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

**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

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

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Thomas Ray**: "(reposted in correct thread) Lorraine, Nah. That's nothing like my view...."
*in* 2015 in Review: New...

**Lorraine Ford**: "Clearly “law-of-nature” relationships and associated numbers represent..."
*in* Physics of the Observer -...

**Lee Bloomquist**: "Information Channel. An example from Jon Barwise. At the workshop..."
*in* Physics of the Observer -...

**Lee Bloomquist**: "Please clarify. I just tried to put a simple model of an observer in the..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Lee Bloomquist**: "Footnote...for the above post, the one with the equation existence =..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Thomas Ray**: "In fact, symmetry is the most pervasive physical principle that exists. ..."
*in* “Spookiness”...

**Thomas Ray**: "It's easy to get wound around the axle with black hole thermodynamics,..."
*in* “Spookiness”...

**Joe Fisher**: "It seems to have escaped Wolpert’s somewhat limited attention that no two..."
*in* Inferring the Limits on...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**The Complexity Conundrum**

Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

**Quantum Dream Time**

Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

**Our Place in the Multiverse**

Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

**Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena**

A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

**Watching the Observers**

Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

FQXi FORUM

February 23, 2018

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

TOPIC: Clockwork Quantum Universe by Donatello Dolce [refresh]

TOPIC: Clockwork Quantum Universe by Donatello Dolce [refresh]

Besides the purely digital or analog interpretations of reality there is a third possible description which incorporates important aspects of both. This is the cyclic interpretation of reality. In this scenario every elementary system is described by classical fields embedded in cyclic space-time dimensions. We will address these cyclic fields as "de Broglie internal clocks". They constitute the deterministic gears of a consistent deterministic description of quantum relativistic physics, providing in addiction an appealing formulation of the notion of time.

Donatello Dolce has obtained his PhD in High Energy Physics at the Florence Univ., in 2007 studying Extra Dimensional Higgsless Models and after a PostDoc at J. Gutenberg Univ. of Mainz, he has just started a PostDoc at the University of Melbourne, Australia. Despite his main research field is Phenomenology, he has dedicated most of his time and efforts in Foundations of Physics publishing a new approach to Quantum Field Theory, where Quantum Mechanics arises by assuming an Intrinsic Cyclic Nature of Elementary Systems.

Hello Donatello,

It is good to see you in this contest! It is also good to see that you have continued to evolve the material you presented at FFP10, where we met. I look forward to reading your essay.

You can find my submission here, and I hope you will take the time to read it at some point. I daresay it is far less technical than yours. But I also think there will be some points on which we can agree.

I already accept that some things which appear to be discrete entities are actually cyclical processes. And I make some related assertions in my own paper.

I wish you the best of luck!

Regards,

Jonathan J. Dickau

report post as inappropriate

It is good to see you in this contest! It is also good to see that you have continued to evolve the material you presented at FFP10, where we met. I look forward to reading your essay.

You can find my submission here, and I hope you will take the time to read it at some point. I daresay it is far less technical than yours. But I also think there will be some points on which we can agree.

I already accept that some things which appear to be discrete entities are actually cyclical processes. And I make some related assertions in my own paper.

I wish you the best of luck!

Regards,

Jonathan J. Dickau

report post as inappropriate

Thank you Jonathan,

in my essay, for reasons of space, I only have mentionated few of the recent progresses of the idea. I am writing some new papers that hopefully I will post soon on arXiv.

The technical details (I used essentially: discrete fourier transforms, wave equations, substitution of variables, integration by parts) are the solid support of my arguments. The language of physics is mathematics. After consistent mathematic results it is possible a conceptual interpretation. Thanks to this solid mathematical basis I can state that dynamical cyclic phenomena match ordinary quantum mechanics. As I have shown at FPP10 the correspondence is with the ordinary formulation of quantum mechanics (Schrodinger equation, Hilbert space, commutation relations) as well as with the Feynman Path Integral formulation.

I am in the lucky position that I obtain the same equation and if, as Feynman said, "to the same equation corresponds the same solution" the theory that I shortly describe in my essay can be regarded as a possible new formulation of quantum mechanics, exclusively base on the classical variational principle for relativistic waves.

At the time of FPP10 the formulation of the theory limited to isolated systems though I already showed that interactions, described in terms of variation of the periodicities, provided a remarkable parallelism with AdS/CFT. Today I can state that the variation of periodicity of the field can be equivalently written as gauge interactions, without postulating the local invariance of the fields. At a classical level the corresponding path integral formulation that I obtain is usual one of QED (though I still working with bosons the results can be easily generalized to fermions).

My problem is that I am working alone on this huge project, I have a amazing number of result to publish but I am terribly slow in writing papers (because of my inexperience). For this reason feedbacks like yours are greatly appreciated and I hope more will come with this FQXi contest.

As said in my essay, an assumption of periodicity is already implicit in physics, in fact time is defined by counting the number of cyclic of phenomena supposed to be periodic. The counting process of the cycles is one of the many digital aspects of cyclic phenomena.

I remember where we meet at FPP10 and I thank you again for your support. I am really curious to read you essay and give you comments as soon as possible.

Best regards,

Donatello

in my essay, for reasons of space, I only have mentionated few of the recent progresses of the idea. I am writing some new papers that hopefully I will post soon on arXiv.

The technical details (I used essentially: discrete fourier transforms, wave equations, substitution of variables, integration by parts) are the solid support of my arguments. The language of physics is mathematics. After consistent mathematic results it is possible a conceptual interpretation. Thanks to this solid mathematical basis I can state that dynamical cyclic phenomena match ordinary quantum mechanics. As I have shown at FPP10 the correspondence is with the ordinary formulation of quantum mechanics (Schrodinger equation, Hilbert space, commutation relations) as well as with the Feynman Path Integral formulation.

