Essay Abstract

We argue that the notion of space-time has a physical meaning only for describing real classical bodies while for constructing fundamental quantum theories this notion is not needed at all. As an illustration, we describe our approaches to the cosmological constant problem and gravity.

Author Bio

I graduated from the Moscow Institute for Physics and Technology, got a PhD from the Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics (Moscow), got a Dr. Sci. degree from the Institute for High Energy Physics (also known as the Serpukhov Accelerator) and worked at the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (Dubna, Moscow Region). Currently I am working at a software company in the greater Los Angeles area.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Felix Lev,

Thanks for an interesting treatment of some problems with quantum field theory (QFT). Of particular interest is your discussion about the fact that "their [local fields] products at the same point are poorly defined." This, in my mind, is an example of Dirac's complaint about "physical ideas that were not correctly incorporated into the theory", resulting in "no sound mathematical foundation."

If one assumes (as I do) that particles are not points, then the infinities that arise from mathematical points should not be taken too seriously.

You clearly and concisely observe that "The interaction Lagrangians where the fields interact at the same points is the main source of difficulties and inconsistencies in QFT", followed by your question as to whether this notion is needed at all.

Whereas you treat relativistic QFT and general relativity, I work the other end of the universe in my essay, The Nature of the Wave Function, in the sense that I treat non-relativistic quantum mechanics and the weak field approximation to general relativity. At first reading I am unable to bridge the gap between these two extremes, but I found your end fascinating and hope that you obtain something of value from my essay.

Your derivation of the cosmological acceleration and its connection to quantum theory is fascinating, as is your problem of finding a symmetry algebra that reproduces Newton's gravity for two free particles. Yours is a fresh view and a joy to read.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

    Thank you very much for reading my essay and your comments. I tried to understand your approach but my impression is similar to yours, i.e. that our approaches are very different. My understanding of some problems follows. The terms "wave function" and "particle-wave duality" have arisen at the beginning of quantum era in efforts to explain quantum behavior in terms of classical waves but now it is clear that no such explanation exists. The notion of wave is purely classical; it has a physical meaning only as a way of describing systems of many particles by their average characteristics. In particular, such notions as frequency and wave length can be applied only to classical waves, i.e. to systems consisting of many particles. If a particle state vector contains exp[i(px-Et)/\hbar] then by analogy with the theory of classical waves one might say that the particle is a wave with the frequency omega=E/\hbar and the (de Broglie) wave length lambda=2\pi\hbar/p. However, such defined quantities omega and lambda are not real frequencies and wave lengths measured e.g. in spectroscopic experiments. The term "wave function" might be misleading since in quantum theory it defines not amplitudes of waves but only amplitudes of probabilities. In my opinion the term "state vector" is more pertinent than "wave function" but for historical reasons the latter is used when it has the meaning of the former. In addition, GR is a pure classical theory. However, your philosophy seems to be almost fully opposite, right?

    Dear Felix Lev,

    I suspect you are right in your title question because this fits with my own science/reality philosophy(!). I'm glad someone of your mathematical skill and background has chosen this point of view to explore. Excellent work by all accounts.

      Dear Alan Lowey,

      Thank you for your remarks. I agree with you that Newton's isotropy is a simplicity which should be generalized. In our essays we try to implement this in different directions.

      Dear Felix Lev,

      Thanks for your response. I suspected that we might be too far apart to bridge the gap. In earlier essays I pointed to a theory that effectively derives a quantum condition from a classical field. On other threads we've discussed the notion that a new theory will not derive from either QM or GR but must of course cover both where appropriate. This is one reason I deem it appropriate to "meet in the middle" of weak field GR and non-relativistic QM.

      You are correct that my philosophy is opposite to the beliefs you hold about the wave function, and my essay attempts to trace the history of those beliefs and show the wrong assumptions that led to a century of confusion, with special focus on the configuration space of the 'many-particle wave function'.

      There does seem to be a wide fault line between physicists who put their faith in abstract math that no one believes to be complete or flawlessly correct and those who believe that physical "reality" [however defined] exists as the territory and all maps fail to cover it completely. Both sides on this issue advance the physics.

      Thanks again for reading and commenting on my essay and for writing an excellent essay. Good luck in the contest.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      • [deleted]

      • Post #7

      Dear Felix

      Your approach close to my intuition.

      I wish good luck to you in this competition.

      All the best

      Yuri

      Hi Felix,

      Could you expand on the your last post please, I'm unsure about your view on Newton's isotropy needing "generalization". What does that mean exactly? I'm convinced that Isotropy it's simply wrong and that Einstein continued this simplicity with mathematical cleverness which unfortunately gives us the modern day clash with quantum theory *and* common sense.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #9

      Dear Felix,

      I read your essay and agree with your point and it is same as the truth that I am putting forth in the following essay

      Conscience is the cosmological constant.

      There is no space unless one chooses to measure and there is no time until one chooses to count. There is no space-time besides one absolute self or singularity.

