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.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

Previous Contests

**Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest**

*December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020*

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

read/discuss • winners

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

*Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation*

read/discuss • winners

**Wandering Towards a Goal**

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

*December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017*

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

**Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics**

*Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation*

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

**How Should Humanity Steer the Future?**

*January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014*

*Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Current Essay Contest

Previous Contests

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

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

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

**Emmanuel Moulay**: *on* 3/20/11 at 6:38am UTC, wrote Dear Florin, I have written a new version of my essay available online...

**Emmanuel Moulay**: *on* 3/16/11 at 2:53am UTC, wrote Dear Constantinos, OK I agree. Good luck for the contest. Emmanuel

**Constantinos Ragazas**: *on* 3/15/11 at 14:08pm UTC, wrote Dear Emmanuel, Check the equations more closely. What you are pointing to...

**Emmanuel Moulay**: *on* 3/15/11 at 12:56pm UTC, wrote Dear Constantinos, Concerning your paper “If the Speed of Light is a...

**Constantinos Ragazas**: *on* 3/14/11 at 18:14pm UTC, wrote Dear Emmanuel, You write, “I don’t understand what your eta is.” ...

**Emmanuel Moulay**: *on* 3/14/11 at 15:38pm UTC, wrote Dear Constantinos, I don’t understand what your eta is. But I am not...

**Emmanuel Moulay**: *on* 3/14/11 at 12:26pm UTC, wrote Dear Phil, Thank you for your interesting remark. In a new version of my...

**Constantinos Ragazas**: *on* 3/13/11 at 23:58pm UTC, wrote Hello Emmanuel, I find your idea of photons as being the fundamental...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Dr Narayan Bhadra**: "STRUCTURE FORMATIONS OF BIOMOLECULES We study a Nano-Structural..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Steve Dufourny**: "Hi Jim,hope you are well, You could be interested to read some papers on..."
*in* The Nature of Time

**Javier Soto del Valle**: "As Arieh Ben-Naim [1] says, time does not appear in entropy expressions...."
*in* First Things First: The...

**Jim Snowdon**: "Picture a single photon moving in space? Where on the photon does time..."
*in* The Quantum Clock-Maker...

**Jim Snowdon**: "Good Morning Steve! Happy New Year! I can hardly wait..."
*in* The Nature of Time

**Steve Dufourny**: "Hi, Esa, Nasa, WB, UN ,All governments, the royal famillies, the..."
*in* Global Collaboration

**Nicholas hosein**: "Iwrote the above when I had perfect clarity."
*in* Good Vibrations

**Steve Dufourny**: "Dr Chiang, I am understanding. These quars , antiquarks, gluons personally..."
*in* Anatomy of spacetime and...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**Good Vibrations**

Microbead 'motor' exploits natural fluctuations for power.

**Reconstructing Physics**

New photon experiment gives new meta-framework, 'constructor theory,' a boost.

**The Quantum Engineer: Q&A with Alexia Auffèves**

Experiments seek to use quantum observations as fuel to power mini motors.

**The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI**

Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

**Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel**

'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Microbead 'motor' exploits natural fluctuations for power.

New photon experiment gives new meta-framework, 'constructor theory,' a boost.

Experiments seek to use quantum observations as fuel to power mini motors.

Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

FQXi FORUM

January 26, 2022

CATEGORY:
Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011)
[back]

TOPIC: The Universe and Photons by Emmanuel Moulay [refresh]

TOPIC: The Universe and Photons by Emmanuel Moulay [refresh]

In this report, we show that the photon can be the most fundamental element of the universe. Many results, based on well-established physical theories, support this assumption. The conclusion of this essay is that the universe can be both discrete and continuous at the most fundamental level.

Emmanuel Moulay is a CNRS researcher at the Xlim laboratory at the University of Poitiers in France. He received his PhD from the University of Lille and the Ecole Centrale de Lille in 2005. He works in Automatic Control and Applied Mathematics.

Emmanuel,

I especially liked your "metaphor of the cylinder" and the Einstein quote. I have one question. You wrote "This theory provides a solution to the problem of quantum gravity...". Did I miss something. What exactly was the solution and how do you use it to answer some of the open fundamental questions?

Good luck in the contest.

Dan Benedict

report post as inappropriate

I especially liked your "metaphor of the cylinder" and the Einstein quote. I have one question. You wrote "This theory provides a solution to the problem of quantum gravity...". Did I miss something. What exactly was the solution and how do you use it to answer some of the open fundamental questions?

Good luck in the contest.

Dan Benedict

report post as inappropriate

Dear Emmanuel,

You state: "For a very high temperature, quarks could behave like free particles. Then, gluons are freed from the grip of quarks and become photons."

The first sentence is true. The second one is false. Gluons are not photons because they carry the strong force charge, while photons do not carry any electric charges. As such electromagnetism is an Abelian theory based on U(1), while the strong force is a non-Abelian theory (based on SU(3)).

Please feel free to rebut the point above.

report post as inappropriate

You state: "For a very high temperature, quarks could behave like free particles. Then, gluons are freed from the grip of quarks and become photons."

The first sentence is true. The second one is false. Gluons are not photons because they carry the strong force charge, while photons do not carry any electric charges. As such electromagnetism is an Abelian theory based on U(1), while the strong force is a non-Abelian theory (based on SU(3)).

Please feel free to rebut the point above.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Florin,

I have written a new version of my essay available online http://cel.archives-ouvertes.fr/cel-00530098. I tried to correct some mistakes and among them the one you pointed out by using the suggestion of Cristi Stoica. If we have enough energy then we can obtain weak and strong bosons by using pair productions in two photon collisions. But physicists want to know why we have Lie groups SU(2) for the weak force and SU(3) for the strong force. In order to have stable particles and interactions, I think that it implies symmetries. Several years ago, physicists thought that these symmetries were fundamental and they tried to unify all interactions in SU(5) but they failed due to the stability of protons. Today, there is a new attempt with the Lie group E8 with the “Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything” of Antony Garrett Lisi. But I think that symmetries are a consequence of the need of stability and not the inverse. Today, the Grand Unified Theory seems to be difficult because the coupling constants of the tree interactions (electromagnetic weak and strong) do not converge to a single point. Concerning the masses of the elementary particles, I now think that they are defined relative to photons. The problem of the Higgs boson is that even if it explains the mass of the elementary particles (defined as a stable product of an elementary pair production in two photon collisions), there is the problem of its own mass. Moreover it does not give a definition for the elementary particles.

Emmanuel

I have written a new version of my essay available online http://cel.archives-ouvertes.fr/cel-00530098. I tried to correct some mistakes and among them the one you pointed out by using the suggestion of Cristi Stoica. If we have enough energy then we can obtain weak and strong bosons by using pair productions in two photon collisions. But physicists want to know why we have Lie groups SU(2) for the weak force and SU(3) for the strong force. In order to have stable particles and interactions, I think that it implies symmetries. Several years ago, physicists thought that these symmetries were fundamental and they tried to unify all interactions in SU(5) but they failed due to the stability of protons. Today, there is a new attempt with the Lie group E8 with the “Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything” of Antony Garrett Lisi. But I think that symmetries are a consequence of the need of stability and not the inverse. Today, the Grand Unified Theory seems to be difficult because the coupling constants of the tree interactions (electromagnetic weak and strong) do not converge to a single point. Concerning the masses of the elementary particles, I now think that they are defined relative to photons. The problem of the Higgs boson is that even if it explains the mass of the elementary particles (defined as a stable product of an elementary pair production in two photon collisions), there is the problem of its own mass. Moreover it does not give a definition for the elementary particles.

Emmanuel

Dear Dan and Florin,

Thank you very much for your comments.

First, I answer the question of Florin. Gluons have no electric charge but a color charge. Photons have neither electric charge nor color charge. Actually, your question deals with the strong symmetry breaking in this framework. The Higgs mechanism, which is the electroweak symmetry breaking, explains the generation of masses for the W±, and Z weak gauge bosons and thus the difference between photons and the weak gauge bosons. Definitely, we need a new mechanism to explain why gluons have a color charge (when interacting with quarks) contrary to photons in the framework of this essay. This refers to the problem of the strong symmetry breaking. I agree that the sentence "Then, gluons are freed from the grip of quarks and become photons." is not clear.

Dan, the fact that the photon can be the most fundamental element in the universe is an assumption. I try to explain some consequences of this assumption. Photons are described by the Quantum mechanics and play a large part in the theory of the General Relativity with the speed of light and the stress–energy tensor. If the photon is the most fundamental element of the universe, it means that the universe is discrete and continuous at the most fundamental level due to the wave particle duality. If photons can explain the 4 fundamental interactions, we don’t need to put together the Quantum mechanics and the General relativity. Nevertheless, we have to explain the beginning of the universe with this fundamental element and this is the purpose of the first section "Photons and the Big Bang". Thank you for your encouragement.

Emmanuel Moulay

Thank you very much for your comments.

First, I answer the question of Florin. Gluons have no electric charge but a color charge. Photons have neither electric charge nor color charge. Actually, your question deals with the strong symmetry breaking in this framework. The Higgs mechanism, which is the electroweak symmetry breaking, explains the generation of masses for the W±, and Z weak gauge bosons and thus the difference between photons and the weak gauge bosons. Definitely, we need a new mechanism to explain why gluons have a color charge (when interacting with quarks) contrary to photons in the framework of this essay. This refers to the problem of the strong symmetry breaking. I agree that the sentence "Then, gluons are freed from the grip of quarks and become photons." is not clear.

Dan, the fact that the photon can be the most fundamental element in the universe is an assumption. I try to explain some consequences of this assumption. Photons are described by the Quantum mechanics and play a large part in the theory of the General Relativity with the speed of light and the stress–energy tensor. If the photon is the most fundamental element of the universe, it means that the universe is discrete and continuous at the most fundamental level due to the wave particle duality. If photons can explain the 4 fundamental interactions, we don’t need to put together the Quantum mechanics and the General relativity. Nevertheless, we have to explain the beginning of the universe with this fundamental element and this is the purpose of the first section "Photons and the Big Bang". Thank you for your encouragement.

Emmanuel Moulay

Dear Emmanuel,

I have read your paper and find it very inspiring, especially the way you look at the wave-particle duality. You have used the metaphor of the cylinder in order to illustrate this dualism. You are showing how an object like a cylinder can reflect two apparently irreconcilable geometrical shapes of a circle and of a rectangle without being neither a circle nor a a rectangle.

I am studying the archetypal structure of the Mandala, in which a circle and a square are closely entangled. To my opinion this archetypal structure describes light at the most fundamental level of the universe. It dualistic structure implies a surprising feature: If the Mandala is truly a fundamental blueprint of the universe then light does not only act in two different ways, as far as the speed of light c is concerned there are two geometrical faces as well: a circle and a square. Both geometrical matrices are quite different but they are parametrized in the same way: c = 1. And just this conspirational aspect makes it so difficult to recognize this hidden aspect of light. (About the Dual Parametrization of c)

May be you will find this idea inspiring as well.

Good Luck in the contest

Helmut

report post as inappropriate

I have read your paper and find it very inspiring, especially the way you look at the wave-particle duality. You have used the metaphor of the cylinder in order to illustrate this dualism. You are showing how an object like a cylinder can reflect two apparently irreconcilable geometrical shapes of a circle and of a rectangle without being neither a circle nor a a rectangle.

I am studying the archetypal structure of the Mandala, in which a circle and a square are closely entangled. To my opinion this archetypal structure describes light at the most fundamental level of the universe. It dualistic structure implies a surprising feature: If the Mandala is truly a fundamental blueprint of the universe then light does not only act in two different ways, as far as the speed of light c is concerned there are two geometrical faces as well: a circle and a square. Both geometrical matrices are quite different but they are parametrized in the same way: c = 1. And just this conspirational aspect makes it so difficult to recognize this hidden aspect of light. (About the Dual Parametrization of c)

May be you will find this idea inspiring as well.

Good Luck in the contest

Helmut

report post as inappropriate

Dear Emmanuel,

"dixitque Deus fiat lux et facta est lux"

I understand that you consider the photon to be the most fundamental in the following sense:

- it was the first type of particle, created from the initial singularity by Hawking radiation, and as a sign of this process you refer to the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation

- fermions (including baryon-antibaryon pairs) occurred from photons, via "pair production in two-photon collisions". You argue correctly that, although today we mostly see pair annihilation, somewhere around the Big Bang the conditions favored pair creation enough to obtain fermionic matter.

I understand that when you say that the photon is the most fundamental, you mean that it precedes "historically" other particles, not that it is structurally speaking more fundamental. That is, you do not claim that the electrons are constituded somehow from photons (Louis de Broglie adopted the opposite view, that the photon is composed of two fermions).

- around the Big Bang before the electroweak symmetry was broken, you say that "if the temperature is high enough, the bosons W^{±} and Z^{0} become photons". You also say "gluons become photons when the temperature reaches a threshold higher than the electroweak symmetry breaking threshold". For these, you refer to Weinberg's book.

Here I confess that, like Florin, I cannot see how the W^{±}, Z^{0} and gluons were photons. But maybe there is no need for them to be so, as they could be obtained by pair creation just like the fermions.

- to explain the gravity and spacetime geometry as in general relativity, you say "Space and time are measured relative to photons."

- to explain quantum mechanics, you say "If the photon is the most fundamental element in the universe, then it explains the wave-particle duality of matter and it implies that the universe is both continuous and discrete at the most fundamental level."

I agree that the photon has in its blood the laws of quantum theory and relativity. I find difficult to understand which one is the chicken and which one is the egg, to paraphrase you.

Your essay is interesting and pleasant to read. Good luck.

Best regards,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

"dixitque Deus fiat lux et facta est lux"

I understand that you consider the photon to be the most fundamental in the following sense:

- it was the first type of particle, created from the initial singularity by Hawking radiation, and as a sign of this process you refer to the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation

- fermions (including baryon-antibaryon pairs) occurred from photons, via "pair production in two-photon collisions". You argue correctly that, although today we mostly see pair annihilation, somewhere around the Big Bang the conditions favored pair creation enough to obtain fermionic matter.

I understand that when you say that the photon is the most fundamental, you mean that it precedes "historically" other particles, not that it is structurally speaking more fundamental. That is, you do not claim that the electrons are constituded somehow from photons (Louis de Broglie adopted the opposite view, that the photon is composed of two fermions).

- around the Big Bang before the electroweak symmetry was broken, you say that "if the temperature is high enough, the bosons W

Here I confess that, like Florin, I cannot see how the W

- to explain the gravity and spacetime geometry as in general relativity, you say "Space and time are measured relative to photons."

- to explain quantum mechanics, you say "If the photon is the most fundamental element in the universe, then it explains the wave-particle duality of matter and it implies that the universe is both continuous and discrete at the most fundamental level."

I agree that the photon has in its blood the laws of quantum theory and relativity. I find difficult to understand which one is the chicken and which one is the egg, to paraphrase you.

Your essay is interesting and pleasant to read. Good luck.

Best regards,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Dear Cristi,

Thank you very much for your interesting comments and summary of my essay. I would like to clarify two things.

The first one is that the Hawking radiation is not supposed to be made of photons only but of general radiations. Thus, we can imagine that some particles as electron can emerge from the horizon of black holes. Nevertheless, it is probably impossible for the Planck horizon due to the conservation laws. Indeed, if an electron goes out of a black hole, it implies that the black hole have a charge that changes. If there is a first original radiation at the Planck epoch, it cannot be charged due to the conservation laws and because the Planck horizon does not cut the space in two, like horizons of black holes. For these reasons, I think that photons are a good candidate to be at the origin of a first radiation that removes the initial singularity.

The second one concerns the gauge bosons. To my mind, gauge bosons were more an evolution of photons due to the symmetry breakings than a stable product of pair productions. Nevertheless, with your point of view, we can define a fundamental particle (boson and fermion) as the stable product of a pair production in two-photon collisions. The stability of reactions depends on the temperature, as proposed with the symmetry breakings. Definitely, this is a good suggestion compatible with the Feynman diagrams.

Emmanuel

Thank you very much for your interesting comments and summary of my essay. I would like to clarify two things.

The first one is that the Hawking radiation is not supposed to be made of photons only but of general radiations. Thus, we can imagine that some particles as electron can emerge from the horizon of black holes. Nevertheless, it is probably impossible for the Planck horizon due to the conservation laws. Indeed, if an electron goes out of a black hole, it implies that the black hole have a charge that changes. If there is a first original radiation at the Planck epoch, it cannot be charged due to the conservation laws and because the Planck horizon does not cut the space in two, like horizons of black holes. For these reasons, I think that photons are a good candidate to be at the origin of a first radiation that removes the initial singularity.

The second one concerns the gauge bosons. To my mind, gauge bosons were more an evolution of photons due to the symmetry breakings than a stable product of pair productions. Nevertheless, with your point of view, we can define a fundamental particle (boson and fermion) as the stable product of a pair production in two-photon collisions. The stability of reactions depends on the temperature, as proposed with the symmetry breakings. Definitely, this is a good suggestion compatible with the Feynman diagrams.

Emmanuel

Dear Emmanuel,

thanks for the clarifications. The first one answered to one concern I had about the preference for photons in the primordial radiation in your model. I find your explanation very ingenious.

