Thanks. I shall remember the balance is important, Frank.

And yes the direct experience is key. Go out in the woods or country, far from city lights, on a clear night; you will see the sky is ablaze and experience the feeling that the Earth and yourself are part of the greater Cosmos. But it's hard to see the stars when you are standing in the city.

We're out in the middle of the cosmos either way, but these days people need to get away from the crowd, just to have that experience with their own senses.

All the Best,

Jonathan

  • [deleted]

  • Post #36

Thanks, Jonathan. I agree with Grangier on this one point, and strictly from a mathematical viewpoint. Bell's mathematics is sound -- as I say in my essay, however, not correspondent to the foundations of physical reality.

Looking forward to further dialogue!

Tom

Absolutely!

Thanks very much Avtar. I agree that missing insights may be the key, and that you have found an important insight that is often overlooked. I'm very pleased that you are aware of the inconsistencies you cite, especially with the current paradigm in Cosmology, and choose to grapple with them rather than let the cumbersome workarounds we now have stand as answers.

All of Physics is ripe for a shake up, right about now, and the next revolution will probably be more about things we knew but ignored - because they were assumed insignificant - than it will be about explicit assumptions made in error. Ofttimes people wrongly feel there are no better answers, and they try to make do with the answers offered by the current crop of experts.

But if people were willing to think for themselves, some of those answers would not stand. Let us hope we have a few free-thinkers on this forum.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Hi Jonathan,

Yes, indeed, thank you for taking the risk to mention my work in your essay. In fact I have seen it mentioned at least in four other essays posted here.

As for the "disproof" issue, according to my former PhD supervisor Abner Shimony---an undisputed authority on Bell's theorem after Bell---"no physical theory which is realistic as well as local in [the senses specified by EPR and Bell] can reproduce all of the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics." I have decisively disproved this statement of the theorem by constructing just such a local "theory." Therefore Bell's mathematical theorem no longer has the fundamental significance for physics it was thought to have.

This however does not mean that any attempt to produce a local model of physics can be successful from now on. One still has to satisfy the locality and reality conditions specified by both EPR and Bell to produce a genuinely local model of physics.

In any case, in the memory of Ray,

Have Fun!

Joy

Thank you warmly, Joy;

I appreciate your taking the time to weigh in here, and I agree with your statement above. It is as Tom said it in the previous comment; though Bell's Math is sound, just as Grangier said, we can no longer assume it has the same 'significance to Physics it was thought to have' (in your words), because Bell's presumed correspondence 'to the foundations of physical reality' (in Tom's words) is not entirely sound - or is at least likely to be flawed.

But it is amazing the amount of baggage that comes along, just by assuming that the overall geometry and topology of space is 3-d and semi-Euclidean in the sense of R3 projected linearly, rather than something more interesting. I'm not sure people can visualize what it means to live in a 3-sphere - a universe whose spatial fabric has a non-trivial topological twist - but I hope your work reveals more interesting twists and turns for us to explore.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Dear Jonathan:

Continuing on my previous post, I also agree with your statement:

"The point is that reality and the universe are unified - existing as a congruent whole. Rather than seeking a route to the unification of fundamental forces and entities, scientists should observe how nature is already unified, and highlight the unity that is already there, or the unifying concepts already in play. ....... They are connected more directly too, and all things form a congruent whole. There are no truly isolated systems, as everything is part of its environment and also helps to create that environment. I think this assumption will stand the test of time."

Yes, indeed, the above approach to science is again vindicated in my posted paper - " From Absurd to Elegant Universe", which provides the following new wholesome perspective on the universal reality encompassing the partial Newtonian, quantum, discrete, and non-discrete realities. The universe is shown to be a cosmos with a relativistic order and not chaos founded on uncertainty. The model also unfolds the following universal realities:

• The universe represents an eternal and omnipresent continuum of mass-energy-space-time following the conservation laws.

• Relativity, and not uncertainty, rules the universe's connectivity and non-locality via space-time dilation.

• Quantum reality represents only partial reality and must be augmented with relativistic considerations to represent the universal wholesome reality. The relativistic universal reality exists irrespective of the observer. Paradoxes of quantum measurements and quantum reality (entanglement, tunneling, multiverses, multi-dimensions and anti-matter etc.) are artifacts of the observational limitations imposed by the fixed space-time. A measuring instrument interprets the quantum phenomena (V~C) from a Newtonian (V~0) frame of reference, hence the quantum realty represents a truncated (collapsed wavefunction) partial reality resulting in the observed weirdness. In order to describe the true universal reality, proper inclusion of the relativistic effects is essential in interpreting the quantum observations performed in and limited by the fixed space-time.

