• [deleted]

  • Post #4

Benjamin,

Your paper suggests that many assumptions are patched together in an effort to make them fit a preconceived model, even though many of the assumptions are widely doubted. It is comparable to the elephant problem, each observer description comes from someone that is standing too close to the object under investigation and each observer has a limited range of observation. Then the observers get together and try to put the observations together to fit a preconceived model. A problem arises when the observers do not recognize their preconceived model may be completely in error, and as a result they are filling in the unknown spaces with assumptions that they do not all agree on, but they tolerate the assumptions because they do not want any empty spaces.

Quote from your essay: "The first few assumptions I reject are that spacetime is a manifold, that systems evolves with respect to an independent time parameter, and that the universe has a static background structure."

I can agree with rejecting the first assumption. The IEEE paper I cite in my topic, 1294, titled, "A methodology to define physical constants using mathematical constants" contains a mathematical relationship where time is a dependent function. Basically, TIME, as an event duration, is a function of the existence of energy. Sounds radical, but it is completely logical mathematically, without the presence of the parameters that define energy there is no need for TIME.

I notice you do not reject the contemporary assumption on the theory of gravity. If that assumption is wrong then all the assumptions built around it are suspect. I have a paper that I am subjecting to open peer review at the moment that describes the EM field structure that creates an attractant only force. I didn't feel it has had sufficient outside review for this contest, but it is coming together. I added two references in response to one of my reviewers comments, [6] "Electrifying Gravity", and [7] "Newton's Gravitation Constant G as a Quantum Coupling Constant".

Helical EM Gravity

I was unaware of the existence of the two papers I just cited when I originally prepared my paper, I have been working on it for several years. I found the references during a search for the term "quantum coupling". Those two papers should be required reading for those that are attempting to build a model of the universe.

    Frank,

    Thanks for the feedback! You made several points, so it might be clearest if I itemize my reply.

    1. Regarding the continued use of widely doubted assumptions, the reason I mentioned this is because I wanted to make clear that I wasn't offering anything new by rejecting these particular assumptions; of course people have known for years that there are issues with manifold structure, background-dependence, etc., and plenty of people are working on these problems. I don't think that well-educated physicists continue to use these assumptions because they are trying to make them "fit a preconceived model," but rather because they don't yet know what to use in their place. The causal metric hypothesis is new, although Rafael Sorkin and the causal set people have made analogous proposals.

    2. I will have to read the IEEE paper you cite. Time and energy are conjugate variables in ordinary quantum theory, so it doesn't seem a priori radical to connect the two, but don't know what paradigm you are using, particularly regarding spacetime structure. I prefer to view time as merely a way of talking about causality, via the causal metric hypothesis, but this is in a much more general paradigm in which spacetime and matter-energy emerge together.

    3. I am not sure what you mean by the "contemporary assumption on the theory of gravity." If you mean the general relativistic assumption that gravity is a manifestation of spacetime geometry, then my point of view replaces this assumption entirely, since the geometry itself is emergent.

    4. Kaluza and Klein, Einstein, and hundreds of others have attempted to couple gravitation and electromagnetism, and there are various ways to try to do this. I have a lot of sympathy with the early classical attempts to describe electromagnetism in geometric terms, like relativistic gravity, even though these approaches did not work. From looking over some of your papers, it seems that perhaps you take the opposite approach, and try to describe gravity as an interaction, like classical electromagnetism (please correct me if I'm wrong). Obviously it would require more time for me to develop an educated opinion on the details of what you wrote, however.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #6

    Benjamin,

    Point #4 of your last post notes that hundreds of scientists have attempted (unsuccessfully) to couple gravitation and electromagnetism. My essay is about this subject. I show what I believe to be the first indication that there is a coupling between these two forces. This essay presents a previously unknown relationship between the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force exerted between particles. The key to finding such a connection is to utilize the wave properties of the particles to express distance and express force on the absolute scale where the largest possible force (Planck force) is equated to 1.

      John,

      Yes, I read your essay with great interest. While it's obvious that any suitable pair of proportional central forces will exhibit any desired power relationship at an appropriate distance, it does seem interesting, at least to me, that the distance at which Newtonian gravity and the classical electrostatic force exhibit a square relationship in Planck units should be the reduced Compton wavelength. I certainly didn't know that, so I'm thankful to you for pointing it out.

