Space and Time, Geometry and Fields: An Historical Essay on the Fundamental and its Physical Manifestation by Michaele Suisse and Peter Cameron

Peter & Michaele,

You have mentioned bi-vectors and tri-vectors. Can you elaborate on this please. If a bi-vector is the product of two vectors, how is that different from a vector that is perpendicular to both? If a tri-vector is the product of three vectors, how is that different from a scalar?

Thanks,

Gary Simpson

Peter,

You need to follow my essay ontology before analysing Declan's code & plot built from it. I note you haven't commented there yet (Little time left). See also Watson's.

The 1's continue to annoy. A simple added rule I've proposed would solve it! (no post and the 1 may get put back on theirs!) As, though different, we seem to appreciate each others I'm sure we'll both be gentlemen and rate them appropriately highly? I hope to see your comment on mine. To help I posted the below on my page.;

AS MOST STRUGGLE WITH THE CLASSICAL SEQUENCE (TO MUCH TO HOLD IN MIND ALL AT ONCE) A QUICK OUTLINE INTRO IS HERE;

1. Start with Poincare sphere OAM; with 2 orthogonal momenta pairs NOT 'singlets'.

2. Pairs have antiparalell axis (random shared y,z). (photon wavefront sim.)

3. Interact with identical (polariser electron) spheres rotatable by A,B.

4. Momentum exchange as actually proved, by Cos latitude at tan intersection.

5. Result 'SAME' or 'OPP' dir. Re-emit polarised with amplitude phase dependent.

6. Photomultiplier electrons give 2nd Cos distribution & 90o phase values.

7. The non detects are all below a threshold amplitude at either channel angle.

8. Statisticians then analyse using CORRECT assumptions about what's 'measured!

The numbers match CHSH>2 and steering inequality >1 As the matching computer code & plot in Declan Traill's short essay. All is Bell compliant as he didn't falsify the trick with reversible green/red socks (the TWO pairs of states).

After deriving it in last years figs I only discovered the Poincare sphere already existed thanks to Ulla M during this contest. I hope that helps introduce the ontology.

Peter

Peter,

No maths in mine to worry about, just needs a little brain power to follow the ontological construction. Declan's is essentially just the matching code & Plot. Haven't seen a comment yet, (on the above or my essay) hope you get to it. The 2 pairs of momenta are simply linear, max at the equator, and polar curl' which is orthogonal. Both go to zero at 90 degrees, and both change non linearly over 90o by Cos latitude (known in geophysics).

With that starting assumption replacing 'superposed singlet' states the classical derivation becomes possible (with a few similar more careful analyses including of WHAT we actually 'measure!).

Final reading now & scoring shortly - hope to do most but clearly those who read/understand/like mine obviously get priority!

Best of luck in the run-in & judging

Peter

Dear Peter Cameron,

In a response I had overlooked on my page you asked about my view of quantum gravity. My view of this topic is here: The Nature of Quantum Gravity.

You also mention that Hawking suggests that a 'Planck particle' would have a Compton wavelength thousands of times the observable universe. For me, that's a proof of no Planck particles.

In my quantum gravity theory (post-big bang) events which occasion extreme energy density (such as LHC collisions: Au-Au, Pb-Pb) are "off-center", i.e., "off axis" and hence also occasion high angular momentum in the resulting perfect fluid. The dynamics of turbulent vortices spit out particles along the gravito-magnetic axis (of angular momentum) and these particles have bounded energy. That is, no matter how much energy you bring to a small region, it does not create a Planck particle, but a cascade of real particles. These are the particles (and resonances) of the standard model. Post-big bang there is nothing beyond them! Just as SUSY has never shown up, nothing beyond additional resonances will ever show up. The particle zoo we have is it. We need a theory that calculates the masses and I believe that my quantum gravity can do so. [I am working on it.]

The effective field theories are 'bookkeeping schema'. They ignore the perfect fluid particle dynamics leading to toroidal particles and jump straight to the end result, "creating" and "annihilating" particles from 'quantum fields' in a way that conserves appropriate aspects of the particle. From this perspective, there is no limit on the particle zoo, hence wavelengths 1000 times longer than the observable universe arise. This does not occur in a more fundamental particle dynamics. Quantum theory is statistics. The particle and the wave properties arise from quantum gravity.

I very much enjoyed our exchanges, and I'm always excited to see geometric algebra-ists at work.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Michaele and Peter,

I've just discovered that a 2-hr blackout has wiped a long enthusiastic WIP response to your essay -- probably via a valid log-out at FQXi -- and I'm not good at rewritings! So this is short-&-sweet as I look forward to many more ongoing discussions!

