Unitarity, Locality and Spacetime Geometry: Foundations That Are Not Foundations by Lawrence B Crowell

[deleted]

Lawrence,

It is not that I don't understand frequency, but that I'm comparing it, as a vector of intervals, with time, as I am comparing amplitude to temperature. The frequencies of light from another star might cover the same spectrum as the sun, but the amplitude of those waves is less, thus cooler.

Lawrence Crowell

Temperature has no meaning for a single wave. Since you compare stars with the sun this refers to a statistical distribution of photons with a range of wavelengths. For a thermal distribution of photons there is a blackbody distribution rule due to Planck

I(ν, T) = (2hν^3/c^2) 1/(exp(hν/kT) - 1)

for h the Planck constant h = 2πħ and ν the frequency of photons. If you take the derivative of this function with respect to temperature, the maximum dI/dT = 0 occurs when there is a frequency

ν = σcT

for σ the Wein's displacement constant. As a result the frequency of light at the peak of the black body curve scales with temperature. Usually this is expressed according to wavelength λ = c/ν. This is different from the amplitude.

A G-class star has the same blackbody temperature whether that star is the sun or a near copy of the sun 100 light years away. To compute the amount of power incident per unit area (watts/m^2 = irradiance) incident on a surface from the sun or a distant star one must integrate this with respect to frequency (remember frequency = 1/periodicity and power = d energy/d time) and integrate over the solid angle Ω of view to the sun and the star.

P = ∫I(ν,T)dν∫dΩ

The sun has a total solid angle of perspective Ω ~ 2πx(π/1000), while a star has an exceedingly small solid angle of perspective.

This is standard physics going back to the start of the 20th century. Temperature has nothing to do with wave amplitude, but is a statistical effect from a thermal distribution of photons.

Cheers LC

[deleted]

Lawrence,

Thank you for the informative reply, even though I'm not able to fully appreciate it. I suppose I'm applying sound waves to light, that increased amplitude=louder. Rather than test your patience with the various questions that come to mind, I'll stick to one:

You make the points; "Temperature has no meaning for a single wave." and "Temperature ... is a statistical effect from a thermal distribution of photons."

Would time have any meaning for a single event, or regular periodicity from a single interval? If it doesn't, than isn't time also an effect of change resulting from such thermodynamic activity?

One additional thought; If photons become entangled in transit, wouldn't "the frequency of light at the peak of the black body curve scales with temperature" mean this mass of small waves is really one big wave?

Thanks for the engagement. Promise I won't tell the guild.

Lawrence Crowell

In classical physics of particles moving in space one can talk about "a point in time." When you have wave mechanics there is an uncertainty relationship ΔωΔt = 1, where for the spread in the angular frequency Δω ~ ω this gives the uncertainty spread in time.

With blackbody radiation the photons are in a state of complete decoherence so there are no entanglements between them. This is probably a bit of an approximation, for entanglements may still exist but are so scrambled up that they are not discernable.

Cheers LC

[deleted]

Lawrence

The problem with a classical point is anything multiplied by zero is zero, yet adding some minute dimensionality gives it volume, which is theoretically fuzzy. Which realistically makes the point in time as long as the event on question occurs, ie, the wave occurring. So time is an effect of activity, like temperature.

Molecules of water are still distinct, yet as a medium transmit energy as waves. With light, it is the energy, but in quantity is a medium, just as many molecules of water are a medium. So the "peak of the black body curve" would be a form of wave generated in this medium. Like temperature, something of a top down effect of the forest acting as one, even if the trees are still distinct units.

Writing this on my phone, which is having a top down effect on my thought process.

Lawrence Crowell

A point particle is a sort of approximation, as is classical mechanics. Try to look this up.

The black body curve is not a wave.

Cheers LC

[deleted]

Lawrence,

As the temperature decreases, the peak of the black-body radiation curve moves to lower intensities and longer wavelengths.

Lawrence Crowell

The BB curve is a function of wavelength, but it is not itself a wave.

[deleted]

Lawrence,

Yes, a curve is a graph, not an actual wave, but the question is whether its amplitude is an expression of temperature.

Lawrence Crowell

The peak of the curve can be found by evaluating where the derivative of the intensity function with respect to wavelength is zero. One can then compute the temperature corresponding to the black body curve. The temperature is proportional to the frequency of radiation at the peak. This is an elementary calculus operation. The peak of this function is not an "amplitude."

