The topic for this round of essays is broad; one could submit an essay on home repair and have a good argument that the essay was within topic. How can one have a point mass with angular momentum? Spin might not be the same as macroscopic angular momentum, but spin behaves like angular momentum. We have a possible answer - swirls instead of dots. In over-simplified terms, Wheeler's bits (or dots) are really wheels, the whole premise of "it from bit or bit from it" has started out on the wrong foot. This New Quantum Paradigm (NQP) model seems to solve the issue of locality where quantum mechanics and relativity seem to conflict.

I like the idea going back to the fundamentals and this clear and breezy writing style gets the point across well. The author does a very good job at keeping this essay accessible to as many general science readers as possible. The first year of Physics is all one needs to keep up with the math.

The problem with this model is that it is not relative. All rotating vectors are related by just the addition of a constant to some master clock. What is the motional frame and location of this master clock? This model uses absolute (not relative) time.

Jeff Schmitz

    Dear Dr. Kadin -

    I find your ideas of great interest.

    The gist of your dissertation is that the inner space of quanta can be projected across the Cosmos: 'Time is not a dimension imposed from without; instead, it is a parameter for characterizing the local evolution of quantum fields.'

    This parameter then becomes extended across the Cosmos: 'Quantum mechanics describes physics on the microscopic level, and must provide the basis for macroscopic physics.'

    I agree with this, but like you I find that 'the transition from indeterministic microphysics to deterministic macrophysics has always been obscure.'

    Or, to put it another way - how do the quantum fields add up to a Cosmos?

    I deduce in my essay that the Cosmos must be divided into Zones - wherein only one Zone (the space-time continuum) exhibits the fixed speed of light with which we are familiar; this speed then varies (as you describe) - only it does so beyond this Zone, where the continuum unravels.

    I reach this conclusion by first showing how such sub-divisions occur within Particles, and then show how this allows quanta to aggregate into a Cosmos with which they correlate to produce all perceived phenomena.

    In your conclusion, you come down in favor of 'It to Bit' - but, without Zones within which parameters are less dimensional, the consistency between quanta and Cosmos you describe suggests rather strongly that we can know all of reality at some point.

    Can the mind ever be so perfectly contiguous with the field of observation? I say no: We have to consider evolution, which continually demonstrates that at any time there is a great deal we do not know - and that this must surely continue to be our condition, the alternative being an eventual 'perfect match' between Observer and Cosmos, which seems unlikely.

    I bring this up because the idea of a correlation between Bit and It arises - rather than the notion of simply choosing one over the other: I mean, of course, a correlation that maintains flux between Bit and It over the evolutionary time span. The contiguity of the human mind with the Cosmos always has certain limits.

    This ties in with my concept of Zones, and also means that we should beware of projecting space-time parameters on to quanta, and vice versa, without accounting for Zones of varying dimensionality, and for the continuous effects of evolution.

    For this reason among others I am emboldened to think that my essay might add some complementary elements to your paradigm.

    I have, of course, rated your essay - and very much look forward to hearing from you.

    All the best, Dr. Kadin!

      Dear Alan,

      I just read your essay and I have some serious questions:

      1) Does the background vector field define a preferred rest frame?

      Since your framework is explicitly relativistic, the answer would have to be be no, but then I have difficulty seeing how the frame in which the rotators are all at rest is not preferred over all others. Indeed I come away with the impression that in your framework, motion (other than that associated with the rotators) is an illusion and that everything is really at rest, but just "pops" in and out so to make it appear as if it is moving in space.

      2) Do the rotators define a preferred plane orientation in space?

      It seems that you would want the answer to be "no" for otherwise isotropy of space is broken with concomitant consequences for angular momentum conservation. But then I have a difficulty visualizing the rotator. Is the plane of the rotator relative to the observer? What if you have multiple observers observing an object from different angles? Do you have multiple rotators at the same location but rotating along different directions? This is very fuzzy to me.

      3) What does the amplitude of the rotator signify?

      I missed a physical interpretation of the rotator, and related to this question is whether it is possible to define a rotator density. Is this possible and if so, how does it relate to the amplitude?

      4) How do you get the Born Rule out of the framework for elementary and composite particles such that it takes the differences in your framework into account?

