Dear Dr. Neal Graneau,

I have always wondered how the physicists adopted the field theory. The concept of light as 'fields carrying energy' is nonsense. The independent existence of fields goes against common sense. Now they say that bodies exist as field and particle at the same instant, there is a mass-giving field/particle and so on. Let us see where they take us. A return to 'action at a distance' is inevitable.

In this conncetion, I invite your attention to the theory proposed by me, refer: finitenesstheory.com. It follows the classical Newtonian style with some amendments: (i). Motion at speed 'c' is the basic property of matter (ii). Force is reaction to motion. Force being reaction to motion simply exists, and does not require any medium for interaction to take place; force existing does not imply energy transfer. The forces always remain completely used, and attractive and repulsive forces (energy acts as pseudo repulsive force) remain balanced.

I argue for 'physicalism' in place of 'mathematicalism'. Field theory is, in fact, a mathematicalist idea, and is incorrect. Please go through my essay: A physicalist interpretation of the relation between Physics and Mathematics.

    Hello Neal,

    Interesting thoughts. Permit me to quote you perhaps extensively:

    "There is a very important difference between the IAAAD and field theory paradigms. IAAAD theories predict that the interactions and forces between physical objects are directly observable and are therefore subject to the falsifiability tests required by the scientific method. In contrast, field theories make predictions about quantities at points in empty space. The only way to check whether these predictions are accurate is to place a detector in that space, but then one is only testing a mathematical theory which is indistinguishable from an IAAAD matter interaction theory. So field theories are inherently unfalsifiable and therefore should be ruled out simply on the basis of the scientific method."

    A seed of revolutionary thought you have there! But it seems to me, to move forward, the two divergent views actually must agree. Here is how:

    Take the approach that what classical physics calls "IAAAD" is same that quantum theory calls the "quantum" of observables and that the most basic experimental cum theoretical image one can have of this state is as the "universal constant" (simultaneity; virtual work). Seen whether as Newton's, Einstein's, Planck's or Peano's "constant", it signifies the same exact information Godel's theorem formally asserts is "un-decidable" (from within itself); Same indeed that Heisenberg calls the "uncertainty".

    I see this rather as the LIMIT on information imposed on the inquirer by any one choice of UNIT of information (base unit). I think that calling this state "the observer" as I have in my essay has the advantage of rendering any system of inquiry truly without presumptions.

    That is, seeing "the observer" (uncertainty or IAAAD or field) as signifying merely the particular natural unit for describing a given system of observables) renders the inquirer absolutely non-intrusive on his inquiry and hence is in the core spirit of the scientific method.Any given observer is thus a STANDING WAVE or harmonic oscillator. And how then may two different standing waves interact? As Compton shifts.

    Exactitude being the essential vantage of physics and mathematics over all sciences else, this singular assumption must represent ultimately too the "connection" between both namely the notion of a constant or virtual as the ultimate reference state.

    I will appreciate to know what you think of this "insight" my essay Observer as the Mathematician's "constant" and the physicist's "quantum"

    brings to the subject.

    Regards,

    Chidi

      Congratulations on a superb essay. I am convinced that in IAAAD you have hold of the key to proper understanding of the physical world.

      Unfortunately, I have been able to give field theory an unearned lease on life by getting the field equations to contain a force law that boasts a longitudinal component in addition to the accepted Lorentz law's transverse component. (See the math endnote 2 of my essay submitted in this contest, or else see my paper "Invariant Physics" in the latest Physics Essays.)

      I regret this faux pas. I can offer only the mitigation that nobody is reading my stuff, so it seems I will be able to leave this world without actually having done much harm.

      Best, Tom Phipps

      Hello Jose,

      I am very glad you seem to understand the logic I was trying to express regarding the untestability of field theory, leading to the question of why do we waste our time with such theories.

