The Crystallizing Universe

Dear Echard,

I have read and re-read your post to me regarding my rhetorical abuse of the term "(quantum) weirdness". I agree. I have to refrain from aggravating potential supporters by inflaming their sensitivities. The very controversial nature of the claims is enough to make them offensive and to recoil away from these.

As a way of explanation, however, let me just say that I find it both necessary and honest to plainly speak my mind, not self-censor ideas, and trust that others will be swayed or dissuaded by the reasoning alone. It's all so very innocent. No harm or disrespect intended. We must be able to honestly and openly converse about even the most sacrosanct of topics in Physics. Otherwise, Physics becomes a Cult of Personalities, and not an open engaging intellectual journey embarked by people with passion for ideas and for Truth and for Reason. Since we are all seeking the same thing, an Understanding of our World that 'makes sense', I really don't see any cause for concern. I think all great physicists of the past would embrace such intellectual attitude and spirit. Einstein I think would laugh and enjoy all criticism and doubt. We honor great physicists by embracing their passion for Physical Reality and for Truth. How can anyone take offense by any idea that helps explain perplexities and clarifies dilemmas. If we knew the shape, form and source of the next good idea, we would know the idea itself. Truth is often revealed in ways that we cannot have predicted. So we need to be open to all ideas and not prejudge them. Above all, we must not kill the messenger because we disapprove of the message.

Best,

Constantinos

Greetings Eckard,

It is bewildering to me why just the mention and re-examination of fundamental views held by our illustrious predecessors should raise such response and resistance. If such unquestioning attitude was to have prevailed in times past we would still be living in an Aristotelian Universe and the Church would still be the Source of Unquestioned Knowledge. It is our human right to question and to seek truth in ever evolving terms, in our terms as seekers.

I agree with you when you say that "ideals must not be considered reality". In mathematics there is no conflict between ideas and reality. Only ideas exist! But in Physics the lines are often blurred. In mathematics quantities are pure whereas in physics quantities carry units. Measurement is I believe the essence of Physics! Observation is a form of measurement, as is also understanding (as we seek equilibrium between Observation and Object).

Thus far the application of Mathematics to Physics (picking up on an earlier topic) is in the form of mathematical models of reality. And as has been well pointed out by others, such models make physical sense in restricted domains only, but the mathematics still yields results in all domains. If we are to avoid the many theoretical pitfalls that mathematical models of Nature can lead to, we need a Mathematical Foundation of Physics where all Basic Law are exact mathematical identities (tautologies) that describe the interaction of measurement. Since we can only know what we can measure and observe (that is, we can only know our measurements) such a Mathematical Foundation of Physics I believe will avoid theoretical results that pit us against our own sensible experience. In one of the short notes I show that Planck's Law is an exact mathematical identity that describes the interaction of energy (measurement).

All the best,

Constantinos

Steven, Your attempt to justify Kramers and Heisenberg deserves attention because it requires minimal knowledge to understand my objection. Look at page 582 of how electromagnetic waves propagate according to theory as well as measurement.

One has to be aware that both E and B are orthogonal to each other and to the direction of propagation given by E X B. The spatial pattern is antisymmetric along the axis.

It contrasts to the spherical symmetry of acoustic waves which could easily be described by spherical Bessel function sinc without directivity.

If I read the old papers correctly, when Compton provided evidence for the directivity of electromagnetic radiation, this was interpreted as evidence for Einstein's quantum/particle hypothesis.

Eckard

Steve, I am sorry. You did not yet manage revealing a single reasonable idea or at least objection of you to me. Someone who claims to be a theorist must be in position to write down his contribution in detail.

Heisenberg came from Sommerfeld in Munich where he dealt with hydrodynamics and was inspired by Born to create something of purely kinematic nature: speculations on resonances at orbital frequency in Bohr's model. He admitted that Bohr's theory of hydrogen as well as Kramer's dispersion theory seem very much formally to him. Accordingly, he wrote a paper "On the Quantum Reinterpretation of Kinematical and Mechanical Relations" and arrived at the "Canonical (verschaffte) Quantization Condition" pq-qp=h/i2pi.

Heisenberg was well aware of dipole and quadrupole expressions in the classical theory, cf. Z Phys. 33, 879 (1925).

Eckard

Ten Reasons to restitute Concept of Time in Physics with Concept of Numeric Order

1.with clocks we measure numeric order t0,t1,t2...tn of physical events

2.t1 is "before" t2 equivalently as number 1 is before number 2

3.in Special Theory of Relativity fourth coordinate X4 is spatial to:

X4 = i x c x tn

4.numeric order of physical events runs in a timeless space

5.fundamental unit of numeric order is Planck time tp

6.velocity v of a physical event is derived from numerical order tn: v = d/tn

7.frequency of a physical event is derived from numerical order tn:

frequency = 1/tn

8.numeric order of events running in timeless space has no duration

9.a sense of duration is result experiencing numeric order of events through the psychological time past-present-future

10.symbol t in physics represents numeric order tn

Out of developing concept of space-time into the concept of timeless space where with clock we measure numeric order of t0,t1,t2...tn physical events follows:

1.paradox of time travel is resolved. No time travel is possible. One can travel only in space.

