Thank You Again Jonathan,

I understand what you mean, but from my experience I know that, since my hypothesis is a little bit unusual, people do not take it properly in consideration if I don't use mathematics proofs. The mathematical proofs give me shelter from unfair criticisms. Then there is a lot to discuss on the conceptual level but I prefer to have a solid base to my motivations.

The mathematics I use is the mathematics of a vibrating string in four dimensions and Hilbert notation, this should be familiar even to non experts.

The theory is starting to be more than a 'working model'. The published papers refer to results of 1-2 years ago. I have briefly mentioned the new results that I am try to write it into papers, but it is not easy for a researcher with few experiences in publications to write papers and at the same time carry on such a huge project. I have already too much results than I can handle.

Good Luck to you as well!

Donatello

  • [deleted]

  • Post #17

Donatello,

You've got my "10" vote. I feel bad now, that I wasted a lot of time debating with nonsense, while a true gem languished below the cutoff.

I am a real fan of a quantum interpretation of classical determinism. I had not known of that 1910 Einstein quote. It reminds me, however of what Carl Jung said: "Whatever happens in a moment of time has the properties of this moment in time."

If you get a chance, I hope you read my essay, too.

Tom

    Dear Tom,

    thank you for your vote. Independently on this FQXi contest your opinion is by itself a big support to my research plan.

    I have found the quotation in the Barbour's FQXi essay on the nature of time. As I read it I

    seid to myself "I could not state the idea in a better way".

    Best regards,

    Donatello

    Donatello,

    I have read the first two section of your paper and the ending, though rather hurriedly I must confess. This does look rather interesting. My only pause with the gravitational part is how degrees of freedom are counted, but this seems to be a comparatively minor issue at this time.

    Cheers LC

      • [deleted]

      • Post #21

      Ciao Donatello,

      I'm glad you made it. Good luck. Interestingly, going back over your paper, for one of I expect many times to come -- your observation in the intro about 't Hooft quantum determinism and continuation over infinite lattice sites echoes some dialogue I had with Ray Munroe (see my essay forum for link) over a paper I wrote a few years ago, in which I hint at an arithmetic proof strategy for the Poincare Conjecture, whereby continuous curves are exchanged for discrte points. If the points could be represented as point particles ... anyway, you might find it interesting.

      All best,

      Tom

      Dear Lawrence,

      thank you for your interest in my essay. Of course there is a lot more to say about general relativity and gravity. In the essay I only tried to give a heuristic argument to show how to conciliate GR with the assumption of intrinsic periodicities. When I say new degree of freedom I mean that the metric g(x) must be regarded as an additional dynamic field in the theory and therefore a kinetic terms associated to that field must be introduced. This is similar to gauge theory where the assumption of gauge invariance introduces a gauge field as a new dynamical field in the theory (a new d.o.f. according to my terminology) and then we infer that its dynamics must be described by the kinetic terms F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu} with appropriate coupling (that the parallelism between gravity and gauge theory is indeed very deep). I understand your concern, in fact the term d.o.f. in field theory is usually refereed to the d.o.f. of the field (for instance a gauge field in a gauge invariant theory has 2 d.o.f.). In my case with the term d.o.f. I mean a new dynamical field.

      Best regards,

      Donatello

      Dear Donatello,

      Congratulations on your dedication to the competition and your much deserved top 35 placing. I have a bugging question for you, which I've also posed to all the potential prize winners btw:

      Q: Coulomb's Law of electrostatics was modelled by Maxwell by mechanical means after his mathematical deductions as an added verification (thanks for that bit of info Edwin), which I highly admire. To me, this gives his equation some substance. I have a problem with the laws of gravity though, especially the mathematical representation that "every object attracts every other object equally in all directions." The 'fabric' of spacetime model of gravity doesn't lend itself to explain the law of electrostatics. Coulomb's law denotes two types of matter, one 'charged' positive and the opposite type 'charged' negative. An Archimedes screw model for the graviton can explain -both- the gravity law and the electrostatic law, whilst the 'fabric' of spacetime can't. Doesn't this by definition make the helical screw model better than than anything else that has been suggested for the mechanism of the gravity force?? Otherwise the unification of all the forces is an impossiblity imo. Do you have an opinion on my analysis at all?

      Best wishes,

      Alan

        • [deleted]

        • Post #24

        Donatello,

        I do not know how to rate these essays. First, at this late date I have only read a fraction of the essays. Second there is a wide range of essay "types": there are essays for the general background readers (non-technical), there are technical, accurate, essays that bring no new ideas, there are technical essays that bring up a thousand ideas. Lastly, they are essays like yours that defend a clear point in a technical way. It is difficult to translate ideas in Physics into non-mathematical terms. It is also difficult to show a solid mathematical proof for new ideas. It might be impossible to do both at the same time.

        I did not rate any of the essays.

        Your essay does have QM. I need to go through it a few more times. I think your essay is along the lines of my essay (we are past the voting deadline and my essay is for the general reader).

        All the best,

        Jeff

        Dear Ken,

        thank you for the citation added (even though the long delay) in your paper arXiv:1003.4273 [Time-symmetric boundary conditions and quantum foundations] to my paper arXiv:0903.3680 [Compact Time and Determinism for bosons: foundation].

        As you have already noticed, in my essay (thank you also for the congratulations for this first phase on the contest) I show the possibility of a consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics in terms of boundary conditions, but the validity of my approach is not limited to non relativistic physics like in your case.

