Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics by Alan M. Kadin

Alan,

It is a good idea. To read all the essays and rank them regarding their essays as they reflect the wave nature of the world.

It is obvious that my essay will be in last place because I claim that space is matter that moves. You say - no space is an abstraction of empty place, wherein the moving body and itself it can not move.

Boris S. Dizhechko

You actually have very many good ideas in your approach to reality. However, your approach is affected by your allegiance to spacetime. Continuous space and time are very useful notions, but they limit how we can see reality and so we must give those notions up.

You discuss the illusion of entanglement but do not discuss the illusion of space and time. Quantum phase coherence is a reality that is the root of quantum entanglement. Space and time emerge from matter and action...

Mr Kadin,

I conclude that you apply a simplistic interpretation of the Hilbert space. The orthomodular lattice that was discovered by Birkhoff and von Neumann emerges into a separable Hilbert space, but many realizations of separable Hilbert spaces exist and every infinite dimensional separable Hilbert space owns a companion non-separable Hilbert space that embeds its separable partner. Further, Hilbert spaces apply division rings for specifying their inner products. Many Hilbert spaces can share the same underlying vector space.

Look at "Diversity of Floating Platforms"; http://vixra.org/abs/1712.0242 for examples.

Sincerely yours,

Hans van Leunen

Alan--

I think that this is a very good attempt at totally revamping our entire approach to doing physics, compared to any other attempt that I've seen. You make a number of interesting points and suggest experimental tests of some ideas. I particularly like you suggestions of nonlinearity being important. However, I do have some serious questions about your proposal.

My main issue that that you ignore so much of the success that QM in its present form has enjoyed, and you don't offer any comparable examples of such success for your theory. For example, if you put an electron into a periodic potential and solve Schrodinger's Eqn. you get band structure. That is not like Ptolemaic epicycles--it was a big surprise that popped out the theory. If you put your soliton-like electron waves into a periodic potential, can you get band structure? If you put two of them near a helium nucleus, can you calculate the energy levels of helium? One more example: exchange-correlation energies using current theory are used extensively in density functional theory, resulting in a huge number of comparisons with experiment. A few "crucis experimenti" that agree with your predictions might not be enough to offset generations of success.

I also think you are a little cavalier about dismissing entangled states and the experimental body of work showing that Bell's inequality is violated.

But I don't want to sound negative. I understand your motivation and I congratulate you on what you have accomplished so far. I'm only trying to suggest the difficulty of the task.

Dear Alan,

I read with great interest your deep analytical essay with extremely important conclusions and ideas aimed at solving the fundamental problems of modern physics. I see that our ideas are close, but our ontologies of the basis of knowledge are slightly different. But this is good, as it forces us to argue and search for a single primordial construction of reality, the construction of the "beginning." Yes, physics needs the deepest ontological re-unification. My highest score.

Successes in the Сontest!

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

Alan, I largely agree with you. Space and time exist separately. Quantum mechanics must change. All quantum phenomena arise from the existence pressure of the Universe, which is equal to the force聽flux through a closed surface is equal to the product of the speed of light on Planck's constant (a generalized Gaussian Law).

Your essay is worthy of the winner. But I appreciate those who read my Essay.

Take a look at it and give your comment.

Sincerely, Dicecco Boris Semenovich.

Dear Alan;

In my view, what your proposal shows is how the lack of a fundamental (ontological) concept of time, space, and other parametric concepts used in classical and modern physics leads to paradoxes and contradictions.

The solution you propose, if you or any other could fine the set of equations that satisfy all the conditions of your theory, will in the end be plagued with the same type of paradoxes and contradictions.

In order to see truth, it is necessary to drop all the veils that distort the view. Most physicists are today trapped behind the veils of mathematical formalisms without an ontological and epistemological basis.

In my essay I described those veils and propose ways to drop them. There I start by establishing the general concept of "Fundamental". Then I summarize an epistemological critique of the practice of theoretical science, where it is demonstrated the inadequacy of the ways science constructs the fundamental concepts for studying the fine grain of reality. Afterward I propose an expansion of the scope of physical science to include the aspects of reality that cannot be observed directly or indirectly. Then I discusses the concepts of SPACE, DISTANCE,TIME, INERTIA, MASS AND ELECTRIC CHARGE, and develop new concepts for each of these scientific parameters; redefining them in ways that allows the determination of whether or not they could be categorized as Fundamental

Hi Alan M. Kadin

Wonderful Idea of Unifying Physics...." On the contrary, a simple realistic picture of fundamental waves can provide the basis for reunifying physics on all scales. This neoclassical synthesis combines aspects of classical, quantum, and relativistic physics, but is distinct from each of them." Best wishes for your success Dear Kadin.................. .......... very nice idea.... 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

Hi Alan,

I am with you on your neoclassical approach in general, and with the sentiment that physics is in need of renewal. I find it very interesting that you reproduce the radial dimensional variability of general relativity. The first order variability with gravitational potential that you present for the speed of light forms the basis of the Shapiro experiment. The speed of light in general relativity is only constant far away from a gravitational field.

