Hi Michael,

You have raised a key question: "...where's the physics? By this we generally mean the dynamics, which means locally tracking the causation as we do in classical mechanics."

You have correctly recognized that my framework is entirely kinematical as it stands. A fully local-realistic theory based on it would inevitably have to postulate dynamics, and this dynamics must match with that of quantum theory (if not quantum gravity). My latest mini-grant from FQXi is precisely for investigating this issue of dynamics. I have some preliminary ideas about this, but I am not yet ready to discuss them in public.

Best,

Joy

Hi Joy and Tom,

I too am grateful to you for engaging in meaningful discussion. I was previously unaware of Joy's work (and Buridan's principle ) and your comments have advanced my thinking to the point where I am certain that the key issue really is a mathematics description problem in trying "to reconcile local discrete measures with globally continuous functions".

In the spirit of the essay contest of questioning assumptions, I realised I have been making an assumption about Joy's work. This is partly because the initial point of comparison was the dependence on the 4 spheres S0, S1, S3, S7. In my case, these are physical spaces in a classical metric field theory where the Relativity meta-principle - make no preference - selects them all, and the unification principle gives only one possible unification which yields these spaces (STUFT). The fact that the dimensionally reduced version of this KKT derives the Standard Model Lagrangian with the correct electroweak vacuum (and Weinberg angle) and spectrum of 12 fermionic particle-like objects in classical physics is a nice feature (and the coupling constants, including the Higgs scalar coupling which predicted the classical Higgs boson mass to be 123GeV). Then comes the *real issue*, what is Quantum Theory all about?

I think this is the real point of comparison of my work (primarily in Agent Physics but also as presented in Science Theories) with Joy's, where the QT context for Bell's analysis has distracted me from Joy's functional analysis of hidden variable theories being more general than *just* QT. Bell's analysis started from the existence of QT and asked whether there exist a hidden variable theory that can account for the same correlations between observables as QT. However, a functional analysis whose only conditions are local causation and correlations between observables can surely be applied to any assumption of a hidden variable theory in science (ie. without the pre-condition that is replacing QT)?

The reason for considering this possibility is that my physics-based analysis of numerous physical systems identifies a recurring feature of a self-consistent (causally closed) dynamic state residing on the giant connected component of some physical network. Any physically-real theory of these systems can be proven to be incomplete because of the discrete character of the dynamics of the network - this specifically includes the classical physics of particles, as in my essay. It seems to only make sense for the possible undecidable proposition in the physically-real theory to describe a collective property of the dynamic state residing on the giant connected component. This can potentially give a description problem in physically-real terms, because the inputs to the network cause discrete changes to propagate through the giant network component, with its undecidable feature, to the outputs. Encountering a network state with undecidable properties would surely have some effect on the outputs, such as altering the correlations between the outputs observed?

Joy's functional analysis of correlations between observables in a non-relativistic context would seem to be wholly appropriate to this situation. The combination of my work and Joy's functional analysis leads me to the proposition: the presence of the undecidable property on the core network component causes correlations between the network outputs that cannot be accounted for in a discrete theory in physically-real terms. Assuming that the correlations can be accounted for if only we knew some extra missing terms constitutes an assumption of a hidden variable theory. The follow on from the above proposition is that the richer functional structure of continuous functions can account for the correlations in output, where such terms do not directly correspond to the inherently discrete physical components of the network system and so are non-physically-real terms (like the wave-function of QT).

Extending the functional analysis to this scenario could potentially provide a mathematical proof (or disproof) of my proposition that the presence of an undecidable feature on a discrete network system is the *cause* of the correlations that cannot be accounted for by a discrete hidden variable theory. I show that the required network conditions can occur in biology, psychology and economics ... with the prediction following on from this proposition that there will exist correlations between observables in these system which cannot be accounted for by a physically-real scientific theory. These disciplines implicitly make the assumption that there will exist a hidden variable theory that will account for all experimental observations. It seems to me that Joy's work provides the basis for the construction of experimental tests of these assumptions throughout science.

Best

Michael

  • [deleted]

  • Post #50

Dear Michael:

The conclusion of your paper that QM is not a fundamental theory is vindicated in my paper - " From Absurd to Elegant Universe". My paper also provides evidence to what is fundamental universal reality and how to explain the inner workings of quantum mechanics (including wave-particle duality) and resolve its paradoxes.

I would greatly appreciate your comments on my paper.

Best of Luck & Regards

Avtar Singh

  • [deleted]

  • Post #51

CORRECTION - Reposting the above under my name:

Dear Michael:

The conclusion of your paper that QM is not a fundamental theory is vindicated in my paper - " From Absurd to Elegant Universe". My paper also provides evidence to what is fundamental universal reality and how to explain the inner workings of quantum mechanics (including wave-particle duality) and resolve its paradoxes.

I would greatly appreciate your comments on my paper.

Best of Luck & Regards

Avtar Singh

    their heart is not even sincere and pure.

    this world does not turn correctly just due to these persons of bad.In fact we see only with our heart, the essential is invisible for eyes....don't lie about my faith.you do not even imagine my universal faith. I love Jesus Christ ok.

