Dear Nirupam,

Greetings and thank you. If space-time were to be successfully replaced by something else, it would not be the end of physics but another step forward. I think there is a great deal in physics we do not still understand - the beginning of the universe, the nature of the dark component of the universe, the origin of the pattern of particle masses, the physical basis of living systems, and of the brain and mind...just to name a few issues. I feel we have a very long way to go still.

How did the ancient spiritual masters conclude that `everything is one'? This is a fascinating question and I have no answer!

Kind regards,

Tejinder

Dear David,

Thank you. I am glad you bring up MOND, because I have been thinking a bit about MOND versus dark matter. I agree that if MOND is correct, any modified quantum theory must yield MOND in the classical limit. I also agree that Kroupa and McGaugh make a good case for MOND with regard to empirical observations of galaxies, and the critical acceleration which shows up again and again in galaxy data. Whereas Lambda-CDM has no scope for providing this critical acceleration.

But then, Lambda-CDM is very successful with structure formation, and matches so well with data such as baryonic acoustic oscillations. Whereas TeVeS does not do well at all on this front.

So where then does the truth lie? Dark matter or MOND? I would like to believe that something like dark matter and something like MOND are both needed - the former to make structures, and the latter to introduce the critical acceleration. But MOND should become irrelevant during structure formation and dark matter should become irrelevant on galactic scales!! I have no idea how to achieve that.

Best regards,

Tejinder

Dear Gary,

Thank you for your kind appreciation and encouragement, and for pointing me to your essay. I look forward to reading it with interest. I am very happy that we have been thinking along similar lines. I am excited also about the possibility that collapse of the wave function might be responsible for the emergence of space. It would be great to think of ways to test this experimentally.

My best wishes for your essay,

Tejinder

Dear Professor Singh,

Thanks for your insightful essay. I can't say that I understood many of the technical terms, but I really found your ideas on how to explain quantum entanglement and non-locality to be very good...in fact, i think that they might be very similar to my own, although I try to explain it in terms of complexity.

I wish you much luck in the competition, and if you find the time, i would appreciate your thoughts on my own essay.

Sincerely,

William Ekeson

Professor Singh,

I also feel happy!

Since this is a "work in progress" for me, I hope you don't mind if I add on another thought after writing the previous post.

Schrödinger used the possibility of a position, "Ψ(x)", in the wave equation. Born "anded" to this, the possibility of no other position than x, "Ψ*(x)", for the wave equation of a particle.

Then Feynman assigned to the probability amplitude the possibility of a path integral in spacetime.

The results have been beautiful.

So in an informorphism based on a map from the proper time of a particle to the set of possible coordinate times, instead of position and not anything but that position, or path integral, I wonder if we have the opportunity to assign to Ψ (sub i) the possibility of a coordinate time (sub i) in the above set that's mapped from proper time. And not anything but that possible coordinate time, Ψ* (sub i).

The coordinate time involves both the position and momentum for the particle being observed, as well as a time and mass energy. So among the impossibilities for this assignment of coordinate time to Ψ would be those that are outlawed by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Would this help?

Lee

Dear Prof. William Ekeson,

Many thanks for your kind remarks. I look forward to reading your essay.

Tejinder

Hi Tejinder, do you have any discomfort/cognitive dissonance regarding the conclusion, which is pretty amazing and different from how things seem to be. Or are you immunized by years of physics training?

    Dear Georgina,

    Greetings, and good to meet you again. You put it nicely: "Or are you immunized by years of physics training? " :-) My response is that years of physics training has given me the courage to express this conclusion, howsoever bizarre it might appear :-) We are driven to this conclusion by an attempt to resolve the troubles of quantum theory.

    The conclusion is about the deeper underlying layer of matter and space-time, as in quantum theory. It is not a conclusion about out our approximate, largely classical world.

    Please allow me a simplistic analogy. If I look at a stone, I can never tell that its insides are made of vibrating atoms whose motion is described by quantum laws, very different from the classical laws which describe the overall motion of the stone. In my discussion, all of the classical universe [stars, galaxies, ...] as well as the space-time in which they reside, are like classical stones. When we look inside them, the troubles of quantum mechanics persuade us to conclude that their `insides' obey new laws - there is no space-time in the inside. Hence the `insides' have no goals and no wandering. Of course the `stones' made from these insides do have space and time, and hence they have goals to wander to.

    Thanks for bringing this up. Am happy to discuss it further.

    Regards,

    Tejinder

    Hi TP, I did like you essay. Not only because I am very sympathetic towards the problems of standard quantum theory, which you well presented, but also because I like the idea of non-commutative spacetime underlying physics. Very good job! Angelo.

      Your essay on the continuous spontaneous localization (CSL) model was very useful for me. It is ironic that CSL adds two constants and a nonlinear term to the Hamiltonian to make quantum mechanics real like gravity for macroscopic sources. However, quantum effects still dominate the microscopic world in CSL and so in a sense, nothing really changes except the interpretation of quantum phase noise.

