Hi Wilhelmus,
My posting on your thread was the response to your august 25th post, but I will shortly post something in addition.
Take care,
Armin
The Myth of a Theory of Everything by Armin Nikkhah Shirazi
[deleted]
Hi I went back to your post and saw that it contained some questions I did not see. Ok, here is my best attempt to answer your questions:
You said: "When I read your DFR concept, it again brought me to essentials like "a square has only one side" or is two sides ? for a flatlander it has only one side , and a moebiusring does not exist in his 2 dimensional universe. On page 5 you are creating the column of squares, just as a straight line , a fixed z coordinate, however the Z coordinate can take any value, so that any form is "actualizable".
Saying that to a flatlander a square has only one side is like saying that to us a cube (when looked at face-on) has only one face. Do you see that you are conflating perspective with dimensionality? A flat lander can go around the square and thereby establish that it has four sides and that it is not just a line segment. A moebius ring like region in flatland could exist in principle: cut at two places into sheet of paper to make a long strip without separating the strip, then twist that part between the cuts (the strip) by 180 degrees and glue the ends of the strip to the edges. You won't be able to glue the entire strip, but if it is long and narrow enough, you can glue that part that is the closest to where you started to cut. For us, this would be like a region in space for us in which if you go in and come out in a certain directions everything is mirror-reversed, but that is just exotica that I don't think is relevant to my idea. The last part of your paragraph seems to agree with my idea.
You said:"Your page 6 is in fact the same as the theory of the collapse of the wave function, even the comparision to the Feynman path, I like your description of area time as "it manifests itself to spacetime observers as asuperposition of two actualizable matter distributions describable by ....". The only remark here is that you accept already the existance of the "observer" (!)"
Indeed, I do already accept the existence of the (spacetime) observer. this is required by the fact that quantum mechanics goes in the (2,3) box (refer to the appendix). I could have also not accepted the existence of a spacetime observer; that would be a theory of areatime interactions when spacetime has not yet emerged, and this theory goes into the (2,2) box, such a theory is only metaphysical for us, since we cannot observe in 2+1 dimensions, so I see no problem.
You said:"On page 7 you mention "two or more objects described by the same non-factorizable wave function who share the same wave-function, share common wave factors", I came to a different interpretation (with almost the same result) and introduced the Objective Simultaneity Speres, together forming a foam being the origin of "decoherence".
No, in my paper I stated that"... two or more objects... described by the same non-factorizable wave function...share common *phase* factors." This is a big difference that can only be appreciated if you know something about the mathematical structure of the wave function. Also, I would be very careful in claiming that a an idea you have corresponds to a well-defined concept like "decoherence" without showing how it exactly does that. To understand decoherence you will already have to know quite a bit of quantum mechanics. Using a technical term like "decoherence" in your theory without actually showing how your theory corresponds to it will damage the credibility of your theory.
You said:" I liked very much you schema of the "METATHEORY OF NATURE", very good , the only thing you could think about is that the dimensional frames could also go to the negative side and perhaps there all the dark energy and so on can be found."
We use negative dimensions already all the time, they are called *densities*. For example, mass density is mass per volume or mass times length^(-3). If you look at the schema, you see that, for example area=length ^2, so a negative dimension has to be a density. If you meant negative signs in front of a dimension i.e. as a coefficient, then I don't know what that means, other than perhaps a direction in an arbitrarily defined coordinate system.
While Dark Energy indeed appears to be a negative energy density, I don't think your suggestion will help understand it any better, because "negative" in this context has a completely different meaning:it refers to the energy not to the density.
You said:"I hope that you take the time to comment also on my essay, this tile I took also at heart your posts wher you gave me indications how to be more clear."
