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

        Dear Shaikh,

        Thank you. Your definitions of time are strange and non-standard, I think.

        I have used time the same way that every physicist does. In Newtonian mechanics it is absolute time, which we measure using clocks. In special relativity it is the coordinate time associated with a specific inertial observer, which is part of a space-time line-element in Minkowski space-time. In general relativity, it is the time coordinate which is a part of the space-time manifold, subject to general coordinate transformations.

        Regards,

        Tejinder

        Dear Tejinder:

        I enjoyed reading your paper eloquently describing the incompleteness and shortcomings of QM irrespective of its successes in the technological applications. I agree with your conclusion - "......But it would seem that this is hard to achieve within the confines of standard quantum theory. ... And collapse perhaps requires us to go beyond quantum theory, and modify it. When we go to that 'beyond', we find that there is a new world out there. ...Deep down, if we look very carefully, everything is everywhere all the time, in a manner of speaking."

        Such fundamental reality of the implicate world is described in my contest paper - FROM LAWS TO AIMS & INTENTIONS - A UNIVERSAL MODEL INTEGRATING MATTER, MIND, CONSCIOUSNESS, AND PURPOSE-A.Singh elaborated below. The paper describes the inner workings of QM resolving its paradoxes and incompleteness.

        FQXi is a unique forum to address key open issues related to science that impact humanity and life. The mainstream science has treated the universe, laws, and fundamental particles as inanimate entities devoid of life, consciousness, or free will. As a result, the mainstream theories of science are also devoid of consciousness or free will. While science, especially quantum mechanics, recognizes the spontaneous free-willed (without any cause) birth and decay of particles out of the Zero-point vacuum as a fundamental physical phenomenon, it refutes existence of free will via consciously labeling it as "Randomness" in nature. This vicious circle has failed science in two ways - first is its erroneous prediction of a purposeless universe and life in it making the science itself purposeless and meaningless from a deeper human perspective. Secondly, ignorance of consciousness or free will which is a fundamental dimension of the universe along with mass/energy/space/time leaves scientific theories incomplete leading to their current paradoxes and internal inconsistencies.

        Just like a dead mother cannot nurture and give birth to a living baby, a dead universe governed by inanimate laws cannot support any living systems within it. Universal consciousness is fundamental to the emergence and sustenance of any living system - quantum or biological. The mathematical laws must be living to give rise to living aims and intentions. If the fundamentality of the consciousness of the universe and laws is not understood, a scientific theory would be like a castle built on sand.

        FQXi forum is participated by brilliant and accomplished scientists representing in-depth knowledge and expertise in diverse fields. I would propose that the forum scientists take on a challenge to enhance and uplift science from its current status quo as an incomplete science of the inanimate (dead) matter to the wholesome science of the living and conscious universe. This would complete science and make it purposeful and meaningful adding to its current successes as a tool for enhancing material life alone. Science deserves its long-awaited recognition to address not only matter but mind as well and not only material but spiritual life as well. Considering the current political and economic threats to the basic survival of science and religious extremism/terrorism threatening the fundamental freedom (free will) of humanity, the role of a wholesome and genuine science has become even more vital to humanity.

        I have forwarded a humble and example proposal (see attached paper) detailing how a consciousness-integrated scientific model of the universe entailing matter-mind could be developed that resolves current paradoxes of science including QM, predicts the observed universe, and offers a testable theory via future empirical observations. This proposal and theory are documented in my contest.

        I would greatly appreciate your feedback as well as constructive criticism of the proposed approach to advance physics and cosmology.

        Best Regards

        Avtar Singh

          Dear Professor Singh,

          After reading your essay, I looked at the article by Steven Weinberg, to which you refer in the first paragraph of your essay. I realize that your essay and Weinberg's article are very different. He provides an informal overview, while you present a detailed and developed proposal for solving the difficulties which beset quantum theory. Nonetheless, I would be interested in learning more about how you might view your proposal in relation to the suggestion for a possible solution which Weinberg indicates toward the end of his article. He seems to favor trying to find some principles that would lead to an objective collapse of the wave function, as opposed to theories in which consciousness brings about the collapse and theories in which there is no collapse at all (i.e., many worlds and related interpretations). I notice that Weinberg favorably cites the work of Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber, whom you also mention. As best I can tell, you present a concrete proposal that fits into the very general framework which Weinberg endorses. More specifically, one of your original ideas is that the underlying (space-time) manifold should be non-commutative.

