Yuri,

I found a variant of this quote in Lawrence Bragg's book The Development of X-Ray Analysis (1975):

"The dividing line between the wave or particle nature of matter and radiation is the moment 'Now'. As this moment steadily advances through time it coagulates a wavy future into a particle past. "

However, I find this statement confusing and obscure. I would rather say that both matter and radiation are fundamentally waves, but with particle properties derivable from the wave equations.

I addressed Wave-Particle Duality in my essay in last year's FQXi context, "The Rise and Fall of Wave-Particle Duality".

Alan

Dr. McHarris,

Thank you for your careful reading and your compliments. I will also re-read your essay more carefully. I replied to some of your specific comments on your own essay page.

I agree with you that while linear equations enable quite powerful mathematical techniques, these same techniques (including the entire Hilbert space formalism) are effectively blinders that have made consideration of nonlinear physics impossible.

Alan Kadin

Peter,

Thanks for your high score, although I would rather preserve the confidentiality of a secret ballot. I would like to believe that those who have rated my essay with a 1 or 2 have not actually read it.

It is conventional wisdom that quantum mechanics is unavoidably paradoxical and abstract. I am directly challenging that, by presenting a simple neo-classical microscopic model that avoids paradoxes and also accounts for the emergence of macroscopic physics, including general relativity. I am a bit surprised that people are not commenting on my assertion that Black Holes are a myth.

Please feel free to contact me at my email address (given in my essay) for discussions after the contest.

Alan

Paul,

Thank you for your careful reading of my essay, and for your helpful comments. In response to your observation that I am trying to cover too many topics in this essay, I plead "no contest". I have an ambitious program to reinvent modern physics from the ground up. The emergence of GR from QM is a new observation that has me quite excited, and the criticism of the Quantum Hilbert Space model was included to address the topic of Information.

The concept of a photon in a gravitational potential well that loses momentum as it SPEEDS UP is quite remarkable. The same would be true of an ultrarelativistic electron following a similar trajectory. Most remarkable, of course, is the assertion that the event horizon and the black hole singularity are mathematical artifacts that do not exist in a self-consistent theory. It is interesting to note that Einstein himself doubted the existence of black holes, despite their being derived from his field equations. Maybe he was right!

Alan

6 days later

Dear Alan,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

I enjoyed your essay very much. I would be interested to know your view on what is rotating in your quantum rotations, is it small rotations of space? My essay assumes quantum oscillations of space that then build up matter which is close to your assumption of quantum rotations. The main difference would be contiguity of the quanta that my model requires. I will explore the NQP model further. Thank you

Carolyn Devereux

    Carolyn,

    Thank you for your comments and your interest. I have been tracking the ratings of my essay - people either love it or hate it - there is nothing in between.

    The model is based on a classical electromagnetic wave a la Maxwell. A circularly polarized EM wave packet consists of a coherently rotating, propagating E field (also a B field), and carries angular momentum which is quantized if this represents a quantum photon field. By direct analogy, an electron also consists of a rotating field (essentially a Dirac field) with spin h-bar/2, which in its rest frame is not propagating. This is a deterministic picture with no quantum uncertainty. This is built on space and time compatible with special relativity (no ether), but as I've shown, general relativity (with gravitational time dilation) also follows simply from this. If you have further questions, please feel free to send me an email (address shown in the essay).

    Alan

    Dear Mr Kadin.

    Your approach is very similar to Feynyman's approach in "The Strange Theory of Light and Matter" and also in my approach. It is not important for me, if such oscillations of elementary particles exist, but if visualization of background mathematics is useful, such oscillations are useful. Especially your fig. 1 is very fine and useful.

    I claim that interior of black hole do not exist. (This is similarly as your claim.) My arguments are that QM claims that what cannot be seen, cannot exist, and that space is emergent.

    But I am not sure, if your approach is correct. You did not write whether it is not in contradiction with physical experiments of GR? It is also possible that your approach is much lesser simple than GR.

    Will you look also my essay, although it is late for scores? But maybe it will be useful for references of further papers.

    I hope that we will be in correspondence further.

    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

    Dear Alan:

    I am referring here at your july15 post: you are a physicist I am not, maybe sound incredible to you and most physicists, that to understand that "time" is not an entity with physical existence like gravity or inertia, you don't need to know mathematics or physics, which as a discipline the discipline came to believe "time" it as their own. "Time" is just a remnant word, probably representing a very important concept related to the measurement of "motion" from which mankind forgot it meaning, as Einstein call pre-scientific concepts. What you have at page 364 "The formation of the concept of the material object must precede our concepts of time and space". Being the so called "time" "motion" as I think I demonstrate in the essay. To exist "motion" must be something that's moves (material object) to exist "space concept" also has to be (materials objects) as he said boxes. Look in your book around 20 or 25 lines above you would find what I concrete as: "Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought" As you can see he knew that "time" was a man creation. What he did no know was what we measure with the clock, that it is "motion" one of the most foundational things of physics, about this is my essay. When this is understood , will shake physics. You said "I will go back and read your essay more carefully" please do that slow with attention and always thinking that there are not prove what so ever of "time" physical existence. If you do that you would be the second person in this world to know that the so called "time" is "motion".

    My very 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

    Dear Alan:

    I am referring here at your july15 post: you are a physicist I am not, maybe sound incredible to you and most physicists, that to understand that "time" is not an entity with physical existence like gravity or inertia, you don't need to know mathematics or physics, which as a discipline the discipline came to believe "time" it as their own. "Time" is just a remnant word, probably representing a very important concept related to the measurement of "motion" from which mankind forgot it meaning, as Einstein call pre-scientific concepts. What you have at page 364 "The formation of the concept of the material object must precede our concepts of time and space". Being the so called "time" "motion" as I think I demonstrate in the essay. To exist "motion" must be something that's moves (material object) to exist "space concept" also has to be (materials objects) as he said boxes. Look in your book around 20 or 25 lines above you would find what I concrete as: "Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought" As you can see he knew that "time" was a man creation. What he did no know was what we measure with the clock, that it is "motion" one of the most foundational things of physics, about this is my essay. When this is understood , will shake physics. You said "I will go back and read your essay more carefully" please do that slow with attention and always thinking that there are not prove what so ever of "time" physical existence. If you do that you would be the second person in this world to know that the so called "time" is "motion".

    My very best whishes

    Héctor