[deleted]

Lawrence,

Yet what you have is alot of individual waves creating the effect of one large wave. Yes, you are correct that the forest is not a tree, but a mass can act as a singular entity. It does take a somewhat generalized perspective to see the ways a group of people can function as a larger whole, that is not apparent to someone only focused on the immediate physical manifestation of bodies. The problem with the basic mathematical modeling is that as reductionism, math dispenses with excess functions, so we forget that when we add, we are adding the sets and getting one larger set,not adding the contents. So two sets of apples is one larger set,not applesauce. Just as all the parts and contextual relationships of our bodies and lives adds up to one person. So a curve is not an actual wave, but it presents the characteristics of one.

Lawrence Crowell

John,

Please take the time to learn the real stuff if you want to really know about this. This is getting a bit frustrating to keep going over this. You have these ideas about things that you think are true, but they have no bearing on these matters. This issues with black body radiation, statistical distributions of frequencies and temperature is old stuff. Instead of sawing on your own ideas about this, please learn the real stuff.

Cheers LC

[deleted]

Lawrence,

I realize this is outside of your box and it's easier to dismiss what I'm trying to say without considering it, but you might want to read [link:fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1337]George Ellis' essay on how such top down emergent levels define those lower order scales that are foundational to them, in all number of feedback loops.

Or you can stick to solving everything with M theory.

Lawrence Crowell

I read Ellis' paper and wrote a comment or two. I am somewhat agnostic about this. These ideas tend to be suggestions of something rather than an explicit tehory that provides calculations. It on the one hand seems plausible that "new rules" or emergent structures determine processes on larger scales. Physics in some wense has this in its theories, such as hydrodynamics of fluids treated as continuous media, when we know they are ultimately made of atoms. However, it seems to beg the question of how such large scale rules can really determine physics on the smaller scale, or the "top down" picture.

Cheers LC

[deleted]

Lawrence,

Not to push the boundaries of the discussion to far, but isn't there an inherent dichotomy between bottom up and top down? That they are opposite sides of the same coin. There seems to be bottom up processes and top down ordering of them. Energy is bottom up, while information/structure is top down. This physically manifests as energy expanding out, while matter /structure contracts inward.

The energy is analog, but our comprehension is digital/ordered, so we only have this top down comprehension.

I'm on my phone and can't refer back to Ellis' paper,so I'm just putting this out for you to ridicule and hopefully postscript a few thoughts.

Regards,

Lawrence Crowell

It is not hard to think that lots of small scale physics with lots of particles or atoms can give rise to a collective behavior. One case would be the flow of a gas or fluid, where on a large scale there is this apparent motion of a medium, but it is all built up from below by the motions of atoms. We have lots of physics that does just this, such as statistical mechanics that is built up from the statistical distribution of atomic motions. It is far more difficult to construct the top-down situation in a rigorous way. It is hard to construct a consistent theory where the rules of dynamics on a large scale turn out to determine the laws of physics on the nuts and bolts level.

This is not to say that this might not be the case, but as yet I think a clear convincing case is still needed. It can be seen with the Conway's game of life. Clearly elementary rules for how various shapes in a space interact by a set of rules in a grid can result in large scale structures. However, the large scale structures do not act back down to alter the rules for how the basic shapes interaction with each other.

Cheers LC

[deleted]

Lawrence,

They many not alter the rules, but they may be part of the rules in the first place. For one thing, do we really understand bottom up from the perspective of bottom up, when we are the most complex top down point of reference we know?

Say that quantum behavior is due to loading, rather than statistics. That the energy builds up in the detector before it trips the atomic structure to a higher level. The result is a wave of energy, with the crest set by the capacity of the detector. So what you have is a bottom up process of accumulating energy, defined by its maximum level of energy. So while the reality is the interaction of the absorbed energy and the structure of the detector, the resulting information is what defines this relationship and what we have to describe the action is the information.

Julian Barbour, in a blog post called From Time to Shape makes the argument that we cannot perceive distance, only the points of reference defining that distance. Which is a bit like saying we cannot perceive energy, only its effects. Yet wouldn't all points of reference be one, if distance didn't exist to distinguish them? Or effects wouldn't exist without the energy to manifest them?