      Regarding your interesting debate between physicalism and mathematicalism, I enjoyed reading your essay, but I don't think one has to take such a hard line arguing either for one or the other. I think that physical understanding and the fitting of mathematics to controlled experiment should run hand in hand. If the two are deviating, then one must examine whether it is the mathematics or the experiment that is most likely to be in error and then design a better experiment or find a new mathematical theory and stress test it hard.

      I think many of the problems we face in modern physics that you describe in your essay as "the present deadlock" stem from the fact that physicists let slip the principle of CONTROLLED laboratory experiment. This is not a new problem and started in around the 1880's with Hertz's claim of finding EM waves when all he actually found was nodes of activity and inactivity in his laboratory. We are now lost in the miasma of trying to find mathematics to fit the unfalsifiable theories of of Maxwell-Einstein EM field theory and GR and somehow make them philosophically united with inherently non-local QM.

      I would argue that one should not be too hard on mathematicalism. For instance I don't think I have a physical understanding of how distant objects store mutual potential energy and exert instantaneous forces on each other, but I am happy to have a mathematical theory that works for the time being. However both pictures are bound to change with time and new experiments. So let's accept that all of our physical and mathematical theories are human and fallible and it is great sport in forums such as this to compare which are the most relevant at any time.

      Regards

      Neal

      Hello Chidi,

      Thank you for your comments. I think the problem you raise highlights that thinking alone will never allow us to distinguish whether IAAAD or field theories are more likely to be true. We must rely on laboratory CONTROLLED experiments to give us the physical facts and in most cases, both types of theory will make equally accurate predictions. Therefore we must search hard for any experiments that allow us to distinguish between the best IAAAD and field theories of the day. It turns out that there are a few such experiments, namely highlighting the EM longitudinal force and the failure of current field theory to explain mechanical energy transfer in electric motors. These are described in my essay. At the moment, these can only be explained by an IAAAD model, but if a new and better field model were to be proposed that could account for these effects better than the IAAAD one, then we must accept it. In the case of two equivalent models, we must always opt for the IAAAD as it will always be the one more scrupulously testable because it does not attribute unmeasurable properties to undetectable substances. I like your insistence on finding a system of inquiry "truly without presumptions".

      Regards

      Neal

      Hello Tom,

      Thank you for your encouraging comments and conviction in the IAAAD interpretation of physics.

      The only thing I would take issue with is your conviction that your proposed term involving a current element and the gradient of the vector potential is a field equation. What you have presented is simply an IAAAD way of expressing the Ampere force as done in the 1830's by Neumann who developed the concept of the vector potential, A, precisely so that its gradient was equal to the Ampere force. He also demonstrated that if you take the derivitive with respect to time rather than space you recover the laws of transformer and dynamo induction. You have advanced the theory a step by including Weber's IAAAD reasoning regarding the motion of individual charges (qv) rather than simply discussing the lumped current element parameter (I dl) as used by Ampere and Neumann. So your proposed term is thoroughly IAAAD and represents the Ampere force.

      Maxwell's theory expressed in his treatise of 1873 was a mixed bag of IAAAD and field theory which is why nobody uses it today. However, it was Heaviside and the Maxwellians in the 1880's who overtly and without physical justification, dropped the vector potential and created the truly field theory that is accepted today. The equation (B=curlA) may ambiguously relate B and A, but it certainly does not make A a field quantity as it has no role in the Poynting vector which is the experimentally invalidated energy transfer mechanism that nevertheless lies at the heart of modern EM field theory.

      So I hope everybody is "reading your stuff" as you have already and are continuing to add clarity to the mixed up world of physics in which we choose dabble for fun and frustration.

      Regards

      Neal

      I completely agree with you about field theory. It is nature's mistake. Still, I think it is not so bad as the current adding-on of a Lorentz force law makes it. One should not have to add any force law to the field equations, because the field quantities should be fully defined by those equations, and the field quantities themselves are defined as forces -- so whence an extra force law? It's an elementary mistake. In other words, bah, humbug.

