Essay Abstract

When considering the question of what is possible to learn in Physics, we are grappling with issues of what is known, what is unknown, and what is knowable. To an extent, this involves weeding out meaningless or misleading questions and nurturing those questions which will lead us to a greater understanding of what is happening in the universe. But often such a determination rests on finding a broad enough framework to accommodate known factors emerging from different disciplines. It is my belief that it is overly simplistic to seek ideas that reconcile Relativity and Quantum Mechanics in the form of a Quantum Gravity Theory, if what we really require is a broader framework. This paper offers thoughts on what shape that framework must have, and how we can pin down the details of its structure. Ultimately; this reveals something about the limits of what is knowable by studying Physics, and what we can learn from Science in general.

Author Bio

Jonathan J. Dickau has worked as a recording engineer the past 12 years, recording Folk legend Pete Seeger numerous times, including the Grammy winning "At 89." Previously, he held numerous technical and engineering positions, earning the titles Director of Engineering and VP/Development before leaving the corporate milieu. Although having only an A.S. degree, he continues to follow the leading edge in Physics and Cosmology. He has had a number of papers published in peer-reviewed Journals, presented his work at last September's Crisis in Cosmology Conference, and will present at the Frontiers of Fundamental Physics Conference, this November.

Download Essay PDF File

Greetings to All,

It is my pleasure to be a part of this year's essay contest. The theme of this essay is largely based on articles I wrote more than 10 years ago, but with some of what I've learned or has been discovered since that time added in. The January 1999 issue of Scientific American proclaimed "New observations have smashed the old view of our universe" and asked the question "What Now?" A decade later, many of those questions still remain unanswered, and strangely some of my thoughts on the subject from back then are still relevant.

You may find the earlier non-technical articles and diagrams interesting, should you wish to learn where some of my ideas came from. I have therefore included links below.

Is There a Singular Theory to Explain All of the Data?

http://jond4u.jonathandickau.com/singular.htm

Going Beyond the Boundaries of Conventional Modern Science

http://jond4u.jonathandickau.com/goinbynd.htm

The Known, the Unknown, and the Unknowable

http://jond4u.jonathandickau.com/known.htm

I will likely include copies of some papers cited in the essay, which are not easy to find or readily available. I shall also post links to where some of the books I've cited are available on the Web. In the meanwhile, I wish all the participants good luck, I invite all comments, and I look forward to some excellent reading!

All the Best,

Jonathan J. Dickau

  • [deleted]

  • Post #3

You say, "If we simply ask 'How can we reconcile Quantum theory with Relativity?' we may find ourselves disappointed." General Relativity has c=c,G=G, h=0. Quantum Field Theory has c=c,G=0, h=h. Write predictive theory in which c=c,G=G, h=h. It's not a big deal, conceptually. Who bells the cat?

you say, "Quantum theory comes out of unifying matter and energy" E=mc^2. That's Special Relativity. Your axiomatic system is no stronger than its weakest axiom. You say, "Electroweak theory being a tangible step toward a GUT" Electroweak theory is chiral. Except for the strongest interactions, physics as whole is chiral, torque and right-hand rules though teleparallel gravitation. Physics denies such by its elegant derivation from deep symmetries that insists the universe and its mirror image are indistinguishable. They aren't - Yang and Lee. Gravitation is by far the weakest force, by 25 orders of magnitude. Do left and right shoes fall identically? Do macroscopically and chemically identical, maximally enantiomorphic atomic mass distributions violate the Equivalence Principle? Somebody should look. Single crystal test masses of left- and right-handed alpha-quartz or glycine gamma-polymorph are not difficult to obtain.

Euclid proved every triangle's three interior angles sum to 180 degrees. Globe of the Earth. Segment of the equator, two lines of longitude to bound that segemnt, and a pole where said lines of longitude intersect. Add the interior angles of that triangle. So much for Euclid.

Thanks Uncle Al,

Glad you could take the time to read the essay and comment.

Your first comment appears to be saying you would focus on the fact that for General Relativity Planck's constant is assumed negligible, while for QFT it's gravity which is inconsequential (roughly the same as saying G = 0). An interesting point. But while it's easy to write c=c, G=G, h=h, and say it's done, making an answer to the problem out of that construction is considerably more difficult. One might also be prompted to ask 'in what context are other constant's assumed zero for convenience?' It seems the problem is really about renormalization, in that case.

