Bundles of Nothingness: Unravelling the Zero-Dimensional Particle Premise of Fundamental Physics by Dirk Pons, Arion Pons, and Aiden Pons

Dear Pons family,

You have produced a very interesting essay. I accept completely your rejection of zero-dimensional "point" particles, the mathematical convenience that allowed physics to replace complex bodies with a point at their center-of-gravity. The problem, as you point out, comes when 'small' particles are considered to be structureless points.

Your imaginative design addresses some of the problems and your list of "high fitness" explanations (that you list in your appendix) is quite extensive.

As you point out, most of us do not even think in terms of a "nonlocal hidden variable" (NLHV) approach and you are to be congratulated for exploring this route.

Although I agree with you that "there is no obvious impediment to a mathematical formulation" of your design, this is apparently a task that still has to be accomplished. If, while working on that task, you wish to take a break and read about another approach based on non-point particles that also attempts to address the same problems that you do, I invite you to read my essay, The Nature of the Wave Function. Due to the 9 page constraint, I do not focus on the particle itself, but on the wave (function) it induces. While it may at first appear to be the classical de Broglie particle, I explain why it is not.

Finally, congratulations on making your efforts a family project. Most families appreciate the difficulty in pulling something like this off. Good luck in the contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Thank you Edwin.

It is interesting that there are a number of essays that touch, more or less, on the premises of locality and the structure of particles, including yours of course. Certainly the issue of locality -or the lack thereof- have been particularly vexatious for physics. In particular, a lot of the physical incongruence of existing explanations arises in this area.

And yes, you are right that we have not yet demonstrated the mathematical validity of our approach. Mathematical tools have been used extensively by others to probe for deeper physics. This approach has been used by so many people, for so long, and so competently .... but ultimately has been somewhat unsuccessful in finding deep explanatory insights. That in itself is sufficient reason, from a design perspective, to take a path less trodden.

If our idea has merit, then we would certainly like to further develop its mathematical representation, or support others in that task. However at present our focus is on further conceptual work, i.e. the application of the idea to additional phenomena.

Best wishes

Dirk

Pons Family,

Are you speaking of 1-D particles in string theory?

Jim

Dirk, I read your essay and am still thinking it. Although I worked in R&D for many years I found very few creative people like your self. In thinking about your cordus proposal, I am wondering if two ends are another separation we need to consider. I was intrigued by the statement "one end is not observed". I am a believer in dark matter and think it is a neutron like neutrino (same mass just not observed). Also, I am able to understand the properties of the mesons and baryons if they are "double" particles with one observable and one unobservable half. How far can the two ends be separated? How does one end's properties compare to the other?

Dear Pons team

It is heartwarming to think of a family working together on such a project. It is all for the good. As for the essay itself I found myself agreeing with you that a new 'engineering' approach is desirable to solve fundamental problems in physics. Indeed that is what I have done myself. I enjoyed the inventive energy at work to create the Cordus conjecture, the amusing names you have made up hyff and hyffon for some of its properties.

The Cordus might work in some situations as you describe it, but sadly my interest wandered as I realized that you are creating a solution that is at odds with what I have come to believe about nature: that it works causally, locally, deterministically and its interactions are never instantaneous or superluminal. I would be happy if you read my fqxi offering, based on my Beautiful Universe Theory and related researches. I wish that others would try such imaginative approaches by going back to the drawing board to bypass the obvious foundational faults in physics.

Wishing you all the best, Vladimir

Dirk

The universal nodes in my BU theory as single units are bundles of energy that have polarity so yes you might say they have two ends -as do particles that are assembled out of two or more such node linkages. In the case of large polyhedral assemblages of such nodes however, they may or may not have have net polarity depending on the configuration.

Thanks for your interest. Lets keep those mental gears moving one is apt to discover more and more interesting ideas, and one of them may work!

Best,

Vladimir

Dear Doctor Pons,

Although I can express my gratitude for your taking the time to carefully read my essay, there is no way for me to express my awe at the fact you have graciously uncritically compared my thoughts about time to your own thoughts about this intriguing matter. I would like to offer this clarifying example: My youngest daughter enters the room and sits on her grandmother's lap. I set up a time delay camera then stand by my mother's shoulder and smile as the camera flash takes the photograph. When the film is developed, it clearly shows the three of us exactly as we were when the flash took place. Obviously, my mother was born before I was and before the camera was made. I was born before my daughter and before the camera was manufactured. My daughter was born after her grandmother and I were born, and after the camera was assembled. According to Stephen Hawking, one can only ever see past events no matter in which direction one looks. I dispute this. I maintain that one can only see whatever one is looking at here and now and I think the photograph proves it.