      But my alternative threatens the whole structure of covariance, hence of relativity -- so I do not expect to win many converts. I am immensely pleased that you see some merit in my view, enough to consider carrying on to a better understanding of what I am perceiving as the field theoretical version of longitudinal forces. I wish I were young and vigorous enough to do the job, but I am not.

      I would like to do away with fields entirely and get back to IAAAD, which I see as the only hope for Newton's third law and much else. Good luck to you, Neal. I see you as the world's chief hope for that kind of physics progress.

      Best, Tom Phipps

      Dear Neal Graneau,

      As stated by you, you have a mathematical relation that explains the mutual interaction between bodies remaining at a distance. From that you arrive at a conclusion that there is action at a distance. Without physical understanding, that problem remains unsolved. That is your stand, and I agree with it. The problem occurs only when you state that 'the mathematical explanation is enough', 'physical understanding is not required'. By mathematicalism, I mean such an approach.

      Does action at a distance need be instantaneous? Action is instantaneous only when distance is zero; when two bodies collide, the action and the reaction are instantaneous. To take 'c' as the limit for the speed with which a body can act, we need not require SR or GR, just an assumption (that 'c' is the speed limit) is required. For example, I propose that motion at speed 'c' is the fundamental property of matter, and so any body made up of matter will not move faster than light.

      Dear Neal Graneau,

      Yours is a very interesting essay. Perhaps I simply have not given enough thought to the concept of 'instantaneous action at a distance' [IAAAD] but the thought that I have given it stalls out at the apparent inability for anything in the universe to actually 'happen' if any change in anything is immediately "transmitted" [?] to the ends of the universe, and the reactions of everything else in the universe is immediately transmitted back to the source, which reaction, if any, is immediately transmitted back to everything else, recursively infinite, so to speak. What am I missing? How do these things happen if all reactions to actions are instantaneous everywhere, unto the Nth generation, as N -> infinity. Is there a simple fallacy I am missing? Is it, in your opinion, simply the 1/r dependent 'fall-off' in strength that permits this?

      Obviously, you (and Tom Phipps) do not come by this lightly, so I assume that you have considered and rejected "changes to Maxwell" as described in reference [2] of my essay, where for example, Mansuripur claims that additional terms are required to handle problems based on the exchange of energy between fields and dipole moments.

      And, I have not yet studied Jefimenko's "Electromagnetic Retardation and Theory of Relativity" but my slight acquaintance with it suggests that it is relevant to your concerns.

      Finally, the [currently] unquestioned belief in instantaneous action at a distance, entanglement, derived from Bell's theorem, is treated in my current essay and definitely appears subject to question.

      I applaud you for a strong argument in defense of your proposition, as it does require one to re-evaluate what one thinks one 'knows'! I do observe that, on page 4, you state that:

      "Field theories are inherently unfalsifiable and therefore should be ruled out simply on the basis of the scientific method..."

      That actually encourages me to continue thinking in terms of fields, although the only fields I take seriously are the electromagnetic and the gravitomagnetic. I view "quantum fields" as just an accounting device. I wonder if you are claiming that IAAAD is falsifiable? Again, did I miss something?

      Thanks again for a stimulating and thought-provoking essay. I invite you to read my current essay and welcome any comments you might have.

      PS. I had hoped to read your essay a few more times before commenting, but as time in short, I simply had at it.

      Best regards,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Dear Dr Graneau,

        Congratulations on a very interesting and concise summary of your ideas.

        Inherently I tend to favour theories that find mathematical support to the observed phenomena as opposed to where science tries to find observational proof to previously derived equations. In the second case mathematics often requires inclusion of certain assumptions. However when subsequent observations are found to agree with mathematical postulates, the fact that assumptions had to be made in the first place tend to be forgotten, and as a consequence, after a while these assumptions can transmogrify into accepted hard facts. Thus any unexpected outcomes tend to be ignored or discounted without rigorous retesting of the original theories or assumptions.