      Who am i? I am concrete, i is abstract. I am physics, i is mathematics.

      Love,

      Sridattadev.

      Dear Alan,

      The title of your essay is "Newton's Isotropy and Equivalence Is Simplicity..." but in your question you say

      "Isotropy it's simply wrong and that Einstein continued this simplicity...". So the statements:

      1) Theory A is wrong

      2) Theory A is a simplicity

      are equivalent or not?

      You might have missed the trick in the essay title: I said "..that has led to mass misconceptions of reality". I believe that the basic buildings blocks of matter and radiation are anisotropic, but slightly larger structures are isotropic. It's this simplification which gives us the inverse square law and therefore the definition of 'mass'. But by definition quantum particles behave in an anisotropic way and not isotropically. So yes, in a nutshell, isotropy of matter is both a simplification *and* wrong.

      Dear Alan,

      I remember that many years ago there were theories where particles were described not by a scalar (i.e. isotropic) mass m but by a nonisotropic tensor m_{ik}. When you say that "quantum particles behave in an anisotropic way and not isotropically", probably you mean not existing theories (e.g. with Galilei or Poincare invariance) but more complicated theories, right? So in fact this is a generalization of Galilei or Poincare theories. In your essay I tried to find those more complicated groups or algebras which should be used instead of Galilei or Poincare groups or algebras. Do I understand your ideas correctly? Thank you. Felix.

      Felix, I'm on a very simple line of thought now. Let's compare gravity with magnetism. The magnetic force eminating from a bar magnet is anisotropic yet it's gravitational influence is isotropic. Is it not common sense that the fundamentals of the two forces ar the same? If so, is it not common sense that the gravity force is also anisotropic, but it's internal arrangement produces matter which eminates force particles isotropically i.e. in all directions equally? The magnetic force *can't* be fundamentally isotropic and produce a larger structure which is anisotropic but the gravity force *can* be fundamentally anisotropic and produce a larger structure which is isotropic. Do you begin to see what I'm getting at?

      Alan, so if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the gravitational force is fundamentally anisotropic but seems to become isotropic when we take average values over large structures. The fact that the gravitational force is anisotropic is well-known (e.g. post-Newtonian corrections depend on velocities). Only in the nonrelativistic approximation, when we neglect all powers of (v/c) it is isotropic. The magnetic force is anisotropic since it depends on velocities already in the main approximation, so when v->0, the force goes to zero too.

      Okay Felix, yes, you understand me correctly with your opening sentence. I wasn't fully aware of the known anisotropic nature of gravity when the concept of Einstein's relativity is applied. I assume that it's just for velocities which approach the speed of light. Am I right in thinking that there's no scientific reason why there *can't possibly* be non-baryonic matter at the centre of the Earth assuming that Einstein's relativity has a fundamental problem? This is what the Higgs-like particle discovery indicates, doesn't it?

      Dear Alan,

      My example with post-Newtonian terms was only for illustration. As I note in my essay, in my approach there is no "fundamental" gravity at all; gravity is simply a kinematical effect which takes place only if at least one body is microscopic. So I believe that nothing should be excluded right away. I am not a geologist, so cannot say anything definite about your idea on non-baryonic matter but it is not clear to me how the recent discovery can shed light on this problem.

      Dear Lev

      You addressed the reader at one point "if you are still reading this" well I read the entire essay and understood perhaps 20% of the very technical discussion. Nevertheless from everything you said and from the comments above I can see you have swallowed whole the assumptions of 20th. c. physics. I mean you seem to have mastered the methods of SR GR and QM even though they speak such different languages and address different domains. In my essay, naive as it may appear to you, there is an appeal for a concerted effort to find a better, simpler understanding of Nature. I would appreciate it if you read it as well as my Beautiful Universe theory upon which it is based. Yes it is a simplistic approach but I strongly believe one day some such simple approach will explain all of physics without the painful complications that you struggle with so bravely in your essay.

      BTW I downloaded your essay a week ago but now I see that your abstract, bio and pdf download link have disappeared!!

      Wishing you the best of luck,

      Vladimir

        Dear Vladimir,

        Thank you for your comments. I tried to understand your approach; on some problems we have similar opinions but there are problems where we have considerably different opinions. As far as particle-wave duality is concerned, you could read my response to Edvin Eugene Klingman in this thread. You refer to the experiment 2 2 by Eric Reiter. Your reference is a cite unquantum.net but I could not find a detailed description of the experiment there. Could you please tell me where the details of the experiment can be found.

        Thank you. Felix.

        Thanks for taking the time Felix. How do you feel about the concept of 'saturated maximum energy density matter' who's gravitational attraction is dependent on it's x-sectional area, rather than the amount of material?? This assumes that the surface can't emit any more force carrying particles and is at it's maximum limit, so therefore it doesn't matter how much material is behind it at that moment relative to another body of maximum energy density material. This is at the crux of my idea for additional exotic matter tidal forcing.Attachment #1: 1_Exotic_Cores.jpg