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

thanks for the clarifications. The first one answered to one concern I had about the preference for photons in the primordial radiation in your model. I find your explanation very ingenious.

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Hi dear Christi and dear Emmanuel,

Congratulations for this beautiful papper Emmanuel and your explainations,like says Christi,it is pleasant to read also.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Congratulations for this beautiful papper Emmanuel and your explainations,like says Christi,it is pleasant to read also.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Dear Emmanuel,

Of all 7 essays displayed to December 22, your essay is the most "physical", it is a true example of independent research; Although I don't agree that photon can be the most fundamental element of the universe. All particles are equal in rights, why photon must have advantages concerning other particles? It is violation of symmetry. Also your example of wave-particle duality as "The metaphor of the cylinder" is very new and original.

Sincerely

Constantin

report post as inappropriate

Of all 7 essays displayed to December 22, your essay is the most "physical", it is a true example of independent research; Although I don't agree that photon can be the most fundamental element of the universe. All particles are equal in rights, why photon must have advantages concerning other particles? It is violation of symmetry. Also your example of wave-particle duality as "The metaphor of the cylinder" is very new and original.

Sincerely

Constantin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Emmanuel,

what do you mean by "photons remove the initial singularity"?

Do you mean that the singularity doesn't exist because is balanced somehow by a pressure due to the photon field, or that it evaporates into photons?

Thanks,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

what do you mean by "photons remove the initial singularity"?

Do you mean that the singularity doesn't exist because is balanced somehow by a pressure due to the photon field, or that it evaporates into photons?

Thanks,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Dear Cristi,

This is a key point of the essay. To answer to this question, we have to come back to the foundations of the General Relativity and time. The General Relativity stipulates that we live on a four dimensional Lorentzian manifold whose metric, which is the link between the time variable and the space variables, is a solution of the Einstein field equations. What is exactly this time variable? I have written an eprint available here http://cel.archives-ouvertes.fr/cel-00511837 where I try to explain that the time variable represents the possibility of motion for the matter relative to the speed of light (which is the possibility of motion of photons) along the geodesics defined by a metric. If there are photons only at the Planck epoch, the meaning of the time variable falls down due to the fact that photons have no proper time. I agree that it is always possible to calculate the solutions of the Einstein field equations for a large quantity of energy, but the time variable has no meaning with photons only. It is exactly as if you calculate the solution of a differential equation describing the evolution of the quantity of fish on a planet which has no water at the beginning of its evolution. In a certain kind, I think that the physical reality of photons can protect us again the initial mathematical singularity of the Einstein field equations.

Emmanuel

This is a key point of the essay. To answer to this question, we have to come back to the foundations of the General Relativity and time. The General Relativity stipulates that we live on a four dimensional Lorentzian manifold whose metric, which is the link between the time variable and the space variables, is a solution of the Einstein field equations. What is exactly this time variable? I have written an eprint available here http://cel.archives-ouvertes.fr/cel-00511837 where I try to explain that the time variable represents the possibility of motion for the matter relative to the speed of light (which is the possibility of motion of photons) along the geodesics defined by a metric. If there are photons only at the Planck epoch, the meaning of the time variable falls down due to the fact that photons have no proper time. I agree that it is always possible to calculate the solutions of the Einstein field equations for a large quantity of energy, but the time variable has no meaning with photons only. It is exactly as if you calculate the solution of a differential equation describing the evolution of the quantity of fish on a planet which has no water at the beginning of its evolution. In a certain kind, I think that the physical reality of photons can protect us again the initial mathematical singularity of the Einstein field equations.

Emmanuel

Dear Emmanuel,

the eprint you mention would have been a good entry for the first FQXi contest. Thanks for your explanations.

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

the eprint you mention would have been a good entry for the first FQXi contest. Thanks for your explanations.

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Dear Emmanuel,

I have reread your essay and the eprint mentioned above and I agree with Cristi that your eprint would have been a excellent entry to the first contest and especially enjoyed the simplicity and clarity of your definition of time. I also believe that the ideas from both of your papers complement some of my own. I will be finishing my essay in the next week or two and I hope you will seek it out, since I would value your opinion. I am addressing the issue from a fundamental cosmological viewpoint and I believe that you may find some of the conclusions interesting.

Dan

report post as inappropriate

I have reread your essay and the eprint mentioned above and I agree with Cristi that your eprint would have been a excellent entry to the first contest and especially enjoyed the simplicity and clarity of your definition of time. I also believe that the ideas from both of your papers complement some of my own. I will be finishing my essay in the next week or two and I hope you will seek it out, since I would value your opinion. I am addressing the issue from a fundamental cosmological viewpoint and I believe that you may find some of the conclusions interesting.

Dan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dan,

Your post is very important. Indeed, the notion of time is fundamental in order to develop a physical theory. We have to come back to an old debate between Albert Einstein and Ernst Mach concerning the relativity. Ernst Mach thought that all was relative (speed but also acceleration) whereas Einstein has postulated that all is relative with respect to the speed of light and thus nothing can go faster than the speed of light. For another reason, Albert Einstein has introduced the notion of light quanta: the photon. Concerning time, there is a similar debate. You can think that time is totally relative (see the fantastic book of Julian Barbour “The End of Time”) or you can think, as me, that time is defined relative to the speed of light. I have developed this idea and I have given a definition of time: “The time coordinate ct represents the possibility of motion for the matter relative to the speed of light c along the geodesics defined by a metric g” (see http://cel.archives-ouvertes.fr/cel-00511837) and then time comes from the time coordinate but it is not a fundamental variable of the General Relativity. Then I have tried to extend the idea of relativity with respect to photons to the fundamental particles. Actually, you can obtain all the fundamental particles starting with photons only, as an evolution of photons depending on the temperature (see the previous posts). Somehow, the fundamental particles are defined relative to photons (I have made a mistake concerning the bosons corrected by Cristi). The next step was to postulate that the fundamental element in the universe is the photon. This is a very different philosophy than the one of the Quantum Gravity, but this is the same goal. The last step is to see if there is a problem with the initial singularity. To my mind, this problem can be compared with the Hawking radiation. If you have only photons at the boundary of the Planck epoch, and with the previous definition of time, the notion of time falls down. Indeed, the notion of time starts with the first pair production at the boundary of the Planck epoch. The Planck area is well defined with known particles: the photons, but there is no time and thus the motion is not defined.

I will read your essay with pleasure.

Emmanuel

Your post is very important. Indeed, the notion of time is fundamental in order to develop a physical theory. We have to come back to an old debate between Albert Einstein and Ernst Mach concerning the relativity. Ernst Mach thought that all was relative (speed but also acceleration) whereas Einstein has postulated that all is relative with respect to the speed of light and thus nothing can go faster than the speed of light. For another reason, Albert Einstein has introduced the notion of light quanta: the photon. Concerning time, there is a similar debate. You can think that time is totally relative (see the fantastic book of Julian Barbour “The End of Time”) or you can think, as me, that time is defined relative to the speed of light. I have developed this idea and I have given a definition of time: “The time coordinate ct represents the possibility of motion for the matter relative to the speed of light c along the geodesics defined by a metric g” (see http://cel.archives-ouvertes.fr/cel-00511837) and then time comes from the time coordinate but it is not a fundamental variable of the General Relativity. Then I have tried to extend the idea of relativity with respect to photons to the fundamental particles. Actually, you can obtain all the fundamental particles starting with photons only, as an evolution of photons depending on the temperature (see the previous posts). Somehow, the fundamental particles are defined relative to photons (I have made a mistake concerning the bosons corrected by Cristi). The next step was to postulate that the fundamental element in the universe is the photon. This is a very different philosophy than the one of the Quantum Gravity, but this is the same goal. The last step is to see if there is a problem with the initial singularity. To my mind, this problem can be compared with the Hawking radiation. If you have only photons at the boundary of the Planck epoch, and with the previous definition of time, the notion of time falls down. Indeed, the notion of time starts with the first pair production at the boundary of the Planck epoch. The Planck area is well defined with known particles: the photons, but there is no time and thus the motion is not defined.

I will read your essay with pleasure.

Emmanuel

Dear Emanuel Moulay,

You explained that time travel is impossible. However, I looked in vain for an explanation for the direction chicken-egg-chicken-egg. Admittedly, I am not familiar with some mathematical notions, for instance nabla in the sense of Levi-Civita connection.

You called General Relativity most fundamental. Sorry, I would like to disagree: Fundamental to it is perhaps what you referred to as the Lorentzian metric signature (n-1,1). Can you please point me to convincing evidence that supports it? So far I looked into some original papers by Voigt, Heaviside, FitzGerald, Lodge, Larmor, Lorentz, Poincaré, Einstein 1905, and Minkowski.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

You explained that time travel is impossible. However, I looked in vain for an explanation for the direction chicken-egg-chicken-egg. Admittedly, I am not familiar with some mathematical notions, for instance nabla in the sense of Levi-Civita connection.

You called General Relativity most fundamental. Sorry, I would like to disagree: Fundamental to it is perhaps what you referred to as the Lorentzian metric signature (n-1,1). Can you please point me to convincing evidence that supports it? So far I looked into some original papers by Voigt, Heaviside, FitzGerald, Lodge, Larmor, Lorentz, Poincaré, Einstein 1905, and Minkowski.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard,

In physics, proofs come from experiments, contrary to Mathematics. Thus, you obtain that a theory is checked with a certain degree of precision. Concerning the General Relativity, there are many papers showing that this theory is checked with a huge degree of precision (see for instance the works of Holger Müller at Berkeley).

Concerning the time travel, you have to define what time is. Based on the General Relativity, I have developed the idea that time is not fundamental in the General Relativity and comes from the time variable. The time variable represents the possibility of motion for the matter (the matter is all non zero mass objects) relative to the speed of light. Then, time comes from the possibility of motion. It is strange but there is no arrow of time at the fundamental level, only motions relative to the speed of light (or relative to photons which are the light quanta). Nevertheless, due to the second law of thermodynamics, some motions are not allowed. With this point of view, the time travel makes no sense. This is the motion relative to photons which is fundamental, not time, as usually defined.

Emmanuel

In physics, proofs come from experiments, contrary to Mathematics. Thus, you obtain that a theory is checked with a certain degree of precision. Concerning the General Relativity, there are many papers showing that this theory is checked with a huge degree of precision (see for instance the works of Holger Müller at Berkeley).

Concerning the time travel, you have to define what time is. Based on the General Relativity, I have developed the idea that time is not fundamental in the General Relativity and comes from the time variable. The time variable represents the possibility of motion for the matter (the matter is all non zero mass objects) relative to the speed of light. Then, time comes from the possibility of motion. It is strange but there is no arrow of time at the fundamental level, only motions relative to the speed of light (or relative to photons which are the light quanta). Nevertheless, due to the second law of thermodynamics, some motions are not allowed. With this point of view, the time travel makes no sense. This is the motion relative to photons which is fundamental, not time, as usually defined.

Emmanuel

Hi ,

Indeed it's impossible to travel in time, the time is purelly irreversible and constant.The space time of Eisntein is an evolutive system where the localities respect the constant.

It's not a real dimension and furthermore the extradimensions do not exists like tachyons.

The strings imply so many confusions.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Indeed it's impossible to travel in time, the time is purelly irreversible and constant.The space time of Eisntein is an evolutive system where the localities respect the constant.

It's not a real dimension and furthermore the extradimensions do not exists like tachyons.

The strings imply so many confusions.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Dear Emmanuel,

I apologize for misspelling your name. You pointed me to http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2010/02/17_gravi

tational_redshift.shtml

Well, confirmation of predictions is indeed a necessary precondition for at least partial correctness of a theory. However, I maintain my objection against the claim that the whole theory of relativity is fundamental on a sound theoretical basis, and am reiterating my desire to learn convincing arguments for Lorentz transformation. Do not get me wrong. I have no reason to distrust the limitation for the speed of propagating electromagnetic waves. I just see flaws in some theories, and I wonder why there is apparently no way to unify them.

I asked for the direction of time, and you wrote "It is strange but there is no arrow of time at the fundamental level". Do you agree with Schulman? I quoted him in my earlier essays 369 or 527.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

I apologize for misspelling your name. You pointed me to http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2010/02/17_gravi

tational_redshift.shtml

Well, confirmation of predictions is indeed a necessary precondition for at least partial correctness of a theory. However, I maintain my objection against the claim that the whole theory of relativity is fundamental on a sound theoretical basis, and am reiterating my desire to learn convincing arguments for Lorentz transformation. Do not get me wrong. I have no reason to distrust the limitation for the speed of propagating electromagnetic waves. I just see flaws in some theories, and I wonder why there is apparently no way to unify them.

I asked for the direction of time, and you wrote "It is strange but there is no arrow of time at the fundamental level". Do you agree with Schulman? I quoted him in my earlier essays 369 or 527.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard,

I am not sure to understand what you mean. The Lorentz transformation is the mathematical way to explain how the speed of light was observed to be independent of the reference frame in the Special Relativity. I don't see any flaw in this theory. You can read the initial work of Henri Poincaré (or any book about the Special Relativity) to be convinced that the Lorentz transformation is the right way to express the fact that the speed of light is constant.

I think that the problem of unification you talk about is the one of the quantum gravity (unification of the General Relativity and the Quantum Mechanics). It is a very hard mathematical program with two main theories: the string theory and the loop quantum gravity. Actually, the fundamental questions are the unity of physics and the beginning of the universe. It is possible that a physical solution emerges from the quantum gravity program. As an alternative, I point out in my essay that we could answer to the previous fundamental questions if we make the assumption that the photon is the most fundamental element in the universe.

Emmanuel

report post as inappropriate

I am not sure to understand what you mean. The Lorentz transformation is the mathematical way to explain how the speed of light was observed to be independent of the reference frame in the Special Relativity. I don't see any flaw in this theory. You can read the initial work of Henri Poincaré (or any book about the Special Relativity) to be convinced that the Lorentz transformation is the right way to express the fact that the speed of light is constant.

I think that the problem of unification you talk about is the one of the quantum gravity (unification of the General Relativity and the Quantum Mechanics). It is a very hard mathematical program with two main theories: the string theory and the loop quantum gravity. Actually, the fundamental questions are the unity of physics and the beginning of the universe. It is possible that a physical solution emerges from the quantum gravity program. As an alternative, I point out in my essay that we could answer to the previous fundamental questions if we make the assumption that the photon is the most fundamental element in the universe.

Emmanuel

Dear Emmanuel,

You are definitely not the only one who does not understand what I meant. While I did not deal with Lorentz transformation in my essays 369, 527, and the essay in preparation, the reason for me to do so is related to them.I was seeking for the reasons why the 4th dimension ict is imaginary and how to explain the twin paradox. Guided by discussions here at FQXi and reading a...

view entire post

You are definitely not the only one who does not understand what I meant. While I did not deal with Lorentz transformation in my essays 369, 527, and the essay in preparation, the reason for me to do so is related to them.I was seeking for the reasons why the 4th dimension ict is imaginary and how to explain the twin paradox. Guided by discussions here at FQXi and reading a...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard,

I have found this link: http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00182764 concerning the "Physical Geometry and Special Relativity: Einstein and Poincaré".

I'm sorry I can not help you more about the Lorentz transformation.

Emmanuel

I have found this link: http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00182764 concerning the "Physical Geometry and Special Relativity: Einstein and Poincaré".

I'm sorry I can not help you more about the Lorentz transformation.

Emmanuel

Dear Emmanuel,

Thank you very much for the link. It revealed to me that indeed neither Einstein nor Minkowski but Poincaré, in particular "Le measure du temps" 1898, is to blame for the twin paradox and the imaginary 4th spatial component: "...two frames in relative motion, the one taken as at rest, and the (other) one in motion". This via ABA desynchronizing idea of relativity of simultaneity does not only obviously violate the principle of equal rights for A and B. I see it already questionable to consider the relative motion between two frames A and B, each of which is unrealistically thought to extend from minus infinity to plus infinity, instead of just their tangible origins.

Of course, Poincaré used the rather ad hoc and ether related FitzGerald-Lorentz explanation of the Michelson-Morley null result. Perhaps he was also mislead by Larmor 1897 who is credited for interpreting the equation of concern as time dilatation.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Thank you very much for the link. It revealed to me that indeed neither Einstein nor Minkowski but Poincaré, in particular "Le measure du temps" 1898, is to blame for the twin paradox and the imaginary 4th spatial component: "...two frames in relative motion, the one taken as at rest, and the (other) one in motion". This via ABA desynchronizing idea of relativity of simultaneity does not only obviously violate the principle of equal rights for A and B. I see it already questionable to consider the relative motion between two frames A and B, each of which is unrealistically thought to extend from minus infinity to plus infinity, instead of just their tangible origins.

Of course, Poincaré used the rather ad hoc and ether related FitzGerald-Lorentz explanation of the Michelson-Morley null result. Perhaps he was also mislead by Larmor 1897 who is credited for interpreting the equation of concern as time dilatation.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Hi Emmanuel,

I too liked many aspects of your essay. I was particularly pleased to see your following statements:-

"that time is defined relative to the speed of light." and “The time coordinate ct represents the possibility of motion for the matter relative to the speed of light c along the geodesics defined by a metric g”.

