Joe Fisher,

My last boss, an Egyptian muslim, in contrast to octonionist Gary Simpson, understood my "consistent" criticism as a sort of fundamentalism in science.

Gary ignored my uncommon view that already descriptions of physical reality in complex domain tend just add redundant abundance. Nonetheless he demonstrated his ability to look for utterances of mine with which he agreed.

You seem to intend telling me something that is at least not obviously related to a single one out of my nine FQXi essays.

Since you are again and again referring to the structure of universe, I hope you can provide answers to my questions why did Max Born suspect Robertson's expanding universe to be "rubbish" and why I as a layman cannot find a discussion among experts on this issue.

Eckard Blumschein

Eckard Blumschein,

In qualifying the aim of the 'What is Fundamental?' essay contest, Dr. Brendan Foster, the FQXi.org Science Projects Consultant wrote: "We invite interesting and compelling explorations, from detailed worked examples through thoughtful rumination, of the different levels at which nature can be described, and the relations between them.

Real Nature has never had any finite abstract levels.

Your essay was replete with finite abstract speculation. I do not know why Max Born only suspected that Robertson's expanding universe was a load of "rubbish.". I do know for certain that all speculation about any finite abstract expanding universe am utter codswallop because

I have concluded from my deep research that Nature must have devised the only permanent real 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 Eckard,

An interesting essay...

I noticed your discussion about the meaning of complex numbers and I have found in the analysis in my paper on the electron/positron wave functions (located here: http://vixra.org/pdf/1507.0054v6.pdf , in regards to the Schrodinger equation) the following (quoted from my comment on another essay):

"The reason that the vectors are complex, is that the Schrodinger equation requires them to be, as it relates two vector quantities with a complex 'i' in the equation. The reason for that is that the two quantities are orthogonal - multiplying any complex vector by 'i' has the effect of rotating it 90 degrees around the origin in complex space. The vectors are actually real, but the Schrodinger equation uses this mathematical 'trick' to express orthogonality in a concise way."

Hope this helps...

Regards,

Declan Traill

    Hi Eckhard,

    First of all I like very much your contribution especially the first part.

    However;

    You say : "Only the past is absolutely closed in the sense it cannot be changed.". I advise you to read the "Wheelers Gedanken Experiment"(1978).

    Alan Aspect and colleagues at the Institut d'Optique, Ecole Nationale Superieure de Cachan and the National Centre for Scientific Research, all in France ,actually performed this delayed choice experiment in 2007 with single photons.(Wheelers delayed-choice Gedanken Experiment with a single atom) click here to read it They used beam-splitters instead of slits. By removing or inserting a second beam-splitter randomly they could either recombine the two paths or leave them separate. It became impossible for an observer to know which path a photon had taken. They showed that if the second beam-splitter was inserted, even AFTER the photon would have passed the first one, the interference pattern was created ! This implicates that an articles wave or particle nature is most likely undefined until a measurement is made. It also gives an indication of "Backwards Causation" : the particle must have somehow information from the future, which could mean that this involves sending a message faster than light....THE FUTURE IS ACTING ON THE PAST.

    I hope that you also willhave the time to read my essay Foundational Quantum Reality Loops wher I give in my model an explanation of this phenomenon.

    Good luck and best regards

    Wilhelmus de Wilde

      Dear Declan,

      Just interesting? I hope we may support each other. Yes, use of complex plane or equivalent square matrices is just a trick to express orthogonality in an elegant way. Because I was a teacher of fundamentals of EE, my recent essay gave another example: R and omega L. This means, Pauli was not correct when he declared QM the first disciplin in which i is absolutely indispensable.

      What about the claimed fundamental difference between QM and classical physics, I guess we may agree.

      When my last boss called my ideas "sowas von" fundamental he understood that they were just seemingly marginal. Indeed, my reasoning has been forcing me to question some pillars of not just modern physics but also of mathematics.

