If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

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

Previous Contests

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

*December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020*

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

read/discuss • winners

**What Is “Fundamental”**

*October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018*

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

read/discuss • winners

**Wandering Towards a Goal**

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

*December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017*

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

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

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

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

**How Should Humanity Steer the Future?**

*January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014*

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

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

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

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

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

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

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

read/discuss • winners

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

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Current Essay Contest

Previous Contests

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

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

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

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Russell Jurgensen**: *on* 3/15/11 at 5:08am UTC, wrote Thanks for your answers to my questions! Kind regards, Russell

**Ben Baten**: *on* 3/14/11 at 2:58am UTC, wrote Part 2 of a discussion with Donatello Dolce about his essay. My reply to...

**Ben Baten**: *on* 3/14/11 at 2:56am UTC, wrote Part 1 of a discussion with Donatello Dolce about his essay. Since it has...

**Donatello Dolce**: *on* 3/13/11 at 6:20am UTC, wrote Dera Ben, as was saying in my post it is very interesting to find a...

**Dan T Benedict**: *on* 3/12/11 at 20:18pm UTC, wrote Dear Ben, I was glad that you had the time to read my essay. I, like you,...

**Ben Baten**: *on* 3/12/11 at 3:38am UTC, wrote Dear Dan, Thank you for your feedback on my essay. You are one of the few...

**Dan T Benedict**: *on* 3/10/11 at 3:57am UTC, wrote Dear Ben, I enjoyed your essay and I particularly agree that space and...

**Edwin Klingman**: *on* 3/9/11 at 7:14am UTC, wrote Ben, Thanks for looking at my essay and commenting. I agree with your...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Lorraine Ford**: "P.S. Clearly, a situation symbolically representable as: ..."
*in* The Present State of...

**Lorraine Ford**: "So, in reply to the posts by Stefan Weckbach and Steve Dufourny above,..."
*in* The Present State of...

**Georgina Woodward**: "If considering existence rather than appearances, the time dimension..."
*in* Anatomy of spacetime and...

**Georgina Woodward**: "That is about the 'anatomy"" of spacetime."
*in* Anatomy of spacetime and...

**Steve Dufourny**: "Hello Jim, yes indeed in a sense we have these motions and we have invented..."
*in* The Quantum Clock-Maker...

**Jim Snowdon**: "Hi Steve, Clearly we have motion in our Universe. It is not..."
*in* The Quantum Clock-Maker...

**Georgina Woodward**: "Thank you. Good luck."
*in* The Nature of Time

**Lorraine Ford**: "Rob, As you have not replied, I take it that you now concede that the..."
*in* 16th Marcel Grossmann...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

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

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

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

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

**Can Choices Curve Spacetime?**

Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

**The Quantum Engine That Simultaneously Heats and Cools **

Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

**The Quantum Refrigerator**

A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

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

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

Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.

FQXi FORUM

September 17, 2021

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

TOPIC: Co-existence of Continuous and Discrete Physical Behavior by Ben J Baten [refresh]

TOPIC: Co-existence of Continuous and Discrete Physical Behavior by Ben J Baten [refresh]

Louis de Broglie conjectured that massive particles exhibit three fundamental behaviors, namely corpuscular, oscillation and wave behavior, which are revealed in different types of experiments. Although de Broglie spent many years to develop a theory describing the origin of those behaviors, he ultimately remained unsuccessful. Recent theoretical developments indicate how those fundamental behaviors can be unified in a single non-linear continuous oscillating process which possesses a discrete time period and demonstrates the existence of dynamically emerging space. This report provides a summary overview of the main results.

Ben Baten received his Master's Degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Twente in The Netherlands in 1987. He hopes to make a contribution to fundamental physics by creating interest in, and contributing to, alternative approaches to current physics.