2.paradox of twins is resolved. Both grow older in a timeless space.

3.Zeno problems of motion are resolved: motion happens in space only and not in time

4.for immediate physical events as EPR and others numeric order is zero: tn = 0

5.for physical events which happening requires "tick" of a clock numeric order is more than zero

6.at the Planck scale information and energy transfer is immediate. Numerical order of events at Planck scale is zero: tn = 0

7.at the photon scale information and energy transfer has velocity c, numeric order tn is more than zero

8.at the larger scale then photon information and energy transfer has velocity lower than c, numeric order tn is more than zero

So now there are two mechanisms that give direction to the arrow of time - wave function collapse and generation of entropy. Put them together into one model and get a really nice publication.

Dear Constantinos,

I realized your desire for confirmation of what you consider a mathematical demystification of h. To me h is just a fundamental constant. I see an unjustified mysticism introduced by Heisenberg's so called canonical quantization condition in Z phys 34 (1925). Could you please explain to what interpretation you are objecting to?

Best,

Eckard

Hi Captain,

there is no "arrow of time". Physical change run in a timeless universe. Arrow of time is what here we call " numeric order".

yours amrit

Hello Eckard, always good to hear from you!

It has been my understanding that Planck's 'quantization of energy' hypothesis (E = hf) is absolutely necessary to derive his blackbody radiation formula. In spite of the many attempts at the time, it is believed that there is just no other way this can be derived using continuous (Classical) processes and not using energy quanta. It is accepted that this is how the Universe works. Energy quanta are an established fundamental fact of Physics. This, along with Einstein's photon hypothesis became the foundations of Quantum Physics and have lead to a counter-intuitive view of how the Universe works.

The central result in my notes is that this view is not necessary. That it is possible to mathematically derive Planck's Formula using simple continuous processes and not using energy quanta. In fact, Planck's Formula, as well as the quantization hypothesis (that change in energy is proportional to the frequency of radiation), are mathematical characterizations of exponential functions of time. This idea of discrete energy quanta has lead to many counter-intuitive interpretations in Quantum Physics. And though the mathematical formalism of QM and its ability to describe physical phenomena is very impressive and significant, the 'physical explanations' to all this is just lacking. Just consider for example the explanations given for the double-slit experiment! Without challenging the mathematical formalism as such I seek to provide a view that yields sensible 'physical explanations' that hopefully could lead to 'Physical Realism' in our understanding of Physics.

In the mathematical derivations in my papers that lead to Planck's Formula, Planck's constant h naturally comes up as an 'accumulation of energy' (a time integral of energy). It can be interpreted as the 'minimum accumulation of energy' that can be manifested (measured). The meaning of Planck's constant in QM has been viewed as a 'quantum of action'. Certainly both interpretations are consistent with the units of h. As a time integral of energy, h in fact does not have to be a constant and the mathematical formulations still would be valid. That h is a 'minimal accumulation of energy that can be manifested' is an imposition by local equilibrium conditions when there is measurement, or other forms of interaction.

This view of h, as 'accumulation of energy', becomes important also in my explanation of the double-slit experiment. There, a key component of the argument is the 'accumulation of energy' on the detection screen that is spread over the screen as an interference pattern. When locally this accumulation reaches a minimal threshold ( possibly h) energy is manifested. The view I hold that globally energy propagates continuously as a wave but locally it interacts discretely, also fit with the interpretation of h I have as 'accumulation of energy'.

In many other ways also this quantity, the 'accumulation of energy', (and not just the constant h) seems to be more primary and if you start with it, it is possible to mathematically derive some Basic Law of Physics, like Conservation of energy and momentum and Newton's Second Law of Motion. A brief outline of this argument can be found in Prime physis and the Mathematical Derivation of Basic Law. Interestingly also, I plausibly argue in The meaning of 'psi': An Interpretation of Scroedinger's Equation that the wave-function can be interpreted as giving the distribution in space and time of this quantity. This comes very close to Schroedinger's original intuition that the wave-function gives the distribution of electrical charge.

Best,

Constantinos

Dear Constantinos,

Thank you for the explanations. Just a hint: Are you familiar with cutoff frequencies? For instance, a cavity cannot transmit transversal waves below a certain value of frequency f.

I see the conjugate relationship between f and (elapsed) time t corresponding to the relationship between Energy E and distance/radius q:

q=ct

E=hf

Accordingly, "Heisenberg's" uncertainty likewise affects signal processing. See my essay, topic 527.

We may hopefully agree in that so called quantum of action h is not at all a quantum but just a constant factor to the quantum of just one minimal period of a wave.

Based on Heisenberg's musing, Born and Jordan created in Z Phys. 34, 858 (1925) a complex matrix theory of quantum mechanics that used the misleading expansion from minus infinity to plus infinity. I see this a source for a lot of ongoing confusion.

