Dear Dr. Luediger:

You make a number of points in your rather philosophical essay, not all of which I fully understand. However, you seem to be questioning whether 20th century physical theories of quantum mechanics and relativity have provided anything more fundamental in our understanding of the physical universe, since they apply in different (orthogonal) regimes.

You might be interested in my essay "Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics", in which I propose that a set of slight modifications from classical physics can give rise to a consistent unified physical picture on all scales. This incorporates discreteness (on the scale of Planck's constant) via quantization of spin in real quantum fields, and defines time and space via parameters of these same fields. It maintains local reality, causality, and determinism, avoiding problematic concepts of duality, superposition, and entanglement. This suggests that the Hilbert-space mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics is analogous to epicycles in pre-Copernican astronomy - it provides accurate results, but is conceptually incorrect. This also makes specific predictions that deviate sharply from the orthodox approach, but do not appear to have been tested.

Best Wishes,

Alan Kadin

    9 days later

    Hi Heinrich, I think you have done a really good job presenting not just a critique of the question but the history of scientific thought. I take the point well that what is fundamental depends on the context. There is safety in numbers, that is a biological fact, with which we have evolved. Independent thinking is not always seen in a good light. Yet as FQXi shows there are people 'swimming against the flow'. Though it would be easier to be one of the shoal, or an ant : ). I look forward to reading your informative essay more thoroughly another time. Kind regards Georgina

    Hi Anthony,

    the trouble with induction is i) that it can only induct what is already known and ergo produce no progress, and ii) that it deals with facts (or events) rather than meaning. But the most troubling thing coming out of induction is 'prediction', for it deals with microscopic slices of reality. Hence it is always possible to adapt the whole rest to the microscopic prediction (this is what happened in modern physics).

    When I referred to Kuhn then just for the reason of contrasting 'scientific revolutions' with what might be called 'orthogonal expansion' or simply 'natural growth'.

    Heinrich

    Hi Zoran,

    I agree that theoretical physicists will be going nowhere fast. It will probably take another generation to get Darwin's romantic ideas (of evolution in grammatical-historical time) out of their heads.

    Heinrich

    Dear Dr. Kadin,

    I have enjoyed reading your essay. If I understand correctly you're trying to 'repair' 20th century physics by introducing new quantities, reinterpreting old and projecting still to be discovered equations. Now, Feynman said that the double slit experiment "...has in it the heart [dynamite?] of quantum mechanics". How would your theory of fundamental electron fields deal with the matter?

    Heinrich

    4 days later

    Dear Heinrich,

    Thank you for reading my essay. You describe the intent correctly, although you seem skeptical that such an ambitious agenda is reasonable. This agenda is not yet complete; I require some assistance from mathematicians expert in nonlinear differential equations. But I think this is more reasonable than the massive expansion in dimensionality central to quantum entanglement, for example.

    Regarding electron diffraction, I realize that this historically provided the first experimental evidence for the reality of deBroglie waves. However, I argue (based in part on the analysis of Van Vliet cited in the essay) that diffraction experiments provide NO information on the wave nature of electrons or any other particles. The diffraction results are due to quantized momentum transfer of the slits or lattice producing the diffraction. So I can say that electrons are distributed waves but neutrons are particles, even though both produce diffraction.

    One can never prove that a theory is fundamentally correct by showing results that agree with the theory; one can only disprove a theory. I have proposed accessible experiments that could disprove either my theory or orthodox quantum mechanics.

    While a neoclassical theory of this type could have been proposed any time in the past 90 years, I have been unable to find anything like this in the literature. As quantum computing is now developing the first real technological applications of quantum entanglement, it may be time that this alternative is seriously considered.

    Alan

    Dear Alan,

    still trying to make sense of your theory...but yes, I'm skeptical. Simply doing away with long standing paradoxes by redressing those parts of the theory arousing them may be too simple a strategy. I'm also skeptical of your 'integration' efforts, because they point to case-based abstractions rather than general intuitions. In some places I do see pedagogical advantages of your theory which, however, appear to be torpedoed in other places. Haven't "distributed objects that maintain particle integrity while remaining waves..." been a tacid assumption in many labs all along? So, in general and maybe due to the yet missing keystone of your theory (nonlinear wave equations with soliton-like solutions (which may bring more trouble than benefit?)) my central criticism is that nothing seems to flow from your theory in the sense of redispositioning certain branches of physics. And finally, experimental proof/disproof has never decided anything (see LHC).