      Best hopes,

      Eckard

      Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,

      I consider Fig. 1 in your essay a good illustration that supports my opinion that Parmenides was wrong.

      What about Wheeler and his "gedanken", I wrote an essay "Shannon's view on Wheeler's credo. I learned from Nimtz hype and from the many failed mathematicians who attacked G. Cantor's diagonal argument that it is better to look for the most fundamental mistakes than to struggle with illusionists.

      While I am familiar with back propagation in neural networks, I wonder if Wheeler's construct of back causation is something new and trustworthy. The word for sunday in Russian language is voskrecenie (resurrection). I rather trust in a causality that doesn't loop within a logical circle.

      Since I admire how Klingman manages to grasp and acknowledge many valuable ideas in nearly any essay, I was curious how he could enlighten me in case of yours.

      Could you please tell me by whom and when the expression Planck area was first used? Why didn't you refer to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Planck_area ? Should I take the time and read your earlier essays?

      Curious,

      Eckard Blumschein

      Dear Eckhard,

      I hope this will answer your questions on my thread:

      Wheelers Gedanken experiment is not at all a "new" idea, he proposed it already in 1978. Only in 2007 and 2015 I gave you the link to the paper in my earlier post to you) it was proven. So it seams that our "reality" is far more "strange" as we like to admit. On page 5 of my essay you will find the explanation I gave using the model of FQRL. The causality you favour is still in action , it is just one of the four loops of reality mereging from Total Simultaneity (Planck Area ?).

      The "official" meaning of a Planck Area is the square of the Planck Length, its symbol in physics is Ap. I have to agree with you that the word AREA is not a good one as I mention it also in my essay on page 4 (3.1).

      In my earlier essay The Purpose of Life on illustratio 2 (page 6) and 3(page 7) I gave an idea of the boarder between "REALITY" and the "dimension" it emerged from. The AREA is NOT an Area, and I am thinking about a new term, so thank you for pointing it out to me...

      The Euclidean Point of Reality is an emergent phenomenon (illusion). An Eternal Probability is again beyond this illusionary reality. Probabilities are also available in our Reality, and it depends on which Loop we are choosing (free will) on which probability we will make a memory. All probabilities in our specific reality represent ALL Reality Loops that can emerge from Total Simultaneity. 5 I think I will fall back on this first description of the "area wherfrom realities are emerging.

      I studied Architecture in DElft (title in 1988), which is far from Physics but encourages creative thinking.....When I was 8 years I wanted to go study physics and Einstein was my favorite scientist, till my 12th I added the then available quantum physics as a hobby...and then...my hormons started to win the war and I decided to take a CREATVE art direction : Architecture in DElft. But in the meantime Physics were still my hobby, later on accompanied with ¨Filosophy". I am living since 20 years on a farm far from society in France happily with my wife Corrie.

      So now you know me (a little).

      Best regards

      Wilhelmus

      Dear Wilhelmus,

      Since you revealed being just a hobby physicist without a profound mathematical training similar to what my EE students learned, I should tell you what a non-causal blackbox is, e.g. a non-causal filter or a usual spectrogram. A blackbox has an input and an output. Imagine for instance a mouse running in and coming out of it. Common sense tells you that the mouse must first run into it before it may come out of it. EEs don't bother much that complex theory yields the strange result that the mouse or an electric impulse can come out before running in. This has definitely nothing to do with quantum weirdness.

      Your opinion arose perhaps from reading most exciting papers. Accordingly you did not understand what I meant with resurrection (of Christ). Already Ben Akiba meant: anything repeates itself as do day and night, etc.

      What I called an EUCLIDEAN point is defined as something that has no parts. Being an ideal abstract notion, it cannot emerge in reality.

      I cannot rememer having read your essay The Purpose of Life. Already the title might have deterred me because there is no evident purpose of life. When I agree with Kadin that menkind as a whole has to limit its number of people and consumptive deterioration of earth, I see this responsibility from the perspective of all of us.