        I am prepared to accept that I must adjust my preferences as computing and technological advances mean that validity of most assumptions can be explored in detail. In fact, available computational power means that one should be able to run a routine for investigating interactions of a small number of elements in relation to a totality of forces predicted by competing theories. Field vs IAAAD, round ten?

        I wish you all the best in this competition.

        Regards

        Alexander Hammond

        Hello Edwin,

        You are very astute to express concern regarding how an IAAAD model in which every particle in the universe is continually interacting with every other can avoid a locking up stasis. The small amount of modelling I have done so far has revealed the following important point. Even though all of the force interactions are equal and opposite, in general they are acting between objects of different mass and state of motion. Therefore the acceleration they incur and how it affects their motion is different which leads to the continuously unsettled motions we observe. There must be some form of natural time steps in this process, otherwise acceleration would have no meaning. My metal understanding stops there, but the mathematics allows this scheme to calculate the effects we observe.

        Regarding alternative field theories like the Mansuripur et al hidden momentum debate and the Jeffimenko retarded causality conditions, I believe that there can be as many field theories as there are mathematicians since they are investigating too many uncheckable field parameters. My argument is that IAAAD theories only describe the effects on measurable quantities such as macroscopic matter motion and measurable electric current and voltage.

        As far as the testing of Bell's theorem, you clearly have more intricate knowledge than me. I only know the old school IAAAD arguments of Bell, Bohm and Vigier etc. However, it strikes me that you are claiming the eliminating the +/- 1 eigenvalue restriction allows a local theory to explain the results of Aspect and other related experiments. This does not rule out that it may still be a non-local quantum potential that also explains the results. It may just be that Bell's inequalities are no longer able to determine whether interactions are local or non-local. I am quite prepared to believe that.

        Whatever your preference for fields that exist and don't exist, the point I am making is that you cannot measure them. To perform what you might call a field measurement requires a specific diagnostic and its reading will already be based on the theory of the field whose existence you are trying to prove by measuring it. At the end of the exercise, you only ever measure an effect between a source and a detector and never gain any knowledge about the activity in between them, and you can always describe this relative behaviour between the two objects by a falsifiable IAAAD law.

        I will make some comments soon on your essay in your thread. Thank you for your encouraging remarks.

        Regards

        Neal

        17 days later

        Dear Neal,

        Well done on your thought provoking essay. I think with Dr Phipps' essay, it ranks among the top ten for lovers of a restoration of correctness in our physics. I have noted your other commentaries to questions above. Also quite reasonable.

        While urging that you continue your great work on the mathematics of IAAAD, I wish to draw your attention to another aspect which is physical IAAAD, if you might call it that and on which I have given much thought.

        From your writings it is likely that you hold space as merely a relational concept. But suppose this is not so? Suppose, Newton was right when he said, "...space is capable of having some substantial reality. Indeed, if its parts could move..., and this mobility was an ingredient in the idea of vacuum, then there would be no question about it - parts of space would be corporeal substance", and "...it is clear that they (philosophers) would cheerfully allow extension (space) to be substance, just as body is, if only extension could move and act as body can", all on p.8 [link:www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdf/newtdesc.pdf]De Gravitatione[/link], which I quoted in my 2013 essay.

        Suppose, parts of space could cease to exist, and previously non-existent space can come to exist, which in a way can be defined as parts of space moving as Newton hypothesized? After all our cosmology now suggests space can start to exist (Big bang), increase (Hubble expansion), and perish in a Big crunch.

        Given this possibility, if the spatial elements of a line joining two objects were to perish, with the result that the two objects become closer together, have the two objects interacted? And if previously non-existent spatial elements come into existence in the line between two objects with the result that they move further apart, have they interacted simultaneously at a distance?

        From your statement, "Since IAAAD physics involves the simultaneous interactions of all objects in the universe, then although much of the universe is very far away...", if part of the distance between earth and a distant object perishes, can earth be said to have interacted simultaneously with such distant objects, even though it has moved closer to them?

