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
Bundles of Nothingness: Unravelling the Zero-Dimensional Particle Premise of Fundamental Physics by Dirk Pons, Arion Pons, and Aiden 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.
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
Dear Dirk,
Thanks for the excellent answers, and particularly for the extra references. I see that you have thoroughly considered these points, and your essay represents only the tip of the iceberg. I imagine I will have some further questions when I have had a chance to read a bit more.
Just to clarify my own approach, although I use causal relations to define locality, I don't mean that elements in a given "antichain" (i.e. spatial section) are causally related. Rather, two causally unrelated elements with a common descendent (i.e., with a causal relation to the same "future" element) are a "one unit of distance apart in space." Causal relations directly define the arrow of time, and only indirectly define the spatial structure. This potentially provides enough information to recover geometry up to a conformal factor, and giving appropriate volume information supplies this as well.
You mention potential complementarity between "spatial and temporal (i.e. causal) relations." I have been having a discussion with the "shape dynamics" folks (Sean Gryb, Flavio Mercati, Daniel Alves), and also Lawrence Crowell, about precisely this sort of duality. All of them have interesting essays in this contest. Shape dynamics (invented by Barbour) takes the distances between spatially-separated events to be fundamental, while causal theory (at least my version) takes the causal (i.e. temporal) relations to be fundamental. Your "cordus" idea bears some superficial similarity to shape dynamics because the entangled photons are spacelike separated yet "aware" of each other, but it is different (in particular, quantum-theoretic, while shape dynamics builds quantum theory from sums over a configuration space).
Anyway, part of that discussion is on my thread. Your further thoughts would be very welcome. Take care,
Ben
Dear Dirk,
Hello. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.
This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:
Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.
A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.
An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.
Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity
Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.
Thank you and good luck.
Vladimir
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.
Cood luck.
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.
6 days later
Thanks Sergey!
Nice exercise in quantitative maths!
Though in this case it's much more efficient to use a qualitative method: it is self-evident that only scores that differ from the existing mean will change it. However I appreciate that the discourse of physics is somewhat limited in available communication channels and consequently cannot comprehend things, however simple, unless expressed mathematically. Your equation does the job perfectly!
Actually we are not too worried about the score for our article. We are not concerned whether it goes higher or lower, and we certainly would not want anyone pumping it up artificially as that would be dishonest. There are much more winning entries than ours, and we are not going to win any place whatever we do! Instead our purpose in entering is to engage in the debate and offer our own ideas for others to consider.
The real challenge is the volume of entries. It is good to see so many, but it certainly is very difficult to read and respond to them all. I have read quite a few, but by no means all the essays. I feel sorry for the judges! And just because one essay is popular, does that really mean it is radical? Sometimes the more obscure and unpopular essays are more thought-provoking. Those are the ones that I try to get to.
thank you
Dirk