Dr. Torsten

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.

With regards,

Than Tin

    Dear Torsten,

    I was informed about your interesting idea of `the geometrization of matter' by one of the participants. I have, in fact, also used this concept in my essay which may interest you. It has been shown there that the matter fields (as well as the gravitational fields) are represented by the metric field of the so-called `vacuum' Einstein field equations and the energy-stress tensor is a redundant part of Einstein's theory.

    You claim that spacetime is the Bit. What about matter in the new perspective?

    Best Regards.

    ___Ram

      Dear Sreenath,

      sorry for the long gap in answering your question (I was on vacation with my family).

      Spacetime can be a bit, because the information contained in the spacetime is discrete.It has nothing to do with the quantization of the spacetime itself. So, there is no fundamental length etc. But diffeomorpism invariance enforces us to consider only discrete information. I agree with that it is maybe a kind of quantization of the spacetime.

      The link between gravitation and measurement is a conjecture (originally from Penrose). I considered a model for the measurement process. Finally I got a reduction of the wave function from a geometric process (adding a sphere bundle). Now I had to think about these geometric objects. In a previous paper I showed that torus bundles are related to gauge interactions. So, what is a sphere bundle? From the symmetry point of view, I found only one conclusion: it must be a graviton. Currently I work on a real derivation of this result.

      Thanks

      Torsten

      Dear Héctor

      sorry for the long gap in answering your question (I was on vacation with my family).

      I agree with you that time is connected with dynamics (something changed) and the time of the clock is man-made. But we have to understand how dynamics works and then we also understand:"what is time". As I argue, time is an order element to obtain a place in the sequence of measurement results.

      I will read your essay soon.

      Best wishes

      Torsten

      Dear Adel,

      sorry for the long gap in answering your question (I was on vacation with my family).

      see on your page fro me comment.

      Torsten

      Hi Hugh,

      sorry for the long gap in answering your question (I was on vacation with my family).

      I will read your essay soon.

      Torsten

      Dear Paul,

      thanks for your interest. I remembered that in the essay contest last year I was critized that there is no greater view and I'm to restrictive.

      But I will take your critique more serious. Yes, the matter is very abstract but I hope to make clear that the subject is interesting and should be considered.

      Best

      Torsten

      Dear Than,

      interesting idea. But did you really think, that Plancks constant (as the main constant of quantum mechanics) is the reason for all dualities? I agree that Bohr considered its complementary principle (which is roughly your first two dualities).

      I like the cite of Feynman, but I think he has in mind: simple but complicated enough.

      Best wishes

      Torsten

      PS: sorry for the long gap in answering your question (I was on vacation with my family).

      Dear Ram,

      sorry for the long gap in answering your question (I was on vacation with my family).

      According to my ideas, matter is also part of the spacetime (a part of the 3-space). So verything is unified: spacetime and matter, Bit and It.

      Best

      Torsten

      • [deleted]

      • Post #80

      Hi Torsten,

      ( a copy from my thread)

      Thank you for evaluating my essay, we have had some exchange in physicsforums about your theory before. You asked very good questions.

      The answer to the higher modes is easy, yes it can be done (and I have actually done it). It is an automatic consequence of schrodinger equation result. As a matter of fact I get the 1/r law precisely because of the inclusion of higher modes automatically.

      To answer your question what forced choice I have to reiterate some background. After considering some choices that could be the entities where some relation could give a rise to reality I end up with the simplest of systems ,which is a line segment. So I ask what entities exist on this line, answer is point and smaller line segments. So the how to choose the points or the line segments so that I may find what possible relations might exist and see if these relations lead to any useful outcome.

      Since there is NO particular reason to choose any specific one so I choose randomly. Without this randomness which is the heart of the system any possible universe that you create by particular choice will lead to either a static or semi-static universe (as in fractals and regular automata). A similar principle is very nicely explained in Sundance Bilson essay which he calls "the principle of minimal arbitrariness ". Also a similar idea is mentioned in the essay of Armin Shirazi which you must have seen.

      Also, may I remind you that the Born rule in standard physics has caused so much controversy as to its origin, well my system shows clearing why that must be so. And generally you can see the whole results of the system from it inception to advanced results like the electron mass all showing up in one coherent system with no tweaking or fancy stunts, by doing just what I am allowed to do on the line.

      Of course I am familiar with almost 95 %(or more) of all the ways people have tried to generate QM from "first principles". But I believe mine is the most fundamental one because as you can see I claim some powerful results. Now, if people want to declare that is too good to be true, that is their choice. However, as an unfamiliar concept I think it will take some time to sink in and I also need to do a better job making the presentation.

      Finally, you might be surprised that our theories share the most important concept of physics and that is the SAMENESS of matter and space. in my system matter is made of many lines (which is nothing but a distance between two points) where their end points are space. it is as simple as that.

      The problems in your system and all others has been the problem of time. Even if as Barbour has done(and some other foliation systems and such) to remove time, still that leads to complication. In my system time naturally does not appear, again, that shows the system is fundamental from its inception.

      I have rated your essay highly, you do not have to do that for me. Your response and reading this long boring response is good enough for me!

      P.S. gravity is also included, I will show some details later.

      Many thanks.

