Dear Antony,

I do not try to define a wavefunction any different from what is presently understood by this word in QM. I only by this paper try to give the wavefunction an ontology, namely as whatever it is we mean strictly by the term "observer".

This paper takes the Godel theorem as a model of the observer versus his observations (i.e. measurement results) and then asserts that any observer may be thought of as own incompleteness i.e. as own "unobservable", in the sense of Peano's "constant" (as source of/or the successor function). And this given every observation i.e. every "event" follows as by definition a natural number or in wave motion terms an inverse-length (vis-a-vis observer as the "wave speed" or "phase-space).

But thanks, Anthony. I promise to see your essay.

Thank you, Hai.

I think the least one can do is to solve the equations for oneself and then see exactly what sense they make.

Dear Chidi,

I see what you mean. I think that observer being thought of as unobservable to their selves is much how I envisage a singularity.

Good phrase!

Regards,

Antony

Dear Antony,

Now let me explain in detail for the benefit of clarity. As a description from OUTSIDE this system possibly yes we could call this situation a singularity. But one could also describe this situation from WITHIN the system (and which I think is the more useful approach as a first principle). Then this situation will qualify physically as a LENGTH SCALE (think, "radiation gauge", "renormalization").

We could even take a comparative view of this situation so it means the SUPERPOSITION or, perhaps most generally, the CONSERVATION LAW.

In a wave model of the situation, the point is that we may think of any observer as simply the phase-space (say, "wave speed" of Huygens' principle or "constant" of Snell's law). And finally, in material terms this unobservability/observer should be the "matter wave" (wave function).

And sure enough there is phase-space formulation of QM, by Weyl, Wigner, Groenewold, Moyal etc.

But I would rather that we go all the way with this approach by assuming any OBSERVABLES (i.e. a "locality" or "position" notion) as simply the phase-points or harmonics vis-à-vis any OBSERVER as the phase-space (length scale, non-locality, invariance).

And by this we will be talking then of any relevant "observer" as the wave nature proper (as against his observables/harmonics as the corpuscular nature) or indeed vice versa.

Thus the concept of a pilot wave emerges naturally as defining the maximum wavelength i.e. the "fundamental frequency" or "period". It is sort of like the probability unity as equals the invariance (think, "energy") so a "probability amplitude" is simply a dependent variable/observable/harmonic (think, the "forms" of energy).

Forgive my lengthy talk. But I hope this makes me clearer.

I find our essays share some basics.

Chidi,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

Jim

Chidi, It is a very important idea to try to define what the observer is and I congratulate you on your brave attempt as someone who confesses to lack formal knowledge. Nevertheless you say many things that make sense. The ideas presented are very relevant to the contest. I hope you will enjoy reading other essays and will learn from the experience.

best, Phil

    Thanks, Phil.

    I am reading and will read more. But you brought me this further, without knowing it. Just looking that someone with the formal capacity will then formally examine these issues.

    All the best,

    Chidi

    Dear Chidi,

    No forgiveness needed. Good to explain these interesting concepts. I like your line of thinking and wished other's had the "outside the box" thinking you do.

    Best wishes for the contest,

    Antony

    Dear Chidi,

    I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

    Regards and good luck in the contest,

    Sreenath BN.

    http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

    Dear Chide,

    I read your essay with great interest. I appreciat that you nicely presented your view of observers in the Gödel sense and with a formal treatment. Your results seem to make sense and I would like to thank your for the effort.

    Best wishes,

    Brian

      Dear Chidi,

      Sorry I misspelled your name in the previous post.

      All the best,

      Brian

      Dear Brian,

      Many thanks for reading through. Your comment is valued. I also found your "participatory universe" impressive.

      All the best

      Chidi

      Hello Chidi,

      Just read your essay. Looks like a professional job coming from a non-physicist. I was getting lonely and you know why.

      I have an essay here, you may take a look. Not as professional as yours though.

      You can rate if you think it has some meaningful ideas. 9ja no carry last.

