The Uncertain Future of Physics and Computing by Alan M. 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 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

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

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,

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

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.

Hi, I don t know if you are just specialised in computing and sperconductivity only or if you are general also in theoretical physics.

Like I am curious, I d like to know your general philosophy about this universe and what do you consider like foundamental mathematicalobjects at this planck scale. Strings or points,and how do you formalise all this puzzle with the geometrical algebras for example? It is a question personal but I beleive it is important to have a general point of vue, explain me please. Like that we can extrapolate and correlate with the universal informations and what they are and by what they are created, if these questions are not important for you and that you search only some details, forget my questions, regards

Dear Dr Kadin,

Your are welcome, and thanks for developping. I understand your Words, it is a kind a wisdom and pure determinism. I beleive also like that even if I have several extrapolations in theoretical physics and my 3D spheres and this spherisation of the universe, an optimisation evolution of this universal sphere or future sphere.

I make Always so a difference between a proved laws, axioms or equations and intuitive assumptions if I can say.

I agree also about what you tell with the maths, these maths permit to prove our assumptions but they must be interpreted with a kind of wisdom also. Let s take for example the whormholes, or the warp drives or the multiverses or the reversibility of time, they are all for me mathematical plays but they don t seem to be rational and objective.

It is due to these maths and how we interpret our symmetries, or mirrors or this or that, so I agree with you , we must be prudent.

I make the same for my works, I don t affirm , I just suppose intuitively. I am very deterministic also you know but about my theory, I say me that these 3D quantum spheres could be the answer seeing the nature, I have ranked a Little bit of all, animals, vegetals, minerals, maths, physics, Chemistry, biology, evolution,and it is due to this that I found this theory of spherisation and these spheres, I beleive that they are the choice of this universe , the spheres, spheroids, ellipsoids are everywhere and when we consider for the quantum series these 3D coded spheres, and the Ricci flow, the poincare conjecture,the Hamilton Ricci flow, the assymetric Ricci flow that I have invented, the topological and euclidian spaces, the lie groups, the lie derivatives, and others mathemtical Tools, that becomes relevant.

I don t consider that all comes from Waves or fields, I beleive strongly that all is made of particles coded and they oscillate also these spheres in a kind of superfluid space, vacuum, that is why I have considered 3 E8, and series finite of 3D spheres playing between the zero absolute and the planck temperature instead of points or strings. I have a specific fractal where this space disappears for these series sent for me from the central cosmological sphere, this center intrigues me a lot. All this is intuitive but we can solve many problems in considering this generality.

The maths and the fashion of strings and geonetrodynamics in considering that all is made of Waves, fields and Cosmic fields has created for me a prison, We can create all geonetries, topologies, properties of matters.These 3 E8 superimposed so with the spheres instead of points or strings are relevant at my humble opinion because we have one E8 for the space , coded and the two others are for fuels if I can say, one for the photons and one for the Dark cold matter. I have reached this quantum gravitation with this reasoning, I formalise all this but not easy I must say,the quantization renormalization is important and must be precise and deterministic.

I know now that you are not interested to know these foundamental objects and its correlated philosophy, but maybe you could Think about all this.

I liked your essay and I wish you good luck,,best regards

Steve

Dear Alan,

I particularly enjoyed your sub-essay on "Why We Should Be Skeptical About Quantum Computing" It is a topic that my friend Barry Gilbert and I often discuss, and we are in agreement with you over the future of QC. You have provided me with many references to pursue over the next few months of Covid19 isolation.

I note in your second last paragraph you say:

"For qubits to entangle, they must interact. But an array of classical coupled oscillators will form a band of collective modes throughout the system, at slightly different frequencies. The same is true for coupled electronic states in solids - they form energy bands. But this does not increase the phase space of the system; N oscillators give rise to N delocalized modes, without the exponential increase from entanglement needed for QC".

I thought that entanglement stopped the need for exponential increase in phase space, whereas a proliferation of classical oscillators gave QC an advantage over classical computing. For in a system of N cubits where each cubit can be represented by two classical oscillators, we have 2N oscillators. Now if the N cubits give rise to 2N quantum states, the simulation of a general coupled system requires 2N classical oscillators. It is this that gives the QC the advantage over the classical computer in performing certain classes of algorithms, rather than entanglement.

Reading your main essay, I very much liked your summary of the foundations of physics. With respect to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP), I would make a comment that from my 'Machian' perspective all particles and their attendant fields are infinitely connected in some degree to all other particles and their fields, and hence there is always going to be an uncertainty in position and momentum of a particle, such as an electron, in a dynamic system. However, I think HUP has been grossly misused when arguments are made that as we go down in scale (at particle scales) that momentum (and hence energy) increases accordingly. For those of us, like myself, who have developed working preon theorie, such a notion is preposterous, as the preon units that make up the fundamental particles have only their binding energies (which tally to produce the particle energy), not some enormous energy as predicted by HUP.

I have made arguments against wave/particle duality with respect to the photon in my essay, which I hope you will comment on.

You discuss Bell test experiments and quantum theory, and I would like to say that I think a fundamental premise behind these tests is flawed. Bell believed in the photon as a particle, and hence the criteria used for the tests is incorrect if we consider the photon as a wave.

In your section on the Future of Physics, we share a lot of common ground. Marts Liena referenced my talk on 'The Future of Physics Part 2', in which I discuss space and time and relativity, in his essay on the aether .

I liked your 'Soliton Theory' which is quite different my particle approach to explaining your '4 quantum phenomena that need to be explained'.

All in all a most interesting and enjoyable read!

Best wishes

Lockie Cresswell