What is ``fundamental" in quantum physics? by Peter Leifer

Dear Dr Peter Leifer,

You wrote in the Abstract: "However, great Riemann clearly understood that only our experience in physical world is the source of all our geometric constructions".

Nature produced one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single dimension that am always illuminated by mostly finite non-surface light millions of years before humanly contrived finite complex mathematics ever became evident on earth.

Joe Fisher, Realist.

Dear Peter

Thanks for this effort. I struggled to understand your core argument, though your conclusions seemed reasonable. You may feel the same about mine...https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3041 but may be able to further develop the geometry of my work and apply your understanding of symmetry to my model.

Best wishes

Stephen Anastasi

Dear Peter,

I think FQXi.org might be trying to find out if there could be a Natural fundamental. I am surprised that so many of the contest's entrants do not appear to know what am fundamental to science, or mathematics, or quantum histrionics.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear P. Leifer, fundamental should be simple and clear. So it is in quantum physics, you can declare, but not to find. The principle of identity of space and matter Descartes is simple, but not perceived by physicists because of their conservatism. Formulating principles of New Cartesian Physics, I made a number of discoveries that are outlined in his essay. Read it and try to understand. In this regard, I would like you to have closer contact.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich

Dear Peter Liefer,

I very much enjoyed your essay and agree with your postulates and many of your conclusions. Since, as you note, "we have lost the understanding of quantum theory", you picked a difficult topic.

One might ask whether a Cartesian coordinate frame with variable energy density can be equivalent to an "empty" void with variable geometry: regions of high energy density map into regions of higher curvature.

As you note, Einstein claimed Maxwell electrodynamics led to pseudo-Euclidian geometry of space-time, and "the connection with Minkowski space [is definitely needed] for agreement with experiments". But the experiments deal with relativistic particle physics and are inherently energy-based. You then note that "that initial assumption about Minkowski space-time structure [...] was too simple."

Your conclusion is QFT and SM and their initial postulates may not be treated as fundamental. There is not enough detail in your essay for me to understand your QR (quantum relativity) but I will try to read your references.

My own essay contends that the "agreement with experiment" is based on relativistic particle physics and is an energy-time phenomenon, not a space-time phenomenon. I review the history of Einstein's analysis of Maxwell electrodynamics in the context of Hertzian electrodynamics which Einstein references in his 1905 paper. As this is relevant to the Minkowski formulation, it might be of some interest to you. I hope you will read my paper and comment on it.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Professor Peter Leifer,

Very nicely said starting from... "Euclidian geometry, Riemann geometry, Maxwell electrodynamics to pseudo-Euclidian geometry of the spacetime and the relativistic generalization of the Newton's law of gravity lead to pseudo-Riemannian spacetime structure." And the discussion of "what is the fundamental geometry in quantum physics?" wonderful essay...Prof Peter Leifer

............. very nice discussion.... I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity.You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

-No Isotropy

-No Homogeneity

-No Space-time continuum

-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

-No singularities

-No collisions between bodies

-No blackholes

-No warm holes

-No Bigbang

-No repulsion between distant Galaxies

-Non-empty Universe

-No imaginary or negative time axis

-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

Here:

-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

-Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

-All bodies dynamically moving

-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

-Single Universe no baby universes

-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

Best

=snp

Dear Dr. Leifer,

excellent essay. Our approach to the posed question of this contest are so different that I cannot even tell with certainty whether we would eventually agree. However, I find your conclusion very appropriate and agreeable. I will rate you high.

I hope you could find time to look through my essay

Best wishes,

Flavio

Peter,

Dynamical spacetime, geometry underlying the quantum. Exactly matches my idea of fundamental! High score.

I think you will find a lot to agree with in my essay, too.

Thanks for a great read.

Tom

Professor Leifer,

[My pledge: goo.gl/KCCujt] First my positive reactions to your essay:

-- I like the idea that there is some kind of geometric interpretation of quantum mechanics, and that through this interpretation some form of unification should be possible with the broader perspective of space time.

-- You aptly point out issues such as how the second quantization of Dirac and Fock is inherently at odds with Einstein's concept of locality. While the second quantization is incredibly useful, I suspect people often underestimate just how deeply it violates Einstein's view. Yet quite literally every time we look in a mirror we see the impact of particles sharing their state over macroscopic scales, creating the hot Fermi surface electrons that are responsible for photon reflections.