I am in the lucky position that I obtain the same equation and if, as Feynman said, "to the same equation corresponds the same solution" the theory that I shortly describe in my essay can be regarded as a possible new formulation of quantum mechanics, exclusively base on the classical variational principle for relativistic waves.

At the time of FPP10 the formulation of the theory limited to isolated systems though I already showed that interactions, described in terms of variation of the periodicities, provided a remarkable parallelism with AdS/CFT. Today I can state that the variation of periodicity of the field can be equivalently written as gauge interactions, without postulating the local invariance of the fields. At a classical level the corresponding path integral formulation that I obtain is usual one of QED (though I still working with bosons the results can be easily generalized to fermions).

My problem is that I am working alone on this huge project, I have a amazing number of result to publish but I am terribly slow in writing papers (because of my inexperience). For this reason feedbacks like yours are greatly appreciated and I hope more will come with this FQXi contest.

As said in my essay, an assumption of periodicity is already implicit in physics, in fact time is defined by counting the number of cyclic of phenomena supposed to be periodic. The counting process of the cycles is one of the many digital aspects of cyclic phenomena.

I remember where we meet at FPP10 and I thank you again for your support. I am really curious to read you essay and give you comments as soon as possible.

Best regards,

Donatello

Dear Donatello,

I have read your essay. I also believe that de Broglie's original ideas are essential to accomplish unification. You will see similar statements about the non-mathematical aspects in both of our essays. Some of the main ideas in your essay are identical to the ones I pose in my essay, althought the origin is very different. The main differences between your and my description that I could identify are:

1. Page 1. Abstract. Cyclic Space-Time. In my essay time I describe that, under the stated conjectures, time and space are dynamically emerging by the interaction of two fundamental fields. Time is equal to the oscillation period, space dynamically emerges during the highly non-linear oscillation as high-density points of the dynamically combined protofields. This is different from the displacement (motion) of a particle, which should not be equated to dynamically emerging space.

2. Page 1. In the work I cite, there is no need to introduce a lattice, letting N--> infinity, or bosonic fields. The interacting fundamental fields can be describe in terms of state function equation. Its solution can expanded in terms of eigenfunctions, which also results in a 'matrix description, which is in turn equivalent to an effective potential equation. The highly technical analysis of this equation shows that dynamic state function solutions must exist, which give rise to internal spatial randomness.

3. Page 2. The 'uncertainty' relation is derived in the work I cite. However, they are exact relations, not 'uncertain' relations. See QFM-II report on my website.

4. Page 3. Expression 3. You provide an expression for the action in terms of a Langrangian density. Langrangian densities are not needed in the Quantum Field Mechanics I describe because the Lagrangian of a free massive particle has the conventional non-quantum field theory form: L= m_0 sqrt (1 -v sup 2/c sup 2), where m_0 is the rest mass. The particle in a box quantization is not needed. See also QFM-II report on my website.

Finally, I would like to say that there are some very good general observations in the body of your essay and the conclusions!

Best regards.

report post as inappropriate

I have read your essay. I also believe that de Broglie's original ideas are essential to accomplish unification. You will see similar statements about the non-mathematical aspects in both of our essays. Some of the main ideas in your essay are identical to the ones I pose in my essay, althought the origin is very different. The main differences between your and my description that I could identify are:

1. Page 1. Abstract. Cyclic Space-Time. In my essay time I describe that, under the stated conjectures, time and space are dynamically emerging by the interaction of two fundamental fields. Time is equal to the oscillation period, space dynamically emerges during the highly non-linear oscillation as high-density points of the dynamically combined protofields. This is different from the displacement (motion) of a particle, which should not be equated to dynamically emerging space.

2. Page 1. In the work I cite, there is no need to introduce a lattice, letting N--> infinity, or bosonic fields. The interacting fundamental fields can be describe in terms of state function equation. Its solution can expanded in terms of eigenfunctions, which also results in a 'matrix description, which is in turn equivalent to an effective potential equation. The highly technical analysis of this equation shows that dynamic state function solutions must exist, which give rise to internal spatial randomness.

3. Page 2. The 'uncertainty' relation is derived in the work I cite. However, they are exact relations, not 'uncertain' relations. See QFM-II report on my website.

4. Page 3. Expression 3. You provide an expression for the action in terms of a Langrangian density. Langrangian densities are not needed in the Quantum Field Mechanics I describe because the Lagrangian of a free massive particle has the conventional non-quantum field theory form: L= m_0 sqrt (1 -v sup 2/c sup 2), where m_0 is the rest mass. The particle in a box quantization is not needed. See also QFM-II report on my website.

Finally, I would like to say that there are some very good general observations in the body of your essay and the conclusions!

Best regards.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Ben,

thank you for reading my essay. I am happy to see a sort of convergence of views between us. I think that also the Kirilyuk's works will be source of inspirations for my future studies. I particularly I like how you describe the appearance of a particle from the a de Broglie periodic phenomenon. It is what I have found plotting the modulo square of one of my periodic field (see...

view entire post

thank you for reading my essay. I am happy to see a sort of convergence of views between us. I think that also the Kirilyuk's works will be source of inspirations for my future studies. I particularly I like how you describe the appearance of a particle from the a de Broglie periodic phenomenon. It is what I have found plotting the modulo square of one of my periodic field (see...

view entire post

Hi Donatello,

As you know, I'm very sympathetic to your general approach of imposing multi-time boundary conditions on continuous systems in order to explain the emergent discreteness of quantum theory. I'm surprised, though, that this picture didn't encourage you to make a stronger stand on whether "reality" was continuous or discrete at the deepest level. Surely if your overall picture is correct, the only possible interpretation would be that "reality" was deeply continuous, but discreteness emerges on a higher level due to an imposed periodicity. Or did I miss some fundamental discreteness assumption you're making...?

