On the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics by Benjamin F. Dribus

I send first all this links to address

'bdribus@math.lsu.edu

but get answer

'bdribus@math.lsu.edu.' on 9/17/2012 12:54 PM

Invalid recipient

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Abs_limits388.pdf

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Abs_limits393.pdf

http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Abs_limits400.pdf

Dear Ben,

I enjoyed your comments on Brian's and my essay pages. As promised I have read and will comment on your learned fqxi contribution:

I agree with you that causality (I suppose you mean local causality, but you also refer to universes in the plural so I am left wondering) is the substrate on which to build a rational theory unifying quantum mechanics, relativity and the standard model.

Beyond this understanding, your essay is far too technical for me to follow. You couch your arguments in terms like " acyclicity, morphisms, multicategory theory, transitivity, complex Hilbert spaces" which leave be baffled. Well at least as far as Hilbert spaces are concerned Brian Swingle has thankfully dispensed with those as far as physics is concerned. As a mathematician it is wonderful that you approach physics with this background, as you just might find a new math to explain a whole range of physics - just as quaternions are now found to be useful to explain quantum interactions.

If you will forgive this image - the good wolf mathematicians huff and puff with their theories, circling around the various houses built by the little piggy physicists, and it is an excellent way to test those houses for good solid construction!

I was reminded that we should peer-rate essays as only the top 35 rated essays get read by fqxi's expert panel of judges.

With best wishes for your degree work,

Vladimir

Dear Benjamin,

I am extremely sorry for the delay in replying to your query. I am glad to know that you have your original way of looking at the fundamental problems of physics and surprised to learn that you suspect too many basic assumptions of physics where as I consider as wrong only one basic assumption. On the basis of your 'causal metric hypothesis', you have tried to explain, in a novel way, the origin of the classical concepts of space-time and also the role of space and time in the quantum world. On the basis of 'causal metric hypothesis' you have attempted to unify both GR and QM leading to the theory of QG. I am also interested in knowing how you account for the appearence of continuous manifolds on the basis of 'discrete reference frames'.

Anyway, you have put too much thought in to the problems facing physics and wish you succeed in solving them in one stroke on the basis of 'causal metric hypothesis'. I rate your essay high because of its originality and want to know how you feel about mine.

Good luck and best regards,

Sreenath.

Ben,

As you said my essay was filled with ideas I can reciprocate the comment about yours. The statement you make:

"A number of existing proposals about spacetime microstructure lead naturally

to noncommutative spaces in the sense of Connes [3] via the deformation theory of Hopf algebras, 10 but noncommutative geometry is relevant more generally, and even classical spaces such as Minkowski spacetime possess important noncommutative structures."

on the top of page 7 is pretty spot on. Take a look at Giovanni Amelino-Camelia , and the reference to his paper on κ-Minkowki spacetime. You can search on down the blog comments to September 8 and see where I offer a connection to twistor theory. Giovanni's work is solid and it is regrettable that it has fallen so far down the community ranking. Spacetime is then under a certain measurement, which I think pertains to high energy processes or a very small scale is noncommutative. In my paper Noncommutative geometry of AdS coordinates on a D-brane I take a somewhat different approach to noncommutative geometry.

We do have to take pause however. The NASA spacecraft FERMI measured the time of arrival of different wavelengths of EM radiation from very distant (billions of light years) burstars. Later the ESA spacecraft INTEGRAL made similar measurements. The time of arrival was virtually identical. However, if spacetime has a foamy or noncommutative structure it is expected that shorter wavelengths of radiation will couple more strongly to this small scale structure of spacetime. The result should be there is a dispersion of EM radiation. None was observed! Experiments count more than theory.

Does this dash noncommutative geometry? Not necessarily, but it might mean something far more subtle is going on. These measurements are not directly small scale measurements. They are not experiments where particles near the Planck energy are scattered or where some Planck scale microscope looks at spacetime structure. We are actually measuring physics on a grand scale. So we are observers making a particular choice of measurement. Under these conditions we might then expect spacetime to be completely smooth with no foam or quantum noncommutative structure observed. Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga connects exotic four manifolds (Donaldson theorem etc) with quantum spacetime. Yet this connection is with this strange business of spaces that are homeomorphic but not diffeomorphic, where this is connected to quantum amplitudes. I suggest on his website that in 11 dimensions it might be easier to consider the dual 7-manifolds with Milnor's exotic structure. We might then have some deep complementarity at work here.

