CATEGORY:
Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011)
[back]
TOPIC:
A World Without Quanta? by Constantinos Ragazas
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Feb. 15, 2011 @ 12:20 GMT
Essay AbstractQuantum Physics has its historical beginnings with Planck's derivation of his formula for blackbody radiation, more than one hundred years ago. In his derivation, Planck used what latter became known as 'energy quanta'. In spite of the best efforts at the time and for decades later, a more 'classical approach' to derive this formula has not been found. Along with Einstein's Photon Hypothesis, the Quantization of Energy Hypothesis became the foundation for all the Physics that followed. This 'physical reality' has shaped our view of the Universe and has resulted in mathematical certainties of Quantum Mechanics that are counter-intuitive and contradict our experience. We are told that 'this is how the world is' and are asked by physicists to simply accept such 'facts of Nature'. That we need to mentally adjust to this 'view' of the Universe (the 'metaphysics of physics') and change our 'sense and reason' accordingly. We argue in this essay for a world without quanta. To the question, “Is the Universe Continuous or Discrete? ”, we argue that we cannot know 'what is' and strike a philosophical balance and answer, “it is neither and both”. In this essay I will present a mathematical derivation of Planck's Law that uses simple continuous processes, without using energy quanta and discrete statistics. This mathematical derivation shows that Planck's Law is an exact mathematical identity (a tautology) that describes the interaction of energy. Planck's Law viewed in this way becomes a Rosetta Stone that is used to translate known physics into a simple and consistent formulation. We are able to define such physical quantities as energy, force, momentum, temperature and entropy consistently in terms of the prime 'physis' quantity η -- the same as Planck's constant h. Basic Law can thus be mathematically derived and not be physically postulated.
Author BioConstantinos Ragazas thinks a lot, but sensibly. He was born in the mountains of Western Macedonia, Greece, but considers the Universe his home. Among his many interests are Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness. He can be reached through telepathy or by email only.
Download Essay PDF File
Georgina Parry wrote on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 02:41 GMT
Dear Constantinos ,
I am glad that you have entered this contest. You have some very interesting ideas that you have shared on FQXi blogs and I have read some the papers you have recommended. I did find your "Unhenging of Stonehenge" a fascinating interpretation of the evidence.I have visited there several times as well as Avebury, and Carnac in France. They certainly are awe inspiring sites where something extraordinary has happened. It is perhaps that extraordinary-ness that has drawn people to them from prehistoric to current times.
Anyway I know that I will enjoy your current essay. I do not have the time to read it fully now, so I do not know what you have in store for me. However the brief skim did show me that you are appealing for a return to a greater level of realism in scientific theory. An appeal that a number of contestants are making.
In the meantime I hope you get lots of interested readers and do well in the contest. I will try to leave some feedback when I have finished reading it. Your biography stood out from the crowd! Georgina.
report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 03:28 GMT
Dear Georgina,
Always enjoy hearing from you. I recall fondly some intense exchanges we had on these blogs last year. We have many ideas in common and hope our intellectual explorations find resonance with others as well. You are very correct in characterizing my views as a call for a return to 'physical realism'. I try to make my arguments as mathematically rigorous as I can, but the underlying idea is simple: Physics must provide us with 'physical explanations' that 'make sense'. Too much reliance on mathematical derivations is no different than failed metaphysical attempts to answer the question 'what is' the Universe. Mathematical models of the Universe are metaphysical. They ultimately fail.
My attempt to show that we can have 'a world without quanta' begins with a mathematical derivation of Planck's Law (what started it all one hundred years ago) using only continuous processes and not needing energy quanta. This Law is shown to be a mathematical description of the interaction of measurement – what in essence Physics is or should be.
Constantinos
Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 11:27 GMT
Hello dear Constantinos, but where were you ??? Happy to see you again on FQXi,that lacked.
Good luck for this contest
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 14:39 GMT
Dear Steve,
Thank you for your good wishes! I hope my essay adds positively to the much needed conversation about physics and man.
My absence from the fqxi blog pages in the past few weeks was because I am more focused now in writing my results for a chapter in an upcoming book on Thermodynamics. I was contacted by Hayrani Oz (a professor of aerospace engineering) to coauthor this chapter with him. He has read my posted papers and finds them significant. These fit well with ideas and methods he has been using in his own work and teaching.
Hope to be more involved once again after this project is over. But this essay contest will surely be bringing me back more regularly! Good to have the opportunity to share ideas with others. We are all on the same side seeking clarity of what we 'know'!
Constantinos
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 17:44 GMT
Hello dear Constantinos,
You are welcome. I am happy for you, it's cool that your ideas are recognized.You merit it.
We search indeed all the truths and truth, as starwalkers of our Univers.
Best Regards and good luck still.
Sincerely
Steve
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman wrote on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 18:19 GMT
Constantinos,
It is a good thing I got my paper in before yours, or it would seem mine is a simplistic knock-off. Of course, our conversations have been influential to my thinking.
Israel Perez offered some papers you may be interested in;
here hereBaring politics, it's a winner.
report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 00:52 GMT
John,
Thanks for your kind thoughts! I should tell you that in these blogs responding to your posts has always been an interesting challenge. Our conversations on cosmology emboldened me to make my views public (though reluctantly). But I decided against 'self-censorship' and if I truly believe in an idea I am also obligated to share it with others interested in having a good and open discussion. Physics, we both agree, needs more of this openness. The dominant attitude should be 'how to make sense' of an idea, rather than 'how to knock it down'. We are very fortunate for FQXi that allows this open honest public discussion.
I have tried opening the links in your post, but failed to connect.
Best wishes,
Constantinos
John Merryman replied on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 02:17 GMT
Constantinos,
Thanks. There isn't much sense in censoring what makes sense to ourselves, or we really get lost.
Here are the links, minus the embedding:
http://www.fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CCh
ristov_WaveMotion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdf
http://www.fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CChristov_AIP
_978_3_SpaceMaterialContinuumCosmologicalRedshift.pdf
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 02:20 GMT
Trying to make sense of a lot of these essays is tying my brain in a knot.
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 05:04 GMT
Constantinos Ragazas,
I had forgotten how much I enjoyed your previous essay.
In my
essay I note that "A continuous universe evolves to discrete reality, where quantum conditions carve up the continuum, such that analog inputs occasion digital outputs or threshold crossings."
Your approach seems to "accumulate energy until a threshold crossing".
I also agree with you that "space must be filled with something", but I wonder how you account for mass, charge, and gravity in terms of 'eta'. I would invite you to look at my essay for concepts that are compatible with yours.
I also think that you might find Marty Green's
essay very interesting. I did.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 22:22 GMT
Hello Edwin,
Thank you for your comment. Hope you don't mind me greeting you by your personal name! Blame it on FQXi for fostering such atmosphere!
The most significant result in my essay is the mathematical derivation of Planck's Law using simple continuous processes and without using 'energy quanta'. This derivation shows that Planck's Law is a mathematical truism (not a Law of...
view entire post
Hello Edwin,
Thank you for your comment. Hope you don't mind me greeting you by your personal name! Blame it on FQXi for fostering such atmosphere!
The most significant result in my essay is the mathematical derivation of Planck's Law using simple continuous processes and without using 'energy quanta'. This derivation shows that Planck's Law is a mathematical truism (not a Law of Nature) that describes the 'interaction of measurement'. And that is why it is so incredibly accurate in fitting the experimental data!!!
This result acts as a Rosetta Stone that allows us to transform physics into a simple, intuitive, and physically sensible formulation. The quantity 'eta' comes from this Rosetta Stone formulation. In fact, Planck's constant h is such a quantity. The quantity 'eta' is both 'accumulation of energy' (the time-integral of energy) as well as 'action'. So the formulation of basic physics I have made in my papers combines both concepts into one 'prime physis' (undefined and undefinable). I wont go into details with this post, but ask you to read the essay carefully for many surprising results.
One results that deserves special mention, however, is The Second Law of Thermodynamics. I show that this Law states that 'all physical processes (physical events) take some positive duration of time to occur'. The immediate implication of this is that 'physical time' is 'duration', t-s, rather than 'instantiation', t=s. How we can consider 'events' as points in a spacetime continuum is problematic in light of this. Can it be that GR is inconsistent with Thermodynamics? And can this explain why we need dark matter and dark energy for Cosmology based on GR to be consistent?
You ask for an explanation of mass and gravity and electric charge. Do you mean 'mathematical equations' or 'physical explanations'? Too often we confuse 'description' as 'explanation' ! Does Newton's Law of Gravity 'explain' gravity? Does Maxwell's equations 'explain' electricity and magnetism? I am not looking for more mathematical descriptions, unless those descriptions are deduced from a physical view that makes sense and are mathematical truisms that describe the interaction of measurement. The essence of Physics is 'measurement'. I find mathematical models of the Universe inadequate. It is hubris to think that we can encapsulate the Universe in some mathematical model, no matter how 'approximate' it is. For me, this is our modern version of seeking to answer the age-old question of 'what is'.
I just don't believe that the Universe operates by some God-given Universal Laws and we can 'know' them! This is the Metaphysics of Physics and I just don't believe in it! But I do believe in a Creative and Evolving Universe. As such, the Universe 'creates' its own Laws and probably makes these up on the 'fly'! There are no Universal Laws! Just laws of man that encapsulate what we observe and understand.
Have tried reading your essay, Edwin. But it feels like more Ptolemaic epicycles! What is a C-field?
I have the advantage that you understand what I am saying!
Constantinos
view post as summary
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 01:59 GMT
Constantinos,
Thanks for your reply. I have studied your essay, and there is much I like about it. I think we agree upon the desirability of "a physical view that makes sense".
You state: "I just don't believe that the Universe operates by some God-given Universal Laws and we can 'know' them! This is the Metaphysics of Physics and I just don't believe in it! But I do believe in a Creative and Evolving Universe. As such, the Universe 'creates' its own Laws..."
If you read my first page, you will find that that is exactly what I am saying, that the laws must evolve from the universe itself.
As for the C-field, Maxwell first noted that if mass replaced charge, and gravity replaced the electric field, then Coulomb's law and Newton's law are identical. He decided, based on this symmetry, to use G and mass in place of E and charge in all of Maxwell's equations. But since there is an (electro-)magnetic field, he needed an analogous (gravito-)magnetic field to complete the equations. The C-field is my name for what Maxwell and others refer to simply as the gravito-magnetic field. It has nothing to do with the magnetic field, it is the gravity analog thereof.
Later it was found that the same equations fall out of the 'weak field approximation' of General Relativity.
So the field exists. There is some argument as to the strength of the field. Martin Tajmar has measured it to be 10^31 times stronger than Maxwell believed (based only on simple symmetry) and my calculations agree with Tajmar's results.
You seem to think that your mathematics is 'observed' by the behavior of the universe. I hope you decide to give 'my mathematics' the same chance.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 03:09 GMT
Edwin,
You write, “You seem to think that your mathematics is 'observed' by the behavior of the universe”
Actually I don't! That quote sounds like 'mathematical modeling' and I don't believe in it! The results in my papers are really mathematical truisms (tautologies) that describe the interaction of measurement. My formulation of Planck's Law, for example, is just a mathematical identity that describes the functional relationship between E, ΔE and Eav. What is the quantity E does not matter!!! In Planck's Law, of course, E is energy.
None of the mathematics in my essay seeks to 'model' physical phenomena. But these mathematical formulations describe our measurements and the concepts and ideas (like force and energy) we use in understanding our measurements mathematically. The only real tie to 'physical reality' in any of this is the 'prime physis' quantity 'eta'. This may be thought of as the 'what is' (as 'Being'). But in my formulation it remains undefined and undefinable!
Planck's constant h is 'eta'. But in my work 'eta' is a variable while h is a constant. Many surprising outcomes flow from this 'small but significant' distinction. Besides what I mentioned in my previous reply to you, another surprise is that Plancks' Law and Boltzmann's entropy equation are mathematically equivalent! Want more? Read my essay!
Energy is mathematically defined as the time-derivative of 'eta' while momentum is defined as the space-derivative of 'eta'. Similarly temperature and entropy can also be mathematically defined. Newtons' Second Law of Motion for example expresses the mathematical truism that 'mixed partials are equal'. And so for all other results in my essay! But these are mathematically valid. Nothing to do with 'modeling' of physical behavior. Like the Law of Gravity, or Maxwell's Equations, etc. seek to do.
In my view, 'measurement' is the essence of Physics. And a mathematical formulation of Physics based on mathematical identities describing measurement establish the connection between Math and Nature. And answer the question “why should our mathematical calculations be reflected in our measurements of Nature?”
We have barely scratched the surface, Edwin! And this from a non-physicist! Imagine if ...
Constantinos
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 03:20 GMT
Constantinos,
I believe there are some subtleties in your argument that I am missing, but, nevertheless, I like your essay and agree with the points I mentioned above.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 04:17 GMT
Edwin,
Re-reading my last post, I agree with you! The argument is just too subtle to make in one response. By 'mathematical modeling' I have in mind, for example, the Law of Gravity. By 'mathematical identities' describing measurement I have in mind Planck's Law as is formulated in my essay.