Well I did and as I said, you have greatly improved how you communicate your ideas. Communicating one's ideas is very important but it is not enough: You also have to make sure your ideas match what we know, and the only way to be certain that you can do this is to learn what we already know. I was in your situation several years ago, but I have made a sincere effort to learn what we know, and continue to do so. I am sure that you are making some effort to learn what we know, but to be effective, it should not be from a science popularization but a text book. Also, in response to our exchange I suggested to Max Tegmark that FQXi add a physics resource section, and they did. Have you seen it? If not, go to the community page and look at the upper left corner.
Thanks for your comments and good luck in your endeavors,
Armin
Armin, you rock! Loved your Borodin. Have you heard of his the Little Suite? The first piece, "In a monastery" is sheer magic. Very Russian. If you find it online, please let me know. I've never heard it performed and am curious about other interpretations.
I found your essay very interesting. Funny that you too reference Flatland. (me too, here, which makes 4 of us so far. The other essay is very good too. Check it out. I forget now who the 4th person is...)
Re your essay: "It is created by the fact that the Euclidean plane was not assigned a z-coordinate and hence the representation of the square in 3-space requires the inclusion of all z-coordinates."
from where does it "require"?
Re: "What hubris to think that the description of nature in all its richness would be exhausted just by unifying a few types of interactions in our small corner and calling this a `theory of everything'."
that was very good.
Dear Armin,
you yourself might think that there is no final theory of the universe, but your work as far as I know it is already moving in this direction. Take your paper: A Novel Way of Understanding Quantum Mechanics. In this paper you are attempting to clarify what Quantum Mechanics tells us about reality.
I have no doubt an deeper understanding of Quantum Mechanics is the key to a final theory. The physicst S. Weinberg f.e. is convinced that Quantum Mechanics is that part of today's physics, that survives unchanged in a final theory. I agree..
In your paper above-mentioned you are dealing with a simple pattern that is composed of a Square and of a Circle. And just this simple geometrical pattern is - as conceived by me - part of a space-time-picture, that allows us to understand Quantum Mechanics on a deeper level. My FQXI_2012-paper ---Is the Speed of Light c of Dual Nature?--- is implicitly talking about this space-time-picture. In my reply to your current comment I have sketched this space-time-picture in an explicit manner - at least in parts.
Kind Regards
Helmut
Mi M.V.,
Thank you for the critique and for listening. I had planned to upload more music but reading all these essays has caused me to fall behind.
Yes, I had heard some of its pieces but not "In a monastery". I did find the link below:
http://youtu.be/ix1t4AsQXdo
I find Borodin's music has a very unique quality which I like a lot. Very few composers have such a distinctness pervading their work. The other composer like that who comes to mind is Chopin, whose music is also very beautiful.
I thought that probably many readers here are familiar with flatland, and that it would not be a bad idea to start from familiar place to launch some ideas that are no doubt highly unfamiliar to many.
About your question: I will give a mathematical and a conceptual answer.
The mathematical answer is that if in a given coordinate system you wish to specify a lower-dimensional "surface", you just specify that part of it that you want to assign a position in space and leave the rest unspecified. Thus, x=3, for example, specifies an infinite plane that intersects the x-axis at 3. r=3 in a spherical coordinate system specifies a sphere of radius 3, and so on. So when you leave certain properties of the surface unspecified, they mathematically take on all possible values for that property.
The conceptual answer to your question is that when you leave the property unspecified, it attains an "empty slot" for that value. This means that you cannot assign it any definite value (that would be filling the slot with a definite value), but you still wish to represent it somehow in the higher-dimensional space. If you think of an empty slot as one that is "waiting to be filled" then the representation would include all possible values, since any of those could eventually fill the slot.
I don't know if my conceptual explanation made any sense to you, but I would appreciate your feedback on whether it did or not. I believe it is important to be able to communicate my unfamiliar ideas clearly to others, so your question is received with much gratitude.
Thank you also for the final comment.