Hello Ben, I like the way I could read your essay despite being a non-mathematician. I admire your Author Bio statement "He hopes to make a contribution to fundamental physics by creating interest in, and contributing to, alternative approaches to current physics". I have something which may interest you in this area. It's a simple way to visualise a GRAVITON by use of an Archimedes screw mechanical model. Think about it. If this helical graviton travelled around a wraparound universe then it would emerge on the other side as a force of repulsion i.e. an ANTI-GRAVITON or DARK ENERGY. It's too good a model to ignore for any longer imo. Did Newton miss this simple idea to explain the mystery of a force at a distance?

Best of luck.

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Best of luck.

Alan

report post as inappropriate

Ben

Nice essay, but you seemed to be pulling some punches and staying in the stream? I perticularly liked your simple, clear but pertinent itemised points towards the end. I also had a quick glance over your site, and wish to go though it carefully when I have time. I feel this ought to be higher and will certainly get a good score from me. I agreed with most of what I understood, but couldn't quite see how discrete time emerges from 'within' the particle motion. I hope this may paralell my own derivation of discrete time beween inertila frames via a simple scattering mechanism.

I hope you may be able to find time to read and comment on my essay. You'd need to read and think carefully as a quick scan almost always fails to get over the ket point. It's a bit like De Broglie struggling to derive 3 unified oscillations, but testing the brain to conceive and manipulate more moving variales than it's normally capable of, changing observer frames to compare, then seeing the fundamental consequences. more than I though are now succeeding. Do let me know.

(Be prepared for a very 'coal face' physical reality/localality empirical approach if you read it). There's also value in the string.

Best wishes anyway

Peter

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Nice essay, but you seemed to be pulling some punches and staying in the stream? I perticularly liked your simple, clear but pertinent itemised points towards the end. I also had a quick glance over your site, and wish to go though it carefully when I have time. I feel this ought to be higher and will certainly get a good score from me. I agreed with most of what I understood, but couldn't quite see how discrete time emerges from 'within' the particle motion. I hope this may paralell my own derivation of discrete time beween inertila frames via a simple scattering mechanism.

I hope you may be able to find time to read and comment on my essay. You'd need to read and think carefully as a quick scan almost always fails to get over the ket point. It's a bit like De Broglie struggling to derive 3 unified oscillations, but testing the brain to conceive and manipulate more moving variales than it's normally capable of, changing observer frames to compare, then seeing the fundamental consequences. more than I though are now succeeding. Do let me know.

(Be prepared for a very 'coal face' physical reality/localality empirical approach if you read it). There's also value in the string.

Best wishes anyway

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Hi Peter,

Thank you for taking the time to read my essay. Hopefully, it does not come across too much as pulling punches. I'm in the process of reading essays and I will definitely read yours as well.

Many details underly what I have covered in my essay. Unfortunately, only a fragmentary overview can be provided in such a short write up and I'm afraid that this impedes clarity. Last...

view entire post

Thank you for taking the time to read my essay. Hopefully, it does not come across too much as pulling punches. I'm in the process of reading essays and I will definitely read yours as well.

Many details underly what I have covered in my essay. Unfortunately, only a fragmentary overview can be provided in such a short write up and I'm afraid that this impedes clarity. Last...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Ben

Yes I get the feel of your approach. I hope you'll also get the feel of mine OK because I think, in fact I'm sure, it provides you with the short (& moderate) range interaction process you mention.

You also say of past theory basis;

"they all have a clear physical origin, which is lacking in current physics"

Which is precisely what the discrete field model (DFM) brings to the party. It explains the quantum mechanism for SR and the basis of GR, suddenly making the whole thing physically logical.

When you get to read it you must be prepared to do 3 things; 1) Suspend prior 'belief' temporarily (it will return better explained) 2) Read it slowly, as it demands visualisation and conceptual manipulation of more dynamic variables then our brains are used to dealing with, 3) Think the consequences through carefully, they are absolutely fundamental and massive.

So far only about 1 in 5 visitors have found the holy grail in there. I do believe you are able. From the initial difficulty of seeing it you will find it the simplest most Occam solution possible.

