The Uncertain Future of Physics and Computing by Alan M. Kadin

Steve Dufourny

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.

Steve Dufourny

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

Steve Dufourny

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.

Alan Kadin

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

John Hodge

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.

Alan Kadin

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

Shawn Halayka

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

Alan Kadin

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

Shawn Halayka

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

Shawn Halayka

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

Branko Zivlak

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

John Hodge

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

Steve Dufourny

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

David Brown

"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

Alan Kadin

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

Steve Dufourny

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

Satyavarapu Gupta

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

Gene Barbee

Dr Kadin,

Congratulations, it seems you are well on your way to winning another contest. We need your contribution. I read and studied your essay and read your vixra publication "A Neoclassical Framework That Reunifies Modern Physics". I looked up solitons and then discovered the comparison below. Maybe you have seen it.

May I know which block best describes your current thoughts? It seems we live in different worlds. Further thoughts? Not sure we can even communicate without some basic commonality; what a situation! Although I have been at this many years my solutions seem naïve (but of course correct).

Comparison[edit]

The most common interpretations are summarized in the table below. The values shown in the cells of the table are not without controversy, for the precise meanings of some of the concepts involved are unclear and, in fact, are themselves at the center of the controversy surrounding the given interpretation. For another table comparing interpretations of quantum theory, see reference.[57]

No experimental evidence exists that distinguishes among these interpretations. To that extent, the physical theory stands, and is consistent with itself and with reality; difficulties arise only when one attempts to "interpret" the theory. Nevertheless, designing experiments which would test the various interpretations is the subject of active research.

Most of these interpretations have variants. For example, it is difficult to get a precise definition of the Copenhagen interpretation as it was developed and argued about by many people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Summaries

Page down to summaries and there is a large table.

Alan Kadin

Dear Gene,

Thank you for your comments. You are asking the right questions.

We should focus on the big picture, and not get lost in the weeds.

When the foundations of physics have not made sense for a century, that's because we are not thinking about them in the right way.

Discussions of multiple alternatives interpretations of QM means that there is something seriously wrong with the theory. I have focused my criticism on the von Neumann mathematical formalism, specifically superposition and entanglement. Von Neumann's reputation during his lifetime was so great, that no one would criticize him, not even Einstein or Schrodinger.

Everyone thinks that QM has been precisely established, but the only aspect that has been established is the Schrodinger equation for atoms and solids, and that does NOT contain either superposition or entanglement.

Quantum computing is the first technology that depends critically on entanglement to be successful. Despite all the hype, this has not been demonstrated. We should have some answers within a few years. If quantum computing is a catastrophic failure, as I predict, then, finally, the physics community may be willing to reconsider the foundations of QM.

Alan

Gene Barbee

Thanks again for your thoughts. I have been working on some of your concerns and see some things worth considering.

QM should be formulated by incorporating what we know. We know that we see neutrons in space and time (although most have decayed to protons, electrons and anti-electron neutrinos). All of these particles are identical although they are duplicated many, many times. Once the neutron and its associated space is understood we understand everything. Neutron duplication was outside each other, consistent with the Pauli exclusion principle. Could it explain it (one of your goals)? I agree with you that QM should be formulated without logical inconsistencies like macroscopic superposition. Of course it has to recognize entanglement of properties because that has been demonstrated but I don't think this includes entanglement of energy. QM must also be formulated in a way that explains where energy originates. Also, as you point out it has to have a fundamental time base. My essay incorporates all of the above but it takes some time to understand (since I am not a PhD no one has tried).

I use the unitary solution to Schrodinger's equation exp(iEt/H)*(-iEt/H)=1. But probability=1 means "we observe neutrons in nature". The neutron components are 1=1*1*1*1, where each 1 is a set of four probabilities. For one of the quarks P=1=exp(-15.43)*exp(-12.43)/(exp(-17.43)*exp(-10.43)). Energy is defined by another probability: p=e0/E where e0 is a constant. The energy components of the neutron then are E=e0*exp(N) (Example: E=2.02e-5*exp(10.136)= 0.511 MeV, the energy of the electron). The two energies that are positive for quark above are mass plus kinetic energy and the two negative ones are field energies. This means for this quark that: (101.95+5.08+646.96)- (753.23+0.69)= 0. The first constraint for the model was P=1 and this provides the second constraint E-E=0. Pleased don't be put off by a quark with 101.95 MeV, it actually decays to the measured value 4.3 MeV while conserving mass plus kinetic energy. But energy in this model is an information operation that separates energy from zero. I think zero is a great starting point in an information based universe. The proton becomes our peephole into reality if and when we eventually involve from protons.