      Regards,

      Akinbo

        Dear Chidi,

        I liked your essay not only because of its content and its format but also because of the purpose and aim behind it. You have attempted to combine 'whole' of physics under one banner called 'wave-function', where observer himself is the wave-function and you have ascribed some 'potential' to him; and thereby you have tried to derive both quantum theory (QT) and general relativity (GR) on the basis of quantum gravity (QG) and it is this attempt of yours, I appreciate. You have done this on the basis of your 4 axioms, and have derived your 4th axiom from the first 3, but this is not allowed in logic because then the first 3 axioms become fundamental but not the 4th one (for an axiom to be fundamental, it must not be derivable from other axioms). So the first 3 axioms are enough to derive the whole of physics from your point of view. In my previous 2 essay contests, I too did the same thing of deriving both QT and GR from QG.

        I would like you to read my essay and post your comments on it in my thread. After that I will rate your innovative essay with a very good score. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

        Best regards,

        Sreenath

          Dear Akinbo,

          Been no know. I must reach your domot.

          Regards,

          Chidi

          Dear Sreenath,

          Thank you for your down to earth comment. Actually I was reading your essay. Got distracted by events around me. I find your essay educating and will certainly go through.

          Regarding your opinion of my 4th axiom. look at it this way: there is nothing out of the first three axioms that says why or if we have to select one observer over all others. The 4th axiom does just that job; it says there can be one and only one DE FACTO observer.

          Implication is that every observer is to its own self this VALID observer.

          Thank you again, Sreenath. I sort of like probing questions. It helps us all think clearer.

          All the best.

          Chidi

          Chidi,

          Tremendous essay, I believe much undervalued. Not just from the good clear writing style and organization, but way ahead of that for your conceptual analysis and proposition.

          I came to; "The idea again is that spacetime (simultaneity or equality by any name) is simply the uncertainty or cut-off i.e. the observer per se and which observer per se as the phase-space is a non-trivial attribute..." and then smiled when I read; "...This may sound like a wild claim." No Chidi, not to me. You have just described a completely original view of a 'discrete field' model, (DFM) where not only each 'observer' but all inertial system of matter particles instantaneously localise light speed to their own c, conserving Snell's Law.

          We must think similarly. I also discuss Godel, Huygens, psi, uncertainty etc. and define detection and observation. Having studied quantum optics I take a more practical mechanistic approach and show how a thesis founded (loosely perhaps) on your own has the power to resolve the Bell inequalities EPR paradox without FTL and spookyness.

          The part closer to your own is better covered in my previous two essays (both Community 7th but passed over.) I hope to do better this year with important findings. I think my model proves your concept mechanistically, and included deriving curved space-time last year. That may sound like a very wild claim!, and you'll see I don't shy from other departures from common assumptions. I do hope you can read (and score!) mine soon and greatly look forward to your thoughts.

          Yours has certainly earned a well deserved 10 score from me, with no 'allowance' needed for not being a 'professional' physicist. I have lots of qualifications but none mean anything more than my primary education and later work and research. You 'are' a physicist and an exceptional conceptual thinker. Those are the skills we need to extract us from this dark labyrinthine 'rut'. Congratulations on your work.

          And sincerest best wishes in the competition.

          Peter

            Dear Chidi,

            I appreciate your kind comments and would like to rate your innovative essay with a score of 8 and above if you like. Rate my essay and inform me soon.

            All the best,

            Sreenath

              Dear Peter,

              Need I say I most appreciate your comment (and hard-to-come-by score!). Have worried that may be physicists are only reading physicists, first and foremost. And I will make time to read your essays (twice, I suspect, because of the technical level. I always do that) and because I will certainly love to see your DFM perspective.

              Wishing you the stars this time.

              Chidi

              Dear Chidi,

              Thanks for rating my essay and I too have rated your essay with maximum points possible.

              Regards and good luck in the essay contest.

              Sreenath