The path integral issue you discuss might fit into this. The Polyakov measure in a path integral

∫(D[g, ψ]/diff(g, ψ)) exp(iS)

where one "mods out" diffeomorphisms or gauge dependencies. This gadget in some manner is generalized within this perspective. We also have to keep in mind there might be some general complementarity with noncommutivity.

The best thing about these contests is the exchange and interaction with people and different ideas and concepts.

Cheers LC

Ben,

"The central new principle I propose is the causal metric hypothesis, which states that the metric properties of classical spacetime, up to overall scale, arise from a binary relation, which I will call a causal relation, on a set, which I will call a universe, and that the phase associated with a congruence class of directed paths in the conguration space of such universes is determined by the causal relations of its constituent universes"

How can you imagine let alone model causal relationships of a multiverse? Are the attributes of gravity shared between universes? I struggle with your esoteric essay.

Jim

Thanks Ben,

The supreme example of the mathematician-physicist is Newton - and of course you are right about the 3 piggies metaphor being inexact - perhaps at the most basic level physics and mathematics are equally artificial, but in conjunction try to describe Nature the best they can. As an artist and inventor I built my physics model using geometry and physically realistic interactions. I suppose topology, knot and graph theory can all be used to describe such models, but I am satisfied with understanding how it works as a sort of mechanical linkage. (I was inspired by Kenneth Snelson's concept of tensegrity - I urged him to present his ideas about the atom in this contest and am glad he did - at age 85!)

I hope that my model can be tested by computer simulation but I had better update my research and present it more succinctly.

Following your remark about gravity and entropy: In one of the discussions of this contest I suddenly realized (and wrote) that my Beautiful Universe model explains why entropy occurs - it is the same causal local mechanism of diffusion of energy as a wave pattern in the lattice, which simultaneously explains probabilistic behavior and uncertainty! But what about solitons? how would entropy be manifested in their behavior?

Thank you for rating my essay, (as I did yours). Last year I also participated in the fqxi contest, and one participant used to sign his messages: Have fun!

Vladimir

Dear Benjamin,

Studying the question of connection of entropy and gravitation, I found Lorentz-invariant formula for entropy in the book: Fizika i filosofiia podobiia ot preonov do metagalaktik. Perm, 1999, 544 pages. ISBN 5-8131-0012-1. In short the question is described in the book: The physical theories and infinite nesting of matter. Perm, 2009-2012, 858 pages. ISBN 978-5-9901951-1-0 in such way: Using the stress-energy tensors for the substance and the gravitational and electromagnetic fields allows us to write the equations of thermodynamics explicitly in the Lorentz-invariant form. As a result the entropy, the amount of heat, the chemical potential, the work and thermodynamic potentials can be represented as tensor functions of microscopic quantities, including the electric and gravitational field strengths, the pressure and the compression function. This allows us in § 21 to find out the meaning of the entropy as the function of the system state - it is proportional to the ratio, taken with the negative sign, of the absolute value of the ordered energy in the system to the heat energy, which is chaotic by nature. The ordered energy means the energy of directed motion of the substance, the compression energy from pressure and the potential energy of the substance in the gravitational and electromagnetic fields. When the system achieves equilibrium, part of the orderly energy inevitably is converted into thermal form and the entropy obtains a positive increment. I hope it may be interesting also for Vladimir F. Tamari and others authors in the contest.

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Ben,

I am in general agreement with your critique in regard to the foundational problems. My view is that the problems you have highlighted are secondary, tertiary derivatives that have emerged due to the original foundational problems that Newton (and others) introduced when he intentionally developed Mechanics on a makeshift basis as a stepping stone for what he called the "Truer Method of Philosophy".