Thanking you for a (for me) beautifully presented and breath-taking essay, I regret (just a little; as you'll see) that it follows the mould of Philip Gibbs' lovely essay on "a universe of stories" as against my fondness for "a universe of dialogue" based on stories, poems, observations, dreams, etc. + MATHEMATICS -- such dialogue itself based on a universe of spacetime (a beable), full of beables and interactions -- the more especially when I see our shared fondness for GA, wavefunctions, interactions, observables (7x on p.1), ++++; plus a healthy avoidance of matrices, etc; ps, though I find avoidance of Bell's lovely term "beables" (nb: in spacetime) not good for digestion; neither of food nor ideas; nb: I also like inferables. [Breathing has now forcibly resumed; and with it the truth that much of your essay is currently beyond me.]

Re wavefunctions [WFs] -- and reminding you that (imho, if you like) math is the best logic -- please see Fröhner (1988:639), hyperlinked at Reference [12] in my essay; or via direct link to the PDF Missing link between probability theory and quantum mechanics: the Riesz-Fejér theorem.

Fröhner's work is part of my theory [see essay at ¶11]; so re WFs, see particularly in the vicinity of this on his p.639: " ... Historically, the superposition principle had been established first as a puzzling empirical feature of the quantum world, before M. Born recognised that the absolute square of the wave function can be interpreted as a probability density. ..."

Re this from you: "The resulting geometric wavefunction model permits one to examine the interface between fundamental and emergent." I see that "emergentia" is a favourite theme (at least on p.1): me being here forced -- similar to my distinctive use of "premiss" -- to return to the much more sensible Latin [subject to latin-experts] since the right word here -- emergency -- is misleading in plain English. Though (please NB) maybe it does apply as a primary-concept that we should first sort out: me trusting that we agree with that fundamental and elementary premiss: TLR (true local realism)?

PS: Regretting, with apologies, many other wiped comments (though they can be reconstructed in ongoing dialogues), I'll drop a copy of this onto my essay-thread; hoping you'll do likewise if/when you respond.

With my thanks again, and with best regards; Gordon

Gordon Watson More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

Peter, to be clearer re my last above: "[nb: the temptation to re-edit resisted]" should more clearly say: [nb: the temptation to NOW read AND THEN re-edit BEFORE SENDING HAS BEEN resisted]. This next is quick and dirty to get things moving: I'm time-poor on many fronts at the moment.

Now, having begun to read [but needing much more time]: please [in future] number your paragraphs and sub-points as I do in my essay. For there are many points that we hold in common but a few that raise questions.

Re this from you above, with -- [CAPS] -- by me: "I like your logic approach to the problem, in principle should be clear of inadequacies of particle theory models (renormalization comes to mind) -- [YES + AAD, NL AND WFC (WF-COLLAPSE); SO FAR SO GOOD] --, but lacks the intuitive advantage of simple geometric electromagnetic wavefunction model in 3D space -- [GEWM-3D: THIS I MUST SEE] --" for I'm seeking intuitive advances at every step. So please see Fröhner re WFs and superpositions: and tell me about [point me to] the GEWM-3D!

PS: We build a bridge via dialogue! I need to learn about your use of "mechanical-impedance" -- in baby steps please + references to the related online literature (if any): hoping to see the end of "the impedance matrix". TKS; G -- I've brung this from my essay-thread.

Peter,

Thanks for your post on mine. Reply (2nd try!) below;

Just lost the will to live. Spent an hour answering your questions and lost the post!

Most answers, i.e. always LOCAL backgrounds but no 'absolute' one, are clear, consistent and in my prev essays from 2011 and/or archived here; Academia.edu, plus see also This 100 sec video glimpse inc all non-integer spins from 3 axis rotations.

Then come back with probably a better ideal greatly reduced list.

Just checked and I have yours down for a top score, not yet applied, so will do now. Hope you wish to do similar.

Very best

Peter

Hello Michaele and Peter,

I am happy to be able to stretch my time on the last day of the FQXi essay contest to include a reading of your essay.

In the universe of all-there-is - (known and unknown), distinguished from the universe of all-that-is-known, that physicists understandably prefer to embrace for no better reason than 'it marks the boundary [of] interactions that cannot be observed', notwithstanding physicists' reluctance to acknowledge that there must be a 'beyond' - spacetime is simply the correlation of space and time, each of which extends to infinitely in all directions, and always have..

Focusing upon your discussion of 'emergence', and recognizing that the FQXi essay theme is focusing on the identification of a singular "Fundamental" (otherwise the theme would be 'What ARE "Fundamental?''); it is not difficult to trace causes, events and effects backwards in time to the point where there are no more 'causes'.

Time and space are neutral with respect to making any contributions to 'causes'. They simply punctuate events by according each a 'when' and a 'where'.

That leaves our old friends 'energy' and 'matter' as the sole causes of all events and effects leading to subsequent causes.