Also, using the word "deterministic" in such a context seems dangerous, 't Hooft notwithstanding. Most people equate that word with "pre-deterministic", where the initial boundary fully determines the subsequent events. But I think you are talking about something quite different -- "determinism" on more of a block universe level. Something to think about.

Hope you're enjoying Melbourne!

Ken

report post as inappropriate

As you know, I'm very sympathetic to your general approach of imposing multi-time boundary conditions on continuous systems in order to explain the emergent discreteness of quantum theory. I'm surprised, though, that this picture didn't encourage you to make a stronger stand on whether "reality" was continuous or discrete at the deepest level. Surely if your overall picture is correct, the only possible interpretation would be that "reality" was deeply continuous, but discreteness emerges on a higher level due to an imposed periodicity. Or did I miss some fundamental discreteness assumption you're making...?

Also, using the word "deterministic" in such a context seems dangerous, 't Hooft notwithstanding. Most people equate that word with "pre-deterministic", where the initial boundary fully determines the subsequent events. But I think you are talking about something quite different -- "determinism" on more of a block universe level. Something to think about.

Hope you're enjoying Melbourne!

Ken

report post as inappropriate

Dear Ken,

I hope that also this time my explanation can inspire you a new paper as it happened last time for your arXiv:0906.5409.

The point is that, by constraining a string i a compact (analog) space its frequency spectrum can assume only discrete (digital) value. This is where the quantum discreteness arises - consider for instance the quantization of a particle in a box. You should read carefully the essay.

Since I am (modestly) doing physics (and not Sci-Fi), the word determinism is meant in a mathematical/physical way as in the 't Hooft theory. In my theory the ordinary Feynman Path Integral arises exactly at a classical level, that is without relaxing the classical variational principle, contrarily to ordinary QM. In fact the Feynman paths in this case are classical paths characterized by different classical number. For instance, a wave in a cylinder (similarly to a wave in a small pool) can self interfere because, every two point in a cylinder geometry are linked by an infinite set of classical paths (for a wave in a pool this corresponds to reflections at the boundaries). As you may probably know fields represent the fundamental elements of our physical description of the universe. When I say clockwork universe (see abstract) I mean that the elementary the fields can be formalized in terms of classical physics, so that they can be regarded as elementary gears similarly to the Newton idea of clockwork universe.

Best regards,

Donatello

I hope that also this time my explanation can inspire you a new paper as it happened last time for your arXiv:0906.5409.

The point is that, by constraining a string i a compact (analog) space its frequency spectrum can assume only discrete (digital) value. This is where the quantum discreteness arises - consider for instance the quantization of a particle in a box. You should read carefully the essay.

Since I am (modestly) doing physics (and not Sci-Fi), the word determinism is meant in a mathematical/physical way as in the 't Hooft theory. In my theory the ordinary Feynman Path Integral arises exactly at a classical level, that is without relaxing the classical variational principle, contrarily to ordinary QM. In fact the Feynman paths in this case are classical paths characterized by different classical number. For instance, a wave in a cylinder (similarly to a wave in a small pool) can self interfere because, every two point in a cylinder geometry are linked by an infinite set of classical paths (for a wave in a pool this corresponds to reflections at the boundaries). As you may probably know fields represent the fundamental elements of our physical description of the universe. When I say clockwork universe (see abstract) I mean that the elementary the fields can be formalized in terms of classical physics, so that they can be regarded as elementary gears similarly to the Newton idea of clockwork universe.

Best regards,

Donatello

Dear Ken,

thank you for the citation added (even though the long delay) in your paper arXiv:1003.4273 [Time-symmetric boundary conditions and quantum foundations] to my paper arXiv:0903.3680 [Compact Time and Determinism for bosons: foundation].

As you have already noticed, in my essay (thank you also for the congratulations for this first phase on the contest) I show the possibility of a consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics in terms of boundary conditions, but the validity of my approach is not limited to non relativistic physics like in your case.

Cheers,

Donatello

thank you for the citation added (even though the long delay) in your paper arXiv:1003.4273 [Time-symmetric boundary conditions and quantum foundations] to my paper arXiv:0903.3680 [Compact Time and Determinism for bosons: foundation].

As you have already noticed, in my essay (thank you also for the congratulations for this first phase on the contest) I show the possibility of a consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics in terms of boundary conditions, but the validity of my approach is not limited to non relativistic physics like in your case.

Cheers,

Donatello

Dear All,

I am wondering if there is something of scientific in the criteria of this contest or if it is only based on popularity.

Best regards,

Donatello

I am wondering if there is something of scientific in the criteria of this contest or if it is only based on popularity.

Best regards,

Donatello

Dear Donatello,

I have raised the same concerns regarding the community rating issue, on the essay announcement blog and indirectly on the "time travelers" blog. I was informed by the TT FXQI's blogger that the contestant votes were "hidden this time" in contradiction to fact that we are able to sort according to the community vote. Unfortunately, I did not seek clarification. IMHO there are too many essays for which to vote in too short a time frame, and there are several highly rated essays which do not meet the criteria to validate such a position.

As for your fine essay, fortunately, I have been able to read it before the voting deadline, for even with my meager QM skills, I have recognized it as pushing the boundaries of knowledge in a rigorous manner and plan to give it the top score it deserves. The only suggestion I could offer as for your current lower than expected rating is that your essay is technically very dense. This is not a problem as far as I am concerned personally, but the essay instructions did say:

"Accessible to a diverse, well-educated but non-specialist audience, aiming in the range between the level of Scientific American and a review article in Science or Nature."

So there is that fine line between being accessible and being rigorous.

As for your theory violating Bell's inequality in principle, I see this as a positive result in the light of Joy Christian's work. I would like to point out the work of Joy Christian, in case you were unaware, which I was introduced on the forum of FQXI's very own website, which seems to support your work, although he concentrates strictly on non-locality. He uses topological and division algebra arguments to conclude "that 'quantum non-locality' is nothing but a make-belief of the topologically naive."

