Ultimate Possibilities of Physics by Ben Baten

I would like to add a few thoughts. This could not be included in the essay due to the size restriction.

In the write up, I wanted to give the reader a general overview of QFM, originally developed by Andrei P. Kirilyuk, and how it compares to other theories. I realize very well that QFM is unconventional and that it takes a while to comprehend its essence, since it brings many notions of different theories together in a coherent theory of physics. I hope you'll take some time to go through the essay and provide feedback if some elements are unclear. This feedback can be used to improve the material in [2,3].

1. At its core, QFM only makes three physically motivated assumptions: existence to two protofields with different mobilities and mutual protofield attraction. It seems hardly possible to beat this theory in terms of minimality. From these three assumptions many known results from currently different theories are deduced.

2. The protofields are really pre-time, pre-space structureless entities. Only after assuming protofield attraction, dynamically created space and time emerges.

3. Protofield attraction is postulated in the essay, but its physical need is motivated as follows. Without interaction, any perturbation in a protofield will 'spread out' and thus be unstable. Protofield attraction could potentially ensure that protofield perturbations are 'self-stabilizing'. As shown by the mathematical analysis of the state equation (existence equation), under the assumption of protofield attraction, stabilized entities can indeed occur and be identified with particles.

4. Obviously, when it is stated that the electromagnetic protofield is quite mobile and the gravitational protofield is very stiff, the mobilities of the two protofields are considered relative to one another. The larger mobility of the electromagnetic protofield gives rise stronger electromagnetic interaction than gravity. An analogy may be useful to illustrate this effect. A ball rolling on a frictionless flexible sheet will experience a large 'force' when the ball sinks deeper into the sheet as it rolls along. On the other hand, a ball rolling on a frictionless surface which is rather hard will not experience a large 'force'.

5. The existence equation (state equation of QFM) is symmetric in the sense that both protofields are taken into account. However, the protofields have different mobilities such that there is a physical asymmetry. The analysis of the existence equation is general because, in order to conclude the existence of quantum beat behavior, there are two interacting bodies assumed without specifying any detail of the protofields. In other words, the state equation describes any type of two-body interaction.

6. QFM, as a theory, is structured as follows: physical interaction of (physical) protofields --> mathematical state function describing unceasing quantum beat behavior ---> mathematical action condition (2.2) describing discrete aspects of quantum beat behavior.

Note that the mathematics follows from the physical considerations. This is unlike other theories, which often start with a mathematical framework which is largely guessed with respect to its physics, or one tries to 'derive' the physics from the math. With QFM, focus is brought back to absolutely minimal physically motivated assumptions (existence of two protofields and their interaction), although some sophisticated math is required to understand the intricate state function behavior.

7. Consider the link: state function ---> action condition. This link indicates that all physical observables that appear in action condition (2.2) directly correspond to a particular aspect of state function behavior. In that way, all the observables have a clear physical meaning and 'nothing extra' gets introduced by transitioning from state function level to the action condition. This results in an absolutely minimal physical description.

8. In quantum condition (2.2), the energy E and momentum p of the massive particle are directly related to the state function behavior, since from the quantum condition it follows that:

a) E=hv, where v is the quantum beat frequency (which corresponds to the behavior of the reduction states and intermediate state together).

b) p=h/lambda, where lambda is de Broglie's wavelength (de Broglie's wave corresponds to the behavior of a sequence of intermediate state occurrences).

These expressions are well-known from de Broglie's original work.

9. Planck's constant must be different from zero in (2.2) to represent the unceasing random quantum beat process.

10. In case of photons, the quantum of action must be set equal to zero, corresponding to the absence of internal randomness. The well-known expression E=pc follows from (2.2) by formally setting the quantum of action equal to zero. However, the photon energy and momentum must be interpreted as changes in massive particle energy and momentum upon photon emission or absorption.

Dear Peter-

Thanks for your feedback. I partially agree with your comment on 'inductive evidence'. This is surely due to the 'controversial' nature of the two issues that you bring up. An expanded version of the essay (a research report) would be necessary to illuminate some of the issues that were only briefly touched upon.

Let me try to address some of your concerns.