    Heinrich

    5 days later

    Dear H. H. J. Luediger,

    You wrote: "But what if human knowledge and thus language is not logically organized and inaccessible analytically?"

    My research has concluded that Nature must have devised the only permanent structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

    Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

    Dear H. H. J. Luediger,

    My contention that the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light am not a theory, it am an easily provable fact. You can only see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed constantly changing flat looking varied colored surfaces no matter in which direction you look. It logically follows that only infinite surface am observable.

    Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

    7 days later

    Hi Heinrich Luediger,

    Your thinking that "early 20th century physics, which ever since has been lauded as a scientific revolution, has practically maneuvered itself into the mind-contorting like a ROAD ROLLER and flattened off by sacrificing context in favor of positive fundamentalism." Is exactly correct My dear Heinrich Luediger.......... Time is very important fundamental aspect, you are very correct.....

    I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity.

    I request you please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

    Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

    -No Isotropy

    -No Homogeneity

    -No Space-time continuum

    -Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

    -No singularities

    -No collisions between bodies

    -No blackholes

    -No warm holes

    -No Bigbang

    -No repulsion between distant Galaxies

    -Non-empty Universe

    -No imaginary or negative time axis

    -No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

    -No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

    -No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

    -No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

    -No many mini Bigbangs

    -No Missing Mass / Dark matter

    -No Dark energy

    -No Bigbang generated CMB detected

    -No Multi-verses

    Here:

    -Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

    -Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

    -All bodies dynamically moving

    -All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

    -Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

    -Single Universe no baby universes

    -Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

    -Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

    -UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

    -Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

    -Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

    -21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

    -Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

    -Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

    - Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

    http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

    I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

    Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

    In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

    I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

    Best

    =snp

    6 days later

    Dear Fellow Essayists

    This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

    Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

    All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

    Only the truth can set you free.

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    Heinrich - a brilliant, if incomplete, philosophical essay. We humans are, regrettably, dammed by dualism. We cannot reconcile it and yet we cannot exist without it, despite the efforts of philosophers across the millennia. However, we need to move past the positivists and linguists. That dead end was eloquently laid out by Wittgenstein, "That whereof we cannot speak, we must remain silent," the incompleteness theorems of Godel and even, more recently, the capitulation of Hawking and Mlodnow - "there is no model-independent concept of reality".

    If we continue the philosophical journey through the 20th century, as I attempt to do (Faith is Fundamental) we can re-engage with the curse of dualism. Life is comprehensible - but the empirical must be leavened with .... something more. Call it the axiomatic, the bottom turtle, the fundamental --- I call it faith.

    Cheers - George Gantz

    Dear George,

    thanks for your kind remarks!

    I agree that the 'linguistic turn' failed for reasons of positivity. That's why I embarked on a philosophy of 'negation' (which has nothing to do with negative theology). Rather, there are some for which modern philosophy does not begin with Descartes, but 200 years earlier with Cusanus (Nikolaus von Kues). He spoke of 'docta ignorantia' and 'coincidentia oppositorum'. So true belief for him (faith) IS knowledge by understanding that learned ignorance (the acceptance that there are unanswerable questions) is not a defeat, but the very condition for there to be knowledge at all. That is, only the existence of unanswerable questions leads to the performative consistency of the 'world'.

    So what you refer to as a curse, I consider it as the condition sine qua non. Isn't logic what turns 'coincidentia oppositorum' into problem in the first place? Is there a problem when we stop asking undue questions?

    Heinrich

    4 days later

    Heinrich,

    A lovely essay. I studied philosophy with other degrees and well appreciated your points and argument. I think Shut up and Calculate was too high a price to pay and has stunted our understanding.

    Good score from me, but more important I hope you may comment on a solution I posit to the problem of binaries, or the 'Excluded Middle'. On many grounds I propose a 'Law of the Reducing Middle' which takes the form of a non-linear Bayesian distribution; Nothing is 100% and all things are possible. My essay describes (astonishingly) a classical derivation of QM from 'soliton' fermion interactions - so also a Cos^2 Bayesian distribution, with NO action at a distance required! (I also show if SR is also slightly rationalised, as my past essays show, with CSL the two unify).

