Dear snp,

Decades ago, a professor Schwarz from South Africa made me aware of the nonsensicality of integrating over time from minus infinity to plus infinity in case of lacking support (in mathematical language). Analytic continuation is formally correct but it can also be understood as a sort of self deception.

This doesn't mean that FT and one-sided Laplace transformation are not excellent tools in case of prediction. I merely don't accept as a pillar of reality the seemingly mandatory tenet of block time which denies the strict distinction between past and future. Well, the far past is about as unknown as is the far future. However, I agree with Popper and Shannon, see my essay "Shannon's view on Wheeler's belief": The past is closed (finished) but the future is open.

In other words, no matter how successful a model might be, I consider the agreement between prediction and reality always uncertain to some extent.

One cannot predict the past. A frequency analysis of the future is only possible if one denies possible deviations of reality from model. Only the nonsensical denial of reality including the denial of the now by Einstein fits to performing a frequency analysis of the past simultaneously with a prediction of the future.

I see reality a conjecture rather than a model.

Perhaps one of the first ones who sucessfully predicted and benefited from the ups and downs of a stock market was Gauss. Perhaps the first one who predicted a thunderstorm on scientific basis was Guericke. Such predictions are still uncertain.

By the way, I hope you will convince those in the public who felt entitled to downrate my essay: They too should read my essay more carefully.

Best regards,

Eckard

Dear Eckard,

Thank you for Nice logic

Closed universe... logical analysis is one thing, Mathematically calculating on Dynamic Universe Model Sita is another.... Thats what I did.....

35 years of working on Dynamic Universe Model without any support really hurts me. Now I came to fag end of life, why should I lower any person? I believe in God and Karma.... I did not yet gave any ranking yet to your essay. Please give me mail to snp.gupta@gmail.com, I will intimate you when I do that...

I dont rate people low, give 10 or 9 or just refrain from rating that essay as a rule...

Believe me somebody else did it...

Best Regards

Dear Eckard,

Thank you for Nice logic

Closed universe... logical analysis is one thing, Mathematically calculating on Dynamic Universe Model Sita is another.... Thats what I did.....

35 years of working on Dynamic Universe Model without any support really hurts me. Now I came to fag end of life, why should I lower any person? I believe in God and Karma.... I did not yet gave any ranking yet to your essay. Please give me mail to snp.gupta@gmail.com, I will intimate you when I do that...

I dont rate people low, give 10 or 9 or just refrain from rating that essay as a rule...

Believe me somebody else did it...

Best Regards

=snp

Peter,

I am not a knowing-all. Admittedly I don't completely agree with Ritz although I feel in debt to R. Fritzius who prefers an emission theory as do you. Incidentally, somewhere I read that Newton adopted the emission theory from someone else. He imagined light like particles that possess the property of mass.

The competing wave theory was then based on the assumption of mass and elasicity of a carrying medium, and Hertz actually discovered electromagnetic waves.

Michelson did show that the hypothetic medium cannot have a stationary reference point as has air, the analogon. Are there non-paradoxical alternatives?

Phipps and now Klingman prefer Lorentzian relativity for some reasons. While Einstein's SR has been widely accepted because it fits well to the behavior of particles in accelerators, in particular the two-way synchronization and the belonging non-simultaneity are hard to swallow.

In my essay I didn't exclude the idea that far field em waves don't CARRY energy and momentum but the combinations of elastic electric with inert magnetic field components rather ARE propagating energy and momentum.

Kadin explains away the enigmatic duality between extended in 3D waves and compact single photons.

In all, I have to stress: I am just an old teacher of EE.

Eckard

Dear Fellow Essayists

This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

FQXI is clearly seeking to find out if there is a fundamental REALITY.

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

    Dear snp Gupta,

    I did never suspect you to have downrated my essay. Since you are an author, your rating belongs to the community, not to the public. I respect your decision not to give me 10 or 9, why not an 8?. I too feel poorly understood. My address is eckard.blumschein@arcor.de

    Best regards,

    Eckard

    6 days later

    Joe Fisher,

    You might not have found out how the claim, which you are repeatedly offering to many authors of serious essays, actually relates to my essay to some extent.

    Nobody denies that every somehow tangible object in 3D has, in principle, a more or less limited extension of its volume and has in this sense a surface.

    However, the notion universe doesn't denote such an object if it is conceived as infinite.

