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

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

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

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

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

Alan,

I'm pleased to say I find I hadn't scored your essay at the time of our discussions (1st June) so a well earned 10 going on now to help it closer to where it should be. I've seen no other essay discussing the important question of orbital angular momentum except ours.

I don't recall a comment on mine yet (but it is now hard to track everyone!) and hope you've read it, or will, and comment, and of course score it. I hope we can also talk more of the NQP after the contest.

Very best of luck in the roller coaster run in.

Peter

A nice new fundamental idea: rotating vector fields comprise fundamental particle with spin. "The rotating vectors constitute 'local clocks that define time,' with a frequency modified by particle velocity and gravitational potential. In a very real sense, these form the physical basis for time itself."

I have not yet had time to read all of your reference (the voluminous quantity of FQXi papers is enough to keep me occupied). Consequently, I do not understand how the unquantized continuous electron field breaks up into discrete solitons. There is insufficient description to take a reader through this argument.

There are a few conclusions early in this paper which are not presented with an unbroken logic from basic postulates. However the ideas are intriguing enough that I will follow up and read all of your publications when the contest is over in a couple of weeks. I suspect I may find the rest of the logic there.

The idea that photons lose momentum as they move away from the star is profoundly interesting. This alone is worth thinking about more deeply.

It is clear that you have profound insights. However, as you concede in the paper, the theory of the corresponding self-interaction in the NQP "remains to be completely defined". I still think you are really on to something and will look forward to your future work in this area.

It might have been easier to follow if you had split out the two arguments for Quantum Hilbert space/entanglement and general relativity into two papers--each appear to have merit on their own, and are both educational and inspirational.

Thank you.

Dr. Kadin

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.

Good luck,

Than Tin

Dear Alan,

I just detected an error. My comment on your essay should have been here but I posted it on my blog. So here I reproduce.

I have read your article on the wave-particle duality. As I said some of the problems may result from the view that space is a 'nothing'.

You said "So if an electron is truly a fundamental particle, it had to be a point particle,which clearly cannot be divided further.." Is your definition of point particle one of zero dimension?

You also said "Applying special relativity to this massive photon in its rest

frame.." Can a photon be at rest in any frame? What is the velocity in other frames? These are unintended fall outs of what you rightly pointed out as "Generations of physicists have been educated to ignore physical intuition about the paradoxes, while focusing on mathematics divorced from physical pictures. In response, the field of theoretical physics became more mathematically abstract, straying far from its origins explaining the behavior of real objects

moving in real space"

The correctness or not of NQP proposal must come after you have first settled the question whether space is nothing but a relational entity or on the contrary a substantial thing.

Regards,

Akinbo

Then, a question for you:

Is it being implied by the relational view of space and as suggested by Mach's principle that what decides whether a centrifugal force would act between two bodies in *constant relation*, would not be the bodies themselves, since they are at fixed distance to each other, nor the space in which they are located since it is a nothing, but by a distant sub-atomic particle light-years away in one of the fixed stars in whose reference frame the *constantly related* bodies are in circular motion?

You can reply me here or on my blog. And please pardon my naive view of physics.

Accept my best regards,

Akinbo

Dear Alan and all,

Thank you for posting in my essay. Here is some work I am doing to achieve what you are trying to do as well.

Simple mathematical truth of zero=I=infinity, iSphere and iSeries as described below can explain all the aspects of reality mathematically.

I am attaching the iDNASeries.bmp that I have envisioned and how it shows the DNA structure in its sequence.

I give you all a cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive numbers is the next number in the series. 0 is the base seed and i can be any seed between 0 and infinity.

iSeries always yields two sub semi series, each of which has 0 as a base seed and 2i as the first seed.

One of the sub series is always defined by the equation

Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i

where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i

the second sub series is always defined by the equation

Sn = 3 * Sn-1 -Sn-2

where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i

Division of consecutive numbers in each of these subseries always eventually converges on 2.168 which is the Square of 1.618.

Union of these series always yields another series which is just a new iSeries of a 2i first seed and can be defined by the universal equation

Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2

where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2*i

Division of consecutive numbers in the merged series always eventually converges on 1.618 which happens to be the golden ratio "Phi".

Fibonacci series is just a subset of the iSeries where the first seed or S1 =1.

Examples

starting iSeries governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2

where i = 0.5, S0 = 0 and S1 = 0.5

-27.5 17 -10.5 6.5 -4 2.5 -1.5 1 -.5 .5 0 .5 .5 1 1.5 2.5 4 6.5 10.5 17 27.5

Sub series governed by Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i

where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

0 1 2 5 13 34 ...

Sub series governed by Sn = 3 * Sn-1 - Sn-2

where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

0 1 3 8 21 55 ...

Merged series governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2 where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 ...... (Fibonacci series is a subset of iSeries)

The above equations hold true for any value of I.

As per Antony Ryan's suggestion, I searched google to see how Fibonacci type series can be used to explain Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity and found an interesting article.

http://msel-naschie.com/pdf/The-Fibonacci-code-behin

d-super.pdf

Now that I split the Fibonacci series in to two semi series, seems like each of the sub semi series corresponds to QM and GR and together they explain the Quantum Gravity. Seems like this duality is a commonality in nature once relativity takes effect or a series is kicked off from a basic singularity. The only commonality between the two series is at the base seed 0 (singularity) and first seed 1, which are the bits in our binary system.

Its also interesting to see the singularity is in the base seed of zero and how it is all pervasive all through out the DNA structure in the attached image. I have been telling that I is that nothing which dwells in everything and this DNA structure seems to prove that notion. Singularity is right with in the duality. Absolute is right with in the relativity. This proves that both of these states of singularity and duality are interconnected and are the source of life.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Dear Alan,

Here is the iDNASeries image.

Love,

Sridattadev.Attachment #1: 9_iDNASeries.bmp