I believe his fine work only complements your own.

Wishing you only the best,

Dan

report post as inappropriate

I have raised the same concerns regarding the community rating issue, on the essay announcement blog and indirectly on the "time travelers" blog. I was informed by the TT FXQI's blogger that the contestant votes were "hidden this time" in contradiction to fact that we are able to sort according to the community vote. Unfortunately, I did not seek clarification. IMHO there are too many essays for which to vote in too short a time frame, and there are several highly rated essays which do not meet the criteria to validate such a position.

As for your fine essay, fortunately, I have been able to read it before the voting deadline, for even with my meager QM skills, I have recognized it as pushing the boundaries of knowledge in a rigorous manner and plan to give it the top score it deserves. The only suggestion I could offer as for your current lower than expected rating is that your essay is technically very dense. This is not a problem as far as I am concerned personally, but the essay instructions did say:

"Accessible to a diverse, well-educated but non-specialist audience, aiming in the range between the level of Scientific American and a review article in Science or Nature."

So there is that fine line between being accessible and being rigorous.

As for your theory violating Bell's inequality in principle, I see this as a positive result in the light of Joy Christian's work. I would like to point out the work of Joy Christian, in case you were unaware, which I was introduced on the forum of FQXI's very own website, which seems to support your work, although he concentrates strictly on non-locality. He uses topological and division algebra arguments to conclude "that 'quantum non-locality' is nothing but a make-belief of the topologically naive."

I believe his fine work only complements your own.

Wishing you only the best,

Dan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dan,

thank you for the clarification about the community rating. I was fearing that nobody considered my work.

My essay is dense, but I have a lot to say and many other important and technical results has been omitted for the sake of simplicity. The mathematics I use is the mathematics of the most elementary and fundamental system in physics, that is a classic string in compact dimensions, plus integration by parts and substitution of variables. With this I describe the elementary mathematics of quantum mechanics and special/general relativity. This is the minimum for a rigorous discussion.

Your forum and Joy Christian's paper seems very interesting. I will study them as soon as I will find the time.

I strongly appreciate your encouragement, it helps me a lot to carry on my researches.

Best wishes.

Donatello

thank you for the clarification about the community rating. I was fearing that nobody considered my work.

My essay is dense, but I have a lot to say and many other important and technical results has been omitted for the sake of simplicity. The mathematics I use is the mathematics of the most elementary and fundamental system in physics, that is a classic string in compact dimensions, plus integration by parts and substitution of variables. With this I describe the elementary mathematics of quantum mechanics and special/general relativity. This is the minimum for a rigorous discussion.

Your forum and Joy Christian's paper seems very interesting. I will study them as soon as I will find the time.

I strongly appreciate your encouragement, it helps me a lot to carry on my researches.

Best wishes.

Donatello

Donatello,

I do not know how to rate these essays. First, at this late date I have only read a fraction of the essays. Second there is a wide range of essay "types": there are essays for the general background readers (non-technical), there are technical, accurate, essays that bring no new ideas, there are technical essays that bring up a thousand ideas. Lastly, they are essays like yours that defend a clear point in a technical way. It is difficult to translate ideas in Physics into non-mathematical terms. It is also difficult to show a solid mathematical proof for new ideas. It might be impossible to do both at the same time.

I did not rate any of the essays.

Your essay does have QM. I need to go through it a few more times. I think your essay is along the lines of my essay (we are past the voting deadline and my essay is for the general reader).

All the best,

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

I do not know how to rate these essays. First, at this late date I have only read a fraction of the essays. Second there is a wide range of essay "types": there are essays for the general background readers (non-technical), there are technical, accurate, essays that bring no new ideas, there are technical essays that bring up a thousand ideas. Lastly, they are essays like yours that defend a clear point in a technical way. It is difficult to translate ideas in Physics into non-mathematical terms. It is also difficult to show a solid mathematical proof for new ideas. It might be impossible to do both at the same time.

I did not rate any of the essays.

Your essay does have QM. I need to go through it a few more times. I think your essay is along the lines of my essay (we are past the voting deadline and my essay is for the general reader).

All the best,

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

Dear Donatello,

This is really fascinating work! I find most intriguing the idea of an infinite number of classical paths between two points determined by the wide range of winding numbers for wrapping around cylinders. I also like your stroboscopic analogy for why certain measurements appear discrete rather than continuous. The idea of reproducing the spectral lines and known quantum effects based on a cyclic extra dimension dates back to Oskar Klein's work in the 1920s, so it has a venerable history. Your research seems very promising.

It seems that though you speak about classical fields, you use terminology from canonical quantum mechanics, such as operators and expectation values. Is that for the purpose of comparing your model to the canonical approach?

Many best wishes,

Paul

report post as inappropriate

This is really fascinating work! I find most intriguing the idea of an infinite number of classical paths between two points determined by the wide range of winding numbers for wrapping around cylinders. I also like your stroboscopic analogy for why certain measurements appear discrete rather than continuous. The idea of reproducing the spectral lines and known quantum effects based on a cyclic extra dimension dates back to Oskar Klein's work in the 1920s, so it has a venerable history. Your research seems very promising.

It seems that though you speak about classical fields, you use terminology from canonical quantum mechanics, such as operators and expectation values. Is that for the purpose of comparing your model to the canonical approach?

Many best wishes,

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Dear Paul,

thank you very much for your support. It is very important to me to have feedbacks.

You are right about the analogy with the Klein's idea. I briefly mention this aspect and the dualism with extra dimensional theories on a paper which I have submitted to PRD few days ago. I will post it on arXiv as soon as possible.

An extract from the...

view entire post

thank you very much for your support. It is very important to me to have feedbacks.

You are right about the analogy with the Klein's idea. I briefly mention this aspect and the dualism with extra dimensional theories on a paper which I have submitted to PRD few days ago. I will post it on arXiv as soon as possible.

