Patterns in the Fabric of Nature by Steven Weinstein

Steven

You wrote "No in‡uences travel faster than light."

How about next cosmological picture of the Universe?

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

Appendix 1 Cosmological picture of one cycle

Big Bang; Present; Big Crunch

c=10^30; c=10^10; c=10^-10

G=10^12; G=10^-8; G=10^-28

h=10^-28; h=10^-28; h=10^-28

alfa =10^-3; 1/ 137; 1

e=0,1 ; e=e ; e=12

That was a really great essay. It was very well-written. I really like your idea of extracting "hidden" variables from the potential itself.

I did something like this in my (not so serious) essay: I limited the maximum allowed energy scale of photon creation and annihilation as E_max = E_p * -2V/c^2, where V is the Newtonian gravitational potential. In this (not so serious) model, there is room for dark photons -- create a photon of energy E at a location where E E_max (the photon cannot be annihilated here). Whether or not this is how reality actually works is a whole different story, of course, but it was fun to try it out. The point was that there was a variable E_max that wasn't really hidden all along, just ignored, and recognizing it allowed for a super-simple mechanism to produce dark photons. Probably too simple to be true, but perhaps still an example of what you were trying to say?

- Shawn

Apologies. My comment came off garbled because I had typed in some less-than symbols outside of LaTeX. Anyway...

That was a really great essay. It was very well-written. I really like your idea of extracting "hidden" variables from the potential itself.

I did something like this in my (not so serious) essay: I limited the maximum allowed energy scale of photon creation and annihilation as E_max = E_p * -2V/c^2, where V is the Newtonian gravitational potential. In this (not so serious) model, there is room for dark photons -- create a photon of energy E at a location where E is less than or equal to E_max, and then let it propagate into a region where E is greater than E_max (the photon cannot be annihilated here). Whether or not this is how reality actually works is a whole different story, of course, but it was fun to try it out. The point was that there was a variable E_max that wasn't really hidden all along, just ignored, and recognizing it allowed for a super-simple mechanism to produce dark photons. Probably too simple to be true, but perhaps still an example of what you were trying to say?

- Shawn

Hi Steven,

Your concluding paragraph starts with "I would conclude by reminding the reader that the sort of nonlocality under discussion in no way violates either the letter or the spirit of relativity." Why is it that you have to defend yourself and reinforce this point?

Why is the philosophical discussion "is there an underlying absolute reality versus the mere ability to model relative reality" so suppressed by the academia? What has the academia to loose?聽

This exact discussion I am trying to stimulate. I really would appreciate an honest answer from you.

Regards

Anton @ ( 聽../topic/1458 聽)

Excellent essay, well argued, explained

Hi Steven,

Just read your essay and really liked it. Once again, you gotta read our essay because we do exactly as you suggest--I know everyone says that :), though it may not be clear until the last third http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1393 . In the attached pubs on dark energy the convergence will be more obvious.

Cheers,

MichaelAttachment #1: FINAL_02649381_29_5_055015.pdfAttachment #2: Stuckey.pdf

Hi Steven

I like your emphasis on the crucial causal role of non-local constraints in physics , and the conservation of those constraints by the dynamics. Fits in well with my world view.

Yours

George Ellis

Dear Dr. Weinstein,

I read your essay on 'Non-local Constraints' with great interest. What you mention in your opening passage is certainly something that has been overlooked in the current theories and it is a Fundamental Problem that we definitely need to address:

You wrote: "non-relativistic and relativistic, classical and quantum - share one assumption: the features of the world at distinct points in space are understood to be independent. Particles may exist anywhere, independent of the location or velocity of other particles".

However, I feel that the present fashion and fascination with 'large-scale structure physics' i.e. cosmological theories (rather hypotheses), is distracting our attention from making the required connections between micro and macro physics in regard to such concepts as 'non-local constraints'. I think it would be more fruitful to look at things more closer to home, on geodynamics and planetary physics for which we have a lot of verifiable data already available.

For instance, when another planet changes its position with respect to the earth, earth's rotation changes (this is most pronounced with the position of Jupiter). On the other hand present theories cannot account for earth's rotation. Rather it says that earth's rotation is the remnant of angular momentum from condensation, after losing most of it in the intervening period due to tidal friction. This draws a picture of a continuous decline of earth's rotation due to tidal friction. Then if there are no non-local couplings with earth's rotation, then how can it be that it fluctuates periodically with the distance and relative velocity of the sun, moon and the planets?