        Can space becoming the unseen participant as in the above two examples for attraction and repulsion at a distance resolve Newton's 'hypothesis non fingo' in some way? If you wish to criticize this idea or give it some thought, you are very welcome to do so at my essay forum. There, I propose the hypothesis: the non-zero dimensional point does not have an eternal existence, but can appear and disappear spontaneously, or when induced to do so.

        Thanks a lot for pointing out an alternative mechanism to the mechanism of mass tending to infinity as its velocity approaches c of Einstein's field theory of Special Relativity (SR). Another chink in the armour for SR.

        Warm regards,

        Akinbo

        NB. I am not opposed to any relational views of space you may have. Just liked your essay and want you to bear in mind the substantival view of space. I also believe your essay should be better rated.

        Your projection is as good as your paradigm! :)

        With regards,

        - Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

        Neal,

        This is an interesting challenge to looking at EM theory in the conventional way. I've heard of such issues before, especially about the supposed longitudinal field component and (Feynman's discussion is great) the oddities of the Poynting vector: making it seem that energy enters wire circuits perpendicularly! Altho not convinced that any alternative theory is correct, I do admire the courage and creativity to take on orthodoxy. I wonder what you think of 1. the Jefimenko equations for "projected fields", which give the same result as Maxwell's, but from a completely different (not local) perspective and 2. the "Marinov Motor" as discussed e.g. in Analog by Jeff Kooistra (from whom I also heard of things like longitudinal fields and the "exploding wire" experimental support for such fields.) BTW, how are exploding wires explained conventionally? In any case, your essay is underrated.

        Dear Neil,

        I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

        All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

        Joe Fisher

        Dear Neal,

        Thanks for your comments on my forum. I raised some issues here above on your forum that you can give some thought and reply before competition closes. I am eager to see this as I am not sure this will be available thereafter.

        It appears this great and interesting work of IAAAD is being done without the D. That is, the drama of 'action at a distance' between massive objects or charges is being acted without any involvement of Mr. Distance itself in the action/ proceedings. My proposition is supposing Mr Distance is the major participant in the drama? If that be the case, something about a Negative and a Positive charge, may make Mr. Distance to shrink giving us the picture of attraction at a distance. Likewise something about Like charges may make Mr Distance to multiply or elongate giving the picture of repulsion.

        The advantage of this 'crazy' model if found correct include;

        - Nothing is actually transmitted between the bodies, e.g. force particles like photons or gravitons. The force particle model usually encounters difficulty in explaining attraction.

        - No need for the interaction to be constrained by light speed, which would be the case for force particles.

        - The interaction, if we may call it so, is instantaneous because no matter how far apart the interacting objects, when the distance between them perishes or is created, instantaneously the distance between them is reduced or increased.

        All the best,

        Akinbo

        *I read some of your work in the Galilean relativity journal. I look forward to criticism of my model of Action at a distance with the full involvement of Mr Distance, probably after the competition is over.

        Neal,

        If you have not done so, please take a look at my essay. I would be interested in your comments as you have a very practical perspective on Physics. There is still a week or so left to vote if you so desire.

        Best Regards and Good Luck,

        Gary Simpson

        Dear Neal,

        It is quite strange that only a few participants looked at your ideas. I red your essay and related papers by you an your father and I found them of interest. I had no time to enter into the details of your non-locality approach but it is useful in the panoply of theories. As the real world (if any) has multiple enties IAAAD may be one. You should have a look at S. Bobroskyiy essay and his reply to my comment about Vlasov's equation. The type of non-locality he is looking at may well have applications in the problem of dark matter.

        Thanks for an interesting essay.

        Michel

        6 months later

        Our experiments, not designed to investigate this matter, incidentally show that the only fit to the data is if our model assumes instantaneous scalar potential and c vector potential. We are still investigating. In any event, it isn't clear to me how instantaneous vector potential can be made consistent with the vector potential description of electromagnetic waves since the spatial structures of electromagnetic waves arises from the spatial structures (gradient and curl) of the vector potential.

          4 days later

          I am curious to know what experiments you are performing