Hi Alan, thank you for sharing your recipe for unification. I am grateful that it is written in accessible English, so that I can easily follow your arguments. I do think you are right to discount space-time as a foundational necessity. Hilbert space is an analytical tool rather than actual stage where subatomic physics is happening. So I'm not worried about dispensing with that either. The little bold italic touches were nice. Little sage sound bites I could see on a fridge magnet : ). I think the entanglement issue stems from thinking of states or values as properties wholly belonging to the entity under investigation rather than being the outcome of the relations that have pertained in finding it. So although an isolated relative value or state does not exist until the experiment or viewpoint is imposed,(IE the character or value forming relation happens), applying the same context to two separate particles formed as a pair that are in some way opposites, will inevitably identify opposite singular values or states. I appreciate the time that must have gone into developing your model and preparing this presentation. Kind regards Georgina

    Alan,

    Thanks very much for the interesting paper. I was able to make a Braille-like assessment of it while sliding lightly over some of the equations. Still, you held my interest and I believe I got the broad strokes of your thesis because you developed it well.

    Hope to have a paper in the mix before the deadline.

    Regards, Don Foster

      Dear Georgina,

      Thank you for your reading and your comments. I aim toward clarity and simplicity. The key point of my essay is that nature should be simple and unified at the fundamental level. Obscurity and complexity are indications that something is seriously wrong. Remarkably, some of my sympathetic colleagues have suggested that I might be able to publish in a journal if I narrow the focus and make my intention LESS clear. I have not taken their advice.

      Alan

      Dear Don,

      I'm not sure what you mean by a "Braille-like assessment", but my main point is that reunification of physics can be achieved only if we reconsider several aspects that have long been accepted as proven. Otherwise, we are stuck trying to make sense out of aspects that are logically incompatible.

      I will look for your essay.

      Alan

      Dear Alan Kadin,

      your paper is interesting insofar as it makes a provable statement, namely that orthodox quantum mechanics differs from the predictions of your approach.

      Assuming that your predictions are confirmed by experiment, I nonetheless cannot unequivocally conclude what principles should be considered 'fundamental' in your approach, or put differently, how your approach answers the essay contest's question "what is 'fundamental'?"?

      You merely seem to answer what is *not* fundamental, what - if it turns out to be true - would be a major success indeed (no non-locality, no superpositions, no black holes, no singularities), no doubt about this. But what has your approach to say about what is fundamental regarding ultimate reality? Unfortunately I wasn't able to decipher a possible answer from your essay.

        Hello dear Mr Kadin,

        I liked a lot your general essay even if I consider the singularities, the black holes and dark matter like important. I wish you all the best in this contest.It was a relevant reading.This space time still and always but if we have only matter and energy instead of this Space time.....so it is just a tool electromagntically speaking but not gravitationally.

        Best Regards

          These électrons are very intriguing when we analyse deeper the exchanges.I read the works of Dirac and Hestenes about the électron respecting the pauli principle.The real question is what are they really ?

          And what is really the interactions of an electron and a photon? How have they been produced at this instant zero at the creation of this universe ? a photon a positron and an electron with the good thermodynamical parameters ? I am doubting , I beleive that they are like all a gravitational coded serie of spherical volumes, of course it is just my opinion, but in this logic the Big Bang is not a reality.

          We have like a gravitational system giving the properties to these series due probably to intrinsic codes in the quantum singularities.

          We see easily that in fact the main gravitational codes are the essential for these finite series of uniquenss, primordial, able to have all these comportments respecting our standard model.We can consider this gravitation in encircling this standard model.That explains the stable gravitation.The cold and heat dances in fact if I can say implying properties and the encodings furthermore continue. The électrons if we insert the series more the motions orbital and spinal and linear can be better understood in their gravitational cmportment in this matter. The works of Dirac, Hestenes, Compton seem very relevant to better understand them.I am persuaded that these gravitational codes are the secret giving the properties, stable of matters.

          Good luck in this contest, it is wonderful general work.

          Best Regards

          Dear Stefan Weckbach,

          Yes, I state that many things that are generally considered fundamental are not really fundamental at all.