• There is no multiverse. There is only one single quasi-static universe entailing various relativistic states of the one whole continuum of mass-energy-space-time (uncollapsed quantum wavefunction). The various relativistic states (at various V/C) of one mass-energy-space-time continuum may appear (allude) to a quantum observer (situated in fixed space-time) as parallel universes (multiple sets of mass-energy-space-time at various V/C). GNMUE model described in the paper provides a bridge between the discrete (V

    The following got truncated from my post above:

    • There is no multiverse. There is only one single quasi-static universe entailing various relativistic states of the one whole continuum of mass-energy-space-time (uncollapsed quantum wavefunction). The various relativistic states (at various V/C) of one mass-energy-space-time continuum may appear (allude) to a quantum observer (situated in fixed space-time) as parallel universes (multiple sets of mass-energy-space-time at various V/C). GNMUE model described in the paper provides a bridge between the discrete (V less than C) and non-discrete (V~C) realities via properly accounting for the relativistic effects.

    In summary, your suggested approach to science, rather than sticking to the old cherished assumptions, is vindicated by my paper to provide a true wholesome reality and solution to many of the paradoxes currently paralyzing science.

    Sincerely,

    Avtar Singh

    Thanks Avtar!

    I like it. A lot of mysteries go away when we remember that particle decay not only liberates energy, but nullifies the mass those particles held onto. It is a blessing that you are here to let people know the little things (sub-atomic particles) matter, and that when a portion of the universe's quota goes away, their mass does too. It makes sense, but is easily forgotten or assumed untrue if we imagine that various entities have a longer half-life than is real.

    All the Best,

    Jonathan

    Thank you Eckard,

    I value your opinion and feedback. I knew the fattening of a tire past the center would not fly with everyone, though it is the kind of generalization geometers make all the time. It is not an exact analogy anyway, but may serve to get the point across to some people.

    I am glad that your essay was accepted. I expect I'll not regard your insights as primitive, because I know you are a deep thinker. It may take a few days to get there, however, as I have other work and other reading queued up. But an essay from you is a 'must read' for me.

    All the Best,

    Jonathan

    • [deleted]

    • Post #44

    Dear Jonathan,

    Negative distance might be a generalization of the notion distance made by geometers in the sense of mathematicians who are specialized in geometry. Geometers in the sense of surveyors will perhaps not need it. My essay considers the neglect of this distinction a wrong basic intuition in physics.

    Engineers like me nonetheless often enjoy such strictly speaking unreal models. For instance, we may calculate just with the AC component of sound pressure. Of course, its negative value is limited to the value of DC component. Let me mock; blindly generalized mathematical models tend to be wrong in general.

    My reference 22 contains a famous utterance by Einstein which I only vaguely recall: If mathematics is correct then it is unrealistic. If it is realistic then it is incorrect. I consider physics something that should be realistic.

    In that I feel a bit like Heaviside who disliked too formal mathematics and allegedly said: The mathematicians say this series does not converge. Then we may use it.

    Best,

    Eckard

    Soon I will be at New York you know Jonathan, hope we shall make interesting conferences there, in this wonderful town where all is possible. and REVOLUTION SPHERIZATION with faith and universality my friend.

    I have always dreamt to visit New York me, and I love so much the medias, I am going to utilize them, like a tool, like a catalyzer .I am persuaded that USA will love my theory of spherization, and that a lot of people will like my theory and its pure universal meaning.The faith you say, indeed the universal faith. Just to revolutionate this earth. I need friends and medias.

    A good team of real revolutionaries and conscious universalists. I just take the time to make my visa and my passport and let's go for the SPHERIZATION REVOLUTION of USA .I will have a lot of freinds, you shall see !

    Regards

    • [deleted]

    • Post #46

    Jonathan, A good essay about the way we use assumptions, well done.

    Interesting point about the way homogeniety of apce became an assumption in cosmology. Did you know that Lamaitre actually looked at more general cosmological solutions in which space was not homogenious? I think it was just a working assumption that was adopted that the universe is homogeneous and it was supported by observation for a long time, especially CMB. The wroking assumption becomes a principle when people learn about the model and take it more seriously than it was originally intended. Homogeniety beyond the observable horizon is not supported by observations or logical necessity.

    I also agree that spacetime may lose its dimensionality. Such things are probably emergent.

    cross fertilizing spheres Jonathan.

    In the past, I have worked to unite several scientists. The aim was to help by adapted sciences on ground , for the forgotten.

    I have a responsability for my friends, I must assume this sciences center.

    The centyralization of competences is essential.