      You mentioned the Born Rule in your essay but then went right on to other aspects of QM, so that I am not at all clear how you get the Born Rule out of your framework.

      5) Do the rotators only rotate in one direction?

      As you know, from the Born rule one can deduce that the complex conjugate of the quantum state is physically on the same footing as the state itself. How do you account for that in your theory? Also, I am not sure on this but it seems to me that if you have two observers between whom the rotator field that describes a particle is located, they would have to give opposite descriptions of the rotational direction.

      6) How does your framework account for contextuality?

      If the spin values of elementary particles are already determined before a measurement, then this would seem to violate Kochen Specker, or the simpler analogues like the Mermin magic square. How do you avoid this?

      7) Why should nature be characterized just in the way by the model you describe as opposed to some other?

      I guess this is more of a metaphysical question, and I should admit that I have a philosophical prejudice that at bottom nature is fundamentally simple and intelligible to us. Your model may unify some aspects of nature that are currently not describable in a unified way, but frankly it seems no more intuitive or conceptually intelligible than quantum mechanics to me. The questions that come to my mind are: Why rotators? What are they made of? Why a particular frequency or amplitude that characterizes each (as opposed to a distribution)? Can an individual rotator be isolated?

      There are also a few statements that I think will be regarded as controversial by some physicists:

      "In the orthodox Copenhagen

      interpretation, the quantum wave is instead a statistical distribution of point particles"

      My understanding is that the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation only regards post-measurement states as point particles. If it is characterizable as a quantum wave, it is a pre-measurement state.

      "Similar Hilbert space product states provide the basis for quantum entanglement, whereby a measurement on one particle in a pair of coupled particles immediately changes the physical state of the other particle"

      I think that this statement is stronger than what has been experimentally shown, and though some physicists do believe that this is what entanglement amounts to, I think it is a misunderstanding.

      All the experiments license us to claim is that if we perform a set of measurements on spacelike separated entangled states we will, after we bring the measurement results together, notice that they were correlated with each other.

      The difference between your statement and mine is subtle but real. To see this consider just that in SR the time ordering for spacelike separated events is frame-dependent. Your statement can then only be true if there was an absolute frame in which one measurement event came before the other, or if retroactive causal effects are admitted, both highly dubious. But instead of thinking that this means that standard QM is wrong, I think it is better to just stick to what the experiment licenses us to claim: If A performs a measurement on a, she is only entitled to claim that if B makes a measurement on b, he will find a correlated result. This does not imply that A's measurement of a changed the state of b before B's measurement of b (your statement).

      The difference is that B still needs to perform a measurement in order to establish the correlation whereas your statement implies that this is unnecessary. In my view, the necessity that B needs to make a measurement is quite consistent with the orthodox view that in essence, the observer "creates" the particle with a measurement. Before B makes a measurement *there is no particle* which subsumes the fact that there is no correlated particle.

      Of course, this does not answer the question of how the correlations are enforced for spacelike separated events. This is regarded as an open question, but I'd like to mention that I just gave a talk on this where at least it seems to me that the framework on which I have been working on suggests a simple answer, and the talk slides (a quick read) are available online:

      http://vixra.org/pdf/1306.0097v2.pdf

      Lastly, allow me to state that I found your essay very clearly written. I think that answering the questions above will go a long way toward persuading others of the merits of your idea.

      All the best,

      Armin

        Armin,

        Thank you for taking the time to read my essay, and for your detailed set of questions. As you know, this presents a neo-classical picture, going back to the very beginning, and reconstructing quantum mechanics on a consistent realistic wave basis. Much of this was described in my essay last year, "The Rise and Fall of Wave-Particle Duality" . Let me respond to your questions individually:

        1) Does the background vector field define a preferred rest frame?

        Consider a circularly polarized EM wave packet. This corresponds to rotating vector fields in a region of space, moving at c. This has no rest frame, but if one uses a dispersion relation appropriate for a de Broglie wave, the group velocity is less than c, and one can Lorentz-transform to the rest frame, in exactly the same way as for a massive particle. Here, in the rest frame, one has a localized vector field rotating at mc^2/h.