An added complication in the variability with gravitational potential is that transverse displacement is handled differently from radial displacement. The speed of light is (1+2phi)c radially, but (1+phi)c transversely. This difference in velocity arises from the supposed length contraction due to gravity which only occurs radially, leaving the transverse length unaltered. For example, mass is (1-3phi)m radially, but becomes (1-phi)m transversely.

There is a table of radial and transverse dimensional variability in my essay. I used this table to argue that radial length contraction is a concept not actually required because there is an equivalent neoclassical relativistic formulation of gravitational potential energy. Interpretation as length contraction is part of the formalism of general relativity, but it turns out not to be the only viewpoint.

If I am not over-simplifying, your point that QM ought to be about making solitons out of waves is well taken. In Quantum Theory (1951), Bohm mentions an interesting wave packet that "does not change its shape in time" "because of a peculiarity of the harmonic oscillator wave functions that is not duplicated in any other system." The wave packet does change in time, but it does so periodically,

Bohm goes on to say that "The particular wave packet that we have chosen is unusual, in that it has the same wave function as does the lowest state of the oscillator, except that its center has been displaced ..." These quotes are from Chapt.13 on The Harmonic Oscillator, Sec.15 Wave Packets, p.306-308 in the Dover paperback edition.

So it is possible to have something like a soliton wave packet, but only for the lowest state of a quantum harmonic oscillator. For the cosmological case that I consider, this implies that matter (or at least light) in the form of a wave packet of these solitons would be made from a superposition of waves with energy at the zero-point.

Cheers,

Colin

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 must consist 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

Thanks for commenting on my essay.

I agree the edifice of quantum foundations will fall. I think my diffraction experiment may contribute to that.

However, I suggest the "entanglement" can be viewed in a classical setting. All we need is for gravity waves to travel much faster than light. Photons need not be the only signal mechanism. So, entanglement can continue after the quantum edifice collapses.

Hi dear Alan

I have read your attractive essay and find there whole group of very unusual things (that can bring many of advanced theorists even to heart attack!)

You say:

1.There is not space-time!

2.Electron should be a rotating vector field!

3.I have argued that quantum mechanics has been profoundly misunderstood since the beginning, and that a premature mathematical formalism prevented the proper development of the physical foundations. Quantum mechanics is a successful theory in the same way that epicycles were successful - it provides an accurate description based on complex ad-hoc rules, but something is seriously missing.

4.There are no point particles at all!

5.Why has a waves-only interpretation of quantum mechanics never been seriously considered? The reason seems to be that although a linear wave packet may briefly act as a particle, it would quickly spread out, losing its integrity as a single particle. But as pointed out above, a nonlinear wave equation can generate solitons with stable particle-like properties. Quantum mechanics should be viewed not as a general theory of nature, but rather as a mechanism to generate discrete particle behavior from continuous fundamental waves!

So, I can say only that I will signing under all of these assertions because I am sure on the rightness all of these points. You call something as "solitons" and I call the same things as "stable localized wave-vortex" and here only some difference, which principally is not so essential in my view. Thus, I am just happy to find one like-minded person who able resolutely presented his waypoint and results, against of aggressive majority. You say:

6.The question of quantum entanglement is still open

On this I can say only thank you, because long time I just did not understand where is the division of facts and assumptions on this matter? In the other words - where I need to put this entanglement?

Thus, Issued from above said I just oblige to support you - as much as it is possible!

Now Let me just to invite your attention on this two important points (that, I think, can be some useful for your productive work)

a). The one of corner-stone of QM - the Heisenberg's uncertainty actually becomes the same as the classical "wave beating" (i.e. it becomes causal-determinate phenomenon!)

b). The unknown - unexplained yet and most important the coupling constant (a=1/137) are the independent numeric constant (as Pi = 3.14) that derives from wave-dynamical properties (that contains in our handbooks!) This is most important thing, - if we will able to understand where from arises alpha, then we will get the main key to understand almost everything! Check my works please from mentioned link in the bottom of my essay (not right now, but in any good time for you, I really believe that you can find there something useful for your future works)

It remains me to good luck you in this contest!

Best Regards

Hi Alan,

I wanted to take a moment to reassure you that I am not taken in by the prevailing consensus, and that I am in accord with you on a good many things. Your title and abstract made me immediately place your essay in my reading bin, but there was a queue already when it was added. Seeing your comments to Bill McHarris suggests you and I share an appreciation for nonlinear phenomena that is nontrivial. But your comments on my essay suggest you read it only superficially, or you would know I am a champion of some of the same ideas Bill talks about.

But perhaps I did not communicate myself well enough, or you were fooled by the window dressing. I deliberately cast my descriptions in terms that conform to the norm of Physics terminology, because I'm talking about controversial stuff. But I did use caveats like "the description preferred by physicists is..." to delineate that I was not necessarily in agreement. In my talk at FFP15; I was careful to speak about black holes as idealized examples, and I did cite caveats and provide counterexamples, but showed they also support the metaphor of gravitation by condensation.