All the best,
Armin
Dear Helmut,
Thank you for your comments. I agree too that quantum mechanics will survive, too unchanged, in the sense that its predictions won't be proven wrong. My framework, which I'm pleased to find out you are familiar with, introduces only an additional distinction that is not present in standard quantum theory. The distinction, however, has to my mind the effect of separating the boundaries of validity of quantum theory and general relativity, as I explain in my essay. If the schema I present in the appendix to my above paper has any merit, then you could call this the outline of a "final theory' but for the reasons I discuss in my essay and the appendix I take on a different perspective.
Incidentally, the square-circle example in my "understanding" paper was just a device to try to more easily get the concept across about how my framework explains entanglement. Originally I had instead a x and pattern in mind, but found that it was too confusing to represent in 3 dimensions. I did read your paper and lef a comment.
Thanks again.
All the best,
Armin
Thanks for the Borodin link on youtube. She needs to up the tempo and add some passion to it. Also, her.. forgot what they are called in English... are too stubby. I am afraid this was not a good intro to this magical piece. I loved your sunny variations though. They kept playing in my head for a few days.
Thank you for answering my question and good luck to you!
Armin,
Hi. Great essay! My comments are:
1. First off, you're an excellent writer!
2. Second off, your way of thinking where you describe what things might visually look like to observers from different perspectives, like from a two-dimensional or a three-dimensional perspective, is a very good way of thinking. Because the minds of mathematicians and physicists (and everybody) are observing things from an existent, finite (not infinite), and 3-dimensional perspective, they can easily miss things that might not be finite or three-dimensional or that might be described better from a different perspective. I've tried to do something similar in one of my essays where I talk about how an infinite set of finite-sized balls spreading out in all directions might appear to a finite observer within the set and to a hypothetical, infinite observer outside the set. The different views of this set as discrete and continuous, respectively, may have relevance to our different descriptions of our universe as discrete or continuous (https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/filecabinet/infinite-sets-ii)?
3. The one thing I might either not understand or disagree with is that it seems like if a square were truly 2-dimensional (2-DFR), it wouldn't exist? It would flatten down to nothing and then disappear completely. I have trouble accepting that anything with one of its dimensions being zero (not just approaching zero but actually zero) could actually exist. If the square were to exist, I think it would be a very flat 3-FDR. Also, if a 2-FDR square were not associated with a z coordinate in 3-space, is it really in 3-space? It seems like that to exist in 3-space, the square must exist at some location or set of possible locations (ie, z coordinates) in 3-space?
But, my lack of understanding of this point doesn't negate your main arguments at all. As you point out, I think it's of great importance that mathematicians, physicists, and philosophers realize that things can look totally different depending on the perspective they're being observed/thought-about from. If they could see this, I think there'd be some major progress along the lines of what you talk about in your essay.
Anyways, I think this is one of the best essays in the contest. Nice going!
Roger
[deleted]
Armin,
Hi. One additional comment about representing a 2-DFR square that's not associated with a a z coordinate in 3-space as an infinitely long column is this:
Actually, I'd say that a 2-DFR square that is not associated with a z coordinate in 3-space is not yet in 3-space. Only after it appears in 3-space does it seem to us "after the fact" that it could have been in any z-plane before it appeared. But, none of these z-planes existed for the 2-DFR square before it appeared. So, we're retroactively putting a continuous column of possible z-plane locations onto the 2-DFR square even though none of these z-planes existed for the square before it appeared. I think this relates to quantum weirdness. For instance, with the cat in Schroedinger's Box, it's assumed that before the box is opened, the cat exists in all possible states. But, I'd say that the cat doesn't exist in the box at all. Once we open the box, this is equivalent to actualizing the cat (causing it to come into existence), and then we go back "after the fact" and say the cat could have been in any possible state. But, none of those states even existed until after we opened the box.
I've been kind of thinking about this in regards to my ideas on the question of "why is there something rather than nothing?". As the fundamental units of spatial existence are created, these units are also creating spatial locations/positions. There was no space and no locations until after they were created. But, then we go back after the fact and say, well those fundamental units could have been created in any location, not realizing that there were no locations until after they were created. My thinking on this questions is at:
https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/filecabinet/why-things-exist-something-nothing
Thanks! Once again, excellent essay. I think our thinking is along the same lines and, unfortunately, outside the mainstream.