1. In the essay, I say that both protofields are mutually attractive, and the e/m (electromagnetic) protofield is far more mobile than the gr (gravitational) protofield. Any perturbations due to protofield attraction will, therefore, primarily be observable in the e/m protofield. In section 2.1, 3rd bullet, I say that the speed of an e/m perturbation is identified with the speed of light c [2,3]. This only follows after further development of the theory, such that, at a certain point, one ends up with a parameter that needs to be set equal to the speed of light when one wants to match current theory and QFM. So, an e/m perturbation moves at the speed of light. But, this does not imply anything about the speed of a gr perturbation. Since the gr protofield is far more rigid ('metallic'), a gr perturbation must experience a motion far exceeding the speed of light.

"faster than light gravitational interaction seems to be required to ensure stability of the solar system"

is not necessarily contrary to most evidence and unsubstantiated, see reference [8]. This reference maintains that a distinction needs to be made between 'the speed of e/m and gr'. If you do a 'speed of gravity' search on the Internet you'll also find researchers who are still trying to determine if the two speeds are identical or not.

2. Your statement: The central analysis that GR "..needs to be sacrificed to unify Quantum and relativistic behavour" is a common postulate that normally consigns theories to stasis at best.

I know what you mean and agree with you. I thought about this statement for quite a while when I wrote it, since it would definitely be controversial. However, if you read the essay, then you have to come to this conclusion. In QFM, time and space dynamically emerge from the quantum beat behavior. Quantum condition (2.2) describes the discrete behavior of the continuous, but very non-linear, state function. Time is not a dimension, the displacement delta x describes the average of the random space point motion. Time, space and displacement are all features that have a local character in the unifying quantum beat process (although time also has a global character, since quantum beat processes must be synchronized). Furthermore, (2.2) 'locally' quantifies the unification of quantum and relativistic behavior. No global curved space-time is needed. Note that in (2.2) incorporates time, displacement, energy and momentum into a single expression. This means that energy has no meaning 'outside' this expression and energy distributed in space 'outside' a particle is meaningless.

About the 'statis', I would not be surprised if this would happen since many physicist have pursued the 'discrete theories' for many years by modeling particles and interactions as 'particles' (or strings?), after Newtonian/Maxwellian (N/M) particle-field theories were composed. QFM is at the opposite end of the spectrum, with N/M theories in the middle, and assumes the existence of two physically continuous fields which are mutually attractive from which discreteness emerges dynamically.

On the FQXi website, the organizers of the essay contest state that an essay should be "Original and Creative: Foremost, the intellectual content of the essay must push forward understanding of the topic in a fresh way or with new perspective"

This still gives me some hope. Change is hard.

3. Your last question about the speed of light. If I understand your question correctly, the answer should be c. As an aside, the speed of light is kind of independent of (2.2). An extra 'dispersion condition' E = pv/c^2, see [2,3] for its derivation, restricts the relation between E and p. Combining (2.2) and the dispersion relation yields the Lorentz Transformation, see [3]. In Special Relativity, the speed of light is also sort of independent of the Lorentz Transformation.

I would like to thank you for taking the time to read the essay. Likely, other people also take issue with the 'controversial' remarks in the essay.

Dear Peter-

With respect to pushing a theory against consensus I can say the following. To me, it has become 'consensus' that the search for a unified theory of physics should be a math expert exercise instead of a physics exercise. There appears to be a trend in physics to 'solve unification' by piling up more and more abstractions, such as multi-dimensional spaces, which have never been observed (see also some of the remarks made by physicist on my website [3]). It almost seems like more math is considered better.

String Theory and other 'modern theories' take a formal approach to develop a unified theory and, in my opinion, tries to derive the physics from the math. This has led to searches of e.g. gravitons and other types of exotic particles, which may not exist.

QFM starts with observations and postulates mutually attractive protofields, after which as state equation is formulated: math follows from physics. This ensures that no extra abstractions are introduced. In this sense QFM is very different from other theories, since it starts with observations. In my opinion, such an approach should be considered seriously, since it takes out all unnecessary formalisms: it only uses the 'good math' (physical math).

I hope that the organizers of this contest won't dismiss a serious alternative to current approaches, just because it is different.

A side note: QFM may be extendable to higher levels of compositions, basically relying on a similar type of physically motivated state function. That appears ultimate unification to me.

It is not true that there is --no real evidence-- for QFM. Let me give some 'real' examples:

1. The Lorentz Transformation is reproduced but now with discrete time and displacement which, in QFM, have a physical interpretation. Since discrete time and displacement are so fine-granular (quantum beat frequency is 10^20 Hz and with the speed of light this give a very small discrete distance aka Compton distance) they are very hard to detect in experiments, but a sequence of discrete time periods and displacements can be approximated as continuous, which yields the LT from SR. So, within measurement accuracy, the LT from QFM is compatible with SR.