Your second comment gives me reason to pause, but it would seem you are making my point for me. Yes; it's true that E=mc2 is widely associated with Relativity, but it's a powerful little equation. It also describes the conversion rates between matter and energy. Of course; there is an elaborate subtraction process, where only a small amount of a particle's mass is converted into energy during fusion, for example. But it seems pretty clear that what is lost on the matter side shows up as energy, as per Einstein's equation. A balance is maintained and there is equivalence.

Third; it's absolutely true that Electroweak theory is chiral, as it would have to be to describe what we observe. In my view, this chirality ultimately arises from the asymmetry of time. Let me be clear that I do not rule out the possibility that Sean Carroll's theory of time that flows both ways, or Alex Mayer's view that there are an infinite number of arrows of time, which are orthogonal to all three directions in space. I take such ideas very seriously. My research with the Mandelbrot Set seems to point to a similar result. It is easy to find regions of the set to zoom in on which appear perfectly symmetrical, and yet when one zooms out a few times it is obvious that the structure it is a part of is highly asymmetrical.

The comment about the weakness of gravity seems again to be about renormalization. I didn't use the term in my essay but gave quite a few examples of ways to approach that.

Of course; the Chemistry of living beings is also chiral, which begs the question 'Is there a connection to the chirality of the universe?' Your last comments in that block are interesting. Enantiomers are stereoisomers which are structurally distinct, so they can't be superposed. A maximally enantiomorphic distribution would then be formed of distinctly chiral species that can transform into each other readily. If this were extended to collections of atomic matter, I don't see how it would violate the Equivalence principle, but it's obvious that living beings are chemically chiral, so that has to come from somewhere.

As for Euclid; he still has a place. If one makes smaller triangles, which are inscribed on a sphere, there is almost no difference from Euclid's flat ones, just as any manifold (no matter how highly curved) will have local neighborhoods that appear flat. But when one makes the 3 corners farther apart, and if one allows that a geodesic on a spherically curved surface will be an arc instead of an actual line, you end up with fat triangles. Oh well.

All the Best

  • [deleted]

  • Post #5

Mr. Dickau,

Thank you for an interesting, thought provoking essay.

Regarding your comments on the nature of time, may I suggest that the answer to the question "is time real or not?" teeters precariously on one's precise definitions of the words "time" and "real." In his book 'The Trouble With Physics,' Lee Smolin wrote, "More and more, I have the feeling that quantum theory and general relativity are both deeply wrong about the nature of time. It is not enough to combine them. There is a deeper problem, perhaps going back to the origin of physics." (page 256)

I believe that Smolin is precisely correct in this assessment, and I've offered some thoughts on exactly where and how the problem arose in an essay which may be found here.

Some additional ramifications of the ideas presented in that essay may be found in an essay which appears elsewhere among the submissions to this year's FQXi competition. I would respectfully suggest that it might be worth your while to read these essays prior to championing the idea that time is real at the upcoming Frontiers of Fundamental Physics conference, inasmuch as I believe that the essays offer a somewhat different and worthwhile perspective on the topic. And it should go without saying that I'd of course welcome your comments on them.

Cheers

  • [deleted]

  • Post #6

Hello all,

Although I myself am not a Physicist, I have found Jonathan's work to be brilliant, as it has given me insight into many areas concerning my own research that have taken my own work in new directions which are proving fruitfulindeed.. I believe that as science progresses in the study of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, his ideas may lead us down the path to unification, in ways we can't possibly imagine. The idea of connecting relativity to quantum mechanics described in this essay may well prove to be the correct path, and could lead us to a truly unified physics.

Michael J. Veach

Thanks J.C.N Smith,

I appreciate your comments about my essay, and on Time, and have read your linked essay (not your contest essay yet). Your concept of a moment in time as corresponding to the configuration of the universe in a single instant makes perfect sense of things, in the present context. This links up with the implied hanging question from Uncle Al's comment "When would we set c=0?" How this relates to the origin of the universe, or what happens when the universe is larger than a 'Hubble Bubble' is unclear.

I liked the Feynman quote, and it echoes Mayer's and Minkowski's comments on the unity of space-time, but also makes my point. As he said "time becomes space." Your essay's comments on Wheeler-Dewitt are insightful. You might enjoy reading Fotini Markpoulou's paper on Planck-scale Models at arXiv: gr-qc/0210086. She complains of WDW being a view from outside the universe, and offers a contrasting approach based on numerous local observers. Some insights may be found into your 'snapshot of the universe' idea there too.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Thanks Michael J. Veach,

Supportive remarks from someone familiar with my work are always welcome. My primary effort here (in this contest) is to foster understanding, and to encourage people to think about some of the fundamentals of Physics in ways that haven't been thought of before, or would not otherwise be explored.