Hi Armin,
Thanks a lot for your explanations. The difficulty which I met reading your essay was on my side - your essay is certainly perfectly written. Only in some cases when I tried to digg details more carefully the length of sentences was an obstraction to me. Simply, I am not good enough in English.
Regarding superposition etc. I think I understand what you mean, mathematics is a little help here; but still the difference between just collection of pictures (call it superposition) organized in higher dimensional object, and the QM superposed object can be relevant. I mean that if it is not the case we could call any collection a superposition. Even we use a probability on instances it is not enough to have QM superposition. OK, you say that this is solved by considering the collection as merely potential and the instant picture as actual. Do you mean by this anything different than the relation between an operator and its eigenvalues? If not can we represent the potential collection by an self-adjoint operator and (somehow) the instances by its eigenvectors? If yes, does it reduce to the ordinary Hilbert space QM? I ask because I am realy interested in understanding of your work.
Thanks for your explanations.
Good luck,
Jerzy
[deleted]
If we understand the two-dimensional world, we realize that all?
Dear Jerzy,
I want to give you a fuller response, but my work week starts today (I work midnights 7 nights on and 7 nights off while going to school) so a more elaborate version will have to wait until next week.
For now, let me just say that you are basically correct. The QM operator corresponds in my analogy to the operation "add an interval of length z" and the eigenvalue corresponds to the length of the side of the cube wherever it 'actualizes'. I did not mention probabilities in my paper, except very indirectly when I said that being 'actualizable' corresponds to an intermediate state of existence. Some time ago, I replied to another person what I meant and for the sake of time I will just paste my response because it may help understand better. (The person to whom I responded was an educated layperson, not someone like you who understands the implications at a very deep mathematical level, so the tone of my exposition was meant for a different audience).
here it is:
"The more challenging concept to understand is what I have called 'actualizable'.
Before I attempt to explain it, let me acknowledge that it is not your fault for having this conceptual difficulty. In all of my papers about my theory and the talk, I have so far described the concept of actualizability only within a very limited context, namely how it is different from "actual". But to get a deep understanding of what this concept really means one needs more than an understanding in terms of what it does not mean. The fact that I have not been more specific is not entirely an accident.
You see, I have found that when in discussing my ideas with others I introduce too many unfamiliar ideas at once, the risk that they will be dismissed as being too far "out there" dramatically goes up (you can even see that in this thread), so I have tried to be strategic about it: I try to introduce just enough so that it becomes evident that one can reframe quantum mechanics in a novel way that no longer seems mystical (as in my talk), leaving more subtle clarifications of the conceptual basis which have truly radical implications for later, after the basic picture painted by my theory is at least somewhat understood and it becomes clear how the radical implications of the novel concepts are required in order to form a self-consistent worldview (which is different from the present one). Describing precisely what I mean by "actualizable" is one of these concepts (but unfortunately not the only one).
I take it that you have perused the references I provided and that therefore you are ready for the more precise definition:
My concept of 'Actualizablity' refers to an intermediate state of existence.
I mean it in the following way: According to our current worldview, existence is a binary concept, which means you can assign one of two values to the ontological status of anything
0- it does not exist
1- it exists
end of story
The notion that something could have an ontological status somewhere in between, which is what I mean by "intermediate state of existence", at first sight seems absurd. If one is going to claim such a thing, one better have a darn good reason for doing so. Well, my reason for doing so is that this definition is required to provide a consistent conceptual basis for a framework that seems to make sense out of a lot of the seemingly mysterious parts of QM.
So, does that mean that something could have an ontological status of, say, 0.3? Yep. 0.6? Yep. And that the latter in this sense twice exists "twice as much" as the former? Yep.