      You hint at a much more developed theory presented in an online book, which I have not yet had a chance to look at. The conclusions you draw in your essay seem to go quite a bit further than I would feel comfortable with on the basis of the evidence you present, but it may be that you address various possible objections elsewhere. For example, you freely admit that the example you focus on in the essay is a semiclassical approximation, so I wouldn't feel justified in criticizing the details. You can only explain so much in eight pages!

      However, there are a lot of obvious questions that could be asked. You might be justified in claiming a quantum-theoretic relationship between electromagnetism and gravity, but how does this imply gravity is a "true force" rather than implying that electromagnetism is not a true force; e.g. geometric in nature like gravity in general relativity? Also, the concept of "messenger particles" is a way of talking about quantum field theory, but how do the relationships you pointed out say anything about quantum field theory one way or the other? How do you deal with special relativity? And so on and so forth.

      In any case, congratulations on a very interesting essay.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #8

      Benjamin,

      Item 2: In my opinion space has three dimensions. It seems time has no purpose in these three dimensions unless it is associated with energy. I will provide a link to my postprint, as IEEE no longer allows authors to post the published version anywhere.

      Methodology

      Item 4: Yes, I consider gravity an electromagnetic (EM) phenomenon. My viXra paper is my attempt to make the EM concept easy to understand using basic classical physics principles. The McPherson and Gilson references provide a mathematical justification why Newton's gravitation constant G should be considered a gravitation quantum coupling constant. The helical EM model, with its separated plus and minus field vectors, with their angular phase position (APP), adds a few complications to what is considered just a "pull" force. My helical gravity model provides a very logical reason for Newtonian gravity's instantaneous influence at a distance. Nothing "spooky" and no new physics involved, classical physics provides the answer.

      A helical form for the influence of gravity meshes well with the presence of all the helices, spirals and spin within the universe.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #9

      Benjamin,

      You say, "It's obvious that any suitable pair of proportional central forces will exhibit any desired power relationship at an appropriate distance..." This statement only addresses equation 4 and ignores equations 6 and 7. Equations 6 and 7 show the square relationship between gravity and the electromagnetic force at ALL distances.

      You also dispute that I have shown that gravity is a "true force" rather than perhaps implying that electromagnetism is not a true force. It is correct that the text in the essay assumes that the reader would consider the electromagnetic force the ultimate example of a "true force". However, the book goes much further. In this short post I cannot explain the steps of how I derived gravity and the electromagnetic force from the properties of spacetime. However, I can say that in both cases the properties of spacetime are distorted in a way that produces a net force on the spacetime-based particle model. The magnitudes of the two forces are very different, but the basic mechanism is the same - they both are true forces. One last point, in my model matter does not cause curved spacetime; instead dynamically curved spacetime causes matter.

      Dear Benjamin F. Dribus,

      Your essay is impressive and your overview of principles of physics magnificent! As you point out there are a number of unexplained phenomena in addition to the unresolved conflicts between relativity and quantum theories that motivate attempts to mine new math. Your rejection of a number of assumptions paves the way to apply the new mathematical tools you list on page 7. I do not have sufficient expertise in these areas to provide a useful critique, but you do so yourself to some extent. You note that "local properties are generally more reasonable to impose than non-local properties due to our ignorance of the global structure of the universe", which agrees with my own analysis. You note that a Lorentzian manifold must be recovered from the new tools.

      You have transitions replace the notion of time evolution. It may be over simplifying to say this but that seems like shades of automata. Having developed "The Automatic Theory of Physics" I am not averse to automata, but more as a model of physics than as a model of fundamental reality. I find it more likely that the universe arises from a [ONE] continuous field through self-interaction and I suspect discrete or fractal pictures are ultimately inappropriate. I find it feasible to recover the standard particles from one field, while I agree with you that it could be difficult to recover these from causal relations on universes, which, as you note, has not been achieved.

      You note that it's impossible to disprove time evolution of manifold structure and impossible to prove your causal metric hypothesis [but potentially disprovable]. Your conclude with a page of interesting discussions.

      Thanks for a stimulating essay and good luck in the contest.