So I do care about why there is gravity, as well as if it is fundamental. And I thought I did talk a fair amount about that question in my essay, but I guess not as clearly as you would have liked. You should look at my slides 38 and 39, especially. I hope to get to your essay soon, but I wanted to inform you that we are entirely in agreement on some issues, even if my essay's tone does not reflect that. I am familiar with the work of Chapline and Laughlin, Mazur and Mottola, and others in that crowd. I've corresponded with Abhas Mitra, and I still have some correspondence with Stan Robertson.

Those investigations are not erased by the fact I heard so many lectures on black holes at GR21.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Dear Alan,

On one hand, being a classic relativist, I disagree with the main claims of your Essay. On the other hand, your Essay has been a pleasant reading for me. In particular, I appreciate your attempt to connect quantum waves with gravity. Hence, you deserves a good score.

I have a crucial question: 1) How can you reconcile your framework with Einstein equivalence principle, which has today an unchallengeable empiric evidence, and with the recent detections of gravitational waves?

Maybe you could be interested in my Essay, where I discuss an opposite approach to the fundamental physics with... Albert Einstein!

Good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

Dear Dr Kadin,

I enjoyed reading your very different take on quantum mechanics, though I hope you will tolerate that my view on entanglement is almost the diametric opposite of the one in your essay. That is, for more reasons than I can get into here, I am strongly inclined to view locality as the concept that is a bit of an illusion, one that is created and imposed on otherwise near-infinite entanglement by the emergence of space and time. I tend to view the kind of entanglement used in quantum encryption devices (vs far less real computing devices) as just a remnant of that not-quite-perfect, locality-generating suppression of the default of entanglement.

But that aside, your essay contains a number of interesting thoughts. As an input for how to look at those ideas more closely, I hope you don't mind if I suggest a few directions in which you or others might want to explore to help move forwards towards that more specific set of equations that you propose is possible:

(1) Entanglement. Examine the properties of existing, off-the-shelf, entanglement-based quantum encryption devices such as those sold by ID Quantique. This is a very real and frankly pretty brutal market, not at all like the soft "let's play some" market for quantum computing devices. It would be interesting to play your framework against such devices to look for other ways to interpret their success in using photon entanglement as the basis for marketable products.

(2) Full fundamental fermion zoo. If waves are everything, then quarks and neutrinos also need explanation. The additional structure of such entities might help in the quest you mentioned to find a broader set of equations.

(3) Recreating GR predictive power. The actual astrophysics predictive power of GR has been pretty impressive, with gravitational rings and imaging being perhaps one of the most interesting areas of GR-inspired astrophysics. That set of potential equations would I think need to address how very much like space curvature could create such observed effects.

(4) Clarifying waves vs superposed states. Since every wave is through its Fourier transform a superposition of other sinusoidal wave states, some clarification of what you mean might help there. One can of course simply define a stationary (stable resonating) state as the only entity that is important, but that does not preclude the reinterpretation of it as a Fourier (or simpler) composition of other wave states. Doing so can be very handy at times. So, just a thought: Clarifying the terminology and intent there might be helpful.

Again, thanks for an interesting mix of ideas that made (and make) me think, even if in cases such as for entanglement our default assumptions are so very different. I hope you will continue to sharpen your ideas by picking tough targets to hit them against and so further refine and expand on them.

Sincerely,

Terry Bollinger

(Essay https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3099)

Where do I start?

I like this essay, but you have written a paper it is extremely hard for me to grade Alan. Your theory is an unfinished work of art. I agree with your core premise, and I've explored that somewhat, but I warn you there are other other notions further up the chain. Waves are indeed more fundamental than particles, however. And I tend to agree that QM as it it generally applied contains major fallacies. I put Hilbert space in the category of invented Maths, rather than the fundamental kind, because it was devised for a purpose. It is a hypercubic projection into discrete measure spaces, and nature prefers spheres.

If one constructs spheres of increasingly higher dimension, the volume then the surface area reach a maximum and decrease thereafter, while hypercubic expansions go on forever. An illusion therefore arises in QM, when the Hilbert space formulation is incorrectly applied, or is assumed to be a universal generalization. John Klauder is among the few who does it correctly, while Sean Carroll and Ashmeet Singh appear to use the framework inaptly, or abuse the generalization, in my opinion. I've never believed in point-particles, and I like the idea that space is defined by wave expansion.

I have written since my very 1st FQXi essay that the property of waves is to be spread out or extended in space and time, and to move or propagate. This also was in my FFP10 presentation, in Perth back in 2009. While it is a particle-like property to be localized, waves are inherently non-local by virtue of being spread out or extended. Do you agree? At the very least; I see it as a space defining property. But I attach a paper by H.D. Zeh which also claims that waves are more fundamental than physical reality - from a more conventional framework. I have more to say, but I hope you enjoy the prior comments and paper.

I'll have to read again, before I rate this.

All the Best,

JonathanAttachment #1: 2_no-quantum-jumps.pdf