An extract from the...

view entire post

Dear Donatello,

That sounds fantastic! I thought perhaps that there was a deep connection between your research and Klein's work. I was also reminded in your essay of the AdS/CFT correspondence, so I'm glad you go into more details in your article. Your ideas do seem highly original and interesting!

I'll look forward to your article on arXiv (and hopefully also in Physical Review D).

Best wishes,

Paul

report post as inappropriate

That sounds fantastic! I thought perhaps that there was a deep connection between your research and Klein's work. I was also reminded in your essay of the AdS/CFT correspondence, so I'm glad you go into more details in your article. Your ideas do seem highly original and interesting!

I'll look forward to your article on arXiv (and hopefully also in Physical Review D).

Best wishes,

Paul

report post as inappropriate

An excellent paper!

The biggest problem is that it starts out at warp speed. As I told another author in this contest, you would benefit from having a more extended description of your motivations for writing this paper, and how the goals of your research fit with the goals of this contest, for this venue, as that would push the first Math down on the page.

Your research is indeed relevant to the essay subject. It really is quite a good fit; as you are saying that the continuous reality of a cyclical universe maps onto our local framework in a discrete way. It looks like you are still at the 'working model' phase, in some regards, but your program is well along.

Good Luck,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

The biggest problem is that it starts out at warp speed. As I told another author in this contest, you would benefit from having a more extended description of your motivations for writing this paper, and how the goals of your research fit with the goals of this contest, for this venue, as that would push the first Math down on the page.

Your research is indeed relevant to the essay subject. It really is quite a good fit; as you are saying that the continuous reality of a cyclical universe maps onto our local framework in a discrete way. It looks like you are still at the 'working model' phase, in some regards, but your program is well along.

Good Luck,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Thank You Again Jonathan,

I understand what you mean, but from my experience I know that, since my hypothesis is a little bit unusual, people do not take it properly in consideration if I don't use mathematics proofs. The mathematical proofs give me shelter from unfair criticisms. Then there is a lot to discuss on the conceptual level but I prefer to have a solid base to my motivations.

The mathematics I use is the mathematics of a vibrating string in four dimensions and Hilbert notation, this should be familiar even to non experts.

The theory is starting to be more than a 'working model'. The published papers refer to results of 1-2 years ago. I have briefly mentioned the new results that I am try to write it into papers, but it is not easy for a researcher with few experiences in publications to write papers and at the same time carry on such a huge project. I have already too much results than I can handle.

Good Luck to you as well!

Donatello

I understand what you mean, but from my experience I know that, since my hypothesis is a little bit unusual, people do not take it properly in consideration if I don't use mathematics proofs. The mathematical proofs give me shelter from unfair criticisms. Then there is a lot to discuss on the conceptual level but I prefer to have a solid base to my motivations.

The mathematics I use is the mathematics of a vibrating string in four dimensions and Hilbert notation, this should be familiar even to non experts.

The theory is starting to be more than a 'working model'. The published papers refer to results of 1-2 years ago. I have briefly mentioned the new results that I am try to write it into papers, but it is not easy for a researcher with few experiences in publications to write papers and at the same time carry on such a huge project. I have already too much results than I can handle.

Good Luck to you as well!

Donatello

Donatello,

You've got my "10" vote. I feel bad now, that I wasted a lot of time debating with nonsense, while a true gem languished below the cutoff.

I am a real fan of a quantum interpretation of classical determinism. I had not known of that 1910 Einstein quote. It reminds me, however of what Carl Jung said: "Whatever happens in a moment of time has the properties of this moment in time."

If you get a chance, I hope you read my essay, too.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

You've got my "10" vote. I feel bad now, that I wasted a lot of time debating with nonsense, while a true gem languished below the cutoff.

I am a real fan of a quantum interpretation of classical determinism. I had not known of that 1910 Einstein quote. It reminds me, however of what Carl Jung said: "Whatever happens in a moment of time has the properties of this moment in time."

If you get a chance, I hope you read my essay, too.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Dear Tom,

thank you for your vote. Independently on this FQXi contest your opinion is by itself a big support to my research plan.

I have found the quotation in the Barbour's FQXi essay on the nature of time. As I read it I

seid to myself "I could not state the idea in a better way".

Best regards,

Donatello

thank you for your vote. Independently on this FQXi contest your opinion is by itself a big support to my research plan.

I have found the quotation in the Barbour's FQXi essay on the nature of time. As I read it I

seid to myself "I could not state the idea in a better way".

Best regards,

Donatello

Ciao Donatello,

I'm glad you made it. Good luck. Interestingly, going back over your paper, for one of I expect many times to come -- your observation in the intro about 't Hooft quantum determinism and continuation over infinite lattice sites echoes some dialogue I had with Ray Munroe (see my essay forum for link) over a paper I wrote a few years ago, in which I hint at an arithmetic proof strategy for the Poincare Conjecture, whereby continuous curves are exchanged for discrte points. If the points could be represented as point particles ... anyway, you might find it interesting.

All best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

I'm glad you made it. Good luck. Interestingly, going back over your paper, for one of I expect many times to come -- your observation in the intro about 't Hooft quantum determinism and continuation over infinite lattice sites echoes some dialogue I had with Ray Munroe (see my essay forum for link) over a paper I wrote a few years ago, in which I hint at an arithmetic proof strategy for the Poincare Conjecture, whereby continuous curves are exchanged for discrte points. If the points could be represented as point particles ... anyway, you might find it interesting.