    A-infinity is an absolute ideal. B-infinities are pragmatic fundamentals of set theoretic foundations of mathematics. Logically they exclude each other.

    Eckard Blumschein

    Eckard:

    This is a response to your post in my essay.

    What is the question? Who is your boss.

    If the question is which of the two philosophers is closer to me, I suggest Heraclitos.

    Superluminal mechanism is what allows the quantum weirdness to be understood by classical analogy. It is much simpler than all the quantum baggage. Further, it suggest all observations are non-local in the sense if Bell's inequality. See how simple the quantum world can be?

      addendum:

      This is a short video showing the model and the actual experiment.

      Note the superluminal speed is required for the single photon in the experiment at a time.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMAjKk6k6-k

      Dear John,

      In my Author Bio I wrote: "His last boss had refused to comment on his IEEE paper [4] because he considered the matter as too ("so was von") fundamental."

      You asked: "Who is your boss?" I don't think you have to contact him. He is a prolific expert in ground penetrating radar. This technology helps to avoid that innocent civilian get victims of landmines. He was born in Egypt and is therefore a Muslim to whom Allah is the most fundamental of all.

      Why was he worried to such an extent? At first, my common sense reasoning did certainly coincide with his own tacit uncertainties. For instance, he learned and teaches to always perform the frequency analysis as a Fourier transformation with integration from minus infinity to plus infinity although future data can definitely not be measured in advance. Electrical engineers including him and me are also using non-causal models without being aware of a logical justification.

      When I dealt with hearing vs. spectrograms, I was worried with black boxes with output before any input.

      Secondly, he felt obliged to not question the mandatory tenets, while on the other hand he was unable to prove my arguments wrong. The situation was similar with respect to some naive Berkely-like questions of mine which professors of mathematics at my university were also not in position to answer. (Berkeley had asked: "They are neither finite quantities, nor quantities infinitely small,not yet nothing. May we not call them the ghosts of departed quantities?")

      My current essay tries to provide a plausible answer in this case too.

      There is much more to say. Having looked twice at your video, I am not yet sure; Is van Flandern's superluminal propagation of gravitation really a key to entanglement or may we hope for a less hypothetic construct?

      Anyway, I appreciate your preference for the openess of any development.

      Maybe, you are interested in experiments by de Guericke who about 350 years ago intended to demonstrate not just empty space and the electric attraction / repulsion but also an analog model of the balanced forces in the solar systen.

      Regards,

      Eckard

      Eckard, hoping this helps when I comment on your essay, this is carried-over from my answer to you at More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

      ......................

      Thank you Eckard, hope this helps:

      EB: Your horrible formalism will deter less qualified readers like me.

      GW: With every pointed critical comment most welcome, I will whole-heartedly welcome your suggestions.

      nb: my preliminary notation is meant to be physically significant and to helpfully include every relevant beable and every relevant interaction. Even to the point of charting the dynamics of interactions (see the little arrows). [ps: I've lived with such since 1989 when I first read about Bell's theorem, thanks to Mermin (1998); old habits die hard.]

      Thus a polariser is represented by a "delta" denoting "change" -- akin to a delta-function -- its orientation and output channels identified. Even an analyser (often a multiplier) is represented by a multiplication (a scalar-product). How about what's yet to come: a fancy-q for qon, a quantum particle; saving 4 syllables? A fancy-P denoting probability (subjective) and/or prevalence (objective) -- to thus rescue "probability" from much modern nonsense, eg, Fuch's QBism? (At the same time leaving ordinary P and q unchanged in ordinary physics.)

      Please have another look at ¶4.1 and the exercise there; knowing that we're on a steady heading to more conventional representations -- see eqn (21). And please make critical suggestions for improvement.

      EB: I am unhappy with the lacking readiness to fundamentally clarify the issue of entanglement.

      GW: Yes, me too, so thanks for this. Entanglement is nothing mysterious. Under the R-F theorem [and what I call Born's Law: see the law of eponymy], the probability interpretation of QM needs to be more clearly understood. The entanglement brought about by angular-momentum conservation (with the added information that the sum for the two particles is zero), is a physical (and therefore a logical) constraint on all probabilities and observations. This has nothing to do with AAD [nonlocality], nor remote piloting, etc. Rather, if the total angular-momentum is zero in EPRB, then λi = μi pair-wise.

