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
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
Sorry - my LOGIN did not work. Please post your comments on my paper under my posted paper " From Absurd to Elegant Universe".
Thanks
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.
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
yes of course TH, of course of course and evidently also .
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
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
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.
Hello Michael,
I am re-posting a comment I made elsewhere, with minor edits, as it pertains to your work.
I thought this might be a good place to raise the question of whether viewing particles and spaces as topological objects might account for the observations of Jenkin and Fischbach of varying decay rates for nuclei, depending on Sun-Earth distance. Apparently this has taken on a new dimension recently, as with more sensitive measurements it works as a kind of early warning system for solar storms.
This would argue heavily for the interpretation that the fabric of spacetime is of the nature of S3, topologically speaking. Or at least; I think that a topological description with a non-trivial twist in the fibration might easily account for such an effect as follows. When there is a mass ejection, this is a ripple in the topological fabric in the region of the Sun, in effect it is a rapid partial eversion of the Sun's mass. And this ripple propagates because of the topological connectedness.
Would you care to comment? Is this relevant here?
All the Best,
Jonathan
Regarding the Jenkins and Fischbach findings,
These slides from Recontres de Moriond tell the whole story.
Evidence of Solar Influences on Nuclear Decay Rates
Enjoy,
Jonathan