        2) Do the rotators define a preferred plane orientation in space?

        In the rest frame, the spin axis could point in any direction, at random. (The figure is made for easy drawing and visualization.) If one were to Lorentz-transform this random distribution to a wave packet moving near c, the spin axis would form a narrow distribution around the direction of motion, similar to circular polarization of a TEM wave for a photon.

        3) What does the amplitude of the rotator signify?

        The amplitude is exactly analogous to that of an E-field in a TEM wave. Its square gives the density of energy, momentum, and angular momentum. There is no statistical significance.

        4) How do you get the Born Rule out of the framework for elementary and composite particles such that it takes the differences in your framework into account?

        The Born rule derives the statistical distribution of results of a given quantum measurement, so I assume you are really asking how one can obtain a statistical distribution from a deterministic picture without additional "hidden variables". I view a quantum measurement as the result of a dynamic interaction between a given quantum state and an instrument that leads to a reconfiguration of the quantum state, i.e., a true quantum transition. The detailed dynamics of this transition requires a complete formulation of the self-interaction, which is not yet part of the theory. However, I would suggest that a set of uncontrolled initial conditions (e.g., relative phase angles) of the quantum system and perturbation/instrument should be sufficient to yield the expected statistical distribution.

        5) Do the rotators only rotate in one direction?

        The rotation of the fields constitutes angular momentum (as it does classically for Maxwell's equations), corresponding to quantized spin. Rotation in the reverse direction corresponds to opposite spin.

        6) How does your framework account for contextuality?

        If I understand correctly, contextuality refers to the fact that the results of a measurement depend on the measuring instrument. I would assert that the quantum state is defined both before and after the measurement (being a distributed field in both cases), but that the measurement process can change the state of the system. So I don't see a conflict here.

        7) Why should nature be characterized just in the way by the model you describe as opposed to some other?

        The universal belief for much of the past century is that a consistent realistic picture is impossible. By presenting a specific counterexample for examination, I am challenging that belief. Second, I believe that simple is good, and this is much simpler than the conventional picture. Finally, the fact that I can obtain something that looks like General Relativity out of a realistic quantum picture seems quite remarkable. They are generally believed to be fundamentally incompatible.

        Thank you again for your interest. I also read your very interesting essay, and will post some questions on your essay page later.

        Alan

        Alan,

        This is quite an interesting entry. It really does seem to peel away the math and dig up the physics.

        My answer to the time problem is that we experience it as sequence from past to future and physics validates this by treating it as a measure of interval, but the actual process is dynamic change which turns future into past. We are not traveling some dimension from yesterday to tomorrow. tomorrow becomes yesterday. There is only what is physically real and that is what we experience as present. So every action is its own clock, but they all exist as a dynamic space.

        Of course, as individual points of reference, we still experience it as sequence, but then we still experience the sun moving across the sky.

        You know this all far better than I, but what you are arguing seems to fit what I'm seeing, so you have my vote.

          Dear Alan,

          Thank you for your patient reply. You have provided a satisfactory answer to most of my questions, except for two.

          On question 1) I am still somewhat confused. If a wave packet that moves less than c is composed of waves "comprised" (for lack of a better expression) of rotator fields that moves at c, then this implies that the length-contraction/time dilation effects must apply to them (Your framework is meant to be consistent with SR, correct?). Are the rotators perpendicular to the direction of motion? What about the time dilation effect on the period of rotation? I understand that in the standard relativistic quantum picture, the proper time must be replaced by an affine parameter for photons. Do you need to do something similar?

          On question 6) I wonder whether permitting a measurement to change the state of an system will be enough to comply with the constraints imposed by contextuality. If you haven't already, you may wish to take a look at two papers: one by Peres "Two simple proofs of the Kochen-Specker Theorem" and the other (more important) one by Mermin "Simple unified form for the major no-hidden variable theorems" to check for yourself.

          I hope you found my questions useful. Good luck with your framework.

          All the best,

          Armin

          "

          John,

          Thank you for your comments. Simplicity and clarity are what I am aiming for. The intuitive pictures provide the heart of physics; the math just provides a quantitative description of these pictures. Somehow, this principle has gotten inverted in much of modern physics.