The distinction between 'mathematical modeling' of the Universe and 'mathematical identities' describing our measurements of the Universe deserved more than this! Anything less does disservice to this deep and significant distinction I unwisely sought to make in one post.
Thanks for the consideration.
Constantinos
hide replies
Miguel Bayona wrote on Feb. 21, 2011 @ 20:14 GMT
Gus,
What a nice and bold piece of work you have written! I know you have been working and thinking about this for quite some time. I want to wish you the best, as your work begins to be exposed and seen by others...
Miguel
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry wrote on Feb. 22, 2011 @ 21:37 GMT
Constantinos,
I really like the way your essay is written. Right from the outset you "lay it on the line." It is also written in a very clear way that takes the reader on a smooth journey from your original premise right through to your conclusion. It does not confuse the reader with too much information nor does it merely reiterate current mainstream thinking.
You said "Just as we...
view entire post
Constantinos,
I really like the way your essay is written. Right from the outset you "lay it on the line." It is also written in a very clear way that takes the reader on a smooth journey from your original premise right through to your conclusion. It does not confuse the reader with too much information nor does it merely reiterate current mainstream thinking.
You said "Just as we can write bad literature using good English we can also write bad physics using good math. In either case we do not blame the language for the story. We can't fault math for the failings of Physics." That is so well said. I have tried to illustrate this in some of my blog forum posts, by saying how magical illusion described mathematically would make the magic appear to be real. You make the excellent point "mathematical truths are always conditional."Which you then go on to elaborate. You are right beautiful mathematics alone does not make something true.Just before your derivation of planks law you make a heartfelt plea for realism. It is a viewpoint that many will agree with , quite possibly more than will openly admit to it.
Although you have presented the derivation of planks law before. I think I finally get why you are doing this. You are showing that it is a result of the process of detection and not a Law of the Universe itself. Please correct me if I am wrong on this. So this quantity h is a threshold that allows a phenomenon to cross the boundary from unobserved reality to observed reality. There is certainly a difference between what can be detected and made a part of our experienced or as Edwin says "received reality" ( I call image reality) and what just is, unobserved.
I am not persuaded that it is time that gives objects physical existence but it is necessary for their detection, so that they can be perceived.They are manifest to us because of the duration of the processes by which we detect them. As there has to be an interaction with the detector which has duration and transmission and processing of the information to give awareness, which also has a duration. Though this kind of elapsed time could be considered at a foundational level to be just universal spatial change. For any object to go from what it was (configuration) to what it is (configuration) and from where it was (location) to where it is(location) time can be used as a description. Both configuration in space and location in space are spatial descriptions however. So that kind of time is not really foundational(what is).I think the spatial change is foundational and it is our desire to use terms of measurement that labels it with energy or time or momentum.
You are right there is "something" that is which allows causality. It is missing from the space-time model of the universe where time is a geometric dimension and there are theoretical points in time and space.I have tried to argue that both a model with universally uni-temporal time that allows passage of time to occur (through continuous spatial change) but is not a time dimension, and space-time which is a model of the appearance of reality, spread over time and space, are necessary.
I think in your final paragraph you are saying that physics is a man-made construct like history, culture and politics and not God given or written in the Universe. Again please correct me if I have misinterpreted your intention.I think that, if I have not misunderstood, that is a good point. All we can have are our man-made models of reality. They are not reality itself. It is a well written, enjoyable and thought provoking essay.I hope it gets the attention it deserves.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 23, 2011 @ 03:40 GMT
Georgina,
Thank you for your very kind and thoughtful comments. We agree on many of the fundamental attitudes. I will try to address questions that you raised ...
You write,
“...[Planck's Law] is not a Law of the Universe...”
That is a key distinction that I believe needs discussion. Yes, I do say that my derivation of Planck's Law shows that this Law is not some...
view entire post
Georgina,
Thank you for your very kind and thoughtful comments. We agree on many of the fundamental attitudes. I will try to address questions that you raised ...
You write,
“...[Planck's Law] is not a Law of the Universe...”
That is a key distinction that I believe needs discussion. Yes, I do say that my derivation of Planck's Law shows that this Law is not some 'Universal Law of Physics', but rather a mathematical statement, a truism in fact! I go even further, however, and argue that ALL laws of physics should be likewise.
My basic view is that 'before manifestation there is accumulation' of energy. I have many and varied reasons for saying this. We experience this in everyday lives and in so many ways. It is 'sensible' and so 'makes sense' . Planck's constant h is the minimal accumulation of energy that can be manifested. But I further argue in my essay that the existence of h is due to our theoretical regime. That in a sense our definitions of energy and temperature, etc., and the theory we weave from these become like a 'conceptual lens' through which we 'see' Nature. And that 'conceptual lens' has a build in 'focal point' beyond which we cannot go. That 'focal point' is Planck's constant! It has nothing to do with the Universe!
You say,
“... I am not persuaded that it is time that gives objects physical existence ...”
There are many ways of conceptually understanding time. Certainly, time as an ordering parameter of the occurrence of events is not what I have in mind. This gets a little tricky to make clear in a comment. But try to understand my statement about 'time and existence' in the context of everyday life and not exclusively as it is used in Physics. What I have in mind is not 'time' as a parameter to sequence events, but rather as 'duration' of an event. Such 'duration of time' results from the 'entity' being in 'equilibrium' with the 'environment'. As long as that 'equilibrium' is maintained, the 'entity' exists.
Since we are talking about 'time', I should share with you recent insights I have on this key distinction: time as 'duration' and time as 'instantiation' (ordering parameter). I mathematically demonstrate in the essay that Thermodynamics asserts that 'any physical process (event) takes some positive duration of time to occur'. However, physical events in GR are described by (x,y,z,t) with time in the sense of 'instantiation', t=s. In my opinion, this violates Thermodynamics. 'Dark energy' and 'inflation' seek to correct for this flaw!
You further say,
“...you are saying that physics is a man-made construct like history, culture and politics and not God given or written in the Universe.”
Certainly, any think created by man is man-made. I don't believe in God-given Universal Laws. To my philosophic sensibilities, this is just absurd! But I like to say something more regarding all this. Creation follows the same processes, whether it is in History, or Politics or personal lives or Physics. This is plainly so, since all of these activities is what WE do as human beings! I find I get clearer understanding of Physics thinking about Politics!
Constantinos
view post as summary
Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 23, 2011 @ 20:27 GMT
Hi Constantinos thank you.
I am glad that you have reiterated those points and confirmed my understanding of them in your essay. I didn't understand "where you were coming from" when you were posting on FQXi blog forum and assumed that because you were using mathematical arguments you were trying to mathematically describe the function of the universe. Now its very clear and I do not disagree.
Good luck, Georgina.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 23, 2011 @ 20:50 GMT
Constantinos,
also about duration. I agree with you on this point too. I have said (words to the effect) "Some configurations are replaced by new ones and some configurations persist." Those that persist are the ones we are able to continue to experience (so they have duration).I don't think time has to be brought into it but it does make it clearer and easier to understand when you do.
For the equilibrium idea I can imagine a sand bar. So long as the sand eroded by the wave action is balanced by the sand deposited it will remain in equilibrium and will persist. If the equilibrium becomes unbalanced the sand bar might be completely eroded or might grow into an island. So the recognition of it as an unchanging object or feature depends upon equilibrium over a duration of time , as you say. It is an analogy that applies to all sorts of other ideas. For example water droplet that might evaporate or freeze, or population of animals that retains the same morphology or evolves or dies out.
Best regards, Georgina.
report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 00:45 GMT
Georgina,
In my thinking, physical time has all to do with 'duration'. And 'duration' has to do with 'equilibrium'. Of course, we have various abstract ideas about time, but physical time as I have come to understand it is what gives 'entities' existence! It's also what The Second Law of Thermodynamics says, as I mathematically demonstrate in my essay.
It all fits well together. We can recognize this sense of time in all experiences we have, not just physics. These are not so much 'analogies' (though they are) but rather 'manifestations' of the same process of Creation!
I believe points (x,y,z,t) in the spacetime continuum identifying 'events' contradict Thermodynamics. Events need 'duration' as well as 'extension' to be physically existing. I truly believe dark matter and dark energy (as well as inflation) required to make Cosmology consistent with Thermodynamics is due to this subtle deficiency in GR.
Constantinos
Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 12:14 GMT
Yes and I agree. At that foundational level there is no time dimension and no space-time only space. There is change which generates causality and the passage of time and also as you point out some parts in equilibrium which allows them to endure and so have duration over that passage of time. Causality and thermodynamics are occurring in space, not in space-time, at the foundational level, over time or with a duration. There is no passage of time in space-time alone it is a static block.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Sreenath B N wrote on Feb. 23, 2011 @ 17:28 GMT
Dear Constantinos,
I agree with some of your views and the basic approach.I like,in return,you too to read my article and express your views on it.
Good work and best wishes.
Sreenath B N.
report post as inappropriate
cathleen velez wrote on Feb. 23, 2011 @ 18:25 GMT
Fascinating essay. Really makes one think about all the conventional thought processes.....
report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Feb. 23, 2011 @ 20:21 GMT
Georgina,
Just one further point to stress in my previous post regarding Planck's Law.
Planck's Law marks the turning point in Physics that brought us to where we are today, and all the 'quantum weirdness' and assault on common sense. It has been thought by physicists that this Law proves we live in a 'quantized Universe'. They came to that conclusion because no one at the time, and for decades latter, was able to derive this Law without using energy quanta. I show in this essay that there is a very simple mathematical derivation of this Law that does not require energy quanta. Had this derivation been known 100 years ago, it would have changed the direction Physics has taken.
Constantinos
Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 18:10 GMT
Constantinos
A wonderful essay, and with both an important point and fundamental conceptions astonishingly consistent with and part of a falsifiable picture of Local/Reality physics painted by a whole swathe of other essays here, but needing a deeper comprehension and broader viewpoint than in the past to understand. (You'll have seen the threads on Georgina's Edwin's and mine to link to the others). The threads are as interesting as the essays!
I believe this is quite unprecedented, which gives us hope that physics may be about to arise out of it's current deep rut. But then again we may all just be ignored again! Let's not let that stop us this time.
Keep up the good work.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 22:48 GMT
Hello Peter,
Thanks for your comment. I do believe that there is a group now coalescing around similar ideas. What's binding us together, however, is our loud call for 'physical realism'. My sense is that call may be getting heard. More from the ranks of physicists are now considering 'a world without quanta'.
We have at least gotten the conversation going. And that's a good think!
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Peter Mastro wrote on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 12:47 GMT
Hello Constantinos,
Loved your essay and your characterization of time. I have a similar view.
If you get a chance check out my essay
hereI'm sending good thoughts.
Pete
report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 3, 2011 @ 03:04 GMT
Thank you Peter for your good thoughts. I am especially pleased that you found my characterization of time interesting and useful. Though I have spoken about this very unique and different concept of physical time before, I don't believe anybody truly saw how deeply profound and significant this idea is. I suppose it takes a 'conceptual artist' to appreciate it.
I am very intrigued by your art background. I would love to see what some of your work is. Have you posted any of your work on the web? If so please send me where I can look this up. Are you currently showing anywhere in the East coast, New York / Philadelphia area?
Best wishes,
Constantinos
Ray Munroe wrote on Mar. 3, 2011 @ 21:39 GMT
Hi Constantinos,
I understand that you are trying to find a common-sense approach to understanding Nature, but I'm not sure that Hamiltonian mechanics had to be rewritten (eta is closely related to H). H is Energy, and is very important in
Liouville's Equation. In contrast, eta is energy absorbed within a time interval, and thus may have applications with Measurement Theory.
Your treatment of Planck's Law as a truism is interesting, but ultimately this may be due to the facts that 1) Planck's Law is based on bosonic photons, and the 2) Partition Function for Bosons has the same features as your Planck-like Characterization of Exponential Functions. Check out Equations 1-4 of the free partial preview of
my book.If Planck's Law is a truism, then this would have devastating implications for Maxwell-Botlzmann Statistics, and for Fermi-Dirac Statistics. Remember, Planck had to modify the "standard" Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics to explain Blackbody radiation, but Maxwell-Boltzmann has many other valid uses.
I know that Multiverses are not generally popular - after all, we shouldn't be able to directly observe alternate Universes or Realities. But could other "minimum sips" of eta be possible? Would these imply other scales, and how similar or different would those scales be relative to our reality?
I agree that there may be a scale at which spacetime is comprised of something - whether that "something" is the prime eta that you propose, or the "vacuum" related to the Higgs vev, or Causal Dynamical Triangulation or Spin Foam, or a revised quantum version of the old classical "aether"...
I would appreciate your professional opinion of
my essay.Have Fun!
Dr. Cosmic Ray
report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 3, 2011 @ 23:58 GMT
Dear Ray,
Wonderful hearing from you again, after how many months of silence? Since the publication of your last paper on scales? I should update you with some interesting developments.
I am coauthoring a chapter in a book on Thermodynamics to be out this July. My coauthor is Hayrani Oz, Prof. Of Aerospace Engineering at Ohio State University. The quantity eta you mention in your post above turns out to be Prof. Oz's 'enerxaction' which he has been using successfully in his work and teaching for many years. Our work will demonstrate, among other things, how this approach combines and supersedes both Hamiltonian as well as Lagrangian mechanics. In my paper on 'prime physis', as well as in my essay, I explain that the quantity eta is both, 'accumulation of energy' (H) as well as 'action' (L).
