to time. The first and most common approach says we use clocks to measure the time component of space-time, space and time being confounded as the basis of physical reality. However this approach has no experimental support. There is no evidence whatsoever that clocks measure one aspect of space-time, and in truth we cannot observe space-time at all. The second approach here presented says time is merely run of clocks in space. This approach is supported by experiment and observation that clocks are running in space only and not in time. With clocks we measure duration and numerical order of motion of elementary particles in space. Elementary particles motion is directly interconnected with clocks run. And thus we must assert that the true basis of fundamental reality is space and motion of particles and massive bodies rather than space-time. Space-time is mathematical model merely and time is run of clocks in space.

yours amrit

attachments: DIRECT_INTERCONNECTION_BETWEEN.pdf

report post as inappropriate

today in physics there are two fundamental approaches to time. The first and most common approach says we use clocks to measure the time component of space-time, space and time being confounded as the basis of physical reality. However this approach has no experimental support. There is no evidence whatsoever that clocks measure one aspect of space-time, and in truth we cannot observe space-time at all. The second approach here presented says time is merely run of clocks in space. This approach is supported by experiment and observation that clocks are running in space only and not in time. With clocks we measure duration and numerical order of motion of elementary particles in space. Elementary particles motion is directly interconnected with clocks run. And thus we must assert that the true basis of fundamental reality is space and motion of particles and massive bodies rather than space-time. Space-time is mathematical model merely and time is run of clocks in space.

yours amrit

attachments: DIRECT_INTERCONNECTION_BETWEEN.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.