I think this touches on something deep and potentially far reaching! I have long thought that what we call "time" should be expressed in a form that represents "potentiality" of motion. Our reliance on the use of "clock time", whilst operationally useful, cannot bring us closer to an understanding of fundamental reality. This "potentiality" is actualised by the redistribution of energy which, as you say, brings us back to photons. Our conventional time variables, operators etc, can only ever be considered as relative spatial displacements caused by motion and therefore *cannot explain themselves*.

I'm not so sure about your description of "wave/particle duality" as "continuous and discrete". I stand to be corrected but I thought that all wave forms can be quantised, including their various fourier modes, so that we still have discrete/digital information? I guess it may depend on your definitions?

Finally, could you please clarify..."I think that photons can help us to remove the initial singularity". From your description it seems to me that the initial singularity still existed at t=0, even though it may have "evaporated" extremely rapidly. It would have existed as a point of infinite energy density I think, given your explanation? Or are you saying that, as it did not exist "in time", it is unobservable and therefore not "real"?

Good luck in the contest!

Regards,

Roy

report post as inappropriate

I too liked many aspects of your essay. I was particularly pleased to see your following statements:-

"that time is defined relative to the speed of light." and “The time coordinate ct represents the possibility of motion for the matter relative to the speed of light c along the geodesics defined by a metric g”.

I think this touches on something deep and potentially far reaching! I have long thought that what we call "time" should be expressed in a form that represents "potentiality" of motion. Our reliance on the use of "clock time", whilst operationally useful, cannot bring us closer to an understanding of fundamental reality. This "potentiality" is actualised by the redistribution of energy which, as you say, brings us back to photons. Our conventional time variables, operators etc, can only ever be considered as relative spatial displacements caused by motion and therefore *cannot explain themselves*.

I'm not so sure about your description of "wave/particle duality" as "continuous and discrete". I stand to be corrected but I thought that all wave forms can be quantised, including their various fourier modes, so that we still have discrete/digital information? I guess it may depend on your definitions?

Finally, could you please clarify..."I think that photons can help us to remove the initial singularity". From your description it seems to me that the initial singularity still existed at t=0, even though it may have "evaporated" extremely rapidly. It would have existed as a point of infinite energy density I think, given your explanation? Or are you saying that, as it did not exist "in time", it is unobservable and therefore not "real"?

Good luck in the contest!

Regards,

Roy

report post as inappropriate

Dear Roy,

Thank you for your comment. I suppose that you agree with my definition of time relative to the speed of light. In the history of the universe, if we get back in time then we know that some pair production reactions are not possible when the temperature reaches a certain threshold. I suppose that the photon is the primordial element and that the Planck epoch corresponds to the epoch where no pair production reaction is allowed. At the Planck epoch, we are not at the initial singularity. Nevertheless, with the previous definition of time and if there are only photons at the Planck epoch, the notion of time is not defined. I agree that the Planck epoch becomes a singular domain because the geodesics cannot be extended into the past, but we are not at the initial singularity where all values become infinite. Somehow, we "remove" the initial singularity with photons.

Your question about the continuity of the variables is fundamental. I think, for instance, that the frequency of the photon is a continuous variable (taking all the real values). In the definition of the energy of photons (equation (1) in the essay), there are the quantification with the Planck constant and the continuous variable of the frequency. As said Cristi (see the previous post): "the photon has in its blood the laws of quantum theory and relativity". Nevertheless, I confess that I am in trouble with the problem of masses. In my essay, formula (4) is a definition of masses. If the photon is the primordial particle then (4) is the fundamental definition of masses. I don’t see what does it mean physically and I don’t see any connection with the Higgs mechanism.

Emmanuel

Thank you for your comment. I suppose that you agree with my definition of time relative to the speed of light. In the history of the universe, if we get back in time then we know that some pair production reactions are not possible when the temperature reaches a certain threshold. I suppose that the photon is the primordial element and that the Planck epoch corresponds to the epoch where no pair production reaction is allowed. At the Planck epoch, we are not at the initial singularity. Nevertheless, with the previous definition of time and if there are only photons at the Planck epoch, the notion of time is not defined. I agree that the Planck epoch becomes a singular domain because the geodesics cannot be extended into the past, but we are not at the initial singularity where all values become infinite. Somehow, we "remove" the initial singularity with photons.

Your question about the continuity of the variables is fundamental. I think, for instance, that the frequency of the photon is a continuous variable (taking all the real values). In the definition of the energy of photons (equation (1) in the essay), there are the quantification with the Planck constant and the continuous variable of the frequency. As said Cristi (see the previous post): "the photon has in its blood the laws of quantum theory and relativity". Nevertheless, I confess that I am in trouble with the problem of masses. In my essay, formula (4) is a definition of masses. If the photon is the primordial particle then (4) is the fundamental definition of masses. I don’t see what does it mean physically and I don’t see any connection with the Higgs mechanism.

Emmanuel

In fact you are right and false.

In fact all is composed by the same essence.The gravity, the space and the light.

Now let's assume a specific entanglement,thus a specific number, let's assume also a specific serie from the main central sphere.

Now the question is this one, why they are different and however they are same at the origin.

Only a different sense of rotation of entangled spheres answer rationally.

And the time is a result of these rotations like mass also, thus space is entanglement without motion, like particles in wait.

Now how can you say that photons are the most foundamental essence, yes and no we can say that for garvity and space also.In fact it's the entanglement of speheres which is foundamental,like a serie from the main center.The volumes take all their sense and the sense of rotation spinal and orbital also.Logic.

Now let's assume a fusion mass light in an evolutive pint of vue.....thus an other important point is this one.is it the light which is fractalized or the gravity in its pure quantic number???Don't forget the number of the ultim fractal do not change.Thus if it's the light which is fractalized really, it's not light the most foundamental essence but the gravity because the number for a gravitational stability do not change.I return about senses of rotation and the volumes for a real polarization between mass and light.

Very interesting essay, you are right and false in afct.

Best Regardfs

Steve

report post as inappropriate

In fact all is composed by the same essence.The gravity, the space and the light.

Now let's assume a specific entanglement,thus a specific number, let's assume also a specific serie from the main central sphere.

Now the question is this one, why they are different and however they are same at the origin.

Only a different sense of rotation of entangled spheres answer rationally.

And the time is a result of these rotations like mass also, thus space is entanglement without motion, like particles in wait.

Now how can you say that photons are the most foundamental essence, yes and no we can say that for garvity and space also.In fact it's the entanglement of speheres which is foundamental,like a serie from the main center.The volumes take all their sense and the sense of rotation spinal and orbital also.Logic.

Now let's assume a fusion mass light in an evolutive pint of vue.....thus an other important point is this one.is it the light which is fractalized or the gravity in its pure quantic number???Don't forget the number of the ultim fractal do not change.Thus if it's the light which is fractalized really, it's not light the most foundamental essence but the gravity because the number for a gravitational stability do not change.I return about senses of rotation and the volumes for a real polarization between mass and light.

Very interesting essay, you are right and false in afct.

Best Regardfs

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Dear Steve,

Concerning gravitation, if you look at the Newton’s theory then you can think that it is a similar force to the electrostatic interaction between electrically charged particles. But when you look at the General Relativity, you understand that it is something else. Since several years, I have tried to use what is called in geometry a framed hypersurface, in order to describe gravitation as a normal force to a three dimensional manifold. Unfortunately, I did not succeed in recovering the spacetime of the General Relativity. Finally, I gave up this idea. The philosophy of the General Relativity is that we live in a manifold (called a Lorentzian manifold), and not in a submanifold. This is rather technical but the main idea is that our universe is full content and not embedded in a bigger space. It is possible to give a mathematical constancy of a universe embedded in a bigger one, but I don’t believe that it is the philosophy of the General Relativity. Energy models the geometry of the spacetime: here is the main idea of the General Relativity. I think that we can forget the idea that gravitation is a force or something fundamental.

Concerning the space, things are quite similar. It is possible to find a mathematical justification to the fact that there are 3 space dimensions, but I don’t think that it is really interesting. We observe that there are 3 space dimensions. Once again, the 3 space variables (that represents the space dimensions) intermingles with the time variable in the metric of the spacetime. This metric is given by the Einstein's field equations and thus by the energy. The content of the universe is fundamental, not the container. My idea was to focus my attention on the content. Then I propose, as an extension of the Relativity with respect to the speed of light, that the photon can be the primordial particle. All is relative to light (or to its quanta called photons).

Happy new year.

Emmanuel

report post as inappropriate

Concerning gravitation, if you look at the Newton’s theory then you can think that it is a similar force to the electrostatic interaction between electrically charged particles. But when you look at the General Relativity, you understand that it is something else. Since several years, I have tried to use what is called in geometry a framed hypersurface, in order to describe gravitation as a normal force to a three dimensional manifold. Unfortunately, I did not succeed in recovering the spacetime of the General Relativity. Finally, I gave up this idea. The philosophy of the General Relativity is that we live in a manifold (called a Lorentzian manifold), and not in a submanifold. This is rather technical but the main idea is that our universe is full content and not embedded in a bigger space. It is possible to give a mathematical constancy of a universe embedded in a bigger one, but I don’t believe that it is the philosophy of the General Relativity. Energy models the geometry of the spacetime: here is the main idea of the General Relativity. I think that we can forget the idea that gravitation is a force or something fundamental.

Concerning the space, things are quite similar. It is possible to find a mathematical justification to the fact that there are 3 space dimensions, but I don’t think that it is really interesting. We observe that there are 3 space dimensions. Once again, the 3 space variables (that represents the space dimensions) intermingles with the time variable in the metric of the spacetime. This metric is given by the Einstein's field equations and thus by the energy. The content of the universe is fundamental, not the container. My idea was to focus my attention on the content. Then I propose, as an extension of the Relativity with respect to the speed of light, that the photon can be the primordial particle. All is relative to light (or to its quanta called photons).

Happy new year.

Emmanuel

Hi dear Emmanuel,

Happy new year also.

It's relevant in all case,I like your differenciation between the Physicality and the unknown if I can say.

I always asked me but "How these elementary particules know what they must become ?

The codes( intrinsics) of evolution seems in the gravity and in the light.

Probably you are right about the fact that all is composed...

view entire post

Happy new year also.

It's relevant in all case,I like your differenciation between the Physicality and the unknown if I can say.

I always asked me but "How these elementary particules know what they must become ?

The codes( intrinsics) of evolution seems in the gravity and in the light.

Probably you are right about the fact that all is composed...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Steve,

I think the evolution of photons is quite similar to biological evolution. If there are only photons at the Planck epoch, the entropy is very weak. Then, due to pair productions, the complexity and the entropy increase. I am not able to see all the consequences of such an assumption (the fact that photons are the primordial element) and if it violates a well known result in physics. But I am fairly sure that this assumption has testable implications.

Emmanuel

report post as inappropriate

I think the evolution of photons is quite similar to biological evolution. If there are only photons at the Planck epoch, the entropy is very weak. Then, due to pair productions, the complexity and the entropy increase. I am not able to see all the consequences of such an assumption (the fact that photons are the primordial element) and if it violates a well known result in physics. But I am fairly sure that this assumption has testable implications.

Emmanuel

Hello dear Emanuel,

Indeed ,in fact all is composed by the same primordial essence.

The increase of mass and density implies the fact that a polarization exists between light and mass.Like you said the evolution permits this entropy and this complexification.

The pure quantum number must be finite for all this rotating and spherical dynamic.That permits the real quantification...

view entire post

Indeed ,in fact all is composed by the same primordial essence.

The increase of mass and density implies the fact that a polarization exists between light and mass.Like you said the evolution permits this entropy and this complexification.

The pure quantum number must be finite for all this rotating and spherical dynamic.That permits the real quantification...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

erroçr sorry I said why light has no mass.....answer the different sense of rotation implies the gravitational stability or the light linearity.

The gravitomagnetism respecting the entanglement seems relevant for the evolution and its increase of mass.The sense seems relevant if we take two main gauge oriented with the center of the Universe, the polarity becomes clearer.

ps I think this number is the same than the number of cosmological spheres.

This ultim fractal probably is the same realtively speaking for the quantum world.

Now I beleive that this serie is finite for a correct coded evolution.

It's essential at my opinion for the real meaning of infinite series.

We can multiplicate the number of cosmological spheres, that doesn't mean they change in their pure number.

The lattices between spheres if we respect the volumes are in this proportionality.They are finite alo thus.Now probably what the evolution and the fusion mass light implies different variables in this new constant between entangled spheres, V,mass,density....I ask me if the volumes change in time or if they rest constant.

I think they change proportionally with entropy and time and are also linked with mass ,density and their rotations spinals and orbitals.

The lattices are proportionals also.

What I find fascinating is the ultim fractal of the main central sphere, like our center of our universal sphere.If we see the volumes which increase towards the number 1 the biggest physical volume, after the universal sphere.

This fractal is fascinating because we see the effects of contraction and the lattices which disappear if the volumes increase........now of course this perception if difficult but the rotations around the universal center can harmonize our datas of evolution,we can see in the past our actual rotation and its volumes of spheres for a concrete extrapolation of our Universal sphere and all its rotations inside an evolving volume purelly linked with entropy.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

The gravitomagnetism respecting the entanglement seems relevant for the evolution and its increase of mass.The sense seems relevant if we take two main gauge oriented with the center of the Universe, the polarity becomes clearer.

ps I think this number is the same than the number of cosmological spheres.

This ultim fractal probably is the same realtively speaking for the quantum world.

Now I beleive that this serie is finite for a correct coded evolution.

It's essential at my opinion for the real meaning of infinite series.

We can multiplicate the number of cosmological spheres, that doesn't mean they change in their pure number.

The lattices between spheres if we respect the volumes are in this proportionality.They are finite alo thus.Now probably what the evolution and the fusion mass light implies different variables in this new constant between entangled spheres, V,mass,density....I ask me if the volumes change in time or if they rest constant.

I think they change proportionally with entropy and time and are also linked with mass ,density and their rotations spinals and orbitals.

The lattices are proportionals also.

What I find fascinating is the ultim fractal of the main central sphere, like our center of our universal sphere.If we see the volumes which increase towards the number 1 the biggest physical volume, after the universal sphere.

This fractal is fascinating because we see the effects of contraction and the lattices which disappear if the volumes increase........now of course this perception if difficult but the rotations around the universal center can harmonize our datas of evolution,we can see in the past our actual rotation and its volumes of spheres for a concrete extrapolation of our Universal sphere and all its rotations inside an evolving volume purelly linked with entropy.

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Emmanuel,

Very interesting essay.

Just as a rhetorical question, what happens to photons at very low temperatures?

As you point out, waves are continuous photons, so presumably if these waves were "entangled"/ synchronized, than multiple photons would function as one.

So what happens if we stretch that wave as far as it will go, to near infinity/chill it down to near...

view entire post

Very interesting essay.

Just as a rhetorical question, what happens to photons at very low temperatures?

As you point out, waves are continuous photons, so presumably if these waves were "entangled"/ synchronized, than multiple photons would function as one.

So what happens if we stretch that wave as far as it will go, to near infinity/chill it down to near...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear John,

At very low temperature, we have a phenomenon called quantum fluctuations. It is responsible for the Casimir effect. This phenomenon is due to the uncertainties between energy and time, arising from the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. As there is an uncertainty in the energy, photons can become virtual fundamental particles but for a very short time. These quantum fluctuations lead to a vacuum energy. Today, there is a mystery because this vacuum energy is a very good candidate to be the dark energy as a cosmological constant. Unfortunately, there is a large discrepancy (of 120 orders) between the observed value of the dark energy and the estimated value of the vacuum energy.

I am not sure to really understand your second question. I think it deals with the future of the cosmic microwave background radiation when temperature tends to the absolute zero. I think that photons will keep their wave/particle duality. But it will depend on the future of matter. I have made the assumption that photons are the fundamental (or primordial) element, but I have no idea about the stability of matter when the temperature will be very close to the absolute zero.

Concerning time and as I explain in a previous post, you can think that time is totally relative (to be able to measure the motion of an object with respect to another object) and this is a Machian view of time (from the Mach's principle) where time disappears. I think that time is relative to light as explained in my eprint and that we have to extend the theory of Relativity with respect to photons/light to particles. This is a physical assumption and it is not the result of the quantum gravity program. It is interesting to study if we can solve some fundamental problems of physics starting with photons only. I think so.

Emmanuel

report post as inappropriate

At very low temperature, we have a phenomenon called quantum fluctuations. It is responsible for the Casimir effect. This phenomenon is due to the uncertainties between energy and time, arising from the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. As there is an uncertainty in the energy, photons can become virtual fundamental particles but for a very short time. These quantum fluctuations lead to a vacuum energy. Today, there is a mystery because this vacuum energy is a very good candidate to be the dark energy as a cosmological constant. Unfortunately, there is a large discrepancy (of 120 orders) between the observed value of the dark energy and the estimated value of the vacuum energy.

I am not sure to really understand your second question. I think it deals with the future of the cosmic microwave background radiation when temperature tends to the absolute zero. I think that photons will keep their wave/particle duality. But it will depend on the future of matter. I have made the assumption that photons are the fundamental (or primordial) element, but I have no idea about the stability of matter when the temperature will be very close to the absolute zero.