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

        John,

        Thanks for the clarification. I'll have to take a look at your book. Like I said before, it may be that you address all these issues there, so any remarks I made weren't intended as serious criticism. I would have to understand the basis of your ideas much better before I would be qualified to make any definitive remarks of that nature. I am sure part of my confusion arises from differences in terminology; you will recall from my bio that I have a mostly mathematical background, and it sometimes takes me a few tries before I understand what scientists with different backgrounds are talking about. By "true force," I assumed you meant an "interaction" rather than an effect arising from geometry, which is usually how gravitation is distinguished from the other "forces" in my experience. If you are taking electromagnetism as the prototype of a "true force" and simply arguing that gravity is analogous, I have no quarrel with that. In any case, I had better look over your ideas more carefully before making any other remarks, or risk making a fool of myself.

        Aren't gravitons as an Archimedes screw model of a force carrying particle a viable alternative to helical EM gravity waves? Otherwise I agree with a lot of what you say Frank.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #13

        Edwin,

        Thanks for the kind remarks. I will reply in an itemized fashion for clarity.

        1. Automata, and particularly the homological/homotopical techniques used to study them, are certainly relevant to the approach I outlined. However, there are too many differences (and too much contextual baggage) to describe it in those terms. Automata tend to be discrete, rely on some type of initialization, involve multiple or weighted edges, simplices, or cubes, and so on.

        2. I certainly don't rule out continuum models, though I don't think we should take them for granted. Riemann certainly didn't. In order-theoretic terms, the continuum has properties (like the least upper bound property) that seem to have no direct relationship to physics. As far as measurement is concerned, you could never tell the difference between reals, rationals, dyadic rationals, etc. (dense subsets). The symmetry properties of flat real manifolds seem impressive in light the fact that fundamental particles do appear to correspond to representations of the Poincare group, but only until you realize that the same thing can be described much more generally in order-theoretic terms. There are also plenty of direct physical reasons to doubt the continuum such as black hole entropy and the holographic principle. A lot of the "paradoxes" of quantum theory arise from imagining little point-like particles moving around in a manifold over the continuum.

        3. I take it you don't favor the sum-over-histories approach in quantum theory? Do you prefer Hilbert spaces? To me, they appear (like the continuum) to be a too-good-to-be-true idealization that likely arises from something more primitive.

        4. By the way, where you get the vector "C-field" you use in your essay? I know people have experimented with hypothetical scalar fields called C-fields in general relativity in the past, and have derived tensor fields from these by differentiation, but I'm not sure where this Ampere-type equation fits into the picture.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #15

        Dear Benjamin,

        Thanks for the extensive reply to my comment, and thanks for looking at my essay.

        Your response concerning automata agrees roughly with what I had in mind.

        I'm glad you don't rule out continuum models. I have my own doubts about reasons to doubt the continuum, ie, black hole entropy and holographic principle. And I do agree that many quantum problems derive from imagining point like particles (with emphasis on 'point'). My particle model is an extended particle plus induced wave.

        Nor do I favor sum-over-histories (as physical reality -- mathematically they're fine). For bound (discrete energy) states I am happy with Hilbert spaces. I found your description of the continuum as "too-good-to-be-true" fascinating, and also your opinion that it probably arises from "something more primitive".

        The C-field is my own term (with historical conflicts) for the gravito-magnetic field (with gravito-electric G-field). It is treated in the weak field approximation in most general relativity texts, although it doesn't seem to make an impression on most physicists. I did not recall learning about it until I "independently" stumbled over it. Good references to the equation and to experimental measurements of the field are given in my essay.

        I'm always impressed by competent mathematicians who work in physics and I always find that we think quite differently about both math and physics. Viva la difference!

        Best,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Hi Ben,

        I just finished reading your paper. I enjoyed your writing style, you express yourself very well. You mentioned many mathematical frameworks in your essay of which I know little, so it is possible that the answers to the questions I am going to ask may already be obvious to someone who knows about these, but it may be still of benefit to those of us who don't know.

        So, to return the favor of asking serious questions:

        1. You idea seems to me a lot like a (very mathematically oriented) variant of relationism. I would have appreciated some comments that would have differentiated it. How is it different from relationism (or is it)?

