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

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

Dear Hou,

In the book: The physical theories and infinite nesting of matter. Perm, 2009-2012, 858 p. ISBN 978-5-9901951-1-0 the electron in atom has form a disk cloud. Then it seems that the Wave Function gives concentration of electron substance in the cloud. What do you think about it?

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Sergey,

Thanks for sharing the information. It will require some time to understand fully. At a first glance, is it reasonable to use the properties of a star to compare with the electron? Please correct me if I misunderstand your idea.

Sincerely,

Hou Ying Yau

From: Thomas Garcia (On the Nature of Time)

Dear Hou.

When I try to download your essay, it fails after 1 second. Tried it 3 times. Any idea what I might be doing wrong?

Dear Hou,

I have now had a chance to read your essay, and I do find this idea interesting. I was going to point out to you Donatello Dolce's and Edwin Klingman's essays as others you might be interested in looking at, but it seems they have already contacted you! Let me itemize a few remark and questions:

1. A very important point you make is that any such wave must interact with spacetime itself (top of page 2). This seems like a statement of background independence.

2. I am not quite sure what mechanism selects the Planck scale as being special in your approach. As far as I can tell, you are not suggesting that the manifold structure of spacetime breaks down at the Planck scale, since the underlying waves are still defined at that scale. How does nature "know" that "quantization" is supposed to occur at this scale?

3. Although you discuss Lorentz transformations, I am still a little worried about this. A Planck volume in one frame of reference won't be a Planck volume in another frame. It seems that what appears to be a vacuum at the observable level in one frame might appear to contain energy in a sufficiently boosted frame. This is the sort of problem the developers of deformed special relativity (DSR) were thinking about.

4. It does seem as though you might get the appearance of nonlocality from this approach, since waves interfering mostly below the observable threshold could produce correlated observable interactions at a few distant points with nothing but "vacuum" in between.

Anyway, I enjoyed reading your essay; it gave me some interesting new food for thought. Take care, and good luck with the contest!

Ben

Dear Thomas,

I opened the file from the link and it look OK. Sometimes could be bad connection. I will e-mail a copy to your address.

Thanks.

Hou Yau

Dear Hou-Ying Yao,

I was finally able to download your essay and I read it through. To me, it is wonderfully written,concise yet complete. The math is beyond me, however,so I cannot dispute any of it. I freely accept it as correct.

Your essay essentially says to me that we may infer there is an aspect of reality that should be further reviewed. I feel sure, like you, that such research is needed.

My status as a layperson allows me only a superficial review of it, though, so I will refrain from commenting on it in depth.