All best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Donatello,

I have read the first two section of your paper and the ending, though rather hurriedly I must confess. This does look rather interesting. My only pause with the gravitational part is how degrees of freedom are counted, but this seems to be a comparatively minor issue at this time.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

I have read the first two section of your paper and the ending, though rather hurriedly I must confess. This does look rather interesting. My only pause with the gravitational part is how degrees of freedom are counted, but this seems to be a comparatively minor issue at this time.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Dear Lawrence,

thank you for your interest in my essay. Of course there is a lot more to say about general relativity and gravity. In the essay I only tried to give a heuristic argument to show how to conciliate GR with the assumption of intrinsic periodicities. When I say new degree of freedom I mean that the metric g(x) must be regarded as an additional dynamic field in the theory and therefore a kinetic terms associated to that field must be introduced. This is similar to gauge theory where the assumption of gauge invariance introduces a gauge field as a new dynamical field in the theory (a new d.o.f. according to my terminology) and then we infer that its dynamics must be described by the kinetic terms F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu} with appropriate coupling (that the parallelism between gravity and gauge theory is indeed very deep). I understand your concern, in fact the term d.o.f. in field theory is usually refereed to the d.o.f. of the field (for instance a gauge field in a gauge invariant theory has 2 d.o.f.). In my case with the term d.o.f. I mean a new dynamical field.

Best regards,

Donatello

thank you for your interest in my essay. Of course there is a lot more to say about general relativity and gravity. In the essay I only tried to give a heuristic argument to show how to conciliate GR with the assumption of intrinsic periodicities. When I say new degree of freedom I mean that the metric g(x) must be regarded as an additional dynamic field in the theory and therefore a kinetic terms associated to that field must be introduced. This is similar to gauge theory where the assumption of gauge invariance introduces a gauge field as a new dynamical field in the theory (a new d.o.f. according to my terminology) and then we infer that its dynamics must be described by the kinetic terms F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu} with appropriate coupling (that the parallelism between gravity and gauge theory is indeed very deep). I understand your concern, in fact the term d.o.f. in field theory is usually refereed to the d.o.f. of the field (for instance a gauge field in a gauge invariant theory has 2 d.o.f.). In my case with the term d.o.f. I mean a new dynamical field.

Best regards,

Donatello

Dear Donatello,

Congratulations on your dedication to the competition and your much deserved top 35 placing. I have a bugging question for you, which I've also posed to all the potential prize winners btw:

Q: Coulomb's Law of electrostatics was modelled by Maxwell by mechanical means after his mathematical deductions as an added verification (thanks for that bit of info Edwin), which I highly admire. To me, this gives his equation some substance. I have a problem with the laws of gravity though, especially the mathematical representation that "every object attracts every other object equally in all directions." The 'fabric' of spacetime model of gravity doesn't lend itself to explain the law of electrostatics. Coulomb's law denotes two types of matter, one 'charged' positive and the opposite type 'charged' negative. An Archimedes screw model for the graviton can explain -both- the gravity law and the electrostatic law, whilst the 'fabric' of spacetime can't. Doesn't this by definition make the helical screw model better than than anything else that has been suggested for the mechanism of the gravity force?? Otherwise the unification of all the forces is an impossiblity imo. Do you have an opinion on my analysis at all?

Best wishes,

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Congratulations on your dedication to the competition and your much deserved top 35 placing. I have a bugging question for you, which I've also posed to all the potential prize winners btw:

Q: Coulomb's Law of electrostatics was modelled by Maxwell by mechanical means after his mathematical deductions as an added verification (thanks for that bit of info Edwin), which I highly admire. To me, this gives his equation some substance. I have a problem with the laws of gravity though, especially the mathematical representation that "every object attracts every other object equally in all directions." The 'fabric' of spacetime model of gravity doesn't lend itself to explain the law of electrostatics. Coulomb's law denotes two types of matter, one 'charged' positive and the opposite type 'charged' negative. An Archimedes screw model for the graviton can explain -both- the gravity law and the electrostatic law, whilst the 'fabric' of spacetime can't. Doesn't this by definition make the helical screw model better than than anything else that has been suggested for the mechanism of the gravity force?? Otherwise the unification of all the forces is an impossiblity imo. Do you have an opinion on my analysis at all?

Best wishes,

Alan

report post as inappropriate

heres my clock.newtons clock.

Based on converting a 360 degree/day earth orbit to 365 day eliptical orbit.

attachments: 4_simple_clk7.zip

report post as inappropriate

Based on converting a 360 degree/day earth orbit to 365 day eliptical orbit.

attachments: 4_simple_clk7.zip

report post as inappropriate

Dear Joe,

Try to compare with your program the duration of a solar year with the age of the universe, you will see that it is of the same order of the difference between a single period of the cesium clock (~10^-10 s) and a second. Then you may note that it is of the same order of the difference between a single periodic of the internal clock of an electron (~10^-20 s) and the reference periodic of the cesium atom.

In this way you can figure out that trying to investigate the electron dynamics with a cesium clock, or the other precision clocks now available, is like to study the cycles of the seasons by using the age of the universe as reference cycle. The only way you can describe a system with too fast periodicity with respect you reference clock is a statistical way, just like for a dice rolling too fast with respect to the resolution in time of human senses. 't Hooft noticed that "there is a deep relationship between a particle moving very fast in a circle and the quantum harmonic oscillator". What I have found is that there is actually a deep parallelism between cyclic dynamics and quantum mechanics, the periodicity is the periodicity of the so called de Broglie internal clock.

Best regards,

Donatello

Try to compare with your program the duration of a solar year with the age of the universe, you will see that it is of the same order of the difference between a single period of the cesium clock (~10^-10 s) and a second. Then you may note that it is of the same order of the difference between a single periodic of the internal clock of an electron (~10^-20 s) and the reference periodic of the cesium atom.

In this way you can figure out that trying to investigate the electron dynamics with a cesium clock, or the other precision clocks now available, is like to study the cycles of the seasons by using the age of the universe as reference cycle. The only way you can describe a system with too fast periodicity with respect you reference clock is a statistical way, just like for a dice rolling too fast with respect to the resolution in time of human senses. 't Hooft noticed that "there is a deep relationship between a particle moving very fast in a circle and the quantum harmonic oscillator". What I have found is that there is actually a deep parallelism between cyclic dynamics and quantum mechanics, the periodicity is the periodicity of the so called de Broglie internal clock.