-- Deformations sounds like an interesting path?

----------

Concerns:

-- The last two sentences of your essay say it best: "This leads to [partial differential equations] with traveling wave solutions instead of the trajectories of classical particles and to the Schrödinger-like relativistic equation for the "total wave function" of the action. These results will be discussed elsewhere."

In other words, the reason a reader is not able to find a more specific definition of the quantum geometries that you propose is that it is not yet complete. So, this essay is more of an introduction to the possibility of geometric interpretation of quantum mechanics, rather than a specific result.

-- This is an exceedingly tough read for the general technical audience that FQXi describes as their primary target. It's not just that you quote a lot of (mostly highly relevant and nicely accurate, I admit) math from quantum physics, but also that you make use of the almost-unlimited reference style that is, alas, so very common in modern physics literature. I realize that such prolific referencing is essentially a way for authors to prove that they "know their stuff", but it also makes the work effort to assess a paper so high that essentially no reader will ever bother looking any of it up. It also make that actual meaning of the paper completely opaque! You cannot get a clear idea of what the main idea is if it is based on a large number of references to completely different papers... all of which will almost certainly have their own lists of similarly opaque references.

The real work, the hard work in any strong paper is not in finding lots of references to add, but in figuring out exactly what you really want to say, then saying it as clearly and simply as possible. Perhaps that is even what you are doing with your focus near the end on CP(N-1), but as noted above, you sort of undermine your own argument there when you say that the need partial differential equation model is still pending.

-- Finally, your last and almost certainly most relevant reference, ([20] R.G. Littlejohn and M. Reinsch, Gauge fields in the separation of rotations and internal motions in the n-body problem, Rev. Mod. Physics, 69, No.1, 213-275, (1997)), is both 63 pages long and 20 years old! The length of that reference alone does not bode well for a reader getting any deep understanding of your essay, and the length of time argues that like so many theoretical areas in modern physics, the ideas in that reference are unlikely to converge to an actual solution anytime soon. Two decades is a long time... but then again, both quantum gravity and string theory have been struggling to find "real" solutions for almost half a century. So, ate least this deformation idea is no worse off than they are in terms of their inability to come together into a meaningful, testable final theory.

--------------------

Cheers,

Terry Bollinger (Topic 3099, "Fundamental as Fewer Bits")

Dear Peter

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don't rate them at all. Infact I haven't issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to gain.

Beyond my essay's introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity's effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me and my essay in questioning this circumstance?

My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a "narrow range of sensitivity" that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn't then gas accumulation wouldn't be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.

Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn't we consider this possibility?

For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we "life" are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.

My essay is attempt of something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up a potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond formation activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemistry processes arose.

By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might explain for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.

To steal a phrase from my essay "A world product of evolved optimization".

Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest

Kind regards

Steven Andresen

Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin

Hello Peter,

I like this essay very much and will vote so. In particular I like: "The main aim of the science is understanding. All different targets are secondary."

Also you commented: "I like the idea that there is some kind of geometric interpretation of quantum mechanics, and that through this interpretation some form of unification should be possible with the broader perspective of space time."

Do visit my essay "The Thing That is Space-Time". It postulates a different type of graviton and it fits with a traveling wave description.

Thanks for your essay,

Don Limuti

Peter,

Glad I made it to your essay. It seems like me you've been focussed on quantum physics for a while. I found it a very nicely conceived and written article, and entirely agree; "QM is not fundamental and should be treated as some limit of more general quantum field theory.

Did you see my (top scored) 2015 Red/Green Sock Trick essay? That built on a compatible SR rationale which implied a Classical QM solution, which after 3yrs has clicked into place and is described in this years essay.

A full ontology is constructed, though not assuming 'singlet states' but from the different starting assumption of Maxwell's, and the Poincare Sphere's two momenta pairs in OAM. I hope you may get to it and comment. Measurement is considered as a momentum exchange mechanism with absorbing field electrons. Antiparalell (pair) polar axes and analysis of re-emission as a RELATIVE state ('same' or 'opposite') removes 'non-locality'.

Phase/hellicity of the 3 axis amplitudes.. Anyway, do read my essay, I'm sure you'll like it. A quick sequence intro in in my recent posts. Declan Traill's has the matching computer code and CHSH >2 plot with closed detection loophole.

Well done for yours, penciled in for a boost. Must talk more.

Best wishes

peter