Ray, have you checked this amazing
link showing the indistinguishable match between experimental data and Planck's Law of the blackbody spectrum? Aren't you amazed? And if so, doesn't this beg the question “why so exact?”.
My mathematical derivation of Planck's Law, showing that this Law is a mathematical tautology, explains this striking experimental fact. Can you think of any other explanation? There is nothing more accurate than a tautology A = A. I go on to suggest that the amazing accuracy of QED may similarly be due to mathematical tautologies inherent in the theory. A little like mathematical card tricks!
Ray, the reason that Planck's Law is a mathematical truism has NOTHING to do with Physics! This is a mathematical result, pure and simple! It just has a camouflaged appearance in Physics, dressed up as some physical law. As such, this should not contradict anything in Physics that stands in good order and has no self-contradictions!
Ray, I would look at your essay. But if it in written in 'incomprehensible code' (as before) I doubt if I will have much to say about it!
Best wishes,
Constantinos
Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 02:11 GMT
Hi Constantinos,
I enjoyed this paper because it included more of your ideas. Most of your prior papers were 2 or 3 page papers that referenced other 2 or 3 page papers.
I am not challenging the accuracy of Planck's Law. I'm asking which is more fundamental - Planck's Law vs. the Partition functions of Quantum Statistical Mechanics? If Planck's Law is a truism (based on your assumptions involving the properties of exponential functions), then it seems to negate the fundamentality of Fermi and Maxwell statistics. If the Partition Functions are truisms, then all three statistics, Bose, Maxwell and Fermi are allowed.
Planck developed his ideas in 1900. Einstein took Planck's ideas to the next level with his explanation of the Photoelectric Effect in 1905. For all of the talk about Relativity, Einstein won his Nobel Prize for his early development of Quantum Statistical Mechanics - ironically Einstein later questioned Quantum Mechanics...
I see how mechanics can be derived from eta, but also see huge similarities between eta, the Hamiltonion, and Action. I don't consider eta so much of a new concept, as just being a different (perhaps more common-sense?) way to formalize these old concepts.
I have been quiet on the blog site lately. Too many of the discussions sound too similar...
I hope my latest essay is not an incomprehensible code. As a mathematician, you might enjoy some of it. I only have a little bit of physics involving scales, intrinsic spin, and supersymmetry.
Have Fun!
Dr. Cosmic Ray
report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 22:16 GMT
Ray,
You write, “I am not challenging the accuracy of Planck's Law.”
That is not the issue! The real question is WHY Planck's Law is indistinguishable from the experimental data! The reason for this remarkable fact is because, as I show in my essay, Planck's Law is actually a mathematical tautology! This does not in any way take away any other 'truisms'. Rather provides more understanding of these. If such a mathematical fact brings to serious question other physical results, than in my humble opinion the physical results have to be more carefully reconsidered. Perhaps here lies more fruitful application of the Rosetta Stone in my essay!
Furthermore, it is a mistake to think that this results (re: Planck's Law) depends on any assumptions regarding the 'energy function', E(t). I show in my essay that Planck's Law taken as EXACT is mathematically equivalent to E(t) being a simple exponential function. However, if we take Planck's Law as a limit approximation (better than any experimental accuracy) then E(t) can be ANY integrable function. Thus, in all circumstances Planck's Law is a mathematical statement describing the interaction of measurement. And that explains why the 'measurements' are indistinguishable from the theory.
Ray, there are so many other results in my essay that neatly tie all together. Let me highlight three:
1)A relationship between entropy and time. This leads to a more intuitive interpretation of The Second Law of Thermodynamics to say that “all physical processes take some positive duration of time to occur”.
2)Planck's Law and Boltzmann's entropy equation are mathematically equivalent.
3)The Photoelectric Effect can be explained without using photons. The photoelectric current obtained provides a better experimental fit that includes the 'asymptotic tail' to the data.
(I have not included this result in my essay, but details can be found at
”The Photoelectric Effect Without Photons”.
Best wishes,
Constantinos
Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 02:01 GMT
Hi Constantinos,
There seems to be a disconnect between our conversations.
Planck's derivation of Blackbody Radiation is correct, and therefore, fits the data remarkably well. In the case of the Cosmic Microwave Background, we only observe slight variations in effective Temperature as we scan different angles.
My point is that your "Planck-like Characterization of Exponential Functions" makes assumptions that automatically include the Partition Function for Bose-Einstein Statistics - pretty much the same as Satyendra Nath Bose's original derivation of Bose-Einstein Statistics in the 1920's based on Planck's Blackbody radiation formula.
I honestly think that you have made a circular argument here:
By inadvertantly including the Bose-Einstein Partition Function, you may have inadvertantly excluded the Maxwell-Botlzmann Statistics for identical particles, and the Fermi-Dirac Statistics for particles of odd symmetries (fermions that obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle).
Its just my opinion. You might run the idea by Lawrence Crowell or Philip Gibbs.
Have Fun!
Dr. Cosmic Ray
report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 04:52 GMT
Dear Ray,
If I were to have been introducing elliptical orbits, you would be asking to see the epicycles behind the ellipses. Your argument then would have been, “since epicycles explain the orbits of the planets, your ellipses inadvertently assume such epicycles and so your argument is (epi) cyclical”!
The way to understand the results in my essay is to understand them for what they show. Don't try to 'see' the epicycles that these replace!
Constantinos
Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 13:24 GMT
Hi Constantinos,
I am not a physicist who is happy to sit on a few Centuries worth of understanding Reality and believe that is all there is. I am in favor of replacing all "epicycles" with the appropriate geometries.
Bose developed Bose-Einstein statistics in the 1920's by studying Planck's Blackbody Radiation Law in depth. I think that your analysis is very similar to Bose's. This is fine for describing bosons, photons are bosons, and photons are involved in our experimental observations. My essay addresses these three fundamental spin statistics. I did not derive them from first principles (the Partition Functions of Quantum Statistical Mechanics), but did try to describe them in terms of Lucas Numbers.
Likewise your eta is a hybrid combination of a Hamitonian and Action. Perhaps eta has a good common-sense interpretation, but the Hamiltonian is useful for Liouville's Theorem and the variational principle, and Action is useful for the Principle of Least Action.
I know that you are a competant Mathematician, but you seem to be rederiving Physics that has existed for decades. That's OK with regards to this essay contest, where the purpose is to present a perspective of whether Nature is analog, digital, both, neither or undecided. My problem is that your Prime Physics basically includes Bose's assumptions, and therefore excludes Fermi's treatment of particles, and therefore is a biased perspective of this continuous vs. discrete question.
Have Fun!
Dr. Cosmic Ray
report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 16:31 GMT
Hello Ray,
You write “I am in favor of replacing all "epicycles" “
What if 'elementary particles' were “epicycles”? Will you be willing to replace these also?
You write: “This is fine for describing bosons, photons are bosons, and photons are involved in our experimental observations.”
Where in the mathematical derivations do I say or use 'photons' or...
view entire post
Hello Ray,
You write “I am in favor of replacing all "epicycles" “
What if 'elementary particles' were “epicycles”? Will you be willing to replace these also?
You write: “This is fine for describing bosons, photons are bosons, and photons are involved in our experimental observations.”
Where in the mathematical derivations do I say or use 'photons' or properties of 'photons' or Bose-Einstein or Fermi or any other such think? That you seem to 'see' these conceptual ghosts in my work point to the mind-set with which you seek to understand these results. Reality is often simpler than the mind with which we 'see'.
The E(t) that appears in all of my results can be any integrable function. But taken as exponential for simplicity and exactitude of formulation – see my comment in my essay about that! But in the context of my discussions on physics it is 'energy'. Any energy.
You write: “Likewise your eta is a hybrid combination of a Hamiltonian and Action”.
Actually, Ray, my eta is undefined and undefinable -- in principle! Therefore, not a 'hybrid' by logical necessity. Eta is the only quantity in all of my mathematical derivations in my essay that could be taken as 'prime physis' (first nature). But the way all my results are derived, eta could also be the fundamental quantity pertaining to any other context. I like to think of eta as being! But then I'd be opening myself up as 'being' metaphysical. An accusation that is really ludicrous coming from physicists with claims of 'time travel' and 'multiverses' and 'backward causality' and 'entanglements'.
You write: “...but you seem to be rederiving Physics that has existed for decades ...”
Well, the same could have been said replacing epicycles with ellipses. Certainly the planetary orbits didn't change. There was no 'new physics' in having one more description of planetary orbits. What was revolutionary, however, is a 'new view' of how the same physical phenomena could be understood better.
You write: “… your Prime Physics ... is a biased perspective of this continuous vs. discrete question.”
Ray, I specifically address in my essay just that question of continuous vs. discrete:
1) Energy propagates continuously but interacts discretely.
2) Before there is discrete manifestation of energy, there is a continuous accumulation of energy.
3) For energy to manifest, there is an equilibrium condition locally and a minimum threshold of accumulation that has to occur. This minimum is Planck's constant.
I have no idea what “biased perspective” you are referring to. Is it the 'epicycles' that you want to see in my results and I don't show you? Maybe it is my bias towards 'physical realism' and my expectation that physics provides us with 'physical explanations that make sense'.
Ray, we had similar conversations like this before. I don't believe we have come any closer to understanding one another, but it is always fun trying!
Constantinos
view post as summary
Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 6, 2011 @ 15:59 GMT
Hi Constantinos,
I know that our perspectives are different. My model has many "fundamental" particles (Ptolemy's epicycles in your analogy?), but they decompose into simplified fundamental symmetries (Kepler's ellipses in your analogy?). I think that your derivation of Planck's Blackbody Radiation Law using properties of Exponential Fuctions may accidentally assume Bose properties. This is OK for photons which are bosons. We could probably bounce minor disputes back and forth all day. I would simply suggest that you don't use this result universally...
I think your essay's point is that energy is absorbed continuously and measured discretely, and you support that position with your "eta" term which probably should have an application in Measurement Theory.
Good Luck in the Essy Contest and Have Fun!
Dr. Cosmic Ray
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Author Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 18:09 GMT
Community Appeal!
The key result (and the Rosetta Stone in this essay) is the mathematical derivation of Planck's Law without using energy quanta. I ask that you check this
link showing the experimental blackbody spectrum and the theoretical curve obtained using Planck's Law. “The FIRAS data match the curve so exactly, with error uncertainties less than the width of the blackbody curve, that it is impossible to distinguish the data from the theoretical curve”! I show in my essay that Planck's Law is a mathematical tautology. Such remarkable fit of data I argue can only be explained by this result!
I have tried for several years to have the results in this essay be 'peer reviewed' by professional physics journals. Though all these efforts were rejected, the results were not refuted. My sole purpose for submitting my essay to this contest is to get the 'generals' to consider this 'message'. This is the closest to 'peer review' that I can hope to get. Read the essay. Study the mathematical arguments. Consider 'a world without quanta' sketched by these results. And if you feel, as I do, that these deserve consideration by the 'panel of experts', I ask that you support my efforts to get this 'message' to the 'panel'.
Constantinos
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 18:21 GMT
In case the above link does not work, here it is again:
link for blackbody spectrum
James T. Dwyer wrote on Mar. 6, 2011 @ 10:18 GMT
Dear Constantinos,
While I'm really just an uneducated, highly experienced information systems analyst (retired) who can't do the math, I very much enjoyed much of what I understood of your essay. I particularly liked: "energy propagates continuously but interacts discretely"; Ptolemy's epicycles: "...we can write bad physics using good math"; "We can't fault Math for the failings of Physics". I had previously been struck by Ptolemy's equations predicting the motions of planets through the sky as an example of a correct but invalid mathematical proof - are the quotes original?
I was compelled to delve into physics in 2008 when, recovering from a long illness, "Most of our Universe is Missing" was on TV and happened to hear astronomer Vera Rubin explain the observations leading to the establishment of dark matter saying (paraphrased): "...we had expected that they [stars in spiral galaxies] would rotate [orbit] just like planets in the Solar system." I've spent much of my time since trying to learn how to explain that she had meticulously applied standard analytical processes to the first survey of spiral galaxy rotational characteristics to produce a simply incorrect assessment - establishing the requirement for dark matter in physics! I think that the simple answer to that whole debacle is that, in all cases, galaxies are not planetary systems.
I really can't do the math, but I'd very much appreciate if you could read last year's brief (2 page) essay: "
Mass Distribution Characteristics Invalidate the Galaxy Rotation Problem". I think you'll see why I particularly liked your essay.
Thanks,
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 6, 2011 @ 16:11 GMT
Dear Jim,
Thanks for your kind words. And thanks for your vote of confidence in what the essay seeks to accomplish. To your question, “...are the quotes original?”. Most everything that I write is original. That's why there are rarely any references to outside sources. The writing is my conscious effort to communicate my thoughts in as clear and concise way as I can. I find long expositions rather imposing and often confusing. So I try to capture the essence of what I seek to communicate in brief haiku-like statements.
