Dear Angel,

Thank you for your feedback. As you have mentioned, the process described in the new model may remind us of the virtual states that exists only for a limited time. In the quantum theory, virtual particles do not have a permanent existence; they arise from fluctuations of vacuum energy, and can be understood as a manifestation of time-energy uncertainty principle. Unlike the virtual particle, a normalized field in our new model always has sufficient energy for one particle to appear. The energy in this system is real which surface to the observational level as a real quantized oscillator (or particle). It appears at a location and can jump to other locations depending on the probability distribution. The world line in this case is real. Thank you for pointing out the similarity and differences between the virtual particle and the real quantized particle in our approach.

Hou-Ying Yau

Dear Edwin,

I am also glad to see someone sharing very similar idea about reality for the wave function. Interestingly, we both begin with the belief that matter wave can be real and can be related to relativity. Of course, there are other ideas that shares the same belief, such as the use of Ricci flow by Carrol, Isidro et al. Although the approaches are different, it is only my opinion that there may be one advantage: If matter wave has properties that are directly related to relativity, it may be easier to resolve some of the differences between quantum theory and general relativity.

The deterministic system proposed in this model is at the Planck scale. In a conference I recently attended, it was pointed out during discussion that the formulation of this model actually allows starting at different energy level. I choose to start at the Planck scale because of the information loss theory developed from holographic principle. However, it does not eliminate the possibility of starting the theory at other energy level.

I also hope you best of luck in the contest.

Hou-Ying Yau

1st timer submission, not yet submitted, while reviewing selected works for adding End Notes.

You are off the deep end in math and more abreast of present day physics.. Good Luck!

Impressed by considering the 4 parameters, E, p, t, and x to uncover determinism in quanta.

Simply, mass and energy, respectively, as the inscribed sphere, tangent to the face of a regular tetrahedron where sphere and tetrahedron have equal surface-to-volume ratios at ANY size, e.g. equivalent "activity" as free energy , unbounded as size approaches zero. Conclusion, birth and death via the angular frequency proportional to E.

Comment? (may use in end notes)

    Hi Erikson,

    I hope you best of luck in the essay contest as well. Without knowing much detail of your proposal, I think I will have to skip commenting the end note.

    Sincerely,

    Hou-Ying Yau

    • [deleted]

    • Post #8

    I assert that there is a fundemental causal entity from which all of physics is built.

    http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1368

    As such, a virtual quantum particle might be akin to a Non-Relativistic system of an observable relativistic particle.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #9

      James,

      Thanks for sharing the information. I will take a look.

      Hou-Ying Yau

      4 days later

      • [deleted]

      • Post #11

      Dear Jayakar,

      Thanks for sharing the information. Unlike the string theory approach, we hope to demonstrate a possibility that there can be a more fundamental deterministic system underlying quantum theory. Although the quantized particle is point like, we believe it can contain information through its vibrations in space and time. It is a new approach but we hope may provide a link between qunatum theory and relativity; and explain some of the fundamental questions in quantum theory.

      Sincerely,

      Gilbert

      Hou-Ying Yau,

      If we can consider the continuous exchange of virtual particles like photons and gravitons between real particles as observation interactions, if we can say that particles by interacting observe one another, then they certainly exist, to each other, even if we are not observing them.

      The question as to whether there is an underlying reality, beneath quantum mechanics is in fact the question whether there exists an absolute, objectively observable reality even if we might not be able to observe it objectively, undistorted by out observation interaction. The problem is that if we live in a universe which creates itself out of nothing, without any outside interference, and this universe is to obey the conservation law according to which what comes out of nothing, should add to nothing, then it cannot be ascribed particular properties as a whole since this would violate conservation laws. This means that a Self-Creating Universe has no physical reality as a whole: if in a SCU particles have to create themselves, each other, then particles and particle properties must be as much the product as the source of their interactions, the consequence of which is that an observation interaction necessarily affects the observed.

      If, as I argue in my essay ('Einstein's error'), at the most fundamental level (quantum level) we cannot divide events in cause and effect in a SCU, then in such universe the speed of light doesn't refer to a velocity but to a property of spacetime, which is something else entirely. In a SCU there's nothing weird or paradoxical about the EPR 'paradox': experimental proof of the validity of the EPR 'paradox' in fact indicates that we do live in a SCU.