Best,

Eckard

Steve,

material change have no duration, they have only numeric order that runs in a timeless space.

Yours AmritAttachment #1: According_to_the_Formalism_d__v_x_t__Spacetime_is_Timeless.pdf

Dear Eckard, . . . no I am not familiar with cutoff frequencies. Is there a connection that you are hinting at?

Hi Amrit,

Thanks , I like you know your works, I find them physicals and spirituals.

Thanking you for the sharing.

Best Regards

Steve

Breaking Views!

Please read and comment!

Quoting from the article The Crystallizing Universe by Kate Becker, describing the enigmas of the double-slit experiment,

"Imagine a laser shooting photons toward a screen. Between the laser and the screen is a thin wall with two tiny slits in it. (This is an old physics workhorse called the double-slit experiment.) Gaze at the screen and you'll see an interference pattern generated by the light diffracting off the two slits and interfering on the other side. From this, you'd conclude that light must be a wave, flowing through space like a ripple through the ocean.

Now imagine that you can roll up the screen like a window shade. Behind it, you've placed two detectors-one lined up with each slit-that can register individual photons. When you now repeat the experiment without the screen, the detectors tell you that the photons are sailing straight through the slits like bullets, with no hint that an interference pattern could ever have been produced. From this experiment, you'd conclude that light must be a particle.

Could it be that light somehow "knows" what kind of experiment it is entering, and adjusts its behavior accordingly? It seems impossible, but experiment after experiment shows that if you're looking for a wave, light will act like a wave. Seek a particle, and light will be every inch a particle. Confused? So were quantum physicists.

To test the limits of this experiment, venerable physicist John Archibald Wheeler proposed playing a little trick on the photons. Why not wait to decide whether to do a "wave measurement" or a "particle measurement" until after the photons have already been through the slits and-presumably-have already picked whether to behave as particles or waves? This delayed-choice experiment was actually performed in 2006, and it proved that you can't fool photons. The light still behaved as a particle to the detectors and a wave to the screen"

The explanation is simple! What we are observing is not the nature of light (wave or particle) but the nature of the apparatus used for the experiment. We observe what the apparatus is designed by us to tell us! This is no less different than people seeing what they are looking for. Our instruments may be defining 'reality' in other ways as well.

In my short paper A Plausible Explanation of the Double-slit Experiment, I am able to explain the Tonomura 1989 'single electron emission' double-slit experiment using the following principles:

1)The 'electron emitted' is not the same as the 'electron detected'. These are two different and separate (though related) 'events'. There is no 'trajectory' connecting the two.

2)Globally energy propagates continuously as a wave while locally energy interacts discretely, when local equilibrium conditions are attained.

3)We have 'accumulation of energy' before 'manifestation of energy'.

Using these same principles it is also possible to derive Planck's Formula for blackbody radiation and prove that it is an exact mathematical identity that describes the interaction of energy.

Constantinos

Hello,

just a remark to the wording:

as the present "crystallizes" from the past.

A crystal crystallizes from the melt/solute.

I. e. from the chaotic (liquid) phase.

So Your sentece above should read:

"as the present "crystallizes" from the future.

Regards

Georg

If there is no time in the universe, this does not mean universe is without motion. We relate time with motion what is wrong. Numerical order of change in the BLOCK UNIVERSE we measure with clocks.Attachment #1: 1_Block_Universe.pdf

That the present moment is the function of wave collapse is I think "right on" . I see the universe as a time machine in which the present moment is generated by the"knitting together" or wave collapse of the sub-atomic world. Our universe is thus brought into existence, the present moment is continually being created by the actions underlying atomic structure. This creates the sense of time flow that we experience. Actions in our world are merely relativistic events taking place on the backdrop of the continually created universe, much as we see an image projected on a movie screen.

Interesting that Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of QM also suggests that space-time is "crystalising" as standing waves are set up in the interference pattern generated from advance and retarded waves. As waves propagate backwards and forwards in time, each standing wave that forms (looking to us like the path of a particle even though there were only waves) creates a new bit of the past.

Maybe it helps to reduce the number of dimensions. Suppose we are two-dimensional creatures on a sphere. Space is the surface of the sphere, and time is the third dimension directed from the centre of the sphere outwards. As time passes the sphere grows. To us it seems that space is expanding, as the surface area increases. The past is the crystalised mass of the "inside" of the sphere. The future is the empty space outside the sphere.

[math]\vec{D}=\vec{y} \hat{E} \ sen \left{(} \omega t-kx \right{)} \vec{x} \hat{E} \ cos \left{(} \omega t-kx \right{)}[/math]

This is the electric displacement in vacuum for the photon, when it travel along the x axis. No physical wave is purely transversal or purely longitudinal, even in vacuum. All waves have both components, longitudinal and transversal. Photon's wave implies a density of linked electric charge, that is a wave of linked charge density. This is the beggining of a series of theorems, which give as a result all relativistic and quantum postulates. And give the theoretical value of the fine structure constant, without using any experimental data.