2. All results of traditional electromagnetic theory are reproduced, so QFM is at least compatible with those results.

3. Reference [4] demonstrates the existence of an internal oscillation in electrons, which is predicted by QFM.

4. The spin of electrons is predicted by QFM.

5. Inertia of massive particles is predicted as a feature of the random internal motion.

6. The nature of quarks detected in hadrons can be explained as quantum beat processes. In traditional theory they are considered 'particles'.

7. Massive particles and photons are predicted to exist. Virtual particles are not part of QFM.

So, at least many experimental results are compatible with QFM.

In addition some other appealing features of QFM are:

a. Time, space, spin, charge are all features following from the 'unified' quantum beat process behavior.

b. Paradoxical results, such instantaneous collapse of the wave function do not appear in QFM.

c. Infinities (singularities) do not exist in QFM.

d. Planck's constant is explained as representing the presence of an internal unceasing random oscillation 'inside' electrons.

e. (Modified) Planck time, length and mass can physically be explained in the context of QFM.

You misunderstand. I surely don't say that Special Relativity has to be abandoned.

Section 2.5 in the essay indicates that the Lorentz Transformation relates discrete time and displacements (instead of continuous 'time' and 'space' as in the traditional LT. The LT in the essay is directly derived from quantum condition (2.2) and some other considerations that are part of QFM.

Quantum condition (2.2) is based on the discrete time and space that are dynamically generated (see state function). There is no need for global curved time-space. That is the reason that in section 3.1 in the essay it is said that, within the context of QFM, there is no place for General Relativity. What is global in QFM is that quantum beat processes are phase/frequency synchronized and interaction between particles.

In summary, Special Relativity still holds in QFM, which also implies that all results from traditional electromagnetic theory are valid. But, General Relativity has no place --in the context of QFM--.

Dear Leshan-

I thank you for your feedback, but I absolutely disagree with your 'sure' assessments and your specific remarks. I get the impression that you are more impressed with abstract postulates of e.g. Quantum Mechanics (looks more 'scientific') than any serious attempt to explain the origin of those postulates, at the expense of introducing simpler postulates that have not been generally accepted yet.

Concerning the 'fantasy' aspect, I would be careful with such a statement. I believe that the results on QFM are far less fantastic than current theories, which lack a good understanding of the nature of space and time (are they continuous or discrete?), propose multi-dimensional spaces (what are they made of?), and assume such phenomena as an instantaneous collapse of the wave function (what is a wave function?), etc. This lack of understanding is compensated by the huge number of, often incompatible, formalisms that have been proposed. Formalisms are only a solution if they match nature. The proposed mutually attracting protofields appears to provide this match.

It is unfortunate that some aspects could not be explained in more detail in the essay and were postulated, which may come across as artificial. Please also read other clarifications that I provided after posting the essay. Here is a more thorough explanation, starting off with some general remarks.

1. At its core, QFM only makes three assumptions: existence to two protofields with different mobilities and mutual protofield attraction. From these three assumptions many known results from currently different theories are deduced and the origin of many phenomena like particle spin, inertia and relativity is explained.

2. QFM is a continuous theory from which discrete time, space and particles emerge as highly non-linear phenomena. This is in contrast with current theories, which assume real (and virtual) particles. The notion of space and time are often ill-defined. In current theories time is an assumed background parameter and a dimension, but what is it? Particles traverse space, but what is space?

3. The protofield postulates are no random assumptions, but originate from observations of nature. We know that there are two short-range interactions (weak and strong) and two long-range interactions( e/m and gravity). I don't think that there would be a disagreement there.

4. We know that the short-range strong interaction and long-range gravity are both attractive. Current theory proposes to describe these interactions in terms of discrete entities: gluons and gravitons or even strings. None of

these discrete entities has ever been observed, but they are 'mathematically' postulated based on symmetry and other arguments in an attempt to construct a unified theory of physics. QFM proposes that a common continuous, homogeneous, frictionless medium is responsible for these interaction, what is called the gravitational protofield in the essay, instead of discrete particles.

5. We know that long-range e/m interaction and the short-range weak interaction have some similarities. They have been -theoretically- unified as electro-weak theory. The photon is supposedly responsible for e/m interaction and (virtual, i.e. calculated?) W+/-/Z particles for weak interactions. QFM proposes that a common medium is really responsible for those interactions. This is odd, since in current theory we have discrete interaction particles while QFM proposes a common 'continuous' interaction medium. Obviously, then it remains to be explained what the role of photons and the other particles is.