I believe conceptually it is perfectly consistent with your philosophy, but neither are complete and I can see both benefiting by unification.

I wish you luck. Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Yes I get the feel of your approach. I hope you'll also get the feel of mine OK because I think, in fact I'm sure, it provides you with the short (& moderate) range interaction process you mention.

You also say of past theory basis;

"they all have a clear physical origin, which is lacking in current physics"

Which is precisely what the discrete field model (DFM) brings to the party. It explains the quantum mechanism for SR and the basis of GR, suddenly making the whole thing physically logical.

When you get to read it you must be prepared to do 3 things; 1) Suspend prior 'belief' temporarily (it will return better explained) 2) Read it slowly, as it demands visualisation and conceptual manipulation of more dynamic variables then our brains are used to dealing with, 3) Think the consequences through carefully, they are absolutely fundamental and massive.

So far only about 1 in 5 visitors have found the holy grail in there. I do believe you are able. From the initial difficulty of seeing it you will find it the simplest most Occam solution possible.

I believe conceptually it is perfectly consistent with your philosophy, but neither are complete and I can see both benefiting by unification.

I wish you luck. Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Dear Ben,

Thanks for an interesting essay discussing internal motion of particles. It is nice that the equations keep accurate units as the ideas are described for deeper reasons behind quantum mechanics and gravity. Note 8 seemed like a good analysis of Young's experiment with particle arrival probabilities.

I am curious about the concept of discrete time. As a single period of an electron's oscillation progresses, is there a notion that the electron moves continuously producing the quantum beat periods? If the detailed oscillation behavior could be observed, could finer definition be made for the rules of its motion?

I appreciate you sharing your ideas. It seems like this essay contest is showing that people really care about the reasons behind what is observed.

Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for an interesting essay discussing internal motion of particles. It is nice that the equations keep accurate units as the ideas are described for deeper reasons behind quantum mechanics and gravity. Note 8 seemed like a good analysis of Young's experiment with particle arrival probabilities.

I am curious about the concept of discrete time. As a single period of an electron's oscillation progresses, is there a notion that the electron moves continuously producing the quantum beat periods? If the detailed oscillation behavior could be observed, could finer definition be made for the rules of its motion?

I appreciate you sharing your ideas. It seems like this essay contest is showing that people really care about the reasons behind what is observed.

Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

report post as inappropriate

Dear Russell,

Thank you for you interest in my essay. The theory, originally developed by Kirilyuk, tries to create a realistic picture of particle behavior bases on minimal assumptions that are compatible with observations. This unification attempt is intriguing and since it is vastly simpler (not too simple) than other, mathematically dominated, attempts. The latter approach makes me...

view entire post

Thank you for you interest in my essay. The theory, originally developed by Kirilyuk, tries to create a realistic picture of particle behavior bases on minimal assumptions that are compatible with observations. This unification attempt is intriguing and since it is vastly simpler (not too simple) than other, mathematically dominated, attempts. The latter approach makes me...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Part 1 of a discussion with Ian Durham about his essay. Since it has some relevance to my essay, I thought it would be worthwhile to repeat here.

Dear Ian,

I enjoyed reading your essay. Several of the issue that you discuss have been paradoxical for ages and have not been resolved satisfactory. There is, however, a way to get around those issues, which I will explain below by...

view entire post

Dear Ian,

I enjoyed reading your essay. Several of the issue that you discuss have been paradoxical for ages and have not been resolved satisfactory. There is, however, a way to get around those issues, which I will explain below by...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Part 2 of a discussion with Ian Durham about his essay.

My reply:

Dear Ian,

1. You're right that no classical theory of light was ever successful. That is not the point I wanted to make. Photons are quantum like entities can be detected by particle detectors. In interference experiments they exhibit a wave-like character. This dual behavior could be reconciled by assuming that...

view entire post

My reply:

Dear Ian,

1. You're right that no classical theory of light was ever successful. That is not the point I wanted to make. Photons are quantum like entities can be detected by particle detectors. In interference experiments they exhibit a wave-like character. This dual behavior could be reconciled by assuming that...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Ben Baten,

I enjoyed your essay, as I too am focused on deBroglie 'pilot waves' as the explanation of the particle-wave duality.

