Dear Manfred,

I don't understand your objection to defining time and space in terms of characteristic frequency and wavelength of a de Broglie wave.

Alan

Dear Prof Alan M. Kadin,

Thank you for giving a wonderful essay giving full history of Physics and Computing in a simple English. You got a good insight into both the subjects.

Did you also propose any new theories in Physics or computing fields, if yes I hope to get some glimpses of those theories.

By the way I just said few simple words about what what should be the freedom available to an author when the " real open thinking" is supported. Have a look at my essay please.

"A properly deciding, Computing and Predicting new theory's Philosophy"

=snp.gupta

    Dear Alan,

    you can use c, c^2 and c^3 as one, two and three dimensional objects. Using the frequency (1 dim) and de Broglie wave (2 dim) you assume QT als valid and define time and Space on base of this assumtion. As this definition would be the groundation for whole physics, it restricts you to your initial assumption (c vs c^2 as contemporary physics is using)

    The problem is perfect discussed and shown in the essay of Flavio del Santo:

    https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3436

    Manfred

    Hello to both of you , J C Hodge ?? is it a joke to tell that we have a TOE , are you conscious that a TOE is not possible and even IN 100000 years if we are still there ? it is not possible because we need to know more and understand the generality of this universe. For this we need to know what are really the foundamental mathematical and physical objects and the real general philosophy of our universe , and so the main source and cause of all our geometries, topologies, matters and emergent space time. To tell that we have a TOE is totally ironical , the strings , the geometrodymanics, the quasicrystals or this or that or my theory of spherisation with 3D spheres , all these theories are limited and we cannot have a TOE, we know so few still and we have so many things to discover, we are Youngs even at this universal scale considering the evolution, the thinkers must be humble and recognise our limits in knowledges simply. Let s be rational, logic, deterministic, and humble about our universe and its laws, axioms, equations, we know a so small part of the universal truths.

    Furthermore , the GR is only a part of puzzle, I doubt that we have only photons like main essence of puzzle, I see these photons like just particles coded, like a fuel from a gravitationa aether deeper in philosophy, these photons permit just the electromagnetism, the fact to observe and the life Death for me, we have probably a deeper logic to this universe, so frankly please don t tell this about the GR and QM unified, we need to Think beyond the box even to explain our main unknowns like this quantum gravitation, the DE and the DM. All the reasoning utilising only this GR and our actual standard model have not reached and explained these unknowns,

    ps I have reached it inj all humility this quantum weakest force, and it is not with photons encoded or a modification of the newtonian mechanics

    An other things also Mr Hodgem how can we have superluminal velocities with a reasoning with photons ??? it is totally anti relativistic , if you told us that we have different particles, it could be relevant but not with photons please, it is not possible, the photons have a maximum velocity in a vacuum of c, it is proved and accepted by all rational thinkers.

    Dear Dr. Gupta,

    Thank you for your comments.

    Regarding new theories, these were described in my earlier FQXi essay, "Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics." This presents a neoclassical synthesis, which incorporates relativity without the need for 4D spacetime. Neoclassical relativity is not a new theory, but rather an alternative interpretation that is equivalent to orthodox relativity. The synthesis also includes quantization without Hilbert space. Neoclassical quantum theory is not an alternative interpretation, but rather a new theory that should be testably different from orthodox quantum mechanics. It predicts that quantum computing will never work.

    I also glanced at your essay, and I may have comments later on your web page, after I read it more carefully.

    Alan Kadin

    The TOE I mention is called the Scalar Theory of Everything. It corresponds to both General Relativity and Quantum mechanics. It has a Universal Equation which has been applied to many astronomical problems observations and to light interference experiments including those that reject wave models. For a list see:

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328489883_STOE_replaces_relativity_and_quantum_mechanics

    Faster than light experiments include quantum entanglement, quantum eraser, the measured speed of gravity (van Flandern and others), and the measured speed of the coulomb field.