Concerning time and as I explain in a previous post, you can think that time is totally relative (to be able to measure the motion of an object with respect to another object) and this is a Machian view of time (from the Mach's principle) where time disappears. I think that time is relative to light as explained in my eprint and that we have to extend the theory of Relativity with respect to photons/light to particles. This is a physical assumption and it is not the result of the quantum gravity program. It is interesting to study if we can solve some fundamental problems of physics starting with photons only. I think so.

Emmanuel

Emmanuel,

Thanks for the reply. I'm not really thinking in terms of quantum fluctuation per se. Though I wouldn't rule out a positive vacuum fluctuation as source of expansion/explanation for dark energy.

I was picking your brain on the issue of “pair production in two-photon collisions”, because I think there is a more unified cosmology hiding in our ideas about light....

view entire post

Thanks for the reply. I'm not really thinking in terms of quantum fluctuation per se. Though I wouldn't rule out a positive vacuum fluctuation as source of expansion/explanation for dark energy.

I was picking your brain on the issue of “pair production in two-photon collisions”, because I think there is a more unified cosmology hiding in our ideas about light....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Emmanuel,

You state: "Energy models the geometry of the space-time: here is the main idea of the General Relativity. I think that we can forget the idea that gravitation is a force or something fundamental. [and] Concerning the space, things are quite similar. It is possible to find a mathematical justification to the fact that there are 3 space dimensions, but I don't think that it is really interesting. We observe that there are 3 space dimensions."

I agree with you about 3-space. And on 31 Dec 2010 I received my Phys Rev Lett 105, with an article (231101) that seems to indicate that General Relativity does not predict the results of the most accurate study yet performed. The GR predictions are off by 0.2%, and the difference appears to be attributed to the C-field (rotational aspect of G-field) on which my essay is based.

As long as we did not know whether the universe was open, flat, or closed, then I believe that we needed general relativity as the only theory capable of describing all possible cases. But, if we know (as we think we now know) that the universe is flat, then I'm not sure that we need general relativity to describe the universe; we may need it only to describe certain highly 'curved' situations such as black holes and neutron stars. In this case general relativity becomes simply the preferred description. Doug Sweetser has diagrammatically illustrated this in striking fashion, as I show in my essay.

As for gravity, I'm not sure why you feel that you can write it off as not fundamental. As I note, and as Calabi conjectured back in 1953, the gravitational field itself has energy, and hence mass, and therefore is uniquely qualified to be the "original stuff" from which a universe forms. Not only that, but the gravitational field can interact with itself, leading to far more possibilities for evolution than the electromagnetic field, which interacts with charge, but is itself uncharged.

I do believe that it's unlikely that 'gravitons' exist-- they do not in my theory. And the 'gluons' that have never actually been seen, and postulated 'color' that never has or never will be seen, are mechanisms that can be provided by the C-field. Even Wilczek admits that Yukawa pion exchange fails at the hard core limit. The consensus explanation is that QCD achieves only about 5% accuracy because "it's so complicated", but it is entirely possible that it is simply wrong. When the Higgs fails to show up, maybe physicists will consider other possibilities.

Although my theory provides a mechanism for charge and EM-fields to appear, and even derives the fine structure constant, it is probably the one part of my theory that I am least satisfied with.

So I do agree with you that photon's appear to be in a class by themselves, and very fundamental.

I hope that you will read my essay and respond in some manner.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

You state: "Energy models the geometry of the space-time: here is the main idea of the General Relativity. I think that we can forget the idea that gravitation is a force or something fundamental. [and] Concerning the space, things are quite similar. It is possible to find a mathematical justification to the fact that there are 3 space dimensions, but I don't think that it is really interesting. We observe that there are 3 space dimensions."

I agree with you about 3-space. And on 31 Dec 2010 I received my Phys Rev Lett 105, with an article (231101) that seems to indicate that General Relativity does not predict the results of the most accurate study yet performed. The GR predictions are off by 0.2%, and the difference appears to be attributed to the C-field (rotational aspect of G-field) on which my essay is based.

As long as we did not know whether the universe was open, flat, or closed, then I believe that we needed general relativity as the only theory capable of describing all possible cases. But, if we know (as we think we now know) that the universe is flat, then I'm not sure that we need general relativity to describe the universe; we may need it only to describe certain highly 'curved' situations such as black holes and neutron stars. In this case general relativity becomes simply the preferred description. Doug Sweetser has diagrammatically illustrated this in striking fashion, as I show in my essay.

As for gravity, I'm not sure why you feel that you can write it off as not fundamental. As I note, and as Calabi conjectured back in 1953, the gravitational field itself has energy, and hence mass, and therefore is uniquely qualified to be the "original stuff" from which a universe forms. Not only that, but the gravitational field can interact with itself, leading to far more possibilities for evolution than the electromagnetic field, which interacts with charge, but is itself uncharged.

I do believe that it's unlikely that 'gravitons' exist-- they do not in my theory. And the 'gluons' that have never actually been seen, and postulated 'color' that never has or never will be seen, are mechanisms that can be provided by the C-field. Even Wilczek admits that Yukawa pion exchange fails at the hard core limit. The consensus explanation is that QCD achieves only about 5% accuracy because "it's so complicated", but it is entirely possible that it is simply wrong. When the Higgs fails to show up, maybe physicists will consider other possibilities.

Although my theory provides a mechanism for charge and EM-fields to appear, and even derives the fine structure constant, it is probably the one part of my theory that I am least satisfied with.

So I do agree with you that photon's appear to be in a class by themselves, and very fundamental.

I hope that you will read my essay and respond in some manner.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Dear Edwin,

I don’t know the article you talk about, but we have to make the difference between some possible mathematical modifications of the General Relativity and their validities with respect to experiments. Today, there is only one theory of gravitation which is checked with a high degree of precision and this is the General Relativity.

You say that "we may need it only to describe certain highly 'curved' situations such as black holes and neutron stars", but this is not correct. We use the General Relativity for the GPS system on earth and for the time synchronization for satellites.

When I say that "we can forget the idea that gravitation is a force or something fundamental", I do not pretend that the General Relativity is false. If you look at the General Relativity, you cannot find a force called gravitation. Actually, gravitation is the Riemann curvature tensor of a Lorentzian manifold, and this curvature evolves with energy. It is true that there is a possible non local action of energy due to gravitational waves and this is a very interesting issue. The Riemann curvature tensor can be decomposed between the Ricci tensor and the Weyl tensor. The Ricci tensor describes the local action of energy and is given by the Einstein’s field equation. If there is no energy, the Ricci tensor is zero. The Weyl tensor describes the non local action of the energy and is given by the Weyl equation (see for instance the book of Stephen Hawking and George Ellis. "The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time"). Thus, a region of space crossed by a gravitational wave has a nonzero Weyl tensor. We have indirect proofs that gravitational waves exist and thus it is possible that the Weyl tensor is non zero in some regions of the universe. I think that the Weyl tensor can be put in relation with the dark matter but this is another speculative idea...

You point out the fact that gravitons and Higgs bosons are speculative. I think it is the right way to progress in science. We must clearly identity what is established by experiment: the special relativity, the general relativity, the quantum mechanics, the quantum electrodynamics, the quantum chromodynamics... and what is speculative: the quantum gravity, the graviton, the Higgs boson, scalar-tensor–vector gravity. If this is not clear for everyone what is established and what is speculative, then we can lose our way. Then, I think that we have to make a new physical assumption. Albert Einstein thought that the quantum mechanics was deterministic and that there were hidden variables. Today, we know with the Bell test experiments that this assumption is false. The quantum gravity tends to prove that gravitation is quantum. Somehow, this is the opposite idea of the one of Albert Einstein. We know that the General Relativity is non-renormalizable and this is a big problem. Does it mean that gravitation is really a continuous theory? I think so. For instance, I don’t think that our space is a juxtaposition of several space quanta. Nevertheless, we need the unity of Physics. This is the reason why I suggest that photons are the fundamental and primordial element. They can carry both theories: the quantum mechanics and the relativity.

Emmanuel

I don’t know the article you talk about, but we have to make the difference between some possible mathematical modifications of the General Relativity and their validities with respect to experiments. Today, there is only one theory of gravitation which is checked with a high degree of precision and this is the General Relativity.

You say that "we may need it only to describe certain highly 'curved' situations such as black holes and neutron stars", but this is not correct. We use the General Relativity for the GPS system on earth and for the time synchronization for satellites.

When I say that "we can forget the idea that gravitation is a force or something fundamental", I do not pretend that the General Relativity is false. If you look at the General Relativity, you cannot find a force called gravitation. Actually, gravitation is the Riemann curvature tensor of a Lorentzian manifold, and this curvature evolves with energy. It is true that there is a possible non local action of energy due to gravitational waves and this is a very interesting issue. The Riemann curvature tensor can be decomposed between the Ricci tensor and the Weyl tensor. The Ricci tensor describes the local action of energy and is given by the Einstein’s field equation. If there is no energy, the Ricci tensor is zero. The Weyl tensor describes the non local action of the energy and is given by the Weyl equation (see for instance the book of Stephen Hawking and George Ellis. "The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time"). Thus, a region of space crossed by a gravitational wave has a nonzero Weyl tensor. We have indirect proofs that gravitational waves exist and thus it is possible that the Weyl tensor is non zero in some regions of the universe. I think that the Weyl tensor can be put in relation with the dark matter but this is another speculative idea...

You point out the fact that gravitons and Higgs bosons are speculative. I think it is the right way to progress in science. We must clearly identity what is established by experiment: the special relativity, the general relativity, the quantum mechanics, the quantum electrodynamics, the quantum chromodynamics... and what is speculative: the quantum gravity, the graviton, the Higgs boson, scalar-tensor–vector gravity. If this is not clear for everyone what is established and what is speculative, then we can lose our way. Then, I think that we have to make a new physical assumption. Albert Einstein thought that the quantum mechanics was deterministic and that there were hidden variables. Today, we know with the Bell test experiments that this assumption is false. The quantum gravity tends to prove that gravitation is quantum. Somehow, this is the opposite idea of the one of Albert Einstein. We know that the General Relativity is non-renormalizable and this is a big problem. Does it mean that gravitation is really a continuous theory? I think so. For instance, I don’t think that our space is a juxtaposition of several space quanta. Nevertheless, we need the unity of Physics. This is the reason why I suggest that photons are the fundamental and primordial element. They can carry both theories: the quantum mechanics and the relativity.

Emmanuel

Edwin, Emmanuel,

Is it possible that electromagnetic fields do interact among themselves at very low levels, possibly having an effect on vacuum fluctuation.

As a hypothetical question, what if light has traveled much further than the current 13.7 billion years considered and it was redshifted as an optical effect. Wouldn't all the radiation redshifted to the very end of the infrared end of the spectrum show up as black body radiation?

What would happen if this radiation started to exceed certain levels, such as 3.7k. Could interactions start to occur?

An interesting study to keep an eye on:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-statistical-cosmic.ht

ml

report post as inappropriate

Is it possible that electromagnetic fields do interact among themselves at very low levels, possibly having an effect on vacuum fluctuation.

As a hypothetical question, what if light has traveled much further than the current 13.7 billion years considered and it was redshifted as an optical effect. Wouldn't all the radiation redshifted to the very end of the infrared end of the spectrum show up as black body radiation?

What would happen if this radiation started to exceed certain levels, such as 3.7k. Could interactions start to occur?

An interesting study to keep an eye on:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-statistical-cosmic.ht

ml

report post as inappropriate

John,

As Emmanuel points out below, linear interaction leads to interference. Non-linear interaction, such as gravity is capable of, leads to new phenomena.

I am aware of your arguments against BBT and I think about some of the things you say, but the Big Bang fits very well with my theory, and lack of a Big Bang would mess up my theory really badly. Since I believe my theory actually does the best job of explaining 'known' physics, including anomalies that other theories overlook or ignore (they *are* awfully inconvenient) I am not ready to throw out BBT because you are unhappy with it.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

As Emmanuel points out below, linear interaction leads to interference. Non-linear interaction, such as gravity is capable of, leads to new phenomena.

I am aware of your arguments against BBT and I think about some of the things you say, but the Big Bang fits very well with my theory, and lack of a Big Bang would mess up my theory really badly. Since I believe my theory actually does the best job of explaining 'known' physics, including anomalies that other theories overlook or ignore (they *are* awfully inconvenient) I am not ready to throw out BBT because you are unhappy with it.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Edwin,

If we started out agreeing, there would be no grounds for real discussion. I think that with the pace of new instruments coming on line over the next decade, one of us will need a back up plan.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/8224865/New-te

lescopes-peer-back-to-birth-of-first-stars.html

Can you explain to me how space can expand, but lightspeed is otherwise stable?

report post as inappropriate

If we started out agreeing, there would be no grounds for real discussion. I think that with the pace of new instruments coming on line over the next decade, one of us will need a back up plan.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/8224865/New-te

lescopes-peer-back-to-birth-of-first-stars.html

Can you explain to me how space can expand, but lightspeed is otherwise stable?

report post as inappropriate

Dear John,

Every kind of waves can interact each other; it is the phenomenon of interference.

There are two distinct phenomena in your post.

The first one is the redshift that gives information about the velocity (or gravitation due to the equivalence principle) between the object that emits the light and the observers that receive the light. As we observe a general redshift from stars, we conclude that the universe is expanding according to the General Relativity. The novelty is that this expansion is accelerating. This can be modeled by a cosmological constant in the Einstein’s field equations and it is probably in relation with the vacuum energy but, as I explained before, there is mystery due to a big discrepancy between the observed value of the cosmological constant and the vacuum energy.

The second one is the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation. It is an indirect proof of the Big Bang theory.

I don’t understand if you think that there is a relation between the (CMB) radiation and the vacuum energy. As far as I am concerned, I don’t know.

Emmanuel

Every kind of waves can interact each other; it is the phenomenon of interference.

There are two distinct phenomena in your post.

The first one is the redshift that gives information about the velocity (or gravitation due to the equivalence principle) between the object that emits the light and the observers that receive the light. As we observe a general redshift from stars, we conclude that the universe is expanding according to the General Relativity. The novelty is that this expansion is accelerating. This can be modeled by a cosmological constant in the Einstein’s field equations and it is probably in relation with the vacuum energy but, as I explained before, there is mystery due to a big discrepancy between the observed value of the cosmological constant and the vacuum energy.

The second one is the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation. It is an indirect proof of the Big Bang theory.

I don’t understand if you think that there is a relation between the (CMB) radiation and the vacuum energy. As far as I am concerned, I don’t know.

Emmanuel

Emmanuel,

I understand vacuum energy as that which permeates space and cosmic background radiation as the black body radiation emanating from the edge of the visible universe.

I guess it's obvious that I'm one of those who thinks Big Bang Theory, Inflationary Cosmology, or any other versions of the model are wrong and am looking for insights into how to otherwise explain the...

view entire post

I understand vacuum energy as that which permeates space and cosmic background radiation as the black body radiation emanating from the edge of the visible universe.

I guess it's obvious that I'm one of those who thinks Big Bang Theory, Inflationary Cosmology, or any other versions of the model are wrong and am looking for insights into how to otherwise explain the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Emmanuel,

Thanks for your reply. When I said we may only 'need' GR for highly curved situations I did not mean that it wasn't useful for things like GPS, only that GPS can probably be handled with 'weak field' approximations. And that was my point. As Sweetser shows, we can describe the world via potential in 'flat' coordinates or by distorting the coordinate space. In 'weak field' cases (such as GPS) the choice may be optional. Or not?

We agree that it's good to be speculative in approaching physics. Because QCD generally yields 4 or 5% accuracy, QED lately yields 4% accuracy on muonic hydrogen and is off by 120 orders of magnitude on vacuum energy, and GR is off by 0.2% on LAGEOS pericenter precession, I believe that conceptual issues, not just mathematical issues, need rethinking.

I also offer a number of very specific examples in my essay that serve as 'test cases' for theories, and that, so far, no current theories can explain. This is, in my mind, more appropriate than speculating on theories based on Planck energies that we will probably never reach. I believe that it is physics when we treat real known anomalies that demand explanation, and mathematics when we treat speculative scenarios which may never be achieved. Today, things seem more focused on the latter.

Finally, you state that Bell tests show hidden variables to be false. Based on Anton Zeilinger's excellent book, Dance of the Photons, I believe that this conclusion is premature, as I explain in my essay.

I agree with the logic of your last statement concerning QM and SR, but do not yet see how photons alone can satisfactorily evolve our universe.

Thanks for your perspectives.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for your reply. When I said we may only 'need' GR for highly curved situations I did not mean that it wasn't useful for things like GPS, only that GPS can probably be handled with 'weak field' approximations. And that was my point. As Sweetser shows, we can describe the world via potential in 'flat' coordinates or by distorting the coordinate space. In 'weak field' cases (such as GPS) the choice may be optional. Or not?

We agree that it's good to be speculative in approaching physics. Because QCD generally yields 4 or 5% accuracy, QED lately yields 4% accuracy on muonic hydrogen and is off by 120 orders of magnitude on vacuum energy, and GR is off by 0.2% on LAGEOS pericenter precession, I believe that conceptual issues, not just mathematical issues, need rethinking.