          Thank you also for your vote. I need just a few more good ratings to make it into the "Top Forty".

          Alan

          Jeff,

          Thank you for your careful reading of my essay, and for your interest. Regarding time, I don't believe that my model requires a master clock as you suggest. This is all compatible with special relativity, so one can view this from any reference frame. The presence of a gravitational potential slows down all of the clocks in a given location by the same factor, creating a slowed "proper time". For this reason, if all measurements are inside a closed elevator (a la Einstein), one cannot tell that one is in a gravitational potential. But distant measurements outside the potential can measure the changes. This is a subtle distinction, but quite important.

          Alan

          Dear Alan M. Kadin:

          I am an old physician, and I don't know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics, but after the common people your discipline is the one that uses more the so called "time" than any other. May be you can find something of your interest, related with your undergraduate thesis on hidden variables in quantum mechanics.

          I am sending you a practical summary, so you can easy decide if you read or not my essay "The deep nature of reality".

          I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don't understand it, and is not just because of my bad English). Hawking, "A brief history of time" where he said , "Which is the nature of time?" yes he don't know what time is, and also continue saying............Some day this answer could seem to us "obvious", as much than that the earth rotate around the sun....." In fact the answer is "obvious", but how he could say that, if he didn't know what's time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be "obvious", I think that with this adjective, he is implying: simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn't explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure "time" since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure "time" from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental "time" meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls "time" and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the "time" experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the "time" creators and users didn't. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" pg. 354 "Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought" he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about "time" he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect "time", he does not use the word "time" instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or "motion", instead of saying that slows "time". FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that "time" was a man creation, but he didn't know what man is measuring with the clock.

          I insist, that for "measuring motion" we should always and only use a unique: "constant" or "uniform" "motion" to measure "no constant motions" "which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of "motion" whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to "motion fractions", which I call "motion units" as hours, minutes and seconds. "Motion" which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using "motion"?, time just has been used to measure the "duration" of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand "motion" is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

          With my best whishes

          Héctor

            Hector,

            Thank you for your interest in my essay and how it deals with time. I'm not sure that I fully understand what you are saying, but if you are saying that time really follows from the motion of matter (rather than the other way around), then I think we are in general agreement. I am suggesting that one may parameterize particle trajectories in terms of rotation frequencies of fundamental quantum fields.

            Incidentally, I also have Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" on my bookshelf, and I found the passage you mentioned on page 364 (not 354) in my (very old) edition. Further down on the page, he says, "The formation of the concept of the material object must precede our concepts of time and space". That seems to be more "Bit from It" than "It from Bit".

            I will go back and read your essay more carefully.

            Alan

            John,

            Thank you for your careful reading of my essay. Let me see if I understand your comments correctly. It is well known that temperature is not an attribute of a single isolated atom; it is an average property of a large number of interacting atoms. So are you saying that in a similar way, space-time is not an attribute of an isolated quantum system, but requires a large number of interacting quantum systems? If so, I think I agree.

            Alan

            Dear Alan,

            I have been reading your essay for 2 days because your serious dense work of a lifetime requires serious attention. I got the feeling that we are using different terms and terminology to describe similar idea. Your idea that everything comes from "this rotating vector field" is very profound and fantastically beyond belief. You wrote: "...from New Quantum Paradigm (NQP). There is no point particle; mass m, energy E, momentum p , and spin S are all associated with this rotating vector field. (a) Electron field rotating at frequency f = mc2/h, with uniform phase angle , and total spin S = /2 perpendicular to the plane, corresponding to electron at rest. (b) Electron moving at velocity v, showing phase gradient d/dx = p/ and de Broglie wavelength  = h/p from Lorentz transformation. The rotating vectors also constitute local clocks that define time, with a frequency that is modified by particle velocity and by a gravitational potential." In KQID, everything emerges from one singularity Qbit Multiverse that projects Einstein complex coordinates( Einstein triangles similar to Pythagorean triangles) on the event horizon of our Multiverse as Minkowski Null geodesics Lm in zeroth dimension that instantaneously project those coordinates in the bulk ψτ(iLx,y,z, Lm) as the KQID relativity Multiverse. In brief: All things are one Qbit. As a bonus, KQID calculates the dark energy of our Multiverse and how many bits are they in our Multiverse. I believe the only theory out there that has done so.

