Is Causality Fundamental?

meaning the traditional method using F=ma??

otherwise, you seem to be lost. any and every attempt to modify gravity (either to explain observed effects, such as MOND, or as you seem to suggest, to use for propulsion) has failed thorough testing against observed data.

(Lately MOND has had some success with the CMB.. but it still has severe troubles)

WRL

I don t beleive that he wants to modify this newtonian mechanics, I agree that the MONDs seem no sense, the newtonian mechanics must be respected, it is what I have made to explain this quantum gravitattion in changing the distances simply because the main codes are farer and that this electromagnetism is just emergent,

The Einstein equations are describing gravity in an equilibrium condition of gravitons. Gravitational propulsion would be a non equilibrium condition of quantum entanglements.

Gravitons express themselves as: (1) wave functions, (2) virtual photons, (3) quantum entanglements.

The overlap of gravitons express themselves as: (1) standard model particle fields and (2) the spacetime continuum.

Gravitons have quantum states for position, momentum, spin, etc., built into them. They expand at the speed of light from a Planck scale point, everywhere in space.

I got the idea of an expanding graviton from (1) the derivation of special relativity and (2) the spacetime interval.

Mr Lundberg, if you cannot see the relevances of these 3D spheres, probably you need to go deeper in general philosophy about the origin of this universe , and you must change your foundamental objects being persuaded about these geometrical algebras, sorry but it is not because you are educated that you can be general and innovative, and I know I repeat that I irritate having found this theory of spherisation and spheres inside this theoretical sciences community, it is not my fault if the others have not found this universal links, I have worked hard to find this, I rank all since the age of 17 and it is ranking that I found this universal truth, you make what you want you know, you utilise your gepometrical algebras, you consider your tetrahedrons, me I continue with the spheres 3D and their deformations, if the thinkers try to find problems, I can understand , it is just the vanity simply and they cannot accept my theory due to human nature, but be sure my friend, you know it also, these spheres are the secret with or without the approvements of persons against or trying to critic in insisting about their works and correlated philosophy ,your geometrical algebras are just mathematical tools and your tetrahedrons are just a shape that the egyptians loved, that is all, and also I am not a professional so I have not published , it exists many good works and papers on arxiv but many also are just papers not relevant , so it is not a question of formulations like you tell but about real innovative relevamces, have you found an innovative relevance ? I don t know, at tghis moment it is very common you know what you tell , many professors and Phd are good in details but are not able to be general ands innovative, that is why the frustration arrives and the need of competition due to vanity to have the last words, frankly that will not change that my theory is general and innovative mine , sorry I am frank, instead to read papers formulated, try to create innovative correct convergent partitions :) take care dear friend, be the force with you jedi of the sphere , they turn so they are

your problem like I told is that like all you consider strings at this planck scale and so that the origin of our reality comes from fields oscillating in 1D inside the photons like if God played music, but all this is just an assumption, it is just a fashion inside the sciences community these strings due to witten having created this prison now, in fact many confound his medal field for a work relevant about the fields and his theory , in fact the sciences comminity had not an other general theory , so all have focused on these strings and hop hocus pocus they have considered that all is made of fields from God and hop hocus pocus they have inserted the geometrical algebras like the E8 to explain the geometries, topologies and matters and fields, but all this is a pure assumption not proved, you can tell all what you want, nobody knows the real origin and the foundamental objects, but between us, whaht are the probabilities seeing the universe for these foundamental objects, what is the most suimple logic ? it is not complicated to recognise this with humility. The 3D spheres seem foundamental, the universe is mainly composed of this at this cosmological scale, it is simply a logic observation, I don t think that universe is or will be a tetrahedron you know lol , it is non sense , the spheres and their motions, rotations oscillations seem the secret of all generally and the details and combinations are complex and infinite. Forget your strings and try to make a conjecture with the spheres , it is better I beleive if you want to be innovative in your publications instead to make like all, forget your prison of strings, fields and only photons like main essence, you shall go deeper in your formulations I beleive humbly.

Measurables are not be-ables. Measurables are attributed to the beable particles but need not actually be properties solely of the particle alone, but reflection of a relation between the particle and measurement apparatus and method. At least sometimes, the apparatus is causing change not just passively measuring. Counterfactual results cease to be possibilities once the particle apparatus relationship plays out. Prior to decision of what measurement to carry out the particle can be considered pluripotent; able to provide outcomes to different kinds of measurement. After choosing one type of measurement the particle is multipotent; able to provide outcomes to each different configuration of chosen apparatus. The outcome of a singular experiment is a singular state, negating all other states that might have been.