You have quite rightly pointed out that although certain foundational problems are realized by eminent physicists, they do not know how to rectify them.

For instance you wrote in reply to Frank: "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. .....".

This is because there is no single foundation presently. When the problems arose on the original foundation, without analyzing and rectifying them, other foundational concepts (even contradictory ones) were overlaid, while retaining some of the problematic ones (like the point mass) and this process has continued. My view is that the solution to the present crisis must begin with going back to the original foundation of Newton and rectifying its mistakes.

I have done this to a certain extent. I have not only pointed out what the foundational problems are, but I have offered solutions.

I request you to have a look at my essay and comment: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549

Since the diagrams have not come out properly in the above pdf version, I am attaching the MS Word version also.

I will continue on this with another post making some introductory comments about my essay.

Best regards,

VirajAttachment #1: 9_A_TREATISE_ON_FOUNDATIONAL_PROBLEMS_OF_PHYSICS2.doc

Continuing:

Hi Ben,

The following are some matters I wish to bring to your attention about the contents of my essay: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1549

1. I have listed out a number of assumptions that Newton made that have turned out to be foundational errors.

2. I have not only listed the errors, I have found a new approach to overcome these errors (guided by notions of Newton, Maxwell, Einstein) and provided accurate quantitative solutions.

3. I have discussed that these wrong assumptions of Newton have been carried over to the foundations of Quantum Mechanics and Theory of Relativity and these too are afflicted by the same problems.

To quote from the essay: "We may note that among the problematic foundational concepts created by Newton that have congenitally infected RT and QM are a) the primacy of the concepts of space and time, b) representation of bodies as mass-points without internal structure, c) consideration of centrifugal force as a pseudo-force, d) the closed system with the consequent inability to account for inflow and outflow of energy between the system and the field etc. e) Not recognizing that it is by the two quantities of energy (Mc2 and pc) fusing together to form a system that motion occurs. f) the omission of the fact that a fraction of the applied energy of motion pc gets usurped for the co-movement with the location. g) Not developing the theory with state changes of energy as the basis of its physical geometry. With these congenital foundational problems being inherent in these two progeny theories as well, it should be obvious that revamping of physics must begin from where the problems originated".

4. I have shown from Newton's writings (Preface to the Principia) that he intended to create only a makeshift theory (Mechanics) as a stepping stone until a "Truer Method of Philosophy" (a geometric theory based on the behaviour 'least particles') is found.

5. I have shown from Einstein's writings that he considered both Newtonian foundation as well as that of his own theory are based on fictitious concepts.

6. I have shown that Einstein has pointed that the 'Right Way' is yet to be found which would be based on simplest conceivable mathematical ideas connecting laws with phenomena.

7. I have shown why Einstein could not find the 'Right Way' himself which he was desperately in search of, by expanding the thermodynamic approach into whole of physics.

8. I have shown that Maxwell chartered an outline of a program for the future development of science, based on the paradigm that all phenomena are based on state changes of energy, and inflow and outflow of energy from a system (i.e. based on open systems).

9. By assimilating the intuitive notions of all the founders, in regard to the future development of physics should take, I have initiated to develop a new approach.

10. It a) provides the equation of motion for a particle at any velocity (slow or near light velocity) thus the schism in physics between Newtonian mechanics and SRT is removed. b) Explains how gamma-factors arise, c) why it requires momentum gamma-Mv for a particle to be set in motion with momentum Mv. d) provides the physical basis of the Lorentz transformation, e) the physical basis of the constancy of the velocity of light g) why physical processes slow down when a particle is in motion. h) From where the energy underlying the centrifugal force comes.

(This is all I could squeeze in within the 25,000 characters permitted by the contest. Elsewhere I have derived Lorentz force, gravitational time increase of a GPS clock, Compton scattering, explanation of Michelson's experiment by recognizing TDE changes frequency while keeping velocity constant etc.).

Hoping to hear from you.

Best regards,

Viraj Fernando

The Fermi X-ray, gamma ray test of relativity can be found in this review This measurement was followed up by the ESA Integral spacecraft.