I can appreciate how bizarre this must seem to you, but I would argue that a large part of this is just due to the fact that since you were a little kid you have been conditioned to think of existence as binary and you are reading this for the first time. If this idea is generally accepted, future generations will find it a lot less strange. If you doubt this, just ask yourself how strange you find the idea that the earth goes around the sun? Well, today almost nobody finds this strange, even though it is exactly opposite to what our sense experience tells us. That is why if you had suggested that to someone in the 16th century before Copernicus, they would have considered it an extremely bizarre idea.
We actually already have way for quantitatively expressing actualizability, but we have not yet recognized it as such. It is called the Born Rule. I am certain that you don't see the connection, so I will try to be more specific.
First, let me review how the need for "squaring the wave function" arises in my theory. As you should recall, I postulate a symmetry that serves as a mechanism by which the passage of time for an areatime object (its proper time) can be matched or "translated" into the proper time for each actualizable object that traverses an actualizable path in space. Upon a simple transformation, the symmetry can be decomposed into two complex conjugate phase factors which are associated with each actualizable path, and upon appropriate substitution become e^plusminus(iS/hbar). Since the areatime object manifests itself in spacetime in terms of a superposition of all possible actualizable paths, and each is associated with the phase factors, the proper representation of the areatime object in spacetime is the Feynman path integral.
Now, in transforming from the Lagrangian to the Hamiltonian Formulation, the exponent of the phase factor changes but there is still a direct link between it and the phase factor of the Wave function Psi. This implies that Psi only represents the square root of all the spacetime manifestations of the areatime object in a specified region of space (Each phase factor represents 1/2 of the symmetry associated with the angle in the exponent, and 1/2 in the exponent is the square root). To represent it fully, you must multiply it by its complex conjugate, which is to say that you must take the absolute square.
But just as in my Euclidean analogy a point in 2-space manifests itself as an infinite line in 3-space, the representation of the areatime object in terms of the squared wave function extends over all of space (in the non-relativistic limit at least. In the relativistic limit, I believe, it extends only to the boundaries of the light cone originating from where the paths started).
So if you integrate the absolute square of the of the wave function over all of space, you have finally obtained a complete spacetime representation of the underlying areatime object under the Hamiltonian formulation. Under the Born rule, this is set equal to one and interpreted as a probability.
Let us suppose that the the wave function represents a particle. One often finds a statement to the effect that the above reflects the fact that the particle is certain to be somewhere in space. Under my interpretation it means that if a "measurement" is performed everywhere in space, one is certain to detect a particle somewhere (Since a "measurement" is the mechanism by which a spacetime object emerges out of areatime).
At first glance, the two statements might seem equivalent but they are not: The first assumes that there is a particle out there, independent of whether you are trying to measure it, whereas the second does not. Prior to a measurement, you still have merely the representation of an areatime object in spacetime, not a particle in space. You can hopefully see my interpretation comes closest to the Copenhagen interpretation, but unfortunately the CI tends to substitute mysticism for genuine gaps in understanding.
Alright, after this basic review, let me now get down to how the Born rule can be interpreted as a reflection of "partially existing objects" ('actualizable' sounds much better to me) .
Suppose a quantum state in a particular basis consisted of only two eigenstates. Each of the eigenstates has a coefficient which tells you how much it contributes to the total state. In standard QM, the coefficent has a purely operational interpretation. What I mean is this: The coefficient is ideally determined by running measurements on a large number of identically prepared states, and the frequency of the two different possible outcomes is recorded. Since the calculation of the expectation value for the measurement outcome involves both the wave function and its complex conjugate in a product, the coefficients are the square roots of the relative frequencies. For example, if both outcomes are equally likely, then, the coefficients become sqr (1/2)=1/sqr(2). Since, as far as I know, there is in standard QM no "deeper" interpretation of this, the coefficients must be interpreted purely operationally, as mentioned.