So the bottom up manifests the top down and the top down defines the bottom up. So it is a dichotomy; If you have bottom up, then top down also exists.

Now think how the feedback loops create ever more complexity. Put in more energy/the wave going up and the amount of potential information increases, yet you don't know the amplitude of the wave before it crests. So it is only when the energy has reached its maximum that that bit of information is determined. Then depending how quickly the energy leaves that wave and starts another decides the frequency of the wave. Say we are talking about something as complicated as a human life. As it is born and grows up, it is absorbing energy and there is no way to really understand what is in store. The energy it absorbs might contain beneficial, or detrimental aspects. Beneficial means it will continue to grow and sustain itself, ie, be a long time interval. As the energy peaks, some estimation can be made of what that person has accomplished, than when all energy is gone and the lifespan is over, some final tally/record/information can be stated. Of course there are the multitude of influences, from influences to off spring, but that is an endless network. It is the amplitude and frequency again. A day is created by the spinning earth absorbing energy from the sun. In any particular location, the amplitude can vary, while the frequency is quite regular. These parameters of time and energy could be used to define just about any object or event.

There is no distinct top down, but is the effect of how bottom up interacts with other bottom up. Which means it does have effects, since it is all energy in action. Large scale structure exists because it is the manifestation of concentrated bottom up energy. How that energy is expended can have lots of effects.

Lawrence Crowell

I am not sure what you mean by quamtum mechanics is due to loading. A lot of what you say is hard to follow or make much sense out of. My best suggestion is that you try to study the real physics. I don't know what else to suggest.

Cheers LC

[deleted]

Lawrence,

That quanta are not point particles that are absorbed instantly, but the amount of energy required to push an electron into a "higher orbit" and require some interval of "loading" time.

[link:fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1344]Eric Reiter's entry was on this subject. Contantinos Ragazas did something similar in the digital vs. analog contest. Carver Mead has proposed something similar. There are various other such absorber theories, etc.

Not trying to pose anything new here, or get you out of your box, just trying to give examples of how these concepts of interval/frequency/time and energy/amplitude/temperature, are different views of the same pattern, with "top down" as a natural feature of this.

Lawrence Crowell

I strongly advise again that you endevour to study the real physics. I don't know what else to say. The problem is that without some reading or study of the real science you will continue to thrash around like this. Ragazas stuff is flawed, where he derives a form of action or Lagrangian that is just plain wrong. I can't recall about the other two authors. However, you need to have these concepts clearly delineated, otherwise the situation is hopeless.

Cheers LC

[deleted]

Lawrence,

I'm not quite sure what falls in the category of "real physics," when many of the more public members of the community are currently obsessing over multiverses. Does fantasy physics fall in your definition of what's real?

Eric Reiter came in 14th in the competition. It doesn't say much for your peripheral vision, literally or conceptually.

Carver Mead isn't a contestant. He is a pioneer in the computer industry.

I find in reading about the various versions and perspectives in physics, a significant split between academic theorists and those engaged in actual application of physics.

Is there any room in your view for drawing connections, or is it all delineation? Isn't it the goal of physics to tease out the basic patterns in nature? My sense is that distinction/delineation is only part of what makes nature what it is.

Lawrence Crowell

If you know some physics I would advise studying the Feynman lectures on physics. That would be a good basis to be able to understaind real physics. At least you would be able to write something about physics that employs the appropriate terminology.

Lawrence Crowell

I have heard of Carver Mead, I did not recognize the name right away. The only thing I can say is that while his work on integrated VSLI chips was first rate, his ideas about electrodynamics are not accepted by many in physics. Honestly I have not read any of his papers, but I am aware that the physics community gives his theory a thumb's down.

As for Reiter, I started reading the first page. It would take me a long time to go through the details of the experiment. I then looked at the end and he concludes things that are problematic. He claims to detect two photons in a double slit experiment, where only one is placed in the input of the splitter. He is using gamma rays, which are notoriously difficult to control in the manner needed to do quantum physics experiments of this sort. If his claimed results were real then it should hold for longer wavelength photons, such as optical light. Optical light is managed quite well, and this physics should be detected in this domain of QED. No such physics has been detected. I strongly suspect that something is terribly wrong with the experiment.