            I agreed that i (√- 1) is not an imaginary number but real number just like 123. Agreed that the Ψ is real physical entity and if I may say that in KQID framework, each ψ is ψI(CTE) as the bits-waves function of consciousness (C), time (T) and energy (E) which is equal to A+S. Thus, as you wrote below: "This transformation from a real wave F(x,t) to a complex wave  = exp(i0t)F contributed to the widespread belief that the matter wave was an abstract mathematical representation of information about a quantum system, rather than a true physical wave in real space. However, the complex down-converted wave  contains the same information as the original real physical wave F, in exact analogy to radio communication signals." Fantastic! I concur.

            You are a bold thinker extraordinaire! You defies the conventional genius thinkers like Susskind, Wilczek and Hooft. You wrote: "But this picture also indicates that black holes are a mathematical artifact not present in the real universe." In KQID, the black hole is one accumulated S qbit that has zero bit since the H is infinity because this singularity S qbits is in quantum superposition thus it is everywhere and nowhere simultaneously according to my equation of the KQID Fourth Law of Multiverse derived from Shannon's entropy: α = I/1 + H^2 = 0. In brief. A black hole is a zero bit located everywhere and nowhere in zeroth dimension of Lm. But it is within our Multiverse! Here we agree in general but I say a black hole is as real as ψ function as you agreed as physical and real. In KQID, a black hole is a wave function: ψI(CTE).

            I need to read again you work for several times and have a discussion online or in person.

            Let us continue our discussion later if you desire. I rate this essay fantastically great serious work. Please if I may request you to comment and rate my essay Child of Qbit in time.

            My honor,

            Leo KoGuan

            Dear Alan,

            I have been reading your essay for 2 days because your serious dense work of a lifetime requires serious attention. I got the feeling that we are using different terms and terminology to describe similar idea. Your idea that everything comes from "this rotating vector field" is very profound and fantastically beyond belief. You wrote: "...from New Quantum Paradigm (NQP). There is no point particle; mass m, energy E, momentum p , and spin S are all associated with this rotating vector field. (a) Electron field rotating at frequency f = mc2/h, with uniform phase angle , and total spin S = /2 perpendicular to the plane, corresponding to electron at rest. (b) Electron moving at velocity v, showing phase gradient d/dx = p/ and de Broglie wavelength  = h/p from Lorentz transformation. The rotating vectors also constitute local clocks that define time, with a frequency that is modified by particle velocity and by a gravitational potential." In KQID, everything emerges from one singularity Qbit Multiverse that projects Einstein complex coordinates( Einstein triangles similar to Pythagorean triangles) on the event horizon of our Multiverse as Minkowski Null geodesics Lm in zeroth dimension that instantaneously project those coordinates in the bulk ψτ(iLx,y,z, Lm) as the KQID relativity Multiverse. In brief: All things are one Qbit. As a bonus, KQID calculates the dark energy of our Multiverse 1.523 x 10-153Pm/Pv. and how many bits are they in our Multiverse 6.3 x 10^153 bits. I believe the only theory out there that has done so.

            I agreed that i (√- 1) is not an imaginary number but real number just like 123. Agreed that the Ψ is real physical entity and if I may say that in KQID framework, each ψ is ψI(CTE) as the bits-waves function of consciousness (C), time (T) and energy (E) which is equal to A+S. Thus, as you wrote below: "This transformation from a real wave F(x,t) to a complex wave  = exp(i0t)F contributed to the widespread belief that the matter wave was an abstract mathematical representation of information about a quantum system, rather than a true physical wave in real space. However, the complex down-converted wave  contains the same information as the original real physical wave F, in exact analogy to radio communication signals." Fantastic! I concur.