      Regards,

      Eckard

      Eckard,

      It is interesting reading through the various entries and seeing some congruence, especially among the stalwarts, as to a consensus about particular problems in physics, with the issue of time becoming paramount. It would be nice to see some of the more knowledgable members build a well stated argument that might, with the help of FQXI, get some broader attention. I, for one would certainly be cheering it on from the outside.

      Reading through your essay, I was curious if you know of Carver Meade? Here is an interview he gave a couple decades ago, that was formative in my thinking;

      http://worrydream.com/refs/Mead%20-%20American%20Spectator%20Interview.html

      I thought you would find the following quote similar to your own view;

      "That has hung people up ever since the time of Clerk Maxwell, and it's the missing piece of intuition that we need to develop in young people. The electron isn't the disturbance of something else. It is its own thing. The electron is the thing that's wiggling, and the wave is the electron. It is its own medium. You don't need something for it to be in, because if you did it would be buffeted about and all messed up. So the only pure way to have a wave is for it to be its own medium. The electron isn't something that has a fixed physical shape. Waves propagate outwards, and they can be large or small. That's what waves do.

      So how big is an electron?

      It expands to fit the container it's in. That may be a positive charge that's attracting it--a hydrogen atom--or the walls of a conductor. A piece of wire is a container for electrons. They simply fill out the piece of wire. That's what all waves do. If you try to gather them into a smaller space, the energy level goes up. That's what these Copenhagen guys call the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. But there's nothing uncertain about it. It's just a property of waves. Confine them, and you have more wavelengths in a given space, and that means a higher frequency and higher energy. But a quantum wave also tends to go to the state of lowest energy, so it will expand as long as you let it. You can make an electron that's ten feet across, there's no problem with that. It's its own medium, right? And it gets to be less and less dense as you let it expand. People regularly do experiments with neutrons that are a foot across.

      A ten-foot electron! Amazing.

      It could be a mile. The electrons in my superconducting magnet are that long.

      A mile-long electron! That alters our picture of the world--most people's minds think about atoms as tiny solar systems.

      Right, that's what I was brought up on--this little grain of something. Now it's true that if you take a proton and you put it together with an electron, you get something that we call a hydrogen atom. But what that is, in fact, is a self-consistent solution of the two waves interacting with each other. They want to be close together because one's positive and the other is negative, and when they get closer that makes the energy lower. But if they get too close they wiggle too much and that makes the energy higher. So there's a place where they are just right, and that's what determines the size of the hydrogen atom. And that optimum is a self-consistent solution of the Schrodinger equation."

      Good luck,

      John

        Thank you John, for reminding me of Carver Mead. He is renowned for utterly creative ideas and their successful applications in technology. I admire him who was "merely" trained as an EE, as was I too.

        I feel, as didn't Mead, engineers must not fear restricted by putatively fundamental laws. This is my only criticism of Klingman's otherwise flawless attitude. Klingman frankly uttered that it is "verboten" (he didn't write forbidden or taboo) to criticize Einstein and Feynman although he himself dared deriving gamma without following Einstein and using two different frames of reference.

        Being not in position to read all essays, I wonder if two issues are already sufficiently put in the due focus:

        - the role of reference points (in particular with respect to Michelson's 1923 experiment)

        - the role of action (I am only aware of one belonging essay by Andrew).

        Yes, being equipped with flexible thinking due to my training as an engineer and teacher, I don't shy back from declaring Maxwell's use of the old aether analogy just an although reasonable guess. However, I abstain from claiming that my tentative suggestion of the possibility of an alternative interpretation is more than a guess of mine. While calling propagating em waves their own medium sounds nice, this metaphor might be unnecessary.

        We don't need imagining someone like donar with a hammer if we don't yet have another lazy explanation.