        2. How does your theory account for the fact that we seem to be able to assign metric relations to even causally unrelated events?

        3. How does your framework address the fact that the order of spacelike separated events is frame-dependent?

        4. Is there such a thing as a "correspondence principle" between the quantum and classical version of your principle and what is it? I ask because it almost seems like it is inverted according to your idea, the quantum version is determined by the causal relations of "constituent universes" but the universe is defined by the classical version. While it is true that also in standard QM a quantum state is a superposition of classical states, I would have expected as a feature of a more fundamental theory that quantum states can be defined without recourse to classical states unless it offers a "deeper" explanation for that.

          Evidently I got cut off there, but anyway, I had only one more question:

          5. Can your principles help resolve some of the notorious difficulties that arise when one tries to describe causal relationships?

          Overall very well written, although it may be too specialized for many readers on this forum. I would have especially liked an expanded discussion of the short paragraph on how causality connects with our established theories.

          All the best,

          Armin

            Armin,

            Thanks for the remarks and questions. Since most of my formal education and my "official" academic work is mathematical, I wrote this essay in an effort to help me begin a dialogue with competent physicists on topics I have thought about a great deal. I knew I would not get the style and focus precisely right at first, but I was hoping that some people could point out obvious flaws and things that required more or different explanations. Let me itemize my reply to correspond to your questions.

            1. Binary relations on sets obviously play a central role in my approach, but there are a lot of "relational" theories, and I am not sure if you are referring to a particular one of these (or group of these) when you reference "relationism." For instance, prominent physicists like Rovelli, Thiemann, Baez, Smolin, Markopoulou, Loll, Ambjorn, Sorkin, Rideout, Bombelli, etc. all emphasize binary relations, but they all include assumptions in their work that I disagree with. These physicists work primarily on loop quantum gravity, causal set theory, causal dynamical triangulations, and a number of lesser known variants. Of these ideas, mine are most similar to causal set theory (Sorkin, Rideout, Bombelli, etc.) but there are multiple crucial distinctions that make the overall picture quite different.

            2. There are "metric recovery theorems" (for instance, by Malament) that allow recovery of the entire metric structure of Lorentzian spacetime (including spacelike separation, etc.) from the causal structure and appropriate volume information. These play a prominent role in causal set theory; they imply that an appropriate causal set "looks like" a Lorentzian spacetime on sufficiently large scales. At the fundamental scale, you would define spacelike distance by counting relations; for instance, two unrelated elements with a common direct descendant are one unit of distance apart. Only at larger scales does this begin to resemble an ordinary distance function. My framework is more general because I don't assume a constant discrete measure, but the simplest versions still involve counting.

            3. Frame-dependent order (relativity of simultaneity) is one of the most important points to understand because it highlights the new meaning of covariance (order rather than symmetry). In my approach (and also in some versions of the above theories), a frame of reference is a refinement of the causal order; i.e., an assignment of order to certain events which are not related in the causal order, just like a frame of reference in relativity assigns order to certain spacelike-separated events. The whole point is that the causal order carries the canonical information; the refined orders carry additional contextual information.

            4. I think you point out a good way of comparing the Hilbert space version of quantum theory, in which classical states arise as an appropriate limit (correspondence principle), with Feynman's sum-over-histories version, in which the quantum picture is built up from classical alternatives via superposition. It is an interesting objection to the sum-over-histories version that the "building blocks" are classical; my view is to be grateful to Feynman for making the presence of a Hilbert space physically comprehensible; they're beautiful mathematically, but I prefer to see them arise from something primitive like superposition, just as I prefer to see manifolds arise from something primitive like binary relations.

            Great questions; I hope that explanation at least somewhat answers them. Take care,

            Ben

            Oh, I just missed your last question.

            5. There are many philosophical issues related to causality, and I am not sure which you are primarily referring to. However, a lot of these issues result from assuming the existence of other types of structure besides the causal structure, for instance, independent metric structure, or independent matter, energy, etc. I believe most such difficulties (at least, most that I can think of) can be explained in terms of the causal metric hypothesis, but the question is whether or not the explanation is satisfying. For example, the causal metric hypothesis includes the assumption that what we call time is just a way of talking about causality, and what we call causality is just a way of talking about binary relations on sets. If it is right, then it simplifies and solves many things, but it may not be right. And if it is wrong, it ignores some very important philosophical questions.

