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

[deleted]

Dear Lawrence,

Julian Barbour's essay "Bit from It" came fourth in last years contest and he left no comments or replies on his essay discussion thread. Which I think shows a really well written and accessible essay can be popular anyway. It is possible get through to the final round on its merit alone. It has been nice for the community that he has participated more this year.

I think your statement that next year you will write something less formal is showing that you have understood why your essay was not more widely popular. It may be brilliant. However if it can't be understood by a lot of the participants the brilliance of it will not be fully appreciated and it will not score as highly as you would like.

Having different categories for the competition, such as one for technical papers, one for formal but less technical writing and one for informal writing would overcome the problem of comparison of very different products. The different kinds of writing have their own merits but are difficult to compare against each other to give a ranking that everyone will consider fair. I think Brendan suggested the possibility of having different categories and participants would decide in which one their essay should belonging. That sounds like a good idea to me. Perhaps participants would then also vote only on the essays within the category they feel best suited to evaluate as well. I would feel a bit happier about that.

[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

Lawrence Crowell

That might work, though I suspect there would be a considerable amount of crossing over.

It has been a bit of a dissappointment. Last time I got ranked in the final cut, but did not win anything. I did get a paper published which covered the topic of my last FQXi essay. This year I got a couple of papers published that I used as references, but this year I ranked pretty far down.

I think I need to re-adjust my expectations from this.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

« Previous Page Next Page »