There is a lot of confusion over Verlinde's entropic gravity. Gravity as a dynamic force is conservative. The force in the Newtonian limit is given by F = -∇Φ(r), which is conservative. This means the force evaluated around a closed loop, such as an orbit, is zero. Thermodynamics gives nonzero evaluations for such forces. This is related to the matter in differential geometry that a p-form ω is exact if dω = 0, but a subset of them are closed when ω = dσ, or d^2 = 0. There is some cohomology behind this. The force is determined by the coboundary operator on a 0-form and we have by Stokes law

∫F•dr = ∫∫∇xF•da. da evaluated in the region enclosed by the closed loop.

Yet we know that ∇x∇Φ(r) = 0 (curl-grad = 0 or d^2 = 0) and so the force is conservative.

Verlinde's entropic gravity does not involve the dynamics of a particle in a gravity field. It involves the dynamics of an event horizon or holographic screen. The main idea is that the force on the screen over some unit distance is equal to the work

∫F•dr =W,

and this work is equal to the increase entropy of an event horizon. This by the Bekenstein theorem is S = k A/4L_p^2, for L_p = sqrt{Għ/c^3} --- the Planck length. So the entropy is a measure of how many Planck units of area there on the horizon. So the Verlinde hypothesis is

∫F•dr =TS,

or a force that displaces the horizon some increment gives

F•δr = TδS.

As a result some input of mass-energy into a black hole increases entropy, and this force is what evolves the event horizon, or equivalently the holographic screen.

Event horizons and screens have units of area, and in naturalized units with c = ħ = 1 the gravitation constant G is an area. So this measures the amount of information entangled with the black hole, or the entanglement entropy.

Cheers LC

Hi Ben,

I report my reply to your questions about my essay Elementary Time Cycles. I have justpresente the theory in DICE2012, Castiglioncello, Italy where I have received entusistinc feedback. I will read asap your assay and let you know my opinion.

-----------

Thank you for your comments on my essay. I present a new idea and it is not immediate to figure it out, though eventually it turns out to be extremely intuitive. The theory indeed works spectacularly. So many mathematical results cannot be a coincidence, they point out a conceptually fascinating description of the quantum word. This description is different from our ordinary description but absolutely compatible.

I will reply to your question but for a more detailed description please refer to the section "comments and outlooks" of arXiv:1110.0316, in particular the one at the end of par.1.

1) Right! I am saying that our flow of time is a relational or effective description at "large scale" of the phases of the elementary time cycles, i.e. of the elementary particles. The vibrations of the space-time dimensions with characteristic periodicity describe through the Planck constant their kinematical state of what de Broglie called elementary parcel of energy and that we today simply call elementary particle. A free particle, i.e. constant energy, has persistence time periodicity. As a pendulum in the vacuum, every elementary particle can be used to define a time axis on which describe events. That is, as in an ordinary calendar or stopwatch, different presents or events are characterized by the combination of elementary time cycles of the elementary particles This is a very familiar description of time flow because in our in everyday life we use the cycles of the Moon and the Earth, or their approximation that we call years, months, weeks, days .... Every particle or observer, depending on its kinematical state, describes a different combination of phases, i.e. a different present (relativistic simultaneity). Interactions, i.e. events in time, are variations of energy and thus of periodic regimes of the elementary clocks, So that we can establish a before and an after and order event in time. The periodicity of the clocks and the energy of the corresponding particle are two faces of the same coin, as we known from ordinary undulatory mechanics. The retarded variations of the energy prescribed by the relativistic framework of the theory means that the periodicity varies with the retarded potentials and this yields a reinterpretation of causality as retarded and local modulation of periodicities. This formulation in which every particle is a reference clocks enforces the local nature of relativistic time, and solves some of the issues related to the problem of time symmetry. Since every particle is a reference clock, every particle can be used to define our external (and artificial) relativistic time axis, so that the inversion of the (arbitrary) helicity of a single clock does not imply to invert all the other clocks. We just invert the axis defined from that clock but the chain of events in time, i.e. the combination of the phases of the other clocks remains the same. Thus we describe the same flow of time. The difference in this case is that the inversion of a single clock corresponds to describe the corresponding antiparticle, i.e. antiparticles are clock with inverted helicity. I could continue for pages to describe the elegance and the naturalness of this description of the flow of time, please read my papers.