Cheers LC

[deleted]

Lawrence,

The experiment, as I understood it, is that he "pre-loaded" the array of detectors prior to releasing a quanta and it resulted in tripping more than one detector. His argument being that while a quanta is the smallest measurable quantity of energy, it is not an indivisible particle.

I certainly agree Mead's theories are not widely accepted, but I don't hold it against him, given the degree of tolerance for error in some of the theories that are. Specifically dark energy being given a pass, rather than reviewing the assumptions built into Big Bang theory, but we have been through that before, so I'm not trying to open that can of worms. My point being that any theory will raise questions, but there is a definite herd mentality that decides what is to be pursued. Witness string theory and supersymmetric particles. If we were to go back to the beginning of the wave/particle duality and take the other road, as Mead and Eric suggest, ie. waves with particle-like characteristics, rather than the one taken, particles with wave-like characteristics, would we have model that describe more of the reality we experience and not one that is currently using the anthropic principle expressed in multiverses?

I wish I had the time to read more, but I don't. I fact I'm taking a few free minutes to write this on my phone.

[deleted]

Lawrence,

One final note;

You think I'm being over-broad in relating different manifestations of wave-like patterns, yet complexity theorists relate synchronized wave patterns in everything from financial crashes to epileptic seizures and find it a useful predictive tool.

So what if we were to see reality more as waves than particles? Wouldn't it be just standing waves, rather than tiny strings vibrating in eleven dimensions? The difference is just that one insists there is some solid under the action and one sees it as action in context of other action. So what are the eleven dimensions, other than folded up waves? Waves don't collapse, so much as they contract? Still nothing solid.

Same reality, different biases.

[deleted]

Hem, maybe you're right... It does kind of totally seem like that guy who wrote the essay about focusing on Lagrangian dynamics kind of totaly ripped off Jos Stam's groundbreaking work "Stable Fluids". Of course, it wouldn't be a question of whether or not that's the case if academia wasn't run by troglodytes.

[deleted]

Lawrence,

So the frequency of a cesium atom is both a periodicity and a time interval?

Would it be possible for you consider, just on this very minor point, that I'm not a complete idiot?

[deleted]

John,

Your powers of mathematics are no match for Lawrence's. You better run while you still can. You see, mathematicians can make crazy claims too. But when they say something off the wall, and back it up with mathematics, everyone goes ooh and ahh. But when you and I make crazy claims, we're called crackpots. Sorry, that's just life.

[deleted]

Jason,

A long time ago, I realized I am living on borrowed time. I have nothing to defend, I'm only interested in what is true. If Lawrence can show me I'm wrong, then I would be enlightened. Life is details. Death is nothing. Details don't scare me, but I'm intrigued by nothing.

Yes, I'm a cracked pot.

Lawrence Crowell

Frequency is the reciprocal of periodicity.

Cheers LC

[deleted]

Lawrence,

By reciprocal, do you mean equivalent to, or opposite of?

[deleted]

Your heart is a good example of frequency. It beats about 55 times a minute. Faster if you're stressed. So the period of a heart beat is about 1.09 seconds. So frequency has units of cycles per second. The reciprical of that is periodicity which is seconds per cycle. I hope that helps.

Constantin Leshan

Dear Lawrence B. Crowell,

In the past contest I have found flaws and errors in ~ 20 essays, including leading essays. However, in this contest'2012 I decided not to judge any essays because Brendan recommended avoiding the judgment atmosphere. Nevertheless, since Dr. Crowell estimates my essay, I also have the right to estimate his essay.

Some contestants invented a fast method that allows producing quickly many senseless essays in order to make money in FQXi. Meanwhile, I observed that many professionals use this technology. In fact, this fast "technology" allows creation of many high level essays that looks "very scientifically". In order to produce such a story-essay, you must simply retell the accepted physics from textbooks and internet but using your own words. Therefore, it is not the copy/paste operation because the author simply changes the words, but he repeats the generally known information from accepted physics.