Best regards,

Donatello

Dear Joe,

Try to compare with your program the duration of a solar year with the age of the universe, you will see that it is of the same order of the difference between a single period of the cesium clock (~10^-10 s) and a second. Then you may note that it is of the same order of the difference between a single periodic of the internal clock of an electron (~10^-20 s) and the reference periodic of the cesium atom.

In this way you can figure out that trying to investigate the electron dynamics with a cesium clock, or the other precision clocks now available, is like to study the cycles of the seasons by using the age of the universe as reference cycle. The only way you can describe a system with too fast periodicity with respect you reference clock is a statistical way, just like for a dice rolling too fast with respect to the resolution in time of human senses. 't Hooft noticed that "there is a deep relationship between a particle moving very fast in a circle and the quantum harmonic oscillator". What I have found is that there is actually a deep parallelism between cyclic dynamics and quantum mechanics, the periodicity is the periodicity of the so called de Broglie internal clock.

Best regards,

Donatello

Try to compare with your program the duration of a solar year with the age of the universe, you will see that it is of the same order of the difference between a single period of the cesium clock (~10^-10 s) and a second. Then you may note that it is of the same order of the difference between a single periodic of the internal clock of an electron (~10^-20 s) and the reference periodic of the cesium atom.

In this way you can figure out that trying to investigate the electron dynamics with a cesium clock, or the other precision clocks now available, is like to study the cycles of the seasons by using the age of the universe as reference cycle. The only way you can describe a system with too fast periodicity with respect you reference clock is a statistical way, just like for a dice rolling too fast with respect to the resolution in time of human senses. 't Hooft noticed that "there is a deep relationship between a particle moving very fast in a circle and the quantum harmonic oscillator". What I have found is that there is actually a deep parallelism between cyclic dynamics and quantum mechanics, the periodicity is the periodicity of the so called de Broglie internal clock.

Best regards,

Donatello

Caro Donatello

Your paper is highly mathematical, while I like to think in terms of models that one can imagine and illustrate visually and mechanically (not a bad method, Maxwell used it at first !). I found intriguing similarities and basic differences in our approaches. You describe relativistic gears having a "close relationship between the quantum harmonic oscillator with angular frequency ¯ w = 2p /Tt , that is the mode of an ordinary quantum field with energy ¯E = h¯w¯ , and a classical particle moving along a circle of periodicity Tt . By assuming the time period Tt on a lattice with N sites".

In my fqxi paper and in my earlier 2005 Beautiful Universe proposal on which it is based, I have described a universe made up of a lattice of spinning dielectric nodes interacting with each other as 'slippery' spherical gears transferring angular momentum in units of (h) by induction.

I think one of the main differences in our approaches (if I understand yours correctly) is that you describe your system using the formalism of (SR) spacetime. I see interactions as absolute in timeless universe, perhaps as you describe in a stroboscopic way, as you nicely describe, but the stroboscope illuminates all the lattice instantaneously. I would greatly value your reading the papers and hearing your expert feedback.

Best wishes from Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Your paper is highly mathematical, while I like to think in terms of models that one can imagine and illustrate visually and mechanically (not a bad method, Maxwell used it at first !). I found intriguing similarities and basic differences in our approaches. You describe relativistic gears having a "close relationship between the quantum harmonic oscillator with angular frequency ¯ w = 2p /Tt , that is the mode of an ordinary quantum field with energy ¯E = h¯w¯ , and a classical particle moving along a circle of periodicity Tt . By assuming the time period Tt on a lattice with N sites".

In my fqxi paper and in my earlier 2005 Beautiful Universe proposal on which it is based, I have described a universe made up of a lattice of spinning dielectric nodes interacting with each other as 'slippery' spherical gears transferring angular momentum in units of (h) by induction.

I think one of the main differences in our approaches (if I understand yours correctly) is that you describe your system using the formalism of (SR) spacetime. I see interactions as absolute in timeless universe, perhaps as you describe in a stroboscopic way, as you nicely describe, but the stroboscope illuminates all the lattice instantaneously. I would greatly value your reading the papers and hearing your expert feedback.

Best wishes from Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Caro Vladimir,

thank you for your interest in my work and, though I am very busy with the publication of new papers based on the same idea, I'll try to read your paper. At a first scan it looks a huge work and I highly appreciate your effort to interpret QM.

By the way I would like to point out that I am not assuming a time period on a lattice, in my model the space-time coordinates are analog, though they are cyclic. If I well understand your wonderful pictures the analogy with your idea can be obtained by associating to every space-time point (to a field in a space-time point) intrinsic space-time periodicities, depending on the content of four-momentum in that point and according to the relativistic geometrodynamics. This maybe are what you call dielectric nodes and I call, oversimplifying, relativistic gears.

In the conclusion, I give some remarks about the flow of time as emerging from the particular "coincidences" of the phase of all these gears. This aspect is rather philosophical and conceptual, I should expand this idea in some future work.

Best wishes to you,

Donatello

thank you for your interest in my work and, though I am very busy with the publication of new papers based on the same idea, I'll try to read your paper. At a first scan it looks a huge work and I highly appreciate your effort to interpret QM.

By the way I would like to point out that I am not assuming a time period on a lattice, in my model the space-time coordinates are analog, though they are cyclic. If I well understand your wonderful pictures the analogy with your idea can be obtained by associating to every space-time point (to a field in a space-time point) intrinsic space-time periodicities, depending on the content of four-momentum in that point and according to the relativistic geometrodynamics. This maybe are what you call dielectric nodes and I call, oversimplifying, relativistic gears.

In the conclusion, I give some remarks about the flow of time as emerging from the particular "coincidences" of the phase of all these gears. This aspect is rather philosophical and conceptual, I should expand this idea in some future work.