            You are a bold thinker extraordinaire! You defies the conventional genius thinkers like Susskind, Wilczek and Hooft. You wrote: "But this picture also indicates that black holes are a mathematical artifact not present in the real universe." In KQID, the black hole is one accumulated S qbit that has zero bit since the H is zero (0)because this singularity graviton S qbits is in quantum superposition thus it is everywhere and nowhere simultaneously according to my equation of the KQID Fourth Law of Multiverse derived from Shannon's entropy: with coefficient ratio α = I/1 + H^2 = 1 or perfect efficiency every time. singularity photon A qbits has only coefficient ratio = 1 In brief. A black hole is a zero bit located everywhere and nowhere in zeroth dimension of Lm. But it is within our Multiverse! Here we agree in general but I say a black hole is as real as ψ function as you agreed as physical and real. In KQID, a black hole is a wave function: ψI(CTE). In short, KQID prescribes both photon A and graviton S have zero bit or H = 0.

            I need to read you work for several more times and have a discussion online or in person.

            Let us continue our discussion later if you desire. I rate this essay fantastically great serious work. Please if I may request you to comment and rate my essay Child of Qbit in time.

            My honor,

            Leo KoGuan

            view post as summary

              Leo,

              Thank you for your reading my essay, and for your favorable comments. I will take another look at your essay.

              Alan

              Dear Alan, my apology posting it in your thread by mistake that supposed to be posted in my thread. I removed it accordingly. Best, Leo KoGuan

              Dear Alan

              Now I understand why you agree with me that common sense and intuition are very important in science. I read your insightful essay that clarifies most of the mysteries in QM. I'm in agreement with your view and I'd like to congratulate you for your work. I think, I understand you well because I have dedicated a lot of time to study the foundations of relativity.

              Contemporary physics has been built with two pillars, i.e, QM and relativity. Some years ago I decided to study the foundations of these theories. I started with relativity and after some time I realized that the notion of space, according to this theory, was in disagreement with intuition. In the current view, space is conceived as an empty container which in turn is filled with particles and fields. However, I arrived at the opposite conclusion. That space is a material medium and that fields and particles are states and excitations of this medium. The fact that the vacuum has non-zero magnetic permeability and electric permittivity strongly suggests that the vacuum is a paramagnetic medium, in contradiction to the customary view.

              If you remember my essay at the end I argue that the vacuum is not mere geometry as relativity claims but a material medium. This view paves the way to introduce the notion of solitons as the fundamental realities above waves and particles. As you suggest in your work, particles can be seen as solitons but you must be aware that solitons require a material nonlinear medium which I identify as the material vacuum itself. In my previous essay, I made clear that the view that space as a material continuos medium implies the existence of a privilege frame. I also discuss that the existence of a privilege frame is not at variance with the principle of relativity provided that we understood this principle as the invariance of all physical laws and not as the exclusion of privilege frames. So, I think that the notion of space as a medium is not compatible with the notion of space in relativity. It follows that it would be contradictory to introduce solitons which require a medium into GR that rejects the space as a medium. As you can see this is also heresy.

              I still have some questions about your work. I wonder how can you derived GR from your formulation and how you explain entanglement. I would be glad if you could show me the calculations of the derivation of GR. You also argue that the photons at the moment of the emission already have their state well determined. Then, why experiments seems to show that the state of the photons is only determined after a measurement is carried out in one of the photons, just as the conventional QM predicts (spooky action at a distance). I mean, according to your NQP how shall we interpret the entanglement experiments?

              Best regards

              Israel

                Israel,

                Thank you for your careful reading of my essay, and for your questions. As you can tell, this is a work-in-progress. Some of the key aspects are still being developed, such as the nonlinear self-interaction that turn a continuous field into a discrete particle with quantized spin. This analysis started out as a way to go back to the beginning and understand QM (avoiding the paradoxes), but GR falls out naturally, from an unconventional point of view. A gravitational potential pervades the universe, and this reduces the natural frequencies of all quantum oscillators (from a shift in the rest mass). This in turn slows time locally, and also reduces the speed of light - but you can't tell that by local (uncorrected) measurements. I have not yet carried out a complete formal derivation, but I believe that this will reproduce conventional GR to first order. Further, a self-consistent treatment of the frequency shift leads to the surprising conclusion that event horizons and gravitational singularities are mathematical artifacts of an incomplete theory, and do not exist in nature. I am surprised that I have not received any comments on my essay page on this remarkable observation.