Your comments are appreciated.

All the Best,

Jonathan

  • [deleted]

  • Post #9

Mr. Dickau,

Thank you for the reference to the Markopoulou paper, which I agree is highly germane. I've been extremely interested in developments in what Smolin referred to as "relational quantum theory" in 'Three Roads to Quantum Gravity.' (pp. 46-48) These are very exciting times. Is it possible that we're finally almost "there"? While I don't pretend to be able to follow all the math involved in Markopoulou's paper, I like the fact that the scheme she's describing is background independent and offers hope for being experimentally testable. I *very* much like the slogan proposed by Smolin, "One universe, seen by many observers, rather than many universes, seen by one mythical observer outside the universe." (P. 48, TRTQG)

Cheers

Hello again J.C.N.,

I like the Smolin quote a lot, and it sort of sums up what was said in the Markopoulou paper. In reference to your Time essay, I had the thought that in the Mersini-Houghton paper I cite (arXiv: 0809.3623), she alters WDW by including a back-reaction term, so there is no longer a zero on the right side, to turn it into a Master Equation. This puts a very different spin on things.

All the Best,

Jonathan

References ERRATUM AND ADDENDA

I found an incorrect reference in my essay.

The paper by Laura Mersini-Houghton is actually found at arXiv: 0809.3623

Birth of the Universe from the Multiverse

Plus; I would like to offer these links to referenced content.

The paper by Jeremy Avigad can be found on the author's web-site

Classical and Constructive Logic

A summary of the new paradigm in entropy (dispersal of energy) by Frank Lambert can be found on his Entropy Site

Entropy is not "disorder"

All the Best,

Jonathan

  • [deleted]

  • Post #12

Dear Jonathan,

Very interesting reading as a review with some pertinent suggestions about tackling the development of new ideas in physics. I do have a few brief comments and a question:

(1) You seem to be doing a lot of skirting around the original question "What is possible in physics?" in your philosophical essay, bringing in connections to a tremendous number of related viewpoints and conjectures. The comments and suggestions are all interesting, but mostly non-specific. My biased point of view is: Give me something I can test in the lab, or at least give me enough specifics so that I can work out the consequences beyond what you already have presented for some phenomenon that I choose.

(2) However, your main points seem to be: (i) "we still have a lot to learn"; and (ii) find connecting pieces between GTR and QM instead of attempting to reconcile them; (iii) what we do not yet know is still playing its role behind the scenes. All these points are certainly useful.

(3) Would you please make a few comments wrt entropy being the spreading and sharing of energy in a gravitational environment such as matter collecting into a star?

Hello Frank,

Thanks for the comments. I've always thought that a bunch of different theories, all pointing to a particular result, tend to strengthen the proposition under consideration. Others feel that only a singular theory, which excludes the possibility of all others, can ultimately be 'right' or is worthy of consideration. My essay is founded on the belief that their approach may actually exclude or obscure what those people are seeking. The actual solution may be a broader framework, rather than a simplistic answer, after all.

Looking at (3) I have to take a bit for the set-up of the problem. For matter coming from a given patch of space, at a distance from the star, the gravitational well acts like a kind of funnel with parabolic sides - that compresses a given volume as it approaches. Now it doesn't quite squeeze things down to zero, however, but down to what's called the Gravitational Radius - the Schwartzschild radius of a Black Hole of similar mass (~3km for our Sun).

Anyway; if we make a simplifying assumption we are talking about a volume of gas, then we get a simple thermodynamic equation PV=nRT where n is a given number of moles in our sample. As the volume contained in a given patch decreases when approaching the star, the pressure and temperature go up, owing to this funnel effect. Additionally, there is significant radiation coming from the star, various forms of which will heat our sample by adding energy to it. The intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the star.

Now for chunks of solid matter, the effect of compression is less pronounced, or is delayed until they start bouncing into each other. On the other hand, their opacity means they will capture and absorb more of the radiant energy from the star, which will be converted to heat. To keep it somewhat simple, I won't talk about radiation pressure from the star or the electromagnetic effects on a plasma. In space; most matter is either solid or gas, because liquids tend to just sublimate in a vacuum. So our set up is done.

When we consider how energy is spread and shared in this system to gain insight into entropy, we need to examine where energy is concentrated or how it gets concentrated, and what mechanisms allow energy to be dispersed or exchanged. To consider all the contributions to this process, we need to look at it both ballistically and quantum-mechanically or molecularly.

