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 Christian,
Thank you for your reading of my essay and for your questions.
First, the treatment of GR in my framework is an alternative interpretation of the same standard GR trajectories. This has gravitational time dilation and length contraction built in, with the same first order dependence on gravitational potential as the standard metric. I don't think we have any knowledge of higher order gravitational dependence. My skepticism of black holes is basically the same as Einstein's - Nature does not have mathematical singularities. Gravitational waves would follow from any relativistic field theory - the LIGO observation does not have the precision to select between alternatives.
In contrast, my treatment of QM is NOT simply an alternative interpretation - it is a different theory, particularly for multiple particles, with some different experimental implications, particularly regarding superposition and entanglement. The proposed nonlinearity is incompatible with the entire framework of Hilbert space. That is why I present Quantum Computing as a test case - if I am right, Quantum Computing will fail to achieve its promised results.
This is not in any way a quantum theory of gravity, but rather an effort to place both GR and QM within the same neoclassical framework. It also does not address unifying different forces of nature. But to go further in fundamental physics, it is essential to establish a consistent set of foundations.
I noticed your dialog with Einstein, but I will read it more carefully.
Best Wishes,
Alan Kadin
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,
As it turns out...
Back in 2008 and '09; I was exploring ideas myself that incorporate several of the core concepts of the work you present in this year's essay Alan. I was invited to write an article for a special issue of Entropy, and I made a poster presentation at FFP10, but I hit a wall before my work saw publication. I later found out that it was Dieter Zeh who sunk my proceedings paper, and I got to have a long discussion as to why it failed and what was expected. But this rejection came after I encountered an $800 processing fee requirement from entropy, when a change in management nullified the previous fee waiver arrangement for that special issue.
I never got as far as you have come, and I pursued other lines of research for a while after that. But I don't think your ideas are crazy at all, only that you are a bit shy of the same level of formalism Dieter Zeh was requiring of me. I have friends and colleagues working in a similar direction who have taken bits and pieces of your framework further than you have, so I know for a fact that the Math can be filled in. They might not all be comfortable with my sharing their work in progress, but I can always point them at you. And I can probably point you at a lot of published work that supports your central thesis or offers additional corroborating evidence.
All the Best,
Jonathan
Dear Alan,
Thanks for clarifying.
Your point of view on quantum mechanics is interesting.
You tell
"Gravitational waves would follow from any relativistic field theory - the LIGO observation does not have the precision to select between alternatives."
This is perhaps the research field where I have the major experience, give a look to this paper. Here is also my last contribution which has been published just last week.
Cheers, Ch.
Dear Dr. Bollinger,
Thank you for your quick reading and your comments and suggestions. This is the type of interaction that I have been seeking. Let me address your points individually.
Regarding locality and entanglement, space and time, I believe that the heart of physics consists of pictures, not abstract mathematics. Pictures of real objects with real motion in real time implies local realism. Influences can propagate outward via real waves at the speed of light. This picture is simple, powerful, and unifying, and should not be discarded without strong direct evidence. Regarding your other points:
1) Entanglement
You mention quantum encryption devices based on correlated photon pairs. These are based on a generation of Bell's theorem experiments on linearly polarized single photons, which are quite complicated both to carry out and to analyze. I would suggest that the enhanced security of quantum communication may be illusory. I have suggested that such linearly polarized single photons may really be two photons - most photon detectors cannot distinguish one from two at the same time. Certain newer energy-dependent detectors can make this distinction, but the people who can do the experiments will not talk to me.
2) Full Fundamental Fermion Zoo
Yes, there are too many fundamental particles, most of which exist only in high-energy accelerators. There is clearly another more fundamental level, but we will never get there if the foundations of the current level are incorrect.
3) Recreating GR Predictive Power
Maybe my essay did not explain this clearly, but my approach is an alternative interpretation of GR - the trajectories are quantitatively identical, at least to first order in gravitational potential. I have carried out numerical solutions using Matlab that show this. And I don't think we know anything about higher-order effects. My objection to spacetime is not that it gives incorrect results, but rather that it is abstract and misleading. Time and space are different, and are related only because frequency and wavevector for waves are related. Time travel, wormholes, and parallel universes exist only in science fiction.
4) Clarifying waves vs superposed states
For a linear equation, any linear superposition of solutions is also a solution, but that does not hold for nonlinear equations. The Schrodinger equation is linear, but only certain solutions of the Schrodinger equations are permitted, specifically those with quantized spin. That suggests that the true equation is nonlinear, but the nonlinear terms cancel out (and are effectively hidden) when spin is quantized. Entanglement was first introduced in the theory as a mathematical trick to enforce the exclusion principle for electrons in atoms. An appropriate nonlinear theory should generate this exclusion automatically, without the need for tricks in an abstract Hilbert space. I have been looking into nonlinear equations with self-phase modulation, but have yet to make much progress.
