Is There Really No Reality Beneath Quantum Theory? by Hou Ying Yau

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.

James,

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

Hou-Ying Yau

Dear Hou Ying Yau,

Uncertainty principle on quantum mechanics reveals the inconsistency of observables for the observer that evolves from the assumed discrete point-like particles nature of the universe. Thus we may think of the universe is having consistency in continuum and fluidity, in that quantization of string dynamics may resolve paradox.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Hou Ying Yau,

Your essay opens with the following statement: "The standard interpretation (Copenhagen interpretation) of quantum mechanics asserts that reality does not exist when we are not observing."

Is that really so?

Does the Copenhagen Interpretation really imply that an electron doesn't exist in absence of observation? Or does the Copenhagen Interpretation only imply that the electron has no properties like position and momentum in absence of observation? Note that the fact that the electron has no position does not imply that the electron does not exist.

What is your position on this?

Best regards, Marcoen

Hi Yau,

I can see interesting overlaps between your and my essay Elementary Time Cycles. In particular, starting from 2009, I have demonstrated mathematically in several peer reviewed papers how relativistic QM can be formally obtained from what you call "displacement" and I call space-time periodicity. In my papers I also interpret my results in terms of 't Hooft determinism and Elze's stroboscopic quantization.

I hope you will enjoy my essay.

Regards,

Donatello