What is important in your intellectual venture in physics is not your education, but your passion for ideas and commitment to Truth and Reason. Contrary views by many physicists, as to the need for specialized expertise to do physics, have only dug us deeper into the 'rabbit's hole'. They have created a Universe that defies common sense-experience. These theorists have put us in conflict with our lives. This cannot be good! What is mostly needed in physics are 'physical explanations that make sense'. Physics has failed to deliver on this mission. More abstract math is not needed. Great new ideas can be found in unsuspected places by unsuspected people.
I have read your linked paper and agree with much of what you say. But I must confess to you that I have not kept up with the many fascinating discoveries in astrophysics and cosmology, or given any of this thoughtful reflection. It's only just recently that I started to show more interest in cosmology, thanks to Peter Jackson and John Merryman in these forums. So please take my comments as provisional and with some skepticism.
I agree with you that 'dark matter' is used like another 'epicycle' to bring observation in line with theory. And I also agree that the application of established theory to new fronts is a little like generals fighting the 'last war'! We simply take on faith that the laws of physics we have established here on earth are the same everywhere else in the Universe.
I don't believe in 'universal laws'. But I do believe in our ability to describe mathematically regularities in the world we know. But we must not confuse 'description' for 'explanation'. We have yet to 'explain' anything!
Fortunately, non of this has any bearing on any of the mathematical derivations and physical results in my essay!
Best wishes,
Constantinos
James T. Dwyer replied on Mar. 6, 2011 @ 17:53 GMT
Dear Constantinos,
Thanks very much for your quick response and consideration.
Sorry if I strayed too far afield, but you might be more interested in a mathematical approach (I had had considerable correspondence with one of the authors), "
General relativistic dynamics applied to the rotation curves of galaxies".
I wholeheartedly agree with an assessment that there is an overreliance on mathematical proofs to establish correctness. Of course I'm biased by my ineptitude, but I personally think that analytical methods of prediction, while offering perhaps practical utility in analyzing events, do not necessarily enhance understanding of causal processes. I think that physical effects are still actually produced by mechanical processes and that understanding those actual processes is the essence of knowledge rather than any reliance on some mysteriously derived predictive analytical model.
Best wishes to you and your work,
Jim
report post as inappropriate
James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 03:35 GMT
To the question, “Is the Universe Continuous or Discrete? ”, we argue that we cannot know 'what is' and strike a philosophical balance and answer, “it is neither and both”.
Quite well argued, Constantinos.
With so many theories about multiple universes, reality can discretely get entangled in the concept of one universe. Is reality one truth for all universes?
Best regards,
Jim Hoover
report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 04:21 GMT
Jim,
Thank you for your encouraging words. Such vote of confidence means a lot to me and my efforts.
For me, the notion that we can 'know' the Universe is no different than the notion that we can 'know' someone else's experiences. In all cases (whether human or physics) we can only know what we feel and what we understand of what we feel. All 'mathematical models' of the Universe are premised on the notion that we can know 'what is'. Thus, in my humble opinion, these are deeply flawed and will ultimately fail.
Best wishes,
Constantinos
T H Ray replied on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 00:54 GMT
Dear Constantinos,
Mathematical models do not assume that we can know what is. They assume that we can objectively describe narure in mathematical language.
Nevertheless, as promised, I did read and will comment on your essay. I have a number of technical objections, though I will only address one show-stopper that I see no way to fix: paragraph 5 (prime physis). Your claim that all attempts to give physical meaning to quantum mechanics have failed cannot possibly be true, because QM is founded in nothing BUT physical observation, which is prior to the mathematics. There is no "mind boggling mystery" in the calculation of the probability function, an extension of the statistical mechanics that is well understood in classical terms. Then, to identify the wave function psi as a "quantity" (?) which redefines the Schroedinger equation as a Hamiltonian operator infinitely extended over the universe ... you just managed to say that the energy content of the universe (Hamiltonian) is equal to the total energy content of the universe. Yes, I should say that it is.
I didn't want to do this. I just wanted to leave it at agreement that a foundational model in continuous function physics is a noble goal. I truly do wish you luck in getting the hearing you desire. You'll have to be prepared to meet some serious referee objections, however.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 03:29 GMT
Dear Tom,
Welcome to my world! Sorry about barging into yours uninvited and admitedly a little rude. But more to your comments.
Tom, you say "... we can objectively describe nature in mathematical language"
Judging the behavior of a person according to our system of values, thinking and expectations I claim is not 'knowing' the other person. Same is true of Nature.
Tom, your first 'technical objection' is the easiest to respond to. You write,
"Your claim that all attempts to give physical meaning to quantum mechanics have failed cannot possibly be true, because QM is founded in nothing BUT physical observation"
Tom 'physical meaning' is not the same as 'physical observation'. If you feel that QM has indeed provided us with 'physical meaning', can you please explain your 'physical understanding' of wavefunctions and of QM more generally? Even the great Feynman humbly acknowledged that 'no one understands QM'.
You write, "There is no "mind boggling mystery" in the calculation of the probability function,..."
Well Tom, the calculations can and do 'boggle the mind' if these calculations have no 'physical meaning'. Are we now so far removed from reality to not even 'make sense' of what 'making sense' means? Even the revered Einstein asked of Bohr, "what is the physical picture"? Let's not confuss mathematical abstractions with reality! The failing of physics is in not providing physical explanations that make sense.
As for associating in my essay the wavefunction with the quantity eta, this is a suggestion that seems to emerge from all the other results. Nothing more at this time.
Looking over your post, I don't see in your comments anything about the most important results in my essay. To begin with, my mathematical derivation of Planck's Law using simple continuous processes and without needing energy quanta. As important is the demonstration that Planck's Law is a mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement. And this, I claim, explains why the experimental blackbody spectrum is indistinguishable from the theoretical curve.
Tom, whether you believe these results are correct or not, don't you agree that these are significant and deserving of a careful review by the panel? And Tom, I am prepared to answer honest questions from referees concerning all my mathematical derivations in my essay. I only ask for that opportunity. You can help!
Wishing you well,
Constantinos
Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 22:37 GMT
In reading your paper I find one curious question. This is I think the same as the question I raised last summer. The equation δt/ħ = 1/kT defines a scale of fluctuation, here with a Euclideanized time. This is a scale of time where the observable uncertainty or disorder of a quantum system is equivalent to thermal fluctuations at some temperature. However, in much of what you do it appears to be used as a variable. It is used as a time in various integrations and as units in a time line. This step actually requires some subtle justification.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 00:11 GMT
Dear Lawrence,
In “A World Without Quanta” there are no “scales of fluctuation” or “disorders of a quantum system”. All the simple logic and mathematical derivations in my essay become clear and convincing if viewed without using the prism of current theory. I am not a physicist! I have no idea what you are talking about. But we can have a good conversation on the results in my essay if you keep to the language and terms I use in it.
The time variable t is a continuous variable, but the equation you point to δt/ħ = 1/kT does not appear anywhere in my essay in that form. The closest to it, I think, is Δt = h/kT. If that is what you are referring to than I can explain that this duration of time is for an 'accumulation of energy' h to occur. This is a result shown in the essay.
You write,
“... in much of what you do it appears to be used as a variable...”
If the 'it' is time t, then yes. It is a continuous variable. The view in all of this is of a 'continuous Universe'. The amazing think is that it is possible to have such a naïve view, and still explain and derive basic results in physics. That's all I can do! Perhaps you and others can do much more. Take it as 'food for thought' and see if it can nourish your physics.
The key result in the essay is “Planck's Law is an exact mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement”. The mathematical derivation is simple and elegant. It does not use 'energy quanta' or statistics. Furthermore I argue that it can fully explain why the experimental blackbody spectrum is indistinguishable from theory. Please comment on that!
As a further enticement, I am about to post a paper that proves the following proposition using and extending the same ideas in my essay:
“If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave”
Please help me get this essay to the 'church'!
Best regards,
Constantinos
Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 20:42 GMT
Hi Constantinos,
Your Properties of Exponentials assumes (I suspect accidentally) the same "fundamental" form as Bose's Partition function (derived in the 1920's). Bose was also studying Planck's Blackbody Radiation Law, so it is no wonder that you and Bose agree on the form of your equations and agreement with experimental data.
My point is that this Bose Partition function IS FUNDAMENTAL TO BOSONS. Photons are bosons, and therefore it is legit to use this for photons. BUT, fermions obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle, have a fundamentally different type of symmetry from bosons (now I'm reverting back to the importance of Supersymmetry in handling these two distinct and disjoint symmetries in a unified manner) and cannot be analyzed with Planck's Law.
Planck's Law is great for studying photons, but unless all is photons (isn't that Jason Wolfe's claim?), you cannot use Planck's Law universally as your Rosetta stone.
Have Fun!
Dr. Cosmic Ray
report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 21:53 GMT
Dear Ray,
You keep making the same point over and over. And I keep responding that my derivation of Planck's Formula shows that it is a mathematical tautology. Ray, it is a mathematical result! Mathematical tautologies do not care anything about bosons or fermion or quantum fluctuations! Just like the Pythagorean Theorem can be used to measure the distance between stones or the distance between stars. It does not matter! A mathematical tautology does not change if applied to different things!
Perhaps it is not me you are seeking to influence!
Constantinos
P.S. Within the next few hours I will be posting a very short paper mathematically proving the following proposition: “If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave”. I can't wait to read your comments to that! Please, make it this time something other than bosons and fermions!
Author Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 16:53 GMT
Dear All,
Using the same ideas in my essay, I am now able to mathematically prove the following proposition:
IF THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT, THEN LIGHT IS A WAVE.
I will be posting this result as soon as I have a clean writeup of it.
Best wishes,
Constantinos
Irvon Clear wrote on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 20:19 GMT
Constantinos,
I clicked on the link you generously left in your comment and indeed I am deeper into the rabbit's hole!
Everything that exists comes from a prior condition. It was once something that could exist but did not exist. In that condition it was a potential, possibility, or probability. The distinction here would be how much otherness would have to occur in sequence and magnitude in order for its existence to become an actuality. If just a little a probability if more a possibility or if a lot a potential.
In all cases the link to everything that could or does not exist is already established. And in this statement the most fundamental question is not what is it but what creates the "potential" of it. How can it and all other alternative its be accommodated in our sensory environment? It seems to me that the creation of a single it would have to include the potential for the existence of all alternative its.
If reality is not deterministic but instead evolving from previous events, decisions and consequences we are not going to discover a creation event for it but a creation event for the potential of it and all other possible its. Is this your prime physis eta and was it created?
Respectfully,
Irvon
report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 23:00 GMT
Dear Irvon,
Sorry that you feel “...deeper into the rabbit hole”. And I apologize for the comment with the link I posted under your forum. Take that as a sign of how deeply I feel about the results I must communicate to the 'panel'. Please believe me when I say that this is not about me, winning or losing. But rather getting a fair and honest review of results that are profoundly controversial and need to be considered.
Nothing in my essay should have mystified you. To the contrary. I seek to make a strong case for 'physical realism'. Non of my results have anything to do with 'probabilities' or 'chains of causality' or any claims of knowing 'what is', or how events occur in the Universe. Simply, my position is that we can only know our 'measurements' and 'observations' of Nature. The mathematical formulation of physics, therefore, should reflect this. I question 'mathematical models' of the Universe. In my humble opinion, these are 'metaphysical' and flawed. They ultimately will fail.
The central result, my Planck's Law derivation, shows that this Law is a mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement. It relates mathematically the value of E, with the amount of E absorbed in the interaction when the average of E is known. This, I argue, is why the experimental blackbody spectrum is so indistinguishable from the theoretical curve.
You write,“If reality is not deterministic but instead evolving from previous events, decisions and consequences we are not going to discover a creation event for it but a creation event for the potential of it and all other possible its. Is this your prime physis eta and was it created?”
I do not seek to understand the Universe using 'determinism' or anything else that characterizes 'what is' in terms other than 'what is'. The only quantity that can be thought of as 'physically existing' is the 'prime physis quantity eta'. It can be perhaps thought as 'ether' or as what fills space. But I do not ascribe any properties to it. This quantity by logical necessity is undefined and undefinable. Nothing can logically precede it or create it. But using eta, we are able to mathematically derive Basic Law. I sketch briefly how this is possible.
Another result in this list of wide ranging results is a mathematical proof that if the speed of light is constant then light is a wave. I will be posting this in a few hours and as soon as I can clean up the writeup.
Again, my apologies for the uncharacteristic post under your forum!
Best wishes,
Constantinos
Anonymous wrote on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 22:56 GMT
Dear Irvon,
Sorry that you feel “...deeper into the rabbit hole”. And I apologize for the comment with the link I posted under your forum. Take that as a sign of how deeply I feel about the results I must communicate to the 'panel'. Please believe me when I say that this is not about me, winning or losing. But rather getting a fair and honest review of results that are profoundly controversial and need to be considered.
Nothing in my essay should have mystified you. To the contrary. I seek to make a strong case for 'physical realism'. Non of my results have anything to do with 'probabilities' or 'chains of causality' or any claims of knowing 'what is', or how events occur in the Universe. Simply, my position is that we can only know our 'measurements' and 'observations' of Nature. The mathematical formulation of physics, therefore, should reflect this. I question 'mathematical models' of the Universe. In my humble opinion, these are 'metaphysical' and flawed. They ultimately will fail.