                With regard to quantum entanglement, I assert that this also does not exist. Entanglement follows in QM from nonlocality which is built into the Hilbert space formalism of composite states. As I describe in my essay, I don't see the physical basis for this. Now clearly, the careful experiments on photons are measuring something, but the interpretation in terms of nonlocality is strongly model-dependent. I cannot, as yet, explain these results, but I will be working on that. Further, I have suggested an experiment that tests whether a linearly polarized single photon truly exists.

                Best wishes in the contest, although right now both of us appear to be below threshold. If you are interested in discussing this further, please send an email to the address given at the top of my essay.

                Alan

                Dear John,

                I have similar observation. KQID is satisfies this simple factual logic that A, anti-entropic bits-waves function of time-future exchanges bits with S, entropic bits-waves of time-past that creates and distributes E, energetic bits-waves function of time-present that maximizing the flow of , minimizing the low of S and optimizing he low of E. You wrote above: "My answer to the time problem is that we experience it as sequence from past to future and physics validates this by treating it as a measure of interval, but the actual process is dynamic change which turns future into past. We are not traveling some dimension from yesterday to tomorrow. tomorrow becomes yesterday. There is only what is physically real and that is what we experience as present. So every action is its own clock." Really excellent statement. I will look at your essay "What is Information" and I shall comment rate it accordingly.

                Dear Alan, you got my vote. Your essay is far underrated. Yours is really fantastically profound essay. I wish you the best.

                Best wishes,

                Lo KoGuan

                Alan,

                I'm curious if your work provides any new insights on superconductivity and the related quantum computation.

                I hope your essay will make into the next round and get a serious review by the board. In analogy to all these proposals (past, present and future) of alternative computer technologies to replace semiconductor transistors for computational evices, any new physics theory so broad like yours will always an impossible fight. You need to have enough time, people, and resources for working out all the details perfectly.

                Best wishes,

                Brian

                  Dear Alan

                  Thanks for your reply. I understand that the quest for a unify theory is a titanic task. What you have achieved so far is a great headway. Indeed, I agree that there is still work to be done in order to deprive QM from its "mysteries", but I believe it is just a matter of time. Some other people are working in the same direction.

                  You :such as the nonlinear self-interaction that turn a continuous field into a discrete particle with quantized spin.

                  do you mean the process of creation and annihilation of particles within the context of NQP?

                  You: A gravitational potential pervades the universe, and this reduces the natural frequencies of all quantum oscillators...

                  In the cosmological model of the universe applying Newtonian gravity, it is assumed that the universe has a gravitational potential which leads to the a simplified version of the Friedman equations. Are you referring to this?

                  You: This in turn slows time locally, and also reduces the speed of light.

                  In 1911 Einstein knew that the bending of light was due to a change in the speed of light. Actually, he derived the equation (1) that you show for weak gravitational potentials. I agree with this, the speed of light is not really a constant.

                  You: I have not yet carried out a complete formal derivation, but I believe that this will reproduce conventional GR to first order.

                  Well, Edwin Klingman has also worked out something similar and he also claims that he could get GR to first order. But as I mentioned before, I think GR is not compatible with QFT nor with the notion of particles as solitons. If you could derive it, that would be great but I wouldn't worry about it.

                  You: leads to the surprising conclusion that event horizons and gravitational singularities are mathematical artifacts of an incomplete theory, and do not exist in nature.

                  This is a very important observation, although, I must confess that I don't fully understand why you conclude that. Are you saying that the Schwarzschild metric is not correct. What do yo mean b "an incomplete theory"? What theory are you referring to, GR? In what sense do you mean is incomplete? I think it is difficult (I would say impossible) to persuade the mainstream that black holes doesn't exist. Most people now believe that almost every galaxy has a black hole in its core.

                  You: I cannot, as yet, explain these results, but I will be working on that.

                  It would be remarkable if you could find an explanation.

                  As you can see from my bio, my main field of study is condensed matter, and at this moment I'm spending more time doing research in my official field than in the foundations of physics. So, I think that I cannot make a lot of progress in this field for the following months. However, I'll be glad to add you to my list of contacts and keep you in mind for future discussions on these topics.

                  Best Regards

                  Israel