Watching the Clock: Quantum Rotation and Relative Time by Alan M. Kadin

Alan,

I may have bit off more than I could eschew!

GPS might not actually be operating 'correctly' and in fact might be dragging things around unnecessarily due to indirect couplings over the internet and geolocation IP databases...

Stephen

You may or may not be correct. But attempting to 'solve' The GPS 'issue' misses the point. Timing devices are not time, they tell the time. Physicaal existence (as knowable to us-and this is science not religion) can only occur in a sequence of discrete existent states with no form of indfiniteness or alteration therein. So the issue becomes how does that work in practice and how does this impact on certain well known 'theories'.

Paul

Hi Alan,

In my opinion this is the best essay in this edition, congratulations. It is nice to finally meet someone who prefers physical intuition rather than pure abstract formalism. Nowadays that approach is very rare.

You claim that "NQP provides a unified basis for classical and modern physics on all scales. All matter and energy are comprised of primary relativistic vector fields (electrons, photons, quarks, etc.) which form into coherent wave packets in real space, similar to solitons." I have never used the soliton notion but only a more general wavepacket. The reason is that the soliton is to restricted e.g it will never merge. Moreover I start from GR and not SR (I do not need the Einstein equations but the idea that a force field is a manifestation of spacetime geometry) and try to apply that idea to all known fundamental "forces".

Despite the differences I could not criticize your essay because generally it supports mine and vice versa. The idea of real wave instead of an abstract one is the base. Your "true quantum waves are only present at the bottom of the hierarchy" (taken from your publication http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.5794) comes together with "Quantum waves are not universal aspects of all particles, but rather provide a way to quantize the primary fields". If I understand well the outcome may mean e.g. that gravity is not a fundamental but emergent force?

Our ideas have a lot of important issues in common e.g. no need for dark matter or energy, no wave-particle duality, no Copenhagen interpretation and the most important scale invariance. However in my case the scale invariance means an universal metric (that I am looking for and it is not FLRW or Einstein metric as they are not really universal).

The Schrödinger's and Einstein's ideas of true waves were similar but they were too early in history and their visions were burdened with the yoke of the ether and another initial problems and eventually destroyed for barely 90 years.

In my essay I have tried to focus more on the contest subject so I have not described fully my concept and it can be found in references. I have created the prediction and the experiment proposal based on the spacetime geometry.

As I have mentioned I understand that our ideas are far from identical but as Einstein said "fundamental ideas play the most essential role in forming a physical theory. Books on physics are full of complicated mathematical formulae. But thought and ideas, not formulae, are the beginning of every physical theory. The ideas must later take the mathematical form of a quantitative theory, to make possible the comparison with experiment."

I have rated your essay 10 so you shall take the first place at the moment (with Community Rating 7)! Congratulations.

I have rated you with 10, but you do not have 7 and only 5,3. Probably the method of rating calculation is more complicated?

Alan,

It's good to see you present another perspective on your theory. We agree in many particulars, but not all. I found your discussion of linearly polarized single photons intriguing. You say:

"This linearly polarized light beam is attenuated until the very low count rate corresponds to discrete single photons. But can one really distinguish that from counterrotating photon pairs?"

Are you ignoring the 'herald' photons, or are you suggesting that, even with the herald's trigger, another photon accompanies the heralded photon?

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

I am sorry Alan, the rating should be kept confidential. I was too enthusiastic.

.Alan, I can agree with much that you write, I have raised a simple information-relativity paradox hoping that it will become equally legendary as the 20th century paradoxes in physics.

Recent results in quantum communication, i.e. entangled photons, are in fact an embarrassment to the relativists. You must also remember sitting in an enclosed elevator ones view becomes rather incestuous. I am looking forward to exiting change in science it will come one way or another.

Alan, nice essay. I'd just like to point out that current technology is capable of determining whether black holes are possible. Unless there is something seriously wrong with the scientific establishment, there should be some resolution to the question of black holes by the end of the decade. The missions proposed will be as historic as Eddington's nearly a century ago, whatever the outcome. We live in interesting times.

For example, the Laser Astrometric Test Of Relativity (LATOR) would be capable of duplicating Eddington's measurement of deflection of starlight due to the Sun except with much greater accuracy using laser interferometry. The predicted accuracy is enough to measure the second order term in the expansion of your equation (5) which would be negative in the case of general relativity, and positive with twice the magnitude for the metric in your essay. Yet another choice is the exponential metric which has a positive second order term equal in magnitude to that of general relativity and is an approach I think you would find interesting. In my last year's essay there is a novel derivation based on a modern reformulation of Newtonian gravitational potential energy. -Colin

Dear Alan,

You wrote "the concept of absolute Newtonian time is contrary to physical evidence". While I am inclined to again appreciate some of your heretical thoughts, I would like to know what evidence you referred to.