The central result, my Planck's Law derivation, shows that this Law is a mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement. It relates mathematically the value of E, with the amount of E absorbed when the average of E is known. This, I argue, is why the experimental blackbody spectrum is so indistinguishable from the theoretical curve.
You write,
“If reality is not deterministic but instead evolving from previous events, decisions and consequences we are not going to discover a creation event for it but a creation event for the potential of it and all other possible its. Is this your prime physis eta and was it created?”
I do not seek to understand the Universe using 'determinism' or anything else that characterizes 'what is' in terms other than 'what is'. The only quantity that can be thought of as 'physically existing' is the 'prime physis quantity eta'. It can be perhaps thought as 'ether' or as what fills space. But I do not ascribe any properties to it. This quantity by logical necessity is undefined and undefinable. Nothing can logically precede it or create it or destroy it. But using eta, we are able to mathematically derive Basic Law. I sketch briefly how this is possible.
Another result in this list of wide ranging results is a mathematical proof that if the speed of light is constant then light is a wave. I will be posting this in a few hours and as soon as I can clean up the writeup.
Again, my apologies for the uncharacteristic post under your forum!
Best wishes,
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Irvon Clear replied on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 19:29 GMT
Constantinos,
There has to be one property ascribed to the ether that you suggest fills space: the potential for existence...not of anything specific but for everything that can possibly exist that doesn't exist...without this property space is simply filled with a property less ether and nothing exists or will exist within it. Given this condition you have identified nothingness without the ability to evolve anything.
Observations of Nature (avoidance of God?) should include not just identity but also an awareness of what the identified object itself can create. Imagine identifying Constantinos as a human being and ignoring what Constantinos can do.
I agree with your sense of importance in regards to seeking physical realism as a basis for understanding our environment. I also agree that your essay is one of the front runners and deserves careful consideration.
Irvon
report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 21:20 GMT
Thank you for your kind thoughts Irvon, regarding my essay. I too feel it deserves careful consideration. But as being “one of the front runners” … it's really up to others to support and make it happen. Right now, the essay is ranked out of the 35 that will be “carefully considered” by the panel. But the ranking is close enough that just a few good ratings could make the difference of “being or not being” considered.
As for the quantity 'eta'. This in my papers is left undefined. But one way of thinking about 'eta' (besides 'ether' and all the prejudice of that term) is as 'being'. Just as 'being' does not allow any further characterization, 'eta' is likewise logically 'undefinable'. However, when considering specific 'being' of something or other, then this can give 'eta' more quantitative content too. I envision this to lead to all other physics that my essay leaves out – like gravity and charge.
That all the results in my papers mathematically derive from 'eta' means that this formulation that I present (this 'physics') can be applied in any other context where 'space' and 'time' and 'being' can be properly defined. It is truly a “theory of everything”. That I should from this derive Basic Law of Physics, such as Newton's Second Law of Motion, or Planck's Law, or The Second Law of Thermodynamics, and many other results too numerous to list here, it truly amazing!
Just a few days ago I posted an astounding result proving mathematically the proposition
“If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave”.
I am 'shouting from the rooftop', but I need people on the ground to move these results along and to the panel for review! Please help if you can!
Best wishes,
Constantinos
Author Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 04:12 GMT
As promised:
“If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave”Constantinos
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 19:20 GMT
Constantinos,
A sweet little result, and you titled it perfectly.
After this contest is over and there is more time (yeah, right!) I'll try to look through your other papers, listed as references.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 03:56 GMT
Thanks for your encouragement Edwin! Likes like me like that!
I look forward to having a good conversation with you about the results in my papers.
Hope you go on to win this! All I can hope for is to just be considered!
Best,
Constantinos
Loubriel Sosa wrote on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 19:18 GMT
I thank you for your words of wisdom my brother. I am here to clarify that which is unclear,for my name stands for the candle of light. But i will use the words which inspired my heart, to express your truth.
Thank you, with much love and care.
Loubriel
report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 04:00 GMT
Thanks Loubriel. Your good vibes can be felt all the way here! Hope the also carry some good numbers also!
Chris Kennedy wrote on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 20:18 GMT
Excellent!
You make a point to "question the questions before you develop an answer"
Good luck,
Chris Kennedy
report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 03:50 GMT
Thanks Chris!
Being that we are 'neighbors' in the rankings, if we pull each others bootstraps its possible that we can both rise! An experiment worth trying?
Good luck,
Constantinos
Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 09:46 GMT
Constantinos
Thanks for your kind message on my string, where I've responded. I agree ours are highly consistent, as the number of others. Is that really a paradigm shift on the horizon?
I think you'd also like Lucian Ionescue's, quite mathematical and technical but very good.
I hope you scrape in!
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Dante H. Barbis wrote on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 20:04 GMT
Constantinos,
About your comments on my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/915 I am attaching as follows part of a paper I wrote several years ago. I did several thougs about we do not need a photon in order to explain the lihgt velocity or EM waves propagation.
Following is that paper:
TRUE NATURE OF THE VACUUM: Let´s go to the basic. (By Dante H....
view entire post
Constantinos,
About your comments on my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/915 I am attaching as follows part of a paper I wrote several years ago. I did several thougs about we do not need a photon in order to explain the lihgt velocity or EM waves propagation.
Following is that paper:
TRUE NATURE OF THE VACUUM: Let´s go to the basic. (By Dante H. Barbis)
The need of the idea of the ether arises from the principles of classic mechanics by which we conceive that the transmission of light through space requires a medium (ether) so that it (light) can move inside it. Many years ago, trying to locate the absolute system (stationary ether), several experiments was made, such as those of Trouton-Noble and of Michelson-Morley. It was suppose that if ether exists, an observer on the earth could detect the “ether wind” whose speed would be the orbital velocity of the earth. A movement on the interference pattern should be detected with A. Michelson’s optical interpherometer, in a ray of light when the instrument turns in a 90 degree angle.
This famous optical experiment was performed, first by A. Michelson in 1881 in an effort to discover the movement of earth through space.
The negative result was surprising and disillusioning. The experiments were repeated and a more precise effort was performed by D. C. Miller who used Michelson and Morley instrument whit larger optical trajectories but with a negative result.
To save the idea of the existence of ether and so explain the negative result of the experiments with the optical interpherometer, other hypothesis were proposed such as that of the contraction of bodies, that of Lorentz-Fitzgerald and that of the attraction of ether. The last supposed that ether in contact with bodies with a finite mass was adhered to them and therefore this portion of fixed ether has zero velocity with regard to these bodies. Each body carried with its local ether.
In this way the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment was overcome. But the hypothesis of the attraction of ether was discarded when well known phenomena where taken into account such as those of the stellar aberration and Fizeau’s convection coefficient.
No objection exists up till now to the special theory of relativity of Albert Einstein, one of whose points is the constantans or invariance of the light speed. This means that the speed of light within the vacuum has the same value = c in all the inertial systems and also the proven fact that the propagation of a luminous signal is independent of its source.
This is precisely one of my concerns: all of us accept the invariance of the light speed but nobody tries to explain why light or electromagnetic waves have precisely that speed or what physically determine it.
Based on the principle of the invariance of the light speed, I have developed a new theory about the existence of a common environment. I have to prefer to reject the presumptions that existed on the nature of the ether, such as the ether is a system at rest or that it is formed by particles that are normally at rest (stationary ether) with a zero mass and that could eventually be attracted. Remember that the properties attributed to this ether were somewhat strange: zero density and perfect transparence.
These ultra-tiny particles or “basic particles” that make up the ether would permit the transmission of any signal. But this means that the atomic particles that produce a disturbance, or any signal to be transmitted, must create that signal with a speed equal to c = 299,792,500 m/sec of propagation. It was never thought that this was not strictly true because an infinite amount of energy would be needed to transmit the signal towards the infinite or “invent” particles with a zero mass in charge of the signal transmitting.
In accordance with the original conception, since ether only serves as a medium, the signal should be born or be delivered to ether with a speed such as c. Which is not always so, because we know that the atomic particles that interact amongst themselves or that change their velocity emit radiation (for example: an electron when passing from one orbit to another because a deceleration) and that these radiations propagate at light velocity even though the atomic particles that caused (the radiation) were moving at less speed that c. Another example, that can be suggested, is that the velocity of the positive and negative ions that moves in the dipoles of one antenna depends on the frequency of the electromagnetic wave to be transmitted and that velocity is always less than c; but we also know that the wave front of the generated electromagnetic wave move with a velocity = c. Therefore we can concluded that in all these cases the environment (the medium) receives a disturbance, and then, it (the medium) can propagate that disturbance at a speed = c, without taking care that the atomic particles that created this signal did so moving at speeds slower than of light velocity.
By the way, I am not according to Max Born, who emphasized the fact that: “The elastic properties of matter were deduced better and better from the electromagnetically forces and that it would be illogical, in its turn, to attempt to explain electromagnetic phenomena in accordance with the elastic properties of some hypothetical environment”.
What occurs (this is my theory) that the environment where the matter exists, or the medium, or the ether if you wish, is plenty of “Basic Particles”: could be superstrings, neutrinos, gravitrons, photons, axions, you named; but in any case the vacuum is not really vacuum because it is full of “Basic Particles”.
All the space is full of one kind of “Basic Particles” tinier than the atomic particles we know so far. These ultra tiny particles are moving (they are not at rest) and colliding into each other in a perpetual movement similar to the molecules in a gas, so this is a “vibrating environment”, or a “vibrating ether” if you wish. The most important part of this theory is that those basic particles have a speed of their own that is approximately 45% higher that the light speed, and if we produce a disturbance at any place of that medium in order to make a wave and we take a given direction and measure the average speed of the front wave we created, the average speed of that wave will be = c.
The fact that all the space, also the space inside the atoms, is filled with these basic particles and that they are moving at 1.45c speed (the vibrating environment) makes the following possible:
a) The Basic Particles are moving in all directions at the same time: The relative speed of any body in relation of this “vibrating ether” cannot be measured because this vibrating environment is not at rest with regard (in relation of) to any other system or body of the Universe. The particles that make up the vibrating environment are moving in all directions at the same time and its average velocity is almost 45% more than c. That is why Michelson-Morley’s experiment cannot determine the existence of an inertial system of reference, which is at rest or in a uniform movement in a given direction since this environment moves in all directions at the same time.
b) This particles cannot be dragged nor can they be detected as we will see later, and
c) Any perturbation or activation at a given point, makes that the basic particles being altered in their movements and that they convey this alteration to the neighboring basic particles and these in their turn to the ones next to them, transmitting that perturbation until the infinity and at a velocity = c .
Thus, once this environment receives a signal (perturbation) it propagates that signal at the speed which is inherent to the environment, and in all directions, so, the propagated speed will be always c. The explanation for the invariance of the light speed is specifically based on the nature of a vibrating environment formed by mobile particles, that are moving (vibrating) and colliding into each other at a velocity greater than c.
The basic particles have mass and their mass is invariable, even though these particles move at a higher speed that of light their mass has not grown until it becomes infinite not will be zero at rest (at the instant in which two of them collide front to front). According to my theory, the non-invariance of mass is given for all atomic particles, or molecules, or bodies that moves within the vibrating environment but not for the basic particles that make up the vibrating environment. These basic particles may continue to collide with each other for thousands of millions of years and their average velocity will continue to be the same. They do move in the absolute vacuum and there is not any kind of friction that could put a brake on their movement.
Although there are many differences between the propagation of electromagnetic waves in this kind of environment and sound waves in a gas, there are also certain similarities, From a mechanical point of view it is important to note the perfect correlation between the average quadratic velocity of the molecules of a gas and the sound velocity propagation within the gas. If we analyze the following table we can reach certain conclusions:
SOUND VELOCITY IN SOME GASSES
(at 20 °C of temperature)
GAS Average Quadratic Velocity V
(m/sec) Sound
Velocity S
(m/sec) Velocity
Factor (**)
V/S
Hydrogen 1,840.00 1,269.50 1.45
Helium 1,308.36 902.30
1.45
Water vapor (*) 615.38 410.00 1.50
Nitrogen 493.72 339.30 1.46
Air 486.00
331.45 1.47
Oxigen 461.60 317.20 1.46
CO2 392.28 260.00 1.50
(*
) The water vapor temperature is considered at 100 °C.
(**) The differences in the velocity factor between one gas an another are due the fact that some molecules are mono-atomic and other polyatomic and therefore the elasticity of their impacts is different.
The velocity factor is more than 1 because the molecules of the gas that will transmit the sound are moving in all possible directions and not precisely in the referent direction in which we wish to measure the sound speed. It is totally improbable that all the gas molecules that make up the front wave of the sound moves in a single direction in a given moment and that the collisions with the following molecules be perfectly frontal and thus successively. If this were possible, then the sound velocity in hydrogen, for example, would be 45% faster.
What happens is that the front wave is formed at a given moment by millions of molecules that move each in a different direction and the average of the projection of all the velocity vectors at a referent direction is precisely the sound speed.