For analogy; Imagine if as part of an interview process candidates are given test questions to prepare answers for. Each for a different job, given out randomly. One of the sets of questions is used for the interview. One candidate is successful due to innate suitability and preparation. The measurement of suitability has used a process affecting perceived suitability.

. At the macroscopic scale we assume things are as they are and are not changed by measurement. However imagine trying to measure the velocity or area of a large shoal of fish by interacting with it with a clock and measuring rod. Whenever it is approached it changes direction and shape. Whatever you have measured is not the velocity or area of the shoal.

From the article: "

" Entanglement is a quantum property that allows events to have mysterious connections--correlations that can't fully be explained in terms of common causes with the classical rules of causality." I think it probably can if the common causes are not just the preparation and maintenance of the relation established at preparation but how that relationship affects the outcomes of same tests on each partner.

"But they do know that whatever direction it snaps to, its partner electron will immediately snap into moving in the opposite direction." It is not the electron velocity snapping to, but the measurement coming into being and from that the knowledge. Those are products, 'effects' of the experimental procedure.

Many of the paradox's in physics are as a result of Einstein's biggest blunder:

the "photon".

Planck argued with Einstein that discrete energy levels only exist within the matter, there after radiation evolves as per Maxwell. Einstein disagreed based on sound energy conservation grounds. Some years later Planck solved Einsteins dilemma, by proposing a universal sea of energy, some of us refer to as zero point energy. This sea, biases the Planck threshold of all atoms in the ground state to transition to another state with a very small amount of additional energy, well below a Planck unit of energy for any particular frequency. This sea is stochastic, and self regulating, because any random fluctuation that exceeds a Planck energy threshold of an atom absorbs the energy from the sea thus maintaining an average energy of half Planck's constant per frequency. This sea accounts for QM's quantum fluctuations and the uncertainty principle, along with quantum noise. A small group of scientists have embraced zero point radiation and have derived an alternative quantum theory named, stochastic Electrodynamics (SED). To be continued if comments are favorable.

I eagerly await Comments.

Barry

Hi Mr Gilbert,

All this is very interesting, we have evolved a lot since this wonderful period where the best past thinkers spoke together to explain the unknowns about this matter energy. It was easier I must say for them due to easier measurements and the fact that they worked about this electromagnetism, of course einstein , plancl , Maxwell and the others were famous and have well detailed this electromagnetism, but now these persons have created also a kind of prison , where the thinkers don t go deeper , they consider only these photons like the primoridal essence, the general relativity and this electromagnetism, and now with the strings inside these photons in 1D connected with a kind of 1D main field at this cosmological scale with the GR, so they turn in round for me even with the geometrical alg like this E8 or other mathematical tools like the non commutativity. The matter energy is more I believe than this , we have evolved a little bit and we have these new unknowns, like this dark matter, this dark energy , the consciousness, for me we must not unfy the QM and the GR, G c and h only we must unfy the others also , that is why I have considered 3 aethers superimposed in considering series finite of 3D spheres instead of points of strings, one space vacuum of this DE for the main codes and the two other series are fuels , the photons and the cold dark matter and when they merge they create the topologies, matters, geometries, fields electromagnetic and gravitational, we have so a deeper logic for the energy and matters , it is the meaning of my equation inserting the dark matter and the DE , E=m(c^2+Xl^2)+Y with X a parameter correlated with th cold and l their linear velocity and Y a parameter correlated with this DE , we have more energy that we thought in resume, the energy matter is a reality but why they are transformed and why they give this reality and diversity, the real question is there . The sea of E is more than we can imagine and we need a kind of transformator of this energy infinite of pure consciousness beyond the physicality, that is why this central consological sphere is essential in my model of spherisation sending the primordial informations with this finite series of 3D spheres coded, this center can be seen like a super matter energy able to create all matters simply. The electromagnetism and the photons are not the only one piece of our universal puzzle simply. Regards

Hi John, it is this planck constant and the fact to consider only these photons wich has created this philosophical prison with the strings added,that implies that all they consider now that the frequences, vibrations oscillations of photons are the only one piece to understand the matter energy tranformations and the energies, that is why they have inserted the geometrical algebras , if my equation is correct, we must add several things and not only this , so the aim is not to unify G c and h only

Of course this constant and the frequences are essential for our electromagnetism and for the photoemectric effect, we measure these effects due to fact that we can only measure these photons and their properties, but if we measure beyond our actual logic, we have probably the two other energies to consider , probably in considering observations different and also in going farer in our scales for the main codes of this DE , for the DM the cold probably balancing is the answer. The actions in fact must be considered with a superimposed different reasoning added. That implies so a constant correlated also for this DM, and an other for this DE and all is balanced together under a gravitational logic. The electromagnetism so is emergent and the gravitation is the main chief orchestra simply, it is an opposite general reasoning in fact.The problem is that it is not easy to observe, measure and check them, because it is not relativistic.