I also offer a number of very specific examples in my essay that serve as 'test cases' for theories, and that, so far, no current theories can explain. This is, in my mind, more appropriate than speculating on theories based on Planck energies that we will probably never reach. I believe that it is physics when we treat real known anomalies that demand explanation, and mathematics when we treat speculative scenarios which may never be achieved. Today, things seem more focused on the latter.

Finally, you state that Bell tests show hidden variables to be false. Based on Anton Zeilinger's excellent book, Dance of the Photons, I believe that this conclusion is premature, as I explain in my essay.

I agree with the logic of your last statement concerning QM and SR, but do not yet see how photons alone can satisfactorily evolve our universe.

Thanks for your perspectives.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Dear Emmanuel,

You wrote: "Unfortunately, there is a large discrepancy (of 120 orders) between the observed value of the dark energy and the estimated value of the vacuum energy."

While I do not share the common belief that theories, which are accepted and seemingly confirmed with very high accuracy, are necessarily correct, I consider it extremely unlikely that such a discrepancy does not matter. Even 120 dB is a lot. Did you really you mean 10^120?

To me as an EE, photons are electromagnetic waves. Do you deny purely electric and purely magnetic fields?

While speculations may endlessly find admirers who are trying to add even more exciting stories, I expect facing frosty rejection to the perhaps disappointing revelation of fundamental mistakes in mandatory tenets.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

You wrote: "Unfortunately, there is a large discrepancy (of 120 orders) between the observed value of the dark energy and the estimated value of the vacuum energy."

While I do not share the common belief that theories, which are accepted and seemingly confirmed with very high accuracy, are necessarily correct, I consider it extremely unlikely that such a discrepancy does not matter. Even 120 dB is a lot. Did you really you mean 10^120?

To me as an EE, photons are electromagnetic waves. Do you deny purely electric and purely magnetic fields?

While speculations may endlessly find admirers who are trying to add even more exciting stories, I expect facing frosty rejection to the perhaps disappointing revelation of fundamental mistakes in mandatory tenets.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eckard,

Definitely, photons can be considered as electromagnetic waves and as particles. It is interpreted to be a probability wave in quantum mechanics.

In particle accelerators, matter is produced from energy following the mass–energy equivalence. Physicists use the speed of particles to produce energy which is transformed into matter after a collision. But if a photon has enough energy, it can produce every known particle following the Feynman diagrams. It is exactly these kinds of photons that we have at the beginning of the universe. In the particle accelerator, we say we have virtual photons (with high energy) because they exist for a very short time. But, you may wonder why I think the photon (and not the other gauge bosons, as the gluons) is the primordial particle. It is because in the standard model of particles, the other gauge bosons are not produced at the beginning of the universe, idem with matter (which are non zero mass particles) that does not exist at the beginning of the universe. If you think that there is a primordial particle, the photon is a very good candidate and perhaps the only one.

Emmanuel

Definitely, photons can be considered as electromagnetic waves and as particles. It is interpreted to be a probability wave in quantum mechanics.

In particle accelerators, matter is produced from energy following the mass–energy equivalence. Physicists use the speed of particles to produce energy which is transformed into matter after a collision. But if a photon has enough energy, it can produce every known particle following the Feynman diagrams. It is exactly these kinds of photons that we have at the beginning of the universe. In the particle accelerator, we say we have virtual photons (with high energy) because they exist for a very short time. But, you may wonder why I think the photon (and not the other gauge bosons, as the gluons) is the primordial particle. It is because in the standard model of particles, the other gauge bosons are not produced at the beginning of the universe, idem with matter (which are non zero mass particles) that does not exist at the beginning of the universe. If you think that there is a primordial particle, the photon is a very good candidate and perhaps the only one.

Emmanuel

Emmanuel,

I agree the photon makes a good candidate as the primordial particle, but as a particle, could it be emergent from some field effect/vacuum fluctuation/radiant wave properties?

I ask because it seems to me that photons are created out of some field like condition as an interaction between fields, or contact with mass. Radiant energy expands, while mass contracts, yet it seems photons emerge as that initial contraction/measurement of the radiant energy. Thus we think of light as photons because it is the foundational quantity, yet is this quanta an irreducible particle of light, or is it the smallest measurable quantity of light?

report post as inappropriate

I agree the photon makes a good candidate as the primordial particle, but as a particle, could it be emergent from some field effect/vacuum fluctuation/radiant wave properties?

I ask because it seems to me that photons are created out of some field like condition as an interaction between fields, or contact with mass. Radiant energy expands, while mass contracts, yet it seems photons emerge as that initial contraction/measurement of the radiant energy. Thus we think of light as photons because it is the foundational quantity, yet is this quanta an irreducible particle of light, or is it the smallest measurable quantity of light?

report post as inappropriate

Hi all,

In fact the photon is an entanglement and when the gravity acts, this entanglement is fraclized for a fusion of spherical volumes.

After it's the sense of rotation that explains the difference.

The photon is not a single particle....

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

In fact the photon is an entanglement and when the gravity acts, this entanglement is fraclized for a fusion of spherical volumes.

After it's the sense of rotation that explains the difference.

The photon is not a single particle....

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Dear John,

In terms of wave/particle duality, we can say that "light" is the standard name of the wave property and "photon" is the standard name of the particle property. In my essay, I use the term "photon" for both because this is the same fundamental element.

Emmanuel

In terms of wave/particle duality, we can say that "light" is the standard name of the wave property and "photon" is the standard name of the particle property. In my essay, I use the term "photon" for both because this is the same fundamental element.

Emmanuel

With your enlightened comments, I became aware that the assumption that photons are the primordial elements of the physical evolution of the universe is different from the assumption of having a fundamental element. A fundamental element means that all is made of the same element, whereas a primordial element means that there is a physical evolution (similar to the biological evolution). I have also understood that there is a natural definition of masses and that we don’t have the Higgs mechanism in this framework. Finally, the photon as a primitive element is an alternative solution to quantum gravity because the unity of Physics is done by the physical reality of photons and the initial singularity can be removed.

I have written a new version of my essay which is in attached file. I hope that this new version is clearer.

Emmanuel

attachments: Photon.pdf

I have written a new version of my essay which is in attached file. I hope that this new version is clearer.

Emmanuel

attachments: Photon.pdf

Dear Emmanuel,

Congratulations for a thought-provoking essay.

However, if we are to assume that the photon is a fundamental element of the universe, and assumedly the most basic building block of everything, then we must re-evaluate our big-bang theories as well, because it is inconceivable to have even a single photon in the emptiness (and most likely pitch-dark), of the pre-big-bang space, and yet we are certain that the seed(s) of everything was/were there already, or we wouldn't exist today. Are we to assume that before everything, there was light? It is very possible of course, but then we must re-evaluate a lot of other ideas as well.

Best Regards

Pantelis

report post as inappropriate

Congratulations for a thought-provoking essay.

However, if we are to assume that the photon is a fundamental element of the universe, and assumedly the most basic building block of everything, then we must re-evaluate our big-bang theories as well, because it is inconceivable to have even a single photon in the emptiness (and most likely pitch-dark), of the pre-big-bang space, and yet we are certain that the seed(s) of everything was/were there already, or we wouldn't exist today. Are we to assume that before everything, there was light? It is very possible of course, but then we must re-evaluate a lot of other ideas as well.

Best Regards

Pantelis

report post as inappropriate

Dear Pantelis,

Thank you for your comment. As I explain in my previous post with a new version of my essay, it is better to say that photons are the primordial elements rather than the fundamental elements. Indeed, photons are not the basic building block of everything but everything comes from photons. It is a physical evolution.

Concerning your question, there are 2 different points. The first one is that indeed I suppose that light/photons were still here at the Big Bang. The second one concerns the "pre-big-bang" space. I suppose that time is given by the possibility of motion for the matter relative to light/photons (see my eprint http://cel.archives-ouvertes.fr/cel-00511837). Thus, if there are only photons, the notion of time falls down. I suppose that the Planck epoch is the period where there are only photons. What about the quantum fluctuations? When you look at the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (see equation (2) of the essay), you see that this principle also falls down when time falls down. Thus, quantum fluctuations are not allowed and this is the reason why I say "At the Planck epoch, we suppose that there are only photons" in my essay and I have added in the new version that "pair productions are not allowed". I don’t know how a first pair production can begin.

Emmanuel

Thank you for your comment. As I explain in my previous post with a new version of my essay, it is better to say that photons are the primordial elements rather than the fundamental elements. Indeed, photons are not the basic building block of everything but everything comes from photons. It is a physical evolution.

Concerning your question, there are 2 different points. The first one is that indeed I suppose that light/photons were still here at the Big Bang. The second one concerns the "pre-big-bang" space. I suppose that time is given by the possibility of motion for the matter relative to light/photons (see my eprint http://cel.archives-ouvertes.fr/cel-00511837). Thus, if there are only photons, the notion of time falls down. I suppose that the Planck epoch is the period where there are only photons. What about the quantum fluctuations? When you look at the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (see equation (2) of the essay), you see that this principle also falls down when time falls down. Thus, quantum fluctuations are not allowed and this is the reason why I say "At the Planck epoch, we suppose that there are only photons" in my essay and I have added in the new version that "pair productions are not allowed". I don’t know how a first pair production can begin.

Emmanuel

Dear all,

I think that I have found the first physical consequence of my theory of “primordial light/photons” and it concerns the physical explanation of inflation.

In order to explain our universe, we need an exponential expansion of the early universe: this is the theory of inflation. But the detailed particle physics mechanism responsible for inflation is not known. I think that I have an explanation. At the Planck epoch, we suppose that we have only light/photons. I have explained that time cannot exist. Time begins with the first pair production of matter in two photon collisions. We have enough energy to produce all fundamental particles. In this theory, inflation corresponds to the creation of matter. Indeed, light does not occupy any volume contrary to matter. If we start with light/photons, we need a period of matter creation and I think that this period is inflation. Primordial matter creation in two photon collisions tremendously inflates the universe because matter occupies a volume. I find this explanation very exciting, but it is only my opinion. Moreover, I don’t see any other physical explanation for inflation.

Emmanuel

I think that I have found the first physical consequence of my theory of “primordial light/photons” and it concerns the physical explanation of inflation.

In order to explain our universe, we need an exponential expansion of the early universe: this is the theory of inflation. But the detailed particle physics mechanism responsible for inflation is not known. I think that I have an explanation. At the Planck epoch, we suppose that we have only light/photons. I have explained that time cannot exist. Time begins with the first pair production of matter in two photon collisions. We have enough energy to produce all fundamental particles. In this theory, inflation corresponds to the creation of matter. Indeed, light does not occupy any volume contrary to matter. If we start with light/photons, we need a period of matter creation and I think that this period is inflation. Primordial matter creation in two photon collisions tremendously inflates the universe because matter occupies a volume. I find this explanation very exciting, but it is only my opinion. Moreover, I don’t see any other physical explanation for inflation.

Emmanuel

Dear Emmanuel,

Alternatively, consider the Planck epoch as consisting only of a gravitation field, expanding outward [it must expand outward--else it simply contracts forever to an infinitely dense point.] The equivalent mass of the out-flowing field energy is positive kinetic energy, whereas the gravitational potential energy is negative, and the two may actually cancel to provide a 'free lunch' universe that arose from zero energy. The outward expansion of the gravito-electric G-field energy has momentum, and hence, as mass-current, induces gravito-magnetic C-field circulation [analogous to charge-current inducing electromagnetic circulation]. But the perfect radial symmetry suppresses the circulation until symmetry breaks. At that point the suppressed gravito-magnetic field is released and the Lorentz-like force equation clearly shows an inflationary force, as related in my essay. I write this in response to your "not seeing any other physical explanation for inflation."

Although I do not go into detail in my essay [I do so in the references] the C-field vortices that result from the self-interacting gravito-magnetic (C-) field are Yang-Mills phenomena that produce electric charge when they condense to electrons and quarks. Only at this point, in my framework, can photons come into existence. Are you proposing that photons exist 'before' charge and that it is the pair-production that brings charge into the universe?

Thanks for your consideration,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Alternatively, consider the Planck epoch as consisting only of a gravitation field, expanding outward [it must expand outward--else it simply contracts forever to an infinitely dense point.] The equivalent mass of the out-flowing field energy is positive kinetic energy, whereas the gravitational potential energy is negative, and the two may actually cancel to provide a 'free lunch' universe that arose from zero energy. The outward expansion of the gravito-electric G-field energy has momentum, and hence, as mass-current, induces gravito-magnetic C-field circulation [analogous to charge-current inducing electromagnetic circulation]. But the perfect radial symmetry suppresses the circulation until symmetry breaks. At that point the suppressed gravito-magnetic field is released and the Lorentz-like force equation clearly shows an inflationary force, as related in my essay. I write this in response to your "not seeing any other physical explanation for inflation."

Although I do not go into detail in my essay [I do so in the references] the C-field vortices that result from the self-interacting gravito-magnetic (C-) field are Yang-Mills phenomena that produce electric charge when they condense to electrons and quarks. Only at this point, in my framework, can photons come into existence. Are you proposing that photons exist 'before' charge and that it is the pair-production that brings charge into the universe?

Thanks for your consideration,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Dear Edwin,

Actually, I do not consider gravitation as fundamental. I think that the content is fundamental, not the container. Moreover, among the content I think that light/photons are the primordial elements. Yes, I consider that the Planck epoch is the light epoch. I think that time comes from the possibility of motion for matter relative to the speed of light, thus time does not exist at the Planck epoch. At the boundary of the Planck epoch, we have enough energy to produce all the fundamental particles in two photon collisions. In particular, it is possible to produce fermionic matter and antimatter. Due to the Pauli exclusion principle, all fermions/antifermions exhibit space-occupying behavior that violently inflate the universe.

To sum up, I think that:

- the Planck epoch is the light epoch,

- inflation is due to the birth of fermionic matter and antimatter.

Emmanuel

Actually, I do not consider gravitation as fundamental. I think that the content is fundamental, not the container. Moreover, among the content I think that light/photons are the primordial elements. Yes, I consider that the Planck epoch is the light epoch. I think that time comes from the possibility of motion for matter relative to the speed of light, thus time does not exist at the Planck epoch. At the boundary of the Planck epoch, we have enough energy to produce all the fundamental particles in two photon collisions. In particular, it is possible to produce fermionic matter and antimatter. Due to the Pauli exclusion principle, all fermions/antifermions exhibit space-occupying behavior that violently inflate the universe.

To sum up, I think that:

- the Planck epoch is the light epoch,

- inflation is due to the birth of fermionic matter and antimatter.

Emmanuel

Emmanuel,

I very much liked your paper. Explaining gravity in terms of photons is difficult. I had to concede that while photons are the most fundamental particle; wave-functions provide the structure for particles and space-time alike. In fact, phasors of the form, V=V_0 e^{i\theta}[/

bear a striking resemblance to wave-functions which are of the form,

\Psi = e^{i(kx-\omega t)}

report post as inappropriate

I very much liked your paper. Explaining gravity in terms of photons is difficult. I had to concede that while photons are the most fundamental particle; wave-functions provide the structure for particles and space-time alike. In fact, phasors of the form, V=V_0 e^{i\theta}[/

bear a striking resemblance to wave-functions which are of the form,

\Psi = e^{i(kx-\omega t)}

report post as inappropriate

Just one more comment about gravity. Time dilation is associated with gravity, relativistic velocity, Equivalence Principle g-force, etc... Time dilation changes the duration of a second.

Photons are the only particle whose energy content is retained as frequency; E=hf. Photons are fundamental for everything in the Standard Model (particles, quantum mechanics, etc...).

Frequency is in cycles per second. Gravitational time dilation (and its equivalents) change the duration of a second.

Call it conjecture, but I think that is how photons are related to gravity.

report post as inappropriate

Photons are the only particle whose energy content is retained as frequency; E=hf. Photons are fundamental for everything in the Standard Model (particles, quantum mechanics, etc...).

Frequency is in cycles per second. Gravitational time dilation (and its equivalents) change the duration of a second.

Call it conjecture, but I think that is how photons are related to gravity.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Jason,

Thank you for your comment. Indeed, I think as you, that photons are fundamental to define time and more exactly to define the time variable. I have written an eprint about the nature of time http://cel.archives-ouvertes.fr/cel-00511837. Gravitation is not really fundamental for me. The General Relativity tells us that the energy models the spacetime behaviour and modifies time and space. So, the content is fundamental and not the container. Among the content I think that photons are the primordial element. I am still working on this idea in order to correct several mistakes I have made in my essay and to suggest some physical consequences of this assumption.

Emmanuel

Thank you for your comment. Indeed, I think as you, that photons are fundamental to define time and more exactly to define the time variable. I have written an eprint about the nature of time http://cel.archives-ouvertes.fr/cel-00511837. Gravitation is not really fundamental for me. The General Relativity tells us that the energy models the spacetime behaviour and modifies time and space. So, the content is fundamental and not the container. Among the content I think that photons are the primordial element. I am still working on this idea in order to correct several mistakes I have made in my essay and to suggest some physical consequences of this assumption.