          However, I argue clearly that real waves of fundamental particles, particularly electrons and photons, are at least MORE fundamental than other things, defining even time and space. Of course, one may respond that there are too many fundamental particles of this type - you can add positrons, muons, neutrinos, 6 kinds of quarks and antiparticles, gluons, and W and Z bosons. Can all of these really be fundamental? There may well be a layer underlying this, but so far, we do not really have insights into it. The various theoretical approaches for grand unification are really just mathematical guesses.

          Still, I believe that unifying physics around quantum waves provides a good first step looking toward the future of physics.

          Best wishes,

          Alan Kadin

          Dear Mr. Dufourny,

          Thank you for your interest in my essay. You make a number of interesting points, and others that I don't quite follow.

          Regarding the Pauli principle, as I state in my essay, this is quite fundamental, but I believe that Pauli's mathematical explanation is wrong. This was how entanglement snuck into quantum theory. I don't know the more correct explanation, except that is may follow from a nonlinear self-interaction of the electron field, producing a soliton-like domain (with quantized spin) that repels other electrons with the same spin.

          Alan Kadin

          Alan

          Thanks for an interesting article. You are fighting for a more realistic physics. Physics of today contains lots of science fiction. Your efforts are important.

          Another risk today is that physics is too much dominated by mathematics. You cannot just shut up and calculate! What do you think?

          Regards from _____________________ John- Erik Persson

            Response 1/9/18

            John-Erik,

            Thank you for your comments. Yes, I agree with you that abstract mathematics has become too dominant in physics. Many theoretical physicists believe that mathematics is MORE fundamental than realistic pictures of objects moving in space.

            I am a big fan of science fiction, but most of it is FICTION. There is no time travel, or warp-drive through wormholes, or alternate universes. And the only aliens any of us are likely to encounter are immigrants from other countries!

            Alan

            Alan,

            I carefully read your essay and your references. I admire your dedication to re-unifying physics. The other essays indicate there is a lot of variability and divergence in what people believe...physics needs a solid reentry point.

            I simply reduced some data in a different way and developed a model of the neutron. I haven't been able to communicate it well but I now know the reason it works. I use the concept of a quantum circle but the circle is a wave and we may be seeking the same thing. I use what MIT calls the unitary evolution of the Schrodinger equation. P=psi*psi=exp(iEt/H)*exp(-iEt/H). I deal with the exponents in the equation and know the values labelled E that model the neutron, electron, etc. I ask you, are these the waves that you are seeking? If they are, everything is a wave and physics is re-unified because I have applied these values of E to cosmology, atomic physics and the high energy lab results for mesons, baryons, etc.

            My problem in communicating this is P=1 and iEt/H=1 and you have to look inside the 1's. The equation E=e0*exp(N) that gives the E's is easily derived from the Schrodinger equation but I have never found any use of the equation in physics. [Barbee, Gene H., Schrodinger Fundamentals for Mesons and Baryons, October 2017, vixra:1710.0306v1].

            I placed an excerpt from the proton model below. The values of E that satisfy P=1 are 13.797, 5.076, 101.947 and 0.687 MeV. For example 5.076 MeV comes from the equation E-2.02e-5*exp(12.432).

            There are 4 E's, and P=1=psi*psi*psi*psi=exp(13.797it/H)*exp(5.076it/H)*exp(-101.947it/H)*exp(-0.687it/H). The imaginary numbers divide out and each Et/H=1. I labelled the E's mass, kinetic energy, strong field, and grav field. They describe what I call a quantum circle. But again, I ask are these just waves that stand there like your soliton? There is an equal amounts of positive energy and negative energy in the diagram above. The values 101.947 and 0.687 MeV are field energy. Is the circular curve really a field or is it just a sine wave? Maybe I mislabeled the E's.

              Gene,

              I can't quite follow what you are proposing. I will review your essay, and your Vixra article, and see if I can understand it better. But this does not seem similar to what I am talking about.

              You talk about Et/H, where you say that H is Heisenberg's constant. Do you mean Planck's constant h-bar? Heisenberg has an uncertainty principle named after him, but not a constant as far as I know. Et/h-bar is the complex phase factor, in radians, of a stationary wave function. This phase factor cancels out when one takes the square of the wavefunction. The total integrated probability is 1 by definition, but it is normally a distribution over a range of states. So I am afraid that I don't understand what you are doing.