The question then arises what are the origins of energy and matter? In the universe of all-there-is, (distinguished from the universe of all-we-know, a definition popular to physicists);

if we can accept the possibility that 'energy' and 'matter' exist in the universe in unknown and unknowable quantities, and always have, then we have arrived at the conclusion that all that is required for this to be so - our singular "Fundamental" - is Existence.

Physics and mathematics can then be understood to be the means by which mankind attempts to organize complexity into comprehensible order and to sweep unwanted 'stuff' into the waste basket with a stroke of Occam's razor.

History is a worthy foundation to build a future upon, but it is not fundamental to progress. Imagination and risk are more likely to serve our best interests in expanding our knowledge bases in the interest of improving the human condition.

I shall look forward to learning that you have received your just rewards shortly.

Thank you both, go well, and keep going.

Gary.

Peter,

Sigh, in a universe where supposed intelligent people throw 1 bombs about it seems us decent folk are destined to do the opposite! But at least we can live with ourselves. Excellent if rather off the thoroughfare essay.

Peter Jackson pointed me your way and it seems he was right, though less familiar to me than QM. He was good enough to score mine up over his, but his is far better so I did the same to his. Now with you one below me I must do the same to yours! All quite bizarre, but at least QM doesn't have to be any more, at last! Yes I spent time checking out his mechanism and it works brilliantly.

I trust you've supported it. Of course all will squeal or ignore it, as with any advance. I think your insights stand even less chance of penetrating mainstream but my score should help infinitessimally. (if you get a chance to read my short offering, like it and can spare the odd bit of change above it's rating I'd be delighted.

Very best of luck in the judging, but don't hold your breath - from past evidence the playing field is clearly as level as the 'big air' olympic snowboard ramp!

Best of luck anyway. Hold tight for a sec..

Rich

Peter,

Shame you seemed to drop away at the end. Answers to your questions on my post.

1. "How does your understanding of relative motion relate to the concept of background independence?" Not needed, always a LOCAL background, one of an infinite heirerchy. The LT is at Maxwells 'REAL' near far field 2 fluid plasma TZ, subject to J D Jackson/ Ewald-Oseen extinction distances.

2. "'Of What' - relative motion of what?" Vortices all the way down (as up!)

3. "Most Profound" SR. & has to properly account for.. nonlocality..." SR itself isn't profound, it's unifying it with QM with CSL that is. Seems you missed that non-locality has gone! Think harder; Alice & Bob can each get reverse results by rotating their dial!

4. Motion - the notion that a particle requires 'spin' to exist is new to me. I should hope so! No such real thing as a 'function' just use a vector algorithm. spherical rotations on x,y,z, can produce any and ALL 'spins' inc non-integers. See the video and my recent post on Bolliger.

5. OAM. Yes, Background independence not needed as c is localised by constant requantization. Forget all but AE (later) & Minkowski's 'spaces in motion within spaces'.

6. Transition Zone. Great. Solves all the above and far more.

7. QM. Simple; Use Earth; At any point on the surface there's 0-1 LINEAR rotational 'speed' but ALSO 1-0 ROTATIONAL rate (+1 -1 at poles). They change inversely by Cos Latitude (& 'through coloured', so at all radii). All interactions are at some Tan point, which dictates momentum exchange. See my last yrs essay figs.

Helicity, Go back a few essays to; It from Bit; 'The Intelligent Bit'. Notional 'charges' on spinning sphere describe a helix when also translating, which will have some degree of helicity, which gives 2 inverse axis values when 'measured' by orthogonal polarizer channels. Occams razor rules! just needs familiarity.

Give it a try; About 2/3rd-3/5ths of present theoretical assumptions are shown to include nonsense and just about all paradoxes and anomalies resolve. It's far to much for me to handle alone so pick any bit you like to collaborate on. As soon as we've had enough funerals we may even get advancement started again!

Very Best

Peter

That was me. It lied. It told me I was logged in!

Do mail me direct;

pj.ukc.edu@physics.org

Peter

Figure 1: There is nothing fundamental on fields, Dirac algebra, or S-matrix... They are all derivable.

There is nothing fundamental about wavefunctions. They can be derived.

"Spinors of the Dirac equation wavefunction". As has been known for last 50 years, the Dirac equation is not a valid wavefunction equation. It is reinterpreted as an identity for fermion operators in QFT.

"The photon-electron interaction is the keystone of QED". Only in the field-based formulation. There is no photons in the action-at-a-distance formulation of QED. Real interactions in the universe are only charge-charge.

"We presented a model in which the fundamental is that which cannot be observed, the wavefunction." Not only wavefuctions are't observable, but as mentioned above they aren't fundamental. The quantum state of a cat is not given by any wavefunction because the cat is an open system.