2) In undulatory mechanics, according to the wave-particle duality, we represent a particle as a phasor. This implicitly says that the (space-)time coordinates in elementary particles are angular (cyclic) variables. In our atomistic description of nature every system is in fact described in terms of a set of elementary particles, thus every system can be parametrized by a set of cyclic coordinates (whose minimal topology describing the quantization of the energy-momentum is S^1 if we neglect a possible spheric symmetry and the corresponding quantization of the angular momentum).

Thus a system of (non-quantized) free elementary particles is represented for example (considering only time periodicity) by sin[E_1 t_1 / hbar], sin[E_2 t_2 / hbar], sin[E_3 t_3 / hbar], ... , sin[E_n t_n / hbar] where t_1, t_1,... ,t_1 are independent cyclic coordinates of periodicity h/E_1, h/E_2, ... , h/E_n, respectively. Now, every phasor (persistent periodicity) is a reference clock that can be used to define an external time axis t \in R so that t = t_1. But we also can now use the external time t to parametrize every phasor so that the phasor are sin[E_1 t / hbar], sin[E_2 t / hbar], sin[E_3 t / hbar], ... , sin[E_n t / hbar] ... of periodicities h/E_1, h/E_2, ... , h/E_n. Thus, since we can compare the periodicities of the different clocks, every cyclic coordinate can be parametrized by a common coordinate t whose periodicity is related to the periodicity of that particle, and the description can be reduced to a single time. I hope this answers your question - with a little of imagination.

3) and 4) The dimension around the cylinder is the time dimension of an elementary particle (in case of interaction the cylinder should be deformed, see fig.5 to have an idea). In an intrinsically periodic phenomenon, such as that associated to an elementary particle, the evolution from a given initial configuration to a final configuration is described by the interference of all the possible paths with different windings numbers. It is possible to show that this sum over such classical paths associated to a cylindrical geometry reproduces the ordinary Feynman Path Integral. That is, by imposing periodic boundary conditions to a field, the field can self-interfer as it evolves. This means that in the Feynman path integral only the periodic paths are really relevant. Intuitively these are the only paths having positive interference, the others fade out for distructive interference as the anharmonic modes of a vibrating string where only the harmonic modes with frequency n/L remains.

5) This fits perfectly we relativity because the periodicity is relative as time. For instance consider a particle in a Gravitational potential. The energy of such a particle w.r.t. a free one differs as E' = E (1 - G M /r). By means of the Planck constant and undulatory mechanics this means that the periodicity of the internal clock of that particle differs as transformed periodicity T' = T (1 G M / r) w.r,t. a clock outside the gravitational well, that is time runs slower inside the gravitational well, as well-known. The mathematical reason for the consistency with relativity is because GR is about the metric but does not give any prescription about the boundary conditions, For instance, there are many action describing the Einstein equations as equations of motions, but all these actions differ by boundary terms. If we play with boundary conditions consistently with the variational principle it is possible to derive exactly QM from relativity. This is mathematically proven in my papers.

6) and 7) Experimental time resolution is too coarse to detect the internal clock at the time of the fathers of QM (but sufficient to determine the constancy of the speed of light a to give rise to relativity). Today we are reached the resolution in time sufficient to detect the internal clock. The internal clock of the electron has been already observed indirectly in 2008, see ref. [12] Search for the de Broglie Particle Internal Clock by Means of Electron Channeling, P. Catillon, et.al,

Found.Phys.38(2008)659 of my essay. Such an experimental resolution when reached will open a new frontier in physics. it will allow us to control the quantum dice with unimaginable applications. This is a prediction. I have some precise ideas on the possible predictions of the theory that I cannot anticipate here because, as you say, my essay is already too dense. I hope to find soon a job opportunity that will allow my to present this predictions in a scientific form.

Best regards,

Donatello

view post as summary