    All is from a rational heristic not mathematical approach, though Declan Traill's essay has the matching computer code and plot.

    I do hope you'll read it and give me your views. I show an experiment to prove the momenta distribution pattern to doctrinal physicists but have had precious little actual analysis!

    Anyway thank you for yours. A great and refreshing text, beautifully written.

    Very best of luck in the contest.

    Peter

      5 days later

      The author does show a mastery of the history of philosophy. This essay sets out to challenge the reader with the style of writing and the logical steps of the argument. The cynical, but appropriate use of "Münchhausen" is an example of unique and challenging word use.

      "Cultural interpretation of science is the fundamental. " is what this reviewer understood as the message of this essay. Society is the consumer of science, so it is hard to disagree with this idea. This thesis fits into the overall goal of the contest better than any string theory essay.

      Hope you get a good rating,

      Jeff Schmitz

      8 days later

      For anyone who has read or is interested in this particular essay, my detailed analysis of it is located here:

      Bollinger critique of Context by Heinrich Luediger

      I am respectful, but I do not pull any punches.

      My analysis is unfortunately listed as "Anonymous" due to one of those silent logouts that the FQXi site does every few hours, but my signature is at the bottom of the posting.

      Sincerely,

      Terry Bollinger

      Dear Heinrich,

      It often happens that in my research I decide to go back to some milestones in physics and deconstruct and reconstruct them partially, because the historical context shapes the way we make new theories. The inspirational flow of a new idea solidifies too rapidly, so it leaves little time for the fruit to ripe. Then the inflation of incremental research and of applications of new ideas makes them being captured in amber and new geological strata cover the old ones. The theories die before reaching maturity, and then they become venerated as relics. So I am pleasantly surprised by your criticism, perhaps too harsh, perhaps polemically unfair sometimes, but nevertheless necessary and useful.

      People tend to absolutize their views, perhaps because they identify themselves with them, and an instinct of conservation takes over. Physicists are humans too, and physicalism is (some) physicists' way of being fundamentalists. This sort of ego is easily fueled by the experimental confirmations of theories we don't understand enough, and of technological applications. This is part of being human, and it is far from the perfection we would like to think characterizes us. I don't think I should be apologetic about this, I really think many physicists are doing great job, even if physics is plagued by historical context, prejudice, and an exacerbated feeling of being closer to the roots of things. I just try to be realist and to avoid some common traps.

      So here are some parts of your essay which I liked very much. You are right to ask "as regards Newton's mathematical innovation, how can a theory become false that first opened up the scientific domain of motion not only of bodies, but also of heat, waves and gases?" There is a tendency of humans to put in opposition the new with the ideas of previous thinkers, and you gave very good examples like Newton and Kant. I don't think they become obsolete, because the new ideas are not as radically new, and they couldn't be without the previous ones, and most likely they will not be the last word.

      You said about theories that "they have in common that, in order to make precise predictions, the state of nothing less than the universe would need be known." Well, this is true, so "precise predictions" will always be a fantasy. Maybe we can hope at least for precise within a certain tolerance? About reaching the end, you said "as if Hume hadn't made clear enough that rules drawn from observations remain contingent forever", which is in agreement with Popper too, and I think most honest physicists would agree.

      I understand your nostalgia over Newton's and Kant's space and time, but I think your criticism of special relativity is unfair. I find your criticism of quantum mechanics unfair too, but I agree with your rejection of the "shut up and calculate", and I must say that many physicists agree too. There are many attempts to go beyond this limitation, which I think is unjustified and a historical accident. The problem is that it turned out to be difficult to find a good description which is also consistent with the experiments. I think that special relativity and quantum mechanics are not mere sociological constructs, and if you said that they have no connection with reality I disagree. The historical context is relevant, but I doubt that things being different it could be possible to save Newton's and Kant's space and time, or that it will ever be possible. I will not engage in a debate about this. I am surprised though that, given that at this contest there are some essays which are doing quite well by trying to "fix" SR and QM, yours got so little visibility. Probably it is because despite the 4 page length, your style may seem too sophisticated. Too bad for them, because even if I disagree with some of your criticism and I have reservations for the polemic style, I think your style is brilliant and entertaining, and the essay is full of content.

      Best wishes,

      Cristi Stoica