My approach differs somewhat in that I base it on Maxwell's 'gravito-magnetic' field, updated to reflect recent measurements and calculations. Maxwell noticed that Coulomb's equation and Newton's equation had the same form, and decided to replace Electric field by Gravity field and charge by mass in the other EM field equations. But to complete this translation he needed an analog of the electro-magnetic field, and he termed this the gravito-magnetic field. Just as moving charge induces a circulating magnetic field, moving mass will induce a circulating gravito-magnetic field. This field, accompanying a corpuscular electron adds a wave-like aspect, while the description of such is a solution of Schrodinger's equation.

So if you're interested in an alternative perspective on deBroglie QM, I invite you to read my essay here. I would appreciate any comments.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

I enjoyed your essay, as I too am focused on deBroglie 'pilot waves' as the explanation of the particle-wave duality.

My approach differs somewhat in that I base it on Maxwell's 'gravito-magnetic' field, updated to reflect recent measurements and calculations. Maxwell noticed that Coulomb's equation and Newton's equation had the same form, and decided to replace Electric field by Gravity field and charge by mass in the other EM field equations. But to complete this translation he needed an analog of the electro-magnetic field, and he termed this the gravito-magnetic field. Just as moving charge induces a circulating magnetic field, moving mass will induce a circulating gravito-magnetic field. This field, accompanying a corpuscular electron adds a wave-like aspect, while the description of such is a solution of Schrodinger's equation.

So if you're interested in an alternative perspective on deBroglie QM, I invite you to read my essay here. I would appreciate any comments.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Dear Edwin,

I have read you essay and found the summary on page 8 about the 'serious problems' current theories cannot solve interesting. Those types of issues are hardly ever discussed.

In your essay you start with a master equation that requires the pre-existence of a coordinate structure otherwise the gradient cannot be determined and distance (r) cannot be measured. The phi field is identified with gravity. On page 3, a C field is introduced. So, I get the impression that both of us need to fields to describe physics although both approaches are very different.

In my essay, I mention the need for two interacting protofields to explain the currently observed 4 short/long-range interactions and the existence of particles. Displacement and time dynamically emerge. The typical equations from current quantum theory, relativity theory and electromagnetic theory can be derived from the conjectured existence of the interacting protofields and require dynamically created time and particle displacement. I merely give an overview of some of the results of this theory in which the math follows from the physics. Many details can be found in the references and require a fair amount of time to plow through. A slide deck on my website gives a summary overview.

There are probably some more differences that can be identified between our essays. I think we need to leave it to others to assess the merits of both approaches.

Best regards.

report post as inappropriate

I have read you essay and found the summary on page 8 about the 'serious problems' current theories cannot solve interesting. Those types of issues are hardly ever discussed.

In your essay you start with a master equation that requires the pre-existence of a coordinate structure otherwise the gradient cannot be determined and distance (r) cannot be measured. The phi field is identified with gravity. On page 3, a C field is introduced. So, I get the impression that both of us need to fields to describe physics although both approaches are very different.

In my essay, I mention the need for two interacting protofields to explain the currently observed 4 short/long-range interactions and the existence of particles. Displacement and time dynamically emerge. The typical equations from current quantum theory, relativity theory and electromagnetic theory can be derived from the conjectured existence of the interacting protofields and require dynamically created time and particle displacement. I merely give an overview of some of the results of this theory in which the math follows from the physics. Many details can be found in the references and require a fair amount of time to plow through. A slide deck on my website gives a summary overview.

There are probably some more differences that can be identified between our essays. I think we need to leave it to others to assess the merits of both approaches.

Best regards.

report post as inappropriate

Ben,

Thanks for looking at my essay and commenting. I agree with your conclusion.