              When I talk about a wave, I mean a real dynamic vector field in real space, similar to an electromagnetic wave packet. The phase factor is then the angle of a rotating vector field, and its rotation corresponds to spin. In general a wave has a frequency and a wavelength, and these can be used to define time and space. So time and space are not abstract mathematical quantities, but rather are embedded in the quantum waves that constitute all matter.

              Alan

              Alan

              I am glad to here your realistic views. I agree to everything. Thank you.

              Regards _____________________ John-Erik

              Dear Alan Kadin,

              We agree on so much and I believe we can be made compatible in our areas of disagreement. Quantization of spin is fundamental and space and time are distinct. We agree on many other aspects treated in your essays but we disagree on the nature of gravity, which you claim is "a modulation of fundamental quantum waves by other quantum waves."

              As your neo-classical approach is basically an extension of classical physics, and classical physics is essentially based on a continuum, I hope you'll consider that the gravitational field is the continuum in which waves propagate. The recent detection of colliding neutron stars has finally established that gravitational waves and electromagnetic waves to propagate at the same speed (not necessarily constant, as you note).

              A question you do not address is what it is that waves are "waving in". My essay analyzes Einstein's 1905 paper of which is based on Hertz's 1890 paper and shows that Einstein special relativity misunderstood Hertz's extension of Maxwell's equations and also contradicts Einstein's own later conclusions. I have read and replied to your comments on my page, and I hope you will give the issue a second thought, as I believe you misinterpreted my essay. You seem to think I am rejecting the math of special relativity, which we both know is well proved by 20th century physics. I retain the math (i.e., the Lorentz transformation) while re-interpreting the physics of SR. And I believe the re-interpretation supports your perspective rather than not. So I would appreciate your re-consideration.

              I agree with you that particles are non-point non-linear (soliton-like) structures and suggest that acceptance of gravitation is a continuum (fluid like) will go a long way toward revealing the equations you outline on page 7.

              My essay supports several of your statements, such as:

              "All of our standard clocks [and rulers] are based on atomic states..."

              and

              "No reference to any space-time metric is necessary",

              and

              "The circularly polarized EM packet is a photon",

              But most of all I like your statement that

              "Compatibility with the complex theory with many adjustable parameters proves nothing."

              With my very best regards,

              Edwin Eugene Klingman

              Dr. Kadin,

              Thank you for your correction, the symbol H is 2*pi*h-bar=4.1357e-21 MeV-sec. For example, time is travel time at velocity C around a circle of radius R=1.93e-13 MeV-m/E meters. If E=2.73 MeV, tE/H=1.513e-21*2.73/4.136e-21=1.

              Please bear with me, my work is naïve but I just reduce data. I want to share the logarithmic relationships behind the data.

              Dear Alan Kadin,

              Although I appreciated your clear language in case of your essay "Just too many people", I feel we both may sometimes sound a bit too blunt. Was it necessary to write "And the only aliens any of us are likely to encounter are immigrants from other countries!"? Are those poor people guilty? I prefer blaming my own lacking ideas how to persuade the women in the exploding regions to have considerably less children.

              I hope your dispute with Klingman may clarify fundamental questions, and I will

              read your new essay as carefully as I can.

              Best,

              Eckard Blumschein

                Dear Eckard,

                Thank for your interest, but you may have misinterpreted my poor attempt at a joke. In common English language usage, "alien" has a double meaning of both a foreigner and an extraterrestrial. This was not intended to be insulting to either immigrants or extraterrestrials.

                Just to be clear: I do not associate myself in any way with a particular prominent individual who has recently made disparaging remarks regarding immigrants.

                I would also appreciate any comments you might have about my essay, and I will look for your essay.

                Alan

                Alan,

                You left a comment on my paper (The Fundamental Universe) but I believe you get notifications of comments only if I post on your page. Just wanted to let you know that I had read your paper even prior to the submission of mine. Now that I have the author code, I've completed a rating for yours. Thanks for the opportunity to read it.

                Given our similar thinking, I'd enjoy a discussion with you one day. Good luck with the contest.

                Jeff Yee

                Alan M.

                Sorry I got into your discussion.

                I must say that fundamental is the rotation space, which according to Descartes is matter. Carefully you can see that the waves of space - it is its periodic rotation.

                I agree with you that spin is the smallest measure of the rotation space. He and the speed of light form the pressure of the Universe, which compresses particles.

                With respect. Boris S. Dizhechko