Emmanuel

Dear Emmanual,

I enjoyed reading your paper. I agree that time is not fundamental; others have attributed it to motion of matter. Personally, I think time is a bit more involved.

Photons have some amazing properties that make them special (in addition to fundamental). For example, one second is defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. The fact that a quantity of time is defined by a photon frequency is a subtle point that has overwhelming importance.

I agree with you that time travel is impossible. Since the Grandfather paradox denies time travel, then perhaps nature observes causality. Of course our everyday experience confirms causality. But how does nature uphold causality? It made sense to make photons the carrier of causality. Since all particles can be decomposed into photons, then photons are still carriers of causality, even if they are trapped within particles.

report post as inappropriate

I enjoyed reading your paper. I agree that time is not fundamental; others have attributed it to motion of matter. Personally, I think time is a bit more involved.

Photons have some amazing properties that make them special (in addition to fundamental). For example, one second is defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. The fact that a quantity of time is defined by a photon frequency is a subtle point that has overwhelming importance.

I agree with you that time travel is impossible. Since the Grandfather paradox denies time travel, then perhaps nature observes causality. Of course our everyday experience confirms causality. But how does nature uphold causality? It made sense to make photons the carrier of causality. Since all particles can be decomposed into photons, then photons are still carriers of causality, even if they are trapped within particles.

report post as inappropriate

Dear all

I have read Emmanuel's essay which is interesting. I just want to make a comment in relation to the wave-particle duality of section 5. I think that this problem has to be addressed from its roots. You may recall that at the beginning of the XVI the theory of vortices of Descartes was the prevailing paradigm in continental Europe. Later, two different approaches to explain light phenomena, were put forward, that is, that light was a particle (Newton) and that light was a wave (Huyghens). Since then the problem still prevails. However, few of us question what a particle is. In this sense, there are approaches from the theory of solitons in which a particle can be seen as a localized soliton (or quasi-particle). The properties of solitons are well known and studied, when two solitons interact they can show inelastic behavior, also as they move they manifest length contraction in proportion to the speed (Lorentz contraction), a positive amplitude represents the matter, and a negative amplitude antimatter, etc. And by following this approach it has been shown that there is no duality of waves and particles. The conceptual cost to be paid for this transition is to recognize that space is not just a geometrical vessel (as it is seen in relativity) but that space is a material continuum. This assumption has the consequence of the existence of a privileged frame (the material continuum itself) which can be used to explain dark matter and dark energy. However, most of us know that the idea of privileged frame is something most researchers are not open to entertain. But if this forum is about new ideas, I think that it is worth to consider very radical approaches. If anyone is interested you may like to see this: C. Christov, Math. Comput. Simul., 80, 91 (2009). Other related references and some of the philosophical ideas that help to justify this approach can be found in my essay posted here.

Good luck in the contest

Kind regards

Israel Perez

report post as inappropriate

I have read Emmanuel's essay which is interesting. I just want to make a comment in relation to the wave-particle duality of section 5. I think that this problem has to be addressed from its roots. You may recall that at the beginning of the XVI the theory of vortices of Descartes was the prevailing paradigm in continental Europe. Later, two different approaches to explain light phenomena, were put forward, that is, that light was a particle (Newton) and that light was a wave (Huyghens). Since then the problem still prevails. However, few of us question what a particle is. In this sense, there are approaches from the theory of solitons in which a particle can be seen as a localized soliton (or quasi-particle). The properties of solitons are well known and studied, when two solitons interact they can show inelastic behavior, also as they move they manifest length contraction in proportion to the speed (Lorentz contraction), a positive amplitude represents the matter, and a negative amplitude antimatter, etc. And by following this approach it has been shown that there is no duality of waves and particles. The conceptual cost to be paid for this transition is to recognize that space is not just a geometrical vessel (as it is seen in relativity) but that space is a material continuum. This assumption has the consequence of the existence of a privileged frame (the material continuum itself) which can be used to explain dark matter and dark energy. However, most of us know that the idea of privileged frame is something most researchers are not open to entertain. But if this forum is about new ideas, I think that it is worth to consider very radical approaches. If anyone is interested you may like to see this: C. Christov, Math. Comput. Simul., 80, 91 (2009). Other related references and some of the philosophical ideas that help to justify this approach can be found in my essay posted here.

Good luck in the contest

Kind regards

Israel Perez

report post as inappropriate

Dear Israel,

I totally agree with the fact that we need a new very radical approach. I think that most of the physicists cannot really think that the standard model with the Higgs bosons, gravitons, dilatons, dark matter and dark energy is the right solution. It is certainly time for a new revolution. In the civil society, a revolution does not come from the Establishment but from the street. I think that it is the same in science. A scientific revolution comes from independent researches that change the paradigms. We can believe that we will find all the particles needed for the standard model but I think that we need a new physical revolution with a new physical assumption.

Emmanuel

I totally agree with the fact that we need a new very radical approach. I think that most of the physicists cannot really think that the standard model with the Higgs bosons, gravitons, dilatons, dark matter and dark energy is the right solution. It is certainly time for a new revolution. In the civil society, a revolution does not come from the Establishment but from the street. I think that it is the same in science. A scientific revolution comes from independent researches that change the paradigms. We can believe that we will find all the particles needed for the standard model but I think that we need a new physical revolution with a new physical assumption.

Emmanuel

Hello dear Emmanuel,

you say "In the civil society, a revolution does not come from the Establishment but from the street. "

I love these words, indeed indeed.

A real revolution arrives hihihi

ps il est agréable de voir des lucidités universelles parmis les méandres des confusions, la simplicité semble arpenter les équations de généralité.

Cordialement

Steve

report post as inappropriate

you say "In the civil society, a revolution does not come from the Establishment but from the street. "

I love these words, indeed indeed.

A real revolution arrives hihihi

ps il est agréable de voir des lucidités universelles parmis les méandres des confusions, la simplicité semble arpenter les équations de généralité.

Cordialement

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Dear Emmanuel

I agree with you. But I think your are missing one important factor in a revolution. Those who pretend to make the revolution are united following well established ideals. So far I do not clearly see this point. So, in my opinion it will take a long time before we agree what is the best choice. In the age of Maxwell (~1873) there were several approaches to explain light and electromagnetic phenomena. After more than ten years that the treatise on electricity and magnetism was published only a few knew about it, among them was Hertz and the Maxwellians (Heaviside, Larmor, FitzGerald, etc.) who finally promoted and proved that Maxwell's ideas were right. They improved Maxwell's work and they supported Maxwell's work because from among all proposals, Maxwell's was the most coherent both physically and mathematically. In this sense, the same occurred to relativity and quantum mechanics. Their success were not only because they predicted and explained physical phenomena but because they had upholders who agreed in both their philosophy and their mathematical formulation. The proposal I was discussing in my previous post is right now in a similar status. But in order for a theory to be successful physicists should pay attention to it, no matter if this theory contradicts well established theories. This point can be exemplified by recalling how the Ptolemaic system was overthrown by the Copernican system. Although the Ptolemaic formulation was able to predict the motion of celestial bodies, the Copernican' released astronomers from cumbersome calculations. But the cost of this system had profound philosophical implications, namely that the earth is not a privileged place in the universe. Now the proposal I have been talking about requires a privileged frame. So are we open to entertain this and abandon relativity in the same way that scientist abandon the Ptolemaic system?

Please feel free to rebut this point.

Israel

report post as inappropriate

I agree with you. But I think your are missing one important factor in a revolution. Those who pretend to make the revolution are united following well established ideals. So far I do not clearly see this point. So, in my opinion it will take a long time before we agree what is the best choice. In the age of Maxwell (~1873) there were several approaches to explain light and electromagnetic phenomena. After more than ten years that the treatise on electricity and magnetism was published only a few knew about it, among them was Hertz and the Maxwellians (Heaviside, Larmor, FitzGerald, etc.) who finally promoted and proved that Maxwell's ideas were right. They improved Maxwell's work and they supported Maxwell's work because from among all proposals, Maxwell's was the most coherent both physically and mathematically. In this sense, the same occurred to relativity and quantum mechanics. Their success were not only because they predicted and explained physical phenomena but because they had upholders who agreed in both their philosophy and their mathematical formulation. The proposal I was discussing in my previous post is right now in a similar status. But in order for a theory to be successful physicists should pay attention to it, no matter if this theory contradicts well established theories. This point can be exemplified by recalling how the Ptolemaic system was overthrown by the Copernican system. Although the Ptolemaic formulation was able to predict the motion of celestial bodies, the Copernican' released astronomers from cumbersome calculations. But the cost of this system had profound philosophical implications, namely that the earth is not a privileged place in the universe. Now the proposal I have been talking about requires a privileged frame. So are we open to entertain this and abandon relativity in the same way that scientist abandon the Ptolemaic system?

Please feel free to rebut this point.

Israel

report post as inappropriate

Dear Israel,

It's probably a good idea to hear different points of view. It's hard to imagine a privileged frame the size of the universe. However, I've entertained fanciful ideas of hyper-drives. I've imagined a bubble or small enclosure of space-time inside of a hyper-space. It gave me a fun and clever way to sidestep the limitations of space-time.

I like the idea of the soliton. It seems to fit with the "theme" of physics.

As for particle-wave duality, there is an easy way to fix this. Photons, and in fact all particles, are really waves. It's when we see them at low resolution (or far away) that they look one dimension. Stars are gigantic spheres of radiant energy. But viewed from lightyears away, they are just dots in the sky.

report post as inappropriate

It's probably a good idea to hear different points of view. It's hard to imagine a privileged frame the size of the universe. However, I've entertained fanciful ideas of hyper-drives. I've imagined a bubble or small enclosure of space-time inside of a hyper-space. It gave me a fun and clever way to sidestep the limitations of space-time.

I like the idea of the soliton. It seems to fit with the "theme" of physics.

As for particle-wave duality, there is an easy way to fix this. Photons, and in fact all particles, are really waves. It's when we see them at low resolution (or far away) that they look one dimension. Stars are gigantic spheres of radiant energy. But viewed from lightyears away, they are just dots in the sky.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Jason

Thank you for your reply. I know that it is hard to imagine a privileged frame the size of the universe, but I am sure you will agree that it is harder to visualize a universe with eleven dimensions.

I am curious of what is the meaning of "It seems to fit with the "theme" of physics".

I also agree with you when you say that photons and particles are both waves, in fact, a soliton is a wave.

Kind regards

Israel

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your reply. I know that it is hard to imagine a privileged frame the size of the universe, but I am sure you will agree that it is harder to visualize a universe with eleven dimensions.

I am curious of what is the meaning of "It seems to fit with the "theme" of physics".

I also agree with you when you say that photons and particles are both waves, in fact, a soliton is a wave.

Kind regards

Israel

report post as inappropriate

Hi Israel,

I: "Thank you for your reply. I know that it is hard to imagine a privileged frame the size of the universe, but I am sure you will agree that it is harder to visualize a universe with eleven dimensions."

No argument there. :-)

I:"I am curious of what is the meaning of "It seems to fit with the "theme" of physics"."

I've noticed some reoccuring themes in physics. Things like wave-function interference patterns that add to zero (destructive). Light and waves do that. Cars, rocks and people certaintly don't add to zero. Another example is conservation laws. When we were kids, we would ask our parents for money, and they would say: NO!!! Conservation of energy is a lot like that. Another example would be that the Uncertainty Principle seems to fit snuggly with our personal experiences that (a) everyone makes mistakes, (b) a lot more is completely unknown than most people let on, (c) if nobody is watching it, who knows what it could be; (d) if you haven't looked, then you don't know what it is (in spite of your insistence otherwise). :-D

Solitons exist. Well, at least there is phenomena that fits the mathematical profile. I wonder if anyone has ever been run over by a soliton?

report post as inappropriate

I: "Thank you for your reply. I know that it is hard to imagine a privileged frame the size of the universe, but I am sure you will agree that it is harder to visualize a universe with eleven dimensions."

No argument there. :-)

I:"I am curious of what is the meaning of "It seems to fit with the "theme" of physics"."

I've noticed some reoccuring themes in physics. Things like wave-function interference patterns that add to zero (destructive). Light and waves do that. Cars, rocks and people certaintly don't add to zero. Another example is conservation laws. When we were kids, we would ask our parents for money, and they would say: NO!!! Conservation of energy is a lot like that. Another example would be that the Uncertainty Principle seems to fit snuggly with our personal experiences that (a) everyone makes mistakes, (b) a lot more is completely unknown than most people let on, (c) if nobody is watching it, who knows what it could be; (d) if you haven't looked, then you don't know what it is (in spite of your insistence otherwise). :-D

Solitons exist. Well, at least there is phenomena that fits the mathematical profile. I wonder if anyone has ever been run over by a soliton?

report post as inappropriate

Dear Israel,

To my mind, a revolution in Physics is a new physical assumption compatible with the established theories which changes a paradigm and which has consequences checked quickly by the experiments. General Relativity and Quantum mechanics are established theories coming from the Einstein’s revolution and they are checked with a very high degree of precision. Today, I think that something is wrong. I think that Gravitation is not discrete and is really a continuous theory. Moreover, we know that Quantum mechanics is not deterministic and is really a probabilistic discrete theory due to the Bell test experiments. But we need a new assumption to explain the beginning of the universe and the unity of Physics. I postulate that photons are the primordial elements in order to remove the initial singularity. This idea comes from the work of Stephen Hawking that remove a mathematical gravitational singularity with emission of a black body radiation. This is one of the first work that bring together the relativity and Quantum mechanics. For physical reasons, I think that the primordial radiation is a radiation of photons. With photons only, the notion of time falls down. We cannot really say “light before matter” (matter being all massive or charged particles) because time does not exist with photons only. I think that time starts with the first pair production. I just say that energy was here and carried by photons/light outside of time and outside an initial singularity where all values become infinite.

Then I realize that we have a natural definition of masses without the Higgs mechanism and a physical explanation for inflation. But it is only a new physical assumption with some consequences…

Emmanuel

To my mind, a revolution in Physics is a new physical assumption compatible with the established theories which changes a paradigm and which has consequences checked quickly by the experiments. General Relativity and Quantum mechanics are established theories coming from the Einstein’s revolution and they are checked with a very high degree of precision. Today, I think that something is wrong. I think that Gravitation is not discrete and is really a continuous theory. Moreover, we know that Quantum mechanics is not deterministic and is really a probabilistic discrete theory due to the Bell test experiments. But we need a new assumption to explain the beginning of the universe and the unity of Physics. I postulate that photons are the primordial elements in order to remove the initial singularity. This idea comes from the work of Stephen Hawking that remove a mathematical gravitational singularity with emission of a black body radiation. This is one of the first work that bring together the relativity and Quantum mechanics. For physical reasons, I think that the primordial radiation is a radiation of photons. With photons only, the notion of time falls down. We cannot really say “light before matter” (matter being all massive or charged particles) because time does not exist with photons only. I think that time starts with the first pair production. I just say that energy was here and carried by photons/light outside of time and outside an initial singularity where all values become infinite.

Then I realize that we have a natural definition of masses without the Higgs mechanism and a physical explanation for inflation. But it is only a new physical assumption with some consequences…

Emmanuel

Dear Emmanuel,

We may classify the physical revolutions in at least two types. (A) Those that encompass and comprehend simpler theories and (B) those that replace one established theory for another theory with a radical philosophy. Perhaps, the revolution that you have in mind corresponds to type A, for example, the revolution of relativity (R) which encompasses Newtonian mechanics (NM). Or...

view entire post

We may classify the physical revolutions in at least two types. (A) Those that encompass and comprehend simpler theories and (B) those that replace one established theory for another theory with a radical philosophy. Perhaps, the revolution that you have in mind corresponds to type A, for example, the revolution of relativity (R) which encompasses Newtonian mechanics (NM). Or...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Israel,

I discussed a lot about the nature of time in my previous posts, in particular in the answer to Cristi. You can also read my eprint http://cel.archives-ouvertes.fr/cel-00511837 for more details. This is a key point.

Emmanuel

I discussed a lot about the nature of time in my previous posts, in particular in the answer to Cristi. You can also read my eprint http://cel.archives-ouvertes.fr/cel-00511837 for more details. This is a key point.

Emmanuel

Dear Emmanuel,

You wrote:"General Relativity and Quantum mechanics are established theories coming from the Einstein’s revolution and they are checked with a very high degree of precision. Today, I think that something is wrong."

I asked for a comment on the essay 2020 by Peter Jackson. Why did you ignore this. Well, most likely Peter is wrong at least in part. Wouldn't it be fair...

view entire post

You wrote:"General Relativity and Quantum mechanics are established theories coming from the Einstein’s revolution and they are checked with a very high degree of precision. Today, I think that something is wrong."

I asked for a comment on the essay 2020 by Peter Jackson. Why did you ignore this. Well, most likely Peter is wrong at least in part. Wouldn't it be fair...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Emmanuel

Thank you for the link, I will check it. But I am not sure about your agreement about the types of revolutions. This suggest to me that you are probably unwilling to answer. I believe that as a scientists one should remain open to any possibility. I am paying attention to your work and similarly I expect reciprocity.

You mentioned that "we need a very radical approach" but I can figure out that you are not willing to be so fundamental as I pretend to be. Please don't get me wrong. I just believe that theories only need to explain physical phenomena regardless of the approach and no matter if they overthrow well established theories.