In the context of QFM, photons do exist as discrete particles (see essay) that can be absorbed by massive particles and be emitted from massive particles. However, the long-range e/m interaction is caused by the e/m protofield, contrary what current theory maintains. As far as I know, the virtual particles have never been observed -directly-, which leaves the possibility of a different explanation. At this moment, I don't have a detailed answer for that, but it must be related to the non-linear behavior of the protofield interaction 'inside' massive particles.

6. Protofield attraction is postulated in the essay, but its physical need is motivated as follows. Without interaction, any perturbation in a medium will 'spread out' and thus be unstable. Protofield attraction could potentially ensure that protofield perturbations are 'self-stabilizing'. As shown by the mathematical analysis of existence equation (see references for the details), under the assumption of protofield attraction, stabilized entities can indeed occur and be identified with particles.

The protofields are assumed to be pre-time, pre-space structureless entities. Only after assuming protofield attraction, dynamically created space and time emerges. We can only experience what the protofields are and will never know their details. This does not seem to be very satisfactory, but it is not much different than what main stream physicists need to assume at a certain point when they are developing a theory: do they know what strings, fields, or particles really are? The needs to postulate something. With the minimal assumption of the attracting protofields at least much more can be explained.

Quantum condition (2.2) is based on discrete time and space that are dynamically generated (see state function). There is no need for global curved time-space. Time is not a dimension. Displacement of particles is directly related to dynamically generated space points, but is not space. That is the reason that in section 3.1 in the essay it is said that -within the context of QFM- there is no place for General Relativity. So, either one accepts GR and ends up with curved space-time, or one accepts time and space as in QFM. The two are not compatible.

Dear Leshan (part 1)-

I does not seem that we are converging. Let me give answers on the issues that you bring up, although I doubt I can convince you given the strong opinions that you have. Obviously, a theory must be self-consistent. I believe that QFM is self-consistent, but an essay format may not be the best way to present it, since many details had to be left out and be diverted to references, which you probably haven't consulted.

1. At the end of your feedback you indicate that gravity and e/m have very different properties. Obviously, I fully agree. Then you say something that mystifies me, because you say that there a single protofield is proposed. It is clearly said in the essay that there are two different protofields, which interact. One protofield facilitates gravity and the strong interaction between particles/'quarks'. Another protofield facilitates e/m interaction and weak interactions. Note that these interactions cannot exist unless the protofields interact, such that particles can exist and dynamically cause the interactions as a consequence of the quantum beat process. I don't know how you came to the conclusion that there is a -single- protofield. It seems that you have missed something absoluty essential. I wonder if you have read the essay with this in mind. So, unlike you suggest, any God-like properties are not proposed. Please also reassess my last feedback to you in this manner.

2. Many of the so-called 'additional assumptions' are justified in the references that I mention. The essay is supposed to give an overview of QFM. It is impossible to describe all details in 10 pages. That is also impossible for other theories on which whole bookd have been written. On my website there is much more background.,You'll find a slide deck there that describes the essay in a different format. Other documents provide much detail on the math. In the essay, I tried to stay away from the complicated math describing the state function behavior and gave references where details can be found.

3. On the issue of initial axioms, I have had similar discussions with string theorists and researchers on fundamental theories. Several of those physicists eventually acknowledged that current theories also make core assumptions (postulates), which at a certain point cannot be explained no matter how hard you try.

I get the impression that QFM comes across to you as strange and in certain areas unacceptable, since you claim that more assumptions are added later in the essay. The assumptions that you allude to probably have to do with further characterization of the protofields and their interaction. A few issues, like a full description of the phenomena of quantum beat process synchronization in terms of the state function, remain to be completed. Right now, these assumptions follow from a combination of observations and the large piece of QFM that is already mature.

4. The 'thermodynamic motion' is something that Louis de Broglie refers to in his book [1]. This brownian-like motion (zitterbewegung) of electrons could not be justified by him, although through he whole life he unsuccessfully tried to come up with a theory that incorporates wave and corpuscular behavior in a unified fashion. Bohm also tried this. The state function solution of QFM exhibits this behavior. By the way, in this book "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" (page 101), Bohm came up with a similar expression as quantum condition (2.2). Bohm is, like de Broglie also talking about an internal clock, dynamically creating action. I would urge you to read Bohm's book, section 12 and also consult de Broglie's early work [1]. Note that (2.2) is not just falling out of the sky. It describes the continuous state function's quantum beat behavior in a discrete fashion. In that sense (2.2) is less fundamental, but allows us to measure some of the physical observables.