    A real bad band in fact you are .like what , the habit does not make the monk.

    You can lie for several but not for the real universalists understanding the sciences and its determinism, pure and simple.

    you do not imrpove and your mathematical language is weak !

    The team is knew since the begining. ahahah until soon at New york or pay people to kill me.

    5 days later

    Hello Michael,

    I greatly enjoyed reading your essay, and I find myself almost completely in agreement with your thesis. Well done! Edwin Eugene had made a recommendation a while back, but then when I read your comments on Vladimir's essay page, I knew I had to find time to read your essay immediately.

    You have put some of the pieces together nicely. I like your STUFT theory rather well. And it further explains some of what I found interesting and intriguing in Joy Christian's work.

    Like Tom Ray, I've got notebooks full of ideas after finding inspiration there. I like your response to Tom's comments, regarding global and local functional structure, though, and your comments to Joy above resonate with me also. I guess it is a matter of perspective or emphasis, in some measure, depending on what you are trying to show.

    I have much to learn, but I expect I'll find some interesting insights in the comments on this page. I've had an interest in related topics for some time, and you will find mention thereof in my essay "Cherished Assumptions and the Progress of Physics."

    But for now, I must sleep.

    all the best,

    Jonathan

    Hello again Michael,

    I have given considerable thought to what is implied by living inside a 3-sphere, what is seen by folks who reside inside a set of 'compact' dimensions, and so on. We might not notice. Size is relative, not absolute, and interiority/exteriority may be too, if we entertain higher order dimensions where geometry may be non-commutative or even non-associative.

    That was part of what I was getting at, in my essay, when I was talking about the universe being inside out of the way we perceive it. We think we are pointing to an edge, or a spot on the universe's periphery, and yet we point at the center.

    However; when we think we are pointing directly at the center of the planet, we are only getting the Schwarzschild radius away. This I see as related to the interlocking keyring example used to depict Hopf fibrations of S3. The actual center of the Earth is behind the event horizon, induced by the parallelization of the fiber bundle, it would seem.

    My guess is the reason we don't 'see' space as octonionic, but appear to be inside the quaternionic space of S3 relates to the decoupling of matter and energy - which sets a time and distance scale for the universe, as a whole. More later in another missive.

    Regards,

    Jonathan

      Michael,

      I forgot to mention that is does appear that you have successfully sketched out how Quantum Mechanics could be an emergent theory, rather than fundamental. Since that is the question you ask in your title, I thought I should let you know that it looks like you have indeed proved feasibility for your topological solution, and made significant progress toward a robust formulation.

      Regards,

      Jonathan

        and you insist furthermore with your friends, how can you make this ? just for this papper and your hate and your vanity. You think what my friend ? That your faith is more than mine or what ? let me laugh, never I have crushed even an insect. You are not a scientist , it is not possible, and your firends also are not scizentists, it is not possible. In fact , you are just a team of vanitious false scientists.

        Your maths are so ironical, I ask me even where you have studied our mathjs you and your friends.Frankly, I really suggest that you buy better books of maths. If you made a correct mathemtical improvement ok, but no, you are weak in fact.I just see an ocean of stupidities.In fact your maths and your team do not arrive even at 5 per cent of my works.

        Ironical. Irritating that I arrive at New York soon no? you must become murders or pay people or invent an other strategy, because there, we are going to laugh you know. You know it also in fact :) isn't it ? probably that your hormons are touched , you and your friends, logic for the weak scientists. Even in team and even with your tools and your dtrategy, I continue all days to teach you my theory of spherization.:) I am not arrogant, it is god who said me that.He said me also, pay attention Steve, my son, the human nature is sometimes very bad. I know Father ! I continue just in praying and in showing them what is a real universal heart.

        Hello Michael,

        I am looking forward to settling down with your book (have been traveling and have not been in a position to do so yet). I can already see, however, that it deserves slow and careful reading. Skimming through gives me the impression that the material is quite suitable for at least a 1-semester course ... I hope that you or another instructor can make that happen somewhere, in a physics or philosophy of science curriculum.

        It's especially important, I think, that you emphasize both in the book and in your essay that inductive judgments (such as found in the standard interpretations of QM) cannot be logically closed. We seem to have gotten so far away from the fundamental tenets of scientific rationalism and mathematical completeness -- even I, who am quite familiar with the results of Godel and the philosophies of Popper and Tarski, did not immediately recognize that Bell's choice of measurement domain (S^0) obviates completeness. I only grew to understand the significance by following Joy's argument (reinforced now, by yours). So I do appreciate the breadth of applications of your program across a wide spectrum of disciplines and subdisciplines in physics, the foundations of mathematics, and the foundations of the philosophy of science.

        All best,

        Tom

          Tom,

          Not only "Bell's choice of measurement domain (S^0) obviates completeness" as you put it, but his choice is both a physical and a mathematical non-starter. His measurement functions A(a, L) do not (and cannot) satisfy the completeness criterion of EPR, unless their co-domain is chosen to be a unit parallelized 3-sphere (S^3). For no other choice of the co-domain (in the standard EPR-Bohm case) can Bell's local-realistic prescription A(a, L) for the measurement functions can be EPR-complete. For example, even a round 3-sphere will not do, let alone any other non-compact choice (such as the real line R). Thus Bell's argument is simply a non-starter---a scandal of epic proportions.