      An arbitrarily-oriented polarising interaction with one pristine twin yields thus, by logical inference, a related equivalence-class for the other pristine twin. (And this conclusion, tested any time, always gives the expected result.) There is thus no need to invoke anything mysterious: rather, an understanding of entanglement is crucial to any non-mysterious understanding of EPRB, Aspect's experiments, QM, and our world in general.

      EB: Was Dirac possibly wrong when he believed "that this concept of the probability amplitude is perhaps the most fundamental concept of quantum theory"? If my doubt is justified, then it [the Fourier-based R-F theorem; RFT] is even more fundamental.

      GW: Not to diminish Dirac, but to acknowledge R and F: for me, RFT is a more soundly-based argument, with applications beyond QM. For those who see mystery in the superposition of states, or in the preparation of superimposed states, RFT demonstrates this: the superposition principle is a mathematical tool (thus logical constraint), valid for all none-negative distributions; whether of probability, mass, charge, etc.

      nb: under TLR, Planck's a quantum-of-action is not mysterious either. It is required for the description of extended particles (in contrast to mathematical points).

      EB: Errare humanum est.

      GW: And to our friends: Errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum.

      EB: I cannot finally judge John Hodge's "opposite approach" because I didn't yet read his essay. ... I am sure that in reality there is no supersonic acoustic wave speed greater than the speed of sound. According to my knowledge, the propagation of light in vacuum was also never measured to exceed c.

      GW: I expect to respond to John Hodge tomorrow.

      EB: [Edited, as my response] If I understand Gordon Watson correctly, he [with Fröhner] is aligned with the power, centrality and generality of the RFT.

      GW: Yes.

      EB: I consider my own suspicion much more radical and invite all of you to show in what I am wrong.

      GW: I will comment soon, but make this point now: I agree with the second sentence in your essay, but would ask you to reconsider some of your positions in the light of RFT; for many other statements in your pristine essay resonate-in-harmony [verschränkt = entangled] with mine.

      PS: With my thanks again, and hoping to be helpful, I will post this on your site too.

      Gordon

      .................................

      Gordon Watson

      More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

        Gordon,

        I hope we will help each other to get more attention for our essays. Please don't mistake my criticism of improper use of FT as lacking knowledge. Let me remind of a few of my common sense views which I consider most fundamental "prejudice" (as called by Del Santo from his questionable to me perspective):

        - Measured data are fundamental to expected ones, not the other way round.

        - Hairs may curl but never truly form closed loops. The same holds for time.

        - Accordingly, so called frog's view is basic to the bird's view.

        - The barber's paradox worried Frege because he confused frogs with birds.

        - Restrictions to elapsed time and cosine transformations fit to frog's views.

        - A frog like me (and you?) cannot look backward and forward in time at a time.

        Eckard Blumschein

        Gordon,

        I wrote: ... Dirac possibly ... believed "that this concept of the probability amplitude is perhaps the most fundamental concept of quantum theory"? If my doubt is justified, then it is even more fundamental.

        You added in parentheses [the Fourier-based R-F theorem; RFT] after "it".

        I agree on that the R-F theorem shows that probability is just a mathematically equivalent option of interpretation.

        However, my "it" referred to a much more radical doubt that I tried to express in my essay.

        While have to I expect you not immediately agreeing with me in this case, I nonetheless hope for getting treated fair.

        Eckard

        Stefan Weckbach's essay challenged me to better explain how I interpret the notions fundamental, frog's view, and causality.

        As the title of my essay "semi-fundamental structures" indicates, my boss understood fundamental as do I and as does my dictionary too: "very important or basic" (as is the trunk of a tree structure in comparison with less fundamental branches and roots).

        To me existence is not "the most fundamental 'fundamental' one can imagine. This is obvious to me in mathematics, see A infinity and B infinities. Does a real number really exist? Do transfinte cardinalities exist? ...

        To me causality, except for Aristotle's fourth case, is most fundamental.

        I see his causa finalis due to confusion of the basic Frog's view with the abstracted from it birds view.

        Eckard Blumschein

        Eckard,

        Reading your -- "Dirac possibly ... believed that this concept of the probability amplitude is perhaps the most fundamental concept of quantum theory? If my doubt is justified, then it is even more fundamental" --

        I took the "it" to refer to Dirac's opinion about the probability amplitude. Hence my comment in the context of the more fundamental R-F theorem.