Good luck in the contest and with your researches.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for looking at my essay and commenting. I agree with your conclusion.

Good luck in the contest and with your researches.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Dear Ben,

I enjoyed your essay and I particularly agree that space and time should dynamically emerge with mass-energy. Quantum Mechanics has never been agreeable to me, do to its inherent incomprehensibility. I wish you success in your endeavors to supplant QMs.

You also wrote: "In case of gravity, the mathematical extension of the metric to empty space is a mathematical generalization which cannot be derived from the theory described in this report and appears to result in an unphysical description of a dynamically evolving space-time of the universe as a whole. Consequently, any supposedly observed evolution dynamics of the universe remains to be explained in a different manner than current physics maintains."

Let me point you to my essay for a different perspective on the universe as a whole. I have defined a cosmic spacetime that is a superposition of local spacetimes and I believe it is a model that would fit well with your theory. I have also reached some conclusions and offered alternative hypotheses for some cosmological mysteries that you might enjoy. I hope you will find the time to read it.

Best Regards,

Dan

report post as inappropriate

I enjoyed your essay and I particularly agree that space and time should dynamically emerge with mass-energy. Quantum Mechanics has never been agreeable to me, do to its inherent incomprehensibility. I wish you success in your endeavors to supplant QMs.

You also wrote: "In case of gravity, the mathematical extension of the metric to empty space is a mathematical generalization which cannot be derived from the theory described in this report and appears to result in an unphysical description of a dynamically evolving space-time of the universe as a whole. Consequently, any supposedly observed evolution dynamics of the universe remains to be explained in a different manner than current physics maintains."

Let me point you to my essay for a different perspective on the universe as a whole. I have defined a cosmic spacetime that is a superposition of local spacetimes and I believe it is a model that would fit well with your theory. I have also reached some conclusions and offered alternative hypotheses for some cosmological mysteries that you might enjoy. I hope you will find the time to read it.

Best Regards,

Dan

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dan,

Thank you for your feedback on my essay. You are one of the few thus far. I have also read your essay and must admit that have will probably have to read it a few more times to fully comprehend it.

I also appreciate your alternative thinking. In my opinion, the approach of current physics is is getting more and more 'problematic'. There are some issues with current cosmology that you touch upon with which I fully agree, such as the large amount of unexplained energy and the known theoretical issues with black holes.

I also agree with the statements on page 2: 'Time in relativity is simply defined by that which is measured by perfect clocks' and 'time is (possibly) an elementary ordered process of change, and footnote 2: ' In our approach, we will not assume that events are perfect point-like mathematical objects, only that they are infinitesimal in extension and duration compared to the scale our geometry represents.' All those remarks nicely match what I try to convey in my essay where this is made more explicit.

I'm not clear about the notion of cosmic time. For me, time originates from particle dynamics and only a single notion of (discrete) time is needed to describe physical events.

In the theory that I describe, the notions of time, space, particle motion, energy, momentum and Planck's constant are all well-defined and directly connected to the behavior of an electron (these notions can be generalized to other types of massive particles and for photons those concepts can only be defined in terms of massive particle behavior (see material on my website). I get the impression that in current physics the notion of 'energy' is very loosely used.

Dan, I get the impression that you are assume the existence of expanding space time. Since space has a different meaning in the theory I describe, there is no notion of expanding space. Consequently, the observed 'expansion of space' needs to be explained in a different fashion.

Best Regards.

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your feedback on my essay. You are one of the few thus far. I have also read your essay and must admit that have will probably have to read it a few more times to fully comprehend it.

I also appreciate your alternative thinking. In my opinion, the approach of current physics is is getting more and more 'problematic'. There are some issues with current cosmology that you touch upon with which I fully agree, such as the large amount of unexplained energy and the known theoretical issues with black holes.