Earth's lunar and solar tides are 'explained' by gravitational attraction. However, Sun's gravitational attraction of the earth is as many times (100 times?) as great as that of the moon. There are two unanswered questions here. How come that the Lunar tide is twice as great as the solar tide (and not 100 times less)? Secondly, when the attraction is on one side, and water is attracted to that side as expected, but how can a bulge also appear on the other side? (Ofcourse, there are concocted explanations like the earth's centre shifting while the water on the other side remaining still in absolute space!!)

Connected to the tidal theory is the theory of precession of the earth's axis. This is a complete sham. It is fabricated by contriving the required answers by pe-fixing the value of the constant called "mechanical ellipcity". All the above problems can be solved, by non-local actions occurring due to the impact of the velocity of a body in one location, on another body in another location. (Unfortunately the sad story is, I have not been able to have these papers published for whatever reasons, except in some conference proceedings).

You wrote:

"I would conclude by reminding the reader that the sort of nonlocality under discussion in no way violates either the letter or the spirit of relativity".

We must remember that Einstein himself did not consider his theories as final.

"No influences travel faster than light".

I would leave this question open in regard to non-local signals - Alain Aspects experiment. However, with the Algorithm of Motion of matter particles, I have developed on the basis of energy-momentum equation, it can be proved that matter particles cannot travel even at c ("the speed of light").

"The idea is simply that there are correlations between spatially separate degrees of freedom, and thus that the fabric of nature is a more richly structured tapestry than we have heretofore believed".

I totally agree with this statement.

Now it is obvious that Non-Local constraints have to a) act through the field and b) the action has to take the form of induction. Although I have not covered non-local action per se in my essay, I have covered a whole bunch of interconnected fundamental problems in it : The open system I have developed, with in flow and outflow from and to the field, accounts how induction works.

If you can find the time, I request you to please have a look at my essay - "A Treatise on Fundamental Problems of Physics" posted on Sep 06 on FQXi.

I quote the list of problems:

"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".

Best regards,

Viraj.

PS. By the way, I live in Toronto, and have been very much impressed with the policies of the Perimeter Institute. I have wanted to take a drive to Waterloo to meet the natural philosophers (academics) there for some time. But I did not know whom to contact. So it never happened. - VF

SAW:

Yours was an interesting and informative essay.. As a newcomer to the FQXi community, I feel few of the "community" grade, or even look at, my essay which approaches the problem very realistically, based on an internal view.. Might you look at it, comment if so inclined, and grade it?

To Seek Unknown Shores

聽聽 http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1409

Thank you

TE

Steven

"a more fundamental theory possessing nonlocal constraints that underlies our current theories."

I agree entirely, and good evidence emerges from a quantum dynamic cause presented in my essay. I also commend Robert H. McEachern's essay with some close parallels to yours. Thank you for a well written view on the constraints of Bells's theorem, consistent with mine but with a very fresh approach.

My approach more purely applies logical structures to kinetics to offer a well evidenced quantum cause (mechanism) for deterministic relativistic effects. I think this proves your view correct as it derives that systems in 'group' motion form a single inertial frame, but as in the hierarchical compound propositions of truth functional logic, within a larger frame, and including smaller local frames. Physically; as in galaxy rotation within the halo and Earth's orbit with the ionospheric shock; equivalent to the boundaries of Maxwell's fields -and down to surface electron fine structure, and single particles. AE; "Mass spatially extended" and Boscovich "Sphere of Influence". (See also Kingsley Nixey essay Fig 2.)

Do you agree with Lee Smolin's views on the limitations of abstraction and re-mapping of 'Newtonian schema' predictions? Whartons essay discusses this and again McEacherns is consistent with this from an information theory view.

In a way this redefines 'Local' as non local up to Cosmic scale. Here the anisotropic CMBR flow of the 'axis of evil' is a non local constraint, which I've found find equivalent to a smaller quasar jet of re-ionized matter from an AGN, with good evidence of it's part in galaxy recycling.

I hope you may read mine and advise if you feel the 'superdeterminism' that emerges might have any resemblance to that which you theoretically predict.

Many thanks and best of luck.

Peter

Hi Steve,

Your essay questions the most fundamental foundation of physics. Forcing phenomena to be local by fiat or axiom or just plain unconsciousness, should be reconsidered.

I did have some trouble with the concept of "properties at a point".....what properties?

The following caught my attention" "it has proven difficult to construct a testable and sensible quantum theory of gravity, suggesting that the relation between gravitation and quantum phenomena might be di§erent from anything heretofore explored."

I did not write my essay to probe the classical-quantum link, but it turned out that way. The classical limit as to "mass increase with velocity" is nicely explained via unexpected limits imposed by quantum phenomena. Take a look at: http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1403 ..........I believe it relates to your point above.

Thanks for your essay,

Don L.

Not only faster than light, as well as slower than light.