        I see now (and somewhat surprised by your accompanying doubt), that your "it" here "referred to a much more radical doubt that I tried to express in my essay."

        Please, what is that radical doubt? I did not see such a thought in your essay; perhaps I am a less-doubting radical?

        Thus: there is so much that I agree with in your essay, I truly wonder where your doubt arises. Are you referring to this: "Therefore, some putative pillars of science are suspected to be just semi-fundamental constructs on a shaky basis. Judge yourself." ??

        I (see my essay) would strengthen you claim to this (and without doubt): "Some supposed pillars of science are false. Judge for yourself. See how far we advance by rejecting the ubiquitous and unqualified (but primitive) notion of REALISM in physics (it is NAIVE REALISM). That is: simply replace NAIVE REALISM by TRUE REALISM* (the insistence that some existents may change interactively), and see quantum theory derived classically." [Then, relatedly, there is Bell's theorem; as in my essay's Appendix!]

        * With such true realism known to me since the age of two, with a photo for proof (me with my rail-spike-for-a-hammer beside a newly-fitted but now smashed porcelain toilet bowl), me having imitated the plumber who (10 minutes earlier) had gently tapped the bowl into the fresh cement with his own steel hammer! dink-dink-dink, I can still hear it! [Me, as ever, trying to make sure things are right ... kaboom.]

        This story for you: some light-relief as to why you should, today,** NOT be tense and NOT harbour any doubt, radical or otherwise!

        ** Given your own analyses, with my essay.

        PS: You say, "There is one reality." In agreement, I add, "Reality makes sense and we can understand it." Against Bell, I add, "Correlated tests on correlated things produce correlated results without mystery." To you, I say, "Only the impossible is impossible."

        HTH; and loving your very deep essay,

        Gordon Watson

        More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

        Dear Gordon,

        "what is that radical doubt?"

        Because the usual notion of time refers to an arbitrarily chosen point t=0 of reference, I doubt that it is an appropriate basis in this case.

        This usual scale of time extends from minus infinity to plus infinity and implies therefore the complex Fourier transformation.

        Alternatively, the elapsed time refers to something that is non-arbitrary, the actual moment. This scale is always positive, it does permanently slide with respect to the usual scale, and it corresponds to an equivalent real-valued cosine transformation instead FT.

        As is obvious since the 1920th but already anchored a decade earlier, QM is based on the usual time scale and accordingly on the redundant complex Fourier view. It doesn't matter whether one prefers Hermitian square matrices or Schroedinger's complex iswave function.

        This radicalism of mine is not restricted to QM but it arose from studies of signal processing, in particular of cochlear function.

        Eckard

          Continuation:

          A key discrepance between the usual event-related scale and the object-related scale of elapsed time is an steadily growing phase angle between the two different reference points. In case of calculationof a usual spectrograms, one has to accordingly relocate the origin of the usual time scale again and sgain.

          Fröhner mentioned on p. 638 that the wave function is determined only up to a phase factor which is pulled out in his equation (2).

          "The superposition principle had been established first as a puzzling empirical feature of the quantum world, before M. Born recognized that the absolute square of the wave function can be interpreted as probability density." The superposition principle corresponds to the Riesz-Fejér theorem.

          I guess, cosine transform in IR+ with the natural reference point (elapsed time = 0) is also correct.

          Eckard

          MR. Blumschein,

          Nicely written!

          Read and rate it.

          Here is a relater (as far as I understood yours) essay, if you would like to read one (more)

          Corciovei Silviu,

          Hacking the brain is not so easy. Va doresc mult success.

          Perhaps you feel having understood my essay because you are not aware of contradictory theories which are seemingly fundamental in the sense of mandatory.

          You are correct, one may understand "What is fundamental" as a questionable question for a single ultimate fundament of physics.

          My boss, you and I understood "fundamental" differently as a pretty universal feature within a logical structure. My metaphore is a tree with many not fundamental roots and many not fundamental branches at its two ends.

          Toate Bune,

          Eckard

          Addendum:

          When I was a child who collected stamps I noticed the message "In God we trust".

          Weren't Adam and Eve fundamental to everybody? No, at least in this respect, the bible was fundamentally wrong. The same applies for Noah's Arc.

          Familiy trees ramify backwards. Just a single male and female individuum are not enough as to cope with occasional genetic defects.

          Eckard Blumschein