Paul Feyerabend once said: There is no single method to science and no single criterion for who is good scientist. Good science is whatever works at a particular moment of history to advance our knowledge. And don't bother me with how we define progress --define it any way you like and this is still true...

So, I am supporting an already well developed unified theory with a different philosophy that replaces relativity, encompasses the other theories and therefore explains all known physical phenomena and in addition, makes new testable predictions (much less ambitions than string theory) which can be corroborated in short time by experiments (compressional waves of the material continuum, waves that travel faster than light).

And as I told you before in the case of Maxwell's theory of electrodynamics. The theory succeeded not because it was mathematically consistent and explain the hitherto physical phenomena but because it made testable predictions verified quickly by experiments (electromagnetic waves) and because it had upholders (the Maxwellians) that believed in its philosophy.

Please feel free to make a comment

Israel

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for the link, I will check it. But I am not sure about your agreement about the types of revolutions. This suggest to me that you are probably unwilling to answer. I believe that as a scientists one should remain open to any possibility. I am paying attention to your work and similarly I expect reciprocity.

You mentioned that "we need a very radical approach" but I can figure out that you are not willing to be so fundamental as I pretend to be. Please don't get me wrong. I just believe that theories only need to explain physical phenomena regardless of the approach and no matter if they overthrow well established theories.

Paul Feyerabend once said: There is no single method to science and no single criterion for who is good scientist. Good science is whatever works at a particular moment of history to advance our knowledge. And don't bother me with how we define progress --define it any way you like and this is still true...

So, I am supporting an already well developed unified theory with a different philosophy that replaces relativity, encompasses the other theories and therefore explains all known physical phenomena and in addition, makes new testable predictions (much less ambitions than string theory) which can be corroborated in short time by experiments (compressional waves of the material continuum, waves that travel faster than light).

And as I told you before in the case of Maxwell's theory of electrodynamics. The theory succeeded not because it was mathematically consistent and explain the hitherto physical phenomena but because it made testable predictions verified quickly by experiments (electromagnetic waves) and because it had upholders (the Maxwellians) that believed in its philosophy.

Please feel free to make a comment

Israel

report post as inappropriate

Dear Jason

I've noticed some reoccuring themes in physics. Things like wave-function interference patterns that add to zero (destructive). Light and waves do that. Cars, rocks and people certaintly don't add to zero. Another example is conservation laws. When we were kids, we would ask our parents for money, and they would say: NO!!! Conservation of energy is a lot like that. Another example would be that the Uncertainty Principle seems to fit snuggly with our personal experiences that (a) everyone makes mistakes, (b) a lot more is completely unknown than most people let on, (c) if nobody is watching it, who knows what it could be; (d) if you haven't looked, then you don't know what it is (in spite of your insistence otherwise). :-D

I got your points.

Solitons exist. Well, at least there is phenomena that fits the mathematical profile. I wonder if anyone has ever been run over by a soliton?

Solitons are a reality, take a look at wikipedia for some optical examples.

Israel

report post as inappropriate

I've noticed some reoccuring themes in physics. Things like wave-function interference patterns that add to zero (destructive). Light and waves do that. Cars, rocks and people certaintly don't add to zero. Another example is conservation laws. When we were kids, we would ask our parents for money, and they would say: NO!!! Conservation of energy is a lot like that. Another example would be that the Uncertainty Principle seems to fit snuggly with our personal experiences that (a) everyone makes mistakes, (b) a lot more is completely unknown than most people let on, (c) if nobody is watching it, who knows what it could be; (d) if you haven't looked, then you don't know what it is (in spite of your insistence otherwise). :-D

I got your points.

Solitons exist. Well, at least there is phenomena that fits the mathematical profile. I wonder if anyone has ever been run over by a soliton?

Solitons are a reality, take a look at wikipedia for some optical examples.

Israel

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. Moulay,

I agree with your basic thesis, but do not believe you went far enough. In my essay I derive a generalisation of the energy of a photon, and then proceed to derive its implications (potentially) for physics as a whole.

With your physics background you may be able to extend the ideas much further, or use them in your own research.

Regards,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

I agree with your basic thesis, but do not believe you went far enough. In my essay I derive a generalisation of the energy of a photon, and then proceed to derive its implications (potentially) for physics as a whole.

With your physics background you may be able to extend the ideas much further, or use them in your own research.

Regards,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Based on your comments, I have written a revised version of my essay available at the following address http://cel.archives-ouvertes.fr/cel-00530098. I think that we need a new physical assumption and I think that this assumption is the fact that photons are the primordial elements of the physical evolution.

I would like to thank FQXi which is a very nice open place. Even if I am an academic researcher, I think that we need freedom in sciences. I also think that a new revolution in Physics is inevitable because there are too many signs, among them the absence of the Higgs bosons, dilatons, gravitons and the unknown dark matter and dark energy. The book of Lee Smolin “The trouble with Physics” sums up clearly the situation. Nevertheless, it is very difficult to develop a new physical assumption due to the constraints of the General Relativity and Quantum mechanics.

Best regards,

Emmanuel

I would like to thank FQXi which is a very nice open place. Even if I am an academic researcher, I think that we need freedom in sciences. I also think that a new revolution in Physics is inevitable because there are too many signs, among them the absence of the Higgs bosons, dilatons, gravitons and the unknown dark matter and dark energy. The book of Lee Smolin “The trouble with Physics” sums up clearly the situation. Nevertheless, it is very difficult to develop a new physical assumption due to the constraints of the General Relativity and Quantum mechanics.

Best regards,

Emmanuel

Emmanuel: I liked the basic starting principal and the simple notion of the photon as the fundamental particle. I'm interested to know whether you have a visual model of the photon? I'm not a believer in the spacetime concept so I lost interest when the essay got technical. I think the particle/wave duality is a feature which is readily solvable with a little more lateral thinking from the likes of yourself. Thanks for the essay.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dear Alan,

I also think along these lines that all particles have an internal system that works nearly the same as each other. You might be interested in a visual model of how this works, and that is the direction taken in my essay. A satisfactory argument for discreteness would also include a reason for it. For example, when an electron absorbs a photon, how does that happen? There must be something internal that holds it or ejects it.

In scanning other essays I have seen photons modeled with spheres or elements which are very interesting but I think my essay is the only one so far that explores internal forces producing the shape and motion of particles. These ideas nicely refine equations for how particles interact with each other.

Kind regards,

Russell Jurgensen

report post as inappropriate

I also think along these lines that all particles have an internal system that works nearly the same as each other. You might be interested in a visual model of how this works, and that is the direction taken in my essay. A satisfactory argument for discreteness would also include a reason for it. For example, when an electron absorbs a photon, how does that happen? There must be something internal that holds it or ejects it.

In scanning other essays I have seen photons modeled with spheres or elements which are very interesting but I think my essay is the only one so far that explores internal forces producing the shape and motion of particles. These ideas nicely refine equations for how particles interact with each other.

Kind regards,

Russell Jurgensen

report post as inappropriate

Dear Alan,

I don't know if you know the fantastic experiment called the Young's experiment. With this experiment, we can see the wave/particule duality of photons. Photons behave as particles but also as waves. For the Quantum mechanics, it is mathematically defined as a probability wave.

Good luck for the contest,

Emmanuel

I don't know if you know the fantastic experiment called the Young's experiment. With this experiment, we can see the wave/particule duality of photons. Photons behave as particles but also as waves. For the Quantum mechanics, it is mathematically defined as a probability wave.

Good luck for the contest,

Emmanuel

Yes, I'm familiar with it and I'm perplexed as to why it is still a paradox. Why not use an Archimedes screw as a visualisation of how something can be a particle and a wave at the same time? This helix can also act as a force of attraction when interacting with another particle/wave and if travelled around a wraparound universe then it would emerge on the other side as a force of repulsion i.e. dark energy. Problem solved imo.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dear Emmanuel,

I'm afraid that the Big Bang hypothesis belongs to fiction, not to science. As to photons: though everybody treats the photon as a classical, bullet-like object which accidentally has no mass, it actually is a quantum object, which can be defined as an object the behavior of which cannot be understood causally. This does not mean that we cannot understand quantum mechanics rationally. To understand, we need to reconsider whether what us seems logical corresponds to what to nature itself is logical, and adjust our ideas about what makes sense accordingly. For details see my thread 838.

Regards, Anton

report post as inappropriate

I'm afraid that the Big Bang hypothesis belongs to fiction, not to science. As to photons: though everybody treats the photon as a classical, bullet-like object which accidentally has no mass, it actually is a quantum object, which can be defined as an object the behavior of which cannot be understood causally. This does not mean that we cannot understand quantum mechanics rationally. To understand, we need to reconsider whether what us seems logical corresponds to what to nature itself is logical, and adjust our ideas about what makes sense accordingly. For details see my thread 838.

Regards, Anton

report post as inappropriate

Dear Anton,

It is very difficult to explain our universe without the assumption of the Big-Bang. Neverthess, the scenario is not complete, in particular concerning the Planck epoch and inflation. This is the reason why I think that we need a new physical assumption. I think that this assumption is the fact that photons (also called light when they are considered as waves) are the primordial elements of the physical evolution of our universe.

Good luck for the contest,

Emmanuel

report post as inappropriate

It is very difficult to explain our universe without the assumption of the Big-Bang. Neverthess, the scenario is not complete, in particular concerning the Planck epoch and inflation. This is the reason why I think that we need a new physical assumption. I think that this assumption is the fact that photons (also called light when they are considered as waves) are the primordial elements of the physical evolution of our universe.

Good luck for the contest,

Emmanuel

Dear Emmanuel,

If the universe creates itself without any outside intervention, then particles have to create themselves, each other. The consequence is that fundamental particles then are as much the source as the product of their interactions. Since they obviously need to acquire some kind of backbone to prevent their properties to vary continuously as the circumstances vary, to have...

view entire post

If the universe creates itself without any outside intervention, then particles have to create themselves, each other. The consequence is that fundamental particles then are as much the source as the product of their interactions. Since they obviously need to acquire some kind of backbone to prevent their properties to vary continuously as the circumstances vary, to have...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Anton,

I agree that the Big-Bang cannot really explain the origin of all energy in the universe. But I don’t think that it is in the scope of Physics. As said the French scientist Antoine Lavoisier “Nothing is created, nothing is destroyed, everything is transformed”: this is the conservation of energy. I think that photons are the primordial form of energy and I think that this assumption can help us to solve some physical problems.

Best regards,

Emmanuel

I agree that the Big-Bang cannot really explain the origin of all energy in the universe. But I don’t think that it is in the scope of Physics. As said the French scientist Antoine Lavoisier “Nothing is created, nothing is destroyed, everything is transformed”: this is the conservation of energy. I think that photons are the primordial form of energy and I think that this assumption can help us to solve some physical problems.

Best regards,

Emmanuel

Dear Emmanuel,

You write

---"I think that photons are the primordial form of energy and I think that this assumption can help us to solve some physical problems. "---

I am to understand that photons have an autonomous existence, that they exist even without any matter present? If they are primordial, then what is the cause of their existence, their origin, and how can you rhyme this with the law of conservation of energy according to which energy cannot be created out of nothing? I think that we cannot even begin to grasp how nature works if we don't understand how particles and energy were created, that is, if we may use the past tense. Only if we find out how a universe may engineer itself out of nothing can we hope to understand why particles have the properties they have, why the world is at it is. Though we may imagine a photon, in its particle-guise, as some kind of bullet which buzzes through a landscape from its source towards some random target, how can we rhyme this with the fact that according to the photons themselves, their emission at the source coincides in time with their absorption elsewhere? Unlike everybody assumes, photons do not interact with (objects in the) environment they are supposed to travel through: all information about that environment is already present at the source and the receiver. If so, then the environment doesn't exist to the photon nor the photon to the environment, so it makes no sense to speak about its velocity. The speed of light then isn't a velocity, but just a property of spacetime, a ratio which tells how many meters correspond to how many seconds. Though there certainly is a spacetime distance between the source and the absorbing particles so we do measure a transmission time equal to their space distance, the photon bridges this distance in no time at all. This means that we cannot ascribe a photon a classical, macroscopic kind of reality: it only exists in the change it effects (or is the cause of) at the source and receiver, and hence cannot be the cause, the origin of anything. For details see my essay.

Regards, Anton

report post as inappropriate

You write

---"I think that photons are the primordial form of energy and I think that this assumption can help us to solve some physical problems. "---

I am to understand that photons have an autonomous existence, that they exist even without any matter present? If they are primordial, then what is the cause of their existence, their origin, and how can you rhyme this with the law of conservation of energy according to which energy cannot be created out of nothing? I think that we cannot even begin to grasp how nature works if we don't understand how particles and energy were created, that is, if we may use the past tense. Only if we find out how a universe may engineer itself out of nothing can we hope to understand why particles have the properties they have, why the world is at it is. Though we may imagine a photon, in its particle-guise, as some kind of bullet which buzzes through a landscape from its source towards some random target, how can we rhyme this with the fact that according to the photons themselves, their emission at the source coincides in time with their absorption elsewhere? Unlike everybody assumes, photons do not interact with (objects in the) environment they are supposed to travel through: all information about that environment is already present at the source and the receiver. If so, then the environment doesn't exist to the photon nor the photon to the environment, so it makes no sense to speak about its velocity. The speed of light then isn't a velocity, but just a property of spacetime, a ratio which tells how many meters correspond to how many seconds. Though there certainly is a spacetime distance between the source and the absorbing particles so we do measure a transmission time equal to their space distance, the photon bridges this distance in no time at all. This means that we cannot ascribe a photon a classical, macroscopic kind of reality: it only exists in the change it effects (or is the cause of) at the source and receiver, and hence cannot be the cause, the origin of anything. For details see my essay.

Regards, Anton

report post as inappropriate

Dear Anton,

Your questions are related to the nature of time. I have written an eprint available at the following address http://cel.archives-ouvertes.fr/cel-00511837 concerning this problem. To solve the problem of the nature of the Planck epoch, you need a definition of the nature of time. Some physicists think that time is totally relative and does not really exist. I think that time is relative to the speed of light and then to photons. More exactly, I think that time comes from the possibility of motion for matter relative to the possibility of motion for light which is the speed of light. With photons only, time falls down. Nevertheless, I don’t want to explain the origin of the energy in the universe because I don’t think that it is a question that concerns Physics.

Emmanuel

Your questions are related to the nature of time. I have written an eprint available at the following address http://cel.archives-ouvertes.fr/cel-00511837 concerning this problem. To solve the problem of the nature of the Planck epoch, you need a definition of the nature of time. Some physicists think that time is totally relative and does not really exist. I think that time is relative to the speed of light and then to photons. More exactly, I think that time comes from the possibility of motion for matter relative to the possibility of motion for light which is the speed of light. With photons only, time falls down. Nevertheless, I don’t want to explain the origin of the energy in the universe because I don’t think that it is a question that concerns Physics.

Emmanuel

Dear Emmanuel and Anton,

Emmanuel wrote: "As said the French scientist Antoine Lavoisier "Nothing is created, nothing is destroyed, everything is transformed": this is the conservation of energy."

This is an extremely important quote! As I've shown in my essay, the energy from the Big Bang comes from a previous cycle of the universe similar to Roger Penrose's Conformally Cyclical Cosmology and I have given a specific mechanism for how this occurs. Also, Dr. Christian Corda has posted a fine essay re. The Extended Theories of Gravity which assumes that the cosmos has an inherent intrinsic curvature. My cosmology gives an amazingly simple reason why this must be the case!

Elsewhere, Emmanuel has stated that he believes that the contents rather than the container must be fundamental. I believe they are both fundamental, thats why gravity and the other three forces are so different. I have mainly dealt with the fundamentals of the container in my essay and would appreciate your comments if you would be so kind.

Thanks,

Dan

report post as inappropriate

Emmanuel wrote: "As said the French scientist Antoine Lavoisier "Nothing is created, nothing is destroyed, everything is transformed": this is the conservation of energy."

This is an extremely important quote! As I've shown in my essay, the energy from the Big Bang comes from a previous cycle of the universe similar to Roger Penrose's Conformally Cyclical Cosmology and I have given a specific mechanism for how this occurs. Also, Dr. Christian Corda has posted a fine essay re. The Extended Theories of Gravity which assumes that the cosmos has an inherent intrinsic curvature. My cosmology gives an amazingly simple reason why this must be the case!

Elsewhere, Emmanuel has stated that he believes that the contents rather than the container must be fundamental. I believe they are both fundamental, thats why gravity and the other three forces are so different. I have mainly dealt with the fundamentals of the container in my essay and would appreciate your comments if you would be so kind.

Thanks,

Dan

report post as inappropriate

Emmanuel,

Check my essay "The lost Treasure". Don't shy away. Look into it.

The Rascal

report post as inappropriate

Check my essay "The lost Treasure". Don't shy away. Look into it.

The Rascal

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sir,

We had gone through your essay. You had based your deductions on some generally accepted principles. But if we analyze the foundations of these policies, we find many inconsistencies. Hence without undermining your attempts and arguments, we are bringing out these facts for a healthy debate can take place to establish the truth.