If V is the average quadratic velocity of the molecules of a gas, the average of the projections of these velocities in a given direction (taking into consideration only those molecules on a side of the perpendicular plane to the referent direction) shall be:
V • Cos • EF,
the average angle being 45° and EF being the Elasticity Factor of collision of the molecules of each gas. Therefore the sound velocity S will be:
S = V • 0.70711 • EF
The same thing happens with light, the basic particles that at a given moment are making up the front wave of an electromagnetic signal are moving in all directions (at velocity 1.4 c approximately) and we must project each basic particle velocity vector in a single given direction. Each particle velocity vector must be multiply by Cos . The elasticity factor could be 1.
Lots of basic particles takes part in the formation of the electromagnetic waves, each with a given direction at a given instant. A specific particle could be precisely in a referent direction ( = 0°) at the impact instant with the following particle, but this second particle, due the direction it brought will rebound in an angle between 0° and 90° (with regard of the referent direction) provided that as product of the impact it will contribute towards the propagation of the wave, that is, it will rebound on the same side of a perpendicular plane to the direction of the wave propagation.
Statistically, we can consider that the average of is 45° and the factor between the basic particles average velocity V and the electromagnetic wave velocity 1/Cos 45° = 1.41. Therefore, the average quadratic velocity of the basic particles that make up the vibrating environment must be 1.41 c.
Just imagine the energy the basic particles has, moving at v = 1.41 c. I do not care about the small mass the basic particles has, its mass could be one thousandth of the electron mass, but there are billions of billions of basic particles for each electron in the Universe. This powerfully environment probably delivered part of its energy, at the Big Bang time, in order to build the different atomic particles we know; then, after a while an equilibrium was take place in the Universe, the different atomic particles get its own energy at that time –of course, its energy could to change on depend of the energy interchange with other atomic particles. After delivery part of its energy the basic particles maintain the energy, and so the velocity they have now.
3.2 WHY THE BASIC PARTICLES CAN NOT BE DRAGGED OR DETECTED?
We have already said that the basic particles that make up this new conception of “vibrating environment or vibrating ether” are of a dimension and mass that is far smaller than the smallest known atomic particles, such as in example, the electron.
These basic particles fill all space and also the interatomic spaces. They are responsible for transmitting electromagnetic signals between the atom’s nucleus and its electrons and between the electrons of an atom and those of the neighboring atoms that make up the molecules.
The basic particles that make up this vibrating environment are the basis of the existence of gravitational and electromagnetic fields.
Normally, the basic particles are moving around a fixed point in space. Their average journey is very short even though they do it a higher speed than that of light since they quickly find other basic particles with which they collide and change their trajectory.
But this movement ruled by chance in the vicinity of atomic particles is greatly modified, since the basic particles are the environment which supports the electromagnetic interactions, which allow the atomic particles to remain linked within the nucleus, and the electrons to remain in their orbits. The electric fields and the magnetic fields are configurations of the basic particle’s movement and directions. The intensity of these fields is in reality a greater density of the basic particles at a given point and at given moment.
Therefore, the basic particles that make up the environment are normally around or in the vicinity of a same place in space. When a body such as the earth draws near, each of the basic particles will go through the atoms of the molecules, of the earth, varying the direction of their movement in order to make up the electromagnetic field of each atom that passes at every moment, and thus they will change their trajectory billions of billions of times but remain around the same place once the earth has passed. This environment is not dragged.
The same thing occurs with all the basic particles of free space, in the interstellar space, they are in movement by chance that is only modified by the transmission of the light coming from the stars and for the gravitational fields coming from the stellar bodies. It is unnecessary for these basic particles to move beyond their place they are, even they has to transmit the light from one galaxy to another, they simply transmit the signal to the following basic particles and then returns to their initial position. That is how an electromagnetic or gravitational signal can displace itself towards infinity without needing a “photon with no mass” or the injection of additional energy. The signals, after a first instant, become independent of their source.
It is also easy to imagine why no atomic particle and therefore no molecule or body can move at a higher speed than light, since the existence of these atoms and molecules is based on the vibrating environment whose constituent particles have the limiting velocity in a given direction, equal to c. But what is more important is the fact that for an electron or an atomic particle to accelerate, some electromagnetic fields must act upon it, and if the potentials of this electromagnetic field move at a maximum velocity that is equal to c, no matter what intensity the field is carrying with it, its effect on the particle would not be to push it to a greater speed than that of c. If the atoms that make a body try to move at a speed that is higher than that of light, the basic particles would not have the capacity of transmitting the internal electromagnetic fields of each atom nor the electromagnetic fields between them, at least, in the direction of the movement, therefore the distance between the atoms and the molecules would be shortened in this direction as they drew nearer the speed of light, and they would disintegrate at the moment they reach this velocity.
The elements with which we count on in a laboratory to detect atomic particles are mainly the ionizations or traces left by these atomic particles by collisions with other particles or by their interaction with electromagnetic fields. The atomic particles have a “field of matter” that is nothing else but a specific configuration of the basic particles due the effect of the atomic particle spin, and the other known qualities of each atomic particle such as the precession, mass and electric charge. The basic particles cannot be mainly detected by their size. The instruments we have are too gross to be able to detect them. These particles do no posses and electric charge but they have mass. They are simple spheres of dense material that are not affected by any type of know field, but because the matter and velocity they has we can realize that they form the dark energy.
Dante H. Barbis
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 21:39 GMT
Dante,
What a fascinating theory. Too much here to take it all in one reading. Your theory reminds me a lot of
Peter Jackson's Discrete Field Model (DFM). Have you been in touch with him? Look him up and tell him that I send you his way. In the meantime, can I count on your support in getting my essay before the panel for review? There is much in it that truly needs to be carefully considered. Just as I feel yours also deserves the same consideration ;).
best wishes,
Constantinos
Dante wrote on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 22:15 GMT
Constantinos,
I agree most you wrote on your essay. I rated your essay also.
Thanks also because the link about Peter Jackson essay.
Best regards,
Dante
report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 22:40 GMT
Dante,
Your support is greatly appreciated! Let's keep in touch. I think you'll find Peter's ideas very compatible to yours.
Best wishes,
Constantinos
Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 02:14 GMT
Hi Constantinos,
I liked your essay and I like the fact that it seems to offer a sense of mathematical simplicity. Maybe you should run it by some college physics professors and get their thoughts. Your mathematical approach suggests that "Prime Physic" is something that actually exists, I don't know if it can actually be measured. However, it makes a great placeholder while trying to understand what the laws of physics will actually allow.
Keep up the good work. I look forward to your approach to gravity using prime physic.
report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 02:38 GMT
Hi Jason,
I just posted under your forum about gravity! So I wont repeat myself here.
About eta, however. One way of viewing this is as the time-integral of energy. One good example of this quantity eta is in fact Planck's constant! So I guess eta can be measured.
Prof. Hayrani Oz of Ohio State University has used the time-integral of energy (what he calls enerxaction) very successfully for many years. We will be coauthoring a chapter on this in a book on Thermodynamics coming out this July. So everything that I am presenting in my essay has lots of practical as well as theoretical backing. All these results in my essay are for real. But I need to get the essay reviewed by the panel for greater acceptability. Can I count on your help and your friends help to get this essay to the 'church' on time?
Best wishes,
Constantinos
Jason Wolfe replied on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 20:56 GMT
Hi Constantinos,
I've already scored your essay. I think you have a great idea. This prime physis should be sufficient to explain the properties of gravity; although it may not be so obvious how, at the moment.
Your prime physis might be equivalent to what string theorists call, the brane.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 03:24 GMT
I gave you a boost yesterday, but I think you might have given me a bigger boost than I gave you. I seem to get boosts now and then and then slowly sink downwards over a number of days.
Thanks LC
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 19:46 GMT
Constantinos,
Congratulations on getting to where your essay will be evaluated!
There is good news on the C-field front!
The 12 Mar 2011 issue of 'Science News' has two articles on the C-field:
The first (p.14) states that the C-field generated by a spinning Black Hole imparts (detectable) angular momentum to light passing through the field, circularly polarizing the light. Martin Bojowald suggests upgrading most telescopes to search for more of this.
The second article (p.20) on quantum vortices has Kerson Huang of MIT speculating that the vortices in the (C-field) 'superfluid' after the big bang may be responsible for the gaps of empty space between galaxies.
From 'Fly-by' mysteries to spinning Black Holes to the Big Bang, the C-field is being recognized as having physical reality responsible for observable effects.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Sridattadev wrote on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 01:37 GMT
Dear Constantinos,
You are the one mathematician in this contest that will ever get closest to what I am trying to convey spiritually / philosophically in
Theory of everything. I wish you all the best in your pursuit to make the scientific world see what we are trying to convey. I hope that we can together make the science and spirituality converge and let the future generations enjoy the singularity of love.
Love and Peace,
Sridattadev.
report post as inappropriate
Lev Goldfarb wrote on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 16:53 GMT
Hi Constantinos,
I'm glad you are going to get the hearing you have been waiting for!
Best wishes,
Lev
report post as inappropriate
Loubriel wrote on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 06:02 GMT
Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 14:26 GMT
Dear All,
Thank you for your good wishes! I am humbled by your support.
best wishes,
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 19, 2011 @ 11:09 GMT
Dear Constantinos,
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
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 19, 2011 @ 18:11 GMT
Alan,
Thank you for your post and good wishes.
Regarding gravity, however. Non of my papers deal with either gravity or electricity. And though I have some ideas, I am not prepared at this time to sensibly express them. Let me just say only that I don't believe in gravity as a Universal Law! I just don't believe in Universal Law entirely! I just can't imagine God setting forth 'universal laws' that men could know and God be so restricted. I think that God makes up the rules 'on the fly' and always a step or two ahead of any human understanding. In my opinion, we cannot 'explain' anything. The best we can do is simply 'describe' what we see.
Your Archimedes screw idea sounds mysterious to me. But I cant evaluate it to give you proper feedback. In all my papers I seek to 'make sense' of physics and provide physical meaning to physical ideas. At this time, I have no such sense about an Archimedes screw view of gravitons. Especially since I don't believe in gravitons! And as far as spacetime is concerned, my view is that this contradicts basic thermodynamics.
But that's just me. I don't rule out anything that has the power of explanation and that can make sense.
All the best,
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 23, 2011 @ 13:21 GMT
Constantinos,
Okay and thanks for the reply.
Kind regards,
Alan
report post as inappropriate
Joachim J. Wlodarz wrote on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 00:44 GMT
Hello Constantinos,
As promised, I'm posting my comments on your essay. I'm not sure, if you will like it, but I've tried to do my best.
The main result is a claim that the well-known Planck radiation law could be derived mathematically, as " an exact mathematical identity (a tautology) that describes the interaction of energy". The presented derivation is based on the "Mathematical...
view entire post
Hello Constantinos,
As promised, I'm posting my comments on your essay. I'm not sure, if you will like it, but I've tried to do my best.
The main result is a claim that the well-known Planck radiation law could be derived mathematically, as " an exact mathematical identity (a tautology) that describes the interaction of energy". The presented derivation is based on the "Mathematical Identity" Eq.(1), where the r.h.s. depends on the average value E
av. Notice that the demanded integrability of E(t) is generally not sufficient for the existence of E
av, E(t) have to be at least continuous on the respective closed intervals. If E
av exists, then Eq.(1) becomes a trivial identity
In my opinion, Eq.(1) and the whole "mathematical machinery" developed in the associated papers is rather superfluous for the task of "reverse engineering" the Planck formula. Instead, a direct calculation of E
av gives immediately
and hence
which takes a Planck-like form. Assuming that the exponentiated expressions are equal
we get
exactly as stated in your presentation. The assumption that
is not needed here, notice also that the limit in Eq.(3) enforces that
in contradiction to the previous statement (!)
The next problematic thing is the assumption that E(t) applies to the "sensor' rather than to the "source", because it seems to imply that the "source" radiates only when the radiation could be absorbed by an appropriate "sensor", tuned to the proper frequency. Notice that such a behavior would be rather awkward and, to my knowledge, was never observed.
The postulated "undefined and undefinable prime physis" fundamental quantity is another highly problematic thing. Several contradictory statements about the mysterious \eta quantity are scattered over the essay and the associated papers. According to the energy, momentum and force definitions given on page 4 of the essay it have to be a sufficiently smooth function of position and momentum variables. Later, on page 6, according to the discussion of the Schroedinger equation, it should be rather a complex-valued function to accommodate for the in general complex-valued wave function. Finally, while discussing the Planck constant h, there is a statement that "\eta can be any value". To my knowledge, a quantity which is compliant with all this statements cannot exist.
Well, maybe it means that a world without quanta cannot exist either ?
Best regards,
-Joachim.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 02:51 GMT
Dear Joachim,
Thank you for taking the time to not only read my essay and referenced papers, but even to critique these on paper. I will try to answer you as clearly as I understand your points. Some of the mathematical notation did not clearly come through in the text and I'll try to piece together what you may have meant from the text itself.
1) “Notice that the demanded...
view entire post
Dear Joachim,
Thank you for taking the time to not only read my essay and referenced papers, but even to critique these on paper. I will try to answer you as clearly as I understand your points. Some of the mathematical notation did not clearly come through in the text and I'll try to piece together what you may have meant from the text itself.