        Kind regards,

        Eckard

        Eckard,

        Edwin has a point that the Institution has Einstein and various others on pedestals, but the field is currently taking various assumptions beyond the point of reductio ad absurdum. It is a bubble. Future generations of physical theorists are not going to spend their careers chasing down untestable and chaotic ideas, just because this generation has committed their careers to doing so.

        There should be some communal effort among dissidents to point this out, sort through the more compelling concepts and present the most evident in a way that at least puts down a marker. Probably a presentist argument for time would be close to the top of the list. Certainly FQXi has been laying some groundwork for this for years, but nothing has congealed beyond the forum stage.

        So the question would be as to how to push it to the next level? Safe to say, the various people who come to mind, you, Edwin, Peter Jackson, Georgina Woodward, are independent minded, but what can pull a team together is not just cooperation, but the existence of an overarching goal and that is becoming very evident.

        While this is just percolating in my thoughts and I don't have the professional authority to be officially included, I am going to try pushing toward that goal. Possibly someone from FQXi might be interested to help, possibly Zeeya Merali

        Also,

        "- the role of reference points (in particular with respect to Michelson's 1923 experiment)

        - the role of action (I am only aware of one belonging essay by Andrew)."

        I would refer the above observations to a comment I made to Georgina last night;

        "Our minds only work with what defines and thus limits our observations. You are quite right that it seemingly makes no sense, but then sense is to sense. We only sense boundaries and motion. Thus disequilibrium and finiteness."

        My point goes to the premise of my own entry, that space, without any physical properties, would be infinite and in absolute equilibrium, so that under those two categories, reference points and motion, is the essential premise of no references and no motion, leaving just space. Infinite and absolute.

        John,

        Looking for a possibly enlightening essay I found a seemingly harmless text:

        "Quantum mechanics began with discrete "action" [Bohr atom, 1913] along with E=hν and with p=h/λ" and adding "a wave has phase φ=kx-ωt=(1/h_bar)(px-Et). Complex numbers then entered for convenience."

        My boss certainly understood the fundamentality of my suggestion to take the very moment as reference for elapsed time instead of so called absolute time and phase.

        Eckard

        Eckard,

        I found your essay excellently conceived, written and argued this year. I consider it your best one by far. It also helped ease of reading that you 'word ordering' phasing has improved.

        I found little to question in the content. I never did consider Fourier Transforms fundamental or complete solutions so we're in agreement. I also found a number of other areas where our essays agree.

        But will the academic community reconsider current views? The answer came long ago when respected Imperial College electrical engineer Eric Laithwaite in a Royal Institute Christmas lecture correctly pointed out & demonstrated that physics had 'missed' something important.

        Of course physicists all thanked him and rushed to correct it -- in some imaginary universe!! What actually happened was they complained, didn't even consider the new science and lobbied the Dean to remove him from the university. That attitude is what has to change in physics. Luckily the Dean was intelligent and offered to remove THEM if they had a problem!

        Within 10yrs theory evolved a little to confound the inconsistencies. Even now we hear academia mostly agreeing fundamental change is due but when any coherent theory varying from current ones is posited all rush to entirely ignore it. Probably out of fear.

        Very well written this year Eckard. Top marks coming. By the way my essay this year along with Declan Traill's not only agrees there's NO time reversal but other parts of yours if not quite all, and completes the removal of stupidities in QM. Of course most will run & hide for 10 years. I'll be interested in your thoughts & comments.

        I hope you're keeping well. Very best.

        Peter

        PS; Have you done antenna design? How much can you tell about me where Maxwell's TZ is placed for any wavelength? and what happens at that near/far field transformation zone. I do have a theory that resolves all which I've discussed & cleared with EE's in the field but am interested in your analysis.

          Peter,

          I am not sure, did you really understand why my boss admitted that my basic argument is "sowas von" fundamental? The nine FQXi contests pushed me to investigate it's consequences from various perspectives. You might decide yourself how it agrees with your own effort.