      Dear Dr. Hodge,

      Thank you for the link to your work on the Scalar Theory of Everything.

      This seems to be based on concepts that I am unfamiliar with, such as hods and plenums. I am not sure that I can follow. Is this similar to an ether-based theory?

      In my essay, I argue that we will not have a closed theory of everything, but that the phenomena of GR and QM can be merged in a neoclassical synthesis, without 4D spacetime, Hilbert space, or entanglement. This provides a new interpretation of relativity, combined with an alternative theory of QM (not an interpretation) which is testably distinct.

      I will also read your essay.

      Alan Kadin

      Dear Alan,

      Thank you for your essay.

      I don't make a habit of asking people, but could you kindly read my essay (https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3430)? The essay's only a page and a half. It predicts that empty space, on the cosmic scale, contains a certain amount of dark matter -- that is, if space is quantized. Does your essay forbid such 'retrodictions'?

      - Shawn

        Dear Shawn,

        I read your brief essay. I am afraid I don't understand what you are talking about. Are you packing a sphere with tetrahedrons? What does this have to do with physics?

        If you have any questions about my essay, I would be happy to address them.

        Alan

        Dear Alan M Kadin,

        You argue:

        "There have been no experimental tests to higher order in fi, so that we have no way of knowing the physics in this unexplored regime."

        There are no higher order of fi. This is easy to show. I offer you to write a paper at that issue together and analyze the consequences.

        If you understand "c", "Speed of light", with a large "S", as a limit then all other speeds of light (for example for any photon) are less than c, v (photon) < c. So, the problem with that constant is more linguistic than physical.

        Your term "Dim star" is for me "Almost black hole". The problem with "Dim star" is how to replace term "micro black hole", which is not star.

        Your essay is absolutely the best so far, 10.

        Regards Branko

        Like you, the STOE goes back to Newton and reconstructs a model based on experiment and observation. So, Newton's aether that is basic to gravity and light diffraction becomes the plenum (a continuous medium that supports wave action and is modified by matter {hods} and directs hods). So, the plenum density becomes the space-time in the GR field equation and the right side becomes forces (rather than the energy-momentum of late 19th century). Then it becomes a matter of applying the Universal equation to astronomy problems. Photons are columns of hods which allows a simulation of the various interference experiments including the ones that reject waves and wave-particle duality (Afshar's experiment0). Therefore, this new theory DOES incorporate modern theories as limits.

        Notice how the plenum is space-time and the medium to support waves at the QM scale.

        Finding explanations is difficult.Stating some thing is impossible or very difficult is easy and will usually be correct - it's trivial. The definition of varphi suggest a very modern idea and hence reproduction of all the standard (accepted) tests of GR. But does not explain the ad hoc and problem observations of GR.

        Is there some paper where your model is compared to astronomical problems?

        The STOE suggest the sequence of star to neutron star to quark star to black hole through changing structure of particles (hods, photons, electrons).

        Wave-particle duality has been experimentally rejected. But the experiment to explain is light interference. discrete energies is because hods are discrete, "spin" in experiments are the reaction of magnetic particles with magnetic fields in external magnet field ( not a angular momentum) and quantum entanglement is the faster than light speed of plenum waves.

        I've noted your papers on RG. Is there one there that describes the observations/experiments you support?

        Hodge

        Dear Alan,

        Thank you for taking the time to read my essay. I'm sorry that it's not clear what I'm trying to do. I will think about rewording the essay in the future.

        - Shawn

        Dear Alan,

        I've attached a screenshot of a 2-sphere tessellation made out of triangles.

        I do effectively the same thing with the 3-sphere tessellation made out of tetrahedra. Once I have the tessellation, I calculate curvature based on neighbouring tetrahedra.

        - ShawnAttachment #1: 2-sphere.png

        Hi Dr Kadin, Ypur essay is very relevant generally, I liked it. I agree about the abstratc maths and this uncertainty.