Best wishes to you,

Donatello

Dear all,

I would like to thank the FQXi community for this fourth prize. It represents an important encouragement to continue in the extremely hard (and urgent) task of promoting original ideas in physics.

What quantum mechanics is telling us is that elementary systems are intrinsically and dynamically cyclic.

I hope this idea will continue to stimulate discussions.

Best regards,

Donatello

I would like to thank the FQXi community for this fourth prize. It represents an important encouragement to continue in the extremely hard (and urgent) task of promoting original ideas in physics.

What quantum mechanics is telling us is that elementary systems are intrinsically and dynamically cyclic.

I hope this idea will continue to stimulate discussions.

Best regards,

Donatello

Dear Dr. Donatello,

You are absolutely correct, the visible universe is cyclical in nature and the invisible singularity or universal I or god is the cosmological constant. Please see the absolute truth, mathematically expressed as zero = i = infinity.

If universe is the meaning of understanding of one’s surroundings, then it is created with every birth and destroyed with every death. Universe is in a steady big bang state. Multiverse is just multiple interpretations made by bodies and minds of the conscience (soul or singularity). What one perceives of self (soul) is not the same as another, this is the multiverse with in the universe that we live in. The moment a thought arises the universe comes to existence. If one can still the mind to absoluteness then there will be absolutely nothing. This state of absoluteness is called Nirvana (Moksha), immortality. One who knows thy self is immortal.

Love,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate

You are absolutely correct, the visible universe is cyclical in nature and the invisible singularity or universal I or god is the cosmological constant. Please see the absolute truth, mathematically expressed as zero = i = infinity.

If universe is the meaning of understanding of one’s surroundings, then it is created with every birth and destroyed with every death. Universe is in a steady big bang state. Multiverse is just multiple interpretations made by bodies and minds of the conscience (soul or singularity). What one perceives of self (soul) is not the same as another, this is the multiverse with in the universe that we live in. The moment a thought arises the universe comes to existence. If one can still the mind to absoluteness then there will be absolutely nothing. This state of absoluteness is called Nirvana (Moksha), immortality. One who knows thy self is immortal.

Love,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate

IMPORTANT UPDATE: my recent publication on Ann. Phys. (2012) confirms the importance of a cyclic interpretation of elementary systems in physics. From the conclusion, two of the main results are:

► gauge interaction can be derived from the invariance of the theory under local transformations of variables as gravitational interaction can be derived by requiring invariance under diffeomorphisms.

► field theory in cyclic 4D, without any further assumption than intrinsic

periodicity, provides the possibility of a geometrodynamical and semi-classical description of scalar QED

--------------------arXiv:1110.0315 --------------------

Gauge Interaction as Periodicity Modulation

Donatello Dolce,

Annals of Physics (2012), Received 6 November 2011. Accepted 13 February 2012. Available online 22 February 2012.

The paper is devoted to a geometrical interpretation of gauge invariance in terms of the formalism of field theory in compact space-time dimensions [arXiv:0903.3680]. In this formalism, the kinematic information of an interacting elementary particle is encoded on the relativistic geometrodynamics of the boundary of the theory through local transformations of the underlying space-time coordinates. Therefore, gauge interaction is described as invariance of the theory under local deformations of the boundary, the resulting local variations of field solution are interpreted as internal transformations, and the internal symmetries of the gauge theory turn out to be related to corresponding local space-time symmetries. In the case of local infinitesimal isometric transformations, Maxwell's kinematics and gauge invariance are inferred directly from the variational principle. Furthermore we explicitly impose periodic conditions at the boundary of the theory as semi-classical quantization condition in order to investigate the quantum behavior of gauge interaction. In the abelian case the result is a remarkable formal correspondence with scalar QED.

Highlights

► Gauge interaction is inferred from local space–time geometrodynamics.

► Gauge symmetries are related to local space–time symmetries.

► Scalar QED is derived semi-classically as modulation of periodic phenomena.

► Quantum mechanics is associated to a cyclic nature of elementary systems.

► Every free elementary particle can be regarded as a reference clock.

► gauge interaction can be derived from the invariance of the theory under local transformations of variables as gravitational interaction can be derived by requiring invariance under diffeomorphisms.

► field theory in cyclic 4D, without any further assumption than intrinsic

periodicity, provides the possibility of a geometrodynamical and semi-classical description of scalar QED

--------------------arXiv:1110.0315 --------------------

Gauge Interaction as Periodicity Modulation

Donatello Dolce,

Annals of Physics (2012), Received 6 November 2011. Accepted 13 February 2012. Available online 22 February 2012.

The paper is devoted to a geometrical interpretation of gauge invariance in terms of the formalism of field theory in compact space-time dimensions [arXiv:0903.3680]. In this formalism, the kinematic information of an interacting elementary particle is encoded on the relativistic geometrodynamics of the boundary of the theory through local transformations of the underlying space-time coordinates. Therefore, gauge interaction is described as invariance of the theory under local deformations of the boundary, the resulting local variations of field solution are interpreted as internal transformations, and the internal symmetries of the gauge theory turn out to be related to corresponding local space-time symmetries. In the case of local infinitesimal isometric transformations, Maxwell's kinematics and gauge invariance are inferred directly from the variational principle. Furthermore we explicitly impose periodic conditions at the boundary of the theory as semi-classical quantization condition in order to investigate the quantum behavior of gauge interaction. In the abelian case the result is a remarkable formal correspondence with scalar QED.

Highlights

► Gauge interaction is inferred from local space–time geometrodynamics.

► Gauge symmetries are related to local space–time symmetries.

► Scalar QED is derived semi-classically as modulation of periodic phenomena.

► Quantum mechanics is associated to a cyclic nature of elementary systems.

► Every free elementary particle can be regarded as a reference clock.

Login or create account to post reply or comment.