Dear Crowell, what means this proposition from your essay: "The acceleration is directly proportional to a force applied to it. The momentum of a body is its mass times its velocity p = mv as determined by an inertial observer'? It is the statements copied from a textbook - the author only changed the words. Or another proposition: "D-branes are composed of strings in a way similar to a Fermi-electron surface in a crystal' - it is a statement copied from brane theory. In the same way, I can show that the most part of Crowell's essay repeats the generally known information. You see, it is the retelling of the generally known information by using other words. In this way, you can prepare hundreds of different essays simply by retelling GR, quantum mechanics and other accepted theories. For example: 'The coupling constant G of general relativity (GR) with units of area, or G1=2 with units of inverse mass, while quantum field theories (QFT's) are unitless coupling constants in naturalized units'. You see, it is simply a story that repeats GR using other words.

Does such essay-story that repeats the generally known information deserve any prize? I can produce 10 such essays-stories like Crowell's essay during a week.

Besides, it is a collection of propositions without any logical connection between them. What logical connection is between Newton, QCD and string (brane) theory?

Since experimentation at Plank scales is not possible, many scientists, including Crowell, publish their free fantasies about Plank scales because they know that all these fantasies cannot be proved or disproved because experimentation at Plank scales is not possible.

Thus, Crowell tells us about Newton and Einstein, then about GR and QFT, quantization of spacetime, QCD, Feynman's rules, then string theory... In my view, Crowell simply tries to fill his essay with generally known information that "looks scientifically". I quote: "Cardenas proposed inflation preserves the holographic principle. In [10] it is demonstrated how a closed FLRW spacetime cosmology with k = 1 upon turn around to recollapse exceeds the entropy bound of Bekenstein and the holographic principle. Crowell [11] proposed from this quantum cosmologies".

You see, it is a collection of random fragments and propositions; Yes, it looks 'scientifically' but it is simply the retelling of accepted physics.

However, the question of essay contest is 'Which of Our Basic Physical assumptions are Wrong'. I do not see any wrong physical assumptions found by Crowell. 'The foundations are not foundations' is not wrong assumption, I can also write that physics is not physics. Why this essay was accepted? It is simply the retelling of known information. The contribution of Crowell is simply that he RETELLS (copy) the accepted physics (even if he copies the SENSE but not copy/paste).

Does this collection of random propositions and fragments of text that repeats the generally known information deserve any prize? I repeat that I can produce 10 such "high level" essays during a week.

For example, first I'll copy the fragments of text from academic papers about Lorentz symmetry, Heisenberg uncertainty, GR, Feynman diagrams. Then I change the words and formulae, and the new essay is ready for publication! Pay attention that it is not a copy/paste because I changed the words! Therefore the essay appears to be 'original' whereas it actually repeats the accepted physics. For example, Crowell wrote: 'The coupling constant G of general relativity (GR) with units of area, or G1=2 with units of inverse mass, while quantum field theories (QFT's) are unitless coupling constants in naturalized units'. You see, it is simply a story that repeats GR and other theories using other words. The contribution of Crowell is simply that he RETELLS the accepted physics but not copy/paste.

If Dr. Crowell will receive a prize for his collection of copied random stories then this (above) new-produced essay also deserve a prize.

It is very difficult to create an original research with Unique information, but is very easy to create the stories about generally known information like Crowell's essay. I propose to eliminate all such stories from contest, it is a fraud only; In such a way professionals make money.

Sincerely,

Constantin

Lawrence Crowell

Constantin,

I am not sure why you find it objectionable that I reference work by other physicists. For instance you bring umbrage to my referencing Cardenas' work where he demonstrates the k = 1 FLRW model that is closed and recollapses violated the entropy bound of Bekenstein and Bousso. I do take these results and further work a consistent theory involving quantum forms of the Landau tri-critical point to demonstrate the onset of inflationary cosmology. This paper, referenced in my FQXi essay, received an accolade by GRF and was accepted for publication is Int. J. Theo. Phys. You similarly find it objectionable that I would use other references as well. Of course this is common practice.

In your paper you reject a range of physics, such as declaring quark or QCD wrong. Big bang is judged wrong by you, this in spite of a growing preponderance of evidence in its favor. You also have funny things, such as your figure 1 with photons moving at v = c 75km/sec, which nobody who is well grounded in physics is going to take seriously.