            Dear Benjamin,

            I read your essay with great interest. It contains a lot of deep thoughts including a deep analysis of the current situation.

            We agree in many points except the importance of the concept 'manifold'. I agree with you about the importance of background-independence. General relativity reach us to consider a diffeomorphism-invariant theory. This property is very restrictive in dimension 3 (and lower). If one fixes the topology (or the binary relation between the subsets) then everything is determined (by using the Geometrization conjecture, you will also obtain a canonicaly metric). That is the reason why one considers the special graph (the spine) of a 3-manifold containing all information. But this fails in dimension 4. But one think remains: one needs countable many subsets to obtain the 4-manifold (or the triangulation and the smoothness structure agree). Among this technical thinks, one important fact troubles me more. You wrote about a substitute of a manifold (a poset etc) and about a configuration space (which you use for the sum-over histories). I would expect in a unified theory that there is only one entity not two. So, if you believe (like I do) in the full geometrization then you need only the spacetime, nothing more.

            Furthermore, your concept of causality is interesting but I do not fully understand it: there is a unique path in the past (back to the cause) but different paths in the future (the openess of the future). Does your binary relation reflect this fact?

            Good luck for the contest

            Torsten

              Torsten,

              Thanks for the insightful comments. I will try to clarify a couple of the points you raise.

              1. I'm not sure if you regard matter-energy to be auxiliary to spacetime, or if you regard the two to be part of a single fundamental structure. I far prefer to regard them as part of a single structure, which I describe at the classical level by a binary relation. Hence, I do not expect this structure to be manifold-like at sufficiently small scales. This forces the theory (if it ever becomes sufficiently developed to be called a theory) to predict 4-dimensionality (and many other things) at large scales, probably by means of action principles and entropy.

              2. The causal set theorists have done a lot of experimenting over the years with "sprinkling" points in 4-manifolds; as you point out, the binary relation doesn't determine the geometry, but the argument Rafael Sorkin makes with his "order plus number equals geometry" phrase is that you can recover 4-D geometry from a suitable order if you supply appropriate measure-theoretic information as well. I think this is true. If it is not, then my ideas probably don't contain enough information. Note that the causal set theorists make a lot of other assumptions I find dubious, however.

              3. Regarding fundamental theories and single entities: the desire to describe spacetime and matter-energy as part of the same structure is a lot of the motivation for my ideas. I call the classical "posets" (not really posets in general, of course) "universes" to emphasize background independence: in Feynman's sum over histories, one thinks of particle "trajectories" but generally ignores the obvious fact that the "underlying spacetime" actually ought to respond in different ways to different trajectories, so one is summing over entire "universes" in this sense, not over trajectories in a single "universe." However, the "Universe," which is quantum mechanical, is the entire family of posets with their induced order. After all, similar remarks could be made about manifolds; the etymology even reflects this. A manifold is a set with an atlas, but no one argues that the presence of multiple charts means that the manifold is not a single entity. This analogy is imperfect in multiple obvious ways, but the main point is just that different models partition information in different ways and it is not necessarily easy to uniquely define what "unified" means.

              4. Regarding your final point about the open future, a single classical universe contains its entire history, but such a universe may be regarded as the source of any number of different transitions. In this sense the future is open and the past is fixed. However, I suspect this may not entirely answer your question.

              Thanks again for the feedback,

              Ben

              Dear Benjamin,

              When reading at the beginning of your essay

              "In this essay [...] I reject the manifold structure of spacetime, the existence of an independent time parameter and static background structure, the symmetry interpretation of covariance, the commutativity of spacetime, and a number of related assumptions."

              one may wonder "what remains then?". How far can you go with your causal metric hypothesis? From your essay, it seems that you can do a lot starting from this, although it seems also to remain a lot to do.

              Congratulations, and good luck with the contest and your research,

              Cristi Stoica

                • [deleted]

                • Post #23

                Hi Ben,

                I'm a great fan of Causal Sets, and think this is a very timely essay. I like that the assumptions are so minimalistic. It's a possibility that hasn't really been paid enough attention to. Good luck,

                B.