          This is how I would at present summarize my understanding. Thanks for a stimulating and challenging essay.

          Laurence Hitterdale

            Dear Avtar,

            Greetings, and thank you so much for reading my essay and commenting on it.

            I have not thought of the universe and of mathematical equations as `living' entities possessing a `consciousness'. I very much look forward to reading your essay, and to commenting on it, in case I have something useful to say.

            My best regards,

            Tejinder

            Dear Laurence,

            Thank you for your careful reading of my essay. Yes, Weinberg seems to be interested in GRW type objective collapse, which I also think of as a promising solution for the measurement problem.

            However, in my opinion the biggest problem that quantum theory faces is its dependence on classical time. I think this is at the root of all the troubles of quantum mechanics. We have to be able to describe quantum theory without classical time, and when we do that, it also provides a way for a fundamental understanding of the GRW theory, and for resolving the non-locality puzzle. Also, I think the dichotomy between physical space and Hilbert space / configuration space is very peculiar, and out to be lifted, in my opinion.

            With best wishes,

            Tejinder

            Dear Prof. Singh,

            Your interesting essay focuses on flaws in the orthodox understanding of quantum mechanics.

            I agree that quantum mechanics has been misunderstood, as I have addressed in previous FQXi essays.

            But I argue that quantum entanglement does not exist, and that time and space are defined by real quantum oscillations of electron waves. This is not merely a philosophical question; there are now billions of dollars being spent on developing practical quantum computing, which requires entanglement, so that these questions will be answered one way or the other in the next 10-20 years.

            I address these issues very briefly in the End Notes section of my essay this year, "No Ghost in the Machine", which links to other articles that address this in more detail.

            In the main body of this year's FQXi essay, I argue that recognition of self, other agents, and a causal narrative, are built into specific evolved brain structures, based on neural networks, which create a sense of consciousness as part of a dynamic model of the environment. The reason that this is such a difficult problem is that we are being misled by the subjective perceptions of our own minds.

            Alan Kadin

              Dear Tejinder

              The emergent "wandering to a goal" is in my view seemingly reaching out for eternity...

              I am still awaiting your esteemed comment and rating on my my essay : "The Purpose of Life".

              thank you and best of luck in this time restricted goal...

              Wilhelmus

              Dear Tejinder

              The emergent "wandering to a goal" is in my view seemingly reaching out for eternity...

              I am still awaiting your esteemed comment and rating on my my essay : "The Purpose of Life".

              thank you and best of luck in this time restricted goal...

              Wilhelmus

              PS I posted this comment also on the thread where you answered my comment, but this one is easier to find for you...

                Dear Tejinder,

                Thank you for your positive comment on my essay.

                In my "emergent phenomenon" called reality "time" is a restriction (like space).

                We are experiencing a "flow" of time through the limited consciousness that is creating (emerging) memory at each Eternal Now Moment.

                Looking at a Wave collapse we see that it is "happening" always in the past. The emerging particle after the "collapse" is also a past emergent phenomenon. The moment we are aware of the "particle like distribution" in the Young experiment, we are experiencing an image from the past, representing a past ENM (that is timeless (eternal) in Total Simultaneity).

                So you could say that the Flow that we experience as TIME is an emergent effect of the memory data we are aware of. Actually I am 71 yeras old,(and remeber the I that has the memories of that age. I cannot reach out to the past (nor to the future). The NOW moment includes the whole FLOW of my past life, so the emergent effect of "living". The whole emergent life as is also reality is compressed in an ENM. (one moment ?)

                I do believe that any way of thinking can be the base of an emergent reality.The MWI is a splitting up of realities. In my perception this split up is not a "material" one, it is only the "move" to another "availability" that can become reality in another emergent phenomenon.

                I am untill now unable to substantiate this view mathematically, but I am searching.

                best regards

                Wilhelmus