    Regards

    Dear Jonathan

    I enjoyed your essay both for its general good sense about adopting new assumptions (and I suppose that includes negating old ones that conflict with the new) in a 'playful' attitude; and also for some interesting accounts of new research. Emergent dimensionality for example. I liked the idea of equating entropy with an ordered dissipation. You have given me a powerful new angle to support my belief that diffraction, or diffusion is the basis of both quantum probability and uncertainty. I have detailed this, among other things - to the best of my rather limited technical abilities - in my Beautiful Universe Theory . Wow, if that explanation also includes entropy as well that is three birds with one stone - thanks!

    I was rather surprised by your saying that Anton Zeilinger cautioned against the point photon in his lecture - is there an online reference to that? Thanks. The reason I found that surprising is that rejecting the point photon, as I have argued, rejects the reality of the probabilistic interpretation, a staple of the maths used to interpret entanglement for which Zeilinger became famous.

    Lastly in a recent fqxi discussion I found that someone has urged you to read Eric Reiter's fqxi essay. I had the honor to introduce the contest to him and urged him to publish his groundbreaking experimental proof against the point photon in fqxi. By all means please study and support his work as you see fit.

    Lastly I would be honored if you read and evaluate my own rather free-wheeling fqxi essay my fqxi essay Fix Physics! .

    Withe best wishes,

    Vladimir

      Jonathan, I enjoyed your essay. Do you know when children start to assemble color images? I did some modeling of vision with one of Feynman's equations and found that the wavelengths associated with blue, green, red and scotopic (black/white) are information theory numbers I have been "playing" with (the sequence 1x 0.0986, 2x etc). Obviously our minds are keenly tuned to color vision by evolution and there is some "hardwiring" of nerve connections but I had to ask myself why our senses so easily blend information into one experience. You mentioned a new interpretation of entropy but I would like to know your thoughts on entropy as an information theory quantity. I used information theory to develop models of fundamental particles (neutrons, protons, electrons, neutrinos, etc.) and fundamental forces, including gravity. (See my essay entitled "A top-down approach to fundamental forces"). The effort was similar to breaking a code and discovery of the Higgs particle fit right into the theory. Also, it made me feel more comfortable with quantum mechanics being probabilistic. The question remains "Are we experiencing an information based reality because our minds assemble information?" Information is not solipsism (sp?)....thermodynamics treats entropy as a physical variable.

      BTW--I also live in upstate NY during the summer. Where are you?

        Thanks greatly Phil,

        The universe doesn't look quite homogeneous to me, but I didn't remember about LeMaitre, though I probably learned he was working with other models. I know Hubble had his doubts about the expanding universe notion, and looked at other ideas just as seriously. Working assumptions were adopted by the mainstream, and once held long enough became principles, just as you say.

        Emergent spacetime is likely what's real; the question is "from what?"

        All the Best,

        Jonathan

        Thank You Vladimir,

        I have a photograph of Zeilinger standing in front of a slide showing the book page regarding Einstein's letter expressing doubts about the light corpuscle theory. I got the sense from Zeilinger's lecture that he was telling folks don't trust anything to be true with absolute certainty, but suggesting photons might be wave-like after all. Keep an open mind.

        Decoherence theory paints a different picture as well. The suggestion there is that the underpinning is wave-like nature, and that probabilistic surface appearances are a direct result of the fact that observation takes place from a localized framework, which induces the appearance or occurrence of a local collapse of wave-like nature into particle-like natures with probabilities.

        I looked briefly at your essay, which has cool drawings as I recall, and I will comment further on your forum page.

        Regards,

        Jonathan

        Thanks Gene,

        I appreciate the kind thoughts.

        I note that Shannon's information entropy has the same equation as that for thermodynamic entropy, except without Boltzmann's constant. Professor Leff takes the question up in the last article in his 5-part series, suggesting that information loss is an important dynamic to complement the spreading metaphor and include other forms of entropy.

        My thought is that if we expand the spreading metaphor into spreading in possibility space this could be seamlessly merged into quantum mechanical interactions. I'll get to reading your essay soon, and comment on your pages.

        all the best,

        Jonathan

        • [deleted]

        • Post #54

        Dear Johnathan,

        I want to let you know that I have read your essay and found a lot to agree with, which probably comes as no surprise. Well done. It seems to be what the competition asks for, accessible, enjoyable, relevant, well written. It ticks the boxes. I wish I could be even more enthusiastic and inspired to discuss its content. Unfortunately I have spent far too long on this web site talking about how I regard the many problems and how I think they can be resolved. Like Israel Perez' excellent essay, it feels to me like the inspiring team talk before the match. When what I'm really itching to see is the match started. Not your fault, entirely mine. Good luck in the competition. I hope lots of people read your essay and are inspired by its important message.