In my opinion, De Broglie and Bohm were much closer to a realistic description of nature than many current physicsts. QFM has many similar characteristics of their theories, but has now put the ideas into a 'realistic' framework. Many physicist consider de Broglie's orginal ideas 'history'. They have continued on their path towards formalization.

Dear Leshan (part 2)-

5. The quantum beat process of a massive particle is an unceasing oscillation combined with a rotation and random motion. The quantum beat process is basically a combined perturbation in both protofields caused by their attraction. Since the protofields attract to one another, also an opposite tress is created in both protofieldswhich attempts to counteract the perturbation, such that at a certain point the attraction will reverse and so on, causing an oscillating process. The details of how this counter-intuitive behavior must occur is essentially concluded from the mathematical analysis of the state function behavior, see [2,3]. I won't repeat those details here.

6. A notion of time could be assigned to photons, but then it will depend on their frequency. Such a notion cannot be used as a fixed reference of time and is, therefore, not very useful. In case of a stationary electron, the quantum beat frequency DELTA t sub 0 is fixed and, thus, a good reference of time.

7. Based on observations, physicists propose that quarks are bound into hadrons and quarks are particles. In the essay, I indicate that in the context of QFM, this needs to be understood as binding between quantum beat processes (a different interpretation of observations). I say that for a consistent notion of e/m charge, all quantum beat processes need to be synchronized, which is explained in one of my reports in order to match observations (take this as a postulate for now), but remains to be explained at a deeper level in terms of the state function. For electrons and positrons this phase-synchronization would physically explain their ability to annihilate. Current theory just says that unlike charged particles of the same type annihilate, why this is the case cannot be explained apart from saying that this is a property of charged particles.

8. GR is the generally accepted theory and indeed experiments supposedly demonstrate its 'correctness' (better: are not able to falsify it). You use that as an argument that QFM must be incorrect. Clearly this is an opinion that locks out any discussions of other alternatives. There are other theories that predict phenomena equally well as GR, but have not received much attention. Look also at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0908/0908.3842v1.pdf and

specifically section 2, which describes that GR fails for extremely large distances. Also, the fact that it has not been possible to 'combine' GR and Quantum Theory must be an indication that one or both theories are incomplete or partially incorrect. That's why alternative are bing pursued. My take is that both theories are fundamentally incompatible and have major issues, which will always inhibit unification. I guess that the issues are difficult to see because otherwise it would have been possible to unify them a long time ago. Furthermore, physicist have gotten so used to them that challenging them 'is not done'.

9. Relativistic time dilation follows from quantum condition (2.2). You can already see that this expression is 'relativistic invariant', since the left-hand side is constant and equal to Planck;'s constant. By using a so-called dispersion relation (not indicated in the essay, (see Kirilyuk's work or the QFM-II report on my website), which relates E, p and v, the time dilation relation is derived. Time dilation is basically a consequence of the time spent on forward coherent motion vs. time spent on random transverse motion. The transverse motion will diminish as the particle moves faster, thereby resulting in time stretching. As a massive particle moves faster, it behaves more like a photon (see also relation between E and p as the speed increases).

10. Particle attraction. As indicated, but not motivated in detail in the essay, charged particles should have two possible quantum beat phases. e/m interaction occurs as a consequence of an attempt to reduce the stress in the e/m flexible protofield. When particles have an opposite phase, stress reduction must result in particles moving toward one another. For particle with the same phase (charge), the opposite must occur. In case of gravity, due to the extreme stiffness of this protofield, no two quantum beat phases can exist in this protofield. Therefore, particles must be moving toward one another because they are pulling at one another simultaneously during the quantum beat process. A better analogy could probably be provided. Obviously, this rationalization of particle interaction is very different from the (real and virtual) particle explanation of current physics. In the latter case, there is also a causality issue: how does a particle know when and where to emit an interaction particle.

I would like to urge you to consult the references in the essay for many of the details I mention above, instead of dismissing QFM based on a quick impression.

Dear Leshan-

It seems that you have edited and significantly reduced your originally posted feedback. So, now there is a mismatch between the issues that you originally brought up and the items that I have addressed in my last two postings.