      Adel

        Torsten,

        That post was mine. also let me ask you this as a mathematician. In my system theoretically I must throw infinite numbers of lines, and if you take a very small region it will contain dense almost infinite numbers of points. Does that constitute a a true continuum or it is still discrete no mutter how many points there are?

        Thanks

        Adel

        Adel,

        at first to your question: a line is continuous i.e. it has a continuous number of points. It doesnt't matter how long the line is.

        You need an uncountable number of points to form a line nothing less.

        More later

        Torsten

        Dear Torsten,

        Seems I am reading some of the best essays last! Very nice entry.

        Your arguments are quite sound from basic physical principles and GR viewpoint.

        My own arguments are more from a philosophical perspective and not as quantitatively argued but I think there are still similarities in our picture. Like you I agree time will bring out the discreteness in continuous space picture, if that is what you mean by foliation. I also discuss a linkage between Time and Existence at a discrete level, although from a philosophical view not from that of a physicist.

        I very much agree with your plan to derive matter from the space, i.e. the geometrization of matter. This should be one of the next goals of physics. I myself have started thinking along this line.

        Following additional insights gained from interacting with FQXi community members on my essay, I posted on my blog the judgement in the case of Atomistic Enterprises Inc. vs. Plato & Ors delivered on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT.

        A deserving above the average score!

        Best regards,

        Akinbo

          Torsten,

          Thanks for your reply. Of course the line segment has uncountable points, that's elementary. But My question was (more clearly) that if I pick infinite random points on a that line uniformly, would I cover all the points on the line? My guess is that it will not since you have irrationals and maybe some other problems. Is that correct? I hate to make this a forum, I won't feel bad if you don't answer.

          Thanks

          Adel

          Adel,

          you have to choose uncountable real random numbers uniformly. Every real number has the probability zero to choose.

          But you are right, it sounds impossible to do.

          Now to my further questions:

          There are gaps in the explaination. So, I tried to fill these gaps by thinking about. But your answer showed me, I was wrong.

          My main problem is on page 3, the red part. Up to this place everything is clear to me. But how did you get the Schrödinger equation and more importantly what is the wave function. Before you spoke about random lines etc. (and I assumed you have a probability distribution for these random lines, then the dynamics is given by a Fokker-Planck equation etc. etc.)

          Interestingly, your simulation results (Fig 3, 4 and 5) support my assumption: you simulate the probability distribution of a Fokker-Planck equation (with constraints, i.e. you put it in the box). This Fokker-Planck equation has the same ground state then the Schrödinger equation (but a probability distribution has to be positive everywhere).

          I wrote my PhD thesis about this connection (using it in the evolutionary algorithms). The correct name is Fisher-Eigen equation (a reaction diffusion equation)

          Show me where I'm stupid to follow you.

          Best

          Torsten

          Dear Akinbo,

          thanks for your words. Yes my intention is to uncover the geometric origin of matter. In particular, I try to obtain it from simple assumptions like the use of exotic smoothness structures.

          Unfortunately, I had only time to skim over your essay. There are parallels to my view and I'm glad that you notice it. I have to read it more carefully because it is more philosphically.

          Best wishes

          Torsten

          Dear Torsten,

          I thought to have rated (highly) your paper at the time I red it. But my mark seems to have been lost, may be when the system was interrupted.

          Did you have a chance to read my own essay? Any way I will give you the rate I had in mind and possibly more because I learned during this contest.

          Best wishes,

          Michel

            Dear Michel,

            yes, I read your essay but was on the vacation before I had the chance to write you. I like your geometric model very much (I rated your essay long ago with maximum score).

            Now after a second reading I have some questions:

            - You used the dessin d'enfants to visualize the contextuality. I understood the Mermin square but how did I see it in dessin d'enfant (Fig. 3b). Is it the number of half-edges (odd number) which produces the contradiction?

            - Why is the transitive action so important? In case of a non-trivial orbit, you can check every point seperately.

            One remark about the triple 0,1,infty: In the projective geometry, you always have the invariance w.r.t. the inversion operation. In the context of your model it means you have the operator and its inverse operator. Then 0 is related to infty and 1 is related to itself via inversion.

            Thanks in advance for the answers.

            Torsten

            Torsten,

            Thanks for the elucidation. I need to get more up to date with sub manifolds as gauges, but find the 'simplest idea' to be a kinetic interaction with particles with structure, not the QM assumption breaching the Law of the Reducing Middle. Now applying points, and yours now done.

            Best of luck

            Peter

            Dear Torsten,

            Thanks for your careful reading.

            1) It is not straight to see the contradiction in the dessin of Fig. 3b, I failed to see it in general (for other contexts). Also there is not a single dessin leading to Mermin's square but many, why is it so? More work is necessary. This non-bijection is general for most geometries I have tried to reconstruct from the n-simplices to projective configurations such as Desargues, Cremona-Richmund (i.e. the doily W(2) of two-qubit commutatitivity) and others.

            2) You are right that transitive action may not be a necessary condition. The geometry is constructed by having recourse to the stabilizer of each point in the permutation group relevant to the dessin.

            3) Last remark, the geometry is of the projective type not the dessin. Here you have to refer to the theory that is well explained, for example in Lando and Zvonkin (my ref. [6]).

            Torsten, please check that you vote was recorded.

            Michel