In my framework, the coefficients have an ontological interpretation: The coefficients tell you how much each actualizable eigenstate contributes to the total representation of the areatime object in spacetime, and their contribution is a measure of the extent to which the areatime object "fractionally" exists in spacetime in that particular manifestation.
The problem is that when you do 'measurement', you cannot detect "fractionally existing" objects, only ones that fully exist in spacetime, hence the ontological status of the eigenstate you detect upon a measurement must change from some value less than 1 to 1. This is consistent with the fact that if you immediately repeat a measurement, you will obtain the same outcome, and directly connects this to the probability interpretation, since under a the latter, being certain of obtaining a particular result is equal to a probability of 1.
So let us now examine the bizarre notion that one eigenstate could exist "twice as much" as the second. Well, it just means that the coefficient of the first is sqr (2/3) and the coefficient of the second is sqr(1/3). Because both states are associated with some form of existence, in a small number of runs you might measure one or the other in some different proportion, but in the limit in which the number of runs on identically prepared systems goes to infinity you recover the fractional existence of each state. This is essentially the definition of the (frequentist interpretation of) probability.
"Conservation of probability" then is really conservation of existence. Unfortunately, existence is not currently considered a physics concept but I strongly believe it needs to be. As you might imagine, this makes the idea all the more difficult to accept. I had written a paper a while back called "Ontology and the Wave Function Collapse" where I hinted at this problem.
Alright, if you have really read my papers and watched my talk, I hope that you will see how this fits in with everything and have a better understanding of what I mean by actual vs. actualizable, but if you have not done so, I doubt that the above will make much sense to you. "
hope you found this useful,
Armin
Dear Roger,
thank you for your kind comments.
You said:"Actually, I'd say that a 2-DFR square that is not associated with a z coordinate in 3-space is not yet in 3-space. Only after it appears in 3-space does it seem to us "after the fact" that it could have been in any z-plane before it appeared. But, none of these z-planes existed for the 2-DFR square before it appeared. So, we're retroactively putting a continuous column of possible z-plane locations onto the 2-DFR square even though none of these z-planes existed for the square before it appeared. "
Yes, I think this is basically equivalent to the idea I was proposing that should be applied to QM.
You said: "I think this relates to quantum weirdness. For instance, with the cat in Schroedinger's Box, it's assumed that before the box is opened, the cat exists in all possible states. But, I'd say that the cat doesn't exist in the box at all. Once we open the box, this is equivalent to actualizing the cat (causing it to come into existence), and then we go back "after the fact" and say the cat could have been in any possible state. But, none of those states even existed until after we opened the box."
If you are using the cat example metaphorically, then I agree with you. I think that QM is basically a theory of objects in areatime observed by spacetime observers before such objects have emerged in spacetime, and I believe that macroscopic objects like cats are far beyond the limit where the emergence occurs, so I do not think that QM literally applies to the cat example.
I will take a look at the paper you mention in the near future.
All the best,
Armin
[deleted]
Armin
I cook metatheory of nature on last essay contest
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/946
On the base this essay i cook my wrong assumption food
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413
Dear Armin,
i have now begun to read your essay, but i am yet not fully through the text, because at the moment i have very less time and i had to finish some other comments and experimental descriptions.
As soon as possible, i will post again. But for now, our writing style is excellent, combined with deep specialist knowledge.
Greetings,
Stefan
[deleted]
Dear Armin,
i am now half through your essay, but already at this point i am exited about what i read in your essay. Many authors claim "read my essay, your lines of thoughts are somewhat similar to mine". But your promised similarities are such interesting, i will also watch your video on youtube and afterwards give you a detailed feedback!
Best wishes,
Stefan
[deleted]
Dear Armin,
i took a look at your publishing date and found that you published your ideas roughly 2 weeks earlier than i did with my essay. If i had read your essay prior to my publication, i surely had made a reference to your work!
There are several point in your essay which are interesting:
First, it is assumed that the speed of light limit can only be attached to the light in our 3D-spacetime. In lower dimensions, this limit cannot be attached to the dimension, because there simply is no "mass" defined by our standard physical theories.
