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

Gene

Yes, as soon as one starts questioning the point premise, then all sorts of new options become available. Your questions are another novel perspective.

In our particular model the two reactive ends both exist: it is just that they energise in turn at the frequency of the particle. Thus both ends are observed. The two ends have identical properties.

Regarding the separation, our model requires that the span (separation between the two ends) for the photon can be increased to macroscopic distances and is not dependent on the energy, whereas the span of massy particles (e.g. electron) is tightly constrained to be inversely proportional to the energy.

Thank you

Dirk

Vladimir

Thank you for your comments. Yes, I think we too started with the expectation that lacility was self-evidently true. However our work has made us question that. We can get a physically natural solution to a wide range of otherwise problematic physical phenomena ... but locality had to go.

Figure 3 in your Beautiful universe theory is perhaps not dissimilar to our cordus idea of having two ends to each particle.

Regards

Dirk

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

  • [deleted]

  • Post #11

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.

6 days later

  • [deleted]

  • Post #12

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 .

  • [deleted]

  • Post #13

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

  • [deleted]

  • Post #14

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

Related topical paper: The concept that the quantum state of superposition may have an underlying physical origin is covered in a recent paper in Nature doi:10.1038/nphys2309 (see also New Scientist). In their Nature paper, Pusey, Barrett & Rudolph show that the quantum state cannot be understood as merely representing information. To put it another way, the wave function would appear to be based on a underlying real effect. Quite what real form it takes, they cannot say. This is where methods and ideas like ours may offer a way forward.

They end their paper recommending that, "Another [approach] is to construct concrete models of reality wherein one or more of our assumptions fail." Which brings us back to the essay topic: Which of the assumptions is going to have to fail?

7 days later

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

    Jayakar

    Yes, the 1-D structures of string theory are another alternative to points. But as you know, string theory really struggles to ground itself back in the physical world, and therefore lacks explanatory power.

    thank you

    Dirk

    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

    16 days later

    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.

    a month later

    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

    Dear Ben

    Thanks for your interest. You ask some deep questions and I can see that a superficial answer will not be enough. I will split the responses, so you and any other readers can respond further as necessary.

    Thank you

    Dirk Pons

    Regarding superluminal communication, we acknowledge that is an incompletely resolved matter and offer some responses. Let's first be clear about the basic point of difference. The cordus model provides for superluminal coordination of the two reactive ends of the particle, via the fibril that connects them. The superluminal coordination is used to keep the two reactive ends in complementary states (and for the photon, also collapse it to one location when measured). Those ends are geometrically separated, remember. Hence entanglement effects when the separation is macroscopic. (Cordus also reproduces the sinusoidal relationship between signal intensity and orientation of the detector http://vixra.org/abs/1203.0086).

    However using this effect for communication is another thing. The issue is that the superluminality is within the cordus, not with its external environment. The cordus model suggests several reasons why the interaction in-through-and-out the cordus is not totally instantaneous: (1) time is initially required to create the photons and separate their reactive ends (a set-up cost which applies initially and again whenever the entanglement is lost); (2) the data can still only be transmitted at one or at most a few bits per frequency cycle of the photon - i.e. a finite frequency; (3) data from the external environment takes time to transfer into the cordus, i.e. data can only can be pumped in and out of the cordus system as fast as the speed of light (this constraint arises from the cordus model for discrete fields).

    So this model supports the no-superluminal-communication idea.

    Thus we partition the 'communication' process into two separate sub-processes: superluminal coordination within the cordus, and luminal interaction between it and the outside environment. We suggest it makes a lot of sense to look at the problem this way. Thus with cordus we can have entanglement with its superluminal effects, but communication does not have to be superluminal. There is no conflict between these, as there is in other conceptual frameworks.

    This concept is totally unavailable to the 0-D point construct. It shows again how questioning that premise allows descriptively powerful solutions to emerge.

    Dirk Pons

    Your second question related to locality.

    Yes, we feel the concepts of locality and local-realism are confounded. We are comfortable with the definitions of both, which we understand as follows, but not with rolling them together. The principle of locality is that the behaviour of an object is only affected by its immediate surroundings, not by distant objects or events elsewhere. Hence also local realism: that the properties of an object pre-exist before the object is observed, and independent of observation. We feel that many of the Bell-type inequalities that are used to preclude NLHV solutions are rendered doubtful or even invalid because of inattention to detail in this area. However we also feel that the confusion between the terms is natural, given that people are starting with a mental model of a 0-D point. If matter really is a 0-D point then it is acceptable to merge locality and local-realism into one concept. However, and this is our objection, it is not logically coherent to make that merge, and then try to use that to prove that matter must be 0-D points. This circular logic appears in many of the Bell-type inequalities.

    Our paper does two things: first it shows by reason that the Bell-type inequalities have serious underpinning flaws due to their circular relationship to their premises; and second it offers a specific solution that falsifies those inequalities. If the cordus challenges holds up, then it means that there is a whole new deeper level of foundational physics to explore.

    Also, our model suggests that time is not a dimension, hence rejecting the idea of spacetime being a fourth dimension. Instead time is a discrete property at the fundamental level, and emerges as an apparently smooth effect at macroscopic scales. More specifically we suggest that, at its most basic level, time originates with the frequency cycles of the particules of matter and photons. The macroscopic perception of time arises because the interconnectedness of matter, via its discrete fields, creates a patchwork of temporal cause-and-effect. Thus the smooth time as we perceive it emerges at the macroscopic level. http://vixra.org/pdf/1201.0060v1.pdf. In this sense spacetime is accepted by cordus as a approximation, one that is sufficient for large bodies (i.e. at the scale for which gravitation usually applies), but not the fundamental reality.

    There is that word CAUSALITY which you also use. It is intriguing that you came to a that conclusion too. Of course you approach it from the distance perspective, whereas we used time. We would expect these to be complementary. You also have the connectedness idea. We are interested to see how your idea develops.

    Dirk Pons

    Dear Dirk, Arion and Aiden,

    In the Theory of Infinite Nesting of Matter (my essay) all the objects (particles, stars, metagalaxies and so on) have internal structure, they are not point like. But because of Similarity of matter levels the particles are similar to stars objects. For example proton is similar to neutron star. I think it is the natural way to imagine particles world.

    Sergey Fedosin

      Yes, I thought that was an interesting idea. You call it nesting, whereas we see it more as a piecewise quilt. Thank you.

      Ben

      Your third point relates to string theory.

      That was not our starting perspective. The cordus model is physically descriptive and built by design, whereas string theory provides a family of abstract mathematical models without physical interpretation. The two could not have more different methodologies. However as we have progressed we have become aware that there is some commonality in outcomes. There is a similarity in the structural models, e.g. for the photon, as you noticed.

      Common shape might be only a coincidence but there is another curious match: To fully define a cordus particule requires 11 geometric independent-variables. This is the same number of dimensions predicted by some variants of string theory. Coincidence? (This was not something we tried to design into cordus, nor was it even evident at the outset). Perhaps they are describing the same thing from different perspectives? http://vixra.org/abs/1204.0047

      String theory considers its variables to be orthogonal spatial dimensions ... and (unsurprisingly) struggles to give them physical interpretation in a 3D world. Cordus considers its variables to be geometric independent-variables. Are these two things really very different? Are string theorists able to reinterpret their variables as HV geometry? Doing so could open exciting new opportunities. I have not seen that possibility raised in the string literature (it may still be there?).

      Dirk Pons