        Cheers,

        Donatello

        Dear Alan,

        if you are interested in the unification between electromagnetism and gravity I recommend you to read about the Kaluza's "miracles" or about the Weyl's original proposal for gauge interactions.

        Best regards,

        Donatello

        a month later
        6 days later

        Dear Joe,

        Try to compare with your program the duration of a solar year with the age of the universe, you will see that it is of the same order of the difference between a single period of the cesium clock (~10^-10 s) and a second. Then you may note that it is of the same order of the difference between a single periodic of the internal clock of an electron (~10^-20 s) and the reference periodic of the cesium atom.

        In this way you can figure out that trying to investigate the electron dynamics with a cesium clock, or the other precision clocks now available, is like to study the cycles of the seasons by using the age of the universe as reference cycle. The only way you can describe a system with too fast periodicity with respect you reference clock is a statistical way, just like for a dice rolling too fast with respect to the resolution in time of human senses. 't Hooft noticed that "there is a deep relationship between a particle moving very fast in a circle and the quantum harmonic oscillator". What I have found is that there is actually a deep parallelism between cyclic dynamics and quantum mechanics, the periodicity is the periodicity of the so called de Broglie internal clock.

        Best regards,

        Donatello

        Dear Joe,

        Try to compare with your program the duration of a solar year with the age of the universe, you will see that it is of the same order of the difference between a single period of the cesium clock (~10^-10 s) and a second. Then you may note that it is of the same order of the difference between a single periodic of the internal clock of an electron (~10^-20 s) and the reference periodic of the cesium atom.

        In this way you can figure out that trying to investigate the electron dynamics with a cesium clock, or the other precision clocks now available, is like to study the cycles of the seasons by using the age of the universe as reference cycle. The only way you can describe a system with too fast periodicity with respect you reference clock is a statistical way, just like for a dice rolling too fast with respect to the resolution in time of human senses. 't Hooft noticed that "there is a deep relationship between a particle moving very fast in a circle and the quantum harmonic oscillator". What I have found is that there is actually a deep parallelism between cyclic dynamics and quantum mechanics, the periodicity is the periodicity of the so called de Broglie internal clock.

        Best regards,

        Donatello

        Caro Donatello

        Your paper is highly mathematical, while I like to think in terms of models that one can imagine and illustrate visually and mechanically (not a bad method, Maxwell used it at first !). I found intriguing similarities and basic differences in our approaches. You describe relativistic gears having a "close relationship between the quantum harmonic oscillator with angular frequency ¯ w = 2p /Tt , that is the mode of an ordinary quantum field with energy ¯E = h¯w¯ , and a classical particle moving along a circle of periodicity Tt . By assuming the time period Tt on a lattice with N sites".

        In my fqxi paper and in my earlier 2005 Beautiful Universe proposal on which it is based, I have described a universe made up of a lattice of spinning dielectric nodes interacting with each other as 'slippery' spherical gears transferring angular momentum in units of (h) by induction.

        I think one of the main differences in our approaches (if I understand yours correctly) is that you describe your system using the formalism of (SR) spacetime. I see interactions as absolute in timeless universe, perhaps as you describe in a stroboscopic way, as you nicely describe, but the stroboscope illuminates all the lattice instantaneously. I would greatly value your reading the papers and hearing your expert feedback.

        Best wishes from Vladimir

          Caro Vladimir,

          thank you for your interest in my work and, though I am very busy with the publication of new papers based on the same idea, I'll try to read your paper. At a first scan it looks a huge work and I highly appreciate your effort to interpret QM.

          By the way I would like to point out that I am not assuming a time period on a lattice, in my model the space-time coordinates are analog, though they are cyclic. If I well understand your wonderful pictures the analogy with your idea can be obtained by associating to every space-time point (to a field in a space-time point) intrinsic space-time periodicities, depending on the content of four-momentum in that point and according to the relativistic geometrodynamics. This maybe are what you call dielectric nodes and I call, oversimplifying, relativistic gears.

          In the conclusion, I give some remarks about the flow of time as emerging from the particular "coincidences" of the phase of all these gears. This aspect is rather philosophical and conceptual, I should expand this idea in some future work.

          Best wishes to you,

          Donatello

          5 days later

          Ciao V. P.,

          my road brought me to Melbourne and I ready to continue it.

          a month later

          Dear all,

          I would like to thank the FQXi community for this fourth prize. It represents an important encouragement to continue in the extremely hard (and urgent) task of promoting original ideas in physics.

          What quantum mechanics is telling us is that elementary systems are intrinsically and dynamically cyclic.

          I hope this idea will continue to stimulate discussions.

          Best regards,

          Donatello

          2 months later

          • [deleted]

          • Post #35

          Dear Dr. Donatello,

          You are absolutely correct, the visible universe is cyclical in nature and the invisible singularity or universal I or god is the cosmological constant. Please see the absolute truth, mathematically expressed as zero = i = infinity.

          If universe is the meaning of understanding of one's surroundings, then it is created with every birth and destroyed with every death. Universe is in a steady big bang state. Multiverse is just multiple interpretations made by bodies and minds of the conscience (soul or singularity). What one perceives of self (soul) is not the same as another, this is the multiverse with in the universe that we live in. The moment a thought arises the universe comes to existence. If one can still the mind to absoluteness then there will be absolutely nothing. This state of absoluteness is called Nirvana (Moksha), immortality. One who knows thy self is immortal.

          Love,

          Sridattadev.