You have referred to the expression:...

view entire post

We had gone through your essay. You had based your deductions on some generally accepted principles. But if we analyze the foundations of these policies, we find many inconsistencies. Hence without undermining your attempts and arguments, we are bringing out these facts for a healthy debate can take place to establish the truth.

You have referred to the expression:...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Basudeba,

Thank you for your post about the foundations of quantum mechanics. However, I do not discuss about this issue in my essay. Good luck for the contest.

Emmanuel

Thank you for your post about the foundations of quantum mechanics. However, I do not discuss about this issue in my essay. Good luck for the contest.

Emmanuel

Dear Sir,

We had pointed out the discrepancies in the theories based on which you have developed your ideas in the Essay. Thus by refusing to discuss these, you are refusing to examine the foundations of your own essay. This is the escapist attitude of modern scientists, which shows that:

1) The majority of modern scientists are superstitious. They blindly accept something and refuse to discuss its validity.

2) They want to perpetuate the cult of incomprehensibility so that they can lead a cozy life at public expenses by fooling them with voodoo ideas couched in bombastic jargon.

3) This reductionism is hindering the progress of science and ultimately will be detrimental to the progress of science.

Dear Sir,

Will you educate us about your reservations against not discussing the foundations of your own essay? After all, this is the Foundational Questions Institute Forum.

Regards,

basudeba.

report post as inappropriate

We had pointed out the discrepancies in the theories based on which you have developed your ideas in the Essay. Thus by refusing to discuss these, you are refusing to examine the foundations of your own essay. This is the escapist attitude of modern scientists, which shows that:

1) The majority of modern scientists are superstitious. They blindly accept something and refuse to discuss its validity.

2) They want to perpetuate the cult of incomprehensibility so that they can lead a cozy life at public expenses by fooling them with voodoo ideas couched in bombastic jargon.

3) This reductionism is hindering the progress of science and ultimately will be detrimental to the progress of science.

Dear Sir,

Will you educate us about your reservations against not discussing the foundations of your own essay? After all, this is the Foundational Questions Institute Forum.

Regards,

basudeba.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Basudeba,

I don’t think that you have pointed out a problem concerning the foundations of Quantum mechanics. Moreover, this theory is checked with a very high degree of precision. The same is true for the General Relativity. Nevertheless, there are some problems concerning the origin of masses, the unity of Physics and more generally the beginning of the universe. I think that we need a new physical assumption rather than a modification of these theories checked with a very high degree of precision.

Concerning the problems of the dark matter and the dark energy, I think that the solution is in the General Relativity.

Best regards,

Emmanuel

I don’t think that you have pointed out a problem concerning the foundations of Quantum mechanics. Moreover, this theory is checked with a very high degree of precision. The same is true for the General Relativity. Nevertheless, there are some problems concerning the origin of masses, the unity of Physics and more generally the beginning of the universe. I think that we need a new physical assumption rather than a modification of these theories checked with a very high degree of precision.

Concerning the problems of the dark matter and the dark energy, I think that the solution is in the General Relativity.

Best regards,

Emmanuel

Dear Israël,

I don’t think the assumption that photons are the primordial elements of the universe is of type A. I have developed several consequences of this assumption that I did not see at first. The new version is in attached file below and also available online at the following address http://cel.archives-ouvertes.fr/cel-00530098

If photons are the primordial elements then there is no Higgs boson, dilaton and graviton. Definitely, it is not a minor change in the standard model but a new way for explaining the origin of masses, inflation and the beginning of the universe. Why would we accept such an assumption? I think because it is a very simple solution and because it is a natural extension of the Relativity principle. All is relative to photons because they are primordial.

Emmanuel

attachments: Photon_CEL.pdf

I don’t think the assumption that photons are the primordial elements of the universe is of type A. I have developed several consequences of this assumption that I did not see at first. The new version is in attached file below and also available online at the following address http://cel.archives-ouvertes.fr/cel-00530098

If photons are the primordial elements then there is no Higgs boson, dilaton and graviton. Definitely, it is not a minor change in the standard model but a new way for explaining the origin of masses, inflation and the beginning of the universe. Why would we accept such an assumption? I think because it is a very simple solution and because it is a natural extension of the Relativity principle. All is relative to photons because they are primordial.

Emmanuel

attachments: Photon_CEL.pdf

Dear Emmanuel,

To interpret the speed of light as a velocity is to treat what essentially is a quantum mechanical phenomenon as something which obeys the rules of classical mechanics. We can only speak about the velocity of an object with respect to something if and when it interacts with that something as it moves. (Interacting includes the energy exchange between particles by means of...

view entire post

To interpret the speed of light as a velocity is to treat what essentially is a quantum mechanical phenomenon as something which obeys the rules of classical mechanics. We can only speak about the velocity of an object with respect to something if and when it interacts with that something as it moves. (Interacting includes the energy exchange between particles by means of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Anton,

The exchange of a photon is the principle of the electromagnetic interaction. I don't know if you know the fantastic book "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter" of Richard Feynman. It is one of my favorite books. The QED is explained very easily. But time and space are defined by the General Relativity. In the theory of relativity, you have two main ideas:

- the first one is that the speed of light is a limit for the possibility of motion for the matter (the matter being all charged or massive particles): this is the idea of the special relativity,

- the second one is that the energy models the geometry of the spacetime: this is the idea of the General Relativity.

The main problem is that the QED is a discrete theory which is not compatible with the General Relativity which is a continuous theory. It is very difficult to imagine a particle for gravitation (called a graviton) because the General Relativity is nonrenormalizable. But maybe there is no need for them to exist. If you see photons as waves, they are the basis of space and time because sapce and time come from the possibility of motion for the matter relative to the possibility of motion for photons which is the speed of light. So, space and time are defined relative to photons (not as particles but as waves). Finally, I think that all is defined relative the photons due to the wave/particle duality: space and time relative to light (photons as waves) and elementary particles with their masses relative to photons (as particles). Why? Because photons are the primordial element of the physical evolution of the universe. This is my idea.

Best regards,

Emmanuel

The exchange of a photon is the principle of the electromagnetic interaction. I don't know if you know the fantastic book "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter" of Richard Feynman. It is one of my favorite books. The QED is explained very easily. But time and space are defined by the General Relativity. In the theory of relativity, you have two main ideas:

- the first one is that the speed of light is a limit for the possibility of motion for the matter (the matter being all charged or massive particles): this is the idea of the special relativity,

- the second one is that the energy models the geometry of the spacetime: this is the idea of the General Relativity.

The main problem is that the QED is a discrete theory which is not compatible with the General Relativity which is a continuous theory. It is very difficult to imagine a particle for gravitation (called a graviton) because the General Relativity is nonrenormalizable. But maybe there is no need for them to exist. If you see photons as waves, they are the basis of space and time because sapce and time come from the possibility of motion for the matter relative to the possibility of motion for photons which is the speed of light. So, space and time are defined relative to photons (not as particles but as waves). Finally, I think that all is defined relative the photons due to the wave/particle duality: space and time relative to light (photons as waves) and elementary particles with their masses relative to photons (as particles). Why? Because photons are the primordial element of the physical evolution of the universe. This is my idea.

Best regards,

Emmanuel

Dear Emmanuel,

I truly enjoyed your paper. I think it's also fairly easy to understand that the photon is the basic entity to be associated with all energy. On the other hand to have it as the basic (exclusive) building block of matter is to somehow ignore that the fabric of space-time needs to be included. That is from the perspective of the photon neither space nor time exists and it only exists for those entities that are recognized as matter.

That's to say that only with the omission of space-time can we have a photon and only with its inclusion do we have matter. This would have me find that matter must then be somehow the physical consequence of the two, rather than a reconfiguration of the one. It is an interesting question whether a black hole is a place where space-time are reunited at the exclusion of energy or rather a place where energy is reunited at the exclusion of space-time. Interestingly enough in reading your comments I find that something like what I've said here you account for as the dawn of inflation and subsequently matter; so perhaps I have it wrong that you don't consider space-time as an essential and fundamental entity along with the one of energy (photon).

Regards,

Phil

report post as inappropriate

I truly enjoyed your paper. I think it's also fairly easy to understand that the photon is the basic entity to be associated with all energy. On the other hand to have it as the basic (exclusive) building block of matter is to somehow ignore that the fabric of space-time needs to be included. That is from the perspective of the photon neither space nor time exists and it only exists for those entities that are recognized as matter.

That's to say that only with the omission of space-time can we have a photon and only with its inclusion do we have matter. This would have me find that matter must then be somehow the physical consequence of the two, rather than a reconfiguration of the one. It is an interesting question whether a black hole is a place where space-time are reunited at the exclusion of energy or rather a place where energy is reunited at the exclusion of space-time. Interestingly enough in reading your comments I find that something like what I've said here you account for as the dawn of inflation and subsequently matter; so perhaps I have it wrong that you don't consider space-time as an essential and fundamental entity along with the one of energy (photon).

Regards,

Phil

report post as inappropriate

Dear Phil,

Thank you for your interesting remark. In a new version of my essay available online here: http://cel.archives-ouvertes.fr/cel-00530098, I explain that photons are more primordial than fundamental. In another paper untitled “The nature of time” available online here: http://cel.archives-ouvertes.fr/cel-00511837, I have explained that time comes from the possibility of motion for matter relative to the possibility of motion for photons which is the speed of light. So, I think that the spacetime comes from the fundamental relation between matter (all charges or massive particles) and light (photons as waves). Some speculative theories explain gravitation with a particle called graviton. This particle has no mass and no charge. I think that only particle without charge and mass is the photon and I think that it is the primordial form of energy. I agree that if the Planck epoch is the primordial light epoch, the notion of time and then the notion of spacetime have no meaning. Recently, I realized that we can explain the origin of masses relative to photons if they are primordial. The same is true for inflation.

Best regards,

Emmanuel

Thank you for your interesting remark. In a new version of my essay available online here: http://cel.archives-ouvertes.fr/cel-00530098, I explain that photons are more primordial than fundamental. In another paper untitled “The nature of time” available online here: http://cel.archives-ouvertes.fr/cel-00511837, I have explained that time comes from the possibility of motion for matter relative to the possibility of motion for photons which is the speed of light. So, I think that the spacetime comes from the fundamental relation between matter (all charges or massive particles) and light (photons as waves). Some speculative theories explain gravitation with a particle called graviton. This particle has no mass and no charge. I think that only particle without charge and mass is the photon and I think that it is the primordial form of energy. I agree that if the Planck epoch is the primordial light epoch, the notion of time and then the notion of spacetime have no meaning. Recently, I realized that we can explain the origin of masses relative to photons if they are primordial. The same is true for inflation.

Best regards,

Emmanuel

Hello Emmanuel,

I find your idea of photons as being the fundamental nature of the Universe rather intriguing. Have you checked Jason Wolfe's essay, “Photon Theory”? My work does not directly deals with theories of photons, but I do show how Basic Law can be formulated using a 'prime physis quantity eta' (thought of as both 'action' as well as 'accumulation of energy').

In my essay, I show that Planck's Law for blackbody radiation is actually an exact mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement. This explains why the experimental blackbody spectrum is indistinguishable from the theoretical.

More directly relevant to your interests, however, you will find a results I posted just days ago, “If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave”. I provide a simple mathematical proof of this proposition in my post. It's very short and easy to follow. If you should read it, I would be delighted to have your comments and support.

Best wishes,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

I find your idea of photons as being the fundamental nature of the Universe rather intriguing. Have you checked Jason Wolfe's essay, “Photon Theory”? My work does not directly deals with theories of photons, but I do show how Basic Law can be formulated using a 'prime physis quantity eta' (thought of as both 'action' as well as 'accumulation of energy').

In my essay, I show that Planck's Law for blackbody radiation is actually an exact mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement. This explains why the experimental blackbody spectrum is indistinguishable from the theoretical.

More directly relevant to your interests, however, you will find a results I posted just days ago, “If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave”. I provide a simple mathematical proof of this proposition in my post. It's very short and easy to follow. If you should read it, I would be delighted to have your comments and support.

Best wishes,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Dear Constantinos,

I don’t understand what your eta is. But I am not sure that we will find the solution to the unity of Physics in a new mathematical development. The book of the mathematician Peter Woit “Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law” is interesting to explain the current relation between Physics and Mathematics.

I think that the solution to the problems of masses, dilation, the beginning of the universe and more generally of the unity of Physics must come from Physics itself. I think that we need a new physical assumption coming from the subtle relation between matter and light. I think that photons are the primordial element of the physical evolution of the universe.

Emmanuel

I don’t understand what your eta is. But I am not sure that we will find the solution to the unity of Physics in a new mathematical development. The book of the mathematician Peter Woit “Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law” is interesting to explain the current relation between Physics and Mathematics.

I think that the solution to the problems of masses, dilation, the beginning of the universe and more generally of the unity of Physics must come from Physics itself. I think that we need a new physical assumption coming from the subtle relation between matter and light. I think that photons are the primordial element of the physical evolution of the universe.

Emmanuel

Dear Emmanuel,

You write, “I don’t understand what your eta is.”

You can think of eta as being the “time-integral of energy”. Hayrani Oz (Prof. Of Aerospace Engineering at Ohio State University) has used similar time-integrals of energy (what he calls enerxaction) very successful in his work for many years. Together we will be coauthoring a chapter in a Thermodynamics book coming out this July)

You write, “ But I am not sure that we will find the solution to the unity of Physics in a new mathematical development”

I agree that going deeper into the current “rabbit's hole” of theoretical physics will not bring us closer to a 'unity of Physics' or discover 'what is' the Universe. I see all such efforts as 'metaphysical' in that these seek to answer 'what is'. And like all 'metaphysics' in the past, in my humble opinion such efforts ultimately fail.

My approach to physics is different. Though mathematics can provide us with 'logical certainty', it cannot give us the 'truth of what is'. We can only know our 'measurements' of 'what is'. I see 'measurement' as the essence of physics. The mathematical foundations of physics, therefore, should be mathematical identities pertaining to measurement. The Pythagorean Theorem that we use to measure distance is a good example of this. Not 'mathematical models' describing 'what is'.

In my essay I derive Planck's Law for blackbody radiation without using energy quanta. I show that this Law is actually a mathematical identity that describes the interaction of measurement. It simple gives us a mathematical way of calculating 'energy intensity' if we know the 'energy absorbed' at some given temperature. This is the reason why the experimental spectrum is indistinguishable from the theoretical.

You write, “... the unity of Physics must come from Physics itself”

My thinking is that what gives physics (and anything else for that matter) 'unity' is the human mind that comprehended physical experience as an integrated whole. I believe in the ancient Greek idea that “Man is the Measure of All Things”. And I apply this principle to physics as well – highlighting of course, Man and Measure.

Do check my recent post, “If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave”. It's a very simple and elegant mathematical proof of this proposition. And please support my efforts to bring these results before the panel for review!

Best wishes,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

You write, “I don’t understand what your eta is.”

You can think of eta as being the “time-integral of energy”. Hayrani Oz (Prof. Of Aerospace Engineering at Ohio State University) has used similar time-integrals of energy (what he calls enerxaction) very successful in his work for many years. Together we will be coauthoring a chapter in a Thermodynamics book coming out this July)

You write, “ But I am not sure that we will find the solution to the unity of Physics in a new mathematical development”

I agree that going deeper into the current “rabbit's hole” of theoretical physics will not bring us closer to a 'unity of Physics' or discover 'what is' the Universe. I see all such efforts as 'metaphysical' in that these seek to answer 'what is'. And like all 'metaphysics' in the past, in my humble opinion such efforts ultimately fail.

My approach to physics is different. Though mathematics can provide us with 'logical certainty', it cannot give us the 'truth of what is'. We can only know our 'measurements' of 'what is'. I see 'measurement' as the essence of physics. The mathematical foundations of physics, therefore, should be mathematical identities pertaining to measurement. The Pythagorean Theorem that we use to measure distance is a good example of this. Not 'mathematical models' describing 'what is'.

In my essay I derive Planck's Law for blackbody radiation without using energy quanta. I show that this Law is actually a mathematical identity that describes the interaction of measurement. It simple gives us a mathematical way of calculating 'energy intensity' if we know the 'energy absorbed' at some given temperature. This is the reason why the experimental spectrum is indistinguishable from the theoretical.

You write, “... the unity of Physics must come from Physics itself”

My thinking is that what gives physics (and anything else for that matter) 'unity' is the human mind that comprehended physical experience as an integrated whole. I believe in the ancient Greek idea that “Man is the Measure of All Things”. And I apply this principle to physics as well – highlighting of course, Man and Measure.

Do check my recent post, “If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave”. It's a very simple and elegant mathematical proof of this proposition. And please support my efforts to bring these results before the panel for review!

Best wishes,

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Dear Constantinos,

Concerning your paper “If the Speed of Light is a Constant, Then Light is a Wave”, I think that there is a mistake. When you say "Dividing these by ", you cannot obtain the next equation because .

Best,

Emmanuel

Concerning your paper “If the Speed of Light is a Constant, Then Light is a Wave”, I think that there is a mistake. When you say "Dividing these by ", you cannot obtain the next equation because .

Best,

Emmanuel

Login or create account to post reply or comment.