1) “Notice that the demanded integrability of E(t) is generally not sufficient for the existence of Eav,”
I am not sure what you are saying here. If E(t) is an integrable function, then the integral of E(t) over an interval [0,t] must exist. And if such an integral of E(t) over an interval [0,t] exists, then certainly the 'average E' over that interval [0,t] must exist since this by definition is nothing but the ratio of the value of the integral over the interval. But this is just too simple to have escaped you! So you must have something else in mind! Whatever that may be, however, it is NOT what I have in mind. The math is clear and simple.
2) You write, “If Eav exists, then Eq.(1) becomes a trivial identity “.
Well YEA! That is a simple identity! But 'trivial' is a subjective assessment. That this simple mathematical identity leads to Planck's Law makes it not trivial at all, in my thinking!
3) You write, “Instead, a direct calculation of Eav gives immediately … “
[sorry I can't cut/paste your equations here!].
Joachim, if you feel that calculating Eav is simpler, go for it! I don't see your point. Notice the clumsy backtracking that you are forced to do at the end of that series of derivations.
4) You write, “The assumption that η = h is not needed here”
That's because you made even bigger assumptions comparing Planck's Law with what you derived and setting exponential expression equal. I purposely wanted to avoid just that! But if you are comfortable with what you've done then I have no problem with this. Either way you are showing (as I am showing) that Planck's Law can be derived without using energy quanta. And that raises the possibility for “A World Without Quanta” existing!
5) You write, “notice also that the limit in Eq.(3) enforces that η = 0 in contradiction to the previous statement (!)”
Perhaps the mathematical limit enforces that η= 0. But since we cannot measure in physics below the threshold h, we have for all experimental purposes the mathematical limit produces once again Planck's Law. But as a best possible approximation rather than exact identity. And with lesser restrictions on E(t) – namely that E(t) be just any integrable function and not an exponential.
6) You write, “The next problematic thing is the assumption that E(t) applies to the "sensor' rather than to the "source", because it seems to imply that the "source" radiates only when the radiation could be absorbed by an appropriate "sensor", tuned to the proper frequency. Notice that such a behavior would be rather awkward and, to my knowledge, was never observed.”
The 'sensor' is where measurement takes place or energy is absorbed. The 'interaction of measurement' is a functional relationship between the intensity of energy, the energy absorbed by the sensor, and the average energy. I simply wanted to contrast this with the traditional way Planck's Law was derived. You can choose to make something else of this, or not. If you do seek to make something else out of this distinction beyond what I was intending, then I am afraid you'll be missing the real point of my derivation – which is and remains as showing that Planck's Law is a mathematical identity that describes the interaction of measurement. It is a mathematical identity no less than the Pythagorean Theorem -- with application to Physics.
7) You write, “The postulated "undefined and undefinable prime physis" fundamental quantity is another highly problematic thing.”
What I wanted to highlight with this is that starting with the quantity η it is possible to define and to mathematically derive Basic Law of Physics. I only gave a thumbnail sketch of this. Much is left out and needs to be filled in by others as well. I purposely avoided any discussion about any specific properties. But you are absolutely correct in that the definitions of energy, momentum, and force do require that η be smooth. I only alluded to Schrodinger's equation as having the same underlying form as the definition of energy I give. I simply overlooked all constants and i in making such very broad comparison. But that's all. It is meant only as an interesting suggestion for others to consider.
Hope I adequately addressed your points.
Best wishes,
Constantinos
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Joachim J. Wlodarz replied on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 17:46 GMT
Hello again Constantinos,
Let me clarify my points:
1) If E(t) is not continuous in [0,t], but only integrable, then E
av may be "out of range", i.e. not allowed as a value of E(t). Certainly, exponential real functions used in your derivations are extremely regular and not affected by such problems. Indeed, "the math is clear and simple" in such cases, but nevertheless the...
view entire post
Hello again Constantinos,
Let me clarify my points:
1) If E(t) is not continuous in [0,t], but only integrable, then E
av may be "out of range", i.e. not allowed as a value of E(t). Certainly, exponential real functions used in your derivations are extremely regular and not affected by such problems. Indeed, "the math is clear and simple" in such cases, but nevertheless the general statements are flaved when seeen as rigorous mathematics.
2) Well, I guess that starting from Eq.(1) it is possible to promote many known relations or "laws" to "mathematical identities (tautologies)" in a similar way, the key is here to find the right, sufficiently regular functions (like exponentials in your essay) and a justification to fix appropriately some "free parameters" (like E
av=kT)
3) Indeed, it is a "clumsy backtracking" :-) Or a "fit" if your permit, which sounds more "scientific" :-) But your approach is, in my humble opinion, in the same league, only done in a different, rather excrutiating way.
4) Well, a "fit" is always only a "fit", even if done in different steps. I do not think, that it may be regarded as a "mathematical derivation of the Planck Law".
5) In a mathematical approach to physical problems we cannot change the rules because of some physical limitations or constraints, otherwise we may get at best some heuristics, if not plainly wrong results. We may of course change the employed mathematics and, e.g., use nonstandard analysis instead, but always in consistent way!.
6) From the physical point of view, a blackbody radiates because it is a blackbody, and the Planck formula describes that radiation sufficiently well when compared with experimental data. There are several known derivatons of the Planck formula, the Einstein derivation [Phys.Z.18, 121 (1917)] based on a two-level model involves also an exponential form for E(t) at the "source". But it is not only a"fit" or Ansatz there, as it reflects the statistics of the radiating atoms at thermal equilibrium, i.e. it tells us something about the possible radiation mechanism.
The measurement of the blackbody radiation is another story, and if we want to measure the radiation itself, we have to eliminate somehow the detector influence, usually through proper setup and calibration. The detector radiates too !
The model presented in your essay tries to describe the interaction between the radiating blackbody and a detector working in a very specific way and it is at the same time claimed that it reflects exactly the radiating blackbody. This is a wrong approach in my opinion, although it may lead nevertheless to a correct formula. The Ansatz for E(t) (I mean here the formula itself) does not allow for a differentiation between the "source" and the "sensor".
7) The statements about the "prime physis" quantity that may be found at various places in the essay and the papers are really confusing. Particularily, the identity \eta=\eta, remainded me at some point the famous verse "I am that I am" from the Torah.
Going down to earth, "prime physis" have to be rather an action functional, maybe something in the spirit of the Hamilton-Jacobi or Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman approaches. In principle, it should allow to derive most of your statements about energy, momentum, etc., without sacrifying mathematical rigor. On the other hand, I'm afraid that it would be hard to get some new physics out of it, or even some new results in that way, unless the system under consideration will be sufficiently complicated (as, e.g., in Ref.18 or Ref.20).
Best regards,
-Joachim.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 21:11 GMT
Hello Joachim,
Let me clarify your points:
1) You write, “... Eav may be "out of range", i.e. not allowed as a value of E(t)”. Nowhere in any of my results is Eav associated with a particular time, say E(t) = Eav. So this objection is mute and inconsequential.
2) You write, “... I guess that starting from Eq.(1) it is possible to promote many known relations or "laws" to...
view entire post
Hello Joachim,
Let me clarify your points:
1) You write, “... Eav may be "out of range", i.e. not allowed as a value of E(t)”. Nowhere in any of my results is Eav associated with a particular time, say E(t) = Eav. So this objection is mute and inconsequential.
2) You write, “... I guess that starting from Eq.(1) it is possible to promote many known relations or "laws" to "mathematical identities (tautologies)" in a similar way”.
Certainly mathematical identities can be applied to physics whenever appropriate. I am using this 'trivial' mathematical identity Eq.(1) to derive Planck's Law. But if you know of other such applications of this 'trivial' identity to physics, I'd be very happy to know about them? But what's your point? Say there were 100 more such applications (like there are probably for the Pythagorean Theorem), does that take away anything from this application to Planck's Law? Please …
3) You write, “...I do not think, that it may be regarded as a "mathematical derivation of the Planck Law".”
Actually, I am showing Planck's Law is only a reflection in Physics of a larger mathematical truth! Planck's Law I show is not a 'Law of Physics' but rather a Mathematical Identity applied to Physics. In much the same way that we can apply the Pythagorean theorem to measure distance. Here, we are measuring 'intensity of energy', knowing the amount of energy that is absorbed at a given temperature. Of course, this happens when measurement is made! And that is exactly why the experimental blackbody spectrum is indistinguishable from that obtained using Planck's Law!!!
4) You write, “In a mathematical approach to physical problems we cannot change the rules because of some physical limitations or constraints,...”
What rules am I changing? Or do you mean our 'views' which in fact do constraint us and mentally limit us? Physics has failed to provide us with a 'physical view' that 'makes sense'. It's time we change the rules! We can start with a proper understanding of Planck's Law as a mathematical identity that describes the interaction of measurement!
5) You write, “From the physical point of view, a blackbody radiates because it is a blackbody,”
Oh! And I thought it was because of some oscillators that clink on to the wall of a furnace! Now I know better! It is really because “a blackbody radiates because it is a blackbody”. That makes perfect physical sense. Thank you!
6) You write, “... the identity \eta=\eta, remainded me at some point the famous verse "I am that I am" from the Torah”
That's the nature of IDENTITY! You should read the Torah more faithfully. It contains much truth!
7) You write, “..."prime physis" have to be rather an action functional...”
I left eta as an undefined quantity in my essay. Thus, all the results I have listed are purely mathematical and very general. Of course, these mathematical results are Basic Law in Physics – such as Newton's Second law of Motion, Conservation of Energy and Momentum, Kinetic Energy, Boltzman's Entropy Equation, etc. Planck's constant is such a quantity eta! Eta can be thought as being both 'action' as well as 'accumulation of energy'. All these results are obtained without prescribing any structure or properties to eta. If we were to give eta more specific structure, we will be able to obtain more results! I can only do so much! Perhaps you can do more …
Best,
Constantinos
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Joachim J. Wlodarz replied on Mar. 21, 2011 @ 01:51 GMT
Constantinos,
let me try once again, hopefully this time with more success:
1) It seems that either "integrable" is synonymous to "continuous on closed intervals" in your essay/papers, or you questioning some well known mathematical results. As I wrote, only the general statements involving "any integrable function" are problematic. If still in doubt, then consult a reasonable...
view entire post
Constantinos,
let me try once again, hopefully this time with more success:
1) It seems that either "integrable" is synonymous to "continuous on closed intervals" in your essay/papers, or you questioning some well known mathematical results. As I wrote, only the general statements involving "any integrable function" are problematic. If still in doubt, then consult a reasonable calculus handbook or ask a friendly mathematician.
2) Well, just try the same with the Fermi-Dirac distribution, with the Ansatz E(t)=E
0e
-rt and apropriate "fit", this time fitting for -rt, and voila, you have it!
But it is only "the art of fitting", nothing more.
You skipped my point 3), does it mean that you agree with me here ?
In the following 3) below refers to my point 4), and so on.
3) "Mathematical truth" refers to formal constructions, developed in an axiomatical/deductive way, while "physical truth" reflects the knowledge gained from experiments. In theoretical physics, mathematical methods are used to model the "physical truth", maybe with predictive results, but nothing more. Even the most elegant results have to be rejected if not confirmed experimentally. Sure, Pythagorean theorem may be used to measure distances, but this theorem does not impose that the physical space is Euclidean!
4) You wrote "What rules am I changing ?" Let me cite your answer on the pointed out contradiction:"Perhaps the mathematical limit enforces that \eta= 0. But since we cannot measure in physics below the threshold h, we have for all experimental purposes the mathematical limit produces once again Planck's Law"
It seems that you simply ignore the results that are inconvenient.
5) The blackbody radiation is a property of the blackbody, therefore in a sense "blackbody radiates because it is a blackbody" as I wrote in my previous posting in a somewhat strange-looking wording.
If you determine the radiation spectrum of some object, and it can be identified as blackbody spectrum corresponding to a definite temperature T, then this object is identified as a blackbody heated to the temperature T.
It seems that you ignored the rest of my point 6) ? Because I think it is important, let me repeat it below:
--------
The measurement of the blackbody radiation is another story, and if we want to measure the radiation itself, we have to eliminate somehow the detector influence, usually through proper setup and calibration. The detector radiates too !
The model presented in your essay tries to describe the interaction between the radiating blackbody and a detector working in a very specific way and it is at the same time claimed that it reflects exactly the radiating blackbody. This is a wrong approach in my opinion, although it may lead to a correct formula. The Ansatz for E(t) (I mean here the formula itself) does not allow for a differentiation between the "source" and the "sensor".
--------
In other words, a blackbody radiates in approximately the same way when measured or not. Just imagine a device for remote temperature measurement, do you think that the temperature of the measured object is as indicated on the device only during the measurement ? And what when the device is broken ?
6) Although I agree with your statement about Torah, I'm still confused by the contradicting statements about \eta, see below
7) You wrote: "I left eta as an undefined quantity in my essay. Thus, all the results I have listed are purely mathematical and very general."
Pardon me, but it is simply impossible to derive _any_ results for an undefined quantity. Or I'm missing something important here ? Maybe you mean the physical interpretation of \eta, not the definition ?
Any mathematical construction needs a non-contradictory set of axioms, definitions, etc., otherwise it is _not_ mathematics for sure.
You wrote also: "Perhaps you can do more ..." Maybe, but I'll definitely start from checking the present status of such approaches, look for similarities, etc. One could waste a lot of time trying to crack open doors!