Second, this could be the reason, why in your areatime, the "time" is of different "duration" than ours in 3D-spacetime - our formulated explicitely, what is connected in areatime, is separated in our spacetime. This fits very well into my own explanation scheme you wrote in my essay.
Third, your idea of relativity for dimensional differences is very engaging.
Fourth, you mention infinity when explaining the z-axis. I alluded in my older posts concerning the last two essay contests, that "infinity" can be thought as something that is not "finite", not "de-finite" and therefore not "defined".
I simply understand infinity as the "undefined", as outlined in my actual essay (the empty containers that haven't yet definite properties - they yet belong to the realm of areatime!).
Armin, you wrote:
"the notion that the concepts of mass in general relativity and in quantum theory are the same; that lower-dimensional objects should necessarily appear
lower-dimensional to us; that an object can either exist or not exit and nothing in between; that our current concept of an observer frame of reference is complete, and that spacetime encompasses all of nature."
The first declaration was outlined in your essay very precisely. The second declaration is very clever and attests you a very bright mind (i have yet to think about the implications of that possibility). The third declaration is one that i too have in mind for a very long time (due to pondering about the fundamentals of "everything"). The fourth statement is in direct congruence with my own lines of reasoning described in my essay.
You wrote:
"What hubris to think that the description of nature in all its richness would
be exhausted just by unifying a few types of interactions in our small corner and calling this a `theory of everything'."
Exactly - if we treat the whole issue with logics and less with emotions! (This does not mean that human nature has NO meaning, it only means that there could be more than one reference frame!).
"But perhaps this is the beauty of approaching an understanding of nature at the deepest level: the objective distinctions between physics and metaphysics (and possibly even mathematics) simply vanish as they have now become dependent on the frame of the observer. For example, to an observer with a 4-DFR, Newtonian mechanics is not physics but mathematical metaphysics. In this
very di erent sense, the metatheory could even be argued to be more uni ed than our current conception of a theory of everything.""
Wow, very intelligent in my humble opinion!!
In my humble opinion you've done a very good job and this deserves a high ranking.
I wish you all the best in the current constest, Armin.
Stefan
Armin,
Yeah, I came out OK... usually hurricanes turn out to be false alarms. On the music front, I have a bunch of recordings from a few years ago on CD's, but I never posted anything online. I particularly liked your Toccata and Fugue, by the the way. Take care,
Ben
Dear Armin,
I have some addition to the idea of separation of quantum mechanics (QM) and general relativity (GR).QM uses wave function, summing of probability of events, quantization of physical values and so on. QM studies amount of similar atomic systems in order to find probability of events. GR can work with a single system and give right answer about it without any probabilities. The methods of both theories are different. On the other hand we can use quantum approach on the other levels of matter, for example, at the level of star. See my essay about the theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter and Similarity of matter levels. Also it is possible to use theory of gravitation in the atomic world. For it we must use Strong gravitational constant. From here I am not sure that QM and GR have mutually exclusive domains of validity.
[deleted]
Dear Stefan,
Thank you so much for your detailed feedback and kind comments. I actually think that most of my ideas are rather very simple, certainly much simpler than many of the sophisticated presentations I have seen here. In part, this may be due to an inherent bias in my worldview, according to which nature at the most fundamental level is simple. While this may or may not be true, it guides how I think about fundamental problems.
There is a specific comment of yours on which I'd like to give feedback. You said: "First, it is assumed that the speed of light limit can only be attached to the light in our 3D-spacetime."
Although I did not directly talk about the speed of light as a limit in this paper, I did say something very similar in the discussion section of my entry to the first FQXi contest. If you are interested, you can have a look, it is topic 329. I also hope to soon post a series of youtube videos in which I present some of my ideas in a more conversational way, beginning with the speed of light invariance.
Again, thank you very much and I also wish you all the best,
Armin