It's obvious that the hottest thing in this system is the star, but the matter within a patch of space has an ambient temperature (something above absolute zero) at the time we start our observations. What happens then?

The temperature of our sample volume goes up, as does the pressure. If the temperature is less in the surroundings, it will tend to radiate energy in the infrared. If the pressure is less in the surrounding volumes, it will tend to spread or mix into that space. Within the volume there is a constant exchange, as the bits of solid and molecules of gas will collide, and exchange photons through radiation. But then there's the really cool piece, as the microstates of the system are defined by the different places a molecule could be (within that volume), and the energetic states it might be in.

The key here is that, even though our sample volume gets compressed into a smaller space, the opportunities for energy exchange actually increase. Plus; it will radiate more, as well as pushing out at its surroundings more (trying to spread physically), because we are increasing the temperature and pressure - as compared to the ambient at the start. On the Quantum Mechanical side, each molecule has access to more opportunities to interact, which translates into more accessible microstates. That is; there is an increase in entropy throughout the process.

All the Best,

Jonathan

  • [deleted]

  • Post #14

Hi Jonathan,

Spurred by your comment on my essay thread, I figured I would give your paper a close reading and share whatever thoughts I have about it.

First, I congratulate you on steering clear of two temptations to which many other contestants seem to have fallen victim: (1) your paper isn't a total math-out, and (2) never once do you mention consciousness! Also, you have good command of the language, another quantity in short supply.

The heart of your paper seems to be questioning the assumptions made by many in the physics community about the relationship between math and physics. I applaud this questioning spirit and share your suspicions that a certain breed of physicist (the one that I somewhat incautiously, and now infamously, labeled "gauge theory chauvinists") has fallen victim to the map/territory confusion you describe early in your paper. This seems to be a common theme emerging from a plurality of other submissions to this contest, most notably Lev Goldfarb's excellent paper.

Unfortunately, our views on time are oppositely polarized; I think that time, while "real" in any practical sense, is a nonfundamental, emergent property of the two underlying quantities that I view as "more real": numbers and behavior. My paper argues that behavior should be thought of as a substance in its own right, and that if we insist on asking what THAT substance is made of, we get "the set of natural numbers" as the answer. For any single object, there exists a perspective from which it appears instead as a behavioral pattern among lower-level objects; and for any behavioral pattern among a set of objects, there exists a perspective (or will exist a perspective, once coalescence takes place) from which it appears as a single object.

Of your proposed quantity equivalences, I found matter-space to be the most intriguing. It reminded me of the quantity discussed in my paper called "ontological inertia."

A minor factual question: early in your paper you assert that vacuum zero-point energy and dark energy are the same thing. My understanding had been that those were actually two separate types of energy, and although neither is understood well, dark energy is at least slightly better understood than vacuum zero-point energy. Please correct me where I am mistaken.

Thanks for a thought-provoking paper, and good luck.

Thanks Owen,

I think that perhaps we are closer to agreement than you think, on the Time issue. I was only saying that Time is more primal than Matter, Energy, or Space. I regard Information as a sort of Fifth Element, which is at a higher level of abstraction from any of the manifested quantities that are the basis of Physics. Information and processing are formative of qualities which can become physical quantities. So there is room for number and behavior, as precursors of Time, if these are seen as symbols for information and the manipulation thereof.

In terms of mathematical abstractions, however, my constructivist views force me to ask what relevant insights are necessary for the development of other advances in Mathematics. Constructivism teaches that we must posit only what can be constructed, or show how it can arise as part of the set-up to a problem. The idea is to root out as many hidden assumptions as possible, and create or construct what is desired to prove - from first principles.

So; I might be inclined to point out that the rudiments of Geometry are needed to formulate Topology, which gives us topological distinctions or boundaries. Only when you have objects with boundaries can you formulate set theory, which gives us collections of objects and a sense of number. But from that set of tools one can get a sense of size, distance, and proportion - out of which Arithmetic can be formulated. Then the behavior of functions relates to procedures by which quantities can be measured, compared, and manipulated.

As to the question about Dark Energy. Yes; there are those who feel that Vacuum Energy and Dark Energy are entirely separate things. But in both cases, we are talking about otherwise empty space possessing an intrinsic energy of its own. Most cosmologists agree that Dark Energy is related to the Vacuum Energy Density, but they are at a loss to explain why - if it is an expression of VE - the Lambda or Dark Energy component of the universe's expansion is so small.