The remainder of the construction has been carefully worked out with consistent rules and reported many times (reference 12 for example). I won't bore you with details but I would like to suggest/discuss how it relates to your quest to re-formulate QM. I am aware that the Schrodinger equation is linear and allows superposition but the Schrodinger equation in my model becomes unity every 1.47e-21 seconds. The field energy I associate with gravity is 2.801 MeV. The radius associated with the energy is R=hC/E=7.04e-14 meters and time around this circle is 1.47e-21 seconds. My "proof" that they define time and space is the calculation for gravitational constant G. But many I think are put off by my use of a scale factor. I want to consider everything by considering one proton. But G is a macroscopic measurement. But all mass in the universe is central mass, one proton would orbit as some kinetic that would define G for that proton. The equation is in my essay and the kinetic energy is 10.15 MeV, one of the basic energies in the model and the scale value 1/exp(90) comes from the probability of the components. Back to the superposition problem: With my interpretation of P=1 being re-established every 1.47e-21 seconds, there can be no macroscopic superposition. Re-formulating with no entanglement violates EPR measurements if the experimental conclusions are correct. But I don't believe energy entanglement is possible. My essay recognizes that the Left Hand Side of the Schrodinger construction represents mass plus kinetic energy. The proton mass is unchangeable but the overall energy balance E-E=0 has energy outside the proton-electron. The electron can emit light, be polarized and then changed in the EPR experiments. The light emitted is now outside the proton and in the "energy reservoir" that balances everything to E-E=0. I point out that zero can't be fooled. Each proton is energy complete and identical all the time but my theory doesn't speak to properties in the reservoir before they are statistically reduced to zero.

Of course all protons do not have the same kinetic energy. Interacting protons share their energy and obey all the statistical laws of thermodynamics. But there are many other kinds of energy that must be considered in the total.

pjackson

Alan,

Very well written and a pleasure to read, again. I confess much of that came from consistent close agreement (also again) but you also nailed all the scoring criteria.

I found your starting point perfect agrees with mine; 'A foundation is wrong',, and agree NO quantum computing, entanglement, 4D space time, wormholes or mathematical solution, etc. Then 'spin' is a rotating vector field, and unification IS possible (both agreed previously).

I'm sure you'll also like mine this year, suggesting what foundation is wrong and a logical correction actually producing possible solutions!

But back to yours, I HAVE found some questions;

1. Did Einstein not just 'carelessly' loose ether in 1915, Minkowski having said "everywhere there is substance", finding it in 1921 (space without it being "unthinkable")?? I find that need NOT be contradictory, and found he agreed why in Appx.V 1952; "*bounded* spaces in motion with spaces," with boundary form & process identified.

2. Entanglement. Did AE not 'find' and object to that Bohr solution at Solvay 1927 - pre EPR?

3. QG. Do you consider the wide 'dark energy' findings inc. Casimir, Coulomb, pair production etc. reasonable experimental proof some kind of 'condensate' exists? If so I suggest it MAY be possible to test a coherent hypothesis for SUB-matter gravity (ref.vi in my essay.)

4. GR High Order Tests. A good test seems to be to give deep space probes GR trajectories & see where they go. NASA is reticent of course, but ALL go off course! (frequent 'anomalous accelerations'). No error or correction can be found so they now install on-board AI with star charts to ALL probes as real time corrections are needed. (A solution does emerge from revised foundations.)

But great essay Alan, certainly marked down for a top score. I look forward to also discussing mine.

Very best regards

Peter

Alan Kadin

Peter,

Thank you for your interest and comments. In response to your questions:

1) Ether

Einstein's 4D spacetime is effectively a generalization of an ether.

I have flipped relativity on its head. There is no spacetime, but time and space remain relative, due to the varying quantum clocks and rulers that calibrate time and space. This is an alternative interpretation of GR that no one else seems to have considered.

Both quantum waves and EM waves travel through vacuum - no ether with any special properties is necessary.

2) Entanglement

Yes, Einstein had early objections to entanglement, although that term had not yet been identified by Schrodinger. But I find it particularly interesting that Einstein did not directly question von Neumann's mathematical formalism, and neither did anyone else at the time. They were both at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton in the 1930s, but evidently they didn't get along. You can't find them in the same photograph together.

3) Quantum Gravity

I don't think that it is useful to consider regimes that cannot be accessed in observations. That is virtually unknowable, and is not science.

4) GR

Yes, I think higher order tests of GR would be helpful. We have no way to knowing what the results will be, although I suspect that the divergent form that gives rise to event horizons will turn out to be wrong.

I will read your essay more carefully, and may have some further comments on your essay page.

Alan

Steve Dufourny

Hi To both of You,

I see your answer to Peter, I don t agree really about how you see the generality. If you conclude these things about the aether or the QG or others in telling that it is not sciences, so you just focus on things knowns and you don t go deeper in trying to understand our main unknowns. I can understand your philosophy and your knowledges but maybe the generality also is essential and not only the details about the known things. If you just consider this GR and that all others extrapolations are not sciences, never we shall find these unknowns, but I respect your philosophy.

Regards

Steve Dufourny

What I tell so in conclusion is that many are very good for details but they cannot link the philosophy general of this universe, the sciences, physics and maths , for me it is essential this generality, it is like this that we can find our unknowns in extyrapolating assumptions that we try to prove with Concrete mathematical Tools. I respect a lot these persons specialised in details but these persons also must respect the rare generalists trying to understand this universal puzzle, we are Youngs at this universal scale considering the evolution and we must accept that we have many things to discover, in we focus only on details of things already knowns, so how can we foind new secrets ? Best Regards