      However, with quantum gravity there already is another term in the Hamiltonian besides charge. All this means is that all wavefunctions already have both slowly changing gravity and rapidly changing charge factors and there is no need to add two new constants. The Hamiltonian already has quantum gravity and so does not need a new decay term as aethertime shows.

      However, CSL does seem to show how the quadrupole gravity Hamiltonian operator looks and is different from the dipole charge operator. The quantum gravity operator is then what provides the shaking of aether as quantum phase noise. That seems to be a very nice way to describe the universe. The CSL jump step operators now have an easy interpretation as quantum exchange with the aether field not unlike that of QED.

      So far, the CSL literature does not seemed to have linked quantum gravity with quantum phase noise, but that seems so obvious. Also, it is better to use matter and action conjugates instead of space and time. Matter and action conform easily to relativity and mass-energy equivalence at all scales while space and time are limited and do not apply at all scales.

      Dear Angelo,

      Many thanks, for reading and liking the essay.

      Regards,

      T

      The CSL Hamiltonian has two extra terms that are linear and quadratic in the matter density fluctuation operators. A Brownian motion jostling is what drives these density fluctuations follow with the frequency and radius of the two parameters.

      Reinterpreting the jostling radius rd as the point where gravity force equals dispersion or dipole-induced dipole force means that this is where gravity fluctuations equal charge fluctuations. Likewise, reinterpreting the jostling frequency as the hydrogen Bohr frequency c/rB scaled by the ratio of gravity to charge forces.

      What this means that the Brownian jostling of CSL comes from the gravity fluctuations of orbiting electrons, which are negligible until gravity fluctuations equal charge fluctuations at the jostling radius rd.

      The puzzle is that this seems like such an obvious interpretation of CSL fluctuations as due to the quantum gravity fluctuations of orbiting charge. There is a quantum gravity Hamiltonian operator after all, right? The problem is simply finding the right two conjugate dimensions that are consistent with both GR and quantum MEE. Two possible conjugates are matter and action since space and time are simply too limited.

      Thus instead of an ad hoc non-linear CSL Hamiltonian, you have the complete Hamiltonian for both charge and gravity with the natural constants of charge and gravity. This CSL quantum gravity does not seem to need any new constants, just a new interpretation...

      Hello Tejinder,

      Your essay investigates one of the large QM embarrassments, the collapse of the wave-function. Your reworking of this concept is well done.

      I have always suspected that "superposition" is the underlying corruptness in wave-function collapse. Superposition is a leftover from classical Fourier analysis and Huygen's wave interference diagrams. Superposition needs to be modified to work with QM. If this interests you, check out my web pages at www.digitalwavetheory.com

      Appreciate your essay,

      Don Limuti

        Professor Singh,

        I agree with your opening statement:

        "Space-time is absolute, in conventional classical physics. Its geometry is determined dy- namically by the distribution of classical objects in the universe. However, the underlying space-time manifold is an absolute given, providing the arena in which material bodies and fields exist." I gave your essay a high rating.

        In my theory I described space-time as a continuous, structured and elastic medium called the E-Matrix. The E-Matrix eliminated the problems encountered by QM with the above definition of space-time.

        regards,

        Ken Seto

          4 days later

          Dear Tejinder Pal Singh

          I invite you and every physicist to read my work "TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I'm not a physicist.

          How people interested in "Time" could feel about related things to the subject.

          1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

          2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

          3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

          4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as "Time" definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

          5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,... a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander.....

          6) ....worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn't a viable theory, but a proved fact.

          7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

          8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.

          9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

          11)Time "existence" is exclusive as a "measuring system", its physical existence can't be proved by science, as the "time system" is. Experimentally "time" is "movement", we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure "constant and uniform" movement and not "the so called Time".

          12)The original "time manuscript" has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

          I share this brief with people interested in "time" and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.

          Héctor

          Dear Don,

          Greetings, and it is good to meet you again. Thank you for your interesting comments. I browsed through some parts of your interesting website. Thanks for telling me about it :-)

          Thank you Ken, for seeing my essay and telling me about your work.

          Best,

          Tejinder

          Tejinder Pal Singh,

          There are two types of time

          #1. SOCIAL TIME: This is the time that we "measure" changes by clock or by rotation of earth. Where one rotation of earth is standardized as unit called one day. It is usual measuring methodology by comparing with a unit. This is society specific-time.

          #2. PHYSICAL TIME: This time is "reason" of life-cycle changes whereby a system of matter undergoes structural changes. This time is object-specific and differ from object to object.

          Which type of time you are using?

            Hi Tejinder,

            You are welcome,

            :) Good to see you again on fqxi also,

            All the best from Belgium