Perhaps Mr Witten Mr Smolin and Mr Baez can help you ? :)

the ask of this day is a point, a string or a sphere ?

perhaps that after all some rational convergences can appear if the foundamentals are respected ....

ps THEY TURN SO THEY ARE...

ps2 EUREKA .

Pons group,

String theory is in principle a theory of nonlocal hidden variables.

I have to come down on the side of Vladimir, that neither locality nor local realism need be sacrified -- and particularly because, as Joy Christian has shown, quantum entanglement is an illusion and Bell's theorem cannot therefore be foundational. Local realism holds non-contextually.

You write " ...we support the pre-existing properties concept of local realism, but not the independence of observation, and suggest it would be more helpful to disaggregate the two concepts."

It would indeed. I suggest separating the observer-created reality interpretation of Bell/Aspect results from the observer-entangled reality of classical orientation entanglement. The latter allows correlation of time-reversible wave functions without entanglement. My essay ("The perfect first question") explains, along with a take on the Schrodinger cat paradox that exposes experimental dependence on state vector preparation.

That said, even though I disagree with your conclusions, I do not disagree with all of your premises, and I expect that your research program will be fruitful in many ways. Best wishes in the competition ...

Tom

And what are these hiiden variables, external causes of mass , it is that ?

and what after, the higgs it is that ?

Well, let's continue !

You are not rational Tom ??? Times reversible now?

it is that your sciences ??? THE IRRATIONAL???

It is that ? your maths? hidden varibales and exotic bizare particules and reversible times ????

And what after ??? A TIME MACHINE OF COURSE .and doc who says to Marty Mcfly that back to the future is logic.But no my friends, it is just a film, one of my favorite film, but it is just a film !!!

Now about this IRREVERSIBLE times. We can only decrease our internal clocks correlated with the duration dueto rotating spheres !!! So we can go in the future indeeed, but the probelm is that we cannot return at hoùme in our present !!! is it necessary so ? no of course, only the present so is important.We analyze our past, we harmonize our present and we imrpove so our future, it is not complicated in fact.

Be rational please.

regards

Dear Dirk Pons,

As 'nothing is always something', if we think of something on the nothingness what we have assumed, we may presume something with 1-D string, from the wave mechanics of two particles in wave functions.

With best wishes

Jayakar

Thanks for the reply, Dear Dirk Pons,

In the current scenario of string theory predictions, we need some adaptations in that, we may also include eigen-rotational strings, with oscillating strings. I think, this may enable to evolve a generic wave mechanics in analogy with neutrino oscillation and may proceed with the change of our assumptions of a finite universe between singularities that is not realistic. When we consider that string has mass, Higgs mechanism also may gain much from string mechanics for the smooth transition of particle scenario from point to string, expected in SM and that may differ from our current predictions on BSM.

With best regards,

Jayakar

That said, we can simulate a 3D system considering the evolution. Perhaps that only the evolution of our solar system can be computed. In this kind of reasoning, indeed we can retrun in the past.But it is just a virtuality. Of course the parameters must be rational.If not we have not the good virtuality. We can see our past but we cannot return physically speaking in this past. The confusion is subtle.

Dear D.J., A.D., A.J.,

I just read your interesting essay. It certainly rates high for creativity and interest. I have a few remarks and questions.

1. The "cordus" idea is intriguing. It raises some immediate questions, many of which you answer in the paper. One question I still have, however , is what about the no-signalling theorem? In other words, why can't one send superluminal signals along the cordus?

2. You point out the ambiguity of the terms "locality," "realism," and "local realism." I think this is a very important point. In particular, locality refers to some sort of metric property; a way of measuring "distance" in spacetime. But many theories of quantum gravity predict that the manifold structure of spacetime (along with the metric) breaks down at small scales. How then does one measure distance? My opinion is that we should turn the problem around and DEFINE locality in terms of causality; i.e., if two systems interact, then they are local. The hypothesis then is that the "manifold" structure of spacetime along with its metric emerges on large scales. This might be roughly equivalent to your Principle of Wider Locality (page 5). I discuss this and similar issues from the causal perspective in my essay On the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics. I'd appreciate your thoughts!

3. There is at least some conceptual similarity to the "open strings" of string theory. Have you compared the two ideas? ( I know they aren't exactly the same; for instance, the interaction conditions would be different).

Thanks for the interesting read, and take care!

Ben Dribus