I also agree with the statements on page 2: 'Time in relativity is simply defined by that which is measured by perfect clocks' and 'time is (possibly) an elementary ordered process of change, and footnote 2: ' In our approach, we will not assume that events are perfect point-like mathematical objects, only that they are infinitesimal in extension and duration compared to the scale our geometry represents.' All those remarks nicely match what I try to convey in my essay where this is made more explicit.

I'm not clear about the notion of cosmic time. For me, time originates from particle dynamics and only a single notion of (discrete) time is needed to describe physical events.

In the theory that I describe, the notions of time, space, particle motion, energy, momentum and Planck's constant are all well-defined and directly connected to the behavior of an electron (these notions can be generalized to other types of massive particles and for photons those concepts can only be defined in terms of massive particle behavior (see material on my website). I get the impression that in current physics the notion of 'energy' is very loosely used.

Dan, I get the impression that you are assume the existence of expanding space time. Since space has a different meaning in the theory I describe, there is no notion of expanding space. Consequently, the observed 'expansion of space' needs to be explained in a different fashion.

Best Regards.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Ben,

I was glad that you had the time to read my essay. I, like you, am taking an alternative approach as I have seen many issues arise with the Standard Model of Cosmology, in particular DM and DE, only to receive the band-aid treatment. I appreciate people, such as yourself, taking a similar stand against the fundamental issues with QT and trying to provide a more reasonable and inclusive theory. I have not had the opportunity to check your website or the cited work of Kirilyuk. I plan to do this as time allows.

As for my notion of cosmic time, this is a definition based upon the need to combine all local spacetimes, each with their distinct time coordinate based on local conditions, into a cohesive whole (namely the universe) and constrained by the singularity in the distant past. IOW everything in the universe has a shared history, regardless of the rates of their local clocks.

As for the expansion of space, I have accepted the commonly held view that the cosmological redshift is evidence of its expansion. But my model, by having an intrinsic curvature, unrelated to the total mass-energy content, IMO is a more natural way to explain many open cosmological questions. I must have misinterpreted the quote cited from your essay in my previous post. Nevertheless, I do plan to study your approach more thoroughly in the near future.

Wishing you the best,

Dan

report post as inappropriate

I was glad that you had the time to read my essay. I, like you, am taking an alternative approach as I have seen many issues arise with the Standard Model of Cosmology, in particular DM and DE, only to receive the band-aid treatment. I appreciate people, such as yourself, taking a similar stand against the fundamental issues with QT and trying to provide a more reasonable and inclusive theory. I have not had the opportunity to check your website or the cited work of Kirilyuk. I plan to do this as time allows.

As for my notion of cosmic time, this is a definition based upon the need to combine all local spacetimes, each with their distinct time coordinate based on local conditions, into a cohesive whole (namely the universe) and constrained by the singularity in the distant past. IOW everything in the universe has a shared history, regardless of the rates of their local clocks.

As for the expansion of space, I have accepted the commonly held view that the cosmological redshift is evidence of its expansion. But my model, by having an intrinsic curvature, unrelated to the total mass-energy content, IMO is a more natural way to explain many open cosmological questions. I must have misinterpreted the quote cited from your essay in my previous post. Nevertheless, I do plan to study your approach more thoroughly in the near future.

Wishing you the best,

Dan

report post as inappropriate

Dera Ben,

as was saying in my post it is very interesting to find a convergence of view with you.

The Kirilyuk's works deserve special attention. I hope that my answers to your questions were useful.

Good luck and stay in touch.

Donatello

report post as inappropriate

as was saying in my post it is very interesting to find a convergence of view with you.

The Kirilyuk's works deserve special attention. I hope that my answers to your questions were useful.

Good luck and stay in touch.

Donatello

report post as inappropriate

Part 1 of a discussion with Donatello Dolce about his essay. Since it has relevance to my essay, I thought it would be worthwhile to repeat here.