          Starting from physiology of hearing I follow Claude Shannon's formulation of causality: Only what already happened can absolutely not be influenced.

          Therefore, the border between past and future is the only non-arbitrary reference point for an, admittedly quite uncommon in theory, notion of time: elapsed time.

          I guess, TZ stands for transition zone between near field and far field. Being a bit familiar with antenna design since my last boss is an expert in ground penetrating radar, I can tell you that the two components of an em field are quite different: The fictitious evanescent component doesn't propagate. In contrast to the ideal distinction between past and future with nothing in between, this component of the near field it is gradually decreasing.

          Incidentally, an essay by David ? guided me to the insight how QM got unnecessarily complex.

          Being aware of my poor English, I would even more appreciate you criticising the content of my nine essays.

          Maybe you can also help me to read the formulas in Klingman's essay and his related paper. My old office program cannot properly print the used symbols. Do you have similar problems? What can I do?

          My health is fine again, thank you.

          Best,

          Eckard

          Eckard,

          I thought I understood but you've raised doubts. I'm very familiar with Elapsed Time as it's a fundamental concept in yacht handicap computations, mainly 'out & back' but also A to B. I also recall you past interpretations, and indeed, checking back, Davids essay, which I agree with.

          Davids concept agrees with my vacuum with local 'presence' as fundamental, and that QM's nonsensical interpretation is a barrier to understanding. What I (and Declan) have done is shown that 'blockage' can be removed. Also 'backward causation!' Of course it won't be countenanced by those in the field, most outside won't understand it, and the few between will mainly run and hide! C'est la vie.

          Aside from but consistent with that classical resolution is re-emissions at 'c' in all fermion rest frames. There is then no problem with a rational SR for any other theory, falsifiable or not, to 'solve'. Your concept may well be ok, but it matters not as as measurement (requiring an interaction) must find c in the local frame naturally. (46c quasar jet pulses in collimations observed by displacement rate from the side do NOT need interaction with the pulse so don't violate 'c'!) Of course 'agreement' is not a scoring criteria anyway.

          I'm happy to help with phrases & symbols if I can. Don't pdf's solve the symbol issue? I can Email a pdf or word file of Edwins if that helps, contact on pj.ukc.edu@physics.org. or ask Edwin about meaning because I'm not confident. I agree Vladimir's (and your) views on maths.

          On phrases, you're prone to putting long qualifiers/descriptors before the subject, which is unfamiliar and disruptive; as in.; "The observation of, viewed from the side by angular displacement by NASA at

          Peter,

          I don't understand what you meant with "your past interpretations", my interpretations of the past, or previous interpretations of mine?

          Anyway, what I am calling the past is a domain of reality that is concrete and quite different from the realms of future possibilities as well as from the usual abstract "timeless" notion of time.

          Everybody with common sense understands that her/his age counts backward in usual time, and that the point of reference for this age is permanently sliding relative to the commonly agreed point t=0 of reference.

          There is no escape for another reason: The choice of t=0 e.g. in Christian science is not by chance but necessarily an arbitrary one in contrast to the actual border between what already happened and what will possibly happen.

          The usual notion of time with its arbitrarily chosen point of reference fulfills most but not ALL requirements of theories in an elegant manner: Our ears cannot hear future sound, and they have also no knowledge which event of reference Greenwhich refers to. Therefore I am attributing a key role to the very moment, of course only in reality. The time scales of abstract theories can be shifted, flipped or otherwise manipulated at will.

          When I asked for help I hoped at first for your confirmation that your computer and printer correctly shows all symbols. On a second step you could tell me what program you are using in order to correctly see for instance Greek letters too. I don't doubt that Edwin used pdfs as did I.

          What might be wrong with my computer/printer/software? In many but not all cases, I am familiar with the formulas and able to guess what the strange square-shaped place holders stand for. This is demanding to me.

          Eckard