Cheers LC

Constantin Leshan

Dr. Crowell,

I have found that your essay copy the generally known information, therefore it is a fraud! Imagine that I send such a story to contest. In this essay I tell first about Newton, then about Einstein and GR, string theory, Plank scale physics. It is a simple story about physics only that repeats the generally known information. Does such essay deserve any prize? I can produce hundreds of such stories about physics! For example, first I'll tell about quantum mechanics, then about string theory, brane theory, cosmology, quark model, particle physics, GR and so on. Everyone can produce hundreds of such stories about physics as your essay; it does not deserve any prize, such essay doesn't have any scientific value.

The question in our essay contest was 'Which of Our Basic Physical assumptions are Wrong'. I don't see any wrong physical assumptions in your essay. Your statement that 'Foundations are not Foundations' is a joke only. In the same way I can say that 'Physics is not Physics', it is senseless.

Thus, your essay have nothing to do with our essay contest, it is a simple story about physics. I can produce hundreds of such stories similar to Crowell's essay; it does not deserve any prize. If FQXi reward such simple story about physics then we'll send next time only stories for contest.

You wrote 'why you find it objectionable that I reference work by other physicists'. I do NOT find it objectionable that you reference work by other physicists; - you are free to reference what you want. I gave this example 'Cardenas proposed' in order to show that your essay is a collection of random statements without any logical connection between them. For example, I do not see any logical connection between Newton's laws, brane theory and Plank physics. It is a proof that your essay is a collection of random (and copied) statements without any logical connection between them. Therefore this work cannot be called even 'essay' because an essay must have a central idea; it is a collection of random and copied stories.

You wrote: 'Big bang is judged wrong by you' - Where you see Big Bang theory in my essay? My essay does not contain any words about Big Bang.

You wrote: 'your figure 1 with photons moving at v = c 75km/sec, which nobody who is well grounded in physics is going to take seriously'.

I remind you, that the goal of this contest is just to find flaws in accepted physics (wrong physical assumptions), and therefore my example with entangled photons must be accepted and welcomed by this contest. Also, it is naturally that mainstream scientists will criticize all attempts to destroy their pet theories.

My example is absolutely correct physically and may be proven experimentally. It seems that only the experiment can prove this phenomenon for mainstream scientists. Nevertheless, I'll try to explain it again theoretically.

The definition of motion is that: The motion is when one object changes its position in respect to other objects. Since photons change their position concerning the source, it is motion by definition!

Then I can show that the position of photons changes in such a way that this motion is faster than light. In order to protect Relativity, scientists invented a trick that it is not motion at all; but this trick violates the definition of motion! Besides Relativity does not need any protection but need improvement; the authors of the dogmas simply do not understand correctly Einstein's Relativity. I can show again that the position of the photon relative source changes faster than light, and it is Motion because it is in agreement with definition of motion. (Meanwhile, I call such motion as Apparent motion in my essay, therefore it is in agreement with mainstream dogmas).

Thus, my example with entangled photons is physically correct and must be welcomed in this contest because the goal of this contest is just to find flaws in accepted physics.

Sincerely,

Constantin

Lawrence Crowell

The connection between Newton and quantum mechanics with quantum gravity is that a structure exists "under our noses." With variational mechanics there is an extension to the Feynman path integral. With BCFW recursion for QCD gluon calculations there is a correspondence with gravitons and M-theory. That was why I started out discussing Newton.

By declaring photons motion depending on the source you have really cut your throat. This simply is wrong.

Constantin Leshan

Dr. Crowell wrote:"By declaring photons motion depending on the source you have really cut your throat. This simply is wrong".

Your statement shows that you don't read and don't understand my essay, therefore it is senseless to discuss it with you. Where you have found my declaration that "photons motion depend on the source"? Every scholar know that the photons speed do NOT depend on the source. In my example the photons move locally with the speed v = c. Now consider the contribution of cosmological expansion which increases the distance between these photons and the source. For this reasons, the distance between photons and the source grows in such a way as if photons move faster than light concerning the source. My example is absolutely correct physically, it is very strange that you don't understand such simple things.

Constantin

Lawrence Crowell

The way to properly deal with photons in the FLRW metric is to work with general relativity and to compute the null geodesics. Nobody goes around saying stuff like v = c 75km/s or that it is "as if it were traveling facster" and so forth. To use terms like "as if" in this case appears to be an application of nonsense meant to cover over nonsense.

« Previous Page Next Page »