Best regards,
-Joachim.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Mar. 21, 2011 @ 14:24 GMT
Joachim,
I can see that you like to argue! Me too! This can go on for a very long time! Hope one of us gets tired of this soon!
You write: “...consult a reasonable calculus handbook or ask a friendly mathematician.”
My background is mathematics! An 'integrable function' is by definition one whose integral EXISTS! And if the integral exists over [0,t] than the ratio of the integral over the interval also exists. By definition this ratio IS the AVERAGE! Please …
You write: “You skipped my point 3), does it mean that you agree with me here ?”.
No I do not agree with you! I just got tired of addressing irrelevant trivialities whose only aim is to divert the discussion from the more salient relevant points.
I think I will stop with that!
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Joachim J. Wlodarz replied on Mar. 21, 2011 @ 15:32 GMT
Dear Constantinos,
Indeed, our discussion seems to lead nowhere. I do not think that my points are only "irrelevant trivialities", just ask another competent persons about that.
I wrote my comments only because you asked for it, and because we are here at FQXi to discuss even the strangiest things.
All the best and good luck with your efforts,
-Joachim.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Author Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Mar. 22, 2011 @ 03:25 GMT
Dear Lawrence,
You seem to see in my derivation of Planck's Formula Laplace transform. That may lead you to some deeper insights, but from my perspective I don't see the point. I just lose the physical meaning of that math.
All the results in my essay have a clear and simple physical meaning and are mathematically argued. What is the physical meaning of the Laplace transform you are arguing I inadvertently used in my derivation of Planck's formula? And does this also show what I am showing? Namely, that Planck's formula is a mathematical tautology that describes the interaction of measurement. This is why the experimental blackbody spectrum is indistinguishable from the one obtained from Planck's formula.
I do not argue with the mathematics used in physics. Rather, I argue with the physics in the mathematics used. What motivates me in this intellectual venture is my desire to understand physics physically. Modern Physics lacks physical meaning that makes sense. The 'man in the street' knows more about 'time travel', for example, than the theorist who with mathematical certainty asserts it.
We need 'physical realism'. I show in my essay this is possible. My derivation of Planck's Formula avoids energy quanta and discrete statistics. In this view, we gain a clearer understanding of what the Formula actually means.
Constantinos
Author Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Mar. 25, 2011 @ 21:41 GMT
Hello Anthony Dicarlo,
Thanks for your email. Sorry that I wasn't as clear as I thought I was in describing the physics that you thought you'd find in the essay. Especially since my main objective is greater 'physical realism' in physics. One suggestion perhaps that may help. Don't try to understand the essay from the perspective of current physics! It's much simpler than that! Certainly, don't look to find in the essay a formulation of physics based on 'information'.
In the first sentence that you referenced, I wasn't attempting in any way to trace the history of quantum physics. Rather, I was only setting the stage for the discussion to follow in the essay. And that originates with Planck's Law which even now is taken to conclusively demonstrate the existence and need of 'energy quanta'. The central theme in my essay is to show that this just is not necessary. I provide a mathematical derivation of Planck's Law which does not use quanta and discrete statistics. In fact, I demonstrate that Planck's Law is not even a 'physical law' that in some deep way depends and describes some inner workings of the Universe. This Law I show is a mathematical tautology. It describes how we can calculate identically the 'intensity of energy' from the 'changes in energy' (the amount of energy absorbed by the sensor) at a given temperature.
You write, “I can’t quite envision a physical model of your “interaction of energy.” “
Simple: Consider a sensor that can absorb energy (something like a thermometer). Think of the sensor at some fixed point. The sensor is radiated by energy with intensity E0 and after a short interval of microscopic time Δt the sensor absorbs an amount of energy ΔE (as with osmosis). These 'equal size sips' of energy ΔE occur in discrete imperceptible steps Δt which collectively raise the sensor (thermometer) to that final reading. This explains why the final reading is not reached asymptotically but is reached actually through such discrete Δt steps. Planck's Law I argue is a mathematical tautology that describes at each discrete step Δt how E0 and ΔE are related at a given temperature T. The 'interaction of energy' here is the radiation/absorption that takes place at the sensor.
You further write, “please provide me with one piece of information you can obtain regarding the cosmos that does not include as the root electromagnetic coupling to your senses. “
I would even go further and argue that even the “electromagnetic coupling to your senses” is only our human way of understanding such experience. I don't go that far in my essay to explain how we humans can know! But I can say with certainty that I know Planck's Law is a mathematical tautology and not some 'physical law'.
All the best,
Constantinos
Vladimir F. Tamari replied on May. 15, 2011 @ 13:48 GMT
Hello Constantinos
Sorry if I misunderstood your ideas. I too do not believe in the vacuum (in my theory everything - matter space, radiation is made up of the lattice nodes, but I used the word vacuum to stress the fact that the speed of light can change in a gravitational potential in space...a different case than when it slows down while passing through a transparent medium such as glass or water (refraction). In fact the two effects are identical in my theory ...
It is interesting to think of things this way: Einstein proposed CSL = contracting space / dilating time. In other words observations are absolute (light) but spacetime are relative. This is so physically unrealistic and unnecessary. Rather, think of it this way: c = variable measured distance traveled / fixed (absolute) time interval. In fact as many have argued - a time interval can be thought of as a change of state of the entire universe and there is not time dimension. I wonder how the laws of thermodynamics can be stated in such a world?
Best wishes from Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on May. 15, 2011 @ 15:15 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
I am entirely guided by 'physical realism' in all my reflections and reasoning in physics. I have as much trouble with 'lattice points' as I do with 'vacuums'! Does that mean that 'vacuums' and 'lattice points' cannot be considered? I don't go that far. Certainly these and other abstract mathematical formulations have been successfully used in physics.
But here is my problem with all this. We do not 'know' what all these results so obtained mean! These don't 'make sense' to us, though we believe these have 'mathematical certainty'. Physics, unlike mathematics, requires more of us. Having 'mathematical certainty' is not enough! We must also maintain the connection of our ideas with our 'senses'. Who do you trust to know the truth about time-travel. The 'man in the street' or the 'theoretical physicists'?
Simply put, all my efforts are to 'find meaning where meaning is not found'. I have done that successfully with Planck's Law; showing that the counter-intuitive concept of 'energy quanta' and 'bundles of energy' is not necessary. In my essay I prove that Planck's Law is a 'mathematical truism' and not a 'physical law' and can be derived continuously without statistics.
Have you discussed your ideas with Peter Jackson and Ray Munroe? They may be more in tune with this than I.
Best wishes,
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir F. Tamari replied on May. 16, 2011 @ 03:42 GMT
Dear Constantinos,
You are more focused in your approach to physics than my rather swashbuckling forays into imagined worlds of nodes gyrating to create us and our universe!
Perhaps both our approaches are necessary, considering how mainstream physics seems to hover between the entrenched even ossified positions of many physicists, with the wild quantum-weirdness-many-universes infinite dimensions where 'anything goes' seems to be the slogan. Both Peter Jackson and Ray Munroe have already kindly encouraged me with their stimulating responses. I should spend more time on physics and hope to do so. More power to them and to you.
Vladumir
report post as inappropriate
Author Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Mar. 28, 2011 @ 16:40 GMT
Please read this ADDENDUM to my essay:
attachments:
ADDENDUM_to_the_essay_Ragazas.pdf
Loubriel Sosa wrote on May. 1, 2011 @ 22:42 GMT
I'm still rooting for you brother! :) May your heart be at peace, and your mind beautiful.
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on May. 9, 2011 @ 02:46 GMT
Yasu Constantinos
As I understand it your essay and addenum are mathematical elucidations of a physically realistic model of physics based on a unique new derivation of Planck's constant (h). That is great. You singled out Einstein's quantum assumption as the basis of the conceptual troubles that faced quantum mechanics later on. I fully agree with your approach and think that that the idea (that the photon is a point in space as well as a package of energy) is at the basis of half the trouble with the foundational understanding (and future development) of physics today. I have presented my reasons for that in my present fqxi paper and also in the earlier 2005
Beautiful Universe paper on which it is based.
You have presented the idea of energy absorption in "equal-sized sips" that is only manifested when 'delta E' energy is accumulated. As I understand this is somehow related to the so-called 'semi-classical theory' that has been debated following Einstein's 1905 paper and then abandoned when Schrodinger presented his equation. I liken the gradual absorption of energy in the sensor and its sudden release to that of water in the Japanese garden
'deer-chaser' mechanism .
The other half of the trouble with physics today that you do not deal with (gravity and quantum mechanics incompatibility) is also due to one of Einstein's assumptions - the constancy of the speed of light in SR (and GR) and again the sensible objections raised at the time were swept away by SR's success, albeit for the wrong reasons. I wish I had your skill to describe my physical intuitions in mathematical form! Incidentally your continuous derivation of planck's constant (h) solves a fundamental problem in my own theory: the spinning of the universal node I theorized is continuous yet the transfer of momentum is in units of (h). Your formulation can explain that little problem.
Best wishes from Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on May. 9, 2011 @ 16:54 GMT
Hello Vladimir, and thank you for your good wishes.
I am pleased that we agree on many important points. Certainly what I have demonstrated in my papers and essay is that it is possible to have “A World Without Quanta” and demystify Physics of the many counter-intuitive and non-sensical results. 'Physical Realism' in Physics is not only possible but necessary!
Have you read my very short proof of the proposition that
“if the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave”? This is a mathematical proof that shows Einstein's CSL postulate contradicts his 'photon hypothesis'!
What more need we say! Furthermore, as I argue in the essay, the Second law of Thermodynamics requires that every physical event takes some positive duration of time to occur. It cannot occur 'instantaneously' at t = s. Thus, the whole concept of 'spacetime continuum' where a 'physical event' is represented by (x,y,z,t) contradicts Thermodynamics.
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir F. Tamari replied on May. 14, 2011 @ 14:11 GMT
Dear Constantinos,
More power to us to help demystify physics - I cannot imagine it will be easy to do that using our partial forays against this or that concept - it is all connected, and unless it is all re-written correctly from scratch it will not be a clear and simple theory.
I mention this because your starting point is accepting the c=constant hypothesis, then you cleverly show that assuming light velocity is constant implies wave motion, On the other hand you reject the concept of spacetime because of the thermodynamics argument. However the constancy of the speed of light is the basis and reason for flexible and continuous spacetime. This may constitute a contradiction?
In my theory I assume that light velocity in vacuum is not constant but is a maximum of c and slows down in gravitational fields - the concept of spacetime has to be trashed once and for all, and the Lorentz transformations applied in an 'absolute' universe as I have outlined.
Best wishes from Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on May. 14, 2011 @ 16:44 GMT
Hello Vladimir,
You write, “...your starting point is accepting the c=constant hypothesis...”.
Just to clarify this point, nothing in my essay or papers assume CSL. It is not needed, it is not necessary, it is not relevant to my work. To tell the truth, I really have not much considered SR or GR in my work, with the exception of the spacetime continuum. And this only in the context of my results concerning entropy, time, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. For me it makes so much sense that there must be a positive duration of time for any physical event to occur. That it just is plainly false to talk about 'events' happening instantaneously at t = s.
I believe that CSL must be derived and not simply assumed. I have some ideas how that can be, which are in line with what you argue: that c is a maximum but the speed of light can vary in a 'vacuum'. One problem! I don't believe in 'vacuums'. Though we can think and consider 'empty space' as a mathematical abstraction, physically and philosophically it does not make sense. 'Physical space' by definition can't possibly be 'empty'.
All the best,
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
[[ddlink]] wrote on Nov. 18, 2011 @ 12:14 GMT
lightness and purity of one of the three also because the successful operation of generation Mido Mido beauty lies in .
report post as inappropriate
Jose P. Koshy wrote on Mar. 21, 2015 @ 10:09 GMT
Dear Constantinos Ragazas,
Our opinions about 'mathematics' and 'modern physics' converge: 'Writing bad physics using good mathematics leads to counter-intuitive physical explanations', and 'modern physics does not provide physical explanations that make sense'. As you have stated somewhere above, physical realism is necessary, and is possible; and I would like to add, physical realism is the truth.
The existing convention is that we arrive at certain 'mathematical relations', verify these with experimental results, and based on these arrive at conclusions regarding 'the nature of the physical world'. This may appear to be the right path. But mathematics can trick us. A unique mathematical relation can have different physical interpretations, from which we have to select the right one. But from the time of Newton, physicists habitually selected the interpretation that looked 'mathematically simple and beautiful'. They did not care whether there can be other interpretations. The net result is that we have arrived at wrong conclusions that does not make any sense.
What is required is a 'physicalist' approach: Out of the possible interpretations based on a certain equation, select 'one' that has a clear physical meaning. And it is possible to do so. The equations of Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics and relativity mechanics can be interpreted in alternate ways to obtain physical explanations having sense. Please go through my essay:
A physicalist interpretation of the relation between Physics and Mathematics.
Regarding energy I would like to ask a question: What is energy? My answer is that fundamental particles of matter move at speed 'c', or motion is a fundamental property of matter. Energy is a measure of this motion, and is always discrete. If you feel interested, please visit my site:
finitenesstheory.com.
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.