Thank you again for your interest, and the FQXi is a good place for these discussions, even if we may disagree.
Alan Kadin
Dear Jonathan,
Thank you again for all of your comments and suggestions.
Regarding locality, this can mean several different things. It can refer to a point interaction, but alternatively, a wavepacket can be local if it remains localized in a region of space.
One can never use experiments to prove that a theory is correct, but appropriate experiments can disprove a theory. An alternative picture that makes different predictions is needed to establish what experiments should be carried out. Remarkably, I have been unable to publish proposals for such experiments, because questioning the foundations is viewed as heresy. As I mentioned in my essay, the two-stage Stern-Gerlach experiment is used in textbooks to illustrate quantum measurement theory. This goes beyond what the original (single-stage) SG experiment did. The two-stage experiment could easily be done using modern atomic beam systems, but everyone believes it was done long ago, and they already know the answer. In the Feynman lectures, Feynman admitted that it was never done, but other textbooks neglect to mention this.
In the past few years, quantum computing has become a fashionable field for R&D by governments and corporations, and billions of dollars are being invested. But the predicted power of quantum computing comes directly from entanglement. I predict that the entire quantum computing enterprise will fail within about 5 years. Only then will the mainstream start to question the foundations of quantum mechanics.
Regarding rating essays, I am waiting for all of the essays to be posted before I rate any of them. We have until Feb. 26.
Best Wishes,
Alan Kadin
Thank you Alan.
You may find interesting some of the papers by Laszlo Kish at Texas A&M and his colleagues. He is among those who explores how some of the subtleties of nonlinear EM encountered in antenna or waveguide design and elsewhere aptly explain much of what has been regarded as exclusively quantum effects. But of course; arXiv relegates all his papers to gen-ph even if they later get published in respected QM journals. Nor is he the only established researcher to encounter active resistance for pursuing ideas like this.
But knowledge today is organized in information silos with thick walls. So when people exploring quantum thermodynamics saw the appearance of extra degrees of freedom, they labeled it as something completely new and exciting. But as J. Miguel Rubi pointed out in Scientific American back in '08 or '09, this is a consequence of Onsager reciprocity that has become fairly well-known in studies of non-equilibrium entropy in the mesoscale. There too; we see that linked variables like position and momentum become independent ones.
So what is new depends greatly on the context in which we find it.
All the Best,
Jonathan
Regarding entanglement...
I agree the jury is out, on several issues relating to non-local effects and how they are explained. In a universe where only waves are real, there are no independent particles to become entangled, but non-local effects are automatic. So I understand that this negates the need to describe things that way, and calls into question some of the conclusions drawn regarding the power of quantum computing. If the things I discussed with Tevian Dray at GR21 hold water, it is not quantumness that is being observed, but the transition to non-commutative and non-associative geometries as the distance scale becomes shorter than the well-defined boundaries of structure. GR is strictly defined only down to about 10^-12 cm. So we have a lot to learn!
All the Best,
Jonathan
Dear Alan
I agree with you: there is no spacetime. The new concept of Space and Time explains quantum entanglement (see my essay "Fundamental entities in Physics" ).
Regards,
Ilgaitis
Alan,
I'm sorry not to share your optimism that the Quantum Computing bug will be squashed anytime soon. There is too great a level of hubris to let that happen. What I expect to happen is that 5G being as physically small as an electronic junction can be made and still be an electronic junction, and thus be the terminal moraine of Moore's Law, the global economic dependence on ever more computing power at no greater cost will result in Quantum interpretations of converging continuous functions claiming success as the "Quantum State" made real. In reality it won't be, but greed makes people stupid. jrc
Alan Kadin,
A question about the concept - spin.
Waves in EM radiation must be seen as coils in 3 dimensions with the altitude circling continuously during beam flow. A picture example of the beam is the spring in a pen. Now consider bending the spring. At some point adjacent coils will touch. The particles making up the coil are moving in opposite directions to each other at contact point. This contact has specific identity and a location unlike the rest of the beam which is just flow. Call this contact ½ spin.
The example coil is of solid metal. Change that to sub-atomic particles. Now we can bend the spring further so adjacent coils intersect - cross each other. At the intersect adjacent particle flows are up to 90 degree different in direction. Subsequently each crossing has to be undone/reversed elsewhere by the two coils. Call that spin-1. Additional intersections are possible within one coil pair. The intersections remain in place and begin the formation of matter. The intersections may be electrons. The total spin assigned is the number of crossings and touches by the two adjacent coils.
Does this make any sense to you?
Regards
Paul Schroeder
Dear Mr. Schroeder,
Thank you for your interest and your question about spin, but I'm afraid that I can't follow it.