All the Best,

Jonathan

4 days later

  • [deleted]

  • Post #16

Dear Jonathan,

very well written essay - i like it very much. it's creative, clever, intelligent, well balanced and optimistic. And it is easy and good to read.

Well, i also assume it to be important to not only search for differences in science via particle accelerators etc., but also to search for mutualities at the "top" as well as at the bottom level. That's what you propose and i think it is worth to examine your new way of gaining more insights into the interconnectedness of the pieces (of the whole picture that we actually have in front of us).

Very inspiring, thanks for it!!

All the best,

Stefan Weckbach

  • [deleted]

  • Post #17

P.S. I will vote your essay later, because here i haven't access to my voting-code!!

  • [deleted]

  • Post #18

P.P.S.: I couldn't open your paper at quantumbionet.org - could you upload the paper at fqxi.org?

Greetings

Stefan

Hello Stefan, et al.

Of course! My paper from Quantum Biosystems "How Can Complexity Arise from Minimal Spaces and Systems?" has been attached here.

I'll also put it on your essay forum page.

JonathanAttachment #1: QBS11pg3143.pdf

Dear Jonathan J. Dickau,

Like you, I often begin with Korzybski's "the map is not the territory." It is in this sense that David Mermin recently wrote about the habit that physicists have of mistaking their abstractions for reality. This cannot be ignored when one considers a consciousness field, because there is no way that the abstraction can actually possess awareness plus volition, while this appears to many to be the key factor in our universe.

I strongly reject others ideas of Platonic math (see "Automatic Theory of Physics") and anthropomorphic "laws" of physics. If the only 'mathematical operation' on an entity (the primordial field) is the field interacting with (/operating on) itself, then this sentence easily becomes a symbolic Master equation. By assuming that the field has energy (Maxwell) and that energy has mass (Einstein), we quickly find Newton's equation of gravity, implying that our symbolic operation is the vector divergence operator, allowing the equation to be solved. The time rate of change of the self interaction of the field leads to my quantum flow principle. At this point I believe that my theory meets several of your criteria. First, I assume that the G and C fields are "two faces of the same thing" (the primordial field), although the properties of each differ, and the force associated with each differs.

You ask about energy-time or matter-space. In my theory the time derivative of the self-interacting field leads to an equation that can be physically interpreted in at least three different ways. Because we have no reason to choose one way, we assume all three are valid, implying that all must equal a constant, and the dimension of the constant is that of energy-time, h. I generally feel that this minimal 'action' is the most fundamental aspect of the universe. Because we can't measure it as easily as measuring space and time, we tend to suppress it, but it shows up in observations. And note that this quantum condition derived from a Gravity field.

But what about matter-space? If we multiply both sides of the quantum flow principle by the speed of light, we obtain on the left the rate of change of mass times the rate of change of space (volume) and the right becomes the well known conversion constant, hc.

Regardless of the form, the quantum flow principle combines matter, energy, space, and time in the first equation derived from our Master equation.

You then ask for a framework in which matter is made from energy. I derive this in detail in 'the Chromodynamics War". It is not feasible to do so in an essay.

Next you assert that time is real and may be more primal than space, energy, or matter. When one works out the dimensions of consciousness, it turns out that the C-field has units of inverse time, which makes all of the physics equations work out and also implies that consciousness is fundamentally about awareness of 'change', that is, change per time. This supports your belief that "the most fundamental quantity is time" (or consciousness, the "other face" of the same thing.)

So, from a statement that the 'laws of physics' must derive from the interaction of the (continuum) primordial field with itself, we can immediately derive the quantum condition on observables -- the basis of physics.

Because the C-field is effectively the rotational aspect of gravity, there is a strong correlation between the mass of the C-field and local curvature of space. When this is represented symbolically, it leaves room for the geometers to enter the picture. It is only when they start claiming that it is geometry that gives rise to all of the above that Korzybski must be invoked.

Uncle Al commented that we need to consider c, G, and h non-zero, and this is the basis of the quantum flow principle. He also requires an explanation of the chiral phenomenon, and the C-field, being inherently left-handed, can give rise only to left-handed neutrinos. The problem disappears, as does the need for three SUSY right-handed neutrinos needed to explain neutrino mass in QED.

As I've explained in several comments, the wave function does not 'collapse', but the C-field serves as a "super hidden variable" interpretation of quantum mechanics.

I've tried to tie the ideas in my essay to those in your essay. I believe we are largely in agreement. In addition, my theory explains all known particles and does not appear to open the way to any other particles, so my prediction is that no new particles (other than resonances) will be found at the LHC, including the Higgs.