Hi.

It was Dirac that told about his Sea,not Planck, what I know about.

There are models describing electrons surfing the edge of this Sea, together with light and other massless particles, like the presumed graviton, neutrinos etc.

Puthoff, Haisch, Rueda etchas done great work with this. But it is indeed odd that gravitons does not give an action principle,other than the weight impact on mass and the supposed curvature of geodesics. We still are a bit unsure what really is the inertia principle at its heart, etc. Together with Jerry Decker, publ. at vixra, I have discussed these things a bit.

Now a stochastic Seais coded in bytes too, like a computer. It is information,but how is it explained in physical terms? It cannot possibly be entropy, because it is a classical outcome from just Plancks constant. Von Neumann had something about a quantum thermodynamics, but there should be other models? Does anybody know about it?

I think it should be something holographic. Also the Dirac Sea must be chaos then and the quantum model we use must start from chaos. It is hard to unify with detrerministic thinking? We need non-deterministic models?

Regards. Ulla Mattfolk

Barry, and others,

along this line of reasoning, Constantinos Ragazas essay 'A World Without Quanta' was his entry in the Essay Contest - 'Is Reality Digital or Analog?' (2010-2011).

Good mathematically supported argument. jrc

Hello Ulla, happy to see you again on FQXi,

Dear John, Steve, Ulla.

Planck preceded Dirac by about 20 years, with his second quantization paper or, presentation. I will start with a Scientific American article (SA) before they went to pop science. Please pay attention to the highlights in the SA article

https://jumpshare.com/v/Fj0809OpYJdnq8CgYBtY

The discussion on Planck's work To be continued.

Regards All

Barry

Thanks.

I have noted the classical Plancks constant earlier. Then nobody was interested in it.... Note that at Plancks time we had no quantum physics.

Here the link to discussions.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jerry_Decker

I will read the article later./Ulla.

John said

I was unaware of that disagreement between Planck and Einstein. I would appreciate some references of select reading. Does this go to Planck's 'pre-loaded' hypothesis? And did Planck argue an inherent causality.

Reply

If you go to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy#Second_quantum_theory

You will find Planck comes up with the notion that we now know as "zero point radiation", I have not heard of the "pre-loaded" hypothesis in the old literature, but Eric Rieter refers to it. I suspect that that the "pre loaded" hypothesis, and zero point radiation have morphed over time to be the same.

Note, Einstein states, Planck's zero point radiation is as dead as a door nail early in the article. "Zero point", whether real or virtual, is considered crucial in modern physics.

Regards

Barry

Dear all.

My observations have lead me to the notion that people can be roughly divided into three camps:

#1. Practical, hands on realists, seeing is believing and tend to be boring although handy in a crisis (your car breaks down).

#2. Don't know, don't care, wont commit, follow the crowd.

#3. Love Disney land, conspiracy theories, supernatural stuff, astrology, Theism, and the wonderful, mystical world of Quantum mechanics, abstract mathematics and beauty of paradox's It physics. Oh! did I forget Aliens and ghosts!

There are overlaps in these camps as the boundaries are soft. These camps extend or apply to physics and physicists. If you combine this with "Paradigm inertia", then you have the present "crisis in physics"!

What crisis you say? There is confusion between the wonderful advances in ENGINEERING technology, say: optical fibres, the internet, lasers, cellphones, space travel, jumbo jets etc.

Much of this advancement is commonly attributed to modern physics and QM. I beg to differ, the field effect transistor (FET), the most important advance in technology since the wheel, was patented in 1926, and not by a QM. The inventor of the laser, H R Townes, was told by Niels Bohr that it could not possibly work because of the uncertainty principle.

Why did Feynman say this: "From a long view of the history of mankind, seen from, say, ten thousand years from now, there can be little doubt that the most significant event of the 19th century will be judged as聽Maxwell's聽discovery of the laws of electrodynamics." how could he get it so wrong, Maxwell is all but forgotten, he is certainly ignored by the current generation.

My thought's for comment.

Barry