        I see a Little bit like you about our limitations about a TOE or about the quantum computing, we need for this to know the real mathematical and physical objects and the main codes if I can say and frankly we are so far at this moment, we must accept our limitations in knowledges after all. Your interpretation of this consciousness also is relevant, thanks for sharing your ideas. I liked your determinism and a kind of wisdom about these limits and the fact that we cannot explain all, Regards

        "As of 2020, quantum computing (QC) has become a very hot field of research and technology. Governments, corporations, and investors around the world are competing with each other to pour billions of dollars into development projects that promise revolutionary breakthroughs in computer performance. Articles in the popular and scientific press are reporting claims of "quantum supremacy", that a QC can outperform any conceivable classical computer. ... The power of QC depends on the entanglement of interacting quantum bits (qubits), which expands the Hilbert space exponentially."

        With regard to quantum computing, what are the similarities and differences between your view and 't Hooft's view?

        "Q&A: Gerard 't Hooft on the future of quantum mechanics", Physics Today, 11 July 2017

        Have you carefully studied the following?

        "MOND Newtonian Dynamics, an Introductory Review" by Riccardo Scarpa, arXiv, 2006

          Dear Mr. Brown,

          With respect to quantum computing, I have several objections, as described in the essay. Some systems are not quantum at all, and others are so noisy as to making practical entanglement-based quantum computing impossible. But I also have a fundamental objection - I believe that the entire Hilbert space formalism of QM (due to John von Neumann), with linear superposition and entanglement, is wrong. This is not an alternative interpretation of QM, it is testably distinct on the laboratory scale. These tests have not been done.

          Within the orthodox theoretical physics community, one else has criticized the von Neumann formalism. Not even Einstein, who was right down the hall from von Neumann at Princeton. So there is no similarity with the views of t'Hooft.

          Regarding MOND, I believe that modifies classical Newtonian gravitation to avoid the need for dark matter in galaxies. The dark matter puzzle is real, and indicates that something important is missing in our understanding of types of matter. But I'm not ready to accept that MOND is the answer.

          My alternative interpretation of GR without spacetime is consistent with Newtonian gravitation, so that also does not provide any insight into dark matter.

          Thank you for your interest.

          Alan Kadin

          Hi to both of you, Mr Kadin, I beleive the same about this DM, and I consider it essential at all scales, I have even encoded it in nuclei and I have reached this quantum gravitationa in considering different distances because I consider that our standard model has a deeper meaning and is encircled by these BHs and DM, here is my equation about this DM encoded in nuclei, X is a parameter correlated with the cold and l their linear velocity, I must maybe correct a Little bit this equation but I see like this. E=mc^2+Xl^2 , I have also a fith force due to these series of quantum BHs farer than our nuclear forces. I am persuaded also that we must not modify this newtoniam mechanics wich seem important balancing our forces at all scales. Of course I must prove my equation and renormalise correctly this quantum gravitation to quantize it but that converges. must make the same for my gravitational coded aether and my theory and 3D quantum and cosmological spheres in an universal sphere or a future sphere in spherisation optimisation.

          About this quantum computing, of course we cannot create it because we don t know these foundamental mathematical and foundamental objects and what is the real planck scale, it is only simple than this.

          Let s go deeper, what is this space time for you, what is exactly in your imagination the space, the vacuum, me I consider a gravitational coded aether playing between the zero absolute and the planck temperature, finiet series of spheres where space disappears, the photons are coded also and are these series , they are just a fuel implying this electromagnetism, the life Death and the fact to observe, but what is your space really ? I am curious, tell us more, let s discuss a Little bit about its essence and why philosophically. Regards

          Thank you Prof Alan M. Kadin,

          I saw your wonderful essay "Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics", Even though I could not go through it in full detail. I got some questions like does your model have Blackholes or Multiverses, Does it require Dark matter/ Dark energy, etc..??

          Best wishes to your essay sir

          Best

          =snp.gupta