Dear Donatello,

I have read your essay. I also believe that de Broglie's original ideas are essential to accomplish unification. You will see similar statements about the non-mathematical aspects in both of our essays. Some of the main...

view entire post

Dear Donatello,

I have read your essay. I also believe that de Broglie's original ideas are essential to accomplish unification. You will see similar statements about the non-mathematical aspects in both of our essays. Some of the main...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Part 2 of a discussion with Donatello Dolce about his essay. My reply to him.

Hi Donatello,

I read you reply in the thread of my essay. I also think that periodicity is a very important element to eliminate many of the inconsistencies in current physics and is potentially a promising field of research. There are a few other essays that make references to periodicity, but do not expand upon it as we do in our essays.

I summarized some aspects of Kirilyuk's original theory on Quantum Field Mechanics (QFM) in my essay and linked it to de Broglie's thinking and current theories. On my website, I have cast Kirilyuk's work in a more accessible form with extensions following from the basic theory.

About your feedback:

1. The electromagnetic and gravitational protofields are notions introduced to match observed fundamental interactions with minimal assumptions to construct a theory. They should be viewed as real physical fields of which the detailed characteristics may never be known apart from they way they facilitate particle interaction. They should not be interpreted as mathematical fields.

2. In QFM-I (see my website) hidden variables indeed appear, but in a completely different fashion than in current theory: they are not measurable since they pertain to the protofield interaction.

3. No comments.

4. You state that 'You say that your theory is base on a protofield, so you should involve some field Lagrangian at some point.' The basic theory (see QFM-I on my website) describes protofield interaction and from that dynamically emergent space and time. It does not rely on a Lagrangian yet, since it addresses the existence of particles. The next layer of the theory (QFM-II) introduces physically rationalized action conditions to describe electron motion (with stationary state is a special case), from which eventually the Lagrangian of a free electron follows. This does not seem to be a very important result, but a free electron can be viewed as the prototypical particle of nature given its stability and low complexity. A correct physical description of this case should be viewed as a stepping stone for subsequent theoretical work. I have attempted to come up with a 'simple description' of more complex massive particles in line with some of the results of QFM, but this description remains to be compared to measurement results. This is clearly work in progress and can be criticized in some areas.

I will take a look at the references that you mentioned since I'm always interested to learn something new.

Best Regards.

report post as inappropriate

Hi Donatello,

I read you reply in the thread of my essay. I also think that periodicity is a very important element to eliminate many of the inconsistencies in current physics and is potentially a promising field of research. There are a few other essays that make references to periodicity, but do not expand upon it as we do in our essays.

I summarized some aspects of Kirilyuk's original theory on Quantum Field Mechanics (QFM) in my essay and linked it to de Broglie's thinking and current theories. On my website, I have cast Kirilyuk's work in a more accessible form with extensions following from the basic theory.

About your feedback:

1. The electromagnetic and gravitational protofields are notions introduced to match observed fundamental interactions with minimal assumptions to construct a theory. They should be viewed as real physical fields of which the detailed characteristics may never be known apart from they way they facilitate particle interaction. They should not be interpreted as mathematical fields.

2. In QFM-I (see my website) hidden variables indeed appear, but in a completely different fashion than in current theory: they are not measurable since they pertain to the protofield interaction.

3. No comments.

4. You state that 'You say that your theory is base on a protofield, so you should involve some field Lagrangian at some point.' The basic theory (see QFM-I on my website) describes protofield interaction and from that dynamically emergent space and time. It does not rely on a Lagrangian yet, since it addresses the existence of particles. The next layer of the theory (QFM-II) introduces physically rationalized action conditions to describe electron motion (with stationary state is a special case), from which eventually the Lagrangian of a free electron follows. This does not seem to be a very important result, but a free electron can be viewed as the prototypical particle of nature given its stability and low complexity. A correct physical description of this case should be viewed as a stepping stone for subsequent theoretical work. I have attempted to come up with a 'simple description' of more complex massive particles in line with some of the results of QFM, but this description remains to be compared to measurement results. This is clearly work in progress and can be criticized in some areas.

I will take a look at the references that you mentioned since I'm always interested to learn something new.

Best Regards.

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.