      Anton

        • [deleted]

        • Post #13

        Anton W.M. Biermans,

        "The problem is that if we live in a universe which creates itself out of nothing, without any outside interference, and this universe is to obey the conservation law according to which what comes out of nothing, should add to nothing, then it cannot be ascribed particular properties as a whole since this would violate conservation laws. This means that a Self-Creating Universe has no physical reality as a whole: if in a SCU particles have to create themselves, each other, then particles and particle properties must be as much the product as the source of their interactions, the consequence of which is that an observation interaction necessarily affects the observed.

        If, as I argue in my essay ('Einstein's error'), at the most fundamental level (quantum level) we cannot divide events in cause and effect in a SCU, then in such universe the speed of light doesn't refer to a velocity but to a property of spacetime, which is something else entirely. In a SCU there's nothing weird or paradoxical about the EPR 'paradox': experimental proof of the validity of the EPR 'paradox' in fact indicates that we do live in a SCU."

        Why does "a universe which creates itself out of nothing, without any outside interference, and this universe is to obey the conservation law according to which what comes out of nothing, should add to nothing, then it cannot be ascribed particular properties as a whole since this would violate conservation laws."

        In a self creating universe: You get the conservation law out of nothing? Presumably then: You can get anything, maybe even everyting, out of nothing. Is that your starting point?

        James

        James

        Reason says that what comes out of nothing should add to nothing, so conservation laws in physics are the expression of this rational 'belief'. A SCU is a perpetuum mobile which yields as much as it cost: nothing. Only if we believe that there is a God who created the universe (which I don't) such conservation laws do not hold.

        The insight that the universe (with us inside of it) doesn't exist as a whole, has no reality as 'seen' from without, so to say, may be hard to accept as we seem to crave an absolute kind of existence, wishing for Someone in Whose eyes we exist, for our existence to transcend the universe itself, to be immortal, as if we have a gene that encodes a longing for God.

        Alas, it is this wish which confuses the mind of even physicists which think themselves to be atheist but are not as long as they cling to causality like kids to their mother's skirts.

        Anton

        • [deleted]

        • Post #15

        Anton,

        Thank you for your reply. I will post a message for you in your forum.

        James

        Dear Hou-Ying

        Beautifully written, well argued and agreeable. I too have determined an entirely deterministic interpretation of QM, including the Copenhagen interpretation. If a lens is part of the process of detection, prior to conversion and interpretation, then if there is no lens there can be nothing to interpret.

        Bohr told Heisenberg, when he was about to fail his thesis, that he must learn how a lens worked before he could talk sense about physics. Perhaps we misinterpret and he actually did so!?

        You've certainly earned a good score and I hope you do well. I'd also be very interested in how you view my own approach to what is essentially the same subject, deriving SR from QM with a few tweaks to interpretation of both.

        Best wishes

        Peter

          Anton,

          It is an interesting idea that requires some thinking. The question of how the universe can be created (presumably from nothing) is a big puzzle and you have made some interesting arguments. I hope you will get a lot of feedback from James too.

          Sincerely,

          Hou Ying Yau

          Peter,

          Thank you for your kind comments. Your essay is very well written and deserves the high rating score. I will take a closer look.

          Sincerely,

          Hou Ying Yau

          • [deleted]

          • Post #19

          Dear Yau,

          I am also an independent researcher with some interests in emergent quantum mechanics (EQM). The bounded Hamiltonian and constraint equation you proposed are different from typical. How do you see they can relate to EQM?

          Best Wishes

          Andy

            Andy,

            The deterministic system I used as the starting point is quite different from the one proposed in emergent quantum mechanics. The new system has real physical vibrations. As you have mentioned, the Hamiltonian is bounded versus the unbounded one in EQM. The Einstein mass-energy relation is the constraint in the new model. Although the approaches are different, the idea of determinism is the same. The use of information loss to explain the transition to a quantized field is an inspiration from EQM.

            Sincerely,

            Hou Ying Yau

            • [deleted]

            • Post #21

            Dear Yau

            My point is that there may be connections between your Hamiltonian and the EQM pre-quantization equation. There are mnany cases that two seeminly different approaches are ultimately found related. Heisenberg and Schrodinger formulation look different when they first developed but they both describe the quantum system. Worth look deeper?

            Andy

            Andy,

            This is an interesting suggestion. I will give it a try.

            Thanks.

            Hou Ying Yau

            • [deleted]

            • Post #23

            Hou Yau,

            The development of the Dirac equation because of the initial problem with Klein Gordon equation is another example. The equation was thought to have negative energy problem. Your model has some improvements that there are some observable observable at low energy level.

            Andy