It happens I share Paul's view: We may blame Einstein for adopting from Poincaré or perhaps his teacher Alfred Potier a principle of synchronization that was only correct on condition there is no relative motion between emitter A and reflector B. Otherwise it destroys the symmetry and synchrony between A and B. Einstein made the next mistake when he calculated with c+v and c-v and arrived at the unfounded conclusion that two events that are simultaneous if seen from one coordinate system must not be considered simultaneous if seen from a coordinate system in relative motion to it. Actually, it is only reasonable to attribute the velocity of light to the distance between the position of the emitter at the moment of emission and the position of the detector at the moment of detection divided by the time of flight.

Regards,

Eckard

Alan,

A very enjoyable read, not just as it's well written and argued but because I agree with not only your thesis but most of the detail. In may ways our essays firmly support each other as they have many basics in common, founded on the power of orbital angular momentum (OAM).

Your approach is well balanced between the theoretic and physical. If anything mine errs more to the physical and experimental proofs, but also delves into some more fundamental limits on mathematical applications to QM. I think you may understand and like my 'test' of OAM and the principles discussed for resolving power in the EPR paradox. I suspect and fear the resolution may be beyond the power of many others to follow. I greatly look forward to your comments.

Best of luck in the contest. I think the essay certainly deserves a much higher score that it so far carries. A sad indictment on something or other!

Best wishes

Peter Jackson

Dear Alan,

I think it is important to look for a consistent picture of Quantum Mechanics, in particular of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), how do you do it. But I think, too, that every attempt to solve the wave-particle duality in favor of a wave-like or particle-like picture does not work.

You may be successful to a certain degree but at the end you will be faced with unsolvable problems, because wave-particle duality is a semi-fundamental feature of reality, which reflects a deeper still unseen logical duality of the ultimate foundational background (i.e. the quantum vacuum).

As QED is a theory in that special relativity is built into each of its equations, special relativity is one of its crucial points. Einstein's theory determines essentially our view and understanding of Lorentz symmetry.

But if we go back to the time when Einstein formulated special relativity, we can see, he tried to explain away the wave-particle duality that was already touched by this theory.

According to A. Pais it is indeed a very striking characteristic of Einstein's early scientific writing that he left relativity theory separate from quantum theory, even on occasions where it would have been natural and straightforward to connect them. This separation is already evident in his paper on special relativity. It contains the transformation law for the energy E of a light beam, which Einstein commented in an unusual way: 'It is remarkable that the energy and the frequency of a light complex vary with the state of motion of the observer in accordance with the same law.'

This statement is unusual insofar as Einstein had completed his light quantum paper concerning just this issue three months earlier. It was thus a good opportunity to refer to the quantum relation between energy and frequency of light, which must have been quite fresh in his mind. But Einstein did not use this opportunity...

But there is an aspect in special relativity that has been overlooked since 1905 - an aspect, that is of fundamental importantce. If light is really of dual nature, one would expect, that the speed of light c is also of dual nature, which means, the speed of light c should exist in a wave-like and in a particle-like way - an assumption which I am calling the "Dual Parametrization of c".

But if we consider special relativity, in particular its second postulate, we can easily see, in Einstein's theory the speed of light c is only defined in a wave-like manner - without any (explicit) reference to a particle-like supplement.

And just this dual nature of c can be expressed in a "space-time-picture" whose Lorentz symmetry differs significantly from the relativistic version.

I am convinced that this new space-time-picture allows us to avoid many problems caused by the usual Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics.

Though you are explicitly relating to the relativistic spacetime, your picture of a rotating vector field could possibly be a part of this new dualistic space-time-picture. Actually it is composed of a circle (= wave-like part of c) and a square (= particle-like part of c). In other words: It looks very much like a MANDALA, which is in its essence a specific vectorfield.

Dear Alan M. Kadin

You've found our common problems : "The foundations of modern physics are neither consistent nor unified".But if the conclusion is : "The New Quantum Paradigm provides a logically consistent foundation for all of physics,and reestablishes the classical guiding principles of local reality and determinism."can be enough for us to solve all the problems of the theory on reality platform?what is the specific answers for problems on our topics ?

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802