Spin is a form of angular momentum, and is generally associated with something rotating. In a circularly polarized electromagnetic wave, which is known to carry angular momentum (spin), the electrical field vector rotates as the wavefront moves forward, generating a helical waveform. Maybe this is what you are indicating, but there is no solid coil present.
I have extended this picture to other fundamental quantum fields with spin such as the electron, corresponding to an angular momentum distributed through a wave packet. See "The Rise and Fall of Wave-Particle Duality".
Note that these pictures of real rotating vector fields differ from the orthodox view of point particles with no rotation but with intrinsic spin associated with the point particle.
Alan Kadin
Alan,
From your reply to Scott above:
"It is clear that only a nonlinear equation can lead naturally to spin quantization, but I have not been able to find an equation with the right combination of properties. I would suggest looking into some kind of self-phase modulation, but I'm open to other suggestions.
Regarding my confidence in this approach, the unification of physics is a strong motivation. I find the missing link of a nonlinear equation much more plausible than quantum entanglement."
Please have a look at this suggestion:
Fritz Fröhner (1998). "Missing link between probability theory and quantum mechanics: the Riesz-Fejér theorem."
A link is provided in the Reference section of my essay:
More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss
I will welcome your comments on Fröhner in due course.
PS: I cite Fritz's work on the way to establishing the classical foundations of modern physics: from true local realism, through (what I call) the Laws of Malus, Bayes and Born, to Planck's constant, relativity, etc. I'll explain in more detail when I reply to your comment on my essay. [I will also post it as a comment below so you'll know that it is done.]
Gordon Watson
More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss
Alan, hoping to help, this is an edited carry-over from my answer to you at
More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.
........................
Dear Alan,
1. Many thanks for this: "I agree with you that true local realism is at the heart of physics." For it's on this foundation that I hope we (with others) might build a productive collaboration [absent point-particles, nonlocality and unwarranted mysteries].
2. My thanks too for this: "And the mathematical structure of quantum entanglement is incompatible with local realism." But here I'm more cautious: my little qualifier "true" is missing, and I suspect we might presently differ re the nature of entanglement and its definition [see my essay, p.6]. However, given the quality of your own work, I very much look forward to discussing this -- confident that agreement is likely.
3. As for quantum computing: and the mainstream one-day starting to question the foundations of quantum mechanics? In that Bell's "theorem" didn't lead more to water, I doubt much else will lead them to a refreshing drink!
4. And you certainly got this right: "You might be interested in reading my essay, "Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics". I look forward to discussing prevalence waves, wavepackets, and physical waves where -- bypassing probability and all its confusions [eg, see Qbism] -- I have here used my preferred term. Thus I seek to understand objective prevalence waves [say, simple cos2 distributions] via a theory of prevalence amplitudes and wavepackets.
5. As for GR, I am still in the basement, cleaning up the more elementary foundations. But (at the risk of being misunderstood), I am bold enough to suggest that we can together strengthen your position, as follows:
5a. You say: "something close to classical physics should be restored, reunifying physics that was split in the early 20th century."
5b. I'm inclined to say, respecting its outstanding history: classical physics itself should be restored. Thus, for me:
(i) Planck's quantum of action is classical. As EPR made clear; see ¶3.1 in my essay: (iii) "The elements of physical reality ... must be found by an appeal to the results of experiments and measurements [the latter, in our terms, often better described as tests]."
(ii) Bohr's "disturbance insight" is classical. As per EPR above: Malus (c1810) taught us that classical light-beams are disturbed by interactions.
(iii) And so on: special relativity is classical; and from my essay, what I call the laws of Malus, Bayes and Born are classical; in short, true local realism is wholly classical.
(iv) What more might be required of classical mechanics and its modern developments?
6. You say: "QM should not be a general theory of nature, but rather a mechanism for creating discrete soliton-like wavepackets from otherwise classical continuous fields. These same quantum wavepackets have a characteristic frequency and wavelength that define local time and space, enabling GR without invoking an abstract curved spacetime."
I say: please see Fröhner; LINK via #17 in my References. The R-F theorem there says that periodic angular distributions entail discrete angular-momentum distributions, hence discrete outcomes of spin tests: the classical rules for linear and angular momentum holding, not just on average but case by case (as in EPRB). See also the spinor wavefunction in eqn (69).
With my thanks again; Gordon
................................................
Gordon Watson
More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.
Dear Alan M. Kadin
Just letting you know that I am making a start on reading of your essay, and hope that you might also take a glance over mine please? I look forward to the sharing of thoughtful opinion. Congratulations on your essay rating as it stands, and best of luck for the contest conclusion.
My essay is titled
"Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin". It stands as a novel test for whether a natural organisational principle can serve a rationale, for emergence of complex systems of physics and cosmology. I will be interested to have my effort judged on both the basis of prospect and of novelty.
Thank you & kind regards
Steven Andresen