          Joy

          • [deleted]

          • Post #62

          Joy,

          I'm getting it. :-) New post in my forum on the arithmetic issue.

          Tom

          and still the same ironical strategy. oh they are strong, wawww impressing.

          I see an ocean of hate, an ocean of confusions and an ocean of irrationalities.

          If Mr Witten wants, we can discuss about realistic convergences.

          Tom you are really lamentable in fact, you act like a puppet obliged to continue his strategy like a poor frustrated full of hate. It is logic that we do not see real works, if you and your friends you loose your time with the play and the strategies. in fact I have pity in a pure universal point of vue with humility of course.

          A real christian respects his fellowman when he is sincre and entire.The rest is vain. The pseudos shall fall down naturally as is rational the natural sciences.

          ps hello to edwin, James,Jcn,Jonathan, Georgina, Mickael, Ted,Florin, Christi,Don,Tom,George,Joe,Joy,zebitsad,Lawrence,.....good band indeed.

          ironical is a weak word.

          Spherically yours

          Hello Michael,

          I liked your essay very much. You have informed insight into areas of physics that I feel are quite important.

          Joy Christian mentioned my work in one of his responses to you. You can get a good overview of my ideas by reading my essay The Algebra of Everything. Your work is steeped in General Relativity, but perhaps what might be called Octonion Relativity might better connect up with your Octonion component. You will find this in my essay.

          I am very interested in your opinion, especially on the Hadamard structure that is prevalent within the structure of Octonion Algebra. If you could weigh in on my blog, I would be in your debt.

          Regards,

          Rick

          Hi Jonathan

          The way I visualise compact dimensions and why we don't notice them, is that we are spanning them in the same way that our shoulders span a narrow corridor. After a while moving backwards and forwards in such a corridor, you could stop regarding going left and right as constituting a dimension at all! For a closed universe, an analogy would be the experience of a single celled organism living *within* the water film of a soap bubble - it could only move in 2D within the film of the bubble and would have no experience of the 'extra' third dimension because the cell spanned it.

          In a KK theory with compact dimensions, a particle spans these dimensions and experiences changes in the relative orientation of the compact dimensions at different points in space as particle forces. Moving in the direction of these compact dimensions effectively amounts to rotating on the spot - like a hamster going around its wheel and going nowhere - such rotations are the origin of gauge rotations in the dimensionally reduced theory. A consequence of compact dimensions in STUFT is that they provide the 'measuring rod' for all measurements, up to and including the measurement of their own scale. So even if the scale of these dimensions changed, their measured scale in terms of themselves would remain the same - apparently 'constant'.

          Michael

          Hi Jonathan

          Thank you for that acknowledgement of my essay showing how QT can arise as an emergent theory, you are the first to do so.

          It is perhaps not as clear as it could have been, but I had to compress it to fit the word count so that I could put in the follow-up consequence of QT not being fundamental. Which is that physics unification must then be sought in classical physics, and to unify with GR this would seem to imply extending GR with extra dimensions, and there is only one way that adds up in terms of particles as topological defects, the Higgs field and coupling constants - STUFT - which is uniquely defined in terms of the 4 special manifolds S0, S1, S3, S7 and the Relativity meta-principle of 'make no preference'. Without the constraint of QT *having* to be fundamental, STUFT is uniquely the only purely geometrical theory giving the correct charge spectrum of 12 (and only 12) topological monopoles as fermionic particles.

          Another dramatic consequence of this emergent QT proof, is that a similar pattern can systematically occur elsewhere in science under certain conditions - I use these conditions to define the domain of Agent Physics. A general science perspective of the extension of this emergence proof throughout science in given here

          Regards

          Michael

          • [deleted]

          • Post #67

          Dr. Goodband:

          Your question about whether quantum mechanics is fundamental is a good one. But implicit in your question is the assumption that QM should be interpreted as a universal theory of all matter. On the contrary, I would suggest QM is rather a mechanism for generating localized particle properties from primary continuous fields (electrons, photons, quarks), where these localized (but not point) particles then follow classical trajectories (as derived from the quantum equations). (Please see my essay "The Rise and Fall of Wave-Particle Duality", http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1296.) Composites such as nucleons and atoms are localized objects WITHOUT wave properties of their own. Beams of neutrons or atoms do not require de Broglie waves for quantum diffraction from a crystal lattice, which instead reflects quantized momentum transfer between the beam particle and the crystal. Remarkably, this reinvisioned quantum picture is logically consistent and avoids quantum paradoxes. Even more remarkably, this interpretation seems to be virtually new in the history of quantum theory, although it could have been proposed right at the beginning. The FQXi contest would seem to be an ideal venue to explore such concepts, but this has drawn relatively little attention.

          Thank you.

          Alan M. Kadin, Ph.D.